Printable View
In Denmark the situation is as follows: It is legal to sell sex if you are an adult (+18 yrs.) But it is illegal to profit from another person's prostitution.
Some parties want to change this, to get at prostitution, but from another angle. They want it to be illegal to buy sex.
What do you think? Should prostitution be stopped, or is it up to the involved parties? Should it be legal? Should it be a criminal act to buy sex?
In Vancouver there is a lawsuit claiming that the "illegal to profit from another's prostitution + illegal to operate a Bawdy House, etc." is creating an unsafe working environment for them as they are basically forced to streetwalk and furthermore can't hire anyone who would serve a business function (security being the main consideration).
My personal view is that if one attempts to legalize it, it has to be legalized in exactly the opposite way. Streetwalking is illegal, specific zoning regulations as to where its allowed, and so on. Each house of ill repute would be considered a separate workplace, and prostitutes would have the right to unionize and other such considerations. The industry would be regulated, monitored, and subject to a sin tax that not only paid for all the monitoring but generated revenue for the government. It's a very complicated problem, its simpler for people to just leave it illegal.
If the people in a paticular area wish to have legalized prostitution, or allow porn to be made etc etc then let them as far as I am conserned its no skin off my nose.
I pretty much believe it should be regulated for safety purposes is all.
While I basically agree with denu on this, I think it should be a state-by-state decision with the state government regulating it (making sure health tests are regularly performed). The federal government shouldn't have any say in the matter. There are legal brothels out west. I believe the Bunny Ranch is a famous legal brothel here in the U.S.
I'm not sure I would even go as far as the state government. Make it a purely local issue. Of a community allows it, make it highly controlled, with frequent health inspections, local taxes, local protection for the workers. Personally, I don't see it as any more immoral than in selling your services as a plumber, electrician or doctor. And if it can generate tax income for the community, why not? You can't eliminate it anyway. All you can do is drive it underground, which benefits the pimps and endangers the prostitutes. Keeping it legal, with proper controls and oversight, is better for everyone.
Same in the UK, and for what looks like a very good reason: to attack the pimps instead of the prostitures. But the unintended consequence (maybe not unintended) is that people who organise sex parties, like the famous Cynthia Payne, are only safe if they can prove they're not making a penny out of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by thir
They are trying to do this by the back door here, by trying to making it a criminal offence to buy sex with someone who is being coerced into it. The excuse being that some prostitutes are trafficked from eastern Europe and enslaved by gangs. This undoubtedly happens, though it appears that the people promoting the law have greatly exagerated the numbers (it turns out that the enormous figure they often quote was arrived at by taking some policeman's blind guess at the number there might be in a particular notorious red light district, and multiplying it by everything the author of the study could think of), and it is undoubtedly a very bad thing.Quote:
Some parties want to change this, to get at prostitution, but from another angle. They want it to be illegal to buy sex.
But there is already a raft of laws on the books for fighting traficking, if the police could be bothered to use them, and making someone criminally liable for unknowingly taking part in an illegal act is bad law. It is transparently obvious that the aim is to scare men off prostitutes completely.
The backers are the sort of sex-haters who give feminists a bad name, and blank out any discussion of how to make prostitution safer; they talk of prostitutes as if they were too stupid or childish to know better and need to be saved whether they want it or not. They show blatant contempt for the sex workers' unions, and if anyone speaks up to say "I'm a prostitute and it's not all bad, I chose to do it and all I want from the law is the same protection as any worker," she gets called a liar and a slut in equal measure.
Is my opinion clear?
I think what would work best is:
(I) Federal Government makes it legal for the states to make it legal.
(II) States make it legal
(III) Municipalities control zoning.
If a municipality doesn't want a sex trade they just don't zone any land as ok for brothel's.
I think trying to do it exclusively at the state level is an absolute disaster. Look at medical marijuana where the feds were going after state dealers for a long time. Even now that is a NAFTA lawsuit waiting to happen. A medical marijuana company in Vancouver for instance could sue the US under NAFTA for anti-competitive barriers relating to selling in California, the most significant of which is probably the fact that its illegal to transport across say Washington and Oregon.
I cannot see why it is wrong fora man to buy sex, or for a woman to sell it. However, that seems to be the way British puritanism seems to be taking us. (It also seems that it would not be wrong for a woman to buy sex, but that's another debate ... or is it?)
I cannot see how it is fair or just to make sex-hungry males criminally responsible for buying sex from a sex slave when there is no reasonable liklihood that he could discover this other than by making the kind of enquiry the police had thus far failed to make.
