Should Prostitution be legal?

[quote name='camoor'](except for the christian right - and its FUN to piss them off)[/QUOTE]

Actually whenever "sin" increases they win with a hoard of new followers who've become disillusioned and none too bright from their constant years of personal abuse.
 
Wow...more people believe it should be privatized rather than the government doing it. I think thats interesting.

I can imagine it now: "After a purchase of a 12 pack cans of Coke or Sprite, you can get a coupon for a free blowjob"
 
[quote name='Xevious']Wow...more people believe it should be privatized rather than the government doing it. I think thats interesting.

I can imagine it now: "After a purchase of a 12 pack cans of Coke or Sprite, you can get a coupon for a free blowjob"[/QUOTE]

Well I'd say it becomes a difficult question. Personally I'd be of privatization but I fear that without some form of regulation STDs will run rampant. On the other hand if you regulate it too much people won't enjoy it due to strict unnessasary rules of contact and illegal prostituation will still run rampant.
 
Intesting point Zion.

Here is another thing I thought of...The 2 people who voted 'No' on this poll (so far), are you against special cases like burn victims, people with MS, etc going to see prostitutes? I mean, they dont have a decent chance of getting women like other people and they have those sexual needs. Dont you guys think its kinda cruel to deny them? Feel free to chime in with your opinion.
 
Make it government run, with regulations regarding testing and condom use. Strict enough to keep std's out, while at the same time making it pointless and unprofitable to work outside the system illegally. It is done in australia, and there are extremely low std's rates. This will also help prevent any prostitutes from being force into it, or being forced to remain in prostitution when they don't want to.

Though on the case of disabled people, the government of sweden or denmark (can't remember) actually pays for sexual services for disabled people.
 
I think the 'regulation' end of it should only attempt to make it 'safe' [disease testing, etc.]
I despise all sin and luxury taxes in principle [because they're inherently unfair and hypocritical--everything *everyone else* does is a 'sin' or a 'luxury', and of course as long as something is legal, the government shouldn't be using taxation to legislate morality. If it's immoral/wrong, make it illegal]; however, the FairTax, which I support, would take care of the taxation, both for money coming in and money coming out.

The biggest issues I could see with legalizing it is states that have adultery laws or use adultery as a reason for divorce, since technically it would be adultery if a married person does it. Maybe some sort of waiver, and of course we would want the brothels themselves to be protected, so they don't get sued in case a married person gets divorced due to a visit [much like a gun manufacturer should not be held accountable for a murder with one of their guns, and a car maker should not be held accountable for vehicular manslaughter with one of their cars.] The other issue is that if something should happen with the licensing/testing, and if an employee with a bad disease should pass it to a customer, it might take a while to show up. But I guess that's similar to a medical malpractice kind of thing, and if we could tighten up our civil lawsuit system, that [the threat of either economic sanction via a valid lawsuit, or the threat of going out of business due to marketplace forces] would be a motivator for the brothels to keep themselves clean and policed.

I didn't vote 'no' but I would have a problem with the 'special cases'. "Special cases" is just another word for 'discrimination'. And who's to say those people don't have a chance with women? Chang and Eng got married and presumably had sex, as did lots of other 'imperfect' people. Now, if I were a cop and busted someone for prostitution, I woudl probably look the other way if it was someone 'hard up', as long as he treated the girl well.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']I think the 'regulation' end of it should only attempt to make it 'safe' [disease testing, etc.]
I despise all sin and luxury taxes in principle [because they're inherently unfair and hypocritical--everything *everyone else* does is a 'sin' or a 'luxury', and of course as long as something is legal, the government shouldn't be using taxation to legislate morality. If it's immoral/wrong, make it illegal]; however, the FairTax, which I support, would take care of the taxation, both for money coming in and money coming out.

The biggest issues I could see with legalizing it is states that have adultery laws or use adultery as a reason for divorce, since technically it would be adultery if a married person does it. Maybe some sort of waiver, and of course we would want the brothels themselves to be protected, so they don't get sued in case a married person gets divorced due to a visit [much like a gun manufacturer should not be held accountable for a murder with one of their guns, and a car maker should not be held accountable for vehicular manslaughter with one of their cars.] The other issue is that if something should happen with the licensing/testing, and if an employee with a bad disease should pass it to a customer, it might take a while to show up. But I guess that's similar to a medical malpractice kind of thing, and if we could tighten up our civil lawsuit system, that [the threat of either economic sanction via a valid lawsuit, or the threat of going out of business due to marketplace forces] would be a motivator for the brothels to keep themselves clean and policed.
[/QUOTE]



I know you mean so they can't sue the brothels, but do you also mean so it can't be used as a reason for divorce? That would be absurd in my mind.

The "special cases" would likely be something a person applied for. If a person is severely disfigured for example, the chance of sexual relations is often minimal.

Though, I think one major thing people ignore is getting rid of violence and forced prostitution. I remember in toronto they'd often advertise places on the radio where sex workers could go to relax, talk with other sex workers, report problems etc. They were privately run, but at least they were addressing the other side of prostitution, the hardships, abusive pimps and abusive customers. Something needs to be done to ensure prostitutes are protected and treated as employees just like in any other business. I don't think this can be effectively accomplished if it's strictly a private industry like other businesses, do to the seedy nature of it now and the people who would likely be in charge if it was legalized.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Actually whenever "sin" increases they win with a hoard of new followers who've become disillusioned and none too bright from their constant years of personal abuse.[/QUOTE]

Mmmm - I don't know about that.

When prohibition was halted, it didn't cause a max influx of power back into the christian church, I would argue that marijuana is a similar issue.

As for prostitution, it's closest cousin is porn and I don't think that porn has done anything to bolster the power of the christian church. As much as people talk a moral game in public, there is an explosion of repressed and redirected sexual energy manifested in every variety of fetish porn, much of it quite disturbing.

