Reply
Fri 1 Jul, 2005 04:41 pm
What other field of work provides satisfaction for its clients almost 100% of the time? Anyone familiar with the arguments for keeping prostitution illegal?
Here are my arguments for the legalization of whoredom...
First -- Hypocrisy: Pornography is allowed and prevalent. Women can get gang banged on camera, put the video on the internet for millions to see(even kids), and sell it for lots of money BUT a man can't pay a girl to polish his knob in the privacy of his Toyota Camry.... that seems a little backwards.
Secondly -- Dating Games: Isn't dating just implicit prostitution? If you are single and want to get some 'tang, you'll have to go to a bar and by a girl about 30 dollars worth of drinks before she falls under your spell and you can take her home. Also, if you're in a relationship sometimes you have to take your gf/wife out for a nice dinner or buy her a necklace if you want guaranteed loving.
Third -- Societal Benefits:
-The gov't could force all prostitution to be done in brothels. This would get prostitutes off the streets, keeping them safe and our cities dignified.
-Prostitutes could be issued licenses. So revenue would be generated and tax dollars would be saved as police offers could be doing more productive things than setting up stings. Also, to obtain a license prostitues would have to be periodically tested for disease and those with severe STDs would be banned from working or at least have to warn customers.
-Sexual crimes would probably decrease. Sexually frustrated men could easily drive to a brothel and act out their aggressive fantasies instead of attacking some innocent civilian.
-Men in society would be generally happier as EVERYONE would be getting action. Possible outcome... world peace? I don't know throwing that out there.
-Good employment for illegal immigrants and the poor. Why work 10 hours a day in a field making 30 cents an hour, when you could blow businessmen for 60/hr every day?
- There are probably more benefits but I think what I've presented should suffice.
Any thoughts? Rebuttals?
Re: Prostitution -- why is such a glorious profession illega
BubbaGumbo wrote:What other field of work provides satisfaction for its clients almost 100% of the time? Anyone familiar with the arguments for keeping prostitution illegal?
Here are my arguments for the legalization of whoredom...
First -- Hypocrisy: Pornography is allowed and prevalent. Women can get gang banged on camera, put the video on the internet for millions to see(even kids), and sell it for lots of money BUT a man can't pay a girl to polish his knob in the privacy of his Toyota Camry.... that seems a little backwards.
Secondly -- Dating Games: Isn't dating just implicit prostitution? If you are single and want to get some 'tang, you'll have to go to a bar and by a girl about 30 dollars worth of drinks before she falls under your spell and you can take her home. Also, if you're in a relationship sometimes you have to take your gf/wife out for a nice dinner or buy her a necklace if you want guaranteed loving.
Third -- Societal Benefits:
-The gov't could force all prostitution to be done in brothels. This would get prostitutes off the streets, keeping them safe and our cities dignified.
-Prostitutes could be issued licenses. So revenue would be generated and tax dollars would be saved as police offers could be doing more productive things than setting up stings. Also, to obtain a license prostitues would have to be periodically tested for disease and those with severe STDs would be banned from working or at least have to warn customers.
-Sexual crimes would probably decrease. Sexually frustrated men could easily drive to a brothel and act out their aggressive fantasies instead of attacking some innocent civilian.
-Men in society would be generally happier as EVERYONE would be getting action. Possible outcome... world peace? I don't know throwing that out there.
-Good employment for illegal immigrants and the poor. Why work 10 hours a day in a field making 30 cents an hour, when you could blow businessmen for 60/hr every day?
- There are probably more benefits but I think what I've presented should suffice.
Any thoughts? Rebuttals?
I agree with you and only add that drug testing should be done on a regular basis. Hookers have a higher rate of drug use then your average worker and seeing as how AIDS can be spread through drugs and sex it would be the right thing to do.
I doubt many actually are agianst legalized prostitution.
"I doubt many actually are agianst legalized prostitution."
Then why is it illegal........
BubbaGumbo wrote:"I doubt many actually are agianst legalized prostitution."
Then why is it illegal........
I think it is more of a moral issue then anything else. Plus there are health reasons.
A pertinent question to ask is, given that the trade currently is illegal, what politician would be willing to propose legalization?
Hmmmmm
"I think it is more of a moral issue then anything else. Plus there are health reasons"
Did you even read my post?
How is it a "moral issue" and what exactly do you mean by it being a "moral issue"? I'm assuming that you're implying it is "immoral". Care to define how exchanging sex for money is immoral. Also, how is having it done legally in a brothel more immoral than having it done illegally in abandoned parking lots? Before you answer please re-read my second reason for why prostitution should be legal. By your line of thought, any pursuit of sex is immoral. Do you not buy nice clothes, cologne, gym membership in hopes to be more attractive to the opposite sex?
Health reasons? As I state, that is one of the reasons it should be legalized. The testing of prostitutes for HIV and other STDs would help to curb the spread of those diseases.
"A pertinent question to ask is, given that the trade currently is illegal, what politician would be willing to propose legalization?"
I guess I was just pointing out the absurdity of prostitution being illegal, not calling for something to be done politically. I don't see the political will for any changes to be made, as people would be apathetic towards a bill supporting the legalization of prostitution. In turn, with no political support I couldn't imagine any politician Democrat or Republican going anywhere near it.
The lack of support for such a bill would be a result of: First, married men would not openly support it for fear of the scorn of their wives. Single men would not openly support it, as such support would be an admission that they can't pick up a girl every single night at the club/bar. Despite this I think both parties secretly would very much like to see such a bill passed.
Women would most likely avoid supporting it, as many would cite the degrading nature of the profession to women, ignoring the fact that the behavior would go on regardless. Then in opposition to the bill would be the religious right citing the Bible as the reason prostitution should be banned. So you would have very little support for it, a vast number of people apathetic, and a bunch of rednecks quoting the Bible in opposition.
The only way I could see a bill supporting the legalization of prostitution gaining legitimacy is if it was paraded around under the sole guise of a "national health crisis". Politicians and individuals supporting it could cite the need to stop the spread of disease and the legalization as a means to achieve that end.
well there's always las vegas.
like a few things, it wouldn't be bad for the states to make the determination.
Bubba wrote:The only way I could see a bill supporting the legalization of prostitution gaining legitimacy is if it was paraded around under the sole guise of a "national health crisis". Politicians and individuals supporting it could cite the need to stop the spread of disease and the legalization as a means to achieve that end.
Yes, you are likely correct about that--it is something which would need a "cover," otherwise it would make a politician uneasy.
DTOM has a good point about individual states taking such an initiative.
I've reported Baldimo's post to the moderators, and requested that it be pulled.
Racist is the mildest epithet i would be inclined to apply to that member--your restraint is admirable, Yitwail.
Bubba, i do hope you understand that this sort of thing is not at all characteristic of this site. In fact, i'd have to say that is the most patently offensive and disgusting post i've ever read here.
I believe many of you missed the point Baldimo made.
Let me rephrase for the challenged:
"Could you please separate [SLANG TERM FOR WHITE PEOPLE] and religion? There are more people who are religious that are not [SLANG TERM FOR WHITE PEOPLE]. Its like saying all [SLANG TERM FOR BLACK PEOPLE] listen to rap music."
McGentrix wrote:I believe many of you missed the point Baldimo made.
Let me rephrase for the challenged:
"Could you please separate [SLANG TERM FOR WHITE PEOPLE] and religion? There are more people who are religious that are not [SLANG TERM FOR WHITE PEOPLE]. Its like saying all [SLANG TERM FOR BLACK PEOPLE] listen to rap music."
At least someone here has some sense.
I am neither surprised that McG thinks this reasonable, nor that he comes to Baldimo's defense. I have no intention of exchanging remarks with the latter member. I will not miss any good opportunity, however, to heap scorn upon the former.
i don't think so, mcgentrix & baldimo. white people--i presume baldimo is one--can use a slang term for white people. jeff foxworthy can use it all he wants, but he doesn't go around using the n-word, or the c-word, or the j-word, or the s-word, or the f-word, or k-word, or the whatever other epithet there may be for groups he doesn't belong to. there's an even bigger problem here, use of the n-word constitutes hate speech. i don't recall anybody being lynched for being a slang-term for white people; there is no comparison whatsoever to redneck. webster online calls redneck a disparaging term, whereas n-word is described as offensive.
why is ...
next time you are in hamburg, my hometown, go and visit the "reeperbahn" were prostitution is completely legal . the above pix represents about 1% of the "entertainment district". they even have their own police station with specially trained policeforce(sort of social workers).
it's well known to sailors and world weary travellers who are sure to leave with a smile on their face. even a fomous german song praises the "reeperbahn". anyone need the lyrics ?
have a good time ! hbg
Setanta wrote:I am neither surprised that McG thinks this reasonable, nor that he comes to Baldimo's defense. I have no intention of exchanging remarks with the latter member. I will not miss any good opportunity, however, to heap scorn upon the former.
Then you are indeed a sad person. Why is the term R-word ok but not the N-word (for those of you with sesstive eyes and feelings.) Both are slurs for people but none of you have an issue with R-word.
why is ...
if you get lost or run into any trouble while in hamburg (particularly at night) go to the DAVIDWACHE (david policestation) right on the "reeperbahn" (that is the name of the street; it refers to the rope makers -ropers = reepers - who used to have their trade there). tell them hamburger sent you , they'll take good care of you. hbg
"next time you are in hamburg, my hometown, go and visit the "reeperbahn" were prostitution is completely legal . the above pix represents about 1% of the "entertainment district". they even have their own police station with specially trained policeforce(sort of social workers).
it's well known to sailors and world weary travellers who are sure to leave with a smile on their face. even a fomous german song praises the "reeperbahn". anyone need the lyrics ?
have a good time ! hbg"
Very cool! As of now, I have never stepped foot outside the US. When I finally do venture over to Europe I'll have to check it out. 
And for the record I was not calling all religious people rednecks. If you read my post, it is clear that my remark was direct towards people who use the Bible as an excuse for their bigotry and close-mindedness. I have no problem with those that practice religion, but I do take issue with those that are racist/bigoted/sexist and justify such beliefs by citing their religion. Regardless, your racial slur was uncalled for and reflects on the true state of your integrity.
yitwail wrote:i don't think so, mcgentrix & baldimo. white people--i presume baldimo is one--can use a slang term for white people. jeff foxworthy can use it all he wants, but he doesn't go around using the n-word, or the c-word, or the j-word, or the s-word, or the f-word, or k-word, or the whatever other epithet there may be for groups he doesn't belong to. there's an even bigger problem here, use of the n-word constitutes hate speech. i don't recall anybody being lynched for being a slang-term for white people; there is no comparison whatsoever to redneck. webster online calls redneck a disparaging term, whereas n-word is described as offensive.
I know people who are indeed offended by the use of the R-word. I have black friends who call me and in turn who I call the N-word with the "a" at the end. It isn't inclusive to any one group. Where any of you offended by the black politician calling the white politician a "cracker" in a debate? It is how it is perceived and how it is used. I used it as an example and it was used in such a way that I knew some of you would be offened who found the R-word ok to use. If you don't get it then get out of your lily-white world and learn something.
The point being any term used against any group regardless of who uses it shouldn't be used.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace