Prostitution

[Rosbjerg]

From the earliest time prostitutes have existed! It is often referred to as "the oldest profession in the world" - But the question have been raised in much of Europe - is it an important vent? or the oppression of women?

 

(I'm only discussing women who choose this profession themselves - as sex-slaves are clearly oppressed!)

 

The romantic view would have you believe that most prostitutes are not only happy doing it - they are also serving a very important service to society. They are allowing sexually frustrated men a place to blow off the steam - in a controlled environment.

While the feministic view (popularly called) would have you believe that these women are clearly traumatized - since no one would purposefully choose this profession, if they weren't victims of some kind of abuse - which have perverted their views on sexuality. They are victims and should be helped.

 

Yesterday I had a sit-down with an anthropologist, a social worker and a philosopher. We discussed this issue - and they had quite different views! I will try to sum it up for you here: (of course these are individuals and their opinions are as such - individual)

 

The Anthropologist (female): They are part of society and cannot be removed - as such it would be wisest to integrate them under the law in order to protect them. This way you prevent the illegal use of prostitution - which is impossible to regulate.

 

The Social Worker (female): Most prostitutes are victims of some kind of abuse - either early or late in life. They are often forced into it because of difficult circumstances - like feeding a family. It should be made illegal since it's clear that very few can handle this kind of work for very long - such abuse of sexuality leaves deep scars.

 

The Philosopher (male): The reason why these prostitutes are stigmatized are simply because organized religion has condemned this profession for over a millennia - they feel ashamed even if they choose it themselves - as it would take extraordinary character to oppose an entire society and not feel abandoned. So in essence the profession is not the issue; it's whether or not we can accept it. If we can, allowing prostitution is a good idea - if we can't, it should be made illegal.

 

-

 

It's a tough call, since you are forced to make assumption on behalf of a lot of people - assumptions you aren't qualified to make. It must come down to what you believe in - and I believe that some of them are doing it because they want to - and they should be allowed to do it! but the profession needs heavy restrictions and survey - to make sure no one is harmed or traumatized.

 

what do you think?

[astr0creep]

I think most people forget the other half of the equation...

 

I have never used the "service" myself. And I don't understand why some men can't just ****. I can understand even less some men who use the "service" while in a relationship.

 

To me having to go to a prostitute is for instant gratification and nothing else. What's more instant than jerking off? It's cleaner, cheaper and you don't have to worry about disease and laws.

 

Interesting question.

[mkreku]

There's not much to discuss, really. Just as any job with insecure working conditions would be banned, so must prostitution be treated. Not many people have the ability to work as a prostitute and not become emotionally scarred, if any.

 

If prostitution could ever be as safe and harmless as any ordinary day job, it would be legal (except of course if the social rules would ban it instead.. a different matter). It's too bad that will never happen, as there's clearly a need for prostitutes, for different reasons.

[Pidesco]

I'm the philosopher.

[Gorgon]

What am I supposed to comment on. Either three positions are i'm sure correct.

 

Making it illegal seems to have worked well in Sweeden, now they all come over here for booze and hookers instead. Copenhagen is the Sodom and Gomora of Scandinavia, which is not saying a whole lot actually.

Edited December 18, 2006 by Gorgon

[Kalfear]

To me making it legal makes the most sence really.

 

By making it legal you can protect those involved by being able to have access to the police, ensure cleanliness with in the proffession, and bring in taxes to support the communities.

 

People (men and women) have been using these proffessions for ever and I just dont see that changing anytime soon. But with aides and other diseases being so appearent in the world today, it just makes sence to legislate them to protect everyone involved rather then having people roll the dice with their health.

 

Also, many of these women are oppressed because they are forced underground and forced to have pimps to protect them as standard laws dont apply or cover them. Doing away with pimps would help many of these workers out in the long run allowing them to actually keep what they earned, there for allowing them to have some sort of life while plying their trade.

 

Women rights organizers as usually are outta touch with reality and society on this topic (like so many others), sure some women are forced into this life style through abuse and such but just as many end up in a office and forced into relationships they not interested in by unsrupuless bosses and employers (again man or female) so by making this legal you at least allow for the women to have a sence of accomplishment in their choosen trade!

 

The Philosopher is also dead on, we as a society allow religion to impact our lives far to much. What ever happened to the seperation of church and state? I honestly think its about time this statement started to matter and get implimented already!

 

Here in Canada (toronto) at our city courts the workers were not ALLOWED to put up a long standing tradition of having a xmas tree because some idiot liberal judge ruled it negatively impacts those not of the Christian faith! SO FREAKING WHAT. Xmas is a North American tradition and has long ago lost its religious over tones for all but the devote! People no longer attend church services because its xmas, no longer veiw it as the birth of christ. Its simply a celebration of society where family members come togather, exchange gifts, and spend some time with each other in a far to hectic modern day world!

 

Its about time ALL Religion was taken outta the equation of ALL DECISIONS! Simple as that!

Edited December 18, 2006 by Kalfear

[taks]

the social worker starts off right, then finishes with a false premise. i.e., the "solution" to the problem of prostitution, which results in women doing something they really don't want to do (not normally), is to outlaw it, and create even further problems for the women. whether it is illegal or not, it will exist within our society. a market exists, and someone will always step up to fill it.

 

i have to agree with the philosopher and anthropologist sort of jointly. there's nothing wrong with regulating it, and it actually may provide some benefit in that women can actually _choose_ the profession, rather than being forced into it. that way, they can also _choose_ to end it when they feel they've had enough, rather than suffer at the hands of some abusive pimp. they'd also be offered some protection from bad johns during their tenure.

 

it is legal just outside of las vegas, btw, and the girls in the cathouses there make a fortune.

 

taks

[Rosbjerg]

What am I supposed to comment on. Either three positions are i'm sure correct.

 

Making it illegal seems to have worked well in Sweeden, now they all come over here for booze and hookers instead. Copenhagen is the Sodom and Gomora of Scandinavia, which is not saying a whole lot actually.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

what you feel about this subject .. I've discovered that it's something alot of people don't want to talk about - and therefore don't really take a stand. Which I want them to do - so I just want you to think about it and answer what you believe is the right thing to do.

 

Yeah Copenhagen is a good example of not wanting to face the issue .. instead of actually talking about it (and doing something serious about it), they simply ignore it and let it grow in criminal "underworld".. people are literally being shipped to Denmark and then out into the rest of Europe for prostitution!

[taks]

What ever happened to the seperation of church and state? I honestly think its about time this statement started to matter and get implimented already!

separation of church and state simply means the state does not regulate religion, nor show favoritism to any specific religion. there's nothing in that equation preventing people from making decisions based on religion, this includes laws.

 

Its about time ALL Religion was taken outta the equation of ALL DECISIONS! Simple as that!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

again, what makes YOUR moral position any better than one based on religion? religion is nothing more than a moral foundation for those that believe. if they choose to push for laws based on that foundation, they are simply voting their conscience. everyone makes decisions based on their own moral foundation. that you would attempt to suggest your moral foundation is any better than theirs is hypocrisy at its best. you become even worse than them because of your own self-righteousness.

 

otherwise, everything else you said is pretty right on.

 

taks

[Rosbjerg]

Good point taks.. While I would like people to question spoonfeed-morality.. especially when dealing with human beings - most religious spokesmen (in DK) are demonizing the prostitutes and not the reasons for them being in this situation - which is just silly imo! even if their religion says they are sinners, they could at least be humane enough to recongnize that some of these women aren't exactly doing this for the fun of it.

[taks]

yes, those "demonizers" are also hypocritical, IMO, though the issue is not one of "separation of church and state." it is simply a matter of people allowing others to have their own moral belief system, and understanding that such systems are not required to be uniform across the board.

 

both sides (hard-core secular and hard-core religious) tend to be hypocritical in this respect. both seem to think their way is the best way and by extension, everyone else should follow along (baaaa). i suppose any ideology results in such intolerance. oh well.

 

taks

[~Di]

My view on this is the same as my view on illegal drugs... I do not want a paternal government to decide what consenting, legally competent adults can and cannot do with their own bodies. If women wish to become prostitutes for whatever reason, despite the obvious risks to their health and well being, the government has no business telling them they cannot. If men wish to use the services of prostitutes for whatever reason, despite the obvious riks to their health and well being, the government has no business telling them they cannot.

 

The problem is not, in my mind, that religions have chosen to demonize this particular "profession". The problem is that religion has had the power to take their objection to it and codify it into law, thereby imposing their religious beliefs on the rest of society as a whole.

 

I am all for freedom of religion for all. I'm also for freedom FROM religion for all, which means that laws which impose religious edicts on the rest of society ought to be outlawed, dang it.

 

So sayeth me.

[taks]

but then you're still imposing YOUR view on everyone else, right or wrong. as i noted above, what makes YOUR moral edict any better than a religious one? both "versions" of morality are derived from some personal belief system, one just happens to be based on religion (most actually stem from religion, ultimately, in one fashion or another simply because _everyone_ believed in some religion when modern laws were originally conceived... but that's another issue).

 

i agree, however, that the government sticking its nose into adult behavior is reprehensible, regardless of what morals said intrusions are based on, secular, religious, or otherwise.

 

taks

[~Di]

but then you're still imposing YOUR view on everyone else, right or wrong.  as i noted above, what makes YOUR moral edict any better than a religious one?  both "versions" of morality are derived from some personal belief system, one just happens to be based on religion (most actually stem from religion, ultimately, in one fashion or another simply because _everyone_ believed in some religion when modern laws were originally conceived... but that's another issue).

 

i agree, however, that the government sticking its nose into adult behavior is reprehensible, regardless of what morals said intrusions are based on, secular, religious, or otherwise.

 

taks

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I most definitely am not imposing my view on everyone else. Please explain why insisting that someone else's sense of morality being codified into law is the same has having no law whatsoever affecting what consenting, competent adults do with their own bodies. You are implying that having no law to control people's abilities to do with their own bodies what they wish is enforcing my wishes on others. That is rubbish. When there is no law in place, people are free to indulge or not indulge in such activity. Both sides can satisfy their own morality. When there is a law in place, people are persecuted and prosecuted unless they conform to the law, so only one side has their wishes being met.

 

And frankly I do not believe that EVERYONE belived in some religion when modern laws were introduced (and you cannot possibly have any evidence to support that) because those who did not believe in religion, and who were vocal about it, were usually summarily slaughtered for heresy. Therefore, it was unwise for anyone who didn't share the communal religious belief to say so.

 

I see areas of this globe that are going back to those old ways, unfortunately.

[taks]

Please explain why insisting that someone else's sense of morality being codified into law is the same has having no law whatsoever affecting what consenting, competent adults do with their own bodies.

because all laws are based on some fundamental belief system, whether it is secular or religious in nature. remember, i agreed that there should not be interference from the government in our adult lives. not everyone that feels prostitution is bad does so because of religious beliefs, either (same goes for a lot of other beliefs, most notably abortion).

 

You are implying that having no law to control people's abilities to do with their own bodies what they wish is enforcing my wishes on others.

no, i was stating directly (not implying) that your statement "thereby imposing their religious beliefs on the rest of society as a whole" is contrary to the notion that people should have their own moral base, regardless of where it is derived. i.e. motivation for a belief, or law, should not be an issue. the law itself should be the issue, and i agree such laws are unjust, though my belief stems from my own personal moral foundation. some choose religion as that moral foundation... certainly mine has been influenced by the same.

 

When there is no law in place, people are free to indulge or not indulge in such activity.  Both sides can satisfy their own morality.  When there is a law in place, people are persecuted and prosecuted unless they conform to the law, so only one side has their wishes being met.

i wasn't making any claim that there should be a law, merely noting that laws stem from moral foundations, and those foundations are, by definition, personal in nature.

 

And frankly I do not believe that EVERYONE belived in some religion when modern laws were introduced (and you cannot possibly have any evidence to support that) because those who did not believe in religion, and who were vocal about it, were usually summarily slaughtered for heresy.  Therefore, it was unwise for anyone who didn't share the communal religious belief to say so.

there is very little supporting evidence for a lack of belief in "early times." most that were found to be heretical, were simply choosing to believe in a different way. e.g. early lutherans were considered heretical to the then dominant roman catholics. they were still religious, just choosing a different way to worship. truly early societies, such as the mesopotamians and egyptians, were ridiculously religious even by today's standards.

 

the point is not that people did or did not believe in some fashion anyway. the point is that you seem to be of the belief that any law based in whole or in part on religion is unjust (or whatever) simply because it is based on religious beliefs. religious beliefs permeate all of society, and always have. that some laws have a wrapper called "religion" on them does not make them bad laws necessarily. murder is a widely held no-no in all of society. it is also forbidden by the 10 commandments. religion was simply a way for early leaders to put this no-no into writing. the same goes for just about any basic law that nearly every community holds to. the only difference between you and i believing murder is bad, and the religious community believing murder is bad, is that we do not have it "written on a stone tablet by god" somewhere.

 

taks

[Volourn]

Taks wins.

[thepixiesrock]

Prostitutes are bad

an essay by Lou Gutman

 

I think it was an episode of Tales of the Crypt, our Protagonist, a smart mouthed detective named Gutman played by Dennis Miller, is hired by a young blond broad who works for a televangelist. Her brother went missing and Dectective Gutman is sent to find what happened to him. After a few leads he finds himself at a whore house, and long story short all the prostitutes end up being vampires, and everyone that goes to the whore house gets turned into a vampire, and the brother was turned into a vampire, and the head vampire is a really sexy prostititute vampire who takes her ques from the televangelist that the blond chick works for. He has her running this vampire whore house to kill off sinners and stuff. The moral of the story: Look out, the blond chick turns into a vampire in the end.

[LoneWolf16]

Taks wins.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent supporting argument, Volo. )

 

 

 

And on topic, I actually think pixie is onto something. I mean, that scenario's been in tons of movies....like From Dusk 'Till Dawn. It had Salma Hayek and George Clooney. Therefore, it must be true!

Edited December 18, 2006 by LoneWolf16

[Volourn]

Taks did it so well; he doesn't need any real help espicially from the likes of me.

[thepixiesrock]

From Dusk Till Dawn were strippers not prostititutes.

[taks]

part 2 got 2 1/2 stars on the tv rating for dish. i'm wondering what they were smoking. that movie was wretched.

 

thanks for the support vol.

 

taks

[Pidesco]

That scene with Salma Hayek's leg was awesome.

[Baley]

That's a funny way of spelling Tom Savini's crotch.

[Guest The Architect]

To me having to go to a prostitute is for instant gratification and nothing else. What's more instant than jerking off? It's cleaner, cheaper and you don't have to worry about disease and laws.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

QFE.

 

Alanschu is right though, some people would prefer the 'service' of a prostitute, rather than masturbation.

Edited December 19, 2006 by The Architect

[Kaftan Barlast]

If prostitution was legal, this is what you would get down at the unemployment office:

 

 

-Im fresh out of college and I havent been able to find any work on my own so I thought Id see whats available?

-Well, have you thought about a career in sucking old men's ***? It would suit a young man like you perfectly, lots of personal freedom, no fixed workhours etc.

-That sounds great, except for that part about sucking old man' ***.

-Well, I guess you could take it up the dumper too, thats between you and the client to decide.

-Dont you have any jobs that doesnt involve old man's ***?

-Let me check...no.

-Well, I dont want to suck old or any other form of *** for a living!

-Im sorry to hear that, but do I need to remind you that refusing a job offer is illegal in accordance to the new ***-act of 2007?