Viewing Thread:
"First drugs, now Prostitutes"

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.

*conducts a straw poll of who gives a toss about that, or indeed this topic, realises there are only two straws collected, decides to spare the forum community the tedium*

*pop*

Still waiting Bell. Could you please either answer my queries, or confirm that you're not going to.

Practical Magic wrote:
> Goatboy wrote:
> I thought you were refusing to reply to him?
>
> Couldn't resist, I'm trying (in more ways than one)

Good God!! Self depreciation from Bell! And I laughed!! Out loud!!!

Still, I'd appreciate your answering my queries please. I'm still waiting, and as Blank said, I've kept my promise in that I've answered all of your queries.

Any chance of some response? Or will it be a case of anyone still interested who is watching thinking "Hell...maybe Light had a point about Bell's abject threefold cowardice". Please, if you're not going to respond, at least confirm that.

Goatboy wrote:
> I thought you were refusing to reply to him?

Couldn't resist, I'm trying (in more ways than one)

It became obvious a long time ago that if Belldandy doesn't want to talk about something (99% of the time - usually because he can't think of a good come back) then he'll either not reply or move the conversation to something else. Even when I've had a discussion with him and he claims to be answering my comments, most of what he says is irrelevant.

He stated here that all he wanted was Light to answer the questions, then he'd respond to what was earlier said (I believe). Light did answer the questions. I had a go myself. Where are the answers? Even Hans Blix couldn't find them.

Practical Magic wrote:
> And as I said before, you continue to demonstrate in your replies here
> that I am right.

How do I do that? Please explain; all you've done here is make a statement with nothing to support it.

And once you've done so, kindly address the points I've raised. By addressing them, you can prove just how right you are.

I thought you were refusing to reply to him?

And as I said before, you continue to demonstrate in your replies here that I am right.

Practical Magic wrote:

Finally, a response...I'll of course respond to it, but I'm still waiting for you to address the last big post by me in this thread and all the points raised in it

> To quote:
>
> "Liberals thrive on the attractions of snoberry...They promote
> immoral destructive behaviour because they are snobs,

Not really; I'm no snob in that I don't think I'm better than anyone. If you can explain why I am a snob, I'm all ears.

> they embrace
> many criminals because they are snobs,

...except that I'm saying prostitution should be legalised, along with drugs, as it will slash the income of criminal gangs manyfold.

> they mostly oppose taxcuts
> because they are snobs

Notice how there is no alternate explaination here. Just bland assertion. Personally, I oppose tax cuts cos our public services are collapsing, and public money is needed to keep 'em going.

> , they adore the environment because they are
> snobs.

Again, no alternate explanation, just bland assertion. I like the environment as I'm rather keen on not getting skin cancer when I go out for a walk.

> Every pernicious idea to come down the pike is instantly
> embraced by the liberal to prove how powerful and intelligent they
> really are.

That must be why I wrote an essay concerning my dislike of anti-americanism...

> Liberals generally hate society and want to bring it down
> to reinforce their sense of invincibility.

I certainly want to change what I see as wrong with society.

> Secure in the knowledge
> that they will still be standing when the smoke clears, they giddily
> seek to fiddle with the little people's rules and morals.
>
And I can't argue with that; I enjoy questioning people's rules and morals in order to actually make 'em think. I enjoy equally when someone does the same with me.


> Right, let's see about Light.
> Promoting immoral and destructive behaviour ? Check.
> Embracing assorted criminals ? Check.
> Environment ? Check.
> Embracing every pernicious idea ? Check.
> Hating exisiting society ? Check.
> Sense of invincibility ? Check.
> Rule fiddling ? Check.

Well, I've answered the points raised in the paragraph you've cut and pasted (I actually asked for your understanding of neo-liberalism, and not someone elses, but I'll let that pass for now). I'd be obliged if you'd answer the points I've raised in my earlier post.

>
> And in relation to women,
>
> "Liberals seek to destroy sexual differentiation in order to
> destroy morality. The Vagine Monologues is effectively the apotheosis
> of the left's desire to treat women's sexuality like some bovine
> utalitarian device."

It's a bloody good play as it happens! Man...whomever wrote this is an utter prude! And it goes back to my original post that started this thread; a vague (and unexplained) moral compunction about sex.

> "Another way liberals think women should be like men is in the
> relentless pursuit of casual sex

I certainly think women should be allowed to relentlessly pursue casual sex if they want to.
Question: Are you saying that they shouldn't? Could you please answer that question as soon as you can please. You've avoided all my queries on this topic, and I've answered all of yours. I'd appreciate some quid pro quo.

>
> That's another Check.
>
> *waits for Light's abuse filled reply*
> *replies*
> *continues along the moebious cycle any discussion with Light
> mystically joins...*


Alas, no abuse. As per my previous posts in this thread, I'm waiting for you to address the points I've raised.

To quote:

"Liberals thrive on the attractions of snoberry...They promote immoral destructive behaviour because they are snobs, they embrace many criminals because they are snobs, they mostly oppose taxcuts because they are snobs, they adore the environment because they are snobs. Every pernicious idea to come down the pike is instantly embraced by the liberal to prove how powerful and intelligent they really are. Liberals generally hate society and want to bring it down to reinforce their sense of invincibility. Secure in the knowledge that they will still be standing when the smoke clears, they giddily seek to fiddle with the little people's rules and morals.

Right, let's see about Light.
Promoting immoral and destructive behaviour ? Check.
Embracing assorted criminals ? Check.
Environment ? Check.
Embracing every pernicious idea ? Check.
Hating exisiting society ? Check.
Sense of invincibility ? Check.
Rule fiddling ? Check.

And in relation to women,

"Liberals seek to destroy sexual differentiation in order to destroy morality. The Vagine Monologues is effectively the apotheosis of the left's desire to treat women's sexuality like some bovine utalitarian device."
"Another way liberals think women should be like men is in the relentless pursuit of casual sex

That's another Check.

*waits for Light's abuse filled reply*
*replies*
*continues along the moebious cycle any discussion with Light mystically joins...*