NationStates Jolt Archive

are you trying to say that we should have government sponsored rape???? it sure sounds like it. please expand on your argument.

No, I didn't say that, and if you somehow got that out of what I wrote I don't believe any effort at clarification will help you understand my point.

if the government gives the ok on prostitution, then it's basically allowing rape. by giving rape a legal place in society, the government would essentially sponsor it.

if the government gives the ok on prostitution, then it's basically allowing rape. by giving rape a legal place in society, the government would essentially sponsor it.

Prostitution isn't rape. Just because prostitutes make the choice to either find alternate income or be a prostitute, doesn't mean that when they choose prostitution they are being raped.

We do have legalised abortion and drugs :confused: . AIDS can't be caused by drugs but by dirty needles, its not like your going to get AIDS having a nice coffee in the morning. Prostitution doesn't possibly lead to AIDS, unprotected sex could possibly lead to AIDS.
True the legialization of drugs would actually stem the flow of AIDS bc "clean" needles would be easier to find.
Also to set the record straight, protected sex can lead to AIDS just as much as unprotected. I just called my Mom who has a masters in BioChem and does research for the US gov to check about that (credentials :) ). Latex condoms are designed to stop a sperm cell which is a hell of a lot bigger than an HIV virus (cells are monsters compared to viruses) therefor laytex dosen't do a damn bit of good, your best bet is to not have sex unless you are 100% sure about ur partner's sexual health.
AIDS also takes about 3 months after infection to become detectable but is communicable (contagious) instantly after infection so if they've had sex with anyone other than you for for three months before their test make'em retest and keep'er dry for that time.
Have a good day :D

Santa Barbara, let me recap. a woman who is dependent on government aid for income will lose that aid if she is legally offered a job as a prostitute. therefore the choice becomes, be a prostitute or lose your income. what if the woman was trying to get an education during that year of no job? now she's stuck trying to decide whether to continue with it and starve or be a prostitute. in other words, this prostitution is hardly a willing act. in case you were wondering, sex is a part of a prostitute's job. if she's not willingly getting the job, then she's being raped. end of story.

Santa Barbara, let me recap. a woman who is dependent on government aid for income will lose that aid if she is legally offered a job as a prostitute.

In that case the problem is government aid and it's now-I-support-you, now-I-don't nature.

If you ask me the whole "dependent on government aid for income" thing is the even more real problem. ;)

therefore the choice becomes, be a prostitute or lose your income. what if the woman was trying to get an education during that year of no job? now she's stuck trying to decide whether to continue with it and starve or be a prostitute.

And I'm saying, she would face that same choice whether prostitution was legal or not. (Barring the problems with Germany's choice of supporting would-be prostitutes financially in the first place.)

in other words, this prostitution is hardly a willing act. in case you were wondering, sex is a part of a prostitute's job. if she's not willingly getting the job, then she's being raped. end of story.

No, it's still willing. The difference between "I don't want to or can't find any employment except prostitution" and "I am being physically forced upon" is VAST. It is in fact the difference between rape and prostitution. One is willing, the other is not.

If I can't get a job at the steel mill, and am forced to eating out of a garbage bin and starve to death, is it the steel mill's owner's fault? Would it be murder? (No.)

AIDS also takes about 3 months after infection to become detectable but is communicable (contagious) instantly after infection so if they've had sex with anyone other than you for for three months before their test make'em retest and keep'er dry for that time.
Have a good day :D
Oh forgot to mention the other nasty STDs out there, 'bout the only one that "protecton" protects against is the clap which is the mildest of the common STDs.
Well I'm full of cheery stuff tonight. :rolleyes:

Women have hormone cycles that generally make them want to have sex 1-2 times a month.

Mmm...pseudo-biology explains it all! :rolleyes:

Santa Barbara, let me recap. a woman who is dependent on government aid for income will lose that aid if she is legally offered a job as a prostitute. therefore the choice becomes, be a prostitute or lose your income. what if the woman was trying to get an education during that year of no job? now she's stuck trying to decide whether to continue with it and starve or be a prostitute. in other words, this prostitution is hardly a willing act. in case you were wondering, sex is a part of a prostitute's job. if she's not willingly getting the job, then she's being raped. end of story.

You make an interesting point, but it's not actually valid. In general, one does not get offered jobs without applying for them first. Unemployment benefits are given on the condition that one seek employment and report what employment they sought; if those jobs are turned down, benefits can be taken away. If a women applied for a job at Prostitutes 'R' Us, was offered it, and refused it, then the government could take away unemployment benefits. If some guy approached her on the street and said, "Hey, I'll give you $50 for every blowjob you give me and my friends!" and she turned it down, she would not possibly report that as a job opportunity she had sought, and thus no government would take unemployment benefits away from her for refusing it. Women who don't want to be prostitutes thus have a very simple recourse, at least as far as unemployment is concerned - don't seek out jobs as prostitutes.

I to be rude, but quite frankly, I find the whole "legalize all " stance to be idiotic. First of all, you claim that e abuse could be better treated if legalized? What? People will still be getting high/stoned/etc. even after legalization, but this time it will be even more prevalent. Factors that may prevent eager participants from buying illegal (dangerous gangs, breaking the law, fear of punishment, possible loss of job, the list goes on), will be completely eliminated and those timid people will now be free to divulge to their hearts content. People doing will rapidly increase. Of course, you are also going to have your common heads in prison--that certainly won't change, except, wait...they won't be in prison...they'll be on the street, legally selling . Perhaps they'll even get some help from the government too! I mean, hell while we are so caught up in legalizing we might as well subsidize them.

You see where this is going? Let's face it, illegal cannot possibly do any good being legalized. They are dangerous (yes even pot, which no one considers dangerous can make one irresponsible, dangerous drivers behind the wheel, and, yes addicted). They are not only one of the main reasons most of the poor (in the U.S.) remain in poverty (due to their constant need to use their limited funds to buy ), but also they CAUSE poverty. Some can lead to normal people turn into rapists and . They must remained banned for the safety of society.
First of all, I didn't even state my position on this.
Secondly, while this isn't the thread for this debate, the legalizing issue just isn't as simple as you make it out to be. Hopefully noone is daft enough to suggest simply removing all laws pertaining to drugs.
Anyway, why don't you start another topic about it if you're interested. I wouldn't be able to explain my position on this in less than 500 words.

i dont know if this has been brought up before because i didnt feel like reading 100 some-odd posts, but my best (non religious) reason not to legalize prostitution is rape. under current laws, a woman who is offered a job while dependent on government support must take the job or lose her income. basically, if you legalize prostitution then a woman can be left with the decision to sell her body against her will or find a way to live on zero income. this is a problem just now arising in Germany. a woman who takes the job so that she can eat, is being paid by men who are raping her. she doesnt want the sex, therefore it's rape. that's my thought.
Funny how every time I read things on this forum, I grow more and more fond of my country. If what you say is true, I'd be dead against legalizing prostitution where you are.
The vast social inequality in most countries would make me against it. Because decriminalizing prostitution is pretty much guaranteed to lure a lot of people into the business, who wouldn't otherwise consider it, and who doesn't get their kicks from sleeping with people for money.
I don't have the statistical evidence to back up my claims, but a good chunk of my neighbours are prostitutes and I have been involved in a couple of rallies to have prostitution decriminalized (which it is now, by the way). I'm pretty confident when I say most female prostitutes ruin their lives by doing their job. A large number of prostitutes, especially when they become too old for their work, have mental and emotional problems. Many are unable to take care of themselves. Many can't live without spending the equivalent of a ceo's income every month. Many are unable to have and/or raise children. Most are unable to have a meaningful relationship.
Prostitution isn't really conductive to happyness and stability. Prostitutes may think they can handle it when they get into it, but the truth is that apart from people who get their kicks from being prostitutes (and there aren't a lot of those), people just can't handle the emotional stress.

But legalizing it still goes a long way to remedi a lot of the problems. Making it safer in every way - cutting the business off from organised crime, forcing them on health plans, forcing them to pay taxes and pension, removing the business from the drug & slavery trades...
The problem is prostitution can't be stopped. I'd love to be able to snap my fingers and make the demand for prostitution dissapear, but sadly the world doesn't work like that.

Where I am, the government have taken the most hypocritical stand on the issue. Prostitution isn't criminal and prostitutes pay taxes. Their clients aren't criminals either. But apart from that, there's really no laws about it. Soliciting publicly is illegal but that's pretty much it. So slavery has exploded.
The only good things it's accomplished is decriminalizing prostitutes and making sure the state can't appropriate their income (it could not too long ago), and made brothels a little safer. Less prostitutes ae abused & molested now, but they're still very much a part of organised crime. All of them pay rediculous amounts of protection money to gangs etc.

Also to set the record straight, protected sex can lead to AIDS just as much as unprotected. I just called my Mom who has a masters in BioChem and does research for the US gov to check about that (credentials ). Latex condoms are designed to stop a sperm cell which is a hell of a lot bigger than an HIV virus (cells are monsters compared to viruses) therefor laytex dosen't do a damn bit of good, your best bet is to not have sex unless you are 100% sure about ur partner's sexual health.
AIDS also takes about 3 months after infection to become detectable but is communicable (contagious) instantly after infection so if they've had sex with anyone other than you for for three months before their test make'em retest and keep'er dry for that time.
Have a good day
Actually, you're as wrong as can be. I suggest you educate your mother and perhaps check out some material on how HIV is transferred. http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/condom.html#guar
Misinformation of the kind you spread can kill people, if you manage to convince them. Please get your head out of your arse and think about what you're doing. Thank you.
Statistical proof that you're 110% wrong is easily available online. Google is your friend.

Prostetution is a job where the supplyer's surplus is much higher than the labourer's wage. That is, the amount paid to the labourer (The Prostitute) is usually only the wages necissary for life, meanwhile the manager (pimp?) eats up most of the supplier's surplus. Minimum wage laws, which retearned large amounts of the supplier's surplus to the worker in most industry, cannot return the surplus to the labourer in the industry of prostitution, thus creating a lower class than would be allowed. Furthermore, as an industry subject to age discrimination, the wages offered would not be sufficent to cover costs necissary for life after prositution, nor would the labour market necissarily have the means to supply retired prositutes a job under such low education and low job experience in fields recieving. As thus, if some sort of garentee to prositute wages were to be created, then it would be acceptable, otherwise, it isn't.

Excuse me, but WHY shouldn't they be able to?

edit: As far as I know, cheating has never been prosecuted by the law. Legalising prostitution doesn't change that...




its called adultery if the person in question is married at the time of the "cheating" (or however you spell adultery im really tired at the moment )

i dont know if this has been brought up before because i didnt feel like reading 100 some-odd posts, but my best (non religious) reason not to legalize prostitution is rape. under current laws, a woman who is offered a job while dependent on government support must take the job or lose her income. basically, if you legalize prostitution then a woman can be left with the decision to sell her body against her will or find a way to live on zero income. this is a problem just now arising in Germany. a woman who takes the job so that she can eat, is being paid by men who are raping her. she doesnt want the sex, therefore it's rape. that's my thought.

*edit* here's a news link. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/01/30/wgerm30.xml
Is that fallacy still spread around? No, no, no. Here, educate yourself. (http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp)
Why don't you care to get the facts straight before going all bothered?

its called adultery if the person in question is married at the time of the "cheating" (or however you spell adultery im really tired at the moment )

I know, but adultery isn't illegal. It can be a legal reason for divorce, but adultery itself is not prosecuted by the law.
At least not in Western societies.

I know, but adultery isn't illegal. It can be a legal reason for divorce, but adultery itself is not prosecuted by the law.
At least not in Western societies.
And it really has no bearing on the debate, does it?

I mean, prostitution is a fact of life. And to the best of my knowledge, cheating sposes mostly cheat with coworkers

And it really has no bearing on the debate, does it?

I mean, prostitution is a fact of life. And to the best of my knowledge, cheating sposes mostly cheat with coworkers

Cheating spouses will cheat with friend, coworkers, relatives of the spouse... you name it.
Customers of prostitutes can be married, unmarried, divorced, widowers, ... you name it.

The two facts that spouses cheat and that people will buy prostitutes don't have anything to do with each other, they don't influence each other in any way.

Actually, you're as wrong as can be. I suggest you educate your mother and perhaps check out some material on how HIV is transferred. http://www.fda.gov/oashi/aids/condom.html#guar
Misinformation of the kind you spread can kill people, if you manage to convince them. Please get your head out of your arse and think about what you're doing. Thank you.
Statistical proof that you're 110% wrong is easily available online. Google is your friend.
*snort* Official gov reports huh? Kinda like the drop and cover drills durring the cold war. How much good do you think they would have done? The entire point is to keep ppl from panicing. Think about it. Laytex like all platics has micropores in it and is not watertight, what isn't water tight isn't virus tight either. Look on a box of condoms and you will see for yourself that they say that they might not prevent the spread of HIV. That translates out of marketing jargon into they don't do a damn bit of good. Sorry!

I know, but adultery isn't illegal. It can be a legal reason for divorce, but adultery itself is not prosecuted by the law.

Actually about 20 states in the US have anti-adultery laws, and my Commonwealth of Virginia prosecuted a guy a few years ago. Served him right.

Look on a box of condoms and you will see for yourself that they say that they might not prevent the spread of HIV. That translates out of marketing jargon into they don't do a damn bit of good. Sorry!


I'm afraid that both of you are slightly in error. Wearing a condom does not STOP the spread of HIV - but it does limit it.

I like to think of it as playing Russian roulette with only one cartridge in the revolver, rather than six cartridges. One may indeed conclude that the one cartridge variant is "safer", but you might want to avoid playing Russian roulette in any case.

If you consider that condoms, even when effectively used, do not provide 100 percent effectiveness against pregnancy (which involves the transfer of sperm cells which are thousands of times larger than a virus), one can safely infer that even with a condom on, virus is being transmitted - less virus than without the condom, but it's still virus being transmitted.

Seriously, please research your sources. Condoms DO protect against HIV, despite the fact that the virus in many times smaller than a bacteria, it can't pass through the menbrane.
During vaginal intercourse, nurmal thin condoms offer great protection. For anal sex, thicker condoms are advisable as they're less likely to break.

If you in any way can disprove, with sources, what I say, go ahead and do it. If you can't, please consider we're not the only two people reading this and retract your comments. You may potentially convince some poor sod he doesn't need to pratice safe sex... And incidentially risk being the cause of a slow and painful death.

I forgot to provide documentation, so here: http://www.condomdepot.com/learn/stats.htm

*snort* Official gov reports huh?
Yeah, written by government employed scientists like your mother. They always lie. Besides, latex is no plastic, as it isnt derived from mineral oil.

I don't get it. Why would anybody want to look for prostitutes? What's so bad about having one and only one sex partner??

Seriously, please research your sources. Condoms DO protect against HIV, despite the fact that the virus in many times smaller than a bacteria, it can't pass through the menbrane.
During vaginal intercourse, nurmal thin condoms offer great protection. For anal sex, thicker condoms are advisable as they're less likely to break.

If you in any way can disprove, with sources, what I say, go ahead and do it. If you can't, please consider we're not the only two people reading this and retract your comments. You may potentially convince some poor sod he doesn't need to pratice safe sex... And incidentially risk being the cause of a slow and painful death.

I forgot to provide documentation, so here: http://www.condomdepot.com/learn/stats.htm
Very well. On the chance that that could happen I retract my statement. Unprotected sex is worse than "protected", but neither is safe. Check the final statement on my first post. That's my recommendation. Sorry for the mixup.

I don't get it. Why would anybody want to look for prostitutes? What's so bad about having one and only one sex partner??

I don't know either.

My guess is that it is todays culture that teaches us to be greedy. This must extend to sex as well.

Yeah, written by government employed scientists like your mother. They always lie. Besides, latex is no plastic, as it isnt derived from mineral oil.
Right, it's not petroleum based but it's still falls under "plastics" when used as a general term.
No need to flame, you used a gov source, and so did I. We now have established that the gov lies in it's scientific reports so both of our sources can be considered false.

I don't know either.

My guess is that it is todays culture that teaches us to be greedy. This must extend to sex as well.


So today's culture is the cause of people not practicing monogamy? That's why prostitution is considered to be the oldest profession in the world right? That's why all of those Old Testament dudes had more than one wife.

Some of your comments are so asinine. Do you think before you type at all?

The following statistics are from the fact sheet "The Truth About Latex Condoms," developed by the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the U.S. (SIECUS).

1. Condoms are 98% effective when used correctly.
2. The average failure rate for condoms is 12%: reflective of people who do not use them properly or do not use them every time they have intercourse.
3. Laboratory tests show that neither sperm, which has a diameter of 3 microns, nor STD-causing organisms, which are a quarter to a ninth the size of sperm, can penetrate an intact latex condom.
4. If there is a leak in more than 4 per 1,000 condoms, the entire lot (approximately 5,000) is discarded.

So yea, there's no such thing as 100%. HIV it self doesn't have a 100% infection rate. Breathing can choke you in your own saliva... Shit happens.
But it is mindblowingly much safer to practice safe sex. It's like being blind and deaf while crossing a busy highway, opposed to having all your faculties and waiting for the green licht.

Myth #3: HIV can pass through condoms.
A commonly held misperception is that latex condoms contain "holes" that allow passage of HIV. Laboratory studies show that intact latex condoms provide a highly effective barrier to sperm and microorganisms, including HIV and the much smaller hepatitis B virus.

I can't find any actual sources posted that contradicts this, thankfully. I quote from the site just to make things crystal clear so noone will get the wrong idea. Thanks in advance for letting me hijack the debate. I wont do it again ;)