Legal Brothels in the UK

Remove all ads!

Killing has been around forever, should it be legalised? If that is your argument, no wonder no one bother to reply...

 

Now that's just taking my point out of contexts.

I hope you've been studying the consistency of horse manure, by the way. Your course work on it is due in tomorrow. The excuse that your herd of wild buffalo ate it in a vodka induced frenzy will not be accepted again. You have been warned.

 

And you wonder why people avoid your "arguments".

 

Bodyguards are often made into a quasi private police force, which is bad. "Have to hurt others in the line of their profession" and all...

In my eyes, any sex outside of a relationship intended in good faith to be exclusive and permanent is degrading. Selling one's body is degrading (and yes, it being part of a film scenario and paying millions instead of a couple of bucks makes it no better than providing sexual services to the populus in a dark alley), but going to prostitutes is quite degrading, as well.

Part of the problem with prostitutes is that men who talk so loudly about them being so degraded have often had quite a lot of fun time with them.

Besides, how is looking at porn better than paying a prostitute to disrobe and/or act out a scenario with someone else? And how far is paying a prostitute to disrobe and/or act out a scenario with someone from paying to sleep with her?

I've read a story about a husband meeting his wife in a brothel. And hear one about a husband and father meeting his daughter. Poetic justice...

Apart from men who pay for sex, also many women consider themselves better than prostitutes just because they put out for expensive trips and rides and drinks and clothes and jewelry and other gifts instead of cold hard cash. Or because it's with a "sponsor" instead of clients. Men who pay for things or offer (perspective of) gifts in exchange for sex don't tend to see themselves as johns, either... How curious.

Are we talking about sex or about urinating?...

 

As long as there are losers who can't get laid, there will be prostitutes.
There are also those "men", who think cheating on their partner is the "manly" thing to do, and they preffer to do it with a hooker, because it is safer to undercover.
The kind of poetic justice Chevalier has mentioned, is the kind of thing these supporters of prostitution deserve.

 

It is; governments do it all the time. (Hell, the show we're putting on in Iraq ought to tell you that much. ) But improperly licensed killing is still illegal, as would improperly licensed prostitution even if it were legalized.
......................................................................

Trying to tell us something, chev?

Well, one answer is the same one that you get for animal furs: it's already done, so what's the harm in appreciating it? It's not like you can take it back. The defeat of that argument, of course, is demand-side economics; more purchases keeps the practice going.

The other answer is that you're not actually watching the act. You're watching a reproduction of the act, which can be copied and enjoyed by many rather than just one. And when you've got so many people deriving enjoyment in perpetuity from something that only cost someone something once, some people say that the benefits outweigh the costs. But there is also the argument that a woman is degraded anytime anyone even sees it, which, while I don't agree with it in every case, is valid in its own right.

 

But there are also examples of succesfull businesmen who were happily married with beautiful women, and had everything going on in their lifes. But still they secretly went to a prostitute. Why would a succesful, well respected man risk his reputation for a quicky with a sleezy bimbo in some backalley ? Such a person is definitely not a loser, and he would probably be able to pick up any female at any given party, by merely showing off his car, just to name an example. But still he wants the hooker ? Is it a manly issue ? I think not, because his status and wealth instantly makes him a person others look up to.

So what could it be then ?

Here's my theory.... people are greedy and possesive by nature. We are intrigued by what we can't have, and the more power (read:money) comes available, the closer they come to the impossible. It's an adventure, a game if you will. Kinda gives them the feeling of being a predator, nothing can stop them from taking their prey. No matter how beautiful a woman is waiting for him at home, he wants to taste the forbidden fruits first.

Humans aren't really that complicated.

 

Pacman,

When I wrote that, I thought about the successul business man as well, and although I choose not to address them especifically, I somewhat put them into the category of people who think to cheat is the right thing for men to do.
Going more especifically to them though, I would say a good part of them do not have much regard for their fellow partners, or countrymen - they surely did not get on top being nice to everyone, which is not to say that either all of them are like that, or that that makes them bad people necessarily, but that is beyound the point. The thing is, I think these people lack proper respect and consideration to other people, to the point they would cheat on their partner, as it that was the natural thing to do.
I also think a great many of these business men live empty and purposeless lives; marry for convention, comodity, need rather than love - and as a consequence marry women who do not exactly love or care for them either. So to resort to prostitution to them is usual and comes of as natural.
By the way, just for the record, women who would get laid with one of them just because of his car are not exactly saints either. Just a step above hookers.
As to your psyche analysis, although I would not dish away as crap, I don't think thats actually the case for one reason.
Any hunter - predator whatever - worthy anything knows the exciting part of the hunt is the challenge, the bad odds, the danger etc. What is so bold in paying up a hooker to get sex? Anyone with money can do that.
I could agree somewhat with your theory if you meant a case of cheating, where there is conquest involved, to a high or lesser degree at least.
But paying to have sex is not a matter of being a conqueror, but of simple lust.

