Is anyone else pro-choice on prostitution?

I consider it immoral behavior. But so what? I can't see any legitimate reason (other than health concerns) why the government should ban it? There are a lot of things more important to worry about than policing what people do with their own bodies.

It just strikes me as absurd. Is it just me?

It's being paid to have sex with gross assholes who cannot get it any other way. It's being so addicted to drugs that you have to sell yourself in order to get money to buy more drugs.

If it's a clean brothel, then it ought to be legal. But out on the street, it ought to be illegal.

There are a lot of things that are legal only in certain locations. For example, food can only be sold if it was prepared in a clean, inspected kitchen that meets codes.

If prostitution is legal, it should be licensed and offered in an environment that is clean and safe for everyone involved.

and not in another? What if the "John's" car is very clean?

I'm not saying I'm either against or for legalizing it, just playing devil's advocate.

Men and women, if they so choose, should be able to sell their services. It is after all, their body.

I think we're assuming that the majority of prostitutes are still going to be women. So I'm speaking in that context. You are right that what we discuss would apply to both.

would be making sure that the prostitute isn't being forced into it. That helps.

I think, in theory, it's possible to have prostitution without the woman being reduced to a commodity. In practice I'm not sure how that would work.

But practically speaking I think that's a moot point. We're unlikely to get rid of sexism or objectification any time soon. In the meantime, if there is going to be prostitution we need to find ways to make it safe for the women.

Some guy saying that his car is clean just doesn't cut it. It's still his car, not someplace she would be safe and could call for help if necessary. A regulated brothel with bouncers is more what I would think necessary.

How could prostitution possibly not involve the commodification of women? If it involves a commercial transaction with the product being the body of a woman (or man, for all intents and purposes), then how does it not become a commodity to be bought, sold, and traded?

But practically speaking I think that's a moot point. We're unlikely to get rid of sexism or objectification any time soon. In the meantime, if there is going to be prostitution we need to find ways to make it safe for the women.

Perhaps so, but wouldn't legalizing it be - in effect - condoning such sexism and objectification? People have been killing other people since the dawn of time, but I don't think we're going to legalize murder any time soon. Just because something happens is no reason to condone it.

Some guy saying that his car is clean just doesn't cut it. It's still his car, not someplace she would be safe and could call for help if necessary. A regulated brothel with bouncers is more what I would think necessary.

Okay, I can't think of a counter-argument against that one. Uncle.

,

were there better choices?

It's why females are SOLD and BOUGHT, instead of HIRED and TAUGHT.

Remember the Heidi Fleiss scandal back in early 1990's, most clients on that list weren't "gross assholes who cannot get it any other way", Charlie Sheen as just one example...Most on her list were actors, producers, etc...

Also, not every girl who works as an escort has teeth missing and is addicted to meth....The DC madams girls were mid-range in price....But there are woman working as escorts in LA, NY, London who ARE Maxim model pretty, & some are adult film stars to....

I know the media likes to portray prostitution as the drug addicted girl blowing the heavy set guy in the back of a Pinto in the Tenderloin area of San Francisco...Then she gives her money to Silky the Pimp, & hopes not to take a beating from him....That might be a scenario in some cases, but there is also a high end & very high end to prostitution....

Just that it should be well-regulated?

and I'd bet you'd see a lot more of it.

The problem is all of the associated vices that tend to accompany the trade. Drinking, smoking, drug use, gambling, and many other socially questionable activities tend to focus around where the sex trade flourishes. Since sex and these other vices can be addictive, it leads to other crimes in the vicinity to finance the attainability of these vices.

The "let's have clean brothels" is a nice concept, but while you can have a few "clean" ones, that area will attract people and that will attract purveyors who are not "clean" but who sell themselves below "market rate". Since the vice is considered "morally objectionable" by the public at large, the operators and employees of such establishments tend to have a diminished "moral" sensitivity in regards to sex, and quite probably to other issues that the public might find "socially irredeemable".

