What to do with prostitutes

Gnu,

I'd say the clear answer to your question is legalise prostitution.

I'm not very knowledgeable about the situation in Nevada - I've never lived there or visited there. However, I have been over most of Australia. And here, even in the more seedier suburbs of the major cities there's much fewer street-walkers than 10 years ago, when prostitution was mostly illegal. Legalisation has moved the majority of these people into safer, healthier brothels which are - for the most part - a great improvement over their earlier situation.

I won't say that street walking has been fully eliminated, I'm sure it has not, but it's certainly dramatically decreased.

Personally, I see little or no difference in the sexual act regardless of whether or not money changes hands. Legalisation, to me, seems the most logical path to take.

Cheers,
TGHO
 
Here's a very interesting paper that shows several interesting trends:

http://www.liberator.net/articles/prostitution.html

The claim in the paper is that nations which have legalized prostitution enjoy lower crime rates, lower imprisonment rates, a better quality of life, fewer suicides, a lower incidence of HIV/AIDS infection, and of course, a much lower expenditure of police spending than those nations which continue to persecute prostitution.

They specifically point out the Netherlands, a place famous for its liberal attitudes towards prostitution, and also famous for being peaceful and relatively disease-free.

No, legalizing prostitution won't eliminate illegal prostitution, but it will greatly reduce illegal prostitution and related criminal activity.

Gnu, I'm afraid your argument is very, very weak.

Furthermore, I propose that the 90% figure is much closer to 30%.

Let's face it - prostitution is being globally decriminalized at a steady pace. And the benefits far outweigh any costs involved.

Apparently, Georgia is considering legalizing prostitution as well - that would be an interesting twist, with how conservative Southerners tend to be.

Think of the economics: in the city of Los Angeles alone, over $100 million is spent every year going after illegal prostitutes and their johns. And almost every single prostitute taken in with all that money is given a fine - often waived - and is back on the streets in 24 hours.

That's $100 million spent on interfering with two consenting adult who want to have sex. They weren't hurting anyone else, and they weren't doing anything morally wrong. And all that money hasn't done a THING to put a dent in prostitution.

I'd say that's tax money much better spent elsewhere.

In New York City, they say that at least 50% of the prostitutes are HIV-positive; in Nevada, not one of the legal prostitutes is infected.

But Nevada still isn't 100% legalized; so far, prostitution may only take place in brothels, and you're not supposed to live off of the proceeds of a prostitute.

So while Nevada is on the right track, it's only taken a few steps.

(That makes prostitution in Nevada as legal as prostitution in Thailand or Japan, Gnu - in some ways legal but not legal from other angles.)

It's also interesting that statistics show that 3/4 of all men in London have been with prostitutes, and 95% of men in Thailand; at least 65% in the United States...

While only about 1% of the world's population of women are in the business.

Wow.

So the next time some girl tells you you're her first john... yeah, right. :D

(Personally, I wouldn't ever use a prostitute - I think it's pretty pathetic if you have to openly pay a girl in order to get her to sleep with you. Even buying her drinks seems a little sad - unless you're just nice to people and always buy drinks. Me, I've enjoyed several interesting and unexpected encounters, and had to pay nothing for the good time at all. But if someone wants it, hey, they should be allowed to get it.)
 
slingblade said:
From a marketing standpoint, that's fairly ineffective for the workers. If the price of any service is raised far above "what the market will bear," the market will not disappear, but will rather move elsewhere.

Because this trade is not regulated, about an hour after the first hooker raises her price, she'll drop it...probably below even what she was asking in the first place. Why? No regulation means independent contractors. And unless one can get them all to agree and stick to a new price, there will always be someone cheaper than you, literally on the next corner.

Also, raising one's price so that one eliminates 1/2 to 2/3 of one's regular customer base, and expecting the lack to be made up by a new but smaller customer base one hasn't yet established, is economic suicide.