 

Ah, maybe I should make something clear: I don't think our government is good. I hate it, and I think it is a hypocritical piece of crap, but I won't delve too deeply into that
And if you meant the Iraqi government, then yes, that is also not a very good government, at least right now. It needs time to settle, and then we'll see how it acts.

Yes, governments should stop people from hurting themselves, and others. I don't think the government would be doing a good job if I could go over to my next door neighbor, shoot him and his family, then kill myself and my family. Thats why they make laws against violence. Knowing you have an STD, and having sex with someone is not as extreme as downright killing them, but it can lead there. So yes, a government should try to stop the spread of STDs.

And I think that most people would say that having an STD is not fun, nor is it what they want in life. If a government's views are the same as that, how, then, is that deciding what is good for them? The government is just acting by making laws that go with people's beliefs. If you find that the majority of people of a nation wants STDs, and they aren't suicidal, then perhaps I will change my opinion. I think you are generalizing my statements, which are very specific towards dangerous things.

And where did I say that the government would be dictating how you live? If by protecting you from a disease dictates how you live, then by all means, correct me.

 

Damn, not falling for it eh?

 

Saber: You aren't guaranteed to get an STD by having sex with hookers - that's what condoms are for. And as it's not a certain thing - the choice to take the risk should certainly be allowed. Even if it was certain - you should still be allowed to damage yourself in any way you please - it's your body, not the government's.

No one said anything about legalising the murder of your neighbours - but tell me, are you for or against euthanasia (which is a far better thing to compare it to than something non-consensual such as murder - it's like saying that we're advocating the legalisation of rape)?

Also, I believe that having sex with someone while you have a lethal STD is charged as murder - in Australia, anyway.

 

@Felinoid: Porn is already in the market but so is a prostitute. I mean an already practicing professional, not a young girl who puts out from time to time for gifts or someone who is being corrupted for the first time by someone willing to pay for sex. So it applies to both cases and in both cases is defeated by the supply & demand argument.

In case of paying a prostitute to do something with someone else for you to watch, it's exactly like watching porn if the thing in a porn film is really done. And the close-ups are such that they leave no doubt as to whether it's done or not. So you are watching a reproduction of the record of the act, correct, but it took the same act. Of course, a prostitute would want something extra for allowing you to take photos and reproduce them... Some would probably not allow you anyway. There is some difference but not so much.

I don't think the woman is degraded in her own body or mind whenever someone looks at that. She may be degraded in the eyes of the general public and that state affects her, I guess. Plus, yes, I can imagine situations where it's not degrading, but that would be extremely exceptional.

As for benefits outweighing costs, it's still costs that someone else pays and the whole reasoning is based on the belief that ends justify means. Let alone the fact the ends aren't exactly morally positive, they are just pleasurable.

@Pac man: The theory seems right, yeah, that's how it works, plus they also want to own someone. They like to think they can buy everything, including what other people say money can't buy. They want to feel like owners of people sometimes. Complete domination etc. But it doesn't make it right for them or the prostitutes.

@Svyatoslav: Sometimes above, sometimes below... Same category, I guess. From a certain point of view, putting out with him because he has money is lower than putting out with him because he gives her money.

 

Prostitution has been around forever, yes, absolutely -- that's why it's called the oldest profession. The existence of something for a long time does not necessarily translate into an argument for the relative rightness or acceptability of a behaviour or concept.

I agree that there are certain situations wherein prostitution is a matter of independent women making lifestyle choices, even when they have other, more socially acceptable choices available. However, most of the time it is the uneducated, the poor, the weakest members of society that are forced into this lifestyle, and this is not good, no matter how you try to justify it. Having the government regulate something that has proved to be degrading to a particular group is not an acceptable option.

Murder has been used as an example, so I'll use another one -- slavery. It too has been around for ages, and government regulation of the practice in the southern U.S. didn't make it any more morally acceptable.

I'm not stupid -- you'll never get rid of prostitution -- but that is not an argument to embrace it or condone it.

 

"As long as there are losers that can't get laid"..... hmmm thats the sort of attitude that drives some young men to use a prostitute in the first place.

