What to do with prostitutes [Archive] - Page 2

pgwenthold

31st May 2007, 01:39 PM

To me for there to be sin or crime, there should be a victim or complainant.
Prostitution is slightly different. There is not usually a victim at the transaction, but as stated, I think that the ranks of average hookers are filled from occasions of abuse, including slavery and child abuse.
Not all of course but too many. This is male and female.

So what about the ones who haven't suffered abuse and chose to be prostitutes? You must agree that prostitution is ok for them, right?

Let's try it this way. Suppose tonight, by a wave of my wand, I was able to rid the world of sex slavery and child abuse. Would prostitution then be acceptable for you? Because I can guarantee you, it wouldn't go away.

I still don't understand why you think that blaming the consequences of evil is going to stop the evil? As I commented above, when people are in such a terrible state that living on the street in prostitution is preferable to their alternative (such as living in an abusive home), then I'd be focusing on the CAUSE of that problem. Stopping prostitution isn't going to stop the problem that made the girls run away from home in the first place.

Greatest I am

31st May 2007, 02:23 PM

So what about the ones who haven't suffered abuse and chose to be prostitutes? You must agree that prostitution is ok for them, right?

GIA wrote
No.
There should not be sin ore crime where you have two consenting adults.
Regardless of this the practice is demeaning to my way of thinking.
I do not placing a price on a human being.

Let's try it this way. Suppose tonight, by a wave of my wand, I was able to rid the world of sex slavery and child abuse. Would prostitution then be acceptable for you? Because I can guarantee you, it wouldn't go away.

GIA wrote
It would not go away I agree. It would still be demeaning.

I still don't understand why you think that blaming the consequences of evil is going to stop the evil? As I commented above, when people are in such a terrible state that living on the street in prostitution is preferable to their alternative (such as living in an abusive home), then I'd be focusing on the CAUSE of that problem. Stopping prostitution isn't going to stop the problem that made the girls run away from home in the first place.

If that escape route were not there or not there for slavers to feed then we might develop better systems to deal with runaways. This might force us to go after those who abuse more vigorously than now.
News of a few arrests and law suits might actually reduce the incidences of abuse. IE. a young child who i know of who entered the trade to save her two sisters from her father.

Regards
DL

toddjh

31st May 2007, 02:31 PM

a young child who i know of who entered the trade to save her two sisters from her father.

Of course we all agree that there should be a better way, but given that there's not, do you really think she and her sisters would be better off if that avenue had not been open to them?

pgwenthold

31st May 2007, 02:47 PM

Of course we all agree that there should be a better way, but given that there's not, do you really think she and her sisters would be better off if that avenue had not been open to them?

This is the point I am trying to get through. The reason girls in these circumstances resort to life on the streets is because it is better than the alternative!

Think about that. Living as a prostitute is better to these people than having to live through the abuse they experience at home. That's why they leave. The outside has to be better.

Eliminating prostitution isn't going to make living at home any better for them, it is only going to reduce their options for escaping it. Eliminating prostitution isn't going to make the better qualified to join the work force so they can get a more respectable job.

If prostitution has too many who suffered from abuse, then stop the abuse.

Why worry about the consequences of evil, instead of trying to stop the evil itself?

Gnu Ordure

31st May 2007, 03:52 PM

lonewulf/the A/qayak,

What I was challenging was the idea that sex could be reduced to a set of physical practices that could be learned, and that the most skilled practioners would therefore to be able to provide the most satisfying experience.

As qayak said :

I can't figure out why people are so hung up on paying for sex? Sure, your friend can do the job but let's face it, you get what you pay for. A professional is probably your best bet!

According to this, sex is an expertise, so you are more likely to be satisfied if you seek the services of a professional who has studied and practised.

I disagree.

Sex between lovers (at its best) is characterized by love, respect, honesty, and empathy; love has to given freely; it cannot be bought.

As soon as sex becomes part of a wider transaction, be it cash, cars, or security, all of that goes out of the window.

And the sex then becomes characterized by hatred, contempt, lies and self-interest.

Prostitution is not a respectable profession.

If you want to insult a woman, you call her a 'whore'. If you want to insult a man, call him a 'son of a whore'.

as loss leader said :

Indeed. I, for one, despise prostitution

I appreciate you're despising a profession there, LL, but it comes down to a buyer and a seller all the same. Who exactly are you despising ?

as The Atheist said, when he was dismissing the prostitutes report to the European Parliament, he referred to them as:

The stoopid bitches who wrote the report

I might agree with the 'stupid', The A, but 'bitches' ? Why 'bitches' ?

Because they're women ? Or because they're dogs ? Or just a casual comment you made without thinking ? Or because they're prostitutes ?

(Sorry to call you on that, The A, we were getting on so well - but you did write it).

The incidence of violence against prostitutes tends to support my case, but I realize that might have multiple causes.

And the contempt goes in the opposite direction, of course. Most prostitutes despise their clients. Part of their job is to conceal that contempt.

And the rest of their job is to provide an inauthentic, fake experience.

When lovers make love, they often say "I love you"; they like to say the words, and they like to hear them.

You can pay a prostitute to tell you she loves you, and to look like she means it - but it's a lie, and you both know it.

Likewise, you can pay a prostitute to pretend she fancies you (she doesn't), to pretend she loves you (she doesn't), to pretend you're turning her on (you aren't), to pretend you've made her come (you haven't), or to pretend it all means something (it doesn't).

And it's all a big, fat, lie.

But while you continue to suspend your disbelief, you can enjoy the the show and the acting.

But when you come out of the theatre, you have to admit that what you saw wasn't real.

And what was real, was the barely disguised mutual contempt.

I appreciate that I could do with some facts and figures to back up some of my assertions here - happy to go and look if requested... I say that because I'm sure there are specific instances which contradict what I'm saying - occasionally a prostitute does form a genuine relationship with a long-term client, for example - but I think those kind of things (Hollywood's 'hooker with a heart of gold'), are the exception rather than the rule.

Gnu.

PS Edit plus - maybe I should clarify - in spite of the negative attitude that I display above, I still think that there is nothing ethically wrong in prostitution between consenting adults (the women put on an act, and the men are free to believe it or not) - and that it should not be illegal.

Gnu Ordure

31st May 2007, 04:32 PM

sorry, double-post...

toddjh

31st May 2007, 04:36 PM

As soon as sex becomes part of a wider transaction, be it cash, cars, or security, all of that goes out of the window.

And the sex then becomes characterized by hatred, contempt, lies and self-interest.

I don't see how that second sentence follows from the first, especially the "lies" part. In fact, I can think of no more honest transaction than paying for sex -- each party is being perfectly truthful about what they want.

Edit: Reading the rest of the post, I just have to say that the hypothetical man and woman you're describing sure have some serious issues. :) I think you're taking the absolute worst case scenario and overextrapolating. For starters, not all men want feigned intimacy or an emotional connection; in fact, I'd wager that a lot of the ones that hire prostitutes just want some sexual release minus the baggage. That goes double for the men who hire the streetwalker types (who definitely do not include a lot of cuddling as part of the package).

And not all prostitutes feel contempt for their clients. The ones I know say they actually like a lot of their clients and, yes, even have fun with them. Not all, of course, but then again I'm not crazy about all of my (web design) clients, either.

As for prostitution not being "respectable," I disagree. It's definitely not respected in Western society at least, but that's just a cultural norm and subject to change. Certainly many cultures have held prostitutes, or at least some classes of prostitutes, in fairly high regard.

The Atheist

31st May 2007, 05:03 PM

lonewulf/the A/qayak,

What I was challenging was the idea that sex could be reduced to a set of physical practices that could be learned, and that the most skilled practioners would therefore to be able to provide the most satisfying experience.

According to this, sex is an expertise, so you are more likely to be satisfied if you seek the services of a professional who has studied and practised.

I disagree.

I'll happily disagree with you and note that I think the comment was a little tongue-in-cheek. What prostitutes are best at is getting it over quickly, although there is a subset of very expensive prostitutes who do treat it as an art.

Sex between lovers (at its best) is characterized by love, respect, honesty, and empathy; love is always given freely, and therefore cannot be bought.

As soon as sex becomes part of a wider transaction, be it cash, cars, or security, all of that goes out of the window.

And the sex then becomes characterized by hatred, contempt, lies and self-interest.

That's drawing a fairly long bow - there are large numbers of people to whom sex is just sex. I repeat my earlier comment; one type isn't inherently "better" than the other and I submit that the right prostitute at the right time can be every bit as much a turn-on as a lifelong partner or the local hottie you've lusted after for six months. Not always, but sometimes.

Prostitution is not a respectable profession.

Well, I not only disagree, I can prove you wrong. I have lots of respect for women who can reduce sex to part of their job and then go and do it as well as some can. I have respect for women who can work as prostitues while bringing up children successfully and I personally know examples of both types.

I consider a prostitute a lot more respectable than a real estate agent or car salesman, for starters.

I might agree with the 'stupid', The A, but 'bitches' ? Why 'bitches' ?

Because they're women ? Or because they're dogs ? Or just a casual comment you made without thinking ? Or because they're prostitutes ?

Neither, the expression, had they been blokes, would have been "stoopid bastards". The "bitches" is part of the expression rather than a deliberate extra slur. In Kiwi vernacular, they would have been "stoopid ####s" but that one's banned by rule 8, so I went with the next word that popped onto my keyboard.

(Sorry to call you on that, The A, we were getting on so well - but you did write it).

No worries, I'd write it again, too. It's just the way I type.

The incidence of violence against prostitutes tends to support my case, but I realize that might have multiple causes.

Which segues us nicely into the great imponderable. Let's say we actually shut down all hookers tomorrow, everywhere in the world. Would sexual violence rise or decrease? Be rather nasty if it turned out that by providing a [relatively] cheap outlet for male sexual frustration, prostitutes reduced the propensity for violence in society? I know that's drawing a longish bow as well, but the chance of it being real must exist. Even then, if prostitutes get attacked, are they saving "honourable" women from those attacks?

Another reason to respect prostitutes - they put their lives on the line for their work. Not too many people have to do that.

And the contempt goes in the opposite direction, of course. Most prostitutes despise their clients. Part of their job is to conceal that contempt.

Generalisation again. Frequently, but not always, true.

And the rest of their job is to provide an inauthentic, fake experience.

How's it fake? The man pays to ejaculate inside the woman and usually does. Nothing fake about that. Prostitutes sometimes fake excitement, but even stranger, sometimes they actually get excited.

When lovers make love, they often say "I love you"; they like to say the words, and they like to hear them.

You can pay a prostitute to tell you she loves you, and to look like she means it - but it's a lie, and you both know it.

I bet I've told that lie more than most prostitutes! I don't know of that being something a prostitute would willingly say. Rare instances maybe.

Likewise, you can pay a prostitute to pretend she fancies you (she doesn't), to pretend she loves you (she doesn't), to pretend you're turning her on (you aren't), to pretend you've made her come (you haven't), or to pretend it all means something (it doesn't).

And while you continue to suspend your disbelief, you can enjoy the the show and the acting.

But when you come out of the theatre, you have to admit that what you saw wasn't real.

Again, I could think of any number of one-nighters I've had which meets all those criteria!

PS Edit plus - maybe I should clarify - in spite of the negative attitude that I display above, I still think that there is nothing ethically wrong in prostitution between consenting adults (the women put on an act, and the men are free to believe it or not) - and that it should not be illegal.

Fair enough. You're just generalising a little too far, in my opinion.

The Great Hairy One

31st May 2007, 05:22 PM

Sex between lovers (at its best) is characterized by love, respect, honesty, and empathy; love has to given freely; it cannot be bought.

As soon as sex becomes part of a wider transaction, be it cash, cars, or security, all of that goes out of the window.

And the sex then becomes characterized by hatred, contempt, lies and self-interest.

What a load of rubbish!!

Sex can be quite physically satisfying when performed with a new acquaintance for which one's only feelings are either based on lust or self-interest. Sex can also be rather explosive and very enjoyable with someone who is simply a friend, with no love involved.

Don't make the common mistake of romance writers, and assume "sex = love", for that is a fallacy. The two can operate in complete isolation.

Prostitution is not a respectable profession.

If you want to insult a woman, you call her a 'whore'. If you want to insult a man, call him a 'son of a whore'.

So if I call a man a "son of a flea-ridden donkey", donkeys are not respectable? If I call a man a "fellatio performing bastard" (or words to that effect), does that mean homosexual oral sex is not respectable? Your argument here is spurious and trivial.

Cheers,
TGHO

Gnu Ordure

31st May 2007, 05:26 PM

todd said :

Originally Posted by Gnu Ordure :

As soon as sex becomes part of a wider transaction, be it cash, cars, or security, all of that goes out of the window.

And the sex then becomes characterized by hatred, contempt, lies and self-interest.

I don't see how that second sentence follows from the first, especially the "lies" part.

.

Imagine you're on a hot date, Todd. You're in the restaurant, it's all going well, she's laughing at your jokes, she's putting out all the right signals...

Then, at the end of the main course, she suddenly says : "Look, sorry, I should have mentioned this before... but I'm a hooker. If you give me 500 dollars right now, the evening will continue exactly how you want it to, I promise. Otherwise, goodnight".

As soon as she says this, everything changes. You realize that she may not like you, let alone think you're funny. You realize she doesn't really want to sleep with you. You realize that anything she says or does from this moment on, you will be unable to take at face value. You realize that the good time you were both having was an illusion, and that you need to pay up to have the illusion continue.

For 'illusion', read 'lies'.

Sure, she's being honest. She's being honest about the fact that she's going to put on an act for you, if you pay her enough.

Gnu.

toddjh

31st May 2007, 05:49 PM

Imagine you're on a hot date, Todd. You're in the restaurant, it's all going well, she's laughing at your jokes, she's putting out all the right signals...

Then, at the end of the main course, she suddenly says : "Look, sorry, I should have mentioned this before... but I'm a hooker. If you give me 500 dollars right now, the evening will continue exactly how you want it to, I promise. Otherwise, goodnight".

As soon as she says this, everything changes. You realize that she may not like you, let alone think you're funny. You realize she doesn't really want to sleep with you. You realize that the good time you were both having was an illusion, and that you need to pay up to have the illusion continue.

For 'illusion', read 'lies'.

Sure, she's being honest. She's being honest about the fact that she's going to put on act for you, if you pay her enough.

Er...I don't know what to say except to repeat my earlier statement: the people in your hypothetical situations have serious issues. I don't think I've ever heard of a bait-and-switch hooker who sits through a date before asking for money -- they have work to do, you know. I've heard of a few cases of mistaken identity where guys haven't realized the woman they're talking to is a prostitute at first, but that's just miscommunication and not deception.

But to respond to your contrived scenario, I'd tell her, "Oh, sorry, I thought this was a date. See you later." Sure, I'd be disappointed, but only because the woman I went out with turned out to be some kind of manipulative compulsive liar or something.

Anyway, I don't think your example is especially meaningful. You're inserting dishonesty into it by fiat, then pointing and saying, "Look! It's dishonest!" I can't imagine any real world situation proceeding along those lines.

Gnu Ordure

31st May 2007, 06:05 PM

What a load of rubbish!!

You're missing my point. TGHO. In the examples you give :

Sex can be quite physically satisfying when performed with a new acquaintance for which one's only feelings are either based on lust or self-interest. Sex can also be rather explosive and very enjoyable with someone who is simply a friend, with no love involved.

... there is no ulterior motive, there is no transaction beyond a mutual desire for a sexual experience...

An honest meeting between autonomous individuals...

Casual, perhaps, but not paid for..

... So no problem.

I'm not talking about that kind of situation. I'm talking about buying and selling.

Don't make the common mistake of romance writers, and assume "sex = love", for that is a fallacy. The two can operate in complete isolation.

I agree entirely.

My fundamental point is that while money can buy you sex...

.. money can't buy you love.

It can however buy you a facsimile of loving sex.

Gnu.

Wheezebucket

31st May 2007, 06:12 PM

Don't push your weird social hang-ups on the rest of us. Your examples are laughable, and you still have yet to make a point against prostitution that's worth considering.

If only people could get past their moral highground BS and tv-show inspired dreamscapes, we could move on to the actual problems involving the biz.

Gnu Ordure

31st May 2007, 06:34 PM

I've heard of a few cases of mistaken identity where guys haven't realized the woman they're talking to is a prostitute at first,

That's exactly the situation in my contrived scenario, Todd. You think you're on a date, but there's been a misunderstanding, she's a hooker.

As you say, you've heard of similar cases...

So, in this hypothetical scenario, you say you would tell her, "Oh, sorry, I thought this was a date. See you later."

Fair enough.

Which kind of proves my point. The introduction of a financial transaction changed everything about your experience. One minute you were enjoying your date and feeling warm and affectionate and horny... the next minute you've terminated the encounter, because you realize it's been fake.

Alternatively, you might go with the pretence. You give her the money, neither of you mentions it again. Everything proceeds exactly as it might have done.

But is it the same ? No, the financial transaction has changed everything. Nothing means the same. Nothing feels the same. Nothing is the same.

Gnu.

The Atheist

31st May 2007, 06:44 PM

You think you're on a date, but there's been a misunderstanding, she's a hooker.

I can't imagine that scenario ever arising. Hookers have a vested interest in not wasting time like that.

If someone tells you that story, I vote lie.

Talking to one in a bar not realising she's a hooker - obviously, that's what they do - but they will let you know early on; time is money. About $150 an hour.

The Great Hairy One

31st May 2007, 06:53 PM

Casual, perhaps, but not paid for..

... So no problem.

Why does "paying" for sex make it wrong???

I'm not talking about that kind of situation. I'm talking about buying and selling.

There is nothing wrong with buying and selling sex. The only reason some people think that it is wrong is because their morality has been corrupted by an outdated and restrictive religious viewpoint which should have been abandoned 300 years ago during the Enlightenment.

My fundamental point is that while money can buy you sex...

.. money can't buy you love.

From your previous posts, it seems to me that your fundamental point is that "prostitution is BAD!!". I'm pointing out that prostitution is not bad, it is, in fact, quite good.

It can however buy you a facsimile of loving sex.

And what is wrong with that? Some people are lonely, or require an outlet for their sexuality. They may not have a regular sexual partner, and feel like having some sex. What's wrong with these people visiting a prostitute to fulfill that desire?

When I watch a movie, or read a sci-fi book, I don't expect real life to replicate or duplicate that experience. That doesn't lessen my enjoyment of the fantasy though.

Cheers,
TGHO

The Great Hairy One

31st May 2007, 06:57 PM

Which kind of proves my point. The introduction of a financial transaction changed everything about your experience. One minute you were enjoying your date and feeling warm and affectionate and horny... the next minute you've terminated the encounter, because you realize it's been fake.

No, as he said in his post, he terminated the date because she wasn't honest with him up front. Nothing to do with him having to "pay for it".

And as others have pointed out, your example is incorrect. I've never met a prostitute who wasn't extremely clear of prices and services offered within the first five minutes of conversation, UNLESS they were "off duty". In which case, they were just another normal human being, enjoying a meal and a drink, with a friendly conversation thrown in. If anything else happened beyond that, they don't charge.

But is it the same ? No, the financial transaction has changed everything. Nothing means the same. Nothing feels the same. Nothing is the same.

How does paying for it make the sex any different???

Cheers,
TGHO

Gnu Ordure

31st May 2007, 07:06 PM

Don't push your weird social hang-ups on the rest of us.

What social hang-ups are those, wheezebucket ?

you still have yet to make a point against prostitution that's worth considering.

I am not making any points against prostitution.

I am merely suggesting that 'paid-for-sex' cannot be a substitute for 'sex-in-a-loving-relationship sex', for the reasons I've given.

Gnu.

Wheezebucket

31st May 2007, 07:29 PM

What social hang-ups are those, wheezebucket ?

I am not making any points against prostitution.

I am merely suggesting that 'paid-for-sex' cannot be a substitute for 'sex-in-a-loving-relationship sex', for the reasons I've given.

Gnu.

Oops, I might have confused you with GIA for a sec, so scratch the social hangups remark. People without avatars blend in to me sometimes.

And I agree, they're different - but equally good in their own ways.

toddjh

31st May 2007, 07:33 PM

That's exactly the situation in my contrived scenario, Todd. You think you're on a date, but there's been a misunderstanding, she's a hooker.

As several people have pointed out, no hooker is going to waste her time like that. Your example is totally silly.

As you say, you've heard of similar cases...

No, I've heard of cases where there was a brief misunderstanding, which was corrected as soon as it became known that there was a misunderstanding. That's absolutely nothing like your hypothetical scenario.

Which kind of proves my point. The introduction of a financial transaction changed everything about your experience. One minute you were enjoying your date and feeling warm and affectionate and horny... the next minute you've terminated the encounter, because you realize it's been fake.

No, I terminated the encounter because this woman is apparently a psychotic liar who is wasting my time! I have absolutely no problem with the idea of paying for sex. I haven't had reason to do it yet, but sure, under the right circumstances I would consider it. My wife has told me that she wants to take me out to a brothel in Nevada as a present sometime, and you know what? I'd let her!

Nothing feels the same. Nothing is the same.

I never said it was the same. I just said it wasn't necessarily bad.

Gnu Ordure

31st May 2007, 07:39 PM

sorry, must go to bed...

most interesting discussion, thank you.

couple of points...

From your previous posts, it seems to me that your fundamental point is that "prostitution is BAD!!".

not at all, TGHO, never said that. Fake, inauthentic, an act... yes.

but not bad.

I said :

PS Edit plus - maybe I should clarify - in spite of the negative attitude that I display above, I still think that there is nothing ethically wrong in prostitution between consenting adults (the women put on an act, and the men are free to believe it or not) - and that it should not be illegal.

OK ?

Oops, I might have confused you with GIA for a sec,

no problem, wb.

gnu.

Lonewulf

1st June 2007, 12:38 AM

So, let me get this straight...

GIA isn't against prostitution, but is instead against child abuse and exploitation?

Hell, I'm down with that. Let's party!

The Atheist

1st June 2007, 01:13 AM

Hell, I'm down with that. Let's party!

Great idea, I'll bring the hookers. Any preference?

The Great Hairy One

1st June 2007, 01:16 AM

not at all, TGHO, never said that. Fake, inauthentic, an act... yes.

OK, so not bad as such. But then you said:
I am merely suggesting that 'paid-for-sex' cannot be a substitute for 'sex-in-a-loving-relationship sex', for the reasons I've given.

I'd disagree with you on this point, but that's probably opinion based rather than based on objective criteria.

Cheers,
TGHO

Lonewulf

1st June 2007, 02:30 AM

Even if prostitution "cannot substitute" a loving relationship, does nothing to change the idea of a person's freedom over their own body or mind.

I feel that people should be free to live their own lives, and make their own mistakes, as long as they do not directly harm others. In this particular case, I can see no victims in prostitution alone. Even if there are prostitutes that are a result of child abuse, that's an argument against child abuse -- NOT prostitution. If prostitutes are being exploited -- that's an argument against exploitation, NOT prostitution.

In the end, I feel that there is no sufficient cause to make prostitution illegal, and that it does more harm than good. It makes the prostitutes into victims even moreso than any child abuse; it makes them into criminals, subjugated by law and the police.

Greatest I am

1st June 2007, 05:47 AM

Of course we all agree that there should be a better way, but given that there's not, do you really think she and her sisters would be better off if that avenue had not been open to them?

You assume there is no better way without trying any.
For all we know just the attempt may be the catalyst required to smarten us men up.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

1st June 2007, 06:06 AM

I don't see how that second sentence follows from the first, especially the "lies" part. In fact, I can think of no more honest transaction than paying for sex -- each party is being perfectly truthful about what they want.

Edit: Reading the rest of the post, I just have to say that the hypothetical man and woman you're describing sure have some serious issues. :) I think you're taking the absolute worst case scenario and overextrapolating. For starters, not all men want feigned intimacy or an emotional connection; in fact, I'd wager that a lot of the ones that hire prostitutes just want some sexual release minus the baggage. That goes double for the men who hire the streetwalker types (who definitely do not include a lot of cuddling as part of the package).

And not all prostitutes feel contempt for their clients. The ones I know say they actually like a lot of their clients and, yes, even have fun with them. Not all, of course, but then again I'm not crazy about all of my (web design) clients, either.

As for prostitution not being "respectable," I disagree. It's definitely not respected in Western society at least, but that's just a cultural norm and subject to change. Certainly many cultures have held prostitutes, or at least some classes of prostitutes, in fairly high regard.

Name one today.

Rome was probably the best example of what you are speaking to.
Problem is I would not have liked to be used as a rubbing place by my parents at 10 or 12 years old. This aptitude follows glorification of the trade.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

1st June 2007, 06:14 AM

What a load of rubbish!!

Sex can be quite physically satisfying when performed with a new acquaintance for which one's only feelings are either based on lust or self-interest. Sex can also be rather explosive and very enjoyable with someone who is simply a friend, with no love involved.

Don't make the common mistake of romance writers, and assume "sex = love", for that is a fallacy. The two can operate in complete isolation.

So if I call a man a "son of a flea-ridden donkey", donkeys are not respectable? If I call a man a "fellatio performing bastard" (or words to that effect), does that mean homosexual oral sex is not respectable? Your argument here is spurious and trivial.

Cheers,
TGHO

I do not think lust after and prostitution go together.
I lust after a person. I do not lust after a commodity.
Lust can only be appeased by love.
Hornyness can be appeased by a hooker if you have enough money to pay for a good one.
If your down to your last 10 or 20 well too bad so sad for your lust. You get to do an ugly one.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

1st June 2007, 06:30 AM

No, as he said in his post, he terminated the date because she wasn't honest with him up front. Nothing to do with him having to "pay for it".

And as others have pointed out, your example is incorrect. I've never met a prostitute who wasn't extremely clear of prices and services offered within the first five minutes of conversation, UNLESS they were "off duty". In which case, they were just another normal human being, enjoying a meal and a drink, with a friendly conversation thrown in. If anything else happened beyond that, they don't charge.

Sex is supposed to be a shared experience with pleasure for both participants. Orgasm in other words.
When was the last time a hooker had one with a John.
A real one I mean. Or is this concept foreign to a John.

If you need to ask what the difference is, this indicates that you have never experienced romantic sex.

How does paying for it make the sex any different???

Cheers,
TGHO

Too bad so sad for you.

Regards
DL

Lonewulf

1st June 2007, 06:31 AM

You assume there is no better way without trying any.
For all we know just the attempt may be the catalyst required to smarten us men up.

Regards
DL

What would?

Banning prostitution? The prostitution that's already banned in most of the U.S.?

Greatest I am

1st June 2007, 06:47 AM

Closing the escape route of prostitution may force the victims to use social systems earlier and work against the underlying problems of abuse and slavery in a more effective way. It may train our young to fight rather than run. Help them recognize their rights.
It is to us to give them the right weapons. This may ultimately be good for other families as well.
I do not like forcing children against the wall but from there their screams can be heard.
On the streets, we are comfortably deaf to their plight and we carry on in our own ignorance.

Regards
DL

Lonewulf

1st June 2007, 06:58 AM

[SIZE=2]Closing the escape route of prostitution may force the victims to use social systems earlier and work against the underlying problems of abuse and slavery in a more effective way.

That's worked out great so far!

Oh wait.

Reality, unfortunately, has already disproved your idea.

Greatest I am

1st June 2007, 07:14 AM

That's worked out great so far!

Oh wait.

Reality, unfortunately, has already disproved your idea.

No.
It has yet to be tried and may never if we glorify prostitution.

Regards
DL

1st June 2007, 07:22 AM

GiM, you're STILL conflating incest with prostitution! Why is that? Why are you so insistent on mixing incest with prostitution? Just because you choose to sell your body does NOT mean it's OK for your father or mother or brothers to use your services!

I'm very close to considering your posts the result of a somewhat complex bot and putting you on 'ignore', considering you continually make the same exact mistakes, time and time again.

And lust is satisfied through sex, not love. Love and sex are two entirely different concepts, and should not be conflated. It's entirely possible to love someone and not desire sex with them; in fact, it's quite common as a couple grows older to find themselves with reduced sexual appetite (regarding each other) and enhanced love.

Meanwhile, it's entirely possible to enjoy great, wonderful, mind-blowing sex without love. If casual sex is OK - and I've yet to hear you claim that casual sex is a sin - then paid-for sex should also be considered OK. Paid-for sex is just casual sex with a financial transaction applied.

In fact, sex is often better when it's with someone you're only passingly familiar with - or even with a near-total stranger - because you don't get the emotional hang-ups and issues that you do with a loved one.

If you just once posted a criticism of prostitution that did NOT inherently imply that prostitution was a sin, you might get farther; but it's transparent that all you're doing is offering post-hoc rationalization for your own belief that prostitution is evil. The fact is, you feel that prostitution is wrong (maybe even have some misguided religious notion about it) and are now desperately backpeddling to come up with reasons why it might actually be evil... yet you're failing utterly.

The fact of the matter is there is nothing inherently wrong with prostitution. There is something inherently wrong with incest, abuse, exploitation, etc.

You claim that removing prostitution would force people to seek more legitimate means of escaping bad situations, but that claim is provably false. You'd rather attack an outlet than the source of the problem? Vile.

The world would be a far better place if we attacked the abuse, the neglect, the incest and rape, the exploitation. If we stopped wasting our time harrassing prostitutes and used that time and resources getting to the roots of the actual problem, we could make the world a far nicer place. And legalizing (and subsequently regulating and taxing) prostitution would be a tremendous boon for our civilization - if only anal-retentive moral snobs such as yourself could see past your book of long-dead liars and see the world as it truly is.

I've never once used a prostitute in my life (I'm quite happy with pornography and masturbation, thanks), but I'm all for legalizing it.

BTW - assuming for a second you're not a bot or a mindless 12-year-old troll - what are your views on mastubation? I am truly, honestly curious.

The Rev.

toddjh

1st June 2007, 07:30 AM

Sex is supposed to be a shared experience with pleasure for both participants. Orgasm in other words.
When was the last time a hooker had one with a John.
A real one I mean. Or is this concept foreign to a John.

First of all, I think your concept of sex is very narrow if you believe that orgasm is the be-all and end-all of sweating up the sheets. The very best sex I've had did not involve an orgasm on my end.

And second, I think you're assuming too much. One of the prostitutes I've spoken to says she rarely climaxes on the job, but the other claims to have around six orgasms per day. It's probably true that the average streetwalker isn't in the throes of ecstasy with every john, but that's not the only kind of prostitute.

And third, who the hell are you to tell other people what sex is "supposed" to be? I thought you were concerned with ending abuse and exploitation, but now apparently you're the Orgasm Police.

Lonewulf

1st June 2007, 08:10 AM

And third, who the hell are you to tell other people what sex is "supposed" to be? I thought you were concerned with ending abuse and exploitation, but now apparently you're the Orgasm Police.

The Orgasm Police?

That sounds... uh... kinky.

Darth Rotor

1st June 2007, 08:32 AM

The Orgasm Police?

I thought it was the name of the third most popular rock band in Saudi Arabia.

DR

The Atheist

1st June 2007, 11:36 AM

I thought it was the name of the third most popular rock band in Saudi Arabia.

DR

:dl:

With the most popular being F14 and the Tomcats, while #2 goes to Sharia Twain.

skeptifem

1st June 2007, 12:06 PM

I am merely suggesting that 'paid-for-sex' cannot be a substitute for 'sex-in-a-loving-relationship sex', for the reasons I've given.

Gnu.

thats great, for you. Many people have sex practices that I could never really understand the appeal of, and I dont really care either. Believe it or not some people enjoy sex outside of a loving relationship, and its not anyone elses business if thats what they want to do.

Piscivore

1st June 2007, 12:15 PM

thats great, for you. Many people have sex practices that I could never really understand the appeal of, and I dont really care either.

I want to be spanked hard by Sarah Silverman while she curses and insults me, but I'm not sure there is actually a sexual component to that.

toddjh

1st June 2007, 12:17 PM

The line starts back there, buddy.

skeptifem

1st June 2007, 01:18 PM

I want to be spanked hard by Sarah Silverman while she curses and insults me

who doesnt? :p

Greatest I am

1st June 2007, 01:42 PM

GiM, you're STILL conflating incest with prostitution! Why is that? Why are you so insistent on mixing incest with prostitution? Just because you choose to sell your body does NOT mean it's OK for your father or mother or brothers to use your services!

GIA wrote
If you read some of my replies you will see that prostitution is the escape rout of some who suffer abuse at home. Allowing this escape route does nothing to bring justice to the perpetrator of the abuse. Without prostitution as an option as stated before we would have a better chance of cleaning up our act in the home.

I'm very close to considering your posts the result of a somewhat complex bot and putting you on 'ignore', considering you continually make the same exact mistakes, time and time again.

And lust is satisfied through sex, not love. Love and sex are two entirely different concepts, and should not be conflated. It's entirely possible to love someone and not desire sex with them; in fact, it's quite common as a couple grows older to find themselves with reduced sexual appetite (regarding each other) and enhanced love.

Meanwhile, it's entirely possible to enjoy great, wonderful, mind-blowing sex without love. If casual sex is OK - and I've yet to hear you claim that casual sex is a sin - then paid-for sex should also be considered OK. Paid-for sex is just casual sex with a financial transaction applied.

GIA wrote
I have noted that anything is probably just if no victim is produced.
If I need to speak to every possibility I will but this is a good general statement that can be applied here.

As to the quality of the sex, if you cannot see the difference between casual sex, paid sex or sex with love then I fell sorry for you.

In fact, sex is often better when it's with someone you're only passingly familiar with - or even with a near-total stranger - because you don't get the emotional hang-ups and issues that you do with a loved one.

GIA wrote
The emotional part is what makes us different from dogs.

If you just once posted a criticism of prostitution that did NOT inherently imply that prostitution was a sin, you might get farther; but it's transparent that all you're doing is offering post-hoc rationalization for your own belief that prostitution is evil. The fact is, you feel that prostitution is wrong (maybe even have some misguided religious notion about it) and are now desperately backpeddling to come up with reasons why it might actually be evil... yet you're failing utterly.

The fact of the matter is there is nothing inherently wrong with prostitution. There is something inherently wrong with incest, abuse, exploitation, etc.

You claim that removing prostitution would force people to seek more legitimate means of escaping bad situations, but that claim is provably false. You'd rather attack an outlet than the source of the problem? Vile.

The world would be a far better place if we attacked the abuse, the neglect, the incest and rape, the exploitation. If we stopped wasting our time harrassing prostitutes and used that time and resources getting to the roots of the actual problem, we could make the world a far nicer place. And legalizing (and subsequently regulating and taxing) prostitution would be a tremendous boon for our civilization - if only anal-retentive moral snobs such as yourself could see past your book of long-dead liars and see the world as it truly is.

I've never once used a prostitute in my life (I'm quite happy with pornography and masturbation, thanks), but I'm all for legalizing it.

BTW - assuming for a second you're not a bot or a mindless 12-year-old troll - what are your views on mastubation? I am truly, honestly curious.

The Rev.

Hogwash.
If this is what you get after reading what I have writen as well as others here, then I would suggest that you find some literature on the subject.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

1st June 2007, 01:47 PM

First of all, I think your concept of sex is very narrow if you believe that orgasm is the be-all and end-all of sweating up the sheets. The very best sex I've had did not involve an orgasm on my end.

And second, I think you're assuming too much. One of the prostitutes I've spoken to says she rarely climaxes on the job, but the other claims to have around six orgasms per day. It's probably true that the average streetwalker isn't in the throes of ecstasy with every john, but that's not the only kind of prostitute.

And third, who the hell are you to tell other people what sex is "supposed" to be? I thought you were concerned with ending abuse and exploitation, but now apparently you're the Orgasm Police.

OK
Orgasm and mutual pleasure is not the purpose of sex.
What is and can a hooker give it?
As to my opinion, from what I have seen here so far, mine is superior.

Regards
DL

Wheezebucket

1st June 2007, 01:52 PM

All of this nonsense is only your opinion. And it's a poorly informed one.

toddjh

1st June 2007, 01:54 PM

OK
Orgasm and mutual pleasure is not the purpose of sex.
What is and can a hooker give it?

It's whatever the people involved want it to be. And judging by the number of hookers in the world, I'd say yes, they can definitely give a lot of men what they want.

Greatest I am

1st June 2007, 01:58 PM

I wish I had the words to express that Men do not stand tall while reaching low for a Woman.

It is unfortunate that not many hookers or male prostitutes have computers.

Regards
DL

toddjh

1st June 2007, 02:03 PM

I wish I had the words to express that Men do not stand tall while reaching low for a Woman.

I wish you had the words to provide some kind of rational basis for your contempt for a large segment of humanity, not to mention human nature itself.

It is unfortunate that not many hookers or male prostitutes have computers.

Dude, how do you think they make appointments these days? They have e-mail and cell phones. A lot of them even have websites.

Greatest I am

1st June 2007, 02:27 PM

I wish you had the words to provide some kind of rational basis for your contempt for a large segment of humanity, not to mention human nature itself.

Dude, how do you think they make appointments these days? They have e-mail and cell phones. A lot of them even have websites.

What contempt for what humanity.

I express disappointment only for what is trying to pass as Men.

If there is an end of days they will surely have to change the definition.

Men, it would be nice to hear from one or two.

Regards
DL

1st June 2007, 03:19 PM

Hogwash.
If this is what you get after reading what I have writen as well as others here, then I would suggest that you find some literature on the subject.

Regards
DL

Is that the best you can do? No reasoned response? No witty reply? Just 'hogwash'?

Didn't even answer my question.

Or were there just too many words to read, my friend? I can condense it, if that might make it easier for you.

1st June 2007, 03:25 PM

What contempt for what humanity.

I express disappointment only for what is trying to pass as Men.

If there is an end of days they will surely have to change the definition.

Men, it would be nice to hear from one or two.

Regards
DL

So what you're saying is that paying for sex is beneath men? Is it beneath women as well?

How about one-night stands? Is that also beneath men?

You position (at this point) appears to be that the only sexual relationship worthy of men is one involving a loving, committed relationship. Aside from the exceptionally old-fashioned nature of this thinking, do you have any actual evidence that this is true?

Allow me to ask you a few personal questions:

1) How old are you? Rough estimate will do.
2) Are you presently in a loving, committed relationship?
3) Have you ever had sex outside of a loving, committed relationship?
4) Is your opinion largely based on your religious beliefs?

More questions may follow, but depend upon the answer to those four questions.

Failing to respond to these questions will strongly limit any reasonable discussion that may ensue. And that's all I'm after - a reasonable discussion. Each of those questions above is quite pertinent to understanding why you hold onto this antiquated notion of 'love' and 'sex.

Regards,

The Rev.

Jon.

1st June 2007, 04:51 PM

Hogwash.
If this is what you get after reading what I have writen as well as others here, then I would suggest that you find some literature on the subject.

Regards
DL

I asked you way back in this thread to recommend some books that we should read. You have yet to do so. I suspect that the only books you would recommend come in a set of 66 (or 65, depending on your denomination). Care to prove me wrong?

mylfmyhnr

1st June 2007, 04:54 PM

Sex is supposed to be a shared experience with pleasure for both participants. Orgasm in other words.
When was the last time a hooker had one with a John.
A real one I mean. Or is this concept foreign to a John.

OK
Orgasm and mutual pleasure is not the purpose of sex.
What is and can a hooker give it?
As to my opinion, from what I have seen here so far, mine is superior.

Regards
DL
Wow. Alright, please inform my ex-fiance that he is an evil person who treated me like a hooker because he was never able to get me off. Loving, commited relationship, and not one orgasm. But that's not why I left him, but it certainly added to the list. Sex doesn't equal love, love doesn't equal sex. Well, not good sex anyway.

As to the second point, if a man wants to go to a hooker, with them both understanding that she is not vested in a personal orgasm, the point is his pleasure. She provides the human element to the sexual encounter, he provides the incentive. In this case the incentive is cash. In many modern sexual encounters there is still an incentive, it's simply a different one. Perhaps it's the hope of a relationship, of marriage, of long lasting love. In others it's pure shared physical enjoyment. There is always a give and take, always a price to be paid, in sex.
Perhaps the cost is falling in love... perhaps it's being left... perhaps it's wanting the sex again but not having the opportunity. But in a consenting, adult, paiding-for-sex relationship the cost is obvious. We can argue about what price she pays for her cash, but the point in all of this is that it is still her choice to pay that price. As it was mine in having sex with a man when I knew the price to be paid was my heart. I fell and it was a one way street... My heart, my price. Is non-marital sex evil? I sure paid a price, I felt dirty, I felt used... Because I made bad choices about who I slept with. Again, my body, my choice, my price. It's no one elses business, and that includes if the transaction had included money. That it didn't simple proves that any sexual encounter can be positive or negative.
Besides which it all lead me to understanding what fidelity means, what good sex really is, and what I wanted from a partner. You generalize about love and sex, you wan poetic about love and sex, you glamorize love and sex...
But you still have no proof that one ounce of any argument that you have attempted to make proves in anyway that any of the evils you see in prostitution are anything less then part of the human condition. As many others have said, if you want to talk about slavery, child sex trade, human trafficking, then lets talk about that. Sex between adults is convoluted in the best of circumstances, and attempting to moralize another to your standards is insane.

Wheezebucket

1st June 2007, 04:59 PM

Yeah, good call, myl. That's a great point. You can love another person till the flippin' cows come home, but that sure as hell doesn't translate into an orgasm by default. Sexual compatibility is a tricky thing, regardless of whether you even like the other person or not.

But a young virginal jesus-freak might have a hard time grasping that.

skeptifem

1st June 2007, 06:04 PM

I wish I had the words to express that Men do not stand tall while reaching low for a Woman.

uhh what? Are you saying people who dont prefer the same type of sex as you are 'below you'? :mad: Or am I misunderstanding you?

Lonewulf

1st June 2007, 08:11 PM

As to my opinion, from what I have seen here so far, mine is superior.

Ah, the youthful arrogance.

You say so without any evidence to support your position, while reality and history laugh in your face.

Maybe one day you'll grow up and actually understand a thing or two about the world. Or skepticism, for that matter.

The Atheist

1st June 2007, 08:56 PM

I wish I had the words to express that Men do not stand tall while reaching low for a Woman.

Karma Sutra position the seventh. Piece of cake.

It is unfortunate that not many hookers or male prostitutes have computers.

Regards
DL

Oh boy, if you wanted to double up on your ignorance, that's a good way to start. You are so far out of touch, it's laughable.

I'd say that at least 80% of New Zealand's legal hookers advertise and have websites.

Orphia Nay

2nd June 2007, 12:25 AM

Oops

The Great Hairy One

2nd June 2007, 05:01 PM

Greatest I am seems to have a very weird understanding of what sex actually is...

Tell me, Greatest I am, have you ever actually had sex? Have you ever felt lust or love? Ever had an orgasm induced by someone other than yourself? Don't you realise that not every sexual encounter results in an orgasm? And yes, prostitutes can orgasm whilst with a client - just go ask some of them.

And I really have to laugh when you state:
Orgasm and mutual pleasure is not the purpose of sex.

Bwahahahahahahaha!!! Mutual pleasure is the primary purpose of sex. Only a small percentage of people solely have sex for procreation. The majority of people in the Western world having sex use prophylactics, to specifically ensure that they don't procreate!

I think I'd like for you to answer Z's questions in post #315.

Cheers,
TGHO

Loss Leader

3rd June 2007, 08:24 AM

Allow me to ask you a few personal questions:

1) How old are you? Rough estimate will do.
2) Are you presently in a loving, committed relationship?
3) Have you ever had sex outside of a loving, committed relationship?
4) Is your opinion largely based on your religious beliefs?

More questions may follow, but depend upon the answer to those four questions..

GIA is, as far as I have gathered, an elderly or late-middle aged man. He has been married for a long, long time. Several decades ago he had a religious experience where he believes God communicated with him telepathically and gave him a message. He stayed silent for many years out of fear. Thye message turns out to be that heaven is organized "demographically" and that we should organize ourselves the same way.

Despite the common meaning of "demographic," GIA appears to think it means that the command structure of heaven is a pyramid shape and that people should sort themselves by race. He believes that one should prefer members of one's own race and that this is some sort of "positive" racism which somehow increases productivity.

GIA is extraordinarily deistic. He believes in God and probably believes in the New Testament version of God. Nevertheless, he is not a churchgoer and doesn't believe any of the current churches have the answers right.

He is guided entirely by a sense of moral righiousness which seems to be a mixture of some type of European machismo ("men should take care of the world to protect women and children"), vague Sunday school notions of divine judgment and a touch of run-of-the-mill crazy.

I suspect he may be in France. I do not know if he has ever had sex outside of marriage.

3rd June 2007, 08:30 AM

Ahhh... so he's an old-school racist and sexist, as well as religious follower who's never actually thought about his religion, whose experiences are probably limited to a neo-conservative home, an even more conservative church, a conservative work environment, and, on rare occasions, trips to the store.

That explains a lot, actually.

Harpoon

3rd June 2007, 09:13 AM

In this portion of rural Nevada prostitution is regulated by city code. There are two brothels in our community.

The prostitutes receive weekly health exams.

The system of regulated prostitution certainly provides the 'working girls' with better and safer working conditions. Customers also are protected.

But that's not the point. It's a matter of public health and safety. The crime and disease associated with street prostitution is non-existent here.

Both brothels were closed temporarily in the late '90s. Within weeks, indendent contractors began to fill the void, and were trolling the downtown casinos until the brothels re-opened.

No society has found an effective method to prevent prostitution.

Regulation is a reasonable method to protect the general public from the disease and crime associated with it, however.

Nevada's system is hardly fool proof from many standpoints. But I've yet to hear of any customer in a Nevada brothel being exposed to HIV, or HIV infection in the community being traced back to a brothel. The state has issued warnings whenever an STD-infected worker has been identified.

The locale and dates of her employment are released to the public with advice for customers at that specific brothel in that time frame to seek medical attention. Such notices are rare.

This isn't a perfect system. But it seems to reduce the impact of prostitution on the community. Regulation seems better than non-regulated.

Sorry if this has already been beat to death in previous posts.

Lensman

3rd June 2007, 09:36 AM

Gnu Ordure

3rd June 2007, 04:55 PM

How does paying for it make the sex any different???

asked tgho,

Paid-for sex is just casual sex with a financial transaction applied.

posited z.

That's what I disagree with.

z, the financial transaction isn't an optional extra, like stockings or something; it fundamentally changes the nature of the interaction. There is a world of difference between necking with a girl on your sofa, wondering how far you can go, whether she likes you, whether she wants what you want, feeling nervous, and so on.... and ... necking with the same girl on the same sofa, knowing you've paid her 200 hundred dollars and you can do what the hell you want.

The 'sex' might be the same; ie the physical behaviour; but the experience would be completely different (for both parties).

The ulterior motive (the financial transaction) alters the experience.

It becomes inauthentic - it's no longer real - it's an act.

There is always a give and take, always a price to be paid, in sex.

such cyncism, myl; sex is always a transaction, is it ? I agree on the give and take part - good sex implies consideration and compromise - but paying a price ?

Sometimes, sure.

But love is given freely, without thought of recompense or reward.

So there can be no price on loving sex - and so it can't be bought.

.

Wheezebucket

3rd June 2007, 05:16 PM

Wouldn't it be great if we all lived in a Disney movie?

MelBrooksfan

3rd June 2007, 05:18 PM

Wouldn't it be great if we all lived in a Disney movie?

That depends on the Disney movie.

3rd June 2007, 05:50 PM

z, the financial transaction isn't an optional extra, like stockings or something; it fundamentally changes the nature of the interaction. There is a world of difference between necking with a girl on your sofa, wondering how far you can go, whether she likes you, whether she wants what you want, feeling nervous, and so on.... and ... necking with the same girl on the same sofa, knowing you've paid her 200 hundred dollars and you can do what the hell you want.

You're right - prostitution is much more honest and realistic. You go in knowing you're going to have sex, not wondering. And you know there's nothing else expected of you. It's a much simpler set-up.

The 'sex' might be the same; ie the physical behaviour; but the experience would be completely different (for both parties).

He didn't ask about the experience; he asked about the sex.

The ulterior motive (the financial transaction) alters the experience.

It becomes inauthentic - it's no longer real - it's an act.

Utter nonsense. It's sex. In fact, it's guaranteed sex. If sex is what you're after, it's the most real form you can get.

If, on the other hand - as I suspect - you're continuing to conflate love with sex, then no, it's completely in authentic. But love is not an integral part of sex, and vice-versa.

such cyncism, myl; sex is always a transaction, is it ? I agree on the give and take part - good sex implies consideration and compromise - but paying a price ?

Yep. There's always some price.

