For you, maybe. Why do you think you have the right to define this for everyone?

Of course you're going to bring rape into this! It's what you people DO. Even though it has nothing to do with consensual sex between two adults.

Look. No one is telling you to fuck without feeling anything. That's not anyone's position to define for you. At the same time, you have no position to tell others what they can and cannot do with their own genitals between consenting adults.

Ahahahhaa, man. You know, a lot of people work at Walmart because they have no other opportunities. Walmart has really POOR employment practices. In fact, a LOT of companies have very poor employment practices. Why are you picking prostitution as the arguably exploitative employment opportunity alone, here? Because it involves tits and vag, and not the IRS or payroll? What defines your retarded arguments, exactly?

Women AND men (did you forget that men whore themselves out, too??) have choices.

In a world where prostitution is LEGAL, they have even more choice and more protection than they do in the world YOU seem to want for them.

Are you really this dense.

Wait.

So you think -BY DEFAULT- if a woman should want to be a prostitute, she doesn't know any better and has no other choices in life?

You're an idiot. Do you KNOW any women? At all?

No. I do think that giving prostitutes other opportunities would drastically decrease the number of prostitutes because prostitution is (probably) tough, gruesome, degrading work. Maybe it is pure glamor though.

So how are you concluding this, exactly?

Just 'cause?

I mean, that seems to be the argument here on a whole.

"Why do you think this? Can you rationalize it?"
"Just because, jeez"
"wow, okay."

I really do want you to justify "tough, gruesome, and degrading."

Seriously, as Sass said above about wal-mart, I OUTLINED two pages back of my experiences at that place, what was expected of me, and how I was thanked for it when I wanted to move up in the company to make a measily 9 DOLLARS A FUCKING HOUR.

The work was tough, TVs fell on people's heads because the management decided "OH HAY THIS WILL WORK BETTER IF THE 42 INCH PLASMA'S ARE PUT UP ON THE HIGHEST BACK ROOM SHELVING"

Cleaning up kid vomit, cleaning up diaharea because someone coudnl't make it to the bathroom in time, and on the rare occassion having to report to managagement that there is a transvestite walking around the clothing department in a bra and panties is gruesome work.

Degrading? How about you have some 400lb fat peice of shit calling you nothing but a worthless, good for nothing cock sucker because you don't have a movie in he wants to see and you can't pop him in his fucking jaw like he deserves? Go fuck yourself Tambur. Go fuck yourself with a rusty god damn saw blade.

What "other opportunities" could be offered that would pay a few hundred dollars an hour?

I am not going to say I am wise in what the majority of prostitutes feel about their job, but I do know one and she has changed my view that prostitutes are somehow victims. The woman I know was never sexually abused, and comes from a home where the parents have been married for 30+ years. From what she has said to me, I get the impression she likes the power and control she has over the men in that they want her enough to pay her $300+ an hour. She has also told me that while some of the men she sees are not attractive, she does see men that are not only attractive, but damn good in bed and actually make the effort to please her as well as themselves.

This woman also has a screening process of some sort and doesn't see just anyone. She has never been hurt in any way by a client that wasn't consensual.

Grail, I understand that working at Walmart sucks, but I don't think it is as bad as being a prostitute most of the time.

Look, I have already said that I want prostitution to be legal. I well conceive of some people who even enjoy being prostitutes, although I think that that is probably a minority.

When prostitution is legalized, it would be good if efforts were put in place to give women in urban and rural areas opportunities other than prostitution. I do have a problem with it becoming the profession that impoverished people default into. A young girl or boy in a rural area may only have prostitution as viable work in order to survive. That seems to be exploitative to a cruel degree.

Do you disagree with that?

As to whether it would be a bad job if it were legal, who can tell for sure? Like we have already agree, there are people for everything. The point is, we have no data and are basically discussing opinions. As for me, I think it would probably be terrible, but I have worked on a Rape/Sexual Assault line and dealt with a lot of impoverished women who have had to resort to it. I can see that you prefer keeping it a woman's choice. All I hold is that this choice probably wouldn't be so free.