When Giuliani (regardless of you opinion of his) stared to clean up New York, he chased out the sex trade, moved out the loiterers (bums), stopped the windshield washers, and issued more parking tickets. This was all low level stuff. It didn't focus on muggins, robberies, assaults, etc. But the result of focusing on "the little stuff" resulted in greatly reduced crime and fewer muggings, assaults, robberies, and murders. A lot of people "living at the margins" suffered somewhat (the homeless, the young window washers, the girls paying for their drugs with sex, etc), but the community thrived; particularly in the areas that had formerly been blighted. More tourists came which brought more money to the community, the police were freed up to focus on more important crimes, and the quality of life for the residents generally improved.

This is no pat on the back for Giuliani, it is just an example of how seemingly tolerance of small or petty crimes can grow into a serious problem. While addressing these small crimes (or vices) can lead to much greater benefits than would appear on the surface. It has worked in many areas for leaders in both political parties. Giuliani wasn't the first, and certainly not the best, but he demonstrated that this principle could work even in a big city with lots of problems.

This same type of attitude makes people resist such things as legalization of marijuana. Could we do it? Sure! Are marijuana users typically more violent or more criminal? No. But the use of the drug will lead to abuse. Areas will grow where it is distruted, and those who shouldn't have it will be able to otain it. Those providing it illegally (without a license) will also make other drugs available, and the weak will succumb to the temptation, and then the problem grows into the prostitution, crime and larger problems.

Don't believe me? Take a look at cigarretes. When taxes were low on them and they were cheap and available, there was no crime associated with them. Kids would get them too early and smoke them, but that was about it for crime. Raise taxes to $3.00 a pack, and you get smugglers who avoid getting the tax stamp. The sell the cigarretes under the table. Those kinds of people make other things available to their customers, and the problem grows. Murders and smuggling associatd with cigarretes are not uncommon along the Eastern Seaboard in the last couple of years. It will get worse.

You legalize "clean brothels", and those who cannot get a license, or who wish to avoid the medical check-ups, or girls who have health issues and can't get certified will set up "unclean brothels" with the associated ills. It doesn't work. That's why it is illegal. They didn't make it illegal just to keep honest woman from getting employment.

...actually makes the health concerns larger. If it were regulated by the government, then perhaps prostitutes would be given health cards and routine blood screenings - etc. That's not to say it should be legal or illegal, but in the bigger picture I think that the health concerns argument is a weak one insofar as advocating it's outlaw status.

If I recall correctly, in Germany, they are required to have regular check-ups and keep records of it. It seems to work fine for them.

I consider lots of things immoral that are perfectly legal, so why not prostitution? If it were legalized and well-regulated, it might be safer for the prostitutes and less risky for their customers.

the world's oldest profession & one that they all need/use?

And would be stopping on the way home from work on a regular basis.

The RW makes laws to protect themselves from themselves - simply put, they don't trust themselves. So why should anyone else :)

i say david vitter should get busted for solicitation.

prostitution. It's hypocrisy. Pro-family types should be held to the standards they themselves have set. He broke a law he would publicly support. Time to meet a judge!

Well regulated, but legal. As long as the prostitutes are healthy, and doing it of their own free will, I don't have a problem with it.

Sadly, it will never happen because of all the "moral crusaders" in the country that hate sex in all it's forms.

but just 'cause I don't care for NASCAR doesn't mean others shouldn't be free to enjoy it.

Regulate it, license it, tax it, make it a regular profession. It is, after all, a straight money for service transaction.

I hold no moral stance pro or con.

I respect prostitutes more than goldiggers/other women that marry for non-"true love" reasons, who are nothing more than prostitutes in denial.

they are women who don't have illusions about the way the world works but are too intelligent to sell themselves for $300 when some old fool will pay them hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars to marry them

gold diggers are women who value themselves and what they have to offer highly, they have self esteem

you get what you settle for, as they used to say on thelma and louise -- the street whore doesn't have any and so she infects herself, infects others, and ruins the character of the neighborhood while the gold digger is joining the condo association and the junior league

I think brothels should be allowed and the women and men who choose to be prostitutes should be allowed to earn a living w/o fear of arrest. I also think legalizing prositution would cut down on the number of women who are brutalized by their pimps. Additionally, I believe legalized prostitution would reduce the number of STDs.

I like how Amsterdam has set up their red light district--I would hope the town in which I live would do something similar.

but, it is crazy to think that the oldest profession in the world is going away. might as well tax it and regulate it like anything else:shrug:

but I too fail to understand the illegality of it - the whores who hurt me the most are corporate whores

I agree with your OP 100%.

there is a risk of acquiring a serious disease, some fatal (such as hiv/aids or cervival cancer spread by hpv) because your husband slept w. a whore

if only unmarried men patronized whores and no one ever married a previously unmarried man it wouldn't be an issue

but once you are married to a guy and you are clean and he is getting it on w. someone who sleeps w. 10 or 12 different men every night, making it CERTAIN she will be exposed to a disease, then what?

if the man is SURE he will never ever sleep w. his wife again and thus infect her w. disease i guess it's okay to go to whores but even then...it isn't fair to her to assume that she has zero needs

provided folks stay safe about it.

If it's two consenting adults, why is it "immoral?"

consents.

So...

Whats to define?

For example, there is an age of consent which means that individuals under a certain age are deemed, legally to not be able to make such decisions. State of mind also has a lot to do with consent. Obvious examples include a woman who is passed out cannot consent to sexual activity.

But you can take it further, as consent (IMHO) also implies a freedom of choice. The fewer constraints placed on the decision to engage in a certain activity, the more stable the state of mind, the more consenting the act is. I think you could make an argument that, for example, a woman sold into sexual slavery or kept there under threat of violence is not really consenting.

So, as it would seem, there is a lot to define.

I'd say your point is completely irrelevant to the discussion.

Then could you please point out to me where I stated the following:

"Legalized prostitution as practiced in Vegas is sexual slavery"

I eagerly await your response. As far as I was aware, I used the slavery example to illustrate factors surrounding the issue of consent - not to state that prostitution in Vegas is slavery.

not only do you have the audacity to try to invoke moral superiority with your "well, define consent" line of crap, and not only do you then try at accuse those who don't object to legalized prostitution of supporting sex slavery, but you then try to pretend it you never said it!

I was just asking for a definition of consent to try to broaden the conversation. I have not accused you or anyone else of supporting sex slavery. Again, I used the example when defining consent, not relating it to legalized prostitution.

And, for the record, I do support legalized prostitution. I think it would be safer for all parties involved, personally. No need to get so testy and start attacking people who you think might not agree with you.

But, in typical fashion, you have to accuse me of attacking you.

I think that would qualify as what is called an ad hominem argument.

And, again, I wasn't trying to be condescending towards anyone. If I was, it was merely accidental and I apologize.

So what you're saying is that the fewer choices a person is presented with, the less stable the state of mind, the less consenting the act is? I would agree with that, but say that it applies to any profession, not just prostitution. I don't have the option of being an actor making 7 figures, so I'm stuck working IT at 50k per year, I guess that makes me an IT slave? The point is that people don't always like their jobs, but they do them anyway in order to make money and survive. Take the legal model in Nevada. From what I've seen and heard, the bulk enjoy getting paid to have sex. But for those who don't? Well, they've decided their career path and still make a good living. Not everyone has the luxury of enjoying their jobs. If I could make good money having sex for a living, I'd be giddy. Others may not like it, but if it were legalized, they'd at least have that choice, and they'd be much safer doing it in a legalized and regulated environment (a la Nevada).

The point is, PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS LIKE THEIR JOBS. What if this mentality were applied to other areas? What if congress took a look at me and said: "It's obvious that this poor guy is only working IT in order to buy food, clothing and shelter, he's clearly miserable working in his field and is working against his will. Let's outlaw his profession so he won't be forced to work there anymore." Am I making any sense here?

So what you're saying is that the fewer choices a person is presented with, the less stable the state of mind, the less consenting the act is?

The less stable the state of mind, yes. The less choices a person is presented with, not necessarily. I mean more about the constraints that are placed on an individual's ability to make rational choices, not necessarily what those choices are.

I would agree with that, but say that it applies to any profession, not just prostitution.

It can apply to just about anything involving human decision-making.

I don't have the option of being an actor making 7 figures, so I'm stuck working IT at 50k per year, I guess that makes me an IT slave? The point is that people don't always like their jobs, but they do them anyway in order to make money and survive.

And, as I pointed out in the other ST, I did not state that legalized prostitution = sex slavery.

From what I've seen and heard, the bulk enjoy getting paid to have sex. But for those who don't? Well, they've decided their career path and still make a good living. Not everyone has the luxury of enjoying their jobs. If I could make good money having sex for a living, I'd be giddy. Others may not like it, but if it were legalized, they'd at least have that choice, and they'd be much safer doing it in a legalized and regulated environment (a la Nevada).


My post on consent was dealing with it on a philosophical level, and did not go in to the actual effects of legalized prostitution in Nevada. As I have said in the other ST, I actually agree with legalized prostitution largely because of the safety issue.

The point is, PEOPLE DON'T ALWAYS LIKE THEIR JOBS. What if this mentality were applied to other areas? What if congress took a look at me and said: "It's obvious that this poor guy is only working IT in order to buy food, clothing and shelter, he's clearly miserable working in his field and is working against his will. Let's outlaw his profession so he won't be forced to work there anymore." Am I making any sense here?

That's a straw man argument. The reason that prostitution was outlawed was largely on moral / religious grounds - not because of issues surrounding consent or commodification. It's obvious that people do not always like their jobs, and I am not asserting that they should or that boring jobs need to be outlawed. In a sense, most of us work against our will but nonetheless we still consent to it because we expect to be rewarded for our labor. Most of us still consent as a result of a reasoned cost-benefit analysis: we give up 40 hours of our time a week and, in return, we get to be members of society.

Being consenting in such a relationship does not equal enjoying it. Consent is a different issue altogether.

A legal and regulated industry could solve the problem of women being forced into prostitution, so who am I to say it should be banned?

What I DO care about is HYPOCRITICAL LYING FUCKING REPUKES constantly harping on what WE DEMOCRATS do, while THEY'RE DOING WORSE!

I would not care about the REPUKE asshole vitter if he weren't so venomous about DEMOCRATS behavior.

I would NEVER care if a Democrat did it - BECAUSE NO DEMOCRATS ARE GOING AROUND BEING HOLIER THAN THOU AND TELLING US WHAT WE CAN'T OR SHOULDN'T BE DOING! NONE!

those who think a legal sex trade would kill the illegal sex trade are completely naive and without a clue

the majority of whores are drug addicts, they are not going to work in some brothel where they will be tested, they will be in the hotels and casinos and alleys of clark county where whoring is illegal and where most of the money changes hands!

the problem with just making it illegal is that it still goes on and makes it easy to take advantage of women.

might at least decrease the power of pimps and the violence associated with them. Also, as a matter of public health, it's better the prostitutes are tested for STDs.

Society allows strip clubs, which is arguably a step away from prostitution anyways. People should be allowed to sell their bodies as they wish if they are of a legally consulting age. Along with that, they should be allowed to form unions as well.

It's just a fucking transaction between two consenting adults, most of the time, if the girl or guy isn't being forced to do it, which is just to horrible to imagine...

But if it's consenting and freely given and taken, then who are we to complain or condemn?

They never criticize bunkerboy's and the dick's and condi's whoreing

I think that prostitution is wrong, and I think that sex is soemthing that shouldn't be treated as a commodity. And yet I think that brothels are just A-OK. What two consenting adults want to do is their business. If I'm not imposing those values on anyone else, what difference do my values make?

Your post was full of them.

Money changing hands before, during, or after the act... that's NATURAL?

That's from nature?

You know - the OBJECT of my post?

Prostitution is the oldest transaction in the world, so to answer your question, YES, it can be considered natural, even tho my post did not refer to it - it was to fucking moralists who demand that everone else do as they SAY...

Well, I am. Can't speak for anybody else.

:shrug:

immigrants are sexually exploited enough without it even being legal

After all, we are all Democrats here.

I think your disagreement is with the process, not the principle. What if its well regulated?

It doesn't mean people aren't exploited. I could possibly be convinced otherwise if i saw information from places where it's already legal but I just can't see it working.

Concentrate on the list.


The greater good is served by delaying this conversation.

practice of patronizing prostitutes. However, one can be "laissez faire" on this issue but still critical of wingnut Family Research Council, gay baiting Bible thumping Republicans like Vitter when busted with his hand in the cookie jar.

Its very compatible. I agree with you on that 100%.

they wouldn't be importing women from all over the world and hiding them in back street operations. They would have to be tested for diseases. There would be regulation and the government --which you know--- would take their cut. And if a man wanted to pay for sex (or if a woman wanted to pay for sex) hell let em do it.

--there are plenty of things that sex workers refuse to do for money.

I am not posting for political gain. I am just raising the larger issue. I can see why prostitution is frowned upon. But I can't see why its illegal.

in Las Vegas. In Nevada, it's legal except in Vegas (Clark County) and, I think, in Reno (as the byproduct of archaic laws). It's so heavily advertised here in Vegas that I'm sure many visitors assume it's legal, but it's not. I had a friend who was a working girl at the time and she educated me about the realties of it all in this city...and I have since seen even more of the depredations of the town's pimps (I'm not a rabid death-penalty type, but most of these scum should be lined up and shot in the back of the head) and the fairly obvious conclusion is that having prostitution illegal here makes it dangerous for both the women and their customers. It does, however, put a lot of money in a lot of pockets.

I'm not saying it should be legalized everywhere -- perhaps it should, though I don't have a stake in it either way and haven't thought too much about it other than in the context of this town -- but in a place like Las Vegas, in a state where it's legal and controlled by government oversight, it should be legal everywhere. After all, it's not like the state has a sense of morality that forbids prostitution and it's not like Vegas is any more 'moral' than the smaller towns of the state...not even.

pitute if someone uses the services of a prostitute UNLESS they continuously preach & rant about family values! It's the hypocracy I HATE!"

:-)

My problem is not with prostitution itself but with what comes along with it (drugs, pimps, disease, etc). If some way could be worked out to remove those elements (such as tight regulation, careful zoning, STD checks, etc) then it would be a straight services transaction.

I don't smoke pot either but I'm been campaigning to legalise it for years.

i believe it to be safer for the parties involved, and ultimately, none of my business.*

prostitution as it relates the Vitter fellow is an issue for one reason, imo: he's a sanctimonious ass.


*consenting adults*

That is why legalizing it and having people registered with health departments is a better road than it being illegal.

Get pimps out of the game, force frequent STD test reporting, have the girls check in and out nightly, charge a special tax that can help local municipalities out with a lot of their shortfalls... set up zoning in districts that are not in an area with a school or church.

It can be done, it can be safe and it is the choice of the person involved whether or not they want to do it.

Rp

I think it should be legalized. I think anything between consenting adults should be fair game. I don't mind strip clubs or porn either. I'm kind of an anomaly around here but I don't mind. :D

Even the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal and in-your-face, has a problem with child prostitution rings operating outside of the law. Personally, I think that prostitution, especially child prostitution is heinious. I feel bad for the ones that are forced into sexual slavery just because their families are poor, or they're junkies, or whatever. Officially, though, I think that Nevada has the right idea. Make it legal, regulate it, and tax the bejesus out of the whorehouses. It won't stop the pimps, but it might slow them down.

...It is a consensual act, right? I do not think that paying for sex is 'immoral', as long as the people are adults.

Its not the Governments job to ban anything, be it prostitution or abortion.

It's a despicable practice.

If you don't like hookers, don't have one.

I worked in the "hooker district" of Long Beach for a decade. I saw firsthand all the other social dysfunction that came with the trade. No neighborhood should have to put up with all the residual effects that come with street prostitution. Used condoms and syringes in the gutter were what would welcome me every morning as I got out of my car. Good mornin'!

Government regulated bordellos are fine in principle, but would you want to live next to one?

That has NOTHING to do with morality. That has to do with the fact that those disfunctional street hookers can be forced into giving testimony...and "favours."

I have no problems with making prostitution legal --
but here's the catch . . .
you can only license as many females as you license males.

And -- you have to have support services which would include education and safe shelter for those who want it.

Also -- until it's legal -- I think every Jane you arrested for prostitution must be accomplained by the "John" who must also be arrested.

No "John" . . . ?
Then . .. No "Jane."

If you use a quota system, then its not freedom of choice anymore. Some people who want to participate will still be barred from doing so.

I am also pro-choice. Regulated prostitution would be one of the most effective ways to reduce the spread of AIDS and other STDs.

I wouldn't buy it...but I wouldn't stop anybody from doing it.

Legalise it, regulate it and tax it. You know how much revenue you could get from brothels? Use the tax revenue to pay for sex education in school and public health projects.

Besides, at least the hooker is upfront about what he/she is doing..they screw for money..

A number of politicians and captains of industry do the same thing...and they don't give you an orgasm or a reacharound.

if a person can get paid for using their body to play sports why not get paid for using your body for sex?

medical research, taking drugs that are not yet approved or even certified to be safe. You can be paid to shoot at people or get shot at. You can be paid to dress in a chicken suit and advertise some new brand of pizza on the street corner. The only thing, apparently, that one can't be paid to do with his or her own body is have sex. Boggles the mind.

children left when deadbeat dads (and some moms) don't and made school easier to afford there would be no prostitution unless one is a drug addict (and many become drug addicts because the lifestyle makes them feel demoralized - not all, but most).

I don't want it legalized because of the toll on the woman (and some men). I couldn't give two shits about the Johns. Despite all the "preaching" on this thread, most prostitutes have a pretty lousy sense of self-worth - it's not so cut and dried as being legal or not or being a "straight transaction." That's why it's illegal in most places - not because of some religious aspect, but because of the personal trauma inflicted after years of this lifestyle.

Hell, even athletes and models - others who "sell" their bodies - also can feel dehumanized even without the stigma of sex (which is still prevalant in all societies - and it isn't all religiously-based).

Do any of you know any prostitutes, personally? Know any former ones? I know several because I used to be a crime reporter. None of them would advocate this lifestyle, legal or not. This is not "Pretty Woman" we're talking about here.

A call girl or two, a couple of street hookers, and a few strippers, and some male prostitutes, and a bunch of other seamy characters I don't admit to knowing in polite circles. That's a result of some of the places I've been and the jobs I've done, mostly as an interviewer for one reason or another.

And yes, I've heard them all talk about their exploits, and no, none of them would recommend the life of a sex worker as it is currently constructed.

I am also going to point out that there are people, quite apart from the dregs, who make use of the services of a prostitute on a regular basis for one reason or another, including the disabled or the socially handicapped and those who like the power aspect or who get a kick out of the seamy side of it.

My main reason for legalizing prostitution is to be able to put money into rehabilitation and teeth into the licensing process, including testing for std's, education about preventative strategies, and serious age limits with severe penalties for those who make a living from exploitation. The saddest and sorriest people I have ever come across are those who have been on the stroll since their 10th birthdays. And yes, those children have been addicted, as a rule, as an adjunct to sexual abuse. I don't shock easily, and don't have much outrage left, but the state of those children infuriates me.

And you wouldn't have all these young girls being exploited and ruined at 15, 16 years old.

There would have to be licenses and such, and the prostitutes would have to be screened for STDs before getting a license. I don't know if the tax revenues raised by legalizing it would offset the costs of trying to make it safe.

I could care less (forgive my french) who the politicians fuck.

As long as it isn't me.

or at least "de-criminalized". No matter what the government does, it can't stop prostitution. Even in hard-core fundamentalist countries, prostitution is still around. Why bother wasting resources on it?

Child prostitution is a different matter. Anyone who pimps out a child should be strung up.

if you believe in that kind of thing...adultery is a sin.

"Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#The_second_formulation

While I would not support laws against it, I choose (for myself) not to participate on ethical grounds.