Oh well. I think we have bigger things to worry about. Showing up to an orgy, could be especially dangerous, for the prostitute. How does legalizing for everyone it make it safer?

Outlaw all of the abuse and exploitation. Because those are the parts that are actually harmful *and* not of one's free choice.

That part doesn't become safer or more dangerous with legalization. A prostitute showing up for an orgy would be just as at-risk as someone who shows up for an orgy without expecting pay. Unless you are also proposing that the government outlaw orgies, you should concede this as a problem related not to prostitution, but to sex you disagree with.

The last sentence does not follow, at all. What difference does it make to coersion or exploitation, if the person really really needs the sex, instead of just wanting it? Earlier you painted all sex work as exploitation. Now you disagree with yourself.

First point- prostitute for hire is not an equal participant doing it for his or her sexual enjoyment (my moral stance on the style of sex is irrelevant). s/he he is an object that was bought- it's dehumanizing.

Second point: I think that type of sex work deserves a seperate classification. It's more like personal therapy/ physical therapy.

Lastly, this whole debate is being had, about the different models, under the pretense of safety. Those who are for legalization claim it's safer. I do not believe it is.

These 'points' of yours are not in order. Hard to tell what's supposed to address what.

What is dehumanizing is your attitude toward those who do it - on both ends of the transaction. The service is bought, not the person. Just like in any other field of work. This is a point you've dodged around since page one - sex work is work, not indentured servitude. If a woman pays me to give her oral sex, for example, that's a task I would be performing for money - work. I would not be selling my humanity to her. Can you give any reason to the contrary, any at all?

You've given no reason why this should be so. It's selling sex. The same issues apply. You seem to just happen to find this sex more palatable. Not on its own, no. What does that have to do with what I said? Did you even read what I said?

Oh, grow up - adults complaining about not having enough varieties of sex to buy from enough varieties of sex workers, legally. reminds me of spoiled kids who complain about not having every toy they desire. Just gotta have it, the object of that desire, no matter if it's exploitative or harmful to women and society or not. Don't make that about human rights and women's equality, or genuine 'work'. It's exploitation. The world's falling apart and spoiled adults are complaining about their supposed 'need' for whatever they 'want'. It's not a 'need', it's recreation- absolutely selfish recreation- the sex worker's like a living adult toy to play with to the customers. Not a person in her own right, as a sexual being with her own desires. And, so, when another human being is used for a sexual activity to feed a fantasy that s/he is only doing for money to earn a living, not personal enjoyment, it's exploitation in most cases unless they do enjoy it- which is usually not the case. More often than not, she loathes it and has to get drugged up to engage in it. It's not about freedom it's about selfishness (of the buyer) and how money can be used as a means manipulate people as a means to their own selfish ends- in the most personal way. Sex workers are objectified- they are seen as objects of fantasy. If it was just about getting off- she wouldn't be necessary to them. It's not about that.

People with disabilities unable (not because they need something kinkier or more exciting, but because they physically can't relieve themselves) is not the same.

I bring up the safety issue because that's main concern being presented with the different models. But the real issue is selfishness and how selfish is too selfish to the point of undue harm to others, by legitimizing it as 'work', especially women, and equality.

Time for me to back out again for a bit.

Do you have a response to my post as well? You seem to have inadvertently quoted it prior to your dehumanizing diatribe.

EDIT: If you can't post without your anger getting in the way, then perhaps you should do some soul-searching regarding what opinions of yours that rage might be affecting in a negative way.

It's not dehumanizing- some might find it insulting. I used to not hold such an opinion, about sex or prostitution btw. 15-20 years ago. I might have agreed with you then. I was young and 'free'. You might even say I was more 'progressive' on the issue- if being 'sex positive about it is progressive. But the ideas I held then were simply not true. I thought it was all a matter of choice and my friends/ acquaintances 'chose' it. That people do it by choice, and that it being for sale is no big deal because it always has been...people I knew were involved in the sex trade directly or indirectly. I tried to be 'open minded' until I saw how it changed people. Until I saw the harm in it, and surrounding it. I've learned. At the time you're not necessarily aware of the lastibg harm to people's self concept until looking back. However, the weightier issue is what's really at stake- women's safety, women's equality. You seem to see prostitution as some kind of equalizer for women's choices. I do not. What's dehumanizing is expecting sex workers to be available forever to serve the most personal sexual 'needs' of those who hold power through money- turning it into a tax generating, legitimate, sector. Instead of trying to free up women's choices, overall, by aiming to end it someday. It's selfish from almost every angle, exploitative from most angles- an affront to equality overall. I'm not angry now actually. Not like the other day.

 

Basically Azdgari I'd like to see the business shut down, while being as compassionate as possible to those involved as sellers in it. I see making the act of buying services the best way to do this, as it will discourage potential clientelle, while not necessarily shaming the sellers.

Actually, having been objectified and paid for, rather than an equal participant on the same page, places them more at risk- throughout the whole trade- but especially showing up somewhere outnumbered. Can't you see that? You cannot see the much higher risk and serious power imbalance for a prostitute to do such a 'job'?

Someone offering their work for what they deem it to be worth is an equal participant on the same page, your own personal disgust notwithstanding.

It's not about my moral stance on orgies. A prostitute showing up to an orgy is at higher risk than the people who agreed to it amongst themselves for their enjoyment. A person who is less a participant than she is an object of fantasy and a servant at the whim of several others who are hormonally charged and want what they want, is in more danger. She is more vulnerable. You either don't get it or are for some reason choosing to be willfully blind.

The only support you gave for this claim *was* your own anti-sex hangup.

This describes many different consensual sexual situations. Presumably, if you're serious, you want them all to be outlawed whether money is involved or not. But you're not serious, you're just lashing out.

It can't be that Kimmio, the righteous and emotionally charged one, is blind to something. Nah. Your righteous indignation makes you 100% right. Otherwise, why the hell would you be so pissed off...right?
.
Have you ever once considered that your own bias, from your own life experience, might be getting in the way of your ability to see clearly on this topic? I ask this in all seriousness - has the possibility even occurred to you?

Uh-huh. Have you considered that your lack of experience from a more vulnerable perspective has perhaps left you unable to empathize and see that there's far more to it, and more danger inherent in it, and it's not a just and honest exchange.

Life experience is what life's about. You'd like to think that money is an equalizer in prostitution- that money can right the imbalance of power, somehow even the score. I firmly believe it is an excuse to abuse power (exploit). You are being self righteous yourself, Azdagari. About your right to rent the services of a prostitute, if and whenever you feel like it , aren't you? It's more about you, than it is about them overall, their safety, their equality, isn't it?

I don't have an anti sex hang up. I happen to like it. I have an anti-exploitation hang up.

Actually, it is the right of the sex worker to sell her skills, by hand , or orifice. You deny all people the right to do it openly with adequate protection by forcing into the underground

You force them into a high risk position of cars and back alleys where cameras are absent

You and people like you share the weight of their murders

Kimmio, this isn't the first time you've suggested that I would like the "right to rent the services of a prostitute".  I couldn't care less about my own access to prostitutes.  I've never bought one's services, and I don't expect I'll want to at any point in the future.

 

Good job with the "you don't have the experience (ie. not being a woman") to have the right to comment" line again, though.

 

I know you firmly believe you're right, Kimmio.  So firmly that nothing anyone says can change your mind.  It is closed to the idea that you might be mistaken.

Excuse me? That's a hell of a statement. Okay, that one wins the whole thread debate. You win.

I would like them to be safe. Why would criminalizing johns but decriminalizing prostitutes put them in danger more than opening it up to johns to buy free of any suspiscion (I.e. cops have no reason to stop anyone on the street or cruising in their cars if they're not doing anything illegal). Legalizing it opens up sex tourism and competing underground markets, where, as before, the underaged and trafficked will still be coerced.

The dangers will still exist within the trade, Pinga. But the buyers won't have to take responsibility for perpetuating a business that exploits.

You asked what would be wrong with a couple getting a prostitute for a 'sexcapade'. It ups the stakes for her- even if you might be respectful- others who figure they've bought their plaything for the evening might not be. What happens if she's in the middle of a performing a 'service' and has to stop (and I dunno, gag, throw up or something) and it got in the way of the fantasy? Would you expect the money back? Do you see how that's dehumanizing for her? I think that a prostitute showing up at a private orgy would put her in more danger than if she were a 'free' participant. My friend the former stripper always insisted on going in pairs to stag parties. They weren't paid to have sex, but no one was watching (and it was legal, for strippers to go to private parties, too). She was a little scared of what could happen. The only thing between them and something bad happening was perhaps a phone call- but lots could happen in the meantime. Alcohol and testosterone, and whatever else they might be doing, was a dangerous combo.

.

The experience comment, Adz, was not specifically about being a woman, necessarily. Partly that, partly as a woman with a disability- looking at patriarchy and misogyny from the bottom up, perspective- as a person who's experienced it's effects first hand, and has felt the hurt of it, not looked at in in theory only. You claim yours is a more valid perspective? More rational because it's not convoluted by emotion? Maybe more rational from where you're standing, but it's not realistic.

I've seen how shitty that business can be. I know how scared my friend was at times. I know how the "Hey baby, come here and show me your __" from strange men, felt to her night after night affected her, and met the men who talked like that as second nature. I stayed with her in her apartment the day after her "boyfriend" tried to coerce her into making a porn video in the back of a club, with a visiting porn star (it was the porn star who intervened, who saw my friend was scared and uncomfortable, and said no. I respect her for that.) The room was spinning for her, she was having panic attacks. Because of what happened, and because a guy she wanted to trust did that to her. I saw a beautiful person go from being vibrant and creative and unashamed of her body, to wearing baggy clothes and no make up everytime she was not at work because she wanted no male attention. And, I was around this stuff- and it affected me too. I was even worth less as a human being because I wasn't a hot stripper, or so I felt.

That's what the business looks like. She survived it, not unharmed. She's okay now, thank god, a strong woman. The high end call girl who goes on dates with gentleman is a rarity. Those are not acceptable "work hazards".

Oh Lord! There's no way I could begin to follow much here, but I just wanted to point out that alot of sex work is "hands off". Some workers never touch a client with any body part. 

It's theatre much of the time.

Strippers. But they get touched... And dominatrix'- they're not the norm in the business either. They're the savvy niche...and I believe one of the women who was high profile in the recent court case was a dominatrix? That's out of touch with what the majority endure.

Complex issue:  If we don't want people harmed, trafficed or murdered in the sex trade, we need to do things differently.  I am not sure what that difference needs to be, but I am sure it needs to honour diverse human nature with thoughtful attention to what might work and potential outcomes of each alternative that can possibly be prevented by fine-tuning.  It may be that the most effective use of society's resources may be some form of registration with intense efforts to put a high enough price on trafficking and other forms of abuse to make it economically unattractive (like maybe 10 years in jail plus 1 year for each additional person trafficked).