But love is given freely, without thought of recompense or reward.

So there can be no price on loving sex - and so it can't be bought.

What does love have to do with sex?

That's not the discussion, is it?

(And, by the way, love is rarely 'given freely'. Maybe in an idealistic dream world, but not in the real world.)

The Great Hairy One

3rd June 2007, 05:58 PM

Gnu Ordure

3rd June 2007, 07:25 PM

OK, here's a proposition.

Prostitution is bad for most prostitutes.

Forget Nevada, New Zealand, Holland; the vast majority of the world's prostitutes operate in a grey zone of illegality and police corruption.

Here's some facts :

1. Prostitutes are more at risk of physical attack than any other profession.

2. Prostitutes are more at risk of sexual assault than any other profession.

So for those of you who were happy for your daughters to become prostitutes... I have to question your call on that one ..

And anyway, I don't believe you. Here's two questions:

For guys with partners: imagine she comes home one night and says she's fed up with being a secretary, and wants to be a prostitute instead.

Apparently, it's not immoral, and it's not unethical, and it's certainly respectable.... so what's the problem ?

Why would you object ? The A's partner was happy to fund him to go and see a hooker - why object if she wants to be a hooker herself ?

If you have objections, please explain them.

For guys without partners : (sorry if the dinner-date example was too complicated, by the way; I thought it was quite simple myself, but other people introduced the ideas of deceit, compulsion and psychosis, which rather complicated things)...

A simpler example..

Imagine you're at a party...

You meet this woman, she's fun, you like her; after half an hour, she asks you what you do ("I'm a web designer"), so you ask what she does ("I'm a hooker").

Stop right there.

Question : do you still want her to be your girl-friend ?

Are you going to be proud to introduce her to your friends, or your parents ? ("Hi Mom, this is Karen - she's a prostitute").

Are you going to be happy to make love to her on a Friday night, knowing that you are the 37th guy that week who's made that trip ?

Are you going to be happy to be accompanying her to the clinic, every four weeks, to find out the blood-test results and whether one burst condom has fatally infected her ?

Get real.

Having a partner is one of the things that prostitutes sacrifice. Nobody wants a whore for a girl-friend.

And even if they find a temporary partner, their sex-life is ruined - how can it have any semblance of normality, given the context.

This is why prostitution is so damaging; it alienates its practitioners, and cuts them off from the normal sources of human comfort.

There are other well-recognized harmful effects of this profession:

Over time, the constant violence of prostitution, the constant humiliation, and the social indignity and misogyny, result in personality changes. Herman (1992) described long-term changes in trauma survivors' emotional regulation, changes in consciousness, changes in self-perception, changes in perception of perpetrator(s), changes in relations with others, and changes in systems of meaning.

http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/fempsy1.html

Common-sense says that going to work every day knowing that you may be assaulted, raped or murdered, and that if you are assaulted or raped you will have no recourse to law - that has an effect on your psyche, on your state of mind.

And it's not a good effect.

(Legalize it, though, as I said. Improve Health & Safety, as a minimum).

G.

quixotecoyote

3rd June 2007, 07:41 PM

OK, here's a proposition.

Prostitution is bad for most prostitutes.

Forget Nevada, New Zealand, Holland; the vast majority of the world's prostitutes operate in a grey zone of illegality and police corruption.
....

G.

I don't think anyone's arguing against that, only that it isn't bad in principle and the grey zone of illegality and corruption is what's causing the problems.

Gnu Ordure

3rd June 2007, 07:57 PM

I do not understand what you are saying here.

The physical act itself does not change regardless whether or not you are paying for it or not.

Agreed, tgho.

But sex is not just a meeting of bodies, a physical act.

It is a meeting of two people, and their thoughts and feelings about each other.

When you go to bed with someone, you go to bed with someone - not a body, or a torso, or a vagina.

And it therefore makes a crucial difference whether the person you're in bed with is there because they want to be, or because they've been paid to be.

Gnu.

The Great Hairy One

3rd June 2007, 08:17 PM

OK, here's a proposition.

Prostitution is bad for most prostitutes.

Forget Nevada, New Zealand, Holland; the vast majority of the world's prostitutes operate in a grey zone of illegality and police corruption.

It's legal here in Australia as well, just as a note of interest.

And you'll have to provide evidence that prostitution is bad for most prostitutes before I'll accept that comment at face value.

Here's some facts :

1. Prostitutes are more at risk of physical attack than any other profession.

2. Prostitutes are more at risk of sexual assault than any other profession.

Only where prostitution is illegal. The cure to these problems is to legalise the profession.

So for those of you who were happy for your daughters to become prostitutes... I have to question your call on that one ..

And anyway, I don't believe you. Here's two questions:

For guys with partners: imagine she comes home one night and says she's fed up with being a secretary, and wants to be a prostitute instead.

Apparently, it's not immoral, and it's not unethical, and it's certainly respectable.... so what's the problem ?

Why would you object ? The A's partner was happy to fund him to go and see a hooker - why object if she wants to be a hooker herself ?

If you have objections, please explain them.

I would object solely on the ground that I'm a monogamous person, and when in a relationship I expect my partner to be monogamous too. It's just a personal quirk of mine, I have several friends who are polygamous, and they have quite healthy and happy relationships.

For guys without partners : (sorry if the dinner-date example was too complicated, by the way; I thought it was quite simple myself, but other people introduced the ideas of deceit, compulsion and psychosis, which rather complicated things)...

A simpler example..

Imagine you're at a party...

You meet this woman, she's fun, you like her; after half an hour, she asks you what you do ("I'm a web designer"), so you ask what she does ("I'm a hooker").

Stop right there.

Question : do you still want her to be your girl-friend ?

Are you going to be proud to introduce her to your friends, or your parents ? ("Hi Mom, this is Karen - she's a prostitute").

Are you going to be happy to make love to her on a Friday night, knowing that you are the 37th guy that week who's made that trip ?

Are you going to be happy to be accompanying her to the clinic, every four weeks, to find out the blood-test results and whether one burst condom has fatally infected her ?

Get real.

As I said, I am a monogamous type of person.

However, just because someone works in sex work does not diminish them as a person.

Having a partner is one of the things that prostitutes sacrifice. Nobody wants a whore for a girl-friend.

And even they find a temporary partner, their sex-life is ruined - how can it have any semblance of normality, given the context.

This is why prostitution is so damaging; it alienates its practitioners, and cuts them off from the normal sources of human comfort.

This is your personal opinion. It's not an objective fact. You can't back this up with actual evidence, it's only personal preference.

There are other well-recognized harmful effects of this profession:

http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/fempsy1.html

You can not use Dr Melissa Farley as an objective researcher when it comes to prostitution - she's a radical, anti-sex feminist who believes that sex work of any type, including pornography, is highly damaging to women.

See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Farley

Common-sense says that going to work every day knowing that you may be assaulted, raped or murdered, and that if you are assaulted or raped you will have no recourse to law - that has an effect on your psyche, on your state of mind.

And it's not a good effect.

This is only true where prostitution is illegal. Legalisation fixes these problems.

Cheers,
TGHO

The Great Hairy One

3rd June 2007, 08:19 PM

Agreed, tgho.

But sex is not just a meeting of bodies, a physical act.

It is a meeting of two people, and their thoughts and feelings about each other.

When you go to bed with someone, you go to bed with someone - not a body, or a torso, or a vagina.

And it therefore makes a crucial difference whether the person you're in bed with is there because they want to be, or because they've been paid to be.

How does the exchange of money make a difference? Exactly what changes when money changes hands?

Cheers,
TGHO

largeprimenumber

3rd June 2007, 10:53 PM

I wish I had the words to express that Men do not stand tall while reaching low for a Woman.
-1: poor rhetoric

It is unfortunate that not many hookers or male prostitutes have computers.

Regards
DL
For someone who purports to have their interests at heart, you sure do like to use pejorative terms for them. Oh, except for the male ones.

slingblade

3rd June 2007, 11:26 PM

Having a partner is one of the things that prostitutes sacrifice. Nobody wants a whore for a girl-friend.
G.

You don't know any. That's my estimate.

You said to leave out Nevada, but I can't, since that's where the ones I know live and work. And many of them are married. :jaw-dropp

Wheezebucket

3rd June 2007, 11:34 PM

Having a partner is one of the things that prostitutes sacrifice. Nobody wants a whore for a girl-friend.

Are you *********** kidding me? So a woman who has sex for money is somehow less than a person? Tell that to my friend who's married to a prostitute, I'm sure he'd love to hear that the woman he loves is, in your eyes, a sub-human. And for the record, she happens to be very well educated, makes more money in a month than you probably do in a year, and has been happily married for going on 5 years now. Plus she's hilarious, not to mention smokin' hot and VD free.

Again, please stop confusing your Disney fantasies with reality. And try not to delude yourself into thinking you're better than somebody just because they don't subscribe to your twisted ideas about morality.

toddjh

3rd June 2007, 11:35 PM

OK, here's a proposition.

Prostitution is bad for most prostitutes.

Forget Nevada, New Zealand, Holland; the vast majority of the world's prostitutes operate in a grey zone of illegality and police corruption.

This is the exact same argument used to ban marijuana on the grounds that it's a "gateway drug." It doesn't make sense in that context and it doesn't make sense here.

The fact that you want us to "forget Nevada, New Zealand, Holland" shows that you need to disregard places where prostitution is legal in order for your argument to work. The sensible conclusion, as others have pointed out, is that illegal prostitution is bad for most prostitutes. Legal prostitution is demonstrably much better.

mylfmyhnr

4th June 2007, 07:54 AM

Having a partner is one of the things that prostitutes sacrifice. Nobody wants a whore for a girl-friend.

And even if they find a temporary partner, their sex-life is ruined - how can it have any semblance of normality, given the context.

I think those in the adult film industry would beg to differ, as well as those in the legal prostitution industry. There are many individuals married and in steady relationships. You assume that because sex with someone else is involved that love cannot exist. This is your own bias, not one based on fact.

such cyncism, myl; sex is always a transaction, is it ? I agree on the give and take part - good sex implies consideration and compromise - but paying a price ?
I just said there was a price, I never said that the price was automatically bad, or negative. The price I paid when first slept with the man I'm with now was an elevated sense of trust that lead to giving him my heart and to marriage. I still paid a price, it wasn't some free act that I had and then just went on my way... I was different after than I was before.

Lonewulf

4th June 2007, 08:51 AM

In ancient societies, high-class prostitutes could bring status and fame to those that they married.

This was true in Feudal Japan, at the least. But there some to-die-for courtesans and concubines.

Gnu Ordure

4th June 2007, 02:46 PM

And you'll have to provide evidence that prostitution is bad for most prostitutes before I'll accept that comment at face value.

Well, I went to look for some evidence, tgho, and found Melissa Farley, but apparently she's disqualified because she's a feminist, or because she has political opinions, or something.

Never mind that she's been a practising qualified psychologist for more than 40 years.

I'm a feminist too, by the way. Does that disqualify me from this discussion as well ?

I said :

Here's some facts :

1. Prostitutes are more at risk of physical attack than any other profession.

2. Prostitutes are more at risk of sexual assault than any other profession.

and tgho replied :

Only where prostitution is illegal.

... unfortunately, that is rather most of the planet, isn't it ?

So the facts remain...

My observations about prostitution pertain to prostitution now , not in some hypothetical future. I agree that global decriminalization would significantly reduce the incidence of physical and sexual assault. But we don't have that yet, do we ?

As things stand, right now, prostitution globally is mostly a highly dangerous profession, potentially very damaging to its practitioners' mental and physical health.

And anecdotal examples of happily-married prostitutes in enlightened places such as Nevada and New Zealand do not alter the wider picture.

I said that prostitution is not a respectable profession - on the whole, it is criminalized, marginalized, and its practitioners denied human rights such as a written employment contract, the right to belong to a union, and basic health and safety.

Some of you say that this is simply the result of its illegality - remove the illegality, and these problems would disappear.

Which begs the question: why was it criminalized in the first place, and why, given its reputation as 'the world's oldest profession', has it never become a legitimate profession ?

Easy.

Because it's not respectable. Society has so little respect for prostitution, it never bothers to make it legitimate.

I asked why one might object to one's wife becoming a prostitute; tgho said:

I would object solely on the ground that I'm a monogamous person

... thus proving my point. The vast majority of human societies are based on monogamy (legally or psychologically). Prostitutes in those societies therefore become undesirable as a girl-friend or partner or wife to the majority of men in their society.

Anecdotal rebuttals notwithstanding.

How does the exchange of money make a difference? Exactly what changes when money changes hands?

The meaning of the experience changes. Therefore the experience changes.

I said;

Having a partner is one of the things that prostitutes sacrifice. Nobody wants a whore for a girl-friend

wheezebucket said :

Are you *********** kidding me? So a woman who has sex for money is somehow less than a person? Tell that to my friend who's married to a prostitute, I'm sure he'd love to hear that the woman he loves is, in your eyes, a sub-human.

You've lost me there, wheezeB. Where am I saying prostitutes are less than people ? (You're not confusing me with gia again, are you ?)

And it's somewhat ironic, in that I'm trying to focus on the reality of a prostitute's life - acknowledging the endemic distress, anxiety, danger, violence, hatred and contempt which are their normal working conditions.

(Except in certain few enlightened places).

Again, please stop confusing your Disney fantasies with reality.

I'm not fantasizing. On the contrary. It seems to me that some of you have a highly romantic perception of prostitution, incorporating loving partners who don't have a problem with it, respect from everybody including immediate family, weekly blood-tests that are no cause for anxiety, and minimal impact of the day-job on their own sex-lives etc etc ...

I admit that might be the reality for some prostitutes; but very few.

And try not to delude yourself into thinking you're better than somebody just because they don't subscribe to your twisted ideas about morality

Again, are you mixing me up with gia ? I've stated quite clearly that I think prostitution per se is neither immoral nor unethical - merely dangerous and damaging. I have made no moral judgment at all.

Gnu.

Lonewulf

4th June 2007, 02:50 PM

Which begs the question: why was it criminalized in the first place...

Religious "morality".

...and why, given its reputation as 'the world's oldest profession', has it never become a legitimate profession ?

Wrong. It has been a legitimate profession.

In Japan. Or courtesans. Or concubines. All legitimate professions at one point of time or another.

Gnu Ordure

4th June 2007, 03:24 PM

The sensible conclusion, as others have pointed out, is that illegal prostitution is bad for most prostitutes. Legal prostitution is demonstrably much better.

Agreed, todd.

My point is that (wild-guess alert) 90% of prostitution is illegal.

So, my proposition holds :

Prostitution is bad for most prostitutes.

As I said.

The price I paid when first slept with the man I'm with now was an elevated sense of trust that lead to giving him my heart and to marriage.

I don't understand, myl. I understand (I think) that you decided to trust your partner more than you'd trusted anyone before... with the evidently happy result that your trust was reciprocated and love grew and led to marriage...

So what price did you pay, exactly ? You didn't buy your husband, did you ?

And he didn't buy you ?

But you say the price you paid was your 'elevated sense of trust'.

I don't know what you mean by that, sorry..

Gnu.

Gnu Ordure

4th June 2007, 03:49 PM

In ancient societies, high-class prostitutes could bring status and fame to those that they married.

Well, I'm curious, Lonewulf.

Name me a man from an ancient society who is famed for marrying a high-class prostitute. No googling - if you have to google him, he can't be famous...

While you're at it, name me a famous man in contemporary society who is married to a working prostitute.

Wrong. It has been a legitimate profession.

In Japan. Or courtesans. Or concubines. All legitimate professions at one point of time or another.

I mean in the whole world. The exceptions prove the rule. Prostitution does not, on the whole, globally speaking, have the same legitimacy as accountancy, taxi-driving, medecine, manufacturing or tourism etc ...

.

Lonewulf

4th June 2007, 03:55 PM

Well, I'm curious, Lonewulf.

Name me a man from an ancient society who is famed for marrying a high-class prostitute. No googling - if you have to google him, he can't be famous...

From the middle ages? In Japan?

I do not memorize Japanese history.

Now, don't google:

Name me every famous person from Japan. This includes all samurai, Daimyo, lords, ladies, emporers, etc. No googling names, Gnu.

You see, you fail to realize something. "Fame" in a given society in a given time period DOES NOT IMPLY FAME TODAY. Got it? I'll use more simple words:

Just because he was famous over there, over then, does not make him famous here, now. Got it?

While you're at it, name me a famous man in contemporary society who is married to a working prostitute.

Some names were given already, earlier in this thread. You do read posts, don't you?

I mean in the whole world. The exceptions prove the rule. Prostitution does not, on the whole, globally speaking, have the same legitimacy as accountancy, taxi-driving, medecine, manufacturing or tourism etc ... .

Taxi-driving? I did not realize taxi-driving was a high-class profession. That's a pretty ignorant thing to say -- perhaps you don't know any higher-class prostitutes, and assume they're all degenerate streetwalkers? :rolleyes:

As for medicine -- how much research and knowledge does it take to become a doctor? How much research and knowledge does it take to have decent sex? Comparing the two is ludicrous. Your argument fails.

Jon.

4th June 2007, 04:09 PM

Well, I'm curious, Lonewulf.

Name me a man from an ancient society who is famed for marrying a high-class prostitute. No googling - if you have to google him, he can't be famous...

While you're at it, name me a famous man in contemporary society who is married to a working prostitute.

I mean in the whole world. The exceptions prove the rule. Prostitution does not, on the whole, globally speaking, have the same legitimacy as accountancy, taxi-driving, medecine, manufacturing or tourism etc ...

.

Let's apply your own test. Name a famous person in contemporary society married to each of a taxi driver, an accountant, a doctor, a factory worker and a hotel clerk.

4th June 2007, 04:27 PM

Well, I'm curious, Lonewulf.

Name me a man from an ancient society who is famed for marrying a high-class prostitute.

Try King David or King Soloman. Both allegedly had, in their retinue of concubines and wives, a number of high-society prostitutes, from a time when prostitution was not seen as a bad thing.

Prostitution even in the U.S. was legal until fairly recently. It was the extensive proliferation of bigoted religious fundamentalists that forced most prostitution to go underground.

Gnu, you're obviously not a scholar of history, are you?

Modern conservatism, fueled by religious fundamentalism, led to several events that changed society - some we accept as granted, and some that we have since overturned, or are in the process of so doing. I think the only reason there's not a big push to legalize prostitution, is there isn't a big push to enforce the laws against it. Legal action against prostitutes in the U.S., for example, is little more than a mild irritation to the prostitutes. Ladies are rounded up and released in cycles, but other than occasional drug busts, nothing ever comes of all these arrests. In fact, many police forces are fully aware of the population of working ladies, and use them as sources of information in criminal investigations.

After all, when we compare prostitution to drug distribution, child slavery, etc., prostitution becomes an extremely low priority crime.

Your posts are very weak lately on this subject, too... without meaning to, you've inferred several times that prostitution is not respectable because it's criminal... which means, simply, that legalizing it will cause it to become respectable.

Certainly in places where it is legal, it is also respected. (Hence your desire to avoid talking about places where it's legal!)

The indication is clear - any profession that we criminalize, we lose respect for; and any profession we decriminalize, we gain respect for. Since the largest problems with prostitution stem from the profession's criminal status, the solution to all the problems with prostitution should be clear and simple: legalize prostitution.

Simple.

Loss Leader

4th June 2007, 04:39 PM

Well, I'm curious, Lonewulf.

Name me a man from an ancient society who is famed for marrying a high-class prostitute. No googling - if you have to google him, he can't be famous...

As I have previously said, The Epic of Gilgamesh, the first work of literature in human history, features the coupling of Enkidu with the prostitute Shambat.

Some say these individuals may have been real. They were certainly well respected.

ruach1

4th June 2007, 04:47 PM

Bunny Raunch

what i saw when i first read AW's post. Thought funny it was :)

Gnu Ordure

4th June 2007, 05:02 PM

From the middle ages? In Japan?

I do not memorize Japanese history.

I didn't specify that, lonewulf.

You said :

In ancient societies, high-class prostitutes could bring status and fame to those that they married.

So I asked for an example, ok ?

Is that too much to ask ?

As you say, fame then may not equate to fame now...

So, at least give me an example of someone who achieved fame 'then'...

While you're thinkimg about it, explain why the rule changed. In ancient societies, a man could achieve status and fame by marrying a high-class prostitute... But you can't do that these days, apparently ... why is that ?

Some names were given already, earlier in this thread. You do read posts, don't you?

I must have missed that. Give me a surname to search for, I'll have a look....

Taxi-driving? I did not realize taxi-driving was a high-class profession

Who said anything about 'high-class' ? I was talking about legitimacy. In most societies, being a taxi-driver is a legitimate occupation, whereas prostitution is not.

G.

Gnu Ordure

4th June 2007, 05:10 PM

Try King David or King Soloman. Both allegedly had, in their retinue of concubines and wives, a number of high-society prostitutes, from a time when prostitution was not seen as a bad thing.

You miss the point, z.

David and Solomon did not achieve fame by marrying prostitutes.

They were famous people who used prostitutes.

Gnu, you're obviously not a scholar of history, are you?

No, I'm not, but I still know how to spell Solomon.

Gnu.

The Great Hairy One

4th June 2007, 05:15 PM

Well, I went to look for some evidence, tgho, and found Melissa Farley, but apparently she's disqualified because she's a feminist, or because she has political opinions, or something.

Never mind that she's been a practising qualified psychologist for more than 40 years.

I'm a feminist too, by the way. Does that disqualify me from this discussion as well ?

The reason I state that Melissa Farley should be discounted is because she's an anti-sex feminist. She quite clearly states that all sex work, regardless of type, is extremely harmful to women. She is of the same mould as Andrea Dworkin and Catharine MacKinnon. This type of feminist has a basic belief that anything involving men and sex is Bad(tm), and that all women are victims. This means that her research is not objective. It has a major bias inherent within it, and needs to be examined with that clearly in mind.

Finding objective research on prostitution is difficult - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution and follow some of the links at the bottom of the page. It's quickly obvious that there really is no consensus on what researchers think about prostitution, it really does seem to depend on the researcher's personal bias. (Yes, this includes both pro- and anti-sex researchers.) The majority of research is thus coloured by the researcher's views, and one has to take a balanced approach, using both pro- and anti-sex papers.

This is one article I've referred to in the past, it's an academic piece by a researcher here in Australia:
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/lcj/working/index.html
but even that one has its detractors.

Being a feminist oneself doesn't preclude one from entering the discussion, but be aware that personal bias will also colour your perceptions.

I said :

and tgho replied :

... unfortunately, that is rather most of the planet, isn't it ?

Yes, unfortunately the majority of the world has not yet legalised prostitution. I'm glad I'm living in a country which has, and I hope the rest of the world follows along soon.

So the facts remain...

My observations about prostitution pertain to prostitution now , not in some hypothetical future. I agree that global decriminalization would significantly reduce the incidence of physical and sexual assault. But we don't have that yet, do we ?

As things stand, right now, prostitution globally is mostly a highly dangerous profession, potentially very damaging to its practitioners' mental and physical health.

And anecdotal examples of happily-married prostitutes in enlightened places such as Nevada and New Zealand do not alter the wider picture.

I said that prostitution is not a respectable profession - on the whole, it is criminalized, marginalized, and its practitioners denied human rights such as a written employment contract, the right to belong to a union, and basic health and safety.

Some of you say that this is simply the result of its illegality - remove the illegality, and these problems would disappear.

This is basically true. If the problems that most prostitutes face is due to the illegal nature of their profession, then removing the illegality would remove the majority of these problems.

Here in Australia, once prostitution was legalised, the incidents of assault and violence against prostitutes dramatically dropped. The incidents of health issues of sex workers also dramatically dropped, as these people could now apply for government health benefits. Yes, they also now have to pay income tax, but this is a small price to pay for legitimacy.

Basically, your argument here falls over once prostitution is legalised.

Which begs the question: why was it criminalized in the first place, and why, given its reputation as 'the world's oldest profession', has it never become a legitimate profession ?

Easy.

Because it's not respectable.

Why is prostitution seen as non-respectable? There are two answers to this question:

1) Religion

2) Criminalisation

Removing the illegality of prostitution solves one of these issues. The religion issue is a lot more problematic, and will take a lot longer to solve.

I asked why one might object to one's wife becoming a prostitute; tgho said:

... thus proving my point. The vast majority of human societies are based on monogamy (legally or psychologically). Prostitutes in those societies therefore become undesirable as a girl-friend or partner or wife to the majority of men in their society.

Anecdotal rebuttals notwithstanding.

No, that's my personal view. As I also noted, I have several friends who are in polygamous relationships, presumably one partner using the services of a prostitute, or having a prostitute as a partner would not be an issue there.

The argument of the monogamous basis of human society is completely off the track. We've ample evidence that humans are not really monogamous - if this was the case, then prostitution, adultery and polygamy simply would not exist.

The meaning of the experience changes. Therefore the experience changes.

I really don't see that you have a valid argument here. Sex is sex, and very enjoyable sex can be had between complete strangers who only met minutes before. The exchanging of money does not change the physical act of sex in the slightest.

I think this is more a personal bias of your own. Many, many people use the service of prostitutes every single day. If the sex one obtained from a professional was different, or not as enjoyable, than the sex one obtained from a partner in a relationship, prostitution would have died out a long time ago.

Cheers,
TGHO

Gnu Ordure

4th June 2007, 05:40 PM

The indication is clear - any profession that we criminalize, we lose respect for; and any profession we decriminalize, we gain respect for. Since the largest problems with prostitution stem from the profession's criminal status, the solution to all the problems with prostitution should be clear and simple: legalize prostitution.

Simple.

Fair enough.

But it hasn't happened, has it ?

There's been ample opportunity, over hundreds of years, for prostitution to become mainstream and legitimate...

but it's never happened.

why do you think that is ?

Let's apply your own test. Name a famous person in contemporary society married to each of a taxi driver, an accountant, a doctor, a factory worker and a hotel clerk.

I could do that, jon.

Off the top of my head, Neil Young is married to a nurse, Bob Dylan's wife was a teacher, Billy Connolly's wife is a therapist (or Pamela Stevenson's husband is a comedian, as you wish)... I'm sure I could find other equally mundane examples... so what's your point, exactly ?

My question remains :

While you're at it, name me a famous man in contemporary society who is married to a working prostitute.

.

toddjh

4th June 2007, 06:32 PM

There's been ample opportunity, over hundreds of years, for prostitution to become mainstream and legitimate...

but it's never happened.

Who says? It's always been mainstream, no matter how much the snobbery of any particular era might want to pretend to look the other way, and yes, it's even been legitimate, in some forms, in many cultures. Just because modern Western society isn't one of them doesn't mean anything.

mylfmyhnr

4th June 2007, 08:23 PM

I don't understand, myl. I understand (I think) that you decided to trust your partner more than you'd trusted anyone before... with the evidently happy result that your trust was reciprocated and love grew and led to marriage...

So what price did you pay, exactly ? You didn't buy your husband, did you ?

And he didn't buy you ?

But you say the price you paid was your 'elevated sense of trust'.

I don't know what you mean by that, sorry..

Gnu.
I'm trying to decide if you being purposefully obtuse, or really don't understand. You ask if I paid in money, but my point was that I paid in something, someone going to a prostitute simply pays in cash. Different tender, still an exchange.

You said that: "So there can be no price on loving sex - and so it can't be bought"

But my whole entire point is that a price paid doesn't have anything to do with "being bought".

This whole disagreement started with the idea that someone else sees casual sex as enjoyable as relationship sex. You don't, and from there you and I managed to start our own little quest to understand what the definition of "is" is. We get that you don't do casual, and don't care for casual... So, don't do casual. That others do like casual is really up to them. The definition of casual is different for you than, say, Z. (Though I'm in no way claiming to know what Z's definition of casual is. I'm just using him as an example. From what I've read I don't think he'll mind too much my using him:D ) You take the idea that in casual sex you're on the couch, necking... It's exciting, wondering how far she'll let you go, thrilling in the next touch, etc. But, again, this isn't everyone's idea of "casual". Oft times it's well understood between 2 people where the evening is headed, there are no games, no wondering where it's going to lead. That kind of casual is very much the same as with a prostitute, except in that case she isn't there because she digs you, but because you're paying her. You have decided that for you this is unacceptable, and that's fine, but don't assume that because the one is void of emotional attachment that it is somehow false, fake and demeaning. Sex can be false, fake and demeaning without ever a cent exchanging hands.

Hokulele

4th June 2007, 10:29 PM

Name me a man from an ancient society who is famed for marrying a high-class prostitute. No googling - if you have to google him, he can't be famous...

Napoleon Bonaparte. He needed a rich wife to fund his ambitions. She earned the money she brought to the table in a way you apparently would not approve of. In addition, they were lovers before they married.

Gnu Ordure

5th June 2007, 06:52 AM

Napoleon Bonaparte. He needed a rich wife to fund his ambitions. She earned the money she brought to the table in a way you apparently would not approve of. In addition, they were lovers before they married.

I was unaware of that Hokulele; after a quick google, I'm afraid I'm still unaware of it.

Assuming you're referring to his first wife, Josephine, her wiki article does not describe her as a prostitute, and there's no indication that she was particularly wealthy.

As for Napoleon needing a rich wife to fund his ambitions... at the time they met in December 1795, he had been a professional soldier for ten years, and had attained the rank of Brigadier-General, just about to be given command of the French army which invaded Italy in March 1796, days after his wedding to Josephine.

So I reckon he was doing pretty well without her.

And I found no evidence that this invasion of Italy was funded by Josephine's money.

And for the nth time, I do not regard prostitution as immoral or unethical, and so don't 'disapprove' of it.

I'm trying to decide if you being purposefully obtuse, or really don't understand.

I really don't understand, myl. You say :

You ask if I paid in money, but my point was that I paid in something

I'm asking you what the something is that you paid.

You said the price you paid was your 'elevated sense of trust'.

I still don't know what you mean by that, sorry..

This whole disagreement started with the idea that someone else sees casual sex as enjoyable as relationship sex. You don't,

No, you've misunderstood me, myl. The distinction is between paid-for-sex, a commercial transaction on the one hand, and non-commercial sex on the other.

Non-commercial sex might be lust or love, committed or casual, deep or superficial - either way, hopefully it will be reciprocal, mutual, respectful and balanced (it may not be these things, of course).

So I don't have a problem with casual sex, myl.

Oft times it's well understood between 2 people where the evening is headed, there are no games, no wondering where it's going to lead.

agreed, myl...

That kind of casual is very much the same as with a prostitute,...

... in the sense that there's no doubt about what's going to happen, agreed.

But

... except in that case she isn't there because she digs you, but because you're paying her.

Exactly.

The reciprocity and mutuality evaporate. You're no longer two lovers (or friends, or stangers), both doing something because you dig it and because you dig each other.

You're a prostitute and a john. The woman's desire and preferences become irrelevant; the encounter focuses on the man's satisfaction, not hers. Who cares whether she comes or not ?

(Does a john, having had his orgasm, considerately enquire of the prostitute whether she has come herself, and if she hasn't, perhaps he could help her to do so ? No, he doesn't, and she'd laugh at him if he did).

It's not that kind of relationship any more.

as tgho said :

Mutual pleasure is the primary purpose of sex.

Agreed, tgho. And the purpose of paid-for-sex is not mutual pleasure.

Money has killed the mutuality stone dead - the concept of reciprocal enjoyment no longer applies.

The sexual attraction is only flowing one way (usually).

Which is why the experience of commercial sex is very different to that of freely-given sex.

Not worse - just different.

Gnu.

Hokulele

5th June 2007, 08:03 AM

I was unaware of that Hokulele; after a quick google, I'm afraid I'm still unaware of it.

Assuming you're referring to his first wife, Josephine, her wiki article does not describe her as a prostitute, and there's no indication that she was particularly wealthy.

As for Napoleon needing a rich wife to fund his ambitions... at the time they met in December 1795, he had been a professional soldier for ten years, and had attained the rank of Brigadier-General, just about to be given command of the French army which invaded Italy in March 1796, days after his wedding to Josephine.

So I reckon he was doing pretty well without her.

And I found no evidence that this invasion of Italy was funded by Josephine's money.

Yes, Wiki is such a complete source. :rolleyes:

Try this PBS site (http://www.pbs.org/empires/napoleon/n_josephine/courtship/page_1.html) (the show is where I first learned about her history), and then read the links, articles, and translations of letters.

Jon.

5th June 2007, 10:40 AM

Let's apply your own test. Name a famous person in contemporary society married to each of a taxi driver, an accountant, a doctor, a factory worker and a hotel clerk.

I could do that, jon.

Off the top of my head, Neil Young is married to a nurse, Bob Dylan's wife was a teacher, Billy Connolly's wife is a therapist (or Pamela Stevenson's husband is a comedian, as you wish)... I'm sure I could find other equally mundane examples... so what's your point, exactly ?

I'd like to see your cite for Bob Dylan and Neil Young's wives. Young's first wife was a film actress; I have not been able to find a profession for his second wife Pegi except that she was trained as a singer. Dylan's first wife was a Playboy bunny and fashion model; his second wife was one of his backup singers.

Besides, I didn't ask about nurse or teacher or therapist. I asked for the five professions you said were less respectable than prostitution. Your inability to name famous people with spouses in these professions shows that there is not necessarily a link between the respectability of a particular profession and the likelihood of a famous person marrying someone in that profession.

Gnu Ordure

5th June 2007, 05:33 PM

Yes, Wiki is such a complete source.

I know that, Hokulele, but it's good place to start.

I read the first two pages of your link, there's no reference to Josephine being a prostitute. She had an arranged marriage when she was 16, but that doesn't make her a prostitute.

After the death of her husband in the Revolution, she became at various times the mistress of various people - but a mistress is not a prostitute (especially in France, where the role is more formalized and accepted than in most societies).

And in spite of your program's assertion that Napoleon needed a rich wife (why? he was already one of the most senior figures in the Army), it fails to explain why he then married a poor one.

According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica (my bolding) :

Married in a civil ceremony on March 9, 1796, Joséphine was an indifferent wife, declining to answer the future emperor's passionate love letters and, while he was campaigning in Egypt in 1798–99, flirting with another army officer in a most compromising manner. Bonaparte threatened to divorce her, but her children dissuaded him, and he eventually forgave her, even agreeing to pay the enormous debts she had accumulated

Furtrhermore, Britannica's article on Josephine at no point refers to her as a prostitute.

May I suggest, Hokulele, that you find a less contentious example ?

I'd like to see your cite for Bob Dylan and Neil Young's wives.

luckily, Jon, I was speaking 'off the top of my head', which as a lawyer you must know is code for 'guessing' (or at least, 'having a vague memory of').

I did spend 10 minutes trying to google 'celebrities partners profession', but couldn't find a list...

My point remains. Prostitution is not a respectable profession. If any celebrity was married to a prostitute, it would be big news, and we'd know about it.

Besides, I didn't ask about nurse or teacher or therapist. I asked for the five professions you said were less respectable than prostitution.

er.. what ? less respectable ?

I said :

Prostitution does not, on the whole, globally speaking, have the same legitimacy as accountancy, taxi-driving, medecine, manufacturing or tourism etc ...

Your inability to name famous people with spouses in these professions shows that there is not necessarily a link between the respectability of a particular profession and the likelihood of a famous person marrying someone in that profession.

I can't name an author married to an accountant because I'm not very good at googling; and a name doesn't spring to mind because it's not a very interesting fact anyway.

My request remains : name me a respected member of contemporary society who is married to a working prostitute.

Prostitution is not a respectable profession (personal qualities of individual prostitutes notwithstanding).

Prostitutes don't open shopping-malls; they don't advertise coffee; they don't get awarded MBE's for services to society; they don't appear on Big Brother - they don't become celebrities (how marginalized is that ?) ...

... when men register at a Dating Agency, and they are asked for their preferences in terms of their prospective partner's profession: none of them write : 'prostitute'.

Why is that ?

(Want a citation for that, Jon ? You got me, it was another wild guess.)

Some of you have accused me of living in a Disney movie, because I made certain statements about the nature of love, as I understand it.

(Which is not a problem, I assure you. I fully understand that anyone pontificating in a public forum about the nature of true love deserves everything he gets. If it wasn't me doing the pontificating, I'd be joining in with you guys, believe me).

I say some of you are in your own movie; you're living in Pretty Woman territory; prostitution at the top-end, risk-free and beautifully-lit; beautiful people transcending the commerce to develop a real relationship and a happy ending...

... like Todd planning his trip to Vegas:

I have absolutely no problem with the idea of paying for sex. I haven't had reason to do it yet, but sure, under the right circumstances I would consider it. My wife has told me that she wants to take me out to a brothel in Nevada as a present sometime, and you know what? I'd let her!

Can I give you some advice, Todd ?

Don't do that.

Or at least, don't do it until you've fully examined your motivation for so doing; and your wife's. And until you've imagined and examined the possible consequences of whatever might occur.

I don't know your exact circumstances, Todd, so these points may or may not apply...

1. Your wife, in spite of what she says, may be inconsolably distressed by the thought of you being in bed with someone half her age; offering something (youth) that she can no longer offer.

2. She may be distressed by the idea that you did things with the prostitute that you never did with her (and she won't know exactly what you did anyway - another cause of concern).

3. If you having sex with a prostitute transgresses your wedding vows (if it constitutes adultery, which you have never previously committed), are you both going to be comfortable with that ?

4. And what if you like it so much, Todd, that you want to do it again ? Then what ? Your wife can't object: she gave it to you as a present once, why not give it to you again ? Next Friday, perhaps, with one of your local prostitutes ? Why not ?

Unsolicited advice, I know.

But I still think the concerns I've raised (and it's not a complete list) are valid, and if you value your marriage, I'd seriously advise you to consider them before you jeopardize it.

Or ignore me.

As you wish.

Gnu.

slingblade

5th June 2007, 05:54 PM

I 1. Your wife, in spite of what she says, may be distressed by the thought of you being in bed with someone half her age; offering something (youth) that she can no longer offer.

Or she may be mature enough to know that sex isn't love, and generous enough to offer her husband a gift. Women like that...we do exist.

2. She may be distressed by the idea that you did things with the prostitute that you don't do with her (and she won't know exactly what you did anyway - another cause of concern).

If you had ever been to a legal house, you would know that money can buy you anything. They do couples, you know. They let your spouse watch, if you want it. The customers aren't solely men. :jaw-dropp

3. If you having sex with a prostitute transgresses your wedding vows (if it constitutes adultery, which you have never previously committed), are you both going to be comfortable with that ?

I'm assuming they've both thought of that.

My husband and I feel that if you have your partner's consent, it isn't cheating. It isn't adultery. My husband has had a "pink ticket" for years. And having lived with a truly adulterous spouse, I can tell you that this way doesn't hurt. It's the lying, sneaking, and making a total fool of you that hurts.

Besides, he's never really used it. He says knowing he can makes it uninteresting. ;) I'm not stupid.

4. And what if you like it so much, Todd, that you want to do it again ? Then what ? Your wife can't object: she gave it to you as a present once, why not give it to you again ? Next Friday, perhaps, with one of your local prostitutes ? Why not ?

Todd would have to be a fairly wealthy man to afford that, trust me.
Besides, I assume his wife has a mouth and a brain and can use both. I assume he has a brain, too.

The Great Hairy One

5th June 2007, 05:57 PM

Exactly.

The reciprocity and mutuality evaporate. You're no longer two lovers (or friends, or stangers), both doing something because you dig it and because you dig each other.

You're a prostitute and a john. The woman's desire and preferences become irrelevant; the encounter focuses on the man's satisfaction, not hers. Who cares whether she comes or not ?

(Does a john, having had his orgasm, considerately enquire of the prostitute whether she has come herself, and if she hasn't, perhaps he could help her to do so ? No, he doesn't, and she'd laugh at him if he did).

It's not that kind of relationship any more.

as tgho said :

Agreed, tgho. And the purpose of paid-for-sex is not mutual pleasure.

Money has killed the mutuality stone dead - the concept of reciprocal enjoyment no longer applies.

The sexual attraction is only flowing one way (usually).

Which is why the experience of commercial sex is very different to that of freely-given sex.

Not worse - just different.

Gnu.

It's quite possible for a prostitute to have an orgasm during sex with a client. It's quite possible for a prostitute to enjoy sex with a client. It's quite possible for one of the partners not to orgasm during a one-night stand. It's quite possible to enjoy a sexual encounter without anyone orgasming.

I can see the angle you're getting at now (please correct me if I am wrong) - you're trying to say that since the prostitute has been paid, he/she has no right to say no to the client. She/he has to basically service the client regardless. Well, this is generally not the case. Prostitutes can still say no. They can reject clients they do not want to deal with, they can refuse to perform certain sexual acts, and they can how and when to terminate the interaction. They can even decide to enjoy the procedure, if they want.

Furthermore, from what little I have read of the writings of prostitutes, a large number of clients don't just "use" prostitutes for sex, but also for conversation and physical closeness with another human being. Grab any book written by a prostitute or ex-prostitute, and the anecdotes they tell usually include clients who are simply lonely. The sex occurs, sure, but conversations occur too.

Cheers,
TGHO

Gnu Ordure

5th June 2007, 07:50 PM

Or she may be mature enough to know that sex isn't love, and generous enough to offer her husband a gift.

quite possibly, slingblade... but that doesn't alter the the possibility that Mrs Todd might still be distressed by what has happened ... whether she watches it, or imagines it. So it's possibly worth raising the question in advance.

If you had ever been to a legal house, you would know that money can buy you anything.

That is not true. In Nevada, a man has to use a condom for oral sex and intercourse. That's the law. If money buys you condom-free sex in a legal house, the system's corrupt.

And for the majority of prostitutes, you cannot even buy a kiss. You can stick anything anywhere else, but you can't put your lips on hers.

I'm assuming they've both thought of that.

And I was thinking they might not have done.

Todd would have to be a fairly wealthy man to afford that, trust me.

And maybe he is a wealthy man...

Besides, I assume his wife has a mouth and a brain and can use both. I assume he has a brain, too.

Maybe they do, maybe they don't, I don't know.

I'm only asking.

As I said, feel free to ignore me.

.

Wheezebucket

5th June 2007, 07:55 PM

That is not true. In Nevada, a man has to use a condom for oral sex and intercourse. That's the law. If money buys you condom-free sex in a legal house, the system's corrupt.

And for the majority of prostitutes, you cannot even buy a kiss. You can stick anything anywhere else, but you can't put your lips on hers.

You finally got *one* thing right - you do need to wear a condom for oral sex in the legalized states - and for good reason. However, you've been watching a wee bit too much Pretty Woman, as kissing is not only allowed, but the norm. Another example of your ignorance.

Again - this is not a Disney movie, nor is this an episode of 7th Heaven. In the real world, adults can be mature about their sex lives. Couples can, in fact, discuss these things and come to the conlcusion that it'd be a fun thing to participate in. Open, healthy relationships exist. Women are not just brainless, victimized little sex tools, as you seem to think (even in relationships you don't give them any credit). Some of us like to treat women with respect unlike, apparently, you.

Let me know when you've caught up to 2007.

toddjh

5th June 2007, 08:01 PM

IMy point remains. Prostitution is not a respectable profession. If any celebrity was married to a prostitute, it would be big news, and we'd know about it.

Tom Sizemore was engaged to Heidi Fleiss. They weren't actually married, but hey, it's close.

they don't become celebrities (how marginalized is that ?)

Some porn stars (who are arguably a form of prostitute) have definitely become celebrities, if minor ones. And Heidi Fleiss was a bit of a celebrity herself, back in the day.

Can I give you some advice, Todd ?

Don't do that.

Thanks, but I'm happy to say we've already talked about and dealt with most of the issues you bring up. This isn't exactly our first foray into "extracurricular activities," just the first time we plan on going to a professional. And, like slingblade said (thanks for leaping to my defense! :blush:), my wife might even be in the room, or in a room of her own. It all depends on our moods when we get there, and how many drinks we have at the bar. :)

We've had an open relationship since we first started going out, which has been a very good thing for us. I think strict monogamy is an unrealistic standard to expect of anyone (and the statistics agree with me), but even more so for us. We started dating at a very young age and we were each the first real partner for the other. If we'd tried to be strictly monogamous, then I think one or both of us would've become very bitter at missed experiences or would've ended up cheating with all the hurt feelings and destruction of trust that go along with it. By talking it through we managed to find a middle ground where we could all be happy and comfortable with everything.

4. And what if you like it so much, Todd, that you want to do it again ? Then what ? Your wife can't object: she gave it to you as a present once, why not give it to you again ? Next Friday, perhaps, with one of your local prostitutes ? Why not ?

Well, obviously you haven't seen my local prostitutes or you wouldn't have said that last part. :p

But who knows. It might become an occasional thing (it couldn't be more than occasional or else I'd go bankrupt!). Or it might not. Depends how it works out. My wife wouldn't mind, apart from the amount of money we'd be throwing away.

But I still think the concerns I've raised (and it's not a complete list) are valid, and if you value your marriage, I'd seriously advise you to consider them before you jeopardize it.

I appreciate it, but if I can give a brief counter-rant of my own on the same general topic, I think there are just as many pitfalls in trying to maintain a "normal" marriage as there are in having an unusual sex life. People who don't know how much time and effort my wife and I have put into communication and reassurance often give me warnings like yours about the potential problems, but rarely do I see anyone giving people in a traditional marriage an itemized list of things that could go wrong there.

And this isn't just free love hippie-talk either, although the rest of what I've said might give that impression. The last I heard, infidelity was the number one reason for divorce and, in America at least, about half of married women and upwards of two thirds of married men end up cheating at one time or another. Infidelity is the norm, not an aberration, and I think anybody who enters into marriage without having talked about that reality at length and worked through any issues they have, just like you're advising my wife and me to do, is setting themselves up for a huge fall. In my opinion, traditional marriage is even more dangerous, because there's a huge amount of social pressure to conform, which gives people the idea that it's supposed to be easy and might even force people into a type of relationship they're just not able to handle.

5th June 2007, 08:04 PM

It's nice to see there are more of us in the world... Todd and Sling.

I enjoy being the observer, for that matter - it only makes me love my wife more.

Hokulele

5th June 2007, 08:04 PM

toddjh, consider your post pseudo-nominated for The Language Award.

("Pseudo-nominated" as I am not sure if you would appreciate your thoughts being circulated outside this thread.)

Gnu Ordure

5th June 2007, 08:05 PM

I can see the angle you're getting at now (please correct me if I am wrong) - you're trying to say that since the prostitute has been paid, he/she has no right to say no to the client

er, you're wrong, tgho, I'm not trying to say that - where did you get that from ?

Prostitutes offer a different range of services. Hopefully they are in charge of the range they offer. In which case they're free to say no to the client at any point.

So I don't quite get your point...

The Great Hairy One

5th June 2007, 08:17 PM

er, you're wrong, tgho, I'm not trying to say that - where did you get that from ?

Prostitutes offer a different range of services. Hopefully they are in charge of the range they offer. In which case they're free to say no to the client at any point.

So I don't quite get your point...

I was inferring from your comments, reading between the lines. Obviously, I was incorrect. You're saying that the exchange of money removes the mutuality out of the equation, I am not sure it does. *shrug* Neither of us can really provide evidence here, we're just arguing opinion at this point.

Cheers,
TGHO

Gnu Ordure

5th June 2007, 08:24 PM

Todd,

Thanks for that honest reply; I see that you are aware of the risks and you and your wife have addressed the issues.

So good luck to you.

The issues are still worth raising, I hope, because lots of couples do drift into extra-marital sex of one kind or another without considering the consequences. And some marriages do break up as a result of the thoughtlessness.

And I'm relieved you weren't offended by me offering the unnecessary advice.

Gnu.

Wheezebucket

5th June 2007, 08:54 PM

The issues are still worth raising, I hope, because lots of couples do drift into extra-marital sex of one kind or another without considering the consequences. And some marriages do break up as a result of the thoughtlessness.

And this is in no way an argument against prostitution, or couples going to see prostitutes. It's about that couple and their relationship and where they stand personally on the subject and how they communicate to eachother.

Miss Anthrope

5th June 2007, 09:34 PM

Todd et al, you guys are definitely not alone.

Miss Anthrope

5th June 2007, 09:42 PM

Or she may be mature enough to know that sex isn't love, and generous enough to offer her husband a gift. Women like that...we do exist.

We do indeedie.:pibiggrin:

My husband and I feel that if you have your partner's consent, it isn't cheating. It isn't adultery. My husband has had a "pink ticket" for years. And having lived with a truly adulterous spouse, I can tell you that this way doesn't hurt. It's the lying, sneaking, and making a total fool of you that hurts.

Besides, he's never really used it. He says knowing he can makes it uninteresting. ;) I'm not stupid.

No ma'am, you're not. I've been in the same boat on both fronts. Lying, sneaking, and emotional abandonment are the true issues of betrayal. Sex can be both incredibly loving and it can be pure recreation. Some are able to experience and make the distinction.

I'm glad I'm catching up on where this thread has gone. Thanks for your candor, folks. I'm enjoying a loving, supportive, amazing partnership that is monogamy optional. We're still madly in love with each other, randy like bunnies, and amazingly connected after nearly a decade.

Gnu Ordure

6th June 2007, 05:56 AM

Wheezebucket, why are you the only one giving me abuse on this ?

And accusing me of all kinds of attitudes that I don't have ?

This is an interesting discussion primarily, at the moment, between Todd in Illinois, tgho in Australia and me in London, and given the very personal nature of the subject and the scope for cultural misunderstandings, I think we're doing very well so far.

Todd did not feel that I insulting his wife in what I said, and I wasn't. I was concerned about his proposal and I offered advice in good faith; Todd seems to have understood that and said thank you, even though my concerns turned out to be unwarranted.

Wheezebucket, you accused me before of seeing prostitutes as sub-human; I asked you where you got that from and you ignored my question.

Now you say:

Women are not just brainless, victimized little sex tools, as you seem to think

Where have I said that women are that ?

Where are you getting these ideas about me from ? (Are you stll mixing me up with GIA ? that would explain it).

I still contend, however, that the vast majority of prostitutes world-wide are victimized - the fact they this could be ameliorated by legalization is irrelevant - Prostitution is illegal (mostly), and the women are victimized.

Some of us like to treat women with respect unlike, apparently, you.

Well, that's ironic, given that one of my first points was that most prostitutes (globally) are treated with contempt, first by the societies/governments which create the laws that criminalize them, secondly by the individuals who use prostitutes and who therefore collude in the laws being broken, at little risk to themselves...

... because (wild-guess alert) in most countries, buying sex is not illegal, selling it is, so it's usually the women that get arrested and imprisoned if they can't bribe their way out of it.

And you accuse me of not respecting women myself when I try to raise these points ?

I don't think so.

Gnu.

Lonewulf

6th June 2007, 06:10 AM

I still contend, however, that the vast majority of prostitutes world-wide are victimized - the fact they this could be ameliorated by legalization is irrelevant - Prostitution is illegal (mostly), and the women are victimized.

And I'd fight to make it legal.

Jon.

6th June 2007, 11:58 AM

luckily, Jon, I was speaking 'off the top of my head', which as a lawyer you must know is code for 'guessing' (or at least, 'having a vague memory of').

I did spend 10 minutes trying to google 'celebrities partners profession', but couldn't find a list...

My point remains. Prostitution is not a respectable profession. If any celebrity was married to a prostitute, it would be big news, and we'd know about it.

Circular argument. You are trying to show that prostitution is not a respectable profession, because if a celebrity were married to a prostitute we'd know, because prostitution is not a respectable profession.

er.. what ? less respectable ?

Sorry. Fumble-fingers. Meant to say "more".

I can't name an author married to an accountant because I'm not very good at googling; and a name doesn't spring to mind because it's not a very interesting fact anyway.

My request remains : name me a respected member of contemporary society who is married to a working prostitute.

And my point remains: so what?

Prostitution is not a respectable profession (personal qualities of individual prostitutes notwithstanding).

Prostitutes don't open shopping-malls; they don't advertise coffee; they don't get awarded MBE's for services to society; they don't appear on Big Brother - they don't become celebrities (how marginalized is that ?) ...

... when men register at a Dating Agency, and they are asked for their preferences in terms of their prospective partner's profession: none of them write : 'prostitute'.

Why is that ?

(Want a citation for that, Jon ? You got me, it was another wild guess.)

I was not even aware that dating agencies ask men their preferences in terms of their prospective partners' profession. It would seem to me to narrow options unreasonably.

Lensman

6th June 2007, 11:19 PM

For those who want to abolish prostitution completely (not me), I think the best option would be to first legalise it & then nationalise it - nationalised businesses always fail eventually.

Tanstaafl

7th June 2007, 08:40 AM

Well, it might change people's reaction to hearing "I'm from the government and I'm here to help you"...

Civilized Worm

7th June 2007, 04:33 PM

I'm sure this has already been said but I feel very angry about the way prostitutes are either demonised or pitied by people simply because of the way they choose to make a living. Who are they hurting? No one. They're helping people by satisfying one of the most basic human needs. Who the f*** are you to tell them how to earn their way through life?

Prostitutes. male or female, are products of abuse by our societies.

Quotes like this are the kind of patronising bulls*** that pisses me off. These people don't need your help, they need you to leave them the hell alone.

Civilized Worm

7th June 2007, 04:41 PM

Some wanted five careers less respectable that prostitution, here you go: Lawyer, politician, tabloid journalist, soldier and preacher.

Funnily enough I was writing up a whole list of a proffesions I deemed less respectable than prostitution a few weeks ago but unfortunately it got wiped.

Tanstaafl

7th June 2007, 04:43 PM

I think you have to excavate an entire basement under those professions to fit televangelist in.

Civilized Worm

7th June 2007, 04:47 PM

I knew I was forgetting something obvious!

Loss Leader

8th June 2007, 06:25 PM

Some wanted five careers less respectable that prostitution, here you go: Lawyer, politician, tabloid journalist, soldier and preacher.

On behalf of the lawyers: Hey!

Miss Anthrope

8th June 2007, 06:38 PM

On behalf of the lawyers: Hey!

Not the awesome lawyers (Yourself included in said grouping). My family law attorney walks on water as far as I'm concerned. He can, however, tell lots of stories about the bad ones!

Adding to keep thread on topic: Now, you awesome lawyers need to help draft stuff to make prostitution legal.:pibiggrin:

JamesDillon

8th June 2007, 07:03 PM

Adding to keep thread on topic: Now, you awesome lawyers need to help draft stuff to make prostitution legal.

Not sure into which category of lawyer I fall (I like to think I'm pretty awesome, though), but we'd have quite a few centuries of precedent working against us on that one. America isn't exactly known for legalizing things just because they're impossible to prohibit, don't really harm anyone, and everyone involved would be better off were they legal. See, e.g., marijuana.

Miss Anthrope

8th June 2007, 07:32 PM

Not sure into which category of lawyer I fall (I like to think I'm pretty awesome, though), but we'd have quite a few centuries of precedent working against us on that one. America isn't exactly known for legalizing things just because they're impossible to prohibit, don't really harm anyone, and everyone involved would be better off were they legal. See, e.g., marijuana.

I was actually just being funny. Edited the post to add the necessary smiley.

Loss Leader

8th June 2007, 07:54 PM

Now, you awesome lawyers need to help draft stuff to make prostitution legal.

That's not a legal problem, it's a political one. Lawyers don't make law. Politicians do and those guys are barely even human.

toddjh

8th June 2007, 08:09 PM

That's not a legal problem, it's a political one. Lawyers don't make law. Politicians do and those guys are barely even human.

But on the other hand, they do visit an awful lot of prostitutes!

JamesDillon

8th June 2007, 08:18 PM

I was actually just being funny. Edited the post to add the necessary smiley.

Ah, yes. Humor. That's unfortunately part of the soul that is surgically removed upon law school graduation.

That's not a legal problem, it's a political one. Lawyers don't make law. Politicians do and those guys are barely even human.

(Psst-- just don't tell them how many politicians have law degrees!)

Harpoon

8th June 2007, 08:27 PM

That's not a legal problem, it's a political one. Lawyers don't make law. Politicians do and those guys are barely even human.

I thought most politicians WERE lawyers;) .

Loss, I'm sure you've heard all of 'em. But just in case...

When the Devil wanted to set up Hell next to Heaven, God agreed to give him the land if he built and maintained a barrier between the two. Eons later, the barrier is fallen down in spots and demons occasionally sneak across and pinch the angels' bottoms. God's pissed and complains to the Devil if he doesn't uphold his end of the bargain and fix the fence, He's going to sue.

"And where are You going to get a lawyer?" the Devil asked.:)

Gnu Ordure

10th June 2007, 07:14 PM

Circular argument. You are trying to show that prostitution is not a respectable profession, because if a celebrity were married to a prostitute we'd know, because prostitution is not a respectable profession.

Jon, I was presenting the demonstrable fact that celebritries don't marry prostititutes as evidence that prostitution is not respectable.

I'm not sure how that's circular.

It's not crucial to my argument though. There's loads of other evidence that prostitution is not respectable as a profession, and that prostitutes individually are not respected.

The most obvious evidence is the criminalization of the women.

90% of prostitutes globally are career criminals, like burglars, drug dealers, and fraudsters - ie the method by which they earn their living is illegal.

So my main premise is that "career criminals are not respected by society".

If anyone wants to challenge that, fair enough, but in the meantime the syllogism runs :

1. Career criminals are not respected by society
2. Most prostitutes are career criminals.
3. Therefore, those prostitutes are not respected by society.

I know some of you want to object that if prostitution were not illegal, it wouldn't be despised, which is possibly true. My point is that that is another world, maybe a century or more in the future...

Whereas in the real world, right here right now, my syllogism holds.

Unless someone points to the error in my logic, of course.

Jon, I admit my argument did go circular at one point. I said :

Which begs the question: why was it criminalized in the first place, and why, given its reputation as 'the world's oldest profession', has it never become a legitimate profession ?

Easy.

Because it's not respectable.

Let me try again .

Prostitution is an exchange between a buyer and a seller. In most of the societies in which prostitution is illegal, it is the seller alone who is criminalized. Why ?

(Could it have anything to do with the gender of the law-makers ?)

The same thinking applies to health checks. Sexually transmitted diseases travel both ways. The prostitute may infect the john, or vice-versa. So why is it that only the prostitutes have to have the tests ? Testing the johns wouldn't be that difficult, and would pay for itself by diagnosing male carriers at an early stage of disease.

For example (from wiki)

The Netherlands and Germany emphasise the public health aspect in their legislation by rigidly enforcing the periodic medical examination of prostitutes and by providing free compulsory hospitalisation for those found infected.

Get that ? "Compulsory hospitalisation for those found infected." But only for the women. Ignore the men who infected them. Why ?

I don't know.

I suggest the answers lie in pre-history, in biology, in gender roles and in the dominance of patriarchies. And elsewhere, no doubt.

Gnu.

PS

These people don't need your help, they need you to leave them the hell alone.

Some do, Worm, most don't. I've read recently that 65-70% of all prostitutes would like to get out of the profession.

And most of them are denied help in so doing because their activities are illegal, so if they ask the authorities for help, they are likely to be arrested.

Who are they hurting? No one.

It's far more likely that they're the ones being hurt. Where prostitution is illegal, the prostitutes are being exploited by the men that use them.

PS 2 - Todd - re your Tom Sizemore and Heidi Fleiss example (ignoring the fact that she wasn't a working prostitute at the time) - wiki says :

Sizemore, who had long battled drug addiction, was convicted in 2003 of assault and battery against his girlfriend, the former "Hollywood Madam" Heidi Fleiss.[2] Sizemore was then sentenced to 17 months in jail

So, engagement notwithstanding, it became an abusive relationship, right ?

I suggest this supports my position. I'm guessing that Sizemore felt more justified in being violent towards Fleiss because she was an (ex)prostitute - exactly the same mind-set that fuels the physical and sexual violence perpretated against prostitutes generally.

I don't the details of the case though...

Either way Todd, it's not really a good example of a prostititute transcending her background, is it ?

toddjh

10th June 2007, 11:39 PM

I know some of you want to object that if prostitution were not illegal, it wouldn't be despised, which is possibly true. My point is that that is another world, maybe a century or more in the future...

Whereas in the real world, right here right now, my syllogism holds.

Well, except that you're overgeneralizing. You use the word "prostitutes" when you mean "illegal prostitutes" specifically. If you were to use the term "illegal prostitutes" in all your posts, to make it clear exactly to whom you were referring, I think there would be much less confusion, and possibly less disagreement.

Prostitution is an exchange between a buyer and a seller. In most of the societies in which prostitution is illegal, it is the seller alone who is criminalized. Why ?

Er, I don't think that's the case, at least in the US. Johns are busted alongside hookers; there are even undercover operations to catch them. But if there is less effort devoted to catching johns, I think it's the same logic used to justify going after drug dealers more than buyers -- attack the supply, not the demand.

The same thinking applies to health checks. Sexually transmitted diseases travel both ways. The prostitute may infect the john, or vice-versa. So why is it that only the prostitutes have to have the tests? Testing the johns wouldn't be that difficult, and would pay for itself by diagnosing male carriers at an early stage of disease.

In the legal brothels in Nevada, clients are checked visually for symptoms of disease before any of the fun stuff starts. They don't do a blood test, but that would be prohibitively invasive, and require lab equipment (and staff to operate it) at every location. It just wouldn't be practical.

Plus I don't see any compelling need. With mandatory latex condom use, STD rates among legal prostitutes are far below rates in the general population, and there's never been a single case of HIV among legal Nevada prostitutes, unless it's happened very recently.

Put simply, the current system works and it's practical. Additional measures are unnecessary and would hurt business.

Get that ? "Compulsory hospitalisation for those found infected." But only for the women. Ignore the men who infected them. Why ?

Probably because they have no idea who they are? A whorehouse that wasn't discreet wouldn't stay in business long.

Some do, Worm, most don't. I've read recently that 65-70% of all prostitutes would like to get out of the profession.

Illegal prostitutes, you mean. Legal prostitutes can get out of the business just by walking out the door.

I suggest this supports my position. I'm guessing that Sizemore felt more justified in being violent towards Fleiss because she was an (ex)prostitute

Dude, it's Tom Sizemore, don't overanalyze. I'm guessing he felt more justified in being violent because he was on freaking crystal meth.

pgwenthold

11th June 2007, 08:14 AM

Some do, Worm, most don't. I've read recently that 65-70% of all prostitutes would like to get out of the profession.

As opposed to, say, that big fraction of McDonald's workers who want to stay working for the golden arches?

I don't even think you could find 30-35% of McDonald's MANAGERS who would not "like to get out of their profession."

Gnu Ordure

12th June 2007, 04:01 PM

You use the word "prostitutes" when you mean "illegal prostitutes" specifically

I am trying not to be ambiguous, Todd. But sometimes there's no need to specify. If I say "65-70% of all prostitutes would like to get out of the profession', it doesn't matter too much if I really meant 65-70% of 90% of all prostitutes, does it ? (well, it matters 10%, which is quite a lot, but not enough to affect the gist of what I'm trying to say)

Before, you said :

Some porn stars (who are arguably a form of prostitute) have definitely become celebrities,

Well, I'll argue with that (in order to support my case that prostitution is not a respectable profession).

Porn-stars are not prostitutes.

(Unless your defintion of 'prostitute' is 'some-one who has sex for money').

A porn-star has sex for money, yes. But there are two conditions that differentiate what they do from prostitution.

First, they are not being paid by the person they're having sex with. They're both being paid by a third party. The relationship between the participants is therefore equal - there is no ulterior transaction, and it cannot be exploitative.

Second, the purpose of the sex, unlike in prostitution, is not the sexual satisfaction of the participants (or the producer who pays them), but the production of a film.

As long as these conditions are met, porn-stars are respectable members of society. They can be publicly proud of what they do, they can have their annual award ceremonies, they can enjoy their celebrity and get rich, they can appear on album covers or cross over into straight acting...

(Hence, porn-stars can do what legal prostitutes can't. They can have sex without a condom if they want to, just like you and me).

Illegal prostitutes can't do any of that.

And as far as I know, legal prostitutes don't either. Happy to be corrected there: in places where prostitution is legal, do individual prostitutes become celebrities ? Are the 'best' prostitutes recognized as such, and publicly celebrated ? Please tell me, Kiwis, Aussies and Nevadans (or Nevadians ? sorry I don't know) I'm curious.

Gnu.

Jon.

12th June 2007, 04:26 PM

A lot of what I would have said has been said already in this thread, but I would like to ask for evidence for this statement:

90% of prostitutes globally are career criminals, like burglars, drug dealers, and fraudsters - ie the method by which they earn their living is illegal.

In many parts of the world, prostitution is legal and regulated. Even in Canada, prostitution is not illegal (communicating in a public place for the purpose of prostitution is illegal, but sex for money is legal). In most of Europe, there are legal red-light districts and brothels. I don't know about much of South America, Asia or Africa, but Australia has legalized prostitution (may vary from state to state). I very much doubt that your 90% figure is accurate.

The Great Hairy One

12th June 2007, 04:33 PM

Don't forget New Zealand has legalised prostitution as well. There's a few other places around the world where it is also legal (mentioned earlier in this thread).

Cheers,
TGHO

12th June 2007, 05:49 PM

It is also legal in Korea, Japan, and (IIRC) Thailand. Not sure about China.

Gnu Ordure

12th June 2007, 06:09 PM

Hokulele

12th June 2007, 06:49 PM

Prostitution is not illegal in India (http://www.answers.com/topic/prostitution-in-india).

Greatest I am

13th June 2007, 06:04 AM

So what you're saying is that paying for sex is beneath men? Is it beneath women as well?

GIA wrote
Yes.

How about one-night stands? Is that also beneath men?

GIA wrote
It cheapens both but far less than prostitution.

You position (at this point) appears to be that the only sexual relationship worthy of men is one involving a loving, committed relationship. Aside from the exceptionally old-fashioned nature of this thinking, do you have any actual evidence that this is true?

GIA wrote
You place me in the wrong position as per my response above.

Allow me to ask you a few personal questions:

1) How old are you? Rough estimate will do.
2) Are you presently in a loving, committed relationship?
3) Have you ever had sex outside of a loving, committed relationship?
4) Is your opinion largely based on your religious beliefs?

GIA wrote
1) 57
2) Yes
3) Plenty
4) No

More questions may follow, but depend upon the answer to those four questions.

Failing to respond to these questions will strongly limit any reasonable discussion that may ensue. And that's all I'm after - a reasonable discussion. Each of those questions above is quite pertinent to understanding why you hold onto this antiquated notion of 'love' and 'sex.

Regards,

The Rev.

Love and sex is the ideal. I hope it is not "antiquated". I think a quick survey would show that this is what most want.
Sex has other good uses as well. Payed sex few if any.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

13th June 2007, 06:07 AM

I asked you way back in this thread to recommend some books that we should read. You have yet to do so. I suspect that the only books you would recommend come in a set of 66 (or 65, depending on your denomination). Care to prove me wrong?

Try your government archives, they usually have commission reports on both prostitution and drug use. Either report will usually blend both topics because they are closely related.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

13th June 2007, 06:20 AM

Wow. Alright, please inform my ex-fiance that he is an evil person who treated me like a hooker because he was never able to get me off. Loving, commited relationship, and not one orgasm. But that's not why I left him, but it certainly added to the list. Sex doesn't equal love, love doesn't equal sex. Well, not good sex anyway.

As to the second point, if a man wants to go to a hooker, with them both understanding that she is not vested in a personal orgasm, the point is his pleasure. She provides the human element to the sexual encounter, he provides the incentive. In this case the incentive is cash. In many modern sexual encounters there is still an incentive, it's simply a different one. Perhaps it's the hope of a relationship, of marriage, of long lasting love. In others it's pure shared physical enjoyment. There is always a give and take, always a price to be paid, in sex.
Perhaps the cost is falling in love... perhaps it's being left... perhaps it's wanting the sex again but not having the opportunity. But in a consenting, adult, paiding-for-sex relationship the cost is obvious. We can argue about what price she pays for her cash, but the point in all of this is that it is still her choice to pay that price. As it was mine in having sex with a man when I knew the price to be paid was my heart. I fell and it was a one way street... My heart, my price. Is non-marital sex evil? I sure paid a price, I felt dirty, I felt used... Because I made bad choices about who I slept with. Again, my body, my choice, my price. It's no one elses business, and that includes if the transaction had included money. That it didn't simple proves that any sexual encounter can be positive or negative.
Besides which it all lead me to understanding what fidelity means, what good sex really is, and what I wanted from a partner. You generalize about love and sex, you wan poetic about love and sex, you glamorize love and sex...
But you still have no proof that one ounce of any argument that you have attempted to make proves in anyway that any of the evils you see in prostitution are anything less then part of the human condition. As many others have said, if you want to talk about slavery, child sex trade, human trafficking, then lets talk about that. Sex between adults is convoluted in the best of circumstances, and attempting to moralize another to your standards is insane.

Unfortunately women have a harder time than men in respect to orgasm.
As to sex slavery and the other woes you mention, the fact that prostitution doors stay open to accept all of these people who have been wronged guarantees that more will be made to suffer. To end the slavery, the slave market must disappear.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

13th June 2007, 06:25 AM

uhh what? Are you saying people who dont prefer the same type of sex as you are 'below you'? :mad: Or am I misunderstanding you?

Sex begins in the brain.
It is better for the brain to activate the social skill part of itself in the search for gratification than for just reaching for the wallet.
Does your brain see the difference. If not then society has lost another good one.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

13th June 2007, 06:28 AM

Karma Sutra position the seventh. Piece of cake.

Oh boy, if you wanted to double up on your ignorance, that's a good way to start. You are so far out of touch, it's laughable.

I'd say that at least 80% of New Zealand's legal hookers advertise and have websites.

Too bad they choose not to enlighten us.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

13th June 2007, 06:32 AM

Greatest I am seems to have a very weird understanding of what sex actually is...

Tell me, Greatest I am, have you ever actually had sex? Have you ever felt lust or love? Ever had an orgasm induced by someone other than yourself? Don't you realise that not every sexual encounter results in an orgasm? And yes, prostitutes can orgasm whilst with a client - just go ask some of them.

And I really have to laugh when you state:

Bwahahahahahahaha!!! Mutual pleasure is the primary purpose of sex. Only a small percentage of people solely have sex for procreation. The majority of people in the Western world having sex use prophylactics, to specifically ensure that they don't procreate!

I think I'd like for you to answer Z's questions in post #315.

Cheers,
TGHO

Your right that is either out of context or a typing error.
Some times I get cynical and would need to see the whole context.

As to your other comment, let me assure you that I am quite normal. Whatever that means.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

13th June 2007, 06:36 AM

GIA is, as far as I have gathered, an elderly or late-middle aged man. He has been married for a long, long time. Several decades ago he had a religious experience where he believes God communicated with him telepathically and gave him a message. He stayed silent for many years out of fear. Thye message turns out to be that heaven is organized "demographically" and that we should organize ourselves the same way.

Despite the common meaning of "demographic," GIA appears to think it means that the command structure of heaven is a pyramid shape and that people should sort themselves by race. He believes that one should prefer members of one's own race and that this is some sort of "positive" racism which somehow increases productivity.

GIA is extraordinarily deistic. He believes in God and probably believes in the New Testament version of God. Nevertheless, he is not a churchgoer and doesn't believe any of the current churches have the answers right.

He is guided entirely by a sense of moral righiousness which seems to be a mixture of some type of European machismo ("men should take care of the world to protect women and children"), vague Sunday school notions of divine judgment and a touch of run-of-the-mill crazy.

I suspect he may be in France. I do not know if he has ever had sex outside of marriage.

Wrong on all counts.

If men don't do the protecting who will. If you are going to rely on women then that tells us all what kind of man you are or are not.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

13th June 2007, 06:43 AM

Greatest I am

13th June 2007, 06:48 AM

Back to the OP, "What should we do with prostitutes?"

Pay them!

How is prostitution any different from going on a "traditional" date?

A mid-range prostitute would cost somewhere in the region of 40 whatever the units of currency are in your country, you pay it & "get your leg over".

A "traditional" date could cost you considerably more (chocolates/flowers, meal & show/movie, drinks & taxi fare) & at the end of it you MAY get your leg over - if you're lucky - if you're not careful, it could cost a LOT more. If she suddenly changes her mind, you could be in a whole load of trouble.

IMO, prostitution is more honest.

If your only differentiation between a Date and an encounter with a hooker is the price then I wonder what marriage would mean to you or love.
A date is to further your life.
An encounter with a hooker is to add friction to your dick. There is a difference.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

13th June 2007, 06:54 AM

[quote=Z;2659372]

"What does love have to do with sex?"

That sentence alone shows your mentality.
I feel sorry for you.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

13th June 2007, 07:03 AM

-1: poor rhetoric

For someone who purports to have their interests at heart, you sure do like to use pejorative terms for them. Oh, except for the male ones.

