# Prostitution and should it be FULLY legalised



## don maico

I say this with a heavy heart, given the serial murders which have recently taken place in Suffolk, a county on the eastern side of England. I am sure most of you would have heard/read about them,and if not you probably will soon. Five young girls were found naked in wooded areas and in farmland.  There was little left in terms of forensics, as the perpetrator obviously takes great care. I fear  it wont be the last and that in time more bodies will be discovered. I might like to add that the five girls are what we euphemistically call working girls a.k.a. prostitutes who provided a service in order to fund a heroin habit

I ask, should we not fully legalise prostitution (the same question applies to other countries), and should we not provide proper safeguards and facilities for these professional ladies to operate? We have in this country the ridiculous situation that, whereas it's perfectly legal to be a prostitute, it is not legal to solicit or to run a brothel. The police turn a blind eye most of the time, but it does mean the girls have to ply their trade on the streets and in secluded areas, which makes them very vulnerable. There are a number of "brothels"in th Uk called massage parlours, which invariably get closed down once the police recieve sufficient complaints. Ditto private addresses used for " immoral" purposes.Therefore my  argument is let's face the fact that when there is a demand, than there will be those willing to provide a supply. Let's have properly run brothels in non residential areas and tell the tedious moralists who continually spout their self righteous drivel to take a hike.What say you


----------



## xarruc

Somethings work better when authorities take a blind eye. Speeding on the motorway used to be a good example. Everybody did 80-85. If you took the piss they'd do you for it (but that was before speedng fines were used to finance PR departments) If you keep it illegal and turn a blind eye, you can control it without people declaring their rights left, right and centre. Allow red-like districts to work but keep it flexible. If things get out of control the police do a raid, let everything calm down and so on. Better that than pensions for pimps and girls with nothing on in the windows next to the chip shop. Let charities do the the do-gooding that needs to be done.


----------



## palomnik

I've always believed that prostitution is an inherently dangerous profession, and much more so when illegal.  Better to have it regulated; it will be safer for all concerned.  Here in the States the only place I know of where it's legal is in certain counties in Nevada, and regulation appears to work quite well there.


----------



## don maico

palomnik said:


> I've always believed that prostitution is an inherently dangerous profession, and much more so when illegal.  Better to have it regulated; it will be safer for all concerned.  Here in the States the only place I know of where it's legal is in certain counties in Nevada, and regulation appears to work quite well there.


Famous brothel by the name of Chicken Ranch. Their rates are astronomical , $1000 plus for a "party"and the 'madam" is English. Still the girls are very well protected and well paid too I gather. Overhere we do have some "sensible" girls that work from their homes, often in small groups . The police know about them but until neighbours complain and the local council asks them to take action, they turn a blind eye.They dont get much in the way of protection though. I would again argue that we need properly designed areas for this kind of trade. In Amsterdam they have had a red light district near the port for years as the seaman required servicing when their ships docked. The rest of the city is clean and most of its inhabitants religious and conservative but they are also realists. We have much to learn from them


----------



## John-Paul

The Dutch are pragmatic, not very judgemental and most of them are not particularly conservative (A Dutch "conservative" would be considered a liberal in the US). If you want be a prostitute, hey, go ahead, but you have to pay taxes on your income and make sure you have yourself checked regularly. But - does that mean that prostitution is suddenly a save profession? No. In the Netherlands right now there are still many women who were lured from other countries under false pretenses. International gangs put these girls (most of them are under 20) to work all over Europe. It's a really disgusting practice because these women are working against their will, they force them to use addictive drugs, they take their passports and when they falter they drop them like a bag of cement. So should there be a USDA seal for prostitution? I don't think so, because there will alway be men who feel the need to visit women who are abused, addicted and barely alive. Personally I think if we want to do something about a problem like this we have to look at a bigger picture. To be intimate with someone you love or really like is to be recommended, but for many men it still a purpose driven activity, they need to "score" somehow it's considered admirable if you have bedded many women (and interestingly, prostitutes don't count). Second, look at how we communicate in the public arena, and try to look through the eyes of Freud, it's not even symbolic anymore. You want to sell a drink, you use a scantily clad pretty woman in your ads, or you use a good looking guy, or both. Our sexual receptors are constantly being activated during the day and at night, not only will that make us buy more stuff (gives us also feeling of accomplishment) but also stimulate our sex drive. If the licensed prostitutes are busy, or too expensive, what do you do? (Let's not talk about internetporn - why is that legal?)

My point is that there are several problems tying into each other. There is not one solution, because every solution will create another problem. But we have to keep doing that because we don't want them to win. So, yes, legalization is a good step, but be prepared for what will happen next.


----------



## fenixpollo

xarruc said:


> Speeding on the motorway used to be a good example. Everybody did 80-85. If you took the piss they'd do you for it.


 If you did what they would what?  Could someone translate this into English for me?





> Allow red-*like *districts to work but keep it flexible.


Do you mean red-light districts, as in an area of the city to which the sex industry is segregated?





> Better that than pensions for pimps and girls with *nothing on in the windows* next to the chip shop.


I understand that the chip shop is a small stand for fish-n-chips (we have "burrito shacks" here -- same idea), but what's this about the windows? 





> Let charities do the the do-gooding that needs to be done.


 What if not enough people are willing to show charity to the working girls?  Leave them to their fate in a wooded area in Suffolk?

And don maico, are you suggesting that if the industry were regulated, then such serial killings could be prevented?


----------



## panjabigator

I believe it should be legalized.  It is a dangerous job (and no, someone doesn't have to do it) and at least with the state checking up on it we can make sure that everyone is safer in the end.  Yeah, so the stigma may continue to exist, but at least there will be less people on the streets at night.


----------



## don maico

fenixpollo said:


> If you did what they would what?
> And don maico, are you suggesting that if the industry were regulated, then such serial killings could be prevented?


He means that if you drove well in excess of 80-85 ( I assume he means mph)then the law would come down on you. Taking the piss in this context means abusing the system.


I am suggesting that working girls operating from well regulated brothels which have bodyguards in attendance woud stand a better chance of survival than those left walking the streets who are picked up by kerb crawlers.

Here is a link to the story
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/6175797.stm


----------



## maxiogee

I believe it should be legalised.
Criminalising it has drawn all sorts of unsavoury characters to dabble in it for great financial gain, and at great expense to the women who offer the service.
I disagree with the concept of any two-way transaction being illegal only for one of the parties - if selling something is illegal, then buying it should be also. But who write most laws, who pass most laws aned who enforce most laws - men or women?
I also disagree with the idea that there should be a "residential area" limit on brothels though - that is precisely where people who offer personal professional services set up businesses - doctors, dentists, plumbers etc all offer services from their own homes in many parts of the world. Why should prostitution be forced into grubby industrial estates or deserted city centres - have you seen these places late at night? No-one would want to frequent a place set up in a run-down and seedy part of town. 

Legalise it and there is some chance of normalising society's views of prostitutes - people who offer services which some people want, and which they are unable to get, for free, from others.


----------



## xarruc

The comment of speeding is thus:

The British speed limit is 70 mph and has been since before cars could reach 70. Most drivers feel safe and competent under good conditions (weather and traffic) to drive at 80 to 85 mph and so they do. There used to be some unwritten, unacknowledged agreement that drivers doing that would not be arrested unless a) they were driving like a maniac, b) driving faster than 85 mph or c) failed to spot the police car coming in the mirrors  and slow down (IE wern't driving with due dilligence) If you didnt break these three then they would not set out to book you for it. 

The reason for this was clear - the speed limit should have been 80ish and if a policecar did do 70 on a motorway there would be a traffic jam behind it (as you cant overtake it) hence most coppers do a bit more or a bit less than the limit.


----------



## xarruc

the comment about windows:

In Amsterdam the girls tout their wares in red-lit shop fronts. I was making the comment that people would not like to see that in their neighbourhood. As in - you go to your take-away cafe to buy freedom fries and in the next shop's window is a naked girl cavoting - it mightput you off your Steak 'n Kidney pie.


----------



## fenixpollo

Thanks for the explanations, michael and xarruc.  Very clear. 


maxiogee said:


> No-one would want to frequent a place set up in a run-down and seedy part of town.
> 
> Legalise it and there is some chance of normalising society's views of prostitutes - people who offer services which some people want, and which they are unable to get, for free, from others.


 Well, I think that the people who are against legalization would counter with the idea that prostitution is immoral and that society should not normalize its views on prostitution.  I imagine that they would say that if we criminalize it, marginalize it and demonize it, then people won't frequent prostitutes.  Kind of like the US government's approach to Cuba.


----------



## fenixpollo

xarruc said:


> - you go to your take-away cafe to buy *freedom fries* and in the next shop's window is a naked girl cavoting -


 And that would be a bad thing?

If your use of the word "freedom fries" is to endear yourself to American foreros, it isn't working.


----------



## xarruc

> Let charities do the the do-gooding that needs to be done.



If people are willing to give to good causes they are free to do so. If they choose to put their money here instead of elsewhere then that is their choice. If society does not show enough charity then perhaps society has spoken.

All this said, I actually have nothing against prostitutes nor prostitution. It is the oldest profession and will never go away. However I just think it should be kept discrete and illegal. Prostitutes are not victims per se. It is a business like any other. (Yes of course there are also those who are exploited, enslaved, ....)  To legalise it would open it up to labour laws  (hence pimps on pensions) and rather than being a last resort become "its better than workin at McDonalds, init?" Perhaps it could be like taxis, with a metre running in the corner, extras on bank holidays, charged according to time and distance. 2€ more for extra passengers.


----------



## xarruc

fenixpollo said:


> And that would be a bad thing?
> 
> If your use of the word "freedom fries" is to endear yourself to American foreros, it isn't working.




Just a joke, just a joke


----------



## fenixpollo

Mine, too.


----------



## xarruc

fenixpollo said:


> And that would be a bad thing?
> 
> if you ever see some of the lovelies working the end of the ramblas.....


----------



## Fernando

Consequences of fully legalised prostitution:

1) You should be enforced to accept prostitution job if you are receiving unemployment benefits and you are offered one.

2) Police could not remove prostitutes regardless the disturbances for the public.

3) You could not attack prostitution promotion. "Entrepreneurs" could go to schools and advertise for boys and girls they should work as prostitutes when they arrive to the legal age for work (16 in Spain).

Brothels could freely market in both 1st and 3rd world countries.

4) Universities would offer pre and post-graduates studies on the subject.

5) You could find other spin-off business: "Whip me for only 50 bucks", "I sell my kidney", "Shoot me and enjoy" and so on.

I do not like those consequences. The benefits? Do you really think that legalise prostitution would wipe out the street prostitution? I can see hundreds of street sellers of CDs. As far as I know CD selling is not illegal.


----------



## djchak

Well, then do whatever they are doing in Las Vagas. Becuase I don't see or hear any of the things mentioned above happening.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

Fernando said:


> 1) You should be enforced to accept prostitution job if you are receiving unemployment benefits and you are offered one.



Not necessarily. There's a big difference in working a retail job and as a prostitute, and there's no reason to make it obligatory to accept such a job if legalised.



> 2) Police could not remove prostitutes regardless the disturbances for the public.



Of course they can. Disturbance of the public is the same thing, whether prostitution is legalised or not. What they can _not_ do though, is to remove them simply because they're prostitutes.



> 3) You could not attack prostitution promotion. "Entrepreneurs" could go to schools and advertise for boys and girls they should work as prostitutes when they arrive to the legal age for work (16 in Spain).



How do you get to this conclusion? It depends on the laws in the country I guess, but as far as I know, employers are prohibited from advertising on schools in Norway. Also, there's nothing to stop a legislation from setting the minimum age to 18, regardless of the country's age of consent.



> Brothels could freely market in both 1st and 3rd world countries.



I don't think I understand what you mean here. What's the consequense?



> 4) Universities would offer pre and post-graduates studies on the subject.



Again, where do you get this from? Do you mean simply studies on prostitution, then I'd assume that's already being done, but if you're talking about a university education to become a prostitute, then...well, I don't see your logic.



> 5) You could find other spin-off business: "Whip me for only 50 bucks", "I sell my kidney", "Shoot me and enjoy" and so on.



Nice slippery-slope there. 



> I do not like those consequences. The benefits? Do you really think that legalise prostitution would wipe out the street prostitution? I can see hundreds of street sellers of CDs. As far as I know CD selling is not illegal.



Again I'm having trouble following your logic. No, CD selling isn't illegal. Selling pirate copies of CDs on the street for a tenth of the original price, however, is. 
Of course, there's the possibility of someone offering cheaper services unregulated, but I doubt the majority of customers would take the risk of it.


----------



## panjabigator

My reasoning is pretty lousy, but here goes.  It's going to occur anyway, so having government regulation is a way to create plenty of revenue through tax dollars.  It only makes sense!  You provide a safer atmosphere and there ideally would be less STDs around.  

Imagine the unions and other organizations that would form!

And I'm sure there would be laws against soliciting it on the streets to minors.  But who knows.  How does it work in Nevada?


----------



## don maico

Belatedly. Uk politicians are now talking about amending the laws governing prostitution and allowing small brothels to operate. Why does it always take a tragedy like this for the appropriate changes to talke place??





maxiogee said:


> I also disagree with the idea that there should be a "residential area" limit on brothels though - that is precisely where people who offer personal professional services set up businesses - doctors, dentists, plumbers etc all offer services from their own homes in many parts of the world. Why should prostitution be forced into grubby industrial estates or deserted city centres - have you seen these places late at night? No-one would want to frequent a place set up in a run-down and seedy part of town.
> 
> Legalise it and there is some chance of normalising society's views of prostitutes - people who offer services which some people want, and which they are unable to get, for free, from others.


Whilst in principle I agree in practice the realities dictate that brothels must exist away from residential areas simply because most residents would object to having them in their neighbourhood. More than anything they would worry about the effects on house valuations and on their childern etc.
 In the thirteen years i have lived in my hometown I have heard of three brothels operating. Once they became public knowledge, people complained , the council stepped in and they were closed down.Street walkers, though, are a far greater nuisance .


I would like to see a situation where prostitution was considered perfectly normal and acceptable provided all the necessary safeguards were put in place.Apart from the street worker situation, what we have at the moment is what I would call a cloak and dagger situation where punters and working girls meet in  in hotel rooms, massage parlours and private addreses. The girls themselves would advertise their services in local papers making it obvious what they do without being too graphic, eg:
"Voluptuous lady in her mid thirties would like to meet gentlemen for fun, discretion guaranteed'
As for the punters, the risk of shame necesitates utmost discretion. 
 I would far rather things were kept out in the open and that people as a whole accepted that for some paid sex is a necessity After all some can never have normal relations with the opposite sex, others have higher sex drives than their partners, others have particular pecadilloes which their partners cant satisfy and then there are the physically handicapped who also have lustful desires ( I gather some working girls in Amsterdam specialise in this last group)


----------



## Sallyb36

fenixpollo said:


> Thanks for the explanations, michael and xarruc.  Very clear.  Well, I think that the people who are against legalization would counter with the idea that prostitution is immoral and that society should not normalize its views on prostitution.  I imagine that they would say that if we criminalize it, marginalize it and demonize it, then people won't frequent prostitutes.  Kind of like the US government's approach to Cuba.



Why is it immoral?  It's a consenting act between two adults and as such should not be illegal.


----------



## Fernando

Sallyb36 said:


> Why is it immoral?  It's a consenting act between two adults and as such should not be illegal.



Though I think yours is a good ethical standard, I do not coincide with you.

In most countries the following consenting acts between adults are not considered legal, with general consensus (I disagree with some of them being punished, for the record):

- Working for less than the minimum wage.
- Working for more hours than the law says.
- Forbid unions in the company (regardless the desire of the workers).
- Smoking in the company (at least in Spain, even if every worker agrees).
- Selling body organs.
- Selling crack or other drugs.
- Gambling (limited).
- Driving without seatbelt.
- Selling weapons (limited).
- Selling himself as slave.
- Suicide contracts (I pay you to kill me).
...

I consider that selling your own body is not exactly what I would expect from any society. I do not want any of my countrymates practices such "profession". I will not punish it, but I would not give them no kind of legal status.


----------



## maxiogee

Sallyb36 said:


> Why is it immoral? It's a consenting act between two adults and as such should not be illegal.


 


Fernando said:


> Though I think yours is a good ethical standard, I do not coincide with you.
> 
> In most countries the following consenting acts between adults are not considered legal, with general consensus (I disagree with some of them being punished, for the record):
> 
> - Working for less than the minimum wage.
> - Working for more hours than the law says.
> - Forbid unions in the company (regardless the desire of the workers).
> - Smoking in the company (at least in Spain, even if every worker agrees).
> - Selling body organs.
> - Selling crack or other drugs.
> - Gambling (limited).
> - Driving without seatbelt.
> - Selling weapons (limited).
> - Selling himself as slave.
> - Suicide contracts (I pay you to kill me).
> ...
> 
> I consider that selling your own body is not exactly what I would expect from any society. I do not want any of my countrymates practices such "profession". I will not punish it, but I would not give them no kind of legal status.


 
Sally's "consenting act between two adults" affects no-one else.
Fernando's list of acts all have consequences for people other than the two involved.


----------



## V3nom_is_here

I disagree . Prostitution should never be fully legalised .I`m against the ideea of prostutution . Selling yourself for money is .. I don`t even have to describe it ... even if you are very poor you should never do anything like that


----------



## panjabigator

V3nom_is_here said:


> I disagree . Prostitution should never be fully legalised .I`m against the ideea of prostutution . Selling yourself for money is .. I don`t even have to describe it ... even if you are very poor you should never do anything like that



Unless you make the world wear chastity belts, there is no way of regulating prostitution.  Unless of course if it were state sanctioned!  

Im sure most share your opinions on prostitution though...no one should do it or resort to it.


----------



## caballoschica

Prostitution is a horrible thing.  Do you actually think these prostitutes want to do this?  Don't you think they'd try everything else and leave prostitution as a last resort? Who would _want_ to do that to themselves? 

I agree with panjabigator: It's going to happen anyway.  Why not regulate it (via government)? It'll be safer for them and safer for the masses that aren't involved.


----------



## xarruc

> Do you actually think these prostitutes want to do this?



Im sure some prefer it to a 'normal' life. Like any job, you would rather not do than do it, but given you've got to do something...

I you disagree with me then why do you think they do it? There are, by and large other jobs available. Only they dont pay as well and are longer hours. - And you can't do them doped up.

Of course there are complications, such as owing the pimps.


----------



## maxiogee

V3nom_is_here said:


> I disagree . Prostitution should never be fully legalised .I`m against the ideea of prostutution . Selling yourself for money is .. I don`t even have to describe it ... even if you are very poor you should never do anything like that



Better to starve to death quietly? 
Indoors, preferably so no-one will be disturbed by your passing?

By the way, how do _you_ earn a living?


----------



## V3nom_is_here

xarruc said:


> Im sure some prefer it to a 'normal' life. Like any job, you would rather not do than do it, but given you've got to do something...
> 
> I you disagree with me then why do you think they do it? There are, by and large other jobs available. Only they dont pay as well and are longer hours. - And you can't do them doped up.
> 
> Of course there are complications, such as owing the pimps.


 
You make it sound like it`s something easy ...


----------



## xarruc

V3nom_is_here said:


> You make it sound like it`s something easy ...



It doesn't exactly take much training. Being a brain surgeon, now thats something difficult. I imagine that the hardest thing is bringing yourself to do it. And that's why its paid as well as it is - because most wouldn't.

Is your job easy?


----------



## V3nom_is_here

xarruc said:


> It doesn't exactly take much training. Being a brain surgeon, now thats something difficult. I imagine that the hardest thing is bringing yourself to do it. And that's why its paid as well as it is - because most wouldn't.
> 
> Is your job easy?


 
Theoretically .. it doesn`t take much skill to "do" stuff that prostitutes do .. but "charming" and "handsome" people don`t usually come to prostitutes .. so imagine being a prostitute and having to "satisfy" a fat , drunk , ugly men .. you call that easy ? It`s even worse when somebody enforces you to do it . 

And my job isn`t that kind of hard .. but I can`t tell it .. I don`t usually tell informations about myself .. sorry


----------



## Lemminkäinen

V3nom_is_here said:


> Theoretically .. it doesn`t take much skill to "do" stuff that prostitutes do .. but "charming" and "handsome" people don`t usually come to prostitutes .. so imagine being a prostitute and having to "satisfy" a fat , drunk , ugly men .. you call that easy ? It`s even worse when somebody enforces you to do it .



I'd like to know where you get this information. And who has talked about enforcing someone to becoma a prostitute? How is that relevant to whether it should be legal or not?


----------



## xarruc

I wasn't asking you to tell me your job. Im all for anonymity too. But do you think the people who dress bodies for funerals have an "easy" job? The wage you recieve is based on supply and demand. The supply is short for certain tasks as: 1) they're more taxing than the average man can do. 2) They take a lot of trainng and the demand has shifted in the short-term and there is a lag, or 3) because no one wants to do it.

I don't dispute that being a hooker is unpleasant. I knew an obese alcoholic with tourettes syndrome that used "to be serviced" from time to time. It gives me the shivers, but he had his needs. Perhaps a five minute hand-job with him for the 70 pounds (100 €) he paid suited her better than working in tescos at 4 pound an hour - or put it another way - another customer like him and she had already earnt more than a check-out clerk in a week. Tax-free.


----------



## V3nom_is_here

Lemminkäinen said:


> I'd like to know where you get this information. And who has talked about enforcing someone to becoma a prostitute? How is that relevant to whether it should be legal or not?


 
What information ? It doesn`t take a lot of intelligence to realize that handsome , sucesfull men don`t use prostitutes . And you`ve never heard of pimps ? And it isn`t directly related to whether it should be legal or not .. I was just replying to the other guy who made it look like prostitution is easy ..


----------



## xarruc

I never made it *look* like it was easy (though my prowess is well renowned)!!

I actually never said it was easy. All I said was that there are often other options, and compared it to a regular job.


----------



## maxiogee

maxiogee said:


> By the way, how do _you_ earn a living?





