I haven't read the book, but I don't see how the girls are "victims".

It's their chosen profession, and I'd venture to say that they earn more money at it than they'd be able to at anything else, or they wouldn't be doing it.

If you want to say that they're victims of our society and economic system that forces someone to be a prostitute to earn a good living, I'll give you that, but.....

Are they any more victims than hotel maids or dishwashers who work for the minimum wage, or NYC taxicab drivers who work 70 hours a week to earn $500? [/b][/quote]I wasn't expressing my opinion, plaw--I was offering you and others here a book review. The author, who had psychological training in med school, observed that a high percentage of the women she met and got to know at the Mustang Ranch had serious self-esteem problems that led them to prostitution--brought on by grim histories of childhood and adolescent sexual abuse, drug and alcohol problems, violent treatment by husbands, boyfriends and pimps (the main reason those legal brothels in NV have formidable barbed wire fences is to protect the workers against enraged boyfriends and pimps). They often have children who can't visit them because of where they work, and whose custody they lost to foster homes or s**t-heel ex-husbands and lovers for the same reason. The author makes a strong case for legalized prostitution not because she thinks prostitution is victimless, but because she believes that prostitutes are less victimized in legal brothels than elsewhere.

500 a month?

$500 a week.

That's 2000 a month, that's much.

that's 26,000 a year, that is not much.

Even at 40 hours a week it is not much nonetheless 70 hours.

But that's 2000 a month without social security, or what?
If so, then I agree it's not much.

Not if you live in New York City.

Yeah Enzo you've got to consider the difference in the cost of living. If I remember correctly you're a Belgian lad. There must be a large difference in housing costs, food costs, even beer costs from town to town. From say Brugge to Antwerp.

From the movie "The Whore Master"

Somebody comes to them and says, "I have women; if you put up three, four hundred dollars ..... So they can't resist. I want to control it as a business, to keep it respectable
(then, as he slams his hand on the table) I don't want it near schools -- I don't want it sold to children! That's an infamia. In my city, we would keep the traffic in the conservative section. They're animals anyway, so let them lose their souls...

Just one more rung down the ladder. It's more palatable if we say that it can be taxed. And easier to succumb than to resist. Just another way to degrade women and lower societies standards.

I must ask yet again....

What is it about sex that gets everyone in an uproar?

Most hotel maids, working for minimum wage, are women. Doesn't that degrade women as well?

But never do you hear the same hue and cry that you do over prostitution.

And how is a woman, choosing prostitution as a profession of her own volition, degraded?

It seems to me that her customer is the one suffering the degrading experience.

At least the Hotel Maids are making an honest living, and not selling and disgracing themselves.

'If You Don't Take A Job As A Prostitute, We Can Stop Your Benefits.'

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.


Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

The waitress, an unemployed information technology professional, had said that she was willing to work in a bar at night and had worked in a cafe.

She received a letter from the job centre telling her that an employer was interested in her "profile'' and that she should ring them. Only on doing so did the woman, who has not been identified for legal reasons, realise that she was calling a brothel.

Under Germany's welfare reforms, any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit. Last month German unemployment rose for the 11th consecutive month to 4.5 million, taking the number out of work to its highest since reunification in 1990.

The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.

When the waitress looked into suing the job centre, she found out that it had not broken the law. Job centres that refuse to penalise people who turn down a job by cutting their benefits face legal action from the potential employer.

"There is now nothing in the law to stop women from being sent into the sex industry," said Merchthild Garweg, a lawyer from Hamburg who specialises in such cases. "The new regulations say that working in the sex industry is not immoral any more, and so jobs cannot be turned down without a risk to benefits."

Miss Garweg said that women who had worked in call centres had been offered jobs on telephone sex lines. At one job centre in the city of Gotha, a 23-year-old woman was told that she had to attend an interview as a "nude model", and should report back on the meeting. Employers in the sex industry can also advertise in job centres, a move that came into force this month. A job centre that refuses to accept the advertisement can be sued.

Tatiana Ulyanova, who owns a brothel in central Berlin, has been searching the online database of her local job centre for recruits.

"Why shouldn't I look for employees through the job centre when I pay my taxes just like anybody else?" said Miss Ulyanova.

Ulrich Kueperkoch wanted to open a brothel in Goerlitz, in former East Germany, but his local job centre withdrew his advertisement for 12 prostitutes, saying it would be impossible to find them.

Mr Kueperkoch said that he was confident of demand for a brothel in the area and planned to take a claim for compensation to the highest court. Prostitution was legalised in Germany in 2002 because the government believed that this would help to combat trafficking in women and cut links to organised crime.

Miss Garweg believes that pressure on job centres to meet employment targets will soon result in them using their powers to cut the benefits of women who refuse jobs providing sexual services.

"They are already prepared to push women into jobs related to sexual services, but which don't count as prostitution,'' she said.

"Now that prostitution is no longer considered by the law to be immoral, there is really nothing but the goodwill of the job centres to stop them from pushing women into jobs they don't want to do."

By Clare Chapman telegraph.co.uk


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


Don Cardi

Maybe that's because how two genders have different views on sex. A woman sees sex mostly from love view point. A man though, I can't speak for, but from what I see, they are more into action than feeling. That's why a woman is deeply hurt to sell what she has to offer in return for love. Sex from a woman's view point is not something you can put a price on. I know I would feel degraded, lost and miserable if I go through that.

You propose that prostitutes be checked on for sex related diseases. Who's there to check the men who are going to hire prostitutes? What if the condom breaks --if there's one to begin with-- and that guy has venereal disease? What about a man who picks up these diseases and brings it to his wife? Is that fair to her?

I'm against drugs and prostitution because they hurt families. It is one thing if you are a single person and you are going to stay that way for ever, otherwise it is truly irresponsible to do this kind of stuff.

Maybe that's because how two genders have different views on sex. [/b][/quote]Afsaneh, Rightly said. But it is not just the difference in the "views" between the genders, it is actually the difference between the genders itself. Eventhough we think we have advanced very much from cave-man days, we actually haven't. Some of the rules are hardwired in the genes. There is very little cultural influences can do to change them. One of such rules that got into our genes before the invention of condoms and birth control is that which concerns how each gender views sex. It is a cheap process for a man. It is not costly in resources. Expendible sperms. For a woman, sex is a costly process because (again remember we are talking about cave man, no condoms, right!) it results in child bearing responbilities. That is a BIG drain on resources for a woman. So a woman is always careful whom she chooses to have sex with. And culture always makes sure that some of these primary rules are not violated. So in every culture, indiscriminate sex for a woman is considered bad, whereas it is not such a big taboo for a man.
PLAW... So does this brief glimpse on evolution answer your question as to what is it about sex that people get into uproar? Genetics. modern man is a myth.

As you correctly point out, you can't speak for men, but please keep in mnd that you can't speak for all women, either.

I would agree that for the most part men and women view sex differently, although I believe that their attitudes have been evolving and changing over the years so that now there are a vast number of women who regard sex in exactly the same light as men do: As "no big deal."

You say that "Sex from a woman's view point is not something you can put a price on. I know I would feel degraded, lost and miserable if I go through that."

Well apparently there are women who can put a price on it, just as there are women who have frequent sex - and sex simply for the enjoyment of it, with no love attachment involved - who are not prostitutes.

I understand perfectly that you would feel degraded, lost, and miserable as a prostitute, and I imagine that that 99.99% of the world's women would share your feelings.

And I would even agree that many women who work as prostitutes feel exactly the same way.

But the fact remains that presumably there are many who don't share those feelings, that becoming a prostitute is a choice, and the only rationale for prostitution being illegal is the attempt by some to impose thier moral standards on others.

That's a fair point, and one that hadn't occured to me.

Yes, the prostitute deserves protection from her client, just as the client deserves protection from the prostitute. And if I could think of a solution, I'd offer it.

But there are "occupational hazards" associated with many jobs, and the person taking such a job assumes the risks associated with it

It's the government's job to "protect the public" from those who offer various products and services. That's why in the U.S. we have a Food & Drug Administration, and there are a myriad of professions - from doctors and lawyers to manicurists and hairdressers - that require the licensing of their practicioners.

It is not, however, the job of the government to protect these people from their customers.

Bcause of the health risks associated with prostitution, however, I would agree that the prostitute needs some sort of protection. I'm just not sure how to go about it.

The only reason protitution is not an "honest living" is because it's illegal in most parts of this country.

In parts of Nevada and parts of the rest of the world where it is legal, it is regarded as a perfectly honest way to make a living.

As far as the "women disgracing themselves" argument goes, that's your opinion.

Your view of morality is not shared by everyone.

Everybody who works at a job is "selling" themselves in one form or another. We're not talking about slavery, after all. It's just a question of what they are selling.

Isn't a brilliant author who can write great books that are not commercially successful "selling" himself if he goes to work writing scripts for stupid TV sitcoms?

Isn't a brilliant college athlete who could excel as a medical researcher "selling himself" if he decides to play professinal sports instead?

I personally know a woman who paid her way through Graduate School working as a topless dancer in NYC. She earned a Masters Degree in Finance, and today is a Vice President at a major international investment bank and earning a rather large six figure salary.

Why is it OK to sell one's mind, but not one's body?

You know, I have often thought that anti-prostitution laws - bearing in mind that in the U.S. at least, they go back hundreds of years - rather than being designed to protect women from "degrading and disgracing" themselves were actually designed to keep women from attaining the degree of financial independence that they might, and keeping them in the home to take care of men.

That actually makes a great deal of sense, since I can think of no other logical reason.

Hmmm.....

Seems like a case of the beaurocracy running amok here.

Every job has its own set of unique qualifications and criteria. Obviously, one of them should be that no one is forced to take a job that they would have moral, religious, or other legitimate objections to performing, or jobs that may be injurious to their mental or physical well being.

For example, no one should be forced, if they don't want to, to take a job in an animal shelter euthanasing dogs and cats.

And no one should be forced to work in the sex industry if they choose not to.

Yes, no one should be forced to, however when the requests for a simple job as being a maid is a lot and demand is less, you have to keep your job by all means. If prostitution is illegal, it is easier to protect your rights than when it is not. They can easily lay you off and hire someone who agrees with their terms, which is totally legal.

One more thing to add, HIV tests wouldn't recognize an infected person up to six months from their first exposure to the virus. That's why someone who deals with this kind of stuff would put his/her life and that of his/her partner in danger. So bottom line is, no test can protect people from venereal diseases. When something is so risky, it should be illegal in my opinion.

Well, if a corrupt alcholic can become President ...

In Singapore, Uruguay, Netherlands, France ... sex-workers must carry a sort of identity card that certifies them as being registered, as well as having passed their medical check-ups and can only work in certain areas designated as red light areas. That all sounds OK.

But Prostitution sucks. Prostitutes frequently become robbed, raped, beaten and battered. They rarely go to the police, partly because they're rarely taken seriously. It isn't always about a "career" choice, MANY people are forced forced into the sex industry and exploited when they're there.

Without any cites, I am willing to theorize that prostitution in its illegal form causes or contributes to considerably more social ills than prostitution in its legal form. However, given that our politics work on the plank of family values, legality would be perceived as being supportive of a lascivious lifestyle, so all we can do is theorize it for the US now.

ROTFL Love It Don!

That's because prostitution is illegal, and you're describing something that I imagine happens mostly to streetwalkers.

I'm certain that nothing like that ever happens in Nevada's legal brothels

That could happen in an environment in which prostitution was legal, I suppose.

I guess there would be illegal establishments that charged lower prices and skirted the law in some way.

But there are illegal "after hours" drinking establishments, and illegal gambling parlors as well. That's no argument for drinking and gambling to be made illegal.

And it would always be a career choice for those who chose to enter the business legally.

And therein lies the problem, IMO.

Those who would attempt to impose their moral standards on everyone by determining that laciviousness is wrong.

It is not just moral standards. It is more of a health issue. I don't want my husband to go and bring HIV virus souvenir for me and all that's been done legally. It is interesting that we expect our dentist to change all his devices for each patient because we fear AIDS, but when it comes to sex we throw the caution out the window.

Well, you can't replace your dick every time you have sex. It's not like the dentist. You cannot make that comparison.

If you can't, then please either stay single or consider keeping it in your pants. When you talk about everyone's rights, you should consider those who would suffer the consequences of your actions as well. The freedom and liberty only goes as far as not hurting other's rights.

Am I right to assume that you believe in abstinence until marriage?

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people that believe the government is not around merely to protect its citizens, but to save their souls (much like a theocracy).

No, I just think promiscuous behavior and considering sex a hobby is wrong. All the venereal diseases are just to prove that point. For me sex is the ultimate stage of intimacy and love in a long and stable relationship.

Sex is a wonderful hobby.

One of these days I plan to share my hobby with somebody else.