Legalised brothel proposals [Archive]

View Full Version : Legalised brothel proposals

Socialsmo o Muerte

17th January 2006, 15:52

I hear today that the government is proposing to legalise some "small brothels".

Prostitution os one of the main sicknesses of modern society. Ok, so the practice of paying for sex has been going on for longer than we can record, but it is now 2006. We are meant to be evolved, a highly intelligent species. Sex is meant to be the highest form of intimacy practiced by two people very close to eachother. It's not a product. Women are driven to the point where the have to sell themselves to live.

My arguments against prositution are absolute. It is one of the most disgusting things we live with in the modern world. And now, our government proposes to legalise it to "help" women. I really cannot belive this.

Why isn't the government concentrating on WHY women are driven to prostitution? They can't get a fair education and, thus, a job? They are single mothers, not given enough help by a government spending billions on wars and defence? They are not educated on the dangers of sex? Not educated on how to respect their body? How to respect sex?

Why are too many men still under the impression that it is ok to pay for sex? They are not educated enough? They are ill of mind?

These are all things the government SHOULD address to cut out the problem of prostitution. Their laziness at dealing with such a matter absolutely riles me. How the fuck can they justify legalizing prostitution as a means of helping the women involved in this sick trade?

And that is all before I even go into their argument!

Well, seeing as they want to legalize a crime which women are driven into by the poor treatment of women in modern society, why don't they just legalize theft? I mean, it's the same right? A lot of thieves are driven to steal because of what they can't acheive in society. Anyone heard of the "American Dream Theory" on crime? Everyone's told the benchmark for success, and when they don't achieve it, they find other, illegal means to get that success. Well, this just represents a dysfunctional society which leads people to steal, just as it leads them to prostitution. So shall we legalize small groups of thieves? Yes. Yes let's. Get me Charles Clarke on the phone.

They're absolute fucking idiots. Well, we all knew that. But prostitution is one of my main hates about this society and now they plan to legalize it as a means to ridding the place of it?!! Men are sick. I would happily assault any man I see paying for sex.

fernando

17th January 2006, 16:06

I think the legalised brothel thing might actually be good for prostitutes which are working now. (we are not debating prevention which is something that is a different subject I guess)

I think that if a woman works in prostitution it would better be done regulated and more safely than in some shabby illegal whorehouse where we have no clue what the fuck is going on.

But okay since you clearly hate prostitution it would probably be useless to try to explain that. Yes it should be prevented as much as possible, give women more access to education and better jobs, but what about those women who do end up in the prostitution or cant get out? Will you just let them rot in shabby illegal brothels where the situation would be way more dangerous than in a legal brothel?

And why is it "evil" to pay for sex if its all safe and regulated? What about male prostitutes who are paid by women for sex? So before you start with the sexist remarks of "men are sick" you should take a look at the bigger picture perhaps. Besides isnt "men are sick" a sexist remark that should mean you would get restricted...or are we dealing on this forum with positive gender discrimination? :blink:

Conghaileach

17th January 2006, 16:34

It'll definitely be better for the women if it is legalised. Prostitutes have already begun unionising in some areas, and where it's legal they can be protected from abusive pimps and drugs, and health clinics have been set up where they can be checked for various STDs on a regular basis, like they do in adult filmmaking.

RebelOutcast

17th January 2006, 16:48

I hear today that the government is proposing to legalise some "small brothels".
Eh, old news.

Prostitution os one of the main sicknesses of modern society. Ok, so the practice of paying for sex has been going on for longer than we can record, but it is now 2006. We are meant to be evolved
Firstly why is prostitution a sickness? Secondly, yes the human race is evolved, and will continue to evolve, however evolution is not synonymous with civilisation or being civilised.

a highly intelligent species.
individual homo sapiens sapiens are capable of being a highly intelligent, however this has nothing to do with the wish to procreate (which is a very basic instinct) or use sex for pleasure.

Sex is meant to be the highest form of intimacy practiced by two people very close to eachother.
What an old, out-dated idea, What's the problem with promiscuity? It's certainly one of the best ways to procreate and proliferate your set of genes, procreation being the one basic instinct, as mentioned before.

It's not a product.
Anything is a product in capitalism.

Women are driven to the point where the have to sell themselves to live. This is a problem with society, and has nothing to do with prostitution as such, however I've known people to prostitute themselves because they enjoyed it, not because they needed money, which was just a by-product of the act.

My arguments against prositution are absolute. It is one of the most disgusting things we live with in the modern world. And now, our government proposes to legalise it to "help" women. I really cannot belive this. I'm starting to think that you have a problem with sex as a whole, this is reminiscent of kids in the school yard ("harry wants to have sex with alice", "ewwww you said sex") and sounds.
Why do you seem to think that all prostitutes are women? Men do prostitute themselves aswell you know.
Legalising prostitution would help prostitutes as there would be regulation aswell, which may or not mean compulsory health checks and screening for STDs, it would also mean that prostitutes wouldn't have to work for pimps and therefore wouldn't get pumped full of drugs.

Why isn't the government concentrating on WHY women are driven to prostitution? They can't get a fair education and, thus, a job? They are single mothers, not given enough help by a government spending billions on wars anddefence? They are not educated on the dangers of sex? The governments don't really care about prostitution as it doesn't cause them too many problems, stopping a middle eastern country from developing the only viable source of power is more important. In first world countries girls and men can get a fair education. Many people are educated on the dangers of sex, however I think that one of the "dangers" you're thinking of is that they might enjoy it.

Not educated on how to respect their body? How to respect sex?What exactly do you mean by this, they obviously want to sell themselves, or they wouldn't do it, so "respect" really has little to do with the situation.

Why are too many men still under the impression that it is ok to pay for sex?I'll say one word: Capitalism.

They are not educated enough? They are ill of mind?Neither, it's easier to pay for sex than work at a relationship.

These are all things the government SHOULD address to cut out the problem of prostitution. Their laziness at dealing with such a matter absolutely riles me. How the fuck can they justify legalizing prostitution as a means of helping the women involved in this sick trade?Already answered this.

And that is all before I even go into their argument!Well perhaps you should control yourself and go straight to the problem!

Well, seeing as they want to legalize a crime which women are driven into by the poor treatment of women in modern society, why don't they just legalize theft? I mean, it's the same right? A lot of thieves are driven to steal because of what they can't acheive in society. Anyone heard of the "American Dream Theory" on crime? Everyone's told the benchmark for success, and when they don't achieve it, they find other, illegal means to get that success. Well, this just represents a dysfunctional society which leads people to steal, just as it leads them to prostitution. So shall we legalize small groups of thieves? Yes. Yes let's. Get me Charles Clarke on the phone.Why should prostitution be a crime? You were talking about "respect" earlier yet you fail to respect a person's right to do whatever the hell they want with their body!

They're absolute fucking idiots. Well, we all knew that. But prostitution is one of my main hates about this society and now they plan to legalize it as a means to ridding the place of it?!! Men are sick. I would happily assault any man I see paying for sex.Well they may be idiots, but you're a reactionary fool having the out-dated idea that people should be monogamous, after all humans are nothing more than animals that learnt to use tools, promiscuity and polygamy works for the other animals. I suppose you also believe that people shouldn't have sex out side of marriage!

Oh, and by the way, assualt is illegal too! :o

Alexknucklehead

17th January 2006, 17:39

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2006, 04:22 PM
I think the legalised brothel thing might actually be good for prostitutes which are working now. (we are not debating prevention which is something that is a different subject I guess)

I think that if a woman works in prostitution it would better be done regulated and more safely than in some shabby illegal whorehouse where we have no clue what the fuck is going on.

Agreed, any legislation that increases rights regarding safety of sex workers is definatly a good thing.

Soheran

17th January 2006, 17:58

Workers in the sex industry will be aided by legalization, so I'm in favor. Collective bargaining rights, health standards, living wages, etc. are all easier to guarantee under a legalized system.

ComradeOm

17th January 2006, 18:05

Prostitution is inevitable under capitalism, and indeed its appeared in most prior epoches. If it is impossible to eradicate under the current economic conditions, which would require addressing the underlying causes of poverty and wage slavery, then I see nothing wrong with legalising the practice. Who knows, the ladies of the night may even unionise if given time.

boosh logic

17th January 2006, 18:26

I think the main aim is to protect the prostitutes by giving them safe-houses instead of walking the streets and being very vulnerable (although they still will be at risk), so I think it is a good thing, although I oppose prostitution. Saying that, many women have no other choice, particularly those smuggled in from abroad via the sex trade, meaning it may give those women a break and help them in their situation.

fernando

17th January 2006, 18:31

I know that a vast majority of the prostitutes are female...but what about male prostitutes, the starter of this thread seems to make some heavy sexist remark (calling men sick) which if turned around would have caused a ban immediatly. But should this problem (of people being forced to work in prostitution) be deal with for both genders?

