Kinda wondering why we dont have this already

[Hoplite]

I've been talking to a friend of mine that shares my mutual interest in politics. He's been pushing a program in his home city that I think is rather interesting but something rather interesting keeps happening.

The city has a big problem with prostitution and associated crime. It tends to draw in a lot of associated crime as well as give a firm push to the drug market, but a lot of the girls feel they dont have any choice. Most of them have no skills and with the job market the way it is currently, making a couple hundred bucks a night versus $8 an hour flipping burgers....economics tends to win out.

The program he has in mind is essentially a program that takes in women and puts them through a rehabilitation program to get them off drugs (if they're using) and get their confidence level back up. After that, they are given credit for job training programs at community college or vocational school.

To me, it seems weird that we dont already have programs like this in place. I know that some similar programs exist in LA, but they're drastically under-funded and often dont really provide meaningful assistance.

 

[Panache]

Why don't the girls set aside a chunk of the couple hundred they make each night, and pay for the tuition themselves? Actually, wait a minute... Why would they want a job training program or vocational school? They already have a lucrative career. A couple hundred a night is more than some folks make flying airplanes.

I don't think anyone who makes a couple hundred bucks a night needs any taxpayer charity.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

If they're making that much a night, they're not going to be interested in any job training programs until they can't make that much a night anymore. That's a nice carrot you've got there, but you need a bigger stick.

 

[Hoplite]

Why don't the girls set aside a chunk of the couple hundred they make each night, and pay for the tuition themselves? Actually, wait a minute... Why would they want a job training program or vocational school? They already have a lucrative career. A couple hundred a night is more than some folks make flying airplanes.

I don't think anyone who makes a couple hundred bucks a night needs any taxpayer charity.

If they're making that much a night, they're not going to be interested in any job training programs until they can't make that much a night anymore. That's a nice carrot you've got there, but you need a bigger stick.

Both of you are making the assumption that hookers want to stay hookers, you assume that they enjoy what they do when that really isnt the case. Im sure there are definitely prostitutes that wouldnt take the programs because they make more doing what they do.

If you provide an opportunity for people to get off the streets, get off drugs, and have a shot at a real life, there are a lot of people who'd stand up and take that chance. As a society, we receive the benefit of combating associated crime that tends to follow prostitution as well as re-integrating productive people back into our society.

 

[O_Guru]

Both of you are making the assumption that hookers want to stay hookers, you assume that they enjoy what they do when that really isnt the case. Im sure there are definitely prostitutes that wouldnt take the programs because they make more doing what they do.

If you provide an opportunity for people to get off the streets, get off drugs, and have a shot at a real life, there are a lot of people who'd stand up and take that chance. As a society, we receive the benefit of combating associated crime that tends to follow prostitution as well as re-integrating productive people back into our society.

The program idea is "ok" but I think its a pretty good assumption to say they dont want to change and free classes wont inspire the will too.

If it did "IMO" those programs wouldnt be struggling in funding because if the participation base was there and it worked it would eventually get funding.

Also lets look at it, 200$ a night? tax free? lets be nice and lets just save HALF $100 a night all they would need to do is work 300 days and they would have 30K saved enough for most vo/tech schools or at least one heck of a start.

Now im not saying the program wouldnt save anybody, of course it might but i am saying it alone wouldn't be largely successful has "finance" (free classes) isnt the issue nor is access to rehab.

So it works and would be greatly successful, ill donate but im doubtful

Im fine with "help/reach out" programs I just want them to work
Id legalize and regulate the heck out of it before id dump tons of money into this

 

[Civil1z@tion]

The problem with this is that it assumes the prostitutes keep the money they earn. Since prostitution is illegal its very easy for any independent prostitutes to get attacked and so most end up with pimps who take most of the money. Making prostitution legal (as it is in the Netherlands) solves this problem and obviates the need for programs like that described in the OP. Ultimately the real answer is less government that brings prostitutes out of the shadows and into enough security for them to make a killing off their trade. Then the only thing to keep track of are victims of human trafficking and child prostitution rather than the entire industry.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

The problem with this is that it assumes the prostitutes keep the money they earn. Since prostitution is illegal its very easy for any independent prostitutes to get attacked and so most end up with pimps who take most of the money. Making prostitution legal (as it is in the Netherlands) solves this problem and obviates the need for programs like that described in the OP. Ultimately the real answer is less government that brings prostitutes out of the shadows and into enough security for them to make a killing off their trade. Then the only thing to keep track of are victims of human trafficking and child prostitution rather than the entire industry.

No, the problem is that they're working in this horrid industry in the first place. Legalizing it only gives it a thin veneer of legitimacy; it's putting a band-aid on a festering injury that requires amputation. Prostitution encourages adultery and the objectification and abuse of women and should not be tolerated. The goal should be to eradicate it, not to encourage people to "make a killing" off of it.

 

[Wiseone]

Why don't we just skip the part where we make this programs just for hookers, why not make a program for all young girls? Otherwise you'll have girls who will have to become hookers first anyway. Seems like a simpler solution and would be more cost effective as less girls would be on drugs at that earlier stage.

 

[Civil1z@tion]

No, the problem is that they're working in this horrid industry in the first place. Legalizing it only gives it a thin veneer of legitimacy; it's putting a band-aid on a festering injury that requires amputation. Prostitution encourages adultery and the objectification and abuse of women and should not be tolerated. The goal should be to eradicate it, not to encourage people to "make a killing" off of it.

In some manner aren't all workers who give their labor being objectified? If you want an industry where primarily men are objected look at logging or mining. Men make up almost all the work force and are objectified in that the businessmen and the customers care primarily about their labor not their status as human beings. From a business sense all they become is what they can produce for the business and what they take away from it. From the customer's point of view all the worker is is a thing which gives them what they want in return for money. Its not that you have a problem with objectification (unless you oppose all forms of selling one's labor, in which case opposing prostitution is consistent but no worse than any other form of labor), it that you have a problem with objectifying sex in particular. If you want sex to be romantic fine, never go to a prostitute and only have sex with those you really care about (I know that what I do). But this doesn't mean you should apply your own personal preference to everyone. If the buyer and seller don't mind sucking all the love and romance out of sex just to have fun so be it. Its not our business to say they shouldn't.

From the adultery issue, banning prostitution has never stopped adultery. Indeed, from my perspective using prostitutes is the least offensive form of adultery because it is only a physical betrayal not an emotional one. Only the most gullible customers actually fall in love with the prostitute and don't realize its a fantasy so for most customers who are committing adultery with a prostitute, their love is still with their significant other just not their libido. That's not great but its better than shifting both away.

As for abuse, that is because prostitution is illegal. If you legalize it then the prostitutes can go to the police without fear of being arrested themselves. If someone then abuses a prostitute they're in deep trouble.

So none of your objections sway me. I say that prostitution should be legal because making it illegal is the cause of some of the worst abuses.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

In some manner aren't all workers who give their labor being objectified? If you want an industry where primarily men are objected look at logging or mining. Men make up almost all the work force and are objectified in that the businessmen and the customers care primarily about their labor not their status as human beings.

That's a cop-out. Labor isn't sex. Labor is not an intimate act. Labor does not create and reinforce human pair bonds.

Its not that you have a problem with objectification ... it that you have a problem with objectifying sex in particular.

Yes. I have the same objection with the legal fringes of the sex industry that I do with prostitution. And they're valid objections. Objectifying sex hurts people and it encourages them to hurt others. It erodes the power and the beauty of something that is supposed to be one of the best parts of our lives.

If you want sex to be romantic fine, never go to a prostitute and only have sex with those you really care about (I know that what I do). But this doesn't mean you should apply your own personal preference to everyone. If the buyer and seller don't mind sucking all the love and romance out of sex just to have fun so be it. Its not our business to say they shouldn't.

"It's none of our business" is the start of every argument in favor of allowing our culture and our society to spiral down the drains into the sewers of decadence and degradation. I say that the moral conduct of our fellow man is absolutely our business, and that every last one of us has an obligation to uphold that moral conduct.

So none of your objections sway me. I say that prostitution should be legal because making it illegal is the cause of some of the worst abuses.

Prostitution is abusive in and of itself. Legalizing it will not change that.

 

[ricksfolly]

The city has a big problem with prostitution and associated crime. It tends to draw in a lot of associated crime as well as give a firm push to the drug market, but a lot of the girls feel they dont have any choice. Most of them have no skills and with the job market the way it is currently, making a couple hundred bucks a night versus $8 an hour flipping burgers....economics tends to win out.

The program he has in mind is essentially a program that takes in women and puts them through a rehabilitation program to get them off drugs (if they're using) and get their confidence level back up. After that, they are given credit for job training programs at community college or vocational school.

Hookers get hooked by the big bucks and really don't want to change. I doubt if you'd get many takers.

ricksfolly

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

The demand for sex will always exceed the supply of women willing to give it away for free. You can try to crack down all you want. Prostitution will continue.

 

[winston53660]

I wonder why prostitution is illegal in the first place?

 

[Hoplite]

That's a cop-out. Labor isn't sex. Labor is not an intimate act. Labor does not create and reinforce human pair bonds.

Civil has a point, sex IS technically considered labor. It's a service performed by someone for monetary compensation and in that respect is no different from a massage, physical therapy, or chiropractor. Lets not go getting emotional about it.

Yes. I have the same objection with the legal fringes of the sex industry that I do with prostitution. And they're valid objections. Objectifying sex hurts people and it encourages them to hurt others. It erodes the power and the beauty of something that is supposed to be one of the best parts of our lives.

Again, Civil has a real point when he says we objectify people all the time. Have you ever worked low-end jobs? Minimum wage? Probably the most humiliating jobs I've ever worked were the minimum wage jobs where you WERE treated like an actual object rather than a human being by people who ought to know better.

"It's none of our business" is the start of every argument in favor of allowing our culture and our society to spiral down the drains into the sewers of decadence and degradation. I say that the moral conduct of our fellow man is absolutely our business, and that every last one of us has an obligation to uphold that moral conduct.

Except morality is relative, why should we follow your particular brand of morality which says prostitution is not ok as opposed to mine which says it should be legalized and the workers protected?

Prostitution is abusive in and of itself. Legalizing it will not change that.

Not true at all. There is nothing abusive about the act of exchanging sex for money in an atmosphere where both parties have the option of backing out. Illegal prostitution tends to attract crime, people who abuse the prostitutes because of what they do and they know the hooker probably wont turn them in because then they'll have to admit what they were doing.

Consider that we exchange sex for money all the time, if you take a girl out on a date to dinner and a movie, that's $40-50 or more. You go home at the end of the night and there is often the expectation of sex from one or both parties. It's not as forward as prostitution, but the principal is the same.

 

[DeeJayH]

seems to be a flawed assumption. I see millions of women working minimum wage jobs, sometimes multiple jobs to get by. Most women look down on prostitution.

This progam might have some traction when the hookers hit the wall

 

[Civil1z@tion]

I don't have much to say that Hoplite didn't cover but I had three points I wanted to make.

Yes. I have the same objection with the legal fringes of the sex industry that I do with prostitution. And they're valid objections. Objectifying sex hurts people and it encourages them to hurt others.

It does now? In what way? If terms of rape the US has three times the per capita rate of rape as the Netherlands with its common, legal, and widespread prostitution (source).

It erodes the power and the beauty of something that is supposed to be one of the best parts of our lives.

The problem is your bringing in the force of law to enforce what is at its core an aesthetic concern. Aesthetics are ultimately subjective and arbitrary and thus make no sense to enforce in laws for everyone.

Prostitution is abusive in and of itself. Legalizing it will not change that.

The women of the Dutch red light districts would likely beg to disagree.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Civil has a point, sex IS technically considered labor. It's a service performed by someone for monetary compensation and in that respect is no different from a massage, physical therapy, or chiropractor. Lets not go getting emotional about it.

That's exactly the problem. We are supposed to be emotional about sex. We are designed to be. Sex is more than just a massage, or physical therapy, or chiropracty.

Again, Civil has a real point when he says we objectify people all the time. Have you ever worked low-end jobs? Minimum wage? Probably the most humiliating jobs I've ever worked were the minimum wage jobs where you WERE treated like an actual object rather than a human being by people who ought to know better.

Yes, I've worked low-end minimum wage jobs. I've worked them all my life. They weren't all that humiliating.

Except morality is relative, why should we follow your particular brand of morality which says prostitution is not ok as opposed to mine which says it should be legalized and the workers protected?

Because I say so. If that isn't good enough for you, we can argue and see whose morality more people want. You've probably got the advantage over me at this point, especially on the Internet. Or we could fight in the street. It doesn't matter how we decide, because no matter what, one of us is going to win and get to make the rules and the other is going to lose and have to accept it. Don't say it's best to let everyone decide for themselves, because that's your rules and I don't believe in them. Judging by the facts that we're a democratic society and prostitution is illegal throughout most of it, popular opinion was at least on my side at some point.

Not true at all. There is nothing abusive about the act of exchanging sex for money in an atmosphere where both parties have the option of backing out.

Nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. It may be self-abusive, but I maintain that it is abusive nonetheless, and that both the prostitute and her customer are abusing themselves in different ways.

Consider that we exchange sex for money all the time, if you take a girl out on a date to dinner and a movie, that's $40-50 or more. You go home at the end of the night and there is often the expectation of sex from one or both parties. It's not as forward as prostitution, but the principal is the same.

I find this comparison insulting, both to myself as a gentleman and to every woman that I have gone out on a date with.

It does now? In what way?

I'm not talking about rape. I am talking about objectification. If you have a sexual partner-- or, more likely, a string of them-- whose pleasure and comfort you are not in the least bit concerned with, on an ongoing basis, you are going to become accustomed to not needing to be concerned with these things. You are going to grow expectations and desires based on that foundation. How do you think that will reflect in your treatment of your sexual partners that you are not paying? How do you think that will reflect in your sexual responses to those partners and their efforts to please you?

The problem is your bringing in the force of law to enforce what is at its core an aesthetic concern. Aesthetics are ultimately subjective and arbitrary and thus make no sense to enforce in laws for everyone.

All of society, all of culture, is built up of aesthetic concerns. There's no difference between my subjective and arbitrary views on prostitution and your subjective and arbitrary views on freedom. Or, for that matter, the subjective and arbitrary laws on every crime ranging from jaywalking to murder.

The women of the Dutch red light districts would likely beg to disagree.

Of course they would. They are profiting handsomely from their own destruction.

 

[Orion]

It's a myth that most women of prostitution want to be there. Most don't. Most are trapped, or have been convinced that they can't do better by their abusive cohorts or masters. Many are directly threatened with death if they leave.

Programs like this are a good start, but prostitution needs to be decriminalized. Women don't come forward because they fear punishment. Why would they register their name in a program for women of prostitution so that the authorities can know who they are?

I disagree that you need a bigger stick. You need to remove the stick. The women shouldn't be punished. Their scumbag slave masters should be punished for trafficking in women and children. With decriminalization, the women can come forward to report rapes or to seek services to help them escape. If it's still illegal, they're not going to come forward only to be re-victimized by the "justice" system, on top of whatever the original problem was.

But of course... keeping it illegal means that it's kept hidden, and all of the white collar people in society (government, doctors, lawyers, big business men) who frequent brothels would be exposed. Make no mistake, prostitution is kept illegal to keep the dirty laundry hidden.

 

[Hoplite]

That's exactly the problem. We are supposed to be emotional about sex. We are designed to be. Sex is more than just a massage, or physical therapy, or chiropracty.

Only because we MAKE it so. It IS possible to have sex without seeking the emotional aspect of it.

Yes, I've worked low-end minimum wage jobs. I've worked them all my life. They weren't all that humiliating.

Then where the **** did you work? I've had grown adults act worse than a three year old child because "they were paying customers". I had a grown man, a grown ****ing adult, look me straight in the eye and tell me I had to do whatever he wanted because "the customer is always right." People treat minimum wage employees like crap.

Because I say so.

Good a reason as any, I suppose. Points for the directness but it lacks a certain...oh what is it....ah yes, validity. "I want it" is not sufficient reason for making something legal or illegal. If it were, there would be a hell of a lot fewer black people south of the Mason Dixon line.

If that isn't good enough for you, we can argue and see whose morality more people want. You've probably got the advantage over me at this point, especially on the Internet. Or we could fight in the street. It doesn't matter how we decide, because no matter what, one of us is going to win and get to make the rules and the other is going to lose and have to accept it. Don't say it's best to let everyone decide for themselves, because that's your rules and I don't believe in them. Judging by the facts that we're a democratic society and prostitution is illegal throughout most of it, popular opinion was at least on my side at some point.

And we know popular opinion is such a reliable way to tell what's right and wrong....if you're in the 5th grade.

Nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. It may be self-abusive, but I maintain that it is abusive nonetheless, and that both the prostitute and her customer are abusing themselves in different ways.

So it would seem a good idea to create a program to get them out of this kind of situation.

I find this comparison insulting, both to myself as a gentleman and to every woman that I have gone out on a date with.

Be as insulted as you like, it's what our society has come to dictate as the "script" for a normal date.

I'm not talking about rape. I am talking about objectification. If you have a sexual partner-- or, more likely, a string of them-- whose pleasure and comfort you are not in the least bit concerned with, on an ongoing basis, you are going to become accustomed to not needing to be concerned with these things. You are going to grow expectations and desires based on that foundation. How do you think that will reflect in your treatment of your sexual partners that you are not paying? How do you think that will reflect in your sexual responses to those partners and their efforts to please you?

It probably means you are a sociopath and thus the thoughts of said person wouldnt really be valid when held up against the group as a whole.

If you are arguing that visiting prostitutes has the effect of causing more sexual violence, come out and say it, dont be coy.

All of society, all of culture, is built up of aesthetic concerns. There's no difference between my subjective and arbitrary views on prostitution and your subjective and arbitrary views on freedom. Or, for that matter, the subjective and arbitrary laws on every crime ranging from jaywalking to murder.

Actually there is a difference. One particular set of views can be much more economic, more in line with social harmony, or better at accomplishing a set goal. So on the grand moral scheme, no there's no difference but in microcosm, there is quite a bit of difference.

Of course they would. They are profiting handsomely from their own destruction.

And they have the option to find a new career. They dont have pimps and drug addictions keeping them in that life.

 

[Arch Enemy]

You cannot regulate the drug (or the prostitute in this case) and expect anything positive to happen. You have to destroy demand.

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

I disagree that you need a bigger stick. You need to remove the stick. The women shouldn't be punished. Their scumbag slave masters should be punished for trafficking in women and children.

And the customers. Without the customers, the industry will dry up all on its own.

Only because we MAKE it so. It IS possible to have sex without seeking the emotional aspect of it.

Without seeking it? Yes. Without being affected by it? No, it is not.

Good a reason as any, I suppose. Points for the directness but it lacks a certain...oh what is it....ah yes, validity. "I want it" is not sufficient reason for making something legal or illegal.

You really think your reasoning is any better or more valid? I've posted my reasons for wanting prostitution to be stamped out; that you've dismissed them is of no consequence. The only difference is that you start your argument from "what consenting adults do in private is none of our business" and I start from "the proper moral conduct of society is everybody's business". They both boil down exactly to our respective statements of "I want it" as it pertains to the kind of society we want to live in.

 

[Hoplite]

Without seeking it? Yes. Without being affected by it? No, it is not.

I dont understand what's so hard about the idea that you can have sex without an emotional component.

You really think your reasoning is any better or more valid?

Well...yeah I do otherwise I'd agree with you.

I've posted my reasons for wanting prostitution to be stamped out

And I explained to you they are not based in reason but rather a tunnel visioned view of that part of reality.

that you've dismissed them is of no consequence

Translation= "I'm right and no one will ever change my mind"

The only difference is that you start your argument from "what consenting adults do in private is none of our business" and I start from "the proper moral conduct of society is everybody's business". They both boil down exactly to our respective statements of "I want it" as it pertains to the kind of society we want to live in.

But you cant justify why "proper moral conduct" is everyone's business. You're basically saying you're right because you think you're right and you dont need anymore than that. For yourself, that's true. However if you want to convince anyone else, you need some concrete reasons.

 

[Orion]

And the customers. Without the customers, the industry will dry up all on its own.

Yes, but I think they are secondary to the traffickers. Going after the customers is going after a branch, not the root. Cultural attitudes have to change before the customers will not want those kinds of services.

 

[Panache]

Both of you are making the assumption that hookers want to stay hookers, you assume that they enjoy what they do when that really isnt the case. Im sure there are definitely prostitutes that wouldnt take the programs because they make more doing what they do.

Ok, but if the prostitutes don't like what they do, why do they need these programs? Why can't they pay for their own job training? A couple hundred a night is around $70,000 per year. Thats about twice the national average starting salary in a lot of professional fields. Why wouldn't they be able to afford these programs themselves?

 

[Hoplite]

Ok, but if the prostitutes don't like what they do, why do they need these programs? Why can't they pay for their own job training? A couple hundred a night is around $70,000 per year. Thats about twice the national average starting salary in a lot of professional fields. Why wouldn't they be able to afford these programs themselves?

Many face problems with drug addiction and the inability to leave the field because of people like pimps. Part of the program is getting law enforcement involved to break the hold of pimps and the threat of violence.