Christian orthodoxy becomes less relevant to lives of most Americans every year. Ask yourself - which of these events gets more attention, a daily reading of the bible or the latest "Survivor" retread.
 
I disagree that the 'bad eggs' could only be removed if it were government regulated. If it were a 'business' like running a restaurant or selling stuff, there are already tons of laws and restrictions already protected employees. Minor tweaking to fit the special nature of this industry, and it would be fine. Kids under 8 no longer work at the coal mines for 18 hours a day, and while it would most likely take a little time to 'purge' the people who shouldn't be running a business, making it a legitimate business would help to self-correct that problem. Especially once consumers and employees start talking about it and sharing their experiences.
I do agree that those scumbags, violent predatory abusive pimps, etc, should be run out of the business and imprisoned, but I also don't think having the government run it would be the best way to do so. And the government, both state and fed, already heavily regulates every other industry, and virtually all of them are run better than their government-run counterparts, since they're after a profit.

No, basically that the brothel/prositute not be held accountable if a divorce should come about due to their offering of services. The waiver would either be from one spouse to the other saying you can do this, or from the recipient of the services saying I absolve the company of any liability etc etc etc.

And you're assuming that somehow a government employee, or a government-run industry, is inherently better than a private one, which is not at all the case. There are 'abusive' people, physically and mentally, in government positions as well [check out most any prison, for instance.] In fact, there are a lot of research studies postulating that abuse, either active or passive, is less likely to happen in a privatized prison. Some of the same arguments for privating prisons could apply to privatizing prostitution.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']I disagree that the 'bad eggs' could only be removed if it were government regulated. If it were a 'business' like running a restaurant or selling stuff, there are already tons of laws and restrictions already protected employees. Minor tweaking to fit the special nature of this industry, and it would be fine. Kids under 8 no longer work at the coal mines for 18 hours a day, and while it would most likely take a little time to 'purge' the people who shouldn't be running a business, making it a legitimate business would help to self-correct that problem. Especially once consumers and employees start talking about it and sharing their experiences.
I do agree that those scumbags, violent predatory abusive pimps, etc, should be run out of the business and imprisoned, but I also don't think having the government run it would be the best way to do so. And the government, both state and fed, already heavily regulates every other industry, and virtually all of them are run better than their government-run counterparts, since they're after a profit.

No, basically that the brothel/prositute not be held accountable if a divorce should come about due to their offering of services. The waiver would either be from one spouse to the other saying you can do this, or from the recipient of the services saying I absolve the company of any liability etc etc etc.

And you're assuming that somehow a government employee, or a government-run industry, is inherently better than a private one, which is not at all the case. There are 'abusive' people, physically and mentally, in government positions as well [check out most any prison, for instance.] In fact, there are a lot of research studies postulating that abuse, either active or passive, is less likely to happen in a privatized prison. Some of the same arguments for privating prisons could apply to privatizing prostitution.[/QUOTE]

I haven't seen such studies, but I think it would be difficult because you'd have to start with a basic assumption of what private prisons would be like.

But by having it essentially government controlled, it would hopefully drive a lot of the dangerous ones out (ie. drug dealing pimps probably have little interest in going on file as a government employee), and it would be easier to prevent felons or people with a history of abuse from taking those jobs. But that's also a very different environment than running a brothel, as the employees aren't aren't like locked up criminals. Basically, I think it would be easier to control and easier to monitor, and therefore less likely to be subject to criminal elements that get involved in some strip clubs for example. That may be different in countries with high levels of corruption, but not in the u.s.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']I think the 'regulation' end of it should only attempt to make it 'safe' [disease testing, etc.]
I despise all sin and luxury taxes in principle [because they're inherently unfair and hypocritical--everything *everyone else* does is a 'sin' or a 'luxury', and of course as long as something is legal, the government shouldn't be using taxation to legislate morality. If it's immoral/wrong, make it illegal]; however, the FairTax, which I support, would take care of the taxation, both for money coming in and money coming out.[/QUOTE]

Oh I don't want any sort of luxury tax, just typical buisness and salary taxes and some amount of regulation to keep it somewhat safe. You aren't ever going to remove the threat of STDs but you can reduce it greatly through the simple use of rubbers and frequent testing.
 
[quote name='camoor']Mmmm - I don't know about that.

When prohibition was halted, it didn't cause a max influx of power back into the christian church, I would argue that marijuana is a similar issue.

As for prostitution, it's closest cousin is porn and I don't think that porn has done anything to bolster the power of the christian church. As much as people talk a moral game in public, there is an explosion of repressed and redirected sexual energy manifested in every variety of fetish porn, much of it quite disturbing.

Christian orthodoxy becomes less relevant to lives of most Americans every year. Ask yourself - which of these events gets more attention, a daily reading of the bible or the latest "Survivor" retread.[/QUOTE]

AA was started after the 21 admendment wasn't it?;)

It's not the major influx I'm talking about but a minor flux to the extreme right. Whenever you create another easy vice you create a small group of people who over kill on it and in the end find "god". It's the stuff tabloids dance around all the time; how slutty can we be before x% of readers become sick and have a revelation.
 
[size=-1]Sodom and Gomorrah......

:applause: & No it shouldnt be Legal, what type of motherfu**** question is this anyway.

Go back to sleep dawg , really, just take a damn nap and clear your mind. :shame:
[/size]
 
And i think anyone who thinks prostiitution should be legal, they can kiss my ass. I dont care who you is and who you running with, yall remember i said it. People can pass laws for stupid gay marriage laws, space programs, violent video game nonsense, but cant take the time to pass a bill to rid poverty in this so called great land.

Give me a break, america aint no damn greatest country and it damn sure aint no nation under GOD.

This world is a joke, really it is and i keep laughing.
 
[quote name='U2K Tha Greate$t'][size=-1]Sodom and Gomorrah......

:applause: & No it shouldnt be Legal, what type of motherfu**** question is this anyway.

Go back to sleep dawg , really, just take a damn nap and clear your mind. :shame:
[/size][/QUOTE]

Come back when you've at least been blown by a woman.:baby:
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Come back when you've at least been blown by a woman.:baby:[/QUOTE]

Actually i have no plans to engage in that type of behavior and you just remember that if you go out your way to help one person, you should go the next way and help out the next person. If you support prostitution, you is just as foolish as the next people in this world.

I have a wife and i cant think as low as to support prostitution. I aint shocked about this thread tho, i mean strip clubs are legal and my point as been proven once again.

:applause:
 
[quote name='U2K Tha Greate$t']Actually i have no plans to engage in that type of behavior and you just remember that if you go out your way to help one person, you should go the next way and help out the next person. If you support prostitution, you is just as foolish as the next people in this world.

I have a wife and i cant think as low as to support prostitution. I aint shocked about this thread tho, i mean strip clubs are legal and my point as been proven once again.

:applause:[/QUOTE]

I didn't know they let 13 year olds marry outside of Kentucky.

If you don't want to join in then keep your fat fucking nose outside the brothel dumbass.
 
Well he asked a question and i am sorry for getting too highstrong for yall, but this really is a dumb question. I aint trying to be disrespectful here , but i find this thread to be a direct insult to GOD and his foundation.

Asking us " Should Prostitution be legal", is like asking the world do you support the Nazi's or KKK or black panthers.

I am done with this thread, i aint even gonna waste my time discussing this manner.
 
It already is legal in parts of Nevada, certain counties there. So if you really need it that badly, just fly to Vegas, and take a quick car ride.
 
[quote name='U2K Tha Greate$t']Well he asked a question and i am sorry for getting too highstrong for yall, but this really is a dumb question. I aint trying to be disrespectful here , but i find this thread to be a direct insult to GOD and his foundation.

Asking us " Should Prostitution be legal", is like asking the world do you support the Nazi's or KKK or black panthers.

I am done with this thread, i aint even gonna waste my time discussing this manner.[/QUOTE]

I just asked god, he says he doesn't care about prostitution, nazi's, the KKK or anyone else on earth for that matter. Thanks for playing though.:D
 
[quote name='uuaww']It already is legal in parts of Nevada, certain counties there. So if you really need it that badly, just fly to Vegas, and take a quick car ride.[/QUOTE]

That solves none of the problems that prostitution brings with it, std transmission, abused women and men (prostitutes, not pimps), drug abuse, organized crime involvment etc. Legalizing and controlling it can help fight those issues.
 
I say legalize it. I voted for private but after reading some of these replies, I now agree that the government should step in to help prevent STDs and everything.
 
[quote name='U2K Tha Greate$t']Well he asked a question and i am sorry for getting too highstrong for yall, but this really is a dumb question. I aint trying to be disrespectful here , but i find this thread to be a direct insult to GOD and his foundation.

Asking us " Should Prostitution be legal", is like asking the world do you support the Nazi's or KKK or black panthers.

I am done with this thread, i aint even gonna waste my time discussing this manner.[/QUOTE]


Well not to get you or your god angry, but prostitution is the world's oldest profession so I really dont think she/he would be that mad or she/he would have struck humans down more often and not just in the book o' tales.
 
[quote name='U2K Tha Greate$t']Give me a break, america ... damn sure aint no nation under GOD. [/QUOTE]

Agreed - now let's start working together to get those words out of the pledge and off our money.

[quote name='U2K Tha Greate$t']Well he asked a question and i am sorry for getting too highstrong for yall, but this really is a dumb question. I aint trying to be disrespectful here , but i find this thread to be a direct insult to GOD and his foundation.[/QUOTE]

You do know Jesus was friends with prostitutes - and he practically made Mary Magdeline a saint. In the bible (old and new) women are using sex to do all kinds of things, from murder (Judith beheading Holofernes) to incest (Lot and his daughters)

Seems to me that Yahweh approves - if you're talking about a different god just let me know.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']AA was started after the 21 admendment wasn't it?;)

It's not the major influx I'm talking about but a minor flux to the extreme right. Whenever you create another easy vice you create a small group of people who over kill on it and in the end find "god". It's the stuff tabloids dance around all the time; how slutty can we be before x% of readers become sick and have a revelation.[/QUOTE]

The radical right will always be pushing their agenda of a totalitarian theocracy on the rest of us. They would like nothing better then to live in a "christian taliban" replete with jail time (or biblical punishment) for women who dare to bare their left breast on national tv, need abortion surgery to live, violate the ten commandments, etc.

That is why We the People, the ones who truly believe that as men and women we should have the rights and priveledges to say and do as we please as long as it does not truly harm others (and I said harm, not offend), need to band together and fight for each and every one of these rights and priveledges as strongly as the radical right does.

I would rather fight their agenda then continually placate them as they march over my rights like the third reich.
 
And for those in fear of a 'totalitarian right', even though this one of the most free nations on the earth, I would think you would be horrified to want the government controlling this aspect of our personal and business lives. [Just curious, what 'rights' of yours have been 'marched over'? Can you still vote? Are you alive? Do you have liberty? Can you own a gun? Are any military personnel being involuntarily quartered in your home?]

What happened to the [alleged] 'right of privacy'? Again, the government already has millions of regulations on every business, from McDonald's to the Mayo Clinic; I believe that letting the government 'have' this industry would be detrimental to the employees and the consumers.
Which reacts better and more quickly to consumer requests/demands, McDs or the DMV? Which runs more efficiently and productively, making a profit, UPS or USPS.

"Pass a bill" to end poverty? Um, yeah. Maybe next they'll wave their magic wand and cure AIDS as well.

"Oh I don't want any sort of luxury tax, just typical buisness and salary taxes and some amount of regulation to keep it somewhat safe. You aren't ever going to remove the threat of STDs but you can reduce it greatly through the simple use of rubbers and frequent testing."

