Prostitution: Did P&T Lie to Me?

[Tsukasa Buddha]

'It's like you sign a contract to be raped'


If you believe their PR, Nevada's legal brothels are safe, healthy - even fun - places in which to work. So why do so many prostitutes tell such horrific tales of abuse? Julie Bindel reports

There is only one place in the US where brothels are legal, and that's Nevada - a state in which prostitution has been considered a necessary service industry since the days when the place was populated solely by prospecters. There are at least 20 legal brothels in business now. Not so many, you might think, but these state-sanctioned operations punch above their weight in PR terms.

...

"The physical appearance of these buildings is shocking," says Farley. "They look like wide trailers with barbed wire around them - little jails." The rooms all have panic buttons, but many women told her that they had experienced violent and sexual abuse from the customers and pimps.

"I saw a grated iron door in one brothel," says Farley. "The women's food was shoved through the door's steel bars between the kitchen and the brothel area. One pimp starved a woman he considered too fat. She made a friend outside the brothel who would throw food over the fence for her." Another pimp told Farley matter-of-factly that many of the women working for him had histories of sexual abuse and mental ill-health. "Most," he said, "have been sexually abused as kids. Some are bipolar, some are schizophrenic."

So did Penn and Teller's BS episode lie? They portrayed these brothels as being nice, and the prostitutes as happy.

Is prostitution the selling of humans? Or is it a legal contract between individuals?

I mean, technically I would really see no problem with it. But in practice, if it only creates all this harm to those involved, I don't know if I would legalize it.

Or could this just be the result of the weird conflicting laws in the US?

[strathmeyer]

Do you want to hear some fast food worker horror stories? Or is data not the plural of anecdote?

[ponderingturtle]

I do remember hearing an interview with a former drug addicted prostitute from Australia. She worked in two legal brothels, one was not really legal as they paid the prostitutes in drugs, and a major turning point for her was moving to a better brothel. There the other girls got her out in the day time and such.

Judging any industry by the worse or the best is going to give a false image of what it is.

[Gurdur]

The prostitution industry sucks in a lot of very disturbed people. It then often twists them up even more. And yes, Penn and Teller's BS episode was ideologically-driven BS.
_________

This is not to be taken as being against legal prostitution. All the arguments for that far outweigh the arguments against it. But to pretend the whole industry is a lovely bed of roses is a lie.

[ponderingturtle]

The prostitution industry sucks in a lot of very disturbed people. It then often twists them up even more. And yes, Penn and Teller's BS episode was ideologically-driven BS.


This is true of a great many industries where you have very low standards of entry.

[Gurdur]

This is true of a great many industries where you have very low standards of entry.

Not quite. The prostitution industry actually appeals to many with severe emotional disturbances. This cannot be said for example say of the sweatshop garment industry, or the almost-slavery conditions of agriculture in some places.

[RandFan]

Hey Tsukasa, could you give us a link?

[Gurdur]

Hey Tsukasa, could you give us a link?


Here is a link to The Guardian piece from which he quotes (http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2164270,00.html).

[JoeEllison]

Prostitution is pretty bad juju... is anyone surprised?

[Gurdur]

Prostitution is pretty bad juju... is anyone surprised?

Apparently some are. Penn & Teller push lots of libertarian crap. They're not interested in the realities sometimes at all.

Mildy disagree though: some older prostitutes can actually handle prostitution very well, without problems at all. But I tend to think they are the minority.

[JoeEllison]

Apparently some are. Penn & Teller push lots of libertarian crap. They're not interested in the realities sometimes at all.

Mildy disagree though: some older prostitutes can actually handle prostitution very well, without problems at all. But I tend to think they are the minority.

P&T don't seem to have the ability to view reality without filtering it through their silly political views.

[Gurdur]

P&T don't seem to have the ability to view reality without filtering it through their silly political views.

Often so, if not always.

[JoeEllison]

Often so, if not always.

Occasionally the filter and reality almost match, so they seem less nutty. :D

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Hey Tsukasa, could you give us a link?

:eek: AH! I'm very sorry! Please excuse my stupidity.

Linky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2164271,00.html).

Please forgive me if I confused anyone.

Sorry :o .

[RandFan]

:eek: AH! I'm very sorry! Please excuse my stupidity.

Linky (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2164271,00.html).

Please forgive me if I confused anyone.

Sorry :o .Yeah, like I've never done that. :)

[RandFan]

I'm a big fan of P&T. Both don't care that you disagree with them. They want to question things. They want us to question our held notions. They are one of the few programs on TV that even question idiotic things like Fung Shui, psychic healing, Alien Abductions, etc., etc.

I'm damn glad that they are there.

As for prostitution I don't have a problem with it. If a woman choses to sell herself for sex that's fine with me. If a woman choses to be in porn that's fine with me. If a woman wants to be a stripper that's fine.

I wory about exploitation, particularly of young vulnerable women. If there are underlying reasons for women to be exploited when they other wise wouldn't and those issues were dealt with and there was no supply of prostitutes I would be very happy with that.

However, as long as there is money, then there will always be women who will sell themselves. They will just make more money... IMO. Don't tell me Ana Nicole Smith wasn't turning tricks for Howard Marshall, she just called it marriage.

[DouglasL]

To quote George Carlin: "Why is prostitution illegal? Why is it illegal to sell something that is perfectly legal to give away free?"

[Blue Mountain]

P&T don't seem to have the ability to view reality without filtering it through their silly political views.
That's probably true of everybody. It's just that I prefer my slightly rose-tinted filter. :)

[Miss Anthrope]

And, to be fair, what about the bias of the author? I'm not going to just accuse her of making it up any more than P & T should be accused of making it up.

I'm a fan of the notion of legalized, regulated prostitution. That said, I've read a great deal of disturbing reports of human trafficking in places where the legality of prostitution has been claimed to be "ideal", such as in Amsterdam.

I don't know what the solution is. While I want to see it legal and safe, I want assurances that virtual or actual slavery, pimping and unethical situations are a heavily policed rarity.

Perhaps the past centuries of criminalized prostitution have just made it far too difficult to bring this up to the level of a tolerable working environment? Then again, not long ago in virtually every Western country, the abolition of child labor, sweatshop conditions and unsafe workplaces is a relatively new thing. Perhaps if we persevere in ensuring that fair workers protection can extend to the sex industry, we'll see the same revolution we have in "mainstream" labor laws? I speak, of course, only for the first world nations who have come this far.

[Complexity]

Apparently some are. Penn & Teller push lots of libertarian crap. They're not interested in the realities sometimes at all.


libertarian here agrees with Penn's & Teller's libertarian 'crap'.

Also, let's not forget that some of the very best, and best-looking, prostitutes are probably guys.

[DouglasL]

How about a prostitutes Union? It would help improve working conditions, set regular hours, limit the number of customers per day, coffee breaks etc. Historically working conditions do not change until the people doing the work force a change from within. Changes (usually) start small and local, spread into other areas, and then become National Standards. And prostitution is a service industry and should be judged as such. Do you receive good service? Was the experience worth the price? Would you go back? Would you tell someone else about it.
I have heard the argument that it is wrong to pay someone to pretend they like you or care about your feelings. However you do exactly the same thing when you go out to dinner. You are paying the waiter/waitress to pretend that you are important and that your well being and happiness with your dinning experience is their primary concern. The same goes for spas, hair stylist, even your doctor, you want them to make you believe that you are the most important person that they have seen all day. When in reality you are just another customer that they are servicing. The only difference between all of these service industries and prostitution is the level of intimate contact, although my doctor has done things to me that would qualify as more intimate than anything I would pay a prostitute to do.

[Wolfman]

First, I'd question whether Nevada's brothels are the standard to test this by; while technically "legal", they are also pretty much run by organized crime, and have a loooong history.

Yeah, there's potential for abuse in "legal" brothels; but nowhere close to the potential that you have in illegal brothels. In addition, in countries like Canada and Australia that have only recently legalized prostitution, they've also introduced fairly strict regulations governing those industries (regulations that are, as far as I know, far stricter than those in Nevada).

I believe it is a combination of two factors -- regulations, and enforcement. First, you must have regulations in place to protect the prostitutes from abuse; second, you must have authorities who are able and willing to enforce those regulations. I'd suggest that both of these factors are missing (or very weak) in Nevada. But in cases where both are present, while you cannot eliminate abuse entirely, you can certainly limit it to very low levels.

Fact is, if a woman is offering her body for sale, there is an implicit acceptance of danger. There is always the risk of getting a customer who attacks her, beats her, abuses her, etc. A good brothel would have the ability to stop such abuse as quickly as possible; a good legal system would have strong penalties for those who committed such abuse. But that would not prevent the initial abuse from taking place -- that is impossible to control completely.

Personally, I'm completely in favor of legalized prostitution. But legalization is not, in and of itself, a 'solution'. It must be combined with a clearly defined and complete legal structure to govern the industry, and the intent/willingness to enforce those regulations adequately.

[Miss Anthrope]

Excellent, Wolfman.

Also........Complexity..... :D

[shuize]

How is it that I hear many of the same people who argue "a woman's right to choose" when speaking about abortion are the same people who are against "a woman's right to choose" when it comes to prostitution?

It is all about "exploitation" or is there something more?

It seems to me that for those worried about exploitation, legalization and regulation is the better solution.

[quixotecoyote]

How is it that I hear many of the same people who argue "a woman's right to choose" when speaking about abortion are the same people who are against "a woman's right to choose" when it comes to prostitution?

It is all about "exploitation" or is there something more?

It seems to me that for those worried about exploitation, legalization and regulation is the better solution.

Are you telling me that the pro-life fundamentalists want to legalize prostitution?

[RandFan]

Perhaps the past centuries of criminalized prostitution have just made it far too difficult to bring this up to the level of a tolerable working environment? Then again, not long ago in virtually every Western country, the abolition of child labor, sweatshop conditions and unsafe workplaces is a relatively new thing. Perhaps if we persevere in ensuring that fair workers protection can extend to the sex industry, we'll see the same revolution we have in "mainstream" labor laws? I speak, of course, only for the first world nations who have come this far. I agree.

[SomeGuy]

Ms. Anthrope, I don't think anyone in Amsterdam would claim that the prostitution is ideal.

Yes, it's legalized and regulated, the working girls are unionized, pimping is prohibited. It's probably as good as the current legislators can get it.

But of course:

1) Anti-pimping laws stand and fall with girls not being too scared to file charges or speak out against their pimps.
2) Legalised and regulated also means taxed, so there are always people willing to work 'tax-free', but that keeps them of the chart as far as any protection they'd get from law-enforcement .
3) There's always girls desperate enough (if you're cynical read: addicted) to work below the normal prices in an illegal circuit even if 2) weren't true.
4) In Amsterdam, as any place where prostitution hasn't always been legal, large parts of prostitution were in the hands of organized crime. They are very adept at hiding exactly which seeming legit places are really fronts for illegal institutes.
5) Many many other factors that I forgot because I'm not (even close to) an expert on this topic.

[RandFan]

Are you telling me that the pro-life fundamentalists want to legalize prostitution?That does't follow. Politics make strange bedfellows. There are those who are pro-choice who are also against pornography and/or prositiution.

