Oooh, a dobie with a serious subject! So, really, should prostitution be legal?
[Edit: Thread title (sorry it's not so Dobie anymore). --PJ]
[ January 30, 2006, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: Papa Janitor ]
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
A reasonable topic to approach in an adult fashion, if you so desire. Please change the thread title, though.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
If heavily regulated by government and protected and recognized by Law inforcement then yes. Think of the "Guild" from Firefly or the Geisha's from Japan. Street whores and pimps end up promoting the abuse of individuals, hurt the economy because its untaxable. I know that in certain small town communities the "house" so to speak is actually protected by local law inforcement and a % of the earnings are givin to the town and given medical treatment.
Woman wishing to become prostitutes I'ld imagine would be encouraged to go through the proper training and channels to do so because
A) They wouldn't be harmed by abusive johns.
B) Aids and other STD's would not be spread because it would be heavily regulated so that those who did have aids would be given treatment and retired and johns with aids wouldnt be serviced.
C) Because it would be regulated it can be taxed and provide jobs and thus a plus to society, eventually the "Guilds" would become a prominant part of society.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
quote: or the Geisha's from Japan.
If I am not misinformed, geishas are not, in fact, prostitutes. Very common misconception.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
*nods with Megan* Yeah, I think they're more like the "escort services" we have, would be the closest equivalent. They are supposed to provide hospitality to their guest, make him comfortable, show him a good time. That did not traditionally extend to sex-- at least, you know, not for a long time. And just like our "escort services", yeah, they've gotten a bad rep and some people now assume all of them provided sex on a regular basis.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Oh, and I can guess what the original title was. Much funnier. )
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I read this article (well, most of it) this morning, and it's applicable to the discussion, I think...
What I liked about the article is that it pointed out that the "clients" of these women and girls who are forced to prostitute are never arrested, prosecuted, or even detained. And if the men weren't supplying the demand, perhaps the sex slave trade would die off.
-Katarain
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
That's in Britain, though. They are arrested here. Sometimes.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Yeah, it's Britain. But we're from many countries here, so I figured it was still relevant. It's also regarding women who are forced into the sex trade, as opposed to those women who willingly enter it.
In a strange way, maybe making prostitution legal would actually solve the problems for those forced into it. IF a guild ala firefly as Blayne said above was also instituted.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I think there would still be underground prostitution. There are always going to be men who want a "slave" situation going on, a "you HAVE to do what I tell you", instead of the respect that going to a guild would imply.
(I'm not saying the article wasn't relevant. It was, and was interesting as well. But I'm just saying that that's not the situation everywhere. )
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I've always seen prostitution as something that should be legal but isn't. Personally, I don't see any harm in it. If someone wants to sell, and someone wants to buy, so what? If it's legal it can be regulated and both the sellers and buyers cared for. People have sex drives, you know?
Note: I announced this to a college sociology class about 3 years ago. I was 29, and the rest of the class between 18-22. You would have thought I'd announced that child pornography should be legal. I just didn't expect that kind of reaction from people younger than I am.
space opera
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
The only way to limit the baggage (crime, drugs, violence) that comes along with prostitution is to have some oversight of the "industry".
Legalize it. Regulate it. Tax it.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote:Note: I announced this to a college sociology class about 3 years ago. I was 29, and the rest of the class between 18-22. You would have thought I'd announced that child pornography should be legal. I just didn't expect that kind of reaction from people younger than I am.
Well, SO, you probably presented an idea they'd never thought of before and that was contrary to the ideas they grew up with. First instinct is to reject that idea loudly - then after it's had a chance to sink in and percolate a while, they might begin to consider it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I have enormous trouble imagining an American society which permitted prostitution but did not victimize women, so I am against it.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: I have enormous trouble imagining an American society which permitted prostitution but did not victimize women, so I am against it.
Rakeesh, Could you elaborate on this statement?
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I agree that it should be legal. I once caught some of a documentary about the houses in Nevada. The girls there said they felt very safe. When asked how they felt about their job, they generally talked about how great the money was. If there's no victim, I don't see why there's a crime.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
It should not only be legalized, but also unionized. Any exploitation of the workers could lead to a widespread labor action.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
For starters, much public assistance requires being willing to take a job if offered. Would we exempt prostitution jobs from this requirement? If not, aren't we saying something about prostitution that makes it different from any other job?
There are two sex industries in this country: one where the workers - mostly women - are in it largely by choice, able to command good to excellent salaries and to exercise reasonable control over their working conditions.
The other is staffed by victims of coercion - either economic or physical - who sell themselves for a place to crash, a couple rocks, some food, or just so they only have to be abused by one person (their pimp).
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: It should not only be legalized, but also unionized. Any exploitation of the workers could lead to a widespread labor action.
I don't think it should be unionized. You need to allow for competition between brothels.
Seriously though, I don't think that exploitation would be an issue in a legalized environment. Some pretty heavy Federal or state run oversight could deter these types of issues, and the extra oversight could even be funded by the high tax revenues generated by prostitution.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Seriously though, I don't think that exploitation would be an issue in a legalized environment. Some pretty heavy Federal or state run oversight could deter these types of issues, and the extra oversight could even be funded by the high tax revenues generated by prostitution.
As long as there is a market for $20 quickies there will be people working without that oversight.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: For starters, much public assistance requires being willing to take a job if offered. Would we exempt prostitution jobs from this requirement? If not, aren't we saying something about prostitution that makes it different from any other job?
Dags, Are there any jobs that are currently exempt from public assistance positions?
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Yes it is legal in Nevada. However, the licensed trade has not replaced non-regulated practices. So, the benefits you imagine have not been realised. There is some tax collected. However, they do not ofset the cost of enforcement. So, we are not generally better off. Nor are the individual contractors better off.
With regard to public assistance, there has been at least one instance of an OJT job training provided under a Federal workforce developement program. Every time I have been to Washington for workforce development meetings someone always asks if it really happened or if it is an "Urban Legend" It really happened.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by TheHumanTarget:
quote: For starters, much public assistance requires being willing to take a job if offered. Would we exempt prostitution jobs from this requirement? If not, aren't we saying something about prostitution that makes it different from any other job?
Dags, Are there any jobs that are currently exempt from public assistance positions?
I don't know. I'd like to find out.
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote: Yes it is legal in Nevada
Isn't it only legal in one small section of Nevada? It would be interesting to see just that counties tax revenue's, law enforcement budgets, and crime rates.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: For starters, much public assistance requires being willing to take a job if offered. Would we exempt prostitution jobs from this requirement? If not, aren't we saying something about prostitution that makes it different from any other job?
Of COURSE it's different. The whole argument for legalizing prostitution is that both parties are actually willing so it shouldn't be illegal. In the situation you describe, where a woman would be forced to take a prostitution job, it is no longer consensual sex, but state-enforced rape. The very definition of legalized prostitution precludes being forced into the job.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote: For starters, much public assistance requires being willing to take a job if offered. Would we exempt prostitution jobs from this requirement? If not, aren't we saying something about prostitution that makes it different from any other job?
Wasn't that an issue in Germany a while back? I seem to remember that thread...
Although, public assistance does not generally require that you interview for jobs you are not qualified for or are morally opposed to (such as, say, exotic dancing.) So maybe it wouldn't be an issue-- you won't be offered a job if you don't interview with them?
Posted by TheHumanTarget (Member # 7129) on :
quote:I don't know. I'd like to find out.
I couldn't find anything after just a quick search, but I'd imagine that there must exist some guidelines that spell out when someone on public assistance can pass over a job, be it for physical limitations (heavy lifting, dancing, etc.) or personal, conscientous reasons (working at a gun factory, condom manufacturer, etc).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain:
quote: For starters, much public assistance requires being willing to take a job if offered. Would we exempt prostitution jobs from this requirement? If not, aren't we saying something about prostitution that makes it different from any other job?
Of COURSE it's different. The whole argument for legalizing prostitution is that both parties are actually willing so it shouldn't be illegal. In the situation you describe, where a woman would be forced to take a prostitution job, it is no longer consensual sex, but state-enforced rape. The very definition of legalized prostitution precludes being forced into the job.
I agree it's different. It's this difference that makes the case for making it illegal credible.
quote:Wasn't that an issue in Germany a while back? I seem to remember that thread...
Although, public assistance does not generally require that you interview for jobs you are not qualified for or are morally opposed to (such as, say, exotic dancing.) So maybe it wouldn't be an issue-- you won't be offered a job if you don't interview with them?
Are you sure the exortic dancer thing is the rule? Are we sure it would stay the rule after a generation?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
I'm sure that you don't have to interview for jobs that you are not qualified for or are morally opposed to, or cannot perform for some other reason (like a job that requires heavy lifting and being pregnant or having a medically documented back injury.) And I can't imagine someone just calling up and saying, "do you want this job?" to someone they've never seen, interviewed, or had information on for any other reason. Our system doesn't work quite the way Germany's does; the issue there is that jobs for people on public assistance are all found through the state basically assigning people to go to interviews, as I understand it.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
The thought that "people will still do it illegaly" is like saying we shouldn't explore space because an astranaught could die, its a valid concern yes but it only means we have to be more methodical and cautious about it.
If there were a legalized institution for prostitution then the authorities can spend extra effort cracking down on pimps and bring the street whores to proper medical attention/rehabillitation/etc. the 20$ for a quickie think can infact be done with "Houses" they stay for about 15 minutes then they're gone after paying, if they get belicoise the police are called in and they arrest the john.
If we don't legalize it then those who prostitute themselves will continue to be abused both by police and their pimps/johns, if its legalized and properly regulated then we can eliminate most if not all of the abuse, saving lives people, even 1 life is worthit.
As for Geisha's I read "Memoirs of a Geisha" and I know very well about the misconception, but they're are still "levels" the higher up and refined ones maybe usually escourt services but you still have low rung ones that may very well agree to negotiate a "fee" for a one night stand. But the point stands is that in Japan Geisha's are well respected members of society, with almost nill abuse (malicsious trainers don't count) and make a good profit and is heavily regulated and taxed, supplying a good revenue for the government.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
"Isn't it only legal in one small section of Nevada?" No, its legal in the whole state except Clark and Washoe Counties. Since Nevadans tend to exempt Clark County (Las Vegas) anyway, it is legal in most of the state.
As I said in the edit of an earler post. The taxes collected generally do not cover the cost of enforcement.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote:I agree it's different. It's this difference that makes the case for making it illegal credible.
I'm sorry... I just don't see how that follows.
If we say: "Yes, prostitution is legal IF both parties are willing," then I don't see how anyone could be forced to accept the job. So yes, it would be an exception to the "take any job that's offered" rule that public assistance programs have. Since willingness is the most fundamental qualification for a sex-worker to have, any unwilling person is unqualified for the job, anyway.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:If we don't legalize it then those who prostitute themselves will continue to be abused both by police and their pimps/johns, if its legalized and properly regulated then we can eliminate most if not all of the abuse
Do you really think that would happen? I have my doubts. In any case, if it were to become legal, I think it should be decided upon at the state or county level.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Now were debating the finer points/details of it not the fundamental premises of whether or not it should be regulated. Though I'ld imagine if it got beurocratic enough you could say sign a contract saying you'ld be willing to do A, B, and C but request the right to refuse X.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:In any case, if it were to become legal, I think it should be decided upon at the state or county level.
It currently is. The vast majority just still have it as illegal. Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
This thread has me wondering if I'm without morals. Is it terrible that I don't even *care* if anyone/anybody/anygovernment makes money off legalizing prostitution? I guess I just don't see why it's not legal. I mean, people make movies, write books, and other people pay money to watch those movies and read those books. Buyer, seller. Why isn't it okay to sell sexual services, or buy them? I can't think of any way that allowing prostitution to be legal can hurt anyone - besides the obvious possibilities of abuse, which already exist in strip clubs everywhere. Why is stripping and pornography (the fantasy of sex) legal, but services (the reality of sex) aren't?
space opera
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
My Christian friend in his wisedom s against legalizing it because he thinks it wrong, the thing is that if the state legalizes it then it tells the people that its "right" and from their sets the social standard, before the topic got taken away by soemthing else I wasn't able to reply that church and state is separated, right and wrong are reduced to moralities and thus are only bourgoisie superstitions. The family is responsible for teaching basic morals what may or may not be legal is irrelevent, one should have the moral character at the start not to go to a house for a quickie if one is perfectly able to goto a girlfriend instead.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Space Opera, I don't think you're without morals. I'm a very moral person, and I agree that it should be legal. The important thing is that you don't force morality on other people. I think prostitution is wrong, just like I think that extra-marital sex is wrong. But that doesn't mean I'd stop other people from engaging in those activities.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tante Shvester: It should not only be legalized, but also unionized. Any exploitation of the workers could lead to a widespread labor action.
::torn between making an Aristophanes reference and a pun based on the phrase "labor action"::
::settles for making this post::
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
People who believe something is right because the government has legalized it have pretty deep problems. And I don't mean that sarcastically. The government should never be an entity that sets your morals.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: one should have the moral character at the start not to go to a house for a quickie if one is perfectly able to goto a girlfriend instead.
Is this something you believe, or a belief you think Christians hold? 'Cause maybe I'm wrong, but I think there would be an objection to a quickie with a girlfriend as well...
space opera
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:The family is responsible for teaching basic morals what may or may not be legal is irrelevent, one should have the moral character at the start not to go to a house for a quickie if one is perfectly able to goto a girlfriend instead.
Some of us would say that one shouldn't go to the girlfriend, either, you know.
Edit: Drat you, SO! Beat me to it!
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
How about this... Barring permanent methods, there is no 100% effective method of birth control except abstinence.
If prostitution were legal and a prostitute got pregnant, would her client be legally liable to pay child support?
Posted by Historian (Member # 8858) on :
One would say that, no matter what; someway, somehow, someone is paying for it.
Even in truly loving situations there is a price, albeit an easy one to pay...
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
I think that would be settled via contract, maybe her employer will pay her a % during maternal leave to prevent abortions and to encourage her to raise the child.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I think it's more likely that abortion would be encouraged.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I saw an old George Carlin standup last week on HBO, and he addresses this very issue. He basically said, "Well, sex is legal, and selling is legal. Why is sex for free okay but sex for money a crime?"
He said it a little more colorfully. George Carlin doesn't always come out with lucid social commentaries like that anymore, but he still has a gift for putting things in perspective.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Street whores and pimps end up promoting the abuse of individuals, hurt the economy because its untaxable.
I don't think it's a problem of taxation. My problem with prostitution is that I don't know if it doesn't necessarily entail the abuse of individuals. On one hand, it's degrading to disallow a woman the free exercise of her body, on the other, I'm not sure that sex for money is anything other than mutilating.
As it stands, I'm against prostitution, but maybe I just need to meet more well-adjusted prostitutes because the ones I know are a wreck. That's not true, one of them isn't a wreck, but there is still a pervasive sadness and shame in her. _____
For the record, I think that all you guys who are trying to reduce it to an economic problem should be ashamed of yourselves.
______
quote: I'm a very moral person, and I agree that it should be legal. The important thing is that you don't force morality on other people.
Nope, the important thing is having the wisdom to know when, where, how, and if it is appropriate to force your morality on other people. We don't let people sell themselves into slavery here.
[ January 30, 2006, 03:40 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Agreed, Katarain, although I would like to know what the provisions would be for a woman who didn't want one. I can easily see a situation where women were forced out of jobs if they wanted to keep the child.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Everything IS a matter of economics, don't be so bourgoisie. They're is serious abuse in this underground industry that could be prevented and I say we must do what we can to make it safe and viable, they're probly plenty of prostitutes that aren't ashamed, without pimps and are making a small fortune, and find it liberating, I say we need to encourage it, what helps the state helps the people.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: don't be so bourgoisie.
Oh, I love when you do that thing you do, Blayne.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Everything IS a matter of economics, don't be so bourgoisie.
We are going to have to disagree about that.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I don't know any prostitutes. But several have weblogs. And they like their jobs, chose their jobs, and want their jobs to be legal. Only THOSE types of people should have the job.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Agreed. And I'm Marxist-Maoist remember? Thats the way I think.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I'm Marxist-Maoist remember?
Of COURSE we remember, honey. It would be like forgetting that ketchupqueen likes ketchup, or that I'm Jewish. It's your persona! Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
And for that, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Oh? Are we going to be reduced to name calling and jingoism? I could say your a rightwing facsist jingoist who likes bending over to capitolism, would you like it if we resorted to ad hominem attacks? My political beliefs are my own, I do not appreciate being attacked for them and I will refraim from doing likewise.
Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
I know a prostitute. She works for herself. She makes excellent money, likes her job and is one of the happiest people I know. I have no idea if it is legal here or not, but I love her anyway!
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
Does she live in Canada Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
It's not?
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
Absolutely, I think it should be legal, regulated and taxed.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: We don't let people sell themselves into slavery here.
Sure we do, if that's what you are going to call providing a service for money.
The lines are already pretty thin when it comes to selling sex. Is it illegal for a man to provide expensive gifts, even cash gifts to a woman after sex? Sometimes. What if they often sleep together and he sets her up in an apartment to make it more convenient. Would that just make him a regular customer?
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Out of curiosity, for those who think it should be legal, regulated, and taxed, do you think that there should be any sort of regulation regarding clients who are married?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:I know a prostitute. She works for herself. She makes excellent money, likes her job and is one of the happiest people I know. I have no idea if it is legal here or not, but I love her anyway!
