Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Prostitutes!

Limp mooseLimp moose Registered User regular
edited February 2009 in Debate and/or Discourse
Hookers, Madams, Ladies of the night, and the legality of said activities.

Last evening I got into an argument with my girl friend about the above ladies. (we live in the US)

My position was that selling sex should be legal. She was apposed.

My thinking is that. If you have a situation where hookers are licensed and work in legitimate brothels ala reno bunny ranch, Amsterdam, lots of places over seas. They will have mandatory health care, security, and a clean place to do the deed. They will also have the police as a legal recourse if they get raped or stolen from/ roughed up.

Where as with it being illegal they can't go to the cops, They can be preyed upon by pimps. And they have no mandatory health care so they could be spreading disease.

Her argument pretty much centered around the idea that hookers are gross and I was a pig for even bringing it up. Also those girls get what they deserve. I am curious if anyone here agrees with me or at least has a valid reason for it being illegal.

Limp moose on
«134

Posts

  • WillyGilliganWillyGilligan Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I don't think that being a criminal automatically removes your right to not be the victim of a crime "they get what they deserve". I agree with you that if it was legal there would be more recourse to legal protections from abusive pimps and johns among other things. I still wouldn't go to one, but I think my distaste isn't enough to make it a crime.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    See, the thing is that where it's legal, the girls still get fucked over, it's just that they tend to get fucked over in a manner that is legal. For example, there are a lot of places where it can be near impossible to get a new job that's halfway decent if you were a legal prostitute.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • WillyGilliganWillyGilligan Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Could that be semi-fixed with appropriate anti-discrimination laws?

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Limp moose wrote: »
    Her argument pretty much centered around the idea that hookers are gross and I was a pig for even bringing it up.

    She's an idiot.

    Though in our current society I'm not sure women have reached a level of equality in which legalized prostitution would be a valid choice, rather than something a woman generally falls back into because she has to. And I'm not sure that's all that great of a thing.

    Yes, I realize there exist male prostitutes. But they seem to be the exception, rather than the rule. Particularly straight male prostitutes. I could be wrong, though.


    As it stands I'm not sure which arrangement provides the lesser of two evils, but honestly I lean towards legalized prostitution. Though perhaps better would be to decriminalize prostitution but still go after their customers.


    Either way I can never figure out logically why it's illegal to fuck somebody for money, but it becomes legal as soon as there's a camera in the room.

    Spoiler:
  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    See, the thing is that where it's legal, the girls still get fucked over, it's just that they tend to get fucked over in a manner that is legal. For example, there are a lot of places where it can be near impossible to get a new job that's halfway decent if you were a legal prostitute.

    Heck, look at the way women who work at or near a school (not even just teachers, but aides/lunch ladies) get treated if it gets out that they worked in the (legal) porn industry. It's a death sentence for their career. I think prostitution should be legal and safe, but even more I want people to stop being fucking idiots about sex.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    KalTorak wrote: »
    See, the thing is that where it's legal, the girls still get fucked over, it's just that they tend to get fucked over in a manner that is legal. For example, there are a lot of places where it can be near impossible to get a new job that's halfway decent if you were a legal prostitute.

    Heck, look at the way women who work at or near a school (not even just teachers, but aides/lunch ladies) get treated if it gets out that they worked in the (legal) porn industry. It's a death sentence for their career. I think prostitution should be legal and safe, but even more I want people to stop being fucking idiots about sex.

    This is why Limp Moose's girl is a fucking idiot, regardless of whether legalized prostitution is a good idea or not.

    Spoiler:
  • EggyToastEggyToast Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Would legal prostitution reduce the amount of illegal prostitution?

    One of the reasons many people argue in favor of legalizing drugs is that it would drastically reduce the illegal sale of drugs (which begets crime and, often, poisoning). People would rather go to Walgreens and get some OTC Weed than from Seedy Dealer in a bad part of town.

    I can't say the same would hold true with prostitution. A legal prostitute would likely charge more and carry a stigma. An illegal prostitute would avoid paying taxes and could do it on the side, under a fake name, hiding it from employers and family.

    || Flickr — || PSN: EggyToast
  • WezoinWezoin Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    See, the thing is that where it's legal, the girls still get fucked over, it's just that they tend to get fucked over in a manner that is legal. For example, there are a lot of places where it can be near impossible to get a new job that's halfway decent if you were a legal prostitute.

    But... if a potential employer finds out that you were an illegal prostitute you're even less likely to get a job, and by legalizing it the negative connotations of being a prostitute will start to dissipate, at least slightly lessening this effect. I think that making it legal, and removing so many of the negative problems, shouldn't be ignored just because there is a negative effect that isn't solved.

  • JeedanJeedan Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Prostitutes arent actually legally required to get check ups or use condoms in amsterdam. I dont have an opinion on prostitution one way or the other just throwing that out there.

    samnmaxsigco0.jpg
  • ObsObs __BANNED USERS regular
    edited February 2009
    I'd support it but only if it requires a license that must be updated regularly, monthly STD tests, sin tax, and if the final decision is left up to individual states.

    spacer.png
    spacer.png
    Obs.gif
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User
    edited February 2009
    EggyToast wrote: »
    I can't say the same would hold true with prostitution. A legal prostitute would likely charge more and carry a stigma. An illegal prostitute would avoid paying taxes and could do it on the side, under a fake name, hiding it from employers and family.

    You can fuck a hot as hell hooker in amsterdam for like 60 bucks. Try doing that in America.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Wezoin wrote: »
    But... if a potential employer finds out that you were an illegal prostitute you're even less likely to get a job, and by legalizing it the negative connotations of being a prostitute will start to dissipate, at least slightly lessening this effect. I think that making it legal, and removing so many of the negative problems, shouldn't be ignored just because there is a negative effect that isn't solved.

    You...you're joking, right? No, legalization would not eliminate the negative connotations. (As pointed out above, there's a similar backlash against those who were in the porn industry.) In a lot of cases, all it does is replace the pimp with the bordello owner, who ends up having the law on their side now.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • VariableVariable Weed and Masturbation Stroke Me Lady FameRegistered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Wezoin wrote: »
    But... if a potential employer finds out that you were an illegal prostitute you're even less likely to get a job, and by legalizing it the negative connotations of being a prostitute will start to dissipate, at least slightly lessening this effect. I think that making it legal, and removing so many of the negative problems, shouldn't be ignored just because there is a negative effect that isn't solved.

    You...you're joking, right? No, legalization would not eliminate the negative connotations. (As pointed out above, there's a similar backlash against those who were in the porn industry.) In a lot of cases, all it does is replace the pimp with the bordello owner, who ends up having the law on their side now.

    why couldn't the law be on the girl's side?

    Steam Profile - Variable114 | WiiU - Variable | 3DS - 3866-8105-7478
    Sig%20-%20Reggie%20Watts.png
  • wwtMaskwwtMask Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    EggyToast wrote: »
    Would legal prostitution reduce the amount of illegal prostitution?

    One of the reasons many people argue in favor of legalizing drugs is that it would drastically reduce the illegal sale of drugs (which begets crime and, often, poisoning). People would rather go to Walgreens and get some OTC Weed than from Seedy Dealer in a bad part of town.

    I can't say the same would hold true with prostitution. A legal prostitute would likely charge more and carry a stigma. An illegal prostitute would avoid paying taxes and could do it on the side, under a fake name, hiding it from employers and family.

    Which is pretty much what happens now anyway. I'll bet, though, that many prostitutes would prefer to get licensed/work for a licensed proprietor so that they don't have to deal with all the hassle from cops. Those girls would not burden the legal system, would pay taxes on their earnings, and would, I think, be safer because they're not trying to operate in secret.

    When he dies, I hope they write "Worst Affirmative Action Hire, EVER" on his grave. His corpse should be trolled.
    Twitter - @liberaltruths | Google+ - http://gplus.to/wwtMask | Occupy Tallahassee
  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Obs wrote: »
    I'd support it but only if it requires a license that must be updated regularly, monthly STD tests, sin tax, and if the final decision is left up to individual states.

    I don't see why it would be a decision left up to states. Sex between consenting adults should never be regulated, whether it's for fun, profit, or fun and profit.

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Wezoin wrote: »
    But... if a potential employer finds out that you were an illegal prostitute you're even less likely to get a job, and by legalizing it the negative connotations of being a prostitute will start to dissipate, at least slightly lessening this effect. I think that making it legal, and removing so many of the negative problems, shouldn't be ignored just because there is a negative effect that isn't solved.

    You...you're joking, right? No, legalization would not eliminate the negative connotations. (As pointed out above, there's a similar backlash against those who were in the porn industry.) In a lot of cases, all it does is replace the pimp with the bordello owner, who ends up having the law on their side now.

    Is employer's discriminating against (what would be) a legal activity an argument for keeping (or making) something illegal though?

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • Limp mooseLimp moose Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    EggyToast wrote: »
    Would legal prostitution reduce the amount of illegal prostitution?

    One of the reasons many people argue in favor of legalizing drugs is that it would drastically reduce the illegal sale of drugs (which begets crime and, often, poisoning). People would rather go to Walgreens and get some OTC Weed than from Seedy Dealer in a bad part of town.

    I can't say the same would hold true with prostitution. A legal prostitute would likely charge more and carry a stigma. An illegal prostitute would avoid paying taxes and could do it on the side, under a fake name, hiding it from employers and family.

    See i would much rather use a legal prostitute because of the disease issue. A legal one would have mando check ups. With the illegal ones you get aids. Fuck that noise!

    Also ease up on my girlfriend she is not an "idiot" she just didnt like the idea of me going to see legal hookers.
    Well maybe she is an idiot but still be nice!

  • Limp mooseLimp moose Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Jeedan wrote: »
    Prostitutes arent actually legally required to get check ups or use condoms in amsterdam. I dont have an opinion on prostitution one way or the other just throwing that out there.

    They are in Nevada.

  • WezoinWezoin Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Variable wrote: »
    Wezoin wrote: »
    But... if a potential employer finds out that you were an illegal prostitute you're even less likely to get a job, and by legalizing it the negative connotations of being a prostitute will start to dissipate, at least slightly lessening this effect. I think that making it legal, and removing so many of the negative problems, shouldn't be ignored just because there is a negative effect that isn't solved.

    You...you're joking, right? No, legalization would not eliminate the negative connotations. (As pointed out above, there's a similar backlash against those who were in the porn industry.) In a lot of cases, all it does is replace the pimp with the bordello owner, who ends up having the law on their side now.

    why couldn't the law be on the girl's side?

    I'm not trying to suggest Prostitutes would suddenly be seen as happy fun time, just that decriminalizing things, over time, does have a tendency to make them seem less "bad" by general society. Alcohol, for example, has become much more widely accepted by society than during prohibition.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Variable wrote: »
    Wezoin wrote: »
    But... if a potential employer finds out that you were an illegal prostitute you're even less likely to get a job, and by legalizing it the negative connotations of being a prostitute will start to dissipate, at least slightly lessening this effect. I think that making it legal, and removing so many of the negative problems, shouldn't be ignored just because there is a negative effect that isn't solved.

    You...you're joking, right? No, legalization would not eliminate the negative connotations. (As pointed out above, there's a similar backlash against those who were in the porn industry.) In a lot of cases, all it does is replace the pimp with the bordello owner, who ends up having the law on their side now.

    why couldn't the law be on the girl's side?

    Yeah, I don't see a problem with a law that says "Don't slap your hoes or you'll lose your license."

    As to competition between legal and illegal prostitution, being legal would (hopefully) mean up-to-date STD testing, meaning that for a john there'd be a lot less risk in going to a legal prostitute than an illegal one.

    Heck, if you could get it categorized as some kind of therapy, you could probably make the transactions confidential, a la doctor-patient confidentiality.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I find it interesting (and quite telling) that everyone here is adamant about STD screenings for the gals...but not a single one of you has brought up requiring that johns be screened as well.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Legal prostitutes could also be self-employed. And, let's not forget that prostitutes can be both male and female. No need to discriminate in this thread.

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I find it interesting (and quite telling) that everyone here is adamant about STD screenings for the gals...but not a single one of you has brought up requiring that johns be screened as well.

    Trying to cast aspersions on people in favor of legalizing prostitution rather than continuing a discussion? Sounds something FOX news would do.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • Dr Mario KartDr Mario Kart Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Either way I can never figure out logically why it's illegal to fuck somebody for money, but it becomes legal as soon as there's a camera in the room.
    Secondarily, its also legal if you do so under the guise of dating and/or marriage. Note that the participants dont need to be conscious of the underlying motives.

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I find it interesting (and quite telling) that everyone here is adamant about STD screenings for the gals...but not a single one of you has brought up requiring that johns be screened as well.

    Err... has anyone said that johns shouldn't be screened?

  • WezoinWezoin Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    I find it interesting (and quite telling) that everyone here is adamant about STD screenings for the gals...but not a single one of you has brought up requiring that johns be screened as well.

    Well, maybe they could. Maybe you could make a "John License" necessary that involved a monthly/bi-monthly/whatever frequency STD screening. Or just legalize prositution with condoms (not 100% solution, but either is a regular test since he could have gotten it the day before.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I find it interesting (and quite telling) that everyone here is adamant about STD screenings for the gals...but not a single one of you has brought up requiring that johns be screened as well.

    Err... has anyone said that johns shouldn't be screened?

    No, but neither has anyone said that they should.

    And lazegamer, it is very much a valid point, because it shows exactly where most people discussing the issue are coming in from (hint - it's not from the perspective of the prostitute.)

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • geckahngeckahn Registered User
    edited February 2009
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I find it interesting (and quite telling) that everyone here is adamant about STD screenings for the gals...but not a single one of you has brought up requiring that johns be screened as well.

    Err... has anyone said that johns shouldn't be screened?

    someone needs to explain to me how thats viable.

    condoms, obviously, shall be used.

  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Wezoin wrote: »
    I find it interesting (and quite telling) that everyone here is adamant about STD screenings for the gals...but not a single one of you has brought up requiring that johns be screened as well.

    Well, maybe they could. Maybe you could make a "John License" necessary that involved a monthly/bi-monthly/whatever frequency STD screening. Or just legalize prositution with condoms (not 100% solution, but either is a regular test since he could have gotten it the day before.

    Are restaurant patrons tested for the ebola virus or turburculosis before they go to McDonalds? The government should only regulate the provider of services and not the purchaser.

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Wezoin wrote: »
    I find it interesting (and quite telling) that everyone here is adamant about STD screenings for the gals...but not a single one of you has brought up requiring that johns be screened as well.

    Well, maybe they could. Maybe you could make a "John License" necessary that involved a monthly/bi-monthly/whatever frequency STD screening. Or just legalize prositution with condoms (not 100% solution, but either is a regular test since he could have gotten it the day before.

    Are restaurant patrons tested for the ebola virus or turburculosis before they go to McDonalds? The government should only regulate the provider of services and not the purchaser.

    Yes, because the woman providing the service has no right to be assured of her safety.

    And people wonder why they get looked at like they have two heads when they suggest legalizing prostitution.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum
    Spoiler:
  • Limp mooseLimp moose Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Actually in nevada if you want to fuck one of the legal girls they check your dick for obvious STD's and condom use is mando. Even blowjobs you wear a condom.

    Not like I have ever been to one of these places or anything D:

  • KalTorakKalTorak Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Wezoin wrote: »
    I find it interesting (and quite telling) that everyone here is adamant about STD screenings for the gals...but not a single one of you has brought up requiring that johns be screened as well.

    Well, maybe they could. Maybe you could make a "John License" necessary that involved a monthly/bi-monthly/whatever frequency STD screening. Or just legalize prositution with condoms (not 100% solution, but either is a regular test since he could have gotten it the day before.

    Are restaurant patrons tested for the ebola virus or turburculosis before they go to McDonalds? The government should only regulate the provider of services and not the purchaser.

    The restaurant analogy doesn't really work, since a John with an STD could pass it to a lot of other customers (depending on the frequency of the STD testing), not to mention the prostitute. Customers at restaurants aren't preparing food for other customers; they might sneeze on them or something but that could conceivably happen anywhere.

    The John's license might be the safest way to go about it, or attaching a clinic and checking them at the door or something... getting a blood test might put a bit of a harsh on your boner though D:

  • geckahngeckahn Registered User
    edited February 2009
    making prostitution legal and requiring a johns license does seem like a fantastic way to destroy the industry. or drive it back into the black market.

  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Wezoin wrote: »
    I find it interesting (and quite telling) that everyone here is adamant about STD screenings for the gals...but not a single one of you has brought up requiring that johns be screened as well.

    Well, maybe they could. Maybe you could make a "John License" necessary that involved a monthly/bi-monthly/whatever frequency STD screening. Or just legalize prositution with condoms (not 100% solution, but either is a regular test since he could have gotten it the day before.

    Are restaurant patrons tested for the ebola virus or turburculosis before they go to McDonalds? The government should only regulate the provider of services and not the purchaser.

    That's a pretty strong axiom. You might want to re-evaluate that. I'm pretty sure we do place regulations on customers to protect workers in other sectors.

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    Wezoin wrote: »
    I find it interesting (and quite telling) that everyone here is adamant about STD screenings for the gals...but not a single one of you has brought up requiring that johns be screened as well.

    Well, maybe they could. Maybe you could make a "John License" necessary that involved a monthly/bi-monthly/whatever frequency STD screening. Or just legalize prositution with condoms (not 100% solution, but either is a regular test since he could have gotten it the day before.

    Are restaurant patrons tested for the ebola virus or turburculosis before they go to McDonalds? The government should only regulate the provider of services and not the purchaser.

    Yes, because the woman providing the service has no right to be assured of her safety.

    And people wonder why they get looked at like they have two heads when they suggest legalizing prostitution.

    Then she can refuse service unless proper protection and/or medical records are provided. Easy solution.

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Wezoin wrote: »
    I find it interesting (and quite telling) that everyone here is adamant about STD screenings for the gals...but not a single one of you has brought up requiring that johns be screened as well.

    Well, maybe they could. Maybe you could make a "John License" necessary that involved a monthly/bi-monthly/whatever frequency STD screening. Or just legalize prositution with condoms (not 100% solution, but either is a regular test since he could have gotten it the day before.

    Are restaurant patrons tested for the ebola virus or turburculosis before they go to McDonalds? The government should only regulate the provider of services and not the purchaser.

    That's a pretty strong axiom. You might want to re-evaluate that. I'm pretty sure we do place regulations on customers to protect workers in other sectors.

    Such as?

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
  • Limp mooseLimp moose Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    KalTorak wrote: »
    Wezoin wrote: »
    I find it interesting (and quite telling) that everyone here is adamant about STD screenings for the gals...but not a single one of you has brought up requiring that johns be screened as well.

    Well, maybe they could. Maybe you could make a "John License" necessary that involved a monthly/bi-monthly/whatever frequency STD screening. Or just legalize prositution with condoms (not 100% solution, but either is a regular test since he could have gotten it the day before.

    Are restaurant patrons tested for the ebola virus or turburculosis before they go to McDonalds? The government should only regulate the provider of services and not the purchaser.

    The restaurant analogy doesn't really work, since a John with an STD could pass it to a lot of other customers (depending on the frequency of the STD testing), not to mention the prostitute. Customers at restaurants aren't preparing food for other customers; they might sneeze on them or something but that could conceivably happen anywhere.

    The John's license might be the safest way to go about it, or attaching a clinic and checking them at the door or something... getting a blood test might put a bit of a harsh on your boner though D:

    Like i said that does happen at the legal brothels in reno. They take you in a special room and use a bright lamp to examine you with a little card of shit they look for. Any of the stuff on the card and its NO CAN DO! Again I have not personally used this service but this is how it works.

  • lazegamerlazegamer Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Wezoin wrote: »
    I find it interesting (and quite telling) that everyone here is adamant about STD screenings for the gals...but not a single one of you has brought up requiring that johns be screened as well.

    Well, maybe they could. Maybe you could make a "John License" necessary that involved a monthly/bi-monthly/whatever frequency STD screening. Or just legalize prositution with condoms (not 100% solution, but either is a regular test since he could have gotten it the day before.

    Are restaurant patrons tested for the ebola virus or turburculosis before they go to McDonalds? The government should only regulate the provider of services and not the purchaser.

    That's a pretty strong axiom. You might want to re-evaluate that. I'm pretty sure we do place regulations on customers to protect workers in other sectors.

    Such as?

    Continuing with your restaurant analogy, we require that patrons are sanitary. No shirt, No shoes, No service etc..

    Surprise.
    - Spy
  • KageraKagera Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    KalTorak wrote: »
    I find it interesting (and quite telling) that everyone here is adamant about STD screenings for the gals...but not a single one of you has brought up requiring that johns be screened as well.

    Err... has anyone said that johns shouldn't be screened?

    No, but neither has anyone said that they should.

    And lazegamer, it is very much a valid point, because it shows exactly where most people discussing the issue are coming in from (hint - it's not from the perspective of the prostitute.)

    Do you just make up reasons to ride a high horse now? Oh no someone didn't mention every single aspect of prostitution, damn misogynists.

    Goddamn Hedgie, stop trying to argue against something no one else is advocating. We're not coming up with legislation here, we're just shooting around our ideas and shit.

    Instead of attacking people for not thinking of every single angle, why don't you try to bring it up in a halfway constructive matter?

    I guess that wouldn't give you as much of a hard-on.

    “This is America. We’re entitled to our opinions.”
    “Wrong. This is Texas. And my opinion is the only one that counts."
  • Richard_DastardlyRichard_Dastardly Registered User regular
    edited February 2009
    lazegamer wrote: »
    lazegamer wrote: »
    Wezoin wrote: »
    I find it interesting (and quite telling) that everyone here is adamant about STD screenings for the gals...but not a single one of you has brought up requiring that johns be screened as well.

    Well, maybe they could. Maybe you could make a "John License" necessary that involved a monthly/bi-monthly/whatever frequency STD screening. Or just legalize prositution with condoms (not 100% solution, but either is a regular test since he could have gotten it the day before.

    Are restaurant patrons tested for the ebola virus or turburculosis before they go to McDonalds? The government should only regulate the provider of services and not the purchaser.

    That's a pretty strong axiom. You might want to re-evaluate that. I'm pretty sure we do place regulations on customers to protect workers in other sectors.

    Such as?

    Continuing with your restaurant analogy, we require that patrons are sanitary. No shirt, No shoes, No service etc..

    That would be the restaurant's policy.

    I could use an analogy of a dentist providing care for a patient with, say, the bad kind of hepatitis. While the dentist may require a patient to fill out paperwork listing what diseases one may or may not have, there are usually no government requirements forcing dental patients to be tested for communicable diseases. **Yeah, it's imperfect, and that's why analogies tend to suck when trying to prove arguments.

    Anyway, it doesn't quite matter since any prostitute, self-employed or employed through a brothel, has the option to test customers his/herself, require medical paperwork or simply refuse service to dirty, dirty people.

    ಠ_ರೃ wrote: »
    cats are douches
«134
Sign In or Register to comment.