Which is why legalizing and regulating it would be a good thing. They wouldn't have to deal with that kind of thing in licensed brothels.
Which is exactly what I said on the last page.
Although I say that legalisation would reduce, but not eliminate, these problems.
EDIT: The situation with prostitution in Nevada is far from rosy - it's still ran almost exclusively by the mafia, control is a big issue, etc. I don't know about other countries with legal prostitution.
Primarily, because entering the world of prostitution is rarely a 'choice' in any real sense of the term.
Second, because the very nature of prostitution is that the prostitute is treated entirely as a sex object.
Do you not think that having to line up with a bunch of other women at the ringing of a bell, naked or nearly so, so some random person you've never even seen before can decide if they want to fuck you just because they've got the money to do it, regardless of whether or not you really want to - the situation doesn't sound even the least bit degrading to you? Even this is one of the better scenarios for a prostitute. Far worse is street prostitution, where the woman literally places her life in the john's hands every time she steps into a car. As I'm sure you're well aware, many of them never step out.
Not to mention the cycles of drug addiction and physical and emotional abuse prostitutes are often subjected to in order to keep them under control of their pimp.
First, can we agree that prostitution isn't solely about women selling sex. Men do as well, although less frequently.
I'd never deny that there aren't, at best, shady aspects to prostitution. At worst some situations are outright violations of human rights. But, just as there are 'exotic' dancers and porn actors, there are also men and women who choose, for whatever reasons that are solely their own, to sell sex. You can't really slap these people with the moral stick if they are, by their own free will, entering into a business that objectifies them. I believe that it's these individuals we're discussing, not sex slaves or men and women otherwise forced into compromising situations.
First, can we agree that prostitution isn't solely about women selling sex. Men do as well, although less frequently.
I'd never deny that there aren't, at best, shady aspects to prostitution. At worst some situations are outright violations of human rights. But, just as there are 'exotic' dancers and porn actors, there are also men and women who choose, for whatever reasons that are solely their own, to sell sex. You can't really slap these people with the moral stick if they are, by their own free will, entering into a business that objectifies them. I believe that it's these individuals we're discussing, not sex slaves or men and women otherwise forced into compromising situations.
I have my doubts that there are enough 'willing' potential prostitutes (male or female) to go around.
For me, it comes down to a simple question: Has there ever been a time in your life, for whatever reason, when you would have considered peddling your ass to pay the rent?
The degree of willingness which is involved in exotic dancing/porn is a whole other thread and I agree that we shouldn't go off on that tangent here, lest we derail. But I draw a line between the two activities anyway, because both porn and stripping have a certain 'hands-off' boundary line that prostitution does not. Putting prostitution in legal, regulated brothels would help, as would a simple decriminalisation of prostitution (which needs to have been done a long time ago). But even legal brothels have problems and would need to be monitored carefully. Just because a brothel has a license doesn't mean the prostitutes walked in and filled out an application like they would at, say, Starbuck's.
Duffel on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
I have my doubts that there are enough 'willing' potential prostitutes (male or female) to go around.
For me, it comes down to a simple question: Has there ever been a time in your life, for whatever reason, when you would have considered peddling your ass to pay the rent?
.
There's your problem right there; not everyone is you.
Which is why legalizing and regulating it would be a good thing. They wouldn't have to deal with that kind of thing in licensed brothels.
Which is exactly what I said on the last page.
Although I say that legalisation would reduce, but not eliminate, these problems.
EDIT: The situation with prostitution in Nevada is far from rosy - it's still ran almost exclusively by the mafia, control is a big issue, etc. I don't know about other countries with legal prostitution.
Prostitution is legal in most countries. Some, like the UK and Canada, ban certain practices associated with it like solicitation and brotherls, but escorts are totally legal. Some regulate it, like Neveda, The Netherlands, and New Zealand.
Just letting everyone know what's what. the US is totally not the norm in this regard.
There is also a very thriving illegal escort business in the US staffed by women that you would never think were hookers.
well, maybe. but not in the literal sense. So saying that supply doesnt exist is absolutely ridiculous.
Yes, I'm sure that these escorts are plentifully available and within the price range to fill the market niche that street prostitutes and brothels now fill. I'm sure they're also willing to give blowjobs for $25 or a roll of coke or whatever.
There is also a very thriving illegal escort business in the US staffed by women that you would never think were hookers.
well, maybe. but not in the literal sense. So saying that supply doesnt exist is absolutely ridiculous.
Yes, I'm sure that these escorts are plentifully available and within the price range to fill the market niche that street prostitutes and brothels now fill. I'm sure they're also willing to give blowjobs for $25 or a roll of coke or whatever.
Not at all. But why should high priced ass be illegal? there are no reasons.
Not at all. But why should high priced ass be illegal? there are no reasons.
That's the problem, though - if escorts were legal, but this other stuff wasn't, then we've created a situation where rich guys can legally solicit prostitutes all they want, but nobody else can afford to go to a prostitute legally. So we have the same situation we have now, except rich guys are exempt.
Legal prostitution would have to find a way to be centralised and easily monitored, and frankly escort services probably wouldn't fit the bill. Finding a way to legalise and responsibly deal with prostitution strikes me as pretty difficult (not that it shouldn't be attempted).
And, as I said, I never said that I thought prostitution should remain illegal in the first place, and I don't know how people keep getting that. What I did say was that anybody who thinks that legalisation is going to lead to Happy Hooker Land, where pimps, drug abuse, and coercion are things of the past, is a bit naive.
And yes, I do view the act of selling one's body as innately exploitative and degrading. I'm old fashioned that way.
Duffel on
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
And yes, I do view the act of selling one's body as innately exploitative and degrading. I'm old fashioned that way.
No, you view selling sex as innately exploitative and degrading.
Unless you're including every occupation that could be described as "selling one's body" - manual labor, professional athletes, and models, just off the top of my head.
The "porn exemption" has never made sense to me. Why can't a sex worker sell "custom porn" by taping the John and her, then handing over the tape afterwards? Can somebody explain the difference to me?
No, you view selling sex as innately exploitative and degrading.
Unless you're including every occupation that could be described as "selling one's body" - manual labor, professional athletes, and models, just off the top of my head.
For me, it comes down to a simple question: Has there ever been a time in your life, for whatever reason, when you would have considered peddling your ass to pay the rent?
I can think of many, many ways to make money that are far worse than having sex all day.
No, you view selling sex as innately exploitative and degrading.
Unless you're including every occupation that could be described as "selling one's body" - manual labor, professional athletes, and models, just off the top of my head.
It's a figure of speech.
One designed to have prostitution equated with some kind of slavery. You use the phrase "selling one's body" in connection with prostitution, but I doubt you'd use it with any of the other jobs I mentioned.
The only difference is the service provided - you pay a guy to cut your lawn, you pay a guy to play football on your team, you pay a woman to wear your clothes in front of a camera, you pay a guy or girl to have sex with you. All of these jobs are selling your body for a specific task, all of them have inherent risks and benefits, but for some reason you view the last one as innately degrading. You don't find "selling one's body" degrading; you find selling sex degrading. Why?
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
So now the next time I frequent a prostitute I'm going to ask her if she wants to be in a porno and we'll do it in front of a camera that way if we get caught or she's a cop I can say I was just making a legal product.
Which is why legalizing and regulating it would be a good thing. They wouldn't have to deal with that kind of thing in licensed brothels.
Which is exactly what I said on the last page.
Although I say that legalisation would reduce, but not eliminate, these problems.
Agreed. In New Zealand, there was a decreased number of prostitutes working on the streets after it was regulated, but nothing significant. There are advantages to working from the street instead of out of a brothel, safety obviously not being one of them. But from casual observation the main pickup street in the city I live in is pretty much the same as it ever was. Probably much to the chagrin of the conservative lobbyists who predicted the streets would be flooded with crack whores.
I do think it's been a positive step. Prostitutes are still being assaulted, raped, murdered. They're still getting fucked over by pimps. But at least now they can go to the police and be confident they'll receive the same recourse as any other person would. And those that are working in brothels get to pay taxes!
One designed to have prostitution equated with some kind of slavery. You use the phrase "selling one's body" in connection with prostitution, but I doubt you'd use it with any of the other jobs I mentioned.
The only difference is the service provided - you pay a guy to cut your lawn, you pay a guy to play football on your team, you pay a woman to wear your clothes in front of a camera, you pay a guy or girl to have sex with you. All of these jobs are selling your body for a specific task, all of them have inherent risks and benefits, but for some reason you view the last one as innately degrading. You don't find "selling one's body" degrading; you find selling sex degrading. Why?
Maybe because sex, unlike say, mowing someone's yard, is an act that often has a certain degree of emotional attachment to the people involved?
I can see legalization creating a division within prostitution. On the one hand you have the street Pros, the ones who are soliciting illegally, and on the other hand you've got the legal Pros, with the STI screening and the legitimacy that comes with being a state recognized sex worker. Those who can't get licensed, whether it's due to age, health, or other reasons, would be doomed to the street, because it seems quite likely that women who are in such poor shape that they would fail to meet licensing requirements and who have chosen to apply for one would be the type desperate enough to take their chances on the street with the pimps and more questionable Johns.
I find this problematic, as prostitution is in many cases a last resort job, which any man or woman, regardless of their qualifications, could perform. While legalization wouldn't remove this as a last resort, it might make a seedy career all the more seedy for some of these women while making it better for others. Demand for street Pros goes down, revenue goes down, and these girls are in worse shape than ever. Demand for licensed girls increases, they're making more money in a (potentially, though not guaranteed) safer environment, but I can't imagine the pimps and mobsters would just let them off the hook like that, or that this and the exposure from 'going public' wouldn't make them the targets of harassment.
While I'm for legalization, there are sooooo many details to be worked out, and even if they were worked out, we'd still need to prepare society for something like this. Personally, I don't think North America's mature enough to deal with prostitutes not being 'ewww', as LimpMoose's girlfriend put it.
One designed to have prostitution equated with some kind of slavery. You use the phrase "selling one's body" in connection with prostitution, but I doubt you'd use it with any of the other jobs I mentioned.
The only difference is the service provided - you pay a guy to cut your lawn, you pay a guy to play football on your team, you pay a woman to wear your clothes in front of a camera, you pay a guy or girl to have sex with you. All of these jobs are selling your body for a specific task, all of them have inherent risks and benefits, but for some reason you view the last one as innately degrading. You don't find "selling one's body" degrading; you find selling sex degrading. Why?
Maybe because sex, unlike say, mowing someone's yard, is an act that often has a certain degree of emotional attachment to the people involved?
Even one night stands? Sex is not sacred. It is a mundane physical deed, as spiritual and transcending as urinating, because every animal does it. The only thing that separates it from any other bodily function is that it's the most fun (if done right). It is also a skill, and like any skill, if you possess it and someone wants to hire you to make use of it, there's no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take them up on their offer.
Even one night stands? Sex is not sacred. It is a mundane physical deed, as spiritual and transcending as urinating, because every animal does it. The only thing that separates it from any other bodily function is that it's the most fun (if done right). It is also a skill, and like any skill, if you possess it and someone wants to hire you to make use of it, there's no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take them up on their offer.
It's not just a 'physical skill'. If a father forced his teenage daughter to go out and mow the yard somehow, we would not consider that particularly abusive unless some threat of violence was involved. If, on the other hand, he forced her to give him a blowjob, we would consider that heinously abusive. Why? Because sex is emotionally and psychologically very different than mowing the yard, or any other similar task.
Although I do agree with you on the problems that implementing a legal system would present.
Duffel on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Even one night stands? Sex is not sacred. It is a mundane physical deed, as spiritual and transcending as urinating, because every animal does it. The only thing that separates it from any other bodily function is that it's the most fun (if done right). It is also a skill, and like any skill, if you possess it and someone wants to hire you to make use of it, there's no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take them up on their offer.
It's not just a 'physical skill'. If a father forced his teenage daughter to go out and mow the yard somehow, we would not consider that particularly abusive unless some threat of violence was involved. If, on the other hand, he forced her to give him a blowjob, we would consider that heinously abusive. Why? Because sex is emotionally and psychologically very different than mowing the yard, or any other similar task.
Although I do agree with you on the problems that implementing a legal system would present.
I think the real problem with this is that you are trying to equate a common household chore with a father sexually abusing his own child.
Even one night stands? Sex is not sacred. It is a mundane physical deed, as spiritual and transcending as urinating, because every animal does it. The only thing that separates it from any other bodily function is that it's the most fun (if done right). It is also a skill, and like any skill, if you possess it and someone wants to hire you to make use of it, there's no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take them up on their offer.
It's not just a 'physical skill'. If a father forced his teenage daughter to go out and mow the yard somehow, we would not consider that particularly abusive unless some threat of violence was involved. If, on the other hand, he forced her to give him a blowjob, we would consider that heinously abusive. Why? Because sex is emotionally and psychologically very different than mowing the yard, or any other similar task.
Thats a confusing example, we consider that heinously abusive because the child is underage, under his care, and forced. None of these things equate to the activities of a legal prostitute.
Prohass on
0
Options
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
Even one night stands? Sex is not sacred. It is a mundane physical deed, as spiritual and transcending as urinating, because every animal does it. The only thing that separates it from any other bodily function is that it's the most fun (if done right). It is also a skill, and like any skill, if you possess it and someone wants to hire you to make use of it, there's no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take them up on their offer.
It's not just a 'physical skill'. If a father forced his teenage daughter to go out and mow the yard somehow, we would not consider that particularly abusive unless some threat of violence was involved. If, on the other hand, he forced her to give him a blowjob, we would consider that heinously abusive. Why? Because sex is emotionally and psychologically very different than mowing the yard, or any other similar task.
Thats a confusing example, we consider that heinously abusive because the child is underage, under his care, and forced. None of these things equate to the activities of a legal prostitute.
she's underage, under his care, and forced to mow the lawn, too.
pretty sure he's not disputing the role of a legal prostitute here so much as arguing that 'sex is just a mundane skill' is not a fair statement.
INeedNoSalt on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
Also the fact that a teenager cannot never officially consent to sex with their father.
Unless it's like a stepfather who happens to be within 3 years of the stepdaughter's age.
Even one night stands? Sex is not sacred. It is a mundane physical deed, as spiritual and transcending as urinating, because every animal does it. The only thing that separates it from any other bodily function is that it's the most fun (if done right). It is also a skill, and like any skill, if you possess it and someone wants to hire you to make use of it, there's no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take them up on their offer.
It's not just a 'physical skill'. If a father forced his teenage daughter to go out and mow the yard somehow, we would not consider that particularly abusive unless some threat of violence was involved. If, on the other hand, he forced her to give him a blowjob, we would consider that heinously abusive. Why? Because sex is emotionally and psychologically very different than mowing the yard, or any other similar task.
Thats a confusing example, we consider that heinously abusive because the child is underage, under his care, and forced. None of these things equate to the activities of a legal prostitute.
she's underage, under his care, and forced to mow the lawn, too.
Which is why in that case the sex, which is forced upon her is so heinous. However, this has nothing to do with an adult woman who chooses to have sex for pay. In one case you have a vulnerable child being molested and in another you most likely have an emotionally mature adult voluntarily choosing a particular line of work.
Even one night stands? Sex is not sacred. It is a mundane physical deed, as spiritual and transcending as urinating, because every animal does it. The only thing that separates it from any other bodily function is that it's the most fun (if done right). It is also a skill, and like any skill, if you possess it and someone wants to hire you to make use of it, there's no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take them up on their offer.
It's not just a 'physical skill'. If a father forced his teenage daughter to go out and mow the yard somehow, we would not consider that particularly abusive unless some threat of violence was involved. If, on the other hand, he forced her to give him a blowjob, we would consider that heinously abusive. Why? Because sex is emotionally and psychologically very different than mowing the yard, or any other similar task.
Thats a confusing example, we consider that heinously abusive because the child is underage, under his care, and forced. None of these things equate to the activities of a legal prostitute.
Exactly.
You're generalizing how people experience sex and what they attribute to it, and comparing it to an incident that doesn't involve consent, but does involve a lot of factors you're not addressing. A prostitute consenting to have sex for money with a stranger in no way compares to an underage girl (unaddressed factor #1) being raped (unaddressed factor #2) by her father (unaddressed factor #3), which is a situation that is abusive for reasons more complex than simply sex.
Edit: my big problem here is with what is essentially a rape analogy. While I didn't explicitly state it, I was referring to sex between consenting parties, and you compared that to an act of violence.
Well to some mowing the lawn could be traumatising. My point was the importance of an act varies from person to person. We having legal boxing matches, and im sure a physically unfit person who was abused as a child wouldnt be the best boxer, and probably shouldnt be boxing.
Prohass on
0
Options
INeedNoSaltwith blood on my teethRegistered Userregular
edited February 2009
I think you're missing the point, there.
If sex is a mundane physical deed because every animal does it, then why is being forced into sex more heinous than being forced into anything else? (hell, by Fluffy's suggestion, being forced to mow the lawn should be even worse, because it's not a natural thing that every animal does.)
INeedNoSalt on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited February 2009
Also you can't really FORCE your child to mow the lawn without violence, you can only coax them into doing it either by reward or consequence, or having attained a level of mutual respect.
Force to mean is something far more aggressive than threatening to take away their iPhone.
Thats a confusing example, we consider that heinously abusive because the child is underage, under his care, and forced. None of these things equate to the activities of a legal prostitute.
I was trying to illustrate that sex work is not just a form of manual labor, as some people were trying to claim that it was.
It might be reassuring for some people to think that, were prostitution legalised, prostitutes would all eventually be women who were totally doing it just cause they felt like doing it, didn't mind, I mean shit, it's just sex, right? It's the kind of image that TV shows like Cathouse or whatever was try to present - a bunch of Happy Smiling Hookers who clock in just like any other job, because hey, might as well get paid for it.
It's meant to make people feel good, to make the people who solicit these establishments feel good, to try to pretend that they aren't supporting and partaking in a highly exploitative and destructive system. Sociologists and anthropologists who study the sex trade generally find a pattern - most of these people have had and continue to have shitty lives, which are often marked by drugs, depression, and abuse from a variety of sources. And, as the sex acts become more serious - from exotic dancers to porn stars to prostitutes - the more this sort of life becomes a given. This isn't going to go away with legalisation. Might become more manageable, but it's still going to be a problem.
And, as interesting as this discussion is, I may have to call it quits for the night - got lots of homework to do.
If sex is a mundane physical deed because every animal does it, then why is being forced into sex more heinous than being forced into anything else? (hell, by Fluffy's suggestion, being forced to mow the lawn should be even worse, because it's not a natural thing that every animal does.)
Its the force thing ive got an issue with. Nobody is forcing them. Their situation might, but legally, ultimately the decision is with them.
Also Duffel the point is there genuinly is some people who are totally fine with prostituting themselves, or at least as fine as anyone can be doing something they dislike or dont find appealing for money. But ultimately, going to work for 40 years in a dead end job that you hate only to be made redundant, or joining the army and suffering physical or emotional trauma there, are just as big threats to a persons wellbeing.
Legalising (properly) prostitution provides legitamacy and support to a tough job, simple as that.
If sex is a mundane physical deed because every animal does it, then why is being forced into sex more heinous than being forced into anything else? (hell, by Fluffy's suggestion, being forced to mow the lawn should be even worse, because it's not a natural thing that every animal does.)
Pros aren't being forced to perform, they have consented to it. The girl blowing her dad analogy was a rape analogy, which is a physically violent act. Paying someone to mow the lawn is fine, forcing them to mow the lawn through violence is not. Paying someone for sex is fine, forcing your cock in their mouth is not.
I also didn't say that mundane biological functions were any less mundane and than unnatural ones. It's common and only as important as you decide it to be.
Thats a confusing example, we consider that heinously abusive because the child is underage, under his care, and forced. None of these things equate to the activities of a legal prostitute.
I was trying to illustrate that sex work is not just a form of manual labor, as some people were trying to claim that it was.
It might be reassuring for some people to think that, were prostitution legalised, prostitutes would all eventually be women who were totally doing it just cause they felt like doing it, didn't mind, I mean shit, it's just sex, right? It's the kind of image that TV shows like Cathouse or whatever was try to present - a bunch of Happy Smiling Hookers who clock in just like any other job, because hey, might as well get paid for it.
It's meant to make people feel good, to make the people who solicit these establishments feel good, to try to pretend that they aren't supporting and partaking in a highly exploitative and destructive system. Sociologists and anthropologists who study the sex trade generally find a pattern - most of these people have had and continue to have shitty lives, which are often marked by drugs, depression, and abuse from a variety of sources. And, as the sex acts become more serious - from exotic dancers to porn stars to prostitutes - the more this sort of life becomes a given. This isn't going to go away with legalisation. Might become more manageable, but it's still going to be a problem.
And, as interesting as this discussion is, I may have to call it quits for the night - got lots of homework to do.
I'm not so naive to think that legalization would make everything super terrific, as I've stated in earlier posts, but I don't think that being a sex worker means you'll live a shitty life. I think the problems they face might be as a result of society's stigma towards sex and the sex industry, not because the work itself is inherently bad.
Legalising (properly) prostitution provides legitamacy and support to a tough job, simple as that.
Never argued with this. I think it would be great if prostitutes could go to the police when their rights are violated just like any other citizen, which is impossible as long as prostitution is illegal. But it won't solve all the problems inherent in the industry. I think we're all in agreement about that.
I can see legalization creating a division within prostitution. On the one hand you have the street Pros, the ones who are soliciting illegally, and on the other hand you've got the legal Pros, with the STI screening and the legitimacy that comes with being a state recognized sex worker. Those who can't get licensed, whether it's due to age, health, or other reasons, would be doomed to the street, because it seems quite likely that women who are in such poor shape that they would fail to meet licensing requirements and who have chosen to apply for one would be the type desperate enough to take their chances on the street with the pimps and more questionable Johns.
I find this problematic, as prostitution is in many cases a last resort job, which any man or woman, regardless of their qualifications, could perform. While legalization wouldn't remove this as a last resort, it might make a seedy career all the more seedy for some of these women while making it better for others. Demand for street Pros goes down, revenue goes down, and these girls are in worse shape than ever.
Demand for licensed girls increases, they're making more money in a (potentially, though not guaranteed) safer environment, but I can't imagine the pimps and mobsters would just let them off the hook like that, or that this and the exposure from 'going public' wouldn't make them the targets of harassment.
Also there would still be a demand for unlicensed girls, from johns who either can't afford the licensed girls, don't want to bother going to a licensed brothel, want services that they can't get from licensed girls, or straight up just want to abuse somebody and get away with it.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
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.
Being legal doesn't mean being widely known, but you're kind of on to something - while legal prostitutes are 'safe', there's a very unfortunate market for unsafe, nasty trade with the very young, the foreign/exotic, the unwilling, etc. Legalisation doesn't really help people in that situation - only much stronger laws about human trafficking and much better enforcement can help them.
Posts
Although I say that legalisation would reduce, but not eliminate, these problems.
EDIT: The situation with prostitution in Nevada is far from rosy - it's still ran almost exclusively by the mafia, control is a big issue, etc. I don't know about other countries with legal prostitution.
First, can we agree that prostitution isn't solely about women selling sex. Men do as well, although less frequently.
I'd never deny that there aren't, at best, shady aspects to prostitution. At worst some situations are outright violations of human rights. But, just as there are 'exotic' dancers and porn actors, there are also men and women who choose, for whatever reasons that are solely their own, to sell sex. You can't really slap these people with the moral stick if they are, by their own free will, entering into a business that objectifies them. I believe that it's these individuals we're discussing, not sex slaves or men and women otherwise forced into compromising situations.
For me, it comes down to a simple question: Has there ever been a time in your life, for whatever reason, when you would have considered peddling your ass to pay the rent?
The degree of willingness which is involved in exotic dancing/porn is a whole other thread and I agree that we shouldn't go off on that tangent here, lest we derail. But I draw a line between the two activities anyway, because both porn and stripping have a certain 'hands-off' boundary line that prostitution does not. Putting prostitution in legal, regulated brothels would help, as would a simple decriminalisation of prostitution (which needs to have been done a long time ago). But even legal brothels have problems and would need to be monitored carefully. Just because a brothel has a license doesn't mean the prostitutes walked in and filled out an application like they would at, say, Starbuck's.
There's your problem right there; not everyone is you.
Prostitution is legal in most countries. Some, like the UK and Canada, ban certain practices associated with it like solicitation and brotherls, but escorts are totally legal. Some regulate it, like Neveda, The Netherlands, and New Zealand.
Just letting everyone know what's what. the US is totally not the norm in this regard.
well, maybe. but not in the literal sense. So saying that supply doesnt exist is absolutely ridiculous.
Not at all. But why should high priced ass be illegal? there are no reasons.
Legal prostitution would have to find a way to be centralised and easily monitored, and frankly escort services probably wouldn't fit the bill. Finding a way to legalise and responsibly deal with prostitution strikes me as pretty difficult (not that it shouldn't be attempted).
And, as I said, I never said that I thought prostitution should remain illegal in the first place, and I don't know how people keep getting that. What I did say was that anybody who thinks that legalisation is going to lead to Happy Hooker Land, where pimps, drug abuse, and coercion are things of the past, is a bit naive.
And yes, I do view the act of selling one's body as innately exploitative and degrading. I'm old fashioned that way.
No, you view selling sex as innately exploitative and degrading.
Unless you're including every occupation that could be described as "selling one's body" - manual labor, professional athletes, and models, just off the top of my head.
I am now officially confused.
I can think of many, many ways to make money that are far worse than having sex all day.
One designed to have prostitution equated with some kind of slavery. You use the phrase "selling one's body" in connection with prostitution, but I doubt you'd use it with any of the other jobs I mentioned.
The only difference is the service provided - you pay a guy to cut your lawn, you pay a guy to play football on your team, you pay a woman to wear your clothes in front of a camera, you pay a guy or girl to have sex with you. All of these jobs are selling your body for a specific task, all of them have inherent risks and benefits, but for some reason you view the last one as innately degrading. You don't find "selling one's body" degrading; you find selling sex degrading. Why?
It's FOOLPROOF.
Yes, because those are all examples of legal prostitution.
Agreed. In New Zealand, there was a decreased number of prostitutes working on the streets after it was regulated, but nothing significant. There are advantages to working from the street instead of out of a brothel, safety obviously not being one of them. But from casual observation the main pickup street in the city I live in is pretty much the same as it ever was. Probably much to the chagrin of the conservative lobbyists who predicted the streets would be flooded with crack whores.
I do think it's been a positive step. Prostitutes are still being assaulted, raped, murdered. They're still getting fucked over by pimps. But at least now they can go to the police and be confident they'll receive the same recourse as any other person would. And those that are working in brothels get to pay taxes!
I find this problematic, as prostitution is in many cases a last resort job, which any man or woman, regardless of their qualifications, could perform. While legalization wouldn't remove this as a last resort, it might make a seedy career all the more seedy for some of these women while making it better for others. Demand for street Pros goes down, revenue goes down, and these girls are in worse shape than ever. Demand for licensed girls increases, they're making more money in a (potentially, though not guaranteed) safer environment, but I can't imagine the pimps and mobsters would just let them off the hook like that, or that this and the exposure from 'going public' wouldn't make them the targets of harassment.
While I'm for legalization, there are sooooo many details to be worked out, and even if they were worked out, we'd still need to prepare society for something like this. Personally, I don't think North America's mature enough to deal with prostitutes not being 'ewww', as LimpMoose's girlfriend put it.
Even one night stands? Sex is not sacred. It is a mundane physical deed, as spiritual and transcending as urinating, because every animal does it. The only thing that separates it from any other bodily function is that it's the most fun (if done right). It is also a skill, and like any skill, if you possess it and someone wants to hire you to make use of it, there's no reason why you shouldn't be allowed to take them up on their offer.
Although I do agree with you on the problems that implementing a legal system would present.
Not to everyone.
I think the real problem with this is that you are trying to equate a common household chore with a father sexually abusing his own child.
Thats a confusing example, we consider that heinously abusive because the child is underage, under his care, and forced. None of these things equate to the activities of a legal prostitute.
she's underage, under his care, and forced to mow the lawn, too.
pretty sure he's not disputing the role of a legal prostitute here so much as arguing that 'sex is just a mundane skill' is not a fair statement.
Unless it's like a stepfather who happens to be within 3 years of the stepdaughter's age.
Or varying on state law I guess.
Which is why in that case the sex, which is forced upon her is so heinous. However, this has nothing to do with an adult woman who chooses to have sex for pay. In one case you have a vulnerable child being molested and in another you most likely have an emotionally mature adult voluntarily choosing a particular line of work.
Exactly.
You're generalizing how people experience sex and what they attribute to it, and comparing it to an incident that doesn't involve consent, but does involve a lot of factors you're not addressing. A prostitute consenting to have sex for money with a stranger in no way compares to an underage girl (unaddressed factor #1) being raped (unaddressed factor #2) by her father (unaddressed factor #3), which is a situation that is abusive for reasons more complex than simply sex.
Edit: my big problem here is with what is essentially a rape analogy. While I didn't explicitly state it, I was referring to sex between consenting parties, and you compared that to an act of violence.
If sex is a mundane physical deed because every animal does it, then why is being forced into sex more heinous than being forced into anything else? (hell, by Fluffy's suggestion, being forced to mow the lawn should be even worse, because it's not a natural thing that every animal does.)
Force to mean is something far more aggressive than threatening to take away their iPhone.
It might be reassuring for some people to think that, were prostitution legalised, prostitutes would all eventually be women who were totally doing it just cause they felt like doing it, didn't mind, I mean shit, it's just sex, right? It's the kind of image that TV shows like Cathouse or whatever was try to present - a bunch of Happy Smiling Hookers who clock in just like any other job, because hey, might as well get paid for it.
It's meant to make people feel good, to make the people who solicit these establishments feel good, to try to pretend that they aren't supporting and partaking in a highly exploitative and destructive system. Sociologists and anthropologists who study the sex trade generally find a pattern - most of these people have had and continue to have shitty lives, which are often marked by drugs, depression, and abuse from a variety of sources. And, as the sex acts become more serious - from exotic dancers to porn stars to prostitutes - the more this sort of life becomes a given. This isn't going to go away with legalisation. Might become more manageable, but it's still going to be a problem.
And, as interesting as this discussion is, I may have to call it quits for the night - got lots of homework to do.
Its the force thing ive got an issue with. Nobody is forcing them. Their situation might, but legally, ultimately the decision is with them.
Also Duffel the point is there genuinly is some people who are totally fine with prostituting themselves, or at least as fine as anyone can be doing something they dislike or dont find appealing for money. But ultimately, going to work for 40 years in a dead end job that you hate only to be made redundant, or joining the army and suffering physical or emotional trauma there, are just as big threats to a persons wellbeing.
Legalising (properly) prostitution provides legitamacy and support to a tough job, simple as that.
Pros aren't being forced to perform, they have consented to it. The girl blowing her dad analogy was a rape analogy, which is a physically violent act. Paying someone to mow the lawn is fine, forcing them to mow the lawn through violence is not. Paying someone for sex is fine, forcing your cock in their mouth is not.
I also didn't say that mundane biological functions were any less mundane and than unnatural ones. It's common and only as important as you decide it to be.
I'm not so naive to think that legalization would make everything super terrific, as I've stated in earlier posts, but I don't think that being a sex worker means you'll live a shitty life. I think the problems they face might be as a result of society's stigma towards sex and the sex industry, not because the work itself is inherently bad.
Never argued with this. I think it would be great if prostitutes could go to the police when their rights are violated just like any other citizen, which is impossible as long as prostitution is illegal. But it won't solve all the problems inherent in the industry. I think we're all in agreement about that.
Pretty much.
Also there would still be a demand for unlicensed girls, from johns who either can't afford the licensed girls, don't want to bother going to a licensed brothel, want services that they can't get from licensed girls, or straight up just want to abuse somebody and get away with it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.