Log in

View Full Version : Good Idea or Not: Legalizing Prostitution



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12

yoda57us
09-14-2009, 05:11 PM
I never could figure out a "victimless crime." If there is no victim, (consenting adults) how can there be a crime?

In what I consider an appropriate coincidence, this thread could very well be considered a victimless crime...

miabella
09-14-2009, 05:12 PM
you can't have law without religious beliefs, whether they are quasi-secular (worship of other humans) or explicitly religious (worship of a god or gods).

the concept that some women must always be available for men to buy sex from is a religious belief because there is no logical/empirical reason it must be that way. but a lot of people cannot imagine a world where no women are for sale ever. that's faith.

it is of course also faith to be able to imagine that world (which in this world usually means smaller, rural populations, though not necessarily).

xdamage
09-14-2009, 07:35 PM
you can't have law without religious beliefs, whether they are quasi-secular (worship of other humans) or explicitly religious (worship of a god or gods)..

Absolutely not true, and Dawkins wrote quite a lot on it in his book "The God Delusion" This is a myth propagated by the religious people who believe that good comes from religion, rather then believe that religion comes from us people. When you see it that later way, that we people create religion it is a circular argument to say we need religion to create laws. We create both religions and laws because both serve purposes, even if we are not able to fully understand them, like instincts, we don't need to. We just need to do things that work - that improve our odds of long term survival.

Atheists make more or less the same moral decisions as anyone else. There is no "worshiping" other humans required. We make laws because there are survival benefits in working together; no altruism is required. But no man (or woman) is an island either. Those who work together have better survival rates then those who do not. The "laws" fall out of the compromises groups make.

---

I believe religion is made my humans, and we humans had/have good reason to discourage casual sex in the past, arguably even now, but the risks have changed.

One purpose of religion is social birth control ---

The concept of sex is sinful also had it's purposes at one point in time, as it is terribly risky to engage in casual sex without the benefits of BC, DNA testing, medications to combat STDs, so people invented the religious beliefs to curb human procreation, by people mostly driven by their hormones, not their intellects.

Fear of punishment works when intellectual appeal often does not, as many people still have more kids then they can afford, engage in unprotected sex, because we are wired to do it, like animals, but unlike animals, we actually find it appalling to see our offspring die, and due to our huge brain per body mass ratio, our maturity takes longer then most other animals)... I could go on.

xdamage
09-14-2009, 07:45 PM
...There is no "worshiping" other humans required. We make laws because there are survival benefits in working together; no altruism is required. But no man (or woman) is an island either. Those who work together have better survival rates then those who do not. The "laws" fall out of the compromises groups make....

p.s. even animals and insects manage to group together in hives, heards, schools, packs... and work together, effectively respect each other as part of the group, and they do it without written laws. They do it for the same reasons we do it, because it improves their survival significantly over rogues that try to do everything alone or take everything by force. That only works if you have significant advantage over others, if not, grouping is the smart thing to do.

victoriagivens
09-15-2009, 03:37 AM
I guess it's against the law to be a "sinner". but then in theory religious beliefs shouldn't be so deeply intertwined with our laws? In reality our heritage as a country has our laws being written and voted on by people who hold strong feelings about what two consenting adults can and cannot do (and not just for money, but in their private sex lives as well).

This, in a country where we have the illusion of a freedom of religion within our constitution. If someone starts a religion where you go to a building that has a symbol on it, put money in the collection plate, then go into a little room to confess your desires to a female clergy...

bem401
09-15-2009, 05:49 AM
One purpose of religion is social birth control ---

I guess all those Catholic families with 6 or 8 kids that I knew growing up must have missed the point then.

Now I don't agree with everything the Church teaches, but that doesn't mean I don't know what they teach. They do not teach that sex is wrong. They teach that sex without the commitment of marriage is wrong. They teach that birth control is wrong because you are supposed to be open to procreation when you engage in sex. Even protected sex between a married couple is wrong in the Church"s eyes. This is what they teach. I'm not taking a stand on what they teach one way or another.

As to how this impacts prostitution, I'd be willing to bet that its against the law in part because, at one point in time, adultery was against the law. A lot of society's laws are based, at least in spirit, on the Ten Commandments and those commandments include adultery.

The world would probably be a better place without prostitution, but it would probably be a better place without stripclubs, alcohol, or drugs or a dozen other things that probably do more harm than good in the long run. That being said, I'm probably still going to stop by my regular club this afternoon to kill some time, so call me a hypocrite or a sinner or whatever you want.

xdamage
09-15-2009, 08:24 AM
I guess all those Catholic families with 6 or 8 kids that I knew growing up must have missed the point then.


No but that is a different matter.

By social birth control I meant that a much simpler thing which is that teenagers have sex out of instinct and sex leads to pregnancy. I also mean people commit adultery, and father/mother unwanted children.

