posted
I don't know any prostitutes. But several have weblogs. And they like their jobs, chose their jobs, and want their jobs to be legal. Only THOSE types of people should have the job.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Agreed. And I'm Marxist-Maoist remember? Thats the way I think.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: I'm Marxist-Maoist remember?
Of COURSE we remember, honey. It would be like forgetting that ketchupqueen likes ketchup, or that I'm Jewish. It's your persona!Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And for that, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Oh? Are we going to be reduced to name calling and jingoism? I could say your a rightwing facsist jingoist who likes bending over to capitolism, would you like it if we resorted to ad hominem attacks? My political beliefs are my own, I do not appreciate being attacked for them and I will refraim from doing likewise.
IP: Logged |
posted
I know a prostitute. She works for herself. She makes excellent money, likes her job and is one of the happiest people I know. I have no idea if it is legal here or not, but I love her anyway!
Posts: 308 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: We don't let people sell themselves into slavery here.
Sure we do, if that's what you are going to call providing a service for money.
The lines are already pretty thin when it comes to selling sex. Is it illegal for a man to provide expensive gifts, even cash gifts to a woman after sex? Sometimes. What if they often sleep together and he sets her up in an apartment to make it more convenient. Would that just make him a regular customer?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Out of curiosity, for those who think it should be legal, regulated, and taxed, do you think that there should be any sort of regulation regarding clients who are married?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know a prostitute. She works for herself. She makes excellent money, likes her job and is one of the happiest people I know. I have no idea if it is legal here or not, but I love her anyway!
(It's not legal there.)
I know two "escorts" in Seattle - both of them make six figures a year, and they're average looking women. They love their jobs. They work for themselves - no pimp or provider involved - so they can choose their own clients, make their own hours, and keep every last dime of their own money. They have extremely friendly relationships with most of their clients and are able to live perfectly normal lives outside of their jobs.
A fairly large portion of the sex industry is self-regulating, in terms of establishing which johns are trouble and which prostitutes are reliable, and who will do what. Craigslist.org has an entire section devoted to "Erotic Services" - it's so popular that sites like CLReviewboard.org sprang up JUST so people could exchange information.
It's like eBay - you occasionally run into jerks, but if you're smart and do your research beforehand, there's an extensive feedback system that helps protect both buyer and seller.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
I do think that visiting a prostitute should be grounds for divorce, just like adultery is...because it IS adultery.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Out of curiosity, for those who think it should be legal, regulated, and taxed, do you think that there should be any sort of regulation regarding clients who are married?
Heck, no. It's up the the people in the marriage to enforce their vows, not the government.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Oh? Are we going to be reduced to name calling and jingoism? I could say your a rightwing facsist jingoist who likes bending over to capitolism, would you like it if we resorted to ad hominem attacks? My political beliefs are my own, I do not appreciate being attacked for them and I will refrain from doing likewise.
Feelings hurt Blayne? Want to reduce it to money? As far as I can tell, I didn't interfere with the smooth operation of any of your material goods. What's the crime?
Blayne, I think your political beliefs are crap, and the most hilarious thing about it is that according to your political beliefs, what I think about your political beliefs shouldn't bother you in the least. Of course my comments bother you, and it's got nothing to do with capital or economics and everything to do with dignity and self-respect.
There is an old story of Demonsthenes, a man reputed to believe that everything important to humanity relied on speech and virtue not on any material circumstance. The story goes as follows, a man asked for Demonsthenes' help, claiming that he was gravely injured, that he had been assaulted and beaten repeatedly. Demonsthenes said, "nothing of the kind could have happened to you.” Then the man, in a loud voice, yelled, “What you mean, nothing has happened to me!” “Ah,” replied Demosthenes, “now I hear the voice of one that has been injured and beaten."
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Oh? Are we going to be reduced to name calling and jingoism? I could say your a rightwing facsist jingoist who likes bending over to capitolism, would you like it if we resorted to ad hominem attacks? My political beliefs are my own, I do not appreciate being attacked for them and I will refraim from doing likewise.
Huh? Did I attack you? Or call you names? I appreciate the flavor that you bring to the forum. It would be awfully dull if everyone held the same viewpoint. I enjoy seeing how other people interpret the same issues based on their own perspectives, philosophies, and backgrounds.
No mockery intended. Perhaps a tiny bit of good-natured ribbing, but not mockery.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Out of curiosity, for those who think it should be legal, regulated, and taxed, do you think that there should be any sort of regulation regarding clients who are married?
