So my neighbors and I have no right to pass a zoning law? Or anti-gaming law? Or curfew? Or liquor licensing? Or to regulate drugs? Because all of those things can be logically based on morality and values. No law can ever be passed, because it's up to each self to participate in whatever - that sounds very much like anarchy. Which is fine, it's just not our system of government.


Off the top of my head - Where prostitution is legal, white slavery thrives.

I believe that you are overreacting. It is entirely possible to create a system of law that provides all the protection you want by doing just that: passing laws that protect you. It's easy to pass a law against murder, because that meets an objective test of injury to an unwilling victim. By ruling out moral beliefs that do not pass an objective test of injury to an unwilling victim, we do not abolish law.

As to your specifics:

Zoning laws are given lots of leeway if they are applied in such a way as to permit a wide range of activities, and merely provide spatial segregation of those activities. It's fine to have a zoning law that prohibits commercial activity in a residential area if the commercial activity generates more than some threshold of traffic. But let's suppose that our friend ExistentialHedonist were to operate her business a few doors down the street from you. What possible injury can you cite? Traffic? No, she apparently has only a few customers per day; you might well generate more traffic with a single party. Noise? Well, that's a possibility, but then, noise is a common problem in many neighborhoods. If the noise bothers you, call the police and register a complaint. Shady characters hanging around the neighborhood? Remember, these are johns -- they have no desire to be seen.

Anti-gaming laws would certainly be appropriate as part of a zoning law. It would even be appropriate as a universal ban if it can be demonstrated that gambling harms unwilling victims -- a case that is certainly arguable.

Curfew is normally associated with martial law. Fortunately, we don't live under martial law. If you're talking about curfew for young people, well, that raises a bunch of other issues.

liquor licensing can easily be justified based on the demonstrated injurious effects of liquor.

drug regulation is, for the most part, established on the basis of objectively established injury to individuals. Again, it is readily distinguishable from prostitution.


Are you claiming that slavery in countries were prostitution is legal is less than slavery in countries where prostitution is illegal? I'd like to see the statistics behind that claim, because it certainly seems counterintuitive. I would think that a prostitute held against her will would be more likely to go to the police if she were acting within the law than if she would be incriminating herself by complaining to the police.

Actually, you have a right to do all of the above. As a matter of fact, it is perfectly within your rights of Americans to make a constitutional amendment reinstituting slavery. Does the fact one has the ability to do something, make it right?? Does the fact someone has a right to do something make it right?? Maybe it is time we make a debate on what post-modernism is.



Very good. However, it makes more sense that white slavery exists due to poverty not prostitution. If the idea is that the economically poor women are victims of poverty forced into prostitution, then we must fight to eliminate poverty. Are you for wealth redistribution?? Do you believe in putting caps on how much a person can make in this country, so they can't suck away from the the rest of us?? Do you propose we find a way to take the 70% of the wealth from 10% of the population?? If we eliminate poverty "white slavery" can not exist. As said before treating a symptom does nothing to prevent the problem. So you would be mistaken to blame white slavery on prostitution because if we eliminated poverty prostitutes would truly be in their profession for their own "healthy" reasons.

You may have missed the book excerpt I pasted a few posts back, so here are some additional thoughts, some based on Victor Malerek's book, The Natashas.sigla magazine
I'm saying that where prostitution is encouraged and regulated, there is financial incentive (and reduced risk) in opening a prostitution business. These girls don't stay in Bosnia, they are sold into Western Europe to work in brothels. And, much like the supply chain for illicit drugs, this particular fungible good is often provided by organized crime. While indeed some sex slaves end up in the USA, their presence in Europe and Asia where prostitution is legal is truly ubiquitous. Amnesty International is calling on European nations to ratify the convention against human trafficking as a result.


I was referring of course to people trafficked from countries where the girls are sourced - Russia, Ukraine, Bosnia, etc. I don't think that it's in our power to eliminate poverty in these countries, certainly not by legalizing prostitution anyway.

While 10% unemployment and economic stagnation are bad, I wouldn't exactly call Germany a "poor" country, yet they consume large amounts of enslaved Eastern European women. What's your solution to this? After all, prostitution is safe, legal and regulated in Germany.

And for those of you relying on legal status in Europe for guidance, think about this. In response to the human traffic problem, Sweden--a country absent from ExistentialHedonist's list--has criminalized of one side of the equation (making only "johns" the criminals):

Interestingly, these women are trafficked to a legal activity in our country now - strip bars, where their sometimes shady employers also tend to push them into other illicit activities. I'm not sure if my caring about this is lessened because I care due to "moral" reasons or not. Maybe I should say - who cares if a 12-year-old Moldovan girl is sold like property, gang raped and burned with cigarettes by pimps - we can't legislate morality after all. If it feels good, do it. I'm sure, when she's servicing that sweaty German fella, under her breath she's whispering "I feel empowered."

carlitoswhey- once again comparing a corrupt eastern European goverment against western standards are we?

EVERY business activity in eastern europe is tainted by corruption, and manipulating the laws to exploit others.

For instance, most Eastern European countries you mentioned have a compulsary military service for all males- Russia especially.

One practise used by the miltary very similar to what you are talking about with the "Natasha's" is where, at the end of a soldiers service, the officer in charge of the soldier demands a bribe from the family in order to allow the soldier to seperate from the military. The laws for service on the books are perfectly legal for the (usually company commander) to hold the soldier past his service date, with the threat of staying in Chechnya as part of it- much like our stop loss policy in Iraq.

Now, when the draft was instituted before, did American officers start demanding this money of seperating soldiers? No? With your slippery slope argument, why didn't that happen? Perhaps the US military is not as corrupt as the Eastern European military?

We had a very big case up here in trafficking of under age european women- they were folk dancers in Russia, very well trained ones, and were approached by a man that has very high stature, famous all over Russia, for his folk dancing troupes. They thought they were coming to America to show Russian folk dancing off. Instead, they were sent to a strip joint called the Crazy Horse as dancers. Some of the American principles knew what was going on, the bar owners did not.

Lot's of arrests on this side of the border!

Should we make folk dancing illegal? Could lead to white slavery!

The Natasha's forced into that trade are awful- but regulation would easily stop this practice in registered brothels in America- because they would have to have green cards!

This belief or feeling sex is..you know it depends on what you mean by the word is..happens to be your morality. Now many don't feel that to be true and don't view sex this way. Sex is not a conditional thing that you can so easily define or state it's existence..and putting it into caps lock won't change this reality. Sex is what I wish it to be..sex is what ever you view it as..and society collectively chooses to make it's own views or is-es on sex too.
Many many many different or possible is-es of sex..