I am sure lots of women like that exist. But I still contend that the majority is far from that. I don't really think that's such a controversial statement.

You didn't answer my question.

None. I don't think that is a huge problem, though. Most people don't need those types of wages.

But if someone wants those wages, what's to stop them from becoming a prostitute even after all of those government opportunities you want to happen suddenly appear?

Nothing. I have said that I am perfectly fine with legal prostitution, as long is it is not the profession people default into.

See, Tamburlaine, I think that whenever you hear the word prostitute, you think of the street-walking, coke addict, abused women that you solicit on a Saturday night downtown who ARE in fact taken advantage of by not only their johns, but by the police.

Yes, very much.

There are women -and I say this from personal experience- who would be HAPPY to chose prostitution if only it was legal. Women who are NOT impoverished and/or abused. They're very intelligent women who think that it's a fair way to make money. I know at least 2 with whom I've had conversations about it, and they have made it very clear that if it was legal and if they were protected by law and were permitted to work in a legal establishment of their choosing (like any other job), they would drop what they're doing and become a prostitute right away. It's the oldest (and one of the most lucrative) jobs in the history of man - job security is almost guaranteed provided you're good at what you do (LIKE IN ANY OTHER JOB)

Again, you're thinking of the MINORITY of prostitutes who actually walk the street and get the shit beaten out of them because they have to feed their kids. Those women need options, yes. But then, so do a lot of people who aren't associated with prostitution. So let's not just assume that ONLY STREET-WALKING HOES need "options."

I assure you, they are NOT the majority. Do some research. The majority of the prostitutes out there are not suffering.

So before you start saying "prostitutes have no options," do some fucking homework.

Of course, not all women think prostitution would work for them. And that's totally cool. I don't think being an accountant would work for me, SO I DON'T FUCKING DO IT. See how that works. I don't outlaw accounting because I think it's a tough, gruesome, degrading job.

I don't actually have anything against accounting or accountants. ;_;

I don't think you understand what I mean by options. But I am gonna let it go because we aren't getting anywhere and not listening to one another.

If you care however, you should watch this video:

YouTube - Noam Chomsky - Noam vs. Michel Foucault (Eng. subs)

See, Tamburlaine, what you need to do is explain what you mean by "options." I think there's only one meaning in this situation, but I'm curious to see what you come up with.

But hey, feel free to post links to youtube videos instead of actually arguing your position. That always works.

I have to wonder just how sustainable that rate would be if prostitution were legal. I don't think it's economically possible for everyone to make this kind of money. I suppose this could tap into the multi-billion dollar porn industry, but how much of that is married guys who wouldn't be able to get away with visiting a brothel.

It'll be just like any other business most likely, where you bill out to the client at $150 an hour, but your take is $35 an hour plus healthcare, 401k, 2 weeks vacation, sick time, etc. You'd probably get a cut of the profit for any new business you bring in. The big money would be in running a chain of brothels.

As for whether sex should be different than any other commodity in a secular society, that's an interesting thing to ponder, but it clearly is. Consider how much more serious (and frightening) we consider a sexual assault compared to a physical assault.

While this viewpoint may hold true for some percentage of people, the issue of rape is still only nominally relevant (it involves sex).

One of the primary horrifying factors of rape is the violent loss of control over one's body. Legalization of prostitution on the other hand is an act which could potentially give many women more control over their bodies.

As mentioned earlier, many women who are part of the prostitution market in America are caught in a catch-22, where they may be subject to slave-like working conditions, yet have no legal recourse due to their participation in a crime. Discussion of rape simply muddies this issue.

Money-wise, this is like most illicit activities (drugs, weapons, ect...) When made legal, the supply and demand curve shifts, and the ready availability of prostitutes (drugs, weapons) changes prices. In the specific case of prostitution, there would likely still be a premium placed on the service, due to social bias, and there would also be the potential for price changes due to regulation / taxation. Widescale legalized prostitution would probably be subject to intense regulation scrutiny, much as the cited case in Nevada is.

