The absurdity of prostitution being illegal.

[hiaasenrocks]

People often try to compare prostitution with dating, as if buying someone dinner and a movie or whatever is the same as just handing the other person money for sex. I think people are, for the most part, joking when they say this, but there's a very small kernel of truth to it; they're just taking it to an extreme. Traditional dating is not, of course, a simple exchange of money for sex.

However, I believe that is the case with these older, fat, bald dudes who have young, attractive women or young so-called "trophy wives," and you just know, by looking at them, that the only reason she's with him is because he's rich. I have also seen older women, who are obviously rich, with much younger male companions who wouldn't even give these women the time of day, but for the fact that the women are loaded. In other words, we have both male and female "gold-diggers."

Imagine a guy working the night shift at your local gas station. He stands there behind the counter, wearing a name-tag that says "Hugh" on it, but what you don't know is that his last name is Hefner. Just some old guy working at the gas station instead of being the founder of Playboy. Does Gas Station Hugh have three young centerfold girlfriends? Hell, no, he doesn't.

If some people can engage in a relationship that essentially amounts to nothing but paying for sex/physical companionship/etc., everyone should be able to.

Or would some puritanical moralists out there rather have tougher restrictions on exactly what constitutes a proper "relationship" according to their preferred moral code?

Prostitution is just one of many "consensual crimes" that should be decriminalized. The failure to do so perpetuates an anti-freedom, anti-choice society in which people wish to impose their morality upon others.

[noamnety]

1. This is perhaps the worst argument for prostitution I've ever seen.

If VERY rich privileged men can exploit women, all men ought to be able to.

:(

[hiaasenrocks]

2. Exploit? Hardly.

This is a 50/50 deal. Unless the women are being physically forced to engage in prostitution, they're making a free choice.

By the way, you conveniently ignored the fact that VERY rich privileged women buy their arm candy, too. This is not a gender restrictive issue. Please drop the misandry.

[noamnety]

4. unless they are "physically forced" it's a "free choice."

Out of curiosity, do you actually know what the definition of "rape" is?

I spoke to your example in the gas station. If that example was sexist, you can apologize, but I won't.

I think we are all aware that male Hugh Hefners (your example) exist in FAR greaters numbers than the female version, and that consumers of prostitution - even when the prostitutes are male - are overwhelmingly male.

So pretending that gendered class oppression by men is not relevant to a discussion of prostitution is propaganda and not helpful.

[hendo]

18. So to clarify

Do you have something against women who chose to use thier assets as a means to make money? Or is it only when they use thier bodily assets?

Do you honestly believe that if prostitution were made legal then prostitutes would still be beaten by thier pimps? Rather than following that line of argument it would probably be better for you to look into the reasons why prostitutes in Nevada are much healthier and happier than prostitutes on the streets in most major US cities.

[noamnety]

29. No, I have nothing against the women.

Nor do I have anything against sweatshop workers. That's such an odd question.

What I really strongly didn't like in the OP here is the presentation of the issue as if it's a great social injustice - possibly even something I should look at as a human rights violation - for a man not to be able to purchase a woman's body to ejaculate into/onto. Men are "entitled" to have access to women's bodies on demand, I guess, in some peoples' minds.

[hiaasenrocks]

36. Why do you want to diminish the power of women to choose

what they want to do with their bodies?

Why is this any of your business what consensual adults do, for money or no money?

And, lastly, can you explain why it should be illegal to charge for something that you can legally give away for free?

[lildreamer316]

43. Try this:

It was written about stripping, but applies here.

"Just because I give - or in my case sell -an aspect of my eroticism doesn't mean that anyone has gotten anything of any value from me, and it doesn't mean that they have the right to take it anytime they want. In fact, it isn't truly mine until I can give it away, sell it, or keep it to myself as I choose. If I invite someone to my home every day for five days and make them welcome to everything in it, it's still a crime if they break in on Saturday. Charging to see my eroticism doesn't degrade it any more than a chef devalues his gift by preparing his food in a restaurant for a living - and it doesn't mean that he prepares his wife's meal with any less love and care at the end of the day. An actor doesn't necessarily exploit something as deeply personal as his emotions when he gets paid (sometimes an absurd amount of money) to weep and rage onscreen. He has a talent which he shares with us, and we think it valuable enough to compensate him for it. We give actors little statues of naked men for baring their souls, and shame strippers for baring their bodies... and we can't take our eyes off of either one. I tend to think that any aspect of human behavior that manifests regardless of the different centuries and cultures it survives and emerges intact is an essential part of the human condition.

