Why is prostitution illegal?

[Abooga]

I don't have any particular problem with it as a position. The thing is that this is really no different than people who have money and use that to sleep with the secretaries after all.

I would have more of a problem if I owned the company and one of the managers was doing that

But the point was that if it such job title were legal, then bosses could harass employees freely, because they wouldn´t be technically harassing them, they would just be insisting that they change their job description.

 

[Abooga]

And again, as ponderingturtle said, how is it different if those needs are met by a rich man that she gets into a sexual relationship with, or a client that pays her specifically to have sex?
I mean, from the perspective of "economic exploitation".

Moreover, how is this economic exploitation lessened by the fact that prostitution is illegal?

I never claimed it would. But with legalisation it would be somehow endorsed by the state.

That´s all I am claiming.

 

[Abooga]

Of course you do though, otherwise how do you claim that people are forced to be prostitutes instead of waitresses?

That is a fundamental part of your claim that prostitution is rape forced by ecconomic factors.

If you really believed that you would have to consider Hugh Heifner to be a serial rapist, or a hypocrite.

It seems obvious which one you are.

Why don´t you quote and comment on the second half of that post?

?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

I never claimed it would. But with legalisation it would be somehow endorsed by the state.

That´s all I am claiming.

Bingo! The problems I see are twofold:

1) It makes morally dubious behaviour seem more acceptable.

2) It will not significantly reduce the abuse of women because there will plenty of desperate women who will not be eligible to work in a legal brothel for criminals to exploit.

 

[slingblade]

I understand Slingblade´s (I think) point, that the existence of some abuses doesn´t mean the whole proffesion is disqualified.

I beg your ever-loving crack-brained pardon, MY POINT?

You asked if a brothel owner could demand sex from his employees under the law, and I have patiently explained that he could not, and why not. You steadfastly ignored the explanations and just kept asking. Now suddenly, I have some point you can't fathom, but it must be libertarian?

My goodness, do you not know me.

Goodbye Abooga. You make no sense and your argument isn't worth wasting any more time on.

And Ivan? Kiss my tuckus.

 

[slingblade]

But the point was that if it such job title were legal, then bosses could harass employees freely, because they wouldn´t be technically harassing them, they would just be insisting that they change their job description.

Thanks for completely ignoring everything I've said, and for continuing to spread this misinformed lie in spite of hearing the truth.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

And Ivan? Kiss my tuckus.

How much?

 

[ponderingturtle]

But the point was that if it such job title were legal, then bosses could harass employees freely, because they wouldn´t be technically harassing them, they would just be insisting that they change their job description.

No. It would still be unwanted persistend harrassment. Offering such a position might be OK(but legitimately the position is problematic, because it is not tied to individual actions like most sex work)

A prostitute can refuse a client for a particular day if they don't feel like it for some reason, refusing in the slaried position of orally inclinded assistent, would be refusing to do your job.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Goodbye Abooga. You make no sense and your argument isn't worth wasting any more time on.

I have to admit that this is a very good idea.

 

[Fnord]

WARNING: More snarky sexism follows.

Every woman has her price. Some do it for couple of "Ben Franklins" on the dresser, while others do it for a diamond ring and a 20-year fixed-rate mortgage. The quid pro quo is as variable as her mood.

So what does morality have to do with it? Not much. It's more of an ECON 101 issue - ye olde "Supply & Demand". The supplier has what the customer demands, and can therefore charge the prevailing rate; while the customer must pay the stated cost, haggle for a better deal, go elsewhere for a better deal, or simply do without.

And what does love have to do with it? Again, not much. If the supplier loves a particular customer enough, he (or she) gets the service for free - or, at least the first one is free. After that...

 

[Abooga]

I beg your ever-loving crack-brained pardon, MY POINT?

You asked if a brothel owner could demand sex from his employees under the law, and I have patiently explained that he could not, and why not. You steadfastly ignored the explanations and just kept asking. Now suddenly, I have some point you can't fathom, but it must be libertarian?

My goodness, do you not know me.

Goodbye Abooga. You make no sense and your argument isn't worth wasting any more time on.

And Ivan? Kiss my tuckus.

WTF?

Someone made the point that the existence of some abuses doesn´t mean the whole proffesion is disqualified. I thought it was you, but wasn´t sure, that´s why I inserted "(I think)". If it wasn´t you, well, my humble apologies. But move on.

I haven´t ignored your point, it´s valid and I hope in places like Nevada things are run that way.

But you´re the one ignoring MY point, which is something different. Oh wait, you kind of address it in a later post. ok.

 

[Abooga]

No. It would still be unwanted persistend harrassment. Offering such a position might be OK(but legitimately the position is problematic, because it is not tied to individual actions like most sex work)

A prostitute can refuse a client for a particular day if they don't feel like it for some reason, refusing in the slaried position of orally inclinded assistent, would be refusing to do your job.

At last. So if offering such position insistently would be harassment then. sexual harassment? Nevermind, you don´t want to go on.

And you´re the one not making much sense. What the hell do you mean by "not tied to individual actions" in that context?

And "A prostitute can refuse a client for a particular day if they don't feel like it for some reason, refusing in the slaried position of orally inclinded assistent, would be refusing to do your job"?

No entiendo.

Nevrmind. Bye bye.

 

[Solus]

Because pornography is art. They are being paid to have a performance, not get their rocks off.

You are calling pornography art?! Have actually seen any? Porn is about as artistic as random dog droppings in the backyard. I hope you mean art in the form of a legal definition.A 4 year old with a camcorder could make something with more artistic merit. The only variation at all in porn is that there are simply more disgusting and depraved varieties but without plot or such porn lacks any artistic merit.

For example though I've seen one where some old guy pays a girls to get on a boat and have sex with him while it's being filmed. Somebody must derive pleasure from that exchange. If he wasn't making a "movie" it would be prostitution. The court needs redefine laws as the current ones make no sense.
Porn is at best simply a different form of prostitution Those who pay the actors are the pimps. Somebody is deriving pleasure from the experience.

As side note, I wonder why a guy who hires a hooker never sets up a camera in the room. If he is ever busted all he has to say is he paid her to make a film. Explain how he would paying for a prostitute then? His lawyer could simply say he was making a pornographic movie.

 

[I Ratant]

...
As side note, I wonder why a guy who hires a hooker never sets up a camera in the room. If he is ever busted all he has to say is he paid her to make a film. Explain how he would paying for a prostitute then? His lawyer could simply say he was making a pornographic movie.

.
Mostly because the girl will object, on the grounds the guy is a cop, just filming the "crime".
Or intending to blackmail her with the video.
One shouldn't piss off the person who is going to be sucking on your member.

 

[ponderingturtle]

You are calling pornography art?! Have actually seen any? Porn is about as artistic as random dog droppings in the backyard. I hope you mean art in the form of a legal definition.A 4 year old with a camcorder could make something with more artistic merit. The only variation at all in porn is that there are simply more disgusting and depraved varieties but without plot or such porn lacks any artistic merit.

THe boundry is complex. Just because there is actual unsimulated sex happening does not mean that the film has no artistic merit.

I have seen at least one very good movie that had real sex between the actors and would be broadly classed as a drama and not as porn(shortbus).

By claiming it is not art you are limiting what the subject of art can be.

For example though I've seen one where some old guy pays a girls to get on a boat and have sex with him while it's being filmed. Somebody must derive pleasure from that exchange. If he wasn't making a "movie" it would be prostitution. The court needs redefine laws as the current ones make no sense.
Porn is at best simply a different form of prostitution Those who pay the actors are the pimps. Somebody is deriving pleasure from the experience.

As side note, I wonder why a guy who hires a hooker never sets up a camera in the room. If he is ever busted all he has to say is he paid her to make a film. Explain how he would paying for a prostitute then? His lawyer could simply say he was making a pornographic movie.

That might work, but there are also many forms and such that need to be filled out to properly start up a business to make porn.

 

[Solus]

.
Mostly because the girl will object, on the grounds the guy is a cop, just filming the "crime".
Or intending to blackmail her with the video.
One shouldn't piss off the person who is going to be sucking on your member.

What's worse that or being arrested for prostitution? I'd think a smart idea for a call girl would be to do what I advocate. She wouldn't be paid for sex but paid for making a film. I see your point though and I suppose you would have to find the right service, to avoid those sort of threats. Still I'd use my idea if I had to hire a hooker vs risking arrest.

THe boundry is complex. Just because there is actual unsimulated sex happening does not mean that the film has no artistic merit.

I have seen at least one very good movie that had real sex between the actors and would be broadly classed as a drama and not as porn(shortbus).

I agree with you about art, anything can be art although debatable.

I’ve heard of “high budget” porn flicks but I’ve yet to see one that isn't "softcore". Better not get on to this subject though as it’s easy to get
off topic, onto a is pornography art debate.

What bothers again is lack of sense in the law. It just doesn't seem much different to pay others to have sex versus yourself.I'll point out another porn movie I've seen, a guy films himself having sex with a girl he's paid. He uses a hand held camera. Of course he paid her to, "make a movie". For some reason that is legal. My next question would be: if every prostitute filmed what they did, and put it up on the web as a business, would it be legal then? Apparently that's the case thus far.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I agree with you about art, anything can be art although debatable.

I’ve heard of “high budget” porn flicks but I’ve yet to see one that isn't "softcore". Better not get on to this subject though as it’s easy to get
off topic, onto a is pornography art debate.

It is not really a porn flick though. It is a dramatic movie with on screen ejaculation and penetration.

 

[Mobyseven]

Let´s assume she´s not a prostitute. So then it would be a violation of workplace ethics.

What if instead, what she gets offered is a change in her job description, from secretary to "secretary with perks" (as someone called it).

Would that be different? Notice that it is essentially the same thing, offered to have sex for a raise. Just worded differently, but offered with the same insistence as the "normal" harassment, and can make her equally uncomfortable.

But if prostitution is legal, "secretary with perks" is just another job description, so technically it´s not harassment, is it?

So, you're asking that if the boss does exactly the same thing but gives it a different name, is it the same thing?

Let me think about that for, oh, I don't know, a tenth of a second...

...yes.

Next time, before you post, ask yourself, "Could I answer this question myself? Is the answer to this question included in the wording of the question?"

Seriously. Half a second of thinking can save you from putting forward a dumb hypothetical. Remember that in future.

 

[Mobyseven]

But the point was that if it such job title were legal, then bosses could harass employees freely, because they wouldn´t be technically harassing them, they would just be insisting that they change their job description.

I used to work in the land tax department for a government. If my boss had harassed me and given me work from payroll tax, I would be able to say, "That's not my job." If my boss had requested I change departments from land tax to payroll tax, I would be able to say, "No, I work in land tax and there's nothing in my contract that says I am required to change departments," (indeed my contract was specifically for land tax). If my boss had kept asking these things of me I would most definitely have been able to lodge a harassment complaint within the agency, and depending on the severity of the situation and the response of the higher ups, taken my complaint to the police as well.

So, why should the situation be different if my boss wants to change my job description to 'land tax department CSO and sex gimp'?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

It is not really a porn flick though. It is a dramatic movie with on screen ejaculation and penetration.

Can I have this for my sig.?