Prostitution

[BillyShakes]

I was just watching Katie Couric do a piece on prostitution and it got me wondering, what exactly is the problem? The only problems that I could find stemmed from the fact that its illegal.

The arguments that I could come up with against were
1) Danger From Johns
2) Spreads Disease
3) The Pimp System
4) Slavery (which is an Issue Couric touched on)

However, if it were legal
1) Prostitutes could protect themselves and be able to turn to police when they had been wronged.
2) When I was in Amsterdam I was check over before sex began, she showered in front of me and put the condom on herself. It seemed very clean. Plus frequent testing is mandated for all prostitutes.
3)If it were legal, prostitutes would not need to rely on pimps for protection. It cuts them out of the equation entirely.
4)Without a pimp, tricks can work as they choose. A quick search of craigslist will show you what these people can make. A one hour session is more than I used to earn in two weeks. That to me is amazing, especially if the trick gets to keep it all.

[Timi]

I agree with Seven on this issue about the whole prostitution system. If it was legalized, it could be controlled to a degree and marketed perhaps. However, this issue does not pertain directly to me and I again agree with Seven when I say we should have our priorities straighten out and worry about the big ones. Try to get the country straighten out and get out of another recession.

[BillyShakes]

True there are some pretty big fish to fry. Congress is dealing with health care, Obama the wars and economy. But what is the Supreme Court doing? They can extend Griswold v. Massachusetts, which was a key fact in Roe v. Wade and Lawrence v. Texas. Its been roundly accepted that the gov. needs to stay out of the bedroom. However, if money is involved...

"If selling is legal and fucking is legal, why is it illegal to sell something you can give away?"
-George Carlin

[KidneyThief]

Regulation is key, just like in the legalization of marijuana. Imagine brothel health inspectors haha. Legalizing it might actually clean up sex a little bit. Prostitutes would be able to turn away someone with an STD, really they could turn away anyone. I wonder what religious organizations would have to say if it was legalized. I'm sure it would become quite the issue.

[morefngdbs]

At 7/23/09 10:30 PM, KidneyThief wrote: Regulation is key, just like in the legalization of marijuana. Imagine brothel health inspectors haha.

;;;
I can easily imagine brothel inspectors...they're called Doctors !

I do agree regulation is key & protection it would offer these women & men (everyone seems to forget men do this as well)
As Seven said (no not that I have never availed myself of a prostitutes charms) but about there being much more important things for government to be concerned with. Legalization would go IMO a long way to causing a drop in the crime rate that is now part of much of the illicit sex trade.

[RubberTrucky]

Here, prostitutes or at least escortes are appointed a chauffeur who stays outside and is like a gettaway for when the client becomes hostile. ny sign of danger and he can step in.
I'm guessing that organised prostitution has similar safe routes.

As to health, yes prostitutes use condoms and have check ups regularly. t least the regulated prostitution.

Police forces are very well aware of abuse via human trades etcetera.

But I guess illegalising prostitution would still yield criminal prostitution.

[Korriken]

While there would still be illegal prostitution, at least there would be a generally safe place to ply your... uhh... trade. of course, some women would go illegal in order to undercut the brothels, who no doubt would charge quite a bit in order to render their services. that and many men would avoid the brothel, mostly because the crazy mean old bat at home may show up there unexpectedly and catch him. Either that or they can't afford the price.

legal prostitution could help slow the spread of HIV and other STDs.

[Zoraxe7]

It should be legal, but only in places that vote to allow it, that's only fair.

But, I would like to point out that prostitution is legal in the state of Nervada, it is still illegal in certain places, like Los Vegas, and there is still much illegal prostitution in the city.

So legalization wont solve prostitution crimes, but it would help.

[AapoJoki]

At 7/25/09 06:36 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: It should be legal, but only in places that vote to allow it, that's only fair.

Why should I have to ask the voters' permission to have sex with someone?

[XIII13]

At 7/25/09 07:19 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 7/25/09 06:36 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: It should be legal, but only in places that vote to allow it, that's only fair.

Why should I have to ask the voters' permission to have sex with someone?

Only people who you have to pay. Besides, you can imagine that some prostitutes will take to the streetd in a far more open fashion for advertising then they do now. I can see how some people would dislike that.

[AapoJoki]

At 7/25/09 08:35 PM, XIII13 wrote: Only people who you have to pay.

Completely irrelevant and none of anyone's business. What if I just give her flowers, isn't that paying too?

Besides, you can imagine that some prostitutes will take to the streetd in a far more open fashion for advertising then they do now. I can see how some people would dislike that.

So let's have laws against open advertising of sex, not against the act itself. Besides, we all have to witness numerous things on the streets that we dislike or find annoying, but we wouldn't dream of banning them.

[Tancrisism]

At 7/25/09 07:19 PM, AapoJoki wrote:

At 7/25/09 06:36 PM, Zoraxe7 wrote: It should be legal, but only in places that vote to allow it, that's only fair.

Why should I have to ask the voters' permission to have sex with someone?

The way I see it, a fair way to start would be to remove the federal ban of prostitution and leave it open to the states.

Similarly, the National Minimum Drinking Age Act should be repealed and drinking age should be left open to the states, as well as the federal prohibition of marijuana; they should have clauses, though, which state something to the effect of: In the case of a state's legalization of marijuana, a federal tax of such and such percentage will be applied.

[Ravariel]

Just record it and sell the footage to a porn sight and viola! Porn production financed by the "john" and everything's kosher!

[AapoJoki]

At 7/25/09 10:17 PM, Tancrisism wrote: The way I see it, a fair way to start would be to remove the federal ban of prostitution and leave it open to the states.

I don't live in the US, but in my opinion the right to your own private sex life should be protected by the constitution. It's a more important right than gun ownership anyway. (Of course, this right would exclude all non-consensual acts and acts with children.)

I've understood that the entire point of the US constitution is to protect the citizens' rights so that they cannot be overturned even by a majority rule. Our sexuality is such a private affair and a core aspect of our personality that its control should not be subject to the voters' whims. I don't have to like everything that people do inside their bedrooms, but it's none of my business to forbid them, unless someone's rights are being violated.

But yeah, if there's a federal ban on prostitution, a good way to start would be lifting it.

[GLaDOSKitten]

Its legal in the state in Australia I live in, and its all very heavily monitored.
I guess its frowned upon as it turns sex into a commodity, which goes against the teachings of most of the worlds major religions. This in turn means it is the opposite to what most people have been raised believing is right.

[Tancrisism]

At 7/26/09 06:07 AM, AapoJoki wrote: I don't live in the US, but in my opinion the right to your own private sex life should be protected by the constitution. It's a more important right than gun ownership anyway. (Of course, this right would exclude all non-consensual acts and acts with children.)

The thing is, prostitution is not merely "one's private sex life". It's a commodity to be bought or sold, a labor source. The purpose of having two different levels of government, that is, the State level and the Federal level, is so that the people of the unique communities of each state can regulate what is to be legal according to their own morality.

They have no right to eliminate anyone's rights, or they should have no right to but given what is happening with gay marriage they certainly have the ability at times, but they should be able to decide things such as the legality of prostitution, the age one may become a prostitute, the drinking age, etc etc.

I don't have to like everything that people do inside their bedrooms, but it's none of my business to forbid them, unless someone's rights are being violated.

But yeah, if there's a federal ban on prostitution, a good way to start would be lifting it.

Exactly. My main point is that the federal ban must be lifted and the ability to legalize prostitution must, at least at first, be granted solely to the states. Perhaps the federal government can move on from there, but for things like this it isn't unfair to leave the authority to legalize and illegalize to the states.

[JoS]

Why do the prostitutes have to be checked for disease? That only protects the Johns. Why not check the Johns for disease to better protect the sex workers?

[Tancrisism]

At 7/26/09 09:20 PM, JoS wrote: Why do the prostitutes have to be checked for disease? That only protects the Johns. Why not check the Johns for disease to better protect the sex workers?

An interesting point. I suppose that for it all to work they would have to be able to confirm that they are clean too; however, the prostitutes should still be checked, since it is they who are performing the commodity.

After all, food regulation provides that the food is safe to be consumed; sex regulation should be no different with their method of consumption.

[BillyShakes]

At 7/26/09 09:20 PM, JoS wrote: Why do the prostitutes have to be checked for disease? That only protects the Johns. Why not check the Johns for disease to better protect the sex workers?

The prostitutes are in charge of that. They will but the condom on the John. This serves two fold, one it allows them to examin the John for visual signs of disease (which is the only way to tell in a lot of STD's) and two it allows them to make sure that the jimmy is proper in his hat.

I have gone in for STD screenings and for things like Herpes if there has not been a visable outbreak they can't test for it, so a hooker just does what a doctor would do.

[JoS]

HIV, Hep, you can't tell by looking. And if you are promoting legalizing prostitution to make it safer for the workers, then you should be demanding the Johns get tested. Otherwise you are simply using it as a cover for your really agenda, you want to get laid and can't get a date.

[shini-gami]

is it actually possible to do an HIV test on the spot?

[fli]

At 7/27/09 01:38 AM, shini-gami wrote: is it actually possible to do an HIV test on the spot?

I get them all the time. Since I'm very sexually active and I'm part of a historically susceptible group, I check every 4 months (instead of 6) and you can get the results with the swab test in 20 minutes.

Swap the q-tip looking thing around the gums, and wait.
I actually prefer the 2 week method--makes me feel less anxious.

But, for the purpose of the situation, you can get on-the-spot testing for AIDS.
That shouldn't be an excuse for not putting on the condom (it should be mandatory)-- but it's good protection for both sides... the prostitute would get it done every week and they can do on-the-spots for every john that enters.

[BillyShakes]

At 7/27/09 03:52 AM, fli wrote:

At 7/27/09 01:38 AM, shini-gami wrote: is it actually possible to do an HIV test on the spot?

Swap the q-tip looking thing around the gums, and wait.
I actually prefer the 2 week method--makes me feel less anxious.

How can you prefer the bloodwork? Whenever I've had that done, I'm scared shitless for 2 weeks. I'd rather only be nervous for 20 min.

That shouldn't be an excuse for not putting on the condom (it should be mandatory)--

It is

but it's good protection for both sides... the prostitute would get it done every week and they can do on-the-spots for every john that enters.

I didn't know the swab was that quick. Knowing this I wouldn't mind seeing that implemented at swingers clubs. I try to play as safe as I can, but after an exchange I'm always nervous for a little while.

[zendahl]

At 7/23/09 09:18 PM, BillyShakes wrote:

:"If selling is legal and fucking is legal, why is it illegal to sell something you can give away?"

-George Carlin

The quote is actually "Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"

Just symantix but if your going to steal the quote I was going to use, I at least want to see it quoted correctly.

[Ericho]

Yeah, I've heard those arguments too and I do agree that it should be legalized. What I don't understand is that wouldn't legalizing prostitution give pimps more power?

[shini-gami]

At 7/27/09 07:26 PM, Ericho wrote: Yeah, I've heard those arguments too and I do agree that it should be legalized. What I don't understand is that wouldn't legalizing prostitution give pimps more power?

no since pimps aren't needed anymore to keep them ho's safe, because when it's legal the government or some sort of official entity would be obliged to keep the prostitutes safe. maybe this is a huge factor: gov's don't want to be bothered with all the shit that comes along from them when prostitution is legalized.

[Bongun]

I think the reason the government shuns it is because they don't pay taxes for it. *Shrugs*

However, if it were to be regulated and such, I think it would be a very...wealthy investment.

[Patton3]

If you could regulate them, you could give a legal avenue for this sort of thing (in which things like slavery would be EXTREMELY uncommon if not completely non-existent, and you'd take some pressure off the prison system to boot) then... Why not?

[zendahl]

At 7/27/09 08:06 PM, Bongun wrote: I think the reason the government shuns it is because they don't pay taxes for it. *Shrugs*

However, if it were to be regulated and such, I think it would be a very...wealthy investment.

You could regulate it the same way food service is regulated if you list your ocupation as prostitute then you have a minimum amount you are expected to earn per hour worked and you pay income tax based on that.

[RubberTrucky]

At 7/27/09 03:52 AM, fli wrote:
But, for the purpose of the situation, you can get on-the-spot testing for AIDS.

I think AIDS testing (HIV) takkes some lab-work to confirm. Having to do this everytime before gaining access to a prostitute, would be equivalent to get a full liver exam before each pack of beer you buy.

Having to put on a condom is Ithink the only reasonable requirement to go through with it.