Is it so much fun to be a prostitute ?

[El Greco]

A Greek network has lately focused on expensive call girls who advertise themselves with web sites etc. One of them who was arrested a few weeks ago used to charge 30,000 euros for a weekend.

Anyway, in between all this a new story came up today: A father went to visit his daughter who was a student in another city, and thought he could also have some fun. So he calls a girl from a newspaper ad and arranges an appointment in a hotel room. But -as you have probably already figured out- when he opens the door he meets his daughter. The story leaked because the father fainted and they had to call an ambulance.

Now the fun part is that the girl comes from a wealthy family and in fact used to receive a generous amount of money from her family each month. When asked by the reporter she said that she didn't really need the money but it was nice to be able to make it, plus she had the opportunity to "expand her circle of acquaintances".

Well, if I was a girl I already know what I would do for a living :D

[aerocontrols]

Do you have a source? Look like an urban legend... (http://www.snopes.com/college/risque/daughter.asp)

[El Greco]

Originally posted by aerocontrols
Do you have a source? Look like an urban legend... (http://www.snopes.com/college/risque/daughter.asp)

This is really hot news, it was aired half an hour ago. And that channel doesn't make up stories, AFAIK.

But it doesn't change much, anyway. There are expensive call girls and they certainly don't exactly need the money. So it has to be somewhat fun, doesn't it ?

[Seismosaurus]

There's literally nothing you can name that somebody somewhere doesn't enjoy doing, no matter how horrible it may seem to most. Humans are a very diverse people, after all.

So yes, I'd say there probably are women who enjoy prostitution. And why not? It's not like they're hurting anybody.

[c0rbin]

Not that I know, but one could, with little empiricism, get me to agree that high-priced call girls have more fun than junky crack-whores.

[hgc]

It's not like this father can really complain (not that I know he is). Afterall, the prostitute he intended to get is someone else's daughter.

[jay gw]

If you charge alot, you only get the top class types, poor people can't afford you. So you're weeding out the problem people.

The lower class street walker types are the ones that really suffer. Almost ALL of them have very serious drug problems, and alot have mental illness and can't work in other jobs.

One of the stupidest things is making prostitution illegal. If prostitution is illegal, it means that when they are robbed or beaten etc. they can't go to the police and complain. In places where it's legal the police will help. And, diseases don't spread where it's legal, because they can force you to wear condoms. Illegal prostitutes can't force anyone to do anything. And, it's not dangerous to society. Every time the police arrest someone, it just costs money. For what? They haven't actually harmed anything. Dumb.

[pgwenthold]

This is similar to the current story about the junior high speaker who is in trouble for telling 8th graders that strippers can make a lot of money (depending on their bust size). Of course, a lot of parents are howling about it, but his defense is, "It's true."

Of course, it is true, but apparently it's not appropriate to tell 8th graders that it is a viable career option. You can tell them that it is ok to scrub toilets for minimum wage if they want to, but suggesting that exotic dancing might be a way to make a lot of money? No way.

I don't have the full link, but I read it on www.usatoday.com

[The idea]

Originally posted by jay gw
One of the stupidest things is making prostitution illegal.

Are you using the word "stupidest" to avoid using some concept such as "unjust", "unethical", or "immoral"?

What about those who, aware of the costs and consequences of laws against prostitution, still approve of such laws? You wouldn't be able to accuse them of ignorance. Perhaps you could say they are stupid on the grounds that they fail to recognize that the costs are too high or that the consequences are too negative. However, that would suggest that, if there were significantly lower costs or less severe consequences, then people could approve of laws against prostitution without deserving the label "stupid." In this scenario, they are comparing the costs and consequences to something.

Maybe there are those who know all about the actual costs and consequences and think they are worth it. Maybe they aren't stupidly failing to make an accurate comparison. Maybe they are measuring things against a standard that differs from your standard.

[SRW]

Just finished reading Callgirl (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1579621104/qid=1105736243/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-3304426-8509520?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)
it is written by Jeannette Angell, a college professor who is a callgirl on the side. Not a great read but very intresting look in to the life of a prostute.

The book makes it sound like it can be great fun at time and pretty crappy at others. I have heard it's lots of fun to be with a prostitute, but would not know....

[Beerina]

Originally posted by El Greco

Well, if I was a girl I already know what I would do for a living :D

That's like saying "If'n I were a doctor, I'd be a gy-nee-cologist!" In reality, for every sweet young thing you see, you see a dozen old and/or diseased "things".

Ok, prostitute. Here comes Heffery, a 350-lb. unbathed 68 year old man with 3 teeth and the IQ of a turnip. That's not a vest! That's the half inch of smegma under his arms rubbing off.


Nah, if you're gonna have a fantasy, make it very specific, like "I wish I were a gorgeous 5'11" lesbian with creamy white porcelain skin and waist-length jet black hair, big red natural lips the size of bicycle inner tubes, full heavy D breasts with 5" dark brown areolae, etc. etc. etc. who makes a living doing lesbian pr0n and lesbian tongue-sucking videos with her 6" tongue. She doesn't fear disease because of a natural resistance to it that is so powerful it actually cleans anyone she sexes with. She is so sexy she can induce lust in anyone of her choosing. Also, she has 10 billion dollars."

[dann]

There are some pro and contra questions where you shouldn't take sides. One of them is whether or not prostitution ought to be legal.

For what exactly is prostitution?
On the one hand it's all about sex. And sex is something that most of us enjoy. On the other hand it's all about getting paid - and who doesn't like to receive money? Getting laid and getting paid! Sounds like a match made in heaven, doesn't it?
So where's the rub? Well, sex is usually something that takes place with somebody you find ... well, sexy! Two people find each other attactive and go to bed together. No problem.

But the idea of having sex with a partner that you don't find attactive is rather repulsive (come up with your own examples!). This is the reason why some people can have this as their 'career': the aversion to having sex with a partner you don't find attractive is overcome by means of the payment for this kind of service.
This is the awful truth about prostitution, and it conflicts with the romantic fantasies sometimes associated with this line of business (e.g. Pretty Woman, one of the most disgusting movies I can think of).

Sometimes you hear objections to prostitution along the lines that men and their lechery is the problem. Prostitution could not exist without it.
However, there are women who choose prostitution as an alternative to low-paying jobs, something which feminists tend to ignore, which is a pity, since this is the point that the criticism ought to concentrate on.
There are several services which people perform - and not exactly from inclination. This phenomenon is most often referred to as a job - and it is something that all opinion-formers are very much in favour of, in spite of the fact that it is based on systematic blackmail: People of slender means make a choice between alterntives that is forced upon them. It does not require any more blackmailing than this: the lack of other means to make a living. This is what it takes to force upon people the choice between the job as a checkout girl at K-Mart or becoming a streetwalker. Poverty is all the 'motivation' it takes. No poverty, no prostitution. No matter how horny the men are, the horny man doesn't lead to prostitution without the woman to whom it seems lucrative to oblige him - for money - wether she finds him attractive or even likable or not.
Without her reason for becoming a prostitute, her poverty, the man can be horny as hell - it remains his problem.

And SRW!
How many college professors do you think are callgirls on the side? More than one?

[dann]

Originally posted by Beerina
Nah, if you're gonna have a fantasy, make it very specific, like ...
A very good point, Beerina!

[The idea]

Originally posted by dann
Sometimes you hear objections to prostitution along the lines that men and their lechery is the problem.
Alternatively, one could say the probem is men who don't love money enough. ;)

[SRW]

Originally posted by dann

And SRW!
How many college professors do you think are callgirls on the side? More than one?

I only know of one, Jeannette Angell. I do however work in a college so my guess would be that not very many would make much money at it.

[The idea]

For the insufficient love of money is the root of all use of a prostitute's services. Some have been led astray from the habit of chastity by their lack of greed and have pierced themselves through with many sorrows.

1Timothy 6:10

[Kerberos]

Originally posted by dann
Pretty Woman, one of the most disgusting movies I can think of.
Aren't you taking it just a tad to seriously? I rather like it myself. Sure you could say it glorifies a rather unglorious occupation, but it's an entertaiment movie, not a documentary. Countless movies glorify violence (many of which I've enjoyed too), surely that's more disgusting, if, that is, you take that kind of movies seriously.

[dann]

Originally posted by Kerberos
Aren't you taking it just a tad to seriously? I rather like it myself.
I didn't think it was a documentary when I saw it, but still ...
It is disgusting.
I think Beerina got it right when she said, "if you're gonna have a fantasy ...
By the way, the discussion about prostitutes in Danish here:
http://www.drv.dk/bbs.aspx?fid=20562

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by dann
But the idea of having sex with a partner that you don't find attactive is rather repulsive (come up with your own examples!). This is the reason why some people can have this as their 'career': the aversion to having sex with a partner you don't find attractive is overcome by means of the payment for this kind of service.




In the same way, some people can overlook the fact that sometimes people miss the toilet and $hit and pee all over the floor, and they go clean it up. They are the janitors. If you can't handle that, don't be a janitor.

There are lousy aspects to every occupation that have to be overcome in order to do it. Ask a doctor with some of the things they have to endure with patients? Do you worry about the "romantic fantasy" of being a doctor because doctors have to suffer a perpetual cold from October to April? I guarantee you, folks who dream of being a doctor aren't thinking about the glory of getting a call from a patient at 2:30 because they can't sleep (my sis-in-law did; she told the patient to drink a glass of warm milk).

Just because there are things about a job that might be unattractive to you, or even to most people around, is no excuse for outlawing it.

A common objection is, would you want your daughter to be a prostitute? I might say no, but then, I wouldn't want my daughter to scrub toilets for a living, either. It has no bearing on whether it should be illegal or not.

[dann]

This line is a user comment at www.imdb.com

The problem with the movie is that it glorifies ... not love, not relationships, not even prostitution, but ... the illusions of a prostitute!
Being a skeptic, what would you say are the chances of a streetwalker not only looking like Julia Roberts but also running into a billionaire who not only looks like Richard Gere but is also willing to marry her?
Well, what are the chances of life on other planets? Let's count the number of known galaxies in the universe, the number of stars in the galaxies, the number of planets ...
The chances of a streetwalker being abducted by aliens are much, much better!
Pretty Woman is the screen version of a prostitute's wet dream, the same way religion is the opium of the people.

[dann]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Just because there are things about a job that might be unattractive to you, or even to most people around, is no excuse for outlawing it.
(...)
A common objection is, would you want your daughter to be a prostitute? I might say no, but then, I wouldn't want my daughter to scrub toilets for a living, either. It has no bearing on whether it should be illegal or not.
I think you missed my point:
"There are some pro and contra questions where you shouldn't take sides. One of them is whether or not prostitution ought to be legal."
However, nobody seems to be willing to consider outlawing poverty!

I never heard about doctors 'suffering perpetual colds from October to April'. Where did you hear that one? And what does it have to do with prostitution? Are you saying that in general MDs have just as few options as the women who become prostitutes? And in that case: Why do so few of them turn tricks instead treating patients?

[crimresearch]

There are some pro and contra questions where you shouldn't take sides. One of them is whether or not prostitution ought to be legal.

I'm actually confused by that statement.

Pro and con would seem to imply that there *are* sides to be taken, why is the legality of prostitution a special case where we should not?

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Beerina
Nah, if you're gonna have a fantasy, make it very specific

Nah, I don't have fantasies about being a woman... I was just considering an alternative career option... but... but... lemme watch "American Gigolo" once more.... maybe all isn't lost! :D

[SRW]

Originally posted by dann
This line is a user comment at www.imdb.com

The problem with the movie is that it glorifies ... not love, not relationships, not even prostitution, but ... the illusions of a prostitute!
Being a skeptic, what would you say are the chances of a streetwalker not only looking like Julia Roberts but also running into a billionaire who not only looks like Richard Gere but is also willing to marry her?
Well, what are the chances of life on other planets? Let's count the number of known galaxies in the universe, the number of stars in the galaxies, the number of planets ...
The chances of a streetwalker being abducted by aliens are much, much better!
Pretty Woman is the screen version of a prostitute's wet dream, the same way religion is the opium of the people.

Why I can see the headlines tomorrow "Hollywood Movies Plays fast and Loose with Reality" By the way Cinderella did not really happen either but some how it keeps getting told.

Prostitutes are not all the same, there is a huge difference between a Crack Whore and a $500.00 per hour callgirl. I have met quite a few women who met their husbands as customers, not billionairs but relitivily rich American G.I.s.

[Bodhi Dharma Zen]

Originally posted by dann
No poverty, no prostitution.

Do you really believe that?

[dann]

Originally posted by SRW
Prostitutes are not all the same, there is a huge difference between a Crack Whore and a $500.00 per hour callgirl.
Yeeees, one of them is a $500.00 per hour whore, the other one is $50.00 per trick whore. What's your point?
I have met quite a few women who met their husbands as customers, not billionairs but relitivily rich American G.I.s.
So have I. I used to teach hotel receptionists German. Their job did not pay much, but they hoped to meet the right kind of husband in this way. But again: What's your point? Have you met many prostitutes who met their husbands as customers?

[dann]

Originally posted by crimresearch
Pro and con would seem to imply that there *are* sides to be taken, why is the legality of prostitution a special case where we should not?
Prostitution sucks! (pun not intended) Making it illegal does not put a stop to it. Eliminating poverty does.

[SRW]

Originally posted by dann
Yeeees, one of them is a $500.00 per hour whore, the other one is $50.00 per trick whore. What's your point?
[B]
So have I. I used to teach hotel receptionists German. Their job did not pay much, but they hoped to meet the right kind of husband in this way. But again: What's your point? Have you met many prostitutes who met their husbands as customers?


Sorry if I was not clear: but yes I have met many former prostitutes who married a customer.

The point is that prostitutes are not all the same. And if you are looking to Hollywood to get your view of the world, you are looking in the wrong place.

[dann]

Originally posted by dann
No poverty, no prostitution.

Originally posted by Bodhi Dharma Zen
Do you really believe that?
Yes! You don't?!

[SRW]

Originally posted by dann
Prostitution sucks! (pun not intended) Making it illegal does not put a stop to it. Eliminating poverty does.


Can you provide evidence for this?

[dann]

Originally posted by SRW
And if you are looking to Hollywood to get your view of the world, you are looking in the wrong place.
Thank you! I'm not!
(And a small correction: "but they hoped to meet the right kind of husband in this way", should have been: but some of them hoped to ...)

[dann]

Originally posted by SRW
Can you provide evidence for this?
Well, look at Cuba. Prostitution was virtually eliminated in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, then returned in the 1990s when the country was impoverished following the desintegration of the socialist countries that used to support it.

[dann]

Originally posted by SRW
Sorry if I was not clear: but yes I have met many former prostitutes who married a customer.
OK, I won't ask you to prove it! I haven't met any. Actually I have only met one woman who volunteered the information that she used to be a prostitute, but I still don't get your point.

[SRW]

Originally posted by dann
Well, look at Cuba. Prostitution was virtually eliminated in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, then returned in the 1990s when the country was impoverished following the desintegration of the socialist countries that used to support it.

So all the stories I heard about the Russian sailors and cubian hookers were wrong...who would have thunk it.

Do you have a link or a source that shows this? And no fair eliminating prostition by calling hookers individual tour guides.

[Gulliamo]

What, in your definition, is the difference between a prostitute and someone who marries for money? Or who uses their "assets" to get promoted?

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
What, in your definition, is the difference between a prostitute and someone who marries for money? Or who uses their "assets" to get promoted?

Well, the prostitute is a lot more honest about what she does.

In reality, a successful prostitute/john relationship is incredibly honest, fufilling and enjoyable for both parties.

Uh, so I've heard.

[hgc]

Originally posted by dann
Well, look at Cuba. Prostitution was virtually eliminated in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, then returned in the 1990s when the country was impoverished following the desintegration of the socialist countries that used to support it. I also find this quite dubious. What society on Earth has not prostitution? Is it populated with human men?

[jay gw]

Nah, I don't have fantasies about being a woman... I was just considering an alternative career option... but... but... lemme watch "American Gigolo" once more.... maybe all isn't lost!

If you wear that speedo swimsuit, I know some guys who could give you some "career options".....

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by dann
Prostitution sucks! (pun not intended) Making it illegal does not put a stop to it. Eliminating poverty does.

Since it's never been done (eliminating poverty), don't you mean you think it would put a stop to prostitution? How do you propose to do this anyway, take from the rich and give to the poor until there are no rich no more?

[Cain]

[It's interesting that someone mentions the movie _Pretty Woman_. The _NYT_ did a feature article for its Sunday magazine on the global slave trade and sex industry. Many women in Eastern Europe seeking/forced to become mail-order-brides DO apparently believe that it's not so bad, and they explicitly compare themselves to Julia Roberts in the movie.

[dann]

Originally posted by SRW
So all the stories I heard about the Russian sailors and cubian hookers were wrong...who would have thunk it.
Do you have a link or a source that shows this? And no fair eliminating prostition by calling hookers individual tour guides.
I haven't heard those stories. Could you tell us some more? And, as you already said: "Can you provide evidence for this?"
Originally posted by Gulliamo
What, in your definition, is the difference between a prostitute and someone who marries for money? Or who uses their "assets" to get promoted?
A prostitute is somebody who sells sexual favors for money, someone who marries for money is someone who marries for money, and somebody who uses her assets to get promoted is somebody who uses her assets to get promoted, whereass someone who uses her "assets" to get promoted is someone who uses her charms, good looks or sexual favors to get promoted. See the difference?! (I am well aware of the similarities, but what is your point? I never tried to condemn prostitutes as unworthy lowlifes as opposed to the morally superior Nicole Smiths of this world!)
Originally posted by KelvinG
Uh, so I've heard.
Good one, Kelvin!
Originally posted by hgc
I also find this quite dubious. What society on Earth has not prostitution? Is it populated with human men?
It would be. Selling sexual favors depends on more than just horny men. If the woman won't sell, he can go somewhere and jerk off. And let's not forget that, in general, sex takes place between two "consenting adults", and that money isn't usually involved and very often they both enjoy the act! It may come as a surprise to many of you, but if you ask me for evidence I'm not sure that I can provide it.
Originally posted by Peptoabysmal
Since it's never been done (eliminating poverty), don't you mean you think it would put a stop to prostitution?
See what happens when poverty is diminshed (Cuba), and when it is reintroduced (Cuba - or Eastern Europe with the transition from socialism to market economy and globalization: The Eastern European countries have indeed evolved into export nations - of hookers to the rest of the world!)
Originally posted by Peptoabysmal
How do you propose to do this anyway, take from the rich and give to the poor until there are no rich no more?
You wouldn’t approve of that? Well, where does poverty come from in the first place, in third-world countries as well as in the USA or Europe? (And I think that SRW probably referred to Thailand or (South) Vietnam when he wrote this: "I have met quite a few women who met their husbands as customers, not billionairs but relatively rich American G.I.s.")
http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/poverty.html
Originally posted by Cain
It's interesting that someone mentions the movie Pretty Woman. The NYT did a feature article for its Sunday magazine on the global slave trade and sex industry. Many women in Eastern Europe seeking/forced to become mail-order-brides DO apparently believe that it's not so bad, and they explicitly compare themselves to Julia Roberts in the movie.
They would, wouldn't they?! Julia Roberts just happens to be a very good role model! Now all we need to do is persuade all the billionaires to follow in the footsteps of Richard Gere! I'm sure they just love that movie too!

[El Greco]

Originally posted by jay gw
If you wear that speedo swimsuit, I know some guys who could give you some "career options".....

You do ? Please tell us about them. What are your experiences ? Do they treat you well ? It's nice to have an insider here.

[Cleopatra]

I practice law for nine years now and so far I have never met a happy prostitute. Most of the prostitutes I have represented or seen in prison were beaten almost to death, they are drug addicts and they look much older than they really are.

On the other hand though I do not suffer from the obsession of the " saint whore" a myth that I believe that is connected with Christianity.

All the whores I have met and represented have a common thing: their attitude towards life. All of them started by trading sex with small favors: a better grade in college, making the boss more friendly, a rich lover and things like that. I don't believe in the myth that women become prostitutes because life is cruel to them. Life is cruel to many women and many of them prefer to become maids or wash dishes in restaurants rather than becoming whores.

There is another category I know since I was a college student. Some girls become prostitutes in order to buy expensive clothes and cover debts by credit cards. Most of them have a very bad finale-- beaten and marked on the face.

An exception to all the categories above constitute the sex slaves that are imported to Europe by the countries of East Europe. So far I haven't met any happy prostitutes that belong to that category.

I agree with dann. "Pretty Woman" was disgusting along with the book of Xaviera Hollander " The Happy Hooker".

Prostitution sucks but I don't really pity prostitutes.

[SRW]

Originally posted by dann
I haven't heard those stories. Could you tell us some more? And, as you already said: "Can you provide evidence for this?"




Can I provide evidence, that I heard, Russian sailors visited hookers in Cuba? No, you will just have to take my word that I heard this. I don't know one way or the other if it is true or not, it's just what I heard.

You on the other hand have made the following statements;

1. Poverty causes prostitution.

2. Eliminating poverty will eradicate prostition.

3. There were no hookers in Cuba (or very few) in the 60-80's.

4. All prostitutes are poor (or at least started that way).

5. The only difference between a $10.00 crack whore and a $500.00 per hour callgirl is the price.

These are all statements which you have been asked to support. Please give some supporting evidence.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I practice law for nine years now and so far I have never met a happy prostitute. Most of the prostitutes I have represented or seen in prison were beaten almost to death, they are drug addicts and they look much older than they really are.


I don't argue that there is a very ugly side to prostitution. In fact, I'm sure the ugly side outweighs the positives.

However, there are prostitutes out there who do actually enjoy what they do. I wouldn't expect you would see them in your profession. i.e. they don't get arrested.
At least I know in this part of the world, it is perfectly easy to operate as a prostitute in legal ways, that would prevent you from ever having trouble with the law.
A lot of the women work for themselves, make a ton of money, and have loads of free time. OK, they are probably in the minority, but they do exist.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
Most of the prostitutes I have represented or seen in prison were beaten almost to death, they are drug addicts and they look much older than they really are. If you will let me draw a parallel... Many (most) dirty, dive, strip joint strippers I have seen would fit the same description (beaten, drug addled, old looking). Many (again most) of the "Scores type" (high end) strippers I have known lived very enviable lives (made several thousand USD per night, lived in luxury high rise buildings or homes, drove late model imports, spent most of their day in salons, gyms, spas, etc., had the best surgeons in the world keeping them looking young.)

I think criminalizing the act moves many into the 1st category. This is because they do not have access to the same rights. For example: a street walker would be hard pressed to call the cops on a John who stiffed her (uh… I mean didn’t pay her) and beat her. Whereas, if prostitution were legal the prostitutes would simply call the establishment bouncer the instant someone got out of hand and they would be tossed out on their 4th point of contact (similar to what happens to overly rowdy guest at nice gentlemen’s clubs.

[thumbs]

Originally posted by dann
Have you met many prostitutes who met their husbands as customers?

Yes. Most of them were Filipino bar girls.

Ranb

[Ranb]

Opps, I just made myself into a sock puppet. I used my evil twin's computer to post and forgot I needed to log him off first. I'm sure he does not know ANY bad girls as noted above.

Ranb

[crimresearch]

An exception to all the categories above constitute the sex slaves that are imported to Europe by the countries of East Europe. So far I haven't met any happy prostitutes that belong to that category.

Even though an argument can be made that criminalization creates problems, places like Prague make it seem as though the bell cannot be unrung by simply legalizing prostitution.

I don't know what Cain's NYT article said, but the witness.org undercover documentary footage on the forced sexual slavery in Europe didn't include anyone who seemed happy about it as I recall.

[dann]

Originally posted by SRW
Can I provide evidence, that I heard, Russian sailors visited hookers in Cuba? No, you will just have to take my word that I heard this. I don't know one way or the other if it is true or not, it's just what I heard.
You on the other hand have made the following statements;
1. Poverty causes prostitution.
2. Eliminating poverty will eradicate prostition.
3. There were no hookers in Cuba (or very few) in the 60-80's.
4. All prostitutes are poor (or at least started that way).
5. The only difference between a $10.00 crack whore and a $500.00 per hour callgirl is the price.
These are all statements which you have been asked to support. Please give some supporting evidence.
4) I haven't stated that all prostitutes are poor. Some of them have (and earn) a lot more money than I do! (And, yes, that still doesn't mean that poverty does not cause prostitution!)
5) The major difference between a $10 whore and a $500 whore is the price, yes. There may be many other differences: One of them might be a college professor, the other one an astrologer. One of them might be from New York, the other one from Saigon. But on the other hand: the professor and the astrologer might both be $300 whores. (When you call one of them a "crack whore" and the other one a "per hour callgirl, you have defined a difference between two whores in your imaginary example which it would be absurd to deny!) What is your point?
It should be possible to find evidence to support 3), on which the argument for 1) and 2) is based. I'll see what I can find ...

[dann]

Originally posted by crimresearch
[B]I don't know what Cain's NYT article said, but the witness.org undercover documentary footage on the forced sexual slavery in Europe didn't include anyone who seemed happy about it as I recall.
It should not come as a surprise to anybody: "forced" and "happy" are usually mutually exclusive! The only exception is probably in pornography, i.e. fiction!

[SRW]

Originally posted by dann
4) I haven't stated that all prostitutes are poor. Some of them have (and earn) a lot more money than I do! (And, yes, that still doesn't mean that poverty does not cause prostitution!)
5) The major difference between a $10 whore and a $500 whore is the price, yes. There may be many other differences: One of them might be a college professor, the other one an astrologer. One of them might be from New York, the other one from Saigon. But on the other hand: the professor and the astrologer might both be $300 whores. (When you call one of them a "crack whore" and the other one a "per hour callgirl, you have defined a difference between two whores in your imaginary example which it would be absurd to deny!) What is your point?
It should be possible to find evidence to support 3), on which the argument for 1) and 2) is based. I'll see what I can find ...


So you cannot provide evidence of any of you claimes? And you did say that all Prostiture started because they were poor. And that eliminating poverity would eridicate Prostution. I am still waiting for your evidence.

[dann]

Originally posted by SRW
3. There were no hookers in Cuba (or very few) in the 60-80's.
45. In her meetings in Havana, as well as in the provinces, most of the Special Rapporteur's interlocutors held that, as a result of the Cuban revolution, Cuban society had succeeded in virtually eliminating prostitution. Prior to 1959, prostitution was widely stated to have existed out of need; the improvements in the economic and social status of women thereafter had eliminated that need. However, the Special Rapporteur was informed that with the gradual increase of tourism in Cuba, prostitution had been increasing in recent years, mostly in tourist destinations such as Havana and Varadero. The women who engage in prostitution were characterized as originating from families without morals or from dysfunctional families and it was emphasized that any prostitution that might exist in Cuba was not practised in order to meet economic needs, but rather as a result of crumbling social and moral values. Furthermore, as characterized by President Castro himself, Cuban women who sell sex are not prostitutes but rather "jineteras", since no one is forcing them to do so "but they do it on their own".5

46. At the same time, however, the Special Rapporteur notes that with the rise of tourism, Cubans without access to the dollar economy and without employment in the much sought after tourism sector are inevitably at an economic disadvantage which is naturally exacerbated by the tightening of economic sanctions and contrasted with the attractions of a Western lifestyle brought in by tourists. The Special Rapporteur therefore believes that the temptation to earn hard currency from tourists is one that is hard to resist.
So far I haven't been able to find any statistics, but all articles that I have found in the internet about prostitution in Cuba, this one from a human rights study, seem to agree on prostitution being virtually eliminated in Cuba after the revolution in 1958-59 and resurging again in the 1990s. Not even the anti-Castro sites deny this.
I recommend that you make a google search of your own.

[dann]

Originally posted by SRW
By the way Cinderella did not really happen either
Can you prove it?

[kimiko]

"He told students, "For every two inches up there, you should get another $50,000 on your salary"

Has anyone seen the school speaker article where it mentioned a base salary for a stripper?

A poster on Fark commenting on that article said this: "Would rather see my daughter become successful, happy exotic dancer than: - wal mart employee; crappy actor; corrupt politician; ******* lawyer; mcdonald's worker; truck driver; unhappy waitress; soldier; stressed out, miserable teacher; broke ass cop; etc etc. as long as you enjoy what you're doing, what's the problem? oh yeah, nudity is evil. I forgot. better she becomes a soldier, because people who kill others for money are heroes."

That gives another perspective. Wouldn't it be better to be a disease-free, high-priced hooker than a soldier in Iraq right now? Unless of course you really believed in the mission, then I could see rather being there. The downsides I see are incurable diseases that condoms don't necessarily protect from, like herpes, and possible violence from customers.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by kimiko
A poster on Fark commenting on that article said this: "Would rather see my daughter become successful, happy exotic dancer than: - wal mart employee; crappy actor; corrupt politician; ******* lawyer; mcdonald's worker; truck driver; unhappy waitress; soldier; stressed out, miserable teacher; broke ass cop; etc etc. as long as you enjoy what you're doing, what's the problem?

Definitely. A virtual handshake to that poster from me. I wish my (unborn) daughter becomes a very very very expensive prostitute. Besides, I'm sure she'll have a few colleagues willing to entertain their best friend's daddy.

[Scoff]

Do prostitutes enjoy themselves? Ask one, and she'll probably answer:

" Oh...yeah...yesss...yesss!!! , or,

"Oh BABY, yeah, yeah, Oh....Oh....etc, etc"

"Oh you're the best....you're great....Oh....Oh...etc, etc"

Stock standard lines. Part of the job.

I am surprised to see Cleopatra, a law practioner, calling them "whores", it's so judgemental and seems to presume that the prostitute could so easily be doing something much "nicer". Thus they earn the damning title "whore" in advance. Such a nasty term to apply indiscriminantly.

There are a whole lot of reasons people, including children, become prostitutes and it's mostly all ugly. The spoilt uni student etc referred to who's trying to earn a good bit on the side to buy trinkets etc is hardly represntative of the spectrum. And, the fact that such people become prostitutes doesn't make other causes "myths".

[Cain]

Originally posted by kimiko
"He told students, "For every two inches up there, you should get another $50,000 on your salary"

Has anyone seen the school speaker article where it mentioned a base salary for a stripper?

A poster on Fark commenting on that article said this: "Would rather see my daughter become successful, happy exotic dancer than: - wal mart employee; crappy actor; corrupt politician; ******* lawyer; mcdonald's worker; truck driver; unhappy waitress; soldier; stressed out, miserable teacher; broke ass cop; etc etc. as long as you enjoy what you're doing, what's the problem? oh yeah, nudity is evil. I forgot. better she becomes a soldier, because people who kill others for money are heroes."

That gives another perspective. Wouldn't it be better to be a disease-free, high-priced hooker than a soldier in Iraq right now? Unless of course you really believed in the mission, then I could see rather being there. The downsides I see are incurable diseases that condoms don't necessarily protect from, like herpes, and possible violence from customers.

That's a loaded example. I think most parents and most expectant parents will say they are more concerned about their children's happiness than their children's profession (do whatever makes you happy). Would you rather your child leads a dashing and stylish life of crime, or dies at a young age of leukemia? Hmmm.... Danny Ocean leading a gang of thieves to pull off the big heist, or the noble young kid who takes six months to die miserably in a hospital bed.

There's also a signifant difference between a stripper and a hooker. Presumably parents want to instill the right preferences and what they think are the right moral values in their children.

Has anyone from Fark ever made a worthwhile comment? Talk about fcuked up moral values.

[dann]

Originally posted by kimiko
"Would rather see my daughter become successful, happy exotic dancer than: - wal mart employee; crappy actor; corrupt politician; ******* lawyer; mcdonald's worker; truck driver; unhappy waitress; soldier; stressed out, miserable teacher; broke ass cop; etc etc. as long as you enjoy what you're doing, what's the problem? oh yeah, nudity is evil. I forgot. better she becomes a soldier, because people who kill others for money are heroes."

That gives another perspective. Wouldn't it be better to be a disease-free, high-priced hooker than a soldier in Iraq right now? Unless of course you really believed in the mission, then I could see rather being there. The downsides I see are incurable diseases that condoms don't necessarily protect from, like herpes, and possible violence from customers.
Please, leave out the adjectives! It's a little too easy to compare a happy exotic dancer or hooker with an unhappy waitress etc. And that has absolutely nothing to do with nudity (or sex) being evil! I can imagine that there are christian fundamentalists who would look at it in this way, but so far I haven't seen that perspective represented in this thread. I also didn't see anybody comparing soldiers and prostitutes. You are making up a strawman! (And it occurs to you when you start qualifying your soldier with your "Unless ..." sentence!)
You are right! That really "gives another perspective"! But only because you make up your very own imaginary example!
Please adjust your imagination and go back and read the first contributions to this debate by Beerina and myself!
If I got to choose the woman, yes, then I could also see how being a gigolo would be a lot of fun - especially if I could also eliminate the "downsides" that you describe. That, however, is not the way prostitution works. If you are the hooker, they, the johns (or janes?) pick you. It's not the other way round!
(And to destroy another fantasy that some of you may cling on to: When she pretends to come, it's in order to make you come faster, i.e. to get it over with. You may have heard otherwise, but if you have, please don't just tell us! Show us the evidence!)

PS I can see that Cain beat me to it:
"That's a loaded example. "

[dann]

Originally posted by Scoff
Do prostitutes enjoy themselves? Ask one, and she'll probably answer:
"Oh...yeah...yesss...yesss!!! , or,
"Oh BABY, yeah, yeah, Oh....Oh....etc, etc"
"Oh you're the best....you're great....Oh....Oh...etc, etc"
Stock standard lines. Part of the job.
Good example, Scoff!
I am surprised to see Cleopatra, a law practioner, calling them "whores", it's so judgemental and seems to presume that the prostitute could so easily be doing something much "nicer". Thus they earn the damning title "whore" in advance. Such a nasty term to apply indiscriminantly.
I use the words whore, prostitute and hooker indiscriminately. So does Cleopatra, I think. I am not unaware that the three-syllable word prostitute is not used as often as an insult as whore, but I do not use any of them to insult. A newspaper changed the headline of a recent article of mine (in Danish) from "Prohibition of prostitution?" to "The miserable alternatives of a whore". Without asking for my permission to do so ...

[dann]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
I don't believe in the myth that women become prostitutes because life is cruel to them. Life is cruel to many women and many of them prefer to become maids or wash dishes in restaurants rather than becoming whores.

There is another category I know since I was a college student. Some girls become prostitutes in order to buy expensive clothes and cover debts by credit cards.
'Life' is cruel to many people and, it is true, many prefer not to become prostitutes. Most of us don't consider this 'career option'. (For now, let's forget about the childish masturbation fantasies!) However, there is a difference between the people who "prefer to become maids or wash dishes in restaurants" instead of being prostitutes, and the ones who prefer to be(come) doctors, professors, stockmarket brokers (or better still: stock owners!) instead of whores.
I was also a college student some years ago, and I can think of a third category: the ones who were able to buy expensive clothes and have their credit-card debts covered because they had wealthy and generous parents (or used to have wealthy parent who were now deceased). But then again: that was not a category that ever even considered becoming prostitutes - mainly because they never had to worry seriously about expenses.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by dann
'Life' is cruel to many people and, it is true, many prefer not to become prostitutes. Most of us don't consider this 'career option'. (For now, let's forget about the childish masturbation fantasies!) However, there is a difference between the people who "prefer to become maids or wash dishes in restaurants" instead of being prostitutes, and the ones who prefer to be(come) doctors, professors, stockmarket brokers (or better still: stock owners!) instead of whores.

If you are in a really difficult period of your life you cannot become a doctor or a lawyer or a stock market broker. Becoming a lawyer is much more difficult than opening your legs for money.
It would be interesting to see if a woman has ever exercized this profession in order to cover the tuition of the School of Medicine or the School of Law.

Many women and I am talking about young and good looking women prefer to go wash dishes when they are in a challenging situation than becoming prostitutes. All I want to say is that what you do when you are in a difficult situation speaks volumes about your character.

I was also a college student some years ago, and I can think of a third category: the ones who were able to buy expensive clothes and have their credit-card debts covered because they had wealthy and generous parents (or used to have wealthy parent who were now deceased). But then again: that was not a category that ever even considered becoming prostitutes - mainly because they never had to worry seriously about expenses.

I am sorry but I miss the point in this argument. What do you mean?

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Scoff

I am surprised to see Cleopatra, a law practioner, calling them "whores", it's so judgemental and seems to presume that the prostitute could so easily be doing something much "nicer". Thus they earn the damning title "whore" in advance. Such a nasty term to apply indiscriminantly.

I apologize for that. To my defense I have to tell you that I am not a native english speaker and to me the words have meanings and not quality. I should have been more careful though since I know the difference.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by KelvinG
I don't argue that there is a very ugly side to prostitution. In fact, I'm sure the ugly side outweighs the positives.

However, there are prostitutes out there who do actually enjoy what they do. I wouldn't expect you would see them in your profession. i.e. they don't get arrested.
At least I know in this part of the world, it is perfectly easy to operate as a prostitute in legal ways, that would prevent you from ever having trouble with the law.
A lot of the women work for themselves, make a ton of money, and have loads of free time. OK, they are probably in the minority, but they do exist.
Yes I agree. In each business there are the clever and more competent businessmen that have luck on their side too while the majority if very mediocre. That's why I don't believe in the myth "Oh the poor girl that ended up a prostitute".

[El Greco]

Ok, to further this interesting socio-economical discussion I have searched and I offer you the websites of two top prostitutes that have been arrested during the last days in Athens, Greece.

These links ARE NOT work-friendly (or maybe they are TOO work-friendly, depending on your prespective).

This is the site of the Bulgarian girl who used to charge 30,000 euros for a weekend (through web archive, since the original is closed down): Marlene (http://web.archive.org/web/20040203010904/http://www.marleneg.com/)

And here is the site of Kizia, the black gazelle from Africa who flew to Athens thinking she was going to meet a client but alas, she met the police: Kizia (http://www.kizia.com/).

If you are sad that you've discovered the paradise too late, have courage: I'm sure that both girls will resume their normal activities before you can count 30,000 euros.

[Cleopatra]

I don't have a clue about those cases but I wonder. Does a 30.000 E call girl needs a web-site to find clients? Descretion is the top virtue in this business.

[El Greco]

To further the discussion even more, I will point out that according to Kizia's site, she studies law :D

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by El Greco
To further the discussion even more, I will point out that according to Kizia's site, she studies law :D

HAHAHAHAHAHA.Thanks for pointing this out. I missed it.
This reminds me of the interviews of the girls in the beauty contests in Greece.

- What is your dream career?
-When I will be finished with modelling I will definetly become a nuclear scientist.
-What your hobby?
- When I am out of the catwalk I am trying to find alternative ways in solving Fermat's last theorem.

et cetera... et cetera... et cetera...

[El Greco]

And here are the reports of their arrests.

For Marlene (from this page (http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/news/content.asp?aid=51474)):


Elite prostitute

A 36-year-old Bulgarian prostitute who allegedly advertised her costly services over the Internet was arrested in an Athens hotel on Tuesday by a policeman posing as a prospective client. According to police, the unnamed woman had promoted herself as a high-class “escort� on her site, which included details of her services, costing as much as 30,000 euros.

For Kizia (from this page (http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/news/content.asp?aid=51790)):


Woman held for ‘Internet prostitution’

A 30-year-old naturalized French woman, who allegedly solicited international clients from her Brussels base using a website, was yesterday being detained in Athens on charges of “prostitution via the Internet� after a policeman posing as a potential client invited her to Greece. It is the first such sting operation to be carried out by police in Greece.

The woman, born in Ivory Coast, who has not been named, served clients in her Brussels home but would also offer to visit prospective clients in other countries if they agreed to cover her travel costs along with her fees, Attica police said.

According to police, the woman’s website included revealing photographs of herself, her mobile telephone number and e-mail address, along with rates for her services, which ranged from 300 euros an hour to 2,100 euros for a full day for international clients; Brussels clients would be charged 200 euros an hour and 350 euros for two hours with the 30-year-old, police said.

The alleged prostitute kept a diary on her website informing potential clients about her itinerary so that she could efficiently book appointments both at home and abroad, according to police, whose attention was attracted by an entry for January 12 and 13 stating: “Meet me in Athens.�

A Greek policeman posing as a potential customer used the contact details provided on the website to book an appointment with the woman, who was arrested on January 4 when she arrived in Athens.

[dann]

Originally posted by Cleopatra
If you are in a really difficult period of your life you cannot become a doctor or a lawyer or a stock market broker.
Couldn't agree more. It does, however, depend on what kind of difficulty and what kind of life ...
Becoming a lawyer is much more difficult than opening your legs for money.
Difficult? Sure! Pleasurable? I doubt it.
Many women and I am talking about young and good looking women prefer to go wash dishes when they are in a challenging situation than becoming prostitutes.
I think that you misunderstand the argument. Nobody claimed that poverty forces people to choose prostitution to earn a living.
All I want to say is that what you do when you are in a difficult situation speaks volumes about your character.
So prostitutes are lowlifes - and dishwashers the ones with moral integrity?
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dann: "I was also a college student some years ago, and I can think of a third category: the ones who were able to buy expensive clothes and have their credit-card debts covered because they had wealthy and generous parents (or used to have wealthy parent who were now deceased). But then again: that was not a category that ever even considered becoming prostitutes - mainly because they never had to worry seriously about expenses."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am sorry but I miss the point in this argument. What do you mean?
You miss the point because you are so preoccupied with the question of character. There are some people who become neither prostitutes nor dishwashers, not because of their moral integrity, but simply because they are never faced with the choice between the two miserable alternatives! Also: There is a huge difference between being a student of law in a tight spot, "a challenging situation", and being faced with dish washing as the career of a lifetime. And the difference is not one of character.

[dann]

Originally posted by El Greco
Elite prostitute
A 36-year-old Bulgarian prostitute who allegedly advertised her costly services over the Internet was arrested in an Athens hotel on Tuesday by a policeman posing as a prospective client. According to police, the unnamed woman had promoted herself as a high-class “escort� on her site, which included details of her services, costing as much as 30,000 euros.
It is not at all difficult to offer services over the internet costing as much as 100,000 euros for a weekend. They don't even have to be sexual services, you can offer anything you like. The difficulty is finding somebody who is willing to pay the amount.
Don't believe everything you find on the internet!

[Jas]

I know quite a few people who work as escorts, strippers, and prostitutes.

The prostitutes, the ones who hang out on the sidewalks, generally don't do so well. The vast majority of them, while they actually gross a fair bit of cash, use it to support their crack habit (or their pimp). Same thing for the boys, however they generally aren't as 'obvious' as the girls, most people wouldn't be able to tell them from the other guy walking down the street in birkenstocks. they tend to hide a lot too, because (at least in Calgary), some people find it quite amusing to go to the gay stroll and beat then up.

Same deal with a lot of the strippers. There aren't that many stripping their way through college. Some of them try, but most of them become addicted to the money and the hours (not to mention a lot of cocaine), and end up dropping out school, if they were ever there in the first place. As far as boyfriends go, the guys you meet generally aren't that great. There are quite a few exceptions to this though, but the majority don't do so well.

As far as escorts go, a few good friends of mine have been employed in that profession. The boys make WAY more than the girls, but they have to deal with nastier clients. Most of the time the girls don't have to sleep with their clients either, one friend of mine figured that she maybe slept with 20% of them, mainly only the regulars, or the 18 year olds. Her boyfriend thought she was the bookkeeper (or something like that) for the agency. She said that most of her clients just wanted company, and when she got the really 'gross' guys, she felt more sorry for them than repulsed. Most of her friends from the agency though did a LOT of drugs though. A lot of clients request girls that they can do drugs with.

I figure one's reason for becoming a prostitute (or whatever) really depend on the person, and their situation, and you would have to be a pretty strong/smart person to keep your head through it.

[gnome]

I didn't think "Pretty Woman" was disgusting... in fact I'll freely admit I enjoyed it. I don't have a problem with it being unrealistic, it practically screams at the audience that it's a FRICKING FAIRY TALE.

Anyone that would actually be fooled into thinking it represents reality has a lot bigger problems than looking up to Julia Roberts' character.

[WildCat]

Originally posted by El Greco
The story leaked because the father fainted and they had to call an ambulance.
That's not why the ambulance was needed. What happened was he called her a two-bit whore, and she hit him over the head w/ a sack of quarters.

[dann]

Originally posted by gnome
I didn't think "Pretty Woman" was disgusting... in fact I'll freely admit I enjoyed it. I don't have a problem with it being unrealistic, it practically screams at the audience that it's a FRICKING FAIRY TALE.
Anyone that would actually be fooled into thinking it represents reality has a lot bigger problems than looking up to Julia Roberts' character.
Now I won't claim that it doesn't take quite a bit of willing suspension of disbelief to think of Pretty Woman as more than a piece of very bad fiction, but on the other hand: The women mentioned by Cain do have "a lot bigger problems than looking up to Julia Roberts' character", which is probably the reason why they, as Randi would put it, need to believe in Juliet Roberts' sugar-coated whore - the same way other people need to believe in Sylvia Brown and other very implausible characters.
Originally posted by Cain
It's interesting that someone mentions the movie Pretty Woman. The NYT did a feature article for its Sunday magazine on the global slave trade and sex industry. Many women in Eastern Europe seeking/forced to become mail-order-brides DO apparently believe that it's not so bad, and they explicitly compare themselves to Julia Roberts in the movie.
(Did you actually enjoy that crappy movie?!!)

[El Greco]

Originally posted by dann
It is not at all difficult to offer services over the internet costing as much as 100,000 euros for a weekend. They don't even have to be sexual services, you can offer anything you like. The difficulty is finding somebody who is willing to pay the amount.
Don't believe everything you find on the internet!

First of all, this wasn't my quote, it was the police's report and after all, this is how much she was asking.

And I never said that she had as many clients as Amazon does, so I don't understand your comment. Apparently you seem to believe that there are absolutely no clients who would pay 30,000 for one weekend ? Is this what you believe ?

[RPG Advocate]

Thinking that elimination of poverty will eliminate prostitution is extremely naive and demonstrative of a basic ignorance of ecnomics. The only way to eliminate prostitution would be to eliminate demand for prostitution (like THAT'S ever going to happen!). Even in a completely deregulated sex market, the equillibrium price for sex acts would probably be high enough that an independent escort could live well above the poverty line. I do, however, think the prevelence of streetwalkers would drop with the poverty rate.

I also can't believe that in this day and age, we're still placing moral significance on what one chooses to do with one's body. As far as I'm concenred, even if someone stood on a busy street with a placard reading "WILL F*** ANYONE! JUST ASK!" (and actually was doing so just for the asking), what that person was doing would have no moral significance either way. It's just someone who wants to engage in a consensual activity, as far as I'm concerned. Adding money to the equation doesn't change that.

Most of the time the girls don't have to sleep with their clients either, one friend of mine figured that she maybe slept with 20% of them, mainly only the regulars, or the 18 year olds. Her boyfriend thought she was the bookkeeper (or something like that) for the agency. She said that most of her clients just wanted company

Are you serious? I freely admit I've considered hiring a prosititute(haven't gone through with it, still might in the future), but given the prices escorts charge, I would certainly want to have sex with someone I hired. I wonder why those people who are willing to pay $200/hr+. for company don't just join a dating service. You would probably get more minutes of company per dollar by doing that.

[dann]

Originally posted by El Greco
First of all, this wasn't my quote, it was the police's report and after all, this is how much she was asking.Sorry. I know the quotation was just posted by you. I didn't mean to imply that you wrote it.
And I never said that she had as many clients as Amazon does, so I don't understand your comment. Apparently you seem to believe that there are absolutely no clients who would pay 30,000 for one weekend ? Is this what you believe ? I have no idea! (And I don't even want to know for what exactly!) But I think that you could probably get ten Bulgarian prostitutes for three months for that amount.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by RPG Advocate
I also can't believe that in this day and age, we're still placing moral significance on what one chooses to do with one's body. As far as I'm concenred, even if someone stood on a busy street with a placard reading "WILL F*** ANYONE! JUST ASK!" (and actually was doing so just for the asking), what that person was doing would have no moral significance either way. It's just someone who wants to engage in a consensual activity, as far as I'm concerned. Adding money to the equation doesn't change that.

It's just another fine feature of religion: Demeaning people for the way they choose to dispose themselves. Fortunately, Christianity has left behind the Holy Inquisition days but will still not let it go completely (hence the "moral significance"). Other cultures still stone prostitutes.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by dann
But I think that you could probably get ten Bulgarian prostitutes for three months for that amount.

FWIW, for that amount (and less) you could actually buy a Bulgarian prostitute and have her work for you.

[SRW]

Originally posted by dann
Well, look at Cuba. Prostitution was virtually eliminated in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, then returned in the 1990s when the country was impoverished following the desintegration of the socialist countries that used to support it.

dann, You made this claim in response to your assertion that eliminating poverty will eliminate prostitution. The one article you posted (without reference) did not prove your claim.

I have goggled this and the only reason I have found for the reduction in Cuban prostition is that Castro crimianilized it.

I do not doubt that when a dictator wants to stop something he can; and eliminating poverty has little to do with it.

I will attempt to make is simple for you.

Please provide evidence that:

1. Poverty was eliminated in Cuba

2. That and that alone eliminated prostitution.

[dann]

Originally posted by RPG Advocate
Thinking that elimination of poverty will eliminate prostitution is extremely naive and demonstrative of a basic ignorance of ecnomics. The only way to eliminate prostitution would be to eliminate demand for prostitution (like THAT'S ever going to happen!).
I don't really know if your naivety and basic ignorance concerns economics or the sex life of humans. There's a difference, a very basic one, between the basic need for sex and your 'need' for prostitution. (And since, so far, you have only considered hiring a prostitute, I hope for your sake that you are familiar with the fact!)
Even in a completely deregulated sex market, the equillibrium price for sex acts would probably be high enough that an independent escort could live well above the poverty line. I do, however, think the prevelence of streetwalkers would drop with the poverty rate.
A "completely deregulated sex market"? The "equilibrium price for sex acts"? Are you so basically ignorant of the option that sex markets could simply be eliminated?
I also can't believe that in this day and age, we're still placing moral significance on what one chooses to do with one's body. As far as I'm concenred, even if someone stood on a busy street with a placard reading "WILL F*** ANYONE! JUST ASK!" (and actually was doing so just for the asking), what that person was doing would have no moral significance either way. It's just someone who wants to engage in a consensual activity, as far as I'm concerned. Adding money to the equation doesn't change that.
Removing money from the actually existing and not just imaginary "equation" called prostitution, however, would not only change but eliminate the phenomenon. Maybe you haven't noticed, but in the real world you won't find anybody in the street with a sign reading: "WILL F*** ANYONE! JUST ASK!" Not even in the rather promiscuous gay community do they have something like that, I think. NOBODY wants to engage in that kind of "consensual activity" - without the money!
Are you serious? I freely admit I've considered hiring a prosititute(haven't gone through with it, still might in the future), but given the prices escorts charge, I would certainly want to have sex with someone I hired. I wonder why those people who are willing to pay $200/hr+. for company don't just join a dating service. You would probably get more minutes of company per dollar by doing that.
Did you ever consider having sex with somebody who simply felt attracted to you and wanted to have sex with you - for free? It's so much cheaper! Think of all the $$ you'd save!
(I do hope that you are joking, but I guess you probably aren't.)
Originally posted by El Greco
It's just another fine feature of religion: Demeaning people for the way they choose to dispose themselves. Fortunately, Christianity has left behind the Holy Inquisition days but will still not let it go completely (hence the "moral significance"). Other cultures still stone prostitutes.
And you don't find RPG Advocate's ideas demeaning?

[El Greco]

Originally posted by dann
And you don't find RPG Advocate's ideas demeaning?

Ideas ? I don't think he expressed any ideas, he just worded an opinion that prostitution will never be eliminated. Personally I don't get into this debate because I find it too theoretical for my tastes.

I also don't see how your question which relates my disgust for religious "morals" to whatever RPG Advocate said is any relevant. You could also ask "and you don't think Maradona was the best player in the world" ?

[dann]

Originally posted by SRW
dann, You made this claim in response to your assertion that eliminating poverty will eliminate prostitution. The one article you posted (without reference) did not prove your claim.
I trust it wasn't too difficult for you to find using google?
I have goggled this and the only reason I have found for the reduction in Cuban prostition is that Castro crimianilized it.
I find that very hard to believe! You have had enough time to come up with something better. Will you please provide evidence for your claim?
I do not doubt that when a dictator wants to stop something he can; and eliminating poverty has little to do with it.And why do you think "a dictator" doesn't want to stop prostitution anymore? No, even a dictator cannot stop prostitution if a woman has the choice between starving (or letting her children starve) or prostitution - which is the reason why prostitution reemerged in Cuba in the 90s. (By the way, why do you think your glorious, democratically elected president Bush hasn't put a stop to prostitution?)
I will attempt to make is simple for you.
Thank you, I appreciate that.
Please provide evidence that:
1. Poverty was eliminated in Cuba
2. That and that alone eliminated prostitution.
Since we are talking social studies now and not science research laboratories, the only evidence I can come up with is the arguments I have already presented:
Nobody seems to deny that the kind of poverty that existed in Cuba before the revolution was eliminated in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Illiteracy was overcome in the first couple of years, health care for everybody was a fact by the late 60s and so was a balanced diet and jobs for everybody. This, and not a dictator who simply decreed that there be no prostitution, eliminated sex as a marketable commodity in Cuba.
When I was in Habana in 2000, I met a young girl from Brazil who enjoyed being able to walk through the streets of that city - alone - at night - as a woman! Something that she wouldn't be able to do in Brazil! So what enabled her to do so? The severe sentences for attacking tourists? Well, that is something to consider, but if you starve you really don't have much of a choice, do you? Or the lack of the kind of desperation that you find in other Latin American countries? What do you think?

[gnome]

Originally posted by dann
Now I won't claim that it doesn't take quite a bit of willing suspension of disbelief to think of Pretty Woman as more than a piece of very bad fiction, but on the other hand: The women mentioned by Cain do have "a lot bigger problems than looking up to Julia Roberts' character", which is probably the reason why they, as Randi would put it, need to believe in Juliet Roberts' sugar-coated whore - the same way other people need to believe in Sylvia Brown and other very implausible characters.

I don't believe the comparison is quite valid... because Sylvia and others represent themselves as the real thing. IMO the movie quite clearly does not. I would liken it instead to someone that was putting on an act for entertainment, and let you know it. I wouldn't criticize the act just because some people believed it anyway.

(Did you actually enjoy that crappy movie?!!)

I can't lie about it, much as I'd like to. I thought Julia Roberts was charming and endearing, I thought Laura San Giacomo was hot, and I engaged in a willing suspension of disbelief and enjoyed the story. I'm not claiming it's a Great American Film, but that's a different question than whether I liked it.

[SRW]

Originally posted by dann
I trust it wasn't too difficult for you to find using google?



I will attempt to make is simple for you.

Please provide evidence that:

1. Poverty was eliminated in Cuba

2. That and that alone eliminated prostitution.

I did not find anything that proved your claim. Your opinion is not proof of anything.

Here is somthing intresting I did find:

Castro's resopnse to prostiiution in Cuba (http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/cuba.htm)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Official Response and Action

Castro appears to be contributing to prostitution and the increase in prostitution tourism by his own tolerance. He remarked that Cuban women are prostitutes not because they needed to be but rather because they liked to make love, and that they are the most educated and the healthiest prostitutes on the market. (Jeszs Zzqiga, "Cuba: The Thailand of the Caribbean," Independent Journalists’ Cooperative, 18 June 1998)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

I think that we can take your whole arguement that poverty is the only reason for prostitution and set it up on the shelf, looks good up there I guess we will just leave it there.

[jay gw]

I also don't see how your question which relates my disgust for religious "morals" to whatever RPG Advocate said is any relevant.

Why would someone be disgusted with religious morals?
Why else is prostitution illegal? Name one reason.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by dann
Are you so basically ignorant of the option that sex markets could simply be eliminated?
I, for one, do not believe this to be possible. As long as someone has something that someone else wants, and that someone who has has the desire for sex from the someone who wants, there will be a sex market.

Let us remove money from the conversation to simplify...

In an environment where everyone, yes everyone, has plenty of money...A college professor is able to give a grade... a student needs that grade... the professor desires sex from that student...

I have just created a fertile environment for a blossoming sex market.

I could describe a dozen others, with jobs, glamour, popularity, etc.
Originally posted by dann
Did you ever consider having sex with somebody who simply felt attracted to you and wanted to have sex with you - for free? It's so much cheaper! Think of all the $$ you'd save!
(I do hope that you are joking, but I guess you probably aren't.) There are many advantages to paid, consensual sex. First and foremost, lack of attachment.
Example: If one is in a new city on a business trip and would prefer some companionship, but does not want their phone ringing off the hook for the next three weeks, an escort is perfect.
Originally posted by dann
And you don't find RPG Advocate's ideas demeaning? No. Why?

[Jas]

Originally posted by RPG Advocate
Are you serious? I freely admit I've considered hiring a prosititute(haven't gone through with it, still might in the future), but given the prices escorts charge, I would certainly want to have sex with someone I hired. I wonder why those people who are willing to pay $200/hr+. for company don't just join a dating service. You would probably get more minutes of company per dollar by doing that.

People spend money on wierd things, what can I say? For some people, it might be worth $200 an hour to have someone watch a movie with them, flatter them, listen to their opinions, whatever. Of course, I could probably think of tons of things I would much rather spend my money on, but that's just me.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by jay gw
Why would someone be disgusted with religious morals?
Why else is prostitution illegal? Name one reason.

First question: Go back and read my post where I reply to RPG Advocate.

Second question: Huh ? Are you talking to me ? Another completely irrelevant question, since I never personally discussed in this thread whether prostitution should be legal or not. BTW, prostitution is not illegal everywhere, so the question is wrong as well.

Ok, what was Maradona's first team ?

[dann]

Thank you for the interesting article, SRW. I think that the very first paragraph may actually have contributed to your knowledge of the real world since you no longer want me to find “evidence� for the lack of prostitution in Cuba in the decades following the revolution. You asked for proof that:
Originally posted by SRW
3. There were no hookers in Cuba (or very few) in the 60-80's.
�Cuba, considered to be free of prostitution since the 1960s, is experiencing an increase in prostitution and prostitution tourism as a result of the poor economy. (Jeszs Zzqiga,"Cuba: The Thailand of the Caribbean" Independent Journalists’ Cooperative, 18 June 1998)�
As a result of poor economy!
You still have some questions, however, so let us look at them:
Originally posted by SRW
I will attempt to make is simple for you.
You’ve said that before, and it does not get any better the second time. Let me try to make it simple for you:
We are not dealing with a lab experiment! We cannot simply introduce the elimination of poverty into an ‘environment’ with prostitution and then see what happens, right?! What we can do, is see what actually happened when prostitution was virtually eliminated in Cuba in the 1960s, ‘70s and ‘80s – only to return in the ’90s, coinciding with the impoverishment of Cuban society and thus of the Cubans. And we can compare that situation with countries where prostitution does not disappear even though it is illegal. And we can try to look further for countries where prostitution has been eliminated even though poverty hasn’t.
And I can’t think of any of those. Neither can you, apparently. Your idea seems to be that “a dictator� can accomplish anything, so what you are saying is that prostitution in Cuba was eliminated because prostitutes were persecuted by the state (or by El Jefe). Or, rather, it was just one of the things that contributed to the elimination of prostitution in Cuba, but it takes both prohibition of prostitution and the elimination of poverty to eliminate prostitution. Is that your hypothesis?
I think that we can take your whole argument that poverty is the only reason for prostitution and set it up on the shelf, looks good up there I guess we will just leave it there.
Because if it is, then you have come a long way on this issue too, since you used to believe this:
Originally posted by SRW
I have goggled this and the only reason I have found for the reduction in Cuban prostition is that Castro crimianilized it.
I do not doubt that when a dictator wants to stop something he can; and eliminating poverty has little to do with it.
Now you appear to have learned from your google search that []your[/I] “only reason� was not so “only� after all, and, as I’ve already said, I give you credit for that.
But let us look at the rest of the article:
In Cuba, the new generation of prostituted women vary in age between 15 and 25, although some can be found who are 13 or 31." (Jeszs Zzqiga, "Cuba: The Thailand of the Caribbean" Independent Journalists’ Cooperative, 18 June 1998)
Not much arguing there. My guess is that you can probably find prostitutes who are older than 31, but it is just a guess. I very much doubt that you can find prostitutes who are any younger, since Cubans care so much for their children that they simply would not allow it to take place. (And don’t ask me to prove it!)
Women in prostitution reported an increased demand for adolescents and even little girls. One pimp reported that a man from the Dominican Republic offered him $2,000 for an ‘unblemished’ girl under 14 to work there in a brothel." (Jeszs Zzqiga, "Cuba: The Thailand of the Caribbean" Independent Journalists’ Cooperative, 18 June 1998)
It is probably true that “a man from the Dominican Republic� gave a Cuban an offer for a prostitute under 14. However, it does not say that anybody actually accepted his offer and started dealing in trafficking of Cuban minors!
In Cuba, legislation effective August 1997, sets fines, prison sentences of 2 to 5 years, or up to 8 years for public health, education, tourism, law enforcement or government officials and confiscation of property for pimps, madams and those who rent space out for prostitution. ("Cuba to crack down on abettors of prostitution," Reuters, 20 July 1997)
This, of course, implies that these things have returned with the “Special Period�.
Although there has been an increase in prostitution in Cuba, the women continue to be penalized. Cuba has revived an old law against vagrancy, using it against the women in prostitution who get three warnings before they have to face a sentence of up to eight years in prison. (Jeszs Zzqiga, "Cuba: The Thailand of the Caribbean" Independent Journalists’ Cooperative, 18 June 1998)
Did you pay attention here, SRW? An old law has been revived to fight prostitution. Apparently prostitution has returned (or increased considerably, from being almost eliminated) and now the state of Cuba is reviving old laws to do something about the problem. What made it virtually disappear in the meantime? Well, apparently not the laws against it, since they now have to be revived.
Castro appears to be contributing to prostitution and the increase in prostitution tourism by his own tolerance. He remarked that Cuban women are prostitutes not because they needed to be but rather because they liked to make love, and that they are the most educated and the healthiest prostitutes on the market. (Jeszs Zzqiga, "Cuba: The Thailand of the Caribbean," Independent Journalists’ Cooperative, 18 June 1998)
I don’t belong to the people who consider Castro to be a divine being beyond reproach. He has made some mistakes in his lifetime. (Inviting the Pope to Cuba was one of them!) But I find it hard to see how his “tolerance� should contribute to prostitution – in particular when the article has just mentioned that laws are being tightened. If he actually said that Cuban women become prostitutes because they like to make love, then he is being too bloody stupid. (But many of you would agree with him, wouldn’t you?) I know (almost) for a fact that he once said that Cuban prostitutes were the best educated in the world, not as prostitutes, but as teachers, doctors, nurses etc. But in my opinion it was a question of impotence (no, not the sexual kind) on his part: In a situation where some of the achievements of the Cuban revolution were slipping away, he wanted to point to the two fields where Cuba has shown the rest of the world what its socialist revolution is all about: poverty might have returned, and with it prostitution, but the health care system and free education for everybody were still intact!
Cuban citizens should fight prostitution and other crimes by joining neighborhood vigilante groups says a government official. Crimes, such a prostitution and drug-use, have increased since the Cuban economic crisis and the influx of foreign tourism. ("Cubans urged to join fight against rising crime," Reuters, 27 September 1998)
This, of course, is a way of ‘fighting prostitution’ that we know from North America or Europe, and unfortunately it only serves to move prostitution away from the neighbourhood with the vigilante groups and not to eliminate it. It is a way of ‘cleaning up’ your own neighbourhood and sending the prostitutes and their customers somewhere else.

Please provide evidence that:
1. Poverty was eliminated in Cuba
2. That and that alone eliminated prostitution.
I did not find anything that proved your claim. Your opinion is not proof of anything.
Here is somthing intresting I did find:
Castro's resopnse to prostiiution in Cuba (http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/cuba.htm) (…)

Apparently poverty was eliminated in Cuba, thus eliminating prostitution!

- - - - - - - - - - - -

A friend of mine who is aware of the ongoing discussion here sent me the following links:

Brief report about sex tourism in Cuba, allegedly written by female sociologist:
"Cuba presently has a great deal to offer the sex tourist. Such men can
contemptuously command Cuban women and girls with the same ease that they
order cocktails. Their power to do so rests not only upon the obscene
disparity in wealth between the developed and underdeveloped world, but also
upon American foreign policy. Under Batista, the US indirectly organised Cuba
as its brothel and gambling house. Today, its punishment of Cuba is helping
to recreate the conditions under which Cuban women and girls must become the
playthings of economically advantaged, white, male Europeans and North
Americans."
http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/sextourism.htm

Polemic contribution about sex tourism and US foreign politics:
"So that's why our government stopped allowing visits to Cuba. Sex work is not
to be outsourced. Even free trade has it's limits. When it comes to hookers,
Buy American."
http://www.politicalpuzzle.org/archives/2004/12/an_intersting_f.php

A not very recent article about the media coverage written by a journalist who has lived in Cuba for several years:
"There is the sad fact that, faced with grave shortages of almost all basic
staples, not to mention luxuries, a number of Cuban women-often young and
well educated-have chosen to milk tourists in the easiest way available to
them. The numbers are far smaller than in similarly economically strapped
countries. They are also much smaller than in pre-revolutionary Cuba, when
hundreds of thousands of women were forced to rely on prostitution for
subsistence. How ever, today's situation is very disturbing in a country that
prided itself at having wiped out the underlying social and economic causes
of prostitution. And it is certainly a topic for sociologists, women's
activists, and other researchers to be concerned about. But is it "news"?
Does it warrant becoming a standard item in every newspaper account of Cuba?"
http://www.converge.org.nz/lac/articles/news990523d.htm

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
And to Gulliamo:

Originally posted by Gulliamo
I, for one, do not believe this to be possible. As long as someone has something that someone else wants, and that someone who has has the desire for sex from the someone who wants, there will be a sex market.
Let us remove money from the conversation to simplify...
In an environment where everyone, yes everyone, has plenty of money...A college professor is able to give a grade... a student needs that grade... the professor desires sex from that student...
I have just created a fertile environment for a blossoming sex market.
I could describe a dozen others, with jobs, glamour, popularity, etc.
What you describe is pretty ugly, but try to get your 'facts' straight: A college professor abusing his power to grade his students to get sexual favors from some of them hardly qualifies as a market. Nor does having the same students write or just type reports published in his name only constitute a market. You are talking about somebody in a position of power, which enables him to use that power in ways it was not intended by the institution who gave him this power. Wrong concept!
There are many advantages to paid, consensual sex. First and foremost, lack of attachment.
Example: If one is in a new city on a business trip and would prefer some companionship, but does not want their phone ringing off the hook for the next three weeks, an escort is perfect.
Make it clear to the woman you meet at the bar that you don't want to marry her, you are only interested in casual sex, no strings attached, your place or hers!
Or find somebody who is not interested in having sex with you but are willing to let you because you pay her. That would be the "advantage"! If you have money and somebody else does not and needs it enough, you can take advantage of that person, be it as a john or as an employer!

[dann]

Originally posted by gnome
I don't believe the comparison is quite valid... because Sylvia and others represent themselves as the real thing. IMO the movie quite clearly does not. I would liken it instead to someone that was putting on an act for entertainment, and let you know it. I wouldn't criticize the act just because some people believed it anyway.
I am sorry, but I don't see any signs of a tongue-in-cheek attitude in that movie. Could you please be specific and point out examples of the movie Pretty Woman trying to let its viewers know that it is only putting on an act for entertainment. It does not try to pose as a documentary, but it also does not go out of its way to point out to the viewers that they are idiots if they 'try this at home'! I could be wrong, but I think that it actualy tries to help the viewers' willingness to suspend their disbelief more than once.
I can't lie about it, much as I'd like to. I thought Julia Roberts was charming and endearing, I thought Laura San Giacomo was hot, and I engaged in a willing suspension of disbelief and enjoyed the story. I'm not claiming it's a Great American Film, but that's a different question than whether I liked it.
You shouldn't lie about it. You didn't harm anybody by watching it. And I hope that you wouldn't recommend it as careers guidance for young girls - in the USA, Eastern Europe or anywhere else.

[gnome]

Originally posted by dann
I am sorry, but I don't see any signs of a tongue-in-cheek attitude in that movie. Could you please be specific and point out examples of the movie Pretty Woman trying to let its viewers know that it is only putting on an act for entertainment. It does not try to pose as a documentary, but it also does not go out of its way to point out to the viewers that they are idiots if they 'try this at home'! I could be wrong, but I think that it actualy tries to help the viewers' willingness to suspend their disbelief more than once.


I am thinking of the Cinderella reference in particular.

You shouldn't lie about it. You didn't harm anybody by watching it. And I hope that you wouldn't recommend it as careers guidance for young girls - in the USA, Eastern Europe or anywhere else. [/B][/QUOTE]

Certainly not.

But, what I will say at this point is that the movie does not deserve further deliberation on its merits... at least by me.

[SRW]

Originally posted by dann
Thank you for the interesting article, SRW. I think that the very first paragraph may actually have contributed to your knowledge of the real world since you no longer want me to find “evidence� for the lack of prostitution in Cuba in the decades following the revolution.





Nothing in this article I provided says anything about the economy. So you still have this statement you made hanging over you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dann


No poverty, no prostitution. No matter how horny the men are, the horny man doesn't lead to prostitution without the woman to whom it seems lucrative to oblige him - for money - wether she finds him attractive or even likable or not.
Without her reason for becoming a prostitute, her poverty, the man can be horny as hell - it remains his problem.





All I have been able to find is the fact that Castro controlled the people of Cuba. It seems to me that when Castro was getting money from the USSR, he cracked down on prostitution, then when he need another source of money he started to encourage it again.

I knew almost nothing about prostitution in Cuba prior to the start of this thread. Other than the rumor I hear that Russian Sailors used to frequent hookers in Cuba. So yes I did learn something but nothing I learned proved your strange delusion.

In my opinion you can leave Cuba out of the equation as you cannot seem to prove your point.

Now please show evidence for your claim

Eliminating poverty would eliminate prostitution.

I would suggest you read the following before you answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Callgirl (http://www.jeannetteangell.com/books.html)

Callgirl - A memoir of the three years the author spent as a call girl while also working as a college lecturer. A story of strength and survival.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

The question we are debating here is prostitution. Others here who are familiar with prostitution, havening known them personally or studied the question have provided evidence which proves you wrong.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by dann
What you describe is pretty ugly, but try to get your 'facts' straight: A college professor abusing his power to grade his students to get sexual favors from some of them hardly qualifies as a market. Nor does having the same students write or just type reports published in his name only constitute a market. You are talking about somebody in a position of power, which enables him to use that power in ways it was not intended by the institution who gave him this power. Wrong concept! What you describe is not the situation I intended to portray. I was referring to a student who justly earned a solid B but, for whatever reason, decided to "make an offer" to get an A. I would call this a "market" as it has all necessary market qualities: supply and demand.

[dann]

Originally posted by SRW
Nothing in this article I provided says anything about the economy. So you still have this statement you made hanging over you.
This is the very first quotation from the article you provided:
�Cuba, considered to be free of prostitution since the 1960s, is experiencing an increase in prostitution and prostitution tourism as a result of the poor economy. (Jeszs Zzqiga,"Cuba: The Thailand of the Caribbean" Independent Journalists’ Cooperative, 18 June 1998)�
As a result of the poor economy!!! What is the matter with you? Can't you or won't you read what the article says?!!!
All I have been able to find is the fact that Castro controlled the people of Cuba.
No, it isn't all you have been able to find: YOU found that article and posted the link here!
It seems to me that when Castro was getting money from the USSR, he cracked down on prostitution, then when he need another source of money he started to encourage it again.
Yes, apparently that is the way you want to see it! But even your far-fetched idea that "when Castro was getting money from the USSR" seems to be an economic issue. And the question remains: Why do the Cubans (or in your conception: "Castro") then come down hard on prostitution, why the prison sentences when they are this exquisite "source of money"?
I knew almost nothing about prostitution in Cuba prior to the start of this thread. Other than the rumor I hear that Russian Sailors used to frequent hookers in Cuba. So yes I did learn something but nothing I learned proved your strange delusion.
It isn't that hard to see who's delusional here!
In my opinion you can leave Cuba out of the equation as you cannot seem to prove your point.
Now please show evidence for your claim
Eliminating poverty would eliminate prostitution.
I would suggest you read the following before you answer.
Yes, I can see why you would want to leave out of the equation an example that proves you wrong!
I'll come back when I have read about your story of "strength and survival" (I don't know why many Americans are so fond of stories about strength and survival ... Oh yes, I think I do know!
Callgirl (http://www.jeannetteangell.com/books.html)
Callgirl - A memoir of the three years the author spent as a call girl while also working as a college lecturer. A story of strength and survival.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The question we are debating here is prostitution. Others here who are familiar with prostitution, havening known them personally or studied the question have provided evidence which proves you wrong.
Good for you, since you haven't! What was the evidence again?

[dann]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
What you describe is not the situation I intended to portray. I was referring to a student who justly earned a solid B but, for whatever reason, decided to "make an offer" to get an A. I would call this a "market" as it has all necessary market qualities: supply and demand.
"Would you please hand me the salt?"
"Yes, would you in return please give me some more sauce!"
Supply? Demand? Market? Ridiculous! (Call it whatever you want!)

[dann]

OK, I have read the excerpt from the first chapter of the book you recommended. (I am not going to buy and read the whole book, sorry!) Your request was:
Originally posted by SRW
Now please show evidence for your claim
Eliminating poverty would eliminate prostitution.
I would suggest you read the following before you answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Callgirl (http://www.jeannetteangell.com/books.html)
Callgirl - A memoir of the three years the author spent as a call girl while also working as a college lecturer. A story of strength and survival.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The question we are debating here is prostitution. Others here who are familiar with prostitution, havening known them personally or studied the question have provided evidence which proves you wrong.
As far as I can tell from the excerpt, the book tells a very different story:
"My personal life was screaming for attention. Loudly. I needed
money. I needed a lot of money, and I needed it quickly.

I needed the money because Peter, my most recent boyfriend,
had not only decided to fly to San Francisco to meet up with some
ex (whom he had been f—ing behind my back the whole time we
were together, as it turned out), but had also emptied my checking
account before leaving. A prince among men.

Rent was due. The decimated bank account had held all the money
I had to live on until the end of the semester. That was when the two
community colleges where I taught sociology elective classes would
be paying me. I had to live within those parameters, with budgets planned
well in advance and no extra or surprise expenses allowed.

Peter's desertion decidedly qualified as a surprise expense.

In any case, the end of the semester was two months off.
Which was why I needed a lot of cash, and needed it quickly.

So I dealt with the crisis in my usual way. I spent one night getting
very drunk and feeling very sorry for myself, and I got up the next morning,
did what I could to deal with my hangover, and made a list. I love lists,
I always have. Lists give me the illusion of being in control. I listed
every possible way I could get the money I needed.

It was a depressingly short list.
Yeah, sure! Hookers are only in it for the love making, aren't they. Come on, SRW! Get real!

Eliminating poverty would eliminate prostitution!

[gnome]

Originally posted by dann

Eliminating poverty would eliminate prostitution!

I think that it's clear that it would HELP... but I honestly think some would choose to make money that way, because they can... not just because they were poor. Granted, it would be a lot more rare.

[dann]

PS
Originally posted by gnome
I don't believe the comparison is quite valid... because Sylvia and others represent themselves as the real thing. IMO the movie quite clearly does not. I would liken it instead to someone that was putting on an act for entertainment, and let you know it. I wouldn't criticize the act just because some people believed it anyway.
gnome, could we agree that to most sane people Sylvia Browne presents herself as something quite clearly NOT the real thing: It happens the very moment she claims to be able to talk to the dead!
Some people are very susceptible to the message delivered by Sylvia Browne. Others are more susceptible to the movie Pretty Woman. (And I mean those who consider it to be a story about the real world and the way it works.) Both groups consist of people who need their illusions.

[Skeptic]

Pretty Woman is the screen version of a prostitute's wet dream, the same way religion is the opium of the people.

Well, no, not really.

Actually, Pretty Woman is a modern remake of Cinderella: the kitchen main, actually a princess with a heart of gold (like Julia Robert's character), has only a limited time (the three days he "hired" her for) to make prince charming fall in love with her and take her away from a life of drudgery. Which she does, and he does. And they live happily ever after. The end.

Surely Cinderella--even without the good fairy--was even less realistic about the life of middle ages kitchen maids than Pretty Woman is about the lives of modern prostitutes. But so what?

[TragicMonkey]

I'm just amazed that in the Internet Era, people actually have to pay for one-time sex with strangers. I mean, with chat rooms and matchmaking sites, it's so easy to hook up...

Er, not that I would know personally. I heard about it. While I was saying the rosary in church.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by SRW
I would suggest you read the following before you answer.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Callgirl (http://www.jeannetteangell.com/books.html)

Callgirl - A memoir of the three years the author spent as a call girl while also working as a college lecturer. A story of strength and survival.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

And the view from the other side: Punternet (www.punternet.com).

(Warning - not worksafe - though no images!)

[billydkid]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
This is similar to the current story about the junior high speaker who is in trouble for telling 8th graders that strippers can make a lot of money (depending on their bust size). Of course, a lot of parents are howling about it, but his defense is, "It's true."

Of course, it is true, but apparently it's not appropriate to tell 8th graders that it is a viable career option. You can tell them that it is ok to scrub toilets for minimum wage if they want to, but suggesting that exotic dancing might be a way to make a lot of money? No way.

I don't have the full link, but I read it on www.usatoday.com

It is a fact that a really good looking person and a really good looking woman particularly need never go hungry. I have always contended that there is nothing better to be than to be good looking. I would love to be in a position where, by virtue of my appearance alone, people would pay me money merely to gander at me in the nude and to be in my company. Alas, I am resigned to being a schlub and to having to actually produce value of some sort in order to obtain my daily bread.

Have you ever seen someone who is so good looking you almost can not stand to look at them? Many years ago I used to drive a delivery truck for a film editing company in Manhattan. One day I was waiting to cross a street with a group of people and happened to notice a young woman standing next to me. I have to say she was so astonishingly beautiful - just absolutely the most amazing looking woman I had ever seen ever - that she became stuck in my mind and for the longest time I could barely think of anything else. I would imagine that her existence was fundamentally defined by her incredible, almost transcendent beauty. I can see where looking like that could be an issue which causes some discomfort for some individuals. Also, I have always wondered, aside from the effect of being continually treated with deference, I have always wondered what connection there might be between one's appearance and one's internal self. Is there any connection between one's character and one's beauty or lack of it.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by billydkid
Have you ever seen someone who is so good looking you almost can not stand to look at them? Many years ago I used to drive a delivery truck for a film editing company in Manhattan. One day I was waiting to cross a street with a group of people and happened to notice a young woman standing next to me. I have to say she was so astonishingly beautiful - just absolutely the most amazing looking woman I had ever seen ever - that she became stuck in my mind and for the longest time I could barely think of anything else. I would imagine that her existence was fundamentally defined by her incredible, almost transcendent beauty. I can see where looking like that could be an issue which causes some discomfort for some individuals. Also, I have always wondered, aside from the effect of being continually treated with deference, I have always wondered what connection there might be between one's appearance and one's internal self. Is there any connection between one's character and one's beauty or lack of it.

It's even funnier when you're gay: you can hate someone out of jealousy for their gorgeous looks, but still want to sleep with them.

Nietzsche speculated that the lower class of society would produce smarter people than the upper class, because the aristocracy had less need for brains. I think this often applies to the beautiful as well--since they can coast by on their looks often, they have that much less impetus to use brains or talent. (eta: And I think if you don't need something, you won't develop it as well.)

This means that age, sickness, and accident are going to be awfully traumatic for them. Mwah hah hah!

[dann]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Surely Cinderella--even without the good fairy--was even less realistic about the life of middle ages kitchen maids than Pretty Woman is about the lives of modern prostitutes. But so what?
So this:
Originally posted by Cain
It's interesting that someone mentions the movie Pretty Woman. The NYT did a feature article for its Sunday magazine on the global slave trade and sex industry. Many women in Eastern Europe seeking/forced to become mail-order-brides DO apparently believe that it's not so bad, and they explicitly compare themselves to Julia Roberts in the movie.
I would have liked Cinderella better if she had got up off the floor and kicked some stepsister butt! Waiting for the Prince to save her is a pretty stupid idea, but it serves a purpose which you have to agree with in order to fully enjoy the story ...

[El Greco]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I'm just amazed that in the Internet Era, people actually have to pay for one-time sex with strangers. I mean, with chat rooms and matchmaking sites, it's so easy to hook up...

Well yes, but it's not the same. First of all, with chatrooms and forums there is no WYSIWYG. Then, there are those who want to do it like NOW, I mean NOW, ok, in half an hour at the most. And then, there are those rich businessmen who are not attractive or witty, yet they yearn for a top model which the bourgeoise can't have, and which they can bring in a business dinner the next day and have a minimum level of certainty that she is not going to embarrass them.