Actually not to be picky or anything..and I know this doesn't really fit into your marriage is slavery theory..but I did qualify my question and you didn't take it into consideration when answering it..so even though my question is sitting up there above your response in an attempt to appear like it was being answered... I don't really feel like you addressed my question at all..to quote myself..
"You claiming this is the same argument one can make for the housewife must mean that you believe being a housewife is degraded in society and stigmatized as much as a prostitute and in some way this role as a housewife harms society. " **qualifier in italics**
Again do you feel that society degrades the housewife as much as they do the prostitute..they should be at least somewhat exchangeable to make the comparison you keep making. And do you feel that this degredation is so openly held, in practice and believed that a housewife is in some way detrimental to society and how they view women as the role of a prostitute is?



Huh? I just don't understand why you keep going with this ridiculous argument (marriage=slavery)even just the law is far from your bizarre perception of marriage. If I decided my husband was a scumbag and I wanted a divorce, not only could I willingly do so since I happen to not be his slave or his property, I could ask the government to legally require him to pay me monthly/weekly for my rearing of his children. I could ask them to enforce him to pay me just to be me and to live the rest of my life..not as his wife mind you. I could ask for additional funds for food allowances, family vacations, or other services. There is already governmental guaranteed wages, benefits etc for spouses. Also if my husband decided to keep me locked up at home..and not provide me with some form of compensation for my services..oh like food, clothing, shelter, medical attention etc. then he would be committing spousal abuse.



Again as the wife of my husband by law I am entitled to shared rights or as you say control to any property he may own and any funds he may have. We call these property rights and women in our culture have them.



Yeah I got the whole BSE thing the first time around but the same can be said of beef..and eating beef is still legal. The health issue or risk I was saying was constant in all meat eating was death...not one particular disease. Eating chicken can kill you as can pork..neither of which are illegal. One of which also carries a moral stigma globally too.
I do understand it is not comparable to prostitution..I wasn't doing that.. as I already explained I used all these examples to show that the argument that morality should never be governed isn't very realistic.


First what does your sexual orientation have to do with this conversation?
How would decriminalization not address your interests you have listed above?
Now what you have failed to explain was why do we have to go one step further and actually legalize prostitution and regulate it and create it into an industry. How will this better address your above concerns than decriminalization will?


Have you ever even made yourself vaguely familiar with what codes, regulations and laws the government here in America enforces or imposes on all the service industries Or even prostitution (Nevada)? let's take my industry for example..the food industry..I can't cook a burger for you..even tho if you asked and I agreed..two consenting adults made the decision..rare. I can't decide to make one single table in my restaurant unaccessible to you if your are in a wheelchair..I can't deny you service if you are black even if I felt it was detrimental to my business. I can't choose to not allow a disease infected person service even if I felt it was a health hazard. So are you saying you want all these laws imposed on women when they sell sex and that in doing so it will in some way or another allow women more control when selling sex?
What it is you really wish to have happen is for the government to become the "pimp" and of course the women remain the whores..only you offer a kindler gentler pimp then the one they have out in the wild. What a wonderful solution.


So you not only wish to legalize prostitution but redesign how our government regulates industry all together. Sorry but the government does not just issue licenses and collect taxes in regards to any industry.


We aren't talking about alcohol..which happens to be a inhuman object. Unless you are saying a bottle of whiskey is comparable to sexual actions in our society. Or that society is somehow enlightened if it views women, their bodies and what we can do with their bodies equivalent to a bottle of booze. How is this empowering?
All one has to do if they wish to is look at a true comparative model...
Nevada...the pimp state..tells it's whores that they can not refuse clients unless they give what the pimp (the state of Nevada) deems an appropriate means of refusal. The pimp (that would be the state of Nevada again) tells it's whores that they can only work three nights straight..got too many kids to feed to bad you filthy whore we set the rules. Nevada aka pimp daddy tells it's girls how much money they must pay to management. Wanna step outside and go for a walk..the pimp says.. ain't gonna happen you are just a ho and we can't have you walking around the streets and you aren't just any ho your the state of Nevada's ho so you will lie and do your work where the state says you can. Doesn't this all sound so empowering and liberating! What a complete advantage this must be for the people of Nevada..all except the prostitutes. And that is just it..that is how this whole thing is sold and packaged. Oh we don't want to tell you what to do..we don't want to control your actions as an adult we just want to make it legal. And then tell you where you can do it, for how long, who you can and can't do it with and how much you have to pay to do it. It is all about control that is what it means to govern..to control. To make legal is to gain control of. So again please explain why you feel making prostitution legal is more advantageous to our society than it would be to decriminalize it.

These women are smuggled into the EU without papers. Or, the mob pays someone off and they get their papers. Last time I checked, there were 10 million illegal immigrants working in the USA. You can't be serious? Our border patrol is that much better than Germany? Come down to the lower 48 and start a landscaping business and tell me how everyone "has to have green cards."

Yes, and those businesses with illegal immigrants are breaking the law, and should be forced to comply with the law- but do we make farming illegal because illegal immigrants are exploited in a legal (for now) business?

I was saying a business, operating in a legal manner, would not have illegal immigrants working for them, except by themselves being defrauded (false papers and statements from the employee during hiring) because they would need the basic paperwork saying they are legal in America to work- I have to prove my citizenship when I worked at sears for example- but Sears could hire ALOT of illegal immigrants for some time if they had a corporate reason to do so and will to do so- and if they were doing it now, it would be some time before any relief was sought by the goverment- so should we make retail illegal- because illegal immigrants MIGHT be exploited in the retail industry?

You are making the same slippery slope argument over and over again- you do realize that, right?

Great post, Mrs. Pigpen. This is exactly the case- the state becomes a pimp under legalization. If anyone cares to read further about the abuses women suffer under legalization, please see the following resources:

Pheterson, G.(1989) A Vindication of the Rights of Whores. Seattle: Seal.

Altman, D.(2001) Global Sex. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Delacoste, F. and Alexander, P.Sex Work: Writings by Women in the Sex Industry. San Francisco: Cleis Press.





I disagree. I understand that in certain individuals' personal experiences they may be unfamiliar with this issue, but having worked in Tokyo for a year at a strip club, I know firsthand that many military men from Yokosuka would flock to Kabuki Cho to participate in the various forms of the sex industry there. Many of these GIs were my friends, so I know of many stories. Further, several of my colleagues (academic, not sex work) have done extensive studies on the subject of the sex work and military bases connection. The following resources and articles all highlight the issue in modern times (i.e., post-Vietnam). If anyone is interested in further research on this, I would happily provide them references.

Enloe, CynthiaBananas, Beaches and Bases
Making Feminist Sense of International Politics

Base Instincts

Women Trafficked for U.S. Bases — IOM Report

USFK commander wants crackdown on prostitution in Itaewon's 'Hooker Hill'

U.S. forces increase patrols of Korean red-light districts

USFK committed to zero tolerance on prostitution crimes, LaPorte warns

USFK in drive to cut crimes




I don't think Artemis' post was meant to be offensive, she was simply stating something many of us can affirm from our own experience. No, I have not done a scientific study, but certainly many of my clinets happen to fall on the conservative side of politics. Perhaps not 75% in my own case, but certainly 50% at least. I am an equal opportunity lover.