Just some FYI...the USA allready does allow this issue to be regulated at the state level...so far only the fine state of Nevada has legalized it however.
Just a comment as to the roots of the moralistic attitude regarding the buying and selling of sex: I think there were two main variables that made the sex trade so hard to stomach, socially:
One is that sex would often result in pregnancy, and society was not structured or prepared to deal with those children. Society was also not able to deal with the issues surrounding abortion (in the past, licensing something that should be unavailable to married women, de facto breeders that they were, was not an option). Hence, it was easier to "shoot the messenger".
Another is that many serious or fatal diseases were spread via prostitution, and again, society had no way to manage this. Diagnositics were barely existant, much less treatments. Fatherless families and motherless children, plus children deformed or disabled congenitally by their parents... again, it was easier to shoot the messenger.
So society has created one adaption or mal-adaption after another, over the years, to try to suppress the sex trade. Which leads to the question: since both those issues are now fairly easy to address (though not super easy to address), how can society confront those convoluted moral structures, that have now become more of a hindrance than a help?
It seems to be a slow moving wave over Norther Europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
If ok for one it must be ok for the other. But maybe some think that men can protect themselves better.Quote:
(It also seems that it would not be wrong for a woman to buy sex, but that's another debate ... or is it?)
[quote]
I cannot see how it is fair or just to make sex-hungry males criminally responsible for buying sex from a sex slave when there is no reasonable liklihood that he could discover this other than by making the kind of enquiry the police had thus far failed to make.[/QUOTE
I disagree. In DK, at least, these people are kept in a house and not let out. it shouldn't be too difficult to spot, although there may be borderline situations. Even if more difficult, it falls on the customer to look before he fucks.
IMO buying sex is equal to buying anything else: If you have any kind of conscience, you try to avoid for instance stolen goods or animals from threatened species. Being horny is not excuse, noone says you have a right to have someone standing by if you feel sex-hungry. That is the same argument for rape. Sex, paid for or not, should be consensual.
I agree that the police seems to be falling down on the job, but that is another problem.
If it's possible to tell, then it should be a criminal act to have sex with a woman being held against her will as a sex slave. In fact it is already.
But if it's possible to tell, then the police should move in, and the women released, shouldn't they? It's not for the general public to do police's investigation work for them.
If it isn't possible to tell, then no-one should be incriminated for buying sex innocently if some time later, possibly years later, after the man has married and started a family, it is discovered that the prostitutes were being forced to sell themselves by some trafficker.
Another example of this comes from a case where a man was arrested for having sex with a minor. He met her at a bar (19+ Admission only), the bar served both of them alcohol. She told him she was of age, he had good reason to believe her (her ID passed muster and got her both in the place, and got her drinks), and she looked around 19 also.Quote:
Originally Posted by MMI
After the fact the bar was found to have served alcohol to minors and not taken proper measures to ensure IDs were genuine. They got off with a warning and kept their liquor license.
The man is doing time for statutory rape.
Regarding Brothels:
Why am I responsible for knowing someone's working hours or comings/goings in a business I have no connection to other than as a customer? This isn't the case in any other business. Should we start carting people to jail for wearing or carrying items that are trademark violations (Fake Louis Vutton, etc.)?
I think if the individual comes into the knowledge that something illegal is going on they should be legally responsible at least as far as not participating. I completely agree its not up to the public to do the police's investigation work for them.
You titled this silly laws! Then why not get real with them?Quote:
Originally Posted by SadisticNature
Kirkland, Illinois, law forbids bees to fly over the village or through any of its streets.
It is against the law for a monster to enter the corporate limits of Urbana, Illinois.
Chicago law prohibits eating in a place that is on fire.
Alaska:
1. You can't look at a moose from an aeroplane.
2. Kangaroos are not allowed in barber shops at any time.
3. Even though it is legal to hunt a bear, it is illegal to wake a bear and take a picture for photo opportunities.
4. It is an offence to push a live moose out of a moving aeroplane.
5. It is State Policy that all emergencies are held to a minimum.
Arkansas:
1. It is illegal to mispronounce Arkansas while in Arkansas
There is a difference between silly laws that are laughable because they are completely unenforcable, or because everyone knows they won't be enforced and silly LAWS that get enforced and everyone questions why.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Some time back Chicago passed a law regarding smoking in certain public areas. Not surprising now but then maybe. But the funny thing was that passage of such a law made it clear that the people making these laws do not know what alraedy exists.Quote:
Originally Posted by SadisticNature
Prior to passage of the above mentioned law the City Code carried a law on smoking. I can not remember all of the particulars but it was Ch 100 1/2 (that is not a mistake, but the actual reference). The part I needed was related to smoking in schools. Smoking in schools was prohibited, except in administration offices on the first floor. For the school I was attending this meant that the head of the college could not smoke in his office as it was on the second floor.
The law was in place and enforceable but there was no penalty attached!
It does appear that the code has suffered some changes, though.
Which was exactly my point. I believe the girls at the legal brothels have regular health checks and the brothels are very clean...not to mention very secure.Quote:
Originally Posted by denuseri
Btw - Didn't the Bunny Ranch even have a reality show?
Quote:
Originally Posted by steelish
I believe there were only two or three brothels in the entire state. They also were restricted by county and pretty much way out in the boonies. At least one has closed and it is possible that only one continues to exist in the state.
Apparently I am mistaken. A listing of current and closed brothels in NV reports 49, most seem to be called some kind of ranch. Do know that it is illegal in Clark County, where Las Vegas is. No I don't know how many are closed other than Mustang Ranch!
Found it eight are closed and only permitted in two counties, Storey and Lyon. Leave out Reno as well as Las Vegas!
Nevada is also facing discrimination challenges over allowing female prostitution but not male prostitution.Quote:
Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Regards ian2411
I have been reading the posts, and one thing that I have noticed, and that is they are all about the males buying and the females selling.
The subject of women buying off gigolos has only been lightly spoken of, but they must surely come under the same laws, they flaunt themselves under the name of male escort agencies. Now let’s be fair, because I cannot believe that a young woman would pay £200 for an escort for the evening, wouldn’t want a little more than a £20 meal and a few dances afterwards.
I have a policeman friend that was in the armed forces with me, he has told me that they know of all the prostitutes and all the whore houses in his City. Although the only people that seem to be prosecuted are the curb crawlers, the reason being the police very rarely use entrapment or the like, we only like to go after the eastern trafficking. This brings me to the point of asking, if the police know all this information why haven’t they closed it down, but then my friend did say with idiotic conviction, “At least we know where they are.” This leads me to believe that the overworked British Police Force, are by themselves legalising it.
Regards ian 2411
Or it could simply be that they don't want to take the chance on sweeping up some police superintendents or MP's during a raid on a brothel. At least on the streets they're only inconveniencing the lower classes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ian 2411
I find the whole concept of trying to stop all prostitution to be stupid and dangerous. People are going to pay for sex. Always have, always will. Legalizing it allows for safer conditions for both the prostitutes and their clients. Then you can let the police clean up the streets and the illegal houses.
well, there are some things that i would not consider work heh. that aside its just hyprocrasy. most jurisdictions uphold anti prostitution laws becuase of christian or religious considerations not legal or saferty ones. however the foundation for all three major religions allowed prostitution to go on undisturbed. it was not a sin in the old testament. old testament figures paid for pussy and it was no big deal for them, it was a part of the culture at the tme. the new testament permitted slavery go check for yourself and no whee did it repeal any allowance for prostitution though it did suggest better ways of social interaction. islam permits a victorious army to capture female slaves and use them sexually and treat them as property yet u can get stoned to death for selling pussy. isreal is founded on the old testament that allowed prostitution but u never hear those fundementalist saying, its allowed if not specifically desired.
evryone loves porno websites and everyone visits them for freebees and a whole lot of people end up paying for what they see and find they like. thats buying a sexual service, so u telling me you can py to see another man fuck a woman in the ass but you cant pay to get aBJ. its bullshit. ofcourse tere is a very simple way around the foolishness and i am surprises all low income prostitutes and johns dont use it. just buy a cheap ass used camcorder for 20 bucks and have it running while u fuck your brains out. if the cops come just say you were filming a scene and give your self the title of producer actor director and the girl as a starlet, no officer i am not payng for sex, i am filming a scene, i am an independent film maker. no officer she is a worker i hired specifically for this scene. yes officer thisis performance art, you can look it up in the regulations. thats ok officer its a common mistake.. thats legal in all 50 states and the district of colombia hah america is full of hypocrites.
Marijuana is from a family of plant many people are allergic to. I'd be happy for it to be legalized as long as where you smoke it is subject to a similar level of conditions as cigarettes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Net_Jock
Prostitution it depends a lot on the regulations, if its done in a smart way its far better, if its done haphazardly then its a huge issue.
Pornography can be tricky as to where to draw the line. Obviously child porn should be illegal, straightforward vanilla porn should be legal. Most BDSM and fetish stuff should probably be legal, but where does one draw the lines on say animals, exhibitionism, heavy SM or torture, fake rape, etc.
The "sin tax" represents the fact that its a heavy regulated industry, and a luxury rather than a necessary good. This means the government can afford to tax it heavily to pay for regulation and essential services. I also think legal marijuana with 30% taxation would be far cheaper than illegal marijuana. In fact flooding the market to that extent should make it cheaper than medical marijuana is currently.
I think people will be happy that they will be able to get these things without fear of arrest, and if the way to make them legal is through government regulation then charging for that regulation is necessary.
I would go even further, making it legal within your own home, if you wish it, but not in public.And there should be test, similar to the breathalyzer for alcohol, which could determine a person's ability to drive safely.Quote:
Originally Posted by SadisticNature
Agreed. Legalizing it and restricting it to brothels, which are regulated and controlled for health purposes, would reduce the criminal element involvement. And, of course, taxing it would add a revenues to the city/state coffers. Probably a LOT of money.Quote:
Prostitution it depends a lot on the regulations, if its done in a smart way its far better, if its done haphazardly then its a huge issue.
As is necessary now, all porn producers should be required to provide proof on demand that the actors are legal adults, and children under the age of 21 (IMO) should not be permitted. (If you ain't old enough to vote, you ain't old enough to do porn.) Other than that, it should be up to the courts to determine if the acts depicted were performed without prior consent. Animal sex presents a slew of problems, though. The animals can't give consent, naturally. But is a male dog, for example, actually harmed by boinking a willing female? Would a female horse, say, even notice a human male going into her? Tough questions.Quote:
Pornography can be tricky as to where to draw the line. Obviously child porn should be illegal, straightforward vanilla porn should be legal. Most BDSM and fetish stuff should probably be legal, but where does one draw the lines on say animals, exhibitionism, heavy SM or torture, fake rape, etc.
SOME people will be happy. Others won't be at all happy if people can legally do things they consider immoral. Based on what we see making its way into the news these days, though, a lot of those people will still take advantage of it, and scream all the louder about the "sin" being permitted.Quote:
I think people will be happy that they will be able to get these things without fear of arrest, and if the way to make them legal is through government regulation then charging for that regulation is necessary.
Let me get this straight: If I dress slutty, stand on the right corner and wait, a man will come by, give me sex, and then give me money, too? What's the catch, lol?Quote:
I cannot see why it is wrong fora man to buy sex, or for a woman to sell it. However, that seems to be the way British puritanism seems to be taking us. (It also seems that it would not be wrong for a woman to buy sex, but that's another debate ... or is it?)
In all seriousness, though, a lot of the problems surrounding prostitution are caused precisely because it is illegal (pimping, sex slaves, spread of disease, underground trading), but as SadisticNature pointed out, if it were legalized then governments would be responsible for regulating it and that would be a giant project. And since right now a simple STD test isn't even covered by insurance companies if you test negative (but if you have it then they pay, how sick is that?), I doubt any politician anywhere is going to be willing to tackle this.
On a side note, my father was a cop for twenty years in a very large city and they knew all the prostitutes and they didn't bother them for the most part, unless there was something else involved like assault or robbery or drugs, because they'd rather go after the "real criminals" (his words), like thieves, drug dealers, gangs, murderers, etc.
I fail to see how it needs to be any giant kind of govenrment controlled project myself, we have a state that has legalized prostitution in the USA and there are countries in the world where it is legal and it has been in the past completely legal on too many occassions to recount here; so...whats the big deal?
No, the Goverment could Tax it, Test it (For STD's) keep it clean, and safe,Prostitution will ALWAYS be around, let's make the most out of it, Legalized, control it and make money on taxing it
Well, the catch is that if he was anyone you'd likely want to fuck, he wouldn't have to pay for it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer Williams
I recall a French novel where the heroine's niece declares her intention to leave home and live by whoring. The heroine cures her of the idea by taking a walk down the street saying "Would you want to do it with him? - with him? With him?"
I agree with denu, it doesn't sound so big. There are plenty of agencies tasked with enforcing health and safety laws at work, they could carry the extra load. And if it were legal, the sex workers' unions would be able to organise properly and carry some weight.Quote:
In all seriousness, though, a lot of the problems surrounding prostitution are caused precisely because it is illegal (pimping, sex slaves, spread of disease, underground trading), but as SadisticNature pointed out, if it were legalized then governments would be responsible for regulating it and that would be a giant project.
The most dangerous laws are the ones that are only enforced when the cops feel like it. It means that you depend on the cops' goodwill, so they can do as they please and nobody dares to argue. That way lies bribery and corruption.Quote:
On a side note, my father was a cop for twenty years in a very large city and they knew all the prostitutes and they didn't bother them for the most part, unless there was something else involved like assault or robbery or drugs, because they'd rather go after the "real criminals" (his words), like thieves, drug dealers, gangs, murderers, etc.
There's no catch ... we're good like that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jennifer Williams
lol fjirst we legalise prostitution, and the buying of it. then we nationalise it and make a state run industry. Pay the girls a very handsome income per customer. collected by a government official at the door, and he gets a ticket .then they can have legitimate lives are employed by the government and equal to a civil servants on all scales .except the wage. Then we have a profit from their sex, a wage tax and entertainment tax that the johns pay, and taxes from all the girls and guys who work. we could clean up the natiional debt, eliminate a lot of crime and everyone is happy LOL too simple
the john gets a ticket to give to the girl who turns it in to get her money.
I think the main issue with legal prostitution is finding a way to regulate that keeps it safe for all concerned and keeps the pimps and organized crime out .
I do not think it should be illegal to sell sex. I do think that brothels/massage parlors or home-based businesses are greatly preferable to street walking but I can understand the desire to not have pimps/madams profiting off this. The last thing we need is for this to go corporate and have Wall Street pressuring pimps to keep those sessions short and wages low. I think condoms and regular STD testing should be mandatory (a lot of the porn biz already does this).
The problem is you can structure the biz relationship many ways to avoid admitting the reality that a paid security guard is often going to actually be a pimp or that a booking service is really going to be a madam or that a motel or red light rowhouse is really just a brothel with a brothel owner making most of the money. How do you make sure that the vast majority of the money stays with the workers and that they don't end up being exploited by the owners of red-light rooms, or "security guards".
That is one reason why efforts to ban ads on craigslist and elsewhere on the internet are counter-productive since craigslist provides a safer way for sole-proprietors to find clients without relying on madams or walking the streets and then needing "security"
In terms of harm reduction and simple good policy, legalizing both the activities of the prostitutes and their customers would go a long way towards keeping things safer.
Isn't this basically a problem in any industry? The owners/managers make much more money than the laborers. But something along the lines of beauty shops/hair salons is an option. The owner supplies the building and security for a fixed fee while the prostitute works as an independent contractor.Quote:
Originally Posted by thedominthehat
Not to mention providing tax dollars and licensing fees to cash-strapped communities.Quote:
In terms of harm reduction and simple good policy, legalizing both the activities of the prostitutes and their customers would go a long way towards keeping things safer.
I wonder if you could claim a medical deduction for using a licensed prostitute, for stress reduction. Maybe with a prescription?
I am glad I read yours before I responded to the previous message. Seeing that it was you is why that happened. Often save me the time taken to reply.
Just a few points though. The previous writer seems to want no management at all. You on the other hand seem to understand some management is necessary. I think it is likely that you will already know of the necessity for the points I am going to include.
[/LIST]
- Providing a facility
- Rent, or mortgage
- PMI if there is a mortgage
- heat
- hot water
- electricity
- License fees
- Liability insurance
- business insurance
- Services
- HR services
- Taxes
- Medical evaluation
- provider licensing
- payroll
- security
- supplies
- maintenance
I am sure there may be a few things I overlooked but I do think this explains why it may appear that the management is taking more than they should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Duncan, your lists are valid if the business is set up along the lines of a bordello, such that the prostitutes actually work for the manager. What I was suggesting, though, was more along the lines of someone providing a workspace for independent contractors. In that case, the items on your first list may be applicable (I'm not sure about the business insurance: basically you are renting out space, not running a business from that space.) The contractors (prostitutes) pay a fixed monthly fee for use of the space, which may or may not include security, and are free to charge whatever the traffic will bear for their services.
I'm not sure which type of operation would be more beneficial to the prostitutes, though. Probably wind up with both kinds, the bordello model being more upscale and therefore more expensive. And probably safer for all concerned, as well. Chances are you would still have street-walkers, too, but they would be more likely to be drug addicts and those unable to get licenses because of legal issues or health issues. A customer would (literally) take his life in his hands by choosing one of those.
I agree that much is variable in this list. But the objection listed, not so sure, the leasing of space is a business.
If some of the things in the second list are eliminated then you basically have a street walker with an office.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thorne
Within a couple of weeks, it will become legal in Ontario. No one knows exactly what that means exactly because the illegality was struck down by the courts, and the government has vowed to fight back, but as of yet, nothing has happened.