[dann]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
Nietzsche speculated that the lower class of society would produce smarter people than the upper class, because the aristocracy had less need for brains. I think this often applies to the beautiful as well--since they can coast by on their looks often, they have that much less impetus to use brains or talent. (eta: And I think if you don't need something, you won't develop it as well.)
He had a variant of this (in Die fröhliche Wissenschaft, I think) when he distinguished between different types of scientists: Generals and preachers tended to think that they just had to be loud or insistent enough in order to be believed, whereas Jewish scientists or philosophers were so used to not being believed that they tended to present much more elaborate arguments.
This means that age, sickness, and accident are going to be awfully traumatic for them. Mwah hah hah!
And you don't find it traumatic that it is traumatic to them that they'll end up looking like the rest of us?! :)

[El Greco]

Originally posted by TragicMonkey
I think this often applies to the beautiful as well--since they can coast by on their looks often, they have that much less impetus to use brains or talent. (eta: And I think if you don't need something, you won't develop it as well.)

Actually no, because the people with brains make lots of money and marry the beautiful ones and so their offsprings get genes from both pools.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally posted by El Greco
Actually no, because the people with brains make lots of money and marry the beautiful ones and so their offsprings get genes from both pools.

Ah, genetics: the Russian roulette of life. Will Baby have Mommy's looks and Daddy's brains? Or the other way around?

I don't hold much hope for the brain power of future Simpson-Lachey offspring, but at least they stand a good chance of being attractive.


eta: Also, since a large portion of beauty is actually how healthy one is, you could argue that being better fed and having good healthcare would give rise to more beauty among the rich. Plus, they can afford to have unattractive aspects fixed.

[Ranb]

From an earlier post, "Under Batista, the US indirectly organised Cuba
as its brothel and gambling house. Today, its punishment of Cuba is helping
to recreate the conditions under which Cuban women and girls must become the
playthings of economically advantaged, white, male Europeans and North
Americans."

I do not know who wrote the article at "ageofconsent.com", but why is American still the bogey man here? Cuba can trade with any country it has relations with. Just because the USA restricts most trade with Cuba, it does not mean Cuba is poor because of the USA. Castro can lighten up a bit. He can meet American demands if he reallly wants to trade with us.

Ranb

[Skeptic]

A few comments...

I am sorry, but I don't see any signs of a tongue-in-cheek attitude in that movie.

I don't know about "tongue in cheek", but the movie certainly does not make the audience think that being a prostitute is a way to riches and fun. I can think of at least three different ways which the exact opposite messege, in fact, is being delivered:

1). THE CHARACTERS EXPLICITLY DENY HER PRSOTITUTION-TO-RICHES CASE IS TYPICAL:

For instance, Robert's character asks her friend (another prostitute) if she actually know anybody who "made it" by being a prostitue. The friend replies, "Cindi-f***en-rella!", that is, admitting that only happens in a fairy tale.

Near the end of the movie, Gere's character leaves her--after he makes sure that she has enough money to go back to school and not having to be a hooker anymore. She is happy, but says sadly to her friend: "I want the fairy tale".

2). THE ENTIRE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GERE AND ROBERT'S CHARACTERS IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT SHE IS NOT REALLY A PROSTITUTE, BUT MERELY A "CAPTURED INNOCENT":

This goes together with the fairy-tale idea: Cinderella is raised from the ashes of the kitchen not because kitchen maids regularly date princes, but because she isn't REALLY a kitchen maid, but, rather, noble-born.

Same thing in the movie. The relationship between Gere's and Robert's character only works because he obviously does NOT have sex with her, like he would with a regular prostitute. Why? Because he senses the "princess" (innocent, virginal, "good" woman) under her "prostitute" exterior.

To add to this, the movie makes it clear that Robert's character is "new in the biz", naive and innocent; that she and her friend are, in fact, unsuccesful prostitutes who do not have many clients at all; and that she refuses her friend's suggestion of getting a pimp, which is something a "real" prostitute (or kitchen maid) would surely do, but not a "good" woman like Robert's character.

3). HOW "REAL" PROSTITUTES ARE TREATED IS EXPLICITLY SHOWN IN THE MOVIE.

How is a movie with an ATTEMPTED RAPE scene of Roberts' character--by the boorish lawyer (player very well, by the way, by Jason Alexander) could possibly be seen as a recommendation of prostitution?

Of course the white knight (Gere) comes in in the critical moment and saves her, but it's obvious that he saves her for the same reason he falls for her in the first place: that she is not a REAL prostitute.



All this, this, of course, in addition to the fact that the movie is (to repeat) openly fiction and obviously a remake of Cinderella, so you would have to be a total idiot to rely on it for guidance on real-life prostitution even if it DID glorify fairy-tale-land prostitution--which it doesn't.

To give you another example, there are actually a few loons out there who were so taken by "Star Wars" that they seem to actually believe Luke Skywalker & co. are (were?) actual people, and that it IS possible to build light-sabers if they try hard enough.

This despite the fact that THAT movie, too, is a modern remake of Snow White with the sexes reversed (with poor Alec Guinness as Obi-Van Kenobi, the fairy godmother), and that the movie even starts, obviously deliberately, with a written legend out of a fairy tale: "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away...".

In both cases, so what? The fact that somebody can be so stupid as to rely on such fiction as a guide to the world is hardly the movie's fault. "Pretty Women" didn't promote prostitution any more than "Star Wars" promoted building light sabers in your garage, as at least one idiot has a web page claiming that is what he's trying to do.



Could you please be specific and point out examples of the movie Pretty Woman trying to let its viewers know that it is only putting on an act for entertainment.

Er, the part that it is FICTION? That it was not advertised as a documentary? That it is not billed as "based on a true story", as most Hollywood movies which have even the most tenuous connection to real events claim to be? That its commercials, reviews, and teasers almost invariably referred to it as "A Cinderella story?"

How much more "out of your way" can you go to make clear a movie is NOT really real-life than to openly and repeatedly say (correctly) that it's a retelling of a fairy-tale--in fact, to make the fairy-tale point the "hook" that is supposed to get you to watch the movie in the first place?

[Skeptic]

There seems to be something deeply morally wrong about the idea that someone "has no choice" to becomes a prostitue or a thief--not in order to avoid starvation or some other extremity of that nature, but in order to avoid "working at K-mart" or doing other menial jobs.

The conclusion is that being a whore or a pimp is better than working at K-mart. This is deeply insulting to the millions who DO prefer to work at K-mart (or the equivalent) over being whores and thieves. This analysis totally ignores such things as honesty, self-respect, chastity, and a zillion other reasons to prefer honest work to whoring and pimping--even if the honest work is low-pay dead-end one.

Of course this analysis isn't new: it was used by whores and thieves since times immemorial. It wasn't any more convincing then that it is now. The ancient Greeks already saw the obvious falseness behind this argument; as Epictetus said, "The honest man is always called a sucker--by the crook."

What's odd, however, is that there now seems to be a class of people--like the poster on fark.com who claimed he rather see his daughter become a "happy exotic dancer" than any profession that makes less money--who seem to take these self-serving "argument" seriously, for the first time in history.

They are usually Yuppie upper-middle-class "champions of the workers" (or their college-bound children) who, in reality, consider working at McDonald's, or K-Mart, or any menial or unprofessional job, as a fate worse than death. Naturally this makes them sympathetic to the plight of the poor, poor whores and criminals who escaped this fate in the only way that was open to them, a life of crime.

It shows something about their REAL attitude towards working people that, when they look at the checkout girl at K-mart, they might well be thinking: "Oh, the humanity! I hope my daughter becomes a whore instead of doing THIS! At least she could afford Gucci bags!"

[Skeptic]

Please, leave out the adjectives! It's a little too easy to compare a happy exotic dancer or hooker with an unhappy waitress etc.

Absolutely correct, of course.

By the way, it seems that the guy on fark.com seems to prefer his daughter be a stripped to just about ANY other job that exists... which I would say is a rather odd attitude.

I also didn't see anybody comparing soldiers and prostitutes. You are making up a strawman!

Indeed.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Skeptic
There seems to be something deeply morally wrong about the idea that someone "has no choice" to becomes a prostitue or a thief--

Why do you consistently lump prostitutes with thieves in your post? In what way, other than "they do something illegal," is what they do similar?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Why do you consistently lump prostitutes with thieves in your post? In what way, other than "they do something illegal," is what they do similar?

As the great jazz musician Armstrong said in a different context, "if you have to ask, you ain't never gonna know."

[SRW]

Originally posted by dann
OK, I have read the excerpt from the first chapter of the book you recommended. (I am not going to buy and read the whole book, sorry!) Your request was:

As far as I can tell from the excerpt, the book tells a very different story:
[B]
Yeah, sure! Hookers are only in it for the love making, aren't they. Come on, SRW! Get real!

Eliminating poverty would eliminate prostitution!

You appear to be confusing my views with Castro, he is the one who said;
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Castro appears to be contributing to prostitution and the increase in prostitution tourism by his own tolerance. He remarked that Cuban women are prostitutes not because they needed to be but rather because they liked to make love, and that they are the most educated and the healthiest prostitutes on the market. (Jeszs Zzqiga, "Cuba: The Thailand of the Caribbean," Independent Journalists’ Cooperative, 18 June 1998)

---------------------------------------------------------------------


Again from the article I posted:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cuba, considered to be free of prostitution since the 1960s, is experiencing an increase in prostitution and prostitution tourism as a result of the poor economy. (Jeszs Zzqiga,"Cuba: The Thailand of the Caribbean" Independent Journalists’ Cooperative, 18 June 1998)

-----------------------------------------------------------------

Given the above this statement is ambiguous, you assume that :

poor economy = poverty

However given Castro's statement above it could also mean:

poor economy = encourage prostitution to bring in tourism.

The only supporting evidence you have for your idea, is an article I posted which is open to interpretation.

So you read one chapter of a book and you are able to comment on it's contents. If you were to read the entire book you would see that women have other reasons to turn to prostitution besides poverty. To name a few;

Greed, revenge, drugs, and stupidity.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Matabiri
And the view from the other side: Punternet (www.punternet.com).

(Warning - not worksafe - though no images!)


I am at work so I am not going to open this. But tell me other side of what?

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by SRW
I am at work so I am not going to open this. But tell me other side of what?

Apparently, "punter" in the British slang equivalent of the American "john".

[Nikk]

Originally posted by SRW


I am at work so I am not going to open this. But tell me other side of what?


It's a practical guide to availability, costs and terms and conditions of service of prostitutes in the UK. An assessment of the ahem skills of the service providers is given by the punters themselves as well as website links.

Quite a useful little work, it certainly has been added to my list of favourites.

It's written by an American by the way who clearly has found a satisfactory way of coping with the British weather.:D

[SRW]

Originally posted by Skeptic
Apparently, "punter" in the British slang equivalent of the American "john".

I see thanks.

[SRW]

Originally posted by Nikk
It's a practical guide to availability, costs and terms and conditions of service of prostitutes in the UK. An assessment of the ahem skills of the service providers is given by the punters themselves as well as website links.

Quite a useful little work, it certainly has been added to my list of favourites.

It's written by an American by the way who clearly has found a satisfactory way of coping with the British weather.:D


Like this (http://www.myredbook.com)

Not work (or wife) friendly and does contain pics.

[dann]

Originally posted by SRW
You appear to be confusing my views with Castro, he is the one who said;
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Castro appears to be contributing to prostitution and the increase in prostitution tourism by his own tolerance. He remarked that Cuban women are prostitutes not because they needed to be but rather because they liked to make love, and that they are the most educated and the healthiest prostitutes on the market. (Jeszs Zzqiga, "Cuba: The Thailand of the Caribbean," Independent Journalists’ Cooperative, 18 June 1998)
No, I don't confuse your views with Castro, and, yes, Castro is the one who allegedly said this. See my comments.

Again from the article I posted:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cuba, considered to be free of prostitution since the 1960s, is experiencing an increase in prostitution and prostitution tourism as a result of the poor economy. (Jeszs Zzqiga,"Cuba: The Thailand of the Caribbean" Independent Journalists’ Cooperative, 18 June 1998)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Given the above this statement is ambiguous, you assume that :
poor economy = poverty
However given Castro's statement above it could also mean:
poor economy = encourage prostitution to bring in tourism.
The only supporting evidence you have for your idea, is an article I posted which is open to interpretation.
And how on Earth could it mean that?!
So you read one chapter of a book and you are able to comment on it's contents. If you were to read the entire book you would see that women have other reasons to turn to prostitution besides poverty. To name a few;

Greed, revenge, drugs, and stupidity.
I don't even know if the excerpt included all of the first chapter or just the beginning of it! From what it says, however, the author's reason for becoming a prostitute (or, at first, apparently, a phone sex worker) seems to be very unambiguous:

"I needed money. I needed a lot of money, and I needed it quickly."

[Nikk]

Originally posted by SRW
Like this (http://www.myredbook.com)

Not work (or wife) friendly and does contain pics.


By the way a punter can be many kinds of customer. The word is often used when gambling or investing.

[SRW]

Originally posted by dann

I don't even know if the excerpt included all of the first chapter or just the beginning of it! From what it says, however, the author's reason for becoming a prostitute (or, at first, apparently, a phone sex worker) seems to be very unambiguous:

"I needed money. I needed a lot of money, and I needed it quickly."


Oh Is see, I say that every time I see a Harley ridding down the street, but I do not live in poverty. ;)

[dann]

Originally posted by SRW
Oh Is see, I say that every time I see a Harley ridding down the street, but I do not live in poverty. ;)
Neither do I - and I'm fairly content riding my 18-year-old Yamaha Virago 1000. The author has a different and much more urgent problem:
Rent was due. The decimated bank account had held all the money I had to live on until the end of the semester.
The last time I had the same problem, I not only felt, but actually was poor. But as I've pointed out before, the temporary poverty of a student cannot really be compared with poverty as a life perspective.

[jay gw]

Do you think that male prostitutes have the same motivations as females?

[dann]

Originally posted by jay gw
Do you think that male prostitutes have the same motivations as females?
Most likely. One of the favourite motives of the gay comic book artist Ralf König http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/096553944X/qid=1106149108/sr=8-2/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i2_xgl14/002-1509374-2484022?v=glance&s=books&n=507846 (somebody ought to translate and publish his very funny 'Shakespearean' comic book Iago in English!) is to compare the gay (male) scene with the straight relationship between the two sexes: A straight guy is shocked by the way gay men meet and have casual sex in public parks, and a gay guy asks him what he would think of a public park where straight women went in order to have sex for free with men. The heterosexual guy finds the idea implausible, but it immediately turns into a wet dream of his.
I think that the promiscuousness of the gay scene makes it easier to meet somebody and have casual sex, no questions asked. Therefore there probably wouldn't be a market for male prostitutes (and I think the majority by far of male prostitutes cater to the gay market), unless a lot of gay men were interested in very young men. And these young men would then tend to become prostitutes for the money involved in the exchange, not for the sex. What else?!
As for male prostitutes catering to straight women: I think that in the case of men, many of them might be more attracted to the idea of women wanting casual sex with them than to the money involved. I don't think that reality would quite live up to the fantasy, however, but I'm not sure.

[Gulliamo]

Originally posted by dann
OK, I have read the excerpt from the first chapter of the book you recommended. (I am not going to buy and read the whole book, sorry!) Your request was:

As far as I can tell from the excerpt, the book tells a very different story:
[B]
Yeah, sure! Hookers are only in it for the love making, aren't they. Come on, SRW! Get real!

Eliminating poverty would eliminate prostitution! The lady described in the clip you posted would hardly be described as nearing poverty! As near as I could tell she simply wanted more money than she had readily available; a catagory most everyone would fit into. The difference being that she was willing to do something that most are not to get the money. Of course if most were willing to do that then the market would drive the cost down significantly even to the point of it being free...

[toddjh]

I know two prostitutes. Both are the high-priced ones; one is a legal prostitute in Nevada, the other is an "escort" in Chicago. Neither of them are poor, and both seem pretty smart and very articulate, and could easily find decent work elsewhere.

One of them admits she is in it strictly for the money, although she doesn't consider it an unpleasant job, and says that when the chemistry is right she enjoys it as much as any person having hot sex would. The other considers it a spiritual calling (God bless those pagans!) and plans to make a career out of it, and the fact that the money is good is just a bonus.

Obviously, these women are rare exceptions, and, while I'm sure that poverty is a factor in most prostitutes' choice of occupation, prostitution in general would continue to exist even among women who could make a decent living elsewhere, purely because some men are willing to pay an awful lot to get laid with a pretty girl. Hell, I've thought about a trip to Nevada once or twice, and I'm even married to a pretty girl (who is, fortunately, very understanding about such things). :)

Now, my question is this: even if most prostitutes are doing it because they are very poor, is that inherently bad? If a woman doesn't particularly like having sex for money, but considers it the best option for herself at the time (and isn't being coerced, of course -- which is a powerful argument for legalization, but that's a discussion for another thread), then who are we to second-guess that decision? Waiting tables isn't a job most people like, either, but no one thinks it's terrible when someone works at a restaurant to pay the bills.

Jeremy

[dann]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
The lady described in the clip you posted would hardly be described as nearing poverty! As near as I could tell she simply wanted more money than she had readily available; a catagory most everyone would fit into.
She had no money available, so, yes, she wanted more than that because:
Rent was due. The decimated bank account had held all the money I had to live on until the end of the semester.
I don't know about you, but I don't fit into that category, nor do most of the people I know.

Originally posted by toddjh
Now, my question is this: even if most prostitutes are doing it because they are very poor, is that inherently bad? If a woman doesn't particularly like having sex for money, but considers it the best option for herself at the time (and isn't being coerced, of course -- which is a powerful argument for legalization, but that's a discussion for another thread), then who are we to second-guess that decision? Waiting tables isn't a job most people like, either, but no one thinks it's terrible when someone works at a restaurant to pay the bills.
Apparently she is being coerced to choose between prostitution and waitressing as the best option for herself. I think that is inherently bad, yes, especially since she doesn't particularly like having sex for money and most people don't like waitressing either.

[Skeptic]

The other considers it a spiritual calling (God bless those pagans!)

I'm suddenly feeling very religious...

[toddjh]

Originally posted by dann
Apparently she is being coerced to choose between prostitution and waitressing as the best option for herself.

Only insofar as she is being coerced to choose between waitressing and working at Wal-Mart, or being a housekeeper, or...

It would be nice if this were a world if individuals weren't "coerced" by their financial situation to take jobs they don't like, but I think such hypothesizing is beyond the scope of this thread.

I think that is inherently bad, yes, especially since she doesn't particularly like having sex for money and most people don't like waitressing either.

Fair enough. I'll rephrase to ask whether it's inherently any worse than taking any other low-paying job, most of which are perfectly socially acceptable.

Jeremy

[Mrick]

Just back from TAM3 and I saw lots of hookers. Talked to some. I enjoy hookers, although I don't employ them. I just like their advertising.

There would be hookers even if there were no poverty. Poverty is relative. There would always be a place to go. The basic law is that looks buy money and money buys looks. Sometimes the exchange is honest as prostitute's hourly charge and sometimes not.


Additionally, women often have sex with random strangers for no money at all. Sometimes multiples in one night. I suspect they would not mind being paid.

Further, prostitutes can pick and choose. They don't have to take just any Tom, Hairy, Dick.

Really, it is like all labor. All labor requires the participant to give up a modicum of freedom and time for some amount of reward to be used later.

Of all the professions, prostitutions while the oldest would not be on my list of the worst. Nor the most dishonorable. Politicians are much bigger whores and deliver much less for what we pay them. Generally, I have liked strippers and prostitutes. I just have no need for their service.

imho,
Mrick

[dann]

Originally posted by toddjh
Fair enough. I'll rephrase to ask whether it's inherently any worse than taking any other low-paying job, most of which are perfectly socially acceptable.
This is when it becomes a matter of 'taste', I think, when you have to choose between two (or more) evils. Being a prostitute would probably pay better in most cases, but at the same time be more disgusting to most people. (Which might encourage you to try to overcome this disgust by means of substance abuse - if substance abuse wasn't what caused your urgent need for money in the first place - thus rendering impossible your initial idea to retire after a few months/years.) Also: Pimps are probably more brutal than ordinary employers, and johns (able to be) more so than ordinary customers in a shopping mall.
But the really bad thing is the circumstances that force this choice upon you in the first place: poverty, i.e. market economy.
(cf. the article mentioned above: http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/poverty.html)

Originally posted by Mrick
Additionally, women often have sex with random strangers for no money at all..
Probably not random in the sense that they don't choose the partners they find attactive.
Sometimes multiples in one night..
A very rare phenomenon, I think. (Outside of fiction)
I suspect they would not mind being paid..
If they would not mind, then why do you think they are just promiscuous and not prostitutes?
Further, prostitutes can pick and choose..
Which, of course, is what has resulted in the familiar phenomena of websites and streets full of available johns with prostitutes cruising around to pick up the john of their choice, right? Come on! They sometimes have some choice, but "pick and choose"?!!
They don't have to take just any Tom, Hairy, Dick.
Well, sometimes (a slow night etc.) they do have to take on just any hairy dick and all.

[dann]

Originally posted by toddjh
The other considers it a spiritual calling (God bless those pagans!) and plans to make a career out of it, and the fact that the money is good is just a bonus.

[dann]

Originally posted by Ranb
I do not know who wrote the article at "ageofconsent.com", but why is American still the bogey man here? Cuba can trade with any country it has relations with. Just because the USA restricts most trade with Cuba, it does not mean Cuba is poor because of the USA.
You can get Coca Cola almost anywhere in Cuba. Probably imported from Mexico, I think. (I prefer the Cuban Tucola or Tropicola, so I don't really care anyway.)
The US blockade means that it is much more expensive to buy and transport some things. Since the US has made it impossible for ships transporting goods from e.g. Europe to Cuba to head for a US port on the way back to pick up goods there destined for Europe, they may have to return almost empty.
www.globalexchange.org/countries/cuba/
www.globalexchange.org/campaigns/cuba/background/history.html
www.cubasolidarity.net/blockade.html
www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/en/
www.cubavsbloqueo.cu/Default.aspx?tabid=533
www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/43b/index-bd.html
www.canadacuba.ca/donate/donatetocuba.php
Castro can lighten up a bit. He can meet American demands if he reallly wants to trade with us.
Yes, if Cuba chose to become a vassal state of the USA there wouldn't be any blockade. Of course, they would then have to give up all the achievements of the Cuban revolution, which might be a small price to pay in the eyes of many norte americanos. Most Cubans, however, probably wouldn't appreciate the introduction of the kind of poverty prevalent in the rest of Latin America.

[El Greco]

Originally posted by Mrick
Politicians are much bigger whores and deliver much less for what we pay them.

Be careful with politicians. I wouldn't touch them with a ten foot dildo. They carry an awful lot of diseases.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by dann
This is when it becomes a matter of 'taste', I think, when you have to choose between two (or more) evils. Being a prostitute would probably pay better in most cases, but at the same time be more disgusting to most people.

Spinach and liver are more healthy than hamburgers or pizza, but at the same time are more disgusting to most people. Should we outlaw spinach and liver?

You've admitted that the bias against prostitution is a matter of taste, and not based on anything substantive. Thank you.

There's a lot of things in the world that I don't like. Mayonaise, for one. But I don't spend my time complaining about it (unless people try to force it on me), and I certainly don't complain about others that use it. And even though it is extremely unhealthy (raw eggs and oil are not the healthiest of all foods), I don't see any calls for outlawing it.

[dann]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
(...)Should we outlaw spinach and liver?
You've admitted that the bias against prostitution is a matter of taste, and not based on anything substantive. Thank you.
(...)
I don't see any calls for outlawing it.
Good for you! How did outlawing enter into this discussion AGAIN???
I have "admitted" absolutely nothing! I don't see what I am accused of that I have to admit!!?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by dann
(Which might encourage you to try to overcome this disgust by means of substance abuse - if substance abuse wasn't what caused your urgent need for money in the first place - thus rendering impossible your initial idea to retire after a few months/years.) Also: Pimps are probably more brutal than ordinary employers, and johns (able to be) more so than ordinary customers in a shopping mall.

All of which is exactly why prostitution should be legal and regulated. All the things you mention -- the intertwining of prostitution and drugs, the abusive pimp, and the potentially dangerous johns -- are all a result of prostitution being illegal. If there were legal brothels, then there could be mandatory drug tests and health screenings. Businessmen (and women) would replace the pimps, and there would be on-site security to deal with any unruly customers.

I'm not trying to derail the thread to make this about legalization; I'm just trying to explain what I meant when I asked if prostitution was inherently worse than any other desperation job. The things that make it particularly unhealthy right now aren't necessarily inherent, they're a result of a particular set of circumstances that ought to be changed.

But the really bad thing is the circumstances that force this choice upon you in the first place: poverty, i.e. market economy.

Again, it would be very nice to live in a world where no one was poor, but it ain't gonna happen.

Jeremy

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by toddjh
Again, it would be very nice to live in a world where no one was poor, but it ain't gonna happen.


Especially since "poor" is a relative term. Unless everyone has the same amount of money, some are going to be richer, some poorer. Poorer people will always have motivation to try to become richer.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by dann
Good for you! How did outlawing enter into this discussion AGAIN???
I have "admitted" absolutely nothing! I don't see what I am accused of that I have to admit!!?

So what is the whole point of the thread? For you to say that you don't like prostitution? Well good for you.

I don't like mayonaise. I'm not wasting a thread on it, claiming that just because Canadians put mayo on hamburgers doesn't mean its good.

[dann]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
Especially since "poor" is a relative term. Unless everyone has the same amount of money, some are going to be richer, some poorer. Poorer people will always have motivation to try to become richer.
No, poor is not a relative term, which is why grammar invented the comparison poorer, See? Oh, you used it yourself. You do see!
So what is the whole point of the thread? For you to say that you don't like prostitution? Well good for you.
I don't like mayonaise. I'm not wasting a thread on it, claiming that just because Canadians put mayo on hamburgers doesn't mean its good.
Won't you please stop wasting this thread talking about mayo and Canadians? Start talking about prostitution if you like it so much. I don't, sorry. If you read other threads, you'll notice that a lot of them happen to deal with superstition, and most of the posters don't like it. Try telling them that they shouldn't post about it if they don't like it. Try presenting your mayo argument to them! I'm sure they'll enjoy it!

[toddjh]

Originally posted by dann
No, poor is not a relative term, which is why grammar invented the comparison poorer, See? Oh, you used it yourself. You do see!

"Poor" is a relative term. Just like "short" -- a person who's a little on the short side today would've been considered quite tall in the middle ages. Likewise, someone considered to be poor by modern western standards probably lives better than most kings did a few centuries ago.

Jeremy

[dann]

Originally posted by toddjh
All of which is exactly why prostitution should be legal and regulated. All the things you mention -- the intertwining of prostitution and drugs, the abusive pimp, and the potentially dangerous johns -- are all a result of prostitution being illegal.
No, that's not all the things I mention. It started with this:
For what exactly is prostitution?
On the one hand it's all about sex. And sex is something that most of us enjoy. On the other hand it's all about getting paid - and who doesn't like to receive money? Getting laid and getting paid! Sounds like a match made in heaven, doesn't it?
So where's the rub? Well, sex is usually something that takes place with somebody you find ... well, sexy! Two people find each other attactive and go to bed together. No problem.

But the idea of having sex with a partner that you don't find attactive is rather repulsive (come up with your own examples!). This is the reason why some people can have this as their 'career': the aversion to having sex with a partner you don't find attractive is overcome by means of the payment for this kind of service.
See? You don't need pimps, brothels or drugs - but sometimes you do need be drugged to carry out this kind of 'job'. Oh, yes, Baby, yes, yes, you do, you do! A clear mind is not necessarily required or even very pleasant in order to deliver this kind of service.
If there were legal brothels, then there could be mandatory drug tests and health screenings. Businessmen (and women) would replace the pimps, and there would be on-site security to deal with any unruly customers.
And that is the reason why prostitution is such a pleasant way of making a living, and so free from pimps and drugs in the countries where it's legal, isn't it?!
I'm not trying to derail the thread to make this about legalization; I'm just trying to explain what I meant when I asked if prostitution was inherently worse than any other desperation job.
I can agree with you when you call it a "desperation job", and that, in my opinion, renders it redundant to decide which desperation job is the worse. I don't know. This is where 'taste' comes in! Don't confuse me with the people who condemn prostitutes. I don't!
The things that make it particularly unhealthy right now aren't necessarily inherent, they're a result of a particular set of circumstances that ought to be changed.
Again: Look at the countries (or states) where it has been legalized.
Again, it would be very nice to live in a world where no one was poor, but it ain't gonna happen.
No, of course not. Things like that don't happen. You make them happen. It's called a revolution, and if you ever try making (or just openly contemplate making) one, you'll soon notice some very powerful people breathing down your neck. There's nothing more annoying than a very poor country abolishing hunger, illiteracy and prostitution, establishing a health care system etc. That just has to be the Devil's work! We cannot allow that to happen!

[dann]

Originally posted by toddjh
"Poor" is a relative term. Just like "short" -- a person who's a little on the short side today would've been considered quite tall in the middle ages. Likewise, someone considered to be poor by modern western standards probably lives better than most kings did a few centuries ago.
You have no idea how "most kings" lived a few centuries ago! They didn't have any DVD players, but kings weren't poor, they reigned the poor who were at their beck and call. (A lot of things haven't changed!)
Short is a relative term, poor is not a relative term, but it can be used to compare e.g. groups. Still, nobody would call Donald Trump poor, even though he may not be as rich as Bill Gates!
Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms
poor adj 1 Poor, indigent, needy, destitute, penniless, impecunious, poverty-stricken, necessitous are comparable when they mean having less money or fewer possessions than are required to support a full life. Poor describes a person, a people, an institution that comes under this description; it is the most general term of the group, applying not only to those who are in actual want or to those in straitened circumstances, but also to those who, as compared to other groups, live below the level of what is regarded as comfortable <despite the death of the bread-winner, his family was not left poor-Wecter> <It wasn't only that they were not rich ... but that they were so poor that they couldn't afford things-Mary Austin

[toddjh]

Originally posted by dann
See? You don't need pimps, brothels or drugs - but sometimes you do need be drugged to carry out this kind of 'job'. Oh, yes, Baby, yes, yes, you do, you do! A clear mind is not necessarily required or even very pleasant in order to deliver this kind of service.

*shrug* I have no problem with prostitutes having a few drinks or a joint or something, if it makes things easier. What I do have a problem with is the prostitution industry being run by the same people who control the illegal drug industry. That leads to a cycle of dependency and coercion (not to mention the inability of the law to protect them) that wouldn't exist if prostitution and drugs were both legal. Sure, you'd still have hookers who are addicted to heroin or whatever, but it would make it much harder for people to exploit that addiction -- especially if a clean drug test were a prerequisite of working as a prostitute in the first place.

And that is the reason why prostitution is such a pleasant way of making a living, and so free from pimps and drugs in the countries where it's legal, isn't it?!

It isn't legal in enough (developed) countries to really say...are you thinking of one in particular? The Netherlands? Australia?

Again: Look at the countries (or states) where it has been legalized.

Okay, let's look at Nevada. Among legal prostitutes, there are no pimps. There is security present at all times. The industry is regulated by the Nevada Department of Health, and regular drug and medical tests are mandatory. The incidence of STDs as a whole is lower among the women than among the general population, and there has never been a case of HIV, ever. The women pay taxes, give their cut to the brothel, and take home a fair amount of money.

Sure, the cost to the consumer goes up. But would you rather pay $150 for sex with a clean, healthy woman in a safe environment, or $50 to hook up with some drugged-up chick off the street, where you might even get arrested? Here's a hint: hardly anyone prefers black-market cigarettes or alcohol. They'd rather just go to the corner store and get the regular-price ones off the shelf.

No, of course not. Things like that don't happen. You make them happen. It's called a revolution, and if you ever try making (or just openly contemplate making) one, you'll soon notice some very powerful people breathing down your neck. There's nothing more annoying than a very poor country abolishing hunger, illiteracy and prostitution, establishing a health care system etc. That just has to be the Devil's work! We cannot allow that to happen!

You've completely lost me now. First, are you saying you think it's possible to have a system where no one is poor? I think you need to take some economics classes.

Second, I have no problem with attempting to resolve the problems of hunger and illiteracy, although I think it's rather odd phrasing to talk about abolishing them. I don't see why you lump prostitution in with those, though. If you're concerned that prostitution is a result of poverty, then your logic is backwards -- abolishing prostitution won't make those women any less poor. In fact, it will simply deprive them of what they themselves consider to be the most effective money-making activity. I'd remind you that the status quo, which you find so objectionable, has flourished despite being abolished, if not because of it, so I think it's pretty clear that abolition does not accomplish what you want. It's odd that you appear to be in favor of it.

Jeremy

[dann]

PS
Originally posted by toddjh
If there were legal brothels, then there could be mandatory drug tests and health screenings. Businessmen (and women) would replace the pimps, and there would be on-site security to deal with any unruly customers.
You don't even become just a little bit suspicious about the kind of profession that apparently needs mandatory drug tests, health screenings and on-site security to deal with unruly customers? I would be rather offended and very worried if anybody suggested introducing these measures at my high school!
And please remember: I am not saying that prostitution should be outlawed, which, by the way, it isn't in my country!

[Larspeart]

I think a lot of you are leaving out a major side to prostitution, and the side that people find to be FAR less 'acceptable'... male prostitutes.

Male hookers who service (almost exclusively) male clients. You are hardpressed to find a male hooker that works with strickly or totally female clientale.

A friend of mine who is a writer did a BRILLIANT short story about a man who was a male hooker. One would read inot the story 10-12 pages before realizing that his clients are men, and the people he is huffing and puffing over are all guys.

This just simply plays off the fantasy/fallicies that...

1. Hookers are all women.

2. hookers are beautiful.

3. Men go to hookers to get screwed by beautiful women.

4. Gay anything is still so taboo in this country (and most others- you Euros don't get clean on this neither) that even in the highly taboo subject of prostitution, no one dares mention homosexual acts of prostitution.

Oh, and scarier still, most male hookers will tell you that the VAST majority of their clients are MARRIED men, and virtually every one of them will tell the hooker that they are 'really straight, and they have never done this before'.

Yeah, right.

[Larspeart]

Oh, as an aside, I have knew both a male and a female prostitute (back when I was in college). The male prostitute was actually the writer of the above-mentioned story. Okay, he was a former prostitute, but still. :D


They both said that 'the life' can be good, but it almost always isn't. They spend most of their time doing 4-7 tricks a night with HIGHLY undesireable types. The girl was quite attractive,a dn charged a fair amount (she was a call girl, not a streetwalker) and still got mostly sleazy, slimeballs.

So, can a hooker get a good list of rich, attractive businessmen, perhaps traveling on business and in need of a night of fuin? Sure? Is that the norm? not at all.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by toddjh
Likewise, someone considered to be poor by modern western standards probably lives better than most kings did a few centuries ago.

Absolutely not correct. Kings have always lived a life on top. A cursory study of history will persuade you of this.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by dann
You don't even become just a little bit suspicious about the kind of profession that apparently needs mandatory drug tests, health screenings and on-site security to deal with unruly customers?

Sure, being a prostitute is a potentially dangerous job, which is why I think it warrants regulation. I'm normally in favor of keeping government out of industry where practical, but this is one of the exceptions. It's pretty clear that prostitution is not going to disappear, and it becomes even more dangerous when it's not properly controlled.

And please remember: I am not saying that prostitution should be outlawed, which, by the way, it isn't in my country!

Fair enough, I'll try to remember that. I'm not sure what it is you are suggesting, though, except for vague statements that poverty is bad, which I certainly agree with.

Jeremy

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by dann
PS

You don't even become just a little bit suspicious about the kind of profession that apparently needs mandatory drug tests, health screenings and on-site security to deal with unruly customers?

Well, I admit I'm not a big fan of the NBA, but I do like Major League Baseball.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by dann
Still, nobody would call Donald Trump poor, even though he may not be as rich as Bill Gates!

I doubt anyone would call you or me poor. We may not be millionaires, but we live in a part of the world where we have very few problems surviving.

If you want to, you can go down and get 10 pizzas, then go back and type on your computer, watch TV, drink clean water, speak your mind without being sent to Gitmo.

That's wealth.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Absolutely not correct. Kings have always lived a life on top. A cursory study of history will persuade you of this.

Well, apologies for the hyperbole, but modern poor people (in developed countries) do have a number of advantages over nearly all people of the past. In the U.S., pretty much everyone wakes up every day confident that they will be well fed and physically comfortable, unless they choose not to be by engaging in self-destructive behavior. A lot of fifty-year-olds still have all their teeth. They can talk to people all over the world in real time. They can travel in a couple hours what would've been days of hard slogging a hundred years ago.

They may not win out in terms of land ownership or gold or servants or authority, but not everybody views their quality of life in those terms. I can tell you I'd sure rather be me, now, than some rich nobleman in the 13th century.

Jeremy

[El Greco]

This may not be true about the €5000 prostitutes, but I have the feeling that many of the €100, €200 or €500 ones are better-off than a significant percentage of their clientele.

[dann]

Originally posted by toddjh
*shrug* I have no problem with prostitutes having a few drinks or a joint or something, if it makes things easier. You are so tolerant! You don't even care that they need this in order to perform the services that they sell in order to make a living!
What I do have a problem with is the prostitution industry being run by the same people who control the illegal drug industry. That leads to a cycle of dependency and coercion (not to mention the inability of the law to protect them) that wouldn't exist if prostitution and drugs were both legal. Maybe it wouldn't, but it does!
Sure, you'd still have hookers who are addicted to heroin or whatever, but it would make it much harder for people to exploit that addiction
No, it wouldn't!
-- especially if a clean drug test were a prerequisite of working as a prostitute in the first place.
It wouldn't be a prerequisite of working as a prostitute, it would only be a prerequisite of working as a legal prostitute - which, of course, they would all be, wouldn't they?
It isn't legal in enough (developed) countries to really say...are you thinking of one in particular? The Netherlands? Australia?
Germany? Denmark? Brothels exist in Germany, I think they are forbidden in Denmark.
Okay, let's look at Nevada. Among legal prostitutes, there are no pimps. There is security present at all times. The industry is regulated by the Nevada Department of Health, and regular drug and medical tests are mandatory. The incidence of STDs as a whole is lower among the women than among the general population, and there has never been a case of HIV, ever. The women pay taxes, give their cut to the brothel, and take home a fair amount of money.
Ah, well-ordered conditions, right?! It didn't occur to you that legal prostitution then co-exists alongside illegal prostitution? It didnt' occurt to you that prostitutes with HIV now work somewhere else?
Sure, the cost to the consumer goes up. But would you rather pay $150 for sex with a clean, healthy woman in a safe environment, or $50 to hook up with some drugged-up chick off the street, where you might even get arrested?
Neither nor! (Does that really come as a surprise to you?)
Here's a hint: hardly anyone prefers black-market cigarettes or alcohol. They'd rather just go to the corner store and get the regular-price ones off the shelf.
So how come black-market cigarettes and alcohol exist? Because nobody wants it? Or maybe because it's cheaper ...
You've completely lost me now. First, are you saying you think it's possible to have a system where no one is poor? I think you need to take some economics classes.
Yes, and no. Yes, I think it's possible, and no, I don't need to take any economics classes. What you may have heard at yours is a lie: http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/poverty.html
Second, I have no problem with attempting to resolve the problems of hunger and illiteracy, although I think it's rather odd phrasing to talk about abolishing them. I don't see why you lump prostitution in with those, though. If you're concerned that prostitution is a result of poverty, then your logic is backwards -- abolishing prostitution won't make those women any less poor.
Now I'm starting to despair!
I NEVER SAID IT WOULD. I NEVER SPOKE IN FAVOUR OF ABOLISHING PROSTITUTION! WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?!
In fact, it will simply deprive them of what they themselves consider to be the most effective money-making activity.
My point exactly! Maybe not the most effective in general, but in the unfortunate circumstances they find themselves in. And therefore you think of it as a blessing, any streetwalker's dream, right?!
I'd remind you that the status quo, which you find so objectionable, has flourished despite being abolished, if not because of it, so I think it's pretty clear that abolition does not accomplish what you want. It's odd that you appear to be in favor of it.
No, I only appear to you to be in favour of it! Please read what I actually say instead of fighting your own strawman!!!

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by toddjh
Well, apologies for the hyperbole, but modern poor people (in developed countries) do have a number of advantages over nearly all people of the past. In the U.S., pretty much everyone wakes up every day confident that they will be well fed and physically comfortable, unless they choose not to be by engaging in self-destructive behavior. A lot of fifty-year-olds still have all their teeth. They can talk to people all over the world in real time. They can travel in a couple hours what would've been days of hard slogging a hundred years ago.

They may not win out in terms of land ownership or gold or servants or authority, but not everybody views their quality of life in those terms. I can tell you I'd sure rather be me, now, than some rich nobleman in the 13th century.

Jeremy

Of course, but that's because I don't just look at money as wealth. If I had been a rich nobleman in the 13th Century, I'd most likely be dead. My chances of being 40+ would simply not be all that big.

[dann]

Originally posted by toddjh
In the U.S., pretty much everyone wakes up every day confident that they will be well fed and physically comfortable, unless they choose not to be by engaging in self-destructive behavior.
So pretty much all poor people in the USA are self-destructive - and therefore poor?!
They can travel in a couple hours what would've been days of hard slogging a hundred years ago.
Indeed, they can, and a lot of them have to, on a daily basis!

[dann]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
I doubt anyone would call you or me poor. We may not be millionaires, but we live in a part of the world where we have very few problems surviving.
If you want to, you can go down and get 10 pizzas, then go back and type on your computer, watch TV, drink clean water, speak your mind without being sent to Gitmo.
Is that a promise?! :)

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by dann
Is that a promise?! :)

Well, you're still here, aren't you? ;)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
Prostitution sucks! (pun not intended) Making it illegal does not put a stop to it. Eliminating poverty does.

Maybe you have never taken econ before...Lets analyze this.

a) everyone makes more money, and has more jobs
b) prostitutes take another job
c) there are less prostitutes
d) Demand for prostitutes has no changed, but supply has gone down
e) The price paid for a prostitute will rise to make the supply/demand curves meet
f) Less prostitutes will leave, whereas some who were less inclided to be prostitutes in the past, see it as easy money.

There are many other interpretations, but I don't see any ending with the emilination of prostitution. Its like saying eliminating poverty will eliminate drugs because dealers and growers will take better, high paying jobs instead (which would lower supply, and the price, making the switch less enticing).

[Mrick]

Originally posted by dann

Probably not random in the sense that they don't choose the partners they find attactive.
[B]
A very rare phenomenon, I think. (Outside of fiction)

No gangbangs, orgies and the like are common occurances. Random in the sense of who ever happens to be there.

Originally posted by dann

If they would not mind, then why do you think they are just promiscuous and not prostitutes?


Most likely because they have other jobs or social stigma or other personal reasons. Maybe it would require a lot of effort to set up the business in a safe manner free from nuts and cops. I don't know. Like any business, someone should consider a business plan.

Originally posted by dann

Which, of course, is what has resulted in the familiar phenomena of websites and streets full of available johns with prostitutes cruising around to pick up the john of their choice, right? Come on! They sometimes have some choice, but "pick and choose"?!!]


I suppose it depends on the hooker. Some hookers may have less choice. Some have a lot. Recreational sex is similar. Occasionally, a person will do a "mercy" **** when they have no real attraction.

Originally posted by dann

Well, sometimes (a slow night etc.) they do have to take on just any hairy dick and all.

I suppose if they want the money they have to do the job. But "they" can't be inclusive of "all" because that just isn't the case. I am sure "some" are sufficently motivated to accept almost anyone.

I am not sure what we are getting to in this discussion. Is it that women should not be allowed to sell sexual favors? If so, would that include marriage when it is apparant the man is buying a trophy wife? Would it make sleeping your way to the top illegal? Sex in front of cameras? What sex - penetration? oral? voyerism? phone sex? mutual masterbation? Erotic photography? Erotic dance? There is lots of sexual stimulation for sale, trade, or other bargaining.

To the person asking about male prostitutes, I considered that once, but my wife reminded me that one can't sell what one can't give away.

Mrick

[dann]

Originally posted by CFLarsen
Well, you're still here, aren't you? ;)
No, actually right now I'm on my way down to pick up the pizzas you promised!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann

See what happens when poverty is diminshed (Cuba), and when it is reintroduced (Cuba - or Eastern Europe with the transition from socialism to market economy and globalization: The Eastern European countries have indeed evolved into export nations - of hookers to the rest of the world!)


I've noticed that when difficult times strike, certain groups of people are always blamed. So while in times of prosperity, prostitutes are not looked down on, the police aren't cracking down, etc, when things go bad, not only do they tend to blame the lower layers of society, but they can't afford the luxury any more either.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by dann
You are so tolerant! You don't even care that they need this in order to perform the services that they sell in order to make a living!

Of course I care. I'd rather no one had to work at a job they don't enjoy. But, given the reality that such is the case for some people, I don't see why prostitution should be singled out and treated differently from the variety of other jobs that people take because they need money. I don't begrudge a factory worker having a few beers when he gets home, either, if it makes things easier to deal with. I don't really see how it's different.

It wouldn't be a prerequisite of working as a prostitute, it would only be a prerequisite of working as a legal prostitute - which, of course, they would all be, wouldn't they?

No. Illegal prostitution would continue to exist, but it can't possibly be worse than the status quo, can it? I think the amount it could be reduced would depend on the manner in which it is legalized. Under the right conditions, and with proper enforcement of the law, I believe it could be reduced considerably.


Ah, well-ordered conditions, right?! It didn't occur to you that legal prostitution then co-exists alongside illegal prostitution? It didnt' occurt to you that prostitutes with HIV now work somewhere else?

Well, Nevada is an exception in many ways, but no, I don't believe that to be the case there. First, unless the situation has changed very recently, no legal prostitute in Nevada has ever tested positive for HIV, so any discussion of where they are working now is moot. Second, I don't believe there is enough of a market in those counties to support both legal and illegal prostitution working concurrently -- typically, brothels in Nevada exist in areas with quite low populations.

As for elsewhere, yes, I've already said that illegal prostitution is not going to disappear. My goal is merely to minimize it and have some semblance of legal protection for the women (and men) who find themselves in that position.

Yes, and no. Yes, I think it's possible, and no, I don't need to take any economics classes. What you may have heard at yours is a lie: http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/poverty.html

I read that article already. Is that all you're basing your position on? I found it rather shortsighted. For one thing, it only claims to address the question of poverty in the developing world, ignoring the fact that you can find poor people everywhere. I also disagree with some of its explanations; I believe that developing countries are suffering mainly because political instability deters foreign businesses from investing in infrastructure. A vicious cycle, but not the one described in your article.

Now, if you are arguing that it's possible for the world to become less poor as a whole, then I agree. As technology improves, I expect that quality of life will continue to go up all across the board. What I don't expect to see is an even distribution of wealth between all people. Some will always be poorer than others -- and then the goalposts will move, and the "poorer" will become the "poor" of the day.

I NEVER SPOKE IN FAVOUR OF ABOLISHING PROSTITUTION! WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?!


That's not exactly true. You said, "There's nothing more annoying than a very poor country abolishing hunger, illiteracy and prostitution, establishing a health care system etc. That just has to be the Devil's work! We cannot allow that to happen!" After parsing through the sarcasm, that seems to me to be in favor of abolishing prostitution, at least in some situations.

To answer your question, your position is difficult to understand because you are not making it very clear, especially by not proposing any remedy of your own.

It's further muddied by the fact that you seem to want to do away with prostitution because you view it as a symptom of the underlying problem of poverty. That's fine; what I don't understand is why you focus on prostitution in particular, and ignore all the other crappy jobs people take because they need money. If the issue is poverty, not prostitution, why focus on the latter so intently?

My point exactly! Maybe not the most effective in general, but in the unfortunate circumstances they find themselves in. And therefore you think of it as a blessing, any streetwalker's dream, right?!

I don't know what you mean by this, so I'm sorry if this is not answering your question, but no, I don't think the life of a typical prostitute (male or female) is anyone's "dream." I think they consider it a necessary evil. People working crappy jobs because of lack of opportunity have my sympathy.

Jeremy

[RussDill]

Originally posted by kimiko
I forgot. better she becomes a soldier, because people who kill others for money are heroes."


Always reminds me of:

"Have you ever killed anybody?", "Yes, but they were all bad."

[dann]

Originally posted by RussDill
Maybe you have never taken econ before...Lets analyze this.

a) everyone makes more money, and has more jobs
b) prostitutes take another job
c) there are less prostitutes
d) Demand for prostitutes has no changed, but supply has gone down
e) The price paid for a prostitute will rise to make the supply/demand curves meet
f) Less prostitutes will leave, whereas some who were less inclided to be prostitutes in the past, see it as easy money.

This is not analysis, it's fiction! And already covered. Eliminate poverty, give an education to prostitutes who lack one, give them a job: no prostitution.
"45. In her meetings in Havana, as well as in the provinces, most of the Special Rapporteur's interlocutors held that, as a result of the Cuban revolution, Cuban society had succeeded in virtually eliminating prostitution. Prior to 1959, prostitution was widely stated to have existed out of need; the improvements in the economic and social status of women thereafter had eliminated that need."
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/cab2b9bda29591c0802568ac00531e1b/$FILE/G0010672.doc

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
And why do you think "a dictator" doesn't want to stop prostitution anymore? No, even a dictator cannot stop prostitution if a woman has the choice between starving (or letting her children starve) or prostitution - which is the reason why prostitution reemerged in Cuba in the 90s. (By the way, why do you think your glorious, democratically elected president Bush hasn't put a stop to prostitution?)


hmmm...let me see...maybe there are more pressing issues? education, defense, violent crime, economy. So sorry he hasn't dedicated himself to eliminating prostitution.


Nobody seems to deny that the kind of poverty that existed in Cuba before the revolution was eliminated in the 60s, 70s and 80s.


Wow...you mean people sent him tons of money and goods and his people weren't poor? Neato, what a marvelous leader, whoring his nation out for money. (cuban missile crisis)


Illiteracy was overcome in the first couple of years, health care for everybody was a fact by the late 60s and so was a balanced diet and jobs for everybody. This, and not a dictator who simply decreed that there be no prostitution, eliminated sex as a marketable commodity in Cuba.


Or was attempting to provide the image of a utopia.


When I was in Habana in 2000, I met a young girl from Brazil who enjoyed being able to walk through the streets of that city - alone - at night - as a woman! Something that she wouldn't be able to do in Brazil! So what enabled her to do so? The severe sentences for attacking tourists?


How about a police state? (which isn't necessary, just adequate enforcement and coverage)


Well, that is something to consider, but if you starve you really don't have much of a choice, do you? Or the lack of the kind of desperation that you find in other Latin American countries? What do you think?

You act as if there is only one reason people would turn to prostitution and that it would always be their last resort.

[SRW]

Originally posted by dann
This is not analysis, it's fiction! And already covered. Eliminate poverty, give an education to prostitutes who lack one, give them a job: no prostitution.
"45. In her meetings in Havana, as well as in the provinces, most of the Special Rapporteur's interlocutors held that, as a result of the Cuban revolution, Cuban society had succeeded in virtually eliminating prostitution. Prior to 1959, prostitution was widely stated to have existed out of need; the improvements in the economic and social status of women thereafter had eliminated that need."
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/cab2b9bda29591c0802568ac00531e1b/$FILE/G0010672.doc


Well nice try, but the next paragraph conterdicts your arguemnets. From your report sited above.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, the Special Rapporteur was informed that with the gradual increase of tourism in Cuba, prostitution had been increasing in recent years, mostly in tourist destinations such as Havana and Varadero. The women who engage in prostitution were characterized as originating from families without morals or from dysfunctional families and it was emphasized that any prostitution that might exist in Cuba was not practised in order to meet economic needs, but rather as a result of crumbling social and moral values. Furthermore, as characterized by President Castro himself, Cuban women who sell sex are not prostitutes but rather “jineteras�, since no one is forcing them to do so “but they do it on their own�.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


We know they are crazy because the Cuban Gov puts them in the mad house:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The Special Rapporteur was also concerned about the women being held in rehabilitation centres for “behaviour modification� as a result of their involvement in prostitution. As prostitution is not a crime in Cuba, the use of criminal procedure, such as imprisonment, forced labour in agriculture and restriction of visiting time to a few hours, violate their rights to due process of law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
This is the very first quotation from the article you provided:
�Cuba, considered to be free of prostitution since the 1960s, is experiencing an increase in prostitution and prostitution tourism as a result of the poor economy.
As a result of the poor economy!!! What is the matter with you? Can't you or won't you read what the article says?!!!
[B]

"condidered to be free" by whom? through what means? If the economy is good, would prostitutes be less likely to solicit their service to those they do not know, since they are less desperate? IE, a boatload of forigners looking for a cheap night may not find any, because the prostitutes are well paid, and not looking for a quick buck

What do they provide to support their conjecture that the increase is due to a poor economy? Should I believe every unsupported conjecture of every news article?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann

Yeah, sure! Hookers are only in it for the love making, aren't they. Come on, SRW! Get real!

Eliminating poverty would eliminate prostitution!

or...ghasp, people are in prostitution for a wide spectrum of reasons.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
"I needed money. I needed a lot of money, and I needed it quickly." [/B]

Note the "i needed a lot of money" someone who is doing it because they are starving would just say "I needed money, and I needed it quickly"

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann

Apparently she is being coerced to choose between prostitution and waitressing as the best option for herself. I think that is inherently bad, yes, especially since she doesn't particularly like having sex for money and most people don't like waitressing either.

aparently, she lived above her means and decimated her bank account. Boo hoo.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
You can get Coca Cola[b]
Yes, if Cuba chose to become a vassal state of the USA there wouldn't be any blockade. Of course, they would then have to give up all the achievements of the Cuban revolution, which might be a small price to pay in the eyes of many norte americanos. Most Cubans, however, probably wouldn't appreciate the introduction of the kind of poverty prevalent in the rest of Latin America.

Yes, give up locking up political dissadents, what a horrible price.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann

Again: Look at the countries (or states) where it has been legalized.


How about you look at somewhere where it has been legalized that is not a corrupted societity? Take legal prostitution in nevada for instance.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
You have no idea how "most kings" lived a few centuries ago! They didn't have any DVD players, but kings weren't poor, they reigned the poor who were at their beck and call. (A lot of things haven't changed!)
Short is a relative term, poor is not a relative term, but it can be used to compare e.g. groups. Still, nobody would call Donald Trump poor, even though he may not be as rich as Bill Gates!

You miss the point. We have a program here called "christmas angles" where there is a big christmas tree with pieces of paper attached with a childs name, age, and what they want for christmas. You take one, buy the gift, and give it to the volunteers who deliver it.

Things you'll see on there commonly:

motorized scooter
playstation2 (they have a TV)
prince of persia (they already have a playstation2)

I don't know about you, but we have a very different definition of poor here than in other countries. In many places poor means you don't know where your next meal will come from, or you don't know where you can get drinkable water.

[BTW, I'm not a heartless bastard who doesn't believe in helping underpriveledged children just because they are less underpriveledged]

[dann]

Originally posted by toddjh
Of course I care. I'd rather no one had to work at a job they don't enjoy. But, given the reality that such is the case for some people, I don't see why prostitution should be singled out and treated differently from the variety of other jobs that people take because they need money. I don't begrudge a factory worker having a few beers when he gets home, either, if it makes things easier to deal with. I don't really see how it's different.
"Things"?! No, using the word "things", you abstract from any difference, but the difference really wasn't my point anyway, was it?!
It is always funny when people use the given "reality" as an argument! Yes, "reality" does look like that for some people, and that ought to be changed! When you look at prostitution, you don't simply accept the reality of it being illegal. You are in favour of changing that piece of reality, of legalizing it!
No. Illegal prostitution would continue to exist, but it can't possibly be worse than the status quo, can it?
Not a very good argument for making changes, is it? (And please remember: I'm not defending illegality!)
I think the amount it could be reduced would depend on the manner (!) in which it is legalized. Under the right conditions, (but not under the wrong conditions?) and with proper enforcement of the law, (but not with improper enforcement?) I believe it could be reduced considerably.
My parentheses, dann.
Well, Nevada is an exception in many ways, but no, I don't believe that to be the case there. First, unless the situation has changed very recently, no legal prostitute in Nevada has ever tested positive for HIV, so any discussion of where they are working now is moot.
No, it isn't. They never got to work there in the first place! Very good for johns who want to play it safe, there's no denying that!
Second, I don't believe there is enough of a market in those counties to support both legal and illegal prostitution working concurrently -- typically, brothels in Nevada exist in areas with quite low populations.
Which is why they probably cater to tourists, don't you think? It sounds like a very bad idea, businesswise, to place almost anything in areas with quite low population ...
As for elsewhere, yes, I've already said that illegal prostitution is not going to disappear. My goal is merely to minimize it and have some semblance of legal protection for the women (and men) who find themselves in that position.
To me your goal seems to be to supplement it with the legal kind and all the advantages you think it has.
I read that article already. Is that all you're basing your position on? I found it rather shortsighted. For one thing, it only claims to address the question of poverty in the developing world, ignoring the fact that you can find poor people everywhere.

No, it does not ignore the fact, it explains the fact.
I also disagree with some of its explanations; I believe that developing countries are suffering mainly because political instability deters foreign businesses from investing in infrastructure. A vicious cycle, but not the one described in your article.
A lot of beliefs aren't covered by that article. It also doesn't cover the idea that poverty is punishment from God. In other words: I can't really blame the article for disagreeing with your favourite belief!
Now, if you are arguing that it's possible for the world to become less poor as a whole, then I agree. As technology improves, I expect that quality of life will continue to go up all across the board.
As "technology improves" a lot of people are made redundant. Technological improvement in a market economy does not better the situation of poor people, sorry! One of the apparent contradictions in a capitalist economy is that when you make things easier to produce, people lose their jobs, i.e. their way of earning a living. (Didn't the article cover this?)
What I don't expect to see is an even distribution of wealth between all people. Some will always be poorer than others -- and then the goalposts will move, and the "poorer" will become the "poor" of the day.
And some of them will starve and become the living of yesterday. (You didn't really read the article, did you?)
That's not exactly true. You said, "There's nothing more annoying than a very poor country abolishing hunger, illiteracy and prostitution, establishing a health care system etc. That just has to be the Devil's work! We cannot allow that to happen!" After parsing through the sarcasm, that seems to me to be in favor of abolishing prostitution, at least in some situations.
YES!!! I am in favour of abolishing prostitution! And NO, not just in some situations. And thank you for pointing out my BIG mistake. I am indeed in favour of ABOLISHING prostitution, but not by making it illegal! By eliminating the poverty that forces upon them very bad alternatives. Therefore it WON'T deprive them, as you put it,
In fact, it will simply deprive them of what they themselves consider to be the most effective money-making activity.
It will deprive them of the need to be on the lookout for "the most effective money-making activity".
To answer your question, your position is difficult to understand because you are not making it very clear, especially by not proposing any remedy of your own.
Once again, my bad that I wrote abolish where I meant outlaw. The remedy proposed, however, has been the same from the very beginning!
It's further muddied by the fact that you seem to want to do away with prostitution because you view it as a symptom of the underlying problem of poverty. That's fine; what I don't understand is why you focus on prostitution in particular, and ignore all the other crappy jobs people take because they need money.
I don't! I have mentioned "the other crappy jobs" from the very beginning!
If the issue is poverty, not prostitution, why focus on the latter so intently?
See answer above!
I don't know what you mean by this, so I'm sorry if this is not answering your question, but no, I don't think the life of a typical prostitute (male or female) is anyone's "dream." I think they consider it a necessary evil. People working crappy jobs because of lack of opportunity have my sympathy.
Our sympathy doesn't really help them, does it?

[dann]

Originally posted by SRW
Well nice try, but the next paragraph conterdicts your arguemnets. From your report sited above.
No, not really, but it does make one mistake! It forgets to menstion that the "gradual increase of tourism in Cuba" happened in an attempt to fight the poverty that had returned to Cuba in the "Special Period"!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the Special Rapporteur was informed that with the gradual increase of tourism in Cuba, prostitution had been increasing in recent years, mostly in tourist destinations such as Havana and Varadero. The women who engage in prostitution were characterized as originating from families without morals or from dysfunctional families and it was emphasized that any prostitution that might exist in Cuba was not practised in order to meet economic needs, but rather as a result of crumbling social and moral values. Furthermore, as characterized by President Castro himself, Cuban women who sell sex are not prostitutes but rather “jineteras�, since no one is forcing them to do so “but they do it on their own�.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We know they are crazy because the Cuban Gov puts them in the mad house:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The Special Rapporteur was also concerned about the women being held in rehabilitation centres for “behaviour modification� as a result of their involvement in prostitution. As prostitution is not a crime in Cuba, the use of criminal procedure, such as imprisonment, forced labour in agriculture and restriction of visiting time to a few hours, violate their rights to due process of law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
And, no, I don't think they are mad, and no, they are not placed in the madhouse, and no, I don't think that this measure is going to put a stop to prostitution in Cuba. That would take the elimination of poverty, a self-supporting economy in Cuba that could support its inhabitants.

[dann]

Originally posted by RussDill
"condidered to be free" by whom? through what means? If the economy is good, would prostitutes be less likely to solicit their service to those they do not know, since they are less desperate? IE, a boatload of forigners looking for a cheap night may not find any, because the prostitutes are well paid, and not looking for a quick buck
What do they provide to support their conjecture that the increase is due to a poor economy? Should I believe every unsupported conjecture of every news article?
No, maybe you shouldn't, but this was the article supplied by SRW to prove his point!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
PS

You don't even become just a little bit suspicious about the kind of profession that apparently needs mandatory drug tests


...you mean like professional athletes, doctors, pilots, operators of heavy machinery, etc?


[qoute]
health screenings
[/quote]

Like food service workers, medical professionals, etc?


and on-site security to deal with unruly customers?


You mean like at a bar, club, or social security office?


I would be rather offended and very worried if anybody suggested introducing these measures at my high school!


Well lets see..you aren't likely to kill anyone while in highschool due to poor health.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
So pretty much all poor people in the USA are self-destructive - and therefore poor?!


Poor by other countries standards. Our poverty line is very high. The people who wander the streets are usually self-destructive, mentally ill (most common case), or enjoy the lifestyle of being a wanderer (particularly in very urban areas)

[dann]

Originally posted by RussDill
Wow...you mean people sent him tons of money and goods and his people weren't poor? Neato, what a marvelous leader, whoring his nation out for money. (cuban missile crisis)
Yes, Cubans weren't poor back then. No, trying to defend a country from American attacks can't be considered "whoring his nation out for money." By the way, the Cubans were very angry at the Russians for giving in to the demands of the USA and removing the missiles again.
Or was attempting to provide the image of a utopia.
Yes, eliminating poverty, illiteracy and prostitution was just an evil plot to make poverty, illiteracy and prostitution look bad!
How about a police state? (which isn't necessary, just adequate enforcement and coverage)
Yes, how about it? A police state and adequate enforcement and coverage doesn't help much if people are starving. Look at the death patrols in other Latin American countries ...
You act as if there is only one reason people would turn to prostitution and that it would always be their last resort.
I'm glad that I got that point through to you!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
This is not analysis, it's fiction! And already covered. Eliminate poverty, give an education to prostitutes who lack one, give them a job: no prostitution.


OK, but why would that change the demand for prostitution, and thus make the price soar, thus enticing people to the profession?


"45. In her meetings in Havana, as well as in the provinces, most of the Special Rapporteur's interlocutors held that, as a result of the Cuban revolution, Cuban society had succeeded in virtually eliminating prostitution. Prior to 1959, prostitution was widely stated to have existed out of need; the improvements in the economic and social status of women thereafter had eliminated that need."
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/cab2b9bda29591c0802568ac00531e1b/$FILE/G0010672.doc

Yes, socialist and communist countries during the cold war tried very hard to make their country apear to be a utopia. North Korea still does this.

[dann]

Originally posted by RussDill
"condidered to be free" by whom?
Considered to be free of prostitution by almost everybody!
through what means? If the economy is good, would prostitutes be less likely to solicit their service to those they do not know, since they are less desperate?
Yes, exactly! (But, of course, it would have to be the kind of economy that actually try to better the living conditions of its people!)
IE, a boatload of forigners looking for a cheap night may not find any, because the prostitutes are well paid, and not looking for a quick buck
Exactly, and therefore no longer prostitutes!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
As "technology improves" a lot of people are made redundant. Technological improvement in a market economy does not better the situation of poor people, sorry! One of the apparent contradictions in a capitalist economy is that when you make things easier to produce, people lose their jobs, i.e. their way of earning a living. (Didn't the article cover this?)


The problem seems to be that you have no clue about how a capitalist economy. If something cost $50 to produce before, but now costs $40, what do you think the consumer will do with that extra $40? They will spend it on something else, which means that the jobs are not lost.

The wealth of a nation is measured in productivity. The more productive a nation is, the more "things" it has. The cheaper it is able to produce things, the more people can by them.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
Glad that point through to you!

So you agree that they is a broad sprectrom reasons other than poverty that would cause people to engage in prostitution. Great. So then we can agree that eliminating poverty would only elimitate one of the reasons for prostitution. After that, we can see how the elimitation of poverty would increase the wages of prostitutes.

[dann]

Originally posted by RussDill
Note the "i needed a lot of money" someone who is doing it because they are starving would just say "I needed money, and I needed it quickly"
No, someone who is starving will say: "I need bread!" I never claimed that this woman was starving, but if you read the text, you'll notice that she needs to pay the rent etc. which is why she needs a lot of money.

[dann]

Originally posted by RussDill
aparently, she lived above her means and decimated her bank account. Boo hoo.
No, apparently her boyfriend had emptied her bank account.
But you don't really want to make an effort at finding out what you are talking about, are you?

[toddjh]

Originally posted by dann
"Things"?! No, using the word "things", you abstract from any difference, but the difference really wasn't my point anyway, was it?!

Honestly, I no longer have any idea what your point is, apart from "eliminating poverty."

Not a very good argument for making changes, is it?

Hmm? I think "it can't possibly get any worse" is one of the best arguments for making changes. It means you have nothing to lose.

My parentheses, dann.

Yes, when you do things incorrectly and don't apply the rules properly, you often get suboptimal results. I don't see what your point is here.

To me your goal seems to be to supplement it with the legal kind and all the advantages you think it has.

I don't know where you get that from. You're saying you don't think the presence of legal prostitution would reduce the presence of illegal prostitution at all? I can't agree with that. I think a great many customers would prefer to go the legal route, even if it is more expensive.

No, it does not ignore the fact, it explains the fact.

The title of the article is, "Why are many people in developing countries poor?" It does not attempt to address the question of poverty generally, it attempts to address the question of why developing countries have so many more poor than elsewhere. Frankly, I don't think it does a very good job with that. It then attempts to link that issue to the distribution of wealth within developed countries, by telling us that politicians say things I've never heard them say. Perhaps it's just the U.S., but I've never heard anyone say wages are too high. In fact, in the last presidential election, I heard both candidates say they thought the minimum wage ought to be raised.

As "technology improves" a lot of people are made redundant. Technological improvement in a market economy does not better the situation of poor people, sorry!

This is demonstrably untrue. Poor people today are much better off than they were a couple hundred years ago. Almost unbelievably so. Pretty much no one in the United States is starving. Even among the very poor, most have electricity, clean water (hot and cold), adequate heating, refrigerators, televisions, and even computers. They cannot be turned down for medical treatment, if required. I imagine the situation is much the same in Europe.

One of the apparent contradictions in a capitalist economy is that when you make things easier to produce, people lose their jobs, i.e. their way of earning a living. (Didn't the article cover this?)

If one considered your article from some web site to be the inerrant truth, that might be a problem. But like I said, all you have to do is look at the real world to see that that simply isn't the case.

YES!!! I am in favour of abolishing prostitution! And NO, not just in some situations.

Okay, I now understand your position, but I hope you can understand why people are confused about what you're saying. You said repeatedly that you're not in favor of abolishing prostitution (meaning one thing), and then you turn around and say you are (meaning something different). It's hard to follow exactly what you're talking about when the context doesn't make it clear which synonym you mean.

I am indeed in favour of ABOLISHING prostitution, but not by making it illegal! By eliminating the poverty that forces upon them very bad alternatives.

Step 1: Steal underwear.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Eliminate poverty.

Again, why do you focus on prostitution exclusively? Would you say you are also in favor of abolishing waiting tables, or working at the cash register at Wal-Mart? Those are also jobs that people would only take when they need money. What's the difference, except that you find prostitution more distasteful personally? I'd really like an answer to this.

Jeremy

[dann]

Originally posted by RussDill
Yes, give up locking up political dissadents, what a horrible price.
And that would help prostitutes how?
(We could go into a discussion of political dissidents in Cuba, but maybe we should take it to another thread then?)

[SRW]

Originally posted by dann
No, not really, but it does make one mistake! It forgets to menstion that the "gradual increase of tourism in Cuba" happened in an attempt to fight the poverty that had returned to Cuba in the "Special Period"!
[B]
And, no, I don't think they are mad, and no, they are not placed in the madhouse, and no, I don't think that this measure is going to put a stop to prostitution in Cuba. That would take the elimination of poverty, a self-supporting economy in Cuba that could support its inhabitants.


dann you cannot have it both ways, you posted this article from the U.N. so I assume you believe what it says. However when it contradicts your arguments you say it is in error, or wrong. If you read the entire article it sounds like it is very skeptical of what it is being told by the Cubans, and also is unable to carry on independent investigations.

Mad house is what I call an instution where people go for Behavior Modification.

[dann]

Originally posted by RussDill
How about you look at somewhere where it has been legalized that is not a corrupted societity? Take legal prostitution in nevada for instance.
Denmark and Germany are not particularly corrupt, I think.

[dann]

Originally posted by RussDill
...you mean like professional athletes, doctors, pilots, operators of heavy machinery, etc?
health screenings
Like food service workers, medical professionals, etc?
You mean like at a bar, club, or social security office?
Yes, and how exactly are all these jobs related to prostitution?
Well lets see..you aren't likely to kill anyone while in highschool due to poor health.
No, nor due to anything else.

[dann]

Originally posted by RussDill
Poor by other countries standards. Our poverty line is very high. The people who wander the streets are usually self-destructive, mentally ill (most common case), or enjoy the lifestyle of being a wanderer (particularly in very urban areas)
I guess the poor bastards with their plastic cups that I have to pass every day on my way to work are just enjoying their lifestyle. What a comforting thought!
And of course you are "not a heartless bastard who doesn't believe in helping underpriveledged children just because they are less underpriveledged".

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by dann
Yes, and how exactly are all these jobs related to prostitution?


They are all examples of jobs that require regular drug testing, health checkups, and protection from customers. At least to some extent.

You said you didn't trust occupations like that.

[CFLarsen]

Originally posted by dann
Denmark and Germany are not particularly corrupt, I think.

Denmark competes with New Zealand in being the least corrupt country in the world.

[dann]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dann
This is not analysis, it's fiction! And already covered. Eliminate poverty, give an education to prostitutes who lack one, give them a job: no prostitution.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RussDill
OK, but why would that change the demand for prostitution, and thus make the price soar, thus enticing people to the profession?
I never said that it would "change the demand", did I? But it virtually eliminated prostitution in Cuba from 1960 till the early 90s!
Yes, socialist and communist countries during the cold war tried very hard to make their country apear to be a utopia. North Korea still does this.
Yes, North Korea still does this. And has a hard time doing so, because it apparently is all apperance.

[dann]

Originally posted by RussDill
The problem seems to be that you have no clue about how a capitalist economy. If something cost $50 to produce before, but now costs $40, what do you think the consumer will do with that extra $40? They will spend it on something else, which means that the jobs are not lost.
The problem seems to be that you cannot do basic arithmetic. I have heard this explanation before, and it is still wrong: The consumer gets neither an extra $40 or, more correctly, an extra $10, because HE'S BEEN MADE REDUNDANT! He already lost his job, and he hasn't even got the money he used to have.
The wealth of a nation is measured in productivity. The more productive a nation is, the more "things" it has. The cheaper it is able to produce things, the more people can by them.
The wealth of a nation is very different from the wealth of its inhabitants. You Americans ought to know. This, by the way, is the reason why the health care system in a relatively poor country such as Cuba is so excellent. And it is the reason why you have so many prostitutes in the world's richest nation, the USA.

[dann]

Originally posted by RussDill
So you agree that they is a broad sprectrom reasons other than poverty that would cause people to engage in prostitution. Great. So then we can agree that eliminating poverty would only elimitate one of the reasons for prostitution. After that, we can see how the elimitation of poverty would increase the wages of prostitutes.
Don't leave out what this was all about:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RussDill: You act as if there is only one reason people would turn to prostitution and that it would always be their last resort.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dann: I'm glad that I got that point through to you!

There is one reason why people turn to prostitution. Therefore you cannot eliminate it by forbidding it. You have to eliminate poverty.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by dann
The problem seems to be that you cannot do basic arithmetic. I have heard this explanation before, and it is still wrong: The consumer gets neither an extra $40 or, more correctly, an extra $10, because HE'S BEEN MADE REDUNDANT! He already lost his job, and he hasn't even got the money he used to have.

You'd think the entire population of the United States and much of Europe would be unemployed by now, then. Strangely enough, that hasn't happened.

Somehow, just as technology and automation render certain jobs obsolete, they manage to create new jobs at the same time. Who would've guessed that would happen?

Jeremy

[dann]

Originally posted by toddjh
Hmm? I think "it can't possibly get any worse" is one of the best arguments for making changes. It means you have nothing to lose.
It's a very bad argument. It sounds as if you don't know what you're doing, you don't know if your solution is going to work, but you might as well try to do something, since "it can't possibly get any worse".

I don't know where you get that from. You're saying you don't think the presence of legal prostitution would reduce the presence of illegal prostitution at all? I can't agree with that. I think a great many customers would prefer to go the legal route, even if it is more expensive.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Maybe it would. Maybe it would even bring more customers, those who didn't want to go to an illegal prostitute. In that case it wouldn't reduce illegal prostitution, it would increase the number of johns instead.
And you do tend to take the point of view of the consumer, don't you?
The title of the article is, "Why are many people in developing countries poor?" It does not attempt to address the question of poverty generally, it attempts to address the question of why developing countries have so many more poor than elsewhere. Frankly, I don't think it does a very good job with that. It then attempts to link that issue to the distribution of wealth within developed countries,
Thank you! There it was!
by telling us that politicians say things I've never heard them say. Perhaps it's just the U.S., but I've never heard anyone say wages are too high. In fact, in the last presidential election, I heard both candidates say they thought the minimum wage ought to be raised.
Politicians and employers in Europe say it all the time. (BTW, did Bush then raise the minimum wages after the election?)
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As "technology improves" a lot of people are made redundant. Technological improvement in a market economy does not better the situation of poor people, sorry!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is demonstrably untrue. Poor people today are much better off than they were a couple hundred years ago. Almost unbelievably so. Pretty much no one in the United States is starving. Even among the very poor, most have electricity, clean water (hot and cold), adequate heating, refrigerators, televisions, and even computers. They cannot be turned down for medical treatment, if required. I imagine the situation is much the same in Europe.
No, it is demonstrably true! It depends: When a company introduces new technology to turn out more goods using fewer workers, it may simply lay off the rest - or it may become more competitive and hire more people (again). Or it may move to Mexico. Or ... In Denmark many slaughterhouses are moving to Poland. My point was: technological improvement in a market economy doesn't take place because the workers are going to benefit from it. And very often they don't!
One of the apparent contradictions in a capitalist economy is that when you make things easier to produce, people lose their jobs, i.e. their way of earning a living. (Didn't the article cover this?)

If one considered your article from some web site to be the inerrant truth, that might be a problem. But like I said, all you have to do is look at the real world to see that that simply isn't the case.
Apparently you've never heard about people in the real world being laid off as a result of industrial rationalization. OK, then you haven't.
Okay, I now understand your position, but I hope you can understand why people are confused about what you're saying.
No, I can't, but I can understand why you would be confused at the point where I confused abolish with forbid. (And I was confused because I had to make sense of too many opponents simultaneously). The rest of the things I've written are very consistent.
You said repeatedly that you're not in favor of abolishing prostitution (meaning one thing), and then you turn around and say you are (meaning something different). It's hard to follow exactly what you're talking about when the context doesn't make it clear which synonym you mean.
No, don't pretend that I suddenly "turn around". From the very beginning I've tried to drive the point home that poverty is what makes people choose prostitution for a living. And along the way I was accused of wanting to forbid prostitution. In one, only one, paragraph I used the word abolish incorrectly (instead of forbid). As soon as you made me aware of that, I made it clear. At that one point it wasn't just "hard to follow exactly what you're (= I'm) talking about", it was impossible. But after the clarification it should no longer be a problem. (And, by the way, it wasn't a "synonym". And, no, I won't hold it against you from now on.)
Step 1: Steal underwear.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Eliminate poverty.
I don't know what underwear and stealing has to do with this.
Again, why do you focus on prostitution exclusively? I don't.
Would you say you are also in favor of abolishing waiting tables, or working at the cash register at Wal-Mart?
I'm not in favour of the circumstances that force these alternatives on people.
Those are also jobs that people would only take when they need money.
Let me, with no irony, assure you that I'm very glad that you write "also"!
What's the difference, except that you find prostitution more distasteful personally? I'd really like an answer to this.
I have answered that question a million times by now. You and everybody else are well aware of the differences between a waiter and a prostitute: One has to wait tables, but not sleep with the customers, for the other it's the other way round.
I DO NOT SAY: PROSTITUTION BAD, WAITRESSING GOOD!!!
OK?! Please don't confuse me with the people who do!

[dann]

Originally posted by SRW
dann you cannot have it both ways, you posted this article from the U.N. so I assume you believe what it says. However when it contradicts your arguments you say it is in error, or wrong. If you read the entire article it sounds like it is very skeptical of what it is being told by the Cubans, and also is unable to carry on independent investigations.
I posted it, but I never claimed that I agreed with it in its entirety. I have explained to you where I disagree, right?! Do you understand what I say? The article neglects to say that tourism was (re)introduced in an attempt to improve the Cuban economy in the "Special Period" of the '90s when poverty had returned to the country. The article fails to mention this, making it sound as if one remedy to improve the living conditions of the Cubans, tourism, alone was what caused prostitution to reemerge. It does not, however, say that poverty was not the cause. And it is rather unambiguous when it points at the elimination of poverty as the thing that eliminated prostitution after the revolution!
And, yes, the article is skeptical! Would you have believed it otherwise? And, yes, the UN investigator is not able to carry out independent investigations.
Mad house is what I call an instution where people go for Behavior Modification.
I don't know anything about "Behavior Modification" in Cuba. You seem to imply that it is some kind of concentration camp. It might, however, just be a question of modifying the behavior of prostitutes by giving them an education. I don't know, do you?
But if Castro wanted to encourage prostitution, as you or somebody else claimed, it is hard to see why he would want to modify their behavior in a way that made the prostitutes stop being prostitutes.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by dann
It's a very bad argument. It sounds as if you don't know what you're doing, you don't know if your solution is going to work, but you might as well try to do something, since "it can't possibly get any worse".

Strawman. There have been many arguments made about why legalizing prostitution would make the situation better. The fact that it won't get worse is only provided to address the issue of cost. IOW, EVEN IF none of the benefits come through, the worst we will be is no worse than now. OTOH, there are reasons to believe it will be better.

Your point would be valid if anyone were proposing change for the sake of change. No one is. They are proposing change because there is reason to believe it will help. But even if it doesn't help, it won't hurt, so there is a potential upside and no downside. That's why you do it.

[dann]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by RussDill
...you mean like professional athletes, doctors, pilots, operators of heavy machinery, etc?
health screenings
Like food service workers, medical professionals, etc?
You mean like at a bar, club, or social security office?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pgwenthold
They are all examples of jobs that require regular drug testing, health checkups, and protection from customers. At least to some extent.
You said you didn't trust occupations like that.
I said that I didn't trust doctors and pilots? Where? Why would I say that? I have trusted them with my life!
OK, you did not get my point which is:
Doctors and pilots are tested because it is very important that they are not under the influence when they fly a plane or perform open-heart surgery. Professional athletes are tested because they are suspected of having a reason to cheat.
Why are prostitutes checked?
1) Because they are a risk group. They may get infected with HIV from their johns or from needles.
2) They might pass it on to the johns.
3) They may have reason to hide this from johns or pimps/employers (because they may lose their job).
4) They may want to take drugs because they cannot stand having to do the things they have to do.
And 5): They need security guards because the people they have to deal with may pose a threat to them.
Well-ordered working conditions? Do these things make it sound like a pleasant profession? Not in my opinion ...

[dann]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dann
The problem seems to be that you cannot do basic arithmetic. I have heard this explanation before, and it is still wrong: The consumer gets neither an extra $40 or, more correctly, an extra $10, because HE'S BEEN MADE REDUNDANT! He already lost his job, and he hasn't even got the money he used to have.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by toddjh
You'd think the entire population of the United States and much of Europe would be unemployed by now, then. Strangely enough, that hasn't happened.
Somehow, just as technology and automation render certain jobs obsolete, they manage to create new jobs at the same time. Who would've guessed that would happen?

Please don't leave out the context. What I wrote was an answer to this rather naive notion:

"The problem seems to be that you have no clue about how a capitalist economy. If something cost $50 to produce before, but now costs $40, what do you think the consumer will do with that extra $40? They will spend it on something else, which means that the jobs are not lost."

Maybe you haven't heard, but sometimes a lot of people are made redundant, unemployed, jobless - and therefore poor, homeless etc. Sometimes 'they' don't "manage to create new jobs at the same time.
Who would have guessed that would happen?
Well, I, for one, would!

[toddjh]

Originally posted by dann
No, it is demonstrably true! It depends: When a company introduces new technology to turn out more goods using fewer workers, it may simply lay off the rest - or it may become more competitive and hire more people (again).

Okay, so that's one company. Meanwhile, another company has used a technological advance to create a whole new industry, creating many more jobs. I'm a computer programmer. There weren't many of us 50 years ago.

My point was: technological improvement in a market economy doesn't take place because the workers are going to benefit from it. And very often they don't!

More often they do. I have yet to see you respond to the fact that quality of life is much, much higher for both the average person and the poor than it was mere decades ago. Isn't that, along with relatively flat unemployment rates, proof that what you are saying is not completely accurate?

Apparently you've never heard about people in the real world being laid off as a result of industrial rationalization. OK, then you haven't.

Sure I have. It can be a pain, as any economic transition is. But they find another job eventually. A better one, if history is any indication -- jobs in developed countries today are, in general, much safer and more pleasant than in the past.

(And, by the way, it wasn't a "synonym". And, no, I won't hold it against you from now on.)

Ah, homonym. Sorry, I've been typing a lot today and my brain is fried.

I don't know what underwear and stealing has to do with this.

It's a joke. It refers to any situation where there is a clear goal coupled with an extremely ill-defined plan for achieving it. You keep referring to "eliminating poverty" without any good suggestions for how we might do that.

I'm not in favour of the circumstances that force these alternatives on people.

I don't think anyone is. I simply think "eliminate poverty" is an inadequate response to the issue.

Let me, with no irony, assure you that I'm very glad that you write "also"!

Well, contrary to what you think, there are people who would be prostitutes even though they could find decent work elsewhere. Like I said in my first post in this thread, I know two of them personally. I do, however, agree with you that such is not the case for vast majority of them.

Edited to add: I should add that I agree with the other posters who point out that, if poverty were somehow eliminated, that would simply result in the wages of prostitutes increasing to the point where it would attract more people and fill the void. Very few people would have sex with multiple strangers for fun, but there are some who would do it for enough money.

I DO NOT SAY: PROSTITUTION BAD, WAITRESSING GOOD!!! OK?! Please don't confuse me with the people who do!

But you speak of wanting to abolish prostitution, but not wanting to abolish waitressing. Why the dichotomy?

Jeremy

[dann]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by toddjh
Hmm? I think "it can't possibly get any worse" is one of the best arguments for making changes. It means you have nothing to lose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by dann
It's a very bad argument. It sounds as if you don't know what you're doing, you don't know if your solution is going to work, but you might as well try to do something, since "it can't possibly get any worse".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by pgwenthold
Strawman. There have been many arguments made about why legalizing prostitution would make the situation better. The fact that it won't get worse is only provided to address the issue of cost. IOW, EVEN IF none of the benefits come through, the worst we will be is no worse than now. OTOH, there are reasons to believe it will be better.
No strawman, pgwenthold! "It can't possibly get any worse", is an argument that you use when you don't know what is going to happen. Instead of saying, "By introducing this measure, we'll achieve the following results:" or "these are the costs, these are the consequences", you say, "It can't possibly get worse." And it is not a fact that "it" won't get worse. There may be "reasons to believe it will be better", but you don't know. (And I think I have already covered the "many arguments made about why legalizing prostitution would make the situation better".

Your point would be valid if anyone were proposing change for the sake of change. No one is. They are proposing change because there is reason to believe it will help. But even if it doesn't help, it won't hurt, so there is a potential upside and no downside. That's why you do it.
Now you just need to prove the point that "there is a potential upside and no downside". What about the potential downside that politicians may think that if only they see to it that the johns are not infected with HIV then it really doesn't matter much that more women are drawn into the business of prostitution? Or that they. and you too, might think that poverty isn't so bad if we provide some women with the golden opportunity to be hookers - but with a license and medicare?
No, I already know! That is not a downside, is it?!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
No, someone who is starving will say: "I need bread!" I never claimed that this woman was starving, but if you read the text, you'll notice that she needs to pay the rent etc. which is why she needs a lot of money.

You said it was because of poverty, a college student blowing all their money and not being able to make rent isn't poverty. It is more of a case of poor planning. If she planned ahead, she could of gotten roommates, looked for a job, moved in with a friend, budgeted better, etc.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
No, apparently her boyfriend had emptied her bank account.
But you don't really want to make an effort at finding out what you are talking about, are you?

Again, that is her own problem, if she gave him access, then its poor judgement and planning, if he broke in, then it is a proscecutable crime.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by toddjh

Step 1: Steal underwear.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Eliminate poverty.

Again, why do you focus on prostitution exclusively? Would you say you are also in favor of abolishing waiting tables, or working at the cash register at Wal-Mart? Those are also jobs that people would only take when they need money. What's the difference, except that you find prostitution more distasteful personally? I'd really like an answer to this.

Jeremy

[edited to add, if not already clear, this reply is mixed up with the wrong post]

All you have to do is look to the DPRK and Cuba as a model. If they weren't unfairly embargod by evil world leaders, and were allowed to freely trade with capitalist countries, they'd be a utopia, duh.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
Denmark and Germany are not particularly corrupt, I think.

Then in a legal buisness, people can be prosecuted for extortion, blackmail, abuse, working conditions, etc. If the situation exists and is being purposefully overlooked, then you have corruption.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
And that would help prostitutes how?
(We could go into a discussion of political dissidents in Cuba, but maybe we should take it to another thread then?)

It would go a long way towards lifting embargos.

[dann]

Originally posted by toddjh
But you speak of wanting to abolish prostitution, but not wanting to abolish waitressing. Why the dichotomy?
I'll get back to the rest of your lates post tomorrow.
For now:
No, I don't speak of not wanting to abolish waitressing! I'm the one who brought the attention to other crappy jobs in the first place. However, this started as a thread about how much fun it is to be a prostitute, not a waitress.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by dann
I'll get back to the rest of your lates post tomorrow.
For now:
No, I don't speak of not wanting to abolish waitressing! I'm the one who brought the attention to other crappy jobs in the first place. However, this started as a thread about how much fun it is to be a prostitute, not a waitress.

You can settle this whole thing by saying one sentence: "I would like to see waitressing abolished." That would clear everything up.

Jeremy

[dann]

Originally posted by RussDill
You said it was because of poverty, a college student blowing all their money and not being able to make rent isn't poverty. It is more of a case of poor planning. If she planned ahead, she could of gotten roommates, looked for a job, moved in with a friend, budgeted better, etc.
She wasn't even a student, and she didn't blow her money, read the text!!!

[dann]

Originally posted by RussDill
Then in a legal buisness, people can be prosecuted for extortion, blackmail, abuse, working conditions, etc. If the situation exists and is being purposefully overlooked, then you have corruption.
Thank you for the information. I can't see what it's got to do with anything, but still ...

[dann]

Originally posted by RussDill
It would go a long way towards lifting embargos.
That's a promise? You have influence?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
I guess the poor bastards with their plastic cups that I have to pass every day on my way to work are just enjoying their lifestyle. What a comforting thought!


I don't know much about denmark, but I understand that unlike france and germany, it has fairly low unemployment, around 5 or 6%, which is equatable to what we have here. And yes, here to we have a small number of people with cardboard signs on the side of the road asking for cash. We also have people in the parking lot of the building supplies store (home depot) waiting for work. The people in the home depot parking lot invarably get work, and many probably go on to obtain jobs. The people with the sign invarably get cash.

The sad thing is, the people with the sign on the side of the road are usually getting more cash than the people working for under the table cash. The poor bastard with the plastic cup is looking for a handout, rather than a job, and is likely mentally ill, alchoholic, or have a drug problem. These people need professional help, not cash.


And of course you are "not a heartless bastard who doesn't believe in helping underpriveledged children just because they are less underpriveledged".

I realize that the statements I made could be interpted as saying that they are not deserving of charity.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
Yes, and how exactly are all these jobs related to prostitution?


They require health screening, drug tests, etc. You are saying that prostitution is bad on the merit that it requires these things.


No, nor due to anything else.

OK then, then it isn't a surprise that they don't require these things for high schoolers, but do for say, airline pilots or crane operators.

[dann]

Originally posted by toddjh
You can settle this whole thing by saying one sentence: "I would like to see waitressing abolished."
That would clear everything up.
No, it wouldn't! And I can't! It would be too embarrassing. What do I tell all the people who have seen me waitressing (albeit for free!)? http://www.salsafritz.dk/salsaskole/billeder-kka-fest/b-kka-dec-00/original/image22.jpg
I can't get any closer than this - and I have said it before: I would like to see the conditions abolished that force people to choose between becoming waitresses, check-out girls or prostitutes, i.e. poverty!

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
I never said that it would "change the demand", did I? But it virtually eliminated prostitution in Cuba from 1960 till the early 90s!


According to who? I would be highly skeptical that Cuba did not have prostitution, but it was not a problem, so it was overlooked. Also, if prostitution carries an 8 YEAR sentance (which I'd consider a human rights abuse), thats probably pretty good at discouraging it too.


Yes, North Korea still does this. And has a hard time doing so, because it apparently is all apperance.

And the soviet union did this as well. I think it would be difficult to find wholey unbiased reports on prostitution statistics from Cuba. In fact, I'd be surpised if you could find numbers, just vague statements.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by dann
I said that I didn't trust doctors and pilots? Where?
.

Back on page 4 or so when you wrote:

"You don't even become just a little bit suspicious about the kind of profession that apparently needs mandatory drug tests, health screenings and on-site security to deal with unruly customers?"

You imply here that you are suspicious of the kind of profession that apparently needs mandatory drug tests, health screenings, and on-site security to deal with unruly customers. That would apply to legal prostitution, but it also applies to other professions including professional athletes and, yes, pilots.

Hence, if you are suspicious of the kind of profession that needs mandatory drug tests, health screenings, and on-site security, then I would conclude that you are suspicious of pilots.

Now, if you are NOT suspicious of pilots, then you yourself are apparently not always suspicious of a profession that requires these things. It is something else.


[I deleted all the dodging, weaving, and backtracking)

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
The problem seems to be that you cannot do basic arithmetic. I have heard this explanation before, and it is still wrong: The consumer gets neither an extra $40 or, more correctly, an extra $10, because HE'S BEEN MADE REDUNDANT! He already lost his job, and he hasn't even got the money he used to have.


This would only work if a huge number of consumers worldwide (ie, greater than 50%) were the ones who lost their jobs. The point is, the othe 99.99% of people that still have jobs now spend that extra $40 on something else. That 0.01% of the population can find a job providing these new serivces.

Lemme give you an example.

A society exists and only produces wheat. Each citizen must work their full day to provide enough wheat.

Suddenly, someone invents something that automates portions of the wheat production. By your logic, this would be bad, because you wouldn't need as many workers, and these workers would then starve because they could not buy wheat, since they did not work.

Lets say 30% of the workforce gets laid off. There is now a surplus of grain, can the extra grain be bartered for something?

Certainly, the extra 30% of the workers grows grapes and makes wine, which it barters for wheat. At this point, everyone is all working the same number of hours they used to, getting the same amount of grain, but now has wine with their meal.


The wealth of a nation is very different from the wealth of its inhabitants.


The nation itself here owns very little, the people own property, either by themselves, or through cooperation with other citizens in what is known as a corporation.


You Americans ought to know. This, by the way, is the reason why the health care system in a relatively poor country such as Cuba is so excellent.


Oh yes, I always here about those miraculous medical advancements and groundbreaking surgeries in Cuba. BTW, do have a source for this "excellent" Cuba health care system? Oh, wait, they do have an excellent health care system, for the social elite:

http://www.canfnet.org/Issues/medicalapartheid.htm


And it is the reason why you have so many prostitutes in the world's richest nation, the USA.

I'm not sure what you are trying to claim here. Are you trying to say that the US has a proportionally large population of people who cannot make money any other way than prostitution?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
There is one reason why people turn to prostitution. Therefore you cannot eliminate it by forbidding it. You have to eliminate poverty.

...most prostitutes are people who can easily find work elsewhere, or already have work elsewhere. The $50 a trick ones are largely in it for the drugs, and the escorts usually already have work, or left their work to become an escort. There is no limit to the opportunities to earn money in a free country, some people just take what they see to be the easy route.

Don't high paid escorts that already have another job, or left their job to become a full time escort kindof ruin your point?

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by dann


No strawman, pgwenthold! "It can't possibly get any worse", is an argument that you use when you don't know what is going to happen.

The reason it is a strawman is because no one is using "it can't possibly get worse" as an argument FOR anything!

What they are saying is that there are many good reasons to think that legalizing prostitution will make things better. That is the reason we should do it. However, things won't get worse, so you can't use that as an argument against doing it.

"Not an argument against" is not the same as "is an argument for."

And your comment that we don't "know" what is going to happen is incredibly misleading. It is true that we don't _know_ that is going to get better. But we basically do _know_ that it won't get worse (and you haven't disputed that claim). So it is not like we are acting out of complete ignorance. We may not know for sure what will happen (although know one ever knows for sure what will be the effect of any social change), but we do have a pretty reasonable idea of what will happen, and a darn good idea of what will not.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by toddjh
It's a joke. It refers to any situation where there is a clear goal coupled with an extremely ill-defined plan for achieving it. You keep referring to "eliminating poverty" without any good suggestions for how we might do that.


You haven't figured it out yet?

dann's agenda is pretty clear to me. He's a communist, and he wants to institute a socialist system.

Why else do you think he is so much in love with Cuba? It's not because he loves the freedom it provides...

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann

No, that's not what I'm saying. Maybe it would. Maybe it would even bring more customers, those who didn't want to go to an illegal prostitute. In that case it wouldn't reduce illegal prostitution, it would increase the number of johns instead.
And you do tend to take the point of view of the consumer, don't you?


It may increase overall demand for prostitution, but would greatly decrease the demand for illegal prostitution. Its like legalizing pot.


Politicians and employers in Europe say it all the time. (BTW, did Bush then raise the minimum wages after the election?)


Most states have their own minimum wage. The US is a very large conglomerate of vastly different environments. A wage that would get you a nice house in one city wouldn't get you a studio apartment in another. Most on the right would prefer to leave the sales tax issue up to individual states, and encourage them to do so if they feel that it is necessary.


No, it is demonstrably true! It depends: When a company introduces new technology to turn out more goods using fewer workers, it may simply lay off the rest - or it may become more competitive and hire more people (again).


It would sell more product because people have more money to buy more product. If they instead lay people off, that dollar is going elsewhere, and another company is expanding and hiring because of it.


Or it may move to Mexico. Or ... In Denmark many slaughterhouses are moving to Poland. My point was: technological improvement in a market economy doesn't take place because the workers are going to benefit from it. And very often they don't!


Shifts of labor from one industry to another, or from an old technology to a new are necessary for an economy to advance. How many jobs do you think there were cleaning stables back in the day? There were layed off when the auto came.

Many pro labor groups would rather tinker with the economy and prevent buisnesses from laying off workers when shifts in the economy are necessary. In this case, you have a large number of workers doing unproductive work, and nothing the company can do about it. Or, maybe the could pack up, and move somewhere else, where they can choose an appropriate work force.


Apparently you've never heard about people in the real world being laid off as a result of industrial rationalization. OK, then you haven't.


It happens all the time, the economy is not static, requirements for labor forces change. Being in engineering, these changes happen very fast, everyone I know has been layed off multiple times, I've been layed off twice in recent years. However, everyone I know finds something new and exciting to work on. Course, the smart ones see the winds of change, and jump ship early.


I don't know what underwear and stealing has to do with this.


Its a south park episode that makes fun of a good number of dot com ventures, who have a product they know they can make, but have no idea how to sell it.

The underwear gnomes collect underwear, the southpark kids ask them why, they explain:

step 1: collect underwear
step 2: <everyone is silent>
step 3: Profit!


I'm not in favour of the circumstances that force these alternatives on people.


I've been out of work, and known a lot of people who've been out of work. I've seen software developers take jobs at starbucks or walgreens because they are having trouble finding a new job. They work through it, have an income, and eventually find the position they are looking for.

Please explain how prostitution is being forced on anyone. Unless you are dying of hunger, it is a choice.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by toddjh
But you speak of wanting to abolish prostitution, but not wanting to abolish waitressing. Why the dichotomy?


You know, poverty is the only reason people waitress. If we could eliminate poverty, we could eliminate waitressing. Heck, people only take jobs they don't like because of poverty, and frankly, thats clearly wrong. Could you imagine yourself being forced into a career you don't enjoy?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
She wasn't even a student, and she didn't blow her money, read the text!!!

Then why did it mention, till the end of the semester?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
That's a promise? You have influence?

Its the reason that considerations for a progerssive cut back of the embargo was thrown out.

I'm sure this list would also be a great start:

`But the government revealed an intransigent reliance on political oppression to crush internal opposition through its repressive measures against dissidents, failure to amnesty political prisoners, continuing blockage of human rights monitoring, creation of new laws restricting human rights and refusal to dismantle oppressive legal structures,'' it added.

Prisons denied medical treatment to many political prisoners, and inmates who complained about their treatment ``faced retaliatory measures including beatings, isolation and criminal prosecution,'' the report said.

Cuba continued to deny international human rights groups access to the island ``while harassing and prosecuting those attempting to monitor rights domestically.''

http://www.fiu.edu/~fcf/cubacolumbia12597.html

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
No, it wouldn't! And I can't! It would be too embarrassing. What do I tell all the people who have seen me waitressing (albeit for free!)? http://www.salsafritz.dk/salsaskole/billeder-kka-fest/b-kka-dec-00/original/image22.jpg
I can't get any closer than this - and I have said it before: I would like to see the conditions abolished that force people to choose between becoming waitresses, check-out girls or prostitutes, i.e. poverty!

OK, eliminate poverty, and no one has to work the check stand, waitress, or be a prostitute.

Now, go to the store and try to buy something...no one there to check you out. Now what? I know, we'll pay check out people more money, and they will be enticed back to their job as a checkout person. Of course, with a labor market this tight, every industry will be attempting to pay more to keep workers. Cost of goods and wages will rise, inflation occurs, economy sags, and eventually you are back where you started.

In reality, this situation would be slow, and would reach equilibrium without massive swings. You will always have someone there to check you out, because they store will always need to negotiate with individuals a pay rate at which they will work there.

I don't care how weathly everyone is, you'll still have someone working the checkout, and you'll still have someone serving tables, and you'll still have prostitutes. That is the nature of capitalism. If there is demand, there will be some price at which supply will meet that demand.

Don't you realize that your utopia of no waiters and on checkout people is incredibly naive?

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann
Thank you for the information. I can't see what it's got to do with anything, but still ...

You mentioned the horrible things that happen in contries where prostitution is legal.

[dann]

Originally posted by pgwenthold
You haven't figured it out yet?
dann's agenda is pretty clear to me. He's a communist, and he wants to institute a socialist system.
Man, you are soooo good! I'm really impressed!
I have quotations from Marx and Brecht in my sig line, I praise Cuba's measures to abolish prostitution, and in spite of these attempts to hide the truth about myself, you nevertheless succeeded in revealing my hidden agenda and my secret identity! Amazing!
Yet another enemy of freedom has been revealed! Congratulations!

No, pgwenthold, it's even more complicated than that. I used to fight the local Moscow communists in the streets when they tried to prevent me or others from saying what we wanted. And not because I found Mao, Kim il Sung or any of the others any better!
As I already said, I'll get back to you tomorrow.

[toddjh]

Originally posted by RussDill
Don't you realize that your utopia of no waiters and on checkout people is incredibly naive?

Can't eat out, can't buy groceries...my God, they'll all starve! :D

Jeremy

[RussDill]

Originally posted by toddjh
Can't eat out, can't buy groceries...my God, they'll all starve! :D


Don't worry, the great leader will force those that would seek to destroy the republic of the people to work in checkout camps where they will be re-educated on the virtue of service to the great people of our republic.

[Gulliamo]

As a final point I would like to draw a parallel; a parallel that has been drawn on this thread before. This is the parallel between thieves and prostitutes.

It might seem that Dan's hypothesis states that, "by eliminating poverty one could eliminate prostitution."

Drawing the prostitute / thief parallel...

I might speculate that Dan would also hypothesize that "by eliminating poverty one could eliminate thievery."

Anecdote: I work on Wall St.

Fact: We have the highest concentration of privately, and corporate held, wealth in the world. Even the "poorest" broker would be rich by most standards of living in the world, the country and even the city. Every year dozens of brokers get convicted of various crimes that, when boiled down, are basic thievery.

Evidence: Eliminating poverty does NOT eliminate thievery.

Theory: Eliminating poverty would not eliminate prostitution.

With that, I take my leave of this thread.

Good day.

[SRW]

Originally posted by dann
I posted it, but I never claimed that I agreed with it in its entirety. I have explained to you where I disagree, right?! Do you understand what I say? The article neglects to say that tourism was (re)introduced in an attempt to improve the Cuban economy in the "Special Period" of the '90s when poverty had returned to the country. The article fails to mention this, making it sound as if one remedy to improve the living conditions of the Cubans, tourism, alone was what caused prostitution to reemerge. It does not, however, say that poverty was not the cause. And it is rather unambiguous when it points at the elimination of poverty as the thing that eliminated prostitution after the revolution!
And, yes, the article is skeptical! Would you have believed it otherwise? And, yes, the UN investigator is not able to carry out independent investigations.
[B]
I don't know anything about "Behavior Modification" in Cuba. You seem to imply that it is some kind of concentration camp. It might, however, just be a question of modifying the behavior of prostitutes by giving them an education. I don't know, do you?
But if Castro wanted to encourage prostitution, as you or somebody else claimed, it is hard to see why he would want to modify their behavior in a way that made the prostitutes stop being prostitutes.


Did you actually read the article you posted? The Behavior modification in Cuba was discussed in the article you posted. You cannot cherry pick what sound good to you and pull that out of context.

So if the Un investigator is not able to verify what they are being told then the entire report is in doubt. Even the parts you agree with.

Is still see not evidence that Poverty eliminats Prostitution.

[SRW]

In the City of Santa Cruz Ca. ( also known as the peoples republic of Santa Cruz) The city cracked down on Massage Parlors. The ones they closed down were the ones that were really brothels.

The reason for the crack down was that there were many legitimate Massage Parlors opening up and the workers at these establishments were upset about the other kind so they lobbied the city to crack down.

This cause a number of law suits, the one I remember was a guy
who sued because of discrimination. He was upset because ugly people had a hard time getting laid and needed the Massage Parlors to get off.

[RussDill]

Originally posted by Gulliamo

With that, I take my leave of this thread.

Good day.

thats just because its under a pig-dog capitalist system without the guidence of the great leader. What, you thought this was somehow a question of basic human nature or something?

[dann]

Originally posted by Gulliamo
As a final point I would like to draw a parallel; a parallel that has been drawn on this thread before. This is the parallel between thieves and prostitutes.
It might seem that Dan's hypothesis states that, "by eliminating poverty one could eliminate prostitution."
Drawing the prostitute / thief parallel...
I might speculate that Dan would also hypothesize that "by eliminating poverty one could eliminate thievery."
No, not quite! I’d say that by eliminating private property you would eliminate thieves. There is a very basic flaw in your parallel which I’ll come back to.
Anecdote: I work on Wall St.

Fact: We have the highest concentration of privately, and corporate held, wealth in the world. Even the "poorest" broker would be rich by most standards of living in the world, the country and even the city. Every year dozens of brokers get convicted of various crimes that, when boiled down, are basic thievery.

Evidence: Eliminating poverty does NOT eliminate thievery.
Theory: Eliminating poverty would not eliminate prostitution.
The basic flaw in your argument is that you leave out the important point, prostitution, an occupation where you have to perform services that most people would find very unpleasant if not even disgusting.
The only parallels between prostitution and stealing are that they are both morally condemned by many people and (sometimes) illegal.
One difference, as I think I’ve already mentioned, is that stealing does not necessarily expose you to the same physical unpleasantness as prostitution does. You run a certain risk, but if you’re not caught it’s ‘free money’! And when you decide to try embezzlement or something similar, you probably expect (or at lest hope) to get away with it.
Another very important difference is – and this is one that two very different characters, Scrooge van Duck and Karl Marx, would agree on: There’s no such thing as “enough money�! (A direct quotation from Scrooge, I think, but I don’t know from which album, and I probably read it in Danish anyway) You can get enough (or even too much) of any other thing: air, water, food, sex, love, but it’s in the ’nature’ of money that you cannot get enough (or too much; ask Bill Gates!). In the words of Karl Marx, Capital, Ch. 3:

“The desire after hoarding is in its very nature unsatiable. In its qualitative aspect, or formally considered, money has no bounds to its efficacy, i.e., it is the universal representative of material wealth, because it is directly convertible into any other commodity. But, at the same time, every actual sum of money is limited in amount, and, therefore, as a means of purchasing, has only a limited efficacy. This antagonism between the quantitative limits of money and its qualitative boundlessness, continually acts as a spur to the hoarder in his Sisyphus-like labour of accumulating. It is with him as it is with a conqueror who sees in every new country annexed, only a new boundary.�
Adding to this motivation for stealing among the rich: You might say that it is the mission of the people on Wall Street to enrich themselves at the expense of other people. It therefore should not come as a surprise that some of them find it difficult to stop when they stumble upon or think out a way of doing so just because it happens to be illegal.
However, the unpleasant occupation of prostitution probably isn’t very widespread among stockbrokers, is it? And why not? Because they have much more efficient ways of earning (more than) a living. And if they get into financial difficulties – and that has been known to happen – other ideas would probably occur to them before they turned to prostitution; not because of their brilliant minds, but because they are in a situation that probably offers better opportunities, legal or illegal, than the ones of most women considering prostitution as a way to earn a living.
With that, I take my leave of this thread.
Good day.
Good day to you too.
(This is all I’ve got time for tonight.)

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by dann
The basic flaw in your argument is that you leave out the important point, prostitution, an occupation where you have to perform services that most people would find very unpleasant if not even disgusting.


[gratuitous insult]As opposed to a stockbroker?[/insult]

[Earthborn]

I'd say that by eliminating private property you would eliminate thieves.That can't be true. If there is no private property there is communal property: everything belongs to everyone in the community. In this situation a thief is someone who takes some of the communal property and keeps it to himself, basically stealing from all the others.prostitution, an occupation where you have to perform services that most people would find very unpleasant if not even disgusting.And here I though prostitution largely involves doing things that most people find very pleasureable, even exciting. :)However, the unpleasant occupation of prostitution probably isn't very widespread among stockbrokers, is it? And why not?Perhaps because stockbrokers chose to become stockbrokers, not prostitutes? Or because daytrade cannot be easily combined with working at night? :p

[RussDill]

Originally posted by dann

One difference, as I think I’ve already mentioned, is that stealing does not necessarily expose you to the same physical unpleasantness as prostitution does.


Every time you steal you expose yourself to the possibilty of being beaten, stabbed, shot, or caught by police. With legal prostitution, you run none of these risks.


Adding to this motivation for stealing among the rich: You might say that it is the mission of the people on Wall Street to enrich themselves at the expense of other people.


Every high profile case I know where people stole from investors, its not the rich who lose, but the retirees.


It therefore should not come as a surprise that some of them find it difficult to stop when they stumble upon or think out a way of doing so just because it happens to be illegal. However, the unpleasant occupation of prostitution probably isn’t very widespread among stockbrokers, is it?


And you don't think white collar crime is unpleasant? Constant stress and paranoia so intense, that many commit suicide.


And why not? Because they have much more efficient ways of earning (more than) a living. And if they get into financial difficulties – and that has been known to happen – other ideas would probably occur to them before they turned to prostitution; not because of their brilliant minds, but because they are in a situation that probably offers better opportunities, legal or illegal, than the ones of most women considering prostitution as a way to earn a living.


Are you suggesting that we offer a job to everyone that each individual person would choose over prostitution?

[dann]

Originally posted by RussDill
Every time you steal you expose yourself to the possibilty of being beaten, stabbed, shot, or caught by police. With legal prostitution, you run none of these risks.
They need the security guards exactly because the job exposes them to these risks!
Every high profile case I know where people stole from investors, its not the rich who lose, but the retirees.
Yes, they would, wouldn't they?
And you don't think white collar crime is unpleasant? Constant stress and paranoia so intense, that many commit suicide.
Oh, the poor things! (I thought they usually commit suicide when they are about to be exposed or go bankrupt = having to go to jail or live under the circumstances that they expose all the poor people to ...)
Are you suggesting that we offer a job to everyone that each individual person would choose over prostitution?
That sounds like a good idea! (Who are "we" by the way? Don't tell me! You do have influence!)

[dann]

Originally posted by Earthborn
That can't be true. If there is no private property there is communal property: everything belongs to everyone in the community. In this situation a thief is someone who takes some of the communal property and keeps it to himself, basically stealing from all the others.
That is so hard to do when it already belongs to him. (But most important: the motive disappears.)
And here I though prostitution largely involves doing things that most people find very pleasureable, even exciting. :)We have already been into that: page one of this thread.
Perhaps because stockbrokers chose to become stockbrokers, not prostitutes? Or because daytrade cannot be easily combined with working at night? :p
Or because prostitutes simple chose to become prostitutes, not stockbrokers? We have already seen a few postings about vocational guidance and breast size ... :)
(And, no, this is not a suggestion that anybody start making empirical studies!)

[dann]

Originally posted by toddjh
Okay, so that's one company [Introducing new technology, laying off workers]. Meanwhile, another company has used a technological advance to create a whole new industry, creating many more jobs. I'm a computer programmer. There weren't many of us 50 years ago.
Yes, and then you probably know how many people computer programming has helped make redundant over the years because new programs have eliminated their jobs! And you are probably also not unaware of the fact that a lot of computer people are often laid off. At least I know that it happened to a lot of people over here not so many years ago. And I think that a lot of your jobs are moved abroad too, for instance when employers discover that Indian programmers are much cheaper. Please remember what the argument was! We were presented with a very naïve model of what happens when companies rationalize their line of production which is what I pointed out with my examples.
More often they do. I have yet to see you respond to the fact that quality of life is much, much higher for both the average person and the poor than it was mere decades ago. Isn't that, along with relatively flat unemployment rates, proof that what you are saying is not completely accurate?
No, it isn’t. What I said was: ": technological improvement in a market economy doesn't take place because the workers are going to benefit from it. And very often they don't!"
I think there are 800 million starving people in this world. I don't know how many poor. (Two billion? Three?) And if you ever were present at a board meeting you would know for a fact that technological improvement doesn’t take place because the workers are going to benefit from it. That is not what stockholdes want! In many ways the average life of the average person has improved over the years, and in many ways it hasn’t. All over Scandinavia there appears to be an epidemic of work-related stress, for instance, because people are driven too hard by their employers or feel that they have to work too much to hold on to their jobs.

Sure I have [heard of people being laid off due to technological improvements]. It can be a pain, as any economic transition is. But they find another job eventually. A better one, if history is any indication -- jobs in developed countries today are, in general, much safer and more pleasant than in the past.
Well, over here we have a lot of people who never find a better (or any) job, and remain unemployed for the rest of their lives. It’s very often extremely difficult for people in many professions to be hired again if they are in their late forties when they are laid off. If you don’t believe me, try reading a book like Richard Sennett’s The Corrosion of Character. (And BTW, I can also recommend this thread started by Lavie Enrose. It may refer to conditions in Canada, but they don’t seem to differ much from conditions in Denmark or the USA.)
Ah, homonym. Sorry, I've been typing a lot today and my brain is fried.
I know how it feels!
It's a joke. It refers to any situation where there is a clear goal coupled with an extremely ill-defined plan for achieving it. You keep referring to "eliminating poverty" without any good suggestions for how we might do that.
Yes, in the discussion about prostitution I’ve pointed out that one thing only can eliminate it: eliminating the thing that makes people become prostitutes: poverty. And how do you eliminate poverty? Eliminate the thing that causes it: the market economy!


dann: I'm not in favour of the circumstances that force these alternatives on people.

I don't think anyone is. I simply think "eliminate poverty" is an inadequate response to the issue.
Does that mean that you agree with me that the circumstances described by me force “these alternatives�, one of which is prostitution, on people? In that case we have come a long way. Watch out, or you could be turning into a commie! J
Well, contrary to what you think, there are people who would be prostitutes even though they could find decent work elsewhere. Like I said in my first post in this thread, I know two of them personally. I do, however, agree with you that such is not the case for vast majority of them.
Then we do agree, at least on this issue, I think. I wouldn’t say that absolutely nobody at all could become at prostitute without being poor. I heard of one person who claimed to have done it for research. But then again: That would require that the phenomenon as such already exists - and it wouldn’t without poverty.

Edited to add: I should add that I agree with the other posters who point out that, if poverty were somehow eliminated, that would simply result in the wages of prostitutes increasing to the point where it would attract more people and fill the void. Very few people would have sex with multiple strangers for fun, but there are some who would do it for enough money.
Well, some do: swingers clubs. But they do cater to a minority. Your example suffers from the idea that poverty could be eliminated and this elimination co-exist alongside abundance of wealth. That could never be the case in a market economy where the Martin Sheens of this world will never run out of poor people to cater to his ‘needs’.
But you speak of wanting to abolish prostitution, but not wanting to abolish waitressing. Why the dichotomy?
As I’ve already pointed out: No, I don’t speak of not wanting to abolish waitressing! No dichotomy! But the occupation as such is not necessarily disgusting. And as the photo was supposed to demonstrate to you: I wouldn’t even mind doing it myself – for free - at a party, as in this case. I don’t mind having sex for free either – actually, it’s the only way I’d have it – but the idea of having to do it for a living is repulsive to me, as it is to most other people, and it is also the reason why drugs are a necessary ‘tool’ to many in that trade, but that is something that has already been covered more than once in this thread.

[dann]

dann
No, apparently her boyfriend had emptied her bank account.
But you don't really want to make an effort at finding out what you are talking about, are you?

Originally posted by RussDill
Again, that is her own problem, if she gave him access, then its poor judgement and planning, if he broke in, then it is a proscecutable crime.
Yes, and so she has to pay a lawyer which of course will help her not having to be a hooker, right?! She doesn't even have the money to pay the rent. You don't know what you are talking about and you make absoulutely no effort to find out!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
All you have to do is look to the DPRK and Cuba as a model. If they weren't unfairly embargod by evil world leaders, and were allowed to freely trade with capitalist countries, they'd be a utopia, duh.
Yes, they’d be a utopia, duh. You have no idea what you’re talking about and you don’t even try!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally posted by RussDill
In a legal buisness, people can be prosecuted for extortion, blackmail, abuse, working conditions, etc. If the situation exists and is being purposefully overlooked, then you have corruption.
And whoever said that anything had been “purposely overlooked�? As always, you have no idea what you are talking about.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally posted by RussDill
The sad thing is, the people with the sign on the side of the road are usually getting more cash than the people working for under the table cash. The poor bastard with the plastic cup is looking for a handout, rather than a job, and is likely mentally ill, alchoholic, or have a drug problem. These people need professional help, not cash.
Then you should tell the inconsiderate people who give it to them.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally posted by RussDill
They require health screening, drug tests, etc. You are saying that prostitution is bad on the merit that it requires these things.
No, I’m saying that these measures being required is no indication that this is a good job. They are not required for the same reasons for prostitutes as for pilots of MDs! There’s a big difference between on the one hand performing brainsurgery and flying a plane and on the other giving a blow job. Or do you think that drugtests for prostitutes in Nevada are required because they perform such a difficult job that so many lives depend on? Or because the authorities are afraid that they’ll fall out of the bed thus injuring the johns?
OK then, then it isn't a surprise that they don't require these things for high schoolers, but do for say, airline pilots or crane operators.
No, it isn’t! It isn’t even a surprise to me that prostitutes are required to do drug tests and health tests. Nor is it a surprise to me that they need security guards and bouncers. It is no surprise to me at all! (And, yes, I am saying that these things indicate that this is not a very pleasant occupation!)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Originally posted by RussDill
According to who? I would be highly skeptical that Cuba did not have prostitution, but it was not a problem, so it was overlooked. Also, if prostitution carries an 8 YEAR sentance (which I'd consider a human rights abuse), thats probably pretty good at discouraging it too.
You would be sceptical, yes. I can’t help that. You probably wouldn’t believe Cuban statistics anyway, even if they had any. (You don’t usually have a lot of statistics about a phenomenon that doesn’t exist!) An eight-year sentence would certainly discourage prostitution, yes. The interesting thing, however, is: When was this sentence (re?)introduced? And why wasn't it needed in the meantime?
And the soviet union did this as well. I think it would be difficult to find wholey unbiased reports on prostitution statistics from Cuba. In fact, I'd be surpised if you could find numbers, just vague statements.
See answer above! I’d be surprised if you could come up with any other argument than your general, very vague disbelief in Cuba abolishing prostitution in the 1960s, ‘70s and 80s. But then again: considering the 100.000 prostitutes in Cuba in the 1950s it was a very impressive achievement indeed!

[dann]

OK, RussDill, let’s get going:

dann: The problem seems to be that you cannot do basic arithmetic. I have heard this explanation before, and it is still wrong: The consumer gets neither an extra $40 or, more correctly, an extra $10, because HE'S BEEN MADE REDUNDANT! He already lost his job, and he hasn't even got the money he used to have.

RussDill: This would only work if a huge number of consumers worldwide (ie, greater than 50%) were the ones who lost their jobs. The point is, the othe 99.99% of people that still have jobs now spend that extra $40 on something else. That 0.01% of the population can find a job providing these new serivces.
No, it works every day all over the world. People are made redundant, and a lot of them never work again.
Lemme give you an example.
A society exists and only produces wheat. ([a little one sided, but OK) Each citizen must work their full day to provide enough wheat.

Suddenly, (!) someone invents something that automates portions of the wheat production. By your logic, this would be bad, because you wouldn't need as many workers, and these workers would then starve because they could not buy wheat, since they did not work.
NO! By my standards, this would be very, very good! - if we weren’t talking about a market economy. It is only the logic of the market economy that says that when machines save work, people don't simply work less, but some people don't work at all and therefore starve.
Lets say 30% of the workforce gets laid off. There is now a surplus of grain, can the extra grain be bartered for something?
I assume that the wheat production remained the same as before? With 70.000 workers 100.000 tons of wheat are produced, and the number of workers reduced from 100.000.
Certainly, the extra 30% of the workers grows grapes and makes wine, which it barters for wheat. At this point, everyone is all working the same number of hours they used to, getting the same amount of grain, but now has wine with their meal.
The naivety of your example here becomes evident: The workers who were made redundant start growing wine, just like that! No, they don’t! They’ve been made redundant, penniless, and therefore they have no money with which to buy land, trees, fertilizer and tools – or even wheat to feed themselves. Well, no, of course, in your example a group of employers, owners of land, trees, fertilizer, tools and extra money for wages are simply waiting somewhere in the wings for a group of workers to be made redundant!


dann: The wealth of a nation is very different from the wealth of its inhabitants.

The nation itself here owns very little, the people own property, either by themselves, or through cooperation with other citizens in what is known as a corporation.
It would be interesting to know what the purpose of the production is: Accumulation of money? Feeding the population? Feeding the owners of the means of production?
If the purpose is to feed the population, then everybody is happy, because everybody can now get enough to eat and reduce their working hours by 30%. Instead of working 30 hours a week, they now have to work only 20 hours. They could spend the extra hours partying. At that point it might occur to them that by working an extra hour a week, they could use the extra wheat to brew their own beer, which would undoubtedly liven up their otherwise rather boring wheat bread parties!


dann: You Americans ought to know. This, by the way, is the reason why the health care system in a relatively poor country such as Cuba is so excellent.

Oh yes, I always here about those miraculous medical advancements and groundbreaking surgeries in Cuba. BTW, do have a source for this "excellent" Cuba health care system? Oh, wait, they do have an excellent health care system, for the social elite:
http://www.canfnet.org/Issues/medicalapartheid.htm
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Then let’s take a look at your anti-Cuban article:
Cuba's economy is in disarray as a direct result of its government's continued adherence to a discredited communist economic model. This decline has directly affected the health of ordinary Cubans. Lack of chlorinated water, poor nutrition, deteriorating housing, and generally unsanitary conditions have increased the number of cases of infectious diseases, especially in concentrated urban areas like Havana.
As we all know: In all the other Latin American countries the economies are flourishing as a direct result of their governments’ adherence to a successful capitalist economy! Yeah, right!
The grave economic problems in Cuba were exacerbated by the demise of the Soviet Union and the ending of the $5 billion in subsidies that the U.S.S.R. gave annually to the Castro government. Cuba made significant advances in the quality of health care available to average citizens as a result of these subsidies. However, it devoted the bulk of its financial windfall to maintaining an out-sized military machine and a massive internal security apparatus.
As we all know the quality of health care in Latin America is top notch. And not a single one of them, with the exception of Cuba, would ever dream of ‘maintaining an out-sized military machine ad security apparatus’. The reason for this, of course, is that all subsidies from the World Bank, the US Government etc. demand that the donated money is always used in a way that benefits the poor! Yeah, right! (It is particularly evil when Cuba insists on maintaining an army, in spite of the willingness of its powerful neighbour to defend Cuba against all enemies, right?!)
The end of Soviet subsidies forced Cuba to face the real costs of its health care system. Unwilling to adopt the economic changes necessary to reform its dysfunctional economy, the Castro government quickly faced a large budget deficit. In response, the Cuban Government made a deliberate decision to continue to spend money to maintain its military and internal security apparatus at the expense of other priorities--including health care. [B][QUOTE]It must have been a very painful transition, yes, but Cuba nevertheless succeeded in maintaining its health care system. The furniture may be a little worn, but if you compare the number of doctors in Cuba with other Latin American countries it is still amazing what they have accomplished. And that Cuba is able to send doctors abroad to help other countries never ceases to amaze me.
[B][QUOTE]According to the Pan American Health Organization, the Cuban Government currently devotes a smaller percentage of its budget for health care than such regional countries as Jamaica, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic.
Then apparently Cuba must have a bigger budget. Or maybe it’s a question of Cuban doctors being as cheap as they are!
Health Care in Cuba: "Medical Apartheid" and Health Tourism
Of course, not everyone in Cuba receives substandard health care. In fact, senior Cuban Communist Party officials and those who can pay in hard currency can get first-rate medical services any time they want.
Of course, in any other Latin American country but Cuba substandard health care wouldn’t really bother anybody, would it? Substandard health care or even no doctors at all in a Peruvian or Guatemalan village would just be a sign of the people there not being able to pay for a doctor’s services, supply and demand. It wouldn’t bother anybody that the rich get all the medical care they can buy – sometimes by taking the next plane to the USA. Whereas in Cuba, with free health care for everybody, the writers of this article see nothing but signs of exploitation of the poor!!!
This situation exists because the Cuban Government has chosen to develop a two-tiered medical system--the deliberate establishment of a kind of "medical apartheid"--that funnels money into services for a privileged few, while depriving the health care system used by the vast majority of Cubans of adequate funding.
Yeah, right. It would surprise me if health care in Cuba didn’t suffer cut backs along with everything else in the 90s, but surprisingly enough it’s still there and still so efficient that I have heard of Cubans living in Denmark who went back to Cuba to be examined by the doctors there because they were not content with the examinations they had received by the hospitals here.
Following the loss of Soviet subsidies, Cuba developed special hospitals and set aside floors in others for exclusive use by foreigners who pay in hard currency. These facilities are well-equipped to provide their patients with quality modern care. Press reports indicate that during 1996 more than 7,000 "health tourists" paid Cuba $25 million for medical services.
Cuba's "Medical Technology Fair" held April 21-25 presented a graphic display of this two-tier medical system. The fair displayed an array of both foreign and Cuban-manufactured medicines and high-tech medical equipment and services items not available to most Cubans. The fair showcased Cuban elite hospitals promoted by "health tourism" enterprises such as SERVIMED and MEDICUBA.
That is not even all! The Cubans had to sell out of other resources as well. The wonderful beaches of Varadero were turned into a holiday resort exclusively for tourists, off limits to the Cubans, except for the ones who have to work there. You can imagine what that feels like in a country priding itself of the achievement of its revolution, one of which being that the beaches that used to be the private property of the rich, including a lot of norte americanos, were now open for everybody, black or white. Things like that have, of course, caused a lot of resentment, but the Cubans have stood up with it only because they have understood the necessity for these measures in the Special Period, “the ending of the $5 billion in subsidies that the U.S.S.R. gave annually�. Yes, a thing like that does take a lot of reorganization – and luckily the Cubans seem to know that this is something that they have to get through. They are not at all fond of “this two-tier medical system�. But the three-tier medical system in other Latin American countries going from luxurious health care for the rich and none at all for the poor is not an alternative that they would like to reintroduce. They didn’t like it in Batista’s days, and they don’t like it now.
On the other hand, members of the Cuban Communist Party elite, and the military high-command are allowed to use these hospitals free of charge. Certain diplomatic missions in Havana have been contacted and told that their local employees can be granted access privileges to these elite medical facilities--if they pay in dollars.
That the “Cuban Communist Party elite� is an elite the same way that the elite in the USA or in any other North or South American country is an elite, that is: with the privileges of the rich in those countries, is too absurd for ordinary Cubans to believe: They are able to see how party members and leaders live! And since hospital workers are also ordinary Cubans, it would not remain a secret for very long if health care for an elite was very different than for the rest of the Cubans. The Cuban revolution was fortunate enough to have Che Guevara as one of its leaders, and Che set a very good example when it came to the ‘party elite’ hoarding elitist privileges for themselves! (I can recommend the book Ernesto Che Guevara – A Revolutionary Life, by John Lee Anderson, an American, I think. It contains enough examples to show that, no, Che Guevara was not a god, he was not a Mother Theresa, he was a revolutionary and a human being with good and bad sides, but if there was one thing he could not stand, it was the leaders of the revolution being privileged in comparison with ordinary people.)
The founder of Havana's International Center for Neurological Restoration, Dr. Hilda Molina, in 1994 quit her position after refusing to increase the number of neural transplant operations without the required testing and follow-up. She expressed outrage that only foreigners are treated. Dr. Molina resigned from her seat in the national legislature, and returned the medals Fidel Castro had bestowed on her for her work.
In 1994, Cuba exported $110 million worth of medical supplies. In 1995, this figure rose to $125 million. These earnings have not been used to support the health care system for the Cuban public. In fact, tens of millions of dollars have been diverted to support and subsidize Cuba's biomedical research programs--money that could have been used for primary care facilities.
Yes, indeed. Cuba is so poor that all the money in one sector is at the same time needed in all the others! But in order to build up the economy these are some of the very drastic measures that they are forced to take.
Another means of earning foreign exchange at the expense of providing health care to ordinary Cubans is the government's policy to export its doctors to other countries. South Africa alone has nearly 300 Cuban doctors. Cuba, in the early 1990s, reportedly planned to have 10,000 physicians abroad by the turn of the century.
A group of Cuban doctors recently arrived in the United States said they were "mystified" by claims in a recent report of the American Association for World Health (AAWH) that the United States embargo is to be blamed for the public health situation in the country.
According to these doctors, "we . . . can categorically and authoritatively state that our people's poor health care situation results from a dysfunctional and inhumane economic and political system, exacerbated by the regime to divert scarce resources to meet the needs of the regime's elite and foreign patients who bring hard currency."
Yes, that is what you would expect to hear from defectors, isn’t it? And as doctors, that is as some of the people who have benefited from Cuba’s free education, they will be able to use this education to earn a lot of hard currency in the USA. The difference being that the hard currency will go into their own pockets and not towards helping the Cuban economy back on track. That is the way that a market economy functions, so let us forget about the thousands of Cuban doctors who work abroad and don’t defect, even though they have the chance. Because they know what they are working for, and what the purpose is of the sacrifices they make. Again the MD Che Guevara serves as an inspiration to them!
Referring to the growing disparity between health care provided to ordinary Cubans and that offered to tourists and high ranking Communist party members, the exiled Cuban doctors noted that they "wish that any one of us could provide tours to foreign visitors of the hospitals Cira Garcia, Frank Pais, CIMEQ, and Hermanos Ameijeiras, in order to point out the medicines and equipment, even the bedsheets and blankets, reserved for regime elites or dollar-bearing foreigners, to the detriment of our people, who must bring their own bedsheets, to say nothing of the availability of medicines."
I suppose that they did not mention the US blockade in that context. And as I’ve already pointed out: The Cubans know about Cuba providing health care for foreigners for money! They are the ones working there!
This statement by these newly arrived Cuban doctors is corroborated by the latest available trade figures for Cuba (1995). Cuba's imports totaled $2.8 billion dollars, yet only $46 million dollars--only 1.5% of overall foreign purchases--on medical imports for its 11 million people. By comparison, Cuba's neighbor, the Dominican Republic, spent $208 million dollars on medical imports for its 7.5 million citizens in 1995.
Cuban economy hit an all-time low in the middle of the 90s, so that would be a very good year to use for unfavourable comparisons. I still don’t think that Cubans in general would want to become Dominicans. Even the “group of Cuban doctors� probably knew enough about the conditions there to make them decide to defect to the USA instead.
U.S. Sales of Medicines and Medical Supplies to Cuba
The US embargo does NOT deny medicines and medical supplies to the Cuban people. As stipulated in Section 1705 of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, the U.S. Government routinely issues licenses for the sale of medicine and medical supplies to Cuba. The only requirement for obtaining a license is to arrange for end-use monitoring to ensure that there is no reasonable likelihood that these items could be diverted to the Cuban military, used in acts of torture or other human rights abuses, or re-exported or used in the production of biotechnological products.
Yeeaaah, riiiight!!! We, the US regime, do not deny anybody medical supplies. All we require is the right to guarantee that Cuba won’t use our antibiotics to develop Weapons of Mass Destruction! And the Cubans have no reason whatsoever not to believe in our good intentions!
Monitoring of sales can be performed by independent non-governmental organizations, international organizations, or foreign diplomats.
Whom we’ll trust the same way we trusted that Hans Blix guy, that is, as long as they report only what we want them to report!
Since 1992, 36 of 38 license requests have been approved to U.S. companies and their subsidiaries to sell medicine and medical equipment to Cuba. Sales have included such items as thalamonal, depo-provera, pediatric solutions, syringes, and other items. The Department of Commerce declined the other two requests for licenses it received for failure to meet legal standards. Both of these exceptions to the general policy of approving commercial medical sales occurred in 1994.
Moreover, the U.S. embargo on Cuba affects only U.S. companies and their subsidiaries. Other nations and companies are free to trade with Cuba. Should Cuba choose not to purchase from the U.S., it can purchase any medicine or medical equipment it needs from other countries. Such third-country transactions only cost an estimated 2%-3% more than purchases from the U.S. as a result of higher shipping costs.
And, of course, there is no such thing as companies dealing with Cuba being punished, is there?
Humanitarian Assistance
The Cuban Democracy Act encourages the donation of humanitarian supplies to the people of Cuba, including medicine, food, and clothing.
Since the passage of the Cuban Democracy Act, the U.S. has become the largest donor of humanitarian assistance to Cuba. Much of the humanitarian assistance by U.S. non-governmental organizations consists of medicines and medical equipment. The U.S. Government has licensed more than $150 million in humanitarian assistance to Cuba over the last four years. That is more than the total of worldwide foreign aid to Cuba during that period.
U.S. humanitarian assistance has been distributed throughout the island, including to medical clinics. Monitoring is not required for donations of medicines for humanitarian purposes to non-governmental organizations in Cuba.
Just too bad that hospitals in Cuba happen to be governmental institutions!
"Even more farcical is the new opening which allows non-governmental organizations to purchase food and medicines. Thereby, churches in Cuba will be permitted to buy medicines but not Cuban hospitals (all governmental). So now the churches can do diagnoses, treatments and surgery. In turn, the hospitals can lead the prayers - for the patients who are treated by the churches.
David Wald Project USA/Cuba InfoMed�
http://www.cubasolidarity.net/blockade.html
In addition it is believed that the single largest source of medicines used in Cuba today is the large volume of "care packages" sent to Cuba by family members living in the U.S. These "care packages" are worth millions of dollars each year.
Which is probably the reason why the USA have recently placed new restrictions on what and how much family members are allowed to send to Cuba.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
dann: And it is the reason why you have so many prostitutes in the world's richest nation, the USA.
I'm not sure what you are trying to claim here. Are you trying to say that the US has a proportionally large population of people who cannot make money any other way than prostitution?
Nooooo! I wouldn’t dream of saying a thing like that! What I’m saying is that I’m so happy for you! To be able to live in a country that provides so many horny women, who dream of nothing but to sleep with ten stangers a day, with the opportunity to get paid for doing so and thus live a life of luxury. Where else but in the land of opportunity would they be able to fulfil their dream like that! It is just so typical that the Cuban communists deprived women of this privileged opportunity as soon as they took over after the US favourite pimp Batista!
And you and I, RussDill, we can both be proud and happy to live in countries where we won’t see some rich guy, say, the leader of a party or a corporation, receive better health care than the welfare mother of two living in the slums. We both know for a fact that a thing like that will never happen in either Denmark or the USA where we have one-tier health care systems where nobody is treated any different from all the others, no matter what their position is! No corruption and the same kind of health care, education and nutritional meals for everybody!
We are happy not be ruled by a Communist elite, but by decent politicians who would never dream of doing anything improper. Even your presidents wouldn’t stoop so low as to pay some prostitute for a spell of casual sex. In spite of their position they would much rather make do with a simple chubby intern. Just like everybody else! Now that’s a real-life Cinderella story! Unlike Castro and his ilk, men like that deserve our true respect and our daily sacrifices!
This, of course, is the only reason why you would like to see the health care system of Cuba replaced by the one they have in Haiti, isn't it?! And who knows? If Bush succeeds it might actually happen …

In the meantime we’ll have to await the film Sicko about health care made in the USA (not due till 2006):
http://www.detnews.com/2004/health/0412/22/health-40252.htm
I can also recommend the book Adventures in a TV Nation, especially the chapter about the 'health care competition' between Cuba, the USA and Canada (a very funny example of censorship in the USA): http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060988096/qid=1106425945/sr=2-1/ref=pd_ka_b_2_1/002-1509374-2484022

And if you want to read up on the US blockade and its effects on health in Cuba, look here:
The Effect of the US Blockade on the Health of the Cuban people: http://www.cubasolidarity.net/inemheal.html
Cuban medical purchases from the USA still a fantasy: http://www.cubasolidarity.net/blockade.html#health