By running it as a private industry, all of these things can be accomplished. Think of what could happen now if a doctor does the wrong thing. I'm not saying mistakes don't happen, but they are greatly lessened by the threat of economic sanctions and loss of business. Of course, sometimes the frivolous lawsuits go too far, and the average person's mentality of 'make the rich company pay, even if they weren't wrong' doesn't help, but that's another story.

Easier to hire people who aren't felons if it was government controlled? I beg to differ. Again, a private company knowing it would be financially liable if it hired the wrong type of person is a great incentive to 'do the right thing'. What's his name, Bernie Kulik, he had two apartments and an affair and no one knew until he almost got one of the highest posts in the country. And the other guy, who lied on his resume about horse training or whatever. Being a 'government' industry is hardly a failsafe protection. And once that person is hired, it's generally very hard to fire someone in a government position.

Specific contracts required to get a license ["in order to keep your license you must have every employee undergo these tests every X months; a toll free private 'help' line must be available for the consumers and employees to call [to report abuse or whatnot"];, the same sort of licensing and monitoring any other business gets, and the threat of economic harm will be more effective than a direct government-run industry, with the added benefit of reacting to consumer's needs and wants much quicker, if at all.

I don't think there would be widespread corruption if the gov't ran it, althoggh there might well be some; I simply think it would be run more inefficiently and with worse treatment of the consumer and the employees. I'd rather it be like a McDonalds than the DMV.
 
[quote name='camoor']The radical right will always be pushing their agenda of a totalitarian theocracy on the rest of us. They would like nothing better then to live in a "christian taliban" replete with jail time (or biblical punishment) for women who dare to bare their left breast on national tv, need abortion surgery to live, violate the ten commandments, etc.

That is why We the People, the ones who truly believe that as men and women we should have the rights and priveledges to say and do as we please as long as it does not truly harm others (and I said harm, not offend), need to band together and fight for each and every one of these rights and priveledges as strongly as the radical right does.

I would rather fight their agenda then continually placate them as they march over my rights like the third reich.[/QUOTE]

Always? Where were they prior to the era of the "christian coalition"? I think the point zion is trying to make is that the passage of liberal-ideological laws (Roe v Wade especially) in fact *created* the opposition to it. It's moot to argue something that's not a legislative matter (you won't find "pro-dwarf tossers" on Capitol Hill, for instance), so there was not such a vehement opposition to laws reducing the christian influence on the structure of United States government until Roe v Wade (or around that time).

As more and more laws are passed in attempts to create a secular society (such as eliminating the hegemonic influence of christianity on dollar bills phrases that you bring up often), those who revel in the christian influence see their position under attack even more; the liberal conspiracy is in full swing at this point, in the eyes of the christian supporters.

I mean, really, a social movement necessarily creates its own opposition. That's all zion was saying.

Should prostitution be legal? As a self-identifying liberal, the idea of making certain that it is safe and legally performed to the greatest utilitarian likelihood seems, to me anyway, to be inherently at odds with the profit motive. In other words, privatization of prostitution might work, if given an overall certifying organization (that provides liability insurance, proper paperwork ensuring the safety and hygiene for all persons involved), such as those cited by piercers or tattoo artists, for instance, were installed (and maybe government regulated). I'm skeptical that, left to their own devices, individual practitioners would ensure consistent safety across the nation. Although my liberal nature prohibits me from embracing the consistency and cleanliness of the mcdonald's deskilled and routinized business model, I do think that, in terms of testing all persons (employees and consumers) and ensuring protection is an absolute must, and should be standardized to apply to all brothels.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']I didn't know they let 13 year olds marry outside of Kentucky.[/QUOTE]

Careful what you say 'bout the bluegrass state. ;)
 
I think it should be privately run with government regulations to observe.

Kinda like a restaurant.

I'll take the number 2 combo with a side of handcuffs....and could you er.... 8-[ 'supersize' it? :oops:

If you keep it in the private sector things will be more business minded and things will be run in a more efficient manor. However, healthcodes are broken with alarming frequency... sooo there you have it.
 
[quote name='dtcarson']And for those in fear of a 'totalitarian right', even though this one of the most free nations on the earth, I would think you would be horrified to want the government controlling this aspect of our personal and business lives. [Just curious, what 'rights' of yours have been 'marched over'? Can you still vote? Are you alive? Do you have liberty? Can you own a gun? Are any military personnel being involuntarily quartered in your home?][/quote]

You seem to debate yourself here. Government control or regulation of any industry is infringement on rights, yet the next few lines dispute that (the alive, liberty, guns etc. part). Government regulation or control of an industry does not effect my, or anyones, rights in my mind.

Which reacts better and more quickly to consumer requests/demands, McDs or the DMV? Which runs more efficiently and productively, making a profit, UPS or USPS.
Click to expand...

Yes, and they would be quicker to react to the taste of customers, be less concerned about the prostitutes and put them in more dangerous situations.



Easier to hire people who aren't felons if it was government controlled? I beg to differ. Again, a private company knowing it would be financially liable if it hired the wrong type of person is a great incentive to 'do the right thing'. What's his name, Bernie Kulik, he had two apartments and an affair and no one knew until he almost got one of the highest posts in the country. And the other guy, who lied on his resume about horse training or whatever. Being a 'government' industry is hardly a failsafe protection. And once that person is hired, it's generally very hard to fire someone in a government position.
Click to expand...

And that doesn't happen more often elsewhere? And the two apartments and an affair is nobodies business but him, his mistress and his wifes. Lying on your resume is a relatively minor legal offense, totally outside of what is being discussed. But brothels would likely be even seedier than strip clubs, and they don't always attract the best owners, staff or clientele.

I don't think there would be widespread corruption if the gov't ran it, althoggh there might well be some; I simply think it would be run more inefficiently and with worse treatment of the consumer and the employees. I'd rather it be like a McDonalds than the DMV.
Click to expand...