V3nom_is_here said:


> And my job isn`t that kind of hard .. but I can`t tell it .. I don`t usually tell informations about myself .. sorry



That's fine. 
My point was that you more than likely sell your body and/or your brain to your employer. 
They get you for X hours a week and you get Y euros/pounds/dollars.
It is down to the degree of detachment needed to perform for the person paying you.


----------



## TimeHP

I wouldn't use the word 'profession' for prostitution. 
It isn't.
Prostitution is just what the word says: from latin _prostituere_ = to abase, to bend down.
If we decide to legalise prostitution, we give an implicit message to future generations:  
legal = accepted

I think that all this talking of legalising prostitution really hides a poverty of ideas in solving the problem, which isn't giving a shelter to pimps and 'puttanieri' (sorry, I don't know the English word), but helping young and older women to free themselves from the prostitution.

Ciao


----------



## Lemminkäinen

V3nom_is_here said:


> What information ? It doesn`t take a lot of intelligence to realize that handsome , sucesfull men don`t use prostitutes .



So you made it up? I see.


----------



## don maico

Fernando said:


> Though I think yours is a good ethical standard, I do not coincide with you.
> 
> In most countries the following consenting acts between adults are not considered legal, with general consensus (I disagree with some of them being punished, for the record):
> 
> - Working for less than the minimum wage.
> - Working for more hours than the law says.
> - Forbid unions in the company (regardless the desire of the workers).
> - Smoking in the company (at least in Spain, even if every worker agrees).
> - Selling body organs.
> - Selling crack or other drugs.
> - Gambling (limited).
> - Driving without seatbelt.
> - Selling weapons (limited).
> - Selling himself as slave.
> - Suicide contracts (I pay you to kill me).
> ...
> 
> I consider that selling your own body is not exactly what I would expect from any society. I do not want any of my countrymates practices such "profession". I will not punish it, but I would not give them no kind of legal status.


This is precisely the kind of moralising that I was talking about even if it is passive.Its what has pushed these girls to the fringes of society and left them to the mercy of whatever dark forces they might meet.
The police, to their credit, have behaved commendably well and from what i can make out the public/ press reaction has on the whole been quite positive in its attitiude . There was a time when the reaction would've been quite different.Prostitutes would have been regarded as the lowest of the low and little sympathy would've been shown to them. Maybe times are changing for the better.
i am not saying they are angels far from it but when one looks at some of the backgrounds they come from - child abuse ,single parents, neglect, and then getting in with the wrong crowd as teenagers, one can feel some compassion for them and not contempt. Having said that it would appear that some of them do feel contempt for their clients, regarding them as weak. That says more to me about society's attitude towards recreational sex ie dirty ,inmoral etc.



V3nom_is_here said:


> What information ? It doesn`t take a lot of intelligence to realize that handsome , sucesfull men don`t use prostitutes . And you`ve never heard of pimps ? And it isn`t directly related to whether it should be legal or not .. I was just replying to the other guy who made it look like prostitution is easy ..


You are sooooo wrong. Sex clients come in all shapes and sizes, some good looking some not and many of them are farily young and with strong sex drives. Many get a kick out of availing themselves of the services of a lady who would do things that a regular girlfriend might not . others just get off on paid sex.
why do you disparage what you call "fat , drunk ugly men" anyway?



TimeHP said:


> I wouldn't use the word 'profession' for prostitution.
> It isn't.
> Prostitution is just what the word says: from latin _prostituere_ = to abase, to bend down.
> If we decide to legalise prostitution, we give an implicit message to future generations:
> legal = accepted
> 
> I think that all this talking of legalising prostitution really hides a poverty of ideas in solving the problem, which isn't giving a shelter to pimps and 'puttanieri' (sorry, I don't know the English word), but helping young and older women to free themselves from the prostitution.
> 
> Ciao


Its the world's oldest profession and the word is whore or hooker


----------



## Fernando

don maico said:


> This is precisely the kind of moralising that I was talking about even if it is passive.Its what has pushed these girls to the fringes of society and left them to the mercy of whatever dark forces they might meet.



Do you mean legalisation will turn the street prostitutes into rich people capable of buying a huge brothel?

In my country prostitution is not punished and street prostitution is common.

The consequence of legalization is that brothel owners become entrepreneurs (ready for subsidies, by the way) and more boys and girls are (legally) attracted to this business.


----------



## guixols

"It doesn`t take a lot of intelligence to realize that handsome , sucesfull men don`t use prostitutes ."

Ever heard of Hugh Grant?


----------



## PianoMan

Oooh, good one.  Yes, Hugh Grant might be an exception to this, but in my opinion of the original topic:  I don't encourage it, but I don't think it should be illegal, it's how men/women who can't do otherwise, make money.  It may be a shady business, but it doesn't cause public harm.


----------



## Hutschi

Fernando said:


> Consequences of fully legalised prostitution:
> 
> 1) You should be enforced to accept prostitution job if you are receiving unemployment benefits and you are offered one.


 
Some years ago, we had such cases here. The employment office offered such jobs. The general law in Germany is, you cannot refuse a job, if you want money. If you refused, you will not get money for some time.

Of course, the woman refused, it came to the press, and I think, she did not have to accept this job. 

---

If it is fully legalized, you legalize it for children, too. (Fully is fully.)
I think, that should never happen.

Best regards
Bernd


----------



## TimeHP

> Its the world's oldest profession


 
_Old,_ but not a _profession_, anyway. 
Would you say that slavery was a profession? It was an abuse, as old as prostitution but just a way of exploiting, humiliating and oppressing people. 
Like prostitution. 
I know that for many _puttanieri_ it would be convenient to say _it's just_ _a_ 
_a profession. _Like Ponzio Pilato they would clean their (tiny) conscience.



> and the word is whore or hooker


 
No, the word is not _whore_ (or _hooker_ or _bitch_) that in Italian is 'puttana'.
'Puttaniere' is the man that is always looking for whores. We also call
him 'dog for whores'. 

Ciao ciao...


----------



## don maico

TimeHP said:


> _Old,_ but not a _profession_, anyway.
> Would you say that slavery was a profession? It was an abuse, as old as prostitution but just a way of exploiting, humiliating and oppressing people.
> Like prostitution.
> I know that for many _puttanieri_ it would be convenient to say _it's just_ _a_
> _a profession. _Like Ponzio Pilato they would clean their (tiny) conscience.
> 
> 
> 
> No, the word is not _whore_ (or _hooker_ or _bitch_) that in Italian is 'puttana'.
> 'Puttaniere' is the man that is always looking for whores. We also call
> him 'dog for whores'.
> 
> Ciao ciao...


Its a pimp then
and yes its always been called world's oldest profession- fact!


----------



## maxiogee

TimeHP said:


> No, the word is not _whore_ (or _hooker_ or _bitch_) that in Italian is 'puttana'.
> 'Puttaniere' is the man that is always looking for whores. We also call
> him 'dog for whores'.
> 
> Ciao ciao...





don maico said:


> Its a pimp then


No, it's a client, or a "John", I believe.




> and yes its always been called world's oldest profession- fact!


Calling something a name and it warranting the name don't always coincide.

Being paid for a service rendered doesn't make what one does 'a profession'. A profession usually involves prolonged training and a formal qualification.


----------



## don maico

maxiogee said:


> No, it's a client, or a "John", I believe.
> 
> 
> 
> Calling something a name and it warranting the name don't always coincide.
> 
> Being paid for a service rendered doesn't make what one does 'a profession'. A profession usually involves prolonged training and a formal qualification.


 People  still call it the world's oldest profession a word which is often associated with trade people / artisans sportsmen and the like 
" he does it to a professional standard" or "he is a professional footbal player" or  "landscape gardener" in other words earns a living from it. The old days of according that term to a small group of midlles class people are gone.
They are indeed professional ladies some of whom take great pride in what they do.

Anyway i dont wish to get into semantics . I just believe that prostitution should be seen as a perfectly reasonable occupation , an exchange entered into by two adults thats all and which is of no business to anyone else.


----------



## 1Euro

I'm completely for full legalization of prostitution (not of pimping, of course).


----------



## fenixpollo

Fernando said:


> The consequence of legalization is that brothel owners become entrepreneurs (ready for subsidies, by the way) and more boys and girls are (legally) attracted to this business.


I'm afraid I have to agree with you on the second part of your sentence. If it's more available and less stigmatized, then it will also be more accessible as a profession and a service for young people.

I'm not sure what you mean by "subsidies", though. In the US, the government only gives support to certain industries (such as agriculture), and I'm sure that those subsidies would not be extended to prostitution if it were legal.





Hutschi said:


> If it is fully legalized, you legalize it for children, too. (Fully is fully.)


 This is a logical fallacy. It is illegal now. In order to legalize it, the legislature would have to pass a law. In that law, they could apply age restrictions on the people providing and using the service -- just as they restrict how old you have to be to buy and sell alcohol and cigarettes. 





TimeHP said:


> No, the word is not _whore_ (or _hooker_ or _bitch_) that in Italian is 'puttana'.'Puttaniere' is the man that is always looking for whores. We also call him 'dog for whores'.


 Is the word "whore" no longer a vulgarity that it can be thrown around so casually in the forum?


----------



## elpoderoso

I don't think prostitution is a career shoice for any person,to legalize it would be very negative in my opinion, as it would suggest that the Government has given up on trying to get to grips with the root causes of prostitution( I'm not naive enough to imagine all the problems can be solved)
Legalising prostitution would only serve to reinforce the idea to some desperate people that selling their bodies for sex is the only way for them to live.


----------



## 1Euro

Actually, to some desperate people, selling their bodies for sex is the only way for them to live. And for others not so desesperate, it is the only way to live a resemblance of a decent life.

Let's face it: prostitution is here from the beginning, and it will be here probably forever. Sometimes, prostitution is a good option. I had a friend when I was a teenager. She was often abused by her family -physical punishments tantamounting to torture. Her father was a drunkard and her mother, essentially, an unstable sadist. Those were other times, and the welfare network failed miserably. She often came to my home for a hiding, bleeding. At age 14, she went into prostitution and run away. Today, she owns 3 fashion shops in Madrid and other 5 through the country, paid with her you-know-what. Shall anyone judge if it was good for her or not? If she would have chosen "not to be a bad example"?

Prostitution is a hard business, usually with histories as this one (if not directly lured into a foreign country, then stripped from their passports, beaten and forced) where prostitutes involved are too commonly on the brink of social exclusion, and into severe social, physical and psychological danger. Regulating and legalizing it plainly improves such a pitiful condition, dot. I can't see any social good being protected by prohibition that is over this obvious social good.


----------



## TimeHP

> Is the word "whore" no longer a vulgarity that it can be thrown around so casually in the forum?


 
Vulgarity? I can't understand...
Isn't it the word you use for a 'profession'? 

I don't know if it's vulgar in English. I used the word that others used before and that was suggested to me...




> No, it's a client, or a "John", I believe.


 
Exactly. 

Ciao


----------



## JazzByChas

I've heard this debate before...similar to leglized drugs, gambling and the like.

Thorny issue, really...regardless of the "moral" view of such things, legalizing prostitution, or drugs would just make it perhaps more of a business and take away some of the stigma...you know...get medical insurance, better working conditions, safer facilities, etc. for prostitues.

Legalized drugs would take away the incentive for organized crime to profit from it, it has been said.

Well, at the end of the day, these are very good ideas, but the issue, I think is a different one. Would you want (or would you want your daugher) to become a prostitute? Even under the safest of conditions, there is always the risk of STD's. And what does prostitution teach you about relationships? That you can (and should) change partners as often as you want. Well, I like having many different friends, but I like being married and committed to one woman. Cheaper and less complicated...and a more stable environment for my children. If sex becomes a commodity, then their is no longer any real intimacy.

Similarly with gambling...which is another addiction...as sex can also be. Addictive behavior ultimately ends up destroying the participant.

And the horrors of drug addiction I do not even need to address...now, perhaps there should be more free (or cheaper) ways to become un-addicted. 

Behavior that is detrimental to the stability of a society, whether legalized or not, in the end, is detrimental to the society...end of story...

_(awaiting the onslaught  )_


----------



## don maico

elpoderoso said:


> I don't think prostitution is a career shoice for any person,to legalize it would be very negative in my opinion, as it would suggest that the Government has given up on trying to get to grips with the root causes of prostitution( I'm not naive enough to imagine all the problems can be solved)
> Legalising prostitution would only serve to reinforce the idea to some desperate people that selling their bodies for sex is the only way for them to live.


The root causes are quite simple. A lot of men want sex and they are willing ot pay for it . some women see it as an easy way of making money which they need for various reasons therefore are willing to do it. Its not some kind of social ill.



JazzByChas said:


> I've heard this debate before...similar to leglized drugs, gambling and the like.
> 
> Thorny issue, really...regardless of the "moral" view of such things, legalizing prostitution, or drugs would just make it perhaps more of a business and take away some of the stigma...you know...get medical insurance, better working conditions, safer facilities, etc. for prostitues.
> 
> Legalized drugs would take away the incentive for organized crime to profit from it, it has been said.
> 
> Well, at the end of the day, these are very good ideas, but the issue, I think is a different one. Would you want (or would you want your daugher) to become a prostitute? Even under the safest of conditions, there is always the risk of STD's. And what does prostitution teach you about relationships? That you can (and should) change partners as often as you want. Well, I like having many different friends, but I like being married and committed to one woman. Cheaper and less complicated...and a more stable environment for my children. If sex becomes a commodity, then their is no longer any real intimacy.
> 
> Similarly with gambling...which is another addiction...as sex can also be. Addictive behavior ultimately ends up destroying the participant.
> 
> And the horrors of drug addiction I do not even need to address...now, perhaps there should be more free (or cheaper) ways to become un-addicted.
> 
> Behavior that is detrimental to the stability of a society, whether legalized or not, in the end, is detrimental to the society...end of story...
> 
> _(awaiting the onslaught  )[/_
> _FONT]_




i dont wish to comment about drug use because i ahve been told i cant haver two topics in one thread.
As to whethr i would want my daughter to be a prsostitute ? Probably not but then are many jobs I would prefer her not to do . at the end of the day it would be her choice nad I would just accept it as long as she is aware of the pitfalls and is reasonably happy,
I also prefer to be in a relationship but this is not about that . Instead its about recreational sex and its about paying for it Some guys want to do that ,some women are willing to provide the service and, indeed, some women require the services as well. These are modern times
Behaviour that is detrimental to society is highly subjective and depends on the individual.Most prostitues are no problem to anyone and the same could be said of their clients. The people who are a problem are these psychos who pray on them.


----------



## elpoderoso

don maico said:


> The root causes are quite simple. A lot of men want sex and they are willing ot pay for it . some women see it as an easy way of making money which they need for various reasons therefore are willing to do it. Its not some kind of social ill.


 
I was aware that prostitutes sell their bodies for money, but i was referring to women who become prostitutes out of a desperate need or are forced into prostitution (often at a young age). Would you describe this as a social ill?


----------



## maxiogee

elpoderoso said:


> I was aware that prostitutes sell their bodies for money, but i was referring to women who become prostitutes out of a desperate need or are forced into prostitution (often at a young age). Would you describe this as a social ill?



What, that they are turning to prostitution, or that they are in such desperate need.
No society should have people in such need. 
If we are to have prostitution (and it seems we cannot get rid of it) it should be a choice and not 'the only option'.


----------



## elpoderoso

maxiogee said:


> What, that they are turning to prostitution, or that they are in such desperate need.
> No society should have people in such need.
> If we are to have prostitution (and it seems we cannot get rid of it) it should be a choice and not 'the only option'.


I think you misunderstood me maxiogee, this was a question to don maico, who in his response to a previous post of mine, suggested that prostitution is a market exploited by women to make money for themselves.
I in no way, think that it is a career choice as i mentioned in my first post on this thread.


----------



## don maico

elpoderoso said:


> I was aware that prostitutes sell their bodies for money, but i was referring to women who become prostitutes out of a desperate need or are forced into prostitution (often at a young age). Would you describe this as a social ill?


One cannot generalise . Some indeed are badly exploited . They tend to be foreign girls ( mksty eastern Europe who are lured into the country under false pretences nad then forced into prostitution against their will , others do so to pay for a drug habit and other do it becauyse htey can make a very good living. For eg £200 for an hours sex is a common rate.Now my arguement is that in its current state prostitution is very much "underground" and therefore subject to gross abuse and most of the girls are very vulnerable. Therefore what is needed is proper regulation so they are well protected , paid correctly and required to take th appropriate STD tests when required. What is certain is that prostitution will not disappear whatever our wishes maye be so better take the pragmatic approach.
It could also be a source of tax revenue


----------



## TimeHP

> The root causes are quite simple. A lot of men want sex


 
Uuuh! Now I understand.
We should legalise prostitution because some men would have sex but they are not able to have it with women but prostitutes.

My opinion: men who have to pay for sex really don't have any idea of what sex is, they really never had sex. 

Ciao


----------



## Everness

TimeHP said:


> My opinion: men who have to pay for sex really don't have any idea of what sex is, they really never had sex.
> Ciao



I beg to differ. Men who pay for sex have a very clear idea of what sex is but a distorted view of love. The problem is when you separate love from sex. I see a big difference between men and women when it comes to the relationship between sex and love. In general, men can have sex with a woman they don't love but women are not that open or willing to have sex with a man they don't love. Women keep sex and love together; men don't. 

On the other hand, I don't disagree completely with the opinion that prostitutes exist because men exist. It would be foolish to overlook the fact that sex is rooted in the biological. Even though men (I'd rather discuss women separately) can meet their sexual needs in a relationship that also involves love, men can also choose to masturbate or to hire a prostitute to meet their sexual needs. I don't see a problem with either.


----------



## maxiogee

TimeHP said:


> We should legalise prostitution because some men would have sex but they are not able to have it with women but prostitutes.....



And female prostitutes are not women?


----------



## don maico

TimeHP said:


> Uuuh! Now I understand.
> We should legalise prostitution because some men would have sex but they are not able to have it with women but prostitutes.
> 
> My opinion: men who have to pay for sex really don't have any idea of what sex is, they really never had sex.
> 
> Ciao


what you must not do is judge all men by your standards as we are all different. Some men never enter into relationships for whatever reason. Does that mean they should not have sex?Some are handicapped . Should they not have sex?They are women who are willing to service them for a price


----------



## Everness

don maico said:


> what you must not do is judge all men by your standards as we are all different. Some men never enter into relationships for whatever reason. Does that mean they should not have sex?Some are handicapped . Should they not have sex?They are women who are willing to service them for a price



Couldn't have said it better!


----------



## ElaineG

It's interesting that we keep talking about the plight of women and girls.  In some American cities, like SF and NYC, it has been estimated that 1 in 3 prositutes is either (100%) a man or a transvestite.

In many Italian cities, I was told while living there, the prostitution trade is actually _dominated_ by transsexuals/transvestites who are the most sought after whores.

Even in NV's brothels, from what I understand, some of the most popular "girls" are "guys".

So, I think we should remember that it's not just women and girls who are exploited in this trade, but boys and men as well.


----------



## Everness

ElaineG said:


> It's interesting that we keep talking about the plight of women and girls.  In some American cities, like SF and NYC, it has been estimated that 1 in 3 prositutes is either (100%) a man or a transvestite.
> 
> In many Italian cities, I was told while living there, the prostitution trade is actually _dominated_ by transsexuals/transvestites who are the most sought after whores.
> 
> Even in NV's brothels, from what I understand, some of the most popular "girls" are "guys".
> 
> So, I think we should remember that it's not just women and girls who are exploited in this trade, but boys and men as well.



Maybe this is different topic that should be discussed in a separate thread but transgenders (male to female) see themselves as women and don't appreciate when other people don't. Actually in NY's transit system, men who live as women can now legally use women's rest rooms.


----------



## ElaineG

Everness said:


> Maybe this is different topic that should be discussed in a separate thread but transgenders (male to female) see themselves as women and don't appreciate when other people don't. Actually in NY's transit system, men who live as women can now legally use women's rest rooms.


 
This is way off topic, and most TVs as opposed to TGs, identify as their original sex, although it is true what you say about the transit system, not that anyone in their right mind ever uses the non-existent bathrooms in the transit system anyway,

but anyway the point remains that there are PLENTY of men whoring themselves or being exploited by pimps as good old-fashioned men.


----------



## Athaulf

Hutschi said:


> Some years ago, we had such cases here. The employment office offered such jobs [prostitution]. The general law in Germany is, you cannot refuse a job, if you want money. If you refused, you will not get money for some time.



This is an urban legend, which unfortunately duped some relatively respectable newspapers last year. The forum software won't let me post a link to the debunking article from Snopes, so Google for the phrase _"women in Germany face the loss of unemployment benefits"_ and the Snopes article should pop up first.

Needless to say, in other places where prostitution has been fully legalized for a while, like Netherlands and some parts of Nevada, there have been no such cases either.



> If it is fully legalized, you legalize it for children, too. (Fully is fully.)
> I think, that should never happen.


So smoking and drinking are next on your list of what should be prohibited? And what about driving?


----------



## ElaineG

> The forum software won't let me post a link to the debunking article from Snopes, so Google for the phrase _"women in Germany face the loss of unemployment benefits"_ and the Snopes article should pop up first.


 
Here you go: http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp   (Snopes has got to be the greatest site ever, next to this one of course.).


----------



## Athaulf

JazzByChas said:


> Well, at the end of the day, these are very good ideas, but the issue, I think is a different one. Would you want (or would you want your daugher) to become a prostitute?
> [...]
> Well, I like having many different friends, but I like being married and committed to one woman. Cheaper and less complicated...and a more stable environment for my children.



When people try to justify prohibitions of vice by appealing to the fear for their children, I reply: if you rely on the government, rather than your own efforts as parents, to make sure your children turn out right, then may God have mercy on both your children and all of us who will have to live next to them once they grow up. 

And as for your preference for monogamous commitment, how exactly does someone else's different preference endanger you in that regard?


----------



## _forumuser_

V3nom_is_here said:


> I disagree . Prostitution should never be fully legalised .I`m against the ideea of prostutution . Selling yourself for money is .. I don`t even have to describe it ... even if you are very poor you should never do anything like that


 
Yes, but scraping by in poverty for the rest of your life so that we moderately well-off people can all feel kosher sounds like no fairy tale to me either. If I were desperate I would do anything in my power to improve my situation, and that's what normal people like you and I have been doing since always, legally or not. We must respect everyone's right to take the actions they deem best for themselves. Preventing others from doing so by forcing them to abide to _our_ principles and values is...well, I don't even have to describe it.


----------



## cuchuflete

don maico said:


> I ask, *should we not fully legalise prostitution* (the same question applies to other countries), and *should we not provide proper safeguards and facilities for these professional ladies to operate*?  [...]  Therefore my  argument is let's face the fact that when there is a demand, than there will be those willing to provide a supply. *Let's have properly run brothels in non residential areas and tell the tedious moralists who continually spout their self righteous drivel to take a hike.What say you*



I came late to this party, and glanced at the last fifteen or twenty posts.  Then I went back to Post#1, which I have quoted, in part, and with my emphasis, above.

We may as well be talking underwater while eating peanut butter for all the resemblance you can find between the thread topic and the more recent posts.

Here's a quaint notion:  Say something original *about the thread topic.*  If you can't do that, open a new thread to discuss something else.

The question of legalization of prostitution and "properly run brothels" is not, repeat NOT about transgender definitions or even plum pudding.    It is not, repeat NOT, about proper pronouns, or even how many batteries you might need for your mechanical pronoun provider.   

A member's attitudes about the convenience or cost basis of matrimony is likewise NOT the topic of this particular thread.


----------



## TimeHP

> And female prostitutes are not women?


 
Of course they are.
What I tried to say is that they can have sex with women that are prostitues. 



> Men who pay for sex have a very clear idea of what sex is but a distorted view of love.


 
I know it (I'm a bit naive, but not so much...) 
What I meant is that sex is when both the parts (2 women, 2 men or a man and a woman) freely choose to have it and both enjoy it.



> Does that mean they should not have sex?Some are handicapped . Should they not have sex?They are women who are willing to service them for a price


 
I hardly can imagine an handcapped person going to look for sex on the road. They meet prostitutes with the help of family and friends at home.  

I never said a word against the right of having sex.
I said that in a relationship between men and prostitutes, there is a 
master who pays, and there is a victim who is obliged to serve for being paid.
My idea of society is one where we protect and help minority groups, one where we help people that are living a desperate life to go out of the darkness.
I never could be in peace with my conscience just giving a shelter to a girls and boys that are are obliged to be humiliated and to sell their bodies to survive.

Can you imagine what could happen if we legalise prostitution: a lot of pimps investing their dirty money in opening new 'houses' and traffiking more and more with a lot of girls and boys. 

I'm sorry that, as you said 





> 'Some men never enter into relationships for whatever reason'


but it's not our biggest problem, here. 

Ciao


----------



## don maico

TimeHP said:


> Of course they are.
> 
> I hardly can imagine an handcapped person going to look for sex on the road. They meet prostitutes with the help of family and friends at home.
> 
> 
> My idea of society is one where we protect and help minority groups, one where we help people that are living a desperate life to go out of the darkness.
> I never could be in peace with my conscience just giving a shelter to a girls and boys that are are obliged to be humiliated and to sell their bodies to survive.
> 
> Can you imagine what could happen if we legalise prostitution: a lot of pimps investing their dirty money in opening new 'houses' and traffiking more and more with a lot of girls and boys.
> 
> I'm sorry that, as you said
> but it's not our biggest problem, here.
> 
> Ciao



The current situation is unacceptable precisely because we do have a problem, namely that there are SOME working girls who are badly exploited whilst a few are victims of a ruthless psycopaths intent on killing them .This is why I advocate full legalisation so that these ladies can operate in a safe environment which is well regulated and be well paid in the process. Thankfully it would seem more and more people here in the UK are coming to this way of thinking.
Pimps, as we understand them, would not be allowed to operate in a fully regulated system. There would be madams and owners s but they would be required to observe the strict laws governing these establishments
As for the handicapped ? yes of course they meet girls in specific places. 

Some working girls operate in house( within their homes) whilst others make out calls( ie they would meet a client either in his home or in a hotel)
these two groups tend to be the independent ones ( ie no pimps)and make a very good living. They are in no way exploited and require no sympathy. Fact!


----------



## Flaminius

Prostitution is a thriving business consisting of employed (read enslaved) sex-workers and voluntary individuals in Japan.  Since the business itself is unlawful, there is no law to protect prostitutes from dangers that their profession accrues.



TimeHP said:


> Can you imagine what could happen if we legalise prostitution: a lot of pimps investing their dirty money in opening new 'houses' and traffiking more and more with a lot of girls and boys.


Other countries may have different codes and legal practises but what is happening in my country is not really commendable.  I can remember several cases of a prostitute being murdered by a sick-minded "customer".  The sentencing are usually much lighter than what is expected for similar crimes committed against someone who is not a prostitute.  The court tends to find fault with the victim in "implicitly acquiescing the danger involved in entering an unlawful contract."

Amici curiae/fori may please advise me on what is the difference between legalised prostitution and fully-legalised prostitution but I am for extending legal protection to prostitutes while they are undertaking their business.  This consists in admitting the right of an adult working as a prostitute, resultant of self-determination.


----------



## maxiogee

_forumuser_ said:


> Yes, but scraping by in poverty for the rest of your life so that we moderately well-off people can all feel kosher sounds like no fairy tale to me either. If I were desperate I would do anything in my power to improve my situation, and that's what normal people like you and I have been doing since always, legally or not. We must respect everyone's right to take the actions they deem best for themselves. Preventing others from doing so by forcing them to abide to _our_ principles and values is...well, I don't even have to describe it.



Good points, forumuser, and well worth making.
Desperation drives one's concerns for other people's moral standards out the window - where they are usually followed (after much soul searching) very reluctantly by one's own. Away ahead of them went concern for the laws of the land.
I doubt that many prostitutes woke up one morning and said to themselves "I think I'll go on  the game, it looks easy and the money's great — and, after all, it's only sex!"

For these reasons, if for no others, the legalisation of it is unlikely to suddently present us with hordes of teenagers making appointments with their school career guidance teachers seeking information on how to secure a patch on the good streets.

It is said that the grip on American crime held by the Mafia all stems from the days of Prohibition, and the drug industry is certainly in the hands of some very organised criminals. Total prohibition of products and services of which humanity seems determined to avail itself always leads to several things - 
disrespect for the law among ordinary citizens who see half-hearted attempts by the authorities to enforce unenforceable laws;
criminal elements moving in and making vast profits on the basis of illegality;
overall low quality in the product/service provided as there is no need to offer good quality;
price instability - leading 'users' of the product or service to be unable to budget for their needs, and frequently turning to committing other crimes to finance their requirements.
and finally, turf wars, as competing suppliers/providers fight for markets. This inevitably spreads out to affect the population at large.

All these things diminish, or disappear totally, within a state legislated and controlled market.

As to the morality angle, why should the moral opinions of any one section of society be dominant? 
We are moving, in the West at least, into an era of government by consent and by co-operation, having begun to leave behind the notion that our rulers have been appointed by God, or the other notion that the upper classes ought to rule, because they know best, and increasingly our Churches have less and less to say on how we should live our everyday lives.


----------



## TimeHP

> make a very good living


 
Very good?
What do you mean by very good: money? nice house? beautiful clothes?
_Pretty woman_ movie?  
In this case we could talk and talk for months and we'd never understand each other.
I can't believe that a woman can be happy and satisfied with her life working as a prostitute. 
But even if a very small group of women would, what about the majority part of them? Do you think that they freely chose this 'job'?
I'm not talking of the less desperate, I'm talking of the very bad cases, which are the most.
Would you wish to your daughter on her 16th birthday:
_My dear, I hope you can be happy and have a nice profession as a prostitute in a luxury brothel. _
?


> Pimps, as we understand them, would not be allowed to operate in a fully regulated system. There would be madams and owners s but they would be required to observe the strict laws governing these establishments


 
You can call them madams, owners or dukes, but they are pimps anyway.
And there is a great difference between 'making laws' and 'having them observed'.

Ciao


----------



## xarruc

> suggested that prostitution is a market exploited by women to make money for themselves.



They are not doing it out of kindness....


> Pimps, as we understand them, would not be allowed to operate in a fully regulated system. There would be madams and owners s but they would be required to observe the strict laws governing these establishments



In this article, [http://www.answers.com/topic/atlantis-discover-the-mysteries-of-atlantis-2l] about the atlantis brothel it states that whilst pimping is not allowed it still goes on.

"There are no pimps on the premises, but some of the women have pimps or _boyfriends_, who take a cut of their money and who pick them up after their shift ends at 4am. Some of these pimps use other women in the club to spy on their women in order to gain a good estimate of their earnings."


----------



## maxiogee

TimeHP said:


> And there is a great difference between 'making laws' and 'having them observed'.



also known as …
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
… the current system!

It's not working.
It brings that amorphous thing "the law" into disrepute if laws are unenforceable/ignored/unfair.
The situation needs fixing.


----------



## _forumuser_

maxiogee said:


> As to the morality angle, why should the moral opinions of any one section of society be dominant?


 
Nobody has ever given convincing reasons, but they somehow are... 

Understandings of what is and isn't moral have a tendency to change with the situation. Even murder can seem like the lesser evil in some cases, so who are we to decide from the comfort of our middle-class living rooms what is and isn't legal for all people in all situations?


----------



## don maico

May I draw an analogy? There arec  are people in the Uk  UK who wish tpo  to ban boxing because it is a dangerous sport where the intention is to maim an opponent. Doing so would only drive the sport underground, which would mean it would be unregulated and therefore result in many more fatalities. Whilst it is true that a few current boxers are badly injured and suffering brain damage( Muhammed Ali for eg), medical attention is excellent, as are refereeing standards, therefore keeping injuries to a minimum.
I f If we had a properly regulated sex industry, the vast majority of working girls would be well protected.


----------



## TimeHP

> so who are we to decide from the comfort of our middle-class living rooms what is and isn't legal for all people in all situations?


 
Do you mean we shouldn't have any laws?


----------



## Everness

don maico said:


> This is why I advocate full legalisation so that these ladies can operate in a safe environment which is well regulated and be well paid in the process. Thankfully it would seem more and more people here in the UK are coming to this way of thinking.



Sex work should be regulated. Where is the resistance coming from? First, Victorian morality dies hard. Second, patriarchy dies even harder.


----------



## don maico

Everness said:


> Sex work should be regulated. Where is the resistance coming from? First, Victorian morality dies hard. Second, patriarchy dies even harder.


One only has to pick up a copy of the Daily Mail ,that bastion of traditional morality, one one of the UK's biggest selling papers and one that purports to speak for middle England, to realise that it will take a lot to change many people's mindset.But change they will just as they have changed towards homosexuality and race issues. Most major towns have number of prostitutes operating in them either patrolling the streets or working indoors.


----------



## Everness

don maico said:


> One only has to pick up a copy of the Daily Mail ,that bastion of traditional morality, one one of the UK's biggest selling papers and one that purports to speak for middle England, to realise that it will take a lot to change many people's mindset.But change they will just as they have changed towards homosexuality and race issues. Most major towns have number of prostitutes operating in them either patrolling the streets or working indoors.



Changing people's minds ain't easy. 

Sex work is still perceived by many as a sinful or immoral activity. The sexual revolution in terms of realigning values is yet half way. Sex is still a taboo and paid sex is a greater taboo. However, I think it's a lost cause. The verbal form of the noun prostitute speaks for itself. 

tr.v.   pros·ti·tut·ed, pros·ti·tut·ing, pros·ti·tutes

   1. To offer (oneself or another) for sexual hire.
   2. *To sell (oneself or one's talent, for example) for an unworthy purpose.*

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prostitute

On the other hand, our collective attitude toward prostitution has deep roots in patriarchy. Men still believe that women's bodies belong to them and too many women (for my taste) wittingly or unwittingly agree. 

If prostitution were a regulated commercial activity, sex workers could have the same protections you and I have in the workplace. And most importantly, we wouldn't be looking down on sex workers. Now, if a relative of mine decided to embrace this profession today, I'm not sure if I'd be ready to openly have this exchange if the question came up: "So what does your (mother, daughter, sister, niece, etc.) do for a living? Oh, she's a whore."


----------



## Pedrovski

TimeHP said:


> Of course they are.
> What I tried to say is that they can have sex with women that are prostitues.
> 
> 
> 
> I know it (I'm a bit naive, but not so much...)
> What I meant is that sex is when both the parts (2 women, 2 men or a man and a woman) freely choose to have it and both enjoy it.




But what about when three people freely choose to engage in a threesome, and all three enjoy it? Would that be excluded from your definition of sex?

And why this focusing only on the supply side aspect of things? In order to try to understand the industry, shouldn't one think about the perspective of the client? 

Why should only some men be allowed the "privilege" of having recreational sex? If a handsome guy has a greater probability of attracting a lass and "pulling one", then why should less-gifted guys suffer from something they have no fault over (i.e. they were born that way)? Commercial sex can in many ways help to iron these injustices.

Remember that sexuality breeds inequality. A series of gene tests carried out found that men's genes were far less diverse than women's ones, leading many to conclude that in more primitive times, the natural order of things was an elite group of men endowed with personal brothels.  Most men were not even given the chance to reproduce.

Should not the happiness prostitutes give to some men be taken into account when measuring their overall value to society?


----------



## TimeHP

> But what about when three people freely choose to engage in a threesome, and all three enjoy it? Would that be excluded from your definition of sex?



Shall I make a list of every possibility? Please let's try not to be pedantic... 

Your opinion is just the opposite of mine. 
And I couldn't care less about clients' problems, if there's someone who is obliged to be a prostitute, who is obliged to sell her body and herself for surviving.


----------



## Pedrovski

TimeHP said:


> And I couldn't care less about clients' problems




Exactly what I thought, you've just admitted to being highly biased in your opinions.


----------



## TimeHP

> Exactly what I thought, you've just admitted to being highly biased in your opinions.


 
Maybe. But be honest. 
Don't extrapolate only a part of my sentence.
What I wrote is:
And I couldn't care less about clients' problems, if there's someone who is obliged to be a prostitute, who is obliged to sell her body and herself for surviving.


----------



## don maico

Everness said:


> Changing people's minds ain't easy.
> 
> 
> 
> tr.v.   pros·ti·tut·ed, pros·ti·tut·ing, pros·ti·tutes
> 
> 1. To offer (oneself or another) for sexual hire.
> 2. *To sell (oneself or one's talent, for example) for an unworthy purpose.*
> 
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/prostitute
> 
> On the other hand, our collective attitude toward prostitution has deep roots in patriarchy. Men still believe that women's bodies belong to them and too many women (for my taste) wittingly or unwittingly agree.
> 
> If prostitution were a regulated commercial activity, sex workers could have the same protections you and I have in the workplace. And most importantly, we wouldn't be looking down on sex workers. Now, if a relative of mine decided to embrace this profession today, I'm not sure if I'd be ready to openly have this exchange if the question came up: "So what does your (mother, daughter, sister, niece, etc.) do for a living? Oh, she's a whore."


Maybe I should replace the term prostitute with sexworker. To be honest this is all highly subjective. My wife thinks that all sex workers are basically exploited and those that are not, well good for them if they take as much from their clients giving little back in return. The whole issue of sex and paying for it remains a thorny subject. Most women dont like the idea of paid for sex  and probably most men dont as well.But I have yet to meet  a man who believes women belong to him for sexual purposes. They may well exist ( rapists for eg - although thats more to do with power)but I certainly dont know any. Most  I think are far too insecure to entertain thoughts like that. In any case we are no different in that we like to be liked as well. Whilst patriarchy may well be a fact it doesnt exaclty liberate men Most of us are constrained by soicial conventions and  rules that control our behaviour just as they control womens. Its only those with power and money that have the choices. id ont know what  matriarchal society would be like but I suspect I'll be told that is the subject of another discussion if I tried to guess. Pagan society perhaps?

I recently watched a movie about a famous english madam by the name of Cynthia Payne who ran a brothel back in the eighties catering middle aged middlle class men. She had very forthright attitude believing that if men were willing to pay for sexual services and women were willing to provide them she woud be quite happy to provide the environment for such exchanges to take place. As depicted in the film  the environment was a happy jolly one where clients went to enjoy themselves and did so.All their various kinks wre catered for.Many of them  were professionals, including the judge who would preside over her eventual court case( meant she got a very light sentence) The police raided the brothel when it was busy one night  in a heavy handed manner  using considerable force (including dogs) and she was charged. with running a brothel.
 I would like to think I like to think I would be quite broad minded an accept anyopne who decied to "go on the game" but I use to have a friend who once confiede to me that she herself had been one. I was so shocked I told someone else and broke that confidence nad therore lost a friend. It still saddens me today because i liked her. Therefore I feel the stigma should be removed and we should accept them as human beings who just happen to provide a particular kind of service. We should not be so judgemental about them.


----------



## Athaulf

TimeHP said:


> Maybe. But be honest.
> Don't extrapolate only a part of my sentence.
> What I wrote is:
> And I couldn't care less about clients' problems, if there's someone who is obliged to be a prostitute, who is obliged to sell her body and herself for surviving.



Well, pretty much all of us who aren't heirs of vast fortunes are forced to sell our bodies and ourselves to survive, and to do it for a significant part (in many cases the majority) of our waking hours. Why do you find it so difficult to allow the possibility that some people prefer doing it in a way that seems repulsive to you personally?


----------



## TimeHP

> Why do you find it so difficult to allow the possibility that some people prefer doing it in a way that seems repulsive to you personally?


 
Are we doing a sort of sophistic joke?

I assumed that prostitution is a job that someone chooses because she/he is desperate, because she/he has no other choice. Or a job she/he was forced to do by some violent pimp.
But you're telling me that prostitutes like their activity, that they freely choose it, that they are 'very happy' with their job.
If you're right there's no point in discussing.
If they are not victimes of our society, I give up with this discussion.
And if you're right what a relief for me. 

Ciao


----------



## don maico

Some do it out of choice ,some because they have forced into it , some to feed drug habit. One shouldnt  make generalised statements . Just keep an open mind.And yes some actually like doing it.


----------



## panjabigator

> But you're telling me that prostitutes like their activity, that they freely choose it, that they are 'very happy' with their job.



Hey, some people have gotten there kicks from stranger things!  Im sure there are prostitutes who enjoy the job.

Porn stars technically get paid for sex...and I bet you many of them enjoy that too.


----------



## Fernando

I think there is one valid point: many prostitutes (specially the best paid ones) have freely chosen their job. A Spaniard can actually make a living from cleaning houses at 9 euros an hour. Obviously they live better making 30 euros "por trabajo". I do not know if they enjoy or not. 

Anyone, that is not the point. I am sure some slaves would enjoy their work and actually, in Greece or Rome, many people preferred to sell themselves as slaves, since they "promote" easier as slaves than as free person.

For some reason (for good reasons, I would say) it was decided in one point of Makind that enslaving yourself was contrary to the dignity of the person.

I do not my mind if my (highly hypothetical) son/daughter is a banker, an engineer, a mason, a peasant or a miner. In no case, I would like him/her to be a prostitute, no matter how much money he/she does.

And no, I would not like him/her to be a "putero" (the derogative term we use in Spanish for the client of a prostitute).


----------



## Sallyb36

not that many prostitutes are forced to do it, most have a choice, and have chosen that way.


----------



## xarruc

It's all a question of money

They wouldn't do it for free. If you were paid a million USD, you'd probably  at least think about it.

Everyone wishes they had a better, more fun, easier and better paid job. But how many people actively look for one?

I wonder how many prostitutes are saving money to 'escape' their 'miserable' lives.


----------



## Athaulf

TimeHP said:


> I assumed that prostitution is a job that someone chooses because she/he is desperate, because she/he has no other choice.
> Or a job she/he was forced to do by some violent pimp.
> But you're telling me that prostitutes like their activity, that they freely choose it, that they are 'very happy' with their job.



I wasn't saying that they were "very happy." But few people are very happy with the fact that they have to spend most of their time on their "normal" jobs either, and are every bit as forced to perform them to earn a living.  Why would anyone suffer through the typical tedious, stressful, and tiresome work of a "normal" workplace, if not out of "desperation" because you have to get money to survive? True, a small minority of people truly enjoy their work, but face it -- how many lottery winners decide to keep their job once they no longer have to worry about money?

You believe that the way in which sex workers are earning their living is far more unpleasant than typical "normal" jobs, but unpleasantness is a very subjective category. Why is it so hard for you to admit that for some people, sex work is a less unpleasant alternative, especially since it tends to pay extremely well compared to the alternatives?

Your complaint about women being physically forced to sex work could make some sense only if you suppose that nobody would ever consent to such work without being physically forced. But such an assumption is clearly false, so that this argument makes no sense. Enslaving people for whatever purpose is already illegal, regardless of the legal status of the work that the slaves are forced to perform.


----------



## ElaineG

There seems (apart from Time and a few others) to be a rather romanticized, Pretty Woman, view of prostitution going on.

From the U.S. Dep't of Justice website:



> The majority of American victims of commercial sexual exploitation tend to be runaway or thrown away youth who live on the streets who become victims of prostitution. Id. at 11-12. These children generally come from homes where they have been abused, or from families that have abandoned them, Richard J. Estes and Neil Alan Weiner, _Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the U.S, Canada and Mexico_, University of Pennsylvania, at 3 (2001)


 
Sounds like a galaxy of free choice, doesn't it? Beaten up by dad or beaten up by your pimp? If I were a john, I'd feel _really good about myself_ for having sex with people in those circumstances, and even better about myself for convincing myself they were happy about it. 

That said, I am not anti-legalization. I have seen news stories and HBO shows about the brothels in Nevada and the highly paid, safe, unbeaten, healthy women there are a world apart from the skinny, crack addicted, toothless, bruised and dazed women that you see if you drive down certain streets in the Bronx after dark. 

I think the greatest thing that _could_ come out of legalization is that women and men who were prostitutes would have more freedom from pimps. If you practice a recognized profession, you are not subject to blackmail and intimidation to the same degree. It also might remove some of the stigma that may prevent these people from getting help: I don't know, but I doubt if the police take a complaint of a hooker being beat up by a pimp, as seriously as they would take the charges if my boss beat me up!!!

But we would still have to work to clean up the industry, and work hard to do so. Because there will still be men who prefer the cheapness, the youth, the powerlessness or the grunge of homeless teenagers to organized legal brothels. And there will still be homeless teenagers struggling to survive.


----------



## Athaulf

TimeHP said:


> Should I say what you want to hear?
> How can you be sure you're right?



Well, you're the one who claims a universal negative -- that _nobody ever_ engages in sex work because he or she considers it simply as an employment opportunity superior to others. I have known of such cases in real life -- of course there's no way to offer any positive proof through this medium -- and that in itself is enough to disprove your claim. Furthermore, observe the legal, free, and public job market for pornographic actors: why is it so strange that someone might seek similar employment, only without the cameras? Finally, some women obviously marry for the money; if they are willing to suffer the sexual company of someone they find unattractive for decades, why is it inconceivable that other ones would also consider a financially motivated liaison for a shorter term, or even only one time?



> Newspapers and books I read and associations I esteem say what I say and present so many cases of prostitution without the glittering light I've found here.


Newspapers and books usually write only about extraordinary events, which are interesting because they are, well, extraordinary. In Germany and Netherlands, people don't find it interesting to read how brothels operate as normal, legal businesses any more than they find it interesting to read about the daily affairs in, say, the steel or lumber industry.

Furthermore, there are two good reasons why people have strong incentives for making up stories about slavery in the context of sex work. First, if you're arrested for selling sex, you'd better claim that you were forced, because the activity itself is illegal. Second, the cops will certainly prefer to show themselves as glorious liberators of the enslaved, rather than thugs who go on harassing and arresting people for their peaceful, voluntary, victimless business. Both reasons are additionally strengthened when the sex workers in question are illegal immigrants. Add to it the usual propensity of the press for cheap sensationalism, and voila!

Your might as well advocate banning, say, agriculture because in some places and times, slaves have been (or even still are) forced to perform such work. Enslaving people and children for whatever purpose is illegal by itself, and penalties for it are generally much more severe than for prostitution, regardless of what the slaves are used for. Therefore, if the government is unable to enforce the laws against slavery in the first place, it matters nothing whatsoever if the purpose for which someone keeps slaves is legal or not.

If anything, prohibition of sex work can only increase the number of the unfortunate cases that you're pointing out. Among the bosses in the liquor trade in the Prohibition-era U.S., there was indeed a disproportional percentage of mafiosos and psychopathic thugs, but this certainly doesn't hold for the liquor industry nowadays.


----------



## xarruc

ElaineG said:


> There seems (apart from Time and a few others) to be a rather romanticized, Pretty Woman, view of prostitution going on



You then choose a quote from a book titled "_Commercial Sexual Exploitation of *Children*" 

_Not surprisingly, it claimes that street children have either run away from home or been thrown out. The only alternatives are that they are lost or forced to do it.I dont think anyone is suggesting any postive aspects of sex slavery or child prostitution.

Besides I don't think it is a pretty woman issue. More that not all of us will believe that all people who sell their bodies for sex are downtrodden victims of an uncaring society, thrown out the house with no where to go. Previous societies have been far less caring and Prostitution is as rampant now as ever.
 

It is a market with supply, demand and all the rest of the economics you can throw at it.


----------



## mytwolangs

If prostitution was legal, how many more unwanted babies would there be? 
I don't care if it is legal or not cause I would not be interested in touching something that I know for fact has been with a lot of other men. 

And in the USA - it is not legal per se, it just goes by another name - "Escort service" It is just kind of kept hush hush about the sex part... Escorts are not cheap, so they don't get "financially struggling" clients.


----------



## Outsider

mytwolangs said:


> If prostitution was legal, how many more unwanted babies would there be?


Good question. Do you have an answer to it?



mytwolangs said:


> I don't care if it is legal or not cause I would not be interested in touching something that I know for fact has been with a lot of other men.


Prostitutes are not things; they are people. 

A case study.


----------



## ElaineG

> You then choose a quote from a book titled "_Commercial Sexual Exploitation of *Children*"_


No, perhaps you didn't read my post. The quote is from the DOJ website, which cites the study mentioned above.



> Not surprisingly, it claimes that street children have either run away from home or been thrown out. The only alternatives are that they are lost or forced to do it.I dont think anyone is suggesting any postive aspects of sex slavery or child prostitution.


 
And that's an enormous part of the market. I read a study once that found that a majority of women in the U.S. who are prostitutes started before age 18. When I find, I'll cite it here. _Edit_:  Here's similar statistics for the UK: http://www.cwasu.org/page_display.asp?pageid=STATS&pagekey=104&itemkey=125

Do you think _teenage _prostitutes disappear when they turn 18? Or do you think they grow up to be _grown-up_ prostitutes? If you are a 25 year old prostitute, who didn't go to high school, has no skills and is drug addicted because you've been turning tricks since you were 15, then _child prostitution is part of the problem_, and it does no good to say, "well, now she's a freely consenting adult."

I don't think you can fragment the market that way. 



> Previous societies have been far less caring and Prostitution is as rampant now as ever.


 
Do you have statistical evidence to support that view? Because I actually doubt that you could prove it, and will look for statistics. Research that I've done on Victorian and Georgian London, as well as on turn of the century NY, would suggest to me that prostitution, including child prostitution, was far more prevalent during the pre-Welfare state era, when the possibilities of starvation were far greater.

If you have data to back up your claim, I'd be happy to see it. My research was historical and cultural rather than statistical, so I don't have numbers.


----------



## Athaulf

ElaineG said:


> Research that I've done on Victorian and Georgian London, as well as on turn of the century NY, would suggest to me that prostitution, including child prostitution, was far more prevalent during the pre-Welfare state era, when the possibilities of starvation were far greater.



This trend, however, can be explained in ways other than the emergence of the welfare state. Back then, the employment alternatives to sex work were obviously significantly more unpleasant than today, with much more hard manual work, longer hours, very bad safety standards, etc. Thus, it would be reasonable to expect that more women would be attracted to sex work even if they weren't desperate to the point of starvation.

Also, do you have any numbers about how many people actually starved in England and the U.S. about a century ago (since you apparently claim that the possibility of starvation was significant)? The standard of living was certainly abysmal by today's standards, but were really that many more people driven to such status?


----------



## xarruc

> The quote is from the DOJ website



OK so you quoted a website, which in turn quoted a book:



> Richard J. Estes and Neil Alan Weiner, _Commercial Sexual Exploitation of *Children *in the U.S, Canada and Mexico_, University of Pennsylvania, at 3 (2001)



I repeat:



> I dont think anyone is suggesting any postive aspects of sex slavery or child prostitution.



I am all for the abolition of slavery, child prostitution and so on. You won't hear a complaint there from me. I don't see how child prostituion really fits in here, anyway.. If they don't become child prostitutes they won't become adut ones. Thats good. There will still be prostitutes because there will still be men willing to pay for sex and so people will still find their way to profit from it.



> Previous societies have been far less caring and Prostitution is as rampant now as ever.



I do not have any data to back up my claim. Either. Perhaps "as rampant" were the wrong words to use. But the point still stands. More than 50 years of intense efforts to eradicate poverty, provide homes and schools and education and everything for all, and there's still masses and masses of prostitution.


----------



## ElaineG

> I don't see how child prostituion really fits in here, anyway.. If they don't become child prostitutes they won't become adut ones. Thats good. There will still be prostitutes because there will still be men willing to pay for sex and so people will still find their way to profit from it.


 
Well, I think you're missing the point.  


I said above that I saw benefits to legalization.  But the studies show that the prime factors that predict whether a woman will become a prostitute are: 1) sexual abuse early in life, 2) running away, and 3) drug addiction.  Studies also show that at least half the women who are prostitutes become prostitutes as children.

That's what this happy market is consuming.

So, if you were able to reduce factors 1 and 2, or prevent women from becoming prostitutes as children, _you might have less prostitution_.  It's a single market.  There is no segment of either demand or supply that is solely women under 18, and no segment of either demand or supply that is solely women over 18.

They are the same people and the same market.  To say, that well, I'm against 15 year olds prostituting themselves, but I'm all for 19 year olds doing it, ignores the question of where the 19 year olds come from.

That's all.  

I find a great deal of fuzziness in this thread, perhaps because people don't want to admit to things.   

If you frequent prostitutes, and that's the basis of your knowledge, why not say so?

If you or someone close to you is a prostitute, why not say so?

It seems a lot of people know that they are happy and dandy but don't want to say how they came by that knowledge.

I'm happy to admit that my knowledge of the subject comes only from 10 years of working for and with women's legal organizations, defending battered women, and, at one point, participating in a legal research project about the unionization of sex workers in Amsterdam.   My views on women's poverty and choices are mostly, except in the case of a few of my clients, second hand and based on reading research.

I'm really curious to know the basis of others' knowledge in this thread.


----------



## maxiogee

mytwolangs said:


> I don't care if it is legal or not cause I would not be interested in touching something that I know for fact has been with a lot of other men.



Ugh - what a disgusting attitude!
People are people, regardless of how many other people they've "been with". How many women a man has been with is rarely an issue - how strange!


----------



## AIkelle

Hello to all:

Wow!!! This Cultural Discussions Forum is always so controversial... 

*Prostitution and should it be FULLY legalised* *- NO*

In my opinion, which by the way is shared by most of Latinamerica, 
No self-respecting woman would practice this kind of behavior, even if it means her death. Women who do so, don't really love themselves. To expose yourself in such a way corrupts your spirit.


----------



## Everness

AIkelle said:


> Hello to all:
> 
> Wow!!! This Cultural Discussions Forum is always so controversial...
> 
> *Prostitution and should it be FULLY legalised* *- NO*
> 
> In my opinion, which by the way is shared by most of Latinamerica,
> No self-respecting woman would practice this kind of behavior, even if it means her death. Women who do so, don't really love themselves. To expose yourself in such a way corrupts your spirit.



Are you proposing an ethical rationale for not legalizing prostitution? The double standards behind your argument are almost obscene. You need 2 to tango. Do self-respecting men seek female sex workers? Do men who seek female sex workers really love themselves? Does paying a female sex worker corrupt the male spirit?


----------



## Fernando

Everness said:


> Are you proposing an ethical rationale for not legalizing prostitution? The double standards behind your argument are almost obscene. You need 2 to tango. Do self-respecting men seek female sex workers? Do men who seek female sex workers really love themselves? Does paying a female sex worker corrupt the male spirit?



Though your questions are not addressed at me:

1) Yes.
2) No.
3) No.
4) Yes.


----------



## John-Paul

I really love this discussion because it's just as old as the job itself and we're never going to agree on it. The fact is that men need to have sex, that's how we are wired biologically. Many men are able to control their urges with some self-help or an unlimited supply of stamina. Many men are not able to control themselves and some of them turn to women who ask for something in return. (In many high-schools you can get a bj for an Ipod.)  In a perfect world there would not be a need for prostitutes or sex workers, but alas, this is not a perfect world. I already answered the question earlier. I would just like to ask the people who are against legalizing prostitution to at least do some research to get some insights on how this business works, how to get in or out, who are the customers, etc. Also, ask around, maybe your dad has indulged, or your neighbor, maybe even a teacher. I promise you, most men have thought about going at least once in their lives. We're not dirty, we're just the way we are. (As for me, I had a paper route once in a red light district, it was fun, delivering papers, but I'm still a virgin.)


----------



## Pedrovski

Something that has not been adressed here but (in my view) should:

One of the byproducts of the criminalization of the US sex industry is the flight of many gringo "Johns" to Third World countries, (such as Thailand, Mexico, Argentina, etc) who greatly help to stimulate the industries there. 

It is in these countries that prostitution is most worrying, given that poverty induces these people to do anything, establishing unsafe and demeaning sexual practices. Not to mention the many prostitutes who only entered the market because of the active presence of gringos and the deception that they'll be able to "hook up" with a rich one. 

If the United States began to steer its actions according to a less egocentric attitude, it would realize that it's only hurting and debasing the poor world with this stance.


----------



## Outsider

Pedrovski said:


> One of the byproducts of the criminalization of the US sex industry is the flight of many gringo "Johns" to Third World countries, (such as Thailand, Mexico, Argentina, etc) who greatly help to stimulate the industries there.


People tend to make judgements about prostitution without the benefit of any facts. In those countries that are famous for prostitution, sex tourism is often a drop in the ocean, and merely builds on a phenomenon which was already endemic in the country before the tourists arrived. I have heard this from someone who does field work studying prostitution. Another thing he always says is that there is no reliable data on stuff like "the amount of child prostitution", or "the amount of women that are forced into prostitution". People just pick whatever _crude estimates_ fit their preconceptions.


----------



## maxiogee

AIkelle said:


> Wow!!! This Cultural Discussions Forum is always so controversial...
> 
> *Prostitution and should it be FULLY legalised* *- NO*
> 
> In my opinion, which by the way is shared by most of Latinamerica,


Who here's a novelty - a forer@ who not only speaks on behalf of a majority of their fellow countrypeople, but one who can speak on behalf of natives in other countries also.
That must be some hefty piece of opinion polling reseach you have available  - I'd love to see even one page of it.

In the absence of any page of the research, I'd challenge you to show how your opinion is supported in the states of Latin America.




> No self-respecting woman would practice this kind of behavior, even if it means her death. Women who do so, don't really love themselves. To expose yourself in such a way corrupts your spirit.


a) No self-respecting man would put a woman into the situation whereby this is an option.
b) Is this woman to therefore commit the worst sin of all and take her own life?  You place this in Latin America so I presume that this woman has a Christian background - what do the local churches say of her predicament - do they advise suicide or succumbing to a life of degradation, but a life nonetheless. Aren't Churches all in favour of "life at any cost"?
c) Stunning piece of social analysis - people who do jobs which the combined rest of the population around them despise them for - even the johns despise them - and you say she doesn't reallt love herself. Ohh, you're good at this social science stuff!
d) Perhaps the would-be prostitute cannot further corrupt her spirit, perhaps that has been the first victim in her unfortunate life to date.

The level of a society is not in what it is or what it has, but in how it treats those are are at the bottom of every socially unwanted phylum — the disabled, the victims of socially acceptable and socially unacceptable drugs, the abused young children of violent parents - and the opposite end of the calendar, the abused old parents of wealthy but time-poor children.

For all our prowess at proclaiming our progress in many areas of life, we have long been failing our weakest, often when we refuse to allow our states to set up tax-funded schemes for them, more o0ften when we are in a dwindling charity culture - there are so many calls now on one's charity - have we increased our giving, or are we cheese-paring the same sized block we have used for decades and hoping it can fritter a few coins down through the line of 'administrators' to the poor sould which needs it - the one they define as being in need according to their charitable status charter.


----------



## don maico

some women require the services of a male prostitute. Any moral indignatioin about that then?


----------



## Genecks

don maico said:


> What say you



It's going to be a long time before misogyny dies. That's what I have to say. Saying that is a lot in itself. Yes, prostitution is the oldest career. Yes, it's not going away anytime soon. But there are people out there that want it to go away. There are people who think it damages society, feeds persons' egos, and degenerates the social engineering societies have built.

What's my view?

Prostitution isn't the problem. Drugs are the problem. Prostitutes sell themselves for bills and drugs. So, it must be the bills and drugs that are the problem. Ok, then, legalize drugs. Already legalized? Well, it must be the bills. Everybody knows that the money given to certain career fields is disproportionate. It's this fact that makes people choose certain lifestyles and careers. In the case of prostitutes, I see them as either druggies or capitalists. The reason they sell themselves is for drugs or money. And if they're doing it for money, they're a sad piece of work. They need to get themselves in school. There are things called loans. And for those who are dirt broke, there is free money from the government. Otherwise, they can go to a different nation and get a free education; however, they've got to pay it back later.

So what am I trying to say?

Prostitution is a capitalistic, materialistic, and deviant lifestyle/career that involves drugs, egos, and degeneration of society.

Down with prostitution in my humble opinion.
Up with equal or respected distribution of money among career fields.



don maico said:


> some women require the services of a male prostitute. Any moral indignatioin about that then?



Morality doesn't exist. It's another social construct that leads people into social contract theory. Maybe I'm too much of a philosopher gone evil, but I feel that it too degenerates society for a man or woman to use prostitutes.

Regardless, though, many prostitutes make a lot of money. They make more money than people working at a restaurant. With that said, I'm thinking many prostitutes are capitalists and materialists. They don't care about how much they destroy themselves as long as they get their money. Because of that, I am against prostitution.

I rather have productive members of society.

But since I'm a kind of person with doublethink, I rather everybody destroy themselves. So, sure, legalize prostitution. Let's make everything so liberal that the world becomes anarchic. We do it more and more each century. We destroy the social engineering that was created in the past. People keep degenerating society. They think they are creating equality, but pure equality becomes anarchy.


----------



## Saimon

I'm just curious -- can anyone name a country where outlawing prostitution has actually worked? By which I mean, eliminated it?


----------



## John-Paul

I'm curious. I know in countries like Pakistan prostitution exists (see Louise Brown's "Dancing Girls of Lahore," but how about Saudi Arabia or Jemen? If you talk about prohibition think about 1984 by George Orwell. Maybe you "nay-sayers"  are right, perhaps we should create a Sexpolice-force and cameras in everybodies' house, because that's what it will take to eliminate prostitution. Maybe some medical procedures can be conducive to a decline in demand - thought about that?


----------



## Fernando

Saimon said:


> I'm just curious -- can anyone name a country where outlawing prostitution has actually worked? By which I mean, eliminated it?



The following crimes have not been eliminated. Are you proposing to legalize them?

- Murder
- Rape
- Robbery
- Genocide
- Tax fraud

In most Western World prostitutes are not in jail, but wimps (and sometimes, clientes) are punished. Most times law is not enforced, even when the prostitution is forced.


----------



## Outsider

For as long as _men_ are the majority in the world's governments, no serious effort to erradicate prostitution will be made. Moralistic crusades that masquerade as attempts to end prostitution only take political power and independence away from (by and large _female_) prostitutes; they do not really aim to end prostitution. On the other hand, I'm not sure that stopping prostitution once and for all would be such a good thing.


----------



## don maico

Fernando said:


> The following crimes have not been eliminated. Are you proposing to legalize them?
> 
> - Murder
> - Rape
> - Robbery
> - Genocide
> - Tax fraud
> 
> In most Western World prostitutes are not in jail, but wimps (and sometimes, clientes) are punished. Most times law is not enforced, even when the prostitution is forced.


I am not quite sure how you can equate them with prostitution.As they are about harming others whereas the latter involves a transaction between two individuals


----------



## Saimon

Fernando said:


> The following crimes have not been eliminated. Are you proposing to legalize them?
> 
> - Murder
> - Rape
> - Robbery
> - Genocide
> - Tax fraud
> 
> In most Western World prostitutes are not in jail, but wimps (and sometimes, clientes) are punished. Most times law is not enforced, even when the prostitution is forced.


 
I'm not proposing anything. I was just asking a legitimate question. 
And I think you mean "pimps", not "wimps".


----------



## Pedrovski

Why not castrate all men? Heck, that'd definitely be the most effective way to wipe out prostitution once and for all off the face of this planet.

We'd have (female) babies made through in-vitro fertilization by using egg cells.  Men would eventually die out (but hey, who needs them ,they're all insensitive, brutish pigs) and poor women could no longer succumb to the temptation of entering prostitution to satisfy their evil capitalist desires of a better way of life. Feminist associations would rejoice at the news.

Sounds just great to me...


----------



## Pedrovski

BTW, why do you think "stopping prostitution once and for all would [not] be such a good thing."?

I agree, but just curious as to your exact reasons...


----------



## Athaulf

John-Paul said:


> Maybe you "nay-sayers"  are right, perhaps we should create a Sexpolice-force and cameras in everybodies' house, because that's what it will take to eliminate prostitution



You're obviously being sarcastic, but this is exactly what the modern world is converging towards in the medium to long run (although prostitution isn't particularly high on the list of activities that are commonly used to justify steps in this direction). I suspect that in a few decades, a proposal such as yours above won't be automatically  recognized as sarcasm.


----------



## Outsider

Pedrovski said:


> BTW, why do you think "stopping prostitution once and for all would [not] be such a good thing."?
> 
> I agree, but just curious as to your exact reasons...


It sounds like a noble idea, until you ask yourself how they would put a stop to it, and which job alternatives would await the former prostitutes.

Suppose a woman had decided to become a hooker because she was from a poor economic background, had only had access to limited education, and thus all other jobs available to her meant a lot of work for miserable pay. What are the moral do-gooders going to do with her once they've shut down all the brothels in the state? Dump her on the streets, left to her own devices? Quite likely. What life prospects will she have then? Going back to the old job where she bust herself from sunrise to sunset for peanuts? Or perhaps putting up with an abusive husband who can support her financially? Whether such a change of fate would be an improvement seems questionable.


----------



## Pedrovski

Outsider said:


> It sounds like a noble idea, until you ask yourself how they would put a stop to it, and which job alternatives would await the former prostitutes.
> 
> Suppose a woman had decided to become a hooker because she was from a poor economic background, had only had access to limited education, and thus all other jobs available to her meant a lot of work for miserable pay. What are the moral do-gooders going to do with her once they've shut down all the brothels in the state? Dump her on the streets, left to her own devices? Quite likely. What life prospects will she have then? Going back to the old job where she bust herself from sunrise to sunset for peanuts? Or perhaps putting up with an abusive husband who can support her financially? Whether such a change of fate would be an improvement seems questionable.



But isn't that patronizing prostitutes? Why look down upon their hard-earned work?  They help other people with a service, and are duly paid for it.  

My reasons for backing prostitution are slightly different, as I've partly already explained before. It helps to stem the profound inequalities found in sexuality in general. Men who cannot for some reason or other attract a partner can take out their frustrations this way. So can disabled people and all kinds of "undesirables".  I find the metaphor "The steam valve of society" fitting here. There could be a rise in rapes (although I have no statistical data whatsoever to back this claim up) if prostitution became unavailable, as sexual frustration mounted. General happiness and societal well-being could fall as a consequence.

Just what I think anyhow.


