NationStates Jolt Archive


Prostituion--logically speaking.

The Parkus Empire
27-10-2007, 07:23
I know this sounds strange: I want a argument pro, or anti legalizing prostitution. The argument must use logic, which means it can not appeal to ethics, or emotion; it can only appeal to logic.

Example with drugs:

Anti-legalization: drugs lower production, and are thus bad for society.

Pro: It's quite difficult to enforce drug laws. They are a waste of resources, and should thus be abandoned.

But anyway, stick to the topic proper.

I may add a poll later...if you're all good. :D
The Parkus Empire
27-10-2007, 07:25
But I don't like Poland...

You failed to notice "pole" was not "Pole"
Fassitude
27-10-2007, 07:26
But I don't like Poland... strippers, on the other hand!
Fassitude
27-10-2007, 07:28
You failed to notice "pole" was not "Pole"

http://jaysilver.net/pictures/cosmo/2/stripper_pole.jpg

Strippers it is, then.
Gartref
27-10-2007, 07:29
To be a crime, there should be a victim. In legal, well regulated prostitution, there is no victim.
The Parkus Empire
27-10-2007, 07:30
Strippers it is, then.

Hmm; "pole-strippers?"

You're failing to discuss this thread intelligently. I am somewhat disappointed, as I was told you were quite intelligent.
Gartref
27-10-2007, 07:33
Hmm; "pole-strippers?"

You're failing to discuss this thread intelligently. I am somewhat disappointed, as I was told you were quite intelligent.

Your fault. You distracted him with your pole.
Fassitude
27-10-2007, 07:33
Hmm; "pole-strippers?"

What other pole did you have in mind? The magnetic ones? Or your own? Kinky...

You're failing to discuss this thread intelligently. I am somewhat disappointed, as I was told you were quite intelligent.

I guess you were easily fooled.
Nuclear Snow Bunnies
27-10-2007, 07:35
As far as the thread goes,
an idea for the "Prostituion" thing. Taxed, regulated and requiring licenses.
Marrakech II
27-10-2007, 07:36
Legalize prostitution everywhere. Health Dept. can test them and give them health cards. The government can tax them. Cops can do something else then bothering with prostitutes and johns like eating donuts.
Upper Botswavia
27-10-2007, 07:53
Prostitution should be legalized and sex workers, who provide a valuable service, should be respected.

Prostitution will continue to happen whether it is legal or not, but legalizing and legitimizing it would provide protections for prostitutes and for their customers, as prostitutes could be licensed and required to provide a health certification to their customers.
Naturality
27-10-2007, 08:12
It should be legal .. we should also be able to walk around with Colt 45's on our hips.. or Smith and Wessons .. etc. drink til we are wasted .. gamble til we are broke.. .. well actually .. I don't agree with the 'western' style. If you go all in .. then your all in matches the pot.. you shouldn't have to go get more to match it. Like in the movie "Big hand for a little lady" for example. Back in those days it was mainly white folk dealing with white folk .. with a few mexicans.. now a days .. it would be all out freakin war .. because we know what would happen. White dudes in there playing a major game .. black dudes walk in demanding to get in on the game from where it stands with their 10 bros behind them.. blood bath.

Get rid of the guns.. well there will still be guns.. but possibly .. some will just use hammers.
OceanDrive2
27-10-2007, 08:23
Your fault. You distracted him with your pole.WUAHAHAHAHA

Good one.
Corporate Ventures
27-10-2007, 08:30
Well in the U.S., there is no real good reason- prostitution just offends the moral majority.

There are some practical issues though- testing can be expensive, and those who already have an STD and work in the sex industry would clearly be put out of business. Besides that, clients, for the sake of the prostitute, would need to provide proof of their health too, which is, again, expensive. This could birth a significant blackmarket in false certificates and un-approved prositution. Ultimately, I don't think legalization would TOTALY remove the criminal aspect of prositution, but perhaps reduce it enough that there would be a noticable and welcome benefit.
Naturality
27-10-2007, 08:47
What use to be legal .. would be hard to make legal and work in a society so very different form the days of old. That's why I related what I did in my post. I just don't think it would work so outside it's realm. But maybe we are meant to repeat our selves .. History repeating it self and all..
Geniasis
27-10-2007, 10:07
I say we legalize it. After all, they had legal prostitutes in Firefly.

Or are you saying Firefly isn't awesome?
Similization
27-10-2007, 10:59
I know this sounds strange: I want a argument pro, or anti legalizing prostitution. The argument must use logic, which means it can not appeal to ethics, or emotion; it can only appeal to logic.Your examples don't work. They all appeal to some sort of concept of harm.drugs lower production, and are thus bad for society.Assumption: lower production is harmful.It's quite difficult to enforce drug laws. They are a waste of resources, and should thus be abandoned.Assumption: wasting resources is harmful.

Not saying your assumptions are bad, just that they're based in ethics. But yes, what you're looking for does sound strange. Strange and impossible.
Cosmopoles
27-10-2007, 11:18
I support the legalisation of prositution, as I believe it would reduce the dangers to sex workers, reduce the need for pimps or madams and hurt organised crime and people traffickers.
Endis
27-10-2007, 11:20
Well in the U.S., there is no real good reason- prostitution just offends the moral majority.

There are some practical issues though- testing can be expensive, and those who already have an STD and work in the sex industry would clearly be put out of business. Besides that, clients, for the sake of the prostitute, would need to provide proof of their health too, which is, again, expensive. This could birth a significant blackmarket in false certificates and un-approved prositution. Ultimately, I don't think legalization would TOTALY remove the criminal aspect of prositution, but perhaps reduce it enough that there would be a noticable and welcome benefit.

Exactly. Legalising prostitution would not solve every problem like magic, and the moral majority would be all over that fact like stink on a skunk. But the important part is that it WOULD have a beneficial effect!
Callisdrun
27-10-2007, 11:24
I believe a woman alone has ownership of her body.

I also think she has the right to engage in sexual relations with whoever she chooses.

Additionally, I believe she has the right to make the privilege of having sexual relations with her conditional upon a fee to be paid for said sexual relations, and she has the right to accept money from those whom she chooses to have sexual encounters with.

Naturally, the same goes for male prostitutes.
Kamsaki-Myu
27-10-2007, 11:39
I know this sounds strange: I want a argument pro, or anti legalizing prostitution. The argument must use logic, which means it can not appeal to ethics, or emotion; it can only appeal to logic.
That doesn't make sense. How can you "just use logic"? We need an axiom or two somewhere.
Isidoor
27-10-2007, 11:49
I know this sounds strange: I want a argument pro, or anti legalizing prostitution. The argument must use logic, which means it can not appeal to ethics, or emotion; it can only appeal to logic.

Example with drugs:

Anti-legalization: drugs lower production, and are thus bad for society.

Pro: It's quite difficult to enforce drug laws. They are a waste of resources, and should thus be abandoned.

But anyway, stick to the topic proper.

I may add a pole later...if you're all good. :D

pro:
it can be controlled more easily
it can be taxed
if it was legalized there could be laws to protect prostitutes and their clients. You could also give free STD-tests and condoms or something to prostitutes and you could also give out a certificate to prostitutes who follow certain standards (hygiene, health etc)
if you don't legalize it, it just goes underground, often with bad results for the women and public health.

con:
I can't really find any not based on emotions.
Barringtonia
27-10-2007, 13:08
con:
I can't really find any not based on emotions.

Not to enter the debate, and this can be seen as biased as you want but simply to add some thoughts against legalisation so you can all thrash it out.

10 reasons against (http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/prostitution_legalizing.html)
Jello Biafra
27-10-2007, 13:16
Pro: The regulation and legalization of prostitution makes it less likely that people would be violently forced into it as children.

Con: The legalization of prostitution makes it less likely that people will address the economic conditions that make people want to become prostitutes.
NERVUN
27-10-2007, 13:18
Hmm, what type of legalization are we speaking of?
Barringtonia
27-10-2007, 13:28
Not to enter the debate, and this can be seen as biased as you want but simply to add some thoughts against legalisation so you can all thrash it out.

10 reasons against (http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/prostitution_legalizing.html)

EDIT: IT should be noted that the facts presented in this link are sometimes questionable in that research into this industry is scant at best and therefore there are very few qualified sources, those sources have a vested interest, in terms of having a position on this debate already, in accepting figures that support their claims.

Despite that, overall, these are legitimate concerns and do represent a debate against legalisation - the point is that it's more complicated that any easy answer allows.
Isidoor
27-10-2007, 13:57
Not to enter the debate, and this can be seen as biased as you want but simply to add some thoughts against legalisation so you can all thrash it out.

10 reasons against (http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/prostitution_legalizing.html)

Some good points there, some bad. A lot of the points they make about things that go bad are not because prostitution was legalized, but were mostly because of other causes.
Is there still violence against prostitutes because it was legalized, or is there an other reason? And wasn't there more violence before?
Do clients still want to have sex without condoms because of the legalization or is there an other reason? And wasn't this situation even worse before legalization?
etc etc etc

Of course I'm no big fan of prostitution, but I think that legalizing it allows the government to regulate it better and that most problems (things that often aren't even legal, like trafficking) that still exist aren't caused by the legalization but because of other reasons (men who still see women as inferior or violence against them as normal, women who still are poorer and see prostitution as the only option, traffickers or pimps who exploit women for their own gain, etc). I also think that criminalizing prostitution doesn't help anyone, especially not if it is just criminalized and the other reasons I mentioned are neglected. It also seems stupid to punish a woman for her own exploitation (like the article mentioned).

What I do think might be a good idea is something like "villa tinto" in Antwerp. Girls can rent a room for 12 hours for €50 (so they don't need a pimp to provide them with rooms and clients etc). They can also take a day off without problems. There is also a lot of attention for safety with even a room for the police in the brothel and identity checks (with fingerprints so girl s can't rent their rooms to others) etc. Of course it would be better to eliminate the need for prostitution, but I don't see how that would happen, so I think that this concept is much better than forcing prostitution underground where there is no inspection at all.
Soheran
27-10-2007, 14:24
The argument must use logic, which means it can not appeal to ethics, or emotion; it can only appeal to logic.

This challenge is, first, impossible--because no argument without referencing emotion or ethics can tell us why we should care--and, second, begging a crucial question, by assuming that we can derive no ethical principles from logic.
Miodrag Superior
27-10-2007, 17:23
There are two points: ownership as the root of supremacy over the body and coercion through force, incl. forced drug use, beatings, blackmail etc.

Since 80% of women and 40% of men who prostitute themselves would NOT choose this profession unless they were forced into it by the pimps, I would decriminalise prostitution -- mind you "decriminalise" does NOT mean legalise, so no taxation, no forced medical checks etc., just no punishment -- and at the same tim enforce much harsher punishment for pimps: minimum 2 years imprisonment without parole PER prostitute they "protect" (i.e. force to prostitute themselves and give a bulk of money to the pimps).

Prostitution is certainly not a job as such but a lifestyle (like smoking, drug use, medicament dependence, overeating, not excecising or excercising too much etc.), so the government has no right to collect tax on it.

On the other hand even attmepts to force others (ANYone) to do ANYthing against their will by threats or physical force must be eradicated.
JuNii
27-10-2007, 17:52
By legalizing it and regulating it...

Pimps would be Employers. and as employers they would have to follow (in the US anyway) Federally mandated rules governing the workplace including proper washing of materials like bedsheets and keeping the workarea hygenically clean. They would have to treat their employees like other corporations where captial punshiment would be illegal. so no "bitch slapping their Ho's."

As an employee and the type of business they conduct, they would be required to have regular checkups as well as health coverage. They would also be keeping a greater percentage of their pay (minus taxes.) they would also be able to keep realistic working hours and get away from "Slave like conditions." Also, the providers can choose to "withhold service" from any customer.

By requiring licencing for the "Social-Providers" anyone not licenced can be easily identified and arrested. anyone faking a licence can be arrested for false documentation and other charges.

By regulating it, the Providers now have an avenue to escape should their work become dangerous. an abusive customer, an abusive pimp, unfair working conditions, etc... something prostitutes now don't have.

By Regluating it, those that partake of this 'Service' aka, the Johns, can also be asked and/or requried to undertake medical checkups to help protect the Employees.

Also, though licencing and regulations, those that operate illegal brothels or prostitute illegally would find their greatest asset in hiding, the silence of their workers and customers, removed. people will have a safe, clean and private place to "relieve the tension of their life" and not rely on sources that also rely on them for their silence.

Those who choose this form of occupation can then reach out to those 'forced' into it. Women who are trafficked or enslaved by others can and will find a door to freedom and their jailers another path to their own legal imprisonment.
Epic Fusion
27-10-2007, 18:25
Purely logical arguments are illogical because they don't exist. How am I meant to give one if there aren't any?

I could set an emotional goal, like helping worse off countries, then use logic to achieve this goal, but logic can't be used as a goal in itself.

Emotional goal 1: Maximizing freedom of choice.

Argument: In order to maximize personal freedoms, legalize prostitution, as no one elses choice is hindered by this, beyond hindering their ability to hinder other peoples choices.

Emotional goal 2: Minimize the sex trafficing business.

Argument: By legalizing prostitution, one makes sex trafficing a more efficent industry. As the sex industries expansion would be inevitable, making the still illegal acts of abuse easier to hide.
Entropic Creation
27-10-2007, 18:35
There are some practical issues though- testing can be expensive, and those who already have an STD and work in the sex industry would clearly be put out of business. Besides that, clients, for the sake of the prostitute, would need to provide proof of their health too, which is, again, expensive. This could birth a significant blackmarket in false certificates and un-approved prositution. Ultimately, I don't think legalization would TOTALY remove the criminal aspect of prositution, but perhaps reduce it enough that there would be a noticable and welcome benefit.

I suppose ‘expensive’ is a relative term. Getting tested is rather cheap, especially if you go to a place that specializes in doing STD checks – and there would certainly be clinics setup to do prostitutes monthly checks (just like with porn stars). So what if it costs $40/month – I consider that to be fairly cheap and just the cost of doing business.

Clients do not need to get tested before having sex – that is just being silly. Sex workers know how to be safe and check their clients. It is simply a matter of safe sex. Every prostitute I know uses condoms for fucking and gloves for anal fingering (which also lets a guy check for any anal warts before fucking the client). Oral sex is something that could go either way: some use condoms while others consider it a sufficiently low risk activity not to bother.

In the interest of full disclosure, I don’t know any street walkers (edit: as far as I am aware). My friends are mostly high end call girls, dominatrix, or just male sluts, so I am bound to ignore the low end. Of course, if legalized, it wouldn’t have to be underground and thus will substantially raise the quality of employment by removing he criminal element of the job. Legitimate brothels will be available, offering a safe source of good quality for reasonable prices, and thus substantially reduce demand for the low end girls.

Girls who fail their checks or service clients who pay for unsafe activities (I always wonder why some refuse to not use a condom with a prostitute) will have a little black market sex. Legal brothels will minimize that.

There are two points: ownership as the root of supremacy over the body and coercion through force, incl. forced drug use, beatings, blackmail etc.

Since 80% of women and 40% of men who prostitute themselves would NOT choose this profession unless they were forced into it by the pimps, I would decriminalise prostitution -- mind you "decriminalise" does NOT mean legalise, so no taxation, no forced medical checks etc., just no punishment -- and at the same tim enforce much harsher punishment for pimps: minimum 2 years imprisonment without parole PER prostitute they "protect" (i.e. force to prostitute themselves and give a bulk of money to the pimps).

