Running a legal brothel where it's illegal...sorta [Archive]

DRBUZZ0

24th October 2007, 03:58 PM

I'm not writing this as a joke. I'm really not. Because something had occurred to me. Brothels are cash cows. Prostitution is the sort of thing that just can't not drag in money. Sex sells and many are willing to pay for it. Those who have a lot to spend are often willing to spend it on sex. It's the sort of business that is universal in it's solvency, in good times and bad in recessions and booms. There's a reason why adult entertainment companies always rake it in.

But in the US, prostitution is illegal in all major cities. (personally I think this is stupid and I'm pretty libertarian in my views in general) In Nevada it is legal in some counties and the brothels there and their working girls (in a few cases guys) make a lot.

What if you could operate such a brothel in, say, New York City? A place where clients could come, without fearing being arrested and do the business in the open and safely. Someplace clean, with privacy and safety. Where those working were tested regularly for STD's and customers were required to use protection and where records were kept, though confidential, to assure better safety from possible unknown transmission.

A place which was well lit, that could take credit cards and checks and where there was no requirement for a hotel room or something. Instead private rooms and a lounge, bar and such for afterward. Overnight bedrooms of course, for those who might want to have overnight company or simply be acomidated afterward.

A good reputation, professional, with professional security guards and bouncers to assure that no conflicts could get nasty. This would be a huge difference from picking up someone on a streetcornor, avoiding sting operations, and being concerned about violence, STD's and all the other nasty sides of things. Having the only such place in a major city seems like it could not possibly fail to bring in the money.

But how could you do that openly in a place where prostitution is illegal?

In the 1920's alcohol was illegal in the US, but there was one way in places like New York to have a nice evening of drinks without violating the law. One only needed to take the short trip to international waters in what was called a "Booze Cruise."

So why not the same for prostitution? Deals not made until outside US jurisdiction, on a nice boat with private staterooms. If it grew to a large enough buisness oen could even have a large vessle offshore with smaller boats ferrying customers to and from the floating brothel. High rollers by private water taxi or even helicpoter.

Of course, this would also be an excellent venue for a cassino and some duty-free shopping as well. I see no reason why this would be illegal. Laws in international waters are a complicated patchwork of treaties and traditional commonlaws. Major crimes may get prosecuted in the home port of a vessel or by an international court. However, prostitution does not violate international law. It's legal in many nations.

Piscivore

24th October 2007, 04:03 PM

But how could you do that openly in a place where prostitution is illegal?

"Escort Service".

Lisa Simpson

24th October 2007, 04:06 PM

Can I run an legal brother?

DRBUZZ0

24th October 2007, 04:13 PM

OH CRAP Will an admin Please change that????

fuelair

24th October 2007, 05:01 PM

Can I rent an illegal blogger?

Excellent idea - if it functions fully as you suggest.

DavidS

24th October 2007, 05:19 PM

One only needed to take the short trip to international waters in what was called a "Booze Cruise."

So why not the same for prostitution?
Or, why? Methinks the degreee of "needed" isn't as large as you might think.

If you seriously think this market suffers from a shortage of supply, open the YellowPages in any fair-sized city to "Escort", "Dating", "Entertainment", etc. I'll wager they're not all, nor even mostly, sting operations.

The mantle of legality you suggest cruising to international waters would gain comes at high capital, operating, and liabilty costs. Boats ain't cheap to aquire, maintain and run, particularly not for passenger service. You'd add another -- or several -- layer of regulatory concerns for the boat and cruise, over and above those for the "core" business.

I suspect potential market would shrink, too. Weather would gain a bigger impact on your business; steep seas shift many folks' priorities noticeably. Discretion, which I suspect is reasonably important to a large part of the market, becomes more difficult if clientele must arrive and depart en masse during port calls. You'll have to include other diversions to keep pending and finished customers amused between transport runs to the beach. I don't know about you, but when I can't arrive and depart independently I feel frustrated and insecure (one of many reasons I don't like air travel and prefer to drive up to 500 mi or so).

All this effort, cost, and risk to do it legally just might not be worth it when sub-legal brothels operate handily onshore. Even if the risks and operating costs are comparable after considering "facilitation" costs and prosecution risks for extralegal onshore operations, I'd expect the capital investment required for offshore operations would tip the balance.

madurobob

24th October 2007, 05:55 PM

There's a reason why adult entertainment companies always rake it in.

Don't be so sure. I have a cousin on the production/direction side of the porn industry and the hours are grueling, the people dishonest, and the cash hard to hold on to. There is a lot of money flying around the industry, but also a lot of hands grabbing for it. Getting rich in that game is actually quite difficult.

[/Quote]What if you could operate such a brothel in, say, New York City? A place where clients could come, without fearing being arrested and do the business in the open and safely. Someplace clean, with privacy and safety. Where those working were tested regularly for STD's and customers were required to use protection and where records were kept, though confidential, to assure better safety from possible unknown transmission.
<snip>
But how could you do that openly in a place where prostitution is illegal?
[/QUOTE]

I've often wondered the same. Making movies seems to be more or less legal, why not use that as a front for prostitution? You make the movie, you seal it up and send it off with the client as "art".

DRBUZZ0

24th October 2007, 08:41 PM

Or, why? Methinks the degreee of "needed" isn't as large as you might think.

If you seriously think this market suffers from a shortage of supply, open the YellowPages in any fair-sized city to "Escort", "Dating", "Entertainment", etc. I'll wager they're not all, nor even mostly, sting operations.

Understood, but still doing it openly has the up-and-up no-STD's thing going. I mean when it's on the downlow youn dont know who you're dealing with.

You'll have to include other diversions to keep pending and finished customers amused between transport runs to the beach. I don't know about you, but when I can't arrive and depart independently I feel frustrated and insecure (one of many reasons I don't like air travel and prefer to drive up to 500 mi or so).

Oh no no no. It's not about "having to provide diversions" it's an "opportunity" to offer gambling duty free drinking and maybe even a hash bar.

rjh01

25th October 2007, 12:20 AM

DavidS

25th October 2007, 07:25 AM

Understood, but still doing it openly has the up-and-up no-STD's thing going.
<shrug> I'm not ready to believe the "no-STD's thing", but will submit that it offers promise for reducing that particular Bad Thing.
I mean when it's on the downlow youn dont know who you're dealing with.
If by "you" who doesn't know you mean the client: I suggest that's (a) a marketing consideration not intrinsically inaccessible to illegitimate operations, and (b) that it's not a sufficiently powerful marketing consideration to offset the cost and complexity of cruise operations for legitimacy's sake.
If by "you" you mean the operator: I expect that successful illegitimate brothel operators know quite well who they're dealing with on the enforcement side (more precisely, that those who don't won't be very successful for very long).
Oh no no no. It's not about "having to provide diversions" it's an "opportunity" to offer gambling duty free drinking and maybe even a hash bar.
The hash-bar thing suffers from all manner of controlled-substance issues (USCG routinely boards vessels outside territorial waters to search for such things, and what to do with the inventory during port calls), but that's another discussion and not central to your point: multiple attractions could piggyback on junkets/cruises between jurisdictions where their legality differs.

I'll go along with that point; as you noted, casino-cruises have already demonstrated the viability of such a business model (with real ships sailing out into the ocean as well as the thinly-formalized moored barges on the Mississippi River). An added "attraction" (e.g. happydeck) wouldn't have to fully fund the cruise operation if another attraction (e.g. casino) could bear that load. Of course, a rational operator would weigh the relative merits of adding a secondary attraction (e.g. happydeck) against using that space to expand the primary cash cow (e.g. casino), but that's an implementation detail.

I seriously doubt that a brothel-cruise, on its own, could compete with sub-legal onshore operations, though. If you've got the cornfield to spare, though, build it and they may come (pun apropos but unintended).

DRBUZZ0

25th October 2007, 07:49 AM

I seriously doubt that a brothel-cruise, on its own, could compete with sub-legal onshore operations, though. If you've got the cornfield to spare, though, build it and they may come (pun apropos but unintended).

Well, for one thing I have neither the funds nor a large ship lying around. I thought it was an interesting concept because I tend to think prostitution is the sort of thing that is really both impossible and counter-productive to try to outlaw and cuts to the root of how a society its role in controlling people's decisions and lives.

That having been said... I don't actually like the idea of the concept as such enough that I would want to be known as a floating pimp. I wouldn't really want to be involved in porno either. Not that I see it as something that is inherently wrong... I'd just prefer to make my fortune elsewhere.

nails3jesus0

25th October 2007, 08:14 PM

you could always become a prostitute instead of going through all the trouble of setting up a brothel.

DRBUZZ0

25th October 2007, 09:03 PM

you could always become a prostitute instead of going through all the trouble of setting up a brothel.

Are you..... propositioning me?

Zygar

26th October 2007, 12:05 AM

Are you..... propositioning me?

No, she was suggesting it on my behalf.

AgeGap

26th October 2007, 04:16 AM

Here in the UK, prostitution is not illegal but the advertising of sevices is. If laws like that exist, in NY, your cruise would be sunk.

rjh01

26th October 2007, 05:46 AM

Where I live, not only is prostitution legal, also there are advertisements for it in the paper. The words fetish and fantasy are used in some ads. Noticed one ad in the job vacancy notices as well.

Starthinker

26th October 2007, 02:24 PM

Wouldn't a topless carwash be easier? Client never get out of the cars, girls stay isolated from weird men. They put on a show and wash your car. You can sell web cam time. Tape it and sell the videos.

imjohn

9th November 2007, 01:09 PM

Around here the Asian Massage Parlors are brothels.

Definitely against the law, but they operate pretty openly.

Mister Agenda

27th November 2007, 02:29 PM

Around here the Asian Massage Parlors are brothels.

Definitely against the law, but they operate pretty openly.

Ditto in SC...may get raided once in a couple years or so, they just lie low for awhile and go back to business as usual, maybe aren't allowed to advertise as offering massages anymore. I've never seen an 'out of business' sign on one.

shecky

28th November 2007, 10:46 PM

My neighborhood had until recently two "Oriental Massage Parlors". They'd been there for years, and I'm not aware of the closing of one being related to legal troubles. Despite having modest neon signs, they're otherwise pretty nondescript and blend in with surrounding businesses.

Porn movies are traditionally a pretty strong industry locally. I've sometimes wondered if one could operate a brothel as a sort of amateur "movie studio", with lots of rehearsal space, and for a modest extra fee, a DVD of one's performance. The bulk of the money being made for rental of the rehearsal space.

ShowerComic

29th November 2007, 08:47 PM

Despite the care taken in the Porn industry to protect against STDs, there have been some fairly recent cases that shook the industry. -- Porn workers in the US are regularly tested, and generally date amongst themselves. As to the industry in general, Brian Flemming (of Bat Boy, and The God who wasn't there fame) did a story of one young actress essentially ordered to do very dangerous sex acts from which she contacted AIDS.

So given the Porn industry as an example, would you trust your life to the prostitute and her sexual history?

Vic Vega

10th December 2007, 09:30 PM

Wouldn't a topless carwash be easier?

Only if it came with a happy ending!

:D

DRBUZZ0

11th December 2007, 12:37 PM

Wildy

14th December 2007, 11:02 PM

Here are the names, addresses and telephone numbers for brothels. All 100% legal. All in Australia
In the
ACT (http://www.yellowpages.com.au/search/postSearchEntry.do?clueType=0&clue=escort+agency&locationClue=Greater+Canberra+ACT&x=50&y=12)

Sydney (http://www.yellowpages.com.au/search/postSearchEntry.do?clueType=0&clue=escort+agency&locationClue=Sydney+Metro+NSW&x=47&y=8)

Perth WA (http://www.yellowpages.com.au/search/postLocationSearch.do?sortByClosestMatch=false&sortByDetail=true&areaId=1186&currentLetter=&bookId=53&sortByAlphabetical=false&businessType=escort+agency&sortByDistance=false&locationClue=perth+wa&locationText=Greater+Perth+WA&safeLocationClue=perth+wa&stateId=3)

Adelaide SA (http://www.yellowpages.com.au/search/postLocationSearch.do?sortByClosestMatch=false&sortByDetail=true&areaId=1088&currentLetter=&bookId=33&sortByAlphabetical=false&businessType=escort+agency&sortByDistance=false&locationClue=adelaide+sa&locationText=Greater+Adelaide+SA&safeLocationClue=adelaide+sa&stateId=5)

These links are safe (just) for work. However the links within the links are not safe at work or with your spouse.

Err... if you want to go by the legality of prostitution in Australia based on those links then you are 75% correct.

In SA prostitution is legally illegal, but the police stance is one of de facto legality, this also sort of applies to the government as well. Attempts here to legalise the industry have met with vehement opposition, mainly because Adelaide is full of really conservative people who want to keep Adelaide as a "big country town" instead of a city.

Hell there was an uproar when it was revealed that the department in charge of the disabled was giving out brothels that would cater for the disabled.

The Central Scrutinizer

16th December 2007, 08:43 PM

But how could you do that openly in a place where prostitution is illegal?

In the 1920's alcohol was illegal in the US, but there was one way in places like New York to have a nice evening of drinks without violating the law. One only needed to take the short trip to international waters in what was called a "Booze Cruise."

So why not the same for prostitution? Deals not made until outside US jurisdiction, on a nice boat with private staterooms. If it grew to a large enough buisness oen could even have a large vessle offshore with smaller boats ferrying customers to and from the floating brothel. High rollers by private water taxi or even helicpoter.

Of course, this would also be an excellent venue for a cassino and some duty-free shopping as well. I see no reason why this would be illegal. Laws in international waters are a complicated patchwork of treaties and traditional commonlaws. Major crimes may get prosecuted in the home port of a vessel or by an international court. However, prostitution does not violate international law. It's legal in many nations.

As my accountant told me years ago:

1) The IRS isn't stupid
2) No matter what scheme you come up with to avoid taxes, someone else has already thought of it, and it is illegal

Now I realize this isn't a tax situation, but I think the lesson is the same:

1) The police/FBI/INS/whatever aren't stupid
2) No matter what scheme you come up with to circumvent prostitution laws, someone else has already thought of it, and it is illegal

pgwenthold

17th December 2007, 09:33 AM

This kind of reminds me of the plan I had once to create a company called "Mile High Adventures." I'd sell airplane sight seeing tours, it's just that we'd have a matress in the back of the plane, and a curtain to separate the pilot from the passengers. Kind of "don't ask, don't tell" approach.

I'd worry that the cost might be prohibitive, but I've never asked any pilots about the cost of renting a plane for an hour.

JFrankA

17th December 2007, 11:16 AM

Brothels are illegal, but being an "out call escort" is not... so long as you know the work around.
One could easily be a "out-call escort", so long as you advertise that you are providing companionship for a night out. There is no mention of sex. However, if these two consenting adult happen to have sex, then that's great, they've hit it off. And if the person who used the escort decided to leave an extra tip, that's the "renter's" choice.
This is how they avoid prostitution charges. No mention of money is made after they meet face to face, and it's understood that if the escort choose not to have sex, then that's his/her perogative.

Personally, I'd love to run a legal brothel, and I'm in total agreement with the OP. There are three things people will always buy no matter what financial situtation they are in: Food, Sex, and way to escape.

However, instead of a brothel, one can legally open a swing club anywhere in the country. This would pose a different set of problems, but it's all on the up and up. And done very well, it can extremely profitable. I do adult shows at these places and they are always full!!

As to using filming porno as a front to prostitution, I've been making porno for about six years now (behind the camera, not in front) and I know that there are a whole bunch of religious groups who are trying to prove that all sex movies ARE prosititution, period. It's a stupid arguement by them but every few years, they try to prove it. So doing it that way is not advisable by me...

DRBUZZ0

17th December 2007, 11:20 AM

I'd worry that the cost might be prohibitive, but I've never asked any pilots about the cost of renting a plane for an hour.

Depends on the plane. In any case, if you could bundle it with travel by plane as is that might work. I mean, I generally hate flying because of all the hassle of the baggage checks, the security, the layovers the fact that there are commonly delays...

But that might make me change my mind.

Starthinker

17th December 2007, 12:19 PM

JFrankA

17th December 2007, 01:02 PM

Hmmm

I didn't say that this will fool FBI/INS/whatever agents.

What I said was that this is a work around, i.e. lawyer use this as a defense.

Prositution is "Prostitution is the act of engaging in a sex act for money. It is also illegal for a person to be solicitating sex, or ask another to engage in a sex act for money. Therefore, it is illegal for a person to offer to have sex with another for money and it is illegal for a person to accept the offer of another to have sex for money." SOURCE: http://www.gottrouble.com/legal/criminal/criminal_law/prostitution.html

A lot of out-call escort lawyer use this defense: there was no discussion for sex for money, the money was only for the company (which is not a crime), and that the sex was something that "just happened" and in no way was money for sex discussed.

Cainkane1

17th December 2007, 01:14 PM

Escort services already provide much of what you suggest. They come to your home or room and money and services are exchanged.

The Central Scrutinizer

17th December 2007, 03:52 PM

Agamemnon2

17th December 2007, 11:21 PM

Around here the Asian Massage Parlors are brothels.

Definitely against the law, but they operate pretty openly.

Same here in Finland. A newspaper did an undercover survey of a few dozen places, and their intrepid reporter was offered sex for cash in all of them with no prompting on his part. Apparently the massages were pretty bad, too.

Octavo

18th December 2007, 04:57 AM

There are people sitting in prison who agree with your analysis. Too bad the prosecutor didn't.

There are a few massage parlours in Cape Town that work on the same principal i.e. You arrive and pay for a massage with a woman of your choice in a private room upstairs. The woman gives you a massage and the two of you may or may not end up having sex together, however that is not the service that you paid for. Nor is it an advertised part of the service (even though there are obvious red neon lights outside, indicating the sorts of activities available inside).

Although sections of society have called on police to raid these parlours, the cops have responded that there is nothing they can do. People are having sex, but they're not being paid for it. They're being paid for the 5 minute massage before the sex and the massouse is in no way obligated to have sex with the client.

dann

18th December 2007, 05:01 AM

A place which was well lit, Yes, this is exactly what all johns are looking for! Lots of security cameras, too! A place you'd feel confident about having your brother frequent and your little sister work!
Should prostitution be legal? (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2479841#post2479841) thread.

dann

18th December 2007, 05:03 AM

There are a few massage parlours in Cape Town that work on the same principal i.e. You arrive and pay for a massage with a woman of your choice in a private room upstairs. But only until the school board finds out ...

JFrankA

18th December 2007, 10:12 AM

There are people sitting in prison who agree with your analysis. Too bad the prosecutor didn't.

....didn't say it always worked either. :)

All I mean is that this is how out-call escorts (not streetwalkers nor in-call escort), try to get around the law. Some do get around it, too. Not all, but look up out-call escorts and see how many there are. They all say that what they sell is not sex, but a night of companionship. This companionship includes going on a 'date': dinner, movie, dancing, whatever. This makes it a date.

Now the arguement is this: "The payment is for non-sexual companionship. If sex occured, it wasn't paid for or discussed. It was something that just happened between two consenting adults. All moneys negotiated and exchanged had nothing to do with sex."

Does it always work in court? No, but works enough to let a lot of high-priced escorts get away with it for years.

Personally, I think the government is missing out on a large cash cow. Prosititution (and drugs, for that matter), should be legal. The government is missing out on a LOT of tax money!!! :)

Octavo

19th December 2007, 12:43 AM

But only until the school board finds out ...

Can't manage to read your way through a whole post can you? There is nothing illegal about this practise. Loads of different groups have attempted to get them shut down. The official position of the police service is that they CANNOT do anything, because the courts CANNOT bring a case against them.

Next time, try engaging your brain. :flamed:

dann

19th December 2007, 09:29 AM

Try engaging your own brain before you start flaming and look up the word principal in a dictionary. Then you just might get the joke!
Did I say anything about illegality?

jmontecillo01

19th December 2007, 11:05 PM

There is no way to completely stop prostitution. I would rather see it legalized so that in could be monitored by the goverment, specially the health department.

Octavo

19th December 2007, 11:44 PM

Try engaging your own brain before you start flaming and look up the word principal in a dictionary. Then you just might get the joke!
Did I say anything about illegality?

Can someone please explain this joke to me then? I assume it's some play on the word principal/principle.

jmontecillo01

20th December 2007, 12:26 AM

It is normal to confuse principal and principle.

Principle is a noun. Principal is both an adjective and a noun.

In the US and other countries:

High-school principal, pertaining to the person who runs the school.
or

rjh01

20th December 2007, 02:13 AM

There is no way to completely stop prostitution. I would rather see it legalized so that in could be monitored by the government, specially the health department.

That is exactly what happens in Australia. For example condoms must be worn. If you are an illegal migrant you are more likely to be employed as a waiter in a restaurant than a prostitute.

You also do not see prostitutes in the street corner.

dann

21st December 2007, 12:31 AM

What exactly do you mean when you say, "monitored by the government"? And do you know anything about what a secure and comfortable trade prostitution is in countries where it is legal? It rarely lives up to the wet dreams of prostitution fans ...
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=78187

jmontecillo01

21st December 2007, 01:49 AM

It rarely lives up to the wet dreams of prostitution fans ...

Just in case, I would like you to know that I don't go to brothels. The reason is what ever little money I have, I would rather spend it on my children. Though my wife and I separated way back 1995, I still love her.

Al long as a person does not do damage to others, I would continue to respect their right to live the way they want to live, regardless of the profession they choose.

What exactly do you mean when you say, "monitored by the government"? And do you know anything about what a secure and comfortable trade prostitution is in countries where it is legal?

Here in NSW, Australia, there is an organization called Sex Workers Association of NSW. It's main purpose is to ensure that sex workers are not descriminated againts.

As for the sex worker working in brothels, it gives them a sorrounding where they do not have to worry about the dangers street walkers has to face. They pay tax like the rest of us. The gov't (health department) ensures that they have a health check up every week, for sexually transmitted desease.

dann

21st December 2007, 08:53 AM

jmontecillo01

21st December 2007, 09:33 AM

With regards to the danger a sex worker in a brothel and street walker,they face the same danger of sexually transmitted desease.

The gov't insists that condom must be used all the time. This minimizes the possibility of such deseases, including AIDS.

With regards to HIV, please refer to this link:

http://www.avert.org/ausstatg.htm

Please note the part about exposure categories. Only 7% are uncategorized.

dann

21st December 2007, 09:55 AM

rjh01

21st December 2007, 09:47 PM

<snip>And what happens to the poor prostitute with AIDS? Does the government pull her out of circulation and take care of her for the rest of her life? Or is she simply banned from working in the brothels approved by the government to prevent her from passing on the disease in a legal setting?

I do not know what would happen to such a person. What I do know is that a brothel run legally would be a lot safer in many ways. At least she would know her HIV status. Also a woman can insist on a condom (hence preventing her getting AIDS in the first place).

jmontecillo01

22nd December 2007, 03:54 AM

It must have occurred to you too that it minimizes the possiblity of contracting AIDS and other STDs enough to require "that they have a health check up every week, for sexually transmitted desease".
Prostitution just isn't a job like any other job - in spite of the government's intentions.

I am not quite sure what your stance is. Is it prostitution must never be legalized or we must stamp out prostituion in society? I am sorry but the way I see it, you are againts prostitution as a whole.

Please note that there could be several reasons why women goes into prostitution. Some of them needs the money to go through University, some are bringing up children as a single parent.

The argument that I am/was presenting is that since we cannot stop prostitution all together, why not make it as safe as possible for everybody, both to the sex worker and the people who uses their services.

dann

22nd December 2007, 01:21 PM

Also a woman can insist on a condom Yes, she can, even if she doesn't work in a brothel! And a john can offer her more money to have sex with her without a condom - whether in a brothel or not.
(hence preventing her getting AIDS in the first place). So why the need for weekly medical examinations?

dann

22nd December 2007, 01:45 PM

I am not quite sure what your stance is. Is it prostitution must never be legalized or we must stamp out prostituion in society? I am sorry but the way I see it, you are againts prostitution as a whole.And you are right about that.
Please note that there could be several reasons why women goes into prostitution. Some of them needs the money to go through University, some are bringing up children as a single parent.Yes, some of them need the money for an education, some to feed their children, some to feed their habit, some to pay the mortgage, some to get something to eat ...
The argument that I am/was presenting is that since we cannot stop prostitution all together ...I always love that argument! Why not use it in every other context? 'Since we cannot put a stop to murder all together ...'
And if 'we' cannot put a stop to prostitution all together, how about 98 percent? Or just 89? No?
Figuring out ways of establishing the ideal, wet-dream bordello (all in the best interest of the employees, of course ) seems to be a favourite passtime of many men ...
... why not make it as safe as possible for everybody, both to the sex worker and the people who uses their services. If the johns bring and use condoms, it is usually pretty secure for them. They don't tend to be the victims of rape and prostitutes don't usully have a problem with the use of condoms, bagaining that they'll do it cheaper if only they can do it without protection.
"Sex worker", by the way, is a brilliant euphemism for prostitute. It almost makes it sound like one of those ordinary jobs where a weekly health test is not required ...

rjh01

22nd December 2007, 01:51 PM

Yes, she can, even if she doesn't work in a brothel! And a john can offer her more money to have sex with her without a condom - whether in a brothel or not.<snip>

That is just the point. If prostitution is illegal then she cannot insist on a condom. If it is legal then anyone who encourages her to have sex without a condom is committing a crime. At least in the ACT.

DRBUZZ0

22nd December 2007, 01:52 PM

And you are right about that.
Yes, some of them need the money for an education, some to feed their children, some to feed their habit, some to pay the mortgage, some to get something to eat ...
I always love that argument! Why not use it in every other context? 'Since we cannot put a stop to murder all together ...'

Ah I see. So we should not allow people to do things for money that may end up being bad for them in the long run. We also should not allow people to do things with their bodies which are generally going to put them at risk for health issues or which are generally not going to lead to a good life or will lead to being exploited.

So lets see. What else should we impose our laws on:

~ Getting ugly tattoos that you're probably gona wish you didn't
~ Any kind of job that involves danger
~ Strippers, Porn Actors/Actresses
~ Sex with strangers (hey it's not a good idea to just bang whoever. So it ought to be illegal)
~ Smoking
~ Drinking
~ Getting paid to have paintballs shot at you (yeah there is a job like that).

Lets see... what else? Apparently murder is the same as prostitution even though it necessarily involves a non-consenting party. So lets see here, we ought to punish rape and prostitution the same.... well if the rapist leaves money though. Actually lets make all sex illegal. I mean come on, sex can have it's problems right?

Actually what about the guy who gets denied sex by a woman who is really mad at him for not paying the bills on time. Isn't that prostitution? Or the woman who feels a bit "generous" because a guy bought her a nice ring. That's deinfately prostitution!

andyandy

22nd December 2007, 02:41 PM

I think that you misunderstand me, jmontecillo01. My point is not to criticize the johns. And I definitely don't condemn the prostitutes, which is sort of implied in, "respect their right to live the way they want to live". The problem is that in most cases this is not exactly the way that they want to live, it's just what they have deemed the best of the rotten alternatives.
You are right, of course, when you say about the legalized brothels that "it gives them a sorrounding where they do not have to worry about the dangers street walkers have to face". Instead they have to worry about the dangers that prostitutes in brothels have to face. The weekly health checks are a testimony to this!!!
And what happens to the poor prostittute with AIDS? Does the government pull her out of circulation and take care of her for the rest of her life? Or is she simply banned from working in the brothels approved by the government to prevent her from passing on the disease in a legal setting?

Dann, I remember you being involved in a similar and tortueous thread on prostitution a while back where you seemed to wish to argue in ideological absolutes about the evil of prostition as a whole and therefore could not countenance even discussing what was best for the prostitutes within the industry itself.....so to keep it brief

(1) prostitution is for the large part a deeply unpleasant industry, in which the majority of people selling sex would rather not be doing so
(2) prostitution will not disappear regardless of whatever laws are passed or not passed by the state
(3) some people do choose to sell sex - either they prefer to work as a prostitute than in another profession, or are able to work in the high end "escort" market of their own free will. These people may be a minority, but nonetheless not everyone wants to be "rescued" from prostitution

Given that (1) (2) and (3) are statements which I don't believe even a blinkered ideologue can argue with, then the question should be "what is best for the women (and men) in the prostitution industry?"

The most dangerous position to be in is a street prostitue - in terms of rape, violence, pimp exploitation, drugs, low wage, STDs, and even murder it is absolutely the worst in terms of risk factors. Given that in legalised brothels you can
(1) Have bouncers and personal alarms to offer some protection from rape and violence
(2) Have a "condom only" policy (again reinforced through personal alarm)
(3) Have regular checks for STDs
(4) Have targeted outreach for all prostitutes to ensure that social workers, job cebtres, drug workers etc. can do everything possible to help these women out of prostitution if they wish
(4) minimise the pimp exploitation - breaking some of the drug dependent cycle, and ensuring that women get a greater share of any money earnt

then it is surely worth at least considering. I think prostition is unpleasant and exploitative but the question should be "how best to help?" rather than simplistic ideology distinct from reality.

The current status quo in the UK results in large numbers of street prostitutes, women trafficked from Europe and illegal and unregulated brothels. How then would you affect change to benefit the thousands of people in their current situation? More laws? Less laws? No laws? No state? The end of capitalism and the founding of an egalitarian society based on Marxism? Or just ideological masturbation?

(and if it takes a while to set up this Marxist state, what should we do in the meantime? ;) )

dann

22nd December 2007, 03:28 PM

Ah I see. So we should not allow people to do things for money that may end up being bad for them in the long run.Ah, I see. I never talked about allowing or forbidding anything, but you seem to be convinced that you see it. Have your eyesight checked, please.
We also should not allow people to do things with their bodies which are generally going to put them at risk for health issues or which are generally not going to lead to a good life or will lead to being exploited.And you continue in the same manner. Who are "we" who allow people to do things (?!) with their bodies? I'm certainly not one of you!
So lets see. What else should we impose our laws on:And here we go again with your continued and very wrong assumptions:
~ Getting ugly tattoos that you're probably gona wish you didn't
~ Any kind of job that involves danger
~ Strippers, Porn Actors/Actresses
~ Sex with strangers (hey it's not a good idea to just bang whoever. So it ought to be illegal)
~ Smoking
~ Drinking
~ Getting paid to have paintballs shot at you (yeah there is a job like that).
Very funny, and I get your drift, but you are still barking up the wrong tree.
Lets see... what else? Apparently murder is the same as prostitution even though it necessarily involves a non-consenting party. No, murder and prostitution are very different things. Do I really have to explain the difference to you?
So lets see here, we ought to punish rape and prostitution the same.... well if the rapist leaves money though. Actually lets make all sex illegal. I mean come on, sex can have it's problems right?Wow! This is one of the best strawmen I have seen in this forum, and I've seen a lot!
Actually what about the guy who gets denied sex by a woman who is really mad at him for not paying the bills on time. Isn't that prostitution? Or the woman who feels a bit "generous" because a guy bought her a nice ring. That's deinfately prostitution! Well, not according to the law, which you seem to be so preoccupied with in the rest of your argumentation.

dann

22nd December 2007, 03:52 PM

Dann, I remember you being involved in a similar and tortueous thread on prostitution a while back ...I already linked to the thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2479841#post2479841) in this one so you shouldn't have to strain your memory.
... where you seemed to wish to argue in ideological absolutes about the evil of prostition as a whole and therefore could not countenance even discussing what was best for the prostitutes within the industry itself.....so to keep it brief

(1) prostitution is for the large part a deeply unpleasant industry, in which the majority of people selling sex would rather not be doing so
(2) prostitution will not disappear regardless of whatever laws are passed or not passed by the state
(3) some people do choose to sell sex - either they prefer to work as a prostitute than in another profession, or are able to work in the high end "escort" market of their own free will. These people may be a minority, but nonetheless not everyone wants to be "rescued" from prostitution

Given that (1) (2) and (3) are statements which I don't believe even a blinkered ideologue can argue with, then the question should be "what is best for the women (and men) in the prostitution industry?"How about "not having to work in that 'industry'"? Would that be an acceptable answer? Well, no, probably not with your blinkered ideology ...

The most dangerous position to be in is a street prostitue - in terms of rape, violence, pimp exploitation, drugs, low wage, STDs, and even murder it is absolutely the worst in terms of risk factors. Given that in legalised brothels you can
(1) Have bouncers and personal alarms to offer some protection from rape and violence
(2) Have a "condom only" policy (again reinforced through personal alarm)
(3) Have regular checks for STDs
(4) Have targeted outreach for all prostitutes to ensure that social workers, job cebtres, drug workers etc. can do everything possible to help these women out of prostitution if they wish
(4) minimise the pimp exploitation - breaking some of the drug dependent cycle, and ensuring that women get a greater share of any money earnt

then it is surely worth at least considering. I think prostition is unpleasant and exploitative but the question should be "how best to help?" rather than simplistic ideology distinct from reality.Ah, this is rich: In order to avoid "simplistic ideology" it is necessary to succumb to your simplistic ideology, which, of course, is not at all blinkered.

The current status quo in the UK results in large numbers of street prostitutes, women trafficked from Europe and illegal and unregulated brothels. How then would you affect change to benefit the thousands of people in their current situation?You mean the poverty that forces them to 'work' in the 'industry'? Well, it appears as if the only solution is to abolish the poverty that makes this 'industry' appear to be the best of all the bad alternatives to these people, doesn't it? More laws? Less laws? No laws? No state? The end of capitalism and the founding of an egalitarian society based on Marxism? Or just ideological masturbation? Well, you seem to be comfortable with your ideological masturbation so why ask me for alternatives?
(and if it takes a while to set up this Marxist state, what should we do in the meantime? ;) ) As if you had not already delivered the answer: "We" should design brothels in the sky and pretend that this activity is a very practical, down-to-earth way of helping the poor people in the "unpleasant industry, in which the majority of people selling sex would rather not be doing so": weekly health checks, more lights, bouncers etc., which will help make this line of 'business' so much more enjoyable - in the meantime!

dann

22nd December 2007, 04:18 PM

That is just the point. If prostitution is illegal then she cannot insist on a condom. Of course, she can! What should stop her? Her poverty? Some illegal prostitutes insist on using condoms, some don't! If it is legal then anyone who encourages her to have sex without a condom is committing a crime. At least in the ACT. Yes, and we all know that crime does not exist, right? And you are absolutely sure that legal prostitutes are never persuaded to have sex without a condom? And you are certain that they are never cheated by customers who pretend to be wearing one but aren't, really, or are wearing one with holes in it?
Why the necessity of weekly health examinations, then?

DRBUZZ0

22nd December 2007, 11:32 PM

Ah, I see. I never talked about allowing or forbidding anything, but you seem to be convinced that you see it. Have your eyesight checked, please.

You compare prostitution to murder "well if we cannot stop all murders..." and continue on to state opposition to prostitution in general

Furthermore you respond to this statement:

.

I am not quite sure what your stance is. Is it prostitution must never be legalized or we must stamp out prostituion in society? I am sorry but the way I see it, you are againts prostitution as a whole.

With this statement:

And you are right about that.

So now you're saying you only apply that to the second part? That it is not an affirmation of "Must never be legalized" and must "stamp out"

It sounds a damn lot like you'd like you want it to be illegal.

DRBUZZ0

22nd December 2007, 11:36 PM

Of course, she can! What should stop her? Her poverty? Some illegal prostitutes insist on using condoms, some don't! Yes, and we all know that crime does not exist, right? And you are absolutely sure that legal prostitutes are never persuaded to have sex without a condom? And you are certain that they are never cheated by customers who pretend to be wearing one but aren't, really, or are wearing one with holes in it?
Why the necessity of weekly health examinations, then?

If you are of the impression that making something legal vrs illegal is not going to have any effect on the safety and whether or not there is a reduced risk of standards being followed, well then, I suggest you learn some history.

May I ask when the last time you had to worry about embalming fluid in your Martini was? in the US it was 1920 to 1933.

jmontecillo01

22nd December 2007, 11:46 PM

May I ask when the last time you had to worry about embalming fluid in your Martini was? in the US it was 1920 to 1933.

I don't think that dann is aware of the prohibition during the roaring 20's.

Dann, note that during those times, criminal elements, such as Al Capone and Bugsy Moran made millions taking by advantage of the prohibition.

Is that what you want to happen?

DRBUZZ0

23rd December 2007, 12:39 AM

I don't think that dann is aware of the prohibition during the roaring 20's.

Dann, note that during those times, criminal elements, such as Al Capone and Bugsy Moran made millions taking by advantage of the prohibition.

Is that what you want to happen?

Well it's more than that. When was the last time you saw someone cooking up some booze in their bathtub? It actually still happens to avoid taxes, but it's not what it was during prohibition.

It was decided then that alcohol ruined lives and it was just not a good thing on any level. So they decided to make the decision for the population. That is what triggered gangland violence. Al Capone and alike cashed in on the fact that people wold not give up alcohol. Since there was no regulation of the industry, they regulated themselves with violence. Once the industry came back the hayday of the old time gangs pretty much was over.

But not only was there crime involved it was very dangerous. Alcohol had no quality control. People still wanted it but they couldn't go to the liquor store and get it. So they bought it illegally. And people died of poisoning from embalming fluid, methanol, antifreeze, lead all sorts of other nasty stuff.

Unless there's some way of making people stop wanting sex and have a willingness to pay for it it will exist. And it won't just be a fringe. It'll be rampant.

But beyond the practical matters, it cuts to the heart of what a society is willing to accept in terms of freedom and personal choice.

dann

23rd December 2007, 03:21 AM

You compare prostitution to murder "well if we cannot stop all murders..." and continue on to state opposition to prostitution in generalNo, I don't. I compare the way some people argue about prostitution with the way that nobody would argue in the case of murder. Nobody uses the fact that a few victims of murder actually want to die to argue that murder as such can't be condemned ...
So now you're saying you only apply that to the second part? No, the first part consists of two questions, the second part of a statement - which is what I affirm.It sounds a damn lot like you'd like you want it to be illegal. Yes, to you it does, apparently, which means that you should have not only your eyesight but also your hearing checked.
I would also like to "stamp out" malaria. That doesn't mean that I want to make it illegal! It isn't my fault that a lot of you can't tell the difference!

dann

23rd December 2007, 03:26 AM

May I ask when the last time you had to worry about embalming fluid in your Martini was? in the US it was 1920 to 1933.I don't drink Martinis, so I never really worried. I know that even today women have to worry about what some rapist might slip into their drinks, and I know that anti-freeze has been used to 'improve' wine (in Austria or Italy, I think), but that is not what you are talking about ...

dann

23rd December 2007, 03:32 AM

I don't think that dann is aware of the prohibition during the roaring 20's.

Dann, note that during those times, criminal elements, such as Al Capone and Bugsy Moran made millions taking by advantage of the prohibition.

Is that what you want to happen?Yes, I want Al Capone and Bugsy Moran to make millions by taking advantage of prostitution. Your question is childish and stupid!
Why won't you strawman manufacturers realize that women are being taken advantage of in legal as well as illegal brothels? Why don't you take a look at the reality of legalized prostitution instead of basing your arguments on your visions of dreamworld brothels?

andyandy

23rd December 2007, 03:34 AM

You mean the poverty that forces them to 'work' in the 'industry'? Well, it appears as if the only solution is to abolish the poverty that makes this 'industry' appear to be the best of all the bad alternatives to these people, doesn't it?

ah yes - the solution is to abolish poverty - brilliant idea. How can you do it? And in the meantime whilst we're waiting for your Marxist utopia to be established, what do we do? Nothing?

Why won't you strawman manufacturers realize that women are being taken advantage of in legal as well as illegal brothels? Why don't you take a look at the reality of legalized prostitution instead of basing your arguments on your visions of dreamworld brothels?

*sigh*

yes, women get exploited in prostitution whether that is in legalised brothels, illegal brothels or as street prostitutes. But (and here's the nuance you seem to be having difficulty processing) street prostitution puts prostitutes at far greater risk than in other more controlled environments. It's a lesser of two evils debate, which you seem to wish to answer by pretending that one can snap one's fingers and make all that evil disappear.

As if you had not already delivered the answer: "We" should design brothels in the sky and pretend that this activity is a very practical, down-to-earth way of helping the poor people in the "unpleasant industry, in which the majority of people selling sex would rather not be doing so": weekly health checks, more lights, bouncers etc., which will help make this line of 'business' so much more enjoyable - in the meantime!

so we have a practical and achievable solution -

(1) provide some form of legalised brothels to best try to address the problems of prostitution

or we have your ideological masturbation

(2) end all poverty

I would love to end poverty. If it is a realistic goal then sure that is preferable to (1). But the problem is twofold

How do you propose to end all poverty?
What do you propose to do in the meantime?

If you can't answer either question then your contribution to this debate is redundant.

dann

23rd December 2007, 03:45 AM

Unless there's some way of making people stop wanting sex and have a willingness to pay for it it will exist. And it won't just be a fringe. It'll be rampant. OK, prostitution fan, what is this supposed to mean? That you don't know that there actually are ways of "making people stop wanting sex"? (But they aren't very pleasant, and so far nobody has argued against sex in this thread.)
The problem, by the way, is not 'people's' willingness to pay for sex but the poverty that drive some 'people' to sell it ...
And what exactly do you mean by "fringe" and "rampant"??? That prostitution is less rampant if it's legalized and therefore will be only a fringe? Will you please elaborate?

dann

23rd December 2007, 04:09 AM

ah yes - the solution is to abolish poverty - brilliant idea. How can you do it? And in the meantime whilst we're waiting for your Marxist utopia to be established, what do we do? Nothing?I already told you! It's quite obvious what you do: You buld fantasy brothels!
so we have a practical and achievable solution -

(1) provide some form of legalised brothels to best try to address the problems of prostitution
The problem of prostitution is that some people are so poor that they have to sell it to people who can pay instead of having it with people they feel attracted to. Brothels don't "address" this problem, they profit from it.
or we have your ideological masturbationUnlike your favourite passtime: designing fantasy brothels, right?
(2) end all povertyYes, please!
I would love to end poverty.I have a very hard time believing you.
If it is a realistic goal then sure that is preferable to (1). But the problem is twofold

How do you propose to end all poverty?Well, not by having the government legalize poverty abolishment! It's very adamant in this question: Private property is sacred, and since private property follows the principle of mutual exclusion, everybody else is excluded from the property that is mine, abundance exists right next to starvation. And it is not allowed to help yourself by eating the stuff that doesn't belong to you. This is the kind of freedom that no libertarian is in favour of!
What do you propose to do in the meantime?What do you mean with in the meantime??? What do you propose that the prostitutes do while you are building imaginary brothels?
If you can't answer either question then your contribution to this debate is redundant. If you continue to build nothing but strawmen, you've made a fool of yourself.
If, however, you actually want to know what causes poverty, you can start here (http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/poverty.html)

jmontecillo01

23rd December 2007, 06:51 AM

Yes, I want Al Capone and Bugsy Moran to make millions by taking advantage of prostitution. Your question is childish and stupid!
Why won't you strawman manufacturers realize that women are being taken advantage of in legal as well as illegal brothels? Why don't you take a look at the reality of legalized prostitution instead of basing your arguments on your visions of dreamworld brothels?

Now I am sure that you know nothing about prohibition during the 20's. Was DRBUZZO's explanation not enough for you?

OK, prostitution fan

It is time for me to bow out. I'll let the other prostitution fans take over from here.

andyandy

23rd December 2007, 06:55 AM

The problem of prostitution is that some people are so poor that they have to sell it to people who can pay instead of having it with people they feel attracted to. Brothels don't "address" this problem, they profit from it.

yes once again, legalised brothels do not "solve" the problem of prostitution. No one is suggesting that it does. This has been explained to you already. Given a lesser of two evils choice between state help with regards to violence, rape, counselling, drugs, jobs in a controlled legalised brothel environment and a wholly uncontrolled street environment in which such support is much more difficult to provide I would rather the former. You simply seem to ignore reality and just wish that *poof* evil capitalism disappears in a puff of smoke ;)

Well, not by having the government legalize poverty abolishment! It's very adamant in this question: Private property is sacred, and since private property follows the principle of mutual exclusion, everybody else is excluded from the property that is mine, abundance exists right next to starvation. And it is not allowed to help yourself by eating the stuff that doesn't belong to you. This is the kind of freedom that no libertarian is in favour of!

i asked you how you would end poverty. You've said what you wouldn't do. Now say what you would do.

What do you mean with in the meantime??? What do you propose that the prostitutes do while you are building imaginary brothels?
If you continue to build nothing but strawmen, you've made a fool of yourself.

legalising brothels is a real world solution which could be implemented quickly and reasonably easily by governments - it is a more realistic short term approach than your suggested solution of "ending poverty" through some as yet undefined communist ideal. Even if your communist ideal is one day to be realised, you surely can not be suggesting that it would be quicker to implement than legalising brothels? One can have both short term and long term aims - you seem to solely be willing to look at long term idealism.

DRBUZZ0

23rd December 2007, 08:44 AM

OK, prostitution fan, what is this supposed to mean?

Do NOT call me a prostitution fan. How dare you start casting others in such terms based entirely on inability to attack the argument. I'm no more a fan of prostitution than of body modification, of extreme fetish porn, of idiotic reality TV or numerous other things which I would support other's right to do on their own time with consenting adults.

That you don't know that there actually are ways of "making people stop wanting sex"? (But they aren't very pleasant, and so far nobody has argued against sex in this thread.)

And what the hell does that have to do with anything? As long as people want sex and have money they'll be willing to trade money for sex. Is that so complicated? Are you suggesting that everyone walk around castrated or something? What the hell are you talking about that I don't "know there actually are ways" Yeah, I guess if you disfigure everyone's body to make it incapable of sexual function and suppress hormones then there ya go. Is that how important stamping out prostitution is?

The problem, by the way, is not 'people's' willingness to pay for sex but the poverty that drive some 'people' to sell it ...

Okay so then the idea is what? To eliminate poverty? And not just poverty but the need to sell for school payments or something? Are you suggesting that the answer is to assure everyone is so rich that they'll never feel a need to sell sex for some more? Geez, I think that's gona be... economically... rather impossible...

You know what else people do because they need money? A lot of crappy, dangerous, unpleasant things. And it's not like all prostitutes are dirt poor. I don't know if they like the job or consider it an "easy" way to make lots of money or if it's "The only option" or they "feel forced" into it or what. It could be any of these. Really it's there business and not yours.

And what exactly do you mean by "fringe" and "rampant"??? That prostitution is less rampant if it's legalized and therefore will be only a fringe? Will you please elaborate?

No I won't. I think everyone else understands. And it's especially frustrating when you ask someone to explain something and they refuse to. I think I'd like to make you feel a bit frustrated at the moment... just because you irritate me.

I don't drink Martinis, so I never really worried. I know that even today women have to worry about what some rapist might slip into their drinks, and I know that anti-freeze has been used to 'improve' wine (in Austria or Italy, I think), but that is not what you are talking about ...

If you're going to make a strawman, you could at least try to obfuscate it a little so that it is less apparent that it is such a strawman. Today women having anything slipped in their drink has nothing to do with alcohol quality. It could easily be a non-alcoholic soda. And I have not heard of anything but any isolated instances of antifreeze in anything.. I have never heard it being widespread.

There was a time when it was. There was a time when literally any alcoholic beverage could make you go blind from methanol poisoning or die from other contaminants. This was when it was illegal.

I don't care if you drink martinis or not.

dann

23rd December 2007, 10:05 AM

Now I am sure that you know nothing about prohibition during the 20's. Was DRBUZZO's explanation not enough for you?Yes, his 'explanation' was more than enough, and I know more than enough about prohibition, so let me repeat my questions to you:
Why won't you strawman manufacturers realize that women are being taken advantage of in legal as well as illegal brothels? Why don't you take a look at the reality of legalized prostitution instead of basing your arguments on your visions of dreamworld brothels? You seem to think that illegal prostitution more or less disappears with the introduction of legalized brothels. That is the whole point of your comparison with the prohibition, isn't it?

