Prostitution

[Captain Obvious]

Pot legalization is all the rage lately, but what about prostitution?

Why is it still illegal?

If I, a consenting adult were willing to pay someone, another consenting adult for sex, why is this illegal?

Like pot, it happens daily everywhere. Enforcement is minimally sporadic at best, there are better uses of our law enforcement resources. No?

Legalizing it would bring tax revenues (in theory), some regulation and protection for both the client and the prostitute. Maybe?

Discuss

[Common]

Ive been for legalizing prostitution a long time. No one will ever be successful in stopping prostitution and legalizing it has nothing but benefits from my perspective.

Licensing Prostitutes and forcing medical checks for communicable diseases for starters. It provides a much safer environment for Prostitutes and Johns alike.

Its worked in Vegas and it would save tons of tax money in enforcement and arrests.

[The Xl]

It should certainly be legal.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Another victimless-crime. 'Nuff said.

[The Wash]

People ought to have the right to do with their body whatever they want as long as they don't harm someone else.

[Common]

People ought to have the right to do with their body whatever they want as long as they don't harm someone else.

Thats the point prostitutes with communicable diseases known to them or not do harm. Aids at one time was a certain death sentence. Al Capone died of syph.
So the communicable disease thing isnt new, syphyllis killed more via prostitution than aids id bet before penicillin.

Legalizing prostitution makes sense I guess the very religious would be against it. Like anything else it wouldnt work because each state has its own attitude toward issues. I dont think legalizing prostitution would go over well in the bible belt.

[Agravan]

My views on this are based on religion and my concept of morality. That said, if that is what suits you, then go for it. Make it legal and enforce the rules.

[Agravan]

Thats the point prostitutes with communicable diseases known to them or not do harm. Aids at one time was a certain death sentence. Al Capone died of syph.
So the communicable disease thing isnt new, syphyllis killed more via prostitution than aids id bet before penicillin.

Legalizing prostitution makes sense I guess the very religious would be against it. Like anything else it wouldnt work because each state has its own attitude toward issues. I dont think legalizing prostitution would go over well in the bible belt.

Each state should do what it feels is best. As with Gay Marriage.

[IMPress Polly]

Alright, I'll be the first female to contribute to this topic. Why not?

I've been a prostitute before back in my college days and I'm definitely opposed to a general legalization of the industry, and more especially to the idea of legalizing the purchase of sex. I find the arguments presented here for legalization to be very simplistic, willfully naive, and self-serving. (After all, you guys are the ones who stand to benefit from the industry, as you're infinitely more likely to be customers thereof than workers therein.) Let me briefly run through the three main arguments I always see people advance in defense of legalization:

Argument 1: Prostitution is voluntary. Shouldn't women (or men) be allowed to do as they please with their bodies?

No it's not always voluntary. Human trafficking and sex slavery constitute a large proportion of the industry. In as far as people do volunteer to work as prostitutes though (and personally I did), anyone analyzing this objectively must still confront the reality that consent is not simply a "yes or no, did you or did you not sign on for this" proposition, but rather a multi-layered, complex thing. For example, one study out of the Philippines found that just 2% of prostitutes enjoyed the work they did. That's not a typo. 2%. 1 out of 50. So why do people volunteer then if it's hard work that people don't enjoy doing? The same study found that 34% explained their choice of work as necessary to support parents, while another 28% said it was necessary to support husbands or boyfriends, and another 8% said it was necessary to support siblings. You see, there's a difference between what you might do of necessity and what you actually want to do with your life. Poverty, as you can see here, and as other studies on the subject also show, is one of the key drivers of the industry. What kind of industry benefits from poverty and economic downturns: a benign one or an exploitative one? The answer is self-evident.

Yes yes, I know you're thinking "but it pays a lot doesn't it? How can it be exploitative?" Very simplistic thinking. You see, in the real world, not all exploitation is economic. There is also such a thing as social exploitation. It's more subjective, but equally real. For example, most prostitutes in this country (and I would assume elsewhere) are either drug dependents or supporting at least one addict. They join the business because they believe it's the only one they're qualified for that can pay for the addiction(s) in question. Is that not exploitation? Would addicts not be better served by a redress of their addiction rather than by a feeding thereof?

Another point on social exploitation is that the work itself is simply degrading and psychologically damaging. Very much so. The first time I ever had sex as a prostitute, I spent an hour crying in the shower afterward. I got used to it though because I didn't know any better. I, like most prostitutes, had rape as my first sexual experiences and hence associated abusive treatment with sex very naturally. I seriously thought that being beaten was a sign of love. That's the kind of psychological condition the industry depends on for its supply of workers. Eventually I just stopped feeling anything at all. I became just like a robot, just going through the motions commanded of me. There was nothing liberating or empowering about it. On top of that, I didn't even get to keep most of the money I earned. I got out before I could afford to.

Argument 2: Yes, but wouldn't the industry's natural abuses be eradicated, or at least mitigated, by a regulated legalization?

No they wouldn't. The main effect of legalizing the purchase of sex everywhere it has been done has been to dramatically increase the demand for commercial sex. The level of demand rises so much with legalization, in fact, that it easily outstrips the supply of licensed prostitutes, and even of domestic ones in general. As a result, human trafficking and sex slavery increase with legalization. If you want some facts and stats on that (as well as on just how glorious it is to be a (theoretically) paid sex goddess), you can find a bunch of them in this article (http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/legalized_prostitution_a_failed_experiment.html). (I don't agree with the article's Christian perspective as an atheist obviously, but it's core points are spot on and its factoids verifiable.) Legalization simply increases the pressure on women to join the sex industry and turns more women into slaves.

Argument 3: But don't you just get a sense of inevitability about this? Isn't liberalization just the natural course of history?

Nope. Social egalitarianism is the general trajectory of civilization. For most of human history, prostitution has been legal and unregulated. The trend over time, particularly in the more gender-equal countries, has been toward increasing degrees of regulation and ultimately the criminalization of purchasing sex altogether. In an overall sense, the industry isn't getting more legal.

In summation, there is simply no case for legalization.

[The Xl]

Alright, I'll be the first female to contribute to this topic. Why not?

I've been a prostitute before back in my college days and I'm definitely opposed to a general legalization of the industry, and more especially to the idea of legalizing the purchase of sex. I find the arguments presented here for legalization to be very simplistic, willfully naive, and self-serving. (After all, you guys are the ones who stand to benefit from the industry, as you're infinitely more likely to be customers thereof than workers therein.) Let me briefly run through the three main arguments I always see people advance in defense of legalization:

Argument 1: Prostitution is voluntary. Shouldn't women (or men) be allowed to do as they please with their bodies?

No it's not always voluntary. Human trafficking and sex slavery constitute a large proportion of the industry. In as far as people do volunteer to work as prostitutes though (and personally I did), anyone analyzing this objectively must still confront the reality that consent is not simply a "yes or no, did you or did you not sign on for this" proposition, but rather a multi-layered, complex thing. For example, one study out of the Philippines found that just 2% of prostitutes enjoyed the work they did. That's not a typo. 2%. 1 out of 50. So why do people volunteer then if it's hard work that people don't enjoy doing? The same study found that 34% explained their choice of work as necessary to support parents, while another 28% said it was necessary to support husbands or boyfriends, and another 8% said it was necessary to support siblings. You see, there's a difference between what you might do of necessity and what you actually want to do with your life. Poverty, as you can see here, and as other studies on the subject also show, is one of the key drivers of the industry. What kind of industry benefits from poverty and economic downturns: a benign one or an exploitative one? The answer is self-evident.

Yes yes, I know you're thinking "but it pays a lot doesn't it? How can it be exploitative?" Very simplistic thinking. You see, in the real world, not all exploitation is economic. There is also such a thing as social exploitation. It's more subjective, but equally real. For example, most prostitutes in this country (and I would assume elsewhere) are either drug dependents or supporting at least one addict. They join the business because they believe it's the only one they're qualified for that can pay for the addiction(s) in question. Is that not exploitation? Would addicts not be better served by a redress of their addiction rather than by a feeding thereof?

Another point on social exploitation is that the work itself is simply degrading and psychologically damaging. Very much so. The first time I ever had sex as a prostitute, I spent an hour crying in the shower afterward. I got used to it though because I didn't know any better. I, like most prostitutes, had rape as my first sexual experiences and hence associated abusive treatment with sex very naturally. I seriously thought that being beaten was a sign of love. That's the kind of psychological condition the industry depends on for its supply of workers. Eventually I just stopped feeling anything at all. I became just like a robot, just going through the motions commanded of me. There was nothing liberating or empowering about it. On top of that, I didn't even get to keep most of the money I earned. I got out before I could afford to.

Argument 2: Yes, but wouldn't the industry's natural abuses be eradicated, or at least mitigated, by a regulated legalization?

No they wouldn't. The main effect of legalizing the purchase of sex everywhere it has been done has been to dramatically increase the demand for commercial sex. The level of demand rises so much with legalization, in fact, that it easily outstrips the supply of licensed prostitutes, and even of domestic ones in general. As a result, human trafficking and sex slavery increase with legalization. If you want some facts and stats on that (as well as on just how glorious it is to be a (theoretically) paid sex goddess), you can find a bunch of them in this article (http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/legalized_prostitution_a_failed_experiment.html). (I don't agree with the article's Christian perspective as an atheist obviously, but it's core points are spot on and its factoids verifiable.) Legalization simply increases the pressure on women to join the sex industry and turns more women into slaves.

Argument 3: But don't you just get a sense of inevitability about this? Isn't liberalization just the natural course of history?

Nope. Social egalitarianism is the general trajectory of civilization. For most of human history, prostitution has been legal and unregulated. The trend over time, particularly in the more gender-equal countries, has been toward increasing degrees of regulation and ultimately the criminalization of purchasing sex altogether. In an overall sense, the industry isn't getting more legal.

In summation, there is simply no case for legalization.

Well, firstly, kudos for a complete answer. That said though, couldn't your perspective be molded, at least somewhat, by regretting having worked as a prostitute? And what do you think the punishment for a prostitute caught in the act should be?

As far as being exploited goes, at the end of the day, it's a choice, as long as it's voluntary. That same line of logic could be used for pornography, or anything really, like playing in the NBA, or working at McDonalds.

