prostitution

rklopper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> **Why should we be the ones to decide on this?
> Should prostitutes/users of prostitutes not be the
> ones?**
>
> They (the prostitutes) have been trying to do this
> for years, but they just dont have the influence
> to bring urgency to the matter. The people in
> power has the attitude of them being dirty throw
> aways, so who cares in anyway...

Actually, their actions tell us that they have already decided, it's just that they
have no influence to make their decision authoritative.

Exactly...

Quote
nofx
First they put away the dealers,
keep our kids safe and off the street.
Then they put away the prostitutes,
keep married men cloistered at home.

Then they shooed away the bums,
then they beat and bashed the queers,
turned away asylum-seekers,
fed us suspicions and fears.
We didn't raise our voice,
we didn't make a fuss.
It's funny there was no one left to notice
when they came for us.

Looks like witches are in season,
you better fly your flag and be aware
of anyone who might fit the description,
diversity is now our biggest fear.

--
"Knowledge has much better uses than self-pity and superiority"

Is this a song?

Hmmm .... I can make it one, set this to some music, say 4/4 (general beat of "your 
woman" by White Town), across the following chords ....

malcolm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
G-E-C-F#
> First they put away the dealers,
> keep our kids safe and off the street.
> Then they put away the prostitutes,
> keep married men cloistered at home.
>  

then, add a chorus, like so:

E-Em-F-F
Well I guess what they say is true
I could never live in this state like you
E-Em-F-E
I'd never be criminal
I'd never be criminal

then continue with ...

G-E-C-F#
> Then they shooed away the bums, 
> then they beat and bashed the queers,
> turned away asylum-seekers, 
> fed us suspicions and fears.

{chorus once}

Hmmm, this bit is difficult[1].

G-E-G-E
> We didn't raise our voice,
> we didn't make a fuss.
Cm-E-Cm-E
> It's funny there was no one left to notice
> when they came for us.
Cm-E-Cm-E

{Repeat chorus twice}[2]

G-E-C-F#
> Looks like witches are in season,
> you better fly your flag and be aware
> of anyone who might fit the description,
> diversity is now our biggest fear.


{repeat chorus to fadeout}
----------------------------------------

[1]For this section, since it looks like a bridge, we need to break up
the monotony a little. Since verse is in key of E and chorus in key of G,
adding a bridge in Bm adds some pathos by flattening first and getting a
slight disharmonic with the verses in 4th and chorus in 6th. Better 
instead might be to consider G 1st and use Cm (4th) to make the bridge
more powerful, althought I would rather actually play around with sounds to
get a decent bridge, not happy with this yet.

[2]I'd expect a little guitar solo here, although the music I have in mind would
do better with a wind instrument played in the style of Ian Anderson. :wq

LOL it is already a song, or at least the start of one
http://www.plyrics.com/lyrics/nofx/regainingunconsciousness.html

--
"Knowledge has much better uses than self-pity and superiority"

My belief is that everything is self regulating. As far as, by legalizing or not legalizing the sale of any emotionally charged product(sex), there is always going to be a positive and negative trade off. Society needs to choose what evils it's willing to accept.
Some possible examples:

Legalized sex trade,
More young people (boy/girl) getting into a trade, WE (read society) don't like, but now legally allow

Illegal trade,
All people in the trade not protected in any way or form

I won't give a positive side, as each is their own for the other. Logically I can see both sides of the argument, but I'd much rather the problem didn't exist. So I hide my eyes and hope for the best. Any decision I make on the matter rears a heart rendering flaw, for or against. Neither I want to accept.

----
"Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." - Douglas Adams
"Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils ..." - Louis Hector Berlioz
I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and give the wrong answers.

**My belief is that everything is self regulating. As far as, by legalizing or not legalizing the sale of any emotionally charged product(sex), there is always going to be a positive and negative trade off. Society needs to choose what evils it's willing to accept.***

I dont think you can argue that the sex trade is evil though. Maybe its just your view? If you were a young boy, and your mother had to do it as a last resort to look after you...would you still think it was evil?

And what would you say is the negative side of legalising it? I couldnt really derive it from your post?

Legalising prostitution is probably the best way to go, to try and regulate the trade, and protect the sex workers. This does raise the questions though, of who is going to do the policing, and just how safe will the workers be? Safer than now, perhaps, but who knows.

goose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> <snipped>...
> The state, the society and my neighbours should
> stay the fsck out of my bedroom, and who
> I bring into it, and why they follow me in.
> Listening to women argue from an emotional
> and irrational viewpoint to limit the freedom of
> other women is tiresome, and I
> wish they'd grow up.