Wanted to hit this point a bit back as well, since the dirty / dangerous jobs show a similar reasoning as being used towards prostitution, but without the extremism. The point as I understand it was that these are undesirable occupations which people would not choose given a choice. (Also "industry work" is really vague, so I've taken it to mean heavy industry work.)

First off, dangerous jobs are legal, they are generally well regulated, and they often pay a premium based upon the conditions (danger in their case). They have experienced numerous scandals and problems during their history, and social economic forces have acted over time to correct the problems. All of these things are similar to a legalized form of prostitution (looking at areas like Amsterdam / Nevada)

People regularly choose to work dangerous jobs and are often proud of their association with the job. They cite various reasons, but some like the extra pay, some like the thrill, and some just like the type of work. Some would choose these types of work over jobs which require years of school and study. (Anecdotally, I know several foundry and mining workers who hold this view) Given the option in a free market, reasonable people pursue work which may be undesirable to the public at large.

Finally, these jobs and workers exist because of a need in society, their work is as important as normal 9-5 jobs, and will exist until that need goes away. If we attempt to reduce the number of workers in this field, then the cost of finding laborers to perform the work will increase, or they will be found from a different source.

In the case of prostitution, people will always want to have sex, and there will always be those who can't get enough, yet have money. If it is illegal, then prices are high, there is no transparency, dangerous conditions are not corrected, and workers are more often exploited. If it is legal, efforts to convince natives to not enter the industry are irrelevant, as this will simply force the suppliers to search elsewhere for workers (immigrants, black market)

I'm sorry but this is not a hentai movie, get that retarded shit out of here.

The argument that sex is super-powerful because people get upset about rape doesn't hold water. Rape isn't horrifying because it involves sex; it's horrifying because it violates a person's control over their own body. That's why we prosecute date-rapists who drug women and rape them in their sleep. The victim may not even remember the actual rape or derive any direct harm from the experience; it's the violation that horrifies. It has nothing to do with the sex and everything to do with being pulled around on somebody else's puppet strings.

I think I am probably the only person in this thread who knows someone who was an actual prostitute. She is perfectly fine, had a very normal childhood, and because she worked for a legal escort service (despite performing illegal acts), she was kept safer and healthier than her street-walking sisters.

This wasn't some downtrodden minority or broken woman. It was someone who realized her pussy could print money because she was pretty and had could use it. She made the choice to become a prostitute to help raise her kids and give them the things she had as a youth because honestly, she was a little too dumb to make that kind of money in a fancy career.

And there are a lot of girls like her. A lot. Nobody should be forcefully put into the position that some prostitutes can find themselves in, but if a woman wants to consciously make that choice then they should be allowed to and they should be fucking protected. Just like people who become cops, or miners, any of the other innumerable dangerous jobs. End of story. Fuck your moral outrage or whatever pedestal you seem to be placing sex and/or women on.

By the way, her story about when she got hired by Charlie Sheen is fucking classic.

You realise most academics think Noam Chomsky is sort of out of his mind these days, yeah? You and KP keep running off at the mouth about things like the plight of the downtrodden woman and the suffering of the poor people being damaged by this. What you are is the victim of a sad, and far too common, problem: You're educated retarded.

You quote a single study and act like you've solved the problem. You're talking social theory, at BEST we're taking shots in the dark as anthropologists and sociologists. A single study is a drop in a bucket of water. Go read Kulick's books on the Brasilian transvesti prostitutes, or Taboo, or his paper on prostitution in Sweden. How about Cauthen's legalizing prostitution work in his ethics? Do you know anything of Sweden's system of selling sex being legal, but buying it being illegal? You know what happened? The prostitutes got pissed.

Why? Because they chose a vocation that was legal, and now the government was meddling in it for their own good. They didn't want the help, but damnit, the moral highground demanded that they save those poor hookers. Who didn't need or want saving.

You want legal systems based on morality. You can't have it. Morality is a personal choice, and if you don't want to fuck for money, from either side of the c-note, then you don't have to. But the fact you want to legislate it so you can feel slightly less icky is so condescending it hurts. Look at how Germany handles legalized prostitution. Do some fucking research on the subject before you start shooting off at the mouth.

You mentioned how cultures react to prostitution. There are whole parts of the world, white man, who don't think sex is a big deal. The idea of sex for money being degrading would be HILARIOUS to a group like the Muinane. It's just sex. It's fun. Move on with your life, True Believer. You don't understand what the social theory says about this because you haven't read it. A large section of the modern world has legalized prostitution, and as you want to keep slapping around the Dutch for shutting down part of the red light district, allow me to educate you: The problem in Holland wasn't the legalized prostitution, it was poorly policed parts of the city dealing in children instead of grown adults. Legalized prostitution is doing very well in Holland, they just closed the places that weren't by the book and hired more inspectors.

Those crazy dutch.

I did some ethnography with prostitutes, and my favourite anecdote was from a Swedish woman. She, along with some 5000 others in her country, was a licensed physical therapist who would have sex with her clients (who were largely disabled or otherwise unable to go out and hire a prostitute themselves) for money, often as a form of therapy. She found an improvement ration in her client's mental state that destroyed prescription drug use. She can't do that anymore with Sweden's new laws. She has a lot of money, many job options, and she chooses to be a prostitute because it's safe in a legalized, and well run environment.

You know why Vegas is a shambles? Because it's one oasis in a desert of intolerance. It's not policed properly and there is no societal structure in place in the US to support a legalized sex industry because of ignorant fucking morallly presumptuous jokes like the two of you. Read some books, get some life experience, and stop thinking your arguments are even remotely valid.

Everyone has the right to an opinion, but unless it's informed, no one is required to take you seriously.

"Fucking is legal. Selling is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"

http://images.eonline.com/eol_images...rge.062308.jpg

P.S.

If you think sex is life changing, you haven't had it with more than three people. Just saying.

Prostitution actually isn't legal in Vegas, but it sure as fuck goes on.

Because come on, it's Vegas. We just call them escorts and look the other way when they start sucking.

Well of course, with anything illicit, there's a fee you pay due to the illegal nature of the product. No doubt prostitutes will take a hit by both the legality of their new job and the increased competition, as well as the overhead for providing a product in a safe environment (std screenings, etc), and of course the wages will all be reported to the IRS for taxation.

On the other hand, with legality comes a larger (and more frequent) customer base. Though certain women will be making less money than they would in a black market, they would be working more frequently. Not to mention the extraordinary cuts that a pimp would take out of a prostitute's profits would probably mitigate the cuts that a government-licensed brothel would take. Overall a woman may find herself making more.

Don't forget that not every prostitute makes $150 an hour. Depending on your clientele and your services, you could be making vastly more or less. High priced callgirls are paid significantly more not because they're beautiful or they'll do a hot lunch, but because they'll be discreet. I wouldn't expect this to change.

Reno would be a very good case study on the differences in take-home a licensed prostitute would make over illegal ones in other areas.

edit: Don't forget that for many people, security while performing your job is worth more than its weight in gold. Prostitutes working Reno may prefer the security of not getting killed by truck drivers over making 20% less than their counterparts elsewhere.

Legalized prostitution in certain places, no?

Not within city limits, Deni.

I think the closest town to Vegas for legal whores is Pahrump

Okay, in my being very tired and overworked by school right now, by Vegas I meant Nevada.

Tamburlaine is an idiot and I don't want to defend him, but I think you're shooting yourself in the foot with this sentence. How can the sex act be a "violation" unless there's something special about genital contact? Otherwise, it's no more a violation than drugging someone and, say, putting your finger in his/her mouth. The fact that a given individual might personally feel one to be more icky than the other would have no legal weight if the majority of America didn't share Tamburlaine's sentiments. Otherwise, the law would focus on the element of coercion/sedation instead of the sex.

See also: sexual abuse of children. I know it's a separate issue (and probably irrelevant to the behavior of adults), but the prevalent belief is that there's something special about sexual experiences that will addle a child's brain.

Anyway, since legalizing prostitution would make for a good experiment to see how much of America's sex-is-damaging attitude is cultural (as if Deni's post isn't enough), I can only assume that Tamburlaine is not only painfully paternalistic but also anti-science.