page 2

Quote :

"well if you dont see why humane working conditions are important theres really no point debating this"

No, I see the importance of humane working conditions. I'm just saying that, if you know in advance that the working conditions will not be "humane" and yet you still choose the job, then you really have no right to bitch. But, as I said, if you are lied to or are conned, then that's a whole other can of worms.

[Edited on February 20, 2006 at 10:03 PM. Reason : page 2]

2/20/2006 10:03:07 PM

yeah, all those women that got burned alive have no right to complain

2/20/2006 10:04:11 PM

Quote :

"and just to point out, making prostitution legal wouldn't stop illegal prostitutions or sex slavery"

it will do a great number towards limiting it.

and I have yet to see how the triangle garment factory has anything to do with legalizing prostitution.

2/20/2006 10:05:55 PM

troll troll

2/20/2006 10:06:26 PM

The sophist doesn't have a leg to stand on in arguing with me so he calls me a troll. how quaint.

2/20/2006 10:09:39 PM

I was wondering how long it would be before this thread would be started. I'm for the full legalization of prostitution. To those who say it is degrading, how do you justify this? Have you talked with prostitutes in areas where it is legal? The morality bullshit has to stop. Noone has the right to tell a grown adult what he or she can do with her body so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. By outlawing prostitution, you are denying people the full control over their bodies. You also leave prostitutes who have been abused nowhere to turn, as it is illegal in the first place.

BTW, what's the difference between a guy buying the services of a prostitute, and a guy going to a bar buying a girl drinks with the intent of getting laid? To me, legalized prostitution is a good thing as it cuts out all the bullshit. All I have to do is pay a girl a certain amount of money, and she will suck my dick, take it in the ass, or do whatever I ask of her so long as the price is right. Nothing wrong with that whatsoever. Beats the hell out of sitting in a bar, buying some girl drinks with the HOPE that you will get laid. With a prostitute it is almost guranteed.

2/20/2006 10:13:29 PM

True, not legalizing will not stop illegal stuff from going on, and yes having someone in jail as a sex offender because she can't keep her legs closed is a waste of public resources. Honestly, there is no good solution to the problem other than shoot the bitch

seriously, I have my doubts that legalized prostitution would really help anything. There might be niche markets, like AIDS-infected hoes just for AIDS-infected johns ... maybe they can have a catchy slogan about how you don't have to wear a condom there because it's already too late for the disease-prevention? However, I do see there being the eccentrics who will be so pissed that they have [insert incurable disease] that they want to "go down fighting" by intentionally infecting people; others may not know they have something yet and pass it on. The idea behind legalizing drugs is to control the diseases that go along with it. It's not the drugs that are the problem in and of themselves, but the negative culture and diseases that surround them. Legalizing prostitution will not have any positive effects -- we still have to police, we still have diseases (perhaps more?), and we still have unwanted pregnancies (perhaps more? and who's to say they'll be aborted?). Plus, does the prostitute waiver her right to child support if the father is a client? It's too much work for little to no gain.



essentially I say stick with the present plan: don't bother with the political argument about making it legal, writing the laws, and generally wasting MORE of our overpaid politicians' time on sex .... just don't bother to enforce existing laws.
** Instead, look for instances of pimp-punishments, murders, etc. and punish THOSE with the prostitution as a sidenote. Kinda like you can't get pulled over for fuzzy dice, but if you were speeding and got pulled for that they can ticket you for having something blocking your vision.

[Edited on February 20, 2006 at 10:18 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2006 10:15:04 PM

Quote :

"Is there some reason why it'd be impossible to mandate safe working conditions for prostitutes?"

Yes, actually. The short and simple truth is that, while you can give tests to the ladies regularly enough, you can't really do the same for the John. Thus you are creating an overt public health risk.

Now you'll start with that, "But there are risks with lots of jobs," but how many of those jobs have risks that involve high-lethality virus transmission? And how many of those jobs are as inherently impossible to regulate as prostitution?

I'll say flat out that I don't ever want to pay a dime in health care money to help some ex-hooker pay for her STD treatments, and I bet I'm not the only one who feels that way. So what are you going to do, deny any kind of state health care to prostitutes? Doesn't that open kind of a scary door?