Prostitution is certainly not a job as such but a lifestyle (like smoking, drug use, medicament dependence, overeating, not excecising or excercising too much etc.), so the government has no right to collect tax on it.

On the other hand even attmepts to force others (ANYone) to do ANYthing against their will by threats or physical force must be eradicated.

Where exactly are you getting those statistics? 80% of women and 40% of men in the sex industry are forced into it by pimps? Forgive me for being highly incredulous, but that is absurd.

It is a job, nay, profession. People earn an income from it, and it is thusly just as taxable as anyone else’s income.

10 reasons for not legalizing prostitution by Janice Raymond
This is not a rational piece of academic work – it is nothing more than a propaganda piece by someone with an anti-prostitution agenda. The woman is better known for her ‘research’ on male-to-female transsexuals. Her findings are that m2f are nothing more than the patriarchy attempting to infiltrate the feminist movement, and that they commit the worst kind of rape of all women by reducing female body to an object. She says we shouldn’t be fooled by them – they just cut off the most apparent means of rape to make you think they are safe.

I cannot respect someone with such vitriolic misandry. She has an agenda based on her horrid world view and is not above manipulation, hyperbole, and outright lies in her pursuit of it.
Free Soviets
27-10-2007, 18:50
I know this sounds strange: I want a argument pro, or anti legalizing prostitution. The argument must use logic, which means it can not appeal to ethics, or emotion; it can only appeal to logic.

Example with drugs:

Anti-legalization: drugs lower production, and are thus bad for society.

Pro: It's quite difficult to enforce drug laws. They are a waste of resources, and should thus be abandoned.

if this is meant to be an example of arguments that don't appeal to ethics, then what we have here is a case of op fail.
BLTopia
27-10-2007, 18:57
omfg. Have most of you ever been in the 'rough' part of town? If those prostitutes (mostly, but not all) were legal, they would have to sell the...uh...product at rock bottom prices! Not just because they look very, very, very bad. But because a lot of them are addicted to drugs (mainly crack and smack) and STDs are very common. It would hurt legalized 'hooking' in other parts of the US, and the world for that matter. With so much regulated poontang out there, why bother shelling out thousands when you can get your rocks off with skeletor for 28 bucks and a pack of Newports?
Although I do agree that it would put cops to work, instead of watching out for random sexual encounters between married men and crackwhores. jmtc
Miodrag Superior
27-10-2007, 19:01
There are two points: ownership as the root of supremacy over the body and coercion through force, incl. forced drug use, beatings, blackmail etc.

Since 80% of women and 40% of men who prostitute themselves would NOT choose this profession unless they were forced into it by the pimps, I would decriminalise prostitution -- mind you "decriminalise" does NOT mean legalise, so no taxation, no forced medical checks etc., just no punishment -- and at the same tim enforce much harsher punishment for pimps: minimum 2 years imprisonment without parole PER prostitute they "protect" (i.e. force to prostitute themselves and give a bulk of money to the pimps).

Prostitution is certainly not a job as such but a lifestyle (like smoking, drug use, medicament dependence, overeating, not excecising or excercising too much etc.), so the government has no right to collect tax on it.

Where exactly are you getting those statistics? 80% of women and 40% of men in the sex industry are forced into it by pimps? Forgive me for being highly incredulous, but that is absurd.

It is a job, nay, profession. People earn an income from it, and it is thusly just as taxable as anyone else’s income.

From a research a team I was a member of conducted in three cities in North America, 1 in Asia and 4 in Europe in 1999 (between 75 and 120 prostitutes were intevriewed per city).

The joint paper was presented at several conferences and I believe it was also published in the end (we were promised it would be, then it was not at the time it was announced for, then I moved from continent to contient to the third and lost track, but I believe someone emailed me saying it was published in some conference papers -- I could try to check).

Anyway, you say prostitution is a profesison and I say it is not. It lacks several essential qualities of a profession (skills training, licencing, standard of goods and services, standard fees -- most prostitutes will try to charge more those they believe can afford to pay more or are hooked on them and go for less when in need of money...).

It is not even a job, let alone a profession. It is just a way of living a life -- most often enforced onto by others -- and the money is not an income, but more of a compensation for loss/trauma, and therefore not taxable.
Free Soviets
27-10-2007, 19:04
wait, i've got it!

the op defines a valid logical argument about what we ought do as one that doesn't use an ought statement in its premises. but such an argument is logically invalid. contradiction! and since anything follows from a contradiction, prostitution should be legalized (or the opposite).
Sadel
27-10-2007, 19:12
Prostitution is regulated now. If you legalize, yet continue to regulate, the victims are the taxpayers and the prostitutes. Government regulation is not only immoral (from a logical, agnostic morality of nonviolence-- defined here: freedomainradio.com) it is ineffective and illogical. Legalized, unregulated prostitution, where both parties show consent, is the most logical, moral, and effective method.
JuNii
27-10-2007, 19:16
There are some practical issues though- testing can be expensive, no it isn't.

and those who already have an STD and work in the sex industry would clearly be put out of business. and that would be bad because...

If a resturant violates the health code, they are fined. if they violate enough health codes, they are put out of business.

if a manufacturer puts out a faulty product, they are held liable.

Same should go to the prostitute.

Besides that, clients, for the sake of the prostitute, would need to provide proof of their health too, which is, again, expensive. The provider could require that. nothing wrong with it. and again, it's not that expensive. in fact, it can be done during a regular physical.

and if it is made into a legal business, perhaps insurance companies can be pursuaded to cover it as part of regular checkups...

This could birth a significant blackmarket in false certificates and un-approved prositution. which could have stiffer fines and punishments (falsifying legal documents anyone?)
Ultimately, I don't think legalization would TOTALY remove the criminal aspect of prositution, but perhaps reduce it enough that there would be a noticable and welcome benefit.
JuNii
27-10-2007, 19:25
From a research a team I was a member of conducted in three cities in North America, 1 in Asia and 4 in Europe in 1999 (between 75 and 120 prostitutes were intevriewed per city). considering that only one state in the US has it legalized and in that state no CITY can have it legalized...

I can posit that it's all illegal prostitution where yea, alot of people are forced into it.

The joint paper was presented at several conferences and I believe it was also published in the end (we were promised it would be, then it was not at the time it was announced for, then I moved from continent to contient to the third and lost track, but I believe someone emailed me saying it was published in some conference papers -- I could try to check).so how long ago was this study?

Anyway, you say prostitution is a profesison and I say it is not. It lacks several essential qualities of a profession (skills training, licencing, standard of goods and services, standard fees -- most prostitutes will try to charge more those they believe can afford to pay more or are hooked on them and go for less when in need of money...). as long as it's criminalized, it's as much as a profession as a burgler, blackmailer, Theif...

It is not even a job, let alone a profession. It is just a way of living a life -- most often enforced onto by others -- and the money is not an income, but more of a compensation for loss/trauma, and therefore not taxable. it's not taxable because it's not legally earned. also I doubt someone will record how much they stole on their tax forms... :p

Prostitution is regulated now. If you legalize, yet continue to regulate, the victims are the taxpayers and the prostitutes. Government regulation is not only immoral (from a logical, agnostic morality of nonviolence-- defined here: freedomainradio.com) it is ineffective and illogical. Legalized, unregulated prostitution, where both parties show consent, is the most logical, moral, and effective method.it's not regulated, it's criminalized. (unless you're talking somewhere else outside the US...)
Miodrag Superior
27-10-2007, 19:28
Study was in 1999, presented in 1999 and 2000.

In all places where the reseearch was done prostitution was illegal (i.e. it was not Amsterdam, though even there many Eastern Europeans and non-Europeans are forced into it).

Once again, the money received is not an "income" and it is not "earned", but gotten as compensation for trauma, and loss (e.g. loss of privacy, of emotional wellbeing, of free will etc.).
Upper Botswavia
27-10-2007, 19:41
Once again, the money received is not an "income" and it is not "earned", but gotten as compensation for trauma, and loss (e.g. loss of privacy, of emotional wellbeing, of free will etc.).

Only if prostitution is seen as a violation. If it were a legitimate job, one that the participants were proud of, then it would be earned income.

As to your concerns about job skills... the kid who puts french fries in the oil at McDonalds starts off with no skills and learns some, as does everyone else in the working world, prostitutes included. And yes, as they become more skilled, they become more in demand, and so their prices go up. And yes, they can charge more to the rich, but so can any hair dresser or housekeeper. In the service industry, the goal is always to attract richer clients who can pay more.
Ashmoria
27-10-2007, 20:07
it's not taxable because it's not legally earned. also I doubt someone will record how much they stole on their tax forms... :p


all income is taxable no matter how it is earned.

independant call girls use some non-prostitute term on their tax forms.
Entropic Creation
27-10-2007, 20:17
From a research a team I was a member of conducted in three cities in North America, 1 in Asia and 4 in Europe in 1999 (between 75 and 120 prostitutes were intevriewed per city).
I suggest that you may have a substantial selection bias in your data.

Anyway, you say prostitution is a profesison and I say it is not. It lacks several essential qualities of a profession (skills training, licencing, standard of goods and services, standard fees -- most prostitutes will try to charge more those they believe can afford to pay more or are hooked on them and go for less when in need of money...).

Perhaps by your exceedingly narrow definition of profession, prostitution doesn’t qualify.
I do not take state licensing as the benchmark for whether or not something is a profession, but where it is legal, there is usually licensing. Sex workers are very skilled at what they do and many even attend ‘conferences’ where they update and expand their skill set. I’m not quite sure where you get the idea that any profession has set fees they charge regardless of client – everyone from doctors to construction contractors will negotiate on fees (perhaps you live in a jurisdiction where this is illegal? In which case it is your local laws rather than being intrinsic to the definition of a profession). The only way in which it differs from any other profession is in questions of legality.

It is not even a job, let alone a profession. It is just a way of living a life -- most often enforced onto by others -- and the money is not an income, but more of a compensation for loss/trauma, and therefore not taxable.
Way of life? It is no more a way of life than my freelance IT work. The sex workers I know enjoy their work, not traumatized by it. I, on the other hand, don’t enjoy my IT work so perhaps the money they pay me isn't income at all, just compensation for trauma?

It may be hard for you to believe, but some people actually like having sex and enjoy pleasing others. When not with a client, they can be off being good mothers while nobody else in the PTA has any clue what she does for a living. It is not inherently traumatic, not inherently done under duress, and not necessarily harmful to anyone involved. While I do not discount that some women may be forced into it, do not think that they are the sum of prostitution.

it's not taxable because it's not legally earned. also I doubt someone will record how much they stole on their tax forms... :p

Not true – from the IRS website.

Illegal income. Illegal income, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Form 1040, line 21, or on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity.
JuNii
27-10-2007, 20:18
all income is taxable no matter how it is earned. No, all recorded income is taxable.

independant call girls use some non-prostitute term on their tax forms.... seamstress? :p
JuNii
27-10-2007, 20:21
Not true – from the IRS website.

Illegal income. Illegal income, such as money from dealing illegal drugs, must be included in your income on Form 1040, line 21, or on Schedule C or Schedule C-EZ (Form 1040) if from your self-employment activity.

"Shit... Manny, that Rolex we took from that guy and hocked... how much we got for that?"
"Why you wanna know?"
"For our taxes!"
"Shit... I dunno, check the receipt we got from that fence..."
Upper Botswavia
27-10-2007, 20:24
"Shit... Manny, that Rolex we took from that guy and hocked... how much we got for that?"
"Why you wanna know?"
"For our taxes!"
"Shit... I dunno, check the receipt we got from that fence..."

On the other hand...

Tax Auditor: Manny, you claimed you made $1,250.00 last year. You drive a Porsche and live in a 6 bedroom house on the beach. Can you explain that?

Manny's lawyer: (quietly to Manny) See? You should have claimed self-employment income, Manny.
Ashmoria
27-10-2007, 20:25
No, all recorded income is taxable.

noooooo

remember

what did they convict al capone of?


... seamstress? :p

something like personal consultant.
Miodrag Superior
27-10-2007, 20:28
botsavia/entropic:

No, a hairdresser cannot charge you more because you have more money than the other customer. They will have a price list and you will choose the service you want. If you are rich you may tip them more, but that is your choice.

Resturants do not charge rich people more. There are more expensive and cheaper restaurants and likewise more expensive and cheaper courses within any given restaurant, but the price is not decided based on a client.

Indeed, it is not true that doctors will haggle over the price of a surgery, usually not even a plastic surgery (the latter they may do in exceptional cases).

But that is not the point. The point is that prostitution is not a choice for a great majority of women (even if some may like pleasing in sex AND getting paid for it AND giving 60% oif that to a pimp ofr "protection") and for a significant part of male prostitutes.

Indeed, I am not at all against prostitution -- quite to the contrary -- but I do claim that it is deifinitely not pleasure (and by no means ONLY pleasure) for every person who practices it, it is certainly not a profession, and usually not even a job, just a lifestyle.

I said in the beginning: decriminalise prostitution everywhere, but certainly do not legalise it -- i.e. do not turn a lifestyle into a profession, and on the other hand increase penalty for pimps.
Ashmoria
27-10-2007, 20:37
seems to me that the only relevant question in this sexually liberal age is "will legalization of prostitution help or hurt the prostitute?"

i can see no significant downside to legalizing it and thus giving the prostitute a better level of legal protection.

there will still be the sexual slavery type of prostitution but with voluntary prostitution legal, it frees up the legal system to go after the stuff that really needs to be punished.
Yootopia
27-10-2007, 20:37
Erm, it provides a service which there will always be a need of, and it's been around forever, and indeed is proven to exist in all of our relative primates, such as chimps.

On the other hand, it can help spread STIs.

There you go.
JuNii
27-10-2007, 20:41
On the other hand...

Tax Auditor: Manny, you claimed you made $1,250.00 last year. You drive a Porsche and live in a 6 bedroom house on the beach. Can you explain that?

Manny's lawyer: (quietly to Manny) See? You should have claimed self-employment income, Manny.

but they were gifts! I swear!!!

noooooo

remember

what did they convict al capone of? Tax evasion. but then he was stupid in flaunting his ill gotten wealth.

something like personal consultant....
Groinal Fitness Trainer?
Personal Relaxation Artist?
Social Provider?

you know... we put down professional accountants as being boring... but if they read all this stuff while doing our taxes... :p
Miodrag Superior
27-10-2007, 20:41
Because, ashmoria, legalisation is NOT the same as decriminalisation.

Decriminalisation = The state does not prosecute prostitutes.

Legalisation = The state codifies modes of operation for prostitutes, clients, pimps.

My question (to you) is: why do you want it codified? Why is it not enough for some people to decriminalise prostitutes and enforce prosecution of pimps?

So you don't want to pay taxes while people who can do no better but be prostitutes do not pay them if decriminalised but not legalised? Or what exactly is it?
JuNii
27-10-2007, 20:43
seems to me that the only relevant question in this sexually liberal age is "will legalization of prostitution help or hurt the prostitute?"

i can see no significant downside to legalizing it and thus giving the prostitute a better level of legal protection.

there will still be the sexual slavery type of prostitution but with voluntary prostitution legal, it frees up the legal system to go after the stuff that really needs to be punished.

*agrees*
Upper Botswavia
27-10-2007, 20:44
botsavia/entropic:

No, a hairdresser cannot charge you more because you have more money than the other customer. They will have a price list and you will choose the service you want. If you are rich you may tip them more, but that is your choice.

Resturants do not charge rich people more. There are more expensive and cheaper restaurants and likewise more expensive and cheaper courses within any given restaurant, but the price is not decided based on a client.

Indeed, it is not true that doctors will haggle over the price of a surgery, usually not even a plastic surgery (the latter they may do in exceptional cases).

But that is not the point. The point is that prostitution is not a choice for a great majority of women (even if some may like pleasing in sex AND getting paid for it AND giving 60% oif that to a pimp ofr "protection") and for a significant part of male prostitutes.

Indeed, I am not at all against prostitution -- quite to the contrary -- but I do claim that it is deifinitely not pleasure (and by no means ONLY pleasure) for every person who practices it, it is certainly not a profession, and usually not even a job, just a lifestyle.

I said in the beginning: decriminalise prostitution everywhere, but certainly do not legalise it -- i.e. do not turn a lifestyle into a profession, and on the other hand increase penalty for pimps.

The exact same haircut I get in Albany, NY costs half of what it would were I to get it in Beverly Hills, CA. Same service, different cost, based on the wealth of the clientele.

Now you may argue that this is based on rents and averages, but my point remains. Prices for services are pegged to the wealth of customers. Prostitutes merely translate that to a case by case basis. Babysitters charge more when working for rich people (I know I got more working for some people than others). A decorator gets a higher fee when working on a room in a mansion than when working on one in a working class apartment. Doctors may not haggle, but will certainly drop fees down in cases of patients with less money, which is essentially the same thing.

I would PREFER that prostitution were a profession, not a lifestyle. As a profession, there would be protections in place that a lifestyle does not afford. And it would be much easier to walk away from, if the employee so chose. A lifestyle to me indicates something much more encompassing and harder to simply give up if it becomes onerous. So as a profession it WOULD be a choice, but as a lifestyle it seems almost a default.

Legalize prostitution. Make the laws such that pimps are not rewarded but rather penalized for mistreating prostitutes. If prostitution were treated more as an art than as a fast food like substitute, prostitutes would be respected, and could respect themselves.
New Manvir
27-10-2007, 20:46
Legalize Prostituion!?

But then we won't be able to control t3h wimminz and their bodiez
Ashmoria
27-10-2007, 20:53
Because, ashmoria, legalisation is NOT the same as decriminalisation.

Decriminalisation = The state does not prosecute prostitutes.

Legalisation = The state codifies modes of operation for prostitutes, clients, pimps.

My question (to you) is: why do you want it codified? Why is it not enough for some people to decriminalise prostitutes and enforce prosecution of pimps?

So you don't want to pay taxes while people who can do no better but be prostitutes do not pay them if decriminalised but not legalised? Or what exactly is it?

i believe you are overstating your case. but yes, i think that it should be more than decriminalized. i think that there needs to be standards of operation that must be enforced. it protects the health and well being of sex workers, their customers, and the general public.

taxes have nothing to do with it except that a fairly treated prostitute will make a reasonable wage and have the paperwork to prove it. she wont be at the whim of her "employer".
Miodrag Superior
27-10-2007, 21:02
i believe you are overstating your case. but yes, i think that it should be more than decriminalized. i think that there needs to be standards of operation that must be enforced. it protects the health and well being of sex workers, their customers, and the general public.

So in fact you want to tell prostitutes what they will do with their bodies (health tests, use of condoms, whatnot), purportedly for "a greater good" ("well being of ... general public").

And how exactly is a control of the prostitues' body by a pimp really diferent in essence from your imposition of such a (medical, ergo: different kind of) control of your devising (and liking) upon the bodies of the very same prostitutes (whom you hypocritically call "sex workers", just like you probably call homeless female beggars "bag ladies", though the "worker" implies a priori that one should see prostitution as a profession, even though I said many times that I do not see prostitution as a profession, so in effect you use not-so-subtle persuasive techniques)?

Anyway... it's 3 AM here in China and I'm off to bed.
Ashmoria
27-10-2007, 21:13
So in fact you want to tell prostitutes what they will do with their bodies (health tests, use of condoms, whatnot), purportedly for "a greater good" ("well being of ... general public").

And how exactly is a control of the prostitues' body by a pimp really diferent in essence from your imposition of such a (medical, ergo: different kind of) control of your devising (and liking) upon the bodies of the very same prostitutes (whom you hypocritically call "sex workers", just like you probably call homeless female beggars "bag ladies", though the "worker" implies a priori that one should see prostitution as a profession, even though I said many times that I do not see prostitution as a profession, so in effect you use not-so-subtle persuasive techniques)?

Anyway... it's 3 AM here in China and I'm off to bed.

yes. the same way we regulate the work of tattoo artists, masseusses, and strippers.

welcome to the west. no one has absolute freedom when it comes to their jobs.
The Brevious
27-10-2007, 22:17
I say we legalize it. After all, they had legal prostitutes in Firefly.

Or are you saying Firefly isn't awesome?

*already in line for the Inara ride*
http://www.fireflywiki.org/img/inara13.jpg
Entropic Creation
27-10-2007, 22:45
The point is that prostitution is not a choice for a great majority of women (even if some may like pleasing in sex AND getting paid for it AND giving 60% oif that to a pimp ofr "protection") and for a significant part of male prostitutes.
Your continued focus on pimps is just waving about a flag telling everyone that you have a highly biased, and fairly uneducated, view of the sex industry. Perhaps you are simply defining prostitution as crack whores hanging around street corners who are incapable of holding a regular job and are desperate to turn tricks to get their next hit - in that case I can see your point of view.

I, however, am using a broader definition encompassing sex workers as a whole, as in anyone who receives monetary compensation for services of a sexual nature. Perhaps I am being over-broad including all sex workers, but it is appropriate for this discussion. Perhaps you are drawing a line between a 'prostitute' and a call girl? Or between a streetwalker and someone in a brothel (the former falling under your definition with the latter excluded)?

Indeed, I am not at all against prostitution -- quite to the contrary -- but I do claim that it is deifinitely not pleasure (and by no means ONLY pleasure) for every person who practices it, it is certainly not a profession, and usually not even a job, just a lifestyle.
What exactly do you mean by 'not a job, its a lifestyle'? Do you mean that prostitutes are incapable of having what you would probably call a 'normal' life?

Actually... this might save a lot of time... what, functionally speaking, are the differences in 'lifestyle' between a 'normal' person and a prostitute? how about a 'normal person' and a stripper? or between a stripper and a waitress? Do you believe that a woman's income earned by providing sexual services somehow makes her different than any other woman (aside from indicating that she is likely open-minded about sex)?

Women who are forced into prostitution by a pimp are not the totality of prostitution (I would wager that it is both a small minority of the sex trade and that it is a situation that is created by the legal system and by moralistic people who want to ostracize sex workers). This study you cite probably consisted of going to a seedy part of town and talking to whoever you found on the street corners - which is such a severe selection bias as to invalidate the study (not that it would be the first time - many such studies have been done and are all equally worthless when speaking of prostitution as a whole). That would explain your focus on prostitution not being something a person would happily choose and enjoy, or that somehow pimps are intrinsic to the industry.
Callisdrun
27-10-2007, 23:45
Your continued focus on pimps is just waving about a flag telling everyone that you have a highly biased, and fairly uneducated, view of the sex industry. Perhaps you are simply defining prostitution as crack whores hanging around street corners who are incapable of holding a regular job and are desperate to turn tricks to get their next hit - in that case I can see your point of view.

I, however, am using a broader definition encompassing sex workers as a whole, as in anyone who receives monetary compensation for services of a sexual nature. Perhaps I am being over-broad including all sex workers, but it is appropriate for this discussion. Perhaps you are drawing a line between a 'prostitute' and a call girl? Or between a streetwalker and someone in a brothel (the former falling under your definition with the latter excluded)?


What exactly do you mean by 'not a job, its a lifestyle'? Do you mean that prostitutes are incapable of having what you would probably call a 'normal' life?