But who treats its employees better, mcdonalds or the dmv? Walmart or the dmv? In an industry such as this, sex workers should come before the customers. An industry entirely motivated by profit could be a danger to the sex workers.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You seem to debate yourself here. Government control or regulation of any industry is infringement on rights, yet the next few lines dispute that (the alive, liberty, guns etc. part). Government regulation or control of an industry does not effect my, or anyones, rights in my mind..[/QUOTE]

Actually, I was responding to multiple posts here. Someone was talking about some massive removal of rights that doesn't exist.
Gov't *control* of an industry can indeed by infringement of rights, which is another reason I don't think the [federal] gov't should be running this industry. Government does have the, er, right, to regulate certain portions of industry without technically infringing on rights. I do think it has gone way too far in many cases [thanks in part to a very open interpretation of the commerce clause], but the Constitution does not prohibit the federal government from having *any* involvement in industry. Ideally their involvement would be very limited--provided some means for redress if a contract was broken, and making it illegal to physically mistreat employees [of course, what constitutes physical mistreatment could be debated as well], and fines/sanctions/penalties for knowingly lying to employees or customers.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
Yes, and they would be quicker to react to the taste of customers, be less concerned about the prostitutes and put them in more dangerous situations. .[/QUOTE]


Maybe in the 18th century, but thanks to all the existing government regulations, employees have more power than most employers, and there are very few 'dangerous' situations any more, except where it's inherent in the job, and those jobs are generally paid a premium for that danger.
I don't think the private employers are as evil as you make them out to be. Since he relies on both customers and employees to make money, he is more likely to treat his employees well, than if there were a government-run monopoly providing a 'service' that has no profit motivation. If the company knowingly puts its employees in dangerous situations, since we're eliminating the violent, rule-by-beating-and-drugs-pimps, and opening the marketplace, that employee could quit and work somewhere else. Or communicate with the other workers to compare employers and customers, etc. Or even go union and strike. It's in the employer's best interests to treat both its customers and its employees well. And many companies have very specific contracts about what can or cannot be done, there's no reason this industry couldn't have the same--if you like Sex Practice A, work for Co. A, if you don't like A, don't work for them.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
And that doesn't happen more often elsewhere? And the two apartments and an affair is nobodies business but him, his mistress and his wifes. Lying on your resume is a relatively minor legal offense, totally outside of what is being discussed. But brothels would likely be even seedier than strip clubs, and they don't always attract the best owners, staff or clientele.
Sure it does. My point is simply that the mere fact of it being a 'government' industry doesn't invest it, or its employees, with some sort of holiness.
About the seediness--that is speculation. There are some scuzzy strip clubs, and there are some not-so-bad ones. There are scuzzy restaurants, and not-so-bad ones. It's not necessarily limited to this industry. And for this to happen at all, there would have to be a level of societal acceptance, which I don't think exists yet. The seediness is due to the 'sneakiness' of the strip industry, it's still seen as underground and 'dirty', and that would certainly pass through to a legalized brothel, at least until it got more accepted.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']
But who treats its employees better, mcdonalds or the dmv? Walmart or the dmv? In an industry such as this, sex workers should come before the customers. An industry entirely motivated by profit could be a danger to the sex workers.
Click to expand...

I don't know that any of those companies beat their employees, or chain them to their desks/registers, or 'mistreat' them widely [of course there are isolated instances of powermad jerkasses in management, that goes for any industry]. In each of them, someone voluntarily applied for a job, someone accepted a job at a given wage, with given benefits, and a given set of tasks, knowing they could also quit at any time or be released if they didn't perform the job. Seems like apples to apples to me. Any industry entirely motivated by profit could be a danger to its employees. In a free marketplace, the market and the employees can react to that and let it know that you should not endanger your employees; the free market has the benefit of not having to deal with the inertia of government and can react to better its offerings to all.
 
[quote name='dtcarson'] Maybe in the 18th century, but thanks to all the existing government regulations, employees have more power than most employers, and there are very few 'dangerous' situations any more, except where it's inherent in the job, and those jobs are generally paid a premium for that danger.
I don't think the private employers are as evil as you make them out to be. Since he relies on both customers and employees to make money, he is more likely to treat his employees well, than if there were a government-run monopoly providing a 'service' that has no profit motivation. If the company knowingly puts its employees in dangerous situations, since we're eliminating the violent, rule-by-beating-and-drugs-pimps, and opening the marketplace, that employee could quit and work somewhere else. Or communicate with the other workers to compare employers and customers, etc. Or even go union and strike. It's in the employer's best interests to treat both its customers and its employees well. And many companies have very specific contracts about what can or cannot be done, there's no reason this industry couldn't have the same--if you like Sex Practice A, work for Co. A, if you don't like A, don't work for them. [/quote]

Customers don't react like that though, customers still buy clothes from companies that use sweatshops, still shop at walmart despite sex discrimination, refusal to allow unions (they shut down a store, and moved down the street, when a canadian walmart decided to unionize), forced overtime etc. Protecting the employee should not be based on how concerned the customer is.

Prostitution is inherantly dangerous, it takes place behind closed doors with strangers. It involves all the kinks of the customer, such as asphyxiation, aggressive sex and other forms of violence. And violence and threats would prevent women from leaving their employer, which is why I think it is essential to get rid of the people who currently run prostitution. There's also the issue of employers who deal in drugs and get their workers into drugs, therefore giving them a strong financial reason to stay.



Sure it does. My point is simply that the mere fact of it being a 'government' industry doesn't invest it, or its employees, with some sort of holiness.
About the seediness--that is speculation. There are some scuzzy strip clubs, and there are some not-so-bad ones. There are scuzzy restaurants, and not-so-bad ones. It's not necessarily limited to this industry. And for this to happen at all, there would have to be a level of societal acceptance, which I don't think exists yet. The seediness is due to the 'sneakiness' of the strip industry, it's still seen as underground and 'dirty', and that would certainly pass through to a legalized brothel, at least until it got more accepted.
Click to expand...

Strip clubs, you acknowledge, don't have a high level of social acceptance. The offenses that can occur by employers of prostitutes are, realistically, greater than what occurs in restaurants, and I feel that what I've argued would make it somewhat more acceptable, and a little less seedy, than just leaving it to the strip clubs or former pimps.



I don't know that any of those companies beat their employees, or chain them to their desks/registers, or 'mistreat' them widely [of course there are isolated instances of powermad jerkasses in management, that goes for any industry]. In each of them, someone voluntarily applied for a job, someone accepted a job at a given wage, with given benefits, and a given set of tasks, knowing they could also quit at any time or be released if they didn't perform the job. Seems like apples to apples to me. Any industry entirely motivated by profit could be a danger to its employees. In a free marketplace, the market and the employees can react to that and let it know that you should not endanger your employees; the free market has the benefit of not having to deal with the inertia of government and can react to better its offerings to all.
Click to expand...

That's very different though, it doesn't always have to be extreme examples. For example, a woman doesn't want to have sex with a particular client. Many strip clubs allow the woman to have the final say over clients they deal 1 on 1 with, some don't. Forcing an employee to engage in sex (under threat of firing), bringing in drugs to create a financial incentive for employees to stay, threatening or forcing the employee to perform acts they have no intention or desire to do (ie. a guy wants to have very rough sex, but the sex worker is never told of this, or is threatened with firing if they don't agree). Removing profit as the sole incentive would help to ensure that the empoyees aren't overly subject to the will of the customer.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Always? Where were they prior to the era of the "christian coalition"? I think the point zion is trying to make is that the passage of liberal-ideological laws (Roe v Wade especially) in fact *created* the opposition to it. It's moot to argue something that's not a legislative matter (you won't find "pro-dwarf tossers" on Capitol Hill, for instance), so there was not such a vehement opposition to laws reducing the christian influence on the structure of United States government until Roe v Wade (or around that time).

As more and more laws are passed in attempts to create a secular society (such as eliminating the hegemonic influence of christianity on dollar bills phrases that you bring up often), those who revel in the christian influence see their position under attack even more; the liberal conspiracy is in full swing at this point, in the eyes of the christian supporters.

I mean, really, a social movement necessarily creates its own opposition. That's all zion was saying.[/QUOTE]

Seems to me that prohibition was a polarizing issue that separated out the dogmatic (and radical feminists - talk about odd bedfellows) from the rational. However these issues have happened all throughout the history of the United States - the founding fathers, Lincoln, and countless others wouldn't have commented on the tyranny that follows the institution of religiously-motivated legislation if it didn't have a great impact (Heck, lookup the Salem witch trials if you want to go all the way back)

I would agree that by discrediting bunk such as "Intelligent Design" and advocating that the government abstain from promoting religious propaganda, advocates of church-state separation are probably serving to mobilize the religious fanatics. However I see no reason to back down from saying what I believe simply because it could get one more voter out to the polls, even if he doesn't agree with what I said.
 
I don't see anything wrong with the current system in place, an issue such as this is just such a huge lightning rod of wasting time. The added burden to the legislative process and the court system would hardly be worth whatever tax gains could be eked out. People should be happy with a perfectly good porn distribution system (the internet) as well as numerous relatively safe hookup situations from college campuses to bars and clubs. You start a debate about prostitution, which america at this point cannot have a rational conversation about, and it is one more very, very low issue of import come election time, or a case being argued before the supreme court or a law being passed by congress.
 
[quote name='vherub']I don't see anything wrong with the current system in place, an issue such as this is just such a huge lightning rod of wasting time. The added burden to the legislative process and the court system would hardly be worth whatever tax gains could be eked out. People should be happy with a perfectly good porn distribution system (the internet) as well as numerous relatively safe hookup situations from college campuses to bars and clubs. You start a debate about prostitution, which america at this point cannot have a rational conversation about, and it is one more very, very low issue of import come election time, or a case being argued before the supreme court or a law being passed by congress.[/QUOTE]

It's of low importance if you think prostitutes are worthless human beings and no effort should be done to ensure their safety and no effort should be made to deprive criminals of a source of income (ie. their prostitutes). You could dramatically improve the conditions of sex workers by simply legalizing it (many won't report abuses out of fear of arrest, or have sex in dangerous, hidden areas), and improve it even more by enacting regulations.
 
"maybe" improve conditions by legalizing, the truth of the matter is no one has any clue of conditions at the moment, outside of a couple friend of a friend experiences or the tuesday night lifetime movie. Conventional wisdom perhaps leads one to believe prostitution is currently rife with abuse and tells of terror. Or maybe not. Maybe it is going on in the interior rooms of strip clubs, massage parlors, or dating/escort services with less incident. Not you or I or anyone knows and so no one can say with authority whether there is or is not abuse happening to a rampant level.

My point is this issue opens a dialogue of energy and money better spent on a great deal of other issues. Additionally, as a great many people already complain about varying levels of governing and government incompetence, who is to say involvement would make the situation better and more safe? Are a person's chances of contracting an std greater right now by illiciting a prostitute, or going home with some random person you meet at a bar? Or similarly, are the chances for rape/abuse/murder higher ina situation with a prostitute or with a drunk person on a college campus, or someone going to a complete stranger's place in a like scenario?

Again, no one knows, we all may feel one truth is more true. But that is not worth anything.
 
Similar to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tabacco, and Firearms; there will have to be a new regulatory agency. Perhaps the Department of Bitches and Hos? More importantly, who gets to be the Secretary of Bitches and Hos?
 
[quote name='vherub']"maybe" improve conditions by legalizing, the truth of the matter is no one has any clue of conditions at the moment, outside of a couple friend of a friend experiences or the tuesday night lifetime movie. Conventional wisdom perhaps leads one to believe prostitution is currently rife with abuse and tells of terror. Or maybe not. Maybe it is going on in the interior rooms of strip clubs, massage parlors, or dating/escort services with less incident. Not you or I or anyone knows and so no one can say with authority whether there is or is not abuse happening to a rampant level.[/QUOTE]

Forced prostitution is a form of sexual slavery that is often directed at immigrants to Western and Asian countries. Often the "owners" of these people will confiscate passports and/or money in order to make the women involved completely reliant on them. This practice, also known as sex trafficking or human trafficking is illegal in most countries. Human trafficking is not the same as people smuggling...
Due to the illegal nature of trafficking, the exact extent is unknown. A US Government report published in 2003, estimates that 800,000-900,000 people worldwide are trafficked across borders each year, the majority to South East Asia, Japan, Europe and North America. The trafficking of women has also been recordrd in South Asia and the Middle East and from Latin America into the United States.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_slavery

So we don't know how many of those trafficking victims are women and children, but I'm betting they comprise a substantial amount of the victims (especially when you can have unskilled labor done voluntarily by migrant workers who come and leave as they choose)

Sex slavery is a big problem, responsible regulation of prostitution would take the wind out of it's sails, similar to how the end of prohibition meant the end of liquor bootlegging and a great decline in the mafia and black market's revenue.

IMO it's a way more important issue then fighting the "drug war" against benign substances like Marijuana, or paying millions to the FCC to ensure that a cuss word doesn't slip out in primetime.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']It's of low importance if you think prostitutes are worthless human beings and no effort should be done to ensure their safety and no effort should be made to deprive criminals of a source of income (ie. their prostitutes). You could dramatically improve the conditions of sex workers by simply legalizing it (many won't report abuses out of fear of arrest, or have sex in dangerous, hidden areas), and improve it even more by enacting regulations.[/QUOTE]

I just read this today, and thought it quite apt:

Prisons are built with stones of Law, brothels with bricks of Religion.

- William Blake
Click to expand...
 
[quote name='vherub']"maybe" improve conditions by legalizing, the truth of the matter is no one has any clue of conditions at the moment, outside of a couple friend of a friend experiences or the tuesday night lifetime movie. Conventional wisdom perhaps leads one to believe prostitution is currently rife with abuse and tells of terror. Or maybe not. Maybe it is going on in the interior rooms of strip clubs, massage parlors, or dating/escort services with less incident. Not you or I or anyone knows and so no one can say with authority whether there is or is not abuse happening to a rampant level.

My point is this issue opens a dialogue of energy and money better spent on a great deal of other issues. Additionally, as a great many people already complain about varying levels of governing and government incompetence, who is to say involvement would make the situation better and more safe? Are a person's chances of contracting an std greater right now by illiciting a prostitute, or going home with some random person you meet at a bar? Or similarly, are the chances for rape/abuse/murder higher ina situation with a prostitute or with a drunk person on a college campus, or someone going to a complete stranger's place in a like scenario?

Again, no one knows, we all may feel one truth is more true. But that is not worth anything.[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry, the suggestion that these things "maybe" occuring is wrong, indisputably, flat out wrong. First lets use common sense (something that's very innacurate and I'm not overly fond of, but it's a decent place to start in a few cases). I'm focusing on street prostitution, the main thing I want to get rid of. Lets consider the very nature of this form of prostitution. It's usually run by criminals, drug dealers etc. (street prostitutes that is, the main issue here) whose one and only goal is profit. It often involves being picked up by strange men in the late hours of the night and taken to back allies inside their cars. It involves all types, normal people to sadistic ones who get off on asphyxiation and rape. Transgender prostitutes are often the victims of angry customers who find out they were born male. Prostitute murders, compared to murders of "respectable" people, rarely get much attention from the police, unless there is a string of them.

Now lets see some statistics:

Eighty-two percent of these respondents reported having been physically assaulted since entering prostitution. Of those who had been physically assaulted, 55% had been assaulted by customers. Eighty-eight percent had been physically threatened while in prostitution, and 83% had been physically threatened with a weapon. Eight percent reported physical attacks by pimps and customers which had resulted in serious injury (for example, gunshot wounds, knife wounds, injuries from attempted escapes).
Sixty-eight percent of these respondents reported having been raped since entering prostitution. Forty-eight percent had been raped more than five times. Forty-six percent of those who reported rapes stated that they had been raped by customers. Forty-nine percent reported that pornography was made of them in prostitution; and 32% had been upset by an attempt to make them do what customers had seen in pornography....

Fifty percent of these respondents stated that they had a physical health problem. Fourteen percent reported arthritis or nonspecific joint pain; 12% reported cardiovascular symptoms; 11% reported liver disorders; 10% reported reproductive system symptoms; 9% reported respiratory symptoms; 9% reported neurological symptoms, such as numbness or seizures. Eight percent reported HIV infection. Seventeen percent of these respondents stated that they would choose immediate admission to a hospital for an acute emotional problem or drug addiction or both. Five percent reported that they were currently suicidal.
A drug abuse problem was reported by 75% of these respondents and an alcohol abuse problem by 27%....

