Lordhelmet, now you are just being adversarial, and take it from one who is damn good at it, youve reached the end of your argument.

Not to go off topic but a good majority of this board are law breakers in that they buy and smoke marijuana, if only on occasion. That has been obvious by too many posts. We are all law breakers to some extent, whether we cheat on our taxes, smoke pot, take the occasional line, sell or buy sex, traffic speed, have a few drinks too many and hope for the best once in awhile or dont register our dogs with the city each year.

Im glad to know that you are a person above all laws. You must just be perfect.



Considering that I make my living from this exact pursuit and have in various cities in the US, I have serious doubts that people are as homogenous in their support of these laws as some of you like to imagine.
What is of concern is how much these inane laws are costing the average taxpayer and information about those costs may actually lead people to understand how much of their money they place on some bizarre idea of female 'purity', let alone sex as exclusively 'love'.

America is about money after all. The american taxpayer 'hates' to pay for the poor, despises welfare and questions foreign aid, so the american should look at what is paid to maintain a sense, not a reality, but a decorum of sexual morality, a lie in this country.

I asked a specific question and you did not address it. If your rational for eliminating laws against prostitution is financial, isn't it LOGICAL to ask what other laws you oppose on similar grounds?

The fact is that more than 50% of the people favor laws against prostitution and against drug use. Until you change hearts and minds, the law shouldn't be changed. With respect to smoking pot, I think that those who use that substance should be severely punished. I advocated (only half joking) that those caught with that substance should be caned. There is just no excuse for breaking the law by smoking pot when so many alternative legal substances are available to get high.

The issue isn't whether I'm perfect or not. By your way of thinking, there should be no laws right? After all, NONE of us are perfect so who are we to say that people shouldn't be able to steal, murder, rape, or kidnap?



Fine. Then start a petition to put the issue on the ballot. The chips will fall where the chips may. But, anyone with some common sense can see that if a place like Berkeley California can only must 37%....... What chance do you have in Peoria?



A lot of things are a "lie" in this country. Take liberal compassion for example....

But that doesn't change the fact that the majority of people want prostitution outlawed and for good reason. As long as that's true, your own personal and minority view of "morality" will not be foisted on everyone else.

Out of curiousity, I dug into this a bit. I could see where you could get this idea of casual sex as OK if you sampled nothing but people in nightclubs, but (hard to believe, I know) not everyone goes to nightclubs in the first place. I wondered about a representative sample so here's a quick look. I left a few other issues in for context. excuse the tables.





Just to summarize, seems that most people (58%) find "unmarried sex" acceptable. I think it's safe to say that this encompasses committed sex for the most part, but can't say for sure because it wasn't asked that way. We also see that people think our standards of behavior are lower than in the past, and by a 2:1 margin promoting "traditional values" is more important than encouraging greater tolerance. I'd say it's a mixed bag, but I'd bet anything if you probe the American public on 'hookup' sex, you'd get a rejection of this behavior as acceptable by the majority, and certainly the majority of those over a certain age.

I was shocked to see that San Francisco spends only $850 grand and 12 people on vice. There is a lot more vice to be policed than that! It's no wonder why San Fran has the lowest population of familes with children of any major city - between the bums and the gay lifestyle, I wouldn't let my kids go outside there. Contrast that $800K on vice squad with the estimated $1 to $2 million that the city government will spend to fund their employees' sex-change operations.

You've got to be kidding me! $1-2M on sex change operations!!!???

Taxpayers are funding this? Have the people in that city lost their minds?

In spite of that insanity, they STILL can't get enough votes to legalize prostitution.

Unsubstantiated crap. Just goes to show how you Fox News types will believe anything that has a rumour quality about it..

I like the bums and gays thing about San Francisco. That says alot about who we are talking to. Have you ever been there or are you just naturally culturally challenged? I guess it doesnt matter. Who's next on your list of outcasts? Jews, Puerto Ricans, Icelandic fisherman?

I cant believe how closed minded. It must be sad and lonely to hate so many people and to live amongst the backward. Of course you would not know the difference.

I've been there many times. However, I have noticed in the last decade that the "bums" are a lot more aggressive than they used to be.

It's a beautiful city. I especially like the area near the Presidio. They gays don't bother any visitors so I don't have a problem with them. The bums on the other hand....

I guess none of the "cultural elite" watch Fox news huh? The funny thing is that they report almost exactly the same thing as CNN and the other networks. The only difference is that they actually give some time to conservatives. The horror!

Oh, and the sex change story has been carried other than Fox news.

Here's one from the "right wing" San Francisco paper.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?...16/MN202072.DTL

Cheers

Here's some detail on the unsubstantiated crap from the SF Chronicle:

San Fransisco is one of my top 5 favorite cities in the world (probably behind Paris, Stockholm and Chicago). If you've been there and you deny that the homeless are a nuisance, more power to ya. As to the gay lifestyle, I love it and it's essential to the character of the city. I just wouldn't want to raise kids there. And I'm not the only one. From my earlier link.
Yes, I know that the high cost of living contributes to this decision, and that all major cities have similar issues, but it's certainly more pronounced in San Fran. I apologize for generalizing and offending with the word "bums" but living in a major city myself, "homeless" has gotten silly and PC to me. I'm sick of a panhandler asking me to help "the homeless" as if he's a one-man charitable cause. He's a real guy who wants to buy food, alcohol and drugs, not a disembodied entity called "the homeless."

