Prostitution - Yes or No

Yfelsung

New Member
There are lots of professions more dangerous than prostitution that people do every day.

Deep sea welding for example (probably one of the most dangerous jobs on earth).

A properly regulated prostitution business would be no more or less dangerous than many industrial trades.
 

Jotto999

New Member
As previously mentioned, most prostitutes only do it out of unfortunate necessity.

I think prohibiting it causes a lot more trouble than it solves (specifically, prostitutes can be treated horribly and they have basically no rights with it). If you rape, rob or beat up a prostitute, she's probably not going to tell the police. And that's a result of prohibition. Also, I haven't seen a convincing reason for prohibition.

I say "Yes". Legalize, tax it, regulate it, and make everyone involved better off, including tax payers. (Just like drug use.)
 

Andiferous

New Member
lrkun said:
The some of the missing factors are:

1. Religion
2. Politics
3. Ethics
I am not a supporter of prostitution. Pornography also gets on my nerves. That's all my personal feeling, though.

That said, as the "oldest profession in the world" prostitution tends to happen everywhere and in every time, and I doubt there will ever be a time when it doesn't exist. It's a bit like: "does the sun always rise?" Replace that with: "Is there prostitution?" It even happens in subtle and remotely acceptable ways.

Laws to prevent prostitution focus on the immorality of the profession. The immorality of prostitution is nothing more than a value judgment, and thus the laws a sort of moral enforcement. Of what?

Is sex immoral?

Anyway, prohibition often seems to target the prostitutes rather than those who take advantage of prostitution, (but if the prostitutes are puppets anyway, this strategy completely ineffectual). In an uncontrolled environment, as stated before, prostitutes are forced to turn to gangs and pimps for protection, as they have none available in the legal system. So one could almost speculate here that prostitution benefits organised crime when the government fails to protect sex trade workers.

If sexual diseases are the issue, then perhaps controlling prostitution will not only contain the spread of these, but also protect the prostitute.

If you want documentation, go ahead and google "murder of prostitutes" or "rape of prostitutes" or "assault of prostitutes." The murder one is probably the best for factual evidence, as prostitutes don't seem to report much of this stuff for some reason.

In my estimation, ethics supports legalising prostitution. Morality does not. And from my understanding, there is a moral stigma against prostitution even in places where it has been legalised.
 

ImprobableJoe

New Member
Yfelsung said:
There are lots of professions more dangerous than prostitution that people do every day.

Deep sea welding for example (probably one of the most dangerous jobs on earth).
That's more an argument against deep sea welding, isn't it?
 

Yfelsung

New Member
ImprobableJoe said:
Yfelsung said:
There are lots of professions more dangerous than prostitution that people do every day.

Deep sea welding for example (probably one of the most dangerous jobs on earth).
That's more an argument against deep sea welding, isn't it?
No, because even though it's super dangerous it's really well regulated because of how dangerous it is and this makes it relatively safe as far as statistics are concerned, it's just that it's a job where one mess up means someone probably dies.

Similarly, one mess up in prostitution could mean death (down the road from AIDS) but if it was legal and heavily regulated, this would become rare much like death in deep sea welding is rare now.

In some countries (I think it's Denmark but don't quote me) the government even hires prostitutes to sleep with the mentally handicapped as part of their care, as the sexual frustration many functional mental handicaps have compounds with their disability to make them hard to integrate into society.

Sex isn't special, it isn't magical, all that stuff our society has tacked onto it thanks to Abrahamism is just smoke and mirrors. We're not naturally monogamous creatures and we shouldn't pretend we are.

It's a messy exchange of fluids and an attempt at mutual orgasm, that's about it.
 

Giliell

New Member
Yfelsung said:
Sex isn't special, it isn't magical, all that stuff our society has tacked onto it thanks to Abrahamism is just smoke and mirrors. We're not naturally monogamous creatures and we shouldn't pretend we are.

It's a messy exchange of fluids and an attempt at mutual orgasm, that's about it.
So, rape is not a "special" crime. If you haven't been hurt much physically, it's a minor crime?
And please, show me evidence for the "not monogamous", since evidence seems to indicate that we're at least serial monogamists
 

Yfelsung

New Member
Giliell said:
Yfelsung said:
Sex isn't special, it isn't magical, all that stuff our society has tacked onto it thanks to Abrahamism is just smoke and mirrors. We're not naturally monogamous creatures and we shouldn't pretend we are.

It's a messy exchange of fluids and an attempt at mutual orgasm, that's about it.
So, rape is not a "special" crime. If you haven't been hurt much physically, it's a minor crime?
And please, show me evidence for the "not monogamous", since evidence seems to indicate that we're at least serial monogamists
Rape is physical assault, same as getting beaten. You have to remember, I have different views of how criminals should be treated. You assault someone, be it physical or not, you're in for several years of back breaking labour in a pit so deep you won't remember what the sky looks like while we forcefully educate you on how to be a productive member of society.

