Log in

View Full Version : Good Idea or Not: Legalizing Prostitution



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

Cyril
06-27-2009, 02:31 PM
WTF? No lap dances, Captain Stripper Fetish?

When you are doing a show even if it is nude, it is just a show and you are still a bonafide entertainer. But when you start sitting on others lap for money, then you start to venture into prostitution.

I hope it clarifies the issue for you.

(Also on a lighter note, when you call it a "stripper fetish", you tend to trivialize my amorous feeling towards strippers or as Earl would call it the idea of stripper.)

Earl_the_Pearl
06-27-2009, 02:42 PM
and the label "whore" or "john" will be attatched to all who enter.
Are you saying there is something wrong with being a "whore" or "john"? Feminists and bible thumpers say the same thing about strip clubs.

Earl_the_Pearl
06-27-2009, 02:53 PM
WTF? No lap dances, ...
I don't do private dances because it always leads to me being hustled. I have been coerced into doing things I really didn't want to do; I’m so easy.:-[ Newark clubs do OK with no private dancing permitted.

Dancers say PLs cross boundaries in private more than anyplace else yet dancers are the ones that want private dancing more than anyone.

JayATee
06-27-2009, 02:56 PM
You and Cyril make a fine pair...

Cyril
06-27-2009, 03:00 PM
I think lap dances open up an avenue for exploitation of women. I am against exploitation of women. As such, I am against it. But there is nothing wrong with a dancer giving lap dances to her boy friend amorously.

Cyril
06-27-2009, 03:01 PM
You and Cyril make a fine pair...

He is very knowledgeable and provides some curious insights into the world of pole dancing. Would you not agree?

Dirty Ernie
06-27-2009, 03:02 PM
Are you saying there is something wrong with being a "whore" or "john"? Feminists and bible thumpers say the same thing about strip clubs.

Nope. Personally I don't care. But those who do not partake in such activities, on either side, may not want to be mislabeled as such.

Earl_the_Pearl
06-27-2009, 03:18 PM
We are probably several generations to several hundred years away from sex work being acceptable socially, if not more.
There was a time and a place where EVERY women had to be a prostitute at least once in her life. Of the Temple Prostitute Greek historian Herodotus wrote;


...most sit down in the sacred plot of Aphrodite, with crowns of cord on their heads; there is a great multitude of women coming and going; passages marked by line run every way through the crowd, by which the men pass and make their choice.

Once a woman has taken her place there, she does not go away to her home before some stranger has cast money into her lap, and had intercourse with her outside the temple; but while he casts the money, he must say, “I invite you in the name of Mylitta” (that is the Assyrian name for Aphrodite).

It does not matter what sum the money is; the woman will never refuse, for that would be a sin, the money being by this act made sacred. So she follows the first man who casts it and rejects no one. After their intercourse, having discharged her sacred duty to the goddess, she goes away to her home; and thereafter there is no bribe however great that will get her.

So then the women that are fair and tall are soon free to depart, but the uncomely have long to wait because they cannot fulfill the law; for some of them remain for three years, or four. There is a custom like this in some parts of Cyprus.How "uncomely" must a women be to sit four years and not get an offer that could be as small as a few dollars?

Cyril
06-27-2009, 03:29 PM
There was a time and a place where EVERY women had to be a prostitute at least once in her life. Of the Temple Prostitute Greek historian Herodotus wrote;

How "uncomely" must a women be to sit four years and not get an offer that could be as small as a few dollars?

Those were the dark ages for the institution of womanhood.

mediocrity
06-27-2009, 03:33 PM
He is very knowledgeable and provides some curious insights into the world of pole dancing. Would you not agree?

Oh, that's rich.

Cyril
06-27-2009, 03:35 PM
Oh, that's rich.

Do you agree or not?

miabella
06-27-2009, 04:02 PM
Those were the dark ages for the institution of womanhood.

herodotus liked to enhance reality.

also, it was actually pretty ok for women even through the roman era. there was a lot of small business activity that women did-- they made sales goods and sent men off to sell them and bring back the money. some of them got very wealthy, while others just had comfortable middle class lifestyles. even slave women could use their craft skills to purchase their way out.

interestingly, sexwork did not pay well enough to serve as a sole income source. haetarae made sales goods (usually clothing) to supplement their income. thus, terry pratchett's bits about seamstresses as a pseudonym for prostitutes have grounding in historical reality.

the history of women's work is really pretty nifty and shows that when a culture could meet essential needs such as clothing and food (cloth was used as money alongside precious metals before coins came along) entirely through female labor (which was the case up until around the roman era), females generally had pretty good opportunities. look into the mycenean culture-- those ladies had it great.

lestat1
06-27-2009, 04:36 PM
Either legalize or decriminalize, both are a step up from the current situation for everyone involved (except for a controlling pimp).

Strip clubs would continue to exist. So would dungeons. So would peep shows. They'd all carry on, in slightly fewer numbers, catering to the wide variety of clientele for all the various markets.

mediocrity
06-27-2009, 07:20 PM
Do you agree or not? you can not be serious.

Elvia
06-27-2009, 07:35 PM
^^^ Seriously, Cyril. WTF do you think? Does it sound like she agrees with you or not?

You are either a complete troll, or the biggest idiot this site has ever seen.

pinkkitten
06-27-2009, 09:33 PM
im just a little confused.
on the one hand, people are saying that clean dancers cannot compete against girls that offer full service or extras. on the other hand, people are saying that not all (or even most) customers are interested in anything more hands on than a clean dance. so, ummm, which one is it?

i mean, if its true that most customers aren't interested in anything more, then why be against legalized prostitution even if it takes place in an establishment near or adjacent to the club?
as for my personal opinion, it should be legalized. but i suppose human trafficking and sex slavery should be prosecuted in a stricter manner. cause im all for consenting adults doing as they wish but not for anyone being forced into anything they dont want to do.

Earl_the_Pearl
06-27-2009, 09:41 PM
im just a little confused.
on the one hand, people are saying that clean dancers cannot compete against girls that offer full service or extras. on the other hand, people are saying that not all (or even most) customers are interested in anything more hands on than a clean dance. so, ummm, which one is it?

It depends on the club. There are clubs that are totally no extra and some where extras are expected. Customers know which is which and go to the ones they want. I can't see both types of dancers making it in the same club.

A totally no extra dancer would not make it at an extra club and an extra dancer would be fired at a no extra club.

JayATee
06-28-2009, 02:01 AM
Edited for unnecessary use of invective...

xdamage
06-28-2009, 06:31 AM
Either legalize or decriminalize, both are a step up from the current situation for everyone involved (except for a controlling pimp).

Strip clubs would continue to exist. So would dungeons. So would peep shows. They'd all carry on, in slightly fewer numbers, catering to the wide variety of clientele for all the various markets.

Well FWIW there is still one small SC in Amsterdam, but the SCs mostly are non-existant because it is hard to compete with peep-shows that include live sex; live sex shows; brothels; and window-side shopping for prostitutes. Perhaps the later is the biggest factor. Unlike walking into a brothel, customers can shop without any commitment at all ( I guess that is a bit like the appeal of SCs and guys hanging out at the rail, watching, waiting, shopping before buying ?)

Also since the prostitutes are large numbers of imported young hot women from neighboring countries, any idea that one might have that women working at SCs are hotter doesn't apply. It is not like you would go a SC because those women are younger, more beautiful, etc.

The other big factor is the Dutch pride themselves on their sexual liberalism, so why the need to separate SCs vs Prostitutes? Since the mantra is prostitution is "just a job" you can always go to a prostitute and stop at activities short of sex. Likewise you can always go to a SC and have sex unless the government (or club owner) enforces otherwise. So even the notion that customers in committed relationships will only go to SCs because their spouses know it is safe, is up for debate.

The brothels in Nevada work, but it is well separated from the strip where the majority of SCs are. Something like an hour long drive away. I've always assumed the hotels and SCs want it that way too, as any closer and it would compete for dollars. As it is I wonder how the hotel owners feel about the escorts? Perhaps mixed feelings. In small numbers it is part of the attraction of Vegas, aka Sin City. In large numbers, legalized, I think they'd rather their patrons drop several hundred gambling than on the escorts and would fight against it. I'm also sure the SC owners would fight against legalizing prostitution so close to their own business.

But I guess this is all just typical social dynamics. Everyone fights hard for whatever laws and regulations align with their own interests, and in the end someone else is bound to feel that the final set of rules is unfair to them.

Cyril
06-28-2009, 06:44 AM
You're an idiot.

When you are this acute, everyone else looks like an idiot.

mediocrity
06-28-2009, 10:14 AM
When you are this acute, everyone else looks like an idiot.

Actually, I would like to take this time to correct my dear friend JayATee:

vmurphy252
06-28-2009, 10:27 AM
^Babel fish said that translates to "You are animals like your feet". Is that accurate? Idiom in different languages is VERY different...

princessjas
06-28-2009, 10:51 AM
It's just a very insulting French phrase for "You are stupid."

BTW - Isn't the literal translation You are stupid like your feet....Bete/betes can be stupid or animals right? Been a while!

hockeybobby
06-28-2009, 11:06 AM
Shit under my shoes?

vmurphy252
06-28-2009, 12:02 PM
It's just a very insulting French phrase for "You are stupid."

BTW - Isn't the literal translation You are stupid like your feet....Bete/betes can be stupid or animals right? Been a while!
Just going with what the computer told me... ;D

Earl_the_Pearl
06-28-2009, 12:27 PM
Just going with what the computer told me... ;D
This is why computers will not be able to do translation in our life time.

babybambi08
06-28-2009, 12:43 PM
I think that it could bring a lot of money to the government. People are going to do to it wheather its legal or not. Im not sure if I would have it in SC. I would say do it like they do in other countrys (from what I know) they have girls in window, or I guess they could have a website like escourt services and they make app. have them tested, try to make them where protection. And make them pay taxes.. I guess the agency or club could charge what the girls house fees and fuck fees lol.
I dont smoke pot nor do I like it. but If they legalized it. i think It would bring a lot of money to the government.
all drugs including alcohol effect everyone differently. I think they dont have it legal yet because I dont think there is a test to see if you are "too" high..

mediocrity
06-28-2009, 03:18 PM
It's just a very insulting French phrase for "You are stupid."

BTW - Isn't the literal translation You are stupid like your feet....Bete/betes can be stupid or animals right? Been a while!

You're absolutely right. :) Betes can be "beast" or "idiot".

It literally translates to "You are as dumb as the soles of your feet", but it carries a heavier meaning. Sort of the same stigma as "retard" in English.

Naida
06-28-2009, 04:57 PM
Ok but then where does the idea of aids control come in....trust me if they have it..they damn sure will share it...

We're talking about REGULATED, BROTHEL prostitution. In these brothels, they run multiple tests (weekly, I believe) to look for STDs. In a properly regulated brothel, not saying all are/would be, they would let the girl go if she tested positive.

xdamage
06-28-2009, 05:07 PM
We're talking about REGULATED, BROTHEL prostitution. In these brothels, they run multiple tests (weekly, I believe) to look for STDs. In a properly regulated brothel, not saying all are/would be, they would let the girl go if she tested positive.

Yea, and actually I'm not sure if the OP was even aware, but there is a difference between "legalizing" (which is the title of the thread) and decriminalizing. This article seems as good as any explaining the difference -

hockeybobby
06-28-2009, 05:19 PM
^^^I think then that decriminalizing it would be my preference based on a quick reading.

Naida
06-28-2009, 05:37 PM
As far as I'm concerned, it's a good idea to run regulated brothels like the ones out in Nevada. As it's been pointed out before, dancers in the state are not being hurt by brothels being located just a few miles away. If they were, why would alot of girls flock to Vegas to dance? As long as they're not trying to combine the two or placing them right across the street from the other.

When it comes to what's legal and what's not- I don't think it's really going to make a dramatic difference in most states. Obviously, human trafficking would still be illegal and any brothel that takes part in that comes under risk of legal action. Let me cite again- current illegal prostitution and legal stripping. Some prostitutes CHOOSE to do it despite the fact that it's illegal while some strippers, while dancing is legal, are forced into it.
I really don't think legalizing is going to make any difference for the girls who are forced into it except keeping them a bit safer.

yoda57us
06-28-2009, 05:52 PM
Do you think the legalization of prostitution across the U.S. would be a good idea or not? Should it be allowed in the SC or kept separate from the SC?


What does one have to do with the other?

Personally I'm in favor of decriminalization of prostitution. There will probably never be any such thing as blanket national legalization. It simply isn't the way things work in this country. Honestly I have no desire for the government to have any involvement what so ever in my sex life. There will never be legalization without some sort of local, state and/or federal ordinances regulating the profession. Who the hell needs that!

All of that being said if it was legal why would you want it in strip clubs at all? Brothels would be legal and women who want to work as prostitutes could work in them, set up shop on their own or work through an agency. Strip clubs ideally would be a place for, well, strippers! I think keeping prostitution out of the clubs would actually eliminate a lot of what both customers and dancers are complaining about in strip clubs right now-too many unattractive dancers, too many extras and too many dancers in general.

Earl_the_Pearl
06-30-2009, 06:48 PM
Yea, and actually I'm not sure if the OP was even aware, but there is a difference between "legalizing" (which is the title of the thread) and decriminalizing. This article seems as good as any explaining the difference -


Decriminalizing is just another way for government to play games. It is ether legal or not. This decriminalization sounds like feminist rhetoric.

In Sweden, prostitution has been decriminalized, but customers, pimps and traffickers are still criminalized (“Laws”).

xdamage
06-30-2009, 07:13 PM
Decriminalizing is just another way for government to play games. It is ether legal or not. This decriminalization sounds like feminist rhetoric.

Lawyers actually, they are the one's that make these distinctions, and not just in our country or government. Many of them are males, and also decriminalization vs legalization is also commonly debated in regards to recreational drugs. So the "feminist rhetoric" dig seemingly was just a reason to attack the females? (I'm anti-sexist btw, both anti-male, and anti-female sentiments since you know, I actually like the other half the species and need them).

There is a significant difference though, and unfortunately endless subtle variations as well. E.g., as of 1/1/2009 in Norway it is decriminalized for prostitutes to sell sex, but illegal for customers to pay for it. Let that sink in! But essentially it means they decided not to punish those who cannot afford to be punished often are in the job because they lack any other means of support. That is actually a back-peddling for laws, a society that use to tolerate prostitution to a greater degree.

Full decriminalization would mean the government completely has their hands out of it. But seemingly most people I've heard want it legalized, including many females, with requirements that would protect the workers and patrons. Also good sound reasons why.

Me I have a lot of mixed feelings and no absolute opinion, feeling it's all just trade offs.

Earl_the_Pearl
06-30-2009, 07:57 PM
So the "feminist rhetoric" dig seemingly was just a reason to attack the females?
Absolutely not; all females are not feminist and all feminists are female. Feminists and bible thumpers have much politically in common; they both want to force their agendas on the public.

Having buying sex illegal while selling it is not is anti male. A woman has more choice not to sell then a mentally impaired man has not to buy. That is like selling heroin being legal wile buying it is not.

Feminists and bible thumpers make strange bedfellows.



Ohios's new statewide strip club laws ban lap dancing and will jail any patron or dancer who physically come in contact with one another.

