I’ve long thought of the Pivot Legal Society as a victim-baiting organization / Leftist front group. Perhaps elements of them actually are. But on the show that I photographed yesterday, I thought Katrina Pacey sounded more like a reasonable libertarian:
What say you?
Cgh, Due to the nature of disease and the nature of modern medicine, there’s a limit to what can be done. You can check the prostitutes on a regular basis as part of some kind of licensing arangement, but that’s only half the problem. Nothing protects the prostitute from catching things from johns, because you can’t screen the johns. Organized and regulated or in the wild, nothing protects the prostitute. The most you can even hope for is to prevent the prostitute from spreading whatever, and with money involved that’s a damn faint hope IMHO.
See HIV and SanFrancisco bath houses for further elucidation.
“The Rat – a job is to slavery as temp work is to prostitution, a much lesser version with superficial similarities. If a company is bought or sold then the employees can voluntarily terminate their services with the new owner (if the new owner wants them). A slave has no such choice. “
Yeah, which is why comparing selling one’s self into slavery is a poor comparison to selling one’s body.
” Nothing protects the prostitute from catching things from johns — The Phantom
Condoms do.
Unfortunately,in markets that have many pros hustling for limited johns,the act without condoms is a selling feature. The younger ones are the main culprits. This irresponsibility has the undesirable effect of limiting the customers of the older ones,which results in them sometimes forsaking the protection.It’s a vicious circle.
” The distinction between the two is, however, an arbitrary one. —
Posted by: Dennis at July 22, 2011 4:19 PM
Alcoholism is an addiction,some may say a disease.
Prostitution is mostly a way to obtain money to fund an addiction. Big difference.
BTW,the addiction that leads to this behaviour is largely due to early sexual abuse at the hands of a family member.
There is a reason why the word WHORE is used as pejorative … and has been since long before any laws about whoring were ever considered.
The Rat – how did you see my earlier comment as a comparison between the two? What I had asked of cgh was a question to clarify how much right one has to themselves and the use/products of their bodies. If one can engage in voluntary prostitution, then is there a moral/legal reason to not engage in voluntary slavery (that is, to decide that they may never again have a choice on any issue)?
Ummm…what court in Canada would support a slavery contract? None. This kind of extreme libertarianism does not exist in any mainstream libertarian organizations. Basically, what you are implying is the same kind of nonsense that the Reform Party had to put up with when the media accused them supporting white supremacy and Christian theocracy.
Believing that prostitution is a fact of life and personal choice (even if you believe it to be a terrible choice) does not make one a supporter of slavery or even prostitution for that matter. Allowing hookers to expand their place of business to include brothels and escort services, both of which are safer than street walking, makes sense. I see no reason to force hookers to suffer needlessly in the name of morality nor do I believe that government can create a Utopian society free of prostitution.
You cannot support the continued illegality of prostitution by using examples CAUSED by the illegality of prostitution.
The increased disease, human trafficking, drug addiction, violence – these are side-effects of the black market.
Prohibition of alcohol fueled violence and misery; I live on the Southern US border, which is awash in the effects of drug prohibition.
Please, you need to abandon these arguments. They are embarrassing.
Dennis demands: “By what standard do you reserve the right to make this judgement, on behalf of nothing less than “society as a whole”???”
Dude, its an -opinion-. I’m still allowed to have those, last I checked. Free country and all, y’know.
Dennis said: ” “…organized prostitution be squashed…” As opposed to “disorganized prostitution”, which would presumably be legal??? What are you talking about?”
Yes Dennis, brothels are and should be illegal, while one woman turning tricks in a non-commercial, on-off type of way is pursuing her own affairs as it were, and should be left alone to do so. And they -are- left alone to do so, therefore I am entirely satisfied with the current state of the law.
Though experiment for you. Which will cause more disruption and danger in your life:
A. Single woman living next door to you, has a web site, does prostitution at her customer’s places.
B. Single woman lives next door, services all her customer at HER place.
C. McBlowjobs Inc. moves in next door, serving 100+ customers a day. With liquor served. This week’s special, fry and a shake $50.00
One last thought. Remember the Abu Graib prison scandal in Iraq? Much ink spilled, much gnashing of teeth from the Left. That was perpetrated by a little cell of sado-masochists who weaseled their way into a position of minor authority and took advantage of the opportunity to get their ya-ya’s out. That situation is one of the things that happens when a previously unacceptable activity gets made mainstream by popular movies/music/art/what have you. We could live to see that sh1t become normal prison-guard behavior.
So, do you -really- think its a great idea for brothels and street-corner hookers to become a common fixture of Canadian life? Because I don’t. It’ll be a bad, bad situation.
Phantom just won the thread.
Not really, jeff. I doubt if a brothel would be allowed in a residential zone. It also ignores the argument that prostitution is safer in brothels with big bloody bouncers, where violent assaults would more likely be reported to police and lists of bad clients could be shared among brothels. The business model would be similar to a bar or a casino.
Blanks:
Besides they never look like they say they do.
You know this from personal experience?
I’ve posted on this before, but there’s some new people here, so I’ll recount some personal experiences. I used to work at a restaurant in Toronto at Jarvis & Wellesley, which was just south of a notorious “stroll”. One of the waitresses asked me to escort her home on Friday and Saturday nights (we were friends, nothing more) because she was sick and tired of being eyed, hooted at, and solicited by men in cars. She was rather petite, and I can understand why she might be scared.
So I appreciate laws against street walking. This type of prostitute will often have sex in near public places, leave used condoms (and needles) littering the street, and create a general aura of lawlessness. As ex-NYC police chief William Bratton said, if you don’t fix the broken windows, you leave the message that anything goes. Street walkers are a form of broken window.
On the other hand, in Toronto, there’s a thriving escort business. The women advertise in certain newspapers and websites; their customers contact them by phone or text; the meetings occur in private apartments or hotels. No one sees anything in public and no one is offended. Quick check of “Now” magazine suggests $150/hr is the going rate. (I’ll go out on a limb and suggest that if you have $150 to spend on one hour with a woman, you’re probably showered, shaved, and reasonably well dressed, so it’s not like these women are lying down with cowboys from the 1880’s). Three appointments a day, five days a week, is an income of over $125,000/yr, gross. I doubt they pay a whole lot in CPP/EI/income tax. If they want to work a bit harder – say five appointments a day – that’s over $180,000 a year. Six years from 19-25, and you’ve made over a million dollars. You have lots of money in the bank and lots of time to got to university or get married and have a family. It’s not a choice I’d like either of my daughters to make, but for some women, this is by far the most lucrative career they could undertake.
So the question becomes, should these women be forced to live in fear and hiding because some bluenoses disapprove of what they’re doing? I think not.
I would like to emphasize that I’ve lived in Toronto since the early 1960’s. On Sundays, you couldn’t get alcohol with dinner when I first moved here. It was a huge concession for the Tories to allow beer and wine to be served with meals on Sunday. No stores were allowed to open, except some pharmacies, convenience stores, and gas stations. (It was called “The Lord’s Day Act” for those unfamiliar.) Soon, various cracks began to open – more stores were allowed to open on Sundays, starting in “designated tourist areas”, and gradually expanding. My mother was horrified. She wouldn’t even let us change our clothes after church on Sunday and go out and play with our friends. “It’s Sunday!” she would gasp when we begged to go out and play.
Push finally came to shove in 1977 – the Blue Jays had to play home games on Sunday to meet MLB’s schedule, and Bill Davis complied. The Jays wanted to sell beer as well, and soon enough that happened too. The ball started rolling down the slippery slope, and now Sunday in Ontario is almost indistinguishable from any other day, except the golf courses are more crowded.
My point is the bluenoses insisted that any relaxation of the Sunday laws would mean the end of civil society. The idea that someone might have a martini with dinner on Sunday at a restaurant was, in 1966, horrifying. Today, it’s quaint. Lots of things that offend some people’s moral sensibilities are really innocuous. And I believe the same things apply to prostitution.
Do I agree with laws against street walkers? Yes. In that case, the street walkers want the rest of society to accept the externalities of their choice – the noise, the traffic, the harassment of women who are not prostitutes, the detritus of their acts and drug use – without complaint. And I believe society has a right to complain.
But the escort situation I described? If someone cares to enumerate the externalities that choice imposes on society, I’ll be happy to listen. I don’t think there are that many.
Phantom:
“because you can’t screen the johns”
No, but you can screen the prostitutes. And they are the ones who have a vested interest in screening.
“there’s a limit to what can be done.”
There’s a limit to everything, but nothing in what you’ve posted suggests that matters will not be improved by a regulated business environment same as any other business. The track record for those European countries which have gone this route overwhelmingly indicates this to be the case.
“See HIV and SanFrancisco bath houses for further elucidation”
Proves my point, as this was unscreened and unregulated, just as were those in Toronto and most everywhere else.
“So, do you -really- think its a great idea for brothels and street-corner hookers to become a common fixture of Canadian life?”
A false choice. The point is that the permitting and regulation of the former will reduce the latter.
“Though experiment for you. Which will cause more disruption and danger in your life:” etc.
Another false choice, because all of these are better outcomes than the existing situation.
Jeff: “Phantom just won the thread.”
I think you need to go back to remedial reading comprehension. All of Phantom’s points have been rebutted.
Jason: “You cannot support the continued illegality of prostitution by using examples CAUSED by the illegality of prostitution.”
Pure gold, as is the rest of your post. You’ve outlined the tautology of most of the arguments employed by the bluenoses here.
KevinB: you are entirely right. The externalities of the existing situation are indeed high, whereas the externalities from getting rid of streetwalking by institutionalizing the occupation are less by comparison.
Kevin B
thesis was inclamating though ignorant to a T, pimpimg is illegal and not prostitution.
You should have listened.
RHBill Doofis also expanded public funding to Catholic secondary education, is that also “quaint”.
i dont like to debate intellectuals because they’re always right.
besides what has that to do with them being 45 years old and 200 lbs when their pimp tells me they’re 25 and 105 lbs?, i always ask for imperial measure.
blanks:
Thank you for that edifying reply. I am now absolutely certain of one thing.
cgh, my points were dismissed, not rebutted.
Getting screened for a prostitute means “yes my dear, you -do- have HIV/SARS/other horrific crud, and you can’t work anymore. Who have you seen since our last check, hmmmn?” Or, “no, you don’t have X yet and can continue your normal horrible life until we check you over again next week/month/year/semi-annual… unless that little blister there is from something fatal we can’t test for yet.”
Either way, the prostitute isn’t having a good life. Therefore I would prefer that it not be encouraged.
San Francisco bath houses were the Case One source of the HIV epidemic in North America. Without those bath houses and others in NY, Toronto etc, the HIV epidemic would not have happened the way it did. It would have been -much- slower, and might not have expanded past two or three thousand cases.
Let me remind you that until fairly recently HIV could NOT be screened for, and if you caught it it was a guaranteed death sentence due to the no-treatment for it. So you can see how a screening program in bath houses in San Francisco would have made -zero- difference in the situation, because it could not be detected. At all.
The only reasonable thing to do would have been to shutter the bath houses and enforce all the laws already on the books for contagious fatal diseases like TB, typhus and cholera. That was not done because of guys like Harvey Milk and other DemocRat insane people, thus we have our situation today with HIV endemic in the population.
Imagine if we had had lots of nice legal brothels with lovely working conditions as well as bath houses. Fun, eh? Major body count, right?
On to SARS, barely contained in Toronto hospitals and could have ended up killing hundreds or thousands if the Ontario Ministry of Health had been just a little bit more inept.
Imagine if we had lots of nice legal brothels and prostitutes with high self esteem. With SARS.
Therefore, to reiterate, I’d prefer it be discouraged.
LC Bennet said: “I doubt if a brothel would be allowed in a residential zone.”
LC, the difference between “residential” and “commercial” in Toronto is -zero-. Storefronts and bars down the main streets, with apartments over top and houses down the side streets. McBlowjobs Inc. moves in next to you, how’s your life going to be?
Its going to be bad, is what. Lets not fool around here shall we?
But for the sake of argument, lets say the city council decrees brothels will only be allowed in industrial zones areas. McBlowjobs Inc. moves in next to your business. How’s business going to be? Bad.
Therefore, I prefer that prostitution be kept non-commercial, one-off, and disorganized. The more crappy it is, the less people will be tempted to do it, and the better -my- life will be. Because less psychotic crackwhores means less trouble in the world.
Incidentally, has anyone stopped to consider the COST of all this wonderful screening and bureaucracy? Federal Ministry of Health would add a whole new Department of Brothels, that’s gotta be worth a couple billion, right?
Is we luurning yet?
KevinB said: “But the escort situation I described? If someone cares to enumerate the externalities that choice imposes on society, I’ll be happy to listen. I don’t think there are that many.”
As I said in my original post, the social cost (or externalities as you say) of solo prostitutes is largely limited to the personal damage wrought upon the prostitute herself through mental damage, disease and violence, plus the damage to the johns themselves by the same forces.
These damages are unwelcome. We generally seek, as decent people, to prevent such things. BUT, there is no conceivable -government- apparatus that could really stop the lone prostitute. Therefore passing a law against prostitution itself would be idiotic.
As I’ve outlined above, brothels maintain all the mental and disease aspects, possibly they -might- reduce the violence a bit if carefully watched, but historically its the pimp the prostitute fears the most. History has a way of repeating itself.
as long as woman need money there will be prostitution and moving them into some kind of call girl centre will likely only increase the demand.
‘s what I’m sayin’ Blanks. ‘s what I’m sayin’.
LC Bennett wrote: Comparing escort services to temp services, OTOH, might yield interesting pro and con results in terms of wages, working conditions etc.
I dunno, the last temp agency I worked for paid me $75/hour. And it wasn’t for my sexual services (which would be obvious if you knew me).
I never did “get” the prostitution business but surely it contains within itself the most cynical trade two human beings can possibly make. The prostitute essentially says “at this cost to you, here is my body for you to do what you will with it”. The john honors that offer and both parties can agree on one thing “I don’t think much of myself but I think even less of you”.