Socialsmo o Muerte

17th January 2006, 20:39

Delirium

17th January 2006, 20:51

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 17 2006, 08:55 PM
You cannot possibly criticise me for not having respect for people's right to do what they want with their body. I'm just saying people do not have the right idea about what they should do with their body.

Just making sure everyone saw this one

a little contradiction maybe...

RebelOutcast

17th January 2006, 21:02

It is impossible arguing this with you lot it seems with your apparently modern trendy ideas on sex. Sexual promiscuity is as old as the human ability to walk on two legs. Yours is the out-dated idea.They may be old, but my my ideas do not stem from dogmatic religion.

fernando

17th January 2006, 23:09

First of all, I only talked about female prostitutes because from what I read, this bill was only aimed at female prostitutes. I know there are male prostitutes, but from what I read about this issue, they are not part of this proposal. So I hope that's the suggestion of sexism cleared up. And I'm not going to explain or back up on my comment that men who pay for sex are sick. They are.
Why are you not going to explain or back up why men who pay for sex are sick? Are women who pay for sex sick as well?

Secondly, if I'm being criticised for my views on sex, then clearly there is no room for debate. Apparently, RebelOutcast, you are happy to see this sort of society where my views are "old-fashioned" and "out-dated". Personally, I see my views on monogamy and sex as right.
Humans and a monogamous creature...how naive you are :P as my antropology professor for Kinship puts it :lol:

I see it like this: one day I will hopefully find someone to have as a wife. I don't want to be telling her about all the other women I've had sex with just as much as I don't want to hear that she has thrown her body around.
What if she marries you only for your money? Doesnt that sort of make her a prostitute since she only sleeps with you for your cash. Doesnt that than make you a sick person in your own standards?

You cannot possibly criticise me for not having respect for people's right to do what they want with their body. I'm just saying people do not have the right idea about what they should do with their body.

In your point of view it might not be right, for others it is the right point of view.

Why is prostitution a sickness? Women are forced into selling their bodies because they a) can't get a job b) need money to aid single motherhood c) are forced into it through drugs and I'm sure there are other reasons.
What about prostitutes who have been given plenty of chances to get a "socially acceptable" job, but didnt because they made more money with prostitution and thus willingly stayed a prostitute. But isnt the capitalist system which forces the women to go into prostitution the sickness? prostitution sounds more like a result from the sickness than an actual sickness.

Then, men exploit this shitty position the women are in by paying for their bodies. The person who pays for sex is as bad as the actual causes of prostitution.

If a woman becomes a prostitute because of those nasty things you mentioned before (unemployed, poor, drug addicted etc etc) she would be totally broke and be forced to beg, not making enough money to survive and would probably eventually starve. Of course education, social security systems etc have to prevent a person from falling into prostitution, but dont you think the problem should be dealt with from its roots (modern capitalist system) instead of going after those who are willing to pay for it?

We are more developed than primates my friend.
Very debatable I think ;)

We should have feelings of love and devotion that mean we don't throw our bodies around and expect one person who we eventually spend our life with to be ok with that.
How naive of you to think that...you're stuck with your Christian/judean set of morals here, monogamy is a cultural thing, not a natural thing. There are cultures in which its normal for a man to have several wives or in which a woman can have several husbands. This isnt exploitation of the genders, its survival of the bloodline and how kinship is viewed by these cultures.

I have no problem with sex. I enjoy it just as much as the next man. But I do believe that we should respect our bodies and also, as I believe vehemently in monogamy, we should respect the person who we, in the future, may grow to love and spend the rest of our lives with.
Personal morality which shouldnt be enforced on anybody.

It is impossible arguing this with you lot it seems with your apparently modern trendy ideas on sex. Sexual promiscuity is as old as the human ability to walk on two legs. Yours is the out-dated idea.
Why fight your own nature? Monogamy has been forced down on Western society by Christian and Jewish beliefs, why should we follow those ideas if we dont want to. I myself am monogamous when Im in a relationship, but I dont see why its wrong to fuck around when you're single or even have several partners if they are all ok with it.