dann

23rd December 2007, 10:34 AM

yes once again, legalised brothels do not "solve" the problem of prostitution. No one is suggesting that it does. This has been explained to you already. Given a lesser of two evils choice between state help with regards to violence, rape, counselling, drugs, jobs in a controlled legalised brothel environment and a wholly uncontrolled street environment in which such support is much more difficult to provide I would rather the former. You simply seem to ignore reality and just wish that *poof* evil capitalism disappears in a puff of smoke ;)You seem to ignore reality and just wish that *poof* illegal prostitution disappears in a puff of smoke when legalised brothels are introduced! You imaine yourself a realist, but you are nothing of the kind!
Your "state help with regards to violence, rape, counselling, drugs, jobs in a controlled legalised brothel environment" simply makes a division between the legalised and the illegal prostitution - as if the former will put an end to the latter. By the way, your state help with these things imply that there are all still there (as the weekly health checks imply that STDs are still there - in the brothels approved by the government).
i asked you how you would end poverty. You've said what you wouldn't do. When? Where? Now say what you would do. That's quite simple - but not easy: Remove the thing that causes poverty (http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/poverty.html)!
legalising brothels is a real world solution which could be implemented quickly and reasonably easily by governments - it is a more realistic short term approach than your suggested solution of "ending poverty" through some as yet undefined communist ideal. Even if your communist ideal is one day to be realised, you surely can not be suggesting that it would be quicker to implement than legalising brothels? One can have both short term and long term aims - you seem to solely be willing to look at long term idealism. As always when you make the so-called lesser of two evils your objective instead of abolishing the cause of both miserable alternatives, you start praising your own realism, which is a mistake. You become an alleged realistic, short-term, down-to-earth, anti-idealistic spokesman for brothels, not the real-life kind, but the idealized, psedo-realistic kind.
It will, of course, be said that such a scheme as is set forth here is quite unpractical, and goes against human nature. This is perfectly true. It is unpractical, and it goes against human nature. This is why it is worth carrying out, and that is why one proposes it. For what is a practical scheme? A practical scheme is either a scheme that is already in existence, or a scheme that could be carried out under existing conditions. But it is exactly the existing conditions that one objects to; and any scheme that could accept these conditions is wrong and foolish. http://wilde.thefreelibrary.com/Soul-of-Man-under-Socialism

dann

23rd December 2007, 11:46 AM

Do NOT call me a prostitution fan. How dare you start casting others in such terms based entirely on inability to attack the argument. I'm no more a fan of prostitution than of body modification, of extreme fetish porn, of idiotic reality TV or numerous other things which I would support other's right to do on their own time with consenting adults. You are not only a fan of prostitution, you seem to be a very big fan: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3087926#post3087926

And what the hell does that have to do with anything? As long as people want sex and have money they'll be willing to trade money for sex. Is that so complicated? Are you suggesting that everyone walk around castrated or something? No, as long as people want sex and have money, they may be willing to trade money for sex, but you still need the supplier, the people without money, the people whose poverty makes them so willing to disregard that they don’t feel attracted to the person with money. This aspect of the ‘profession’, by the way, is the main reason why prostitutes need drugs even if drugs weren’t the thing that made them turn tricks to begin with. This, by the way, is what I already said in my post: “ he problem, by the way, is not 'people's' willingness to pay for sex but the poverty that drive some 'people' to sell it ...”

What the hell are you talking about that I don't "know there actually are ways" Yeah, I guess if you disfigure everyone's body to make it incapable of sexual function and suppress hormones then there ya go. Is that how important stamping out prostitution is? No, not to me. It’s not a question of the ‘importance’, however. What you are willing to expose prostitutes to is a different question …

Okay so then the idea is what? To eliminate poverty? Exactly!

And not just poverty but the need to sell for school payments or something? Exactly!

Are you suggesting that the answer is to assure everyone is so rich that they'll never feel a need to sell sex for some more? Exactly!

Geez, I think that's gona be... economically... rather impossible... Not more impossible than your idealized brothels. But dreaming of making a profit from the misfortune of women (and men) is much more realistic, right? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3087926#post3087926

You know what else people do because they need money? A lot of crappy, dangerous, unpleasant things. Yes, and how come you seem to enjoy the fact? Because you see people willing to let themselves be exploited as a business opportunity?

And it's not like all prostitutes are dirt poor. I don't know if they like the job or consider it an "easy" way to make lots of money or if it's "The only option" or they "feel forced" into it or what. It could be any of these. Really it's there business and not yours. But it appears to be yours, right? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3087926#post3087926

And what exactly do you mean by "fringe" and "rampant"??? That prostitution is less rampant if it's legalized and therefore will be only a fringe? Will you please elaborate? No I won't. I think everyone else understands. And it's especially frustrating when you ask someone to explain something and they refuse to. I think I'd like to make you feel a bit frustrated at the moment... just because you irritate me. OK, suit yourself, prostitution fan.

If you're going to make a strawman, you could at least try to obfuscate it a little so that it is less apparent that it is such a strawman. Today women having anything slipped in their drink has nothing to do with alcohol quality. It could easily be a non-alcoholic soda. And I have not heard of anything but any isolated instances of antifreeze in anything.. I have never heard it being widespread. You mean like prostitution?

There was a time when it was. There was a time when literally any alcoholic beverage could make you go blind from methanol poisoning or die from other contaminants. This was when it was illegal. Literally any? What is your argument here? That sleeping with legalized prostitutes is better …. for the johns? That the prostitutes should be made safer for the consumers? In general the johns are not the ones who suffer …

I don't care if you drink martinis or not. I did not think that you do. I don’t care much for your Martini argument!

andyandy

23rd December 2007, 12:51 PM

You seem to ignore reality and just wish that *poof* illegal prostitution disappears in a puff of smoke when legalised brothels are introduced! You imaine yourself a realist, but you are nothing of the kind!
Your "state help with regards to violence, rape, counselling, drugs, jobs in a controlled legalised brothel environment" simply makes a division between the legalised and the illegal prostitution - as if the former will put an end to the latter.

good grief. this must be at least the third time you've tried to pretend that people arguing for legalised prostitution think that this is a utopian solution which will end all illegal prostitution. This is simply not the case. You are being deliberately disingenous.

By the way, your state help with these things imply that there are all still there (as the weekly health checks imply that STDs are still there - in the brothels approved by the government).

quite - legalised brothels are not a utopia which make all problems disappear. Congratulations for your discovery.

That's quite simple - but not easy: Remove the thing that causes poverty (http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/poverty.html)!

Yes, i've read the somewhat vague and rather rambling gegenstanpunk, workers of the world unite, anti-capitalist argument. It doesn't present any positives - just a rejection of capitalism. How do you actually get from the system we have now to the system you want to exist? Sixth form essays on the evils of capitalism don't help in that regard.

As always when you make the so-called lesser of two evils your objective instead of abolishing the cause of both miserable alternatives, you start praising your own realism, which is a mistake. You become an alleged realistic, short-term, down-to-earth, anti-idealistic spokesman for brothels, not the real-life kind, but the idealized, psedo-realistic kind

REVOL REVOL! DOWN WITH REALISM! ;)

DRBUZZ0

23rd December 2007, 01:01 PM

You are not only a fan of prostitution, you seem to be a very big fan: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3087926#post3087926

Taken out of context, accusatory and inflammatory. You have been reported and will continue to be so for every additional time you make these empty personal attacks.

No, as long as people want sex and have money, they may be willing to trade money for sex, but you still need the supplier, the people without money, the people whose poverty makes them so willing to disregard that they don’t feel attracted to the person with money.

Where there is demand and sufficient willingness to pay there will be a supplier. And it does not have anything to do with poverty. It has to do with what someone is willing to do for a given amount of money. It involved personal ethics, values, willingness to take risks, feelings on sex, availability of alternatives and so on. You have no right to speak for anyone who makes such a choice.

This aspect of the ‘profession’, by the way, is the main reason why prostitutes need drugs even if drugs weren’t the thing that made them turn tricks to begin with. This, by the way, is what I already said in my post: “ he problem, by the way, is not 'people's' willingness to pay for sex but the poverty that drive some 'people' to sell it ...”

That's speculation. It may even be true in many cases, but you have zero right to speak for those who may choose such a profession. Doubtless there are some who regret it or feel they have been forced into it by lack of choices. This could be said for numerous other jobs. It is unfortunate but a reality.

No, not to me. It’s not a question of the ‘importance’, however. What you are willing to expose prostitutes to is a different question …

What *I* am willing to expose anyone to is not an issue. What a person is willing to expose themselves to is. Ideally, I'd like such a person to have as much precautionary and safety measures as reasonably possible taken. Doubtless, there is still risk. There's also risk in North Atlantic fishing which is one reason it pays so much. *I* don't think I have the right to tell others what risks are reasonable and what constitutes a fair and good job.

Exactly!

There have been attempts to make a society free from want in which every person is set and taken care of and never feels need for money or feels social unfairness. You might remember one of them... they had to build a really big wall to keep everyone from fleeing

In any case, I doubt even the most progressive socialists would claim it's possible to have everyone live in such a lap of luxury that they would never ever desire any additional money or possessions. At least, that's not possible without some very very heavy social engineering. It's never even come close to working...EVER.

Not more impossible than your idealized brothels. But dreaming of making a profit from the misfortune of women (and men) is much more realistic, right? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3087926#post3087926

The tone of that is accusatory and the accusations are ad-hom and unfounded. You have been reported and will continue to be reported for every additional attack of this nature.

You are making a great assumption when you state "misfortune" of women and men. Where do you get off being the spokesperson for everyone who's been taken advantage of?

I happen to have a friend who was a stripper for a long time. The same has been said of that job taking advantage of people. I asked her if she ever felt used or like a piece of meat. She told me that occasionally she had a bad night, but in general she *liked* the job. She said she actually felt like she was empowered because she was able to just flirt with a guy and get him to cough up lots of money. She said that she really thought it was a great job because she made gobs or money and it was easy and had relatively short hours. She could afford a pretty nice place based on the money. And she does not regret it. The only reason she left was that she wanted a job she could keep into her older years so she got an education. She said she honestly would do it if she could because it was good money and easy.

Is this universal? Certainly not. Did she have nights where some guys made her feel crappy? Sure, occasionally. She chose the job and had a better standard of living because of it. I don't even know if maybe she was lying about not minding it, but I'm not going to pretend to get into someone's head. There are people who don't feel like she did or don't see it as beneficial. But you have no right to speak for someone who goes into a job at a strip club, a brothel, a porn studio, a coal mine, a fishing boat, a corporate office or anywhere they choose.

It's absolutely reprehensible to claim to be the one who can make the better decision or who helps them by benovelantly taking away the option. The statements made toward those who might see this as a necessary or advantageous choice are disgusting and extremely judgmental.

Yes, and how come you seem to enjoy the fact? Because you see people willing to let themselves be exploited as a business opportunity?

If somebody wants to sell sex and they think it's a fair trade and have gotten sufficient money in return then yes, I am happy to see that as I am with any mutually beneficial business transaction. Exploitation? Absolutely not. Nobody should be expoited or forced into anything. That's not the same issue and you are well aware of this.

In the end, if it is such a bad decision then the best thing to do is to inform those who would do it to the consequences. You cannot go around protecting people from themselves. It in no way helps to take away the option which will force them to do so illegally.

But it appears to be yours, right? http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3087926#post3087926

OK, suit yourself, prostitution fan.

You have been reported and will continue to be so for every additional time you make these empty personal attacks.

Literally any? What is your argument here? That sleeping with legalized prostitutes is better …. for the johns? That the prostitutes should be made safer for the consumers? In general the johns are not the ones who suffer …

Don't tell me who is suffering. You cannot speak for anyone. Your assertions are very offensive, judgmental and generally reflect very very poorly on you, but that's just my opinion.... as opposed to your statement which is a clear violation of forum policy

I did not think that you do. I don’t care much for your Martini argument!

Yeah I understand that. It's a pretty good analogy which is hard to refute and it's based on something observed in the real world in a parallel situation. That must make it really suck for you, eh?

dann

23rd December 2007, 01:13 PM

Taken out of context, accusatory and inflammatory. You have been reported and will continue to be so for every additional time you make these empty personal attacks.

(...)
The tone of that is accusatory and the accusations are ad-hom and unfounded. You have been reported and will continue to be reported for every additional attack of this nature.
(...)
You have been reported and will continue to be so for every additional time you make these empty personal attacks.

You did not appear to be so sensitive at the beginning of this thread - and this is just the beginning:
I'm not writing this as a joke. I'm really not. Because something had occurred to me. Brothels are cash cows. Prostitution is the sort of thing that just can't not drag in money. Sex sells and many are willing to pay for it. Those who have a lot to spend are often willing to spend it on sex. It's the sort of business that is universal in it's solvency, in good times and bad in recessions and booms. There's a reason why adult entertainment companies always rake it in.

But in the US, prostitution is illegal in all major cities. (personally I think this is stupid and I'm pretty libertarian in my views in general) In Nevada it is legal in some counties and the brothels there and their working girls (in a few cases guys) make a lot. http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3087926#post3087926
Context enough for you?

dann

23rd December 2007, 01:27 PM

... but you have zero right to speak for those who may choose such a profession. (...) Where do you get off being the spokesperson for everyone who's been taken advantage of? (...) But you have no right to speak for someone who goes into a job at a strip club, a brothel, a porn studio, a coal mine, a fishing boat, a corporate office or anywhere they choose.

It's absolutely reprehensible to claim to be the one who can make the better decision or who helps them by benovelantly taking away the option. The statements made toward those who might see this as a necessary or advantageous choice are disgusting and extremely judgmental. (...) Don't tell me who is suffering. You cannot speak for anyone. Your assertions are very offensive, judgmental and generally reflect very very poorly on you, but that's just my opinion.... as opposed to your statement which is a clear violation of forum policy
I was not aware that I was speaking for, being the spokesperson for or making decisions for anyone.
But for somebody who is making that accusation, you seem to be very confident about being the spokesperson for people who are forced out of necessity to work in brothels - legal or illegal. As for your actual suggestions for how to run "a legal brothel where it's illegal...sorta", you don't come across as the most empathic guy in the world!

chillzero

23rd December 2007, 01:31 PM

Please treat this thread as an area where ideas can be discussed without judgement or personalisation of the issues. Your posts should address the point being raised, without reference back to the person making that point in any derogatory or negative fashion.

dann

24th December 2007, 12:09 AM

Prostitution Reality Check (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2489722#post2489722)
And more links about prostitution and poverty:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496288#post2496288
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2497034#post2497034
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498549#post2498549
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498551#post2498551
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498821#post2498821
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2499382#post2499382
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2499417#post2499417
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2499546#post2499546

DRBUZZ0

24th December 2007, 08:31 AM

I have no interest in the "reality check" which is nothing but comments from yourself and your own self-serving links. You are unhealthily obsessed with this and the reenforcement of an argument which at it's basis is contrary to the principals of liberty and management of oneself. Nobody is listening just getting a bit irritated.

rjh01

24th December 2007, 04:33 PM

dann

24th December 2007, 04:36 PM

Oh, dear, more principals! And this time of ”liberty and management of oneself”! Hilarious!

Nobody is listening, you say? Nobody at all??! It’s funny how you are able to make yourself the spokesperson for the rest of the world! I don’t doubt that you are not interested in links to information about prostitution, however. I didn’t expect you to be.Your puerile imagination seems to be all you need to fabricate your fantasies of ideal brothels – legal or illegal - as a wonderful business opportunity,
Having the only such place in a major city seems like it could not possibly fail to bring in the money.

But how could you do that openly in a place where prostitution is illegal?

In the 1920's alcohol was illegal in the US, but there was one way in places like New York to have a nice evening of drinks without violating the law. One only needed to take the short trip to international waters in what was called a "Booze Cruise."

So why not the same for prostitution? Deals not made until outside US jurisdiction, on a nice boat with private staterooms.
which you probably think is a very healthy preoccupation, so why worry about a reality check (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2489722#post2489722)? It would only serve to ruin your fantasy, and all you need to feed it is your anecdotal evidence from former strippers …
Your affinity with woowoos could not be more obvious.

Apropos of liberty, let me at least offer you this:

The fundamental question of choice.
For the same reason, it is doubtful whether prostitution is ever a free choice. What proportion of prostitutes, given the possibility of earning the same or better in acceptable working conditions and in which they did not need to sell their bodies, would choose nonetheless to continue in prostitution? A study made among prostitutes in San Francisco shows that nearly 90% want to leave the industry.
It is worth noting that the regulation camp, to prove that prostitutes choose their profession freely, cite the fact that they prefer prostitution to, say, working in a sweat shop for 15 hours a day. Of course they do. But a choice between two forms of exploitation is not a free choice, nor ever has been, but is purely and simply an abuse of the term. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights could therefore only have been proposed by the regulation camp by misrepresenting the very notion of "free choice".
http://www.fidh.org/lettres/2000pdf/angl/cah38uk.htm

DRBUZZ0

24th December 2007, 05:09 PM

Oh I stopped listening to you a long time ago. The only reason I continue to respond is that it's so hard to resist an opportunity to make a fool out of someone with such ridiculous arguments and who makes themselves look like such a... (I better stop right there).

In any case, I'm not going to read your stupid little commie nonsense. Yeah, people take jobs for the money which they otherwise wouldn't do. I remember having a conversation with captain obvious about this.

The quote in your signature is very telling. Anyone who suggests that "Abolishing" religion and thereby forcing "happiness" on everyone and sees Karl Marx as a great speaker of truth and valid theory for how to do things is not someone I'd care to even bother with.

Why don't you go back to Russia and see if you can get them to try that idea again. I think Putin's been working on it for some time. Unfortunately China seems to be putting that by the side. Uh??? Cuba maybe? Yeah. Excellent. You know there are so many damn americans who get into rickety boats and flea to a life in Cuba where they won't be exploited by society.

Seriously go read some books or something. Not philopsophy books, though. History books. Those actually deal with reality.

dann

25th December 2007, 07:25 AM

Ah yes, the last resort of the utterly clueless: ad homs and not a single argument! Maybe you should start reading a couple of books or maybe just newspapers. It might help ruin your ignorance and improve your spelling …
Putin, for instance, is not a commie any more. (I don’t know if he ever was.) He is one of your guys. The US government does not like him but for other reasons than you appear to think. But every post from you so far has demonstrated that you are not too fond of books or articles that ”actually deal with reality”.
That you are not particularly fond of Cuba either would not come as a big surprise to anybody, I think. After all, this poor country managed to eliminate prostitution for three decades, but the unfortunate return of poverty in the 1990s also gave rise to prostitution again:

In the pre-1950s era, Cuba's prostitution industry was rampant. It is estimated there were more than 100,000 women of the night on this small island before Castro took control. After Castro took control in the 1950s, promising to abolish prostitution, the trade became almost extinct for the next 35 years.
http://www.american.edu/TED/cubatour.htm

Propped by $ 4 billion in annual Soviet subsidies, the Cuban economy allowed women (and men) to meet their basic needs without needing to trade in their bodies.
Over the past decade, however, Soviet subsidies disappeared and trading partners were lost. Prostitution has come back. Despite government claims that it remains committed to elimi¬nating the sex trade, prostitution continues, albeit at reduced levels from several years ago. Increased prostitution in Cuba is a byproduct of the economic crisis precipitated by the col¬lapse of the Soviet Union and the economic reforms initiated in 1993-94.
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:Y...lnk&cd=7&gl=dk

Prostitution was targeted for eradication and consequently, massive sweeps of the cities eliminated bordellos and put former prostitutes in trade schools. (Holgado, 234). Cuba was no longer America’s whore and Cuban women were no longer the sexual objects of the foreigners.
(…)
Cuban prostitutes are not necessarily uneducated country girls. These women “are educated professionals who work as prostitutes at night in addition to their jobs.” (Perkovich and Saini, 434). The most over-represented group within these circles, of course, is the black woman and the mulatto because “they are underrepresented in the exterior of the country, so they do not have family to send them remissions in dollars.” (Holgado, 236: my translation)
(…)
What the government fails to realize is that these are not deviant Jezebels out to give Cuban women a bad name; many are single mothers or young women out to make money to buy basic necessities such as cooking oil and soap. Adriana, a 20-year-old jinetera remarks, “there are many jineteras that do this to survive, out of necessity, to maintain their families, or because they have children and the father cannot/does not support them. He may have left to the U.S. and left her alone” (Holgado 246 my translation). (…) The solution to this problem is not a legal one, but an economic one. If these women were provided with adequate support from the government, good salaries, decent rations prostitution would not be necessary. Absent an economic improvement, it will remain a way for Cuban women to utilize their exotic sexuality to survive.
(…)
To conclude, Fidel Castro’s government has overall been a mixed bag for Cuban women. Free education, abortion rights, and ascension into the workforce have brought women freedoms unmatched in other Caribbean nations. Yet, poverty and the resultant rise in prostitution, the “separate spheres” mentality, and lack of support for single mothers create for Cuban women a paradoxical situation.
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:P...lnk&cd=9&gl=dk

And I do not think that these quotations come from pro-Castro sites!

When you say that ”there are so many damn americans who get into rickety boats and flea to a life in Cuba”, I have to admit that I am not really sure if you are talking about these poor guys (http://www.pickledbushman.com/index.php/2007/06/19/michael_moore_sicko_or_american_refugees) ….

Merry Christmas!

rjh01

25th December 2007, 03:27 PM

Can I declare this thread dead? I mean Dann has made a good case for prostitution to be legal in his last post. I doubt that DrBuzzo will argue it should be otherwise. Chillzero is here to make sure we keep to the rules. The lurkers can read and come to their own conclusions.
I declare this thread well and truly dead.

dann

27th December 2007, 07:54 AM

I guess that rjh01 is probably right about one thing. For the guys in this thread who consider brothels to be a wonderful business opportunity (and DrBuzzo is certainly one of those even though, for some reason, he objects to the term prostitution fan. Go figure), the fact that poverty is what forces poor people to become prostitutes:

“single mothers or young women out to make money to buy basic necessities such as cooking oil and soap. Adriana, a 20-year-old jinetera remarks, “there are many jineteras that do this to survive, out of necessity, to maintain their families, or because they have children and the father cannot/does not support them. He may have left to the U.S. and left her alone”. (…) The solution to this problem is not a legal one, but an economic one. If these women were provided with adequate support from the government, good salaries, decent rations prostitution would not be necessary. Absent an economic improvement, it will remain a way for Cuban women to utilize their exotic sexuality to survive.”

is neither an argument against poverty nor against prostitution. Instead they see it exclusively as a good case for prostitution to be legal and as an argument which at it's basis is contrary to the principals of liberty and management of oneself.
What the economic circumstances force people to do from this perspective turns out to be nothing but an exertion of their constitutional rights:
Yeah, people take jobs for the money which they otherwise wouldn't do.
And this principle, of course, is the reason why poverty (http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/poverty.html) is such a splendid opportunity for people with money: Poor people are not only willing (http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/psych/1-0-part-I.html) to do things that they find disgusting, they are forced to do so, not by a feudal despot, but by the wonderful compulsion of their financial circumstances. This is the logic of free will (http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/state/1.html) and free enterprise (http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/katrina.html) for poor people: They have the same constitutional rights (http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/state/2.html) as the people with money to exert their will to choose, but in their case the free choice is not one of deciding between investing in bordellos or stocks and bonds. They have to choose between all the glorious offers from people with private property (http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/state/4.html) who are thus able to pick and choose: If they want (poor) people to work for them in their factories, fields or sweat shops, they have the money to pay them and thus command over (sometimes) all their waking hours. And if they want (poor) people for sex they have the freedom to pay them to overcome their dislike and aversion to do so.

This is then what constitutes the much celebrated principals of liberty and management of oneself. i.e. the choices of the poor – if they have even those. If they are too weak or too old, working in a sweat shop may be out of the question, and if they are sexually unattractive, selling their sexual favours also is not an option.
The rich are free to decide whose sexual favours to buy. The poor have the liberty to exert their freedom to starve.

Anyone who suggests that "Abolishing" religion and thereby forcing "happiness" on everyone and sees Karl Marx as a great speaker of truth and valid theory for how to do things is not someone I'd care to even bother with.

Yes, of course. Eliminating the circumstances which force people to undertake ‘services’ so vile that they have to take drugs in order to numb their senses to the acts, would amount to force in the egalitarian view of things, whereas actually undertaking these acts becomes an expression of the celebrated free will. And of course this also goes for the opium of the people, religion. A ‘skeptic’ does not want to consider eliminating the circumstances, which force upon people the choice between drugs and religion. This kind of abolishing religion by eliminating the force of poverty and destitution is not seen as something which liberates people who no longer have to manipulate their own view of the world by inventing superstitious delusions in order to be able to endure it.

Thus everything is turned upside-down in this ideology: Submission to the forces of capitalist poverty is celebrated as the ultimate freedom and any criticism of this condition is consequently considered to be outright tyranny, taking away people’s freedom of choice to become (for instance) prostitutes, addicts or a homeless (very realistic ‘career moves’ for a lot of people in any market economy).
And people who feel like discussing DRBUZZO’s suggestions of how to turn people’s people into money machines are the people with whom he cares to bother, since he is one of them himself:
Brothels are cash cows. Prostitution is the sort of thing that just can't not drag in money. Sex sells and many are willing to pay for it. Those who have a lot to spend are often willing to spend it on sex. It's the sort of business that is universal in it's solvency, in good times and bad in recessions and booms. As DRBUZZO et al see it, the only problem is that, so far, in many places it is still illegal, and that infringes upon their liberty to exploit the poor!

This quotation already put it very nicely:
The fundamental question of choice.
For the same reason, it is doubtful whether prostitution is ever a free choice. What proportion of prostitutes, given the possibility of earning the same or better in acceptable working conditions and in which they did not need to sell their bodies, would choose nonetheless to continue in prostitution? A study made among prostitutes in San Francisco shows that nearly 90% want to leave the industry.
It is worth noting that the regulation camp, to prove that prostitutes choose their profession freely, cite the fact that they prefer prostitution to, say, working in a sweat shop for 15 hours a day. Of course they do. But a choice between two forms of exploitation is not a free choice, nor ever has been, but is purely and simply an abuse of the term. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights could therefore only have been proposed by the regulation camp by misrepresenting the very notion of "free choice".
http://www.fidh.org/lettres/2000pdf/angl/cah38uk.htm

... and a happy New Year!

JFrankA

27th December 2007, 12:42 PM

dann

27th December 2007, 03:15 PM

*jumps into the frey, with both feet, just reading parts of this thread*

I am JFrankA and a prostitution fan. :)

My humble opinion: will legalizing prostitution solve all of it's problems? Of course not. However, it will help make some situtations better.

And I have to say not everyone goes into prostitution because of poverty.No, not everyone.
I know some escorts, who are prostitutes technically, who go into it because they actually enjoy it. They wouldn't do anything else.
This is a tricky quesion: Can you believe anybody who claims that he or she wouldn't do anything else? I don't think so. I've even met school teachers who claim that they wouldn't do anything else, and you probably have colleagues like that too.
I tend to have more faith in the lotto commercials on TV where people win (so much for reality) and immediately tell the boss to go ***** himself.
About Dann's quote above,
Which one?
Prostitution Reality Check (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2489722#post2489722)
And more links about prostitution and poverty:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2496288#post2496288
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2497034#post2497034
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498549#post2498549
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498551#post2498551
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2498821#post2498821
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2499382#post2499382
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2499417#post2499417
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2499546#post2499546
(and please, Dann, take no offense),I don't usually.
what prostitutes were they surveying? Just streetwalkers or brothel workers or escorts or all of them? Also, I know I've been working in customer service for a number of years (my day job), and if I am "given the possibility of earning the same or better in acceptable working conditions and in which" I do not need to talk to customers anymore, I'd say yes.... Sorry, that's a very leading question. Sometimes I feel the same way about teaching high-school students, but even when I was young enough I never felt tempted to change to prostitution.

And if I may add, not all protitutes are female. I know a couple of male prostitutes who work exclusively with male clients, and some who work exclusively with female clients (Yes, women use prostitutes too!!! I know a few who have!) and some for both.

...just wanted to make that clear. :)

I don't doubt it, but the male prostitutes with female clients are probably so rare that they are more frequent in men's fantasies than in reality.

'sides, if you want to get technical, the commercial "Every kiss begins with Kay" screams prostitution to me. I mean, they are basically saying that my girlfriend won't even give me a kiss unless I give her expensive jewelry? :D I don't know that one, but my answer is the same: Poverty stinks! When it forces people to become prostitutes or to get engaged or married (whatever).

DRBUZZ0

27th December 2007, 04:53 PM

Poverty? You realize that there are plenty of upper middle class and rather comfortable women who would want (or expect) a big diamond ring and would be willing to do things in exchange for it such as kissing or more.

Jesus, it's not like everyone who does something for money is starving and dirt poor!

JFrankA

27th December 2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:
I know some escorts, who are prostitutes technically, who go into it because they actually enjoy it. They wouldn't do anything else.

This is a tricky quesion: Can you believe anybody who claims that he or she wouldn't do anything else? I don't think so. I've even met school teachers who claim that they wouldn't do anything else, and you probably have colleagues like that too.
I tend to have more faith in the lotto commercials on TV where people win (so much for reality) and immediately tell the boss to go ***** himself.

Quote:
what prostitutes were they surveying? Just streetwalkers or brothel workers or escorts or all of them? Also, I know I've been working in customer service for a number of years (my day job), and if I am "given the possibility of earning the same or better in acceptable working conditions and in which" I do not need to talk to customers anymore, I'd say yes.... Sorry, that's a very leading question.

Sometimes I feel the same way about teaching high-school students, but even when I was young enough I never felt tempted to change to prostitution.

But you've proven my point. Many people in their jobs would be happy to leave it they were given the "possibility of earning the same or better in acceptable working conditions and in which" they aren't doing ...whatever. All I was saying there is the quote you gave:

"What proportion of prostitutes, given the possibility of earning the same or better in acceptable working conditions and in which they did not need to sell their bodies, would choose nonetheless to continue in prostitution? A study made among prostitutes in San Francisco shows that nearly 90% want to leave the industry.
doesn't mean a thing because I'm sure you'd get high figures with ANY occupation.

I do agree with you when you say that
Poverty stinks! When it forces people to become prostitutes or to get engaged or married (whatever). but all I am saying is that there are plenty of examples when people get in the profession because they want to, and there are plenty of examples when people do things they don't like to do that is not prostitution because they need the money.

That's all. :)