2/20/2006 10:16:45 PM

condoms

2/20/2006 10:18:36 PM

...have never failed before.

Even if you assume a 90% practical success rate -- which seems reasonable, given that people do screw up -- you've got to figure that a lot of ladies are going to be fucking 100+ times a month. How long before one breaks? And what about those lovely little diseases that can spread by contact of something other than the actual genital?

[Edited on February 20, 2006 at 10:20 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2006 10:19:00 PM

sometimes shit happens. someone loses an arm in an accident. But it doesn't seem like Nevada is having a problem with rampant STDs in its regulated whore industry.

2/20/2006 10:20:39 PM

Quote :

"JonHGuth: the pornography industry is more difficult to get into so there are fewer helpless young men and women"

How do you figure that it's more difficult to get into prostitution than pornography? And how do you figure that they are helpless?

The fact that a person chooses to sell their bodies for sex doesn't make them helpless.

Quote :

"JonHGuth: and just to point out, making prostitution legal wouldn't stop illegal prostitutions or sex slavery"

Nobody's said that it would end either, but it would almost certainly reduce both. Yet another benefit.

Quote :

"ActOfGod: (1) It's medically known that sometimes certain diseases can go undetected for considerable time. I believe HIV has the potential to incubate for up to 6-8 months before it is detectable, but it can still be transmitted prior to detection. It takes at lease 2-3 months before it's even likely to be detectable."

Solution: Mandated safe sex.

No, seriously. You want to reduce the customer base and the risk of infection? This is how you do it.

Quote :

"ActOfGod: Legalization would probably lead to a decrease in the "going rate" due to market demands, although it's difficult to say for sure where the resting place would be. As we all know, lower margins mean most likely less profit and so on ad nauseum."

Sounds like a risk inherent in the profession to be considered prior to employment to me. It's not like you can't back out of the job once you learn that it doesn't pay as much as you want; all of this information would be disclosed up front just like for any other job.

2/20/2006 10:21:12 PM

Nevada has a relatively small industry that's easy enough to regulate. Talking about expanding that nationwide would require an enormous bureaucracy just for whore regulation, which is yet another thing I don't think I should have to pay a dime for.

Quote :

"Sounds like a risk inherent in the profession to be considered prior to employment to me."

You're right. People are always going around chosing to be prostitutes, because they have so many other options lined up for themselves to chose between.

[Edited on February 20, 2006 at 10:23 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2006 10:22:23 PM

More freedom is always positive. Any time people are allowed to do what they wish so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, it is a VERY good thing.

2/20/2006 10:22:40 PM

i really dont think it would reduce it much either
unless you can legally get a blowjob for $15

2/20/2006 10:22:59 PM

^^^That's why it should be left to state/local governments to regulate with strict standards across the board.

^are you now saying the market wouldn't function within prostitution?

[Edited on February 20, 2006 at 10:24 PM. Reason : ,]

2/20/2006 10:24:22 PM

Quote :

"Nevada has a relatively small industry that's easy enough to regulate. Talking about expanding that nationwide would require an enormous bureaucracy just for whore regulation, which is yet another thing I don't think I should have to pay a dime for."

The federal government should never get involved in regulating the industry itself. This would be a state issue. I do believe the federal government should set in law, that no entity has the power to deny unlimited contract to two or more of age individuals, which would put the issue of prostitution and homosexual marriage to rest.

2/20/2006 10:24:41 PM

troll troll troll

2/20/2006 10:25:08 PM

calling me a troll doesn't make it right.

2/20/2006 10:26:41 PM

troll troll troll troll

2/20/2006 10:28:20 PM

Quote :

"Nevada has a relatively small industry that's easy enough to regulate. Talking about expanding that nationwide would require an enormous bureaucracy just for whore regulation, which is yet another thing I don't think I should have to pay a dime for. "

and

Quote :

"Any time people are allowed to do what they wish so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of others, it is a VERY good thing."

I totally agree, which is why I say don't bother legalizing it, just don't bother enforcing it as a primary offense.

Quote :

"So what are you going to do, deny any kind of state health care to prostitutes? Doesn't that open kind of a scary door?"

There are already people with HIV/Aids on welfare. Some got it congenitally, some got it from drugs, some got it from sex.



In other news, let's be realistic: who is going to get behind this? It's political suicide. I'm sure there are a number of people on here who have blueballs and are all for it ... but when it's your daughter, your opinions might change. Or maybe you'll find religion. Whatever the case, it's additional waste for an already wasteful beurocracy. Eventually prostitution will be much like oral and anal sex, and pre-marital sex ... in general, the police force doesn't give a damn, but making it illegal looks good on the books.

2/20/2006 10:30:41 PM

Quote :

"That's why it should be left to state/local governments to regulate with strict standards across the board. "

Oh good, so now I get to pay for both the local enforcement and the Federal oversight to make sure that said enforcement is in line with their "strict standards."

Quote :

"The federal government should never get involved in regulating the industry itself. This would be a state issue. I do believe the federal government should set in law, that no entity has the power to deny unlimited contract to two or more of age individuals"

This strikes me as self-contradictory.

State governments should have regulatory power, but the Federal government should say that no restrictions can be placed on what two consenting adults do?

Plz to explain.

2/20/2006 10:30:44 PM

Quote :

" Oh good, so now I get to pay for both the local enforcement and the Federal oversight to make sure that said enforcement is in line with their "strict standards.""

easy, the fed designs the regulations and in order for a state to have legalized prostution they have to meet those standards and the state enforces the standards. Just like with alcohol and 21.

2/20/2006 10:34:16 PM

Quote :

"This strikes me as self-contradictory. State governments should have regulatory power, but the Federal government should say that no restrictions can be placed on what two consenting adults do? Plz to explain. "

I meant that the states would have the power to require that prostitutes be tested for HIV/AIDS and such. The states should never have the power to OUTLAW the contracts made between two or more consenting adults. This is where the federal government would come in.

2/20/2006 10:37:52 PM

Quote :

"easy, the fed designs the regulations and in order for a state to have legalized prostution they have to meet those standards and the state enforces the standards."

OK, so you're forcing slightly less money out of my hands to pay for someone else to get their rocks off in a legal and regulated fashion.

Still not going for it.

Quote :

"I meant that the states would have the power to require that prostitutes be tested for HIV/AIDS and such."

So...they have to test...but if they come up positive, they can't be prevented from participating in the practice any more?

2/20/2006 10:41:00 PM

Quote :

"So...they have to test...but if they come up positive, they can't be prevented from participating in the practice any more?"

Yes, because by doing so you would be infringing on someone else's right to a healthy life, as you would be infecting them with a disease.

2/20/2006 10:43:21 PM

^^tax revenue = no money from you.

[Edited on February 20, 2006 at 10:43 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2006 10:43:35 PM

But Protostar, you said...

Quote :

"I do believe the federal government should set in law, that no entity has the power to deny unlimited contract to two or more of age individuals"

Nothing in there about diseases or such.

Quote :

"tax revenue = no money from you."

Oh, OK. I'll believe this when I see it. Wasn't Amtrak supposed to pay for itself, too?

And what about the rather close supervision that would be required to make sure that full tax got paid in an industry like prostitution? It ain't like they've got timecards.

2/20/2006 10:46:00 PM

the same way you make sure convience stores are cheating you on tobacco tax. There is a paper trail. Now, I'm not saying we should have prostitutes roaming the streets and shit. They should have to be in a whore house.

2/20/2006 10:48:44 PM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Yes, actually. The short and simple truth is that, while you can give tests to the ladies regularly enough, you can't really do the same for the John."

You can require John to wear a condom, which is remarkably effective.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Now you'll start with that, "But there are risks with lots of jobs," but how many of those jobs have risks that involve high-lethality virus transmission?"

Plenty of elements of the medical profession.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: And how many of those jobs are as inherently impossible to regulate as prostitution?"

You haven't proven that the prostitution industry is inherently impossible to regulate.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: I'll say flat out that I don't ever want to pay a dime in health care money to help some ex-hooker pay for her STD treatments, and I bet I'm not the only one who feels that way. So what are you going to do, deny any kind of state health care to prostitutes? Doesn't that open kind of a scary door?"

