Paying for sex, should it be illegal?

[ponderingturtle]

A lady in Los Angeles killed her husband of forty years for seeing another woman. During the trial she stated that she killed him for seeking sex outside the marriage bed. She also stated that she had refused to have sex with him for over twenty years prior to the event. I was, and still am, a bit confused by that.

Just because she didn't want him didn't mean anyone else was free to have him. It is about ownership.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I don't follow the logic that says she can refuse to have sex with him and kill him for getting it elsewhere.
My wife always gets the best car available. I insist on that.

How often to reasonable logical people murder their spouses?

 

[marplots]

I don't remember reading that in my marriage contract.

I think that variation uses the term "open marriage" to distinguish it from the "regular" kind. The exception proves the rule.

 

[ponderingturtle]

To further the reply to this regarding Korea, I read as well that in Japan, this is quite common as well, and it's often the case that the wife pays the bills for the husband's dalliances.
As long as this remains a "professional" situation, no problems. The attitude seems to be that the wife may have tired of her "marriage duties" and is OK with hubby leaving her alone......

Makes sense as I am under the impression that it is typical for the wife to have control of the finances in Japan.

 

[Belz...]

I think that variation uses the term "open marriage" to distinguish it from the "regular" kind. The exception proves the rule.

I don't think you're held in breach of contract for sleeping with other people. The contract exists so long as both parties decide that it does.

 

[Aepervius]

If money weren't in the equation, how many of those women would be willing to let perfect strangers have sex with them? And let's make no mistake, that's exactly we're talking about here. Women being required to perform acts that they wouldn't be normally comfortable doing with people they normally wouldn't be comfortable doing it with.

That isn't about sex, it's about power. You know, like rape.

And work is slavery. How many of us would be willing to work if not for money ?
Not that many.

So your argument is totally hilariously wrong.

 

[marplots]

I don't think you're held in breach of contract for sleeping with other people. The contract exists so long as both parties decide that it does.

Yes, I quite agree. The contract exists so long as both parties decide that it does. And it follows that some behaviors will be seen as a breach of the contract. Murdering your mother-in-law is probably on the list, and infidelity could be on the list as well.

According to this piece (http://www.divorce.usu.edu/files/uploads/lesson3.pdf), infidelity is pretty significant for most of us:
"Infidelity is one of the leading causes of divorce; it nearly doubles the chance that a couple will get divorced. And even though we live in a sexually tolerant society, still more than 90% of Americans say infidelity is morally wrong."

I'm not saying sex, and who you have it with, necessarily defines marriage, but I think it does figure into the mix for many.

ETA: This doesn't mean that using the services of a prostitute automatically constitutes infidelity for everyone rendering an opinion. I think there's an element of intimacy and commitment which can mean a great deal - beyond the simple plumbing aspects of who is doing it with whom.

 

[Brian-M]

Even the most dangerous of those jobs seems to be less dangerous than prostitution.* (Source)

*However, that is under a regime where prostitution is illegal. I wonder how it is in a country like Germany where it is legal and regulated. For example, the risk of getting murdered seems to be high for prostitutes where prostitution is illegal, but if you could have some way so the clients' identities are known (but not to the public unless they commit a crime) then the odds of violence occurring should go way down.

Yes, looking at that link it does say: "Violence and drug use were the predominant causes of death, both during periods of prostitution and during the whole observation period. The CMR for death by homicide among active prostitutes was 229 per 100,000"

I somehow doubt that drug-use and violence and violence would be standard workplace conditions among legalised (and regulated) sex workers. Also, sex workers might be reluctant to turn to the police for help if they're afraid of being arrested themselves.

Over here brothels are legal, but regulated. Looking it up, I see that they can't advertise, and it's also illegal to live off the earnings of a prostitute (making it illegal to be a pimp).

They also have to follow Occupational Health and Safety guidelines:

"The workplace must allow entry to authorised persons from WorkCover NSW, Sex Workers Outreach Project (SWOP), NSW Health (for example from Public Health Units and Sexual Health Services) and local government so that they may ensure compliance with OHS, Workers Compensation, and Public Health legislation."

Although, it's only prostitutes working in brothels that are legal. Streetwalking prostitutes are still illegal. And apparently illegal brothels outnumber legal brothels by about 4 to 1, so presumably they're not following OH&S guidelines.

 

[CORed]

I don't remember reading that in my marriage contract.

Well, a lot of Christian wedding ceremonies include the phrase "forsaking all others". It's my understanding that this applies to sex.

 

[Edx]

Then explain why more boys/men state they have had gotten paid to have sex than girls/women?

Some statistics from Sweden:

• In 2003 4339 Swedish high school students were surveyed. 1.8 percent of boys and 1 per cent of the girls reported that they had ever been paid for sex.
  
• In 2008, the prostitution group in Gothenburg made a study of 876 LGBT youth. 11.4 percent of boys and 7.4 percent of girls stated that they had been paid for sex.
  
• In 2012 the Youth Board summarized several studies. 0.8 percent of girls and 2.1 percent of boys aged 16-25 stated that they received compensation for sex.

Then I would have every reason to assume their methodology is completely screwed up if they managed to get those figures.

I have posted this website before (NSFW) www.adultwork.com. Please can you tell me if what you are saying is true we see absolutely no evidence of it whatsoever? This website has been around for years, we have ample evidence of what I am saying is true. It is also true that to make it as a gay escort you need to be a lot more attractive than any women would have to.

I would also say there is also a difference between someone who has taken money for sexual favours (eg. Lets imagine a gay club some guy you're chatting to offers you $20 to blow himn in the bathroom.) To a woman who sees 20 men a week and has her own escort profile on a adult website as her job. They really are not the same thing and cannot justifiably be lumped into the same figures. I can imagine things like this are probably part or most of the reason the results might come out this way. I would also question the wording of the last point, as "compensation" sounds sufficiently vague that could mean money but could also mean other things. Maybe the boy had sex with some guy who also said they could stay at his house. Technically if that's how the study was worded that would then be counted.

(The people paying the boys would still be men, btw.)

 

[waltomeal]

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the dating / prostitution parallel yet. Paying for sex is quite legal, as long as I first launder the money by exchanging it for chocolate, flowers and lobster.

 

[Edx]

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the dating / prostitution parallel yet. Paying for sex is quite legal, as long as I first launder the money by exchanging it for chocolate, flowers and lobster.

I basically did. Mudcat claims all prostitution is rape because they wouldnt have chosen to do it without the money. Therefore all gold diggers are being raped.You could go further and ask whether it is also rape if a girl thinks the person is different to how they actually are it must be rape, because if they knew what they were really like they wouldnt have had sex with them. For some reason the anti-prostitution people very selectively apply their logic.

 

[Dr. Keith]

If money weren't in the equation, how many of those women would be willing to let perfect strangers have sex with them? And let's make no mistake, that's exactly we're talking about here. Women being required to perform acts that they wouldn't be normally comfortable doing with people they normally wouldn't be comfortable doing it with.

That isn't about sex, it's about power. You know, like rape.

I'm seeing something in here that reminds of feeling like a slave when I worked for an hourly wage. Let me see if I can tease it out:

If money weren't in the equation, how many of those men would be willing to clean public toilets? And let's make no mistake, that's exactly we're talking about here. Men being required to perform acts that they wouldn't be normally comfortable doing for people they normally wouldn't be comfortable doing it for.

That isn't about cleaning, it's about power. You know, like slavery.

It feels dirty, but it's not a bad approximation.

 

[Butter!]

I'm surprised nobody has brought up the dating / prostitution parallel yet. Paying for sex is quite legal, as long as I first launder the money by exchanging it for chocolate, flowers and lobster.

Well, frankly, I thought that much was obvious. It's a fairly common joke. But I danced around it by reminding everyone that a "sleazy" one night stand is a-OK until money's exchanged, and then it's suddenly supposed to be illegal!

In my opinion, re-stating it in the manner demonstrated above would have served only to piss off people on the other side. I was trying to genuinely get to the heart of the objections when I entered this debate, not offer the opposed ammo to call me a misogynist.

 

[Butter!]

Then I would have every reason to assume their methodology is completely screwed up if they managed to get those figures.

I have posted this website before (NSFW) www.adultwork.com. Please can you tell me if what you are saying is true we see absolutely no evidence of it whatsoever? This website has been around for years, we have ample evidence of what I am saying is true. It is also true that to make it as a gay escort you need to be a lot more attractive than any women would have to.

I would also say there is also a difference between someone who has taken money for sexual favours (eg. Lets imagine a gay club some guy you're chatting to offers you $20 to blow himn in the bathroom.) To a woman who sees 20 men a week and has her own escort profile on a adult website as her job. They really are not the same thing and cannot justifiably be lumped into the same figures. I can imagine things like this are probably part or most of the reason the results might come out this way. I would also question the wording of the last point, as "compensation" sounds sufficiently vague that could mean money but could also mean other things. Maybe the boy had sex with some guy who also said they could stay at his house. Technically if that's how the study was worded that would then be counted.

(The people paying the boys would still be men, btw.)

Please don't read this in a rude tone, because I do not mean it that way at all. I'm just curious. Why is everyone agreeing on this distinction so important?

 

[TragicMonkey]

Reading this thread leaves me once more amazed that anybody could possibly think heterosexual monogamous unions are desirable at all, much less the best kind of relationship. No wonder so many people think that's God's will- it would take literal omnipotence to make that model successful.

 

[Butter!]

Reading this thread leaves me once more amazed that anybody could possibly think heterosexual monogamous unions are desirable at all, much less the best kind of relationship. No wonder so many people think that's God's will- it would take literal omnipotence to make that model successful.

God's a prude.

 

[Arcade22]

Then I would have every reason to assume their methodology is completely screwed up if they managed to get those figures.

Based on what? Do you have any other studies where a randomly selected portion of high-schoolers are anonymously allowed to report on their own experiences about prostitution?

I have posted this website before (NSFW) www.adultwork.com. Please can you tell me if what you are saying is true we see absolutely no evidence of it whatsoever? This website has been around for years, we have ample evidence of what I am saying is true.

Last thing i knew that webpage wasn't the one and only site where you could find prostitutes. In my experience male prostitutes tend to be found on regional websites that cater to homo/bisexuals.

I would also say there is also a difference between someone who has taken money for sexual favours (eg. Lets imagine a gay club some guy you're chatting to offers you $20 to blow himn in the bathroom.) To a woman who sees 20 men a week and has her own escort profile on a adult website as her job.

It's still prostitution even if they don't make it into a career and just do it opportunistically as far as I'm concerned.

They really are not the same thing and cannot justifiably be lumped into the same figures. I can imagine things like this are probably part or most of the reason the results might come out this way.

Sure. It's reasonable to keep "professional" or "career" prostitutes separate from those that only do it once in a while or if they are asked. For example if someone gets hit on and they turn them down, and then get asked if they are willing to do it for money.

I would also question the wording of the last point, as "compensation" sounds sufficiently vague that could mean money but could also mean other things. Maybe the boy had sex with some guy who also said they could stay at his house. Technically if that's how the study was worded that would then be counted.

So "real" prostitution is only when one is paid money? Gifts, favors and other rewards given, implicitly or explicitly, in return for sex don't count?

 

[ponderingturtle]

Reading this thread leaves me once more amazed that anybody could possibly think heterosexual monogamous unions are desirable at all, much less the best kind of relationship. No wonder so many people think that's God's will- it would take literal omnipotence to make that model successful.

On the other side, most of those monogamous relationships aren't given infidelity rates.

 

[luchog]

If money weren't in the equation, how many of those women would be willing to let perfect strangers have sex with them? And let's make no mistake, that's exactly we're talking about here.

If money weren't in the equation, I wouldn't be doing my job. That does not make a wage-paying job legalized slavery.

Women being required to perform acts that they wouldn't be normally comfortable doing with people they normally wouldn't be comfortable doing it with.

False equivalency. We're not talking about women being forced to do things against their will, we're talking about people voluntarily having sex with other people in exchange for monetary compensation. Nothing is compelling them to do anything they're not comfortable with. Claiming so is disingenuous well-poisoning.

It's no different from working any other job. If you don't like what you're asked to do, you can quit, and/or report the incident to the relevant authorities. Criminalizing prostitution means that prostitutes no longer have recourse to the authorities to redress issues of abuse or theft.

That isn't about sex, it's about power. You know, like rape.

Emotionalist nonsense. It's about exchanging a physical service for monetary reward; just like any other job.