Imagine, if you will, that a bored intern in your state capitol discovers a long overlooked provision to your state constitution that says, in essence, that in your state, prostitution may be regulated by the state, but not banned outright. Words gets out, and lawsuits are filed; the courts rule that yes, the amendment is valid, and any law that makes it either impossible or extremely difficult to practice prostitution in a given municipality is void on its face. In other words, if the state bans brothels, advertising call girls in the yellow pages, and street walking entirely, that law is toast. Moreover, the wording of the provision makes it impossible to overturn without a new constitutional convention, and no one is willing to risk that; the lefties fear that would lead to an abortion ban, and the righties fear it will result in a repudiation of --oh, let’s say
Thus, by way of compromise, a blue-ribbon commission is set up to write regulations that adhere to the newly-discovered provision. You are assigned to chair this committee. What rules do you propose?
Yes, I know this is as enormously improbable as a tornado striking a junkyard and spontaneously assembling a 747. If you must have an explanation, **Fabulous Creature ** was bored one weekend and used his time machine to go back to the time of your state’s founding and plant the forged provision where it would be later found. Happy now?
I don’t hate pay whores in general, just the ugly ones (which includes most of them). I get skeeved out seeing ugly women hard at work whether it is on the mean streets or at my corporate workplace. I would love to see hookers get screened for not only diseases but also for physical appearance. An anonymous board of ten people would independently rate the lady in question for looks on a scale of 1 to 10. Anything less than a 7 means that she doesn’t get a whore license. The rates go up dramatically as the score increases so that a 7 might make $35 an hour while a 10 might make $350. That would give them an incentive for hitting the gym and laying off the crack for good. Most people aren’t going to mind a beautiful young lady chatting with people on their street. That is quite different than the state of the industry today.
Also Congress would pass a bill to change the title of the movie “Pretty Woman” to “Dirty Little Greedy Whore” because the title is so deceptive.
Hrm, well, it’s certainly an interesting proposal, and one that I’d personally be in favor of. (I’m libertarian. If it’s two consenting adults, why should the Gov’t have a say?) But yes – some modicum of regulation would be necessary to maintain order.
I’d firstly propose a nominal licensing fee, say $35 per month/bi-weekly. (Or roughly however much it’d take to cover the tests I’m about to mention) Secondly, when the woman (or man) goes to renew their license each period, they’d have to pass a drug and disease screening. If they are clean, they get their license for that period. There also would need to be employed case workers to work with the licensees, to ensure that they aren’t being forced into this by external forces, and that they’re in fact doing it of their own volition. Said case workers will also provide support in finding other gainful employment if the individuals choose to leave this lifestyle behind them.
I think that this provides several clear benefits. Firstly, by requiring monthly drug and disease tests, it protects potential clients, and ensures that the girls/guys are taking care of themselves. It would also encourage the formation of Guilds (roughly how ‘companions’ worked in Firefly) that could levy restrictions upon the clientèle that they would accept. One that I would recommend would be forcing any potential customers to also undergo a STD test, so as to not infect one of the companions, who could then spread it to others.
In either case, I say open it up and let the free market move things in the right way. Always open to suggestions.
That might fall afoul of the prohibition on making it functionally impossible, though; don’t most STDs take several weeks to become apparent on a test? I’d rather have extremely stringent rules on condom usage.
Condoms break. Results for some STD tests (chlamydia and gonorrhea) can be obtained in 48 hours, and some of that time may be due to processing. If there was a way to have a clinic working directly with the brothel, that would be ideal.
Unlike Shagnasty, I would rather have whores that were good at what they did rather than what they looked like… besides, different strokes for different folks. You might run into some legal problem and lawsuits based on discrimination. Their rates would not be regulated so a beautiful 5’9 110lb 20yr old blonde caucasian-descent can charge more based on her appearance vs a 5’5 140lb 40yr old silverhead Asian-descent. Price would be individually set and customers can decide whether or not they are getting what they pay for. If you dont like what you got, go somewhere else. Looks do not guarantee a good or bad lay.
Whore’s should be registered, pay for a license, and operate as any other business. If they work out of the home, they should have a seperate office space to conduct business.
Medical check ups every month with random drug testing at any time.
Must have personal insurance (I know, this could be tricky)
Must have a written menu of services and prices.
I’m thinking, for health and safety issues, a max number of customers in a day/week/month - or more precisely, regulate the number of new customers vs repeat customers.
Must use condoms - both female and male (if that is possible)
Must be on birth control to prevent pregnancy and not hold a customer responsible for accidental pregnancy via contract. Male whores… well, the female client I suppose would have to sign the agreement.
Business must keep receipts and client list (something along the lines of a Dr or lawyer office), and clients also need to pass medical exams.
All income, including tips, must be reported to the IRS.
Worker must be 21 or older and pass a psych evaluation… perhaps an evaluation every year even?
Oh, and because the nature of the business, I would also insist that the office not be located at the home if there are children under the age of 18, 19, 21? residing there.
only licensed premises - no streetwalkers, I’m in two minds about callouts. Wait, I’ll roll the bones…the d20 says callouts are OK.
adult, legal residents only - should cut out some trafficking.
no pimps - girls have to collectivise to run a brothel, like a closed corporation, and can collectively hire secretaries/bookers/agents/pay rent, but no non-jobbers can profit directly from the business. Sketchy on this point, but I’m sure something could be worked out.
otherwise, not sure I agree with what others have said about screenings/condoms etc I think is up to the customers and whores to negotiate. It’d certainly affect rates, but even HIV+ hookers have a niche, I guess. Maybe for HIV+ clients, I don’t know how it works with reinfection and the like.
Definitely no drug testing - what’s that got to do with anything?
I do agree with the need for social workers to ensure non-compulsion , but not full psych evaluations - psycho hose beasts need jobs too.
Even if prostitutions is legalized, there will still be black market and gray market prostitution going on. There are many reasons for this, of course. I doubt we could ever wipe out illegal prostitution completely, but there are several things we could do to reduce it, including:
–Decreasing incentives to participate in illegal prostitution by drastically increasing penalties for those engaging in it, especially for the pimps and johns. Penalties would be raised even further for those who are profitting off of groups such as the underage or people being held against their will.
–Facilitating the process by which existing prostitutes can become “legal.” These people are used to operating outside the law, so we have to acknowledge that they might be a little uneasy about suddenly trusting the system. And we’d have to come up with solutions for those existing prostitutes who may not qualify to become legal prostitutes, such as helping them find other jobs.
–Making it reasonably easy for those who wish to become prostitutes to do so legally. We don’t want people falling into illegal prostitution because going legal is too much of a pain in the ass.
–Streamlining whatever processes are needed for the prostitutes to retain their certifications. See above
–Finding ways to identify those who are choosing prostitution out of desperation or victimhood and helping them find other alternatives. This is one of the trickiest aspects of the whole thing, as this process could conceivably become too cumbersome or invasive and become a major disincentive to people who might want to become legal.
B&O tax to fund vocational training, and mandatory enrollment on their off-time in those classes. A few people were born to this life, but for most it’s a last resort and I’d implement a stairway out.
I don’t have any further regulations to suggest. But this stipulation on being “drug” screened for a license caught my eye. Certainly screening for STD’s makes sense. But why should a prostitute have to pass a drug test ?
Companies that require drug tests do so primarily for liability and/or security reasons. If an employee is using drugs, then increases the risk that they may injure themselves on the job. Or may have added financial pressures that might induce them to steal. Makes sense to drug test them. But a prostitute ?
So the other argument may be “because drug use is illegal”. Do we insist that our dentist has a valid driver’s license ? Driving without a license is also illegal. Do we check to see that (independent) hairdressers pass drug tests ? They perform a service, and we only care that they can perform that service to our satisfaction. So why would prostitutes have to be subject to screening for illegal activities that have nothing to do with their jobs ?
As a patron, we may insist on whether a prostitute can prove that they have passed a drug test. But should the government enforce this ? I don’t understand the reasoning.
After reading this thread I have concluded that one of the regulations should be that they must call themselves whores. No cutsie names like escort or paid companion or the like.
Well, if you want to read an overview on the laws pertaining to legal prostitution here in Nevada, this Wikipedia article does a good job in putting it in *layman’*s terms (pardon the pun).
There are a few legal brothels within driving distance of Las Vegas (you can find a list of them on my website if you do a bit of searching in the section devoted to sex) and they seem to be doing all right, but there are not as many locations as you might think, considering it is legal. Plus a word of warning - they are all a bit far from the Strip and a taxi will be pricey to get there.
Heidi Fleiss lives here and has been threatening to open a brothel for women, with hunky men for the choosing. She was actively taking applications from men awhile back, but not sure if she still is.
I already mentioned that I agree with testing for STDs. Why wouldn’t that cover transmittable diseases ? How would a drug test help ?
So if a prostitute fails a test for marijuana, is she denied her license ? (How would smoking dope increase the risk of transmittable diseases ?) Or are there “acceptable” illegal drugs vs. all illegal substances ?
If the concern is of transmittable diseases, then there are plenty of other activities that would need to be restricted as well (like getting tattoos, for instance).
Yes, although I know it’s no walk in the park for prostitutes in Nevada and Amsterdam. I do wonder, though– would refunds ever be issued (especially for male prostitutes for women), or could there simply be a review board? How would a prostitute go about launching, say, a sexual harassment or assault suit when strippers doing so are practically laughed out of court?
At this point, I’d be happy if people, both in the media and often on these boards, stopped equating prostitute with ‘subhuman trash,’ especially when one’s been murdered (and especially while treating pimps as commendable and kitschy).