Prostitution

[The Atheist]

Laws on prostitution vary around the world, with New Zealand, as usual, leading the way in how to deal with the world's oldest profession.

We have carte blanche here, with prostitution legal, and the vast majority of it is carried out as taxable activity, and prostitutes have close relations with police - in a good way, that is. Crooks use hookers, cops know it, and the prostitutes themselves are nowadays entirely helpful to cops. Gang and criminal ownership of brothels has decreased to zero, and pimps are almost unknown.

Despite being an attractive target for sex trafficking, the practice here is rare, and usually caught - honest hookers have no truck with illegals taking money from them and there's little demand for illegal hookers anyway.

STD rates among prostitutes is very low, and harm to women has decreased. No non-religious conservative group in NZ is opposed to the law, and that group can go **** itself anyway.

Some countries have made the client a criminal, which is no less idiotic than making the prostitution itself illegal - it drives it underground and into danger.

We had the final confirmation of why legality is the only sensible answer a couple of months ago when a man who had been told not take his condom off went and did so.

He was given 3 years & 9 months in jail for rape.

Disclosure: I don't visit prostitutes, but I have a good [female] friend who owns a brothel.

[lionking]

It’s a very similar situation in Victoria (prostitution is regulated at a state level in Australia). It is neither a social nor a political issue here.

[dann]

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. Anatole France

In some places in the world, the law forbids rich as well as poor to sell sex whether in street, under bridges or in brothels. In other places, the law in its majestic equality, allows rich as well as poor women as well as men to sell sex. In both cases, it is pretty obvious who has to resort to selling sex and who hasn't.
Some people see the opportunity for the state to tax sex workers as beneficial. Some people also see the opportunity to make a business out of women selling sex as beneficial.

Stop blaming sex workers for their murders - they deserve to be safe (Stuff.co.nz, Jan 9, 2020)
Sex workers deserve living conditions and incomes that don't force them to sell sex.
Women are the primary victims of human trafficking. New Zealand's plan to stop slavery forgot them (Stuff.co.nz, Jan 19, 2021)
Does a new plan include them?

I haven't seen statistics on crimes against sex workers in New Zealand. There aren't any references to facts like that in the thread so far. I wonder how much "harm to women has decreased", and in this context harm to sexworkers, in particular. Decreased from what to what? What effect has the law had on this? For instance, do some prostitutes now avoid reporting crimes committed against them because they will then be accused of tax evasion?

[Brainster]

Yeah, let's hear it for 45 months in prison for pulling off the rubber!

[bluesjnr]

Leading the way? Here's a decree from the city of Amsterdam in 1413

Quote:

Because whores are necessary in big cities and especially in cities of commerce such as ours – indeed it is far better to have these women than not to have them – and also because the holy church tolerates whores on good grounds, for these reasons the court and sheriff of Amsterdam shall not entirely forbid the keeping of brothels.

You guys didn't become a separate colony until 1841 and weren't made self-governing until 1852, 439 years after that decree.

Leading the way....

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Yeah, let's hear it for 45 months in prison for pulling off the rubber!

Indeed, perhaps a little lenient.

[sarge]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Yeah, let's hear it for 45 months in prison for pulling off the rubber!

It was 45 months for rape. That seams lenient.

[Samson]

Originally Posted by dann

The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread. Anatole France

In some places in the world, the law forbids rich as well as poor to sell sex whether in street, under bridges or in brothels. In other places, the law in its majestic equality, allows rich as well as poor women as well as men to sell sex. In both cases, it is pretty obvious who has to resort to selling sex and who hasn't.
Some people see the opportunity for the state to tax sex workers as beneficial. Some people also see the opportunity to make a business out of women selling sex as beneficial.

Stop blaming sex workers for their murders - they deserve to be safe (Stuff.co.nz, Jan 9, 2020)
Sex workers deserve living conditions and incomes that don't force them to sell sex.
Women are the primary victims of human trafficking. New Zealand's plan to stop slavery forgot them (Stuff.co.nz, Jan 19, 2021)
Does a new plan include them?

I haven't seen statistics on crimes against sex workers in New Zealand. There aren't any references to facts like that in the thread so far. I wonder how much "harm to women has decreased", and in this context harm to sexworkers, in particular. Decreased from what to what? What effect has the law had on this? For instance, do some prostitutes now avoid reporting crimes committed against them because they will then be accused of tax evasion?

Prostitution seems to fall midrange in income dreams.
Probably about par with trades, but I guess the hours are different. I have never been a great morning person....

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Yeah, let's hear it for 45 months in prison for pulling off the rubber!

Damn straight. Pregnancy, herpes, AIDS...There's damn good reasons for her to draw a hard line and not consenting to bareback means not damn consenting.

[shemp]

Originally Posted by Brainster

Yeah, let's hear it for 45 months in prison for pulling off the rubber!

I agree. It should have been 45 years.

[Myriad]

Originally Posted by shemp

I agree. It should have been 45 years.

Or 45 light-years.

[porch]

That's hard time.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Or 45 light-years.

Nommed (for pith)

[shemp]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Or 45 light-years.

Shut up!

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by dann

In some places in the world, the law forbids rich as well as poor to sell sex whether in street, under bridges or in brothels. In other places, the law in its majestic equality, allows rich as well as poor women as well as men to sell sex. In both cases, it is pretty obvious who has to resort to selling sex and who hasn't.

More cases of men legislating what women do with their bodies is a good answer.

Quote:

Sex workers, however, believe the Swedish model puts their lives at risk and undermines their human rights.

Originally Posted by dann

Some people see the opportunity for the state to tax sex workers as beneficial. Some people also see the opportunity to make a business out of women selling sex as beneficial.

Shall we just stick to verified, substantive research? Opinions tend to be irrelevant in allegedly moral subjects, but thanks to rigorous oversight of the law, (by a heavily left % female dominated Parliament) we know exactly what the outcomes are:

Quote:

But research submitted to the review committee by the University of Otago and New Zealand’s Prostitutes’ Collective (NZPC) found that the majority of sex workers “articulated increased power” in their negotiations with clients and management post-decriminalisation, and felt more supported by the legal system.

Of the sex workers who responded to the NZPC survey, 96% said the law made them feel safer.

The researchers concluded that decriminalisation had resulted in “few, if any, negative consequences” in terms of the health and safety of sex workers, and had not led to an increase in their numbers.

“Despite the oft-repeated claims of its shortcomings, the academic evidence that has been gathered so far clearly supports the New Zealand decriminalisation model as an ideal starting point,” says criminology expert Dr Armstrong.

“No law is perfect, but this is the best approach we have so far for supporting sex worker rights and facilitating access to justice,” she adds. “There is no alternative worth pursuing.”

https://www.theweek.co.uk/fact-check...g-prostitution

You know this stuff is all online? Google can be your friend when you're trying to make points about a cou8ntry you have zero knowledge of.

Still, some people support the War on Drugs, too, despite centuries of evidence that prohibition is always the worst answer.

Originally Posted by dann

Stop blaming sex workers for their murders - they deserve to be safe (Stuff.co.nz, Jan 9, 2020)

Shock, horror! A sex worker was murdered! So were hundreds of other women. I reckon guys should stop killing women. If only we had a law against it, it wouldn't happen.

But you might be right, since no sex workers never get murdered in Denmark.

Originally Posted by dann

Sex workers deserve living conditions and incomes that don't force them to sell sex.

Provide evidence that women in NZ are becoming prostitutes through economic necessity.

Every woman who works at my friend's brothel does it through being able to earn 3-5 times what they were earning elsewhere.

Quote:

Women are the primary victims of human trafficking. New Zealand's plan to stop slavery forgot them (Stuff.co.nz, Jan 19, 2021)
Does a new plan include them?

Nope - read the report.

Quote:

I haven't seen statistics...

Now you have.

Originally Posted by Brainster

Yeah, let's hear it for 45 months in prison for pulling off the rubber!

If, as I strongly suspect, you think that's too much, unlike the several sane people who have posted quite correctly that 45 years would be more appropriate, I feel sorry for any actual women you know.

[lomiller]

IMO Prostitution should be legal, but it certainly needs to be highly regulated because even if it's legal sex workers are still extremely vulnerable.

[Cain]

Sometimes I confuse what's called

Edited by jimbob:

redacted due to Rule 9

. Only one of them is illegal in the state of California.

I just looked up escorts in Los Angeles. Great, now that's in my search history. I'm leaving it because Sun Tzu said, "No browser history is always more revealing." I was not tempted, but one of these "VIP" ladies WHORES charges $800 for the first hour, and the $600 for each additional hour -- or, $3400 for 8 hours. She was exceptionally attractive and, fair enough, prostitution is an obscenely dangerous job, but I don't have that kind of coin. Also, her profile was poorly written.

It seems most of them take Venmo, but one said she accepts BitCoin. I'd bet cash more than a few accept payment in the form of cocaine.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Still, some people support the War on Drugs, too, despite centuries of evidence that prohibition is always the worst answer.

Yup, 100% agree.

It took America 14 years to wake up to this fact the previous time they tried it, and by the time they did, an organized criminal enterprise had arisen using the prohibition of liquor as its foundation and primary income earner. When prohibition ended in 1933, the financial rug was whipped out from under them so that they had to turn to other types of racketeering as means to make their money..... prostitution, arms smuggling, bet fixing, extortion, theft, financial crimes and drug trafficking.

Idiots never learn from their mistakes!

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by lomiller

IMO Prostitution should be legal, but it certainly needs to be highly regulated because even if it's legal sex workers are still extremely vulnerable.

It's only a dangerous job because it's been taboo and illegal for so long that it has become associated with criminality and criminals. If it were legal and subject to the same labour laws as other kinds of work, then sex workers would not be as hesitant to engage with law enforcement as they might otherwise be.

Legalise it, regulate it, develop a set of professional standards that sex workers and their clients are required to uphold, and the industry will carry less inherent risk.

And while we're doing that, how about we adopt a more professional language? Sex workers and clients, not hookers and johns.

[Warp12]

I vote yes for whores. But please, let us have some health standards to protect consumers.

[Donal]

And you moved the goal posts again.

[Chanakya]

I got to wondering, and not ending up with an an obvious answer:

If a hooker agrees to have sex with someone on payment of amound X; and then, if after the deed is done, that someone either doesn't pay at all, or else insists on paying less; then what's actually going on here? Is this rape, or is this some lesser essentially financial misdemeanor?


(Not saying this is directly related to the condom case that the thread's about. I can see how that condom business is a whole different thing. Just got to wondering about this particular what-if, is all.)

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

I got to wondering, and not ending up with an an obvious answer:

If a hooker agrees to have sex with someone on payment of amound X; and then, if after the deed is done, that someone either doesn't pay at all, or else insists on paying less; then what's actually going on here? Is this rape, or is this some lesser essentially financial misdemeanor?


(Not saying this is directly related to the condom case that the thread's about. I can see how that condom business is a whole different thing. Just got to wondering about this particular what-if, is all.)

Can't really call it rape if she was a consenting adult in the gig. It's strictly a payment default gig. I think that sex workers require the money be up front, specifically to duck this issue.

Like, she agreed to willingly do the actions. Payment is just money then owed, like an outstanding account balance.

[xjx388]

The discussion related to condoms and consent was split off to it's own thread, here.

Posted By:xjx388

[dudalb]

Legalize and regulate. Licence Sex Workers, and they have to agree to be checked every few months for VDs to keep their licence.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

And while we're doing that, how about we adopt a more professional language? Sex workers and clients, not hookers and johns.

I can't speak for all prostitutes, but the ones I know have no issue with being called hookers. Maybe it's a rugby thing and not the same overseas.

Originally Posted by Warp12

I vote yes for whores.

That's not ok, though. Deliberately demeaning.

Nice.

Originally Posted by Chanakya

If a hooker agrees to have sex with someone on payment of amound X; and then, if after the deed is done, that someone either doesn't pay at all, or else insists on paying less; then what's actually going on here?

The person is an idiot.

No sane prostitute does anything unless the money changes hands first.

Originally Posted by dudalb

Legalize and regulate. Licence Sex Workers, and they have to agree to be checked every few months for VDs to keep their licence.

The girls themselves have a much more vested interest in being disease-free than the clients, and imposing rules like that isn't going to happen, and nor should it.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The girls themselves have a much more vested interest in being disease-free than the clients, and imposing rules like that isn't going to happen, and nor should it.

Just a side note here, and I'm sure you're aware of this, but there are male sex workers as well, and they deserve the same rights as their female colleagues.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The person is an idiot.

No sane prostitute does anything unless the money changes hands first.

And again with appropriate legal protections, there will be less of a chance of the clients cheating on their contract.

[Warp12]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

The girls themselves have a much more vested interest in being disease-free than the clients, and imposing rules like that isn't going to happen, and nor should it.

The above doesn't make sense. Why would the person who provides the service not be reasonably required to maintain a health standard to protect the consumer? Relatively speaking, they are operating a revolving door of risk.

[RolandRat]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Gang and criminal ownership of brothels has decreased to zero, and pimps are almost unknown.

What's the source for that? Seems to be plenty of news reports about pimps and gangs running these places.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by RolandRat

What's the source for that? Seems to be plenty of news reports about pimps and gangs running these places.

I had a bit of a look. I found this story:
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO21...-or-hidden.htm

The report it is talking about is here:
http://familyfirst.org.nz/wp-content...and-Report.pdf

I've no idea how reliable it is, but it might at least be a good source of links to data.

[Trebuchet]

Originally Posted by Chanakya

I got to wondering, and not ending up with an an obvious answer:

If a hooker agrees to have sex with someone on payment of amound X; and then, if after the deed is done, that someone either doesn't pay at all, or else insists on paying less; then what's actually going on here? Is this rape, or is this some lesser essentially financial misdemeanor?


(Not saying this is directly related to the condom case that the thread's about. I can see how that condom business is a whole different thing. Just got to wondering about this particular what-if, is all.)

Theft of services.

[JoeMorgue]

I heard it once said "If you think prostitutes are selling their bodies and people who work in coal mines aren't, your view of labor is clouded by a toxic view of sexuality." and don't have much to add to that.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by Trebuchet

Theft of services.

It should be made a public utility.

[shuttlt]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I heard it once said "If you think prostitutes are selling their bodies and people who work in coal mines aren't, your view of labor is clouded by a toxic view of sexuality." and don't have much to add to that.

Toxic is in the eye of the beholder.

[pgwenthold]

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue

I heard it once said "If you think prostitutes are selling their bodies and people who work in coal mines aren't, your view of labor is clouded by a toxic view of sexuality." and don't have much to add to that.

"Would you want your daughter to be a sex worker?"

"No, and I don't want my daughter to make a living cleaning toilets at McDonald's, either, but I'm not going to make the job illegal."

Remember, paying someone for sex with you is perfectly legal as long as you film it and have people pay to watch it on the internet.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Just a side note here, and I'm sure you're aware of this, but there are male sex workers as well, and they deserve the same rights as their female colleagues.

Yes, good point, and they are, of course, covered by the same legislation.

Originally Posted by RolandRat

What's the source for that? Seems to be plenty of news reports about pimps and gangs running these places.

Where?

Maybe you're reading old stories? They were heavily owned by gangs until legalisation, but since they're now an obvious business, the tax department demands records and gangs aren't good at that.

They try to muscle in on street workers now and then, but that's it, and the street workers do themselves no favours by mostly being addicts that a brothel wouldn't hire.

Originally Posted by shuttlt

I had a bit of a look. I found this story:
https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO21...-or-hidden.htm

The report it is talking about is here:
http://familyfirst.org.nz/wp-content...and-Report.pdf

I've no idea how reliable it is, but it might at least be a good source of links to data.

I'll tell you exactly how reliable it is.

Family First is an organisation run by one fundy christian nutcase and had their charitable status removed some time ago. They appealed and failed:

Family First lacked balance and objectivity, the court decided.

Bob McCoskrie and Family First are anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-prostitution and are pieces of **** who have tried every trick in the book to fail to get anyone interested and they're never covered by sane media.

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

"Would you want your daughter to be a sex worker?"

I've said on many occasions I'd rather she was a prostitute than a christian.

Originally Posted by pgwenthold

Remember, paying someone for sex with you is perfectly legal as long as you film it and have people pay to watch it on the internet.

If you have a look at any porn site and see an actual prostitute who's working in a legal brothel in NZ on it, I'll buy you a box of chocolate fish. It's prohibited in all the brothels I know of.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Warp12

The above doesn't make sense. Why would the person who provides the service not be reasonably required to maintain a health standard to protect the consumer? Relatively speaking, they are operating a revolving door of risk.

If I thought there were any chance at all that you wanted to be educated and weren't just being a typical anti, following a stupid fundy agenda, I'd answer.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by lomiller

IMO Prostitution should be legal, but it certainly needs to be highly regulated because even if it's legal sex workers are still extremely vulnerable.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Yup, 100% agree.

It took America 14 years to wake up to this fact the previous time they tried it, and by the time they did, an organized criminal enterprise had arisen using the prohibition of liquor as its foundation and primary income earner. When prohibition ended in 1933, the financial rug was whipped out from under them so that they had to turn to other types of racketeering as means to make their money..... prostitution, arms smuggling, bet fixing, extortion, theft, financial crimes and drug trafficking.

Idiots never learn from their mistakes!

I wouldn't say that the only reason prostitutes are at risk is because of prohibition but prohibition certainly makes it worse. Much much worse. So, I agree it should be legal and lightly regulated. Subject to age, time, and place restrictions but not much else.

[Cainkane1]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Laws on prostitution vary around the world, with New Zealand, as usual, leading the way in how to deal with the world's oldest profession.

We have carte blanche here, with prostitution legal, and the vast majority of it is carried out as taxable activity, and prostitutes have close relations with police - in a good way, that is. Crooks use hookers, cops know it, and the prostitutes themselves are nowadays entirely helpful to cops. Gang and criminal ownership of brothels has decreased to zero, and pimps are almost unknown.

Despite being an attractive target for sex trafficking, the practice here is rare, and usually caught - honest hookers have no truck with illegals taking money from them and there's little demand for illegal hookers anyway.

STD rates among prostitutes is very low, and harm to women has decreased. No non-religious conservative group in NZ is opposed to the law, and that group can go **** itself anyway.

Some countries have made the client a criminal, which is no less idiotic than making the prostitution itself illegal - it drives it underground and into danger.

We had the final confirmation of why legality is the only sensible answer a couple of months ago when a man who had been told not take his condom off went and did so.

He was given 3 years & 9 months in jail for rape.

Disclosure: I don't visit prostitutes, but I have a good [female] friend who owns a brothel.

This is the way Prostitution should be handled in the USA. It might as well be legal as there is no stopping it and to me if a woman wants to make money doing that then let her.