What to do with prostitutes

[Belz...]

Sorry for late replies to all.

Regards
DL

No problem. Whatever works to get your post-count up, man.

 

[Belz...]

Prostitution at it's best is still a demeaning act, showing a poor use of sex within a society.

What's a good use of sex within a society ?

 

[Piscivore]

I cannot agree. Something in the human experience should be above animal actions.

Since humans are animals, isn't everything we do by definition an "animal action"? But let's skip that. What, in your opinion, is an "animal action" we must be above? Monogamy? Mothering young? Eating?

The view of the mighty hunter returning to the tribe with his kill "money" and expecting to get sex for it is indicative of hunting being of the highest value to the tribe.

No, it is indicative of hunting being of value only, not necessarily the "highest" value. Hunting when there is a surplus of food is of little value, for instance. Hunting the tribe's dairy cow would be a detriment. Cuckolding such a hunter by buying his wife for sex might actually be a benefit to the tribe, as the genetic material passed on would be from a more intelligent donor.

In any case, I think what your scenario describes is "traditional Western marriage".

This is not so. A tribe must and is based on other ideals.

Which ones?

 

[Jon.]

I am saying that a legalized system of prostitution is better than an illegal system.
No system would be the best.
Canada does not have the slavery issues that the poorest countries and a legalized system may not work as well there.

Canada does have problems with illegal aliens being forced to work in the sex trade. If it were better regulated, these problems would be alleviated.

If you agree that legalized is better than illegal, would you support the decriminalization of prostitution and regulations being put in place to protect the prostitutes and their customers?

Whether your answer is yes or no, how would you propose to move to "no system" (by which I assume you mean "no prostitution")?

Prostitution at it's best is still a demeaning act, showing a poor use of sex within a society.

The sex act can be demeaning or not, just as any sex act can, whether between husband and wife, boyfriend and girlfriend, or prostitute and customer. The prostitute usually gets paid more if the act is demeaning; the others may not get any such compensation. Often, the prostitute has more control over what happens than other kinds of sex partners.

Prostitution as a profession is only demeaning per se as long as people like you insist that it should be condemned. And, as has been pointed out several times on this thread, it was not always thus, nor is there any reason why it must remain so.

A parent usually has no problem availing themselves of whatever profession their children get into. Except prostitution hence it's poor moral position.

You have made this point numerous times, and the answer has always been the same: the incest taboo has nothing to do with prostitution.

If something is good then it should be good for most, all the time.
Since as shown here it is not good at all times then it can be seen as intrinsically evil.

Huh? So capitalism is bad because it is not "good for most, all the time"? What about democracy?

You would throw the baby, soap, shampoo and tub out with the bathwater. Surely it is best to recognize that consenting adults can do what they want with their bodies, whether or not there is money involved, and whether or not there is sex involved, and take steps to make sure that people are as safe as reasonably possible while they do those things.

 

[Miss Anthrope]

Prostitution at it's best is still a demeaning act, showing a poor use of sex within a society.

Poor use of sex within a society? Says who? I seriously cannot wrap my brain around people who elevate an act of simple pleasure between consenting adults into something higher than what it is.

Professional massage is a demeaning act, because it is a poor use of pleasure within a society.

Eating finely crafted gelato is a demeaning act, because it is a poor use of nutrition within a society.

A parent usually has no problem availing themselves of whatever profession their children get into. Except prostitution hence it's poor moral position. If something is good then it should be good for most, all the time.
Since as shown here it is not good at all times then it can be seen as intrinsically evil.

Actually, many parents apply pressure for their kids to go into business, law, and medicine. Some parents might be equally disappointed if their child winds up on welfare. Or working as a janitor. It just depends.

And pardon me, but can you tell my by what authority you have declared prostitution instrinsically evil? It's odd, because I know of only two types of folk in my personal experience who feel this way. The Uber Religious, and very controlling wives (who seem fit to deem male masturbation as a form of adultery).

 

[Greatest I am]

What's a good use of sex within a society ?

In a sence the best way to end prostitution is to raise the price.
Stop the blow jobs for a pack of smokes behind the school wall.
Stop the doing it so that some one of age buys the booze for you.
Raise the price from 50 to 500 and the scummy element will fall away.

Perhaps that is what is required.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Since humans are animals, isn't everything we do by definition an "animal action"? But let's skip that. What, in your opinion, is an "animal action" we must be above? Monogamy? Mothering young? Eating?

No, it is indicative of hunting being of value only, not necessarily the "highest" value. Hunting when there is a surplus of food is of little value, for instance. Hunting the tribe's dairy cow would be a detriment. Cuckolding such a hunter by buying his wife for sex might actually be a benefit to the tribe, as the genetic material passed on would be from a more intelligent donor.

In any case, I think what your scenario describes is "traditional Western marriage".


Which ones?

The only un animal open to us is to care about the larger population as a whole.
The difference between man and beast you might say. Not you personally here of course because you may not have ever seen a man.
How cold cocking another man’s wife can be considered good shows the mindset that I address.
I can see where you might not be able to come up with a few good ideals. It must be because your are too busy watching the wife to make sure your not being cold cocked.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

Canada does have problems with illegal aliens being forced to work in the sex trade. If it were better regulated, these problems would be alleviated.

agree that legalized is better than illegal, would you support the decriminalization of prostitution and regulations being put in place to protect the prostitutes and their customers?

Whether your answer is yes or no, how would you propose to move to "no system" (by which I assume you mean "no prostitution")?



The sex act can be demeaning or not, just as any sex act can, whether between husband and wife, boyfriend and girlfriend, or prostitute and customer. The prostitute usually gets paid more if the act is demeaning; the others may not get any such compensation. Often, the prostitute has more control over what happens than other kinds of sex partners.

Prostitution as a profession is only demeaning per se as long as people like you insist that it should be condemned. And, as has been pointed out several times on this thread, it was not always thus, nor is there any reason why it must remain so.



You have made this point numerous times, and the answer has always been the same: the incest taboo has nothing to do with prostitution.



Huh? So capitalism is bad because it is not "good for most, all the time"? What about democracy?

You would throw the baby, soap, shampoo and tub out with the bathwater. Surely it is best to recognize that consenting adults can do what they want with their bodies, whether or not there is money involved, and whether or not there is sex involved, and take steps to make sure that people are as safe as reasonably possible while they do those things.

I am sure that prostitutes will be consulted as to what they would like to see in legislature. My hope would be that a part of that law would be a clause like the dead beat dad claws in divorce. This one would go after those who drive their children to the sex streets.
Consenting adults. Have a good look at what adults are doing.

Regards
DL

 

[toddjh]

Consenting adults. Have a good look at what adults are doing.

What business is it of yours (or mine) what consenting adults choose to do with each other? What makes you so superior that you see fit to impose your personal opinions about what sex "should" be on people who are perfectly capable of deciding that for themselves?

 

[Greatest I am]

There is only one authority here at present. Me.

Regards
DL

 

[slingblade]

In a sence the best way to end prostitution is to raise the price.
Stop the blow jobs for a pack of smokes behind the school wall.
Stop the doing it so that some one of age buys the booze for you.
Raise the price from 50 to 500 and the scummy element will fall away.

Perhaps that is what is required.

From a marketing standpoint, that's fairly ineffective for the workers. If the price of any service is raised far above "what the market will bear," the market will not disappear, but will rather move elsewhere.

Because this trade is not regulated, about an hour after the first hooker raises her price, she'll drop it...probably below even what she was asking in the first place. Why? No regulation means independent contractors. And unless one can get them all to agree and stick to a new price, there will always be someone cheaper than you, literally on the next corner.

Also, raising one's price so that one eliminates 1/2 to 2/3 of one's regular customer base, and expecting the lack to be made up by a new but smaller customer base one hasn't yet established, is economic suicide.

Aside from that, I notice the two examples you gave concern minors. I seem to recall that someone in this thread keeps conflating child sexual abuse with adult prostitution, though I'm not sure why. I feel confident that those of us who advocate legalization/decriminalization of prostitution are not including minors in our argument. Even were the trade made legal, we still wouldn't want minors practicing it. No more so than we want minors serving alcohol or selling cigarettes; both perfectly legal adult actions that are illegal for minors to perform. [edit: in the U.S., that is.]

I am fully aware there are plenty of minors around the world in the sex trade, usually against their wills. I would be hopeful that legalizing the trade would include regulating against the use of minors in it. Perhaps that might bring about a reduction? I'm not sure.

Even if it is made legal, however, I have no illusions that action would then make child prostitution go away. Legalizing adult prostitution would not, in and of itself, answer child sexual abuse. Because of that fact, I feel child prostitution is a different subject than the one we're ostensibly discussing.

Perhpas, in light of that, you should start a discussion thread about it in Politics & Current Events?

 

[slingblade]

There is only one authority here at present. Me.

Regards
DL

I do not recognize you as such.

 

[pgwenthold]

Actually, many parents apply pressure for their kids to go into business, law, and medicine. Some parents might be equally disappointed if their child winds up on welfare. Or working as a janitor. It just depends.

This issue just needs to be hammered on more in order to get it into some people's heads. How many times does it need to be pointed out that "would I want my daughter to do it" is not a means by which we distinguish acceptable and unacceptable professions in our society.

As you note, parents will very often want their children to follow a specific path, and, moreover, will strongly object to others. For example, it is not uncommon for actors to say that they don't want their kids to work in the business. Does that mean acting is immoral or wrong? Heck, there are an awful lot of people who don't want their kids to be any type of artist at all.

I have stated previously that I don't want my daughter to have to a career cleaning bathrooms, or working at a fast food joint. That doesn't make those professions morally wrong or evil.

Actors don't want their kids to be actors. That must be a horrible profession, right? Yet, it is apparently acceptable for some people. Who am I to judge?

 

[Gnu Ordure]

The anti-prostitution law is only two years old, apparently. This is a new thing, and is NOT working out well for Korea at all.

You're missing the point,z. We're trying to decide the ratio of legal/illegal prostitution. To do that, we're looking at the laws of each country. If the law in any particular country criminalizes prostitution, it de facto marginalizes it, and leaves it vulnerable to involvement in organized crime and police corruption.

How different societies subequently deal with the implications of criminalization is irrelevant. The damage has already been done.

In your post you admit that in South Korea "The anti-prostitution law is only two years old", "In Japan, though there are antiprostitution laws...", and "In Thailand, selling sex is technically illegal".

As I said. All illegal. Marginalized. Exploitable.







Jon, you seem like a reasonable chap.

z thinks "And, no, 90% is grossly exaggerated".

What do you think ? I'll accept your estimate, then maybe we can move on from this point.

Bear in my mind you've given me russia, china, the US; I've argued the case for india; and I've pointed out that any country that regulates prostitution creates irregulated/illegal prostitution.


(and of course, if anyone can find a reputable estimate for this figure, by all means put it forward. I've looked for it without success).

.

 

[Piscivore]

The only un animal open to us is to care about the larger population as a whole.

Nope, animals do that too. Particularly it can be observed in prairie dogs, herd animals, and non-predatory birds, the latter two of which are known to alert individuals of entire other species of a predator's approach.

The difference between man and beast you might say. Not you personally here of course because you may not have ever seen a man.

*checks penis* Um, what is your criteria for qualifying as a "man"?

How cold cocking another man’s wife can be considered good shows the mindset that I address.

Actually, "cold cocking" means hitting someone without warning, something I'm rarely in favour of. "Cuckolding" is the word I used, and it is not a euphamism for a sexual act. It is correctly used exclusively to refer to the victim of an infidelity. Thus one would not say "I cuckolded Bob's wife" - unless you had, in fact, had sexual relations with Bob- but rather "I cuckolded Bob"- the implication that you had performed an infidelious sex act with his wife would be left unspoken. This would further allow one to refer to Bob as a "cuckold". Note that were a sex act with Bob's wife to be accomplished with the consent of Bob, the term would not apply either.

I can see where you might not be able to come up with a few good ideals.

I have my own, surely. But they presumably differ from yours, and I am not offering mine as a standard to which all civilisations should adhere. I say presumably because you seem to only want to allude to yours because you expect everyone to already implicitly understand and accept them. Since this does not seem to be the case, would you be so kind as to state them?

It must be because your are too busy watching the wife to make sure your not being cold cocked.

She's scrappy, but she's never tried to hit me when I didn't see it coming. Not even when she threw the suitcase at my head.

 

[Wheezebucket]

Cold cocked...

These are the people that apparently need to save those poor prostitutes from themselves. They're in good hands.

 

[toddjh]

Come on, guys. As much as I disagree with most of what he says, give him a break on the "cold cocked" thing. He's already said he's not a native English speaker.

 

[Z]

Well, here's an interesting quote:

Until the 1960s, attitudes toward prostitution were based on Judeo-Christian views of immorality. Researchers have recently attempted to separate moral issues from the reality of prostitution. The rationale for its continued illegal status in the U.S. rests on three assumptions: 1) prostitution is linked to organized crime; 2) prostitution is responsible for much ancillary crime; and 3) prostitution is the cause of an increase in venereal disease. These assumptions are now in question. Furthermore, strong arguments have been made in support of legalizing prostitution. Decriminalization would free the courts and police from handling victimless crime, allowing these forces more time to deal with serious violent crime. The issue of prostitution has been partially resolved through decriminalization and tolerance. The U.S. remains one of the few countries with laws against prostitution. In other nations, criminal laws seek instead to deal with the social problems of prostitution through control of public solicitation and restriction of those who would exploit prostitutes.

http://www.csun.edu/~psy453/prosti_y.htm

I don't know their source, but I do know that the U.N., in 1979, passed a treaty (called CEDAW) which in some cases has resulted in forcing those nations that have signed it to decriminalize prostitution. 185 countries (last I checked) have signed the treaty, and most of them have decriminalized prostitution. Several countries are resisting, but have begun to crumble under the political pressure.

That's not to say that the CEDAW treaty forces legalization of prostitution; only that the U.N. recognizes three facts:

1) Prostitution will always exist, regardless of the law;
2) Illegal prostitution allows for abuse, high infection rates, and and ancillary crimes;
3) Legal prostitution, properly regulated, strongly decreases ALL of the above.

Since prostitution will never go away, legalization seems the only way to go.

 

[Gnu Ordure]

Guys, the digressions on the status of pornography and on john-testing are interesting but not central, so I'm going to let those slide and cut to the chase. Hope that's OK.


A number of you have said that the problems associated with prostitution arise from its illegality, and can be resolved by its legalization.

A number of you have presented Nevada as evidence of this.

I contend this is not true.

I say that legalizing certain forms of prostitution has little effect on on illegal prostitution, and on the associated problems.

And I'm happy to use Nevada as an example.

Nevada, like every other state in the US, has a problem with illegal prostitution. Legal prostitutes number 300 or so. I haven't been able to find a figure for illegal ones, but according to wiki :

Escort services offering sexual services euphemistically as 'entertainment' or 'companionship' are ubiquitous, with about 140 pages of the Las Vegas yellow pages devoted to "entertainers". Similar ads are present in newspaper boxes all along Las Vegas Boulevard. From the Strip to downtown Fremont Street at most bus stops and many street lights, a large collection of free flyers offering escort services with semi-nude pictures are available. Moreover, smaller hand sized flyers are dispensed to tourists and others along the Las Vegas Strip,

So. lots, right ?

So tell me, how did legalizing prostitution change anything ?

Illegal prostitution is just as common in Nevada as it is in any other State.


So, here's a question for you supporters of the Nevadan system: what's your attitude towards all these illegal prostitutes in Nevada ?

Should they be prosecuted, or are the laws/the system wrong ?

The authorities thought prostitution should be legal, right, and they took steps to legalize it; but they've still ended up with extensive illegal prostitution, haven't they ?

There are 300 legal prostitutes in Nevada. There are still hundreds of illegal ones. So how exactly did legalizing the 300 change anything ?




Here's another question:

In adjoining rooms in a Vegas hotel, there are two couples. Each person has known their partner for years; they trust each other. Each couple is engaged in identical behaviour: consensual penetrative sex.

The significant difference is that in one case money has changed hands.

Instantly breaking the law in Vegas..

So I'm asking you all : do you agree with this law ?

Why should it be legal for the husband and wife to have sex, but a crime for the other two ? They're all adults, after all. Why should the state intervene in one case, but not the other ?

But...

... if you agree with the law, you have to accept the existence of illegal prostitution - so you have to accept that legalization has not 'solved' the problems of illegal prostitution in Nevada, as it was supposed to do...

And...

... if you don't agree with it, you acknowledge that the law is unfair, and that certain prostitutes are criminalized as unfairly in Nevada as anywhere else in the world - in which case it's not really an enlightened system, is it ?


The same thing happens in any society that attempts to regulate commercial sex. The regulations immediately create a market for irregular commercial sex.


Here's my answer to the original question:

If a man has legal commercial sex with a woman, good luck to them both.

But if the commerce is illegal, it is wrong for the man to participate. If he's not commiting a crime himself, he is colluding in one.


Therefore 90% (or whatever) of the world's commercial sex transactions are immoral, unethical and exploitative, simply because of their illegality.

Those women are criminalized, marginalized and then exploited.

Any man that knowingly pays money to sleep with an illegal prostitute is guilty of abuse, because he's taking advantage of someone else's unfortunate circumstance.


And he's therefore colluding in the crime.



Gnu.

 

[toddjh]

Illegal prostitution is just as common in Nevada as it is in any other State.

Yes, because it's only legal in a few counties which are, for the most part, far away from what passes for urban centers in Nevada. People have to make special trips to visit them, which is something most potential clients probably wouldn't do.

So, here's a question for you supporters of the Nevadan system: what's your attitude towards all these illegal prostitutes in Nevada?

My attitude is that they'll continue to be around until prostitution is legalized in Las Vegas and Reno proper, and some will probably be around even afterwards, although I do think legalization would reduce that significantly.

The problem is that your comparison is unfair. Nobody here ever claimed that legal prostitution in Nevada completely transformed the whole state. That would be silly; like I said, prostitution is only legal in a few areas in rural parts of the state. It's really more of a pilot program than a serious attempt at legalization.

With that in mind, a more fair question would be, what is the state of illegal prostitution in those counties where prostitution is legal? I don't have any hard numbers to answer that, but I do know that when some of the brothels were temporarily closed, there were complaints about the number of illegal prostitutes increasing to fill the gap. That implies to me that legalization does indeed cause a significant drop in the number of illegal prostitutes.

There are 300 legal prostitutes in Nevada. There are still hundreds of illegal ones. So how exactly did legalizing the 300 change anything?

Legalization would have to be much more widespread before it could be expected to make a dent in the problem state- or nation-wide.

So I'm asking you all : do you agree with this law ?

Why should it be legal for the husband and wife to have sex, but a crime for the other two ? They're all adults, after all. Why should the state intervene in one case, but not the other ?

But...

... if you agree with the law, you have to accept the existence of illegal prostitution - so you have to accept that legalization has not 'solved' the problems of illegal prostitution in Nevada, as it was supposed to do...

And...

... if you don't agree with it, you acknowledge that the law is unfair, and that certain prostitutes are criminalized as unfairly in Nevada as anywhere else in the world - in which case it's not really an enlightened system, is it ?

I don't understand the point of this. I think most of "us" would agree that the law is unfair, and that prostitution should be legalized in Las Vegas as well as in other parts of the state. It sounds like you think you've posed some sort of dilemma, but I don't see what it is.

The same thing happens in any society that attempts to regulate commercial sex. The regulations immediately create a market for irregular commercial sex.

I would argue that the market was there all along. Yes, there will probably continue to be some form of illegal prostitution even if it were legalized in certain contexts; nobody ever claimed otherwise. Elimination is an unrealistic goal; I'll settle for "vastly reduced."

But if the commerce is illegal, it is wrong for the man to participate. If he's not commiting a crime himself, he is colluding in one.

Those women are criminalized, marginalized and then exploited.

Sounds like a hell of an argument for legalization to me.