-
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 ...
-
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...
-
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 [i]not[/i] 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 [i]some[/i] things :) )
-
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??
-
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...
-
CB,
80% of the planet is starving? Really? Due to capitalism? How interesting. Anything else to share with us?
-
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.
-
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.
-
joe,
[i]the system in nevada is ridiculous. (though i think worst-case scenarios come not from the law but from brothel owners.)[/i]
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.
[i]but first, let's talk civil and human rights violations in testing, shall we?[/i]
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.
-
[i]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]
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!
-
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 [i]any[/i] 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 [i]something[/i] 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.