The Morality of Prostitution

[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

[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

[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.

[Dickhead]

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

[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...) :-)

[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.

[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/

[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...

[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 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]

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)

[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

[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...

[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*)

[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]

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.