Brothels - should they be legalised everywhere?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (178 of them)

I have had unprotected sex the same as he has & he was as much at risk from me as I was from him.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 13 November 2003 12:13 (9 years ago) Permalink

'immoral earnings' haha

kate's disparagement of ppl who view 'sex as a commodity' is one of the big things here - why shouldn't it sometimes be just that ?

we institutionalise lots of behaviour that also has more personal dimensions in other circumstances - eg caring for someone ill/incapable, paying to visit counsellors/therapists to discuss very personal emotional issues - are the ppl who provide those services being mistreated as 'commodities' ? Why should sexual behaviour be kept so sacred and unsullied ?
It's not even as if it actually is anyway - we are surrounded by appeals to our sexdrives as part of eg the pop business

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Thursday, 13 November 2003 12:28 (9 years ago) Permalink

It would really depend on the attitude with which the potential partner discussed his utilisation of sex - or any other emotion - as a commodity.

If he was honest, and said something like "well, I was really lonely but I didn't have the time for a relationship, so I thought it was safer and more honest than having a series of one night stands or leading someone on into thinking that I wanted a serious relationship with them" then I would have more respect than someone who just said "Women ain't nothing but bitches and ho's anyway, marriage is just legalised prostitution, so are we gonna get it on or what?" or even worse "Hunh hunh well all the guys in the office were doing it, so I thought what the fuck, like I don't wanna look like a pussy or a queer in front of my mates".

I mean, sure, people pay to go to psychologists and therapists when they're having problems, when previous generations might have gone to a priest or a parent or a friend. But if a person had NO FRIENDS and ONLY EVER TALKED ABOUT THEIR EMOTIONS TO THERAPISTS, well, fuck, I wouldn't date them, either.

― Citizen Kate (kate), Thursday, 13 November 2003 12:36 (9 years ago) Permalink

Can it be viewed as just entertainment though? I mean ppl go to the pub because they enjoy it.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:17 (9 years ago) Permalink

The ladies that worked at the legal brothel mostly enjoyed their work & a couple of them said they worked there because they had a high sex drive.

― stevem (blueski), Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:19 (9 years ago) Permalink

I meant from the pov of the punters. What's the point in just repeating what I already said?

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:22 (9 years ago) Permalink

It's cultural though, Skottie, and cultures change. You're absolutely right, Jonathan. And yet, I don't seeing that kind of change happening in the U.S. anytime soon, even with legalization, but who knows.

Sex as entertainment vs. exploitation. here we see a different aspect of the same divide right here on the relatively openminded ILX board. Also, men and women see sex differently, a different bio-evolutionary imperative. At least say some experts and I tend to believe it.

And repeating, I don't think there really are any freelance prostitutes, or not many. Almost all streetwalkers have pimps.

why wouldn't they choose to go legit? Do you really think prostitution would EVER be "just another career choice" legal or not? I can't imagine it.

And Blount, do you REALLY tell each sex partner your full history? I mean, even about that weekend in Panama City with the two cheerleaders, the truck driver, and the St. Bernard? I doubt if you do, at any rate YOU PROMISED YOU WOULDN'T TELL ANYONE!!!!

― Skottie, Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:28 (9 years ago) Permalink

I doubt it would be 'just another career choice' but then I guess nobody would ever choose it as a career choice unless they saw no other way forward. The majority of the girls in the documentary chose it because of the money they could make or whether they felt they had no other choice. The point is those that are in the profession would have protection.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:32 (9 years ago) Permalink

I hear your point, Pink, and I think it's valid. And it's the model already in Holland and Germany. So those women are better off. But my point is that illegal prositution in those countries hasn't (apparently) diminished.

― Skottie, Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:35 (9 years ago) Permalink

Maybe they see the owner of the brothel as just another pimp.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 13 November 2003 13:39 (9 years ago) Permalink

yesyesyes but WHY was SEX YOU CAN BUY made ILLEGAL in the first place

public health issues ?
control of social frameworks for possible pregnancies ?
sociobiological control of women's bodies/sexuality ?
daily mail family values/collapse of civilisation stuff ?
deep wired-in fears/conflicts of sanctioning a decoupling between sex,psyche,etc. by making it a 'commodity'?

most of this stuff looks like pre-tech patriarchal monkey-business strained through romanticism

in the characterisation of most possible punters as sad, bad, or arduous to know, there is still throughout this thread an underlying tendency that sex can't/shouldn't be regarded as 'just business', that to do so is to fail to understand human emotions/relationships properly, to undercut values by setting prices - that it is like equating sex with love

yeah, right, AS IF

kate i don't think it's an either/or scenario:
and if a person really only ever wanted to talk to therapists/counsellors about their inner lives because they found that experience more productive/enjoyable/useful, because they found paid professionals to be BETTER at certain aspects of the transaction that they were interested in (intellectualisation, articulation) - i'm not sure why, in the absence of this person committing any social ill or crime by their preferences, they should be worthy of contempt: yeah i'm not sure i'd want to know them either, and i might feel sorry for them because there are other possible dimensions missing from their interactions, but should we make it a legal/moral issue ?
(or is this what morality boils down to - insistence on a common set of fundamental needs/preferences/values in our psyches ?)

i think it would be pretty bizarre if they were denied access to confidants by law on the basis of 'endangering social cohesion' or 'failing to make proper personal connections' (i know in practice it is the desire/inability to cope with some aspect of the latter that often drives ppl to counselling, but if they want to keep paying instead, they're not going to be arrested for it)

shouldn't society provide for the awkward, the difficult, the lonely, the maladjusted, the anti-personal - not stigmatise them as a bunch of saddo losers ?

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Thursday, 13 November 2003 14:57 (9 years ago) Permalink

Perhaps said stigmatisation is nature's Darwinistic way of getting those antisocial elements out of the gene pool.

You talk like *everyone* has some kind of natural right to sex. They don't. That is the fundamental principle of Evolution. NOT everyone has a right to sex, sex is something that you have to earn. (Though not necessarily a monetary earn.)

― Citizen Kate (kate), Thursday, 13 November 2003 15:01 (9 years ago) Permalink

health issues and protection of children wz the pretext in the UK: same activists as advocated legislation against sending kids up chimneys and introduction of universal basic education = top-down (well, middle-down) clean sweep of newly vast, chaotic, hugely overcrowded urban areas

kate is right that jack the ripper follows AFTER some measures of "cleaning up", when/where the interface between civil orderliness and slum energy is at its most raw (hence persistant myth that he's a doctor or a toff, i guess)

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 13 November 2003 15:03 (9 years ago) Permalink

what if society is our evolutionary protection against misperceptions of the fundamental principles of darwinism?

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 13 November 2003 15:05 (9 years ago) Permalink

OH GOD, I'VE JUST HAD A MAJOR PARADIGM SHIFT ABOUT THIS ALL, AFTER PONDERING THE DARWINIAN APPLICATIONS THEREOF... but alas I have to train the new Office Manager to use my nifty database/spreadsheet thingey.

― Citizen Kate (kate), Thursday, 13 November 2003 15:08 (9 years ago) Permalink

haha yes i tend to think (actually maybe 'hope' is a better word) that culture's job is to hold nature at bay rather than exacerbate or reflect its 'natural' tendencies
(e.g the weak and the lame shall fall by the wayside...)

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Thursday, 13 November 2003 15:16 (9 years ago) Permalink

surprised to see you support the [SEX = GENETIC PROCREATION] line so enthusiastically kate...
'do you hate fun ?'
;)

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Thursday, 13 November 2003 15:23 (9 years ago) Permalink

yes we shd protect the weak but the LAME!? that is pc gone mad

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 13 November 2003 15:36 (9 years ago) Permalink

heh i am still trying to figure out how you know that JTR being a toff is a 'persistent myth' mark...

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Thursday, 13 November 2003 15:46 (9 years ago) Permalink

haha, yes i mean I KNOW WHO HE WAS *points dramatically*

i just meant it wz a widespread rumour in the 1880s (cf commentary at the time, when the police kept saying "no no it is an escaped madman") and continues to be one today (cf endless LaYMoR retreads of the royal connection)

despite highly unpromising title, this book has lots of interesting background stuff relating to thread topic (eg leading anti child-prostitution journalist ended up in jail for SELLING a child, in order to prove that the practice was widespread and easy, and that clients were not hard to find) (also lots of good stuff on the politics of policing london in the 1870s and 1880s)

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 13 November 2003 15:55 (9 years ago) Permalink

surprised to see you support the [SEX = GENETIC PROCREATION] line so enthusiastically kate...

I am not necessarily doing so (though yes, I see your winky face) - just that the whole Darwinism aspect was something that I hadn't even thought about yet in my thinking about Brothels, and I need to take it into account. I need to think about it, and I can't do that while my trainee keeps popping into my office to find me typing away at a page entitled "Brothels!"

I know that there are as many reasons for having sex as there are for people that have sex - it's not JUST for procreation, but neither is it JUST for fun, and neither is it JUST to establish intimacy between two people. It's individual.

However, there are attitudes towards sex that - if people have them - make me not want to have sex with them. Ha ha.

― Citizen Kate (kate), Thursday, 13 November 2003 16:02 (9 years ago) Permalink

Sex exists in order for humans to have some reason to feel filthy dirty after that disgusting vile shameful act so that they can compulsively purify themselves and rid the world of evil vile filthy....oh...hello there, no nothing...nothing really...yes, I'm fine, I'll be fine, oh this bloody knife? Why....how did that get there? Oh, yes officer, it's a mystery to me too. Probably left there by some dreadful horrible vile dirty filthy....oh, my.

Yes, Kate, there are as many reasons to have sex as there are people who choose to/are lucky enough to have sex. But there aren't that many reasons that have been sanctioned as acceptable by society. That's what you're getting at, I think. Maybe. And the idea of sex for fun is not something that most people support (most people being some kind of hypothetical cross section of society, I guess.).

― Skottie, Thursday, 13 November 2003 16:32 (9 years ago) Permalink

Don't you think? I think most ppl would admit to having sex for fun. Some of the men featured in the docu on sunday were looking for either affection or a pretend relationship, sometimes not even having sex.

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Thursday, 13 November 2003 16:35 (9 years ago) Permalink

Def. a lot of people would admit it, but it you posed it a different way, say, "Do you think there should be a place for men to go when they just wanted a little fun-sex?" I don't think you'd get a big "Yes" response, especially not from women as a group and not from parents as a group. But sure, many people would go for it. And even people who like the idea of having the option for themselves might not want to grant it to others. I don't know, of course. I'm hardly adamant about this! :-)

― Skottie, Thursday, 13 November 2003 16:39 (9 years ago) Permalink

but i think there's also something specifically going on to do with 'sex for fun' only being sanctioned on the basis of one-night-stand type 'mutual desire' - as if only on the basis of that can the deal be 'equitable'

ppl are maybe reacting against the practice of disengaging the Desire from the Behaviour: doing it for the material gain, just doing one's job, instead of because you want to shag THEM IN PARTICULAR on the basis of the person they are - even if that only goes as far as what they look like - is seen as somehow all wrong

(perhaps because most of us can't imagine being able to do that?)

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Thursday, 13 November 2003 17:01 (9 years ago) Permalink

so one person's 'sex for fun' is another's 'here we go again' - just like in alot of 'fun' industries

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Thursday, 13 November 2003 17:03 (9 years ago) Permalink

mickey mouse's fun-slave misery => disneyland made illegal

― Snowy Mann (rdmanston), Thursday, 13 November 2003 17:07 (9 years ago) Permalink

Of course, sex with Mickey Mouse is a whole 'nother kettle of ...mice.

― Skottie, Thursday, 13 November 2003 21:48 (9 years ago) Permalink

(very belated reply to Pink: right about honesty in serious relationships and about health risks)

― M Matos (M Matos), Thursday, 13 November 2003 21:53 (9 years ago) Permalink

Would perhaps unions for prostitutes be better, whether they are in brothels or on the streets? I am actually being serious here.

FWIW, the strippers are beginning to unionize

― Elvis Telecom (Chris Barrus), Friday, 14 November 2003 02:19 (9 years ago) Permalink

I read an interesting article (or was it on TV?) once about the better end of the brothel market here in Melbourne (legal I think?) and how among other things, they provide a valuable service I'd never thought of myself - sex for the disabled.

Someone who is profoundly disabled, and/or as a result may find it very difficult to form regular relationships, this one brothel encouraged their patronage. A sort of "they deserve sex as much as the rest of us, theyre human too!" idea.

I thought it was really quite cool. I'm all for unionised, properly run brothels - esp if run by women - to prevent exploitation, organised crime etc. Or help prevent at the least.

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 14 November 2003 02:44 (9 years ago) Permalink

that should say and/or somehow disfigured, I missed a word.

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 14 November 2003 02:45 (9 years ago) Permalink

And I by no means mean to imply the disabled cant get sex, before anyone jumps on me.

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 14 November 2003 02:45 (9 years ago) Permalink

haha nice choice of words

― oops (Oops), Friday, 14 November 2003 02:48 (9 years ago) Permalink

DOH :(

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 14 November 2003 04:25 (9 years ago) Permalink

*cries*

― Trayce (trayce), Friday, 14 November 2003 04:25 (9 years ago) Permalink

okay try a contrast to say, immigrant labor. isn't citizenship right a precondition for organized labor, mainly? (tho ppl wanting citizenship and organizing for it is a step towards it too, obv.)

similarly doesn't the extra-legality of a profession cut against ability to organize, etc.?

also the current shady system is about as coercively top-down as it gets in the worst poss. way.

also mark all this stuff about the third world seems somewhat true (i.e. conditions *are* much worse there, but also for say illegal immigrants BROUGHT from there to europe etc. to work in the same trade) but aren't you also presupposing some sort of constant quality of shady evilness which if disappated in one area just moves to another, like some sort of wack-a-mole? doesn't broad living standard, quality of life, degree of development of economy affect social attitudes towards sex &c as well?

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Friday, 14 November 2003 09:15 (9 years ago) Permalink

Trayce, I also saw an article in which some disabled men in Melbourne who were complaining because some of the prostitutes in a brothel they went to refused to have sex with them. They felt it was discriminition. They didn't seem to understand that just because someone is a prosititute it doesn't mean they lose their right to decide who they have sex with!

Actually despite legal brothels here there is still a parallel illegal industry. There was a horrible case here recently in which it was found that a well paid tax inspector and his wife were bringing in young women from SE Asia illegally and basically holding them in bondage. It's horrible to think that men would frequent such places knowing the violence and exploitation that enables them to function.

― Amarga (Amarga), Friday, 14 November 2003 10:07 (9 years ago) Permalink

it's also horrible to think that men AND women take certain drugs knowing the violence and exploitation that enables them to function

― stevem (blueski), Friday, 14 November 2003 12:46 (9 years ago) Permalink

Wasn't it in one of those vietnam movies, coming home or the deerhunter, that one of the characters was in a wheelchair and hired hookers to visit him at home? There was an incredibly intense sex scene with the guy in the wheelchair. Not exploitative but very real, by hollywood standards. how does a wheelchair confined person have sex? Actually a moving scene.

― Skottie, Friday, 14 November 2003 20:47 (9 years ago) Permalink

Elvis Telecom writes:
FWIW, the strippers are beginning to unionize

The Lusty Lady has actually been unionized for several years, but more importantly it is employee-owned and co-operated, making it the first strip club of it's kind. There's a documentary about it called: "Live Nude Girls Unite!" that's pretty good (and funny!).

It's right across the street from the old Cocodrie Club and my favorite Italian restaurant in SF.

― gygax! (gygax!), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:00 (9 years ago) Permalink

how does a wheelchair confined person have sex

I had a girlfriend for some months who used a wheelchair. There are a few extra difficulties, but it is perfectly possible, though I guess if a man is paralysed below the waist there are some limitations, for example.

― Martin Skidmore (Martin Skidmore), Friday, 14 November 2003 21:16 (9 years ago) Permalink

6 months pass...

prime real estate for sale !

Owner seeks $7M for Chicken Ranch brothel
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=BRF%20Chicken%20Ranch%20Sale

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Tuesday, 8 June 2004 15:14 (8 years ago) Permalink

7 years pass...

I don't see how prostitution benefits society in the long run. Perhaps if you have real social handicaps, but prostitutes attract drugs and violence. I mean, I'm as libertarian as anyone, but practically speaking, a world without prostitution is more realistic than a world without, say, war.

― โตเกียวเหมียวเหมียว aka Bulgarian Tourist Chamber (Mount Cleaners), Wednesday, 23 May 2012 02:29 (11 months ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.