Legal Brothels in the UK

Remove all ads!

This argument is somewhat flawed. The main reason why I would not like my mother / wife / sister / daughter to be a prostitute is because of the associated violence, drugs, crime, and general danger involved. Also, because I am a bit of an elitist snob and I like to think of my relatives working in certain jobs (for example, I'd be disappointed if my daughter because a rubbish collector because I'd hope she could 'do better').

 

HB,

Ok, then let's legalise first of all. According to the people who are standing for it around here, this would end the violence, the drug, crime and danger associated with it. Then you don't have this card to play anymore. If you still would not accept it, that would make you a hipocrite, who are cool with these things as long as they don't concern you. Ok, you said you are an elitist snob as well - and that should be another reason - but that hardly makes you any less of a hipocrite instead. It only makes you an elitist snob, in addition to being a hipocrite.

 

Yeah, I would be a hypocrite. It's like how I might look down on the people who clean my office (which is a horrible snobby thing for me to do) but I still think they do a great and necessary job. I don't want to do that job and I don't want my family to do it, but I do want SOMEBODY to do it. So, yes, I'm a hypocrite.

 

Who's said such a thing? I know I never have, but I admit to not reading every post thoroughly, I rarely do in this forum. As I sais though, I never said legalizing prostitution would eliminate all the negative aspects of it. Although, undoubtedly, it would reduce some of them, no?

And Harbs, I'me a little suprised at you mate. You can't go judging people on what kind of job they have. I know you probably didn't mean it that way, and more in a 'want the best for loved ones' way. But still, no reason to look down on people with jiobs you consider 'worse' than your own. You're right, that is snobbish . Better to judge people on their merits, not their job. I'm sure you know that though .

 

It's not nice, but I'm just being honest that I do it. If I hear that an school friend I haven't heard from for years ended up as a street cleaner, my immediate reaction would be "huh, he hasn't amounted to much." It's unfair of me to think like that but I'm just admitting that I would do it. Sorry.

 

@Harbourboy: You have addressed the idea of prostitution being so low that you wouldn't want anyone in your family to do it. You have given examples of other such jobs. You've also said they are necessary and someone has to do them. But you haven't addressed the sexual side of prostitution or stated if prostitution is such a good, necessary job that just happens to be menial, or if there's something more to it. Let's use Aldeth's example of a luxurious de facto prostitute who earns between two and ten thousand bucks a night. What would you think then?

Personally, I would already have a problem if anyone in my family were an escort, even if it didn't come to sex. I realise that many a prostitute's children will say mum provided a decent life, education, a good start in life. And it's good that she did that, which many people don't do even if they could and without selling their bodies, but the method is still not right. I don't want to judge people who work or have worked as prostitutes but it's good to think that no woman in my family is accessible for money or material gain.

@Wirhe: And what does that have to do with pride, especially on the prostitute's side? Even if a prostitute were to feel proud of her ermm... talents, a slave could also feel proud of being such a nice piece of work force, with the right level of subordination.

That's prostitution all the same as a quick hump in a gateway. Dirty, oh yes. I'd rather not class the woman or a man and cross them out as incorrigible, but the act is freaking dirty.

There is more to sex than just the mechanical aspect of it... or rather there's more to sexuality than just intercourse. If you dispense with all the romantic lovey-dovey stuff, what's so great about sex? Especially if it's just dealing away with a need? There is obviously more and all the quick humps in the world are imitating just that but without going through the trouble of creating the real thing.

The old talk first argument. Judging them doesn't work without talking to them. But the profession? Naahh. What new can you learn about the oldest job in the world? Repeat all you want but it's hollow; the world of sex for money is about everything but respect or dignity.

@Iku-Turso:

Agreed. It's good that point has come up.

@Aldeth: Quick or slow, screaming ugly oaths in ungrammatical slang or posh interjections in five foreign languages, on a stinking bedroll or in a satin bed, a hump for money is always a hump for money. The tariff is different and the quality of the commodity improves... but it's still commodity.

 

Chevalier, the point of my analysis was to respond to Syvatoslav's attempt to use logic to show that some of our non-anti-prostitution arguments were unsustainable when compared to the values we hold for our families. I was trying to show that you could both be in favour of prostitution AND not want your family to do it as a job.

To clarify further, I'd be more comfortable with the idea of someone in my family being one of those high-class escorts if:
- I knew they weren't going to be beaten up
- I could be sure they had some sort of future job prospects

In other words, the same sort of things I would want for my family if they did other jobs. To take a specific example, I would not disown a member of my family if she (or he) was a high class escort for a few years to save up some money for the future.

So I guess I'm trying to say that it's not the sexual aspect of the job that I would have a problem with, but all the unpleasantness that inevitably surrounds that profession.

 

HB,

Yes, and it was proved you are a hipocrite. Hipocrites don't have a lot of credit or substance to their views.

 

Syvatoslav - I agree that hypocrites like me do not have much logical substance to our arguments. My point is that in any open forum to discuss serious issues like this, you have to take into account the potentially irrational views of people like me because we may, unfortunately perhaps from your point of view, represent a significant portion of the population.

 

IMHO, the whole thing about legalization of prostitution is because the crime that is around prostitution; so that's for me, is like trying to cure cancer with an aspirine. Wherever there's money, anyone will try to get a piece of it, that's why we have lots of agents, managers, pimps, call them what you want; so the government wants a piece of the cake to, they don't care if is bad or good, they just want money; if the government really care about the consequences and/or the crime that surroundes prostitution they should start persecuting pimps, mobsters, etc.; and there should be a big scale persecution, not just the pimp in the corner/door.
Recently, in Marbella, police caught Russian mobsters, they had Russian passports, they claim to be from Moscu, (please, don't tell me that they couldn't be Russians, or I will soon move to Rusia because everybody there is a good person and no mobster are there ) they had lots of houses, money, weapons, cars; they kept prostitutes passports, they also sold drugs, etc.; so after that, there were about 200 prostitutes suddenly without 'work'. The government gave them 2 choices: to go back to their countries or to start to do something better with their life by studying and working; I think that's a way to 'cure' all of this, the government should care about the well-being of the people by providing them with better education, better security system, etc. Not by just trying to collect money whenever they can.

 

@ Chevalier

Touchy topic, I see, for certain family-values seem to be rooted very tight to minds. I'll try to rephrase this into a single sentence in last attempt to make you understand: purchasable sex should be legal, because that kind of services are needed.

How it is done is a different matter. C'mon; we are not murdering or enslaving people, nor begging anyone's sister to become a prostitute!

Because it is just dealing away with the need. Same as with eating and drinking; you have to do it and how you do it is your own, personal matter.

 

I am obviously in the wrong line of work.

 

@Harbourboy: I see. Well, I would have a problem with the sexual aspect of the job. Then again, I have a problem with things like dressing in too sexy ways for business negotiations, flirting for discounts/better deals, being sexy/flirtacious with people who can help one out. Heck, I'm not really comfortable with selling and buying dance tickets at charity balls, dates with celebrities in exchange for charity money and similar things.

 

And I wasn't trying to imply otherwise. My point was only that there are definitely two types of prostitutes, while most people here only seem to recognize one type. There are the ones that we see on the corner of every major city, and then there are the ones that we never see, because we either don't want to, can't afford to, (or hopefully both) spend $2000 for sex for the evening. (I guess technically you're paying for conversation too.)

The thing I don't like about escort services is that they are pretending to be something that they aren't. They are selling sex. While everything wouldn't be fine and dandy if they just came out and said it, at least they would be honest. For example, in the article I read, it paraphrased an excerpt from one of the reviews. In the description, it stated that this particular escort had straight brown hair down to the middle of her back, a couple of tatoos on her lower back, shaved all her pubic hair off, and was willing to perform oral sex without the client wearing a condom. Then they turn around and say they aren't selling sex. Well, why in the hell would that type of information be required if you were not?

But the dishonesty continues beyond that. For starters, they do not refer to their clients (nor do their clients refer to themselves) as "johns". No, what these people refer to themselves as are "hobbyists". They view themselves as conisuers (<- I spelled that horribly wrong, but I'm terrible with French words) of fine women and sex. Since the asking price for a night with these women is so high, it's not surprising that this information is available. Granted, I cannot even fathom why anyone would consider spending $2000 for a night of sex regardless of how talented that person might be. However, assuming you had a mind to do such a thing, I can certainly see why you'd be interested in getting all the information you could before making a selection.

 

Well, if we look on it like that, there are either many types of prostitutes (indefinite or even unlimited number) or one type but coming in many degrees.

I would talk about degrees of prostitution. A single act of providing a sexual service for (material) gain is an act of prostitution. Above people who use sexual charms to get ahead in life, you have people who use favours instead of charms. Then goes strictly material gain, then money. Making a profession out of it would be the next step. However, this way, we would actually arrive at a circle: starting from people who occasionally achieve benefits in exchange for not so decidedly sexual services (who aren't normally poor, mind you), finishing with people who don't have to sell their bodies often or even fully because the amount of money they earn suffices for a longer time. It's like the paradox of the far right being closer to the far left than the moderate right is to the moderate left.

Exactly. I was going to say that but Alzheimer kicked in.

I've head many a debate with people involved in it or a variation of it (sponsorship, sort of having a permanent escort, sometimes pretending to have a normal relationship).

Yes, the gratuitous service is in a direct relationship with the service offered and it's not so gratuitous if you take a deeper look. Consequently, they are even legally selling sex, so I don't know why public prosecutors, tax offices and the like don't crack down on them.

The part about connaisseurs is moronic (of the people involved). Appreciating fine women and sex is just one of the motives behind prostitution. It's just exclusive, posh prostitution but still prostitution. Here, pretending to be a normal couple is more popular. Sponsored dates, sponsored holidays. That kind of thing.

 

Doing some window shopping Aldeth

 

Actually, all of the information I provided was from an article I read on MSNBC. If it wasn't from a fairly reliable media source, I would consider it heresay. Self-preservation is an instinct I possess, and therefore I wouldn't look at those sites for that reason alone. Let's put it this way: The only places I can look at those sites would be work or home. Looking at them at work would likely get me fired, and looking at them at home would likely get me killed (by my wife).

Oh, chev, they are much more clever than you give them credit for. The company that compiles the "reviews" is set up as a separate entity from the escort service itself. It is usually owned by the same person who owns the escort service, but it's technically not the same company. Then this other "company" provides this service on the internet for free. You can't charge them for selling sex, as they aren't selling anything at all!

It's really slimy when you think about it. Then come tax time, the owner of the two companies uses the internet based business as a tax write-off, saying that he made money on his escort service but lost money on his "internet business" (never mind that the reason he lost money is because he wasn't selling anything). So effectively, he gets to operate his internet based business for free. Any money that he sinks into it can be claimed as a "business loss" or "business expense".

 

I've seen laws allowing to treat two separate companies as parts of a whole on the basis of ownership. For example, you won't dodge certain tax-related EU restrictions by owning to separate companies.

In theory. It requires a lot of thinking and paragraph juggling but in some jurisdictions you could pull that off. That, or you can always target the owner with a criminal charge or five.

With that kind of stuff, the basic thing is that sex is being sold online and they can't really say no one is responsible for the whole of it but everyone for just a little part, so there's no crime as a result. Don't know about the practical difficulties in the common law system, but in a Romano-Germanic one (continental Europe and former colonies), you could charge them all with co-perpetration of the collective, resulting crime.

It doesn't even provide any cover that the woman isn't getting paid for sex but just for escort service that doesn't include sex. Companies will say they can't forbid girls from throwing in an extra -- especially if said girls aren't employees in the strict sense but the company acts as a middleman -- but girls are advertising it in a relation with the basic service the company offers. Prices and even the hiring or not hiring such an escort (by company clients or by said company itself) are based on those "not provided" services, so the cover doesn't work (contracts between the company and clients are fictitious and the factual terms and conditions are different).

He obviously hasn't ever met a Polish tax officer.

 

Chev,

I agree with the arguements you are presenting. However, just based upon what we see, that's obviously not happening.

Given that:

1. Such escort services exist in many different states, and advertise their services through a separate company that does not directly profit from what the escort service provides.

2. Providing an escort service is technically not illegal, if all they were in fact doing was escorting.

3. Given that it would be great PR for a local police station, I'd imagine that if they COULD do something legally to prosecute these people they certainly would try.

4. Despite the fact that everyone "knows" that these women are providing more than escort services, proving such in a court of law would seem very difficult. You'd basically be relying upon the testimony of customers, at best. Since paying money for sex is also illegal, I doubt that anyone would volunarily offer such information. Even if you were able to manage that, it could still be argued that the person paid money to the woman for sex, and the company had nothing to do with that. They would argue that they hired the escort, which they provided. The sex was a separate business transaction not authorized by the escort service.

5. The women who work for escort services technically are not employees of the escort service. They have set it up more or less as a referal service. They place the men in contact with the women, who decide whether or not they wish to hire them. If the escort does go out with the man, she gets to keep the majority of the money for herself, but pays the service a "finders fee" for lack of a better word.

6. Regarding the taxation issue, it's perfectly legal within the current tax program. To use a separate example, if you own two businesses, and one business has an annual profit of $100,000, and the other business has an annual loss of -$10,000, then you have $90,000 worth of taxable income.

In a perfect world, yeah, things would work out the way you describe. But obviously, because such companies are doing this and getting away with it, they have found ways to circumvent the law.