Octavo
Illuminator
Can someone please explain this joke to me then? I assume it's some play on the word principal/principle.
Running a legal brothel where it's illegal...sorta
- Thread starter DRBUZZ0
- Start date
-
- Tags
- prostitution
Can someone please explain this joke to me then? I assume it's some play on the word principal/principle.
jmontecillo01
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 262
Principal vs principle
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
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
Last edited:
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
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.
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://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78187
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=78187
jmontecillo01
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 262
dann said:
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.
dann said:
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.
Last edited:
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?
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?
jmontecillo01
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 262
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.
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.
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.
Prostitution just isn't a job like any other job - in spite of the government's intentions.
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
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
Critical Thinker
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 262
.dann said:
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.
Last edited:
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.
So why the need for weekly medical examinations?
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 ...'
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 ...
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
Gentleman of leisure
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.
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
anthropomorphic ape
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,377
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?
)
Last edited:
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.
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!
And here we go again with your continued and very wrong assumptions:
Very funny, and I get your drift, but you are still barking up the wrong tree.
No, murder and prostitution are very different things. Do I really have to explain the difference to you?
Wow! This is one of the best strawmen I have seen in this forum, and I've seen a lot!
Well, not according to the law, which you seem to be so preoccupied with in the rest of your argumentation.
I already linked to the thread in this one so you shouldn't have to strain your memory.
How about "not having to work in that 'industry'"? Would that be an acceptable answer? Well, no, probably not with your blinkered ideology ...
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.
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?
Well, you seem to be comfortable with your ideological masturbation so why ask me for alternatives?
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!(and if it takes a while to set up this Marxist state, what should we do in the meantime?
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?
Last edited:
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:
With this statement:
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.
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.