I’ve already made it clear we’re on the same side of the fence on this issue (see above posts), so keep that in mind while I offer some thoughts on this.
Technically, they’re just saying you can’t sell it. It’s still yours, just as my unsellable kidneys are still mine. Splitting hairs, I realize, but I’m bored at work.
However, I’m properly restricted from selling my kidneys, as I could otherwise extort potential buyers attempting to preserve their own lives or lives of friends/relatives.
A potential john faces no such threat; no one is bullied into hiring a prostitute. At the time of price negotiation, caterer and client are on a level playing field. Money is exchanged. Everyone involved gets what they want. In short, yes, you should be able to sell your body.
Once again, true. However, I doubt women would suddenly take up this profession in record numbers, as there will always be a stigma attached to it. Way the world works, I’m afraid.
Most women who choose the life do so out of necessity. Few of them do it just for kicks or because they find it to be their true calling.
Fine by me. One important point: The male libido is incredibly indiscriminate. Most men have very lax standards regarding the women they’ll sleep with (as opposed to marry or date on a long-term basis). Sexually starve a man long enough, and he’ll hump a garbage can if it has an hourglass figure. One place to look is our prison system. Does every admitted criminal arrive with a taste for his own gender? No, not really. But lock them all in there long enough and watch what happens.
The point I’m trying to make is that while I’m happy you feel empowered by the thought of being sexually desired by males willing to pay, it’s really not anything that unique or special.
Most of these women don’t look like models, anyway, but they still do business. Is it because they look especially pretty in a certain light? Not really. It’s mostly because their core customer base is, by nature, desperate to some degree. Which means their standards are already lowered. So when they say they think you’re sexy, well, I wouldn’t think too much of it.
Side note: Another major reason (though not the only other, I imagine) for going to a prostitute, besides being desperate, is to experiment sexually in a way you cannot with a friend or significant other. Those shopping for this reason, I would think, are not particularly “desperate,” though technically, they are buying your time for what you are willing to do, not what you look like.
erislover, I will adress your issues when you can covince all those femminists that are banging on my door that prostitution is not a womans issue. I have heard countless times that prostitution degrades women, and I am yet to hear how being arrested (and you surely are not denying that the police are a mostly male institution) for having sex on our terms degrades us.
And madcowmccoy, if I am to live a life of neccessity it ought to at least be a life of well paid and legal neccessity.
The kind of sexual empowerment I am talking about is not the same as sexual satisfaction or joy. It is being able to own and control your sexuality, a simple freedom that has long been denied to women. Don’t believe me? Now days fathers still “give away” their daughters at weddings. It was not too long ago that this was a literal transaction. Sex has long been something taken by males, and given grudgeingly by females. I just think it is time to get some of our own.
yea, I’m sure this woman, while she was sucking off Patrick Ewing as another man watched, felt ‘wow, I’ve got the power here’
Blackknight above was the point to Sua that once money enters the picture, the government is there. I can choose to donate my kidney to some one, I cannot sell it. I can choose to sign away my parental rights to my child and allow some one to adopt him/her, but it’s a felony for me to attempt to sell one.
And the starving person example, btw, certainly no one is obligated to feed the person. However, to extort some one in a weaker position is generally considered to be a bad thing that we don’t want folks to do (hence we tend to have greater punishment for crimes against those we see as in a position of vulnerability).
Once again, as kabbes has pointed out, the concept that sexuality is a fundementally different aspect of our being is quite established in our system. Otherwise, the crime of rape would be no different than any other assault.
For those who wish prostitution to be legal, please explain why rape should be considered to be any different than any other assault. Hell, in some rape cases, theres often not much physical harm to detail - so, why should the rapist serve huge sentences, be required to register as a sex offender (0ften accessible through the internet), vs. the person who punched some one in the face?
If you look above, you’ll see I never said it should be illegal. If you want to be well paid, that’s in your hands and your clients’ wallets.
I understand your arguments and ample justification thereof; nothing I said was in conflict with said arguments.
But I’ll not apologize for pointing out obvious downsides to the business. That’s part of being realistic. I’m in support of legalization, but I won’t pretend that such a life - before or after legalization - is one of wine and roses. Like any other, it can be a very hard life.
I think the difference here is that we’re on the same page regarding legalization of prostitution, but on different ones regarding whether or not actually being a prostitute is a life worth pursuing. You seem to think very much so that it is, and though I will not argue that point (as it varies from case to case, I’m sure), I feel it necessary to point out that such a life comes with pros and cons, like any other. I was simply pointing out a few.
Crimes against fellow citizens and the prosecution thereof has to do with injury or the intent to injur. A rape victim suffers considerably more psychological damage than a typical assault victim. (“Assault” can cover a broad range of acts, but I am using your “punch in the face” example.) Someone who’s been punched walks away with a bruised face and ego. Someone who has been raped has been horribly scarred psychologically for a long time to come, and the road to recovery is not easy.
But you knew that.
What makes prostitution “okay” is that no one, under the current model of consensual solicitor and client, is getting hurt. The woman walks away with no scars because she was not forced into anything. Granted, she may not like
her job, but that’s not something the law takes notice of. (Few people like their jobs.) The client, of course, gets what he/she wants, and everyone walks away from the situation as they intended from the very beginning.
OF course I did. The point is, that we see that a sexual assault is of a different classification than other physical assaults, as in ‘it’s different’, the emotions are involved, the deep psychological scarring etc. The person who has a physical (nonsexual assault) may also suffer from psychological harm afterwards, but we still see the sexual assault as more serious. If the vagina is merely another part of the body that one can sell/rent etc. (much as one would ‘rent’ out the labor of one’s hands in work), then there shouldn’t be any additional mystic about it when it’s assaulted. Either it’s a different thing or it isn’t. I contend that it’s different.
I really wonder if you even read the second part of my post. I know you know it’s a horrible, scarring crime; I was counting on that so it could be used to draw an important distinction: In an exchange between two consensual adults, NO ONE GETS HURT. Everyone walks away from the exchange exactly as they had originally intended.
Stop looking to the vagina for distinctions. What’s paramount in each situation is the WELFARE OF ALL INVOLVED.
The severity of rape has nothing to do with a “mystique” surrounding the vagina. It has to do with the higher amount of psychological damage incurred. You don’t need a vagina mystique to see that rape victims come away looking and feeling a lot worse than those who’ve simply been punched in the face. Hence the more severe punishments.
I think my position regarding the situation between solicitor and client has already been made clear.
So, wring, I also contend that “they” are different. However, I am referring to the situations themselves. There is no all-encompassing “b-b-but they both still involve vaginas!” logic that applies to both cases, as they are nothing alike.
The situations are alike in two respects:
In neither case is it necessary to regard the vagina as “mystical.”
In both cases, the law (providing prostitution were legalized) would still be acting with a unified objective: protecting the WELFARE of its citizens. Rapists are prosecuted vigorously for the severe damage they cause. Prostitutes and their clients are left alone because, of course, their welfare is not in any danger.
Your being sarcastic here, but maybe she did feel powerful. No one, not you or me or anyone, should be able to dictate what is the “right” way to feel about sex. This is my answer to kabbes Point A.
As many of your posts seem to indicate, you are equating prostitution with violence. Not everyone does. Not everyone believes that violence and sex cannot be enjoyed together. Not everyone believes that sex should be enjoyed at all. Everyone is entitled to their own feelings and definitions of what sex should be. And no one should try to impose their feelings and definitions onto someone else.
And here’s something that just occured to me, think of the benefit for the john’s if prostitution is legalized. I’m not talking about the fact that they won’t have to worry about getting arrested or catching something or getting “shanked” by the prostitute, but the psychological “boost” they’ll get from legalized prostitution.
Now, if they visit a prostitute, they won’t think that there’s something wrong with them because they’re going to see a hooker. It’ll be a normal, everyday, kind of thing for them, and they won’t spend hours agonizing over what they’ve done.
Not to mention the angst-ridden teenage boys who’re too shy or whatever, and find their virginity to be some horrible burden that they can’t get rid of. They could simply go to a brothel (say one called, “The First Timers Club” or something else kinda cutesy) and a trained professional would help them! Instead of fumbling around in the backseat with some girl (or whatever it is teenagers do these days), they’d have someone who could show them the ropes, as it were. The guys would get a real ego boost from the situation, and maybe when they did get themselves a real girlfriend, they’d have enough confidence and knowledge to be able to make it a mutually enjoyable experience!
stoid - “Me toos” are generally frowned upon in a debating context. They trivialise the whole thing to a “my team vs your team” setting. If Biggirl made a point that was “well said” then you can trust the rest of us to work that for ourselves - we don’t need you to establish it for us. Or should we all chime in every time anyone says anything we think is “well said” just to make that point?
To continue with the debate:
Gee, some of you have problems with analogy and illustration! madcow - by pointing out that rape is accorded special consideration, wring (and indeed I) wasn’t saying that prostitution is the same thing as rape. It was merely an anlalogy being used to establish that sex is indeed seen by society as different to other activities. That’s it. The point being that if prostitution is merely a case of “just another transaction, no different to any other”, rape should be “just another assault, no different to any other”. And yet it isn’t - the fact that we universally accept that rape involves psychological trauma shows that we do see that sex as having psychological implications that go beyond the mere physical act.
And here’s another analogy for you - one that I’ve been trying unsuccessfully to make so far. Sua, your words:
But I think that there is a logical error there, best summed up by the following question: if by making theft legal we could reduce the number of thefts per year (say by registering thieves and making them responsible for enforcing the quotas*), would you see this as a desirable thing to do? Somehow, I doubt it. If we wish to make the point that an activity is beyond the bounds, it is very difficult to do so from the position of that activity being legal. To legalise is to tacitly endorse. It’s hard enough to persuade people that merely the legal but undesirable is a bad thing for them to do - how many times have you heard “It ain’t illegal” as a response to the suggestion that someone should give up smoking? If the government legalises prostitution, that sends out a very clear message that the government sees nothing inherently wrong with prostitution. Since I wholly disagree with that position, I cannot endorse it. I note also that this is what wring means when she says that she doesn’t want to be “made to be a pimp”. This is also why wring brings out so forcefully the problems associated with prostitution, such as human trafficking. She doesn’t want to be party to an endorsement of a business that has this as a common consequence, no matter how abstracted that endorsement is. Stoid:
No - I merely wish to say that sex is not just another activity. That it has an effect on those who engage in it. That effect may be attachment (as in sex in the context of a relationship) or it may be trauma (as in the case of rape). That effect may also be cynicism and distrust - an effect seen in many prostitutes.
Also my point is that perceptions of sex have a wider effect in the context of society as a whole. I’m sorry that it has to be this way, but the fact is that people view those who are promiscuous in a certain light. Those who are promiscuous for money are seen even more unfavorably. I’m not commenting on the rightness or otherwise of these attitudes, but it is undenyable that they exist. I’m even guilty of it myself to a certain extent - despite the best efforts of my parents to bring me up as someone with a “healthy” (read liberal) attitude towards sex, I view those who sleep with a different partner every night with a certain amount of suspiscion. I’m sure your stepmother is a wonderful person, but I am predisposed to judge her in a negative light since I know of her “profession”. As an atheistic and supposedly thoroughly modern man, I am not proud of my reactions to such knowledge, but I can’t deny their existance. And if I have those reactions, I can only begin to guess at the non-ateistic and unreconstructed attitudes of the majority of society. Long story short - to be known as a prostitute is to court ostracization - not a healthy role to play.
Geez, and I still haven’t got onto my point ‘B’ yet.
pan
you are not allowed to rent your womb.
wrong on that one unless being a surrogate mother has become illegal in the last 20 years and we didnt know about it
also this argument that buying a baby is illegal yes in a straight cash deal it is but what if you pay her medical bills and pay her to have the baby in other ways ?
if i remeber theres a james woods movie where they do this for a girl ,
so that argument is baseless
theres ways making it legal as was recently started by a few girls with video cameras it was simple they taped it and the gimmick was your making your own amature porn video … other than getting a filming permit theres not a thing the cops can do
also how the legal escorts get away with it " as far as i know they just went out to dinner ect "
I’ve lost count of the number of times in this thread that wring has pointed out that one cannot be paid to be a surrogate mother. In fact, this is kinda the point.
Yes, you can skirt around the law. Nevertheless, the fundamental principle is that purchase of a baby is illegal. Attempting to circumvent this is a red herring - the point is still that the law says that some things cannot be bought.
Now let me just let this sink in. I always like to give people a few moments to retract their more stupid statements. No? OK - let me get this straight. You are citing, as evidence, in a serious debate about prostitution: a James Woods film? Is it worth me even bothering to point out how ridiculous that is?
Again, the ability to circumvent a law doesn’t say anything at all about the justness of that law; nor does it say anything as to whether the underlying activity is an acceptable one.
kabbes answered many of the points directed towards me (re: renting womb, the whole rape/assault thing) etc.
BigGirl - actually, no, I wasn’t trying to be sarcastic in that news story reference, just wanted to let people in on another aspect of ‘the life’ (noting of course, that the woman in reference wasn’t one of the lower rungs), and well, instead of speculation of what she felt, how about we let her say it in her own words?
yeah, we make it shameful and illegal to do something and we justify keeping it illegal because it is shameful… and illegal.
Eighty years ago a white woman marrying or having sex with a black man was shameful and illegal in many places. Those who wanted to keep it that way would point out that not only the woman but any children they may have would be subject to unlimited shame and so… it should remain illegal. Good reasoning.
INteresting. Doesn’t seem to be responsive to anything, but interesting none the less. If it’s in response to the hooker’s quote that she was embarassed, that was posted in response to BigGirl’s speculation that she may in fact have felt empowered.
I agree that sex is looked upon “differently” by society, and that legal prostitutes would still be looked down upon, but look at other jobs that are looked down upon now. A lot of snobbish white-collar workers look down upon blue-collar workers and labor unions. And conversely a lot of blue-collar workers look down upon the snobbishness of the white-collar workers. So legalized prostitution would just give certain groups of people a “different” reason to look down on another group of people. And, I would say that many legal prostitutes (besides the ones who actually choose it as a profession), would look down upon themselves somewhat for selling their bodies, but, if they were forced into the profession anyway at least they could find some dignity in the fact that it is not illegal.
I think another important issue about the perception of sex and prostitution is that 50 to 100 years AFTER prostitution is legalized SOCIETY’s perception of sex will be totally different than it will be right after legalized prostitution takes effect. Think about old clips you see of “Gentleman’s clubs” from way back where the dancers are fully clothed doing line dances and kicking their legs. Back then they were considered “risqué”, but since their beginning society’s perception of them has changed.
I think sailor’s post was in response to my post, wring, in which I pointed out that a prostitute will be ostracized even if the “profession” is legal.
Note sailor, however, that I have never said that this is justification for keeping it illegal. I’m merely setting the scene in which sex is not just another activity and prostitution not just another transaction. I merely wish to emphasise that sex is a lot more complex than that.
I sometimes feel that those claiming that there is nothing wrong with prostitution think that the world’s attitude to sex doesn’t matter. They apparently feel that a world in which bumping uglies is equivalent to a handshake is preferable. Fair enough. But many then go further and attempt to legislate as though this were already the case. You have to deal with the world as it is folks and in this world sex has a special status. That’s why rape is such a serious offence.
If you want to change attitudes towards sex then campaign, educate and debate. But don’t attempt to ride roughshod over people’s personal mores as if they aren’t there. That’s what my above post was referring to.
Looks like I’m not the only one with difficulties in reading comprehension.
I know exactly what you were saying, and I can understand you logical clearly. Your final sentence was exactly what I understood to be your meaning.
However, as I thought I’d pointed out, rape is not sex and should not be lumped in the same group with other consensual sexual acts. We view rape as a serious crime not because it is a sexual act but because of the serious trauma involved in that act. There is no such trauma in consensual sex.
Crimes are based on damage done. Rape: Lots. Prostitution: None. One is an attack, the other is a consensual act. I really don’t see why you feel the need to lump the two together.
I never claimed society didn’t view sex as a “different” activity. However, you later reiteration of that statement did leave me with some reservations.
I hate to break your heart, but no, sex does not necessarily have deep-rooted psychological implications. Though I’m sure it’s not sinking in that rape is not sex, even so, the trauma comes from the feelings of degradation and powerlessness that come with the attack. A prostitute setting a price for her clients is simply doing her job. She knows what she’s doing and what the risks are. She can handle herself. Everyone is getting exactly what they want, and no one is losing more than they planned to. A prostitute’s life is not one of nightly trauma. She can do her job and be writing her grocery list in her head.
I’m laying this out as plainly as I can. I honestly don’t know how to make it more understandable for you. Perhaps flash cards?
madcowmccoy you’re lumping the wrong things together.
assault = physical attack
sexual assault = physical attack of the sexual organs and/or for the purpose of acheiving sexual gratification.
Since in a sexual assault, there is already a criminal cause (ie any contact) there is no reason to differentiate it from regular assault at all, unless one considers the act of touching some one sexually in a different classification than any other touching. Level of harm done is always a factor involved in an assault, so - if sexuality wasn’t substantially different, then there is no reason to have a different crime.
For example - we are also an intensly visual society, yet we don’t have a specialized set of crimes/punishments for assault on some one’s eyes. If you attack some one and blind them, you’d be prosecuted under routine assault crimes, and be sentenced accordingly, with the information ‘they did serious permanent damage to their eyes’ being a mitigating factor.
You keep going for the voluntary vs. involuntary aspect. voluntary sexual contact is not a crime. Rape is. adding commerce to the ‘voluntary’ aspect is what constitutes the crime in prostitution, and compels the state’s interest. I can choose to donate my kidney to my brother, the state is neither concerned nor involved. I cannot choose to sell my kidney to anyone (even my brother).