More along the line of too much public attention could cause a witch hunt and law enforcement could start cracking down heavier on the issue. In many areas of the country, it's a very low legal risk to be an independent as long as everyone keeps a low profile.

LEAGLIZATION is a difficult if not impossible process, imho.

First off, no politically savy body -- except for realists in Nevada Legislature -- will do much if not kowtow to the moralists in society.

Nevada recognized reality on a local basis and shoved the issue to the voters and local governments in the counties. So not legal in LV, but elsewhere where it's almost an "industry" in sparsely populated areas.

If anywhere legalization stands a chance, imho, it might be in California, but not through the legislature, but either through the voters --

constitutional amendment/initiative:

"recognizing that adults have the right to do what they will with their own bodies"

could address a multitude of issues, abortion, sexual and matriarchal surrogacy, tattooing (illegal in some states even for adults), adultery, crimes against nature, etc... and yes, prostitution, would be included by default.

I don't see a groundswell of petitioners in this area, but could happen.

court decision

What is more likely is that a lady with "balls" would have the guts and cash or maybe ACLU backing (Ha!) to move a consensual sexual act (money included) conviction through the court system. Given the liberal nature of both the state and federal courts in Calif., she'd stand a chance.

And even at the federal appellate level, there could be "de jure" decriminalization in Calif, Wash. and Ore.

That might force conflicts with court decisions in other federal circuits ... and indeed, the Calif. legal precedents could be cited in many state and local jurisdictions, and probably quite successfully.

Would the Supremes take the case to resolve conflicts? Their choice, and can't be forced. I doubt the current justices would consider something this, but might could happen. If the rationale was broad enough -- "my body, my own business" -- USC possibly would take it.

However, my thinking is that the states would ultimately force the de jure decriminalization issue when seeing court decisions legalizing the industry as an opportunity to tax and regulate the industry.

"OK, you wanna be an SW," pay a $10,000 license fee."

That would immediately move the issue into the court system and the states would lose big time.... Doctors don't have to pay to be permitted... etc... they do have to be accredited.... Ministers, accountants, bus drivers.... yes, there are special licensing and regulatory needs but any "licenses" would have to be cost-driven and based to the state.... tailors, candle-makers, etc...

Minister's don't have to be permitted.... don't even have to be accredited by the state. Do have to "register" in order to perform marriages.

My really brazen take is let's open up the

Holy Temple of the Mound of Venus dedicated to phallic worship.

Call it a "church" -- not a religion, and see what protections the First Amendment affords. "Donations" take on a whole new meaning. Tax deductions, any one? Wonder how the ACLU would feel about helping a church? Obviously "workers" income tax issues would need to be addressed, but that's not a criminal statute, merely a civil.... and wouldn't SWs love to have the benefits, etc., of real employment?

Cut right through the zoning, permitting, licensing, etc. issues and to the chase....

Do I have the balls to do that? Sure, right after I hit the Big Lotto. But I like to dream and spark debate.

But, this is a forum.

ck ya later.

Very interesting reading. Thanks for posting.

Now that we have primary sources participating on this topic, this sure is an interesting debate.

I do find it interesting that if a man and a woman consentually have sex together, then it's legal. But, if money is interchanged, then it becomes illegal. Why does the fact that money was interchanged make such acts illegal? I think also that perhaps prostitution laws were primarily put in place for streetwalkers. Prior to the postings here from providers, I've always classified all prostitutes as either street-walkers or those in brothels.

Also, what if providers provide services to a hobbyist and does not perform any sexual act? I assume then it's all legal. Is that true?

Mustang, I'd your brilliant mind under any User ID!!!!! I'm in awe of your religion angle. Speechless! (Imagine me speechless!)

There are ladies that could afford the 10k licensing fee; however, legislation like that certainly wouldn't solve any streetwalking issues. It would certainly increase pricing! Guys complain already that it's expensive. It is, as it should rightly be! LOL



Cajones!! -chuckling-

Actually, this would be possible if one brave lady decided to take the stand and the community donated towards legal fees. I can envision a day where the community would actively donate, if it were anonymous.



