Prostitution

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Just followed the wiki link and noticed this:-

Prostitution in Sweden
Main article: Prostitution in Sweden

Paying for sex is illegal (the client commits a crime, but not the prostitute).

Sweden considers prostitution a form of violence against women so the crime does not lie in the prostitute selling sexual services, but in the customer's buying of such services.[65] The law which makes it illegal to pay for sex, but not to be a prostitute was adopted in 1999, and at that time it was unique (since then a similar law was adopted by Norway and Iceland).

....Not the sort of stance I would have expected the Swedes etc. to take.

[lordpasternack]

Just followed the wiki link and noticed this:-

Prostitution in Sweden
Main article: Prostitution in Sweden

Paying for sex is illegal (the client commits a crime, but not the prostitute).

Sweden considers prostitution a form of violence against women so the crime does not lie in the prostitute selling sexual services, but in the customer's buying of such services.[65] The law which makes it illegal to pay for sex, but not to be a prostitute was adopted in 1999, and at that time it was unique (since then a similar law was adopted by Norway and Iceland).

....Not the sort of stance I would have expected the Swedes etc. to take.

Yep. I wonder how they feel about male sex-workers?

I find this kind of "schizophrenia" on the issue of the sex industry quite bizarre - particularly from the feminists. Women having sex with whomever they want, whenever they want is "sexual liberation", unless it makes them wealthier in the process: Then of course it is exploitation.

I mean, particularly in the case of escorts - who can earn over 500 quid (and some over a grand) for essentially having a one-night-stand, or weekend fling with someone - it's certainly difficult to tell which party is the one being exploited there.

The murky depths of pimping, human trafficking and coercion into the sex industry are slightly more complicated, though, of course.

[JacksSmirkingRevenge]

Yep. I wonder how they feel about male sex-workers?

Or about pimps and brothels, I wonder. The article doesn't say if they were legal or not. Maybe there's another law that addresses this.

I mean, particularly in the case of escorts - who can earn over 500 quid (and some over a grand) for essentially having a one-night-stand, or weekend fling with someone - it's certainly difficult to tell which party is the one being exploited there.

If I'd just paid £1000 for a shag I think I'd feel exploited.

[lordpasternack]

I mean, particularly in the case of escorts - who can earn over 500 quid (and some over a grand) for essentially having a one-night-stand, or weekend fling with someone - it's certainly difficult to tell which party is the one being exploited there.

If I'd just paid £1000 for a shag I think I'd feel exploited.

Well, most of them buy for the time spent, as opposed to "per shag", if you like. Clients pay escorts to spend a particular length of time with them - and in the cases of overnight and weekend stints it's for something a little more than just shagging: The company, a taste of companionship, and stuff like that that these guys may not have the time or impetus to try to obtain through other means. In fact, many girls are rated on their ability to provide a "girlfriend experience".

Beats me why anyone would genuinely be in a position where they felt that had to part with a grand to enjoy the fleeting company of a nice female - but hey - it's their money, and if they can find someone who'll take it and give them what they want, they should be able to go for it. And I certainly can't see the female being exploited there.

[Lozzer]

This is why democracy is gay. Retards may speak for themselves, and they may govern themselves, but I don't want to be governed by them. Democracy is redundant because it revolves around the most aired and popular ideas, not the correct and most logical ones. I'm not anti-democracy, but I'm not pro-democracy. Majority rule doesn't work in mental institutions--even if democracy is morally right.

What would you advocate in its place?

I don't know, I can't pretend that I do know.

[RESiNATE]

Democracy is redundant because it revolves around the most aired and popular ideas, not the correct and most logical ones.

This is largely true, although (in respect of popularism) the forum of debate in government is subjective and open to 'sexing up' - the Iraq war and numerous other issues is evidence of that.

In respects of prostitution, as has been said already, there is still a huge influence from the Church of England. Indeed, many of the laws that we are subject to are dictates from some religious quarter or other. A gross injustice is being served by many citizens due to this situation.

Discussion of what could replace a democratic system is something for another thread, but for the meantime we have to adhere to the 'best' that we can come up with.

The actual act of paying or receiving cash (or some other form of trade) for sex is not criminal here - and many "escorts" live completely within the country's laws (and are registered self-employed and taxed as escorts) in doing what they do.

I think I have to take issue with this, lordpasternack; an escort isn't offering sex, they are offering 'company' (or 'companionship'). I might be completely wrong in this (and please correct me if I am), but I doubt that an escort would admit that they are getting paid for sex. If asked, and there have been a few exposé documentaries on this, the escort would say that they are merely providing a service for clients that require a companion - often for the purpose of business functions, but also for those that simply want company. They might add that, if the escort and the client 'bonded' well, consentual sex may occur later. The client is ONLY paying for the 'companionship' and not the promise of sexual gratification.

I mean, particularly in the case of escorts - who can earn over 500 quid (and some over a grand) for essentially having a one-night-stand, or weekend fling with someone - it's certainly difficult to tell which party is the one being exploited there.

Quite simply, there is no exploitation.
Two adults have entered into an agreement of which both parties are concurrent; each party has something that the other requires - the prostitute (male or female) requires a living, the client requires the sex.

Legalising prostitution would negate the exploitation that is currently occurring in the sex trade by pimps and traffikers alike.

As with the legalisation of drugs (something that I will be discussing in a different topic...eventually lol), the key points of legalisation should be:

1: the health and welfare of the prostitute
2: the health and welfare of the client
3: regulation and accountability of the business, form both points of view
4: the irradication of the 'Black Market' trade

I've never used a prostitute before, but I have seen many a girl wandering the streets at stupid o'clock.
Very often, because I'm a compassionate sod, I wish I could have reached out to them. I don't know what I could have done for them - talking, protecting, offering a different path...I dunno. At least, if prostitution was legal, their 'working environment' would take much of the worry and danger in which these girls (and blokes) place themselves on a daily basis.

It is all very well for the government to say stuff like, we must offer them retraining for a better career choice, but why should they conform to that ideal?

What gives anybody the right to judge and condemn a person based on their activties*?

Just because that activity doesn't 'sit well' within the conscience of the objector doesn't mean that it is wholly wrong.

Res...

(* obviously, the usual mandate of 'as long as it doesn't impinge upon another person's direct rights' applies.)

[lordpasternack]

The actual act of paying or receiving cash (or some other form of trade) for sex is not criminal here - and many "escorts" live completely within the country's laws (and are registered self-employed and taxed as escorts) in doing what they do.

I think I have to take issue with this, lordpasternack; an escort isn't offering sex, they are offering 'company' (or 'companionship'). I might be completely wrong in this (and please correct me if I am), but I doubt that an escort would admit that they are getting paid for sex. If asked, and there have been a few exposé documentaries on this, the escort would say that they are merely providing a service for clients that require a companion - often for the purpose of business functions, but also for those that simply want company. They might add that, if the escort and the client 'bonded' well, consentual sex may occur later. The client is ONLY paying for the 'companionship' and not the promise of sexual gratification.

This is quite a tricky one...

Escorts tread a very fine line between being overt sex-workers and simple sort of "hired companionship". They do retain the choice themselves as to whether they want to engage in sexual acts with their clients - but that is usually why they are ostensibly contracted by the client. Particularly those who just buy 30 minute and 1 hour slots... Some escorts will tend more towards the dinner dates and friendly chatting type of thing, but some will veer more towards being straightforward high-end sex-workers.

Also, escorts often can't advertise their services as anything beyond "company" or "companionship", since to do so may be deemed "soliciting" and against the law. You would still notice though that many classified ads of escorts will be laced with hints and euphemisms, and some arcane acronyms that are code for certain sexual acts.

And I'm not sure where you're from - but in areas where prostitution is illegal the: "I offer my time and companionship, anything else is between consenting adults," line - is a standard disclaimer to run around the law. Of course they never admit that they're being paid for the sexual liasons with their clients if that would be illegal. The de facto truth may be a different story, though...

I could always link to some escorting-related sites if you'd like to sample more of a flavour of what at least one part of that "scene" is all about? For the record, I'm not an escort myself - but I do know some escorts.

[Shaker]

in areas where prostitution is illegal the: "I offer my time and companionship, anything else is between consenting adults," line - is a standard disclaimer to run around the law.

Plausible deniability

[RESiNATE]

And I'm not sure where you're from - but in areas where prostitution is illegal the: "I offer my time and companionship, anything else is between consenting adults," line - is a standard disclaimer to run around the law. Of course they never admit that they're being paid for the sexual liasons with their clients if that would be illegal. The de facto truth may be a different story, though...

I live in deepest darkest Somerset, where the laws are rigorously enforced with a stout stick of ... straw lol.
I jest
And of course it is a simple disclaimer for the escort industry; 'plausible deniability', as Shaker says, is the over-used loop-hole of many a person...the government not least.

I think that the escort industry is left alone due to two things: taxation, and descriptive agenda.
The bill proposals concerning prostitution are to do with health and safety, exploitation (and accountability thereof), and socioschematic ideal.

However, the differences between 'street' prostitution and escort services is that each conjure up very different images in the average person; one image is of dark and dingy street corners, the other is of chauffeured limos and candles.

If a person declares themselves a prostitute, the images of depravity and desperation are cast upon that person. Rarely would the prostitute be viewed as anything other than a poor soul lost in a world of drugs and shame.

Conversely, an escort might be viewed differently - because of the different 'imagery'.

I suppose it is much like the differences between London Black Cabs and those taxis that don't follow the same dictate; the former is seen as respectable and safe, whilst the latter is seen as irreverent and mercenary. Both provide the same service (degrees notwithstanding), yet each are regarded differently.

The same could be said of street prostitute versus commercial escort.

'Hooker', 'whore', 'tom', 'tart', 'bitch' - all these words and accompanying imagery are portrayed on TV and film in a certain way, and have therefore embedded themselves within the psyche of the majority. Escorts have different imagery attached to them also; I have yet to see an escort portrayed on TV (in documentaries) as anything less than a well-dressed individual being chauffuer driven to their respective clients. These images have also seeped into the majoritive conscience, and so have their effect upon the debate.

Thing is, both are the same.

lordpasternack, maybe you could discuss with your escort acquaintances the differences that they feel they have to the common street prostitute - what makes them any different to each other?

Taxation?
Legitimacy?
Cleanliness?

Probably all the above...but only due to the imagery, I suspect.
Because, I too fall into the traps of imagery on occasion - it's how our brains work - and TV is much to blame.

If a person chooses prostitution as a career, then they should have the equallity that our society claims to uphold. Just because one side of the profession chooses their clients from the street, or that the other from an appointment book, shouldn't be the thing that outlaws one from the other.

Furthermore, from the perspective of the client, a so-called 'curb-crawler' is viewed as a lowly man touting for a dirty fuck, whereas the client of the escort is merely an overworked business person looking for companionship and relaxation. Again, the imagery plays its part and usually draws an imbalanced opinion.

Res...

[FBM]

Comedian Jay Hickman: (roughly)

"You think women ain't superior? You're dumber 'n shit. They got half the money and all the pussy. And if you've got all the pussy, it's just a matter of time before you've got all the money."

I know this is "serious discussion" and all, sorry. But I really do think that women would be empowered greatly if prostitution were legalized. Or maybe only the prostitutes would be empowered and wives and girlfriends would be disenfranchised?

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I think the real reason that escorts are overlooked by the law is that MPs, judges, senior police officers, barristers, senior civil servants, et al. are far more likely to use escorts. As long as the police are concentrating on the bottom end of the market, they are not going to find a dozen coppers kicking in the door of their hotel bedroom - all they have to worry about is the News of the World!

[lordpasternack]

I think the real reason that escorts are overlooked by the law is that MPs, judges, senior police officers, barristers, senior civil servants, et al. are far more likely to use escorts. As long as the police are concentrating on the bottom end of the market, they are not going to find a dozen coppers kicking in the door of their hotel bedroom - all they have to worry about is the News of the World!

No - they are overlooked because PROSTITUTION IS NOT ILLEGAL IN THE UK. Sex-workers in the UK are perfectly entitled to accept money explicitly as a trade for sexual acts, and they would be entitled to register themselves as self-employed with the government explicitly as prostitutes, and be taxed, and whatnot. I repeat - it is not illegal to trade money for sex in the UK - either for the sex-worker or the client.

They just would not be allowed to solicit in a public place (which can include placing explicit adverts in certain locations), be part of a brothel, or "pimp" other prostitutes. Those are the illegal activities around the sex industry - but the actual transaction of money for sex is entirely above board legally speaking.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I think the real reason that escorts are overlooked by the law is that MPs, judges, senior police officers, barristers, senior civil servants, et al. are far more likely to use escorts. As long as the police are concentrating on the bottom end of the market, they are not going to find a dozen coppers kicking in the door of their hotel bedroom - all they have to worry about is the News of the World!

No - they are overlooked because PROSTITUTION IS NOT ILLEGAL IN THE UK. Sex-workers in the UK are perfectly entitled to accept money explicitly as a trade for sexual acts, and they would be entitled to register themselves as self-employed with the government explicitly as prostitutes, and be taxed, and whatnot. I repeat - it is not illegal to trade money for sex in the UK - either for the sex-worker or the client.

They just would not be allowed to solicit in a public place (which can include placing explicit adverts in certain locations), be part of a brothel, or "pimp" other prostitutes. Those are the illegal activities around the sex industry - but the actual transaction of money for sex is entirely above board legally speaking.

I was referring to why the laws were set in the first instance so as to permit high-class escorts and call-girls to operate legally while marginalising and criminalising the 'street girls'. And also why there have never been any attempts to alter that status quo for decades. Prostitutes are employed by people from all walks of life. It stands to reason that those making the laws would do so in a way that doesn't interfere with their own favoured ladies.

[lordpasternack]

I was referring to why the laws were set in the first instance so as to permit high-class escorts and call-girls to operate legally while marginalising and criminalising the 'street girls'. And also why there have never been any attempts to alter that status quo for decades. Prostitutes are employed by people from all walks of life. It stands to reason that those making the laws would do so in a way that doesn't interfere with their own favoured ladies.

I said as much on RDF - only in a slightly more cynical tone. The lawmakers not wanting to forgo their courtesans...

Please excuse me if I came across as a bit short. I've been in an odd sort of mood since last night.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I was referring to why the laws were set in the first instance so as to permit high-class escorts and call-girls to operate legally while marginalising and criminalising the 'street girls'. And also why there have never been any attempts to alter that status quo for decades. Prostitutes are employed by people from all walks of life. It stands to reason that those making the laws would do so in a way that doesn't interfere with their own favoured ladies.

I said as much on RDF - only in a slightly more cynical tone. The lawmakers not wanting to forgo their courtesans...

Please excuse me if I came across as a bit short. I've been in an odd sort of mood since last night.

That is no excuse! You are responsible for your words. I think you should be flogged!! And I know just the rugby clubs to do it!!


btw