Not particularly. Just a little draconian.

It wouldn't be difficult at all to deny former prostitutes state or federal money for job-related illnesses, and still cover them for the rest of their health care.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Even if you assume a 90% practical success rate -- which seems reasonable, given that people do screw up -- you've got to figure that a lot of ladies are going to be fucking 100+ times a month. How long before one breaks? And what about those lovely little diseases that can spread by contact of something other than the actual genital?"

Should we outlaw sluthood as well? I mean, these are great arguments to make for outlawing sex in general, and even the pornography industry in particular, too.

You might think that simply anticipating the "there are risks inherent in every profession" argument deprives it of its merit, but that's simply not true. It's unimaginable that anyone on either end of a legal prostitutional transaction would not have signed an acknowledgement of the inherent risks involved therein; far more than you can say for the average guy who tries his luck with the local slut by picking her up at a bar.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Talking about expanding that nationwide would require an enormous bureaucracy just for whore regulation, which is yet another thing I don't think I should have to pay a dime for."

Enormous? Surely you jest. OSHA already exists and would just need a new division, and police are already in existence. I'm not sure of course, but I think it's reasonable to assume that the excise tax revenues generated by legalizing and regulating the industry should be sufficient to cover this minor expansion. Optimally, your taxes wouldn't have a thing to do with it.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: People are always going around chosing to be prostitutes, because they have so many other options lined up for themselves to chose between."

I was unaware of the pervasiveness of this horseshit of an argument.

Quote :

"Gamecat: How can you as a capitalist claim that a person going into prostitution does so because they have no other options?"

Does legalizing prostitution shut down the local McDonald's? Applebee's? Does it put a hiring freeze on those government jobs that require no skill to do?

Surely, you wouldn't claim a person was forced into becoming a drug dealer, would you?

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: So...they have to test...but if they come up positive, they can't be prevented from participating in the practice any more?"

I don't know the answer to that, but I'd think testing would be pretty dumb if the effect wasn't to prevent HIV-infected prostitutes from practicing.

---

Quote :

"JonHGuth: i really dont think it would reduce it much either"

Why not? The regulated prostitution industry offers a GREATLY reduced risk in a myriad of areas; surely that would pull quite a bit of business from the illegal part of the industry.

I can't confidently say that the impact on the sex slave industry would be as great, but as I said before, that's a separate issue. Sex slavery should be viciously pursued by law enforcement in either outcome.

[Edited on February 20, 2006 at 10:56 PM. Reason : ...]

[Edited on February 20, 2006 at 11:09 PM. Reason : not most of...that's not true]

2/20/2006 10:56:22 PM

i dont think there is anyway regulated prostitution can be as cheap as street whores
and the johns have had no problem with ignroing health concerns so far, what makes you think they will suddenly start caring?

2/20/2006 10:58:17 PM

have you bothered to research prostitution, or are you just talking out of your ass. Look at Nevada before you start making shit up.

2/20/2006 10:59:39 PM

Quote :

"Nothing in there about diseases or such."

It would be regulated the same way marriage is regulated now (dispersing of assets). One of the terms of contract would be the understanding that the prostitute in question does not have any diseases, and if she does it would violate the terms of contract. S/he would be periodically screened to make sure she didn't have any STDs. I'm pretty sure thats the way its done in Germany.

2/20/2006 11:00:07 PM

Quote :

"JonHGuth: and the johns have had no problem with ignroing health concerns so far, what makes you think they will suddenly start caring?"

The fact that they'd have a choice. Remember, we're talking about capitalism here.

[Edited on February 20, 2006 at 11:14 PM. Reason : wtf...fucking dissociation]

2/20/2006 11:01:00 PM

OMG, me and Gamecat are on the same side.

2/20/2006 11:01:06 PM

troll troll troll troll troll

Quote :

"The fact that they'd have a choice. Remember, we're talking about capitalism here."

right, they will go with the cheaper unregulated shit

[Edited on February 20, 2006 at 11:02 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2006 11:01:14 PM

Quote :

"The fact that they'd have a choice. Remember, we're talking about capitalism here."