(It's not legal there.)
I know two "escorts" in Seattle - both of them make six figures a year, and they're average looking women. They love their jobs. They work for themselves - no pimp or provider involved - so they can choose their own clients, make their own hours, and keep every last dime of their own money. They have extremely friendly relationships with most of their clients and are able to live perfectly normal lives outside of their jobs.
A fairly large portion of the sex industry is self-regulating, in terms of establishing which johns are trouble and which prostitutes are reliable, and who will do what. Craigslist.org has an entire section devoted to "Erotic Services" - it's so popular that sites like CLReviewboard.org sprang up JUST so people could exchange information.
It's like eBay - you occasionally run into jerks, but if you're smart and do your research beforehand, there's an extensive feedback system that helps protect both buyer and seller.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Adultery, while abhorent, is legal.
I do think that visiting a prostitute should be grounds for divorce, just like adultery is...because it IS adultery.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Out of curiosity, for those who think it should be legal, regulated, and taxed, do you think that there should be any sort of regulation regarding clients who are married?
Heck, no. It's up the the people in the marriage to enforce their vows, not the government.
Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Does she live in Canada
You wish! Hawaii.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:Oh? Are we going to be reduced to name calling and jingoism? I could say your a rightwing facsist jingoist who likes bending over to capitolism, would you like it if we resorted to ad hominem attacks? My political beliefs are my own, I do not appreciate being attacked for them and I will refrain from doing likewise.
Feelings hurt Blayne? Want to reduce it to money? As far as I can tell, I didn't interfere with the smooth operation of any of your material goods. What's the crime?
Blayne, I think your political beliefs are crap, and the most hilarious thing about it is that according to your political beliefs, what I think about your political beliefs shouldn't bother you in the least. Of course my comments bother you, and it's got nothing to do with capital or economics and everything to do with dignity and self-respect.
There is an old story of Demonsthenes, a man reputed to believe that everything important to humanity relied on speech and virtue not on any material circumstance. The story goes as follows, a man asked for Demonsthenes' help, claiming that he was gravely injured, that he had been assaulted and beaten repeatedly. Demonsthenes said, "nothing of the kind could have happened to you.” Then the man, in a loud voice, yelled, “What you mean, nothing has happened to me!” “Ah,” replied Demosthenes, “now I hear the voice of one that has been injured and beaten."
[ January 30, 2006, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Irami Osei-Frimpong ]
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Oh? Are we going to be reduced to name calling and jingoism? I could say your a rightwing facsist jingoist who likes bending over to capitolism, would you like it if we resorted to ad hominem attacks? My political beliefs are my own, I do not appreciate being attacked for them and I will refraim from doing likewise.
Huh? Did I attack you? Or call you names? I appreciate the flavor that you bring to the forum. It would be awfully dull if everyone held the same viewpoint. I enjoy seeing how other people interpret the same issues based on their own perspectives, philosophies, and backgrounds.
No mockery intended. Perhaps a tiny bit of good-natured ribbing, but not mockery.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Tante,
It's me who is mocking him, and I'm mocking him.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
quote: Out of curiosity, for those who think it should be legal, regulated, and taxed, do you think that there should be any sort of regulation regarding clients who are married?
No, that should be btween the couple. If one partner works as a prostitute without informing his/her spouse, I think that should be grounds for divorce.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: It's me who is mocking him, and I'm mocking him.
Oh, well then, never mind. Mock away.
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Tante, RE Union Shop. The word in Vegas is that an organizer, there for a convention drove over to Nye County to check out the action. He asked the receptionist at the first Ranch for a price, $100 was the answer, He asked for an accounting and she explained it was $25 to the Contractor, and $75 to the House. He checked several other establishments, finding the same split. Finally he found a "Union Shop" the receptionist said the split there was $75 to the girl, and $25 to the house. He liked that better, and requested the "blond" on the left. "No!" it was explained, he got the old crone on the right. "She had Senority."
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I'm a very moral person, and I agree that it should be legal. The important thing is that you don't force morality on other people. I think prostitution is wrong, just like I think that extra-marital sex is wrong. But that doesn't mean I'd stop other people from engaging in those activities.
But we are enforcing our morals on other people every day. The alternative is anarchy. I'm not picking on you Kat, it's just that I've heard this sentiment repeated in thread after thread, topic after topic on this board.
So where do you draw the line? I'm sure from our individual perspectives, the places where we choose to draw the line between forcing our personal morality on others and forcing what believe to be universal morally on others may seem to be the logical choice. However, to others this line may be unbelievably permissive or intolerantly strict.
My point is that while you may personally believe that prohibiting prostitution is going to far in forcing values on people, many others may not feel that way. To indirectly imply that anyone wishing to make prostitution illegal is simply forcing their values on others cheapens the debate.
Again Kat, I'm not picking on you. I've seen this sentiment expressed on a variety of threads and just thought that I'd comment on it here.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I found the Wikipedia entry on Prostitution in Nevada interesting.
One interesting tidbit:
quote: In November 2005, Heidi Fleiss announced that she had partnered with brothel owner Joe Richards to turn Richards' existing Cherry Patch Ranch brothel in Crystal, Nevada into an establishment that employs male prostitutes and caters exclusively to female customers.
Back to the discussion:
quote: If prostitution were legal and a prostitute got pregnant, would her client be legally liable to pay child support?
Yes, I don't see why they wouldn't. I'm just throwing this idea out here, but perhaps if legal prostitution became more widespread, a type of insurance would crop up for this purpose. Perhaps the price of the insurance would be included in a trip to the brothel. That way the client could remain as uninvolved as they wanted to be while the prostitute and her child could recieve financial support.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
quote: My point is that while you may personally believe that prohibiting prostitution is going to far in forcing values on people, many others may not feel that way. To indirectly imply that anyone wishing to make prostitution illegal is simply forcing their values on others cheapens the debate.
I understand what you're saying, but I was responding to a statement regarding the morality of prostitution. I think that the stance that "It's wrong! Therefore it should be illegal" also cheapens the debate. I'm fine with debating it solely on its merits or lack thereof and measurable pros and cons. Leaving morality out of it.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: So where do you draw the line?
I think you draw it when there is a victim who self identifies as being a victim. If you have to tell somebody that an act that they are perfectly fine with is actually causing them to be a victim, then you are definately forcing your values on to somebody else.
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
Heh. Finally, something brought me out of lurking .
"Since Nevadans tend to exempt Clark County (Las Vegas) anyway, it is legal in most of the state."
As a native Las Vegan, I must clarify that it is only the *northern* Nevadans that tend to discount Clark County (even though as of 2005, Clark County had 71.34% of Nevada's total population http://cber.unlv.edu/pop.html )
Intrastate rivalries aside...I don't know if making prostitution legal in Clark County (or even just inside city limits in Las Vegas) would change the way prostitution is dealt with there. Prostitution is essentially tolerated (with an occassional arrest) in the tourist areas like the Strip or downtown. Not officially, of course, but *wink wink*.
Sorry if this post comes looks weird, but I haven't figured out quoting or posting links yet.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I think you draw it when there is a victim who self identifies as being a victim. If you have to tell somebody that an act that they are perfectly fine with is actually causing them to be a victim, then you are definately forcing your values on to somebody else.
I disagree with this statement strongly as it is worded (and changing the wording to resemble something I agree with would involve adding so many caveats that it would not be the same statement).
Kat, I apologize, I didn't realize you were replying to someone saying that it should be illegal because it was wrong. As far as what you have said, I agree. It cheapens the debate just as much to say it's wrong because its wrong. I would prefer to discuss arguments rather than just have to sides screaming at each other "It's just wrong!" and "Who are you to impose your morality on me!"
Posted by Artemisia Tridentata (Member # 8746) on :
Sorry, I should clarify, Some of my best friends are Las Vegans. I just wouldn't want my sister to marry one. The State "Tree," Artemisia Tridentata, dosen't even grow in Clark County
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I wouldn't want anyone to marry a Vegan, no matter where they're from.
quote:Prostitution is essentially tolerated (with an occassional arrest) in the tourist areas like the Strip or downtown. Not officially, of course, but *wink wink*.
Yeah, it didn't take me too many trips to figure that out, given the volume of colorful 'escort' business cards handed out on the street by people who don't speak english.
p.s. - Whatever you do, don't call one of the cards and have the girl sent to the room across the hall from you so you can see if the girl on the card is the girl who actually shows up. She's not, and they don't like that.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
No, don't apologize. I don't think anyone said it should be illegal because it was wrong. I was responding to Space Opera's musing that she might be entirely without morals because she thinks that prostitution should be legal. I guess I was responding mostly to the unspoken thought.
Glad we agree. Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote: I disagree with this statement strongly as it is worded (and changing the wording to resemble something I agree with would involve adding so many caveats that it would not be the same statement).
Would you mind explaining what it is you disagree with? Or would you prefer to just drop this tangent?
Posted by Stasia (Member # 9122) on :
True, but we do have the State Reptile, the desert tortoise.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:I wouldn't want anyone to marry a Vegan, no matter where they're from.
-pH
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
<Gentle reminder for Irami and Blayne not to bring it back here, either.>
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I think you are making a mistake on both accounts, Janitor. Censoring speech is dangerous business. But I'll hush.
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
quote: And they like their jobs, chose their jobs, and want their jobs to be legal. Only THOSE types of people should have the job.
The real question is, how many of prostitutes actually choose their job, and if they are not required to go into prostitution, then exactly how many prostitutes would be available for the public? It's a question of supply and demand: there is a large demand for prostitutes (as we see in the article) and so they are being supplied in any way possible, whether it be legally or not.
Edit: thanks camus. I didn't see that.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
^ you mean large "demand" for prostitutes? Or perhaps "a supply of large prostitutes"
Posted by Papa Janitor (Member # 7795) on :
You're welcome to your opinion, Irami, but I don't believe I'm censoring speech. If you both want to have an adult conversation about your beliefs, pointing out why you consider the other's to be wrong, without deriding the other person, then have at it. But that's not what either of you was doing. You can bring the discussion back here, or you can have it in another thread (as others might prefer), but the garbage goes elsewhere.
--PJ
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I was going to list examples of types of abuse in countries around the world that the victim doesn't realize that he/she is being victimized without someone with a different perspective pointing it out, mention anorexia, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. But I decided I'd try to just generalize (and probably get myself into trouble in the process).
My line of reasoning is this: as a child, it is possible to be a victim in many ways without realizing it. That is why our society comes down so hard against child abuse in all its forms. Very often, the child does not know that he or she was being abused and do not see themselves as victims. This would extend to behaviors or actions in which children themselves engage in without any adult involvement (drugs for example).
So now there are three classes of people that I contend do need to be told they are victims before they realize it themselves.
I would define children as immature adults, since any line we draw in their mental progression to adulthood would be arbitrary.
Then the classes of people are: the ignorant (think 3rd world country type situation), those with disorders (anorexia, alcoholism), and immature adults. I would argue that all these types of people may need to be told they are victims before they themselves can perceive it.
Since I feel empathy for these victims on a emotional level rather than an intellectual one, it is difficult for me to frame an argument in words about them (rather than just tell you my gut feeling is that of strong disagreement with your statement), but there you have it as requested.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
If you are going to take personal character out of the debate, Janitor, it's going to end up some economic squabble concerning supply and demand, safety and stability.
By setting your debate parameters, wrongly I might add, you've already determined the criteria for exceptable arguments in this debate. And you are going to have another banal yawner. If Blayne is on the wrong end of this issue, it's because of an infelicity in his core beliefs. If I'm not going to go there, then everything else is small.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I wonder if this really would promote MORE abortion. Consider, there is already a large amount of illegal prostitution taking place out there, and I'd be surprised if all the illegal prostitutes were on birth control and using condoms every time. If anything, I'd think this would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by requiring the prostitute to adhere to birth control.
Further, I'm surprised no one has mentioned male prostitutes. The gay porn industry is alive and thriving in America. I'd think that a clean safe environment with little risk of disease transmission would lead to an increase in homosexual prostitution. Granted, they'd still be the vastly the minority, but I'd be willing to bet there would be a lot of them.
So far as taxes not covering enforcement. Is Nevada really a fair test case? I've seen documentaries on some of those legal sex houses, and some are in the middle of nowhere. I think there's a big difference between putting them in a state with the population of Nevada, and putting them in a state like New York, or Michigan, where population centers have people concentrated in a smaller area. One inspector could cover several houses concentrated in a smaller area, getting higher traffic, gathering more tax revenue than in a place with a wider dispersal of population. It may not work that way, but you can't base the ENTIRE nation on just Nevada.
Also, once the industry caught on, if it did, and I know that's a big if, but if it did catch on and the amount of illegal prostitution decreased, that would mean less cops needing to be assigned to vice to police it. Maybe that's not probable, but it's something to consider. I think however, that were prostitution were legalized, that the punishment for illegal prostitution should be increased, greatly increased. Give them one more reason to seriously consider becoming a legal prostitute, also greatly increase the crime of pimping (I assume that is already a crime), so they think twice about trying to hold on to their girls who may want to become legal.
I don't think that by legalizing it the government would be saying "kick up your heels and have a good time!" Cigarettes are legal, and yet the states still spend millions every year on anti-smoking ads. That's not exactly tax neutral. It's a mixed message between personal freedoms and public safety. If anything, I think the government would be saying "We don't know if it's right or wrong, so we're trusting you to make the decision on your own."
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:It's a mixed message between personal freedoms and public safety. If anything, I think the government would be saying "We don't know if it's right or wrong, so we're trusting you to make the decision on your own."
I don't know if that's true. There are other, more muscular pressures. I know some stories where parents put pressure on kids and husbands put pressure on wives to get jobs. If becoming a prostitute becomes yet another job, how do those dinner conversations change? If a woman would make a wonderful prostitute, is she going to still qualify for gov't assistance if she quits her job working as a prostitute?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Adultery, while abhorent, is legal.
Not in all states it's not.
quote:I'm sorry... I just don't see how that follows.
If we say: "Yes, prostitution is legal IF both parties are willing," then I don't see how anyone could be forced to accept the job. So yes, it would be an exception to the "take any job that's offered" rule that public assistance programs have. Since willingness is the most fundamental qualification for a sex-worker to have, any unwilling person is unqualified for the job, anyway.
They would face the same choice anyone does when out of work: accept a job they hate or receive no income. "Willing" is not a black or white determination. I bet many or most sex workers wouldn't do it if they were given a choice between their current job and receiving the same income for no work, just as most people wouldn't keep their current jobs if they could receive the same money for no work.
Many or most would find other jobs - maybe even almost the same job but with no requirement they accept the ongoing B.S. that accompanies their job. Most people are doing something other than exactly what they would choose to do if no financial incentives existed.
The mere presence of "prostitute" as a legal job choice will make some women feel forced into it.
If I believed it would protect a large portion of the street prostitutes who live most of their lives as victims, I might agree to it. But it won't. There's a market for cheap, illegal sex, both because it's cheap and because it's illegal.
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
katarain, don't worry. I said the "no morals" thing tongue-in-cheek. For the record, I believe anyone can call themselves a moral person - it's just a fact that we all have different morals.
space opera
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
BaoQingTian, Thank you very much for your response.
quote: My line of reasoning is this: as a child, it is possible to be a victim in many ways without realizing it.
I agree with this. Children are not legally responsible adults and should be held to different standards.
quote: Then the classes of people are: the ignorant (think 3rd world country type situation), those with disorders (anorexia, alcoholism), and immature adults. I would argue that all these types of people may need to be told they are victims before they themselves can perceive it.
I agree with this to an extent. My response was in regards to the legality of various issues. I think that our current system takes this into account to a degree. If a man hits his wife, it is up to the wife to file charges and determine whether or not she has been victimized. While I might consider it abuse and would counsel her to file charges, she might believe that it was justly provoked and didn't remotely resemble abuse. Ultimately, she is the one who gets to decide whether she was victimized or not. I feel very wary when other people have the legal power to protect victims for their own good whether they want it or not. It strikes me as very dangerous.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
*sigh* I think it should be legal. But jeez.... EWWWWWWW!!
I really don't understand how anyone could visit a prostitute. How much fun could it be when the person you're with has been used and discarded by dozens/hundreds of people. (I'm trying to be non-sexist here...)
Doesn't the idea of disease just kill any pleasure? Like spotting someone elses hair in your food. Doesn't it kill your appitite?
But if that's your kink, knock yourself out.
(Oh, and there shouldn't be spousal notification but if he/she finds out they should get the house and the kids and everything else. It's adultry.)
Pix
Posted by Eduardo_Sauron (Member # 5827) on :
quote: the ignorant (think 3rd world country type situation)
Please... I, as a 3rd world denizen, would like further explanation of the above...
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think he meant that people in 3rd world countries are sometimes victimized economically. Sweat shops and whatnot. At least that's how I interpreted it.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
I think instances of unwanted prgnancies/abortions would go down significantly. A condom would have to be worn at all times, for protection from STDs if for no other reason. Meanwhile, if the woman were smart she would be on birth control as well. The chance of getting pregnant while using both forms of birth control is pretty slim.
Also, even if the illegal sex trade didn't disapear, it would certainly be significantly smaller, which I think would be good in and of itself.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
On the one hand I think it should be legalized because it would give women more authority over their own bodies. That's my primary reasoning.
I also think that regulating it would make it safer, which is the biggest problem as it stands.
