I heard that Jackie Smith (U.K politician) has passed a legislation stating that if a prostitute has been coerced into it then their client is guilty. To me this just doesn't make sense I was wondering about your views.

Typhusoid:
I heard that Jackie Smith (U.K politician) has passed a legislation stating that if a prostitute has been coerced into it then their client is guilty. To me this just doesn't make sense I was wondering about your views.

Why doesn't it make sense? If they are coerced into sex with someone else, i.e. raped, then yes, the male is most certainly guilty.

The way I figure it prostitution is only a social evil if the women are put in danger. Legalise and regulate it and you'll stop many women from being abused.

Human trafficking and coercion into prostitution should be very illegal but if a woman (or man) freely chooses to sell their own time then who the fuck are we to say no? Is it any less honourable than cleaning someone's toilet?

I say it should be legal one one, big condition.
It must be regulated. As in, a license to be a prostitute, no STDs allowed, regular checkups, and taxed.
Problem solved, now on to fixing the economy...

If porn is legal, then prostitution should be legal. Why is it okay to accept money for sex if there's a camera running, but if not then everyone involved goes to jail?

That doesn't make sense, mainly because there is no way for a client to know if the prostitute is in the business willingly or not.

Someone tell Jackie Smith to start using that brain of hers.

On a sidenote, I believe prostitution should be legal, as soft-drugs should be legal. As many many *many* other things should be simply because it doesn't hurt anyone (except for tourists who start hallucinating and jump off a bridge).

Prostitution might not be a choice of the prostitute but I doubt that'd change in a positive way if it was illegal.

I dare anyone to come up with a reasonable argument against legalizing prostitution.

I'm unsure, for the most part Legalized Prostitution ala Amsterdamme seems to be safer and better on the whole. Because at least the work environments are safe and healthy.

It techniacally is legal here in Ireland.

I think two conditions ought to be part of the regulation:

1) Monthly (is that too extreme) STD checks, and healthy insurance (supplied by the brothel or government or what have you, I'm British so we don't need it but it's a concern)

2) Condoms for all penetrative sex. Now that's a little graphic and I apologise but it's necessary. A prostitute should have legal grounds to demand a customer use one.

rossatdi:
The way I figure it prostitution is only a social evil if the women are put in danger. Legalise and regulate it and you'll stop many women from being abused.

This. Set up brothels for prostitutes to work in, completely cut out the whole "waiting on street corners" thing.

rossatdi:
I think two conditions ought to be part of the regulation:

1) Monthly (is that too extreme) STD checks, and healthy insurance (supplied by the brothel or government or what have you, I'm British so we don't need it but it's a concern)

2) Condoms for all penetrative sex. Now that's a little graphic and I apologise but it's necessary. A prostitute should have legal grounds to demand a customer use one.

It'd generally fall under "Refusal of Service" which is perfectly legal. You don't where a condom, she refuses to do the deed and you won't be able to use the brothel's services (except, perhaps, the toilets? :P)

varulfic:
I dare anyone to come up with a reasonable argument against legalizing prostitution.

I'd be VAT applicable?

rossatdi:
I think two conditions ought to be part of the regulation:

1) Monthly (is that too extreme) STD checks, and healthy insurance (supplied by the brothel or government or what have you, I'm British so we don't need it but it's a concern)

2) Condoms for all penetrative sex. Now that's a little graphic and I apologise but it's necessary. A prostitute should have legal grounds to demand a customer use one.

Why is it nessasary? Customers would have background checks and prostitutes would be on the pill so...

rossatdi:
I think two conditions ought to be part of the regulation:

1) Monthly (is that too extreme) STD checks, and healthy insurance (supplied by the brothel or government or what have you, I'm British so we don't need it but it's a concern)

2) Condoms for all penetrative sex. Now that's a little graphic and I apologise but it's necessary. A prostitute should have legal grounds to demand a customer use one.

I can agree with these.

Should the customer's medical records also be taken into account?

ZenMonkey47:

rossatdi:
I think two conditions ought to be part of the regulation:

1) Monthly (is that too extreme) STD checks, and healthy insurance (supplied by the brothel or government or what have you, I'm British so we don't need it but it's a concern)

2) Condoms for all penetrative sex. Now that's a little graphic and I apologise but it's necessary. A prostitute should have legal grounds to demand a customer use one.

I can agree with these.

Should the customer's medical records also be taken into account?

Perhaps a recent (last 3/6/12 months or something) clean bill of sexual health from the doctor or something. If we're making the guys wear condoms, it's less necessary, but erring on the side of caution is often a good thing.

It kinda is legal here... in holland(the netherlands) that is, though it's more that the government just closes an eye :o. But then again, they want to cut it back due to the involvement of criminality and illegal prostitutes. As they want to remove all coffe shops within 250 m of schools!!!!!!!!!!!! :(

rossatdi:
I think two conditions ought to be part of the regulation:

1) Monthly (is that too extreme) STD checks, and healthy insurance (supplied by the brothel or government or what have you, I'm British so we don't need it but it's a concern)

2) Condoms for all penetrative sex. Now that's a little graphic and I apologise but it's necessary. A prostitute should have legal grounds to demand a customer use one.

I think these are how the prostitution laws work in Amsterdamme.

The problem is different in different countries. In South Africa where I lived, most of the prostitues and strippers did it for crack or because it was gang-affiliated, not really to earn some sort of living or pay for college or whatever. All the fried-out bedraggled prossies I saw lining up in the streets kinda put me off the idea of prostitution in general.

curlycrouton:

Typhusoid:
I heard that Jackie Smith (U.K politician) has passed a legislation stating that if a prostitute has been coerced into it then their client is guilty. To me this just doesn't make sense I was wondering about your views.

Why doesn't it make sense? If they are coerced into sex with someone else, i.e. raped, then yes, the male is most certainly guilty.

What the hell?! You think someone will rape woman and give her 300 bucks?! Makes no sense.

SuperFriendBFG:

curlycrouton:

Typhusoid:
I heard that Jackie Smith (U.K politician) has passed a legislation stating that if a prostitute has been coerced into it then their client is guilty. To me this just doesn't make sense I was wondering about your views.

Why doesn't it make sense? If they are coerced into sex with someone else, i.e. raped, then yes, the male is most certainly guilty.

What the hell?! You think someone will rape woman and give her 300 bucks?! Makes no sense.

No, forced into it by a pimp. It happens, a lot.

PedroSteckecilo:

rossatdi:
I think two conditions ought to be part of the regulation:

1) Monthly (is that too extreme) STD checks, and healthy insurance (supplied by the brothel or government or what have you, I'm British so we don't need it but it's a concern)

2) Condoms for all penetrative sex. Now that's a little graphic and I apologise but it's necessary. A prostitute should have legal grounds to demand a customer use one.

I think these are how the prostitution laws work in Amsterdamme.

Las Vegas has something like that system as well.

Customers medical records are almost certainly irrelevant because a person could get tested, catch a disease before their results return and thus start spreading whatever they have caught.
But if a guy is stupid enough to take his chances and she is stupid enough to agree for more money then I have no sympathy but It shouldnt really be a legal issue. If a girl tested positive for something she should be disqualified from working but that is where it would go under ground again.
Even if it were legal I would still favour these laws because whether the guy knows or not he is still raping her (sorry officer I didnt see the child I reversed over so its ok!).
These slavers only make money because of the lack of an alternative and the impunity of customers so by hitting from both ends of the spectrum they will stop making money and stop victimising these women.

varulfic:
I dare anyone to come up with a reasonable argument against legalizing prostitution.

Knocking on the wrong door.

I'm sorry to shatter your dreams but this isn't a reasonable, logical or even intelligent society we live in.

There should definitely be tighter control on it, that would be easier to do if it was legal.

People are going to do it whether its legal or not
and at least if its legalized we can get rid of pimps (i know im sorry) and have checkups required for hookers so
its safer for everybody

curlycrouton:

SuperFriendBFG:

curlycrouton:

Typhusoid:
I heard that Jackie Smith (U.K politician) has passed a legislation stating that if a prostitute has been coerced into it then their client is guilty. To me this just doesn't make sense I was wondering about your views.

Why doesn't it make sense? If they are coerced into sex with someone else, i.e. raped, then yes, the male is most certainly guilty.

What the hell?! You think someone will rape woman and give her 300 bucks?! Makes no sense.

No, forced into it by a pimp. It happens, a lot.

Oh, well yeah that does make sense, you just made it sound like it would be the customer's fault.

SuperFriendBFG:

curlycrouton:

SuperFriendBFG:

curlycrouton:

Typhusoid:
I heard that Jackie Smith (U.K politician) has passed a legislation stating that if a prostitute has been coerced into it then their client is guilty. To me this just doesn't make sense I was wondering about your views.

Why doesn't it make sense? If they are coerced into sex with someone else, i.e. raped, then yes, the male is most certainly guilty.

What the hell?! You think someone will rape woman and give her 300 bucks?! Makes no sense.

No, forced into it by a pimp. It happens, a lot.

Oh, well yeah that does make sense, you just made it sound like it would be the customer's fault.

Apologies if it did.

PedroSteckecilo:

rossatdi:
I think two conditions ought to be part of the regulation:

1) Monthly (is that too extreme) STD checks, and healthy insurance (supplied by the brothel or government or what have you, I'm British so we don't need it but it's a concern)

2) Condoms for all penetrative sex. Now that's a little graphic and I apologise but it's necessary. A prostitute should have legal grounds to demand a customer use one.

I think these are how the prostitution laws work in Amsterdamme.

I'm not sure if STD checks are mandatory here (don't think so), but condoms are. I don't think it's that well-regulated here though, it's legal but I don't think the state accomodates said prostitutes much in the way of health insurance or stuff like that. People have these crazy ideas about The Netherlands as if we're all pro-drugs or whatever, but the truth is that a lot of dutch people are trying to put a stop to all that. The country is split up on a lot of subjects.

Also, I have to ask, what's with the "me" at the end of Amsterdam?

Fightbulb:

Also, I have to ask, what's with the "me" at the end of Amsterdam?

As in Jean Claude Van?

Prostitution should be legal, but like in Ohio ( I think ) It should be only legal in brothels and be recognised as an actual job, thus adding more income to the community.

rossatdi:

Fightbulb:

Also, I have to ask, what's with the "me" at the end of Amsterdam?

As in Jean Claude Van?

I see your point, but that's French. >_>

should be legal, regulation can increase the safety of the people concerned.
it would also generate tax revenue!

if in the case of a brothel, i would say it could be appropriate. but i would want them all checked for diseases and such

Regulate it, give the girls (or boys) health benefits, have ample security and require condoms for all customers, then tax the hell out of it. Then it's not only safe for everyone, it's a good source of income for the community. People are always going to pay for sex, that's just a fact of life. Seems far wiser to me to accept that fact and try to make it as safe and profitable as possible.

I appear to be part of the minority that doesn't believe prositution should be legal, in absolute terms. This is a somewhat sensitive issue, as I find it hard to stomach that so many women still (perhaps I'm misspeaking to say 'still'; women are far from equal) willingly sell sex as a service, even in light of perhaps not having more lucrative options. However, I also sympathize with the extent to which the illegality of prostitution places the women involved in a vulnerable position, and so I here I am: wanting to have my cake and eat it too.

What I think is probably best, then, is to do things the way they do in Rhode Island: for the operations of brothels (which are highly exploitative) and street solicitation (which often involves women putting themselves in dangerous situations) to be illegal, while advertised prositution services ('escorts') are permitted. Additionally, I believe 'escort services', which often leech off their employees, should be illegal. There are two positive implications of this approach: 1) that the legality of women working off the street in the sex trade could be contingent upon them receiving STD checks, etc., and that 2) the 'middlemen' who seek to line their pockets off prosititution - pimps, managers of escort agencies, etc. - would hopefully be cut out of the equation.