The Morality of Prostitution

[Admin]

Select "Add New Message" to post a message.

[Joe Zop]

Spencer -- again, you misread my post, so I guess there was still some degree of subtlety after all. First, all I did was parrot back to you the things you'd been accusing prostitutes of being, since you basically placed yourself in the same boat by defining yourself (and by extension me) as a scumbag. My little crack about affirmation was meant as an echo of your counseling poke a few messages back. To reference again something you said to RN, you're more sensitive about this than I thought you'd be, given that all I did was turn the same lens you've been using back in your own direction. As far as high horses go, we're all riders at one time or another, and I'm sure I've left some hoofprints here and there, but I'm far from alone in that regard -- looked behind you lately?

I don't happen to work within your definitional framework, in that I simply don't think in terms of sluts or scumbags, and I don't think people need to either place themselves or be placed within categories. I think in terms of people who have needs that they try to meet, with those needs running the gamut from money to sex to drugs to possessions to love, and I think in terms of their difficulties in managing to get what they want. As long as those needs don't damage other people I see nothing wrong with them, and don't think people having or not having them is of great significance. I don't happen to think of people wanting to have sex in whatever manner they choose as making them deviant or slutty or anything other than essentially alive and human. I don't feel the need to define myself or anyone else as deviant or normal; I've got enough trouble dealing with life already, thank you, and I think that's pretty much the same for everyone else.

I'm not looking to judge you, as I don't know you and can only understand you by what you've posted here, and how you've accordingly defined yourself. I'm not much into judging in any regard; I prefer trying to empathize and place myself in other shoes, as I learn more from it. I'm certainly not silly enough at all to expect you to agree with my opinions -- I have my quixotic streaks, but it's been crystal clear from the beginning that's not going to happen, as our perspectives and approaches are too largely divergent. Read elsewhere -- I get disagreed with all the time; that's part of the turf, and besides, total agreement's no fun in a discussion in any event, for the most part.

[Joe Zop]

Philip -- to pick up on the other thread, do you think the misgivings of clients are based in issues of personal morality, societal disapproval, all of the above, what? Is this a stigma that's specific to those places where prostitution is illegal, to specific issues of culture or class, or does it carry further? For example, do clients who live in the Netherlands have the same level of misgiving? (I've seen some TV interviews that imply not, but it's hard to tell how trustworthy that information is, given that they were in the context of comparing to the Us scenario.) Are there some qualitative differences in the types of misgivings based on what codes get applied?

I'd also be curious to hear from RN not only about those issues but about how client misgivings manifest themselves from the sex worker perspective, beyond (but including, I'd imagine) the need to be punished for "bad" urges or to try to punish others.

[Rubber Nursey]

Spencer,
I have absolutely no issues of self acceptance. I would have thought that would have been obvious after the hundreds of posts I have made defending the sex industry, and my attempts to dispel the myths regarding sex workers. I only fight these issues as vehemently as I do because I feel I deserve the right to choice, and the right to be heard, as much as anyone else does. Fighting for something you feel you "deserve" and demanding that people hear your views, are actions that take a degree of self respect...a person who feels they have no self worth is willing to settle for second best, because they feel it is all they deserve. What I do take issue with is people who feel they have the right to cast judgement on me and assess my character according to a cruel and ill-conceived stereotype. According to your last post, I am the "type" of woman that you like. How exactly did you work out what "type" of woman I am? If this was a debate on another board about politics or sports or the Celtic Otherworld...would you have come to the same conclusion about my "type". A sex worker is not a certain "type" of woman. She is a woman doing a certain type of job. And that is not enough to base a character assessment on.

Anyway, your last post seems to have made the shift from seperating "normal" women from prostitutes, to the "all women who have casual sex are easy" angle. (Note: I have NEVER heard the term "easy" applied to men, regardless of how many partners they have). There are two problems I have with the term easy being used on women, apart from the obvious fact that it is laughable in this day and age of sexual equality, and that the term is never used on men. One is the way people say easy women "allow" lots of men to have sex with them...as if they lay back and let men "use" their bodies for their own self gratification. If I say to a man in a bar "I'm horny. Will you please take me home and shag me senseless"...who is using who? Is it so unbelieveable that women may actually "use" men for their OWN self gratification? And do you think that perhaps it's even possible that casual sex between two adults could be MUTUALLY satisfying? Without either party being taken advantage of??

The other is that it is said like it is a BAD thing. Why is it so bad for a woman to have a high sex drive? The "boys are studs and girls are sl*ts" labels are surely a thing of the past. People need to recognise that women have casual sex for all the same reasons as men...and that it is NOT something they should be ashamed of.

What interests me most about your post is the way you classified both "sluts" and hookers as "easy"women. A sex worker is not easy in that sense of the word. Sure, they sleep with multiple partners...but they put a price on their availability. A so-called sl*t may sleep with someone because they are bored or horny or drunk or looking for love (which I don't have a problem with by the way), but a hooker will only sleep with someone for money. How many times have you gone to a hooker without any cash in your pocket and had her say "It's ok, let's do it anyway...I'm horny"??? Many sex workers I know do not even HAVE a sex life outside of work!!! You are confusing sex work with promiscuity, when in fact they are very different things.

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe,
Firstly just let me give you a heartfelt thank you for what you said in your last few posts, more specifically the last one in the now archived old forum. Along with being very articulate and intelligent, you are a truly good man with a kind heart. I just wanted to tell you that. :)

As for clients, my opinion is that the stigma placed on "Johns" is a direct result of the stigma placed on sex workers. There is the section of the community that believes that any man who would have lower himself to having sex with that "type" of woman, must be a certain "type" of man. And the misconception that sex workers perform bizarre and degrading sex acts for all their clients, probably points at those clients being perverts or sexually deviant. Guilt by association.

On the other hand, there is the feminist view that clients demean and humiliate and degrade prostitutes by "using" them for self gratification. Sex workers are victims and you, dear sirs, are the victimisers. This attitude, mind you, seems to be particular to "Western" cultures...places where women are empowered and treated as equals. In Turkey for example, sex workers are treated like dirty wh*res and have no place in society, and yet men do not seem to be looked down on for visiting them. It appears to be commonly understood that it is a man's "right" to use women as he sees fit, simply because he is a man. In western cultures men are no longer "allowed" to think of women in that way, and any man that feels he has a god-given right to abuse women is looked down on by society.

I'm not sure that the legality of prostitution in any given locality actually affects public perceptions of prostitutes. In many countries where sex work is legal, wh*res are still considered the bottom rung of society. I think it comes down more to a community's understanding and acceptance of sex itself...anal retentive countries such as yours and mine that insist on seeing sex as "sacred" and not to be had outside of a loving relationship, will always have a problem with sex for money. As long as the sex industry is subject to the "seedy, dishonest and depraved" stereotype that the community and the media perpetuates, clients will always be subjected to the same stigma as sex workers are.

...If you lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas.....

[Philip Augustus]

to joe:
i think there would be three things not two: upbringing, (current) personal morality and social environment. upbringing could be further subdivided into parental and peer. for example, i think a lot of sexual hang-ups come not from parents but from schoolmates -- the cruelty of teenagers is unbelievable.

speaking for myself, i started with the classic pattern of "falling" and "self-loathing", but that was quite a long time ago. how much of that was sexual shame per se that was imprinted on me by an unfortunate upbringing in a regrettable culture and how much was prostitution-specific isn't easy to say.

regarding the country i mentioned, i'm not at all sure what the male natives think and feel, whether they agree that they are the depraved monsters as which they are portrayed in the media and by any passing female, or whether they are rebels against the pc orthodoxy in their secret hearts. don't think i ever discussed it with any of them.

sorry to be vague, but i found your questions rather foggy too!

rn:
yes, in the country i was talking about, the (non-working) women want the men to go to prison as victimisers on the lines you describe. no other paradigm is available or permitted.

[Joe Zop]

RN, well, thanks. Mostly for me it's just a "judge not lest ye be judged" kind of thing -- I'm well aware of my own large flaws, how difficult it is to work on getting past them, and I'm also well aware of the enormous privilege I operate under versus many folks I know and have worked with, in that I know I'm judged differently because I walk through the door as a tall white male who's got at least some degree of intelligence and education. I've watched my wife, who is far brighter and more talented than I am, struggle for years to be taken seriously not only because she's female but because her personality type gets her classified as an airhead by people who can't keep up with her mental leaps and complex syntactical constructs. I've seen the same thing happen over and over with people I've worked with in different cultures, and people I grew up with, which was a poor, black urban neighborhood. It frankly pisses me off that I can stand up and quiet a room simply by standing, because I'm a big guy, whereas lots of those other folks have to shout for attention. It pisses me off because I want to quiet things based on my personal command of the room and not because of the skin I'm born into, because I then get cheated -- I can't know if it's me or what I represent socially. And, of course, that statement is itself grounded in privilege. (Sorry, that got rather long -- I seem to be verbose this morning.)

I'm curious as to how clients end up reacting to that stigma, presuming they feel it, when they're with a sex worker, in particular whether they talk about it (as Philip notes, this isn't the kind of locker-room conversation that tends to go on between clients) and what they have to say about it. We've talked a lot about how that social stigma affects sex workers, but not a lot about how it affects clients. Clearly, there are legal consequences, and it the US in particular it's been a trend over the past two decades in certain area to focus on the customer to try to alleviate prostitution as opposed to (well, really in addition to) the sex worker. Impounding of cars of clients arrested for solicitation, for example, is now a pretty common approach to trying to cut down on street prostitution. (In contrast, for example, to busts in massage parlors, where the clients are rarely hassled, perhaps because with the massage front it's harder to prove anything.)

It's interesting, as well, to think about how brothels or massage parlors handle clients in different ways, and what that implies. In the US, for example, great care is usually taken to keep clients separated and anonymous. That same separation isn't usually the case in Nevada brothels or in Thailand massage parlors. I'd say that's largely because there's an understanding that people don't want to be recognizable when engaging in something that's criminalized, but it certainly also adds to the overall sense of furtiveness as well. How are things handled in OZ?

Your point about guilt by association is an interesting one, in that not only does it reflect the whole deviance issue in terms of sexual acts, it also reflects what I was saying above regarding criminal activity -- a criminal is a criminal in terms of social stigma, we as society don't tend to make distinctions when someone's locked up -- they're a law-breaker, and they're in with their own kind. (Of course, this references the whole discussion on victimless crimes.)

Despite the fact that I'm a believer in equality and lots of feminist agenda politically, in general I find feminist theorizing has lots of holes regarding sex, mostly because talking in terms of feminist theory is like talking about philosophy in general -- there are lots of available perspectives, and they're not necessarily harmonious. The reference you make is a good example -- men as victimizers, women as unable to be anything but victims as opposed to being intentional and empowered in regard to their use of sex. It's interesting in that there's a dichotomy of thought here that enters in as soon as the discussion moves to a paid sex sphere which, as you expressed in your last response to Spencer, doesn't generally come out in feminist thought outside of that context. It's the old debate that's been raging for years -- if one chooses to "be an object" does one subvert, control and change the process or reinforce it? Rather like Sartre's whole thing about "being" a waiter as opposed to being a waiter.

Philip -- I've had a similar kind of upbringing, and similar kind of process, though I think the falling and self-loathing process was related to sex as a whole, and I thank heavens for the evolution of the social climate in the sixties/seventies for getting past that. I think that self-loathing process is very much on point in this discussion, as if you're "bad" then so is the one you're with, and that circular process is one where you can eventualy get off and just leave an object of blame spinning around. Personally, I think it's a phyrric war scenario, but that pretty well goes with the general theme of the times, unfortunately.

Sorry my questions were vague -- I'm not completely sure how to develop this discussion, but I did want to try to move toward a more constructive debate and a newer topic. What's your take on the relative weight each of the three categories has in the equation (acknowledging, of course, that they're entertwined)?

[Philip Augustus]

to joe:
oh wow, now you’ve smoked me out. shortarses of the world unite, everyone over 5’ 10” up against the wall when the revolution comes! ;-) you are so right, you get a more respectful hearing than i do before we open our mouths, and for long afterwards (not that you wouldn’t deserve it, you’re a bad example of the syndrome, being tall, smart and wise, but you know what i mean). “the economist” ran a big survey of the effects of being a small male, and found some surprising correlations, like promotion, pay, health and longevity. sex-life goes without saying. they concluded by saying, “and what is the good news for short men? answer: there isn’t any.” to bring it back on-topic: as a small guy i feel empowered when with a sex worker, because i possess the currencies in which she is interested. if she, like the civilians, considers me “not really a man”, then it is part of her profession not to say so.

i guess that clients and sex workers have a natural alliance against the stigmatisation of the profession and its participants. certainly many of my conversations end up here, with us singing a duet against society. (in aforementioned country, by the way, the cops don’t impound cars, but the feminazis sometimes stencil them “wh*re-customer”. in countries where the ruling ideology is catholicism rather than political correctness, there may also be a duet, but in a different key, this time more defending the dignity of the worker.)

as regards segregation, i’ve seen the whole gamut between prevention of customers ever seeing one another and a sauna where they hang out together, e.g. the famous london street in edinburgh. the segregationists obviously have to go for the line-up, which both rn and i detest, while the collegials can have a lounge, bar and so forth. however, these segregationalists are in jurisdictions where it’s legal, so the main motive is, i think, to protect the reputation of the mayor and the archbishop ;-)

good point about lumping “criminals” together. i certainly wouldn’t take well to being locked up with muggers and gangsters. hey, i’m a _white-collar_ scumbag!

i also liked the sartrean point about choosing to be an object, but this line is way over the heads of the kinds of feminists who harass clients by direct action, and the female pols and journos who press for imprisonment of clients. i think it’s something else entirely: since women putatively don’t pay for sex, criminalisation means that they can hate, stigmatise and persecute men with a light heart and without much risk that the law will backfire by sanctioning a _woman_ for her sexual behaviour (gasp!).

the three categories: much as i have to blame my parents for, i think it was far more a function of the peer-group and the opposite sex. there is a general feeling that unattractive people are not entitled to any kind of sexual desires. being looked at (shades of sartre again) by an ugly guy or a dork is a serious offence, even when the woman is at the same time revealing as much as she can to the hunks. ocular harassment simply means the attention she seeks but from a guy she doesn’t fancy. furthermore, we are a hierarchical, mobbing species, and the unattractive are not left to discover failure on their own, it is predicted for them, they are firmly informed of their place in the scheme of things. i was regularly told that no woman would look at me, and this proved pretty well correct. i wouldn’t say this caused self-loathing qua customer, though; au contraire. you could say that my punting is afflicted by societal (pc) stigmatisation but is a rational response to a different kind of stigmatisation. make any sense?

[NoFatso]

What morality? I am a single guy, no girlfriend and wouldn't want one. I like pretty women and sex. If a pretty woman wants to have sex with me for $ and if she is attractive enough and provides GFE, I pay her to have a good time. It is no different from going to have dinner in a gourmet restaurant. I don't think anyone go through a morality discussion before walking into a restaurant.

I can't comment on situation where you are a married man or in a committed relationship. I believe in those circumstances, as long as there is an understanding between you and your spouse or g/f, then all is fine. If not, then it is an issue of loyalty between you and your spouse, not an issue of morality although you can argue loyalty is part of morality. If you accept your g/f or wife to have sex with any guys she likes outside you, then, that's fine too. As a single guy not in any relationship I have no experience to comment on this.

[Sinanju Master]

Sounds like Nashville was a theocratic gov't official in Kabul in the mid 1990's with unlimited powers to be used at hs discretion and answerable to NO ONE. What will Nashville (the poster and the city) do next? Invade people's homes at all hours of the night to make sure that they (willing, consenting adults who can think for THEMSELVES) are not engaging in unGodly sexual practices? Nashville=Taliban=Spanish Inquisition=Thought Police. The very thought that this wacko who hides his metaphorical turban from the public in an attempt to "protect" us, has the audacity to speak for ALL of us makes me shiver.

[Prokofiev]

Guess I better cancel that Nashville trip . . .

[Dickhead]

If you think prostitution is immoral, Nashville or Video Vigilante or Lazarus or Rev. Taylor or whoever you are, then don't fuck them.

To all prostitutes in Nashville: Paraphrasing John Babsone Lane Soule, "Go west, young woman."

This quote is sometimes improperly attributed to Horace Greeley.

[Paddy]

Hey Nashville,

I doubt that the mayor and the guys who work in his administration are too thrilled about all of the parlours being closed down. I mean, they'll have to drive to the next county now for sex.

Many thanks to all of the righteous crusaders at that church of yours for saving their wretched souls from eternal damnation. "Thou shalt close down all brothels.' Which commandment was that again??? Next time you hang out with God please ask him.

[NoFatso]

Nashville.

They so happy that Nashville has been "cleaned up". Reality is, many folks in the church, including the guy on the pulpit, are regular patrons. Ask the girls. Most of these moralists are major hobbyists. :) Also, let's hope the cops still find time to catch the real criminals, after all, they are too busy keeping an eye on the scene and attempting to close down the joints before they even open up. :)

[Carl LaFong]

i am delighted to see such a thoughtful discussion taking place here (i mention rn and joe and augustus specifically). this is the first time for me to peek into this section and it is refreshing to find frank, intellectual analysis of sex work. outstanding.

martha nussbaum, a professor of classics and law at the univ. of chicago, has written what i feel is an excellent discussion that touches upon some of the issues discussed here. the book is "sex and social justice" and is a great read (i think it's an oxford univ. press imprint). i've heard her taking hits from both the left and right so i figure she must be doing something right.

anyhow, i just wanted to express my appreciation to all the posters who have contributed to this part of the site.

carl lafong

--
"we call contrary to nature what happens contrary to custom; nothing is anything but according to nature, whatever it may be. let this universal and natural reason drive out of us the error and astonishment that novelty brings us."
michel de montaigne

[neo]

better prostitution in a controlled and designated environ where the provider is there of her own free will and not being abused
as for people in a relationship , it is purely a personal choice that each person will have to make. As long as no one gets hurt and everyone gets what they want. Like the song goes "there are worse things I could do...."

[Joe Zop]

Amen, neo.

Carl, thanks, and can you tell us a bit about Nussbaum's book? Sound like a very interesting read, and one I'll need to look for, as I tend to agree that someone who's getting it from both directions probably has something intruguing to say...

[Philip Augustus]

Hi, Joe, long time no see, and do you know if RN's OK?

I'll second you on asking Carl LaFong (thanks for kind words) to give us a precis of Nussbaum. I don't think there's too much surprise in her getting hit from both "sides", though, inasmuch as PC is in many respects a re-run of Victorian "earnestness" and prudery. Where I live, the feminazis often get together with the religious right to picket brothels; if you want to spoil the love-feast, say the A Word....... ;-)

[Joe Zop]

Haven't heard anything from RN at all -- are you listening, o muse of the thread -- but I've been swamped with work of late and have only been checking in briefly until I get caught up, hence the silence.

No, actually, it was your stunning revelation that drove me away -- I was certain from reading your posts that you were a seven-footer :-) and I'm still processing the damage to my world view...

[Philip Augustus]

to joe:
i mailed her with a brief note asking if she's ok, haven't heard back. funny thing, dickhead and terry also disappeared at the same time, i was wondering where the party was......

really? then i must spend all my life on the net, mustn't i, get the respect that doesn't accrue in rl to a speed bump ;-)

[Fedup]

It seems we all disappeared at the same time... I'd said most of my thoughts du jour and I think others had too. The change to the new forum was a bit of a interuption too.

The "American Women" forum took a rather odd twist for the worst too... nothing but fat talk.

Here's a story that should get you all going... I only live one county away from these goons:

"The year is 1921... people's minds are closed tighter than a gnat's ass..."

Oh shit!... hold on a minute... the year is 2002!!!

http://www.baynews9.com/newsstory.asp?storyname=2002/June/1/porn

Not exactly prostitution... but I'm sure you can figure out how they feel about that too.

Everyone get out their flag and stick it to their car please.

[Rubber Nursey]

Hiya gorgeous boys!! :) Long time no see!

Sorry I haven't been around. I have been swamped at work and I've had to move house and my ISP has been giving me grief and my dog ate my homework. Ok, so I don't go to school and I don't have a dog...but the rest of the excuses are bona fide.

Anyway, thanks for worrying about me. (And for the ego boost when I found out I was being missed! haha) I didn't get your email until tonight Phillip, so I hope you didn't think I was ignoring you. Thanks for your concern honey.
And while I'm thanking people, thank you for the kind words Carl LaFong....I hope you will join us again some time soon. :) I looked up the book that you mentioned, and I am going to see if is available here. It looks like an interesting read.

Soooo what's the topic of the minute? Seems there has been a bit of a thing about cleaning up Nashville...which I don't want to get involved in 'coz I have a tendency to get aggressive around self-righteous zealots...
And the revelations that Joe is a giant and Phillip is "vertically challenged"? Nope, not gonna touch that either! lol

So what's on your minds guys?

[Philip Augustus]

Great that you're alive and well and housed and OK, RN -- pity you don't have a dog, but you can't have everything! Good to see Fedup, too.

This reminds me of the way they say women who live together synchronise their menstrual cycles -- we're all bonded.......

No, I didn't think you were ignoring me yet, RN -- I've been ignored by experts and you don't make the grade ;-) It was only a day or two.

I didn't fancy joining the Nashville discussion, too specific -- I've never been to the States, and for the same reason I don't post to American Women. What state is that story from, Fedup?

Just finished a SF novel that has, tangentially, high-tech *****houses and stuff (VR); and the assumptions seem to be that all the customers are sadists and the girls what one would expect when that is so. I think we should send him (he's a Brit) to Blore House to improve his education......

[Philip Augustus]

PS -- meant to show that "wh*r*houses" was the writer's word not mine, but was having big problems getting post through and it used an earlier version.

[Joe Zop]

Glad to hear things are going ok, RN. Kinda figured you were moving, after your previous reports in that regard. (And for the record, I'm only 6'2" or 1.88 meters tall, hardly a giant in any way...)

Ok, I'll try to start a discussion going here again...

One of the recurrent themes on this board, not simply or so much in this thread, and elsewhere in discussions men have about women, is the whole idea that women constantly "want" things from guys, expect them to an inordinate degree, and that basically the only thing they tend not to want is what guys will gladly give, which is sex. Now, I tend to think this says as much about guys as it does women, as well as societal role, but it does bring up the whole issue of expectations and attitudes around "paying" for sex both inside and outside of the industry. In prostitution it's a given that there's exchange involved, but that only seems to help things somewhat, as women are still characterized as money-grubbing wh*res, as though somehow there should be something else involved in the exchange (though I don't know what -- gratitude for getting screwed would seem to be something for the male side of this particular equation.)

So here's my question, and I'll toss it out to RN as the resident spokesperson for the fairer sex (though as I note fairness seems to be lodged somewhere in the complaints) as well as my fellow punters -- in what way does being involved in the process of prostitution change or shift one's attitude about the other sex, if at all? Obviously, I'll couch this by acknowledging that this opens the door for gross generalizing, and I'll note that this occurs to me as an aftermath of our last exchange on the old board, and that there may be a degree of chicken and egg involved, but anyway... Do women involved in the industry start to look more at men in terms of being cash machines, or as the discussion in the Thai section would say, as walking ATMs? Do men start to think of all women as having their price, and as only being after money? How does this affect people when they operate outside of the parameters of prostitution, if at all?

Since this is a thread about morality, there are moral conclusions one could draw from pretty much any answer...

[Dickhead]

Everybody has their price, be they M or F, SW or not. The hobby has reinforced my vague notion that this was the case. Another thing I have noticed is that when dating or trying to pick up, I decide a lot quicker whether I'm interested in performing delicate emotional surgery, or not. Also I find I am more relaxed when I go to bed with an [alleged] "amateur" for the first time, at least partly as a result of my experience with numerous professionals (well, and some of it could just be getting older, maybe, possibly, perhaps).

I was in Mexico for a while but mostly I haven't been posting cuz the subject matter's been less interesting on the new board.

DH

[Philip Augustus]

To Joe:
Interesting question, high pockets. What comes to mind first is this: I spent my formative years in a succession of unilateral loves (maybe I should have picked Dante for my handle instead) and learnt to regard at any rate all normal women as outside my reach. In my day, if the girls didn’t fancy you back they weren’t straight or charitable about it, but rather offensively moralistic – how dare you think of me Like That (ewwwww), I’m not that kind of girl. Many would even pretend to be virgins; God save the mark, I believed them.

When, some years ago, I found a WG whose day job was aerobics teacher, I wondered whether any of her class were in unrequited lust for her, and if so how they would react to meeting her in a brothel. And what the class would be like afterwards. It was a further titillating shock the day I found moonlighting law students (the only time the client gets to screw the lawyer, huh?), of whom one wanted to be a Q.C. Maybe she will end up as a judge and chair royal commissions, or become a Cabinet minister; I sincerely hope so! Again, I can only identify with the poor nerd who sits next to her in the university library and yearns hopelessly. And so I fell to wondering whether any of the girls I had desperately fancied in my youth, or been in world-without-end love with, had been moonlighting in brothels or as escorts. And about what my life would have been like if I had known this – and been generally less “innocent”, because I also took couples’ facades at face value. The couple who go to the Paris clubs so the husband can watch the wife being gang-banged was equally off my mental radar-screen.

The effect is inter alia a sense of bitter regret for a repressed youth in the wrong culture in the wrong epoch, and consequent total misapprehension of the way the world actually works. Since sexual confidence is a positive-feedback process, I wish I could have had a decent education from an outstanding courtesan before the provincial prudes and feminist harridans messed with my head. If you can steal a time-machine, RN, we’ve got a deal!

To focus more on Joe’s question: in (over)reaction to this, it is something I now tend to wonder about any attractive woman, whether she has a second job. I am aware, as I used not to be, of the variety of day jobs that are supplemented in this way. Not so as to despise her for it, of course. Just speculating. Whether this has corrupted me I find difficult to say: since I’m outside the market for amateur partners in any case, I don’t think it’s made me a more unpleasant person, though I could, alas, be wrong about that.

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe,

As usual, I will say that I obviously can't speak for all women in the industry...but I will speak from a personal point of view.

"Do women involved in the industry start to look more at men in terms of being cash machines"

I certainly never have! I guess it all comes down to the girl's ability to distinguish work from "real life". A person who advertises that she is available 24 hours a day, fits her personal life around her work schedule and has no romantic involvements may very well find herself looking at all men as a potential "ATM" I would think. I also know single girls who would would rather charge for it in their personal life, than "give it away" and get nothing in return. (I have to admit I have felt like that many times, but haven't actually acted on it...I preferred to keep my work and my lovelife separate).
I was not a 24 hour prostitute. When I was at work I saw my clients as clients... like any person in ANY business, I viewed the men walking in the door as a source of income. But when I left the workplace, I just saw them as men.

"in what way does being involved in the process of prostitution change or shift one's attitude about the other sex, if at all?"

As I have said before, my time in the sex industry gave me an insight and understanding of the "inner workings" of the male psyche that no university course could every compare with. I can spot a woman-hating loser from a hundred yards (and not end up dating him like I would have in the past!! LOL) and I tend to be able to empathise more with men and see things from their point of view more readily than before.

I think sex workers get a rare glimpse of men that other women will probably never see. I guess there is something almost "primal" about meeting someone solely for sex and nothing else, as well as it being completely anonymous, and that environment tends to encourage a sort of raw honesty. They share things with us that they wouldn't dream of saying to people that they know. The most important thing I learned? Men are just as insecure as women are. That may sound strange, but right from childhood we are taught that men are strong and fearless and dominant and always more "powerful" than a woman. To discover the reality behind that myth...that men are also often insecure about their bodies, their looks, their ability in the bedroom...really changed my perception of men, as well as my perception of myself as a woman. I guess I feel like I am on a level playing field with men now, and that has improved my relationships with men no end.

Keep in mind of course that this is coming from a woman who always felt "empowered" as a sex worker....obviously a woman who was hurt by prostitution would feel very differently.

By the way....
With regard to the "women always want something in return for sex" debate, I find that a truly ridiculous sentiment. Who is really the "prostitute" here? The woman who will only have sex if she gets jewellery and a fancy car....or the man who will only spend money on a woman on the proviso that she gives him sex?? "I will only give you sex if you treat me like a queen"..."I will only treat you like a queen if you give me sex". Am I the only one who sees that both parties are as conniving as each other?????

[Rubber Nursey]

Philip,

re: "sexual confidence is a positive-feedback process"

You are sooo right! People always say that sex work is degrading and destroys your self esteem, but in reality....who wouldn't gain confidence in themselves and their ability when they have clients telling them that they are amazing, every working day??!!

And for the boys, I have had regulars that came to me shy and (...ummmm how can I say it..."unskilled"), and I watched their confidence (and technique) develop and improve over the course of time. I didn't lay back and fake it like many women will do. If he asked me if it felt good and it actually didn't, I would say "It feels so much better when you do...." Being able to bring me to orgasm would then give him the confidence to try bigger and better things, and ultimately it would give him the confidence to try it on the "outside world" with other women. (As Dickhead mentioned)

As for wishing that you could turn back time and learn earlier what you now know...that makes two of us! If only I had this 28 year old experience while I still had a 19 year old body....
LOL

[Joe Zop]

Well, those are all intriguing responses. I guess I asked the question for a couple of reasons (beyond rekindling the fire in here a bit) -- first, because there always is an undercurrent of frustration that drives this board, with men on the hunt for women to have sex with, the difficulties in easily obtaining that, and that frustration ends up expressing itself in a variety of ways; second because I wonder how this affects the core differences in the way the sexes view the sexual act (men tending to think of it first and foremost -- and at times exclusively -- as a physical act, women tending to think of it as an expression of intimacy); and third because, I guess, I wonder if we think about what kind of "drunks" we become when we have a lot, whether it's the mean or happy drunk. In this case sex being the drink of choice.

RN, I absolutely agree with you that the whole "something in return for sex" argument is a silly one in that both sides are equally culpable (trying to determine high moral ground between the vendor who wants to get the highest price for merchandise and the seller who wants it as cheaply as possible is a silly exercise, but more to the point here is how one places oneself in this rather than that role and the whole mercantile framework) but I bring it up because at its core it's an expression of Dickhead's very straight-forward statement that everyone has a price.

On a basic level I do tend to agree with Dickhead's statement, though it depends on what we mean by price, of course, be it $$$ or flowers or jewlery or a home-cooked meal or a car or the words "I love you" or a ring or looks or pheremones or whatever. Unlike his reaction of making the decision more simple, for me it makes it more complex and difficult, knowing that since everyone has a price so do I, and that becomes part of the equation I need to understand in any situation. Part of the delicate negotiation in any relationship is determining the price and then the willingness/ability to pay. I think Philip's response, which basically wishes for mass infiltration of sex professionals into society as a way of counteracting his programming about the attainability of "normal" women, is another guise of a similar sentiment -- how to somehow make everyone be available, in other words, how to have an equation that gives you a chance to be with who you want and to have clear parameters about how that might happen.

RN, the aspect you bring up about single girls who charge for it in their personal lives, and your occasional impulse to do the same, is exactly what I was getting to. You note that you kept work and lovelife separate, but what's the implication for those who don't, or even by the thought that that's a line that's attractive to cross? If one defines interpersonal relationships strictly in a mercantile framework, where does sentiment, attraction, mutual interests, etc. end up ranking on the scale of things? I know they're still there, but both parties in the equation inevitably have their own ranking process. It seems to me that by bringing money into the equation the issue of power is brought front and center, one way or another.

I also think this board clearly demonstrates that your statements about the male psyche and insecurity are dead on. Men constantly see themselves as being at risk because they are placed in the role of aggressor, which means they are regularly facing failure and trying to deal with the consequences of it, as well as needing to go at it again. (I think, as an aside, that's why baseball is such a popular sport among men -- where else can you fail seven times out of ten and be a superstar?) This insecurity is bred by being at risk of being rejected, not to mention issues of sexual ability (women can get by with lube, even if that's somehow seen as a horrifying cheat on arousal whereas men need to get it up, hence the million threads on viagra, even among those in their twenties) where men's dysfunction is impossible to camouflage, unlike women's. All this leads to a desire to have everything simple and quantifiable -- hence the desire to simply know what someone's price is, so it's possible to say, not worth it, too much, or hooray.

It's interesting, Philip, I was never a particular socially comfortable person growing up (used to say I never said a word to anyone until college) and though I've decidedly gone in the opposite direction in that though I regularly speak to groups I'm still basically an introvert at heart. My experience is one of really never being much involved in the dating scene, never really pursuing a formally defined "girlfriend" per se, but having some nonetheless. I think I went on three formally defined dates in my entire life, and found that process incredibly difficult. I found trying to understand the social rules around opposite-sex relationships completely baffling and impossible, and having sisters who pretty well did the same didn't help any. (Thank the gods I somehow managed to fall into a decent marriage.) But I never really thought of anyone as unattainable on an a priori basis, and I guess still don't. I wonder if somewhere underneath all this lurks our sense of our place in and control of the world -- I was raised to believe that not only could I do anything, I'd better not settle for less than spectacular, and that the whole equation depended not on the world or other people, but on my own ability to harness and focus my abilities. (Oh yeah, btw, talk about a double-edged sword -- rah-rah, go get them, but don't screw up. Nice way into RN's insecurity stew.)

I think your point about facade and RN's about understanding the male psyche are parallel tracks.

Finally, to try to bring this rambling mess to a close, I'll return to my drunk scenario as a way of taking on my own question. I'm someone who, on those rare occasions I get blotto, am basically one of those love-the-world drunks as opposed to the aggressive kind. I find that being around the sex industry has had a similar effect on me, in that I've probably become more rather than less tolerant of people's needs, motivations, and foibles as they seem all to come from the same package of ingredients, all of which I also contain. But my general view of things, unfortunately, is also that most folks I come in contact with in the sex industry, on either side of the client/provider divide, tend ultimately to get their frustration level amplified rather than reduced, and that inevitably has an affect on their outlook.

[Philip Augustus]

To RN:

"Youth is wasted on the young."
-- George Bernard Shaw :-)

You obviously like to build others up, a nurturer. Isn't it depressing how many people seem to think that there is only a fixed quantity of self-esteem in the world, and the more others have, the less there will be for them?

[Philip Augustus]

To Joe:
Another great essay!

I’m neither a happy nor a mean drunk, alcohol in quantity makes me sleepy or maudlin – but I understand what you say about “being around the sex industry” making you tolerant and benevolent. I would claim to be a fellow-exception to any general rule that it ramps up my frustration level. OK, it has happened that I have fallen unhappily in love with a provider in connection with getting laid, but I don’t see why that’s any worse than falling unhappily in love with a non-provider in connection with not getting laid.

Regarding Dickhead and his “price”, you are so right to classify the words “I love you” as a price. It is perhaps my greatest indictment of the fair sex that, given a choice between the honourable man who demonstrates love in action and the cad who says “I love you”, they almost invariably choose the latter. And then they call us shallow! I like what you say about the simplicity of knowing everyone’s price-tag.

You’re also right about “control and place in the world”. Critics of the scene say it’s about power, and of course it is – but power to do what? I don’t want the power to hurt or humiliate a working lady, but given my background I do appreciate the power to say, “I’d like you, please, let’s go”. That’s my “power to choose”. I guess the feminazis don’t understand or care about the difference.

Even more I like what you say about “trying to understand the social rules around opposite-sex relationships completely baffling and impossible”. It’s too much game and façade. (Someone once said to me, in a tone of astonishment: “Philip, you’re the same person with everyone you talk to!” Eh? And who else would I be?) The girls may have to present a false personality, but I think that in the brothel I myself can be….. ultimately authentic. Or what RN calls “primal”, a good word that. Unclothed in every sense.

[Joe Zop]

Not at all to derail the conversation, but...

In regard to the whole "I love you" thing, I tend to think that men and women approach that in rather different ways -- first, men all too often approach "I love you" in the way Americans do when they say, "I'll be with you a bit later" which is a meaningless way to get what you want, in the latter case a moment of breathing space or blowing someone off and in the former, laid. It's a rhetorical device without meaning if it's said too easily. I had to break myself of the habit of saying stuff like "in a minute" when travelling abroad, because people take it as a real promise as you're outside of the societal context where it's supposed to be meaningless. (I spent a couple of hours in Nairobi fulfilling casual promises to see merchants' wares because they came up to me days later and reminded me of my "promise" to come over.) Women trying to figure out guys' intentions are like those inhabitants of other societies seeking the true articulation of feelings from men who are unused to that kind of expression -- there are implications of committment and continuity involved, and I think it's understandable in a relationship to look for those. I think for women the statement often means, "You're someone I'd want/consider having children/a nest with" whereas to men it means, "I dunno about the whole family raising thing, but I'm all in favor of repeated creative attempts at conception, especially if there can be elevators, whipped creme, or weird positions involved." Or else it means, "I'll tell you what you want to hear; now can we please talk about something else, since this self-examination stuff hurts?"

Honestly, I don't think it's fair to rip women for wanting to hear it -- why should they be taken to task for being just as insecure and uncertain about where they stand as men? Why should they have to be the ones who aren't clueless when they're faced with guys who would say absolutely anything to go to bed with them? To quote Firesign Theatre: we're all bozos on this bus.

[Philip Augustus]

Juliet puts in her two cents:
"Attention, affection, companionship, validation, etc. I think people sometimes pretend it's all about money or sex because
they're afraid to admit that they long for these other
things......"

[Philip Augustus]

To Joe:
I agree that we’re all bozos on this bus, and the corresponding male error is perhaps to assume that a woman doesn’t love us if she’s not jumping into bed. I don’t make that one myself, because I’m comfortable with the idea of platonic love. I would still maintain, however, that paying attention to the three magic words at the expense of actual behaviour is a dangerous and even self-destructive thing to do. For every predatory man who tells them ILY just to get their pants off, there is another man who gives them real love in action, but is shy of saying the words. I don’t see why the words ILY should be a miracle cure for insecurity and uncertainty – I suppose I belong in Missouri.

How did we get into this in the MoP context? Ah, yes, it was that everyone has their “price”, and in this case some seem excessively happy with counterfeit money. With the debates in “American Women” in mind, I wonder if people find that the legendary Brazilians and so on pay less attention to the words ILY and more attention to actual caring and considerate behaviour? Myself, I have no idea.

[Joe Zop]

And that's not even to deal with the different things ILY means based on cultural context...

Actually, I think the idea of counterfeit money is a perfect metaphor in this thread -- after all, prostitution has a great deal of that currency as a necessary and welcomed part of its equation. Monopoly money is perfectly acceptable tender as long as everyone's playing the same game. (I know that Terry's against that, but his is a brave and quixotic quest, I think.) I don't at all disagree with you that women can at times be blind to who actually cares about them, but we men are every bit as good at misreading signals. (I had a conversation a couple of years ago with a woman I knew who worked as a stripper and she told me she'd tried to get me to sleep with her for years, but I apparently wasn't interested. Clueless, oblivious and dazzled is more like it.)

RN referenced being in "the life" helping her discern "woman-hating losers" better; certainly I know tons of women who desperately could use the same skills. At the same time I could also wish some of my buddies understood that there's more to a relationship than big tits, as their attraction to top-heavy emotional cannibals astonishes me.

Of course, within the context of my original question, I also consistently see both men and women who enter into the sex industry in search of something (and sex is usually not really it, though it's involved) and end up disappointed that they didn't find it. For men, that can be an intimate relationship where they're somehow "special" beyond the time limit of time purchased, and for women it can quite often be some level of, how can I say it, maybe self-worth or reinforcement of self-image? (Not at all discounting the economics, of course.) I'm constantly amazed by the number of absolutely stunning women I've met in the biz who start out a conversation about themselves by reciting a list of their bodily flaws. Of course, as RN's noted in the past, it's also an industry where your desireability gets measured in that way, and where like it or not you've got some degree of an expiration sticker pasted on your nether cheek, at least for some clients. At the same time, if you look at the archives of some of the conversations on this board, the number of men who feel "cheated" because sex workers somehow take advantage of them emotionally or financially is astounding if all they're after is sex.

But of course we all remember the slights more sharply than the praise :-)

[The Virgin Terr]

i've been away for a while mostly because of difficulty in logging in to the new system, which u'll note has forced me to drop the y off my name. anyway, i got a laugh out of philip's coining of the phrase "differently charismatic" several weeks ago in reference 2 the proliferation of "politically correct" speech in our language recently; it's an apt description for those of us lacking in what i guess may be termed mainstream charm. how about "charismatically challenged"? also, philip, for someone who claims 2 have never been in the u.s., u have an impressive knowledge of it as evidenced by your recent reference to missouri as the "show me" state.

in reference 2 joe's recent query regarding how experience with the sex industry changes someone, for me i'd have 2 say it has had a positive influence of humanizing beautiful women, in that i've been able 2 experience intimacy with them which previously had been unattainable. simply being able 2 physically touch someone freely has that effect. not being able to has the effect of making them seem ethereal. i much prefer perceiving and experiencing them as real human beings.

i have a new question for you all: have you supported in the past or would you support in the future any organization devoted 2 decriminalization? it's a dream of mine 2 create or help create such an organization, perhaps based on civil disobedience and defiance of current laws and mainstream attitudes. i wonder just how much latent support for such activity exists among the millions of people who currently secretly support the sex industry via their direct participation in it?

the virgin terry

[Rubber Nursey]

Arrgghhh! I forgot how hard it is to keep up with the conversation, with all you guys chatting in the same timezone!

Ok.....
Juliet,
As always, you have hit the nail on the head in my opinion. Can I just say now while I have the opportunity, that I think you are a truly exceptional woman. :) Anyway, what you said about wanting affection, etc is actually the answer I was going to give to one of Joe's questions...

Joe,
re: single girls charging people in their private life rather than "giving it away". I should clarify that when I said I had considered doing it myself, it had NOTHING to do with the money. In fact, it's about all those things that Juliet mentioned. Let me say that if I was to meet a man that I was truly attracted to, I would never contemplate charging him. If it was a man that I was not terribly attracted to though and he was persistent, the thought of charging him would cross my mind. I guess it all comes down to that same point that everyone has just made about needing to "get something" out of the transaction. When confronted with the opportunity to have a one night stand with someone I am not entirely sure about, I would probably evaluate it by thinking "Am I going to get love?" No. "Am I going to get affection?" No. "Am I going to get great sex?" No. In the past if I came up with no "benefits" to saying yes to him, I would walk away. These days, thanks to working in the industry, another "benefit" would cross my mind that I would never have thought of before... "Can I make money out of this?" Yes.

Yeah, I know that sounds materialistic and all, but in truth it's the same argument as I always give for prostitution. If he wants me and is willing to pay for it, and I want money and am willing to have sex with him for it....it's a win-win situation. Everyone's happy. As for what damage could be done to girls who cross the line and charge for sex in their private lives? I really don't think it would do any. Perhaps she is afraid of intimate relationships? Maybe she hates men? Or maybe....she is single and loving it and doesn't see any reason to have sex with someone unless she is being duly rewarded. The only reason that I had a "line" in the first place, was because it kept the "brothel worker" me and the "housewife/mother" me as separate people in my mind. That was something that I felt I needed to do, but many girls would feel that is totally unnecessary. How girls deal with the perils of "living a double life" is a very individual thing.

I also agree with you when you said that dealing with the sex industry makes people frustrated, but I think it may be for a slightly different reason to yours. To me, the sex industry is the most honest, open and accepting environment that anyone can step into. Everything is up front and open.....no mind games or emotional turmoil. Just straight sex the way you want it, when you want it, with no strings attached. Personally, I tend to believe that the frustration felt by people who have dealt with the industry, is caused when they step back into the "real world" and realise just how petty and cruel and difficult it really is.

Philip,
re: the power of control
That's exactly what I meant in the above statement. The client has the power to choose his partner, specify his fantasies (that she will perform in exactly the way she is told to) and know that he can be completely selfish with his emotions and she will not be upset by it. With a sex worker he can have his cake and eat it too. The sex worker is in exactly the same position of control, which is something that a woman doesn't always feel in relationships in the real world.
I think the fact that when we step back outside of the industry, the feeling of power and confidence and the easy exchanges with the opposite sex disappear...the insecurities return. IMHO it is from that loss of control and sense of "belonging" that the aforementioned frustration comes from.

[Philip Augustus]

Counterfeit money – or Pokemon cards, where kids can have fun collecting and comparing the variants, but can be conned into believing that cards have an objective dollar value (i.e., independently of what other kids will pay for them).

If your stripper tried to sleep with me for years, I’d probably miss it too. What about “woman-loving losers”, then? “Top-heavy emotional cannibals”, LOL!

I will confess, I continually seek “a relationship where I’m somehow "special" beyond the time limit of time purchased” – I can’t help it, though I can help the degree to which I expect it (not much) and how cross I get when I don’t get it (ditto). I regard being a valued and liked regular as a reasonable objective. You’re right about the indignation evinced by some guys being a pointer. I had a TG (living in my country) cultivate me by phone, until she worked up to asking me to do a pro forma marriage for some relative, whereupon I said a polite no and she disappeared. But I wasn’t mad at her, and wasn’t sure why she didn’t stay in contact to keep me warm as a repeat customer; shame, or the assumption that I would be mad at her?

Know what you mean by self-dissatisfied stunning women, too. That goes for the absolute number-one courtesan I’ve ever met, who appeared to enjoy, nay, need the sex, perhaps due to this perception of herself as unattractive. As you say, too, there’s no way you can talk such a woman into perceiving herself as beautiful, whether she’s professional or amateur, though we shall continue to try, shall we not?

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe,

Hearing "I love you" come out of a man's mouth before sex holds about as much weight as hearing "I'll call you" after the fact! LOL Any man who would toy with a woman's insecurities like that, just to get laid, is in my opinion a total a**hole...BUT any woman who would hear that from a man she hardly knows and actually believe it is obviously a complete fool, and will probably benefit greatly from the lesson she will ultimately learn when it's over! :) (Hmmm does that attitude qualify me as a chauvenist pig??)

Terry,
Not only do I believe in such an organization, but I currently work for one. I am also a member of a sex worker activist/lobbying group, and have spoken in the media and in public about the issues many times. There are already quite a few organisations in the US that are fighting for decriminalisation as we speak...perhaps you should get in touch with some of them and offer your support. Active members from the "secret society" of prostitutes and their clients are very hard to come by! I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms. :)

[Philip Augustus]

To RN:
Only an Australian would perceive Joe and I as living in the same time zone! J

You’re right about Juliet! She doesn’t want to register herself, but if I cut and paste the conversation into e-mails for her, and paste her comments back, it’s doable.

It’s a funny thing, but what you describe is done every day by women who would be very indignant at the P word, but it’s called “dinner at <whatever>”. It’s only when it’s actual banknotes that people get upset.

I like what you say about the “easy exchanges” in the sex industry, and the sense of cheerful acceptance. Exactly what I’ve always felt.

Did I mention Herodotus and the Lydians here before? He tells us that, instead of being married off with parental dowries to the parental choice, the Lydian girls all worked as prostitutes until they’d accumulated their own dowries, then married whom they wanted. Go, Lydians, go!

[Joe Zop]

I agree, RN, but I think the devil is in the detail of how much one "hardly knows" someone, and how much the woman holds the pronouncement as the key to the kingdom, as it were. Many guys easily translate ILY into "I want/desire you" in the same way that ILY in, say, the Thailand sex scene can mean, "let's take care of each other." Others of course take it as a sacred statement of committment. And if the dangle is that saying the words is the only way to move forward in the relationship, there are plenty of people, both male and female, who will say them because it*might* be true, though they wouldn't swear to it on a stack of bibles. And of course there are plenty of both men and women who don't learn a darn thing from their mistakes in this regard, as what they want is still what they want :-)

In the context of Philip's response here, I think we're also talking about the difference between someone who comes on the scene and puts on a big romantic production (which certainly declares one's interest) and caps it with the ILY pronouncement as opposed to someone who's steadily there for someone when they need them, supportive, but shy about doing the grand production. Everyone likes to be fussed over, and everyone can have their head turned by it, but there's showing and there's showing.

And Terry, I've monetarily supported such organizations (check out COYOTE, for example) though I've not lent public support, as unfortunately in my work I deal with folks to whom such a public declaration would be viewed as the execution of a successful professional suicide.

[Joe Zop]

Ah, RN, but the scenario you describe (charging someone who is persistent but you're not attracted to) isn't necessarily win-win. It might be win for you, in that you're getting $$$ and essentially sidelining someone who's trying to have a relationship with you, but what the man is "getting" isn't necessaily what he was after/bargaining for, and there's a degree of disingenuousness about the whole process. Translating a potential or would-be suitor into a paying customer does change the fundamental nature of the relationship, and while that might be fine from your perspective, there are two sides to the coin.

Now, if the guy is clear on the change and ok with it, because basically he wants your body and not to be part of your life, then that's fine. And that might no doubt work in a situation where his interest is entirely sexual. But there's distinctly the possibility of damage here, as even if he says he's ok with it, it might well be that he perceives the rules and price you've set as the only way to get to you. Seems to me like a good way to create a stalker scenario, to be honest, or someone who at the very least feels he "owns" you in some way. A clear "no" seems a better approach, or handing him a business card that has your rates, which also send a pretty clear message.

At least in the industry there are clear parameters which can help make clear that situation.

[Philip Augustus]

To Joe:
What does “Let’s take care of each other” actually mean in the Thailand sex scene? Being as nice as we can to one another as long as the ships are within hailing distance? Do you know how the Thai language divides up the emotional spectrum?

What you say about the “key to the kingdom” is precisely what I had in mind. If the woman makes an IF – GOTO gate here, then we know what’s going to happen, don’t we?

[Joe Zop]

originally posted by philip augustus
to joe:
what does “let’s take care of each other” actually mean in the thailand sex scene? being as nice as we can to one another as long as the ships are within hailing distance? do you know how the thai language divides up the emotional spectrum?
it mostly means -- i'll have sex with you as much as you like as long as we go shopping when we're not screwing, and you support my entire extended family. (which, in the western scheme of things, still ends up being fairly reasonable in cost.) but the main issue on point is the ease and speed with which the statement is made, as it's a clear quid pro quo.

and i'm afraid my thai is too rudimentary at this point (working on it, and expect to learn tons during my extended time there this fall) to know enough to make critical delineations. i'm still wading through translations of the various regional mythic texts as i get time, right now.

what you say about the “key to the kingdom” is precisely what i had in mind. if the woman makes an if – goto gate here, then we know what’s going to happen, don’t we?
yup, it's george mallory logic at work -- climbing everest "because it's there" -- and often with the same result as with him, meaning lost, dead and frozen for 75 or so years :-)

[Philip Augustus]

To Joe:
Thanks! Sounds as if ILY is Thai shorthand for a certain sort of strategic alliance that, like the best alliances, is of benefit to both sides. Some cultures, including I believe the Judaism of Jesus' day, have the institution of very short-term "marriage", which is what this sounds like; Catholic marriage is a much longer-term strategic alliance, whereas other Western marriage falls somewhere in the middle. However, the Western ILY doesn't really tell us much about the terms of the deal, does it?

Going back to the Missourian approach, I forgot to mention that I can say ILY unsolicited -- though I hardly ever do -- but being asked to say it freezes my screen.

You're using Mallory on the wrong guy, Joe: although I've never been any higher than 3770 metres, I always considered his to be the perfect answer to the question; and he had a good death.....

[The Virgin Terr]

my participation as a prostitute client has changed me alot. it's helped me overcome sexual shame and perceive women as sexual beings also. in contemplating criminalization and the harm it brings to people who are simply trying to meet their own needs, i can only know bafflement and feel rage for those who advocate it. desire for godlike power to be able to destroy them who i perceive as inhuman and unspeakably vicious and evil. i'll be going to my grave alienated from the mainstream of humanity, and this particular issue as much or more than any other explains why. those who think sex is "dirty" and sexual freedom immoral are in my mind an abomination, and i trust that eventually nature will rid herself of humanity if humanity persists in condemning itself for it's own sexuality.

[Joe Zop]

And your reports and advice on all this are where, exactly? Lots of folks in this thread are frequent contributors elsewhere in the forum. People having a philosophical discussion here in no way negatively impacts your desire to pay to get laid.

VT -- unfortunately, whether sex is seen as dirty or not, we're far more likely to procreate our way into oblivion than any other way, I think.

But your post does bring up a big issue -- in this age when sex education is now available in schools (unlike when I grew up) and there's far more information available, where is the institution or process that talks about the healthy aspects of sex? We all know that the two major causes of marital breakups are sex and money, but with the exception of various self-help books and the occasional Doctor Ruth column there's still a dearth of discussion about healthy sex drives or relationships. And, from what I can tell, that's pretty much true cross-culturally, and cross-gender. Comments?

[Philip Augustus]

i’m totally with terry about punting being a cure for sexual shame, but despite the possibility that we have suffered from the same kind of damage, i don’t feel as vindictive as he does; and agree with joe that if we go extinct, it won’t be because of sexual repression, however hard this has been on individuals.

joe’s suggestion that we suffer from a shortage of pro-sex propaganda, however, puzzles me greatly. juliet insists to me that no one in the us takes the anti-heterosex feminazis seriously any more, and the religious right don’t impinge on her big city either. where i live there is a daily newspaper appealing to the liberal intelligentsia that is forever doing features on erotic massage and improving your sex life. we have gay marriage. and the general ethos here is positive to all forms of sexuality except [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), ****philia -- and paying for it.

i’d prefer to turn this around: the person who is invisible in all this entertainment, discussion and propaganda is not the one who is having lots of healthy sex, but the one who isn’t, because he or she is not very desirable. if i appear to bang on about this a lot, well, rn has her crusade for the dignity of the sex worker, and i have mine for the residual humanity, in the teeth of all the prejudices, of the differently attractive. “if you prick us, do we not bleed, if you tickle us, do we not laugh”?

ever noticed how doctors think they can tell us to “have sex” or “start a sexual relationship” the way they can tell us to eat more broccoli? whatever they might have known in civilian clothes about unequal access to sex is magically removed from their brains by the white coat. of course, as doctors they’re ipso facto sexy themselves, so what do they know about how the other half lives? a hundred years ago they would have advised us to visit prostitutes, which they can’t do now, because le and/or pc would get them; so they give us advice which is as cruel as telling the wheelchair user to go jogging.

[Joe Zop]

Philip -- I agree with Juliet regarding anti-heterosex feminazis; they've always been a rather vocal minority in any event. I wish her sense of the religious right spread beyond those large cities, as in the heartlands their anti-sex crusades are quite powerful, and their grassroots political agenda revolves around control of local school boards. Hence there is still a fair amount of pressure on sex-education measures, ranging from abstinence campaigns to anti-abortion scare tactics (nothing like showing school kids pics of aborted fetuses, eh?) to the ever-popular attempts to either not teach evolution or include faith-based theories as well. Always good to have the local Montessori school also host fire and brimstone teachings on the shortly upcoming apocalypse (based on the fact that it's Sodom and Gemorrah out there), as happens where I live...

And my statement wasn't simply about a lack of pro-sex information (I can go into any bookstore and find something) but about the corresponding lack of structural or institutional societal support. I don't disagree with you that there's a fair amount of pro-sex propaganda, but here it's generally very targetted at folks who are already enlightened as opposed to being a mainstream aspect of "happy person building." It's for "liberal intelligentsia" as opposed to those who are without much of either liberality or intellgensia :-) I'd like to see it be dealt with as part of the sex education process (though that will never happen) so not only do you learn how babies are made and the specifics of various organs from a biological perspective, you learn what the standard ranges of human sexual response and processes happen to be, physiological differences based not only on pregnancy but on human sexual response. I'd like to see a scenario where marriage counselors easily can just send someone to sex counseling as a normal, non-shaming and inexpensive way of ceasing to fuck up their relationship because they're not properly fucking up each other. While the absolute stigma about being part of a species that actually has sex once in a while has subsided, I think it's a long way to say that the other side of the coin is the one facing up.

This doesn't, of course, in any way whatsoever conflict with your quest for the differently attractive, and I completely agree with you about doctors. But of course their method is usually to deliver the news about what you need to do, and, unless it's via a pill or a knife, they're generally not very helpful about the how.

Hmm -- what do you think about the possibility of getting sex workers officially reclassified as health care workers? :-) After all. if it's what the doctor ordered... and I'd love to have insurance coverage as well, thank you very much. O Nursey, I've got a prescription that needs filling!

[The Virgin Terr]

i just wrote a really long fucking message which got lost when i had to go back on line because my isp automatically disconnects after an hour of inactivity. doesn't that just [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) me off? that doesn't happen when i do e-mail, losing the message i mean, while going back on-line. anyhow, now that wisdom is lost to the ages. in short, i agreed with u joe about the lack of social support for pleasurable, responsible sex, particularly for teenagers, which is why they have the highest rates of std's and unwanted pregnancies. i disagreed with u, phil, in that while sexual repression may not physically kill us it does much harm to our psyches and our ability to love one another, and it is the lack of love which i refer to as the spiritual basis for our self destructiion, regardless of how it may physically manifest, i.e. nuclear war.

[Philip Augustus]

Terry:
My sympathies; I get around that by writing in Word offline, logging on, logging in, and pasting. I understand your position on lack of good sex leading to lack of love and perhaps thence to war, but we’ll have to agree to differ on that one.

Joe:
Funny how fundamentalist loonies are quite all right as long as they’re not Muslim fundamentalist loonies, isn’t it? Apropos your wish to teach “what the standard ranges of human sexual response and processes happen to be, physiological differences based not only on pregnancy but on human sexual response”, I am reminded of Camille Paglia’s insistence that a feminist should know something of biology, physiology, endocrinology and neurology before pontificating about men and women. In both cases it will be a fight, as Western liberals have been bamboozled by generations of social-constructionism. These may be positive to sex, but they still don’t understand it. Human nature in general and sexual nature in particular is not what either religious or secular Pollyannas want it to be.

“What do I think about the possibility of getting sex workers officially reclassified as health care workers?” Where I live we’re practically there – as regards professional sexual services for the disabled, but only for the disabled. This is not due to any re-evaluation of prostitution in general, but simply because two different flavours of political correctness have collided head-on. The disabled man’s rights to sexual experience take precedence, and everyone somehow contrives to “forget”, in this context alone, that this is “the sale of women’s bodies”.

[The Virgin Terr]

i had a dream this a.m. which has connected a few threads recent to this discussion. it involved a gorgeous young woman i know. in it, i was able 2 eat her out, but still lacked the confidence 2 go a step further, the ultimate step of intercourse. this brings up what i perceive as my main problem in life and particularly with relating 2 women; lack of confidence. i'm sufficiently physically attractive and intelligent 2 succeed with women: my downfall is and always has been related 2 profound personal insecurity. activity with prostitutes has certainly helped overcome that 2 some degree, but thanx 2 criminalization and the resultant scarcity, stigma, and expense of indulging has prevented me from conquering this problem. i believe in a world where prostitution were decriminalized, it would be the most common form of heterosexual relationship and virtually eliminate sexual problems such as mine. it would also virtually eliminate the problems women most frequently have with men which have also been discussed here; i.e. being taken advantage of by suave deceitful charmers, as such naivete would be rare in a world where sex was freely enjoyed and it's benefits to all openly known. it would be a rare woman indeed who would consider her attractiveness to men a curse when that attractiveness becomes a reliable meal ticket instead of a lure for manipulative losers.

as i've gotten older and learned the ways of the world so to speak my confidence problem has shifted in focus somewhat away from myself towards my fellow humans. beings which are stupid and sadistic enough 2 criminalize something as beneficial as consensual sex, (and make no mistake about it, decriminalized prostitution would become the most common form of consensual sex, and nonconsensual sex would be virtually eliminated), are difficult 2 perceive as being inherently attractive psychologically. hence the evolution of my perception that we humans are a spiritual cancer which should and eventually will become extinct if we don't mend our ways.

i'm curious, p.a., where do u live?

the virgin terry

[Joe Zop]

again, i don't have the same generally nihilistic view that you do, terry, nor do i at *all* think that legalizing prostitution would do anything to affect [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) (which is not about sex but power and control) but i can empathise with your issues of self-confidence, as i think that's a universal chord. i'm not sure i'd go so far as you to saying that legal prostitution would become the most common form of consensual sex -- i think that basic human relationships, which, despite the impression one might get from reading this board, do exist and can be healthy and happy for both partners, are still and would remain the core and common aspect of life. we've not seen a disappearence of those relationships in places like the netherlands where prostitution is legal and readily available, for instance.

i also don't see all or even most women deciding their attractiveness translates into a meal ticket in that scenario. some might, of course. people want different things out of life, so while some might see dollar signs, others might simply see lack of stigma, and most will still be on the quest to be loved, cherished, and simply less alone in the world.

personally, i find confidence, attractiveness and self-esteem are all related to outlook (though i'm not at *all* discounting the truth of philip's differently attractive situations.) i'm generally a depressive -- runs in my family -- but i've definitely found that if i go through life defining people as having negative designs on my freedoms (which clearly many do) then i see only the bad side of them (which everyone including me has) as opposed to their positive aspects. there are very few people i've run into, including the most fanatic, who i don't find i can engage in a healthy conversation about our differences in perspective, and where i can't affect either some degree of change or at least greater understanding. it's work, and you don't put a light-bulb on in someone's head, but you can affect gradual perspective changes, and that's how all of us develop our attitudes toward things. and if nothing else, by figuring out what's good about them and appealing to it, you challenge someone to either go in that direction of increase their level of self-loathing (not that many won't choose the latter.)

don't get me wrong -- i'm not some sort of guileless happy idiot; i back down from confrontation *far* less often than i ought to, and i get pissed off as well, but in general i've found that my indignation or anger, except in scenarios of imminent danger, are counterproductive to helping develop those things or environments that i want. i figure the way to fight the intolerent is by being as ultimately tolerant as i can, including toward them.

philip -- your explanation regarding the disabled decidedly helps explain how you've been couching your quest for recognition of the differently attractive. i suspect, unfortunately, in the current climate of beauty worship that it's a decidedly uphill battle (just read through the "fat" diatribes in the american women section for starters) not that it's not an important issue and one worth highlighting. to me, it brings up that entire issue of "thrownness" which i've referenced before in terms of priviledge -- it's not as though i did anything to become american, white, male and tall as opposed to, say, short, female, an african of the luo tribe, whose chances for escape from or rising above my circumstances are decidely more problematic.

but by the same token, the male obsession with issues of female beauty as defined by the culture (young, thin, big breasts, a general category of facial features) does anything but reinforce that as well. juliet's past comments in regard to "competing" on the attractiveness scale are very appropriate. we're all conditioned by culture -- the question is, what do we do about it.

and, for what it's worth, my method is to always copy longer responses into my computer's memory (ctrl-a and then ctrl-c for pc users) before i hit submit. that way i don't lose things unless my system crashes, which generally doesn't happen.

[Philip Augustus]

terry:
although i agree with joe on the relationship between amateur sex, prostitution and [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), i know what you mean about punting breaking down shame and insecurity; i think you might make even more headway against that if only you lived in a different jurisdiction, without, as you say, criminalisation and stigma. have you been in the big european, asian and latin american honeypots?

i’d rather not specify my location too precisely, if you don’t mind: i’ve cheated somewhat by citing examples from both this country and some of its neighbours, creating a composite. let’s just say northern europe?

joe:
after height the most desirable male characteristic is probably confidence, which is where both terry and i crash and burn – i’m not actually that hideous, which is why i prefer the differently-charismatic to the otherwise-attractive label. but hey, an inability to blow one’s own trumpet and strut one’s stuff should count as a disability too. the thing i like about brothels is that they have to do the advertising and competing, not me.

[The Virgin Terr]

i'm too computer illiterate to know what the hell u guys r talking about in reference 2 saving messages. i just need 2 keep mine shorter and accept it if they occasionally get lost. some of the messages which get posted here r 2 long anyhow.

come on, p.a., don't be so paranoid! u can at least give your country's name. r u afraid the frigging morality police r going 2 hunt u down and flog u in public for being such a shameless punter? if i were wealthy enough and had time enough 2 travel the world, 2 countries in europe i'd check out r the netherlands and switzerland, because both have effectively legalized my favorite recreational and therapeutic drug, marijuana, and i love mountains and prostitutes. if i didn't have such a case of social anxiety, i could probably enjoy a carefree hippie life bumming around the world, checking out alternative lifestyle communes and finding a place where i'd belong.

i lived in the american southwest near the mexican border for a few years, and it is with mexican women that i've had most of my experience with prostitution. mexico seems to be saturated with very young and attractive ladies, perhaps because they still have a relatively high birthrate so their population isn't aging like america's.

[The Virgin Terr]

i had 2 cut the previous letter short for fear of losing it. picking up where i left off: had some sweet times in mexico, where, in case u didn't know, prostitution is "tolerated" within certain zoned areas of their cities. it's de facto legalization, or decrim, and given the latitude of freedom with which the women there may operate, and their inexpensive rates due to the relative poverty of the country, it was a paradise for me compared 2 america. the worst aspect of it was the language barrier, but that wasn't such a big deal. it would have been nice however to have been able to communicate much more comprehensively with the girls in order to discover which ones i could have enjoyed intellectual companionship with as well. again, if i had the money, i would conduct a search for a prostitute with whom i could develop a complete and comprehensive relationship with, someone with an abundance of physical beauty, libido, intelligence, iconoclasm, and thirst for adventure and knowledge.

never checked out the scenes in europe and asia. i'd definitely like to check out places like the philippines and thailand. there's a book titled PATPONG SISTERS written by a sexy american female grad student who lived in bangkok while doing research on prostitution there. she enjoyed herself immensely there, lived like a queen on her student stipend because things were so cheap. good book.

j.z., why do u place asterisks *around* certain words in your posts? re. how decrim. would impact the amount of sexual activity in society, perhaps my personal viewpoint is skewed. i know i would certainly get laid alot more, as i'm sure alot of other guys would also, but i think what might surprise alot of people would be how much this would expand things for women in general, who need more reasons or encouragement than men to overcome their naturally more inhibited nature, and the physical risks posed by contraceptives, pregnancy, increased vulnerabilty to HIV infection, and emotional issues (sorry, RN, women r different from men, in ways which dispose them towards lesser sexual activity). this is idealistic, but decrim if it happened would necessarily be accompanied by much greater acceptance of sexual freedom and promiscuity in general, and that alone would make a huge difference in helping women break free from current restrictions and be empowered to make choices which most under current conditions can't or won't do, such as accepting money for sex. perhaps decrim wouldn't result in most sex occuring under conditions of prostitution, but undoubtedly it would lead 2 a huge increase overall in the amount of sex people would engage in.

the virgin terry

[The Virgin Terr]

responding 2 the rest of your letter, joe, i agree that [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) isn't about sex per se; but i do think a world which didn't criminalize consensual sex or other consensual behavior would be such a nicer world to be a human in that the social conditions which create [CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127) to begin with would for the most part no longer exist. same for terrorists, and all other sorts of ant****ial behavior.

i admire your ability 2 get along with those with whom u disagree, but i guess i'm just not built that way. views which i vehemently disagree with necessarily alienate me 2 the extent that i can't trust a person from which they proceed. without trust, there can be no friendship or respect. since most people hold such views, my world is necessarily quite lonely.

[Joe Zop]

Terry, the asterisks are just for emphasis -- an old habit from the days before web pages, when that's how it was done :-)

I suspect you'd like Amsterdam, as everything's very straightforward there, though very often definitely done according to the clock. Not all that expensive a trip from the states. Places like Thailand are a good deal more like Mexico in terms of unofficial tolerance as opposed to outright legalization, and things are a bit more casual there in that it's pretty easy to get someone to stay with you for longer periods of time. It might, though, be a rather dangerous place for you emotionally, as there are a lot of folks who lose their heads, hearts and wallets over there because they're treated so differently from what they're used to by the women there. "Patpong Sisters" is a nice read; you might also take a look at "Private Dancer" by Stephen Leather, which is a free download (www.stephenleather.com) -- it's not as well written imho, but it gives a nice sense of the underlying tensions therein. Given your experience with Mexico, I'd think that Brazil would appeal to you greatly as well, as I'd say similar aspects to Thailand are present, with the cultural and sensibility differences not being quite as large.

While I agree with you that women are more physically at risk in the sexual equation, I simply don't see the removal of the stigma of prostitution as being the balm that suddenly makes the female population think of their orifices as equivalent to cash machines or turns them into raving sexaholics who suddenly feel the urge to sleep with guys who they previously wouldn't. Clearly, there's been a lot of change in sexual attitudes in western society over the last forty years or so, and things are far more tolerant than they used to be, but I just don't see the criminalization of prostitution, much as I disagree with it, as being the big shackle that holds back the rest of the revolution that's keeping women from sleeping with guys they're otherwise not sleeping with. I truly wish that were the case, but I just don't see it that way.

I do, however, think decriminalization can help a society take another look at its mores and assumptions, and there are some very interesting things out there on how attitudes have shifted in the Netherlands. But it's not a headlong dash into utopia nor am I aware of any study that says that overall sexual activity goes through the roof. In fact, most studies I've seen say that US teenagers of 18 or 19, for example, are far more likely to have had multiple sexual partners in the last year than their European counterparts (which probably also helps account for the higher US rates in AIDS, pregnancy, syphillis, etc.)

Clearly, though, a healthy discussion has positive results, as the Netherlands, which has an aggressive and open display not only of available sex but of available and public sex education, has the lowest teenage pregnancy rate in Europe, far, far lower than the US, as well as a later general age for beginning sexual activity. There a far more healthy attitude overall toward discussing sex in Dutch society in general than you'll find in Britain or the US. It's possible that may be related to decriminalization, if only because the clear and visible nature of the sex trade means the Dutch must be more active in their educational efforts, as there's no avoiding the issue.

[Philip Augustus]

Terry:
LOL! Mountains and prostitutes. Good combination. Some dangers, but you know where you are with them, and get healthy exercise and some great views…. I know Switzerland a little. News to me that they’ve legalised marijuana, but then I don’t smoke. What part of the country do you know best? Of course, Switzerland is no place to live for people who have trouble with bourgeois social codes. I’ve lurked a little in the Mexican sections, but I don’t think I’ve ever met a Mexican….. Never been to Thailand, it’s far too hot for me, but I’ve met Thais in Switzerland and here. And Brazilians here and in the Iberian countries.

I do know what you’re trying to do, Terry. You think that because meeting a provider short-circuits a lot of social bullshit, you can deploy your good qualities to better advantage, and that they will appreciate you because you’re a nice guy and treat them kindly. I used to speculate in that direction myself, though my friends were very sceptical. A provider once agreed that they are less impressed by surfaces than amateurs – before breaking my heart.

Joe:
English tabloids STILL use the word “naughty”, which tells us a lot. They also use “vice girl”, but that’s partly because “prostitute” is such a long and difficult word….. “Naughty vicar in vice girl shock”, that sort of thing. At the same time, a lot of students are hooking their way though college, which means that in twenty years’ time some top professionals will be ex-providers, it will be interesting to see what effect that has. In fact, of everywhere I’ve been, the UK (outside London) has the best NATIVE workers, whereas in other West European countries the locals are often cold or junkies. What a paradox.

[The Virgin Terr]

i've never been 2 switzerland, p.a. know a little about it , of course. i get a weekly newsletter which keeps me well informed of what's happening in the world of drug reform and the on-going "war on drugs". most of europe it appears is much more tolerant, particularly re. marijuana. the u.s. to my disgust continues 2 attempt 2 bully other nations towards the harsh intolerance and severe criminal penalties we have here, officially.

mexicans did strike me as being friendlier and more down-to-earth than most americans. perhaps wealth gives us "bourgeois" attitudes, at least many of us.

from what i know of dutch society, most of the rest of the world ought to be following in their footsteps. i too was aware of the comparative statistics re. teen pregnancy. i wasn't aware that dutch teens are less sexually active, or become sexually active at a later age. if so, that surprises me and frankly goes against my own ideal, which is that adolescents should become sexually active early, with the knowledge, guidance and support of older adults. this is a bit off topic, but i do feel very strongly that we should do this, instead of preaching abstinence and forcing young people into clandestine and often risky behavior, and i also feel that adolescence is a crucial opportunity for developing either positive or negative attitudes about sex, which may last a lifetime. if we're ever to break the generational cycle of puritanical hypocrisy, we must stop attempting to force or intimidate our youth into mandatory celibacy.

although the dutch and some others have become more tolerant of prostitution, i'm sure they have a long way to go in ending the social stigma. as you may know the u.s. laws prohibit foreigners with prostitution records from entering the u.s. again, the u.s. does what it can to dissuade countries like holland from becoming more tolerant. anyway, my point is that one can't judge how women would react under a society which was truly free and tolerant, because there aren't any which come that close. you've forced me a bit on the defensive on this one, joe, but i prefer to maintain my faith that with some extreme radical social change, we humans are capable of becoming rather similar to our close relatives the chimpanzees, who are well known for having a whole lotta sex.

[Joe Zop]

ah, vt, don't want to put you on the defensive, and i certainly agree with you about the us and its desire to imprint behavior and morality patterns on the world. particularly now that those patterns are more conservative. let's simply acknowledge that using the us as a yardstick is, well, using yards when the rest of the world uses meters...

that said, i've got to disagree with you again, this time regarding the encouragement of sexual activity among teens. i applaud the dutch statistics, as it says to me that in a society where sex is open, obvious and discussed, teens have the ability to make choices they deem proper without being channelled into either a kind of "bad dog" celibacy or a "hey you're young, go for it" active state. the age of consent in the netherlands is 12, and teens actually have the ability to become legal prostitutes at 16, so it's not as if there's an overarching legal pressure to stay celibate, as there is here (where there's an embarrasing number of statuatory [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) cases when one kind is a year older than the other, with the latter being below the age limit.) to me, the essence of choice is defined by the context and knowledge conveyed, and the degree of freedom to choose that's given, not what the specifics of the choices made happen to be.

by the same token, i don't know all that many kids in their early to mid-teens (and i know quite a few) who are emotionally mature enough to fully understand the full nature of sexual relationships, which certainly go beyond the "damn, that feels good" level. i've got a niece who's now fifteen and who's been sexually active since twelve, and the lesson she's gotten from sex (and this is as she stated it to me) is that if she's old enough to do what adults do physically then she's old enough to do anything she pleases, as that's what adults do. i've spent time working in schools, and it's frightening the number of thirteen-year old girls who want to get pregnant as quickly as possible because a baby will make them be grown up. yikes!

i'm in favor of people who have the ability to truly understand the consequences of their choices, no matter what their age or circumstance, having the ability to make those choices. (that "truly" is, of course, potentially a big caveat.) we are all ultimately the captains of our own ships, and we'd best learn how to sail them. but setting out to go around the world (to painfully extend this metaphor...) without proper understanding and preparation is tantamount to suicide, and by the same token, encouraging someone to set out on such a journey who is unprepared has the potential to be criminal.

[Philip Augustus]

yes, statutory [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) charges against a 16-year-old with a 15-year-old girlfriend are an abomination. we get this sometimes here, and it results in huge public pressure on the prosecution authorities to get a life and go catch some crooks instead.

good point, do adults tell children about the obligations incumbent on an adult citizen of civil society, or do they tell them, “it’s ok for us but not for you, nyah nyah nyah”?

in contexts such as the un fussing over “child soldiers” – often no younger than many of our parents who joined up to fight hitler – many jurisdictions operate with a binary categorisation of “child”/”adult”, with 18 as the watershed. this is absurd, we need a tripartite classification of “child”, “adolescent” (or “young adult” etc.) and “full adult”, with the breaks at perhaps 13 and 21. lots of other societies have done this.

if i can get this post through at all, it will be my last. for the first weeks of the new board everything was fine, but now i get endless loops of log-in – welcome philip augustus – submit – you are not logged in – log-in -- welcome philip augustus – submit – this is not a valid thread – restart board – log-in -- welcome philip augustus – submit – you are not logged in. no reply from jackson. enough, already.

so “goodbye and thanks for all the fish”. give rn my regards when she turns up. happy punting, happy crusading, happy chatting. been nice knowing you.

[Joe Zop]

Philip -- I've had the same problem as you, at times. What I do is go into the forum control panel under options and turn all the cookie options to "no" and this seems to take care of things. I've found that at some point, usually after a week or so, I can change things back and they work again. I suspect it has to do with how this board stores cookies, but haven't tracked it down. I agree that the endless loop is frustrating -- you appear to be logged in, write your message, and then nothing. But I think the overall quality of conversation on this board has improved, and your posts disappearing would definitely leave a hole. I hope my suggestion will work for you and that you'll reconsider.

[Dickhead]

Actually, JZ, I don't know if you've ever BEEN to The Netherlands, BUT ...

It is legal to VISIT a prostitute at 16. To legally BE a prostitute you must be 18. And, the age of consent is only 12 IF the parents do not object; otherwise it is 16.

So let's be careful out there.

Dickhead

[Philip Augustus]

Joe:
Thanks for your kind words! I don't want to leave but this is driving me nuts.

This problem started when I already had cookies set at No-No, I put it to No-Yes to see if improved things, which it didn't. Putting it back to No-No now. I can't see any correlations at all. At least 80% of my post attempts fail due to infinite looping, apparently at random.

[Joe Zop]

Dickhead -- yes, I've been to the Netherlands several times. According to www.ageofconsent.com and other places, those from the ages of 12-16 *can* consent, but they, in concert with their parents, can also bring a legal complaint against an adult. (It's unclear what happens if parents complain and the child says they consent.) I bow to your knowledge on the age of entering into the profession; I was going by my reading of laws quoted in several places which say that "traffic in persons" occurs in regard to a person under the age of 16.

Regardless, I'm far from encouraging anyone to get involved with anyone below 18!! That was clearly not the thread of the conversation.

Philip -- why not create a new variation on your user name and see if that will do the trick? Use an underscore as I have or some such trick so we'll all know it's you. I empathise with your frustration, but hope you don't give in to it. You might also try cleaning out your machiine's temp files and cookies -- there's little doubt it's something on your machine, as it was on mine, and these darn things have gotten so complex it's nigh impossible to try to track down where the offending gremlin might be hiding...

[The Virgin Terr]

goddamn my fucking computer/isp is slow. b4 i even read the past day's post, i have something 2 say.

who of u would pay for affection? i mean, would u pay someone u like and are attracted 2 for a session of cuddling along with conversation, or while watching a show 2gether, or just to relax? how about for kissing? caressing?

isn't that what happens when people date? only they are less explicit in their communication, playing things by ear so to speak rather than explicitly coming out and saying, "i want to do this and this and this with u, and i don't mind spending this much on you to get it?

anyhow, i would pay a date explicitly for affection, cuddling, kissing, a sense of intimacy. to me, there's not much difference between that and paying for sexual intercourse. it's all from the same well of physical yearning, a need programmed in our genes. my question is, why don't human beings routinely do such things? why must some of us go through life feeling destitute of love, of affection, of connection, in our lives? why is it taboo to express these needs openly and straightforwardly? does this seem crazy to anybody out there besides me?

[The Virgin Terr]

hey p.a., don't give up! i don't know what we have to do to fix this website, i'm essentially computer illiterate, but maybe we should consider going professional, paying some small yearly fee for access, to pay someone who knows what the fuck they're doing to get on the case and fix problems like these as they arise.

jz, you're full of shit, man. i don't mean to be rude, but i want to speak my mind freely, don't take it too personally, i like most of what you have to say, but here at least i'm going to be honest and stand up for what i believe. i'm tired as hell of people treating teenagers like children who can't handle resposibility and who don't have minds of their own yet or know what they want. when people set arbitrary age limits on behavior, my response is to satirize the paternalism inherit in that attitude by changing the age limit to include whatever age the person wanting to set the limit is. for example, perhaps we should make people wait until they're 50 before we decide they're mature enough to be in control of their own bodies. (this is in effect what we do when we criminalize prostitution, saying that at no age may a person control his or her own body under certain circumstances). and i'm tired of having to pretend i don't find teenage girls hot as hell because according to some people that makes me a ****. shit, we let senior citizens who can barely see or hear and whose reaction reflexes are shot to hell drive automobiles, but a 14 year old isn't old enough to drive or screw? give me a break. a couple centuries ago girls routinely wed around that age, and began bearing children in their mid teens. the idea that teens are too young for sex is a modern myth.

[Dickhead]

IMO, you guys are over-romanticizing and over-analyzing all of this stuff. Prostitution is not rocket science, and I am thankful for that. Why do you want to get into a prostitute's head? Why do you want to get into all the emotional side trips? Isn't that what sucks about having a girlfriend? Trying to figure out what she means and wants all the fucking time?

I think the morality of prostitution involves an unwritten compact NOT to try to get into each others' heads and NOT to get emotionally involved. To do so, to me, means you went into the "booking" (to use RN's term) under false pretenses.

Make sure you mutually agree in advance who gets to do what and with which and to whom and for how much. Then, enjoy the sex with no strings attached, bust an ungodly nut, and move on. That is the most moral way.

So I am more cynical than most recent posters, but I don't really think I am more cynical than the average practitioner of this hobby.

DH

[The Virgin Terr]

b4 i get attacked 2 viciously, let me clarify what i said in my last post. people ahould be judged as individuals, not according to cultural stereotypes or myths based on age, gender, race, etc. if we were 2 somehow establish an objective standard of competency for adult responsibilities, and graph the percentage of people who meet the standard based upon age, the graph would look like a bell curve. for example, with the case of driving an automobile, the curve would remain at a fairly steady peak of close to 100% for ages 20-say50, and thereafter slowly downturn, until by age 75 say perhaps only 50% would meet the standard. likewise, with younger people the graph would downturn more abruptly as people get younger, so that at say 13 or so it intersects with the 50th percentile. my point is, i'm not saying all 14 year olds should be judged competent, any more than i'd say all 40 year olds should be. what i'm saying is, we don't say that because a majority of 80 year olds are incompetent to drive that means all 80 year olds should be banned from driving. so why should we treat young people differently? just because more 14 year olds than 40 year olds would fail a test for physical/emotional/intellectual maturity/competency, must we ban all 14 year olds from adult rights and resposibilities?

[Dickhead]

But VT, if we judge a given 14 or 13 or whatever year old to be worthy of the adult right to consent to sex, are we going to also give that youth or young adult all the responsibilities? Such as the right to go to prison, the right to work to support themselves, and the right to be conscripted? What do you think about that?

In my profession there are a lot of "bright line" type tests: If x is >=75.0% of y, do "a"; if x is < 75.0% of y, do "b" and don't think about it. They don't work well. So, I share your skepticism about a bright line age test for sexual consent. But the last thing we men need is a bunch of sexually active 14 year olds running around acting like hot shit without having to put up with any of the down side like working for a living. Think about it.

[David]

Virgin terr,
(Post 11 -- 06-19-02 21:59)

"who of u would pay for affection? i mean, would u pay someone u like and are attracted 2 for a session of cuddling along with conversation, or while watching a show 2gether, or just to relax? how about for kissing? caressing?"

If I went to see a prostitute, that is exactly what I would be paying for (also for sex, but this both first and last). Let me note, however, that this is *not always* what happens on a date. The "selfish motive" is an approach to life, and I don't believe it would be possible to prove that dates are run tit-for-tat (I sincerely hope that this isn't always the case).


"My question is, why don't human beings routinely do such things? why must some of us go through life feeling destitute of love, of affection, of connection, in our lives? why is it taboo to express these needs openly and straightforwardly? does this seem crazy to anybody out there besides me?"

Some humans do, but not many. And yes, this does seem a little crazy to some other people. Still, I think that we are a rather small part of the population.

David

[Joe Zop]

vt -- first, no offense taken, and i'm glad you feel free to speak your mind, just as i can in turn feel free to disagree when i do.

i think the whole aspect about paying for affection is why people talk so much about the gfe (girlfriend experience) and its attractiveness as opposed to simply and exclusively sexual gymnastics. sometimes this is simply an aspect of people paying not to be alone, and i'm sure most providers can tell stories of guys who paid them just to talk. not everyone wants this, of course, but many do, and providers often get criticized for being too businesslike.

i think, as well, that you miss my point regarding teenagers being sexually active. i've no problem with it whatsoever if the teen is mature enough to understand the physical and emotional consequences involved and can actually make a cogent choice. i've no problem, as well, if they're sharing their training wheels with their peers -- that's something that's happened throughout history. but you preaching that they should be active is the same as the other side preaching that they shouldn't. what they need is an ability to understand what both sides of the choice will do to them, and then make their minds up and go from there. yes, there are 14-year-olds mature enough to make this decision, but i don't know that they're the majority, and i rather doubt it in fact. whether you're sick of it or not, some teenagers are still children, whereas others are not. as you rightly note, people develop differently.

the problem with your analogy is that there are very clear developmental markers regarding the ability to reason, understand the consequences of your actions, and gain critical distance, and many of those markers occur during the teen years, whereas they don't in the 20s, 40s or later. we make distinctions about the ability to fully comprehend right from wrong in the courts and thesliding scale of "tried as an adult" is in place precisely because of those differences. while your historical basis regarding sex and marriage at an earlier ages may be true, there were also tons more women who died in childbirth, ended up as virtual slaves, etc.

and the point isn't whether or not you find teenage girls hot or not but what you do about that fact. and if you go after someone in their early teens the odds are that you comprehend the choices and consequences far more than they, so you have power over them and that makes you a predator. which is, of course, off topic in this thread in any event, as is this general discussion.

and dickhead, i think you're right about overanalyzing, but that's because men are involved, and we all know that if you're not doing it you tend to think or talk about doing it :-) one key difference in the equation here is that as opposed to a girfriend, figuring out what someone means or wants is something done on a highly short-term basis, as the meter is running. people pay for weirder things than emotional yoga.

[Carl LaFong]

Hi folks,

I've been away from the forum and on bus. trips (Amsterdam/Dusseldorf) and never did get back to you on Nussbaum's book "Sex and Social Justice".

I'll have to check myself on the section where she deals with prostitution specfically. She examines the issue without ranting histrionics....give me some time. She covers a wide range of issues including FGM (female genital mutilation) and economic empowerment...

In the meantime, here's an excerpt from Kirkus Reviews...FYI.

Cheers,
Carl LaFong

-
"I like thieves. Some of my best friends are thieves. Why, just last week we had the president of the bank over for dinner." W.C. Fields, The Barber Shop



University of Chicago law and ethics professor Nussbaum combines feminist theory and an internationalist perspective to fashion a stunning defense of justice. In a series of works (Poetic Justice, 1996; The Therapy of Desire, 1994; etc.), Nussbaum has tried to demonstrate the value of philosophy to the practical matters of everyday life; she continues that work here.

She begins with the assertion that justice consists of respecting the equal worth of all human beings, given the universal human capacities of choice and reasoning. An essential element of this respect is protecting the liberty of individuals to create lives of their own choosing. As women in general, as well as lesbian and gay men, have too often been denied such freedom, justice should be and is a central concern for feminism.

Yet Western feminism itself has too often neglected the needs and conditions of women of the non-Western world. A feminist theory of justice must concern itself both with abstract liberties, such as freedom of expression, and the practical needs of nutrition, health, education, shelter, and physical safety. Against charges that her vision of justice is a foreign idea being imposed upon other cultures, she argues that she is defending the creation of space in which free choice for all, including women, actually exists.

In another vein, against those who would impose a rigid cultural relativism, she argues that local tradition is not always an inviolable code that must remain unchallenged. Such traditions may simply reflect the most powerful voicesinvariably male. We must be suspicious of norms formed under conditions of injustice. All these themes are developed in a series of carefully crafted essays.

There are weaknesses here. Questions of sexuality are not particularly well integrated within her arguments, and as she admits, she does not deal with the question of global redistribution of wealth as an essential element of justice. Nevertheless, a brilliant book. -- Copyright ý1998, Kirkus Associates, LP. All rights reserved.

[Joe Zop]

Mmm, sounds right up my philosophical alley -- thanks, Carl.

[The Virgin Terr]

p.a., hope you're still reading us and will figure out a way 2 rejoin the discussion.

david, where have u been? haven't heard from u in months, and suddenly out of the blue u jump right back in. thanx for letting me know i'm not alone in some of my thoughts.

dh, (are u any relation 2 butthead of mtv fame?), i don't follow your reasoning. re. the other adult rights/responsibilities u mention, youth already enjoy the "right?" to be incarcerated by the state. i'm absolutely in favor of their right 2 earn money if they so wish and have the ability to do so. as for the "right" to be conscripted, that's not a "right" any more than incarceration is. that's something that the state, in it's infinite arrogance, deigns as it's own right over the individual. that's like asking me if i think someone should have the "right" to be a pawn of the state, which we all are unless we fight for our own rights, our own freedom. a better question to ask is do i think young people have the right to autonomy. i think everyone should have that right.

jz, your argument is too asinine 2 fully respond 2. it will have to suffice to say that if u are correct, the only sexual partners any of us should ever be able to have are those with equal amounts of experience, money, social status, attractiveness, etc., because obviously for example a rich man who dates a poor girl has more power and therefore can only have a predatory interest in her. likewise, to extend the analogy 2 different endeavors, someone who wants to learn a musical instrument can only do so by practicing with other novices and bumbling along 2gether; an expert teacher wouldn't be allowed because the imbalance of knowledge would mean they aren't equals and therefore may not have a relatiuonship. i don't even know how someone can make this argument and expect it to be swallowed whole. by the way, joe, if u have any kids u shouldn't have a relationship with them, because obviously as a much older and powerful individual any relationship u'd have could only be predatory in nature, there's no possibility for unselfish love to assert itself.

[The Virgin Terr]

yes joe, if u have any kids u must leave them in the woods and let the wolves raise them, the same way we throw young people to the wolves when we fail to teach them about sex and relationships. every generation has to reinvent the wheel anew. each generation has to make the same exact mistakes the previous one did. this cycle can't be broken; it's written in holy writ, espoused by priests such as yourself.

[Joe Zop]

So let's see, Terry, you want it both ways, right? You want all of the opportunity and none of the responsibility in terms of dealing with young teens. Easy to see that you approach things simply from the perspective of teens as potential sexual partners for yourself as opposed to individuals in the process of becoming adults. I don't detect one iota of "unselfish love" in your posts -- quite the opposite, in fact -- it's abrogation of responsibility, and an inability to reconcile your needs and wants with potential damage to others.

Your characterization and distortion of my train of thought is simply idiotic, and I expected better from someone such as you based on the thoughtfulness and clarity of your past postings, but I've obviously pushed a hot button here for you. My power statement was clearly aimed specifically at this particular scenario of sexual relationships, and I've also just stated how much I agree with the reasoning from Nussbaum, whose theories deal with choices made based on practical needs. I've repeatedly stated my belief that education in personal relationships is pitiful and needs improvement, and that people (kids included) need to have the full spectrum available to them in order to make choices.

There are differences in understanding and the ability to make choices between children and adults (something you very pointedly and repeatedly choose not to address or respond to, other than to point out that there exceptions and some mature more quickly so the rules should be changed) and teens are in that nether area between to two camps, some falling in one camp, some in another, most in both at the same time. If you want to rail at me because you can't/won't make a distinction between adults and children, fine, but don't put words in my mouth. I've made quite clear repeatedly I've no absolutely problem with adults having relationships with anyone they choose -- anyone of legal age/ age of consent are fair game for each other.

If I had kids, which I don't, I'd say the gods save them from counter-priests such as yourself, who have only their own interests and demons at heart, and not those of my kids, and who make moral arguments that first and foremost serve their own purposes. Let's see -- your ability to convince a teenager they should have sex with you must mean that teen is obviously mature enough to choose and understand the consequences of that decision. And it's ok because the kind of "love" you want to share you define as "selfless"? Please. Who's the wolf here?

Regardless, all this really belongs in a "Sex with Young Girls" section, though I note that Jackson didn't carry that thread over. I'm happy to ask him to add it again, and am more than willing to continue discussing things there ad nauseum, but we should get back to the appropriate topic for this thread, which is prostitution.

[Anonymouse]

Joe-Z two items no. 1) Jackson has carried over the question of appropriate age. Its under editorials and 2) It appears that you believe no young girls willing enter into prostitution. I picked up a young lady in Spokane the other week. tThe way I did this was to quickly pull into a parking space near where she was walking. I really didn't expect her to be a SW however she came over got in the car and went through the standad "cop" routine. To make a long story short after taking her to my room and poping a nut she proudly annouces that she's only 15. So is this seduction on my part or is she just a budding entrepeneur. And yes I know that several laws were broken oh well.

[David]

VT,

It's not that I've been gone, just that I've had nothing to say.


All (esp. Joe Zop),

In regards to prostitution/sexual-activity among the young (however you define that). I'm of two minds. In one sense we (as adults) are (in my mind) morally obligated to look out for their welfare, acknowledge that they might not be qualified to make the decision for themselves.

At the same time, however, it is dangerously easy to make decisions for the young (who often are qualified to make the decision for themselves). *Shrugs*. I just find it a pity that, in our society, the people with the least rights are the young (followed by prisoners).

*Shrugs*,
David

P.S. Yes, there is a large difference in power (which is quite important) but I think that this difference should be delt with much like any other. The "real" difference seems to be more one of information/understanding ... and I'm just not sure how much the rights of a teenager should be in collective adult hands.

[wolfcallsd]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Dickhead
Prostitution is not rocket science, and I am thankful for that. Why do you want to get into a prostitute's head? Why do you want to get into all the emotional side trips? Isn't that what sucks about having a girlfriend? Trying to figure out what she means and wants all the fucking time?

Thank You... enough said

[The Virgin Terr]

joe, by singling out sexual relationships as completely distinct from all other type of relationships, subject to uniquely negative interpretations, u do the same thing anti-prostitution zealots do. one may pay a person for any kind of service other than sex. by the same reasoning you're saying an "adult" may have any kind of relationship with a "non-adult" except for a sexual one. what is it about sex that makes people so irrational? why must sex be treated like a disease we can't entirely avoid but are obligated 2 condemn and repress? 2 blanketly state that "adult"-teen relationships are "predator-prey" relationships is like saying all prostitutional encounters involve exploiters and exploitees. like i said previously, there have been many relationships between "non-adults" and adults, completely consensual, often resulting in children and lifelong partnerships. just as 2 examples from the field of famous musicians, jerry lee lewis married his 13 yr old cousin, and loretta lynn at the age of 13 married an "adult", and they're still 2gether now 50 years later. it makes more sense to say that teenagers may benefit from having older more experienced "adults" introduce them to the fine arts of lovemaking and intimate relationships than it does to take the position you have, although your position is certainly more "respectable" and less controversial. isn't the idea of this forum in part to allow the expression of "non-respectable" controversial, unfettered ideas?

anyhow, if u want 2 drop it i shall also. until "adults" become sexually liberated themselves, these more controversial questions are too volatile, as this debate/argument attests to.

[The Virgin Terr]

btw, when i was a young teen i would have loved it if some "ancient" woman twice my age had "preyed" upon my little "innocent " ass. it could have done wonders for my confidence.

[Joe Zop]

Originally posted by anonymouse
It appears that you believe no young girls willing enter into prostitution.

I've no idea where that comes from -- I've said no such thing at any point in the discussion, and it flies in the face of what we all know to be the facts.

And nowhere anywhere have I said anything about having an issue with someone's willingness to enter into prostitution based on age -- though I'm not someone who would feel particularly comfortable breaking not only those laws about prostitution but also age of consent, as, among the other aspects we've been discussing, the latter laws have decidedly greater potential consequences.

I've in fact stated repeatedly in this forum that I'm in favor of people choosing to do whatever they like, and that I'm in favor of teens making informed choices.

[Joe Zop]

Originally posted by the virgin terr
joe, by singling out sexual relationships as completely distinct from all other type of relationships, subject to uniquely negative interpretations, u do the same thing anti-prostitution zealots do. one may pay a person for any kind of service other than sex.

Not true at all -- child labor laws are another example of where we draw such distinctions, where we consider that those are relationships where the age of those involved requires a degree of protection for the child from exploitation by adults. For every example of the so-called "good" experience it's possible to come up with a bad one, and example of a teenager exploited by an adult into a negative sexual experience, so I'm not certain what that proves. But it's mind-boggling that you would choose Jerry Lee Lewis as an example of excellence, given that he was first married at sixteen, that that 13-year old third wife was his cousin and was someone he divorced before she hit her mid-twenties, and that he's not only known as a wife-beater but strongly suspected to have murdered his fifth wife and possibly another...

And there's decidedly one aspect of this discussion I'm finding tiresome and annoying, and that's your misquoting of my statements and position. Please go back and read what I actually wrote -- I did not "blanketly state that "adult"-teen relationships are 'predator-prey' " as you say I did. I wrote "if you go after someone in their early teens the odds are that you comprehend the choices and consequences far more than they." I also wrote, "there are 14-year-olds mature enough to make this decision, but I don't know that they're the majority." Your shifting of my position is a straw-man way of placing me in an extremist position, and it makes for a rather disengenuous exchange of ideas. The fact that you feel you need to devolve into hyperbole by painting my position as zealotry because I don't particularly agree that you ought to have the unfettered "right" to screw kids, when in fact my position is far more liberal than mainstream laws or thought, says far more about you than me. I have no huge problem with the Dutch approach, as I've stated before -- you want to marry that 14-year-old, and her parents concur, then fine. And since you object to my position because I'm providing "uniquely negative" positions, let me, in turn, point out that you're doing precisely the opposite and present only the positive aspects. If this is an inappropriate way to argue, then it's so on both sides of the coin.

I've no issue or problem whatsoever with you expressing your " 'non-respectable' controversial, unfettered ideas" as long as you don't take that ability to mean that I've got no right to disagree.

And, again, in the last, you've twisted what I said -- I said I'm more than happy to discuss this, but that it's off-topic for this thread. Anonymouse has pointed out the proper area for this discussion -- in the editorial area, and I'm perfectly willing to continue it there. And the fact that I don't happen to agree with your position here has no bearing on my degree of "sexual liberation" which again is a rather silly and completely uninformed personal slap.

[Rubber Nursey]

finally got my phone reconnected! do the phone companies not understand the extent of my internet addiction?? do they not realise i was going through a living hell while they twiddled their thumbs saying "hmmm there seems to be a line fault...we'll send someone out as soon as possible" (read: one week or so)!

anyway....
what's all this **** girl stuff?
i have to agree with joe on this topic. (and that's coming from a divorced, bisexual, pagan ex-prostitute, so i'm not all that conservative! lol) i have no problem at all with teens having sex with teens (so long as they are educated about safe sex, pregnancy, etc)....i can live with older teens having sex with young adults (eg. a 16 year old with a 21 year old boyfriend) so long as boundaries are respected and they have the same level of aforementioned education....but i can't really condone older men having sex with teens in most circumstances and i am totally opposed to teenagers becoming sex workers.

sure, sex is natural and all, but it shouldn't be looked at as a simple bodily function or a leisure activity. as well as the massive health risks for someone who is sexually naive, sex has a very large emotional aspect to it and our sexuality (or our perception of it) has a huge impact on our lives as a whole. a "warped sexuality" can lead to self esteem issues, poor body image, relationship problems, etc....some people's lives are irreparably damaged by a "bad" sexual experience. that is the main reason why i don't believe young people should become prostitutes (i have stated before that the legal age should perhaps be even higher than 18...don't jump on me about it 'coz i know it would never happen, but that's my opinion). "sex" as a prostitute is very different to "sex" in real life. i firmly believe that women (and men) need to have a complete understanding and appreciation of what "real" sex is, before they can have sex as a sex worker. if you can't make that distinction in your mind (and switch between the two depending on who you are having sex with) it leads to all sorts of sexual and psychological problems. i don't believe that most teenagers have the experience or the emotional maturity to cope with that...no matter how "grown up" they appear to be.

also, as jackson said in the "****" section of the old forum, there is a big difference between a teen getting married (and receiving love and trust and support from her husband) and a young girl coping with the abuse, violence, std's, police harrassment and other risks that are commonly associated with working in the sex industry. anyway, i'm sure lots of you will disagree with me, but that's my two cents on the matter. i think joe is right though...this discussion shouldn't really be happening in here when there is a specific section devoted to it in the editorials section.

david,
re: paying for affection rather than (or in addition to) sex.
like you said, affection is not always guaranteed on a "real" date. the great thing about the sex industry is that you don't go out with a hooker wondering how the night is going to go....you tell her how the night is going to go! lol

dickhead,
re: why does anyone want to get into the head of a sex worker?
i totally agree! i mean, i do think it is wonderful that these guys want to gain an understanding of "how the other half lives" so to speak, and i guess that having an understanding of the sex workers themselves may help to improve the quality of future services, etc...but i do find it odd that there is so much "how do i make it better for her" type discussions in here. also there have been a lot of requests for "inside" information (of the sort that i refused to give stardotstar a while back). i sometimes fear that giving away too much information will somehow damage the fantasy aspect of the industry, and i often wonder why it is that even though clients have the offer of no strings attached sex....they seem to want to add strings to it!! lol

[Traveller]

welcome back to the connected world, rn. hugs too.

from the conversation, it seems clear that in some ways, us guys around here are in some ways approaching the subject from a different part of the room than what you do, and that seems kinda natural.

firstly, i agree with you that in an environment of violence, abuse and police harassment, a sex worker should probably be at least 30, hold a black belt in at least two martial art forms, own a gun and be able to do a 200 lb bench press. i'm not a cop, nor violent and do not consider myself abusive in any way. neither does it seem that most contributors here are any of those things. thus, we probably oversee the kind of problems that less considerate johns are giving girls.

we probably all consider sex a very nice leisure activity, and thus have a vast difficulty in understanding why it can be that not everyone (including girls) think the same. (yes, i am aware that there are all kinds of social and religious biases, they are for real and of course they have to be considered for real when it comes to the effect they have on the sex worker, but then again we do consider those biases all rubbish, don't we?).

when you say you don't go out on a night with a hooker wondering how it will go - "you tell her" - i don't agree at all. yes you do wonder. a lot. will she be one of those 1 in 4 (maybe 1 in 8 now, age has a detrimental effect on the odds i guess), who will be cuddly, friendly and seemingly enthusiastic about all kinds of basic normal bedtime activity, or will she be cold, unwilling to do whatever like kissing, letting you eat her out, etc, and only act as somewhere to offload?

finally, i perfectly well see your need to make a distinction between "real sex" and sex with a worker in order to keep your mental health in order. this is the place we clearly approach the table (or the bed :) from different directions. again, viewing sex as a very pleasant leisure activity, we do - at the bottom of it all - want real sex!! it is actually there sometimes too (ok - agreed - only a few). and in my experience it has been with young girls - not **** but 19-21 year olds new to the trade. it can sometimes be amazing what happens if you don't bargain for odd "services" or prices, and just activate the antennaes and take in what the girl is comfortable with and what she is not.

i know, and i have expressed here before, that there is a serious concern that such encounters may lead to the "crying in the morning" syndrome - some times it happens and other times not -we gotta take our chanches.

as regards seriously **** girls (heck - i would never really ask whether anyone was 17 or 20 - if i tried to make anyone believe that i would have a very big nose) - i have not knowingly done that since i was 19. as mentioned in an "ancient" post here, i did indeed a couple of years ago have an encounter in a public pool with a bikini-clad 15-year old cutie (kissing, with hands in all the unappropriate places), but i left it at that. she was gorgeous, and would most likely have indulged in "real sex" not knowing better. but i guess she would also have cried in the morning. seriously too. good reason for staying away from further adventures.

so i guess rn, you are right in what you are saying. a pity, but anyway......

[Joe Zop]

Another welcome back, RN -- I hope the rest of things are as reconnected as your phone :-)

I've got to agree with Traveller that one definite aspect of encounters with prostitutes, from the male perspective, is very much one of wondering how things are going to go. The truth is that unless one is with a regular (and sometimes even then) it's far from certain how things will unfold. That's one of the reasons you see constant discussions on this forum about who provides a GFE -- something actually probably at least if not more prevalent than issues of specific sexual services provided. Some of this is simply normal human concerns about "meshing" on some level (generally that of maintaining the fantasy illusion as opposed to feeling that you're simply the next part to come down the line in production-line screwing) and some of it is definitely "the thrill of the hunt" which is part of the sexual process (and the need for which is the downfall of many a man, I might add.)

Personally, I find it very off-putting to define everything in advance -- ok, we'll start with X and move to Y and end with Z. In those instances I'm constantly aware of the clock ticking, the artificial nature of things, etc. It's far easier to know someone's general boundaries and then operate within those, or to discover them as you go along. (The latter is how normal encounters in life work, which is also why they can contain a higher level of stress, disappointment and unmet expectations in addition to amazing thrills.)

Why do we want strings? The better to tie you with, my dear :-) so we can have our way.

[Rubber Nursey]

thanks for the welcome backs guys :) (and a big hug coming right back at ya traveller)

firstly, i really need to say that my comment to david about *telling* a hooker how your night would go, was said totally tongue in cheek. i didn't really mean to start so much controversy with it, and i totally understand that there is often just as much anticipation (and often disappointment) involved with a visit to a sex worker.

traveller,

ummmm point form may be easier...it's been a horrible day and my brain is not functioning...
a) my main concern with the violence, [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), etc is that the younger (and more naive and gullible) the workers are, the more clients are likely to try it on. teen hookers who have not "mastered the art" of negotiation and self preservation in a crisis are abused a lot more regularly than experienced workers. they actually tend to start the fights with their bad attitudes, insensitivity and inability to control a volatile situation. even if an older woman has only just started in the industry, she is less likely to be assaulted because she would look like she can handle herself, she could talk her way out of a violent confrontation and she would probably also know from life experience how to not start a "situation" in the first place.

b) ahhh "real sex". for the record i would like to repeat what i have always said....i always had "real sex" at work, in the sense that you are probably referring to. the only difference between work sex and real sex for me was that my mind rarely got involved. my body always responded in the exact same way as it would with a partner, but my emotions remained intact. and that's not to say that i "switched off" as is usually said about sex workers. (as a matter of fact, i have often been seen with tears rolling down my cheeks after exceptionally good orgasms with clients!) i just understood that this was not someone i loved, not someone that cared about me, not someone that i had a future with, etc...and just did not allow those types of thoughts to enter my head during the booking. in the american women section, usbabe has said that women want to have sex with someone they feel "connected" to...i think she is right in most respects. i do not believe that all women are looking for love, marriage and children, but i do believe we are often "fussier" than men when it comes to sex (usbabe's words, not mine!) a sex worker needs to be able to switch off that particular part of our feminine brains in order to not be hurt by the apparent rejection by the client after the booking. it also helps us to relax and enjoy sex with someone that we do not necessarily feel "connected" to. that was the part i was getting at with the young girls....most do not have the level of sexual maturity to do that i don't think. they either throw themselves in heart and soul and get hurt, or they shut themselves off completely and then give a shocking, cold service.

c) i personally consider sex to be a very nice leisure activity, just as you do. but i believe that young girls see it as something very different. i don't have any problem with teenagers having sex, so long as they are sleeping with someone of the same maturity level who has the same expectations from the experience.

joe,

"it's far easier to know someone's general boundaries and then operate within those, or to discover them as you go along".
that is how i used to run all of my bookings. i would state the one thing that i would not allow under any circumstances, and then pretty much just let things go from there.....see what eventuated. most times it was great fun, and i also got return custom and a few large tips for making it more of a "gfe"...however, i was also ripped off often by men who wanted to get as much as they could get, for as little as they could pay. i think it's sad, but i totally understand why so many women specify the exact service at the beginning and then say "that will cost extra...and please pay me now" to any further requests during the booking. as always, there are some selfish, dishonest morons out there who ruin it for all the good guys.

ps...do you mind if i bring silk scarves instead?? strings would be uncomfortable.... *cheeky grin*

[Paddy]

Hi RN,

Welcome back!!! Have missed you and your unique insights into the feminine psyche.

Could you help me with a problem that I'm having with my lady in Prague? She happens to be a SW there in additon to being a waitress, barmaid, etc.

When I was in Prague last month she stated that she wanted to come to America to visit me for about 5 days. Great. I'll send her the ticket and treat her like a foreign dignitary here. However, when I wanted to "pay" her for her time here in America in lieu of lost wages over there, she became quite upset and angry. I just figured that if she left work over there to be with me in America that she would be out a lot of money and I wanted to compensate her for her lost wages. She has two children that she's supporting. I was just trying to be fair and make things equitable for her. Well, she took it the wrong way and I probably violated some female ethic or principle or something.

Any thoughts or ideas? Your insights about men and women are quite remarkable. Again, welcome back from from all of your "groupies" in America.

[Joe Zop]

"As always, there are some selfish, dishonest morons out there who ruin it for all the good guys."

An apt comment that naturally goes in both directions -- there are plenty of us who end up entering into the process in a more guarded and suspicious manner because we've been burned by some kid of "bait and switch" or outright lies from a sex worker in the past. Clearly, the ability to be a dishonest moron isn't restricted by role or sex.

Paddy -- forgive me for diving in here, but it sounds to me as though if you explained your obviously honorable intentions it would probably lead to a conversation that would smooth things over. Especially since you two have had a good relationship. My read on it is this -- she was the one who initiated the idea of the trip, not you, so you paying her way (and presumably her various expenses) essentially completely fulfilled your financial obligation. Your offer of more is in no way a problem other than one of tact and process, where you're trying to be up-front so she'll not worry and she's seeing it as a reminder that she's a working girl. If you were to have given her the same amount of dollars as soon as she arrived with the comment that she could now easily shop or sightsee, you'd have accomplished the same thing, you'd both know where things stood, but she'd not be placed directly and unavoidably in the sex worker role. In visiting you on her initiative, she's putting herself in your hands, and thereby making a far more personal stretch than would normally be involved in such a relationship, so it can be interepreted that she's approaching this as an adventure, vacation or personal interaction as opposed to a work trip. Thus the sturm und drang.

[Paddy]

Hi Joe,

Thanks for your input. You're right in that my offer almost certainly came across as "payment" and not as a good faith attempt at compensating her for a week of lost wages from her three jobs. She's almost certainly viewing our "relationship" as something more than just a John and a SW. I should have been more sensitive (the wine didn't help) to her possible feelings and viewpoints.

It's becoming apparent that seeing a SW outside of the typical encounter can be a bit more complicated. Special rules and sensitivities must be observed. In retrospect, I should have handled this differently. Thanks again for you insights, Joe.

[The Virgin Terr]

joe, i'm not advocating for my right or anyone's right 2 screw children. the main point we disagree on and will continue 2 disagree on is the dividing line between juveniles and adults. i think the only scientific and objective measure is puberty, which lasts about 2 years for any particular individual, varying somewhat between individuals, but generally occuring between the ages of 10-14 for females and 12-16 for males. to argue that a sexually mature individual should still be considered a juvenile is absurd in my opinion, but not yours or many other peoples. u again score points as a formidable debater with your quick reply on jerry lee lewis. i didn't know that about him. i was basing my use of his marriage to his 13 year old cousin as an example of a non-predatory relationship involving a minor and a legal adult based upon an interview i remembered seeing of the former "child bride" after their divorce, in which she indicated that their marriage had been a loving one and they had parted as friends. so perhaps in that particular instance jerry lee wasn't such a bad guy.

RN, i'm glad you're back adding your calmer female voice to the discussion. given the great stigma attached to prostitution it must take considerable courage to become a prostitute at any age, and i certainly wouldn't recommend it as a way to introduce any sexually inexperienced person to sex.

[Joe Zop]

VT -- I agree with your delineation of our differences. Your approach is based entirely on the distinction of bodily functions, i.e. using whether or not one is physically capable of having sex and procreating as a fairly absolute dividing line. I do not agree with that because there's also a mental and emotional side to the maturation process, and a reliance on physical puberty doesn't at all deal with that. It's the same as in criminal cases, as far as I'm concerned -- not simply whether someone is physically mature enough to cause harm, but is there a true understanding of their actions or not? We both agree that the equation is fraught with individual differences, but where I'm baffled is your way of thinking that somehow an adult "guiding" these newly defined adults toward sex is ok, but an adult guiding those who are not mature enough away from sex is somehow automatically repressive societal thinking. The bottom line in the equation is what's good for the individuals involved, and there are both positive and negative things about sex in the early to mid-teens.

And Jerry Lee can play at any wedding I'm involved with any time, and I'd happily hoist a glass with him during those times he's hoisting, as he's certifiably brilliant, but he'd best keep his paws off my sisters, given his general interpersonal history :-) I was quick with the response because I've always been a fan of his music, and that whole weird preacher/sinner thing with him and Swaggart is simply fascinating, so I've followed him a bit. (Typical dichotomy for me -- I think of Denny McClain always as the brilliant baseball pitcher I watched as a kid, not as the drug dealer who later emptied out companies of retirement packages and spent half his life in jail.)

In any event, this is absolutely my last post on this in this area. (And I keep saying that...)

[Dickhead]

Sure wish Denny McLain would have died in his sleep at the peak of his career instead of my man Darryl Kile. Maybe the god in whom I do not believe is a mean and cruel god after all.

[Joe Zop]

Umm, amen, Dickhead, to the extent that's appropriate. I halfway think Denny would agree...

[Fedup]

jeeze... I go on vacation and you all have a party without me

I was sorry to see PA go... he had many good things to say. I'm glad to see you're all still around.

Hope your situation improves Paddy... obviously a moment you wish you could reel back in.

George W got up in front of the world again today and said some more bs like "the Lord will keep us safe"... I wanted to puke. For those of you living outside the US: How do other countries view the US at this point. The propaganda machine is so overwhelming here that it's hard to see around it. I know this isn't exactly "morality of", but then, the US does pressure alot of other countries to become "moral" like the US (as we watch the news of how Worldcom bilked investors out of 4 billion dollars - the same "moral" buddies George has his dinners with).

The teenager sex spat between VT and JZ was interesting: I find myself leaning towards JZ's opinion. While young girls, IMHO, are capable of sex... they really lack the emotions/experience to understand it. Just because a monkey has the fingers to pull a trigger doesn't mean you should give it a gun.

Someone mentioned the emotions of going to a sex worker a while ago. I wouldn't go to a SW for some cuddling and affection... I'll go for a quick pop of my rocks (temporary satisfaction) with a girl I wouldn't normally be able to pull. For me cuddling and popping are two exclusive concepts (which sometimes occur at the same time obviously)... sometimes a fuck is just a fuck. Paying someone to fake intimacy with me would be nothing more than an expensive, quickly forgotten illusion.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by Fedup Someone mentioned the emotions of going to a sex worker a while ago. I wouldn't go to a SW for some cuddling and affection... I'll go for a quick pop of my rocks (temporary satisfaction) with a girl I wouldn't normally be able to pull. For me cuddling and popping are two exclusive concepts (which sometimes occur at the same time obviously)... sometimes a fuck is just a fuck. Paying someone to fake intimacy with me would be nothing more than an expensive, quickly forgotten illusion.

Precisely, FU, and welcome back. You know one thing I like about condoms? They level the playing field by allowing the man to fake orgasm as well. This can be a huge "face saver" at times. Well, I guess condoms could be "face savers" from the female point as well!

So was this a hobbying vacation and will there be a trip report? Just curious as I will probably be marooned in the US until January.

DH

[Joe Zop]

Hmm, I agree and disagree. It depends on mood. Sometimes you just want to get your rocks off in the most raunchy experience possible, and walk away unstressed, relieved, and unfettered, and sometimes it's about an intimate experience that involved a sense of affection, attention to the exploration and pushing of the buttons of the body and mind, and something that's slightly different than animal passion.

Hooray for both, say I, and utter worship and multiple academy awards and orgasms for the provider who can effortlessly read her client's mood and desires and switch accordingly.

And I'm sure RN, as with many other providers, could easily provide us with examples where plain ol' sex is the least part of the equation.

[Fedup]

No... it was not a mongering vacation. I'm still seeing that gal from my past posts and don't feel it would be appropriate to go mongering while with her.

I'm also still of the opinion that a trip to Latin America would compromise my attitudes towards the girls here at home. Perhaps I'm being naive or stupid; but I'm still of the opinion that I can find a girl here who will satisfy my sexual appetite and provide me with the "couple" aspect of a relationship too.

It's an interesting question: Can I preserve my desire for finding a long term mate after enjoying the sexual pleasures of a "hired" girl vacation?

Perhaps those of you who have gone through this can tell of your experience.

[Rubber Nursey]

Ello!

Fedup...welcome back honey. Hope you had a great vacation.
Terry and Paddy...thanks for the sweet stuff you said to me in your posts a while back. :)

Paddy,
I don't think you need any help from me regarding your friend from Prague...not while Joe is around (or should that be Josephine??? LOL). Joe thinks more like a women that I do sometimes! He said pretty much everything I would have said, only he probably stated better than I would have (as usual). ;-)

re: "It's becoming apparent that seeing a SW outside of the typical encounter can be a bit more complicated. Special rules and sensitivities must be observed".
I don't think that's necessarily true. You don't need to walk on eggshells around her, or treat her any differently than you would any other girlfriend...you just need to clarify your relationship though first. You need to have a DMC and find out whether what you have is a sex worker/client thing or a "real" thing. I would presume from the way that she reacted to you giving her cash on this occasion, she probably wants you to be more than a client. But if you presume that and you are wrong, you may find she gets bitter about you trying getting "freebies" or feel uncomfortable requesting money after sex in the future. You need to be very clear on exactly what your relationship is, and if she tells you that it is "for real"...do NOT, under ANY circumstances, treat her like a hooker ever again from this day forward.

That can be done out of spite (eg. during an argument...which is reprehensible) or accidentally, as you discovered recently. What would you have done if your "normal" girlfriend had time off work and you thought she may be short on cash? You probably would have offered to pay her rent or give her shopping money or buy the kids something....maybe even suggested that she could BORROW money from you (and then never ask her to repay it if you would prefer). You wouldn't have offered to pay for her "services" though.

I know you did what you did out of the goodness of your heart ...and your genuine compassion is an honorable quality...but DON'T DO IT AGAIN! *slap* lol :)

[Rubber Nursey]

Originally posted by joe_zop
Hooray for both, say I, and utter worship and multiple academy awards and orgasms for the provider who can effortlessly read her client's mood and desires and switch accordingly.


*Bowing* "Thank you, thank you. This award means so much to me. I would like to thank the God in whom I do not believe, my Mum, my agent, the Academy....." LOL

And you're right of course Joe...there are plenty of clients for whom sex is not of major importance. There are also many (especially those with erectile problems, etc) that do not want sex at all.

Fedup,
I know I'm not qualified to answer your question (because of my obvious lack of dangly bits in my trousers) but I can't really see that it would make much difference. I think there is a risk with whichever path you choose. Men who have had limited sexual experience may find a long term partner and then feel the urge to "see what they are missing out on", and guys who have had heaps of experience may be reluctant to settle down because they KNOW what they are missing out on! LOL (And it is no different for women either).

I think if you find someone you really love and want to settle down with, monogamy will come naturally...regardless of your previous sexual experiences.
-----------------------------------

PS....PHILLIP! COME BACK HONEY!!! We miss you :)

[Joe Zop]

Originally posted by RN
Joe thinks more like a women that I do sometimes!

Umm, well, thanks, I think. Hmmm. But it's more anthropology than biology -- there are actually more than enough Josephines around my family so I don't need to play the part :-) My approach is actually absolutely a male one -- wanting to "fix" things and keep them simple, and and feeling that it's usually easier to figure out how to keep women happy while not compromising my beliefs than it is to try to clean things up after they're unhappy, which never seems to work, as unlike men they tend to remember little things (both good and bad) forever. I've just found direct attempts at compassionate honesty (combined with a willingness to apologize) to be the simplest approach, even though that can also can blow up in your face, as I'm just not smart enough to keep track of anything else.

I do think, though, that Paddy's very right on one aspect -- it is more complicated when you're dealing with a sex worker in the netherworld of a relationship. I agree completely with you, RN, that it needs to be clarified, but the sex worker element definitely adds all kinds of perceptual layers and landmines. IMHO the main special sensitivity that needs to be involved, at least until it's absolutely crystal clear what kind of relationship it is, is a much more up-front discussion and approach about "what you are" as a duo than you might have in other circumstances. In this case I think it's doubly complex as the woman involved has other jobs as well and probably some of the discomfit comes from her not strictly identifying herself as a sex worker. (Kind of, I'm not a prostitute, I just play one at work...)

[Fedup]

Yes RN... my brain tells me the same but my judao-christian background has programmed me to not listen to my brain.

As I stated in my post over on the American Women forum: I'll soon know if I should continue dabbling with GF's and one nighters or just head straight for Cuba and a life with endless hot pussy.

[Prokofiev]

FedUp,

A "hired girl vacation" has precious little to do with a long-term relationship. Don't confuse an hour with a woman for cash -no matter how good it is- with having a girlfriend. Two completely different ideas which DO NOT compete with one another. Nor is one a SUBSTITUTE for the other. Throughout history, men have juggled a wife and family with hookers, girlfriends and mistresses. Having only a wife or girlfriend can and does work for many men. Having only dancers, hookers and massage parlor girls as female companionship wears thin VERY fast. Don't make the mistake of choosing one over the other - it's not an either/or situation. Explore and investigate all options and you will soon figure out what makes you happiest. It will lead to a richer, more interesting life.

[Joe Zop]

The problem with heading for Cuba (or wherever else) is that sooner or later you have to go home, and while you might be sated you're still left with a lack in your normal life. If you find the absolutely right person and things truly work, you're set, whereas in the other scenario it's a constant search.

The issue of men and women and how they approach the world as a couple, in whatever form that takes, is what matters. To begin with (and this fits the hired-girl scenario as well) it's all about face-to-face, as you explore and learn each other. In order to successfully get to a long-term relationship, there must be a move away from being totally and simply face-to-face toward being side-by-side, supporting each other as you take on the world and life. This latter scenario is where things very often break down, as the basic attraction began with the FTF, and the move to SBS can seem to one or the other like a loss of interest as opposed to what it really is -- an acceptance of a complete partner in life, a presumption of both support and supporting. Side-by-side is far more complex and problematic, as it's not simply pheremones but, to me, the history of our species suggests it's worth it.

I'm pretty much pro-hedonism in all forms, and I'm basically in favor of getting laid as much as is possible, but there are also other aspects to life, and none of us can either afford or sustain an entire life that completely consists of seeking out a new bedmate every night. In the end, we don't want to be alone, especially as we face the prospect of change and the disappearance of those who we grew up with and who know who we realy are, and we want someone who shares more with us than fluids spewed against polyurethane. Doesn't mean we can will it to happen, or that it will occur according to our timetable. Keep looking, Fedup, and courage -- you've only got to be right once.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by joe_zop
[i]The problem with heading for Cuba (or wherever else) is that sooner or later you have to go home, ]

Not true! Home is where the hard on is. Plenty of countries out there to emigrate to.

[Joe Zop]

Point taken, and people have definitely emigrated for reasons of far less clarity or importance -- but I'm still not so sure that looking for the "great good place," as they used to call it back when, is exactly a practical or desireable solution for most folks.

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by joe_zop
Point taken, and people have definitely emigrated for reasons of far less clarity or importance -- but I'm still not so sure that looking for the "great good place," as they used to call it back when, is exactly a practical or desireable solution for most folks.
Yeh, but the people who post on this board aren't "most folks." They are more adventurous than most and by and large more well-traveled. What's impractical about emigrating? 99% of our ancestors did it, and emigrating to Méjico, for example, is very do-able. All you need is to be 51 years old and be able to show a monthly income of I believe it is 300 times the Méjican daily minimum wage (about $4.25 per day). Piece of cake. Well, I guess the hard part might be making it to age 51. Another example is the Bahamas (certainly not my first choice, nor my second, nor my third ... ); you can get not just residency but full citizenship by investing $250k US. Buying a home that costs that much qualifies, or buying a business, or just parking that amount of money in a Bahamian bank. Just trying to be helpful as always.

Dickhead

[Paddy]

Hello RN,

Thanks for your thoughts and opinions in reference to my well intentioned diplomatic blunder.

You're quite correct in reference to your example in that if she had not been a SW, I would have never offered her the money for her lost wages. In a way, I discriminated against her. I should have treated her just like any other lady.

Another motive behind my offer to her was the fact that she has two teenage boys to support. Being a parent of two adult children I know how expensive they are. Soo...

Well, you live and you learn I guess. One other thing, I'm frequently blind to the obvious it seems and I should have seen this one coming.

Thanks again and welcome back.

[Rubber Nursey]

Paddy,
Please don't think for a second that I believe what you did was "wrong". I think it was a beautiful sentiment, and shows that you care about (and understand) her and her life, rather than just thinking about the sex. Men who develop relationships with sex workers are often quick to adopt a "freebie" mentality. They forget about the fact that because they are no longer PAYING money...she is no longer EARNING money! And I also don't think there was anything wrong with giving her money in the first place...it just depends on what you told her the money was FOR. There would be a difference between saying "Seeing as you are not on paid leave from your waitressing job, things may be tight for you. So I thought you might need some spare spending money" and saying "How about I pay for your services while you are here on holiday".

I remember a few years ago, my friend (an ex hooker) broke up with her boyfriend (an ex client) for throwing her job in her face. They were in bed one night and he tried to have sex with her. She said she was tired and just wanted to get an early night. He said (in a joking manner...not trying to be nasty), "How about I give you 50 bucks then...that always used to get you motivated". He thought he was just being funny, but it absolutely broke her heart. She went back to work after that...and her reason was that if she was going to be treated like a wh*re anyway, she may as well BE a wh*re and get paid! By the way, it was directly after this incident that I decided I would NEVER date a client! LOL

Personally I don't think it's any different dating a hooker than it is dating a woman/man who has previously been married, or in jail, or lived in poverty or some other thing that we don't want to be continuously reminded of. We all like to keep our past separate from our new relationships.

Which brings me to Joe,
We agree on the fact that defining the relationship and being sure of each others motives are a MUST when moving from client/provider to a couple. But you disagreed with me when I said that there should be no other real differences in how you treat her in the relationship. Can you give me some examples of how dating a sex worker may be more difficult that a "normal" woman? In your opinion, what are the added "perceptual layers and landmines" that you spoke of?

and lastly Prokofiev re: your note to Fedup,
Beautifully said! :)

[Fedup]

Yes... well said Proko and Joe... it's really just a programming vs rational thought issue at this point. I'm not too sure what my problem is anyway: I've had no issues with fooling around around here.

RN... that guy sure put a big foot in his mouth. But I think the incident says more about the character of your friend than the guy. She obviously had some residual emotional issues or she would have just given him a knee to the balls (which he deserved for being so stupid). Examples of problems dating a SW over a "normal" girl?... Well there's that whole "I wonder if I'm the first guy here today?" question. Also, guys already face the "Am I good enough compared to her other lovers?" issue... having a GF who's seen or done everything in the book would raise some questions with me. Men already have problems with going after a person's weak spots and exploiting them for control. Dating a SW leaves alot of room for these types of men to abuse her mentally... and that's likely the type who will date a SW. You're not going to see goody2shoes, bible boy dating a SW are you?. Not that I'm saying any of the previous is morally right... just that I can see it happening.

[Stranger99]

Don't know if I needed that or not, but this forum opened my mind even further.

I am new here, so I might bring up issues already discussed some time ago. Forgive me for that.

Just a few personal issues related to prostitution:

1) Sense of void in the aftermath....to be honest, this has happened to me also after sleeping with some girlfriends...but it seems greater here.

2) Is going with a prostitute a betrayal of your loved one?

3) Indirectly supporting the worst part of the society, meaning whenever you pay for a service to a non-independent prostitute (controlled by organized crime)

[Dickhead]

My opinion is that, here in the United States, the majority of non-independent prostitutes are NOT controlled by organized crime. Some may be, but not the majority. Most of the non-independent prostitutes I personally have come across in my 30 years of mongering were controlled by pimps, which to me falls more under the rubric of "disorganized" crime.

Also it is my opinion that if someone is in a relationship, they should NOT be visiting prostitutes (unless of course, their partner knows and approves, which seems unlikely). However, I don't have a problem being monogamous when I am in a "relationship" or even just dating. My feeling is that some men are naturally monogamous while others aren't.

But then again, I'm a

Dickhead

[CBGBConnisur]

Whether or not organized crime is involved in US prostitution, there is plenty of organized crime involved in prostitution in Europe. Places like Paris and London, there are many women from former Eastern Bloc countries who are used by organized crime. In the East its even worse, the Japanese Yakuza is one of the most notorious organizations involved in prostitution, they are even bold enough to exploit European and American women to work in brothels in Japan. The Russian mafia is notorious in both Europe and the USA in exploiting prostitutes. I saw on the news a few years ago near Baltimore, MD, a brothel that housed Russian women was discovered by LE. European governments such as those in Germany and The Netherlands have taken steps to regulate and legalize prostitution to ward off the effect of organized crime and it has acheived results. The result being that the mafia thugs go to France, Italy, and England to practice their trade.

[Joe Zop]

RN -- first, clearly I'm a million ways away from absolutes here, as far be it from me to create a box and say everyone fits inside. But your story is close to the realm of what I meant (and I find Fedup's comments very apt.) An off-hand bedroom remark, not even with directly malicious intent, which, if it had been delivered to a woman who had not been in the business would likely have produced either a laugh or an argument instead produced a breakup and a return to the profession. We all have issues with our self-images, and women in the sex trade often, as far as I've been able to tell, have a somewhat higher incidence at either the extreme of having no such issues or having a lot. And, certainly, given the negative categorizing around the profession, it's small wonder that working in it doesn't necessarily feed completely positive vibrations into the ego system.

I've an old friend who worked during the same period as a waitress and topless dancer, and for the decade following her several years as the latter, if someone took a long look at her, she'd always not only think but say that they probably saw her dance and were thinking of that. She'd never think she served them as a waitress, by contrast. Another woman who I knew who spent some time as an escort always told me that men could just look at her and know that she'd slept with people for money, and so she was always being treated like a w*ore. Even though both these women were my friends (and I'd never slept with either) conversation with them was filled with a million small traps that could take us deep into the well of self-esteem issues as it related to their previous work. (And I dearly wish I still had contact with the latter, as she was one of the quickest and brightest people I ever met, and one can never have to many of those folks in your circle.)

The problem is in how one defines themselves and how society does as well -- people in other professions, while they often can think that everyone thinks about them as a doctor, plumber, whatever, don't bring a universally negative set of bags to that perception. Sex workers or ex-sex workers I've met don't tend to think, "Ah, everyone thinks of me as a nurturer" when they think about how people perceive them, and someone in a relationship with that women has to deal with the trap of getting lumped into that negative perceptual category during the inevitable times of relationship tension.

So, while it's decidedly possible to have far more frank conversations about sex and sex roles, for instance, I've just found it's simultaneously far more problematic to have conversations about one-on-one, me-and-you relationships without the dark cloud of the profession threatening rain. And, again, not always and not with everyone, but it's still something that never completely goes out of the air. It's decidedly a difficult scenario to know that you could make a remark such as the one you related (which I'm clearly not defending, but which is not a stretch for someone to say when sexually frustrated) many years later, and have the walls completely and absolutely come falling down. And it doesn't necessarily have to come from someone saying something stupid; it's just as possible to have it come from insecurity. And that's just a very Damoclean thing to have hanging over your head in a relationship -- not that I'm not saying it can't be worth it.

[Joe Zop]

stranger99 -- first, welcome as every discussion benefits from multiple voices.

1. The Void -- I think that comes in many flavors. Sometimes it's related to some sort of social or religious discomfit (had that when I was younger for a while) sometimes it's "buyers regret" (I paid all that money? For an short experience that most everyone else gets for free? Or -- depending on the whys and wherefores -- for an illegal act?) and sometimes it's a sense of recognition that this was artificial at its heart as opposed to an experience that grew naturally out of a "real" relationship. But none of those are necessarily good or logical reasons, and everyone reacts differently. Been a long time since I've felt the Void, to be honest.

2. Betrayal -- I agree with Dickhead, even though I am in fact that unlikely case he mentions where the partner knows and approves.

3. Organized crime -- frankly, I can feel just as bad about sending money to faceless multinational corporations as opposed to independent businesses, so I can also feel fine with the idea that I'm supporting an independent contractor. Given that I've little idea how much of the money I spend everyday than ends up in the hands of organized crime (are the guys who run the trash route, the vending route, the construction company part of the mob, given that they've been involved in all three) I tend to just make sure I've some sort of an idea I know what I'm getting into, in that I prefer to frequent sex workers who are independent, or who are clearly employees, as opposed to those who are pimped out or at all coerced.

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe,

Yet again, you are completely right. There are probably more emotional issues than I first considered (some of which I inadvertantly discovered while posting in the other section).

This brings me back to a question that I asked some time ago in the old forum (not too many replies were given...if I remember rightly an unrelated flame war started and the question was lost in the fray).

If you don't already know that your new girlfriend used to be a sex worker....is it really in your best interests for her to tell you?? I mean, it would save you worrying about putting your foot in it. It would save her from reading something sinister into everything you say. It would mean no worrying about your technique in comparison to her ex-clients' or concern about "damaged goods" and how many people she has been with in her life.

It seems to me that both parties are hurt by the information, so is it really necessary? What do you think....do you really want to know that your girlfriend used to work in a brothel???

[Rubber Nursey]

Philip....

Just on the off-chance that you are reading this, (which I hope you are), I had all the same problems as you did with this site, to the point where a couple of weeks ago I had almost decided to stop posting here altogether.

Two days ago I fiddled with my security settings and lowered the security just one notch (only while I am at the WSG) and for each page of the forum that I visited, I clicked on "always allow" when it tried to block the cookies. Since then I have had NO problems with logging in or posting messages.

Not sure if you have tried this already, but if not I hope you will give it a go. We miss you :)

[Joe Zop]

RN -- that's a difficult issue, and I think it depends on a lot of things, not the least of which is where you are in the development of the relationship. It's sure not the kind of thing I'd drop into first-date dinner conversation unless I wanted to use it as a kind of litmus test. There's little question that such information complicates things, but so do other things, such as information about divorces or past loves. You're right about the litany of worries you wouldn't have, but by the same token there's also that big fact hiding underwater that could surface later and completely destroy things simply by not having been revealed. I mean, if I was in a relationship where I really thought I knew the person and I was to find out after a year or two that not only had they been a sex worker but that they'd withheld that information from me for fear of how I'd take it, it would be pretty upsetting because of what it would say about trust. It would probably be more upsetting not because of the information itself but the implication that I couldn't handle it. I'd inevitably wonder whether anything I thought I knew to be true about that person and our relationship was really so.

It would be even more upsetting to be blindsided by that information in a public way by discovering, say, an arrest record, odd phone calls, or sotto voce conversations with other men, as then not only are you not trusted, you're potentially a fool (emotionally speaking, whether that's true or not.)

And yes, I'm kind of saying damned if you do, damned if you don't.

That said, let me note that speaking entirely from my own perspective and experience as opposed to generalizing, I live with someone who's been the victim of abuse, and it's part of my job as a partner to understand how that has affected the way she looks at the world, where her danger points are, and to find ways not only to shield her from situations that I know will stress her but to provide small stresses and situations to help her become stronger so she can be able to handle those big stresses. It's my job to understand where she is in her developmental curve, and to convey my opinion on that so I'm not controlling her world in some inappropriate way while being concerned about her welfare. Simultaneously, it's part of her role to provide the kind of stimuli and situations I need to overcome my various foibles and insecurities and the same kind of transparent feedback. To me, that's what a relationship is all about, and you can't do that if you don't really know who you're talking to.

Here, of course is where it's complicated -- if you know your partner well enough to know that he's probably not going to handle that information well, then you're both probably not going to want to reveal it, and probably going to need to see whether or not this can really be long term, as it's not clear that you're going to be able to really be open with him.

Again, I think this is a YMMV scenario -- I've personally got a big and strong enough ego that I rely far more on my own perspective and intuition when it comes to reading people than by societal judgements (which probably explains why I'm as likely to hang out with criminals or drug addicts as I am to hang with movie stars or ministers of culture -- and have done both.) I expect a degree of inaccuracy and concealment in all relationships -- we all have our foibles and weak spots -- but the more intimate the relationship, the more I expect the major things to be out in the open if it's emotionally possible to do so. What I want from a partner is basic trust that I'll do the right thing given the opportunity and the information I need.

Bottom line -- it's a risk either way. Such information does inevitably have consequences -- from perhaps uncomfortable conversations to wonders about whether or not you actually understand what makes your partner tick -- but that's the nature of relationships in general. IMHO there's no way for them to be simple in any event, so we're better off knowing, embracing the complexity, and learning whether or not we're capable of dealing with it. But, then, I'm generally in favor of adults acting like adults, and am the first to admit that I'm often disappointed :-)

Personally, I'd prefer to know, as it sends a basic message of trust and inclusion. But I prefer to know everything in any event. I'd want it as something we could both explore in terms of what it says about us as a couple, and in terms of learning the sensitive places we both have about it, when to avoid those, and when to poke at them.

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe,

>>>"It's sure not the kind of thing I'd drop into first-date dinner conversation"

See, that's actually the problem. You can't just say "Well, I'm 28, divorced, a mother of two and I worked as a prostitute for 5 years. So...tell me about you". Aside from the probability of having him run a mile, the fact is I do not really know this guy and I don't know where he will be (or who he will be talking to) tomorrow. That's not the sort of information that I would share with just anyone. Obviously it's something that can't be said until trust has been established, and the relationship is more stable.

However, once you have been together long enough to form a close emotional bond and really trust each other...it's too late! If I tell him then, there will be accusations that I "lied" to him, his perception of me as a person may change and I will be questioned as to why I didn't tell him before things went so far. He would expect me to have told him something as important as that right at the beginning...and as I've already said, that's just not possible.

There is just no right time to say it! Personally, even though I will probably be shot down for saying this, I would prefer he didn't know at all. I'm sure you guys will think that is cruel and dishonest, but I think it would be better for both of us if the subject was never spoken about...ignorance is bliss. I think the chances of me ever being found out are pretty slim, however if it did come to light and my partner hated me for it, I would only have myself to blame. I would be honest and say that I did not want to hurt him with the information, and that in truth I also didn't want him to be able to hurt ME with it. If he leaves, then so be it.

And in truth...if the situation was reversed, I would rather not know.

[Joe Zop]

I see your point. But aren't you setting yourself up in a position of basically needing to always kind of look over your shoulder, and then, if the other shoe does drop, of blaming yourself for not figuring out how not to get into the situation? (Hmm, let's see, can't I get more tortured in that syntax somehow?) There's a point in the relationship, where trust is beginning to be established but your heart's not completely at risk, where you each have a decent idea of who the other is, but where there's not so massive a history or investment, where the conversation is definitely possible. It's certainly not unreasonable to say, "I was afraid to tell you this before, but now that this might be going further, I feel you should know..."

And I do think your comments regarding not wanting to be hurt wth the information is telling, in terms of your earlier question about how having a relationship with a sex worker is different.

People have different approaches to keeping secrets in relationships. I'd hate the idea of having something like that hanging over my head, waiting to sabotage perhaps a decade of relationship as opposed to getting it out when there's far less invested and when things are still forming. Early, it's surprising and perhaps disturbing information about who you are. Later, it's just purely and simply a betrayal. I doubt it would make me leave to find out after a long time, but it would definitely poison and change things, and I'd have anger that would stay with me for a long time. Not because of what the information says about you -- but what you think it says about me. Ignorance is only bliss as long as it exists -- rude awakenings and the feeling you've been taken for a fool is far more painful than an absence of bliss.

And, RN, I must confess I'm surprised to hear you take this line -- you who have steadfastly championed sex work as a legitimate choice that doesn't deserve the stigma it gets. (Especially, I might add, after just telling USbabe that you still hold sex work as a potential future option -- how can that possibly mesh with this position?) If the champion won't hold the banner, who will? C'mon -- we don't want our heroes to have human worries or insecurities :-) !!

[Rubber Nursey]

Heroes, Joe???? LOL

Ok, let me clarify something here...
As you know, I am not ashamed of anything I have ever done. I do not regret working in the industry and I DO believe it is a legitimate form of work that I should have the right to choose to participate in, without automatically becoming the "dregs of society".

That said...as far as the community is concerned it is NOT a legitimate job, people are disgusted by my activities and they automatically make assumptions about my character because of it. And this attitude has been held for thousands of years in cultures all over the world...it is NOT going to change overnight and will more than likely NEVER change, to any significant degree, at all.

What I'm saying is that no matter how self-confident I am or how firmly I believe that I am right...there will ALWAYS be people who believe I am wrong. This accounts for two reasons why I would not want to tell a partner about my history in the sex industry...

a) If my partner had never had anything to do with the sex industry himself (or in many cases, even if he had!) he would automatically draw on the stereotypes that he has grown up believing about hookers...they lie, they steal, they are diseased, they are nympho's, they are homewreckers, they are drug addicts...ad nauseum. He would not be able to help himself. Even if he did not do it consciously, those deeply entrenched beliefs would alter his perception. A couple of years ago when I told some friends what I was doing, I was met with some really bizarre responses. My "true" friends (only two) asked questions, but ultimately didn't care less what I was doing for a living. A couple of male friends figured they now stood a good chance of getting sex, and made indecent proposals (don't see them much these days!) and two women, who I have known for many years...refused to let me near their husbands ever again. (Have not spoken to them since). They talk about me to mutual friends and call me a sl*t. I don't want a partner making judgements about me that have no basis in fact.

b) You mentioned always looking over my shoulder and waiting for someone to find out...I live like that every day of my life. I have said before in this forum that it is the most painful part of working in the industry. The reason I worry is not because I am afraid of people thinking less of me (which I couldn't care less about) but because if the secret came out my family would be attacked, and I would be discriminated against in many different aspects of my life. I know how awful it is to live with that burden, and I don't really want to pass it on to my partner. He then has to panic about his family finding out, worry that his mates will find out, worry that I may have already SLEPT with his mates!...you get the picture.

Yeah, I know my reasoning doesn't make sense, and like you said it seems that you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. I guess that's why I haven't had a partner in so long! LOL I do really want to have a relationship based on complete honesty, but I also don't want my choice to be a sex worker in the past, to affect our lives as a couple in the future. Perhaps it's just easier if I remain single for the rest of my days? :)

[Joe Zop]

RN, first, I was just gently tugging your chain, as we all make compromises to try to be happy. Such is one of the sadnesses of life. I think your reasoning makes total sense, and I'm very sympathetic about the dilemma, which I see as fraught with peril. Those who frequent sex workers are not held in high societal regard either, though clearly the perceptual difference between johns and prostitutes is akin to that of casual drug user versus dealer. (In other words, the men are weak, but the women are morally corrupt.) As I've stated here before, in the field where I work having public empathy or going very far toward pleading the case of sex workers will get me tossed out of large parts of that arena pretty quickly, so far be it from me to make pronouncements about how one ought to act faced with the realities of life.

To me the key is in one statement you made -- "My "true" friends (only two) asked questions, but ultimately didn't care less what I was doing for a living." My idea of a life partner is someone who falls into that "true" friend category, but I'm well aware (and anyone reading this or the American women thread, among others, will be also) that's the exception rather than the rule. I have nothing but admiration for someone who's struggling to make it alone as a single mother (I know so many in that situation) and have had many conversations with women about the compromises necessary when in that situation. And we all start with survival, safety and security and try to work our way up the ladder, happy for every higher rung we can reach and fearful of losing the lower.

I am curious, though, given what I understand you now do for a living with your job counseling and educating in the field, how the issue will manage to stay buried, as it seems a natural topic of conversation. As you say you've got ex-friends who are dissing you to mutual friends as well, I have to confess that it seems to me only a matter of time before something comes up, one way or another.

Heroes -- yes, see the discussion regarding the same of several weeks ago in the Thai women area. You've been a pretty consistent flag-bearer for women in the profession in a forum where such actions haven't always, to say the least, been met cordially, and that takes a degree of courage.

And, by no means do I think you should remain single unless that's your choice -- as far as I'm concerned, anyone and everyone, male and female, who can manage to demonstrate the intelligence, patience, tolerance, and good will that pervade your posts needs to reproduce and mentor as frequently as possible, as grace and empathy are always in far too short supply in the world.

[Fedup]

RN... Who do you want to end up with? A "true" lover... or someone that you have to hide things from?

It's in your own best interest to divulge your previous lifestyle. I don't have a problem with those in the sex industry: A very good friend of mine is ex-dancer (and I'd rather date her than many of the girls I've dated in the past). If we'd met as lovers rather than as friends, and she hid this from me, I would have dumped her when I found out. I have three reasons for this:

1) She lied about a major part of her life ( I would have asked about her past at some point and she would have needed to blow smoke to hide)

2) Now I'm wondering what else she hasn't told me (Does she have Black Widow Syndrome?)

3) She didn't hold me in high enough regard to allow me to make my own choice.

I have a four to six month "window" during which time I expect to hear such things as "I used to be a SW". Obviously I don't want to hear this on the first date (it would actually indicate that it's still a hangup for you too)... but you'd better tell me before we're seriously attached.

You said: "...but I also don't want my choice to be a sex worker in the past, to affect our lives as a couple in the future"

Everything you've ever done in your past affects your future... that's the way it works.

You also said: "...Perhaps it's just easier if I remain single for the rest of my days"

Tell ya what... If you and I are still single in two years I'll come down and give you a visit :)

[The Virgin Terr]

i have a belated comment relating to the brief discussion sparked by stranger 99's negative reference to organized crime. organized crime owes it's existence to the true worst element of society which is the corrupt and repressive politco-legal system which bans many activities deemed immoral which nevertheless a significant percentage of consenting adults engage in, such as prostitution. it takes a certain amount of ruthlessness to defy the establishment, but not as much as it takes to be a part of it and do something like take someone's freedom who is simply attempting to exercise his or her natural right to personal freedom.

[The Virgin Terr]

against a part of my better judgement, i'm going to weigh in once again on RN's most recent concern since she has brought it up again. RN, there is a time in any relationship between initially meeting and having formed an intimacy; one doesn't go from being strangers to being emotionally involved in the blink of an eye. there is a time in any relationship when it's appropriate to bring up any and all issues which your prospective partner should know about you if he is to make a truly informed decision re. how he feels about you. this is to dispel your weak argument that there's never an appropriate time to discuss important but potentially dicey subjects such as having been a prostitute. also, i can't accept your claim of shamelessness; if it were true, you wouldn't feel any need to conceal what is obviously an important part of your own history. i'm puzzled about why you keep bringing this up. if you want to bury your past, fine, do so, or rather attempt to do so, for secrets often become weightier and weightier albatrosses to carry around within oneself. but if you truly had no shame you'd have no need to agonize over this issue: you'd simply fully disclose it at an appropriate time and be happy with the results, because i'm sure you wouldn't wish to have an "intimate" relationship with someone who can't accept your past, which of course has a bearing on the person you are now.

[Rubber Nursey]

Terry,
I realise that I asked the same question before...as I mentioned in my post...but that was getting close to a year ago maybe, and there are new guys here who I felt may have an opinion on it too. (It only came from the recent discussion about Paddy's girlfriend, otherwise I wouldn't have said it again).

Fact is, like I said, at present I would prefer to not have him know. I figured that it would cause him nothing but heartache, put strain on the relationship and yes, leave the possibility of him using it against me in the future. That was what I believed...and I wanted male opinions on the matter. I have not been in a long term relationship since I started working, so I have not been in the position of making the decision yet. For all I knew...the men in here may have said "Don't tell him!!"

But they have all said the same thing so far...that the hurt of not being told and finding out later would be worse than finding out at the beginning. Because of what they (and you) have told me, I will probably bring it up with my partner next time it looks like a relationship could be developing (If it ever happens!!! LOL)

For the record, I don't WANT to bury my past. I want the man I love to understand who I really am and accept that who I really am includes being a sex worker. I don't want to live in fear of him finding out...and like Joe said, that would be difficult to hide considering my current job. I've also appeared in the media many times in defence of sex workers (not identifying as one mind you, or with any pictures) and intend on eventually writing a book, which will more than likely lead to instant public exposure. If I had a partner who didn't know, I would have to forget the book idea...and that is too important to me to give up.

Either way I'm still single so it's hardly an issue. Perhaps I need an "Australian Men" section to whine in??? :)

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe,

"And, by no means do I think you should remain single unless that's your choice -- as far as I'm concerned, anyone and everyone, male and female, who can manage to demonstrate the intelligence, patience, tolerance, and good will that pervade your posts needs to reproduce and mentor as frequently as possible, as grace and empathy are always in far too short supply in the world".

Awwww shucks honey...I'm blushing!! :)

Fedup,

"Tell ya what... If you and I are still single in two years I'll come down and give you a visit"

It's a deal!! I'll be waiting on the couch with a six-pack....wearing nothing but a big red bow. *cheeky grin* LOL

[Joe Zop]

Originally posted by RN
It's a deal!! I'll be waiting on the couch with a six-pack....wearing nothing but a big red bow. *cheeky grin* LOL

Wait, I forget -- did you say you worked for Australia's tourism board ;) as well?

[Stranger99]

I can't remember who said a few posts ago that:
"men are able to pretend they love to get sex and women they will have sex in exchange of love" (or something like that).

This brings me to another issue: is sex per-se only a man-thing?

I think it is.
This explains the rationale of prostitution: I will pay you this amount, I will take care of my needs and you will not expect anything but money from me.

Having said that I do not mean that women do not enjoy sex as much as we, men, do. I doubt though their ability to get that pleasure without having an emotional/mental involvement with their counterpart.

[Fedup]

mmmmmmmm... Foster's...

oops!... sorry RN... Canadian beer hound showing again...

I mean...

mmmmmmmm... RNnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn...

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by stranger99
I can't remember who said a few posts ago that:
"men are able to pretend they love to get sex and women they will have sex in exchange of love" (or something like that).


It was I, Dickhead, your faithful servant. "Men give love to get sex; women give sex to get love."

[Joe Zop]

C'mon, Fedup, you could go

mmmmmmm, Touhey’s...

or

mmmmmmm, Coopers.....

at least!

[Rubber Nursey]

Stranger99,

"This explains the rationale of prostitution: I will pay you this amount, I will take care of my needs and you will not expect anything but money from me".

That would be the way that all the male historians would probably put it...but how about this...

What if the WOMEN said: I will not be your wife or your servant or your property. I will allow you to have sex with me (seeing as you keep hounding me for it), you will pay me for the privilege....and then you will LEAVE.

Obviously I'm not claiming that as a historical fact, but you just never know! LOL

I know this is gonna sound odd to you (and will qualify me as a "sl*t" by the moral minority's standards) but I LOVED the fact that prostitution meant casual sex with no strings. All talk of money aside, it meant that I could have sex all day, every day, and nobody would expect anything more than that from me.
Whenever I had one night stands, I found I couldn't get rid of them! LOL There was always that "Can I call you" stuff at the end...and that was soooo not what I was looking for. In all honesty, I used to think "Why are men so damn clingy??? Can't they just accept that it was only sex for the sake of sex???" I found that sex work was very liberating in that respect.

And when you consider the oppression that women suffered in centuries gone by....forced to deny their sexuality and conform to the standards placed on them by men, while men roamed free to "sew their wild oats"....is it too far fetched to think that some may have chosen immorality over chastity for that exact reason?

Hmmmm sometimes I wish I was born with a penis...

[Rubber Nursey]

And as for your filthy manners gentlemen (not mentioning any names Joe and Fedup), if you wanna make it to this couch and untie this bow you gotta get it right....

it's mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm Emu Bitter!!!
*mwahh*

[Joe Zop]

RN, sounds luscuious no matter what's on the menu...

And as far as your attitude on one-night stands, that pretty much does sound like the male point of view, I must say, though I've met a number of women who feel the same. (And the clingy line is straight outa the male playa book.) Perhaps one of the absolute key attractions about prostitution is just that -- no strings, no implication of continuance. Obviously, that has its good and bad points (no real performance incentive, for example, although obviously one does generally shoot for return business) but in the sex-for-hire equation it's pretty clear where both parties stand.

The problem with one-night stands is that they're generally not necessarily clearly labelled as such, so one never knows -- maybe it was unbelievable and unbearable attraction that has longer term implications, etc. In prostitution you don't have to try to read your partner's mind in terms of what they thought of the process -- it's implicit. In real life, both parties aren't always on the same page.

[Stranger99]

RN: Take it as a compliment: you are male minded.

I wish there were more women like you around with whom you could, in a way, be clear upfront on what it is all about. I think though that even on something starting as casual sex a woman will eventually expects you to ask her out for dinner or something.

This is even more true when a woman is over 30: the ticking of the biological clock puts pressure on you to settle down and stop messing around with one-night stands.

I know there are exceptions out there (I personally know a very few cases and you add to this list).
I also don't know if it is human nature or social conventions: maybe Eve actually liked sleeping around and it was Adam the one pushing for long term relationship.

[Rubber Nursey]

Stranger99,

>>>the ticking of the biological clock puts pressure on you to settle down

Although I am getting (terrifyingly!!) close to 30 myself, I have already had children and have no desire to have any more. Maybe that accounts for something. Then again, I have always felt the same way about casual sex...so maybe it doesn't. :)

>>>I personally know a very few cases and you add to this list

The thing is, amongst my social circle we all feel pretty much the same way. In my "younger days" we would go out and pick up all the time...just for the sake of having sex. I swear this is the truth...I once had a guy call me a sl*t and accuse me of USING HIM when I told him I wasn't interested in seeing him again!! (Hmmm women are either clingy, or they are sl*ts...we just can't win can we!) Thing is though...you would never hear about that from that particular guy. He's not going to tell his mates that he got the flick...he's going to say I was a bad lay or that I got clingy and he had to set me straight. Right? You don't hear about women like me, because men don't like to admit that there ARE women like me! Men LIKE to be the one doing the dumping...it reaffirms their status as the dominant sex, leaving the lovelorn woman pining.

Also, most women are not going to tell you anyway! I am on a prostitution board and I'm anonymous...I don't have to protect my "reputation" by pretending that I am good, chaste housewife material. Women in your social circle may feel they have to. Women are afraid to be seen as overtly sexual. There's that whole sl*t versus stud thing to consider.

I can assure you...right now (it's been a looooong time between drinks!!) I would dearly love to walk up to a man and demand sex from him just to "break the drought". Funny thing is....at my age men tend to automatically think that I am looking to settle down, so they avoid me. Go figure!! LOL

[Rubber Nursey]

Hmmmmmm....

I like casual sex, drink beer, play pool, crave pizza, luuuuurve pre-1970's Mustangs, fear commitment, lust after Angelina Jolie....

Oh my God...maybe I WAS born a man after all!!!!!!!

Hang on...let me check......;)

[Dickhead]

Nursey, I think you're a little young for the ticking biological clock syndrome by US standards. I don't usually start hearing that shit until the gal's around 34 or so.

It's not really fair either because a guy only gets one dick but a gal can have lots if she plays her cards right ...

Every time I buy Foster's at the liquor store (bottle shop for Aussies), it's made in Canada. What's up with THAT (but I like Canadian beer too)?

To tie to the subject, prostitution seems even more morally sound when I'm drunk.

[Joe Zop]

Regarding the Fosters -- hey, if you buy Guinness in Australia, it's also made there, and just it's not the same (sorry, not as good) so it's the nature of the beast. Breweries are everywhere, which brings me to yeast, and thus, obtusely, back in the general area of the subject...

I agree with Dickhead, here, RN. Numbers of women are very much into just catting around in their twenties, but the clock starts really making major noise in the next decade. I don't think it's all that different for men, either, though, as I've seen tons of friends get that particularly male "must get married right now to the next vaguely acceptable candidate and don't really care who she is" look around that time in their life.

I do think that for women, though, this behavior represents a quantum shift in socially viable behavior, (being labelled a sl*t simply doesn't have the same overall social force it used to) a direct result of freely available birth control, feminism, and more general chatter about sex. Hooray for that, and it will be interesting to see what things look like in another

And I also agree with the observation that alcohol makes tons of things more morally viable. I wonder how prostitution rates (hell, or marriage rates or lots of business propositions) would change if a sobriety test were mandatory for participation. For sure the military enlistment rate would drop...

[Fedup]

Emu Bitter??????...

sounds like some sort of animal byproduct...

I'm currently sipping on a can of Busch...

I'd rather lick the rim of a Busch than drink Emu juice...

Prostitution sounds like a great idea right now...

too bad I'm in the US of A...

land of the free remember.

I was startled to hear that a motion to legalise pot was passed by the state of Nevada yesterday (the only state where prostitution is legal). It will never pass the house however as federal law prohibits it... which raises the question of why prostitution is allowed???. More of that good ol right wing hypocrisy I guess.

[Fedup]

The ticking of the biological clock is an interesting study. In Canada it seems that a girl's clock starts ticking at about 28 and the pendulum is in full swing by 32. By 34 the reek of desperation is almost puke inducing.

Down here in the South it seems that most girls are married and divorced with 2 kids by the time they even hit 28. It's curious how a simple change in temperature can affect a persons mind. I surmise that it's much like trees... the colder the climate the less growth occurs and the tree becomes fertile at a later date...

Makes sense to me.

Regarding the casual sex issue: Perhaps if young girls were taught to be more sexual then there'd be less uptight twats around (I wonder if that word will get bleeped). On the same line maybe girls should stop calling each other s*luts just because they like to get a bit of free cock every now and then. It would make it far easier for me to get some pussy, and would likely result in no need for this website.

[Dickhead]

Hi, FU. How's it hangin'? Prostitution is not legal everywhere in Nevada; it is "county option." My recollection of the history behind this is that they reserved that right when they achieved statehood although at that time, they blanketly "illegalized" it in order to have a better shot a statehood. The law is very restrictive. Prostitution is prohibited in "populous" counties, advertising is not permitted, street walking/soliciting is illegal, and on and on. Legal prostitution in Nevada is very expensive and quite inconvenient.

While "legalizing" ("legalising" for Canadians and other speakers of British English) marijuana is not permitted under federal law, it CAN be "decriminalized" (or "decriminalised"), as it is in my state. Maximum penalty for possession of less than one ounce (28.3 grams or grammes) is $100 and you do not get taken into custody and do not have to appear in court. This assumes no "aggravating factors." I don't know exactly what these factors are but I rather suspect that they are anything the cop feels like saying they are.

So, it's kinda like a traffic ticket here. I've been pretty blatant over the years (actually I moved to this state from Nevada and at that time, possession of ANY amount of marijuana was a felony in Nevada = totally rifuckingdiculous if I have spelled that correctly) and have never had any problems in this state (25 year resident);although I am pretty straight looking now for a dickhead I didn't used to be.

SO SMOKE 'EM IF YOU GOT 'EM!

[Rubber Nursey]

IMHO it is better to keep prostitution illegal than to legalise and regulate it in the manner that Nevada did. I would much rather work here illegally than work there legally. Their whole approach makes me sick.

Pot? Don't care, don't smoke it. However I do think it's pretty darn hypocritical that alcohol and cigarettes...which kill millions of people around the world directly and indirectly every day...are perfectly acceptable and marijuana is not. (Then again, casual sex is legal and prostitution is not...the hypocrisy just keeps on coming...)

Emu Bitter? Sounds terrible, but tastes PRETTY DARN GOOD! Trust me ;) I'll be having a few tonight...just to double-check that I'm giving you the right information of course.... hehe

Fedup,
>>On the same line maybe girls should stop calling each other s*luts just because they like to get a bit of free cock every now and then.

Amen! Women are usually the worst offenders when it comes to condemning other women for their behaviour, their dress, their choice in men, whatever. This is why I tend to associate with other women as little as possible. Women...can't live with 'em, can't shoot 'em.

[Dickhead]

Emu Bitter is quite palatable if simply referred to as EB. Never drink yourself into anything you can't smoke your way out of (referring or "reefering" to marijuana of course as tobacco is deadly, addictive, and tastes and smells terrible). And yeah, the legal prostitution in Nevada is egregious, execrable, extravagant, and possibly escharotic. Any ephebe electing to eulogize it is engaging in an eccentric education which is neither edifying nor eleemosynary, and shall not be elegized.

[Joe Zop]

RN, please elaborate on your dislike of the Nevada approach. (I keep hearing fingers on chalkboard in Dickhead's alliterative response and get stopped before I actually get to meaning.) I agree that it's a very weird scene in a lot of ways (and also hasn't exactly accomplished what was intended, given how rampant prostitution is in Las Vegas, where it's still illegal) but there's no question it's got a fair amount of popularity. Especially, it seems, of late now that various porn stars are doing stints in the brothels and charging (and getting) the GNP of small countries for the privilege...

[Rubber Nursey]

ohhh where do i start joe???

it's criminal...it really is. these women are treated no better than caged animals. in fact, there are laws in place to protect animals but none to protect nevada prostitutes, so they are actually worse off.

firstly, there is the mandatory testing. if that's not bad enough in itself...they are tested weekly! now i won't even get started on the civil and human rights violations involved in mandatory testing, but i will say that cervical scrapes every single week is massively increasing their risk of contracting hiv (not to mention the other "minor" stis). but that doesn't matter at all to the brothels...if one get's sick they just chuck her out and get another one.

secondly, they split everything they earn 50/50 with the house, (plus splitting tips in some houses would you believe), and on top of that they still pay for rent, board, supplies, doctors fees, sheriff's clearance, licence fees...and whatever else the county can slug them for. then of course they pay tax as well. it's little wonder they charge so much!!

thirdly, they work 12-16 hour shifts (minimum) and they sleep where they work.

fourth...the lockdown. this just makes my blood boil, and i'm not sure if i can discuss it rationally. the theory behind the lockdown houses? a) it ensures that prostitutes do not mix with the "good" folks in the community. in most houses, once they are in there they are not allowed out under any circumstances until they leave for their holidays. the doctor even comes to the brothels so they don't have to leave for their checkups! and b) it apparently ensures that they "remain clean" after testing. basically, to put it in plain english, it's to stop the dirty slags from going out and catching something on their night off ('coz we all know hookers can't be trusted to have safe sex unless there is someone keeping an eye on them). there has also been suggestion that it was to stop girls from moonlighting after hours (accosting good citizens in the streets, and most importantly, denying the brothels their 50 percent).

there are hundreds of restrictions placed on these women, and what do they get in return? nothing! there are no laws that stop infected clients from soliciting a prostitute's services, they have no employee rights at all (they are independent contractors of course...when it suits the brothels that is!), and they are treated like second class citizens by their employers, the community and the county. they are apparently not even allowed to unionise!!! there is nobody to speak up for their rights, and if one of them was game enough to do it, she would be thrown straight out and replaced. it is the only way to work legally in the entire us of a...prospective workers are lined up as far as the eye can see, just waiting for an employment opening.

in my opinion, the nevada brothels are a perfect example of laws that were made to protect the people from the prostitutes. what is the value of working legally, when you are still treated like a criminal by your government???

sexual servitude...there is no other word for it. sorry...i shouldn't have started! lol

[Dickhead]

I apologize to JZ for the voracious volley of verbiage in my previous post. However, I must say that I do not find prostitution to be particularly "rampant" in Las Vegas as compared to for example Costa Rica, Méjico, Hong Kong, Macau (probably the most "rampant" in my experience, bordering on ubiquitious), or even Melbourne or Vancouver. Especially in recent years!

I have a way of standing around looking like I need a hooker that seemed to work a lot better in Vegas in the 70s and 80s than it has in the 90s and 00s. Plus you have to play all these dumb ass games before you cut to the chase because it's illegal.

Now the Mustang Ranch near Reno was a really bitching place in the late 70s and 80s. I worked at Harrah's Casino in Reno in 1977 and we had a bus that went out there every pay day. They had Thai girls which I have never seen in the "bunny ranches" in Pahrump and so forth. Winnemucca, NV also had (has?) a "red light district" that had four brothels facing each other in a little square. The gals there seemed pretty happy (again, back in the 80s).

No doubt the most unsatisfactory paid sex experiences I've ever had were in Nevada brothels, and the prices they ask for are laughable. Never again. I'd rather jack off into a $100 bill. I think the last three times I have been to those Vegas-area brothels I have left without a "booking," to use RN's term.

Not doubting you for a minute, RN, but what are your sources about the length of shifts and all that lockdown stuff? It would certainly explain why they have such terrible attitudes.

The Mafia ran way better *****houses than these tin horn sheriffs ever could ...

[Rubber Nursey]

Dickhead,

I talk to some of the brothel workers online, and am in email contact with American prostitutes collectives and activists. Because of the current law reform efforts in my state, I have been researching legalised and decriminalised models around the world to see what works and what doesn't, for quite a while now. (That's how I originally found the WSG). I was honestly horrified by the situation in Nevada, and I can assure you I will be making all efforts to oppose ANY similarities in our proposed legislation, should they arise.

I wouldn't blame the workers at all if their attitudes were a little less than effervescent...be damned if I would be smiling if I was working there...

[Joe Zop]

Dickhead, I was actually at one point going to do a search to see if you were trying to do aliterative responses using every letter of the alphabet, which would be an interesting bit. As I recall, you did at least one or two others, and it was one of the more interesting forms of internet stuttering I've seen :) And I was refering to rampant within a US perspective -- certainly, there are dozens of easily nameable locales outside where it's more so. (Hell, I'm a past and upcoming visitor to Thailand, where it's more than obvious and everywhere.) For what it's worth, and perhaps I've got the same look as you reference, I've never not been accosted in Vegas, though, among other reasons, because of the fact that their high pricing and my slot machine luck tends not to coincide, I've always passed.

RN, first, of course my question was a set-up, as the system in Nevada is ridiculous. (Though I think worst-case scenarios come not from the law but from brothel owners.) My suspicion is that in reality there's a two-tier system at work in Nevada. I doubt the Terri Weigles or Milas or Sunset Thomases and other porn stars are subject to the scenario you describe, or they certainly wouldn't be going back for more, as so many do.

But first, let's talk civil and human rights violations in testing, shall we? First, in point of fact I'm very much on your side regarding mandatory testing being a bad idea, but it's because it doesn't really work as designed, doesn't ultimately serve the purpose of increased public health protection because it drives sex workers underground, not because I think it's a rights violation.

There are all kinds of regular certifications that are necessary to hold any variety of jobs, from the ability to lug a body up and down a ladder if you're on the fire department, to random drug tests for various professional sports or the Olympics. My father, who was a police officer, noted that his department could spring a shooting range test on you at any time someone felt like it, and if you failed you were suspended until such time you passed, having to wait through a couple of days off (and department-wide ridicule) before you tried again. He'd say, "Well, they make you carry a gun so you better be able to prove you know how to use it right." What kind of certification would be more important in prostitution than being free of sexual diseases? The ability to deep throat? To whisper, "baby you're the best" in some believeable form?

I'm opposed to testing in places where it really isn't relevant -- I don't see how random drug testing is justified in most scenarios, for example, as it has nothing to do with doing the job one was hired to do (and in athletes it's nominally about enhancing performance and thus getting an unfair advantage) but STDs are relevant in a scenario of paid sexual activity, so to me this is not any kind of a priori violation.

As I said, whether mandatory testing works or not is a different issue. Nevada's fond of noting that no one in the brothels there has ever tested HIV positive, but there's no question that is as much a marketing statement as anything else.

But, as a customer, this is a relevant issue -- and not at all an argument that I want to be assured that my partner is clear so I can avoid a condom. I'd still want it, but if I'm hiring someone who is HIV-positive or carrying Syphillis or Herpes, I'd prefer to know so I can decide whether or not I want to raise my risk factor, condom or no. (And, for the record, in all my years I've never had a condom break, but that doesn't mean it's not still a risk.)

(Gotta manage to disagree with you on at least some things :) )

[CBGBConnisur]

This is so twisted, the idea that we should talk about the 'morality' of prostitution. In a world where 80 percent of the people on this planet starve because of big corporate globalized capitalism. In a world where people are murdered by warfare each and everyday, we have to get self rightousness on a person paying another person for pleasure. How fucked up is this??

[Joe Zop]

Well, CBGB, like it or not prostitution is illegal in the majority of places, and vast numbers of people consider it a sin or an indication of a moral failing. So I'd say (at the risk of speaking for other regular posters) that we here involved in the discussion view this as an exercise in corrective thinking :) by discussing the "ins and outs" of the trade in general. If you take a read through here you'll not find too many people taking that majority negative position...

[Prokofiev]

CB,

80% of the planet is starving? Really? Due to capitalism? How interesting. Anything else to share with us?

[CBGBConnisur]

Joe you could not be more wrong the United States is the only developed country where prostitution is outright illegal and a crime that has severe penalties, I go to Canada and its pretty much a legal thing. In Europe its 100 percent accepted, virtually every European country has an active prostitution scene plus the women are extremely attractive. Whenever I have used a prostitute in Europe I have never been treated like a scoundrel or a criminal by the woman, on the contrary she seems to welcome my business and treats me like a client, its a major contrast to America, where you pay the woman 100's of dollars and she can treat you like a scoundrel.

[Joe Zop]

Sorry, CBGB, there's a very big difference between tolerated and legal, and while you're right that it's more liberal and it's legal in some places, you're also incorrect in a lot of ways. Prostitution is illegal in Belgium, Bulgaria, Ireland, Romania, among others. There are tons of restrictions in various places, some of which are outright silly (in Sweden prostitution isn't illegal, but offering to pay for sex is.) Europe is also not the whole world. A year ago, for example, Vietnam made a lot of noise about launching a crackdown on prostitution, though it obviously still goes on. Read the Cuba area of this forum and you'll learn how severe the penalties are for being labeled a prostitute, the ongoing hassles, and the lengths people go through to avoid trouble. And let's not forget that Robert DeNiro threatened to sue a judge a couple of years back over being questioned, in France, over an investigation there about an international prostitution ring, so it's not absolutely all roses.

And your experience with American prostitutes isn't mine -- I've not been treated like a scoundrel, ever, by the woman I'm with. I know your opinion, since you regularly repeat it everywhere on the forum, that if there's an American woman attached to it it's something that automatically must be terrible, but that's your particular opinion and not one I share, despite the fact that I've also met many beautiful and extraordinary women elsewhere in the world. I've had better and worse experiences with American prostitutes, but that's been true in other countries as well.

[Rubber Nursey]

joe,

the system in nevada is ridiculous. (though i think worst-case scenarios come not from the law but from brothel owners.)

that's exactly right (apart from the mandatory testing). my problem with that is there are no laws to protect the workers from this sort of treatment. the legislation was written with the public in mind and no consideration given to the workers, hence the brothel owners can do what they like. for example, even though sex workers are classed as independent contractors over here, same as in nevada, australian workers are classified as employees under occupational health and safety legislation. this means they have the right to refuse clients for violating drug and alcohol policies, etc. also we have the support of the unions, so we have the right to sue for unfair dismissal, means to control working hours and fines, etc. nevada girls do not have those rights.

but first, let's talk civil and human rights violations in testing, shall we?

ok, firstly i want to clarify that i am not advocating that sex workers should not have regular testing done. this is usually the first thing i'm accused of when i start putting down mandatory testing. i'll give you a few points, and i'll warn you that this may end up longer than expected! lol

a) firstly, my biggest problem stems not from mandatory testing itself, but the means used to ensure that is it carried out. you can't be sure that every hooker is being tested if you don't know who's working and who's not. that means registration and/or licensing. registration is devastating to a sex worker. we don't just keep our job a secret because of some sort of personal shame. we do it to protect our families from ridicule, protect ourselves from discrimination, protect our privacy and safety (stalkers, etc are a fact of life in the industry) and many other things that come from the stigma of being a prostitute. registration destroys this absolutely essential anonymity. did you know "registered prostitutes" in victoria, australia have been denied visas to america and england because of their prostitute status? did you know that their address, real name and occupation is available under the freedom of information act? because of that, they are denied rental applications for housing, employment in certain fields (many fields) and it can be used against them in family court, amongst other things. most registered prostitutes are denied life insurance policies, or at least denied hiv cover in those policies. sure, other occupations are subject to these sorts of requirements...but are there any other occupations subject to this amount of discrimination because of it???

b) secondly, the invasion of privacy. i don't know about your laws so it may be different, but in this country it is illegal to request somebody's medical details. you are only able to request a "certificate of attendance" to prove that they have seen a doctor as required. that goes for every job where testing is recommended, like doctors, nurses, ambulance officers, etc. (note i said "recommended", not enforced). mandatory testing requires not only handing over your medical details to your employer...unheard of in any other occupation...but that they be handed over to a health authority, and in the case of victoria, a prostitution control board. that is a gross violation of our privacy act (like i said, yours may be different though). i'm pretty sure that random drug testing is excluded under the misuse of drugs act, but i can't be certain.

c) thirdly, it removes all control from the sex workers, and leaves women with no means of income for extended periods of time. i think i have given this example before, but i'll do it again. at present, if i was to test positive to chlamydia, i have the option of altering my service to accomodate it. i could tell my boss that i can't do full service (lie about why if i have to) and just offer a massage and oral service while i am treated and cleared by the doctor. i am presenting no risk to my clients, but i am still earning an income. under mandatory testing, in nevada for example, the girl's workcard is revoked for the length of time it takes to treat and they don't get it back until they are clear. that takes around 6 weeks! she is without any means of financial support until that time. and when you have a family to support, this is not a viable option...hence she will more than likely go out and work illegally anyway.

d) fourth, as mentioned above, it does not take into account the sort of service you provide, nor the hours that you work, nor the amount of clients that you see. you are considered a sex worker either way, and still subjected to the same laws. should a girl who only does massage and hand relief and sees 2 clients a week be forced to undergo weekly testing? should the unattractive woman who is lucky to get picked out of the lineup once a fortnight have to be tested so frequently? what about people like me who, for the last couple of months in the industry only worked a five hour shift once a week? lawmakers only see a prostitute as a woman who has sex with large numbers of men every day...they do not understand that this is not always the case. this is most visible in the response to hiv. hookers are immediately banned from working when testing positive. but there is no risk of transmission when doing a massage service, or even oral with a condom. all this does is force women to stop working in brothels, stop having regular health tests, and go to work illegally. you can't just tell a woman to stop work if that's her only means of income, and expect her to do as she's told.

hmmm i've written too much already. better stop for now huh? lol certainly it is good for the clients and the community to feel "safe" with working girls. but as i already mentioned in the aids section, agencies like mine can help to assure that, without the need for government intervention, registration and invasive legislation. rather than spending the millions required to set up control boards and registration systems, they should be giving more funding to peer education that works.

[Rubber Nursey]

Sorry, CBGB, there's a very big difference between tolerated and legal, and while you're right that it's more liberal and it's legal in some places, you're also incorrect in a lot of ways.

I agree with Joe. You'll find that there are many more countries where prostitution is illegal, even if it is tolerated, and there are also often differences in legality between individual localities in each country. For example, people are always quoting that prostitution is legal in Australia...it's not. It's only legal in four states out of eight, and even then only certain activities are legal while others still attract criminal penalties.

I think it's often easy for tourists to confuse toleration with legality. You would be forgiven for thinking that it is legal in my state when you see the hundreds of girls freely advertising their services in the newspaper, and all the brothels at night sporting neon signs and flashing fairy lights. But it's not legal...in fact if you look up our legislation online (Prostitution Act 2000) you will find that we have some of the most draconian laws in the world, with severe penalties for both prostitutes AND clients. Often behind the toleration that the tourist sees, there is bribery, corruption and police harrassment that you don't see.

[CBGBConnisur]

RN and Joe, whatever. By the way Joe in Belgium prositution is LEGAL, there is a huge Red Light District in Brussels. I know I was in Brussels last year, and the Dutch and Francophile culture is relaxed to prostitution. With regards to Ireland I could not care less about the scene there because it is the pits. But I have noted in Europe that it is common for a man even if he is married to have a prostitute mistress. As far as you two saying its socially unacceptable, when the French President Francois Mitterand passed away his mistress attended the funeral as well as their love child. That kind of scene would make scandals in America and the UK. That case you talk about with that actor in France has not to do with prudishness but with the fact that since 1990, Russian and Albanian gangs have entered the business in France and have added an underworld element to prostitution, in the 80's France before the Communist fall it was more innocent but the entrance of Eastern European underworld elements has changed things, and these individuals play rough. In places like Germany and Holland plenty of mainstream women have worked in the industry, I met one woman in Germany who was a medical student, in fact most of the women at the club she was working were University students paying their way through college.

[Rubber Nursey]

I never said that it was socially unacceptable to visit a prostitute. In fact, in a majority of cultures, it is considered the norm. Men are excused because (for some strange reason) people seem to accept promiscuity in men as some sort of inborn trait. But seeing as you brought it up, I can't think of too many cultures where it's socially acceptable to actually BE a prostitute.

Plenty of "mainstream" women all over the world have worked in the industry. I know of a girl (and there was another in the media last year) who payed her way through the Police Academy working as a hooker! LOL Most girls are not going to admit to that though...even in the more "sexually liberated" countries. Even in places where sex work is openly practiced, it is often treated as a "necessary evil", not a respectable occupation.

Anyway, I do agree with your original post...there are so many more terrible things in the world that need to be addressed before prying into people's sex lives. Such a complete waste of police resources.

[Joe Zop]

CBGB -- hey, you brought it up :) The point being that the specifics are less important than the fact that not every place is like say, Germany, where a judge has formally declared that prostitution is not immoral, so this thread has great relevance. (Just defending our conversations here, LOL) Ireland's scene may be the pits, but the country is certainly beautiful -- how much the better if they got their collective heads out of their butts on this issue? As with RN, I completely agree with you that there are far better things for resources to be spent on than worrying about prostitution, which even if you want to label it a crime is a victimless one as long as both parties clearly consent. Things can change in society if people work at them -- heck, look at casinos in the US, which 20 years ago were found exclusively in Las Vegas. Or lotteries, for that matter.

RN, whew! Let me take a breath.

[CBGBConnisur]

Joe, I looked up some info about the DeNiro flap, I read a statement he made which was directed at the American media, that he had never used a prostitute. Obviously we really don't know the circumstances about that investigation, maybe the French just went after him because of who he is or maybe that alleged ring had some ties to some underworld dealings, or just they were being dicks, which is the most likely scenario. But he really went out of his way to say to Hollywood that he doesn't have sex with prostitutes it obviously caused him a lot of grief in the US. The fact that he apologized to the US media figures and denied totally that he has been with a prostitute just shows you how uptight America is towards sex. I mean I thought Hollywood was all about sex and glamour!!

[Joe Zop]

rn, i'm afraid i'm about to respond to your tome with one of my own. (i wish you'd stop being so provocative, but i know you just can't help yourself. it's that intellectual come-hither thing...)

i agree with you about the stigma of prostitution and the risk to those so labeled, but the truth of the matter is that in order to actually make societal attitudes change happen such absurdities have to face challenges and have examples that undermine them. examples such as the ones you and cbgb have mentioned are ways in which that stigma gets broken down, as people see benefit clearly derived from participating in sex work as opposed to the stereotypical "lost girl with no other choice but to make the horrific choice to sell her body." a hundred articulate professionals who have paid their ways into other fields by being sex workers will go more to breaking down stigma than anything else ever will.

taking the specifics of the sex trade out of things for the moment, it's difficult to make a case for pretty much any industry to be free of regulation and, in many, many cases, registration. i don't want unlicensed pharmacists or even truck drivers running around as that would be a public hazard, and the same situation, unfortunately, exists for prostitution. the call of legalization without regulation of any sort isn't likely to gain much sympathy if only because of the precedent it sets.

the us doesn't have a privacy act per se, and in the aftermath of last year's attack, the curtain around individual privacy is eroding still further, in some areas in rather alarming ways. so i think the overall trend here is negative in terms of the likelihood of better models emerging, and it's far more likely to happen, say, where you are, as things are more progressive. that said, medical records are also confidential here.

let me use an example from my own experience. i worked for the red cross when hiv/aids testing first came in, and there was a great deal of discussion both internally and in the public sphere regarding public health risk versus privacy, and the responsibilities of the agency in the face of the rising epidemic. because there was a need to safeguard the blood supply, the red cross absolutely needed to track donor information, including those who were hiv-positive, not only so they could be filtered out of the donation process in the same way those who were positive for hepatitis were, but to speed blood through the distribution system and allow for targetted recruitment of those who fit specific criteria. at the same time, there was clearly an obligation on the side of the red cross to tell donors what they'd found. what the agency did was establish a blind system where the identity of the hiv-positive donors was firewalled from those who did testing, tracking, or recruitment. there were an extremely limited number of people with access to the full spectrum of information. my job involved tracking the movement and disposition of blood, from donation to use or disposal, and even i was not one of those with full access. this has now been in place for close to twenty years and has continued to work.

because the red cross took the position of simultaneously protecting the public health and individual privacy, more dramatic steps (which were definitely being bandied about) were curtailed. because that information is medical in nature, it stays confidential and free from legal challenge, even though the identities are connected to it. there was a temporary drop-off in donations, as people needed to be educated about the process, but that only lasted a relatively short time.

there need for there to be clear parameters that work to both sides' benefits, and while that's a politically difficult situation that may be difficult to implement, it's not impossible to envision such a scenario. first, it has to go back to that trusted intermediary, and some guarantees of safety. what if an organization such as yours were responsible for registration and testing, with a clear "lock-box" such as i've described above around the information?

as far as your comments about livelihood, what you're essentially saying is that the sex worker's right to make a living outweighs the client's right to being safe, and here we disagree. let's use your example of chlamydia only let's substitute, say, syphillis, and let's presume, since you advocate control being completely in the sex workers domain, that the person i see is not as sensible or enlightened as you, is one of those sex workers we've discussed here who basically feels that there are always more customers so it doesn't really matter what kind of service is given as you'll never see this guy again. if i wanted to stretch the scenario still further to make the point, let's say she's a complete idiot (which must mean she's a stunner but huge breasts, as there's got to be something attractive in the equation) and she doesn't always practice safe sex with clients. suddenly, it's not her livelihood that's the major issue, it's my health.

again, how about a middle ground? why not define two courses of action -- first, establish clear available areas of work that can be done while one has this or that condition. this way there are clear ways of continuing to generate income while protecting public health. (again, this echoes what's done in other fields; a kind of "restricted duty.") second, if those restricted areas of work are not established, require that clients be notified of the sex worker's condition so they can make their own choices. i don't see, for example, where a sex worker's right to make a living outweighs my right to be aware that they are hiv-positive. it might well be argued that this will restrict the sex worker's options -- well, no, it allows the client to make choices. i've no big problem with having a massage or covered oral sex from a hiv-positive sex worker, but if i'm going to be engaging in anal sex i'd sure as heck want to know, as my risks go up substantially in the case of damage to the latex.

one of the key underpinnings and aspects of the positive model of prostitution we've been discussing is the ability of both parties to enter freely and knowingly into the transaction, and knowingly concealing information about a potentially risky condition is not providing the ability to give informed consent. let's take it one step further -- the establishment of a "professional" cadre of sex workers who are guild-certified (note i don't say government certified) as meeting certain standards of health and behavior would go a long way toward, frankly, attracting customers. heck, that's kind of one of the undertones on this board -- who provides a good experience. if i know someone provides a gfe, has undergone some kind of courtesan training, and is tested and safe from disease, why wouldn't i choose that worker over another, presuming other factors were equal? personally, i'd probably even be willing to pay a premium for the privilege.

[Joe Zop]

CBGB -- I thought (and I'm going from memory here) that the whole DeNiro thing was tied into his then-ended relationship with black porn star Charmaine Sinclair, who he met through some guy who turned out to be a pimp. I'm sure that guy just went around saying, heck, I get women for DeNiro, which was good for business in that implied he had high-class women. As far as DeNiro, I suspect it's as much a macho and status thing (god, even DeNiro has to pay for it!) as anything else, though he's also always been notoriously prickly about his privacy. Hollywood types are always all over porn stars, and you can look at the amount of ridicule that, say, Charlie Sheen has taken for his dealings with prostitutes.

And again, you'll get absolutely no disagreement from me about the idiocy of the stigmas here in this country. We're a bunch of sniggering children who are afraid someone else is getting something better, so we walk around saying that what they've got is shit anyway, and no one should really want it.

[Traveller]

RN and Joe - I have all respect for the views you have expressed lately. But it's just not my game. I don't think I have ever disrespected a working girl (I have disliked some but that's another matter).

The idea of visiting a girl in a setup where she has to provide her "licence", don raincoats and rubber boots and then "get to business" for a short while (keeps the licence valid) is too big a turn-off. (Yea I know I am putting it to extremes here....but the whole approach of risk aversion, health concerns and all that stuff....kinda takes the fun outta it.) It's not that I really want to catch something (never did really - gotta be lucky too). But it's not close to anything that resembles the "real thing" in my mind (not the stuff of wearing a rubber, but the mind-set).

Thanks be some places in the world (remote and awkward, but where you can still find a "freelancer" who will shag for bucks and then do it for "real" - with or without the brackets.......) Come to think of weird locations in Romania and East Russia among others.

RN, I don't think I would ever visit you in a "house" for the above reasons - but if I ever come to your parts of Oz I would sure as hell bring a big bunch of flowers and a bottle of champagne just for the fun of it. Thing is, you don't sound like my ideal hooker, but you sure as anything sound as someone that many guys would want as their kids' mother.

Sorry I've got little opportunity to partake here these days - living up to my nick (work-wise:)

[Joe Zop]

Traveller -- I absolutely understand and in no way do I think what we're talking about should negatively impact your fun. For me, the point is more that if the overall stigma goes down then people will relax a bit and just be sensible and human about the whole thing. (Despite how I'm probably coming off for argument's sake, I'm not some sort of germ-paranoid-condom-on-each-toe-o-my-god-is-that-fluid freak :) ) It's unfortunate, honestly, that the whole AIDS epidemic has gotten people so worried, as that ends up being the focus of everything as opposed to the overall scene. But that's where we are right now, and I mostly worry that those concerns will lead to more ridiculous situations as opposed to promoting an easier look at sex work as a whole. And to me, it's more the option and the encouraging environment than the requirement regarding licensing, etc. I'm actually not much in favor of compulsory anything.

And, hey, I'm also one of those folks who end up in a variety of wild places (much of my work travel involves the third world) so I'm decidedly with you as far as the "real" thing. Let's face it -- I don't exactly see Bangladesh, for example, getting "organized" in their prostitution efforts any time in the forseeable future, since they can't get the rest of their overall infrastructure in place...

[Dickhead]

It is my opinion that a lot of what RN says about the rights of SWs in Oz vs. the US is representative of the RELATIVE lack of worker rights in the US in general, as compared to other DEVELOPED (key word) countries. Much of this traces back to the concept of "employment at will," which is the norm here in the US but not well accepted in Europe. Oz and NZ seemed to me to be much closer to the European model, worker-wise, than the American model. There's an upside and a downside to both models, but the upside of the American model RELATIVELY more favors the employer/aristocrat while the European model RELATIVELY more favors the worker/proletariat.

"I care for riches, to make gifts
To friends, or lead a sick man back to health
With ease and plenty. Else small aid is wealth
For daily gladness; once a man be done
With hunger, rich and poor are all as one."

Therefore it is my conclusion that prostitution is moral, in that it reduces economic stratification by transfering wealth from men with excess cash to hookers who need the cash.

But if the government gets involved, that raises the price and becomes a form of regressive taxation as pussy is a necessity similar to groceries and should not be subject to sales taxes.

[CBGBConnisur]

Joe, interestingly I read an article in an American paper about the swinging lifestyle in France, and with respect to the HIV epidemic most French have gotten fedup of waiting for the cure, swinging is becoming extremely popular in France and Paris is home to dozens of swing clubs. Prostitution elsewhere in Europe declined in the early 80's because of HIV but made a huge comeback later in the decade and stayed strong throughout the 90's. Germany has kept itself as one of the best countries in the world to meet a prostitute for sex. But as far as prostitution is concerned, if you can speak the local language and can stick around for a while it is relatively easier to find a lover in Europe than it is in North America. I talked to a few other buddies of mine who love going to Europe, the reason these guys love it is because the women there tend to be more outgoing, affectionate, and are generally looser when it comes to sex.

[Prokofiev]

Despite all this talk to the contrary, I find that feelings about prostitution and sex in general are more or less the same in all societies that I have known. Despite being legal in Mexico, I have found few if any women who are proud of being a prostitute or working in a massage parlor. Many have asked me if I think they are "bad" and worry about both the practical and moral problems of their occupation. Same with Korean women - many who I have known from the local Korean massage parlors and Chinese. In Britan, Spain, France and Germany prostitution is certainly tolerated to a greater degree than in the US, but all the women I've met in those countries have a certain sense of "shame" about their work, irregardless of legality or their religion.
.
These feelings are completely natural and are universal. Most people treat sex as a VERY private matter of great intimacy and women in particular, have a biological need to mate with those men who are willing and able to care for the resulting offspring. Random sex with unknown men of questionable character is not a pleasant or acceptable job description for 99% of the planets females. No matter the legal status or religeous beliefs, there is a deep-seated biological reason for women feeling that prostitution is not right. Hence centuries of laws, codes, sanctions and shame that virtually all societies place on the practice. It also explains the relatively high prices for female sex. Women will scrub toilets for minimum wage, but want $50+ for a 5 minute hand job - with no chance of disease or pregnancy.
.
Despite all this bashing of "American" women, having sex in the US is not exactly a tough proposition. Yes, as a gringo with $100,I have a better chance of a quick lay in Mexico than in the US. But dating a Mexican woman and expecting sex on the first date? You are better off in the good old USA, my friend. The social skills required for a sexual relationship are lacking in many men and - dare I say it - many of the guys whining in the World Sex Guide forum are exactly the type who need a "skills" course. American women, like American men, may be fat -I'll grant you that, but they do put out like everyone else. The more I live, travel and experience, the more I realize the universality of the sex game. Basically the same everywhere . . . - P

[CBGBConnisur]

Good call Prokofiev, I would say some people are a bit 'ashamed' of doing this kind of thing but I am more likely to get laid on a first date in Europe than in the USA. It always worked out that way that a women would open up to me in Europe more easily than in the States. The easiest way I have found to meet a women in Europe was simply to make eye contact and smile and say hello. That's a fairly simple ice breaker. I got so spoiled in Europe by the women, that I tried to to use that same nice guy approach in New York with women who made eye contact with me. In contrast to the European ladies, these New York women wound up looking at me like I was from another planet. Mind you these NYC women on average were not as attractive as those that I had met in Europe.

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe,

With regard to your syphilis scenario, my point is that there are already laws in place to deal with this sort of behaviour, that apply to ALL of the community. Under our Health Act it is an offence to knowingly expose someone to an STD (and under the legislation a prostitute is liable for harsher penalties, and is considered to "know" whether she does or not). It is also a much more serious offence to knowingly expose someone to HIV (as that American teenager has just found out). The same increased penalties and presumption of prior knowledge applies for a prostitute for this offence. Also under the Health Act, it is an offence for a prostitute to continue to "remain an inmate of a bawdy house" once diagnosed with an STD...in particular HIV. Under the Prostitution Act 2000 it is an offence, for BOTH client and sex worker, to offer and/or request any service without a condom. The fine is $5000 each.

Ultimately, I must add, I am not an advocate for legalisation at all...I would much rather see decriminalisation. Anyway, if for example it was decriminalised, I can't see why the above laws are not good enough to control any errant sex workers who don't care too much about public health. Normally I am not in favour of "extra" laws specifically targeting prostitutes, but in this case I think it is fair that sex workers attract heavier penalties because of the higher exposure rates. But I firmly do not believe that they need ADDITIONAL laws created. Under the current laws regulating sexual activity, without mandatory testing or registration, prostitutes are obliged to have regular testing done or face jail terms for knowingly infecting a client.

When it comes to workers catching something which should end their "career", eg. HIV or syphilis, that is something our agency is currently researching and attempting to get funding for. We want money to put into exit and retraining for sex workers, and also some sort of insurance/compensation/redundancy package of sorts. At present hookers have no employee benefits, like most independent contractors, but they also do not have the option of income insurance etc, to cover them if something should go wrong like other small business people do. The whole reason prostitutes continue working (and putting others at risk) is that they cannot afford to stop. They also often have no other qualifications to look for alternative employment. If the Government is serious about stopping infected workers from putting the public health at risk, they should have a look at WHY they do it. Give them more options.

PS The Red Cross is a sore spot for me. According to them, I cannot donate blood because I have worked as a prostitute. (Do you, or have you, worked as a prostitute since 1982?). Now, I have not worked for quite a while, all my HIV tests have come up negative and I basically haven't had sex since I worked! (Stop laughing!! LOL) I do not have HIV. That is a fact. However, I can not give life-saving blood to someone who may need it. Sure it may be fair to refuse current sex worker's blood (actually it's NOT fair according to the stats, but I can live with it), but to exclude EX workers who are clearly not HIV+ is just plain discriminatory. It seems to me to be a "once a hooker, always a hooker" type statement.

[Rubber Nursey]

Dickhead,

pussy is a necessity similar to groceries and should not be subject to sales taxes.

Would you believe, in our ILLEGAL industry mind you, that sex services are subject to GST (Goods and Services Tax)??? LOL The Government will stop at nothing....

[Rubber Nursey]

Traveller,

I totally understand your view. I come to this board as an activist who wants to educate some people and learn from others. I cannot make a stand for the prostitutes alone...the happiness of the clients is just as important to me, as is that of the rest of the public. I need to talk to people to expand my knowledge of international issues as well. Law reform needs to keep EVERYONE happy, or it will be opposed at every turn. Politics has always been something I was passionate about, and after being forced to work illegally and treated like a criminal for the crime of wanting to better my financial position and support my children without the assistance of welfare, I got VERY politically motivated! This kind of attitude is not...ummm...sexy, to say the least. heh heh

I do have to add though (in my defence LOL) that if I was to meet you in a brothel, you would have no idea of my political position. I may be a stubborn, argumentative b*tch on this board, but I assure you I can batt my eyelids, swing my hips and giggle with the best of them :) Yes, you would have to use a condom (sorry but I won't budge on that one) but don't confuse safe sex with boring sex. I made my living out of reading a man's desires...if you want a smart, sophistocated courtesan, I can do it. If you want a cheap street ho, I can do that too. I can even do the airheaded bimbo act (as much as it kills me to do it! LOL)

That said, I was really kinda "honoured" almost by what you said about me. To have you suggest that a known ex-worker is "wife" material rather than "hooker" material is quite a compliment!! (And the offer of alcohol always works with me too *grin*)

[Joe Zop]

RN -- seems some of this falls into the category of overall local or regional structures that are or are not in place. In the scenario you describe, there is certainly more protection in place from a client perspective, as there are laws that can be brought to bear. (Whether they actually are is another matter.) For the most part, there aren't such STD laws in place in the US, with the exception of knowingly infecting people with AIDS, and even those laws are rarely applied. There are certainly not any such condom laws on the books here, as far as I'm aware.

The Red Cross thing is the same way -- the prostitution question's not on any questionaire I've ever seen here, though I've been stopped at times from donating because of places I'd travelled recently. (A couple of points on that -- first, I'm hardly a Red Cross apologist -- I had huge policy fights and disagreements with them while I was there, which is now a very very long time ago, and they've done some idiotic things. They also have an obnoxiously patronizing and patriarchial structure in some places and simply vary wildly by locale. Next, the blood of a sex worker, not saying at all that you're actively infected, is very likely is a stew of far more antibodies simply because of the possibility of exposure. That means that it's more likely patients will have an adverse reaction, as there are actually a great number of secondary things in the blood that are generally not screened or tested, since for the vast majority they're not an issue. Patients have are all kinds of negative reactions, ranging from the minor to serious, to blood that passes testing with flying colors. So, though I think it's ridiculous overkill, it's probable that they're choosing to err wildly on the side of caution. I recognize it further attaches stigma, but it's kind of their version of safe sex.)

You lost me on this one -- "Under the current laws regulating sexual activity, without mandatory testing or registration, prostitutes are obliged to have regular testing done or face jail terms for knowingly infecting a client." How can one be convicted of "knowingly" infecting someone if one is asymptomatic and hasn't been tested positive?

I'm curious about the issue of insurance/compensation. How, given your concerns about the stigmatizing of those who "register" as sex workers, would you manage that scenario? Wouldn't someone have to identify themselves as a sex worker in order to qualify? Especially in the case of insurance or compensation, personal information there is hardly as confidential or secure as medical info. Also, could you speak to the differences you see between decriminalization and legalization? Is it primarily an issue of oversight?

And are you implying that there aren't those who wouldn't hire "a stubborn, argumentative b*tch" just to be able to pound the hell out of her? :) Resistance and dominance fantasies come in all flavors...

[Jerry P]

Hey Guys,
This past week I was able to find time away from home & work to seek out & find real live sex as in FS. The reason for my message is simple I live in on the far outskirts of Chicago about 80miles west of the city. There are some businesses which still offer the kind of service which used to be quite common but that's a different story & I'm getting off the track. I pop in and a number of ladies start lining up for review - well I was in a very cautious mood so I went with experiance rather then beauty.
To make a long story short I enjoyed myself very much but more importantly the other ladies who were not picked were very upset with her since she was being picked repeatly over the course of the evening. It seems that the game playing that some of the "Younger" girls were playing somehow was backfiring on them. i.e. charging very little up front until you went in the room and told them of your intentions - that's when the rates went up very sharply. I had fs for $140 which was not cheap but on the other hand it was not that expensive either.
I would fequent more of these type of etablishments if there were consistancy with the service that's my only complant with U.S. sex workers no standard - everyone is making up their own rules. Of course let's not forget LE
just some of my thoughts
thanks

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe,

Hmmm I guess it's kinda tricky to discuss law reform etc, specifics anyway, when we live in different countries with different legislation. But I do believe that WA, and probably Oz in general, has enough general legislation in place already to control the activities of sex workers.

[re: How can one be convicted of "knowingly" infecting someone if one is asymptomatic and hasn't been tested positive?

If you haven't been tested positive, you're (sort of) fine. It's when you haven't been tested at all that your problems begin. To be a sex worker and not have regular testing done suggests recklessness and a lack of interest in your own health and that of others. If you were to infect someone and you couldn't prove that you had been getting regular screening, that "recklessness" would be used against you in court.

Out of interest, there is another part of the Health Act (from 1911!!) that makes it an offence to tell a prostitute that she is free from disease....

304. Certificate of cure not to be given to prostitute or used for purposes of prostitution

(1) A person who knowingly gives to any woman or girl who is a prostitute or who occupies, resides in, or habitually visits any brothel or any house or place used for the purposes of prostitution, any certificate of cure or any certificate signifying or implying that she is free from venereal disease or not liable to convey infection of venereal disease commits an offence.

(1a) A person who makes use of a certificate referred to in subsection (1) for the purpose of or in relation to or in connection with prostitution commits an offence.

From my understanding, this means that a prostitute is never considered free of disease and is always liable to convey infection as far as the Health Act is concerned. Even if this is not specifically what is meant, it is certainly the mentality held by the judiciary and most of the medical profession anyway.

re: insurance/compensation. We aren't sure yet. We are currently researching the options. However, the majority of WA sex workers are tax payers...because of this we put our real occupation and place of work on applications for finance, etc. Apart from some discrimination that occurs occasionally (and the filthy propositions from sales people), that information seems to go nowhere. Yes it could be used against us if someone wanted to, but who would know to look at our hi-fi hire purchase agreement to find it? I think insurance would work in pretty much the same way, but I have little understanding of the issue as yet. The other option is some form of worker's compensation paid through employers.

re: the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation is simply the amount of oppressive (and ultimately damaging) legislation required to institute legalisation. We just want the businesses to operate like normal businesses...simple as that. I will be happy to write you an ever so long post describing the differences, *manic laughter* but I'm gonna have to duck off now before the shop closes!

But before I go...
Pounding the hell outta dominant b*tches??? Just when you think you know someone, they come out with something like that and shock the hell outta you!!! (Ummm can I have your phone number??? LOL)

[Joe Zop]

RN:

You're right about discussing differences -- at times it's like using a spell checker with the language set incorrectly.

Hmm, the recklessness aspect makes sense, though it's a rather loose way of defining what a "regular" series of tests might be. Having one every two years for six years, for example, would show a pattern, but the degree of actual care involved would be debatable. But of course that's what makes legal proceeding such fun and keeps lawyers in business.

I don't see that act implying at all that a prostitute is never free of disease, even if that may be the prevailing judicial sentiment -- I read the first part of that act as a way of controlling shysters who would sell prostitutes fake tests, results, etc. So it's a way of getting rid of "diploma mills" that might offer fake certification, which makes sense, with the second part penalizing those who would use the certification gained from such sources.

So are you saying that the discrimination doesn't really happen when you're dealing with strictly monetary concerns (can you manage to pay back the loan) as opposed to social ones (where you might live)? Insurance is a tough nut whenever you're an independent contractor in any event, as you generally end up having to provide an inordinate amount of documentation (spoken from experience) and I can see in the case of prostitution where that would be a rather thorny issue. In terms of people looking at things -- given that over here people go after people's reading and video habits, and that profiling for marketing purposes is running rampant and is basically unregulated, I've got concerns of my own about how such information can be used, let alone if I were a sex worker. Perhaps your privacy laws have protection built in -- how does your freedom of information act deal with tax information?

And as far as decriminalization/legalization, it does seem that most areas choose the former. I do think it would be enlightening to understand why that's the case, and what that means. For example, is there any area at all where legalization would be an advantage?

And as far as pounding dominant b*tches -- probably reading too much of the American Women thread with a Zelda hangover :) Of course I mean only in those cases where said dominant females want very much to be pounded, and of course as an increasingly older guy my usual inclinations are more for the long and leisurely, so I don't dislocate something :D But just because I have my favorite usual dishes doesn't mean I don't want to have a major menu available -- viva variety.

[Rubber Nursey]

I'm gonna reply straight away Joe...anything to take my mind of my current hair calamity! LOL (Am going to have to wear a hat to the shops tomorrow when I go to buy more dye to fix it!) Grrrr I hate being a chick sometimes....

Ok, re: "recklessness"...it's not really defined in legislation; it's just an approach that the courts (or the Health Dept) take. Basically to be safe you need to put yourself in the shoes of the judge...How often would a judge think a hooker needs to be checked? Every darn week probably! So two tests every year for six years may establish a pattern, but it would obviously still be deemed irresponsible by the courts.

re: the certificates for prostitutes...women are not allowed to use a "certificate of attendance" from a doctor as proof that they are disease free. It cannot be given as proof for clients OR employers. Employers are not allowed to use the certificates as a means to convince clients that the girls are disease free. (Like a local parlour who at one stage advertised that all their girls were "medically supervised"). We are only allowed to use certificates as proof that we are undergoing regular testing. And all they say is "____ attended the____Clinic for STI screening on____date. Signed, Dr _____" There are no comments that actually deem us fit or unfit for work.

re: So are you saying that the discrimination doesn't really happen when you're dealing with strictly monetary concerns

Hell no!! LOL It happens all the time. A good one happened to me when I applied for my mobile phone contract a few years back, where I told him exactly where I was working and what I was doing for a living. I had no credit history and had only recently started working, but the guy did some fancy paperwork and got me the contract. A couple of days later, my mobile rang and that same guy asked if I would "entertain" at his friend's birthday party that weekend (for free!) to "return the favour". I'm not stupid...he would have found a solution to anyone's credit problems if it meant him getting his commission, not just mine. Another good one is when a working friend was buying a car and the salesman told her if she slept with him he would get her a certain percentage off her deposit...the same percentage I got off mine when I bought MY car while working in a different field. But there are also plenty of girls who have had loans refused for no obvious reason other than their occupation...good credit histories, high incomes, no children, etc. The banks won't tell you WHY you were refused though, so there is no way to prove it.

as opposed to social ones..

We can't put it on rental applications or we will NOT get a house. The main reason for this is ignorance...real estate agents can be fined for allowing an illegal act to happen on the premises, and most believe that (sex) working in your own home is illegal (it's not, technically). Even if you said you worked in a brothel, they would still err on the side of caution. R/E agents, like the banks, are also are not obliged to tell you why your application was declined. Obviously we can't put our occupation on school enrolment forms, childcare forms, etc. Insurance problems are huge. You cannot get HIV cover at all if you are (or ever have been!!) a prostitute. Most insurers will not even give normal life insurance policies to sex workers, and if they do, there are VERY heavy premiums. There is an overall assumption of "lifestyle"...drugs, alcohol, violence, STI's, poverty, poor hygiene.

Far out...I'm getting way too wordy in my old age (turned 28 a couple of weeks ago. Did I mention that?? LOL) I shall now remove myself from the keyboard and go back to staring woefully in the mirror at the devastation atop my head...

[Rubber Nursey]

PS Joe,

This is a great site to find out a bit about Oz sex work (in case you were interested that is...you may not be! LOL) It's a little bit dated, but most of it is still relevant. (Health stats and individual states' legislation may be incorrect). There are stories from "both sides" too...including every Oz hookers/gays/lesbians/drug users/odd-looking person's worst enemy, Rev. Fred Nile....so it gives a wide range of views.


http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/proceedings/14/

[Jwny72]

I never thought so much about the difference between "legalized" and "decriminilized" before. Come to think of it, I'm not completely sure I understand the difference. Or I should say, the difference in terms of prostitution.

Putting it in a context I can understand: Pot is illegal everywhere in the US, but in certain states, it's been decriminilized. In the states where it's decriminilized (jeez that's hard to type over and over again...) the police tend to not look quite so hard for pot related activities. Dealers still get busted and go down, but people who are merely users (they have under an oz.) are only fined. There's nothing to go on their criminal record, because possession has been "decriminilized".

OK. So I get the difference in the context of dope, but what would be the differences between legal prosititution and decriminilized prostitution? Would legalized prostitution necessarily be regulated by the govt. and not some independent agency (that's what I think I'm hearing RN say, but I'm not sure)? Does the process of legalizing something (as opposed to merely decriminilizing it) simply mean creating many more laws about the matter than would be created if it were only being decriminilized?

If anyone would be so kind, I would appreciate a (short, fairly simple) explanation of the difference between legalization and decriminilzation.

[Jwny72]

Oh fuck. I just realized that I misspelled EVERY occurance of decriminalized in my last post. I am so sick of typing the goddamned word, that I don't even care to correct it. Just letting everyone know I can spell (sometimes...) :-)

[Dickhead]

Actually, just to be a dickhead, you misspelled every OCCURRENCE (not "occurance") of decriminalized, and no, you can't spell.

[Jwny72]

Fuck you, you...you...man with a head resembling my genitalia!

Nah, but seriously, yer completely right Dickhead. Without a spell checker, I'm doomed! I know I know. Cut and paste into Word, yadda yadda. Too much effort. I just don't give a fuck frankly, not in an anonymous forum anyway.

[Rubber Nursey]

jwny72,

Firstly, I love the way you write. Secondly, I love the subtle hint (request for a short, fairly simple explanation) that I would perhaps take more than 30 pages to explain the differences! LOL Alas this is true, I am a wordy cow. Ok, I'll try. Here goes...

Does the process of legalizing something (as opposed to merely decriminilizing it) simply mean creating many more laws about the matter than would be created if it were only being decriminilized?

Exactly. In effect, decriminalisation of prostitution is merely removing criminal sanctions, removing any police involvement and allowing the businesses to operate as any other business does. It also does not allow for local councils, etc to decide where and when it can operate (outside normal business zoning). Eg. They can't force a retail/service industry business to operate in an industrial area.

Legalisation is the creation of entirely new legislation and Government regulation. The "independent" boards that are formed to enforce the regulations are usually NOT representative of the industry...for example, my state wants to introduce a Prostitution Control Board consisting of doctors, police, council members and the Health Dept ...NOT ONE sex industry representative. (They have actually point blank refused to include one). Legalisation usually entails huge restrictions on the behaviour of sex workers and sex industry businesses. It comes from a "protect the public from the prostitutes" motivation.

Under decriminalisation, the businesses can operate exactly as they are now, but without the fear of prosecution. They will also be subject to safety inspection, tax audits, and the regular employee/employer rights and responsibilities. Of course if there was anything criminal going on...drugs or illegal immigrants or minors, etc...the police would respond in the same way as they would to any other business committing a criminal offence.

Sorry, short as I can manage! LOL :)

[Rubber Nursey]

Oh, and don't worry about your spelling of decriminalisation. They are probably just as annoyed with mine. Plus, I also spell honour, colour, aeroplane and metre wrong. *grin* Damn foreigners! LOL

[Joe Zop]

RN, thanks for the link, and for the explanations (which have been exceedingly pithy :) ) The crux of the issue comes down, I think, to the issue of what balances to strike -- very few legal businesses or industries operate completely free of regulation, and that regulation very often goes far beyond simple OSHA rules. There are regulations about labeling, advertising, specific allowable and not allowable procedures, environmental aspects, etc. We could look, for example, at how establishments serving alcohol are regulated in the states (don't know the rules in OZ) where their location can be restricted (can't be within X of churches, schools) their business hours (no serving after X) and so on.

So let me pose it differently -- what would be a acceptable scenario for prostitution that would allow for oversight, some degree of sensible rulemaking process, and still protect the interests of both sex workers and the general public (recognizing that we might well believe that doing the former in fact does that latter, but that's probably a minority opinion overall)? Oh, and while we're in fantasy land, how about making it politically acceptable while you're at it ;)

And I hope your hair has finally bowed to your authority. Mine never did, which is why I just shaved it all off years back. And as far as your worrying about your age -- everything has its context. You just had your 28th birthday, I just had my 21st anniversary (and we also lived together for 2 years prior.)

jwny72, I've got a good friend who can't spell his way out of a paper bag (he's actually far more likely to correctly spell longer, more complex words than shorter) and he's a well-published author. A few incorrectly-spelled words is a far lesser issue than a whole lot of perfectly correct words that don't say a damn thing.

[Rubber Nursey]

first let me say congratulations to you and your wife for getting to 23 years!(i'd take my hat off to you, but i'm afraid my hair would give you nightmares).

ok...welcome to rubber nursey's perfect world...

first step, decriminalisation. all criminal sanctions are completely removed. then (sydney, australia's law) "prostitution is legal anywhere except within (?) metres of a school, childcare centre, (or children's park, etc), place of worship or private dwelling". this removes street/brothel prostitution from all residential areas, and effectively out of the public eye.
*this essentially means that girls are forced to work in commercial/industrial areas, or they are charged. (this excludes girls working from their own homes).

next, "safehouses". these are also in sydney. they are short-time hotels where street girls can hire a room for small amounts per booking. my safehouses would also have clinic services, outreach/support workers, condom supplies and needle exchanges on premises. these places serve another purpose other than the obvious...the council can position them in the exact area where they would prefer the girls work from (usually in the vicinity of the brothels).
*this halts spread of disease by provision of clean syringes and condoms as well as added health education and support. it stops girls having sex in public places, and by creating a "red light" district it stops men from soliciting outside the given area (and clients' behaviour has always been the biggest complaint from residents).

brothels. in south sydney council (god i love sydney!) there is actually a provision that makes it an offence to deny a brothel application on the grounds of "immorality". they still have to abide by the "distance from...." restrictions. brothels are subject to exactly the same scrutiny that every other business is regarding taxes, safety standards, employee benefits, etc. also, in my perfect world local councils would not be allowed to deny a sole operator a permit to operate a business from her own home on the grounds of "immorality" (as they do at present).

note that in all these cases, the government has not officially "condoned" prostitution in any way...they have simply specified particular places where it may or may not occur. half of the furore from voters comes from the mention of the word legal. in the eyes of sydney residents, the government has basically said to sex workers "stay out of the public eye, stay away from the houses, stay away from the children, stay away from the churches""...and with that, the residents are happy.

next step, controls.
a) it should be an offence to offer or request a commercial sex service without a condom (as it is in wa).
b) it should remain an offence to coerce a person to work as a sex worker by force or threat of violence. (for the record, i don't see why this is only used for prostitution...look at the textile industry for example!)
c) obviously, there should be similar controls as the rest of the adult industry in regard to the participation of minors.
d) health laws already cover knowingly infecting someone with an std. the burden of proof should be on the sex worker to take "reasonable care" to ensure that he/she is disease free. (ie. regular testing according to the type of sex work you are doing and the rate of actual exposure). that said, there should be harsher penalties for sex workers who knowingly expose their clients to an std, than there are for the rest of the community. also, there should be harsh penalties for clients who knowingly infect a sex worker.
e) any man who accosts or attempts to solicit a woman outside of the "designated" red light area, or having sex in a public place, should be arrested. any street worker behaving in an offensive manner while soliciting on the street, or having sex in a public place, should be arrested. (note: i mean offensive, not "immoral"). there are already public nuisiance and indecency laws in place to control these two problems.

hmmm i think that's about it. seeing as this is my perfect world...
a) it should be unlawful to discriminate against someone on the basis of occupation (and sex work would be considered a legitimate occupation). that includes insurers!!
b) police should be required to take the [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) or assault of a sex worker as seriously as they do for other men and women.
c) sex industry businesses should pay superannuation, sick leave, annual leave and workers compensation to their employees.
d) more money would be put into sex worker agencies for the health education and support of the sex industry, and the retraining of those workers who want to exit.

this seems to make sense to me at present...but i must admit i am a little tipsy (ok...i'm really quite drunk! lol) go for it. tell me what i missed out! :)

[Dickhead]

Allow me to oversimplify by presenting the Costa Rican model:

1) If an adult man and adult woman decide to have X amount of sex in Y fashion for Z hours, and agree that $?? will change hands, this is a contract and is perfectly legal.
2) End of story.

[Joe Zop]

Well, RN, just a quick response (busy work day) right now -- seems to me that you make better sense drunk than most lawmakers do sober.

Is there any particular reason why WA hasn't adopted the Syndey model? (And I suppose the other question is why you're still in WA as opposed to Sydney LOL.)

[Rubber Nursey]

Dickhead,

Do you know whether Costa Rica EVER had criminal sanctions placed on prostitution? I'd be interested to know.

That seems to be the problem...getting through the "criminal" mentality that comes from centuries of criminalisation. They won't just go from completely illegal to "Citizens, the blowjobs are on us!"

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe,

I was afraid that when I read that sober it would seem ridiculous, but I surprised myself actually! LOL At least I know that once I am Prime Minister I'll be able to indulge in pre-election drinks and still hold my own with the opposition. *grin*

Anyway, I was only on the board drunk because I got stood up last night :( If only there was an Australian Women section for me to gripe on! LOL

There is a saying in the eastern states of Oz...WA stands for Wait Awhile. This is the second most conservative state in the country (just behind Tasmania). We are miles behind every other state in terms of progressive legislation, and there is a very unhealthy amount of religious input when it comes to drafting new laws. There is very little separation of church and state.

Why haven't I moved to Sydney? Because I love this state dammit!! And I would much prefer to fight for change so I can live happily here, rather than run away. :)

[Joe Zop]

Actually, RN, your ability to make effective change will probably be better if you can hold your own with the opposition in post-election drinks :) And the abortive date also explains the stress over the hair (a frizzy tizzy?) Sorry to hear you got stood up -- lack of consideration seems a universal thing, unfortunately.

I understand what you mean about staying because you love the place -- it's why I've stayed in my particular area for so long, as my wife loves it, and she chooses where we live. (Me, I'd pick a place with less snow.) WA is actually on my list of places for my next OZ visit, as I never made it over there last time.

But back on topic -- what kind of change is possible/practical in this arena in a place where religion and politics are ties so closely together? Having worked on political things in similar circumstances, the approach is usually one of managing to get some sort of local control first, and that's playing a long game. Prostitution wouldn't seem like an exactly popular issue for politicians to want to weigh in on in a helpful way, particularly in a conservative religious area -- or is there less stigma attached, given its status in Sydney?

[Dickhead]

Originally posted by RN
Dickhead,

Do you know whether Costa Rica EVER had criminal sanctions placed on prostitution? I'd be interested to know.

I don't know, but I'd be surprised. They just aren't big on rules over there. However, they are not the magically prosperous and progressive country some people think they are. They only outlawed child labor in 1998 and only very recently was it recognized to be a problem if a man hits his wife in the privacy of their own home.

BTW, Costa Rica does have rather strong laws against "facilitating prostitution." In other words, pimping is illegal. This is exactly correct in my dickheaded opinion.

[Joe Zop]

Originally posted by Dickhead

BTW, Costa Rica does have rather strong laws against "facilitating prostitution." In other words, pimping is illegal. This is exactly correct in my dickheaded opinion.

This is one aspect I too generally agree with, but sometimes the devil is in the details. Escort agencies, web sites featuring more than one sex worker, hotels where assignations take place, bars where sex workers gather, men who live with sex workers (even as husbands), etc., have all, in various places, been seen to fall under the "facilitating" banner. Given that Costa Rica has some degree of past notoriety for child prostitution, I don't think that's the case in this instance, of course. There's no question that people trafficing in women or children deserve to be in a facility where they can know how it feels, but in many places those laws are a big stick used to isolate sex workers and make it impossible for them to operate.

[Dickhead]

See, the whole "facilitating" thing points out that the most moral form of prostitution is the one involving the fewest possible people. It is when you begin to add middlemen that you have problems. Also politicians are very similar to pimps.

I HATE PIMPS!

Please visit my website, www.ihatepimps.org, for more information.

[Rubber Nursey]

in many places those laws are a big stick used to isolate sex workers

So true. Here it is an offence to "live off the earnings of prostitution". This can be used on madams, husbands/boyfriends and even adult male children of sex workers. Not only that, but it can be used on anyone that a sex worker employs, like a receptionist, driver or security guard (which is why sole operators are not allowed to have any of these people on the premises while they are working. Brothels are also not allowed to have security guards). It has also been suggested that real estate owners are threatened with it when accepting rental money from a brothel or independent worker. This law doesn't just perpetuate discrimination...it encourages it.

Joe re: religion/Government in WA
There was a poll done in WA last year about the legalisation of the sex industry. 86% of respondents voted in favour of it! We have a very tolerant majority here...unfortunately (as is usually the case) the minority is VERY vocal. We also have a lot of people in Government...including the Police Minister, who is of course responsible for prostitution legislation...who are openly religious.

The other problem...our Government is only newly elected. In their election policies they promised Gay and Lesbian law reform, Drug reform and Prostitution law reform. Well...they did the first two and it caused an absolute FURORE amongst the right. It is my firm belief that they are terrified to deal with prostitution now and cause further upset. Draft legislation was promised in July of last year. One year on, and they have now extended the current Act (which was supposed to become void in August due to a Sunset Clause) for another year, to give them more time. They are also scared now of seeming to be too "tolerant" with any new legislation.

'Tis a very frightening thing for those of us who were counting on positive change for the industry from this Government. All we can do now is keep the pressure on and try to rally the progressive, but apathetic, majority.

[Stranger99]

Dickhead,
I agree with you that the most moral form of prostitution is the one involving the prostitute alone that made a mature choice of life. I hate pimps too but, besides all of their negative aspects, they act as a deterrent for bad intentioned clients. This is particularly true for those prostitutes working in the streets where they might be more subject to violent situations.

I am sure it does not apply to escorts doing incall/outcall as a proper screening can be done or at least they can meet somebody in a neutral spot (hotel or something).

Adding my opinion to the debate I believe that the majority of people who answer in favor of some form of legalization of prostitution in reality just want to clean the streets from SW.

It is the case of my country (Italy) where a similar debate is going on. It is the typical catholic attitude: as long as you don't see it then it is ok....sort of keeping the appearances look good no matter what lays underneath.

BTW: I should be the real dickhead as I went to check if the site you indicated existed....

[Rubber Nursey]

stranger99,

i hate pimps too but, besides all of their negative aspects, they act as a deterrent for bad intentioned clients.

we don't really have pimps in wa...not at all. the worst that happens is when some guys force their wives/girlfriends to work the streets to support the couple's drug habits, etc. even though that is terrible and i'm not condoning it at all, at least it isn't quite the same as the traditional pimp scenario with teams of women forced to hand over their income to one central asshole. (pimping gets me soooooo angry!)

anyway, here the street girls were quite often accompanied by boyfriends or mates who stayed in their cars and looked after the girls' condoms and money, and wrote down rego numbers of client's cars. the guys made sure they were visible to the clients during the negotiations, so that they knew someone was watching out for the girl. when the new laws were brought in to crack down on street work in 2000, the police grabbed any man they could find hanging out with the girls, and charged them as pimps.

the two main results of this effort?
a) all the media hype about "pimp" arrests further convinced the public of the evils of street prostitution, and gave rise to many more misconceptions about the perth industry, and
b) girls are now forced to work alone. these days they are afraid to carry condoms (or they are used by police as evidence), they are robbed because they have to carry all their money on them, they are raped and beaten at a much greater rate than before, and they are being taken miles away from the city centre (because of the police crackdown) and often dumped with no way to get back.

they were much better off with their "pimps".

[Joe Zop]

The problem, as I see it, in when things remain in the nether-world between illegal and /decrim/legal/structured. If you want to eliminate bodyguards on the street, fine, then provide options for creating an environment that's safe for both parties involved. If you're concerned about trafficing in women, then by all means attack that vehemently, but also provide a viable place where those who choose freely can operate. If you want to eliminate street prostitution, allow for private places and advertising.

Let's face it, there are still going to men and women involved who are individual and variant, so no matter what you do it's going to be possible for it to go in the crapper on any individual situation. Someone's going to feel misled, or ripped off or mistreated somewhere along the line. But a relatively level playing field is what's needed. That can happen in a scenario such as Amsterdam's Red Light District, where prostitution has its clearly identified zone and both men and women generally feel safe wandering around and interacting, or in a decent brothel or in a disco pick-up scene in Rio. Depends on the place. But the key is some kind of balance, where there's support available without isolation, either for the client or the worker.

Of course, in order to get to that point, a society has to admit that prostitution is going to exist, which counts the US out of the equation for quite a while, and it sounds like Perth's still got a ways to go as well...

And for what it's worth, RN, I can see both sides of the new government's situation. If they've already managed to get people pissed off on a couple of issues, it might well be a good idea to give a decent interval before making further changes. Doesn't help if you're the one waiting for change, but it won't do much good to get the things you want, and then have a new government topple the one you've got now and reverse everything. If that happens, it will take far, far longer to ever make real change happen again. If it takes another year, but in the end you get what you're after, on a more or less permanent basis, then it's worth the wait. Sounds as though the time should be used well by helping build support on a political level so once their feet have healed a bit you can toast them again on this issue...

[Jwny72]

I think the legal and social status of prostitution is just a manifestation of a general tendency towards sexual repression in Judeao-Christian culture. In the spirit of pure speculation, I'd like to pose the question: why is this sexually repressive attitude (the sex taboo) present in our culture? What purpose does it serve?

[Pariah]

Whats the big deal about prostitution?Both parties get smething they want!Lets face it women got the upperhand in the sex game anyway!If a woman wants to get paid for it,let her get paid for it.Hell the government can legalize it so the can control it better and get their cut!(IE red light districts).Like the last post said (I think he answered his own question),"sexual repression of Christian culture."Some men can go the marrie route an put up with all the other B.S. that goes along with it.My opinion,marriage is for womenayway.If they leagalized it marraige would be a thing of the past.We all heard this on befor"You pay for it some way!"Besides women don't need usmen anymore they work and can go to a sperm bank if te want kid bad enough!

Everyone on this planet iswanting,doing or thinking about sex!Leglize it!

P.S. f a man forces a woman to hae relations with men for money he's a pimp and should be thrown in jail!!

P

[LynnTrash]

My first foray into this discussion, so bear with me fellas. Longtime Massachusetts player here.
We can sit out here and post gripe after gripe about the oppression we (and the gals themselves) feel in regards to the ever-tightening morality squeeze this country is going through; but when are we going to do something about it?
Don't worry, not calling for any Tricks & Chicks parade through our city streets or anything silly here, but we DO have to start taking a conscious awareness of the political leaders who jockey for our votes.
In this rube's humble opinion, the Christian Conservative movement in this country rivals that of Nazi Germany in the 30's for pure evil and anti-socialness. It's the most dangerous, anti-freedom, IMMORAL force in the nation today, and anyone who dips his wick and STILL supports political candidates who kow-tow to the Pat Robertsons-Jerry Falwells-Pro Lifers of this world are hypocrites.
As Johns (and gals) we can't do much, let's face it. Society is stacked against us and no one wants to stand with a megaphone and declare his or her fondness for street peddling or street cooze. But we CAN be smarter and more attentive in what we do, so that maybe we can claim some of the "moral high ground" that these bible-thumpers have stolen from us.
I stand with you all, brothers and sisters! Peace out.....

[Joe Zop]

gotta admit, that would be a very different approach -- claiming the pro-prostitution position as being the moral high ground. anyone want to try stating that case?

to jwny72: imho, the "purpose" of religious-driven sexually repressive attitudes is the same as most social repression -- control and stability of the societal status-quo. society is an artificial construct, after all, which generally serves to have individuals sacrifice their options in return for the promise of accruing benefits by being within the general good. prositution, like gambling, is seen as potentially undermining family unit stability by taking away resources which should be directed there. the judeao-christian approach is pretty well anti-pleasure in any way, shape or form, reserving pleasure for religious ecstacy and even (in the case of catholicism) defining sex for purposes other than procreation as sinful. it's kind of the old "domino-effect of communism" argument: if one falls, there's an inevitable landslide of moral erosion that will occur -- so if my neighbor is able to visit prostitutes and be happy, then i will want to do the same, and i will neglect my family, my societal duties, and before you know it, i'll be hanging in opium dens, gambling away money that should be spent at a properly religiously-underpinned enterprise such as wal-mart, and everything will break down.

and that latter aspect, in response to lynntrash, is another aspect i think is critical -- the politics of spending our money. the walton family, to continue to use that example, (though there are tons of others, such as the devos family who get their money from amway) are heavy contributors to religiously conservative politicians and organizations such as the christian coalition, so by patronizing their stores and giving them money we are essentially supporting the funding of views that run counter to our interests. with the internet being as developed as it now is, it's reasonably easy to get at least some information about how businesses in your area contribute to lobbying groups, and my tendency is to avoid patronizing those whose philosophy on issue lobbying is markedly different from my own, particularly if they are aggressive check-writers. it's not like i'm out there picketing their views or stores -- i just make a personal decision not to support their approach and vision of society and to patronize their competition. obviously, you can do that with any issue that floats your boat (i tend to do the same thing in regards to those with good/bad records on labor and environmental issues, for example, or avoiding connection with earthlink since sky davis, its founder, is a rabid scientologist and i dislike that latter organization's take on free speech, and i also try to patronize stores that i know give positive contributions back to charities in their areas) but given that the issue at hand is prostitution, patronizing folks who take a portion of that money and lobby for a world view that runs counter to my own is something that's only going to cause me grief in the future. sometimes this costs me a few cents or dollars more here and there, but i view that as a cheap investment

[Jwny72]

joe-zop,

Walton family = Walmart? Seems to be what you're saying, but it wasn't totally explicit. I didn't know they gave heaps of money to the Christian Coalition. Figures.

Well, if I were the enlightenened, benevelant dictator of the world any and all religious fundamentalists (Christians, Muslims, Jews, whatever...) would be de-programmed. Those zealots, of various stripes, cause too much damn trouble in the world. Buddhism seems to be the only religion that doesn't produce the tendency to impose on othes in one way or another. I'd leave the Buhddists alone, but force everyone else into de-programming "camps". Jews and Muslims and Christians would all be forced to interbreed and raise the children together, as ONE tribe. Those who insisted on maintaining the old interpretations and loyalties would need to be liquidated I suppose...

Jeez. I almost sound like some kind of fanatic myself, eh? The anti-religious fanatic. Just so no-one gets alarmed, I don't really support the idea of killing ANYONE for any reason. I'm just fantisizing about a world without repressive religiousity in a "wouldn't it be nice" sort of way:-)

[Jwny72]

"Gotta admit, that would be a very different approach -- claiming the pro-prostitution position as being the moral high ground. Anyone want to try stating that case?"

It would take someone well versed in the "spiritual benefits" of sexuality (some kind of pagan or perhaps a Tantric Yoga expert). I'm not up to it, though I do feel that being free sexually is "morally superior" (whatever that means).

[The Virgin Terr]

making the case for prostitution as "moral" would be easy except for the fact that humans in general are inclined towards irrational reasoning and fears. it's simply a matter of being well informed, rational, and mentally free from religion and puritanism. if u believe that pleasure and freedom are good things, how can any paternalistic/moralistic arguments in favor of the right of the state 2 control our minds or bodies make any sense?

re. jwny 72's question, i have a couple of different responses, related but somewhat different. first, if u research many religious cults, you're bound 2 come across examples of cult leaders such as david koresh or jim jones who order their followers to be celibate while they themselves then take their pick of any and generally very many of these followers to satisfy their own libidos. so, by this example it seems that restricting the sex lives of low level individuals clears the way for high level individuals to more easily indulge their own desires. second, and i think this answer is more applicable to mainstream societies in which the control of lower level individuals is much more subtle, i think the reason for the control is more about economic exploitation. marx understood this well in perceiving the critical role of religion as being the "opiate of the people". in order for exploitation to occur, there must be control, and that begins and ends with control of the most basic passion, sex. i think this is also the same reason for drug prohibition. if people become too preoccupied with their own pleasure and happiness, they are less inclined to work like slaves. equally important to capitalists, the masses are programmed to redirect their suppressed libidos into consumerism, deriving pleasure from buying and owning things instead of more simple and basic things like sex.

[LynnTrash]

A quick lesson here on exactly what the Christian Conservative movement is, fellas:
Fundamentalist Christians have an absolute belief in THEIR version of the bible and all the laws and cannotations it holds, guys. In a nutshell, they don't care about freedoms, Constitutional protections, society, or anything other than THEIR views and yes, imposing them upon others. They'll tapdance through the legal system with various crusades (jihads?) like pro-family legislation, teaching creationsim in the classroom, anti-gay laws, etc. But they're only interested in the cases that prove their point; not the ones that they lose. Here's a test: ask any Xian Conservative what they think about Roe vs. Wade, and they'll get that glassy eyed look and tell you the Supreme Court "got it wrong" on that one.
Their quest is to replace our "godless" government with a theocracy, where Jesus' word is the only law, and they themselves as the only ones qualified to interpret it for the rest of us.
Fundamantalist religions are all the same, whether it Muslim, Christian, or Jewish, or any other one. It's an absolute belief not only in one's own soul and destination, but in their DUTY to impose it apon the godless masses.
Think of that next time you cast your vote for some shyster because he talks tough on crime or he hugs a firefighter or reminds you of John Wayne. Stop and think who this clown is really working for.

Anti porn and anti prostitution advocates love to tell us that those things degrade women. ...The feminist movement has usually supported that view as well, painting prostitutes as hapless victims.
Women who work in the business tell a very different story though, they see selling sex as an option that should be theirs to choose. ...Some women like making good money for doing something that is enjoyable while men tell her how wonderfull she is. Some women will prefer that to working long hours for very little pay while wearing a polyester uniform and being told how easy it would be to replace her..... It should be her choice........Sex is part of being human. Nobody thinks twice if I pay a woman to cut my hair, she is not looked down on for that. If she is comfortable providing a more intimate service that should be her choice to make......Just my humble opinion.

[Stranger99]

I agree in principle with the decriminalization of prostitution as in fact it should be interpreted as a simple contract between 2 individuals (sex for money and viceversa).

Honestly, I have an internal conflict regarding morality.
A law of a country not only determines what you can do and what you can't do. It also sends out a message on what is morally ok and what is not.
If the message sent is that prostitution is just like another job (like a supermarket cashier, for instance) then we would have to "morally" accept that eventually our daughter decides to be a prostitute and make 10 times more the money she would make as a cashier.

This is if we see only the economic side of it.
I think, however, that prostitution will hardly be a job that dignifies the person or that we would like to be a valid option for somebody we love.

I have always thought that a woman autonomously turns to prostitution as a last resort, when no other options are left to her. I believe also that reading at RN stories this is what she has been telling us (RN forgive me if I misinterpreted that)

We can all argue on the issue of decriminalization: it is an important and necessary issue especially in those country where women are exploited, taken away from their families and forced to be prostitutes (I am not talking about South America or Africa, I am talking about "civilized" Europe).
At the same time, though, we should not interpret a woman necessity to be a prostitute as talent.

[Joe Zop]

Well, I hardly think I'd be aspiring to have my daughter work at McDonald's either, or cleaning toilets, or in any number of industries or jobs. I don't think someone gets particularly "dignified" by being a waitress per se, for example, in terms of the job itself somehow bestowing dignity, though I certainly know any number of people who have dignity while having that job, and I'd say the same thing about prostitutes, frankly -- I have met many who have great personal dignity. The idea that particular jobs bring dignity to people as opposed to people bringing dignity to their jobs is not something I'd accept as an absolute. Sure, there's some degree of cause and effect, but a job is degrading only if the person doing so sees it that way, and a job, any job, is degrading if the person doing it feels it to be so. (Heck, we've got professional athletes who feel "degraded" by less than maximum contract offers.)

I'd also make a clear distinction between something being morally "wrong" and being what I'd want someone to aspire to, as I think they're very different issues. There's a difference between branding something as somehow "evil" or destructive to society and saying it's a job you'd rather not be doing for whatever reason. Branding it as not moral means that all who are part of it, provider and client, are engaging in an immoral act. We can do the dance of moral mitigation, or the Catholic "there needs to be intent to sin in order for there to be sin" or any of that stuff, but decriminalizing an immoral act is essentially saying either that morality has nothing to do with law, or that society accepts that immoral activity is part of its structure. Personally, I believe absolutes of immorality are present only where there is clear harm to other people who have no choice in the equation. When people make clear, non-coerced choices to mutually engage in behavior that affects only them I don't see morality having much to do with the equation.

I also don't agree that the only way women turn to prostitution is as a last resort. Some do, many do, certainly, but last resort is a pretty wide brush to paint with. Some do it because they can make a lot of money, which is how people choose jobs in other scenarios, some do it because they like sex, like interacting with men, like feeling desired, like the hours, like having control over their own options, etc., etc.

Finally, while I agree with you that a woman being a prostitute doesn't necessarily indicate a talent, neither does it indicate the opposite. I know talented and untalented people in all fields, and by and large we judge other fields by those who do well in them, not badly. I've known sex workers with an immense degree of talent for the work, which means not only the sex but the entire experience. You can't tell me that the ability to not only put up with but repeatedly make happy a wide array of personality and psychological types and make them feel as though the money they've spent has been well worth it isn't a talent. If that were the case there'd be no such thing as talent in all kinds of sales or personal service fields from tailor to psychologist.

[Rubber Nursey]

Joe...I've said it before, and I'll say it again. You are amazing! I really wish I had your talent for writing. And of course, I agree with everything you said wholeheartedly.

stranger99,

I think, however, that prostitution will hardly be a job that dignifies the person or that we would like to be a valid option for somebody we love.

A few words about a prostitute's sense of "dignity". Your post, and many many others like it, cut through my heart like a knife. By saying that you would not want a loved one to become a sex worker, you are basically saying you wouldn't want your daughter to become one of THOSE TYPES of people. You wouldn't want her to be dirty, degraded, humiliated, ashamed... (And more importantly, you would not want the shame that it could cause YOU as her father). But what you are saying to me in particular...when *I* read it...is that you wouldn't want your daughter to be like ME. I AM one of those "types" of people. And the insinuation that you would not be able to respect your daughter if she became "someone like me" really hurts.

Dignity? Ever since I gave up sex work for a "real" job, I have lived below the poverty line. I no longer see my children for any real length of time thanks to long working hours, and when I do finally have time with them we can't afford to do something nice together. I can't socialise because of the lack of disposable cash. I can't answer my phone unless I can see who's calling or check my mail for fear of debt collectors. As others here already know, I was evicted from my last house and almost ended up homeless. If things keep going the way they are, it could happen again. I am utterly ASHAMED of the position I am in and of what my life has become.

When I was working in the industry, I held my head up high. My bills were paid, we had nice clothes, we went out with friends and my children never wanted for anything...including my time, because I worked short hours. I handed money to people on the streets who were worse off than me. I made donations to charity. What I am saying is that the actual mechanics of my job had NOTHING to do with my sense of dignity....the fact that I was making a good living and my family was happy was what made me feel proud. I would have felt the same way as a lawyer, a checkout chick or a cleaner. The only time I ever feel ashamed about what I did for a living, is when other people insinuate that I SHOULD be...like in your post. I feel embarrassed and upset that you would respect me less, simply because I was a sex worker.

Yes, I was in a terrible financial position when I first started in the sex industry...and yes it was what "forced" me to consider working. But it was NOT my only option. I could have gone bankrupt to escape the debts and then worked in MacDonalds...I could have arranged smaller repayments and worked two low-paying jobs until I caught up. I could have robbed people's houses if I wanted to!! I CHOSE to work in the industry because I wanted a quick-fix that would allow me to pay the bills off fast, and still leave me time with my young children. During the time that I worked, I studied and gained many different qualifications that I could use for a "real" job...but because of the longer working hours involved, I chose to stay in the industry instead. My children are more important to me than anything else.

There are many different "types" of women in the industry, and each has a different story to tell. Some are forced and coerced and hate themselves...some, like me, have never felt better about themselves than when they were working. Would you deny your daughter the right to use her body the way she pleases, and earn a decent income in an environment that she enjoys....just because of what OTHER people may think?

[The Virgin Terr]

elaborating on a hypothesis of why human societies have sexually restrictive laws and conventions: because it's perhaps the most effective way for a ruler or ruling class to psychologically castate or spiritually subject the lower classes, so that there's no question whatsoever regarding who's the boss. traditionally, rulers themselves have been exempt from obeying the laws they use to control their "subjects", wielding their "divine right" to do whatever the fuck they please.

[Rubber Nursey]

stranger99,

Sorry to babble on again, but I've got a question for you.

You said:

If the message sent is that prostitution is just like another job (like a supermarket cashier, for instance)...

Obviously, I believe it IS "just another job". I went to work, did my job, got paid and went home again...just like anyone else. What I'd like you to explain, is why you believe it ISN'T. There a couple of reasons (that people usually give) that I would rather you didn't use though.

a) Anything to do with religion or percieved morality...
Please remember that not all of us believe in the same God or have the same value system of hold the same things "sacred".

b) Women shouldn't behave like that and/or sex with strangers is contrary to a woman's nature....
I may have to cut off your dangly bits with my big feminist knife...Don't even go there!! LOL

c) Most people wouldn't consider it "normal" and/or "normal" people wouldn't consider doing it...
Funeral home, mortuary, slaughterhouse. Could you work in this type of employment? I couldn't. "Normal" people don't want to hang around dead people or slit animals throats five days a week. It takes a certain sort of person with a certain sort of attitude and disposition. And yet, their jobs are considered a valid employment option.

I would honestly like to know why it is that people insist on seeing sex work as a "lifestyle" or some type of character flaw, rather than the legitimate form of income that it is. Would anyone else like to have a go at the question, as well as stranger99?

[Stranger99]

RN: First of all I am sorry if my statements did hurt you somehow. It was the last of my intentions.
I really do think good of you and, having had the opportunity to read your posts over the last few weeks, I really think you are a great person worth knowing and spending time with.

I think you are second guessing me when you say that I would not want my daughter to be a prostitute for the shame she would cause me as a father. This is absolutely false. I am her father not her "owner". If that was her choice I would respect it (not like it, but respect it) and, by the way, I do have a daughter.
I might want my daughter to be like you as a person (as I think you are very intelligent and with great personality), I simply would not like her to do your job.

You were asking me why.
Simply I would not like her to deal with people who see her as a "breathing" object. I would like for her a job where she could be appreciated for more than her body or loving skills.

I know, I know that it is not like that in all circumstances and that you can establish great relationships with the person you deal with but reading the posts of the majority of the people on this forum, this is what they are looking for and that's the way she would be seen. No matter she would not care, I would not like it, as a father.
I am sure you met great people while working. I am also sure you could have met them under different circumstances. It is your personality that made you build great relationships with people, the job happened just to create the opportunity.

I would like her to live her sexual life as freely as it can be, enjoying every aspect of it, without necessarily being her mean of support.

Answering also to Joe. I do not see prostitution as something "evil" (evil would be working for a Swiss bank or running a Nike factory in Malaysia) and also I did not say that being a prostitute is the number 1 in the most-undignified-job-on-earth list. For what that matters, working on an assembly line, cleaning toilets or at McDonalds are at the same level.
Depending if you work to live or live to work. The above jobs are probably in the first scenario.

I simply said that I would not like her "aspiring" to be a prostitute and no matter how politically correct everybody tries to be, I believe this is the way that all of us see it.

RN, you were mentioning in the past the problems of eventually having to tell somebody you care for about your former job. I guess this fear falls under the "c" in your list of possible answers that you didn't want me to use (and in fact I did not).
Also, what made you leave that job?

[Joe Zop]

stranger99 -- first, i reacted to you saying "deciding" not "aspiring" and i see a clear difference between the two. i think it's understandable and laudable to say that what we aspire for our kids are jobs where their full capabilities are used and appreciated. that's exactly why i used the examples i did -- no one much cares about the full mental or emotional capabilities of a waitress or a cleaning person; they care about whether the meal gets served or the room cleaned. neither of those are the kinds of jobs a father wants their kid to ultimately aspire to having, but we'd understand if they took those jobs to make money to move toward something else. we all want our kids to reach the absolute top of their potential. and, again, in terms of the whole "evil" aspect, i wasn't at all saying you were labelling it such -- i was riffing on your comment about society framing things in terms of "morally" ok or not.

personally, i think the kind of stigmas and societal hangups that float around sex work manage to completely obscure the issues in the most fascinating ways. let's look at the issue of someone being a sexual surrogate, working in a controlled environment around helping people with sexual disorders. we don't consider sex surrogates to be prostitutes; they exist in a kind of moral limbo in the minds of most people, (hey, they're clearly "helping" people!) but the fact that their job means they get sexually involved with patients still manages to impart some queasiness for most. if we were to build a spectrum, i think it would be fair to say that we'd generally be happy to have our daughters be psychotherapists, professionals who would help these folks deal with their sexual problems on an intellectual basis, and we'd be happy enough to have our daughters be physical therapists, which can involve direct physical contact with patients. (we'd be happy enough, as well, to have our daughters be physical trainers or nutritionists, also things having to do with the body.) but how many people would be as happy to have their daughters be sexual surrogates? somehow when the two things, sexual issues and physical contact, get mixed together the equation changes. and prostitution isn't viewed with the same degree of glow of healing that treating sexual dysfunction is, so it gets even less a good viewing.

rn, to take a shot at your question about why people see sex work as a lifestyle -- i think it's a historical legacy, as prositution has been pushed into a subculture arena, and many aspects of subculture, anywhere from drug use to being a goth to whatever, do revolve around lifestyle choices. a job is lifestyle neutral, and at this point, fairly or not, being a sex worker is simply not generally seen as a job in the way that other things are.

[Rubber Nursey]

stranger99,

i completely understand you not wanting your daughter to do it...as both a parent and a daughter. it may surprise you to know, but even though i am an activist and openly proud of the choices i have made...at 28 years old i do not have the courage to tell my parents. why? because i think they would be hurt and afraid for me and worried that they did something "wrong"...and yes i think they may even be ashamed. even though i know they would love and respect me regardless, i don't think they would really want to know. that said, i would not have a problem with my own children working in the industry, so long it was their own personal choice to do so and they were doing it for the right reasons.

i also think you'll find that sex workers are often appreciated for a lot more than you realise. as a sex worker you develop amazing social skills...you need to be able to adapt to hundreds of personality types, cultural differences and attitudes. you learn to diffuse violent situations, before they reach actual violence. you become a sex therapist, confidante, marriage guidance counsellor...even a gp in cases where a client has an std and doesn't realise it. not to mention an actress. i know you will think this is a truly ridiculous sentiment, but i'll say it anyway...sex work can give you the same feeling of pride that any other "helping" profession does. it doesn't matter whether you had a quick "wham bam, thankyou ma'am" session against the wall, or made slow sensual love in a four-poster bed. the client says a heartfelt thankyou and leaves with a weight lifted off his shoulders and a smile on his face. i have told stories in the old forum before about getting men erect and bringing them to orgasm after they had told me they suffered from erectile problems, helping guys get over the death of a loved one or a bitter divorce...i have even sent men home with hints on how to improve their marriage, and had them call back into the brothel (without staying) to say thankyou!

sure, people don't see it as a "noble" profession...but it is a necessary one. there is also a lot more to it than just sex.

with regard to your questions, i do not tell people what i did because of the public perception of prostitutes and prostitution. people have pre-conceived notions of what a prostitute is in their heads, as a result of centuries of persecution by the media, the church and the laws. i am judged not by my character or my personality, but by the stereotypes of what a prostitute is. my word means nothing, my sexual health is somewhat dubious, my morals are questionable and i can't be trusted. it doesn't matter that i know these things are not true...years of conditioning has meant that i can't convince the public of that.

as for why i stopped...i have avoided this question with the words "a very personal reason" for a long time, but i may as well say it because people tend to be suspicious of a sex worker who advocates the work, but no longer participates. i got a "real" job, but originally continued working two days a week in the industry on my days off. i had every intention of keeping it that way.

then i got cervical cancer. i could not work because of surgery, etc, and by the time i had recovered (which was quite a few months) my hours and my workload at my real job had been increased and i simply didn't have time left to work two jobs. i have since worked a couple of times, and i intend on working in the very near future, but these days the political side of things has picked me up and swallowed me whole.

[Joe Zop]

RN, as always, you're full of firsts -- not too many people would feel it necessary to apologize for not working as a prostitute. :)

Since you note that you had surgery, let me simply say I'm happy for you that you have your kids, as I know such surgery can be psychologically very tough at such a young age.

[Rubber Nursey]

LOL Joe...yeah well, I'm a backward kinda gal :)

And you're right. I'm very glad I had already had children...the whole experience was frightening enough without having to worry about future childbearing. Happily though, even though I do not want any more children, the "bits" that they removed are able to regenerate so there should be no problems if I ever changed my mind. And also...just 'coz I like saying it *grin*...I have passed each three monthly biopsy for the last 12 months, and have now been "downgraded" to six monthly tests. They said the first 12 months was the highest risk period...I am so glad to get through it!

By the way, little funny story of the day I got the surgery done...
My GP knew what my "other" job was, but the oncologist only new about my "real" job. After the surgery, he said "Take tomorrow off because you will be a bit sore in the tummy, but otherwise you are free to go back to work. The last thing you need after all this stress is a loss of income, right? Oh by the way...you can't have sex for eight weeks". LOL D'oh

[Joe Zop]

So, RN, after reading things here and in the American women thread, I've got a question for you -- at what point in your existence did you cease having what one might call a "normal" life? Sure seems like you've managed not only more than your fair share or trauma but simply a great deal of living packed into a few years. Hope you're taking copious notes -- given your skill at communicating, there's a good book or ten waiting to come out sometime in the future...

And some clarification, please -- you noted in the "Women" thread that you've decided, thanks to listening to all the idiots here, myself included, that you'll need to tell future potential partners about your past. How are you going to make that work with the fact that you've not told your parents? (And, no, this is not some kind of prelude to broaching the issue of informing them, simply a logistical query.)

[Rubber Nursey]

Hmmm ok, well firstly I left home at 15 (my own choice, no family problems or anything) and I am now 28. I was...without a doubt...the proverbial "rebel without a clue!" LOL I thought I was a big girl and I thought I was acting like a big girl, but unfortunately now that I look back on it, I was acting like an idiot. Before I became a stubborn, outspoken pain in the bum, I was a stubborn, risk-taking pain in the bum. I think I made every effort to try everything I was told not to (except drugs...funny that). Not a lot to say about it really...no good excuses except I was young and dumb. I think because I started out badly at such a young age...with men that is...I must have kind of just grown to expect it. And a lack of self respect is a dangerous thing.

And my parents?? Well, I am a simple country girl born of simple country folk...who moved hundreds of miles away from my parents at 15, supported myself and children for the better part of ten years, and now works in a sex worker agency. I figure they know.

They have never asked and I would never just come out and tell them...but if they asked me straight out I would. I really believe it would be no real shock to them. I have to say though...when my Mum reads things I have written in the local media or is told about the various conferences and conventions I have spoken at...she is proud as punch. She never felt the need to ask me WHY my entire life is now devoted to the decriminalisation of prostitution though!! They trust in my judgement and believe that I know what is right for me.

By the way...it's all happening! The Govt have promised draft legislation in 6 weeks...had a meeting today with the pollies...NOT looking good! But we are armed and ready to attack *grin*

Oh...and the book is something that will be happening real soon. Not about me, but a book all the same. :)

[Joe Zop]

Hmm, I thought you seemed all too familiar -- are you sure you're 28 and in WA? Not trying to resurrect the trucker scenario again, but your life and approach sounds an awful lot like a sister I've got who's a year younger than I am. Took off at 17, went half-way across the country with some bad dudes (who'd just robbed several stores and then did the same to her a thousand miles from home) and the eventual translation from a stubborn risk-taking pain to an outspoken one after a long period of difficult life(only she did do the drugs as well.) Unaccountably poor self-image for someone who's brilliant and good-looking, though the self-image things seems to unaccountably run through my family. Funny part is that she actually is now a nurse... Tell me, are you also psychologically a "stray collector"? My sister seems to constantly have stray people around who she's helping and involved with. Wait, that's your job, isn't it :)

And sorry, but I don't see any indication of a "simple country girl" in your posts -- I think you must have left the simple far behind, as you're clearly too well-read and reasoning to qualify at this point.

And, hey, you can always do more than one book :) I've got several I'll be working on during my long fall retreat to Thailand.

[Rubber Nursey]

Stray collector?? LOL That describes me perfectly. My job, my circle of friends....AND my ex husband!! *grin*

And I would love to read your books sometime Joe...at the risk of sounding really corny, I deeply admire you. Not only are you articulate and compassionate and brilliant, but you are truly a gentleman.

[Joe Zop]

Blush, well, thanks. Just goes to show what an amazingly distorting medium the internet can be, LOL! Maybe we can backchannel on the books, though since my trip aims to bring at least two of the ones I'm working on to completion, it'll be a while before those particular ones are out. Is that hotmail addy still valid?

[zel66]

Good luck with the books Joe and RN. Look forward to reading them. And thanks again for all the advice the other day.

[Rubber Nursey]

You're most welcome honey :) I hope it all works out ok for you.

[Darkseid]

rn, i am glad you are for the decriminalization of prostitution. this country is controlled by prudes and it is so conservative it makes me sick. and they call this the "land of the free" what a double standard. free for what? oh yeah, free for racists to spreak their hate, neo-feminists to dominate men, and prudes to take away the rights of fun loving people like ourselves. other countries accept prostitution as a job and even their parents know about their daughter's line of work and have no problem with it. i praise some of them because instead of stealing or killing for money, they do this for money to go to college or to raise their kids instead of abandoning them. decriminalization also makes prostitution safer because prostitution would not fall into the hands of the black market where prostitutes are beaten or raped or even killed by the pimps. they can also get checked for diseases which in turn makes it safer for the patrons. also i noticed in countries where prostitution is legal like brazil, the prostitutes look better. :-) the illegal prostitues in new york look like behemoths and pigs (yuck!). the more classy ones run over $300us. (muito carro). prostitution also provides an outlet for men who are married to prudes who don't get enough sex. it is also good for men who go to clubs because it relieves them the pressure of meeting their sexual quota for the night and makes men less desperate for sex when they go out to dance clubs. i admit to doing this routine in brazil. i go to prostitutes to relieve my sexual tension, then when i go to dance clubs to meet non-pro women, they sense that i am interested in being their friend instead of a potential sex score (like what happens here in america with the illegalization of prostitution.) i sense desperation in american clubs with american men because there is no outlet to meet the daily (weekly or monthly) quota of getting laid. the women in turn would think that these guys are desperate creeps.
in the scenario where prostitution is legal like in brazil, i no longer think,"must get laid", but instead i go to the club to just have a good time and meet new friends. i do end up in bed with some of these ladies because i become more social when i don't have to worry about not getting laid for the night. :-)

[CBGBConnisur]

If you're sick of prudes, my only suggestion would be to go to Europe.

[Jwny72]

Originally posted by CBGBConnisur
If you're sick of prudes, my only suggestion would be to go to Europe.

OK CBGB, you've finally made a statement about which I don't catagorically disagree. You're catagorizing Americans as prudish, and not just the women in America. You finally make some sense :-)

darkseid,
You really nailed it when you wrote this:

"I sense desperation in American clubs with American men because there is no outlet to meet the daily (weekly or monthly) quota of getting laid. The women in turn would think that these guys are desperate creeps."

Of course!

RN,
I hope I don't seem presumptuous, but I think you've made the right choice in deciding that your future mate will have to accept your having worked as a hooker or take a hike (hooker isn't an offensive word for it, is it?). In my estimation, honesty is always best, and when it's not possible for one to be honest because the other person doesn't want to hear it, then it's not a valid, workable relationship anyway.

On another subject, when you wrote about your adolescent years and mentioned "ignoring your female-instinct", I believe that what you referred to is something that men have too; they're more apt to ignore it though. Intuition is not gender related really. As children are taught to adopt either male or female roles, the degree to which Intuition plays a role in their lives is defined. I'm sure you knew this though since you put "woman's instinct" in quotes. Or perhaps you didn't know it consciously, but rather... ;-)

[Darkseid]

i agree with everyone here that not just american women are prudes but there are many american men prudes as well. unfortunately, these pests make it to our office and invade the funseekers' territory. take for example, mayor rudy guliani. he took away all the sex shops of new york and now [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) has doubled since he ran new york this way. to add insult to injury, he lives a double standard by having an affair. prudes are the worst kinds of people in the world. they take away all the rights of peasure seekers. most prudes are jealous of the more beautiful women and handsome men and they can't get any so they seek to take away the fun we have. rudy guliani is worse than those types of prudes. he is the selfish type. he has access to pleasures as mayor but he seeks to keep all the pleasures for himself and deny others. nothing is legal in new york. prostitution is illegal, recreational soft drug (such as pot or hash) is illegal, even some massage parlors have been shut down for being acused of prostitution, (i'm talking about back rubs!). these prude politicians have gone too far and have taken away our freedom of pleasure. what is left to do in america is eat food and get fat and watch tv and movies, or decorate oneself with jewelry, clothes and exercise (my option). but most americans especially the poor could only do the first. they can't afford the latter lifestyle, some can't even aford a gym membership or don't have enough space for a home gym. the united states can be free in other aspects like commiting crimes or living like a slob (dogshitting on streets or graffiti) but for us pleasureseekers, the united states is not a suitable country for us. to prove my point, look at the smaller number of posts in the united states forum compared to the huge number of posts of people getting laid in the european or south american posts. sex is more accepted in these countries than in the united states. prostitution and sex is frowned upon in this prude country of usa. i, on the other hand, respect the prostitute for trying to make an honest living and supporting their children and for creating a less sexually desperate environment in foreign clubs. i have thought of leaving this country for south america or europe but i need money to do that in case some of you wonder why i stay in this place of prudes.
rn, those who don't accept you for having been a prostitute is not worth your time. you deserve a more forgiving and loving boyfriend like myself. having you would be a trillion times better than having a prude that don't want to have sex at all (i had a few of those and dumped them). it is unfortunate that our american society is so uptight about prostitution and sex in general. in amsterdam, some of tose window girls are married and their husbands are lax about what they do. america needs to loosen up and party.

[Darkseid]

Originally posted by CBGBConnisur
If you're sick of prudes, my only suggestion would be to go to Europe.
I do take your advice CBGB and every vacation week I have I spend out of this prude country in Holland or Brazil. I work in the phone company and I get only three weeks of vacation each year (cheapskate Verizon!).I want to hear about your experiences overseas so I can get some suggestions on where to go on my next trip to Europe. I also want to know what's legal (drugs, or prostitution). Wat is the best European country you visited?

[Joe Zop]

"Freedom of pleasure" -- I like that, darkseid. A kind of specific definition of the latitude needed for the pursuit of happiness. Guiliani was a fascist, in my book, and NYC is well rid of him. It's sad to see what happened to the city's joie de vivre and sense of style under his watch, and all those Disney characters in Times Square represent a far more tawdry kind of whoring.

It's a primary election day where I'm at, and I always figure that's one of my chances to help make change in terms of who's making decisions about how I get to live my life, and the exercise of this right is far easier than many others. I encourage you all to do likewise -- if the last American presidential election showed anything, it was that a small number of votes can still make a difference in the big scheme of things.

[Rubber Nursey]

jwny72,

hooker isn't an offensive word for it, is it?

Not to me. It takes a hell of a lot to offend me, so don't worry. Call me anything you like....just don't ever call me cheap! LOL
And thank you for your comments on my telling future partners about my past. I know it may seem as though it's a very simple matter or honesty and trust, but for me the potential consequences seem overwhelming...not to mention the point where I actually have to utter the words! That said, I have two main goals in life...to be an author and to get into politics. Achieving either of those things would mean public exposure of my sex industry experience. If I was to meet "The One" after that happened, I guess it wouldn't matter! But if I don't end up following either of those paths, I will just have to try and find the words when the time comes.

darkseid,
I also live in a conservative country full of prudes and it drives me insane how small minded some people can be. Your posts contained heaps of great arguments for decriminalisation...if only the Government would get past the "morality" issues and look at the situation from all the other angles that you mentioned.

Joe,
Just noticed that you edited your other post...yes the email addy is still valid :)

[The Virgin Terr]

RN, are you thinking of writing a book about your experiences working? i can only think of 2 similar books offhand (working by dolores french, and from cop to callgirl by norma jean almodovar), and they were both excellent. it seems the job is inherently interesting, and any additions to the too small genre of "my life as a prostitute" books would be welcome, in my opinion, and if well written, likely successful.

[Rubber Nursey]

Terry,

There is also another one I know of called "From Bordello to Ballot Box" written by Jessi Winchester, an ex Nevada prostitute. (I haven't read that book, but I've talked to Jessi online). "Working" by Delores French is a fantastic book. I would love to write a "my life as a prostitute" type book...mainly because as you said there are only a very small number of them around...but I honestly didn't have the type of experiences that you would need to have had to write a book about it! Delores French worked all around the world and had an amazing story to share. My life is very ordinary, and my working life was even MORE ordinary. The other thing is that my life as a teenager was pretty screwed up...and that was completely my fault and I do NOT, under any circumstances, believe that my being a rebellious teen had anything to do with my future choice to enter the industry. But that is not how readers would see it. People are always searching for a "reason" why prostitutes do what they do..and any story about my younger days would only reinforce that negative view. I would only include parts of my life that I believed was relevant...and I don't think being a sl*t as a teenager is relevant! LOL

The strange thing is, I realised what I was doing to my life...straightened myself up and found my inner strength...and THEN became a sex worker as a positive step towards improving my life. I paid for my education, furnished my home and "found" myself while I was working. But people would not understand that...no matter how well I wrote it. They would only come to the conclusion that my somewhat "colourful" past led to my becoming a sex worker...reinforcing the "victim of society" image.

I won't be writing about my experience in the industry as such...but I will be including my story along with the stories of others. Basically, I intend on putting a whole lot of women's lives on paper...street hookers, brothel workers, private workers, B&D mistresses, massage parlour workers...even skimpy's, strippers and probably clients. My story will be in amongst it, and my narration will string the thing together...so it will be a very positive view of the industry as a whole. Mind you, that doesn't mean that I will ONLY write about positive stuff...in fact I want people to be able to see both sides of the story, so that they will realise how diverse our experiences are. But when there are bad experiences to be written about, I want the girl to be allowed to explain WHY they had bad experiences...not just put it down to "perils of the job" like so many other people do. For example, to be treated like crap by an employer is NOT just part of being a prostitute, like people seem to think. It is because of the absence of good labour laws for sex workers and industrial protection...and because of illegality. They are the sort of points I want this book to make. And also how good the industry can be when you are able to work in a positive environment.

Sorry to ramble...I'll be sure to let y'all know as soon as it hits the stands! lol

[Dickhead]

Sounds like Studs Terkel's "Working," only for SWs!

[Darkseid]

RN, people in this prudish country will always have false assumptions about prositutes because Americans are very ignorant. All prudes are ignorant and will always be so. Most of them never even talked to a prostitute so these ignoramouses pass laws illegalizing prostitution which is something they'll never understand. There will always be false assumptions that all prostitutes were from broken homes, abused relations from ex-boyfriends or parents, poor neighborhoods, or drug users. But most prostitutes I went to in foreign countries where there is less ignorance do prostitution to raise a kid, pay for college, or pay off a loan or some just like to have sex (nothing wrong with that. :-)). Most of them are not from poor families, broken homes, abusive relationships, or are not drug users. These are the perceptions of ignorant American parents, politicans, and other such conservative groups. Some of them, like the women from Centaurros in Rio, are from rich families who do this just as a job that they like. There is nothing wrong with being a prostitute. As I said in a previous post, I would date one over a conservative American prude. They are at least much more open-minded than a conservative prude girl. I wouldn't blame you if you omit the bad side of prostitution from your book because people are stupid enough to make those assumptions here in America. But I would like you to write the truth about prostitution and the good reasons why people do it. Yes, some women do it for the money and prostitution is a way to make the money to pay off a college loan especially if you have no qualifications until you get a degree (a catch 22 situation we all face in the job market). But others love sex and so does everyone else on the planet (even prudes but they are too cowardly to admit it). Keep posting RN, I agree with your points of views and I'll always back you.

Darkseid

[The Virgin Terr]

i'm experiencing difficulty posting a message to this thread. has anyone else had trouble? i just tried to send a post which apparently was lost in space, so i'll repeat it in briefer form.

most people i think are pathetically ignorant and unconsciously hypocritical on subjects in general dealing with what moralists term "vice". for example i know someone who tries to get me buzzed on alcohol who would be shocked and offended if i encouraged him to smoke pot with me. i know this because i've seen him deride stoners while simultaneously belting a few drinks down. drug war officials similarly are oblivious to the hypocrisy of using nascar race drivers who accept sponsorship money from big beer companies in commercials urging youth to "say no to drugs." the same idiocy holds true with prudish attitudes condemning prostitution. i've given up for now in trying to understand why so many people are jerks, but i do think it's worth the effort to reach out to the minority who like myself feel isolated by all the moralistic nincompoops around us, so i wish you success with your book project, rn, and hope you can keep people like me in mind as your target audience, rather than those sanctified moralists whose disapproval you expect, while writing it. if you can manage to articulate eloquently how working as a prostitute improved your life as well as others you write about, that's what you should do.

[Darkseid]

it is these same prudish conservative nincompoops that take away our freedom in america. what happened to the pursuit of happiness? i am not happy and everyone on this board is not happy. even a majority of america is not happy with these laws favoring these conservative moralistic assholes. it's just that no one wants to come out and oppose them or they will get arrested. let's face it, america is about the pursuit of the moralist's happiness, not ours. it is the moralists that run our government and that is sad and pathetic. we claim what we are not- land of the free. yeah right! the only good reason to come here is to make money. yes we can make lots of money here, but us pleasure seekers have no way to spend it because since prostitution and drugs are illegal, we have no way of spending our money. we end up saving it and becoming grumpy old men with shotguns and rocking chairs who would shoot anyone who tresspasses on our lawns because we can't do what we love to do- have sex or smoke pot (for some of us). at least in holland you can smoke pot or do prostitution. in brazil, prostitution is legal. this is what i think of america- land of opportunity, yes, land of freedom-no.

[Joe Zop]

VT, I think there was some overall trouble with the board, which appears to have cleared up for the moment.

So much of this comes down to one person/group's opinion about how we all ought to live, which works its way via political action into legislation. The religious right in the US, for example, has focused for the last decade on local elections as a way of imposing their viewpoints on society. Just look at some of the complete idiocy that's come about in school boards and you'll see the effect, and the intent is to chrurn out another groups of clones to carry on the process.

Personally, I've always thought the "limit-based" approach was the one endorsed in free societies, as opposed to the "righteous lifestyle" one which posits that people ought to behave in this or that particular way. The limit-based approach says, I don't care how you behave, as long as you don't do this. Those are vastly philosophical takes on things, and I'd far rather be arguing over the definition of the limits than the idea that we should operate within that general framework as opposed to the proscribed lifestyle one. Unfortunately, when people in general become disaffected by the political system, there is a tendency toward conservatism, which favors the latter philosophy.

So go for it, RN, and not only on the book but on holding your politicians feet to the fire -- gently at first, to get their attention -- as involvement in societal dialogue is what helps define the framework under which we all get to live. And a good book on prostitution as a positive process would go a long way to challenge or dispel some of the presumptions out there.

[Rubber Nursey]

Terry...I have had heaps of trouble accessing this board, and when I finally do get here, I often have all manner of error messages appearing when I try to post. I have now got into the habit of copying the entire message before clicking on the submit button, just in case it doesn't work. If the massage fails, I go back to the first page and start again, then paste the message back in again. It's a pain, but it means I haven't lost any posts for a while now.

re: prostitution books. There was one released in Australia a few months ago, called Conversations in a Brothel (I think? My memory is failing me), which could have been a marvellous book if it hadn't been written by someone who was obviously so morally opposed to prostitution. It contained so many positive, wonderful messages from sex workers, brothel owners AND clients...but every positive comment was followed by pessimistic and judgemental narrative from the author. Every comment she wrote seemed to have a "Yes, they believe they are empowered and happy...but don't forget how destructive this occupation could have been to their perception of happy" type message in them. She may as well have had a take everything these victims of society say with a grain of salt disclaimer written in the front of the book.

Interesting side note...this book was sold SEALED IN PLASTIC. Other books containing references to sex where sitting right next to it, able to be flipped through before purchase, but a prostitution book is obviously taboo. Also, the cover had a picture of what looked like a seedy motel room on it, even though her interview process took her into some of the most expensive and glamourous brothels in the country. People like this woman (a fifty-something, prudish journalist who has never had anything to do with the sex industry) have no place writing books on the matter, in my opinion. They only serve to perpetuate the myths, and discourage sex workers from telling their stories for fear of misrepresentation. Or maybe that was the whole point of it....

[Darkseid]

I bet that fifty year old prude never even talked to a prostitute or even been to a brothel. Books like that should be burned. A book like that should AT least be written by a guy who had a negative experience with prostitutes. That to me would be a more credible book than a book written by a penguin who can't get any. I would like people to know the truth about prostitution that is why I can't wait for you to write a book. The negative aspects of prostitution especially the point of view from these dumb ass moralists cover up the positive side of prostitution, that is why ONLY in America, a prostitute is a criminal. All other countries just consider a prostitute a sex worker.

[Joe Zop]

So, RN, any update on the legal situation in your neck of the woods? When last we left our heroine was tied to the tracks with the train coming, and the elected officials were hemming and hawing over whether or not undoing the ropes would be a smart or harmful political act...

[Rubber Nursey]

Well Joe,

As a matter of fact, the excrement hit the proverbial fan just last weekend. The draft is due for release any moment now. For the record, I would like to mention that only a couple of weeks after a meeting with the Minister's office...in which we were told they could NOT discuss ANY aspect of the new legislation with us....they released the information to the media!! And...they did it on our day off!!! It is a LOT worse than we could have ever imagined...

*There will be a Prostitution Control Board who will oversee regulation of the industry, consisting of police, health ministers, barristers, council members and doctors....NO SEX WORKERS OR SEX WORKER REPS.

* Brothels will be licensed and forced to follow very strict guidelines:
- There will be a comprehensive "screening" process before granting someone a brothel license, which is apparently being done to keep the "criminal element" out of the industry. (It is this screening that has led to ex-hookers being refused a license in other states). The strict guidelines have meant that in other parts of Oz, the only people who can get a license are those with ridiculous amounts of money, and some political clout. Because of this, most parlours in those states are run by MEN and there has been a dramatic increase in the level of organised crime and syndicates involved. (Ummm isn't that what they are trying to avoid???) Currently, there is basically no such thing as organised crime in the industry in my state.
- Brothels are being forced into light industrial areas, (meaning far away from transport, food, health supplies and police patrols) , and will not be able to operate within 300 metres of a school, childcare centre, church, dwelling, or PUB. At least two-thirds of our established brothels will violate this regulation.
- There will be no provisions made for brothels in local council by-laws...this means that even if your application for a brothel is approved and you are licensed, the council can still refuse you a permit or shut you down.
- Even though they will be legal businesses, brothels will not be able to advertise for staff, advertise services using words like "French" or "Greek" or show any part of the body below the shoulders in their ads. (This is in spite of the fact that adult shops and strip shows are still allowed to advertise and show full body shots of women in their advertising).

*Sex workers will be classed as employees, and as such will be eligible for both Occupational Health and Safety and Industrial rights. (WE ALREADY HAVE ALL THIS!!! This part was thrown in to make it look like the Government was doing something in our favour). As employees, we will also qualify for sick pay, long service leave and minimum wages. (WTF???? How do you make up an award wage system for what are essentially independent workers, without capping wages or prices??? Sick pay is an absolutely ridiculous and unworkable idea...and long service leave for hookers???? LMAO!!!!)

And this is the worst stuff....

* ALL SEX WORKERS MUST BE LICENSED AND REGISTERED. Our idiot minister has said that their aim is to stop the drugs and crime with this registration...this means that they can DENY someone a sex worker license!!!
* Those licensed, registered sex workers must carry a WORK CARD, that must be presented to police and clients on demand!! (Don't even get me started on forcing people to be card carrying prostitutes...)
*Workers will be registered to particular premises (trapping them there even if they are suffering bad working conditions, or forcing them to stop work completely if they are fired, until they can be re-issued a license for another house).
* It will become officially legal to work in your own home, BUT you will still have to be in the house that you LIVE IN and you must be ALONE at all times! (That is something that even the Vice Squad wanted changed, but it hasn't happened). To add further insult, there will be no local council provisions for this situation either...meaning that the council can stop you working or refuse you a permit, even though you are licensed and not committing any offence.


Other bits in the proposed draft...
* Up to 14 years imprisonment for operating outside the legal system. (That would include someone who just works for one day to earn emergency rent money).
* Sex workers face huge fines and even imprisonment for providing a service whilst infected with an STI. (The way this is worded, it seems to mean that they are presumed to know even if they don't AND that it makes no difference what type of service is provided).
* And the big one...inclusion of the Prostitution Act 2000 in it's entirety. This means that even though people are licensed and legal, police can still enter without a warrant, detain without charge, practice entrapment AND sex workers still do not have the right to remain silent and they are guilty until proven innocent.

My office has gone INSANE and my entire life is going to have to be put on hold for quite a while....

[Rubber Nursey]

Oh, just out of interest....the sex industry, the residents groups, the general community, the church and even the opposition political parties, DO NOT WANT THIS LEGISLATION.

With every single person in the state opposed to the proposals for various reasons, you can't blame me for being suspicious about this stupid woman's motives. Our taxes pay her wages. Does she really think she's gonna win at the next election if she manages to [CodeWord140] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord140) EVERYONE off?? The thought of the ulterior motives...that she MUST have, because nothing else could explain this....is scaring the pants off me!! I'm scared we are being railroaded for a reason....

[Joe Zop]

It will be interesting to see if the legislation as released actually looks like the nightmare you describe. And more interesting to see what happens once people get their hands on it and start revising. The good news is it's pretty hard to imagine that it can get any worse, so any changes will soften things; the bad news is it's going to take a ton of softening to make this at all palatable.

Sounds to me like the political question boils down to this -- either she wants to hide safely behind the draft of the legislation by being able to say, after legislation actually gets through that's different, hey, don't blame me for all these problems, I sent a very different bill through, or the intent is basically to sabotage the process of getting a bill passed entirely by putting forward something so radically unpalatable that it's impossible to move forward, and be able to say, hey, I tried. Either way it's rather clear that if you were her supporters you were pretty badly misled.

I can see the school and church thing -- there are similar things here regarding adult businesses, including those serving alcohol -- but to put publs on that list is obviously pretty stupid. Again, that may be the troll that gets struck out to make the rest stay. (That's usually how I tend to look at draft legislation, which I've done a fair amount of -- look for the places where it's pretty clear that something's thrown in for the sake of having something to cut later when needed, so you can say you're making concessions.)

It would seem to me that one proper tactic would be the drafting and public release of an alternative draft -- are your affilliates and your organization up to that? This legislation establishes a hard-line approach; you need to make clear the opposite so there's something concrete to debate and a look at an alternative.

[Rubber Nursey]

I am pretty sure (as you mentioned) that they have added certain things for the sole purpose of having clauses to strike out. I'd say this whole thing is being done because of one of the two options you gave (deliberate sabotage or a means of getting her way by seemingly bowing to pressure and removing certain aspects), but I'm not sure which one it is. She has been so very cagey about everything, and she keeps baiting us in the media to make us look like we have nothing to complain about. She is also trying very hard to create controversy...for example, on mandatory testing.

Last year she said that mandatory testing would be part of any new prostitution legislation that her Government created. The thing is, any attempt to introduce mandatory testing has been thwarted in every other state, due to legal arguments and health authority recommendations. She has said in the media THIS time...waaaaay too many times already...that mandatory testing will NOT be included in the new draft. This statement, repeated over and over, has caused a furore within the general community, who obviously believe that the "vectors of disease" must be controlled by legislation. I'm not sure whether this is an attempt to somehow get mandatory testing included in the draft, or whether it's just another way to get the draft bogged down in community debate so it won't be passed at all.

What they have basically done is take all the worst parts of Victoria and Queensland's legislation, and added bits to make them even more harsh. It all comes down to an abolitionist approach...make it too hard for the girls to work legally, and they will leave the industry for good. The depth of their stupidity is truly astounding.

One thing is sure though...she certainly didn't "mislead" us in any way. In fact, they have made it quite clear since the beginning that they would NOT be listening to us, that we were NOT going to be able to make recommendations and that our opinion is not in any way valid or even welcome. Little do they know....that attitude only makes me wanna fight harder. *grin*

[Joe Zop]

it sounds as though this whole thing is more political than legislative, and that it's a way to get news time and attention as opposed to really thinking about anything happening. the scourge of television and electronic media is the ability to use soundbites as a way of conveying persona as opposed to actually having to look closely at issues. that process is, unfortunately, all too common in the political arena, and done in truly cynical ways at times. our congress, for example, repeatedly passes legislation around free speech they know to be unconsitutional because of how it makes them look -- tough on "insert issue here" -- basically figuring that the courts will all sort it out; it will take a few years, and then they'll go through it all over again. it's just a game about sending messages, even if you know the message you're sending won't ever become real. but if you're one of those affected by such idiocy, it's far from an amusing process.

my comment on the misleading was based on something you posted a while back in a more hopeful tone which seemed to indicate that this was a more liberal regime. my mistake.

the question now, of course, is who actually are your allies going to be in this fight -- who will make the changes in the draft legislation, who will offer an alternate approach, etc. how together are your allies politically in this regard?

[Rubber Nursey]

On our own, we are armed and ready to fight...with submissions, community forums and a pretty big media presence. Along side us we have some really big names in the health field, community services and would you believe....a couple of Christian churches and a few pollies from the offending party! We also have HUGE support from the political party that holds the balance of power in Parliament when it comes to Cabinet decisions. As a matter of fact, workable sex industry reform AND consultation with the sex industry on the matter, has become one of that party's top priorities. All of that should help.

We also (in a fashion) have the church and the rest of the community on our side...in that they don't approve of the reform either. They are fighting it for different reasons of course, but ultimately it's still a voice against the legislation. We can deal with their arguments later.

This Government WAS supposed to be the more "liberal" of the two...and two years ago when the previous Government created the Prostitution Act 2000, these guys fought it tooth and nail. We presumed that was a good sign. However, pollies being pollies, they have now done a complete backflip on that particular piece of legislation, and decided to include it with the new stuff. Plus even more nasty stuff! Our happiness at disposing of the more conservative Government was pretty short-lived. Most of us didn't vote for them though...we voted for the party who is now backing us in our fight.