Actually... this might save a lot of time... what, functionally speaking, are the differences in 'lifestyle' between a 'normal' person and a prostitute? how about a 'normal person' and a stripper? or between a stripper and a waitress? Do you believe that a woman's income earned by providing sexual services somehow makes her different than any other woman (aside from indicating that she is likely open-minded about sex)?

Women who are forced into prostitution by a pimp are not the totality of prostitution (I would wager that it is both a small minority of the sex trade and that it is a situation that is created by the legal system and by moralistic people who want to ostracize sex workers). This study you cite probably consisted of going to a seedy part of town and talking to whoever you found on the street corners - which is such a severe selection bias as to invalidate the study (not that it would be the first time - many such studies have been done and are all equally worthless when speaking of prostitution as a whole). That would explain your focus on prostitution not being something a person would happily choose and enjoy, or that somehow pimps are intrinsic to the industry.

Only about one fourth of prostitutes are what you could call "street-walkers," you are correct in your guess.

Anti-prostitution types generally only really refer to this kind of prostitute when they talk about the issue. Unless they bring up sex slavery, which is already illegal and would still be illegal if prostitution was fully legalized because sex slavery by definition lacks the consent of the victim.

Prostitution is a job. It's not a good job, but neither is working at a corner store, toll-taking booth, as a strawberry picker in the fields, etc. Prostitution still consists of accepting monetary compensation in return for a service.

If prostitution were legalized, it would make the profession a lot safer for the prostitutes. They could then without fear of legal trouble come forward about any abuse they'd suffered, and be much more selective about their customers.
Redwulf
28-10-2007, 00:24
I know this sounds strange: I want a argument pro, or anti legalizing prostitution. The argument must use logic, which means it can not appeal to ethics, or emotion; it can only appeal to logic.

Example with drugs:

Anti-legalization: drugs lower production, and are thus bad for society.

Pro: It's quite difficult to enforce drug laws. They are a waste of resources, and should thus be abandoned.

But anyway, stick to the topic proper.

I may add a poll later...if you're all good. :D

Logicaly I own my body, thus I have the right to rent or sell my body to anyone I wish.
Sofar King What
28-10-2007, 00:34
For Legalizing

1 sex is fun :D
2 getting paid for having sex .... cant be bad lol
3 Its a large industry with a massive turn ... tax would be good for the government
4 safer ... tests etc would mean less sexual dieseases (not to sure if that is a problem though?)
5 Its the Oldest profession and most likly will be around after all other types of jobs have been and gone (heck if no one had to work ever again ... people would still pay for sex)
6 Ugly people can have more sex!!
7 Would help cut down people trafficing etc


Against Legalizing

1 It offends some of the religious nuts out there
2 No one should have to pay for sex
3 Living in or around a red light district cant be to fun (though thats down to peoples views and perceptions really)
4 Pimp need jobs to!!
JuNii
28-10-2007, 01:20
Logicaly I own my body, thus I have the right to rent or sell my body to anyone I wish.

... why am I reminded of the old Monty Python sketch "Operating theatre (squatters)" (http://orangecow.org/pythonet/sketches/operate.htm)

Notlob: (waking up) What's going on? Who are they?
Surgeon: That's what we are trying to find out.
Notlob: What are they doing in my stomach?
Surgeon: We don't know. Are they paying you any rent?
Notlob: Of course they're not paying me rent!
Squatter: You're not furnished, you fascist.
Notlob: Get them out!
Surgeon: I can't.
Notlob: Get them out.
Surgeon: No I can't. Not, not without a court order.
Indian: (also appearing) Shut up. You're keeping us awake.
(Caption on screen: 'ONE COURT ORDER LATER' Some policemen walk in.)
First Policeman: (into slit) You are hereby ordered to vacate Mr Notlob forthwith. And or.
Squatter: Push off, fuzz.
Policeman: Right, that's it, we're going in. Release the vicious dogs. (dives into slit)
Miodrag Superior
28-10-2007, 16:53
Your continued focus on pimps is just waving about a flag telling everyone that you have a highly biased, and fairly uneducated, view of the sex industry. Perhaps you are simply defining prostitution as crack whores hanging around street corners who are incapable of holding a regular job and are desperate to turn tricks to get their next hit - in that case I can see your point of view.

I, however, am using a broader definition encompassing sex workers as a whole, as in anyone who receives monetary compensation for services of a sexual nature. Perhaps I am being over-broad including all sex workers, but it is appropriate for this discussion. Perhaps you are drawing a line between a 'prostitute' and a call girl? Or between a streetwalker and someone in a brothel (the former falling under your definition with the latter excluded)?


What exactly do you mean by 'not a job, its a lifestyle'? Do you mean that prostitutes are incapable of having what you would probably call a 'normal' life?

Actually... this might save a lot of time... what, functionally speaking, are the differences in 'lifestyle' between a 'normal' person and a prostitute? how about a 'normal person' and a stripper? or between a stripper and a waitress? Do you believe that a woman's income earned by providing sexual services somehow makes her different than any other woman (aside from indicating that she is likely open-minded about sex)?

Women who are forced into prostitution by a pimp are not the totality of prostitution (I would wager that it is both a small minority of the sex trade and that it is a situation that is created by the legal system and by moralistic people who want to ostracize sex workers). This study you cite probably consisted of going to a seedy part of town and talking to whoever you found on the street corners - which is such a severe selection bias as to invalidate the study (not that it would be the first time - many such studies have been done and are all equally worthless when speaking of prostitution as a whole). That would explain your focus on prostitution not being something a person would happily choose and enjoy, or that somehow pimps are intrinsic to the industry.


Do NOT project on me your own prejudices. I NEVER EVER used a term remotely related to "normal person", nor would I have ever.

As for having a "highly biased ... view of the sex industry" -- I told you that it is based on a research doen by many people including myself, and as a result of my long-term interst in the issue.

The fact that you are incapable of comprehending such a simple fact repeated tthree times shows your reading and comprehension ability is rather wanting.

As for calling my view "fairly uneducated", it seems pretty obvious that only a person who him-/herself has no education -- and is under a feeling of gulit and shame because of that -- would ever recourse to such idiotic and blatantly false allegations.

My MA thesis was in a specific fetish as represented on the Internet and my Ph.D. one on performance of a different fetish in sex clubs and that more than qualifies me to discuss with the likes of you yourself, average Joe/Jane, on a silly little chitchat forum, such as this one.

Eventually, from you to posit quasi-serious questions and dare expect genuine answers after such a despicable response to me in the first place is highly delusional to say the least.

Anyway...

welcome to the west. no one has absolute freedom when it comes to their jobs.

Don't be pathetic and patronisingly "welcome me to the West" as if you genuinely understood that part of the world more or had any more right to it than I do.

If I had wanted to live in the West I would have stayed there instead of moving to East Asia 3 years ago.

Besides, the Americas are Far East from where I am. Iran and Irraq are "The West", and your own relative perspective/set of values is in no way more valid than mine.

Eventually, "jobs" are exactly that -- jobs, and prostitution is not a job, but a lifestyle.

yes. the same way we regulate the work of tattoo artists, masseusses, and strippers.

No, you yourself regulate nothing. And neither do "we". Governments enact millions of rules that they did not use in their election promises or check at referenda, so it is their personal agenda and not "our" regulating.

Once again, being a lifestyle prostitution should be completely decriminalised but by no means legalised, i.e. regulated.
Free Soviets
28-10-2007, 17:28
Once again, the money received is not an "income" and it is not "earned", but gotten as compensation for trauma, and loss (e.g. loss of privacy, of emotional wellbeing, of free will etc.).

sounds like every job i've ever held
Free Soviets
28-10-2007, 17:29
Logicaly I own my body, thus I have the right to rent or sell my body to anyone I wish.

how does the one follow from the other?
Danmarc
28-10-2007, 17:31
Pro: Prostitution is in fact one party allocating resources to purchase a good/service. This is an example of the free market at work...


In a side-bar to the original topic, you cannot take morality out of a subject by saying to use rationality..., This country was founded on judeo-christian principles (like it or not) and thus morality is a part of our laws as well as part of the market.
Entropic Creation
28-10-2007, 22:29
Do NOT project on me your own prejudices. I NEVER EVER used a term remotely related to "normal person", nor would I have ever.
You may not have explicitly said 'prostitutes are not normal people', but you imply that quite blatantly by saying they have completely different lifestyles, based on nothing more than their method of employment. Which of us is prejudiced? You are stating that prostitutes are different from everyone else and inherently have different 'lifestyles' - stating that sex workers are somehow not capable of having a lifestyle similar to everyone else is bare prejudice.

As for having a "highly biased ... view of the sex industry" -- I told you that it is based on a research doen by many people including myself, and as a result of my long-term interst in the issue.
Yet you portray prostitution as being predominantly comprised of people forced into prostitution against their will by abusive pimps and that such circumstance is inherent to prostitution. This shows a substantial bias – at the very least a horrid selection bias in your research focusing on street walkers and representing it as a comprehensive study of prostitution.

This view is indeed fairly uneducated, or perhaps poorly educated would be a better term. At the very least you should acknowledge how the study was conducted and recognize the distortions of the data. If you believe that your data is completely free of any error or bias, you need to go back to undergrad to relearn the basics of socioeconomic research (I recommend an accredited institution this time).

As for calling my view "fairly uneducated", it seems pretty obvious that only a person who him-/herself has no education -- and is under a feeling of gulit and shame because of that -- would ever recourse to such idiotic and blatantly false allegations.
Taking recourse in making idiotic and blatantly false allegations like insisting someone feels guilt and shame because they point out that making explicit generalities about an entire industry, and all those who work therein, based upon a flawed study is inappropriate?

My MA thesis was in a specific fetish as represented on the Internet and my Ph.D. one on performance of a different fetish in sex clubs and that more than qualifies me to discuss with the likes of you yourself, average Joe/Jane, on a silly little chitchat forum, such as this one.

A PhD on a particular fetish in clubs (what in particular btw?) does not equate to understanding prostitution, as evidenced by your concept of the sex industry. Additionally, thinking that having a PhD makes you eminently more knowledgeable than everyone else is sheer hubris. My knowledge and experience with the sex industry is rather extensive, both firsthand and through the majority of my social connections, as well as having been involved in several economic evaluations of various segments of the sex industry (in which I, like any academically credible researcher, admit to the possible sources of bias in my data, and do not extrapolate a study of a segment and apply it to a large and varied industry). I have admitted in a previous post how this causes a slight bias in my view, but it does give me a substantial network of friends and relations who are sex workers and do so of their free will – no pimps, no abuse, and no coercion involved.

Eventually, from you to posit quasi-serious questions and dare expect genuine answers after such a despicable response to me in the first place is highly delusional to say the least.
How dare I indeed. I must be delusional to question such a master of the universe possessor of a PhD. We should all bow to your obviously superior intellect – after all you are somehow able to obtain completely unbiased data from which you can extrapolate the inherent nature of the entire sex industry (which is apparently just sex slavery to abusive pimps) and anyone who works therein just from a small sample of a particular segment.

Eventually, "jobs" are exactly that -- jobs, and prostitution is not a job, but a lifestyle.
Once again, define what you mean by calling it a ‘lifestyle’?
Why do you continually insist that those who make an income from sex work are somehow different than other people? Prostitutes are normal people – no different from a masseuse or a maid.
Miodrag Superior
29-10-2007, 17:05
Pro: Prostitution is in fact one party allocating resources to purchase a good/service. This is an example of the free market at work...

What goods specifically? Body fluids always in case of male prostitutes and femile SM tops and occasionally, though infrequently of other prostitutes?

What services exactly do the prostitutes across the board provide? How are these services standardised? Think of a surgery as a service, or teeth cleaning, or nail polish: you know exactly what you are getting.

Now think of a john paying a prostitute just to demean him verbally and watch him masturbate, no touching. What service is this exactly? Para-acting? Observation? So all people sitting on their balcony, porch or in the parc watching passers-by should be regulated as profession?

Just because you yourself think it is better for some abstract, not defined by any one purported higher good? Or because you are too greedy to collect moneyt from anyone?

Should then according to you everyone pay tax when a friend takes them out for coffee or invites them for dinner -- they provide the service of companionship and receive the payment (in goods, not money)?

How about being regulated and having to pay tax for being given a lift to provide entertainment to a lonely truck driver?

These arguments are all ludicrous. If genuinely chosen by prostitutes (20% of women and 60% of men who practice it) prostitution is a lifestyle, NOT a job. But much more often (80% women and 40% men) porostitutes do not have a choice, but are coerced to be prostitutes.

Therefore decriminalsie prostitution, but by no means legalise=regulate it, and prosecute pimps much more harshly than today.

This country was founded on judeo-christian principles (like it or not) and thus morality is a part of our laws as well as part of the market.

Which country are you talking about? Discussants on this site are most certainly not all from "this country" or "that country" -- whatever principles these countries (each of them) may have been founded on.
Anti-Social Darwinism
29-10-2007, 17:21
Legalize prostitution -

Pro -

It can then be taxed, providing additional revenue for the state
It can be regulated, thus providing protection for the prostitutes - medically and legally.
Drugs would figure in only peripherally and not as a means of controlling the worker.

Con -

There would still be illegal prostitution because certain types of prostitution should not be countenanced - child prostitution and anything that poses an immediate danger to worker and/or customer.
Miodrag Superior
05-11-2007, 04:11
http://newsletter.dw-world.de/re?l=evwqvjIfch4j9I2

DW staff (Magnus Rosengarten / nda) | www.dw-world.de | © Deutsche Welle.

Helping Berlin's Male Prostitutes One Night at a Time


When one hears about prostitution, one normally thinks of women forced to sell their sexual services for money. The fact that young men also find their way onto the streets is less well known.

In Berlin, as in most major cities, boys and young men from as young as 14-years old work the curbs, sex cinemas and gay bars of the German capital.

The fact that the rent boys of Berlin barely register on most people's radars led to the creation of an association in 1992 to help those in prostitution. The employees of "Sub/Way" visit the districts of Berlin where the boys work and supply them with condoms and advice on how to be safe on the streets.

Once a week, the Sub/Way team loads their van up with condoms, lubricants, sexual health pamphlets, instant soups and hot chocolate before entering the dark underbelly of the German capital.

The first stop is usually a Berlin train station where rent boys, many of whom have drug problems, punt for clients. The van is watched with interest and a little suspicion until a couple of boys come over and ask for hot chocolate.

Social workers form a bond with rent boys

Helmut Wanner is a social worker with Sub/Way and looks after the rent boys, knows them by name and knows many of their life stories.

Sex is often the easiest way to make moneyBildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: Sex is often the easiest way to make money

Over the course of the years, he has built up a trust with many of them and despite what many people think of their lives and their work; he has a certain amount of respect for them. When a tragedy strikes, he feels it more than most.

"It's terrible when somebody dies, which unfortunately seems to happen a lot," Wanner says. "Others don't have it as bad but there is still a lot of sadness."

Later in the evening, the Sub/Way team move onto the areas of Berlin where male prostitutes, many working for their next fix and any money they can get, loiter on the edges of dark streets waiting for clients. A large transvestite and transsexual contingent works the street; boys in high heels and mini-skirts mix with those who have undergone gender reassignment surgery.

Majority of male prostitutes come from Eastern Europe

Some 80% of male prostitutes in Berlin are not native Germans, most coming from Bulgaria and Romania, and Sergio Prinalski, the Sub/Way translator, helps the social workers to interact with these boys.

A woman at a counseling centerBildunterschrift: Großansicht des Bildes mit der Bildunterschrift: "Marikas" is Bavaria's only counseling center for male prostitutes

"On the most part you can be sure that they have very little or no education at all," says Prinalski. "These are the people who go on the game for economic reasons."

Sub/Way doesn't only work with the boys on the streets. Its drop-in center in Berlin offers the boys washing, sleeping and eating facilities as well as advice and medical help. The workers there also help to put the boys into contact with each other, to share stories and find companions. It is a lonely and dangerous life which doesn't often provide the kind of income that might compensate for the dangers.

"There are no steady price ranges in the scene," says Wanner. "I imagine 50 euros is a usual price for penetrative sex but often the boys don't even get paid. Sometimes it can go for only a few euros when someone is desperate."

Easiest way to money for some

Towards the end of the night, the Sub/Way team visit the bars where the mostly eastern European boys sell themselves. There they sit on bar stools and wait for their customers. Their fresh, young faces make it hard to believe that these boys are on the game but for most, this is the only employment they can get.

"This is the only way they can earn something," says Prinalski. "The reality is that for a migrant with or without papers, this is the easiest and least complicated way to get work."

Circling the boys are the potential clients for the night, mainly older men. They eye each boy individually and touch them before making the decision. For the Sub/Way team, this is one of the hardest sights they have to deal with.

But optimism and success is their reward. "Many lives have been influenced in a positive sense and these scenes have been reduced," says Wanner. The association continues to help boys escape the scene and it is the personal contact with its workers which has been credited with persuading many of those to change their lives.

However, to run the organization needs money and Sub/Way has to fight for its funding as it receives only minimal subsidies from the Berlin senate. Only through private donations can Sub/Way continue to be there once a week for the rent boys of Germany's capital.

DW staff (Magnus Rosengarten / nda) | www.dw-world.de | © Deutsche Welle.
Randovium
05-11-2007, 05:35
If you legalize prostitution not only would the government spend less money on prosocuting the offenders, but you would have a lot less violent deaths because a legal prostitute has more protection than a street walker.
Barringtonia
05-11-2007, 05:46
If you legalize prostitution not only would the government spend less money on prosocuting the offenders, but you would have a lot less violent deaths because a legal prostitute has more protection than a street walker.

In la-di-da life perhaps but in reality, I very much doubt it. It's hard enough for a non-prostitute to gain a conviction for rape let alone a prostitute. Did we not just have a case where a prostitute was raped and the judge handed down a sentence of 'unpaid services' or somesuch.

That's where all these 'legalization makes it safer' arguments fail - society is simply not ready for it and all it will do is increase the amount of prostitutes and therefore violence against women in general.
Sohcrana
05-11-2007, 05:50
To be a crime, there should be a victim. In legal, well regulated prostitution, there is no victim.

Try telling that to the government. Bunch of beaurocratic, superfluous assholes.
Miodrag Superior
05-11-2007, 11:11
In la-di-da life perhaps but in reality, I very much doubt it. It's hard enough for a non-prostitute to gain a conviction for rape let alone a prostitute. Did we not just have a case where a prostitute was raped and the judge handed down a sentence of 'unpaid services' or somesuch.

That's where all these 'legalization makes it safer' arguments fail - society is simply not ready for it and all it will do is increase the amount of prostitutes and therefore violence against women in general.

You are right and that is exactly why, as I have been saying it all along, DECRIMINALISATION is NECESSARY, but legalisation would be detrimental.
Evil Porn Stars
05-11-2007, 12:20
To be a crime, there should be a victim. In legal, well regulated prostitution, there is no victim.

Unless the girl is forced to perform prostitution deeds.
Callisdrun
05-11-2007, 12:29
Unless the girl is forced to perform prostitution deeds.

That would be illegal anyway though. We're talking about legalizing prostitution, not slavery.
Miodrag Superior
05-11-2007, 16:02
No, we are talking about decriminalising withOUT enforcing any legalisation rules and standards.

Just not prosecute them, but also not tax them, not force them to have medical check ups, nothing...
Neo Bretonnia
05-11-2007, 17:02
I find it disturbing how often people list the ability to tax it as a pro. Are you guys really on the lookout for new ways to hand money over to governments that have shown time and time again they can't manage resources for squat?

But as for the topic at hand, I believe than any action between consenting adults ought not to be interfered with by the government. It's the same reason why sodomy laws are inapropriate. If you can't show me a victim, then how could there have been a crime?
Evil Porn Stars
05-11-2007, 18:29
I find it disturbing how often people list the ability to tax it as a pro. Are you guys really on the lookout for new ways to hand money over to governments that have shown time and time again they can't manage resources for squat?

But as for the topic at hand, I believe than any action between consenting adults ought not to be interfered with by the government. It's the same reason why sodomy laws are inapropriate. If you can't show me a victim, then how could there have been a crime?

Yes, sometimes you have to.

What about a paedophile that is abusing a child of 12 AND were the child actually likes the sex?

And even if we stay with adults only, what about SM games where the 'slave' is enjoying its role so much that it is killed. I don't think a 'master' will get away with 'he asked for it'...
Neo Bretonnia
05-11-2007, 20:13
Yes, sometimes you have to.

What about a paedophile that is abusing a child of 12 AND were the child actually likes the sex?

And even if we stay with adults only, what about SM games where the 'slave' is enjoying its role so much that it is killed. I don't think a 'master' will get away with 'he asked for it'...

I don't think your first example constitutes a victimless crime. Molesting a 12 year old is a crime whether the victim likes it or not, as they're considered unable to make that decision for themselves.

The second example is a bit vague IMHO. If the BDSM got carried away then clearly the dead body on the deck indicates the presence of a victim.

If you mean the submissive/slave actually WANTED the result to be his or her own demise then the example suddenly becomes massively complex and a good topic for discussion. It reminds me of a case in Europe not long ago in which a guy taped himself granting permission for another guy to kill him and eat him. Victimless crime? I suggest a case like that may involve psychological issues that may render the victim mentally incompetent to make such decisions. So it's either a crime in which the victim wasn't sane and was taken advantage of, or there was no crime, technically, because BOTH parties were insane.

I've heard it said that violations of traffic statutes are victimless crimes (in the absence of an accident) but then, I'd suggest that traffic laws are designed for revenue generation, and not justice.
Self-Sustain
05-11-2007, 20:42
Is that it should, in our society, be illegal until the populous determines it unjust. Then, based on the acts of the voters, it will be legalized. There are many rules, such as related to tax evasion, that could be argued to be without victim, but, due to prior legislation, ie. either the vote of the public, or the pen of the elected, constrict rights. The mutual consent rule is equally questionable in this situation, due to the fact that nothing in the law prevents mutual consent. It prevents the advertised sell of a certain product.

Obviously, a person diagnosed as bipolar, owning a ICBM, would not create a victim, until it was launched. Not exactly the greatest measurement, in my opinion. The sell of this product would also seem to be in need of restriction. The real question is whether the product should be controlled/restricted from selling on the open market. Obviously, to this point, the greater populous believes so.

Relief; Start an ad campaign, providing detailed benefits to end prohibition.

I am the asshole that voted against it in the poll, but not for ethical reasons, though I might have anyway. I just believe that it should be illegal until it isn't.
Entropic Creation
05-11-2007, 23:55
Yes, sometimes you have to.

What about a paedophile that is abusing a child of 12 AND were the child actually likes the sex?

And even if we stay with adults only, what about SM games where the 'slave' is enjoying its role so much that it is killed. I don't think a 'master' will get away with 'he asked for it'...

Children are not considered capable of consent, thus it is still rape.

In the case of a BDSM scene resulting in death, it is possibly a case of involuntary manslaughter (presuming the death was accidental). Such an accidental death can occur if the top is not sufficiently aware of what is happening to the bottom, but it is still the responsibility of the top to ensure the safety of the scene.