Prostitution

[COLOR="Yellow"]An argument popped up in my head this morning when i was talking to my cousin during breakfast. We were talking about each other's friends and she mentioned one of her friends who's only 23 has, um, gotten into that line of work i should say. My cousin tells me her friend is quite happy, because she's getting paid a lot for something she likes to do, a lot. But my cousin did mention that one of the fears her friend has is getting arrested or worse yet, getting raped and not being able to go to the police. After she told me that story the words that came to my mouth were "that's ****ed up". And she asked "what is?". I told her not that she's prostituting but that she has deal with that kind of fear.

Prostitution has never been a big issue that i'd get into arguments before. But after talking to my cousin i started thinking more and more about it. Why is prostitution so illegal in so many places, and why is it looked down upon by society? Then i figured the answer was as simple as it always is with most issues. It's religious and political figures telling people what they can or can't do with their sexual lives. Is there a good, logical reason as to why prostitution is illegal that i'm not aware of?

Maybe George Carlin put it best in a stand-up i saw years ago: "Why is it illegal to sell something that is legal to give away for free?"[/COLOR]

I personally don't think that prostitution should be illegal. I mean, it's not really a safe job. You could get a disease, raped, or worse. But if it's what you want to do, and you understand the risks, why should it be illegal. I agree with you Aioros.

Because the idea of prostitution becoming a viable, legal "profession" for young girls to work towards once they decide they can't do school fucking sickens me.

You don't have to be a prostitute... it's not like it harms the general public... in fact, at least half the people involved are quite happy with it.

They already have a job like that. Its called "stripper".

I say legalise and regulate it, just like most things. It'd be another source of revenue through taxation, and the regulation would allow it to be much safer. And besides, teh social stigma will still keep it a low key thing; even in places where its legal you dnot just walkj around yell OH HEY BTW IM GOING TO A WHOREHOUSE NOW LOL.

I live in pahrump where there are two whore houses and its legal there, now of course you can't "freelance" here but women/men still do, alot of the times its in Vegas though. I think its kind of sick, you know sloppy 2nds, 3rds, 4ths, 5ths, ect. Oh and in about a 100 mile radius of where I live there are about 10 whore houses, all legal, and all controled.

you lucky bastard you

Luck yeah right I wouldn't go in one.

Oh yeah legal hoes cost $1000 plus/an hour, unless you want a less attractive one, then maybe $750/hour.Its not like the nightwalkers who blow for 10 and hump for 50

"Selling is legal, f[COLOR="White"]u[/COLOR]cking is legal. Why is it illegal to sell f[COLOR="White"]u[/COLOR]cking?"

~ George Carlin

Pretty much sums up of what I think about it.

Prostitutes are the past. Give it a few years and everyone will own their very own sexbot.

Plus, if they can conduct it like a business as they do in the cities where it's legal, I don't see a problem. Everybody wins.

I started this [url=http://www.vgchat.com/showthread.php?t=15736]same thread[/url] a while ago asking if there any valid reasons to keep it banned.

As far as I can see there aren't, unless you really hate prostitutes and want them to live outside the law exposed to violence and disease and so forth.

[quote]Because the idea of prostitution becoming a viable, legal "profession" for young girls to work towards once they decide they can't do school ****ing sickens me.

1. Its already legal in England, at least according to Bebop.

2. That doesn't happen. Whoring is still whoring, and it aint for everyone or even most people. Some people can deal with doing it and good on 'em if it works for them, many people can't. It happens either way, legalising is about making it safer and less harmful and such.

Prostitutes can be pretty much prisoners of the pimps they serve, threatened for their lives and whatnot. They take in deviants with nowhere else to go and force them into it. Ever see that episode of Drawn Together where they role-play Xandir telling his parents that he's gay, so he runs away to the city and gets picked up by the pimp? It happens more often then you'd think.

Granted, there are laws to put a stop to that crap, too, but banning prostitution's another path to preventing it altogether.

Prostitution or at least whore houses are legal in some states. In Japan, prostitution is perfectly legal and even considered respectable by most Japanese people. However one must think of the problems legal prostitution can cause. Alot of the hookers in Japan are poor philipino girls that get shipped over here like cattle and marketed. They are underpaid by their "mama-sans" and disease is apparently a big issue.
But honestly think about sex. Is it REALLY free? You take a girl on a date, buy her a flower, pay for the dinner, pay for the movie, pay for the gas your car uses, pay for the drinks back home, you pay for everything. SO is sex really ever free?
Personally, whore houses are not something Id like to raise a familiy anywhere near. Plus if I had a daughter id be pretty ****ed off if she had to resort to letting complete strangers have sex with her for money.... Theres more to life than that.

[quote=specopssv44]Prostitution or at least whore houses are legal in some states. In Japan, prostitution is perfectly legal and even considered respectable by most Japanese people. However one must think of the problems legal prostitution can cause. Alot of the hookers in Japan are poor philipino girls that get shipped over here like cattle and marketed. They are underpaid by their "mama-sans" and disease is apparently a big issue.
But honestly think about sex. Is it REALLY free? You take a girl on a date, buy her a flower, pay for the dinner, pay for the movie, pay for the gas your car uses, pay for the drinks back home, you pay for everything. SO is sex really ever free?
Personally, whore houses are not something Id like to raise a familiy anywhere near. Plus if I had a daughter id be pretty ****ed off if she had to resort to letting complete strangers have sex with her for money.... Theres more to life than that.

Quite possibly the single smartest post I've ever seen by you.

First off, we can't very well test every consumer. And if we somehow could test each and every single one of them in some magically uncostly manner, some STDs don't show up until months after testing because they were dormant. So here we have a tested consumer and a tested whore, both clean, then all of a sudden two months later the whore has HIV and has to keep track of every reciept she's been with (and in two months that could be a lot). Epidemic! Because **** straight those now-infected people have slept with other people or other whores and now you've got a big cluster**** in the hands of the government.

Also, prostitution isn't only for women. We, as a society, would have to abolish sodomy and anti-gay thoughts to allow it to happen. We just jumped a whole line that shouldn't be ignored.

There is no "safe" prostitution. Condoms could break, they don't prevent all STD transfer, and some whores give head for twenty bucks and never have to give up sex in the first place. Prostitution is mostly about the easiest way to get money, so that takes a couple of girls out of it. Payment is another big issue, seeing as how some people don't pay the whores, and some people give drugs as payment (because there are women out there with good jobs who just want to deal with sex). Beating the whores during sex is also a big issue. We can't very well follow every girl. Too much manpower would be needed.

A lot of money is in prostitution. I don't want anybody being taught that it's a better alternative to a career.

Morals of the average 19 year old male FTW.

Fate and Linko, the problems you describe of exploitation and disease are both better dealt with under the framework of legal prostitution, and speaking as someone in a country where it is legal, the doomsday scenarios being painted of respectable prostitution as a great career opportunity are massively overstated (but I'd say even if that did happen, so what?).

I'm not saying NO disease is spread by prostitution because it's an iron law of the universe that it is... but well, disease gets spread by prostitution in places where it's illegal NOW. Surely legalising it makes it easier to track and prevent spread of disease?

Legalisation empowers the women involved to look after their own health better. In a brothel environment with security and so forth they can better ensure that people do use condoms. The cultural idea of prostitutes as completely passive and victimised and powerless is I think, to a large extent, is a product of environments where prostitution is illegal and therefore marginalised. When it's legal and they're tax paying citizens, it's far easier for sex workers to look out for their own health and safety.

Sex trafficking and exploitation is still an issue, but that's a matter of effective law enforcement making sure this exploitation doesn't occur. Compare this to the same situation under banned prostitution wherein the women are victims of not only exploitation and domination by pimps and such, but also exposed to arrest and victimisation by the police.

it's horribly immoral, and you all know how I am about things that are horribly immoral

I don't want any kid being a whore, I don't want any kid on the entire friggin' planet to grow up thinking that it's good to amount to absolutely f[COLOR=lightgreen]u[/COLOR]cking nothing and that education and work is a total waste of time when you can just sell yourself to other people's primal urges. It's disgusting, seedy, unproductive and demonstrates a total lack of maturity and strong ethics.

[COLOR="Yellow"]That's what parents are for. You can only tell your kids what to do until they're 18, after that you can only advice them. And stop throwing the word ethic around like it's free candy (PETA has the word "ethic" in their name and we all know they're full of bulls[COLOR="Yellow"]h[/COLOR]it). There's nothing ethicly wrong with selling sex if it's conducted in a safe and regulated manner.