Aside from that, I notice the two examples you gave concern minors. I seem to recall that someone in this thread keeps conflating child sexual abuse with adult prostitution, though I'm not sure why. I feel confident that those of us who advocate legalization/decriminalization of prostitution are not including minors in our argument. Even were the trade made legal, we still wouldn't want minors practicing it. No more so than we want minors serving alcohol or selling cigarettes; both perfectly legal adult actions that are illegal for minors to perform. [edit: in the U.S., that is.]

I am fully aware there are plenty of minors around the world in the sex trade, usually against their wills. I would be hopeful that legalizing the trade would include regulating against the use of minors in it. Perhaps that might bring about a reduction? I'm not sure.

Even if it is made legal, however, I have no illusions that action would then make child prostitution go away. Legalizing adult prostitution would not, in and of itself, answer child sexual abuse. Because of that fact, I feel child prostitution is a different subject than the one we're ostensibly discussing.

Perhpas, in light of that, you should start a discussion thread about it in Politics & Current Events?
Click to expand...

If legalization is to be used as a tool to help children in abusive situations which is what is driving them to presently join the ranks, then a legalized system would need to include children. Simply legalizing for adults only serves adults. Adults are not my primary concern.

Regards
DL
 
Greatest I am said:
If legalization is to be used as a tool to help children in abusive situations which is what is driving them to presently join the ranks, then a legalized system would need to include children.
Click to expand...

Your if/then premise begs the question. Has anyone yet established that legalizing adult prostitution is indeed to be used as such a tool? How would such a tool function? In exactly what manner would making the adult sex trade legal for consenting adults address child sexual abuse?

A legalized system will not include, but exclude children. No child will be able to legally become a prostitute, certainly not in the U.S. I will not speak with certainty on other countries, as I am not as familiar with the mores of other countries as I am my own. But I can certainly think of many in which legalized prostitution will very likely exclude persons under a certain age, probably 18.

That it is illegal now doesn't stop abused girls from becoming hookers. How will making it legal for adults stop them from being abused as kids?



Simply legalizing for adults only serves adults. Adults are not my primary concern.
Click to expand...

Then this is not your thread's point. You need to make one to discuss your subject about child sexual abuse.
I certainly don't support making prostitution legal for children, so I don't know why or what you're arguing.

I also don't see how making the adult sex trade legal will prevent children of either gender from being abused. You say their abuse drives them to become prostitutes.

Well, it certainly didn't drive me. I was abused for 6 years. If prostitution between adults had been legal then, it wouldn't have changed my situation one bit. I would still have been abused. However, my having been abused didn't make me into a prostitute, either.

You are making a faulty argument in cause and correlation. That some abused children end up as prostitutes does not mean that changing prostitution laws will affect that abuse in any way.
 
Last edited:
slingblade said:
Your if/then premise begs the question. Has anyone yet established that legalizing adult prostitution is indeed to be used as such a tool? How would such a tool function? In exactly what manner would making the adult sex trade legal for consenting adults address child sexual abuse?

GIA wrote
As indicated by what I wrote above, the legalized system would have to include children to be effective in reducing child abuse. This will be a tougher sell but is tough love towards the perpetrators. So sad.

A legalized system will not include, but exclude children. No child will be able to legally become a prostitute, certainly not in the U.S. I will not speak with certainty on other countries, as I am not as familiar with the mores of other countries as I am my own. But I can certainly think of many in which legalized prostitution will very likely exclude persons under a certain age, probably 18.

That it is illegal now doesn't stop abused girls from becoming hookers. How will making it legal for adults stop them from being abused as kids?

GIA wrote
As indicated above, it would not but you may have missed where children were included initially.

Then this is not your thread's point. You need to make one to discuss your subject about child sexual abuse.
I certainly don't support making prostitution legal for children, so I don't know why or what you're arguing.

I also don't see how making the adult sex trade legal will prevent children of either gender from being abused. You say their abuse drives them to become prostitutes.

Well, it certainly didn't drive me. I was abused for 6 years. If prostitution between adults had been legal then, it wouldn't have changed my situation one bit. I would still have been abused. However, my having been abused didn't make me into a prostitute, either.

You are making a faulty argument in cause and correlation. That some abused children end up as prostitutes does not mean that changing prostitution laws will affect that abuse in any way.
Click to expand...

If children are not brought under the system then the whole premise of harm reduction fails and the use of legalization only becomes a facilitator for adult sex. Big help for children eh.

Regards
DL
 
Greatest I am said:
If children are not brought under the system then the whole premise of harm reduction fails and the use of legalization only becomes a facilitator for adult sex. Big help for children eh.
Click to expand...

So if everyone stops hiring prostitutes, then victims of sexual abuse can't choose that as a way to make money, and we don't have to feel guilty for perpetuating their original abuse?

And this does what to stop them being abused to start with? Seems to me, all it does is salve everyone else's consciences. Doesn't seem to do a darned thing for the kids. They're still going to be abused.

You can't fix a problem by removing one of its potential outcomes.

The kids are already "under a system." The legal system.
 
I asked :

In adjoining rooms in a Vegas hotel, there are two couples. Each person has known their partner for years; they trust each other. Each couple is engaged in identical behaviour: consensual penetrative sex.

The significant difference is that in one case money has changed hands.

Instantly breaking the law in Vegas..

So I'm asking you all : do you agree with this law ?

Why should it be legal for the husband and wife to have sex, but a crime for the other two ? They're all adults, after all. Why should the state intervene in one case, but not the other ?
Click to expand...


Todd, you answered that you think the law is unfair.

You want to legalize the commercial couple.

So let's do that.

Let's imagine that the law criminalizing the commercial transaction is repealed. Both couples proceed as before.

Now, according to the law in Nevada, the husband and wife couple have the right to have sex in a hotel; they have the right not to have medical checks if they don't want them; they have the right not to use a condom if they don't want to.

Agreed ?

Question : do the commercial couple next door also have these rights ?

If not, why not ?

And, if not, you then have to introduce new legislation forcing the commercial couple to move to a brothel, have some tests and use a condom... thus re-criminalizing the behaviour in the hotel that you were intending to legalize in the first place.

See the problem, Todd ?

You're trying to eradicate the problems associated with illegal prostitution by regulating it, but that immediately criminalizes activity that breaks those regulations, leaving you with the problems associated with illegal prostitution.

That's what's happened in Holland and Australia, supposed examples of good systems. This is from an article in The Economist (my bolding) :

Puritans argue that where laws have been liberalised—in, for instance, the Netherlands, Germany and Australia—the new regimes have not lived up to claims that they would wipe out pimping and sever the links between prostitution and organised crime. Certainly, those links persist; but that's because, thanks to concessions to the opponents of liberalisation, the changes did not go far enough. Prostitutes were made to register, which many understandably didn't want to do. Not surprisingly, illicit brothels continued to thrive.
Click to expand...



So, if this is correct, legalizing/regulating prostitution doesn't solve the problem. Even with the most enlightened nation-wide approach, illegal prostitution still continues, with all the ill-effects associated with it.



.
 
Last edited:
Well, I can see the gaping holes.

First, simply repealing the law isn't the answer. Regulation should be part of it. There are implicit risks in the behavior that can be reduced or removed under regulation. Therefore, I would find it irresponsible to simply say "okay, it's legal now!" and be done, as your scenario suggests.

Not just legalized prostitution; regulated legal prostitution.

Second, I should think the fact that one couple are married, a legal arrangement, means the law can be applied differently. This slippery slope does not proceed. The law would be able to provide a definition for "committed or long-term relationship," and consider it as opposed to a one-night-stand for cash. Which then leads to the first point: if the trade is regulated and legalized, anyone operating outside of regulation is still breaking the law and can go to jail.

And if one is in a long-term, committed relationship that, for all intents and purposes, is the same as marriage...then why is anyone paying money for sex? I mean, I guess people could do that....but why? Oh, well, not important, really.

What is important is that legal needs to include regulated or it ought not be done.
 
Not just legalized prostitution; regulated legal prostitution
Click to expand...

Yes, and the regulations create illegal prostitution. That's my point.


Second, I should think the fact that one couple are married, a legal arrangement, means the law can be applied differently
Click to expand...


slingblade, they don't have to be married, sorry I specified it; they could be a couple who met that evening; they still have all the rights that I referred to: the right to have unprotected sex in a hotel without a health-check.

My question remains: on what basis do you deny these rights to the commercial couple next door ?
 
Gnu Ordure said:
Yes, and the regulations create illegal prostitution. That's my point.
Click to expand...

No. Since it already exists, it can't be created; only reduced or increased. You contend regulating prostitution increases illegal prostitution.

I'm not sure that's true, universally. There are probably several variables which could create different outcomes.

slingblade, they don't have to be married, sorry I specified it; they could be a couple who met that evening; they still have all the rights that I referred to: the right to have unprotected sex in a hotel without a health-check.

My question remains: on what basis do you deny these rights to the commercial couple next door ?
Click to expand...

It doesn't really matter. My answer is the same. Anyone can have all the unprotected sex he wants with a consenting adult, legally, so long as no money changes hands. The crime is not the lack of a condom, but the money.

When you regulate it, you change that. Then, the crime is operating outside regulation.

So a one-night-stand in a hotel room still won't be a crime under legalized prostitution. But one in which money changes hands still will be, because freelancers are still illegal in a regulated system.
 
Gnu Ordure said:
Let's imagine that the law criminalizing the commercial transaction is repealed. Both couples proceed as before.

Now, according to the law in Nevada, the husband and wife couple have the right to have sex in a hotel; they have the right not to have medical checks if they don't want them; they have the right not to use a condom if they don't want to.

Agreed ?
Click to expand...
Yes, but if one or both are members of the military it is illegal for them to have oral sex.

Question : do the commercial couple next door also have these rights ?
Click to expand...
The couple next door, providing neither are in the military, do have the right to proform oral sex.

We already have a legal system in place that does limit the ways and means of married sex. Along with various state laws, The Uniformed Code of Military Justice is very clear on what you can and can't do in the bedroom. It specifically criminalizes oral sex and sodomy (of anyone).
------------------
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ART. 125. SODOMY [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of the same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense.[/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif](b) Any person found guilty of sodomy shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.[/FONT]


Explanation. It is unnatural carnal copulation for a person to take into that person’s mouth or anus the sexual organ of another person or of an animal; or to place that person’s sexual organ in the mouth or anus of another person or of an animal; or to have carnal copulation in any opening of the body, except the sexual parts, with another person; or to have carnal copulation with an animal.
-----------------
We can say that this is all silly, would never be enforced, and you should be able to bugger your own wife if you so choose... but the laws are still on the books. And, of course, is the justification for DADT. So they are, in fact, being enforced.

The idea that we can't regulate the hooker because you can't regulate a married couple isn't valid. As there are laws regarding what you can and can't do, both federal (in this case) as well as state laws, even with your wife. That they are stupid laws is sort of the point for both arguments.
 
slingblade,

You're missing my point. Let me explain it again.

We're positing two couples in the hotel in Vegas, both enagaged in identical behaviour - consensual unprotected intercourse. Both couples have known each other for the same period of time, they trust each other to the same extent, and let's say all four are HIV negative and otherwise disease free, so there is no danger in not using condoms.

The only significant difference is that one man pays his partner.

As the law stands, that couple is now committing a crime.


Todd, and others, think this is unfair and wrong, and that the behaviour in each hotel room should be equally legitimate.


So my question to all of you is : what changes would you like to make to the current laws in Nevada such that the behaviour of the commercial couple becomes legitimate ?

You can repeal certain laws, amend existing ones or introduce new ones, whatever you like.

But the end result should be that the commercial couple can continue doing exactly what they're doing (which is, remember, exactly the same as what's going on next door).


Some of you think that the current laws are unfair in criminalizing one couple in our scenario. I would like to know how you would make the laws fairer, so that that couple is no longer breaking the law.


Any suggestions ?
 
Last edited:
myl, I'm trying to clarify the argument by keeping it simple, so in my scenario the couples are having consensual vaginal intercourse, legal in every state. And this entirely normal legal act becomes illegal when money changes hands.

The couple next door, providing neither are in the military, do have the right to proform oral sex.
Click to expand...

er.. not the commercial couple, surely ? Paid oral sex in Nevada is just as illegal outside a brothel as paid intercourse, isn't it ?




Gnu.
 
slingblade said:
So if everyone stops hiring prostitutes, then victims of sexual abuse can't choose that as a way to make money, and we don't have to feel guilty for perpetuating their original abuse?

And this does what to stop them being abused to start with? Seems to me, all it does is salve everyone else's consciences. Doesn't seem to do a darned thing for the kids. They're still going to be abused.

You can't fix a problem by removing one of its potential outcomes.

As the new legal leader of prostitution (imaginary), I would sue and win against those who have abused to a much larger degree than now. This is the tool that would reduce the instances of child abuse because I could make sure that media is well lubricated to keep the issue in our face till it goes away to whatever level we can reach. Just like the dead beat dads of today are having to meet their responsibilities more than in the past.

Regards
DL
Click to expand...
 
Greatest I am said:
As the new legal leader of prostitution (imaginary), I would sue and win against those who have abused to a much larger degree than now. This is the tool that would reduce the instances of child abuse because I could make sure that media is well lubricated to keep the issue in our face till it goes away to whatever level we can reach. Just like the dead beat dads of today are having to meet their responsibilities more than in the past.
Click to expand...

That's it?


That's it?

You'd use legalized prostitution to instigate more lawsuits against child abusers? You took Ed knows how many pages to finally spew out your solution--and this is it?

But there's no reason you can't do that now! Child abuse is already illegal! Sue away! Get your voice and face out there in the media now! What are you waiting for, man--it's Saturday, and I guarantee you a little girl is being fondled, a little boy is being sodomized, RIGHT NOW, somewhere.

So, it still boils down to you doing nothing to prevent the abuse. Just a band-aid fix after the damage is done.

Okay. Nice way to waste time. Sheesh.

EDIT: And, I might add, even if you were the "new leader of legalized prostitution," you can't bring suit on someone's behalf. You're just a boss, an employer. You don't buy the girls, you don't own them for Ed's sake. They can already bring their own suits right now if they want to, and you certainly can't help them with that.

Your "solution" is no solution at all.
 
Last edited:
Gnu Ordure said:
slingblade,

You're missing my point. Let me explain it again.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not missing it, so much as showing you don't really have a point.

I make cookies. I make them in my home, in my own kitchen. When you come over to see me, I can give you one cookie, or a whole plateful. Not illegal, not breaking any laws. No one even cares.

However: if you buy those cookies from me, if money changes hands, I have just broken a whole slew of laws, as well as opened myself up for lawsuits.

And the only reason is that money has changed hands. My cookies have become a commercial enterprise. Commercial enterprises are regulated by laws.

That's the difference! Exchanging money for goods or services brings those acts under regulation, for the good of the community. The law is only peripherally concerned with the good of the individuals involved, insofar as they are part of the community at large.

The money alone changes the nature of the act so that additional considerations, protections, and regulations must be enacted and enforced for the good of the community at large, whether individuals in that community avail themselves of that service/good or not.

Let me guess: you're a libertarian, aren't you?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom