Sure, sure. But the thing is that the very NATURE of this business is sex, which seems to confound the more traditional analysis for sexual harrassment. There’s no question that the employee is expected to provide sex - it is, after all, the nature of the beast. That’s kind of what intrigues me – one pillar of the sexual harrassment structure is that sex can never be a condition of employment – yet here it is. I suppose porn films suffer from the same handicap, come to think of it…
Facinating thread!! I would have thought the answer was obvious when I first started reading it (i.e. the man/woman has the right to pick and choose as they will who they, er, service) but now its got me thinking.
I wonder what the DO in this situation. From the few porn movies I’ve seen, the girls don’t always seem very happy…in fact, in SOME of the more extreme movies I’ve seen (can’t remember the name, Max something) the girls seem down right miserable. Do they have a choice? For that matter, do the male ‘actors’ get a choice (some of the men haven’t seemed too pleased either if the girl isn’t slim and blonde and attractive)? Seems like a similar system would be in place for legal prostitution.
I’ve always felt that prostitution is something that SHOULD be legal in the US (for various reasons), but it seems its more complicated than I thought it would be.
-XT
Bricker, where did you get the idea that I *support * doing that? I only said it happens. Please explain that leap of yours, or else retract it.
Actually, upon further thought, it would be even easier to rearrange the org chart to make all the ho’s independent contractors, not employees. That dodge is a pretty common one in small US businesses, too. But, to make sure you understand, I don’t *support * it there, either.
xtisme, you don’t see any guns held to any heads in a porno, either (well, maybe in some of them). None of them would seem to have any less choice in their workplace lives than the average cubicle drone.
This is an interesting thread. But from a libertarian perspective, there is no conundrum at all. Any person should be allowed to do business or not do business with any other person for any reason. This would not apply to the government, but would apply to any private business.
True enough. I figure the ‘gun’ is money, in porno, and the girls willingly sign up for even the distastful stuff lured by money (I’m sure many of them get more than they bargin for when they sign their contracts). Was mostly just making a point that whatever they do in porno would probably work equally well in legalized prostitution. My assumption being that women can choose to say no, but then won’t (obviously) be paid unless they get another client that IS acceptable (for whatever reason…race, sex act, sex orientation, hygene, hell maybe even religion :D).
-XT
I am a bit out of my ken here, but this will not always work. In many cases, a court will put the number of employees together for all affiliated corporations, especially if there is evidence that it was done simply to avoid discrimination laws. IIRC, there was a case out of Chicago a couple years ago involving a gym/spa. The gym and the spa’s employees were considered together, even though they were two separate corporate identities. Of course, the only reason I remember this case is because the gym was a health club, but the spa was a front for prostitution, which made it amusing to me.
Again, IIRC, it is a defense to discriminatory hiring practices that the hiring is a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (I remember BFOQ from class all those years ago). I would assume that prostitutes, porn stars, etc. would fit under the BFOQ exception. Once again, don’t quote me, but I think that’s correct. And, again IIRC, Hooters has argued that it’s waitresses need to be big busted women as a BFOQ. Just another aside that really has no relevance.
I agree that that is the conclusion from a libertarian perspective. I just disagree that it should be the controlling determination.
Well, I said:
I didn’t say you supported it. I merely asked if you WOULD support it. I gather the answer is no, and that you would also not support it in the brother setting.
To the extent that my message suggested you DO support the tactic, I absolutely retract it.
I suppose the legal argument would be made along these lines:
Due to the intimate nature (pun alert) of the serivice being provided, and the potential for harm to the service provider, said provider needs to have absolute right of rufusal in dealing with customers. The potential harm to the hooker (violence) outways the potential harm to society (certain racial groups being descriminated against).
This would differ from a doctor refusing to treat certain racial groups since the doctor does not face the same potential harm situation.
As for large brothels, well they’d be subject to the same scrutiny as Denny’s. It would probably be difficult, although not impossible, to prove that they descriminate against certain races. It would certainly seem that brothels would fall under the “places of exhibition or entertainment” or “places of recreation” categories ini Hamlet’s list, above.
Yes he does. What risk of violence exists inherent to prostitution that doesn’t exist in other professions?
Last time I looked, it was doctors sticking things up their patients’ asses, and not the other way around… Do I need to be more explicit?
Yeah, I think you do. If you just mean, “A prostitute should be able to turn down a patient with a really big dick” or “A prostitute should be able to refuse anal sex”, or “A prostitute should be able to demand that their client wear a condom, and turn down clients with STDs”, I agree with you there. And obviously, any service provider, be it a prostitute or a doctor, has the right to refuse to serve people who may cause them violence or put them in danger.
But, I don’t see how this applies to race. Why should a prostitute saying “I won’t have sex with black people” differ than a doctor saying “I won’t treat black people”?
Ironically, some jurisdictions have laws that favor prostitutes who won’t “do” just anybody. Some laws specify a prohibition of “common” prostitution, defined as having sex with essentially anybody with the money. Call girls with a selective clientele are exempt. Your theoretical racist trollop is on firmer legal ground in some cities than her less-discriminating sisters.
One can debate the ethics of this forever; I would lean towards giving the prostitute the ultimate say in who she offers her business to, without qualification. Her body and her business are inextricably connected, and I don’t think a person operating within the law should ever be compelled to do something with their body they do not wish to.
I think any and all legal comparisons to other service or hospitality industry providers are likely to break down, largely due to the above. I see no comparison to medicine whatsoever. I don’t think prostitution even bears any resemblance to the services of a masseuse (though it could be argued “full release” pushes the envelope somewhat). The “oldest profession” is, in my mind, a very unique profession, and should it become legal all over the US, is likely to have very unique laws drafted to regulate it.
For now, we clearly don’t have any legal precedents to guide judgement. We have no laws stipulating, for example, provision of equal opportunity blowjob services. I kinda doubt we ever will.
That is the case in the NV brothels. They are all independent contrators who give a cut to the house. I must add that this knowledge is based on a documentary that I watched.
Haj
What a needlessly inflamatory title. Ah, well. If blacks are good for anything, it’s serving as rhetorical devices.
I am so claiming that as a sig…if that’s okay with you.
All yours.
(Yay! I’ve been sigified!)
[mr. burns] excellent… [/m.b.]
There’s a new law in the Netherlands that says:Prostitutes can no longer be forced into performing sexual acts they don’t consent to.
[Please don’t call these hard working women; ho’s. Thanks.]
**It’s not uniformally legal, nor are all varieties of prostitution (e.g. street-walking) permitted in all Australian jurisdictions.
ElvisL1ves, “Abo” is a offensive racial slur, akin to “Jap” or “nigger”. Please do not use it.