Is it so much fun to be a prostitute ?

[toddjh]

(Which might encourage you to try to overcome this disgust by means of substance abuse - if substance abuse wasn't what caused your urgent need for money in the first place - thus rendering impossible your initial idea to retire after a few months/years.) Also: Pimps are probably more brutal than ordinary employers, and johns (able to be) more so than ordinary customers in a shopping mall.

All of which is exactly why prostitution should be legal and regulated. All the things you mention -- the intertwining of prostitution and drugs, the abusive pimp, and the potentially dangerous johns -- are all a result of prostitution being illegal. If there were legal brothels, then there could be mandatory drug tests and health screenings. Businessmen (and women) would replace the pimps, and there would be on-site security to deal with any unruly customers.

I'm not trying to derail the thread to make this about legalization; I'm just trying to explain what I meant when I asked if prostitution was inherently worse than any other desperation job. The things that make it particularly unhealthy right now aren't necessarily inherent, they're a result of a particular set of circumstances that ought to be changed.

But the really bad thing is the circumstances that force this choice upon you in the first place: poverty, i.e. market economy.

Again, it would be very nice to live in a world where no one was poor, but it ain't gonna happen.

Jeremy

 

[pgwenthold]

Again, it would be very nice to live in a world where no one was poor, but it ain't gonna happen.

Especially since "poor" is a relative term. Unless everyone has the same amount of money, some are going to be richer, some poorer. Poorer people will always have motivation to try to become richer.

 

[pgwenthold]

Good for you! How did outlawing enter into this discussion AGAIN???
I have "admitted" absolutely nothing! I don't see what I am accused of that I have to admit!!?

So what is the whole point of the thread? For you to say that you don't like prostitution? Well good for you.

I don't like mayonaise. I'm not wasting a thread on it, claiming that just because Canadians put mayo on hamburgers doesn't mean its good.

 

[dann]

Especially since "poor" is a relative term. Unless everyone has the same amount of money, some are going to be richer, some poorer. Poorer people will always have motivation to try to become richer.

No, poor is not a relative term, which is why grammar invented the comparison poorer, See? Oh, you used it yourself. You do see!

So what is the whole point of the thread? For you to say that you don't like prostitution? Well good for you.
I don't like mayonaise. I'm not wasting a thread on it, claiming that just because Canadians put mayo on hamburgers doesn't mean its good.

Won't you please stop wasting this thread talking about mayo and Canadians? Start talking about prostitution if you like it so much. I don't, sorry. If you read other threads, you'll notice that a lot of them happen to deal with superstition, and most of the posters don't like it. Try telling them that they shouldn't post about it if they don't like it. Try presenting your mayo argument to them! I'm sure they'll enjoy it!

 

[toddjh]

No, poor is not a relative term, which is why grammar invented the comparison poorer, See? Oh, you used it yourself. You do see!

"Poor" is a relative term. Just like "short" -- a person who's a little on the short side today would've been considered quite tall in the middle ages. Likewise, someone considered to be poor by modern western standards probably lives better than most kings did a few centuries ago.

Jeremy

 

[dann]

All of which is exactly why prostitution should be legal and regulated. All the things you mention -- the intertwining of prostitution and drugs, the abusive pimp, and the potentially dangerous johns -- are all a result of prostitution being illegal.

No, that's not all the things I mention. It started with this:

For what exactly is prostitution?
On the one hand it's all about sex. And sex is something that most of us enjoy. On the other hand it's all about getting paid - and who doesn't like to receive money? Getting laid and getting paid! Sounds like a match made in heaven, doesn't it?
So where's the rub? Well, sex is usually something that takes place with somebody you find ... well, sexy! Two people find each other attactive and go to bed together. No problem.

But the idea of having sex with a partner that you don't find attactive is rather repulsive (come up with your own examples!). This is the reason why some people can have this as their 'career': the aversion to having sex with a partner you don't find attractive is overcome by means of the payment for this kind of service.

See? You don't need pimps, brothels or drugs - but sometimes you do need be drugged to carry out this kind of 'job'. Oh, yes, Baby, yes, yes, you do, you do! A clear mind is not necessarily required or even very pleasant in order to deliver this kind of service.

If there were legal brothels, then there could be mandatory drug tests and health screenings. Businessmen (and women) would replace the pimps, and there would be on-site security to deal with any unruly customers.

And that is the reason why prostitution is such a pleasant way of making a living, and so free from pimps and drugs in the countries where it's legal, isn't it?!

I'm not trying to derail the thread to make this about legalization; I'm just trying to explain what I meant when I asked if prostitution was inherently worse than any other desperation job.

I can agree with you when you call it a "desperation job", and that, in my opinion, renders it redundant to decide which desperation job is the worse. I don't know. This is where 'taste' comes in! Don't confuse me with the people who condemn prostitutes. I don't!

The things that make it particularly unhealthy right now aren't necessarily inherent, they're a result of a particular set of circumstances that ought to be changed.

Again: Look at the countries (or states) where it has been legalized.

Again, it would be very nice to live in a world where no one was poor, but it ain't gonna happen.

No, of course not. Things like that don't happen. You make them happen. It's called a revolution, and if you ever try making (or just openly contemplate making) one, you'll soon notice some very powerful people breathing down your neck. There's nothing more annoying than a very poor country abolishing hunger, illiteracy and prostitution, establishing a health care system etc. That just has to be the Devil's work! We cannot allow that to happen!

 

[dann]

"Poor" is a relative term. Just like "short" -- a person who's a little on the short side today would've been considered quite tall in the middle ages. Likewise, someone considered to be poor by modern western standards probably lives better than most kings did a few centuries ago.

You have no idea how "most kings" lived a few centuries ago! They didn't have any DVD players, but kings weren't poor, they reigned the poor who were at their beck and call. (A lot of things haven't changed!)
Short is a relative term, poor is not a relative term, but it can be used to compare e.g. groups. Still, nobody would call Donald Trump poor, even though he may not be as rich as Bill Gates!

Webster's New Dictionary of Synonyms
poor adj 1 Poor, indigent, needy, destitute, penniless, impecunious, poverty-stricken, necessitous are comparable when they mean having less money or fewer possessions than are required to support a full life. Poor describes a person, a people, an institution that comes under this description; it is the most general term of the group, applying not only to those who are in actual want or to those in straitened circumstances, but also to those who, as compared to other groups, live below the level of what is regarded as comfortable <despite the death of the bread-winner, his family was not left poor-Wecter> <It wasn't only that they were not rich ... but that they were so poor that they couldn't afford things-Mary Austin

 

[toddjh]

See? You don't need pimps, brothels or drugs - but sometimes you do need be drugged to carry out this kind of 'job'. Oh, yes, Baby, yes, yes, you do, you do! A clear mind is not necessarily required or even very pleasant in order to deliver this kind of service.

*shrug* I have no problem with prostitutes having a few drinks or a joint or something, if it makes things easier. What I do have a problem with is the prostitution industry being run by the same people who control the illegal drug industry. That leads to a cycle of dependency and coercion (not to mention the inability of the law to protect them) that wouldn't exist if prostitution and drugs were both legal. Sure, you'd still have hookers who are addicted to heroin or whatever, but it would make it much harder for people to exploit that addiction -- especially if a clean drug test were a prerequisite of working as a prostitute in the first place.

And that is the reason why prostitution is such a pleasant way of making a living, and so free from pimps and drugs in the countries where it's legal, isn't it?!

It isn't legal in enough (developed) countries to really say...are you thinking of one in particular? The Netherlands? Australia?

Again: Look at the countries (or states) where it has been legalized.

Okay, let's look at Nevada. Among legal prostitutes, there are no pimps. There is security present at all times. The industry is regulated by the Nevada Department of Health, and regular drug and medical tests are mandatory. The incidence of STDs as a whole is lower among the women than among the general population, and there has never been a case of HIV, ever. The women pay taxes, give their cut to the brothel, and take home a fair amount of money.

Sure, the cost to the consumer goes up. But would you rather pay $150 for sex with a clean, healthy woman in a safe environment, or $50 to hook up with some drugged-up chick off the street, where you might even get arrested? Here's a hint: hardly anyone prefers black-market cigarettes or alcohol. They'd rather just go to the corner store and get the regular-price ones off the shelf.

No, of course not. Things like that don't happen. You make them happen. It's called a revolution, and if you ever try making (or just openly contemplate making) one, you'll soon notice some very powerful people breathing down your neck. There's nothing more annoying than a very poor country abolishing hunger, illiteracy and prostitution, establishing a health care system etc. That just has to be the Devil's work! We cannot allow that to happen!

You've completely lost me now. First, are you saying you think it's possible to have a system where no one is poor? I think you need to take some economics classes.

Second, I have no problem with attempting to resolve the problems of hunger and illiteracy, although I think it's rather odd phrasing to talk about abolishing them. I don't see why you lump prostitution in with those, though. If you're concerned that prostitution is a result of poverty, then your logic is backwards -- abolishing prostitution won't make those women any less poor. In fact, it will simply deprive them of what they themselves consider to be the most effective money-making activity. I'd remind you that the status quo, which you find so objectionable, has flourished despite being abolished, if not because of it, so I think it's pretty clear that abolition does not accomplish what you want. It's odd that you appear to be in favor of it.

Jeremy

 

[dann]

PS

If there were legal brothels, then there could be mandatory drug tests and health screenings. Businessmen (and women) would replace the pimps, and there would be on-site security to deal with any unruly customers.

You don't even become just a little bit suspicious about the kind of profession that apparently needs mandatory drug tests, health screenings and on-site security to deal with unruly customers? I would be rather offended and very worried if anybody suggested introducing these measures at my high school!
And please remember: I am not saying that prostitution should be outlawed, which, by the way, it isn't in my country!

 

[Larspeart]

I think a lot of you are leaving out a major side to prostitution, and the side that people find to be FAR less 'acceptable'... male prostitutes.

Male hookers who service (almost exclusively) male clients. You are hardpressed to find a male hooker that works with strickly or totally female clientale.

A friend of mine who is a writer did a BRILLIANT short story about a man who was a male hooker. One would read inot the story 10-12 pages before realizing that his clients are men, and the people he is huffing and puffing over are all guys.

This just simply plays off the fantasy/fallicies that...

1. Hookers are all women.

2. hookers are beautiful.

3. Men go to hookers to get screwed by beautiful women.

4. Gay anything is still so taboo in this country (and most others- you Euros don't get clean on this neither) that even in the highly taboo subject of prostitution, no one dares mention homosexual acts of prostitution.

Oh, and scarier still, most male hookers will tell you that the VAST majority of their clients are MARRIED men, and virtually every one of them will tell the hooker that they are 'really straight, and they have never done this before'.

Yeah, right.

 

[Larspeart]

Oh, as an aside, I have knew both a male and a female prostitute (back when I was in college). The male prostitute was actually the writer of the above-mentioned story. Okay, he was a former prostitute, but still.


They both said that 'the life' can be good, but it almost always isn't. They spend most of their time doing 4-7 tricks a night with HIGHLY undesireable types. The girl was quite attractive,a dn charged a fair amount (she was a call girl, not a streetwalker) and still got mostly sleazy, slimeballs.

So, can a hooker get a good list of rich, attractive businessmen, perhaps traveling on business and in need of a night of fuin? Sure? Is that the norm? not at all.

 

[CFLarsen]

Likewise, someone considered to be poor by modern western standards probably lives better than most kings did a few centuries ago.

Absolutely not correct. Kings have always lived a life on top. A cursory study of history will persuade you of this.

 

[toddjh]

You don't even become just a little bit suspicious about the kind of profession that apparently needs mandatory drug tests, health screenings and on-site security to deal with unruly customers?

Sure, being a prostitute is a potentially dangerous job, which is why I think it warrants regulation. I'm normally in favor of keeping government out of industry where practical, but this is one of the exceptions. It's pretty clear that prostitution is not going to disappear, and it becomes even more dangerous when it's not properly controlled.

And please remember: I am not saying that prostitution should be outlawed, which, by the way, it isn't in my country!

Fair enough, I'll try to remember that. I'm not sure what it is you are suggesting, though, except for vague statements that poverty is bad, which I certainly agree with.

Jeremy

 

[pgwenthold]

PS

You don't even become just a little bit suspicious about the kind of profession that apparently needs mandatory drug tests, health screenings and on-site security to deal with unruly customers?

Well, I admit I'm not a big fan of the NBA, but I do like Major League Baseball.

 

[CFLarsen]

Still, nobody would call Donald Trump poor, even though he may not be as rich as Bill Gates!

I doubt anyone would call you or me poor. We may not be millionaires, but we live in a part of the world where we have very few problems surviving.

If you want to, you can go down and get 10 pizzas, then go back and type on your computer, watch TV, drink clean water, speak your mind without being sent to Gitmo.

That's wealth.

 

[toddjh]

Absolutely not correct. Kings have always lived a life on top. A cursory study of history will persuade you of this.

Well, apologies for the hyperbole, but modern poor people (in developed countries) do have a number of advantages over nearly all people of the past. In the U.S., pretty much everyone wakes up every day confident that they will be well fed and physically comfortable, unless they choose not to be by engaging in self-destructive behavior. A lot of fifty-year-olds still have all their teeth. They can talk to people all over the world in real time. They can travel in a couple hours what would've been days of hard slogging a hundred years ago.

They may not win out in terms of land ownership or gold or servants or authority, but not everybody views their quality of life in those terms. I can tell you I'd sure rather be me, now, than some rich nobleman in the 13th century.

Jeremy

 

[El Greco]

This may not be true about the €5000 prostitutes, but I have the feeling that many of the €100, €200 or €500 ones are better-off than a significant percentage of their clientele.

 

[dann]

*shrug* I have no problem with prostitutes having a few drinks or a joint or something, if it makes things easier.

You are so tolerant! You don't even care that they need this in order to perform the services that they sell in order to make a living!

What I do have a problem with is the prostitution industry being run by the same people who control the illegal drug industry. That leads to a cycle of dependency and coercion (not to mention the inability of the law to protect them) that wouldn't exist if prostitution and drugs were both legal.

Maybe it wouldn't, but it does!

Sure, you'd still have hookers who are addicted to heroin or whatever, but it would make it much harder for people to exploit that addiction

No, it wouldn't!

-- especially if a clean drug test were a prerequisite of working as a prostitute in the first place.

It wouldn't be a prerequisite of working as a prostitute, it would only be a prerequisite of working as a legal prostitute - which, of course, they would all be, wouldn't they?

It isn't legal in enough (developed) countries to really say...are you thinking of one in particular? The Netherlands? Australia?

Germany? Denmark? Brothels exist in Germany, I think they are forbidden in Denmark.

Okay, let's look at Nevada. Among legal prostitutes, there are no pimps. There is security present at all times. The industry is regulated by the Nevada Department of Health, and regular drug and medical tests are mandatory. The incidence of STDs as a whole is lower among the women than among the general population, and there has never been a case of HIV, ever. The women pay taxes, give their cut to the brothel, and take home a fair amount of money.

Ah, well-ordered conditions, right?! It didn't occur to you that legal prostitution then co-exists alongside illegal prostitution? It didnt' occurt to you that prostitutes with HIV now work somewhere else?

Sure, the cost to the consumer goes up. But would you rather pay $150 for sex with a clean, healthy woman in a safe environment, or $50 to hook up with some drugged-up chick off the street, where you might even get arrested?

Neither nor! (Does that really come as a surprise to you?)

Here's a hint: hardly anyone prefers black-market cigarettes or alcohol. They'd rather just go to the corner store and get the regular-price ones off the shelf.

So how come black-market cigarettes and alcohol exist? Because nobody wants it? Or maybe because it's cheaper ...

You've completely lost me now. First, are you saying you think it's possible to have a system where no one is poor? I think you need to take some economics classes.

Yes, and no. Yes, I think it's possible, and no, I don't need to take any economics classes. What you may have heard at yours is a lie: http://www.gegenstandpunkt.com/english/poverty.html

Second, I have no problem with attempting to resolve the problems of hunger and illiteracy, although I think it's rather odd phrasing to talk about abolishing them. I don't see why you lump prostitution in with those, though. If you're concerned that prostitution is a result of poverty, then your logic is backwards -- abolishing prostitution won't make those women any less poor.

Now I'm starting to despair!
I NEVER SAID IT WOULD. I NEVER SPOKE IN FAVOUR OF ABOLISHING PROSTITUTION! WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?!

In fact, it will simply deprive them of what they themselves consider to be the most effective money-making activity.

My point exactly! Maybe not the most effective in general, but in the unfortunate circumstances they find themselves in. And therefore you think of it as a blessing, any streetwalker's dream, right?!

I'd remind you that the status quo, which you find so objectionable, has flourished despite being abolished, if not because of it, so I think it's pretty clear that abolition does not accomplish what you want. It's odd that you appear to be in favor of it.

No, I only appear to you to be in favour of it! Please read what I actually say instead of fighting your own strawman!!!

 

[CFLarsen]

Well, apologies for the hyperbole, but modern poor people (in developed countries) do have a number of advantages over nearly all people of the past. In the U.S., pretty much everyone wakes up every day confident that they will be well fed and physically comfortable, unless they choose not to be by engaging in self-destructive behavior. A lot of fifty-year-olds still have all their teeth. They can talk to people all over the world in real time. They can travel in a couple hours what would've been days of hard slogging a hundred years ago.

They may not win out in terms of land ownership or gold or servants or authority, but not everybody views their quality of life in those terms. I can tell you I'd sure rather be me, now, than some rich nobleman in the 13th century.

Jeremy

Of course, but that's because I don't just look at money as wealth. If I had been a rich nobleman in the 13th Century, I'd most likely be dead. My chances of being 40+ would simply not be all that big.

 

[dann]

In the U.S., pretty much everyone wakes up every day confident that they will be well fed and physically comfortable, unless they choose not to be by engaging in self-destructive behavior.

So pretty much all poor people in the USA are self-destructive - and therefore poor?!

They can travel in a couple hours what would've been days of hard slogging a hundred years ago.

Indeed, they can, and a lot of them have to, on a daily basis!