Legalising and Regulating Prostitution

Argus · January 28, 2007

Nothing in life is ever 100%, what we need to do is protect the industry as much as possible. Pickton makes the news because of the severity of the case, but what about all the other murders that take place and go unreported and how many of them could have been prevented if the women were working in safe and protected areas?
Prostitution can never be considered legitimate a 'career choice' that some woman freely make.

In some cases it really is. There are middle class college girls who work as escorts to get extra money, for example, and housewives who turn a trick now and then to pay for their extras. And some graduate up the ranks to the top escorts - who make damned good money.

Argus · January 28, 2007

Sad to say a lot of missing and murdered women are native women. Now why is that? Some of you hot shots should have a good explanation?

The breakdown of native culture amid poverty, alcohol and drug abuse and a pointless life with no career options?

BubberMiley · January 28, 2007

You will note I said neither will happen, in reference to both prostitution and drugs. And if you think the economy of those two enterprises amounts to spare change for a few street thugs, then you're terribly naive.

Jerry J. Fortin · January 28, 2007

No one is cutting off people's hands Jerry J. So you might as well leave that out of it. It's just a way to make the other side as you see it look bad, when not one of them is suggesting we cut off a hookers hands or burn a witch.
The flat earth myth was a myth itself. Just FYI, cuz its interesting. It comes from the idea that Columbus was met with jeers for proposing that what could get to India by travelling west. He was met with jeers by the scholars at Universidad de Salamanca, but not because the earth was flat (it was accepted long long before this that the world was a sphere), but because they felt Columbus had underestimated the distance of the ocean. And they were right. Columbus did not get to India did he.

You might want to look into some other parts of the world about that thought.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&...&d=5&m=6&y=2003

jefferiah · January 28, 2007

No one is cutting off people's hands Jerry J. So you might as well leave that out of it. It's just a way to make the other side as you see it look bad, when not one of them is suggesting we cut off a hookers hands or burn a witch.

The flat earth myth was a myth itself. Just FYI, cuz its interesting. It comes from the idea that Columbus was met with jeers for proposing that what could get to India by travelling west. He was met with jeers by the scholars at Universidad de Salamanca, but not because the earth was flat (it was accepted long long before this that the world was a sphere), but because they felt Columbus had underestimated the distance of the ocean. And they were right. Columbus did not get to India did he.

You might want to look into some other parts of the world about that thought.

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1§ion=0&...&d=5&m=6&y=2003

Actually I am not going to look at your link period. The reason for this is it has nothing to do with the argument you were making----that to say yes to the moral argument is to say yes to cutting off hands. We live in Canada, sir, and I am sure that opponents of the legalized prostitution are not thinking "Oh Damn, if they legalize it we cant cut off prostitutes' hands anymore." So look. Stick to the point.

jefferiah · January 28, 2007

Morality and punishment are two different issues, Sir. One says what is right and wrong, the other says what should be done about it. If there were 100 people shot tomorrow for shoplifting chocolate bars I would not condone that punishment. Nonetheless become some bozos think it is reasonable to shoot someone for stealing a chocolate bar I would not waver and say chocolate bar theft should be legal.

jefferiah · January 28, 2007

because* not become----sorry

frogs · January 28, 2007

Legalize prostitution. Also make public sex legal. I am not interested in having my money stolen to protect anybody (not even myself), thank you very much. Stupidity is a disease, and stupid people should get diseases. Addicts should always have the option of being taken out of their misery. They cannot be financed to live and reproduce more stupid people. That's a public disaster which is what we now have. Bleeding hearts should have the option of setting up programs free of government controls. Pimps that abuse girls (or anyone else) should be shot and killed asap (cost effective!) No problem. Or get the gov involved, and always have the problem at a cost to everyone. That's the choice, my friends.

geoffrey · January 28, 2007

The German government said it was an overzealous employee and that no person would have to take up prostitution as a job. The woman got her unemployment. Really you should tell the whole story instead of just the part you need to make an erroneous point.
Your qualification does not change my point. Prostitution is not a simple career choice like any other. It comes with all sorts of emotional and social stigmas that will keep most women away unless they are driven by deperate circumstances of one form or another.

Riverwind, your absolutely correct here. Prositution isn't a 'free' choice by women... it's selling their liberty to a pimp in exchange for enough money or drugs to make it through their next high. It's the lowest of low in disrespect to women and I can't believe some of the strong feminists on this board thing it's acceptable for a man to have supreme control over the choices of a woman, forcing her to have sex with whoever pays enough money.

The root for prostitution is drug abuse, not the free choice to sell yourself to others.

Sad to say a lot of missing and murdered women are native women. Now why is that? Some of you hot shots should have a good explanation?

Sure. Indian women are more likely to be poor, be in a abusive relationship, abuse drugs, give birth as a teenager, get arrested (in female prisions, sometimes a majority of inmates are Indians), use alcohol during pregnancy, be unemployed and apparently according to your claim that more are prostitutes... be more involved in prostitution.

BubberMiley · January 28, 2007

It's the lowest of low in disrespect to women and I can't believe some of the strong feminists on this board thing it's acceptable for a man to have supreme control over the choices of a woman, forcing her to have sex with whoever pays enough money.

I haven't heard anyone who "things" that at all.

BC_chick · January 28, 2007

You're proposing that we do nothing unless we can make it perfect. Nothing in life works like that, all we try to do is make it as functional as possible.
I proposing we do something about the real problem: drug addiction. We should be investing in treatment centers and safe houses far from the downtown eastside. Harm reduction simply gives the addicts excuses to avoid cleaning up.
We have a shortage of detoxes and treatment center beds today - a women who makes a decision to clean up her life may be forced to wait for weeks. We need a system that can respond to these calls for help within 24-48 hours. Once we have that system in place then we can talk about harm reduction. Until then, harm reduction is simply a distraction that saves the gov't a few bucks and allows it to pretend that it is actually doing something.

I disagree, simply because prostitution has been going on long before the drug-addiction reached such epidemic proportions. Therefore, it's something that's socially constructed.

However, even if getting rid of drugs would eliminate prostitution COMPLETELY (a huge IF), I still think that in the interim - while we are working on combatting drug-addiction - we should legalise and regulate prostitution given that it would save lives until the point when/if we can get to the perceived "root-cause" (also in case we end up at the "root-cause" and it turns out that it was because of drugs after-all).

PS, I watched a documentary on the CBC last night about the reality of prostitution in Vancouver. It compared the life-style of a life-long prostitute and madame, a high-end call-girl in the west-end, and a former street-walker in the East Side.

You have to stop the stereotype that most of the women are on drugs. The first example above says she thinks nothing wrong of her profession and answers truthfully when people ask (nor has she ever used drugs). The second one also doesn't do drugs at all but she loves the money and plans on remaining a career prostitute, and only the third was on drugs when she used to work the street (now she doesn't do drugs and she's started a soup-kitchen giving food to the women working the streets).

Don't they ALL equally deserve protection from predators?

geoffrey · January 28, 2007

It's the lowest of low in disrespect to women and I can't believe some of the strong feminists on this board thing it's acceptable for a man to have supreme control over the choices of a woman, forcing her to have sex with whoever pays enough money.

I haven't heard anyone who "things" that at all.

Sorry, it was a slip of my French background, taking after Petite Jean. "I do not thing that..."

But BM, that's the reality of the situation. Are the feminists willing to subject themselves to the same control by men as prostitutes receive? Why the double standard for drug addicts? Are they not good enough to have the same rights as the women that feminists protect?

Riverwind · January 28, 2007

Don't they ALL equally deserve protection from predators?

You are assuming that they all need protection from predators. It is only the drug addicted street walkers that are at risk from the picktons of the world. The 'high end' prostitutes have complete control over who and where they see clients. Furthermore, I doubt that any woman working tax free as a escort would ever want to start working out of a brothel where she would have to hand 30%+ of her earnings to the tax man. That is why I think these legalization schemes are pointless because they would not help the people who most need the help.

Charles Anthony · January 28, 2007

Permit me to be so twisted and warped as to justify a brothel but here it goes...

Furthermore, I doubt that any woman working tax free as a escort would ever want to start working out of a brothel where she would have to hand 30%+ of her earnings to the tax man.

The brothels offered a safe physical environment. If prostitution was legal and exempt from taxes, a "low end" prostitute may find that spending 30% for safety was worth it. Why deny them the choice?

BC_chick · January 28, 2007

Don't they ALL equally deserve protection from predators?
You are assuming that they all need protection from predators. It is only the drug addicted street walkers that are at risk from the picktons of the world. The 'high end' prostitutes have complete control over who and where they see clients. Furthermore, I doubt that any woman working tax free as a escort would ever want to start working out of a brothel where she would have to hand 30%+ of her earnings to the tax man. That is why I think these legalizations schemes are pointless because they would not help the people who most need the help.

I like how you ignored the beginning of the post where I made my point, and decided instead to get into the PS where I put in my after-thought.

Okay, to refresh your memory, here it is again....

I disagree, simply because prostitution has been going on long before the drug-addiction reached such epidemic proportions. Therefore, it's something that's socially constructed.

However, even if getting rid of drugs would eliminate prostitution COMPLETELY (a huge IF), I still think that in the interim - while we are working on combatting drug-addiction - we should legalise and regulate prostitution given that it would save lives until the point when/if we can get to the perceived "root-cause" (also in case we end up at the "root-cause" and it turns out that it was because of drugs after-all).

Riverwind · January 28, 2007

The brothels offered a safe physical environment. If prostitution was legal and exempt from taxes, a "low end" prostitute may find that spending 30% for safety was worth it. Why deny them the choice?

Sorry, the idea of legalizing brothels _and_ exempting it from taxes even more rediculous (I know you would like to exempt everyone from taxes but that belongs in another thread). The real problem here is drug addiction and the worse thing you can do to an addict is prevent them from hitting bottom by providing a soft tax payer subsidized environment where they can continue with their addiction. I believe the prospect of ending up as pig feed will convince more women to clean up than any number of safe brothels.

geoffrey · January 28, 2007

How would it save/protect lives to legalise it?

The same hookers will be having sex with the same scum. I don't see how a regulation would have prevented the murder of those women.

Riverwind · January 28, 2007

I disagree, simply because prostitution has been going on long before the drug-addiction reached such epidemic proportions. Therefore, it's something that's socially constructed.

We have a social safety net in this country that ensures that women who are simply dealing with hard times do not need to resort to prostitution. The only people that need to prostitute themselves because of poverty are people with serious addiction or mental health problems. These are also the people deperate enough to take risks.

Furthermore, we already have escort services which allow women to safely make a career of being a prostitute when they don't have addiction problems. IOW, your entire premise is wrong. If we eliminate the drug addictions then the only women left prostituting themselves will be women who are able to control who and where they meet clients and do not need any protections that a brothel might offer.

Charles Anthony · January 28, 2007

The state creates one problem which leads to an other problem that creates an other problem and so on and so on and so on.

People work tons of different "jobs" to pay for drug addictions. Should we criminalize Rock And Roll music and the international modelling business too?

The real problem here is drug addiction and the worse thing you can do to an addict is prevent them from hitting bottom by providing a soft tax payer subsidized environment where they can continue with their addiction.

I believe in de-criminalizing street (as opposed to patent protected pharmaceutical) drugs too.

I believe the prospect of ending up as pig feed will convince more women to clean up than any number of safe brothels.

I thought I was heartless.

I would rather de-criminalize the whole deal.

Riverwind · January 28, 2007

I believe the prospect of ending up as pig feed will convince more women to clean up than any number of safe brothels.
I thought I was heartless.

You have probably never had to deal with someone with an addiction problem. Anyone who has been through that experience realizes that kindness quite literally kills.

Charles Anthony · January 28, 2007

You have probably never had to deal with someone with an addiction problem. Anyone who has been through that experience realizes that kindness quite literally kills.

I will not dispute that one bit.

I would like to make a because we are discussing prostitutes who are subjected to violence. Also, I am not convinced of your exclusive relationship between drug addiction and street walkers.

Riverwind · January 28, 2007

I would like to make a because we are discussing prostitutes who are subjected to violence. Also, I am not convinced of your exclusive relationship between drug addiction and street walkers.

I am saying there is a near exclusive relationship between drug abuse and street walkers who are at risk for violance. Women who work as escorts can control where they go and who they see which means they don't need the protections of brothels.

BC_chick · January 28, 2007

We have a social safety net in this country that ensures that women who are simply dealing with hard times do not need to resort to prostitution. The only people that need to prostitute themselves because of poverty are people with serious addiction or mental health problems. These are also the people deperate enough to take risks.

Yeah, we've been over this. And what do we do in the interim? Allow them to die while we are debating how to get them off drugs? As I've said, providing a safe place for them is not perfect, but it's better than what we're doing now which is nothing - both in terms of how to get them off drugs, as well as in terms of how to stop them from dying.

If we eliminate the drug addictions then the only women left prostituting themselves will be women who are able to control who and where they meet clients and do not need any protections that a brothel might offer.

*IF* we eliminate the drug addictions? That's a pretty huge if we're working on.

And what do we do IF we can't ever get there? Allow them to keep being preyed upon?