ReD_ReBeL

17th January 2006, 23:12

how is this 'sick, absolutely sick'? so u would rather a prostitute worked illegally, was free to catch STI/Ds, was free to be pimped and slapped around by some guy, and was free to be put in the unsafe hands of a nutter? or it could be made legal and they could work in a safe building, away from pimps, get regular STI/D checks-ups and not risk being arrested for trying to survive and feed yourself and maybe kids.
It may not be the nicest job but atleast it gives the desperate a fixed job and safer way of living.

Socialsmo o Muerte

17th January 2006, 23:26

I think I've been misunderstood slightly. Or it's probably because of my poor presentation of my argument.

I'm not saying everyone should think like me on sex. I do think it's better, personally, but wouldn't wish to force it on anyone. The argument has strayed from prostitution.

As for the man/woman thing, I'm only using female prostitution because it's in question. Of course, women paying for male prostitutes are equally sick. It's just the fact that they are taking advantage of a person clearly in a shit situation for their own gratification. And I know this is the nature of capitalism which extends from markets and economies right through to people's personal conduct.

As for the woman marrying for money. Firstly, this would not happen with me as I'll always be broke if things keep going as they are. Secondly, you'd like to think you'd be able to see through such a situation should it arise.

And you said about how it is the sickness of society, not the sickness OF prostitution. Well, again, this is just obviously me not presenting my views clearly. That is, of course, exactly what I mean.

And please don't align me with any religion. I'm disgusted by them all.

Besides, mongamy has always been practised by many pagan groups.

Socialsmo o Muerte

17th January 2006, 23:27

RedRebel, that is not what I said. I'd rather a prostitute not exist as a prostitute but as a woman. (Or man, as I now feel obliged to say)

flames of the flag

18th January 2006, 00:08

Does anyone deny the subjectivness of morality? No matter what our societal perceptions or religion dictates, individuals must be entitled to sovereignty over their own person to constitute a just society. To qoute a guy about whom i have mixed feelings, Pierre Trudeau: "the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." or something like that. If women want to sell their bodies, the bodies in question belong to no one but them selves, and wether or not society wants them to, they are innately capable of selling them.

As most prostitutes turn to the sex trade out of desperation, the question of morality applies more to their clientel. If people want to purchase sex, and it is available to them, from someone who consents to such an exchange, than i dont think we can fairly legislate against that. It is a matter of private morality over public safety, and I think legalised brothels are a step toward both of these ends.

That being said, the underlying issues which cause prositution; class disparities, poverty, "opportunity theory", still need to be addressed. However these are all issues that are endemic of capitalism. In a society without currency, i would imagine that prostition would not be viable, as sex would have to be exchanged for goods, and in theory there would be no "social ladder" upon which people, even if living in poverty, could ascend.

Janus

18th January 2006, 00:13

I don't condone prostitution since it is a byproduct of capitalism. However, I suppose that this will be better for the prostitutes since it will give them a safer environment to "work" in and hopefully will help prevent the transmission of STDs. Further, some of the problems with unregularized prostitution such as murder and abuse may be cut down.

ReD_ReBeL

18th January 2006, 00:35

I don't condone prostitution since it is a byproduct of capitalism

I agree with you in a sense that the lower class have been exploited and have to take desperate moves to survive but in Cuba in the middle 90's when the economic situation was in dire struggle, Prostitution was very high. So realisticly speaking i think prostitution in essense is more a byproduct of 'struggling to survive'

LSD

18th January 2006, 01:21

This focus on prostitution as "specially" "evil" is utter and complete nonsense.

It's just more reactionary Judeo-Christian bullshit from the folks that brought you "spare the rod, spoil the child" and "thy shall not suffer a witch among thee".

There is nothing surprising and nothing uniquely "sick" about the selling of sex in capitalist ecoomies. Capitalism is the comodification of everything; that includes widgets, doodads, and sex.

Of course selling sex is "bad", selling anything is bad, but sex is not particularly "special" in this regard. Indeed, while working in the sex industry can be rather dangerous, there are still far more unsafe occupations that are perfectly legal.

A meat packing worker is much more likely to be injured or killed than a sex worker. Yet no proposal is under consideration for banning slaughter houses, and no one is starting threads pointing out the "sickness" of meat-packing.

Why not?

Because meat-packing isn't considered culturaly "immoral". And despite a concerted attempt by most everyone here, we are all products of our cultural upbringing.

We are raised to see prostitutes and prostitution as partularly "dirty" and "wrong" and so we buy into it, even when we should know better.

The distinction made between "selling ones body" and "selling ones labour" is a meaningless bourgeois invention. As communists we understand that "selling labour" is nothing more than a euphemism for slavery.

As such, it genuinely doesn't matter what specific tasks the slave is required to do, unless those tasks are particularly hazardous, in which case they provide a better example of the horrors of enslavement, but still are no more "deserving" of liberation than any other slave.

Prositutes are exploited, but so are foundry workers and auto-mechanics and janitors and window washers.

Revolution is about freeing them all. It is not however about ludicrous reactionary concepts like promoting "monogamy" or any other petty puritanitcal lifetylist crap.

Revolutionaries want to free the workeers.

We really don't give a damn about their sex lives.

Sentinel

18th January 2006, 01:26

Prostitution is legal in Germany:

http://www.atsnn.com/story/115986.html

Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.

Let's make that revolution soon, ok?

Commie Rat

18th January 2006, 01:32

If you wish to be a monogomus person then that is your choice your allowed that choice. If you've been allowed that choice where you you come from denying that right to others (the choice to be monogmus or polygmus (sp?))

Socialsmo o Muerte

18th January 2006, 01:38

I fucking hate it when people use political theories and jargon to describe everything. There's something more fundamentally to blame for the evils of the world. Something which, if altered to it's more moral form, would outdo any political theory of policy.

Humanity.

Don't shield the wrongdoings of people with political jargon. It's not always necessary.

LSD

18th January 2006, 02:04

I fucking hate it when people use political theories and jargon to describe everything. There's something more fundamentally to blame for the evils of the world.

"Human nature"?

"Western decadence"?

"Original sin"? :o

This isn't a question of "political jargon", it's merely a matter of describing the problem in rational objective language that can be analyzed and addressed.

You may be right that there's some metaphysical "moral" "disfunction" at the "heart of man".

But if so, there is absolutely nothing that we can do about it.

Such a "disfunction" is impossible to detect, impossible to study, and impossible to solve.

In other words, it's irrelevent.

Instead, we use the tools we have to study the data we have. And, so far, that has indicated pretty conclusively that "evil" is not the product of "deep moral failure", it is the result of objective material conditions.

Not only is this paradigm supported by the evidence, but it is also practically useful.

"Moral decadence" is not.

Something which, if altered to it's more moral form, would outdo any political theory of policy.

And what exactly is a "more moral form"?

"More moral" to whom?

You, I suppose. But since your morality is definitely not mine, and clearly not the morality of most people, it genuinely doesn't matter.

Morality is subjective, materialism is not.

"Political theories", good ones at least, offer rational solutions. I'll take that over "moral education" any day of the week.

Don't shield the wrongdoings of people with political jargon. It's not always necessary.

And how would you propose we address the "wrongdoings of people"?

Scold them? Lecture them? Tell them they're "bad"? :lol:

What's "nescessary" is to address the causes of "wrongdoing" so that it no longer occurs.

Political change does this; esoteric metaphysics about "morality" and "natural forms" does not.

Socialsmo o Muerte

18th January 2006, 14:55

I understand what you say and maybe it is me being too idealistic to think we can change the mindset of mankind.

I don't mean moral according to my morality, but wouldn't you agree that the one basic moral we should all subscribe to is a genuine care for the next man. That is, clearly, lost. If that were to be regained in every person, then it wouldn't matter about the subjective nature of everyone's morals.

I think my first post, through my own fault completely, was misunderstood because of it's ranting nature.

I do, though, think that people who pay for sex are sick. Just because it is a product, it doesn't mean people should see through how wrong that is.

And I didn't notice before, but nice Sam Cooke reference.

fernando

18th January 2006, 15:21

I don't mean moral according to my morality, but wouldn't you agree that the one basic moral we should all subscribe to is a genuine care for the next man. That is, clearly, lost. If that were to be regained in every person, then it wouldn't matter about the subjective nature of everyone's morals.
But even the "genuine care for the next man" is a very subjective concept. Some consider an intense handicap such as losing a limb reason to die, hence this person gets killed because they care for him and dont want to see him suffer. In another culture this can be seen as cruel and savage.

LSD

18th January 2006, 16:03

but wouldn't you agree that the one basic moral we should all subscribe to is a genuine care for the next man.

A "genuine care" is not a moral value, it's an emotion.

And despite the insistance of religious theocrats everywhere, you cannot legislate an emotion.

Communism is not about "making people care", it's about reshaping society so that it cares. So that the "system" itself is dsigned for universal bennefit, without having to worry about whether people personally "care" about anyone else.

Now, such a society would almost certainly espouse values that would tend to increase general "caring". But that is a benneficial side-effect, not the directed solution.

If that were to be regained in every person, then it wouldn't matter about the subjective nature of everyone's morals.

But what you're missing is that changes in social values like that do not happen independently.

People are not greedy and selfish today because they're "evil", but rather because they live in a society that glorifies and rewards greed and selfishness.

A revolutionary transformation of ideas cannot come without a revolutionary transformation of society. They are intimately linked.

This is why I say that your "moral natural form" argument is ultimately empty. Such "moral" approaches attack the symptoms instead of the cause.

While it is more satisfying and more viscerally intuitive to go after the manifestations of "sickness", in the end, it is "political jargon" that actually gets the job done.

Socialsmo o Muerte

18th January 2006, 16:16

I see the difference in our arguments is that I believe the moral change will bring the political change. You think the political change will bring the moral change.

Of course, the unfortunate thing is how far this society is away from both.

I of course understand your more than valid theory. And also understand my wish to cleanse man of it's ill-mind has no theoretical path.

Shredder

18th January 2006, 16:43

I believe the moral change will bring the political change. You think the political change will bring the moral change.

In Marxist theory, the "morality" is simply part of the superstructure that springs forth from the material economic conditions. You would do yourself good to read up on it, because your idealist viewpoint will not make it far on the left; you will probably end up as a liberal democrat.

Socialsmo o Muerte

18th January 2006, 22:28

Don't assume I haven't read Marx just because I don't follow his theory. The reason I don't follow it is because I've read it.

And thanks for telling me "how far" I'll get. I value your opinion.

James

18th January 2006, 22:37

Don't know if anyone noticed this, but

And please don't align me with any religion. I'm disgusted by them all.
Besides, mongamy has always been practised by many pagan groups.

Pagan is usually defined as "Not Christian, Muslim, or Jewish.". It stems from country dweller or something like that.
Pagans therefore are an incredibly diverse group. So i'm not sure if your (somewhat contradictory - the "always practised" by some) statement is credible:

Socialsmo o Muerte

18th January 2006, 23:40

I said some pagan groups. Not some pagans. Your definition of paganism is true. But there are still different pagan groups.

Kittie Rose

19th January 2006, 02:45

You're viewing this the wrong way. Outlawing things doesn't make them go away, it just shoves them underground. And underground is where there are no regulations and lots of disease.

Socialsmo o Muerte

19th January 2006, 13:58

I know that you idiot. I've said I know that and I've said that's not what I mean.

fernando

19th January 2006, 16:36

What do you mean then?

Kittie Rose

19th January 2006, 17:02

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 19 2006, 02:14 PM
I know that you idiot. I've said I know that and I've said that's not what I mean.
No, it looks to me like you realised your opinion was unpopular so softened it up a little. I still don't know what else you could mean, and please don't call me an idiot again.

LuÃs Henrique

19th January 2006, 18:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 18 2006, 01:37 AM
A meat packing worker is much more likely to be injured or killed than a sex worker. Yet no proposal is under consideration for banning slaughter houses, and no one is starting threads pointing out the "sickness" of meat-packing.

Why not?

Because meat-packing isn't considered culturaly "immoral".

And it isn't considered culturally immoral because people who work in such trade are effectively subjected to capital's domination: to butcher, nowadays, with the acceptable productivity, is impossible except in a capitalist company.

Prostitution doesn't need "means of production" external to its workers, hence it is impossible for capital to take hold of it in "normal" conditions. To subject whores to capital, the "visible hand", the State, has to intervene, making it illegal or semi-legal, so that sex workers need to subject themselves to the "protection" of capitalist or semi-capitalist pimps. This illegalisation, or semi-legalisation, of course, can only be put in place if prostitution is "culturally" seen as particularly immoral.

Other example of a trade that is subjected to strong social stigma: garbage reciclation.

We shouldn't help capital in its efforts to forbid workers circumventing monopoly of means of production!

Luís Henrique

ReD_ReBeL

19th January 2006, 18:48

So if this is Legalised, will prostitues who work legaly get a weekly fixed pay or will it still relie on a 'pay as you go' sort of thing lol?

LuÃs Henrique

19th January 2006, 18:52

Originally posted by The [email protected] 18 2006, 01:42 AM
Prostitution is legal in Germany:
As a matter of fact, I am afraid that it is outright illegal only in the United States, Singapore, and Muslism countries. Most of the civilised world attributes it a semi-legal status: it is not forbidden, but its product is not protected by law.

Luís Henrique

Socialsmo o Muerte

19th January 2006, 20:20

My view hasn't softened at all. I just said I accept that my first post was more of a rant than a structured argument.

You have insunuated that I suggested keeping prostitution illegal rather than making it legal. My point was, in 2006 we shouldn't need to call it "legal" or "illegal". It just shouldn't be in existence. I was saying that our government should be righting the wrongs of society which force women into selling their bodies, instead of simply "making it safer" to do so.

No, it looks to me like you realised your opinion was unpopular so softened it up a little
This is my 1041st post, ifyou reply to this, it'll be your 24th. Not that this means anything towards your intelligence, but it does mean you shouldn't suggest such bollocks. Trek through all my posts and see if I am the type to "soften up" when people disagree.

please don't call me an idiot again
As you clearly cannot understand what I am saying, and then you make up your own view of what I am saying, I'd say you fall into such a category of person on this particular thread.

Red Rebel:

So if this is Legalised, will prostitues who work legaly get a weekly fixed pay or will it still relie on a 'pay as you go' sort of thing lol?

Nice.

fernando

19th January 2006, 20:54

You have insunuated that I suggested keeping prostitution illegal rather than making it legal. My point was, in 2006 we shouldn't need to call it "legal" or "illegal". It just shouldn't be in existence.
How do you suggest doing that? By making it illegal right?

I was saying that our government should be righting the wrongs of society which force women into selling their bodies, instead of simply "making it safer" to do so.

And there are still women who are rather a prostitute than doing a "socially acceptable" job...you know why? Because they can make more money with it.

So if this is Legalised, will prostitues who work legaly get a weekly fixed pay or will it still relie on a 'pay as you go' sort of thing lol?
Depends. You could work as a "freelance" prostitute I guess, keeping all the money you make yourself, not being part of a "company". Or you could be part of a "prostitution company" in which you do receive a regular paycheck which is probably determined by how well you "perform"

gilhyle

19th January 2006, 21:48

If we recall Spanish Civil War anarchists shooting prostitutes, this isnt an entirely academic debate.

If prostitution is bad because its a product of capitalism, then revolutionaries are also bad, since also a product of capitalism.

As prostitution is legal in the UK,the brothels proposal (isnt it actually permission for two prostitutes to work together ?) is about protection, not of rights, but of the right to organise for self defence - thus entirely correct.

Not all prostitutes are 'forced' into it in some exceptional sense. Some are, some arent. This is irrelevant. On that basis, working in kitchens should be banned.

Prostitution arose with commerce and will fall with it, of its own accord.

There is nothing else to it.

boosh logic

20th January 2006, 15:37

I'm pretty sure that prostitution is illegal in the UK, which is why this is being introduced to protect the prostitutes who have no choice but to roam the streets, vulnerable to pimps and violent assault.

Socialsmo o Muerte

20th January 2006, 16:38

Yeah. It is illegal here.

Eoin Dubh

20th January 2006, 20:48

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 18 2006, 03:11 PM

I do, though, think that people who pay for sex are sick.
Some (most?) people who pay for sex are lonely and have no chance with the ladies any other way.
Really.
I have seen dudes spend their welfare cheque on companionship, rather than food.

Some (most?) hookers chose their trade, and work it for the reasons that they do because through hooking , they could earn a days minimum wage in about 5-10 minutes.

I can't blame neither Johns nor Ho's in this scenario.

вор в законе

20th January 2006, 21:43

During the Cold War the americans were accusing the Soviets as ''conservatives'', because prostitution was forbidden in Soviet Union.

