As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Let's legalize Hookers. This time in California.
KevinNash
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
God bless the good people of San Francisco. A citywide decriminalization of prostitution is now on the ballot.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sfsex15-2008sep15,0,5860203.story?page=1
Stuffy mean people are opposed to this glorious demonstration in freedom:
If this passes, there is so much potential.
Is this a good idea? I think so for a number of reasons. A better use of police resources. A better opportunity to increase your tax base. A healthier population overall. Legislation like this isn't new of course. Please see 11 counties in Nevada and the state of Rhode Island. But it's finally made it to the People's Republic of California, if only their most liberal city. Gotta start somewhere.
Discuss.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-sfsex15-2008sep15,0,5860203.story?page=1
They're supporting Proposition K, which would shift the city's focus from prosecuting prostitution to pursuing those who prey on sex workers and increasing public health outreach. The goal, West says, is to reduce violence against women and improve the health of sex workers and their clients.
Stuffy mean people are opposed to this glorious demonstration in freedom:
The measure is opposed by Mayor Gavin Newsom, Dist. Atty. Kamala Harris and much of the business community, who say it will attract unwanted criminal elements to the city and hamper efforts to fight human trafficking.
If this passes, there is so much potential.
Is this a good idea? I think so for a number of reasons. A better use of police resources. A better opportunity to increase your tax base. A healthier population overall. Legislation like this isn't new of course. Please see 11 counties in Nevada and the state of Rhode Island. But it's finally made it to the People's Republic of California, if only their most liberal city. Gotta start somewhere.
Discuss.
KevinNash on
0
Posts
We legalised prostitution back about 5 years ago in NZ and the mandated regular audits of the industry/effects seem to indicate it has provided the health/safety benefits it promised. Plus society doesn't seem to have collapsed either, although I do find the occasional finding of bill boards soliciting for people to join the prostitution industry a little disconcerting.
To elaborate on why it is a bad thing I think it is wrong for people for however long to be able to sell themselves. Human life shouldnt be that cheap. Of course I am the guy who thinks strip clubs and hooters are wrong as well because again of the objectification of women that goes on.
If prostitutes had a union, health requirements and no pimps... it would kind of be a completely different job.
I dunno, I don't want to say hooking is a moral thing to do (it isn't), but there are lots of legal jobs that are not moral... and if we could simply accept this shit is going to happen (you can't legislate the worlds oldest profession out of existence) and instead focus our efforts on mitigating the dangers and risks... there would eb a net positive on society.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
That and I dont make much distinction between prostitution and dating/relationships.
same for strippers, porn actors, hooter's waitresses, and models?
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
I know I am a prude. lol
I would ask what your ideas are on sexual autonomy then. Specifically if you believe consenting adults should be able to choose when where how and with whom they have sex (let's leave out children eh).
If you believe a person should have autonomy over their body and their sexual activity, how do you reconcile that with the position that the government should prevent people from charging money for consentual sexual activity?
Speaking abstractly, here.
Well, this just gets back to the root of almost all socio-political discussions.
If you morally object to these things, then you have every right to avoid them, and to teach your friends and family the reasons they should be avoided if you so choose, just as much as it is their right to slide a benjamin between the cheeks of a aspiring lawyer or single mom... and the government need not interfere with things that are personal or moral in nature.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Tofu wrote: Here be Littleboots, destroyer of threads and master of drunkposting.
Not to straw man but when i think about prostitution it sounds to me like slavery, because one person essentially owns the other's body for a period of time or until the action is done.
Now should two consenting adults be allowed to be the master and the slave? No.
I really am not trying to strawman on purpose, its just how I have always thought about prostitution.
I welcome any criticisms of my view on this
If I hire a contractor and his team of workers to fix up my house, wouldn't that be the same thing?
I mean, I paid them (master) and they're doing what I tell them (slaves).
It's a really terrible strawman.
I agree completely , thats why I am only posting in a forum and not protesting outside a strip club. This for me is a personal objection. For instance I know a former stripper who had to work because her parents abadonded her. For her it paid the bills. She also relayed to me how draining it was to have to be fake all the time but I guess that is the trade off.
Back to the point though, I personally dont go to hooters or strip clubs and dont support legalizing prostitution. But when my boys go to hooters and strip clubs I usually will mind my business because it isnt my place.