Re active sex industry in Kabul:
Three Chinese "brothels" shut down in Kabul

Court orders Chinese women out of Afghanistan for prostitution

And in Baghdad:
Japanese human shield now the the Madam of Baghdad

These stories really only show that it does exist...and clearly most will be underground due to the very dangerous consequences for practising sex work in such areas.

In general (also see above references in response to Mrs. Pigpen)

WOMEN AND U.S. MILITARY PRESENCE

Women and the U.S. Military in East Asia

Unacceptable: The Impact of War on Women and Children

Hayleyanne, I never once said I supported legalization. I am firmly in the decriminalization camp.

And carlito, I have already posted as to why the Swedish model is not necessarily viable.

It's not a "slippery slope!" It's happening right now in Europe. Europe is the place where numerous posters have told me to look for inspiration. The place where prostitution "is" legal. The place where all of the prostitutes are shiny, happy people. Except it turns out that LOTS of them, maybe most of them, are effectively slaves, a dirty little secret of the sex industry.

Or, am I to assume that those advocating legal prostitution in America are saying that shady characters would not traffic women? Seriously? These networks have a global monopoly, but in the USA it would be different?

More directly - America, a country that can't find it's own second-hand WMD in a conquered dictatorship, a country that can't educate our own children, a country with a chimpanzee for a president and bible-thumping mouth-breathers populating vast swaths of the fruited plain, a country whose diners are served pizza and tacos by millions of illegal Mexican immigrants, would somehow be good at regulating brothels? I am very nearly speechless. This, my friend, is not what we call a "core competency" of our government. In a country where corporations can virtually relocate to Bahamas to avoid taxes, the Russian Mafia would keep honest books. I am somewhat skeptical.

How about we admit what is most likely - just like the strip clubs and gambling industry, organized crime would move in, skirt the law and take advantage of the weakest members of society.

Carlitoswhey and Hayleyanne,

The reason I say only one side is forcing their values is that decriminalizing prostitution doesn't force those against to have to take any action...while those in favor of keeping it criminal do have an impact on those who would like to partake in the activity.

I will say that LordHelmet's solution is indeed the proper one (let people vote on it), and that I doubt most places would change the legislation. That's not really what's being debated here, though....what's being debated is whether or not they should, not whether or not they will.




But I'm not the one supporting the notion that harm would come, therefore I'm not the one who should be looking this up. If indeed there are plenty of problems...please cite some. If such evidence exists, then I (and probably others) might easily change our stance. In the absence of such evidence (and there is a complete absence of it so far in this debate)...the argument of harm has no basis.

I will say this, in support of both of your arguments....laws are indeed codification of values and beliefs. That's what they're there for. Even laws against harm are based on the belief that harming someone else is bad. However, whether or not this particular set of laws should still be enacted is what is being debated. To conduct that debate, something more than 'it doesn't fit my value set' is needed. Value sets can't really be debated (I doubt there is anything that could be done or said to convince you that prostitution is good, correct?). So, while laws might be based on those value sets...debates really can't be, as value sets aren't really debatable. Which brings us back to the evidence of harm. While laws are based on morality, they generally are enacted to prevent harm. If no harm can be shown, there isn't much basis for keeping the law.

Mrs. P how is that different than any career in the world? If you don't work for yourself then someone else is making more money off your labor than you are. You could easily substitute white collar professional in there or factory worker.

The difference between a regulated environment and a non-regulated environment is night and day. I think prostitutes would much rather face taxes and fines for breaking the rules than getting beat down for not making enough money, or beat near lifeless and/or killed by a John.

The market wouldn't be driven underground because your average John would prefer to go to a "legal" place. Why? Because if he goes to a place that is regulated he has a better chance of being with a "clean" woman and doesn't have to worry about the obvious downside of illegal activity.


Ah Europe - your second favorite thing to bash besides liberals huh carlito? I suppose you missed the few times in my posts that I have pointed out to you that prostitution is legal and regulated in Nevada. Why look to Europe for an example when it is right here in our country? If you prefer, you can also look to many Australian states as well.

The conditions in Europe are in general extremely different than they are here in America. The government takes a different role, the people have a different attitude about life and the world around them and they have evolved differently. Trying to argue your case based on what is happening in Europe isn't convincing. You want to prove that legalizing prostitution isn't a good thing, argue about the effects in Nevada.

Based on what I have read so far I can't find anything to suggest that the lives of these women have done anything but improved. Furthermore as Mrs. P pointed out, brothels sometimes make up a large portion of the income for a town.


That is hardly what I'd call the government Bucket. If that is your view then I guess the government is a pimp for all of us. As a restaurant owner you are subject to regulations and as a citizen you are subject to taxes - does that make you a whore for the government? I don't think so.

But I'm curious, what exactly do you think can be done to improve the state of the world here? Do you feel that throwing these women in jail and forcing them to work in the black market with no protection is going to solve anything? Or are you just more interested in punishment? Or perhaps you simply believe that despite thousands of years of history humanity is simply going to completely shun prostitution. I personally wouldn't hold my breath on that one. So which is it - I'd really like to know.

If you are interested in a solution and improving the station of these women then really the only logical position is one of regulation or at the very least decriminalization. They aren't just going to up and quit their profession because you disagree with what they do.

I think you miss the point or objective of their distinction of violence. Many societies acknowledge abuse or violence when it is spoken..would you agree? And do you find it acceptable that some societies try to control this form of violence too? Such as hate speech, mental abuse, mental anguish, slander etc. Would you recognize these things as abusive or violent and in need of government intervention? That is the objective I do believe the Swedes are hoping for..that selling yourself for money is not a crime because it could only be injurious to yourself and it is your choice to do so..like smoking, not cooking your chicken properly or telling everybody horrible things about you. Yet to have someone else do this to you..smoke around you, serve you food that will knowingly make you ill or telling everybody else horrible things about you..a form of abuse or injury has occurred. Do you see the distinction?.. and I honestly don't believe any of these circumstances lend themselves to a constant set of means or measure either.

Viewing prostitution as violence against women is a fairly well circulated argument..obviously as a country has even adopted this ideal into law. So I really don't think your trivializing of it as humourous or negating it's validity was very respectful to the debate.


I don't think I am deluding myself at all thank you...but if you had read my postings fully you would know this. I have never claimed prostitution would evaporate under any laws...legal or illegal.


I am having a hard time imaging what this is in reference to. Sweden? Prostitution being illegal? I don't support prostitution being illegal and I have said that more than enough times.


Thanks..right waste=poo. I was confused by your earlier comments I had thought you might be referring to some tax or another for litter. I really wasn't sure. But now that you bring up the pay toilets in Europe that is an even better example. Here in the US by law many places..public places and private must provide free use of a restroom. They don't have toilets here you have to pay for. Yet I have lived in Europe and it really sucks to be stuck without the correct change and have to panhandle so you can relieve yourself or sneak in quickly after another has used it...or I guess you could just do your business in the park.
Going poo is just something we do as humans..it is a true physical need regardless of morals and each society has instituted laws and governed this physical need differently. In Europe often you are asked to purchase the means to go poo whereas here in the US you are most often freely provided the means to go poo. Each state defines where they feel going poo is acceptable and where it is not and if the state can allow a price to be charged for it and so on and so and so on. We have defined in our societies what we believe are the rights and needs when it comes to poo differently and as a result we have different societies, cultures and norms. I happen to be just fine with this. I don't think going poo needs to be illegal or legal ..but I also don't mind the government stepping in and imposing a few restrictions here or there..I happen to be thankful that here in the US our gov. holds the need or the right to go poo freely and in privacy more so than they do in other countries.

I actually wish to use the word wholly as in as a group or majority..not as a whole as in fully, totally and completely. It is hard when discussing society...especially one as diverse as America's to generalize but we do have mainstream views, beliefs and norms that I do think are widely held. I know there are sub cultures within cultures where the norms or what is deemed acceptable behavior varies. I have no problem with this. Yet wholly....as a group.. I do believe my society does feel this way about prostitutes.


The feeling comes not just from my ew but my cultures ew. Again I recognize counter beliefs and counter cultures. I never said everyone feels this way because society as a whole does or what we could refer to as the predominate culture. What I did say was I did not feel how you believe or think about sex as a commodity is the norm in my society and would be a healthy thing to normalize in my society.

I used the word pimp in regards to prostitution..I do believe that is where the word is most commonly used..yes? If you support legalization of prostitution and one of your main supporting reasons is to help rid the prostitutes of their oppressive, mean, nasty pimps by having the government take the role of the pimp how is it inappropriate to then say the government would be acting like or doing what the pimp used to do? And err no I didn't say this was how I viewed government entirely or in every scenario...just this one..the one we are discussing... legalized prostitution.
And what I want to know is if you even bothered to read my argument in it's entirety before questioning me and taking me to task for a position that is not even my own. Altho. I already know the answer to this..I have said a gazillion times I am for decriminalization and I am not for legalization. As my daughter always tells me...reading makes you smart.

Oh I love it when people get all high and mighty and start insulting others when they are guilty of the same thing - if you had read the things I have posted then you would know that my argument doesn't boil down to "protecting women from pimps".

You argument here makes absolutely no sense - if prostitution is a business then it should be subject to regulation just like every single business out there. I don't see how you see the government as a "pimp" here when you don't use that term anywhere else. In fact the government isn't really even involved other than seeing that certain regulations - mainly relating to health - are in place. As it happens these would likely be some of the same regulations in place for the porn industry, which is remarkably similar yet legal.

Sorry to post again I am having a real hard time keeping it straight who I replied to or finding the posts again etc. I feel like I am drowning in AD posts.

Artemise

I am tired and your post is really long and wandering and difficult for me to address point by point..so just ask me to if I don't address something you wanted me to.

I don't feel I am at all blind to my society when I say in my society prostitution is considered immoral. I have lived with prostitutes. I have lived where the prostitutes streetwalk.. I know what goes on. The ones that were walking my neighborhood were there because it was a poor neighborhood in which no one cared to enforce the law..or clean up the streets. I can assure you if prostitutes started hanging out on my street now the whole community would be in an uproar.

Yet the most basic element or point of argument I disagree mostly with you or feel I must explain to you is that I don't believe that immoral part or view in our society rests with the man. All your examples were of the men..or the man's actions or roles in prostitution in our society..yellow page ads, access through web pages blah blah all this was customer based..and who are the customers?
My point is it is the prostitutes themselves who are considered immoral..the men are most often in one way or another excused for their actions. Their entire identity does not become prostitute customer..he will still be a good banker, lawyer, truck driver but she will most often remain to society a prostitute and let us be honest..they have one name for the prostitute's customer..and it isn't the least bit cruel..but there are hundreds of names for the prostitute.

Also all the private personal exchanges you made mention of are perfectly fine with me. Let them sell themselves on the internet, let them conspire and organize..just let them do it themselves is all I ask. let it remain a personal private matter and keep the government out of our beds..all of our beds.

I said one of I think that acknowledges that your argument consist of other points too.


Prostitutes have pimps..I have nothing to do with this fact..it just is. Booksellers, pizza delivers, hairstylists don't have pimps.
And again you are wrong it is not just a matter of a few regulations. If you wish it to be treated as any other business then all the codes, laws and regulations must be adhered to. There are hundreds of laws, regulations and codes that dictate our every movement in the business/consumer world.

This entire debate hinges, as Hobbes already pointed out, on our understanding of the idea that prostitution in some way "does a harm".
Sadly, people on the "nay" side seem to have fallen victim to stereotypes and Hollywood imagery. The descriptions of the woeful state suffered by most prostitutes could have been cut and pasted out of anything from a "Dirty Harry" movie, to Kojak or Hill Street Blues.

yes ..yes ..yes..I get it, the hooker with the permanent black eye, emaciated and shaking because she "just needs a fix" ..blah blah blah

Does this happen? Well yes, it sure does. However, I once worked with a man who was a financial analyst who made six figures and who, because he had the money and the need for a pick-me-up, reduced himself to a jobless skelton of a man with cocaine.

Is the dog-eat-dog world of finance to blame? Was that man a victim?

This is just one of many examples that have already been offered in this debate in which the debater has tried to show one thing: The ills that can befall a prostitute are not, in any way, limited to or specific to prostitution alone.

You show me a case of an exploited prostitute and I will show you someone who would be similarly exploited in any other venue. This is a sad reality of our times; we have broken people in every facet of our civilization.
Still, you simply cannot make something illegal because people who make bad choices for themselves sometimes engage in it.

The truth is that no rational argument against prostitution has been offered in this debate. I have read carlitoswhey's social darwinism argument and bucket's moral absolutism argument and have been umoved.

Teaching in an inner-city environment I have often been lured by the social darwinism argument. Sometimes it just seems like my culture os better than some others. In reality this is laughable. The "culture" that we find ourselves disparaging is nothing but ignorance and poverty voicing itself..it is not the culture of the people being observed but the social conditions. It has already been shown to be true in both Mouse and Mankind that severe conditions cause the disolution of "morality", judgement and character.

I find carlitoswhey's descriptions of Middle Eastern people to be rooted in ignorance, not cultural decay. In reality, those people use children to transport pipe bombs because they are desperate, poor and ignorant...not because they are somehow culturally disabled. The day you can tell me we have no desperate, poor and ignorant people doing terrible things in the USA then come back and talk to me about cultural superiority.


There is another major miscommunication going on in this thread. People are interchanging the words values and morals. They are not the same and it is a very important distinction.

Values are based on, well...value. Something is important to a group or an individual because its value can be measured in some way.

Morals always come with the burden or the good/evil bifurcation attached to them.
You cannot talk about morals without discussing the "goodness" and "badness" or a thing, whereas one can have values without any such judgement.

Our law is based on value..or at least, it is supposed to be. When a thing has a value it is protected by law. It is protected, as far as I know, only when that value is attached to ownership. (although there are plenty of cases where someone valued a nice view from their porch and was able to have a neighbors fence torn down...I presume that "value" was attached to the ownership of the home and it's assumed worth...a good view making it more valuable)

Our law is not based on morals for a very good reason. It is impossible to put a value on feelings and opinions. Likewise, unless we adopt the religious view of ultimate good and evil, both lose their shapes when we try to define them.

It seems to me that bucket is arguing from an elusive moral highground.
If something is just wrong because it is wrong I can't really debate with that.
The argument that legalization would lead to rampant prostitution is a classic example....

You shouldn't make it legal because then people would do it. And doing it is bad! Well, if there was no inherent judgement on the act itself the argument wouldn't even exist. Likewise, the assertion that sex is somehow undefinable or metaphysical is another sure sign or moralism. It reminds me of myself some years ago... I remember being desperately in love with a girl who I, naturally, put up on a pedastal (setting her up for a long fall of course). When I found out she had slept with someone else I knew I was outraged and she slipped quite tragically in my esteem. I was unable to set apart the person from the act of sex in which they had engaged. I thought she was "no longer pure" ...what a joke!
As if anyone is pure...as if no one has an inner sexual being they sometimes express. I must admit, while I faltered at Wertz's comments about marriage (as I fantasize that my relationship is different) I see truth in it.
We are a Romantic nation. We hold up sex and women as idols but we are only setting them up for a fall. Sex is a physical act (which I won't describe inasmuch as I would be banned) and it is NOT an existential experience or state of being.
Love, on the other hand, is ethereal...and yet people seem to confuse the two.

There were some great critics of the Romanticizing of women...yet peerless, in my opinion, is Mary Wollstonecraft in her Vindication of the Rights of Woman It's an oldy but a goodie!


I can think of no reason that the sale of sex should be different from the sale of any other pleasure. Only through moralizing can someone draw a difference between paying for a massage or hiring a butler and paying for a prostitute.

[quote=bucket,Jun 9 2005, 03:49 PM]
[quote=Wertz]Of course this will mean government definition and regulation, just as the government defines and regulates food service, taxi service, or bar service - and it will involve sex workers paying income tax. But I am certainly not advocating that the government be any more of an imposition than they are in any other service industry.
[/quote]
Have you ever even made yourself vaguely familiar with what codes, regulations and laws the government here in America enforces or imposes on all the service industries Or even prostitution (Nevada)? let's take my industry for example..the food industry..I can't cook a burger for you..even tho if you asked and I agreed..two consenting adults made the decision..rare. I can't decide to make one single table in my restaurant unaccessible to you if your are in a wheelchair..I can't deny you service if you are black even if I felt it was detrimental to my business. I can't choose to not allow a disease infected person service even if I felt it was a health hazard. So are you saying you want all these laws imposed on women when they sell sex and that in doing so it will in some way or another allow women more control when selling sex?
What it is you really wish to have happen is for the government to become the "pimp" and of course the women remain the whores..only you offer a kindler gentler pimp then the one they have out in the wild. What a wonderful solution.

[quote=Wertz]All I would expect the government to do is issue licenses and collect taxes. I'm not quite sure what else you're suggesting is part of my "parade". [/quote]
So you not only wish to legalize prostitution but redesign how our government regulates industry all together. Sorry but the government does not just issue licenses and collect taxes in regards to [i]any industry.

[quote=Wertz]There's nothing to refute it either. But there are similar models - like the prohibition of alcohol.[/quote]
We aren't talking about alcohol..which happens to be a inhuman object. Unless you are saying a bottle of whiskey is comparable to sexual actions in our society. Or that society is somehow enlightened if it views women, their bodies and what we can do with their bodies equivalent to a bottle of booze. How is this empowering?
All one has to do if they wish to is look at a true comparative model...
Nevada...the pimp state..tells it's whores that they can not refuse clients unless they give what the pimp (the state of Nevada) deems an appropriate means of refusal. The pimp (that would be the state of Nevada again) tells it's whores that they can only work three nights straight..got too many kids to feed to bad you filthy whore we set the rules. Nevada aka pimp daddy tells it's girls how much money they must pay to management. Wanna step outside and go for a walk..the pimp says.. ain't gonna happen you are just a ho and we can't have you walking around the streets and you aren't just any ho your the state of Nevada's ho so you will lie and do your work where the state says you can. Doesn't this all sound so empowering and liberating! What a complete advantage this must be for the people of Nevada..all except the prostitutes. And that is just it..that is how this whole thing is sold and packaged. Oh we don't want to tell you what to do..we don't want to control your actions as an adult we just want to make it legal. And then tell you where you can do it, for how long, who you can and can't do it with and how much you have to pay to do it. It is all about control that is what it means to govern..to control. To make legal is to gain control of. So again please explain why you feel making prostitution legal is more advantageous to our society than it would be to decriminalize it.

[/quote]

Bucket, I believe we are 100% in agreement on decriminalization, and for all the same reasons. Our "moral view" may differ, but in terms of the 1st question of the debate, we agree completely.

[quote=Cube Jockey,Jun 9 2005, 06:19 PM]
[quote=Mrs. Pigpen,Jun 9 2005, 06:59 AM]On the other hand, I could see why a prostitute might not want to work there. THe benefits seem to be mainly for the johns and business owners. Between the brothel fees, medical fees, and taxes, they take home about half or less. They have a lot of rules to follow, and work 12 hour shifts. Basically, the state takes on the role of pimp, though a non-physically abusive one. I just see as large a potential for exploitation of women under those conditions as the way things are today....today, policemen sometimes exploit them under the threat of arrest. Under regulations, they could be exploited under the threat of receiving a fine or jailtime for non-compliance (or non-registery on some sort of a database). That would drive the market underground as well...just rambling because I am reminded of the strippers in Texas who, last I heard, are now legally obligated to wear an identity badge on their T-backs, in addition to registering on a database.

[/quote]
Mrs. P how is that different than any career in the world? If you don't work for yourself then someone else is making more money off your labor than you are. You could easily substitute white collar professional in there or factory worker.

The difference between a regulated environment and a non-regulated environment is night and day. I think prostitutes would much rather face taxes and fines for breaking the rules than getting beat down for not making enough money, or beat near lifeless and/or killed by a John.

The market wouldn't be driven underground because your average John would prefer to go to a "legal" place. Why? Because if he goes to a place that is regulated he has a better chance of being with a "clean" woman and doesn't have to worry about the obvious downside of illegal activity.

[/quote]

Well, I live in Las Vegas, where the legal places are only a 40-minute drive away. Why do men still patronize me? It might surprise some to know that many men, even with "legal" venues available, prefer to patronize independent women such as myself because this is something they don't want to do in such a formalized, regulated venue. Men find me online, make contact with me, we exchange a few emails, and then we meet for dinner at a 5 star restaurant. We have a lovely date for the evening. This is not available at a brothel. Not to mention the fact that most brothels are housed in trailers or modular buildings- not exactly what a gentleman who is paying $500/night for a room at the Venetian is looking for. There is something seedy about a brothel, no matter how "clean" they are regulated to be. And the romance is just not going to be created in a brothel.

I feel very much the way Mrs. Pigpen does, as far as decriminalizing it, and then those women who feel safe in a brothel can freely choose to work there, while women such as myself, who are independent, can remain so. Most of my ilk pay taxes as independent contractors, and this would not change.

[quote=Cube Jockey,Jun 9 2005, 06:19 PM]
The conditions in Europe are in general extremely different than they are here in America. The government takes a different role, the people have a different attitude about life and the world around them and they have evolved differently. Trying to argue your case based on what is happening in Europe isn't convincing. You want to prove that legalizing prostitution isn't a good thing, argue about the effects in Nevada.

Based on what I have read so far I can't find anything to suggest that the lives of these women have done anything but improved. Furthermore as Mrs. P pointed out, brothels sometimes make up a large portion of the income for a town.

[/quote]

The book Brothel : Mustang Ranch and Its Women is great reading for anyone interested in what happens at legalized brothels. Interestingly, some of Albert's research revealed that many women's self esteem rose significantly while performign work in brothels, and felt their lives have improved.

I am personally not against the existence of them, I just don't want them to be the only way a woman can work.

[quote=bucket,Jun 9 2005, 08:38 PM]
[quote=ExistentialHedonist]Violent crime. My clients are violent...one has no idea who is considered a violent criminal by this measure. Really- the implications make me giggle! Someone earlier quoted some statistics showing how many men purchase the services of a prostitute. And just reread Artemis' post! To know there are that many violent criminals out there just makes me shudder. And to think I sleep with all of them! Yikes! [/quote]

I think you miss the point or objective of their distinction of violence. Many societies acknowledge abuse or violence when it is spoken..would you agree? And do you find it acceptable that some societies try to control this form of violence too? Such as hate speech, mental abuse, mental anguish, slander etc. Would you recognize these things as abusive or violent and in need of government intervention? That is the objective I do believe the Swedes are hoping for..that selling yourself for money is not a crime because it could only be injurious to yourself and it is your choice to do so..like smoking, not cooking your chicken properly or telling everybody horrible things about you. Yet to have someone else do this to you..smoke around you, serve you food that will knowingly make you ill or telling everybody else horrible things about you..a form of abuse or injury has occurred. Do you see the distinction?.. and I honestly don't believe any of these circumstances lend themselves to a constant set of means or measure either.

Viewing prostitution as violence against women is a fairly well circulated argument..obviously as a country has even adopted this ideal into law. So I really don't think your trivializing of it as humourous or negating it's validity was very respectful to the debate.

[/quote]


"Prostitution as violence against women" is certainly an argument that has been circulating for some time. Nobody who writes academically for the rights of prostitutes believes this argument. And those "academics" who write all about this "violence" are not taken very seriously by many except those within whom they have been able to create sufficient, irrational hysteria. Arguments have already been made here regarding the fact that the harms- the violence- associated with prostitution are not inherent to transactional sex. By all means, people should be protected from violence. They should not have their livelihoods taken away in the name of this protection.

And just how is a man having sex with me the same as someone serving me food which they know will make me ill? Or telling laods of horrible things about me? Or making me suffer second-hand smoke? If I choose to have sex with someone- for money, a car, or just someone to hug on a particular night, he is certainly not harming me. If he then starts to beat me, it is not my having chosen to have sex with him that is harmful to me,it is his having chosen to beat me that is harmful to me.

If you are referring to the psychological damage that those who circulate this "prostitution as violence against women" contend happens to us, it is important to understand where this idea comes from. I will repeat that the majority of women studied to come to such conclusions are those on the streets, in battered womens' shelters, in jail, or in drug rehab, which represent only 10-15% of all sex workers (in the USA). Prime example is Melissa Farley's work Prostitution in 5 Countries: Violence and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

She first of all starts her paper by saying the following:
[QUOTE]We began this work from the perspective that prostitution itself is violence against women. The authors understand prostitution to be a sequela of childhood sexual abuse; understand that racism is inextricably connected to sexism in prostitution; understand that prostitution is domestic violence, and in many instances -- slavery or debt bondage; and we also understand the need for asylum and culturally relevant treatment when considering escape or treatment options for those in prostitution. The perspective that prostitution is violence against women and other political perspectives on prostitution have been described and critiqued by Jeffreys (1997).[/QUOTE]


Later we find out where she looked for her respondents for the study:

[QUOTE]In San Francisco, we interviewed 130 respondents on the street who verbally confirmed that they were prostituting. We interviewed respondents in four different areas in San Francisco where people worked as prostitutes.

In Thailand, we interviewed several of the I 10 respondents on the street, but found that pimps did not allow those they controlled to answer our questions. We interviewed some respondents at a beauty parlor which offered a supportive atmosphere. The majority of the Thai respondents were interviewed at an agency in northern Thailand that offered nonjudgmental support and job training.

We interviewed 68 prostituted people in Johannesburg and Capetown, South Africa, in brothels, on the street and at a drop-in center.

We interviewed 117 women currently and formerly prostituted at TASINTHA in Lusaka, Zambia. TASINTHA is a nongovernmental organization which offers food, vocational training and community to approximately 600 prostituted women a week.

In Turkey, some women work legally in brothels which are privately owned and controlled by local commissions composed of physicians, police and others who are 'in charge of public morality'. We were not permitted to interview women in brothels, so we interviewed 50 prostituted women who were brought to a hospital in Istanbul by police for the purpose of venereal disease control.[/QUOTE]

This sampling does not represent anyone I know in this business, and I have been involved in some way or another for 15 years now, and all over the world. (Granted, not in Zambia or Thailand.) These women do, obviously exist, but they are by no means representative. Thus, to paint an entire group of people who exchange sex for monetary gifts with the brush of street prostitution does nobody any favors, and should hardly be a point on which the laws for an entire country are made. And I happen to know that the women who are responsible for circulating the "prostitution as violence against women" argument were instrumental in convincing Sweden to change its laws.

[quote=bucket,Jun 9 2005, 08:38 PM]
[quote=ExistentialHedonist]
If you or anyone else on this board thinks for an instance that all the people who were buying and selling sex before simply evaporated into thin-air, you are seriously deluding yourself. I really do shudder to think of the exponentially increased possibilities for abuse that will inevitably happen under this law. [/quote]
I don't think I am deluding myself at all thank you...but if you had read my postings fully you would know this. I have never claimed prostitution would evaporate under any laws...legal or illegal.

[/quote]


No, you didn't. But you did suggest that the Swedish was a better option, and that it has reduced prostitution and sexual crimes:
[QUOTE]And speaking of Sweden let us focus in on her a bit more...
In Sweden buying sex is considered a violent crime against a person and the selling of sex is completely decriminalized. Sweden has the luxury to not only boast of reduction of sexual crimes committed to women in their country as a result of their laws but rather a reduction of women working as prostitutes all together. [/QUOTE] (emphasis added by me)


And I am disagreeing by saying that this is only a superficial "victory." Yes, you do not see prostitutes walking the streets as you may have before, but that doesn't mean they no longer exist. And of course someone truly enslaved is going to have no access to anyone to report a sexual crime. All the law has done is make Sweden "look better" on the streets. Smacks of the Philippines under Marcos when they "relocated" the poor so that foreign dignitaries wouldn't see them on the streets of Manila.

[quote=bucket,Jun 9 2005, 08:38 PM]
[quote=ExistentialHedonist]Imagine- you have a woman who previously engaged the services of a pimp because her alien status prevented her from more openly seeking clientele. Perhaps she didn’t speak the language that well or at all, and perhaps her social network had not yet grown to include other women she could rely on for referrals. Either way, she was dependent on a pimp. But she still had access to other women on the streets. Now, imagine that same woman today- she is doubly dependent on her pimp, and now has no access to others on the streets. Her business has been thrust completely underground, and she is much more easily kept as a slave. Who will ever reach these women now? Who will hear their cries for help? Who even knows where to find them? While women were on the streets, it was much easier to reach them. Now they’ve been chased to someplace far removed from us.[/quote]
I am having a hard time imaging what this is in reference to. Sweden? Prostitution being illegal? I don't support prostitution being illegal and I have said that more than enough times. .

[/quote]


Yes, my imaginary story was in reference to Sweden. While prostitution is not illegal, purchasing it is. Therefore, she will have a much more difficult time locating her clientele, as she can no longer walk the streets. She will then depend on a pimp- who is illegal as well, but who will be far likelier to exist than men wandering the streets looking for her services. Your posting on the Swedish laws intimated that you saw criminalizing the purchase of sex as a viable and good option. My story was to illustrate that this might not be the case.

[quote=bucket,Jun 9 2005, 08:38 PM]
[quote=ExistentialHedonist]First of all- I must clarify what I meant by “eliminating waste.” It was a polite way of saying “using the restroom.” One must pay 20p to do so at Waterloo station. Anyone of any color can do so- for the same price. [/quote]
Thanks..right waste=poo. I was confused by your earlier comments I had thought you might be referring to some tax or another for litter. I really wasn't sure. But now that you bring up the pay toilets in Europe that is an even better example. Here in the US by law many places..public places and private must provide free use of a restroom. They don't have toilets here you have to pay for. Yet I have lived in Europe and it really sucks to be stuck without the correct change and have to panhandle so you can relieve yourself or sneak in quickly after another has used it...or I guess you could just do your business in the park.
Going poo is just something we do as humans..it is a true physical need regardless of morals and each society has instituted laws and governed this physical need differently. In Europe often you are asked to purchase the means to go poo whereas here in the US you are most often freely provided the means to go poo. Each state defines where they feel going poo is acceptable and where it is not and if the state can allow a price to be charged for it and so on and so and so on. We have defined in our societies what we believe are the rights and needs when it comes to poo differently and as a result we have different societies, cultures and norms. I happen to be just fine with this. I don't think going poo needs to be illegal or legal ..but I also don't mind the government stepping in and imposing a few restrictions here or there..I happen to be thankful that here in the US our gov. holds the need or the right to go poo freely and in privacy more so than they do in other countries.

[/quote]


Great argument for our support of decriminalization.

[quote=bucket,Jun 9 2005, 08:38 PM]
[quote=ExistentialHedonist] The beginning of your paragraph clearly defines your feelings of “ew” regarding transactional sex (and I completely respect your freedom to express your “ew”), but later you seem to extrapolate the “ew” into what you would deem society as a whole believes to be true.[/quote] I actually wish to use the word wholly as in as a group or majority..not as a whole as in fully, totally and completely. It is hard when discussing society...especially one as diverse as America's to generalize but we do have mainstream views, beliefs and norms that I do think are widely held. I know there are sub cultures within cultures where the norms or what is deemed acceptable behavior varies. I have no problem with this. Yet wholly....as a group.. I do believe my society does feel this way about prostitutes. .

[/quote]
Fair enough- you may be right that a significant percentage of our society views prostitution as "ew," and even when many (as illustrated by Artemis) privately engage with it, they will not come forward publicly to try to change laws because of the "ew" stigma attached to both the men and the women involved. (Although you correctly pointed out that this is much harsher for women).

[quote=bucket,Jun 9 2005, 09:39 PM]
Also all the private personal exchanges you made mention of are perfectly fine with me. Let them sell themselves on the internet, let them conspire and organize..just let them do it themselves is all I ask. let it remain a personal private matter and keep the government out of our beds..all of our beds.

[/quote](emphasis added by me)


Great! Yay! And this is all I am asking as well.

Edited to add: Does anyone know why this keeps happening to my quotes??? Can you PM me? Thanks. To make my post easier to read, I have placed quotes in italics...

ExistentialHedonist- no business likes regulation.

We used to run a daycare- and though I agree that this area needs 90% of the regulations and probably even more oversite (this being an industry were the safety and well being of kids is direct) - I can not say that I enjoyed the extra hoops or the occasional nonsense seeming regulations, in fact, we had to raise our prices due to these regulations.

Would you prefer daycare to be unregulated?

Every business requires a business license, very few industries have no regulations- and the libertarian in me wishes for no need for regulation- but whether it be the SEC for Wall street or the "bureau of transactional sex" - the safest bet is some sort, of hopefully, minimal regulatory and licensure requirements. With any debate about capitalism and regulation, there comes a debate about how much is too much and how much is too little- transactional sex, in my opinion, should be treated as any other industry.

The concern about morality of the industry, if it is between consenting adults, whether it be the tobacco industry or transactional sex, should be regulated to ensure

1) Minors are not part of the industry, whether recieving or giving

2) Set minimum quality standards for the industry- in transactional sex, some health codes are not out of bounds- as long as they are no more onerous than in any other "sin" industry

Questions for Debate:


Not only is that not the point, that's also a fallacious argument. First of all, a pimp solicits prostitutes. Legalization doesn't mean the government will sell prostitutes. It only means they will allow prostitutes to continue their business, and maintain health benefits. The objective is not to derive income but to protect. The aims of the pimp and the state are completely different. Second of all, "whore" is about as degrading a label as you will get. Thank you for illustrating a point that I will make later about snobbery and discrimination against prostitutes.

1.) Should prostitution be made legal in the United States? Why or why not?

Absolutely, without question, prostitution should be legalized.

2.) Who does it harm and how?

I honestly don't believe that the legalization of prostitution would harm anybody. The argument against legalization seems to be that it would lead to moral decay within society, but I want to know how? What is it about sex as an industry that is so immoral?
Before one can state that prostitution will lead to moral decay, one has to define what moral decay is and what that entails, because I haven't a clue.
For those that say they wouldn't want their children to become prostitutes, I want to know in what conceivable way is that NOT a direct result of snobbery. That's like when people say they don't want their children to grow up to be construction workers and plumbers. Since when did America become so obsessed with stemming the progression of immorality that we forgot to realize we were some of the worst perpetrators of discrimination?
I suppose this is the hypocritical part of my argument in that, despite how much I would like to deny it, I recognize that I'm conditioned by societal conventions. I, personally, would not choose prostitution as a career choice. However, that does not give me the right to condemn somebody else's life choices and it certainly does not give me the right to label somebody as morally degenerate simply because their lifestyle choices do not agree with mine. I believe that to do so would be a step on the road to immorality. Unacceptance of somebody as a human being and the degradation of somebody's humanity is cruel intolerance at its worst, no matter what form it takes.

3.) Are there any possible benefits to legalizing prostitution? If so, what are they?

There are the obvious practical benefits to the prostitutes like health benefits for the prostitutes and taxation of the sex industry, but what about the moral aspects?
In the tri-cities of British Columbia, a man named Robert William Pickton is being charged with the murder of fifteen women (all prostitutes) and is suspected of being responsible for 63 deaths (again, all prostitutes). A state is responsible for the safety and security of its citizens. All of its citizens. How is it possible, that over the course of a few years, a state would lose track of 63 human beings? How is this moral?
Ninety percent of prostitutes are the result of vicitimisation. Shouldn't the state be responsible for the alleviation of some of their hardships?
Also, I would like to point out the example of the Netherlands as having legalized prostitution with positive results. Where is the moral degradation there as a direct result of legalized prostitution? I realize that illegal prostitution is still existent, but it is too idealistic to believe illegal prostitution would be completely eradicated. And isn't the improved lives of legal prostitutes worth taking the chance. I'll respond to my own question with an affirmative, "Absolutely."
I also believe that prostitution can be considered moral. I've said this before and I'll say it again. I think it promotes a kind of sexual self-sovereignty, giving the woman the right to choose. One can respond with the idea that prostitution is degrading, and who among the men, women and transgender prostitutes actually seem to practice their right to dignity. However, I would like to point out that the degradation was an act against humanity committed by us and our perception of prostitutes is skewed by our own personal biases and pre-conceived notions. One cannot blame the victim for the attacker's faults.

Cruising, I absolutely agree that daycare needs regulation. There we are dealing with little people who cannot protect themselves. In our discussion here, we are dealing with people who are adults. As I have stated before, child prostitution (the terminology of which I do not like- it should just be simply child sexual abuse) is illegal as it is. Licensing/regulating adult sex workers would not eliminate this.

I understand your concern for health codes, regulations, etc., and in this case, those so concerned with such issues could visit a brothel, where all these regulations could (and do) exist. I don't feel it is necessary to have the government involved in the independent women's cases, however. While it would seem a nice thought for someone like you, reread what I posted about conditions sex workers suffer under legalized and regulated prostitution. I have researched this for years, and the whole regulation/legalization thing has NEVER benefitted sex workers. To the contrary- it has always been used against us. In some way, in every case. I don't trust the government to do the right thing by me as a sex worker.

There is an amazing group of women in Calcutta, India called the Durbar Mahila Samanwaya Committee (DMSC). They are more than 60,000 sex workers who have formed the worlds largest known sex worker organization. This resulted from a project called SHIP which was started by a doctor to address HIV/AIDS in the brothel district of Sonagachi. This group has not only reversed the trend of HIV/AIDS by instituting a no-sex-without-condoms policy throughout the district, but they have also repatriated over 1600 underaged and trafficked women to Nepal. They have formed Self Regulatory Boards comprised of current and former sex workers who generally "oversee" the business there and regulate from within. It is a private organization not run by the government, but they do work with the government on issues of trafficking and underaged sex workers. This would be much more palatable than having the government itself issuing me a license and probing my body, and I feel the DMSC have something amazing to teach the world.

More info on DMSC:
From Network of Sex Work Projects (NSWP)
DMSC old website
New website

They were the recipient of a significant grant (1,000,000 over 3 years) from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for fighting HIV/AIDS

Many of you may remember the recent documentary which won an Academy Award- Born into Brothels. That was made in Sonagachi, and the DMSC were needless to say not very happy with how they portrayed the district. See this article for a critique of the situation:
A Missionary Enterprise

(edited to add regulatory board link)

I feel I need to restate something I posted in an earlier post.

Sex workers in North America rarely spread any diseases. Everyone is ignoring this. Our bodies are our livelihoods- we do not take unnecessary risks as a rule. Yes, some of us do engage in risky behavior, but generally speaking, research has shown that very few of us have STIs, and even fewer gentlemen contract STIs from sex workers. It is highly more likely that we will contract STIs from our clients if we engage in risky behavior, simply because of how our bodies are built.

If anyone should be roped down, tied up, and tested in this situation, it should be our clients. I do not advocate this, and I am certain 90% of my clients wouldn't either. We are all adults here and can make our own decisions as to how safe we want our sex to be. I do not need to be infantillized by the government.

You are far likelier to contract an STI from a sexually active teen.

"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." (Lambert, Bruce, AIDS in Prostitutes, Not as Prevalent as Believed, Studies Find; (New York Times, September 20, 1988). Numerous sources in the U.S. confirm the fact that prostitutes do not spread AIDS. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, HIV/AIDS Surveillance Report, 1993;5(no. 3): Pp. 7, 11) Quoted from Prostitutes' Education Network

Informative article:
Sex Work and Regulation: Holding on to an Image

I also feel I need to repeat:

We are not victims.

I keep seeing this 90% figure...

I wrote:


The relevant paragraph from my source: