The Morality of Prostitution

[Jonathan76]

Zarnon and Rubber Nursey,

Thank you for those thoughtful replies.

J.

[Sasha Coffee]

What a small minded friend you have chosen to have in your life.

In the end what people are comfortable with in their relationship is discussed and decided by the couple. What you are comfortable with in one relationship might not work in another.

As for your friend asking it I think they already made the decision not to be your friend after your confession (mmmm is it that). So you banged a hooker, I wonder if you had of picked up a piece of skirt in the pub would your friend have the same problem or would he be congratulating you.

Perhaps your friend is threatened by your honesty and not the act. Or perhaps your friend is now terrified of seeing you in the same brothel that he frequents.

[Rubber Nursey]

Or perhaps your friend is now terrified of seeing you in the same brothel that he frequents.

LMFAO!!! :)

[Jonathan76]

Perhaps your friend is threatened by your honesty and not the act. Or perhaps your friend is now terrified of seeing you in the same brothel that he frequents.Sasha,

Yes, exactly.

Another thing: I don't buy into this notion that sexual intercourse or sexual behaviors have some mystical quality to them that no other physical act has.

I came across the following anonymous comment recently which sums it up very nicely:

********

Sex has been around forever and prostitution has been around forever. It is an unadulterated exchange of services, no more or less degrading for either buyer or seller than any other professional relationship in a civilized society.

The same arguments against prostitution – buying or selling – could be made against any professional political, economical, or religious service – politician and soldier, doctor and lawyer, psychologist and priest – you name it.

Sexual behavior is a positive, nurturing act, and whether it is given out of love or rendered as a service, as long as it is consensual it is still positive.

I cannot fathom how one could think that making another human being experience sexual pleasure for a fee could be degrading or demeaning unless it is degrading to make other people feel good.

Everyone who works "sells" one or more parts of his or her body. Athletes, actors, actresses, and construction workers "sell" their body. The body is what is needed to do physical work. It would be difficult to engage in any profession without the use and therefore "sale" of one's body.

Here we are in the year 2007 and our society still can't accept the fact that sex and the desire to be touched in a nurturing way are human needs, like drinking water, eating and sleeping.

(If not a need, after enough time it's certainly high on the list of wants.)

*********

[Jonathan76]

Sasha and Rubber Nursey,

Again, just a reminder to check your private messages.

Best wishes,

J.

[Metric]

Another thing: I don't buy into this notion that sexual intercourse or sexual behaviors have some mystical quality to them that no other physical act has.

I came across the following anonymous comment recently which sums it up very nicely:

********
[...]
The same arguments against prostitution – buying or selling – could be made against any professional political, economical, or religious service – politician and soldier, doctor and lawyer, psychologist and priest – you name it.

Sexual behavior is a positive, nurturing act, and whether it is given out of love or rendered as a service, as long as it is consensual it is still positive.

I cannot fathom how one could think that making another human being experience sexual pleasure for a fee could be degrading or demeaning unless it is degrading to make other people feel good.

Everyone who works "sells" one or more parts of his or her body. Athletes, actors, actresses, and construction workers "sell" their body. The body is what is needed to do physical work. It would be difficult to engage in any profession without the use and therefore "sale" of one's body.

*********Here's a similar view on prostitution: http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/306.htm

[Jonathan76]

Here's an Op-Ed piece by Caitlin Moran from yesterday's 'Times of London'

"It’s repugnant to pay someone for sex. Going to a prostitute is, I think, vile...."

********

You can read the whole thing here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/caitlin_moran/article2011854.ece

[Bango Cheito]

She seems to differentiate between her PERSONAL EMOTIONAL reactions and what is logical and good for society. I applaud that. She also gets the concept of what being "professional" means.

[Rubber Nursey]

she also calls us 'dead-eyed crack addicts', makes a clear distinction between paid sex and 'consensual pleasure and communication' and spouts a whole lot of unreferenced and/or manipulated 'facts' that portray sex workers as pathetic victims that we should all feel sorry for. the article had so much potential at the start, but quickly deteriorated into blatant generalisations and stereotyping.

i liked the first part of the section about hookers being murdered, where she raised some really great points about societal attitudes to sex workers as victims of crime - but then she blew it with the 'put them in brothels where they'll be safe' stuff.

truth is, brothel workers are not safe from [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) and murder, either. hookers are targets, wherever they work, because of their position in society. people commit crimes against hookers because they are unlikely to report the crime and, if they do report it, the police and justice system are unlikely to pursue the case. working in a legal environment makes very little difference, because it's the 'prostitute stigma' that causes the problems and that's something suffered by all hookers. decriminalisation goes some way towards enabling sex workers to report crimes without fear of being charged with prostitution-related offences in the process, but just because you can report the crime to the police, doesn't mean they'll actually do anything about it.

the only thing that will stop sex workers (street based or otherwise) being murdered, is a change of attitude by the police, the judicial system and the community as a whole. while the attitude that you 'can't [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) a wh*re' still exists - and sex workers are still seen as party to the crime, rather than the victim - people will continue to assault and kill sex workers, just because they can.

[Bango Cheito]

i see your point but i still think people are safer in brothels than they are walking the street. that seems to be true in nyc where both are illegal and also in brazil and colombia where both are legal.

that's not to deny that the attitudes of police especially but also the rest of society couldnt use a little adjustment on the side of tolerance! really those are two separate issues though. i don't think anybody overtly supports the police [CodeWord125] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord125) and assaulting prostitutes except for the most raving lunatic fascists, it's just something people get away with a little (!) too easily unfortunately.

i think that moving the sex business indoors and keeping it private and away from public streets and spaces is important because it eliminates any last legitimate complaint any element of society could possibly have. let's face it, nobody here no matter what their stance on sex work would want to live and/or raise kids in a neighborhood where girls strutted around semi-naked or even in nothing but heels and a purse, sometimes in broad daylight! on the other hand, that kind of thing behind an appropriately closed door in accordance with reasonable safe sex and other public health standards hurts nobody and anybody who says different comes off as the reactionary that they are!

[Rubber Nursey]

it makes perfect sense that a 'regular' woman is probably more likely to be raped walking down the street alone at night wearing a short skirt, than if she's at home tucked up in bed. but do we warn women to stay inside their houses to avoid being raped? no. (ok...sometimes. the media generally does tells women to stay indoors after another woman is attacked, but that sentiment is usually met with major criticism, because it shifts the blame from the perpetrator, to the victim).

rather than telling 'regular' women to stop going to nightclubs and wearing revealing clothing, the police and communities acknowledge that women are still going to do those things regardless of the risk and instead, attempt to make it safer for them. the same principle should be applied to street based sex workers (who, contrary to popular belief, are actually women too!)

i totally agree with what you said about the abolition of street work contributing to the overall legitimisation of the sex industry. like many brothel and private workers, i found myself cursing street workers over the years for drawing attention to the industry, attracting negative publicity and generally leading people to define all sex workers according to the image of a 'typical' street worker. yes, it would be a whole lot easier for everyone if street based workers weren't out on residential streets, 'creating problems' for local residents with their 'anti-social behaviour' and giving people a reason to complain. but they're not going to go away.

street workers choose to work the streets for a variety of reasons (not least of which is they earn heaps more money that brothel or private workers!) even in places where brothels are legal, street workers still exist. there are also a certain sector of clients who prefer street workers over other workers and while the demand continues, so will the supply. if that's the case - we need to accept street work as inevitable and strive to make the workplace safer for street based workers.

a compromise needs to be found, where we can 'protect' the public from the sex industry and at the same time, protect the street workers from the predators. in sydney, for example, street work is decriminalised. it only becomes an offence if you solicit within a specified distance of a residential home, school, church, etc. that keeps the residents happy - however, it means that street workers end up in industrial areas and other unlit/unpopulated places. police must also uphold their end of the bargain, by protecting the workers from harm and following up on assaults when they happen, as must the judicial system.

[Jonathan76]

sex is their business
sep 2nd 2006
from the economist (print edition)

"attitudes to commercial sex are hardening. but tougher laws are wrong in both principle and practice"

************

two adults enter a room, agree a price, and have sex. has either committed a crime? common sense suggests not: sex is not illegal in itself, and the fact that money has changed hands does not turn a private act into a social menace. if both parties consent, it is hard to see how either is a victim. but prostitution has rarely been treated as just another transaction, or even as a run-of-the-mill crime: the oldest profession is also the oldest pretext for outraged moralising and unrealistic lawmaking devised by man.

in recent years, governments have tended to bother with prostitution only when it threatened public order. most countries (including britain and america) have well-worn laws against touting on street corners, against the more brazen type of brothel and against pimping. this has never been ideal, partly because sellers of sex feel the force of law more strongly than do buyers, and partly because anti-soliciting statutes create perverse incentives. on some occasions, magistrates who have fined streetwalkers have been asked to wait a few days so that the necessary money can be earned.

so there is perennial discussion of reforming prostitution laws. during the 1990s, the talk was all of liberalisation. now the wind is blowing the other way. in 1999, sweden criminalised the buying of sex. france then cracked down on soliciting and outlawed commercial sex with vulnerable women—a category that includes pregnant women. britain began to enforce new laws against kerb-crawling earlier this year, and is now considering more restrictive legislation (see article). outside a few pragmatic enclaves, attitudes are hardening. whereas, ten years ago, the discussion was mostly about how to manage prostitution and make it less harmful, the aim now is to find ways to stamp it out.

the puritans have the whip hand not because they can prove that tough laws will make life better for women, but because they have convinced governments that prostitution is intolerable by its very nature. what has tipped the balance is the globalisation of the sex business.

the white slave trade
it is not surprising that many of the rich world's prostitutes are foreigners. immigrants have a particularly hard time finding jobs that pay well; local language skills are not prized in the sex trade; prostitutes often prefer to work outside their home town. but the free movement of labour is as controversial in the sex trade as in any other business. wherever they work, foreign prostitutes are accused of driving down prices, touting “extra” services and consorting with organised criminal pimps who are often foreigners, too. the fact that a very small proportion of women are trafficked—forced into prostitution against their will—has been used to discredit all foreigners in the trade, and by extension (since many sellers of sex are indeed foreign) all prostitutes.

abolitionists make three arguments. from the right comes the argument that the sex trade is plain wrong, and that, by condoning it, society demeans itself. liberals (such as this newspaper) who believe that what consenting adults do in private is their own business reject that line.

from the left comes the argument that all prostitutes are victims. its proponents cite studies that show high rates of sexual abuse and drug taking among employees. to which there are two answers. first, those studies are biased: they tend to be carried out by staff at drop-in centres and by the police, who tend to see the most troubled streetwalkers. taking their clients as representative of all prostitutes is like assessing the state of marriage by sampling shelters for battered women. second, the association between prostitution and drug addiction does not mean that one causes the other: drug addicts, like others, may go into prostitution just because it's a good way of making a decent living if you can't think too clearly.

a third, more plausible, argument focuses on the association between prostitution and all sorts of other nastinesses, such as drug addiction, organised crime, trafficking and **** sex. to encourage prostitution, goes the line, is to encourage those other undesirables; to crack down on prostitution is to discourage them.

brothels with brands
plausible, but wrong. criminalisation forces prostitution into the underworld. legalisation would bring it into the open, where abuses such as trafficking and under-age prostitution can be more easily tackled. brothels would develop reputations worth protecting. access to health care would improve—an urgent need, given that so many prostitutes come from diseased parts of the world. abuses such as child or forced prostitution should be treated as the crimes they are, and not discussed as though they were simply extreme forms of the sex trade, which is how opponents of prostitution and, recently, the governments of britain and america have described them.

puritans argue that where laws have been liberalised—in, for instance, the netherlands, germany and australia—the new regimes have not lived up to claims that they would wipe out pimping and sever the links between prostitution and organised crime. certainly, those links persist; but that's because, thanks to concessions to the opponents of liberalisation, the changes did not go far enough. prostitutes were made to register, which many understandably didn't want to do. not surprisingly, illicit brothels continued to thrive.

if those quasi-liberal experiments have not lived up to their proponents' expectations, they have also failed to fulfil their detractors' greatest fears. they do not seem to have led to outbreaks of disease or under-age sex, nor to a proliferation of street prostitution, nor to a wider collapse in local morals.

which brings us back to that discreet transaction between two people in private. if there's no evidence that it harms others, then the state should let them get on with it. people should be allowed to buy and sell whatever they like, including their own bodies. prostitution may be a grubby business, but it's not the government's.

******

[Bango Cheito]

Nursey, I would have NO problem with streetwalkers being in properly zoned areas. You know where the zone is and if you don't wanna see streetwalkers you stay the fuck away. That has been the approach not only in Australia but also in Colombia, and it has worked well.

Jon76 that article is poorly researched. Facts are that legalizing prostitution does go a VERY long way to eliminating pimping.

[Rubber Nursey]

puritans argue that where laws have been liberalised—in, for instance, the netherlands, germany and australia—the new regimes have not lived up to claims that they would wipe out pimping and sever the links between prostitution and organised crime. certainly, those links persist; but that's because, thanks to concessions to the opponents of liberalisation, the changes did not go far enough.

this statement is correct with regard to legalisation and organised crime, except the last bit of the last sentence...in most cases, the changes went too far!

thanks, as the article suggests, to regulations put in place by opponents of prostitution, legalisation in victoria and queensland actually increased the involvement of organised crime. fearful that there would be an 'explosion' of brothel numbers if the government made it too easy to open one - and, ironically, to keep organised crime out of the industry - they placed heavy restrictions on who could and couldn't own brothels and made brothel applications an excruciatingly slow, difficult and expensive process. these conditions mean that to attain a license, you need to be someone who has significant political influence and a whole lot of cash, like....oh, i dunno...a crime boss, maybe? *rolls eyes* the average ex-hooker who wants to open her own place, or the long-time brothel owner whose been busted several times for illegal operations, don't have a hope in hell of meeting the requirements.

decriminalisation, on the other hand, had a significant impact in sydney. from conversations with sydney hookers who worked both pre- and post-decriminalisation, it got rid of many of the crime syndicates and made a huge difference in working conditions for many. pre-decriminalisation (according to the sydneysiders) there were seedy deals going on in the back rooms of strip clubs, drug barons 'running girls' on the side, rip-offs, beatings, [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) - pretty much your traditional 'pimp' type operations. decriminalisation forced things out into the open and empowered brothel workers to take control of their working lives.

the real difference between legalisation and decriminalisation is who has the power. when sex work is legalised, with strict guidelines and heavy penalties for non-compliance, all the power is in the hands of government and planning authorities and policy is influenced by the current political climate. when sex work is decriminalised, the power is placed in the hands of the sex workers, who can then negotiate workplace conditions and self-regulate according to their own health and safety needs.

speaking of decriminalisation in sydney, i have some rather horrible news. the religious/feminazi/abolitionist tidal wave we were talking about a few weeks ago, crashed over new south wales the other day. the nsw government introduced a new bill that criminalises 'unapproved' brothels, which effectively leaves sydney with a legal framework. can you believe that?! nsw has been the international poster child for successful sex industry legislation for years...and now they've gone and fkd it up completely! the sydney hookers (and me!) are still in shock.

[Petemcc]

this statement is correct with regard to legalisation and organised crime, except the last bit of the last sentence...in most cases, the changes went too far!

thanks, as the article suggests, to regulations put in place by opponents of prostitution, legalisation in victoria and queensland actually increased the involvement of organised crime. fearful that there would be an 'explosion' of brothel numbers if the government made it too easy to open one - and, ironically, to keep organised crime out of the industry - they placed heavy restrictions on who could and couldn't own brothels and made brothel applications an excruciatingly slow, difficult and expensive process. these conditions mean that to attain a license, you need to be someone who has significant political influence and a whole lot of cash, like....oh, i dunno...a crime boss, maybe? *rolls eyes* the average ex-hooker who wants to open her own place, or the long-time brothel owner whose been busted several times for illegal operations, don't have a hope in hell of meeting the requirements.

decriminalisation, on the other hand, had a significant impact in sydney. from conversations with sydney hookers who worked both pre- and post-decriminalisation, it got rid of many of the crime syndicates and made a huge difference in working conditions for many. pre-decriminalisation (according to the sydneysiders) there were seedy deals going on in the back rooms of strip clubs, drug barons 'running girls' on the side, rip-offs, beatings, [CodeWord124] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord124) - pretty much your traditional 'pimp' type operations. decriminalisation forced things out into the open and empowered brothel workers to take control of their working lives.

the real difference between legalisation and decriminalisation is who has the power. when sex work is legalised, with strict guidelines and heavy penalties for non-compliance, all the power is in the hands of government and planning authorities and policy is influenced by the current political climate. when sex work is decriminalised, the power is placed in the hands of the sex workers, who can then negotiate workplace conditions and self-regulate according to their own health and safety needs.

speaking of decriminalisation in sydney, i have some rather horrible news. the religious/feminazi/abolitionist tidal wave we were talking about a few weeks ago, crashed over new south wales the other day. the nsw government introduced a new bill that criminalises 'unapproved' brothels, which effectively leaves sydney with a legal framework. can you believe that?! nsw has been the international poster child for successful sex industry legislation for years...and now they've gone and fkd it up completely! the sydney hookers (and me!) are still in shock.


hello mate, long time no speak. i haven't read all this thread, but what are your thoughts about this: even when prostitution is legalised, organised crime will try to control it because it lends itself to such influence.

that's just a thought, but is it reality?

pete x

[Rubber Nursey]

Hello mate, long time no speak. I haven't read all this thread, but what are your thoughts about this: Even when prostitution is legalised, organised crime will try to control it because it lends itself to such influence.

That's just a thought, but is it reality?

Pete x

I'm no expert on organised crime, so this opinion is pure speculation.

YES, unless we see some major changes in the attitudes of police, the judicial system and the community at large, I think the sex industry will always be at risk of falling into the hands of organised crime. But I'm not sure what you mean when you say prostitution 'lends itself' to the influence. If you're saying that the sex industry is inherently corrupt, then I would definitely disagree.

If you're saying that the sex industry is an easy target, then I'd agree. Aside from the fact that there's a lot of money to be made in prostitution and it's largely a cash economy (as with drug dealing) sex workers are very easily controlled. Hookers don't talk. You can generally scare a hooker into submission with the simple threat of being outed as a wh*re to family and friends. If that doesn't work, the police consider us to be party to any crime we report (rather than the victim) and we are considered unreliable witnesses in court. You can even kill a hooker who knows too much and be pretty sure that the murder investigation, if any, will be half-arsed at best. The stigma associated with sex work guarantees our silence.

That's why organised crime will likely always have a hold on the sex industry. It's nothing to do with our lack of morals or scruples (as many people have suggested), nor is it necessarily to do with the legal environment we work in. Of course, decriminalisation helps a hell of a lot, putting the power back into the hands of the sex workers and improving their access to legal recourse. But as I said a couple of posts below, having the ability to report a crime to police, doesn't necessarily mean anything will get done about it - and even if you're lucky enough to have a cop follow it up, the justice system will generally let you down. More important than a 'legal' environment, is a supportive, enabling and empowering environment, where you can assert your rights.

For the record, there's a MUCH bigger problem that the sex industry 'lends itself' to than organised crime....police and council corruption. The overwhelming majority of Aussie brothel workers have never been involved with a crime syndicate, but I'd be willing to bet most of them have witnessed the men with brown paper bags. Again, this is because we're disempowered - even more so when the people charged with upholding the law are the ones breaking it.

[Sasha Coffee]

coming from a era where new zealand now has an open sex industry. brothels still need to be licenced and you need to show you are of good character to get a licence, (doesn't stop pimpmans brother getting one for him though)

even though brothels are run by licenced people who are meant to be of character there are good and bad people to work for. on the streets its different again. i have never worked the streets but i know that a girl needs some protection, now there is only a few types that are going to offer it. sadly even in a legal atmosphere there is still a strong pimp element and standover tactics happening. still for the girl who works the streets there is [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123), there are muggings, there is lots of drugs and there are parasite pimps to take advantage.

the trick to weeding good and bad brothel owners is always having staff. if you don't have staff you don't have a brothel. the best way to keep your staff is have a busy brothel with lots of clients spending lots of money. so guys if you think girls are being hard done by in a brothel don't go there. tell the girl you like where you will be taking your business in future and i will bet she turns up there within a month. remember if the girl you are seeing isn't happy what sort of service is she prepared to give you for your hard earned money.

tarts want the money and they will follow your money where ever you choose to take it. it could be the start of a whole new relationship.

[Itsalpink]

Prostitution is probably the area of society that has the most hypocrisy surrounding it. It is incredibly blatant and in some ways amusing.

[Greysouthern]

People misunderstand morality. A thing is moral if it increases your chances of survival, it's immoral if it reduces them. It's as simple as that.

The difficulty is in predicting whether the action you take now which may have a beneficial effect in the short run (e. G. Rob someone so you have more money) may have a negative effect in the long run (e. G. They catch up with you and beat your head to a pulp).

Good prostitution which is safe and satisfactory to both parties is moral. Bad prostitution which is dangerous and unsatisfactory is immoral.

I think the real solution is better screening of both prostitute and client. I'the like to know what sort of woman I'm getting involved with before I get involved with her and I'm sure she'the like to know something about me as well so she knows she's not going to end up in the company of some lunatic or pervert.

The problem here isn't really legality it's social pressure. Prostitution will improve when men don't give a toss if their mother knows they pay for sex and women don't care if their father knows they're a *****.

The other thing is keeping the parasites (pimps and madams) out of the system. They contribute nothing, they only consume. You don't need someone to "set you up" any more than you need someone to hold your hand when you're talking to a woman. All you need is a sort of "clearing house" where you can contact the prostitutes and they can contact you.

If the "making a date" and financial transfer aspects are separated and if the financial transaction is handled offshore (easy enough these days) there's no way of proving this is prostitution rather than "dating".

You don't need to walk the streets or crawl the kerb.

It should all be done electronically preferably based on a server located overseas. This would be safer and easier for everyone concerned. And the safer and easier it is the more men and women will consider getting involved in it.

A wife is a woman who sells sex to one man and a ***** is one who relies instead on selling to many so the problem clearly isn't one of selling sex becase that's what nearly all women do if they're capable of it.

Sexual morality is really sexual economics.

The first law of economics is the law of elastic demand. Something's plentiful. The price is low. It's scarce. The price is high. It's in the interests of women to restrict supply because it drives up the price. They get more for doing less. Women are all the same in this respect whether wives or *****s.

A wife doesn't want any competition. Her ideal is monogamy because monogamy is a sexual monopoly. However limited the quantity, however indifferent the quality, however high the price the husband has no choice but to pay it or do without. He may find himself paying and doing without if his wife chooses to refuse him. Which she well knows she can do more or less with impunity.

The prostitute doesn't want too much competition. More prostitutes in the market would weaken her bargaining position and mean lower prices.

I doubt most prostitutes would want to be "legal" unless the benefits outweighed the costs. The main cost would be having to declare your income for tax purposes. Something which I suspect most prostitutes don't do at present. I don't blame them.

I wouldn't worry about the threat of abolition. A threat is all it is. These fools tried it with drugs and we all know what a brilliant success that's been. I doubt they can tie their shoelaces without assistance.

[Rubber Nursey]

Welcome to the Forum, Greysouthern. :)

Re: paying tax. Hookers in Oz are expected to pay tax (and a significant majority actually do). Sex workers who don't pay tax are taking a huge risk, but I don't blame them for a second. I personally believe it's 'immoral' for the Government to take our tax dollars and not afford us any rights in exchange. Actually, they're taking our tax dollars and then paying the police to arrest us!

RE: Pimps and madams. If you're talking those big, burly drug dealers on the streets, beating their 'hos' into submission, then yes...I agree they have no place in the sex industry. But if you're talking brothel/parlour/escort agency owners, then I'd have to disagree with you. That sort of madam/pimp isn't there for the client's benefit; they provide workers with a workspace (that isn't her family home!), regular clientele, personal safety and security. It's so much easier to go to work for someone else every day, than running a small business by yourself.

I've worked brothel, private and escort and I'm a brothel girl through and through. Granted, the boss needs to be a good person who treats their workers with respect and that doesn't always happen - changing the laws would have a big impact on that, but that's a whole other rant! Nothing beats working in a good house with a great boss and great girls; not having to pay ridiculously high advertising costs, suck up to police and councils, pay for endless hours of cleaning and laundry...and always knowing there's someone else in the house to come to your aid if you suddenly find yourself in the company of a freak. Madams definitely have their place in the industry.

[Sasha Coffee]

Welcome to the forum.

I read your post with interest and agree with the majority of your statements. However I have to agree that sometimes the pimp/madam is necessary. Like Rubber Nursey I have been a parlour girl and the parlour is fabulous system. It allows both the girl and the client some form of safety. For the girl that offers safety in the way she doesn't have to advertise and run the risk of running to some nutter which you yourself acknowledge is a concern. It also provides some security for the client as he has the benefit of knowing that the girl has applied for a job had some form of interview and is generally pretty clean and tidy. Not many parlours ( at least in Australia and New Zealand) will put up with hard drug users and the likes. I do agree that the day of the pimp who beats his girls is long due for an overhaul and hopefully they will one day be extinct.

For them to be extinct prostitution needs to become legal. It needs for society to see it for what it is, a financial transaction between two consenting (hopefully) adults.

I have worked in New Zealand under two different laws, one where the sex industry was not illegal but was semi legal where as the girls could work they could advertise for clients etc without much interference from law enforcement. However it had a funny quirk. It was okay for the client to offer money for services but not for the girl to ask for it. IF she asked she could be charged with soliticing. Which was illegal. So occassionally there would be police busts and few girls would get hauled off to court. Quite ridiculous really. About two years ago New Zealand changed the law and made prostitution totally legal. This was a great move as it girls the ability to discuss money openly and provide services openly. It also took some of the power away from the low class pimps. Of course they are still out there but in a slightly diminished capacity. Legalising prostitution goes a long way to taking some of the stigma away from it.

Working as a prostitute either in a brothel or for yourself is like working in any other business, do you want to work for a boss or do you want to start your own business. Its no different and entails the same decisions and thought. Its about being professional.

[Bango Cheito]

Besides the obvious benefits of workers not being thrown in jail and getting criminal records, legalizing (or officially tolerating) prostitution also brings up the DEMAND on the client side, which is obviously beneficial to the girl.

Legal prostitution is bad news for the desperate drug addicted skank on the corner but for any WG a normal guy in a rational state of mind would want to fuck it's pretty much all on the positive side.

[Happy Harry]

Hi Everyone,

I'm new here and may i say, i'm very surprised with the number of Australians on the thread.

I'm writing to ask you ladies in particular whether it's possible to have a relationship with a WG? Recently one of my friends started to do "work". I've always been interested in her but b4 i invest in a relationship i wanted to know whether there is any chance. The current stigma is that WG would become jaded to guys due to sex with many individuals.

Thanks in advance,

Harry

[Sasha Coffee]

For the record I am New Zealander living in Australia. Its important to us Kiwis to get the difference. Ha ha.

As for having a relationship with a working girl. Ofcourse it's possible if you can get your head round the fact she is having sex with other men besides you. From experience it certainly won't do her head in and even the silliest of working girl is able to work out the difference between sex with a boyfriend and sex with a client. Really its up to you to work it out. My advice would be

1 Don't hide anything. Discuss all. Allow her to talk about her day just like you would.

2 Make sure you take time out for each other, I refer to this as airing the hooker. Its when you take her out you pay for dinner and let her get drunk.

3 Never ask her for money. This will create a pimp/wg relationship. She will eventually resent you.

4 Is she interested.

5 Encourage her to be an above average hooker with good clients and good financial management (not 100 pairs of shoes and 80 handbags) That way you are both gaining mutual respect and financial benefit from the time she will spend working.

6 Never go to work with her, or drive to outcalls etc. It is guaranteed to do your head in.

If you don't think you can do all of these things and not get paranoid about her sleeping with other men, then its not a relationship you are mature to handle yet. I would suggest you take it very slowly if you do think you can handle it.

As for the idea that we get stale of sex. WRONG.

[Tile Man4]

[QUOTE=Happy Harry]Hi Everyone,

I'm new here and may i say, i'm very surprised with the number of Australians on the thread.

I'm writing to ask you ladies in particular whether it's possible to have a relationship with a WG? Recently one of my friends started to do "work". I've always been interested in her but b4 i invest in a relationship i wanted to know whether there is any chance. The current stigma is that WG would become jaded to guys due to sex with many individuals.

Ms Coffee is a very smart woman , I have read some of her post. I am sorry to say that most WG's are not as smart as Ms Coffee. I did get involved with an Ex WG and it did not work out but I also had relationships with non-WG that did not work out.

Before I could comment , I need to know ...........................

1) Is she in your Country ?
2) What is the age difference ?
3) Is she the same race as you ?
4) and any other info you may want to give.

Some of the above can change the picture.

Many men like , love and enjoy his WG , this is not uncommon. I have been with many sl*ts in the USA. They don't ask for money , but they will fuck anything and anybody anytime. Which is better or worse? At least the WG calls a spade a spade. The sl*t will always tell you that you are her only man. The WG can be (not always) more honest.

Good Luck - tile man

[Jonathan76]

Hello all,

I just thought I'd share this fine commentary by the American author and professor Camille Paglia:

*****

I believe that government should confine itself to the public realm and that it should be as stripped down as possible, within reason. It should not be burdened by excess bureaucracy. I feel that government has no right to intrude into the private realm of consensual behavior. Therefore, I say that I'm for the abolition of all sodomy laws. I'm for abortion rights. I'm for the legalization of drugs--consistent with alcohol regulations. I'm for not just the decriminalization but the legalization of prostitution.

Again, prostitutes must not intrude into the public realm. I think it's perfectly reasonable to say that civil authorities have the right to say that prostitutes should not be loitering near schools, or on the steps of churches, or blocking entrances to buildings and so on. Prostitution should be perfectly legal, but it cannot interfere with other people's access to the public realm.

Furthermore, the public realm is not owned by Judeo-Christianity. It is shared by people of all cultural and religious backgrounds. Therefore, I'm arguing for the Greco-Roman or pagan line, which is very tolerant of these things.

That's the way I would be separate from a conservative libertarian, who would not necessarily take the position of the legalization of drugs or the very positive attitude I have toward prostitutes. I take a celebratory attitude toward them.

*****

[Rubber Nursey]

For the record, I'm an Australian. It's important to us that we don't get mistaken for Kiwis. :) (Just kidding, Sasha!)

Great answer there from Sasha. I've never really understood the myth that sex workers get jaded about sex. Yes, sometimes you can come home sore and tired and not interested, but that's because of the physicality of the job. It's really no different to a labourer, for example, coming home after a hard day at work. He's probably not gonna be up for any strenuous action in the bedroom, either.

Like Sasha said, there's usually a distinction made between work sex and home sex in a hooker's mind. Sex is more than just putting a penis into a vagina. Look back at your own sex life and compare casual sex, to sex with longtime partner. One-nighters with a stranger are fun and exciting and feel great (if you're lucky!) but it's strictly physical. Sex with a partner is all those things, plus the emotional connection - it's an expression of love and comfort and closeness. Even if a WL girlfriend gets bored (or burnt out) having sex with clients, her desire for you is not likely to change.

We had a very long discussion on this thread a while back, when a guy called Alex was in love with a working girl. As was suggested back then, the pressure/fear/insecurity is likely to come from YOU, not her. Knowing your girl is having sex with other men all day is not an easy thing for most people to deal with. It certainly can work, but it will take a lot of communication, understanding and acceptance. Bango Cheito has given a lot of fabulous advice on how it feels, and what it takes, to be a partner of a sex worker. Go back a few pages/months and have a squiz.

PS. Tile Man: Most working girls are not smart? That was a very unfair statement and completely unfounded.

[Tile Man4]

For the record, I'm an Australian. It's important to us that we don't get mistaken for Kiwis. :) (Just kidding, Sasha!)



PS. Tile Man: Most working girls are not smart? That was a very unfair statement and completely unfounded.

RN , you need to read my post exact words. I said that MOST WG's are not as smart as Ms Coffee. I have also read some of your post too and I find you also to be smart.

What do I mean by smart? Get into the business for several years , buy a house , car and have money in the bank when you quit. It seems to me that you and Ms Coffee are working for this. Having spent one year in China since 2004 , I see a dead end life for these poor WG's. Chinese women are smart but there is too much control over them by other people. Most WG's in China are teenagers. Remember those years RN? They are not the best years of ones life to make the brightest decisions.

Seeing that I don't do WG's in the west and I don't know any WG's in the West, I like to read some Western post.

You be safe RN and take care tile man

[Monger#77]

From another board.
First of all, you always pay for sex one way or another. With hookers, all is explicit and there is no lie. They give you what you want for a price.
Second, hookers are like any other profession, and like any other women. Some enjoy their job, others don't care.
Prostitutes are normal women, who sacrificed having a proper well functioning family for a well-paid career. They are no different from some career women.
By resorting to prostitution, I had sex with some gorgeous women than would have cost me a fortune if I had dated them, with probably no tangible results down the road.
Some 30 % of prostitutes are unpleasant, the others are nice women who try to please their customer, a genuine minority actually enjoy sex, the others fake well.
It takes some time to find a good girl, but no more time than with regular women. Then you get better sex, more frequent and at a lower price than with a wife, not to mention mistress/girlfriend.
The key is: once you have found a good prostitute, stick with her as long as possible.
I had a 1-hour fuck with a prostitute who could simply not get enough. Admittedly it does not happen often.
I had regular sex with a very hot girl in Paris, unfortunately she is no longer in the business, it has been a big disappointment.
The clients are normal guys, and if you go to a ***** place in good places (such as Barcelona, the Alcatraz club in Helsinki, and a few places in Amsterdam or Vienna, or even the RL districts in Germany and the Netherlands...), you will notice that many clients are actually sexually attractive men.
Which means they are really fed up with all the bs. And that *****s are on average nicer with men than regular women, because they spend a lot of time with men.
Interestingly, the distinction between western women and non western ones also applies to prostitutes.
I try to avoid German, French, English girls and only get asians, latin americans, and eastern europeans.
The spanish/portuguese are somewhere in the middle.
There is simply no comparison.
The westerners will just try to rip you off by lying to you about their services. At best they'll try to get rid of you as soon as they can.
The non westerners are real sensual women who are 10000 times better in bed, they'll do any dirty things and you can stay a long time with them.
The reason why prostitution is severely repressed is that it solves the sexual needs of men so easily and cheaply that it severely undermines the institution of marriage and the power of women. A prostitute is a sister who has betrayed the sisterhood by giving away sex at a cheap price.
That girls are enslaved into prostitution is largely a myth, although there are some girls harassed by men in the streets, but that it no different from the shop around the corner being racketted by the mafia. And clearly that is more likely to happen, the more prostitution is repressed by the law.

[Bango Cheito]

Just to re-iterate, in our case if my gf is working hard and many hours it definitely has a negative effect on her sex drive. But sometimes she just gives herself up to me because it wouldn't be fair otherwise, and in return I try to make it quick and not do too much of anything that's gonna be too hard on her :P

We have long since gotten bored of webcam sex and only do it once in a blue moon when we are apart. I have been here with her all month though so it has been GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD.

[Sasha Coffee]

Thanks for the compliment about my smarts.

I do agree with Rubber though. I know plenty of smart working girls. The sad thing is that prostitution tends to attract the wrong employees.

I think most working girls are smart but sadly I think alot get jaded by the same old conversation with clients and can appear off hand and stupid.

The whats a nice girl like you doing this for statement being the classic. If you think about it, we do it for money the same reason anyone goes to work.

If you want find a smart hooker you have to treat her like she might be smart.

I do agree with your statement about working girls wasting there money. I was once told by someone who owned a brothel. That if he could of got all the girls that worked for him to save 40% of their income that within 2 years they could of bought most of the main street of Christchurch. That analogy has stayed with me throughout my working career.

I have a personal opinion that until smarter more educated girls get into the sex business and treat it as a business the attitude of the general public will not change. As long as working girls are seen to abuse drugs and steal from clients and the likes, the public will never see them employed in a useful occupation filling the needs of society.

[Jonathan76]

hello all,

the following appears in today's op-ed section of the new york times.

i'd be interested in hearing your thoughts and counter-arguments.

******

fantasies, well meant
by bob herbert
published: september 11, 2007
the new york times

i must have hit a nerve. while in las vegas last week, i interviewed the mayor, oscar goodman, who enthusiastically explained how legalizing prostitution and creating a series of “magnificent brothels” could be a boon to his city’s development.

vegas is already a paradise for pimps, johns and perverts, and i accused the mayor in a column of setting the tone “for the systematic, institutionalized degradation” of women.

mr. goodman was not pleased. he snarled to the local press that he had no use for me, and added, “i’ll take a baseball bat and break his head if he ever comes here.”

the mayor, who made a name for himself as a defense lawyer for mobsters, loves to slip into a clownish, tough-guy persona. (he never lets anyone forget that he had a walk-on as himself in the movie “casino.”) but behind his bluster is a serious issue that should be addressed.

a lot of people more thoughtful than oscar goodman believe that prostitution should be legalized as a way of protecting and empowering the women who go into the sex trade. i’ve lost patience with those arguments, however well meaning. real-world prostitution, in whatever guise, bears no resemblance at all to the empowerment fantasies of prostitution proponents. i have never seen such vulnerable, powerless women as those in the sex trade, legal or illegal.

at sheri’s ranch, a legal brothel about an hour’s ride outside of vegas, the women have to respond like pavlov’s dog to a bell that might ring at any hour of the day or night. it could be 4 a.m., and the woman might be sleeping. or she might not be feeling well. too bad.

when that electronic bell rings, she has five minutes to get to the assembly area, a large room where she will line up with the other women, virtually naked, and submit to a humiliating inspection by any prospective customer who happens to drop by.

“it’s not fun,” one of the women whispered to me during a tour of the brothel.

the first thing to understand about prostitution, including legal prostitution, is that the element of coercion is almost always present. despite the fiction that they are “independent contractors,” most so-called legal prostitutes have pimps — the state-sanctioned pimps who run the brothels and, in many cases, a second pimp who controls all other aspects of their lives (and takes the bulk of their legal earnings).

they are hardly empowered. years of studies have shown that most prostitutes are pushed into the trade in their early teens by grown men. a large percentage are victims of [CodeWord128] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord128) or other forms of childhood sexual abuse. most are dirt poor. many are drug-addicted. and most are plagued by devastatingly low levels of self esteem.

and then there are the armies of women and girls who are trafficked into the sex trade by organized criminals, both inside and outside of the u.s.

that a city, a state or any other governmental entity in the u.s. could legally sanction the sexual degradation of women and girls under any circumstances, much less those who are so extremely vulnerable, is an atrocity. and if you don’t think legalized prostitution is about degradation, consider the “date room” at sheri’s. that’s a small room where a quiet dinner for two can be served. beneath the tiny table is a couple of towels and a cushion for the woman to kneel on.

the only one empowered in that situation is the john.

mayor goodman’s concept of magnificence notwithstanding, nevada’s legal brothels are not nice places. “the only place i’ve ever had a gun pulled on me was in a legal brothel,” said melissa farley, a psychologist and researcher who has studied the sex trade in nevada for the past two and a half years.

ms. farley, who is in her 60s and has the demeanor of a college professor, was threatened at gunpoint by a legal pimp who didn’t like her attitude. “i tried to change the look on my face in a hurry,” she said.

any honest investigation of the facts, as opposed to abstract theories, of prostitution — in any form — would reveal a horror show. that’s why the authorities in so many other countries that have given an official green light to prostitution, including germany and the netherlands, have been revisiting their policies.

legal prostitution tends to increase, not decrease, illegal prostitution, in part by creating a friendlier climate for demand. it tends to increase, not decrease, sex trafficking. and the recent explosion of prostitution in all its forms promotes the sexualization of girls at ever younger ages.

oscar goodman should be viewed as a wake-up call. as a society, we should be offering help to the many thousands of women who would like to escape prostitution, and providing alternatives to those in danger of being pulled into it.

****

[Bango Cheito]

the guy obviously did his research on google and has no idea what he's talking about.; legalizing prostitution does help prevent stds, pimping, and **** prostitution. it's a fact.

[Frannie]

the guy obviously did his research on google and has no idea what he's talking about.; legalizing prostitution does help prevent stds, pimping, and **** prostitution. it's a fact.

i am not so sure. there are two or more sides to every argument and hardly anyone is really objective on this one. for example, legal brothels may provide better control of some legal aspects of prostitution, but they often place the woman in a very adverse employment situation, to say the least. i have never been to a nevada brothel and never will, but everything i have read about them suggests that they are horrible places.

on the other hand, when you have an environment where prostitution is primarily freelance, as in the dominican republic, everything is pretty much unregulated--for example there are no identity checks on guests checking into cabanas (love hotels) and girls who are ****, but see their older sisters getting i-pods and nice clothes by selling their bodies, are often tempted to go for the easy money, sometimes using forged identity cards to make themselves appear older than they really are. this easy money is very corrupting, because it undermines any work ethic related to real-world work, which unfortunately pays much less, especially in poor countries.

a woman with a good personality and prostitution skills might make quite a good living as a waitress in the us, if she is able to get customers to tip her generously. a waitress in the dominican republic is unlikely to make enough to live on without getting paid for sex now and then on the side.

[George90]

hello all,

the following appears in today's op-ed section of the new york times.

i'd be interested in hearing your thoughts and counter-arguments.

******

fantasies, well meant
by bob herbert
published: september 11, 2007
the new york times


i read it, and his earlier piece on las vegas. i don't disagree strongly with most of what he said. but i feel he doesn't appreciate the huge variety of prostitution markets around the world.

i have seeen the hbo special called 'hookers at the point' about streetwalkers in the bronx, new york. they have a very rough trade. almost all told tales of being raped gun point by johns, gang raped by johns, beaten bloody by johns with lost teeth and broken noses, and being exploited by pimps and police. i have seen the hbo show 'cathouse' about dennis hof's bunny ranch. in it, you can see how the ladies react to the 'humiliating lineup' when customers come in.

herbert's colleague, nicolas kriostoff, did several pieces on prostitution in thailand, describing how he 'saved' 2 girls by buying them back from their pimps. he returned them to their families. in a follow-up, it turned out that these girls ran away from abuse in their homes from their families and prostitution was the only way to survive. both ran away again! one right back to her pimp and started prostituting again, the other to another relative.

on one trip to europe i saw the deal under legalized prostitution. it seemed that almost all were foreign. i don't think all those asian and african women were 'trafficked' to, say, france against their wills. in fact, it seemed that native europeans were very pissed about all these foreigners coming to and living in their country and want to kick them out! i heard about amsterdam and wonder how bob herbert can reconcile what he wrote with the fact of dutch prostitutes having husbands and families like other women who work in office or retail jobs.

i have been to santo domingo, curacao's campo alegre, san jose, and some other places. curacao allows foreign women to worker as prostitutes and gives them 3 month visas to do so. is that international trafficking when the women come of their own free will? many young women come from the country to work in the city. when they work as prostitutes, is that trafficking?

in my experience and opinion, there is one main thing driving prostitution and that one thing only: poverty! not drugs, not immorality, not sexual abuse. the lack of jobs that pay well enough to survive is why the majority of women in developing countries turn to prostitution. if anyone wants to help women out of prostitution or to avoid prostitution altogether, he/she should provide free schooling and job training for high-paying jobs.

[Dickhead]

"When that electronic bell rings, she has five minutes to get to the assembly area, a large room where she will line up with the other women, virtually naked, and submit to a humiliating inspection by any prospective customer who happens to drop by.

“It’s not fun,” one of the women whispered to me during a tour of the brothel."

Ummm, so don't fucking DO it if it is "not fun"?

[George90]

If anyone wants to help women out of prostitution or to avoid prostitution altogether, he/she should provide free schooling and job training for high-paying jobs.

I should have added "quality health care" to the list.

[Jonathan76]

Hi everyone,

Thanks for your replies. Surely there are flaws in Herbert's piece.

But yesterday on another blog the following appeared as addendum to Herbert's piece. It was written by British philosopher Roger Scruton.

Here it is:

*****

The human body is not a possession; it is — to use the theological term — an incarnation. It is a subject, the focus and source of personal love, and not a mere object to be used. A woman doesn’t own her body, any more than she owns herself. She is inextricably mingled with it, and what is done to her body is done to her. If she sells her body for sex, it is not sex that she is selling. For sex can be sincerely offered only if it is sincerely wanted by the one who offers it. Both prostitute and client are therefore engaged in an elaborate deception, each cheating the other, the one by pretending to sell sex, the other by pretending to buy it.

Sex and contempt are adjacent regions in the psyche of the typical client; and a prostitute must willingly accept that she is being spat upon. The transaction that unites her to her partner also divides them, and this cold, hard meeting of strangers in total intimacy constitutes a deep violation of intimacy and all that it means.

It is odd that the German government should be offering this public endorsement to prostitution, at a time when that government is led by a woman. For women are acutely aware of the nature of sex, as a tribute from one self to another. To treat it as a commodity that can be bought and sold is not to offer it but to destroy it

The condemnation of prostitution was not just puritan bigotry; it was a recognition of a profound truth, which is that you and your body are not two things but one, and by abusing the body you harden the soul. Women have always been aware of that, and as a result have both feared prostitution and also been tempted by it, since it is a road out of womanhood and an escape from the burdens of womanly love. However it is a road that is seldom traveled in the opposite direction.

******

There is one sentence that makes me especially angry when he writes:

"Sex and contempt are adjacent regions in the psyche of the typical client; and a prostitute must willingly accept that she is being spat upon...."

Excuse me but this is absolute bulls**t!... Everytime I visit a lovely sex worker I treat her with the utmost respect and kindness. NEVER do I look down upon her with contempt.

I feel nothing but warmth and gratitude towards her.

[Bango Cheito]

1) Doctors and even veterinarians, just to name two professions, can get called in the middle of the night like that too. Hell even musicians can get called in for an emergency session. You want that person to call you again, you get your ass up and work! That's HARDLY material for a sob story as far as I'm concerned. Those girls at the Bunny Ranch are EXCELLENTLY compensated for their troubles, especially considering how I wouldn't even fuck most of them with another person's penis!

2) Girls in the DR can SURVIVE off of income as a waitress, but what you're talking about involves some complex social issues you might not be aware of. The DR is actually a VERY socially CONSERVATIVE country, and women working for a living PERIOD is actually frowned upon in most cases. This ties it in more closely with prostitution.

3) Neither in the DR nor in France is prostitution legal. It's not clear that some of you posters are aware of this by your posts. I'm not 100% about Thailand but I don't think it's technically legal there either.

4) Most girls who go into prostitution don't do it from a position of unemployment and severe poverty, they go to it after working ANOTHER LOWER PAYING JOB, usually one that paid enough to keep the fridge full but not much else. You could say want of material things is a driving factor, but NOT POVERTY.

5) Being a prostitute is NOT an easy job. Anybody who truly thinks that has no business speaking from any position of knowledge on here because they obviously have NO CLUE about the industry if that's what they think.

[Bango Cheito]

George90 you should RTFF and scroll back a bit in this thread. The subject has already been discussed thoroughly on here, but the Thai government tried and ill-advised program doing just as what you described, re-training the girls and setting them up to run their own small business. The vast majority of the businesses failed, due mainly to too much competition in the marketplace!!! The girls returned to their old profession en masse.

The fact is those women ALREADY WERE WHERE THEY BELONGED in society, and the government was too fucking myopic to recognize that fact. They were already providing a needed service and supporting themselves, thereby contributing to the greater society.

[Bango Cheito]

I have LOTS of first hand experience with WGs in places where it is illegal (US, PR, DR), semi-legal (Canada) and legal and regulated (Brazil, Colombia). There is absolutely positively NO QUESTION in my mind that sex workers are better off in the latter two countries!!

[George90]

George90 you should RTFF and scroll back a bit in this thread. The subject has already been discussed thoroughly on here, but the Thai government tried and ill-advised program doing just as what you described, re-training the girls and setting them up to run their own small business. The vast majority of the businesses failed, due mainly to too much competition in the marketplace!!! The girls returned to their old profession en masse.

I re-read what I wrote below and didn't see anything about 're-training' and 'setting up their own small businesses' so I disagree that what I described
has already been tried. I do not know what the Thai goverment did.

I do know that a young teacher who is decent looking but has 2 children to support with no help from a absent boyfriend or former husband and finds she can't do it on her pay alone, will often turn to prostitution to makes ends meet. I also know that a young decent looking woman with no children who works as a bank vice-president rarely turns to prostitution (other than marriage) to acquire more money.

I also know, from what some of the providers have posted here, that when a young mother has social support, such as child care, the need to prostitute herself falls dramatically. I also know, from seeing with my one eyes, that young women who are citizens of wealthy countries and can receive generous income support from their government rarely (almost never) prostitute themselves.

I re-iterate my claim that poverty is the main factor in the prevalence of female prostitution.

[George90]

I have LOTS of first hand experience with WGs in places where it is illegal (US, PR, DR), semi-legal (Canada) and legal and regulated (Brazil, Colombia). There is absolutely positively NO QUESTION in my mind that sex workers are better off in the latter two countries!!

I agree that legalized and regulated prostitution is a far better situation than criminalized unregulated prostitution.

[Bango Cheito]

... but the way you are seeing things is different from mine. I see prostitution as just another job. You could also say that because a girl is making her money as a bank manager, she has no need to work in construction. Or that because a girl is an MD, she can work as a doctor and has no need to work as a bank manager, or vice versa even.

Bottom line, now matter how many social programs are in place, women will still flock to prostitution, and in fact DO. From my experience, a single welfare mom in Canada or the US will very likely tend to do it at least part-time, no matter how good their lifestyle is, the bottom line is if they have the free time and energy to do it, they'll FIND something to spend the extra money on pretty quick. In societies like these, there's always something!

It's really more dependent on the indivudual and their own personality and character than their economic situations IMO. I have seen women in Colombia who were really REALLY broke and literally wouldn't turn to the sex industry to save their own lives, or to feed their own kids!! I've seen a webcam girl start working and hate it so much she went and found other work, even though it paid less, and THIS despite the fact that nobody even touched her but herself!

[Dickhead]

Prostitution in the United States is driven by drug addiction, not by poverty. Prostitution is, in fact, much easier than most other types of work. Very seldom is a prostitute actually having sex eight or ten hours a day and they are not exposed to the elements. Down here a very low percentage of the prostitutes are drug addicts although a fair amount use cocaine, marijuana, or Xanax recreationally. I have never seen needle tracks on any prostitute down here and trust me, I look. I have gotten to know a lot of hookers very well and a lot of them are just fucking lazy. People in this country are fucking lazy, hookers, non-hookers, men, women. Even the dogs in this country are lazy. Laziest motherfuckers I have ever seen, anywhere. And a lot of the prostitutes I have met who are from this country aren't even particularly poor by this country's standards. A lot of them own their own apartments, for example. Now the ones from Paraguay, that is another story. Mostly from very, very, poor backgrounds.

But I have also had plenty of prostitutes tell me that one of the reasons they are prostitutes is because they like to FUCK.

[George90]

Prostitution in the United States is driven by drug addiction, not by poverty. ... Down here a very low percentage of the prostitutes are drug addicts ... .

These two statements of your's seem to be quite contradictory.

I can see streetwalkers being drug addicts. In the "Hookers at the Point' series, several of the women interviewed used drugs or alcohol heavily.

That said, I strongly doubt the prostitutes who worked for Xaviera Hollander, Hiedi Fleiss, Sydney Barrows, the latest madam in D.C., etc. are strung out crack addicts, or anything even close. Men with a lot to lose need very clean women to use as sex toys.

"The Happy Hooker" is an interesting book as it shows how a middle class, educated woman fell into prostitution.

[Sasha Coffee]

Now lets get sensible. Prostitution is like any business. There are good hookers and bad hookers, there are hookers who use drugs and hookers that don't.

What it really comes down to is how serious the person in the occupation is about doing something with the money they earn. This in my experience applies to all professions and all people.

Sure the higher class the hooker the less likely she is to use drugs or the better she might be at hiding it. Lets face it the medical profession are the biggest self perscribers of mediation around. Lawyers are the best use of their own profession.

It all comes down to if you pay peanuts you will get monkeys. Sadly this really applies to your local hooker.

Maybe its time for the clients to refuse girls they think are off their faces and try and find girls that are clean. But then again that is a price driven market and the local drugged up hooker is more likely to give to someone for a lower price I suppose. Its supply and demand.

[Dickhead]

Where I live, I see no correlation between price and quality. The Happy Hooker is pretty badly dated now. I can pay 80 pesos and get unbelievable service, or I can pay 200 pesos and get considerably worse service. Heidi Fleiss and her girls were definitely doing cocaine, most of them. And cocaine is expensive in the US, although not here, and that can make you steal.

In fact the best service I get is at an 80 peso per hour privado ($25) where there are four girls and all will do whatever, anal, BBJTCIM, CIF, Schoolgirl uniforms and other dress-ups, and no tips are ever expected. If there is no one waiting then the let you go overtime, no problem. No one is on any drugs except one likes to smoke pot and one likes an occasional beer in mid-afternoon. The madam shares the take 50/50 vs. the normal 60% for the house and provides condoms. Just one big happy family in that place. I see no moral issues.

[Opebo]

It all comes down to if you pay peanuts you will get monkeys. Sadly this really applies to your local hooker.

I'm sure it was not your intention, madame, but this formulation carries racist connotations.

Regarding price the correlation with appearance is fairly accurate, but with service not so. I'm afraid that drugs are the monger's best friend. Vive la addictione!

[George90]

Two NY Times readers responded to Herbert's editorial in the Letters to the Editor section.

One is anti legalization, the other is pro-legalization and the author is a leader of some women's rights group. They each make interesting points.

N.B. I am not sure, but you may have to be a subscriber to read the letters to the editor.

[Prokofiev]

" . . . a lot of them are just fucking lazy. People in this country are fucking lazy, hookers, non-hookers, men, women. Even the dogs in this country are lazy. Laziest motherfuckers I have ever seen, anywhere "

Wow DickHead . . .

I see you are back to form. Nice work. Managed to insult your entire adopted country in just a single post. Say hi to Maria and Stormy for me . . .

[Warbucks]

My Two

I started the sex tourism bid when in 2004 I at 22 flew all the way to Manila from the Midwest of the US to engage in promised sex with a bird I met on the net. Once I got there I was wondering what the hell I was doing in this strange country alone but the sex was like nothing I had seen in the States.

Previous to that my adventures had only took me to South Korea. Next stop was Uzbekistan. My company used Uzbekistan as a staging area and before I knew it I was banging Iranians, Russians and CISs nightly. Those girls would allow you to do anything rough hair pulling anal for a couple of US dollars. Before my company came through in full force all night was about a 20 dollar fee. When my company bailed out after the massacre in 05 the price had sky rocketed to 500 dollar a night at all the major nightspots in Taskent.

Now 2007. I gravitate between Dubai, Thailand, and Tokyo. In my opinion the whole dating game relationship bid for me is bullshit. Though currently in one I still sample the nightlife when the opportunity presents itself. I never been so happy traveling the world sleeping with different women. When I get tired of them I tell to go and find a new girl for a whole new experience.

Some of the pros have been sweet hearts some have been *****es but that’s the general population of women as well. Morality wise I don’t see much wrong with the whole game. The bare backers well in less educated countries like Thailand and the Philippines I believe western clients sometimes take advantage of the girls but that’s the life that choose them.

Prostitution it’s a job I think but some girls I really think just choose this route because they are lazy to pursue other means of work. I have female friends in Japan who work in hostess bars not selling pussy but still providing a sexual fantasy to over worked Japanese business man simply because the work is easy. Some of their customers have told them same as I have that they can do a lot more with their lives but the message just goes in one ear and out the other.

Prostitution though still boils down to sex between to consenting adults unless you fall into the John Karr bracket.

Take it sleazy.

[Jonathan76]

Two NY Times readers responded to Herbert's editorial in the Letters to the Editor section.

One is anti legalization, the other is pro-legalization and the author is a leader of some women's rights group. They each make interesting points.

N.B. I am not sure, but you may have to be a subscriber to read the letters to the editor.Hi George,

Here are 2 more letters to Bob Herbert's piece that weren't included for some reason:

The first one, by MJCIV from Massachusetts, is ludicrous:

1) Sex work is inherently humiliating and degrading, and relatively few sex workers are not deeply scarred by the experience, if not ultimately killed by it.
Nearly all societies view sex work as a permanent indictment on one's personal record, for lack of a better phrase. The sociologist Emile Durkheim wrote about how there is only so much deviance a society can stand before it has to reform itself, making behaviors that used to be taboo acceptable, then drifting once again toward greater deviance. Legalized prostitution is a perfect example of this phenomenon. Sickening. We have lost our way.

And then an eminently sensible comment by Scott Willett from New York:

2) I don't know how I feel about your opinion on prostitution. I haven't studied it the way you apparently have, and doubtless many women are victimized in such a profession. But it's hard for me to understand why a woman should be restrained from using her body the way she sees fit. If the classic feminist argument about abortion — that a woman should have a right to control her own body — works on that issue, why shouldn't it work when a woman wants to do something with her body that isn't as highly valued? Where do we draw the line? If a woman isn't forced into that situation, and I certainly don't argue that she should be, then why is it wrong for her to freely choose it, whether or not you think it devalues her? I've never been to a prostitute, but I have difficulty in seeing the argument that two consenting adults shouldn't be able to make any arrangement they want, so long as neither of them is doing something to the other that isn't mutually acceptable... American culture's take on sex is far from healthy. The need for sex, sometimes as close as a person might be able to get to experiencing love, is something COMPLETELY HUMAN. Who says that prostitutes don't play a valuable role in society ?

[Dickhead]

" . . . a lot of them are just fucking lazy. People in this country are fucking lazy, hookers, non-hookers, men, women. Even the dogs in this country are lazy. Laziest motherfuckers I have ever seen, anywhere "

Wow DickHead . . .

I see you are back to form. Nice work. Managed to insult your entire adopted country in just a single post. Say hi to Maria and Stormy for me . . .

Stop me when I lie. Hell, they are PROUD of being lazy.

[Rubber Nursey]

ohhh here we go...not the 'hookers are too lazy to get real jobs' debate again.

i fail to see why a woman who sits behind a desk all day answering phones is considered a 'career woman', but a hooker having sex all day is 'lazy'. a therapeutic masseuse is a health professional, but the girl doing r&t at the local massage parlour is 'lazy'. a counsellor is a professional, but a hooker who listens to client after client telling her their life story is 'lazy'. when was the last time you saw a real estate agent or dentist or school teacher come home from work strained and sore and exhausted? sex work is a pretty bloody physical job!!

and if you're talking 'lazy' as in being unskilled labour, sex workers still have it over many other unskilled occupations. who is more lazy - the hooker who does 8 one hour fs bookings, or the checkout chick who stands in one place scanning groceries for 8 hours? the woman who works in a lunchbar making sandwiches, or the private sex worker who runs a small business...including advertising, taking bookings, keeping financial records, paying taxes?

sex workers are not lazy. some workers don't exactly apply themselves to the task at hand, but even 'starfish' are putting in more physical and emotional effort than the guy who stamps tickets at the train station all day. and yes, we don't always work every hour of every shift. sometimes you sit around all day and don't get a single booking - but other days you're so busy, you're doing intros in a towel while your last client is still in the shower! i used to work 18 hour shifts while my kids were away on school holidays and i didn't have to worry about childcare. i don't consider that lazy.

and when you take into account the crippling stigma and discrimination that also comes with the job - and stays with you for a lifetime - it's hardly the 'easy way out' either.

[Bango Cheito]

Thank you. I wanted a professional to respond to that, it gives it more credibility. But I absolutely agree.

People have that image of me as a professional musician as being "lazy" as well. They have NO IDEA what it's like to sing for a living. Typical prejudiced thinking.

[Rubber Nursey]

Hello all,

The following appears in today's Op-ed section of The New York Times.

I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts and counter-arguments.

Excuse my French, but my thought is that it's a total crock of sh*t. My counter-argument....that the author is a complete tosser who has absolutely no clue what he's talking about and wouldn't know a hooker if one bit him on the arse. (Although he'd soon get the idea when she demanded payment for it. :) )

[Karaoke]

Jay Leno referred to this just-released study last night on the Tonight Show. I know that, personally, I am going to step up my already active quest to sleep with as many young women as I can. I owe it to myself to do everything that I can to have better health and a longer life.

So if your wife or girlfriend complain about you seeing younger working girls, you can explain that it is not a morality issue. You are doing it for the sake of your health.

Karaoke

[Rubber Nursey]

I also know that a young decent looking woman with no children who works as a bank vice-president rarely turns to prostitution to acquire more money.

If anyone wants to help women out of prostitution or to avoid prostitution altogether, he/she should provide free schooling and job training for high-paying jobs.

I agree that a woman in a high-paying job, especially if she has no children to support, would be highly unlikely to seek additional employment in a brothel.

But I have to disagree that access to education and/or high-paying jobs will stop women choosing to work in the sex industry. In my country, we have free training and education, tertiary education loan schemes, welfare payments and all sorts of other things to help people improve their employability and until they get that high-paying job, have enough money to survive. But we still have plenty of sex workers. People don't just choose sex work because of the money. Contrary to popular belief, the sex industry has a number of other selling points.

I started work because I was drowning in debt and desperate for money. Once I got my bills under control, I paid my way through a degree and entered a profession which had the potential to earn me a lot more money than I had ever made as a hooker. A few months later, I was back in a brothel. Why? Because I was happier there. I loved the people, the atmosphere, the freedom (and the sex!). Over the years, I've worked with ex-teachers, CEOs, policewomen...even doctors and lawyers! Almost all of them had worked as a hooker BEFORE they entered their professions and had decided to come back.

Education and employment opportunities would certainly help...but some women, even if they're well educated and/or working for decent pay, will still be attracted to the sex industry. Sex workers can earn large amounts of money in a comparatively short amount of time, with working hours that can be arranged around study or childcare commitments. These conditions will always appeal to some women, regardless of what other opportunities are available to them.

[Warbucks]

ohhh here we go...not the 'hookers are too lazy to get real jobs' debate again.

i fail to see why a woman who sits behind a desk all day answering phones is considered a 'career woman', but a hooker having sex all day is 'lazy'. a therapeutic masseuse is a health professional, but the girl doing r&t at the local massage parlour is 'lazy'. a counsellor is a professional, but a hooker who listens to client after client telling her their life story is 'lazy'. when was the last time you saw a real estate agent or dentist or school teacher come home from work strained and sore and exhausted? sex work is a pretty bloody physical job!!

and if you're talking 'lazy' as in being unskilled labour, sex workers still have it over many other unskilled occupations. who is more lazy - the hooker who does 8 one hour fs bookings, or the checkout chick who stands in one place scanning groceries for 8 hours? the woman who works in a lunchbar making sandwiches, or the private sex worker who runs a small business...including advertising, taking bookings, keeping financial records, paying taxes?

sex workers are not lazy. some workers don't exactly apply themselves to the task at hand, but even 'starfish' are putting in more physical and emotional effort than the guy who stamps tickets at the train station all day. and yes, we don't always work every hour of every shift. sometimes you sit around all day and don't get a single booking - but other days you're so busy, you're doing intros in a towel while your last client is still in the shower! i used to work 18 hour shifts while my kids were away on school holidays and i didn't have to worry about childcare. i don't consider that lazy.

and when you take into account the crippling stigma and discrimination that also comes with the job - and stays with you for a lifetime - it's hardly the 'easy way out' either.

can't argue

[George90]

I agree that a woman in a high-paying job, especially if she has no children to support, would be highly unlikely to seek additional employment in a brothel.

But I have to disagree that access to education and/or high-paying jobs will stop women choosing to work in the sex industry.
Education and employment opportunities would certainly help...but some women, even if they're well educated and/or working for decent pay, will still be attracted to the sex industry. Sex workers can earn large amounts of money in a comparatively short amount of time, with working hours that can be arranged around study or childcare commitments. These conditions will always appeal to some women, regardless of what other opportunities are available to them.

RN,

Your reply is very intelligent, but it is not a reply to what I said in my post.

My post said "If anyone wants to help women out of prostitution or to avoid prostitution altogether, ... ". Nowhere did I write or claim "that access to education and/or high-paying jobs will stop women choosing to work in the sex industry."

What I would propose is exactly what your post concludes. When women have other viable employment options, the women who remain in the sex industry are there by choice. Isn't that the ideal situation??? That women have access to education and job training so that those who want to leave the sex industry can do so, and those who want to remain can also do so???

[Opebo]

Ohhh here we go...not the 'hookers are too lazy to get real jobs' debate again.
...Sex workers are not lazy.

It is worth noting that no worker may be 'lazy' in our capitalist world - the punishments for that include destitution, imprisonment, and ultimately death.

No, the only persons our political system permits to be 'lazy' are the leisure class - the owners for whom the rest labour.

[Bango Cheito]

George90, I don't quite get your point.... I'm not quite clear whether you're talking in utopian terms, or in reality here. When you look at it from that angle, let's be perfectly honest here, how many people on Earth would be perfectly content to live absolutely wasted useless lives doing fuck-all if the opportunity arose? How many people would even bother to get their asses out of bed and work for a living if they weren't obligated to do so?

I submit that I think the world NEEDS a sex industry right now, that those services are valuable and in some way necessary for society to function properly. I think we need it just like we need garbage collection, banking, police, etc. We could conceivably function without these things, hell, we spent millions of years living in caves..... but would we as a society WANT to?

To me prostitution is unsavory and unpopular as a line of work because of the social and sometimes legal stigma attached to it, and I think that socities all over are suffering because of this. To me, utopia doesn't exist, but the ideal society should be a MERITOCRACY, where everybody brings something to the table (perhaps with certain logical exceptions) for which there is a clear demand.

[Bango Cheito]

Oops double post :P

[Mike Del]

Rubber Nursey is (once again) right on the money in my view - but I do concede that it depends on what happens where you are.

There's an Australian study that was published some years ago on point - I can't recall whether anyone has linked to it previously but here's the links to the summary of contents and to particular chapters.

http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/lcj/working/index.html
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/lcj/working/ch1-1.html
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/lcj/working/ch1-2.html
http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/lcj/working/ch4-2.html


Might be a 'dry hump' (so to speak for some) but it's worth a read.

[George90]

George90, I don't quite get your point.... I'm not quite clear whether you're talking in utopian terms, or in reality here. When you look at it from that angle, let's be perfectly honest here, how many people on Earth would be perfectly content to live absolutely wasted useless lives doing fuck-all if the opportunity arose? How many people would even bother to get their asses out of bed and work for a living if they weren't obligated to do so?

I submit that I think the world NEEDS a sex industry right now, that those services are valuable and in some way necessary for society to function properly. I think we need it just like we need garbage collection, banking, police, etc. We could conceivably function without these things, hell, we spent millions of years living in caves..... but would we as a society WANT to?

To me prostitution is unsavory and unpopular as a line of work because of the social and sometimes legal stigma attached to it, and I think that socities all over are suffering because of this. To me, utopia doesn't exist, but the ideal society should be a MERITOCRACY, where everybody brings something to the table (perhaps with certain logical exceptions) for which there is a clear demand.

I read and re-read your post several times. I don't see much of a connection between what I wrote and what you wrote. I don't see how notions such as meritocracy relate to prostitution. I don't plan on pursuing this part of the thread.

[Jonathan76]

Hi George,

Maybe it's better if we rephrase the question.

Do you believe that separating sexual activity from personal relationships of caring and love is an enterprise hazardous to moral health and that in an ideal world prostitution should not exist?

J.

[Dickhead]

Those are two separate questions. In an ideal world women would give pussy away for free because sex is awesome. They did in societies like Tahiti before colonialism fucked everything up.

[Bango Cheito]

I don't think such an ideal should or even could exist in a modern civilization though.

I also don't think it makes sense to say that in an ideal world people would only do what their surface whims and desires tell them to do. People should do what others see value in them doing and in that way they justify their existence. That's where the meritocracy comes in.

There will always be some people who really dig the profession for whatever reason, there will be others who like it in general and think the positive outweigh the natives, there will be others who detest it but it's their best option for getting the money they want to make so they are there.

My whole point is prostitution is a profession like any other, or SHOULD BE, and should therefore be seen in these same terms. You can't really expect everybody on planet Earth to like their job, some jobs are just not likeable. Hell, some jobs are much less likeable than working in sex, but SOMEBODY has to do em.

[Rubber Nursey]

Sorry if I misunderstood you, George - but I assumed that's what you meant when you said 'avoid prostitution altogether'. Your previous post also said that if people aren't living in poverty, they are unlikely to enter the sex industry. I was just saying that there are many women who do have other employment options, but still choose sex work.

I think you and I are coming at this issue from fundamentally different positions. People often use phrases like 'fell into', 'turned to', 'resorted to', 'forced to' when talking about entering the sex industry. These words all denote an absence of agency and are generally used when describing a negative outcome - fell into a bad crowd, turned to alcohol, resorted to stealing. I just don't see sex work as a negative outcome. I see it as a legitimate income-generating employment option. It's a job.

Using that logic - if it's just a job, then I really don't see a need for exit and retraining strategies or any other 'preventative' measure to discourage people from engaging in it. Why can’t sex workers be congratulated for having gainful employment, rather than sitting on their butts on welfare or sponging of their husband? Exit and retraining strategies and/or improving employment options for women always sounds good in theory - Governments all over the world tack it onto their prostitution legislation believing it will 'help prostitutes' - but it doesn't always work so well in practice.

In developed countries like mine, there are already a number of education and training options available, heaps of employment opportunities and a decent welfare system to fall back on if you're stuck. IF sex workers wanted to take advantage of these options and leave the sex industry, they would. But they don't.

In developing countries (and in rural areas worldwide) you can give a person all the education and training they can handle, but what do they do with their brand new qualifications if there's no jobs in their area? If alternative employment doesn't exist, they will probably still end up entering the sex industry.

Exit and retraining doesn't take into account the realities of many women's lives, or the diverse reasons they entered sex work in the first place. It also doesn't recognise that sex work is not only a 'real job', but one of the highest paid jobs available to women. In every country around the world, sex workers are paid 3, 5, 10 times more than the average employee. Even if you really hate the job, that's reason enough to want to stick with it. People stick with 'regular' jobs that they hate for much less!

[Rubber Nursey]

Do you believe that separating sexual activity from personal relationships of caring and love is an enterprise hazardous to moral health and that in an ideal world prostitution should not exist?

I don't believe that sex work 'separates sexual activity from personal relationships of caring and love' - I see sex work as a caring/helping/healing profession, just like counselling, massage, day spas and sex therapy.

And I completely agree with Bango, that in an ideal world people would be valued for their individual skills and talents and recognised for what they bring to their community. Sorry DH, but ideally girls would give it away for free? Would you also suggest that chefs should cook for free, hairdressers should cut hair for free, doctors should heal people for free...? If people are willing to pay for sex, why shouldn't women (and men) charge for it. And yeah...sex is awesome. So who wouldn't want to do it all day and make money from it at the same time?!

[Bango Cheito]

If I were a local authority somewhere in Colombia or Brazil, I'd ACTIVELY be promoting sex tourism as a shot in the arm for the local economy.

There are a lot of young people fresh out of college in those areas who are NEVER going to find work in their field because ATM it just doesn't exist. I say let them become part of the sex industry, and part of the local and national tax base, instead of part of the brain drain!

[George90]

If I were a local authority somewhere in Colombia or Brazil, I'd ACTIVELY be promoting sex tourism as a shot in the arm for the local economy.

Isn't that EXACTLY what the mayor of Las Vegas is doing? Isn't that the very point that Bob Herbert took issue with? Isn't that the theme of these last several posts?

I would do the same thing if I an authority someplace. I would legalize and regulate prostitution including regular health tests for both the prostititutes AND ther clients.

P.S. I read that Israel wanted to boost tourism with an ad campaign that prominently featured attractive, sexy Israeli military women. I think the Israeli cabinet nixed it.

[Bango Cheito]

Problem is, prostitution is illegal in LV.

Maybe we're just saying the same thing differently though.

[Bango Cheito]

Anywhere prostitution is already legal, where the cost of living isn't insane and where it's known for attractive women would work.

[Bango Cheito]

Anywhere prostitution is already legal, where the cost of living isn't insane and where it's known for attractive women would work.

My fiancee is ALREADY a webcam girl. My daughter could become a WG if she wanted to, hopefully somewhere where it's LEGAL (see above). Like I said it's JUST ANOTHER PROFESSION.

[Tile Man4]

rubber nursey is (once again) right on the money in my view - but i do concede that it depends on what happens where you are.



mike del has it right when he said........ "it all depends on what happens where you are" rubber nursey defends prostitution to her last breath and i agree she should. i would like to see prostitution legalized and i will explain why. but , i won't dwell on australia or the usa where i am from. i think this string does represent the world , not just one or two countries.

i saw on dateline 3 weeks ago , a usa investigative show like 60 minutes. they did a report on philippines women being promised a singing career in malaysia only to be forced into prostitution and forced to sign a 8 years contract for 65,000 usd as payment for her singing lessons. of course not one singing lesson. this is why i want to legalize prostitution ( all countries). every county is different when it comes to prostitution. mike del is right if this is what he meant.

the show also went into the problem with ****s in laos and how 8 year old girls are taught oral sex , mostly for the western man's pleasure. i not so sure that this is for only western men's pleasure . think about it , laos men are teaching these little girls for their own oral sex pleasure and later profits from western men. by the time these girls are of legal age , they will be dead or so fucked up , they will act like robot prostitutes and hate men for life. they won't be singing that sex is awesome. this is why i want to legalize prostitution.

rubber nursey , you say that sex is so awesome and i am happy that you really do enjoy your work , but we all need to walk a mile in the above women's shoes. i agree with you that we need more rights for prostitutes, but in all countries. we all know that his will never happen so we must be responsible for the way we treat our women. i think that 95% of customers are good and that maybe 5% ruin it for all of us. maybe you can enlighten us with some real numbers rn

i monger in china and the one think i like about china is they just executed 12 guys for trafficking women to farmers , malaysia and other. the usa and our legal system will dance around with these perverts for 30 years until they die a happy death in prison. not china !!!!! this is why i want to legalize prostitution. have i ever fucked a chinese woman that was forced into prostitution? probably , but if i knew , i would refuse her service , i would rather be with a chinese woman like rubber nursey. who went into prostitution without force.

ladies and gentlemen , its really us men who get blamed for prostitution. we abuse women , we exploit women , and all that shit that i am sure most of you have read about prostitution. the truth is ....... most of us don't. but , its the same men that will not pass laws to protect women and make prostitution legal and its the above perverts ( from all countries ) who really do exploit women and abuse little girls who give us all a black eye.

be safe ladies and gentlemen and treat your ladies good.

tile man

[Rubber Nursey]

Tile Man - well said and I totally agree with what you said, in principle.

One thing I want to make very clear though, is that when I'm talking about sex work/prostitution, I'm ONLY talking about people voluntarily engaging in sexual activity for money (wh*ring, webcam, R&T, stripping, whatever). The two scenarios you mentioned are not 'sex work', but the very serious crimes of trafficking, sex slavery and paedophilia/child abuse. Obviously when I'm talking about women loving their work, etc, I'm certainly not talking about an 8 year old being forced to give blowjobs!

And don't be so sure that sex workers in Australia are so different to sex workers in other countries. I used to think that too until I became involved with the international sex workers rights movement. In Australia, we have the Scarlet Alliance (as well as many state based support orgs and lobby groups), but you'll find exactly the same thing in many other nations. Look up the Empower Foundation in Thailand, De Rode Draad (The Red Thread) in Amsterdam, the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective in NZ, the Desiree Alliance in the USA (also boundnotgagged.com), the English Prostitutes Collective in England, Durbar Mahila Sammanoy Samity and EFPEC in India, the International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe, Zi Teng in China....the list goes on.

[Tile Man4]

Tile Man - well said and I totally agree with what you said, in principle.

One thing I want to make very clear though, is that when I'm talking about sex work/prostitution, I'm ONLY talking about people voluntarily engaging in sexual activity for money (wh*ring, webcam, R&T, stripping, whatever). The two scenarios you mentioned are not 'sex work', but the very serious crimes of trafficking, sex slavery and paedophilia/child abuse. Obviously when I'm talking about women loving their work, etc, I'm certainly not talking about an 8 year old being forced to give blowjobs!

And don't be so sure that sex workers in Australia are so different to sex workers in other countries. I used to think that too until I became involved with the international sex workers rights movement. In Australia, we have the Scarlet Alliance (as well as many state based support orgs and lobby groups), but you'll find exactly the same thing in many other nations. Look up the Empower Foundation in Thailand, De Rode Draad (The Red Thread) in Amsterdam, the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective in NZ, the Desiree Alliance in the USA (also boundnotgagged.com), the English Prostitutes Collective in England, Durbar Mahila Sammanoy Samity and EFPEC in India, the International Committee on the Rights of Sex Workers in Europe, Zi Teng in China....the list goes on.

I know by your post that you are a good woman and you are for sure "Not Lazy. I think this is how this discussion started. I also know that you don't support the pervision in this business. I only want to see equal rights for all people and prostitution legalized and controlled ( to protect women and children) , and so we can rid the world of the 5% shit scum bags that have destroyed your reputation and we men who like to be with women like you.


Be safe Aussie Girl and the rest of you the same.

Keep up the good post and good work to protect your industry one day.

tile man

[Jonathan76]

I don't believe that sex work 'separates sexual activity from personal relationships of caring and love' - I see sex work as a caring / helping / healing profession, just like counselling, massage, day spas and sex therapy. Hi Rubber Nursey,

You always manage to come up with the best responses.

Excellent answer!

J.

[Jonathan76]

Here it is, finally:

http://www.philosophynow.org/archive/articles/21madigan.htm

This is the BEST commentary I've read thus far on this whole issue of the 'morality of prostitution'

(As an aside: Kant even regarded masturbation as a violation of the moral law !..... My gosh !)

[Bango Cheito]

Most denominations of Christianity still think masturbation is a grave sin Jonathan.

[CBGBConnisur]

mike del has it right when he said........ "it all depends on what happens where you are" rubber nursey defends prostitution to her last breath and i agree she should. i would like to see prostitution legalized and i will explain why. but , i won't dwell on australia or the usa where i am from. i think this string does represent the world , not just one or two countries.

i saw on dateline 3 weeks ago , a usa investigative show like 60 minutes. they did a report on philippines women being promised a singing career in malaysia only to be forced into prostitution and forced to sign a 8 years contract for 65,000 usd as payment for her singing lessons. of course not one singing lesson. this is why i want to legalize prostitution ( all countries). every county is different when it comes to prostitution. mike del is right if this is what he meant.

the show also went into the problem with ****s in laos and how 8 year old girls are taught oral sex , mostly for the western man's pleasure. i not so sure that this is for only western men's pleasure . think about it , laos men are teaching these little girls for their own oral sex pleasure and later profits from western men. by the time these girls are of legal age , they will be dead or so fucked up , they will act like robot prostitutes and hate men for life. they won't be singing that sex is awesome. this is why i want to legalize prostitution.

rubber nursey , you say that sex is so awesome and i am happy that you really do enjoy your work , but we all need to walk a mile in the above women's shoes. i agree with you that we need more rights for prostitutes, but in all countries. we all know that his will never happen so we must be responsible for the way we treat our women. i think that 95% of customers are good and that maybe 5% ruin it for all of us. maybe you can enlighten us with some real numbers rn

i monger in china and the one think i like about china is they just executed 12 guys for trafficking women to farmers , malaysia and other. the usa and our legal system will dance around with these perverts for 30 years until they die a happy death in prison. not china !!!!! this is why i want to legalize prostitution. have i ever fucked a chinese woman that was forced into prostitution? probably , but if i knew , i would refuse her service , i would rather be with a chinese woman like rubber nursey. who went into prostitution without force.

ladies and gentlemen , its really us men who get blamed for prostitution. we abuse women , we exploit women , and all that shit that i am sure most of you have read about prostitution. the truth is ....... most of us don't. but , its the same men that will not pass laws to protect women and make prostitution legal and its the above perverts ( from all countries ) who really do exploit women and abuse little girls who give us all a black eye.

be safe ladies and gentlemen and treat your ladies good.

tile man
absolute bullshit, there are a lot of places where women enter prostitution by choice. the us is the only first world nation where prostitution is a crime. most of western europe it is common, and seen as a legitimate, business, check out countries like germany and the netherlands where in practically every town there is a brothel, in nl they even have a union. in australia it is also very open, in fact, there is an adult industry award held annually in australia which gives an award to the best brothels and escorts in the country.
i would agree that the stuff in south east asia is completely twisted, the vast majority of guys who go there must be pervs, but our contemporaries in europe and australia show that prostitution can be legal and run properly in western countries.

[Tile Man4]

Absolute bullshit, there are a lot of places where women enter prostitution BY CHOICE. The US is the only first world nation where prostitution is a crime. Most of Western Europe it is common, and seen as a legitimate, business, check out countries like Germany and the Netherlands where in practically every town there is a brothel, in NL they even have a union. In Australia it is also very open, in fact, there is an Adult Industry Award held annually in Australia which gives an award to the best brothels and escorts in the country.
I would agree that the stuff in South East Asia is completely twisted, the vast majority of guys who go there must be pervs, but our contemporaries in Europe and Australia show that prostitution can be legal and run properly in Western countries.

WTF are you talking about "absolute bullshit" ? Are you that stupid not to know that EVERY country in the world has forced prostitution. All 200 plus countries in this world. My post said 6 times that I would like to see ALL countries with legal prostitution , so to protect women and children from the maybe 5% ( I said ) perverts that give prostitution a bad name and harm women and children. Explain what is " absolute bullshit" my man. Don't just talk from your ass and run.

After reading some of your post , all you talk about is politics , dooms day for America hatred for America , money markets, Hitler , Germany, Netherlands, China taking us over and more "absolute bullshit" in the " ISG American women's room. I thought this was a pussy website. Do you really think that the American prostitutes and men who want to know about American prostitutes want to listen to your above political "bullshit"

Some Country probably will take us over some day. The Roman Empire did not last forever. And it may be China , but that beautiful and great country that you live in (Aussie Land) may go down under with us. Be careful what you wish for , you may be young enough to see it.

From one bullshitter to another bullshitter who needs to read and think before he writes.

PS , I think there is a room called "American Politics" Vent your bullshit in that room.

tile man

[Samosate]

I have been brought to think of commercial sex again by a serious marital crisis. Sex is no sin and is a part of normal biological needs. The sexual urge can also be a trap to get engaged in an unsatisfactory relationship. Better then a nice consenting professional than an jumping on a charming ***** who ends up ruining your emotional and financial life.

A kantian moral has a lot to speak for itself, except that it ends up being practicable only for gods if taken literally (as Kant himself did). Nevertheless, the goal of considering the other as an end in itself can be fulfilled in a commercial sexual relationship provided the two sides are consenting and free. However, the freedom of the provider seems more and more threatened worldwide. A very good discussion of this issue can be found at the following link: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/20654 It does raise the question of being certain that your girl is consenting and free. On the other hand, a beautiful account of freely accepted prostitution can be found in the works of Griselidis Real, a late Geneva prostitute and writer.

Whatever one thinks of it, I do think that respect for the partner is of the utmost importance. This has to do with personal attitude (cleanliness, nice and safe behaviour).

[George90]

October 13, 2007
Letter
Don’t Ban Sex Work
To the Editor:

Re “Bulgaria, Joining a European Trend, Won’t Legalize Prostitution” (news article, Oct. 6):

Recent moves in Europe to ban sex work stem from flawed policies promoted by the Bush administration, conservative groups and some feminists who conflate sex work and trafficking. Playing fast and loose with these terms is the latest trend in the moral and political agenda to abolish all sex work.

Many women and men living in poverty choose sex work because it provides the highest pay. Others sell sex to support their families, augment their incomes as nurses or teachers, or put themselves through school.

Uniformly, sex workers abhor trafficking and have developed effective strategies to help trafficked and under-age persons escape danger and get the assistance they need.

Laws like those in Sweden that punish customers of sex workers are a precarious outgrowth of the abolitionist approach and have not been proved to reduce trafficking or curb demand for sex.

Pushing sex work further into the shadows exposes these workers to enhanced risks, including police extortion and violence.

To call every person engaging in sex work a victim is misleading and condescending. The health and rights of sex workers must be protected — especially from those who wield their morality like a sword.

Sue Simon
Director, Sexual Health and Rights Project, Open Society Institute
New York, Oct. 9, 2007

[CBGBConnisur]

WTF are you talking about "absolute bullshit" ? Are you that stupid not to know that EVERY country in the world has forced prostitution. All 200 plus countries in this world. My post said 6 times that I would like to see ALL countries with legal prostitution , so to protect women and children from the maybe 5% ( I said ) perverts that give prostitution a bad name and harm women and children. Explain what is " absolute bullshit" my man. Don't just talk from your ass and run.

After reading some of your post , all you talk about is politics , dooms day for America hatred for America , money markets, Hitler , Germany, Netherlands, China taking us over and more "absolute bullshit" in the " ISG American women's room. I thought this was a pussy website. Do you really think that the American prostitutes and men who want to know about American prostitutes want to listen to your above political "bullshit"

Some Country probably will take us over some day. The Roman Empire did not last forever. And it may be China , but that beautiful and great country that you live in (Aussie Land) may go down under with us. Be careful what you wish for , you may be young enough to see it.

From one bullshitter to another bullshitter who needs to read and think before he writes.

PS , I think there is a room called "American Politics" Vent your bullshit in that room.

tile man
Oh sorry about that, but for those of us who need to go overseas for pussy, its obvious that it is becoming more and more difficult to do as the Dollar loses its value. For the most part, the days of the "Might Greenback" are ending.

[Lennox]

Touching story about elderly prostitutes in Mexico. Their youth and beauty long gone and forgotten, but a former prostitute decided to care for them and provide some dignity in their elderly years.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/world/2007/10/30/whitbeck.old.prostitutes.cnn

[Belldude2]

absolute bullshit, there are a lot of places where women enter prostitution by choice. the us is the only first world nation where prostitution is a crime. most of western europe it is common, and seen as a legitimate, business, check out countries like germany and the netherlands where in practically every town there is a brothel, in nl they even have a union. in australia it is also very open, in fact, there is an adult industry award held annually in australia which gives an award to the best brothels and escorts in the country.
i would agree that the stuff in south east asia is completely twisted, the vast majority of guys who go there must be pervs, but our contemporaries in europe and australia show that prostitution can be legal and run properly in western countries.

hey cbgb.
i tend to agree with you. every country in the world has prostitution. most are able to control it fairly well. i live in nevada where prostitution has been controlled by the government for decades and i believe that it should be this way everywhere. i go to mexico, colombia, and argentina on a on a regular basis and i love it. i go for relaxation and vacation, but i make sure i have my fun at the same time. have you seen the hbo show cathouse?? airforce amy wins the award for the best legal pro almost every year. when done right, legal prostitution is a true benefit to society. it decreases [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) and adds to state taxes!!!!! this is good, and noone is forcing these ladies into this business. it is a political issue as much as it is a moral issue. never shall the two be separated. it has always been that way and always will be. so, no, you do not have to post in a political blog for this issue, you were right to post here. the other dumas just cant see this. bummer for him. take care and monger on.

[Rubber Nursey]

question for me from bpd81 in the aw section...

"who do you think is the principal victim in the sex tourism game? i mean you have guys right here on this site such as my self spending thousands of dollars and time which could be put to other productive uses just to go party in such fleshpots as thailand and the philippines. i mean i can't complain i earn damn decent living but i know i am an anomaly. for me it’s just a hobby as i have a great steady girl friend and i am fairly young guy. it’s an addictive hobby. i mean these women are getting paid to have sex. i would be naïve to say it’s a dream job but as i said they are getting paid to have sex. what about the guys spending life savings, the children college fund, etc...hiding these expenses from the wife. who do you think is getting damaged the most? mentally, physically, emotionally and financially. most people will say the girls mentally. i will say you can argue the johns also take a mental bashing? i think".

in my opinion - so long as we're talking consensual sex between adults - there are no 'victims' in the sex tourism game. it's a win-win situation, with clients getting sex and hookers getting paid.

i've always maintained that if anyone is being 'exploited' in the sex industry, it's the clients, not the sex workers. hookers earn a living off a man's inability to control his sexual urges and make heaps of extra money in the heat of the moment when he's horny and vulnerable and agrees to all sorts of stuff he hadn't planned on engaging in. then we bat our eyelids, make him feel special and convince him to come back and do it again next week. and the week after. and the week after that.

but...that's no different to how any other retailer or service provider operates. it's business. do we consider ourselves 'victims' of kmart or sizzler or accuse them of 'exploitation' when we overspend or overeat?

people need to learn to take responsibility for their own actions. if a client is mentally or emotionally damaged by lying to his wife and covering up his financial tracks, he has nobody to blame but his unfaithful self. if he's spending well beyond his means, he needs to get himself to a therapist like any other addict. i, personally, am tired of people blaming casinos for gambling addictions and tobacco companies for cigarette addictions - we're adults, we know what we're doing when we start and we all have the power to say no. if we don't say no and we get hooked, it's our own fault.

so financially, i don't believe anyone is truly a 'victim' in the sex industry. the client pays for a service, just as he would at the hairdresser or in the pub. if he overspends, he's a victim of his own addiction (or stupidity).

physically, hookers certainly have it tougher than the clients. we have sex all day and we risk catching stis and other infections. (we also spend a lot of time scrubbing showers, washing towels and trotting up and down corridors in nose-bleed heels!!) but again, that's just part of the business. sex work is a very physical job, but so is construction or landscaping. it comes with risks of illness, but so does health work. i don't see any real 'victims' here, either.

emotionally, there's a potential for both parties to be affected. i've seen (and experienced) waaaaaay too many times, clients falling in love with working girls. there can be such extreme intimacy, honesty, trust, etc involved with a p4p transaction - particularly with regulars - that emotional involvement sometimes becomes inevitable. it can also happen to workers - i'll admit to feeling the occasional twinge of jealousy when a much-loved regular decided to try out the new girl and i've seen workers go through all the same emotions as being 'dumped' when a regular changes girls or stops coming in at all. that said, i wouldn't say anyone is any more a 'victim' or 'damaged' by falling in love with a hooker/client than they are in real life.

mentally, i think the hookers have this one, hands down...but not because of the job itself. because of the stigma and discrimination they face in their working and private lives. i'll concede that clients face a degree of it themselves, but nowhere near what workers get. if a guy in a pub said "i went to a brothel when i was younger", few people would bat an eyelid. but if a girl said "i worked in a brothel when i was younger", conversation would stop and people would be shocked and horrified.

sex workers (including strippers, porn stars, etc) are considered second-class citizens in most communities, even those where sex work is legal. wh*res are the most reviled of the lot. we risk losing everything if people find out about our sex work experience. protecting that secret is more of a psychological burden that most people could ever imagine. when something bad happens at work it's even worse, because you can't debrief about it with the people you love the most. and we're completely helpless when something goes wrong - if we're assaulted or ripped off or stalked - and that fear and powerlessness is a huge psychological strain as well.

that's where the victimisation lies - in the way society treats sex workers. there are certainly some hookers who hate their job and feel degraded or damaged by the experience but again, as cruel as it sounds, they need to take responsibility for their own actions. if they can't cope with it, they should leave. if they can't leave, then the sex industry is probably not to blame...they are being 'damaged' by some other influence, like a pimp, finance company, drug addiction or poverty itself.

[Warbucks]

question for me from bpd81 in the aw section...

"who do you think is the principal victim in the sex tourism game? i mean you have guys right here on this site such as my self spending thousands of dollars and time which could be put to other productive uses just to go party in such fleshpots as thailand and the philippines. i mean i can't complain i earn damn decent living but i know i am an anomaly. for me it’s just a hobby as i have a great steady girl friend and i am fairly young guy. it’s an addictive hobby. i mean these women are getting paid to have sex. i would be naïve to say it’s a dream job but as i said they are getting paid to have sex. what about the guys spending life savings, the children college fund, etc...hiding these expenses from the wife. who do you think is getting damaged the most? mentally, physically, emotionally and financially. most people will say the girls mentally. i will say you can argue the johns also take a mental bashing? i think".

in my opinion - so long as we're talking consensual sex between adults - there are no 'victims' in the sex tourism game. it's a win-win situation, with clients getting sex and hookers getting paid.

i've always maintained that if anyone is being 'exploited' in the sex industry, it's the clients, not the sex workers. hookers earn a living off a man's inability to control his sexual urges and make heaps of extra money in the heat of the moment when he's horny and vulnerable and agrees to all sorts of stuff he hadn't planned on engaging in. then we bat our eyelids, make him feel special and convince him to come back and do it again next week. and the week after. and the week after that.

but...that's no different to how any other retailer or service provider operates. it's business. do we consider ourselves 'victims' of kmart or sizzler or accuse them of 'exploitation' when we overspend or overeat?

people need to learn to take responsibility for their own actions. if a client is mentally or emotionally damaged by lying to his wife and covering up his financial tracks, he has nobody to blame but his unfaithful self. if he's spending well beyond his means, he needs to get himself to a therapist like any other addict. i, personally, am tired of people blaming casinos for gambling addictions and tobacco companies for cigarette addictions - we're adults, we know what we're doing when we start and we all have the power to say no. if we don't say no and we get hooked, it's our own fault.

so financially, i don't believe anyone is truly a 'victim' in the sex industry. the client pays for a service, just as he would at the hairdresser or in the pub. if he overspends, he's a victim of his own addiction (or stupidity).

physically, hookers certainly have it tougher than the clients. we have sex all day and we risk catching stis and other infections. (we also spend a lot of time scrubbing showers, washing towels and trotting up and down corridors in nose-bleed heels!!) but again, that's just part of the business. sex work is a very physical job, but so is construction or landscaping. it comes with risks of illness, but so does health work. i don't see any real 'victims' here, either.

emotionally, there's a potential for both parties to be affected. i've seen (and experienced) waaaaaay too many times, clients falling in love with working girls. there can be such extreme intimacy, honesty, trust, etc involved with a p4p transaction - particularly with regulars - that emotional involvement sometimes becomes inevitable. it can also happen to workers - i'll admit to feeling the occasional twinge of jealousy when a much-loved regular decided to try out the new girl and i've seen workers go through all the same emotions as being 'dumped' when a regular changes girls or stops coming in at all. that said, i wouldn't say anyone is any more a 'victim' or 'damaged' by falling in love with a hooker/client than they are in real life.

mentally, i think the hookers have this one, hands down...but not because of the job itself. because of the stigma and discrimination they face in their working and private lives. i'll concede that clients face a degree of it themselves, but nowhere near what workers get. if a guy in a pub said "i went to a brothel when i was younger", few people would bat an eyelid. but if a girl said "i worked in a brothel when i was younger", conversation would stop and people would be shocked and horrified.

sex workers (including strippers, porn stars, etc) are considered second-class citizens in most communities, even those where sex work is legal. wh*res are the most reviled of the lot. we risk losing everything if people find out about our sex work experience. protecting that secret is more of a psychological burden that most people could ever imagine. when something bad happens at work it's even worse, because you can't debrief about it with the people you love the most. and we're completely helpless when something goes wrong - if we're assaulted or ripped off or stalked - and that fear and powerlessness is a huge psychological strain as well.

that's where the victimisation lies - in the way society treats sex workers. there are certainly some hookers who hate their job and feel degraded or damaged by the experience but again, as cruel as it sounds, they need to take responsibility for their own actions. if they can't cope with it, they should leave. if they can't leave, then the sex industry is probably not to blame...they are being 'damaged' by some other influence, like a pimp, finance company, drug addiction or poverty itself.

good stuff. thanks for the response.

[Sporadic]

Highjack from another thread:

No, no...I meant xxxxxx´s situation with his girlfriend. Him waiting outside in the car while she sees a client. I was genuinely interested in the way people responded to the idea of his girlfriend still working.

If any of you wanted to share your feelings on the subject, I'd really like to hear them. In the Morality section perhaps, so I don't clutter up your thread any more than I already have! :) It's something I've been thinking about a bit, lately (with regard to my own situation). Your opinions would be much appreciated.Case in question, I sensed a rat from the start. The "I am such a clever boy" attitude just put me off.

In DXB, many (most) girls do not have it easy, constant social and police pressure, many times with zero recourse at all (not even in possession of their own passports,) DXB is not the real world.

He bragged about his "GF" but I think he was sopping his own ego, I mean if she was really a GF, certainly you could help her more than just taking up her valuable earning time (she is NOT there for vacation or romance.)

In the case of WG romance (particularly in a third world setting) I think there is great risk of the ladies being led on by an implied offer of "more" than just a STR. This is, IMHO very, very unfair. Many of these ladies are in an almost unimaginably vulnerable situation that few westerners could even begin to grasp.

The self-satisfied "he pays, but I get it for free" attitude, coupled with sanctimonious "be nice to these girls" (like ME, I´m a great guy!) just turns my stomach.

I personally tend towards serial mono-mongering (stealing a phrase from Barcrawler) and really do enjoy the relationship aspects. Always within the context of what I can actually offer the lady. She also finds her fee placed in her purse every morning without fail. I have no doubt I could get away without paying, but why would I do that to her? Make her work even harder, just for my pleasure and ego?

On the evenings I do not see my lady friend, I know she is working. She has no choice, but I would never want to blur that line (for her dignity) by being involved myself. I would also never engage a different provider from her "office" (a VERY big deal to some of these ladies.)

My pseudo-morality here may just be a huge crock of shit, I am aware, but in ten years in DXB I have learned quite a bit about how things work there.

RN, please do not take my comments out of the DXB context, they really are site specific.

[Rubber Nursey]

Thanks heaps for coming over here to chat further, Sporadic. :)

I understand completely the added complexities of the DBX/third world setting - although I must admit, the 'constant social and police pressure and zero access to legal recourse' is something I (and other Western women working in illegal environments) know all too well. :(

I was more interested in the broad/general idea of guys having working girlfriends, regardless of the geographical location. A number of different things were raised when you guys first responded to that poster's situation. The most obvious being revulsion. That was interesting, considering so many of the UAE guys seem to indulge in 'mono-mongering', as you so eloquently put it, and carry on semi-relationships with working girls, knowing full well that they are out seeing other guys when you're not together. So what is it about driving your GF to a booking, or sitting outside the hotel waiting while she does it, that crosses that line?

Piper's 'pimp' post (although I realise it was, to a degree, written tongue-in-cheek) seemed to sum it up. Funny how knowing that your girl is leaving your bed and going to see another client is one thing, but putting her in your car and taking her to that booking is entirely another. And that the latter makes you look like a pimp.

I'm really interested in the whole idea of men with working girlfriends being called 'pimps'. I've always found that an extremely sexist concept. It denies a woman's agency and autonomy, by suggesting that her boyfriend has control over both her sexuality and her finances. It's also a nasty double-standard that isn't applied to working women in other occupations. For example, if a husband took his mobile hairdresser wife to a client's home and waited outside while she cut hair, he wouldn't be perceived as a pimp. If a female lawyer supports her husband while he's ill or out of work, he's not perceived as a pimp - while a sex worker supporting her husband is not only frowned on, it's actually illegal in most countries!

So I guess what I wanted to know from you guys was...what is it that goes through your head at the thought of you, or someone else, waiting outside while your WG girlfriend sees a paying client. Is your opposition to do with the money? The perceived power imbalance? The simple fact that she's having sex with someone else? Or is it - as your post below touched on - that the BF should be playing knight in shining armour and supporting her so she doesn't have to keep working at all?

I'd really like to understand how men feel about this subject. I know this discussion has been had a number of times on this Forum, but it's always good to hear new perspectives from new people who have joined since the last time.

[Sporadic]

although I must admit, the 'constant social and police pressure and zero access to legal recourse' is something I (and other Western women working in illegal environments) know all too well. :(Not to downplay the pressure everywhere, but the risk is extreme and capricious in DXB. WG´s stand out in this society and are at almost as great a risk buying a loaf of bread as actually being caught in the act (indeed, one of the safest places for them is in a 5 star hotel room with a "European" (read white) guy. The police are very hands-off in this case.


The most obvious being revulsion. That was interesting, I can´t speak for anyone else, and I was possibly not very clear about my feelings, but here goes: I felt, that the self-satisfied gloating about the john "does he know I am right outside?" was ott. It reeked of the juvenile prankster to me, and I also interpreted a bit of "conspiracy" (tee hee, I don´t have to pay for it!) I feel this is a deplorable attitude to have towards your GF´s work, and simple respect for her. If she was practicing her chosen profession, he would be nothing more than a waiting taxi, but I assert she is in DXB out of economic need. I guess it was the pretense of being a white knight, when he was not that got me.


considering so many of the UAE guys seem to indulge in 'mono-mongering', as you so eloquently put it, Sorry the eloquence was Barcrawlers, not mine. I slightly disagree here, I do not think mono-mongering is all that prevalent.

and carry on semi-relationships with working girls, knowing full well that they are out seeing other guys when you're not together.
In my case, I really do enjoy getting to know the lady. We are friends too. I also enjoy seeing them relax, really relax knowing they are in no danger. I learn a heck of a lot about different parts of the world this way as well.

If I was in a position to offer a real LTR, sadly I am not, I would feel differently about them having to work I think. (?) What I can offer them is a bit of safety, and hopefully a nice time (in comparison to other options anyway) and some respect they may not get from other social segments.
I know I am not superior in any way to them.


So what is it about driving your GF to a booking, or sitting outside the hotel waiting while she does it, that crosses that line? I am a hypocrite? ;) Let me put it this way, I ask my present friend if she wants to see me tomorrow, I get an enthusiastic glowing "Yes, please!" Is this because she is thrilled with the prospect of carnal bliss with me? Doubtful. Is it because she will not have to go out to the club tonight and hustle some unknown, and possibly dangerous customer? yet still keep her income on stream? Bingo!

I prefer not to "know" about her other customers also out of respect for the lady. Some are very uncomfortable talking about that aspect, and I respect that. Another lady I have known for years (not GF, but pals) loves regaling me with stories of punters, and we have a good laugh about it all.

One time (a long time ago) I was smitten to the point of taking someone off the market at her request, not my insistence. She had financial responsibilities that had to be met, and expressed great relief to have me meet them rather than continue working.


Piper's 'pimp' post (although I realise it was, to a degree, written tongue-in-cheek) seemed to sum it up. Funny how knowing that your girl is leaving your bed and going to see another client is one thing, but putting her in your car and taking her to that booking is entirely another. And that the latter makes you look like a pimp. I respectfully disagree. That post was VERY tongue-in-cheek. The pimp factor has blown out of all proportion.
My kick was with the childish "we really pulled one over on that guy" attitude and the converse, who is the real fool here, the guy who pays too much for a HJ? Or the loving, caring BF who chuckles about his GF having to do that to make ends meet. In classic style the lad has been dribbling out details (Oh, I plan to take her off the market, but can´t do it right now...) DOES SHE KNOW THAT?


I'm really interested in the whole idea of men with working girlfriends being called 'pimps'. No argument from me, I cannot debate you on the issue because I agree with you wholeheartedly.

If a female lawyer supports her husband while he's ill or out of work, he's not perceived as a pimp - while a sex worker supporting her husband is not only frowned on, it's actually illegal in most countries!
I will make one short retort concerning lazy bums who prey upon the kind offices of a lady to support them. You know it happens.


what is it that goes through your head at the thought of you, or someone else, waiting outside while your WG girlfriend sees a paying client. Is your opposition to do with the money? The perceived power imbalance? The simple fact that she's having sex with someone else? Or is it - as your post below touched on - that the BF should be playing knight in shining armour and supporting her so she doesn't have to keep working at all?
Money? Nope. Power? Hell no! Sex? Depends, am I in love? Knight? Well, would you accept a smidgen of noblesse oblige? We can be talking about someone from a bride kidnapping country, who proudly states the family wealth in number of chickens and goats. And NO I am not making that up.

When I was smitten, it was very, almost physically, painful to think of her with another man, but I don´t think this is a strictly WG issue. With my present friend, it is not the most comforting mental image (I am honestly more worried for her safety than anything else) but I am a realist, and everyone has to make their crust somehow. My options are to enjoy what we can have, make the best of a less than ideal situation,(which includes my marital infidelity, let us not forget THAT little issue) or do something radical about it (cash in my chips and play white knight) the middle way is difficult but can be navigated, more than a simple provider, less than a GF, hence the GFE and the BFE.

Again, I will offer the caveat that I may indeed just be presenting a crock of shit here. YMMV.

[Rubber Nursey]

I feel this is a deplorable attitude to have towards your GF´s work, and simple respect for her.
So your reaction was more about this particular poster's attitude towards the girl, rather than the situation itself? That, I can understand. So if he'd just mentioned in passing that he was sitting in the car waiting for his girl to finish with a client, would you have reacted differently do you think?


...but I assert she is in DXB out of economic need.
So what do other hookers do the job for, if not out of economic need? I think you'll find most girls around the world are working out of economic need. Are you perhaps being a little bit paternalistic towards these women? (And that's a question, not an insult!)


I prefer not to "know" about her other customers also out of respect for the lady. Some are very uncomfortable talking about that aspect, and I respect that.
Very insightful of you, Sporadic. And very true. I think that would be one of the hardest parts of being in a relationship while still working. You'd want to be able to come home and talk about your day, but at the same time, it's not really something that many couples could discuss openly, is it? It would take a very special person to be able to sit and listen to it (Bango springs to mind) and I, personally, would feel pretty uncomfortable talking about it. It's like telling your new partner stories about what you and your ex used to get up to in bed - some couples might be comfortable doing it, but I think most would spare each other the gory details.


I will make one short retort concerning lazy bums who prey upon the kind offices of a lady to support them. You know it happens.
Absolutely. My point is just that those ladies should be viewed as independent working women supporting their families and those men should be named and shamed as the pathetic losers that they are - not elevated to the status of 'pimp', which suggests that they are the ones in control.


Sex? Depends, am I in love?
Let's say you were...would the sex thing be difficult to come to terms with?


Knight? Well, would you accept a smidgen of noblesse oblige?
Hmmmm...ok, smidgen accepted. But just a smidgen. If she hates her job and wants out and you are willing to give her that opportunity, I can accept the White Knight thing. But what if she loves her job and wants to keep her financial independence? Do you stop her from working?


(which includes my marital infidelity, let us not forget THAT little issue)
Ohhhh, I certainly haven't forgotten that! That issue is actually central to my interest in all this.

I get that this is largely an ego/macho/insecurity thing and that most men don't want their partner screwing other men. Many also feel somewhat emasculated if they're unable to support their wives financially (or, heaven forbid, their girl earns more than he does!) But it's really interesting that you guys can have such full-on sexual/emotional relationships outside your marriages, but feel threatened by the idea of the shoe being on the other foot.

Again, this isn't a judgement or insult or whatever...I'm genuinely fascinated by what goes on in your heads. :)

[Sporadic]

So your reaction was more about this particular poster's attitude towards the girl, rather than the situation itself? Yep.

So if he'd just mentioned in passing that he was sitting in the car waiting for his girl to finish with a client, would you have reacted differently do you think? Me personally, yes.


So what do other hookers do the job for, if not out of economic need? ... Are you perhaps being a little bit paternalistic towards these women? Why do any of us do their work? Saving true vocations, the reality of providing a crust is a major factor for everyone. Put it back in the DXB context, would I be there for any other than economic reasons? Never.
I distinguish between my situation and one of someone who is caught in an economic and social trap (eg. too old to marry at 25) and where an MD back home makes $100 a month. If this is paternalism... I prefer compassion or empathy.


I think that would be one of the hardest parts of being in a relationship while still working. You'd want to be able to come home and talk about your day, but at the same time, it's not really something that many couples could discuss openly, is it? It works both ways, my friend is not at all interested in seeing photos of, or talking about my past friends... the wife she has to take, and was curious, but beyond that...


Let's say you were...would the sex thing be difficult to come to terms with? As I said in my last post, for me it was very painful, but that is just me.


But what if she loves her job and wants to keep her financial independence? Do you stop her from working? Certainly not! but of course, this would only apply if you were the one in question ;) Seriously, why would I want to stop someone from doing something they love doing?


I get that this is largely an ego/macho/insecurity thing and that most men don't want their partner screwing other men... But it's really interesting that you guys can have such full-on sexual/emotional relationships outside your marriages, but feel threatened by the idea of the shoe being on the other foot. Ouch.


Again, this isn't a judgement or insult or whatever...I'm genuinely fascinated by what goes on in your heads. :)Could have fooled me. Don´t shoot the messenger, after all, you asked!

[Piper1]

Getting back to the original issue, which was RN's question: Why did some members seem to react negatively to Steamer33's comment that he regularly drives his GF to a customer's apartment and waits outside the guy's place in his car while she gives the guy a quick handjob [for $300!]

A quick'n'dirty sociobiological explanation: Males of any species like to ensure it's their own genes that are being propagated through their female mate/s, and not the genes of other males. So, it goes against a man's basic instinct to let other men have sex with his GF/wife/mate.

Okay, so it's only a handjob that's happening up in the apartment (yeah, right ;)), but the primitive reptilian part of the human brain that houses our basic animal instincts of fear, anger, jealousy, etc, doesn't think that far. So, some level of jealousy, anger etc in these circumstances is instinctive. Following on at a social level, jealousy and anger (rather than pride, for example) is generally considered by most of society as the norm in such situations.

Let's not be hard on Steamer - he himself points out in a later post he doesn't like the situation.

PS - yep, my pimp post in the Dubai thread was completely tongue in cheek, as most of my opinion posts are.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have to get back to my reading.

[Steamer33]

I would just like to remind everyone that this long debate was started by just one paragraph (below) in a long post by myself the point of which was, in the main, to highlight some deplorable behaviour by a punter against my GF's best friend. The purpose of writing the paragraph was mainly to illustrate my earlier point in the same post that you don't see as many Cyclone A-listers about now as they have built up a network of clients like this one - a far better deal than hanging out all night in Rattler paying DHs50 to get in and getting just DH500 LT. Here is the offending paragraph into which has been read so much about me, my girlfriend and my attitude.


My PRC GF has one regular she visits for 10 mins to half an hour, one quick HJ and out of there AED 1,100 better off, so she certainly has no need to hang around the Snakes or Yorks of this town. Sometimes I give her a lift there, wait outside and take her home half an hour after, if only the punter knew her BF was in the car outside!Accepted the last phrase may have come across as smug, but it wasn't the intention. I'll come back to that.


I felt, that the self-satisfied gloating about the john "does he know I am right outside?" was ott. [It reeked of the juvenile prankster to me, and I also interpreted a bit of "conspiracy". So it's perfectly OK for married men to go this site and gloat about what they did with a WG behind their wife's back or while they were away (how many times have we read posts about a wife finding women's hair on the sofa or suchlike and how someone just managed to get away with it - how amusing), how much (or little, in some cases) was paid and what went on in graphic detail, and post photos of their "conquests". But it's not all right for myself, happy with my GF and not mongering any more, to relate my story in passing. I detect some double standards.


And I also interpreted a bit of "conspiracy" (tee hee, I don´t have to pay for it!) I feel this is a deplorable attitude to have towards your GF´s work, and simple respect for her. I worry about your interpretation. I'm pleased you're not a detective. I never said I don't have to pay. Be careful making assumptions.


In my case, I really do enjoy getting to know the lady. We are friends too. I also enjoy seeing them relax, really relax knowing they are in no danger... I know I am not superior in any way to them.No self-satisfied gloating there.


If I was in a position to offer a real LTR, sadly I am not, I would feel differently about them having to work I think. Offer a long-term relationship? We have a real LTR, we have been together a long time and it has grown stronger. You obviously don't know a lot about love or long-term relationships. They are not something you can offer, like you're buying sex in York. They evolve over a lengthy period of time and you don't have much control over how it develops, which is what happened to us. I knew what my GF's work entailed from day one, we both got involved with our eyes wide open so I can hardly turn around and change my attitude to her work now. If she hadn't come here from PRC to work, we would never have met. I should be grateful.


(Oh, I plan to take her off the market, but can´t do it right now...) DOES SHE KNOW THAT?Absolutely. We have discussed the situation at length and she doesn't want to work any more in this profession any more than I do. (In fact all the WGs I know hate what they do). Within a few months my situation will change and that will enable her to stop working . But if she stops working now she will have to go back to PRC and that could end up with us never being able to see each other again - a situation neither of us can bear to contemplate. So she has still to go to work, but with very heavy hearts for both of us.

You've all had a say on my relationship. So now I'll have mine:

I hated it in the early days, never wanted to know about clients, where she was, where she was working. But I found myself worrying about her so much, where she was, what time she would get home, were LE on the prowl, that I couldn't sleep.

I found that knowing more about her work and where she was helped me to cope with the situation, which let's face it, is not usual - allowing your GF to sleep with other men.

The situation has graduated into sometimes, with certain clients that she knows "finish" quickly, me giving her a lift and waiting nearby or going to a coffee shop until she texts me to pick her up. She has had unsavoury incidents with some cabbies in the past, so any time I can give her a lift I do. She's safe, and it saves the cab fare. I would rather know what she's doing and where (I don't ever want to see who with though, that would be too much to bear), than worry about her being out in clubs and possibly hooking up with a nasty client of the type that her friend was so unfortunate to meet. Yes and it does have the bonus of her coming home with me after. Is that a crime? Giving someone a lift to and from work does not make me a pimp. Surely a pimp would be taking a "cut". Well everything she earns is hers, I have never touched a fil. And quite a bit of what I earn is hers too, as it should be. So please stop giving me this [i]" 'tee hee, I don´t have to pay for it!' I feel this is a deplorable attitude to have towards your GF´s work, and simple respect for her." bullshit. You are reading way more into what I said than you should.

We both have to have a laugh about things such as me giving her a lift to work as we find it's the best way to deal with a, frankly, ridiculous and uncomfortable situation. I decided to include that particular story in my post for two reasons: to illustrate my Cyclone A-lister point (described above) and hoping fellow forum members could have a laugh at the ridiculousness of it too. I have also given her lifts to longer-term clients, gone home, and then picked her up in the early hours or the next morning. Does that make me a pimp too?

I didn't realise I would open such a can of worms. Interesting that a woman (RN) PM'd to thank me for my post, because of the disturbing story about the WG and the guy trying to force BB on her; and that men almost universally condemned me for my relationship with my GF, because she is a WG. Yet these same guys are happy to have sex with a different WG every night if they could and can still be holier than thou. Strange.


When I was smitten, it was very, almost physically, painful to think of her with another man, but I don´t think this is a strictly WG issue.

Totally agree. We're just going down a different route to cope with it


I may indeed just be presenting a crock of shit here. YMMV.No comment


So if he'd just mentioned in passing that he was sitting in the car waiting for his girl to finish with a client, would you have reacted differently do you think? As I pointed out, I did mention it only in passing.


Let's not be hard on Steamer - he himself points out in a later post he doesn't like the situation. Thanks and respect. No one would like this situation. You just find ways to cope. And I hope I've explained ours. It's certainly been an interesting few days on here!

Think I'll stick to posting about the price of Cialis from DXB pharmacies in future!

Steamer33

[Steamer33]

Getting back to the original issue, which was RN's question: Why did some members seem to react negatively to Steamer33's comment that he regularly drives his GF to a customer's apartment and waits outside the guy's place in his car while she gives the guy a quick handjob [for $300!].Sorry to take issue, but please refer to the original post. I said I sometimes drive my GF to a client, not regularly.

Steamer33

[Rubber Nursey]

wise buddy,

thanks heaps for that article. it really proves what people are most concerned about in the prostitution debate, doesn't it...protect the people from the prostitutes. it's a 'success' because there's less hookers on the streets to upset the local prudes. never mind that sex workers are getting raped more often and catching more stds and are under incredible financial pressure. that's just a minor technicality.

but never fear...drug rehab will solve that problem, because we all know that drugs are the real 'cause' of prostitution.

ffs! sex workers work because they need the money. it doesn't matter whether they're working for drugs or to study or to feed their kids...those financial pressures aren't just going to disappear because the police have cracked down on prostitution. where are they now that they aren't visible on the streets? have they really 'retired' or have they simply retreated into darker alleys? and those who have left the industry due to fewer clients and increased danger...how are they surviving without their sex industry income?

think sweden will be happy once the scourge of prostitution is eradicated from their streets and all the heroin addicts and single mums resort to stealing handbags from little old ladies?

idiots...

[Rubber Nursey]

Ouch....Could have fooled me. Don´t shoot the messenger, after all, you asked!
I'm not trying to be argumentative or cast blame in any way, Sporadic. I guess it's difficult to be subtle in text.

What I said below about men wasn't an insult - women feel exactly the same way. We are very insecure creatures and our ego takes a real beating at the thought of our partner desiring and/or satisfying someone else (sound familiar, boys?) And just as Piper posted, I believe it's largely an inherent response. Men want to protect their bloodlines and women want to hang onto their (and their offspring's) provider and protector.

Like I said, I get the jealousy bit. I'm more interested in the double standard. It's difficult to explain. I've had so many merry-go-round discussions with non-sex workers (and non-clients) about the difference between sex and work.

So do you enjoy it? Yes. So it's sex? No, it's work. But are you attracted to the guys? Sometimes. So those sessions would be sex? No, it's still work. But what if you have an orgasm? It's still work. But what if you're attracted to him AND you have an orgasm...that's not sex? No, it's a really good day at work.

You guys 'get' the difference and yet you still have difficulty separating the idea of your GF having sex at work. If that's the case...how on earth am I ever expected to make a non-monger understand the concept???

Which, of course, is the whole reason I asked these questions in the first first place. Not for the first time, I'm tossing up the pros and cons of being completely honest with a partner about working (and hurting him terribly every time I see a client) or working behind his back (and hurting myself and our relationship by lying to him).

I'm hoping your comments give me some insight into how to approach the situation.

[11Bravo]

So it's perfectly OK for married men to go this site and gloat about what they did with a WG behind their wife's back or while they were away (how many times have we read posts about a wife finding women's hair on the sofa or suchlike and how someone just managed to get away with it - how amusing), how much (or little, in some cases) was paid and what went on in graphic detail, and post photos of their "conquests". But it's not all right for myself, happy with my GF and not mongering any more, to relate my story in passing. I detect some double standards.Myself, I'm not into the penthouse letters reports, but I won't condemn them. Each of us has our own reporting style. I'm more interested in the "recon" reports than the actual "combat", but that's just me.

I think posting photos, unless she FULLY knows their destination, as in FULL disclosure, is exploitive. BIG difference between "can I put your photo on the internet" and "Can I put your photo on the internet on a site that deals with prostitutes and prostitution?" My experience, mainly with PRC's, is they equate internet with e-mail, and are NOT pleased (the ones I know) when they understand where it is and that anyone, ANYWHERE in the world, can view it (RN's post explains "hiding" the current job very clearly).

I dislike the smug/disrespectful/superior posts, from those that take advantage of the pay after to the "I told her to get the f*ck out of here". If you were misunderstood, that's too bad, but as Sporadic said, and was mentioned by me, it seems some important facts were left out of the original. Until explained, it came across as a "superior" attitude by you.


Offer a long-term relationship? We have a real LTR, we have been together a long time and it has grown stronger. You obviously don't know a lot about love or long-term relationships.An offer doesn't have to be spoken, and as Sporadic states, it can just be "assumed" by not stating any "limits". There are sins of commission, and sins of omission. First girl I met here, back home, an ex-pate had asked her to be his gf, move in (she was a "civilian"). She considered, then did, thinking there would be a future. There was, right up to the point when he was transferred. But he was a "nice" guy; gave her the apt (worth about $1000 usd - way 3rd world country). Of course, everyone knew she'd been living with him, so "damaged" goods for the home team. She figured as she was being labeled a wh*ore, might as well be one, sold the apt, took the money, and came to dxb as a FL.

Point is, like I said, there does not have to be an explicit offer, the "it just happens" is also an implicit offer.


(In fact all the WGs I know hate what they do).Agreed, though some have come to terms with it, the PRC's being very pragmatic. And the "they're being paid for sex - what a great job" is SOOOO naive. As 1 girl told me, "I have sex every night, but maybe only once, twice a month do I come with a customer". I'd catagorize most as skilled actresses...


Within a few months my situation will change and that will enable her to stop working [I cannot go into more details, there are two families involved here - both hers and mine].I don't know, nor do I really care, about your situation. But I'm having trouble filling in the blanks...

It's all this handwringing of "I'm so miserable" that I'm having trouble with, not that it's not real, but why not step up to the plate and do something about it.

It sounds like you might already have "commitments/obligations", and are waiting for those to end. Or your apartment to be vacated. But it also sounds like you have the time/place for her to visit you, and for you to spend time with her. So, why doesn't she move in? If she lives with you, that cuts out a lot of overhead. Or, what's the "fee" for her place - 1500, 2000 dhs/month (her share)? Throw in the monthly visa run - 1000 dhs. Money back home for her... well, if she's committed, maybe that can be reduced, NOT eliminated, sacrificing now for the long term goals.


But if she stops working now she will have to go back to PRC and that could end up with us never being able to see each other again - a situation neither of us can bear to contemplate. So she has still to go to work, but with very heavy hearts for both of us.And why would she have to go back to China if she stops working? It's not like she's absconding from a "real" job. She certainly risks deportation/banning just by continuing to work (and if very unlucky, jail time).

Bottom line, if you're serious, she's going to have to go back home to apply for the permanent visa for your country... And assuming you're both adults, why could you never see each other again? I AM experienced with committed relationships, and while long distance ones are difficult, not impossible (just ask any of the "bachelors" here, with family back home who they see every 2 years...). The "we can't bear to be apart" I find very juvenile and non-trusting. Why not have her go home until she can move in, sending her money every month? Costs back home certainly less than here.


She has had unsavoury incidents with some cabbies in the past, so any time I can give her a lift I do. She's safe, and it saves the cab fare.I understand that, and certainly have given girls a ride, either home or to their next appointment, and I don't consider myself a pimp, just doing a friend a favor. The pimp remarks were tongue in cheek.


.. and that men almost universally condemned me for my relationship with my GF, because she is a WG. I will speak for myself - didn't condemn you a bit for that. 2 humans - they find each other, more power to them - I wish them well. I've known several girls who retired with a spouse/LTR, and thought HE was very lucky to get such a gem. I just thought all the "my gf's a wg and there's nothing I can do about it - sob, sob, handwring, sniffle, woe is me" a bit OTT.

Bottom line: in any relationship, there are sacrifices to be made, as well as choices. You've made yours, live with it; there are alternatives.

[Sporadic]

I would just like to remind everyone that this long debate was started by just one paragraphActually no, THIS debate was because RN wants to pshrink some heads ;)


So it's perfectly OK for married men to go this site and gloat about what they did with a WG behind their wife's back or while they were away
I never said that.

I detect some double standards.
Not from me you don´t. I was expressing an opinion, one strengthening over time actually.


I worry about your interpretation. I'm pleased you're not a detective. I never said I don't have to pay. Be careful making assumptions.
Me too! Hey all I have to work with is what you post. Fix it, amend it, deny it, whatever.


No self-satisfied gloating there.
Your opinion, fine with me.


We have a real LTR, we have been together a long time and it has grown stronger.

Hey good for you, enjoy it.



You obviously don't know a lot about love or long-term relationships. Correct, at least as described by you.


But if she stops working now she will have to go back to PRC and that could end up with us never being able to see each other again - a situation neither of us can bear to contemplate. So she has still to go to work, but with very heavy hearts for both of us.
Bullshit. Ever heard of airplanes or other means of travel? Stop being childishly dramatic.


You've all had a say on my relationship. So now I'll have mine:
You started this, looking for sainthood, validation, accolades, comfort, I don´t know. THIS thread is not about you, it is about RN´s question. Get over it.


and that men almost universally condemned me for my relationship with my GF, because she is a WG.
Again, not me. Get your head out. I explained why I was piqued, right or wrong and it had nothing to do with your choice of company. Good God man, the world does not revolve around your little drama.


Yet these same guys are happy to have sex with a different WG every night if they could and can still be holier than thou. Strange.
Sanctimonious bullshit, methinks thou doest protest too much.

[Piper1]

So it's perfectly OK for married men to go this site and gloat about what they did with a WG behind their wife's back or while they were away I hate that too.


(how many times have we read posts about a wife finding women's hair on the sofa or suchlike and how someone just managed to get away with it - how amusing)Just not funny at all.


and post photos of their "conquests". They must have a fragile male ego or a small penis.


I detect some double standards.Or kidding around.

I'm not into moralistic debates about our hobby or 'lifestyle' (I'd lose every time ;)).


Think I'll stick to posting about the price of Cialis from DXB pharmacies in future! Steamer33 That'd be a shame. I'm sure you have some interesting tales to tell, and interesting 'inside info'.

We all get negative comments about our posts from time to time. Don't take them too seriously. Do you really care what others on this board think about how you live your life? (That's a rhetorical question).

[Steamer33]

You started this, looking for sainthood, validation, accolades, comfort, I don´t know. THIS thread is not about you, it is about RN´s question. Get over it.No. I started this looking for nothing. I posted some information and an opinion. It was other people's reactions, and in some cases personal comments by forum members such as yourself, that turned it into a major issue and prompted RN's question.


It's all this handwringing of "I'm so miserable" that I'm having trouble withNever said I was miserable. I've never been happier. But as many of you quite rightly agreed, when your girl is out working, it is never easy.


not that it's not real, but why not step up to the plate and do something about it.We will, when the time is right. That we are both agreed on and sure of.


So, why doesn't she move in? If she lives with you, that cuts out a lot of overhead. She has.


Bottom line: in any relationship, there are sacrifices to be made, as well as choices. You've made yours, live with it; there are alternatives.We do live with it, thank you, and we are happy.


That'd be a shame. I'm sure you'd have some interesting tales to tell, and interesting 'inside info'. We all get negative comments about our posts from time to time. Don't take them too seriously. I mean, do you really care what others on this board think about how you live your life? (That's a rhetorical question).I do get privy to some inside info from time to time and I'll continue to share it. Unless anyone new wants to chip in, I think we've exhausted this debate.

It's been interesting!

Steamer33

[Bango Cheito]

Sweden's philosophy as a country totally disturbs me. I think they are in for very troubled times in the future.

They may think they have it all wrapped up now that they've all but eliminated prostitution but the CONSEQUENCES of that action are going to loom large in the near future. It's just not natural.

[Sporadic]

Sweden's philosophy as a country totally disturbs me. I think they are in for very troubled times in the future.
Every see the flick "Lilja-4-Ever?" It can be found on the net. Classic tale of a trafficked FSU girl ending up in Sweden.
This is what they can look forward to.

If you need help finding this flick, PM me. (RN, if you have not seen it, you need to.)

Steamer: Forum-mate, I have no animosity towards you, or your relationship.

I sincerely wish you all happiness in the future, and (you may not understand the reference) hope you end up like NiceGuy99.

[Bango Cheito]

Not to mention the consequences of so many people in society not being able to fuck when they want to. That's going to breed a lot of craziness, I can GUARANTEE that.

[Sporadic]

Not to mention the consequences of so many people in society not being able to fuck when they want to.
That is because they are married. ;)

[Piper1]

That is because they are married. ;)Marrying your girlfriend ruins your sex life. Suddenly you're having sex with a relative. ;)

[Steamer33]

Steamer: Forum-mate, I have no animosity towards you, or your relationship.

I sincerely wish you all happiness in the future, and (you may not understand the reference) hope you end up like NiceGuy99.Much appreciated Sporadic.

Regards,

Steamer33

[Steamer33]

I sincerely wish you all happiness in the future, and (you may not understand the reference) hope you end up like NiceGuy99.I do get the reference. Respect.

Steamer33

[Rubber Nursey]

Every see the flick "Lilja-4-Ever?" It can be found on the net. If you need help finding this flick, PM me. (RN, if you have not seen it, you need to.)

Yes, I've seen it. Actually, I wasn't home the night it aired on the telly, so I recorded it and have shown a few people the video since. It's truly heartbreaking and I'd highly recommend it to anyone.

The saddest thing is that, like Sporadic, I see stories like this as a sign of things to come and a reason to decriminalise the sex industry - but the anti-prostitution campaigners use exactly this sort of imagery to support their abolitionist aims and force sex workers (and in this case, sexually exploited children) further into the shadows. Grrrrr...

[Rubber Nursey]

Ok, boys - time out. I'm feeling pretty guilty, now. I would never have started this conversation if I'd known it was going to take this course!

The move over to this thread was never supposed to be about Steamer's personal situation. While it was his post (and the reactions to it) that triggered my request, I was more interested in the general questions it raised - specifically, how a man feels about his GF still working and how a man in that situation is perceived by others. Like Sporadic said, I just wanted to 'pshrink your heads'.

But I've managed to put the spotlight squarely on Steamer and I certainly never meant for that to happen. Over the course of the discussion, it's become pretty clear that much of the negative reaction was based on misinterpretation of the original post. Further clarification by Steamer has put a lot of that negativity to rest. I'd suggest you all agree to disagree, but after reading the last few posts, it seems that you actually agree on most things!

Again, I'm sorry for starting this little war and I hope I haven't caused any unrest in your thread. Kum Ba Yah anyone? ;)

[Steamer33]

Ok, boys - time out. I'm feeling pretty guilty, now. I would never have started this conversation if I'd known it was going to take this course!

The move over to this thread was never supposed to be about Steamer's personal situation. While it was his post (and the reactions to it) that triggered my request, I was more interested in the general questions it raised - specifically, how a man feels about his GF still working and how a man in that situation is perceived by others. Like Sporadic said, I just wanted to 'pshrink your heads'.

But I've managed to put the spotlight squarely on Steamer and I certainly never meant for that to happen. Over the course of the discussion, it's become pretty clear that much of the negative reaction was based on misinterpretation of the original post. Further clarification by Steamer has put a lot of that negativity to rest. I'd suggest you all agree to disagree, but after reading the last few posts, it seems that you actually agree on most things!

Again, I'm sorry for starting this little war and I hope I haven't caused any unrest in your thread. Kum Ba Yah anyone? ;)It's no problem for me, Nursey. It's actually given me a rare chance to talk about my relationship and I don't bear any animosity to anyone. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. It has been interesting that everyone's kind of gone round the roundabout and, on the whole, ended up at the same exit.

Kum Ba Yah? Not really my cup of tea, but respect to all who have taken the time to post.

Steamer33

[Rio Joe]

Have you heard? KISS's notorious tongue-man is writing a book "LADIES OF THE NIGHT.- A HISTORICAL AND PERSONAL OVERVIEW OF THE OLDEST PROFESSION". He says on his website he'll be done by Spring.

Should be interesting to hear his take on prostitution. I'm sure I've heard him say, however, that he personally has never paid for sex. Given KISS's fame, that's not hard to believe. But it does make him a weird choice to write this book. Charlie Sheen ("I don't pay hookers to stay. I pay them to go") might have been a better choice.

P.S. I know this post isn't a perfect fit for this thread. I tried to start a new thread, but the system wouldn't let me.

[Sasha Coffee]

Totally agree

Charlie Sheen would of been a better author. I like his way of thinking also. Paying us to leave is a far better idea then he gets the bed to himself and good nights sleep.

[Starchild2012]

Totally agree

Charlie Sheen would of been a better author. I like his way of thinking also. Paying us to leave is a far better idea then he gets the bed to himself and good nights sleep.

Charlie sheen and Jon Cryer rocks in Two and a half men....I could relate so much to that show..it give me confidence with the way i want to live my life :)

I would say ISG should promote that show...Its ISG life personified on prime time TV which most folks here would easily relate too :D

[Rubber Nursey]

Night is falling, the weather is hot and the beer is cold.
All glammed up and rearing to go. 2008....here I come!

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!!! XXX

[Mike Del]

RN (the High Priestess of this thread)

Best wishes to you and look forward to your continuing contributions - they're all very stimulating.

MD

[Starchild2012]

Night is falling, the weather is hot and the beer is cold.
All glammed up and rearing to go. 2008....here I come!

HAPPY NEW YEAR EVERYONE!!!! XXX


Best Wished to you too..Happy New year!!

[Chocha Monger]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22516331/

[Rubber Nursey]

This report makes me laugh. Is the concept of foreplay (ie. women feeling more like fucking because some cute guy just gave her a massage) so foreign to male researchers??!! :)

Seriously, if there's a whole heap of men wanting my attention, I'll give it up to the guy who makes me feel the best. If there's no guys around, I'll do it with whichever loser is left at the bar at closing time. It's not rocket science! (and hardly qualifies as prostitution, in my books)

[Zing Uk]

It's no problem for me, Nursey. It's actually given me a rare chance to talk about my relationship and I don't bear any animosity to anyone. Everyone's entitled to an opinion. It has been interesting that everyone's kind of gone round the roundabout and, on the whole, ended up at the same exit.

Kum Ba Yah? Not really my cup of tea, but respect to all who have taken the time to post.

Steamer33

Damn, just discovered this thread and here's all the DXB usual suspects having a ding dong of epic proportions about a subject also close to my heart. Never mind, I'll keep an eye on it for future.

BTW Good luck steamer, I also have a long term WG\GF although not quite as far down the road as you seem to be but do understand some of the challenges.

Keep it Cocked,
Zing

PS RN can I play with you? Your name conjures up a lovely picture in my depraved mind :-)

[Rubber Nursey]

RN can I play with you? Your name conjures up a lovely picture in my depraved mind :-)
You would be sorely disappointed with the reality. Best to stick with the fantasy. ;)

Can I be a stickybeak and ask what sort of 'challenges' you and your girl have faced? No worries if you'd rather not talk about it, but I'd be really interested in hearing about your experiences.

[Mike Del]

RN,

You seem to be forgetting that such researchers have no concept of reality - they don't have a life and can't even spend their research grants on "practical lab sessions". They might find their lives slightly enriched each time they did but for myself, I don't have the heart to tell them. But you never know - maybe they might be lurking in this thread and we might find our exchanged immortalised in some obscure research paper !

Then again, good foreplay might be foreign to most men. Maybe.

That story about the Polish guy who went to a brothel and found his wife doing tricks (part-time, apparently) is funnier !

MD

[Ararat]

Think Sweden will be happy once the scourge of prostitution is eradicated from their streets and all the heroin addicts and single Mums resort to stealing handbags from little old ladies?Obviously the politicians weren't thinking when they decided this. They are feminazis after all.

However, there are no Swedish women who must work in the business unless they are drug addicts and it's kind of hard to put forward an argument in their favour when Sweden is intolerant against drug addicts too and have a zero tolerance policy against drugs.

There are trafficking victims in Sweden though, I heard, but I have never even heard how to get in contact with them or their pimps so I guess they are only (ab)used by immigrants.

[Rubber Nursey]

However, there are no Swedish women who must work in the business unless they are drug addicts....
That's exactly what led to this crappy law in the first place - the belief that all hookers are victims of either trafficking or drug addiction, so the 'problem' of prostitution can be completely eradicated through anti-trafficking laws and drug rehab. Every woman has her own reasons for choosing to do what she does and drugs and trafficking are not a feature in most sex workers' lives.

The Swedish model is one of those 'feel good' policies that all the right-wing fools love, because it suits their own agenda - the feminazis want to 'protect' women and penalise men, the conservatives want to show the voters they're clearing the streets of 'undesirables' and the churches...well, they're just happy stuffing up everyone's sex lives and trampling all over their free will. The only people it doesn't take into account, of course, is the sex workers themselves. http://www.sans.nu/engelska/consequences.htm

And I wasn't suggesting drug users should be allowed to work so they can support their habits - I was saying they WILL support their habits, regardless of what the prostitution laws say. People don't enter the sex industry lightly. It's often a last resort, undertaken out of sheer desperation and regardless of the reason for that desperation, the need doesn't magically disappear when the Government outlaws sex work. Those people will still need to find the money.

To understand the real impact of banning prostitution, you have to look at the reasons WHY people work. Prostitution is one of the only 'victimless' ways to support an expensive drug habit. It allows single mothers to feed their children and kids from poor families to get Uni degrees and pull themselves out of the poverty cycle. Women can leave violent husbands and teenagers can run away from abusive households. People with little or no education can buy houses and cars and travel the world.

When it comes down to it...is society really more comfortable with people living in poverty, than they are with the thought of someone having sex for money??? It really does seem like that's the case.

[Ararat]

When it comes down to it...is society really more comfortable with people living in poverty, than they are with the thought of someone having sex for money??? It really does seem like that's the case.I don't think the politicians who are against prostitution ever thought about that but if they had to answer they would probably say yes. They would surely recommend the prostitute to get a "real" job or stop using drugs instead as if that always is possible for various reasons. This also means they consider me the scum of the earth because I am prepared to give some of these women money in return for sex. This is kind of absurd because when you think about it: what are the antiprostitution people doing for the prostitutes?

[Rubber Nursey]

They would surely recommend the prostitute to get a "real" job or stop using drugs... This is kind of absurd because when you think about it: what are the antiprostitution people doing for the prostitutes?
They're forcing them further into hopelessness, that's what! I absolutely agree with you, which is why I will always support a person's right to PAY for sex, as well as sell it. Technically, clients are the only people who are giving sex workers what they really need. Most hookers don't want 'help', they want money. The anti-prostitution crazies aren't offering to pay their mortgages for them, or feed their children, or support them through Uni... they drag them off the streets, give them a few words of 'comfort and support' and then throw them straight back into their crappy lives, stone-cold broke. Not only that, but their pathetic rescue attempts often come with criminal charges (or at least becoming known to police as a wh*re), which dramatically decreases their chances of EVER getting a 'real job'.

They can't 'cure' people of prostitution, because sex work is not a disease, it's a symptom. Until society treats the underlying illness - poverty, gender inequality, domestic violence, lack of adequate childcare, affordable housing and education, blah blah blah - there will ALWAYS be prostitution. (Actually, even if they did fix all those things, there would still be huge numbers of men and women who would choose sex work over other jobs).

And yes, the answer from the anti-prostitution lobby is always to get a 'real job'. It's funny, because if a young guy working in Maccas for $13 an hour is told to 'get a real job', they mean he should get a university degree or a job on the mines that pays $100 an hour. When they say it to a hooker, they mean she should leave her $250 an hour sex industry job and get a $13 an hour job in Maccas. Hmmmm....

[MS Clive]

Recent findings on prostitution:

http://www.economist.com/finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=10533877

[Bango Cheito]

N.B. they didn't look at prostitution anywhere where it was LEGAL :P

[Zing Uk]

You would be sorely disappointed with the reality. Best to stick with the fantasy. ;)

Can I be a stickybeak and ask what sort of 'challenges' you and your girl have faced? No worries if you'd rather not talk about it, but I'd be really interested in hearing about your experiences.

Damn, that's a shame.

Challanges are the usual, if she's out working and I'm at home its sometimes not pleasant to think of what's going on. I totally avoid places she works if we are not together, I would really hate watching her walk out the door with some slob. Saying that, its still ok for me to go out and have some fun in other places.....talk about double standard!

[CBGBConnisur]

In countries where prostitution is legal and legit, most local prostitutes are not exploited, they often earn more than they would at your typical other dead end job. Its a different story when you have illegal immigrants getting exploited but simply busting Johns doesn't do shit. I was picked on for being a loser for leaving the USA in 2000, when things were good, I feel completely exonerated in my decision finding out how downhill the USA is going.

[That Asshole]

law, justice and morality - (for sex-tourist) - 2008 report

introduction:

by the end of this short posting you will understand if it is "moral" for us to sell and buy women for cash - and why.

the main purpose is to assist you - the devoted sextourist - in separating these three entirely different concepts of "law", "justice" and "morality".

there seems to be considerable confusion about the meaning of the three terms. the words: law, justice and morality often being used in the wrong context and causing people much misunderstanding and strife.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

1. the law

1.1/ law loves to call itself "justice". which it is definitely not (as we all know, or soon find out). so what is "law"? it depends to "whom". law to the ordinary citizen is one set of strict orders for life. promising revenge for non-compliance and promising rewards for dis-honesty and immorality. successfully doing all this by raising "fear of pain and helplessness". while to the "executor or administrator" , the law quite simply means "food". and money to buy conveniences such as a house or car or raise a family and entertain friends.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

2. morality

2.1/ morality is a born quality in all of us and is extremely easy to express. totally opposed to the infinite complexity and mumbo-jumbo of the law, morality is easily expressed in one simple sentence. you don't even have to be religious to apreciate it's beauty: "do unto others - as you would have others - do unto you." one sentence, one instruction that covers all the possible situations you are ever likely to face in life.

apart from human relations, we are faced with moral dilemmas every day. should we be vegetarians? should we not walk on the street in case we step on a little ant? should we go fishing lest we hurt the fish? the one simple rule above answers it all.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

2.2/ law does not prevent murder. morality does. law does not prevent robbery. morality does. law does not prevent lying. morality does. in fact "law" does encourage all three to happen. law lives from offences. the more offences of murder, robbery and lies happen the stronger of the influence of the law grows. the number of law's officers, workers, executors, creators ever greater, increases by offences.

if the one simple rule of morality is ever recalled and remembered, in effect all offences are prevented. simply do not happen. hence morality requires no "enforcing", no guns, no jails. it's execution is in the individual himself. only "morality" can protect you from something bad happening to you. law cannot do more than avenge. so, "morality" - why not start today? and be safe. really safe. read #2.1 again. if you are a baker, a carpenter or even if you are a cop now.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

3. justice

3.1/ justice is simply "what happens". that's it. you see "justice" at work every day - if you look around. you see what happens to everybody on a daily level. some get harmed, others get along well. this is justice being served day after day, after day after. "justice" is simply the natural enforcement that follows violations of "morality".

3.2/ there is no need for any further "enforcing". justice has already ben served. while "law" does allow murders, robberies, lies - as long as they are uncovered and without "proof", justice does not allow them. everything is paid back ever and ever and nothing goes forgotten just because of "lack of proof or witnesses". best of all, it is all free, for the poor and for the rich. everyone gets an even chance at "justice". very unlike: law. when you see anything happening, you already see "justice" at work.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

4. the immorality of "law"

4.1/ the one simple rule of morality (#2.1/above) does not ever prohibit murder or anything. it simply makes you stop and think. there is no revenge promised. yet you know that "justice" follows. morality was long before "law". law was created to put away morality. the law allowing a person to "do something to others that you would -rather not have- others do unto you" . therefore law violates "morality".

4.2/ any person relying on the "law" will eventually bring justice on himself by ignoring the simple golden rule morality. the law can be escaped from. justice not so. then they cry "murder! robber! [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123)! - i am innocent!" - long forgotten what they did themselves. maybe innocent to the law but never to "morality".

4.3/ in ancient times, morality served the world well, until some person of slipped morality proposed: "maybe we could do something to others that we wouldn't want them do to us. let's make the law!" then law was created and morality corrupted. by teaching that it is possible to get away with doing things to others that we do not wish for ourselves - as long as there is no proof or witnesses - law is not simply "immoral" but even "anti-moral". law is plainly the strong ruling force of darkness and immorality in this world of ours.

4.4/ law is based on the principle of "revenge". while morality draws from understanding, consideration and forgiveness. forgive and you might be forgiven too. you might seem "faultless" to the law but no-one is faultless to morality.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

5. purpose of the law

5.1/ is the purpose of the law to "protect" the citizens? law in fact does not protect and cannot protect. it never prevents offences to happen. all it can do is "avenge" and cotrol by raising "fear". law loves to use physical means of enforcement such as: inflicting pain, confinement, killing. it employs whole armies to do it. law does nothing to spread understanding and peace.

5.2/ so, if not justice then what is the law? in it's present form law is simply an occupation and source of bread to the the multitude of persons designing, supervising and enforcing the law. law =food=housing=entertainment=social status for many. it has nothing to do with "justice" and even "morality". the law is food to the immoral mulitudes of our society. "law" is quite simply an extremely successful industry built on psychology and understanding of human behaviour. it justifies itself only by constant high-expenses advertising of it's services and by administering the "fist". see below.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

6. enforcement of the law

6.1/ law is enforced by fist. by inflicting pain and promising terror. it's enforcer is required to be a special type of individual. recruiting police requires some search. there are strict selection criterias. the recruit must be:

- slipped in terms of morality (believing that you can do to others what you don't wish others do to you, see#2.1 above)

- must fit in socially with other violent and agressive characters

- must have no moral objection to murder and violence (will be carrying an assortment of murderous weapons and trained to use them)

- no record publicly available to reveal past deeds
- must not be too bright as to question the validity and claims of the law

as you see, despite the glorious propaganda and advertising, this hardly describes an individual you would want to mix with or to trust in any way. more like a ghoul or some sort of monster from the underworld - if you care to look behind the smiles.

6.2/ so, anyone would do well to "follow" what the law prescribes but never believe the grand propaganda they try to put up. law claims that without it, the land would be overrrun with crime. by now hopefully you understand that a society based on "morality" is free from crime - and also free from pursuing crime. in fact law is simply "business" and has nothing to do with "justice".

-----------------------------------------------------------------

7. the "answer" - about women

7.1/ so, finally the answer to our original qestion. by now you know well enough, to fear and follow the law but not to look to the law for answers regarding "morality". ever.

it is simply and beautifully answered by the one golden rule of morality instead: "would you like this to happen to yourself?"

so, is it "moral" for us to sell and buy women for cash - and why?

- look, in case you were a little ant, would you like to stick to the shoes among the dirt, of a wonderful huge giant, being carried long distances, travelling fre and seeing the world? of course you would.

- in case you were a sheep or pig, would you like to sacrifice yourself and give your meat to some wonderful superior beings, supporting their superior lives and thereby becoming a part of them, way above your ordinary level? of course you would.

- in case you were a woman, wouldn't you like to give your life to some wonderful superior beings such as men, sacrificing your primitive self, thereby becoming part of something greater and serve them unselfishly all your life? of course you would. you would be a fool not to.


so, here is your answer if it is moral for us to do what we do. just get on to it, because it is good. good for the women. good for the world. good for you.

-----------------------------------------------------------------

end "morality" report 2008

[Rubber Nursey]

...if she's out working and I'm at home its sometimes not pleasant to think of what's going on. ...Saying that, its still ok for me to go out and have some fun in other places.....talk about double standard!
Does she have issues with you going out and having sex for fun, while she's out having sex for money? (Sorry...this is the hooker in me talking!) Is she also able to have sex for pleasure with other people, or is it limited only to her work?

I know that might sound a bit judgemental in text, but I don't mean it that way. I'm just interested in how the two of you deal with it. A lot of couples seem to have the same arrangement - she's having sex with clients, so he can have sex with hookers - but personally, I would feel pretty ripped off! The guy gets to choose hot young women to have sex with, while the girl's 'bit on the side' is any bloke who comes in the door of the brothel.

[Sporadic]

The guy gets to choose hot young women to have sex with, while the girl's 'bit on the side' is any bloke who comes in the door of the brothel.Sorry RN, but is this not the nature of the business?

[Zing Uk]

Does she have issues with you going out and having sex for fun, while she's out having sex for money? (Sorry...this is the hooker in me talking!) Is she also able to have sex for pleasure with other people, or is it limited only to her work?

I know that might sound a bit judgemental in text, but I don't mean it that way. I'm just interested in how the two of you deal with it. A lot of couples seem to have the same arrangement - she's having sex with clients, so he can have sex with hookers - but personally, I would feel pretty ripped off! The guy gets to choose hot young women to have sex with, while the girl's 'bit on the side' is any bloke who comes in the door of the brothel.

Its not only about me going out having sex with other girls, I actually don't that too regularly although I am guilty from time-to-time and she is aware of it although not that happy about it. Its more about keeping an understanding that we have a good thing going but we both not its not going to be permanent so, in a sense its maintaining the wall. As Sporadic said, its the nature of the business. I think the prime difference is (and this is going to sound cheesey) but we make love and with other people its just sex.

[Rubber Nursey]

As Sporadic said, its the nature of the business. I think the prime difference is (and this is going to sound cheesey) but we make love and with other people its just sex.
I don't think that sounds cheesy at all. :) I think it sounds beautiful and I know exactly what you mean. Again, please don't think I'm questioning or judging your actions. I'm just picking your brain. I've talked about this stuff a million times with girls in brothels, etc, and it's always nice to get a male perspective. Thanks heaps for sharing, Zing. (The rest of this post is just in general terms, not about your relationship specifically...so don't freak out!)

I'm not sure I agree with you guys about this being just the nature of the business. Yes, it's the general nature of P4P, but we're not talking about P4P. We're talking about two people in a loving relationship and it's the 'inequality in infidelity', if you like, that I'm interested in.

It's the age-old problem in relationships where one partner is a sex worker - the guy gets jealous/uncomfortable because his girl is 'having sex' with other people and decides that he should be allowed to see other people as well. To avoid emotional attachment, he goes to brothels and pays for young stunners. That's all well and good (and seems to work for many people) but from MY point of view, the guy is screwing around and the girl is simply working.

If these relationships were REALLY equal, it would go something like this...
The man would only be allowed to have sex with [gross generalisation alert!] overweight white women in their 40's and 50's, that they may like as people, but are not physically attracted to. Every tenth time or so, they can have sex with a total hottie who treats them with utter contempt. Whether or not the man reaches orgasm during the encounters will be completely irrelevant - although he will be expected to work his butt off to ensure that his partner does, even if she's drunk or on drugs or has already come three times that day with three other men. Sound fair to you guys? :)

Sorry, I'm just playing with you. But as much as I loved doing it, that's the reality of sex work. It doesn't compare at all to paying some gorgeous girl to service your every need (I know, because I've done both!)

Silly question, but just out of interest...would any of you guys be willing to adhere to the 'equal rules' above if your sex worker girlfriend demanded it? If not, why not?

[Sporadic]

Sound fair to you guys? :) No, it sounds like the nature of the business. ;)


Sorry, I'm just playing with you. But as much as I loved doing it, that's the reality of sex work. It doesn't compare at all to paying some gorgeous girl to service your every need (I know, because I've done both!) The reality of sex work? Sounds like the nature of the business to me. ;)


Silly question, but just out of interest...would any of you guys be willing to adhere to the 'equal rules' above if your sex worker girlfriend demanded it? If not, why not?Not a silly question at all. Honestly, no I would not accept such "rules." Neither would I expect my partner to live with all the downsides of my chosen profession, simply because I have to.

I fear the water is muddy because it is difficult to address the difference between work issues and fidelity issues when sex work is involved. Intellectually, I understand the distinctions, emotionally, I can usually handle it, but, do I like it? No, sorry, I do not.

But that´s just me.

[Rubber Nursey]

I fear the water is muddy because it is difficult to address the difference between work issues and fidelity issues when sex work is involved. Intellectually, I understand the distinctions, emotionally, I can usually handle it, but, do I like it? No, sorry, I do not....But that´s just me.
There's no right or wrong answers, babe! Thanks for your honesty. I know the water is muddy, which is why I'm so interested in finding out how others deal with the issue.

So just out of interest, how would you feel if you had a hooker girlfriend and she went and paid hot young men/women for sex? Or maybe a swinger's night or something similar - either way, a situation where she was doing it for pleasure with someone she's attracted to, not just for work?

[Sporadic]

so just out of interest, how would you feel if you had a hooker girlfriend and she went and paid hot young men/women for sex? or maybe a swinger's night or something similar - either way, a situation where she was doing it for pleasure with someone she's attracted to, not just for work?
the situation is a little contrived rn, and i am beginning to wonder if you will keep re-phrasing things until you get the answer you want. ;)

to answer your question
1. "hot young men/women" for the former, i guess i could say little i always go home to the wife, for the latter, i would expect video.;)
2. swinging: not my thing.
3. for pleasure with someone she is attracted to: again, little to say, since i will, once again, go home to the wife.

for a practical answer, a current friend in far off land and i are exclusive when i am in town. i understand perfectly that she is working when i am not there. we do not discuss it. she does ask, upon my arrival "how many ladies have you taken?" the answer she wants to hear is none. wife does not count. when i cheekily counter, "how many men have you been with?" the question is tossed out as irrelevant.
my only concerns about her activities when i am not there center around her personal safety. i am not in love with her though, just fond.

hopefully some new points for your rep001tergram. :)

[Rubber Nursey]

The situation is a little contrived RN, and I am beginning to wonder if you will keep re-phrasing things until you get the answer you want.
I'm not looking for any particular answer, you cheeky bugger! And I'm not re-phrasing. The first question was would you obey my (joke) 'rules' that would make your encounters more similar to your sex working partner's...the second was does it make a difference if your girlfriend's having sex with men she's attracted to, rather than just with clients.

But if you mean I've asked all these questions before, you're right! You and I have been hanging around this board for far too long. :)

I'm not sure that I'll ever really find an answer though, as most of the people on this board seem to be in only casual relationships (or financial agreements) with working girls, rather than long-term relationships. A lot of you guys are married to other women, so issues of jealousy and infidelity are not quite as cut and dry as they would be if you were in an exclusive relationship with a hooker.

While I do have personal reasons for asking the questions, I also just find the whole topic fascinating - not just re: working girls, but jealousy and infidelity in general. In another ISG thread at the moment, there's a discussion going on about how to monitor your wife's sexual activites and what to do if you catch her with someone else (kick them out for being cheating slappers, apparently). And this from men who post daily reports about sex workers they've visited behind their wife's back! Very amusing.

[Zing Uk]

I'm not looking for any particular answer, you cheeky bugger! And I'm not re-phrasing.

But there is another way to re-phrase the question and that is would I be prepared to fuck fat ugly women and the occassional hottie while earning in one night what earned back home in one month and then the answer would be yes but men (or most men) simply don't have the option (shame really).

I know in my personal case that if I asked my girlfriend to give up the game and come and live with she would. I did that once before with a WG in Vietnam and we were very happy together for 4 years but the reality or taking her home and the expectation of a "happily ever after" just wasn't going to happen. In the end she got very hurt when I did go and I honestly felt like a total b*****d for it and to this day think about her often.

Having been in the situation once one of the reasons I don't ask my girlfriend to stop working completely (note that she does spend about 90% of her time with me including when my family came for a visit) is actually partly for her protection so she knows its not going to be a permanent thing. I'm not married but one day I do plan to leave DXB and the chances are that she will be invited to leave long before I do so carry on the relationship will prove almost impossible unless we get married and having been there once I'm not keen on repeating!

Re paying for her time, my view is that men always pay for women in one way or another. Maybe its just that I'm old fashioned but I would never let a girl pay anything on a date and have always been fotunate enough to earn decent money and be the prime provider in any relationship I've been in. With my current GF its just takes a different form. The corroroly of this is that women often pay a higher price emotionally than men.

Oops, rambled on a bit!

Keep it Cocked,
Zing

[Rubber Nursey]

ZingUK...the reasons you gave for not encouraging your GF to stop work were very refreshing to read. I congratulate you on your 'maturity' (for want of a better word) in dealing with this matter and for doing what's best for your girlfriend.

So often, men play White Knight to sex workers that they have no intention of offering a long-term stable relationship to, naively/arrogantly assuming that this poor pathetic wretch will be overjoyed at any chance to take a break from the industry, even if it is only short term. (For others, it's outright selfishness...they just want to stop her having sex with other people).

What many men don't seem to understand is that this is a business. It's not the same as 'taming' a sex kitten who likes to put it about. For starters, if she stops work she becomes financially dependent on her man, so she completely loses her independence for the duration of the relationship. And when the man eventually leaves and she is left to fend for herself again, her business is in ruins. She's lost all her regular clients, she may have lost touch with brothel owners/pimps/workmates and depending on how long she's been out of the industry, she may have aged or gained weight, which not only impacts on earning capacity but on her self esteem and confidence as well. It could take ages for her to get back on her feet.

I really do respect and admire your decision, Zing. Obviously what works for one couple does not work for another and I'm not criticising people who choose to do things differently (particularly if the girl knows where she stands and actively chooses to give up work regardless)...it just irks me when a WG is expected to give up everything, for a man who is offering her nothing.

Nursey - the High Priestess of rambling :)

[Rubber Nursey]

...would I be prepared to fuck fat ugly women and the occassional hottie while earning in one night what earned back home in one month and then the answer would be yes...
Funny how people pity hookers for the 'horrible' job they do. Getting paid huge dollars to have sex...what's not to love?!

[Sporadic]

Funny how people pity hookers for the 'horrible' job they do. Getting paid huge dollars to have sex...what's not to love?!
Having to do me, perhaps? ;)

[Zing Uk]

Funny how people pity hookers for the 'horrible' job they do. Getting paid huge dollars to have sex...what's not to love?!

I'm not sure where you work but you are obviously a native English speaker so maybe the huge bucks comment is a bit tonge in cheek from you but when a Chinese girl earns $200-$300 a night in Dubai it is easily a months earning harvesting rice back home. Do they have my pity for what they do? No. Do they have my respect as people? Yes. For me they are individuals who have made a difficult choice in life but haven't we all but I also believe everyone deserves respect from the start until they prove otherwise. Sadly, I do understand there are a large number of wankers out there who don't have this view but again that goes with the territory. I'm in busness development and earn reasonably big bucks and have to put up with wankers as part of my daily grind but no one gives me sympathy, nor would I want it......I takes the money

[Rubber Nursey]

I'm not sure where you work but you are obviously a native English speaker so maybe the huge bucks comment is a bit tonge in cheek from you...
Nope, not at all. I was totally serious. Fair enough, compared to a Chinese farm girl I may not have earned quite such 'huge bucks'...not a month's wages in one night, anyway. But I easily earned a month's average (Australian) wages in a WEEK and that's still pretty good dollars!

More importantly, I earned that money in perhaps a third of the average person's working hours, which meant I could work when my children were at school and be at home with them the rest of the time. (As far as my kids were concerned, I was a stay-at-home Mum - for the first couple of years, they didn't even know I had a job outside the home).

This is what gets me so angry about anti-prostitution campaigners trying to shut down the industry and make us get 'real jobs'. While it may not be everybody's cup of tea, sex work is a viable employment option for many women, particularly those who would otherwise be living in poverty. Who are they to deny a Chinese farm girl the opportunity to earn a month's pay in a night, or an Aussie single Mum the opportunity to successfully balance working and child-rearing? grrrr...

[Rubber Nursey]

Having to do me, perhaps?
Would that be considered paid sex or scientific research? ;)

[Mike Del]

for the purposes of this forum, definitely scientific research - but just make sure you get a research grant first !

[Sporadic]

Who are they to deny a Chinese farm girl the opportunity to earn a month's pay in a night, or an Aussie single Mum the opportunity to successfully balance working and child-rearing? grrrr...
Bingo RN. If you are willing to put up with the downside of your chosen profession, then the spoils should be yours.

Nobody I know is in DXB except for the purpose of making money, and I don´t care what your job is, there are sufficient wankers and assholes to go around.


Would that be considered paid sex or scientific research? How about comedy?
Seriously, I would say science, since nobody would look at me and say "intelligent design." :)

[Sasha Coffee]

To debate the morals of prostitution is a never ending circle its like debating the top executive embezzling funds.

In the end it comes down to one thing.

They do it because they can.

Wether their personal motive is greed, lifestyle, choice, lack of choice who knows. When I worked it was choice, lifestyle, income. Morals didn't come into the picture at all. I didn't really care what people thought of the ethical side of what I was doing. It made me happy and I enjoyed it.

Would I want a partner who was in the same industry. Who knows I never found a male sex worker that I was interested in. Would I mind if my partner had sex with someone else. He did - I didn't care about the sex bit anyway. I cared about the other parts - like presents, dinner movies etc. That might be hypocritical but in the end its the personal time that counts.

In todays world we all need to earn a buck. How we do it isn't the issue it's what we do with the money and are we happy how we earn it. Is the lawyer who defends a child abuser happy how he earns his money. Or does he/she just try and get on with the job to the best they can and find some way to let it go after work. Therapy maybe or a trip to the local brothel to unload on some poor hooker.

Who knows?

In the end its what works for you and your partner (if you have one).

[Mike Del]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7257623.stm

Worth a read - might be shocking to those who have / had no idea but it's not news to us on this thread.

MD

[Redfield10]

Should we be concerened about this? Wow...

Gentlemen, we have a situation here. Sponsored by Tom Lantos 10/18/2007 new anti-sex work legislation H.R.3887 passes the House. Section "Sex tourism" prohibits sex with consenting adults even in countries where this is legal. For example, an American who buys sex in legal brothel in Amsterdam, Tijuana, Rio, Thailand, Germany would be subject to Federal prosecution back in the US - link http://bppa.********.com/2007/12/new-federal-anti-sex-work-legislation.html Contact your Congress person ASAP and tell them NO on H.R.3887 link http://espu-ca.org/wp/?page_id=161

[Mike Del]

I heard that Rep. Lantos passed away the other week - does that mean that the legislation dies with him?

Redfield - FYI, there are at least two women who regularly contribute to this thread. Just keeping you informed.

MD

[Redfield10]

I heard that Rep. Lantos passed away the other week - does that mean that the legislation dies with him ?

Redfield - FYI, there are at least two women who regularly contribute to this thread. Just keeping you informed.

MDNope. Doesn't mean the legislation is dead. On another thread someone said probably the bill will be crafted so if they can prove you "intend" to travel abroad and pay for sex, you can be convicted. Is this true?

If so, you won't be able to post here because they will be able to track it.

Welcome to Nazi America.

[Chocha Monger]

Should we be concerened about this? Wow...

Gentlemen, we have a situation here. Sponsored by Tom Lantos 10/18/2007 new anti-sex work legislation H.R.3887 passes the House. Section "Sex tourism" prohibits sex with consenting adults even in countries where this is legal. For example, an American who buys sex in legal brothel in Amsterdam, Tijuana, Rio, Thailand, Germany would be subject to Federal prosecution back in the US - link http://bppa.********.com/2007/12/new-federal-anti-sex-work-legislation.html Contact your Congress person ASAP and tell them NO on H.R.3887 link http://espu-ca.org/wp/?page_id=161
What about crossing state lines within the US to visit a legal brothel in Nevada?

[Redfield10]

What about crossing state lines within the US to visit a legal brothel in Nevada?True. What's the differenece. Of course, I guess it's "technially" not legal in Thailand either.

I'm just wondering if they will try to enforce it and if we'll all get questioned or they will even try and follow internet trails. If it's "intent". All they have to do is look on here and if you've mentioned you are going to SE Asia to pay for sex. You could be f'd upon return. According to this new law. I don't think many people are aware of this new law. But they "will" be.

[Chocha Monger]

True. What's the differenece. Of course, I guess it's "technially" not legal in Thailand either.

I'm just wondering if they will try to enforce it and if we'll all get questioned or they will even try and follow internet trails. If it's "intent". All they have to do is look on here and if you've mentioned you are going to SE Asia to pay for sex. You could be f'd upon return. According to this new law. I don't think many people are aware of this new law. But they "will" be.
They have already started asking single male travelers what hotel they stayed at, what they did, and what they saw abroad etc. They also examine lap tops and cameras. Therefore, I would think that enforcing this law wouldn't be very difficult. Some fuck pictures on a lap top or camera could be used as evidence against a traveler.

[Zing Uk]

Just glad I'm not American, it really is a backwards country at times! You guys had better hope Huckabee never gets to the White House!

[Redfield10]

just glad i'm not american, it really is a backwards country at times! you guys had better hope huckabee never gets to the white house!yes, it's apalling that the u. s. house has passed a law whereby if the authorities can only prove that you "intended" to travel to a country to engage in paying for a sexual act (you don't even have to do it). you can be arrested by the feds once coming back to the usa.

so, if you decided to take a woman from bkk on a week trip to phuket and gave her some money for her time, i guess you'd have commited a federal crime and be arrested upon return to the usa. furthermore, any posts you make here that indicate intent of such behavior could be used against you.

i hope it doesn't pass the senate, but i suppose it will. now, how far they will go to "enforce" it. or whether it will just be used for ****s and traffickers is another question.

[Punter 127]

Just glad I'm not American, it really is a backwards country at times! You guys had better hope Huckabee never gets to the White House!I haven’t seen Huckabee introduce anti prostitution legislation, Representative Tom Lantos of California did, if Redfield10 is correct. (I couldn’t get the link to work) Lantos was a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton. Nancy Pelosi said “The passing of Tom Lantos is a profound loss for the Congress and for the nation and a terrible loss for me personally.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/11/tom-lantos-dies_n_85992.html

The religious right may be anti prostitution but so are the left wing feminists!

If this legislation should pass, which I don’t think it will because it would be almost impossible to enforce, but if it does remember the U.S. congress is controlled by the Democrats at this time.

Punter 127

[CBGBConnisur]

Prostitution is one profession that is not going away ever, it will always be there. Some countries deal with it differently, in the US its a criminal offense for both parties, the provider and customer, in much of Europe it is tolerated, not legal but not subject to any action by law enforcement unless immigration is involved, many brothels in Europe get busted for holding illegal aliens.

The potential for exploitation and criminal activity is greatest when the trade is made illegal, in the US the level of exploitation is the highest. I heard of a Russian girl in the US making a 1000 dollars a day but saw practically none of that money, her pimp took it all away.

[Redfield10]

I haven’t seen Huckabee introduce anti prostitution legislation, Representative Tom Lantos of California did, if Redfield10 is correct. (I couldn’t get the link to work) Lantos was a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton. Nancy Pelosi said “The passing of Tom Lantos is a profound loss for the Congress and for the nation and a terrible loss for me personally.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/11/tom-lantos-dies_n_85992.html

The religious right may be anti prostitution but so are the left wing feminists!

If this legislation should pass, which I don’t think it will because it would be almost impossible to enforce, but if it does remember the U.S. congress is controlled by the Democrats at this time.

Punter 127This legislation has already passed the House and is on it's way to the Senate.

The problem is they lumped the pay for sex thing in with [CodeWord908] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908).

[Punter 127]

This legislation has already passed the House and is on it's way to the Senate.

The problem is they lumped the pay for sex thing in with [CodeWord908] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908).Do you have a link that works? The link you posted (below) does not work and I would like to read more about it.

http://bppa.********.com/2007/12/ne...egislation.html

BTW I never pay for sex; I pay them to leave afterwards. I stopped paying for sex when I got divorced.

[ManonsanBoy]

Prostitution has always been about money. This bill in USA is just another example of American arrogance. The trade feeds a lot of families and contribute to economic development, especially in poor countries. The key issue is not the sex but the exploitation. Exploitation is easier if you have illegal underground activity. Just ask the mafia, triads etc etc. I think it is a conspiracy, just like prohibition and the military industrial establishment.

[Redfield10]

Do you have a link that works? The link you posted (below) does not work and I would like to read more about it.

http://bppa.********.com/2007/12/ne...egislation.html

BTW I never pay for sex; I pay them to leave afterwards. I stopped paying for sex when I got divorced.Just google it.

Anti-sex work legislation H.R.3887

[Sporadic]

Read the bill here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:4:./temp/~c110wrO8b6:e93133:

the relevant section is:
Sec. 2431. Sex tourism

`(a) Arranging Travel and Related Conduct- Whoever, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, knowingly arranges, induces, or procures the travel of a person in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in any commercial sex act (as defined in section 2429), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

`(b) Increased Penalty for Offenses Involving Children- If the commercial sex act is with a person under 18 years of age, the maximum term of imprisonment for an offense under this section is 30 years.';

(2) AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 117 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following new item:

`2431. Sex tourism.'.

(h) Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines- Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall review and, if appropriate, amend the sentencing guidelines and policy statements applicable--

(1) to persons convicted of offenses created by this section other than those created by subsections (f) and (g), to ensure conformity with the United States Sentencing Guidelines, sections 2H4.1 (peonage offenses) and 2H4.2 (labor offenses); and

(2) to persons convicted of offenses created by subsection (f) or (g) of this section, to ensure conformity with the United States Sentencing Guidelines, sections 2G1.1 (promoting commercial sex acts with persons other than minors) and 2G1.3 (promoting commercial sex acts or prohibited sexual conduct with a minor, and related offenses.

Where is the the "pay for sex thing" as you put it?
Check your facts Redfield.

[Redfield10]

Read the bill here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:4:./temp/~c110wrO8b6:e93133:

the relevant section is:
Sec. 2431. Sex tourism

`(a) Arranging Travel and Related Conduct- Whoever, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, knowingly arranges, induces, or procures the travel of a person in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in any commercial sex act (as defined in section 2429), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

`(b) Increased Penalty for Offenses Involving Children- If the commercial sex act is with a person under 18 years of age, the maximum term of imprisonment for an offense under this section is 30 years.';

(2) AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 117 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following new item:

`2431. Sex tourism.'.

(h) Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines- Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall review and, if appropriate, amend the sentencing guidelines and policy statements applicable--

(1) to persons convicted of offenses created by this section other than those created by subsections (f) and (g), to ensure conformity with the United States Sentencing Guidelines, sections 2H4.1 (peonage offenses) and 2H4.2 (labor offenses); and

(2) to persons convicted of offenses created by subsection (f) or (g) of this section, to ensure conformity with the United States Sentencing Guidelines, sections 2G1.1 (promoting commercial sex acts with persons other than minors) and 2G1.3 (promoting commercial sex acts or prohibited sexual conduct with a minor, and related offenses.

Where is the the "pay for sex thing" as you put it?
Check your facts Redfield.(a) is pay for sex of course.

I've been researching this, so you check your facts.

[Redfield10]

Read the bill here: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:4:./temp/~c110wrO8b6:e93133:

the relevant section is:
Sec. 2431. Sex tourism

`(a) Arranging Travel and Related Conduct- Whoever, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain, knowingly arranges, induces, or procures the travel of a person in foreign commerce for the purpose of engaging in any commercial sex act (as defined in section 2429), or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

`(b) Increased Penalty for Offenses Involving Children- If the commercial sex act is with a person under 18 years of age, the maximum term of imprisonment for an offense under this section is 30 years.';

(2) AMENDMENT TO TABLE OF SECTIONS- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 117 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting at the end the following new item:

`2431. Sex tourism.'.

(h) Amendment to the Sentencing Guidelines- Pursuant to its authority under section 994 of title 28, United States Code, and in accordance with this section, the United States Sentencing Commission shall review and, if appropriate, amend the sentencing guidelines and policy statements applicable--

(1) to persons convicted of offenses created by this section other than those created by subsections (f) and (g), to ensure conformity with the United States Sentencing Guidelines, sections 2H4.1 (peonage offenses) and 2H4.2 (labor offenses); and

(2) to persons convicted of offenses created by subsection (f) or (g) of this section, to ensure conformity with the United States Sentencing Guidelines, sections 2G1.1 (promoting commercial sex acts with persons other than minors) and 2G1.3 (promoting commercial sex acts or prohibited sexual conduct with a minor, and related offenses.

Where is the the "pay for sex thing" as you put it?
Check your facts Redfield.Oops, I was wrong about section (a)..looked at it too quickly, but the bill still would make it illegal for someone from the U.S. paying for sex in another country no matter if it was legal in that country or not.

If I'm wrong, please correct me or eleaborate..this bill would be horrible if passed by the senate and would actually hurt the victims instead of helping them.

[Zing Uk]

i hope it doesn't pass the senate, but i suppose it will. now, how far they will go to "enforce" it. or whether it will just be used for ****s and traffickers is another question.
so introduce a bill against ****s and trafficers, i don't think anyone would complain about that except of course the ****s and trafficers themselves but that's no big deal. i sincerely believe that most members of this forum are good honest people who just like to have a little and show due respect to girls in a difficult profession. there is the odd asshole but they quickly get chased away.

still glad i'm not american though!

[Sporadic]

Oops, I was wrong about section (a)..looked at it too quickly, but the bill still would make it illegal for someone from the U.S. paying for sex in another country no matter if it was legal in that country or not.

If I'm wrong, please correct me or eleaborate..this bill would be horrible if passed by the senate and would actually hurt the victims instead of helping them.

Not saying you are wrong, and I don´t know how to "eleaborate" but you can read the bill.

It is aimed at people who gain commercially (financially) i.e. prosper from the act, and I don´t think an orgasm counts as prosperity in this context.

Seriously, blogs are everywhere, choose wisely.

[Punter 127]

Still glad I'm not American though! That makes at least two of us! However it’s not as bad as you might think, anybody that doesn’t like being an American has every right to leave. Funny thing is though we have a lot more wanting in than want out, go figure.

[Punter 127]

but the bill still would make it illegal for someone from the U.S. paying for sex in another country no matter if it was legal in that country or not.

If I'm wrong, please correct me or eleaborate..this bill would be horrible if passed by the senate and would actually hurt the victims instead of helping them. I really don’t see how you came these conclusions. How would this bill make it illegal to par take in p4p sex with a consenting adult? And how would it hurt the “victim”?

[George90]

Where is the the "pay for sex thing" as you put it?

As I read it, the Act makes it illegal for someone to make a for-profit business of arranging to send people abroad to pay for sex with sex workers. I don't see it making it illegal for a single man to go to DR on his own and drop some money on a casino chica. I think it makes it illegal for someone to arrange a charter flight for 50 men on a AI vacation at Black Beards or Vikings Resort and pay for sex.

It may also make it illegal for a site like this to earn a profit on helping guys like us to do what we do. I think the site owner should consult a lawyer.

[Redfield10]

as i read it, the act makes it illegal for someone to make a for-profit business of arranging to send people abroad to pay for sex with sex workers. i don't see it making it illegal for a single man to go to dr on his own and drop some money on a casino chica. i think it makes it illegal for someone to arrange a charter flight for 50 men on a ai vacation at black beards or vikings resort and pay for sex.

it may also make it illegal for a site like this to earn a profit on helping guys like us to do what we do. i think the site owner should consult a lawyer.actually, you're wrong. the bill reads in such a manner that if you go to another country from the usa and have any "intent" (you don't even have to hire p4p) of paying for sex, you can be convicted under us federal law.

this was "thrown" in with all the trafficking and **** stuff. which, of course, is against us federal law and also should be.

so, if you travel from the us. post on this form that you "can't wait to get a nana girl for 2000 baht" and you go to thailand and decide you aren't gonna pay for it at nana or anywhere else in thailand and that you can get it for free. you can still be arrested once you return to the us based on intent alone.

[Sporadic]

Actually, you're wrong. The bill reads in such a manner that if you go to another country from the USA and have any "intent" (you don't even have to hire p4p) of paying for sex, you can be convicted under US Federal Law.
Dear Redfield, with all possible respect, can you read? English?

For God´s sake man, read the part where it says "Whoever, for the purpose of commercial advantage or private financial gain."

Is it really that difficult to understand? This tracks closely with what many European countries have on the books, that being: prostitution, per se, is not illegal (or decriminalized) but making money off of someone else´s prostitution IS illegal.

I am now bowing out of this little thread of hysteria, have fun boys, and remember, "Arguing on the the internet is like competing in the special olymipics- even if you win you're still retarded"

[Bango Cheito]

As far as I can see it, sporadic is right.

[Punter 127]

I have to agree with Sporadic as well, unless Redfield10 can show us otherwise.
Show us the wording you’re hanging your hat on Redfield10!

[Redfield10]

I have to agree with Sporadic as well, unless Redfield10 can show us otherwise.

Show us the wording you’re hanging your hat on Redfield10!You have to read the whole bill. Also do a google. There's tons and tons of discussion about this bill and what it means.

I"m not going to go over it piece by piece. The informaion is out there. It's nothing new.

[Rio Joe]

I'm not going to go over it piece by piece. The informaion is out there. No offense, but that's like being a c*cktease -- getting someone all excited then telling him to finish the job himself. You've raised an issue that's extremely important to everyone here. I hate to sound like a law-school professor, but if you're truly convinced that this law will make mongering a crime, you owe it to us to gather all the facts and make your case.

From what I've read so far, I agree with the others that the law would affect people who make money off of sex tourism, not sex tourists themselves. But if I'm wrong, and you've found SOLID information to the contrary, I'd like to know ASAP, because I'll hop the first flight to Washington and fight against the bill's passage.

[Redfield10]

No offense, but that's like being a c*cktease -- getting someone all excited then telling him to finish the job himself. You've raised an issue that's extremely important to everyone here. I hate to sound like a law-school professor, but if you're truly convinced that this law will make mongering a crime, you owe it to us to gather all the facts and make your case.

From what I've read so far, I agree with the others that the law would affect people who make money off of sex tourism, not sex tourists themselves. But if I'm wrong, and you've found SOLID information to the contrary, I'd like to know ASAP, because I'll hop the first flight to Washington and fight against the bill's passage.Ok, here you go.

http://www.bayswan.org/traffick/HR3887.html

1. Section 221(f)(1) federalizes all prostitution-related crimes as ‘sex trafficking’
Proposed Section 221(f)(1) of H.R. 3887 would amend the Mann Act, which presently criminalizes the transportation of persons across state lines for the purpose of prostitution. The proposed section, 18 U.S.C. § 2430, would create a new crime of “sex trafficking”,1 which would authorize the Department of Justice (DOJ) to prosecute any individual whose action within a territory or possession, affecting interstate or foreign commerce, induces another to engage in prostitution. In other words, if a person arranges an act of prostitution over the phone, as hundreds of meetings are arranged everyday, DOJ would be pressured by supporters of this new crime to prosecute each of these thousands of cases annually. This proposal is part of an attempt by certain organizations and individuals to make prostitution a federal crime and redefine all prostitution as trafficking, even in the absence of force, fraud, or physical or psychological coercion, the cornerstone of trafficking in persons. Calling all non-trafficking prostitution-related crimes ‘sex trafficking’ would not only lead to confusion but also to the other problems we discuss below. 2

Here's some more..

http://www.heritage.org/Research/LegalIssues/lm21.cfm

Now, I'm assuming some of you folks know how to use "google" just as well as I do..you're just a little lazier than me apparently...

If you want me to provide more examples on how to "google" I can do that..

However, you might try typing in "google.com"...then hit "enter" and then type in " H.R. 3887" and mabybe experiment a bit..like adding "sex trafficing" or something similar..use your imaginations..you are smart boys...

Then maybe we can talk about it more...and you'll feel better about yourself because you did a little work yourself...

[Redfield10]

no offense, but that's like being a c*cktease -- getting someone all excited then telling him to finish the job himself. you've raised an issue that's extremely important to everyone here. i hate to sound like a law-school professor, but if you're truly convinced that this law will make mongering a crime, you owe it to us to gather all the facts and make your case.

from what i've read so far, i agree with the others that the law would affect people who make money off of sex tourism, not sex tourists themselves. but if i'm wrong, and you've found solid information to the contrary, i'd like to know asap, because i'll hop the first flight to washington and fight against the bill's passage.for those of you who still don't know how to google and do a little simple research, i copied this in it's entirety. so you don't have to type in "google.com" and you don't have to type in sex trafficking or house bill or anything of the sort. you just have to read.


trafficking vs. prostitution

estimating the total number of trafficking vic*tims, whether globally or in the united states, is an inherently difficult task that is prone to unreliable results, but the federal government has identified approximately 1,500 victims that have been traf*ficked into the united states since 2000.[7] accord*ing to the federal bureau of investigation, the money "earned" from [CodeWord908] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908) often is part of the income stream flowing into criminal and terrorist organizations.[8] in addition, some u.s. citi*zens and legal residents travel abroad as "sex tour*ists" to engage in sex crimes with minors and other victims of trafficking in regions where the laws against such conduct are weak or rarely enforced.[9]

the tvpra includes a variety of provisions addressing this foreign and domestic trade in per*sons--typically women and children--who are forced into sexual servitude. the bill would expand the economic penalties imposed on countries whose anti-trafficking efforts fail to meet u.s. stan*dards, require extensive federal reporting on the problem, and enhance the federal government's provision of protection and assistance to trafficking victims.[10] the bill purports to increase federal efforts to combat trafficking conducted outside the nation's borders and to prevent such trafficking from spilling over into the united states.

but the tvpra's criminal provisions cover a much broader range of conduct than just [CodeWord908] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908), including many essentially local acts that this nation has invariably addressed at the state and local levels. at most, such conduct is only indi*rectly related to international trafficking.

most dramatically, the tvpra would create a new federal offense, "sex trafficking," encompass*ing common prostitution-related offenses.[11] specif*ically, any person who "persuades, induces, or entices any individual to engage in prostitution" (that is, "any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person") would face large fines and imprisonment for up to ten years.[12] an overlapping provision would crim*inalize "unlawful compelled service," which it defines to include "caus[ing] or exploit[ing] finan*cial harm or fear of financial harm" for the purpose of "obtain[ing] or maintain[ing] the labor or ser*vices of a person...for use in [prostitution]."[13] taken together, these provisions would purport*edly transform all pandering, pimping, and hiring of a prostitute into federal crimes.

congress must not sweep aside the long-stand*ing authority of state and local governments to define what immoral conduct should be criminal*ized and punished.[14] the vast majority of commu*nities across the united states have concluded that they realize a wide range of benefits by criminaliz*ing and punishing prostitution and related con*duct at the state and local levels. wrongdoing that is fundamentally local in nature should continue to be criminalized, investigated, prosecuted, and punished by the same state and local law-enforce*ment authorities who each year handle 95 percent of all criminal prosecutions across the united states. the tvpra's criminal provisions encom*passing ordinary local sex crimes afford insuffi*cient constitutional respect for and deference to state and local authority.

the tvpra would place chief responsibility for enforcement of these new authorities with the department of justice's child exploitation and obscenity section, which it would rename the "sexual exploitation and obscenity section."[15] currently, this division investigates and prosecutes child prostitution, child sex tourism, and child pornography and, according to those familiar with its operations, is already overburdened. even if its staff were to be increased, enlarging its mandate would distract the division from fighting child exploitation, diverting its valuable resources toward crimes that are already under the purview of state and local police.

further, the tvpra's overbroad criminal provi*sions would criminalize "knowingly" making travel arrangements for those intending to engage in "any commercial sex act."[16] violators would be subject to significant fines and a sentence of up to ten years.[17] this may sound good, but once again the language of the bill's criminal provisions suffers from a lack of precision that would cause federal law enforcement to be diverted from the worst traf*ficking crimes. the department of justice currently focuses its efforts against "sex tourism" on overseas sex crimes that involve children.[18] these cases are, unsurprisingly, highly resource-intensive.[19] the tvpra's new definition of sex tourism encom*passes adult travel to engage in adult prostitution where such prostitution is legal, thus diverting scarce federal resources from vitally important law-enforcement efforts against trafficking and sex tour*ism that involves children.

unnecessary criminalization

the tvpra's provisions criminalizing inherently local commercial sex acts are also unnecessary. except for several counties in nevada,[20] prostitu*tion and associated crimes, such as pandering, pimping, and hiring a prostitute, are punishable by criminal fines and imprisonment everywhere in the united states, including the district of columbia and all u.s. territories.[21] in virginia, for example, penalties run as high as 10 years imprisonment and $100,000 in fines for pimping and one year impris*onment and $2,500 in fines for hiring a prosti*tute.[22] these penalties are representative of those imposed across the country.[23]

existing state and local laws banning prostitution are diligently enforced. state and local law-enforce*ment officers made approximately 70,000 arrests for prostitution-related crimes in 2005, the most recent year for which comprehensive data are avail*able.[24] by comparison, in that same year the entire federal criminal-justice system investigated fewer than twice that number of crimes of all types and categories.[25] given the magnitude of state-led efforts to combat prostitution and related offenses, the federal government simply lacks the resources--including investigators, prosecutors, and judicial personnel-- to tackle more than a small percentage of the case*load currently handled by state and local officials.

even the department of justice doubts that fed*eral jurisdiction over local sex crimes is needed or would be productive. in its comments on the tvpra, the department states that it "is not aware of any reasons why state and local authorities are not currently able to pursue prostitution-related crimes such that federal jurisdiction is necessary."[26]

moreover, federal law enforcement already has the criminal laws and other statutory authorities needed to punish traffickers traveling between states and across u.s. borders. by the end of fiscal year 2006, the department had established 42 [CodeWord908] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908) task forces in the united states. each task force is composed of a state or local law-enforcement agency, a trafficking victim services provider, the office of the u.s. attorney, and other federal investigative agencies. the members of each task force engage in extensive collaboration to pros*ecute traffickers and to identify and rescue victims.

traffickers who violate federal statutes against involuntary servitude or forced labor can be pun*ished by severe fines and up to 20 years in federal prison.[27] if the involuntary servitude or forced labor involves kidnapping, sexual abuse, or any attempt on the victim's life, the maximum punish*ment is a life sentence. federal criminal law includes similar penalties for debt servitude (peon*age) and for recruiting, harboring, transporting, or brokering persons for the purposes of committing another offense.[28] of the 555 [CodeWord908] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908) suspects federal prosecutors investigated between 2001 and 2005, 322 were investigated for viola*tions such as these of the trafficking victims pro*tection act. in 2007 alone, the justice department opened 183 investigations and secured 103 con*victions of persons involved in trafficking adults and children.

local pimping, pandering, or prostitution some*times is part of an interstate criminal organization. such organizations move prostitutes from city to city to evade detection and prosecution. prostitu*tion may also be part and parcel of a criminal oper*ation that involves interstate drug trafficking or other illicit commercial activities. in either case, the mann act criminalizes and provides federal jurisdiction over such interstate crimes involving pimping, pandering, or prostitution. as a result of the justice department's increased anti-trafficking efforts, 809 persons were convicted of mann act violations from 2002 through 2006.

the justice department's efforts to combat [CodeWord908] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908) extend well beyond domestic law enforcement. as just one example, in 2006 the department was involved in combating trafficking in 21 countries, including by providing training and education on trafficking to forensic experts, health professionals, victim service providers, judges, law-enforcement officials, and other gov*ernment officials.

as the department of justice has explained, the bill's provisions on prostitution also fail to fit within the power granted the federal government in the thirteenth amendment to prohibit slavery and in*voluntary servitude.[29] federal law enforcers already investigate and prosecute cases of prostitution in*volving severe force, often in concert with interstate and international trafficking, that are tantamount to involuntary servitude.[30]

the tvpra is thus duplicative, adding redun*dant federal criminal laws--and the complication of overlapping law-enforcement jurisdiction--to conduct that is already addressed and heavily enforced by well-understood state and local laws. given the robust state of u.s. criminal law on sex crimes and [CodeWord908] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908), the criminal provi*sions of the tvpra cannot be likely to bolster existing efforts to combat prostitution and related offenses.

over-federalization undermines accountability and effectiveness

the overbroad criminal provisions of the tvpra appear to be yet another example of congress's growing habit of relying on federal criminalization as a panacea to cure all of society's ills.[31] the phe*nomenon of over-federalization of crime under*mines state and local accountability for law enforcement, undermines cooperative and creative efforts to fight crime (which promotes the states' vital constitutional function of acting as "laborato*ries of democracy"), and injures america's federalist system of government.

like existing federal criminal provisions that ignore constitutional federalism, the tvpra would further erode state and local law enforcement's pri*mary role in combating common street crimes, thereby reducing the effectiveness and success of local prosecutors and law enforcement. whenever state and local officials can blame federal officials for failure to prosecute crime effectively--and vice versa--accountability and responsibility are signifi*cantly diluted. although this is sometimes unavoid*able for the limited set of crimes for which there truly is overlapping state and federal jurisdiction,[32] unclear lines of accountability for wholly intrastate crimes--including those related to prostitution-- are wholly unnecessary and unacceptable.

combating common crimes is a governmental responsibility over which the states have histori*cally been sovereign, with little intervention from the federal government.[33] federal criminal law should be used only to combat problems reserved to the national government in the constitution.[34] these include offenses directed against the federal government or its interests, express matters left to the federal government in the constitution (such as counterfeiting), and commercial crimes with a sub*stantial multi-state or international impact.[35]

the basic non-trafficking offenses contained in the tvpra do not fall within any of these catego*ries and so are not within the federal government's constitutional reach. for example, the fact that prostitution may (rarely) involve interstate travel or some other incidental interstate connection does not justify federal involvement. in fact, the vast majority of non-trafficking conduct that would be criminalized under the tvpra would almost never take place in more than one locale in a single state. such conduct is, at most, only tangentially inter*state in nature and does not justify additional fed*eral intervention.

the tvpra's prostitution-related provisions ignore recent decades' lessons on how to reduce common crime successfully. new york city and boston in the 1990s and early 2000s demonstrated that when accountability is enhanced at the state and local lev*els, local police officials and prosecutors can make impressive gains against crime. by contrast, federal*izing authority over crime reduces the accountabil*ity of local officials because they can pass the buck to federal law enforcement authorities.

the tvpra also runs counter to the principles of federalism in other ways. for example, it is unclear what impact the vaguely worded provi*sions of the legislation would have in those nevada jurisdictions where prostitution is not banned but is instead licensed and operated under close gov*ernment scrutiny. the tvpra would place a cloud of legal uncertainty over jurisdictions that have chosen, for good or for ill, not to ban prostitution outright. whatever the merits of those jurisdic*tions' choice, this is inherently a matter for local interest and control. as compared with decisions made in washington, decisions made by local authorities acting locally are far more likely to rep*resent and be responsive to the social, political, and law-enforcement priorities of the affected commu*nities. historical rationales for federalism--experi*mentation and creativity, local values and preferences, and division of power between levels of government--argue in favor of maintaining the criminalization, investigation, prosecution, and punishment of this inherently local conduct under the jurisdiction of state and local authorities.

in addition, over-federalization results in the misallocation of scarce federal law-enforcement resources, which in turn leads to selective prosecu*tion. fighting crimes as common as prostitution, pimping, and pandering would place significant demands on the federal bureau of investigation, the 94 u.s. attorneys, and other federal law enforc*ers that would distract them from the truly national problems that undeniably require federal attention, such as the investigation and prosecution of foreign espionage and terrorism.

the federal judicial system also lacks the resources to hear large numbers of additional crim*inal cases. there are, for example, only about 665 federal judges who preside over criminal trials--a small number compared to the approximately 1,500 state judges who preside over criminal trials in california alone.[36]

constitutional problems

prostitution is a problem common to many states, so federal involvement may seem like a good idea. to warrant federal involvement, however, an activity must fall within congress's constitutionally granted powers. there are serious reasons to doubt that the criminal provisions in the tvpra do so.

in the course of striking down provisions of the violence against women act of 1994 in united states v. morrison, the supreme court in 2000 affirmed the fundamental limits that the constitu*tion imposes on the federal legislative power:

every law enacted by congress must be based on one or more of its powers enumerated in the constitution. "the powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written."[37]

this limitation on congress's power to legislate is neither arbitrary nor accidental: it was adopted to protect the american people from the ever-expanding power of a centralized national gov*ernment. as the court stated, "this constitution*ally mandated division of authority 'was adopted by the framers to ensure protection of our funda*mental liberties.'"[38]

the drafters of the tvpra apparently attempt to rely on the commerce clause to establish con*gress's power to assert federal jurisdiction over run of the mill sex crimes that are essentially local in nature. but to fall within congress's power to "regulate commerce...among the several states," a problem must not merely be common to the states; it must be truly interstate in nature and "substan*tially affect" interstate commerce.[39] for this reason, congress's power under the commerce clause does not include the authority to federalize most non-commercial street crimes, whether or not they have some minor nexus with interstate commerce.

although broader and broader readings of the commerce clause during the latter part of the 20th century allowed the federal government to regulate more and more economic activity,[40] the supreme court has set limits and rejected several recent attempts to federalize common street crimes,[41] even ones that have some interstate impact. the expansive (many would say virtually unlimited) interpretation of the commerce clause that is employed to justify the creation of most new fed*eral crimes ignores the original meaning of the constitution. as justice thomas wrote in his con*curring opinion in united states v. lopez, if con*gress had been given authority over any and every matter that simply "affects" interstate commerce, most of article i, section 8 would be superfluous, mere surplusage.[42]

in lopez, the supreme court rejected the gov*ernment's "costs of crime" and "national productiv*ity" rationales for asserting federal authority over crime that is essentially local in nature. the govern*ment argued that violent crime resulting from the possession of firearms in the vicinity of schools affected interstate commerce by increasing the costs of insurance nationwide and by reducing interstate travel to locales affected by violent crime.[43] the government further argued that the possession of guns on or near school grounds threatened educational effectiveness, which would reduce the productivity of students coming from those schools, which would in turn reduce national productivity.[44]

the court explained that if it were to accept these attenuated chains of but-for reasoning, the limits on congressional power would be obliterated.

congress could regulate any activity that it found was related to the economic productivity of individual citizens: family law (including marriage, divorce, and child custody), for example. under [these] theories...it is difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power, even in areas such as criminal law enforcement or education where states historically have been sovereign. thus, if we were to accept the government's arguments, we are hard pressed to posit any activity by an individual that congress is without power to regulate.[45]

congress's recent proposals to create a new set of federal crimes covering prostitution and similar conduct that does not in reality involve the regula*tion of interstate commerce raise these same consti*tutional concerns. the tvpra lacks the usual legislative "findings" (sometimes nothing more than mere boilerplate assertions of fact) that con*gress often uses to demonstrate a link, often tenu*ous, between a local crime and the national economy. this puts it on weaker constitutional ground than the statutes struck down by the supreme court in lopez and morrison, leaving the bill without any factual or logical basis to support congress's power to regulate prostitution under the commerce clause.

the bill's drafters have attempted to cure the serious problem of its constitutionality by limiting its applicability only to infractions that occur "in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce." in morri*son, however, the supreme court ruled that this sort of language is not alone sufficient to bring an act within the scope of congress's commerce power.[46] the regulated act must have more than some effect on interstate commerce; the effect must be a substantial one, and the connection between the regulated act and its substantial effect may not be too attenuated.[47]

the supreme court's decision in gonzalez v. raich,[48] upholding as constitutional the applica*tion of federal drug law to intrastate growers and users of marijuana, does not alter this analysis. unlike in raich and in wickard v. filburn, on which raich relies, there is no comprehensive federal scheme (nor should there be one) regulating all financial transactions for sexual acts.[49] in raich, one state had chosen to regulate the possession and use of marijuana in a manner that directly con*flicted with the provisions of the federal controlled substances act, but no comprehensive federal reg*ulatory scheme, with "substantial effects" on the national economy, depends on congress's power to regulate prostitution.[50]

in short, to the extent that there is interstate trade in the providers of prostitution, that activity is [CodeWord908] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908), and it is already subject to federal criminal laws. prostitution and closely related offenses that are local in nature and do not involve interstate commerce, however, likely are not.

conclusion

despite good intentions on the part of the bill's sponsors and supporters, the current version of the william wilberforce trafficking victims protection reauthorization act is problematic because its criminal provisions aim to turn common crimes-- crimes that are inherently local in nature and best handled at the state and local levels--into federal offenses. this would significantly undermine accountability by inviting officials at all levels of government to "pass the buck" on enforcement issues, distract and divert federal law enforcement from actual [CodeWord908] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908) and other responsi*bilities that are inherently federal in nature, and detract from states' ability to function as "laborato*ries of democracy." few if any gains would be real*ized because prostitution and related activities are illegal in nearly all states and jurisdictions, and existing enforcement is both diligent and extensive.

brian w. walsh is senior legal research fellow in the center for legal and judicial studies and andrew m. grossman is senior legal policy analyst in the center for legal and judicial studies at the heritage foundation.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1]admin. for children & families, u.s. dep't of health & human serv., fact sheet: [CodeWord908] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908), jan. 24, 2008, http://www.acf.hhs.gov/trafficking/about/fact_human.html.

[2]trafficking victims protection act of 2000, pub. l. no. 106-386, 114 stat. 1469 (2000).

[3]pub. l. 108-193, 117 stat. 2887 (2003); pub. l. 109-164, 119 stat. 3558 (2005).

[4]letter from brian a. benczkowski, principal deputy assistant attorney general, u.s. dep't of justice, to senator john conyers, jr., chairman, comm. on the judiciary, u.s. house of representatives (nov. 9, 2007) [hereinafter doj letter].

[5]see letter from rep. john conyers, jr., chairman, committee on the judiciary, u.s. house of representatives, to rep. tom lantos, chairman, committee on foreign affairs, u.s. house of representatives (nov. 15, 2007).

[6]see, e.g., task force on federalization of criminal law, american bar association, the federalization of criminal law (1998), at 41 (citing and quoting a position paper by the police executive research forum).

[7]see jerry markon, [CodeWord908] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908) evokes outrage, little evidence, washington post, sep. 23, 2007 (discussing the diffi*culties and unreliability of estimating the number of trafficking victims and reporting that initial cia estimates of the num*ber of victims trafficked into the united states each year were based on computer models that extrapolated numbers derived from a review of foreign press stories on overseas trafficking incidents).

[8]see fed. bureau of investigation, [CodeWord908] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908), http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/slavery.htm (last visited feb. 11, 2008).

[9]u.s. dep't of justice, child sex tourism, http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/sextour.html (last visited feb. 11, 2008).

[10]see, e.g., h.r. 3887, 110th cong. §§ 107, 231, 213 (2007).

[11]id. at § 221(f).

[12]id. at § 221(a)(1).

[13]id. at § 221(b).

[14]see barnes v. glen theatre, inc., 501 u.s. 560, 575 (1991) (scalia, j., concurring in the judgment) (observing that "[o]ur society prohibits, and all human societies have prohibited, certain activities not because they harm others but because they are considered, in the traditional phrase, 'contra bonos mores,' i.e., immoral").

[15]h.r. 3887, § 234.

[16]h.r. 3887 at § 221(g).

[17]id.

[18]doj letter, supra n. 4, at 9.

[19]id. (reporting that prosecution of child "sex tourism" cases require, among other things, "gathering evidence abroad, bring*ing victims to the united states to testify, and coordination with foreign law enforcement agencies and foreign govern*ments generally").

[20]even in the 13 nevada counties where prostitution is not per se illegal, it and associated activities are heavily regulated, and violation of those regulations can lead to criminal penalties. see nev. rev. stat. § 201.356 (2007) ("it is unlawful for any person to engage in prostitution or solicitation therefor, except in a licensed house of prostitution.").

[21]initiative against sexual trafficking, prostitution & sex trafficking, http://www.iast.net/prostitutionsextrafficking.htm (last visited feb. 12, 2008).

[22]va. code ann. § 18.2-357 (2007); id. § 18.2-346(b) (2007).

[23]see initiative against sexual trafficking, supra note 21.

[24]unif. crime reporting program, fed. bureau of investigation, crime in the united states 2005 tbl. 69 (arrests by state), sep. 2006, available at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_69.html.

[25]fed. justice statistics resource ctr., bureau of justice statistics, fy2005 suspects in investigations initiated, available at http://fjsrc.urban.org/analysis/ez/displays/s_freq.cfm.

[26]doj letter, supra note 4, at 8-9.

[27]see 18 u.s.c. § 1584 (involuntary servitude); 18 u.s.c. § 1589 (forced labor).

[28]see 18 u.s.c. § 1581 (debt servitude); 18 u.s.c. § 1590 (trafficking with respect to peonage, slavery, involuntary servitude, or forced labor).

[29]doj letter, supra note 4, at 8.

[30]id. at 8-9.

[31]at the conclusion of its study, the american bar association task force on the federalization of criminal law reported that, as of 1998, the frequently cited estimate of over 3,000 federal criminal offenses rep001tered throughout the 49 titles of the united states code was certainly outdated and understated. task force on federalization of criminal law, supra note 6, at app. c 94. since 1998, these numbers have only increased. see generally john baker, jr. & dale e. bennett, federal*ist society for law and public policy, measuring the explosive growth of federal crime legislation, may 2004.

[32]one among many possible examples would be a person in virginia who extorts another person in virginia but uses a federal facility, such as the united states postal service, to communicate the unlawful threats and demands.

[33]see united states v. morrison, 529 u.s. 598, 613 (2000).

[34]see william rehnquist, remarks on the federalization of criminal law, 11 fed. sent. r. 132 (1998). counterfeiting currency and wiring proceeds of criminal acts across state lines to avoid detection are additional examples of crimes that are appro*priately federalized.

[35]see generally id. (quoting a report of the judicial conference of the united states); cf., united states v. lopez, 514 u.s. 549, 587-601 (1995) (thomas, j., concurring) (suggesting that the supreme court "reconsider [its] 'substantial effects' test with an eye toward constructing a standard that reflects the text and history of the commerce clause").

[36]trac reports, federal judges, http://tracfed.syr.edu/index/fedstaf/fedstafindex_judge.html (last visited feb. 11, 2008); california courts, state of california, california trial court roster, feb. 5, 2008, http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/trial/judges.htm.

[37] morrison, 529 u.s. at 607 (quoting marbury v. madison, 5 u.s. (1 cranch) 137, 176 (1803) (marshall, c.j.)); accord lopez, 514 u.s. at 552 ("we start with first principles. the constitution creates a federal government of enumerated powers."); the federalist no. 45, at 292-93 (james madison) (clinton rossiter, ed., 1961) ("the powers delegated by the proposed constitution to the federal government are few and defined. those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite.").

[38]lopez, 514 u.s. at 552 (quoting gregory v. ashcroft, 501 u.s. 452, 458 (1991)).

[39]local, violent crime that is not directed at interstate commerce is not a proper subject matter for federal legislation. as the supreme court reaffirmed in 2000, the "regulation and punishment of intrastate violence that is not directed at the instru*mentalities, channels, or goods involved in interstate commerce has always been the province of the states." morrison, 529 u.s. at 618.

[40]see lopez, 514 u.s. at 555-56 (surveying the genesis and development of the court's expansionist view of congressional commerce-clause power starting from the new deal era).

[41]see generally morrison, 529 u.s. 598 (striking down § 13981 of the violence against women act of 1994 because the predicate crimes the act created were beyond congress's commerce power); lopez, 514 u.s. 549 (striking down the provision of the federal gun-free school zones act of 1990 that made it a federal crime to possess a firearm in a school zone because the provision exceeded congress's power under the commerce clause).

[42]514 u.s. at 589 (thomas, j., concurring). by contrast, the express powers to coin money and punish counterfeiting granted to congress in article i of the constitution surely do affect interstate commerce.

[43]id. at 564.

[44]id.

[45]id.

[46]morrison, 529 u.s. at 612-13.

[47]id.

[48]545 u.s. 1 (2005).

[49]id. at 18 (stating that in order for congress to regulate purely intrastate activities it must first conclude "that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity").

[50]id. at 22 (finding regulation of wholly intrastate marijuana cultivation to be "necessary and proper" because "congress had a rational basis for believing that failure to regulate the intrastate manufacture and possession of marijuana would leave a gaping hole in the csa [controlled substances act]," a comprehensive regulatory scheme).

[Rio Joe]

For those of you who still don't know how to google and do a little simple research, I copied this in it's entirety.

Redfield, thank you for shedding more light on this topic. I emailed the authors of the Heritage Organization analysis regarding some specific questions I still have about the bill. But you've done a good job on showing that the potential impact of the bill on mongering is more significant than I originally thought.

[George90]

Specif*ically, any person who "persuades, induces, or entices any individual to engage in prostitution" (that is, "any sex act, on account of which anything of value is given to or received by any person") would face large fines and imprisonment for up to ten years.[12]

Does this mean that porn producers would be charged with sex trafficking????

This seems like a very poorly written and thought out bill. To be effective in prosecuting foreign sex tourism, the US needs the cooperation of foreign law enforcement. This bill doesn't seem to mention that aspect of the issue.

[Redfield10]

redfield, thank you for shedding more light on this topic. i emailed the authors of the heritage organization analysis regarding some specific questions i still have about the bill. but you've done a good job on showing that the potential impact of the bill on mongering is more significant than i originally thought.no problem. i apologize if i sounded critical, but i was just "googling" like everyone else. however, on some other sites there has been more discussion. and it's clear that according to this bill that the feds would consider it illegal to travel abroad with "intent" to buy sex.

whether it will pass the senate or whether they will be able to enforce it, is another question. it will undoubtedly take away from the resources it takes to catch real criminals. the ****s and the sex traffickers. and instead divert it to catching folks who "intend' to pay for sex in another country. basic good ol' mongering.

i would imagine they would view a site such as this as illegal because it would "further" "intent" to commit pay for sex abroad. etc.

[CBGBConnisur]

I am so glad I am not in the US anymore. From my guess this law is not going to target people who go to Western Europe where the trade is very legit.

[ILoveAnalSex]

Governor & former State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is a monger. Who Knew?????!!!!!!!!!

And what a hypocrite, eh?!

[Roguesta]

George90: The US will certainly get cooperation from NGOs and the Christian Reich which are already worldwide.

[George90]

Governor & former State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is a monger. Who Knew?????!!!!!!!!!

And what a hypocrite, eh?!

I have been reading that article and saw the late news about it. Spitzer is expected to resign this week.

Yes, he is a hypocrite, but moreover, he clearly doesn't read this forum. Most of us here realize that it the US is not the best country in the role in which toi monger. It is much safer to monger abroad. That said, why do men with so much to lose gamble by using prostitutes in the US????

Spitzer isn't the first. There is Senator Vitter. Jerry Springer got caught using a pro while he was mayor of Cincinatti. (He paid her by check. ?????) How many preachers have gotten caught using pros? I have lost count. Still, why here? Those guys that just take a vacation and get their freak on someplace else.

The news said the the top pros at the Emporer Club Spitzer was using went for $40,000 a night!!!!!

[Starchild2012]

Poor guy....did not read the forum..:D

What has prostitution got to do with effective work...people and the media are just stupid and the society have not come to terms with sex.

In reality...going to a prostitute..should not effect his work.

Many scientists and engineers also go to prostitutes, Discovery channel had a show, in which a billionaire from Britain took dozen girls to his private yacht and he was all positive on his life..he is doing charity too and plants to build the largest man made forest in the world to reduce climate change.

some billionaire do have high level of testosterone and some politicians too ..but overall....reading his past record ..he is overall a good guy with a bad habit..which is ok with me...i will vote him back and persuade him to legalize prostitution in new york :D

[CBGBConnisur]

NGO and Christian Reich are both getting their ass kicked by China, a non Christian country that is going to dominate the world economy. The Christian Supremacy movement is upheld by the USA, a country that is rapidly on its way down in the world. Europe itself is too divided and will continue being secular for a long time. Get ready for an Asian dominated world soon.

[Doctor_Skank]

Governor & former State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is a monger. Who Knew?????!!!!!!!!!

And what a hypocrite, eh?!
Two things are utterly ridiculous about this case:

1) the fact that having sex is a crime. Who cares if someone wants to pay for it. We are men... we NEEDS to GET LAID homey! I could just punch anybody in the face that thinks fucking should be a crime, for whatever reason.

2) the price. Obviously that's a ridiculous rate... wonder if she even kissed him, blew him BBBJ or let him get anywhere near her ass? The only reason to pay that much would be if you were stupidly rich and in a position (like him as a politician) where ABSOLUTE discretion/secrecy must be GUARANTEED. Well there are no guarantees when more than one person is involved.. so what's the point of paying such a horrendous sum?

Something about overpriced prostitutes just makes me hate them. It's like paying $75 for a Big Mac just "because".

[Rubber Nursey]

Something about overpriced prostitutes just makes me hate them. It's like paying $75 for a Big Mac just "because".
Awwww c'mon, Doc...that's a bit harsh! If you had someone willing to pay you $40,000 for a shag, whouldn't you take it? (I know I would!!!)

A product is only worth what someone is willing to pay. Some people are only willing to pay 50 bucks and if they're the only clients you have access to, then that's all your service is worth. But if you have access to people who are crazy enough to pay thousands of dollars an hour for sex, then your service is worth thousands of dollars an hour! More power to them, I reckon.

[Doctor_Skank]

Awwww c'mon, Doc...that's a bit harsh! If you had someone willing to pay you $40,000 for a shag, whouldn't you take it? (I know I would!!!)

A product is only worth what someone is willing to pay. Some people are only willing to pay 50 bucks and if they're the only clients you have access to, then that's all your service is worth. But if you have access to people who are crazy enough to pay thousands of dollars an hour for sex, then your service is worth thousands of dollars an hour! More power to them, I reckon.
If I were her, I'd take the big cash too... understandable.

It's the whole notion of overpriced pussy that irks me, which isn't the fault of the provider I realize. The notion that a portion of the society.... namely the American religious right... which is so anti-sex can actually coerce an entire country (and make attempts to manipulate the whole world) to follow it's pseudo-pious doctrine drives me up the wall.

[Rubber Nursey]

Spitzer isn't the first. There is Senator Vitter. Jerry Springer got caught using a pro while he was mayor of Cincinatti. (He paid her by check. ?????) How many preachers have gotten caught using pros? I have lost count.

Like I've always said...it's not the 'feminists' keeping the sex industry illegal. It's men with money and power. They need to keep us criminalised, stigmatised and disempowered, so that we won't be tempted to share their secrets with the world.

[Rubber Nursey]

The notion that a portion of the society.... namely the American religious right... which is so anti-sex can actually coerce an entire country (and make attempts to manipulate the whole world) to follow it's pseudo-pious doctrine drives me up the wall.
Whatever you do, don't get me started on the American influence over the global sex industry! My rage (and I mean RAGE) over Bush's anti-prostitution efforts has been threatening to bubble over for some time now...I dare not open the floodgates, for fear of an avalanche.

[Punter 127]

Awwww c'mon, Doc...that's a bit harsh! If you had someone willing to pay you $40,000 for a shag, whouldn't you take it? (I know I would!!!) Do you take checks? ;)

[Doctor_Skank]

whatever you do, don't get me started on the american influence over the global sex industry! my rage (and i mean rage) over bush's anti-prostitution efforts has been threatening to bubble over for some time now...i dare not open the floodgates, for fear of an avalanche.
even more annoying is that the us congress puts laws into effect without really thinking about it. a special interest group takes up the issue, shows a couple of videos of crying natashas and remorseless ****s and all of a sudden prostitution is pure evil and victimising women around the globe... the vote is merely statistical at that point... who dare vote against legislation? it would be like voting for [CodeWord908] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord908), white slavery and ****philia, right? the notion that some women choose the profession and that many women are dependent upon their incomes in the trade is left out of the picture, not to mention the often forgotten fact that men need sex and denying us sex on trumped-up moral grounds just screws with our heads and makes us do really dumb things.

but no, let's not get you started.

shall we go get a cup of tea, dear?

[Starchild2012]

The higher rate could also be due to level of secrecy the agency maintained..they only knew him as Client 9 :)

[Punter 127]

Like I've always said...it's not the 'feminists' keeping the sex industry illegal. It's men with money and power. They need to keep us criminalised, stigmatised and disempowered, so that we won't be tempted to share their secrets with the world. I think it’s both. On the “Today show” Dr. Laura suggested that men may stray because their wives are not taking care of them. The feminists man bashers Jumped on her and one just point blank said “I refuse to except that the wife may be at fault”. Yet every married woman I ever fucked (something I’m not proud of) said she was fucking around because of something her husband was or wasn’t doing.

[Rubber Nursey]

But no, let's not get you started. Shall we go get a cup of tea, dear?
Oh God...can anyone else hear that rumbling noise? Don't make me do it, Doc. You'll regret it!

I will say only these four words: PEPFAR anti-prostitution pledge. *shudder*

[CBGBConnisur]

I heard that same escort service that Spitzer used had European clients. Why in the world would Europeans want to use an American escort service, especially considering the quality of services found in Europe?

The issue here isn't the actual act of the Governor paying for sex but the fact that he took a hard line against prostitution and even closed one operation down when he was an AG. So he is a big hypocrite, he against the trade professionally but then on other hand he uses the service himself.

Most parts of the world today, a man visiting prostitute is hardly news. The UK might have been as bad as the US possibly 30 years ago but not today.

Its also a well known fact that California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger posed nude in a gay porno magazine, the Republican party was the one that tried to spread the rumors of his past experiences sexually harassing females to obscure this fact. Its more respectable to the Republicans to be a heterosexual predator than a homosexual.

1100 big ones for an 15 minute hour??? Boy this guy was nuts. I could have 30 sessions in my favorite FKK for that much.

[Rubber Nursey]

And I thought *I* was an insomniac, CBGB! :) You're right about the hypocrisy...it's always the closet mongers/homosexuals/paedophiles that protest the loudest.

Punter127...in most parts of the world where prostitution is legal, the majority of brothels are owned by rich, powerful men. In places where prostitution is illegal, sex workers are generally prosecuted (soliciting, not using condoms, working whilst infected, etc) while their clients just walk away. Brothels can only operate because rich, powerful men allow them to (whispering in the ears of other powerful men - police, politicians, etc - to keep the dogs at bay).

The only truly decriminalised and empowered sex industry in the world, that I'm aware of, is in New Zealand...a country with a female Prime Minister. Coincidence? I think not.

I blame men for the criminalisation of prostitution. Rich, powerful men. They not only frequent the brothels, they often control them...directly or indirectly. I personally believe that they let the feminazis take the rap for outlawing sex work, because it takes the heat off them.

Why is pornography production legal (and accepted) but prostitution isn't? Because the porn business is owned and operated by men. The sex industry on the other hand, if it was left alone and not restricted by insane laws (created by male politicians), would be owned and operated by women and the rich fatcats in suits would lose their influence.

That's my theory, anyway.

And sure...a bouncy cheque is probably adequate payment for a virtual sex service. :)

[George90]

I heard that same escort service that Spitzer used had European clients. Why in the world would Europeans want to use an American escort service, especially considering the quality of services found in Europe?

I understand it is an international agency with offices in New York, Paris, and London. The European clients are getting it on with European providers, not AWs.

[Lorenzo]

...The only truly decriminalised and empowered sex industry in the world, that I'm aware of, is in New Zealand...a country with a female Prime Minister. Coincidence? I think not....
I think prostitution has been decriminalized in most Latin American countries except Cuba. Perhaps somebody can correct me if I'm wrong. I know it has been for sure in Brazil, where it thrives. But even there, pimping or soliciting is illegal, but not the act itself of exchanging money for sex.

[Rubber Nursey]

I think prostitution has been decriminalized in most Latin American countries except Cuba. Perhaps somebody can correct me if I'm wrong. I know it has been for sure in Brazil, where it thrives. But even there, pimping or soliciting is illegal, but not the act itself of exchanging money for sex.
Prostitution has been legalised/decriminalised to a certain degree in many countries (including my own), but New Zealand COMPLETELY decriminalised it. They even went that extra mile and wrote in specific industrial rights, etc for sex workers. That's what I mean being TRULY decriminalised and empowered.

[Punter 127]

Punter127...in most parts of the world where prostitution is legal, the majority of brothels are owned by rich, powerful men. In places where prostitution is illegal, sex workers are generally prosecuted (soliciting, not using condoms, working whilst infected, etc) while their clients just walk away. Brothels can only operate because rich, powerful men allow them to (whispering in the ears of other powerful men - police, politicians, etc - to keep the dogs at bay). Men may well own the majority of legal brothels in the world, I don’t know how you or I could prove that, but odds are your correct. However in the USA the clients don’t just walk away, read the USA forum there are stings set up all over the country using female cops posing as hookers to bust Johns. What a waste of tax dollars.


The only truly decriminalised and empowered sex industry in the world, that I'm aware of, is in New Zealand...a country with a female Prime Minister. Coincidence? I think not.
There are other countries that have legal prostitution such as Canada and Germany, you will have to define your meaning of “empowered”.


I blame men for the criminalisation of prostitution. Rich, powerful men. They not only frequent the brothels, they often control them...directly or indirectly. I personally believe that they let the feminazis take the rap for outlawing sex work, because it takes the heat off them. I don’t disagree with the “Rich, powerful men” being to blame, but I’m not letting the “feminazis” off the hook. I think just as many pussy whipped men are being whispered to by feminazis to oppose prostitution.


Why is pornography production legal (and accepted) but prostitution isn't? Because the porn business is owned and operated by men. The sex industry on the other hand, if it was left alone and not restricted by insane laws (created by male politicians), would be owned and operated by women and the rich fatcats in suits would lose their influence.
That's my theory, anyway. I don’t disagree with your theory, but I think it’s only part of the story. In the USA I have not heard one female politician speak up for the legalization of prostitution. If anything the opposite is true, the U.S. Congress is controlled by the Democrats a party the feminazis call home, go back and read Redfield10’s post about “Anti-sex work legislation H.R.3887” in this thread. Which BTW after some research it appears he is correct. It’s only fair that I point out the religious right of the Republican Party supports this legislation as well.


And sure...a bouncy cheque is probably adequate payment for a virtual sex service. :) OK, checks in the mail and I promise I won’t CIM, trust me, I will respect you tomorrow. Oh and I will call you!

[Zing Uk]

Even more annoying is that the US congress puts laws into effect without really thinking about it.

The US does everything without thinking in my opinion. That's what you get when you vote in a president who had only ever been out of the country thrre times before he became president......"Now where is this eyeraque place again?" Duh, go George!

[Punter 127]

The US does everything without thinking in my opinion. That's what you get when you vote in a president who had only ever been out of the country thrre times before he became president......"Now where is this eyeraque place again?" Duh, go George!This is the "Morality of Prostitution" opinion thread, not the bash America thread!

[Redfield10]

I read a report on another site. That the Senate version perhaps will not include the part about the average Joe paying for sex, but rather still targets a "group organizer", for example, who profits from "sex tourism"

I'm trying to find out more info.

[ILoveAnalSex]

I think prostitution should be legal everywhere as it is in Nevada. I guess my big issue with Spitzer is that this man sent people to jail for the same exact thing he was doing behind closed doors.

I doubt Spitzer started visiting prostitutes just this week - he's probably been doing so for awhile. During a typical day, he may as well have finished prosecuting a prostitution case at 3 PM, then met his hooker at 6 PM. So since there are people sitting in jail for prostitution that Spitzer put there, he should also follow suit.

Hey, maybe this will be the impetus to legalize it everywhere?! Actually, this story will probably be the impetus for politicians & LE agencies to beef up their crack down on prostitution. So mongers, look out!

[Rubber Nursey]

however in the usa the clients don’t just walk away, read the usa forum there are stings set up all over the country using female cops posing as hookers to bust johns. what a waste of tax dollars.
we have similar stings here. f*ckin' ridiculous to think that there are people being bashed and raped in their homes who can't get help, because the cops are standing around on street corners in fishnets. forget the [CodeWord127] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord127) and murderers...there are people out there paying for sex!!! god forbid...

while it's true that clients are regularly busted on the streets, how many rich, powerful men get caught up in these low-end stings? most of those guys are getting $1000 an hour call girls through exclusive agencies, not picking up street hookers. the street stings target the common man (collateral damage in the effort to appear to be 'tough on prostitution'). occasionally the top-end services are targeted, as in the spitzer case, but the conspiracy theorist in me can't help but think that those sorts of raids are probably politically motivated. say, a politician gets wind that their rival is using an escort agency...hmmm what would happen if that agency happened to be raided and my rival's name was found on the books? ok, i'm a cynic, but i wouldn't put it past them.


there are other countries that have legal prostitution such as canada and germany, you will have to define your meaning of “empowered”.
i've already explained what i meant to lorenzo (below) but i should add ...decriminalisation itself does not automatically empower sex workers. it might take away the risk of prosecution, but the stigma remains. true empowerment can only come with anti-discrimination protection, oh&s rights, industrial rights, etc. people working in decriminalised environments are still discriminated against by the police, the health system, future employers, the courts, the media. it's no use having the 'right' to report an assault to the police, for example, if the police are not likely to follow it up.

in the proposed laws currently on the table in my state, the legislation clearly defines the [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) of a sex worker. the idea is that police won't be tempted to think 'no court is gonna convict someone of [CodeWord125] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord125) a wh*re...may as well not even bother laying charges'. with this new law, sex workers will at least have a chance to get their case heard by a judge and instead of having to prove that [CodeWord125] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord125) a hooker is actually possible, they can focus on proving that the [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) actually happened (like any other [CodeWord123] (http://isgprohibitedwords.info?CodeWord=CodeWord123) victim).


i don’t disagree with the “rich, powerful men” being to blame, but i’m not letting the “feminazis” off the hook.
oh, don't worry...neither am i! i'm not saying the feminazis aren't making all the demands - i'm just not convinced that they're the ones making the final decisions. like i said, i believe that the men in power want to keep prostitution illegal - the further underground it goes, the less chance there is of them ever being caught walking amongst it. they just have to let the women do the talking, because it's seen as a 'women's issue'.

but there are two very separate camps of femininists when it comes to prostitution - the 'all hookers are victims' camp and the 'sex workers are independent women who deserve rights' camp. what's interesting to me is the amount of govt money being poured in to support the victim camp. again, call me a cynic, but i'm convinced that they're being specifically funded to drown out the voices of the sex worker rights camp. (that's actually happening quite blatantly in america, with 'pro-sex work' groups being denied funds for research that could support rights-based campaigns, while anti-sex work groups are being offered money to carry out biased studies on trafficking and exploitation).


ok, checks in the mail and i promise i won’t cim, trust me, i will respect you tomorrow. oh and i will call you!
yeah, yeah...and i'm on the pill and i'm only 21. and you're my first. oh wow, you're so big! ;)

[Rubber Nursey]

...not to mention the often forgotten fact that men need sex and denying us sex on trumped-up moral grounds just screws with our heads and makes us do really dumb things.
Hmmm...like invade Iraq, perhaps? Try to shut down the global sex industry? Say 'nuke-u-lar' instead of 'nuclear'? :)

Haha...sorry, couldn't resist.

[Bango Cheito]

Prostitution has been legalised/decriminalised to a certain degree in many countries (including my own), but New Zealand COMPLETELY decriminalised it. They even went that extra mile and wrote in specific industrial rights, etc for sex workers. That's what I mean being TRULY decriminalised and empowered.


Lorenzo is correct. Prostitution is officially defined as a profession in both Brazil and Colombia, and I believe also in Mexico.

I know it's still illegal (but officially tolerated) in Argentina and the Dominican Republic. Other countries I'm not sure either way.

[Doctor_Skank]

There are other countries that have legal prostitution such as Canada and Germany, you will have to define your meaning of “empowered”.

Even in "empowered" Germany prostitution is only semi-legal... and the industry is largely controlled by Albanian, Turkish and German gangs. There are independent pros as well, but many many more girls, particularly those from EE working part-time in Germany, giving up a healthy portion of their checks for "protection".

[Rubber Nursey]

Lorenzo is correct. Prostitution is officially defined as a profession in both Brazil and Colombia, and I believe also in Mexico.
Brazil rocks! I was so impressed with their stand against America's PEPFAR bullsh*t a couple of years ago.

Who in their right mind would think that promoting ABSTINENCE to HOOKERS could ever be a successful HIV prevention strategy??!!!

Hey Dubya, your village called...they want their idiot back!

[Doctor_Skank]

Brazil rocks! I was so impressed with their stand against America's PEPFAR bullsh*t a couple of years ago.

Who in their right mind would think that promoting ABSTINENCE to HOOKERS could ever be a successful HIV prevention strategy??!!!

Hey Dubya, your village called...they want their idiot back!
I'm certainly no W fan, but I wouldn't count on things changing with his "retirement". The morality police and their failed policies are deeply seated in American politics. As I already stated, most politicians are afraid to challenge them for fear of losing their constituency.

BTW, I think the countries where the industry works best are also those countries where the local females have liberal sexual attitudes in the first place... see Brazil, see Germany, see Russia... countries where going to a prostitute is not an act of desperation but rather just another option to live out one's sexual desires/needs/fantasies. Just a thought.

So how are the girls in Oz and New Zealand? )

[Rubber Nursey]

I'm certainly no W fan, but I wouldn't count on things changing with his "retirement". The morality police and their failed policies are deeply seated in American politics. As I already stated, most politicians are afraid to challenge them for fear of losing their constituency.
Unfortunately, I think you're right. I know that Georgie Boy isn't solely responsible for all these horrible policies, but I'd rather direct my ire at him than at 'America' as a whole. I'm not gonna slag off the average American just because their politicians (much like mine) are a pack of self-righteous dumb-arses. :)

[Rubber Nursey]

I think the countries where the industry works best are also those countries where the local females have liberal sexual attitudes in the first place... see Brazil, see Germany, see Russia...
Not so sure I can agree with that. It depends what you mean by 'works best'? It certainly doesn't work best for sex workers in most European countries, where the industry is often run by organised crime and traffickers!

[Doctor_Skank]

Not so sure I can agree with that. It depends what you mean by 'works best'? It certainly doesn't work best for sex workers in most European countries, where the industry is often run by organised crime and traffickers!
Works best for us mongers... :)

[CBGBConnisur]

I'm certainly no W fan, but I wouldn't count on things changing with his "retirement". The morality police and their failed policies are deeply seated in American politics. As I already stated, most politicians are afraid to challenge them for fear of losing their constituency.

BTW, I think the countries where the industry works best are also those countries where the local females have liberal sexual attitudes in the first place... see Brazil, see Germany, see Russia... countries where going to a prostitute is not an act of desperation but rather just another option to live out one's sexual desires/needs/fantasies. Just a thought.

So how are the girls in Oz and New Zealand? )

W's exit from office is not going to change domestic US attitudes toward sex, the Amen corner in America is still there, what it is going to change is US foreign policy, the next leader who is most likely going to be a Democrat, is going to steer the US in a new direction, unfortunately turning around is too late, the US is going to down like all other Empires in history. Already the initial signs are there, especially the continually depreciating US dollar, after all money is what is needed to keep the imperial machine running.

As far as prostitution check out this photo of the number one prostitute in New York:
http://www.strangepolice.com/content/item/109313.html
Honestly she is nothing compared to most women I have met overseas. P4P in the USA is just a waste of time.

[Doctor_Skank]

, unfortunately turning around is too late, the US is going to down like all other Empires in history. Already the initial signs are there, especially the continually depreciating US dollar, after all money is what is needed to keep the imperial machine running.

You planning a revolution CBGB? Every single post of yours is about the end of the American Empire. Not that I predict great things for America in the next few years, yet it is still one of the wealthiest countries in the world in terms of natural resources, most of which have yet to be tapped, and will survive any recession. The biggest problem is upper management's total social irresponsibility and self-serving policies. They need to be canned.
Moreover the European, Chinese and Russian economies are more fragile than their current state suggests. They can fold equally as quickly and none of those 3 power blocks has any power projection capability militarily.

But back to the point, this is an interesting article on high-end prostitution:
http://blogs.wsj.com/wealth/2008/03/11/how-the-new-rich-are-changing-the-oldest-profession/

[Punter 127]

Even in "empowered" Germany prostitution is only semi-legal... and the industry is largely controlled by Albanian, Turkish and German gangs. There are independent pros as well, but many many more girls, particularly those from EE working part-time in Germany, giving up a healthy portion of their checks for "protection".

As I walked the streets of Frankfurt and Hamburg it certainly didn’t appear “semi-legal”, with FKK clubs and the “Eros Centres” (licensed brothels) Hamburg had women on display in windows just like Amsterdam, and you could barely walk past the police station for the street walkers blocking the street. How is this all just “semi-legal”, corrupt perhaps but semi-legal?

[Zing Uk]

This is the "Morality of Prostitution" opinion thread, not the bash America thread!

I know but I had drunk a bottle of wine and just went off on one......ignore me :-)

[Doctor_Skank]

As I walked the streets of Frankfurt and Hamburg it certainly didn’t appear “semi-legal”, with FKK clubs and the “Eros Centres” (licensed brothels) Hamburg had women on display in windows just like Amsterdam, and you could barely walk past the police station for the street walkers blocking the street. How is this all just “semi-legal”, corrupt perhaps but semi-legal?
You are right.

Prostitution is officially legal, however many prostitutes or aspects of prostitution are not covered by law. Officially prostitutes have to pay taxes for example, many don't. Pimping is also illegal, yet many girls have pimps, particularly those from EE. AFAIK street prostitution is also not officially legal as it does not offer safety for the women, but I am not 100% sure.

FKK clubs for example are not places of legalised prostitution but rather tolerated prostitution. The "official" version is that people, men and women, go there to relax, both pay an entrance fee and what goes on behind closed doors is between the two people and nobody's business. The "inofficial" version is that everybody knows what is going on.

There have been recent changes in the legality of prostitution in Germany, particularly in the runup to the World Cup in 2006, so perhaps things have become even "more" legal than I was aware. I'm not sure, I've not yet started prostituting myself, even though I have toyed with the idea. )))

Here's more detailed info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Germany

[CBGBConnisur]

No I am not planning any sort of revolution, while it is true that the US has vast untapped resources, converting the US economy to one based on commodities like that of Australia or Canada would not work out well for the US. The revenue from selling resources would not be enough to provide a high standard of living for America with a large population. Peddling timber, minerals , and oil will not be enough for a country of 300 million people to maintain or improve its current living standards.

As far as military capability, it is a firm bet that things are going to change drastically over the next 10 to 15 years, the US Air Force recently handed a major contract to EADS to build shipping tanker aircraft because the USAF thought the European design was superior to what Boeing had to offer, that is big news to me because any self sustaining military industrial complex should be restricted to domestic production and consumption, basically the US military is shooting itself in the foot by relying on a European contractor for such a crucial aircraft. You also forgot to mention that the USA is reliant on cheap and easy credit which will become more difficult to get, because the Dollar is quickly losing favor as a world reserve currency. Also the the military is heavily dependent on that credit line as well. It costs $1 Billion a year to run one US Navy vessel.

Anyway the fact is that nuclear weapons are also proliferating rapidly around the entire world, Iran is going to be the next nuclear power, I have heard rumors that Brazil is also going to become a nuclear country as well. Even tiny Australia is also entering the nuclear club. When you have a weapon that can basically wipe out all life on the planet, a conventional military is irrelevant. Its one of the reasons why Israel, a nation of only 5 million people with a small military can keep the entire Arab world at bay. Russia can project military power around the world because of its massive nuclear arsenal. China is also drastically improving its capabilities militarily as well. But at the current time it is true that only the US can project its entire military might worldwide.

As far as Europe being weak, maybe in the past, but the basic foundation of a European Superpower has been laid down, a strong financial system controlled by the ECB and the Euro.

[DavePhx]

Dave, sexwork.com Guest on Air America - Decriminalizing Prostitution

Wed night 3/12/08 I did a guest appearance on Air America "Clout with Richard Greene Do-Something Radio"

I am usually very critical of myself but listening to the replay other than a few stumbles of words, I think I did quite good :) He asked the perfect questions and let me give long responses related to Spitzer, the Christian aspects - discussion of how founded libchrist.com, and how related to my interest in sexwork, are prostitutes screwed up people (no) and why people seek prostitutes.

He mention how fantastic the discussion was which of course is nice and wants to have me on for a longer session in the future.

Replay Podcasts are at

Segment 1 http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1084936_xkkgj/2008-03-12-Clout_2-1.mp3
Spitzer discussion, the Liberated Christian to sexwork aspect, why men seek prostitutes etc.

Segment 2 http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/files/1084937_gwyty/2008-03-12-Clout_2-2.mp3
3 attacks needed to change the laws so we have the same sexual freedoms that most of the rest of the world enjoys. These approaches are Constitutional (Lawrence vs Texas), Voter initiatives (discussed the SWOP Berkeley failure and why) and legislative (like Calf group), and issue of shame based society. Had to talk fast with limited time!

While I do not agree with some of the extremist liberal views of some on Air America, this was a great outlet to get the message out about decriminalization of in private consenting adult sexwork.

The show airs in major cities including in Phoenix on KPHX-AM 1480 as well as on XM Satellite Radio Ch 167

UPDATE - Getting great response from escorts and others that have heard the broadcast from all over the U.S. Mostly saying it was a fantastic interview and so glad someone is speaking about for private sexwork in such a well informed way. Also have had some media responses and am willing to do other interviews.
===============================================
Webpage http://www.sexwork.com/escorts/AirAmerica.html
I now have done a page with the above info on the interview to refer the media or others to and have included links to other articles related to this "abuse" issue and why men take the risks to see private prostitutes:
Escort's Transformation Experiences
When I get the "abused" question I have so many articles on sexwork.com by escorts telling the positive side. I was reminded of perhaps the best to refer folks to which is of Belle in Niagara Falls who I met and with her enthusiastic permission share some of her personal blog entries in my article "An Escort's Transformation Experiences
Honest Wisdom that can benefit Providers and our Culture" at http://www.sexwork.com/escorts/transformation.html

Other public education articles on my AirAmerica page:
Why is sexwork considered a shame based service by many? (article below)
The men who sleep with prostitutes - Why
Who Will Rescue Us from Those Who Wish to Rescue Us Against Our Will?
Escorts - Why We Hire Them
Saving Women from Themselves Silliness
An Escorts Positive View of Escorting
Is All this Sex Trafficking emotional issue overblown vs. the facts?
LInks to articles included at http://www.sexwork.com/escorts/AirAmerica.html
===============================================
CBS Evening News Coverage 3/14/08
This was typical of many media reports. They start off by showing images of street hookers. The say how its such a high risk business with so many prostitutes murdered and coming from broken homes, abused by adults, bad boyfriends drugs etc. They even had the Phoenix Dignity (Catholic) lady on telling how her life was ruined by prostitution. She runs the Phoenix PD John program where first offenders sit thru all the horror stories of prostitution. As I said in my interview most of these are related to street hookers, which is maybe 10% of prostitution but unless a Spitzer situation pops up its all the public knows about. I said in private prostitution some are in it for the wrong reasons and have abuse just like in the overall culture. But far more choose it by their own choice, were not abused etc like the typical street hooker.

Some of the other media did interview private sexworkers like Tracy Quan (Diary of a Manhattan Call Girl), Heidi Fleiss, Norma Jean Almodovar ("Cop to Callgirl" book fame) and others who had good answers about men seeking private escorts and willing to pay top prices for the privacy.

[Rubber Nursey]

DavePhx: I appreciate the work you do to raise the profile of consensual adult sex work and challenge public perceptions of sex workers and their clients. But I can't support a sex work campaign that not only excludes, but actually denigrates and vilifies, certain individuals within the sex industry. How can you claim to be opposed to 'discrimination and stigma' in one sentence and then slag off 'public nuisance street hookers' in the next?

Sex workers fuck for a living - that's what makes us sex workers. It makes no difference whether that sex happens in a car, a hotel, a brothel or a penthouse.

Your sex work campaign attempts to raise the status of one group of sex workers at the expense of another. Yes, the public perception of street-based workers reflects badly on the rest of us and makes our fight for decriminalisation and acceptance a million times harder. But putting them down achieves nothing. They will still be out there on the streets, influencing how the public views the sex industry...only the public perception will get steadily worse, because campaigns like yours have worked so hard to increase the stigma.

Street workers are the 'public face' of sex work, whether we like it or not. So we have a choice. We can distance ourselves from the street workers and slag them off to make ourselves feel better, but ultimately leave things the way they are....or we can try to raise the profile of street work and improve the lives and working conditions of these men and women, hopefully altering public perceptions in the process.

Option one has been practiced by holier-than-thou indoor workers for centuries and obviously hasn't got us anywhere. I think it's about time we gave option two a shot.

[DavePhx]

The fact is there is no way never we will see any reform if it includes the street hooker. That has been proven over and over again around the world other than in NZ.

We should do all we can do get the street hooker OFF THE STREET, help with drugs and away from her pimp. I was involved in a safe house situation in Mpls many years ago to keep safe from pimp, shipping to NY and off drugs.

If you want to stand up for the street hooker's right to be a public nuisance which is a huge issue with an outraged public around the world against it it will assure there are no reforms that help the 90% that respect the public and offer in private services.

The public overall doesn't want police and court resources going after private activities but they are adament against the street hooker on their block, in front of their homes and businesses etc. Zones are a good idea which I support but they have failed everywhere tried in Europe.

SWOP would have won in Berkely from the polls and press at the time but sufferred a huge defeat in the most liberal city in America because they didn't want public nuisance street hookers.

The issue seems very clear. Private only or nothing will change and we will continue the failures to reform as in the past, and in most of the world.

In the U.S. we are almost the only country where outcall is illegal. That is my push to change, not force street hookers in the face of the public which they for very good reasons will never accept.

[Rubber Nursey]

***We need to reach the top of the mountain if we want to escape that pack of wild animals. The women and children will only slow us down. Let's sneak off overnight and leave them here at the camp - they'll be eaten alive, but at least the rest of us will have a chance of making it to safety.***

I'm sorry, but sacrificing the most vulnerable members of your party in order to protect yourselves is not only cruel and selfish...it's plain lazy. The problem of street hookers is just too hard to deal with, so let's just dump them and save ourselves? Not me. I would rather stand and fight the wild animals together and take my whole group to the top of the mountain.

You claim that while street prostitution continues there will be no chance of reform, then point out that the US is one of the only countries where outcall is illegal. In every one of the other countries that has some form of legal sex work, street prostitution also exists. It's still illegal in most of those countries and the moral minority are just as outraged about it as they are in the US, but it didn't stop the brothel/escort/private reforms from happening in the first place.

Street-based workers can, and do, co-exist with the rest of the sex industry. American attitudes to sex work (in general) have created such an appalling mess on the streets that it may SEEM impossible to clean it up, but it just means you'll have to fight harder than the rest of us.

While street workers continue to suffer abuse and violence within public view, the rest of the industry will continue to suffer alongside them. They see drug dependency on the streets and 'blame' all sex work on drug addiction. They see violence on the streets and think all sex workers are subjected to violence...or worse, write off violence as just 'part of the job description'. They see perverts and paedophiles on the streets and think that's what all clients are like. They see pimps beating street workers and think that's what all brothel owners are like.

I realise that's exactly why your campaign tries to distance itself from street work, but what is that achieving? It's all very well to say you want street workers OFF the streets, but it's already illegal, they're already being forced into rehab or put in jail, they're already being arrested, named and shamed...and none of that has had any effect! You are NOT going to get them off the streets. We have to stop beating that dead horse and start working with what we've got.

[DavePhx]

[quote=rubber nursey]
in every one of the other countries that has some form of legal sex work, street prostitution also exists. it's still illegal in most of those countries and the moral minority are just as outraged about it as they are in the us, but it didn't stop the brothel/escort/private reforms from happening in the first place.

while street workers continue to suffer abuse and violence within public view, the rest of the industry will continue to suffer alongside them

i realise that's exactly why your campaign tries to distance itself from street work, but what is that achieving? /quote]

1) everywhere street hookers exist illegally the public is up in arms, cameras to get license plates of cars and send letters to their homes etc. there is no chance of reform as long as street hookers insist on being a public nuisance. so have your lofty goals and continue on the dead end path.

i know of many private outcall providers that have had their lives ruined by being busted for in private consenting adult laws in the u.s. when our sheriff joe did his bust of 100 - all cases were thrown out since was in private - but rico was used to take the home of at least two (or had to buy back their homes for $30-50k equity they had - and other had $30,000 from a bank account taken under rico. in az we have a minimum 60 days in prison for a first offense prostitution charge. none of this will ever change if you insist on the rights of street hookers to be a public nuisance.

2) why not turn your pro street hooker energy into helping them be safer, get off the streets. 99% of all the violence etc is from being on the street. lets get them off the street so they would be safer. the problem is more complex however, because many of them also need drug rehab and have other issues. yes lets help them will their issues to be productive citizens. they have to take responsibility for their own actions and want help however which many do not - they just want to continue to have the attitude the public be damned i am going to be a public nuisance.

3) yes the moral majority is against all prostitution as are some feminst groups but the public overall is fine with in private sexuality. but not street hookers. when our sheriff joe did his 100 busts, even in co-founder of liberated christians, bill's very conservative church the general attitude was it was a waste of public resources to go after in private sexwork.

but folks like you just want to continue the failed ideas yet you aren't the one getting arrested in private, having your name in the press, having rico confirep001ions of your life savings and home which for private sexwork is only an issue in the u.s. not almost all the rest of the world.

i am fighting for changes that actually have strong arguments for decriminalization of private sex as in most of the world. there is no strong argument nor public support for street hookers and your attitude simply hurts any chance of any reform at all.

[Rubber Nursey]

but folks like you just want to continue the failed ideas yet you aren't the one getting arrested in private, having your name in the press...
firstly, i should point out that i'm australian, not american (in case my spelling didn't give me away). secondly, 'folks like me' in my state are also being harassed in brothels by police and kicked out of private sex industry workplaces. we, too, have property confirep001ion laws. we, too, have residents groups forcing local councils to shut down private workers. don't be so sure that "i'm not the one" being arrested or having my name put in the press...i've been booted out of my own private workplaces, i've had my name added to a sex worker register (against my will), i've been threatened with violence, public shaming, blackmail, etc by both clients and police. feel free to disagree with me all you like, but please don't make me out to be some do-gooder commenting on the industry from the outside.


why not turn your pro street hooker energy into helping them be safer, get off the streets.
i do put my energy into helping them stay safe...on the streets.


99% of all the violence etc is from being on the street.
no, 99% of the violence is from having no access to legal recourse, same as it is for indoor workers.


the problem is more complex however, because many of them also need drug rehab and have other issues. yes lets help them will their issues to be productive citizens. they have to take responsibility for their own actions and want help however which many do not - they just want to continue to have the attitude the public be damned i am going to be a public nuisance.
that's what society says about all sex workers. it doesn't make it true.


there is no strong argument nor public support for street hookers and your attitude simply hurts any chance of any reform at all.
you're so wrong. whenever sex industry law reform is discussed, the issue of 'vulnerable drug addicted street prostitutes' gets trotted out and used as a justification to ban all sex work. improving the situation on the streets gives them one less reason to resist decriminalisation. you can say that most efforts to fix the problems haven't worked, but i would argue that's because it's never done properly.

[DavePhx]

How would you "do it properly?" without being a public nuisance?

At least in your Australia, outcall I believe it legal everywhere, brothel regulation depends on the state but is mostly legal with various restrictions.

Street hookers are illegal all over except in certain places in New South Wales.

My focus is on the U.S. and Canada especially in the sex negative U.S. There is absolutely no way in the U.S. citizens are going to tolerate street hookers, nor in Canada where a huge campaign failed over street hookers and doomed all hope of needed reform of bawdy and "living off the avails"

In the U.S. nothing is legal and there is mounting public opinion against private prostitution laws which the Spitzer example has so nicely brought out.

But all efforts will fail if try and decrim the street hooker, that is simply a fact in the U.S. proven by Berkeley (perhaps the most liberal city in the U.S.) and its failure in Canada and most of the rest of the world. But my main issue is the U.S since so many people have their lives ruined by our laws that has the govenment in private bedrooms.

[Rubber Nursey]

How would you "do it properly?" without being a public nuisance?
I didn't mean the girls weren't doing it properly. I was talking about the Government. Attempts at making street laws always end badly, mainly because most law-makers think like you do and don't take the needs of the street workers themselves into consideration.

One example of how to do it 'properly' is New South Wales - which, by the way, doesn't have certain places where street hookers ARE allowed to work. It has certain places where street hookers AREN'T allowed to work. Street work is not illegal unless you do it 'in view' of certain things, including a residential home. That's the key...giving them choices, not designating (usually completely inappropriate or unsafe) red-light zones. On top of that, the city then provides safe houses/short-term hotels, complete with outreach services, where they can take their clients. So not only are they not soliciting outside someone's house, they're not having sex in the back alley either. AND it encourages the girls to stay in particular areas, to be closer to the services provided.

Sydney hasn't got it completely right - a major shift in the mindset of the local constabulary would certainly help - but it's a pretty good start. The street scene operates in relative harmony with the community which, like I said before, impacts very positively on how Sydney views sex workers and sex work in general.

I'll be very interested to see what the impending review of the New Zealand laws reveal in regard to street work, as well.


At least in your Australia, outcall I believe it legal everywhere, brothel regulation depends on the state but is mostly legal with various restrictions.
Australian sex industry laws are not as liberal as most Americans seem to think. Outcall services aren't legal everywhere and only a couple of states have legal brothels. Private work (incall) operates in a grey area in most states, which often leaves private workers unprotected by the law. In some states, like mine, private workers fall foul of laws meant to target brothels, like living off the earnings or keeping premises for the purpose. And even when they're not breaking criminal laws, they're often breaking local by-laws. I hope your private workers have better success with their law reform efforts than ours have!

[Punter 127]

Here’s an interesting article that gives some insight into the prevailing attitude towards prostitution in the United States.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080315/ap_on_re_us/shaming_johns

[Brazil Specialist]

"Spitzer's spanking shows just how weird the US is"

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/spitzers-spanking-shows-just-how-weird-the-us-is/2008/03/13/1205126107123.html

Very refreshing report.

Why doesn't anyone else come to their senses? Why nobody in big press in the US mentions that maybe the prostitution laws are due for overhaul.

Who has suffered damages from this case? Spitzer's pocketbook. His wife whose prized slave has escaped her control. Who else suffered damages? What is the problem? The price is too high. Foreign guest workers should get visa to drive the price down. Decriminalization also would get the price down.

In Curitiba (Brazil) a large percentage of girls finance their college studies with hooking.

This one is preparing to enter college.

http://www.cwbvip.com.br/debora.htm
Natural: Curitiba
Idade: 18 anos
Altura: 1.75m
Peso: 56kg
Atendo: homes
Atendimento: local, motéis e hotéis ( 24horas )
Tel: 9202-5836
http://www.041vip.com.br/lavinia.htm novo

This one studies physical education in college
http://www.sinalverdesexy.com.br/index.php?pagina=modelos&action=view&id_modelo=39


Yes I tried them both. US$ 60 the first, US$ 35 the second.


Hooking also helps college students in France, German. So hooking can help to foster a country's education.

[CBGBConnisur]

Australia is far more tolerant to prostitution than the US, at least in Sydney and Melbourne. There are some backward areas of the country, Queensland, where John Howard comes from is ass backward. Sydney and Melbourne have brothels galore. Darlinghurst St. in Sydney at night time is full of prostitutes. Still compared to Europe its not as liberal but more so than anything in North America, including Canada.

[Bango Cheito]

Interesting subject. I agree with RN that you can't really get girls off of the street by fiat, it just doesn't work. I also agree with DavePhx in that I think that sex workers plying their trade on public streets is not a great idea for many reasons.

Hell, there are some very strong arguments against allowing people to set up a hot dog stand and sell FOOD on the streets.

One thing I have noticed that is a very big difference between places where sex work is legal or at least decriminalized and places where it is not, where it is not, often the same girl that works sometimes even up to middle-higher-end incall places will from time to time walk the track for extra dough.

RN, one thing I don't get, I mean, myself as a professional musician, there is just about NOTHING I hate more than some weekend warrior who can barely play pretending to be a REAL musician who actually does it for a living and lives and breathes it. Do you not feel at least a LITTLE bit the same towards some of your less than professional "colleagues" in the business? I don't necessarily mean ONLY SW or even specifically that, but in general, people who ridiculously overcharge or undercharge, people who treat clients poorly, cheat them or even rob them, giving the business a bad name etc?

[Rubber Nursey]

do you not feel at least a little bit the same towards some of your less than professional "colleagues" in the business? ....people who ridiculously overcharge or undercharge, people who treat clients poorly, cheat them or even rob them, giving the business a bad name etc?
of course i do! i would dearly love for sex work to be viewed as the entirely respectable 'helping profession' that i genuinely believe it to be and have high standards of health, professionalism and service provision across the board. it would certainly make law reform efforts easier!

but i'm also a realist. a percentage of the sex industry are simply in it for survival. when people need drugs or they can't feed their kids or they're about to get kicked out of their homes, they'll go to any lengths necessary. obviously, i would like to see governments put more money into stopping people getting into those situations in the first place, rather than just treating the inevitable side effects...prostitution, robbery, child neglect, suicide, etc. but until that happens, some hookers are going to do desperate things to deal with their desperate situations. i don't like it, but i do understand it.

i'd also like to say that this works both ways. i don't blame sex workers one bit for having no respect for clients or the community, when we recieve so very little in return. why would you treat clients with respect when you've been repeatedly raped, beaten and robbed? why would you want to do the right thing by the community, when the community don't care whether you live or die? we once had a local newspaper run an issue with wh*res must go across the front page. a recent letter to the editor called brothel workers 'filthy creatures from hell' who 'deserve to suffer the violence that their disgusting behaviour attracts'. when asked by a journalist whether sex workers deserve to be represented by their elected members, a local mayor said 'of course not. they have surrendered their right to be treated as citizens of our community'. is it any wonder that some of us just stop caring? again i don't like it, but i definitely understand it.

[Rubber Nursey]

Australia is far more tolerant to prostitution than the US, at least in Sydney and Melbourne.
CBGB is right about community attitudes to prostitution, especially in Sydney. But (if that comment was in reference to my previous post) I was talking about the actual laws. Our community may be generally sex positive, but most of our state politicians are moralist tossers. They take carefully thought out, workable prostitution legislation and tear it to shreds with ridiculous amendments that reflect their outdated 'values'. By the time the Bill becomes law, it's completely unrecognisable...and completely unworkable.

Unfortunately, because the sex industry APPEARS to operate openly and legitimately in much of Australia, the community assumes that the laws are ok. They don't see the negative impact it's really having on sex workers.

[CBGBConnisur]

Not Kevin Rudd, he visits nude bars quite frequently and publicly did so during a trip to New York. Australia is not as sexually loose as Europe or Latin America but it is nowhere near as prudish as the US. In fact sex and nudity is common on Australian public TV. I met an American student who was shocked to see tits and ass on prime time tv in Oz.

[Piper1]

CB - Kevin Rudd (the Prime Minister of Australia) admitted he got drunk with some fellow politicians and a couple of journalists and visited a strip club once in New York several years ago, when he was a junior politician. His confession last year actually helped him win the recent election to the top office - people realized he's human, and his ratings went sky-high.

BTW - the ex-PM John Howard is from Sydney, not from 'backward Queensland'.

I think you're a little biased - Queensland is one of many places where you've had a bad time. I've had many good times there.

[CBGBConnisur]

I prefer New South Wales, I might have mixed up Pauline Hanson with John Howard, she is a Queenslander. Howard was a Bush ass kisser, and I don't give him any credit for the strong Australian economy, that credit goes to China more than anything else. Brisbane is fairly dead compared to Sydney and Melbourne, most people from Brisbane head to the Gold Coast on the weekends, I met a Sydneysider who moved there and did not like it.

Many people in Sydney consider Queensland backward, its not the opinion of a few. When I moved to Sydney and told people I lived in QLD, they described the place as backward, but thats the attitude in NSW.

[George90]

Did anyone else watch the special news cast about prostitution broadcast on ABC last nght?

I watched it. I found it pretty unrealistic. I have not mongered in the US so I have no idea of what US pros are like. But it did not represent Brazil or other Latin American coutries at all.

I suspect it does not represent the US either because of the type of pros who were interviewed and how they got footage. Most of the footage and interviews wre obtained via a non-profit's aid-to-the-poor bus. The news team went into poor areas where streetwalkers congregate and just talked to whomever was willing to talk. No upscale prostitutes or establishments were interviewed except for one independent who remained anonymous. Of course, Dennis Hof was interviewd because he believes there is no such thing as bad publicity. LOL! It was strongly biased towards showing how badly off prostitutes are and why it should be made illegal.

One thing that I learned from the broadcast was how stupid/naive/ignorant/immature/clueless most of the women who became prostitutes seemed to be. A common theme among the women was that they turned to prostitution to make money fast. Duh! But they seemed to think they wouldn't have to actually have sex with men to make this money! Woman after woman seemed surprised that she had to really take a man's cock, put in her mouth, lick and suck on it, and sometimes get a mouthful of sperm at the end. They thought it would be like the "Pretty Woman" movie.

[Cash Works]

George,

I watched the show. It was definitely biased against prostitution. I found it interesting that some of the ladies at the moonlight bunny ranch (Dennis Hof's brothel) seemed to express contradictory attitudes on this show to what they express on the HBO series "Cathouse" (same ladies). I guess they're playing the roll that the producer was wanting to portray.

I don't do a lot of mongering in the USA. Mostly restrict myself to AMP's as most of the streetwalkers I've come across seemed to be, IMHO, fairly accurately portrayed on the ABC show and another HBO series about Hunts Point (NYC?) as very miserable (bottom of the barrel) drug addicts - not particularly attractive and there's a level of danger associated with their situation that I'd rather not expose myself to. The danger is mostly due to the drug/thievery but also the fact that the police are also a threat. Finally, "car dates" are something I got real tired of 30 years ago when I was in High School - much rather be in a comfortable bedroom taking my time.

[Jelly Donut]

Did anyone else watch the special news cast about prostitution broadcast on ABC last nght?

.....It was strongly biased towards showing how badly off prostitutes are and why it should be made illegal.



Conventional broadcast television has a vested interest in spinning sex stories in a very conservative way. They are heavily regulated by the Federal Communications Administration and influenced by a myriad of conservative factions. If you remember the House telecommunications subcommittee convened a hearing in the wake of Janet Jackson's "indecent exposure" during the Superbowl in 2004. One nipple and a huge swath of the American population were, apparently, outraged. ABC is not going to express an opinion about prostitution or in any way present prostitution in a favorable light; Americans live in a country where it's unacceptable to hear the exact words that GI's expressed during the Second World War on broadcast television. F*ck. So, you can't watch American television looking for a comprehensive understanding of an issue.

I can't imagine a major American broadcaster suggesting anything but the most heavy-handed, moralistic spin in the wake of the Spitzer affair. After all, from what little we know about it, it all flies against the message which big media echos to the American public (or at least the people who would normally watch COPS on a Saturday night) about prostitution. From what little we know about Ashley Dupree, she doesn't seem to be anything like the way large media organizations paint prostitutes. Honestly, they can't wait to draw "victim", "abused", "drug addicted" and a big scarlet "A" on her chest. God help her if she doesn't fit into the box they have made for her.


. Mostly restrict myself to AMP's as most of the streetwalkers I've come across seemed to be, IMHO, fairly accurately portrayed on the ABC show and another HBO series about Hunts Point (NYC?) as very miserable (bottom of the barrel) drug addicts

Right. What they do is a deliberate sampling error, so it seems reasonable. They only interview hard girls working in Neveda brothels or low-end street walkers. These are the hardest girls, the only ones willing to be interviewed unfiltered on national television. I don't think most guys (or girls for that matter) would label these the cream of American prostitution. How many ISG guys do you think book flights to Nevada for vacation? Many American sexworkers would never appear on national television. They want to make some money and get on with their lives without a lasting stigma. The one "high-end" interview is anonymous and her non-conforming answers are treated with open incredulity.

[Ezinho]

If anyone wants to watch the 20/20 "Prostitution in America" episode, it's now on YouTube, here's the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq5IM_Ur5FQ

It's about two hours total, to see the rest of it check out the related videos section to the right.

I've never *****mongered in the U.S., so I don't really have much to say about the show; I'm not sure what to think, to be honest. It was interesting to watch, I guess. I still can't believe that guy who paid $20,000 to spend one night with that MILF with the fake tan at the Bunny Ranch. Then again, most of my American buddies can't believe I pay $7 USD for girls in South America, either.

I guess I'll never understand what the big deal is with prostitution in the U.S., and I was born and raised here!

[George90]

The one "high-end" interview is anonymous and her non-conforming answers are treated with open incredulity.

You are exactly right! The host, Diane Sawyer, kept leading her on about how her answers were unbelievable. Several times Sawyer responded to a statement from this high-end pro with follow-ups like; "Surely you can't mean ...", "I find it hard to believe ...", I don't think most women would feel ...", and "Marrying for money rather than love is not prostitution. How can you compare ...?"

I would like to have heard her complete answers. Most of the answers the high-end pro gave were edited and cut-off before she was finished.