What to do with prostitutes

[Jon.]

Jon,

I plucked the 90% out of thin air. I'm willing to adjust the figure.



Z's not sure about China. Wiki "Prostitution China". It's illegal.

That dwarfs Canada, Australia, Korea, Japan and New Zealand, many times over.

Any more suggestions ?

If so, wiki "Prostitution Russia".

Or "Prostitution India".

Or "Prostitution USA".


...in each case, prostitution is (with a few local exceptions) illegal.

As I said, I guessed 90%.

I still think it's a good guess...


Gnu.

I will give you Russia, China and most of the US. However, as Hokulele pointed out, it is legal in India, which alone constitutes over 10% of the world's population, so I don't think your guess is so good.

 

[Greatest I am]

You mean like the Fraser Committee report in Canada, which recommended legalizing and regulating prostitution other than street prostitution?

Yes.
I would have included street level as well. This is probably were most of the abuse is.

Regards
DL

 

[Jon.]

You mean like the Fraser Committee report in Canada, which recommended legalizing and regulating prostitution other than street prostitution?

Yes.
I would have included street level as well. This is probably were most of the abuse is.

Regards
DL

Say again? You would recommend legalizing all prostitution including street level prostitution? What brought on this change of heart?

 

[Greatest I am]

Say again? You would recommend legalizing all prostitution including street level prostitution? What brought on this change of heart?

No change of heart.
We are talking of a specific country with specific aptitudes.
What is good for Canada would not necessarily be good for other locations.
As stated, some countries are already under a legal or quasi legal system. Some there still sell their 10-12 year old children to the highest bidder.
Further I would need to see the rules and regulations before committing to a real law.
Generally though I can say that a legal system is better than an illegal one.
No prostitution being the ideal, legalization is closer to it than illegal.

Regards
DL

 

[Jon.]

No change of heart.
We are talking of a specific country with specific aptitudes.
What is good for Canada would not necessarily be good for other locations.
As stated, some countries are already under a legal or quasi legal system. Some there still sell their 10-12 year old children to the highest bidder.
Further I would need to see the rules and regulations before committing to a real law.
Generally though I can say that a legal system is better than an illegal one.
No prostitution being the ideal, legalization is closer to it than illegal.

Regards
DL

Okay, you've lost me completely. The situation in Canada now is that it is not illegal to exchange money for sex, but it is illegal to communicate in a public place for that purpose. This, as the Fraser Committee pointed out, is hypocritical and illogical: either prostitution is legal and should be regulated, or it is completely illegal. They came down on the side of legal and regulated. You have been arguing throughout this thread that prostitution is bad and should not exist. However, are you now saying that it should be legal? Please explain.

 

[Gnu Ordure]

I will give you Russia, China and most of the US. However, as Hokulele pointed out, it is legal in India, which alone constitutes over 10% of the world's population, so I don't think your guess is so good.

OK, maybe I was wrong to claim India, Jon, but I don't think you can claim it either. The wiki article Hokulele linked to states that :

The primary law dealing with the status of sex workers is the 1956 law referred to as the The Immoral Traffic (Suppression) Act (SITA). According to this law, sex work in India is neither legal nor illegal

The same in the Czech Republic, apparently:

Prostitutes in the Czech Republic work in a legal gray area, neither explicitly legal nor illegal, which makes it tough for the state to control disease, the sex-slave trade and underage prostitution.

I admit I'm not familiar with this third option, "neither legal nor illegal"; but the second half of that quote seems to imply that it's not a good thing.

And in India, as the article says, prostitutes are denied normal workers' rights (ie they're exploited) :

sex workers are not protected under normal workers laws, and are not entitled to minimum wage benefits, compensation for injury or other benefits that are common in other types of work

and they obviously aren't protected by health-care laws, as the horrific HIV figures indicate:

Mumbai and Calcutta have the country's largest brothel based sex industry, with over 100,000 sex workers in Mumbai[1]. It is estimated that more than 50% of the sex workers in Mumbai are HIV-positive[2]. In Surat, a study discovered that HIV prevalence among sex workers had increased from 17% in 1992 to 43% in 2000.

So, sorry, I'm still claiming it. It might be "neither legal nor illegal" - but whatever it is, it appears to be just as bad as "illegal".




Also, Jon, don't forget that the total of illegal prostitutes includes those working in countries where it's legal.

For example, all the prostitutes working in Las Vegas, or anywhere else in Nevada outside of the licensed brothels. Anyone know how many there are of these ? according to wiki :

About 30 legal brothels existed in the state in January 2004, employing about 300 female prostitutes at any given time.

So, 300 legal prostitutes. How many illegal ones at the same time ? (Sorry, I couldn't find a figure on wiki).



Illegal prostitution exists in every country that licenses it, because some prostitutes want to work outside the system, and they can always find customers.


Anyway, Jon, don't sweat the 90%; my syllogism just said "more" ie a simple majority. With or without India, I reckon I've established that already.

1. Career criminals are not respected by society
2. Most prostitutes are career criminals.
3. Therefore, those prostitutes are not respected by society.

So, is that valid ? Or not ?


Gnu

 

[Gnu Ordure]

DL,

I've just rather belatedly realized that my discussion is now running in parallel with yours, which is rude of me, as it's your thread.

Sorry.

If you'd like me to take it elsewhere, I'd be happy to do so.


Gnu.

 

[Jon.]

1. Career criminals are not respected by society
2. Most prostitutes are career criminals.
3. Therefore, those prostitutes are not respected by society.

So, is that valid ? Or not ?


Gnu

That is valid. I would also add to that, though, that prostitution has been condemned by (especially) the Christian church for reasons that have nothing to do with criminality, so your "therefore" is valid only to the extent that it does not claim to be exclusive, if you see what I mean.

However, this says nothing normative. Should prostitution be criminal? Should prostitutes be respected by society? I think that is a big part of the point of this thread - you and GIA/DL/Griff seem to want to see an end to prostitution for reasons that have never been fully explained.

 

[pgwenthold]

Appropo of nothing, I just thought I'd mention that, while watching the History of Sex last night on the History Channel (US), it was mentioned how prostitution was common in ancient Japan, so much to the extent that prostitutes were called "Goddesses of Mercy."

Doesn't sound like they were lacking for respect in society.

 

[Gnu Ordure]

the point some of us are trying to make is that things would be different if it were legal.

We have a phrase in England, Todd : "Yes, and if my aunt had bollocks she'd be my uncle".

If things were different, things would be different.

But as things stand, most prostitution is illegal. That is the reality.

Like I said before, I'll agree with you that prostitution isn't currently a respected profession, in the U.S. at any rate,

Agreed.

I see nothing ethically wrong with prostitution in general, and no reason it couldn't be respected if the social climate were somewhat different.

Except the social climate isn't different. Prostitutes would be more respected if their profession was legitimized, sure... but it isn't (mostly), so it isn't.

Er...well, yes, that's my definition of prostitute

Then it's too narrow. Your definition would include Catherine Deneuve and Susan Sarandon having sex in the The Hunger. They're having sex, they're being paid to do it, they must be prostitutes, right ?

Of course not.

Porn-stars are actors.

Well, that's more a matter of having control over both sides of the equation than anything else.

No, it's just the law. Legal prostitutes (in Nevada, say) break the law if they have sex without a condom. Porn-stars don't. Because porn-stars aren't prostitutes.

And if they were prostitutes, why aren't they arrested on a regular basis ? Not lack of evidence of condom-free sex, surely ?

I appreciate that it's a fine distinction between a porn-star and a prostitute, but the distinction can be defined in rational legal terms and enshrined in law.

There are definitely some big names in Nevada...

For example ?

 

[Gnu Ordure]

In the legal brothels in Nevada, clients are checked visually for symptoms of disease before any of the fun stuff starts. They don't do a blood test, but that would be prohibitively invasive, and require lab equipment (and staff to operate it) at every location. It just wouldn't be practical.

Not necessary, Todd.

The top-end of the porn industry provides a model.

Do you think each movie shoot is attended by a medical crew to test the participants ?

No, the actors have regular checks, and turn up with a certificate of good health from a recent test. No certificate, no work.

So it would be very simple, Todd, for you to have a check yourself at your local clinic before you go to Vegas, and be given a certificate to be presented at a brothel. Valid for one month from the day of the test, say. No certificate, no sex.

Such a scheme would pay for itself. Not only would the risk to prostitutes be reduced, but early diagnosis of disease would save millions of dollars in treatment, as well as reducing infection rates generally.

Actually, that does seem like rather a good idea...



Someone tell me what's wrong with it...

.

 

[Gnu Ordure]

It is also legal in Korea, Japan, and (IIRC) Thailand.

z, where are you getting your information from ?

