nice try even, but since I"ve shown that in Australia, the illegal brothels flourish alongside the legal ones, your belief that they’ll stay away from the illegal ones doesn’t hold water.
And, again, currently everywhere there are prostitutes, there are those who have been trafficked, without a shortage of customers. The ethics don’t appear to be there.
You’ve explained how legality will not help those being victimized in a * specific * way that * you * object to. And you have done so by linking to questionable studies and statistics about foreign countries.
If that’s such a great way to make decisions for the whole US, why hasn’t anyone bought that argument for gun control or legal drugs? Because other places where guns are controlled have a whole lot fewer problems with murder and accidental deaths than we do. Other places where drugs are legal have a much less bloody and destructive drug trafficking problem than we do. But suddenly the rest of the world is the perfect model of how legal prostitution would work here? (I don’t know your positions on the other two items, I’m just pointing out that using other countries as a model for the US doesn’t necessarily work)
No, you’ve worked hard at arguing that this would be true. You haven’t convinced me. I don’t think you’ve convinced a lot of people. And you have no such thing as “proof”. That cannot exist until we try it and see.
I am answering you right now. I’m also saying ** again *, because you haven’t answered it one time, not once, how you are in any way improving the lives of women who are, according to you, * suffering right this minute * ? Earlier in this thread you scoffed at my sincerity, now I scoff at yours. You are extremely invested in what * might happen to * some * women if prostitution is legal. You dismiss as meaningless and unimportant the many ways that women suffer right now because prostitution is illegal. And many, (hell, most! According to you!) are women who were coerced, tricked and forced to do it. So * on top of that *, which is your constant refrain of the horrors of prostitution, you would prefer to see them jailed, their children left alone, see them beaten without any safe haven (because you can’t complain about the treatment you receive from pimps or johns when you’re just a dirty criminal whore, after all.) See their murders treated as nothing more than a nuisance. And see their whole lives stained with the shame of a criminal record, * just in case * it might save one gal down the line from being “tricked” into doing it legally.
Give. Me. A. Break.
Stoid
The error is in only looking at the effects of legalization on demand, and not on supply. You are right that legalization is likely to increase the demand for hookers. If the only way to meet that demand were by trafficking, then trafficking would be expected to increase, all other things being equal. However, legalization will also have an effect on supply. It may be that there are more women who choose not to hook because of the law than there are men who choose not to patronize hookers. In this case, legalization should diminish trafficking, because the increased supply of hookers who want to be there is more than sufficient to handle the increased demand.
I have no data on how the supply of and demand for hookers would likely be affected by legalization, other than the obvious truism that both should go up. Intuitively, it seems to me that there are probably more women kept out of the business by illegality than male customers (e.g. even sven), but I have no hard or soft numbers on that.
I must have missed it, but I’m really curious about all these “trafficked” (by the way, there’s a K in it) women. I know that there are horrors galore going on in other countries, where most women are considered garbage anyway, but this is the US. I haven’t heard or seen anything about a massive slave trade functioning here in the US. Maybe because it’s not?
And as I said earlier, coercion and trickery are not kidnapping and rape. With rare exception, I just don’t buy that there are thousands of women here in the US being sold for sex against their will. Please link me if there is some proof to the contrary.
stoid
You bring up an ** excellent ** point. earlier in he thread, wring asked for “evidence” that there were hordes of women waiting to sign up to be hookers. Well, the evidence is in the number who are doing it right now, of their own free will. The vast, vast majority of supply in this country is provided by women who choose it, (see my previous post). So it is reasonable to assume that if men feel freer to “demand” it (manner of speaking, wring, don’t go off the deep end), women will feel freer to supply it. And it is even more reasonable to assume, as you did, that more women are kept from supplying it by the legal status of it than men are kept from buying it. After all, the real “criminal” under most laws is the woman.
stoid
stoid
Goodness. I take a few days off, and look what happens. This reminds me of that first gun control thread I wanted to get into…it devolved into an esoteric and highly technical debate about Switzerland, and just keeping up with reading it was a chore. As with that thread, though, I feel like here I just have to put in my loose change at least once. There are a few things I just have to say here…I can’t help myself. So…
First, as to this:
I may have to grit my teeth to say it :D, but Kimstu is absolutely dead-on correct here.
OTOH, Kimstu, in the face of statements like these:
I am a little surprised that you are making no attempt to correct what would seem to be some ideas directly at odds with your rather…ahhh…interesting views on government enforcement of morality. FTR though, I completely agree with the last statement.
Next, somebody somewhere in this thread (I was gonna quote it but I lost it, following a five page thread is hard) admonished someone else against “me too-ism”, simply quoting something someone else said and saying “me too”. I agree with this sentiment in principle, however I have seen a few things here with which I agree so strongly that I feel I must indulge in it this once. I ask for the forgivness of all involved.
Me too. Squared and cubed. And although I favor rational argument, I think Stoid’s tone of indignation in the first quote was justified. Man (and woman) does not live by reason alone.
Then there is this:
Wring, in a free society, citizens are not required to justify themselves or their actions to the state. Rather, the state must justify it’s actions to it’s citizens. This means that if you want the state to prohibit a certain activity, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate why it should be prohibited. Never the other way around. What the status quo happens to be does not matter one whit. If something is against the law now, the burden of proof is still on you to show why that particular situation should continue.
Finally:
Ahhhh…another perfectly good keyboard destroyed by transnasal coffee :D. If only there had been a warning…Anyway, that’s worth quoting just to make sure that other latecomers to this thread who are not as…obsessive as I am will see it.
Since the thread is so long, I won’t bother with the quotes.
I'm in Philadelphia. Besides the lotteries, and tracks, legal casinos are an hour away in Atlantic city. Illegal gambling is still a problem here. I see no reason the situation would be any different if prostitution were legalised.
On a side note, I used to be for legalisation. Wring changed my view. Has anyone else changed their position due to these threads?
I’ve been busy, and forgot about my ([sub]meager[/sub])participation on this thread.
wring dismissed my analogy by saying that Massage Therapists and Spa Workers keep their clothes on, so it is totally different.
OK.
What about Nude Dancers? This is considered a form of artistic expression and not illegal. These women are being ‘used’ by men in a ‘degrading’ way. So shouldn’t this be outlawed with your logic? What about Phone Sex operators? Going further, should it be illegal for a Massage Therapist or Phone Sex operators to work nude? Or, only if the customer reaches orgasm? Should it be based on penetration?
To those who support ‘vaginal mysticism’ (I fall into that camp, but for different reasons) would a paid for hand-job be OK in your book? Male prostitution?
I just don’t understand the reasoning behind the arguments to keep prostitution illegal. I see them in two camps:
Most folks think it is bad, so it should be illegal.
The poor women can’t think for themselves and need the state’s protection.
Tell me where I’m wrong on the anti-legalization stance?
once again, nude dancers, phone sex operators etc. there’s no (legal) physical contact between the participants.
For me, personally, your dichotomy doesn’t work. For instance, it’s not that I think the sex workers involved are incapable of making personal decisions.
Much of our society is interrelated. One cannot make a small rise in gas prices w/o a ripple effect, for example. The lesson (IMHO) of prohibition is that attempting a massive shift of social mores by legislation can wreck havoc. That the current level of prostitution causes other problems (for neighbors of the sites, etc - detailed in the other threads and by Cecil himself), and I see no reason to believe that legalization would lessen any of these.
I also recognize that there’s insufficient numbers of those who would agree to that occupation to ‘serve’ the population looking for that service, which then creates the demand, need and reality of the black market in trafficking. (noting once again, that even where it’s legal, there’s insufficient numbers of sex workers who’ve chosen the occupation, hence the illegal trade). So, I’d rather focus on getting those very few (relatively) people who think that they should be allowed to purchase sex for $$ to understand the very human toll that this brings about, and hopefully get them to seek other outlets. Barring that, prosecute the hell out of them. (noting that even those who support the industry, not all are saying that they would partake and fairly few are saying they would work in the trade).
and tho’ I haven’t spoken much of it in this thread, the remarks about ‘all she wants is that prostitutes have a criminal record’ are, well, inaccurate to say the least. I have worked with quite a few folks who plied the trade for periods of time. Some were street walkers, others farther up the food chain as it were. And I saw the real human toll it took on many/most of them, their families, the neighbors etc. Keeping in mind that it’s a small stretch for some one to believe that they have a right to pay for your vagina and for them to also believe they have a right to force you to do something you didn’t agree to as long as payment is made (yes, I understand this is called rape).
But, poignant and heartbreaking as these stories are, they are anecdotal. And, as another poster said recently “data is not the plural of anecdotes”. I merely mention it now since I found it offensive to me personally to have the charge ‘you don’t care about them’ leveled at me.
Lapdances.
Strippers can legally touch the customers. Heck, as far as I know the customers can legally touch the strippers if the club will allow it, but I don’t know of any that do.
So (for the purposes of clarity and definition) you are against nude women touching (and/ or being touched by) men in exchange for money?
As BlackKnight said lap dances are legal in many states.
Also the argument that Prostitution “reduces womens’ status” doesn’t really hold up.
When I go to a restaurant, I don’t inquire as to the state of the Cook’s soul, I am there to use him/her for their abilities. I eat and get out. In exchange I pay for this service. This exchange does (in at least a small way) involve a degradation of the characters of the Cook, Waitperson, Bus person, etc.
Many folks look down on one or more of these professions as ‘crappy jobs’ and may extend that judgment onto the person who is in that job. I’m not blind to the fact that prostitution is considered by most to be a ‘crappy job’ and most extend that value judgment onto the prostitute.
How does Legislation have a place in this equation?
One could even argue that legalization will open the door to advertising, advertising will help to shape the public’s perception, and perhaps reduce some of the stigma that is attached to prostitutes.
sigh. Lap dancers, nude dancers etc. well, from what I know (admittedly haven’t scoured local laws), aren’t supposed to actually touch the customers (yes, it may actually happen in real life, it’s probably against the law). But, certainly they’re not allowed to grasp said customer’s genetalia and get them to orgasm. Nor, are they allowed to allow the customers to touch **their ** genitals. And FTR, why would I see a male prostitute in a different light?
How the heck does one give a lap dance without touching the customers? That’s kinda what they’re paying for, right?
Your point being what?
Keep in mind that it is legal for someone to orgasm while getting a lap dance. I have a friend who paid a naked girl to give him a lapdance and he had an orgasm during. This was legal. If he had been naked at the time, it probably would have been illegal.
That was for the Vagina Elite who seemed to think that vaginal penetration is a unique event (the big ‘rape discussion’ a few posts back).
sorry, as I said, AFAIK in my state, a lap dancer is not allowed to have their skin touching their customers skin. they are not allowed to grasp customers genetalia.
AFAIK, it is illegal in most states for one person to specifically touch the genetailia of another, allow their genetalia to be touched for purposes of sexual gratification and be paid for same. If you know differently, please feel free to post the specific law (disregarding the case of legalized prostitution in NV, we’re all aware of that).
Now, if all of that occurs w/o payment, the state is not interstest. If some one manages to get off w/o the physical contact again, they’re unlikely to be involved. If what you described actually happened, I’d suggest that you not assume that it was legal. Folks have been known to do illegal things ya know.
You didn’t say that. You simply said “touching”.
Not with their hands, anyway. If lap dances are legal, then it is legal to “grasp” the genetalia with one’s, well, lap. The stripper’s legs kinda wrap around you, ya know. If you know otherwise, feel free to quote the law.
Yes, this is with the customer’s clothes on. No, that doesn’t matter one whit. The point is this: it is legal for someone to be sexually stimulated by physical contact to climax for money in this context. Clothing is a red herring. What part of the body touches what other part of the body is a red herring.
The point being: If this is legal, why the heck isn’t prostitution legal, since there seems to be little difference?
If this is true, then lapdances are illegal.
AFIAK, it is legal to do so in the context we are discussing.
Not everything that is legal has a law that makes it legal. Everything that is illegal has some law to make it illegal. This is why I believe the “burden of proof” so to speak rests on you to show that it is illegal.
There is physical contact. The fact that it happens through clothing is irrelevant.
Actually, it is when the data you seek is about personal experience, but that is not the point I wish to make.
I wish only to point out that you have a truly astonishing ability to ignore what I can only assume you have no answer for. Some days ago you were harping “No one has answered this, not once…” which was quickly followed up by at least three different posters answering you. Deafening silence. Then, upon returning, you go back to saying the same things over and over again, completely ignoring all the responses and challenges you got to that information, and continue to speak of it as though it is gospel.
Really, wring, you disappoint me.
Oh, and for the above quote and the post it was taken from, you made absolutely no case for why you shouldn’t be seen as being completely unconcerned about the lives that are being destroyed by being labeled a criminal. Everything you have said in this thread, and continue to say, points to nothing but a complete disregard for these women. Like most zealots, you only care about those who come to see it your way.
I make it my policy never to give to organizations that demand you join their church as payment for the charity they offer. I think it is extortion. Sorry to say I view your “concern” for the prostitutes of the world the same way.
stoid
We are talking about Earth, arn’t we? Not bizarro world where everyone thinks that just because they can pay for something means they think they have some sort of “right” to it.
I eat at restaraunts. The chef cooks for me, and I pay him or her for it. And that chef does not take a “human tole” because I use the fruits of his or her labor and pay for it. Now, I certainly understand that I do not have a right to have someone else cook for me. If there were no profesional chefs in town I would simply shrug and go to the market for a TV dinner. I would not go around harrassing people who restrict their culinary efforts to their families. And I would certainly not physically force a person to cook me an order of hash browns, and then force a twenty into their hands and run off. This world, at least, does not work that way.
PleaseWring, calm your self down and come out of the deep end. Johns are johns. Rapists are rapists. Even horny men with a wad of cash still operate on the same general principles that we do. Those who do choose to do physical harm onto others are a different story, and they should be punished for the harm that they actually do. One, however, does not necessarily beget the other.
And so we come once again to analogising sex work with other kinds of work.
Society does not view sex the same way it views cooking. I’ll even stick my neck out a little further - I’d wager that the individuals that view sex the same way they view eating are very, very few and far between. Just a hunch.
This is the point I was going to great pains to establish earlier. If paying for sex is no different to paying for a hamburger then being raped is no different to being punched. This is patent nonsense.
Prostitution is the ultimate trading of the body and soul. This can simply not be equated with performing a mindless activity from 9 to 5. And encouraging people to believe that they can buy or rent another human being is extremely problematic at best. Evidence is that there for most prostitutes there are strong negative psychological effects - especially as regards ability to form strong emotional ties - and I have strong issues with the subconcious message sent out to those who are told that it is OK to purchase another person in this way.
And it is not unreasonable to take wring’s advice that many “johns” feel that as long as money changes hands there is no harm. The whole transaction is fundamentally flawed. The john is paying for the right to use the prostitute is a tool to bring him to orgasm. It becomes very difficult to delineate what is and is not within bounds of this. Once he has started down a particular path, it may not be credible to expect that he will stop. I see no reason to trust the judgement of those who see it as acceptable for them to purchase another person in this way.
pan