Should prostitution be legalized?

[WI_DEM]

Poll question: Should prostitution be legalized?

or should parts of it be legalized and other parts not. For example, legal to operate out of a private building but illegal to have street prostiution.

[Minstrel Boy]

1. legalize it, regulate it, tax it. n/t

[raggedcompany]

38. ding ding ding

We have a winner.

Decriminalize it. Regulate it. Tax it. It's the American way!!

[amazona]

139. but in effect it would remain illegal, you know

There are plenty of legal brothels in Nevada, yet plenty of women prefer to work Vegas, where it's illegal. Illegal enterprise is more profitable for them after all -- no rules stopping them from robbing the customer, no health tests that might put them out of business, etc. No taxes to be paid on illegal income either.

I don't want it decriminalized because when you have prostitutes working in your neighborhood, you want them arrested and moved along. Otherwise, it's taking money out of MY pocket because it destroys the value of the neighborhood.

If prostitutes want to unionize and work out of a brothel somewhere it doesn't affect my property values, I have no objection. But I think most of us are being a tad hypocritical when we say legalize, because, to be honest, there is no way that we would tolerate our neighborhoods being zoned for whores. Heck, in my neighborhood a man got fined for doing some woodworking business out of his garage -- and he was an ex-cop! In many areas, just having a customer come to a zoned-residential area to do ANY business is a violation.

[benburch]

144. I think you are missing something...

The sexworkers prefer vegas where it is illegal because;

1. The money and customers are there; Pahrump is a jerkwater desert town.

2. There is virtually zero law enforcement against sexworkers in LV, in spite of the laws.

I sincerely doubt that sexworkers would want to streetwalk in your neighborhood once it is legalized!

The ones I know would prefer to work the parts of the city that are full of nightclubs, and especially IN the nightclubs, but are forced to move into residential areas by the cops.

Other than that, I think your NIMBY attitude is getting in the way of your regard for other people's welfare.

[IrateCitizen]

2. Yes, it's always going to be around...

... so at least if it's 100% legalized, it can be completely regulated.

Note -- this isn't an endorsement of prostitution, but rather a simple acknowledgement of reality. It seems to work pretty well in European countries, particularly Holland.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

3. legalize it. regulate it.

stop pretending its going to go away or even that it should go away.

[madrchsod]

4. prostitution is legal

it`s sexual prostitution that is illegal,but even that has has a subset of legalities.

[Freebird12004]

5. Legalize it, Tax it & get regular medical check-ups

[Minstrel Boy]

6. Canada: Union discusses call to organize prostitutes

Union discusses call to organize prostitutes

21 Sep 2004

ST. JOHN'S, NFLD. - Prostitutes should be allowed the protection of union membership, delegates to a Canadian Union of Public Employees convention in St. John's were told on Monday.

The provincial union's annual convention included a panel discussion on the decriminalization of sex trade work, a discussion that echoed comments made two weeks ago by union president Wayne Lucas.

Lucas called for organizing sex workers to make their work safer.

On the panel was Jenn Clamen, an activist with the International Union of Sex Workers, who said prostitutes deserve the same rights as any other worker.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2004/09/21/prostitutes040921.html

[benburch]

7. I am a sexworker's rights activist.

I have devoted much of the last 20 years to just this issue.

When there are laws that prohibit prostitution, first, they don't stop the practice and never have.

Second, they make the prostitute a second class citizen who can be abused and raped by cops without any recourse to the law. I have seen FAR too many cases of sexworkers raped by cops and forced to remain silent for fear of arrest, prison time, or worse.

Finally, even legalization in the Nevada model is prone to abuse; The workers can only legally work in a few licensed brothels owned by the old boy network. They keep it unprofitable for the workers by charging them astronomical prices for anything they need. Nevada law prohibits the sexworkers from leaving the brothel to shop for their own needs while they are working! They literally have to live there, and all of their needs have to be provided by the brothel.

What we need is not so much legalization, with tons of rules to use as power over the workers, but decriminalization where the only laws that apply are those that would apply to any person in a service-oriented business.

And yes, once it isn't illegal, taxes would be paid!!! (Smart sexworkers pay taxes already, because they know what happened to Al Capone...)

[Bettie]

8. Legalize it

Then it can be taxed and regulated.

[marc_the_dem]

9. legalize, regulate, tax the crap out of it....

and use the revenue to get rid of the deficit and national debt...

[marc_the_dem]

10. and lower crime

I would imaging that the sexual crimes will decline as well...

[benburch]

11. Regulation is simply abuse.

It is the state saying when and how a free adult can consent to sex!

Either the state controls your genitals, or it doesn't.

I say it does not.

It is a violation of the right to privacy for the state to prohibit making the decision to consent for any reason, even if that reason is payment of money. Extend this a little, and assume that they had laws against consenting to sex for the reason of being grateful for an expensive bit of jewelry? Half of the business of jewelers would disappear overnight.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

14. regulation can also work for the women/men in prostitution

they are working and need the protection other workers do

[benburch]

16. Yes, but only the exact same regulation other workers work under.

To create a special class is to invite abuse. I have seen this first hand.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. but different jobs to need different protections.

[benburch]

18. Right, but very few cover those who perform personal services.

Because of the nature of privacy, some things do not bear lots of state scrutiny, and the best you can do is hope that free adults in a legal pursuit will act responsibly.

Anything else, and you open the system to the sexual abuse of sex workers by those who have power over them through those regulations.

For example, suppose we required all sexworkers to use condoms or dental dams. How are we to inspect for this? If it is to be done by complaint only, it will never happen!

First, clients who want to go "bareback" aren't going to complain about being allowed to. In fact, they could coerce the sexworker; "You do it without barriers, or I will turn you in as though you had!"

Second, those in charge can coerce sex with such a rule, too; "I have a complaint here that you are not using condoms. This could go very badly for you unless you do exactly what I say."

[La Lioness Priyanka]

20. unless ofcourse the rule was stated to protect the worker

as in the customer has to wear a condom if the sex worker wants it.

[benburch]

21. Fair enough.

That is a regulation of the customer, not the sexworker. But it also is not needed as the sexworker already has the right to refuse to service anybody. So, if it is legal, and a sexworker will not perform services without a condom, all that is needed is that personal policy. No law. No invasion of anybody's privacy.

We are much better off if the State is not in our bedrooms.

[JI7]

32. agree

that's my position on it

[Xithras]

43. Overtaxing it would defeat the purpose of legalization.

One general rule of prostitution is that rich guys rarely hire prostitutes (they hire high-end $2500+ a night "escorts"), so any taxation placed on prostitution is going to fall squarely on middle and lower income men. They generally can't afford to shoulder a huge tax burden, so forcing the price up too high will simply result in the prostitutes falsifying their paperwork to dodge the taxes, or with the men using prostitutes that completely avoid the legal requirements (even with legalized prostitution, you will always have that segment of drug users, teenage runaways, or "part-timers" who only prostitute themselves on rare occasion). Few men will pay $100 for a blowjob, but many will pay the $25-$50 that you can get one for today.

Overregulation and overtaxation is simply a method of prohibition, and will be no more effective than the current laws.

[rfkrfk]

156. Too many Dems think that taxing the poor, is a good idea

Many sex workers are poor.
Their votes are needed.
Don't try to oppress them.
......
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
.. --> bad political strategy
............
sheeet, we coulda had Clark, but NOOOOO,
the Navy guy is electable

[OnionPatch]

12. Yep, it should be legal

The oldest profession is not going to go away. If someone wants to use their body to make money, who's business is it to say they can't anyway?

Regulate and tax it.

[Stinky The Clown]

13. Keeping prostitution illegal is one of the dumber things we do

Drop the criminality of it and move on. Two issues seem to crop up for me here. First is the puritanical nature of Americans with regard to any sexual matter. Next is the way we keep women down. Not to say that prostitution is either a female-only occupation or that it is inherently good for women. Its just that women have a higher chance for success at it, and a skilled person could make a lot of money. Some men just hate it when women are the ones making the money.

[KG]

15. Legalize it - don't criticize it

Artist Lyrics: Peter Tosh
Song Lyrics: Legalize It
Album Lyrics:

Legalize it - don't criticize it
Legalize it and i will advertise it

Some call it tampee
Some call it the weed
Some call it Marijuana
Some of them call it Ganja

Legalize it - don't criticize it
Legalize it and i will advertise it

Singer smoke it
And players of instruments too
Legalize it, yeah, yeah
That's the best thing you can do
Doctors smoke it
Nurses smoke it
Judges smoke it
Even the lawyers too

Legalize it - don't criticize it
Legalize it and i will advertise it

It's good for the flu
It's good for asthma
Good for tuberculosis
Even umara composis

Legalize it - don't criticize it
Legalize it and i will advertise it

Bird eat it
And they leave it
Fowls eat it
Goats love to play with it

[HCeline69]

19. In the words of George Carlin

"If selling is legal and fucking is legal, why isn't selling fucking legal? How can you be arrested for selling something you can legally give away free?"

[American Tragedy]

22. I see no reason why it should be illegal.

At the very least, it should be decriminalized, or rated as lowest priority for law enforcement.

It defies logic that our police were busy undercover in an uptown massage parlor, while three people were being murdered in the projects. People are wondering why this city's homicide rate is skyrocketing...?

[benburch]

23. Because the undercover cops get laid.

You have to look at some case files...

Where the undercover cop went to the same massage parlor dozens of times, paying police money for sexual services, before deciding there was finally enough information for an arrest!!!

There is no other agenda here than getting the detective laid.

Period.

[oc2002]

24. ..WE SHOULD STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM THAT ISSUE

unless you want to be labeled IMMORAL.

[Jesus H. Christ]

25. Labeling and being are two different things.

Frankly, I'd rather legalize prostitution and be labelled immoral than keep the status quo and be immoral.

[SmokingJacket]

51. Bingo.

In a nutshell.

[American Tragedy]

28. Understood.

But I'm not immoral, I'm just a civil libertarian. I believe in individual freedom and truly small government.

It's kind of a shame that the major parties seems to have effectively abandoned that ideal, because I really think that it resonates with the American conscience.

[secedeeconomically]

120. Who are you to judge?

Why is it ok to pay someone to give you a massage, but not to "massage" a few strategic areas?

[murray hill farm]

26. sure, but min wage for service should by high

otherwise...is times like these...it becomes the one and only way for young men and woman to survive...feed their children..pay their rent..and this will still go on if it is legalized..but without the union representation..these poor will still be victimized..that will not change. Legalized prostitution with taxes and medical checks should be something that has a very high price tag attached to it.

[Allenberg]

27. ...

I say legalize it, without taxation, without restrictions, without any ramifications. What two consenting adults choose to do in their own privacy is their own damn business.

[Xithras]

48. You CAN'T charge too much for it

As I said in another post above, rich guys rarely hire prostitutes because their money makes it pretty simple for them to get all the "free" sex they want. On the rare occasion that they do hire prostitutes, they are generally the high-end escort variety who typically aren't poor in the first place (and who typically charge thousands per night).

Prostitution is a profession driven primarily by the middle and lower classes, neither of which can afford $150 blowjobs and $400 per 30 minutes for sex. If you drive the price up that high "sales" will drop. The prostitutes will then have to work outside the law to provide their services without the government mandated taxation and fees, or they will be unemployed.

[indigobusiness]

29. Sex should be criminalized.

Maybe THAT would wake this country the fuck up.

[ChairOne]

30. Holy crap... you guys are bizarre....

to me at least....

I see prostitution having close to zero to do with sex... Rather it's all about one more way for men to exploit women.

I don't think it speaks well of a society, that it shows how little it values women by legalizing their exploitation by men... call me crazy...

Am I really the only one here who thinks along these lines about the matter?

wow <walks off in a daze>

[indigobusiness]

31. Women also exploit men through prostitution.

And, it is about sex.

In it's best form, it is a noble profession.

[noonwitch]

33. No, I agree with what you are saying in principal

But I also think that no laws are going to make prostitution go away, it's been around for a very long time. At least taxing it provides law enforcement with money to enforce laws about regular medical exams and legalizing it puts women in business for themselves instead of having the parasitical pimps running the show.

I also support red light districts, confining not just prostitution, but adult theaters and bookstores to one area in a given city. That way you can have an area for that and kids won't have to walk by it on their way to and from school.

But you're right, prostitution, pornography, most advertising for cars and liquor exploit women and women's bodies.

Now if the good people at Courvosier would get rid of that billboard that has been driving me nuts for a few months now. It's the one of the woman straddling the oversized bottle of their product. I'm not sure if the sign is suggesting that she is giving birth to the bottle or having sex with it. All I know is that it is all over Detroit, in neighborhoods, not just along the freeways. People shouldn't have to have that crap in their neighborhoods, just because they are poor.

[ChairOne]

37. Whether or not the laws "make prostitution go away" is irrelevant...

What's important is that the laws are, as it were, a mission statement by a society, to the effect of "we think men exploiting women in this manner is a serious societal flaw, and were refuse to be party to it"...

But I'm in the vast minority on this one, apparently... lol who needs the ERA when we've got legal prostitutes, who, in that field, make waaay more than their male counterparts...

woohoo! the American dream is here!

lol - cry - lol - cry

[Selwynn]

42. I don't think much of your attitude, but I agree with you on this one.

Coming in, making 100ish posts, and then proceeding to lecture and talk down to a community you barely know in all the posts I have read from you so far really doesn't win you many points. Furthermore, it doesn't make you look smart nor does it make you seem sophisticated. It really only makes you look extremely childish. Maybe you might take a breath and try again - and try to engage this community of your peers for what they are - a large and diverse group of people, many smarter than you - and of course, some not.

Despite the fact that in all the posts I have read of yours so far you have come off like quite the dick, that doesn't change the fact that I happen to agree with you in this instance. I think you're essentially right, despite the way you present yourself.

I'm not usually one for the dismissive pragmatic arguments for legalizing things. Saying "well we're never going to be rid of this wrong thing, so let's just make it legal" isn't really something that sits well with me. It's not a good enough reason. I feel like the things we allow in society should be things that we see as healthy, appropriate and beneficial. I can't get behind making legal institutions that have exploitation and the breakdown of healthy relationships as the center of their purpose. I don't subscribe to the "if you can't beat em, join em" philosophy.

And I also happen to be old fashioned about sex. I believe that sex and sexuality is not just a "right" and a "freedom" it is also a responsibility. I believe we ought to me talking more about an appropriate sex ethic and sexual responsibility in general, and I believe that our nation's laws ought to reflect a fundamental commitment to sexual responsibility as well as promote a society in which sex was seen as a personal private component of healthy, nurturing committed relationships as not as a tool of profiteering, subjugation, exploitation, objectification or instant gratification.

So no, I continue to oppose the legalization on prostitution, on the grounds that it runs contrary to principles I feel we should honor and strive to uphold in our society. I acknowledge that there are no simple answers, an we have a lot of problems and questions to address when it comes to the sex industry and what our societies attitude should be toward it. But this still represents the core of my feelings on the matter.

Sel

[Sparkly]

52. Should extra-marital sex, pre-marital sex, or group sex be illegal, too?

How do you accept their legality (if you do), but not the legality of consenting adults exchanging money for sex?

[daisygirl]

132. Exactly

It is not the place of government to legislate sexual ethics (by which I mean the ethics of sex between consenting adults). If a person feels that prostitution is wrong, then he/she shouldn't engage in prostitution or pay someone else for sex, but that doesn't mean it ought to be illegal. What a person does with his or her own body with other consenting adults is nobody else's business, whether money changes hands or not.

Prostitutes, whether female or male, are far more likely to be marginalized, abused, and exploited while working in a profession that's illegal.

[Jesus H. Christ]

59. You're right, of course.

We should be able to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

You know, to uphold principles in our society.

:eyes:

[ChairOne]

92. doh! someone else who hates women!

(read further down the thread if the point of the subject was lost on you...)

[Stinky The Clown]

34. How is a gay male prostitute an exploiter of women?

[ChairOne]

36. That's right... talk about the exception rather than the norm...

genius rhetorical tactic...

[Behind the Aegis]

53. Male prostitutes are not an "exception"

Whereas males are not the majority of sex works, I wouldn't call 30% an exception. The number of male sex workers is not as low as some people would think. It has much to do with the homophobia in this country, so gay prostitutes aren't often discussed.

[Sparkly]

39. I don't think the government should prevent consenting adults

from doing whatever they choose sexually -- whether anyone else disagrees with it or not. I think the government has long had an interest in not allowing women to have control of their bodies sexually. I see nothing wrong with leaving this choice to a woman.

As it's been said, somehow a woman can have sex with five guys, and that's legal; but if one leaves a dollar on the nightstand, it's not. Women and men are already free to choose behaviors we might consider exploitation (not limited to sex, btw). Even *if* some consider it exploitation, why is it criminalized?

[benburch]

40. You are not the only one to think that way, but you'd all be wrong.

I think you need to actually read some of the literature on this matter.

I especially recommend the classic book of essays "Sex Work" editied by Priscilla Alexander.

I have MANY friends who are female sexworkers, and I defy you to tell any of them that they are being used by men. They see it as quite the opposite.


My MALE sexworker friends don't feel exploited, either.

[ChairOne]

41. lol - yah.... that never happens....

... that the following can sometimes both be true:

(1) a person is exploited

(2) that person doesn't feel exploited

that's impossible!

rofl

Is there a thread about rural folks voting directly against their interests anywhere nearby? Of course not - that's impossible! LOL

But in any case, fine - AFAIC, this issue is small-potatoes compared to Americas real problems... was just curious bout whether or not anyone cared about the what-does-it-say-about-us-as-a-society issue... apparently not... Rock on folks!

Now that I realize how many of you are like-minded on this, I shouldn't have called y'all bizarre... Apparently I'm the bizarre one... My apologies...

[benburch]

45. So you think these women are not capable of making their own decisions?

How very Republican of you,

Do you also want to give up the right to abortion, to own property, and to vote?

Personally, I think women ought to be allowed to decide things for themselves.

[King Coal]

49. Are there any Stepford Hookers?

[ChairOne]

50. rofl - yah that's EXACTLY what I said.... \eom

[Sparkly]

46. It comes down to the question: "Who decides?"

Who decides what's exploitation and what isn't, and whether or not one is free to engage in something they and/or others consider exploitation? I think adults should be allowed to make those decisions for themselves, not the government.

If you get right down to it, people who work for low wages while their boss makes ten times that amount from their labor are being exploited. But we don't make it criminal for them to take the job.

[GingerSnaps]

44. There was a show on cable about hookers

The majority of them have either been sexually abused when they were kids or they are drug addicts. I would suggest that you watch the documentary and I believe that you can rent it at blockbuster or netflix.

You might end up feeling sorry for most of them.

[benburch]

47. The majority? Hardly!

Those are probably statistics made up entirely in the mind of Norma Hotaling, who has been flogging this issue for years based on her "studies". None of which would ever stand peer review.

[Behind the Aegis]

56. You are correct.

I found this little tid bit to be very interesting...--Some researchers suggest that prostitutes, in general, suffer from 'negative identities' or lack of self esteem. A 1986 study by Diane Prince, however, found call girls and brothel workers had higher self esteem than before they became prostitutes. 97% of call girls liked themselves 'more than before.' (This study also examines suicide rates, and is often misquoted, referring to a statistic regarding call-girls. In the context of pathologizing prostitutes, some mistakenly report that 75% percent of call girls have attempted suicide, however, according to this study 76% of call girls considered (not attempted) suicide, along with 61% of non-prostitutes, and only 42% of brothel workers.)(16) from Prostitution issues and stats

Legalize it!

[superconnected]

61. My friends are not prostitutes

but ALL of my female friends have told me they've been molested as children. I wondered for years if I was the only female I had ever met who hadn't been. I've met a few others now and I'm in my 30s.

I had a 15 yo prostitute live on my couch when I was 23. She was molested as a child by her moms bfs.

I don't think you should be making blanket statements. It sounds more like how you want it to be than how it is.

[benburch]

68. A raw statistic like that IS a blanket statement!

And trust, me, this is not how I would want it to be at all.

Sexwork is a brutal, dangerous business in the USA *because* of the laws against it. My friends deserve better. Even those who are making $1500 an hour for their work have been abused by the police. But those people have lawyers. The ones I feel bad for are the women who through poverty and lack of legal employment venue have no options but to work the streets. They can be abused by anybody, and the cops don't care and won't enforce the law to protect them. In fact, the cops are often the abusers because they can compel you to go wherever they wish under color of their office.

Or, do you think that they deserve whatever they get for their moral transgressions?

[superconnected]

103. ...

"Or, do you think that they deserve whatever they get for their moral transgressions?"

An uncalled for comment.

[benburch]

110. If you want things to remain as they are...

that is the logical inference.

It is just to point out where that attitude leads.

[Stinky The Clown]

141. Where you gettin' yer facts from????

How can you say that? Do you have anything to back that up?

Everyone who thinks they know more than they do instantly conjurs up a picture of the crack addicted, brain addled street hooker doing $20 tricks on her knees in an alley in the ghetto. That is NOT the only picture of a prostitute, my friend.

[SmokingJacket]

57. Making it legal would go a long way toward making it less

exploitative.

I felt rather as you do as I started to read this thread. I hate the exploitation of on group by another, and that's what prostitution seemed to me -- before I thought about it.

Prostitution has not been banished by its being illegal -- it's just been driven underground. Now women have no recourse if they're abused, and pimps are taking a huge cut of the profits.

Allowing payment to be rendered for sexual services actually tips the balance of power back towards women.

The thing about sex is: if you clamp a lid on it, it comes bubbling out in all kinds of strange forms.

[ChairOne]

62. riiiiight.......

We can't even get men to treat women right at *WalMart* for fuck's sakes...

You want me to think that a *hooker's* lot will improve with legalization?

I shink you shink I'm a whole lot drunker than I actually am <hiccup> - lol

I can still recall all those happy-sunshine-lollipops faces on the streets in Vegas...

I'm converted! Who cares what kind of country we are! Laissez Faire all the way! Let us be the Amsterdam of the western hemisphere! Brazil'll have nuthin on us!

But ok - I'm done with this - I'll go back to the sewers n play my organ now...

[benburch]

69. Why do you hate women so much?

It is obvious that you neither trust women to control their bodies nor to have the ability to stand up for themselves.

This must come from a deep loathing for them?

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benburch]

77. Now, you retract that at once.

Unless you can prove I have lied, and I have not, you are in violation of the rules here, and showing the worst of manners.

[ChairOne]

80. lol - you say I hate women, I call you a liar...

I'm more than happy to live by the mods decision on the matter

[Jesus H. Christ]

81. Usually I'd assume people who are pro-life hate women.

I'd make the same assumption here.

[ChairOne]

83. hmmm... too slick on the rhetoric for me here....

I'm not pro-life.... you been listening to benburch or somethin?

[Jesus H. Christ]

86. same thing.

You want to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies.

Prostitution will occur anyway. But as long as it's illegal it'll be far more dangerous. But that's OK with you, as long as you enforce your phony sense of morality.

[benburch]

87. But you deny a womans right to control her own body.

How is that different except in degree?

[benburch]

84. Same assumption I make.

They are two sides of the same coin.

Either an adult owns his or her own body, or they don't. Same issue whether it is the right to be gay, the right to an abortion, the right to have sex out of wedlock, or the right to engage in sexwork.

You cannot take one of those away without the others falling, and anybody who wants that is a terrible person.

[ChairOne]

88. So you also think suicide should be legal, I take it?

sheesh

I should hold off on that "sheesh" tho - you guys might actually agree with that...

[Jesus H. Christ]

91. Pro-lifers use the same argument.

nt

[benburch]

93. Um... It is legal.

There are no laws against suicide in most states according to a lawyer friend of mine in a conversation we had just the other day.

And yes, I think it ought to REMAIN legal.

And if I were terminally ill, I believe I ought to have the right to ask a doctor to provide me with the means to do it painlessly, too.

But I suppose you think the terminally ill ought to suffer to prepare them for redemption?

[ChairOne]

94. Holy crap - seriously?

I thought suicide was illegal pretty much everywhere with US jurisdiction....

Hold on then... lemme think of another example...

[benburch]

96. Yes seriously.

Read the next posting.

[benburch]

95. Reference for that assertion.

Lest you call me a liar again.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/040326.html

[ChairOne]

108. Well will ya look at that shit...

my bad on the example...

[benburch]

119. And you are JUST as misinformed about the realities of the main topic.

Go educate yourself.

[ChairOne]

122. LOL - YAGI - yet another great inference... /eom

[wuushew]

100. Yes suicide is the ultimate form of self-expression

of course unless society brands such thoughts mental illness and therefore an individual looses his right to personal freedom.

Since we are all mortal creatures why impede the choosing and circumstances of our own passing?

[Name removed]

82. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[benburch]

89. Yep, an odd character.

And also one who happens to be right on this issue.

How many sexworkers do you know personally?

I know hundreds, from all walks of life.

They deserve the right to control their own bodies.

They deserve the right to make a living.

They deserve the humanity you deny them.

[ChairOne]

99. Welcome to the new America, folks!

Where humanity is exemplified by our hookers!

Sigh. Ya got me pardner - I can't top that.

[benburch]

105. Our humanity is judged by how we treat those we don't like.

You think you are better than they are, and that is an inhumane attitude.

[ChairOne]

111. Wow - are you sure I didn't team up with Stalin, Pol Pot, and Hitler too?

As long as you're still going strong on making crap up...

[benburch]

155. And it would appear that they have... nt

[Jesus H. Christ]

74. What's wrong with Amsterdam?

Looks like they're a lot better off then we are.

[benburch]

79. Generally they are...

But the Religious Right is slowly taking control of Holland, and that island of sanity does not have long to remain.

[indigobusiness]

115. Play your organ?

Or, play WITH your organ?

[slutticus]

64. Actually, It's the men who are being exploited.

$250 an hour for something that should be free? Please.

If you ask me, these ladies have a very nice thing going here.

[ChairOne]

70. rofl - all those rich hookers....

... in their mansions next to all those rich strippers....

sheesh...

this is reminding me of an affirmative-action-is-reverse-racism-and-christians-are-the-ones-really-being-persecuted discussion...

later all...

[benburch]

73. Ummm... There are some rich hookers...

The fact that you've never met them does not mean they don't exist.

But the point is that it is a way to make a living. Would you rather they were jobless and starve?

[dean_dem]

76. Well, the hookers in my area....

Seem to do pretty well. They drive nicer cars than I do, for starters. But I know they don't have pimps, and they work for themselves. That probably helps a lot.

And as for strippers, they may not be rich, but $50,000/year tax free is pretty damn good considering what they could be doing. That's why they stay with it most of the time.

Personally, I may have absolutely no weight on this issue being male, but I do not see this as exploitation in anyway, as long as the prostitute is not being held against her will, is underage, or anything like that. They are providing a service that men will pay a good deal of money for. Legalizing it would not necessarily condone it as much as just make it safer for these people to do what they're going to do anyway.

But really, the Democratic Party should not even touch this issue until some other things are in order first.

[amazona]

136. tax free?

In what country is stripping tax free? Because in the United States tip income is most definitely taxed. And if you think the stripper gets most of the money anyway after "tipping out" everyone, then you are sadly mistaken unless she's a top feature.

I agree that this is not a Democratic Party issue.

[livinginphotographs]

146. Trust me.

Most strippers, besides tip-out, don't pay taxes. Legally, they're required to, but most of them don't (at least the ones I know).

[Baconfoot]

71. We shouldn't think that a behavior's being legal is tantamount to approval

So, in general, a particular behavior's being legal is not related to whether that behavior is officially or generally approved of.
There are uncountably many instances of behaviors which aren't officially or generally approved of which are legal. Take, for instance, excessively purchasing lottery tickets, having sex while under, say, 15,and being rude to fellow users of the nation's roadways, just to name a few.

In my view it's unfortunate that the same cannot be said of a particular behavior's illegality. In fact, it would be true that the legalization of prostitution would be tantamount to approval of the behavior but this is only because it is currently illegal and, unfortunately, illegal behaviors ARE official (and sometimes generally) disapproved of. This interferes with our ability to improve the quality of life for individuals engaging in and affected by these disapproved of behaviors (i.e. everyone).

We can't mandate that minimum wage laws apply to prostitutes or that prostitutes be covered by health insurance or tested for STDs in order to be licensed, for example, unless prostitution is legalized.
Some prostitutes are little more than (or tantamount to) slaves of their pimps. But they are engaging in illegal behavior.


In short, moral judgments and judgments as to whether a behavior ought to be legalized ought be independant.

[ChairOne]

78. Interesting idea... but you and I are diametrically opposed then...

I take the legality of a behavior to be DEFINITIVE of the meaning of "is peachy-keen in the eyes of the state". Especially where there's a Constitution that says as much...

And similarly with the illegality of a behavior...

All good tho - just different takes on the matter - I'm just a bit surprised that I'm the only one who thinks this...

[benburch]

107. You are the only one who thinks this way...

because you are simply uneducated on the subject and willfully misinformed.

Go read Priscilla Alexander's book. Unless you will bother to read the source material in the field, I don't think you have a leg to stand on for any of your assertions about it.

[benburch]

113. Precisely.

Otherwise you are on the slippery slope to "Everything that is not forbidden is mandatory."

[GingerSnaps]

35. I went to School with a girl that's a Hooker now

I passed her while I was on my way to Whole Foods one day and I almost didn't recognize her. She had been skinny when we were in school together but she was so skinny that if a strong wind would have been blowing she would have blown away.

Should she be able to prostitute? I would say that it's her own body and she can do whatever she wants with it.

One problem! If she knows that she has a disease like AIDS and she is passing it on than she should be put in jail for attempted murder. Harsh words but it's the truth.

A lonely man should be able to purchase whatever he wants. A married man has to be missing something at home if he goes out looking for it and shame on him. A jackass cheater needs his ass kicked for paying for a hooker and possibly picking up a disease in the process of doing it. :D

[Behind the Aegis]

58. Teens seem to be more dangerous

-- The U.S. Department of Health consistently reports that only 3-5% of the sexually transmitted disease in this country is related to prostitution (compared with 30-35% among teenagers). There is no statistical indication in the U.S. that prostitutes are vectors of HIV. Although a small percentage of prostitutes may be HIV positive, William Darrow, CDC AIDS epidemiology official, cites no proven cases of HIV transmission from prostitutes to clients.(8) from Prostitution stats

This issue is often misunderstood and demonized.

[GingerSnaps]

65. I know that

When people say that hookers are the problem they need to delve into the issue a little bit deeper. Who do hookers get AIDS from? I feel very sorry for the kids in Asia that are sold into the business and the ones that have to work off a debt for their relatives.

My friend from School is not a kid.

[Behind the Aegis]

67. Children

The exploitation of children, sexual or otherwise, is repulsive. The sadder thing...what we hear about happening in Asia, also happens here all to often! When I talk about legalizing prostitution, I would never support it for those under the age of consent!

[top_mosker]

54. Legalize pot first.

We already have legalized rostitution in my state of Nevada. Yes, I have been to several. No, I did not get "services." Mostly due to the fact that the whores were either fat, ugly, old, or all three. One house I went to in Battle Mountain, NV - there were no ladies under 45. It was bad.

Anyways, legalize pot first. People get put in prison for that while breaking no ethical boundries.

[top_mosker]

55. .

.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. I would favor legalizing it for prostitutes over 18, but there's a problem

I know from having worked with street kids that a lot of johns--not just pedophiles--like 'em young in the mistaken belief that the young ones are less likely to have STDs.

I knew of a case in which a thirteen-year-old prostitute was just raking in the money and constantly helping out older teens who either couldn't earn as much as she could or who had left prostitution and were trying to struggle on the types of jobs that 17-year-olds usually get.

Even if prostitution for ages 18 and over were legalized, there would still be a black market for under-age prostitutes.

[benburch]

72. Were it legal, this problem would much easier to enforce laws on.

If an adult woman were to be allowed to put an ad in the paper or go to work for a brothel rather than do streetwalking, streetwalkers would largely disappear. Police could then concentrate all of their efforts on arresting the pedophiles and keeping the minors off the streets.

[prayin4rain]

137. See, I don't know about this.

I have heard the opposite. I have heard keeping it illegal helps PREVENT child prostitution, and women who are forced into prostitution. This makes some sense to me. The thing I don't get it is the law is not held-up strictly at all. There ARE ads in the Observer, a paper in my town (Dallas), and I guess nothing gets done about it. And we have escort services in the phone book too, so I dunno. -----

Also, I think prostitution is a symptom of an ill society. Not just the prostitutes or the people who visit the prostitutes, but the society as a whole. I happen to be a woman, and how in the hell a woman can sleep with all of these men for money, I will NEVER know. And I am not a big prude either. I am telling you I would STARVE first.

And lastly we have a lot of laws that's sole purpose is to protect the person involved in the now crime...... seat belt laws, drug laws, suicide laws.

[benburch]

147. I don't think my friends are sick.

The sexworkers I know are not sick. In fact some really have it together.

Some of them would have been having sex with lots of men anyway, and like the fact that they can make a living at it. Others simply don't see what they do with clients as being sex - to them it is an acting job or a sort of physical therapy. I know one ex-worker (who was famous as a porn actress) who sought out disabled and physically repulsive men as clients because she was sure that most of them would never be able to find sex from a non-professional!

Yes, there will always be marginal people in sexwork because it is something that you can survive with when you cannot make yourself be on time for a job and etc, but for those people it is an alternative to abject poverty, so I wont even criticize those choices.

Also, there are NO suicide laws. None. Go look it up.

And if you think the drug laws are OK, we have a whole other can of worms to open up.

[superconnected]

63. I voted no

Over the yearas there's been too many dead prostitutes found in the bushes on hwy99 in Lynnwood, not far from where I live.

[Jesus H. Christ]

66. All the more reason to legalize it.

That's like saying we shouldn't legalize abortion because you keep finding women in back alleys dead from abortion.

[superconnected]

97. Actually I think it's serial killers killing the prostitutes

Not bad medical procedure.

Serial killers often do target prostitutes specifically.

The main reason I would tell a woman not to do prostitution is because she could end up a lone with someone who would hurt her- more so than women who don't prostitute.

[Jesus H. Christ]

102. Yes, and those serial killers wouldn't be killing prostitutes...

if they worked in safe, secure brothels as opposed to the back of a serial killer's truck.

Just like the woman with the abortion wouldn't die if she got the abortion in a clinic instead of a back alley.

[MrSlayer]

90. Absolutely.

Legalized, regulated and taxed.

[SteveIrving1]

98. Disease control...

I voted no, there are Meany reasons why but one big reason would be the rapid spread of STD's if it were legalized, hookers who don't know there caring STD's could infect dozens of people in one night.

[Jesus H. Christ]

101. Boy, that's the most ridiculous post yet.

Right up there with the murdered prostitutes post. You do realize that this is an argument FOR legalization? Or were you being sarcastic?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

104. Unless The Hooker Is Jumping In And Out Cars Giving Lewinskys

I doubt they have dozens of partners in one night....

[superconnected]

106. boy are you shallow

I used to work at a police department. It was well advised that the young girls not prosititue for their safty.

Call the cops and talk to them about it. It's not an empty concern.

[Jesus H. Christ]

109. If you were honestly concerned about the safety of prostitutes...

you'd be all for legalization. But a lot more people care about their phony sense of morality than about the actual safety of prostitutes. Talk about shallowness.

[superconnected]

112. Wrong.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3245117.stm


Gotta love that guy. I worked for the city courts when he got arrested and was constantly going to the jail courts when he was there. The guards had a lot to say about him, little, quiet guy. Typical for a mass murderer they said. He targeted prostitutes.

[superconnected]

114. one of the 4 catagories for serial killers is - mission

where they claim they kill prostitues, drug addicts etc. to rid society of them. This is what Ridgeway claimed. He's supposed to be a classic case.

below are excerpts from the news link I listed:


"Most of the time I killed them the first time I met them, and I do not have a good memory of their faces," he said.

"I hate most prostitutes and I did not want to pay them for sex," he said.

"I also picked prostitutes as victims because they were easy to pick up without being noticed. I knew they would not be reported missing right away and might never be reported missing. I picked prostitutes because I thought I could kill as many of them as I wanted without getting caught."

In recent decades several other serial murders have haunted the north-western US and neighbouring Canada:


Robert Lee Yates Junior, a father of five and National Guard helicopter pilot, sentenced to death after admitting he killed 15 people, mostly prostitutes, from the 1970s to the 1990s in Spokane, Washington;

Ted Bundy, who confessed to 28 murders in the 1970s - several of his victims were found in Washington and Oregon. Executed in Florida in 1989;

In Vancouver, Canadian pig farmer Robert "Willy" Pickton faces charges of murdering at least 15 women among 60 prostitutes and drug addicts who vanished in the past two decades.
Worldwide, among the most prolific serial killers of recent times were:

[benburch]

117. A friend of mine who has studied the numbers...

says that murders of prostitutes rise sharply every time there is a reported police sweep against prostitutes.

She believes that the perps think they are working FOR the cops and helping out.

[Sparkly]

121. I don't think the way to approach the murder of women

is to criminalize what the women were doing when they were murdered. What you're describing has to do with both hate and opportunity. Legalization could be a step toward removing the stigma of prostitution as well as helping provide safety.

[indepat]

116. Legalize, but license and regulate it to lessen STDs

[benburch]

118. That model has not worked well in Nevada for the workers.

It creates a system, usually controlled by the good old boys, that can deny the right to work to any prostitute who does not comply with whatever they wish, and where the system can be rigged with fees such that the worker gives most of her money to the house.

[Freebird12004]

123. There is no perfect world ...

however "Better" would be nice

[Selwynn]

127. I think the point is the above poster doesn't agree that is "better"

[benburch]

145. You are exactly right on that point. nt

[PurityOfEssence]

124. Of course. Sex is not the same thing as love

The primal urge is a fearsome power. Giving people an outlet for this is a good thing, even if just for release.

It's funny how extremist conservatism and extremist leftism both cling to the idiotic premise of the perfectibility of mankind. Communism failed because people are still lazy and greedy. Conservatism fails because, along with the good, there's too much ugliness in the human heart. We're messy beings, and if we can find a way to accomodate the untoward appetites within us, we'll all be better off.

Regulate it, tax it, and keep it very discreet.

Do you really want people playing fast and loose with others' affections just to get laid? Do you want the sexual urges to go unslaked?

Love and sex are often the same penultimate urge, but there's nothing wrong with good old-fashioned sportfucking, and it should be made more accessible.

Those who work in the sex industry do so at great risk to their bodies, health and psyches; regulation would help them more than anyone else. It's too bad that people hate and fear sex so, but that's just life. Whenever we rage at sex for trade, we're really hearing the backlash of those who have sexual problems and those who are the true prostitutes: the ones who use sex as a weapon of control. If you care about your mate, you don't do that.

Sex is part of life; it shouldn't be taken lightly for many reasons, but chiefly for the emotional hurt of the partner and the biological dangers of contact. Controlling these issues would help us all, except for those afraid of sex and those who use sex as a tool for dominance.

[Selwynn]

128. I completely disagree

..and in fact think that basic attitude has been at the core of most of the breakdown of healthy society. All this talk about sex being this overwhelming natural primal urge is a joke. People choose to have sex and choose not to have sex. It is not something beyond their control. Sex is a relational experience, it is connected to emotion and to relational connection to another person. It ought to be treated as one of the deepest and most intimate expressions of affection in serious mutual relationships. All we have to do is look around and see the effects of when it isn't. Our society's unhealthy and frivolous attitude toward sex is the cause of so many ills - disease, abuse, exploitation.

And just because having sexual release is a good thing doesn't mean "sportfucking" is a good thing. Clearly sex is not connected to love for many these days, but it is inexorably connected to relationship. You concede that it shouldn't be taken lightly for many reasons, chiefly for the emotional hurt of the partner and the biological dangers of contact. But apparently you and I have different definition of what "seriously" means. It seems a little funny to me when people keep trying to defend frivolous irresponsible sex with some kind of "natural order" seeing as how all you have to do is look around at the amount of disease spread that has a very simple solution - stop running around fucking everything that moves. Apparently perhaps life is trying to tell us that frivolous casual sex with a revolving door of partners isn't in fact part of the healthy natural order.

If instead, we took an attitude of sexual responsibility and ethic, and accepted sex as inseparably linked to relational commitment if not to love, and saw sex as the pinnacle expression of fidelity and intimacy to a partner we were committed to monogamously we wouldn't have the sexual disease epidemic that we do. And everyone knows this, and yet they still try to act as though somehow thoughtless casual sport sex is "natural." Don't make "natural" arguments. Thoughtless casual sport sex is nothing more than irresponsible - it is irresponsible relationally, irresponsible emotionally, irresponsible societally. And our casual attitude about sex is a large contributor to our depersonalized, desensitized alienated dysfunctional relationship society that so many - for reasons passing understanding - still try to justify rather than repair.

You keep speaking so negatively about the ugliness of human beings, yet it is not a fact that all people act in sexually irresponsible of even impulsive and frivolous ways. But many, many people choose to go years at a time and not have a sexual relationship. I have done that myself. The reason why is because of they believe something different what I believe about the nature of sexuality and sexual expression. I am not interested in depersonalizing flippant sex flings under the rationalization that somehow human beings are walking sexaholics that have to have sex to live. I believe, in fact I know, that sex and sexuality is a freakin wonderful thing it is also inseparably connected to relationships and relational ethics, and as such it is a responsibility as much as it is a pleasurable experience.

The world would be a much better place if sex was understood and accepted to be something where everything does NOT go as is the attitude so common today, but rather where the same kinds of ethical and relational considerations which govern the rest of our lives also govern our choices about sex. A world wherein we recognize and accept that sex is deep and intimate expression between two seriously committed people - sex affects emotions and spirit as well as body. And when it is riped out of that context and cheapened into frivolous meaningless sport, it dulls the emotions, hardens or breaks down relationships, alienates and estranges more than it unifies as well as creates the sex attitudes that have led in part to our disease epidemic - none of which would have happened in the first place if we had just kept to the "unnatural" practice of not going around thinking we have a god given right to fuck everything that moves.

Sex and relational commitment are connected. When they are not connected, sex become irresponsible - and it is that attitude of irresponsibility that has had such negative effects on our society.

[PurityOfEssence]

129. So, if one is unable to find a relationship, one does not deserve any sex?

People who go around claiming that they have the answer and that it's one simple thing are generally people uncomfortable with uncertainty, complexity and differences. To be equally blunt with you, you tend to moralize and have pat answers--ones that may work for you--to very difficult questions.

This smacks of an argument of faith, and since that's where we've generally tangled in the past, I'd say there's much residual ire here.

Sex is not just one thing, and I didn't state that it's a crazed and manic need that can't be controlled. It's a powerful urge, and it's often based on nothing more than attractiveness. Sometimes it's based on things we don't quite understand.

Perhaps a person is so psychologically wounded that he/she knows a relationship would be bad for anyone involved with him/her. Is this person thus required to be abstinent so your tidy worldview can be sustained? Someone who's lost a spouse after a long illness during which there was no sex, and who doesn't want to even think about a relationship, is condemned to yet more abstinence in your world.

More than anything, this all smacks of some kind of filthiness to the sexual act, which can only be mitigated by the glorious transcendence of romantic love. Do you think sex is dirty? Do you think it's a sin?

I think this kind of moralizing, cloaked in the beauty of storybook love is extremely dangerous if accepted in pure form: it leaves no other mode of living to be tolerated. It may work for you, but not for others.

I've been in a monogamous relationship for many years now and have children, but a lot of that is pure luck because I found the right person. A lot of it's also because we had premarital sex and lived together for a long time so we got to know each other and determine that our habits and appetites were in sync. Once again, I'm lucky.

Others are not so fortunate.

Many people should be allowed to have sex without emotional entanglements, especially people hurting after the loss of a loved one or a bad breakup. In your world, these people need to either suffer stoically or put another person--and themselves--at emotional risk.

People also have vastly different sex drives, and a healthy one isn't necessarily an addiction. Using the pulpit of moral decency to demand that "good" people only have it in the way you've proscribed is to presume you understand all of humanity so well that your personal actions are a model for them. People are very different. The presumption that everyone's really like me, and they should just deal with it is an inherently conservative viewpoint: it dismisses differences of attitude and opinion. This is why conservatives refuse to allow differences: they're inherently wicked and wrong.

Culture and civilization have to accommodate human realities without succumbing to the worst of them. Thus, we need to punish murder, thievery and other crimes, but we need to address all other human activity and find ways to provide release.

Sex is not to be taken lightly, but it's not to be glossily dismissed with simplistic pronouncements of "the only way". Many of us who advocate more toleration are not ones who flounce around as libertines ourselves, but who just want to make sure others aren't hurt or denied an enjoyable activity. In your world, too many people would get strung along and emotionally crushed by people who only really wanted the sex in the first place; that goes on far too much in this world as it is. The skunk who just wants sex should have a safe and controlled way to have it, then he/she wouldn't be filled with quite as much frustration and there wouldn't be a victim.

You do not have all the answers, and there's more than "one way" that this urge fits into many others' lives. Expecting everyone to adhere to your altruistic standard completely misses the many other personality types and situations people can be in.

[Selwynn]

130. No one has all the answers, including you.

People who go around claiming that they have the answer and that it's one simple thing are generally people uncomfortable with uncertainty, complexity and differences. To be equally blunt with you, you tend to moralize and have pat answers--ones that may work for you--to very difficult questions.

There was nothing in my post any more or any less claiming to have "an answer" than there was in yours. The only difference is that your answers and mine are different, and you don't like my answers. That's it.

This smacks of an argument of faith, and since that's where we've generally tangled in the past, I'd say there's much residual ire here.

This is not a statement you proceed to quantify at all, so I guess I will just ignore it.


Sex is not just one thing, and I didn't state that it's a crazed and manic need that can't be controlled. It's a powerful urge, and it's often based on nothing more than attractiveness. Sometimes it's based on things we don't quite understand.

That sounds a lot more like an excuse to justify poor behavior than it does a justification. And it is one I don't identify with at all. Sex is not a mystery to me, and its not based on things I don't understand. I am not at the mercy of this mystical urges. I know what I want and why I want it, and I also know what I don't want and why. And I definitely don't want frivolous cheap sex acts if they come at the expense of healthy relationships or responsible behavior.

Having said that, hardly any subject in life is "just one thing." However that doesn't mean that there aren't basic principles that ought to be understood. There is a difference between the normative principles that ought to govern our decision making and the applied contextual circumstances that force us to interpret those principles and make the best decisions we can in any given context. But people who take the cheap argumentation tactic of saying someone "doesn't have all the answers" or is "moralizing" because they dare to discuss certain principles for evaluating our decision making are being just that - cheap.

Most of us would agree that murder is wrong, and we would also concede that there are some complicated situations in which our society and our justice system has to wrestle with determining whether or not something should be seen as murder or if it should be seen as something else - say, self defense for example. Of course there are always special contexts that require interpretation - but that doesn't change the fact that the basic principle of do not kill is a right one, and we should strive to honor it.

Where you and I disagree is only because you don't see sexual ethics in the same light. You would never dream of making the same kind of post you just made about the subject of murder, or rape for example. You would never dream of saying, "hey you know in response to your post about rape being wrong I say that you don't have all the answers, and there's more than one way, and you shouldn't moralize, etc. etc." You would appear absurd to do that. Sometimes it is appropriate to say, you know its OK to say that this is wrong. For example I don't recognize someone's right to say that going around raping women is their chosen other way, and that there way is just as right and acceptable as "my way." I'm sorry, I don't accept that.

The issue here is that you and I simply disagree about what is ethical when it comes to sexual behavior. We disagree on the connection between sexuality and relationships. We disagree on what - all things being equal - constitution healthy connections between people and what kinds of things break down or undercut that kind of health. Our disagreement has absolutely ZERO to do with my having some kind of blind dogma. It is possible, and in fact desirable to both recognize appropriate normative principles for healthy living and responsible decision making and also recognize the context driven nature of reality - that in practice what decisions we should make to best honor all of these normative principles is an difficult and complicated process. That is why it is never my intention to give statements like "if you ever have sex outside of marriage you are wrong." Notice I never said one thing about marriage, or anything about specific situations at all.

What I referred to were normative principles - meaning that before we even make contextual practical decisions in specific circumstances, we should accept some basic principles that sex is a responsibility as well as a joy, sex is inexorably connected to emotions and to relationships, and when that connection is undercut the potential negative consequences increase, insofar as sex is connected to relationally decisions about sex are not yours and yours alone to make, but yours and your partners and the partners, needs, emotions, feelings, desires and concerns must be yours.

Now you can take ALL of those principles and APPLY them to specific contexts - and different people can make different decisions on the applied level about what to do. "Moralizing" would be trying to point to every single context and saying "that's right, and that's wrong." But that's not what I'm doing. What I am doing is saying that there are some fundamental responsibilities and principle concerns that ought to go into decisions about sex. If we were to take those concerns seriously, I'm sure it would narrow the scope of what individuals in society considered acceptable and responsible sexual behavior. But whether that's true or not, the fact remains that there is nothing wrong - in fact its absolutely necessary - to talk about appropriate principles, guiding heuristics if you prefer, for making responsible appropriate decisions in life.

When it comes to thinking about ethics I am neither a complete moral relativist nor a moral absolutist. I believe that on the normative plane it is important to have a guiding moral philosophy and come to understand and accept some fundamental underlying principles for life that can become the lens through which we attempt to interpret our experiences and make the decisions that best honor those principles to the best of our ability. I believe that there are a lot of things that could be said about those principles - but at the center would be a the lens of relationships. Our actions should strive to create, sustain and maintain healthy nurturing relationships on multiple tiers - including "relationship" to ourselves and relationship to those around is. Insofar as our choices enhance, contribute to or amplify nurturing healthy relationships they are good choices Insofar as they undercut or tear down healthy relationships they are not good choices.

That's a great normative principle - however it doesn't change the fact that in the applied level of existence, things get complicated. How do we act in ways which create and sustain healthy nurturing relationships? Sometimes what we need for health and what someone else needs for health seem to be in conflict. Sometimes we aren't clear one what we really need to do to be healthy ourselves or maintain healthy relationships. Sometimes we are torn in different directions with competing choices, unsure which is best, etc. Different people can and do come to different conclusions about what kind of practical choices to make. As long as those choice are made in an attempt to honor the normative principles I described - i.e., made in an attempt to create and sustain healthy, positive relationships, then I have nothing critical to say about them. And I accept that different people will choose differently depending on their contexts. I'll even go as far as to say that sometimes people have to do some "unhealthy" things on the road to being "healthy" which is why we should never be too quick to judge.

But that doesn't chance the fundamental underling principle that our the basis for our choice in all walks of life should be at least in part based on a commitment to those things which foster and sustain healthy nurturing positive relationships with ourself and others. And it doesn't change the fact that if someone says "I think I'm going to honor these principles by going out and raping this woman" that I'm not going to say "hey man, you do whatever you want I'm not going judge you!" Of course not! I'm going to not only say that is totally wrong, but also directly do my best to prevent him from doing what he plans to do. That is my relational responsibility to the woman who he plans to make his victim. So clearly there are some things where we can, do and should "judge" someone else's choices -- where the line is between the things we can and should judge and the things we can't is open for discussion.


More than anything, this all smacks of some kind of filthiness to the sexual act, which can only be mitigated by the glorious transcendence of romantic love. Do you think sex is dirty? Do you think it's a sin?

You are projecting all of that onto what I said because you disagree with me. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I think sex is a sin. You just need to accept the fact that we disagree and quit trying to cheapen or dismiss the scope of our disagreement with these kinds of tactics. It is in fact because I think so much of sex, love sexuality and sexual expression so much that I also treat it with seriousness. I its because it consider it such a great thing that I also consider it a thing that comes with the expectation of great responsibility.

Simply because I believe sex is not trivial or frivolous doesn't mean I think its "dirty." In fact, it is more likely to imply just the opposite. I think that sex decisions made in total disregard to a healthy relational ethic or the principle of making choices according to that which amplifies and enhance healthy, nurturing, responsible relationships are unethical. However, when you get down to concrete contextual scenarios, different people may chose sex or chose not to have sex in accordance with those principles depending on their context.


I think this kind of moralizing, cloaked in the beauty of storybook love is extremely dangerous if accepted in pure form: it leaves no other mode of living to be tolerated. It may work for you, but not for others.


Not raping woman may not work for someone else either. But we put those people in jail, not take a "live and let live" philosophy. My point in saying that is - its so ridiculously oversimplified to act as though the "this may work for you but not for others" defense is some kind of a catch all get out of jail free card that exempts the human race from thinking about what should be the principle basis for responsible ethical decision making. One principle for sure is the relational principle - that part of how I make choices about the things I should or shouldn't do is built around my understanding of how my choices will affect my relationships. Insofar as they foster healthy, mutual, nurturing positive relationships, I consider these choices good. When I know that they will not, that they will cause another pain, that they will cause myself pain, that they will undercut mutuality, that they will distort the nurturing positive capacity of the relationship - I consider those choice bad. So should we all. It is the appropriate basis for decision making.

Not just because that is true, doesn't mean that different people can and will disagree about exactly what kind of choices they will make in any given context. Specific context is different than the normative principles that should govern all of our decision making in any context. There is a difference between absolute normative principles and absolutes on the applied level -- absolutes on the applied level becomes the most extreme of dogmatism. "If you ever have sex outside of marriage you are wrong" for example. That is an example of a applied absolute, and I'm not making those kinds of statements. I don't believe in absolutes on the applied level. However, on the normative level, which it comes to what kind of moral philosophy and principles should be the lens through which we make our applied decisions, I do believe we can answer that. So I would be saying, "if you willfully make decisions for some reason - selfish reasons, reasons of instant gratification, vindictive reasons, etc. - which you know to a) hurt yourself emotionally, mentally, physically or spiritually b) hurt others emotionally, mentally, physically or spiritually (if you believe in that sort of thing) c) break down or undercut healthy mutual relationships, then you've done something wrong. I have no problem saying that, and I never will. This is the kind of lens we all ought to have as we strive to make the right decisions in life.


I've been in a monogamous relationship for many years now and have children, but a lot of that is pure luck because I found the right person. A lot of it's also because we had premarital sex and lived together for a long time so we got to know each other and determine that our habits and appetites were in sync. Once again, I'm lucky.


I don't think anywhere in my previous post I said anything about marriage, or sex inside or outside of marriage. I believe I said that sex that ignores relational responsibility is destructive, which it is.


Many people should be allowed to have sex without emotional entanglements, especially people hurting after the loss of a loved one or a bad breakup. In your world, these people need to either suffer stoically or put another person--and themselves--at emotional risk.


No this would be in your interpretation of my world, not my world. In my world, people would make responsible sexual decisions based on a fundamental commitment to the normative principles I have gone to such painstaking lengths to describe, not as a "favor" to anyone else, but as the only why to remain emotionally healthy themselves as well as maintain appropriate and healthy relationships with others.

I think I've been through just about as much relational and emotion hardship as anyone one else either of us knows, so stop talking down to me as though I wouldn't have any idea about how the "real" world works just because you don't agree with my perspective. Let's just disagree rather than insult each other.


People also have vastly different sex drives, and a healthy one isn't necessarily an addiction.


A healthy one is also not excuse for being sexually irresponsible.


Using the pulpit of moral decency to demand that "good" people only have it in the way you've proscribed is to presume you understand all of humanity so well that your personal actions are a model for them.


Of course, I never said that - these are the words you put into my mouth.


People are very different. The presumption that everyone's really like me, and they should just deal with it is an inherently conservative viewpoint: it dismisses differences of attitude and opinion. This is why conservatives refuse to allow differences: they're inherently wicked and wrong.


It would be so awesome if just once two people could actually disagree on these boards without one of them calling the other a conservative.


Culture and civilization have to accommodate human realities without succumbing to the worst of them. Thus, we need to punish murder, thievery and other crimes, but we need to address all other human activity and find ways to provide release.


You've made an assumption that certain acts and behaviors are one on "tier" while other acts and behaviors are not. But that is an assumption, not an absolute.


You do not have all the answers


Neither do you.
Sel

[PurityOfEssence]

131. Well, that still doesn't address a few things

Do you not feel that people should EVER have impersonal sex?

I certainly got rather prickly in my response, but your first reply was more than just a tad haughty, so please don't play the injured party. Much as I've intimated that your views tend toward conservatism, your initial post passive-aggressively tars me as somehow stunted in the true emotional realm; nobody likes to be dismissed lightly, so tread lightly unless you can bear scrutiny yourself.

Your worldview doesn't allow anyone the chance to unemotional, mere enjoyment sex, and I think that just misses a lot. Some very good people just have moments in their life when they want sex without putting anyone else emotionally at risk. The important issue here is consensuality, which usually isn't the case in murder, and by definition isn't in rape.

I still stand by my assessment of your worldview: it brooks little difference.

Certainly, we must all try to remain aware of our personal limitations, both through experience and proclivity, we're all still fairly limited, and that almost demands electing to have services exist that we don't use. I've never gone to a prostitute, but I think they should be made available. Regardless, people are going to do it, and I'd like to keep the sex workers safe and healthy. I'd also like to collect taxes, instead of having criminals take the money. Let's also throw onto the pile the advantage of getting rid of pimps.

The bottom line is this: I'm advocating services of a mutually consensual nature that I wouldn't use and that fill a need. You do not recognize it as a valid need, and thus want to not make it available. Sex doesn't always have to be intrinsically tied with love; that's your opinion. If you don't have the desire for sex unless it's tied to deep emotional caring, that's fine, but don't demand everyone else to live by that standard. For the afore mentioned reasons, people often don't want the entanglement or to put others at emotional risk.

If these were easy questions, they'd have been long since answered, but since you started the conversation with a complete disagreement on moral and ethical grounds, my umbrage isn't totally unwarranted. That is, unless you don't feel that that opinion can be held by any decent person. Remember: you fired the first shot, so to take offense at a rejoinder lessens your right to victimhood.

Thank you for the time and effort, and your points are well taken. As I pointed out, we're shadowboxing with previous tussles here, as well as the topic at hand, and that bears recognition.

Is it ever "right" to have unemotional sex? If not for you, is it something that others shouldn't be allowed? What if they're incapable of finding a lover? What if they're too fragile to want to risk their own emotions or those of another? Is there no place for this?

Is wanting sheer whoopee sex something that shouldn't be allowed? Is it not a right of the individual to rent his/her body and services if he/she so pleases? Is this not something we want regulated, specifically for public health reasons?

You may well have your life in true emotional and spiritual balance, but that's just you. Others are different, and we owe it to society to see that reasonable activities are allowed.

I'm working today and under a deadline, so if I don't get back to you, that's the reason.

[mongo]

134. So do you believe that the government should make laws

against "irresponsible" or "unnatural" sex or whatever you want to call it?

Isn't this the same basic argument that is being used all over the country to create constitutional amendments against gay marriage?

Personally, I think that you have a very narrow view of sexual experience, and anything out side of that is wrong.

Sexual temperament and experience is as varied as any other part of the human psyche. Some people are monogamous by nature, others are not. I think that if society had more outlets for sex and "sport fucking", that people would come to know themselves better before they get married, have children, etc. I think that if people could separate sex and romantic love better there would be less divorce in this country.

[Selwynn]

138. See my response to POE above.

[Kablooie]

143. Often prostitute/John dealings ARE about relationships.

Men sometimes go to a prostitute not just for sex but to have a woman they can talk to. The prostitute becomes a kind of pseudo therapist for realtionship issues. Also a man may build a relationship with a prostitute through repeated sessions. The relationship is not one of two lovers, but can become a kind of working friendship. The sex is part of it but is not the whole story.

[Nikia]

149. I agree with you

I don't want to be labled a prude or intolerant, especially of friends who have had lots of casual sex in the past. It has been my experience though that casual sex is often destructive. Sex is always about two people, and people aren't sex toys nor should be. To me, sex is something too important to just be sold. It is also something too important to deny one's own sexuality and feelings out of need of money.

[Eyeball Kid]

125. Legalized, but...

There need to be more opportunities and better education for everyone in the sex trade. Legalization (or decrim.) should only be part of a larger progressive platform that gives them a choice not to enter the trade in the first place.

Prostitution should be like abortion: safe, legal, and rare.

[benburch]

126. Exactly.

In fact, though, I know a lot of people who got their college degrees paid for by sexwork.

Safer than the Army for sure, as a means of paying for college!

[deadparrot]

133. Yep, I agree.

[mongo]

135. I voted partially

Because the government has no right to tell a person what kind of consentual sexual arrangements they wish to enter into.

But --

My store is in an area that is rife with prostitution and drugs. Most of the girls around here are crack-adled, disease ridden whores who will also steal anything they can from you while your pants are around your knees. I've heard many a story from customers on this, but only one of a hooker being abused, and that was a gang rape by the COPS.

I am sick of running the hookers off my lot. I would like to see some form of regulation to protect both hooker and john, tests for STD's, and I don't think that streetwalking should be legal.

[MessiahRp]

140. Legalize it, but regulate it

First of all to do it you would need to submit prostitutes to rigorous drug and std testing.

If you want to be a prostitute you should have to submit monthly samples of blood/urine tests to the city.

Also there should be a special tax on their earnings to supplement a regulation office and to maybe bring in some more dollars locally to the local governments that are struggling hardcore under the Bush budget.

Finally there should be designated areas to sell your wares or restrictions on ways to market yourself. We don't need prostitution by our schools, for instance.

But otherwise cleaning the industry up and keeping it under a regulatory process we can keep people safe and keep pimps out of the game so that Women aren't being abused for their money.

Because when it comes down to it, between the Hooker and the John... who's the victim of this "crime"?

Rp

[sonicx]

142. either make porn illegal or make prostitution legal...

i don't like mexed messages.

[Padraig18]

148. Legalized, regulated and taxed. n/t

[EmpireWeAre]

152. Absolutely

Someday we'll understand our nature.

[Raenelle]

150. I can't think of a case where I approve of a law regarding the behavior of

consenting adults.

[benburch]

153. AMEN. nt

[Massacure]

151. You can't stop people from having sex. You can't stop people from giving $

So why can you stop people from doing both?

[Sirveri]

154. legalise everything

I still don't understand some of these people. Drug war doesn't work, make drugs legal and provide free and good information and support for addiction. Same for prostitution, make it legal and provide good resources for abuse. What people chose to do with their bodies is their business.

[shockra]

157. Wow.

I can't believe most of the people in this thread. And that they can't see that prostitution isn't a choice, but results from a lack of choice.

There's a very insightful book I read a few years ago that takes on all the difficult questions and excuses people give for prostitution being "just another form of work," etc. called The Idea of Prostitution by Sheila Jeffreys. An outline of its contents is at:

http://www.feminista.com/archives/v2n2/jeffreysoutline.html


There were a lot of disturbing first hand reports, and it described the psychology of living as a prostitute awfully well. Some of the reasons so many have come from homes where there is incest or abuse are pretty easy to figure out. They've already been trained to think of themselves primarily as sex objects, have low self-esteem, and have learned to disassociate themselves from their body. As anyone would do, if they had to repeatedly let complete strangers into any or all of their orifices.

Disassociation is something one does to remove "themselves" from traumatic situations, and living a life where one always has to do that is not healthy, to say the least. Your mind takes a hike, one girl described it as "being homeless in your own body." You have to have sex with strangers who may be smelly, creepy, crazy, violent, or revolting in any number of ways. If you've read enough about the reality you can't think of it as anything but exploitation -- of women, children, homosexuals, all who are second-class citizens in a male dominated society.

I know someone who has worked for social services for over 15 years now, and she's seen numerous prostitutes come to bad ends. The rule is, if you don't get out of prostitution within five years, you end up dead.

And legal or not, it's still exploitation. Men seeing those with lower social status as things that can be used for sexual gratification is not an attitude that needs to be promoted, or leads to any greater social good. They can't shut the tendency on or off, depending on the situation. Their *behavior*, yes. But not the attitude.

[benburch]

158. Sheila Jeffreys

Don't get me started on this so-called feminist.

[shockra]

160. She's a feminist all right.

Just apparently not a liberal feminist, the only acceptable kind. I hadn't even thought to categorize her until you posted that. But yeah, that's probably the crux of what bothers me about this thread. Liberals focus on individual choice and responsibility, while radicals go beyond that to focus on the context that individuals live in, and systemic change. Nobody lives in a vacuum, and individual changes can only go so far to change society. Radical feminism makes people (especially men) a lot more uncomfortable though, so it's marginalized.

I'm not so sure why it should. At least the radical perspective realizes that we all take part in supporting and perpetuating injustice, to whatever extent, and should share the burden in fixing what's wrong with the system. It frees you from more of the guilt and blame that can fall on the individual, who is ideally supposed to be able to acheive perfection all on his or her own. But of course, it's threatening to the status quo, so radicalism is demonized.

The powerful don't want us to realize what's wrong with our institutions, etc. They'd prefer we keep trying to fix ourselves, and feel all the blame and guilt for everything bad that happens to us, as well as blame other individuals for whatever injustices happen to them.

[sonicx]

159. Should we make porn illegal? how 'bout cigarettes?

[durutti]

161. Decriminalized.

Pimping should be illegal.

[barbaraann]

163. How much prostitution do you suppose there would be then?

n/t

[Silverhair]

162. Legalize & some regulation, just like any other industry. NT

[xerenthar]

164. Yes. Consensual control = legal. Also -- selling and fucking are both lega

l...