If you don't want kids to think it's good to have no education an amount to nothing, why don't you after kids who move to Hollywood and give up school because they want to become super models.[/COLOR]

[quote=Aioros][COLOR=yellow]If you don't want kids to think it's good to have no education an amount to nothing, why don't you after kids who move to Hollywood and give up school because they want to become super models.[/COLOR]

The difference here is that if they do become super models, they can amount to something, and if they don't they can always get back into school, whereas in prostitution, it's not really something you can just give up. It's like being paid to use strange drugs. I mean, I doubt girls at the age of 15 are going to be lying in a gutter because they didn't get an audition for the latest Wal-Mart catalog.

[quote=Aioros][COLOR=yellow]That's what parents are for. You can only tell your kids what to do until they're 18, after that you can only advice them. And stop throwing the word ethic around like it's free candy (PETA has the word "ethic" in their name and we all know they're full of bulls[COLOR=yellow]h[/COLOR]it). There's nothing ethicly wrong with selling sex if it's conducted in a safe and regulated manner.

If you don't want kids to think it's good to have no education an amount to nothing, why don't you after kids who move to Hollywood and give up school because they want to become super models. [/COLOR]

Super models are only slightly better, but I can't stand them. In a lot of ways they're actually worse than prostitutes, they're in all the media convincing beautiful girls that they should be stick insects.

What you like and dislike is pretty different from immoralities dear. It's like comparing rap music to gay marriage. You can find rap music annoying, but it's not a big concern to your beliefs. However, homosexuals wedding could be a huge punch in the face towards your moral and religious beliefs because it could be something you are disgusted by and you earnestly detest do to the personal beliefs you've held your whole life. It's difficult to just say "well, I guess I can live with it" unless you're completely apathetic on moral issues.

Rather than considering prostitution as an unimportant factor in their life, there's many people who just believe that it's wrong. It's not as if they don't have any reason behind their belief, but it's not something people can merely accept when exposed to the opinions of other's on it.

Oh, and so you don't throw it in my face that I'm an ignorant close-minded bigot, I'll have you know I don't have any problem whatsoever with gay marriage or rap music.

Yes, but wrong != illegal. It happens regardless of legality or illegality. The point is how best to minimise the damage it does to all involved. And it's pretty clear that legalising it works better, when you compare the situation in places where it's illegal (like, say, most of the US) to places where it's legal (Australia, much of Europe). There's less disease and exploitatation and abuse, because the women aren't outside the law and aren't affraid to access things like the health and justice systems. Legality isn't about saying it's a good thing, it's about making a thing that's going to exist either way, less harmful.

wow, way to miss the point entirely. I wasnt talking about liking or not liking something being criteria for legislation, i was commenting that I thought he was smart enough to realize that there isnt much legal justification for continuing to criminalizing it being more important than it going against the morals of certain people.

Laws dont exist (or at least shouldnt) to legislate morality. Government is there to provide a stabile and safe envirnment for society to function in, nto tell that society how to act or who to be.

And if you were trying to tie your crap about rap into my comment about country, that was a ****ing joke. And I can construct an argument for or against pretty much anything you want to throw up as an example, so dont bother with the "omg but it might offend som1". Everything offends someone; deal with it.

To echo LoS, policy shouldn't be about morality. Well, not that sort of morality, the sort held only by some people. Policy should effectively be amoral, it should be about effectiveness and safety and reduction of harm and so forth. It should look at a situation and ask how to ensure the best outcomes given that you can't eliminate most practises. The war on drugs is a prime example, and I've spoken before about the harmful effects of an overly moralistic drug policy which ignores the need to reduce harm through things like decriminalisation of possession and methodone clinics and heroin maintaince.

Sometimes morality is counterproductive to effective policy that makes people safer, because the reflexive thing to do if something is seen as immoral is to ban it. However, often an unregulated, underground practise is far worse than a legal but carefully regulated one. Prostitution is a prime example of this. Surely it is more immoral to perpetuate a greater level of suffering and hardship in the name of "morality" than to grudgingly accept that something WILL occur, but look at how we can make it safer and healthier and so forth. See also, moralistic but harmful bans on contraception, for another example of morality being directly counterproductive.

It's not that it's illegal because it conflicts with our personal beliefs, we just don't want to do anything that panders to prostitution because it conflicts with our personal beliefs. Rather than allowing even more access to something we dislike and that will still be harmful, immoral, and overpopular by legalizing it, we'd rather try harder to prevent it from happening in the first place. Sure, it can't be stopped, but if we can be more dilligent with prevention, it could be kept to a minimum. Maybe installing cameras at stop lights or being more thorough with busting prostitution stings.

I mean, clearly the, uh, product isn't just going to run out if it were legalized. There's going to be a lot of people being admitted to whorehouses (I wonder if you have to apply. How do you apply?) and I don't see how one should be encouraged to do so.

Banning and eliminating doesn't work though. It never has. In any country where it's illegal, there's still prostitution (well, except for maybe countries where they stone them and stuff). Even when there's will to crack down, political corruption and sleaze and organised crime mean you're never going to truly get rid of it. And the problem is that the "prevention" is directly harmful to the most vulnerable, the sex workers themselves. They get victimised by the laws, they get arrested and jailed, they get abused and diseased can't seek help because it means admitting they've done something illegal and therefore risk arrest. Under virtually any legal system in the western world where prostitution is illegal, the sex workers are FAR more likely to be victimised than the johns or the pimps. That's just how it works.

Moreover, the conception that you're going to massively popularise it by legalising it simply doesn't wash. I recognise the argument that "legalisation = condoning = more of it" and it's an argument that you see on a wide range of issues. Sometimes it's valid, but not with prostitution. It's simply not the case. Even if it did increase the occurrence a little, is that really such a big price to pay in exchange for drastic reductions in abuse and insecurity?

But at any rate, it's not the case. If it were the case that legal recognition of sex work massively increased its occurrence, there'd be brothels on every corner and ads on TV here in Sydney, which is simply not the case. It's possible to legalise it and still restrict it, through things like licensing and zoning laws. It's a marginal profession, same as it always has been, since the dawn of civilisation. The difference is the sex workers at least have some measure of safety and security. I'll take that over misguided moralism as the best possible response.

As I say, the moralism is reflexive and it doesn't really consider the ramifications in full. It's a similar sort of moralism that condemns junkies to die in the gutter because it says we cant be encouraging them by giving them clinics or needle-exchange programs... that condemns teenage mothers because hey, sex before marriage is immoral. It condemns sex workers to abuse and insecurity because hey, if we give them legal recognition and protection and support from the health system, that would be condoning it. It's a widespread thing in society, but it must be railed against. From guns to hate speech to abortion to drugs to teenage sex, the essential problem is, when we don't like things, the reflexive thing to do is to think we should ban them, thinking that's the best way to minimise the problem. Unfortuantely, usually it isn't and that's when we run into problems.

[COLOR="Yellow"]Personal/religious beliefs and law should never go hand in hand. Unfortunately they do in this country.[/COLOR]

I'm sticking with the "it's sick and disgusting" route. As far as super models and strippers are concerned they are not the same to whores.

"It's not that it's illegal because it conflicts with our personal beliefs, we just don't want to do anything that panders to prostitution because it conflicts with our personal beliefs"

Maybe its the fact that its 730 am and i just woke up 5 minutes ago, but does nobody else see this? I mean, COME ON now...

Spec's actually hit on something there. Prostitution is an extremely contentious issue for feminism and there's an enormously wide spectrum of views among different feminist thinkers. Feminism isn't homogenous, after all.

the funny thing is- you say that "some" people find it immoral. . . I think it's one of the few issues that **** near everybody finds immoral, but for some reason think it should be legal because they can't concoct some logical reasoning for it being legal. Bull****. If the majority of the people find it immoral, have them pressure their representatives to vote it illegal. That's how a republic works, not this crap where people support something they're ALL die-hard against because they don't want to step on any toes.

yeah. :/ Let's compare it to streaking for example. It doesn't hurt anyone. It doesn't influence drugs, crimes, or violence. It doesn't really ruin anything (except furniture if it's some one dirty).

So why is it illegal? Because it creates an uncomfortable environment for people. You can start with your "I'm not afraid of naked people lol" bull****, but the truth is most people would be disturbed by casual nudity. Compared to Prostitution, something that really DOES hurt people, I'd say it's only sensible to legalize that before prostitution. I mean hey, we've already got tube tops and hot pants! Why not just allow whoever wants to get nude to do so? It's not as if walking down a street in the buff would ever cause any problems... right?

Funfact: Streaking is a public act. Being nude in your house is called being nude.

I think it should be legal. I myself would not pay to have sex with a woman who could be infested with many STD's. But people do choose to pay for that kind of thing.

I watched a show one time and it was about a company that was basically of prostitution. Men, Women, or couples would come to this place and pick whoever they wanted to have sex with. And of course both the prostitute and the other person will have to be clean of diseases. If prostitution were to be legalized, then that would be the logical idea.

frankly I don't think "practicalities" overrule it when something is just blatantly wrong. Like I said before... let the states vote on it and enforce based upon that which they vote. You know, the way the country was originally intended to run.

