Legal Brothels in the UK

Remove all ads!

'Spic' is a derogatory term for a hispanic person, iirc.


Guys, lets calm this down, and get back on topic. The brothels in the UK.

 

Maybe you should not play a Moderator just because you were cornered against a wall and proved wrong - I don't know why, but I was sure you would play this card.
It is even more ironic that you say that, when it was you who derailed the topic by picking on my post which had a very clear aim at Pac man, and was not THE LEAST more off topic than William Blake's quotations, Las Vegas, Saint Augustine, someone going to Amsterdam; in other words, it was not the least more of topic than basically every post in this thread so far. Sorry, but you failed.

I don't expect anything from you when it comes to your internal policies. You are totally digressing and way off dude.
Anyway, I only disavow non-Russians with Russian passports. Those are not Russians, and do not count as Russian criminals, but rather alien ones. As simple as that.
They are Russia's problems as long as they are harming Russian society, and the sooner they are shipped back to where they belong to, the better. What they do elsewhere is not our problem though.

 

Well, svyatoslav, define Russians then? Now I'm not too up-to-date on the Russia-based mob and whatnot, so from my ignorant point of view, it'd seem logical that a mob that is mostly based in Russia, and whose members predominantly speak Russian and carry the Russian nationality seems a rather Russian problem to anyone who considers it a problem, but maybe that's just me.
Anyway, I digress: please explain to me what determines who is or isn't Russian, and why the mobsters concerned aren't Russian?

 

Err, proved wrong about what? I've already said (more than once) that I didn't understand why you put your comment in this thread. If asking for an explanation and being provided it is being proved wrong, then I suppose I was proved wrong. And if you really believed that I was "playing Moderator" or doing something else wrong, you should report me to the actual Moderators. I admit I break that rule perhaps more than I should, but only out of concern for my fellow SPers; I don't want to get anyone in trouble who doesn't clearly deserve it.

Clear to you, perhaps, but not to me. Which is why I addressed a comment and then added my own thoughts to the subject to try to keep it on-topic. I'd say we both deserve the blame on this one for allowing it to get this far.

Of course you shouldn't expect anything on internal policies of the US from me...because that's not what this thread is about! You are the one who is trying to lead me to digress even further, and I'm not going to fall for it.

So you don't care what happens to the Russian women who are carted off and sold? I find that extremely hard to believe, and will assume that is not the case unless you correct me. But what really concerns me is the implication (hopefully also mistaken) that you don't care to punish these people who have kidnapped your citizens and sold them into slavery of the worst kind. Extradition treaties are wonderful things...

Also, how do non-Russians get Russian passports? Don't you have to reside in a country to get a passport from it, or are you just talking about the stamp on entry?

EDIT:
Ah, ethnic vs. legal Russians.

[ January 22, 2006, 20:50: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

Ok, I am changing this to PM.
On topic, I am against the legalization, because although it might have positive aspects, in the end it means we are recognizing prostitution as something legitimate and correct.

 

Alright, on the topic...

Why exactly is prostitution so horrible? Frankly, if I had to chose between working on, say, garbage disposal trucks or prostitution (that is, the itself, without all the merde that seems to surround it) I'm not sure I'd pick the former. Now, being forced into prostitution is a terrible thing, and those responsible should be punished most severely, but what exactly is the evil of prostitution in and of itself? It seems as an as legitimate way of making money as anything: providing a something desired (sex) in exchange for something they want (money).

Why always the big deal about sex anyway - it's not like we're asking the prostitutes to also be bound to their customers for life...

 

And that would be wrong.

 

When the government legalizes something, it is not "recognizing" it and endorsing it. This is also the crux of the gay marriage debate.

Government shouldn't be in the business of "legalizing" anything and certainly not of endorsing anything.

Rather, the government and its laws should outlaw things that its citizens consider worthy of being banned.

Fortunately, I live in a country where the government isn't supposed to be endorsing anything and is supposed to allow each individual to pursue their own happiness -- so long as their happiness doesn't prevent someone else from pursuing their happiness.

And of course, I simply can't be happy knowing that there are two dudes going at it three blocks from where I live -- nor can I get on with pursuing my hapiness knowing that 100 miles from here there is some Vietnamese woman "servicing" some truck driver at a "massiage parlor." I'm positively miserable today as a result! How am I supposed to do my crossword puzzle knowing such filth is taking place in my country???

And these poor women being exploited! Women are clearly the weaker sex, and therefore incapable of making their own career and life choices. Thus, every woman should have one -- no two! -- government bodyguards looking after them at all times ensuring they make the right decisions in their lives. Men might need the same if men actually became prostitutes or appeared in porn, which of course they never do! We're too strong to fall for such exploitation.

 

Actually, Blake, Sugustine and Las Vegas were ON topic, its called using examples, one of the signs of an rganised arguement. Amsterdam, well that was humour, trying to lighten things up.

@Hugo

You've got a good point there, and I suppose the whole thing boils down to religion really, most things are either concerned with sex or religion. Hmm, sounds like time for another Blake quote. I'll go hunt for one later.

The whole thing behind sex being viewed as such comes from most religions teaching that the human body is to be denied wherever possible, and that sex is base and corrupt. Which is frankly silly.

 

Hmm, this is an interesting debate and not one that can be resolved easily. I'm a bit of a fence-sitter on this, in that, whilst I do not have a problem with the concept of prostitution, I can also see that it does seem to come up with a lot of unwanted side-effects (e.g. the crime, the human trafficking, people working against their will). I think I agree with Hugo's garbage disposal argument, in that I'd rather be a high-class escort than a waste disposal person. But I'd also rather be a waste disposal person than a hooker working in terrible conditions and being beaten up all the time.

It would be impossible to get rid of prostitution completely because, to a certain extent, you can't stop someone placing conditions on whether they will let someone else have sex with them.

 

Yes, but governments are also there to protect the people. Prostitution is quite dangerous, as the chance of getting STDs is greatly increased. Governments can't let people hurt themselves or others, even if it is in pursuit of their own happiness. Giving someone an STD can restrict someone's life and happiness, and because prostitution spreads STDs, prostitution can restrict life and happiness. If a government lets people hurt themselves and others, it isn't a very good government.

Until prostitution can be made safe (if it ever can), governments should make it illegal.

 

Governments should stop people from hurting themselves?
Governments should decide what's good for the people for them?
Person A should decide how person B can live because person A is part of the government?

 

I'm with Taza 100% here - that's the same as outlawing the bodyguard profession, because there's a good chance they might get hurt or have to hurt others in the line of their profession.
Yes, STDs are a risk, but anyone in their right mind knows that prostitutes tend to get around, and thus that having unprotected sex with a prostitute might lead to your dick withering and falling off.

The government can install regulations to protect the prostitutes and their customers, which is exactly what the legislation being discussed intends to do, but it should NOT take away people's liberty to be or visit a prostitute.

 

Does this also apply to the invasion in Iraq ? Because a lot of people are getting hurt overthere.

 

It's worse than banning bodyguards - it's more like banning TV because it can damage your eyes.

I'll risk the eye damage And if people want to risk damage to certain other parts of their body, why shouldn't they?

 

In N.Ireland we view the prostitutes as victims, and only punish the scum that visit them. Other countries are happy to "blame the woman" as usual.

Sticking to the original topic, I don't think it will ever become a legal service in N.Ireland (we are part of the UK after all), but I would not be against it if it were. The funny thing is that "lap dancing" establishments are not allowed to show any nudity here, dispite being legal in both the Republic of Ireland and mainland Britian.

 

In holland it is, and no it does not work. Really it does not work how much regulating you put to it. It will not work while human nature is the spoiler.

So all speculatiuon is just wind.

 

People that claim that prostitution is degrading the women should first talk to the hookers themselves; there are boards for that too. Believe it or not, but many of them consider their profession anything but "degrading." It's also good to keep in mind that not all men want crappy long-term relationships just to have sex; better to buy it and be done with it.

Personally, I hope 'purchased sex' becomes legal worldwide, for it could mean only better women, safer sex, and less criminal activity. After all, it is criminal only because of the law itself.

 

You got that right Wirhe, people sometimes forget why women are a prostitute to begin with, which is solely for the money. Mind you...i'm talking about the women who turned to prostitution out of their own free will, for whatever reason.

It's no big secret that a good prostitute makes up to 1500€ per week, and there's no other job on the market that could offer them a better deal, unless they own a company. And like i've said before...people do just about anything for money, women are no exception to the rule.

 

I've said my piece on this and I don't think anyone has given any effective argument against. Except saying 'it's degrading, raaa', an argument which has been shot down in flames big style. People who think that way are living in the past I reckon. Time to wake up and smell the Stella Artios. Prostitutuion has bene around forever, it aint going to go away, so regulate it to make it safer. It's pretty black and white.

This debate is a non-starter. An absolute non-starter.