Where do you draw the line here? Sure - everyone must stay out your bedroom, but what if it is a kid that you've taken to your bedroom?
2 (or more) consenting adults doing what they want behind closed doors, and maybe getting paid for it is not a concern, but again as long as it does not endanger those involved. Again where do you draw the line when trying to regulate this? What do you consider endangerment? As long as no one get's hurt? What if they want to get hurt? What's the determining factor here, Religious or moral conviction, human rights?

I do agree with the Malcolm's sentiment that making it illegal just creates an unhealthy demand - that is totally unregulated. Although I would not want to see prostition legalized without a formal plan in place on how this regulation and protection of the workers is to be implemented.

AndreB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legalising prostitution is probably the best way
> to go, to try and regulate the trade, and protect
> the sex workers. This does raise the questions
> though, of who is going to do the policing, and
> just how safe will the workers be? Safer than now,
> perhaps, but who knows.
>
> goose Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ...
> > The state, the society and my neighbours should
> > stay the fsck out of my bedroom, and who
> > I bring into it, and why they follow me in.
> > Listening to women argue from an emotional
> > and irrational viewpoint to limit the freedom
> of
> > other women is tiresome, and I
> > wish they'd grow up.
>
> Where do you draw the line here? Sure - everyone
> must stay out your bedroom, but what if it is a
> kid that you've taken to your bedroom?

There are already laws against that. Look up statutory rape laws. My argument is that
what two consenting adults choose to do to each other is no business of yours. You are
now putting forth the argument (above) that it might be illegal when a kid is
involved ... no shit, Sherlock!!! ... any sexual contact with a kid is
illegal, regardless of whether or not prostitution is legal, and is therefore irrelevant
to current discussion. No one is trying to argue that we should be legalising sex with
kids, but you've put up a less-than-germane strawman and, predictably, knocked it down
again.

> 2 (or more) consenting adults doing what they want
> behind closed doors, and maybe getting paid for it
> is not a concern, but again as long as it does not
> endanger those involved. Again where do you draw
> the line when trying to regulate this? What do you
> consider endangerment? As long as no one get's
> hurt? What if they want to get hurt? What's the
> determining factor here, Religious or moral
> conviction, human rights?
>

You now put up the argument that society should police the sexual activities of
consenting adults to save them from themselves? If they want a little of slap and tickle
exactly what business is it of society? If they want to cripple themselves in the
pursuit of steeper thrills in their sexual proclivities, then it's none of your
business, in much the same way that if an individual wants to risk death or
dismemberment while racing round a track on 2 wheels is none of your business.

> I do agree with the Malcolm's sentiment that
> making it illegal just creates an unhealthy demand
> - that is totally unregulated. Although I would
> not want to see prostition legalized without a
> formal plan in place on how this regulation and
> protection of the workers is to be implemented.

Why? Did mine-workers become "legal" only when there was a formal plan in place? Whats
the difference, other than the standard emotion and religion-fueled ones?

goose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why? Did mine-workers become "legal" only when
> there was a formal plan in place? Whats
> the difference, other than the standard emotion
> and religion-fueled ones?

I don't understand why religion is so strongly against it....the bible rather liked prostitutes It even stated that prostitutes are entering heaven first

Disclaimer: This was tongue in cheek

Neither we as Christians, nor the bible has anything against prostitutes. We love one another as we love our selves. Their deeds however is a abomination to God. - 1 Corinthians 6

Quote

the bible has anything against prostitutes

Then why does the bible use the word "whore" in a derogatory way in various places?

"And they transgressed against the God of their fathers, and went a whoring after the gods of the people of the land, whom God destroyed before them. - 1 Chronicles 5:25"

--
"Knowledge has much better uses than self-pity and superiority"

rklopper Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I dont think you can argue that the sex trade is
> evil though. Maybe its just your view? If you were
> a young boy, and your mother had to do it as a
> last resort to look after you...would you still
> think it was evil?
>
> And what would you say is the negative side of
> legalising it? I couldnt really derive it from
> your post?

The evil was just a phrase as in "the lesser of two evils", but I do feel there are.
Drugs, rape (emotional, physical). The evil in your example is not the trade but the reason, a mother forced (last resort) would mean she doesn't want to, but has to.

The negative side. Your example, and the fact that even legalizing the trade, there will still be an underground of abusers and illegal activities. Legalizing won't stop these activities, because there will still be an underlying cause for them to enter the industry.

It may make it easier for people to seek help in the industry, but it will also make it more "appealing" for a larger audience of young impressionable teenagers. There will no longer be a strong incentive not to become a prostitute (the law). It'll probably be a one way cop out to an easy check. Think of the advertising.... "Seeking young beautiful people...Need money fast?...Want to be the life of the party?...Meet interesting people!...Go places you've never been before!...Live life, have fun and make lots of MONEY!!! just phone 086 hookers"

Also what constitutes a rape? Once legalized how will the workers get help (anyone watch Carte Blanche on how clinics treat mothers who are aborting their pregnancies. What is a cop going to do when a "PROSTITUTE" reports a rape?).

I think I may be leaning towards pro legalization of prostitution though. The idea has its merits, but how on earth is the SA police force, even moderately, competent enough to deal with the responsibility of policing a grey area like prostitution.

----
"Flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss." - Douglas Adams
"Time is a great teacher, but unfortunately it kills all its pupils ..." - Louis Hector Berlioz
I think animal testing is a terrible idea; they get all nervous and give the wrong answers.

I spent a month in hospital in my twenties, and the woman in the next bed (perhaps her early twenties) was a prostitute who had been stabbed by one of her clients with a butter knife. It pierced her lung. Lying in adjacent beds you get to talk a lot.

There was nothing "different" about her due to her job description. She was an attractive, energetic, positive, decent person in every way. Probably the biggest difference between us was that she expected much less from the world, and put up with things where I was more demanding.

While I was lying in bed being a total wuzz, her sole concern was getting out of hospital to get back to her child who was staying with her mother in her flat. She was VERY worried about her boyfriend being left alone with the child. We didn't get into details.

Two days afterwards, she was ready to leave but the doctor would not let her go until she could blow into a little mechanical gadget that measures lung capacity. It had a small ball and if you blew into it, the ball had to reach a certain level in the tube. I didn't have a lung problem and I've never smoked but I couldn't get the damn ball to meet the level.

She blew into this little gadget for hour after hour, she wouldn't stop or take a break. Her determination in the face of excruciating pain to get back to her child remains with me to this day.

goose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> <snipped\>
> You now put up the argument that society should
> police the sexual activities of
> consenting adults to save them from themselves? If
> they want a little of slap and tickle
> exactly what business is it of society? If they
> want to cripple themselves in the
> pursuit of steeper thrills in their sexual
> proclivities, then it's none of your
> business, in much the same way that if an
> individual wants to risk death or
> dismemberment while racing round a track on 2
> wheels is none of your business.

Not really arguing, simply questioning. I think my main concern here is in line with Riaan's original concern, which is the safety of the sex workers.

><snipped again/>
>
> Why? Did mine-workers become "legal" only when
> there was a formal plan in place? Whats
> the difference, other than the standard emotion
> and religion-fueled ones?

Again, simply the protection and safety of the sex workers. There's no religious or emotional agenda in my thinking here.

As for the Bible speaking condeming prostitution - it is true the Bible does speak out quite harshly about it, and also adultery - specifically that of a woman being adulterous. However there is also a scripture (Lycium knows it well) about it being better to sleep with a whore than to throw your seed on the ground.
The scripture quoted by Malcolm is refering to adultery (in this case spiritual or religious adultery) not prositution.
Remember Christ was critized quite heavily for keeping company or eating at a table with known prostitutes. So, while it is apparent that he did not condone their activities, he did not condemn them as was the Jewish or Hewbrew (or Israelite) custom.

AndreB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> goose Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------

<snipped>

> > Why? Did mine-workers become "legal" only when
> > there was a formal plan in place? Whats
> > the difference, other than the standard emotion
> > and religion-fueled ones?
>
> Again, simply the protection and safety of the sex
> workers. There's no religious or emotional agenda
> in my thinking here.
>

So, we keep it illegal until a formal plan is in place? That is counter-intuitive,
actually. Anyway, I asked "how is prostitution, as a career, different from other
careers". If other careers don't need a formal plan to be "legal", why does prostitution
need one. After all, working in a mine is arguably equally hazardous, right? So why
introduce delays into legalising prostitution while no delays are needed for other
professions?

I wonder how long it takes to get all the legal papers in order before you can start mining.

rdebruyn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wonder how long it takes to get all the legal
> papers in order before you can start mining.


No papers needed for me to dig a hole in my yard[1]

[1] Or for you to hire me to dig one in yours

@goose, legally you don't own anything underground on the property you own, so if you do find anything in your digging expeditions, you will not be able to do much with it unless you have some other illegal ways of laying claim to it.

celene Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @goose, legally you don't own anything underground
> on the property you own, so if you do find
> anything in your digging expeditions, you will not
> be able to do much with it unless you have some
> other illegal ways of laying claim to it.

If that is true[1], it is still not illegal for me to dig a hole and get paid for it.

To all those who still maintain that prostitution should not be legal without a formal plan in place, answer me this:

I can pay someone to cook for me, wash and iron for me, care for my kids, give me a back massage or even give
me a bath (invalids need nursing). Why can I not pay for someone to deliver me sexual gratification? The argument
about "sex with kids" is a red herring, the argument about "saving people from themselves" is, to put it bluntly,
enforcing your religious morals on those who have indicated that they don't want it.

Arguing that it's degrading to women is equally stupid: the women actually involved see no problem with it. Arguing
that it leads to further crime (drugs, etc) shows only that illegal things tend to be associated with other illegal things,
hence a reason to make it legal.

With regard to everything on the planet, in all civilised and democratic societies, there is never "should X be legal?",
it is always and only "should we ban X?".

That is, everything starts of legal until society decides they don't want others to do it unto them . For any act X,
X is legal until someone objects. With everything else we ask "is there any reason to make X illegal?", with prostitution
we instead ask "is there any reason to make X legal?". See the difference?

[1] That isn't true, not in SA anyway. I think you once read about eminent domain and confused it with all property. If
it really is banned by certain legislation, I would like a reference to the legislation, thanks. The only thing that makes
something "illegal", by the way, is legislation against. So it is impossible to prove that something is legal if
there is no legislation that bans it, so the onus is on you to provide proof.

what no-one has considered (and I'm setting myself up for a flame here) is the "moral standards" of the community. Do you really want to encourage sleazy guys in doing what they do? What sort of environment do you want to raise your kids in? Is human life nothing but a collection of hormones and atoms?
That's the reality, kiddies

goose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So it is impossible to prove that
> something is legal if
> there is no legislation that bans it, so the onus
> is on you to provide proof.

A good lawyer and co-operative judge will scupper that.

@ Rick....yeh, you are gonna get flamed because your morals might not be my morals.

Also, you are assuming only sleazy guys use sex workers....where in actual fact, it is mostly executive clients....with families, and great jobs, who drink coffee with you everyday, and you have no-idea what they do, because they would never tell you.

If you wonder how I know this. One of my friends from high school started doing waitressing at teazers, and soon after that started stripping....and progressed to be a sex worker. She was smart, just never cared to study...and she does not mind doing what she is doing. Is she any different to the very good friend I knew in high school? No, and if I decided to not be friends with her anymore, then what would that say about me? Anyway, she tells me about her clients, and they are very rich successful family men....A sleazy guy would not be able to pay R1000 for an hour!

lol, don't fool yourself. Some of the sleaziest people I've met are rich. Luckily, the corporate captains are not sleazy and they excercise excellent "moral judgement" in industry. We now have multinational corporates who tell countries what to do.

As for your friend (have you tried her out yet? professionally, I mean), she's in a zero sum game. She's making money from vice. Outlook not good.

Rick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> goose Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > So it is impossible to prove that
> > something is legal if
> > there is no legislation that bans it, so the
> onus
> > is on you to provide proof.
>
> A good lawyer and co-operative judge will scupper
> that.

As someone who has represented himself in court on various criminal charges, I can attest that you are wrong. If there is no legislation prohibiting what you are accused of, the prosecutor has to drop the charges. For example, if you are accused of Foo, then the charge cites the relevant legislation that prohibits Foo. If the docket has no relevant citation to the appropriate law, the prosecutor cannot simply accuse you of willful and unknown acts of hanky-panky. Before it even gets to trial, the magistrate and/or judge needs to know what the charges are, and they are prohibited by legislation to try a case without reference to a legislation.

Basically, you cannot get convicted of nothing. When a charge is laid with a police officer, the prosecutor has to ensure that the correct legislation applies to that particular charge. So, if Foo is "He Hit Me With His Fist", the prosecutor will attempt bring a charge of "Grievous Bodily Harm" before the court. If "Foo" is "He Said Nasty Things About Me In A Newspaper And Damaged My Reputation" the prosecutor will tell you it's not a criminal case and to engage a lawyer to initiate civil action.

Quote
Rick
A good lawyer and co-operative judge will scupper that.

Quote
goose
the prosecutor has to ensure that the correct legislation applies to that particular charge.

I'm sure that any reasonable prosecutor and judge will have a charge in mind before the prosecution begins. They studied law and should be able to apply it.

Anyway, I was puzzled by:
> So it is impossible to prove that
> something is legal if
> there is no legislation that bans it,

It should stand to reason that if there is no ban then it must be legal

>so the onus
> is on you to provide proof.

Prove that it is legal to breathe

Rick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > A good lawyer and co-operative judge will
> scupper that.
>
>
> the prosecutor has to ensure that the correct
> legislation applies to that particular charge.
>
> I'm sure that any reasonable prosecutor and judge
> will have a charge in mind before the prosecution
> begins. They studied law and should be able to
> apply it.
>
> Anyway, I was puzzled by:
> > So it is impossible to prove that
> > something is legal if
> > there is no legislation that bans it,
>
> It should stand to reason that if there is no ban
> then it must be legal
>

That was my point: everything not specifically prohibited is allowed. To be prohibited you need a good reason. There isn't one for prostitution prohibition. IOW, everything is legal until good reasoning shows it should be banned. Which is why I asked for legislation showing that anything found in my property does not belong to me - it is not up to me to prove that keeping oil found on my property is legal, it is up to the accuser to show me the legislation that makes it illegal. If no such legislation exists, then it is perfectly legal.

<back-on-topic>
The against-prostitution crowd (AP) wants the for-prostitution crowd (FP) to provide reasons to make it legal, when it is obvious that the onus is on the AP to provide reasons for making it illegal.

> >so the onus
> > is on you to provide proof.
>
> Prove that it is legal to breathe

You'll make a bad scientist . You cannot 'prove' a statement which defies falsifiability, you can only prove the lack of truth in a statement which can be falsified. Which of course means that you cannot prove something to be true, you can only prove falseness, which in turn is why the legal system, in a rare moment of insight, decided that since you can never prove someones innocence, the onus is on the accuser to prove guilt

ah, ok. That was a rather enlightening insight But I'm sure that most of the legal loopholes have been tightened with broader laws, ie: if you find ancient treasure buried under the lounge floor, it belongs to government and you get a "finders fee" (don't ask me which law or country, but I know that such laws exist because I read about 'em somewhere and filed it under 'misc'.
So it's the "broad laws" that will get you. Prostitution is not the same as selling apples. There are a host of sub-things that can get you prosecuted.

Quote
goose
Why can I not pay for someone to deliver me sexual gratification?

Because it degrades society and perpetuates prostitution as a viable career choice and doesn't positively contribute to a healthy society.

Quote
goose
Arguing that it's degrading to women is equally stupid: the women actually involved see no problem with it.

I'm sure that no normal little girl grows up thinking about prostitution as a career. It's a social ill.

Quote
goose
Arguing that it leads to further crime (drugs, etc) shows only that illegal things tend to be associated with other illegal things,
hence a reason to make it legal.

Ok, first prostitution is legalized to stamp out further crime, then drugs. While high on drugs and bored with human sex, Joe Plumber turns to bestiality. Hey c'mon man, don't have such hangups. Or, while coming off drugs and being shagged out, George Bush turns to petty crime (hey, who's gonna miss that VCR anyway) to pay for his next round of pleasures. Poor old George doesn't have a job to pay for such things, y'know, and it's his human right to have fun, man.

You still haven't provided any reasons for making this particular activity illegal. "Because it degrades society" is not a reason, it's one particular set of morals derived from abrahamic religions, hence not everyone may agree to it. "It is a gateway crime" is also not a reason - any activity (for example, reading the bible) will become a gateway to other crime if it is made illegal. Arguing that it is a social ill is arguing from morals - morals have no place in a legal system[1], only quantifiable harm is addressed. Prostitution is remarkable in that it is the only crime in which all parties involved are taking part in it with explicit consent, and no harm comes to any of the involved parties[2].

Since no harm can be demonstrated, and the only objection is "it offends my sensibilities", then there is no reason to ban it. Rather like with all other distasteful activities, it can be cordoned off in a red-light district (such as is done in many of the more forward thinking countries) so that you don't get your sensibilities offended unless you actually go into that part of town intentionally.

If something offends your morals while doing no harm, then by all means close your eyes to it. Legalising prositution does not in any way force you to use their services.

[1] Which is why as civilisations progress, they gradually stop basing their laws on what the big invisible man in the sky supposedly said 25 translations ago ...
[2] Unless the clients ask for it - I'm sure many prostitutes aim to please

each to his own. You can lead a horse to the water..