Posttraumatic Stress Disorder

Sixty-eight percent of our respondents met criteria for a PTSD diagnosis. Seventy-six percent met criteria for partial PTSD.......
Click to expand...

http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/ProsViolPosttrauStress.html

A Canadian Report on Prostitution and Pornography concluded that girls and women in prostitution have a mortality rate 40 times higher than the national average. ( Special Committee on Pornography and Prostitution, 1985, Pornography and Prostitution in Canada 350.) In one study, 75% of women in escort prostitution had attempted suicide. Prostituted women comprised 15% of all completed suicides reported by hospitals. (Letter from Susan Kay Hunter, Council for Prostitution Alternatives, Jan 6, 1993, cited by Phyllis Chesler in "A Woman's Right to Self-Defense: the case of Aileen Carol Wuornos," in Patriarchy: Notes of an Expert Witness, 1994, Common Courage Press, Monroe, Maine.)
Click to expand...


http://www.rapeis.org/activism/prostitution/prostitutionfacts.html

[font=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The CIR study showed that 21.4 percent of women working as escorts had been raped 10 times or more, with comparable rates for other types of sex work. Meanwhile the rapes, beatings and other abuses male and female sex workers suffer are rarely prosecuted. [/font]

[font=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“Crimes against prostitutes usually go unpunished,” says the New York study, authored by Juhu Thukral. “There is a tacit acceptance of this form of violence, usually committed against women. The overwhelming majority of sex workers did not go to police after they experienced violent incidents. Others who attempted to report violent crimes were told by police that their complaints would not be accepted, that this is what they should expect, [/font]
[font=Tahoma, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]that they deserve all that they get.” [/font]
Click to expand...


http://www.rapeis.org/activism/prostitution/sexworkerscivilrights.htm

There are jurisdictions in this country in which these women are denied protection of the law, which is a rather shocking commentary on societal views of both women and rape. In 1991, for example, a journalist published a report that the police in Oakland, California, had closed more than two hundred reports of sexual assault--those made by prostitutes and drug addicts--without a single interview or follow-up investigation. The cases were simply "unfounded''--police jargon for saying that no crime ever occurred. It was only when the news story about their failure to examine the complaints appeared that the police were forced to reopen the many cases.

Similarly, in a Southern California community the same year, police closed all rape reports made by prostitutes and addicts by placing them in a file stamped "NHI''--No Human Involved. It is astounding to see in how many towns and cities this travesty is tolerated. In New York, and in other urban areas where prostitution flourishes despite its illegal status and accompanying risks, the police know full well the reality of the situation and generally are responsive to such complaints.

Click to expand...



http://www.law.harvard.edu/publications/evidenceiii/problems/69.htm

Respondents ranged in age from 12 to 61, with an average age of 28. Nearly 40% were white European/American, one-third were African American, and almost 20% were Latina.

Girls involved in prostitution are increasingly getting younger, dropping from 14, to 13 and 12 years of age. Child prostitution in the United States began to escalate in the late 1980’s after new laws made it more difficult for officials to detain runaway children.............

In Ohio, over the past seven years, the average age when a girl enters prostitution has decreased from 16 to 14.......

The estimated average age of girls who enter street prostitution in San Francisco is fourteen......

Females in prostitution have a mortality rate 40 times higher than the national average.
Click to expand...


http://www.catwinternational.org/factbook/usa2_prost.php
67% of 475 people in prostitution from South Africa, Thailand, Turkey, USA, and Zambia met diagnostic criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 92% stated that they wanted to leave prostitution, and said that what they needed was: a home or safe place (73%); job training (70%); and health care (59%). (Melissa Farley, Isin Baral, Merab Kiremire, Ufuk Sezgin, "Prostitution in Five Countries: Violence and Posttraumatic Stress Disorder" (1998) Feminism & Psychology 8 (4): 405-426..........

In one study, 75% of women in escort prostitution had attempted suicide. Prostituted women comprised 15% of all completed suicides reported by hospitals.
Click to expand...


http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/factsheet.html


Male prostitutes comprise about 20-30% of total prostitutes, and usually reside in bars. They suffer the same abuse but there's even less concern for the fate of them, and many are double outcasts as prostitutes and gay (many serve men and women though). As they garner virtually no attention, I haven't found much on them in the quick search I did, though what I've read earlier about them showed little to suggest they were treated any better, if anything they were often treated worse (but not as bad as transgender prostitutes) since they had no where to turn. In many ways, the incorrect concept of prostitution as oppression of women leaves them with little hope.


The fate of sex workers in this country, and most countries, is not a hidden shame, it is an ignored shame. Medical records, police records and particularly personal accounts are abundant, no one denies these things occur far too often, it's just that no one cares.
 
I dislike raising a topic this far after the fact, but missed your post and felt inclined to respond

My point of maybe legalizing conditions is as follows, you have cited a number of sources, all of which paint a dark picture of prostitution and most likely this is the case. The trouble is that prostitution is also considered, sexual harassment, rape, battering, verbal abuse, domestic violence, and childhood sexual abuse. Legalize prostitution and I am unaware of any studies that shows these will decline. Addionally, 20-25% of all women are raped during college (aauw.org) among other eye-opening statistics. These are staggering numbers, and it feels like a bandaid approach to suggest that legalizing prostitution somehow automatically makes conditions for prostitutes better not only because conditions, while probably dismal, are not as well documented as they should be, but because our society can be very sexually violent and abusive in the face of laws an regulations.
Amsterdam is often pointed to as the example of legalized prostitution, and yet are the conditions that wonderful? Here is an msnbc link (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3071965/) showing that sex trafficing increases, abuse continues and a large number of prostitutes practice with fraudulent documents, circumventing the point of the system in the first place.

With those statistics you list, each of which are terrible and indefensible, I fail to see the link that legalizing prostitution alleviates these conditions. All the moreso when viewing the collosal areas of neglect and poor management other arms of the government have been known to exercise from time to time.

Lastly, legalizing prostitution can potentially (and very well may not) create a huge lobbying agency that I would be frightened to imagine. Casinos, for example, just destory people's lives. You mentioned suicide rates of prostitutes, the causal relationship between suicide and gambling is just as high, if not higher (http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/gambling/facts/a0029094.cfm). And yet gambling interests have become an ever larger lobbying force because of legalization. And I don't feel that is a good thing.

I agree it is a hidden and ignored shame, and one that needs to be addressed, I just worry that legalization puts too much faith in the noble efforts of man.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top