Is it so much fun to be a prostitute ?

[dann]

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.

Is that a promise?!

 

[CFLarsen]

Is that a promise?!

Well, you're still here, aren't you?

 

[RussDill]

Prostitution sucks! (pun not intended) Making it illegal does not put a stop to it. Eliminating poverty does.

Maybe you have never taken econ before...Lets analyze this.

a) everyone makes more money, and has more jobs
b) prostitutes take another job
c) there are less prostitutes
d) Demand for prostitutes has no changed, but supply has gone down
e) The price paid for a prostitute will rise to make the supply/demand curves meet
f) Less prostitutes will leave, whereas some who were less inclided to be prostitutes in the past, see it as easy money.

There are many other interpretations, but I don't see any ending with the emilination of prostitution. Its like saying eliminating poverty will eliminate drugs because dealers and growers will take better, high paying jobs instead (which would lower supply, and the price, making the switch less enticing).

 

[Mrick]

Probably not random in the sense that they don't choose the partners they find attactive.

A very rare phenomenon, I think. (Outside of fiction)

No gangbangs, orgies and the like are common occurances. Random in the sense of who ever happens to be there.

If they would not mind, then why do you think they are just promiscuous and not prostitutes?

Most likely because they have other jobs or social stigma or other personal reasons. Maybe it would require a lot of effort to set up the business in a safe manner free from nuts and cops. I don't know. Like any business, someone should consider a business plan.

Which, of course, is what has resulted in the familiar phenomena of websites and streets full of available johns with prostitutes cruising around to pick up the john of their choice, right? Come on! They sometimes have some choice, but "pick and choose"?!!]

I suppose it depends on the hooker. Some hookers may have less choice. Some have a lot. Recreational sex is similar. Occasionally, a person will do a "mercy" **** when they have no real attraction.

Well, sometimes (a slow night etc.) they do have to take on just any hairy dick and all.

I suppose if they want the money they have to do the job. But "they" can't be inclusive of "all" because that just isn't the case. I am sure "some" are sufficently motivated to accept almost anyone.

I am not sure what we are getting to in this discussion. Is it that women should not be allowed to sell sexual favors? If so, would that include marriage when it is apparant the man is buying a trophy wife? Would it make sleeping your way to the top illegal? Sex in front of cameras? What sex - penetration? oral? voyerism? phone sex? mutual masterbation? Erotic photography? Erotic dance? There is lots of sexual stimulation for sale, trade, or other bargaining.

To the person asking about male prostitutes, I considered that once, but my wife reminded me that one can't sell what one can't give away.

Mrick

 

[dann]

Well, you're still here, aren't you?

No, actually right now I'm on my way down to pick up the pizzas you promised!

 

[RussDill]

See what happens when poverty is diminshed (Cuba), and when it is reintroduced (Cuba - or Eastern Europe with the transition from socialism to market economy and globalization: The Eastern European countries have indeed evolved into export nations - of hookers to the rest of the world!)

I've noticed that when difficult times strike, certain groups of people are always blamed. So while in times of prosperity, prostitutes are not looked down on, the police aren't cracking down, etc, when things go bad, not only do they tend to blame the lower layers of society, but they can't afford the luxury any more either.

 

[toddjh]

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!

Of course I care. I'd rather no one had to work at a job they don't enjoy. But, given the reality that such is the case for some people, I don't see why prostitution should be singled out and treated differently from the variety of other jobs that people take because they need money. I don't begrudge a factory worker having a few beers when he gets home, either, if it makes things easier to deal with. I don't really see how it's different.

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?

No. Illegal prostitution would continue to exist, but it can't possibly be worse than the status quo, can it? I think the amount it could be reduced would depend on the manner in which it is legalized. Under the right conditions, and with proper enforcement of the law, I believe it could be reduced considerably.

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?

Well, Nevada is an exception in many ways, but no, I don't believe that to be the case there. First, unless the situation has changed very recently, no legal prostitute in Nevada has ever tested positive for HIV, so any discussion of where they are working now is moot. Second, I don't believe there is enough of a market in those counties to support both legal and illegal prostitution working concurrently -- typically, brothels in Nevada exist in areas with quite low populations.

As for elsewhere, yes, I've already said that illegal prostitution is not going to disappear. My goal is merely to minimize it and have some semblance of legal protection for the women (and men) who find themselves in that position.

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

I read that article already. Is that all you're basing your position on? I found it rather shortsighted. For one thing, it only claims to address the question of poverty in the developing world, ignoring the fact that you can find poor people everywhere. I also disagree with some of its explanations; I believe that developing countries are suffering mainly because political instability deters foreign businesses from investing in infrastructure. A vicious cycle, but not the one described in your article.

Now, if you are arguing that it's possible for the world to become less poor as a whole, then I agree. As technology improves, I expect that quality of life will continue to go up all across the board. What I don't expect to see is an even distribution of wealth between all people. Some will always be poorer than others -- and then the goalposts will move, and the "poorer" will become the "poor" of the day.

I NEVER SPOKE IN FAVOUR OF ABOLISHING PROSTITUTION! WHY IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND?!

That's not exactly true. You said, "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!" After parsing through the sarcasm, that seems to me to be in favor of abolishing prostitution, at least in some situations.

To answer your question, your position is difficult to understand because you are not making it very clear, especially by not proposing any remedy of your own.

It's further muddied by the fact that you seem to want to do away with prostitution because you view it as a symptom of the underlying problem of poverty. That's fine; what I don't understand is why you focus on prostitution in particular, and ignore all the other crappy jobs people take because they need money. If the issue is poverty, not prostitution, why focus on the latter so intently?

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 don't know what you mean by this, so I'm sorry if this is not answering your question, but no, I don't think the life of a typical prostitute (male or female) is anyone's "dream." I think they consider it a necessary evil. People working crappy jobs because of lack of opportunity have my sympathy.

Jeremy

 

[RussDill]

I forgot. better she becomes a soldier, because people who kill others for money are heroes."

Always reminds me of:

"Have you ever killed anybody?", "Yes, but they were all bad."

 

[dann]

Maybe you have never taken econ before...Lets analyze this.

a) everyone makes more money, and has more jobs
b) prostitutes take another job
c) there are less prostitutes
d) Demand for prostitutes has no changed, but supply has gone down
e) The price paid for a prostitute will rise to make the supply/demand curves meet
f) Less prostitutes will leave, whereas some who were less inclided to be prostitutes in the past, see it as easy money.

This is not analysis, it's fiction! And already covered. Eliminate poverty, give an education to prostitutes who lack one, give them a job: no prostitution.
"45. In her meetings in Havana, as well as in the provinces, most of the Special Rapporteur's interlocutors held that, as a result of the Cuban revolution, Cuban society had succeeded in virtually eliminating prostitution. Prior to 1959, prostitution was widely stated to have existed out of need; the improvements in the economic and social status of women thereafter had eliminated that need."
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/cab2b9bda29591c0802568ac00531e1b/$FILE/G0010672.doc

 

[RussDill]

And why do you think "a dictator" doesn't want to stop prostitution anymore? No, even a dictator cannot stop prostitution if a woman has the choice between starving (or letting her children starve) or prostitution - which is the reason why prostitution reemerged in Cuba in the 90s. (By the way, why do you think your glorious, democratically elected president Bush hasn't put a stop to prostitution?)

hmmm...let me see...maybe there are more pressing issues? education, defense, violent crime, economy. So sorry he hasn't dedicated himself to eliminating prostitution.

Nobody seems to deny that the kind of poverty that existed in Cuba before the revolution was eliminated in the 60s, 70s and 80s.

Wow...you mean people sent him tons of money and goods and his people weren't poor? Neato, what a marvelous leader, whoring his nation out for money. (cuban missile crisis)

Illiteracy was overcome in the first couple of years, health care for everybody was a fact by the late 60s and so was a balanced diet and jobs for everybody. This, and not a dictator who simply decreed that there be no prostitution, eliminated sex as a marketable commodity in Cuba.

Or was attempting to provide the image of a utopia.

When I was in Habana in 2000, I met a young girl from Brazil who enjoyed being able to walk through the streets of that city - alone - at night - as a woman! Something that she wouldn't be able to do in Brazil! So what enabled her to do so? The severe sentences for attacking tourists?

How about a police state? (which isn't necessary, just adequate enforcement and coverage)

Well, that is something to consider, but if you starve you really don't have much of a choice, do you? Or the lack of the kind of desperation that you find in other Latin American countries? What do you think?

You act as if there is only one reason people would turn to prostitution and that it would always be their last resort.

 

[SRW]

This is not analysis, it's fiction! And already covered. Eliminate poverty, give an education to prostitutes who lack one, give them a job: no prostitution.
"45. In her meetings in Havana, as well as in the provinces, most of the Special Rapporteur's interlocutors held that, as a result of the Cuban revolution, Cuban society had succeeded in virtually eliminating prostitution. Prior to 1959, prostitution was widely stated to have existed out of need; the improvements in the economic and social status of women thereafter had eliminated that need."
http://www.unhchr.ch/Huridocda/Huridoca.nsf/0/cab2b9bda29591c0802568ac00531e1b/$FILE/G0010672.doc

Well nice try, but the next paragraph conterdicts your arguemnets. From your report sited above.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

However, the Special Rapporteur was informed that with the gradual increase of tourism in Cuba, prostitution had been increasing in recent years, mostly in tourist destinations such as Havana and Varadero. The women who engage in prostitution were characterized as originating from families without morals or from dysfunctional families and it was emphasized that any prostitution that might exist in Cuba was not practised in order to meet economic needs, but rather as a result of crumbling social and moral values. Furthermore, as characterized by President Castro himself, Cuban women who sell sex are not prostitutes but rather “jineteras”, since no one is forcing them to do so “but they do it on their own”.

----------------------------------------------------------------------


We know they are crazy because the Cuban Gov puts them in the mad house:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The Special Rapporteur was also concerned about the women being held in rehabilitation centres for “behaviour modification” as a result of their involvement in prostitution. As prostitution is not a crime in Cuba, the use of criminal procedure, such as imprisonment, forced labour in agriculture and restriction of visiting time to a few hours, violate their rights to due process of law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[RussDill]

This is the very first quotation from the article you provided:
”Cuba, considered to be free of prostitution since the 1960s, is experiencing an increase in prostitution and prostitution tourism as a result of the poor economy.
As a result of the poor economy!!! What is the matter with you? Can't you or won't you read what the article says?!!!

"condidered to be free" by whom? through what means? If the economy is good, would prostitutes be less likely to solicit their service to those they do not know, since they are less desperate? IE, a boatload of forigners looking for a cheap night may not find any, because the prostitutes are well paid, and not looking for a quick buck

What do they provide to support their conjecture that the increase is due to a poor economy? Should I believe every unsupported conjecture of every news article?

 

[RussDill]

Yeah, sure! Hookers are only in it for the love making, aren't they. Come on, SRW! Get real!

Eliminating poverty would eliminate prostitution!

or...ghasp, people are in prostitution for a wide spectrum of reasons.

 

[RussDill]

"I needed money. I needed a lot of money, and I needed it quickly." [/B]

Note the "i needed a lot of money" someone who is doing it because they are starving would just say "I needed money, and I needed it quickly"

 

[RussDill]

Apparently she is being coerced to choose between prostitution and waitressing as the best option for herself. I think that is inherently bad, yes, especially since she doesn't particularly like having sex for money and most people don't like waitressing either.

aparently, she lived above her means and decimated her bank account. Boo hoo.

 

[RussDill]

You can get Coca Cola
Yes, if Cuba chose to become a vassal state of the USA there wouldn't be any blockade. Of course, they would then have to give up all the achievements of the Cuban revolution, which might be a small price to pay in the eyes of many norte americanos. Most Cubans, however, probably wouldn't appreciate the introduction of the kind of poverty prevalent in the rest of Latin America.

Yes, give up locking up political dissadents, what a horrible price.

 

[RussDill]

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

How about you look at somewhere where it has been legalized that is not a corrupted societity? Take legal prostitution in nevada for instance.

 

[RussDill]

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!

You miss the point. We have a program here called "christmas angles" where there is a big christmas tree with pieces of paper attached with a childs name, age, and what they want for christmas. You take one, buy the gift, and give it to the volunteers who deliver it.

Things you'll see on there commonly:

motorized scooter
playstation2 (they have a TV)
prince of persia (they already have a playstation2)

I don't know about you, but we have a very different definition of poor here than in other countries. In many places poor means you don't know where your next meal will come from, or you don't know where you can get drinkable water.

[BTW, I'm not a heartless bastard who doesn't believe in helping underpriveledged children just because they are less underpriveledged]

 

[dann]

Of course I care. I'd rather no one had to work at a job they don't enjoy. But, given the reality that such is the case for some people, I don't see why prostitution should be singled out and treated differently from the variety of other jobs that people take because they need money. I don't begrudge a factory worker having a few beers when he gets home, either, if it makes things easier to deal with. I don't really see how it's different.

"Things"?! No, using the word "things", you abstract from any difference, but the difference really wasn't my point anyway, was it?!
It is always funny when people use the given "reality" as an argument! Yes, "reality" does look like that for some people, and that ought to be changed! When you look at prostitution, you don't simply accept the reality of it being illegal. You are in favour of changing that piece of reality, of legalizing it!

No. Illegal prostitution would continue to exist, but it can't possibly be worse than the status quo, can it?

Not a very good argument for making changes, is it? (And please remember: I'm not defending illegality!)

I think the amount it could be reduced would depend on the manner (!) in which it is legalized. Under the right conditions, (but not under the wrong conditions?) and with proper enforcement of the law, (but not with improper enforcement?) I believe it could be reduced considerably.

My parentheses, dann.

Well, Nevada is an exception in many ways, but no, I don't believe that to be the case there. First, unless the situation has changed very recently, no legal prostitute in Nevada has ever tested positive for HIV, so any discussion of where they are working now is moot.

No, it isn't. They never got to work there in the first place! Very good for johns who want to play it safe, there's no denying that!

Second, I don't believe there is enough of a market in those counties to support both legal and illegal prostitution working concurrently -- typically, brothels in Nevada exist in areas with quite low populations.

Which is why they probably cater to tourists, don't you think? It sounds like a very bad idea, businesswise, to place almost anything in areas with quite low population ...

As for elsewhere, yes, I've already said that illegal prostitution is not going to disappear. My goal is merely to minimize it and have some semblance of legal protection for the women (and men) who find themselves in that position.

To me your goal seems to be to supplement it with the legal kind and all the advantages you think it has.

I read that article already. Is that all you're basing your position on? I found it rather shortsighted. For one thing, it only claims to address the question of poverty in the developing world, ignoring the fact that you can find poor people everywhere.

No, it does not ignore the fact, it explains the fact.

I also disagree with some of its explanations; I believe that developing countries are suffering mainly because political instability deters foreign businesses from investing in infrastructure. A vicious cycle, but not the one described in your article.

A lot of beliefs aren't covered by that article. It also doesn't cover the idea that poverty is punishment from God. In other words: I can't really blame the article for disagreeing with your favourite belief!

Now, if you are arguing that it's possible for the world to become less poor as a whole, then I agree. As technology improves, I expect that quality of life will continue to go up all across the board.

As "technology improves" a lot of people are made redundant. Technological improvement in a market economy does not better the situation of poor people, sorry! One of the apparent contradictions in a capitalist economy is that when you make things easier to produce, people lose their jobs, i.e. their way of earning a living. (Didn't the article cover this?)

What I don't expect to see is an even distribution of wealth between all people. Some will always be poorer than others -- and then the goalposts will move, and the "poorer" will become the "poor" of the day.

And some of them will starve and become the living of yesterday. (You didn't really read the article, did you?)

That's not exactly true. You said, "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!" After parsing through the sarcasm, that seems to me to be in favor of abolishing prostitution, at least in some situations.

YES!!! I am in favour of abolishing prostitution! And NO, not just in some situations. And thank you for pointing out my BIG mistake. I am indeed in favour of ABOLISHING prostitution, but not by making it illegal! By eliminating the poverty that forces upon them very bad alternatives. Therefore it WON'T deprive them, as you put it,

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

It will deprive them of the need to be on the lookout for "the most effective money-making activity".

To answer your question, your position is difficult to understand because you are not making it very clear, especially by not proposing any remedy of your own.

Once again, my bad that I wrote abolish where I meant outlaw. The remedy proposed, however, has been the same from the very beginning!

It's further muddied by the fact that you seem to want to do away with prostitution because you view it as a symptom of the underlying problem of poverty. That's fine; what I don't understand is why you focus on prostitution in particular, and ignore all the other crappy jobs people take because they need money.

I don't! I have mentioned "the other crappy jobs" from the very beginning!

If the issue is poverty, not prostitution, why focus on the latter so intently?

See answer above!

I don't know what you mean by this, so I'm sorry if this is not answering your question, but no, I don't think the life of a typical prostitute (male or female) is anyone's "dream." I think they consider it a necessary evil. People working crappy jobs because of lack of opportunity have my sympathy.

Our sympathy doesn't really help them, does it?

 

[dann]

Well nice try, but the next paragraph conterdicts your arguemnets. From your report sited above.

No, not really, but it does make one mistake! It forgets to menstion that the "gradual increase of tourism in Cuba" happened in an attempt to fight the poverty that had returned to Cuba in the "Special Period"!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, the Special Rapporteur was informed that with the gradual increase of tourism in Cuba, prostitution had been increasing in recent years, mostly in tourist destinations such as Havana and Varadero. The women who engage in prostitution were characterized as originating from families without morals or from dysfunctional families and it was emphasized that any prostitution that might exist in Cuba was not practised in order to meet economic needs, but rather as a result of crumbling social and moral values. Furthermore, as characterized by President Castro himself, Cuban women who sell sex are not prostitutes but rather “jineteras”, since no one is forcing them to do so “but they do it on their own”.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We know they are crazy because the Cuban Gov puts them in the mad house:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
15. The Special Rapporteur was also concerned about the women being held in rehabilitation centres for “behaviour modification” as a result of their involvement in prostitution. As prostitution is not a crime in Cuba, the use of criminal procedure, such as imprisonment, forced labour in agriculture and restriction of visiting time to a few hours, violate their rights to due process of law.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

And, no, I don't think they are mad, and no, they are not placed in the madhouse, and no, I don't think that this measure is going to put a stop to prostitution in Cuba. That would take the elimination of poverty, a self-supporting economy in Cuba that could support its inhabitants.