I'm getting mine from wiki. I know it's not infallible, but feel free to prove it wrong.

From "Prostitution in Japan":

Article 3 of the Anti-Prostitution Law of 1956 states that "No person may either do prostitution or become the customer of it",

From "Prostitution in Thailand" :

Prostitution has been technically illegal in Thailand since 1960, when a law was passed under pressure from the United Nations

from "Prostitution in South Korea" :

Prostitution in South Korea is a large illegal industry.

I couldn't find anything on North Korea.


(I still think 90% is a good guess).


.

 

[Wheezebucket]

Porn stars **** for money - the fact that it's filmed and directed changes little. A fair number of them also appear at places the the Bunny Ranch to cash in on their porn-celebrity status, to collect some cizash from the masses who want to rail them after having watched their movies. This is reality, and this is ok.

Hurray for free will!

Who will save the prostitutes from themselves?!?!?

 

[Lensman]

If your only differentiation between a Date and an encounter with a hooker is the price then I wonder what marriage would mean to you or love.
A date is to further your life.
An encounter with a hooker is to add friction to your dick. There is a difference.

Regards
DL

I'm not married, nor have I ever wanted to marry but I have nothing against marriage. I have had some girlfriends & a fairly healthy sex life, have never been to a prostitute, but if I ever felt the need to visit one, I hope I'd be able to find one.

To my mind they provide a necessary service (no pun intended) to people who, through no real fault of their own, find it difficult or sometimes impossible to form a normal relationship with a member of the opposite (or same) sex. There should be no shame in going to a prostitute or being one.

 

[toddjh]

We have a phrase in England, Todd : "Yes, and if my aunt had bollocks she'd be my uncle".

If things were different, things would be different.

But as things stand, most prostitution is illegal. That is the reality.

It's not an immutable reality. Arguments that prostitution should be illegal because prostitution is bad because prostitution is illegal are at best circular logic, and at worst a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Except the social climate isn't different. Prostitutes would be more respected if their profession was legitimized, sure... but it isn't (mostly), so it isn't.

Yet.

Then it's too narrow. Porn-stars are actors.

First, I think you mean too broad, not too narrow. And second, acting and prostitution are not mutually exclusive.

As for whether mainstream actors who have sex on camera should be considered prostitutes, the issue is easily addressed by asking whether the sex is central to the job, or merely incidental. If actors are hired to play a role and voluntarily have sex in the course of playing that role, then no, that is not prostitution because sex is not what they're paid for -- for example, I'm willing to bet that Susan Sarandon could not be sued for breach of contract if she had refused to actually have sex on camera.

Porn stars are different, of course, because sex is what they're paid for. Unlike in mainstream movies, sex is the sine qua non of porn. If an actor in a porn film shows up on set and says no, I don't think I'll be having sex today, you can be sure he or she will be in a lot of trouble.

No, it's just the law. Legal prostitutes (in Nevada, say) break the law if they have sex without a condom. Porn-stars don't. Because porn-stars aren't prostitutes.

They're a different type of prostitute, covered by different laws. Prostitutes who work in brothels need mandatory condom use because their clients are anonymous and testing all of them isn't practical. Porn stars don't require the same level of protection because everybody involved is tested regularly. The porn industry is actually quite paranoid about STDs -- pretty much the whole thing shut down a couple years ago when a male porn actor was found to be HIV-positive.

Your argument is akin to saying that, since surgeons and psychiatrists are subject to different standards and licensing bodies, they're not both doctors.

For example?

Any names I gave would probably be way out of date.

So it would be very simple, Todd, for you to have a check yourself at your local clinic before you go to Vegas, and be given a certificate to be presented at a brothel. Valid for one month from the day of the test, say. No certificate, no sex.

There's no need for such a scheme. The current system is adequate, as evidenced by the fact that STD rates are lower among legal prostitutes than among the general population. It would needlessly complicate things, be bad for business, and cost people a lot of money for no good reason.

And if you're arguing that your scheme would be enough to relax the mandatory condom rule, then I strongly disagree. If a person tested clean a month ago, that doesn't mean anything about whether they're still clean now. With porn actors it's different because there is usually a long testing history, plus it's a smaller group of people to begin with (porn actors are not likely to have sex with hundreds of different people in a month, while prostitutes at brothels are), but clients at a brothel could be anybody. Who knows what they've done in the last month.

 

[Greatest I am]

Okay, you've lost me completely. The situation in Canada now is that it is not illegal to exchange money for sex, but it is illegal to communicate in a public place for that purpose. This, as the Fraser Committee pointed out, is hypocritical and illogical: either prostitution is legal and should be regulated, or it is completely illegal. They came down on the side of legal and regulated. You have been arguing throughout this thread that prostitution is bad and should not exist. However, are you now saying that it should be legal? Please explain.

I am saying that a legalized system of prostitution is better than an illegal system.
No system would be the best.
Canada does not have the slavery issues that the poorest countries and a legalized system may not work as well there.

 

[Greatest I am]

Okay, you've lost me completely. The situation in Canada now is that it is not illegal to exchange money for sex, but it is illegal to communicate in a public place for that purpose. This, as the Fraser Committee pointed out, is hypocritical and illogical: either prostitution is legal and should be regulated, or it is completely illegal. They came down on the side of legal and regulated. You have been arguing throughout this thread that prostitution is bad and should not exist. However, are you now saying that it should be legal? Please explain.

I am saying that a legalized system of prostitution is better than an illegal system.
No system would be the best.
Canada does not have the slavery issues that the poorest countries and a legalized system may not work as well there.

Prostitution at it's best is still a demeaning act, showing a poor use of sex within a society.

A parent usually has no problem availing themselves of whatever profession their children get into. Except prostitution hence it's poor moral position. If something is good then it should be good for most, all the time.
Since as shown here it is not good at all times then it can be seen as intrinsically evil.

Regards
DL

 

[Z]

z, where are you getting your information from ?

I'm getting mine from wiki. I know it's not infallible, but feel free to prove it wrong.

From "Prostitution in Japan":




From "Prostitution in Thailand" :




from "Prostitution in South Korea" :




I couldn't find anything on North Korea.


(I still think 90% is a good guess).


.

On South Korea, I lived there for a year. During my time there, we had classes on Korean law, since we would be interacting with them directly. At that time, prostitution was legal and regulated. The girls were checked out weekly, and were required to show you their health cards, which, if they were clean, would have a blue stamp. The anti-prostitution law is only two years old, apparently. This is a new thing, and is NOT working out well for Korea at all.

We were also educated on Japan, and I know from my military friends and contacts that the following is still true. In Japan, though there are antiprostitution laws, prostitution is still allowed as long as the authorities have some means of controlling it. And the laws are very vague. In fact, in Tokyo, prostitutes as young as 12 are considered to be perfectly legal and normal. The cops only step in if they hear about excessive abuse, robbery, drug use, and such. (They treat their prostitution laws much the way our cops treat speed limits - something enforcable if they really feel like it, but usually overlooked and even violated by the cops themselves.)

I have a close friend who is Thai, and has a sister who works as a prostitute in Thailand. In Thailand, selling sex is technically illegal, but buying sex is not. The country has a legal age for the sex trade of 18 - why have a legal age to trade in sex, if trading in sex is illegal? The purpose of their laws is to prevent pimping: the law is that you can't offer someone else's body for sex (or outright offer your own for sex), but there's nothing wrong with accepting a payment for sex once it's been offered. So, no, in Thailand, prostitution is legal.

Remember, Gnu, Wikipedia should be a STARTING point for research, not the final word.

And, no, 90% is grossly exaggerated.

 

[Greatest I am]

DL,

I've just rather belatedly realized that my discussion is now running in parallel with yours, which is rude of me, as it's your thread.

Sorry.

If you'd like me to take it elsewhere, I'd be happy to do so.


Gnu.

Not at all.
All information is possibly relevant.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

I'm not married, nor have I ever wanted to marry but I have nothing against marriage. I have had some girlfriends & a fairly healthy sex life, have never been to a prostitute, but if I ever felt the need to visit one, I hope I'd be able to find one.

To my mind they provide a necessary service (no pun intended) to people who, through no real fault of their own, find it difficult or sometimes impossible to form a normal relationship with a member of the opposite (or same) sex.

GIA wrote
Your example shows where a sex worker should get involved. His or her condition is not solved by sex with a hooker. His or her problem is not lack of sex, it is the impossibility of forming relationships. No relationship is gained by going to a hooker. They are not shrinks.


There should be no shame in going to a prostitute or being one.

I cannot agree. Something in the human experience should be above animal actions. The view of the mighty hunter returning to the tribe with his kill "money" and expecting to get sex for it is indicative of hunting being of the highest value to the tribe. This is not so. A tribe must and is based on other ideals.

Regards
DL