No, that should be btween the couple. If one partner works as a prostitute without informing his/her spouse, I think that should be grounds for divorce.
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tante, RE Union Shop. The word in Vegas is that an organizer, there for a convention drove over to Nye County to check out the action. He asked the receptionist at the first Ranch for a price, $100 was the answer, He asked for an accounting and she explained it was $25 to the Contractor, and $75 to the House. He checked several other establishments, finding the same split. Finally he found a "Union Shop" the receptionist said the split there was $75 to the girl, and $25 to the house. He liked that better, and requested the "blond" on the left. "No!" it was explained, he got the old crone on the right. "She had Senority."
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Katarain: I'm a very moral person, and I agree that it should be legal. The important thing is that you don't force morality on other people. I think prostitution is wrong, just like I think that extra-marital sex is wrong. But that doesn't mean I'd stop other people from engaging in those activities.
But we are enforcing our morals on other people every day. The alternative is anarchy. I'm not picking on you Kat, it's just that I've heard this sentiment repeated in thread after thread, topic after topic on this board.
So where do you draw the line? I'm sure from our individual perspectives, the places where we choose to draw the line between forcing our personal morality on others and forcing what believe to be universal morally on others may seem to be the logical choice. However, to others this line may be unbelievably permissive or intolerantly strict.
My point is that while you may personally believe that prohibiting prostitution is going to far in forcing values on people, many others may not feel that way. To indirectly imply that anyone wishing to make prostitution illegal is simply forcing their values on others cheapens the debate.
Again Kat, I'm not picking on you. I've seen this sentiment expressed on a variety of threads and just thought that I'd comment on it here.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I found the Wikipedia entry on Prostitution in Nevada interesting.
One interesting tidbit:
quote: In November 2005, Heidi Fleiss announced that she had partnered with brothel owner Joe Richards to turn Richards' existing Cherry Patch Ranch brothel in Crystal, Nevada into an establishment that employs male prostitutes and caters exclusively to female customers.
Back to the discussion:
quote: If prostitution were legal and a prostitute got pregnant, would her client be legally liable to pay child support?
Yes, I don't see why they wouldn't. I'm just throwing this idea out here, but perhaps if legal prostitution became more widespread, a type of insurance would crop up for this purpose. Perhaps the price of the insurance would be included in a trip to the brothel. That way the client could remain as uninvolved as they wanted to be while the prostitute and her child could recieve financial support.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: My point is that while you may personally believe that prohibiting prostitution is going to far in forcing values on people, many others may not feel that way. To indirectly imply that anyone wishing to make prostitution illegal is simply forcing their values on others cheapens the debate.
I understand what you're saying, but I was responding to a statement regarding the morality of prostitution. I think that the stance that "It's wrong! Therefore it should be illegal" also cheapens the debate. I'm fine with debating it solely on its merits or lack thereof and measurable pros and cons. Leaving morality out of it.
Posts: 2880 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
I think you draw it when there is a victim who self identifies as being a victim. If you have to tell somebody that an act that they are perfectly fine with is actually causing them to be a victim, then you are definately forcing your values on to somebody else.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Heh. Finally, something brought me out of lurking .
"Since Nevadans tend to exempt Clark County (Las Vegas) anyway, it is legal in most of the state."
As a native Las Vegan, I must clarify that it is only the *northern* Nevadans that tend to discount Clark County (even though as of 2005, Clark County had 71.34% of Nevada's total population http://cber.unlv.edu/pop.html )
Intrastate rivalries aside...I don't know if making prostitution legal in Clark County (or even just inside city limits in Las Vegas) would change the way prostitution is dealt with there. Prostitution is essentially tolerated (with an occassional arrest) in the tourist areas like the Strip or downtown. Not officially, of course, but *wink wink*.
Sorry if this post comes looks weird, but I haven't figured out quoting or posting links yet.
Posts: 82 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: I think you draw it when there is a victim who self identifies as being a victim. If you have to tell somebody that an act that they are perfectly fine with is actually causing them to be a victim, then you are definately forcing your values on to somebody else.
I disagree with this statement strongly as it is worded (and changing the wording to resemble something I agree with would involve adding so many caveats that it would not be the same statement).
Kat, I apologize, I didn't realize you were replying to someone saying that it should be illegal because it was wrong. As far as what you have said, I agree. It cheapens the debate just as much to say it's wrong because its wrong. I would prefer to discuss arguments rather than just have to sides screaming at each other "It's just wrong!" and "Who are you to impose your morality on me!"
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, I should clarify, Some of my best friends are Las Vegans. I just wouldn't want my sister to marry one. The State "Tree," Artemisia Tridentata, dosen't even grow in Clark County
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't want anyone to marry a Vegan, no matter where they're from.
quote:Prostitution is essentially tolerated (with an occassional arrest) in the tourist areas like the Strip or downtown. Not officially, of course, but *wink wink*.
Yeah, it didn't take me too many trips to figure that out, given the volume of colorful 'escort' business cards handed out on the street by people who don't speak english.
p.s. - Whatever you do, don't call one of the cards and have the girl sent to the room across the hall from you so you can see if the girl on the card is the girl who actually shows up. She's not, and they don't like that.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, don't apologize. I don't think anyone said it should be illegal because it was wrong. I was responding to Space Opera's musing that she might be entirely without morals because she thinks that prostitution should be legal. I guess I was responding mostly to the unspoken thought.
quote: I disagree with this statement strongly as it is worded (and changing the wording to resemble something I agree with would involve adding so many caveats that it would not be the same statement).
Would you mind explaining what it is you disagree with? Or would you prefer to just drop this tangent?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you are making a mistake on both accounts, Janitor. Censoring speech is dangerous business. But I'll hush.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: And they like their jobs, chose their jobs, and want their jobs to be legal. Only THOSE types of people should have the job.
The real question is, how many of prostitutes actually choose their job, and if they are not required to go into prostitution, then exactly how many prostitutes would be available for the public? It's a question of supply and demand: there is a large demand for prostitutes (as we see in the article) and so they are being supplied in any way possible, whether it be legally or not.
Edit: thanks camus. I didn't see that.
Posts: 1789 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're welcome to your opinion, Irami, but I don't believe I'm censoring speech. If you both want to have an adult conversation about your beliefs, pointing out why you consider the other's to be wrong, without deriding the other person, then have at it. But that's not what either of you was doing. You can bring the discussion back here, or you can have it in another thread (as others might prefer), but the garbage goes elsewhere.
posted
I was going to list examples of types of abuse in countries around the world that the victim doesn't realize that he/she is being victimized without someone with a different perspective pointing it out, mention anorexia, alcoholism, drug abuse, etc. But I decided I'd try to just generalize (and probably get myself into trouble in the process).
My line of reasoning is this: as a child, it is possible to be a victim in many ways without realizing it. That is why our society comes down so hard against child abuse in all its forms. Very often, the child does not know that he or she was being abused and do not see themselves as victims. This would extend to behaviors or actions in which children themselves engage in without any adult involvement (drugs for example).
So now there are three classes of people that I contend do need to be told they are victims before they realize it themselves.
I would define children as immature adults, since any line we draw in their mental progression to adulthood would be arbitrary.
Then the classes of people are: the ignorant (think 3rd world country type situation), those with disorders (anorexia, alcoholism), and immature adults. I would argue that all these types of people may need to be told they are victims before they themselves can perceive it.
Since I feel empathy for these victims on a emotional level rather than an intellectual one, it is difficult for me to frame an argument in words about them (rather than just tell you my gut feeling is that of strong disagreement with your statement), but there you have it as requested.
Posts: 1412 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you are going to take personal character out of the debate, Janitor, it's going to end up some economic squabble concerning supply and demand, safety and stability.
By setting your debate parameters, wrongly I might add, you've already determined the criteria for exceptable arguments in this debate. And you are going to have another banal yawner. If Blayne is on the wrong end of this issue, it's because of an infelicity in his core beliefs. If I'm not going to go there, then everything else is small.
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if this really would promote MORE abortion. Consider, there is already a large amount of illegal prostitution taking place out there, and I'd be surprised if all the illegal prostitutes were on birth control and using condoms every time. If anything, I'd think this would reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies by requiring the prostitute to adhere to birth control.
Further, I'm surprised no one has mentioned male prostitutes. The gay porn industry is alive and thriving in America. I'd think that a clean safe environment with little risk of disease transmission would lead to an increase in homosexual prostitution. Granted, they'd still be the vastly the minority, but I'd be willing to bet there would be a lot of them.