But I do have a big worry. There was a time when the idea of running advertisements for strip clubs on the radio simply wouldn't have happened, and now it happens all the time. One radio commercial actually advertises for employment, and makes it sound like stripping is smart career choice. Then there's the advertising for sex toy shops, etc. And all of this is on radio stations that run school closing announcements, so they know children are listening.
In the past, no one would have questioned censoring commercials like that, but in the last couple of decades, the country has decided that the first amendment overrides basic propriety, so it doesn't matter what you're advertising. The only reason prostitutes don't advertise on radio or TV is that they would be advertising an illegal activity.
On the one hand I've very strongly in favor of the first amendment, but I think that eventually we're going to have to amend the constitution to allow certain kinds of restrictions, and this would be one of them.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A condom would have to be worn at all times, for protection from STDs if for no other reason.
This would be the very first illegal extra offered at legal establishments - no condom, for an additional fee. It wouldn't stop there.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Well, that would all depend on how strong the enforcement was, presumably. Also, whores are, presumably, not stupid; given the additional power they get by legalising, might they not be part of the enforcement themselves?
Ack, I've created a monster! It was only meant as a dobie...
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:The mere presence of "prostitute" as a legal job choice will make some women feel forced into it.
The same can be said of any other job with a bad stigma but great pay, e.g. collections.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
"Used and discarded?"
If you're trying not to be sexist, Pix, I think you're doing an awfully bad job of it. Perhaps rather than discarding someone, their time ran out and they were kicked to the curb?
Some actor, Charlie Sheen, I think, was quoted as saying "I don't pay women to have sex with me. I pay them to leave afterwards." That's one reason someone might be interested in this sort of arrangment, because they're looking merely for a physical release, not an emotional entanglment. Recently out of a divorce and not ready to start dating again, but want to have sex occasionally, for example.
Another reason, frankly, is people who are can't find someone they want to date. Call it "unlucky in love." Whether it's a temporary thing, or a long dry spell between relationships, or someone who's such a jerk they can't keep a significant other, those people exist and might want to pay for sex.
There are, obviously, moral judgements that you could make about the above possibilities. *shrug* But I think many people would find them worth the squick factor. Heck, even with it illegal, many already do.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
True, and true KoM.
The women themselves would presumably be a part of the enforcement procedure. And violations would result in a fine, if not a revoking of their license.
The problem with enforcement, is other than videotaping every single session, how do you monitor it? And that brings into question the right of privacy. I think more than "No condom" extras, you're going to see a lot of illegal sales of sex sessions. That also brings into question the liklihood of bribery.
"Mr. John, I see your wife answered the phone. I'm sure she would be interested in learning about your, ahem, extra curricular activities. If you'll forward payment by Friday in the amount if five thousand dollars, then she'll never have to find out."
That sounds like more of a lucrative side business than condoms to me, besides, you don't have to cut the prostitute in on the profits of that side venture.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
ElJay: How was I being sexest? I said person, not assuming the prostitute was male or female. Nor the john was male or female.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Perhaps I'm projecting. I'm basing my interpretation on the attitude that I believe is still common in our society that looks down on a woman who has a lot of sex partners but high-fives a man who does. You rarely, if ever, hear people say a woman was just using a man for sex, and terms like thrown away or discarded are almost universally applied to women, implying that their only value is in sex and once you've got that they're disposable.
So it felt to me that you were writing your post with women still in the prostitute role in your head, and throwing in the gender-neutral language so as not to look sexist. I probably wouldn't have even thought about it if you hadn't said you were trying not to be sexist. But that, combined with terminology that I think is applied to women 90%+ of the time, seemed incongruous to me.
And, in all honesty, I don't think it's necessarily sexist to assume that the woman is going to be in the selling role the majority of the time, whether it's legal or illegal. At this time in our culture, women still have more control over sex than men do. A woman who decides she wants a one-night stand can pretty much go out and get one for free, no strings attached, although she maybe can't walk up to her first choice of partner and do so. A man who decided he wants a one-night stand may or may not be able to find one. For both of them it depends to some extent on how attractive, outgoing, funny, charming, and/or apparently wealthy they are, but I believe a lot less so for a woman. So when it comes to paying for it, there is going to be more demand for women than men.
If prostitution was to become legal, I would hope we could change our collective mindset about a woman's role in the casual sex act. Male or female, you're paying for a service. What that service is and what the price is should be clearly negotiated ahead of time, although given that there can be a range of performance within the service I would imagine that additional tipping might become common. Anyway, you are hiring the person involved, not using him or her. Although the attractiveness of the person might make a difference on if you engage their services or not, and how much you're willing to pay, you are buying the time and the service, not the person. When the act has been completed, you're not discarding them. You're going about your business, and they're going about their own. They're not sitting there heartbroken that you've left them and trying to find solice in the next customer to come along. Discard implies that they wanted to stay with you, if only you'd let them. I doubt that is very often the case.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Well, in terms of protecting the prostitutes themselves, you can always have a panic button in the room in case things get out of hand.
I think you're right Lyrhawn. Legalization could almost shift the majority of risk from the prostitutes to the johns. I don't think the illegal sale of videos would be as much of a problem, simply because we already have a healthy porn industry, but the blackmailing scheme sounds like it would be both effective and hard to prosecute.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:A condom would have to be worn at all times, for protection from STDs if for no other reason.
This would be the very first illegal extra offered at legal establishments - no condom, for an additional fee. It wouldn't stop there.
Following the Wikipedia link Amanecer posted, there does not seem to be a prevalence of STDs in the legalized brothels in Nevada. Granted, the site could be biased or factually incorrect but it does list a lot of sources if you question the material. Further, it would not be in the brothel's best interest to have their independent contractor (prostitute) contract an STD. Some of those reasons might include reputation loss, lawsuits and repeat-business loss. This would encourage the brothel to discourage sex without condoms.
Judges might offer to convict a man of a crime for an additional fee. Doctors might let a man die on an operating table for an additional fee. Zookeepers might let you see the elephants mate (thus violating their privacy) for an additional fee. Just because abuses can occur doesn't mean we shouldn't have judges, doctors and zookeepers.
But maybe those are unfair parallels. What about massage parlors? Massage therapists might give a "happy ending" for an additional fee. Any of the acts that might occur under the euphemism "happy ending" could also be performed by a prostitute and without a condom. Should we make massage parlors illegal?
I don't like the line of reasoning you used here, Dag. If you showed evidence that abuses would occur in a legalized prostitution situation it would be better than this speculation. Of course, that would be less fun and harder to argue with, too. Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I agree, Jonny. I find the same problem with the blackmail argument as well. Making prostitution legal doesn't make blackmail legal. Illegal things don't change their status just because an unrelated law changes.
quote:lyrhawn: The problem with enforcement, is other than videotaping every single session, how do you monitor it?
You enforce it just like states enforce selling-alcohol-to-a-minor laws. Videotaping is not necessary. (I'm not saying I agree with all sorts of sting operations, but it would be a much less intrusive method to check for compliance with a hypothetical condom law.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I agree, Jonny. I find the same problem with the blackmail argument as well. Making prostitution legal doesn't make blackmail legal. Illegal things don't change their status just because an unrelated law changes.
quote:Just because abuses can occur doesn't mean we shouldn't have judges, doctors and zookeepers.
My point is that regulation and legalization will not necessarily lead to a reduction in STDs as claimed. The incetives spoken of already exist.
quote:But maybe those are unfair parallels. What about massage parlors? Massage therapists might give a "happy ending" for an additional fee. Any of the acts that might occur under the euphemism "happy ending" could also be performed by a prostitute and without a condom. Should we make massage parlors illegal?
You're acting as if I said the condom thing was a reason to keep it illegal. I never said that. I said it would likely keep one of the advantages of legalization from being realized.
Please, if you want to disagree with my conclusions, make sure they are my conclusions.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
You misunderstand, Nato. I - and maybe Lyrhawn too, can't remember and too lazy to check - ultimately think prostitution should be legal. But it's foolish to say, "blackmail is already illegal" and assume it will work out. Of course blackmailing would still be illegal. The difference being argued is between illegal and enforceable. The victims of such a scheme would be the ones least likely to report the crime. Blackmailing is difficult because both the perpetrator and the victim want as few people to know about it as possible.
It's been widely agreed that it would be difficult, and possibly even unethical, for the government to step in and stop married men going to brothels. And they would probably represent a significant, if not majority, portion of the brothel-going community. That means a lot possible targets, whom, with a little effort, can be exploited easily and with almost no recourse.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
And that is a risk that they would be well aware of when they chose to break their marriage vows, and can decide if they want to deal with or not. Posted by Nato (Member # 1448) on :
I understand what you're saying, Juxtapose, I just disagree with you. I don't think legalization of prostitution would lead to that many more blackmail targets. Plenty of men already cheat on their wives and are potentially vulnerable to such a crime. However, I think few brothel owners would resort to blackmail because there'd be few faster ways to get shut down as soon as somebody called you on it.
I'd honestly be more worried about anti-prostitution protesters staking the places out and taking pictures of customers and license plates as has happened to some small-town adult shops.
But on the whole, I don't think this issue is very germane to the subject of legalization. It's like saying bridges should be illegal because sometimes people do heroin under them.
ElJay, Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:And that is a risk that they would be well aware of when they chose to break their marriage vows, and can decide if they want to deal with or not.
Very true, I thought of making this argument myself actually. Then I remembered that it'll be the kid's college fund that gets tapped to pay the blackmail. Saying it's all the father's fault is well and good - and true - but it doesn't change the fact that it hurts the family too.
Nato, yes there are many men who already cheat on their wives. But if you have legalized prostitution in brothels, now you know exactly where many of them will be. Now, if I've decided I'd like to blackmail men for fun and profit, I can simply wait accross the street with a camera and take pictures of men coming out, follow some, find out who's married (preferably with kids), make a few phone calls, and end up a few grand richer.
And again, I don't think this is a reason to keep prostitution illegal. Lyrhawn suggested, and I agree, that this could be a big problem that arises from the trade. I have been racking my brain trying to think up a way to combat this type of situation, but nothing springs to mind.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
There's no point trying to figure out how to combat it since any idiot can figure out a way to goto a brothel without getting caught. You take a rental, wear a hat and a fake mustash, wear cloths you usual don't wear, go in the middle of the night keep jamming ECCM's on you etc etc. Spy stuff.
How is blackmail usually taken care of now? Probly ineffectively but there are ways to get out of blackmail if your clever enough.
Btw, Panic buttons is how its usually done from what i've read.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
I just don't see how legalizing prostitution would somehow solve all of the other problems existing now. For example, stripping and porn is legal. While some dancers and porn stars are undoubtedly making a lot of money, enjoying their careers, and feeling empowered, I'm sure there are many more that are still being victimized, abused, controlled, and exploited.
The way I see it, the legalization of prostitution along with controls, taxes, and regulation will push the price of a prostitute into the range where it would only cater to people that can afford to pay for escorts now, which is higher than the general public would probably be able to pay. The demand for cheap, unregulated sex available to anyone will just go up creating an increase in demand for prostitutes willing to work under those conditions. If there isn't a huge supply of people willing to whore themselves out for only a few bucks with less than optimal conditions, then the exploitation begins.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Eljay: My whole "trying not to be sexist" was because I wanted to say some unkind things about men and their ability and desire to boink anything. I used the gender neutral language because I know there ARE male prostitutes out there, though rare, and some women DO use them.
Pix
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:The demand for cheap, unregulated sex available to anyone will just go up creating an increase in demand for prostitutes willing to work under those conditions.
I'm having trouble parsing this part of your argument, camus. I think you mean the demand will stay the same and the supply will fall, because I don't see how it could possibly make the demand increase. Legalized prostitution won't suddenly make people hornier. I think most men would opt for the legal venue, so long as they can afford it. Competition would likely keep prices reasonable, and taxes (say, a 25% tax on the total fee) would only really increase the price...25%.
Also, I'm having trouble understanding what you mean when you say "the exploitation begins." With regulation, there can be limits placed on how big a cut the house can take. Inevitably, the girls would make more money, and would have legal recourse against abusive johns/pimps/madams, without fear of implicating themselves. If you mean exploitation of the illegal prostitutes, well, that happens now. The number of illegal prostitutes could only go down, and if you agree that the legal variety would be abused and exploited less than the illegal ones then, most likely, abuse and exploitation decrease.
I don't like the fact that these (probably desperate) women are being exploited, and legalizing the industry would lend them some small measure of self-worth. It would, to an extent, protect them. But if some women, and there certainly would be some, persist in plying their trade illegally, then there's little more we could do for them than we already (hypothetically) have.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I suppose a psychiatrist or doctor or even a pharmacist could blackmail a client, too. They would lose their liscense and it would be very bad for business. Plus blackmail is still illegal. And folks could (and possibly do) wait outside strip bars and porn shops to photograph clients.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:I don't see how it could possibly make the demand increase. Legalized prostitution won't suddenly make people hornier.
Prostitution is essentially legal right now, depending on how you define it, but it's priced outside of the range for most of the people that are actually interested in paying for it. That is one reason why the illegal prostitution business is thriving. Legalize it, and that opens up the market to all the people that wanted it before but either couldn't afford it or didn't want to break the law. So yes, demand would indeed go up.
quote:Competition would likely keep prices reasonable, and taxes (say, a 25% tax on the total fee) would only really increase the price...25%.
This I doubt. You would have an increase for taxes, cost in complying with safety regulations, benefits, and beter wages (do you think a pimp actually pays a prostitute a good wage now). Yes, there would be competition, but certain costs can only be cut by so much.
quote:If you mean exploitation of the illegal prostitutes, well, that happens now.
Yes, that is what I mean, and yes, I recognize that is happening right now. However, I disagree that regulations will suddenly cause the illegal activities to go down. There will always be a demand for what cannot be obtained in a legal manner. Will the general public recognize the difference between an establishment that complies with government regulations and an illegal one? Would they even want to know?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
I assume you're talking about the escort services up there. So with "legalized prostitution," you're arguing that we're actually simply expanding legal prostitution. So, in effect, supply of legal prostitution jumps, quantity demanded (which is different from demand) increases, and price, logically, falls.
Caveat: It's been a while since I took micro-econ, but this sounds right to me. Anyone who knows better, please chime in.
quote:You would have an increase for taxes, cost in complying with safety regulations, benefits, and beter wages (do you think a pimp actually pays a prostitute a good wage now). Yes, there would be competition, but certain costs can only be cut by so much.
In terms of benefits and wages, the model that has generally been discussed here, and hence the model I've been working under, is one where the brothels are hiring the prostitutes as independant contractors, not as employees. So there's no benefits or wages to pay. For the brothel, the only real expenditures would be normal business costs and security. The prostitute, as her own employer, would have to provide her own medical expenses, including STD testing. And the john pays the tax.
Since all this is hypothetical, it would be difficult at best to prove that illegal prostitution would drop outside of what I've already written. Perhaps someone who paid a bit more attention in economics could do a better job.
Yes, some peopee will seek out the illegal simply because it is illegal. I think, though, that most men would be willing to pay a few extra dollars to avoid the risk of prosecution. Which is why I think they will care if an establishment is legal, along with the fact that it's in their interest to know which brothel houses girls that have up-to-date STD testing and so forth.
As to how the public could diffrentiate, how do you know when you visit a restaraunt that it passed it's last health inspection? Also, since there would be far fewer brothels than restaraunts, it'd be pretty simple to list regulated (accredited, maybe) brothels on a website.
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
I wonder if the same people who are for the legalization of prostitution are also for the legalization of marijuana or other drugs.
The principles behind being for legalization for both seem to be the same--just as long as you're not hurting anybody else, let people do what they want--and tax the hell out of it.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:So, in effect, supply of legal prostitution jumps, quantity demanded (which is different from demand) increases, and price, logically, falls.
Assuming that supply of legal prostitution does indeed jump, which I am not.
quote:In terms of benefits and wages, the model that has generally been discussed here, and hence the model I've been working under, is one where the brothels are hiring the prostitutes as independant contractors, not as employees.
Regardless of who is paying for certain costs, the brothel or the prostitute, certain costs are still incurred and the amount is still passed on to the consumer.
quote:Yes, some peopee will seek out the illegal simply because it is illegal.
While that may be true, that isn't my argument. I don't think that people will seek it out simply because it is illegal. Rather, one example is that they might seek out services that are themselves legal, just not necessarily obtainable in a legal way. For example, a person may want a certain type of prostitute. If there are none available through the local legal channels, then they may seek other means. This may include visiting a brothel that does not comply with government standards.
quote:I think, though, that most men would be willing to pay a few extra dollars to avoid the risk of prosecution
Perhaps, but current trends suggest that many people are indeed willing to risk prosecution and many other problems in order to satisfy a desire.
quote:As to how the public could diffrentiate, how do you know when you visit a restaraunt that it passed it's last health inspection?
Let me rephrase my question. Would people care whether they are visiting a legal or illegal brothel? I think not since I doubt the person would be prosecuted. If anything, the brothel would be prosecuted and the consumer would be viewed as the victim and be free.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Prostitution is essentially legal right now, depending on how you define it, but it's priced outside of the range for most of the people that are actually interested in paying for it. That is one reason why the illegal prostitution business is thriving. Legalize it, and that opens up the market to all the people that wanted it before but either couldn't afford it or didn't want to break the law. So yes, demand would indeed go up.
I don't think I'm understanding this. Prostitution is priced outside the range of most people who want to use prostitutes, and this is why prostitution is thriving?
Also. I really don't think all prostitutes are that expensive now. Actually, I'm almost entirely sure that they aren't.
And ElJay:
quote:At this time in our culture, women still have more control over sex than men do.
I agree with this statement entirely. Actually, I think in the last discussion I had concerning sex and men vs. women, the guy I was talking to said, "You women hold ALL the power when it comes to sex. You just don't realize it some of the time."
Edit to add: I kind of feel partly like the double standard that exists between men and women is sort of a response to the fact that women are for some reason considered to hold more power or control when it comes to the sex. Like maybe men (not nowadays probably, but maybe back when these ideas were being formulated) resented the idea that women could control who did and didn't get laid, and thus responded by trying to shame them...somehow...*thinks*
I guess I'm wondering how often people have arguments like the ones my roommate and her boyfriend used to have. They inevitably lead to him yelling at her, "Oh yeah? Well, you're such a ho that I slept with you the FIRST NIGHT!"
...for some reason, this did not imply anything negative about his character.
-pH
[ January 31, 2006, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: pH ]
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote: Assuming that supply of legal prostitution does indeed jump, which I am not.
Wait, we legalize prostitution and supply of legal prostitution doesn't increase? You wanna rethink that one?
quote:Regardless of who is paying for certain costs, the brothel or the prostitute, certain costs are still incurred and the amount is still passed on to the consumer.
Right, I'm basically saying that, instead of the pimp making obscene profit, the money that used to go to him goes to pay for a good chunk, if not all of those costs, with little cost left over to pass to the johns.
quote:For example, a person may want a certain type of prostitute. If there are none available through the local legal channels, then they may seek other means.
which is exactly why widening the avenues of legal prostitution would prevent the illegal variety.
quote:Perhaps, but current trends suggest that many people are indeed willing to risk prosecution and many other problems in order to satisfy a desire.
Yes, when no similar alternative is available.
quote:If anything, the brothel would be prosecuted and the consumer would be viewed as the victim and be free.
Probably true, except for the john being viewed as the victim part. Also, this doesn't address the issue of STDs that I raised earlier.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Like maybe men (not nowadays probably, but maybe back when these ideas were being formulated) resented the idea that women could control who did and didn't get laid, and thus responded by trying to shame them...somehow...*thinks*
You're getting at, I think, that men decided that since women have power over sex, they should have the responsibility too.
And I don't hear things like that often, and yet, somehow, way too often. Guy's kind of a jackass.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Why don't we legalize buying legislation from representatives in congress?
Why don't we legalize buying an "innocent" verdict from a jury?
Why don't we legalize buying government contracts from public servants?
Why don't we legalize theft? Make people lock up and protect their own stuff and not ask the police to deal with theives?
Why don't we legalize embezzling? Extension of the above reasoning.
I'm rather shocked that so few are against legalizing prostitution. There are some things that are just too corrupt to make legal.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Well, the difference is that those crimes...wait for it...hurt people. As in there is definitely a victim there.
And it's because prostitution is corrput that I think it should be legalized and cleaned up. I know that's not what you meant when you used the word, but there you are.
quote:I wonder if the same people who are for the legalization of prostitution are also for the legalization of marijuana or other drugs.
I would be, for marijuana anyway. I think it could have basically the same status as alcohol. Other drugs, I'm not so sure about. Definitely not heroin or cocaine.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Wait, we legalize prostitution and supply of legal prostitution doesn't increase? You wanna rethink that one?
You're assuming that there are thousands of people just dying to become prostitutes if only it were legal? And don't forget about all the prostitutes that are being forced into it right now that would love to get out of it if only they had the chance.
quote:Right, I'm basically saying that, instead of the pimp making obscene profit, the money that used to go to him goes to pay for a good chunk, if not all of those costs, with little cost left over to pass to the johns.
I suppose that's entirely possible, though I have a hard time believing it. Instead, what I see happening is something like the RIAA where the record labels are making all the money. Some artists end up making millions of dollars, but the majority of them are underpaid for the service they're providing, imho. Also kind of like how CEO's make an outrageous amount of money compared to the rest of the workers.
quote:Probably true, except for the john being viewed as the victim part.
Why would he not be viewed as a victim if he didn't know that the brothel was illegal? Sure, he could have asked, and the brothel could have provided him some fake documentation.
quote:Also, this doesn't address the issue of STDs that I raised earlier.
The fear of STDs doesn't exactly seem to be stopping people now. This is also true regarding legal sex. There are many easy ways to prevent, or at least reduce, the threat of STDs, yet people are still getting them.
Posted by Sean (Member # 689) on :
quote:I wonder if the same people who are for the legalization of prostitution are also for the legalization of marijuana or other drugs.
For me the case for making drugs illegal rests on their addictive properties, so that's a different issue. That said I'd probably support legalizing prostitution and marijuana, yes.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
quote:Originally posted by Juxtapose: I would be, for marijuana anyway. I think it could have basically the same status as alcohol. Other drugs, I'm not so sure about. Definitely not heroin or cocaine.
Why marijuana and not heroin or cocaine?
Posted by Katarain (Member # 6659) on :
Nobody's ever died from a marijuana overdose.
Posted by SenojRetep (Member # 8614) on :
But there are still health effects, neh? If the argument for legalizing a drug (like that for legalizing prostitution) is, "It's my body, I should be able to do what I want with it," why only legalize less harmful drugs? Or minimally harmful sex (as compared to unprotected sex, severe S&M, etc.)?
It seems like most of the arguments on this thread have been simultaneously libertarian ("whatever people want to do, as long as they're not hurting anyone") and anti-libertarian ("but we'll allow the government to regulate and tax it to high heaven.") Is there a philosophical difference between regulation and illegalization, or is it only a difference of type? To me it seems like the latter, and I'm surprised people would call for legalization, but simultaneously call for regulation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think selling one's body for the direct personal use by another human being is inherently corrupting.
I disapprove of it for that reason when men do it and when women do it. For every "happy" prostitute, there are many, dozens, scores, maybe hundreds more who are miserable and loathe their "occupation".
Yes, it's quite possible that this misery is due entirely to the fact that the "oldest profession" is currently "mismanaged". But it seems to me that the far more reasonable alternative to "legalize and regulate" would be first to take proactive efforts to reduce the need and desire and misery in prostitution currently, so we'll have more data to go on.
I don't like the idea of human beings buying or even renting other human beings. It smacks of slavery to me, and voluntary slavery is something that strikes me as maybe even worse than involuntary slavery.
Furthermore, I wonder: if stripping objectifies women, if pornography does so, if Hollywood's potraryl of women objectifies the female gender, what would prostitution do? It seems to me that at best it would change the mindset from, "Don't objectify women," to, "Don't objectify these women. These other women, though, it's OK."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: I don't like the idea of human beings buying or even renting other human beings. It smacks of slavery to me, and voluntary slavery is something that strikes me as maybe even worse than involuntary slavery.
Human beings are "rented" all the time. The folks who sign my paycheck are paying me to use my mind and body to perform a service.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:For every "happy" prostitute, there are many, dozens, scores, maybe hundreds more who are miserable and loathe their "occupation".
Evidence?
quote:I don't like the idea of human beings buying or even renting other human beings. It smacks of slavery to me, and voluntary slavery is something that strikes me as maybe even worse than involuntary slavery.
What kmbboots said.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:But there are still health effects, neh? If the argument for legalizing a drug (like that for legalizing prostitution) is, "It's my body, I should be able to do what I want with it," why only legalize less harmful drugs?
Well, in my mind, we're getting into hazy territory with those harder drugs. To my best recollection, heroin and cocaine, especially crack, are highly physically addictive, are linked with secondary crimes, and in the case of coke, can make people violently...violent. Basically, I'd argue that, just like my right to flail my fist ends before it hits your nose, my right to do what I want with my body ends when it makes me highly prone to violence and thievery.
EDIT
quote:voluntary slavery is something that strikes me as maybe even worse than involuntary slavery.
Wait, what?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Yes, but if you regulated and legalized the use of these harder drugs with safe places to get high, additional enforcement and penalties on the illegal use of it, provided rehab and a support system, and of course taxed the heck out of it, then it would be ok, right?
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote: For starters, much public assistance requires being willing to take a job if offered. Would we exempt prostitution jobs from this requirement? If not, aren't we saying something about prostitution that makes it different from any other job?
Wasn't that an issue in Germany a while back? I seem to remember that thread...
quote:Originally posted by Artemisia Tridentata: With regard to public assistance, there has been at least one instance of an OJT job training provided under a Federal workforce developement program. Every time I have been to Washington for workforce development meetings someone always asks if it really happened or if it is an "Urban Legend" It really happened.
So the hypothetical story that became erroneously reported as real in Germany actually did happen in the US? (Am I reading this correctly?)
Posted by Celaeno (Member # 8562) on :
I think another problem with hard drugs is that they're addictive. So although you might be perfectly capable of making the decision when you first start, you probably won't be after you get into it. That kind of defeats the point of doing what you want with your body.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: But there are still health effects, neh? If the argument for legalizing a drug (like that for legalizing prostitution) is, "It's my body, I should be able to do what I want with it," why only legalize less harmful drugs? Or minimally harmful sex (as compared to unprotected sex, severe S&M, etc.)?
I believe most states do not currently classify unprotected sex, severe S&M, etc. as illegal although there are a few with sodomy laws still on the books (I think the military still classifies sodomy as anything other than the missionary position). If a woman were to do all the things a prostitute would do, only for free, would that be wrong? Should that be legislated? If a woman marries a rich man only for his money, and the man only marries her for the sex, and they both agree it's a good arrangement, is that wrong? Should that be legislated or made illegal?
I feel like we're treating this whole subject as theoretical when it is legal in Nevada, and has been for over 25 years.
Edit:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I don't like the idea of human beings buying or even renting other human beings.
I think this quote starts getting to the heart of the matter. People want it illegal because they don't like it. Whether for their personal moral reasons, for religious reasons, for plain ol' squick factor reasons, etc. they don't like it. And making it illegal makes it wrong for anyone to do.
Dag, I'm formulating my response to your reply. When my brain finishes percolating, I'll pour out a response.
[ January 31, 2006, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: JonnyNotSoBravo ]
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: For starters, much public assistance requires being willing to take a job if offered. Would we exempt prostitution jobs from this requirement? If not, aren't we saying something about prostitution that makes it different from any other job?
Why wouldn't this be considered a specialized job? (Just like -- I'm guessing -- theater actors' jobs aren't really appropriate for welfare work requirements. If you don't have the aptitude, including the desire, you really can't do the job as required.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Why wouldn't this be considered a specialized job? (Just like -- I'm guessing -- theater actors' jobs aren't really appropriate for welfare work requirements. If you don't have the aptitude, including the desire, you really can't do the job as required.)
I don't think people get to turn down ditch-digging jobs because they aren't inclined to take them.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Yeah, I get that. But ditch-digging isn't a specialized job. That is, it is considered unskilled labor, right?
-------
Edited to add: That is, I'd compare this to other forms of acting. Are there cases of people in the US being required to do other acting jobs?
("Acting jobs" would be a more appropriate analogy than "ditch-digging," yes?)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That is, it is considered unskilled labor, right?
So is low-level prostitution.
quote:Edited to add: That is, I'd compare this to other forms of acting. Are there cases of people in the US being required to do other acting jobs?
("Acting jobs" would be a more appropriate analogy than "ditch-digging," yes?)
I don't think so at all. Acting jobs are highly sought after and the person recruiting for them usually has to turn down far more than he hires.
I'm thinking of the people who end up in street prostitution now. Almost none of them auditioned for the job.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I'm still trying to work my head around this, Dagonee. (But I'm trying!)
What constitutes "low-level prostitution" in this scenario? General vague terms preferred. *smile
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm talking about the dozens of people I've seen who are, as one of them put it, "selling their butts for crack."
And yes, she said "butt." She was being respectful to the judge.
There is an almost infinite market for $10-$50...er...encounters.
Edit: "infinite" is hyperbole, just think "huge" and "lots of room to grow."
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
Whether an actor is an actor or not does not depend on whether that actor auditioned or not. Just because a prostitute is one doesn't mean she isn't looking for work a lot of the time. It's not like she just pops out on the street and there's a line of 20 men waiting for her. If it were that easy and successful, there would be a lot more competition out there.
There are lots of acting jobs out there that pay crap that some actors have to take before they get to be considered for the "good" roles. Consider the "Off off Broadway" stuff that some actors do. The higher echelon actors do not have to audition and regularly choose their scripts and projects.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Edit: "infinite" is hyperbole, just think "huge" and "lots of room to grow."
That isn't the first time you've described it that way, is it, Counselor?
*grin
So why not make specialized training a prerequisite of government-sponsored [prostitution]? Kind of how we don't consider snake-oil-sellers to qualify as physicians, even if there is quite a demand for those services. (Witness late-night infomercials and the majority of health-related websites.)
It would make sense to me, if prostitution were legalized, to require licensing, following a code of ethics, etc., similar to mental health services or other jobs involving being privy to human intimacies.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
For a minute there I thought I'd stumbled into a "Should prosecution be legal?" dobie. o_O
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: For a minute there I thought I'd stumbled into a "Should prosecution be legal?" dobie. o_O
*laughing
ElJay melted my "i" key with her hotness. It makes typing quite tedious.
*shakes fist
-------------
You know, I've heard there is a near-infinite market for yellow-silk-styled [er, erotic materials], at least in certain markets.
*whistles innocently
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Whether an actor is an actor or not does not depend on whether that actor auditioned or not. Just because a prostitute is one doesn't mean she isn't looking for work a lot of the time. It's not like she just pops out on the street and there's a line of 20 men waiting for her. If it were that easy and successful, there would be a lot more competition out there. There are lots of acting jobs out there that pay crap that some actors have to take before they get to be considered for the "good" roles. Consider the "Off off Broadway" stuff that some actors do. The higher echelon actors do not have to audition and regularly choose their scripts and projects.
Of course. But this brings up a very good point: an out of work actor looking for at least some types of benefits will have to take non-acting jobs that are available to keep those benefits. Prostitution has a much lower barrier to entry than acting.
quote:So why not make specialized training a prerequisite of government-sponsored prosecuton?
Just what are you implying here?
quote:Kind of how we don't consider snake-oil-sellers to qualify as physicians, even if there is quite a demand for those services. (Witness late-night infomercials and the majority of health-related websites.)
It would make sense to me, if prostitution were legalized, to require licensing, following a code of ethics, etc., similar to mental health services or other jobs involving being privy to human intimacies.
Because if you do that, then legalizing prostitution will do absolutely nothing to ease the vulnerability women forced into street prostitution now. It's not a reason to keep prostitution illegal, per se, but it is a reason why one of the proclaimed benefits of legalization won't materialize.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Kind of how we don't consider snake-oil-sellers to qualify as physicians, even if there is quite a demand for those services. (Witness late-night infomercials and the majority of health-related websites.)
It would make sense to me, if prostitution were legalized, to require licensing, following a code of ethics, etc., similar to mental health services or other jobs involving being privy to human intimacies.
Because if you do that, then legalizing prostitution will do absolutely nothing to ease the vulnerability women forced into street prostitution now. It's not a reason to keep prostitution illegal, per se, but it is a reason why one of the proclaimed benefits of legalization won't materialize.
I'm not sure I'll follow you down that bend in the path. I need a little more persuasion.
Are we working under the assumption that getting rid of street prostitution is the only benefit to legalizing prostitution?
(Not trying to set you up -- just feeling out the bounds of this particular envelope. I'm willing to work within that assumption if you like, by the way.)
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
And just for clarity's sake, I'm going to be away from online stuff for a little bit, definitely for tomorrow. Maybe longer. (muddling through my complicated lfe *grin)
So I might have to pick this up again a bit later. I didn't want to give the impression that I'd gotten mad -- on the contrary, I'm stretching my brain a bit here, and it's a good challenge. Fascinating stuff.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are we working under the assumption that getting rid of street prostitution is the only benefit to legalizing prostitution?
No. This is a very targeted conclusion:
1.) One of the claimed benefits of legalized prostitution is protecting women from victimization.
2.) If legalized prostitution does not allow for extensive 10-50 dollar trade, then it will not encompass most of the women victimized by it.
Your suggestion very likely would end up removing 10-50 dollar trade from the legal realm. Therefore, this claimed benefit wouldn't materialize under your suggested plan. That's the extent of that portion of my claim.
The other claim, which we were discussing before the possibility of excluding cheap trade came up, is that I don't want people to be able to say, "They can just go work at McStreetHo's" when speaking of welfare recipients. Licensing, as you suggested, would likely remove this element (although it would not relieve ongoing pressure to lower licensing requirements). But doing so would lead to the loss of most of the claimed anti-victimization benefit.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
Ah. I was not working from premise #1, as I don't think legalizing prostitution would necessarily do this. (I think addressing poverty issues from other perspectives would be the most effective route, but that's another thread.)
I can see your point, and I happily trip along behind you.
I do wonder, though, if hourly trade at the same rates as professional (real) massage therapy -- i.e., the upper end of your range -- might not still have a secure role.
---------
[Edited because my keyboard has, um, issues.]
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think a lot of the victimization of prostitutes now results directly from the fact that prostitution is illegal.
What about rape? Seriously, how much harder does it have to be for a prostitute to file charges against a man who raped her, considering her illegal occupation?
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I do wonder, though, if hourly trade at the same rates as professional (real) massage therapy -- i.e., the upper end of your range -- might not still have a secure role.
It's a little delicate to discuss here, but there are certain acts that have less health risk and where hygiene is more easily maintained. But if attached to a (real) massage parlor, then other licensing would be necessary.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I think a lot of the victimization of prostitutes now results directly from the fact that prostitution is illegal. What about rape? Seriously, how much harder does it have to be for a prostitute to file charges against a man who raped her, considering her illegal occupation?
Yeah, I get that. My point is that it's hard to imagine a licensing scheme that will infiltrate down to the street level. And without that, the most-victimized prostitutes will still be illegal.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:I do wonder, though, if hourly trade at the same rates as professional (real) massage therapy -- i.e., the upper end of your range -- might not still have a secure role.
It's a little delicate to discuss here, but there are certain acts that have less health risk and where hygiene is more easily maintained. But if attached to a (real) massage parlor, then other licensing would be necessary.
I can see some fascinating discussion points here, but I agree that this forum is not the most appropriate site for piecing through the delicate parts. I'll search through Mike's forum's old posts for a similar topic, and if I can't find one, I'll start a new thread over there.
Thanks! I am honestly thrilled at having new issues to consider with reference to this topic. Great discussion.
Posted by Sean (Member # 689) on :
quote:Yeah, I get that. My point is that it's hard to imagine a licensing scheme that will infiltrate down to the street level.
I didn't actually test this, but I was advised in Amsterdam that er...encounters with the less desirable contractors could be had in the $15-30 range.
Posted by JonnyNotSoBravo (Member # 5715) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Just because abuses can occur doesn't mean we shouldn't have judges, doctors and zookeepers.
My point is that regulation and legalization will not necessarily lead to a reduction in STDs as claimed. The incetives spoken of already exist.
quote:But maybe those are unfair parallels. What about massage parlors? Massage therapists might give a "happy ending" for an additional fee. Any of the acts that might occur under the euphemism "happy ending" could also be performed by a prostitute and without a condom. Should we make massage parlors illegal?
You're acting as if I said the condom thing was a reason to keep it illegal. I never said that. I said it would likely keep one of the advantages of legalization from being realized.
Please, if you want to disagree with my conclusions, make sure they are my conclusions.
Your point that regulation and legalization will not necessarily lead to a decrease in STDs is based on speculation, especially when it speculates about future illegal activity regarding condoms and prostitutes in an atmosphere that is mandating condom use and punishes contraction of STDs, enforced by regular screenings. I would suggest that mandating condom use and punishing contraction of STDs by prostitutes, enforced by regular screenings of prostitutes may not cut down on the total number of STDs among the general populace, which is affected by more than just prostitution, but it will certainly cut down on the number of STDs in legal brothels, if not eliminate them entirely, IMO. This would give prostitutes in legal brothels a distinctly higher health advantage over those who are not. I have already reposted a link about the lack of STDs in legal brothels in Nevada. Do you have evidence on your side?
By putting your post speculating about lack of condom use by legal prostitutes for an extra fee in this thread titled "Should prostitution be legal?" you indeed seemed to imply, IMO, that there would still be a major risk of STDs at legal brothels, thus providing an argument for prostitution not being legal.
I never said that you had a conclusion, or that I disagreed with it. I disagreed with your reasoning about condom use by legal prostitutes in your hypothetical future situation, because it was based on speculation. In my argument, I was trying to counter your implication, whether you intended it or not, that prostitution should not be legalized because it wouldn't make sex with prostitutes that much safer, for johns or prostitutes.
Please do not make assumptions about how I seem to be "acting" in a certain post. I was not acting as if you said something you did not. I was acting as if there was an implication from what you said, intended or not, that could be taken to support not legalizing prostitution. Nato's post after mine might be an indication that he also got that implication from your post.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:By putting your post speculating about lack of condom use by legal prostitutes for an extra fee in this thread titled "Should prostitution be legal?" you indeed seemed to imply, IMO, that there would still be a major risk of STDs at legal brothels, thus providing an argument for prostitution not being legal.
Let me see if I get this straight. I speculated (as we all have in this thread about something) that a problem that exists now would also exist if we made prostitution legal. And somehow you think this implied that something that happens under both systems is a reason not to make prostitution legal.
That doesn't even make sense. At most I could be saying that the possibility of lowered STDs isn't a reason a to make prostitution legal.
You didn't say, "your post seems to imply X, and here's why X isn't a valid reason..." You said, "I don't like the line of reasoning you used here, Dag."
I was pointing out, and I will again because it seems necessary, that the line of reasoning you didn't like isn't present in my posts.
[ February 01, 2006, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmboots,
That's true, human beings are "rented" all the time. Their services, not their physical bodies. There is a difference, and it's not just because it's sex, either.
I have some of the same problems with the direct buying and selling of organs, too. It reduces the humans involved to the status of animals, in my opinion, while opening the door for a host of abuses such as the ones Dagonee have mentioned.
Erosmniac,
What, evidence that a majority of prostitutes are unhappy? Well since crippling drug-addiction, abusive pimps, poor living conditions and not to mention frequently traumatic childhoods are commonplace amongst prostitutes, I'd say the evidence is self-evident.
I'm not sure what romantic or idealistic view you have of prostitutes as they exist in America today.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
JohnnynotsoBravo,
You're right, making it illegal does make it illegal for everyone to do. Furthermore you're also right that I am opposed to it first and foremost because I find it reprehensible. My other, more rational reasons come later.
But your point that for some reason "people don't like it" isn't sufficient reason to criminalize a type of behavior if that is the point you were making is pretty absurd. "People don't like it" is, ultimately, the basis for every single law against something on the books. The other, more rational reasons come later.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:That's true, human beings are "rented" all the time. Their services, not their physical bodies. There is a difference, and it's not just because it's sex, either.
I don't see how sex isn't a service, as well. And besides that, I don't really see the difference between acquiring a service for a time and acquiring a physical body for a time. Either way, there is a human being involved, and one is using that human being's skills to accomplish some end in exchange for payment.
We already sell the implication or promise of sex all the time.
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Anything could be defined as a either a good or a service if you broaden the definition sufficiently. The difference is that when you acquire a service for a time period, "acquiring" the use of his or her (usually her) body on the basis of her body alone. Oh, and that human being's "skills".
Are we presuming that most people who currently solicit prostitutes do so on the basis of the hooker's perceived "skills"? It's impossible to prove one way or another, really, but frankly I doubt it. Good-looking prostitutes cost more. Ugly ones cost less. Whether or not they're "skilled" at putting themselves on the block.
Furthermore, that we already sell the implication of sex is by no means a persuasive argument that we should legalize prostitution. That reasoning can be applied to all sorts of things. We already have the promise of democracy in America, so go direct democracy, right now. We already permit the sale of handguns in America, so why not automatic assault rifles? We already permit smoking and drinking, so why not go all the way and permit any currently controlled substance?
We already have servants, so why not permit indentured servitude? And if we had legalized prostitution, why not permit people to buy prostitutes for long-term periods?
It would get there, eventually. If it's legal to hire a prostitute, why shouldn't it be legal to hire a long-term sex-toy? If it's legal to do that, why shouldn't it be legal-if you're going to pay your little sex-toy that is also a human being-to require it to meet ever more exacting standards of behavior?
I don't like prostitution because it encourages the buyer to view the seller as a sex-object. Yes, I know people view other people as sex-objects all the time. But with prostitution, it's true.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:We already have servants, so why not permit indentured servitude? And if we had legalized prostitution, why not permit people to buy prostitutes for long-term periods?
It would get there, eventually. If it's legal to hire a prostitute, why shouldn't it be legal to hire a long-term sex-toy? If it's legal to do that, why shouldn't it be legal-if you're going to pay your little sex-toy that is also a human being-to require it to meet ever more exacting standards of behavior?
I don't like prostitution because it encourages the buyer to view the seller as a sex-object. Yes, I know people view other people as sex-objects all the time. But with prostitution, it's true.
First of all, I fail to see how your, "It would get there eventually" is any more persuasive than my, "We basically already do it anyway."
And I don't think it's any more true in prostitution than it is in exotic dancing or advertising or any other number of fields.
On top of that, I'm sure there are TONS of people who get jobs now based at least partly (and sometimes more than partly) on their physical appearance.
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
pH,
But we don't basically do it already. It is not currently legal to rent a person's body openly for a specific "service" for a specific sum of money. The difference between owning a sex-toy (slave) for a set period of time and buying a prostitue for a night is the difference between "rent" and "rent to own".
You haven't answered my question: if prostitution were legal, why shouldn't it be illegal to buy a prostitute for a long period of time? You're operating on the basic premise that if the individual involved is not coerced in any way, it should be permissible. Well, if a woman-and in America, for the time being at least, it would be mostly women-decided that, "Hey, being a living, breathing blow-up doll for this guy for a month sounds fine to me if the price is right!" you're saying that too should be legal?
I know it happens in a de facto kind of way already. And frankly I think that's reprehensible, too, human beings relying solely on their animal side just to survive-forced or not. But short of banning premarital sex altogether I see no way to prevent that, and I wouldn't even if there were some effective way.
My "It would get there eventually" argument is more persuasive than the "We basically do it already" argument because, in fact, it would get there eventually-because buying a prostitute is basically identical to buying a living, breathing sex-toy for a week or a month, except that it's a much smaller duration. The "we basically do it already" argument is ineffective because we as a society-all societies-draw arbitrary lines all the time, and the fact that a line is arbitrary is not, in and of itself, effective unless you can counter all other arguments as well.
In advertising, sex is used to sell the fantasy in people's minds, "Hey, if I buy product X or service Y, spokesmodel Candy or Lance or cute-guy-next-door will have sex with me!" And anyway, when you've paid your money, in the end you've still bought something-cologne, a car, a haircut, whatever. You haven't actually bought the guarantee of the fantasy.
"Exotic dancing"-that more pleasant term for stripping-is similar, but obviously much closer to prostitution than mere advertising. It sells the fantasy of sex with this particular person gyrating naked or nearly so right in front of you.
I'm not a fan of endorsing that profession, either, but the difference lies between selling the fantasy of an act and selling the act itself.
Obviously there are many people who get jobs based on appearance. I think that appearance plays a factor in every job, indeed in every single interhuman relationship of any type. Even in the relationship one has with one's self-no pun intended-because how we look factors strongly into our self-esteem.
I see few ways to stop that other than some methods which are already done: attempts to prohibit discrimination on the basis of appearance or background by leaving those sections of application forms blank.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: Their services, not their physical bodies. There is a difference, and it's not just because it's sex, either.
Different how? I use my physical body to do my current job. Just not the same parts.
And I don't see a problem with any of the long or short term contracts you mentioned as long as he or she is making the choice and can opt out as with any contract. The reason I am not a slave is that I can quit my job. I am not property; I can choose to leave. There is no reason a legal prostitute couldn't do the same.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: To my best recollection, heroin and cocaine, especially crack, are highly physically addictive, (nicotine) are linked with secondary crimes, (booze) and in the case of coke, can make people violently...violent (booze) .
My comments are in bold.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:It is not currently legal to rent a person's body openly for a specific "service" for a specific sum of money.
Oh, I don't know. That seems like a pretty good description of modeling to me. Earlier you talk about prostitution as a job in which appearance trumps skill; insofar as this is true for prostitution I'd say that it's also true for modeling, wouldn't you?
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by Noemon:
quote:It is not currently legal to rent a person's body openly for a specific "service" for a specific sum of money.
Oh, I don't know. That seems like a pretty good description of modeling to me. Earlier you talk about prostitution as a job in which appearance trumps skill; insofar as this is true for prostitution I'd say that it's also true for modeling, wouldn't you?
That reminds me of the woman that offered the use of her body for advertising to the highest bidder. I think it's sad that people view such things as their bodies as commodities. Much like the idea of using the moon as advertising space.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmboots,
quote:I use my physical body to do my current job.
With prostitution, your body is the job. As with any job, you use parts of your body. Thus everything is equivalent to prostitution?
In the abstract, I suppose that follows. In the world we live in? It does not.
quote:There is no reason a legal prostitute couldn't do the same.
I don't oppose buying and selling the bodies of human beings only in involuntary cases. I oppose it because I believe it cheapens humanity and degrades the individuals involved in it. I realize that's not a persuasive argument to everyone, but I have to ask: who doesn't think prostitution cheapens and degrades the people involved in it?
Should prostitution become legal, safe, and "clean" so to speak without all of its current associations with violence, poverty, ignorance, and drug addiction, would you approve of, say, your loved ones becoming prostitutes? Maybe you disagree that it cheapens the people involved, I don't know. Obviously my arguments are not going to persuade you and others, who hold the word voluntary above all other things. I hold that word above almost all other things.
If someone could convince me that prostitution does not cheapen the people involved-in our society, for a bonus-I think I would be persuaded to view legalized prostitution as a good thing.
This is not a religious argument to me. I do not oppose legalized prostitution for religious reasons. Since before I ever became religious, I have felt much the same way.
----
Noemon,
Appearance is definitely far and away the primary factor in modeling. This is another occupation which in large part sells fantasies. Wear these clothes and you'll look more like this sex deity. Or in the case of viewers who physically desire the model, the fantasy is I imagine often, "Maybe that model will have sex with me."
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Prostitution should not be made legal because it is the result of the actions of societies less moral members. Making it legal might help to protect those individuals but at the same time it condones an anti-social activity. For the same reason harmful drugs should not be made illegal.
Alcohol and tobacco already are legal, and may never be done away with considering their affect on the economy, but that doesn't make them a good thing either. They may be acceptable social behavious but that doesn't stop them from being major contributors to the distruction of any society in which they're legalised.
$0.02
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Appearance is definitely far and away the primary factor in modeling. This is another occupation which in large part sells fantasies. Wear these clothes and you'll look more like this sex deity. Or in the case of viewers who physically desire the model, the fantasy is I imagine often, "Maybe that model will have sex with me."
Not true. Models are those on whom the clothes will look best. The clothes make the girls look more elegant stylish, not the other way around. The models are chosen from those who already have a large degree of these qualities, so as to suit the clothes. The clothes are elegant, stylish, tasteful etc. and therefore the models must be chosen to suit the clothing they're modelling in. Simple as that.
"Or in the case of viewers who physically desire the model, the fantasy is I imagine often, "Maybe that model will have sex with me."
Are you asserting that if a man will think that if he wears a female models clothes she will be more inclined to have sex with him? Maybe that model will have sex with the viewer if what?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
cheiros: so what should be done if most of society starts thinking your religion is immoral/anti-social?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
First they'd have to prove it was anti-social. If they justly manage that then I propose an extinction! Or just to take away their regognition as a group, and protected rights, under the law (except of course the right to organise or whatever it's called on the US Bill of Rights). But then, there is no world society so you could only disband a religion, just as with prostitution, God forbid it ever become legalised, one nation at a time.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think the women on whom clothes will look best are generally better-looking women. I think in a competition between two models, the model on whom the clothes will look the best will frequently be the better-looking model. I think your objection on that issue is pretty silly.
On the issue of fantasies, I don't know what. It would vary from individual to individual, obviously. Or it could just be, "Maybe that model will have sex with me," period as the basis for the fantasy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: As with any job, you use parts of your body. Thus everything is equivalent to prostitution?
Not exactly. I'm saying that prostitution is equivalent to everything else. Or at least that you haven't shown me any reason that it isn't.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Ahh, but it's very easy for society to deem the people who look good in the fashion styles that society find fashion to be good looking. You have to keep in mind that models are dolled up, and the clothes the model wears help eccentuate their attractiveness. Different cultures' (and past cultures') fashions are different, and if they looked at our fashion they might find it repulsive or otherwise untasteful (extremely conservative cultures certainly find it immoral, and therefore unstylish). It's just a matter of whether you choose to believe fashion styles are chosen to suit the attractive people, or the attractive people are seen as so because the fashions of the time/place look good on those people. I believe the latter.
Fashion is dictated by culture. Attractiveness is dictated by fashion. Not the other way around.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote: As with any job, you use parts of your body. Thus everything is equivalent to prostitution?
Not exactly. I'm saying that prostitution is equivalent to everything else. Or at least that you haven't shown me any reason that it isn't.
Prostitution isn't equivalent to everything else because it's a byproduct of a degrading society, and encouraging it doesn't help the society improve itself. It works the same as, IMO, starvation in some parts of Africa is the result of lack of control, freedom, and organisation over their own food supplies and agriculture, not "poverty".
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Prostitution isn't equivalent to everything else because it's a byproduct of a degrading society, and encouraging it doesn't help the society improve itself. It works the same as, IMO, starvation in some parts of Africa is the result of lack of control, freedom, and organisation over their own food supplies and agriculture, not "poverty".
However, prostitution fulfills a desire, starvation does not.
I'm not sure how you would show that prostitution is a byproduct of a degrading society. Although, you could argue that it might have a negative impact on society.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Prostitution is different because of the way people in the USA-and across the world-view sex, kmboots. Even in societies which historically have had more open and tolerant views of prostitution, it is viewed as fundamnentally different from other occupations.
People view sex differently than other physical activities. Whether it's as a sacred practice between a man and woman joined by God, or it's a pleasurable delight that everyone should revel in with whomever they please, they view it differently.
Posted by Sean (Member # 689) on :
Rakeesh -
quote:Yes, it's quite possible that this misery is due entirely to the fact that the "oldest profession" is currently "mismanaged". But it seems to me that the far more reasonable alternative to "legalize and regulate" would be first to take proactive efforts to reduce the need and desire and misery in prostitution currently, so we'll have more data to go on.
I'm curious what you would suggest.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay, you're telling me what is, but not why it is or why that makes sense.
quote: Whether it's as a sacred practice...or it's a pleasurable delight that everyone should revel in with whomever they please, they view it differently.
The same could have been said at one time about athletics. Or theatre.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Are you asking me to explain why human beings view sex as different from other physical activities?
I cannot possibly answer that question. There are countless perspectives as to what sex is, and thus why it is different.
-----
Sean,
Well for one thing society could go a long way to preventing women from "selling their butts for crack" just by better education about and treatment for drugs. Furthermore better education that actually works towards gainful employment of some type or another would work to increase the options people have about how to make a living-thus decreasing, just on the basis of math, the probability that a person will become a prostitute.
Furthermore, my question about prostitution degrading human beings has not been answered. Sean and kmbboots (sorry, I've been leaving the second 'b' out, no disrespect intended): How would you feel if your daughter or son decided to pursue a career in prostitution? Even if it was safe, clean, legal, and profitable? Also, would you encourage them to pursue such a career?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Not true. Models are those on whom the clothes will look best. The clothes make the girls look more elegant stylish, not the other way around. The models are chosen from those who already have a large degree of these qualities, so as to suit the clothes. The clothes are elegant, stylish, tasteful etc. and therefore the models must be chosen to suit the clothing they're modelling in. Simple as that.
I...there are so many things I could say.
Prostitutes are, in theory, chosen to suit the tastes of the people who hire them.
Also...the clothes are elegant, stylish, and tasteful? What about Fredrick's of Hollywood? Their products are arguably less tasteful. What about...I don't know. Fetish models? There are any number of sorts of modeling that many may not find tasteful or elegant.
-pH
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
"Also...the clothes are elegant, stylish, and tasteful? What about Fredrick's of Hollywood? Their products are arguably less tasteful. What about...I don't know. Fetish models? There are any number of sorts of modeling that many may not find tasteful or elegant."
You can lump them in the same category, but they're by no means anything alike. Mainstream modelling is relevant and respectable. Hollywood (not really mainstream IMO) and fetish modelling are just part of the "Underworld". I don't know what Fredrick's are, sorry.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
cheiros: I await an elucidation of how someone proves something antisocial.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:cheiros: I await an elucidation of how someone proves something antisocial.
A majority of the non-perpetrators of the "something" in question finding it offensive. Surely you must find something in your own culture (America?) offensive, and have a majority of the non-perpetrators of that "something" agree with you.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think of sex as sacramental and powerful and a gift. I also think of music (for example) that way. When I sing, it is empty unless I put my soul into it and unless I have a real connection to my audience and to what I am singing. I have to believe it.
Sometimes I get paid to sing. Sometimes I sing for just the joy of it, for myself. Sometimes I sing for someone else as a "gift". Sometimes I just fake it when I'm not really in the right mood.
Some musicians do start to see making music as drudgery. Sometimes that happens even when you are doing even something you love. I hate to see this happening, but I am hardly going say that musicians shouldn't be able to make their living that way.
Anything meaingful you do can be drudgery or it can be a sacrament. Depends on whether or not you approach it with joy. That would be my answer to someone I loved if they (in a world where it was safe, legal, and respected) wanted to go into any profession.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: "Also...the clothes are elegant, stylish, and tasteful? What about Fredrick's of Hollywood? Their products are arguably less tasteful. What about...I don't know. Fetish models? There are any number of sorts of modeling that many may not find tasteful or elegant."
You can lump them in the same category, but they're by no means anything alike. Mainstream modelling is relevant and respectable. Hollywood (not really mainstream IMO) and fetish modelling are just part of the "Underworld". I don't know what Fredrick's are, sorry.
Fredrick's of Hollywood is a racy lingerie shop. Think Victoria's Secret, but like, not even pretending to be tasteful.
Also, they're not part of any "underworld." They're very prevalent.
Mainstream modeling means what, exactly? Runway? Runway's got a set of issues all its own.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
And as for not encouraging one's children to encourage prostitution, I wouldn't encourage any child I had to persue a career in ditch digging. Should we make ditch digging illegal, too?
-pH
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
cheiros: I'm pretty certain I could find a majority of non-practitioners of several religious practices who find those religion practices offensive, including certain of the LDS church (particularly if I got to phrase the question). Similarly, I bet I could find that the majority of people consider certain words offensive. The list goes on.
Shall we ban all these?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Depends on whether or not you approach it with joy. That would be my answer to someone I loved if they (in a world whare it was safe, legal, and respected)wanted to go into any profession.
Clever. So...you would encourage and support your child's decision to become a prostitute if prostitution were safe, legal, and respected...but, wait, it's not respected. Almost throughout the world, and in America in particular, prostitution certainly isn't respected.
You haven't answered my question. Whether or not something is sacramental and meaningful has little to do-nothing, I would argue, when you're using words like "meaningful" and "sacramental"-with whether or not it's respected.
So, in the real world, the world we're living in, would you encourage your son or daughter (and in the world we're living in, most likely daughter based simply on gender discrimination and hypocrisy) to become a prostitute if they "approached it with joy"? You persist in framing the discussion in utterly abstract terms, ignoring the way most human beings-especially in America-view sex.
You wouldn't say to them, "Maybe there is some other profession you could pursue from which you'd get even more joy?"
Anything human beings do can be joyful, if the human being tries hard to take joy in it. Joy is a state of mind.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
pH,
And would you be ashamed if your son or daughter was a manual laborer?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
First of all, I didn't call Fredrick's part of the underword. Second, I don't see how lingerie can be tasteless, racy or otherwise, since it's only for use in private. That's really up to the individual, not the whole. Thirdly, you seem to have a problem with me considering runway fashion mainstream, and yet you treat Victoria secret in more or less the same way, just without the tag. And finally, there's not a single man made cultural activity that doesn't have "issues", that's not to say they havn't got the potential for acceptance, which runway modelling does.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Do you know ANYTHING about runway modeling? Do you know any runway models? Seriously.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: pH,
And would you be ashamed if your son or daughter was a manual laborer?
I don't know. I'd definitely encourage him or her to go to college; if I ever have kids, that's certainly something I want for them.
-pH
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Try not to get angry, cheiros, try to understand why people think your arguments are faulty. For instance, your last sentence about "potential for acceptance" could just as easily be applied to prostitution.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Sure, in the world we are living in, given the way most people view sex, I would probably discourage a son or daughter from becoming a prostitute. Not that I would be ashamed of them, but that their lives would be difficult. But isn't the point of this discussion to explore the ways we think that sex and prostitution should be viewed? And whether those views make sense?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Fugu, concerning your post before last (last on page 4), I already accounted for freedom of organisation in my beliefs. There are obviously exceptions when you bring swearing into it too (freedom of speech). Those freedoms exist to prevent a police state, but the law still remains neccessary after those freedoms are accounted for. Concerning the Latter-day Saints, you can't stop them from considering themselves a religion, but if the majority wishes, and can pass a law through congress, then they certainly should be able to make it no longer treated in the same way as other religions in America (e.g. tax exemption). But they won't pass that through Congress, and not just because there are Mormons in the US Parliament.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: Do you know ANYTHING about runway modeling? Do you know any runway models? Seriously.
-pH
Yes I do, actually. Do you expect that they've told me that it's a horrible profession? What does me knowing runway models have to do with anything?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
quote:Try not to get angry, cheiros, try to understand why people think your arguments are faulty. For instance, your last sentence about "potential for acceptance" could just as easily be applied to prostitution.
I'm not angry. I'm just trying to have a discussion here. I'm not too prideful to admit I'm wrong. You've just not managed to convince me yet. Sorry if you have a problem with that. This is the most involved I've ever got in a discussion here. Sorry if I'm not following the usual standards of practice, I'll try to improve on that, but right now I'm having trouble just keeping up with this thread (as well as a few others that come and go).
Regarding that point being just as easily applied to prostitution, from what I've learnt of context, the only way you could apply that to prostitution is by twisting my words into a completely different context, rending the entire idea redundant, which you seem more than happy to advocate. But then, I only learnt about context last year, so you will probably need to explain to me how applying it to prostitution would not be twisting my words.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not trying to convince you you're wrong, I'm still up in the air on the issue of prostitution. I think your arguments are fatally flawed, though.
For instance, why are people free to organize and do certain things for religious purposes but not for sexual purposes? You haven't accounted for the differences at all, you've merely asserted there are differences. What makes a state that restricts voluntary religious practices (well, more than our own; some voluntary religious practices are already restricted, of course) a police state while one that restricts sexual practices isn't?
The US doesn't have a Parliament, btw. But your notion that the majority should be able to restrict just about anything is frightening, to say the least.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
"But your notion that the majority should be able to restrict just about anything is frightening, to say the least."
Acually, when you bring the Bill of Rights in, that makes for a hell of a lot of things you can't restrict. Otherwise, what would be the point of the Bill of Rights?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Yes I do, actually. Do you expect that they've told me that it's a horrible profession? What does me knowing runway models have to do with anything?
Runway modeling is NOT as fun and glamorous as it's made out to be. Drug abuse and eating disorders run rampant. A runway model who is 5'10" absolutely could not weigh more than 120lbs in my home state, and that was pushing it. One model told me that she was considered "too curvy" for some clothes because her bra size was 32B. Until not too long ago, it was not uncommon to inject models with stimulants used to treat ADD in order to curb their appetites. I wouldn't be surprised if such practices were still used in many cases.
Runway models CAN have fun and CAN meet a lot of cool people and such, but there is also a huge potential for models to develop serious problems.
-pH
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
"For instance, why are people free to organize and do certain things for religious purposes but not for sexual purposes?"
Your not seriously asking me, an Australian, why the Bill of Rights allows for religious freedom, but not, for instance, making love in public?
Of course, if you think my citizenship disqualifies me from this discussion, say so and I'll leave. But I'm here to debate, and in robuttle I expect education on the subjects my opponents are putting up, not just a simple "We're right. It's that way because it is." But there are educational points in these robuttles, and I am being educated, but it's not making me change my opinion, at least not so far.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm here to debate
That's too bad.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I wasn't aware you cared much about the bill of rights, since you suggested the Congress should be able to delist a particular religion at (voted) whim, when that's something not allowed by the US bill of rights.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But isn't the point of this discussion to explore the ways we think that sex and prostitution should be viewed? And whether those views make sense?
I wasn't under the impression that's what the discussion was about-the question is whether or not prostitution should be legal or not. That question is tied to how people should view sex and prostitution, but moreso how they actually view the two things.
pH,
Why encourage them to go to college, instead of pursuing occupation in manual labor, if the pay and benefits are good and they're satisfied with it?
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
pH, my girlfriends sister's is a Runway model, she's not addicted to drugs, she doesn't have much of an appetite, she has a very small stomach so she doesn't need one. She weighs less so she needs less of thr nutrients that generally put on weight. Being underweight as far as BMI's go is not as much of a problem as a lot of people make it out to be. During my last years of highschool I was underweight and yet the fastest runner in my year.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
"I wasn't aware you cared much about the bill of rights, since you suggested the Congress should be able to delist a particular religion at (voted) whim, when that's something not allowed by the US bill of rights."
Between those two posts I was educated. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Well if it comes to "it is different because we think it is different", there isn't really much to discuss.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Why encourage them to go to college, instead of pursuing occupation in manual labor, if the pay and benefits are good and they're satisfied with it?
Parental ambition? Plenty of parents are disappointed that their kids decide to be artists instead of doctors. Plenty of parents want their kids to play sports all the time. I, personally, think a college education is very important for most people.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
cheiros, I'm not even sure there's a point to me continuing this discussion with you. For every example of a happy, well-adjusted, healthy model you give, I can probably give at least four to the contrary. In fact, if I cared to devote fifteen minutes of my life to such a discussion, I could probably come up with plenty of outside sources concerning drug use, eating disorders, and malnutrition in models.
-pH
Posted by Sean (Member # 689) on :
Rakeesh -
I don't think of the concept as necessarily degrading in all circumstances. In practice many people involved will likely find it to be, but there are lots of people that do jobs that I would find degrading. I also think it is substantially less degrading in cirumstances where legal acceptance gives them more control of their lives (with the tradeoff that their will be more people dealing with the lesser feeling of degradation because of the improved conditions). If someone is in a situation where they feel their best option is a job they find degrading, I don't believe you help them by taking that job away, you help them by improving their other opportunities (as you mention) with drug treatment, education, etc until the job is no longer the best option.
I'd make sure my sister (daughter is fairly abstract at this point) wasn't in a situation where she felt this was her only option, but that only works because I exist and have the means to do so. If there wasn't such an alternative I don't think she's helped by removing that option or making the working conditions dangerous. I wouldn't suggest pursuing it as a career, but that's true of lots of occupations (as pH was saying), and that's largely shaped by the associated stigma. In a different society... dunno, it's hard to accurately project cirumstances that different. I suspect I wouldn't be a fan, if only because I can be an emotionally jealous person and it seems like a job with alot of entanglements (also eww, gross).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There is, though. Instead of thrusting the "it's not different" stance onto people by legalizing prostitution now, I think it'd be more effective to gradually change people's minds about sex and prostitution.
First and foremost, by lessening the suffering many prostitutes endure.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
cheiros do ender's arguments may not seem to be the typical form of logic and debate to some people here. However, if I remember right he immigrated to Australia from Venezuela. Perhaps in the Latin American culture he grew up in what he is saying and how he is arguing it would resonate strongly with people there. I'm not suggesting any particular course of action, or excusing any comments. All I'm saying is that it might be useful to keep in mind that people here come from diverse backgrounds & cultures, and to insist that they conform to your notions may just alienate them and make things just a little more boring.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Oh yes, pH, you're too smart for me. I'll just shut up now because you "could probably" do all that. I'm so sorry I ever thought to disagree with you. How foolish of me.
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
Hmmmm...point made?
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:cheiros do ender's arguments may not seem to be the typical form of logic and debate to some people here. However, if I remember right he immigrated to Australia from Venezuela. Perhaps in the Latin American culture he grew up in what he is saying and how he is arguing it would resonate strongly with people there. I'm not suggesting any particular course of action, or excusing any comments. All I'm saying is that it might be useful to keep in mind that people here come from diverse backgrounds & cultures, and to insist that they conform to your notions may just alienate them and make things just a little more boring.
It's also a cheap excuse.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Fine. I'm writing a paper, but here's one article that mentions such things.
quote:Dr. Ruth Striegel-Moore, a professor of psychology at Wesleyan University, noted, "We've become so used to seeing extremely thin women, we've come to think this is what is beautiful." Fashion models weigh 25 percent less than the average American woman, who weighs 140 pounds and is five or more inches shorter than the typical model.
But while everyone is exposed to similar societal pressures to be thin, only a small percentage develop eating disorders. Those who succumb typically are prompted by extreme career pressures, as often happens to ballerinas, models, actresses and jockeys, or they have some underlying emotional and/or physical vulnerability.
-pH
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: There is, though. Instead of thrusting the "it's not different" stance onto people by legalizing prostitution now, I think it'd be more effective to gradually change people's minds about sex and prostitution.
Great. I think we need to change minds as well. We are hardly likely to change legislation without changing minds. How are we going to do that? I hope that one way might be to have conversations about whether those views make sense and why.
quote: First and foremost, by lessening the suffering many prostitutes endure.
I think that one way of lessening their suffering might be to stop making them criminals.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
Venezuela? I was born in Sydney, Australia. I now live in Perth, Australia. I don't know what excuse is being made. I don't see what I've done wrong. pH is the one shouting at me under the assumption that I know nothing about models, and then treating me as not worth talking to. Anyway, I'm reading the article she linked, so bear with me.
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:But your notion that the majority should be able to restrict just about anything is frightening, to say the least.
But doesn't the majority already wield that power, but maybe in a more indirect way? For example,
quote:since you suggested the Congress should be able to delist a particular religion at (voted) whim, when that's something not allowed by the US bill of rights.
A majority can influence how the bill of rights is interpreted, and thus, what defines a religion, which could then cause a specific religion to no longer be recognized. So in a sense, the majority does define the rules and laws.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
And I think that the criminality is often not first on the list of their problems. Drug addiction and major self-esteem issues probably rank higher.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
camus: no. There are significant checks on the majority in the US that lead to it not being able to assert control over the minority in frequent cases. These are often known as times where laws are thrown out of court, and happen regularly.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
"While most of us will simply eat to excess from Thanksgiving to the New Year and then worry about shedding the holiday gains, those with eating disorders will either shun holiday fare (and most other food) entirely or gorge on it and then purge to avoid putting the extra calories on their waists and hips."
This is a sweeping generalisation and doesn't count for those who were thin in the first place. We all know gluttony is a bad thing, whether looked at from a religious perspective or not. Some models simply do not have appetites like "the average American woman, who weighs 140 pounds and is five or more inches shorter than the typical model." Why is that such problem to you?
Of course you do have a point. Of all the models neccessary for (and in) the fashion world, there are not enough naturally thin girls, and so certainly a large percentage of them are doing what is described in this article. But I don't really care. There are problems in every sect of every culture, and they are all improvable. I have a lot of faith in the runway fashion industry, and I stand by my point that culture dictates fashion, and fashion dictates attracticeness, and you seem to have nothing to say to the contrary. In fact, all it seems to be doing is backing up that argument.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Um, wow. Okay. So all girls who aren't over 5'10" and who weigh more than 120lbs. are unattractive?
-pH
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
For my own sake, I hope society starts regarding them as unattractive. Rather improves my odds, since I don't share that particular standard Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I think it's sad that I feel pressure to lose weight. Logically, I really shouldn't. My BMI is between 18 and 19.
-pH
Posted by camus (Member # 8052) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: camus: no. There are significant checks on the majority in the US that lead to it not being able to assert control over the minority in frequent cases. These are often known as times where laws are thrown out of court, and happen regularly.
Hmmm, I was thinking of an even more indirect means of influence. The majority determines which political party controls congress as well as the presidential administration, which then can influence the political party lines of the supreme court, which then controls how the constitution is interpreted. Basic rights have been interpreted in many different ways during the last couple hundred years, all depending on the perspective of the majority.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
No, those who don't look good in the fashion of times are less attractive. Who doesn't acknowlege that supermodels are considered by society to be the most attractive people in the world? Of course, what society thinks doesn't control what you or I think, but it still stands.
Posted by cheiros do ender (Member # 8849) on :
You won't acknowledge that the fashion industry rightfully dictates societies view of attractiveness, and yet you act as if you do. Of course, it's the people (and not an elite) who decide what fashions are attractive, but its the fashion industry that puts up ideas, and then passes on the best to the world anyway.
We're not mindless slaves who just believe what the attractive people want us to believe is attractive (especially these apparently impressionable teenage girls and the low esteemed women of the America you seem to think are being victimised by this system). We're the one's who decide what's attractive, that's how it works in democratic nations (not just in politics), and anything wrong with the fashion industry we've brought on ourselves.
Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
quote:Originally posted by cheiros do ender: We're the one's who decide what's attractive, that's how it works in democratic nations (not just in politics), and anything wrong with the fashion industry we've brought on ourselves.
As a female madly in love with her body (most of the time!) and who is considered "attractive", I wholeheartedly disagree. I have a number of beautiful (I mean it, I'm not being nice) friends who have serious body issues. What have "we" done to bring this on ourselves, cheiros? Please, enlighten me.
When you say "we", I think you mean men, because I do not identify with what you are saying at all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:When you say "we", I think you mean men, because I do not identify with what you are saying at all.
It's hardly that simple. The fashion trends are enforced at least as much by women as by men.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Runway models are not picked because they are what the majority of people consider attractive. Runway models are picked to show off clothing. Clothing hangs better on thin, tall women without or with very small breasts. Designers pick these women so their designs are shown in the best possible way. If you look at picture from the runway, the women are usually totally expressionless. They don't smile, their eyes don't show emotion. The designers don't want you to be distracted by looking at the model's faces, you're supposed to be looking at the clothes.
Society does not consider them to be the most attractive people in the world. The majority of men I've met prefer women who look like women, with hips and breasts. Runway models are paid very well to maintain a figure that makes them a perfect clotheshanger.
Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:When you say "we", I think you mean men, because I do not identify with what you are saying at all.
It's hardly that simple. The fashion trends are enforced at least as much by women as by men.
Ohh I am far too lazy to pick out the we's I was referring to. I'm a horrible Hatracker, but I just wanted to say NO! to cheiros.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think we may be debating which is the cart and which is the horse at this point. I am saying that there is no reason that prostitution couldn't be viewed like any other profession. That there is no inherent reason that it has to be considered degrading or slavery.
I think that you are saying that we can't treat it like any other profession because most people view it as degrading or as slavery and until that changes, we should keep prostitution illegal because prostitutes are degraded and enslaved.
Am I getting it?
Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
Mmmm, Adriana Lima. The most attractive clotheshanger EVER.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:Society does not consider them to be the most attractive people in the world. The majority of men I've met prefer women who look like women, with hips and breasts. Runway models are paid very well to maintain a figure that makes them a perfect clotheshanger.
I don't think this gets communicated effectively to a lot of girls. Good lord, look at the pro-ana culture - statement enough of just how ridiculously thin the ideal is, regardless of what men actually find most attractive.
Posted by jennabean (Member # 8590) on :
I think girls just put on a huge show for eachother and the guys don't really matter because honestly, it doesn't take a lot to get most guys going.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by jennabean: I think girls just put on a huge show for eachother and the guys don't really matter because honestly, it doesn't take a lot to get most guys going.
I'm reminded of that South Park. What was it they called Bebe's boobs? "Ah-tah?"
-pH
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Good lord, look at the pro-ana culture
What is the "pro-ana culture"? I don't know what you are referring to.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Porter, "pro-ana culture" is a movement that is pro-anorexia (ana) and thinks it is a good and useful thing for young women (and men, presumably, although I've never heard of men being involved in it) to be a part of.
kmbboots, while I personally think that prostitution is in and of itself degrading for the people involved, your description is a substantial part of what I'm trying to say, yes.
Posted by erosomniac (Member # 6834) on :
quote:What is the "pro-ana culture"? I don't know what you are referring to.
It's a movement that views anorexia as a lifestyle choice, rather than a psychological problem. It's disturbingly popular, the same way emo music and general teenage rebellion are popular, and it's very dangerous: many girls who are pro-ana are self diagnosed, and in joining pro-ana groups create a huge feedback loop.
Members often keep a public weblog documenting their spirals of self hate, their diet plans, and post pictures of their ultra-skinny heroes. These pictures tend to be paired with pithy catch phrases for sheer shock value - e.g. posting a picture of a starving African woman with the caption "Perfection."
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Cool. I wanted to make sure I wasn't misreading you. Now (if you feel like continuing) do you personally think it is degrading because of the way society views sex? Do you agree with the way society views sex? Or do you think it is degrading because of something integral to prostitution?
edit to say that "cool" was in no way a reponse to the pro-ana stuff.
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
A group that considers anorexia to be a lifestyle choice instead of a disorder. Seriously.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, no because there isn't just one way, and yes, kmbboots. Unfortunately I have to go to work now and don't have a more detailed answer.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Have fun at work!
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
By the way, one of the arguments a ways back was that if prostitution was legalized the cost overruns would push the legal stuff out of the price range of most of the buyers and the cheap stuff would still be legal.
Obviously you are forgetting good old American capitalism. When eating out became too expensive, we just made fast food.
Enter: Pumpy's! The hot new franchise that lets you get what you need fast, hot, and utterly dependable. Just order off the brightly colored menu, choose a hair color and body shape, jump in the brightly-colored stall with the cheerful girl waiting inside on a plastic bench, and you're out of there in no time!
Drive-thrus would be a bit trickier, but I can't wait to see what the mascot will look like.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Jack in the Box"?
Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
Better than "Hardees", anyway.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah - JitB is kind is self-service anyway.
[ February 01, 2006, 06:05 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
O_O
Edit: kmboots, the above wasn't aimed at you, just at the unexpected visual I got from the mention of a mascot for a drive-thru brothel.
Oy, there it goes again. O_O
[ February 01, 2006, 06:13 PM: Message edited by: Olivet ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Awww...and I thought I was holding my own. So to speak.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
'I'd like my order super-sized, please.'
Posted by Sean (Member # 689) on :
"Done in 90 seconds or it's free"?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Chris...
I simply can't think of anything that I could actually post here and not violate the user agreement. But I'm laughing my sesame seed bun off, man!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Better than "Hardees", anyway.
I take it they don't serve "soft drinks" at this establishment?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
quote:Cool. I wanted to make sure I wasn't misreading you. Now (if you feel like continuing) do you personally think it is degrading because of the way society views sex? Do you agree with the way society views sex? Or do you think it is degrading because of something integral to prostitution?
I think it's degrading because of the way our society-and most societies-view sex. Throughout the word, "whore" is an insult slung against women and throughout the world it can get you anything from a returned insult to a punch in the face to deadly violence either from the woman or her male friends and relatives for saying so.
Degradation comes in part I think from how other people think of us. But that's a tricky thing, because of course there are things that have been viewed as degrading that are anything but, really. To use some of the most famous examples, Mother Teresa's work amongst the desperately and often filthy poor. A white person working with and for the civil rights movement.
I do not agree with the way society views sex. I don't think there is a single way that society does view sex, so saying, "I agree or disagree," would actually be doing either for a whole host of opinions. However, there is one way in general in which society views prostitution: negatively. It spans from shameful pity to shameful contempt, but the element of shame is almost always there.
And I think it is degrading because of something integral to prostitution as well. I think that unless you go out of your way to hammer into people when they're young that sex is just a meaningless physical activity no different from doing jumping jacks, just more fun, then people will always attach a special value to sex.
Even if they don't view it as something sacred, it's a rare, rare thing to find someone who would be as upset if their lover did some calesthenics with another person as they would be if they had sex with that other person.
I have my personal beliefs about sex which I believe are informed by God, but I think even an atheist must conclude that humanity in general views sex as something different from ditch-digging or working in advertisement or doing some other physical activity. Yes, it's possible that the majority of humanity is wrong: that sex is in fact no different from other physical activities-just more fun. But it seems to me the only way you can prove that is by raising people up from birth and indoctrinating them in that idea, and then see how they feel once they start having sex.
It seems an unjustified risk to me, at least unjustified by any reasons given in this thread, or any other argument I've heard. If it's helping the plight of women suffering in prostitution right now, there are other ways to help them before taking that enormous leap, ways such as better education about and treatment for drug addiction, that would help them in all aspects of their lives.
The argument, "People are 'bought' for their bodies all the time," doesn't work with me. Advertising, stripping, modeling, these things sell fantasies of sex, fantasies of usefulness, clothing, whatever. Fantasies of sex are a part of what's being sold. Sex itself not the actual "commodity". I know that for all intents and purposes, some individuals do treat sex as a commodity and even in their private lives buy and sell it. It angers me and cheapens them, but short of putting cops in the bedroom there isn't much that can be done about that.
I care about treating sex like a commodity. I care about how in most any other job, yes, you're renting out your labor and a piece of your mind, but even if you're ugly as hell, if you've got the skills and knowledge necessary, you can usually get the job unless someone equally qualified and better looking applies also, who might stand a better chance.
For all of those reasons, I'm against legalizing prostitution. Also for serious economic questions which have yet to be put to rest, such as those posed by Dagonee.
But the biggest reason I oppose legalizing prostitution is not actually first concerned with sex. It's concerned with the image in my head of a bunch of women up on a little platform-block-with some pimp, no doubt more clean-cut and polished and less abusive, but still a pimp-hawks the wares he's helped bring to the customers today.
I don't care if the women are up there voluntarily. I don't care if the pimp isn't slapping them around or stealing their money. I don't care if they're not all crippled by drug addiction and ignorance. I don't care if they're not going to be spreading disease. I don't care if by doing so, tax revenues would be gained.
I care about individual human beings up on the block being bought and sold and rented and traded for their bodies.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that we agree that there are practical issues due to the way society views sex. I think that I disagree with society more strongly than you do. I also think that, while you are describing the real world, I am describing what I think could be. So we are in no real disagreement there.
quote: And I think it is degrading because of something integral to prostitution as well. I think that unless you go out of your way to hammer into people when they're young that sex is just a meaningless physical activity no different from doing jumping jacks, just more fun, then people will always attach a special value to sex.
I attach a special value to sex, too. But I also attach a special value to a lot of other things. Art, music, dance, for example can be intimate expressions of one's soul, can be sacred. They can also be things one does professionally.
quote:Even if they don't view it as something sacred, it's a rare, rare thing to find someone who would be as upset if their lover did some calesthenics with another person as they would be if they had sex with that other person.
But how much of that is an "ownership" issue?
quote: I have my personal beliefs about sex which I believe are informed by God, but I think even an atheist must conclude that humanity in general views sex as something different from ditch-digging or working in advertisement or doing some other physical activity. Yes, it's possible that the majority of humanity is wrong: that sex is in fact no different from other physical activities-just more fun. But it seems to me the only way you can prove that is by raising people up from birth and indoctrinating them in that idea, and then see how they feel once they start having sex.
Again, rather than thinking sex something less, I maybe, am thinking of other activities as something more? And bear in mind that there are some people now who already have different views of sex - why should the government regulate their sex lives? If it is legal for a woman to accept a really nice gift after a night of sex, why not cash? Should the government really be getting into her motivations?
quote: It seems an unjustified risk to me, at least unjustified by any reasons given in this thread, or any other argument I've heard. If it's helping the plight of women suffering in prostitution right now, there are other ways to help them before taking that enormous leap, ways such as better education about and treatment for drug addiction, that would help them in all aspects of their lives.
Which I still think would be easier if they could go for help withour fear of being arrested.
quote: But the biggest reason I oppose legalizing prostitution is not actually first concerned with sex. It's concerned with the image in my head of a bunch of women up on a little platform-block-with some pimp, no doubt more clean-cut and polished and less abusive, but still a pimp-hawks the wares he's helped bring to the customers today.
I don't care if the women are up there voluntarily. I don't care if the pimp isn't slapping them around or stealing their money. I don't care if they're not all crippled by drug addiction and ignorance. I don't care if they're not going to be spreading disease. I don't care if by doing so, tax revenues would be gained.
I care about individual human beings up on the block being bought and sold and rented and traded for their bodies.
And here is where I think we most disagree. I don't think all that has to be a part of prostitution. Why does there need to be a pimp? Why are you assuming that human beings are being bought and sold by other people rather than contracting for services or "booking gigs". I am imagining artists who can choose their own clients and name their price. I suppose the really good ones could afford to hire a manager who would have to work really hard to keep the talent happy. Slaves were bought and sold usually for doing manual labor rather than sex. The people who do manual labor now aren't slaves because they have a choice about what jobs they take and don't take. If a prostitute has the same kinds of choices, why is she (or he) a slave?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Thanks for your well-reasoned reply, kmbboots. I will reply to it, but that may be tomorrow or even this weekend. I would right now, but I just got done rotating my tires. While I have one great hydraulic jack, I don't have any stands or cinder bricks handy, so I had to carefully use the really crappy one in my trunk.
Man, I need to buy a new jack to put in my trunk. Anyway, you've raised some interesting points again here. I'll think about `em when my mindset isn't "tired-annoyed-dirty".
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Be really careful with the crappy jack - we don't want you getting squished!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, it's crappy in that it (feels) makes you do pretty much all the work of lifting the darn car yourself. It's quite safe otherwise, heh.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Glad to hear it. I would hate to end this conversation because you got squished.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, there is always the danger of falling anvils, but so long as I watch out for elaborate traps, I think I'll be OK.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Watch out for coyotes and boxes labeled "Acme". I'm away fro the computer in the weekends, but I'll be back on Monday.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
quote:I attach a special value to sex, too. But I also attach a special value to a lot of other things. Art, music, dance, for example can be intimate expressions of one's soul, can be sacred. They can also be things one does professionally.
Value and special are relative words though, aren't they? I mean, those words lose some of their meaning the more things you define as specially valuable-and lose all meaning if you define all things as specially valuable, obviously. Just because something can be done professionally does not mean it should be done professionally, and 'professionally' is by no means a good thing, either.
quote:But how much of that is an "ownership" issue?
Well quite a lot is an 'ownership issue', I think. Actually I believe that can be used as a further example of the point I was making about words like special and value above. One reason sexually monogamous relationships are special is because each person is having sex with only their partner. And the world over, monogamy is valued even if infidelity is sometimes winked at or permitted in some way.
Lovers don't get upset if their lover paints a picture with another person, or plays some music. They might get upset, however, if their lover dances with another person-depending on the type of dance-and most especially if they have sex with another person.
quote:Again, rather than thinking sex something less, I maybe, am thinking of other activities as something more? And bear in mind that there are some people now who already have different views of sex - why should the government regulate their sex lives? If it is legal for a woman to accept a really nice gift after a night of sex, why not cash? Should the government really be getting into her motivations?
The first part of this I talked about above. By defining everything as greater, more special, more sacred, you reduce the sanctity and uniqueness of the thing to whose level you're raising everything else. If that sentence makes any sense...if not, consider it like inflation. Or gold.
Gold is valued because it is rare and pretty looking. But if you decide that everything is valuable, then gold loses its relative worth-the very thing that makes it special.
As for the government, why should the government regulate anything? Why shouldn't the government adopt a policy of, "If it feels good, do it!" The government should involve itself in the sex lives of human beings among its citizens precisely because those human beings view sex as so incredibly important. A government must be responsive to and aware of the needs and realities of its people.
Now, where the government responds and how are obviously trickier matters. That question involves other needs and realities of its people, such as privacy, civil rights, non-intrusive government, etc. All those things must be considered.
But the government must be involved to some extent with the sexuality of its people, because it's a Really Big Deal to them. I'm dealing here with your question, "Why should the government get involved?"
To your other question-why shouldn't the government get involved with the woman being a de facto prostitute? Well, precisely for the reason that its people have other needs and realities aside from sex, the things I mentioned above. There really is no way to stop this kind of de facto prostitution from taking place unless you outlaw gift-giving or drastically lower standards of proof in our courts. That's one big reason why the government shouldn't be getting into their motivations.
But to your unspoken point, I have less firm answers, and this point of yours is more troubling. The point I believe you've made elsewhere but haven't stated outright in this particular post is, "What's the difference between a prostitute taking paper money and giving a receipt in exchange for sexual activity with the customer, and this de facto prostitution?"