You think taking money for some aspect of sex is degrading to women? Hah. Try looking up what marriage was originally for"

http://www.geocities.com/alysabethc/feministstripper.html

[Djinn]

47. NOT on demand

stop using such a ridiculous and histrionic strawmen. No-one saying men are "entitled" to to have access to "women's" bodies "on demand".

Just as I have no "entitlement" to have you sing for me "on demand". However if you advertise your singing services and agree that I will pay you for a specific service then it's a completely different thing.

It is NOT a human rights violation for anyone to make the decision to sell their body in any way - either for digging ditches or fucking.

No-one should ever feel a NEED to work in a job they dislike simply in order to feed themselves but I hate to tell you this there are many many of your fellow Americans doing that every day in sex work and other fields.

Fix the situation in which people feel they have no option - ie pay unemployment benefits, healthcare, child care etc and then anyone who CHOOSES to sell their bodies for sexual purposes is there by CHOICE

[hendo]

54. of course,

the OP didnt state his case in the most effective way, but he still has a point.

We are nto saying that men are entitled to have access to women's bodies on demand, we are saying that women have the right to sell thier bodies should they choe to do so.

[hendo]

55. of course,

the OP didnt state his case in the most effective way, but he still has a point.

We are nto saying that men are entitled to have access to women's bodies on demand, we are saying that women have the right to sell thier bodies should they choe to do so.

[hiaasenrocks]

35. Consensual sex, even if paid for, is not rape.

That's ridiculous.

I won't apologize, because there's nothing sexist in my post.

[hiaasenrocks]

3. Not to mention, you missed the point entirely.

The point is that in our society we already have people exchanging money and goods for sex, and everyone knows it, but we're not making that illegal.

There's just no logic to the laws prohibiting women from being able earn a living the way they choose to.

[gatorboy]

5. What's the difference between the prostitution and the porn industry?

Taxes?

[MindPilot]

7. time and distance

Prostitution: directly paying someone to have sex with me.

Porn: indirectly paying someone to let me watch a recording of them having sex with someone else.

[gatorboy]

13. Yes, but someone, somewhere is still getting paid to have sex.

[MindPilot]

16. Exactly. The difference is time and distance.

It makes no sense to me either. :D

[flamin lib]

6. Not sure who is being exploited. Is it the attractive women who

accept money or favor for their services or the ugly old schmucks who can't get a date otherwise?

I've never understood the problem with prostitution (or bigamy). You can give it away, but you can't collect money for it? You can cohabitate with as many people as you wish, but you can't codify it with a legal document?

It just makes no sense to me.

Exploitation is in the eye of the beholder. Had a niece that made a LOT of money in "gentleman's clubs" wearing almost nothing and flirting. Had the good sense to hire a CPA and invest the money and now has a husband, children and lives a respectable life.

At first she was turned off by the clientele but came to feel sorry for them and saw what she was doing as bringing a little relief from the humdrum lives these poor losers lived. An act of kindness as it were--for which she was rewarded with about $200k a year in $20 bills. And that's a LOT of $20 bills.

In some respects that line of work is like being a professional athelete. They only have a few years before they pass their prime and far too many of them use those years and talents putting white powder up thier noses.

[noamnety]

8. ha.

"and now has a husband, children and lives a respectable life."

Thoughts about why there was a need to include that last phrase?

[flamin lib]

11. "Respectable" is also in the eye of the beholder. Seems like some

people look down on those making a living in the "adult" industry. Just using the "acceptable" phrases of society.

Doesn't make those phrases any more or less biased, bigoted or silly for the application, particularly when coming from a "champion" of the exploited.

[seabeyond]

19. there is a lot of defending by males yet slips like "lousy job" "now lives respectable"

"wouldnt take home to mom" "not for my daughter" all pops in as they tell all, these are perfectly acceptable and respectable jobs for women.

[hiaasenrocks]

38. Please explain why it should be illegal to charge for something

that you can legally give away for free.

Thanks.

[MindPilot]

12. Excellent point.

And it isn't always the "ugly old schmucks who can't get a date otherwise". Someone with money, power and fame doesn't need a hooker. There are plenty of gold-digger/groupies who will quite willingly trade sex for proximity.

The money a guy like Spitzer gives a hooker is not in exchange for sex, but for silence.

[LanternWaste]

22. True. There are thousands of children in China who work in sweat shops

"Exploitation is in the eye of the beholder."

True. There are thousands of children in China who work in sweat shops and, never knowing of any other possibilities open to them, accepted their fate with resignation; and would most likely be surprised themselves to find hear themselves called exploited.

Sometimes exploitation has absolutely nothing to do with money.

Exploitation may or may nor be in the mind of the beholder, but there are times when exploitation cannot be perceived as anything but exploitation. From where I sit, both prostitution and pornography fits into the latter category.

[mondo joe]

23. The illegal status of prostitution dopesn't make it less exploitive.

And prostitution and porn are far from the only exploitive businesses. Most employment is exploitive to some degree. It's best that each person can decide for him or herself what is acceptable.

[LanternWaste]

27. So no community standards on what is or is not exploitation?

"It's best that each person can decide for him or herself what is acceptable."

So no community standards on what is or is not exploitation? No laws regarding exploitation? You believe it should simply left to the individual to decide if they're being exploited or not?

[mondo joe]

28. I reject community standards for obscenity, and for this as well.

Labor laws should reflect at least a minimum standard, workers should have the option to unionize, and there should be workplace protections.

There will still be exploitation - look at anyone working the line at any McDonalds for an example. But people should be free to choose what to do with their own bodies.

[noamnety]

30. And the women in Iraq forced into prostitution? (nt)

[mondo joe]

32. Firstly, I thought we were talking about US law. Secondly, we were talking about consenting adults,

not non-consenting persons at all.

[noamnety]

33. No, I'm not only talking about US law

for a number of reasons, one being that other cultures have been brought up as examples in related threads. Another reason is that our laws affect women from other countries, because as a sex industry is legalized, it brings with it the "collateral damage" of increasing illegal human trafficking to an area. It's an inescapable byproduct. So here in Detroit, we had a human trafficking ring busted up of foreign women forced to work in strip clubs.

I'm curious what the distinction is. If refugees from Iraq choose to go into prostitution for financial reasons (to feed their children), why is that "nonconsent" - while a woman in the US who makes the same "choice" in order to feed her children is "consenting"?

[mondo joe]

34. Okay - well for the purpose of this thread I'm duscussing US law.

But illegally forcing women or men (boys more likely) into sex work occurs whether prostitution is legal or not.

And if it's legal, people in it have an option to seek help with less risk.

My use of "nonconsent" was in response to your question about women who are FORCED. If you are forced it's non consensual.

[noamnety]

39. Illegally forcing women (or boys) into sex work occurs either way, yes.

But it INCREASES when prostitution is legalized.

It's like the death penalty - where it's put into place, violence in general increases, because the state sets the tone that violence is acceptable.

When the state sets the tone that men are entitled to buy people to ejaculate on/in, that tone affects the population, other people move in to exploit the situation.

You can't have a war without violence against women.
You can't legalize prostitution without increasing oppression of women.
You can't treat one class of people as less than fully human without there being consequences.

The Netherlands are a perfect example of that - they've become a world hub for illegal human trafficking. The US does not need to follow in that example.

[mondo joe]

40. Then the Netherlands failed to address the needs of its citizens and to manage its borders.

But "it could be abused" is never a legitimate reason to deny anyone freedom and autonomy.

[noamnety]

41. Hmmmm.

The US failed to protect the Iraqi citizens against collateral damage. That's not a reason to avoid military operation.

But how does your decision making process change when you realize it's not a specific failure, it's part of the system? When you realize that in ALL modern warfare, 90% of the casualties are unarmed civilians?

At some point, do you have a moral obligation to acknowledge that when you enter INTO the war, you are already accepting that 90% of your casualties will be completely innocent civilians?

Do you have a moral obligation to look at patterns, acknowledge them, and weigh the rights of the victims of that "collateral damage" against what your stated goals are?

[mondo joe]

42. Point by point:

"The US failed to protect the Iraqi citizens against collateral damage. That's not a reason to avoid military operation."

The entire Iraqi invasion and occupation was plagued with failure, and was illegitimate together. It should not prohibit legal and properly managed military operations, when appropriate.

"But how does your decision making process change when you realize it's not a specific failure, it's part of the system? When you realize that in ALL modern warfare, 90% of the casualties are unarmed civilians?"

My decision making process with regard to war is that it should be carried out when justified - which is exceptionally rare. A failed illegal war does not invalidate the rare appropriate call for military response, if it occurs.

"At some point, do you have a moral obligation to acknowledge that when you enter INTO the war, you are already accepting that 90% of your casualties will be completely innocent civilians?"

You should acknowledge it every time. It's why the decision is so serious, and should be an absolute last resort.

"Do you have a moral obligation to look at patterns, acknowledge them, and weigh the rights of the victims of that 'collateral damage' against what your stated goals are?"

See above.

[lildreamer316]

44. :)

I've been dancing on and off for over 13 years.
Fortunately, I NEVER put white powder up my nose...

[Djinn]

45. stop presuming ALL prostitution

exploits women - at least no more so than ANY job that doesn't not pay someone the full value of their labour - which is practically everyone with a job.

why is being paid for sex any more of less exploitative than being paid a pittance of the profit your boss makes by dint of YOU making products for him?

The instant assumption that prostitution exploits women is patronising and offensive

[noamnety]

48. I'm going to quote a friend here

Because she has a gifted way of not letting people get away with whitewashing an entire system by pointing to select individuals.

"Then there is the question of the purpose of the industry itself… there are happy, self-confident, cheerful people delighted with their positions in the US Armed Forces, enjoying their years of service, but that doesn’t make the US military any less of a weapon of mass destruction and misery as it serves US corporate interests and delusions of world empire. As Stan points out, prostitution is an aspect of male social power, just as — say — cruise ships or SUV manufacturing are an aspect of USian (and Northern, and industrialised and Anglo) social power. A service industry exists to serve someone; relations of power are revealed by considering whom it serves and who is in service. The existence of a specialised sexual service industry, overwhelmingly staffed by females, dedicated to coddling male egos and mass-producing male orgasms, indicates a caste system at work just as surely as the existence of a specialised domestic service industry almost exclusively staffed by people of colour, cleaning the homes of whitefolks, or a specialised stoop labour sector of underpaid Hispanics picking crops for whitefolks’ tables.

Part of what the whitefolks are buying — or what the men are buying — is not only luxury but the comforting knowledge of caste superiority to the person who must perforce do a kind of work that the privileged caste would rather not do. We have no name for this double aspect of work that is not just the work of the hands, bodily labour, but the work of assuming a subservient role so that another person can feel superior. When it is deliberately chosen for strategic purposes in a hierarchy we call it “kissing ass” or “sucking up” (note the sexual overtones of these phrases) but we have no word to call out, explicitly, the kind of “work” that means acting out obedience, deference, slavishness at another person’s behest. When we call prostitutes “sex workers” as if they were secretaries or taxi drivers, we render invisible the humiliation-quotient of a day’s work, a factor that varies from one trade to another but increases as we get into the service sectors and the closer we get to old-fashioned body-service, the salaried equivalent of the domestic slaves of olden days.

An individual “worker” may be lucky and clever and find a niche in which personal risk is minimised; she may manage to establish relatively human relationships with clients. She may find a steady protector/client, or make enough money to invest wisely for security in later life. All of this is possible, just as it is possible to have a rewarding career in the armed forces; but it doesn’t change the structural facts. Individual accommodations to a racist, or a patriarchal, or an imperialist system do not prove the system benign — though they may prove how adaptable and clever human beings can be, given a little luck to start with. Nor do they erase the immiseration of the majority."

http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2008/03/12/the-spitzer-saga-and-prostitution-as-work/

[hiaasenrocks]

51. LMAO

What pseudo-intellectual garbage. Especially the part about the "caste system."

Again, why do you want to diminish the right of a woman to do what she wishes with her body?
And, can you explain why it should be illegal to charge for something that can be given away legally?

I'm guessing you will continue to ignore these questions, which you have already done three times.

[noamnety]

56. I'm looking at a system of oppression. You're looking at an individual case.

You're refusing to acknowledge that the system is built on oppression and misogyny. I can't help you get to that.

[hiaasenrocks]

58. Your posts are nothing more than misandry.

And now, for the record, you have refused to answer those questions four times.

Not that you have to, of course. That's your choice. But it speaks volumes.

[readmoreoften]

52. Yes but those those "Hispanics picking crops" and "people of color cleaning whitefolks"

aren't earning $1000 a day. If they were, I seriously doubt they'd be complaining. It's not the occupation, it's the money. Most daycare workers are women. Why isn't that lumped into this category? Why should poor women wipe the asses of the children of rich men? Of course, if they were paid $1000 a day, I'd be called 'a profession' and people wouldn't mind doing it.

There is absolutely no connection between a stripper working through college by choice and a woman or boy forced into prostitution. No more than there is a connection between a woman designing computer hardware and an underaged girl working in an Indonesian factory building computers. In all these cases, the issue isn't the job, it's the pay.

[noamnety]

57. If you had a daughter

would you recommend to her that she looks into prostitution as a career field?

[hiaasenrocks]

59. Wait a minute. You were just arguing that we should not use individual cases.

Now you want to, because it suits your illogical argument.

Nice.

[noamnety]

60. Not an individual case, I'm asking about your attitude.

The reason is that a lot of people who claim it's just like any other work have a sudden shift in attitude when it's personal. I was wondering if you were one of them.

It's good respectable work - for those OTHER sorts of women, in other words.

[treestar]

9. In fact if it were decrminalized

Most women would be able to make some money off of it. Don't know how many would, but wherever it was likely to end in a one night stand, or any short term relationship, why not? Though in some cases it is the male who could charge.

The IRS would go nuts.

[Thepricebreaker]

10. Where were you when toe tapping in a bathroom was illegal? double standard.

[mondo joe]

14. Craig was not charged with soliciting prostitution, but invading the privacy

of another's bathroom stall.

There is no double standard there.

[MindPilot]

17. I did not know that!

I was under the impression he was charged with soliciting.

[mondo joe]

20. Craig pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of disorderly conduct .

I would say that most people who support legalizatation of prostitution don't think that's contrary to supporting legal protection of privacy in bathroom stalls.

[MindPilot]

15. Absolutely a double standard

I know you were not addressing me directly, but I do agree. It is perfectly OK to wander into a bar and solicit sex from someone of any gender as long as money is not directly involved. "Buy me a drink and I'll give you a blow job" is totally legal, but "give me 20 bucks and we'll go out your car..." is somehow a crime.

[mondo joe]

21. Not at all. It's okay to ask almost anyone almost anything in public.

Bathrooms stalls aren't public - those using one have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

I don't think Larry Craig should have the right to violate that privacy for anyone, male or female.

[MindPilot]

24. Agreed.

I actually wrote that before you enlightened me. I used the context of a bar, and I was more addressing the inconsistency of "it's ok to give it away, but not ok to charge for it" than the place.

Yeah, I think a right to be left alone in the bathroom is pretty much a given. I wish some of my co-workers would learn that--I do computer support--and once I literally had a person standing outside the stall asking me computer questions.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread...

edit: spelling

[mondo joe]

25. Got it.

There is no privacy for IT staff.

:hi:

[hiaasenrocks]

37. Let me get this straight.

You don't know where I was (otherwise you wouldn't have asked) yet you're accusing me of a double-standard?

Great. Perfect logic there.

[kotsu]

26. Prostituation is more a harm

to prostitutes themselves than to society. I personally think that it should be legalized and regulated. As it stands now in this country, women are abused, exploited, and jailed while those who profit from the business are hardly ever touched.

[Johonny]

31. I agree

as a public health issue, it's a lot better for it to be legal and regulated. For the person involved it would certainly help them. Both in society status since they wouldn't be labeled criminals, and in a safety status.

[Flabbergasted]

46. The best argument for legalizing prostitution is it reduces sex crimes.

As I'm writing this I'm realizing that I have no stats to back this up. Can anyone back me up?

[seabeyond]

49. i was going to ask you if you know this to be true. because i can see that it would feed, escalate

sex crimes. and another interesting statistic. they say death penalty will reduce crime. it does the opposite. it increase death penalty crimes.

[Flabbergasted]

53. Tell you what......I'll ask my source what his source was.....And then do the research....

I think this is true, but have nothing to back it up other than hearsay.

[tyedyeto]

50. Yet, the people here on this forum dissect everything about this case

including how old the woman is:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3005836

Give it a rest people. Both were consenting adults. If it affects a marriage, then so be it. But it has NOTHING to do with you or I.