I'm now for Option 3. I'll unpack why a bit later this noche. What are your views? (why is always a bonus):thumb:
Printable View
I'm now for Option 3. I'll unpack why a bit later this noche. What are your views? (why is always a bonus):thumb:
I think it should be regulated to an extent, or at least brothels should be regulated, If you just legalized it but only regulated brothels then you could have a safer but more expensive alternative for people then you could have a cheaper but riskier alternative as well and you wouldn't have cops wasting their time busting hookers.
Health inspections would be a good idea. Maybe they could hang a letter grade in the window like restaurants, along with heavy fines for false display of health ratings.
Regulated like any other small biz, i say, only slightly different.
Interesting. I would go along with that if an efficient scheme could be devised by a hypothetical state where it was legalized.Quote:
Originally Posted by ForrestBlack
OEC
How would you regulate, say, a dungeon? A person cannot legally consent to being assaulted under current law. My main argument for decriminalization mirrors one often made for keeping it illegal. It would tend to smoke out incidents of human trafficking. We had a former prostitute speak at a Sexuality and Gender Law Class. (also a writer for www.spreadmagazine.com) Prostitutes tend to know of incidents where the commercial sex is non-consensual, they simply cannot realistically go to the Police. Decriminalization (I'll go as far as Forrest's argument as it is a legitimate health and safety concern), in my view, would decouple commercial sex with incidents of human trafficking/slavery which are the main concern I have in this area.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidthorazine
OEC
I voted for illegal...today. Tomorrow that could change depending on my mood, hmmm let me think for a minute......that's right, I don't beleive any things or services should be illegal, everybody should be allowed to earn a living as they see fit, I think the users should be liscenced, for instance a lisence to pay for sex.
Fair Enough. I don't believe there is necessarily a "right" or "wrong" position in this area. Pragmatically, it comes down to the exercise of the "police power" of a given state. I tend to find Forrest's argument valid as a matter of health and safety. I would not go much past that (save the obvious caveat deviant designs makes concerning small business generally)Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Karl
OEC
I was just reading a related article and ran into this interesting statement that I thought it would be good to share:Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEyedCat
"In Australia, where sex for money is legal, the rate of HIV infection among female prostitutes is so low that prostitution has been removed from the list of known risk factors in HIV surveillance. In the U.S., reliable data are more difficult to come by, but a 1987 Centers for Disease Control study likewise found very low infection rates among prostitutes."
I agree about the health and safety, I wouldn't drive a car that was in bad shape with no insurance etc. Not only would I be facing big fines if I got caught but I could be endangering lives.
remember kids, getting a prostitute is a priviledge not a right
Interesting. Thanks.Quote:
Originally Posted by ForrestBlack
OEC
Yeah I agree that the human slavery thing is a major concern, as with drugs, the black market is actually a bigger problem than the thing thats illegal.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEyedCat
As for regulating a dungeon that would require a change in laws enabling one to consent to physical assault (though currently, no one who submitted to that would likely press charges anyway, which is why dungeons can currently operate (as long as no sex is going on, or if it functions more like a swingers club) without getting too much trouble from law enforcement.
It would be unlikely, but I would definitely agree at least an alteration in the law would be good.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kidthorazine
OEC
legal, regulated. we've seen many examples of this working.
now i'm pretty much opposed to the idea in general because all it does is victimize people, but that doesn't seem to be on most people's criteria for why something shouldn't be done as long as it makes money, so the long and short of it is that it's not going away.
And as long as it's here to stay, then it needs to be done in the best and safest way possible.
what i'd like is to take it even a step further than that and since it's now being treated as legitimate working trade, that it should be unionized so that the pimp doesn't just become the boss man or vice versa and I think that it would be the optimal way for workers to look out for each other and make sure that they are being treated fairly.
i voted for number 2... legal, but regulated....
:confused: Do you know what union leaders are like?Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
do you? there are no union leaders, that's what a union is. I guess since we're talking about the US here (?) then there really isn't any hope for that happening, because they shot that down a long time ago, but that's the dream.
umm. in case that didn't make sense, what im saying is that nowadays unions are just an outside agency that workers send money to and it uses it's finanical power to make business decisions. but that's not how it's supposed to work, it's supposed to be a bunch of workers in a given field that get together locally to make decisions about thier work and labor practices and communicate and cooperate with other such groups nationally to get things done when needed on a larger scale.
why cant you sell what you can give away?
i am for extreme regulation its one of those things like polygamy that is outlawed to protect the woman
you know with crazy cults in utah indoctronation and punishing little girls for not marrying people is cruel and should be outlawed but free people should be able to do what they want as long as they dont wake me up in the morning with all their racket
sure legalize it, regulate it, tax it... but make pimping, and other human trafficking offenses capital crimes.
summary execution for pimps.
read up on how the nevada ranches are run. not the most equitible system for the ladies.
fucking hate pimps.
Morning Glory, the problem I have with the unionization of sex work is essentially the same problem I have with housing associations. I don't want some outsider telling sex workers I know that they can't have too many tattoos or crazy hairstyles because they are bringing down the perceived value of the group. And if the union feels that a girl looks too different and shuts her out of work, she's going to do sex work anyway, on her own. And that defeats the purpose of the original health and safety regulation.
Also, a leaderless union is an idealist pipe dream. Someone has to do the organizational work and the negotiating and the regulating and why shouldn't they get credit for that work? Realistically, this is not handled evenly by the working masses.
Legalizing prostitution won't make all of the associated problems go away, but legitimizing the trade would be a huge step in the right direction. It would at least give prostitutes a minimum of protection in criminal and civil matters.
I put the vote in for regulated, but I am not sure if I mean the same thing by regulated as you do OEC. Mainly I am thinking licensed in the same way a hair stylist or massage therapist is. Consumer affairs tests you to make sure you understand basic health practices and can yank your license if you commit fraud or what have you.
I know it's not a cure-all. On your second point, could you unpack how this would work in practice. Upon passing a test, individual sex workers would then receive licenses? or do you mean the enterprise offering such services would need a specific business license? Or both? I don't disagree with you in theory, I'm just not sure how this regulatory scheme would play out. Can you give me a better sense of how you envision this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Cafe_Post_Mortem
OEC
I'm not sure of your point here. are you saying that all unionization is bad? all businesses discriminate anyway against workers that they feel aren't good for the company profits (we get people on here all the time talking about how their jobs won't let them have peircings and tattoos), so how exactly would workers deciding how they are treated instead of having no say be any worse than that?Quote:
Originally Posted by ForrestBlack
anyway, I'm just proposing that option. no one has to join a union if they don't want to. but there's a difference between not wanting to join one that exists and a business making it so that employees are not allowed or able to form one if they want to. it really only applies to groups of workers anyway. Just like it doesn't apply to people that own thier own business or work at home or otherwise don't have employees, same way here. since it's legal and regulated a person can just work for a different company or they can work on thier own just like any other private business owner.
yeah, who's to say that people won't skip the red tape and just do it illegally anyway... they might (once again, it's no worse than what we have now), but I think that the protection and safety and client base (and customers would probably rather go to such a service that they know they wont' get robbed, STDS or arrested for) would make people prefer to work in a legal and legit sex business.
another point for legalization and regulation that I wanted to point out is that many many prostitutes get physically and/or sexually abused and have pretty much zero legal recourse.
To reframe the question: Do you picture a scheme where a union *must* allow all sex workers to be members? Unions will invariably impose their own standards on their members. I have never heard of a labor law which enforces "appearance discrimination laws" against unions. I think what Forrest mentioned would happen. You would have, at best, a two-tiered system of union and non-union sex workers. From there, what would stop a union from petitioning a legislature for an actual monopoly? It may be that individual businesses would discriminate based on piercings. Consumer preferences will vary. Some may prefer Buffy the Co-Ed. Some may prefer tats and piercings from head to toe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
Without unions, it may be that different "niche" companies (or simply individual women in a given "niche") may arise. It may be that Buffy earns more, I don't know. I would prefer to keep them all on equal legal footing, however. I believe unionization of sex workers is fraught with peril.
OEC
yikes. this is getting on a slippery slope. how do you define "must allow", does that mean to allow without any exception? no, I don't neccesarily think that should be so, it should be based on some kind of criteria. But I think that that criteria should be proffesional and relevent to the current situation and standards. usually things like company contracts, hours, wages, working conditions, health care, child care, benefits, profit sharing, things like that are what they deal with; I just don't see personal apperance standards to be the primary concern, nor do I see self-expression to really be something that they are trying to put out in the sex business (pretty much everything that they do on the job is fake/acting including you-know-what). I don't think that they have any problems with that (concern about discrimination) today... which might be because they have more pressing issues to take care of, which I allready mentioned. I'm operating on the basis that this is day 1, so that all those things haven't been taken care of yet, and this is a way that I feel might help resolve them.
I don't know, maybe it could lead to problems of that very thing later on. do you think that unionization is a problem for everyone, or just for sex workers?
If you do, that's ok. but maybe we should dicuss that in a new "for/against/other" thread? I guess that maybe I might just have a romantic nostalgic view of the labor battles of history.
Everyone? No. In this area? Yes. The criteria you mention seems more what unions work for, it's not a standard for admission to the union. Exclusion in this area is very dangerous. The possible consequences are just too high. I'd be very skeptical. I also think you'd see more "owner-operators" than you might imagine. If I were to have an ideal, it would be the highest cut possibleQuote:
Originally Posted by Morning Glory
going to the sex worker herself. (Off topic but obviously this equal applies to male sex workers) The prostitute that gave the speech operated entirely on her own, took out ads on in the internet, screened her own clients, and kept 100% of her fee. I don't see the authenticity of sex work as art to be relevant here.
OEC
very interesting reading of course I'm still with my original thought of keeping it illegal.....maybe in twenty years it'll be time but not now
Fair Enough. Out of curiosity, do you base that partly on what you feel this society may or may not be currently capable of accepting as legitimate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Karl
OEC
Sorry, the won't fix everything disclaimer is a habit. Whenever someone talks of legalizing drugs, sex, or guns there is always the guy who pipes in saying that if it was legal, all the problems associated with it would go away. Happily I don't see that here so much, but the disclaimer is a habit. I will try to stop :thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by OneEyedCat
The licensing should stay simple, but like the union thing, it is hard to say it will. Basically before you can operate as a licensed prostitute you take a short course that explains birth control, STDs and general health practices that, in a civilized world, would have already been covered in school. You pay a $10 fee and you get a license number. Consumer affairs tracks it like they do with hairstylists. Unlicensed prostitution would not be a crime as such, but like haircutting, could get you in some civil trouble.
However, now that I have had a day to think on it, the idea of licensing does seem worrisome. Even legalized prostitution could be so marginalized that it might as well still be illegal. To many case now come up where the prevailing attitude is, "well she's a stripper". With that in mind maybe licensing is not such a hot idea.
So my new answer is, I think it should be legal, I go back and forth on regulating it.
It's natural on issues like this. It is actually better to consider and reconsider possible intended and unintended consequences imo.:thumb:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cafe_Post_Mortem
OEC
I'd propose a higher license fee, not crazy high, but I think it should really primarily be tied to a testing service and health record. So, essentially, the license periods would expire relatively frequently unless the health tests were passed by the individual in question. I also feel like this system might encourage a brothel structure more than a streetwalker structure and I think that would be a good thing on the overall. I'd even be ok with streetwalking pedestrian solicitation still being some sort of crime. I think legal houses of prostitution along with health inspections and a license would really keep things in pretty good shape.
Sounds reasonable. The one thing I'm undecided on: Even now, a lot of people advertise on the inet. They often just work from home. I guess just go with the same licensing. Hopefully, the consumers would check. I'd keep solicitation on the street a minor crime as well. It is a public nuisance and may smoke out a few traffickers/non-consensual situations if you go up the food chain.Quote:
Originally Posted by ForrestBlack
OEC
Why not, people have been selling sex since the beginning of humanity. However, there should be some regulations, due to disease & those that might take advantage of it & try & sell kids into etc. Actually oneeyedcat, I work in a dungeon here in LA. I love it & we have plenty of regulations, we are no nude, which some clients don't like but then we wouldn't want them anyway. No fluids, no fondeling, we clean all of our toys and for things like CBT we have rubber gloves. No medical fetishes due to fluids and we are very, very clean.
Basically any touching will be painful or torturous & we let clients know that from the beginning. We do get those who think they are getting sex but our house mistresses are awesome & totally look out for us. We have a mercy word & if anyone tries anything we let them know & we have 86'd people for not respecting us & the rules. I don't know what the regulations are in other parts of the country but we run a tight ship & lady H said that even if it was suddenly legal to sell sex she wouldn't. As BDSM is something she takes very serious.
looking at society as a whole, no , I don't think it's capable of accepting that right now, but, I may be wrongQuote:
Originally Posted by OneEyedCat
it should be legal, why not abortion is, if a woman has the right to get rid of her baby/fetus whatever why can't she or a man sell their body if they want? I'm Roman Catholic but Jesus seriously why the hell are there so many religious based laws when religion and state are supposed to be kept seperate eh?
It does need to be regulated though just like any other business venture
I voted for 2. They should model the system after the Dutch system.
So, how do the dutch handle it? For that matter, anyone who is in the know, how does Nevada handle it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Toe Cutter
Just curious on the legalities where it is legal.