The case for legalization is freedom, and I say that as someone who never has and never would sleep with a prostitute for a bunch of different reasons. I think trafficking and underage prostitution should monitored and prosecuted, but so long as the women(or men, whatever) are the age of consent, I don't see why it's the government or anyone elses business to enact force on non violent people engaging in a peaceful act.

I'm sorry to hear about your bad experiences though. Good on you for getting out of that profession and moving above it. It appears to be, at least, in my uneducated opinion, toxic.

[Common]

I've been a prostitute before back in my college days and I'm definitely opposed to a general legalization of the industry, and more especially to the idea of legalizing the purchase of sex. I find the arguments presented here for legalization to be very simplistic, willfully naive, and self-serving. (After all, you guys are the ones who stand to benefit from the industry, as you're infinitely more likely to be customers thereof than workers therein.) Let me briefly run through the three main arguments I always see people advance in defense of legalization:


Sorry polly but this paragraph is wrong in my opinion, women benefit greatly from illegal prostitution for the reason they do it, money. Street walkers the lowest paid can make many thousands per week. Some make many thousands per sessions.

A woman who is going to be a prostitute for any reason whatsoever benefits by it being legalized, by one not having to be arrested for doing what they choose to do going through the courts paying fines and doing jail time.
Its healthier in the sense it makes them get checked for communicable diseases that they may contract through what they choose to do.
Lastly and most importantly is a helluva lot safer than plying your trade illegally in the street. The number of prostitute murder and violence victims is HUGE.

Im sorry I have to disagree with you on this one.

[IMPress Polly]

The XI wrote:
And what do you think the punishment for a prostitute caught in the act should be?


Common wrote:
A woman who is going to be a prostitute for any reason whatsoever benefits by...not having to be arrested for doing what they choose to do going through the courts paying fines and doing jail time.

Let's be clear guys: I'm NOT proposing that sex workers should be punished. Those kinds of sexist policies that punish the victim never help. And let's be clear about this: most prostitutes are more afraid of the police than they are of their pimps (and yes, the immense majority of prostitutes have pimps). Why would that be, you ask? Just look at the surveys for your answer: you're two or three times as likely to get beaten or harassed by the cops as you are by your pimp. The cops are worse! And no, having jail as your alternative doesn't help either. Doesn't exactly incentivize you to report anything, does it? So no, I'm NOT in favor of punishing women for being "loose" or whatever. (And yes, that is the essence of such propositions and you all know it.)

However, that said, the proposal in the OP had nothing to do with de-stigmatizing and helping women and everything to do with recognizing the labor contracts as legitimate. That's a different thing! Johns are exploiters, folks. They SHOULD be penalized, and preferably pretty severely IMO.

Now I mean let's be clear on this: when most people think of johns, they think of hedonists. In my experience, your average john is not a hedonist, but a lonely guy who doesn't feel like he has a lot of prospects. You can tell because he won't "play the field" very much, but rather will keep purchasing the services of the same prostitute over and over again, perhaps dozens of times, prying for personal information that you'd probably rather not give a total stranger. You can hence tell that most of these guys more essentially trying to purchase love than sex. They're looking to buy a relationship with you. Perhaps they're older or unattractive or disabled or sexually inexperienced and lacking in confidence or perhaps they've been rejected by a lot of women before and feel that they can't take any more rejection. This is the principal source of demand for commercial sex. I'd say roughly 60% of johns were basically like that. The other 40% really were hedonists. The hedonists are the real jerks. Unlike the lonely guys, the hedonists tend to be richer, married, and really are just interested in experimenting and "playing the field". It's those guys who tend to demand the most degrading and violent stuff. Those people I genuinely don't understand or sympathize with at all. But anyway, I say all this only to point out that yes I understand that there's nuance to these people and that yes johns are human beings with feelings and a dislike for being rejected too. None of that, however, changes the essentially reality though that they're exploiting women, and more specifically women who probably have even worse backgrounds. Women often experience all those same sorts of things the average john does too (feeling unattractive, rejected, lacking in self-confidence, etc.), but they just don't seem to recourse to compelling someone else to have sex with them regardless of whether they really want to. The john demographic, I'll add, is also the demographic group your average rapist falls into. Not a coincidence. You see, the particular reactions that these men have to feeling rejected, etc. etc. -- compelling someone else to have sex with them -- is reflective of a kind of entitlement mentality that's almost exclusive to men. It's that mentality I don't relate to.


The XI wrote:
As far as being exploited goes, at the end of the day, it's a choice, as long as it's voluntary. That same line of logic could be used for pornography, or anything really, like playing in the NBA, or working at McDonalds.

If you seriously don't believe there's such a thing as exploitation then you and I have nothing in common in terms of our value systems.


That said though, couldn't your perspective be molded, at least somewhat, by regretting having worked as a prostitute?

You know, most people would characterize first-hand experience working in the industry as something that might add to your perspective on it rather than something that would detract from it.


Common wrote:
Sorry polly but this paragraph is wrong in my opinion, women benefit greatly from illegal prostitution for the reason they do it, money. Street walkers the lowest paid can make many thousands per week. Some make many thousands per sessions.

Let me do the math for you:

Presuming that you get paid at all (sex slaves do not get paid and compose a large minority of prostitutes; a slogan in the industry is that "No bitch of mine shall ever see a dime"), you'll be lucky to see much of your earnings in reality. $1 to $3 a minute is a common charge rate, which amounts to $60 to $180 an hour, out of which you'll be lucky to see 30%. You'll probably net around $15 or $20 an hour. In a full day, a voluntary, paid prostitute might make somewhere between $180 and $300 typically, depending on how many hours you work (and you'll be working a lot probably), all of which will be used to pay for drugs or to provide for a dependent or some combination of the two things. You DON'T get rich. You might, however, get beaten or find yourself pregnant because you weren't allowed to use protection.

The more compelling is the fact that you doubtless would never work as a prostitute. I mean if it's so glorious and easy money and whatnot, then why not join the business yourself? Answer: because you know better. There are lots and lots of damaged young women, however, who don't.

Do you know what the average life expectancy of a prostitute is?

As to your argument that a a regulated general legalization of the business would eliminate or mitigate the industry's abuses, I've already responded to that claim in my previous post. It's just not true.

[Green Arrow]

I think we should replace prostitution as a business with cuddling as a business, personally.

Would you pay to cuddle a stranger? (http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/would-you-pay-to-cuddle-a-stranger--004132218.html)


Looking for a little extraaffection? Meet Sam Hess, a 29-year-old cuddle professional who makes a living by selling snuggles to those in need.

Hess is part of a new breed of business people who believe that touch, no matter who it comes from, is the key to a happy life. She hatched the idea after watching a YouTube experiment in which two men offered free or paid hugs to people on the street. “People paid for hugs more than they took the free ones, and I realized that there’s real value in affection,” Hess tells Yahoo Shine. “My friends and boyfriend were a little wary at first, but once they realized I was serious about it, they were supportive.”

Hess’s Portland, Oregon based company, called Cuddle Up To Me (http://cuddleuptome.com/), offers two basic packages: A 30-minute session for $35 and a 60-minute session for $60 (She charges a $1 per minute in overtime), during which Hess and her client might hold hands, cuddle up on the couch, or spoon to the tune of her "cuddle playlist," which includes classic music and hits by Phil Collins and Jack Johnson. There are also prepaid weekly sessions and a flat rate for overnight stays. However, before she does business, Hess conducts a free 45-minute meet-and-greet in a public place such as a coffee shop, to assess the intentions of potential clients. “I need to know where a person is coming from so I know what I’m walking into,” she explains.

...

There’s been plenty of research on the effects of cuddling between people who love and trust each other: Snuggling lowers blood pressure, heart rate, and stress and releases the bonding hormone oxytocin, triggering a loving feeling between two people, yet little is known about the effects of cozying up to a stranger.

...

“Touch is the most power tool between humans,” Wendy Walsh (https://twitter.com/DrWendyWalsh), PhD, a Beverly Hills based psychotherapist, tells Yahoo Shine. “We’re wired to bond — in fact, babies who aren’t touched when they’re born, don’t thrive in life.”

Given our fast-paced, social media-saturated culture, where people spend more time staring at computer screens than each other, that urge to reach out may be greater now than ever before, says Walsh. And that’s especially true for men, who are conditioned to feel ashamed about their need for affection.

[Captain Obvious]

Can I pay someone to cuddle with my wife?

She's a morning cuddler. I just want to fuck in the mornings.

Ergo the conflict.

[Libhater]

Pot legalization is all the rage lately, but what about prostitution?

Why is it still illegal?

If I, a consenting adult were willing to pay someone, another consenting adult for sex, why is this illegal?

Like pot, it happens daily everywhere. Enforcement is minimally sporadic at best, there are better uses of our law enforcement resources. No?

Legalizing it would bring tax revenues (in theory), some regulation and protection for both the client and the prostitute. Maybe?

Discuss

Wasn't prostitution legal when Bill Clinton paid all of those women to have sex with him?

[Captain Obvious]

Wasn't prostitution legal when Bill Clinton paid all of those women to have sex with him?

Executive privilege

[Alyosha]

Abortion is harmful to the body and mind of many but women want freedom for that IMPress Polly. If you don't want to be a prostitute don't. I won't. I'm not going to tell someone else what to do with their body and I want them to stay away from mine and my decisions.

It's not our job to create legislation that "saves" people from vices.

[Libhater]

Abortion is harmful to the body and mind of many but women want freedom for that @IMPress Polly (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=399). If you don't want to be a prostitute don't. I won't. I'm not going to tell someone else what to do with their body and I want them to stay away from mine and my decisions.

It's not our job to create legislation that "saves" people from vices.

I take from this reply that you would be opposed to paying taxes to obamacare so that women can get their brand of pregnancy protection, and or that women can get an abortion free of charge.

[Cigar]

Thankfully not all the women out there say "I'll never get prostate cancer why should that cost be factored into my insurance."

The fact that women have to hear the same argument about maternity care makes some so-called Men look stupid.

That ain't how Insurance Risk Pools work.

[Common]

Let's be clear guys: I'm NOT proposing that sex workers should be punished. Those kinds of sexist policies that punish the victim never help. And let's be clear about this: most prostitutes are more afraid of the police than they are of their pimps (and yes, the immense majority of prostitutes have pimps). Why would that be, you ask? Just look at the surveys for your answer: you're two or three times as likely to get beaten or harassed by the cops as you are by your pimp. The cops are worse! And no, having jail as your alternative doesn't help either. Doesn't exactly incentivize you to report anything, does it? So no, I'm NOT in favor of punishing women for being "loose" or whatever. (And yes, that is the essence of such propositions and you all know it.)

However, that said, the proposal in the OP had nothing to do with de-stigmatizing and helping women and everything to do with recognizing the labor contracts as legitimate. That's a different thing! Johns are exploiters, folks. They SHOULD be penalized, and preferably pretty severely IMO.

Now I mean let's be clear on this: when most people think of johns, they think of hedonists. In my experience, your average john is not a hedonist, but a lonely guy who doesn't feel like he has a lot of prospects. You can tell because he won't "play the field" very much, but rather will keep purchasing the services of the same prostitute over and over again, perhaps dozens of times, prying for personal information that you'd probably rather not give a total stranger. You can hence tell that most of these guys more essentially trying to purchase love than sex. They're looking to buy a relationship with you. Perhaps they're older or unattractive or disabled or sexually inexperienced and lacking in confidence or perhaps they've been rejected by a lot of women before and feel that they can't take any more rejection. This is the principal source of demand for commercial sex. I'd say roughly 60% of johns were basically like that. The other 40% really were hedonists. The hedonists are the real jerks. Unlike the lonely guys, the hedonists tend to be richer, married, and really are just interested in experimenting and "playing the field". It's those guys who tend to demand the most degrading and violent stuff. Those people I genuinely don't understand or sympathize with at all. But anyway, I say all this only to point out that yes I understand that there's nuance to these people and that yes johns are human beings with feelings and a dislike for being rejected too. None of that, however, changes the essentially reality though that they're exploiting women, and more specifically women who probably have even worse backgrounds. Women often experience all those same sorts of things the average john does too (feeling unattractive, rejected, lacking in self-confidence, etc.), but they just don't seem to recourse to compelling someone else to have sex with them regardless of whether they really want to. The john demographic, I'll add, is also the demographic group your average rapist falls into. Not a coincidence. You see, the particular reactions that these men have to feeling rejected, etc. etc. -- compelling someone else to have sex with them -- is reflective of a kind of entitlement mentality that's almost exclusive to men. It's that mentality I don't relate to.



If you seriously don't believe there's such a thing as exploitation then you and I have nothing in common in terms of our value systems.



You know, most people would characterize first-hand experience working in the industry as something that might add to your perspective on it rather than something that would detract from it.



Let me do the math for you:

Presuming that you get paid at all (sex slaves do not get paid and compose a large minority of prostitutes; a slogan in the industry is that "No bitch of mine shall ever see a dime"), you'll be lucky to see much of your earnings in reality. $1 to $3 a minute is a common charge rate, which amounts to $60 to $180 an hour, out of which you'll be lucky to see 30%. You'll probably net around $15 or $20 an hour. In a full day, a voluntary, paid prostitute might make somewhere between $180 and $300 typically, depending on how many hours you work (and you'll be working a lot probably), all of which will be used to pay for drugs or to provide for a dependent or some combination of the two things. You DON'T get rich. You might, however, get beaten or find yourself pregnant because you weren't allowed to use protection.

The more compelling is the fact that you doubtless would never work as a prostitute. I mean if it's so glorious and easy money and whatnot, then why not join the business yourself? Answer: because you know better. There are lots and lots of damaged young women, however, who don't.

Do you know what the average life expectancy of a prostitute is?

As to your argument that a a regulated general legalization of the business would eliminate or mitigate the industry's abuses, I've already responded to that claim in my previous post. It's just not true.

If your not proposing sex workers be punished then to accomplish that it has to be made legal right ?

[Adelaide]

I think we should replace prostitution as a business with cuddling as a business, personally.

Would you pay to cuddle a stranger? (http://shine.yahoo.com/healthy-living/would-you-pay-to-cuddle-a-stranger--004132218.html)

True fact: Hugging stimulates your parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems which causes relaxation; slows your heart rate, releases dopamine and oxytocin, lowers blood pressure and reduces the amount of a stress hormone.

So maybe a cuddling business isn't such a bad idea.

[jillian]

Pot legalization is all the rage lately, but what about prostitution?

Why is it still illegal?

If I, a consenting adult were willing to pay someone, another consenting adult for sex, why is this illegal?

Like pot, it happens daily everywhere. Enforcement is minimally sporadic at best, there are better uses of our law enforcement resources. No?

Legalizing it would bring tax revenues (in theory), some regulation and protection for both the client and the prostitute. Maybe?

Discuss


pretty much right...

[Green Arrow]

True fact: Hugging stimulates your parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems which causes relaxation; slows your heart rate, releases dopamine and oxytocin, lowers blood pressure and reduces the amount of a stress hormone.

So maybe a cuddling business isn't such a bad idea.

I'm a huge hugger, though I'll admit I'm not so science-y about it. I was never that into science :tongue: No, I'm a hugger because I've seen through experience how much of a change it brings about in people.

[jillian]

True fact: Hugging stimulates your parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems which causes relaxation; slows your heart rate, releases dopamine and oxytocin, lowers blood pressure and reduces the amount of a stress hormone.

So maybe a cuddling business isn't such a bad idea.

is that like the old kissing booth at fairs and fundraisers?

[The Xl]

So, prostitution should be illegal, but prostitutes who voluntarily choose that profession should be exempt from law? That doesn't make sense.

Personal responsibility, folks. Aside from prostitutes who are physically forced to choose that profession, for whatever reason, no one is forcing you to be a prostitute.

I'm sorry about your negative experiences Polly, but, unless you were part of an underground sex trade or something of the like, nobody made you choose that profession. That's on you.

And as far as exploitation goes, that argument could be made for pretty much every job, including, but not limited to, something somewhat similar to prostitution, pornography. Should that be banned as well?

[Adelaide]

is that like the old kissing booth at fairs and fundraisers?

The neuroscience behind kissing would be similar to hugging except that it has a sexual component, but I know it's good for your immune system and heart health to kiss often.

[IMPress Polly]

The XI wrote:
So, prostitution should be illegal, but prostitutes who voluntarily choose that profession should be exempt from law? That doesn't make sense.


Common wrote:
If your not proposing sex workers be punished then to accomplish that it has to be made legal right ?

Guys, guys, you're not understanding. What I'm proposing is simply the policy of most of the more gender-equal countries like Iceland and Sweden. You see, the legality of the prostitution business is not simply a "yes or no" question either in reality. It too is more complicated than that. It has several component-parts and the legality of each one of them varies from country to country. With that recognition, let me break the industry down for you into its four main component-parts:

1) the sale of sex (what the workers do)
2) the purchase of sex (what the customers do)
3) pimping
4) brothel ownership

Different countries have different policies on each one of the above things.

I believe all four of the above things should be discouraged by society, but I'm only in favor of actually prohibiting the latter three items. The reason I apply that nuance is because, as far as I'm concerned, the workers in this field are the victims and I feel that punishing the victims defeats what SHOULD be the purpose of attacking the industry. I feel that law enforcement should focus on attacking the demand side of the equation, i.e. the root source of the exploitation. That approach has worked out pretty well so far in Sweden, where the demand for commercial sex was cut in half in the decade that followed their 1999 criminalization of the purchase of sex. You see, there is a difference between a passive refraining from attacking the victim on the one hand and an active recognition of the labor contract itself as valid and legitimate on the other.

I believe that the purchase of sex, pimping, and brothel ownership should be treated as criminal (read: jailable) offenses. Mere fines (like we have in Vermont) just don't seem proportionate and don't get the same results.


The XI wrote:
And as far as exploitation goes, that argument could be made for pretty much every job, including, but not limited to, something somewhat similar to prostitution, pornography. Should that be banned as well?

I think similar arguments could be made for any business that benefits from poverty, with the difference that many others (e.g. low-wage retail) can be reformed. The prostitution business cannot be reformed. It is inescapably what it is. That's the difference.

My opinion on pornography is another thing and I've explained that elsewhere before. To briefly sum it all up though, I'm personally of the opinion that the existence of the sex industry constitutes a crime against women. It is distinguished from most other industries in that it is intrinsically sexist and cannot be reformed. The sex industry, being designed essentially for male consumption and benefit, inevitably promotes certain types of gender roles in an overall sense, and namely the idea that men are supposed to command and women obey. This is to what critics of the industry refer to when they use the term 'sexual objectification'. The industry, taken as a whole, promotes a view of women as sub-human; as simply sex toys; as objects rather than subjects. You guys benefit from that so I don't expect you to oppose it. The commercial component also inescapably has another effect I consider very detrimental: it makes sex into a competitive sport, thus generating all manner of stress and inferiority complexes and even suicides, particularly amongst women.

As far as I'm concerned, sexuality only belongs in the bedroom (or wherever it is you do it) and in educational media, not plastered all over the Internet and on billboards and so forth purely for entertainment purposes. I don't believe that sex is meant to be a source of commercial entertainment. Call me square. I simply consider myself egalitarian.

[Common]

Polly, I agree that the best course is to discourage the components of prostitution that you put forth. Unfortunately no one has been able to stop any of them since forever and they arent any time soon.

When you see prostitution in all forms up front and personal you see so many different points to it, from the girls that tell you they love it and wouldnt do anything else because they make MEGA BUCKS to the women so broken because of it and what caused them to become what they were.

I obviously am not a female so its impossible for me to view this from that perspective and maybe because of that my perspective is just wrong, I dont know. I do believe that prostitution is here forever and I also believe that best course we could take to save as many girls as possible is to legalize it.

This lock and up and release thing is ridiculous it doesnt do anything but cost a fortune and waste time
It would keep them safer from violence, give them more sanitary and safer environment to work, help to keep them medically safer and because of all the above give them more of a chance to make decisions for themselves and stop the damn lockup and release thing that doesnt do anything.

Like I said there may be viewpoint on this im incapable of understanding but as I see it, legalizing is the way to go

[IMPress Polly]

Common wrote:
Polly, I agree that the best course is to discourage the components of prostitution that you put forth. Unfortunately no one has been able to stop any of them since forever and they arent any time soon.

...

...I do believe that prostitution is here forever and I also believe that best course we could take to save as many girls as possible is to legalize it.

I've already hooked you up with the statistical facts as to what the consequences of even a regulated legalization are on page 1 (namely, radically increased demand for prostitution and sharply increased rates of sexual enslavement and sex trafficking), so the opinion that a general legalization of the industry is nonetheless somehow metaphysically better for women in general and for sex workers in particular amounts to what I like to call self-serving, willful denial that benefits you.

I'm not at all certain that prostitution can be totally wiped out either. However, it can definitely be minimized with certain types of public policies that strongly discourage it.

To be clearer still on my position, I think it worthwhile to briefly run through what the three basic approaches to the industry are:

Approach #1: De Facto Legality. This is a situation wherein the business is wholly legal and unregulated by virtue of the fact that there simply are no laws on the books concerning the prostitution business...or there is simply a societal and police consensus against enforcement of laws concerning the industry. Yes there are still some countries that retain this scenario today. It's the worst kind of approach. Under de facto legality, it tends to be the case that demand for commercial sex is sky high (i.e. virtually all men purchase sex at one point or another) while, at the same, most prostitutes are slaves. This approach maximizes both the pervasiveness and worst abuses of the industry. Any society that approaches the business in this kind of way clearly concerns itself with the interests of women to only a limited degree at best.

Approach #2: Regulated Legality. This approach beats de facto legality in that it ensures that a section of the industry's workers -- the ones who operate above ground -- will enjoy certain basic protections, such as perhaps pay guarantees, policies mandating that johns wear condoms, etc. etc. However, under this approach, the level of demand for commercial sex remains so high that it far outstrips the supply of licensed prostitutes, ensuring a situation wherein something like half or more of all prostitutes are either imported (read: trafficked in) or otherwise belong to, and are perhaps trapped in, the underground sex trade that doesn't adhere to the legal standards. This approach is better for women than de facto legality, but its ramifications really just go to show you that the industry can't be reformed and that, accordingly, the only way to maximize the basic safety and interests of women is not to legitimize, but to minimize the size and influence of the industry.

Approach #3: General Prohibition. This is situation in which most or all aspects of the prostitution business are outlawed. It is definitely the best approach as far as I can tell. Under this type of approach, the size and influence of the prostitution business tends to be far more limited than under the other two basic approaches and the rates of trafficking and sexual enslavement are minimized. 5 of the top 6 ranking country's on the World Economic Forum's Global Gender Gap Report (i.e. 5 of the world's 6 most gender-equal countries) unambiguously embrace this approach, including the top-ranking nation: Iceland. (The exception is Finland and their approach would be hard to classify here, as it seems to fall somewhere in-between regulated legality and general discouragement of the industry. In Finland, it's legal to both buy and sell sex, but illegal to operate a brothel or to be a pimp.) More specifically, 3 of the top 5 -- also including Iceland -- embrace a specific kind of policy wherein its technically legal to sell sex (in order that the workers, seen as the victims of the industry, not be persecuted or stigmatized), but a criminal offense to purchase sex, to own a brothel, or to be a pimp. Demand for commercial sex in these countries is quite low and aforementioned policy in particular, wherever it is in place, is highly popular, especially with women.

Nearly all American communities fall into the general prohibition category, though not as many bother to criminalize various aspects of the industry. Instead, mere fines are a common approach in this country and are unfortunately how we address this issue here in Vermont. In today's America, about 16 or 17% of the male population has purchased sex before. That's a sharp drop-off from 50 years ago, when about 80% of all American men had purchased sex before. However, a federal criminalization of johns could certainly reduce that level of demand further, as it has in so many Scandinavian countries. Take the case of Sweden for instance. Before they criminalized the purchase of sex in 1999, about 13.5% of all Swedish men had purchased sex before. Since criminalization, that stat has dropped off to 8%. It may be genuinely impossible to totally vanquish the prostitution business, I'm not sure. I therefore will be satisfied if we can reduce the level of demand to 5% of all men: 1 in 20. That would seem to clearly be an attainable goal.

[jillian]

Each state should do what it feels is best. As with Gay Marriage.

marriage is an issue of equal protection and equal rights.

apples and oranges.

[Alyosha]

Yes, I acknowledge prostitution and pornography hurt women IMPress Polly. So does abortion, drugs, too many cheesecakes, dating the wrong guy, and infidelity.

However, it's not yours or my business to tell anyone what they should do with their time on this earth or the only body they have.

Have you seen "The Donald"? Tell me his wife isn't just a high class version of a prostitute because he's ugly inside and out and she's gorgeous and has to fuck him. The only difference between her and a sex worker is the fact she has to do it every day on command and their contracts are shorter.

[Libhater]

Yes, I acknowledge prostitution and pornography hurt women @IMPress Polly (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=399). So does abortion, drugs, too many cheesecakes, dating the wrong guy, and infidelity.

However, it's not yours or my business to tell anyone what they should do with their time on this earth or the only body they have.

Have you seen "The Donald"? Tell me his wife isn't just a high class version of a prostitute because he's ugly inside and out and she's gorgeous and has to fuck him. The only difference between her and a sex worker is the fact she has to do it every day on command and their contracts are shorter.

Trump ugly on the inside and out? Wow, perhaps you are confusing him with his leftist nemesis the in and out ugly Rosie O'Donnell. There is nothing ugly about Trump.

[Captain Obvious]

Trump ugly on the inside and out? Wow, perhaps you are confusing him with his leftist nemesis the in and out ugly Rosie O'Donnell. There is nothing ugly about Trump.

Trump used to be a circus act. Now he's something less than a circus act.

[Green Arrow]

Trump ugly on the inside and out? Wow, perhaps you are confusing him with his leftist nemesis the in and out ugly Rosie O'Donnell. There is nothing ugly about Trump.

If Trump was a Democrat, you'd agree with her. The only reason you're defending him is because he's a Republican.

[Adelaide]

If Trump was a Democrat, you'd agree with her. The only reason you're defending him is because he's a Republican.

Yep.

[The Xl]

If the prostitutes should be absolved from prosecution because they're the victims, couldn't you also make that argument for customers? They could be sexually depraved for a number of different reasons, which is why they'd be paying for sex. Wouldn't that make them victims as well?

[Dr. Who]

Let's be clear guys: I'm NOT proposing that sex workers should be punished. Those kinds of sexist policies that punish the victim never help. And let's be clear about this: most prostitutes are more afraid of the police than they are of their pimps (and yes, the immense majority of prostitutes have pimps). Why would that be, you ask? Just look at the surveys for your answer: you're two or three times as likely to get beaten or harassed by the cops as you are by your pimp. The cops are worse! And no, having jail as your alternative doesn't help either. Doesn't exactly incentivize you to report anything, does it? So no, I'm NOT in favor of punishing women for being "loose" or whatever. (And yes, that is the essence of such propositions and you all know it.)

However, that said, the proposal in the OP had nothing to do with de-stigmatizing and helping women and everything to do with recognizing the labor contracts as legitimate. That's a different thing! Johns are exploiters, folks. They SHOULD be penalized, and preferably pretty severely IMO.

Now I mean let's be clear on this: when most people think of johns, they think of hedonists. In my experience, your average john is not a hedonist, but a lonely guy who doesn't feel like he has a lot of prospects. You can tell because he won't "play the field" very much, but rather will keep purchasing the services of the same prostitute over and over again, perhaps dozens of times, prying for personal information that you'd probably rather not give a total stranger. You can hence tell that most of these guys more essentially trying to purchase love than sex. They're looking to buy a relationship with you. Perhaps they're older or unattractive or disabled or sexually inexperienced and lacking in confidence or perhaps they've been rejected by a lot of women before and feel that they can't take any more rejection. This is the principal source of demand for commercial sex. I'd say roughly 60% of johns were basically like that. The other 40% really were hedonists. The hedonists are the real jerks. Unlike the lonely guys, the hedonists tend to be richer, married, and really are just interested in experimenting and "playing the field". It's those guys who tend to demand the most degrading and violent stuff. Those people I genuinely don't understand or sympathize with at all. But anyway, I say all this only to point out that yes I understand that there's nuance to these people and that yes johns are human beings with feelings and a dislike for being rejected too. None of that, however, changes the essentially reality though that they're exploiting women, and more specifically women who probably have even worse backgrounds. Women often experience all those same sorts of things the average john does too (feeling unattractive, rejected, lacking in self-confidence, etc.), but they just don't seem to recourse to compelling someone else to have sex with them regardless of whether they really want to. The john demographic, I'll add, is also the demographic group your average rapist falls into. Not a coincidence. You see, the particular reactions that these men have to feeling rejected, etc. etc. -- compelling someone else to have sex with them -- is reflective of a kind of entitlement mentality that's almost exclusive to men. It's that mentality I don't relate to.



If you seriously don't believe there's such a thing as exploitation then you and I have nothing in common in terms of our value systems.



You know, most people would characterize first-hand experience working in the industry as something that might add to your perspective on it rather than something that would detract from it.



Let me do the math for you:

Presuming that you get paid at all (sex slaves do not get paid and compose a large minority of prostitutes; a slogan in the industry is that "No bitch of mine shall ever see a dime"), you'll be lucky to see much of your earnings in reality. $1 to $3 a minute is a common charge rate, which amounts to $60 to $180 an hour, out of which you'll be lucky to see 30%. You'll probably net around $15 or $20 an hour. In a full day, a voluntary, paid prostitute might make somewhere between $180 and $300 typically, depending on how many hours you work (and you'll be working a lot probably), all of which will be used to pay for drugs or to provide for a dependent or some combination of the two things. You DON'T get rich. You might, however, get beaten or find yourself pregnant because you weren't allowed to use protection.

The more compelling is the fact that you doubtless would never work as a prostitute. I mean if it's so glorious and easy money and whatnot, then why not join the business yourself? Answer: because you know better. There are lots and lots of damaged young women, however, who don't.

Do you know what the average life expectancy of a prostitute is?

As to your argument that a a regulated general legalization of the business would eliminate or mitigate the industry's abuses, I've already responded to that claim in my previous post. It's just not true.

Although I understand where you are coming from Polly, I would suggest that if prostitution were legalized, it would squeeze out the pimps. Women could organize and as registered sex trade workers, they could set up brothels with profit sharing, pay taxes and undergo mandatory STD testing or they could set up open call girl organizations. Whether or not they choose to be sex workers would be entirely their choice. The advantage of brothels is the ability to hire security to protect the workers. There would be no further need for women to skulk about on the street soliciting patrons. No need to get into cars with potential serial killers. Call girl organizations could also have security assigned to the sex workers. I don't think that legalizing prostitution will make it a more popular career choice than it has ever been, but it might be a safer choice than it has been.

[Dr. Who]

Guys, guys, you're not understanding. What I'm proposing is simply the policy of most of the more gender-equal countries like Iceland and Sweden. You see, the legality of the prostitution business is not simply a "yes or no" question either in reality. It too is more complicated than that. It has several component-parts and the legality of each one of them varies from country to country. With that recognition, let me break the industry down for you into its four main component-parts:

1) the sale of sex (what the workers do)
2) the purchase of sex (what the customers do)
3) pimping
4) brothel ownership

Different countries have different policies on each one of the above things.

I believe all four of the above things should be discouraged by society, but I'm only in favor of actually prohibiting the latter three items. The reason I apply that nuance is because, as far as I'm concerned, the workers in this field are the victims and I feel that punishing the victims defeats what SHOULD be the purpose of attacking the industry. I feel that law enforcement should focus on attacking the demand side of the equation, i.e. the root source of the exploitation. That approach has worked out pretty well so far in Sweden, where the demand for commercial sex was cut in half in the decade that followed their 1999 criminalization of the purchase of sex. You see, there is a difference between a passive refraining from attacking the victim on the one hand and an active recognition of the labor contract itself as valid and legitimate on the other.

I believe that the purchase of sex, pimping, and brothel ownership should be treated as criminal (read: jailable) offenses. Mere fines (like we have in Vermont) just don't seem proportionate and don't get the same results.



I think similar arguments could be made for any business that benefits from poverty, with the difference that many others (e.g. low-wage retail) can be reformed. The prostitution business cannot be reformed. It is inescapably what it is. That's the difference.

My opinion on pornography is another thing and I've explained that elsewhere before. To briefly sum it all up though, I'm personally of the opinion that the existence of the sex industry constitutes a crime against women. It is distinguished from most other industries in that it is intrinsically sexist and cannot be reformed. The sex industry, being designed essentially for male consumption and benefit, inevitably promotes certain types of gender roles in an overall sense, and namely the idea that men are supposed to command and women obey. This is to what critics of the industry refer to when they use the term 'sexual objectification'. The industry, taken as a whole, promotes a view of women as sub-human; as simply sex toys; as objects rather than subjects. You guys benefit from that so I don't expect you to oppose it. The commercial component also inescapably has another effect I consider very detrimental: it makes sex into a competitive sport, thus generating all manner of stress and inferiority complexes and even suicides, particularly amongst women.

As far as I'm concerned, sexuality only belongs in the bedroom (or wherever it is you do it) and in educational media, not plastered all over the Internet and on billboards and so forth purely for entertainment purposes. I don't believe that sex is meant to be a source of commercial entertainment. Call me square. I simply consider myself egalitarian.

Making prostitution illegal has never worked. It only makes women who choose to be prostitutes into potential victims of pimps and psychopaths and gives them a criminal record when they are busted. Women cannot decide for all women how they may or may not use their bodies. Some women have very good reason to go this route, given that it offers them much more money than they would earn in an eight hour day at a regular job. Some have kids who they cannot otherwise decently support. Some have high tuition bills to pay. Enjoyment of a job is not a given. People who clean public washrooms for a living would also factor into the 2% with no job satisfaction. We cannot choose for another what they are willing to sacrifice for what they want.

[Germanicus]

Prostitution is legal in Australia.

I dont see a huge problem with it. I think it is good. I dont need a gf/casual relationship and women have no power over me. Zero.

This power that prostitution takes away from women in society is good.

Also, people like sex with pretty girls. A large percentage of the population cant get sex with a girl that is as attractive as IMPress Polly for example for whatever reason. With prostitution they can for a reasonable price. That makes people feel very happy and the prostitute has performed a public service really.

AUD is around the same as USD mostly. A guy can have maybe one of his happiest experiences for a few hundred dollars. The girl could work at the supermarket if she wanted to but who wants to do that? And most prostitiutes I have meet have been vert intelligent and capable of more than unskilled work.

I agree that in Phillipines and other nations in South Asia especially that prostitution is bad but the thing is that the entire countries are bad. You can go to Bali and pay a guy a couple bucks to be your slave for the day and carry your shopping and stuff. Australians love it because lower middleclass scum can take a holiday in Bali and treat act like they are some kind of royalty. Also, for what you pay a prostitute over here for an hour will get you a hooker in South Asia for days.

Exchange rates are the problem. Why should a not even rich Australian be able to purchase a hot young wife from the Phillipines? Thats fucked up.

I am not concerned about any person from the west that is working as a prostitute.

And the so-called 'human tafficking" is bull for the most part and nothing to do with the west. It is CNN type nonsense.

How many people have been brought to the west against their will and been forced to work as prostitutes? I would guess very very few. Where are they? Who would support something like that?

Human trafficking is nothing to do with the Western Prostitution Industry. It is seperate. The Western Prostitution Industry has laws and standards. It is fine in my opinion. And good.

edit- I agree that western prostitution may appeal to western females from poor families that have low self esteem and low self worth. that is bad. But what do they want to do? Become a lawyer? A politician? Police? Thats a terrible thing to do. There is nothing wrong with being a hooker and we should get rid of the stigma. And make society better.

Australia is proof that certain women will really do like working as hookers. They dont have to, they enjoy it and they make a fortune.

edit- I think that sex workers make the world a much better and happier place for so many people. And I have met sex workers that are aware of that. Thank god for sex workers.

edit-- DeAmericanization will help stop third world 'human trafficking'. Can someone tell CNN that all the nonsense they talk about is due to USA and the global economy that is set up in a Cold War Imperial empire style. Exchange rates.

Gotta take the Reserve Status from USA.

[The Xl]

Has it ever occurred to anyone that their are prostitutes that don't mind their line of work and/or are fine with exploiting themselves rather than working hard hours at a harder job for less pay? No one is stopping a prostitute or porn star from working any other job, they just want more bang(lololol) for their time and their buck.

[Germanicus]

Israel is one of the worst nations for so-called 'huiman trafficking'. But what is happening? Are they refering to children? No. Not at all. What is happening is really really hot Ukranian and Russian chicks that are from poverty are in huge demand. These people are adults. But they are found and brought to Israel to make some money. Would you prefer to be homeless in Ukraine or a hooker at Israel /massage parlour?

The problem isnt prostitution. It is the world.

But Human trafficking numbers are complete bull. It is a liberal nonsense news story to make the west look good. We are the problem.

http://www.streamate.com/

Thouands and thousands of young girls that are poor and need money. The world is bad. The west is in control.

DeAmericanization!

The Ukrainian and Russian women that come to Israel to work are entering the country illegally. They are adults.



Human trafficking in Israel includes the trafficking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking) of men and women into the country for forced labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_labor) and commercial sexual exploitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commercial_sexual_exploitation). Low-skilled workers from China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China), Romania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania), Africa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Africa), Turkey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkey), Thailand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thailand), the Philippines (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philippines), Nepal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepal), Sri Lanka (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sri_Lanka), and India (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India) migrate voluntarily for contract labor in the construction, agriculture, and health care industries. Some, however, subsequently face conditions of forced labor, such as unlawful withholding of passports, restrictions on movement, non-payment of wages, threats, and physical intimidation. Many labor recruitment agencies in source countries and in Israel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel) require workers to pay recruitment fees ranging from $1,000 to $10,000—a practice that makes workers highly vulnerable to trafficking once in Israel, and in some cases, situations of debt bondage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt_bondage). Israel is also a destination country for women trafficked from Russia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia), Ukraine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine), Moldova (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova), Uzbekistan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uzbekistan), Belarus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarus), China, South Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Korea) and possibly the Philippines for the purpose of sexual exploitation. In addition, NGOs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NGO) note an increase in the internal trafficking of Israeli women for commercial sexual exploitation, and report new instances of trafficking of Israeli women abroad to Canada (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada), Ireland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ireland), and England (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/England). African asylum seekers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asylum_seekers) entering Israel illegally are also vulnerable to trafficking for forced labor or prostitution.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Israel#cite_note-dos-4)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking_in_Israel


Economics

The sex trade in Israel generates up to $2 billion in revenue a year.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Israel#cite_note-7)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Israel

Israel is a very rich nation. It is vile that they allow their prostitution industry to work the way that it does.

In Australia it is fine.

Why doesnt Israel get more bad press about this? Most people dont even know prostitution is such a huge industry in the Holy Land.

EDIT - BAN ALL WESTERN NGOs! They are imperialist scum. They are liars and agents of the west. Fucking scum. Ban CNN.

How can a problem be fixed when the objective is only to exploit the problem to your advantage? NGO people will go to hell. Straight to hell.

[IMPress Polly]

Alyosha wrote:
Yes, I acknowledge prostitution and pornography hurt women @IMPress Polly (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=399). So does abortion, drugs, too many cheesecakes, dating the wrong guy, and infidelity.

I don't know why you keep peddling the myth that abortion is dangerous. At least when legal anyway, it's ten times safer than childbirth.

Anyway, as to your broader point, the way I see it reproductive rights are about freeing you up to CONTROL your own body, whereas commercial sex "frees" you up to SELL your body to someone else. In that sense, the two things are logical opposites, not two sides of the same coin.


Common wrote:
Although I understand where you are coming from Polly, I would suggest that if prostitution were legalized, it would squeeze out the pimps. Women could organize and as registered sex trade workers, they could set up brothels with profit sharing, pay taxes and undergo mandatory STD testing or they could set up open call girl organizations. Whether or not they choose to be sex workers would be entirely their choice. The advantage of brothels is the ability to hire security to protect the workers. There would be no further need for women to skulk about on the street soliciting patrons. No need to get into cars with potential serial killers. Call girl organizations could also have security assigned to the sex workers. I don't think that legalizing prostitution will make it a more popular career choice than it has ever been, but it might be a safer choice than it has been.

Nonsense. Since there are lots of countries where the prostitution business is legal, there's no need to speculate as to what the consequences of legality are. We already know.

Your entire case for a regulated legalization hinges on the notion that demand for commercial sex is static; immune to changes in the law. We know damn good and well that it's not. Legalization radically increases the level of demand for commercial sex, far above the number of licensed prostitutes whom might enjoy the conditions and benefits you've laid out. As a result, the underground sex trade, which doesn't adhere to any of those legal standards, grows under conditions of industrial legality. Germany serves as a case in point: they've opted to recognize the labor contract between the prostitute and the customer for roughly a decade now. In just the first five years after the said legalization, sex trafficking in Germany increased by 70%. Or we could look at Greece: a country that Germany is exploiting right now. In Greece, it's legal to sell sex, buy sex, to own a brothel, and to be a pimp. Under your reasoning, this status should, if anything, reduce the transmission of STDs, right? I mean given that licensed brothels will tend to have standards, like requiring that johns wear condoms and so forth, right? Well in reality, the rate of STD transmission in Greece has risen by 50% in recent years and studies have primarily attributed the increase to a simultaneous increase in prostitution. You see, Greeks have been getting a whole lot poorer in recent years, which has damaged many relationships (resulting in an increase in demand for sex through avenues other than traditional ones, particularly on the part of men) and increased the financial desperation of women in particular (resulting an increase in the supply of prostitutes). If much of the increase went to the legal, above-ground, licensed brothels, the overall rate of STD transmission would have been unaffected. In reality, you see, the increase in prostitution was an increase in the underground business that doesn't adhere to the legal standards. These are just pointed examples -- one from a wealthier country and one from a poorer country, both in the same part of the world -- that illustrate my point that the industry cannot be reformed. The only thing that minimizes the strength of the underground sex trade is banning the sex trade.

[Peter1469]

The only thing that minimizes the strength of the underground sex trade is banning the sex trade.

Do we have examples of this?

[Green Arrow]

I still vote we legalize cuddling.

[Cthulhu]

I don't know why you keep peddling the myth that abortion is dangerous. At least when legal anyway, it's ten times safer than childbirth.

I disagree. Trading one danger for another does not constitute safety. Both are dangerous.



Nonsense. Since there are lots of countries where the prostitution business is legal, there's no need to speculate as to what the consequences of legality are. We already know.

Correct.



Your entire case for a regulated legalization hinges on the notion that demand for commercial sex is static; immune to changes in the law. We know damn good and well that it's not. Legalization radically increases the level of demand for commercial sex, far above the number of licensed prostitutes whom might enjoy the conditions and benefits you've laid out. As a result, the underground sex trade, which doesn't adhere to any of those legal standards, grows under conditions of industrial legality. Germany serves as a case in point: they've opted to recognize the labor contract between the prostitute and the customer for roughly a decade now. In just the first five years after the said legalization, sex trafficking in Germany increased by 70%. Or we could look at Greece: a country that Germany is exploiting right now. In Greece, it's legal to sell sex, buy sex, to own a brothel, and to be a pimp. Under your reasoning, this status should, if anything, reduce the transmission of STDs, right? I mean given that licensed brothels will tend to have standards, like requiring that johns wear condoms and so forth, right? Well in reality, the rate of STD transmission in Greece has risen by 50% in recent years and studies have primarily attributed the increase to a simultaneous increase in prostitution. You see, Greeks have been getting a whole lot poorer in recent years, which has damaged many relationships (resulting in an increase in demand for sex through avenues other than traditional ones, particularly on the part of men) and increased the financial desperation of women in particular (resulting an increase in the supply of prostitutes). If much of the increase went to the legal, above-ground, licensed brothels, the overall rate of STD transmission would have been unaffected. In reality, you see, the increase in prostitution was an increase in the underground business that doesn't adhere to the legal standards. These are just pointed examples -- one from a wealthier country and one from a poorer country, both in the same part of the world -- that illustrate my point that the industry cannot be reformed.

Masterfully put. This is one of the instances the "decriminalize it" attitude does not quite fit the bill. Although it does remain constant with the principles of max freedom, max responsibility. Prostitution and human trafficking go hand in hand. One voluntary, the other is the darkest crime of humanity if you ask me.

Giving it a legal cover is a dangerous move. But as usual, I would rather err on the side of freedom.


The only thing that minimizes the strength of the underground sex trade is banning the sex trade.

Incorrect. A communal respect for virtue would go further, as would public shaming for those participating in the offensive activity. And in extreme cases - jury nullification.

When people have commonly held beliefs that a particular activity is good - they will aspire to master it. If a particular activity is scorned, they will either hide the practice of it, or avoid it and those who do.

Laws rarely inhibit law breakers.

[IMPress Polly]

Peter wrote:
Do we have examples of this?

One could've simply inferred that from the examples I cited in my last post. For example, if recognizing the labor contract between the prostitute and the client as valid produced a 70% increase in sex trafficking, then obviously the rate of sex trafficking was 70% lower before the labor contract was recognized. Now the trend in Scandinavia over this same highlighted period of the last 10-15 years has been the reverse: as the various nations of Scandinavia have started cracking down on the industry more, the level of demand for commercial sex has been dropping. Sweden initiated this trend in 1999 with their law criminalizing the purchase of sex. As a result, the level of demand (which, as explained before, is the driver for all sections of the industry, including the underground) was almost cut in half over the subsequent decade. The level of demand for commercial sex, you see, is typically highest in countries wherein the prostitution business is broadly legal, and the level of demand drives both the above-ground and the underground sections thereof. In Germany, it's been estimated in recent years that 70 or 75% of the male population has purchased sex before. Similarly in Italy it's 48%. By contrast, countries that broadly prohibit the industry tend to feature much lower levels of demand. In the United States (where we mostly penalize it with fines) it's 16 or 17%. In Scandinavia, where the purchase of sex is being criminalized, the level of demand is typically in the range of 8% to 13% as of now.

There are exceptions. For example, the industry is formally illegal in Thailand, but there is a governmental consensus against enforcement of prohibition and, as a result, 75% of Thai men have purchased sex before. Conversely only about 14% of men from the Netherlands have purchased sex before despite industrial legality. The Netherlands isn't so exceptional, however, when it comes to the demands of foreign tourists or for sex trafficking. Brothel legalization in the Netherlands has been essentially a tourist attraction that has resulted in an increase in trafficking as well as slowly but surely rising levels of domestic demand for commercial sex. In these senses, their changes may not be as pronounced as Germany's, but they're in the same basic direction nonetheless. In fact, in more recent years they've experienced growing demand for crackdowns on the industry. The industry is getting progressively more regulated there these days, not less.

Anyway, you get my point: the more gently the industry gets treated, the harsher the women get treated and vice versa.

[The Xl]

The only real issue I have with prostitution, is kids and unwilling peoples being forced to participate. That should be illegal and prosecuted to the fullest of the law. However, girls(or guys, however rare) that willingly sell themselves have made that choice. I don't buy the victim angle, as I've said before, you can extend that line of logic to any occupation. I'm sure many people don't want to work a low wage job, but for whatever reason, they may have to. Does that mean their employer should be jailed?

And as long as we're on the victim angle, like I've asserted before, wouldn't the sad bastard who needs to pay for sex be considered a "victim" as well?

[Libhater]

If Trump was a Democrat, you'd agree with her. The only reason you're defending him is because he's a Republican.


If Trump was a Democrat I wouldn't give him the time of day. But seeing how he's a Republican and one of the most savvy financial gurus in the public eye and in America today, I will continue to agree with the man on most every issue concerning our sad state of affairs under the auspices of our worst president, and agree with his common sense solutions to those issues.

[The Xl]

If Trump was a Democrat I wouldn't give him the time of day. But seeing how he's a Republican and one of the most savvy financial gurus in the public eye and in America today, I will continue to agree with the man on most every issue concerning our sad state of affairs under the auspices of our worst president, and agree with his common sense solutions to those issues.

You, probably unwittingly, just proved his point.

[Mr Happy]

Prostitution is legal in NZ and Australia. Rarely hear about any problems. Any person who is involved in human trafficking gets shut down pretty quick...and sent to jail...

[Paperback Writer]

I don't know why you keep peddling the myth that abortion is dangerous. At least when legal anyway, it's ten times safer than childbirth.

If it's ten times safer than childbirth all women should continue to abort then, I suppose. Abortion saves lives!

Don't be nonsensical, any surgery is potentially dangerous and unhealthy. Her point was that prostitution is less healthy than non-prostitution but by no means should it prevent people from using their own bodies as they see fit.

I'd think a liberal would agree with that or do you wish to start telling humans what they should do with their own bodies and lives "for their own good"?

[The Xl]

IMPress Polly.

Shouldn't abortion also be illegal if we're going the victim route? I'd say a baby being killed for a host of reasons that aren't his or her fault would classify as being a victim.

[Cthulhu]

Prostitution is legal in NZ and Australia. Rarely hear about any problems. Any person who is involved in human trafficking gets shut down pretty quick...and sent to jail...

The morgue would be preferable, but I guess jail is a start.

[Mr Happy]

If Trump was a Democrat I wouldn't give him the time of day. But seeing how he's a Republican and one of the most savvy financial gurus in the public eye and in America today, I will continue to agree with the man on most every issue concerning our sad state of affairs under the auspices of our worst president, and agree with his common sense solutions to those issues.

RATFLMAO!! Trump...a financial guru....too funny...

[jillian]

If Trump was a Democrat I wouldn't give him the time of day. But seeing how he's a Republican and one of the most savvy financial gurus in the public eye and in America today, I will continue to agree with the man on most every issue concerning our sad state of affairs under the auspices of our worst president, and agree with his common sense solutions to those issues.

Trump supported democratic candidates…

and the only reason trump has what he has is his daddy's money… fred was the real financial guru. trump is hot air…. and turned into a wacko birfer to boot.

our worst president was baby bush. now run along and stop whining.

[jillian]

If it's ten times safer than childbirth all women should continue to abort then, I suppose. Abortion saves lives!

Don't be nonsensical, any surgery is potentially dangerous and unhealthy. Her point was that prostitution is less healthy than non-prostitution but by no means should it prevent people from using their own bodies as they see fit.

I'd think a liberal would agree with that or do you wish to start telling humans what they should do with their own bodies and lives "for their own good"?

you really shouldn't speak without having knowledge. as much as i understand you're all about not liking rules unless they affect women, childbirth *is* more dangerous than abortion. and notice that she specifically said "when LEGAL"… because when it is illegal, abortion is very dangerous. interestingly, it doesn't affect the rate of abortion one iota when illegal…

so, once again, so much for the "pro life" types concerning themselves with actual life while professing all types of crocodile tears for potential life.

[Peter1469]

Trump supported democratic candidates…

and the only reason trump has what he has is his daddy's money… fred was the real financial guru. trump is hot air…. and turned into a wacko birfer to boot.

our worst president was baby bush. now run along and stop whining.

I would say Carter was the worst, but I think we discussed that a long time ago.

[Paperback Writer]

you really shouldn't speak without having knowledge. as much as i understand you're all about not liking rules unless they affect women, childbirth *is* more dangerous than abortion. and notice that she specifically said "when LEGAL"… because when it is illegal, abortion is very dangerous. interestingly, it doesn't affect the rate of abortion one iota when illegal…

so, once again, so much for the "pro life" types concerning themselves with actual life while professing all types of crocodile tears for potential life.

Oh, blah blah, spare me the feminist guilt trip and your made up assertion that I don't like rules unless <insert your assembled straw man here>. Doesn't work on me. I'm impervious to guilt, shame, or pandering. I'm quite happy with myself and ability to run roughshod over any and all arguments from credible and worthy opponents. If you had an argument I might waste time engaging it, but as it is you just have talking points reflective of the careless educational environment of the Americas that teaches either/or thinking.

You and your ilk are incapable of understanding, much less debating ambiguous or nuanced subjects.

Besides, I just said I agree with you. Abortion saves lives. Abort all the fetuses in the world, I say! Save women's lives!

Ha-ha-ha

[Paperback Writer]

Trump supported democratic candidates…

and the only reason trump has what he has is his daddy's money… fred was the real financial guru. trump is hot air…. and turned into a wacko birfer to boot.

our worst president was baby bush. now run along and stop whining.

Your worst president? Ha-ha-ha when have you had a good president? Gads, you don't think Obama is a good president do you?

[Common]

Trump supported democratic candidates…

and the only reason trump has what he has is his daddy's money… fred was the real financial guru. trump is hot air…. and turned into a wacko birfer to boot.

our worst president was baby bush. now run along and stop whining.


Trump is a whore and supports anyone he thinks will benefit him.

[Common]

I would say Carter was the worst, but I think we discussed that a long time ago.


Yeah I have to agree, Jimmy Carter turned my stomach, he was a total lamer.

[IMPress Polly]

jillian wrote:
our worst president was baby bush. now run along and stop whining.


Peter wrote:
I would say Carter was the worst, but I think we discussed that a long time ago.



Common wrote:
Yeah I have to agree, Jimmy Carter turned my stomach, he was a total lamer.


Really people? Worse than Millard Filmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan, whose rabidly pro-slavery politics led the nation to civil war? Worse than that??

There's a failure to keep things in perspective here, and it's not an uncommon one. People flatter themselves. They always prefer to see their own generation as the most important and dramatic in human history, but it's not. This is why these things should be evaluated by actual historians.



Libhater wrote:
If Trump was a Democrat I wouldn't give him the time of day. But seeing how he's a Republican and one of the most savvy financial gurus in the public eye and in America today, I will continue to agree with the man on most every issue concerning our sad state of affairs under the auspices of our worst president, and agree with his common sense solutions to those issues.


Thank you for that entertaining post. Normally I find your remarks annoying and just ignore them, but this was just too classic to ignore, as you really just admitted that you're a mindlessly partisan shill. And here I had assumed more of you: that your loyalties were to your ideology. You know, that you actually had principles or something.

Anyway all, I think the fact that we're no longer discussing prostitution tells you that this thread has exhausted its usefulness and that we've all settled into our positions.

[Captain Obvious]

Yeah I have to agree, Jimmy Carter turned my stomach, he was a total lamer.

The best thing Jimmy Carter gave us was Billy.

[jillian]

Really people? Worse than Millard Filmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan, whose rabidly pro-slavery politics led the nation to civil war? Worse than that??
lol. no. not worse than that. i should have said worst in my lifetime. :)

but barack obama certainly isn't worse


There's a failure to keep things in perspective here, and it's not an uncommon one. People flatter themselves. They always prefer to see their own generation as the most important and dramatic in human history, but it's not. This is why these things should be evaluated by actual historians.

well, it's like my acting teacher in high school used to say -- we're all the star of our own movie. so yeah… probably true.

as for the prostitution issue, well, not a lot to say about it. one is either for regulating what is an unending business rather than fighting a losing battle against its existence where we waste resources and lose revenue opportunities (as well as the ability to make sure that the girls aren't trafficked and are healthy)…. or you believe we should take a moral stand against certain things.

[Peter1469]

Really people? Worse than Millard Filmore, Franklin Pierce, and James Buchanan, whose rabidly pro-slavery politics led the nation to civil war? Worse than that??

There's a failure to keep things in perspective here, and it's not an uncommon one. People flatter themselves. They always prefer to see their own generation as the most important and dramatic in human history, but it's not. This is why these things should be evaluated by actual historians.



Thank you for that entertaining post. Normally I find your remarks annoying and just ignore them, but this was just too classic to ignore, as you really just admitted that you're a mindlessly partisan shill. And here I had assumed more of you: that your loyalties were to your ideology. You know, that you actually had principles or something.

Anyway all, I think the fact that we're no longer discussing prostitution tells you that this thread has exhausted its usefulness and that we've all settled into our positions.


I was focused on modern presidents.

I don't really have a position on prostitution, except that I don't think it is going away.

[Common]

Polly, Jimmy Carter was a failure. He was a failure at home and a definite failure in foreign policy.

I dont know if you lived through the carter years, but we had Odd and Even days you could buy gas and the lines were HUGE people were fighting and killing each other at gas stations.

Iran took hostages and kept them a full YEAR taunting us, Carter waited months and they ordered a half assed attempt to rescue them that failed. It failed via equiptment failure but it would have failed either way.

I bought a house during the carter years Polly, I had PERFECT credit a 65% down payment and the best interest rate I could get was 12.7 %
Sorry polly I call it like I see it and I can be wrong but the way I see it Carter was the worst president of my lifetime. SO FAR!!!!!!

[Libhater]

Polly, Jimmy Carter was a failure. He was a failure at home and a definite failure in foreign policy.

I dont know if you lived through the carter years, but we had Odd and Even days you could buy gas and the lines were HUGE people were fighting and killing each other at gas stations.

Iran took hostages and kept them a full YEAR taunting us, Carter waited months and they ordered a half assed attempt to rescue them that failed. It failed via equiptment failure but it would have failed either way.

I bought a house during the carter years Polly, I had PERFECT credit a 65% down payment and the best interest rate I could get was 12.7 %
Sorry polly I call it like I see it and I can be wrong but the way I see it Carter was the worst president of my lifetime. SO FAR!!!!!!

I was just starting out in the seventies with a new wife and a new job, and we also waited in 2-3 hour gas lines obeying the odd/even deal. We bought a 1971 Volkswagen bus at the cheapest rate of 21.9% interest. Lest we forget the hostage ordeal that came to a climax on Reagan's first day in office.

[IMPress Polly]

jillian wrote:
as for the prostitution issue, well, not a lot to say about it. one is either for regulating what is an unending business rather than fighting a losing battle against its existence where we waste resources and lose revenue opportunities (as well as the ability to make sure that the girls aren't trafficked and are healthy)…. or you believe we should take a moral stand against certain things.

I'm not as sure as you that prostitution is just inevitable, but even if it is...well frankly murder and rape aren't going away either, but that's just not a good argument for legalizing those things, is it? You're acceding to what I like to call defeatist libertarian pseudo-logic. Defeatist libertarian pseudo-logic "reasons" that the solution to all the world's is to just give up on addressing them and legalize everything. The true adherent to this line of thinking would doubtless contend that doubling the speed limit on a 75 mph highway would cut the number of traffic accidents in half because people would spend only half as much time on the road. Of course in reality we know that raising the speed limit increases the number of traffic accidents and deaths. Why let facts get in the way of convenience though? Likewise, legalizing murder and rape would only tend to increase the number of murders and rapes that occurred. You see, just because something isn't necessarily going away as a phenomenon doesn't mean that more permissiveness toward it is a solution. Here in the real world, things really do tend to work exactly the way you'd instinctively think they would: banning things tends to discourage them, while allowing things tends to encourage them, which is my point about the prostitution business. I've pointed out here that this basic principle applies to the field of prostitution as well (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/18878-Prostitution?p=429632&viewfull=1#post429632): that legalization increases demand (and thus expands the underground sex trade (http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/legalized_prostitution_a_failed_experiment.html)), while disallowing, and especially criminalizing, the purchase of sex reduces the level of demand for commercial sex and thus weakens the sex trade as a whole. (Check out the stats.) Your uninformed line of reasoning, by contrast, simply assumes that the level of demand for commercial sex is unaffected by its legal status, which just isn't the case.

[The Xl]

Murder and rape have a victim, voluntary prostitution does not. Ergo, your comparison and argument holds no water.

[jillian]

Murder and rape have a victim, voluntary prostitution does not. Ergo, your comparison and argument holds no water.

your saying her argument holds no water doesn't make it hold no water. it is her opinion that they have certain analogous features. mostly it seems to me that she's saying just because something exists doesn't mean it *should* exist. wse hear that argument on other issues all the time.

i like the idea of regulation and legalizing it because there IS a lot of prostitution that is involuntary. women are trafficked all the time. it's a huge problem internationally. that isn't particularly different from rape and murder, so that's probably where she's coming from.

where i disagree with polly is that i don't think making such things illegal have any effect on frequency. i do believe that making prostitution legal allows us to monitor the goings on, make sure that the women are there voluntarily and make sure they're healthy.

that, to me at least, makes more sense than criminalizing the behavior.

[Libhater]

Thank you for that entertaining post. Normally I find your remarks annoying and just ignore them, but this was just too classic to ignore, as you really just admitted that you're a mindlessly partisan shill. And here I had assumed more of you: that your loyalties were to your ideology. You know, that you actually had principles or something.

A mindlessly partisan shill? LMFAO! My loyalties are to the ideology shared by 99% of our Founders; those of which are daily being rejected, abused or circumvented by the leftists. You won't find anyone on this forum that has a more principled mindset than yours truly the LIBHATER.

[The Xl]

your saying her argument holds no water doesn't make it hold no water. it is her opinion that they have certain analogous features. mostly it seems to me that she's saying just because something exists doesn't mean it *should* exist. wse hear that argument on other issues all the time.

i like the idea of regulation and legalizing it because there IS a lot of prostitution that is involuntary. women are trafficked all the time. it's a huge problem internationally. that isn't particularly different from rape and murder, so that's probably where she's coming from.

where i disagree with polly is that i don't think making such things illegal have any effect on frequency. i do believe that making prostitution legal allows us to monitor the goings on, make sure that the women are there voluntarily and make sure they're healthy.

that, to me at least, makes more sense than criminalizing the behavior.

She's entitled to her opinion, but the comparison isn't valid, as those two have victims, and voluntary prostitution does not. I'm all for throwing the book at involuntary forms, but she also feels that the comparison applies to voluntary prostitution, and it clearly does not.

[jillian]

She's entitled to her opinion, but the comparison isn't valid, as those two have victims, and voluntary prostitution does not. I'm all for throwing the book at involuntary forms, but she also feels that the comparison applies to voluntary prostitution, and it clearly does not.

as i stated above, the comparison is valid because of all the trafficking. i don't think she's talking about voluntary prostitution, though you'd have to ask her. i think she's saying that keeping it illegal keeps the involuntary trafficking down because it suppresses demand.

[The Sage of Main Street]

I'm not as sure as you that prostitution is just inevitable, but even if it is...well frankly murder and rape aren't going away either, but that's just not a good argument for legalizing those things, is it? You're acceding to what I like to call defeatist libertarian pseudo-logic. Defeatist libertarian pseudo-logic "reasons" that the solution to all the world's is to just give up on addressing them and legalize everything. The true adherent to this line of thinking would doubtless contend that doubling the speed limit on a 75 mph highway would cut the number of traffic accidents in half because people would spend only half as much time on the road. Of course in reality we know that raising the speed limit increases the number of traffic accidents and deaths. Why let facts get in the way of convenience though? Likewise, legalizing murder and rape would only tend to increase the number of murders and rapes that occurred. You see, just because something isn't necessarily going away as a phenomenon doesn't mean that more permissiveness toward it is a solution. Here in the real world, things really do tend to work exactly the way you'd instinctively think they would: banning things tends to discourage them, while allowing things tends to encourage them, which is my point about the prostitution business. I've pointed out here that this basic principle applies to the field of prostitution as well (http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/18878-Prostitution?p=429632&viewfull=1#post429632): that legalization increases demand (and thus expands the underground sex trade (http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/07/legalized_prostitution_a_failed_experiment.html)), while disallowing, and especially criminalizing, the purchase of sex reduces the level of demand for commercial sex and thus weakens the sex trade as a whole. (Check out the stats.) Your uninformed line of reasoning, by contrast, simply assumes that the level of demand for commercial sex is unaffected by its legal status, which just isn't the case.

How has it worked out in other countries? If it had led to your scare stories, don't you think they would have criminalized it again?

[waltky]

One way to fight prostitution...
:cool2:
Sex worker spied by drone pleads guilty
Wed, 30 Mar 2016 - A woman in Oklahoma pleads guilty to a lewdness charge after being caught on camera by a local "drone vigilante".


Brian Bates used a drone to film Amanda Zolicoffer during a liaison with a man last August. Mr Bates says this was the only occasion on which he has used a drone to film such an encounter. A civil liberties campaigner pointed out that filming with drones could raise privacy concerns. According to court documents seen by the BBC, Zolicoffer was sentenced to a year in state prison for the misdemeanour. The case against her alleged client, who was released following arrest in December, is still pending. Footage of an encounter between two individuals in a parked vehicle was given to Oklahoma City police by Mr Bates.

Video vigilante

"I'm sort of known in the Oklahoma City area," Mr Bates told the BBC. "For the last 20 years I've used a video camera to document street-level and forced prostitution, and human trafficking." Mr Bates added that on this occasion he felt safer filming the incident via drone and said that it was able to get "very good footage". Mr Bates runs a website where he publishes videos of alleged sex workers and their clients. "I am openly referred to as a video vigilante, I don't really shy away from that," he said.


http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/320/cpsprodpb/7698/production/_89006303_zolicoffer2.jpg

However, Mr Bates also said that he was reluctant to use his drone in many cases because of safety concerns. In this instance, said Mr Bates, the two individuals were inside a vehicle and the incident occurred away from other members of the public. "I'd certainly caution other people who may be tempted to use drones to maybe fight drug activity or prostitution or gangs in their neighbourhood," he said. "If one thing goes wrong, you will probably be the person facing criminal charges or civil liability."

Expectations of privacy

"People operating drones have to think about whether there is a reasonable expectation of privacy when they are filming," said Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group. "Filming in public spaces [for example] is very different from filming someone's private property." Mr Killock pointed out some general issues facing drone owners with regards to filming and said there was little difference between this and traditional photography. "The technologies may be different but the ethics are fundamentally the same."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35926009

[Peter1469]

Why are you wasting tax dollars on fighting prostitution?

[Common Sense]

Legal in Canada. There are weird regulations though.

[Don]

https://youtu.be/cm-Li_yL03U

[gamewell45]

Pot legalization is all the rage lately, but what about prostitution?

Why is it still illegal?

If I, a consenting adult were willing to pay someone, another consenting adult for sex, why is this illegal?

Like pot, it happens daily everywhere. Enforcement is minimally sporadic at best, there are better uses of our law enforcement resources. No?

Legalizing it would bring tax revenues (in theory), some regulation and protection for both the client and the prostitute. Maybe?

Discuss

While I agree with you wholly, the Churches will never allow prostitution to be legalized if they have any say in it citing most likely moral society values.

[Don]

The churches haven't been all that effective in stopping the breakdown of the social order in the last 30 or 40 years.

[OGIS]

Ive been for legalizing prostitution a long time. No one will ever be successful in stopping prostitution and legalizing it has nothing but benefits from my perspective.

Licensing Prostitutes and forcing medical checks for communicable diseases for starters. It provides a much safer environment for Prostitutes and Johns alike.

Its worked in Vegas and it would save tons of tax money in enforcement and arrests.

Well, from a certain point of view, those are negatives. Tax money is effectively unlimited. (Need more? Just say it for the chillllllllddddreeeeeeennnnnnn.) And as for enforcements and arrests? Well, Randolph Bourne thought that "war was the health of the state." But then so is a large number of felons. As Rand had Floyd Ferris say, "What in the world do you think most laws are for?"

[Cletus]

Iran took hostages and kept them a full YEAR taunting us, Carter waited months and they ordered a half assed attempt to rescue them that failed. It failed via equiptment failure but it would have failed either way.

It wasn't equipment failure.

[Cthulhu]

While I agree with you wholly, the Churches will never allow prostitution to be legalized if they have any say in it citing most likely moral society values.
Didn't exactly stop gay marriage. As time marches on the influence of churches seem to diminish.

Can't say I'm thrilled with the results.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

[OGIS]

While I agree with you wholly, the Churches will never allow prostitution to be legalized if they have any say in it citing most likely moral society values.

You have to have activities for people to feel guilty about. If people feel guilty, they you "have them" by the short hairs and they will do anything they are told. People who don't feel guilty about something (whether or not that guilt is real or earned) cannot be ruled.

That is the secret, kids. It's as simple as that.

Regardless of any of her faults, Ayn Rand nailed that.

[OGIS]

Didn't exactly stop gay marriage. As time marches on the influence of churches seem to diminish.

Thank God.

[Cthulhu]

Thank God.
Revel while you can I guess. Not exactly the path I would have chosen.

But it's your soul, not mine. Do as you will.

Sent from my evil, baby seal-clubbing cellphone.

[Mister D]

You have to have activities for people to feel guilty about. If people feel guilty, they you "have them" by the short hairs and they will do anything they are told. People who don't feel guilty about something (whether or not that guilt is real or earned) cannot be ruled.

That is the secret, kids. It's as simple as that.

Regardless of any of her faults, Ayn Rand nailed that.

Ayn Rand's primary fault was her ridiculous philosophy.

[Archer0915]

Pot legalization is all the rage lately, but what about prostitution?

Why is it still illegal?

If I, a consenting adult were willing to pay someone, another consenting adult for sex, why is this illegal?

Like pot, it happens daily everywhere. Enforcement is minimally sporadic at best, there are better uses of our law enforcement resources. No?

Legalizing it would bring tax revenues (in theory), some regulation and protection for both the client and the prostitute. Maybe?

Discuss

I think it should remain illegal for health reasons but there again let the shitasses kill themselves! Hell yeah! Aids! How damn much money does that cost the taxpayers every year?


FEDERAL DOMESTIC HIV/AIDS PROGRAMS & RESEARCH SPENDINGThe U.S. government investment in the domestic response to HIV has risen to more than $24 billion per year.
Funding for HIV services is spread across multiple federal departments, including Health and Human Services (HHS), Housing and Urban Development, Justice, Veterans Affairs (VA), and Defense. Within HHS, in particular, responsibility for HIV programs is spread across multiple agencies including the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Health Resources and Services Administration, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), the Indian Health Service, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the Office of HIV/AIDS and Infectious Disease Policy (OHAIDP), the Office of Minority Health, and others. Responsibility for HIV research is primarily owned by the National Institutes of Health (NIH); in addition, CDC, VA, Defense, and the United States Agency for International Development also support research initiatives. This distribution of responsibility is appropriate, as each agency has its own expertise, and different agencies operate different programs with varying legislative mandates, purposes and with unique histories.
The table below summarizes the current budget request and the Congressionally enacted budgets for recent federal fiscal years (October 1-September 30).

https://www.aids.gov/federal-resources/funding-opportunities/how-were-spending/

How about giving those of us who do not get AIDS the damn money?

[HoneyBadger]

Anyway, as to your broader point, the way I see it reproductive rights are about freeing you up to CONTROL your own body





The vast majority of women in this country already have control of their own bodies. What they want is a free pass from the consequences of the decisions they have willingly made. That infantilizes women instead of empowering them. So does treating every prostitute as a victim. A woman who willingly sells sex to others isn't a victim.