I don't see why we should make the world safer for people who do something that is morally wrong and know it at the expense of everyone else.

[COLOR="Yellow"]It might be uncomfortable or unchristian or an act of blasphemy to some people (especially those advocating dumb s[COLOR="Yellow"]h[/COLOR]it like abstinence), but morally wrong? Ha, f[COLOR="Yellow"]u[/COLOR]ck no.

It's just consentual sex between adults. If you don't like it, don't do it, deal with it and worry about your own problems. Arwon is right, laws should be put in place to protect people, and we shouldn't make people's lives more difficult by banning things that some groups find inmoral.[/COLOR]

Having sex for money is wrong.

Proper ladies give it up for free.

There's a difference between laws having something to do with morality, and morality being enough for there to be a law. In the end, the bigger factor still has to be harms and cost/benefit analyses of banning vs allowing vs some regulatory framework between the two extremes.

Yeah, it is, actually. As long as nobody is forcing you, its a valid consent. And since nobody is forcing anyone to be in it, its valid.

I wouldnt say so personally. If it takes a 3rd party, in this case money, to make you do something with a 2nd you wouldnt do normally it's not the same as to agreeing to it first time round.

In that case, nothning you do is voluntary, since there is always some sort of reinforcement for it. So congrats, by your logic every person on earth ios a mindless, consentless husk of a drone*oscar*

True dat.

But I'm not talking about everything. Just being a whore. For cash.

[quote=Lord of Spam]Having sex for money is wrong.

Proper ladies give it up for free.

No they don't, sluts give it up for free. Real women must be courted, and that isn't free by any stretch of the imagination.

If you're spending money to court her to get her to put out, theres a word for that.

Its called prostitution.

if you're going to argue the "love blah blah sign of affection" thing, then my point IS correct that ladies give it up free. If theres any money required for anything to get them to put out, they're a whore.

Buy me a diamond ring and even I'd be inclined to sleep with you, LoS.

Yeah, most women won't be putting out if you pay them, but it's easy to guilt trip them. If your lover does something nice for you, it's easier to pay them back that way and make them feel good without spending money.

A teddy bear as tall as me = instant sex

[quote=Lord of Spam]If you're spending money to court her to get her to put out, theres a word for that.

Its called prostitution.

if you're going to argue the "love blah blah sign of affection" thing, then my point IS correct that ladies give it up free. If theres any money required for anything to get them to put out, they're a whore.

Love and affection most certainly does NOT mean free. Really showing a woman that you love her takes time, planning, thinking and a lot of effort every single day. If it doesn't then you're not doing it right.

This is precisely what I mean by "morals of the average 19 year old male". Most guys my age don't have a clue what love is, or even care. Most largely think with their cocks and brand any other guy a homosexual if they don't. Sex requires wealth or promiscuous behaviour from the other party, such narrow minds won't allow for anything else, certainly not something so deep and utterly indescribable.


Good thing such immature people don't make the rules on this planet.

[COLOR="Yellow"]o_O

You sound like a chick.[/COLOR]

You dont love someone the instant you meet them. Thats called infatuation or lust, both of which are entirely different concepts. your argument is null.

You said that if you have to try and prove to someone you love them than theres something wrong. This implies that if someone beleives you straight away, as in without effort, you are doing something correct. I think reality disagrees with that.

Oh and I meant it like it's the first time the girl has see the guy. The guy could have seen her from away. Yet there he is showing someone he loves them and really meaning it.

wow, you are a total moron.

You dont have to love someone to be in a relationship with them. What I was refering to is that it should be pobvious to both parties that you've moved past the "hey we're just screwing around having fun" phase. If you care, it would be obviouis by your normal day to day interactions, attitude and behavior.

Also, it doesnt matter if he's seen her from far away. you have to KNOW someone before you can love them, otherweise its not real.

I think prostitution is a pretty stupid "line of work", but hey, if you wanna do it, go ahead. The only clients you'll get are people who willingly want it, and you're not hurting anyone who doesn't understand the risks in most cases, so make it legal if you want, doesn't bother me.

What the hell are you people arguing about now?

[COLOR="Yellow"]Something about legalized duels and dictatorships i think???[/COLOR]

Its all bebops fault.

Case closed.