My answer is: there isn't a whole lot of difference. That sort of behavior-ohh, shiny, let's bang!-is troubling and depressing to me. But I think that often it's usually not so blatantly...merchantile as all that. Usually the gift-giver, in addition to giving some pretty flowers or lovely jewelry or candy or whatever, is also going out of their way to be very nice, friendly, charming, etc. etc. So in this particular example, doubtless the gift or hoped-for gift plays a role...but it's not the only role.
In prostitution, one person gives money and the other makes whoopie. We can only speculate with a high probability (at best) about what's really going on in the situation you describe. We know for a certainty what's going on with outright prostitution.
To me, that is a crucial difference.
quote:Which I still think would be easier if they could go for help withour fear of being arrested.
Yes, well I'm not in favor of easing their suffering and improving their lots in life, period. There are other considerations involved. Society should not be overturned in favor of their welfare, we should try to use the many tools at our disposal within society to improve their welfare.
quote:And here is where I think we most disagree. I don't think all that has to be a part of prostitution. Why does there need to be a pimp? Why are you assuming that human beings are being bought and sold by other people rather than contracting for services or "booking gigs". I am imagining artists who can choose their own clients and name their price. I suppose the really good ones could afford to hire a manager who would have to work really hard to keep the talent happy. Slaves were bought and sold usually for doing manual labor rather than sex. The people who do manual labor now aren't slaves because they have a choice about what jobs they take and don't take. If a prostitute has the same kinds of choices, why is she (or he) a slave?
Because the appetite for sex is different from appreciation of art. Because Mom'n'Pop stores are being overtaken by Super Wal-Marts and Home Depots. Because in point of fact, most artists don't live too well. "Starving artist" is a cliche for a reason.
There would be a pimp. He might not be a tacky dresser with a cane and a feathered hat. He might be "director of personnel" at Sex-Mart. But there'd still be a pimp, or a madame.
A legalized prostitute is not necessarily a slave. My biggest problem is the alarming images of slavery-the similarities. Normally that alone would not be enough to guarantee my opposition to legalized prostitution, but in light of finding no compelling reason why it should be openly legal, I see no reason to contort our culture and our society just because it might help and it "will probably" work out nicely.
That's a big, big leap. I think you need more evidence before proposing we make the jump.
Posted by Abhi (Member # 9142) on :
hello, so here's my first post at hattrack: I think that prostitution should be legalized. Because: 1. It will give prostitutes protection under the law against various forms of abuse. 2. It will allow prostitutes to have insurance, and healthcare benefits from their "employers". I presume that most prostitutes would join 'houses' or some sort of organizations instead of working independently. 3. It will make it easier to regulate the industry, and make reduces the chances of spreading STD's. for example, to have a prostitution license, you must submit results of various tests for STD's periodically. 4. Children of prostitutes will have a much better life.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It occurs to me that the discussion here seems to be in absolutes. But surely there exists a middle ground between the current level of crime-with-enforcement, and state-licensed brothels? Consider Sweden, where prostitution is legal but buying sex is not (the last victory of the feminist wing of the Social Democrats; apparently it has led to more beaten-up prostitutes by driving the law-abiding johns off the street.) Consider England, where prostitution is technically illegal, but enforcement is so spotty that every phone box is covered with ads for 'massage'. Consider Norway, where prostitution is legal but running a brothel is not. (And in Oslo at least, the competition from Eastern Europeans is driving the Norwegians uptown, and there have been nasty fights over street corners.) None of these solutions are ideal, by any means, but they do seem better to me than a complete prohibition, arbitrarily enforced. (I say arbitrarily because clearly, the law has not succeeded in completely suppressing prostitution.)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: kmbboots,
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I attach a special value to sex, too. But I also attach a special value to a lot of other things. Art, music, dance, for example can be intimate expressions of one's soul, can be sacred. They can also be things one does professionally. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Value and special are relative words though, aren't they? I mean, those words lose some of their meaning the more things you define as specially valuable-and lose all meaning if you define all things as specially valuable, obviously.
Nope. Going to have to disagree there. Special is not a zero sum game. If you have two children is one less special because her sister is special also?
quote: Just because something can be done professionally does not mean it should be done professionally, and 'professionally' is by no means a good thing, either.
I am by no means saying that professionals are always better at something than amateurs. Just saying that people are sometimes paid for things that are sacred, that touch the soul, that are "special", that are intimate.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But how much of that is an "ownership" issue? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well quite a lot is an 'ownership issue', I think. Actually I believe that can be used as a further example of the point I was making about words like special and value above. One reason sexually monogamous relationships are special is because each person is having sex with only their partner. And the world over, monogamy is valued even if infidelity is sometimes winked at or permitted in some way.
Lovers don't get upset if their lover paints a picture with another person, or plays some music. They might get upset, however, if their lover dances with another person-depending on the type of dance-and most especially if they have sex with another person.
Not true for everybody. When I have been in that kind of relationship I have been made much more insecure (the root of jealousy) by other kinds of intimacy. And again, not a zero sum game.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Again, rather than thinking sex something less, I maybe, am thinking of other activities as something more? And bear in mind that there are some people now who already have different views of sex - why should the government regulate their sex lives? If it is legal for a woman to accept a really nice gift after a night of sex, why not cash? Should the government really be getting into her motivations? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first part of this I talked about above. By defining everything as greater, more special, more sacred, you reduce the sanctity and uniqueness of the thing to whose level you're raising everything else. If that sentence makes any sense...if not, consider it like inflation. Or gold.
Gold is valued because it is rare and pretty looking. But if you decide that everything is valuable, then gold loses its relative worth-the very thing that makes it special.
See above.
quote: As for the government, why should the government regulate anything? Why shouldn't the government adopt a policy of, "If it feels good, do it!" The government should involve itself in the sex lives of human beings among its citizens precisely because those human beings view sex as so incredibly important. A government must be responsive to and aware of the needs and realities of its people.
Now, where the government responds and how are obviously trickier matters. That question involves other needs and realities of its people, such as privacy, civil rights, non-intrusive government, etc. All those things must be considered.
But the government must be involved to some extent with the sexuality of its people, because it's a Really Big Deal to them. I'm dealing here with your question, "Why should the government get involved?"
To your other question-why shouldn't the government get involved with the woman being a de facto prostitute? Well, precisely for the reason that its people have other needs and realities aside from sex, the things I mentioned above. There really is no way to stop this kind of de facto prostitution from taking place unless you outlaw gift-giving or drastically lower standards of proof in our courts. That's one big reason why the government shouldn't be getting into their motivations.
We disagree pretty seriously here, too. Precisely, because sex is so important and so individual I don't want the government involved at all with the sex lives of consenting adults. I think that the government should protect those that are incapable of making choices, children for example, but otherwise stay out of my choices. And because I view sex a certain way, and you view sex a certain way, doesn't mean that the government should dictate how we all view sex. I think our opinions on the role of government are very different.
quote: But to your unspoken point, I have less firm answers, and this point of yours is more troubling. The point I believe you've made elsewhere but haven't stated outright in this particular post is, "What's the difference between a prostitute taking paper money and giving a receipt in exchange for sexual activity with the customer, and this de facto prostitution?"
My answer is: there isn't a whole lot of difference. That sort of behavior-ohh, shiny, let's bang!-is troubling and depressing to me. But I think that often it's usually not so blatantly...merchantile as all that. Usually the gift-giver, in addition to giving some pretty flowers or lovely jewelry or candy or whatever, is also going out of their way to be very nice, friendly, charming, etc. etc. So in this particular example, doubtless the gift or hoped-for gift plays a role...but it's not the only role.
In prostitution, one person gives money and the other makes whoopie. We can only speculate with a high probability (at best) about what's really going on in the situation you describe. We know for a certainty what's going on with outright prostitution.
To me, that is a crucial difference.
To me that is a a neglible difference. Or rather prostitution may have an advantage because at least it is honest. How many men have pretended to love a woman just to have sex, or women faked both love and sex for a nice house and security?
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And here is where I think we most disagree. I don't think all that has to be a part of prostitution. Why does there need to be a pimp? Why are you assuming that human beings are being bought and sold by other people rather than contracting for services or "booking gigs". I am imagining artists who can choose their own clients and name their price. I suppose the really good ones could afford to hire a manager who would have to work really hard to keep the talent happy. Slaves were bought and sold usually for doing manual labor rather than sex. The people who do manual labor now aren't slaves because they have a choice about what jobs they take and don't take. If a prostitute has the same kinds of choices, why is she (or he) a slave? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the appetite for sex is different from appreciation of art. Because Mom'n'Pop stores are being overtaken by Super Wal-Marts and Home Depots. Because in point of fact, most artists don't live too well. "Starving artist" is a cliche for a reason.
There would be a pimp. He might not be a tacky dresser with a cane and a feathered hat. He might be "director of personnel" at Sex-Mart. But there'd still be a pimp, or a madame.
A legalized prostitute is not necessarily a slave. My biggest problem is the alarming images of slavery-the similarities. Normally that alone would not be enough to guarantee my opposition to legalized prostitution, but in light of finding no compelling reason why it should be openly legal, I see no reason to contort our culture and our society just because it might help and it "will probably" work out nicely.
That's a big, big leap. I think you need more evidence before proposing we make the jump.
You keep saying "contort our culture". We already have prostitution. We have always had prostitution. Now it is illegal and run by criminals. Heck, if it were legal, prostitutes could unionize. Pimps could become agents or managers. Less likely they are going to beat up on the talent if the talent can file a law suit or sic her union rep on them.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
quote:Nope. Going to have to disagree there. Special is not a zero sum game. If you have two children is one less special because her sister is special also?
Of course not. But answer me this. Which is worse? To have a child die if you have only one child? Or to have a child die if you have two, or three, or five?
That stance might offend some, and I confess I'm just guessing. I have no children, and I can only guess at the suffering inherent when a parent outlives their child. But I think that maybe it might not be so awful if there were other children around afterwards. I'm sorry if this is offensive to anyone-I realize it's a sensitive subject of which I am largely ignorant.
quote:I am by no means saying that professionals are always better at something than amateurs. Just saying that people are sometimes paid for things that are sacred, that touch the soul, that are "special", that are intimate.
I wasn't referring to professionals always being better at their work than amateurs, I was saying that just because something is done as a profession does not make it good.
quote:Not true for everybody. When I have been in that kind of relationship I have been made much more insecure (the root of jealousy) by other kinds of intimacy. And again, not a zero sum game.
You'll notice I used the word 'might' there. Let me be more specific. One would be more likely to be upset if their partner danced with another person, than they would if they sang a song with them. If they were to be angry at the dancing at all. Beyond that clarification I don't really understand what you're saying.
quote:We disagree pretty seriously here, too. Precisely, because sex is so important and so individual I don't want the government involved at all with the sex lives of consenting adults. I think that the government should protect those that are incapable of making choices, children for example, but otherwise stay out of my choices. And because I view sex a certain way, and you view sex a certain way, doesn't mean that the government should dictate how we all view sex. I think our opinions on the role of government are very different.
I don't really see what you're complaining about. The government doesn't stop you from practicing de facto prostitution-either as the john or the prostitute. It seems to me that you're complaining about a right to sell sex which isn't really threatened-as you and I agree, it happens all the time, and I'm not talking about street-walking hookers.
I think our views of government might not be so different as you think-I've admitted more than once that more than any problems I have with legalized prostitution on a legal level are my moral and ethical concerns about it, how it is strongly linked in my mind to slavery. I oppose any and all sodomy laws, I support legalized homosexual marriage, I oppose any laws restricting interracial relationships between consenting adults, I oppose "no tolerance" laws that label a seventeen year old having sex with his fifteen year old girlfriend a sexual predator, and I support widespread sex education beyond abstinence.
You can already sell sex, thus your aggrieved status on that score loses some of its momentum...and as far as lessening the suffering of prostitutes, there are other far more urgent problems besides the fact that prostitution is illegal that could be addressed to help them. Fix the third-floor bathroom after the kitchen fire is put out.
quote:You keep saying "contort our culture". We already have prostitution. We have always had prostitution. Now it is illegal and run by criminals. Heck, if it were legal, prostitutes could unionize. Pimps could become agents or managers. Less likely they are going to beat up on the talent if the talent can file a law suit or sic her union rep on them.
Obviously because it's illegal it is run by criminals. I think you are fully aware that it would be seriously contorting our culture to openly legalize prostitution, because as I'm sure you know, culture is concerned with many things-appearances and what we tell ourselves about ourselves among them, the things we do and do not tolerate or condone. Not just what is and isn't available.
Prostitutes could legalize? As Dagonee has mentioned, unless you're going to address the issues which make women so desperate as to engage in prostitution, unionization would have diminished effect, at best...because there will always be those horribly desperate, miserable women (and some men) who would be prostitutes to feed themselves, their children, their habits, or all three.
Prostitutes can already file a lawsuit on a violently abusive pimp.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote: kmbboots,
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nope. Going to have to disagree there. Special is not a zero sum game. If you have two children is one less special because her sister is special also? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course not. But answer me this. Which is worse? To have a child die if you have only one child? Or to have a child die if you have two, or three, or five?
That stance might offend some, and I confess I'm just guessing. I have no children, and I can only guess at the suffering inherent when a parent outlives their child. But I think that maybe it might not be so awful if there were other children around afterwards. I'm sorry if this is offensive to anyone-I realize it's a sensitive subject of which I am largely ignorant.
Yup. Now I really disagree.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not true for everybody. When I have been in that kind of relationship I have been made much more insecure (the root of jealousy) by other kinds of intimacy. And again, not a zero sum game. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You'll notice I used the word 'might' there. Let me be more specific. One would be more likely to be upset if their partner danced with another person, than they would if they sang a song with them. If they were to be angry at the dancing at all. Beyond that clarification I don't really understand what you're saying.
I would be more upset with the song actually, but that is beside the point. That some, even most, people are made insecure or jealous if their partner is not monogamous is not an indiction of how special sex is. Nor is it reason for the government to regulate it.
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We disagree pretty seriously here, too. Precisely, because sex is so important and so individual I don't want the government involved at all with the sex lives of consenting adults. I think that the government should protect those that are incapable of making choices, children for example, but otherwise stay out of my choices. And because I view sex a certain way, and you view sex a certain way, doesn't mean that the government should dictate how we all view sex. I think our opinions on the role of government are very different. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't really see what you're complaining about. The government doesn't stop you from practicing de facto prostitution-either as the john or the prostitute. It seems to me that you're complaining about a right to sell sex which isn't really threatened-as you and I agree, it happens all the time, and I'm not talking about street-walking hookers.
I think our views of government might not be so different as you think-I've admitted more than once that more than any problems I have with legalized prostitution on a legal level are my moral and ethical concerns about it, how it is strongly linked in my mind to slavery. I oppose any and all sodomy laws, I support legalized homosexual marriage, I oppose any laws restricting interracial relationships between consenting adults, I oppose "no tolerance" laws that label a seventeen year old having sex with his fifteen year old girlfriend a sexual predator, and I support widespread sex education beyond abstinence.
You can already sell sex, thus your aggrieved status on that score loses some of its momentum...and as far as lessening the suffering of prostitutes, there are other far more urgent problems besides the fact that prostitution is illegal that could be addressed to help them. Fix the third-floor bathroom after the kitchen fire is put out.
I'm not "aggrieved". I am asking why, if the government does not and should not prohibit exchanging expensive gifts, security, or lies for sex why should it prohibit exchanging cash for sex. What is the difference? If we can already sell sex, why can't we sell it for cash?
quote:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- You keep saying "contort our culture". We already have prostitution. We have always had prostitution. Now it is illegal and run by criminals. Heck, if it were legal, prostitutes could unionize. Pimps could become agents or managers. Less likely they are going to beat up on the talent if the talent can file a law suit or sic her union rep on them. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Obviously because it's illegal it is run by criminals. I think you are fully aware that it would be seriously contorting our culture to openly legalize prostitution, because as I'm sure you know, culture is concerned with many things-appearances and what we tell ourselves about ourselves among them, the things we do and do not tolerate or condone. Not just what is and isn't available.
Prostitutes could legalize? As Dagonee has mentioned, unless you're going to address the issues which make women so desperate as to engage in prostitution, unionization would have diminished effect, at best...because there will always be those horribly desperate, miserable women (and some men) who would be prostitutes to feed themselves, their children, their habits, or all three.
Prostitutes can already file a lawsuit on a violently abusive pimp.
I think here we are talking at cross purposes. You are talking about what is; I am talking about what is philosophically possible.
And do you really think a prostitute who is a criminal herself is as likely to turn to the law for protection as a prostitute who is not a criminal herself?
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
I mean, people make movies, write books, and other people pay money to watch those movies and read those books. Buyer, seller. Why isn't it okay to sell sexual services, or buy them? I can't think of any way that allowing prostitution to be legal can hurt anyone - besides the obvious possibilities of abuse, which already exist in strip clubs everywhere. Why is stripping and pornography (the fantasy of sex) legal, but services (the reality of sex) aren't?![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
Some of us would say that one shouldn't go to the girlfriend, either, you know. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I was born in Sydney, Australia. I now live in Perth, Australia. I don't know what excuse is being made. I don't see what I've done wrong. pH is the one shouting at me under the assumption that I know nothing about models, and then treating me as not worth talking to. Anyway, I'm reading the article she linked, so bear with me.