Prostitution - Yes or No

[RestrictedAccess]

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.

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.

Well, if you look at some of the brothels in Nevada, that's kind of what you see. Prostitutes draw their lines in the sand, and the brothel owner and the customer has to respect that. If the prostitute doesn't offer a service a customer wants, she can refer them to one that does.

For the more hardcore fetish aspects such as BDSM, regulation could mandate licenses which can only be attained by taking courses specially designed to teach the limits of the human body, as well as safe methods to be used during BDSM sessions. Not to mention a brothel owner could have every right not to cater to those fetishes which they feel are unsafe.

Mind you, people do this kind of stuff in the privacy of their own homes. Others are paid handsomely for it, though it's still illegal.

 

[Giliell]

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).

One more reason to make it legal.
Not because I'm against "those things" per se, but because I'm against people being forced in any way to do stuff they don't really want to do.

 

[borrofburi]

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.

Oh how I love generalities, because they only take a single counter example to show them false. I'm naturally monogamous, and I'm male (why would I cheat? She's wonderful, and when I meet someone who is not her who I do want to have sex with, the overriding "I wouldn't want to hurt wonderful person" soundly defeats the "some part of me would like to fuck her" even if there was no effort involved).

Unless of course you're defining "natural" to mean "base urges" (and saying any desire at all to have sex with anyone not my partner means I am naturally a cheater), in which case I'm also naturally a serial killer, naturally a thief, I naturally urinate in public, and I'm naturally a rapist (because, you know, I've had urges to have sex with someone, and those base urges aren't even cognizant of "consent"); seems like a pretty shitty definition of "natural", to me.

 

[Krazyskooter]

This was brought up in a class I took a few years ago.

At first I was against the position because when I think of a prostitute I think of the street walkers. However, when you implement a business model that protects both parties, while delivering a service the positives outweigh the negatives.

Let's switch out the word prostitution with gambling.

Casinos on the MS gulf coast bring in a lot of revenue to the cities they are built in. I've willingly given my money over to them a couple times expecting to come out ahead (I didn't) and when It was all said and done, the excitement was worth the lost money. Now, what are the problems with gambling?

Gambling Addiction. People can lose everything they have from this. Their families can be hurt, and friendships destroyed from obsessive gambling.

What's good about it?

Well you have a chance of winning a lot more money than you invest, which leads to an exciting time. You are often sent free hotel rooms to come back to visit the casino, or free meals, or free money to play with.

Now lets look at prostitution.

You have two consenting adults performing a transaction for services. If the business is run by a set standard then both parties will have to show proof of health before the action begins. Sure if someone is in a monogamous relationship then they will have the risk of being caught, however this is a problem for the individual wanting the service not the prostitute. (Just like the person who goes to the casino against their spouses will risks the chance of being caught, or risks their savings to fill their habit, it's not the casino's problem)

For many single men a relationship just isn't on their list of concerns, they may not want to wine and dine someone in hopes of that person consenting to a nightcap. The prostitute is fulfilling a service for those who just want to have sex and move on. I don't see how this can be morally wrong when it's actually helping more than it hurts (If run correctly)

Consider that there are many people who have a hard time connecting with someone long enough to reach the physical part of their relationship. What is worse for the public? A promiscuous group of women selling their services or a sexually frustrated young man that's been turned down for the umpteenth time? I recall reading about a shooting that took place in a womens gym a few years ago because the guy hadn't had sex in like 10 years and had grown spiteful towards women and then decided to kill as many as he could before ending his own life. What if this man had had access to sex through the use a brothel? He may have just ended up a broke sexaholic that spent his paycheck on the same woman every week rather than a homicidal gunman.

I don't think the majority of people would partake of their services just as a lot of people don't go to the casinos there are those out there though that may enjoy the occasional romp in bunny ranch. The taxes would benefit the community and women who happen to be sexual addicts would have a calling other than being known as the town whore, instead of screwing someone for a bag of chips and jar of salsa they could be profiting from it. And a little profit makes everyone happy. Anyway that's long winded two cents.

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I'm not for or against the issue. My reason is because, I am not interested in the human form. I am not attracted to girls in a sexual manner, however, I like them. Besides, sex is free, if you know how to serenade effectively.

I don't get it. Hehe. Sex is free. Why make it a market?

Your question is asinine. You can get massages for free. You can have your home cleaned for free. You get food for free. Why are there massage therapists? ...or maids? ...or restaurants? You even answered your own question. "Sex is free, if you know how to serenade effectively." The emphasis is mine...

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

There's an unintended problem. Social norms change to where prostitution is seen as an acceptable business opportunity. This means more people go into the business. Even regulated, prostitution is still a dangerous profession.

And, of course, what's the hottest commodity for sex for money? Minors.

http://gvnet.com/childprostitution/Netherlands.htm

Yes, I know correlation is not necessarily causation, but there seems to be a direct link here.

I think you exaggerate... pretty much every claim you've made...

Both stripping and pornography have never been illegal yet there still seems to be a heavy stigma against both. How much do you actually expect the stigma of prostitution to change just because it's legal?

You're not suggesting that if we made prostitution legal then we'd also make it legal for minors, are you? I assure you that the people who'd market minors for prostitution aren't the least bit concerned about legality...

You say that you know the difference between correlation and causation but you've shown no evidence of that. You've shown neither correlation nor causation. All you've done is made a bare assertion...

 

[Andiferous]

I'm not for or against the issue. My reason is because, I am not interested in the human form. I am not attracted to girls in a sexual manner, however, I like them. Besides, sex is free, if you know how to serenade effectively.

I don't get it. Hehe. Sex is free. Why make it a market?

Your question is asinine. You can get massages for free. You can have your home cleaned for free. You get food for free. Why are their massage therapists? ...or maids? ...or restaurants? You even answered your own question. "Sex is free, if you know how to serenade effectively." The emphasis is mine...

This is somewhat true. There are many accepted forms of prostitution that pass under radar. I'd wager to say that sex isn't "free" in most marriages, despite the widely-held belief that sex is ever-available with wedding rings (and entanglement in that can land you in rape territory). Even with regular people under legal marriage it can turn into manipulation and barter. It's all in degrees.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

There's an unintended problem. Social norms change to where prostitution is seen as an acceptable business opportunity. This means more people go into the business. Even regulated, prostitution is still a dangerous profession.

And, of course, what's the hottest commodity for sex for money? Minors.

http://gvnet.com/childprostitution/Netherlands.htm

Yes, I know correlation is not necessarily causation, but there seems to be a direct link here.

I think you exaggerate... pretty much every claim you've made...

Both stripping and pornography have never been illegal yet there still seems to be a heavy stigma against both. How much do you actually expect the stigma of prostitution to change just because it's legal?

You're not suggesting that if we made prostitution legal then we'd also make it legal for minors, are you? I assure you that the people who'd market minors for prostitution aren't the least bit concerned about legality...

You say that you know the difference between correlation and causation but you've shown no evidence of that. You've shown neither correlation nor causation. All you've done is made a bare assertion...

I take it you didn't read the link, then?

 

[Gunboat Diplomat]

I take it you didn't read the link, then?

I read the link but I didn't read any of the link's links, of which there were many. Can you be a more specific?