> The government does have a legitimate role to
> play in the prostitution market. As with all
> markets, it should ensure that all exchanges
> are truly voluntary. In short, it should protect
> individual rights to property, especially the
> right not to be coerced.

Loody.

Ludi-crous!

Why does everyone think government is supposed to pat them on the head and congratulate them on their sexuality?

I'm sorry your parents got divorced and all, but government is not your Daddy.

Several years ago, I was having a conversation with an acquaintance of mine who was a member of the California assembly. He seemed greatly concerned with the widespread practice of prostitution. I suggested that the state legalize it, license it, regulate and tax it. That would result in driving prostitution out of California just like other businesses. He had no sense of humor.

That Cloud story is the kind of idiot teenage smugness that makes people do monstrous things.

Hate that. Hate it.

I like Bar's point: Taxes, taxes, taxes. Titty taxes. Fuck taxes. Pickup-line taxes.

Whatever government does for people in the century ahead, it's mostly going to be about taking their money.

This blog post reminds me of this one: Some people won't be satisfied until government is required to provide prostitutes with bodyguards.

I'd like to buy a hug.

... except that the proud libertarian attempts to legalize prostitution in Europe have all led to exploitation and trafficking of young women and boys - surprise!

The "fundamental right" to sell oneself works out differently for poor Ukranian children of divorce than it does for comfortable American intellectuals toying with being "transgressive" - wow! who'd a thunk it!?!?

/eyeroll

I'm not against prostitution, I just don't want hookers walking around the neighborhood when my folks come to visit.

To Ben David's point, the legalization of prostitution is theoretically fine to many people. But most of those same people would turn into unforgiving advocates of death penalty punishment for pimps upon learning that some greasy middle-aged guy is repeatedly offering their pretty, but dim, 18 year old child a supposedly glamorous job working in a far-away state as a sex worker.

In short, when it is *other* people's teen kids making crap money far from home by humping middle-aged fat men on a dirty mattress in a cheap strip mall, well, that is just the market at work...what can you do? shrug.

But when it is *your* kid working that job, well, NOW it is time for dad to load up his shotgun, pack a cudgel, and go teach that predatory pimp a one-time lesson in screaming in pain until your throat cracks and your life leaves your tortured pimp body.

We outlawed prostitution for a number of reasons, I expect. I am guessing that some of those reasons is our forebears observed that the sex market (1) kept finding teens, half-wits, and other such prey as its workers, not savvy 28 year olds and (2) kept causing much social disruption in its vicinity (i.e, like that one bar in town where there is always a fight and some other nonsense going down), no matter what we did.

(I would expect another reason is that society felt that restricting male sexual outlets would promote family formation, but that is a whole other debate.)

I have no problem with legalizing prostitution among unmarried people. Prostitution among married people is exchanging money for potentially wrecking homes.

Well, damn, I gotta sound the Consistency Alarm again.

{imagine hooting noise - okay, it stopped}

The law provides for your compensation in case of injury for almost every instance of commercial misconduct, from bad dentistry to defective house shingles. I suspect you, dear reader, are not only fine with that but insist on such things.

What consumer protection do you get from the corner ho?

(Watch for the Straw Man - you're not paying for sex with two drinks at some bar, any more than you buy a gun with such a trade. The word is "commercial".)

It gets better. Think about the streetcorner entrepreneur trying to cope with the Americans With Disabilities Act.

Americans have some strange expectations, such as the idea that if they wave money, they should be able to buy whatever they want, and right now. And they have a dim idea at best of what "legalization" means other than "I get what I want now".

Prostitution among married people is exchanging money for potentially wrecking homes.

And the government is doing SUCH a wonderful job guarding our marriages, no?

Between saving us from the "threat" of gay marriage and the "threat" of prostitution, government is just one helluva little busybody, isn't it? Why can't adults be left to make these decisions on their own, without the government sticking its nose in and "protecting" our marriages?

@Radwaste

The ADA doesn't apply to self employed people. Which a prostitute would be.

No different than someone hiring Amy for one of her private advice sessions. (Not that I'm calling her a prostitute.) I'm reasonably sure that should she fall ill or injured and be unable to perform her job that she's not going to sue herself or find an alternate position for herself within her company.

As far as prostitutes sullying the neighborhood, I forsee us going the way of British Columbia (not sure about the rest of Canada) where one can escort out of one's own home but cannot streetwalk.

... except that the proud libertarian attempts to legalize prostitution in Europe have all led to exploitation and trafficking of young women and boys - surprise!Posted by: Ben David

BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT BULLSHIT

When the EU counts a high end escort who volletarily moves for Ukraine or Bosnia to Germany or Scandinavia for better money and clientel in the same group and russian mafia druged street walkers you should be smart enough to figure out that someone is pushing an agenda

"(1) kept finding teens, half-wits, and other such prey as its workers, not savvy 28 year olds..."

Yet that's not what's happened in Nevada.

"Prostitution among married people is exchanging money for potentially wrecking homes."

Uh, any marriage in that situation was already in trouble if not falling apart. If someone is feeling so unsatisfied as to use a prostitute they're probably not talking to their spouse or are already headed to a divorce anyway. Legalizing prostitution won't change that.

>> Think about the streetcorner entrepreneur trying to cope with the Americans With Disabilities Act.

That kinda arouses me... it's these threads that makes me wonder how our old friend Lena is doing...

(I remember her saying, and my jaw dropping about 1,000 miles away, to another old frequent poster here "lick my scab". It's not easy to shock me.

I have no problem with legalizing prostitution among unmarried people. Prostitution among married people is exchanging money for potentially wrecking homes. -- mpetrie98 at March 13, 2012 1:13 PM

What about the wife who goes out and has a hook-up with someone while her husband is away to Korea for a year?

What about a husband who is on the road for business and has a hookup from the hotel bar -- not a dime exchanged except for him buying her a drink?

What about the wife who is in the business with her husband's knowledge because she can make a $1000 in a night versus making $100 per day in an office?

What about the single guy that hooks up on the road with other guys? He can honestly say he has not fucked another woman.

My point is that using that standard is a whole separate conversation.
=====================================

As far as the whole thing about prostitution: I'm out of Ohio.

Some of the laws:

A strip club can have dancers that are 18 years old working until the club closes (generally 2:30 AM). But they aren't legal to drink any alcohol. Note that the G-String and bra, might, fully cover a softball if ripped up.

Meanwhile you can have a "private" club that you bring your own alcohol to. The club membership is $10 for a month or $100 for a year. (Read door charge/cover fee.) They charge you $2-3 to bring you your drink or beer with their mixers and your alcohol. They have the dancers down to totally nude in those clubs. The dancers are as young as 18.

In either case I can tip them as I like.

If I were to ask the stripper in either establishment to touch my genitals or do anything more than dance, then suddenly she and I are criminals. Why?

I'm not against prostitution, I just don't want hookers walking around the neighborhood when my folks come to visit. - lsomber

so you are fine with them walking around your neighborhood when your parents are not visiting?

Several years ago the newspaper did a great report how the one city got this huge grant to fight prostitution and at the end...the prostitutes had moved 10 miles down the highway. Now the town 10 miles down the highway had the problem.

Thanks for the point about the ADA. I still don't believe a licensed professional may turn any customer down based on {laundry list here}.

Meanwhile. Do you seriously want sex equated with money?

Think about that a while. Well, more than a few minutes.

"Do you seriously want sex equated with money?"

There is no free sex, particularly for men. Money is one medium of exchange, but certainly not the only one.

Tsk, Amy, that's the fallacy "Appeal to Tradition".

At the same time I admire Heinlein's observation that prudishness leads to frustration and cheating, I cannot see that promiscuity and a seperation of sex from intimacy leads generally to good, although it will be a welcome relief to some desperate people.

Hey, you've posted a thread here about whether serious women would value a man who has hired a prostitute; how'd that work out?