Exaclty. Choice=freedom. What happened to spreading freedom, like the neoconservatives are always talking about? How about spreading some freedom here at home?

2/20/2006 11:03:02 PM

Quote :

"JonHGuth: right, they will go with the cheaper unregulated shit"

At the risk of infecting themselves with STDs? If that's true, they're stupid enough to deserve to be infected.

2/20/2006 11:04:45 PM

they are already having sex with prostitutes, they clearly arent worried about diseases

2/20/2006 11:06:17 PM

But right now they don't have a cleaner alternative for the purpose. You don't know how many of them are or aren't concerned with diseases. You only know how many of them are willing to take the risk.

2/20/2006 11:08:03 PM

unless you can provide some kinda of market reasearch saying otherwise, i doubt many people would spend the extra money for something that up till this point has not bothered them

2/20/2006 11:11:50 PM

How do you know it hasn't bothered them? I shop at Wal-Mart sometimes, but it bothers me.

Obviously I can't provide market research on something with such limited availability, but I can definitely tell that free market economics is not your friend. Clearly, some people buy Volvos instead of Kias, or pay a little extra for higher quality foods.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Oh, OK. I'll believe this when I see it. Wasn't Amtrak supposed to pay for itself, too?"

Since Amtrak couldn't pay for itself, excise taxes and fines collected from prostitution operations won't be able to fund the regulation of the industry? You're definitely going for apples=>oranges here, but I'll play along.

What technology is going to render prostitution obsolete? Robot girlfriends?

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: And what about the rather close supervision that would be required to make sure that full tax got paid in an industry like prostitution? It ain't like they've got timecards."

No different than in any other industry. You mean to tell me that you think that it'd be harder for the government to collect taxes from prostitution rings than from Exxon?

2/20/2006 11:22:23 PM

Quote :

"but I can definitely tell that free market economics is not your friend. Clearly, some people buy Volvos instead of Kias, or pay a little extra for higher quality foods."

if you think it's that easy you're the one that doesn't understand it
value is placed on every benefit. the benefit of health checks which can only catch some disease isn't worth the price increase.

2/20/2006 11:24:34 PM

That's like saying nobody's willing to pay a little more at Subway for a sandwich rather than a little less at McDonald's for a double-quarter pounder. Or that nobody looks at sanitation grades when they go into restaurants. It's simply not true. People are in a tizzy right now spending more on products that will make them healthier, or at least less prone to diseases. I wouldn't expect it to be any different in this case.

2/20/2006 11:34:44 PM

Quote :

"You can require John to wear a condom, which is remarkably effective."

Quote :

"the same way you make sure convience stores are cheating you on tobacco tax. There is a paper trail."

Both of these have the same flaw: they assume that some modicum of supervision can be exercized over what is an essentially private exchange. Unless you're personally obseving a large portion of paid sex acts, the boss/regulator/tax man isn't going to know exactly how much money was exchanged or whether John wore a rubber.

What we're effectively dealing with here is a tip-based industry. Sure, you might charge a flat rate at the door, but how do you prevent other arrangements? How do you standardize prices? Do you think that people don't cheat on their taxes when filing how much they got in tips?

Quote :

"Plenty of elements of the medical profession."

These all involve mulitple people with sufficient room for oversight.

Quote :

"You haven't proven that the prostitution industry is inherently impossible to regulate. "

How do you regulate what two people are doing when you can't see what they're doing?

Or now are you going to suggest that we surveil all the prostitutes as well?

Quote :

"It wouldn't be difficult at all to deny former prostitutes state or federal money for job-related illnesses"

That's the scary door. What's to prevent us from then saying that miners won't be compensated for that work-related problems? Because, after all, the only difference is morality, right?

Quote :

"Should we outlaw sluthood as well? I mean, these are great arguments to make for outlawing sex in general, and even the pornography industry in particular, too."