Happens a LOT still that people are driven by their hormones and instincts, by-passing protection, pregnant without a marriage, having children by others in marriages.

The following situations suck:

o Being a young woman, unmarried, in a poor society, pregnant, unable to prove who the father is, but everyone knows who the mother is.

o Being married, and having to raise someone elses kids due to a cheating spouse.

Intellectual appeal does not work universally. Many people still end having sex, unprotected, in situations that leave them or others hurting. Fear however does work. Fear of going to hell works even when intellectual appeal fails, hence... social birth control.

Even in an age when people can hop into their cars and buy sterile condoms at 7-11, and have a dozen BC choices, abortion choices, DNA testing if there is doubt, medicines for STDs, the fact is people often still regret high risk sex only after the risk actually turns into a real problem for them. We are wired to do the wild thing!



They do not teach that sex is wrong. They teach that sex without the commitment of marriage is wrong. They teach that birth control is wrong because you are supposed to be open to procreation when you engage in sex. Even protected sex between a married couple is wrong in the Church"s eyes. This is what they teach. I'm not taking a stand on what they teach one way or another.


Those two are very separate matters that some religious intertwine; the first yes and it makes sense for the reasons I listed above. The later seemingly has to do with some belief that procreation is commanded, an idea that made sense when the world's population was 15 million, but apparently nobody got the news or a clause was missing, like "but don't do what animals do and procreate so much you are all dying of starvation as means of finding a balance point - use your brains too!"



As to how this impacts prostitution, I'd be willing to bet that its against the law in part because, at one point in time, adultery was against the law. A lot of society's laws are based, at least in spirit, on the Ten Commandments and those commandments include adultery.

Maybe. But again, having sex as a prostitute without things like birth control, abortion, STD prevention is sucky. People didn't always have these modern wonders. Factor in that yes, lust for a woman that is not your wife is a sin (go see Mathew for that quote) and in fact some would argue that Stripclubs serve no good purpose but lust, however they are "cool" today so there are plenty of Cafeteria Christian strippers. Religion is really not so legal as it is interpreted by people who pick and choose to follow what they want.

bem401
09-15-2009, 05:19 PM
Intellectual appeal does not work universally. Many people still end having sex, unprotected, in situations that leave them or others hurting. Fear however does work. Fear of going to hell works even when intellectual appeal fails, hence... social birth control.
Even in an age when people can hop into their cars and buy sterile condoms at 7-11, and have a dozen BC choices, abortion choices, DNA testing if there is doubt, medicines for STDs, the fact is people often still regret high risk sex only after the risk actually turns into a real problem for them. We are wired to do the wild thing!

I would argue that the fear of repercussions faced here on Earth is a greater deterrent in this day and age than the fear of going to Hell. I would think the fear of Hell is pretty far down the list actually.



Those two are very separate matters that some religious intertwine; the first yes and it makes sense for the reasons I listed above. The later seemingly has to do with some belief that procreation is commanded, an idea that made sense when the world's population was 15 million, but apparently nobody got the news or a clause was missing, like "but don't do what animals do and procreate so much you are all dying of starvation as means of finding a balance point - use your brains too!"

Starvation, disease, and natural disasters are the ways nature keeps populations in check. Stifling procreation doesn't change that.



Maybe. But again, having sex as a prostitute without things like birth control, abortion, STD prevention is sucky. .

I imagine most prostitutes would argue that having sex as a prostitute is sucky, period. To them, its a means to an end.

xdamage
09-15-2009, 05:49 PM
I would argue that the fear of repercussions faced here on Earth is a greater deterrent in this day and age than the fear of going to Hell. I would think the fear of Hell is pretty far down the list actually.


That is how humans should think; I've met far too many who do not. And for the same reasons, many who ignore all evidence they see with their eyes and hear with their ears and instead believe far more strongly in things they don't (aka "magic thinking").



Starvation, disease, and natural disasters are the ways nature keeps populations in check. Stifling procreation doesn't change that.


Eh? If I followed that line of reasoning you wouldn't waste your energy trying to convince others you are worried that our country is in a tailspin nose dive. We'd argue that economic collapse and catastrophe is what keeps people from over spending and trying to encourage them to be more thrifty is a waste of time. Yet clearly you don't entirely believe that.

It is what keeps animals in check. We humans have intellects and can use them to see patterns and avoid the types of over use scenarios that animals have to go through to limit their population. Well, if we want to that is. In reality we may have to learn everything the hard way as many will do whatever they want and only worry about consequences after resources have reached a catastrophe point.




I imagine most prostitutes would argue that having sex as a prostitute is sucky, period. To them, its a means to an end.

Yea, but if that is not deterrent enough I fail to see how putting them in jail or giving them a criminal record adds anything useful to their plight. There is clearly more to it.

Besides Stripping is still illegal in much of our country, even if it is not sexual contact, only zoned in limited areas, many still view stripping as a sinful activity and want laws to keep it out of their community, away from their property and homes (lowers their value ;))

bem401
09-16-2009, 05:42 AM
Eh? If I followed that line of reasoning you wouldn't waste your energy trying to convince others you are worried that our country is in a tailspin nose dive. We'd argue that economic collapse and catastrophe is what keeps people from over spending and trying to encourage them to be more thrifty is a waste of time. Yet clearly you don't entirely believe that.


It is what keeps animals in check. We humans have intellects and can use them to see patterns and avoid the types of over use scenarios that animals have to go through to limit their population. Well, if we want to that is. In reality we may have to learn everything the hard way as many will do whatever they want and only worry about consequences after resources have reached a catastrophe point.

The country is in a financial crisis and increasingly more people do not like the direction in which the country is headed, but it has nothing to do with overpopulation or resource depletion.



Yea, but if that is not deterrent enough I fail to see how putting them in jail or giving them a criminal record adds anything useful to their plight. There is clearly more to it.

I never advocated for that. In fact, I have stated I think it should be legal, which doesn't mean I necessarily think it is a good thing or that the people who work in that industry like what they do.

xdamage
09-16-2009, 07:01 AM
The country is in a financial crisis and increasingly more people do not like the direction in which the country is headed, but it has nothing to do with overpopulation or resource depletion.


It is but it would take a long time to explain.

The simple version is that America does not exist in a vacuum. That fast travel and technology means our economy is intimately intertwined with the worlds. And related, that our technology has allowed people to live on average around 30 years longer, and are far less likely to see their children die.

It's a world wide economy and much of what we have, and the prices we pay, is because of conditions world-wide. People keep looking at the USAs population and ignoring that we are not self-sustaining. Our economy is intimately intertwined with the worlds, and there are parts of the world that are over populated and it is effecting all of us. Think of the world as one big country now, with states (individual countries within), some of which are immensely over populated.

China and India, two of the most over populated countries in the world, are changing the world-wide economy for every technically advance nation. In essence because when countries become that populated, the quality of life drops dramatically, and you end up with endless masses of people who are willing to do a lot more for a lot less. We liked it when it benefited us, cheap goods at the expense of others but that is going to change. As people in those countries come to see the benefits of the increased import income, they will change and come to expect higher pay. As America becomes poorer it will matter less to them and they'll find other industrial nations to trade with, shifting low prices from the USA to elsewhere. We will see our cost of living increase, which is arguably good for other humans who were working for pennies a day.

But the solution to this is not for all of the rest of the countries to over populate like they have. The solution for us is not to double up the number of people who live just because we can fill our borders too. Or to hope that other countries won't over populate because they too "could" increase their populations.

In addition we are able to keep people alive longer and decrease deaths in child-birth. And not only in the USA, but others in the rest of the world want this too. It's not going to help if we double up the number of people who cannot afford to send their own kids to college, who want society to pay for medical care to keep them alive as long as possible, and it is not going to help that everyone in every country is now aware it is possible to live like Americans and increase their own life expectancies as well.

There are a lot more variables at play, but the trends in world population, world-wide economies, and dramatic increases in life expectancy are relevant to whether or not we should continue to limit population growth in our country ( as we were for a while when we were most prosperous ) or let our population grow unchecked (as many countries do when they are in a downward spiral of poverty).






I never advocated for that. In fact, I have stated I think it should be legal, which doesn't mean I necessarily think it is a good thing or that the people who work in that industry like what they do.

Right, I didn't mean you did. Just a general open comment that it doesn't make sense to arrest prostitutes if we believe they do it out of desperation. We should be helping them find other work in that case, not putting them behind bars.

bem401
09-16-2009, 07:22 AM
We have little to no control over what other countries do. We need to worry first and foremost about doing what is best for the US. The reason we enjoy a standard of living unequaled elsewhere in the world is because we have done things the way we have. Obama's "citizen of the world" bullshit is his excuse to do things that are not with the US' best interests in mind. The changes he proposes to make will weaken us relative to the rest of world financially and militarily. Oh sure, maybe they'll like us a little bit more, but so what? The quality of our lives will have diminished. We shouldn't feel obliged to step backwards so others can feel like they've gained.

yoda57us
09-16-2009, 07:38 AM
We shouldn't feel obliged to step backwards so others can feel like they've gained.

I don't care much for political talk on these forums since it pretty much becomes a cyclical argument that never accomplishes anything other than eventual name-calling...

That being said, in this case BEM I must disagree with you. Stepping backwards is not the issue right now with the US, the world and our global economy. The problem is that the US has been sitting on it's well fed and ass for the last couple of generations while the rest of the world became more civilized, better educated, harder working and, in essence, caught up to us. Like it or not it is a global economy and what happens all over the world effects the US in a big way.

It's too late to revert back to isolationism BEM, we live in a much bigger world than you seem to understand.

xdamage
09-16-2009, 08:15 AM
...The problem is that the US has been sitting on it's well fed and ass for the last couple of generations while the rest of the world became more civilized, better educated, harder working and, in essence, caught up to us. Like it or not it is a global economy and what happens all over the world effects the US in a big way.

It's too late to revert back to isolationism BEM, we live in a much bigger world than you seem to understand.

See this is my view as well.

Markets change because where there is a pot of gold, others soon move in to get their share.

A weak analogy is that I liken our situation to that of dancers who are feeling the hurt of far too many new girls entering the business, causing the pie to be cut thinner.

It was just a matter of time before other people in other countries would want in on the action. They have nothing to lose and everything to gain by competing harder.

Chances are though we won't compete. We still do have internal resources to burn and my guess is we will just burn them. Not to turn our country around and make us more competitive world-wide but to try and maintain the life style we were use too, until... that last final burn leaves us weaker and completely out of the game.

bem401
09-16-2009, 10:13 AM
I. Stepping backwards is not the issue right now with the US, the world and our global economy.

Well I see adopting socialized health care, unilaterally demilitarizing, apologizing all over the world, embracing our enemies, alienating our friends, placing undue constraints on our soldiers in the filed of action, essentially letting enemy combatants (terrorists) off the hook, imposing cap and tax, refusing to drill for oil, and refusing to build nuclear plants, among other things, all the while sharing our advanced technology with other countries as giving up the advantages we presently have or had (stepping backward). In short, imposing government ownership of once private concerns ( banking, housing, automotive, health care, energy) lessens our freedoms and thus our quality of life.

yoda57us
09-16-2009, 11:56 AM
Well I see adopting socialized health care, unilaterally demilitarizing, apologizing all over the world, embracing our enemies, alienating our friends, placing undue constraints on our soldiers in the filed of action, essentially letting enemy combatants (terrorists) off the hook, imposing cap and tax, refusing to drill for oil, and refusing to build nuclear plants, among other things, all the while sharing our advanced technology with other countries as giving up the advantages we presently have or had (stepping backward). In short, imposing government ownership of once private concerns ( banking, housing, automotive, health care, energy) lessens our freedoms and thus our quality of life.

Well BEM, my quality of life has not changed since Obama came into office. I am not having as good a year as I did last year but I'm doing OK all things considered.

Though I'm impressed with your ability to create long lists of problems, whine about them incessantly and blame them all on a guy who has been in office for less than a year I'm just not buying it. By the way, the part about "sharing our advanced technology with other countries"... You do realize that we have been doing that since the middle of the last century right? Do you also realize that a lot of the quality of life advancements that we all enjoy nowadays where developed by folks who where not born or educated in the US?

Not to mention many of our favorite strippers and all of my favorite prostitutes...

It's a big world out there BEM....

bem401
09-16-2009, 02:58 PM
Well BEM, my quality of life has not changed since Obama came into office. I am not having as good a year as I did last year but I'm doing OK all things considered.

It's the problems yet to come as a result of his policies that are the most troubling.

As far as the sharing of technology is concerned, we are sharing nuclear technology with foreign countries ( United Arab Emirates ) while not using nuclear technology to help solve our energy issues at home. As far as the problems I listed are concerned, they are all problems he has caused or at least exacerbated. The fact is it took him 8 months to do it. If it had taken 3 years, I guess I'd have waited that long to complain. My question is how much time does he need to be given before people realize what he's doing is not in the best interests of the US. His poll numbers are sinking like a rock, primarily because of the health care fiasco.

yoda57us
09-16-2009, 05:52 PM
Blah Blah Blah!

Sorry BEM, you've exceeded my limit of inane political banter for this go-round. Go back to your bunker and prepare for Armageddon if you must. Life is short and I'm having too much fun enjoying mine to spend the rest of it looking over my shoulder...

Elvia
09-17-2009, 12:24 AM
I keep coming back to this thread all excited to talk about legalization of prostitution :(

yoda57us
09-17-2009, 04:18 AM
I'm down with that...

I'm not sure if I already said this or not but I am in favor of decriminalization rather than legalization which would mean regulation. The last thing I want is to have sex regulated by city, county or state ordinances.

Legalization and strict regulation will simply cause many girls to work underground in order to avoid what would most likely be overbearing regulations regarding everything from std testing to zoning for where they would be allowed to work. The fact is most acts of prostitution already take place discretely and behind closed doors. The vast majority of escorts practice safe sex, get tested regularly and are responsible adults. The ones that choose to work in an irresponsible manner will not change their ways due to any legalization process. They will simply continue to work illegally as they have for years.

One would think that the legal brothels in Nevada would be jammed with girls wanting to work and that there would be lines of men going out the door looking for sex. Such is not the case. One would think that the state of RI, which currently has no law against indoor prostitution, would be flooded with escorts and men from all over New England would be flocking to RI to get laid. Such is not the case. In fact, very few escorts work in RI compared to MA and CT. Very few touring escorts bother to visit Providence where they can ply their trade legally. Instead they opt for stop-overs in Boston and Hartford where their chosen profession is illegal but profitable.

The fact is women who are successful at escorting already know how to do it well without endangering themselves, their customers or the public at large. They don't need the help of the government to get it right.

xdamage
09-17-2009, 04:39 AM
I'm down with that...

I'm not sure if I already said this or not but I am in favor of decriminalization rather than legalization which would mean regulation. The last thing I want is to have sex regulated by city, county or state ordinances.

Legalization and strict regulation will simply cause many girls to work underground in order to avoid what would most likely be overbearing regulations regarding everything from std testing to zoning for where they would be allowed to work. The fact is most acts of prostitution already take place discretely and behind closed doors. The vast majority of escorts practice safe sex, get tested regularly and are responsible adults. The ones that choose to work in an irresponsible manner will not change their ways due to any legalization process. They will simply continue to work illegally as they have for years.

One would think that the legal brothels in Nevada would be jammed with girls wanting to work and that there would be lines of men going out the door looking for sex. Such is not the case. One would think that the state of RI, which currently has no law against indoor prostitution, would be flooded with escorts and men from all over New England would be flocking to RI to get laid. Such is not the case. In fact, very few escorts work in RI compared to MA and CT. Very few touring escorts bother to visit Providence where they can ply their trade legally. Instead they opt for stop-overs in Boston and Hartford where their chosen profession is illegal but profitable.

The fact is women who are successful at escorting already know how to do it well without endangering themselves, their customers or the public at large. They don't need the help of the government to get it right.

Okay well this is a clear consistent point of view, and well reasoned. I keep wanting to think there is a benefit to legalization, which is because I've worked with sex offenders and worry that sex workers working in private places are taking risks; likewise I worry about people having unsafe sex and spreading diseases.

But then I slap myself and remember these things happen anyway even if no exchange of money is involved, with or without the law after-the-fact arresting people for prostitution.

From a purely human rights PoV, I really can't see how what two consenting adults has to do with me. It has no effect on me if they have sex for fun, for a dinner date, or for a direct exchange of money.

One contentious point that remains might be where they are allowed to exchange sex for money. Presumably any place they can legally have sex for "free".

I'm sure most dancers would object to sex in the club for obvious business reasons. Presumably that could be solved if it was covered under a more general no-sex in public law, and defining having sex in a SCs as more or less like having sex in the bread aisle of a grocery store.

But it might mean SCs with rented "private" booths and rooms will need to remove those. It would be iffy I think to tell people they are renting a private area on the one hand, and then violate their privacy on the other.

bem401
09-17-2009, 05:13 AM
Blah Blah Blah!

Sorry BEM, you've exceeded my limit of inane political banter for this go-round. Go back to your bunker and prepare for Armageddon if you must. Life is short and I'm having too much fun enjoying mine to spend the rest of it looking over my shoulder...

That's exactly the response you get from people who can't win the argument. So I guess we'll go back to topics you can expound on: strippers and prostitutes.

bem401
09-17-2009, 05:18 AM
One would think that the legal brothels in Nevada would be jammed with girls wanting to work and that there would be lines of men going out the door looking for sex. Such is not the case. One would think that the state of RI, which currently has no law against indoor prostitution, would be flooded with escorts and men from all over New England would be flocking to RI to get laid. Such is not the case. In fact, very few escorts work in RI compared to MA and CT. Very few touring escorts bother to visit Providence where they can ply their trade legally. Instead they opt for stop-overs in Boston and Hartford where their chosen profession is illegal but profitable.


Boston makes sense because its so much larger than Providence, but maybe they visit those cities because they can command a higher price than in a city where what they are doing is not illegal?

yoda57us
09-17-2009, 05:22 AM
Okay well this is a clear consistent point of view, and well reasoned. I keep wanting to think there is a benefit to legalization, which is because I've worked with sex offenders and worry that sex workers working in private places are taking risks; likewise I worry about people having unsafe sex and spreading diseases.

But then I slap myself and remember these things happen anyway even if no exchange of money is involved, with or without the law after-the-fact arresting people for prostitution.



These are legitimate concerns X but you are right, bad things can happen to people regardless of what is legal or not. In spite of my reasoning on the topic I am not naive enough to believe that women are not at risk for violence if they are involved in prostitution. Unfortunately women are at risk every day regardless of their profession. As I type this I am watching the news and police are about to arrest a man and charge him with strangling a pretty young grad student to death and stuffing her body into a wall. She was going to do medical research, she was going to be married, she was going to have a life. Now she is dead. Her only crime was being pretty and catching the eye of a guy who has a screw loose...

In my opinion at least, you can't regulate prostitution because you can't regulate human behavior. We need laws to protect good people from bad people, not to decide who sleeps with who...

xdamage
09-17-2009, 08:25 AM
Regarding this...



One would think that the legal brothels in Nevada would be jammed with girls wanting to work and that there would be lines of men going out the door looking for sex. Such is not the case.


I'm guessing multiple factors play into why a lot of women don't want to work in the brothels including:

1.) Stigma - it is a clear acknowledgment of being a prostitute and both providers and the community at large continue to view it in strong negative terms. We people are pretty good at doing one thing while consciously denying it (or rationalizing away) our ambivalence.

2.) I believe some or all the Nevada Brothels require the workers live on the premises, I guess to make sure they aren't having sex in between tests and safe sex with customers? Not sure but few of us would tolerate a job that requires us to live at work. Also possibly they cannot have unprotected sex with a lover or husband? during their mandated stays as their partner may be carrying disease? Anyone know? Because protection only works if it is used always, on and off the job.

3.) The Brothels are a good hour+ away from the city. Those who are escorting on the side, dancing, etc. have access to greater volumes of customers in the city proper.

4.) There is a lot of paper work to work in the Nevada Brothels. Great for stopping coerced women from being forced into it, but bad for women find themselves in desperate straights, in need of money ASAP. Do they really want to go through the 3rd degree and fill out forms to do something that is their own private business?

5.) To whatever degree they have to split profits with the brothels for the safety and legality, as private escorts they don't.


#1 is probably the biggy, but like anything else you can stack up multiple impediments and then wonder why something isn't working. Removing some of the easier ones often causes the greater impediments to seem more surmountable. That said, an important variable remains:

If there was truly no stigma at all (or laws) about prostitution. If we thought of it as no different then being a waitress or dentistry or farming, then what exactly would prevent everyone from doing it for extra cash? And if that was the case, it would cost what? The value of sex (like everything) is intertwined with its real or perceived rarity.

Surprisingly even escorts might end up unhappy if it ever was entirely decriminalized. The prices for sex have dropped dramatically in the Netherlands because it is so readily available, every worker is independent, and the social mantra is "it is just a job".

JayATee
09-17-2009, 10:05 AM
That's exactly the response you get from people who can't win the argument. So I guess we'll go back to topics you can expound on: strippers and prostitutes.

No that's the response you get when you're tired of hitting your head against the wall bc the person you're arguing with is incapable of seeing any side besides his own!

And please... don't make yourself look even more silly by insulting one of the smartest ppl on the board. ::)

vmurphy252
09-17-2009, 11:14 AM
^He insulted me?

bem401
09-17-2009, 03:30 PM
No that's the response you get when you're tired of hitting your head against the wall bc the person you're arguing with is incapable of seeing any side besides his own!

And please... don't make yourself look even more silly by insulting one of the smartest ppl on the board. ::)


I'm quite capable of seeing other sides, but the only arguments you folks make to counter mine are:

1. Its only been 8 months.
2. George Bush was a moron.
3. You're a racist.
4. I don't want to talk about it anymore.

I wasn't insulting anyone. I was acknowledging that he knows his stuff when it comes to those topics and supports his positions with reasoned thinking, something he didn't do (much of) here.

yoda57us
09-17-2009, 06:28 PM
That's exactly the response you get from people who can't win the argument.


BEM, don't be such a pompous know-it-all. No one is winning any arguments here. You keep spewing the same isolationist, right-wing, doomsday paranoia and going in circles. The rest of us are just taking turns calling you out on it. I made my point.


So I guess we'll go back to topics you can expound on: strippers and prostitutes.

Well, on a board about strippers in a thread about prostitution it seems completely appropriate...

yoda57us
09-17-2009, 06:31 PM
No that's the response you get when you're tired of hitting your head against the wall bc the person you're arguing with is incapable of seeing any side besides his own!

And please... don't make yourself look even more silly by insulting one of the smartest ppl on the board. ::)

:blush:

yoda57us
09-17-2009, 06:52 PM
Boston makes sense because its so much larger than Providence, but maybe they visit those cities because they can command a higher price than in a city where what they are doing is not illegal?

They skip Providence because the area does not have a strong enough customer/economic base to make it worth going there. Actually, the situation in the strip clubs and the proliferation of AMPS in Providence contribute to a depressed rate structure in RI.

As I said, a good escort knows how to make money and keep herself safe. The lack of legal peril in RI does not make up for the lack of business.

bem401
09-18-2009, 05:29 AM
BEM, don't be such a pompous know-it-all. No one is winning any arguments here. You keep spewing the same isolationist, right-wing, doomsday paranoia and going in circles. The rest of us are just taking turns calling you out on it. I made my point.

Calling me out on it, but never telling me where I'm wrong. At least PrincessJas argued the points in question.

And "pompous know-it-all "? There isn't a more pompous know-it-all on any board I've visited than you. Why do you think people reading the other board wonder who Yoda is? (BTW, the name Yoda is usually preceded by some derogatory adjective whenever I hear that other board discussed, at least by the people wondering who you are)

bem401
09-18-2009, 05:39 AM
They skip Providence because the area does not have a strong enough customer/economic base to make it worth going there. Actually, the situation in the strip clubs and the proliferation of AMPS in Providence contribute to a depressed rate structure in RI.

As I said, a good escort knows how to make money and keep herself safe. The lack of legal peril in RI does not make up for the lack of business.

I guess its all interrelated. The lax laws make the situation in the clubs and AMPs what it is and the competition causes the prices to drop. Plus, Providence is hardly a city on par with Boston if a travelling escort is looking to land a couple of big spenders

yoda57us
09-18-2009, 05:45 AM
I guess its all interrelated. The lax laws make the situation in the clubs and AMPs what it is and prices drop.

It absolutely is. Most girls who try to work in RI end up complaining about guys calling and looking for discounts or trying to negotiate prices down. The fact that you can go to an AMP or some strip clubs in town and get full service for around a hundred bucks has everything to do with this. The experience may not be the same as spending an hour in a nice hotel room with a girl who actually showers between clients but escorts don't argue with cheap guys, they just move on.

xdamage
09-18-2009, 06:01 AM
...The fact that you can go to an AMP or some strip clubs in town and get full service for around a hundred bucks has everything to do with this. The experience may not be the same as spending an hour in a nice hotel room with a girl who actually showers between clients but escorts don't argue with cheap guys, they just move on.

Of course it is a factor. In Amsterdam they've taken it one step further. You can literally window shop for a prostitute, no commitment, no cover, no un-comfy pressure if she isn't your type. Cost is about 50-75 Euros, so about $100 at today's exchange rate. I guess that buys about 15 minutes, but that's comparable to the cost of 15 minutes in a SC VIP room.

But even in Amsterdam you don't see a lot of escorts or street walkers... they exist, but the market for them is weak when there are safer, cheap, legal options. The red-light district is surely not the same as privacy in one's own room, but their business is targeted at the average population of people who make average wages, looking to spend as little as possible.

yoda57us
09-18-2009, 06:13 AM
Calling me out on it, but never telling me where I'm wrong. At least PrincessJas argued the points in question.

BEM, it's not my obligation to tell you anything. That's not what debate is about. You yourself said that what you are concerned about is the future. I don't have a crystal ball and neither do you so neither of us is right or wrong yet. It's just an argument. Get over yourself.


And "pompous know-it-all "? There isn't a more pompous know-it-all on any board I've visited than you. Why do you think people reading the other board wonder who Yoda is? (BTW, the name Yoda is usually preceded by some derogatory adjective whenever I hear that other board discussed, at least by the people wondering who you are)

Now you are getting it BEM. Why do you think I picked the handle to begin with? Yoda is a smart ass who knows everything.

Now what I don't understand is why you are so obsessed with my handle and how others percieve it or the person behind it. I mean, you are a smart guy, you went to an Ivy league college and I'm just a lowly two time college drop-out. Yet you just don't seem to get it. There is very little reality on the internet BEM especially on those other boards. We are all strangers here. We can all say whatever we want, true or not, and some people are naive enough to believe that if someone typed it on the internet it must be true. I don't buy into that. I call BS when I see it and people don't like that. My opinions are based in facts and people don't like that. It's more fun to post in stereotypes and I refuse to let people get away with promoting BS stereotypes. If I cared about what other folks on the internet thought of me I wouldn't be posting on it.

All of that being said, yoda doesn't go to strip clubs, I do.

vmurphy252
09-18-2009, 06:29 AM
Oh, come on, you don't think in those 900 years Yoda got a little busy at SOME point?

bem401
09-18-2009, 07:19 AM
Now what I don't understand is why you are so obsessed with my handle

Not obsessed at all. Merely said earlier if you were identified as Yoda ( by yourself or someone else ) , the girl would be more likely to remember you several months later. You launched into a diatribe about how you don't identify yourself that way in the club. Surely you would agree she's be more likely to remember the name Yoda than "XYZ from Boston". She's also more likely to remember someone who spends a fair amount , which was the gist of your original comment I suppose.




All of that being said, yoda doesn't go to strip clubs, I do.

Yet there are people at least claiming to know who Yoda is, when the name comes up. And these would be people who seemed not to know you personally, so you might not be as anonymous as you think, but that's just conjecture.

yoda57us
09-18-2009, 07:45 AM
Not obsessed at all. Merely said earlier if you were identified as Yoda ( by yourself or someone else ) , the girl would be more likely to remember you several months later. You launched into a diatribe about how you don't identify yourself that way in the club. Surely you would agree she's be more likely to remember the name Yoda than "XYZ from Boston". She's also more likely to remember someone who spends a fair amount , which was the gist of your original comment I suppose.

That was a different thread wasn't it? Wow, you really are obsessed...and confused...


Yet there are people at least claiming to know who Yoda is, when the name comes up. And these would be people who seemed not to know you personally, so you might not be as anonymous as you think, but that's just conjecture.

BEM, don't believe everything "people" tell you. A few months ago some loser on SCL posted that he had just seen me at a club in Providence that I haven't been to in over a year. Not only that, I was working in Chicago on the weekend that he specified.

Anonymity is relative BEM. I know who you are but since we share little common ground and I don't go to strip clubs to talk to customers I have no intention of introducing myself.

Quite frankly it's been several years since I was a steady visitor to any Providence clubs and even when I was a weekly regular only one gal, a retired house mother, ever successfully identified me and had the guts to come over and ask if I was yoda. Honestly I don't know where you have ever gotten the impression that my anonymity was a concern for me. Yoda is an internet handle. That's all. If someone figures it out or if I decide to tell them it's really no big deal.

What baffles me the most is the fact that, in a club full of gorgeous naked women you are sitting around discussing a guy who posts on the internet and trying to figure out who he is...

JayATee
09-18-2009, 07:50 AM
This thread should be put out of it's misery.....

bem401
09-18-2009, 08:13 AM
THonestly I don't know where you have ever gotten the impression that my anonymity was a concern for me. Yoda is an internet handle. That's all. If someone figures it out or if I decide to tell them it's really no big deal.

What baffles me the most is the fact that, in a club full of gorgeous naked women you are sitting around discussing a guy who posts on the internet and trying to figure out who he is...

You claimed not to have ever identified yourself as Yoda, implying no one knows Yoda. That started this whole anonymity digression.

If you think I sit in the club pondering your identity, think again. I said I have been approached and asked if I knew who Yoda was on an occasion or two. Obviously, you took the time to ask someone who I was since we've never met (that I can remember at least).

I might know you by sight but I never ask my friends questions about their customers. Quite often they tell me things, but I never ask. Its none of my business and its of no interest to me.

And I second JayATee, this thread should be allowed to die.

JayATee
09-18-2009, 11:28 AM
^Then stop posting... bc it's beyond absurd already. What are you trying to prove? Saying it's none of your business and of no interest is equally absurd as well bc you're the one who keep bringing it up....

yoda57us
09-18-2009, 01:23 PM
You claimed not to have ever identified yourself as Yoda, implying no one knows Yoda. That started this whole anonymity digression.

Actually what said was that I don't go around in clubs introducing myself to dancers as yoda or calling myself yoda. I can't help you drawing the conclusion from that that I never speak the name yoda in a strip club. If the topic of SCL, TUSCL or Stripperweb comes up then I will tell the lady that I have gotten to know who I am on line as part of the conversation. Believe it or not it is seldom a big deal to them.

What started the whole anonymity digression is your obsession with the idiotic and trivial BEM.


If you think I sit in the club pondering your identity, think again. I said I have been approached and asked if I knew who Yoda was on an occasion or two. Obviously, you took the time to ask someone who I was since we've never met (that I can remember at least).

LOL, I didn't have to ask anyone. Believe it or not your name doesn't come up when I go to a strip club to visit a hot woman and pay her to dance naked for me. So stop scratching your head trying to figure out which one of your "friends" ratted you out to me. None of them did.


I might know you by sight but I never ask my friends questions about their customers. Quite often they tell me things, but I never ask. Its none of my business and its of no interest to me.

Well, you know how those giggly little strippers can be BEM, always gossiping about their customers....I know you have no interest in talking about someone behind their back...

yoda57us
09-18-2009, 01:26 PM
^Then stop posting... bc it's beyond absurd already. What are you trying to prove? Saying it's none of your business and of no interest is equally absurd as well bc you're the one who keep bringing it up....

Wow, I was starting to think it was just me....;)


This thread should be put out of it's misery.....

I think I already suggested this. I guess we aren't being mean enough here to get it closed down....::)

vmurphy252
09-18-2009, 01:39 PM
You all should die. You should die and go to hell!

vmurphy252
09-18-2009, 01:39 PM
^See if that does it...

JayATee
09-18-2009, 02:14 PM
You all should die. You should die and go to hell!

I'm Jewish. There is no hell. ;)

vmurphy252
09-18-2009, 03:14 PM
Sheol then.

Earl_the_Pearl
09-18-2009, 11:52 PM
The fact that you can go to an AMP or some strip clubs in town and get full service for around a hundred bucks has everything to do with this.
One hundred bucks; in Patterson FS is now $40, $20 to the dancer. Don't shoot the messenger; I report you decide.

Earl_the_Pearl
09-18-2009, 11:59 PM
bringing it up....
Hee hee, huh huh, she said bring it up; hee hee , huh huh. :dopey: