Why Shouldnt Prostitution Be State Sanctioned?

[st_files]

IE men and women can pay for sex without fear of being arrested and two or more men/women can work in a property together without fear of arrest....

I'd be interested if there is anyone who can argue it shouldnt be without having to resort to ridiculously anachronistic arguments involving supposed "morals" and religion.

Surely we live in a society where we can respect a womans or mans decision to have sex for money if they so wish? Think of the extra tax revenues it would generate too as well as making the lives of sex workers far safer.

Edited by st_files on Friday 23 October 11:20

[st_files]

Tom_C76 said:

Firstly what is anachronistic about morals? Otherwise why shouldn't people be free to sell their organs for transplant rather than donating them? Even sell a kidney before death maybe, you have a spare after all. Or sell unwanted children to the highest bidder? Possession is a moral thing too. Society is based on morals, whether or not they are the ones you choose to live by.

Secondly, how do you ensure that all of the sex workers are genuinely consenting? As soon as there is someone else in charge of the brothel there is the risk of coercion. Or people forces into it to meet debts, drug dealers threats etc.

I think its anachronistic to have a moral problem with prostitution but I absolutely see thats a personal point of view.

With state sanctioning and regulation coercion of sex workers should be much easier to Police. And if you believe the research the Guardian has done, forced sex slaves in this country isnt the huge epidemic the Daily Mail would have us believe.

Edited by st_files on Friday 23 October 11:24

[st_files]

DownUnder. said:

In a perfect/save world perhaps. Think about this though,

If it were to be state sanctioned, rules and regulations would be put into place by Mr Brown the lovely fellow.

Prostitutes would not be allowed any STI's or drug problems i'm guessing....

See what i'm getting at?

STI's? Is that some sort of Vauxhall Nova? Harsh.....

[st_files]

Defcon5 said:

WorAl said:

DownUnder. said:

Prostitutes would not be allowed any STI's or drug problems i'm guessing....

Surely it wouldn't be a bad thing that someone flogging their clunge for money is free from aids?

But most prostitutes in this country have class A drug problems

Really? I'd love to see the research you base that statement on....absolute bks.

[st_files]

G_T said:

st_files said:

IE men and women can pay for sex without fear of being arrested and two or more men/women can work in a property together without fear of arrest....

You can.

Escorts, massage palours, saunas and the back room of many a dodgey strip club cater for this sort of business. To the best of my knowledge it's also taxable as "you're paying for the time only".

I would hazard a guess that the only reason prostitution itself is not legal (but is regulated in some areas). Is because of the increased levels of risks for both girl and punter when compared to organised businesses.

So why bother "sanctioning it"? If you're into that sort of thing you have numerous legal options available to you. If you're still not happy with that you can even visit "regulated" areas where prostitutes operate and the police turn a blind eye.

If you keep things the way they are then the majority of the public won't even know that such seedy areas exist and the religious types can keep their heads down.

As I understand it its still illegal for more than one man/woman to be working (in the same dwelling) as prostitutes, at least thats the case in Soho - more than one and the Police can arrest everyone.

Edited by st_files on Friday 23 October 12:29

[st_files]

BoRED S2upid said:

st_files said:

Defcon5 said:

WorAl said:

DownUnder. said:

Prostitutes would not be allowed any STI's or drug problems i'm guessing....

Surely it wouldn't be a bad thing that someone flogging their clunge for money is free from aids?

But most prostitutes in this country have class A drug problems

Really? I'd love to see the research you base that statement on....absolute bks.

You have a lot of experience of prostitutes do you?

If I did I wouldnt be ashamed to admit it, but no I dont. But I have a couple of friends who use them (honest...!) and am not dim enough to believe what the daily mail feeds me.

Of course there are a number of prostitutes who are dug addicts - usually the Kings Cross street walker types - street walking would still be illegal under state sanctioning and women who were "desperate" for money would not have to risk their lives picking up serial killers in the dead of winter.

To say that the majority of prostitutes are drug addicts is utter rubbish. check this site out...

http://www.prostitutescollective.net/

The majority of working women/men are normal people who have chosen that way to make money. I'm sure a lot of them would like to be kitten collectors if the money was the same...but it isnt.

[st_files]

Defcon5 said:

elster said:

Defcon5 said:

From my experience of working with multiple support agencies in Leeds, at least 90% of the prostitutes I have encountered has tested positive for class A. Obviously I wouldn't come into contact with 'escort' types, just street walkers.

So you think the majority of Prostitutes are street walkers?

I think you will find that is a huge minority.

I can only speak from my own experience, obviously as outreach workers we wouldnt come across anyone other than street workers.

I am suprised that it isnt the case though, given how many street workers there are, there must be an awful lot of 'indoor' prostitutes

I completely respect your experiences - just take a look at the personals section of any local newspaper as well as the thousands of escort sites to get an idea of how wide ranging prostitution is....yes, a tiny minority are drug addicts and yes a tiny minority have been forced into it but that would not be made easier by state control - only harder.....

Does anyone still think that prostitution is just "wrong" and should not be allowed?

[st_files]

tank slapper said:

I don't think it should be state-sactioned, but people who choose to earn their living that way should be left along to do so without fear of prosecution, and that includes if they work individually or in a brothel/massage parlour or whatever.

Closed minded idealogical viewpoints like Harperson's are the worst sort, because they seek to impose their twisted form of morality on everyone else. By legalising prostitution you then disenfranchise the pimps and others who would force people to work against their will. What two consenting adults do between each other is simply none of the states business.

But why not have it controlled and policed by the state? If nothing else, think of the additional revenue the govt can waste on Speed cameras, quangos or duck houses.....

[st_files]

bazking69 said:

utter utter utter rubbish

Have a look at the Dutch/American/Australian examples - they are all able to maintain brothels with non scaghead working girls. Quite frankly its misinformed rubbish like you'd jusy sh@t out that is the reason that prostitution is so demonized. Also, if it were true and all prostitutes were junkies then surely the argument for state intervention would be even stronger!

[st_files]

tank slapper said:

bazking69 said:

The ideal concept of a wehouse full of tidy clean birds who regularly get checked and are always safe without fail and can provide a service in a clean and safe environment for both parties is little more than a fantasy.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Australia have a system like that?

Yes...as do Holland and certain states in the USA....

[st_files]

tank slapper said:

st_files said:

But why not have it controlled and policed by the state? If nothing else, think of the additional revenue the govt can waste on Speed cameras, quangos or duck houses.....

Sorry, the argument should be the other way round when it comes to the state controlling things. They should have to make a case for doing so.

Income is already taxed in this country, and the revenue aren't fussy about what you do to earn your money, as long as they get their slice they are happy.

Forcing people to do things against their will, slavery, rape, assault, theft, extortion and whatever other unpleasant things pimps are want to do are already illegal. We do not need further laws to make them illegal twice.

The laws as they stand are fairly useless - the Police tend to turn a blind eye to the majority of adult prostitution. By having the state run it (in theory) they can then enforce the rules on non sanctioned prostitution and focus Police attention on the scum that force women/men/kids into prostitution rather than wasting time chasing and arresting working girls and their punters.

[st_files]

tank slapper said:

st_files said:

The laws as they stand are fairly useless - the Police tend to turn a blind eye to the majority of adult prostitution. By having the state run it (in theory) they can then enforce the rules on non sanctioned prostitution and focus Police attention on the scum that force women/men/kids into prostitution rather than wasting time chasing and arresting working girls and their punters.

So what is stopping them doing so now? The law already forbids enslaving people, so in what way would having the state involved in the consensual side of things improve that situation in any way? Seems to me like letting people get on with their lives, so a blind-eye doesn't have to be turned is much more advantageous than creating yet another state bureaucracy.

Because by having it state sanctioned you would have set standards, routine testing, inspections - all this would weed out the real criminals being involved. It also de stigmatises it which is important. I just think that by having some form of regulation on the industry would improve the lives of the sex workers and punters alike.

[st_files]

tank slapper said:

Munter said:

Ok say you have a list of 200 addresses on your patch which you believe are involved in prostitution. Which ones contain slaves and are therefore worth visiting?

Now if you could compare that list with a licensed addresses list and 190 addresses match up. Now which addresses are worth visiting?

I would be most surprised if the police did not already know of the premises on their patch already. I doubt one would operate for very long before they became aware of it. Convenience for the state is also a poor excuse for intrusion into peoples' private lives. It is along the same lines as the argument for the storage of DNA profiles - it would be extremely convenient for the state to have everybody on it, yet most people would object to that.

I found it quite interesting after hearing Harperson called for it to be closed, to have a read of Punternet, which has a discussion forum - the attitudes there of both women and men seems pretty far removed from the exploitation claimed. I got the impression that most of those women just want to be left to get on with it away from do-gooders trying to save them and people with an agenda.

The majority of them do just want to be left alone, and with regulation - after they've met the requirements (ie no std's etc) they will be, they'll have the occasional inspection etc - pretty much like food inspectors. Regulation would help the small minority of prostitutes that are being abused get the help they need as well as freeing up the Old Bill to deal with real crimes...