Yeah, I think what i get hung up on is the idea that the action of having sex involves taking possesion to a certain degree of that persons body, so I dont think about it like a service.
I know it is a bad strawman thats why I tried to indicate it wasnt done to be a dick
So you would vote against a proposition like this one that seeks to legalize prostitution and shift prosecution onto other parties?
Something like the Swedish model, then. But that doesn't really protect the prostitutes from a climate of fear - if anything, it gives the clients even more of an incentive to use intimidation or violence to prevent the prostitutes from testifying against them. If your ultimate goal is to protect sex workers, it's best to completely decriminalize and effectively regulate the sex industry rather than criminalizing same arbitrary segment of it.
I would vote against this proposition or any other that wanted to legalize prostitution, but would be FULLY in favor of prosecuting Johns.
However once the majority has spoken and assuming the courts dont strike it down, it is out of my hands and the majority must prevail.
It's not a "master-slave" relationship, it's a generally-accepted transaction. It is a transaction that -- with different values substituted for each variable -- happens million of times, every day, across the United States. If the purchaser deviates from the terms of the contract, he is legally liable. He is culpable if he does something to the woman that she has stated a provision against. He is culpable if he does not pay, and thereby goes against their legally-binding agreement.
However, with the legislation as-it-is, these women are prevented from seeking justice for transgressions rendered against them, for fear of their own safety. They are engaging in the trade of something which is conceptually valid in these United States of America, but which is arbitrarily barred.
Your "master-slave" relationship is, as TehSpectre said, anything but. It's strictly business, and -- if in its current form it sometimes approaches a "master-slave" relationship -- it is because sex workers are denied legal recourse for fear of repercussions against themselves. But not on its own merits. It doesn't have to be that way.
There's a difference between legality and morality and in this case I think the greatest good comes from not pushing sex workers underground in the first place by making it illegal.
this is the ridiculous part of your argument.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
Yeah but would woman want people to know they were prostitutes? If it were legal could they remain anonymous consistent with the need for public health?
Taking this out of context for my amusement.
I understand what you're saying but it just seems completely counter intuitive to me. Prosecuting Johns, Pimps and Hookers isn't going to stop prostitution. There is always going to be a demand for casual sex as long as we are sexual beings (which I'm assuming will be the case for the foreseeable future). All making prostitution illegal accomplishes is pushing the johns and prostitutes into unsafe areas in order to escape being caught. This helps no one. Prosecuting Johns would only clog up the courts and prisons more at tax payers expense because some adult wanted to get off with another adult.
(that was all opinion btw, I have no facts to back any of that up)
But, different strokes for different folks. :P
Tofu wrote: Here be Littleboots, destroyer of threads and master of drunkposting.
Anonymous from whom?
I dont think so, what other service is there that while you are physically inside someone you tell them what to do? I submit that being that intimate changes the nature of the order.
umm, yeah.
You get tested either on site or at a public health clinic, or at your doctors office once every so many months / weeks / whatever, and you have your papers stating a clean bill of health. None of this gets plastered on billboards now, why would it when you go legal?
People would be just as likely to know you worked at a starbucks as they would a bunny ranch... being that they would have to walk in and need a cup of coffee/blowjob to know what you do for a living.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
My doctor did this crazy thing to me once...well nevermind.
It was perfectly legal though.
Possible family members or maybe future employers. How would a future employer in a more traditional area of work look at prior prositute experience. Or what about background checks that would turn up, if someone used to be a prostiute or not.
It's a meaningless distinction. You can pay an OB/GYN to give you a pelvic exam. Or for that matter, a proctologist.
Pluto was a planet and I'll never forget
......dentistry.
Proctologists?
1. Ha. Seriously I knew I was missing something obvious.
2. A doctor is presumably trying to make a person healthier and touching is simply a necessary part of that, not the entire idea of it.
That reminds me...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-6zA39_0aw
What does being physically inside someone have to do with anything? The placement of ones sexual organs or appendages causes the formula to go from: "Service Provider & Customer" to "Master and Slave"
?
Tofu wrote: Here be Littleboots, destroyer of threads and master of drunkposting.
Is previous employment already protected under anti-discrimination laws?
If it isn't, we do that. You legislate against the bigots, not against the sex workers.