FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Let's debate brothels!





Nameless
One common argument against brothels is that they lure in young, unskilled women for low wages and then force them to provide a service that perpetuates negative stereotypes.

So does Subway. (ie. "Make me a sammich!") Other than a lot of negative press, what's the difference?

/not a joke topic.
watersoul
I think if they were licensed and certain standards of care were enforced then it would be a far preferable situation than the unregulated gangster-run places which exist in most major towns & cities.

Prostitution has & always will go on, some by choice earning good money, but most through desperation and/or drug dependency. It makes me sad when I pass through the rough-arse areas of Plymouth and see the street walking prostitutes in all weather (rain & cold) completely vulnerable every time they climb into each strangers car who's buying their service - or not sometimes, just getting the sex then beating them up and dumping them back on the street.

Legalise brothels I say, if only to offer a safer controlled choice for the women and giving them access to the various welfare agencies who can check that they aren't being abused.

Curiously in the UK it is not illegal to charge or pay for sex, it's just illegal to solicit the service (ask/negotiate/advertise it)
ocalhoun
Of course prostitution should be legal - and regulated for the safety of all parties.
Pretty much the only people who disagree are the 'family values' types.
(ie. those who want to enforce their morals on everybody else, often 'for the children!')
watersoul
ocalhoun wrote:
Of course prostitution should be legal - and regulated for the safety of all parties.
Pretty much the only people who disagree are the 'family values' types.
(ie. those who want to enforce their morals on everybody else, often 'for the children!')


I know what you mean there, it's tragic that they are so blinded by their 'morals' that they cannot see the abuse and exploitation which is caused to a large extent by the underworld market which exists as a result of the legislation.
deanhills
Nameless wrote:
One common argument against brothels is that they lure in young, unskilled women for low wages and then force them to provide a service that perpetuates negative stereotypes.

So does Subway. (ie. "Make me a sammich!") Other than a lot of negative press, what's the difference?

/not a joke topic.
Depends what brothels you are talking about, as there are very skilled and shrewd women too, and then there are also women who do it for the excitement, or to fund their studies, etc. etc.
ocalhoun wrote:
Of course prostitution should be legal - and regulated for the safety of all parties.
Pretty much the only people who disagree are the 'family values' types.
(ie. those who want to enforce their morals on everybody else, often 'for the children!')

That would not make it "naughty" any more. Part of the attraction in it- I think - is that the absence of regulation allows men to partake of these "pleasures" anonymously and clandestinely in a hanky panky way. Once regulated, I'm almost certain there would still be prostitutes who do prostitution illegally.
watersoul wrote:
I know what you mean there, it's tragic that they are so blinded by their 'morals' that they cannot see the abuse and exploitation which is caused to a large extent by the underworld market which exists as a result of the legislation.
Although I do believe some of it is innocent, and particularly injurious to young girls, tragically so, some of whom are forced into prostitution against their will, there are also large numbers of prostitutes who go into prostitution with wide eyes open, and make it work for them. From our point of view prostitution may not be the best thing, but for those "career" prostitutes, it is a profession and those who are skilled get paid the big bucks.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:

ocalhoun wrote:
Of course prostitution should be legal - and regulated for the safety of all parties.

That would not make it "naughty" any more. Part of the attraction in it- I think - is that the absence of regulation allows men to partake of these "pleasures" anonymously and clandestinely in a hanky panky way. Once regulated, I'm almost certain there would still be prostitutes who do prostitution illegally.

You can still have it be anonymous and clandestine - what brothel would be successful if it publicized clients' identities?

Yes, there would still be those who did it illegally. They would be much fewer in number though... And it would allow law enforcement to focus on the truly dangerous ones, while ignoring the (regulated) harmless ones.
(And saving a good deal of money in the process -- saves police time and funding, jail space and funding, court time and funding, probation officer/social worker time and funding, et cetera. -- Not to mention the medical costs saved by early detection, prevention, and treatment of STD's/unwanted pregnancies. The regulation itself can be paid for by taxing prostitution, or charging a (modest) fee for a prostitution license.)
deanhills
@Ocalhoun. I can't quite agree however, if the brothel is legalized, then there would be documentation that has to be kept on the brothel, as well as names of the prostitutes. They would have to go for regular medical checkups, so there would have to be proper medical evidence for that, addresses, phone numbers, etc. that has to be stored somewhere. I'm not into prostitutes, but if I were a politician, I'd rather go somewhere where there is no record keeping at all.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
there would be documentation that has to be kept on the brothel, as well as names of the prostitutes. They would have to go for regular medical checkups, so there would have to be proper medical evidence for that, addresses, phone numbers, etc. that has to be stored somewhere. I'm not into prostitutes, but if I were a politician, I'd rather go somewhere where there is no record keeping at all.

Funny, I don't see client identities as something stored there...
standready
deanhills wrote:
if the brothel is legalized, then there would be documentation that has to be kept on the brothel, as well as names of the prostitutes. They would have to go for regular medical checkups, so there would have to be proper medical evidence for that, addresses, phone numbers, etc. that has to be stored somewhere.

Sounds like what they do at the legit brothels in Nevada.
I'm not into prostitutes either but to each their own. After all, it has been said that prostitution is the oldest profession.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
there would be documentation that has to be kept on the brothel, as well as names of the prostitutes. They would have to go for regular medical checkups, so there would have to be proper medical evidence for that, addresses, phone numbers, etc. that has to be stored somewhere. I'm not into prostitutes, but if I were a politician, I'd rather go somewhere where there is no record keeping at all.

Funny, I don't see client identities as something stored there...

Well spotted! Very Happy
standready wrote:
I'm not into prostitutes either but to each their own. After all, it has been said that prostitution is the oldest profession.
Agreed. I'm all for each to their own. I was unaware that there were legit brothels in the United States! Are they only in Nevada?
driftingfe3s
I agree in that there prostitution will exist whether it is legal or illegal because there will always be people willing to pay for it and there will be people willing work for it.

Becuase the market for prostitution will always be there, I think it would be better to legalize it so that it becomes a safer practice, and if it is taxed then that's a lot more money for the state.
iman
religion is the only thing that holds back prostitution. since it's not a part of law, it's actually legal.
saratdear
What's a brothel? Confused

Just kidding, what do you mean by legalizing? Do all those who go there have to write down there names in a register, like you do in a hotel?

Child prostitution is illegal anyway, that needs to be enforced pretty strictly. They should undergo medical checkups from time to time to ensure no STDs. And something that could improve their lives? The clients need to sign a declaration saying they do not have any STDs.
deanhills
saratdear wrote:
Just kidding, what do you mean by legalizing? Do all those who go there have to write down there names in a register, like you do in a hotel?
Laughing This is a good one, I like it. Laughing As far as I understand it, the prostitutes are the ones who go on a register of a kind, then pay taxes on their earnings, get regular medical check-ups etc. Probably good for their safety, but tax wise they lose quite a bit.
saratdear wrote:
Child prostitution is illegal anyway, that needs to be enforced pretty strictly. They should undergo medical checkups from time to time to ensure no STDs. And something that could improve their lives? The clients need to sign a declaration saying they do not have any STDs.
Agreed that child prostitution should be illegal. As far as signing a declaration, I wonder whether that is possible. I can imagine they could insist on wearing condoms, and that's about it. In general I think brothels are really a bad idea, but then each to their own, as previously pointed out.
saratdear
deanhills wrote:
then pay taxes on their earnings,

I suppose they'll have to work hard to come in the first tax bracket? Laughing
deanhills wrote:
I can imagine they could insist on wearing condoms, and that's about it.

What about having a condom vending machine in the premises?
deanhills
saratdear wrote:
I suppose they'll have to work hard to come in the first tax bracket? Laughing
Either that, or be real smart! The hard way does sound interesting though .... ! Laughing
saratdear wrote:
deanhills wrote:
I can imagine they could insist on wearing condoms, and that's about it.
What about having a condom vending machine in the premises?
Right ..... brilliant idea ... Laughing
captainsuperdude
it's smarter just to keep them illegal for the sake of not sexually disillusioning kids... while at the same time letting them operate at a higher tax-free profit margins, provided nobody gets abused and stds are prevented from spreading.
Vrythramax
Interesting...do we post on the accepted definition of "prostitution" or can we expand on that? Example: ANY law office in the United States could be construed as a "brothel" as it hires young, inexperienced members of a like mind (mostly for monetary gain) and proceeds to extract any and all profit from their work. Also not unlike Subway or any other large corporation.

Seems like a classic "brothel" or "bordello" to me, BUT the sexual aspect is put a bit askew from those definitions....i.e. YOU are getting screwed as opposed to YOU screwing someone else. Wink
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
Interesting...do we post on the accepted definition of "prostitution" or can we expand on that? Example: ANY law office in the United States could be construed as a "brothel" as it hires young, inexperienced members of a like mind (mostly for monetary gain) and proceeds to extract any and all profit from their work. Also not unlike Subway or any other large corporation.

Seems like a classic "brothel" or "bordello" to me, BUT the sexual aspect is put a bit askew from those definitions....i.e. YOU are getting screwed as opposed to YOU screwing someone else. Wink
Good point! Maybe one can go as far as saying that a wife could be a prostitute too? In certain cases. Or a bigamist has his own personal legal brothel? Prostitution is when one has sex for something else in return. I guess that makes most of us prostitutes then? Twisted Evil
ocalhoun
captainsuperdude wrote:
it's smarter just to keep them illegal for the sake of not sexually disillusioning kids... while at the same time letting them operate at a higher tax-free profit margins, provided nobody gets abused and stds are prevented from spreading.

Oh, how is this wrong? Let me count the ways...

1: You'd make it illegal for the reason of 'not sexually disillusioning kids'? You're really going to use a 'for the children' argument? If they are legalized, they can be regulated, and kids under 18 can be prevented from using their services, unlike now.
2: Just because it is illegal does not mean it is tax free. The IRS can still go after you for taxes owed on illegally gained income.
3: Provided nobody gets abused? How will you prevent that without regulation, monitoring, and safer locations/practices?
4: Provided STD's are prevented from spreading? Again, how will you prevent that without regulation, monitoring, and safer practices (ie condoms)?
Vrythramax
@deanhills

I am SO not going there, but you raise a valid point. And for now I leave you to your vices....I love and respect women, they are the opposite side of an equal sum...they ARE needed, UNFORTUNATLY they seem to relagated to a lesser position.

My wife has passed, but I still hold her in the HIGHEST regard. She was no "prostitute".

EDIT: HI ocalhoun, sorry we haven't spoken in so long....my fault Sad
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
@deanhills

I am SO not going there, but you raise a valid point. And for now I leave you to your vices....I love and respect women, they are the opposite side of an equal sum...they ARE needed, UNFORTUNATLY they seem to relagated to a lesser position.

My wife has passed, but I still hold her in the HIGHEST regard. She was no "prostitute".

EDIT: HI ocalhoun, sorry we haven't spoken in so long....my fault Sad
Sorry if I offended, that was completely unintentional. And really sorry about your wife's passing. I'm all for respect of women, including prostitutes. I wonder why prostitution has such a bad wrap, and if I contributed to it, my apologies for doing that. Prostitution is a form of business and some prostitutes are really good at it, others, especially those who are in the desperate and down and out category, not so good at it. For the latter I feel lots of empathy, for the former, respect for doing it well.

To be absolutely truthful I probably should not say anything as I'm not an expert on the subject of prostitution. Most of my knowledge is from movies.
Vrythramax
@deanhills

I took no offense with your comment, I think by now you would have known if I was miffed with you Smile

I still find it interesting (confusing) how a woman would "prostitute" herself (for lack of better word), to meet one man's means (in marriage).

Ladies...PLEASE comment.
Aredon
Vrythramax wrote:

Ladies...PLEASE comment.

It seems likely that the title of the thread would probably steer most females away from this conversation. Which honestly is too bad, I'd like to hear some more opinions.
deanhills
Vrythramax wrote:
I still find it interesting (confusing) how a woman would "prostitute" herself (for lack of better word), to meet one man's means (in marriage).
Probably on the most basic level, if she married him only for his money. Smile
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
Vrythramax wrote:
I still find it interesting (confusing) how a woman would "prostitute" herself (for lack of better word), to meet one man's means (in marriage).
Probably on the most basic level, if she married him only for his money. Smile

I think that would only count if he married her for sex.
If he married her for say, family connections, then I don't think it would be 'prostitution', as I'd define prostitution as exchanging sex for money/goods/services/protection.
Other reasons that wouldn't count: marrying because she's a good cook/housekeeper, marrying for social status/appearances, marrying because of family pressure...
Vrythramax
ocalhoun wrote:
... Other reasons that wouldn't count: marrying because she's a good cook/housekeeper, marrying for social status/appearances, marrying because of family pressure...

How can you say they don't count? They are a reason to meet a means.
ocalhoun
Vrythramax wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
... Other reasons that wouldn't count: marrying because she's a good cook/housekeeper, marrying for social status/appearances, marrying because of family pressure...

How can you say they don't count? They are a reason to meet a means.

They don't count as prostitution.
Why? While they are 'reasons to meet a means', the means are not sex.

Since prostitution is trading sex for goods/et cetera, it doesn't count as prostitution if you're trading something other than sex.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:
Vrythramax wrote:
I still find it interesting (confusing) how a woman would "prostitute" herself (for lack of better word), to meet one man's means (in marriage).
Probably on the most basic level, if she married him only for his money. Smile

I think that would only count if he married her for sex.
If he married her for say, family connections, then I don't think it would be 'prostitution', as I'd define prostitution as exchanging sex for money/goods/services/protection.
Other reasons that wouldn't count: marrying because she's a good cook/housekeeper, marrying for social status/appearances, marrying because of family pressure...
Agreed. But I did refer to money as the objective. Not family connections. And sex is implicit in getting married, I would say 99.9999% of the time.
panicmanic
I think brothels should be legal and regulated with insurances to ban sex slavery and illegal underage sex work and trade. basically legal brothels provide a service. Illegal brothels make the environment dangerous for the client, prostitute, and community.
ProfessorY91
I'm going to go with a general reply to the debate rather than getting involved in the whole legalization/registration/healthcare/taxes/morality debate above. As stated by someone up there, my religion implores me to vehemently oppose the idea and establishment of brothels. But, like many male frihosters, I secretly wish they were a legalized and neutral part of our lives. And with that, my hands are off the matter.
ocalhoun
ProfessorY91 wrote:
my religion implores me to vehemently oppose the idea and establishment of brothels.

As long as you don't try to impose that on everybody else, that's fine.
watersoul
ProfessorY91 wrote:
my religion implores me to vehemently oppose the idea and establishment of brothels.

...and that makes me relieved that most laws in my country these days are not directed by religion. Some things are more important than religious ideals, especially when it helps prevent abuse and exploitation of people who choose not to follow the religious path.
As I've said previously here, I don't want brothels decriminalised in my country so I can legally partake of the service, I just want a safer controlled & supportive option for the poor exploited girls who I see walking the streets in very vulnerable circumstances.

*Edit* As a male myself I wouldn't use a prostitutes service anyway, it kind of kills the excitement for me if a woman is only with me because I'm paying her - I only ever want someone to want me, not just the money I'm giving her! Rolling Eyes
deanhills
I thought Professor did not impose religion at all. So don't understand why religion is featuring in the debate. That was Professor's very careful personal point of view that he specifically stated he did not want to impose on the discussion.

@Ocalhoun. I seem to recall a discussion in the Politics Forum between you and jmi regarding too much regulation. So let us say brothels are regulated, then that would mean more regulation. I'm sure there must be brothels that are voluntarily well organized as far as medical check ups and the wear of condoms are concerned. Why does one always need things to be regulated? Why not just make prostitution legal and leave it at that? They can organize themselves and then the market will determine the outcome, i.e. people would tend to visit brothels that have a good reputation with regular medical check ups etc, more than the ones that don't pay attention to details like that? They are probably doing that anyway?
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:

@Ocalhoun. I seem to recall a discussion in the Politics Forum between you and jmi regarding too much regulation.

The regulation doesn't need to be overly intrusive, but it does need to be there, for the health and safety of both prostitutes and patrons.

(Sort of like restaurant health inspections or OSHA requirements.)

Yes, reduce regulation when possible, but sometimes it's not possible.
In this particular case, legal with regulation is much better than completely illegal, after all.
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
deanhills wrote:

@Ocalhoun. I seem to recall a discussion in the Politics Forum between you and jmi regarding too much regulation.

The regulation doesn't need to be overly intrusive, but it does need to be there, for the health and safety of both prostitutes and patrons.

(Sort of like restaurant health inspections or OSHA requirements.)

Yes, reduce regulation when possible, but sometimes it's not possible.
In this particular case, legal with regulation is much better than completely illegal, after all.
I'm not much for any of those, i.e. brothel inspections or restaurant health inspections. I'd rather spend more money on educating people so that they can make their own best decisions of what is not good for them. It is very easy to figure out when a restaurant looks suspicious. One can smell it from rancid oils, dirty tables .... etc. I think most people are already educated about not eating salads unless they really know the restaurant or cafe is safe, even then I would be very careful, as how does the health inspector know whether one of the employees is not carrying the Hepatitis C virus, and is working with fresh foods with no plastic gloves or mouth covering? People are lulled into other people protecting them all of the time, instead of being educated to use their own common sense.
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
I'm not much for any of those, i.e. brothel inspections or restaurant health inspections. I'd rather spend more money on educating people so that they can make their own best decisions of what is not good for them. It is very easy to figure out when a restaurant looks suspicious. One can smell it from rancid oils, dirty tables .... etc.

I've worked at both good restaurants and bad ones.
And yes, health inspections are a necessary evil. Some restaurants will never improve themselves unless they're threatened with being shut down by the health inspector.

And it doesn't matter how nasty the kitchen is, if the dining area is still reasonably clean, people will still eat there.

Now, ideally, this wouldn't need to be done through the government. I would be open to the idea of privatizing health inspections... Have certifying agencies that perform inspections, and if the restaurant passes inspection, give their seal of approval to the place.
Add that to educating consumers - telling them to look for the private inspectors' seal of approval, and you have a workable system with no government interference.
(local) Government inspections of inspectors' work may still be needed though, to prevent dishonest inspectors from giving everyone a passing score despite failing conditions.
The necessity of inspecting the inspectors will depend on how much integrity the private inspectors display.
(Their integrity could be bolstered by making the penalty for dishonest inspections extremely high.)
deanhills
ocalhoun wrote:
Have certifying agencies that perform inspections, and if the restaurant passes inspection, give their seal of approval to the place.
I'm a bit cynical. First thought that came to mind is what the restaurant owner is prepared to pay for an inspection pass .... maybe a few free dinners? Twisted Evil
ocalhoun wrote:
Add that to educating consumers - telling them to look for the private inspectors' seal of approval, and you have a workable system with no government interference.
(local) Government inspections of inspectors' work may still be needed though, to prevent dishonest inspectors from giving everyone a passing score despite failing conditions.
The necessity of inspecting the inspectors will depend on how much integrity the private inspectors display.
(Their integrity could be bolstered by making the penalty for dishonest inspections extremely high.)
Just shows you that once one starts with "too much regulation", such as with Government, it never ends, one will always need more BIG BROTHER to check that everyone is doing their job.

But you are right of course, if the restaurant looks clean, that does not necessarily mean that the chef in the kitchen has washed his hands. Twisted Evil
ocalhoun
deanhills wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Have certifying agencies that perform inspections, and if the restaurant passes inspection, give their seal of approval to the place.
I'm a bit cynical. First thought that came to mind is what the restaurant owner is prepared to pay for an inspection pass .... maybe a few free dinners? Twisted Evil

This can be mostly prevented by making the penalty for corruption very severe... and giving rewards to employees who turn in the corrupt.

If the restaurant owner and the inspector both know that the dish-washer will turn them in for a $5,000 reward, and that the fine for being caught is 90% of last year's income (of the business), they'll think twice.
Navigator
All I can say about those places is, Oh broth..er!
haluden
my thoughts:
At least in a brothel you know what to expect, your not working a respectable job and your gonna get screwed.
Subway may seem like a more respectable job, but lets face it but for 8 bucks an hr they are already screwing their employees. and seriously; how much respect do you really have for the person behind subways counter?
Related topics
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> General -> General Chat

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.