Perhaps we are approaching this from the wrong angle....

It seems fairly obvious to me that prostitution is little by little becoming more "acceptable" in the United States (it certainly is becoming more popular as shown by Artemise earlier in this thread). If this trend continues, I would even predict its not a great leap of logic to assume it might eventually become decriminalized in the not too distant future.

Assuming this to be the case, the question is not WILL prostitution become decriminalized, but WHAT we want that to look like.

I propose that just as their are responsible and irresponsible ways to use alcohol, or drive a car that their are also responsible and irresponsible ways for folks to partake of prostitution.

While I support the decriminaliztion of prostitution, I am also loathe to see see a "spa" open in my neighborhood. Allowing streetwalkers in any neighborhood is not being defended either. I don't believe anybody here wants this type of thing legalized. We don't want kids around that either.

On the other hand, I have been unable to buy into the argument that the discreet escort and her john in a hotel effects anybody either positively or negatively except the 2 parties in question. I still have an open mind on this...but so far I remain unconvinced. After all....literally hundreds of thousands of these types of transactions take place in this country every month. I wonder how many outside of the 2 parties involved were aware this was taking place. Has anybody here actually been negatively impacted by a discreet escort and her john? I know I haven't....I can't even say for sure that I've witnessed this scenario.

So...perhaps we decriminalize only certain types of prostitution. We can argue over which. The point is it doesn't seem like prostitution should be a black/white issue. Intelligent people can come to an agreement over what is obviously hurtful and destructive and what is simply another contractual agreement between 2 consenting adults. Just my humble opinion....

I apologize for responding twice, but this post really bugged me. I have sourced my claims about the homeless below.
2002 article back with Gavin Newsom was talking about the homeless problem


Mayor's Office statement on the homeless problemIn my and LH's posts above you'll find sources confirming the city's funding of sex-change operations. Moreover, it's a great city in so many ways (in my desk I note a Hertz rent-a-car map from my last trip), I just think it's a shame about the scary homeless problem. Must be the weather, because it is getting worse up in the Northwest too - I spend a lot of time in Seattle and frankly for a kid from the South Side of Chicago to be scared of the bums says a lot about the quality of life in the city center there. At least the homeless in the city parks in Tokyo clean up after themselves. I've been at a hotel near Fisherman's Wharf where the front door smells like a urinal.

May I ask why my not wanting to raise children in a certain place makes me "hateful," or a step away from an anti-semite or racist, or that I think people are "backward"? Shall I raise my children in the red light district in Amsterdam, or on Steindamm in Hamburg? I was unaware that stating my opinion about the suitability of child-rearing in a certain city was such a sign of "cultural un-awareness" or that I've never been outside some backwater.

By all means, decriminalize prostitution, but please don't complain when we "extremists" (who are more effective lobbiers, let's face it) zone it right into your neighborhood. And don't be surprised if we don't emulate San Fran and spend more on subsidizing bums or employee sex-change benefits than we do on the vice squad.

Jenna Jameson and Ron Jeremy are participating in a legal business. This is an irrelevant comparison.



Just a reminder:


There is a difference.

I think the phrase that offended was "- between the bums and the gay lifestyle, I wouldn't let my kids go outside there. "

Sounded pretty hateful to me. As far as homelessness, there but for the grace of God go we...

Yea see its the same difference. If something is no longer illegal it inherently becomes legal. Anything that is not against the law is legal.



AHA! Thank you carlitoswhey for this littl noticed comment that really does put things in perspective. Confront each prostituion advocate with this and i could bet they will respond with a resounding "not in my neighborhood." This is just another instance where the elitist "what's good for you isn't good for me" attitude. This attitude has never been displayed better than that by Rosie O'Donnell (huge anti-firearm advocate) who was once asked why her daughter's bodyguard carried a weapon when she responded "Oh, but that's MY daughter."

Back on topic, fine...ill give you your legal prostitution, hell ill give you your legalized drugs...but guess what? The only places that these things are zoned for is around YOUR home. It won't take long for those same people to be singing a different tune.

While I understand what your point is Leder, I would counter with this. Is that any more elitist than saying "prostitution is wrong, disgusting and immoral", so it should be illegal? Believing that one's own moral code should be legislated seems more elitist to me than simply saying "sure, it should be legal, but I wouldn't partake in it."

CP

Do i not have the right to ensure the quality of life in my neighborhood? Do i not have a vested interest in seeing that things such as prostitution and drugs stay away from my kids and others? You would probably counter with that its a parent's duty to teach their children right from wrong and their responsiblity and i am really not disputing that. But thats not fair...because why should anyone have to protect their family from something?

You want to call it elitist than thats fine...i call it something else. If you want to legalize everything than fine...it will take place around your home and your family...not mine.

No, no, no Leder. You misunderstood, I'm not calling you, or what you're saying elitist. What I'm saying is that if you're willing to call someone who wants legalized prostitution but no around them elitist, then wouldn't that make someone who thinks their morality should be legislated elitist. I don't actually think either are true.