Just my ten pence worth - I know plenty of people who work just for the money. They could be in a quite a socially respectable job, but hate what they do, they work for the money. Point is we don't always get the oppurtunity to work in a proffession we love, but if it pays the rent its not frowned upon.
Fair enough people forced into something is wrong - but this post isn't about exploitation. Some of these people might enjoy what they do. So the question simply becomes a moral one. Do you agree with the oldest proffesion? IMO as long as no ones hurt it doesn't bother me.

 

@ chevalier

It is their body and do they consider non-marital sex degrading or not is none of your business. I can remember pretty clearly how one of them put it: "Why would anyone want a cold, greedy scrooge when they could have an experienced, beautiful, and lustful woman?" Although it might not be exactly so in real life, it does show that they have their pride too -even if they do not visit the church every Sunday and marry after 3 years of no-sex relationship.

Plus, not all of them do it professionally for ~20 regulars; some do it the "normal" way at Friday evenings, but take money out of it. Oh, noes; now the woman is a dirty whore and the man is a sovinist pig criminal.

So why make getting laid too difficult for us males? Just for the perverse delight of the scrooges? After all, it is just one need among others.

[ January 25, 2006, 17:55: Message edited by: Wirhe ]

 

As long as there's a social order for things like prostitution, there will be exploitation of the defenceless. As long as there's people, may they be prostitustes themselves or not, who condone prostitution, the exploitation of the defenceless will be easier. It will be easier to justify, but by much worse, it will be easier to ignore.

Giving men the mandate of acting on their needs is not a solid argument to justify their behaviour. With the addition of "as long as no-one gets hurt" doesn't help much either, since someone will eventually be exploited and hurt.

And if I cannot condone prostitution for no other reason than for the fact that prostitutes are degrading and objectifying every woman in the eyes of their clients, then that reason should be enough.

 

Wirhe, sex is a need, no question, but the idea of meeting your needs at the expense of the dignity or self-respect of someone else is reprehensible to me.

Even under government control, prostitutes tend to be exploited far more than the vast majority of other jobs.

To go back to my slavery metaphor, the cotton needed to be picked -- that was an economic need. Many slaves actually got along well with their owners and were not abused. That still is no reason for the government to condone slavery.

 

The other thing I need to bring up here is that prostitutes in the traditional sense, don't have a whole lot of choice in their professions. 90% of them are doing it as a means to feed their family, or just to make enough money to live on.

There are a few women who do this out of choice, or to make enough money to go to college, or whatever. These women, however, are generally not hookers on the street. They work for semi-legal businesses referred to as "escort services". Not only are these women young, and usually extremely attractive, but they cater to mostly wealthy, upper-class clients. These women aren't the prostitutes you can pay $50 for a quick hump.

Just a couple of weeks ago I read an article on MSNBC about this, but I can't find it anymore. The way escort services work is that they provide you with an "escort" for some type of evening social event. The way they get around the prostitution part is that they claim they are only hiring out the women for the social function, and anything that happens after that is between two consenting adults. However, many escort services put "reviews" of their women on websites, many of which explicitly detail what "services" that woman is willing to perform after the social function. The reason that they cater to mostly wealthy clients is that these women don't come cheap. I remember the article stating that most escort services charge about $400 per hour, with the "best" ones going for about $2000 per hour. Still, even on the low end of the scale, a woman can make more in one evening of work (5 hours at $400 an hour is $2000), than most people make in a two week pay check.

 

@ LKD

I repeat: it is NOT mollifying and it is NOT unrespectful to these women. It is their wish and I, as well as many of them, find it ludicrous that people preach against their profession even without talking to them first. Don't believe what I say? Then head to www.sihteeriopisto.net if you can speak finnish. Adult site; you have been warned.

As to abuse, that -again- depends of the indivitual and how s/he manages her job. There are exploitation and abuse in *every* career and not just among with the escorts (about which I'm talking about, covering also mid-range prices). Let's not be shady here: it's 100-125 € / night and perhaps about 80 € from a quick-job (like BJ). Certainly nothing as ridicilous as 2,000 bucks from one service, but still a nifty sum from something that takes usually 15 minutes to do. There can be, of course, other benefits too, such as expensive gifts and dinners in the town.

So does that sound like a disgustingly vile job to you?

 

Serial killers don't find their "profession" degrading or vile, so that can't work as an argument.
I just have one question to the people who think to sell your own boby is not degrading, sick, vile, unrespectful, etc. Would you approve that your mother/sister/daughter was a hooker? If you say yes, then at least you are being truthful and honest to your point of view - although for moral/personal reasons I would never want to befriend someone like you - and I rest my case, with no further argument to make. But if you say no, then I am sorry, but you are just a stupid hipocrite, who thinks everything is nice and cool as long as you are not involved.