Poll: Prostitution

[HazukiHawkins]

And you really think that a (example) 16 year old girl selling herself, risking pregnancy, STD's and goodness knows what isn't a victim? Of herself, if nobody else.

She's NOT "selling herself", she's selling companionship and intimate access to her body. Her heart and soul do not belong to the person she's sharing a bed with, and neither does her mind; but then, I don't suppose people who use expressions like that think much of a prostitute's heart, soul or mind, anyway...?

Besides, I'm pretty sure that a legalized brothel would require its prospective employees to have IDs, maybe have the employment interviews conducted by someone who could tell if a girl is really 16 and is using a fake one? Yes, I find that easy enough to imagine.

16 seems a bit too low for me.

I agree, what I meant was that she would have to be 18 or 20 or whatever and have an ID to back up her age (at least in Sweden, I'm fairly sure you need to be 18 to get an ID).

 

[mmaruda]

I think you are all missing one important point: prostitutes themselves do not want legalization of their trade - they do not want to pay taxes. Legalization would just make the state their second pimp.

 

[HazukiHawkins]

Condoms don't protect the wearer fully in any scenario, it does not protect against genital ulcer diseases, only protects against certain HPVs effectively, and doesn't even offer full protection for sexual secretions.
They also do not protect against even a small percentage of common comunicable diseases which are risks to anyone that even touches other people, let alone has sex with them.
Condoms also don't protect against anything 5% of the time anyway because they often times fail even if used correctly and before expiration, so there really is no way to be fully protected.
Thats why on condom wrappers it says:

"latex condoms may reduce, but does not eliminate, the risk of pregnancy and the risk of catching or spreading HIV"

Condoms are for reducing the chances, not eliminating them

Also if were talking about people who are getting paid to have sex, then I think its safe to say their sex acts might involve more then just strictly vaginal intercourse with protection. So if they participate in something like anal sex, fellatio, cunillings, or any other alternative, then the risk only increases.

Not to burst your bubble there, but here's a thought... Wear two.
5% * 5%, that's... what, 0.25%? A quarter of a percent chance that one condom will fail AND the other condom will also fail. Granted, this might be expensive and less comfortable, but considering the risks, wouldn't it be worth those downsides? And if any individual feels it wouldn't, isn't that a risk they choose to take?

 

[The Infamous Scamola]

I think you are all missing one important point: prostitutes themselves do not want legalization of their trade - they do not want to pay taxes. Legalization would just make the state their second pimp.

No, it would make it their only pimp.

And I doubt you speak for all the prostitutes out there.

 

[LeonLethality]

Most prostitutes are forced into it by circumstance or some bastard.
Punishing people who are already at the lowest point of their life seems rather pointless.

So no, being a prostitute shouldn't be illegal.
On the other hand, visiting a prostitute, or being a pimp, should be.

thats like the whole owning drugs isnt illigal but purchasing is >.> thats not having your cake but getting to eat it >.> or the other way around


but no i dont think it should be legal, because prostitustion spreads around all kinds of things, and makes unwanted children, besides there are legitimate places where you can buy and sell sex, go to those

 

[hippo24]

I think you are all missing one important point: prostitutes themselves do not want legalization of their trade - they do not want to pay taxes. Legalization would just make the state their second pimp.

Interesting point.

I would imagine that even if the stereotypical pimp was outed, they would still need some organization or structure to facilitate their acts which would most likely charge overhead. And because that profession isn't known for making people rich, coupling that with a tax of some form would either hurt the prostitutes or drive the price up.

 

[Ignignoct]

I think you are all missing one important point: prostitutes themselves do not want legalization of their trade - they do not want to pay taxes. Legalization would just make the state their second pimp.

No, it would make it their only pimp.

And I doubt you speak for all the prostitutes out there.

And a nice pimp that charges a flat-rate tax and gives you medical insurance against STDs.

 

[ix_tab]

It's already legal where I am.

 

[BrandMan211]

Condoms don't protect the wearer fully in any scenario, it does not protect against genital ulcer diseases, only protects against certain HPVs effectively, and doesn't even offer full protection for sexual secretions.
They also do not protect against even a small percentage of common comunicable diseases which are risks to anyone that even touches other people, let alone has sex with them.
Condoms also don't protect against anything 5% of the time anyway because they often times fail even if used correctly and before expiration, so there really is no way to be fully protected.
Thats why on condom wrappers it says:

"latex condoms may reduce, but does not eliminate, the risk of pregnancy and the risk of catching or spreading HIV"

Condoms are for reducing the chances, not eliminating them

Also if were talking about people who are getting paid to have sex, then I think its safe to say their sex acts might involve more then just strictly vaginal intercourse with protection. So if they participate in something like anal sex, fellatio, cunillings, or any other alternative, then the risk only increases.

Not to burst your bubble there, but here's a thought... Wear two.
5% * 5%, that's... what, 0.25%? A quarter of a percent chance that one condom will fail AND the other condom will also fail. Granted, this might be expensive and less comfortable, but considering the risks, wouldn't it be worth those downsides? And if any individual feels it wouldn't, isn't that a risk they choose to take?

That's a VERY bad suggestion. The friction will cause the condoms to fall off.

 

[Hawkez]

I don't know which side I'd take but I think maybe it shouldn't be legalized. It could affect the men or women who aren't prostitutes but dress like it.
Let's take Paris Hilton, for example. *IF SHE WEREN'T A PROSTITUTE.
Let's say, in this case, she isn't a prostitute but she dresses like one. It would offend her greatly if someone stopped their car, waved money at her, and asked her to get in. I bet she'd sue or something.

Once it is legal, it doesn't work that way. You don't really see "street walkers" etc. You goto a Brothel or look in the classifieds. Here in Queensland Australia the system seems to work. It certainly doesn't INCREASE the numbers of people using prostitutes. It's just safer. I only know one or two people who have even been and it is legal here.

 

[Wounded Melody]

Yes it should be legal. I don't see how prostitution is a crime.
However, things usually associated with it--drugs, pimps, abuse--should be cracked down on.

 

[hippo24]

I think you are all missing one important point: prostitutes themselves do not want legalization of their trade - they do not want to pay taxes. Legalization would just make the state their second pimp.

No, it would make it their only pimp.

And I doubt you speak for all the prostitutes out there.

And a nice pimp that charges a flat-rate tax and gives you medical insurance against STDs.

No, instead of some money grubbing punk its some money grubbing brothel owner that could be just as bad, and I highly doubt uncle sam over in the US is going to pay for your woes.

 

[Ignignoct]

I think you are all missing one important point: prostitutes themselves do not want legalization of their trade - they do not want to pay taxes. Legalization would just make the state their second pimp.

No, it would make it their only pimp.

And I doubt you speak for all the prostitutes out there.

And a nice pimp that charges a flat-rate tax and gives you medical insurance against STDs.

No, instead of some money grubbing punk its some money grubbing brothel owner that could be just as bad, and I highly doubt uncle sam over in the US is going to pay for your woes.

No.

Nevada Bunny Ranch.

I win.

Good day sir.

 

[Kogarian]

That was a good post. Not too many people think of it that way.

Apparently 70% of the people on this thread think of it that way so...

I'm glad you think the Escapist members represent so much of the human population. Guess we should be proud to be members of this site.

 

[Twilight_guy]

I feel it should not be legalized. I see it as immoral, but I have a better reason for my opinion. If women need to sell the use of there bodies in order to get by then by then society has a serious issue that it needs to solve so that these women aren't forced into that situation in the first place. Legalizing prostitution is a way to say "Instead of solving our problems and helping you out, we're going to make it easier for you to use your last resort".

 

[Ignignoct]

That was a good post. Not too many people think of it that way.

Apparently 70% of the people on this thread think of it that way so...

I'm glad you think the Escapist members represent so much of the human population. Guess we should be proud to be members of this site.

Apparently 70% of the people on this thread think of it that way so...

 

[neoman10]

El Search Butterrrron

/El Mexicano

but any ways I'm a little meh

 

[Spectre39]

I haven't done my research, but we should adopt the Amsterdam model of prostitution. It's legal and it's regulated. If I remember right, they conduct health screenings every week/month to check for "bugs".

I get the feeling that if clean legal prostitutes were available for men with too much sexual urges on their hands, women can stop being hit on all the time by horny bar guys. Just a thought.

 

[Agayek]

I feel it should not be legalized. I see it as immoral, but I have a better reason for my opinion. If women need to sell the use of there bodies in order to get by then by then society has a serious issue that it needs to solve so that these women aren't forced into that situation in the first place. Legalizing prostitution is a way to say "Instead of solving our problems and helping you out, we're going to make it easier for you to use your last resort".

Lemme ask you 2 questions: Why is it society's responsibility to make sure they're not "forced" into it? What if they actually enjoy it and made the choice to sign up for fun?

You make an awful lot of assumptions, and you have a rather large "moral ego", at least in this post. You don't agree, thus the women who like the job can't practice their chosen profession. That doesn't make a whole hell of a lot of sense to me.

 

[hippo24]

I think you are all missing one important point: prostitutes themselves do not want legalization of their trade - they do not want to pay taxes. Legalization would just make the state their second pimp.

No, it would make it their only pimp.

And I doubt you speak for all the prostitutes out there.

And a nice pimp that charges a flat-rate tax and gives you medical insurance against STDs.

No, instead of some money grubbing punk its some money grubbing brothel owner that could be just as bad, and I highly doubt uncle sam over in the US is going to pay for your woes.

No.

Nevada Bunny Ranch.

I win.

Good day sir.

http://it.truveo.com/Raw-Bunny-Ranch-Owner-Talks-About-Virgin-Auction/id/283800237

Really?

Ohh I forgot its ok to treat women like objects now, and use them as if they were car or a pair of shoes.
If your saying that this is something like that should be supported thats a whole mess different then saying, it might lessen its effects.