Prostitution

[Shaq]

I voted yes for all the above reasons, but also for one more. Prostitution is and always will be around, it's the oldest profession in the world.

So instead of allowing these people to fall pray to every sick pervert out there, why not get them under controlled conditions where they will be safe.

Which in turn gives a public service to those in need of companionship, plus halts the spread of disease.

Carl

I agree with this opinion...prostitutes need to be better trained though...a lot of them just suck and fuck...they put no passion into their art...unlike Lisa "Lips" Malone, Samantha "Widower" Smith and other legendary streetwalkers from yesteryear....

 

[superlittlegirl]

an additional question...

this is not an attempt to hijack.

Would anyone out here advocate the mandatory STD testing of all sexually active individuals? I have no reason to believe that just because a person gets paid to engage in sex means that they are more of a vector for disease than the rest of the promiscuous people out there who don't get paid. HIV does not care if there is a financial transaction or not. It is indiscriminate.

I think it is misguided and wrong to blame sex workers for being the most significant vector for STDs. Far fewer people pay for sex than get it for free; far more people cheat on their spouses and unknowingly infect them through everyday sexual contact.

I don't think STD testing should be mandatory within the general population; I fear the Big-Brother implications and what could/would be done with the resulting infected population. But I do believe that it should be free, on demand, and within a comfortable and respectful setting. Has anyone out here been to a free clinic to get a gyn exam lately? I sure as hell would not ever do that more than once. I think a first step toward slowing the rate of STD infection would be to make testing less of an ordeal. (Yes, I know you can get an HIV test for free practically anywhere, but we have more to worry about than HIV. The other tests [gonnorhea, syphillis, herpes, chlamydia, HPV, etc.] require manual exams and cultures, and cost a lot of money. I think the spread has a lot to do with people's refusal to subject themselves to the humiliation of exams within the public health setting.) Testing of all kinds needs to be free, and available on demand.

I take very serious issue with the demonization of sex-workers as the cause of the spread of STDs. I will not deny that it does happen, but the large percentage of sex workers are responsible about testing and protection, and there is a very active network of safe sex and testing advocacy within the industry. It's time to stop perpetuating Victorian-Era impressions of sex-workers. It's time to stop using that blame as a smokescreen for the real underlying issues that feed the STD crisis.

[stepping off of soapbox]

--Freya

 

[superlittlegirl]

Another thought.

Responsibility for safe sex lies with both the sex-worker and the client. You don't want STDs? Be adamant about using a condom every time, for all sexual acts, oral as well as intercourse. You would be hard pressed to find a sex-worker who refuses to let a client use a condom. Should we blame the sex-worker or should we blame the john for being too stupid to cover his own dick?

The easy solution to stopping the spread of STDs is to cover it up every time. Whether the sex is paid for or not. unfortunately, many men think they are exempt from that ritual, and would rather take the risk of catching or spreading disease than be socially conscious.

And if you're a guy who is religious about condom usage, I am obviously not talking to you, so don't take offense at my words. I am talking about the guys who wheedle and whine, refuse and rationalize. They are the problem, within paid and unpaid sexual scenarios.

 

[superlittlegirl]

OK, last one for a bit

It's so like me to take the one point of contention I have with this thread and latch onto it and shake it like a pit-bull.

I have been really pleased with the viewpoints expressed in this thread-- even the one I took issue with. I think the discourse is highly rational, logical, and insightful. I don't want ya'll to think I see it any other way.

 

[Rubyfruit]

Girl is my hero

I think I've mentioned before that my husband and I have hired an escort.

We also swing.

The girl we hired was safer than any couple I've ever played with. Some of them have to be reminded to wear a condom for fucking, believe it or not.

She, however, wouldn't even suck my husband's cock without a condom, much to his dismay.

 

[IA951]

If you want to kill yourself with sex go right the fuck ahead, what does it matter to me?

If you are going to make it legal to fuck and get paid for it
then we need to think about the heavy-duty drug laws that we have in place.

We need to consider the people who could give a fuck about the sex...those who are more interested in the weed or perhaps mushrooms.

Think of the revenue that could be generated by taxing whores and drugs.

we could reduce to a great degree,if not eliminate the national debt.
Not that that would ever happen of course, it's a nice thought though.

 

[DRxBlue]

WOW! That's a tough act to follow!

But it's too late to squeeze in in front of her. You Rock, SLG!

i voted yes, because i think "sex-workers" in all of their various forms deserve the protection of the law as much as anyone else.
i also don't believe you can lump them all together, any more than you can compare a race car driver to the drunk who ran over your dog, though they are both "motor vehicle operators.

For some it's a dirty, messy living; for others an art form for which they are paid much less than what their time is worth, with a rainbow of hues and shades between.

As has been pointed out, the idea that it can be stopped is absurd. Regulation would be a plus for all people concerned. Health facilities for the workers and their clients, should be available.

Sex-workers should be able to get affordable health insurance (we ALL should) and have ways to provide for retirement benefits.

The current system is a crime in itself. One more reason, to my mind, that politics should be criminalized.

Gee, maybe i ought write my congressman about THAT one.

So, anyway, that's why i voted yes.

 

[Rubyfruit]

IA, what's the difference between fucking to die, or druging to die?

How about just getting in your car and getting in a random accident?

There was one here a few weeeks ago. Took out an entire family.

You know (I know you know), that living is a risk.

 

[The_old_man]

As the old joak goes:

A wife is a partner in the firm.

A mistress is on salery.

A prostitute in on piece rate.

Yes, prostitution should be decriminalized. Drugs should also be decriminalized. I am not advocating legalisation,as that would lead to commercalisation.

I can remember Prohibition and the crimminal activities it led to. Today the "War against drugs" is as much a failure. Todays polititions just aren't smart enough, or are getting too much of a rakeoff, to repeal it as they did the Volstedt Ammendment.

 

[dreamer]

I don't think that'd ever be MY bag...baby...but I strongly support legalization of prostitution.

It's one of those few laws that takes a legal action between two adults and makes it illegal for no objective reason. Always seemed silly to me.

 

[IA951]

IA, what's the difference between fucking to die, or druging to die?

How about just getting in your car and getting in a random accident?

There was one here a few weeeks ago. Took out an entire family.

You know (I know you know), that living is a risk.

well fuck you put it that way and EVERYTHING is a risk eh?

I fail to see the link between a random accident and behavior you engage in by choice.

As for your question,if you OD your death will be much quicker then if you happen to contract an STD right?
so let me see..quick death vs. lingering death?
oh what to choose...

 

[Guest]

It will never change. Prostitution will be constant. It's stupid to try to change it, but polititions will try. *smirk*

Moon

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: Another thought.

Responsibility for safe sex lies with both the sex-worker and the client. You don't want STDs? Be adamant about using a condom every time, for all sexual acts, oral as well as intercourse. You would be hard pressed to find a sex-worker who refuses to let a client use a condom.

Let's be clear here; we are talking about prostitutes all over the world, not "sex-worker" in some locality such as Nevada where it is legalized. Pros the worldwide are dying off from STDs left and right because they have sex without protection. Also, pros here in Seattle, and anywhere else on the street are not some smart and savy "sex-worker" as in "Pretty Woman", many are 16 year old runaways on crack engaging in unprotected sex everyday just to survive to the next day.

Okay, okay, we were talking about legalization and mandatory testing - but my point about the testing was that it is not something that is proof against STD infection, nor is protected sex with a condom. This lessens the risk greatly, but the fact is that even "sex-workers" who are careful about protection and testing, run a high risk of infection just because they engage in sex with people who may or may not be infected with STDs.

The sex-worker has no idea whether their client is infected or not, and I know of no locality that requires client testing. They see many clients per day, the risks go up as the numbers go up - it is simple statistics. It is also risky for the clients since the sex-worker has a higher likelihood of being infected.

Is it a higher likelihood than engage in casual sex with a stranger? That is impossible to say without a wide statistical study that will probably never be done since it would be impractical if not impossible to survey a good sample of sex-worker clients and people who engage in casual sex and have them tested for STDs over a period of time. You would also have to quantify it by category; comparing people by frequency of exposure. It would make for interesting data, but it would never get done as you would never be able to collect the data.

The easy solution to stopping the spread of STDs is to cover it up every time. Whether the sex is paid for or not. unfortunately, many men think they are exempt from that ritual, and would rather take the risk of catching or spreading disease than be socially conscious.

There is no easy solution to the spread of STDs. There are better solutions, but none are easy, and none are going to stop the spread. STDs have been with us since the beginning of our species, and will be forever. The best that can be hoped for is to keep the spread down as muc h as possible, but until there is some breakthrough in vaccination and cures, there will always be STDs - that is unless everybody all of a sudden becomes celibate.

 

[brokenbrainwave]

I voted no not out of a moral issue but out of the fact the government would merely have to try and regulate the industry plus are most hookers smart enough to figure out the sales tax that would inveritably be invoked upon the act itself? I mean can you really see someone that just gave a guy head trying to carry the two? Dammit leave these poor bastards alone, keep the government out of the hookers, more easily done now the Clinton aint the Pres anymore

 

[Shy Tall Guy]

Re: an additional question...

I think it is misguided and wrong to blame sex workers for being the most significant vector for STDs. Far fewer people pay for sex than get it for free; far more people cheat on their spouses and unknowingly infect them through everyday sexual contact.

Do you have stats to back that assertion up? Turn about is fair play.

My assertion was based on uprotected sex, and as I asserted in the other thread, I was talking about prostitution in general, not careful and savy "sex-workers" who insist on protected sex. Granted, with legalization, there would be an increase in the number of pros who become savy about what they engage in, but there will also still be the underage runaway on drugs who isn't. And don't tell me that most pros aren't just that; all I have to do is drive through downtown Seattle to see them.

I don't think STD testing should be mandatory within the general population; I fear the Big-Brother implications and what could/would be done with the resulting infected population.

Who said anything about mandatory testing? What I was inferring is that if you want to sell sex that some organization maybe offer something like a certification that states that you have been educated about STDs, and that you regularly are tested for them, and are free of them.

But I do believe that it should be free, on demand, and within a comfortable and respectful setting.

As far as I know it is available for free in many areas - as for comfortable and respectful, *shrugs shoulders*, as far as I know that is true to - at least in my area. I personally do not believe that it is the responsiblity of any government to provide for the health care of its citizens - that is not the proper function of government. Of course I also believe that a government shouldn't be taxing our income and redistributing it either, so that should tell you I am a Libertarian who believes in minimal government.

I think a first step toward slowing the rate of STD infection would be to make testing less of an ordeal. (Yes, I know you can get an HIV test for free practically anywhere, but we have more to worry about than HIV. The other tests [gonnorhea, syphillis, herpes, chlamydia, HPV, etc.] require manual exams and cultures, and cost a lot of money.

I am not a physician, nor am I health worker, but I do know that immunoassays that can screen for most STDs, including chlamydia and HPV, with a simple blood sample, are available, and they cost pennies for each test. Now if you get a positive then exams are probably called for, or maybe it is the other way around, the immunoassays are used to get a confirmation, but I know they can be used for screening. I also know they can be produced extremely inexpensively because I know a little about how they are produced having worked at a company that makes most of the ones in use (to give you a clue, it was the company that first isolated HIV and developed a test for it). There are many tests out there now that don't even require a blood sample - saliva is enough, and they can even be self-administered. The reason these are not as widely available as pregnancy tests is political; the FDA, and the US government does not want people testing themselves, getting a positive, and going off and comitting suicide, when they should be getting a confirmation and counseling. Or at least that is the stated reason - there are others too.

I take very serious issue with the demonization of sex-workers as the cause of the spread of STDs.

Who is demonizing them? I did not state they were the sole or even primary cause of the spread of STDs - I stated that they were a high risk. If a sex-worker never ever engaged in sex again, they would still be a high risk just due to their exposure. That doesn't mean that they will ever be the cause of STD spread. The two statements are related, but one does not necessarily infer the other - it would depend on a number of factors, including how many sex-workers there are, and how many people engaged in sex with them. I merely stated that engaging in sex with a prostitute was a high risk proposition. For instance, a sex-worker will never give me an STD, at least not directly, because I will never engage in sex with one. I don't engage in casual sex either - indeed I have been celibate for over a decade.

I will not deny that it does happen, but the large percentage of sex workers are responsible about testing and protection, and there is a very active network of safe sex and testing advocacy within the industry. It's time to stop perpetuating Victorian-Era impressions of sex-workers. It's time to stop using that blame as a smokescreen for the real underlying issues that feed the STD crisis.

I would disagree; I don't think it is "Victorian" to be realistic about the risks, and while I am sure there are some number of sex-workers who are as you state, "responsible", I believe the majority of exposure of the populace to women (and men) who are paid for sex, are not that kind of "sex-worker". As I stated before, most seem to be people who are much less responsible.

And before I am raked over the coals for that characterization; I am not demonizing those poor kids either. I think they are victims and they deserve my help. I am just being realistic about their predicament and not characterizing it as a career choice. For most it is not a career choice, or a lifestyle choice, or just something they fell into - it is a living nightmare that they would do anything to get out of, but they can't (without help) because they are spiraling further and further into it. There is no Richard Gere to take them away from it all, and many die a miserable death from either drugs or STDs.

Which brings me to the other issue; drugs, which are also a cause of STD exposure for prostitutes, and therefore make them a risk for in turn exposing their "clients". So, as I stated before, sex with a prostitute is a high risk proposition.

What does this have to do with legalization/decriminalization? Probably very little; it is a side issue whereas it would be affected by legalization - probably to the benefit of everybody, but it most assuradly would not magically make all prostitutes a safe avenue for casual sex - probably not even most of them.

 

[Spinaroonie]

bump