Let's Get Some Hookers!

Great Debates
141

On a light-hearted note:

>> Biggirl: I also think the demand for sex for sale is relatively constant

There is only so much water in the well… (if you know what I mean) :wink:
>> Sua: And why is sex one of those things? Why sex and not coal-burning stoves?

Wait a minute now! I strongly resemble that comment! I, sir, have a wood burning stove. I know wood-burnings stoves and you, sir, are no wood burning stove! :wink:
Another thing which has been overlooked is that a well organized militia is most necessary for the defense of the country and so the right of citizens to engage in prostitution shall not be infringed.
Getting serious now: I would like to see any kind of proof that European countries where prostitution is legal have any more violence against women or less consideration for them than the US. I doubt it.

Making prostitution illegal does not make it go away, it makes it worse for both sides but much more so for the prostitutes who find themselves leading a life of crime. Not to mention that anyone can hop on a plane and go to countries where women are treated even worse so, in a way, by making it illegal here you are increasing it in the Philippines where the girls really have less protection.

The only thing I see in those who oppose the legalization of prostitution is a puritanical prejudice that “sex is different” and true love cannot be bought or sold and that is all we should have. Sex for the sake of sex is not permissible.

wring’s argument is all about protecting women from their own foolish choices. Ok, so let us take it to its logical conclusion. In the US many more women suffer violence at the hands of their husbands and boyfriends than prostitutes at the hands of johns or pimps. Clearly these women are making very bad choices in choosing their boyfriends and husbands. I think we can all agree on that. But what are we to do? Clearly these women need to be protected from their own bad choices. Having to get a boyfriend approval from the government would be too complex so the thing to do would be to go to the old tried and true system where young women had to get permission for anything from their family. So, any women under age 35 needs to have the permission of her parents or family elders before dating or marrying a man or engaging in prostitution. After age 35 she is free to do as she pleases as, not only we assume she has acquired some common sense, but also, very few could sell it anyway. This would prevent more violence against women than all the laws against prostitution.

142

lost this the first time. Assume, of course that the original was much more precise.

even sven w/all due respect, some one taking liberties with their eyes, is not even in the same legue as some one sticking things into your various orifices. Hyperbole does not belong in this set up.

bastid - IME, health club workers are not only encouraged by required to keep their clothes on. Nice try, though.

sailor - One cannot attempt to demonstrate reduction of violence towards women (which wasn’t my point but anyhow) in places where prostitution is illegal - what you’d need to do if I were making that claim was demonstrate that violence towards women in general went up where it was legalized. But since I’m not making that claim, oh well. And, as far as all of your stuff about women making choices etc. that of course is the heart of the debate - the others have rightfully acknowledged that great concern should be shown for the people who are kidnaped, coerced and tricked into prostitution (and they do exist). As far as the rest of them (and we quibble about how many there are), the rest of my point is below.

stoid I guess it’s a good thing that my prior response was lost due to a computer glitch. Your comments to me above (about ‘where’s your reply’ and ‘gee, she posted to other threads’ and the rest) were unnecesarrily rude. But, since you’ve had that pointed out by three different posters and still can’t see any wrong doing on your point - fey. It’s not worth it. OTOH your dismissal of evidence that I’ve submitted because of your ever present ‘appeal to authority’ (“I know people who’ve talked to her” etc.) is laughable especially considering what you posted when requested for evidence (“I know a surrogate mom and she…”) So, I’ll concern myself with your appraisal of my evidence once I’m convinced you have a clue what constitutes evidence here. So far, (and including threads where we’re on the same side), I have yet to see it.

As for the rest.

  1. The government is concerned with commerce, including employment and sales of goods and services. There are some that aren’t regulated much (garage sales for example), others highly regulated (medicine for example), and yet others not allowed at all (one is not allowed to sell a kidney or a child, one is not allowed to become a hired killer, one is not allowed to call oneself a medical doctor w/o the required certifications.) So, I see quite a bit of evidence to support regulation of ‘what we do’ and ‘how we earn money’ and ‘what we can sell’.

  2. Prostitution has many effects more than the simple money transaction between person A and person B. We live in a complex society. It is clear to me, from the links I’ve provided, that even where prostitution is legal, there exists an unregulated trade, at least as prolific as where it’s illegal totally. And, there exists a substantial amount of human trauma associated with the trafficing and other types of coercion. In addition, there’s the nusisance factor that Cecil lists in his column, that is associated with the trade.

It is clear to me that legalization does not make the illegal traffic become negligable, and thus the industry is supporting serial rapes. Whatever number of acts that are going on now (legal or no) will certainly not decrease if the activity is legalized (I think you could expect it to increase, since there will be a segment who would only consider it if it’s legal). And since there already exists a large market for the trafficing for the number of acts going on now, how can you not expect that trafficing would increase if prostituiton is legalized (and presumably demand goes up)? If it’s already finacially lucrative enough to be a major issue, how can legalization not increase the incentive to traffic?

  1. While it may be true for the very select few folks who wish to become prostitutes, they may suffer from risk of arrest etc, I believe the rights of the many overide the rights of the few, and in this case, the many who suffer from serial rapes, from the nuisances etc, should prevail over the very few who may need to make a career change.

and to avoid the inevitable, I’m outa here til at best tomorrow.

143

wring, I know you have been busy answering myriad other posts from numerous other posters, but when you get the chance can you please answer the question I posed in my previous post?

144

sorry missed this. Not that I’m the ultimate arbitrator of all things [sup]tm[/sup] but to me the medium of payment isn’t the issue, the personal choice is. If the person makes a free choice that’s the thing. And in the scenario you show, I doubt the woman thinks “oh, he gave me flowers, I’ll F**k him in payment for it”, but she may think "oh, he gave me flowers I guess he isn’t as big of a jerk as I thought he was, so it doesn’t seem to be the trade off you seem to think. However, turn it around - you see a woman starving to death. You offer her a meal **IF ** she gives you a blow job. Do you still feel like it’s such a “well, we’re using each other” type of thing?

Re: Biggirl’s point about ‘there will always be coercion’ well, that’s kinda my point, isn’t it? and for me that means therefore you should restrain the activity that promotes the coercion. Since I have yet to figure out how to make it illegal to buy something that’s legal to sell (some thing my home state of MI seems to do re: fireworks btw), for me the way to attempt to eradicate the coerced traffic is to outlaw what creates it.

145

Keep laughing. I don’t notice you addressing my point about the weaknesses in what you consider “evidence”. Someone writes something and publishes it on the web and it’s true? Really? Why? Tell me what makes your “evidence” so much more valuable, hmm? You like the “evidence” you present because it supports what you want it to support, not because it has any special validity to it.

Tell me, wring, when you wake up in the morning and see with your own eyes that the sun is shining outside, to you check with weather.com to make sure it’s true?

As to the surrogate mom remark… I said what is true: it’s not codified in contracts, because it is techinically prohibited. That doesn’t mean it isn’t happening, only that it isn’t part of the contract.

The rights of the many to be what…arrested? You have not yet made your case, wring. You just keep repeating yourself:

“Bad things happen around prostitution. Specifically, some people are forced into it. Legalization won’t fix that. So let’s keep arresting everyone who does it, including the people who are forced into it. They’ll thank us for it later.”

Feh indeed.

By the way, where is all this force and trickery and coercion occurring? Here in the US? And do you * really believe * for * one moment * that women put in this position against their will are glad that it’s illegal? Feel protected by the fact that it’s illegal? Feel safer because it’s illegal? Honestly, what in heaven’s name are you thinking?

All it does is make double the victimization of such women by turning them into criminals.

Your argument amazes me.

stoid

146

I think that a better thing to make illegal would be the act of trying to protect someone from themselves. It is the height of arrogance.

Why don’t we simply make things like serial rapes illegal and try to go after the people who cause that to happen. You seem to agree that prostution in itself between two consentual people is not bad, but you want to make it illegal instead of focusing on the real problems. Legalizing prostution might increase the “bad things”, but it will also allow cops to stop said “bad things” instead of prostution.

147

I don’t believe you read her right. I don’t ever recall (and I concede I might have missed it) wring ever saying anything close to an agreement that prostitution is ever ok for anyone. Remember “Some things shouldn’t be sold.”?

I cannot say what is in anyone’s mind but my own, but wrings own words lead me to the opinion that she disapproves of prostitution on every level, and therefore she will seek any argument she can find to justify keeping it illegal. Because the arguments we’ve heard so far are incredibly weak, and her disataste and disapproval for the practice under any circumstances has been clearly demonstrated.

There are any number of ways to address the negative "extras’ that come with prostitution, but apparantly nothing but making the women involved criminals will suit wring.

stoid

148

[hijack]You are a very interesting person.[/hijack]

However, I assume that by the tone of your post you would rather lean with kabbes and wring that prostitution is not a victimless event, even were it legal.

Or are you saying that since we already sell everything else but sex we might as well go the whole nine yards?

I’m not clear on which side you are really on.

149

I’d like to separate two debates that have become somewhat entwined here:[list=A][li]Is prostitution wrong? Is it an acceptable thing to have in society? Is there anything fundamentally problematic with prostitution?[/li]
[li]If the answer to “A” is “yes”, then do we keep it illegal or not?[/list=A]You see, the trouble is that we have[ul][]floks like Stoid who totally believe that the answer to “A” is “no” and hence the answer to “B” is “not applicable”;[/li]
[li]those such as wring and me who believe that the answer to “A” is “yes” and the answer to “B” is “yes”;[/li]
[li]and then we have people in the middle, who say that the answer to “A” is “probably” but the answer to “B” is “no, since from a practical point of view we believe that legalisation would solve some problems”.[/ul]However, although A and B are separate arguments, B does very much rest on A. In fact, I’d go so far as to say in the context of the generality of this debate, the whole “B” debate is pointless. I say this since “B” is only worth discussing if you feel that prostitution is probably undesirable but not terribly so. Those polarised in the “A” debate don’t feel “B” is important since:[ul][]If prostitution is deep down unacceptable then legalistaion isn’t an option, any more than legalisation of murder or theft would be acceptable.[/li]
[li]If prostitution is inherently fine then why on earth shouldn’t it be legal?[/ul]You see? There is no point in Stoid and I discussing “B” - the answer drops out of our fundamental beliefs on the issue.[/li]
There is however a lot of milage in our discussing “A”. Why do wring and I think that the inherent problems with prostitution make legalisation not even worth discussing? Can we convince you of this?

Only the OP can dictate the parameters of the debate, so I’m not saying that one thing or another should only be discussed. However I do ask the participants to recognise that some arguments being put forward for legalisation are simply not relevant to those particularly polarised on the “alpha” debate.

wring is of course battling hard to win the minds of those undecided in the beta debate. But I’m far more interested in the alpha.

And I think that it all comes out of this: modern society places a great deal of significance on the sexual act. Frankly, I don’t care if you personally think that it is nothing more than an exercise in friction, intellectually inherently meaningless. You do not live in a vacuum. The claim that “society” is wrong to view sex as significant in some way is sociopathic. Believing that the mores of society are wrong is one thing, acting to try to change those mores is another but simply ignoring those mores is something else entirely.

Not for nothing do we view rape in such harsh terms. After all, in a rape there may be very little actual physical harm. But forcing another individual to have sex is seen as one of the worst things that we can do.

Similarly, society places a great deal on fidelity. Of course some people live happily in open relationships, but these are the overwhelming minority. Most view the concept of their partner sleeping with someone else as anathema. To do so in such a case is a huge betrayal of trust - many would argue the biggest betrayal of trust a partner could perform. Why? I’m betting that even many of those arguing the case for prostitution would hate the idea of their partner sleeping around. This is an indication that despite what you might say on the boards, you do see sex in a special way. To see sex in a special way is not deviant - it is the norm of society!.

If you want to postulate a future society in which sex is not seen in this way, then fine. If you believe in such a society, again fine. If you want to work towards that society, then I say good luck to you (though I don’t think you’ll succeed since part of our evolutionary make-up has been a tendency to form strong bonds to those we have sex with). But if you try to legislate as though that society already existed then I will take issue with you.

So we view sex as special. Fine. So what? What has that got to do with the right to sell your body?

Well in my original post, I identified the following as some of the parameters of the debate:

[quote]
[list=A][li]Firstly I claim that sex work is not as other work and that it is not sufficient to brush attitudes to sex under the carpet by just saying “oh you’re all so puritanical”.[/li]
[li]I claim that prostitution leads to three undesirable societal effects:[list=1][/li]
[li]An increased tendency for men in particular to see women as nothing more than a potential recepticle rather than a human being.[/li]
[li]An increased tendency to believe that one’s own needs should ride roughshod over that of other people’s.[/li][li]An increased atmosphere of underlying threat of violence towards women.[/list=1][/list=A][/li][/quote]
My establishing that sex is not “just another activity” is a step towards Point A.

I invite you to consider your response to being told that your mother, sister, girlfriend, friend has a job as a prostitute. Indeed Sua - this is where the point about signing on for unemployment benefit and being asked to work in a brothel comes in. Some (Stoid) have clearly been brought up to have no issue with this. Most of us see it differently. Since sex is viewed so uniquely in society, I see absolutely nothing to suggest that attitudes towards those close to us being prostitutes would change. It will never be seen as a respectable thing to be without wholesale changes to societal mores.

But again - so what? That’s their choice to make, isn’t it?

Possibly. Point A is not the strong argument against prostitution - it merely sets the scene. However it is significant to whatever extent those involved in prostitution are consequently unable to form strong emotional bonds to those close to them.

Some clearly will be able to cope with day after day of men paying them to have sex and be unaffected. I suggest that these are the minority. Certainly the last piece of research I saw on this indicated a tendency amongst prostitutes to be deeply cynical and have difficulty with friendly human contact.

I appreciate that we all have to make decisions in our lives and that these are not necessarily always ideal. The decision to smoke or drink for example. However I have to view with deep suspicion any decision that so often leads to increased sociopathic behaviour and psychological problems. Especially (key point) when that decision is often taken as a desperate last measure.

Note that this point A is not an argument about illegality - it is an argument against prostitution itself. Please don’t start talking about the government’s right to legislate our decisions, because that would be to spectacularly miss the point. I’m talking about the problems of prostitution itself here.

I fear that time is catching up with me, so I’ll leave point B with its three subpoints for another post.

pan

150

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by kabbes *
I’d like to separate two debates that have become somewhat entwined here:[list=A][li]Is prostitution wrong? Is it an acceptable thing to have in society? Is there anything fundamentally problematic with prostitution?[/li]
[li]If the answer to “A” is “yes”, then do we keep it illegal or not?[/list=A][/li][SNIP]
In fact, I’d go so far as to say in the context of the generality of this debate, the whole “B” debate is pointless. I say this since “B” is only worth discussing if you feel that prostitution is probably undesirable but not terribly so. Those polarised in the “A” debate don’t feel “B” is important since:[ul][li]If prostitution is deep down unacceptable then legalistaion isn’t an option, any more than legalisation of murder or theft would be acceptable.[/li]
[li]If prostitution is inherently fine then why on earth shouldn’t it be legal?[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]

Wrong, wrong, and wrong. Your “A” is actually three different questions.
My answer to your first “A” question is: yes, prostitution is wrong. To the second is yes, it is acceptable. To the third is yes, it is fundamentally problematic.
So yes, there is a point to discussing “B”.

OK, if sex is “special”, why don’t we criminalize infidelity? In infidelity, there is very obviously a victim - the wronged spouse.

Assuming you are correct (which I strongly disagree with), does criminalization of prostitution tend to enhance, lessen or not effect these social ills?

I was hoping you wouldn’t try this old one. OK, I do not wish a loved one to become a prostitute. I also do not wish a loved one to cheat on a spouse, become a dominatrix or a submissive, become an alcoholic, get into an abusive relationship, own a (legally-operated) sweatshop, etc., etc. Should we criminalize those other activities as well?

And, possibly Stoid aside, I think we all agree that in a perfect world prostitution wouldn’t exist. But it does exist, and we are faced with the decision on whether it should be a criminal activity or not.

I do not believe it is possible to eliminate most any activity with negative social consequences. The question is - what should society’s response to the activity be? In the case of rape, murder, armed robbery, etc., society benefits from attempts to eliminate these activities, even though such efforts are fruitless. The social good achieved by the attempts to eliminate these activites outweighs the social cost of such attempts.
I submit that the social costs of the attempts to eliminate prostitution outweigh the social good achieved by those attempts. The attempts to eliminate prostitution:

  1. act to criminalize the most obvious victims, the prostitutes;
  2. greatly inhibit efforts to deal with the public health consequences of prostitution;
  3. leave the prostitute at the mercy of the pimp and/or the sexual slaver.

Sua

151

And so do I. Seriously, wring, you are going off the reservation here. Again with Stoid the possible exception (I stopped reading her posts in this thread a while back), everyone here in favor of legalization is also in favor of heavy regulation. And I’ve stated twice that there is no constitutional right to be a prostitute or frequent a prostitute. And, while I’m at it, you misquoted me earlier when you claimed that I said the only problems with prostitution come from attempts to criminalize it.

As for an illegal trade co-existing with a legal trade, I’ll ask you the umpteenth time - what the hell does that have to do with whether prostitution should be legalized?
As for the nuisance factor, nuisance to others occurs to some degree with every trade, legal or illegal. Show me an industry or occupation that does not impose some social cost on others, and I’ll give you a gold star.

If prostitution is legalized, illegal trafficing will increase, because new johns will go to hookers because they are now legal? Huh? the new johns will have no incentive to go the illegal hookers, because they are still illegal. And, very likely, the current johns will also start going to the legal hookers, because most will have no desire to run the risk of being arrested.
Furthermore, since when does a legal industry bear the responsibility for those who engage in the industry illegally? Is Seagrams morally responsible for moonshiners? Is Pfizer morally responsible for herbal Viagra?
As for your financial incentive, of course legalization will harm the profits of illegal trafficers. Last I checked, the Mafia is no longer in the moonshine business. It is a simple fact of economics that once any trade is made legal, participants in the trade can no longer charge the “risk premium” caused by the illegality. In order to remain illegally in business, they must undercut the price of the legally available good.

Will legalization lessen, increase, or have no effect on those prostitutes who suffer from serial rape? Ditto the nuisance caused by prostitution? Ditto the etc.?

Sua

152

Sua first of all, sorry for mischaracterizing your position. Unintentional, I assure you.

Let me try again to illustrate the point I was making about increasing the trade. Here it is illegal, and it has customers. I assume that all of those currently using the services would continue to do so if it were legalized. I also assume that there exists a certain number of folks who refrain from the activity solely because it’s illegal. Ergo, legalize the trade, you increase the customer base. Increase the customer base you increase the incentive for trafficers (while simulataneously decreasing their risk - after all the illegality was a risk to them as well). Which therefore increses all of the serial rapes et al to which I object. Clearer now?

From what I see in the links I’ve provided the sole differences in the lifes of the prostitutes in legalized areas vs. illegal are:

  1. the ‘pimp’ madame, whatever, pays taxes to the state for regulations etc, as do the workers (you’ll allow, I suspect that at least some of those currently working don’t declare their income?, so for those their situation will become worse), which adds yet another layer on top of the ‘costs’ of doing business, and adds the ‘state’ to the list of those ‘pimping’.
  2. they won’t be arrested.
    This is the one that seems to garner the most support. However, realistically speaking, those in the higher level action don’t risk much (Heidi and the Mayflower Madame aside), and those in the lower levels - sadly, arrest and jail time are (IME) often the only time they’re able to get regular meals, regular sleep, off drugs, and access to those social services that would assist them in getting out of the trade.

and again, I’d rather see attention focused on arresting the johns, pimps etc. vs. the workers themselves (so the insistence that I want to see sex workers w/criminal convictions is unjustified).

So, the sole benefit of legalization seems to be ‘the sex worker themself won’t risk a criminal record’. And again, to me, that’s insufficient benefit to insufficient numbers of people to warrant the other large problems associated to the many.

153

By “trafficers”, I assume you mean those engaged in the sexual slave trade, i.e. those who coerce women into prostitution. If so, how will legalization of prostitution decrease their risks? Sexual slavery will still be illegal. Yes, it is likely that the customer base will increase, as johns who now do not frequent prostitutes will go to them if the prostitute is legal. But they will only go to the “legals”, so how will that increase the incentive/demand for trafficked women? And, of course, some/many/most current johns will stop frequenting the illegal/trafficked women, thus decreasing the market for sexual slavery. This is basic economics.

I submit there are additional benefits, including and most importantly that the prostitutes in legal brothels will not be women who are sexual slaves. Other benefits would include protections from not being paid, poor work environments, protection of the hooker and the customer from STDs and HIV, possibly unionization - in short, the protections that workers in other industries have.
The fact that there will still be illegal prostitutes does not change the fact that the legal ones will be protected by the same laws that apply to all workers, as well as additional laws specifically geared towards regulating the prostitution industry.

Sua

{fixed bold. --Gaudere}

[Edited by Gaudere on 07-24-2001 at 04:55 PM]

154

Isn’t that difference why even sven makes only $7/hour, as opposed to $200+/hour?

155

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by SuaSponte *

  • Originally posted by Sua*

**

Yes, traffickers (spelling’s not my best)= those engaged in sexual slave trade/other coercions. Why do you assume that that the clients care/know they’re going to ‘trafficed’ women? they certainly don’t now. (parenthetical - there was a case recently locally where an underage prostitution ring was busted. One result was the traffic in hooker zones went down substantially for a while - assumption? a bunch-o guys suddenly realized the hooker that went down on them last week could have been 13.)

And, as the links I’ve brought out, in Australia, there were nearly as many illegal places as legal ones.

** Proove it please. Remember that most of Amsterdams’ legal hookers are aliens, and the Netherlands has a substantial problem with traffickers. (already demonstrated). Do you really believe that ONLY the illegal trade has these women?

again, I’m not seeing, in the real world of legalized prostitution these wonderful protections you’re so enamored of - did you check out the links describing the working conditions of the legalized hookers in Nevada? Amsterdam?

156

Well, the simplest way would be to have some sort of governmental seal required to be prominently placed in the entrance/exterior of the brothel that certifies that the brothel is licensed/inspected.

Um, actually, no. I’ll accept that most hookers in Amsterdam are aliens, but under Dutch law, sex workers must be EU citizens. Any woman from East Europe/Far East/etc. who is hooking in Amsterdam is illegal.

Yes, and I’ve done my own research on the web and found sites that paint a different picture than you links did.

wring, I think it may be time to end this. You look upon prostitution as an evil that must be stopped. I look upon it as a reality that must be controlled. I don’t see either of us changing our POVs.

Sua

157

** kabbes **, I agree completely that there are two different questions. I disagree that A even needs to be discussed, precisely because of what you yourself say right here:

Indeed it is. But I think you and I define special very differently. You seem (and I could be wrong, please correct me) to be saying that the “specialness” of sex is actually “sacred”. Or something similar. In other words, I believe you have defined that specialness as a specific sort of specialness that all “right thinking” people agree on. That there are specific components or some such.

Whereas when I think of sex as being special, and I very much do, I think of it as having a special status in the pantheon of human activities. And that special status is this: there is nothing so personal, so unique, so utterly individual as each person’s sexual life. The myriad ways in which each human being experiences their sexual beingness are so complex and intricate that it is simply wrong for society to intrude upon it in any except to protect each other from sexual violence or abuse.

Sex is also one of the most compelling forces in our lives, right behind hunger. Who we are behind closed doors is often completely different than the face we present to the world. People do amazing, horrible, shocking and wonderful things because of their sexual feelings.

It is because of this that I think it is pointless and actually wrong for society to “decide” squat about prostitution or any other sexual practice or activity that is conducted between consenting adults. Not only is it wrong, but I don’t think society * can *. People are going to be who they are. The most society can do is make people feel ashamed and make them hide who they are and repress who they are, it cannot change who they are. Which is why I think we shouldn’t even try.

I’m not going to try and convince anyone that prostitution is right or good or proper or that you should like it. Only that it’s really none of your business.

If there are ancillary problems with it, then deal with the ancillary problems, the same way we do with everything else.

stoid

158

I was trying to say that prostitution is not in a league of its own. It is just like a million other jobs where you are paid to be used and smile about it. Sure, prostitution is a little on the extreme side, but the concept is still the same.

And so why is it okay for me to be exploited for seven bucks an hour but not two hundred? Why is okay for me to be used, but not okay for me to set the terms?

Basically, the law says that I cannot hold the most lucritive job currently availible for me. In essence, it says that my sexuality is not mine to sell. It uses the mostly male police force to enforce that.

I see that as the true exploitation of women. Under threat of jail and worse, we are kept form pursueing a job that would give us economic power. We are kept from a job that would give us sexual power (after all, it is empowering to know that your sexuality is worth something, and you are entitled to set the terms for it).

Morality is not the issue. The issue is the concept that our sexuality already belongs to men, adn therefor is not ours to sell.

159

I agree that personal choice is the issue. I believe one should be able to make the personal choice to become a prostitute.

I think you equate prostitution with forced prostitution. Obviously, nobody here is arguing that forced prostitution should be legal.

Why not allow those who want to become prostitutes to be prostitutes legally?

So the reason somebody freely decides to have sex matters? I’m confused.

So you’re just against prostitutes that are starving? I’m confused again. You’re just not making yourself clear, I think, or perhaps I’m just not able to see what you’re getting at.

If I saw a woman starving to death, I may or may not buy her a meal. Depends on if I have the money to spare. Of course, this is a personal decision of mine. I am not obligated in any way to buy her a meal, just as I am not obligated to build a house for a homeless person or pay for the surgery for someone who needs a new kidney nor am I obligated to provide the kidney.

Of course. Why wouldn’t I? I’m using her for sex (hypothetically!) and she’s using me for food.

I see no problem with this whatsoever.

Also, it is not sufficient to show that sex is seen as something special. It needs to be shown that it is special in such a way that it should be treated differently with regards to this particular subject.

So your plan is to outlaw desire for sex?

160

Interesting question. As I agree with legalizing prostitution I have no answer for you.

Uh-oh…

even, you are an engine of rage. I don’t know where it comes from, or if it worth removing, but there are some interesting comments here that deserve a response.

Firstly, police use the women police officers to set up sting operations where the females pose as prostitutes to get johns. They then arrest or fine those johns, depending on the legislation of that area. COPS shows such sting operations all the time. The mojority of cops’ gender is really beside the point I think, at least as you have presented it here.

Secondly, men are also not allowed to be prostitutes. It isn’t your sexuality that cannot be sold, it is sex in general (except the case of pornography which I mentioned) cannot be bargained for. And even that applies only in the area where you live. there is no doubt that prositution is legal in certain areas of Nevada.

I, for one, would gladly be a prostitute. It is certainly my penis, and I should be able to negotiate with it like I negotiate with my hand when signing contracts or with my mouth when I swear a binding oath. I don’t have to be a woman or want a female prostitute to support the issue.