The Morality of Prostitution

[Bango Cheito]

These days with the economy what it is there is a LOT of down time for hos in Latin America... you can go days on end without work sometimes... it's a case of you make good money when you work, but that when can be very infrequent....

[Dickhead]

Club gals = 200-500 pesos = 50 to 125 US, gal keeps it all, you have to buy her and you an overpriced drink, another 25 US.
Apartment gals = 80-250 pesos = 20 to 65 US, gal keeps 40%.
Cafe gals = really varies but 250 or 65 US plus another 20-25 US for the hotel. They have to pay to sit there, around 20 US a day.
Street gals 50-150 pesos or 15-40 US, plus a hotel but more like 15 US there.
Internet gals normally turn out to be apartment gals but the truly independent ones 200-400 pesos per hour or 50 to 100 US, plus normally cab fare (and then they pocket that and use the bus).

Streetwalking isn't illegal here, I don't think, and if it is they don't do anything about it. I haven't been with a streetwalker in a couple of years but I have had some fun ones, notably "Dickhead's María"; I had mongers coming from all over the world to try to find her. She has an apartment now a block from mine. Two of her sisters were streetwalkers too. One is supposedly happily married and the other is working in the apartment. There are a lot of tranny streetwalkers here.

[Rubber Nursey]

don't forget the risk of [CodeWord123], robbery and violence that every sector faces. no matter where you pick up your clients, you always end up alone with a complete stranger. also, hiv/stis and life-long social stigma. and yeah...the mind-numbing boredom! that's a shocker.

determining who actually gets paid more can be tricky. i don't know what the pay structure is like in your industry, but in ours it might be (these are completely made-up amounts) escorts $1000/night, brothel girls $300/hour, private girls $200/hour, street girls $100/shag. at face value, that looks like escorts and indoor workers are big earners and street girls are low-paid.

in reality, a street worker can do a client in ten minutes, so she's actually earning the equivalent of $600/hour. the brothel girl gives half her wage to the owner, so she's really on $150/hour. the private worker gets to keep it all for herself, but bears all the costs associated with running a home business, so she's probably getting about the same as a brothel girl. the escort can stay with a client for 8-12 hours, so her hourly rate is considerably less than all the other sectors.

working conditions are also difficult to measure. escorts might only see one client a day and get perks like dinner and dancing, but they do the service in environments they're unfamiliar with and have no control over. brothel workers have more security, but have no control over their money or their workplace (or the service, in some cases). private workers have control over their money and working conditions, but their isolation puts them at increased risk of violence. street workers have shitty workplaces and high risk of arrest, but they work their own hours, have no overheads and often have a decent peer network for security. also, if a street worker isn't getting any business, she can move or just bugger off home. the others have designated shifts, advertised hours of availability, etc and have to keep 'working' even when they're not earning money. i can't tell you how many times i 'worked' a 12 hour shift and went home with nothing!

[Dickhead]

Right, that's what I meant. And then in those places where it's illegal the wage needs to cover that risk as well. There's quite a wide range of risk scenarios because there are so many different kinds of venues.

So here in Buenos Aires, you have the clubs. The risk there is mainly of meeting some psycho, I would think. Those gals are seeing three guys a night at the very, very most. Another risk I've seen is that it is often quite boring and the gals drink, smoke, and eat too much, or use coke or "love drops." The police never raid those places but immigration does.

Then you've got the privados (apartments). Assuming the gal doesn't leave the place there is a certain security element from psychos but she has to fuck any nasty guy who comes in. Also some of those places have mandatory CIM so that is another risk. High volume as well; a popular gal might do 10-12 guys a day pretty regularly. Boring there too, but can't usually openly drink (and sometimes can't smoke; I look for those places), therefore must use coke. Although, not that many do.

Then you've got the internet gals. Theoretically they could have multiple exchanges before meeting clients, to at least try to weed out psychos, but they don't because they are impatient and greedy. They also need to worry about getting ripped off.

Then you've got the streetwalkers. They have more control over who they fuck than the privado gals but they are normally pretty desperate. Besides from the ripoffs and the psychos, they have to defend their turf from the other gals.

Then you've got the cafes. Those gals probably take the least risk of anyone because these are daytime venues so the clients are seldom drunk, plus they only use one particular hotel. Those hourly hotels won't let the guy leave without the gal, for one thing. And, the initial conversation/negotiation will probably be longer than in the clubs, so the client is easier to size up.

Different risks. But, Econ 101 to the contrary, I would say the apartment gals and street gals have poorer working conditions than the others. Econ would say they should get paid more. The opposite is the case.

[Rubber Nursey]

When uneducated and unskilled people get well-paid employment there is usually some substantial down side or educated and skilled people would be doing those jobs. That's just Econ 101.

I think the downsides of hooking are pretty obvious. A lot of the well-paid (unskilled) jobs include a 'danger money' component - mines, oil rigs, defence contracts, trawlers. They don't care if you're not clever, as long as you're willing to put your life on the line and/or put up with shitty working conditions. Sex work is no different.

[Dickhead]

When uneducated and unskilled people get well-paid employment there is usually some substantial down side or educated and skilled people would be doing those jobs. That's just Econ 101.

[Rubber Nursey]

That makes it sound like they couldn't possibly do any other kind of work. Most people, by law, aren't allowed to do what I do for a living. So, they do something else!

Sex work is the only job I can think of where an uneducated or unskilled person, or people with drug addictions, acute mental health issues, etc, can walk straight into well-paid employment. It's also the only job I can think of where a person can work minimal hours around their family or study commitments and still earn an average (or high) wage. Of course, many hookers COULD do other work. But why should they?

My point was that sex work is not just some deviant behaviour that can be stopped at a moment's notice. During a presentation last year, I asked a group of happy-clapping 'rescuers' to think about all their own financial responsibilities...mortgages, car payments, grocery bills, school fees, gym memberships, clothes, fuel, dental appointments, etc. Then I asked what it would do to them and their families if the police one day walked into their workplace and told them they had to leave their job, effective immediately. No references, no time to make alternative arrangements, no severance pay or entitlements. They were stunned. They had honestly never considered the financial impact of being 'rescued' from the sex industry.

Even if you have other employment choices, finding work takes time and the bills keep accumulating in the meantime. If you have a prostitution conviction and/or big (brothel-filled) gaps in your work history, it will take even longer.

[Dickhead]

"But when they stop WOMEN having access to sex work, they stop them feeding their children, paying their rent, accumulating assets, paying their way through school."

That makes it sound like they couldn't possibly do any other kind of work. Most people, by law, aren't allowed to do what I do for a living. So, they do something else!

[Gentleman Travel]

The women in Sweden, and other so-called 'feminist' places in the world, don't give a flying fuck about the financial needs of sex workers. They just want them to get out of the industry and stop making other women look bad. Controlling men's access to women's bodies is most certainly a secondary goal, but it's mostly about preventing women making the decision to enter sex work in the first place. Wh*res are letting the side down and the feminazis won't stand for it.

Well said.

[Rubber Nursey]

the clearest case is sweden... in good socialist style they oppose union busting (union of women controlling nookie). so they portray hookers as helpless victims and men as criminals... similarly, in canada where prostitution is not illegal, but soliciting is, the soliciting provisions are mostly used to punish men (and chase street workers off the streets). then the men are most or less forced to attend "john schools" where they are lectured about the errors of their ways.

i'm not saying that anti-prostitution laws don't attempt to curb and control male sexual behaviour. they do. for the record, i am horrified by the anti-male feminazi rhetoric that paints sex industry clients as exploiters, abusers and [CodeWord127]. that's totally fucked up. and i'm certainly not trying to downplay or minimise the impact it has on clients. i'm just saying that the laws have more impact on sex workers (and for the purpose of this particular discussion, sex workers are women).

yes, anti-prostitution laws impact on men's ability to access sex. but what we need to remember is that 'sex work' is not just some politically-correct term for prostitution. we use that term because it describes what the job entails...the sex is work. it's our livelihood, our income, our means of survival.

when they stop men accessing sex workers, they stop men having access to instant sexual gratification. while i (obviously) don't believe they should have to, men can survive without access to paid sex. but when they stop women having access to sex work, they stop them feeding their children, paying their rent, accumulating assets, paying their way through school. they stop women having financial independence.

the women in sweden, and other so-called 'feminist' places in the world, don't give a flying fuck about the financial needs of sex workers. they just want them to get out of the industry and stop making other women look bad. controlling men's access to women's bodies is most certainly a secondary goal, but it's mostly about preventing women making the decision to enter sex work in the first place. wh*res are letting the side down and the feminazis won't stand for it.

[Rubber Nursey]

Name one, please.

Most Australian states, for starters! The legislation specifies that it's an offence for "a prostitute" to solicit, loiter, accost, etc, but doesn't say anything about clients doing it. As I said, WA's new street laws DO actually make both parties accountable, in theory, but in practice only the woman is ever charged.

Many (obviously, not all) Commonwealth countries and/or English colonies are still operating under imported 18th and 19th century English bawdy house laws, which see women as prostitutes (the problem to be controlled) and only refer to men in terms of 'pimping' offences. WA's brothel laws actually describe prostitutes as "women and girls" and refer to brothel owners as "he/him/his". The main reason why our state's sex industry is almost exclusively female-operated is because our laws don't allow male involvement, but they don't 'technically' rule out female management.

[Australiasucks]

I agree. If prostitution was legalized and did not have a stigma attached to it many people would not be in relationships because they were lonely or needed money. I think that society would be happier overall. Nevertheless I think that some men may be afraid that if prostitution were legalized that this would give women too much power. I could see forbes magazine now with pictures of beautiful rich women ceo's on the cover of the worlds biggest escort companies lol.

In most countries prostitution is legal, Germany is a fairly modern and conservative country with a sizable Catholic population but its easy to find good legal prostitution and not see as evil. In fact it probably has the best prostitution scene of any rich nation.

[Gfechaser]

I agree. If prostitution was legalized and did not have a stigma attached to it many people would not be in relationships because they were lonely or needed money. I think that society would be happier overall. Nevertheless I think that some men may be afraid that if prostitution were legalized that this would give women too much power. I could see forbes magazine now with pictures of beautiful rich women ceo's on the cover of the worlds biggest escort companies lol.

I know I've said this before, but ...people need to remember that until very recently, women had NO political power. Prostitution laws were made by male politicians. Before that, laws were made by men in the Church (and they still are, in some nations).

For centuries, prostitution laws have been created to curb and control WOMEN'S sexuality, not men's. Sex workers have always been seen as 'bucking the system'...we earn our own money (until recent times, most women couldn't), we dictate when and where a man can have sex, we put a price on something that (traditionally) men expect to get for free. Courtesans of old had access to exclusively 'male' domains, like politics and education, which made them a threat to security and moral order. Then, when the Catholic/Christian Church took hold of society, women were deemed personally responsible for men's lust and any woman who incited that lust was punished. Especially wh*res.

Even now, the anti-sex feminazis - while occasionally pretending to care about the "poor, victimised prostitutes" - condemn sex workers as "traitors to the sisterhood" and "tools of the patriarchy". They believe that sex workers make ALL women look bad, by "perpetuating the belief that women are sexual objects". Sex workers are the enemy. So again, even though they are being created by women, sex work laws like the Swedish model of criminalising clients (which LOOKS like an anti-male policy, but is in fact an abolitionist model designed to make sex work so dangerous for sex workers that they will leave the industry in droves) is yet another law to control women's sexuality.

You can see this clearly if you look at the end game; the ultimate result if sex work was to be wiped out of existence. Men would still be able to access sex, like they always have, but women would be unable to control it or profit from it. Nowhere in the Western world are they suggesting that men and women shouldn't have sex...they're just saying that women shouldn't be putting a dollar value on it. Is it coincidence that at the same time as we're seeing a global crackdown on sex work, there has been a massive increase in the number of dating sites, swingers nights, acceptance of polyamorous relationships, etc? Why is it lawful to advertise casual sex websites on free-to-air television and public billboards, but illegal to advertise brothel and escort services? Why is it that women who screw around are 'liberated' and hookers are 'degraded'?

I'm not saying that anti-prostitution laws don't affect men...of course they do. I just don't believe that curbing MALE sexual behaviour is their ultimate goal or purpose.

[Gentleman Travel]

I know I've said this before, but ...people need to remember that until very recently, women had NO political power. Prostitution laws were made by male politicians. Before that, laws were made by men in the Church (and they still are, in some nations).

...

I'm not saying that anti-prostitution laws don't affect men...of course they do. I just don't believe that curbing MALE sexual behaviour is their ultimate goal or purpose.

What you are saying, in both posts, may have been true in the past, and may still be true in many countries, but I think in "advanced" western countries, the situation has changed.

The clearest case is Sweden, where gender equality is highest, but the feminists still cannot stand the thought that a) men can get sex just by paying for it and b) women would agree to sell it.
In good socialist style they oppose union busting (union of women controlling nookie). So they portray hookers as helpless victims and men as criminals.

Similarly, in Canada where prostitution is not illegal, but soliciting is, the soliciting provisions are mostly used to punish men (and chase street workers off the streets).
Then the men are most or less forced to attend "John schools" where they are lectured about the errors of their ways.

It is not about crime. It is about political correctness and mind control.

[Dickhead]

In many countries where sex work is illegal, clients are not considered to be committing a crime - that is, it's illegal for the sex worker to solicit or provide the service, but not for the client.

Name one, please.