[quixotecoyote]

That does't follow. Politics make strange bedfellows. There are those who are pro-choice who are also against pornography and/or prositiution.


I'm aware. But shuize's statement that pro-choice people were also the anti-legalization people is just too funny. The megachurch/brothel revival meeting awaits!

[slingblade]

It's not going to do anyone else any good, and I know that, but anecdotally, I happen to know a worker in one of the Nevada houses. I've known her for many years. I've heard all her stories.

She did work in one house where the owner was, in her words, "a pig," and where it wasn't as good as it could have been. No one, however, shoved her food at her though a steel-barred door. None of the conditions she described could have been called horrific, or even "rilly bad, y'know?" The house was sometimes messy; the money wasn't always correct; the workers were often spoken to by the owner and managers in the same way most minimum-wage workers are spoken to: degradingly and as if they had no brains; the shifts were sometimes too long. That sort of thing.

But my friend had a solution: she changed houses. She went to a much better house, where those problems didn't happen. The workers there got along much better; problems were handled as they happened; the money was right, except for an occasional honest mistake; the shifts were decent and not taxing. She likes it there. And she likes her job.

Neither house was surrounded by barbed-wire, but both houses have fencing and security gates.

As I said: all anecdotal, and of no use to anyone, but me. :)

ETA: I almost forgot. Her new house was on the P&T show. I was talking to her one night when they were there. She was singularly unimpressed, and stayed out of their way for the duration. :D

[Wildy]

In addition, in countries like Canada and Australia that have only recently legalized prostitution, they've also introduced fairly strict regulations governing those industries (regulations that are, as far as I know, far stricter than those in Nevada).

I think that it is fair to point out that in Australia the legality of prostitution depends on the state you are in. Here in South Australia prostitution is still illegal but if I remember correctly the current trend with the police seems to be one where they don't spend too much time enforcing this law.

In 1999 they tried to pass laws that made it legal but they were shot down in the Legislative Council.

<a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Australia>Wikipedia</a> covers this briefly.

[Complexity]

One must always consult Heinlein on discussions of, well, all topics.

[rjh01]

I know in ACT, Australia it is practised legally without any problems. Mind you we do have problems with restaurants underpaying and exploiting people. Maybe we should make them illegal?

[3point14]

I'm still not sure about the fundemental difference between selling sex and selling any other physical service.

Can someone enlighten me?

[rjh01]

Or going to the movies.

Sex is meant to be for producing children. Very 19th century attitude.

[Professor Yaffle]

You might like to watch the Louis Theroux episode on a Nevada brothel. Part one is below and the other parts are linked alongside.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoTgKMrtYto&mode=related&search=

[Gurdur]

I'm a big fan of P&T. Both don't care that you disagree with them.
RandFan, what kind of statement is that? They don't care? So the big what? You're talking to me; you know me. I have been very square with you. Now, I'm saying that that line of yours is crap; I couldn't care less if "they [allegedly] don't care", I want to know why you threw that in.
They want to question things.
They also want to promote a particular POV, and no, it's not just skepticism that they're pushing at all.

I'm damn glad that they are there.
That does not make them immune to being questioned.

[Gurdur]

libertarian here agrees with Penn's & Teller's libertarian 'crap'.
No doubt.

Also, let's not forget that some of the very best, and best-looking, prostitutes are probably guys.

And a great many of the very young street workers are guys too. Exploited endlessly, at very high risk for everything from HIV to Hep C to extreme violence. Try not to leave that out.

Can't see why you brought up looks. Did you have any point at all?

[JoeEllison]

I'm a big fan of P&T. Both don't care that you disagree with them. They want to question things. They want us to question our held notions. They are one of the few programs on TV that even question idiotic things like Fung Shui, psychic healing, Alien Abductions, etc., etc.

I'm damn glad that they are there.They also don't hold their own views as sacred. I know Penn Jillette used to mock his own political beliefs as "stupid and crazy" on his radio show.

[JoeEllison]

How is it that I hear many of the same people who argue "a woman's right to choose" when speaking about abortion are the same people who are against "a woman's right to choose" when it comes to prostitution?

It is all about "exploitation" or is there something more?

It seems to me that for those worried about exploitation, legalization and regulation is the better solution.
IF the job is fundamentally negative in nature, how does legalization or regulation help? By making sure they are harmed in exchange for better wages and benefits? :jaw-dropp

[Geckko]

IF the job is fundamentally negative in nature, how does legalization or regulation help? By making sure they are harmed in exchange for better wages and benefits? :jaw-dropp

"Negative" is relative. It goes down to ensuring that you aren't subject to any unexpected harm. For example, joining the army and only then being told that you are to act as the target during shooting practice.

[Gurdur]

It's not going to do anyone else any good, and I know that, but anecdotally, I happen to know a worker in one of the Nevada houses. I've known her for many years. I've heard all her stories.
I've known several prostitutes and former prostitutes myself.
But my friend had a solution: she changed houses. She went to a much better house, where those problems didn't happen. ....She likes it there. And she likes her job.
Your friend has brains and a spine. So common that isn't.
As I said: all anecdotal, and of no use to anyone, but me. :)
You know some of us better than that. Speak on.

How about a prostitutes Union? .....
It has been tried and is being tried in numerous places. As far as I can see, with limited success; trade-unionization of sex workers is incredibly more difficult than trade-unionization of factory workers. However, the current USA, with its present attitudes to regulation and trade unions, is probably a very bad atmosphere for such efforts.

Personally, I'm completely in favor of legalized prostitution. But legalization is not, in and of itself, a 'solution'. It must be combined with a clearly defined and complete legal structure to govern the industry, and the intent/willingness to enforce those regulations adequately.
That would seem to be the entire point already made.

How is it that I hear many of the same people who argue "a woman's right to choose" when speaking about abortion are the same people who are against "a woman's right to choose" when it comes to prostitution?
Well, that really has nothing to do with this thread, does it? Unless I am missing something, none of the people you refer to have anything to do with why this thread was opened or what caused it to be opened, and nothing to do with any comments on the thread so far.
One must always consult Heinlein on discussions of, well, all topics.
Heinlein was a crappy, over-rated writer. John Steinbeck was far more on the money in this area.

Sex is meant to be for producing children. Very 19th century attitude.

Got nothing to do with this thread or the comments made so far whatsoever.

[JoeEllison]

"Negative" is relative. It goes down to ensuring that you aren't subject to any unexpected harm. For example, joining the army and only then being told that you are to act as the target during shooting practice.

So the expected harms are also acceptable to you?

[Gurdur]

IF the job is fundamentally negative in nature, how does legalization or regulation help? By making sure they are harmed in exchange for better wages and benefits? :jaw-dropp

To be fair, an awful lot of unskilled manual labour is also putting oneself in harm's way for pitiful wages.

Meaningful legislation, legalization and empowered regulation helps a huge deal in tackling all the problems associated with prostitution. Driving it underground only makes it far worse.

Linky again. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2164270,00.html)

I don't agree at all with when she says, "Once the people of Nevada learn of [prostitutes'] suffering and emotional distress, and their lack of human rights, they, like me, will be persuaded that legal prostitution is an institution that just can't be fixed up or made a little better. It has to be abolished."
I disagree entirely with her there, though I can see why she came to that conclusion.

She does bring up a good point here:
"When prostitution is considered a legal job instead of a human rights violation," says Farley, "why should the state offer services for escape?"

The state needs to provide meaningful legalization, legislation, empowered regulation AND education as a means of escape for those who want it.

[JoeEllison]

To be fair, an awful lot of unskilled manual labour is also putting oneself in harm's way for pitiful wages.

Meaningful legislation, legalization and empowered regulation helps a huge deal in tackling all the problems associated with prostitution. Driving it underground only makes it far worse.

Don't care about legalization... it is a separate issue from the fact that things like prostitution and stripping and pornography seem to be emotionally damaging to women. OR, more accurately, they draw in emotionally damaged women and make them worse. Legalization doesn't change that part of it.

[ponderingturtle]

How is it that I hear many of the same people who argue "a woman's right to choose" when speaking about abortion are the same people who are against "a woman's right to choose" when it comes to prostitution?.

That is easy, women should have the right to choose from a list of things that such speakers find acceptable.

[shalomsteph]

Not quite. The prostitution industry actually appeals to many with severe emotional disturbances. This cannot be said for example say of the sweatshop garment industry, or the almost-slavery conditions of agriculture in some places.

Exactly. I have to wonder if Penn would want HIS daughter to be a sex worker? If he thinks it is wonderful, liberating, freedom of choice, etc, he should have no problem with it. Somehow, I think he would.

The problem is that legalizing it isn't making it better for the women (they are still under the control of pimps and madames, no medical insurance, etc) and most (not all, MOST) women who go into the sex trade are not emotionally stable to begin with. MANY have been sexually abused as children.

I guess I just ask anyone who thinks it should be legal: So would you be proud if your daughter chose this profession?

[Gurdur]

And, to be fair, what about the bias of the author?
Do you mean the author of the Guardian piece? Or the author of the book which the Guardian piece discussed?

The author of the book is a feminist, with a great deal of research into prostitution. That may mean bias. It may also not mean bias.


Don't care about legalization... it is a separate issue from the fact that things like prostitution and stripping and pornography seem to be emotionally damaging to women. OR, more accurately, they draw in emotionally damaged women and make them worse. Legalization doesn't change that part of it.

Sensibly-done legalization PLUS meaningful regulation most certainly DOES change a hell of a lot.

Interestingly, the author of the book discussed tends to the POV that charging the johns is far better than charging the prosis; i.e. criminalizing buying sex while decriminalizing selling it is a better strategy, in her opinion.

[Undesired Walrus]

I thought Penn and Teller's show was one of the most irresponsible pieces of garbage I have ever seen.

Why you would question if they are a bias is bizarre.

[3point14]

Exactly. I have to wonder if Penn would want HIS daughter to be a sex worker? If he thinks it is wonderful, liberating, freedom of choice, etc, he should have no problem with it. Somehow, I think he would.

The problem is that legalizing it isn't making it better for the women (they are still under the control of pimps and madames, no medical insurance, etc) and most (not all, MOST) women who go into the sex trade are not emotionally stable to begin with. MANY have been sexually abused as children.

I guess I just ask anyone who thinks it should be legal: So would you be proud if your daughter chose this profession?


Proud? No, perhaps not, but there's a whole list of jobs I wouldn't want my (hypothetical, I admit) daughter to end up doing)

Ashamed? No, there are many jobs that my daughter could be doing that I would be far more ashamed of than being a worker in the sex industry. I would be concerned for her safety, and her well-being, yes, but I'. be concerned for that if she were a police-woman or a manual worker in a dangerous trade (North sea fishing, perhaps.)

I'd still be interested to hear the fundemental difference between being a prostitute and selling any other physical service. I think I must be missing something.

[fuelair]

I was a member of Coyote for a year a while back - an inactive member I should add in fairness - (Call Off Your Old Tired Ethics).


www.bayswan.org/COYOTE.html (May not besafe for work - I can't get to it right now and it has been awhile.

[shuize]

Exactly. I have to wonder if Penn would want HIS daughter to be a sex worker? If he thinks it is wonderful, liberating, freedom of choice, etc, he should have no problem with it. Somehow, I think he would.


I would not wish for my daughter to become a sex worker. Much like I would not wish for her to wait tables or flip burgers for a living. I'm sure she can do better. Is that a reason to make any of those professions illegal?


That is easy, women should have the right to choose from a list of things that such speakers find acceptable.


My thoughts as well.

[ponderingturtle]

And, to be fair, what about the bias of the author? I'm not going to just accuse her of making it up any more than P & T should be accused of making it up.

I'm a fan of the notion of legalized, regulated prostitution. That said, I've read a great deal of disturbing reports of human trafficking in places where the legality of prostitution has been claimed to be "ideal", such as in Amsterdam.

Yep, in america we keep our human trafficing to the agricultural, industrial and resturant industries.

[JoeEllison]

Sensibly-done legalization PLUS meaningful regulation most certainly DOES change a hell of a lot.

Interestingly, the author of the book discussed tends to the POV that charging the johns is far better than charging the prosis; i.e. criminalizing buying sex while decriminalizing selling it is a better strategy, in her opinion.

You completely ignored my point. :rolleyes:

[ponderingturtle]

Exactly. I have to wonder if Penn would want HIS daughter to be a sex worker? If he thinks it is wonderful, liberating, freedom of choice, etc, he should have no problem with it. Somehow, I think he would.

The problem is that legalizing it isn't making it better for the women (they are still under the control of pimps and madames, no medical insurance, etc) and most (not all, MOST) women who go into the sex trade are not emotionally stable to begin with. MANY have been sexually abused as children.

I guess I just ask anyone who thinks it should be legal: So would you be proud if your daughter chose this profession?

And that is why we need to abolish all trades that people don't want their children striving to be in. I see meat proccessing being banned next.

[Gurdur]

You completely ignored my point. :rolleyes:

I don't think so. But if you wish, please rephrase and repost it, and I will do my humble best to tackle it again.

[JoeEllison]

I think the issue in this particular thread is the almost religious worship of the concept of "choice". I think we'd all agree that having the freedom to choose is a great and wonderful thing. I just think that some people lose sight of the fact that not all choices are equal, and the fact that someone makes a free choice doesn't make that choice a positive thing. Whether or not there is a law against something doesn't always determine whether something is a healthy choice for people to make. Twinkies are completely legal, and a horrible choice. Creating a "Twinkie law" doesn't change the caloric content, does it? Alcohol did exactly as much liver damage before, during, and after Prohibition. Legalizing marijuana isn't going to make High Times an example of insightful journalism for the discerning reader. Legalizing and regulating prostitution isn't going to magically make prostitution less soul-sucking.

[JoeEllison]

I don't think so. But if you wish, please rephrase and repost it, and I will do my humble best to tackle it again.

Yeah, you did. I was talking about the negative aspects of "sex with strangers for money". If a chick gets paid $300,000 a year and has awesome benefits, she's still having sex with strangers for money, isn't she?

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, you did. I was talking about the negative aspects of "sex with strangers for money". If a chick gets paid $300,000 a year and has awesome benefits, she's still having sex with strangers for money, isn't she?

So you think that any woman who has casual sexual encounters is being emotionally damaged by those acts? Or is it the money?

Why does being paid for having sex with strangers change it so much, from ordinary having sex with strangers? It is OK if they are hot and you want them because of that, but bad if they are willing to pay you?

[JoeEllison]

So you think that any woman who has casual sexual encounters is being emotionally damaged by those acts? Or is it the money?

Why does being paid for having sex with strangers change it so much, from ordinary having sex with strangers? It is OK if they are hot and you want them because of that, but bad if they are willing to pay you?
Someone's willing to pay me? Sweet!

Your kind of subtle misrepresentations aren't helping things, though. I didn't equate "casual sexual encounters" with prostitution, so why did you think that I did? I think that there's a range of "casual sexual encounters", and one end of it might be really really bad... but you imply that sleeping with people for a living is the same as having a one night stand. One night stands aren't exactly the healthiest thing, either... but there's that whole "wide range" thing again.

Do you think that there might be something wrong with a person who is having sex with anywhere from 10-30 different strangers a week? Male or female, I don't think it matters. There's no law against it, unless you get paid for it. Does that mean that there's no emotional or mental harm attached, because there's no legal restrictions on it?

[Gurdur]

Yeah, you did. I was talking about the negative aspects of "sex with strangers for money". If a chick gets paid $300,000 a year and has awesome benefits, she's still having sex with strangers for money, isn't she?

Humans will always do stupid things. However, complete criminalization is often not the answer, IMHO.

I have given you my answer on prostitution itself: IMvHO, sensible legalization of some aspects combined with powerful regulation combined with education for those wanting to get out. That is my answer.

Do you feel your point has now been tackled enough by me?

[ponderingturtle]

Someone's willing to pay me? Sweet!

Your kind of subtle misrepresentations aren't helping things, though. I didn't equate "casual sexual encounters" with prostitution, so why did you think that I did?
I am trying to determine what parts of prostitution are so inherently harmful in your view. You seemed to take issue with the sex with strangers for money, well if what about other motives for having sex with strangers?

I think that there's a range of "casual sexual encounters", and one end of it might be really really bad... but you imply that sleeping with people for a living is the same as having a one night stand. One night stands aren't exactly the healthiest thing, either... but there's that whole "wide range" thing again.

No, I am saying that you have decided what is and is not proper behavior and are holding your standards up as absolutely true. This is one of the things that bugs me the most about religion.

Do you think that there might be something wrong with a person who is having sex with anywhere from 10-30 different strangers a week? Male or female, I don't think it matters. There's no law against it, unless you get paid for it. Does that mean that there's no emotional or mental harm attached, because there's no legal restrictions on it?

So how many strangers a week does it take? If say you are a prostitute who does longer terms with clients and have them pay say 7,000 a day.

Prostitution is not one thing, there are many many ways that it can be covered by it.

For example I remembered hearing about sexual surrogates, specifically people who tried to help their clients work through sexual problems in a direct sexual way. Is this mental health work or prostitution? Well they are paying for a sexual encounter but if done ethically the goals are therapeutic.

[ponderingturtle]

Humans will always do stupid things. However, complete criminalization is often not the answer, IMHO.


Do you trust your ability to say what is stupid for other people to do?

This just seems like "You should be free to choose, but you should follow the choices I want you to"

[Gurdur]

Do you trust your ability to say what is stupid for other people to do?
Often.

Are you pretending you do not make moral judgments about others' positions?

This just seems like "You should be free to choose, but you should follow the choices I want you to"

Pot, kettle, black.
All you're doing is saying I should be following your own position. I disagree.

[ponderingturtle]

Often.

Are you pretending you do not make moral judgments about others' positions?



Pot, kettle, black.
All you're doing is saying I should be following your own position. I disagree.

You are claiming judging peoples decisions and not judgeing peoples decisions are fundamentaly the same?

[volatile]

Do you think that there might be something wrong with a person who is having sex with anywhere from 10-30 different strangers a week? Male or female, I don't think it matters. There's no law against it, unless you get paid for it. Does that mean that there's no emotional or mental harm attached, because there's no legal restrictions on it?

The issue of "emotional harm" is, somewhat, besides the point, unless you think legalising prostitution will somehow encourage people undisposed to being a prostitute at the moment to enter the industry.

Fact is, there are people willing to sleep with 10 - 30 strangers a week anyway, for money or not. Legalisation of prostitution seems to be a sensible way of protecting those who do want (or, maybe need) to charge for sex. Keeping the sex trade illegal doesn't reduce the emotional damage to prostitutes (such that it might be), and indeed a plausible case could be made the continued illegality of prostitution might in itself be a contributing factor.

[JoeEllison]

Humans will always do stupid things. However, complete criminalization is often not the answer, IMHO.

I have given you my answer on prostitution itself: IMvHO, sensible legalization of some aspects combined with powerful regulation combined with education for those wanting to get out. That is my answer.

Do you feel your point has now been tackled enough by me?
I feel that you've almost ignored my point twice now. No worries... I've seen that same sort of inability to process information when discussing drug legalization as well. *shrugs*

[JoeEllison]

The issue of "emotional harm" is, somewhat, besides the point.
No, it is the entire point.

[pgwenthold]

I'm trying to figure out. Do the large fraction of prostitutes who are "emotionally disturbed" (as they have been characterized in this thread, and I stipulate it for the sake of argument) have problems because they are prostitutes? Or are they prostitutes because they are emotionally disturbed (and therefore might have trouble holding down other types of jobs?)

The comment about how prostitutes often come from backgrounds of sexual abuse (as a child, for example) is a complete non sequitor, it seems. How would legalizing or illegalizing prostitution affect that background at all? They would still have been molested as a child. That many with that background gravitate toward prostitution is a symptom of the problem, not the source of it.

[Gurdur]

You are claiming judging peoples decisions and not judgeing peoples decisions are fundamentaly the same?
You are claiming you are not judging my decision?
Funny.
______________

I feel that you've almost ignored my point twice now. No worries... I've seen that same sort of inability to process information when discussing drug legalization as well. *shrugs*

Hint:
disagreement does not equal ignoring.

I have disagreed with your point, and given you my reasons. Do you have any actual reason to continue to feel that I have ignored your point?

[Gurdur]

I'm trying to figure out. Do the large fraction of prostitutes who are "emotionally disturbed" (as they have been characterized in this thread, and I stipulate it for the sake of argument) have problems because they are prostitutes? Or are they prostitutes because they are emotionally disturbed (and therefore might have trouble holding down other types of jobs?)
Speaking only for me and for no-one else:
Often both. It works both ways often.

The comment about how prostitutes often come from backgrounds of sexual abuse (as a child, for example) is a complete non sequitor,
Nonsense.
How would legalizing or illegalizing prostitution affect that background at all?
Strawman. No-one has ever claimed the opposite. The position is that working in prostitution would often make problems resulting from such backgrounds worse, as well as meaning that the sex-workers are often even less able to handle prostitution and its stresses because of pre-existing problems. Deal with it.
That many with that background gravitate toward prostitution is a symptom of the problem, not the source of it.
No, it's both.

[3point14]

Are you pretending you do not make moral judgments about others' positions?


I think we all do.

The problem stems from trying to force ones own moral judgements on others. A very different thing from making those judgements in the first place.

[JoeEllison]

No, I am saying that you have decided what is and is not proper behavior and are holding your standards up as absolutely true.

Nope, I'm not doing that either. First off, I'm not talking about "proper" behavior, I'm talking about healthy behavior. Not always the same thing. "Monogamous missionary sex with the lights off" could be unhealthy, if it points to unhealthy emotional attachments and body image issues. Going to a dominatrix twice a week could very well be a relatively healthy outlet for someone's sexual and/or emotional needs. I'm not making a value judgment, saying some sexual behavior is more "morally correct" than others.

I'm also not speaking in absolutes, but in generalities. Generally, having sex with dozens of different people in a month, month in and month out, is not the healthiest way to conduct your life. I don't think there should be legislation against it, or some sort of expression or moral outrage against it. I'm just saying that it isn't the healthiest thing for most people to be doing.

[Gurdur]

I think we all do.
That would be my point.

The problem stems from trying to force ones own moral judgements on others. A very different thing from making those judgements in the first place.
Not true; no difference at all in this context.

[JoeEllison]

You are claiming you are not judging my decision?
Funny.
______________



Hint:
disagreement does not equal ignoring.

I have disagreed with your point, and given you my reasons. Do you have any actual reason to continue to feel that I have ignored your point?

Here, let's go at it from a different angle: what point do you think I'm making?

[volatile]

No, it is the entire point.

No, it isn't.

The fact is, Joe, that there are prostitutes in nearly every town in the world, whether prostitution is legal or not. Ergo, these women will be subject to this supposed "emotional harm" (which seems to stem from a particularly narrow ideological reading of female sexuality, by the way - it seems you are suggesting that women who sleep with lots of men are "damaged" in some way) anyway.

The question of legalisation does not then relate to the question of "emotional harm", at least insofar as your inference that legalising prostitution will increase emotional harm, or that prostitution should, de facto, be illegal because it is emotionally harmful. Women who choose to be prostitutes do so despite any perceived harm, and unless you want to argue that legalisation will encourage people otherwise undisposed to become prostitutes, the question of emotional harm is moot.

You asked:

IF the job is fundamentally negative in nature, how does legalization or regulation help? By making sure they are harmed in exchange for better wages and benefits?

The answer to that is an unequivocal yes (assuming, of course, your unsupported premise that prostitution is de facto harmful). Some people choose to sell sex. Always have done, always will do. To criminalise them, ostracise them from society, penalise them and place them beyond the reach of help because you want to protect them seem pretty absurd, don't you think?

[DouglasL]

IF the job is fundamentally negative in nature, how does legalization or regulation help? :jaw-dropp

Is prostitution fundamentally negative in nature? I mean giving someone an orgasm sounds positive to me. When I was in the US military I was paid to kill people, thats pretty negative (at least from their point of view).

[Gurdur]

Here, let's go at it from a different angle: what point do you think I'm making?

*sigh*

You were making the point, as I see it, that selling sex for cash (and you added later sex with lots of strangers, thus bringing in quantity as well as quality) is in your eyes not a Good Thing. You also felt that I had ignored your point.

I answered you in full twice on that now, especially expanding my answer the second time you asked. I really have nothing to add to my previous expanded second answer (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3000191&postcount=61), except that I will repeat to you again:

disagreeing with you does NOT equal ignoring you.

[JoeEllison]

Ugh...

[Gurdur]

Is prostitution fundamentally negative in nature?

Not necessarily, or, it's a bit too complex to make an easy answer.

I referred much earlier to older prostitutes who are well-settled, cope well and maintain non-self-destructive lifestyles; quite often they see themselves as essential marriage counsellors of sorts. They see themselves as actually helping their clients, and I would assume that many of their clients would feel the same way. So that part seems not to be negative.

[JoeEllison]

*sigh*

You were making the point, as I see it, that selling sex for cash (and you added later sex with lots of strangers, thus bringing in quantity as well as quality) is in your eyes not a Good Thing. You also felt that I had ignored your point.

I answered you in full twice on that now, especially expanding my answer the second time you asked. I really have nothing to add to my previous expanded second answer (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3000191&postcount=61), except that I will repeat to you again:

disagreeing with you does NOT equal ignoring you.
I don't care if you disagree with me or not... there wouldn't be much point in this if we all agreed, would there?:p

My point is that the emotional harm of selling sex is separate from the issue of legalizing prostitution... and your responses to me seem to focus solely on the legalization point, which ignores the emotional aspect almost entirely. Expanding on your position on legalization doesn't seem to address the emotional issues either.

And, what are you trying to imply by the "Good Thing" comment?

[Gurdur]

I don't care if you disagree with me or not... there wouldn't be much point in this if we all agreed, would there?
You claimed I ignored your point. I didn't. I merely disagreed.
... and your responses to me seem to focus solely on the legalization point, which ignores the emotional aspect almost entirely.
Not true. I answered you in full here (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3000191&postcount=61). I have nothing to add to that.
And, what are you trying to imply by the "Good Thing" comment?
I am only implying that I like brevity. Especially when whipping dead horses meaninglessly.

[JoeEllison]

Wow, that's just weird. I don't see how you've addressed my point at all. Do you think I'm for or against legalization?

[Gurdur]

Wow, that's just weird. I don't see how you've addressed my point at all.

Weirdness is all part of the human condition. Live with it.

[JoeEllison]

Weirdness is all part of the human condition. Live with it.

SO, do you think I'm for or against legalization?

[Gurdur]

oh god. JoeEllison, I'm not interested in games. I have answered you (and directly on legislation already) and not ignored you. I WILL ignore any further silly games or dead-horse-flogging.

[JoeEllison]

oh god. JoeEllison, I'm not interested in games. I have answered you (and directly on legislation already) and not ignored you. I WILL ignore any further silly games or dead-horse-flogging.

I don't know why you're acting this way. Clearly, there's a communication breakdown here... and I don't see trying to correct it as being "silly games". I'm honestly trying to figure out where the problem is, and I don't understand why that upsets you.

[Wolfman]

IF the job is fundamentally negative in nature, how does legalization or regulation help? By making sure they are harmed in exchange for better wages and benefits? :jaw-dropp
Sorry, but I don't accept the presupposition that "the job is fundamentally negative in nature"; and even if so, the way you put it is completely wrong. I don't know anyone who argues "harmed in exchange for better wages and benefits". Myself, and anyone else I know who argues for legalization, argues for "decreasing harm to the greatest possible minimum."

Now, let me turn the question back on you; knowing that A) prostitution is inevitable, and impossible to stop, B) that when prostitution is illegal, prostitutes face much greater damage and harm, and C) when prostitution is legalized, prostitutes have much greater protections...

...what kind of heartless bastard uses empty moralistic sophistry to claim it is better to keep it illegal, and let them suffer for it?

[JoeEllison]

Now, let me turn the question back on you; knowing that A) prostitution is inevitable, and impossible to stop, B) that when prostitution is illegal, prostitutes face much greater damage and harm, and C) when prostitution is legalized, prostitutes have much greater protections...

...what kind of heartless bastard uses empty moralistic sophistry to claim it is better to keep it illegal, and let them suffer for it?

I don't know who that person is, but it isn't me.

[ponderingturtle]

Nope, I'm not doing that either. First off, I'm not talking about "proper" behavior, I'm talking about healthy behavior.

Sure. But as you define healthy behavior you get to do what you want. Remember that it was not that long ago that homosexuality was defined as a mental illness and thus would qualify as unhealthy behavior. There are still many people who subscribe to this belief.

Not always the same thing. "Monogamous missionary sex with the lights off" could be unhealthy, if it points to unhealthy emotional attachments and body image issues. Going to a dominatrix twice a week could very well be a relatively healthy outlet for someone's sexual and/or emotional needs. I'm not making a value judgment, saying some sexual behavior is more "morally correct" than others.

Then why the universal decrying of prostitution?

I'm also not speaking in absolutes, but in generalities. Generally, having sex with dozens of different people in a month, month in and month out, is not the healthiest way to conduct your life. I don't think there should be legislation against it, or some sort of expression or moral outrage against it. I'm just saying that it isn't the healthiest thing for most people to be doing.

Ah it seemed I was hearing you makea stronger stance on the harm of prositution than you ment to be.

[ponderingturtle]

I don't care if you disagree with me or not... there wouldn't be much point in this if we all agreed, would there?:p

My point is that the emotional harm of selling sex is separate from the issue of legalizing prostitution... and your responses to me seem to focus solely on the legalization point, which ignores the emotional aspect almost entirely. Expanding on your position on legalization doesn't seem to address the emotional issues either.

And, what are you trying to imply by the "Good Thing" comment?

So if we are talking about emotionally harmful professions, how would EMS qualify? It is often associated with unhealthy lifestyles, has lots of on the job stress and a certain risk to health and safety.

If a job being harmful to the participants is enough to decry the job why limit yourself to prostitution?

[JoeEllison]

Sure. But as you define healthy behavior you get to do what you want. Remember that it was not that long ago that homosexuality was defined as a mental illness and thus would qualify as unhealthy behavior. There are still many people who subscribe to this belief.
Then why the universal decrying of prostitution?
Ah it seemed I was hearing you makea stronger stance on the harm of prositution than you ment to be.

I went out of my way to separate the legal issue from the mental health issue, and specifically stated that this wasn't a moral judgment. I know that most people are very used to hearing all of the issues blended together as though they were interchangeable, which I don't believe at all.

I see all the benefits of legalization, they all make sense, they are completely logical. I don't think that they correct for all of the harm of prostitution.

Have you ever seen that show The Ultimate Fighter? It is a bunch of maladjusted violent idiots/mixed martial artists trying to get a contract to fight for UFC. The fact that the fighting is legal, and that it is a relatively safe outlet for their violent tendencies, doesn't change the fact that some of those guys are really nutty. Think about Mike Tyson, too... or, better yet, don't. [:P] I don't think we can fix that problem by making professional fighting illegal.

Using similar logic, legalized prostitution is orders of magnitude better than what goes on now... but it isn't the whole answer, and doesn't answer the whole issue.

[JoeEllison]

So if we are talking about emotionally harmful professions, how would EMS qualify? It is often associated with unhealthy lifestyles, has lots of on the job stress and a certain risk to health and safety.

If a job being harmful to the participants is enough to decry the job why limit yourself to prostitution?

I'm not "decrying" anything. I'd suggest we get some serious resources to deal with the mental health issues of the EMS folks too... and I've no doubt that such resources are already in place, right?

The point I'm making goes specifically to the P&T episode, which seemed to gloss over the stresses of prostitution, by appearing to say that if it were legalized there would be no problems, as though it is a purely political issue.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

"The physical appearance of these buildings is shocking," says Farley. "They look like wide trailers with barbed wire around them - little jails." The rooms all have panic buttons, but many women told her that they had experienced violent and sexual abuse from the customers and pimps.

"I saw a grated iron door in one brothel," says Farley. "The women's food was shoved through the door's steel bars between the kitchen and the brothel area. One pimp starved a woman he considered too fat. She made a friend outside the brothel who would throw food over the fence for her." Another pimp told Farley matter-of-factly that many of the women working for him had histories of sexual abuse and mental ill-health. "Most," he said, "have been sexually abused as kids. Some are bipolar, some are schizophrenic."

I've lived in the area a long time, and I've even been to a few of these places. This description is not an accurate description of the ones I've been too, but I certainly haven't been to them all.

LLH

[Wolfman]

I've had this debate several times -- from both sides. Back when I was a devout Christian, I argued adamantly against legalization of prostitution. Now I'm an ardent supporter of it.

That said, I'd like to see regulation go much further than it does at present. I agree with arguments raised as to the psychological damage it can do to the women, and the question of the psychological state of some of the women who get involved in it.

For example, I'd see a huge difference between a woman of 'healthy' psychological status who has a liberal attitude towards sex and sees this as an easy way of making money, and a woman who was sexually abused by her father, suffering from tremendous psychological trauma and a sense of having no self-worth, who does this because she feels her only value comes from having other men abuse her.

I believe that prostitution should not only be legalized, but also licensed; without a valid license, you cannot work as a prostitute. I believe that such licensing should include a psychological evaluation, and for those people (male or female) whom it is determined that being a prostitute could cause greater psychological damage, that such a license be denied. In addition -- particularly given the significant profits involved in this industry -- I believe that ongoing psychological counseling should be readily and freely available to all prostitutes, and that at least a once-a-year psychological examination should be mandatory.

This should, of course, be on top of regular testing for STDs.

And I think that a good portion of the profits should be put into health insurance, to pay for the medical care (either physical or psychological) that many of these people are certain to need.

[Darth Rotor]

No, it is the entire point.
What is "emotional harm" in this matter? The term seems too vague to be useful.

Joe, you seem to be taking an absolutist position that any and all sex workers suffer from emotional harm. I don't doubt that some do, and can doubtless be easily swayed to believe that many do, but I find difficult to swallow the universalist position that no one can avoid it.

Some people like sex more than others. That one can make a living doing something one likes strikes me as an unlikely venue for causing emotional harm.

My point of reference is the high rolling call girls, like the Fleiss ring in California, whose income and client base does not conjure up the barbed wire and trailers/jails the author evokes with her article. Like actresses, I think most prostitutes in that class/case understand that their career longevity in that role is finite, and if they have any sense will put some of their earnings away against the future time of wrinkles and sag.

Granted, plastic surgeons might prolongue that career a bit, but with that self mutilation being something I consider a by product of emotional distress (I realize that is a subjective view) perhaps it could be mistaken for a symptom of emotional trauma rather than simple depot level repair of the business base. ;)

DR

[ponderingturtle]

I'm not "decrying" anything. I'd suggest we get some serious resources to deal with the mental health issues of the EMS folks too... and I've no doubt that such resources are already in place, right?

Why? EMS is often run by private companies not municipalities, and why should such companies spend the money when the turn over rates are so high anyway?

But it is privatizing the system so it is supposed to be a good thing I guess.

[RandFan]

RandFan, what kind of statement is that? They don't care? So the big what? You're talking to me; you know me. I have been very square with you. Now, I'm saying that that line of yours is crap; I couldn't care less if "they [allegedly] don't care", I want to know why you threw that in.

They also want to promote a particular POV, and no, it's not just skepticism that they're pushing at all.

That does not make them immune to being questioned. I'm honestly surprised by your response.

I've watched many interviews with both. Most of Penn but I've seen (mostly heard) a few Teller interviews.

Yeah, they care about their positions. Ultimately though they really care that people are critical thinkers. I know both would prefer an intellectually honest critical thinker who disagreed with them than an intellectually lazy sycophant.

Both Penn & Teller embrace critical thinking, skepticism, the scientific method. Both hold positions provisionally. Both have admitted that they have made mistakes in their shows.

I'm not sure why this would be controversial.

Finally, of course they should be questions. Damn straight. They would be the first to agree. They really, really would. Penn & Teller want a world populated by critical thinkers. I do too.

[RandFan]

They also don't hold their own views as sacred. I know Penn Jillette used to mock his own political beliefs as "stupid and crazy" on his radio show. Thank you yes. I remember a caller or a guest (I'm not sure) tried to paint Jillette a fanatic and Jillette saying something to the effect of being fanatic about the truth and not his own view of the truth.

[Complexity]

Hint:
disagreement does not equal ignoring.


Ok. Just to be clear, then, I also disagree with you on a great many things - sometimes on content, usually on attitude.

[Gurdur]

Ok. Just to be clear, then, I also disagree with you on a great many things - sometimes on content, usually on attitude.

Wow. Whoopdoodidoo. BFD. Did you actually have any actual, like, dude, point or something to, like, discuss?

[Complexity]

Wow. Whoopdoodidoo. BFD. Did you actually have any actual, like, dude, point or something to, like, discuss?


Points have been raised; nothing to discuss with you.

[Gurdur]

Points have been raised; nothing to discuss with you.

You haven't actually made any points relevant to the discussion whatsoever. As for the rest, apparently you only want to make a completely irrelevant bitchy flame. Whatever, dude, come back when you have something real to say then.

[Wolfman]

Points have been raised; nothing to discuss with you.

You haven't actually made any points relevant to the discussion whatsoever. As for the rest, apparently you only want to make a completely irrelevant bitchy flame. Whatever, dude, come back when you have something real to say then.
Will you two please stop flirting?

[Complexity]

Sorry, Wolfman. He has some problem with me.

As suggested by my earlier threads, I have no moral problem with prostitution and I take a libertarian position regarding it. I find it a lot more honest than many marriages.

[Gurdur]

I'm honestly surprised by your response.....Finally, of course they should be questions. Damn straight. They would be the first to agree. They really, really would. Penn & Teller want a world populated by critical thinkers. I do too.

Fair enough. Obviously there was a problem in interpretation. My mistake. Let's resume the discussion.

[ponderingturtle]

Thank you yes. I remember a caller or a guest (I'm not sure) tried to paint Jillette a fanatic and Jillette saying something to the effect of being fanatic about the truth and not his own view of the truth.

I don't think the last season of BS! or in general any where they looked at a political issue supports this stance very effectively.

But then I knew he was not consistent in how he addressed things when in the same episode of his radio show he discussed being basically an anarchist and then saying that in that Hold your Wee for a Wii contest that the radio station had a strong legal burden to make sure it was safe.

[RandFan]

I don't think the last season of BS! or in general any where they looked at a political issue supports this stance very effectively.

But then I knew he was not consistent in how he addressed things when in the same episode of his radio show he discussed being basically an anarchist and then saying that in that Hold your Wee for a Wii contest that the radio station had a strong legal burden to make sure it was safe.Thank you for experessing your opinion. I don't agree but that's fine. God help us the day opinions are not allowed.

[strathmeyer]

The prostitution industry actually appeals to many with severe emotional disturbances.

So does politics.

[ponderingturtle]

Thank you for experessing your opinion. I don't agree but that's fine. God help us the day opinions are not allowed.

Are you trying to claim that they argue honestly? I can certainly reference times that they accused the position that they don't agree with of using an emotional argument and then using the exact same sort of argument.

Saying you don't allow one kind of evidence into a debate and then using it yourself is not an honest tactic.

[Darth Rotor]

The prostitution industry actually appeals to many with severe emotional disturbances.
So does politics.
Who says there is a distinction? ;)

DR


(FWIW: Parliament of Whores is one of my favorite books)

[dsm]

How about a prostitutes Union?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COYOTE

[ponderingturtle]

Who says there is a distinction? ;)

DR


(FWIW: Parliament of Whores is one of my favorite books)

There is also the Pornocracy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rule_of_the_Harlots). Unfortunately no where near as interesting as it sounds.

[RandFan]

Are you trying to claim that they argue honestly? No question. I saw an interview with Penn Jillette that took on his mistakes. He admitted that he does make mistakes and he honestly avoids them.

Yes, again, no question about it.

I can certainly reference times that they accused the position that they don't agree with of using an emotional argument and then using the exact same sort of argument. Yeah, sounds like made a mistake. They're not the only ones BTW, I've said and many others here have said more than once "fair cop". It happens.

Saying you don't allow one kind of evidence into a debate and then using it yourself is not an honest tactic. meh... It's wrong. I've done that, I make mistakes, I'm human, but then I suspect you think I'm dishonest. That's fine.

[ponderingturtle]

No question. I saw an interview with Penn Jillette that took on his mistakes. He admitted that he does make mistakes and he honestly avoids them.

Yes, again, no question about it.

Yeah, sounds like made a mistake. They're not the only ones BTW, I've said and many others here have said more than once "fair cop". It happens.


The thing is that I see makeing such a mistake in your argument in a forum as one thing, makeing a mistake on something you edit and spend time on revisting and crafting is a different one.

So I would not hold it as much against Penn if he had done the same thing on his radio show.

[tkingdoll]

P&T's show is entertainment. It is funded as such. It is not documentary programming, neither is it on the Nat Geog channel. It's meant to entertain. The main viewing demographic, I believe, is frat boy. It's supposed to shock a little, get a lot of laughs and poke a few hornet's nests. If it was fair and unbiased it wouldn't get the ratings and it wouldn't be an entertainment show.

Television shows aren't fair and unbiased and never reflect real life, just extremes. Extremes are more interesting. P&T's researchers will cherrypick the brothels which support the angle the show has, or the 'side' they are on.

Equally, a show, even a quality documentary, which shows all brothels as evil scumholes, will be cherrypicking to make the most appealing show possible.

Anything on television = completely useless as a source or reference.

[Wolfman]

Anything on television = completely useless as a source or reference.Except Fox News. They are Fair and Balanced.

[gnome]

Deleted. SOOO two pages ago.

[Kaylee]

I'm still not sure about the fundemental difference between selling sex and selling any other physical service.

Can someone enlighten me?

Studies have established a cause and effect between sex, the levels of hormones including oxytocin and vasopressin, and the emotional feeling of bonding.

[Miss Anthrope]

I find it a lot more honest than many marriages.

Ramen.

[RandFan]

Deleted. SOOO two pages ago.Gnome DON'T DO THAT.

:)

I like your posts. I'll take yesterday news.

[RandFan]

The thing is that I see makeing such a mistake in your argument in a forum as one thing, makeing a mistake on something you edit and spend time on revisting and crafting is a different one.

So I would not hold it as much against Penn if he had done the same thing on his radio show. I understand your point. I really do.

Penn talks about how they don't do stuff that would be easy to discredit people and gives very good examples. Your example looks like a very Good candidate for a mistake.

I have to judge them on the entirety of their work and and their responses to criticism and questions regarding these issues. I've never found them (of course I'm talking largely of Penn) to be evasive. They've been open and honest and never bizarre like Michael Moore who screams every fact has been checked. Never mind that artfully using facts is the tool of the propagandist.

One of the best BS detectors I've ever known is James Randi. Penn & Teller are some of James Randi's closest friends and he doesn't always agree with him. Further, Randi has demonstrated a willingness to criticize friends. Randi has been close to Penn & Teller for years. I think Penn & Teller have very, very good character references.

[slingblade]

You know some of us better than that. Speak on.

:D

All I'm saying is that there are good and bad houses. The good houses don't mean legalized prostitution is harmless and wonderful, but the bad houses don't mean it's harmful and evil.

If you have a mixed bag of input, the results are going to be...a mixed bag.

Also, this just in: people seem remarkably willing to put up with, turn a blind eye to, and ignore problems with just about anything that makes money for them.

[Gurdur]

:D
Good-oh. I really do hope you will continue speaking here.
All I'm saying is that there are good and bad houses. The good houses don't mean legalized prostitution is harmless and wonderful, but the bad houses don't mean it's harmful and evil.
well, personally I agree with you. That being while we're talking about about legalized AND meaningfully regulated prostitution. You saw my answers to Joe Ellison? I'm all in favour of legalization PLUS regulation enforcement PLUS trade-unionization PLUS education being provided for those wanting out of the sex industry. Just call me Mr. Idealist.

But that's not quite the piont here. The author of the book which caused this thread to eventually come into being is for delegalization -- because in her view it just doesn't work well enough in that particular context. Whether her arguments are right or wrong, it's probably far more interesting to start from that point and discuss all the options, rather than either discussing my idealism (impossible in today's USA climate) or letting the conversation get suffocated to death under the blanket of the usual meaningless trendy libertarian tripe that gets peddled around here.

If you have a mixed bag of input, the results are going to be...a mixed bag.
Well, yes. No doubt.
Also, this just in: people seem remarkably willing to put up with, turn a blind eye to, and ignore problems with just about anything that makes money for them.
No doubt, yet again. Mind you, that's only some people. As you know yourself, others do have spines, backbones.

And it's not just money; take a look around the place. The usual fantasy on boards like this one is the trendy wannabe-libertarian one, combined with the usual hapless hysteria and flames whenever the real world fails to match up with the pontificating on the board. It's not money as a motivation here (though it does distantly play a role), it's the wanting to ponce around poseuring with fake absolutes which is the motivation here.

Still, just because it's a difficult climate doesn't mean we can't have a real discussion. Let's go for it.

[3point14]

Studies have established a cause and effect between sex, the levels of hormones including oxytocin and vasopressin, and the emotional feeling of bonding.

Could you be a little more specific about which studies?

Any chance of a link?

[ponderingturtle]

I understand your point. I really do.

Penn talks about how they don't do stuff that would be easy to discredit people and gives very good examples. Your example looks like a very Good candidate for a mistake.

I have to judge them on the entirety of their work and and their responses to criticism and questions regarding these issues. I've never found them (of course I'm talking largely of Penn) to be evasive. They've been open and honest and never bizarre like Michael Moore who screams every fact has been checked. Never mind that artfully using facts is the tool of the propagandist.

One of the best BS detectors I've ever known is James Randi. Penn & Teller are some of James Randi's closest friends and he doesn't always agree with him. Further, Randi has demonstrated a willingness to criticize friends. Randi has been close to Penn & Teller for years. I think Penn & Teller have very, very good character references.

And I am not taking this as a stance against their character on a personal level. It is a comment much more specific to their TV show. Especialy in later seasons when they started focusing almost entirely on political topics.

And they admit that they have been wrong, but they also do claim that every fact has been rigorusly checked.

[ponderingturtle]

Good-oh. I really do hope you will continue speaking here.

well, personally I agree with you. That being while we're talking about about legalized AND meaningfully regulated prostitution. You saw my answers to Joe Ellison? I'm all in favour of legalization PLUS regulation enforcement PLUS trade-unionization PLUS education being provided for those wanting out of the sex industry. Just call me Mr. Idealist.

I am not sure about unionization, but I would support a certification and licencing requirement.

[Bob Klase]

Deleted. Points already made by others.

[shalomsteph]

Yeah, P&T took back their BS episode on second hand smoke. It is indeed dangerous. They admitted they were wrong.

[ponderingturtle]

Yeah, P&T took back their BS episode on second hand smoke. It is indeed dangerous. They admitted they were wrong.

I knew they where wrong right from the start. Not because I was convinced that SSH causes cancer, but because they totaly failed to address people with respetory conditions.

In doing so they failed to consider a major and very accute way that SSH can effect people. And from their freedom point of view, should people be able to breath in public places or not?

[Kaylee]

I'm still not sure about the fundemental difference between selling sex and selling any other physical service.

Can someone enlighten me?

Studies have established a cause and effect between sex, the levels of hormones including oxytocin and vasopressin, and the emotional feeling of bonding.

Could you be a little more specific about which studies?

Any chance of a link?

Out of curiosity, a couple of years ago, I read a couple of books on neuroscience. I recall that one of them had a few pages on that topic and that it referred to studies that were done on people that traced the effects of sex on hormone levels and the brain (the studies included brain scans). Unfortunately I don’t recall the name of the book or the author.

However if you go to Pubmed:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez/)

and type “sex oxytocin vasopressin bonding” in the search engine you will get a few abstracts.

However, most of those studies were done on voles (a type of rodent), not people. How do we know if these same hormones are released by people during sex and have the same effect?

While trying to track down the author whose book I’ve read I found this article that was originally published in the Economist*. It starts off on voles (are voles the new mascot for passion?!? :eye-poppi ) but starts referring to other studies that were done on people starting in the middle of the article.
http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html (http://www.oxytocin.org/oxytoc/love-science.html)

None of them are the author I’ve read before, but I started to google them and am continuing to find interesting links that show that there are definitely physical differences between getting laid in bed and making the bed. ;)

K

* Here’s the link to the same article at the Economist web site, however you will need a paid subscription to read it in its entirety there:
http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=242404

[Beerina]

ETA: I almost forgot. Her new house was on the P&T show. I was talking to her one night when they were there. She was singularly unimpressed, and stayed out of their way for the duration. :D

Next time you see her, could you ask her why most of the prostitutes in the shows about places like that (there's a brothel reality TV show) pluck out their eyebrows and draw them back on? It looks hideous. What in god's name are they thinking?!?!?

[Beerina]

IF the job is fundamentally negative in nature, how does legalization or regulation help? By making sure they are harmed in exchange for better wages and benefits? :jaw-dropp

Because it's legal, they can go to the police if there are problems. Those brothels are a heaven compared to streetwalking.

Just because some idiot somewhere is abusing someone in a sweatshop in California doesn't mean the government should make General Motors' factories illegal. "The government" should do it's job: protect its citizens' rights and the rule of law.

[Madalch]

In addition, in countries like Canada and Australia that have only recently legalized prostitution, they've also introduced fairly strict regulations governing those industries (regulations that are, as far as I know, far stricter than those in Nevada).

Canada's recently legalized prostitution? First I've heard about it.

AFAIK, the act of prostitution itself was decriminalized (keeping the government out of the bedroom), but everything related to prostitution is still illegal- the operation of a brothel, the solicitation of a prostitute, etc. Streetwalkers still get hassled by cops.

[patrick767]

Now, let me turn the question back on you; knowing that A) prostitution is inevitable, and impossible to stop, B) that when prostitution is illegal, prostitutes face much greater damage and harm, and C) when prostitution is legalized, prostitutes have much greater protections...

Here's the main argument I've heard in the past for legalizing prostitution. It's not that the trade is being defended as something good and healthy for its practitioners. It's that the trade is going to happen anyway. Nothing we've done for thousands of years has stopped the practice of the oldest profession. So much like trying to solve the problems caused by alcohol abuse by instituting Prohibition, banning prostitution just leads to more problems. Regulating is perhaps the lesser of two evils.

[Wolfman]

Canada's recently legalized prostitution? First I've heard about it.

AFAIK, the act of prostitution itself was decriminalized (keeping the government out of the bedroom), but everything related to prostitution is still illegal- the operation of a brothel, the solicitation of a prostitute, etc. Streetwalkers still get hassled by cops.Not nationally; but in certain cities, yes. Go to Windsor (http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2006-01-11-windsor-super-bowl_x.htm) for example. But it differentiates between streetwalkers and brothels. Escort services and brothels are legal; streetwalking is not.
The city's 14 licensed escort services also are prepping for the Super Bowl. Lynn Evans, manager of Border City Divas, said she'll have 20 women working shifts during the two days before the big game.


The women, she said, are hired by the hour as escorts. Prostitution is legal under Canadian law, but soliciting is not. That means deals must be made between the client and the escort, Evans said.The act of prostitution has never actually been illegal in Canadian law; but lawmakers have made other acts associated with prostitions -- soliciting money, operating a brothel, etc. -- illegal. As I understand it, more recent changes in the law left some of these issues up to individual provinces, letting local governments make the decision. Windsor legalized sex services at the same time they started opening casinos, stipulating that as long as such things are done in private, it is fine. They just don't want prostitutes walking the streets, hanging out outside of hotels/casinos, etc.

[RandFan]

AFAIK, the act of prostitution itself was decriminalized (keeping the government out of the bedroom), but everything related to prostitution is still illegal- the operation of a brothel, the solicitation of a prostitute, etc. Streetwalkers still get hassled by cops. Then what's the point?

[Lonewulf]

Then what's the point?

I guess that you can sell a "friend of a friend", but you can't advertise a brothel? I'm not sure. :confused:

[Gurdur]

Then what's the point?

Point being, it means people can prostitute themselves individually, but no-one else can profit on it legally. Makes it bloody useful for tackling pimps and extortionists etc.

[Lonewulf]

I dunno about that, though. I mean, in any other occupation, you have "bosses" and "CEOs" and the like, who usually profit off the people beneath him.

I think that the problem with pimps and extortionists is more of *how* they obtain their money and *how* they treat their "employees" (to use the term loosely in this case), moreso than the overall concept of making money off another person's labor.

With legalization, you can also legalize such thing as health care, minimum wage benefits, and similar things.

[RandFan]

Point being, it means people can prostitute themselves individually, but no-one else can profit on it legally. Makes it bloody useful for tackling pimps and extortionists etc.Ok, got it.

I'll take the blonde for $500 Alex.
Alex: You'll have to talk to the blonde yourself.

[Gurdur]

...I'll take the blonde for $500 Alex.
Alex: You'll have to talk to the blonde yourself.


Heh, OK, that was very good and funny on two different counts. Good one!

Back to the serious discussion:
Pimping, a very-often present problem of prostitution, to do with exploitation, with perceived self-protection and also with the neuroses that so often afflict prosis, is a very real problem seperate from prostitution itself.

Targeting just the pimps without targeting the prosis often makes a great deal of sense.

Targeting the johns without targeting the prosis, i.e. making selling legal but buying illegal, reduces police corruption by a huge amount, since prosis can no longer be blackmailed by police.

And so on.

[Lonewulf]

Targeting the johns without targeting the prosis, i.e. making selling legal but buying illegal, reduces police corruption by a huge amount, since prosis can no longer be blackmailed by police.

Wait. Okay, I understand the whole "getting rid of brothels" thing. I don't entirely agree with it, but I understand it.

But making the buying illegal? That I don't quite understand. It kinda gets rid of the whole "buying the sex" thing, which leads straight into the age-old "why is prostitution illegal again?" arguments.

[Gurdur]

.....But making the buying illegal? That I don't quite understand. It kinda gets rid of the whole "buying the sex" thing, which leads straight into the age-old "why is prostitution illegal again?" arguments.

I stated one specific reason for doing it in my post just above yours. Maybe you could tackle that.

There are other reasons to do it too; reducing kerbcrawlers, rapes (prosis are often raped by customers unwilling to pay), reducing encouragement to prostitute, etc.

[Lonewulf]

I stated one specific reason for doing it in my post just above yours. Maybe you could tackle that.
And like I said, it ruins the whole point. What's the point of prostitution if you arrest every single person that pays money for the prostitute?

Oh yeah, sure, you "hurt the cops"... you also hurt the otherwise innocent people that pay for the sex. Not everyone that buys a prostitute's company is a "bad cop". Should we arrest everyone that buys a gun, because it might also arrest people that are about to go on a killing spree?

I addressed the reason, and I think your proposed action is overkill for the proposed reason.

There are other reasons to do it too; reducing kerbcrawlers, rapes (prosis are often raped by customers unwilling to pay), reducing encouragement to prostitute, etc.
I'm not quite sure why the law should become directly involved in attempting to reduce encouragement to prostitute; just like I would rather it not get involved in attempting to reduce any other recreational activity. Also, not everyone that buys a prostitute's services are rapists.

You punish the person that's going to rape the prostitute, not everyone that would happen to buy her services.

[Gurdur]

.....I'm not quite sure why the law should become directly involved in attempting to reduce encouragement to prostitute; just like I would rather it not get involved in attempting to reduce any other recreational activity.
... your proposed action ....
If you want to address the realworld problems, do so. I have no patience with arguing from whim though.

In the real world, prostitution and all the ancillaries (pimping, slaving, disease, suicides, etc.) comes with problems attached. Those problems need to be dealt with. Way back in this thread I personally said a couple of times what my own approach would be; you have confused what I have reported (of what actualy happens, NOT what I "propose") in my last post with what I personally would do. A bad mistake.

[Lonewulf]

If you want to address the realworld problems, do so.
I do want to address the realworld problem. Make prostitution legal. Involve minimum wage laws. Let guys buy sex, let women sell sex. Or, let women buy sex, let men sell sex. Convict people that rape prostitutes, and there is no need to worry about police corruption, because prostitution is actually legal. If the cops rape a woman, then you can deal with that in the fact that rape is illegal. If you cannot deal with cops because of that, then I don't think you can get rid of the police corruption through any law that makes the activity illegal; if they can't get busted on one illegal charge, why would a trumped-up charge work?

I have no patience with arguing from whim though.
I'm not arguing from whim. If you have no patience arguing with people that disagree, then mayhaps you should put me on ignore.

In the real world, prostitution and all the ancillaries (pimping, slaving, disease, suicides, etc.) comes with problems attached. Those problems need to be dealt with.
Pimping, I wasn't arguing about. Neither slaving. Disease? Involve health care. Suicides? Well, I don't see how we can legislate for that. You CAN make prostitution illegal to get rid of suicide, but then you'd also have to make air traffic controller jobs illegal, because that also involves a high rate of suicide.

NONE of this is solved by making it illegal for the MALE to put up MONEY for SEX, which was what I was talking about in the first place. Mayhaps if I misconstrued your statement, that would be one thing. If so, then tell me so.

Way back in this thread I personally said a couple of times what my own approach would be
I guess I could dig through the thread later, but if you could point out the post for me, that would be lovely.

you have confused what I have reported (of what actualy happens, NOT what I "propose") in my last post with what I personally would do. A bad mistake.

It's not a mistake, because that has nothing to do with what I said. I questioned the action. You defended the action. Then I pointed out how I felt that was silly. Then I get a bunch of condescending garbage about how I don't think "in the real world" because I disagree with those actions. It does not matter if you endorse the action or not. I find the action silly. If it is someone else's idea for action, then I still question it. If you defend it, then you will be the one I respond to. It's really not that hard.

Also, from the construct of your post, it seemed like you were endorsing said actions. I'll go ahead and quote you:

Back to the serious discussion:
Pimping, a very-often present problem of prostitution, to do with exploitation, with perceived self-protection and also with the neuroses that so often afflict prosis, is a very real problem seperate from prostitution itself.

Targeting just the pimps without targeting the prosis often makes a great deal of sense.

Targeting the johns without targeting the prosis, i.e. making selling legal but buying illegal, reduces police corruption by a huge amount, since prosis can no longer be blackmailed by police.

And so on.

I disagree that it makes a whole lot of sense. Maybe it's just me and my neo-dated values. *Shrugs*

(ETA: Yes, I know, "it makes a lot of sense" isn't necessarily the same as "I endorse this action". I realize that. I still find the proposed action to arrest people for buying sex to be silly, whether it's "Endorsed by Gurdur" or not.)

[ZirconBlue]

well, personally I agree with you. That being while we're talking about about legalized AND meaningfully regulated prostitution. You saw my answers to Joe Ellison? I'm all in favour of legalization PLUS regulation enforcement PLUS trade-unionization PLUS education being provided for those wanting out of the sex industry. Just call me Mr. Idealist.

I do want to address the realworld problem. Make prostitution legal. Involve minimum wage laws. Let guys buy sex, let women sell sex. Or, let women buy sex, let men sell sex. Convict people that rape prostitutes, and there is no need to worry about police corruption, because prostitution is actually legal. If the cops rape a woman, then you can deal with that in the fact that rape is illegal. If you cannot deal with cops because of that, then I don't think you can get rid of the police corruption through any law that makes the activity illegal; if they can't get busted on one illegal charge, why would a trumped-up charge work?

Lonewulf, I think that Gurdur was just explaining "the point" of such laws -- from the lawmakers' perspective -- not his personal opinion. If you look at the 2 quoted excerpts above, I think that your two positions are not so far apart.

[Gurdur]

Since Lonewolf commits the same mistake over and over again -- attacking me or someone else for allegedly having positions that in fact I or others were only reporting and discussing -- and since he has been doing a lot of contentless flaming recently, and refusing to take into account just what positions have actually been stated by myself or others, then I have to admit I simply don't bother answering him much of the time. He is obviously refusing to listen; why, I don't know, but it's not my problem, and he himself makes his opinion totally irrelevant thereby.

[Lonewulf]

Lonewulf, I think that Gurdur was just explaining "the point" of such laws -- from the lawmakers' perspective -- not his personal opinion. If you look at the 2 quoted excerpts above, I think that your two positions are not so far apart.

How does this change what I stated in the section you quoted? My point is still the same; I think prostitution should be handled a certain way. Gurdur agrees with me... fine, that's okay. Let's move on, okay?

I find it funny how Gurdur calls what I said "contentless flaming". He's willing to overlook people like Cain's flaming, of course, but that's okay. Cain gets away with it. :D

[ZirconBlue]

Since Lonewolf commits the same mistake over and over again -- attacking me or someone else for allegedly having positions that in fact I or others were only reporting and discussing -- and since he has been doing a lot of contentless flaming recently, and refusing to take into account just what positions have actually been stated by myself or others, then I have to admit I simply don't bother answering him much of the time. He is obviously refusing to listen; why, I don't know, but it's not my problem, and he himself makes his opinion totally irrelevant thereby.

Speaking as a disinterested third party - I've read a great deal of your posts in threads in which I've lurked rather than actively participating - your . . . somewhat confrontational posting style makes it often appear that you are advocating positions, rather than discussing or reporting them. I humbly suggest that these misunderstandings are at least partly due to your posting style.

Joe Ellison often has the same problem, to a much larger degree. I, like several others here, believed that he was advocating that prostitution remain illegal, when, apparently, that was not his position.

[Lonewulf]

Speaking as a disinterested third party - I've read a great deal of your posts in threads in which I've lurked rather than actively participating - your . . . somewhat confrontational posting style makes it often appear that you are advocating positions, rather than discussing or reporting them. I humbly suggest that these misunderstandings are at least partly due to your posting style.

Joe Ellison often has the same problem, to a much larger degree. I, like several others here, believed that he was advocating that prostitution remain illegal, when, apparently, that was not his position.

And, yes, before you comment on me, I know I tend to post while my temper is hot. It's a fault of mine.

Either way, I put Gurdur on my ignore list. My patience is only so thin.

[Gurdur]

Speaking as a disinterested third party - I've read a great deal of your posts in threads in which I've lurked rather than actively participating - your . . . somewhat confrontational posting style makes it often appear that you are advocating positions, rather than discussing or reporting them. I humbly suggest that these misunderstandings are at least partly due to your posting style.


A fair enough suggestion, but I beg to wholly disagree in this case.

Anyway, can I persuade you into discussing prostitution etc.? It's more than a pity that the thread has gone so quiet; the whole topic is enormously complex and also quite interesting.

[ZirconBlue]

How does this change what I stated in the section you quoted? My point is still the same; I think prostitution should be handled a certain way. Gurdur agrees with me... fine, that's okay. Let's move on, okay?

I find it funny how Gurdur calls what I said "contentless flaming". He's willing to overlook people like Cain's flaming, of course, but that's okay. Cain gets away with it. :D

I come here to learn. I hope to see controversial issues debated, so that I might learn different sides of the debate. This serves as a launching pad for my own research that helps me to form my opinions. I find it very disappointing to open a potentially-interesting thread only to find that most of the content is about the participants' personalities rather than any actual debate on the topic at hand.

In my humble opinion, you and Gurdur appear to have developed a dislike of one another - based at least partly on posting style rather than post content - and are now to a point of going out of your way to misconstrue each other's positions so as to continue to bicker with each other.

Judging by previous threads, I'm more likely to be on your side of a debate than on Gurdur's. But I am repelled by both positions when actual discussion is abandoned in favor of petty squabbling.

I know that this forum is not here for my personal benefit, but I hope you two will think about the impact of such interactions on other readers like myself. None of this was meant to be an attack, but rather an attempt at constructive criticism. I hope it came across that way.

[Lonewulf]

I come here to learn. I hope to see controversial issues debated, so that I might learn different sides of the debate.
Okay, fair point. :(
This serves as a launching pad for my own research that helps me to form my opinions. I find it very disappointing to open a potentially-interesting thread only to find that most of the content is about the participants' personalities rather than any actual debate on the topic at hand.
Yeah, I agree with you there. I'd rather not walk into a discussion like that, either.

In my humble opinion, you and Gurdur appear to have developed a dislike of one another - based at least partly on posting style rather than post content - and are now to a point of going out of your way to misconstrue each other's positions so as to continue to bicker with each other.

Judging by previous threads, I'm more likely to be on your side of a debate than on Gurdur's. But I am repelled by both positions when actual discussion is abandoned in favor of petty squabbling.

I know that this forum is not here for my personal benefit, but I hope you two will think about the impact of such interactions on other readers like myself. None of this was meant to be an attack, but rather an attempt at constructive criticism. I hope it came across that way.
This forum is not here for your personal benefit, no. Neither is it for my personal benefit, or Gurdur's.

I acquiesce that I am definitely partially at fault here.

[Gurdur]

.... None of this was meant to be an attack, but rather an attempt at constructive criticism. I hope it came across that way.

Since you haven't critically referred to my habit of wearing flannel shirts, I don't feel attacked. I disagree with you, but hey, that's life, and I will keep what you said in mind.

Now: prostitution? With or without flannel shirts?

[ZirconBlue]

A fair enough suggestion, but I beg to wholly disagree in this case.

Anyway, can I persuade you into discussing prostitution etc.? It's more than a pity that the thread has gone so quiet; the whole topic is enormously complex and also quite interesting.

Prostitution: I'm for it! (Hmm, do you think that would be good political slogan?);)

I do libertarian leanings, which I hadn't previously realized was "trendy". (I'm finally in with the "in crowd"! Whoo Hoo!) So, I'm generally of the opinion that "that government is best, which governs least", and am opposed to most laws against "vice".

That being said, I am always interested in other opinions, and, more importantly, opposing data. I think it is clear that outlawing prostitution doesn't eliminate the practice, and I haven't seen any compelling evidence that making it legal would make anything worse. And all else being equal, I prefer to err on the side of more freedom rather than less.

There are, as have already been discussed, many problems with prostitution (exploitation by pimps, disease, violence by pimps and Johns, etc.) I believe that many of these would be improved by legalization and proper regulation.

In my own little fantasy world, sex would not be weighted down with such Puritanical outlooks as are prevalent in the US today, and prostitutes would be mostly well-adjusted individuals who enjoy their profession. Or, are at least not harmed by it, emotionally or physically. I know, however, that reality is much more complicated than that.

[ZirconBlue]

Since you haven't critically referred to my habit of wearing flannel shirts, I don't feel attacked. I disagree with you, but hey, that's life, and I will keep what you said in mind.

Now: prostitution? With or without flannel shirts?


Flannel shirts?! I didn't know you wore flannel. Forget everything I said. You're obviously a complete idiot, and there's no help for it.

I support legislation making prostitution legal, but only if no flannel is involved.




(I hope it's obvious that I'm joking.)

[Lonewulf]

Yeah, Zircon, that's pretty much what I think on the subject. I also lean towards libertarianism, partially out of principle, partially out of what I've seen when governments gain too much power.

Here in Germany, government seems to be rather strong. There's laws and bureaucracy behind everything... some good, some bad.

When it comes to prostitution, I think that it should be legalized and regulated, with provided health care as is provided to any other occupation. In short, I think that if you treat it like any other job. it will end up turning into one.

[Gurdur]

Flannel shirts?! I didn't know you wore flannel. Forget everything I said. You're obviously a complete idiot, and there's not help for it.

Hee hee. ;)

Even though I don't live in the USA, I still see the Tool-Time comedy show here on TV sometimes, the one with Tim wossisname putting down his friend for wearing flannel shirts. It's why I threw that in; that, and that I actually do wear flannel shirts often (hey, it's a cold climate here).

[ZirconBlue]

Okay, fair point. :(

Yeah, I agree with you there. I'd rather not walk into a discussion like that, either.


This forum is not here for your personal benefit, no. Neither is it for my personal benefit, or Gurdur's.

I acquiesce that I am definitely partially at fault here.


Cool. Maybe we can get together sometime and share a prostitute.


Or something.

[Lonewulf]

Cool. Maybe we can get together sometime and share a prostitute.
Getcher own! :p

[Gurdur]

Cool. Maybe we can get together sometime and share a prostitute.

Ugh. No offence, but Fallacy Of Sloppy Seconds.

[Gurdur]

I'll just add quickly for the sake of interesting anecdote:

I once saw an interview on TV (in Australia) with a bloke who wanted prostitution kept strictly illegal -- because he used prostitutes a lot and he wanted the prices kept down. He said (and it's quite true) that if prostitution was legalised, prices would go right up, thus divorcing him of much of his fun.

It's a weird old world.

[ZirconBlue]

I'll just add quickly for the sake of interesting anecdote:

I once saw an interview on TV (in Australia) with a bloke who wanted prostitution kept strictly illegal -- because he used prostitutes a lot and he wanted the prices kept down. He said (and it's quite true) that if prostitution was legalised, prices would go right up, thus divorcing him of much of his fun.

It's a weird old world.

Unless, legalizing it allowed more people to enter the, um, workforce, thereby increasing supply. Would cocaine be cheaper or more expensive if it were legalized?

[Lonewulf]

Well, with health care and minimum wage laws, I'd say that the cost would go up, definitely. With minimum wage, I don't think the supply issues will be enough to change the price.

But I'm no expert...

[RandFan]

No heated debate? Damn! :mad: This is not the way it's supposed to work here folks.

[Lonewulf]

No heated debate? Damn! :mad: This is not the way it's supposed to work here folks.

:D

I HEATEDLY debate your claim that there should be heated debate! You're a fool and a liar to make such a claim!

[Gurdur]

Unless, legalizing it allowed more people to enter the, um, workforce, thereby increasing supply. Would cocaine be cheaper or more expensive if it were legalized?
Hi ZirconBlue,
I've thought about this for a day now, but come to no real conclusions. We all know the basic economic theories; but often real-world stuff can make things happen in contradiction to the theories.

A good example is the currently falling US dollar. The usual theory brought up by posters is that a falling dollar must mean good things for the USA, since it means the USA can export more, thus earning more money, thus eventually bringing up the dollar again. Posters like to mention that "rule" quite often every time the subject comes up.

Except it really quite often doesn't work that way. There are other factors that affect the whole export/jobs/import/monetary side of US life, and in the last 25 years they have so worked as to actually not increase exports and jobs in times of a falling dollar.

Likewise here. So many different factors play a role, including very local ones, that it is a bit difficult to speak meaningfully of supply and demand in this case. For various reasons, economically speaking, people can't be compared with cocaine; cocaine is a trade-good with only one purpose, something which doesn't make comparisons easy with say workers in one industry.

As for cocaine itself; would the price go up or down? Well, let's assume it's fully legalized etc. The price would have to be affordable, otherwise all the old problems remain, and supply is fairly big, so most likely the price would come down. But again, given all the problems with legalization, law, insurance etc., then the price is not the free-floating thing one might think it is -- in fact the various implications would serve to make its price fairly fixed and probably high.

THere WOULD be a boom in the market for nasal-septum-bridge implants though for all the twits doing too much coke till their noses collapse.

No heated debate? Damn! :mad: This is not the way it's supposed to work here folks.

We're trying. Except it's a Freudian slip to bring heat into this. :p
No-one is going to believe you chatted up a prosi merely to get a little warmth.

[Lonewulf]

Then you get the government taxing the drugs, which only brings up the price even more.

[shuize]

Then you get the government taxing the drugs, which only brings up the price even more.


Yes, monopolies tend to lead to higher prices. If the government were to legalize drugs but control the supply, the price may or may not go down.

In the case of prostitution, I would suspect the price would go down -- but heavy regulation, high barriers to entry for registered houses, taxes, etc. could also lead to higher prices.

[Lurker]

I guess I just ask anyone who thinks it should be legal: So would you be proud if your daughter chose this profession?

No. But I would not be proud if she chose to be a PR or marketing person for Big Tobacco. Would I make it illegal for Big Tobacco to have PR and marketing people?

Lurker

[tkingdoll]

No. But I would not be proud if she chose to be a PR or marketing person for Big Tobacco. Would I make it illegal for Big Tobacco to have PR and marketing people?

Lurker

This is an interesting point. In the UK, tobacco advertising is illegal, so tobacco companies are spending more money (and employing more agencies) to market their products in clever ways which get around the ban. I work in marketing, and I have an ethical line which I would not cross. Tobacco falls firmly onto the "not for any price" side of the line (I say that having never been offered millions to market tobacco. Hypothetically, my principles are sound. In reality, I don't know if I'd falter but I am pretty sure I wouldn't market anything that causes cancer).

However...what if Toblerone approached me and asked me to do a campaign? Nothing wrong with marketing chocolate, right?

Except Toblerone is owned by British American Tobacco.

And so on. It is very difficult to make a truly ethical business decision. Likewise, I think you should exercise caution when deciding what is or isn't an acceptable profession for your daughter because it's extremely difficult to know everything about a company.

Here's another example: would you want your daughter to work for a company which provides a pension? Probably yes. However, unless that company pension has an ethical option (rare) then it very likely is invested in companies like British American Tobacco (my last pension was until I found out). Unethical companies are often also very profitable.

[ImaginalDisc]

I believe that prostitution should not only be legalized, but also licensed; without a valid license, you cannot work as a prostitute. I believe that such licensing should include a psychological evaluation, and for those people (male or female) whom it is determined that being a prostitute could cause greater psychological damage, that such a license be denied.

Wait, why? While it is certainly a shame that many people choose careers that cause them psychological harm, isn't it their right to do so? Should morticians be screened with psychological evaluations to prevent people who might be adversely affected by the pressence of cadavers from taking the job of their choice?

[ImaginalDisc]

Addendum to the above: If you're going to say that a person has a right to take up prostitution, on what grounds are you limiting their access to it as a job? I've some really terrible jobs, but I took up those jobs of my own free will. Would you promote a porgram to prevent fragile people from working as commodities borkers, or janitors?

[Lonewulf]

What about porn "fluffers"? :D

EDIT: I may have gotten the term wrong. If I did, don't bite TOO hard. :D

[RandFan]

What about porn "fluffers"? :D
Good work if you can get it.

[Andronicus]

Prostitution exists, beyond the literal toothless crack whores on the streets, there are escort services.

My city in Florida has a lot of escorts listed in the phone book, one of which is named the “Yes We Do” service which had a large ad. There are only so many questions in context that the name answers. (Let the joking begin: I was looking for something else, that was the page flipped to in my searching, and after laughing I showed the ad to my beloved wife, the mother of my child.)

I recently went out with a group of co-workers and our spouses to a very fancy restaurant in a fancy hotel. There happened to be a medical doctor’s convention going on. I have never seen so many gorgeous "working" women in my life, and one in particular was escorted around the restaurant twice by her doctor/date/john. My wife said the doctor was having someone else at his table take pictures of him and the woman, or as she put it: “Exhibit number one.” Leaving the elevator after our meal three women were entering and judging by the time of night and their attire, they were all going to appointments. The dinner was way too expensive for what we got, but as my wife put it, “I know dinner was expensive, but look at it this way, you did get a show out of it.”

My questions regarding the legalization of prostitution:

What are the benefits to society as a whole if prostitution is legalized? Less rapes or more (I’ve seen studies both ways)? Less or more related crime in general? Less incidents of disease or more? Regulations regarding testing and condoms? Cost of enforcement of legal regulations vs. cost of enforcing anti-prostitution laws? Increased taxes (almost irrelevant)? Increased ability to launder money by criminal elements? Increased crime in general? What about the individual working girl? Better life or worse?

[a_unique_person]

What are the benefits to society as a whole if prostitution is legalized? Less rapes or more (I’ve seen studies both ways)? Less or more related crime in general? Less incidents of disease or more? Regulations regarding testing and condoms? Cost of enforcement of legal regulations vs. cost of enforcing anti-prostitution laws? Increased taxes (almost irrelevant)? Increased ability to launder money by criminal elements? Increased crime in general? What about the individual working girl? Better life or worse?

Hopefully exploitation of the workers can be better controlled, and access for the workers to legal protection improved. Those who do have mental /drugproblems can have easier access to help, and won't be exploited. Cuts out a source of revenue for criminals.

That's the ideal, it doesn't quite happen that way, since criminals can just get involved in legal and illegal prostitution. Workers can still be exploited. It's still better than making it illegal.

[Beerina]

However...what if Toblerone approached me and asked me to do a campaign? Nothing wrong with marketing chocolate, right?

Except Toblerone is owned by British American Tobacco.

I think you should encourage a business to expand its non-tobacco operations. That's not going to affect the tobacco portion, once enough of the business is non-tobacco, will give a way for shareholders to get out of tobacco, especially as the market dries up as, presumably, anti-smoking campaigns continue to have effect.