Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Humble extra, Jun 25, 2003.
Shock of shocks.
Well let us know when you remember.
Why would I lie? eh?
I don't always look at the number of the issue each time I go pick a journal..
*round of applause* AMEN!!!
Yes I am. The practice of prostitution deals with people and how they interact with each other.
Yes, of course. But my point was that a law banning or permitting prostitution is looking at the act, the act of having sex and getting paid for it, not at the depressing lives of unwilling prostitutes. They're one part of the equation, yes, but not the whole thing.
Let's say, hypothetically, I get pleasure out of walking down the street and beating up the first person I see. Should I be permitted to do that?
No, you should not. And I hope you're not comparing that action to being a prostitute, because they're totally different.
Yes, I agree that they made the choice, but I don't, however, believe in moral relativism. I believe that it is my responsibility to help my fellow human beings live full, productive, beneficial lives and to work to restore creation. However, I cannot and should not force a person to do anything, nore would I want to. However, I can express to them my views. Furthermore, as a citizen of the United States who is registered to vote, I am allowed to vote, send letters to government officials, and do other such things, in accordance with my beliefs.
Yes, of course. I support and encourage you to continue to express your views.
for anyone who wants to make prostitution legal, i have a question. why is it that i can't walk down the street screaming at the top of my lungs dropping F-bomb after F-bomb at passers by? i'm not hurting anyone. being loud and hurling insults doesn't really hurt anything, yet, i'll still be arrested for disturbing the peace. my rights are being crushed!!!
I'm not familiar with the legal nuances of disturbing the peace, but I would point out that swearing loudly in public is a little different from having sex in a private room and getting paid the next morning.
and why can't i offer a very good looking seventeen year old who wants to have sex and is every bit as intelligent and mature as many people in their twenties and isn't being self destructive at all, but just wants to explore her sexuality (a really wonderful thing, sex! and NO ONE will control what *I* do or who *I* sleep with!!!), so why can't i? why is it just legally statutory rape? she's consenting. she's well adjusted. she'd be happy to have some sex with me for money. but the EEEvil government says no. WHY NOT!? i'm just helping out a person who'd be happy to get laid. but there's a LAW that says, "NO." how restrictive! how unfair!
As an adolescent male (that in itself should speak volumes ) I too think it's unfair. I think the government simply needs to set a line, and in the process it bans things it didn't intend to ban.
and i suspect that they have some basis in morality rather than science, so don't give me a "oh morality cannot be an acceptable reason for laws."
Actually, there is a legal reason. There are certain things that minors cannot do, i.e. buy porn, smoke, and have sex with those 18 or older. That's because we minors are regulated to being second-class citizens. I suspect that part of this is a historical holdover, since sex was such a taboo topic in the past that no teen was mature enough to do it properly. Anyway, the point is, we minors have restricted rights, which is why there is such a thing as statuatory rape (a stupid term, though).
I'm wondering though, if I have sex with someone UNDER eighteen, will that count as statuatory rape?
Anyway, yodashizzle you brought up a very good point, about where the line can and should be drawn when it comes to civil liberties vs. "harm" to others. Personally, I always stood by the principle that only physical harm can be punishable, that you can't arrest someone for "offending" someone else. Otherwise, I can say that brown neckties offend me, and everyone who wears a brown necktie in my sight will go to jail. That's ridiculous. A
As long as the male or female prostitute is voluntarily (by voluntary I mean without threat of force or coercion, not by circumstances) choosing to engage in that sort of work and the "contract" between the prostitute and the customer (buyer?) is also voluntary, I see no problem with legal prostitution. Frankly, it is just a waste of resources and money setting up stings to catch people selling and buying sex.
EDIT: Added "legal" to original post.
To answer your question, yes, for the most part I am friends with all my previous sexual partners to this day.
The only exceptions being one relationship which ended badly (she cheated on me... I don't tolerate that) ad the others being a couple of one night flings I've had in college due to hooking up with a girl at a party or so a pub.
But other than that, I am still friends with every girl I've dated or been in a relationship with.
I don't like having a relationship end badly. What's the point? And when one takes a mate, they are your best friend. So because the "love" or "romantic connection" might not be there anymore, that's no reason to throw out the aspects that made them a good friend.
But I've gone off topic. Just wanted to explain that to you.
BTW, I am for the legalization of prostitution as long as it's regulated (to prevent STD and the such) as I have already stated.
BUT... I am against street walking. Meaning, if they make it legal, it should be at brothels, escort services, private clubs, etc, etc.
Not street walkers. bBecause it's dangerous for the girl and well, I always felt that sex is private and should not be being displayed and sold in the open and well, it's not what I want to see outside my apartment.
That's why I'm glad that when I go to the nudy bar or am erotic store, that the windows are blinded. Privacy.
just a question a few questions for you all
according to the new legislation in NZ it is not a crime to solicit.......wheras apparently in nevada it is,although apparently other types of prostitution are legal.......
following this then:
should prostitution be legal but not solicitation?
should prostitution be confined to certain areas?
if so what type of areas? red light zones? licenced brothels?
should prostitutes be allowed to advertise? if so where?
Vader, I'd be interested in seeing these studies you're talking about. Do you any links?
No links, just references to journals. Search an E-Journal collection at your library to find these:
Pinkerton, Steven D; Abramson, Paul R. Effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV transmission. Social Science & Medicine, Volume 44, Issue 9, May 1997, pp. 1303-1312
Evaluate effectiveness of condoms in consistent use scenarios. Mentions that recent studies indicate 60-70% effectiveness only, but criticizes them because it does not isolate the consistent use case. Found the condoms are 90-95% effective WHEN USED CONSISTENTLY. This is not conducted using field trials, however, but an examination of data.
Markus J. Steiner et al. Contraceptive Effectiveness of a Polyurethane Condom and a Latex Condom: A Randomized Controlled Trial, Obstetrics and Gynecology. Volume 101, Issue 3, March 2003, pp. 539-547
901 couples involved in study to determine effectiveness of polyurethane and latex condoms. Results: in 6 month period, latex condoms had pregnancy probability of 5.4%, 9.0% for polyurethane. Total clinical failures (slippage and breakage) were 3.2% for latex, 8.4% for the other one. This was a real trial.
There are a few more, and I can look them up if you wish.
I know a couple that was together for 5 years. One was HIV+ and the other HIV-. Using only condoms, at the end of their relationship the HIV- person was negative and still is today.
So yeah, condoms can and do work when used properly.
Condoms do the work. True. I never said that condoms are ineffective. But it does not 100% gaurantee that you will be safe. Anyways this is getting a bit off topic. If you want to continue this discussion we can open another thread discussing this. BTW, thanks for the references Lucius...
Even though a woman "wants" to be a prostitute (i.e. she is not forced to) I still see no reason why it should be legalised. As far as I know, prostitutes are not normal people. They do have issues. Either they are ultra-horney or very depressed. What should be done is to help these people. I don't know this for sure but I don't think a lot of women "want" to be prostitutes. The companies harboring this kind of business need a lot of whores to get their money. Whether they work in clubs or in the streets many of them are a bunch of A-Holes. They are a notorious gang after all. Some could even be drug dealers. What I'm saying is these people have no honor and they would "force" a lot of women to be prostitutes..
Legalising this only helps these A-Holes to get what they need.
Either they are ultra-horney or very depressed.
Or...just maybe, they realized they can MAKE MONEY for having sex.
I really don't see a depressed chick going out there and saying, "hey I guess, I'll cure my depressing by whoring it up on the streets."
"Ultra-horney" chicks aren't prostitutes, they are the chicks I see at the bars, in class, at work, they are everywhere. I think you might be confused with nympho's or pornstars; not prostitutes.
To make money?
Yes every job you do makes money. The main question is why do these women select this job in particular to make money?
There are alternatives you know.
A point you're missing, Vader666, is that with legalisation comes control and regulation.
It's similar to the (not totally unrelated) issue of drugs. Legalisation - while raising some difficult moral questions - would allow regulation and control of a shady underword and dangerous habit.
Prohibition quite clearly doesn't work. We need to look for another way.
But why should a woman not be allowed to have sex and get paid for it?
I love this. As long as it's on film or video, a woman can have sex and get paid for it.
But if it is not on film or video and just in the privacy of a bedroom or car or whatever, then it's illegal.
Besides, sex is an act of pleasure. If women want to provide that and charge, they should.
Same for men.
And there is nothing wrong with being ultra-horny that they should be seeking help.
Because if that was the case, the entire male race from the ages of 15-22 would have to seek help.
Interesting point, s_o_t_t.
Why don't we view gigalos and male escorts in the same light we view prostitutes?
love this. As long as it's on film or video, a woman can have sex and get paid for it.
Movie sex scenes only imply sex. The actors/actresses are not having sex for real. You don't get to see the action. Besides some actresses refuse to appear nude on TV. Even for a sum of money. It's not the same thing...
If you legalise prostitution you are promoting it. There are many countries in the world that consider prostitution as illegal. Yet there are so many illicit organizations that force women to be prostitutes. How come those countries are unable to stop that even though prostitution is illegal in the first place?
Legalising it does not mean that the "bad" aspects of prostitution (even though every aspect of prostitution is bad in my opinion, but I'm adhering to your concept for the time being) will vanish. It will only make it worse. As I've said the people in charge of these organizations are A-Holes and lack honor. They would do anything to get more money. Consider the legalisation of weopons in the United States... Did things get better or worse?
I think he's referring to hardcore pornography.
I believe - I wouldn't know myself - but some actresses may, perhaps, actually have real sex in front of the camera, and delight in that fact. Maybe I'll go and do some internet research first.
Yes I am aware that some actresses do have sex for real in movies.
Those are few in number and are considered whores.
I think they prefer the term 'actress' or 'business woman'
Those actresses I believe also work as prostitutes or were whores beforehand...
I don't think that's the case for all pornstars
I cannot give you any proof. But for the record, they keep that part of their life secret...
I cannot give you any proof. But for the record, they keep that part of their life secret...
Please keep from making wild accusations in threads if you say that you cannot back them up. It only serves to derail the thread.
Logic is the answer. Not proof..
But anyways if you insist. I'll refrain from making accusations without proof. I know I cannot argue with a mod.
I'll refrain from making accusations without proof. I know cannot argue with a mod.
Oh, you can argue. You just can't win