----------



## Outsider

Pedrovski said:


> But isn't that patronizing prostitutes? Why look down upon their hard-earned work?


I'm not sure you understood where I was coming from...


----------



## Saimon

"Men who cannot for some reason or other attract a partner can take out their frustrations this way."

Then there are men who don't _want_ a partner, at least not for anything besides sex. For guys like that, it's easier (and probably cheaper) to hire a prostitute than it is to go to a bar or club and try to pick up a woman who is also just looking for physical release with no emotional involvement.


----------



## Pedrovski

Outsider said:


> It sounds like a noble idea, until you ask yourself how they would put a stop to it



Well, saying that it's a noble idea to end prostitution implies a recognition that it's got a negative impact for society.

But why assume that all prostitutes hate their job? And even if many would prefer to do something else, this also applies to many people with "ordinary" jobs but no-one seems to complain about them. 

How about changing perspective and recognizing their "work" as one that creates value for society, just as e.g. a plumber or an accountant.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

Moderator Note:  The topic is the legalization of prostitution, not the spread of STDs, folks.


----------



## AIkelle

elpoderoso said:


> I don't think prostitution is a career shoice for any person,to legalize it would be very negative in my opinion, as it would suggest that the Government has given up on trying to get to grips with the root causes of prostitution( I'm not naive enough to imagine all the problems can be solved)
> *Legalising prostitution would only serve to reinforce the idea to some desperate people that selling their bodies for sex is the only way for them to live. *


 
I concurr.



Outsider said:


> Suppose a woman had decided to become a hooker because she was from a poor economic background, had only had access to limited education, and thus all other jobs available to her meant a lot of work for miserable pay. What are the moral do-gooders going to do with her once they've shut down all the brothels in the state? Dump her on the streets, left to her own devices? Quite likely.


 
I don't know about the rest of the world but, in The States there are lost of programs, Churches, special homes and organizations that are ready to take in, care and help any female and/ or male prostitute who wants out of that lifestyle. If you need more info on this subject you can contact me.


This article provides an alternative to this question. 

http://www.justicewomen.com/cj_sweden.html


----------



## AIkelle

don maico said:


> As to whethr i would want my daughter to be a prsostitute ? Probably not but then are many jobs I would prefer her not to do . at the end of the day it would be her choice nad *I would just accept it* as long as she is aware of the pitfalls and is reasonably happy,
> 
> It's easy to say so, if you've never been in that position as a parent. But try asking someone (a parent) who has a daughter or son who's a prostitute...
> 
> These are modern times
> *Behaviour that is detrimental to society is highly subjective* and depends on the individual. Most prostitues are *no problem to anyone* *and the same could be said of their clients*.


 
Indeed it is detrimental to society. From emotionally damaging children and wives of men who seek the services of a prostitute to setting an example for a child who will practice this kind of behavior with no guarantee of safety, risking his / her physical and emotional health.


----------



## ElaineG

Aikelle, thank you for the article about Sweden.  That and the links therein were very interesting.


----------



## TimeHP

Very interesting, indeed. And Sweden is a very modern country who pays a lot of attention to people...


----------



## konungursvia

Well I don't agree with the concept of "FULL" legalisation. You can't drive without a license, nor can you cross the road under certain circumstances. It should be legal, but with strict health and safety regulations, as it's a very dangerous business even when out of the underworld.


----------



## Pedrovski

AIkelle said:


> I concurr.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about the rest of the world but, in The States there are lost of programs, Churches, special homes and organizations that are ready to take in, care and help any female and/ or male prostitute who wants out of that lifestyle. If you need more info on this subject you can contact me.
> 
> 
> This article provides an alternative to this question.
> 
> http://www.justicewomen.com/cj_sweden.html





As far as I see it, all this article provides is a piece of trashy, feminist, men-bashing propaganda.

Not all men are your enemies, m'dear. The concept that this "patriarchal society" has a secret agenda to subjugate women makes me want to laugh and cry at the same time.

But thanks anyhow for showing that. I knew Sweden had some pretty ludicrous social policies, but this one is pretty much the cherry on top of the cake!


----------



## Pedrovski

AIkelle said:


> Indeed it is detrimental to society. From emotionally damaging children and wives of men who seek the services of a prostitute to setting an example for a child who will practice this kind of behavior with no guarantee of safety, risking his / her physical and emotional health.



Why do you assume that all men who solicit prostitutes' services are married though? That sounds pretty self-serving to me.


----------



## TimeHP

> As far as I see it, all this article provides is a piece of trashy, feminist, men-bashing propaganda.


 

If trashy, feminist, men-bashing propaganda is women that want to help other women, maybe you're right.
But some people can have an ethic which is different from yours.


----------



## Pedrovski

Just in case someone actually thinks the Swedish model is lovey-dovey good and that it wasn't created through pressure from extremist puritan feminist groups, let me show the interested an alternative website:

http://www.bayswan.org/swed/swed_index.html


----------



## TimeHP

Here are 10 reasons for not legalizing prostitution:
http://action.web.ca/home/catw/attach/10 Reasons 9-15-03 FINAL[1].doc


----------



## Everness

Pedrovski said:


> Just in case someone actually thinks the Swedish model is lovey-dovey good and that it wasn't created through pressure from extremist puritan feminist groups, let me show the interested an alternative website:
> 
> http://www.bayswan.org/swed/swed_index.html



Pedrovski,

In reference to the Swedish model, my hunch is that prostitution, as an industry, has gone further underground. It's not that guys aren't seeking hookers or that hookers aren't servicing guys. What has happened is that the prostitution industry in Sweden has come up with a new way of doing business that ensures that guys don't get caught and allows women to keep their jobs. The stats in this article are bogus.


----------



## don maico

As fpor the Swedish model - thousands of make Swedes are crossing over into Denmark for their sexual requirements. You cant stop men from following their instincts and the desire to have sex is one of their most fundemental.


----------



## TimeHP

Well, I suppose this is one of those threads where people can discuss for an eternity without changing their position. 
For me it's just a lose of time in this busy days...
So...Merry Christmas to you all!  

Meet you on the next topic.


----------



## maxiogee

In view of some of the opinions here, I think we'd better re-word the quesion, Prostitutes - would you let your son or daughter be in the same room as one?


----------



## ElaineG

maxiogee said:


> In view of some of the opinions here, I think we'd better re-word the quesion, Prostitutes - would you let your son or daughter be in the same room as one?


 
Other alternative thread titles based on some of the opinions here:

Prostitutes: A fun, hip way make some extra cash, hang with super-cool guys and just let all your human urges hang out (Subtitle: the track marks are, uh, just for decoration and _all my orgasms_ are 100% real, _big_ boy).

Prostitutes: Exactly the same as the rest of those f*king b*tches, but at least not trying as hard as those puritan feminazis who expect us to keep our d*cks in our pants to keep the long-suffering race of men down. (Subtitle: Not my sainted mother, of course!)


----------



## don maico

maxiogee said:


> In view of some of the opinions here, I think we'd better re-word the quesion, Prostitutes - would you let your son or daughter be in the same room as one?


Yes, as I dont necessarily see her as threat to them. Not quite the same as a paedophile for eg .Then again if she were a heroin addict as well I may think differently.

 This is the point. I once made a friend of someone who had been a prostitute except I didnt know she had been one until some time later . She had struck me as a perfectly reasonable person. Ultimately, when I found out ,it was me that couldnt quite cope with it as I betrayed her  by blurting out to others what she had told me in confidence. From then on I believed the problem lied with us as a society and our inability to accept other peoples libidinous behaviour.Too many of us are guided by our preconceptions and our prejudices and are arrogant enough to believe we know  what is best for others even going as far as wanting to punish those will not conform. They use sweeping generalisations and negative terms like "men violating women" who in turn are the  "victims".Whilst that maybe so in some cases I dont think its the general rule, by any means.


----------



## Athaulf

ElaineG said:


> Other alternative thread titles based on some of the opinions here:
> 
> Prostitutes: A fun, hip way make some extra cash, hang with super-cool guys and just let all your human urges hang out (Subtitle: the track marks are, uh, just for decoration and _all my orgasms_ are 100% real, _big_ boy).
> 
> Prostitutes: Exactly the same as the rest of those f*king b*tches, but at least not trying as hard as those puritan feminazis who expect us to keep our d*cks in our pants to keep the long-suffering race of men down. (Subtitle: Not my sainted mother, of course!)



Well, since the thread has already taken this direction, here's my semi-serious take...  

Prostitute: a woman hated by men because she freely sells access to her body, which according to the traditional ethic should be a man's exclusive possession. 

Prostitute: a woman even more hated by other women because she sells in retail what decent women cartelize to sell only wholesale.


----------



## don maico

Athaulf said:


> Prostitute: a woman hated by men because she freely sells access to her body, which according to the traditional ethic should be a man's exclusive possession.
> 
> Prostitute: a woman even more hated by other women because she sells in retail what decent women cartelize to sell only wholesale.


The eternal Chirstian hang up ie :
 Virgin Mary - perfect notion of womanhood the kind we want as our wives and daughters
Mary Magdalene- bitch ,whore who dares to stimulate our lustful desires.
Patriarchy!
lets get paganism rolling again ( well certain aspects)


----------



## ElaineG

> a woman even more hated by other women because she sells in retail what decent women cartelize to sell only wholesale.


 
Any evidence here that women hate prostitutes? I've represented two _pro bono_, and I didn't hate them at all. They broke my heart: they had tragic horrible lives, characterized by abuse from birth on, deprivation, illness and drug addiction.

I'm glad to learn that from this thread that they were the exception to a happy rule. 

Also, I'm starting to realize how different my part of the world is (thankfully) than it seems like where most people live.

In the professional/corporate world I've worked in since graduating from college, I've seen a couple of men's careers go poof faster than you could say boo for sleeping with subordinates. I've never seen any evidence of sex being traded for promotions -- most people are smart enough to know that work is the last place you should f/ck around. 

Ditto college and grades. None of the professors I knew thought a promising Ivy League career was worth blowing over a little nookie. There were some teacher-student relationships, but any teacher would have rather been dead that risk having their boyfriend/girlfriend in their class. Several of my closest friends have become professors, and they all say that every semester a few students get crushes on them. Again, they are all (thankfully too bright to act on it).

It seems that other people in this forum are regularly trading promotion, grades, IPODs, whatever, for sex. I'm sorry you live in places/cultures where that's still the norm. 

The other thing that makes me sad is that so many people here seem to come from cultures and places where you view love and sex as largely commercial ventures. In my admittedly rarefied corner of the world, those attitudes are pretty antiquated. Most of the women and men that are my contemporaries and friends are reasonably equal economic partners in their relationships -- in many cases, the woman earns more, in many, the man, some people like my partner and I are just about exactly equal. 

Most of the women I went to college with, work with, went to law school with, have no desire to be economically dependent on a man. Most of the (single) men I know are interested in f/cking, pulling, hooking up, whatever, but few see economics as having much to do with it.

I'm sorry that so many of you live in places where this is still the environment:



> decent women cartelize to sell only wholesale.


 
I think people enjoy sex a lot more when it is freely given, out of desire, interest, or even love, and I think relationships in general are more fun for everyone when money isn't an explicit or implicit issue (I know! I've gone out with plenty of teachers, filmmakers, etc. who of course are a lot poorer than me) and I hope that the people on this thread who have apparently been deprived of economics free sex get to experience it some day.


----------



## DCPaco

I think it should be legalized; however, it should be confined to a bordello. I also think that people who seek these services should receive a mark on their hand (with a strong marker) so that their partner or spouse knows where they've been--it would be unfair if they picked up something and a partner became an unaware victim.

I'm certain that these types of places could revenue tons of money...and, for the young people who do it to pay for their college tuitions, this could provide them the safety they deserve (just in case you didn't know, educations in the USA are very very very expensive; so, many college students resort to prostitution to make ends meet).

Let's do as we say: separate church and state.

(By the way, speaking of prostitution: another pastor at Ted Haggard's church was outed!)


----------



## cuchuflete

The day this thread began, I was listening to BBC news.  Going from memory, rather than a transcript, I believe they said that well over 90% of prostitutes in England engaged in that activity to pay for a drug addiction.  So much for the remarks casually tossed around that this is a profession selected because it pays well or is fun.


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:


> Going from memory, rather than a transcript, I believe they said that well over 90% of prostitutes in England engaged in that activity to pay for a drug addiction.


I wouldn't trust such a bombastic figure without a more careful investigation into where it comes from, who's promoting it, and how it was obtained. There are just too many biased interest parties in this business.


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:


> I wouldn't trust such a bombastic figure without a more careful investigation into where it comes from, who's promoting it, and how it was obtained. There are just too many biased interest parties in this business.



Have you done sufficient research into the topic to be qualified to characterize any figure, whether it be 2% or 99%, as "bombastic"?

If, in your own considered opinion, based on however much or little contact you may have had with prostitutes, you wish to dispute the BBC data, please do so, and provide your own unbiased sources.  


There is a line of conversation recurring throughout this thread that would have us believe that many prostitutes take up that line of work because it is either enjoyable or remunerative.  I invite anyone who believes that to try it out for a few months, and report back to us.


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:


> Have you done sufficient research into the topic to be qualified to characterize any figure, whether it be 2% or 99%, as "bombastic"?


90% is an extremely high percentage! It's also a round number, which makes me suspect it might be a guesstimate, rather than a the result of true research.



cuchuflete said:


> There is a line of conversation recurring throughout this thread that would have us believe that many prostitutes take up that line of work because it is either enjoyable or remunerative.


This is what I have heard from people who study it. Not the "enjoyable" part, of course (please do not lump all of those who have criticized the criminalization of prostitution into one homogenous blob), but the "remunerative" bit. At least in some places.


----------



## Athaulf

ElaineG said:


> Any evidence here that women hate prostitutes? I've represented two _pro bono_, and I didn't hate them at all. They broke my heart: they had tragic horrible lives, characterized by abuse from birth on, deprivation, illness and drug addiction.


 
I find that in general, more educated and (for lack of a better word) cultured women tend to have attitudes similar to yours, but among the ones that are less so, the prevailing attitude is still the old-fashioned straightforward condemnation and disgust. This is of course a personal experience, which covers only certain countries, regions, and social strata, but I don't think that any more reliable data could be found anyway.

It's kind of like the attitude towards the excess in common vices like smoking and drinking -- the common folk still consider it a sign of wicked laziness and lack of will to get one's life straight, whereas the intellectuals are more apt to come up with theories about people being helpless addicts enslaved and exploited by the ruthless big industry of vice (hence justifying the ever more stringent regulation of such activities).



> I'm glad to learn that from this thread that they were the exception to a happy rule.
> 
> Also, I'm starting to realize how different my part of the world is (thankfully) than it seems like where most people live.


Well, when it comes to many sex-related issues, Anglo-America and Europe are truly worlds apart. This might have some relevance even for this one.

Now, whether you want to believe it or not, I've never received a sexual service in any manner that could be reasonably described as "prostitution." However, some of my acquaintances from Europe do frequent brothels in Germany and other places where such business is perfectly legal. They certainly don't describe the employees there as wretched, desperate beings you're describing, and still less their managers as ruthless slavemasters -- although I have no reason to doubt your stories either. 

This however corresponds quite nicely with the common sense observation that a seriously illegal business of any kind will normally have its managerial ranks filled with thugs and violent psychopaths, and its menial jobs filled with underclass folks who turn to them out of sheer desperation. But this doesn't prove anything about the nature of the business itself, as is best exemplified by the alcohol prohibition. 



> The other thing that makes me sad is that so many people here seem to come from cultures and places where you view love and sex as largely commercial ventures. In my admittedly rarefied corner of the world, those attitudes are pretty antiquated. [...] Most of the women I went to college with, work with, went to law school with, have no desire to be economically dependent on a man. [...] I think people enjoy sex a lot more when it is freely given, out of desire, interest, or even love [...] and I hope that the people on this thread who have apparently been deprived of economics free sex get to experience it some day.


Well... as for your corner of the world, you'll probably agree that NYC is drastically different in every possible way from most of the rest of North America. But I digress. 

Anyway, I was born and raised in a household in which my mom has always earned substantially more than my dad (she also owns the apartment in which we lived), so you're very wrong if you consider me a slave to the antiquated prejudices in this regard.  My remarks above were intended to be humorous and, as I clearly wrote, only semi-serious. 

But, all humor aside, you operate with a very narrow definition of "economics." Economics is not only about money, it's about all costs and benefits, often non-monetary and non-palpable, by which people are motivated to behave the way they do. Regardless of what people are motivated by, they obviously face certain costs and benefits of sex, including those in the form of purely immaterial emotions and pleasures, and it's entirely legitimate to analyze what concrete ones lead them to actually engage in it in particular cases. 

When one says that women trade sex in a relationship for whatever they want from a man, it certainly doesn't have to be the money they're after (though one would have to be truly blind to claim that "gold diggers" are only a misogynistic myth). Now, whatever it is that women normally seek from men, a common-sense observation of people's usual behavior suggests that it's normally the men who compete for the place of the man in a woman's life who gets sex from her regularly. Thus, it's entirely reasonable that a typical women will dislike those women who provide sex "in retail," thus making their standard way of trading sex relatively less favorable to at least some men.

These observations might sound cold, cynical, or just plain evil (from many different moral perspectives), but to me they seem like just plain common sense. And whether you believe it or not -- I wouldn't even need to point it out if it wasn't for your last remark cited above -- what you call "economic-free sex" is certainly not an experience  unknown to me.


----------



## cuchuflete

> While some may become involved ‘to buy nice things’2 – and for some
> it is undoubtedly a highly lucrative business – for the 80-95% of those involved in
> street-based prostitution to feed a serious drug habit the reality is very different.


 British Home Office report...
You should download and read the entire .pdf file.  
The dowload link, titled Paying the Price, is here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/suffolkmurders/story/0,,1970494,00.html


This is highlighted many times in the report:

"Tackling drug and alcohol abuse
5.27 Nearly every study of women involved in street-based prostitution shows a very close
relationship with Class A drugs.65 *As many as 95% of those working on the street are
believed to be problematic drug users.*
47
Paying the
Price
65 Annex C provides more detail of these key statistics."


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> The day this thread began, I was listening to BBC news.  Going from memory, rather than a transcript, I believe they said that well over 90% of prostitutes in England engaged in that activity to pay for a drug addiction.  So much for the remarks casually tossed around that this is a profession selected because it pays well or is fun.



Even if this is true -- and I doubt it, since illegal markets by their very nature make it impossible to collect any reliable economic statistics -- where do you see a contradiction with the former claim? Drugs are an expensive habit, so obviously, one could expect people who want to spend large amounts of money on them to gravitate towards professions that offer the best pay.


----------



## don maico

cuchuflete said:


> British Home Office report...
> You should download and read the entire .pdf file.
> The dowload link, titled Paying the Price, is here:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/suffolkmurders/story/0,,1970494,00.html
> 
> 
> This is highlighted many times in the report:
> 
> "Tackling drug and alcohol abuse
> 5.27 Nearly every study of women involved in street-based prostitution shows a very close
> relationship with Class A drugs.65 *As many as 95% of those working on the street are
> believed to be problematic drug users.*
> 47
> Paying the
> Price
> 65 Annex C provides more detail of these key statistics."


as somone once remarked " there are lies , damned lies and then there are statistics". I would take those figures with a considerable pinch of salt especially when they come for the media.


----------



## fenixpollo

Athaulf said:


> Drugs are an expensive habit, so obviously, one could expect people who want to spend large amounts of money on them to gravitate towards professions that offer the best pay.


 And that require little to no training or formal education, and whose skills can be fairly easily acquired by a great majority of humans.

But if prostitution were legalized, I don't imagine that the link between prostitution and drugs would change.


----------



## cuchuflete

Athaulf said:


> Even if this is true -- and I doubt it, since illegal markets by their very nature make it impossible to collect any reliable economic statistics -- where do you see a contradiction with the former claim? Drugs are an expensive habit, so obviously, *one could expect people who want to spend large amounts of money on them to gravitate towards professions that offer the best pay.*



Unless you bring an unexpected amount of ignorance of reality as well as theoretical economics to the table, you are apt to quickly agree that the labor market for the abusesd, homeless, drug and alcohol addicted is not unlimited.
I agree with your suggestion about "professions that offer the best pay", but with the caveat that it is those that offer the best pay among those open to the person who engages in prostitution.  What well paid choices are there?  What does "best" mean in terms of actual 'take home pay' after the pimp or madam get their cut?


----------



## cuchuflete

don maico said:


> as somone once remarked " there are lies , damned lies and then there are statistics". *I would take those figures with a considerable pinch of salt especially when they come for the media.*



I take comments from those who do not read with any care with a very considerable pinch of salt.  The figures did NOT come from the media, but from, as stated, a British Home Office research and policy paper.   The link is there in my earlier post.  Please read the file before jumping to the rather ridiculous conclusion that this is from a tabloid.  It is not.

If you can wade through over one hundred pages of analysis, recommendations, and proposals, you will find an entire page of
references to the specific research studies used, including location, date, sample size, and numerical findings.


----------



## don maico

cuchuflete said:


> I take comments from those who do not read with any care with a very considerable pinch of salt.  The figures did NOT come from the media, but from, as stated, a British Home Office research and policy paper.   The link is there in my earlier post.  Please read the file before jumping to the rather ridiculous conclusion that this is from a tabloid.  It is not.
> 
> If you can wade through over one hundred pages of analysis, recommendations, and proposals, you will find an entire page of
> references to the specific research studies used, including location, date, sample size, and numerical findings.



as I said they are just statistics nothing more and I certainly wouldnt give them much credence whatever the source.I would have far more respect fr them if the came from people who went out into the underworld, mingled with prostitutes from all different backgrounds, in short made a worthwhile in depth investigation . The homeoffice is riddled with jobsworths who will spout whatever fits into their agenda.
 Pinch of salt nothing more.


----------



## cuchuflete

don maico said:


> as I said they are just statistics nothing more and I certainly wouldnt give them much credence whatever the source.I would have far more respect fr them if the came from people who went out into the underworld, mingled with prostitutes from all different backgrounds, in short made a worthwhile in depth investigation . The homeoffice is riddled with jobsworths who will spout whatever fits into their agenda.
> Pinch of salt nothing more.



Suit yourself. You obviously have not read it, do not know who the sources are, do not know whether the sources "went out into the underworld, mingled with prostitutes...." and will not be dissuaded from pinching salt by anything that takes a little effort—such as looking at something up close before dismissing it as rubbish.

By the way, how do you think the researchers got the information about prostitutes if not by mingling with them, talking with them?  Maybe they just read individual opinions from experts in a forum.

Salt, indeed.


----------



## don maico

cuchuflete said:


> Suit yourself. You obviously have not read it, do not know who the sources are, do not know whether the sources "went out into the underworld, mingled with prostitutes...." and will not be dissuaded from pinching salt by anything that takes a little effort—such as looking at something up close before dismissing it as rubbish.
> 
> By the way, how do you think the researchers got the information about prostitutes if not by mingling with them, talking with them?  Maybe they just read individual opinions from experts in a forum.
> 
> Salt, indeed.


I have read so many claims based on so called research all of it massaged to fit into someone or somenones agenda that I tend to take them lightly and not as fact. Many of the outcomes contradict one another. Certain media commentators pick up on the "findings" in order to back up their arguements. Once one becomes aware of this one tends to ignore these so called researches.
somehow I cannot envisage civil servants doing much "mingling"


----------



## cuchuflete

I wouldn't dare try to prise you away from your dearly held opinions.  It might be really upsetting to discover that you are not invariably correct in generalizing.  I did take the trouble to read the stuff your tax money paid for, and thus I share your
view that it was not the civil servants doing the mingling.  Nonetheless, some mingling got done, and the results came from conversations --"interviews" in government jargon--with working prostitutes.  

Most of the time when I read "studies show...." I dismiss whatever claims are made as crap, unless I can backtrack the claims to their source, and judge it to be sensible.  When I can I look at research and sample design too.   Lots of statistical findings are fiddled.

Still, you are awfully quick to call something twaddle before seeing it, especially when it's just a couple of mouse clicks away.  

So, given your reluctance to look at what even healthily sceptical you might find wanting, why don't you tell us what percentage—a range will do very well, we don't need a precise number—of prostitutes are drug addicted.  You could tell us approximately how many prostitutes you have known, in what cities, over what time frame, and your common sense deduction about addiction among sex workers.  If you have had "mingling" contact with the subjects, yours will be an additional data source to consider.


----------



## don maico

cuchuflete said:


> I wouldn't dare try to prise you away from your dearly held opinions.  It might be really upsetting to discover that you are not invariably correct in generalizing.  I did take the trouble to read the stuff your tax money paid for, and thus I share your
> view that it was not the civil servants doing the mingling.  Nonetheless, some mingling got done, and the results came from conversations --"interviews" in government jargon--with working prostitutes.
> 
> Most of the time when I read "studies show...." I dismiss whatever claims are made as crap, unless I can backtrack the claims to their source, and judge it to be sensible.  When I can I look at research and sample design too.   Lots of statistical findings are fiddled.
> 
> Still, you are awfully quick to call something twaddle before seeing it, especially when it's just a couple of mouse clicks away.
> 
> So, given your reluctance to look at what even healthily sceptical you might find wanting, why don't you tell us what percentage—a range will do very well, we don't need a precise number—of prostitutes are drug addicted.  You could tell us approximately how many prostitutes you have known, in what cities, over what time frame, and your common sense deduction about addiction among sex workers.  If you have had "mingling" contact with the subjects, yours will be an additional data source to consider.


I only refer top twaddle when people make categorical statements like 95%  of prostritutues are addicts . My first question is "hoi can they possibly know"The trade is notoriously cloak and dagger and a considerable number of working girls( ot theoir clients) would be extremely unlikley to want reveal anything about themselves because of the enormous stigma attached to the profession.I would willingly concede that there may be a majority or that street workers  on the whole are addicts but remain to be convinced that the figure applies across the board.Cleints who regulalry visit their girls at their homes or on out calls do so on the understanding those girls are clean and free of disease.They pay a lot of money for their entertainment and they probably view addicts as dodgy.
I suppose one could venture into that punting site I included above and pop the question to those most in the know but it might be difficult to gain a response. Maybe one could become a member, pretend one is a fledgling punter and kind of ask for opinions. My guess would be they would smell a rat and ban the intruder straight away


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> The day this thread began, I was listening to BBC news.  Going from memory, rather than a transcript, I believe they said that well over 90% of prostitutes in England engaged in that activity to pay for a drug addiction.  So much for the remarks casually tossed around that this is a profession selected because it pays well or is fun.





don maico said:


> as somone once remarked " there are lies , damned lies and then there are statistics". I would take those figures with a considerable pinch of salt especially when they come for the media.



Have you *read* the annex cuchuflete cited?
Not one of the surveys used to compile the report he quetes had any "media" behind them. The only one which might ring bells is "Bernardos" - the child welfare agency.

And don't be so quick to slag off "The media" - the scientists who do good work and get it out to us - need a 'medium' between them and us.


----------



## Outsider

I looked at the report and the figures that Cuchuflete mentioned are indeed there. Whether the studies themselves were done properly, is impossible to know.

It is also not explained how narrow was the definition of "drug user" those studies used. Are we talking about people who smoke a joint every now and then? People whose lives are on the brink of ruin due to a severe addiction? Something in between? They don't say.

And there's a fallacy in Cuchuflete's original argument:



cuchuflete said:


> The day this thread began, I was listening to BBC news.  Going from memory, rather than a transcript, I believe they said that well over 90% of prostitutes in England engaged in that activity to pay for a drug addiction.  So much for the remarks casually tossed around that this is a profession selected because it pays well or is fun.


Let's leave aside the "because it's fun" straw man.

The fact that many prostitutes are drug users does not prove that that's the main reason why they became prostitutes, as you seem to have concluded.


----------



## cuchuflete

don maico said:


> I only refer top twaddle when people make categorical statements like 95%  of prostritutues are addicts



There was no "categorical statements like 95%".

Read what it says.


----------



## don maico

Apologies! i must admit i did jump the gun somewhat, probably because it was early doors and I was due for work - at least thats my excuse. I willingly accept there is a major drug element amongst the street workers. I just dont think the same exists amongst those working from addresses or travelling to particular locations.
Its a bit of a thorny subject for me and I dont like to see these girls being lambasted simply because of what they do.


----------



## John-Paul

There are many different classes of prostitutes. The streetwalkers being the lowest and the concubines among the highest in pay as in status. The reason why so many streetwalkers are addicts is that they are not allowed inside the 'regular' business. It's not that complicated, women and men, who look like models, have university degrees and like to 'entertain' are being paid handsomely for their services. The streetwalkers have simply no where else to go. Oftentimes they are not verry pretty, homeless, have various addictions, not to mention illnesses. Many of them die at a young age. Does anyone care? No, because they are the drop outs of society who are left in a lawless limboland where life is worth as much as anyone wants to pay for it. Just, for the sake of argument, think about the outpour of emotion after thy ultimate concubine (Diana) died and what happened after the poor girls in England where killed, or the girls found recently here in Atlantic City. I think it's ridiculous that today, in the 21st century, we leave people to rot, because of some archaic notion that they are 'unclean'. Also, what does all this resistance against prostitution tell about your moral imperative?


----------



## cuchuflete

don maico said:


> ... I dont like to see these girls being lambasted simply because of what they do.



Full agreement here.

The reasons I posted the mention of the BBC report in the first place were twofold:

1- to show that there is a very strong, maybe even overwhelming, correlation between prostitution and drug problems...often addiction.  These women have to pay for the habit, and may have few choices about where to find the money.   That doesn't mean that addicition is the cause for them to become prostitutes in the first place, though that may 
be the case some of the time.  It certainly suggests a reason why many men and women continue to be prostitutes. 

2- to debunk the superficial, trite, self-serving and puerile notion that women choose to be prostitutes because its a delightful source of easy money.  Given the risks of disease, battery, and other abuse at the hands of both clients and pimps, it is a high risk job.  

It really doesn't matter much what the exact percentage of addiction is.  It's high.  If a woman is recruited or forced into prostitution at a very young age, as apparently many are, and becomes addicted to drugs, alcohol or both, her chances of leaving the job get even smaller.  The same is true of male prostitutes.  

I have no idea what legalization might do to help with this.


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:


> 2- to debunk the superficial, trite, self-serving and puerile notion that women choose to be prostitutes because its a delightful source of easy money.  Given the risks of disease, battery, and other abuse at the hands of both clients and pimps, it is a high risk job.


I don't know if that was addressed at me also, but either way I want to make clear that in no way did I intend to suggest that prostitution was an easy or safe activity. Definitely not. But I do believe that a sizeable amount of those who engage in it do so because they voluntarily saw it as a risk worth taking, given the life choices they had at their disposal -- not because they were violently coerced or tricked into it. Which doesn't say much for how supportive our society is of them, to be sure.


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> The reasons I posted the mention of the BBC report in the first place were twofold:
> 
> 1- to show that there is a very strong, maybe even overwhelming, correlation between prostitution and drug problems...often addiction.
> [...]
> 2- to debunk the superficial, trite, self-serving and puerile notion that women choose to be prostitutes because its a delightful source of easy money.  Given the risks of disease, battery, and other abuse at the hands of both clients and pimps, it is a high risk job.
> [...]




And the relevant replies to this are even more manifold. So let's go over some of them. Before I start, please note that I'm trying to compose a post addressing more than just your claims, so as to avoid having to clutter the thread with multiple smaller posts. Thus, the points of view that I criticize below are not necessarily yours.


(1) I don't think government statistics are a very reliable source when it comes to anything with political significance. In particular, governmental policy documents are notorious for cooking up figures related to addictions by presenting occasional drug users as extreme addicts, with the goal of justifying ever more regulation, taxation, and repression. As an unrelated example, I can point out reports on alcoholism  by various governments that come up with alarmingly high numbers of extreme alcoholics in the general population by happily classifying into that category anyone who occasionally drinks 5-6 beers on a Friday night (which becomes obvious only when you read the fine print). 

But even if we accept the mentioned figure as truthful, it covers only a particular class of prostitutes, namely those that are universally recognized as the most poor and wretched. I could easily believe that the percentage of heavy drug users is really high among them. But do you have any numbers about what percentage of prostitutes in general fall into that category?


(2) Even if we accept that prostitution is necessarily an extremely torturous and risky profession, it is still a fact that some people are poor and desperate enough to have no better choice. _So how can one claim that these people are made better off if that choice is taken away from them? _Generally, how can you ever make someone better of by_ reducing _his set of alternatives? 

You may reply that we should somehow re-engineer the society so that nobody is so poor and desperate any more. But even if we accept that it's possible to do, this certainly doesn't imply the need to ban prostitution -- once nobody is so desperate any more, nobody will ever practice it, just like you and I obviously aren't considering the option. Either way, the eradication of prostitution can have at best a neutral effect. 

Thus all this talk about the connection between prostitution and poverty and desolation is in fact unable to produce any logical argument in favor of the prohibition of prostitution. 

What is the real issue here is that people like to pretend that nobody is ever really desperate enough to choose certain options that they find disturbing. When the reality shows the opposite, they want to criminalize such choices and keep pretending that somehow, nobody would ever _really_ make them. 


(3) Various posters keep repeating the same point about the managers of prostitutes being cruel or exploitative, and some even go to the point of claiming that the prostitutes are in fact usually their slaves. But it's a common-sense observation that _any_ illegal business is usually organized and managed in a way that selects for thugs and psychopaths in the competition for the managerial positions. Thus, even if we accept that the prostitutes are commonly mistreated by their bosses, the people having that role in a legal prostitution market can be expected to be as different as a modern whisky industry CEO is different from Al Capone. From what I've seen in the media and heard from certain acquaintances, this seems to indeed be the case in Germany, where prostitution is a completely legal business.

Furthermore, enslaving and physically abusing people is illegal in itself, regardless of whether such behavior is connected with prostitution. If the government is unable to enforce the laws addressing those issues by themselves, what makes anyone think that a ban on prostitution will help anything? If someone is really able to break the laws against slavery, battery, rape, etc. with impunity, what difference does it make if the list of his felonies is enhanced by another relatively minor one?


----------



## Pedrovski

ElaineG said:


> The other thing that makes me sad is that so many people here seem to come from cultures and places where you view love and sex as largely commercial ventures. In my admittedly rarefied corner of the world, those attitudes are pretty antiquated.




Well, I  don't think you're seeing the full picture here. We don't live in a fairy story where there's always "someone" out there for you and things always end with a "they lived happily ever after". It'd be really great if things were like that, but we need to face reality for what it is.

There will inevitably be people in society who will not be able to find their "significant other" or "f/ck buddy" or whatever else you want to call it. Either because they're too physically ugly, too demanding, emotionally uncapable of pulling a woman, physically disabled, fat, too high a sex drive, you name it, there are infinite possibilites as to why a human being cannot reach his sexual objectives in a "natural" (by this I mean free) manner.  So in your world of sexual Utopia what are you going to tell these souls? "Sorry, but you're just going to have to bang your head against a wall, jump off a cliff, anything, just don't make sex a commercial transaction."



ElaineG said:


> I think people enjoy sex a lot more when it is freely given, out of desire, interest, or even love, and I think relationships in general are more fun for everyone when money isn't an explicit or implicit issue (I know! I've gone out with plenty of teachers, filmmakers, etc. who of course are a lot poorer than me) and I hope that the people on this thread who have apparently been deprived of economics free sex get to experience it some day.




Hey, you're probably right, free sex is more enjoyable than paid one (especially because one doesn't have to think about the financial resources used afterwards)!
But again, that was never the point, and for the purpose of the desirability of commercial sex, irrelevant. If a person does not have access to free sex, it doesn't matter which one is better, as long as the one that's available generates some well-being for him/her, then it's always worth it.
Comparing alternatives only makes sense when both are available.


----------



## Athaulf

fenixpollo said:


> And that require little to no training or formal education, and whose skills can be fairly easily acquired by a great majority of humans.
> 
> But if prostitution were legalized, I don't imagine that the link between prostitution and drugs would change.



But does this link make prostitution itself evil in any way? That might be argued if the link were established in the other direction, i.e. if prostitution itself were shown to lead people to self-destruction, rather than being just a frequent form of behavior for people who already are on a self-destructive path. I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case.


----------



## Athaulf

Pedrovski said:


> There will inevitably be people in society who will not be able to find their "significant other" or "f/ck buddy" or whatever else you want to call it. Either because they're too physically ugly, too demanding, emotionally uncapable of pulling a woman, physically disabled, fat, too high a sex drive, you name it, there are infinite possibilites as to why a human being cannot reach his sexual objectives in a "natural" (by this I mean free) manner.  So in your world of sexual Utopia what are you going to tell these souls? "Sorry, but you're just going to have to bang your head against a wall, jump off a cliff, anything, just don't make sex a commercial transaction."



Heh... whenever people construct theories centered around the claims that certain groups of people are somehow underprivileged, they tend to be severely selective when it comes to the question of what constitutes a valid claim of being underprivileged. In fact, since such theories are often prone to _reductio ad absurdum_ of the kind "but if everyone complained as much about other matters of similar importance...," their proponents often actively trivialize and ridicule the perception of inequalities and miseries that aren't on their target list. 

Thus, don't expect that this argument -- although perfectly valid -- will get any serious consideration in the whole debate about prostitution. In the prevailing attitudes in our society, being deprived of sex is simply not considered as a valid claim of being underprivileged, even though one can make such a claim if deprived of certain much less essential things in life. And the people who speak loudest against other sorts of inequality will actually struggle to reinforce such attitudes for the reason described above. 



> Hey, you're probably right, free sex is more enjoyable than paid one (especially because one doesn't have to think about the financial resources used afterwards)!


However, unless you actually intend to become a parent, "free" sex may easily have severe financial consequences. This is in fact one of its principal downsides.


----------



## Pedrovski

Athaulf said:


> Thus, don't expect that this argument -- although perfectly valid -- will get any serious consideration in the whole debate about prostitution. In the prevailing attitudes in our society, being deprived of sex is simply not considered as a valid claim of being underprivileged, even though one can make such a claim if deprived of certain much less essential things in life. And the people who speak loudest against other sorts of inequality will actually struggle to reinforce such attitudes for the reason described above.



Well... Sex is considered to be part of an array of basic physiological needs of any human being. Therefore it's a primary necessity, not a luxury item.
So I think it definitely should be described as "essential".



Athaulf said:


> However, unless you actually intend to become a parent, "free" sex may easily have severe financial consequences. This is in fact one of its principal downsides.



I really did not understand your argument.  Why does "free" sex cause more babies than "evil" (paid) sex? Protection can be used in both cases...
Unless I misunderstood and what you meant was that there are high indirect costs in maintaining a casual relationship (dinners, cinema, etc.)


----------



## Athaulf

Pedrovski said:


> Well... Sex is considered to be part of an array of basic physiological needs of any human being. Therefore it's a primary necessity, not a luxury item.
> So I think it definitely should be described as "essential".



Maybe I didn't emphasize enough that I fully agree with your argument -- just don't expect many other people to do so, for the reasons I mentioned. Sometimes the most clear and logical arguments are the ones least likely to be taken seriously.



> I really did not understand your argument.  Why does "free" sex cause more babies than "evil" (paid) sex? Protection can be used in both cases...


First, no form of protection is perfect, and in fact most people -- including some very irresponsible "educators" -- tend to greatly underestimate its probability of failure. And in the case of failure, you're stuck with the consequences only if the sex was "free" (I'm talking solely about the perspective of a man, of course, but that was what your original point was about). There is another important point here, which however requires going into some quite unpleasant aspects of certain sexual relationships, so I'll just be very brief about it and say only that means of protection can often be sabotaged. 

But I think we're drifting too far from the main topic here; the only relevance of these issues is that they might cast doubt on the previously seen claims that "free" sex is necessarily the superior option, even if available abundantly. 



> Unless I misunderstood and what you meant was that there are high indirect costs in maintaining a casual relationship (dinners, cinema, etc.)


This too, in many cases, but I primarily had in mind the above facts.


----------



## fenixpollo

Athaulf said:


> But does this link make prostitution itself evil in any way? That might be argued if the link were established in the other direction, i.e. if prostitution itself were shown to lead people to self-destruction, rather than being just a frequent form of behavior for people who already are on a self-destructive path. I haven't seen any evidence that this is the case.


 People who are against prostitution can make the case that if prostitution leads to drug use, then prostitution is evil; and if drug use leads to prostitution, then prostitution is evil. The latter is true because drug use is evil -- therefore the behavior that it leads to (lying, violence, stealing, destructiveness, prostitution) must be evil.


----------



## ElaineG

> So in your world of sexual Utopia what are you going to tell these souls? "Sorry, but you're just going to have to bang your head against a wall, jump off a cliff, anything, just don't make sex a commercial transaction."


 
Well, actually, it's not my world of sexual utopia -- I've said at least three times in this thread that I think prostitution should be legalized.  Not because I think it's natural, wonderful, a social service to the ugly or anything of the sort, but because I think the only way to improve working conditions for prostitutes and encourage them to feel brave enough to break free from, report, and testify against the pimps who abuse them is to decriminalize the activity they engage in.  

A prostitute should not fear, as women I have worked with have, that she will lose custody of her children if she publicly takes a stand against a man who has deprived her of more than 90% of her earnings because she will then be on the record as being a member of a criminal profession.  

Studies show that jailing prostitutes does no good.  It only further forecloses other avenues to them, increases their dependence on drugs and other criminal elements, etc.  So, as President Clinton once said of abortion, I think prostitution should be safe, legal and rare.


What I have a beef with is two different things that I've seen on this thread: 1) prostitutes lead dandy lives, are no different than other wage workers, statistics that show otherwise are cooked, blah blah blah.  This thread caused me to call the 2 men I'm friends with that have admitted to ever having frequented a prostitute  -- in both cases Europeans who went to brothels as part of coming of age rituals, one in Spain and one in Amsterdam.  They said the women seemed zoned out, brain dead, if not drug addicted, obviously going through distasteful motions.  These were "high end whores".  Another close friend's cousin, white upper-class girl with an expensive coke and later heroin habit, was a high end call girl in her teens.  She was turning tricks to pay her drug habit, just like a street walker.  I doubt her clients ever knew, until her AIDS became too visible and she lost most of her upper end clients.  I really don't think the pitfalls of prostitution are limited to the streetwalkers at Hunt's Point.  

I think that those who doubt a link between prostitution and drug addiction are missing two obviously probable hypotheses: 1) someone with an expensive habit to feed will do whatever it takes to feed the habit, including degrading themselves in ways they might not otherwise and 2) if we allow for the possiblity that it's not a fantastic job, drugs might help to dull the misery.

I understand that if I liked to pay for sex or frequent websites that promote it, or whatever, I'd probably feel a lot better about myself if I thought it was a simple economic transaction that really was inevitable and not causing or perpetrating psychic or other harm to anyone.  That's human nature.  It's like saying, well, if I didn't buy those sweatshop Nikes, those kids in the third world would probably starve to death.  Whatever gets you through the night ... but I think it's more honest to take in the whole picture, and dispense with the gauzy Garcia Gabriel Marquez cute story about the ye old brothel and the hooker with a heart of gold fantasy.

2) There's a vein of crude and not too well veiled misogyny that runs through some of these posts.  There's a crazy bitterness and cynicism towards women in some, not all, of these posts (of the type my crude boyfriend would say is a sure sign that a guy can not get any p**sy) and I guess we shouldn't be surprised by that. 

But it does turn what could be a constructive conversation into a rather odd venting ground at times.


----------



## maxiogee

Athaulf said:


> (1) I don't think government statistics are a very reliable source



Nothing I read in the link provided by cuchuflete indicated that any of the studies involved had been conducted under any government aegis.
The report itself was a government consultation paper - but their statistical  sources were totally independent. Had the authors of the document been 'selective' in their choice of evidentiary material this would have surfaced in the consultations which followed, and the press would have been gleefully informed by the political opposition.


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:


> Nothing I read in the link provided by cuchuflete indicated that any of the studies involved had been conducted under any government aegis.
> The report itself was a government consultation paper - but their statistical  sources were totally independent. Had the authors of the document been 'selective' in their choice of evidentiary material this would have surfaced in the consultations which followed, and the press would have been gleefully informed by the political opposition.



Tony is, of course, absolutely correct.

The point I made, citing the British government's collection of numerous independent, non-tabloid, non-governmental primary research findings, is that lots of prostitutes have problems with drug usage.

Two or three people came charging in, rather defensively it seems to me, to question whether these data can be believed.  No one of the critics here has provided anything more than "guilt by association" reasons to put the data in doubt.
No one has said that there is not a high incidence of drug use among prostitutes.  No one has offered anything at all in the way of alternate data.  One had the decency to state that, as far as he knows, there is a lot of drug use among prostitutes.

I have to wonder why some people are so defensive about this.  I never said, nor did the Home Office report, that most prostitution results from addiction.  

But drug problems and prostitution do tend to show up together, don't they? 

Does anyone here think that most drug addicts live happy lives?
Does anyone here think that most prostitutes work in safety?

Put the dangerous work and the addiction together, for whatever high percentage you wish to believe (If you claim it is not high, you should examine your motives as well as your "trustworthy" sources, if any.), and acknowledge that there is a problem.   Then go ahead and develop your arguments that the problem will be better addressed by legalization.  It might well be.  


There is another line of bull popping in and out of some of the posts here—the implication that becoming a prostitute is just another rational, informed, voluntary choice of employment, like deciding to be a bus driver or a clerk.  

I'd like to see those who would have us believe such twaddle post a detailed job description, including required duties, hours, working conditions, net compensation, and health statistics for the average worker.  Then try to persuade us that the job-seekers enthusiastically line up to compete for employment in this 'career'.


----------



## Lusitania

I don't agree with criminalisation of prostitution, nor the punishment of clients as that has proven to create a situation where trafficking florishs, "Lylia 4ever" is a good movie on the subject.

About legalising I'm not sure. In Holland it's legal and trafficking and sexual exploitation of Human Beings still happens as well as in other countries that didn't or did legalize it.
Legalization has a lot of focus on creating houses where sex workers can work, also pay taxes (this is the most important argument when legalization of prostitution is mentioned) have acess to health care, protection and so on...

So, in Portugal it's not legal nor ilegal but still trafficking happens especially in brothels (some cases in the street, as they believe in voodo won't really make a run out of it). Studies have been done in Portugal and the result is that street sex workers are less infected by HIV and other STDs as they have acess to street social workers teams and drop in centers.
The idea of legalization is to put them in houses where they can be protected but nobody explains how this protection is going to be done. Also there has been very few studies on how sex workers feel about this over here.

Legalisation can be a solution, depending on the solution that it provides.

So, in can bring a lot consequences that might endanger sex workers as also avoiding dealing with the subject.

I agree with social work on this area but also I feel that victimization of sex workers is wrong. These are human beings who should speak their own mind and should have a saying on what they think that it's best for them.


It's a dangerous business and very profitable (especially to traffickers and pimps) and I wonder if legalising it will make less dangerous, however, maybe sex workers would more easily come forward and press charges when they are victims of violence.

More research on clients would also be helpfull.


----------



## Lusitania

cuchuflete said:


> But drug problems and prostitution do tend to show up together, don't they?
> 
> Does anyone here think that most drug addicts live happy lives?
> Does anyone here think that most prostitutes work in safety?


 
In a study conducted in Portugal has shown that 54.5% are drug users, 8.9% are former users and 36.6% claim they haven't used drugs. Also many of them don't consider alcohol has a drug which might somehow distorted these number as 16.1% do addmit to have drinking habbits. 50% have stated that they are dependent of drugs for over 6 years.

Prostitution and drug problems tend to show up together. Around 56% of prostitutes addmited to have sought counselling in drug related problems.

From the begining of the 20th century, prostitutes in portuguese main cities (especially Lisbon) were women that came from the interior of the country. They were coming to work as maids (through newspaper adds) or they were coming to have abortions as they were single and it was seen has a shame upon their families. In Lisbons main train stations there were already trafficking networks to put these women into prostitution and there were women groups that run shelters to help them.
Studies also shown a high prevalence of sexual abuse (around 90%) in these women. 
Nowadays, the majority of prostitutes are migrants and the push and pull factors are also related with poverty in their countries of origin and among the portuguese women (a minority nowadays) it's seen a huge relation with drug abuse as well as low educational background which makes it difficult regarding insertion in the job market.

More than a half of the prostitutes have stated that they wished to find a different job and leave this activity and more than half already tried. So I believe that there is a high number of prostitutes not happy with their lives whether they are dug addicts or not.

Off course these studies approach prostitution as a social problem (when people are pushed into this activity) as most of them have stated to have decided to become prostitutes due to pressure of their families or economical needs. They do not reflect the cases of the so called luxury prostitution where women claim to have choosen this actvity because they like it.

Also most the prostitutes that participated in this research have stated that they do not feel any pleasure with their clients.


----------



## Outsider

fenixpollo said:


> People who are against prostitution can make the case that if prostitution leads to drug use, then prostitution is evil; and if drug use leads to prostitution, then prostitution is evil. The latter is true because drug use is evil -- therefore the behavior that it leads to (lying, violence, stealing, destructiveness, prostitution) must be evil.


And that would be a fallacy. If A and B appear correlated (let's assume, out of the kindness of our hearts, that the studies the U.K. government's report listed were not cooked or misreported statistics), then that neither proves that A causes B, nor that B causes A.



ElaineG said:


> What I have a beef with is two different things that I've seen on this thread: 1) prostitutes lead dandy lives [...]


Who was it that said that in this thread?  



ElaineG said:


> 2) There's a vein of crude and not too well veiled misogyny that runs through some of these posts.  There's a crazy bitterness and cynicism towards women in some, not all, of these posts (of the type my crude boyfriend would say is a sure sign that a guy can not get any p**sy) and I guess we shouldn't be surprised by that.


For myself, I understand that I may have said things that could be interpreted as mysogyny, but it's not that. It's frustration and disappointment. I feel frustrated and disappointed, because of the ill-disguised disdain and superiority with which some people, including "normal", feminist women, speak of prostitutes.


----------



## Outsider

Lusitania said:


> About legalising I'm not sure. In Holland it's legal and trafficking and sexual exploitation of Human Beings still happens as well as in other countries that didn't or did legalize it.
> Legalization has a lot of focus on creating houses where sex workers can work, also pay taxes (this is the most important argument when legalization of prostitution is mentioned) have acess to health care, protection and so on...


I've heard very negative opinions about how European countries deal with prostitution, even supposedly "advanced" ones. I suggest taking a look at Brazil, which has an interesting experiment of this sort in progress.


----------



## don maico

Athaulf said:


> Heh... whenever people construct theories centered around the claims that certain groups of people are somehow underprivileged, they tend to be severely selective when it comes to the question of what constitutes a valid claim of being underprivileged. In fact, since such theories are often prone to _reductio ad absurdum_ of the kind "but if everyone complained as much about other matters of similar importance...," their proponents often actively trivialize and ridicule the perception of inequalities and miseries that aren't on their target list.
> 
> Thus, don't expect that this argument -- although perfectly valid -- will get any serious consideration in the whole debate about prostitution. In the prevailing attitudes in our society, being deprived of sex is simply not considered as a valid claim of being underprivileged, even though one can make such a claim if deprived of certain much less essential things in life. And the people who speak loudest against other sorts of inequality will actually struggle to reinforce such attitudes for the reason described above.
> 
> However, unless you actually intend to become a parent, "free" sex may easily have severe financial consequences. This is in fact one of its principal downsides.


I dont think anyone would argue that it is a  right in the same sense as a right to cheap food, affordable housing ,free healthcare or education, but that it should be available within the  normal constraints of the market place proivided certain safeguards are put in place


----------



## maxiogee

don maico said:


> I dont think anyone would argue that it is a  right in the same sense as a right to cheap food, affordable housing ,free healthcare or education, but that it should be available within the  normal constraints of the market place proivided certain safeguards are put in place



There's a 'right' to cheap food? 
Surely not?
Surely the producer of any commodity is entitled, in this capitalist market-economy we live in, to set the price for her produce?


----------



## don maico

maxiogee said:


> There's a 'right' to cheap food?
> Surely not?
> Surely the producer of any commodity is entitled, in this capitalist market-economy we live in, to set the price for her produce?


What i meant was that people should have a right to be able to buy healthy nutritious food ie the basics. That the food should not be beyond them from a financial perspective. The food should either be subsidised or they should be paid enough to afford it. Like healthcare ,basic food and shelter are necesities. Anyway thats off topic



ElaineG said:


> What I have a beef with is two different things that I've seen on this thread: 1) prostitutes lead dandy lives, are no different than other wage workers, statistics that show otherwise are cooked, blah blah blah. This thread caused me to call the 2 men I'm friends with that have admitted to ever having frequented a prostitute -- in both cases Europeans who went to brothels as part of coming of age rituals, one in Spain and one in Amsterdam. They said the women seemed zoned out, brain dead, if not drug addicted, obviously going through distasteful motions. These were "high end whores". Another close friend's cousin, white upper-class girl with an expensive coke and later heroin habit, was a high end call girl in her teens. She was turning tricks to pay her drug habit, just like a street walker. I doubt her clients ever knew, until her AIDS became too visible and she lost most of her upper end clients. I really don't think the pitfalls of prostitution are limited to the streetwalkers at Hunt's Point.
> 
> 2) There's a vein of crude and not too well veiled misogyny that runs through some of these posts. There's a crazy bitterness and cynicism towards women in some, not all, of these posts (of the type my crude boyfriend would say is a sure sign that a guy can not get any p**sy) and I guess we shouldn't be surprised by that.
> 
> But it does turn what could be a constructive conversation into a rather odd venting ground at times.


 
I dont think one can judge the industry on the basis of the experiences of two individuals It would like saying all lawyers are bent as two bob notes because two clients had a bum deal.
I disagree with the misogyny bit as well


----------



## Lusitania

Outsider said:


> I've heard very negative opinions about how European countries deal with prostitution, even supposedly "advanced" ones. I suggest taking a look at Brazil, which has an interesting experiment of this sort in progress.


 

Maybe you can elaborate more on the issue as you seem to know it so well.


----------



## Outsider

Lusitania said:


> Maybe you can elaborate more on the issue as you seem to know it so well.


Well, Brazil has legalized prostitution. I posted a link a few pages ago. Take a look.

I just want to add one thing, lest I be accused by association of being a mysogynist again. I do not think that men (or women) should have the right to paid sex when they're unable to get any free one (that idea makes me snigger, *Don Maico*). What I do think is that the real world is less than ideal, and prostitution is here to stay, so the best thing to do is try to deal with it in a humane way. Demonizing prostitutes/prostitution is not the right way to do that, IMO.


----------



## ElaineG

Outsider said:


> Who was it that said that in this thread?  Read along.  I'm not naming names.
> 
> For myself, I understand that I may have said things that could be interpreted as mysogyny, but it's not that. It's frustration and disappointment. I feel frustrated and disappointed, because of the ill-disguised disdain and superiority with which some people, including "normal", feminist women, speak of prostitutes.


 
Well, certainly not me, I think I have ill-disguised disdain for men who equate all sexual and romantic interactions with the opposite sex to implicit or explicit market transactions, but that's another story.  I have, as I've said a number of times on this thread, donated my time to representing prostitutes, something I'd be unlikely to do if I held them in contempt.  

In fact, the only contempt towards prostitutes I've seen on this thread is from one man, who said he wouldn't touch something that other men have touched, or similar.  None of the (few) women on this thread have evinced anything remotely similar to contempt for prostitutes.



> I dont think one can judge the industry on the basis of the experiences of two individuals It would like saying all lawyers are bent as two bob notes because two clients had a bum deal.
> 
> Actually, my post referred to three individuals, and other posts have referred to a different two.  My point is that the anecdotal evidence that I have been able to obtain _bears out the statistics _which some people were quick to dismiss as twaddle.  I've invited people a couple of times to share their experiences with prostitution, but no one has.
> 
> I disagree with the misogyny bit as well


 
Well, the worst offending posts have been deleted.  But it's still there if you look for it.  I didn't say all posts.  But if anyone can read this thread and not find _some_ posts that reek of a warped attitude towards women, they had better buy reading glasses.


----------



## Lusitania

Outsider said:


> Well, Brazil has legalized prostitution. I posted a link a few pages ago. Take a look.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't find it. Many countries have legalised it. What has the model in Brasil so different from others?
> 
> Have you been in Brazil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just want to add one thing, lest I be accused by association of being a mysogynist again. I do not think that men (or women) should have the right to paid sex when they're unable to get any free one (that idea makes me snigger, *Don Maico*). What I do think is that the real world is less than ideal, and prostitution is here to stay, so the best thing to do is try to deal with it in a humane way. Demonizing prostitutes/prostitution is not the right way to do that, IMO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, I did demonize prostitutes, nor I've treated them as victims. In fact, I did pointed up some differences.
Click to expand...


----------



## Athaulf

ElaineG said:


> There's a vein of crude and not too well veiled misogyny that runs through some of these posts.  There's a crazy bitterness and cynicism towards women in some, not all, of these posts (of the type my crude boyfriend would say is a sure sign that a guy can not get any p**sy) and I guess we shouldn't be surprised by that.
> 
> But it does turn what could be a constructive conversation into a rather odd venting ground at times.



I think you're overestimating the effectiveness of "arguments" in this style. One can just as easily descend to the level of smearing the opposite side using an identically worded argument in which only the names of sexes (and sexual organs) are reversed, which some  men indeed do, but to no great effect. And I won't even bother to characterize your last above quoted sentence in terms of a pot and kettle (well, it seems like I just did ).

But just in case the outburst above was caused in part by my claims that economics has a lot to say about people's sexual behavior, regardless of whether the money is involved in any way, directly or indirectly, I would point out that this idea isn't some oddball cynical fantasy borne out of my frustrations, but rather a well-established part of modern mainstream economics. For illustration, below are a few links, randomly picked from a casual Google search, that talk about the research carried out along these lines in quite respectable academic circles. 
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/m...1957200&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=all
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/cepa/Economics.pdf
http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog/POSSER.html
http://econpapers.repec.org/article/blakyklos/v_3A48_3Ay_3A1995_3Ai_3A4_3Ap_3A577-92.htm


----------



## ElaineG

> I think you're overestimating the effectiveness of "arguments" in this style.


 
Althauf, no argument about it.  Merely an observation.  One can research the impact of economics on sex, and vice versa.  Many have.  

I know what you said, you know what you said.  I would not put you into the category of venter.  However, I do find some of your posts to be sufficiently anti-female that discussing the subject of prostitution with you is unpleasant.


----------



## Outsider

Lusitania said:


> Well, I did not demonize prostitutes, nor I've treated them as victims. In fact, I did pointed up some differences.


Of course, I did not mean you. 



Lusitania said:


> Can't find it.


Here it is.



Lusitania said:


> Many countries have legalised it. What has the model in Brasil so different from others?
> 
> Have you been in Brazil?


I suppose what you really want to know is have I been "involved" with Brazilian prostitution. The answer is "No". But, if you're interested, I _may_ be able to get you in touch with a Brazilian anthropologist who actually knows what he's talking about, unlike me.


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:


> If A and B appear correlated (let's assume, out of the kindness of our hearts, that the studies the U.K. government's report listed were not cooked or misreported statistics), then that neither proves that A causes B, nor that B causes A.



How about, out of the kindness of your heart, you explain precisely why you are so determined to attempt, however weakly, to smear by innuendo a report that states what you own common sense should lead you to accept: poor people in high risk jobs that often are controlled by such high principled people as thugs and pimps are prone to drug use.

Just what is it about that simple idea which puts you in such a defensive posture?  You claim to have looked at the report.
Just what what there about its stated purpose, or that of any of the sources cited, that leads you to be so kindhearted as to
very gratuitously toss around words like "cooked" and "misreported"?

You have done your best--not very good at all in fact--to discredit something, but have produced neither evidence to support your charges, nor an iota of contrary data.

That doesn't build credibility for an attacker.  It is reminiscent of the tactics of the tabloid press Don Maico properly distrusts.   

Would you care, out of the kindness of your heart, to tell those who have not read the report whether it was for or against legalization of prostitution, or neither for nor against it?  You are invited to quote the report to support your claimed interpretation.


Lusitania cited statistics showing a high incidence of drug use among prostitutes in Portugal.  Is that also unreliable, by your lights?  If so, why is it unreliable?   

Do you have personal experience or friends in the business that lead you to be so persistent in denying the apparent association of high drug use and prostitution?   In short, whatever your motives may be, you are invited to offer more than snide remarks to attempt to support your statements.


PS- As you claim to have looked at the report, you should be well aware that the British Home Office did not make any claims that drug addiction was a primary cause of, nor the effect of, prostitution.  That should spare you going off on a diversionary tangent.


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:


> How about, out of the kindness of your heart, you explain precisely why you are so determined to attempt, however weakly, to smear by innuendo a report that states what you own common sense should lead you to accept: poor people in high risk jobs that often are controlled by such high principled people as thugs and pimps are prone to drug use.


Please. I doubted whether the studies said everything what you seemed to be concluding from it. That's not the same as 'smearing', and I do not appreciate having my words twisted around like that. 

This is what you originally claimed: 



cuchuflete said:


> The day this thread began, I was listening to BBC news.  Going from memory, rather than a transcript, I believe they said that well over 90% of prostitutes in England engaged in that activity *to pay for a drug addiction*.


As I pointed out, the data in the report do not justify that conclusion.



cuchuflete said:


> Lusitania cited statistics showing a high incidence of drug use among prostitutes in Portugal.


And notice that her statistics are considerably lower than the ones the report cites.


----------



## cuchuflete

Outsider said:


> Please. I doubted whether the studies said everything what you seemed to be concluding from it. That's not the same as 'smearing', and I do not appreciate having my words twisted around like that.



There is no need to twist anything.  You wrote this:  





> (let's assume, out of the kindness of our hearts, that the studies the U.K. government's report listed were not *cooked or misreported* statistics),


 That is a smear job.  You wrote it.
Please explain why. 



Please demonstrate what you believe I seemed to be concluding.  You have done more than your fair share of attributing interpretations to me, which I have neither made nor stated, and I do not appreciate that.



> And notice that her statistics are considerably lower than the ones the report cites.


  I did see that there was quite a difference.   The BBC and I referred to a report about prostitutes in England.  Lusitania spoke of rates of drug use among prostitutes in Portugal.  Nobody claimed a uniform rate of association between prostitution and drug problems worldwide.  Is this yet another attempt to discredit the British findings by saying that the numbers are different elsewhere, or are you simply pointing out that they vary among countries?


----------



## Lusitania

Outsider said:


> Of course, I did not mean you.


 
Of course not.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=1966826#post1966826


> Here it is.


http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=1966826#post1966826

This is not a case study, this is website of group of prostitutes that have decided to create a fashion show and are models of the work they produce. They do struggle for the legalisation, yes. 
Where is the part of the legalisation? Where is the law? 



> I suppose what you really want to know is have I been "involved" with Brazilian prostitution. The answer is "No".


 
Not really, I don't care with what you do in your private life.
My question was: have you ever been in Brasil? In Rio de Janeiro for example.



> But, if you're interested, I _may_ be able to get you in touch with a Brazilian anthropologist who actually knows what he's talking about, unlike me.


 
Thanks, but probably I already know him.


----------



## Qcumber

I think prostitution will never be legalized in nations of hypocrites where clerics or new "moralists" have the upper hand.


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:


> Please demonstrate what you believe I seemed to be concluding.  You have done more than your fair share of attributing interpretations to me, which I have neither made nor stated, and I do not appreciate that.


I've edited my post to add it. Please look up.


----------



## Lusitania

Qcumber said:


> I think prostitution will never be legalized in nations of hypocrites where clerics or new "moralists" have the upper hand.


 

Well, it can, the thing is that legalising so far didn't solved the problem. In Amesterdam only a couple of brothels are legal among the hundreds that exist. They would have to pay huge taxes.
We are talking about an issue that has always worked as a parallel economy in the margins of the society. It's much more profitable, more than smmuggling drugs.

The research I mention was a quantitative one, based in numbers and it's from 1999.
If it was nowadays it would have been much higher, and if I'd show you some qualitative researches based on what the prostitutes say about their clients. I'm sure you'd fall on your knees.


----------



## Outsider

Lusitania said:


> Of course not.


It seems you've decided to be ironic with me. Lusitania, our little disagreement in the other thread had no bearing on my replies to you in this one, as far as I'm concerned. They were honest replies. You don't seem to believe so, which makes continuing this exchange tiresome to me.

Still, I'll give it a shot.



Lusitania said:


> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?p=1966826#post1966826
> 
> This is not a case study, this is website of group of prostitutes that have decided to create a fashion show and are models of the work they produce. They do struggle for the legalisation, yes.


You're quite right that I did not use the term "case study" in its technical sense. It was just a figure of speech.

By pointing to the website, I did not intend to offer proof of anything, merely draw attention to the example of Brazil, which I think is an interesting example, both for those who are for the decriminalization of prostitution, and for those who are against it.



Lusitania said:


> Not really, I don't care with what you do in your private life.
> My question was: have you ever been in Brasil? In Rio de Janeiro for example.


Since you are not interested in my private life, I don't see any relevance in those two questions.



Lusitania said:


> Thanks, but probably I already know him.


Quite possibly.


----------



## cuchuflete

> problematic drug abuse – as many as 95% of those involved in street-based
> prostitution are believed to use heroin and/or crack.1


 Shall we suppose that the prostitutes use their earnings for support of heroin and/or crack habits to some large extent, or do you have a theory about other uses of funds?



> While the existence of commercial sexual transactions is generally accepted and even tolerated in certain circumstances, the prostitute is a commonly pilloried figure. This is often based on a general assumption that those
> involved are in control of their situation. However, the evidence is clear that this can be far from true. High levels of childhood abuse, homelessness, problematic drug use and poverty experienced by those involved strongly suggest survival to be the overriding motivation.
> 1.6


  What does this suggest?



> The profile demonstrates the links between pimping and drug abuse. Although the ‘classic pimp’ continues to exist, *increasingly common is the boyfriend with a serious drug addiction who pimps his girlfriend to fund both their drug habits.*


 What does this suggest?


The report has quite a lot of material about the difficulty women, and men, have in leaving a protitute's work, and it cites drug addiction as a major obstacle for those who do try to leave it.   


There is no logical difficulty in seeing that the alternative jobs open to the drug addicted are not abundant.  Hence, high drug use does correlate with staying in the "profession".


----------



## Outsider

cuchuflete said:


> There is no need to twist anything.  You wrote this:   That is a smear job.  You wrote it.
> Please explain why.


I did not say the statistics were cooked or misreported. That would have been a smear. I merely suggested they may have been. Granted, it was a bit of hyperbole, inspired by an earlier post by Athaulf (who has no doubt made himself unpopular around here, due to his assciation of attitudes towards prostitution with economics), but neither am I Athaulf, nor was my remark, essentially, more than a manifestation of purely subjective skepticism.



cuchuflete said:


> I did see that there was quite a difference.   The BBC and I referred to a report about prostitutes in England.  Lusitania spoke of rates of drug use among prostitutes in Portugal.  Nobody claimed a uniform rate of association between prostitution and drug problems worldwide.  Is this yet another attempt to discredit the British findings by saying that the numbers are different elsewhere, or are you simply pointing out that they vary among countries?


Why should they vary so much? We are all human beings. One possibility is that there are indeed some important socioeconomic differences between London and Portugal which explain the difference. But another possibility is that _the English studies used a broader definition of "drug user" than the Portuguese ones_.


----------



## Athaulf

ElaineG said:


> Althauf, no argument about it.  Merely an observation.  One can research the impact of economics on sex, and vice versa.  Many have.
> 
> I know what you said, you know what you said.  I would not put you into the category of venter.  However, I do find some of your posts to be sufficiently anti-female that discussing the subject of prostitution with you is unpleasant.



Well, I admit that I am generally cynical towards the human race somewhat above average, and I sometimes do throw cynical remarks at things about which most people prefer to keep quiet -- but I don't think that my cynicism is disproportionally targeted at women. In fact, the post that sparked our exchange consisted of two cynical remarks, one targeted at men, and another at women. You chose to snip the former and challenge only the latter, so it's no wonder that my further remarks along the same lines might have sounded somehow anti-female. In a different context, I might have easily come off as sounding anti-man -- but it's not my fault that people tend to perceive general cynicism as a malevolent attack on their favored collective. 

Unfortunately, a frank discussion of many issues in this world cannot be other than unpleasant, unless all of the participants choose to adopt some sort of common rigidly self-righteous worldview  (which is indeed often the case). Thus, feeling that someone else's arguments are "unpleasant" is certainly not a valid excuse for dismissing them, unless your goal is to score cheap points in front of an already friendly audience. You might of course consider my arguments as so obviously wrong or irrelevant that they aren't even worth taking the effort to answer, and I wouldn't mind at all if you said so. But I don't think it's fair or rational to dismiss people by vaguely characterizing them as some sort of "enemies" of a collective with which you identify (be it your sex, nationality, religion, political party, regional identity... I've seen many examples of each).


----------



## Lusitania

Outsider said:


> It seems you've decided to be ironic with me. Lusitania, our little disagreement in the other thread had no bearing on my replies to you in this one, as far as I'm concerned. They were honest replies. You don't seem to believe so, which makes continuing this exchange tiresome to me.
> 
> Still, I'll give it a shot.


 
I'm sure you will. Well, it hasn't very confortable.



> You're quite right that I did not use the term "case study" in its technical sense. It was just a figure of speech.


 
Because in reality, prostitution is not legalised in Brasil. Yet.
Their system is a sort of the Portuguese one.
Not legal, not illegal.



> By pointing to the website, I did not intend to offer proof of anything, merely draw attention to the example of Brazil, which I think is an interesting example, both for those who are for the decriminalization of prostitution, and for those who are against it.


 
Yes not a example of Brasil, it's an example of an activity undertaken by some Brazilian sex workers. Surely, there are more.



> Since you are not interested in my private life, I don't see any relevance in those two questions.
> Quite possibly


 
I don't see why. Do I have to be interested in your private life to ask you if you have ever been to Brazil?

I'm not going further on the Brazilian topic as addressing countries specifically in this case might not be that positive.
The case in Brasil, regarding the exploitation of women has been so huge that: Portugal has provided funding and got a liasion office in the Brazilian Police. There has been several projects between the two countries and agreements. The problem was so huge that the UN and UNICEF provided funding for several projects at airports to assist women and children, to prevent trafficking and to receive once they go back. Now, even the Dutch Government is funding the project as although they legalised prostitution, this case is such a big issue.

Every day in Portugal 200 women from Brasil try to enter the EU. It's not know but there might be over 15 million brazilian women in the EU brought for the purpose of prostitution. Studies show high prevalence of sexual exploitation as well most of the women have stated they were given drugs to be able to undertake all the work (meaning as much clients as possible).

It's a very serious problem and it can't be looked as something so light.


----------



## Lusitania

Athaulf said:


> Well, I admit that I am generally cynical towards the human race somewhat above average, and I sometimes do throw cynical remarks at things about which most people prefer to keep quiet -- but I don't think that my cynicism is disproportionally targeted at women.


 
The thing is that when you are in multicultural groups, some people might not see irony and cynism as you do, they might find it offensive or not even understand it.


----------



## Athaulf

Lusitania said:


> The thing is that when you are in multicultural groups, some people might not see irony and cynism as you do, they might find it offensive or not even understand it.



But then the problem is that they rush to fit me into some stereotype of a typical enemy of whatever group they identify with, rather than trying to understand what I said. If everyone's going to rush to proclaim offense at first opportunity, I don't think any real discussion about a non-technical subject can ever take place.


----------



## Lusitania

Outsider said:


> Why should they vary so much? We are all human beings. One possibility is that there are indeed some important socioeconomic differences between London and Portugal which explain the difference. But another possibility is that _the English studies used a broader definition of "drug user" than the Portuguese ones_.


 

There maybe changes from country to country and even inside the country itself. Prostitution is diferent in Portugal, the north from the south, even nationalities and drug use. However, the characteristics of women remain very similar.

In an organization where I worked, while interviewing prostitutes, in the begining they would say they were clean of drugs. Later, they would say that they would take pills and drink alcohol. For them drugs were heroin or cocain. Not even marijuana was seen as drug.

It was also the same with physical violence, when asked if they've encountered some violent clients they would say no. If you asked "Were you ever hit by a clients?". They would reply "I get kicked and punched sometimes".

If you come from families where abuse happens so often, that at the age of ten your family puts you into prostitution, it might seem normal to you. Once you're an adult and you've got there surviving as you could, what can you do but to defend the legalisation of your whole life.

They've also came from families where there was drug abuse and sometimes when they seek help and it starts working they bring a huge part of the family to be helped as well.


----------



## Lusitania

Athaulf said:


> But then the problem is that they rush to fit me into some stereotype of a typical enemy of whatever group they identify with, rather than trying to understand what I said. If everyone's going to rush to proclaim offense at first opportunity, I don't think any real discussion about a non-technical subject can ever take place.


 

I've read here "normal" people, feminists... so many labels to put on people just because they think differently. I wouldn't like to do that with you. It's not the case of offense, for me it's always an opportunity to be around people who think differently and give my opinion (which is bound to change, as part of growing up). The problem is when a anti-something position is held and people don't try to read what other write.
As well as to take into account that not all of us here are native english speakers and some are in different levels of english.


----------



## ElaineG

> If everyone's going to rush to proclaim offense at first opportunity, I don't think any real discussion about a non-technical subject can ever take place.


 
No offense taken, I just said I find several of your remarks to have made discussing the issue with you unpleasant. I don't want to single them out because I found them tangential to the topic at hand, as this is. After all, this isn't my job or one of the policy groups that I volunteer with or even the forum I moderate here or any of the other venues where I necessarily have to discuss things with the unpleasant on a daily basis.

As a bottom line, I don't suppose that we disagree. I want to legalize prostitution because I want increased protection and support for prostitutes, and a better ability to channel services directly to them rather than having them hidden at the margins of society. 

You want to legalize prostitution because...in your experience, birth control fails and women have a habit of sabotaging birth control because they all want to you be their baby daddy, and... prostitutes don't get pregnant? Or if they do they can't figure out whose kid it is so no man has to take responsibility, phew, thank god? (I admit to not following the end of this "economic" argument as well as I should).

But however we get there, I guess we both get to the bottom line.


----------



## don maico

Can I just take this opportunity to wish you al a very merry winter solstice. I shall do my utmost to enjoy the next few days and hope you do the same

Please mods DO NOT DELETE THIS AS "CHAT" not on topic or cutting toenails as its sincerely meant


----------



## cuchuflete

don maico said:


> Can I just take this opportunity to wish you al a very merry winter solstice. I shall do my utmost to enjoy the next few days and hope you do the same
> 
> Please mods DO NOT DELETE THIS AS "CHAT" not on topic or cutting toenails as its sincerely meant



Merry winter solstice, and whatever else you may celebrate, Don Maico.


Chat?  where?  

I didn't see any chat, did you?


Off-topic? Me?  Never!  

I assure you that we never go off-topic...


Merry Christmas, Happy Chanukah, Joyful Solstice, Delightful December to all.....


----------



## Harry Smith

Prostitution must be fully legalised and as the word "prostitution" is a negative word it'll be better to change into another. Any ideas?


----------



## maxiogee

Harry Smith said:


> Prostitution must be fully legalised and as the word "prostitution" is a negative word it'll be better to change into another. Any ideas?



I fear we are tip-toeing along the slippery edge of the off-topic ravine - but, as the concept of illegitimacy was abolished in Ireland and we ceased having a use for the word 'bastard', I suppose that were prostitution to be legitimised, so we might find ourselves with no further use for the word. I imagine that the business is just another form of the overall 'service industry', coupled with 'hospitality'. Could "personal services provider" be an unambiguous and non-judgemental descriptor?
I've always like the foreign-perfumed _courtesan_ as a word, it has a tone of self-determination about it.


----------



## cuchuflete

Harry Smith said:


> Prostitution must be fully legalised and as the word "prostitution" is a negative word it'll be better to change into another. Any ideas?


The topic is difficult enough without some misguided attempt to improve or disguise or euphemize the reality with a pullitickly keerrect nonsense term.  

Why not go off in search of an endearing term for a pimp why you're at it.  They could use some sanitizing.


----------



## Harry Smith

cuchuflete said:


> The topic is difficult enough without some misguided attempt to improve or disguise or euphemize the reality with a pullitickly keerrect nonsense term.
> 
> Why not go off in search of an endearing term for a pimp why you're at it. They could use some sanitizing.


 
Perhaps you are right.


----------



## ElaineG

The Red Thread, the Dutch union that I did a research project on during law schoo, refers to its members as "sexworkers."

For those interested in this topic, and the effects of legalization etc., there is an apparently very interesting report that the Red Thread did on the state of prostitution in the Netherlands:  http://www.rodedraad.nl/fileadmin/rode_draad/downloads/NL/rechten_van_prostituees.pdf

I don't read Dutch, though, I read some some articles, eg, (http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/ned061031mc) that draw on its conclusions.

One of the saddest parts seems to be that the legal sector of prostitution is dying out and people are turning more and more to the illegal sectors of prostitution in the Netherlands where sex-slavery and exploitation of immigrants remains the norm. 

I suppose everyone here will tell me that that is just human nature.  It's obviously good economics, as an illegal, non-tax paying prostitution organization will be cheaper than a licensed, taxed and regulated facility.  

But it's very bad news for the sex workers themselves, if even legalization, unionization etc. can't protect them from the worst aspects of the trade.

In the article I linked above, it says that Germany is considering making it a crime to visit brothels where the prostitutes are not voluntary.  That seems like an excellent idea in theory, but hard to put into practice.  I'd be curious to hear from anyone who knows more about the German proposal.


----------



## Athaulf

ElaineG said:


> No offense taken, I just said I find several of your remarks to have made discussing the issue with you unpleasant. I don't want to single them out because I found them tangential to the topic at hand, as this is. [...]



And guess what -- in the subsequent paragraph, you proceed to single out one of my tangential statements, pull it out of context (with the side effect of removing all surrounding clarifications and disclaimers), and then rephrase and embellish it to the point where it doesn't even resemble what I was actually saying. All with the purpose of demonstrating what a thoroughly evil, twisted, and ruthless character I must be. 

I must admit that you're remarkably skillful at this sort of "debate." And yes, I am struggling mightily at the moment against the urge to exploit the obvious cheap shots.


----------



## ElaineG

> All with the purpose of demonstrating what a thoroughly evil, twisted, and ruthless character I must be.


 
I would hardly attribute any of those adjectives to you.  That's a lot of importance to give a forum discussion, my friend!  Just because I disagree with you on why prostitution should be legalized and don't think highly of some of your views doesn't mean I bother to assume much, if anything, about your character.  

If you want to explain how I misunderstood your point about engineered contraceptive failure and its (lack of) connection to the legalization of prostitution, I'm all ears.


----------



## Athaulf

ElaineG said:


> I would hardly attribute any of those adjectives to you.  That's a lot of importance to give a forum discussion, my friend!  Just because I disagree with you on why prostitution should be legalized and don't think highly of some of your views doesn't mean I bother to assume much, if anything, about your character.
> 
> If you want to explain how I misunderstood your point about engineered contraceptive failure and its (lack of) connection to the legalization of prostitution, I'm all ears.




It's not at all about misunderstanding, but entirely about a standard rhetorical tactic that you applied, which is often practiced everywhere from Internet forums to top echelon politics. Specifically, out of dozens of different points I've made in this thread, you carefully picked the one that by itself sounds most cynical and least considerate, tore it out of context and embellished it richly, and finally presented it as the central point and crowning achievement of everything I've ever said on the subject. I've seen this particular rhetorical device applied so many times that I'd be surprised if Demosthenes didn't have a technical name for it already. 

My original statement that you used for this purpose was given in the context of a discussion of how things look like from a purely self-interested male perspective, which I considered for the sake of discussion, not as a statement of my worldview. I also said that the observation was limited only to certain cases, not some sort of a universal rule. I further indicated that it has only tangential importance for the issue under discussion, and in fact borders on off-topic drift. All this was clearly and explicitly indicated in the post in which the statement was given. You however proceeded to tear this statement out of context and apply the above described method with the purpose of picturing me as some sort of a twisted nutcase. 

Of course, two can play that game, and you've certainly provided abundant material for a counterattack using the same tactic, but I don't find it interesting.


----------



## don maico

ElaineG said:


> I would hardly attribute any of those adjectives to you.  That's a lot of importance to give a forum discussion, my friend!  Just because I disagree with you on why prostitution should be legalized and don't think highly of some of your views doesn't mean I bother to assume much, if anything, about your character.
> 
> If you want to explain how I misunderstood your point about engineered contraceptive failure and its (lack of) connection to the legalization of prostitution, I'm all ears.


Dear oh dear, no need to be quite so disparaging. Por favor se necesita  la vida no la importancia


----------



## ElaineG

> above described method with the purpose of picturing me as some sort of a twisted nutcase.


 
For the 2nd time, the only person calling you a twisted nutcase is you.  You've done it twice now.  There's no need to assume that those who disagree with you think you are a twisted nutcase, really.


----------



## djchak

Question for all: Is being a "Porn star" in the same ranks as prostitution? Because that IS legal in most countries, including the U.S.


----------



## maxiogee

ElaineG said:


> For the 2nd time, the only person calling you a twisted nutcase is you.  You've done it twice now.  There's no need to assume that those who disagree with you think you are a twisted nutcase, really.




If that's what the man wants to do, let him - it's a free world (for some).


----------



## don maico

maybe a positive aspect of legalisation in Holland: the privehuis

http://www.ignatzmice.com/Adam/features/Prive_Guide.htm


----------



## Lusitania

djchak said:


> Question for all: Is being a "Porn star" in the same ranks as prostitution? Because that IS legal in most countries, including the U.S.


 

In some countries strip-teasers and porn starts are also considered sex workers or workers in the sex industry. There are also part of the sex workers Unions in some countries.


----------



## Lusitania

ElaineG said:


> One of the saddest parts seems to be that the legal sector of prostitution is dying out and people are turning more and more to the illegal sectors of prostitution in the Netherlands where sex-slavery and exploitation of immigrants remains the norm.
> 
> I suppose everyone here will tell me that that is just human nature. It's obviously good economics, as an illegal, non-tax paying prostitution organization will be cheaper than a licensed, taxed and regulated facility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an example also a consequence that Fernando stated is important, there were already cases of women that were unemployed and they were offered by the unemployment center a job in the sex industry and she refused so she lost her unemployment benefits.
> 
> 
> 
> But it's very bad news for the sex workers themselves, if even legalization, unionization etc. can't protect them from the worst aspects of the trade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There has been many international seminars on the issue of legalisation and what has happened is that behind this idea of legalisation and unionization they've found pimps and traffickers sponsoring it. Which is no big news as they are the ones who profit the most.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the article I linked above, it says that Germany is considering making it a crime to visit brothels where the prostitutes are not voluntary. That seems like an excellent idea in theory, but hard to put into practice. I'd be curious to hear from anyone who knows more about the German proposal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Also in Portugal the government has discussed it, legalisation or phoibition to buy sex, as now portugal is mainly an abolicionist country.
> As in the German example you provided, the client if he'd go to a brothel and if the women are sexually exploited, the client might be prosecuted. The Portuguese government has consider to include this on the revision of the portuguese penal code.
> The legalisation arguments were solely base on economic grounds, as if the activity would pay taxes it would provide something like 500 million euros every year. But as also most of the brothels do not pay taxes and are illegal, and most of the prostitutes are migrants, so then it would be like a gangsters paradise, still not paying taxes and having prostitutes coming into the country every day.
> I believe that this has to be a jointly position taken by the EU.
> Still, I don't agree with the prohibition but if trafficking it's a public crime and the client can clearly see that the women isn't there voluntarly (as many stated) there should be some kind of punishement.
> 
> When the MTV project came out in Portugal, many clients came forward and inumerous cases of trafficking were reported. They addmited that it wasn't the first time that they were with a woman that "didn't seem to be very happy and sometimes bruised"
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Lusitania

Harry Smith said:


> Prostitution must be fully legalised and as the word "prostitution" is a negative word it'll be better to change into another. Any ideas?


 

Could you also provide an example of legalisation that would prevent the exploitation of women? I would like to know some example.


----------



## don maico

its quite clear people in here have very fixed opnions about "the game", the girls who practice it and the punters who avail themselves of their services.
At one extreme we have those vehemently opposed to legalisation viewing it as something evil- the clients being the greater evil and the girls as exploited victims violated and having to sell their bodies in order to pay for a drug habit.Then we have those who relunctantly accept it is impossible to maintain  a ban but who nevertheless have an ill disguised contempt for the men who seek the services of such ladies.Lastly there are those like myself who prefer to maintain a liberal stance believing there are positives to be found and if only people had an open mind they would see them.
As in ALL walks of life there are negatives and positives - prostitution is no different! Indeed there is exploitation as there are drug issues but there also women who make a free choice to sell their bodies because they can make a good living with few strings attached. Many work part time as they have a family to supprt and its not beyond the realms of credibilty that some may actually enjoy their jobs. Their position is strong enough that they can almost dictate who they will do business with and  insisting on certain standards of hygene and respect.many maintain very cordial relationships with their clients. At the end of the day the only thing to do would be to carry out ones own investigation into all sectors of the practice, interviewing both the girls and their clients enquiring as why they do it what they get out of it , what they would like to see and their main fears.Do so with an open mind and try to be as objective as possible putting ones prejudices to one side


----------



## John-Paul

3 things.

1. The problem with this issue is that it is, unlike any other job, impossible for most of us to imagine our mothers, fathers, bothers or sisters working as prostitutes, streetwalkers, sex workers, whores etc. That means that most of us have no clue what this sex-for-money business is all about.
2. The Netherlands is first and foremost a pragmatic society. When it comes to issues like prostitution, euthanasia, and drug use we create policies based on the facts that these issues are real and need to be dealt with because prohibition is, well, prohibition, we all know how that turned out. That doesn't mean that the Dutch endorse prostitution, euthanasia and drug use. On the contrary. In the US for instance the drug use among teenagers is much higher than in the Netherlands.
3. To me the main argument is the power question. Prostitution does not automatically imply that women are exploitated. Exploitation of people is, I'm sorry to say, of all trades. I think the US has never progressed beyond the plantation mentality still prevalent in many different kinds of companies.


----------



## Outsider

Lusitania said:


> Because in reality, prostitution is not legalised in Brasil. Yet.
> Their system is a sort of the Portuguese one.
> Not legal, not illegal.


She was right about this. I guess I misremembered.


----------



## Poetic Device

I really don't think that prostitution is legal in the U.S., however you can look up "escorts" in the yellow pages, and this greatly disturbs me.  Why would you want to go into that profession (McDonalds would be better than that) and how does one think to themselves, "I think that I'm going to become a hooker"?


----------



## Fernando

Poetic Device said:


> I really don't think that prostitution is legal in the U.S., however you can look up "escorts" in the yellow pages, and this greatly disturbs me.  Why would you want to go into that profession (McDonalds would be better than that) and how does one think to themselves, "I think that I'm going to become a hooker"?



Money? 

My reference is anecdotical (TV interviews in docs about prostitution) but a not-so-high-standard prostitute can get as much as 6,000 euros tax-free a month in Spain. Cleaning houses (the other profession for a young girl that does not need qualifications) means, say 9 euro/hour * 160 = (app.) 1,500 euros.

Of course, coertion and forced prostitution can play (and do play) a role in some cases. I (luckily?) have not a clue on the proportion. My (again, unscientific) perception is that the role for Spanish-born prostitutes is low.


----------



## curly

Poetic Device said:


> I really don't think that prostitution is legal in the U.S., however you can look up "escorts" in the yellow pages, and this greatly disturbs me.  Why would you want to go into that profession (McDonalds would be better than that) and how does one think to themselves, "I think that I'm going to become a hooker"?


What I understand is that prostitution is legal, it's solicitation that's against the law.


----------

