Prostitution

[Point Man]

Those things aren't illegal just because they're immoral. They're illegal because they HURT PEOPLE! There is no consent between both parties during a murder, rape, or robbery. There IS consent, however, between a prostitute and a customer. So why is it a crime? Because many people would consider it immoral? Well adultry is immoral too, why is it legal?

 

Victimless crimes shouldn't BE crimes. There's no victim. No harm was done.

Turning a woman into a commodity to be used for a man's pleasure and then discarded hurts the woman.

[TK-8252]

Turning a woman into a commodity to be used for a man's pleasure and then discarded hurts the woman.

 

So wait, are you saying that the government needs to stop people from hurting themselves? Because the person CHOOSES to be a prostitute. They CHOOSE to get themselves hurt.

 

Maybe next you'll say that smoking should be illegal, because it hurts the smoker??

[Point Man]

I am a strong supporter of personal responsibility for our choices. However, most prostitutes were not competent to make an informed decision when they "chose" to enter that line of work. Most were hooked on drugs or have a pimp who got them hooked and then forced them into prostitution. As much as you want to make this about "consensual" prostitution, you simply cannot remove the exploitation. It is what sustains the industry.

 

After my last post, I got to thinking that maybe we are taking the wrong approach to eliminating prostitution. Concentrating on going after the pimps and clients who keep the industry going seems to be the better approach.

[TK-8252]

I am a strong supporter of personal responsibility for our choices. However, most prostitutes were not competent to make an informed decision when they "chose" to enter that line of work. Most were hooked on drugs or have a pimp who got them hooked and then forced them into prostitution. As much as you want to make this about "consensual" prostitution, you simply cannot remove the exploitation. It is what sustains the industry.

 

And what does throwing women in jail and slapping them with a fine and a criminal record do to help them, huh? I see that you're all for looking out for the "victims" of abusive pimps.

 

Besides, if it's legal, there wouldn't BE the pimps. Because the prostitutes could work in a brothel rather than on a street corner where they could be abducted, raped, murdered, robbed, drugged, and so forth.

 

After my last post, I got to thinking that maybe we are taking the wrong approach to eliminating prostitution. Concentrating on going after the pimps and clients who keep the industry going seems to be the better approach.

 

Prostitution is the oldest industry on the planet, pal. The rest of the Western world is on its way towards legalizing it in places where it's not already legal.

[toms]

For those who support legalization of prostitution and say it's okay, let me ask this: would you want your daughter to be a prostitute?

 

Not really. i also wouldn't want her to be a page 3 model, or a porn star... but those appear to be legal professions. Wouldn't want her to be a dustman or a lawyer either. But in reality if she decided that she wanted to be a lawyer or a porn star I doubt there is much i could do about it. It isn't my decision after all.

 

If she DID become a prostitute I'd much rather it was legal and she didn't end up associating with criminals, being exploited by the police and unable to get any of the rights that other workers get.

 

Women being forced into the sex trade is a bad thing. It should be prevented as much as possible. But its much easier to do that if it's legalised. And its much easier to protect them if its legalised. Its much safer for them if its legalised.

 

One of the main problems prostitutes face is the hatred of their profession. the same people who say prostitution is wrong because it degrades women are the ones who project that degradation onto the women involved.

 

In a lot of ancient societies prostitution was legal, infact it was a respected profession. (think serenity )

its only since christian/victorian prudish values have been projected onto it that its become a self fulfilling degredation.

 

If all the politicians and people who spend all their time condemming it instead spent all their time talking about how it was a noble and skilled professin then it would become thought of as a noble and skilled profession and people in that profession would get treated with more respect.

 

(Geishas in japan were well respected. the mistress of the king of france had her own title, duties, appartment in the castle etc. Many cultures saw no problem with men visiting skilled prostitutes while married, infact they saw it as a way to strengthen the marriage. etc..)

[El Sitherino]

Personally, I dislike the concept of prostitution. But I have no issue with it's practice in culture. In all honestly, I don't see myself as someone who can honestly tell someone else what to do with their life. As long as they're responsible, let them do their own thing. I however will not take part in anything related to it, as I prefer to at least have some meaning and purpose to ****ing.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The point is this: if you say no, then it must be because you believe there is something wrong with it. If you say yes, I pray you never have daughters.

Wait, wait, wait -when did prostitution become gender-specific?

 

Just for your information, there are lots of male prostitutes out there. Not as numerous as women, but trust me, the number just keeps rising.

 

As for "legalizing it because you think it's right"/"because you want your [son or] daughter to be a prostitute": No. That's not how it works.

 

I want it legalized because people who have to sell their bodies have enough problems as they do. Most are drug addicts, prostitution has to be extremely bad for your self-esteem, and they run a very high risk of STDs/abuse/threats, etc. They don't need a criminal record on top of all that. They don't need to be afraid to go to the police when abused because they know they'll be punished for breaking the law.

 

Also, as was said, legalization would allow for screenings, etc.

 

So wait, are you saying that the government needs to stop people from hurting themselves?

Yes, I do. I realize many people these days don't think so, but yes, I'm one of those people who think it's worth it to have seat-belt laws and the like. I think it's more than pathetic to allow morons to submit themselves to danger just out of principle. "OK, so the car accident killed me, but you didn't get to baby-sit me and tell me what to do! Hah-hah!" Come on...[/slightly off-topic:o?]

 

Because the person CHOOSES to be a prostitute. They CHOOSE to get themselves hurt.

No, they don't. Ask any prostitute you encounter. 99,99% of them don't choose to become a prostitute. They have a choice in that no one forces them to, but they're forced to become a prostitute nonetheless as not becoming one would take away their source of money.

 

Just that you have free will to do something or not do it doesn't always mean you have an actual choice, you know.

 

Besides, if it's legal, there wouldn't BE the pimps. Because the prostitutes could work in a brothel rather than on a street corner where they could be abducted, raped, murdered, robbed, drugged, and so forth.

Exactly. You could have brothels watched over by police/inspectors instead of shady lawless back alleys where you can do anything to the call-girl/"call-boy":p as he/she will end up fined/jailed if he/she dares speak up on it.

 

Oh my, what's this? You mean there are places coincidentally named "Free Clinic" that offer free screenings?

Score one for the welfare system in general. Give the "call-people" some money so that they can get an education and get off of the streets. It's not going to stop prostitution (go to Oslo and count the prostitutes), but I think it might just save a few?

[TK-8252]

Yes, I do. I realize many people these days don't think so, but yes, I'm one of those people who think it's worth it to have seat-belt laws and the like. I think it's more than pathetic to allow morons to submit themselves to danger just out of principle. "OK, so the car accident killed me, but you didn't get to baby-sit me and tell me what to do! Hah-hah!" Come on...[/slightly off-topic:o?]

 

Happiness is more important than longevity. If driving without a seat belt, riding a motorcycle without a helmet, smoking, etc. are the kinds of things that give you a thrill, I say more power to you. And if you die, at least you died doing what you wanted to. That's just my take on life.

 

Plus, I'm not too big a fan of authoritarian rule.

 

No, they don't. Ask any prostitute you encounter. 99,99% of them don't choose to become a prostitute. They have a choice in that no one forces them to, but they're forced to become a prostitute nonetheless as not becoming one would take away their source of money.

 

Just that you have free will to do something or not do it doesn't always mean you have an actual choice, you know.

 

There's always Burger King.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

How 'bout getting back on topic? How'd we get from prostitutes to seat belts anyhow (not that there isn't already a seat-belt thread buried someplace anyhow:p)?

 

There's always Burger King.

Until they have all the people they need, yes. After that, you're screwed.

[TK-8252]

Until they have all the people they need, yes. After that, you're screwed.

 

And then that's why there's Wendy's, Taco Bell, Wal-Mart...

 

Chances are there's SOME entry-level place that's hiring. In my town all the fast food places have "now hiring" signs out most of the time.

 

Of course, you wouldn't be making as much money working fast food as you would a prostitute. Those who are on drugs can't support their addiction on miniumum wage. There is where the problem is.

[toms]

I've never got how porn movies are legal (paying someone to have sex on film) but prostitution isn't (paying someone to have sex, but no camera).

 

Surely if all the johns just filmed their encounters and put them on the web then they'd be legal?

 

I'd be interested if anyone has any more info about any differences in the states that allow prostitution and the states that don't.

My natural reaction would be that prostitutes would be much better off if their trade was legal.. but maybe the unclean, desperate, drug addicted ones just have to lower their prices and you end up with a two-tere system?

 

If a woman offered me £100 for sex then i'd consider it. (enough for a new DS-lite). I don't see why a woman wouldn't do the same. No one should be forced into it... and they definately shouldn't be exploited... but i can see legitimate reasons why certain people might be happy to pursue it as a profession.

[edlib]

Well, there have been. The most celebrated cases over the last couple of decades (Heidi Fliess, the Mayflower Madam, the Happy Hooker... all the ones that people have written books or made movies about, anyway) have all, as far as I can tell, been completely voluntary (as well as from all appearances, very profitable for the women in question.)

 

In Boston there are pages and pages of the Yellow Pages of the phone book, (as well as entire sections of the "Alternative" newspapers around here, like the Phoenix) devoted to the very euphemistic "escort services." I think if you called any one of these services you would just as often encounter clean, middle class suburban girls willingly supplementing their income on their way through college, rather than a strung-out crack addict forced to work by a violent pimp.

 

And I don't believe there has ever been any suggestion that the girls working the Nevada brothels are being forced or coerced in any way.

 

So the suggestion that nobody has ever gone into the field willingly doesn't exactly ring true.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Of course, you wouldn't be making as much money working fast food as you would a prostitute. Those who are on drugs can't support their addiction on miniumum wage. There is where the problem is.

Score another one for higher minimum wages?

 

So the suggestion that nobody has ever gone into the field willingly doesn't exactly ring true.

Involuntarily (sp.?)? No. Unwillingly? Definetly, in many cases.

 

Just that you do sometihng voluntarily doesn't mean that you do it willingly. It's like begging on the street: You technically have a choice not to do it, but would you rather not do it? I guess so.

 

Just nit-picking your choice of words a bit.

 

I've never got how porn movies are legal (paying someone to have sex on film) but prostitution isn't (paying someone to have sex, but no camera).

 

Surely if all the johns just filmed their encounters and put them on the web then they'd be legal?

It's slightly off-topic, but it's funny how the media works the same way.

 

If I followed a girl 24/7 with a video camera, without the intent to publish the footage, that'd be "stalking" and illegal.

If I followed a girl 24/7 with a video camera for The Sun to publish for thousands of perverted people, that'd be "journalism" and legal.

 

Loop-holes are cute:p.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

Score another one for higher minimum wages?

I can see one flaw with that... If wages were to go up, so would the prices of goods. As the populace becomes more affluent, industry and retail take advantage of the fact. Capitalism rocks.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

Involuntarily (sp.?)? No. Unwillingly? Definetly, in many cases.

 

Just that you do sometihng voluntarily doesn't mean that you do it willingly. It's like begging on the street: You technically have a choice not to do it, but would you rather not do it? I guess so.

 

Just nit-picking your choice of words a bit.

Actually they mean basically the same thing. "Volition" is indeed defined as the "Will". But since I know what you're trying to say, I'll ignore that and move on:

 

You say that prostitutes do their job unwillingly like it's a bad thing. And maybe it is. But it's not a bad thing confined to prostitution.

 

I, for instance, have never enjoyed any office job I've had. I've never wished to go into work in the morning. I have gone, because I have elected to do something that I don't necessarily enjoy, for money. Yes, sometimes I have enjoyed my work. But mostly, no.

 

And since the number of people who really enjoy their job all the time is tiny, I must make this declaration:

 

Almost ALL of us are "prostitutes" at some point during our lives. We all prostitute our minds and our time and our abilities, for ready cash. We are all tarred with the same brush. Just because we don't all prostitute our bodies for sexual purposes, doesn't mean we aren't just as mercenary as those who do.

 

Personally I think that sex has too much mystique surrounding it. It's a simple biological process, and spitting on a prostitute for selling their sexual favours is kind of like spitting on a chef for selling their culinary skill. Doesn't compute.

 

Originally Posted by toms:

 

If a woman offered me £100 for sex then i'd consider it. (enough for a new DS-lite). I don't see why a woman wouldn't do the same.

This is hands down the most interesting point of the debate, for me. I've never asked myself the question: Would I accept money for sex from a member of the opposite sex?

 

Actually, I'd seriously consider it, as Toms said. As a straight man, I wouldn't have the social stigma attached to prostitution that a woman or a rent boy would have. A lot of guys would just be jealous of me, frankly. They wouldn't look down on me.

 

So I think this highlights the injustice of social attitudes towards female and homosexual prostitutes.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Except, of course, from a few things:

1. Most office workers do not run a very real and continous risk of getting raped, robbed, beat up, and/or killed.
   
2. Most office jobs do not require you to let someone else have sexual intercourse with you (and I believe finding yourself resorting to letting someone have sex with you is a tad bit more deregatory and humiliating than sitting at an office desk).
   
3. Most office jobs pay a bit more than prostitution.

I recognize that your work place might be an exception, particularly when it comes to number three. But that's my two cents.

 

This is hands down the most interesting point of the debate, for me. I've never asked myself the question: Would I accept money for sex from a member of the opposite sex?

 

Actually, I'd seriously consider it, as Toms said. As a straight man, I wouldn't have the social stigma attached to prostitution that a woman or a rent boy would have. A lot of guys would just be jealous of me, frankly. They wouldn't look down on me.

 

So I think this highlights the injustice of social attitudes towards female and homosexual prostitutes.

I'm a bit unnerved you feel that way(nah, just kidding;)).

 

The difference, of course, would be that you were doing it just for money you don't really need (you've got your probably safe office-job), while a "real" prostitute does it to get him/herself bare necessities. I believe the impact on the prostitute's self-esteem would be affected a bit more, not to mention that he/she cannot possibly feel too good about letting someone do that to her after it's done.

 

I feel, to make a very rough analogy, that this is like comparing the consentual "role-playing bondage" of two lovers to actual rape.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

The right to have sex... That's a new one:).

 

Wait a minute, doesn't the prostitute CHOOSE their pimp? Doesn't the prostitute CHOOSE to take the drugs? And enslaving girls isn't prostitution, it's called sex slavery. Entirely a different matter.

We're going around in circles here, aren't we (on the whole "choosing" deal)?

[toms]

Actually I think that a reasonable number of women have worked as escorts to get themselves through college, or to get extra money for shopping. Even a number of wives who's husband worked all day have been known to moonlight as escorts for extra money.

 

In japan there was a big "problem" about 10 years back when almost all the schoolgirls got into "compensated dating". They realised that japanese men would take them to dinner and pay lots of money to sleep with them... and that they oculd then afford to get all the latest phones and fashions. As i understand it it became very widespread until the government cracked down on it.

These girls didnt NEED the money. They just rationalised that they had a skill/commodity that men would be willing to pay for, and that it would be an easy way to get extra cash.

 

Of course there are ALSO people who are forced into through sex slavery, desperation, drug habits and the like... but that doesn't take away from the fact that a lot of people enter it willingly and have a good idea of the benefits they will recieve.

 

These people seem to be on the whole well educated, not desperate, and able to make just as rational a choice as I can. And I still maintain that if a women offered £100 for an hour of sex (maybe including buying you dinner and drinks first) then the majority of men would seriously consider it.

 

AL makes a fair comparison with other jobs. Very few people enjoy their jobs. Most work and use their skills purely for the money and the benefits it will provide. If someone decides that they will use their looks and body to achieve those benefits (usually with a lot less time and boredom than working in an office) then who is to say they shouldn't.

 

I definately think they should crack down on anyone FORCED into the sex trade. But it would be a lot easier to identify the forced ones from the voluntary ones if the whole industry was legal and open to supervision and regulation.

That way if a prostitute got beaten or raped then she would be free to go to the police, unlike now.

 

I seem to remember reading once that 1/10 women at university had been involved in the sex trade in some way... not sure if that's true.. but it was something like that.

 

I can see why it would be though. Work as an escort for a few years, get money for fees and shopping without too much time away from study. Get a good degree and a career. vs. work in macdonalds or as a cleaner or binman all your life. I know what i'd choose.

 

( http://www.bostonmagazine.com/articles/university_underground_1 )

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

Most office workers do not run a very real and continous risk of getting raped, robbed, beat up, and/or killed.

That would rather depend on what sort of office job they do, (Public facing jobs make you more likely to be attacked by an irate client.) and what sort of area they do it in. (Bad parts of town are dangerous for anyone in them, be they prostitute or office bod.) I'm sure you could find some prostitutes who were less at risk of violence than some especially high-risk office workers.

 

But frankly, I'm not sure that this point of yours was relevant to my argument in any way... So we'll move on to the next one.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

Most office jobs do not require you to let someone else have sexual intercourse with you (and I believe finding yourself resorting to letting someone have sex with you is a tad bit more deregatory and humiliating than sitting at an office desk).

Perhaps you have more hangups about sex than most prostitutes, then. Why would having sex with someone be humiliating? Prostitutes clearly don't find it sufficiently humiliating to prevent them from engaging in their chosen profession.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

Most office jobs pay a bit more than prostitution.

Frankly a nonsense. A lot of office jobs pay very badly indeed, and how many high-class hooker cases have we seen on the news where some girl who isn't even very attractive has been raking the cash in? Loads, that's how many. Unless you can present a scale of average earnings for all office workers vs. all prostitutes, there's no way you can prove that assertion.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

I recognize that your work place might be an exception, particularly when it comes to number three.

I get paid quite well for prostituting my mind in an office, thank you. Not that it's any of your business.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

The difference, of course, would be that you were doing it just for money you don't really need (you've got your probably safe office-job), while a "real" prostitute does it to get him/herself bare necessities.

Again, a nonsense, as Toms has said. You seem to have come to the conclusion that all prostitutes are poverty stricken even with their ill-gotten gains, without any evidence to support such an assumption. There are high paid prostitutes both male and female, and low-paid prostitutes. There are high paid office workers both male and female, and low-paid office workers.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

I believe the impact on the prostitute's self-esteem would be affected a bit more, not to mention that he/she cannot possibly feel too good about letting someone do that to her after it's done.

Once again, I think you're projecting your own... somewhat Victorian attitudes towards sex, onto prostitutes. I think it far more likely myself that the type of person who goes into prostitution would have LESS hangups about sex than the average Joe. Therefore the effect of sex with multiple partners would be less negative for them than it would for say... a more conservative soul.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

I feel, to make a very rough analogy, that this is like comparing the consentual "role-playing bondage" of two lovers to actual rape.

Rape is sex without consent. Prostitution is money for sex, WITH consent.

Office work is money for mental degradation and stress, WITH consent. They key similarity is consent. My analogy holds, but I personally don't think that your analogy does.

 

In the final analysis, I think you may have misunderstood the thrust of my arguments. By comparing normal work (not just office work) and the mental and physical prostitution that it entails, to the sexual prostitution of the lady/chap of the night, I was highlighting the negative aspects of ALL our working lives, in that we are all mercenaries by choice. We choose our jobs, we choose our lives. Everyone chooses. We may not always enjoy our choices, we may not always even survive our choices. But they're still our choices. We own them, they are our responsibility. By prostituting my mind and skill, I am no better nor any worse than an individual who prostitutes her body. And so I do not look down on them, nor do I feel inclined to patronise them by wishing to "save them from themselves".

 

And no, we're not going in circles. Prostitutes DO choose, they choose as much as anybody chooses when it comes to work for pay. What job do YOU do? Do you always enjoy it? Do you always believe in it? If so, you're one of the lucky few... which also contains some prostitutes. So sayeth the law of averages.

 

I think it's time we stopped hypocritically looking down on prostitutes, when we ourselves are just as mercenary and moneygrubbing, just as slavishly devoted to society's demand for work, cash, work and cash, and things we don't need. How much does a man need? Not much. Think about it seriously. Do you need your job? Could you survive without it? How strong is your pride? Is your pride strong enough to stop you from doing your job for the cash and comfort it gives? No? There you go then.

 

Your attitude is also part of the problem, in my opinion. No offence. But the way you are separating prostitutes from the rest of us through your belief that they need "special protection" under the law, is- though less harmful- as equally hypocritical as the belief of the religious zealot who demands that hookers be stoned to death, when he himself goes into an office every day, to do a job he doesn't enjoy nor believe in, for cold hard cash.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Perhaps you have more hangups about sex than most prostitutes, then. Why would having sex with someone be humiliating? Prostitutes clearly don't find it sufficiently humiliating to prevent them from engaging in their chosen profession.

By that reasoning, begging on the street's not humiliating either. Lots of people do that.

 

Let's see. Why would it be humiliating to let someone have sex with you when you don't know the person, don't like him, and find yourself doing it to fund your drug addiction. Look at pornography, and how many of the people who do that who regret it afterwards. And that's having someone take a photo of it. I imagine letting someone have sex with you might be a bit more powerful.

 

You seem to have come to the conclusion that all prostitutes are poverty stricken even with their ill-gotten gains, without any evidence to support such an assumption.

I never said they all were. Many or most are, however. Get down to Call-Girl Street and do a show-of-hands of how many are drug abusers, then get back to me.

 

Once again, I think you're projecting your own... somewhat Victorian attitudes towards sex, onto prostitutes.

Ad hominem? I could just as easily say you're projecting your apparently liberal view of sex, could I no:)t?

 

As for my "Victorian views on prostitution", I'm not the only one:

In 1949, the United Nations adopted a convention stating that prostitution is incompatible with human dignity, requiring all signing parties to punish pimps and brothel owners and operators and to abolish all special treatment or registration of prostitutes. The convention was ratified by 89 countries but Germany, the Netherlands and the United States did not participate.

-Wiki.

 

Rape is sex without consent. Prostitution is money for sex, WITH consent.

Office work is money for mental degradation and stress, WITH consent. They key similarity is consent. My analogy holds, but I personally don't think that your analogy does.

And I think it just might. And I'm not sure if you understood it correctly, what with you dragging in office work and comparing rape to prostitution.

 

What I'm pointing out is the mentality of prostitution. That the mentality of you doing it just for fun or for some quick money isn't the same as someone doing it for drug money or because they don't feel they have any other choice. You have to understand that there's a big difference between the two.

 

Let's try the begging analogy again. If I was to draw myself a "Work Needed"-sign and stand at a freeway intersection with it, would I know what homeless people who do it feel like? Nope, not one little bit. Sure, some people don't mind begging (most of which have been doing it for a while). But I'd bet my left ear it's not too much fun.

 

Prostitution has been known to cause PTSD, depression, mood and dissociative disorders.

 

In the final analysis, I think you may have misunderstood the thrust of my arguments. By comparing normal work (not just office work) and the mental and physical prostitution that it entails, to the sexual prostitution of the lady/chap of the night, I was highlighting the negative aspects of ALL our working lives, in that we are all mercenaries by choice.

I did not miss that. However, the world's gray, not black-and-white. It's not like "your job either rocks or sucks". You sound like a neo-con saying it's OK for Bush to lie about Iraq because "all politicians lie".

 

We choose our jobs, we choose our lives. Everyone chooses. We may not always enjoy our choices, we may not always even survive our choices. But they're still our choices. We own them, they are our responsibility. By prostituting my mind and skill, I am no better nor any worse than an individual who prostitutes her body.

Again, black-and-white thinking.

And no, we're not going in circles. Prostitutes DO choose, they choose as much as anybody chooses when it comes to work for pay. What job do YOU do? Do you always enjoy it? Do you always believe in it? If so, you're one of the lucky few... which also contains some prostitutes. So sayeth the law of averages.

The problem here is that I might just have a tad bit more of a choice than a prostitue. And feel slightly less indignified by what I do.

 

And yes, some prostitutes like what they do. I'm talking about most of them, though. Most of them really, really want to get out of their ****ty trade and get a decent job.

 

Your attitude is also part of the problem, in my opinion. No offence. But the way you are separating prostitutes from the rest of us through your belief that they need "special protection" under the law, is- though less harmful- as equally hypocritical as the belief of the religious zealot who demands that hookers be stoned to death, when he himself goes into an office every day, to do a job he doesn't enjoy nor believe in, for cold hard cash.

Well, as I said, yes, I believe they need special protection. As I said, they are in a high-risk environment that, as I said, office workers do not face.

 

You don't catch STDs or risk getting raped by sitting at a computer all day (or can you point me to any workstation rapes?). You don't risk getting beat up nearly as much, even if you're in customer service or some similar trade. Prostitution is far more dangerous.

 

It's like miners being at higher risk, or fire-fighters being at higher risk. Not to say having sex for money is like working in a deadly mining shaft in China or charging a burning building(), but it's not like sitting safely in front of your computer, either.

 

Do I have to look down at people to want them to be safer? I'm not too sure of that.

 

Resources:

PRE.

Wikipaedia.

[Spider AL]

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

By that reasoning, begging on the street's not humiliating either. Lots of people do that.

Lots of people beg on the street, and how many news reports popped up in the early 'noughties about those "fake" beggers who beg on the street claiming abject poverty, but go home of an evening to their flat, and spend their ill-gotten gains on a couple of grams or some other unnecessary convenience. It isn't so humiliating for THOSE people to beg when they don't HAVE TO, that they stop doing it out of the sheer humiliation.

 

Some people find things very humiliating, others less so. Just because YOU would find some activity incredibly embarassing, doesn't mean others would find it so.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

Let's see. Why would it be humiliating to let someone have sex with you when you don't know the person, don't like him, and find yourself doing it to fund your drug addiction. Look at pornography, and how many of the people who do that who regret it afterwards. And that's having someone take a photo of it. I imagine letting someone have sex with you might be a bit more powerful.

That doesn't really make any sense, Eagle. Many people who pose for pornographic material often go on to make a regular career out of it. Strippers make careers out of what they do. It isn't uniformly a case of "Wow, I've done it once and was really humiliated so I never did it again". No, they carry on doing it for the money. Some do, some don't. Generalisations do not apply.

 

These people don't find what they do sufficiently humiliating to stop them from doing it. Same with prostitutes. Same with office workers.

 

And once again, you are making the generalisation regarding drug addiction. Not all prostitutes are drug addicts, just as not all muggers are drug addicts, just as not all hobos are alcoholics; frankly, call me a conservative, but I have little sympathy for people who try to deflect the consequences of their actions by blaming their drug addiction for the fact that they chose to engage in whatever negative behaviour they engaged in.

 

If I were to believe for a single moment that addiction to a drug completely takes away a person's will and capacity for choice, I would have to excuse the actions of every mugger who has smashed an old lady in the face for her pension money, just to finance his crack addiction.

 

No, I have little sympathy for people who abrogate all responsibility just because they don't want to go into rehab. I've known addicts who gave up, and addicts who haven't. You make a choice, you own it.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

I never said they all were.

But you implied it fairly regularly, for instance, you typed:

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

while a "real" prostitute does it to get him/herself bare necessities.

And this is simply not the case. Gross generalisation.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

Ad hominem? I could just as easily say you're projecting your apparently liberal view of sex, could I not?

You could do, but since I don't really have "liberal" views on anything, it wouldn't be true. I never said that I feel that sex is always a completely throwaway, unimportant act, I merely recognise that there are others who feel that it IS. And those people are more likely to be promiscuous, and probably more likely to make a success of any "business" in which they sell their sexual favours.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

As for my "Victorian views on prostitution", I'm not the only one:

Quote:

In 1949, the United Nations adopted a convention stating that prostitution is incompatible with human dignity, requiring all signing parties to punish pimps and brothel owners and operators and to abolish all special treatment or registration of prostitutes. The convention was ratified by 89 countries but Germany, the Netherlands and the United States did not participate.

-Wiki.

Attempting to prove that your views aren't old fashioned by dragging out a UN convention from the 1940s would seem to me to be a little... well, a little like shooting yourself in the foot.

 

Interesting to note that the good ol' US was foiling the UN even way back then though, isn't it!

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

And I think it just might. And I'm not sure if you understood it correctly, what with you dragging in office work and comparing rape to prostitution.

Oh, I understood it fine, and you're the one who started comparing things to rape, not I.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

What I'm pointing out is the mentality of prostitution. That the mentality of you doing it just for fun or for some quick money isn't the same as someone doing it for drug money or because they don't feel they have any other choice. You have to understand that there's a big difference between the two.

And you have to understand that despite the big difference between the two types of prostitute you describe, they're all prostitutes. And "feeling" as though you don't have any other choice, doesn't mean that you don't have any other choice.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

Let's try the begging analogy again. If I was to draw myself a "Work Needed"-sign and stand at a freeway intersection with it, would I know what homeless people who do it feel like?

What? sorry, but you're not making sense. If you want to experience begging, as in begging for money/change, first you sit in the middle of a town where people will pass by you, while you attempt to solicit cash from them. Then you'll know what begging feels like. In order to know what homeless people feel like, you'd have to give up your accommodation and live on the street / homeless shelters for a while. Two different things.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

Sure, some people don't mind begging (most of which have been doing it for a while). But I'd bet my left ear it's not too much fun.

Once again, "not too much fun" could apply to a lot of legal professions.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

Prostitution has been known to cause PTSD, depression, mood and dissociative disorders.

As far as I'm aware, so has serving in the armed forces. There are lots of stressful jobs. What's your point? That people should be prevented from doing stressful jobs? Pfft.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

I did not miss that. However, the world's gray, not black-and-white. It's not like "your job either rocks or sucks". You sound like a neo-con saying it's OK for Bush to lie about Iraq because "all politicians lie".

In a philosophical sense most jobs DO suck, because they involve to some degree the squashing of the individual's self respect, the compromising of any innate artistic abilities they might have and the slavish devotion to the moneyz. Think about it for a moment. To make a career out of something, people tend to have to compromise their values: Policemen can't arrest the criminals they want to arrest. Artists must compromise their art to appeal to a broader audience. The same goes for filmmakers. Musicians must trim their magnum opus down to 3:05 to get into the charts. All because of the bizarre cash-dependant society that we live in.

 

What I was REALLY getting at, was the idea that most of us working sods prostitute something about ourselves for money. This is why I don't look down on hookers, nor do I place them on a pedestal as some sort of hard-done-by holy martyr collective.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

The problem here is that I might just have a tad bit more of a choice than a prostitue. And feel slightly less indignified by what I do.

Once again, you you you. People find different things to be "undignified". I'm sure there are some prostitutes who find what they do to be much less humiliating than say... working in a call centre.

 

And let's just take an example of a prostitute who hates his or her work SO much that they simply can't stand to do it any more.

 

Well, do something else. Anything else. Can't do anything else? No skills? Take a job as a toilet cleaner if you have to. Get some training if you want a better job. People have done it before. Addicted to a drug? Get some help. Give it up. People have done it before. Violent pimp? Run away. Report to police.

 

Violent pimp has you chained up in a closet and will kill you rather than let you run away? Ah. Now you're not merely a prostitute, but a sex-slave. That's different.

 

My point: If you're not embroiled in sex-slavery, you have legal avenues of escape. IF YOU REALLY WANT TO ESCAPE.

 

What one man can do, another can do. I'm going to kill the bear, etc. etc.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

And yes, some prostitutes like what they do. I'm talking about most of them, though. Most of them really, really want to get out of their ****ty trade and get a decent job.

You'll have to cite some evidence for that assertion. And you reveal once again your personal feelings, with the emotive words "****ty trade" and "decent job". You clearly have preconceived notions regarding prostitution that have little to do with overall reality.

 

And who do you know who DOESN'T want a better job than the one they currently have?

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

Well, as I said, yes, I believe they need special protection. As I said, they are in a high-risk environment that, as I said, office workers do not face.

Again you make sweeping generalisations. Some office workers do face such risks, depending on their jobs. But once again, both they and prostitutes CHOOSE to be in that environment.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

You don't catch STDs or risk getting raped by sitting at a computer all day

But you do when walking home in a bad neighborhood at a late hour. If your job so demands it.

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

Prostitution is far more dangerous.

Again and again you generalise, SOME prostitutes are in fact in more danger than MOST other legal workers. But some, are not. And you accuse ME of black and white thinking? Ha!

 

Originally Posted by Dagobahn Eagle:

 

Do I have to look down at people to want them to be safer? I'm not too sure of that.

Let me explain my position on this in a different way. The issues are: Should prostitution be legalised, and for what reason?

 

My answers would be: Yes, it should be legalised... But for the reason that legalisation would cut down peripheral crime associated with prostitution, making sure that the money would not fund crime, making sure that the money the industry produces goes immediately back into our national financial system, and contributes something to our nation. This would improve the quality of life for all.

 

I don't want to legalise prostitution to "protect prostitutes", though that may be a tertiary effect of legalisation. It's the wrong reason to legalise, because once you start trying to protect people from their own choices, you take away their responsibility, their will, their freedom of choice, in short, you reduce them to moral and psychological babies. That's why I say you're "looking down on them". Prostitutes (as opposed to sex-slaves,) are adults who can make choices for themselves.

 

If you go to a bad part of town, get hooked on a narcotic and associate with violent people on a daily basis, you chose to be there. Regardless of what job you do in that place, you chose to be there.

 

That is why when people say things like "the war may be unjust, but support the troops anyway as they're only following orders", I get a headache. Because those soldiers knew even before they joined the army that they might end up fighting an unjust war. Our modern media and contemporary cinema makes sure of this.

 

By joining the army, they chose to be pawns that might be used for dark purposes. And every day, they choose to follow orders and remain in the forces. So they bear responsibility for their actions. End of story.

[toms]

People don't like taking risks to change their life. They would rather stay in a sucky job they hate than take the risk to try and change it. People are just weird. They also tend to drift where life takes them... so if they are poor and end up becoming a toilet cleaner they will likely stay a toilet cleaner, whether they like it or not. If they end up becoming a prostitute they will likely stay a prostitute...even if thy could become a toilet cleaner.

 

People also have wildly different tolerances and preferences. You might find some people who would rather spend 50 hours a week cleaning toilets than accept $1million from robert redford for 1 hr of sex. Or you might find people who'd rather have sex for money than spend even one hour with their head over a dirty toilet bowl.

 

You definatly find a surprising number of women who are willing to work as escorts rather than slave away in a bargain bucket job.

 

You could argue that a lot of these girls on the arms of footballers are basically acting as prostitutes.. selling their bodies for the recognition and gifts that they can recieve. the majority of them aren't poor, or from poor families and could easily have got an office job, or a job working as a sales clerk if they wanted.

 

I think that you will find that there is a vast majority of "unseen" members of the sex trade. The ones that aren't on street corners every night, but in college, or at home with the kids.. but just work as escorts or models for a bit of extra cash to fund their lifestyle or tuition.

 

In europe at least there is probably also a vast majority of unseen sex slaves... something that should definately be stamped out.

 

Its daft to think that all these groups of women (and in some cases men) have the same motivations. And probably no single legislation would adequately cover and help all three groups (slaves, hookers, casual sex trade). However I still think almost all would benefit in at least some way by legalisation.. and the only ones that would suffer would be the pimps and gansters trying to cream off all the profit.