Pornography, first of all, has some degree of oversight, just in terms of the crew being on-site to make sure certain things are being abided. As for general sluthood, it lacks many of the ramifications that prostitution has. It's one thing when it's just a pasttime. It's another when its your livelihood, something you can grow dependent on, and something which involves more than just two consenting adults (ie, the government, the business, etc).

Quote :

"It's unimaginable that anyone on either end of a legal prostitutional transaction would not have signed an acknowledgement of the inherent risks involved therein"

We all have no doubt that most of the girls who resort to prostitution have a real grasp of these risks.

Quote :

"Surely, you wouldn't claim a person was forced into becoming a drug dealer, would you?"

I don't know that I'd say it, but I've damn sure heard the argument made by some of the people who are outright ignoring it in this thread.

Quote :

"Does legalizing prostitution shut down the local McDonald's? Applebee's? Does it put a hiring freeze on those government jobs that require no skill to do?"

Question: Is there a labor shortage in the United States at this moment?

Quote :

"Protostar: and if she does it would violate the terms of contract."

Meaning what, exactly?

Quote :

"But right now they don't have a cleaner alternative for the purpose."

I see absolutely no reason to belive that the rank and file John is going to shell out extra cash and otherwise inconvenience himself when his old reliable is still around. People who buy Volvos and good food have money. Do you think it's the rich who are big into using prostitution? Sure, they might get more into it if you offered a clean and legal opportunity, but I fail to see in what possible world that would be a good thing.

As it stands, you're basically coming off as saying, "Well then let them die, and decrease the surplus population."

[Edited on February 20, 2006 at 11:39 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2006 11:38:16 PM

Quote :

"That's like saying nobody's willing to pay a little more at Subway for a sandwich rather than a little less at McDonald's for a double-quarter pounder. Or that nobody looks at sanitation grades when they go into restaurants. It's simply not true. People are in a tizzy right now spending more on products that will make them healthier, or at least less prone to diseases. I wouldn't expect it to be any different in this case."

your position is based on conjecture just as much as mine is
a couple examples of unrelated things does not make it right

2/20/2006 11:48:34 PM

Quote :

"JonHGuth: your position is based on conjecture just as much as mine is"

It rather clearly is not. There are most definitely people out there spending more money on Subway sandwiches than on McDonald's cheeseburgers for health reasons. There are most definitely people out there avoiding restaurants with low santitation grades--why do you think restaurants pay so close attention to them? Neither was conjecture, nor were they unrelated in their underlying point: People pay attention to the health effects of what they spend money on.

Are you trying to tell me that you really think a shithole restaurant with a B sanitation grade is not going to lose business to a restaurant offering similar foods next door that has an A sanitation grade, simply because it's food's cheaper?

---

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Both of these have the same flaw: they assume that some modicum of supervision can be exercized over what is an essentially private exchange."

But it can. There are numerous examples of professions that self-supervise (doctors, lawyers, etc.).

Require licenses to practice and revoke them if they're found not to be obeying the mandates of the profession; i.e. sex w/o condoms. Not only that, deny health benefits to those found guilty of practicing w/o condoms. Fine the companies they work for heavily.

Here's a sample process for ensuring condom use: count them. Women have been doing this for ages to catch cheating husbands; it's pretty effective. Give each one a set number (typical day's amount or something) and monitor the number of people who go in and out of the room. You're looking for a one-to-one relationship here. Any discrepancies throw up red flags.

That's just one idea, though. Not being able to come up with a method this instant doesn't render the idea impossible.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Unless you're personally obseving a large portion of paid sex acts, the boss/regulator/tax man isn't going to know exactly how much money was exchanged or whether John wore a rubber."

Why would they have to watch the acts? And since when did the taxman expect to get the exact amount of money exchanged in any tip-based transaction? Absurdist expectations like this would ruin every industry.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Sure, you might charge a flat rate at the door, but how do you prevent other arrangements? How do you standardize prices?"

You don't prevent other arrangements. You charge extra for them.

You don't standardize prices, you let the market do that.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: These all involve mulitple people with sufficient room for oversight."

There's sufficient room for oversight here. The regulated industry would look drastically different than the unregulated industry.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: How do you regulate what two people are doing when you can't see what they're doing?"

The way they do in Vegas?

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: That's the scary door. What's to prevent us from then saying that miners won't be compensated for that work-related problems? Because, after all, the only difference is morality, right?"

I concede the point, but will say instead that their job-related healthcare could be funded by the excise tax or private insurance.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Pornography, first of all, has some degree of oversight, just in terms of the crew being on-site to make sure certain things are being abided."

And brothels would hire security for the same purpose.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: As for general sluthood, it lacks many of the ramifications that prostitution has. It's one thing when it's just a pasttime. It's another when its your livelihood, something you can grow dependent on, and something which involves more than just two consenting adults (ie, the government, the business, etc)."

And those ramifications are...?

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: We all have no doubt that most of the girls who resort to prostitution have a real grasp of these risks."

Just like we all have no doubt that most of the girls who resort to prostitution have no other choice? You're essentially arguing that these grown-up American citizens shouldn't be allowed to be party to contracts because you think they're stupid.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: I don't know that I'd say it, but I've damn sure heard the argument made by some of the people who are outright ignoring it in this thread."

It's just as stupid when they make the argument as it is when anyone makes an argument that a prostitute in a legal system has no other choice but to be a prostitute. The only forced compliance involved is the one acting currently, and the one who'd cease to exist with legalization; the pimp.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: Question: Is there a labor shortage in the United States at this moment?"

No. And McDonald's is always hiring. And the ESC is still operating.

Surely you weren't still about to argue the "limited number of available jobs has forced these people into prostitution."

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: I see absolutely no reason to belive that the rank and file John is going to shell out extra cash and otherwise inconvenience himself when his old reliable is still around."

I see absolutely no reason to believe that it'd require extra cash. What makes you presume the effect of legalization would be an increase in price?

Even if it were to increase the price, I don't see how your prediction is even relevant to the discussion. It's not the government's job to prevent businesses from providing products or services because it doesn't think the market is there to justify it.

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP: As it stands, you're basically coming off as saying, "Well then let them die, and decrease the surplus population.""

Or "let them do their jobs safer." Or "let them get their own insurance." Or even "let them make their own decisions."

[Edited on February 21, 2006 at 12:22 AM. Reason : guth]

[Edited on February 21, 2006 at 12:36 AM. Reason : err]

2/21/2006 12:16:11 AM

Quote :

"What makes you presume the effect of legalization would be an increase in price?"

i dont see how they could possibly legalize prostitution and not increase price

2/21/2006 12:17:53 AM

The free market encourages nothing if not efficiency.

And this still applies:

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to prevent businesses from providing products or services because it doesn't think the market is there to justify it."

[Edited on February 21, 2006 at 12:44 AM. Reason : ...]

2/21/2006 12:23:09 AM

Quote :

"Require licenses to practice and revoke them if they're found not to be obeying the mandates of the profession; i.e. sex w/o condoms."

And how do you catch them? Have government-paid inspectors pose as Johns and try to get away without using a rubber? So, in other words, we'd have to pay for them, just like we do now for cops.

But let me guess: the magical excise tax will cover this?

Quote :

"You're looking for a one-to-one relationship here."

Because it would be impossible to fudge the numbers and make it look like a condom was used when it wasn't, right? You gonna have people go through each one and find the semen, as though its presence couldn't also be faked? There are other problems that don't even bear mentioning, because, of course, you say:

Quote :

"Not being able to come up with a method this instant doesn't render the idea impossible. "

No, but it does make the implementation of the idea unacceptable. When you can come up with a system that has a reasonable degree of accuracy without excessive cost, then we can talk some more about it.

Quote :

"Why would they have to watch the acts?"

At least a random sampling of acts being viewed would be necessary to have any accountability for various regulations.

Quote :

"Absurdist expectations like this would ruin every industry."

The difference here being that nobody's ever claimed that taxes paid by waitresses and the like would in turn pay for, say, Health Department inspections and the bureaucracy associated with them.

Quote :

"You don't prevent other arrangements. You charge extra for them."

You misunderstand me. The "other arrangement" would be something privately negotiated by trick and John, outside of the regulations. For example,

"Girl, I want to hit it raw."
"Well, I'm not supposed to...but maybe if you wrap your junk up with a benjamin it'll be just as good."

You seem to claim that there will be some way of preventing this, though you have yet to give even a hint of an idea as to how.

Quote :

"You don't standardize prices, you let the market do that."

Again, a misunderstanding.

You and nutsmackr both pointed out that the government manages to collect taxes on tobacco sales just fine. But tobacco sales vary only slightly within regions. The government has a pretty good handle on how much tax should be paid. Prostitution is an industry involving a great multitude of individuals operating at least semi-autonomously, and leaves a great deal more room for "under the table" payment.

Quote :

"There's sufficient room for oversight here."

I'd like you to elaborate as to how this could be true without using means that are some combination of expensive, intrusive, and repulsive.

Quote :

"The way they do in Vegas?"

I'm not sure how Las Vegas suddenly became the paragon of government regulatory efficiency, but it doesn't matter; I'll simply say again, LV's industry is small, contained, and unique, and caters almost exclusively to people of middle class or above, which I have no reason to believe represents the largest percentage of people who engage in prostitution.

Quote :

"And brothels would hire security for the same purpose."

Yet another misunderstanding on your part. I'm not talking about girls getting beat up or raped. I'm talking about them bending the rules, which security won't be able to stop unless it's standing beside the bed.

Quote :

"And those ramifications are...?"

Don't be cute. I'm allowed to do whatever the fuck I want to with my food at home. The second I try to sell that food, though, it becomes an issue of government concern. It's a question of public arenas versus private ones.

Also, by turning it into a business, you're opening the floodgates for liability, which is another government concern.

Quote :

"You're essentially arguing that these grown-up American citizens shouldn't be allowed to be party to contracts because you think they're stupid."

No, I'm arguing that people who don't understand contracts (especially ones that would inherently be so complicated as to cover the numerous regulations you're describing) shouldn't be allowed to enter into them. Most people think this logic works fine when it comes to preventing children from entering into contracts.

Quote :

"Surely you weren't still about to argue the "limited number of available jobs has forced these people into prostitution.""

You are, in what I suspect would be the vast majority of cases, talking about the absolute bottom rung of the job-seeking ladder. People with -zero- skills, -zero- education. High school sophomores and immigrants with a hint of work experience get hired at McDonalds first. That's to say nothing of the question of whether or not McDonalds provides a liveable wage nowadays.

Quote :

"What makes you presume the effect of legalization would be an increase in price?"

This isn't drugs we're talking. Prohibition has not sent the cost of sex skyrocketing, if commonly bandied figures on how much a low-quality dick-sucking are to be believed. Certainly, the illegal method (prostitution) is cheaper than the legal one (buying a girl a drink, or rather, buying several girls several drinks until you get lucky).

1) Pay the girl's living wages
2) Pay for the business and its associated expenses
3) Pay for the girl's health care
4) Pay for regulation of the industry
5) Pay for enforcement of that regulation
6) Pay regular taxes besides

Quote :

"It's not the government's job to prevent businesses from providing products or services because it doesn't think the market is there to justify it."

No, but it is the government's job to act in our best interest. As it stands, the system you propose offers only the slightest benefits while potentially heaping on a shared expense to the public (because it's still ludicrous, given the government's track record in such things, to think that excise taxes will cover all the costs), rejecting the concept of public decency (which most people still value), and giving even more money and power to the government in the name of increasing our freedom and limiting its intrusion.

Quote :

"Or "let them do their jobs safer." Or "let them get their own insurance." Or even "let them make their own decisions.""

Hmm, none of those things look quite like:

Quote :

"Gamecat: If that's true, they're stupid enough to deserve to be infected."

So if I say that stupid people shouldn't sign contracts, that's OK. If you say stupid people can get AIDS for all you care, eh, no biggie.

And, since I just now noticed this:

Quote :

"Since Amtrak couldn't pay for itself, excise taxes and fines collected from prostitution operations won't be able to fund the regulation of the industry?"

I was merely pointing out that the government has a poor track record (no pun intended) with this whole, "But it'll pay for itself!" deal.

2/21/2006 2:27:37 AM