Nothing Human Is Alien

20th January 2006, 21:52

The question of prostitution, a Marxist analysis (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/prosques.html)

Tormented by Treachery

21st January 2006, 06:29

Basing my argument on a George Carlin clip, if selling is legal, and fucking is legal, then why is selling fucking not legal? Furthermore, if you join the army and shoot someone, they give you a medal, if you go on the streets and give someone an orgasm, you get arrested.

This doesn't make sense to me either. Regardless of legality, the government built to serve the needs of the people will protect the people. The safest form of prostitution (which, given the time frame, will never be eradicated) is the legal form in which everyone involved is protected.

Black Dagger

21st January 2006, 15:54

My point was, in 2006 we shouldn't need to call it "legal" or "illegal". It just shouldn't be in existence

It is 2006 and prostitution still exists, and will probably exist in a modified form for a very long time to come (it's a way to make ends meet in times of shortage/economic crisis). According to you, it 'shouldn't' be in existence - but it is - and the people who are involved in that industry need protection, they need unions and they need better security, health-care and so forth - it needs to be legalised. Of course in a post-capitalist society no one should have to sell themselves to live, but it is up to the individual to decide what they want to do with their bodies. If people want to organise 'sex clubs' they should be allowed to, would i be sick to take my partner with me?

It seems that you're using exploitation rhetoric as a smokescreen, your argument it's not about selling bodies, it's moralistic- people who go to sex workers are 'sick'/immoral (?) - which can't make sex workers very nice by association. What would you say to a sex worker who enjoyed their work?

This is my 1041st post, ifyou reply to this, it'll be your 24th. Not that this means anything towards your intelligence, but it does mean you shouldn't suggest such bollocks.

Your post count doesn't 'mean' anything period, so don't bring it up, and stop insulting people - it's not a winning strategy.

commiecrusader

21st January 2006, 22:23

Prostitution has been described as the oldest profession in existence. Whether you agree with its existence or not, the fact is that it does. And it will continue to do so, probably for as long as capitalism does in its present form, and there will still be people prepared to have sex with others who want it in a communist society, not for money, but because some people enjoy sex with strangers. I'm not suggesting that all prostitutes do it for this reason, I know that most don't, I'm just illustrating that the 'problem' will probably never go away. It is therefore better for everyone if it is practiced in a legal and regulated way. This benefits almost everyone, be it client or prostitute. The only people it doesn't benefit are people who want to rip prostitutes off, and pimps who want to do the same. You ask any working girls and I bet they all advocate this suggestion (no I haven't asked any lol). :lol:

EDIT: If you wanna discuss whether you agree with Prostitution in general, create a thread in Philosophy or Theory I suggest.

gilhyle

22nd January 2006, 16:14

Originally posted by Socialsmo o [email protected] 20 2006, 04:57 PM
Yeah. It is illegal here.
Im almost sure its brothels and street walking and living off immoral earnings that is illegal, not prostitution

boosh logic

22nd January 2006, 17:46

No it is illegal - the act is going to allow two women to work together in small brothels, but any other form is still illegal.

Socialsmo o Muerte

22nd January 2006, 19:03

Yes. Prostitution is illegal in the United Kingdom.

LSD

22nd January 2006, 19:35

Yes. Prostitution is illegal in the United Kingdom.

No it isn't.

As of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, pimping, soliciting, loitering, running a brothel, "causing or inciting" prostitution, and underage prostitution are indeed illegal, but being a prostitute or hiring one per se is not.

Socialsmo o Muerte

22nd January 2006, 23:42

What part of being a prostitute doesn't fit into any of those?!
Anyway, this could get tiresome!

LSD

22nd January 2006, 23:51

Selling or buying sexual services is not illegal in the UK, however many activities surrdounding it are.

This "semi-legality" is pretty much the case for most of the first world, with the notable exception of the US in which it is flat-out illegal.

Obviously there are also regional differences among "semi-legal" countries, so, for example, Canada is more lenient than the UK, but Germany is more lenient than Canada.

gilhyle

23rd January 2006, 22:01

Yeah that is what I thought - it is important for sex trade workers. It means that you can work on your own and you don't get arrested. That form of working is quite common in the UK. THe only form of illegal activity your are involved in is advertising, and no one gets prosecuted for internet advertising. It also means you can make complaints to the police and they dont just arrest you as a consequence. (police are reportedly getting better in their treatment of sex trade workers).