The Morality of Prostitution

[Mike Del]

RN - another excellent post.

The only thing I wanted to add is that humans and dolphins are the only animals that have sex for fun (i.e. not with procreative intent in mind). So it is a natural instinct - for us, anyway.

And it is (almost) a natural instinct (in a money economy) to pay (if you afford it) for things you do not have.

[Rubber Nursey]

On the contrary...

I think that taking advantage of the fact that there's a market for your particular talent/ability/gift/idea (in this case, sex) is perfectly natural. People who have something worth money are going to choose to profit from it. People with money are going to try and buy what's missing from their life. It's human nature.

As for condoms, the only truly 'natural' way of having sex is if you're doing it with the sole aim of procreation. With millions of women around the world on the Pill, and most people these days using condoms for casual sex, MOST sex would be considered 'unnatural' by, say, the Pope. But I would say that wanting to enjoy sex without having to suffer any negative consequences is a pretty natural choice as well. A natural desire for sexual gratification combined with a natural instinct for survival.

Welcome to the board, by the way!

[Michelonger]

And talk of "Naturality".

Salutations for everybody in this thread from a Spanish guy, also involved in a serious relationship with the most beautiful, sexy but honest sexworker in the world. Well, that's my opinion after surfing the galleries, hahaah.

I've thoroughly readed nearly all the messages from this thread, very interesting points of view indeed, . Maybe only except the ones of the so called "Billy" the one minute shooter.

After making a porridge with all the ideas exposed in this thread, we get some undebateable pilars.

-Pay for sex is not a natural way of life, but imposed by religious hierarchy. (E. G. Babilonian sacred pros and all this stuff).

-Sex with pros must be protected/covered by all means in order to keep it going and stop the killing spread of STD. So it makes it again unnatural.

Agree?

[Petemcc]

Opebo, I couldn't agree more. I am often amazed by the holier than thou attitudes a lot of the forum participants display towards myself and other sex workers - a case of the pot calling the kettle black, if ever I saw one! Do they honestly think that the 'stench' of sex work is less odourous on their own bodies, than on ours? By definition, a commercial sex transaction is an agreement between a buyer and a seller - without a buyer, there would be no seller. The monger is an intrisic part of the sex industry.

Sex workers are, and always have been, a scapegoat. Men - particularly 'good Christian' men - have never been to blame for their own sexual desires. Read the Malleus, or the bible (pick a religion - they're all the same) or any other document used to control the masses over the ages. WOMEN are to blame for men's lust. But, of course, we can't have the good Christian wives of our good Christian men being seen as anything but asexual (otherwise it could be suggested that the man may not have complete control over his woman). So sex workers, the most wanton of all women, must be held accountable for men's lascivious nature. Good men would surely not actively seek out something as base and sinful as sexual gratification - it is us, the wh*res, who lure them in with our feminine wiles and unabashed sexuality. How can a man be blamed for giving in to a temptation that was surely created by the Devil himself?

The WSG posters who patronise us and put us down are really only perpetuating the time-honoured tradition of mongers blaming sex workers for their own weaknesses. We are an 'excuse' for men's bad behaviour.

Rubber- that is the best posting I have seen here, thanks. Opebo, I don't hate you, I think you are a lousy low-life twat, but you also have a grasp on things and make some good points.
Love and kisses
Pete

[Rubber Nursey]

Opebo, I couldn't agree more. I am often amazed by the holier than thou attitudes a lot of the forum participants display towards myself and other sex workers - a case of the pot calling the kettle black, if ever I saw one! Do they honestly think that the 'stench' of sex work is less odourous on their own bodies, than on ours? By definition, a commercial sex transaction is an agreement between a buyer and a seller - without a buyer, there would be no seller. The monger is an intrinsic part of the sex industry.

Sex workers are, and always have been, a scapegoat. Men - particularly 'good Christian' men - have never been to blame for their own sexual desires. Read the Malleus, or the bible (pick a religion - they're all the same) or any other document used to control the masses over the ages. WOMEN are to blame for men's lust. But, of course, we can't have the good Christian wives of our good Christian men being seen as anything but asexual (otherwise it could be suggested that the man may not have complete control over his woman). So sex workers, the most wanton of all women, must be held accountable for men's lascivious nature. Good men would surely not actively seek out something as base and sinful as sexual gratification - it is us, the wh*res, who lure them in with our feminine wiles and unabashed sexuality. How can a man be blamed for giving in to a temptation that was surely created by the Devil himself?

The WSG posters who patronise us and put us down are really only perpetuating the time-honoured tradition of mongers blaming sex workers for their own weaknesses. We are an 'excuse' for men's bad behaviour.

[Opebo]

dear rn, thank you for your accolades of a few posts back. here you have summed up accurately public opinion:

people think sex workers are pieces of shit.
clients of sex workers are pieces of shit by association.
people are allowed to say sex workers and clients are pieces of shit, without getting in trouble with the political correctness crowd.
we must protect the community from these morally degenerate pieces of shit at all costs.

many men upon this forum fail to understand that not only the prostitute, but the john, and sexuality itself is under attack by the forces of social control, and for very good reasons. true, the prostitute bears the brunt of this attack (ultimately suffering is merely a gauge of how little power one has), but men too are, as your post and that article imply, condemned by society.

i can remember engaging in debates here years ago with mongers who believed themselves to be respected gentlemen, 'doing as boys do', and firmly ensconced in society's good graces. i have tried to remind mongers that we are a presecuted, reviled group, just like the homosexuals (who get a lot of grief on this forum), prostitutes/women, ephebophiles, ****s, workers, blacks, and the rest. i for one will always 'take the side' of the underdog (not that anything i do has any effect), and am shocked and outraged only by this - the hubris of the common man and his lack of sympathy for his brothers.

[Mike Del]

Sasha,

A former boss of mine (sadly no longer with us) once rebuked me in the early days of my career when I told him I wanted to kep a clear conscience - he asked me when I had acquired a taste for such luxuries ! I trained as a lawyer many years ago (but am now a reformed character as Woodrow Wilson said) - I still believe that you do the right thing so I missed out on the lobotomy they dish out at law school !

I agree with a lot of what you say and you are right. But, in my experience, unfortunately , a 'holier than thou' mentality (and I don't necessarily mean 'religious' - sometimes yes, sometimes no) is behind a lot of this. Those who scream the loudest usually have the most to lose or hide. It's a cause for them to get behind, it gives them something to believe in when nearly everything else has failed. Problem is, no matter how you look at it, 'evil' (of which they believe this is one manifestion) has managed to keep its head above water and always will. Is it any wonder prostitution is the world's oldest profession ? We are, no matter how you look at it, animals. We all have animal instincts, we crave certain things - air, food and sex. But we do not live in a vacuum. We do look the other way. We do have double standards. And I refer back to the Kerry Packer quote.

The point I disagree with you is whether the lower socio-economic classes have more of a problem. I don't think so - they know it is a way to earn a lot more money than the average Joe or Jane. And so do the higher echelons as well. Everyone wants the quick ladder to get to the goal - you don't analyse how many snakes there are, sometimes. And the rich DO have a problem with it when a) you get too high and mighty; b) when you encroach on their turf; and c) when property prices start to be affected. They'll always find a way to knock you down. Which is so hypocritcal.

Just my thoughts.

[Sasha Coffee]

I think that most of people who moan about the sex workers are uptight women. They are 40 past their prime, never had a orgasam, caught their husbands having numerous affairs, but can't leave because they were to dam lazy to get a job and are now unemployable. At 20 they went and caught a husband popped out a couple of kids and thought now I'm set for life.

They are bitter and twisted that life and living has passed them by. They are aware that husbands use hookers. They are aware their husbands would rather use hookers and they hate it.

So they parade around the media and local body governments and infect. They pass on their bitterness like the flu and smile the whole time they are doing it. They smile and waffle on about protecting the community and family values. Meanwhile their sons are at college and banging hookers and heading to strip clubs and their daughters are bonking some guy the same age as their father to get through college. Or working in a strip club for some extra pennies.

Both kids wander home at Christmas and listen to Mum about looking after yourself and you aren't doing anything to embarrass yourself. Both look at their mother laugh and lie.

The attitudes to the sex industry will slowly change. When the 20year olds of today are the 40 year olds of tomorrow and can remember the fun they had working in or visiting sex establishments. I;ve always noticed as well the
lower the socio economic group the more problem they have with the sex industry. The very rich don't give a shit. They don't care how you make your money they care what you do with it.

Besides my lawyer once said to me.

Sasha morals are expensive rubies and only Donald Trump can afford them.

[Bango Cheito]

What scares me is how many people are open minded and tolerant about just about anything else, but sex for money causes their minds to snap shut like a steel trap. You can almost hear it SLAM!

I really think this issue is as big and as important as slavery was here 150 years ago.

[Rubber Nursey]

OK, serious now. This sort of thing cuts deep into my soul.

"A property manager likened them to "cockroaches.'' One morally upright resident said she felt like bathing her kids in Lysol after elevator encounters with the *****s".

I am a mother of two and (not legally, but close enough) step-mother of four. I am a GOOD MOTHER. My kids have no idea I was ever a sex worker. I have never done drugs, I've never had sex in front of my children, nor have I invited strangers into my home to have paid sex with me while my kids were in the building. Most sex-working mothers haven't. The woman in the paragraph above would UNDOUBTABLY let me babysit her children, if she knew me.

So why is it that - if she knew I'd had sex for money at some point in my life (in the privacy of my own bedroom or in a brothel) - I would suddenly become that 'other' sort of woman, that is a danger to her children's health???

[Rubber Nursey]

I agree - it could have had a lot more impact if the average person could read it without needing a dictionary and thesaurus on hand

But waffle and big words aside, what she said was the truth. To translate the article in simple terms...

People think sex workers are pieces of shit.
Clients of sex workers are pieces of shit by association.
People are allowed to SAY sex workers and clients are pieces of shit, without getting in trouble with the political correctness crowd.
We must protect the community from these morally degenerate pieces of shit at all costs.

I think that pretty much sums it up.

[Mike Del]

RN - welcome back. And thanks.

Article: interesting - but only the first paragraph and the last paragraph made any sense to me. Rather verbose, don't you think ?

MD

[Rubber Nursey]

Legal or not, sex trade here to stay
Nov. 13, 2006. 08:01 AM
ROSIE DIMANNO
Toronto Star

Sex is a primal urge. Yet libido rubs a lot of people the wrong way. Most humans have sex, sometimes with love, just as often without. In marriage, outside of marriage, as a side dish to marriage. It's not ours to judge.

But if you pay for it — or charge for it — a kind of atavistic wrath, from a disapproving society, will fall on your head.

Prostitutes are just about the last breed of people who can be publicly excoriated for what they are, in a language of loathing that would be intolerable if applied to anyone else. It's the argot of shaming. And the attitudes that lie beneath — their lesser status as human beings, because they trade in flesh — is precisely what permits the widespread abuse of women and men who retail their bodies, such that even their murders can pass without vigorous investigation.

In the antiquated semantics of policing and criminal code legislation, sex is still a vice. Merchandising it is a crime, soliciting it is a crime, purchasing it is a crime, in all but the most narrowly defined circumstances. But using sex to sell product —that's advertising. Using sex to titillate — that's entertainment. Using sex to snare a partner — that's courtship.

It was interesting to read an investigative report on the front page of Saturday's Star, detailing what was described as "brothels-in-the-sky'' — prostitutes working out of residential high-rise buildings in Toronto, a phenomenon that is clearly bugging the snot out of many fellow tenants who, presumably, get their own sex by more conventional means. Bully for them. Others don't have sex so close to hand. They have to go looking for it. Fortunately, there are plenty of sex-trade workers willing to provide the service. That doesn't make either prostitute or customer a monster.

The prostitutes and their clients were portrayed with ripe descriptors, variously derided for their provocative clothing, their cheap cologne, their contaminating presence. A property manager likened them to "cockroaches.'' One morally upright resident said she felt like bathing her kids in Lysol after elevator encounters with the *****s. Is this because of exposure to their moral depravity? Or the toxic aura of the stigmatized sex they make?

Insofar as any of this is a genuine quality-of-life urban issue — and I do understand the discomfort zone created by overt sexual entrepreneurship, although I don't share the repugnance — it was created by a circle-jerk dance of the deviant: The forces of good shutting down pseudo "holistic centres'' operating as de facto bordellos. Two decades ago, it was massage parlours. Only to arise anew, this time burrowing more deeply into residential neighbourhoods. Whence, it should be noted, come their clientele. Those are your husbands and sons and brothers, looking to get laid.

And what of it? Maybe sex is just an uncomplicated grunt with a stranger for them. Maybe they strike out in bars. Maybe they come from cultures where dating isn't permitted, much less sexual intimacy. Maybe they're not getting any at home.
There's no point trying to figure out motive. The groin wants what it wants.

And there's even less point trying to smother biological imperatives. It's bred in the bone, if steeped in hypocrisy. Righteous preachers who bible-thump about sin get caught with their pants down. Cops who arrest johns coerce hookers into giving them freebies. Politicians who promote "family values'' fall victim to honey-traps.

Even in our sophisticated, judgment-neutral society, there is a resistant puritan streak that thinks it can and should control lust. Apart from creating a sexual bureaucracy— the vice squads that arrest them, the Crown attorneys who prosecute them, the lawyers who defend them — nothing has changed. The sex is still there. It will always be.

Over the years, I have covered countless commissions and task forces and public consultations on prostitution. Inevitably, somebody will propose creating red-light districts — sex ghettos — where prostitutes can operate legally, under a stern regulatory eye, subject to health inspection, taxation, and otherwise treated with odious paternalism.

The implication is that prostitutes require looking after, as if they were children or morons, and the rest of us need to be protected from them. They have to be segregated. This is so palpably not the way to go. But nobody listens to the core pleading of sex-trade workers that prostitution be "decriminalized" so they can work safely from their homes, without threat of arrest, in control of their environment and their patrons.

“Here's the major problem,” says Valerie Scott, executive director of Sex Professionals of Canada (founded 1983, née Canadian Organization for the Rights of Prostitutes), and a practitioner for decades. “The existing legislation sees what we do as a vice. It doesn't see it as a legitimate business. Bawdy house rules make it illegal to work from their homes. Living off the avails, intended to curb pimping, isolates them. That criminalizes all of our healthy and normal relationships. We're not allowed to have a lover, a spouse, a roommate. We're so dirty, so morally bankrupt, that anyone who associates with us should be in jail. If I send a Christmas present to my parents, technically even that's illegal, because it comes from the profits of prostitution.”

This is what happens in most jurisdictions, such as Amsterdam, where prostitution has been legalized: The house gets 50 per cent, the government takes 25 per cent, the women work 10-hour shifts, they're not permitted to decline a client, and the brothel operator commonly extorts sex for himself into the bargain. Dutch women on the game won't accept those conditions so they work illegally. “Those women in the windows? All foreigners, from Eastern European countries” says Scott. “They're the only ones willing to put up with that level of extortion.”

The international trafficking in sex slaves, that's an entirely different problem and should not be conflated with prostitution as a legitimate career choice. “If there's extortion, charge their handlers” says Scott. “Assault, intimidation, coercion, forcible confinement — charge them. If prostitution is decriminalized, it will make it a lot easier for those girls to get away. Deal with it as an immigration matter. As it is, we can't get to her. She's terrified of the police, of being deported.”

Scott is equally contemptuous of the perception that prostitutes are unclean and need to be monitored up the wazoo. In fact, health studies in the United States have shown that sexually transmitted diseases are far less common among prostitutes than the general population. “I don't see anybody demanding that our clients be tested for STDs. See, they're morally clean. But prostitutes have been taking care of their own sexual health since before the invention of penicillin. And if the state tries to go poking around in my vagina, I won't allow it.”

It was Pierre Elliott Trudeau who famously declared that the state doesn't belong in the bedroom.
It doesn't belong in a prostitute's $-spot either.

[Rubber Nursey]

Speaking of immorality...

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/tgr/08/1/gr080112.html

[Alex Rock]

What can I say ? Well said, Thanks