So far as taxes not covering enforcement. Is Nevada really a fair test case? I've seen documentaries on some of those legal sex houses, and some are in the middle of nowhere. I think there's a big difference between putting them in a state with the population of Nevada, and putting them in a state like New York, or Michigan, where population centers have people concentrated in a smaller area. One inspector could cover several houses concentrated in a smaller area, getting higher traffic, gathering more tax revenue than in a place with a wider dispersal of population. It may not work that way, but you can't base the ENTIRE nation on just Nevada.
Also, once the industry caught on, if it did, and I know that's a big if, but if it did catch on and the amount of illegal prostitution decreased, that would mean less cops needing to be assigned to vice to police it. Maybe that's not probable, but it's something to consider. I think however, that were prostitution were legalized, that the punishment for illegal prostitution should be increased, greatly increased. Give them one more reason to seriously consider becoming a legal prostitute, also greatly increase the crime of pimping (I assume that is already a crime), so they think twice about trying to hold on to their girls who may want to become legal.
I don't think that by legalizing it the government would be saying "kick up your heels and have a good time!" Cigarettes are legal, and yet the states still spend millions every year on anti-smoking ads. That's not exactly tax neutral. It's a mixed message between personal freedoms and public safety. If anything, I think the government would be saying "We don't know if it's right or wrong, so we're trusting you to make the decision on your own."
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It's a mixed message between personal freedoms and public safety. If anything, I think the government would be saying "We don't know if it's right or wrong, so we're trusting you to make the decision on your own."
I don't know if that's true. There are other, more muscular pressures. I know some stories where parents put pressure on kids and husbands put pressure on wives to get jobs. If becoming a prostitute becomes yet another job, how do those dinner conversations change? If a woman would make a wonderful prostitute, is she going to still qualify for gov't assistance if she quits her job working as a prostitute?
Posts: 5600 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm sorry... I just don't see how that follows.
If we say: "Yes, prostitution is legal IF both parties are willing," then I don't see how anyone could be forced to accept the job. So yes, it would be an exception to the "take any job that's offered" rule that public assistance programs have. Since willingness is the most fundamental qualification for a sex-worker to have, any unwilling person is unqualified for the job, anyway.
They would face the same choice anyone does when out of work: accept a job they hate or receive no income. "Willing" is not a black or white determination. I bet many or most sex workers wouldn't do it if they were given a choice between their current job and receiving the same income for no work, just as most people wouldn't keep their current jobs if they could receive the same money for no work.
Many or most would find other jobs - maybe even almost the same job but with no requirement they accept the ongoing B.S. that accompanies their job. Most people are doing something other than exactly what they would choose to do if no financial incentives existed.
The mere presence of "prostitute" as a legal job choice will make some women feel forced into it.
If I believed it would protect a large portion of the street prostitutes who live most of their lives as victims, I might agree to it. But it won't. There's a market for cheap, illegal sex, both because it's cheap and because it's illegal.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
katarain, don't worry. I said the "no morals" thing tongue-in-cheek. For the record, I believe anyone can call themselves a moral person - it's just a fact that we all have different morals.
posted
BaoQingTian, Thank you very much for your response.
quote: My line of reasoning is this: as a child, it is possible to be a victim in many ways without realizing it.
I agree with this. Children are not legally responsible adults and should be held to different standards.
quote: Then the classes of people are: the ignorant (think 3rd world country type situation), those with disorders (anorexia, alcoholism), and immature adults. I would argue that all these types of people may need to be told they are victims before they themselves can perceive it.
I agree with this to an extent. My response was in regards to the legality of various issues. I think that our current system takes this into account to a degree. If a man hits his wife, it is up to the wife to file charges and determine whether or not she has been victimized. While I might consider it abuse and would counsel her to file charges, she might believe that it was justly provoked and didn't remotely resemble abuse. Ultimately, she is the one who gets to decide whether she was victimized or not. I feel very wary when other people have the legal power to protect victims for their own good whether they want it or not. It strikes me as very dangerous.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
*sigh* I think it should be legal. But jeez.... EWWWWWWW!!
I really don't understand how anyone could visit a prostitute. How much fun could it be when the person you're with has been used and discarded by dozens/hundreds of people. (I'm trying to be non-sexist here...)
Doesn't the idea of disease just kill any pleasure? Like spotting someone elses hair in your food. Doesn't it kill your appitite?
But if that's your kink, knock yourself out.
(Oh, and there shouldn't be spousal notification but if he/she finds out they should get the house and the kids and everything else. It's adultry.)
posted
I think he meant that people in 3rd world countries are sometimes victimized economically. Sweat shops and whatnot. At least that's how I interpreted it.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