Thanks for the grammar lesson.
It really ads to the issue.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

13th June 2007, 07:11 AM

In ancient societies, high-class prostitutes could bring status and fame to those that they married.

This was true in Feudal Japan, at the least. But there some to-die-for courtesans and concubines.

Yes in those goodold days it was great for the adults who could also take their own 10-12 year old children and use them for sexual gratification.

Would you like that in order to abuse your own or would you prefer being the kid who has to do the gratifying.
Are you the ********** or the ********** of your own dreams.

Regards
DL

toddjh

13th June 2007, 07:14 AM

He's back on the pedophilia and incest, folks!

It's good to know that, even in these troubled times, there are still some things you can count on.

Greatest I am

13th June 2007, 07:28 AM

I'm sure this has already been said but I feel very angry about the way prostitutes are either demonised or pitied by people simply because of the way they choose to make a living. Who are they hurting? No one. They're helping people by satisfying one of the most basic human needs. Who the f*** are you to tell them how to earn their way through life?

Quotes like this are the kind of patronising bulls*** that pisses me off. These people don't need your help, they need you to leave them the hell alone.

How many choose? Few.
The criminal element thinks the same way as you do.
The less involvement from us the better they like it.
So do all the abusers who never get their just reward either.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

13th June 2007, 07:35 AM

Sorry for late replies to all.

Regards
DL

toddjh

13th June 2007, 07:37 AM

I am trying not to be ambiguous, Todd. But sometimes there's no need to specify. If I say "65-70% of all prostitutes would like to get out of the profession', it doesn't matter too much if I really meant 65-70% of 90% of all prostitutes, does it ? (well, it matters 10%, which is quite a lot, but not enough to affect the gist of what I'm trying to say)

That would make sense, except the point some of us are trying to make is that things would be different if it were legal. Using statistics compiled in places where prostitution is illegal and using them to draw conclusions about prostitution as a whole is therefore a little disingenuous, pretty much the same as calling marijuana a gateway drug.

Well, I'll argue with that (in order to support my case that prostitution is not a respectable profession).

Well, I don't think we disagree all that much. Like I said before, I'll agree with you that prostitution isn't currently a respected profession, in the U.S. at any rate, but I think that's only a social convention. I don't think there's anything that makes prostitution not respectable -- that is, I see nothing ethically wrong with prostitution in general, and no reason it couldn't be respected if the social climate were somewhat different. As Greatest I Am is kind enough to demonstrate, a great deal of the disdain for prostitution is due to puritanical attitudes toward sex inspired by religious beliefs.

Porn-stars are not prostitutes. (Unless your defintion of 'prostitute' is 'some-one who has sex for money').

Er...well, yes, that's my definition of prostitute. :)

First, they are not being paid by the person they're having sex with. They're both being paid by a third party. The relationship between the participants is therefore equal - there is no ulterior transaction, and it cannot be exploitative.

So when my wife treats me to a little fun in Nevada, that won't be prostitution? I'm not paying for it myself, after all...

Oh, and most male porn stars (apart from a few big names) aren't paid very much. I hear that some of them will work just for room and board. :)

Second, the purpose of the sex, unlike in prostitution, is not the sexual satisfaction of the participants (or the producer who pays them), but the production of a film.

Why does that make it not prostitution? I don't think most prostitutes particularly care about why their clients want to hire them.

(Hence, porn-stars can do what legal prostitutes can't. They can have sex without a condom if they want to, just like you and me).

Well, that's more a matter of having control over both sides of the equation than anything else.

Illegal prostitutes can't do any of that.

Illegal prostitutes can (and do) have sex without condoms. That's why STD rates are so high among them. Illegal prostitutes can also be hired for someone else by a third party (think bachelor parties and so on).

And as far as I know, legal prostitutes don't either. Happy to be corrected there: in places where prostitution is legal, do individual prostitutes become celebrities ? Are the 'best' prostitutes recognized as such, and publicly celebrated ? Please tell me, Kiwis, Aussies and Nevadans (or Nevadians ? sorry I don't know) I'm curious.

There are definitely some big names in Nevada. I don't know if I'd call them celebrities outside a particular subculture, though.

13th June 2007, 07:57 AM

Love and sex is the ideal. I hope it is not "antiquated". I think a quick survey would show that this is what most want.
Sex has other good uses as well. Payed sex few if any.

Regards
DL

Thank your for your reply... Given those answers, the only thing I can really say is that I disagree. And that there are NO ideals in our world. I also think your quick survey would show that your ideas are quickly growning antiquated, if they're not already.

But I don't think, at your age, you can really come to see anyone else's point of view. Just be satisfied that soon you won't have to worry about this any more.

The fact is, there's nothing ethically wrong with legal prostitution, and that's that. If you don't like it, don't use it. If enough people don't use it, it will go away.

Since it hasn't gone away since the dawn of mankind, I have to assume that a sufficiently adequate percent of the population likes it.

Thus proving you wrong.

However, I've since read your other responses - and I see you're right back to chauvenism and conflating prostitution with drug use, incest, and pedophilia.

You're never going to change, and your current lack of intelligence, education, and awareness disgust me.

I'm glad your kind is dying out.

For both of our sakes, I'm placing you on ignore. Do not bother to reply for my sake.

Best wishes,

The Rev.

Jon.

13th June 2007, 09:58 AM

Try your government archives, they usually have commission reports on both prostitution and drug use. Either report will usually blend both topics because they are closely related.

Regards
DL

You mean like the Fraser Committee report in Canada, which recommended legalizing and regulating prostitution other than street prostitution?

Jon.

13th June 2007, 10:04 AM

Jon,

I plucked the 90% out of thin air. I'm willing to adjust the figure.

Z's not sure about China. Wiki "Prostitution China". It's illegal.

That dwarfs Canada, Australia, Korea, Japan and New Zealand, many times over.

Any more suggestions ?

If so, wiki "Prostitution Russia".

Or "Prostitution India".

Or "Prostitution USA".

...in each case, prostitution is (with a few local exceptions) illegal.

As I said, I guessed 90%.

I still think it's a good guess...

Gnu.

I will give you Russia, China and most of the US. However, as Hokulele pointed out, it is legal in India, which alone constitutes over 10% of the world's population, so I don't think your guess is so good.

Greatest I am

13th June 2007, 10:17 AM

Jon.

13th June 2007, 11:40 AM

You mean like the Fraser Committee report in Canada, which recommended legalizing and regulating prostitution other than street prostitution?

Yes.
I would have included street level as well. This is probably were most of the abuse is.

Regards
DL

Say again? You would recommend legalizing all prostitution including street level prostitution? What brought on this change of heart?

Greatest I am

13th June 2007, 11:54 AM

Say again? You would recommend legalizing all prostitution including street level prostitution? What brought on this change of heart?

No change of heart.
We are talking of a specific country with specific aptitudes.
What is good for Canada would not necessarily be good for other locations.
As stated, some countries are already under a legal or quasi legal system. Some there still sell their 10-12 year old children to the highest bidder.
Further I would need to see the rules and regulations before committing to a real law.
Generally though I can say that a legal system is better than an illegal one.
No prostitution being the ideal, legalization is closer to it than illegal.

Regards
DL

Jon.

13th June 2007, 11:59 AM

No change of heart.
We are talking of a specific country with specific aptitudes.
What is good for Canada would not necessarily be good for other locations.
As stated, some countries are already under a legal or quasi legal system. Some there still sell their 10-12 year old children to the highest bidder.
Further I would need to see the rules and regulations before committing to a real law.
Generally though I can say that a legal system is better than an illegal one.
No prostitution being the ideal, legalization is closer to it than illegal.

Regards
DL

Okay, you've lost me completely. The situation in Canada now is that it is not illegal to exchange money for sex, but it is illegal to communicate in a public place for that purpose. This, as the Fraser Committee pointed out, is hypocritical and illogical: either prostitution is legal and should be regulated, or it is completely illegal. They came down on the side of legal and regulated. You have been arguing throughout this thread that prostitution is bad and should not exist. However, are you now saying that it should be legal? Please explain.

Gnu Ordure

13th June 2007, 01:32 PM

I will give you Russia, China and most of the US. However, as Hokulele pointed out, it is legal in India, which alone constitutes over 10% of the world's population, so I don't think your guess is so good.

OK, maybe I was wrong to claim India, Jon, but I don't think you can claim it either. The wiki article Hokulele linked to states that :

The primary law dealing with the status of sex workers is the 1956 law referred to as the The Immoral Traffic (Suppression) Act (SITA). According to this law, sex work in India is neither legal nor illegal

The same in the Czech Republic, apparently:

Prostitutes in the Czech Republic work in a legal gray area, neither explicitly legal nor illegal, which makes it tough for the state to control disease, the sex-slave trade and underage prostitution.

I admit I'm not familiar with this third option, "neither legal nor illegal"; but the second half of that quote seems to imply that it's not a good thing.

And in India, as the article says, prostitutes are denied normal workers' rights (ie they're exploited) :

sex workers are not protected under normal workers laws, and are not entitled to minimum wage benefits, compensation for injury or other benefits that are common in other types of work

and they obviously aren't protected by health-care laws, as the horrific HIV figures indicate:

Mumbai and Calcutta have the country's largest brothel based sex industry, with over 100,000 sex workers in Mumbai[1]. It is estimated that more than 50% of the sex workers in Mumbai are HIV-positive[2]. In Surat, a study discovered that HIV prevalence among sex workers had increased from 17% in 1992 to 43% in 2000.

So, sorry, I'm still claiming it. It might be "neither legal nor illegal" - but whatever it is, it appears to be just as bad as "illegal".

Also, Jon, don't forget that the total of illegal prostitutes includes those working in countries where it's legal.

For example, all the prostitutes working in Las Vegas, or anywhere else in Nevada outside of the licensed brothels. Anyone know how many there are of these ? according to wiki :

About 30 legal brothels existed in the state in January 2004, employing about 300 female prostitutes at any given time.

So, 300 legal prostitutes. How many illegal ones at the same time ? (Sorry, I couldn't find a figure on wiki).

Illegal prostitution exists in every country that licenses it, because some prostitutes want to work outside the system, and they can always find customers.

Anyway, Jon, don't sweat the 90%; my syllogism just said "more" ie a simple majority. With or without India, I reckon I've established that already.

1. Career criminals are not respected by society
2. Most prostitutes are career criminals.
3. Therefore, those prostitutes are not respected by society.

So, is that valid ? Or not ?

Gnu

Gnu Ordure

13th June 2007, 01:34 PM

DL,

I've just rather belatedly realized that my discussion is now running in parallel with yours, which is rude of me, as it's your thread.

Sorry.

If you'd like me to take it elsewhere, I'd be happy to do so.

Gnu.

Jon.

13th June 2007, 01:41 PM

1. Career criminals are not respected by society
2. Most prostitutes are career criminals.
3. Therefore, those prostitutes are not respected by society.

So, is that valid ? Or not ?

Gnu

That is valid. I would also add to that, though, that prostitution has been condemned by (especially) the Christian church for reasons that have nothing to do with criminality, so your "therefore" is valid only to the extent that it does not claim to be exclusive, if you see what I mean.

However, this says nothing normative. Should prostitution be criminal? Should prostitutes be respected by society? I think that is a big part of the point of this thread - you and GIA/DL/Griff seem to want to see an end to prostitution for reasons that have never been fully explained.

pgwenthold

13th June 2007, 02:10 PM

Appropo of nothing, I just thought I'd mention that, while watching the History of Sex last night on the History Channel (US), it was mentioned how prostitution was common in ancient Japan, so much to the extent that prostitutes were called "Goddesses of Mercy."

Doesn't sound like they were lacking for respect in society.

Gnu Ordure

13th June 2007, 03:43 PM

the point some of us are trying to make is that things would be different if it were legal.

We have a phrase in England, Todd : "Yes, and if my aunt had bollocks she'd be my uncle".

If things were different, things would be different.

But as things stand, most prostitution is illegal. That is the reality.

Like I said before, I'll agree with you that prostitution isn't currently a respected profession, in the U.S. at any rate,

Agreed.

I see nothing ethically wrong with prostitution in general, and no reason it couldn't be respected if the social climate were somewhat different.

Except the social climate isn't different. Prostitutes would be more respected if their profession was legitimized, sure... but it isn't (mostly), so it isn't.

Er...well, yes, that's my definition of prostitute

Then it's too narrow. Your definition would include Catherine Deneuve and Susan Sarandon having sex in the The Hunger. They're having sex, they're being paid to do it, they must be prostitutes, right ?

Of course not.

Porn-stars are actors.

Well, that's more a matter of having control over both sides of the equation than anything else.

No, it's just the law. Legal prostitutes (in Nevada, say) break the law if they have sex without a condom. Porn-stars don't. Because porn-stars aren't prostitutes.

And if they were prostitutes, why aren't they arrested on a regular basis ? Not lack of evidence of condom-free sex, surely ?

I appreciate that it's a fine distinction between a porn-star and a prostitute, but the distinction can be defined in rational legal terms and enshrined in law.

There are definitely some big names in Nevada...

For example ?

Gnu Ordure

13th June 2007, 04:36 PM

In the legal brothels in Nevada, clients are checked visually for symptoms of disease before any of the fun stuff starts. They don't do a blood test, but that would be prohibitively invasive, and require lab equipment (and staff to operate it) at every location. It just wouldn't be practical.

Not necessary, Todd.

The top-end of the porn industry provides a model.

Do you think each movie shoot is attended by a medical crew to test the participants ?

No, the actors have regular checks, and turn up with a certificate of good health from a recent test. No certificate, no work.

So it would be very simple, Todd, for you to have a check yourself at your local clinic before you go to Vegas, and be given a certificate to be presented at a brothel. Valid for one month from the day of the test, say. No certificate, no sex.

Such a scheme would pay for itself. Not only would the risk to prostitutes be reduced, but early diagnosis of disease would save millions of dollars in treatment, as well as reducing infection rates generally.

Actually, that does seem like rather a good idea...

Someone tell me what's wrong with it...

.

Gnu Ordure

13th June 2007, 05:09 PM

It is also legal in Korea, Japan, and (IIRC) Thailand.

z, where are you getting your information from ?

I'm getting mine from wiki. I know it's not infallible, but feel free to prove it wrong.

From "Prostitution in Japan":

Article 3 of the Anti-Prostitution Law of 1956 states that "No person may either do prostitution or become the customer of it",

From "Prostitution in Thailand" :

Prostitution has been technically illegal in Thailand since 1960, when a law was passed under pressure from the United Nations

from "Prostitution in South Korea" :

Prostitution in South Korea is a large illegal industry.

I couldn't find anything on North Korea.

(I still think 90% is a good guess).

.

Wheezebucket

13th June 2007, 07:28 PM

Porn stars **** for money - the fact that it's filmed and directed changes little. A fair number of them also appear at places the the Bunny Ranch to cash in on their porn-celebrity status, to collect some cizash from the masses who want to rail them after having watched their movies. This is reality, and this is ok.

Hurray for free will!

Who will save the prostitutes from themselves?!?!?

Lensman

13th June 2007, 07:33 PM

If your only differentiation between a Date and an encounter with a hooker is the price then I wonder what marriage would mean to you or love.
A date is to further your life.
An encounter with a hooker is to add friction to your dick. There is a difference.

Regards
DL

I'm not married, nor have I ever wanted to marry but I have nothing against marriage. I have had some girlfriends & a fairly healthy sex life, have never been to a prostitute, but if I ever felt the need to visit one, I hope I'd be able to find one.

To my mind they provide a necessary service (no pun intended) to people who, through no real fault of their own, find it difficult or sometimes impossible to form a normal relationship with a member of the opposite (or same) sex. There should be no shame in going to a prostitute or being one.

toddjh

14th June 2007, 02:15 AM

We have a phrase in England, Todd : "Yes, and if my aunt had bollocks she'd be my uncle".

If things were different, things would be different.

But as things stand, most prostitution is illegal. That is the reality.

It's not an immutable reality. Arguments that prostitution should be illegal because prostitution is bad because prostitution is illegal are at best circular logic, and at worst a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Except the social climate isn't different. Prostitutes would be more respected if their profession was legitimized, sure... but it isn't (mostly), so it isn't.

Yet.

Then it's too narrow. Porn-stars are actors.

First, I think you mean too broad, not too narrow. :) And second, acting and prostitution are not mutually exclusive.

As for whether mainstream actors who have sex on camera should be considered prostitutes, the issue is easily addressed by asking whether the sex is central to the job, or merely incidental. If actors are hired to play a role and voluntarily have sex in the course of playing that role, then no, that is not prostitution because sex is not what they're paid for -- for example, I'm willing to bet that Susan Sarandon could not be sued for breach of contract if she had refused to actually have sex on camera.

Porn stars are different, of course, because sex is what they're paid for. Unlike in mainstream movies, sex is the sine qua non of porn. If an actor in a porn film shows up on set and says no, I don't think I'll be having sex today, you can be sure he or she will be in a lot of trouble.

No, it's just the law. Legal prostitutes (in Nevada, say) break the law if they have sex without a condom. Porn-stars don't. Because porn-stars aren't prostitutes.

They're a different type of prostitute, covered by different laws. Prostitutes who work in brothels need mandatory condom use because their clients are anonymous and testing all of them isn't practical. Porn stars don't require the same level of protection because everybody involved is tested regularly. The porn industry is actually quite paranoid about STDs -- pretty much the whole thing shut down a couple years ago when a male porn actor was found to be HIV-positive.

Your argument is akin to saying that, since surgeons and psychiatrists are subject to different standards and licensing bodies, they're not both doctors.

For example?

Any names I gave would probably be way out of date.

So it would be very simple, Todd, for you to have a check yourself at your local clinic before you go to Vegas, and be given a certificate to be presented at a brothel. Valid for one month from the day of the test, say. No certificate, no sex.

There's no need for such a scheme. The current system is adequate, as evidenced by the fact that STD rates are lower among legal prostitutes than among the general population. It would needlessly complicate things, be bad for business, and cost people a lot of money for no good reason.

And if you're arguing that your scheme would be enough to relax the mandatory condom rule, then I strongly disagree. If a person tested clean a month ago, that doesn't mean anything about whether they're still clean now. With porn actors it's different because there is usually a long testing history, plus it's a smaller group of people to begin with (porn actors are not likely to have sex with hundreds of different people in a month, while prostitutes at brothels are), but clients at a brothel could be anybody. Who knows what they've done in the last month.

Greatest I am

14th June 2007, 05:13 AM

Greatest I am

14th June 2007, 05:21 AM

Okay, you've lost me completely. The situation in Canada now is that it is not illegal to exchange money for sex, but it is illegal to communicate in a public place for that purpose. This, as the Fraser Committee pointed out, is hypocritical and illogical: either prostitution is legal and should be regulated, or it is completely illegal. They came down on the side of legal and regulated. You have been arguing throughout this thread that prostitution is bad and should not exist. However, are you now saying that it should be legal? Please explain.

I am saying that a legalized system of prostitution is better than an illegal system.
No system would be the best.
Canada does not have the slavery issues that the poorest countries and a legalized system may not work as well there.

Prostitution at it's best is still a demeaning act, showing a poor use of sex within a society.

A parent usually has no problem availing themselves of whatever profession their children get into. Except prostitution hence it's poor moral position. If something is good then it should be good for most, all the time.
Since as shown here it is not good at all times then it can be seen as intrinsically evil.

Regards
DL

14th June 2007, 05:22 AM

z, where are you getting your information from ?

I'm getting mine from wiki. I know it's not infallible, but feel free to prove it wrong.

From "Prostitution in Japan":

From "Prostitution in Thailand" :

from "Prostitution in South Korea" :

I couldn't find anything on North Korea.

(I still think 90% is a good guess).

.

On South Korea, I lived there for a year. During my time there, we had classes on Korean law, since we would be interacting with them directly. At that time, prostitution was legal and regulated. The girls were checked out weekly, and were required to show you their health cards, which, if they were clean, would have a blue stamp. The anti-prostitution law is only two years old, apparently. This is a new thing, and is NOT working out well for Korea at all.

We were also educated on Japan, and I know from my military friends and contacts that the following is still true. In Japan, though there are antiprostitution laws, prostitution is still allowed as long as the authorities have some means of controlling it. And the laws are very vague. In fact, in Tokyo, prostitutes as young as 12 are considered to be perfectly legal and normal. The cops only step in if they hear about excessive abuse, robbery, drug use, and such. (They treat their prostitution laws much the way our cops treat speed limits - something enforcable if they really feel like it, but usually overlooked and even violated by the cops themselves.)

I have a close friend who is Thai, and has a sister who works as a prostitute in Thailand. In Thailand, selling sex is technically illegal, but buying sex is not. The country has a legal age for the sex trade of 18 - why have a legal age to trade in sex, if trading in sex is illegal? The purpose of their laws is to prevent pimping: the law is that you can't offer someone else's body for sex (or outright offer your own for sex), but there's nothing wrong with accepting a payment for sex once it's been offered. So, no, in Thailand, prostitution is legal.

Remember, Gnu, Wikipedia should be a STARTING point for research, not the final word.

And, no, 90% is grossly exaggerated.

Greatest I am

14th June 2007, 05:26 AM

Greatest I am

14th June 2007, 05:44 AM

I'm not married, nor have I ever wanted to marry but I have nothing against marriage. I have had some girlfriends & a fairly healthy sex life, have never been to a prostitute, but if I ever felt the need to visit one, I hope I'd be able to find one.

To my mind they provide a necessary service (no pun intended) to people who, through no real fault of their own, find it difficult or sometimes impossible to form a normal relationship with a member of the opposite (or same) sex.

GIA wrote
Your example shows where a sex worker should get involved. His or her condition is not solved by sex with a hooker. His or her problem is not lack of sex, it is the impossibility of forming relationships. No relationship is gained by going to a hooker. They are not shrinks.

There should be no shame in going to a prostitute or being one.

I cannot agree. Something in the human experience should be above animal actions. The view of the mighty hunter returning to the tribe with his kill "money" and expecting to get sex for it is indicative of hunting being of the highest value to the tribe. This is not so. A tribe must and is based on other ideals.

Regards
DL

Belz...

14th June 2007, 09:30 AM

Sorry for late replies to all.

Regards
DL

No problem. Whatever works to get your post-count up, man.

Belz...

14th June 2007, 09:34 AM

Prostitution at it's best is still a demeaning act, showing a poor use of sex within a society.

What's a good use of sex within a society ?

Piscivore

14th June 2007, 09:45 AM

I cannot agree. Something in the human experience should be above animal actions.

Since humans are animals, isn't everything we do by definition an "animal action"? But let's skip that. What, in your opinion, is an "animal action" we must be above? Monogamy? Mothering young? Eating?

The view of the mighty hunter returning to the tribe with his kill "money" and expecting to get sex for it is indicative of hunting being of the highest value to the tribe.No, it is indicative of hunting being of value only, not necessarily the "highest" value. Hunting when there is a surplus of food is of little value, for instance. Hunting the tribe's dairy cow would be a detriment. Cuckolding such a hunter by buying his wife for sex might actually be a benefit to the tribe, as the genetic material passed on would be from a more intelligent donor.

In any case, I think what your scenario describes is "traditional Western marriage".

This is not so. A tribe must and is based on other ideals.
Which ones?

Jon.

14th June 2007, 10:13 AM

I am saying that a legalized system of prostitution is better than an illegal system.
No system would be the best.
Canada does not have the slavery issues that the poorest countries and a legalized system may not work as well there.

Canada does have problems with illegal aliens being forced to work in the sex trade. If it were better regulated, these problems would be alleviated.

If you agree that legalized is better than illegal, would you support the decriminalization of prostitution and regulations being put in place to protect the prostitutes and their customers?

Whether your answer is yes or no, how would you propose to move to "no system" (by which I assume you mean "no prostitution")?

Prostitution at it's best is still a demeaning act, showing a poor use of sex within a society.

The sex act can be demeaning or not, just as any sex act can, whether between husband and wife, boyfriend and girlfriend, or prostitute and customer. The prostitute usually gets paid more if the act is demeaning; the others may not get any such compensation. Often, the prostitute has more control over what happens than other kinds of sex partners.

Prostitution as a profession is only demeaning per se as long as people like you insist that it should be condemned. And, as has been pointed out several times on this thread, it was not always thus, nor is there any reason why it must remain so.

A parent usually has no problem availing themselves of whatever profession their children get into. Except prostitution hence it's poor moral position.

You have made this point numerous times, and the answer has always been the same: the incest taboo has nothing to do with prostitution.

If something is good then it should be good for most, all the time.
Since as shown here it is not good at all times then it can be seen as intrinsically evil.

Huh? So capitalism is bad because it is not "good for most, all the time"? What about democracy?

You would throw the baby, soap, shampoo and tub out with the bathwater. Surely it is best to recognize that consenting adults can do what they want with their bodies, whether or not there is money involved, and whether or not there is sex involved, and take steps to make sure that people are as safe as reasonably possible while they do those things.

Miss Anthrope

14th June 2007, 10:44 AM

Prostitution at it's best is still a demeaning act, showing a poor use of sex within a society.

Poor use of sex within a society? Says who? I seriously cannot wrap my brain around people who elevate an act of simple pleasure between consenting adults into something higher than what it is.

Professional massage is a demeaning act, because it is a poor use of pleasure within a society.

Eating finely crafted gelato is a demeaning act, because it is a poor use of nutrition within a society.

A parent usually has no problem availing themselves of whatever profession their children get into. Except prostitution hence it's poor moral position. If something is good then it should be good for most, all the time.
Since as shown here it is not good at all times then it can be seen as intrinsically evil.

Actually, many parents apply pressure for their kids to go into business, law, and medicine. Some parents might be equally disappointed if their child winds up on welfare. Or working as a janitor. It just depends.

And pardon me, but can you tell my by what authority you have declared prostitution instrinsically evil? It's odd, because I know of only two types of folk in my personal experience who feel this way. The Uber Religious, and very controlling wives (who seem fit to deem male masturbation as a form of adultery).

Greatest I am

14th June 2007, 12:39 PM

What's a good use of sex within a society ?

In a sence the best way to end prostitution is to raise the price.
Stop the blow jobs for a pack of smokes behind the school wall.
Stop the doing it so that some one of age buys the booze for you.
Raise the price from 50 to 500 and the scummy element will fall away.

Perhaps that is what is required.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

14th June 2007, 12:52 PM

Since humans are animals, isn't everything we do by definition an "animal action"? But let's skip that. What, in your opinion, is an "animal action" we must be above? Monogamy? Mothering young? Eating?

No, it is indicative of hunting being of value only, not necessarily the "highest" value. Hunting when there is a surplus of food is of little value, for instance. Hunting the tribe's dairy cow would be a detriment. Cuckolding such a hunter by buying his wife for sex might actually be a benefit to the tribe, as the genetic material passed on would be from a more intelligent donor.

In any case, I think what your scenario describes is "traditional Western marriage".

Which ones?

The only un animal open to us is to care about the larger population as a whole.
The difference between man and beast you might say. Not you personally here of course because you may not have ever seen a man.
How cold cocking another man’s wife can be considered good shows the mindset that I address.
I can see where you might not be able to come up with a few good ideals. It must be because your are too busy watching the wife to make sure your not being cold cocked.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

14th June 2007, 01:07 PM

Canada does have problems with illegal aliens being forced to work in the sex trade. If it were better regulated, these problems would be alleviated.

agree that legalized is better than illegal, would you support the decriminalization of prostitution and regulations being put in place to protect the prostitutes and their customers?

Whether your answer is yes or no, how would you propose to move to "no system" (by which I assume you mean "no prostitution")?

The sex act can be demeaning or not, just as any sex act can, whether between husband and wife, boyfriend and girlfriend, or prostitute and customer. The prostitute usually gets paid more if the act is demeaning; the others may not get any such compensation. Often, the prostitute has more control over what happens than other kinds of sex partners.

Prostitution as a profession is only demeaning per se as long as people like you insist that it should be condemned. And, as has been pointed out several times on this thread, it was not always thus, nor is there any reason why it must remain so.

You have made this point numerous times, and the answer has always been the same: the incest taboo has nothing to do with prostitution.

Huh? So capitalism is bad because it is not "good for most, all the time"? What about democracy?

You would throw the baby, soap, shampoo and tub out with the bathwater. Surely it is best to recognize that consenting adults can do what they want with their bodies, whether or not there is money involved, and whether or not there is sex involved, and take steps to make sure that people are as safe as reasonably possible while they do those things.
I am sure that prostitutes will be consulted as to what they would like to see in legislature. My hope would be that a part of that law would be a clause like the dead beat dad claws in divorce. This one would go after those who drive their children to the sex streets.
Consenting adults. Have a good look at what adults are doing.

Regards
DL

toddjh

14th June 2007, 01:09 PM

Consenting adults. Have a good look at what adults are doing.

What business is it of yours (or mine) what consenting adults choose to do with each other? What makes you so superior that you see fit to impose your personal opinions about what sex "should" be on people who are perfectly capable of deciding that for themselves?

Greatest I am

14th June 2007, 01:10 PM

There is only one authority here at present. Me.

Regards
DL

slingblade

14th June 2007, 01:14 PM

In a sence the best way to end prostitution is to raise the price.
Stop the blow jobs for a pack of smokes behind the school wall.
Stop the doing it so that some one of age buys the booze for you.
Raise the price from 50 to 500 and the scummy element will fall away.

Perhaps that is what is required.

From a marketing standpoint, that's fairly ineffective for the workers. If the price of any service is raised far above "what the market will bear," the market will not disappear, but will rather move elsewhere.

Because this trade is not regulated, about an hour after the first hooker raises her price, she'll drop it...probably below even what she was asking in the first place. Why? No regulation means independent contractors. And unless one can get them all to agree and stick to a new price, there will always be someone cheaper than you, literally on the next corner.

Also, raising one's price so that one eliminates 1/2 to 2/3 of one's regular customer base, and expecting the lack to be made up by a new but smaller customer base one hasn't yet established, is economic suicide.

Aside from that, I notice the two examples you gave concern minors. I seem to recall that someone in this thread keeps conflating child sexual abuse with adult prostitution, though I'm not sure why. I feel confident that those of us who advocate legalization/decriminalization of prostitution are not including minors in our argument. Even were the trade made legal, we still wouldn't want minors practicing it. No more so than we want minors serving alcohol or selling cigarettes; both perfectly legal adult actions that are illegal for minors to perform. [edit: in the U.S., that is.]

I am fully aware there are plenty of minors around the world in the sex trade, usually against their wills. I would be hopeful that legalizing the trade would include regulating against the use of minors in it. Perhaps that might bring about a reduction? I'm not sure.

Even if it is made legal, however, I have no illusions that action would then make child prostitution go away. Legalizing adult prostitution would not, in and of itself, answer child sexual abuse. Because of that fact, I feel child prostitution is a different subject than the one we're ostensibly discussing.

Perhpas, in light of that, you should start a discussion thread about it in Politics & Current Events?

slingblade

14th June 2007, 01:15 PM

There is only one authority here at present. Me.

Regards
DL

I do not recognize you as such.

pgwenthold

14th June 2007, 01:27 PM

Actually, many parents apply pressure for their kids to go into business, law, and medicine. Some parents might be equally disappointed if their child winds up on welfare. Or working as a janitor. It just depends.

This issue just needs to be hammered on more in order to get it into some people's heads. How many times does it need to be pointed out that "would I want my daughter to do it" is not a means by which we distinguish acceptable and unacceptable professions in our society.

As you note, parents will very often want their children to follow a specific path, and, moreover, will strongly object to others. For example, it is not uncommon for actors to say that they don't want their kids to work in the business. Does that mean acting is immoral or wrong? Heck, there are an awful lot of people who don't want their kids to be any type of artist at all.

I have stated previously that I don't want my daughter to have to a career cleaning bathrooms, or working at a fast food joint. That doesn't make those professions morally wrong or evil.

Actors don't want their kids to be actors. That must be a horrible profession, right? Yet, it is apparently acceptable for some people. Who am I to judge?

Gnu Ordure

14th June 2007, 01:29 PM

The anti-prostitution law is only two years old, apparently. This is a new thing, and is NOT working out well for Korea at all.

You're missing the point,z. We're trying to decide the ratio of legal/illegal prostitution. To do that, we're looking at the laws of each country. If the law in any particular country criminalizes prostitution, it de facto marginalizes it, and leaves it vulnerable to involvement in organized crime and police corruption.

How different societies subequently deal with the implications of criminalization is irrelevant. The damage has already been done.

In your post you admit that in South Korea "The anti-prostitution law is only two years old", "In Japan, though there are antiprostitution laws...", and "In Thailand, selling sex is technically illegal".

As I said. All illegal. Marginalized. Exploitable.

Jon, you seem like a reasonable chap.

z thinks "And, no, 90% is grossly exaggerated".

What do you think ? I'll accept your estimate, then maybe we can move on from this point.

Bear in my mind you've given me russia, china, the US; I've argued the case for india; and I've pointed out that any country that regulates prostitution creates irregulated/illegal prostitution.

(and of course, if anyone can find a reputable estimate for this figure, by all means put it forward. I've looked for it without success).

.

Piscivore

14th June 2007, 02:22 PM

The only un animal open to us is to care about the larger population as a whole.
Nope, animals do that too. Particularly it can be observed in prairie dogs, herd animals, and non-predatory birds, the latter two of which are known to alert individuals of entire other species of a predator's approach.

The difference between man and beast you might say. Not you personally here of course because you may not have ever seen a man.
*checks penis* Um, what is your criteria for qualifying as a "man"?

How cold cocking another man’s wife can be considered good shows the mindset that I address.
Actually, "cold cocking" means hitting someone without warning, something I'm rarely in favour of. "Cuckolding" is the word I used, and it is not a euphamism for a sexual act. It is correctly used exclusively to refer to the victim of an infidelity. Thus one would not say "I cuckolded Bob's wife" - unless you had, in fact, had sexual relations with Bob- but rather "I cuckolded Bob"- the implication that you had performed an infidelious sex act with his wife would be left unspoken. This would further allow one to refer to Bob as a "cuckold". Note that were a sex act with Bob's wife to be accomplished with the consent of Bob, the term would not apply either.

I can see where you might not be able to come up with a few good ideals.
I have my own, surely. But they presumably differ from yours, and I am not offering mine as a standard to which all civilisations should adhere. I say presumably because you seem to only want to allude to yours because you expect everyone to already implicitly understand and accept them. Since this does not seem to be the case, would you be so kind as to state them?

It must be because your are too busy watching the wife to make sure your not being cold cocked.
She's scrappy, but she's never tried to hit me when I didn't see it coming. Not even when she threw the suitcase at my head.

Wheezebucket

14th June 2007, 02:47 PM

Cold cocked...

These are the people that apparently need to save those poor prostitutes from themselves. They're in good hands.

toddjh

14th June 2007, 03:44 PM

Come on, guys. As much as I disagree with most of what he says, give him a break on the "cold cocked" thing. He's already said he's not a native English speaker.

14th June 2007, 03:57 PM

Well, here's an interesting quote:

Until the 1960s, attitudes toward prostitution were based on Judeo-Christian views of immorality. Researchers have recently attempted to separate moral issues from the reality of prostitution. The rationale for its continued illegal status in the U.S. rests on three assumptions: 1) prostitution is linked to organized crime; 2) prostitution is responsible for much ancillary crime; and 3) prostitution is the cause of an increase in venereal disease. These assumptions are now in question. Furthermore, strong arguments have been made in support of legalizing prostitution. Decriminalization would free the courts and police from handling victimless crime, allowing these forces more time to deal with serious violent crime. The issue of prostitution has been partially resolved through decriminalization and tolerance. The U.S. remains one of the few countries with laws against prostitution. In other nations, criminal laws seek instead to deal with the social problems of prostitution through control of public solicitation and restriction of those who would exploit prostitutes.

http://www.csun.edu/~psy453/prosti_y.htm

I don't know their source, but I do know that the U.N., in 1979, passed a treaty (called CEDAW) which in some cases has resulted in forcing those nations that have signed it to decriminalize prostitution. 185 countries (last I checked) have signed the treaty, and most of them have decriminalized prostitution. Several countries are resisting, but have begun to crumble under the political pressure.

That's not to say that the CEDAW treaty forces legalization of prostitution; only that the U.N. recognizes three facts:

1) Prostitution will always exist, regardless of the law;
2) Illegal prostitution allows for abuse, high infection rates, and and ancillary crimes;
3) Legal prostitution, properly regulated, strongly decreases ALL of the above.

Since prostitution will never go away, legalization seems the only way to go.

Gnu Ordure

14th June 2007, 06:05 PM

Guys, the digressions on the status of pornography and on john-testing are interesting but not central, so I'm going to let those slide and cut to the chase. Hope that's OK.

A number of you have said that the problems associated with prostitution arise from its illegality, and can be resolved by its legalization.

A number of you have presented Nevada as evidence of this.

I contend this is not true.

I say that legalizing certain forms of prostitution has little effect on on illegal prostitution, and on the associated problems.

And I'm happy to use Nevada as an example.

Nevada, like every other state in the US, has a problem with illegal prostitution. Legal prostitutes number 300 or so. I haven't been able to find a figure for illegal ones, but according to wiki :

Escort services offering sexual services euphemistically as 'entertainment' or 'companionship' are ubiquitous, with about 140 pages of the Las Vegas yellow pages devoted to "entertainers". Similar ads are present in newspaper boxes all along Las Vegas Boulevard. From the Strip to downtown Fremont Street at most bus stops and many street lights, a large collection of free flyers offering escort services with semi-nude pictures are available. Moreover, smaller hand sized flyers are dispensed to tourists and others along the Las Vegas Strip,

So. lots, right ?

So tell me, how did legalizing prostitution change anything ?

Illegal prostitution is just as common in Nevada as it is in any other State.

So, here's a question for you supporters of the Nevadan system: what's your attitude towards all these illegal prostitutes in Nevada ?

Should they be prosecuted, or are the laws/the system wrong ?

The authorities thought prostitution should be legal, right, and they took steps to legalize it; but they've still ended up with extensive illegal prostitution, haven't they ?

There are 300 legal prostitutes in Nevada. There are still hundreds of illegal ones. So how exactly did legalizing the 300 change anything ?

Here's another question:

In adjoining rooms in a Vegas hotel, there are two couples. Each person has known their partner for years; they trust each other. Each couple is engaged in identical behaviour: consensual penetrative sex.

The significant difference is that in one case money has changed hands.

Instantly breaking the law in Vegas..

So I'm asking you all : do you agree with this law ?

Why should it be legal for the husband and wife to have sex, but a crime for the other two ? They're all adults, after all. Why should the state intervene in one case, but not the other ?

But...

... if you agree with the law, you have to accept the existence of illegal prostitution - so you have to accept that legalization has not 'solved' the problems of illegal prostitution in Nevada, as it was supposed to do...

And...

... if you don't agree with it, you acknowledge that the law is unfair, and that certain prostitutes are criminalized as unfairly in Nevada as anywhere else in the world - in which case it's not really an enlightened system, is it ?

The same thing happens in any society that attempts to regulate commercial sex. The regulations immediately create a market for irregular commercial sex.

Here's my answer to the original question:

If a man has legal commercial sex with a woman, good luck to them both.

But if the commerce is illegal, it is wrong for the man to participate. If he's not commiting a crime himself, he is colluding in one.

Therefore 90% (or whatever) of the world's commercial sex transactions are immoral, unethical and exploitative, simply because of their illegality.

Those women are criminalized, marginalized and then exploited.

Any man that knowingly pays money to sleep with an illegal prostitute is guilty of abuse, because he's taking advantage of someone else's unfortunate circumstance.

And he's therefore colluding in the crime.

Gnu.

toddjh

14th June 2007, 07:14 PM

Illegal prostitution is just as common in Nevada as it is in any other State.

Yes, because it's only legal in a few counties which are, for the most part, far away from what passes for urban centers in Nevada. People have to make special trips to visit them, which is something most potential clients probably wouldn't do.

So, here's a question for you supporters of the Nevadan system: what's your attitude towards all these illegal prostitutes in Nevada?

My attitude is that they'll continue to be around until prostitution is legalized in Las Vegas and Reno proper, and some will probably be around even afterwards, although I do think legalization would reduce that significantly.

The problem is that your comparison is unfair. Nobody here ever claimed that legal prostitution in Nevada completely transformed the whole state. That would be silly; like I said, prostitution is only legal in a few areas in rural parts of the state. It's really more of a pilot program than a serious attempt at legalization.

With that in mind, a more fair question would be, what is the state of illegal prostitution in those counties where prostitution is legal? I don't have any hard numbers to answer that, but I do know that when some of the brothels were temporarily closed, there were complaints about the number of illegal prostitutes increasing to fill the gap. That implies to me that legalization does indeed cause a significant drop in the number of illegal prostitutes.

There are 300 legal prostitutes in Nevada. There are still hundreds of illegal ones. So how exactly did legalizing the 300 change anything?

Legalization would have to be much more widespread before it could be expected to make a dent in the problem state- or nation-wide.

So I'm asking you all : do you agree with this law ?

Why should it be legal for the husband and wife to have sex, but a crime for the other two ? They're all adults, after all. Why should the state intervene in one case, but not the other ?

But...

... if you agree with the law, you have to accept the existence of illegal prostitution - so you have to accept that legalization has not 'solved' the problems of illegal prostitution in Nevada, as it was supposed to do...

And...

... if you don't agree with it, you acknowledge that the law is unfair, and that certain prostitutes are criminalized as unfairly in Nevada as anywhere else in the world - in which case it's not really an enlightened system, is it ?

I don't understand the point of this. I think most of "us" would agree that the law is unfair, and that prostitution should be legalized in Las Vegas as well as in other parts of the state. It sounds like you think you've posed some sort of dilemma, but I don't see what it is.

The same thing happens in any society that attempts to regulate commercial sex. The regulations immediately create a market for irregular commercial sex.

I would argue that the market was there all along. Yes, there will probably continue to be some form of illegal prostitution even if it were legalized in certain contexts; nobody ever claimed otherwise. Elimination is an unrealistic goal; I'll settle for "vastly reduced."

But if the commerce is illegal, it is wrong for the man to participate. If he's not commiting a crime himself, he is colluding in one.

Those women are criminalized, marginalized and then exploited.

Sounds like a hell of an argument for legalization to me.

The Great Hairy One

14th June 2007, 07:25 PM

Gnu,

I'd say the clear answer to your question is legalise prostitution.

I'm not very knowledgeable about the situation in Nevada - I've never lived there or visited there. However, I have been over most of Australia. And here, even in the more seedier suburbs of the major cities there's much fewer street-walkers than 10 years ago, when prostitution was mostly illegal. Legalisation has moved the majority of these people into safer, healthier brothels which are - for the most part - a great improvement over their earlier situation.

I won't say that street walking has been fully eliminated, I'm sure it has not, but it's certainly dramatically decreased.

Personally, I see little or no difference in the sexual act regardless of whether or not money changes hands. Legalisation, to me, seems the most logical path to take.

Cheers,
TGHO

14th June 2007, 07:32 PM

Here's a very interesting paper that shows several interesting trends:

http://www.liberator.net/articles/prostitution.html

The claim in the paper is that nations which have legalized prostitution enjoy lower crime rates, lower imprisonment rates, a better quality of life, fewer suicides, a lower incidence of HIV/AIDS infection, and of course, a much lower expenditure of police spending than those nations which continue to persecute prostitution.

They specifically point out the Netherlands, a place famous for its liberal attitudes towards prostitution, and also famous for being peaceful and relatively disease-free.

No, legalizing prostitution won't eliminate illegal prostitution, but it will greatly reduce illegal prostitution and related criminal activity.

Gnu, I'm afraid your argument is very, very weak.

Furthermore, I propose that the 90% figure is much closer to 30%.

Let's face it - prostitution is being globally decriminalized at a steady pace. And the benefits far outweigh any costs involved.

Apparently, Georgia is considering legalizing prostitution as well - that would be an interesting twist, with how conservative Southerners tend to be.

Think of the economics: in the city of Los Angeles alone, over $100 million is spent every year going after illegal prostitutes and their johns. And almost every single prostitute taken in with all that money is given a fine - often waived - and is back on the streets in 24 hours.

That's $100 million spent on interfering with two consenting adult who want to have sex. They weren't hurting anyone else, and they weren't doing anything morally wrong. And all that money hasn't done a THING to put a dent in prostitution.

I'd say that's tax money much better spent elsewhere.

In New York City, they say that at least 50% of the prostitutes are HIV-positive; in Nevada, not one of the legal prostitutes is infected.

But Nevada still isn't 100% legalized; so far, prostitution may only take place in brothels, and you're not supposed to live off of the proceeds of a prostitute.

So while Nevada is on the right track, it's only taken a few steps.

(That makes prostitution in Nevada as legal as prostitution in Thailand or Japan, Gnu - in some ways legal but not legal from other angles.)

It's also interesting that statistics show that 3/4 of all men in London have been with prostitutes, and 95% of men in Thailand; at least 65% in the United States...

While only about 1% of the world's population of women are in the business.

Wow.

So the next time some girl tells you you're her first john... yeah, right. :D

(Personally, I wouldn't ever use a prostitute - I think it's pretty pathetic if you have to openly pay a girl in order to get her to sleep with you. Even buying her drinks seems a little sad - unless you're just nice to people and always buy drinks. Me, I've enjoyed several interesting and unexpected encounters, and had to pay nothing for the good time at all. But if someone wants it, hey, they should be allowed to get it.)

mhaze

14th June 2007, 08:11 PM

This thread is basically as out sex and power.

That is the domain of Michel Foucalt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault).

Greatest I am

15th June 2007, 04:15 AM

From a marketing standpoint, that's fairly ineffective for the workers. If the price of any service is raised far above "what the market will bear," the market will not disappear, but will rather move elsewhere.

Because this trade is not regulated, about an hour after the first hooker raises her price, she'll drop it...probably below even what she was asking in the first place. Why? No regulation means independent contractors. And unless one can get them all to agree and stick to a new price, there will always be someone cheaper than you, literally on the next corner.

Also, raising one's price so that one eliminates 1/2 to 2/3 of one's regular customer base, and expecting the lack to be made up by a new but smaller customer base one hasn't yet established, is economic suicide.

Aside from that, I notice the two examples you gave concern minors. I seem to recall that someone in this thread keeps conflating child sexual abuse with adult prostitution, though I'm not sure why. I feel confident that those of us who advocate legalization/decriminalization of prostitution are not including minors in our argument. Even were the trade made legal, we still wouldn't want minors practicing it. No more so than we want minors serving alcohol or selling cigarettes; both perfectly legal adult actions that are illegal for minors to perform. [edit: in the U.S., that is.]

I am fully aware there are plenty of minors around the world in the sex trade, usually against their wills. I would be hopeful that legalizing the trade would include regulating against the use of minors in it. Perhaps that might bring about a reduction? I'm not sure.

Even if it is made legal, however, I have no illusions that action would then make child prostitution go away. Legalizing adult prostitution would not, in and of itself, answer child sexual abuse. Because of that fact, I feel child prostitution is a different subject than the one we're ostensibly discussing.

Perhpas, in light of that, you should start a discussion thread about it in Politics & Current Events?

If legalization is to be used as a tool to help children in abusive situations which is what is driving them to presently join the ranks, then a legalized system would need to include children. Simply legalizing for adults only serves adults. Adults are not my primary concern.

Regards
DL

Greatest I am

15th June 2007, 04:16 AM

I do not recognize you as such.

I do not care.

Regards
DL

slingblade

15th June 2007, 02:23 PM

If legalization is to be used as a tool to help children in abusive situations which is what is driving them to presently join the ranks, then a legalized system would need to include children.

Your if/then premise begs the question. Has anyone yet established that legalizing adult prostitution is indeed to be used as such a tool? How would such a tool function? In exactly what manner would making the adult sex trade legal for consenting adults address child sexual abuse?

A legalized system will not include, but exclude children. No child will be able to legally become a prostitute, certainly not in the U.S. I will not speak with certainty on other countries, as I am not as familiar with the mores of other countries as I am my own. But I can certainly think of many in which legalized prostitution will very likely exclude persons under a certain age, probably 18.

That it is illegal now doesn't stop abused girls from becoming hookers. How will making it legal for adults stop them from being abused as kids?

Simply legalizing for adults only serves adults. Adults are not my primary concern.

Then this is not your thread's point. You need to make one to discuss your subject about child sexual abuse.
I certainly don't support making prostitution legal for children, so I don't know why or what you're arguing.

I also don't see how making the adult sex trade legal will prevent children of either gender from being abused. You say their abuse drives them to become prostitutes.

Well, it certainly didn't drive me. I was abused for 6 years. If prostitution between adults had been legal then, it wouldn't have changed my situation one bit. I would still have been abused. However, my having been abused didn't make me into a prostitute, either.

You are making a faulty argument in cause and correlation. That some abused children end up as prostitutes does not mean that changing prostitution laws will affect that abuse in any way.

Greatest I am

15th June 2007, 05:08 PM

Your if/then premise begs the question. Has anyone yet established that legalizing adult prostitution is indeed to be used as such a tool? How would such a tool function? In exactly what manner would making the adult sex trade legal for consenting adults address child sexual abuse?

GIA wrote
As indicated by what I wrote above, the legalized system would have to include children to be effective in reducing child abuse. This will be a tougher sell but is tough love towards the perpetrators. So sad.

A legalized system will not include, but exclude children. No child will be able to legally become a prostitute, certainly not in the U.S. I will not speak with certainty on other countries, as I am not as familiar with the mores of other countries as I am my own. But I can certainly think of many in which legalized prostitution will very likely exclude persons under a certain age, probably 18.

That it is illegal now doesn't stop abused girls from becoming hookers. How will making it legal for adults stop them from being abused as kids?

GIA wrote
As indicated above, it would not but you may have missed where children were included initially.

Then this is not your thread's point. You need to make one to discuss your subject about child sexual abuse.
I certainly don't support making prostitution legal for children, so I don't know why or what you're arguing.

I also don't see how making the adult sex trade legal will prevent children of either gender from being abused. You say their abuse drives them to become prostitutes.

Well, it certainly didn't drive me. I was abused for 6 years. If prostitution between adults had been legal then, it wouldn't have changed my situation one bit. I would still have been abused. However, my having been abused didn't make me into a prostitute, either.

You are making a faulty argument in cause and correlation. That some abused children end up as prostitutes does not mean that changing prostitution laws will affect that abuse in any way.

If children are not brought under the system then the whole premise of harm reduction fails and the use of legalization only becomes a facilitator for adult sex. Big help for children eh.

Regards
DL

Wheezebucket

15th June 2007, 05:26 PM

...what?

slingblade

15th June 2007, 05:48 PM

If children are not brought under the system then the whole premise of harm reduction fails and the use of legalization only becomes a facilitator for adult sex. Big help for children eh.

So if everyone stops hiring prostitutes, then victims of sexual abuse can't choose that as a way to make money, and we don't have to feel guilty for perpetuating their original abuse?

And this does what to stop them being abused to start with? Seems to me, all it does is salve everyone else's consciences. Doesn't seem to do a darned thing for the kids. They're still going to be abused.

You can't fix a problem by removing one of its potential outcomes.

The kids are already "under a system." The legal system.

Foster Zygote

15th June 2007, 06:07 PM

Gnu Ordure

15th June 2007, 07:25 PM

I asked :

In adjoining rooms in a Vegas hotel, there are two couples. Each person has known their partner for years; they trust each other. Each couple is engaged in identical behaviour: consensual penetrative sex.

The significant difference is that in one case money has changed hands.

Instantly breaking the law in Vegas..

So I'm asking you all : do you agree with this law ?

Why should it be legal for the husband and wife to have sex, but a crime for the other two ? They're all adults, after all. Why should the state intervene in one case, but not the other ?

Todd, you answered that you think the law is unfair.

You want to legalize the commercial couple.

So let's do that.

Let's imagine that the law criminalizing the commercial transaction is repealed. Both couples proceed as before.

Now, according to the law in Nevada, the husband and wife couple have the right to have sex in a hotel; they have the right not to have medical checks if they don't want them; they have the right not to use a condom if they don't want to.

Agreed ?

Question : do the commercial couple next door also have these rights ?

If not, why not ?

And, if not, you then have to introduce new legislation forcing the commercial couple to move to a brothel, have some tests and use a condom... thus re-criminalizing the behaviour in the hotel that you were intending to legalize in the first place.

See the problem, Todd ?

You're trying to eradicate the problems associated with illegal prostitution by regulating it, but that immediately criminalizes activity that breaks those regulations, leaving you with the problems associated with illegal prostitution.

That's what's happened in Holland and Australia, supposed examples of good systems. This is from an article in The Economist (my bolding) :

Puritans argue that where laws have been liberalised—in, for instance, the Netherlands, Germany and Australia—the new regimes have not lived up to claims that they would wipe out pimping and sever the links between prostitution and organised crime. Certainly, those links persist; but that's because, thanks to concessions to the opponents of liberalisation, the changes did not go far enough. Prostitutes were made to register, which many understandably didn't want to do. Not surprisingly, illicit brothels continued to thrive.

So, if this is correct, legalizing/regulating prostitution doesn't solve the problem. Even with the most enlightened nation-wide approach, illegal prostitution still continues, with all the ill-effects associated with it.

.

slingblade

15th June 2007, 07:53 PM

Well, I can see the gaping holes.

First, simply repealing the law isn't the answer. Regulation should be part of it. There are implicit risks in the behavior that can be reduced or removed under regulation. Therefore, I would find it irresponsible to simply say "okay, it's legal now!" and be done, as your scenario suggests.

Not just legalized prostitution; regulated legal prostitution.

Second, I should think the fact that one couple are married, a legal arrangement, means the law can be applied differently. This slippery slope does not proceed. The law would be able to provide a definition for "committed or long-term relationship," and consider it as opposed to a one-night-stand for cash. Which then leads to the first point: if the trade is regulated and legalized, anyone operating outside of regulation is still breaking the law and can go to jail.

And if one is in a long-term, committed relationship that, for all intents and purposes, is the same as marriage...then why is anyone paying money for sex? I mean, I guess people could do that....but why? Oh, well, not important, really.

What is important is that legal needs to include regulated or it ought not be done.

Gnu Ordure

15th June 2007, 08:19 PM

Not just legalized prostitution; regulated legal prostitution

Yes, and the regulations create illegal prostitution. That's my point.

Second, I should think the fact that one couple are married, a legal arrangement, means the law can be applied differently

slingblade, they don't have to be married, sorry I specified it; they could be a couple who met that evening; they still have all the rights that I referred to: the right to have unprotected sex in a hotel without a health-check.

My question remains: on what basis do you deny these rights to the commercial couple next door ?

slingblade

15th June 2007, 08:44 PM

Yes, and the regulations create illegal prostitution. That's my point.

No. Since it already exists, it can't be created; only reduced or increased. You contend regulating prostitution increases illegal prostitution.

I'm not sure that's true, universally. There are probably several variables which could create different outcomes.

slingblade, they don't have to be married, sorry I specified it; they could be a couple who met that evening; they still have all the rights that I referred to: the right to have unprotected sex in a hotel without a health-check.

My question remains: on what basis do you deny these rights to the commercial couple next door ?

It doesn't really matter. My answer is the same. Anyone can have all the unprotected sex he wants with a consenting adult, legally, so long as no money changes hands. The crime is not the lack of a condom, but the money.

When you regulate it, you change that. Then, the crime is operating outside regulation.

So a one-night-stand in a hotel room still won't be a crime under legalized prostitution. But one in which money changes hands still will be, because freelancers are still illegal in a regulated system.

mylfmyhnr

16th June 2007, 07:42 AM

Let's imagine that the law criminalizing the commercial transaction is repealed. Both couples proceed as before.

Now, according to the law in Nevada, the husband and wife couple have the right to have sex in a hotel; they have the right not to have medical checks if they don't want them; they have the right not to use a condom if they don't want to.

Agreed ?
Yes, but if one or both are members of the military it is illegal for them to have oral sex.

Question : do the commercial couple next door also have these rights ?

The couple next door, providing neither are in the military, do have the right to proform oral sex.

We already have a legal system in place that does limit the ways and means of married sex. Along with various state laws, The Uniformed Code of Military Justice is very clear on what you can and can't do in the bedroom. It specifically criminalizes oral sex and sodomy (of anyone).
------------------
ART. 125. SODOMY
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.
(b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

Explanation. It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.
-----------------
We can say that this is all silly, would never be enforced, and you should be able to bugger your own wife if you so choose... but the laws are still on the books. And, of course, is the justification for DADT. So they are, in fact, being enforced.

The idea that we can't regulate the hooker because you can't regulate a married couple isn't valid. As there are laws regarding what you can and can't do, both federal (in this case) as well as state laws, even with your wife. That they are stupid laws is sort of the point for both arguments.

Gnu Ordure

16th June 2007, 09:20 AM

slingblade,

You're missing my point. Let me explain it again.

We're positing two couples in the hotel in Vegas, both enagaged in identical behaviour - consensual unprotected intercourse. Both couples have known each other for the same period of time, they trust each other to the same extent, and let's say all four are HIV negative and otherwise disease free, so there is no danger in not using condoms.

The only significant difference is that one man pays his partner.

As the law stands, that couple is now committing a crime.

Todd, and others, think this is unfair and wrong, and that the behaviour in each hotel room should be equally legitimate.

So my question to all of you is : what changes would you like to make to the current laws in Nevada such that the behaviour of the commercial couple becomes legitimate ?

You can repeal certain laws, amend existing ones or introduce new ones, whatever you like.

But the end result should be that the commercial couple can continue doing exactly what they're doing (which is, remember, exactly the same as what's going on next door).

Some of you think that the current laws are unfair in criminalizing one couple in our scenario. I would like to know how you would make the laws fairer, so that that couple is no longer breaking the law.

Any suggestions ?

Gnu Ordure

16th June 2007, 10:20 AM

myl, I'm trying to clarify the argument by keeping it simple, so in my scenario the couples are having consensual vaginal intercourse, legal in every state. And this entirely normal legal act becomes illegal when money changes hands.

The couple next door, providing neither are in the military, do have the right to proform oral sex.

er.. not the commercial couple, surely ? Paid oral sex in Nevada is just as illegal outside a brothel as paid intercourse, isn't it ?

Gnu.

Greatest I am

16th June 2007, 10:20 AM

[quote=slingblade;2694231]So if everyone stops hiring prostitutes, then victims of sexual abuse can't choose that as a way to make money, and we don't have to feel guilty for perpetuating their original abuse?

And this does what to stop them being abused to start with? Seems to me, all it does is salve everyone else's consciences. Doesn't seem to do a darned thing for the kids. They're still going to be abused.

You can't fix a problem by removing one of its potential outcomes.

As the new legal leader of prostitution (imaginary), I would sue and win against those who have abused to a much larger degree than now. This is the tool that would reduce the instances of child abuse because I could make sure that media is well lubricated to keep the issue in our face till it goes away to whatever level we can reach. Just like the dead beat dads of today are having to meet their responsibilities more than in the past.

Regards
DL

slingblade

16th June 2007, 12:34 PM

As the new legal leader of prostitution (imaginary), I would sue and win against those who have abused to a much larger degree than now. This is the tool that would reduce the instances of child abuse because I could make sure that media is well lubricated to keep the issue in our face till it goes away to whatever level we can reach. Just like the dead beat dads of today are having to meet their responsibilities more than in the past.

That's it?

That's it?

You'd use legalized prostitution to instigate more lawsuits against child abusers? You took Ed knows how many pages to finally spew out your solution--and this is it?

But there's no reason you can't do that now! Child abuse is already illegal! Sue away! Get your voice and face out there in the media now! What are you waiting for, man--it's Saturday, and I guarantee you a little girl is being fondled, a little boy is being sodomized, RIGHT NOW, somewhere.

So, it still boils down to you doing nothing to prevent the abuse. Just a band-aid fix after the damage is done.

Okay. Nice way to waste time. Sheesh.

EDIT: And, I might add, even if you were the "new leader of legalized prostitution," you can't bring suit on someone's behalf. You're just a boss, an employer. You don't buy the girls, you don't own them for Ed's sake. They can already bring their own suits right now if they want to, and you certainly can't help them with that.

Your "solution" is no solution at all.

slingblade

16th June 2007, 12:53 PM

slingblade,

You're missing my point. Let me explain it again.

No, I'm not missing it, so much as showing you don't really have a point.

I make cookies. I make them in my home, in my own kitchen. When you come over to see me, I can give you one cookie, or a whole plateful. Not illegal, not breaking any laws. No one even cares.

However: if you buy those cookies from me, if money changes hands, I have just broken a whole slew of laws, as well as opened myself up for lawsuits.

And the only reason is that money has changed hands. My cookies have become a commercial enterprise. Commercial enterprises are regulated by laws.

That's the difference! Exchanging money for goods or services brings those acts under regulation, for the good of the community. The law is only peripherally concerned with the good of the individuals involved, insofar as they are part of the community at large.

The money alone changes the nature of the act so that additional considerations, protections, and regulations must be enacted and enforced for the good of the community at large, whether individuals in that community avail themselves of that service/good or not.

Let me guess: you're a libertarian, aren't you?

Gnu Ordure

16th June 2007, 04:31 PM

However: if you buy those cookies from me, if money changes hands, I have just broken a whole slew of laws, as well as opened myself up for lawsuits.

Really, slingblade ?

Not in the UK, for sure. Over here, as long as I don't go over a certain threshold, I can sell my personal possessions to whoever I like without being regulated.

Don't you have yard-sales in the States, that operate on the same principle ?

So, to accommodate your objection. let's assume in my hypothetical hotel scenario, that the commercial transaction is a one-off, unlikely to be repeated, so it doesn't attract the commercial regulations to which you refer.

It's still illegal though.

So, my question remains :

"what changes would you like to make to the current laws in Nevada such that the behaviour of the commercial couple becomes legitimate ?"

Gnu.

PS "Let me guess: you're a libertarian, aren't you?".

I'm a Pisces, actually.

slingblade

16th June 2007, 05:09 PM

Really, slingblade ?

Not in the UK, for sure. Over here, as long as I don't go over a certain threshold, I can sell my personal possessions to whoever I like without being regulated.

Don't you have yard-sales in the States, that operate on the same principle ?

Yard sales actually have certain regulations in the U.S., which likely vary from state to state. But there are regulations. In some areas, it is even illegal to have one.

But this happens to be a subject on which I have a lot of experience.
By making cookies for sale in my home kitchen, I have violated any number of food safety regulations. My kitchen has not been inspected; my food products have not been inspected; my sanitary facilities have not been inspected. I am not using FDA-approved ingredient labeling on my cookies; I may not even be packaging them sanitarily.

It is generally against the law to produce food for commercial sale in the same home kitchen in which you prepare your own food. However, in the U.S., the laws which apply may vary from state to state. In Colorado, I know these are the laws. I know, because I ran afoul of them.

I cannot legally sell the cookies I bake in my kitchen, unless I first meet all of the regulations which govern this issue.

So, my question remains :

"what changes would you like to make to the current laws in Nevada such that the behaviour of the commercial couple becomes legitimate ?"

I don't care what they do with the laws in Nevada. I would like to see prostitution legalized and regulated, and from what I know of the system in Nevada, it suits me and my opinions just fine.

mylfmyhnr

16th June 2007, 05:38 PM

You're trying to eradicate the problems associated with illegal prostitution by regulating it, but that immediately criminalizes activity that breaks those regulations, leaving you with the problems associated with illegal prostitution.
My point is that you claim regulating the industry simply changes the illegal aspects of the act. I'm pointing out that even in your "pure" sex (ie married sex) there are instances of acts being illegal.

Take your example.

In room A is a civilian married couple having oral sex

In room B is a prostitute and a John having oral sex

In room C is a military couple having oral sex

Room A is the only legal room, even though there are 2 married couples. Would you expect the military to courtmarital the couple? Is that really an acceptable idea in this day and age? Yet the only difference between the legal oral sex and the illegal oral sex in the above example is the empolyment of the individuals.

Gnu Ordure

16th June 2007, 06:51 PM

I would like to see prostitution legalized and regulated, and from what I know of the system in Nevada, it suits me and my opinions just fine.

In which case, slingblade, my question doesn't apply to you.

I have posited this hotel scenario, and you say you are happy with Nevadan law as it stands, the law is fair, and the commercial couple are breaking the law and are therefore criminals.

Fair enough.

My question is intended for those, like Todd, who think the law is unfair.

As I asked :

Todd, and others, think this is unfair and wrong, and that the behaviour in each hotel room should be equally legitimate.

So my question to all of you is : what changes would you like to make to the current laws in Nevada such that the behaviour of the commercial couple becomes legitimate ?

Gnu.

toddjh

16th June 2007, 11:40 PM

My question is intended for those, like Todd, who think the law is unfair.

So my question to all of you is : what changes would you like to make to the current laws in Nevada such that the behaviour of the commercial couple becomes legitimate?

For starters, I would like to see the system in place in the rural counties which have legalized prostitution extended to cover the whole state, including Las Vegas and Reno. Unfortunately that's not politically possible at the moment, since they're trying to promote Las Vegas as a family-friendly vacation destination and don't want any press that would affect that, whether it had any basis in reality or not.

As for the details of further regulation, I'm not really qualified to say. That would be the domain of the state health and labor departments, and other existing regulatory bodies.

ETA: Also, I think you're misunderstanding what people like Slingblade and I mean when we say we support the system in Nevada. What we mean (I think -- correct me if I'm wrong!) is that we support the system used in the parts of Nevada where prostitution has been legalized, not that we support the system in the entire state, where it's legal in some counties but not others.

Greatest I am

17th June 2007, 07:31 AM

That's it?

That's it?

You'd use legalized prostitution to instigate more lawsuits against child abusers? You took Ed knows how many pages to finally spew out your solution--and this is it?

But there's no reason you can't do that now! Child abuse is already illegal! Sue away! Get your voice and face out there in the media now! What are you waiting for, man--it's Saturday, and I guarantee you a little girl is being fondled, a little boy is being sodomized, RIGHT NOW, somewhere.

So, it still boils down to you doing nothing to prevent the abuse. Just a band-aid fix after the damage is done.

Okay. Nice way to waste time. Sheesh.

EDIT: And, I might add, even if you were the "new leader of legalized prostitution," you can't bring suit on someone's behalf. You're just a boss, an employer. You don't buy the girls, you don't own them for Ed's sake. They can already bring their own suits right now if they want to, and you certainly can't help them with that.

Your "solution" is no solution at all.

For evil to perpetuate all good men need do is nothing.

Legislation reduced the incidences of dead beat fathers. It could and would do the same for the abuses spoken to here. A prediction based on another scenario or issue has a good chance of becoming reality.

Regards
DL

slingblade

17th June 2007, 11:27 AM

For evil to perpetuate all good men need do is nothing.

You are doing nothing.

You're posing hypotheticals and answering posts on an internet forum. What's that doing for the little girl three blocks away from you whose uncle is telling her, right now, how much she'll like it?

Legislation reduced the incidences of dead beat fathers.

That's because no effective legal remedy existed in the past, and legislation had to be created to address the problem.

Child sexual abuse is already illegal!

It could and would do the same for the abuses spoken to here.

It hasn't yet. It is already against the law to sexually abuse a child.

More laws aren't going to prevent it. More laws are barely going to address it.

A prediction based on another scenario or issue has a good chance of becoming reality.

Huh? Not when the two scenarios have so little in common.

So after all of this, all you can come up with is that legalizing prostitution will somehow help victims of child sexual abuse bring suit against their abusers, and this will, in a manner not explained, bring a reduction in abuse?

Because the threat of arrest and conviction isn't doing it;
Nor is the threat of being on a sex-offender's registry for life doing it;
But a lawsuit--which most offenders won't be able to counter or pay, because most offenders aren't wealthy--will somehow magically scare abusers away from their victims.

But none of that will come about until prostitution is legalized, supposedly nation-wide or even globally--and so in the meantime, you can sit and wait on it.

Doing nothing.

Gnu Ordure

18th June 2007, 03:59 PM

Todd, sorry, your answer doesn't work.

I asked :

what changes would you like to make to the current laws in Nevada such that the behaviour of the commercial couple becomes legitimate?

and you said :

For starters, I would like to see the system in place in the rural counties which have legalized prostitution extended to cover the whole state, including Las Vegas and Reno

That wouldn't legitimize our commercial couple in the Vegas hotel, Todd, in fact just the opposite: they would then be breaking the law by not being in licensed premises, by not having had the required tests and by not wearing a condom.

Do you (or does anyone else) have any other suggestions ?

Gnu.

Gnu Ordure

18th June 2007, 05:31 PM

Yard sales actually have certain regulations in the U.S., which likely vary from state to state. But there are regulations. In some areas, it is even illegal to have one.

... (snipping) ..

By making cookies for sale in my home kitchen, I have violated any number of food safety regulations. ...

... in Colorado, I know these are the laws.

I know, because I ran afoul of them.

I'm intrigued, slingblade.

You got done by the Cookie Police ?

This is a side of America I didn't know about...

Five years inside for a yard-sale and eight for selling cookies*.... just a moment ... Colorado ... you don't happen to live in South Park, do you ?

Gnu.

* Hang on a sec; what exactly were you putting in those cookies ?

JJM 777

18th June 2007, 09:51 PM

What to do with prostitutes?

a) in case of selling their services to married men, jail them and their married customers for multiple adultery

b) in case of voluntarily working under a pimp, jail the pimp and free the woman of all charges

c) in case of being forced to do the work, execute the pimp and give all his property to the females forced to prostitution

Hokulele

18th June 2007, 11:01 PM

slingblade

19th June 2007, 01:17 AM

I'm intrigued, slingblade.

You got done by the Cookie Police ?

This is a side of America I didn't know about...

Five years inside for a yard-sale and eight for selling cookies*.... just a moment ... Colorado ... you don't happen to live in South Park, do you ?

Gnu.

* Hang on a sec; what exactly were you putting in those cookies ?

I got issued a cease and desist order by the State Health Department for producing food for commercial sale from an uninspected home kitchen.

I honestly had no idea you couldn't sell food you made at home. We had a nice chat; I didn't go to jail or even get a fine. I was informed that if I installed a separate sink, oven, and fridge, kept the food separate from my own groceries, used separate utensils, and allowed an inspector to inspect, I could get a license to sell my goods (they were actually raisin turnovers and coffee cakes). I'd also have to have a heat-sealer for packaging, and print up some labels.

Christ, I was just trying to earn a little pin money! So, I bought the third-largest wholesale/retail bakery in Denver, instead.

(Just kidding--we bought that a couple of years later.)

Oh, and no, I never lived in Fairplay, but I supplied a bakery in Conifer for a while, and worked for Rosanne's first husband, over the hill in another town for a while. And that stripper-mayor? She used to cut my hair.

Broes

19th June 2007, 04:53 AM

I am from the Netherlands...

Prostitution has been legalised I think 4-5 years ago.

So far this has resulted in:

- More prostitutes receiving medical insurance/care
- Less illegal brothels
- Less forced prostitution
- Prostitutes paying taxes
- Less minors and illegal aliens working as prostitutes

As far as I know, there has not been an uprise in the ammount of prostitution...

Draw your own conclusion I would say...

Bruce Jongejans

Lonewulf

19th June 2007, 06:55 AM

toddjh

19th June 2007, 07:22 AM

That wouldn't legitimize our commercial couple in the Vegas hotel, Todd, in fact just the opposite: they would then be breaking the law by not being in licensed premises, by not having had the required tests and by not wearing a condom.

Well, I said "for starters," and then I went on to say that I'm not qualified to answer questions like that. I'm sorry, but I'm not. Given time, it's entirely possible the situation you describe might be allowed. It's also possible it wouldn't.

However, it's my understanding that the hotel situation is already sort of a gray area. Yes, the current law says that prostitution can only take place in brothels, but there's apparently some legal ambiguity about when exactly the "prostitution" takes place: is it when the sex takes place, or is it when the money changes hands? You can make a good argument that, legally, it's the latter: police certainly think so, since they arrest hookers and johns when money is exchanged, even though no sex has taken place yet. So if someone goes to a brothel, makes a deal and pays for it, and then he and the woman go to a hotel for the night, is that breaking the law?

I also wouldn't have a problem with a "hotel exception" explicitly written into the law -- one advantage of centralizing things in brothels is security for the women, but I think hotels could work if they guaranteed certain standards of security as well. It would have to be opt-in, obviously (sort of like getting a liquor license), and frankly I don't think there would be a lot of takers, but hey, that's their business.

As for condom use, I forgot that was part of your example. No, I think condom use should always be required. It's just a matter of public health. Yes, that means that the "commercial couple" can't do everything that the regular couple can, but that's already the case in a lot of areas. Like Slingblade points out, professional chefs have to follow procedures that ordinary people in their kitchens don't. Same deal here. It's for the safety of the employees and their clients.