The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Sometimes I think that the sole purpose of the news is to keep conspiracy theorists as paranoid as possible. Take the death of Monica Coghlan, the former prostitute involved in the case against Lord Jeffrey Archer for Perverting the course of Justice. Isn't it just soooo convenient that she is killed in a car smash (that old conspiracy favourite; didn't a few Kennedy witnesses die in a similar manner?) weeks before the trial kicks off?
And the driver of the other car seemed to have been armed to the teeth. All very strange, but I suppose strange things can happen to people. Look at the theories that sprung up after Di died. Everyone from Arab terrorists to Prince Phillip to the CIA has been blamed. No one seems to have stopped to consider that maybe it was just an accident caused by a combination of arrogance about security arrangements and a drunk driver. Mind you, one particularly vehement theorist once told me that they'd actually found carbon dioxide in the driver's bloodstream at the post mortem and not alcohol. Funnily he didn't have a scrap of evidence to prove this. Isn't it amazing what the mind will conjure up in order to propagate your own theory?
I have my own views on conspiracy theorists. Whilst I appreciate that their boundless paranoia can uncover dirty deeds (Watergate for example), I tend to think that it is their absolutely certainty that they know something that no-one else does that keeps them happy. They create their little theories and selectively pick facts that support them. Then they have the satisfaction that they know the truth and no one else does. Frankly, I suspect that many of them would be disappointed if their theories were given fair hearing because then everyone would know not just the theorist himself.
Hmm, I seemed to have strayed from the point that I was originally going to make. I find it rather interesting how the media (and myself for that matter) have continually referred to the late Miss Coghlan as a "former prostitute". This is what has been chosen to define her, and maybe you'd disagree, but I think it attaches negative connotations to her. In England, we still have something of a Victorian attitude to sex (and no, I don't mean child brothels, wife beating, rape and murder of prostitutes, you know; all of the things that people don't think of when they refer to Victorian attitudes despite the fact that they were rife) and that includes thinking of prostitutes in a condescending manner. Also, prostitution is illegal (well to be more accurate, soliciting for sex is illegal) and so if one thinks of Miss Coghlan as someone who was regularly involved in an illegal activity (does that make it a sexcrime?) then one would automatically place less value on any evidence she gives in the Archer trial.
The treatment of prostitution in this country is something that I would put on a par with our treatment of drugs in that it is mean minded and riddled with contradiction and hypocrisy. Currently, the actual act of having sex in exchange for money or gifts is not illegal. This is just as well, as it would the vast majority of relationships against the law (how many blokes have bought something nice for their other half as a means of getting a guaranteed shag? Or flowers to say sorry, or chocolates, or whatever. Ladies; beware of blokes bearing gifts when they have no obvious cause to give them!)
However, it is illegal for a woman to actively solicit for sex in exchange for money (again, just as well they added the "in exchange for money" part to that law, or The Bigg Market in Newcastle would have to be closed down) and it is also illegal for anyone to "Live off immoral earnings". Being a pimp in other words.
However, that latter definition could also encompass anyone who lives in a household, in which a prostitute lives and contributes to. If someone is the husband, partner, or even just the flatmate of a prostitute then they could be said to be breaking the law. Thus prostitution is stigmatised further still.
And yet, there is a category of Income tax specifically designed to encompass the earnings of a prostitute (you'll have to forgive me as I forget the exact category; I think it's a subcategory of C or D but I'm not positive). Therefore, if someone is a prostitute and doesn't declare her earnings, she can be imprisoned for tax evasion. But if she does, this can be used to prove she's a prostitute if she ever gets arrested for soliciting! Pardon the pun but legally they've got them coming and going.
And going back to a favourite moan of mine, the only people to benefit from the illegality of prostitution are the criminal fraternity. A pimp can make a fortune off prostitution, can hook them on illegal drugs to keep control of them (which wouldn't be a problem if they were decriminalised...), and can beat them and generally make their lives miserable. And all because the moral minority and Christian right say that prostitution is morally wrong (which incidentally is something else that annoys me; at least one story in the Old Testament refers to a battle being won by the Jews because of the help of a prostitute in surprising the enemy. If God doesn't have a problem then why the hell do these glassy eyed, brainwashed idiots blather on about it?)
As an alternative, and bearing in mind that no matter what a vocal few may say men will always want to get laid, why not simply legalise and regulate it? There will always be a market for prostitutes, and there will always be women willing (not forced into it; I am aware that there is a problem with some women effectively being sex slaves and I believe legalisation would stop this problem to a large degree) and if they were given union rights, regular health checks, safe premises in which to conduct business, hell maybe even a pension plan, then we once more remove a source of revenue from the criminal fraternity and provide a bigger source of taxable income for the government. It works in Amsterdam, so can anyone suggest any logical reasons why it shouldn't work here?
To me, the whole attitude to prostitution is indicative of society's attitude towards women and sex. If an older man sleeps with a younger woman, we cannot congratulate him fast enough (well, that depends on which woman he sleeps with actually, but that's beside the point) but if a middle aged woman sleeps with a man in his twenties, she is regarded with ill-disguised contempt. If you disagree then look at the media coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and her marriage to an octogenarian billionaire and then try and imagine how they would have reacted if Brad Pitt started dating the Queen Mother.
By the same token, a man who has slept with many women is (aside from a lucky, lucky man. Well...assuming he remains disease free he is) a stud, whereas a woman in the same situation is...well, I'm sure you're aware of the multitude of lovely names that they are tarred with. Personally, I tend to think that if you're going to have sex with someone, it might as well be with someone who knows what they are doing, but again I digress.
As with my point of view on drugs, I'm talking about a "socially unacceptable" method of dealing with a problem. Would society really have a problem with legalised prostitution? If so, why? If you can think of a reason that doesn't involve some vague moral principle to do with sex then I'd be intrigued to hear it.
And the driver of the other car seemed to have been armed to the teeth. All very strange, but I suppose strange things can happen to people. Look at the theories that sprung up after Di died. Everyone from Arab terrorists to Prince Phillip to the CIA has been blamed. No one seems to have stopped to consider that maybe it was just an accident caused by a combination of arrogance about security arrangements and a drunk driver. Mind you, one particularly vehement theorist once told me that they'd actually found carbon dioxide in the driver's bloodstream at the post mortem and not alcohol. Funnily he didn't have a scrap of evidence to prove this. Isn't it amazing what the mind will conjure up in order to propagate your own theory?
I have my own views on conspiracy theorists. Whilst I appreciate that their boundless paranoia can uncover dirty deeds (Watergate for example), I tend to think that it is their absolutely certainty that they know something that no-one else does that keeps them happy. They create their little theories and selectively pick facts that support them. Then they have the satisfaction that they know the truth and no one else does. Frankly, I suspect that many of them would be disappointed if their theories were given fair hearing because then everyone would know not just the theorist himself.
Hmm, I seemed to have strayed from the point that I was originally going to make. I find it rather interesting how the media (and myself for that matter) have continually referred to the late Miss Coghlan as a "former prostitute". This is what has been chosen to define her, and maybe you'd disagree, but I think it attaches negative connotations to her. In England, we still have something of a Victorian attitude to sex (and no, I don't mean child brothels, wife beating, rape and murder of prostitutes, you know; all of the things that people don't think of when they refer to Victorian attitudes despite the fact that they were rife) and that includes thinking of prostitutes in a condescending manner. Also, prostitution is illegal (well to be more accurate, soliciting for sex is illegal) and so if one thinks of Miss Coghlan as someone who was regularly involved in an illegal activity (does that make it a sexcrime?) then one would automatically place less value on any evidence she gives in the Archer trial.
The treatment of prostitution in this country is something that I would put on a par with our treatment of drugs in that it is mean minded and riddled with contradiction and hypocrisy. Currently, the actual act of having sex in exchange for money or gifts is not illegal. This is just as well, as it would the vast majority of relationships against the law (how many blokes have bought something nice for their other half as a means of getting a guaranteed shag? Or flowers to say sorry, or chocolates, or whatever. Ladies; beware of blokes bearing gifts when they have no obvious cause to give them!)
However, it is illegal for a woman to actively solicit for sex in exchange for money (again, just as well they added the "in exchange for money" part to that law, or The Bigg Market in Newcastle would have to be closed down) and it is also illegal for anyone to "Live off immoral earnings". Being a pimp in other words.
However, that latter definition could also encompass anyone who lives in a household, in which a prostitute lives and contributes to. If someone is the husband, partner, or even just the flatmate of a prostitute then they could be said to be breaking the law. Thus prostitution is stigmatised further still.
And yet, there is a category of Income tax specifically designed to encompass the earnings of a prostitute (you'll have to forgive me as I forget the exact category; I think it's a subcategory of C or D but I'm not positive). Therefore, if someone is a prostitute and doesn't declare her earnings, she can be imprisoned for tax evasion. But if she does, this can be used to prove she's a prostitute if she ever gets arrested for soliciting! Pardon the pun but legally they've got them coming and going.
And going back to a favourite moan of mine, the only people to benefit from the illegality of prostitution are the criminal fraternity. A pimp can make a fortune off prostitution, can hook them on illegal drugs to keep control of them (which wouldn't be a problem if they were decriminalised...), and can beat them and generally make their lives miserable. And all because the moral minority and Christian right say that prostitution is morally wrong (which incidentally is something else that annoys me; at least one story in the Old Testament refers to a battle being won by the Jews because of the help of a prostitute in surprising the enemy. If God doesn't have a problem then why the hell do these glassy eyed, brainwashed idiots blather on about it?)
As an alternative, and bearing in mind that no matter what a vocal few may say men will always want to get laid, why not simply legalise and regulate it? There will always be a market for prostitutes, and there will always be women willing (not forced into it; I am aware that there is a problem with some women effectively being sex slaves and I believe legalisation would stop this problem to a large degree) and if they were given union rights, regular health checks, safe premises in which to conduct business, hell maybe even a pension plan, then we once more remove a source of revenue from the criminal fraternity and provide a bigger source of taxable income for the government. It works in Amsterdam, so can anyone suggest any logical reasons why it shouldn't work here?
To me, the whole attitude to prostitution is indicative of society's attitude towards women and sex. If an older man sleeps with a younger woman, we cannot congratulate him fast enough (well, that depends on which woman he sleeps with actually, but that's beside the point) but if a middle aged woman sleeps with a man in his twenties, she is regarded with ill-disguised contempt. If you disagree then look at the media coverage of Anna Nicole Smith and her marriage to an octogenarian billionaire and then try and imagine how they would have reacted if Brad Pitt started dating the Queen Mother.
By the same token, a man who has slept with many women is (aside from a lucky, lucky man. Well...assuming he remains disease free he is) a stud, whereas a woman in the same situation is...well, I'm sure you're aware of the multitude of lovely names that they are tarred with. Personally, I tend to think that if you're going to have sex with someone, it might as well be with someone who knows what they are doing, but again I digress.
As with my point of view on drugs, I'm talking about a "socially unacceptable" method of dealing with a problem. Would society really have a problem with legalised prostitution? If so, why? If you can think of a reason that doesn't involve some vague moral principle to do with sex then I'd be intrigued to hear it.
Page:
Light wrote:
> No, but it was publicised, and publicity was the killer.
So in other words it wasn't blown by conspiracy theorists, and seeing as it implicated the US President in a cover up I hardly think the publicity itself was a killer.
> And why shouldn't it be acceptable?
Why should it ? Why should we pass a law that says men - lets not kid ourselves here by suggesting equal amounts of women do this - can pay for sex. What is good about that ? Sure, it's "freedom", but at what price ? Do we really want to change our laws for sad idiots who can't get any so they pay for it ? I think not.
> Yeah, it would be. But people still become prositutes, don't they?
> Illegality hasn't stopped it. If someone is going to become a
> prostitute, wouldn't you rather they had the protection of the law?
> Would you care to discuss the risk to prostitutes who go about their
> job?
I'd rather they could makea better choice with their lives personally, rather than people trying to legalise the profession. Legalisation would not reduce the risks from STD's, violence, abuse, underaged prostitution and all the rest of it - it simply takes it and dumps it all in a nice big, out of the way from where you live, location. Legalising it makes it a proper profession and gives the idea it is a valid career choice. Don't kid yourself.
> You may be surprised. I know of 2 brothels within 10 miles of my home.
> Both are semi-detached houses that look no different to any other on
> their street. You have ASSUMED that Red Light districts would become
> the norm.
You're right there, if people like you who wanted legalisation got their way it'd all be so much more pleasing to the eye wouldn't it ? Of course if your talking distances like 10 miles and so on then its becoming quite a wide area isn't it ? Nottingham itself has at least two media attention grabbing red light areas.
> And yes, there would be court battles. So what? Just because an idea
> will be met with some resistance, that is not then a mandate to
> utterly ignore it. You may or may not be familiar with the idea of
> "precedent". Which means that after the first couple of
> cases, the remainder would be addressed VERY quickly.
Don't start your pious lecturing with phrases like "You may or may not be familiar with the idea of "precedent" yadda yadda yadda everyone listen to me because I was a solicitor.... Most ideas that meet with resistance are generally bad ideas full stop. Face it, you have to have something pretty spectacular to even get peoples attention nowadays. the public is largely apathetic to most things and only turns its opinion on things it largely disagrees with - try to legalise prostitution and wait for the response...the political party pushing for it will soon want to ignore it very quickly.
> Why? What do you mean "virtuous"? What are you driving at?
> If it is liberalism gone off the rails, how come you haven't been able
> to come up with convincing evidence to show that legalising
> prostitution would damage society?
Come off it. You've spouted all the usual "virtuous" ideas; protecting the prostitutes, removing the danger to them, giving them certain premises e.t.c all with the impression you care. I'll tell you who legalisation best serves - the men who use them. It removes the illegal aspect and danger of being caught, it gives what they do respectability, justifies it.
Legalisation, as I've said before, means that as a country we are saying to any woman - in particular those just past the age of consent - that it is okay to sell your body to men for money, and have sex with as many men as are willing to pay you for it.
If you think that would not further screw up what little of a society e have still then I'm just at a loss.
~~Belldandy~~
> No, but it was publicised, and publicity was the killer.
So in other words it wasn't blown by conspiracy theorists, and seeing as it implicated the US President in a cover up I hardly think the publicity itself was a killer.
> And why shouldn't it be acceptable?
Why should it ? Why should we pass a law that says men - lets not kid ourselves here by suggesting equal amounts of women do this - can pay for sex. What is good about that ? Sure, it's "freedom", but at what price ? Do we really want to change our laws for sad idiots who can't get any so they pay for it ? I think not.
> Yeah, it would be. But people still become prositutes, don't they?
> Illegality hasn't stopped it. If someone is going to become a
> prostitute, wouldn't you rather they had the protection of the law?
> Would you care to discuss the risk to prostitutes who go about their
> job?
I'd rather they could makea better choice with their lives personally, rather than people trying to legalise the profession. Legalisation would not reduce the risks from STD's, violence, abuse, underaged prostitution and all the rest of it - it simply takes it and dumps it all in a nice big, out of the way from where you live, location. Legalising it makes it a proper profession and gives the idea it is a valid career choice. Don't kid yourself.
> You may be surprised. I know of 2 brothels within 10 miles of my home.
> Both are semi-detached houses that look no different to any other on
> their street. You have ASSUMED that Red Light districts would become
> the norm.
You're right there, if people like you who wanted legalisation got their way it'd all be so much more pleasing to the eye wouldn't it ? Of course if your talking distances like 10 miles and so on then its becoming quite a wide area isn't it ? Nottingham itself has at least two media attention grabbing red light areas.
> And yes, there would be court battles. So what? Just because an idea
> will be met with some resistance, that is not then a mandate to
> utterly ignore it. You may or may not be familiar with the idea of
> "precedent". Which means that after the first couple of
> cases, the remainder would be addressed VERY quickly.
Don't start your pious lecturing with phrases like "You may or may not be familiar with the idea of "precedent" yadda yadda yadda everyone listen to me because I was a solicitor.... Most ideas that meet with resistance are generally bad ideas full stop. Face it, you have to have something pretty spectacular to even get peoples attention nowadays. the public is largely apathetic to most things and only turns its opinion on things it largely disagrees with - try to legalise prostitution and wait for the response...the political party pushing for it will soon want to ignore it very quickly.
> Why? What do you mean "virtuous"? What are you driving at?
> If it is liberalism gone off the rails, how come you haven't been able
> to come up with convincing evidence to show that legalising
> prostitution would damage society?
Come off it. You've spouted all the usual "virtuous" ideas; protecting the prostitutes, removing the danger to them, giving them certain premises e.t.c all with the impression you care. I'll tell you who legalisation best serves - the men who use them. It removes the illegal aspect and danger of being caught, it gives what they do respectability, justifies it.
Legalisation, as I've said before, means that as a country we are saying to any woman - in particular those just past the age of consent - that it is okay to sell your body to men for money, and have sex with as many men as are willing to pay you for it.
If you think that would not further screw up what little of a society e have still then I'm just at a loss.
~~Belldandy~~
I agree with the original point. that is all.
Light wrote:
> So...how can a prostitute get business without soliciting? Have you
> seen the legal definition of "To solicit"? Anything she does
> to try and get men to have sex with her for money is soliciting.
> Anything at all. So word of mouth, advertising in phone boxes, asking
> someone if they fancy a shag and charging them for it...all of this
> will get them arresting. I don't mean to be facecious, but I am at a
> complete loss as to how someone is meant to be a prostitute without
> soliciting for business. That would be like running a farm without
> getting any livestock or crops.
I'm pretty sure it's possible - although I'm not really in a fit state to discuss or think about things properly at the moment, having oonly been to sleep once in the last three nights. I may be wrong about it though. I'll try anyway - if a woman just stands on a street corner, saying nothing, and a man comes up to her and says "How much?", she replies, then they have sex for the exchange of money, she wouldn't have solicited at all. Just standing there, I belive, is not soliciting. I think that's why the police always go for curb crawlers rather than prostitutes.
> And your point is further weakened by the comparison you use; lawyers
> are not in any danger of arrest for earning their money. If they were
> claiming dole money as well that would be an entirely separate
> offence. Yet if a prostitute declares her earnings, she opens herself
> up to arrest for soliciting.
...only if she has actually solicited - I still think you can be a prostitute without soliciting.
> True, but are you trying to dispute that there are a number of
> prostitutes dependant on pimps? And are you further disputing that
> legalisation of prostitution would, to a large extent, cut the more
> undesirable pimps out of the business? If so, why?
So do you mean that if it was legal they would do it anyway and drop the pimp? I think they're more likely to not do it at all. And there's nothing stopping the pimp forcing them to do something LEGAL. In fact I suppose it might be more likely. Although I suppose that the pimp would be her boss, and she could take him to a tribunal for unfair treatment, or if he wasn't considered a boss then just for theft of her earnings.
> Yes, MUCH safer for the people involved. No, it wouldn't cut out the
> horror of sex slavery altogether, but it would reduce it considerably.
> I am saying that trying to ensure that prositutes actually have a
> decent standard of living is a good thing.
I'm not really sure how it would improve the standard of living for a "sex slave", or really reduce it much.
> No; someone who is a good lay. Someone who won't lie there like a sack
> of veal and make the occasional grunting noise. Y'know; someone
> dirty.
...hopefully not literally dirty.
> Why? Why should it HAVE involve 'moral principle'? It's sex. It's a
> biological function. Why should any one group say that sex falls under
> their remit, and regulate how it should be conducted? And who's moral
> principles should they be? Who gets to decide? The church? The state?
> You? Me?
It HAS to involve moral principle - not because I have any moral principles, heck I'm all for it, I have no moral principles (at least none I would apply to or oppose on anyone else) - but because the whole world has moral principle and won't drop it. Therefore our actions must have moral principle.
> The rest of the world looking on us as dirt? What; you mean like they
> do with Holland? And Germany? Only they don't, do they? They do no
> such thing. Germany is still a well respected economic powerhouse.
> Holland is doing very well thank you. Both of these countries play a
> full part in the international community.
Holland? People just think of Holland as totally laid back and....I'm not sure how to describe it. Dirty? Remember that Harry Enfield sketch with teh Dutch cops in the car? "There has been a lot of problems recently with burglary, so we made burglary illegal and since then we have had no problem. We've all been sitting around smoking a spliff having a good time", that's how people see Holland. Well whatever, if you asked someone which country they respected more I'm sure they're more likely to say us. Because of their moral principles. Obviously it would have to be a neutral person - ie not Dutch, English, or anyone who has a bias for or against one country (eg the French might be biased against us).
> The Pope doing some bad thing? Well s**t; our entire nation has been
> excommunicated since the 1540's. What else can he do? And more to the
> point, as a Protestant nation why on earth should we care? And the
> Catholic church isn't exactly the bastion of morality it once claimed
> to be; how many paedophiles have been exposed in their organisation?
Well that bit wasn't exactly serious, and I'd find it terribly funny if he did do something. And it's funny that even after all these scacndals involved with the Catholic church such as acts of paedophilia, it still makes news headlines. Hell, even Cilla makes news headlines.
> Why would it take everyone in the world to abandon their
> preconceptions? The world is a big and varied place, and one nations
> morality is certainly not that of another. And why can't it be done?
> It has been done across the continent, so why not here? I don't mean
> to press you, but you haven't come up with anything outside a moral
> unease and I want something more concrete than your unsupported belief
> that it can't be done. I appreciate that it is your opinion, but give
> me some reason as to why it is your opinion.
I'm not saying can't be done, but won't be done. There would be a price to pay. The government would lose a lot of their voters, plus there is the fear of outsiders looking down on us - even if it never happened. And even the countries that wouldn't see it as a bad thing wouldn't exactly be glad would they? They wouldn't care. There would only be upset/disappointed countries and indifferent countries. None one would give us a pat on the back.
And it's really not my moral unease - as I've said I don't have any moral principles except those that I apply only to myself. I'm an aethist who despises organised religion, so there's no bias there. I'm just objective.
> So...how can a prostitute get business without soliciting? Have you
> seen the legal definition of "To solicit"? Anything she does
> to try and get men to have sex with her for money is soliciting.
> Anything at all. So word of mouth, advertising in phone boxes, asking
> someone if they fancy a shag and charging them for it...all of this
> will get them arresting. I don't mean to be facecious, but I am at a
> complete loss as to how someone is meant to be a prostitute without
> soliciting for business. That would be like running a farm without
> getting any livestock or crops.
I'm pretty sure it's possible - although I'm not really in a fit state to discuss or think about things properly at the moment, having oonly been to sleep once in the last three nights. I may be wrong about it though. I'll try anyway - if a woman just stands on a street corner, saying nothing, and a man comes up to her and says "How much?", she replies, then they have sex for the exchange of money, she wouldn't have solicited at all. Just standing there, I belive, is not soliciting. I think that's why the police always go for curb crawlers rather than prostitutes.
> And your point is further weakened by the comparison you use; lawyers
> are not in any danger of arrest for earning their money. If they were
> claiming dole money as well that would be an entirely separate
> offence. Yet if a prostitute declares her earnings, she opens herself
> up to arrest for soliciting.
...only if she has actually solicited - I still think you can be a prostitute without soliciting.
> True, but are you trying to dispute that there are a number of
> prostitutes dependant on pimps? And are you further disputing that
> legalisation of prostitution would, to a large extent, cut the more
> undesirable pimps out of the business? If so, why?
So do you mean that if it was legal they would do it anyway and drop the pimp? I think they're more likely to not do it at all. And there's nothing stopping the pimp forcing them to do something LEGAL. In fact I suppose it might be more likely. Although I suppose that the pimp would be her boss, and she could take him to a tribunal for unfair treatment, or if he wasn't considered a boss then just for theft of her earnings.
> Yes, MUCH safer for the people involved. No, it wouldn't cut out the
> horror of sex slavery altogether, but it would reduce it considerably.
> I am saying that trying to ensure that prositutes actually have a
> decent standard of living is a good thing.
I'm not really sure how it would improve the standard of living for a "sex slave", or really reduce it much.
> No; someone who is a good lay. Someone who won't lie there like a sack
> of veal and make the occasional grunting noise. Y'know; someone
> dirty.
...hopefully not literally dirty.
> Why? Why should it HAVE involve 'moral principle'? It's sex. It's a
> biological function. Why should any one group say that sex falls under
> their remit, and regulate how it should be conducted? And who's moral
> principles should they be? Who gets to decide? The church? The state?
> You? Me?
It HAS to involve moral principle - not because I have any moral principles, heck I'm all for it, I have no moral principles (at least none I would apply to or oppose on anyone else) - but because the whole world has moral principle and won't drop it. Therefore our actions must have moral principle.
> The rest of the world looking on us as dirt? What; you mean like they
> do with Holland? And Germany? Only they don't, do they? They do no
> such thing. Germany is still a well respected economic powerhouse.
> Holland is doing very well thank you. Both of these countries play a
> full part in the international community.
Holland? People just think of Holland as totally laid back and....I'm not sure how to describe it. Dirty? Remember that Harry Enfield sketch with teh Dutch cops in the car? "There has been a lot of problems recently with burglary, so we made burglary illegal and since then we have had no problem. We've all been sitting around smoking a spliff having a good time", that's how people see Holland. Well whatever, if you asked someone which country they respected more I'm sure they're more likely to say us. Because of their moral principles. Obviously it would have to be a neutral person - ie not Dutch, English, or anyone who has a bias for or against one country (eg the French might be biased against us).
> The Pope doing some bad thing? Well s**t; our entire nation has been
> excommunicated since the 1540's. What else can he do? And more to the
> point, as a Protestant nation why on earth should we care? And the
> Catholic church isn't exactly the bastion of morality it once claimed
> to be; how many paedophiles have been exposed in their organisation?
Well that bit wasn't exactly serious, and I'd find it terribly funny if he did do something. And it's funny that even after all these scacndals involved with the Catholic church such as acts of paedophilia, it still makes news headlines. Hell, even Cilla makes news headlines.
> Why would it take everyone in the world to abandon their
> preconceptions? The world is a big and varied place, and one nations
> morality is certainly not that of another. And why can't it be done?
> It has been done across the continent, so why not here? I don't mean
> to press you, but you haven't come up with anything outside a moral
> unease and I want something more concrete than your unsupported belief
> that it can't be done. I appreciate that it is your opinion, but give
> me some reason as to why it is your opinion.
I'm not saying can't be done, but won't be done. There would be a price to pay. The government would lose a lot of their voters, plus there is the fear of outsiders looking down on us - even if it never happened. And even the countries that wouldn't see it as a bad thing wouldn't exactly be glad would they? They wouldn't care. There would only be upset/disappointed countries and indifferent countries. None one would give us a pat on the back.
And it's really not my moral unease - as I've said I don't have any moral principles except those that I apply only to myself. I'm an aethist who despises organised religion, so there's no bias there. I'm just objective.
Belldandy wrote:
> Watergate's cover wasn't blown by conspiracy theorists...but anyway.
No, but it was publicised, and publicity was the killer.
>
> If you legalise prostitution then it is the same as saying it is an
> acceptable profession. Before anyone says that this idea revolves
> around morals and ideas of acceptability consider this.
And why shouldn't it be acceptable?
>
> If those of you with children, or who will have children in the
> future, had a daughter, and prostitution was legalised, and she
> announced her chosen profession was to a be a prostitute, what would
> your reaction be ? For the vast majority I think you'd be somewhat
> angry yes ? So, if it was legalised then where do all the new
> "employees" come from ? Oh, yeah, I forgot, other peoples
> families...
>
Yeah, it would be. But people still become prositutes, don't they? Illegality hasn't stopped it. If someone is going to become a prostitute, wouldn't you rather they had the protection of the law? Would you care to discuss the risk to prostitutes who go about their job?
> Incidentally, by legalising then you'd presumably spread the
> profession to places where it is hidden or not evident. My town
> doesn't have any red light district or similar, for example. So where
> do we locate these new workplaces ? Get ready for some hefty court
> battles on that front.
You may be surprised. I know of 2 brothels within 10 miles of my home. Both are semi-detached houses that look no different to any other on their street. You have ASSUMED that Red Light districts would become the norm.
And yes, there would be court battles. So what? Just because an idea will be met with some resistance, that is not then a mandate to utterly ignore it. You may or may not be familiar with the idea of "precedent". Which means that after the first couple of cases, the remainder would be addressed VERY quickly.
>
> Whilst I can see legalisation would have benefits, I'm not entirely
> those who push for it are quite so virtuous as they would have us
> believe, and that, along with the cry to legalise certain drugs, it's
> liberalism gone off the rails.
Why? What do you mean "virtuous"? What are you driving at? If it is liberalism gone off the rails, how come you haven't been able to come up with convincing evidence to show that legalising prostitution would damage society?
> Watergate's cover wasn't blown by conspiracy theorists...but anyway.
No, but it was publicised, and publicity was the killer.
>
> If you legalise prostitution then it is the same as saying it is an
> acceptable profession. Before anyone says that this idea revolves
> around morals and ideas of acceptability consider this.
And why shouldn't it be acceptable?
>
> If those of you with children, or who will have children in the
> future, had a daughter, and prostitution was legalised, and she
> announced her chosen profession was to a be a prostitute, what would
> your reaction be ? For the vast majority I think you'd be somewhat
> angry yes ? So, if it was legalised then where do all the new
> "employees" come from ? Oh, yeah, I forgot, other peoples
> families...
>
Yeah, it would be. But people still become prositutes, don't they? Illegality hasn't stopped it. If someone is going to become a prostitute, wouldn't you rather they had the protection of the law? Would you care to discuss the risk to prostitutes who go about their job?
> Incidentally, by legalising then you'd presumably spread the
> profession to places where it is hidden or not evident. My town
> doesn't have any red light district or similar, for example. So where
> do we locate these new workplaces ? Get ready for some hefty court
> battles on that front.
You may be surprised. I know of 2 brothels within 10 miles of my home. Both are semi-detached houses that look no different to any other on their street. You have ASSUMED that Red Light districts would become the norm.
And yes, there would be court battles. So what? Just because an idea will be met with some resistance, that is not then a mandate to utterly ignore it. You may or may not be familiar with the idea of "precedent". Which means that after the first couple of cases, the remainder would be addressed VERY quickly.
>
> Whilst I can see legalisation would have benefits, I'm not entirely
> those who push for it are quite so virtuous as they would have us
> believe, and that, along with the cry to legalise certain drugs, it's
> liberalism gone off the rails.
Why? What do you mean "virtuous"? What are you driving at? If it is liberalism gone off the rails, how come you haven't been able to come up with convincing evidence to show that legalising prostitution would damage society?
Blank wrote:
>
> And yet, there is a category of Income tax specifically designed to
> encompass the earnings of a prostitute (you'll have to forgive me as
> I
> forget the exact category; I think it's a subcategory of C or D but
> I'm not positive). Therefore, if someone is a prostitute and doesn't
> declare her earnings, she can be imprisoned for tax evasion. But if
> she does, this can be used to prove she's a prostitute if she ever
> gets arrested for soliciting! Pardon the pun but legally they've got
> them coming and going.
>
> Err, I think you're missing the point there - if it can prove the
> person is a prostitute that is good for the government; it is what is
> wanted. It's like saying "There's a specific category for
> lawyers, but if they declare they're earnings it can prove they are
> lawyers if they get arrested for claiming dole money". You can be
> a prostitute without soliciting.
So...how can a prostitute get business without soliciting? Have you seen the legal definition of "To solicit"? Anything she does to try and get men to have sex with her for money is soliciting. Anything at all. So word of mouth, advertising in phone boxes, asking someone if they fancy a shag and charging them for it...all of this will get them arresting. I don't mean to be facecious, but I am at a complete loss as to how someone is meant to be a prostitute without soliciting for business. That would be like running a farm without getting any livestock or crops.
And your point is further weakened by the comparison you use; lawyers are not in any danger of arrest for earning their money. If they were claiming dole money as well that would be an entirely separate offence. Yet if a prostitute declares her earnings, she opens herself up to arrest for soliciting.
>
> A pimp can make a fortune off prostitution, can hook them on illegal
> drugs to keep control of them (which wouldn't be a problem if they
> were decriminalised...)
>
> I think you gloss over this a bit too quickly. "Here, have some
> illegal drugs whilst I wire you up to this console panel so I can
> control your every move".
True, but are you trying to dispute that there are a number of prostitutes dependant on pimps? And are you further disputing that legalisation of prostitution would, to a large extent, cut the more undesirable pimps out of the business? If so, why?
>
> And all because the moral minority and Christian
> right say that prostitution is morally wrong (which incidentally is
> something else that annoys me; at least one story in the Old
> Testament
> refers to a battle being won by the Jews because of the help of a
> prostitute in surprising the enemy. If God doesn't have a problem
> then
> why the hell do these glassy eyed, brainwashed idiots blather on
> about
> it?)
>
> Plus there is testimony of prostitutes to say that Jesus really did
> recover from the usually fatal illness of death. One of the key points
> I feel.
>
> As an alternative, and bearing in mind that no matter what a vocal
> few
> may say men will always want to get laid, why not simply legalise
> and
> regulate it? There will always be a market for prostitutes, and
> there
> will always be women willing (not forced into it; I am aware that
> there is a problem with some women effectively being sex slaves and
> I
> believe legalisation would stop this problem to a large degree) and
> if
> they were given union rights, regular health checks, safe premises
> in
> which to conduct business, hell maybe even a pension plan
>
> I'm not sure how legalisation would stop people being sex slaves
> really. It would be just like forcing people to work in any job, it
> could be easily done. Although I do agree it would be a lot safer for
> the people involved if it was legalised, and also more government
> money generated. Just like the legalisation of drugs would bring.
Yes, MUCH safer for the people involved. No, it wouldn't cut out the horror of sex slavery altogether, but it would reduce it considerably. I am saying that trying to ensure that prositutes actually have a decent standard of living is a good thing.
>
> imagine how they would have reacted if Brad Pitt started dating the
> Queen Mother.
>
> Well that would be necrophilia, which is a whole different can of
> worms.
Heh. The perils of posting something written 2 years ago...
>
> I tend to think that if you're going to have sex with
> someone, it might as well be with someone who knows what they are
> doing, but again I digress.
>
> Knows what they are doing? What, you mean someone who stands back,
> looks at the situation and figures out what goes where, rather than
> someone who uses the trial and error method?
No; someone who is a good lay. Someone who won't lie there like a sack of veal and make the occasional grunting noise. Y'know; someone dirty.
>
> As with my point of view on drugs, I'm talking about a
> "socially
> unacceptable" method of dealing with a problem. Would society
> really have a problem with legalised prostitution? If so, why? If
> you
> can think of a reason that doesn't involve some vague moral
> principle
> to do with sex then I'd be intrigued to hear it.
>
> But it does HAVE to involve moral principles. Even if the government
> did abandon these and thought purely of function, most people would be
> shocked/apalled or whatever (even though this stuff goes on anyway,
> which is strange, as if it was legal they would be doing the exactly
> the same acts only in safer conditions and without breaking the law).
> And even if the people of this country abandoned the moral standpoint
> the rest of the world would probably look on us as dirt upon a shoe.
> The Pope would probably do some bad thing to us. It would take
> everyone in the world to abandon all their preconceptions - it can't
> be done.
Why? Why should it HAVE involve 'moral principle'? It's sex. It's a biological function. Why should any one group say that sex falls under their remit, and regulate how it should be conducted? And who's moral principles should they be? Who gets to decide? The church? The state? You? Me?
The rest of the world looking on us as dirt? What; you mean like they do with Holland? And Germany? Only they don't, do they? They do no such thing. Germany is still a well respected economic powerhouse. Holland is doing very well thank you. Both of these countries play a full part in the international community.
The Pope doing some bad thing? Well s**t; our entire nation has been excommunicated since the 1540's. What else can he do? And more to the point, as a Protestant nation why on earth should we care? And the Catholic church isn't exactly the bastion of morality it once claimed to be; how many paedophiles have been exposed in their organisation?
Why would it take everyone in the world to abandon their preconceptions? The world is a big and varied place, and one nations morality is certainly not that of another. And why can't it be done? It has been done across the continent, so why not here? I don't mean to press you, but you haven't come up with anything outside a moral unease and I want something more concrete than your unsupported belief that it can't be done. I appreciate that it is your opinion, but give me some reason as to why it is your opinion.
>
> And yet, there is a category of Income tax specifically designed to
> encompass the earnings of a prostitute (you'll have to forgive me as
> I
> forget the exact category; I think it's a subcategory of C or D but
> I'm not positive). Therefore, if someone is a prostitute and doesn't
> declare her earnings, she can be imprisoned for tax evasion. But if
> she does, this can be used to prove she's a prostitute if she ever
> gets arrested for soliciting! Pardon the pun but legally they've got
> them coming and going.
>
> Err, I think you're missing the point there - if it can prove the
> person is a prostitute that is good for the government; it is what is
> wanted. It's like saying "There's a specific category for
> lawyers, but if they declare they're earnings it can prove they are
> lawyers if they get arrested for claiming dole money". You can be
> a prostitute without soliciting.
So...how can a prostitute get business without soliciting? Have you seen the legal definition of "To solicit"? Anything she does to try and get men to have sex with her for money is soliciting. Anything at all. So word of mouth, advertising in phone boxes, asking someone if they fancy a shag and charging them for it...all of this will get them arresting. I don't mean to be facecious, but I am at a complete loss as to how someone is meant to be a prostitute without soliciting for business. That would be like running a farm without getting any livestock or crops.
And your point is further weakened by the comparison you use; lawyers are not in any danger of arrest for earning their money. If they were claiming dole money as well that would be an entirely separate offence. Yet if a prostitute declares her earnings, she opens herself up to arrest for soliciting.
>
> A pimp can make a fortune off prostitution, can hook them on illegal
> drugs to keep control of them (which wouldn't be a problem if they
> were decriminalised...)
>
> I think you gloss over this a bit too quickly. "Here, have some
> illegal drugs whilst I wire you up to this console panel so I can
> control your every move".
True, but are you trying to dispute that there are a number of prostitutes dependant on pimps? And are you further disputing that legalisation of prostitution would, to a large extent, cut the more undesirable pimps out of the business? If so, why?
>
> And all because the moral minority and Christian
> right say that prostitution is morally wrong (which incidentally is
> something else that annoys me; at least one story in the Old
> Testament
> refers to a battle being won by the Jews because of the help of a
> prostitute in surprising the enemy. If God doesn't have a problem
> then
> why the hell do these glassy eyed, brainwashed idiots blather on
> about
> it?)
>
> Plus there is testimony of prostitutes to say that Jesus really did
> recover from the usually fatal illness of death. One of the key points
> I feel.
>
> As an alternative, and bearing in mind that no matter what a vocal
> few
> may say men will always want to get laid, why not simply legalise
> and
> regulate it? There will always be a market for prostitutes, and
> there
> will always be women willing (not forced into it; I am aware that
> there is a problem with some women effectively being sex slaves and
> I
> believe legalisation would stop this problem to a large degree) and
> if
> they were given union rights, regular health checks, safe premises
> in
> which to conduct business, hell maybe even a pension plan
>
> I'm not sure how legalisation would stop people being sex slaves
> really. It would be just like forcing people to work in any job, it
> could be easily done. Although I do agree it would be a lot safer for
> the people involved if it was legalised, and also more government
> money generated. Just like the legalisation of drugs would bring.
Yes, MUCH safer for the people involved. No, it wouldn't cut out the horror of sex slavery altogether, but it would reduce it considerably. I am saying that trying to ensure that prositutes actually have a decent standard of living is a good thing.
>
> imagine how they would have reacted if Brad Pitt started dating the
> Queen Mother.
>
> Well that would be necrophilia, which is a whole different can of
> worms.
Heh. The perils of posting something written 2 years ago...
>
> I tend to think that if you're going to have sex with
> someone, it might as well be with someone who knows what they are
> doing, but again I digress.
>
> Knows what they are doing? What, you mean someone who stands back,
> looks at the situation and figures out what goes where, rather than
> someone who uses the trial and error method?
No; someone who is a good lay. Someone who won't lie there like a sack of veal and make the occasional grunting noise. Y'know; someone dirty.
>
> As with my point of view on drugs, I'm talking about a
> "socially
> unacceptable" method of dealing with a problem. Would society
> really have a problem with legalised prostitution? If so, why? If
> you
> can think of a reason that doesn't involve some vague moral
> principle
> to do with sex then I'd be intrigued to hear it.
>
> But it does HAVE to involve moral principles. Even if the government
> did abandon these and thought purely of function, most people would be
> shocked/apalled or whatever (even though this stuff goes on anyway,
> which is strange, as if it was legal they would be doing the exactly
> the same acts only in safer conditions and without breaking the law).
> And even if the people of this country abandoned the moral standpoint
> the rest of the world would probably look on us as dirt upon a shoe.
> The Pope would probably do some bad thing to us. It would take
> everyone in the world to abandon all their preconceptions - it can't
> be done.
Why? Why should it HAVE involve 'moral principle'? It's sex. It's a biological function. Why should any one group say that sex falls under their remit, and regulate how it should be conducted? And who's moral principles should they be? Who gets to decide? The church? The state? You? Me?
The rest of the world looking on us as dirt? What; you mean like they do with Holland? And Germany? Only they don't, do they? They do no such thing. Germany is still a well respected economic powerhouse. Holland is doing very well thank you. Both of these countries play a full part in the international community.
The Pope doing some bad thing? Well s**t; our entire nation has been excommunicated since the 1540's. What else can he do? And more to the point, as a Protestant nation why on earth should we care? And the Catholic church isn't exactly the bastion of morality it once claimed to be; how many paedophiles have been exposed in their organisation?
Why would it take everyone in the world to abandon their preconceptions? The world is a big and varied place, and one nations morality is certainly not that of another. And why can't it be done? It has been done across the continent, so why not here? I don't mean to press you, but you haven't come up with anything outside a moral unease and I want something more concrete than your unsupported belief that it can't be done. I appreciate that it is your opinion, but give me some reason as to why it is your opinion.
Narcileptic Insomniac wrote:
> Goatboy has admitted to having taken drugs in the past. He has also
> admitted to having had a number of sexual partners in recent months.
> Has he moved from one faux pas to another? It's not too great a leap
> of logic...
----
Don't drag me into this.
No faux pas at all.
> Goatboy has admitted to having taken drugs in the past. He has also
> admitted to having had a number of sexual partners in recent months.
> Has he moved from one faux pas to another? It's not too great a leap
> of logic...
----
Don't drag me into this.
No faux pas at all.
Belldandy wrote:
> If those of you with children, or who will have children in the
> future, had a daughter, and prostitution was legalised, and she
> announced her chosen profession was to a be a prostitute, what would
> your reaction be ? For the vast majority I think you'd be somewhat
> angry yes ? So, if it was legalised then where do all the new
> "employees" come from ? Oh, yeah, I forgot, other peoples
> families...
Your view of this is somewhat flawed. Suppose your son announces he will be a professional gigolo under the new legislation. Would you be appalled, you high five and exclaim "game on my son"? I suspect greatly the latter. So it all boils down to sexual discrimination. Nobody bats an eyelid at a man who has sex for money, but when the woman is getting paid, it's terrible.
It's like in the latter years of high school where any bloke who can sleep with 5+ birds is "the man", while any bird who acts likewise sleeping with 5+ guys is a dirty slapper.
If people get their heads around it, there's nothing wrong with sex. Having sex with lots of people doesn't make you a bad person, and it should be recognised that sex has nothing to do with love. Sure, such a profession has no place in a marriage, but in years to come, most marriages won't come until people are into their thirties, by which time, they may not have as much appeal as prostitutes/gigolos/escorts etc, or the job may not appeal as much to them.
Prostitution, if legalised, would become a goldmine for the young and beautiful. Escort for a few years to get you through university and get you on your feet, then off you go with whatever career you choose.
So some people might not like their daughters sleeping with plenty of men, but if your daughter slept with 50 men to get the education she needed to eventually become CEO of Hewlett Packard, I doubt you'd be complaining with too much vigour.
> If those of you with children, or who will have children in the
> future, had a daughter, and prostitution was legalised, and she
> announced her chosen profession was to a be a prostitute, what would
> your reaction be ? For the vast majority I think you'd be somewhat
> angry yes ? So, if it was legalised then where do all the new
> "employees" come from ? Oh, yeah, I forgot, other peoples
> families...
Your view of this is somewhat flawed. Suppose your son announces he will be a professional gigolo under the new legislation. Would you be appalled, you high five and exclaim "game on my son"? I suspect greatly the latter. So it all boils down to sexual discrimination. Nobody bats an eyelid at a man who has sex for money, but when the woman is getting paid, it's terrible.
It's like in the latter years of high school where any bloke who can sleep with 5+ birds is "the man", while any bird who acts likewise sleeping with 5+ guys is a dirty slapper.
If people get their heads around it, there's nothing wrong with sex. Having sex with lots of people doesn't make you a bad person, and it should be recognised that sex has nothing to do with love. Sure, such a profession has no place in a marriage, but in years to come, most marriages won't come until people are into their thirties, by which time, they may not have as much appeal as prostitutes/gigolos/escorts etc, or the job may not appeal as much to them.
Prostitution, if legalised, would become a goldmine for the young and beautiful. Escort for a few years to get you through university and get you on your feet, then off you go with whatever career you choose.
So some people might not like their daughters sleeping with plenty of men, but if your daughter slept with 50 men to get the education she needed to eventually become CEO of Hewlett Packard, I doubt you'd be complaining with too much vigour.
"The treatment of prostitution in this country is something that I would put on a par with our treatment of drugs "
-Light
Goatboy has admitted to having taken drugs in the past. He has also admitted to having had a number of sexual partners in recent months. Has he moved from one faux pas to another? It's not too great a leap of logic...
-Light
Goatboy has admitted to having taken drugs in the past. He has also admitted to having had a number of sexual partners in recent months. Has he moved from one faux pas to another? It's not too great a leap of logic...
What I dont understand is the assumption that legalisation will mean previously uninterested people will suddenly rush to pay for sex?
I've never done so and even if it were as easy as popping into Smiths, it doesn't appeal. At the end of the day, the result is the same so just stay at home and beat-off.
I've never done so and even if it were as easy as popping into Smiths, it doesn't appeal. At the end of the day, the result is the same so just stay at home and beat-off.
Watergate's cover wasn't blown by conspiracy theorists...but anyway.
If you legalise prostitution then it is the same as saying it is an acceptable profession. Before anyone says that this idea revolves around morals and ideas of acceptability consider this.
If those of you with children, or who will have children in the future, had a daughter, and prostitution was legalised, and she announced her chosen profession was to a be a prostitute, what would your reaction be ? For the vast majority I think you'd be somewhat angry yes ? So, if it was legalised then where do all the new "employees" come from ? Oh, yeah, I forgot, other peoples families...
Incidentally, by legalising then you'd presumably spread the profession to places where it is hidden or not evident. My town doesn't have any red light district or similar, for example. So where do we locate these new workplaces ? Get ready for some hefty court battles on that front.
Whilst I can see legalisation would have benefits, I'm not entirely those who push for it are quite so virtuous as they would have us believe, and that, along with the cry to legalise certain drugs, it's liberalism gone off the rails.
~~Belldandy~~
If you legalise prostitution then it is the same as saying it is an acceptable profession. Before anyone says that this idea revolves around morals and ideas of acceptability consider this.
If those of you with children, or who will have children in the future, had a daughter, and prostitution was legalised, and she announced her chosen profession was to a be a prostitute, what would your reaction be ? For the vast majority I think you'd be somewhat angry yes ? So, if it was legalised then where do all the new "employees" come from ? Oh, yeah, I forgot, other peoples families...
Incidentally, by legalising then you'd presumably spread the profession to places where it is hidden or not evident. My town doesn't have any red light district or similar, for example. So where do we locate these new workplaces ? Get ready for some hefty court battles on that front.
Whilst I can see legalisation would have benefits, I'm not entirely those who push for it are quite so virtuous as they would have us believe, and that, along with the cry to legalise certain drugs, it's liberalism gone off the rails.
~~Belldandy~~
Page: