Taiwan To Allow Small Brothels

[R. Richard]

Making some progress. Comment?

Taiwan to allow small brothels in law change
TAIPEI (Reuters) – Taiwan's government plans to allow sex workers to set up small businesses in the latest change to laws that had once forced the huge industry underground, the interior ministry said.

In a statement on its website, the ministry said it would consider brothels of three to five staff away from areas frequented by children. It will put plans to a cabinet committee by the end of the year.

The ministry ruled out earlier proposals to set up red-light districts or allow larger businesses due to concerns among members of its committee set up to study the issue that such measures would turn the sex trade into a regular industry.

Prostitution was legal only in Taiwan's capital, Taipei, until 1997 when the city authorities made it a criminal offence to be a prostitute though not to patronize one.

The government began debating new laws two years ago after pressure from prostitute groups over the unfairness of the law. In 2009 it stopped punishing sex workers.

Bars and night clubs in older parts of Taipei still teem with sex workers. Estimates from activists put the number of people involved in sex-related jobs in Taiwan at 600,000.

 

[amicus]

Taiwan To Allow Small Brothels

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Making some progress. Comment?

~~~

So you approve of legalizing the world's oldest profession?

Remaining consistent with my advocacy of human individual freedom; if a person wishes to sell their body for profit, then I see no need for government intervention, even to the extent of regulation and taxation.

However, my moral barometer does not favorably respond to a woman selling her body to any and all willing to pay.

Perhaps you would care to address your moral opinion concerning a single prostitute?

Amicus

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Small businesses are the real engine of economies. Good move, Taipei. Now, let's see Sacramento get with the program.

 

[Boxlicker101]

~~~

So you approve of legalizing the world's oldest profession?

Remaining consistent with my advocacy of human individual freedom; if a person wishes to sell their body for profit, then I see no need for government intervention, even to the extent of regulation and taxation.

However, my moral barometer does not favorably respond to a woman selling her body to any and all willing to pay.

Perhaps you would care to address your moral opinion concerning a singole prostitute?

Amicus

As far as I am concerned, if a man or woman is willing to provide sexual services for money, that person whould have a right to do so. I don't see much difference between a prostitute and a barber and a manicurist. All three provide personal services, and all three frequently have regular clients. The prostitute usually works in a more private place than the others, but that should be the only difference. All three should be able to establish they have no disease that might be passed on to clients, and the barber and manicurist would usually be required to demonstrate they kinow what they are doing. Inept legal prostitutes will go out of business if they are unable to satisfy their clients.

I think it would be legal to require the prostitute work out of a licensed brothel or at home, if this does not represent a public nuisance.

 

[Liar]

~~~

So you approve of legalizing the world's oldest profession?

It's not really a moral issue for or against prostitution, at least not the context of this desicion in Taiwan, nor the recent court case in Canada. (there's a thread somwhere here about that too) It's a practical issue.

Whether we like it or not, there's prostitution. The question is: How to minimize the problems commonly related to it? Trafficking, abuse, et al. Maginalizing or criminalizing the sex worker doesn't seem to reduce the sex work much, just increase other sex work related crimes.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Exactly. That which cannot be eliminated is best regulated. Lower rates of VD, reduced human trafficking, increased tax revenue, etc. People refuse to admit that Prohibition was a failure in alcohol and is proving to be a failure in drug use and prostitution. Let's wake up out there.

 

[amicus]

It's not really a moral issue for or against prostitution, at least not the context of this desicion in Taiwan, nor the recent court case in Canada. (there's a thread somwhere here about that too) It's a practical issue.

Whether we like it or not, there's prostitution. The question is: How to minimize the problems commonly related to it? Trafficking, abuse, et al. Maginalizing or criminalizing the sex worker doesn't seem to reduce the sex work much, just increase other sex work related crimes.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Liar, we have had this 'pragmatic versus principle' argument before, many times.

Was it VM who said since we have prostitutiion already, we may as well regulate and tax it? Well, my reposte would be: we have murder and rape as well, would you recommend the same pragmatic point of view as well?

Genocide and 'ethnic cleansing' goes on to this day in parts of the world; since we have it, should we just accept it and attempt to regulate it too?

There is also a personal isolation from the question if you address it in the abstract, that is to say, others than you, society in general. How about each of you personally? Would you be a prostitute? Would you approve of your spouse or your offspring or your close friends selling sex for profit?

I mean I know you all love the free market, non regulating concept of laizzes faire, but really!



Amicus

 

[ishtat]

New Zealand is often described as having the most 'liberal' prostitution laws but in truth all their 2003 Act does is to decriminalise prostitution but retain pimping as a crime. Essentially they treat it as a health and safety issue under the aegis of the Department of Health. Prostitutes are required to observe preventive diseases procedures and are entitled to workers compensation if injured at work.

A referendum was mooted to try and reverse the Act but in what is generally a socially conservative country they couldn't get the numbers for change.

De facto, the situation is pretty much the same in mainland Australia in that there are hundreds of small brothels with one or two in every suburb. Tasmania the island state is very repressive, as a result the profession there is under the control of criminal bikie gangs.

However, I find myself in agreement with Amicus: Every one should have the right to do what they wish with their own body... BUT if one of my own daughters contemplated the profession I would be devastated. I know that is not logical but it is nevertheless how I respond.

 

[Boxlicker101]

It's not really a moral issue for or against prostitution, at least not the context of this desicion in Taiwan, nor the recent court case in Canada. (there's a thread somwhere here about that too) It's a practical issue.

Whether we like it or not, there's prostitution. The question is: How to minimize the problems commonly related to it? Trafficking, abuse, et al. Maginalizing or criminalizing the sex worker doesn't seem to reduce the sex work much, just increase other sex work related crimes.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Liar, we have had this 'pragmatic versus principle' argument before, many times.

Was it VM who said since we have prostitutiion already, we may as well regulate and tax it? Well, my reposte would be: we have murder and rape as well, would you recommend the same pragmatic point of view as well?

Genocide and 'ethnic cleansing' goes on to this day in parts of the world; since we have it, should we just accept it and attempt to regulate it too?

There is also a personal isolation from the question if you address it in the abstract, that is to say, others than you, society in general. How about each of you personally? Would you be a prostitute? Would you approve of your spouse or your offspring or your close friends selling sex for profit?

I mean I know you all love the free market, non regulating concept of laizzes faire, but really!



Amicus

You didn't address me, but since I am in agreement with the squirrel and the bear and have posted on the thread, I will respond anyhow.

Frankly, I am surprised at you criticizing women for using their physical abilities and attributes to provide a service to men and accepting money for providing that service. I always thought you were strongly in favor of free enterprise, but I guess I was wrong. Do you consider it immoral for a barber to perform haircuts or a plumber to go to a house and replace leaky pipes? What is the essential difference between what they do and what prostitutes do? They are all being paid for performing services.

You cannot reasonably compare prostitution with murder and rape and genocide and ethnic cleansing. The former is a victimless crime and the latter have claimed millions of victims.

As for whether or not I would be a prostitute, I have accepted money from gay men for allowing them to suck me off, so I guess that means I have been a prostitute, but it was a long time ago. Even now, if a woman were to offer me money for eating her pussy, I would probably take her up on it. Of course, I would be willing to eat her out with no money involved, but I figure I might as well make a profit if I can. With the attitude I used to think you had to free enterprise, I'm sure you can recognize the wisdom of that.

I find it hard to believe that you would be opposed to casdual sex. If you are, this site is a really strange place for you to hang out, because we are constantly reading and writing about casual sex. Some stories involve committed partners, but most are about casual sex. If you see nothing wrong with casual sex per se, why should the fact that one person is paying the other make any difference?

 

[Verdad]

The only prostitution law that conceptualizes things right is Swedish. Penalize the buyer, not the seller.

Hold the applause; I know you all agree with me.

 

[amicus]

I hold, as a value, being able to express a complete moral and ethical philosophy, without any contradictions and with as basic a language as possible, as a prerequisite to civil discussion of issues.

Ishtat: “…However, I find myself in agreement with Amicus: Every one should have the right to do what they wish with their own body... BUT if one of my own daughters contemplated the profession I would be devastated. I know that is not logical but it is nevertheless how I respond.

Over the years of contemplating the ramifications of a truly 'free' society, prostitution and drug use always arises in those who question just how free a people can be without destroying the social system they live in.

Personally, I include the concepts of naturalism, the nature of man, and the innate sexual urges that drive behaviors. Man is the only creature we know of with free will, the ability to choose what actions he initiates or participates in and thus is born a 'right/wrong or indifferent' scenario, a moral and ethical code based on what is beneficial to life and what is not.

Ishtat, being a parent brings those questions into acute focus, especially for daughters, of which I have five, all grown, thankfully. I am going to merge this concept into a partial reply to:

Box:

“…Frankly, I am surprised at you criticizing women for using their physical abilities and attributes to provide a service to men and accepting money for providing that service. I always thought you were strongly in favor of free enterprise, but I guess I was wrong….

…I find it hard to believe that you would be opposed to casdual sex. If you are, this site is a really strange place for you to hang out, because we are constantly reading and writing about casual sex. Some stories involve committed partners, but most are about casual sex. If you see nothing wrong with casual sex per se, why should the fact that one person is paying the other make any difference?...”

Women prostituting themselves for money and 'casual sex', or, as I prefer, promiscuity.

You may think it old fashioned, but I have always placed women on a pedestal; always cherished feminity and all that it means, more sensitive, more caring, more gentle with helpless things than their male counterpoints.

Women, just like men, can be, and are, 'seduced' into sexual behaviors, by intimidation, drugs and the ability to supply a needed commodity, such as food or shelter, not to speak of satisfying a sexual appetite.

From a psychological point of view, all humans are born being a sexual being, with pleasure gained from manipulating the genitals. This 'natural' pleasure continues through puberty and all societies impose a variety of controls over the sexual behavior of their children.

Most societies have always looked down on prostitution as being an immoral act that is tolerated because it is so prevalent, yet morally criticized as being self destructive and destructive of marriage and the formation of families.

If a single woman on this forum will attest to the value of allowing a fat, ugly, sweaty, smelly, rude and rough man to get on top of her and do his business, twenty times in a row, with a different male each time, I would like to hear it.

Casual sex by any woman earns her the title of 'Slut' or other synonymies in each and every society ever recorded. Even the promiscuous male has earned titles in every society and none of them are complimentary.

So, yes, I am opposed to casual sex. I conclude that it cheapens the act and changes it from a loving interaction between two people to a recreational outlet such as jogging; one that is without lasting value and adds nothing to the social totality.

That is not to say that I didn't chase every skirt that ruffled in the wind....I did.

Verdad:

“…The only prostitution law that conceptualizes things right is Swedish. Penalize the buyer, not the seller.

Hold the applause; I know you all agree with me….”

Justify the penalty on either, m'dear?

To the Threadstarter....thank you for the first interesting Thread in weeks!

Amicus

 

[Liar]

Liar, we have had this 'pragmatic versus principle' argument before, many times.

Was it VM who said since we have prostitutiion already, we may as well regulate and tax it? Well, my reposte would be: we have murder and rape as well, would you recommend the same pragmatic point of view as well?

I would favor solutions that worked in terms of lowering the rape and murder rate over solutions that didn't.

But no, I wouldn't say legalize it, because I do make a distiction between those things. Rape and murder violates inalienable rights of the victim. Prostitution does not in itself have victims.

And when there are victims related to prostitution, it's almost exclusively the prostitute, who becomes a victim of sexual assault, abuse, extortion, trafficking and illicit coercion that leads to non consensual prostitution. Which should be called by it's true name and treated as such: rape.

What you do when you allow for prostitutes to start legit businesses, have a safe work environment and sieze control over what they do from abusive johns, pimps and pushers, is that you eliminate a whole lot of rape.

I don't know about you, but I kind of hate rape. So I fail to see measures to prevent it as a bad thing.

But all that is beside the point. In Taiwan prositution was legal (whether you and I think it should be or not), but problematic. Now it's still legal but hopefully less problematic.

There is also a personal isolation from the question if you address it in the abstract, that is to say, others than you, society in general. How about each of you personally? Would you be a prostitute? Would you approve of your spouse or your offspring or your close friends selling sex for profit?

No more than I would approve of them being doing porn.

Should porn be illegal?

 

[Liar]

The only prostitution law that conceptualizes things right is Swedish. Penalize the buyer, not the seller.

Hold the applause; I know you all agree with me.

As a concept, it's an idea, but it has had some dumb consequences. But it's like the future concept designs you see at car shows. Looks pretty, but don't drive very well.

The good thing it has done is getting rid of most street prostitution. It has largely moved to the net or indoors. But it's still there, because the pretty model didn't have an engine - no extra resouces for fighting trafficking, no real initiative to help those who prostitute themselves to feed a drug habit, no other measures offered to help them get out of that job.

And whoever is penalized, it made the transation illegal, so it has to happen underground and out of sight. Which means that the people who were already doing illegal things - pimps, sex traffickers, abusive customers et al, who weren't concerned about the law before - have the same free pass to go ahead and be assholes, and are even less likely to get caught. A hooker is not going to start reporting customers left and right, or she'll have no means of living left.

 

[Liar]

ick double postage

 

[manyeyedhydra]

The only prostitution law that conceptualizes things right is Swedish. Penalize the buyer, not the seller.

Hold the applause; I know you all agree with me.

Kind of hope you're being ironic. The Swedish law is terrible for women. It sweeps the problem under the carpet and gives the girls no protection at all.

 

[R. Richard]

~~~

So you approve of legalizing the world's oldest profession?

Remaining consistent with my advocacy of human individual freedom; if a person wishes to sell their body for profit, then I see no need for government intervention, even to the extent of regulation and taxation.

However, my moral barometer does not favorably respond to a woman selling her body to any and all willing to pay.

Perhaps you would care to address your moral opinion concerning a single prostitute?

Amicus

In a big city venue, a prostitute must have a pimp. The pimp provides protection and takes almost all of the prostitute's money. When the prostitute fails to bring in enough money, she's dumped. She's now too old for her trained work and to broken down to do much else. A brothel is a safe, clean environment in whch a prostitute may work and earn enough money to support herself when she retires.

As has been pointed out, a hair stylist or beautician provides personal services to pretty much any and all willing to pay. If someone attempted to sell such services on the street, they would be arrested and probably subjected to mental review.

In Nevada, there are legal brothels. The license to run such a brothel is a valuable item. The Nevada brothels are, of necessity, safe, clean places to work. The prostitutes get paid, less the brothel's share, which is FAR less than a pimp would take.

In my business, I often work on pimps (yes on pimps.) I also have talked with prostitutes who worked for the pimps and for the Nevada brothels. In my expert opinion, the legal brothels are the only way to go. Pimps are not the way to go. (You don't know a pimp that I have worked on, trust me.)

 

[sdineen]

Oh new life movement ohh

What would the Generallismo say?

 

[Verdad]

Kind of hope you're being ironic. The Swedish law is terrible for women. It sweeps the problem under the carpet and gives the girls no protection at all.

Hiya, Hydra. Actually, that part wasn’t ironic. As Liar pointed out, in practice that law isn’t all it should be. I think it at least formulates the problem correctly, though.

I suspect many here see the problem of prostitution solely as the problem of working conditions of prostitutes; if so, legalization does sound like the best solution. If, however, you see something inherently problematic about putting the seal of approval on prostitution—problematic in terms of how we think of human dignity, women and their role, possible other consequences, etc—then it becomes complicated. I don’t want prostitutes harassed, but you also won’t hear me cheer the ‘progress’ of considering prostitution as every girl’s acceptable spare occupation. The naiveté (or dark cynicism) of saying “it’s got nothing to do with everygirl, only those who want the job!” doesn’t convince me either. Hope that clarifies.

 

[R. Richard]

The problems of prostitution are many. Too often short term solutions overlook long term problems.

Let's look at an all too real example. Alice Cornfed gets off a bus in the big city. Alice is 14-years-old, but looks a bit older. Alice is running away from an abusive home. Alice has only one thing to sell and she's been sitting on it all the way from Iowa. NO WAY does a legal brothel employ Alice. The brothel has a license and the brothel doesn't want to lose that license. Under our current system, Alice is a prime target for a pimp. If there were legal brothels across the USA, there would be little demand for an Alice, possilby HIV infected, standing on a street corner. Right now, big demand.

As to the morality of it. I worked in a large defense copany. The company and all of our competitors used corporate whores. The company for which I worked used secretaries as corporate whores. The corporate whores would screw customers, for pay. However, the girls wanted nothing to do with employees of their company, myself most definitely included. Due to some extemely unusual circumstances, I got to know a few of the corporate whore girls quite well. The situation was explained to me as follows, "If a girl wants a boyfriend, she has to screw him for free. Mostly he treats her like shit. If a girl dates customers, she gets well treated, well paid and well educated. Which girl would you choose?" (I, of course replied, "Naturally, the one with the big tits." For some, unknown reason ...)

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Small brothels, huh? What are we talking here? Like 8' X 10' and maybe 4 feet high?

 

[R. Richard]

Small brothels, huh? What are we talking here? Like 8' X 10' and maybe 4 feet high?

The Taiwan definition of 'small brothel has to do with the number of employees. I suspect, although it's really not clear, that it's the number of fucking employees. (Rare that you get to use the term properly.)

 

[ishtat]

Hiya, Hydra. Actually, that part wasn’t ironic. As Liar pointed out, in practice that law isn’t all it should be. I think it at least formulates the problem correctly, though.

I suspect many here see the problem of prostitution solely as the problem of working conditions of prostitutes; if so, legalization does sound like the best solution. If, however, you see something inherently problematic about putting the seal of approval on prostitution—problematic in terms of how we think of human dignity, women and their role, possible other consequences, etc—then it becomes complicated. I don’t want prostitutes harassed, but you also won’t hear me cheer the ‘progress’ of considering prostitution as every girl’s acceptable spare occupation. The naiveté (or dark cynicism) of saying “it’s got nothing to do with everygirl, only those who want the job!” doesn’t convince me either. Hope that clarifies.

Morally, the position you take Verdad is is reasonable, but practically I don't think your approach works. In this(Swedish) context as soon as you make the client criminally responsible for example you introduce the probability of blackmail/standovers, false accusations and suchlike.

I support the New Zealand method not because it is perfect , it isn't, but it does appear improve harm minimisation more than any other approach.

The better overall result is obtained by protecting the prostitute rather than treating the client as a criminal in fact the latter has all sorts of negative unintended consequences.

I don't like it but imperfect pragmatism trumps a morally judgemental approach.
Being right, regrattably, isn't good enough

 

[R. Richard]

I don't like it but imperfect pragmatism trumps a morally judgemental approach.
Being right, regrattably, isn't good enough

You have nailed it, Ishtat! In the street, only strength counts. Pimps and even customers can abuse prostitutes. In a brothel, there's protection and safe, clean working conditions for the prostitute.

As for eliminating prostitution, why not? I mean they have only been trying for several thousand years, why not this year?

 

[Verdad]

Morally, the position you take Verdad is is reasonable, but practically I don't think your approach works. In this(Swedish) context as soon as you make the client criminally responsible for example you introduce the probability of blackmail/standovers, false accusations and suchlike.

I support the New Zealand method not because it is perfect , it isn't, but it does appear improve harm minimisation more than any other approach.

The better overall result is obtained by protecting the prostitute rather than treating the client as a criminal in fact the latter has all sorts of negative unintended consequences.

I don't like it but imperfect pragmatism trumps a morally judgemental approach.
Being right, regrattably, isn't good enough

I know. What one needs in the end is a workable approach, not quixotic rants. Nevertheless, I find it a hard question; I’d like safety for prostitutes, but not blithe approval for prostitution and the approval’s ideological implications, and it’s pretty hard to achieve both at the same time. I’ll go with the pragmatic but not happily.

 

[oggbashan]

I've said before that I recruited a local prostitute as a member of our Chamber of Commerce (when I was VICE-President).

She offered reciprocal discounts to Chamber members and paid her dues on time. She usually acted as a dominatrice, which might have deterred some members, or not?

Prostitution is legal in England, as are small brothels, as long as no men are involved in the running or ownership. Soliciting, particularly on the street, IS illegal but the Police are normally tolerant of it if it isn't too blatant.

Og