OK, I see what you mean. Sorry about the sidetrack.
And I concede that your case, that the system in Amsterdam is equally good or better at fighting those crimes, is at least as good as mine. At least I have no data indicating otherwise. Also I myself have no investment in the extreme feminist side of the debate, I have no opinion on their particular concerns either way really.
If I may rephrase:
My point is, that if an enlightened and intelligent legalization of prostitution can contribute to the fight against the horrible international crime of forced prostitution, trafficking, sex tourism, etc. (e.g. by reducing demand for illegal sex services by providing a safe, legal alternative and thus making supply of them less lucrative, or whatever other reason) then I’m in favor of such a legalization.
Prostitution in Amsterdam seems somewhat like stripping in the states. Not necessarily the safest or most savory of occupations, but it is far better than what your average US prostitute endures.
And that’s what I get for previewing and not re-reading the thread :smack:
According to Monty Python, on my face. 
Cheesesteak, like you probably already guessed, I agree with your formulation just as much as with my own initial one.
Link from Google cache about prostitutes and taxes (Sorry, Dutch)
Officially, if prostitutes don’t run their business as a corporation, they would have to report their earnings as personal income on their tax form. They would then get a tax assessment and would have to pay the normal social security payments. Which in turn would accrue them the usual social benefits.
In a brothel, after this form of business was legalised, prostitutes might be employees of the madam. The madam would have to report them (keep a photocopy of their proof of ID) and withhold the equivalent of payroll tax.
But if my link is true, neither of the above happens much in practice. Prostitutes would rather evade their taxes, of course, and also balk at the registration and reporting requirements. It also says that not a single brothel has hired prostitutes as employees yet since the new legislation; instead I think it says they are hired as independent contractors.
Wow, a link to a whole series about prostitution in the Netherlands, registration-free!
http://www.nrc.nl/W2/Lab/Profiel/Prostitutie/inhoud.html
The text is in Dutch, but there are a few pictures (here, alas, work safe :mad: )
Then why the smilie? 
msmith537:
Right. We’re too busy making them accomodate our warmongering and pollution.
That’s great “dad”.
Sure they can. Well at least as much as they ever could. Problem is that there really is no practical way to prevent a 22 year old adult from choosing a career, regardless of how unsavior it might be.
Besides, the stripper stripping her way through college has to be one of the biggest urban legends out there. There’s no University where you can pay for tuition in $1 bills. I’ve never had an intellectual conversation while getting a lap dance.
Even though it is legal in Amsterdam there still is a stigma attached to being a prostitude. Many women have a difficult time explaining the gap in their work history if they go to get a bank loan or apply for a more traditional job.
It really is a cool city though.
msmith: Besides, the stripper stripping her way through college has to be one of the biggest urban legends out there.
Well, “Ivy League Stripper” Heidi Mattson apparently actually paid her way through Brown with stripper jobs, and another Brown student allegedly did the same.
I never met Mattson during my fifteen years at Brown, but the local references that I’ve seen from the book sound quite accurate, so it seems plausible to me that she’s not making it up. I doubt that many students actually pay tuition bills this way—and I certainly don’t think it would be easy to make enough money stripping to fund your whole education—but I don’t think it’s just an urban legend.
I’m sure making it illegal would be a major improvement in that area.
If you want to remove the stigma of being a prostitute (and I sure think that would be a good idea) legalizing it is the obvious first step.
Making prostitution illegal does nothing to alleviate any of these problems. It simply gives these unfortunate women a new problem; the risk of arrest.
Your argument slides past an important point: prostitutes have always been with us, legal or illegal, treated well or treated badly, and they’ll almost certainly be with us in the future. So the question is, given the existence of prostitution, how do we treat the prostitutes? Any evasion of that question along the lines of, “I don’t want my daughter to be a prostitute” is just a vote for brutal treatment of prostitutes. Essentially, you are saying, you want the work to be so brutal and scary that it will frighten away your daughter, and be left to other people’s daughters, about whom you do not give a shit.
Nor did I mean to imply that you did. If I do seem to imply that, I apologize.
That was kind of exactly my point, although stated in a different way. I think the “would you like your daughter to be…” question is uninteresting because many people would answer “no” to both that question and several other similar questions regarding other occupations, and therefore, although I personally and subjectively certainly agree that there is something different about prostitution, this question is ineffective in communicating that.
The question of unemployment benefits cuts closer to the heart of the issue. I would very much like to see it answered by proponents of legal prostitution.
Which may not be far off the mark at all. There are a few things to consider here:
Have you (if you are a woman) or some woman you know ever walked alone in the evening in an area where prostitutes are common? I know of some such places in my hometown of Malmö, Sweden, and it’s impossible for a woman to take a simple walk down certain streets without being shouted at, insulted or harassed by men. Usually in cars.
Let’s say a black man down on his luck decides to let some toothless racist rednecks spit on him, call him names and beat him up for money. They get to vent their anger that they’re being held down by the NAACP or whatever, and he gets money. Perfect arrangement, right? Except that this is not a closed system, and the racists aren’t exactly made less racist by this. Do you think this improves their view of blacks, or worsens it? Is the black man doing other blacks a favour or a disservice? Now go read some prostitute tales, and wonder if their customers were more or less likely to treat women well after the experience.
Simply having the option to do pretty much whatever you like to a woman, provided you can pay, may well make you more likely to do pretty much whatever you like to a woman, even when you won’t pay. Having sex as a commodity does little good.
Now, I realize that the solution isn’t as simple as banning prostitution. As I say, the problems above exist in Sweden as well, even though prostitution has been illegal for five years. However, in that time the number of streetwalkers in Malmö has halved. That means progress is made.
Finally, I’d like to stress that in theory, I have absolutely no problem with prostitution whatsoever. But in theory, Communism is the perfect system. There’s just that tiny problem of implementation in the real world.
Little Nemo and Evil Captor, you’re both missing my point.
In Amsterdam they are taxed, and thus cannot claim unemployment. (As for “refusing a job”, I happen to believe that nobody should be subject to such a stipulation, but that’s another debate altogether).
In Amsterdam, they’d need a boat. And the windows are double glazed, so the women probably couldn’t hear anyway.
There is something wrong with the desire to racially abuse and attack someone. There is nothing wrong with desiring sex with an attractive woman.
You can do only what they agree to. Your girlfriend would presumably dump you if your kinks were that horrific.
That is why I’m exploring Amsterdam specifically.
Let’s skip that debate for now. In this society, where you do got unemployment benefits when you’re unemployed but do have to take jobs that turn up, do you think that that stipulation should extend to prostitution? If not, why not?
Doesn’t really matter in this situation though, does it? The question was if the customer’s (and other men’s) behaviour towards other women is improved or worsened by prostitution.
In theory, I think prostituition should be treated as any other job. However, I don’t think a job being “ordinary” means you should be forced to do it (“forced” in the sense used in your post above). For example, I don’t think a vegan should be forced to work in a slaughterhouse.
However, it might be very difficult to distinguish between moral compunctions that are “reasonable” and ones that aren’t. So I’d be perfectly willing to simply make an exception for prostituiton in the name of pragmatism.
In a hundred and fifty years, when prostituiton really is regarded as any other job, and everyone is mystified by what the point of the exception ever was, we can repeal it if it’s a problem :).
From SentientMeat’s description, it does not appear that people in Amsterdam have the option of “doing pretty much whatever they like” with prostitutes, and I’m certainly not advocating such a system. Is anyone in this thread?
Untrue. It’s illegal for everybody to visit prostitutes, regardless of gender, and all prostitutes are completely in the clear, regardless of gender. The full text of the law is available here, although it will do you little good if you don’t speak Swedish. Trust me when I say that it doesn’t say anything about gender.
This I agree with.
So you do agree that prostitution is not just another job, but add that this is because of our current society’s views of sex/shame/whatever? Am I reading you correctly?
I wasn’t actually talking specifically about Amsterdam prostitution, which admittedly may constitute a slight hi-jack. However, even in Amsterdam you can do a lot of things without even asking (or caring about) your “partner’s” opinion. I just don’t think that this situation improves society on the whole.