And we may jump from one monogamous relationship to another, but we also cheat a lot as a species and more and more people are not settling down in favour of multiple partners because we're finally shaking off the social norms imposed by Abrahamism. Believe me, I'm married and I'd never cheat on her, but that's because I have control over the animal urges I have to fuck anything older than 16 that crosses my vision. The urges are the natural part, curtailing them is the social engineering.
 

Nautyskin

New Member
ImprobableJoe said:
Yfelsung said:
There are lots of professions more dangerous than prostitution that people do every day.

Deep sea welding for example (probably one of the most dangerous jobs on earth).
That's more an argument against deep sea welding, isn't it?
:lol:
 

magicalpants

New Member
To quote Carlin like I assume someone else has already:"Another women's issue, prostitution. I do not understand why prostitution is illegal. Why should prostitution be illegal. Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? You know, why should it be illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away. I can't follow the logic on that at all. Of all the things you can do to a person, giving someone an orgasm is hardly the worst thing in the world."
 

Elena Firebird

New Member
Giliell said:
Yfelsung said:
Sex isn't special, it isn't magical, all that stuff our society has tacked onto it thanks to Abrahamism is just smoke and mirrors. We're not naturally monogamous creatures and we shouldn't pretend we are.

It's a messy exchange of fluids and an attempt at mutual orgasm, that's about it.
So, rape is not a "special" crime. If you haven't been hurt much physically, it's a minor crime?
And please, show me evidence for the "not monogamous", since evidence seems to indicate that we're at least serial monogamists
Yfelsung said:
Rape is physical assault, same as getting beaten. You have to remember, I have different views of how criminals should be treated. You assault someone, be it physical or not, you're in for several years of back breaking labour in a pit so deep you won't remember what the sky looks like while we forcefully educate you on how to be a productive member of society.

And we may jump from one monogamous relationship to another, but we also cheat a lot as a species and more and more people are not settling down in favour of multiple partners because we're finally shaking off the social norms imposed by Abrahamism. Believe me, I'm married and I'd never cheat on her, but that's because I have control over the animal urges I have to fuck anything older than 16 that crosses my vision. The urges are the natural part, curtailing them is the social engineering.

This is really off topic, but I can't help but respond.
There's also more psychological damage done when a person is raped than there is when they're otherwise assaulted.
Sex IS special, but only in that it messes with your brain as well as your body. (Special =/= magical)

Also, I'm fairly certain that we are naturally monogamous, or else jealousy wouldn't be so prevalent. After all, there's really no reason for anyone to come up with the idea of monogamy unless they wanted to keep their spouse for themselves.

I'm not saying that all people feel the same way about relationships, and I also support poly-amorous relationships- but, in general, humans do prefer having one mate as opposed to multiples. It makes things easier, and again goes back to the whole brain chemistry bit.

On the topic of legalizing prostitution- I'm for it. I don't support walking corners, because that's stupidly dangerous. But brothels would get girls off the street, lessen violence and drug abuse, and help to prevent the spread of STD's. There would need to be medical checks on the women (and men) in question, and the government would be involved, so that they would have protection if something bad happened. I'd also go so far as to say that those who would be purchasing such services would need to show recent STD test results or something along those lines, and the prostitutes would be able to have more control over who they slept with. They would need to be able to turn down a customer- with, of course, the understanding that they might not get the same amount of money.

It would take some structuring, but everything does. Prohibition in this case does more harm than good.
 

ArthurWilborn

New Member
Quite the opposite, really. If we were naturally monogamous then there wouldn't be jealousy; there wouldn't be any need for it. You're jealous only if you're worried over something that could be an actual possibility.

Also, I think you're all missing the problem of unlicensed practitioners. Most customers of prostitutes in the US prefer a certain level of discretion; there was a story during one of the gas price spikes of strip clubs losing business because it was too expensive to travel two towns over. However, if you have a series of stringent regulations that's going to scare off a lot of the customers and the purveyors. That would probably also substantially raise the price of the service. Both of these conditions means that the number of streetwalkers probably wouldn't fall very fall at all.
 

Nautyskin

New Member
ArthurWilborn said:
Quite the opposite, really. If we were naturally monogamous then there wouldn't be jealousy; there wouldn't be any need for it. You're jealous only if you're worried over something that could be an actual possibility.
And, of course, it is an actual possibility because monogamy means one partner at a time, not one partner for life.
 

ArthurWilborn

New Member
Nautyskin said:
And, of course, it is an actual possibility because monogamy means one partner at a time, not one partner for life.
... What? Monogamy implies more then the avoidance of polyamory. You seem to be saying that people are monogamous until they aren't, which just seems silly.
 

Yfelsung

New Member
I notice most people on the "naturally monogamous" side seem to be female.

The difference in opinion perception is probably a gender gap. Women may very well be more naturally monogamous then men.

I can tell you right now though, no man is naturally monogamous. We have the physical and mental urge to ram our genitals into just about anything that crosses our vision that fits "what we're attracted to". It's pure primal instinct. We may be quite adept at controlling it, but the urge exists every second of every day.

The sad thing is, most men are only probably faithful because the opportunity to cheat doesn't arise. It's not that we don't love our significant others, it's just that our mental priorities and even aspects of our personality can change significantly when we feel the physical urge to fornicate. We think differently, we act differently.

Logical, non-horny me has a very specific criteria for women I'm attracted to.

Illogical, horny me would consider a fresh corpse a "maybe" zone. (I hope I'm joking, but knowing me it could be true).

Logical me would never dip below 18.

Illogical me likes to remind me that the age of consent is 16 in my country.

It's literally like having two different heads each with their own brain and logical me is always regretting what the other head decides to do half the time.

Sure, guys don't need to deal with menstruation or birth, but we have to spend our entire life with almost two distinct personalities.
 

Nautyskin

New Member
ArthurWilborn said:
Nautyskin said:
And, of course, it is an actual possibility because monogamy means one partner at a time, not one partner for life.
... What? Monogamy implies more then the avoidance of polyamory. You seem to be saying that people are monogamous until they aren't, which just seems silly.
That's because your definition of monogamy is incorrect.

People drop one partner and move onto another. They have remained monogamous, in that they have only had one partner at a time. If they kept the first partner and introduced another, keeping both, that's polygamy.

So the possibility is always there, even when naturally monogamous, because the person might switch to a different partner.

Perhaps this wiki article will help:

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

pdka2004

New Member
TheFlyingBastard said:
Works for us here in Holland.

And the English love it.

Funny thing about the UK, being a prostitute is not illegal. Provided you work alone indoors and dont advertise your services
 
lrkun said:
I don't get it. Hehe. Sex is free. Why make it a market?
Free sex is hard to come by when you're ugly, overweight, and unaccomplished.

There's also the fact that prostitutes are often paid to do things most women aren't willing to do for free.
 

Lurking_Logic

New Member
As long as both parties are consenting adults then I have no problem if they want to have consenting sex with each other

And if one wants to reimburse the other for the effort then fine

plus legalising and regulating it would be a good thing to ensure higher qualities for both sides
 

ShootMyMonkey

New Member
RestrictedAccess said:
Free sex is hard to come by when you're ugly, overweight, and unaccomplished.
Historically, there's not really been any sort of well-defined population as to who buys nights with hookers. Sure, it would seem that ugly/overweight/unaccomplished/unlikable people are more likely to be desperate enough to seek it out, but for people who don't necessarily fit into those groups, there's just those who have certain proclivities and lots of money.
RestrictedAccess said:
There's also the fact that prostitutes are often paid to do things most women aren't willing to do for free.
I think this is the sort of thing that may become a problem if you start getting into prostitution as a regulated industry. There are some things women won't do for free because they're simply not into that sort of thing (i.e. highly specific fetishes), and that's probably fine. But there should be certain boundaries that, under regulations, shouldn't be crossed like those that are higher-risk or prone to injury... e.g. erotic asphyxiation, sadomasochism, etc.

At the very least, I would expect people who have to sign waivers or something if they really demanded those kinds of services. In any case, this kind of ends up shifting the point from legalize (yes/no) to how much regulation is enough.
 

Jotto999

New Member
ShootMyMonkey said:
RestrictedAccess said:
Free sex is hard to come by when you're ugly, overweight, and unaccomplished.
Historically, there's not really been any sort of well-defined population as to who buys nights with hookers. Sure, it would seem that ugly/overweight/unaccomplished/unlikable people are more likely to be desperate enough to seek it out, but for people who don't necessarily fit into those groups, there's just those who have certain proclivities and lots of money.
RestrictedAccess said:
There's also the fact that prostitutes are often paid to do things most women aren't willing to do for free.
I think this is the sort of thing that may become a problem if you start getting into prostitution as a regulated industry. There are some things women won't do for free because they're simply not into that sort of thing (i.e. highly specific fetishes), and that's probably fine. But there should be certain boundaries that, under regulations, shouldn't be crossed like those that are higher-risk or prone to injury... e.g. erotic asphyxiation, sadomasochism, etc.

At the very least, I would expect people who have to sign waivers or something if they really demanded those kinds of services. In any case, this kind of ends up shifting the point from legalize (yes/no) to how much regulation is enough.
My guess would be that it's easier to get a prostitute to do those kinds of risky things when it's illegal, rather than when it's like other industries (legal, regulated, and people doing it have rights). What would probably happen is that prostitutes themselves would have to define what they are willing to do for their "customers", and that would be easier to do since advertising it would also be legal. Though I wonder what format the advertisements would take, given that in many places there is a social taboo against it.
 
Top