A touch would be a fourth-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $250 fine. If the touch involves a "specified anatomical area'' - defined as the genitals, pubic region, or female breast - the crime would escalate to a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. The law also requires strip clubs and other "sexually oriented businesses'' to close between midnight and 6 A.M. Regular dance clubs may remain opend until 2 A.M. Citizens for Community Values, a Cincinnati organization, pressured the state to enact the law which could spread to other states. Ohio's new strip club regulations are almost identical to those enacted last year by Prince George's County Maryland as a result of feminist political pressure. The feminist sponsored law, however, was overthrown in the summer of 2007.

Citizens for Community Values claims the laws are needed to protect community values and decrease crime.

xdamage
06-30-2009, 08:21 PM
Absolutely not; all females are not feminist and all feminists are female. Feminists and bible thumpers have much politically in common; they both want to force their agendas on the public.

Having buying sex illegal while selling it is not is anti male. A woman has more choice not to sell then a mentally impaired man has not to buy. That is like selling heroin being legal wile buying it is not.

Such laws commonly also apply to drugs (legal to use, illegal to sell or grow, etc.)... yes, lawyers create such laws that are apparently logically absurd but were hopefully well reasoned at some point in time.

But this one is not "anti-male" It is anti-prostitution.

If it was a male selling himself to a woman, same deal, he is not committing a crime, she is.

But yes, there is a large imbalance of course, most prostitutes being females, most customers males, but a key point to ponder... is it really a victimless adult exchange? or is it a societal problem that some people are so destitute that they have no choice but to sell their bodies, something that disgusts them and will emotionally scar them for life? Or some mix in the middle?

Customers want to believe what is in their own best interest, that it is a victimless crime, that all prostitutes should enjoy their work or at least not complain, and be adult enough to make an adult choice etc. And that is easy to believe, but also that is people, they want to see things from a POV that works for them.

It makes our heads explode to deal with the murky gray area, like maybe Norway as a society felt that far too many women who were in the business where not there by adult choice; that at 18ish people are sometimes legally adults but emotionally still kids; that they wanted to discourage prostitution a possible life long mistake as well as a lot of emotional pain, vs helping the customers to get a 15 minute cheap thrill. Like maybe the prostitutes total life experience is more important to the society than what the customers want? But I guess that is hard ... since it would mean being a little bit compassionate towards women who often haven't had a good life.

Earl_the_Pearl
06-30-2009, 08:29 PM
Such laws commonly also apply to drugs (legal to use, illegal to sell or grow, etc.)... yes, lawyers create such laws that are apparently logically absurd but were hopefully well reasoned at some point in time.


That is exactly 180% from the situation in Norway and Sweden where only the buyer is breaking the law. The buyer is hooked and looking for a fix in both situations.

Many women in the sex industry find it insulating when people, feminist and bible thumpers, say they are weak and can not make a choice.

xdamage
06-30-2009, 09:31 PM
That is exactly 180% from the situation in Norway and Sweden where only the buyer is breaking the law. The buyer is hooked and looking for a fix in both situations.

Many women in the sex industry find it insulating when people, feminist and bible thumpers, say they are weak and can not make a choice.

I'm certainly no bible thumper/believer, but the law change in Norway is recent. My friends in Norway are not religious either, but the general feeling was that prostitution was becoming a problem. Dragging down Oslo, with many poor women from neighboring countries as well as about 20% Norweigian women, many drug addicts.

The problem is we can find whatever stastics we want, women who are proud of their work, and also many who feel they have no other choice.

What I do know is that unless a man feels this job would be a good one for his mother, daughter, wife, he should at least question if he really believes in prostitution for the sake of the women (what you are arguing is it is for them) or for himself. If for himself, we can ask, what is the percentage of destitute customers vs prostitutes? Who in this situation is really more likely to be broke and doing it out of need vs greed? If as a society we agree to put in place laws to discourage it, doesn't it make more sense (from a compassion pov?) to punish those who are doing it out of greed vs need?

p.s. the buyer is hooked? Your honestly suggesting buyers are victims? addicts of some sort?

Earl_the_Pearl
06-30-2009, 09:42 PM
..

p.s. the buyer is hooked? Your honestly suggesting buyers are victims? addicts of some sort?
There is no doubt in my mind or of those selling sex. Read hustle hut and you will see how sex workers pander to the diminished capacity of men to get what they want.

xdamage
06-30-2009, 10:21 PM
There is no doubt in my mind or of those selling sex. Read hustle hut and you will see how sex workers pander to the diminished capacity of men to get what they want.

So it is black or white?

Because SOME sex workers in SCs are hustlers, ALL sex workers of all sorts (including street prostitutes) are clever hustlers preying on men who are ALL just weak-willed, and addicted to their wily-ways? That is your stance?

Or could it be yea, some are hustlers, some men are addicts, and then there is a like other sex workers, other customers, like in Norway, which found that having (often) destitute girls wandering the streets selling full sex for 500NOK (about $100) is really just ... not so great all around?

Earl_the_Pearl
06-30-2009, 10:39 PM
So it is black or white?



“I’m innocent. I was raped! I hope you get raped! Scumbags of America!”



http://s3.fotolog.com.ar/photo/l/000/483/483235_1490755451.jpg

Naida
07-03-2009, 03:43 PM
No offense, Earl- I generally like your posts. But these last few, the very last especially, seem a tad... What's the word?

Childish?
Nonsensical?
BS?

The average john is no more a victim than the average customer in an SC. He knew he took money to the club because he was going to spend it on the dancers, even if a girl's hustle isn't top that night. A john talks to a hooker because he knows he wants sex, even if he can see the last guy's cum stains on her skirt.
IF THESE MEN REALLY ARE "VICTIMS", THEY WOULD AVOID THE PEOPLE WHO VICTIMIZE THEM, NOT LOOK FOR THEM!

Earl_the_Pearl
07-03-2009, 04:02 PM
IF THESE MEN REALLY ARE "VICTIMS", THEY WOULD AVOID THE PEOPLE WHO VICTIMIZE THEM, NOT LOOK FOR THEM!
The poster I was replying to said women in the industry are victims. I was pointing out that men with a sexual addiction are just as much a victim.

It was a long and involved exchange that spanned two threads. I was just using the poster’s argument and applying it to men.
You don’t believe that most women in the industry are victims do you?

YodaLady.com
07-03-2009, 04:34 PM
I think it will make the most sense to simply generalize people for this question. I think for the most part, guys want as much as they can get. And for the most part dancers want the money. I think eventually MOST men would migrate to the brothels and as a result most the dancers will too. The managers at these brothels will either say, If you want to work here, you have to at least "insert sexual act here"... or they may say, you don't have to do any of that, if you are a rather impressive entertainer. But my experience with most managers they will start to hint, then suggest.. and then flat out tell you to do what they want... and that would be to start hooking in the clubs... Personally I think prostitution should be legal, And I don't see anything morally wrong with brothels, but I don't see me going to a brothel, and I think for the SC industry, it could be the beginning of the end. But that's just my view.. anyone else share my vision?

MarvelGirl
07-03-2009, 04:38 PM
I think that there are very few actual victims in the sex industry, especially in America and no one is going to convince me differently. I have PERSONALLY known women who worked as escorts and then claimed that they were sex slaves when they were arrested. I know for a fact that they weren't forced into anything, but they scream it as loud as they can to avoid conviction. It makes me question all these supposed underground sex slave rings that get busted, because I've seen firsthand how they spin the story and flat out lie.

I do believe that both sides, men and women, are the victims of occasional abuse and manipulation and it's sad that no one gives a shit when it happens because of all the liars out there. They ruin things for everyone.

There are some johns who absolutely 100% believe that they are victims though. When I was an escort, I had a client who just seemed like the nicest guy. He would tip me at least $1000 on top of my normal rates whenever he saw me. He always bought me present. Every time I saw him I'd receive an item of jewelry and a box of chocolates or sometimes flowers. We used to go to dinner together and sometimes movies. Best of all, we both understood the relationship. He was an older, married man and had no desire to leave his family, he just wanted to have fun and feel young again when he saw me. I really liked him as a human being, and enjoyed spending time with him.

Then, one day he made a snarky comment about another escort in our city being arrested and he said that she deserved it. I was a little taken aback and asked him if he knew her. He said he had seen her once and she was a nice enough girl, but she was a criminal and criminals deserved to go to jail. I laughed a little and said, well we're just as guilty as she is then, aren't we?

The guy flew into a rage, cursed me out, cleared the coffee table and kicked it over. How dare I accuse HIM of being a criminal! I was the criminal, us dirty, disgusting women who had taken advantage of him. If it wasn't for me, he'd be content to stay home and be a loyal husband but all of these disgusting whores tempted him into this seedy life of crime.

It was some fucked up shit. Then he called me a few months later and couldn't understand why I didn't want to see him again. The whole john mentality is weird and scary sometimes, even when they seem so normal. People will create some screwed up rationalizations to deal with their guilt and the sex industry is a great breeding ground for guilt.

Earl_the_Pearl
07-03-2009, 04:47 PM
Personally I think prostitution should be legal, And I don't see anything morally wrong with brothels, but I don't see me going to a brothel, and I think for the SC industry, it could be the beginning of the end. But that's just my view.. anyone else share my vision?
I have never gone to a brothel and never will; nor will I ever call an escort. The club gives the dancers and me plausible deniability. :dopey:

Earl_the_Pearl
07-03-2009, 04:53 PM
The whole john mentality is weird and scary sometimes, even when they seem so normal. People will create some screwed up rationalizations to deal with their guilt and the sex industry is a great breeding ground for guilt.
The provider mentality can be just as convoluted. Sugar Baby and Courtesan come to mind.

See the above post.

Elvia
07-03-2009, 05:01 PM
im just a little confused.
on the one hand, people are saying that clean dancers cannot compete against girls that offer full service or extras. on the other hand, people are saying that not all (or even most) customers are interested in anything more hands on than a clean dance. so, ummm, which one is it?

i mean, if its true that most customers aren't interested in anything more, then why be against legalized prostitution even if it takes place in an establishment near or adjacent to the club?



I think the problem is that things get confusing when you have both areas of the sex industry (exotic dancing and prostitution) going on under the same roof. The more "hard core" aspect becomes the default. As Dirty Ernie suggested, an establishment that is half brothel, is pretty much just a brothel in most people's eyes. There are a lot of people who are comfortable patronizing a strip club that wouldn't be comfortable patronizing a brothel. So you'll lose a lot of the old strip club clientelle, and be left with mainly brothel clientelle. It'd be difficult for someone to make a living just dancing in, what most people see, as a brothel.

If the two were kept separate, I think there'd still be a market for both. When I look around the club at work, and think of this thread and ask myself "are most of these patrons really more interested in getting sex at a brothel, and just settling for this?" I really don't think the answer is yes.

xdamage
07-03-2009, 05:06 PM
The poster I was replying to said women in the industry are victims. ...
You don’t believe that most women in the industry are victims do you?

Careful... not to imply ALL in the first sentence or with the words "most" in the second.

It is enough to note that "some" are, victims of human trafficking, and that should be worrisome. Like, apply to your own loved ones.

There are endless jobs (doctors, lawyers, carpenters, even fast food servers) where people are not forcibly raped... while the mantra in NL is "it's just a job" it remains the only job where young women are being trafficked from all over the world to be raped.

Some/all/many, who knows? the statistics don't include the many who are forced by can't/don't/won't report for fear of reprisal by their captors, but ... it is a unique and serious problem that is increasing in frequency in NL, one of the few countries that has decriminalized prostitution.

My point was before we jump blind, we can at least look at other attempts and have something vaguely like a plan for why/how is the same thing not going to happen here? A possible dramatic increase in human trafficking, to feed a demand for young women, to line the pockets of criminals who will want to capitalize on the increased market demand for 18 something prostitutes (which will invariably happen once the legal consequences are lifted).