It's a darn shame they have the right to choose which cases; however, I respect that they would be more overloaded if they had to review every case. I agree that it would have to be broad. If it can be clearly stated that it's unconstitutional, are they required to take the case? Or do they have the right to refuse any case, regardless of credibility?



I've always believed that it went back to protecting women from extortion. I know, silly me.



Many had serious second thoughts about participating on this thread and your sharing this probably makes it worthwhile. Awareness is a worthy cause. Thanks for sharing your insight.



Escorting is legal. All providers are paid for their time only. They provide "companionship."



By the way, I want to touch on taxes again. Everyone always says, we need to get these people paying taxes. Granted, there is a percentage of the population that doesn't but many do pay their taxes. I don't understand why anyone would assume that all people in this profession don't pay taxes. It's legal to be self-employed and pay your taxes as a self-employed person.

If someone wants to accomplish anything with their money, they have to pay taxes so they can actually use the money on anything of significance. Why would someone earn over 100k to rent an apartment when they could buy a home? These girls like to shop, don't' you think they also like credit cards?

I'm not meaning to sound rude, but if you really think about it it's silly to think that none of them pay taxes. If someone is doing this full time and really making serious money, they have to account for themselves. People doing it for extra money to get by, in addition to their regular career, might be a different story.

It just seems logical to me.

Well I'd just like to say that prostitution IS legal in Nevada. Last time I looked Nevada was still on the map and had not been replaced with Sodom and Gomorrah. It is well regulated and maintained.

Next I'd like to say I've never met or visited with a prostitute that I know of. Since I've never met any lady who is decribed here as the stereo-typical prostitute. You know the "Crack-whore" image that is always automatically attached to the term prostitute. Nope never met one.

I have however, met a Real Estate broker, a budding new lawyer, a biomedical engineer (Working on her Phd) and a whole lot of your average everyday soccer moms.

We can quote statistics until we're blue in the face. But the fact remains that it's called the 2nd oldest profession (after farming ) for a reason. It isn't going away.

Also if my memory serves me (please forgive, as I am a loser-type with no real edumacashun) in the 1920's John Law made illegal another social habit that had been around a while. The result was increased criminal activity and the dangers of a unregulated product/service with underground activity. Anyone remember prohibition?

Ya'll be nice now, ya hear.

I gaurantee that if prostitution is made legal that you will see less girls going to college and more AIDS. Prostitution is also a dangerous thing to do. it is ridiculous to think that some girls won't do this instead of college. Why go to college if you can just become a prostitute? That's terrible.

CP

On what do you base this belief?

More sex, more unprotected sex.

CP

I'm more confused now than when I first asked.

But I'm game...what do you mean by that?

More people will become prostitutes if it is leaglized, and no doubt that a good portion of them will not use protection/birth control. And I base that on the fact that they don't now.

CP

Ack. Maybe I just can't get what you're saying.

I don't know where you got the idea that more people would be prostitutes were it legalized? And so what if they are?

Second, I don't know what "fact" you are using to claim that "they" (prostitutes? providers?) don't use birth control a good portion of the time.

help

Because some would be prostitues aren't prostitutes because they know it is illeagal. So what if they are? Do we know the connditions they are "working" in, are they sanitary, I doubt it.

CP

Why do you assume "GIRLS"???? There are plenty of male prostitutes out there too.

I worked my way through college in construction. According to your view-point I should've never gone to college and stayed in construction (True that 'Joe Millionaire' guy is coming out pretty sweet! hmmmm )

I'd imagine that most ladies that do this are doing just that. Working their way through college. But that's just my guess.......

According to my view girls should stay in college rather than become prostitutes, if they drop out to go into construction or something like that, fine, that's cool. And it is also something you can take pride in. And I'm pretty sure you can do more things to pay through college then something with as little dignity as prostitution.

CP

I can only infer that you addressing street-walking prostitutes.

What about the providers that have already discussed their occupations here in this forum? From what we have been told, these women (haven't had any men so far) are VERY aware of the conditions in which they work and sanitation is held in the highest regard.

As a libertarian, I always find it insulting when the government attempts to regulate things for the sake of "protecting" full grown adults. How is this not paternalism? I can't see any other reason for it's illegality.

Thanks for going a few rounds with me on this. I am really trying to understand why you feel it should remain illegal.

Some people do stupid things, sometimes you need to tell them what to do [btw I'm not calling prostitutes stupid, though I question them slightly]. And what will stop these street prostitutes from continuing this risky job with these risky condidtions if prostitution is legalized?

CP

Conservpat, when you go to the store and purchase a bottle of rum, how do you know it's not going to have rubbing alcohol or some bizarre chemical in it? Because it is regulated. During prohibition, when there was no control over the production of alcohol, moonshine impurities caused thousands of people to suffer permanent damage. Why should it be different with prostitution? When an industry is regulated and legal, there is a much greater tendency towards cleanliness (think abortion, chemical companies, etc).

There is every reason to legalize prostitution. There is no reason to keep it illegal.

What about dignity? That's a pretty subjective idea. There are many that would probably think that working for DuPont has no dignity, because of the pollution they cause. Just as an example. I've always believed that dignity is found in how one does something, more than what one does.

If you don't want to visit a prostitute, then don't. Nobody is going to force you.

After all, we're not talking about 10 year old girls and boys from northern Thailand being SOLD into prostitute slavery. We're talking about enabling people to make a choice about their own lives. Regulating and legalizing prostitution would mean fewer people turning to prostitution out of desperation - because desperate people don't want to jump through the hoops regulation would involve, health check-ups, licensing, etc. And if they did, out of desperation, turn to unlicensed prostitution, why things would not be any different than they are now.

How is the gov't going to make prostitution safe [/I]everywhere[I]?

CP

You're missing my point. Some WORK their way through college. Just like some work their way through college slinging hash (Someone already mentioned that ain't exactly a job to take pride in either). Only I imagine that the hours are more flexible and the income more lucrative.

Once again CP, you're stereo-typing prostitutes. Not all wear sequin mini-skirts and stand on a street corner popping gum with a needle hanging out of their arm. Matter-o-fact I'd wager that if you legalized prostitution THOSE people will get the help they need for their addictions.

Also, why do some feel that drugs and prostitution walk hand-in-hand. I've known plenty a banker and a politician that embezzled money and tore families apart for their fix.

Just another mis-conception in my book.

Come on, I'd take more pride flipping burgers than having sex with some random guy who needs something quick . Doesn't it pay money to oh I don't know work at some deli? Doesn't that bring income in, doesn't that help someone through college. And what do you say to your friend at Princeton who asks "how did you ever find a way to pay for this college?" Plus, how do we pay for it?

CP

Well the debate is CP, shouldn't I have the right to CHOOSE between flipping hamburgers at minimum wage with little or no time for studying or prostituting myself for $300 an hour with plenty of free-time?

Noone is asking you specifically to do this CP. The question is, why can't people have the choice to make on their own?

And once people break this stereo-type that you've solidified in your mind of a prostitute (I.e. a 'Crack-whore'). Then maybe they wouldn't be embarassed to tell folks their occupation. And when they graduate from Princeton (Which I don't believe would happen @ minimum wage) they can tell people honestly what they did, rather then hide behind falsehoods to protect themselves from the moral majority.

It seems like CP wants to legislate morality and bring people back into the dark ages. how one can flip burgers for $6 an hour while going through college that don't teach job skills?

That's fine. You don't have to have to work in that field, but that doesn't mean that someone else can't enjoy it AND take pride in what they do. It's all morally relative.



Yeah, but not necessarily enough to live on. We all choose our own standard of living, and we all choose what we are willing to do to obtain that standard. What may seem respectable to you, may not be respectable to someone else. This is about granting the right to choose in a situation where both sides are consensual. Why do you find that to be problematic?



What are you asking here? How will we pay to regulate the industry?

Hello, Herc!!!!! Thanks for joining us!


I haven't read everything that's been posted since I want to specifically address CP's first posting.




Actually, the reverse is very likely to happen. Sure some girls that never considered it before might start escorting; however, the competition will be tough and there is only so much business to go around.



Absolutely! That's why it needs legalized!



That is a ridiculous thought. I have to agree.



That would be terrible. Many girls currently use the business to pay for college so why do you think this situation would change if it were legalized?

That's exactly what I think, morality supercedes money in my mind. As for jobs not teaching job skills, isn't that why you go to college? Also is morality bad or something?

CP

Freedom-man --

You've completely changed my stand on an education being necessary to succeed. (See topic thread titled "Is College the only way to success?")

Well, not completely, but you've pointed out that it's necessary for many people. The ones that don't require college are the exception to the rule.

College is important!

I sill haven't been answered as to how the gov't is going to pay for people to make sure conditions are santized.

CP

Trust me. There's enough money in this industry to be obtained through taxes to pay for itself!

Plus the government will save money by not dragging these people through the court system merely to impose a minimal fine that can't possibly cover the costs of prosecuting them.

With the economy the way it is do we really want to put more money into making sure prostitutes are working leagally? What's our priority, prostitutes or the war on terror, or healthcare, ect.?

CP

Asked and answered. Are you repeating yourself?

No, I'm asking a question, what should our priority be?

CP

We're not saying this needs done today or five years from now.

We're merely discussing it.

I agree with Eva, I'm not a numbers cruncher, but it HAS to be more cost effective to legalize prostitution than to prosecute it.

Most of this would not be paid for by the government. It would be paid for just like any other business as a business expense. The government's role would be to develop a standard and deal with licensing and enforcing similar to the way that other professionals who are required to have licenses operate.

The fact of the matter is, legalizing prostitution would sell morality for money, and I;m against it. I do see where you guy's are coming from though .

CP

The government would have to get involved to make sure that all of these sex establishments are clean and the women/men are clean, there would have to be some routine testing. There would have to be inspectors, like the FDA has for meat packing plants to make sure that every establishment is adhering to a strict guideline of rules to prevent disease.

Even though you guys are "merely discussing" the impact of legalizing Prosititution, I think Conservpat has a very good point. What are we going to take money out of, to make sure some "john", that is cheating on his wife with a prostitute, doesn't have to worry about the inconvenience of getting an STD.
And how is this in anyway a priority to America, in the grand scheme of things? I would much rather that money go towards education, health care, etc.

The law enforcement community only catches a very small percentage of the total number of prostitutes out there. And it really is just a slap on the wrist ticket. . .not something that endless hours in court are spent over. So I can't imagine that we would be saving that much in court costs, if it were legalized. But, of course, I don't have any proof one way or another on this. Just my 2 cents. . .

-Kisov

CP the government has no right to legislate morality what happened to freedom of religion? plus religion is full of hypocrisy, sexism, murder and genocide so why should women be prevented from choosing thier destiny? thier bodies does not belong to the government and a women prostituting is none of your business plus some people will always cheat on thier wives and husbands it is not the govt business you all always screaming about big government but want to clamp down on personal freedom in the name of "morality"

First of all if the gov't isn't anexample for morality why bother with a gov't at all. A government is to lead by example. By the way that whole religious thing [I don't know where that came from] Catholicism [my religion] preaches tolerance and peace, teh only war that occured was with people who were being abused uprising [the Isrealites], so I'm not sure what you're talking about, and to call my religion sexist is also absurd. Now back to prostitution.

CP

But must we as a free people legislate morality?
Can't consenting adults make decisions concerning their own morals, taking into consideration their religion, upbringing, life experience, and values?

You're right, there would have to be some routine testing and inspections, but this is another expense that would come out of the pocket of the businesses. It would be similar to real estate licensing where you have to pay for your routine continuing ed and your licensing costs. These fees go back into the system to pay for the employees and supplies that would be necessary to regulate the industry. The costs end up being minimal for the professional who is receiving the license, and I think the benefits far outweigh the costs.



Again, this is morally relative, and it is also an assumption that most men who are patronizing prostitutes are married. Some of them may be, but if a man wants to cheat on his wife, he's going to do it whether or not it's with a prostitute or some other woman. Why does it make a difference if there is money being exchanged? You could also turn this argument around to say that we are not doing it to protect the john or the prostitute, but to protect any third parties, such as an unknowing wife from catching an STD from her cheating husband...

I think there is a way to legalize this industry, regulate it, and keep the costs at a minimum, so that it doesn't have to infringe on tax payer money that would be going to other programs. The reason that I think that it is a priority to America is that it is essentially punishing two adults for taking part in a consensual act just because there is money that is changing hands. It just doesn't make sense to me.

Thank you. I'm glad you see where we are coming from in part.

I think you'll find there are quite a few people who are willing to argue the moral aspect of this issue.

CP a governments job is to protect people's rights, property, using the military to defend a nation from enenies domestic and foreign NOT regulate sex between adults. why does consenting sex between adults bother you? speaking of religion I never say catholism is sexist but the bible degrades women, it blames them for the sin of Eve Adam's wife, a woman is not allowed to speak in church, a women must talk to her husband in fear, etc prostitution is an ancient profession and women in the ancient times are usually forced into it because women were not allowed to own property, work and totally depend on male relatives and thier husband to survie soif they did not have any close male relatives or husband they turn to prostitution for survival.

You'd be VERY surprised at the percentage of our society participates in this activity. It's not a far stretch to say that they'd probably give you a run for your money at the private voting polls.



-clearing throat- I think this is a health care issue.



I'm not saying that we're going to fund this entirely on saved court costs. I'm saying that as it stands now, the fine can't possibly be paying for what it takes to bring someone to court. That includes the money spent on the police stings, holding cells, court costs and a bunch of other things. They just don't stumble onto all the girls they arrest -- they actually put effort into it on occassion. There's no way the fines cover the costs currently involved. I don't even think we need statistics for that since we both agree that the fine is minimal.

Regardless, the industry itself generates enough money to cover the costs. If you need statistics, just look at the overall statistics of the existing legal sex industry and you've probably just touched the surface.

I think that our opinions regarding legalization get a bit skewed depending on our views of morality, health issues, etc.

Some of this thread is entirely misleading as it seems to suggest that prositution is synonamous with streetwalkers. It's not. I can't argue with the strong correlation between street walkers, drugs, and associated health issues as there is concern here. In fact, there is a huge health concern.

On the flipside, you have the legalized brothels in Nevada, which as far as I know, has never had a reported case of HIV. The staff are routinely tested, and the trade is safe in these licensed environments.

This above holds true of many of the "escorts" who provide very discreet, professional services. I say "professional" as these providers are very serious about the quality of service they provide. This includes health issues as well. You don't find these providers on street corners, in fact, they often have a pretty selective group of clientele.

Personally, I think the question here should be:

How do we give people the freedom to do what they wish, in a manner that doesn't put anyone at risk?

Perhaps Nevada has answers worth visiting for other areas as well.

Oh, and for those who argue about "Morality." Hmm... Sorry, that doesn't fly. Who determines Morality? You? Your religion? Moraly is entirely relative depending on your community. There is no "ONE MORAL" answer.

One more thing to consider about religion, morality, and prostitution. Did you know that in early Judiasm that there were Goddess that were worshiped too? Now they are considered pagan teachings, but at one time, there where those who worshiped Athera? who had two "male" concubines. Umm... She made the both dress as women too.

Go Figure.

since the invention of male-gods women are being downgraded until this day. nefore that female goddesses and women were worshipped including the female genitals because ancient men believe that women and thier genitals is where new life is born

Some very good pooints above.... but lets look at

"priorities"

-- Regulate the biz with licensing, and the license fees will be used to reduce STDs. if the providers are licensed, why not their clients? Could get fees (and safety) both coming and going

-- Morality is/isn't the job of government -- then public welfare, etc... military to protect from enemies foreign and domestic.... hate to say this, but the "savings" from reduced courthouse and jail interning for the providers would be turned into ANOTHER GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY (sorry for the noise!) Betcha Bill Clinton would love to stick his 'nose" into that stuff. (Couldn't resist)

-- While we're cleaning up the laws, need to remember that when there are two parties exchanging money for sexual acts, both parties can be prosecuted. I'm sure that the practice of charging more lades than men is sexual harassment ... there has to be an unequal application of the law -- Constitutional question here.

-- The point about Prohibition -- well made, both morality and taxing situation. Remember many states still had "liquor by the wink" up and into the 1960s... The bootleggers made out like bandits.

Just a personal observation about the "street scene" -- yes, there are many SWs (sex workers) out there, but way many more "indoors" as escorts or in spas or through agencies who are very well-educated, professionally prepared for the "biz" -- and most of them yes, are in it for the money, but also because they like their job and the gentlemen who support their industry.

Oh what a tangled web we weave..........

Well, what an interesting debate!

If I may, I would like to tell you a bit about a fictional character. He is a professional businessman that utilizes the services of escorts on a regular basis. When asked by fellow “hobbyists”, he always says that he is a “collector of sexual experiences”.

He gets tested for STDs every 4 weeks. He has never had an STD, although his lifestyle would lead one to believe that he is more at risk than others. Truth be told, the first thing he asks a “provider” is for a copy of her latest “call card” before continuing with the appointment. (a “call-card” is given to a person who is anonymously tested for STDs. It has the control number of the test. When you call in, you use the control number to maintain anonymity.) He has, at times, asked the provider to allow him to call on her test. Do to his unusually high amount of spending; many providers are now being tested on a regular basis, if for no other reason than to keep his business and the business of a few friends that have adopted his stance. Needless to say, he NEVER has had un-protected sex (although he is aware that only abstinence is 100% safe).

He is very anti-drug. He has refused to see a provider that he feels is acting in a way that would indicate drug-influence. He has made it very clear that he will “black-ball” any provider that he gets convincing evidence of drug abuse. (He has a very large group of friends that respect his opinion) He has assisted a few ladies into rehab when they had problems and asked for help. When he has assisted (by providing an income and the fees for rehab), he insists that they stop “providing” until they are clean. Every time he has made the offer, the lady has accepted and completed drug rehab. Only once has a lady relapsed.

He spends an inordinate amount of money in his pursuit of the ultimate sexual fantasy. Some people spend money on ski trips, boating, etc. He spends it on this. His choice. The $$ amount that he spends is miniscule to what other friends of his spend. While he will not disclose his total spending, he has said that 4 friends of his recently had a discussion about total spending. The 4 of them spent in excess of $300k last year on their pursuits. I have a strong feeling that the majority of those not involved in the industry have NO IDEA how much money is being talked about. The total industry outlay (pardon the pun) would probably rival many of the larger “traditional” service industries.

The fictional character has become friends (or as close as one can become a friend) with a few providers in this industry. A few, he has assisted with their tax returns (hard to figure out how to depreciate breast enhancement surgery LOL). Of the providers he assisted last year, the average income DECLARED was $85,000. That is AFTER expenses…. net taxable profit. These providers are NOT the top earners in the area. In fact, they would probably qualify for the 35th percentile. Keep in mind, this is what they DECLARED.

This character has seen providers that are models, college students, housewives, actresses, salespeople, and many other mainstream professionals. About 50% of the providers are full time escorts. BTW, of the college students that he has seen, to a one, all say that they would not be able to attend the college of their choice if it were not for earning a good living, with the flexible hours, they find in this trade.

His outlook on the morality? He strongly believes that it is better to pursue his exploits in the manner he does, rather than get emotionally involved with multiple mistresses all over the country. Not only would the cost be greater (more on that in a bit), but it would also be very unfair to all parties involved to develop deep emotional ties.

He thinks it is a moral requirement to “give back” to the community of ladies that give him so much. This is why he actively promotes safe practices within the community. This includes the things described above, but also includes methods of physical security.

(As a side note, a very good provider was recently beaten and robbed by a psychotic client. The same prosecutor that had tried her (unsuccessfully) for prostitution; refused to prosecute the perpetrator of the crime. The reason? He said that the client reasonably explained it away by saying that he had made it very clear that he was looking for rough play. The prosecutor said that she was “asking for trouble” when she accepted the appointment.)

Now, before you condemn the fictional character, understand also that he has a healthy sexual life outside of the escort arrangement. He is painfully aware of the possibility of sexual addiction, so he purposely takes frequent “sabbaticals” to assure there are no signs of an insatiable desire that would be indicative of addiction. He also consults a psychologist regularly, not only to keep a handle on his sex life, but also for overall good mental health maintenance.

Enough of the fictional character. I hope you are understanding of my use of this method of explanation. Now, on to a few additional thoughts.

How is it illegal for a lady to accept $500 for an hour of “tryst”; and not illegal for a mistress to accept $20,000 a month for an apartment in Manhattan and miscellaneous spending?

How is it illegal for a lady to have consensual sex with a gentleman for $600; when it is not illegal for a lady to accept an evening on the town, requisite with dinner, theatre, ice cream stop, limousine, etc in return for an evening of pleasure? It does not make sense.

Last but not least, how many times have gentlemen attended a singles bar… purchased drinks and food all night long for the group of 6 ladies… in hopes of having an evening nightcap? In my twisted mind, it should be illegal to lead a guy on and let him spend his money… only to NOT have the “final result” come to fruition!!

I know these are off-the-wall comparisons, but what truly is the difference?

These are just a few thoughts to ponder. I will end this horrendously long post by complementing everyone for a wonderful debate. It is refreshing to see a topic with such opportunity for harsh words, being discussed with such respect. Kudos to you!!

Dang, gone for a day and look what happens!! This board was busy! I can't possibly answer every issue brought up but will touch on just a few things for consideration.



I guarantee that if prostitution is made legal that you will see less AIDS and more girls going to college. Even if made legal, this is a rare career choice for the rest of our lives. There is no health or life insurance, no IRA or 401K, there are no benefits except for what you pay yourself. I would have gone to college alot sooner than I did had I the money to afford it, plus I would have gotten the degree I wanted instead of stopping after an Associates. (note: I got into this biz a little later in life). Most women want to get married and have children later on in life, usually effectively putting an end to this job. For most ladies, this occupation is used in the interim. As far as STD's are concerned, there would be a greater chance of these ladies having regular health care and education as far as protecting themselves and others. ALL the providers I know practice safe sex and will refuse a client if they insist on unprotected sex. Also ALL the clients I know agree that protected sex is the way to go and insist upon it. Education and communication about safe sex practices are key whether you are with a prostitute or a girl you picked up in a bar.

As far as cost and regulations: I am a licensed professional in the medical field. My license is issued through not a government agency but a private business that writes the rules and regulations and continuing education requirements. I pay a yearly fee to keep this license. I also have to be licensed through the state to work in Texas, therefore I hold two licenses. One a nationally recognized and one a state recognized. The government of Texas writes the rules and regulations for the latter. If legalized, a private entity can become the licensing agent, paid for by the fees to keep the license. This entity would have to adhere to the laws written by the state and be prepared for inspections and audits by the Department of Health. That could also be paid for by the entity through its licensing fees. The laws could be written specifically spelling out health requirements and what is and what is not allowed. A rule can be written stating that "no provider may solicit, conduct business, or advertise in a non-approved location" such as the street, hotel bars, etc. This would make street prostitution illegal still. Legal activities would be kept in a brothel or private residence. Now what hobbyist would choose the illegal versus legal activity? What hobbyist would visit the unlicensed versus licensed provider? Eventually street prostitution would be phased out.

Best discussion I've seen on the Internet! Kudo's to everyone!

B