I do think it’s interesting that American society has liberalized so much on some sexual-morality issues (like homosexuality) but our opinions about prostitution (and things like extramarital sex) haven’t changed much over the last few decades.
Bumped.
An interesting article on legalized, War Department-sanctioned prostitution in Nashville, Tenn. during the Civil War: The Curious Case of Nashville’s Frail Sisterhood | History| Smithsonian Magazine
Are you trying to legalize prostitution or not? There is no testing for a number of common STDs, and even the definition of ‘STD’ is tricky. For example, there are no tests for HPV in men, and only tests for some specific cancer-causing strains in women. There is no general herpes test, there’s just an antibody test that’s not usually included in panels because it’s expensive and doesn’t actually say whether you have herpes or not. Both HSV 1 (cold sores) and HSV 2 (herpes) can spread through sex and kissing, but HSV1 isn’t generally considered an STD, even though it is transmitted sexually.
Also, you your regulation only has a requirement that the test be run and results submitted to a government organization, not that anything in particular happens with them. Is a prostitute with any STD forbidden from working, or do they have to disclose on a form, or what exactly? Bear in mind that the CDC estimates that anyone who has had sex has some strain of HPV, and that 80% of the population has HSV1, so if you want to disqualify people for having any STD, you’re going to keep most prostitutes illegal.
How does this legislation interact with medical privacy laws, and especially with specific laws regarding disclosure of HIV/AIDS status and forbidding workplace discrimination against people with HIV/AIDS? Does it just remove medical privacy for anyone working in the field?
This piece of the hypothetical law seems to entirely be based on abject ignorance of STDs, testing, and their prevalence.
What happens when this database inevitably gets leaked, or hacked, or looked into inappropriately, or found to fall under public records laws, or a later law opens it up in the interest of public safety? Like people pointed out during the first life of the thread, a lot of people would rather gamble on operating illegally than have their name officially listed as a prostitute.
That is interesting. Some things don’t seem to change much–their system of regulation is quite similar to much of my proposed system.
Some of the posters in this thread seem to be oddly upset with my system. I don’t know why–even a little thought on the matter ought to convince anybody that legalizing prostitution will never happen without some sort of regulatory scheme. I admit that mine is not perfect, but I maintain that it’s a good starting place.
I have a friend who lived next to a brothel in London in the 60s. He said the ladies were very judgemental with respect to young women who “gave it away”. Partly, they recognized it would be bad for business, of course, but partly they were morally appalled.
He said they mostly had regular customers who would visit them the same evening every week. I imagine much the same thing happens in the US today, but the guy buys the lady a dinner and drink instead of giving her cash.
Yeah, I think the question is moot. But that doesn’t mean it can’t be fun to argue and/or speculate about.
I imagine legal organized brothels would be better for both the ladies and their customers than street walkers. A better brothel might advertise it did STD testing. If the customer was robbed, he would have a fixed business to complain to. Presumably, the ladies would have a panic button, or could scream to summon muscle. And if the girl was mistreated anyway, the brothel might be able to blackball the customer with other brothels, and might also have his ID on file if prosecution seemed appropriate.
One reason might be that your system requires a potential prostitute to do something that is not actually possible (get tested for all STDs), and even if it was possible doesn’t specify what happens with the results of the tests, which would normally be protected medical information. Trying to dodge ‘hey, this isn’t actually possible, and if it was would have some major issues’ with ‘some people seem upset’ is not making an honest argument.
I think that dept. should be responsible for carrying out the health check this will ensure that the health checks are correct.
Prostitution is something that you cannot stop, so better that it is regulated and taken out of the hands of criminals
1 Why do you think it is necessary to be tested for all possible STDs? Most sexual health clinics have a range of tests they do (HIV, Hep B, Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, Syfylis in these parts) and other things will only be looked at when there is a reason to suspect you have it. Given the time it takes for some of these infections to be measurable, being 100% save is going to be impossible anyway.
2 You don’t have to make the information public, but you could inform Johns that they should ask girls for their recent results before they do anything with them. This gives the women a choice to have work, or to retain their medical information. I actually know places where this is possible (in Europe).
In any case mandatory testing and registration will mean a big illegal market will remain. Many women in this profession don’t want to have it registered anywhere.
Did you read the OP, and especially the part of it that I quoted in my first reply to this thread? The OP said that testing for ALL STDs would be required under his proposed system, and that’s what I was responding to. Since I said that it’s not possible to be tested for all STDs, I’m really not sure why you would think that I think it’s necessary.