Also, I have my doubts that [thanks to zoning laws], a whore house would spring up in your backyard if prostitution were to be legalized.

CP

What is law if not morality? Murder is WRONG. Theft is WRONG. I never understood this "legislating morality" because by definitition the law seperates what is acceptable and what is not.

And as to your next statement...what if the zoning laws were changed and a whore house did spring up in your backyard? Could you in all honesty share the same opinion without reservation? I truly mean no offense but perhaps some support for legalization (or decriminalization like theres a difference) is for the very reason you stated...zoning laws would prevent their neighborhood from being affected. But if you and all other advocates WERE affected...things would change.

Any English major would wince over such a phrase as "the same difference," though I must plead guilty of slipping into such lazy oxymorons from time to time.

Decriminalizing prostitution is not the same thing as legalizing it. Legalizing prostitution is sanctioning the practice and opens it up to the regulation of prostitution. It is not the intention of sexworkers to have government bureaucrats knock at their door to see if they have properly disinfected their sex toys after every usage or to inspect their underwear drawer to make sure they aren't buying lacy little things made in Chinese sweat shops.

What decriminalization means lederuvdapac is that no longer would the justice system waste finite resources on the pursuit of punishing consenting adults to pursue their mutually agreed to activities.

You and carlitoswhey may allow yourself the happy illusion that sexwork can be regulated and zoned around my home, but what makes you think it isn't already going on behind your home, down your block and in your neighborhood? How do you know that Desperate Housewife living right next to YOU isn't running an escort service with several other soccer moms while hubby is at work chasing his secretary around the desk?

Oh, that's right---probably the same way you know that nice older couple across the way with the beautiful garden isn't growing a few plants of Super Gold Thai in the basement for their big bong in the rec room

Actually, keeping your kids away from hookers, bums and gay bathhouses is considered hateful. You sound like a real Archie Bunker. Better to teach them tolerance instead.

[quote=lederuvdapac,Jun 15 2005, 03:01 PM]
[quote=ExistentialHedonist]First, let me say I do not advocate legalization. I advocate decriminalization.[/quote]

Yea see its the same difference. If something is no longer illegal it inherently becomes legal. Anything that is not against the law is legal.

[/quote]

While technically you are correct, lederuvdapac, you might not be familiar with the entire discourse surrounding the differences in this issue.

For your perusal:
Prostitution Law Reform: Defining Terms
[QUOTE]Legalization

From a sociological perspective, the term legalization usually refers to a system of criminal regulation and government control of prostitutes, wherein certain prostitutes are given licenses which permit them to work in specific and usually limited ways. Although legalization can also imply a decriminalized, autonomous system of prostitution, in reality, in most "legalized" systems the police are relegated the job of prostitution control through criminal codes. Laws regulate prostitutes businesses and lives, prescribing health checks and registration of health status (enforced by police and, often corrupt, medical agencies), telling prostitutes where they may or may not reside, prescribing full time employment for their lovers, etc. Prostitute activists use the term legalization to refer to systems of state control, which defines the term by the realities of the current situation, rather than by the broad implications of the term itself.

Because of the range of definitions of legalization, it is difficult to use the term in a discussion of reform. When the general public concerned with civil rights, privacy, etc., call for "legalization," they may not be aware implications of that term, or of the problems inherent in many legalized systems.

Decriminalization

Prostitutes' rights organizations (ie, COYOTE, National Task Force on Prostitution) use the term decriminalization to mean the removal of laws against prostitution. Decriminalization is usually used to refer to total decriminalization, that is, the repeal of laws against consensual adult sexual activity, in commercial and non-commercial contexts. (Prostitutes' rights organizations such as US PROS, English Collective of Prostitutes prefer to refer to 'the abolition of laws against prostitutes'). Prostitutes' rights advocates call for decriminalization of all aspects of prostitution resulting from individual decision. Asserting the right to work as a prostitutes, many claim their right to freedom of choice of management. They claim that laws against pimping (living off the earnings) are often used against domestic partners and children, and these laws serve to to prevent prostitutes from organizing their businesses and working together for mutual protection. They call for the repeal of current laws that interfere with their rights of freedom of travel and freedom of association. Civil rights and human rights advocates from a variety of perspectives call for enforcement of laws against fraud, abuse, violence and coercion to protect prostitutes from abusive, exploitative partners and management.[/QUOTE]

Sex Professionals of Canada: Decriminalization Vs. Legalization
[QUOTE]Decriminalization

Decriminalization views prostitution as a legitimate and nessesary business. Its implementation would entails removing prostitution related offences from the Canadian Criminal Code, for adults involved in this profession. In places that have decriminalization, such as the state of New South Wales, Australia, sex pro's may operate freely, without the threat of criminal charges and/or the state seizing their assets.

Legalization

Legalization views prostitution as a vice that needs to be heavily contained and controlled. In places that have legalization systems, such as Amsterdam, Germany and the State of Victoria in Australia etc., sex pros must regisister at the police station, be photographed, fingerprinted and give very personal info about themselves to the police. (Anyone previously convicted of prostitution is denied a licence). Which doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it?[/QUOTE]

PROSTITUTION: THE MYTHS AND REALITIESby Norma Jean Almodovar, [former L.A.P.D. traffic officer and callgirl]
[QUOTE]What's the difference between legalization and decriminalization?"

Legalization means that the government enacts new laws which puts the control of prostitution in the hands of the police, or the state. The police department has no business running or regulating prostitution, anymore than it should run restaurants or grocery stores or the movie industry. These are all businesses, subject to business regulations, which are run by private enterprise. Prostitution is a business, a service industry. It should be run as a business, subject only to the same kinds of business laws and regulations as other businesses.

Decriminalization would allow that to happen. It would remove all criminal laws from engaging in non coercive adult commercial sex activity, and related areas, such as management and personal relationships. There are already plenty of laws which prohibit the use of force and fraud against people. Those laws could be enforced against anyone who violated them, just as they are now, when force of fraud is used in any other profession.[/QUOTE]

Further reading:
Rijo, L.M. (1991). Psychological and sociological research and the decriminalization or legalization of prostitution. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 20, (2), 205-218.

[quote=carlitoswhey]By all means, decriminalize prostitution, but please don't complain when we "extremists" (who are more effective lobbiers, let's face it) zone it right into your neighborhood. [/quote]

AHA! Thank you carlitoswhey for this littl noticed comment that really does put things in perspective. Confront each prostituion advocate with this and i could bet they will respond with a resounding "not in my neighborhood." This is just another instance where the elitist "what's good for you isn't good for me" attitude. This attitude has never been displayed better than that by Rosie O'Donnell (huge anti-firearm advocate) who was once asked why her daughter's bodyguard carried a weapon when she responded "Oh, but that's MY daughter."

Back on topic, fine...ill give you your legal prostitution, hell ill give you your legalized drugs...but guess what? The only places that these things are zoned for is around YOUR home. It won't take long for those same people to be singing a different tune.

[/quote]

In my case, you are mistaken. While this may be the case for someone who advocates that women shouldn't be criminals for having transactional sex, but still finds the act distasteful or has other issues with it, it is certainly not the case for me.

I live in Las Vegas. If they were to place a brothel next door to me, I would simply go next door and introduce myself to the ladies. I have no problems with this.

The difference is murder and theft harm another person...Prostitution doesn't.

I'll be honest with you, I wouldn't be happy at all. But with that being said, I wouldn't object to the legalization of prostitution, I would have a problem with the owner of the whorehouse who built it in a residential area. Second of all, I doubt that a "whore house" [probably a bad choice of wording on my part] would not look like anything other than a normal building. With the exception of the disgusting, few, negative stereotypical "whorehouses", Prostitution Solicitation Buildings [well that sounds better doesn't it, we could call them PSBs instead ] aren't going to look like hellacious nasty cesspools.

CP

ExistentialHedonist and nighttimer, i am sure there are small semantic differences between the two words. But legal is legal...and if it is allowed to go on without prosecution...it is legal.



So by your very words, prostitution is alright as long as it stays away from where you live. You know recently in NYC, a case between the NYCLU defending panhandlers and the police was decided. The Judge found that the police had to stop "harassing" these people and allow them to stay on the streets and beg for money. No surprise, the NYCLU and civil libertarians were joyful. However, would these lawyers be as happy if the bums were sleeping on their lawn and treating their gardens as a restroom?

Its easy to speak of civil rights and who what affects when you are on the outside looking in. But when reality ends up on your porch...we'll see how quickly your views change.

Leder, come on, posting the first sentence of a paragraph and then ripping it to shreds whilst forgetting about the following paragraph that delves into the first sentence is a teensy bit unfair.

By my very words: I wouldn't be happy at all. I wouldn't be outraged, I wouldn't move, it's just something I wouldn't like. But again, there's no reason to believe that a PSB [this is going to catch on, just you watch] would be built in a residential neighborhood...In fact, as I said before, zoning laws wouldn't allow it. For example, if you were to visit Las Vegas, you wouldn't see a PSB sitting next to a kiddy pool on the corner of Morality and Church Street, they're away from people. So that point seems moot to me anyway.

CP

I apologize then...i just didnt think the architecture of a PSB was relevant to my point.



In major cities, i can agree that an establishment could be built in a commercial/non-residential area. But if we are NOT talking big city and perhaps suburbia...how far is the commercial area of a town from the residential? By legalizing (or decriminalizing)...you are opening the door for anything.

I don't want prostitutes and pimps and drug addicts in my neighborhood. Am i being a morality dictator? Is it so non-sensical to believe that someone should grow up in a place where that stuff is non-existant or atleast prevented at all costs?

In all honesty, i really do not know why debates such as this one and that of drugs become so heated even when the majority knows that most of America would NEVER accept such a thing to happen to our society and our culture.

Ha! It's catching on already. My point in describing what a PSB would look like is to dispell the myth that PSB's are dirty, filthy cesspools with hookers running in and out. The prostitutes are inside, the filth would be kept out of view. They don't do this stuff on a window sill.

Well gee willickers, now we're just splitting hairs. How far away? Well...how far is the "moral distance", 1000 yards, 1500? How far away is far enough away? As I said, we're splitting hairs.

We've covered this already, they won't be, they'll be away from residential areas and indoors.

I know, from our previous encounters, that you are a supporter of Gitmo in Cuba. The equivilant of your argument on that subject is for me to say, well, if you think it's okay to torture people, why can't we do it near your house? It doesn't hold water. Just because one doesn't like something, doesn't mean that that something should be illegal. Yeah, I'd prefer the PSB be away from my house, and as I said, it would be, so what we'd have is a place where consensting adults can have sex far away from neighborhoods, who's harmed? No one.

CP

Brothels are already legal in parts of Europe, and in some cases they exist along side homes where families live. In Holland in particular I have seen brothels in the center of a block of apartments and no one was particularly bothered by them.

I myself, here in Denmark, once lived three years along side a small, illegal brothel and was never bothered by it.

Whilst it may be a problem in the USA, I wonder at whether or not this is because of the reaction so those Americans who get so excited by the very thought of a brothel rather than the actual reality of one. After all, people are going at it like rabbits every where all the time any way and the only real difference with a brothel is the small issue of payment...

Prostitution should be legalized because there is no point in considering it illegal.

What exactly is the crime?

I also was being a bit flippant about zoning laws. Here in my "reality based" community of Chicago, the problems we have with prostitution are street walkers, STDs, crack, drug dealing and such. The air-conditioned, architecturally-pleasing PSB probably wouldn't be a problem.

Anyone care to enlighten me as to the percentage of prostitution which is "professional" vs. street walkers? I could be generalizing, but I think that most of the street-walker clientele are pretty income-challenged and may balk at the additional fees generated to support the overhead and regulation that would come with legalization. If the argument is to legalize/decriminalize only the high end of prostitution, which is the part that none of us really see, what is the point?

The point is the street walking hooker...um...working in dark alleys would probably be hired by an owner of a PSB, the pay would probably be better, and she'd get the same benefits as your average Cube Jockey [if you will]. If you legalize and regulate prostitution, the "street walker" would be almost phased out.

CP

But then wouldn't cheaper streetwalkers move in, to undercut the high-priced PSB competition? Immigrant labor, even? Similar to non-union electricians taking side jobs to fulfill the low-cost electrical work niche.

As I noted above, those patronizing street walkers are probably not the richest clientele around - they may not want to trade up quality for less quantity in order to fund the overhead needed to run a nice PSB. Or are we saying that new management would just replace pimps, thus being revenue neutral?

"Estimates vary from 10% to 15% of the total in the United States, to 30% of the total in England. According to studies conducted in Toronto in 1983 and 1992, street prostitution represents only 20% of all the prostitution in the city...Reports from other Canadian cities are similar." (italics added by me)
From Traditional Data Distort Our View of Prostitution by Frances Shaver, 5th paragraph.

This is such a nicer way to debate! Thank you, carlito! (By the way- I miss your monkey with the bananna.)

I believe that your scenario could very well happen, just like in any other business. I doubt it would thrive, as it is barely an issue now (at only 10-15%). I also would expect that the brothels would allow a woman to choose her own rate, so many could stick to their previous rate (but somehow I doubt it.)

If we imagine a situation where transactional sex is decriminalized, so independent indoor women can operate without being criminals, and there are legal brothels (PSBs-I do like that) in properly zoned areas (which are regulated like any other business) where anyone who chose to work could do so, I can see many women choosing to get off the streets. As Artemise already pointed out, it is a dying business. Why does it exist? I think it may have to do with the fact that some people (the clients) like a challenge. Hugh Grant, obviously, could afford to patronize women like myself who charge substantially more than someone on the street, and he no doubt has access to many "madams" in Hollywood. So why did he solicit from his car?

An activist friend of mine, now a soccer mom, used to work the streets and vehemently advocates for the right to be able to do so. It wouldn't be my choice, but hey, I have to understand that others' choices might be just as valid.

The reason I posted the link back a few pages on the DMSC in India is that they have established "boards" which oversee the industry, and work towards preventing the abuses of trafficking and child sexual abuse:



Source: Self-regulatory Boards of Durbar

I would love to see this sort of thing started here!

I apologize about the sex change thing, I had no idea. I need to read those articles later.
I consider San Francisco sort of a huge social experiment anyway. Theres nothing to do about the 'bums'. They cant chase them off and cant kill them, so what to do?
Off topic anyway.

I think its interesting about prostitution 'not being in my neighborhood'. See, I am in my neighborhood and I dont think Im so bad to live next to. I mow my law and plant flowers and snow blow the driveway in winter-all like normal people. I dont see any of my neighbors even knowing I am here, what I do, or being negatively affected in anyway by my presence. I worked incall out of a Houston apt complex (in an expensive and gated community) for 3 years without a single person ever finding out, or if they did I recieved not one complaint. I had working female friends over, I did S&M sessions as well. All kinds of kinky stuff going on behind closed doors, all in somebodies neighborhood with zero discovery.

Working ladies live in many different places, sometimes several together in the suburbs, apts and townhouses- they may own houses in your neighborhood, you would probably never know it.



When thrown together like that, you are talking about low income areas. If you were that hard up you had to live there you could never change the neighborhood from what it already is, and lucky you, they cant afford to come invade yours anytime soon. I wont say that you might not already be living in close proximity to a prostitute, a drug addict, an alcoholic, a pedophile or a wife beater or some wacko that is going to shoot up a post office sometime in the future.

Brothels are becomming less and less needed with internet capabilities. An agent no longer needs more than a computer and a phone to send women out to work. Most other, such as spas and massage parlors are usually in commercial districts.

Places like the bunny ranch and that are particular to Vegas and have a certain thrill for the client, but more women are desiring to be independant and answer to noone, or split their fees.



Streetwalkers like well lit heavy trafficked areas. Low paying clients also like AMP's (asian massage parlors) which they can always go to if streetwalkes give up the game or go elsewhere. AMP"S are going to continue to operate legal or not in commercial districts or low income areas.

Truthfully with decriminalization Id like to see women get off the streets. I think professional women would do more to help these women if we could without risking the higher penalty of felony trafficking.
Its a slim line between pimping and being an agent or Madame, but a Madame/agent doesnt beat you and take all your money, they take a fair cut and you are left to live your own life. Madames used to work well with the law through perks and payoffs but now LE is trying to get some of them for really high felony charges like Ricoh, especially if they do transactions across state lines.
Traveling escorts used to be on a circuit going from one madame to another in different states, a well paid business but they busted 4 or 5 of the most well known a few years back which drove the whole thing to extinction.

So, while the most vile pimps are left to do the worst possible, older retired call girls are not able to give younger prostitutes much safer working conditions and take advantage of years of building a reliable safe clientele base of referrals. It leaves the younger to fend for themselves in the wild not knowing anything about who they will meet, highly at risk.

As ExistentalHedonist mentioned, with decriminalization working women could with greater freedom of assembly, network, provide an industry standard, teach safer working practices to younger women, help get women off the streets and possibly out of the business if they choose faster and easier than everyone out there on their own or prey to pimps, violent types, drugs, spiraling downfall and all the other things that go with an already risky business.

When did I ever say my sexual morals had anything to do with yours? Why are you asking me this?
Must admit am getting a wee burnt out on this debate. I think mostly because my argument seems to be getting completely ignored by some and I just have to keep saying the same thing over and over....
I am not for the governing of sex....whether we govern it legal or illegal as I feel it is a private matter.
Why do you need mine or the government's approval to have sex ? It seems more or less that a sort of endorsement is being sought here...and that is exactly what I don't want to do. I don't want to nor to I want the govt. endorsing what kind of sex adults are allowed to have.




A frightful precedent?...hardly. I feel it is the nature of government to make laws and base them on what the majority feels is bad or good. I do believe that is why it is important that our laws and our govt acts openly and that we bother to involve ourselves. Nothing in our laws is written in stone like the ones Moses had. We have a gov. that not only acknowledges but celebrates the ideals of a evolving sense of decency..or morality.
What you are asking me is if I feel it is dangerous to allow the government to set laws that only effect a small group even if that small group does not request the law or feel the law is necessary. Yet I believe the laws effect society entirely..and that really is the kernel of my debate. Laws are not limited to one small group or sector they are pervasive to all of society's sectors. Hence why I oppose legalizing prostitution as I feel the laws and regulations the government would restrict or impose on this sector would not remained contained within that sector alone. I personally believe laws are the manifestation of a society so I can't imagine how we contain them or limit their effects.
While on the other side of the debate I also feel that the effects of illegalizing prostitution has not remained contained within the sector either. I feel that the stigma, the criminality and the rejection of equal status for these women has effected all women and ultimately all of society.
I feel what we do with our government effects us all


Not just plays it..but makes it or distributes it I believe would be a more accurate. And that is exactly what we do. There are plenty of examples of musicians being taken to court and being asked to take liability for what they created and how it is believed to have effected society. If the above statistics were true and this music was found to be as harmful as you have portrayed it to be would they have been excused of any wrongdoing ?
Yet they do make music deemed "harmful" carry a warning label ..perhaps we should just ask prostitutes to wear warning labels...!Warning explicit content! or all women in case any of us decide to merchandise our goods.

Well said Bucket! This is really the crux of the issue as I see it. We are all living in this society together. Laws affect "society", meaning every single one of us. Our laws evolve as we evolve. Some things remain constant over the years, but that doesn't mean they could not change if the majority wants them to change. Laws by their very nature involve a judgment about acceptable vs. inappropriate (not acceptable) conduct.

Such reasoning trivializes the law. A law is not a mere judgement that an action is inappropriate. A law is a sanction to use force in retaliation to an action. A law is a declaration of war.

It's one thing to think prostitution is wrong, disgusting, degradinc, etc. It's quite another to declare war against it for those reasons.

Not really- because there are LOTS AND LOTS of dumb laws on the books that haven't been repealed yet- and in fact, they are rarely inforced, because they really hamr no one. Here are a few in your back yard:

"A woman isn't allowed to cut her own hair without her husband's permission"

"It is legal for a robber to file a law suit, if he or she got hurt in your house. "

"It is illegal to kill a dog using a decompression chamber. "

"No man may seduce and corrupt an unmarried girl, or else he risks five years in prison. "- This appears to be germane to the topic- so, how are poeple supposed to "court" in Michigan?"

It is illegal for a man to scowl at his wife on Sunday.


All bathing suits must have been inspected by the head of police.


Whew- it is good thing we have that rule of law thing going on where you are- without those laws, all of society would fall apart yadda yadda yadda "

I keep hearing that prostitution should be against the law because most people are against it. Without going into whether or not that is true: most people are also against adultery, it is also a sex crime, and people are directly hurt by that...yet it is not illegal. I believe even more people would say they were against adultery than prostitution (who is for adultery?). So, by most standards, adultery would then by a higher crime against society (more people are against it, and it directly hurts more people than prostitution does). I don't think anyone can claim adultery is victimless...the argument certainly exists for prostitution. Both are against religious/moral principles as well. Yet one, which is arguably the greater crime, is legal, while the other is not. This poses a logical dilemma that I have not seen those opposed to prostitition being legalized address. Please, skip the 'well, one is currently legal while the other is not' argument...this thread is about what should be the case, not what is. Should prostitution be considered a greater crime than adultery? If so, why? What is it about prostitution that makes it more abhorrent than adultery?

I don't know of anyone who is suggesting that we regulate infidelity to make it safer for the participants. Should we set up infidelity rooms, where the participants can partake, but charge admission so that the government can receive a cut? The point being, they are different things. There are obviously more practical limitations to restricting one and not the other. There are obvious differences in regulating one and the other.

I'm pretty sure that adultery is illegal in at least 20 states. Of course, the law is almost never enforced in the traditional sense. However, it is certainly recognized in divorce law, as a mitigating factor in determining fault, or as grounds for divorce. Hey, if you want to go back to my "morals" argument, this one is a commandment, so it's a much bigger deal than prostitution. I think that, between divorce law and financial / personal / family pressures, we collectively do enough to discourage adultery as it is. I don't have any problems with adultery being illegal, given that bare minimum it's a violation of the marital contract. If you're into swinging, your partner is not likely to invoke those elements of the contract anyway, but I suppose you could always do a prenup just to make sure.

Sounds like no one here has any love for streetwalkers, who are apparently a small, if higher-profile, percentage of prostitutes. Are we suggesting that we just don't enforce the prostitution laws against the call girl set? Reading my local "alternative" newspaper, this seems to be the status quo anyway. Likely exceptions brought by local prosecutors would include tax evasion against larger madame services.

Actually, as you state, I think that is essentially the case right now. Periodically, it seems that law enforcement runs a sweep to make a show of enforcement, but as a rule it seems to go unenforced. I think some of it has to do with the loophole "Monies received are for time spent only." Since sex between consenting adults is legal, and its not illegal to charge someone for your time, I think its gotten harder to really prosecute. Artemise, EH...would you agree with this assessment? If this is the case, then either it already is at least somewhat decriminalized, and making it fully so would probably have no noticeable effect on anyone except those directly involved. As various people here have stated...its not like its that hidden currently.

What about something more similar to prostitution then Mrs P?

First let's take pornography. A studio pays a man and a woman to have sex with each other on film and then the films are sold or put on the internet for others to buy and watch.

Or, you could take stipper services as an example as well. If I wanted to I could hire two strippers and pay them to have sex with each other and it would be completely legal as long as I didn't join in.

In both cases someone is being paid for sex, it just so happens that the person paying doesn't actively participate (although that gets fuzzy with some porn movies because the executives at the studio are sometimes porn stars). The activity is also completely legal and is regulated at the very least by the industry if not the government. What is the difference?

The activities are effectively the same, the only difference is where the money is coming from in the transaction. Why does that make one activity legal and the other illegal?

I applaud the fact that we agree on a topic for once!.

I'd like to add to your point, if I may.

Not only are there not enough prisons, not enough police officers, and not enough time... but how much money does it cost to perpetually arrest a "criminal demographic" that seemingly doesn't end and doesn't have definable victims (as say a car thief would)????

When you consider that some police departments have large numbers of resources allocated to arresting prostitutes, it's hard to justify for many of us that there are violent criminals (etc) whom are not being pursued in leiu of streetwalkers.

Do a search on Google for "prostitution stings" and see the untold number of sites that pop up with articles on the topic. How many dollars did we spend getting these women into the jails, prosecuting them, and then housing them?

I wholeheartedly agree with this as well, however let me ask a tough question here. If we are in agreement that using valuable police resources and prison space for these women is wasted effort when we have murders, terrorists, pedophiles, etc running around then what is to be done?

I suppose at one point someone thought they could bring down the many thousand year institution of prostitution by putting people in jail. Clearly that doesn't work and what's worse we have bigger problems than that in all honesty. So what is the solution? That strikes to the very core of this debate.

As long as there are men willing to buy sex, there will be prostitution. Something I haven't seen mentioned in this very long thread (I may have missed it) is that the johns generally aren't the ones getting arrested, and if it weren't for them, there would be no need for prostitutes! And let's face it, it ain't all skanky bums hiring skanky streetwalkers; there are many mainstream businessmen, military men, famous actors, all kinds of so-called "normal" men, some married (heck, maybe most of 'em, I'll defer to those like Existential Hedonist on that), some not who are hiring girls to satisfy their needs.

I think we've all seen it on "Cops". I think the funniest story I saw was this enormous old man soliciting an undercover policewoman from his car. Turns out he was looking for a quickie while his wife was shopping at Walmart!!

I'm all for decriminalization (thanks, ladies, for pointing out the differences between legalization and decriminalization). There are better ways to spend public resources than arresting prostitutes over and over again. But I have a question; by decriminalizing the act of sex-for-money, does the prostitute still have legal rights when she's assaulted, or a john turns violent?

When talking about "streetwalkers" and such...does anyone take into account what damage such thing does to a community, to its economy? Not in the sense of locking people up, but in the sense of people avoiding certain areas of town because they are known to attract bums, hookers, and other shady people. Local businesses suffer because a lot of people would much rather go out of there way to buy groceries at a safe and clean supermarket on the other side of town than to go to the closest market in which these "shady" people hang outside.

During the 70s and 80s...NYC was seen as the "Rotten Apple." In the early 90s, Giuliani came in and cleaned up the city to the point where right now, NYC is the safest Big city in America. What did he do? Cracked down on crime...and not just the big crimes but the little ones. For instance, the strategy to prevent crimes on the subway came from a simple "victimless crime". Police would arrest people who jump the turnstyles because the thinking was that those who wanted to commit a crime or vandalize would not pay the fare. And they were right. Crime in the subways went down and you no longer have subway cars riddled with graffitti.

The fact of the matter is that nobody is going to shop in an area, or bring their children to any commercial establishment in or around a PSB (ConservPat its catching on ). This in turn hurts all the businesses that have the unfortunate luck to be in that location.

ConservPat brought up that zoning laws would prevent these places to be near a residential area. Ok...then ill ask you this...would you travel to a part of town and bring your family to a part of town where this is going on?

Well first of all I'd say that "streetwalkers" are probably the smallest (but most looked at) aspect of the profession. I believe that point has already been made in this thread by someone else. The much larger and lucrative aspect of it is handled by call girls, just open any "alternative" news paper and you'll see hundreds of ads.

Secondly, I think you are attributing the decline of a neighborhood incorrectly. Even if you were to take out all of the prostitutes the neighborhood would remain the same, they don't cause bad neighborhoods they just happen to congregate there.


Ok fine, but you have to realize how much you pay for that? NYC is one of the only places in the country where you not only have to pay federal and state income tax but also a city income tax as well. All of those police cost money. Think the rest of the country is ready for city income taxes? Think again, a decent majority of states don't even have them.

What if we are talking about a city that doesn't have the resources of NYC? They can either spend a certain portion of their police budget rounding up the working girls or they can go out and arrest real criminals.


Would you take your family to some place that was zoned as industrial to let them look at factories and warehouses? Didn't think so. The point of zoning laws is to consolidate businesses of certain types in a given area. Unless you planned to frequent one of the establishments while the rest of your family was out doing other things you'd have no reason to go to that area of town if the zoning was done properly.

I am inclined to disagree with this. They may not "cause" bad neighborhoods but they contribute to it. Cleaning out a neighboirhood of such people, of drugs, of crime...a combination of all this turns bad neighborhoods into something that would be considered better.



Yes, my parents and I DO realize the amount of taxes that we have to pay. But can you truly put a price on the safety of your community and your family? Would you spend a couple extra bucks to make sure that you could walk alone to the deli for a gallon of milk and a sandwhich without being afraid?

Most police officers DO leave prostitutes alone in the sense that as long as things don't become out of hand. Once they become out of hand...they crack down and lower the problem. I mean if you are leading people to believe that every prostitute that police come across is arrested and put in jail...you have another thing coming. I am sure most police (and i do as well) share your sentiment that there are real criminals out there to stop. But we must keep in mind that in order to ensure the quality of life of a neighborhood or town...sometimes things have to be done.



Yea, thats a bad example. There is no reason to bring my family to look at warehouses or factories. But there IS a reason to bring my family to a restaurant, or a mall, or a movie in the commercial area of a town. However, if that part of town is riddled with shady people...there is no way that i would head there and would prefer to be inconvenienced by going somewhere else i deem safe.

And i am sure many people would do the same with their families.

It isn't a bad example. You typically don't find industrial districts tucked next to commercial or residential districts right? Why would you expect politicians to put up a red light district right in the middle of town? You have to use some common sense. If this was ever legalized and If zoning was put into place you can guarantee these places would be remote.


Now you are mixing in a bunch of other things. We aren't talking about violent crime here Leder, we are talking about prostitution. You are trying to equate prostitution with violent crime and that is exactly the point, in and of itself the crime of prostitution isn't violent.

You also didn't answer my question - how do you expect this to fly with other cities in the US none of which have the population (and therefore tax base) of NY and many which don't even have state taxes? And as an aside I think you'll have a much different view of taxes once you are actually paying them and you see how much of your hard earned pay check they eat up.

That brings us back to the point I made a few posts ago - why are we wasting our resources on this?