Craigslist Agrees With State AGs To Curb "Erotic Services" Ads

The New York Times reports that Craigslist has reached an agreement with 40 state attorneys general to tame its notoriously unruly "erotic services" listings. Clever diplomacy: according to the article, Craigslist "said that it will charge erotic services vendors a small fee for each ad — about $10, Mr. Buckmaster said — and require that they use a credit card for the payment. It will donate the money to charities that combat child exploitation and human trafficking. This, theoretically, will let the company confirm not just a phone number but also an identity." I hope they work on cleaning the weird spammers from the ordinary personal ads, too.

Comments

FP

[Anonymous Coward]

I once had sex with a mule.

Re:FP

[ravenshrike]

Now why does this get troll. Offtopic yes, but troll?

"I hope they work on cleaning the weird spammers"

[hxnwix]

Amen. The spammers from the ordinary personal adds are really dirty and urgently require cleaning of any kind. You'd think these guys are allergic to showers...

back on the streets

[opencity]

Putting hookers back on the streets is good why?
This will just push the pros into the personals, though if Craigslist starts charging for personals as well they'll make a lot more money.

Re:back on the streets

[Anonymous Coward]

That's exactly why Craigslist created the ERS section--because they realized they couldn't eradicate prostitution ads from the site, so the next-best solution was to corral it into a section where it wouldn't bother anybody who wasn't interested. And that worked.

So...what does this accomplish? The pro's will move back into the personals, or into "Casual Encounters" or "Adult Gigs." They won't post in ERS, since their whole strategy is to slam ERS with as many ads as possible to keep theirs on the front page, and they're sure as hell not going to pay $10 per ad. Which raises the question: Who *will* post in ERS, if not prostitutes? Isn't this creating a fiction similar to the "non-prostitute escorts"?

These ads have been in newspaper classifieds since time immemorial, and they've been on Craigslist since its inception. This strategy won't drive them off. It just upsets the compromise that, frankly, had been working (eve for law enforcement, who could easily surf ERS to set up a quick sting on a slow week).

PS--Will this new "fee" will apply in areas where prostitution is legal (e.g., Rhode Island, parts of Nevada, maybe San Francisco)?

Re:back on the streets

[zappepcs]

What is wrong with the whole damned thing is this: prostitution is illegal, even though there are no victims for this crime, and I don't care what you think about how there is illegal activity all through the sex industry, it would not be nearly as prevalent if it were a legal business for which folk could lose their license if they were doing bad things.

Because it remains illegal, this sort of problem will plague online sites and newspapers etc. You can't get rid of it, can't keep it in a special section, can't clean it up. All those problems would be easy to deal with if it was licensed and legal.

This is just one of the places that government could tax and regulate to ensure a better public health, a safer society, and aid in decreasing or eliminating personal income tax.

Regulating morality does NOT work. Legislating a prohibition never has worked, especially on things that are victimless crimes.

Re:back on the streets

[philspear]

Regulating morality does NOT work. Legislating a prohibition never has worked, especially on things that are victimless crimes.

Prostitutes are almost always victims in several reguards.

Re:back on the streets

[QCompson]

Prostitutes are almost always victims in several reguards.

So are minimum wage workers. What's your point?

Re:back on the streets

[Anonymous Coward]

While I generally agree it won't go away, it also won't go away even if it were legal. There would still be a black market of people working "off the grid" as it were. I'm willing to bet that criminal market would be exactly as big as it is today.

In countries were it's legal it's still one of the most seedy underground criminal infested markets. Just like gambling. People trading other people as basically slaves and things of that nature. The legality makes no difference.

While I don't agree with regulating morality, the fact is we do it all the time. It's basically what most laws are. We do have a duty to reduce activity that harms others (crime and things of that nature). Certain things just attract that that "bad" element no matter what you do (legal or not).

Re:back on the streets

[zappepcs]

Pardon the pun, but morally speaking, there is more than one section of society which is in a bad place. If prostitutes had a legal standing their position would be a much better one. Lets not forget that the prostitutes you seem to be thinking about did not have the advantage of working for Heidi Fliess. Sex for trade or sale is as common as muck, most of it is simply covered by a marriage license. Argue all you wish with that, but it is true. It's only when partners change and money changes hands that anyone gets upset. Oddly, the people who get upset are those that would not be in the business anyway.

Most victimization of prostitutes is a direct result of the legality of their situation. If you could report your pimp for not paying you the agreed amount without going to jail, many problems would solve themselves regarding victimization. It is sad to see, but the LAW victimizes them as much as anything else.

Re:back on the streets

[frosty_tsm]

[quote]and aid in decreasing or eliminating personal income tax.[/quote]

I've heard the argument of taxing vices to eliminate taxes for the rest of us. The reality is that if you attempt to tax them enough to lift the tax burden from everyone else, a combination of 1) people won't do it as much and the revenue won't be there or 2) people will do it illegally or seek loopholes to avoid the steep taxes.

It would be a valid form of revenue, but not capable of supporting the country.

Re:back on the streets

[Mistshadow2k4]

Get real. Minimum wage workers in most places don't have to put up with being beaten on a regular basis, not to mention risking their life on daily basis to do their jobs.

Re:back on the streets

[CodeBuster]

This is just one of the places that government could tax and regulate to ensure a better public health, a safer society

Actually, it is up to the individual state governments to allow or disallow prostitution. In certain counties of Nevada for example, prostitution is exactly as you describe: a regulated, taxed, and legal business. Personally, I think that the federal government ought to strike down state laws banning the sale of sex for constitutional reasons. It is acceptable to regulate the practice as long as such regulations are reasonable (i.e. no setting up of shop within prescribed distances of schools, mandatory health screenings for sex workers, etc), but there are few greater affronts to personal liberty than removing the right of self-determination over one's own body.

Re:back on the streets

[Hal_Porter]

Sex for trade or sale is as common as muck, most of it is simply covered by a marriage license. Argue all you wish with that, but it is true.

Bitter much?

Re:back on the streets

[jack2000]

Well if it was legal and regulated we wouldn't have that, now would we ? And all those woman and man could fuck for profit safely!

Re:back on the streets

[glwtta]

I've heard the argument of taxing vices to eliminate taxes for the rest of us.

Also, I'm not all that confident that if they started taxing "vice" I would end up in the "rest of us" category.

Re:back on the streets

[Anonymous Coward]

You are absolutely 100% right on this. America needs to wake up to reality, not ideology. While the US should not, and never will be Europe, it would be wise to take a hard look at how many of these common social concerns have been addressed by them ages ago. Shall I mention drinking laws?

Re:back on the streets

[QCompson]

Get real. Minimum wage workers in most places don't have to put up with being beaten on a regular basis, not to mention risking their life on daily basis to do their jobs.

I don't have numbers to back up how many craigslist prostitutes get "beaten up on a regular basis" and I bet you don't either.

In any case, coal miners risk their lives on a daily basis, and workers in such dangerous jobs often get paid more to risk their lives. Kinda like prostitutes.

Re:back on the streets

[MarcQuadra]

I agree with your point of view. I live in a state where prostitution is -totally legal-, provided it's not promoted or enforced by management, and done completely indoors.

I live up the street from a place you can get a $60 handjob and $120 sex, and it's legal.

Most residents don't even know that this is the case here, since it's all very quiet and private, but it's a huge industry. We do -not- have a problem with 'streetwalkers' here, though, which is nice.

So long and short, we have legal prostitution, the world hasn't ended, and we have no outdoor streetwalkers or burgeoning women's prisons because of it. Most people don't know about it, and those who find out that it's legal don't usually go off on a rant about having to end it, since things are fine the way they are.

By the way, the state is Rhode Island, and this stuff happens at virtually every 'spa' and almost every strip club here. Come visit!

Re:back on the streets

[maiden_taiwan]

...even though there are no victims for this crime...

Ah. You believe the myth of the happy prostitute.

Picking up runaways off the street, forcing them into prostitution, and getting them indebted and hooked on drugs so they can't leave, is not a victimless crime. Making prostitution legal will not prevent this; there are always girls down on their luck, and always scum ready to prey on them.

Re:back on the streets

[MrCawfee]

(e.g., Rhode Island, parts of Nevada, maybe San Francisco)?

The legalization of prostitution measure failed in SF.

Re:back on the streets

[Captain Splendid]

I'm willing to bet that criminal market would be exactly as big as it is today.

So, even though prostitutes wouldn't have to spend precious time and resources looking over their shoulder, getting arrested, going to court, going to prison, going to halfway houses, being able to file charges on their pimp should they still bother to have one, NOTHING will change? I think you need to show your work there.

We do have a duty to reduce activity that harms others

It would also be nice if we didn't enact laws that do exactly the thing they're "supposed" to be protecting. Awww, who am I kidding, let's just go ban something else!

Re:back on the streets

[icebrain]

Oh, yeah. Prostitution's bad. So let's throw these girls in jail, and give them a criminal record on top of whatever problem they've likely faced that pushed them to it in the first place. And that way, when they get out of jail, nobody will want to hire them and they'll be to ashamed to go do anything else.

It's one thing if it is truly 100% voluntary on the hooker's part; I have no problem with that. But most of them need help, not prison. Let's go after the pimps and the johns that take advantage of the ones in bad situations.

Re:back on the streets

[zappepcs]

An excellent point! If it were legal and safe? Uh, why wouldn't people go to prostitutes? I did say 'aid' in decreasing or eliminating...... not wipe it out in one swift move.

The other argument fails. Studies (no links to hand) have shown that legalization of victimless crimes (typically drugs) did not lead to higher drug use, or back alley dealing of drugs in spite of legal paths. Once there is a legal market, it sorts itself out. As for frosty saying people won't do it as much... ahem! When did sex ever get unpopular? In the history of the fucking world? Jebus, it's still popular in the Vatican FFS.

frosty simply offers arguments that the government as always offered. They have not fixed the problem, or made life any better for either the prostitutes or the johns. You'd think the legislators in Washington DC would be all for this? They seem to be regular customers. Well, some just hang out in bathrooms.

Even in dire times of financial crisis alcohol, sex, drugs, and gambling are top earners for those that deal in those businesses. Prohibition does NOT work, and only strengthens the bottom feeders who take advantage of people. And yes, sometimes those bottom feeders are the government!

Re:back on the streets

[Rennt]

Prostitution is NOT illegal, not in most western countries anyway.

Street walking is illegal, and brothels are often illegal in many areas, but this is ostensibly a safety issue (for the girls and the community respectively). There are no laws I have ever heard of that prohibit sex for money. It falls under the common "two consenting adults" umbrella.

Advertising for private services is in most cases perfectly legal. It is fully taxable too - though working girls probably don't claim their full taxable income, but thats the same with most trades that work predominantly for cash.

Regulating morality does NOT work.

This hasn't stopped them from trying in the past of course, but in this case common sense prevails.

Re:back on the streets

[TheLink]

The Government will be collecting taxes from them and protecting them (somewhat).

So the government will be their pimp. :)

Re:back on the streets

[zappepcs]

Your argument is invalid on several levels. I will probably offend some people here, but will try not to while still speaking frankly:

Women are born with the qualifications for prostitution. If they choose to be prostitutes in a safe clean environment, it is victimless. What you are talking about is a crime that has little to do with prostitution, in the same way that rape has little to do with sex. Sex just seems to be the hinging factor in both.

Slavery is what you are talking about, and that is wrong. Whether they are used as prostitute slaves, or kitchen slaves, it's wrong. So lets get that straight right now. Enslavement is wrong; prostitution is not.

What you describe are victims of slavery, not prostitution. Not all prostitution establishments are run off the backs of slaves. Just visit some legal brothels in the USA, or Europe etc. Your claims are used to validate making a victimless business into a criminal enterprise. You in essence force morality of your choosing on other people and THAT is wrong. The happy prostitute is not a myth, there just are not as many of them as there should be because people like you want to ruin their lives to suit your own sense of morality. That's sick!

Because of your self-serving morality and unwillingness to actually help people who are enslaved in any real manner, YOU are the one that is helping to enslave them by creating and perpetuating the situation that enslaved them in the first place. So take your pious reasonings, and walk on down to the jail, pick out one or two prostitutes and get them back on their feet... go on, lets see you hold up your part of the argument.

Re:back on the streets

[Anonymous Coward]

Instead of making an insult, why don't you defend your position with facts?

Re:back on the streets

[philspear]

If prostitutes had a legal standing their position would be a much better one.

That's not a sure thing for the US. I haven't researched this in depth, this article I found (http://sisyphe.org/spip.php?article1596) seems biased against prostitution, but suggests that legalization in europe hasn't had that effect. It points out that legal, licensed prostitues have been decreasing while profits from the sex trade have increased. It suggests that the sex trade which would remain illegal under any legalization proposal, such as underage child prostituion and sex slavery, is what benefits from legalization. There's a chance that legalization of one form of prostitution will make it harder to control the clearly immoral forms of it. I say we shouldn't experiment.

In addition to the hard data, it makes sense to me that legalizing prostitution would only compound the problems. I don't know why one would think that a pimp is suddenly going to become a good employer just because his "employees" aren't breaking the law anymore.

As far as "marriage is prostitution," if you really can't tell a difference then either you came from a really fucked up home or are incredibly naive as to what prostitution actually is.

Re:back on the streets

[Rennt]

Hmm, looking into it some more, it seems that I might wrong as far as the US is concerned. Don't know if its a federal thing or state-by-state though. Seems really backwards in this day and age - Should have been an election issue. ;)

Still seems to come down to the definition of "Prostitution" though, and I'm not sure Craigslist ads would cover it.

Re:back on the streets

[zappepcs]

On the sex and marriage part? Tell me what woman has not used sex to gain some advantage? Yeah, Mother Theresa doesn't count! I know a guy who makes a good deal of money, has a mistress, and a deal with his wife: sex and a hummer once a week, and she can have all the money she needs for her kids. That's true, not made up. I think you are probably naive if you believe marriage is sacred, and nothing bad happens in marriages. The divorce rate in the US is what? 50+ percent? Yep, that speaks volumes for how great marriage is.

For those who read the other post, no, I'm not bitter much. I just have a realistic view of the world. How many of the guys here in relationships haven't been offered an easy time in bed then asked for some gift or permission to spend money? say on a new car, or something for the house? That's legal prostitution in anyone's view, and because it is within the marriage, it's ok.

Yes, it comes down to what IS love, and when is sex not part of love. Everyone has to judge for themselves when it's just sex, or when it's truly love. The truth is that everyone is at some point going to trade sex for merchandise, money, or favors. Sorry folks, that is how the human species is. Altruism is great, in theory, but rather tainted in practice.

No, I'm not saying that ALL humans will do this. I'm just saying it's a trend with a very long history.

Re:back on the streets

[maiden_taiwan]

Dude, go back to logic school. "There exist some happy prostitutes" does not equal "All prostitution is victimless." I guess that explains the rest of your "logic."

Your guesses about my own morality were quite amusing, bordering on silly. I loved when you wrote, "YOU are the one helping to enslave them...." Truly inspired. I congratulate you on a fine, industrial-strength troll.

Re:back on the streets

[Anonymous Coward]

So by your argument, anyone who has consensual sex sees a benefit from it and is consequently a prostitute?

Re:back on the streets

[Darby]

Prostitutes are almost always victims in several reguards.

And making it illegal only makes that worse, which was his point.

Re:back on the streets

[Spasemunki]

If underage prostitution or sex slavery is increased under a legalized prostitution regime, I think that is primarily evidence of inadequate regulation and inspection. You designate licensed premises for prostitution; anything going on outside of these places is breaking the law. Anyone prostitute in a licensed facility is subject to random inspection to ensure that their paperwork (age verification, clean STD screen), in which they're talked to privately away from management to ensure that they aren't there against their will. Any violation results in the whole facility losing a license. You require criminal background checks to get a license to run a brothel. Inspections and enforcement are paid for out of the taxes and license fees paid by brothels and prostitutes. Legal prostitution in the Netherlands is missing several of these steps as mandatory features, and has a patchwork of local regulations that may make it easier to hide offenses.

The expectation isn't that the present-day crop of pimps will suddenly become saints; the expectation is that you put a lot of them out of the business because they can't meet the licensing requirements, and replace them with legitimate business people who realize that sex sells, and that with legal protections can be a profitable business in a lot of areas. Right now prostitutes have no choice in who they work for; given a choice, I doubt that most would work for the pimps that are currently in business if given a choice. The key is balancing licensing and fees in such a way that you don't create an incentive to go around the legal system. That's a balancing act, but it at least creates an opportunity to improve the current situation and manage the harm that can be created by the sex trade.

Re:back on the streets

[Hordeking]

Bitter much?

Bit him, too.

Re:back on the streets

[sukotto]

Why is it illegal to charge for an activity that's legal to give away for free?
-- George Carlin (paraphrased)

Re:back on the streets

[Hal_Porter]

Saying that marriage is about sex for sale is bitter.

I've never married anyone, but I've dated a lot of women and I've never considered myself buying sex in any of those relationships. Sex is what two people who like each other do.

lrn2life!

Re:back on the streets

[giostickninja]

Ok, that needs to go on a T-shirt: "The Government Is My Pimp"

Re:back on the streets

[symbolset]

Technological solutions to social problems don't work.

Re:back on the streets

[ciderVisor]

How many of the guys here in relationships haven't been offered an easy time in bed then asked for some gift or permission to spend money? say on a new car, or something for the house? That's legal prostitution in anyone's view, and because it is within the marriage, it's ok.

I've been married for 15 years and have never been in that situation. It sounds really messed up to me. If your wife uses making love as a bargaining tool it's time to reassess your marriage. Or if you buy into the 'arrangement' then you only have yourself to blame.

Re:back on the streets

[Anonymous Coward]

You're totally right, that explains all those "moonshine" busts that my local sherriffs have been conducting!

Puh-leeze.

Captcha: obsolete

Re:back on the streets

[Acer500]

What is wrong with the whole damned thing is this: prostitution is illegal, even though there are no victims for this crime, and I don't care what you think about how there is illegal activity all through the sex industry, it would not be nearly as prevalent if it were a legal business for which folk could lose their license if they were doing bad things.

Erm.. prostitution might be illegal wherever you live... but it is legal in many countries (including mine). I can assure it's probably as prevalent or even more than in your country.

I do agree that it being legal helps (they have to get health inspections, etc)

Because it remains illegal, this sort of problem will plague online sites and newspapers etc. You can't get rid of it, can't keep it in a special section, can't clean it up. All those problems would be easy to deal with if it was licensed and legal.

I don't understand this... over here, as I mentioned, prostitution -is- legal, and while ads are pretty much under control, they haven gotten "rid of", and while they are mostly kept in a special section they do appear in other places (and there are non-licensed prostitutes too)

Re:back on the streets

[Anonymous Coward]

Child prostitutes have been on Craigslist repeatedly, many of whom have been kipnapped from their families. It's time something has been done about this.

Re:back on the streets

[elrous0]

The belief that making prostitution illegal will somehow stop or even hinder it has to be one of the most irrational human beliefs that we've ever engaged in. And many cultures have engaged in this insanity for thousands of years, seemingly unable to learn a lesson that should have become obvious long, long ago. It's right up there on the irrational human belief scale with the stubborn human propensity to believe in sky gods, magic, demons, witches, etc.

Re:back on the streets

[Anonymous Coward]

Everyone is s victim is several regards. We're all fucking victims. Until we choose to stop being victims and take responsibility for ourselves.

Re:back on the streets

[Anonymous Coward]

Prostitution is NOT a victimless crime.

The people who live in areas where prostitution occurs are victimized daily. Prostitutes earn their money for drugs (this whole idea of prostitutes earning thousands of dollars per week from posh customers is ridiculous) and so drug dealers move in to provide their wares.

Now the people have to deal with drug dealers AND prostitutes. And prostitutes on drugs don't exactly make great neighbors. They make noise at all hours of the day and night, they urinate and defecate in their homes and on the streets and in the alleys. They leave their crack bags and heroin vials all over the street.

Worst of all, johns and hookers do all of this in front of people's homes, churches, schools, and parks.

If you want a real view of how prostitution is a victimless crime, take a long at a first-person perspective: http://baltimorejohnwatch.blogspot.com/

You can argue all day about whether or not prostitution should be legalized, but it's ridiculous to assert that prostitution is a victimless crime and all prostitutes are hookers with hearts of gold a la Pretty Woman.

Re:back on the streets

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were legal, licensed, and required traceability of the johns, that should be almost as much deterrent as being illegal now.

Sure, the traceability would be a joke, but those that flaunt it would be illegal, subject to fine and/or arrest just like now. Those that are deterred by the illegal aspect of it should be equally deterred by the prospect of being identified as a customer.

Re:back on the streets

[CowHammer]

what IS love

Oh thanks a lot; now I'm going to have a pain in my neck and that song stuck in my head the rest of the day.

Re:back on the streets

[Anonymous Coward]

But the prostitution itself is voluntary. If the prostitute is beaten up charge the Joe or the pimp with physical abuse. Likewise if the prostitute is actually being forced to work the streets then the pimp should be charged with something.

None of that legitimizes making the voluntary act of trading sex for money illegal.

Re:back on the streets

[Anonymous Coward]

No, sex is what two people physically attracted to each other and horny do. Or 1 person physically attracted to the other, and the other person trying to profit from it.

People who like each other do a lot of things, but without the above mentioned, sex isnt one of them.

Re:back on the streets

[Sax Maniac]

It's only when partners change and money changes hands that anyone gets upset.

Maybe not even that. Pay someone to have sex with you, and it's illegal. Pay someone to have sex with you, but film it and sell the product and... it's a tax deduction!

Re:back on the streets

[philspear]

Troll? Well I've learned my lesson: implying that free market forces aren't the perfect cure to every societal ill is an amoral thought that must be banned!

Re:back on the streets

[jwrangler123]

While Craigs List is definitely a major resource for escorts to advertise their services, there are a number of other sites out there that provide free adverting to escorts. The only thing that will happen if the government sinks its teeth into Craigâ(TM)s List is that sexual providers and those that use their services will move increasingly to other sites that provide something similar. As a supporter of prostitution myself, I would point you all towards such sites as http://www.naughtyreviews.com/ http://www.cityvibe.com/ or http://www.mpreviews.com/ just to name some of the better known alternatives out there. These sites allow sexual providers to post ads for free and for âoecustomersâ to contact them directly. Prostitution is the oldest profession because there has always been, and there always will be, a demand for it. The internet simply provides too many ways for prostitutes to stay in business and these latest attempts to thwart it will simply cause a movement in traffic from poor Craigslist to the sites I mentioned earlier.

Re:back on the streets

[xmousex]

the real pros who want to do safe business use closed regional forums where all users are rated and identified between each other and le is hounded out of the system. this is where they will go more and more when CL starts to get too risky, and thats good for both sides of the business.

Re:back on the streets

[Anonymous Coward]

Troll? Well I've learned my lesson: implying that free market forces aren't the perfect cure to every societal ill is an amoral thought that must be banned!

No, you got modded troll, because you are a sarcastic prick. For example:

you came from a really fucked up home or are incredibly naive as to what prostitution actually is.

Re:back on the streets

[philspear]

No, you got modded troll, because you are a sarcastic prick.

After my previous post of "Prostitutes are almost always victims in several reguards," got marked troll. What was sarcastic about that? And I'm sorry, but equating marriage and prostitution DOES show an extreme lack of perspective.

Re:back on the streets

[Anonymous Coward]

1) people won't do it as much and the revenue won't be there or 2) people will do it illegally or seek loopholes to avoid the steep taxes.

I have heard this argument several times, and I'm sick of it. There's *already* a steep tax on these services. It's called the danger tax. It's the inherent high prices of these services, or drugs, due to the fact that selling it is dangerous.

If you make these things legal, the prices will drop dramatically due to competition. Then you could tax the crap out of it, driving it to just below the current level. Make it just as illegal to perform the services without the license, and you have a solid revenue stream.

C'mon people, stop repeating useless sound bytes and just think.

Re:back on the streets

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree strongly with this statement. The same is roughly true of criminalization of soft drugs. Sex and drug seeking are basic tenets of human nature and it could be justifiably be argued that banning their free expression is an aid worse than the disease. Punishing these inevitable acts drives them underground rather than into the light of public scrutiny which can improve conditions for all.

Re:back on the streets

[Anonymous Coward]

Rhode Island is the only state with laws like you specify (and it is a state by state thing, but it's fairly consistent). Prostitution is legal in parts of Nevada as well (not the whole state), but it's actually required to be in registered brothels and such so it's not the same situation.

Every other state prostitution is illegal. Kinda stupid in this day and age, but given the attitudes of the people here, I don't see it changing any time soon. Particularly not in the bible belt here. For the time being if you want to seek one out you either hit the streets (a bit too shady for my tastes) or lookup independent escorts. Escorts cost more, but are usually much "cleaner" and often well educated (and hence more pleasant to talk to before "getting comfortable"). Particularly if you have more refined tastes. I often like slightly older women (30-35) who are more refined when I can.

And honestly, if you want to avoid most of the sex trafficking that does taint parts of the industry: avoid girls with foreign accents. That's not racist (heck I've seen girls of every RACE you can imagine, except for Arab - yet), but "nationalist" if that's a word. Most of the trafficking preys upon foreign girls so if you avoid them you don't finance their activities.

Re:back on the streets

[MBGMorden]

Or if you buy into the 'arrangement' then you only have yourself to blame.

Only if you feel there is blame that needs to be handed out. A lot of guys simply don't give a damn. If she sticks around and puts out every now and then, then all is well in the kingdom. That's not for everyone. Neither is more traditional prostitution. That said, if you don't want any part of that arrangement, butt the hell out other people's business.

Re:back on the streets

[MBGMorden]

Sex is what two people who like each other do.

It can be. But like all recreational activities, it can be professionally done too.

Your wife might give you a massage because she likes/loves you. But you might still go out and get a professional massage.

Your wife might cook you dinner every night. But you might still go out to a nice restaurant every now and then.

Your wife might sing you a song. But you still enjoy a good concert sometimes.

Your wife could probably cut your hair if need be, but you probably still go to a barber.

The bottom line is that sex really isn't all the different from any other activity. It's just that the religious extremists long ago convinced the world that it was too "sacred" to sell. Except that it isn't sacred anymore (and really never was). In nearly ever night club in America tons of people meet up for the fist time, chat a bit, get drunk, fuck, and then often never speak again. Every weekend tons of guys drop loads of cash onto girls that they just want to bang, just to toss them aside when they accomplish their goal. These days, sex is still fun (always has been), but the whole notion of sacred went out the window, as it should. By some reality twisting stupid ray though, the religious leaders still have the country convinced that selling sex is absolutely morally wrong. It's strange really.

Re:back on the streets

[Catbeller]

Why license it? Why does everything have to be under someone's control? This is the very definition of the "free market", or would be, if it weren't illegal. Now, slavers and cops control it. Men won't let women sell it because the women would become rich - this has always been the reason.

Re:back on the streets

[zappepcs]

An interesting point. I believe that the valid reason for doing so is to help ensure that medical screenings are done and reported as would be necessary for a safety level acceptable to the public good.

Even now, anyone can sell it... until they are caught. The improvement is not having to worry about being caught, nor spreading diseases... say, like AIDS. Taxation happens to all businesses, or is supposed to. This business should be no different in that respect. Licenses help with that sort of thing, though if you can figure out a way to make it work effectively without the license, I'm willing to entertain the idea.

Re:back on the streets

[Alsee]

Come visit!

Visit and come, even!

-

Re:back on the streets

[Alsee]

Are you brain damaged?

"There exist some happy prostitutes" does not equal "All prostitution is victimless."

Right. And:

"There exist some happy garment workers" does not equal "All garment work is victimless."

You seem to have some braindamage inability to see that actual crimes with actual victims still remain crimes after you decriminalize prostitution. Rape is still a crime. Beating someone remains a crime. Slavery/imprisonment remains a crime. Etc etc etc.

Nevada perfectly proves the entire point. Those legal prostitutes are in general far HAPPIER than your typical miserable struggling waitress. Those legal prostitutes are virtually never victims of much of anything.

"YOU are the one helping to enslave them...." Truly inspired. I congratulate you on a fine, industrial-strength troll.

Again, are you brain damaged? Legal prostitutes are almost never victims of anything, and legal prostitution greatly displaces illegal prostitution, thereby eliminating most of the crimes and victimizations you are talking about.

You're like the "abstinance-only-education" idiots. The fucktards who KNOW the facts that such programs INCREASE teen pregnancies INCREASE STDs in highschool kids, and they persist in denial of the facts and persist in the the harm they cause. They are in some holy crusade to "help" kids, and they are in fact waging a war to increase teen pregnancies and getting more kids infected with diseases.

By opposing the legal victimless prostitution you are perpetuating illegal prostitution committing a multitude of crimes against actual victims. Virtually none of the prostitutes in Nevada are slaves or crack-whores or victims of violence or AIDS or anything else.

Legalizing alcohol did not *completely* eliminate criminal alcohol enterprises, but yeah, it has been HUGELY effective in reducing associated actual criminal activity with actual victims.

Some people are somehow mentally defective in distinguishing between "I don't like X" and "I have some right to pull out a gun and imprison people who do X". If you think X is immoral, fine, then don't do X. For example the Ten Commandments say it is immoral to not honor your mother and father, however that does not give you some right to pull out a gun and kill or imprison some defiantly non-compliant person being immoral that way.

If someone commits rape against an actual victim, then yes that victim has the right to to defend themselves and even to kill that criminal in self defense. And yes, any other individual has the right to pull out a gun and even kill that criminal to defend that victim. And yes, the police can pull out a gun and potentially lethal force to defend that victim or to arrest and imprison that criminal after the fact.

Yes, victims and anyone in general public and the police have the right to pull out a gun and potentially use lethal force in cases of violence, and to do so in the case of a kidnapped enslaved runaway, or countless other actual criminal acts with actual victims.

That is not true is someone merely does something you find "immoral" - you do not have the right to pull out a gun against them. That is not true if someone fails to honor their mother and father - you do not have the right to pull out a gun against them. That is not true if a husband lies to his wife that he was working late when he was actually bowling with his buddies - you do not have the right to pull out a gun against them. That is not true if someone has consensual free sex with a total stranger - you do not have the right to pull out a gun against them. That is not true if someone has consensual paid sex with a total stranger - you do not have the right to pull out a gun against them.

Just because you dislike something or find it immoral does not mean you have a right to pull out a gun and SHOOT people who decline to comply with your wishes. No actual criminal act with no actual victim.

-

Re:back on the streets

[Alsee]

You're a sexist pig.

Women are born with the qualifications for prostitution.

So are men. If a woman wants to pay a man to eat her out or fuck her silly there is no actual criminal act against any actual victim.

Grin.

-

Re:back on the streets

[zappepcs]

I may be a sexist pig, but you are not an English major. Men are born with the qualifications for being a gigolo and women are born with the qualifications for being whores, both taken in the common meanings.

In context, complaints were that women prostitutes were victimized, thus pointing the context of prostitute in the discussion to the female variant.

That said, you are right despite the lack of a market for male prostitutes as far as I can tell. Hard to get paid for it when so many others would give the product away for free. Of course that is an entirely different 'sexist' discussion :-)

Sum it up

[Itninja]

The last line in the article is awesome: "There are very few prostitutes who want to be called by Craigslist and asked to give additional identifying information."

This immediately made me think 'so you are saying that some prostitutes want Craigslist to call them?'. Now that's kinky.

Re:Sum it up

[moderatorrater]

Which makes me wonder, what is craigslist wearing?

Re:Sum it up

[thegnu]

Which makes me wonder, what is craigslist wearing?

hard hat, sweater-vest, assless chaps, doc martens, last time i spoke with them.

Re:"I hope they work on cleaning the weird spammer

[nizo]

As long as they don't mess with continued additions to the best of craigslist I'm ok with the changes

"Mr. Buckmaster said"

[auLucifer]

I'm sure there's a joke right there ...

Doesn't this mean...

[Gordonjcp]

... that they're making money off "immoral earnings"? I'd have thought this would open up a whole legal minefield for them...

Re:Doesn't this mean...

[JesseL]

No, it means that a consequence of their efforts to reduce immoral solicitations on their service is some money being collected, none of which becomes 'earnings' because it's all donated to non-profits.

Re:Doesn't this mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

immoral != illegal

And plenty of things make money off of what they fight. Cigarette, alcohol, and gambling taxes go to programs to fight the problems they cause, etc.

Ah Fuck!

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, um, yeah, this is a good thing. We need to protect the children, the community and all that stuff. Yeeeaaaah.

Useless

[sfbiker]

What a brilliant idea! Those stupid prostitutes will *never* think about putting their ads in the Craigslist sections that don't require ID!

It's not like they aren't already posting in the non-erotic services sections, the w4m section often has ads with "women" looking for a "generous" guy who will help out a girl who will "do anything". Along with more explict ads from women advertising their services. They eventually get flagged off but get reposted quickly.

Just make prostitution legal and regulate it -- charge enough taxes and the Governator won't need to push for a California sales tax increase.

Re:Useless

[mkiwi]

How are you going to get prostitutes to pay taxes? They deal in cash and there's no paper trail. Should the ladies of the night of the world start giving receipts for their services?

Hooker: "Ok that's $21.20 with tax. You don't happen to have exact change do you? Great, let me get your receipt."

Re:Useless

[Babbster]

Why wouldn't they? The "true" professionals would likely be more than happy to pay taxes if they could eliminate the chance to get arrested for conducting their day-to-day business. As it is, I'm also sure that many of them already pay income taxes to some degree to avoid legal hassles if they're investigated by the IRS, declaring themselves to be an "escort" or some such.

Keeping prostitution illegal is misguided and based on a puritanical ideal that has never, and will never, be achieved.

Re:Useless

[flink]

How are you going to get prostitutes to pay taxes? They deal in cash and there's no paper trail. Should the ladies of the night of the world start giving receipts for their services?

So do car services, couriers, waiters, bartenders, various street vendors, and many small contractors. They pay taxes (if they pay taxes) like any self-employed person: they file a 1099 or their employer pays them a nominal salary that they largely withhold to pay taxes on tips.

Re:Useless

[Merls the Sneaky]

It works in Australia, prostitution is legal in registered brothels, they pay taxes and fees. Its still illegal to pick up a customer off the street though.

Re:Useless

[mooingyak]

I have heard that many prostitutes file income tax returns.

Reason being that prostitution is usually a misdemeanor offense, while tax evasion is a felony.

Re:Useless

[guyminuslife]

I don't have first-hand knowledge, but I'm pretty sure that the smarter prostitutes pay income tax anyway, and list their occupation as something legal. You pretty much need a bank account, especially if you're in a job that dangerous. That's a paper trail; vice cops are one thing, but the IRS is a beast nobody wants to tangle with.

Of course, it's easy to tax brothels. I believe that one of the reasons why the Nevada cathouses have never been shut down is the fact that so much of the municipal government's revenue comes from taxing prostitution. Brothels, of course, have their own unique problems, though.

Re:Useless

[zaft]

To the best of my knowledge, Nevada brothels are not in cities, so municipal govts. have nothing to do with it. That said, I don't know if they are taxed by the county govts. or not.

Re:Useless

[guyminuslife]

Sorry, I meant county governments. Brothels pay an annual fee to the county government for a license to operate.

Re:Useless

[petermgreen]

The same as any other small buisness that deals mainly in cash I imagine.

The law abiding ones will pay thier taxes. The smart lawbreakers will declare enough of thier income to look reasonable but not all of it. The idiots will declare none of thier income and end up getting an IRS investigation and possiblly sent to club fed.

Re:Useless

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I have heard that many prostitutes file income tax returns.

Reason being that prostitution is usually a misdemeanor offense, while tax evasion is a felony.

And paying taxes doesn't require that you accurately describe the source of income. The IRS doesn't care what you do for money, only that they get their piece of the pie.

Re:Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Many drug dealers file tax returns as well, usually things like "income: 50 million. Job: unspecified per 5th amendment"

Re:Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

Why wouldn't they?

First thing that comes to mind is because services usually aren't taxed...

Re:Useless

[ProzacPatient]

Keeping prostitution illegal is misguided and based on a puritanical ideal that has never, and will never, be achieved.

I'm against pre-marital sex, and that prostitution is a waste of money, but I also realize that I live in a free country and my personal standard is not everybody's standards and I have no right to force that upon them.
With that in mind I believe I can say that I agree with you because legalizing prostitution means that it can be properly and formally regulated to prevent the spread of STDs and other potential strings that may come attached (although I suppose that if you go looking for sex from strangers then you'd be willing to take that risk).
A good example might be the prohibition of alcohol during the 1920's and all the promises that overly self-righteous people said that would come with it. So much for those promises because the prohibition brought with it an expansion of organized crime and poisonous moonshine liqueur. The prohibition created more violence and crime then it was ever promised to save.

Re:Useless

[TooMuchToDo]

Very good point. Al Capone was brought down because of the IRS, not the FBI.

Re:Useless

[Lord Kano]

Problem is that a good number of prostitutes are drug addicts and diseased. They'd never be able to work by the rules of a legalized brothel system. They'll still be selling their asses in the streets.

LK

Re:Useless

[Anonymous Coward]

I've hear similar things about pot dealers paying income tax to Inland Revenue here in New Zealand. What's good for one government agency has to be good for the rest of them.

Re:Useless

[ciderVisor]

And who in their right mind would pay for their services instead of a licensed, "clean" prostitute ?

Re:Useless

[bogjobber]

Of course, it's easy to tax brothels. I believe that one of the reasons why the Nevada cathouses have never been shut down is the fact that so much of the municipal government's revenue comes from taxing prostitution.

I grew up in rural Nevada where every small town has a couple brothels, and that's a big part of it, but the unique culture of Nevada plays into it as well. There are two things people in rural Nevada hate more than anything else, taxes and government regulation. They have the libertarian streak present in most of the rural US, but without the religious/moral aspect. That's why gambling and prostitution have never been illegal, we never really had a temperance movement. I fully expect Nevada to be the first state to wholly legalize marijuana. In 2006, full marijuana legalization was defeated at the polls by a 56-44 margin, which is unthinkably close compared to other states. It's a very interesting place to live if you've never been there.

Re:Useless

[bogjobber]

Most towns in Nevada are unincorporated so it doesn't matter, but there are brothels within the city limits of a few incorporated towns. I imagine in either case the revenues go to the county but I could be wrong.

Re:Useless

[maxume]

Why is the field limited to people in their right minds? I would expect that a lot of their customers would be other diseased drug addicts.

Re:Useless

[Slashdot Parent]

And who in their right mind would pay for their services instead of a licensed, "clean" prostitute ?

Someone who doesn't want to pay as much?

Censorship

[nurb432]

Last iheard sex between 2 consenting adults was legal in this country, and so was talking about it.

This sounds like yet another nannystate issue where the government is sticking their nose where it does not belong.

Re:Censorship

[NiceGeek]

Even more mind-boggling is that making porn movies is legal. So it's only illegal if one of the people gets paid and the other doesn't.

Re:Censorship

[sexconker]

I'll pay $100 if you:

Contract a performer that I represent for a $50 fee.
Star in an art performance with the performer (who may or may not be me), in which you give him a blow job.

Drum up some paperwork at legalzoom.com and it's air tight.

Re:Censorship

[glwtta]

Last iheard sex between 2 consenting adults was legal in this country, and so was talking about it.

I'm not sure where you are, but here in the US that's not always as certain as we'd like it to be.

Re:Censorship

[nurb432]

*porn* is not protected by the first amendment. *adult films* are.

Not that i agree, but thats how the supreme court ruled long ago. Its why they have to have a plot ( however thin ) and a dialog ( however small )

Re:Censorship

[Babbster]

Wow. Then I've watched a lot of illegal porn then. Movies with no dialog and no plot are quite common.

Re:Censorship

[houstonbofh]

Last iheard sex between 2 consenting adults was legal in this country, and so was talking about it. I'm not sure where you are, but here in the US that's not always as certain as we'd like it to be.

Yep. We seem to have problems with definitions. Such as "consent" "adults" and even "sex."

Re:Censorship

[Knara]

Max Hardcore (too lazy to look up his real name) got convinced of obscenity in Florida just recently because his videos (which are pretty crazy) ran afoul of FL's obscenity laws. Probably just depends on the AG's desire to make a name for themselves.

On the other hand, Max Hardcore is going to be a goddamn celebrity in prison.

Re:Censorship

[Babbster]

The difference between Max Hardcore and most of the porn industry is that his videos are entirely about dressing "barely legal" girls up to look like "non-legal" girls and then humiliate them, often involving urination...not that I think that should be illegal (if somebody wants to buy it and the people involved are consenting adults), but he's definitely at the more extreme edge of porn.

Re:Censorship

[Knara]

Well, yes, obviously. However, it's not like he's a new player in the industry. He's been around for years. It was a very obvious case of an AG seeing something to prosecute that would get him in the paper.

Re:Censorship

[Babbster]

Definitely, although I would note that Florida's actions as regards decency have been out of synch with the rest of the country for a very long time.

Re:Censorship

[dgatwood]

Don't forget "is".

Re:Censorship

[MadnessASAP]

AFAIK Men in pornos don't get paid, or at least not as much unless they can put up a hell of a performance.

Re:Censorship

[thegnu]

Even more mind-boggling is that making porn movies is legal. So it's only illegal if one of the people gets paid and the other doesn't.

no no no. it's only legal if you videotape it and host it on the internet.

this policy really enhanced my childhood, by the way.

Re:Censorship

[TooMuchToDo]

Typical pay ration for girls to guys in porn is anywhere from 5:1 to 10:1, depending on the production company, the "film", etc.

Re:Censorship

[Gavagai80]

They all have a plot. Plot summary: they have sex. No dialog is necessary -- silent movies are still art.

Re:Censorship

[Alsee]

Pfffft! That's nothing.
A real lawyer argues the meaning of the spacing.

-

Except

[DesertBlade]

If the credit card is stolen.....

Re:Except

[TubeSteak]

If the credit card is stolen.....

Why steal a credit card when you can use prepaid?
Same deal with the phone number: a prepaid cell that goes straight to voicemail.

At best, this will trip up the stupid.

Re:Except

[houstonbofh]

If the credit card is stolen.....

Why steal a credit card when you can use prepaid? Same deal with the phone number: a prepaid cell that goes straight to voicemail.

At best, this will trip up the stupid.

I have never seen a stupid hooker... I am sure this will catch a lot of people. I won't stop anything, but it will result in more arrests and fine$, so will be a success.

Re:Except

[planckscale]

Aren't there differences between a prepaid card and a regular credit card? Couldn't CL filter cards so that PrePaid cards won't work? Couldn't they require the name on the card, security ###'s and expiration dates?

I believe there are more effective means of disrupting human trafficking and exploitation of children.

Just follow the money...

good luck with that

[Deanalator]

Great idea, now craigslist get to take calls from the DA about prostitution AND cc fraud.

Most likely though, sketchy posters will probably just start posting on w4m, ths, lss, etc.

Re:good luck with that

[mysidia]

Even non-sketchy posters will probably just start posting on w4m, ths, lss, etc.

Contrary to the article's assertions $10 for an ad on craigslist is NOT a small fee. When most ads are free.

For me, $10 is TWICE the cost to place a classified ad in the local paper. ($2.00 per line, minimum of 3 lines, ads do appear on the internet)

I think this "deal" with State AGs is more about getting some extra cash for craigslist.

A one-time charge of $10, rather than a per-ad charge of $10 is enough to verify id.

I don't see any reason the charge couldn't be $2 or $3. It's not as if credit card companies bill $10 per transaction.

Re:good luck with that

[mysidia]

Great idea, now craigslist get to take calls from the DA about prostitution AND cc fraud.

Maybe... from the 2% of the population that will actually read their statement thoroughly, investigate, and dispute a possibly unauthorized charge of $10.

Which also perhaps makes CC useless for ID verification; unless they want to increase the cost to $1000 or so, which the legit cardholder is more likely to notice and report.

Sarcasm

[Renraku]

Most of the times when the police set up stings for Craigslist ads, several things are required. First, the motive. Obviously money. Then they have to get the prostitute to agree to sex-for-money. I don't think agreeing to it over the phone or via Internet is enough for a conviction. Most stings involve a police officer setting up a 'date' with one of these posters and then springing the trap.

Usually they'll get one hotel room for it somewhere and arrest several in a night.

That being said, why should the government care if someone wants to get right to the point and exchange money directly for sex? There are plenty of people that are too busy/socially inept/ugly/etc to get sex the usual way. So the result is to effectively outlaw their only means of sexual outlet with other people?

Re:Sarcasm

[Hatta]

How do you know so much about prostitution on craigslist?

Re:Sarcasm

[antiquark]

Why should it be illegal to sell what I can give away for free?

  -- George Carlin, or someone...

Re:Sarcasm

[phatvw]

There are plenty of people that are too busy/socially inept/ugly/etc to get sex the usual way. So the result is to effectively outlaw their only means of sexual outlet with other people?

Beer has enabled ugly people to get sex for centuries.

Re:Sarcasm

[vux984]

That being said, why should the government care if someone wants to get right to the point and exchange money directly for sex?

Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there. And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear. That isn't how business transactions are supposed to be conducted.

So society has decided there are a few things you just can't sell, because it leads to extreme exploitation/harm. So, you can't sell your organs or sex.

Does this -really- bother you? If so, you are in the distinct minority.

There are plenty of people that are too busy/socially inept/ugly/etc to get sex the usual way. So the result is to effectively outlaw their only means of sexual outlet with other people?

There are plenty of people that need new organs too, some of them die from the lack. I sleep fine at night, I think I'll survive knowing some 'too busy dirty asshole' didn't get to buy sex.

Now, there is some legitimacy to a successful independent call-girl, living life on her own terms, exercising discretion when choosing her "customers", actually enjoying the sex, etc. Sure, maybe that really should be legal.

But if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal? Because I don't believe society should put people into a position where they only consent to sex to survive.

Re:Sarcasm

[jcr]

Most stings involve a police officer setting up a 'date' with one of these posters and then springing the trap.

As a taxpayer, this bugs me about as much as the war on drugs. I want the cops to be concentrating on dangerous criminals. Burglars, muggers, murderers, and of course, politicians. Two people exchanging sex for money doesn't endanger me in any way.

-jcr

Re:Sarcasm

[QRDeNameland]

George Carlin's line was (to my best recollection): "Selling is legal, and fucking is legal, so why isn't selling fucking legal?"

Re:Sarcasm

[Anonymous Coward]

But if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal? Because I don't believe society should put people into a position where they only consent to sex to survive.

Regulate it. That's how every other risky industry works, including the ones that do direct harm to the consumer (such as tobacco), or involve risk to the workers (such as every dangerous factory/farm/boat).

Re:Sarcasm

[evanbd]

But if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal? Because I don't believe society should put people into a position where they only consent to sex to survive.

What makes you think making it illegal helps? The way to stop people having sex for money to survive is to make it so they don't need to. If they need to, they will, and making it illegal just makes it riskier for them. As you say, society shouldn't put them in that position; it certainly shouldn't put them in a position where they need to have illegal sex to survive.

People having sex to survive, and that sex being illegal, are two different problems. Solving either one while ignoring the other is better than doing nothing, though obviously solving both is better.

Re:Sarcasm

[Anonymous Coward]

Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there. And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear. That isn't how business transactions are supposed to be conducted.

So society has decided there are a few things you just can't sell, because it leads to extreme exploitation/harm. So, you can't sell your organs or sex.

Your reasons why the prostitute doesn't want to be there are largely because it is illegal. If it were legal, there wouldn't be thug/pimps forcing them into the sex trade. If it were legal, there would be governmental regulation over the process, ensuring that it is not particularly unpleasant for the prostitute.

But yes, even if it is legal, the prostitute might only be doing it for the money and not really want to do it. Guess what? I don't want to go to my job either. People do much worse things than have sex and get paid far less money for it. That's life.

Re:Sarcasm

[jollyreaper]

There are plenty of people that need new organs too, some of them die from the lack. I sleep fine at night, I think I'll survive knowing some 'too busy dirty asshole' didn't get to buy sex.

Or some dirty filthy faggot isn't having gay sex, thank God. Or some dirty filthy hippie isn't living in a commune, thank God. And what about the dirty filthy atheists sleeping in on Sundays? Should get them to church where they can work it out with the Lord!

As for your talk of women having sex for money, I can't tell you how many failed marriages I've seen essentially amounted to the same thing. The woman is with the man because of his earning potential. He loses his job, can't pull down six figures at a new one, she moves on. A whore is honest, she tells you she's fucking for money. Women like this are dishonest whores.

(not trying to let men off the hook, the kind who churn through trophy wives, but we're talking about prostitution here, usually considered to be men soliciting women.)

Re:Sarcasm

[Knara]

That being said, why should the government care if someone wants to get right to the point and exchange money directly for sex?

Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there. And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear. That isn't how business transactions are supposed to be conducted.

So society has decided there are a few things you just can't sell, because it leads to extreme exploitation/harm. So, you can't sell your organs or sex.

So, like working for Wal-Mart? Restricting whole industries because *some* workers in that industry is stupid. That's why we have labor laws. Another example of redundant laws for no reason. Forcing someone to work against their will is already illegal, so why do we need another law to make a whole industry illegal to stop it? (Furthermore, if the industry is illegal, the number of people in poor working conditions will be much larger than if it is legal and regulated).

Also, organ-selling and prostitution are not in the same neighborhood. You're not going to grow a new eye or kidney, but you can have sex over and over and over again. This ignores the fact that eventually we'll be able to grow organs and selling organs will be a multi-billion dollar industry.

Does this -really- bother you? If so, you are in the distinct minority.

Doesn't mean he's incorrect.

There are plenty of people that are too busy/socially inept/ugly/etc to get sex the usual way. So the result is to effectively outlaw their only means of sexual outlet with other people?

There are plenty of people that need new organs too, some of them die from the lack. I sleep fine at night, I think I'll survive knowing some 'too busy dirty asshole' didn't get to buy sex.

Now, there is some legitimacy to a successful independent call-girl, living life on her own terms, exercising discretion when choosing her "customers", actually enjoying the sex, etc. Sure, maybe that really should be legal.

But if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal? Because I don't believe society should put people into a position where they only consent to sex to survive.

Why? People consent to all sorts of other things in order to survive. Wouldn't it be better if they were consenting in a regulated, safe manner instead of a street-level, criminal-element environment?

You cannot prevent people from being exploited in any industry, but once again, just because some people in an industry are engaging in illegal or immortal conduct, doesn't mean the solution is to outlaw the entire industry. If that logically held, there'd be very, very few industries that were still standing.

Re:Sarcasm

[Knara]

I forgot to offer an example: I consent to spend 9 hours a day fixing people's computers when I, by and large, don't like them (the people) very much. I do it in exchange for a good income and health benefits. The entire labor force consents to activity in exchange for money (some of which is potentially very hazardous), so how would consenting to money for sex (in a legalized, regulated industry) be any different?

Re:Sarcasm

[Anonymous Coward]

You can't seriously believe half the tripe you put into this post.

Without citation, this is just some personal belief held by you, and you alone. The parent had the right idea. Take your "distinct minority" bullshit elsewhere unless you're willing to back up your claim by solid facts.

Why do we allow idiotic posts like this anyways?

Re:Sarcasm

[pluther]

But if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal? Because I don't believe society should put people into a position where they only consent to sex to survive.

But "society" does that now.

Outlawing prostitution does nothing to stop it.

But legalizing it would end a whole set of associated abuses. Protection for the people involved would be the biggest one. When a girl is beaten up, or robbed, or simply not paid for her services, she can't currently go to the police. Regulations requiring the house to provide regular medical checkups for their employees would eliminate a lot of spread of disease.

Tons of other problems would be solved as well.

How about the ability of a woman to refuse service to some people without worrying about her pimp cutting her up to make an example for the others?

Not having to hide would let them have a specific place to work without having to get into a car with an unknown man and being driven off never to be seen again.

If you're truly concerned about the prostitutes themselves, the best thing to do for them would be to legalize and regulate the industry.

The biggest reason to keep it illegal seems less a concern for those involved and more of a fear of seeming to condone it.

As for being forced into it due to economic circumstances, that's what happens in *any* profession. (I wouldn't be an engineer if I could keep my current standard of living as a writer.) There are lots of people to whom sex simply isn't a big deal, and would rather work 10 hours a week on their back than 50 hours on their feet.

Re:Sarcasm

[dreamchaser]

And you don't think fewer women would be victimized if it were legal and somewhat regulated?

Re:Sarcasm

[nxtw]

Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there. And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear. That isn't how business transactions are supposed to be conducted.

A long time ago, people worked in factories for long hours in unsafe conditions out of financial desparation. Did we outlaw factories? Did we outlaw buying products made in factories? Did we make it illegal to work in a factory?

Re:Sarcasm

[Wog]

You haven't met many pimps, have you?

Re:Sarcasm

[Xtifr]

Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there.

Unlike most jobs? Let me tell you, I worked in retail years back when I was in school, and I didn't enjoy it one bit!

And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear.

That's pretty much how I ended up running a cash register. If we eliminate jobs that people only consent to do out of financial desperation, most of the population will be out of work.

So, you can't sell your organs or sex.

The two are hardly comparable. Many people enjoy having sex on a regular basis and don't charge anything for the privilege. Most people are reluctant to give up their organs under any but the most extreme circumstances, and nobody does it on a regular basis. I've never heard one of my friends say, "boy, I sure hope I can lose another organ this weekend", but I've had friends, both male and female, make equivalent statements about sex. :)

The fact is: sex workers are criminals because of our society's weird puritanical phobias and prejudices, and for no other reason. Sure, it would be nice if people weren't forced into it, but that's true of a lot of jobs. The real problems with prostitution--the health risks, dangers of violence and such--could be greatly mitigated if it were legal.

Of course, I realize that's not going to happen in today's society, but let's at least not pretend that there's something inherently bad about sex-work. If people weren't idiots, I see no reason it couldn't be a perfectly respectable middle-class profession.

Re:Sarcasm

[MiKM]

Does this -really- bother you? If so, you are in the distinct minority.

A century ago, people could make the same argument for interracial marriage (note that I'm not trying to equate prostitution with interracial marriage). IMO, it boils down to an issue of civil liberties. What right does the government have to limit what two consenting adults do, just because money is involved? I'm pissed that the government is wasting time and money on this.

Re:Sarcasm

[jcr]

Pimps are kept in business by the ban on prostitution. Legalize it, and they'll have to find another way to make a living.

-jcr

Re:Sarcasm

[TheGratefulNet]

Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there. And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear. That isn't how business transactions are supposed to be conducted.

I call BS on this.

MY day job (software) is a place I don't want to be. I am working OUT OF FEAR of not being able to pay the rent. just like you and everyone else.

how is this ANY different? I'm not held at gunpoint but neither are 'pros'.

this is 100.00% about religion. nothing else. remove puritanical religion and sex-for-money has no more 'evil' associated with it.

battery (pimps slapping hos) is still battery and THAT should be the issue. the act of sex for money has been part of the human equation since the beginning of time and nothing 'christians' will do will EVER stop that.

its not about womens' safety. its all about the modern day puritans and how its 'their business' what others do behind closed doors. same as the ban on same-sex marriage. there is no 'harmed party' in same-sex marriages so why the ban?

religion. plain and simple. remove it and you suddenly find a lot less 'laws' need to exist.

Re:Sarcasm

[TheCarp]

Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there. And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear. That isn't how business transactions are supposed to be conducted.

So society has decided there are a few things you just can't sell, because it leads to extreme exploitation/harm. So, you can't sell your organs or sex.

Does this -really- bother you? If so, you are in the distinct minority.

Society has decided? Maybe, but I don't remember being asked. It bothers me a little, but mostly because I don't think its a proper use of government power. It seems that a proper regulatory scheme could fix many of the problems with it without going to the extreme of prohibition.

Now I may be in the minority, like the grandparent's author, but, I have floated this by a few people, and most at least agree that its a futile effort, and are willing to entertain that it may cause more harm to prohibit than what it helps.

Has anyone been doing comprehensive surveys of how people feel on this issue?

-Steve

Re:Sarcasm

[antiquark]

I think you're right. I think my quote was Penn Jillette paraphrasing Carlin.

Re:Sarcasm

[TheRaven64]

No, we moved the factories to China so we don't have to see the people being exploited. I'm trying to see where you are going with this analogy...

Re:Sarcasm

[Kjella]

That being said, why should the government care if someone wants to get right to the point and exchange money directly for sex?

Because it's a government "of the people" and among the people, there's quite a few busybodies. The really good question is, why is it legal to have free sex? No really, I'm serious - for some reason they've managed to link getting paid with degradation. I don't know what other kind of activity you'd consider degrading, but let's say cleaning up someone else's puke. I'd feel more degraded if I wasn't getting paid for it, that'd be a justification not a degradation of doing it in the first place. In most cases like if someone heard me play an instrument or at sports and said "could we pay you to do that?" I'd be ecstatic. So if sex was this horrible, horrible act that we shouldn't allow anyone do to, even if they were getting paid for it, then let's outlaw it.

Except that isn't it, is it? In fact many people, at least many people not on slashdot, do it quite often and entirely voluntary. More funnily, there seems to be a certain expectation of a flow of value in terms of drinks, dinner, movie, gifts, trips and so on that flow in the same direction as prostitution, but somehow doesn't count. Everything is fine as long as you can pass it off as courting and not as a business transaction of buying. But I digress. These people that do have sex voluntarily, let's say they make money from it by selling it as amateur porn. Is that degrading? Well, judging by the number of people that do make amateur porn for free and thus aren't "forced" by the money, I'd say no. So it's not having sex that's degrading. It's not making money that's degrading. It's having sex with the people that can't get laid that's degrading.

Really? I mean, it's one thing to not be the handsomest guy in the world, maybe not a net plus she'd go to bed with otherwise, but degrading to a woman to have sex with? I'm sorry, but that just isn't it. It's all bullshit, it's not degrading to have sex or get some money from it, it'd probably be more degrading if a guy went out on the town, found a girl that's past "loss of good judgement" but not quite to "rape by incapacity to consent" and had sex with her. But that shit is completely legal, being straight up about what you want is not.

Re:Sarcasm

[CodeBuster]

Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there.

Hence the purpose of regulation. In certain counties of Nevada, for example, whore houses are regulated and legal businesses with employment applications, W-2's, on-site security, medical staff, and every thing else that one might expect in a professional, legal, and regulated business. Those who choose to operate outside that system are still busted, even in those counties. This sort of arrangement removes the coercion from the profession. Now, before you say, "no women would willing chose that profession" remember that these women are earning thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars a month for basically unskilled labor. The fact that some people might not choose to do a job if they weren't paid doesn't mean that the job should be outlawed for being exploitative (someone has to work all of those McJobs after all).

So society has decided there are a few things you just can't sell, because it leads to extreme exploitation/harm. So, you can't sell your organs or sex.

Which it really has no right to do. There is no worse tyranny than to remove from adults the sovereign ability to have control, even choices that you might disagree with, over their own bodies. The state doesn't own your body, it belongs to you and you alone.

Does this -really- bother you? If so, you are in the distinct minority.

The Constitution was designed to protect the rights of the minority, the majority generally looks after itself.

but if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal?

There simply need to be fines large enough to prevent under the table competition to the official legalized venues. The system is already up and running in parts of Nevada. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to legalize, regulate, and tax prostitution.

Because I don't believe society should put people into a position where they only consent to sex to survive.

How is that different from someone taking any other job that you find undesirable (ala Dirty Jobs) to survive? Should society ban people from shoveling hog manure or cleaning up pigeon poop because you think the job is dirty and nasty and nobody should be "forced" to do it to survive?

Re:Sarcasm

[ardin,mcallister]

ACTUALLY, both are correct.
The bit was off of the dvd Doin' It Again, and the album was Parental Advisory Explicit Lyrics. It went "selling is legal, fucking is legal. why isn't selling fucking legal? why should it be illegal to sell something thats perfectly legal to give away?" The wording should be almost perfect. i could look it up if you'd like. Mod offtopic i'm sure for me!

Re:Sarcasm

[thegnu]

yeah, but that's only marginally legal...

Re:Sarcasm

[Hatta]

And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear. That isn't how business transactions are supposed to be conducted.

People in desperate situations do all sorts of unpleasant things out of desperation. Why is it different because it's sex? Should it be illegal to hire people to do back breaking labor because they have no other choice?

But if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal? Because I don't believe society should put people into a position where they only consent to sex to survive.

So given the choice between having sex to survive, and not surviving at all, you'd rather people chose the latter?

Re:Sarcasm

[couchslug]

"That being said, why should the government care if someone wants to get right to the point and exchange money directly for sex?"

Because many Americans are religious nutters, and any pleasure not gotten through suffering for Republican Jesus is verboten.

Re:Sarcasm

[thegnu]

But if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal? Because I don't believe society should put people into a position where they only consent to sex to survive.

People have sex to survive ANYWAY. It's called fucking someone you don't love so that they'll take care of you.

What I want to know is how the government will keep 'survival jobs' illegal, where a man works in a factory with harmful chemicals that are making him go blind (true story) so he and his family can eat?

Re:Sarcasm

[nxtw]

No, we moved the factories to China so we don't have to see the people being exploited. I'm trying to see where you are going with this analogy...

Offshore manufacturing is a recent event. Labor laws are not.

Re:Sarcasm

[PrimalChrome]

Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there. And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear. That isn't how business transactions are supposed to be conducted.

That's funny, your description matches a number of jobs I've had over the years. I didn't want to be there, but I was 'consenting' because I desperately feared not being able to pay for my internet connection the next month.

Re:Sarcasm

[CBRcrash]

Actually in certain states fucking isn't legal unless you're married. fornication laws and such

Re:Sarcasm

[vux984]

I call BS on this.

You and a bunch of others for about the same reason, but I've decided to reply to you.

MY day job (software) is a place I don't want to be. I am working OUT OF FEAR of not being able to pay the rent. just like you and everyone else.

I know that most people work at their jobs in order to "pay the mortgage".

But if you are seriously going to try and equate a job in software development, or as other posters suggested, a job fixing computers, a job at walmart, or a job on a farm, with being sexually violated you are (all) complete asshats.

how is this ANY different? I'm not held at gunpoint but neither are 'pros'.

You figure it out. Slapping someone across the face vs raping them. How is this ANY different? "Having to write software" vs survival sex is the same disparity.

its not about womens' safety. its all about the modern day puritans and how its 'their business' what others do behind closed doors.

As an agnostic my objection to street hookers is out of compassion for their safety, dignity, and well being.

this is 100.00% about religion. nothing else. remove puritanical religion and sex-for-money has no more 'evil' associated with it.

I'm an agnostic who has rejected organized religion. I still think coerced/survival sex should be banished.

battery (pimps slapping hos) is still battery and THAT should be the issue

It is an issue, but its a separate issue.

same as the ban on same-sex marriage. there is no 'harmed party' in same-sex marriages so why the ban?

Despite your belief to the contrary. They are entirely unrelated. Again as an agnostic I have nothing against gay marriages, and see no reason for a ban.

However I -do- recognize that organized religions have a special tradition of marriage. I believe there is an issue of state separation from religion here. Frankly, out of respect for the sizable religious community I think religion should keep the term and rite of marriage and decide for themselves who qualifies, while the state should simply issue civic-union certificates to any couple that presents themselves for one, that confers upon them all rights and obligations with respect to the state that a 'marriage certificate' confers today.

Then gay couples and straight couples can become 'unioned' under the state. And if they want to push further to get married in a church, that's between them and the church, and the state has no say or interest or stake in the matter.

Re:Sarcasm

[vux984]

So given the choice between having sex to survive, and not surviving at all, you'd rather people chose the latter?

I would like that to be a false dichotomy. I would prefer that nobody is EVER given the choice between 'sex to survive' and 'not surviving'. We should give them more and different options.

Re:Sarcasm

[Renraku]

All the more reason to legalize and regulate it.

I don't want to be at work, but guess what? I don't have a whole lot of choice. Sure, I could go live in a homeless shelter, but I'd rather have a place to live, internet, real food, etc. So, their situation is different? Sometimes, yes, people are pressured into it. But why ever would you buy a shady looking person's favors off the street when you can walk into a well-lit building and pay fair prices for something that's regulated and kept under security (disease screening, drug screening, etc)?

Re:Sarcasm

[Pinckney]

You know, in Sweden, it's only a crime to buy sexual services. There's no sense in punishing the people who are exploited in this way.

Re:Sarcasm

[TheGratefulNet]

you are confused, mate.

NO ONE said anything about rape. no one. I certainly didn't.

we are talking, here, about business. product (service, really but in the abstract its product) for a fee.

it really is that simple.

here's your litmus test: if it was guaranteed safe to the girls (if there was such a way to do that, lets suppose there was) - would it ever have a chance of being legal in the puritanical USA? of course not. its not about safety - that's a red herring. and its not about rape. there is more rape in date-rape than there is in prostitution. the violence is almost always between the pimp and the girl, NOT the customer and the girl.

you seem to have the view that ALL girls who do this do so involuntarily. I'm not sure I agree with that assertion of yours and I think its getting you into trouble, logically.

Re:Sarcasm

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

But if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal? Because I don't believe society should put people into a position where they only consent to sex to survive.

Welfare. Same way we do it today.

Your entire argument is based on a faulty premise, that making the business illegal will reduce destructive behavior.

I think I'll survive knowing some 'too busy dirty asshole' didn't get to buy sex.

Lol, your bias is showing. Sex is NEVER free. One way or another, men pay for sex, cash, gifts or time, ultimately there is no such thing a free fuck. One way or another, we are all "dirty assholes," even you.

Re:Sarcasm

[ion.simon.c]

*seconding the "who brought up rape?" sentiment*

Surely you're not a Feminazi who calls *all* sex between a man and a woman rape? (Yes, they exist. See: http://users.livejournal.com/_allecto_/34718.html?thread=148382#t148382 )

Re:Sarcasm

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

It is already legal in Rhode Island.

Re:Sarcasm

[ion.simon.c]

Like, say being screamed at for fourty ear shattering hours a week in a "call center"?

Re:Sarcasm

[ion.simon.c]

I don't want to be at work, but guess what? I don't have a whole lot of choice.

...

--
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?

Do what now? ;)

Re:Sarcasm

[ion.simon.c]

Either that, or they'll become legitimate businessmen. Seems like everyone wins, no matter what, eh?

Re:Sarcasm

[ion.simon.c]

Cite?

Re:Sarcasm

[Idiomatick]

It works fine in other countries. Hookers in the NA get involved in crime, drugs have violent pimps get diseases like aids die young. They give up all protection the law normally provides them since well they are hookers. Now if prostitution is allowed through brothels ALL of that changes. Extreme exploitation is gone since their boss is just their boss, s/he wont go to her house and beat her to death for quitting. There wont be cocaine at work to tie the hooker to the business. Tests for stds will be regular and on site free and manditory so they wont get aids and resign themselves to that lifestyle. It will be run like any other business it'd be much like working at a casino sure it might be shady but not remotely comparable to being a hooker. 'bad clients' for hookers now beat the fuck out of the girl with no repercussion since well shes a hooker she cant really report him and its not like they keep files. In a brothel a 'bad client' could be subdued and cops would take him away plus hed be banned from brothels. Much safer in every aspect, and the girls would be free to quit.

Re:Sarcasm

[Anonymous Coward]

Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there. And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear.

This is true for most people and most occupations. Everyone has to eat therefore all employment is coerced.

Re:Sarcasm

[Anonymous Coward]

I worked at all call centre. I didn't enjoy it, but I did it for the money. People work for money, why is prostitution different from anything else?

If anything, legalizing it would reduce the 'criminal element', and less seedy brothels and whatnot would outcompete their ghetto cousins.

Re:Sarcasm

[TapeCutter]

"So society has decided there are a few things you just can't sell"

"Society" has done no such thing. It's called the "oldest proffesion" for a reason.

"But if you are going to legalize prostitution, how are you going to keep 'survival sex' illegal?"

Survival sex dramatically declines when prostiution is legalised, at least it did down here in Melbourne Australia where the average pro makes a hell of a lot more than the average Joe. Sure you still have unregistered drug addicts selling sex on the streets because they can't pass the health tests but that's a drug problem not a prostitution problem.

"I sleep fine at night, I think I'll survive knowing some 'too busy dirty asshole' didn't get to buy sex."

Do you think you will survive knowing someone DID get to buy sex?

Re:Sarcasm

[kramer2718]

That being said, why should the government care if someone wants to get right to the point and exchange money directly for sex?

Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there. And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear. That isn't how business transactions are supposed to be conducted.

Ehhhm. What about they Bailout? The taxpayers want to hand over that money?

Come on, a huge number of transactions involve pople who don't have a better choice. In fact, they all do. That's called Economics. It's this crazy idea that Adam Smith came up with not too long ago. You should read up on it...

Re:Sarcasm

[TheLink]

"Selling is legal, and voting is legal. So why isn't selling voting legal?"

Just legalize and regulate it, and there should be no problems about people selling their vote. Many voters already vote for candidates just because candidates promise to give the voters some of the voters own money - how much more abusive is that? ;).

BTW adultery is illegal in some states.

Re:Sarcasm

[TheGratefulNet]

no, rhode island is a state, not a city!

you silly person.

Re:Sarcasm

[dasunt]

Because far too often at least one of the parties doesn't really want to be there. And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear.

If they had a "normal" job, they'd show up because work is full of ponies and roses.

As opposed to people who show up to work because they fear their financial desperation if they didn't make money.

Re:Sarcasm

[TooMuchToDo]

Someone resorting to survival sex shows that the social net in that country has failed. Laws against prostitution fix the symptom, not the problem.

Re:Sarcasm

[TooMuchToDo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island#Law_and_government

Rhode Island is one of two states in which prostitution is legal, provided it takes place indoors, though there have been recent efforts to change this.[25]

Re:Sarcasm

[Darby]

However I -do- recognize that organized religions have a special tradition of marriage.

Religious nutters coopted marriage, but it far predates the invention of the Christian religion or that of any other god that currently exists in people's minds. It's not their tradition, they have no right to try and define it for other people.
Claiming that we should cede it to them is idiotic and will only encourage them to demand control of other aspects of people's lives which are none of their damn business. That's why this country was founded on the principle that religion has no place in the government of a free society. As soon as you introduce religious delusion into your laws you don't have a free society.

Re:Sarcasm

[Darby]

Sure you still have unregistered drug addicts selling sex on the streets because they can't pass the health tests but that's a drug problem not a prostitution problem.

Who the hell is patronizing them? I mean when it's illegal, it's a risk, but if it's legal and somebody is doing it illegally, isn't that pretty much a guarantee that she has some disease?

Re:Sarcasm

[compro01]

Weren't those tossed out along with sodomy laws in the Lawrence v. Texas decision?

Re:Sarcasm

[compro01]

I think the point has been repeatedly made here that they don't even fix the symptom.

Re:Sarcasm

[Jedi Alec]

remember that these women are earning thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars a month for basically unskilled labor.

Unskilled???

Re:Sarcasm

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree. In Thailand, sex is considered a bodily function. Not some crisis rape psychological trauma that many people tend to imagine.

Re:Sarcasm

[Anonymous Coward]

He did say women. Be honest now. How many guys really the woman to be skilled for it to be good?

Re:Sarcasm

[Beezlebub33]

What? Is prostitution really legal in RI? Do you have a reference for that? What's the tax rate? How is health maintained? Do you have to be licensed?

In Nevada, there's lots of rules. What are the rules for RI?

Re:Sarcasm

[vux984]

NO ONE said anything about rape. no one. I certainly didn't.

I consider 'survival sex' to be equivalent to 'rape'.

we are talking, here, about business. product (service, really but in the abstract its product) for a fee.

When referring to 'survival sex' we are talking about exploitation, and worse than that sexual exploitation. This is not acceptable 'business'. Just as we've stamped out mine owners from paying people starvation wages to work in coal mines 20 hours a day without safety equipment, we should stamp out the 'survival sex' trade.

you seem to have the view that ALL girls who do this do so involuntarily.

Reread my earlier post. I agreed that girls doing this truly voluntarily, outside of a 'survival sex' context, need not be prevented.

However, I think the word 'voluntarily' is being misused by most of the people responding. Just because someone elects to work in a coal mine 20 hours a day for starvation wages without safety equipment, rather than simply die of starvation does not meet a reasonable definition of 'voluntarily'. Similiarly there is a large class of prostitutes that are 'electing' to sell their bodies in an equivalent context. I don't really call that voluntary. And if its involuntary, then it is really no different than rape.

Re:Sarcasm

[vux984]

"Society" has done no such thing. It's called the "oldest proffesion" for a reason.

Society decided slavery is wrong too. The fact that it only did this recently doesn't change that fact.

Survival sex dramatically declines when prostiution is legalised, at least it did down here in Melbourne Australia where the average pro makes a hell of a lot more than the average Joe. Sure you still have unregistered drug addicts selling sex on the streets because they can't pass the health tests but that's a drug problem not a prostitution problem.

Which is consistent with my argument. I want to stamp out survival sex, and I explicitly conceded that truly voluntary prostitution perhaps should be legitimate. If we look at places where it has been tried, and things have in fact gotten better for it, then I'm that much more open to the idea.

Sure you still have unregistered drug addicts selling sex on the streets because they can't pass the health tests but that's a drug problem not a prostitution problem.

I see it as both, but I agree that the majority of the solution is treating the drug problem.

Re:Sarcasm

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

What? Is prostitution really legal in RI? Do you have a reference for that? What's the tax rate? How is health maintained? Do you have to be licensed?

In Nevada, there's lots of rules. What are the rules for RI?

There is this great new website that can really make it easy to find the answers to all kinds of questions.
It's called google, you should totally check it out.

Re:Sarcasm

[vux984]

Religious nutters coopted marriage, but it far predates the invention of the Christian religion or that of any other god that currently exists in people's minds. It's not their tradition, they have no right to try and define it for other people.

I didn't say marriage belongs to the Christians. I said marriage belongs to religion. Each religion can clamour for it and argue about it. There is no real need for the STATE to recognize "marriage". The state's needs are entirely satisfied by recognizing a "civic-union certificate".

Claiming that we should cede it to them is idiotic

and will only encourage them to demand control of other aspects of people's lives which are none of their damn business.

We didn't give them ANYTHING but the 'word' marriage. Seriously, that doesn't give them "control" of anything; its not even a slippery slope towards more control. What are they going to do? demand other words? Like what? Marriage has an overlapping use in religious and secular contexts; in various religious meanings its a sanctified vow witnessed by god... blah blah... but all the state uses it for is tax features, and for deciding who qualifies for pension, who can visit in the hospital, who defaults to guardian if the other is comatose, etc... there is no bloody reason the state needs to call this statement of legal status a 'marriage'.

There are some religious nutters who want to get into gay peoples lives (and everyone's life for that matter) and control them, but the VAST majority REALLY are perfectly happy to give gay couples pension rights, and hospital visitation rights, etc. They just aren't comfortable giving them the word 'marriage' due to their religious beliefs.

So giving gays all the "legal rights" they want and deserve, but not calling it marriage is a perfectly reasonable compromise. Extremists on both sides still won't like it, but the majority will find it acceptable. And they can fight with eachother over it, which is fine, as long as the state is left out of it.

That's why this country was founded on the principle that religion has no place in the government of a free society. As soon as you introduce religious delusion into your laws you don't have a free society.

And that's precisely why the state needs to entirely extricate itself out of deciding whether people can get "married". Its really NONE of the states business. Religions can decide for themselves and their members. Agnostics/Atheists can decide for themselves. The state just needs to let PEOPLE (gay or straight or asexual or bisexual) register who gets pensions and who gets special rights to visit in the hospital, how taxes get paid, etc.

Re:Sarcasm

[ahodgson]

They're probably cheaper.

Why do people shop at Walmart? Same principle.

Re:Sarcasm

[Ace23]

>Which it really has no right to do. There is no worse tyranny than to remove from adults the >sovereign ability to have control, even choices that you might disagree with, over their own >bodies. The state doesn't own your body, it belongs to you and you alone.

    Right! If it didn't, then the state could actually dictate what substances you could put into your own body in the privacy of your home. In such a totalitarian nightmare scenario, one might even imagine a "War on Drugs".
    Of course, something like that is impossible in any society that has any freedom whatsoever.

Re:Sarcasm

[Anonymous Coward]

these women are earning thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars a month for basically unskilled labor.

Guess you haven't been...?

Re:Sarcasm

[Anonymous Coward]

"And is 'consenting' to something out of financial desperation/outright fear. That isn't how business transactions are supposed to be conducted. " Um...have you seen american culture. Our entire economy is based on wholesale manufacture of outright fear to create the illusion of consent for whatever bullshit people are dumb enough to buy. "You stink, so you won't get laid, so take axe body spray." "Obama likes latte sipping terrorists, and is an elitist who runs with street gangs who eat babies so vote for McCain." "Your kids are unhealthy so shove lucky charms with 100% whole grains down their throats and we'll soothe your manufactured anxieties." Most transactions in our economy are transactions where marketers exploit unconscious psychology to create situations where one party is only there because they were manipulated. Consent based on outright fear is the foundation of the american economy.

Re:Sarcasm

[vux984]

*seconding the "who brought up rape?" sentiment*

If you re-read my post, you'll see that I was essentially asked what the difference between:

"writing software to pay the rent" and being "coerced into the sex trade, and 'consenting' to sex to survive"

He argued they were the same thing, since in both cases they were doing the something they didn't much care for, for the money they needed.

And my response was that they were the same thing the way a slap and a rape are the same thing. Sure they are BOTH an assault on someone, so they are the same right? Of course not, there is a huge disparity.

Same level of disparity is present in his example.

I never actually said anything like having sex with someone in the sex trade amounted to rape.

However, upon reflection, I don't think someone in a position where they are only consenting to sex to survive amounts to real consent. Which makes taking advantage of someone in that situation, at least morally, equivalent to rape.

Once upon a time we saw that laborers had to choose between working in coal mines 20 hours a day for starvation wages without safety equipment or starve to death. We don't have that situation anymore. No one is allowed to employ you under those conditions. Its blatant exploitation and its illega.

The same sort of thinking should be applied to the sex trade. I already conceded in my original post that I could envision situations where the sex trade should not be criminalized. However, 'survival sex' should illegal, without question.

Surely you're not a Feminazi who calls *all* sex between a man and a woman rape?

Obviously not.

Re:Sarcasm

[vux984]

As opposed to people who show up to work because they fear their financial desperation if they didn't make money.

How many of you are seriously going to compare being coerced into the sex trade with working a regular job? Even a shitty regular job?

Seriously. Get a sense of perspective.

Re:Sarcasm

[Darby]

I didn't say marriage belongs to the Christians. I said marriage belongs to religion. Each religion can clamour for it and argue about it. There is no real need for the STATE to recognize "marriage". The state's needs are entirely satisfied by recognizing a "civic-union certificate".

Except it doesn't belong to religion either. It belongs to whoever wants it.
The State's needs are not entirely satisfied by "separate but equal". There's plenty of precedent for that. Creating a class of second class citizens in un American. Sorry, but we really can't have that.

  there is no bloody reason the state needs to call this statement of legal status a 'marriage'.

Yes there is. Because making up a different word to keep some nutty kooks happy puts gay people in a lower class.

They just aren't comfortable giving them the word 'marriage' due to their religious beliefs.

Well it's too fucking bad that they don't get to control something that isn't theirs. They can't give away something that doesn't belong to them. They need to grow up or move to Saudi Arabia or some other country that's based on their desired principles.

And that's precisely why the state needs to entirely extricate itself out of deciding whether people can get "married".

Creating second class citizens as you are supporting *is* the state deciding that. The state saying, "fuck all you loons, everyone can get married" would actually accomplish what you claim to want. The state banning some people from getting married based on the ignorant hatred of religious loons does the opposite to the extreme.

Re:Sarcasm

[vux984]

Except it doesn't belong to religion either. It belongs to whoever wants it.

Whatever. So then the state should give to them. ALL of them. By saying it doesn't give a SHIT who calls themselves married. All that matters as far as the state is concerned is who is registered for various partner status benefits.

The State's needs are not entirely satisfied by "separate but equal". There's plenty of precedent for that. Creating a class of second class citizens in un American. Sorry, but we really can't have that.

What is this all about? The state doesn't recognize 'separate but equal' because the state won't recognize marriage AT ALL. EVERYBODY is either has a registered partner or they don't, and that is the ONLY status the state recognizes. Being 'married' will be exactly as relevant to the state as being a 'catholic' or being a 'boy scout' or a 'bff - best friend forever' -- absolutely nothing.

Yes there is. Because making up a different word to keep some nutty kooks happy puts gay people in a lower class.

No. It puts EVERYONE in the same class. And if a gay couple wants to be 'married' then all they have to do is find a church or other group willing to marry them. Or they can start their own gay group and then get married within THAT. The state has no say or interest in the matter. It doesn't define 'married' or confer any rights or priviledges to 'married' people, any more than it does 'best friends'.

Creating second class citizens as you are supporting *is* the state deciding that. The state saying, "fuck all you loons, everyone can get married" would actually accomplish what you claim to want.

The state WOULD BE saying everyone can get married, indirectly. By not recognizing 'marriage' at all at the state level then there would be nothing stopping anyone from getting "married".

The state banning some people from getting married based on the ignorant hatred of religious loons does the opposite to the extreme.

Who exactly do you think is banned from getting married if the state decides not to recognize marriage at all, and leaves the rites and ceremony up to the people to decide for and amongst themselves. Think about it... if the state didn't recognize marriage at all then the word would have no "legal" meaning. The only meaning left would be that conferred on it by non-state entitites.

A congregation of any sort (christian, gay hippy, mormon whatever...) wanted to marry people and provide marriage certificates they could without restraint or interference from the state. Two people could draw a marriage certificate and hang it on the wall if they wanted to for all the state cared. Of course the local church might not recognize it... but if they don't belong to that church then so what? And in any case, what does the state care?

Re:Sarcasm

[vux984]

Lol, your bias is showing.

As is yours.

Sex is NEVER free. One way or another, men pay for sex, cash, gifts or time, ultimately there is no such thing a free fuck. One way or another, we are all "dirty assholes," even you.

If you are seriously going to equate the time and effort spent investing in a relationship with putting in some OT so you can nail someone at a brothel, then... well.. I feel sorry for you.

Re:Sarcasm

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

If you are seriously going to equate the time and effort spent investing in a relationship with putting in some OT so you can nail someone at a brothel, then... well.. I feel sorry for you.

Look at your own word choice, it is revealing -- "investing." You are a dirty asshole too.

Re:Sarcasm

[vux984]

Look at your own word choice, it is revealing -- "investing."

That you brought it up reveals more about you than me. I distinguish between economic and other investments even if the terminology overlaps.

Re:Sarcasm

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

That you brought it up reveals more about you than me. I distinguish between economic and other investments even if the terminology overlaps.

Thus my original reference to "time."
You just can't wipe it away.

Re:Sarcasm

[vux984]

You just can't wipe it away.

I just did. I differentiate between the two uses of time.

You can argue that there is no real difference all you like, but
a) I'll still differentiate.
b) I'll still think its sad and pathetic you don't/won't.

Re:Sarcasm

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Your problem is that you think your differentiation is absolute, that 100% of your time is 'invested' in "building a relationship."
You are lying to yourself. Think about it the next time you find yourself sleeping on the proverbial couch.

Re:Sarcasm

[TapeCutter]

...or underage. Legal is much better for society but society is still far from perfect.

Re:Sarcasm

[TapeCutter]

"truly voluntary prostitution perhaps should be legitimate"

That's how it's been here for years. 20yrs ago I used to drive taxi's and got to meet quite a few pro's (and one transvestite) on their rounds, they are far from being drug fucked and desperate most of them are eminently sane people.

"If we look at places where it has been tried, and things have in fact gotten better for it, then I'm that much more open to the idea."

I've been to Amsterdam and the problem they have is the same as Sydney's Kings Cross, sex is being used as a tourist attraction. Here in Melbourne it's out in the open (billboard adverts) but there is no "red light" district.

Re:Sarcasm

[Darby]

No. It puts EVERYONE in the same class. And if a gay couple wants to be 'married' then all they have to do is find a church or other group willing to marry them. Or they can start their own gay group and then get married within THAT. The state has no say or interest in the matter. It doesn't define 'married' or confer any rights or priviledges to 'married' people, any more than it does 'best friends'.

So rather than just keeping the current system and just keep the loons out of it, you propose creating a new system that does the same thing as the old one adding new benefits and only adding new costs for the transition?

I'm not really clear what benefit you see in that. It adds nothing worthwhile or useful and just adds the overhead of a transition that amounts to just reprinting all the forms and renaming the relevant departments.

Zero benefit, positive cost. Net loss.
       

I assume

[Anonymous Coward]

the "bones" tag was intended to be boners, yes?

Combat child exploitation

[MartinSchou]

If they are donating money to a charity to combat child exploitation, can we please have that charity fight the constant "think of the kids", "harm to kids", "oh noes, kids might see this" exploitation?

Their motto should be a George Carlin quote: "Fuck the children!"

To quote Geroge Carlin...

[thenewguy001]

Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. So why isn't selling fucking legal?

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, in a lot of places fucking is illegal, unless you are fucking your spouse.

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[forkazoo]

Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. So why isn't selling fucking legal?

The illegality of each of those things is negative. So, when you multiply them together, you are bound to wind up with a result that has positive illegality, duh. It's pretty basic arithmetic. Of course, it does lead to the little known fact that doing any two legal things together is illegal. Aside from selling fucking, driving while blindfolded is another relatively obvious example. Most minor cases of doing two legal things at the same time are never prosecuted, but standing while muttering is technically not legal, thanks to math.

Of course, the circumvent the issue, you just need to do a third legal thing while you whore yourself out, like read a book. Then the extra minus sign multiplies through and they can't do anything to you.

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[guyminuslife]

Eating is legal. Babies are legal. So why isn't eating babies legal? ;-)

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[Savatte]

It's like Matt Groening's great cinema paradox:

the french are funy
sex is funny
comedy is funny

yet no french sex comedy is funny

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[Ecuador]

Indeed a paradox. Throw in half the female police force scantily clad pretending to be selling fucking and you get the US situation ( except LV ;) ).
Selling fucking is legal in most countries since the dawn of mankind.
The faux morality in the US prevents if from being legal, however you can always go around that limitation if you have a camera. Fucking becomes acting, and all is well...

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[PPH]

So why isn't selling fucking legal?

Because it undermines the Church's attempt to monopolize men's source of pussy.

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[Kjella]

Of course, I'm seting myself up as a huge party pooper here but:

The illegality of each of those things is negative.

So illegal = -1, legal = 1 right?

Of course, it does lead to the little known fact that doing any two legal things together is illegal.

No, not really...

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[spartacus_prime]

Eating is legal. Babies are legal. So why isn't eating babies legal? ;-)

Technically swallowing is legal.

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[Comen]

Why is paying a girl for sex illegal, but if you film it to make a porno movie it is not illegal, so all you have to do is film it to make it legal?

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[fucket]

You misread. The OP stated "the illegality of each of those things is negative". So legal = -1. Legal * legal = positive illegality.

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[Idiomatick]

I get that its a joke but french sex comedy is hilarious. I was watching some the other day from quebec I think... maybe that doesn't count.

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[Anonymous Coward]

cause it creates currency. Flesh currency to be exact. Next time a farmer can not pay off his debt, he will sell his daughter to a pimp/gang. You don't believe me, go to Thailand, (or any S.American country), and see 15 year old girls dancing for money. Little boys are next, why, because we adults believe that people are decent, ,when in fact they will do whatever the fuck they want to get power, and sex is power. Legalizing it, we already did, it's called marriage.

  I think more important question, is why does a person has to pay for sex in the first place?
That is the root of the problem, women denying access to sex, and using it as a commodity when we as a biological creatures are driven to it. Talking about monopoly on the market of pussy.

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay, now you've got me interested (I'm almost ready to subscribe to your newsletter too). Your theory started me wondering: what two *illegal* activities added together yields something legal?

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[zacronos]

Of course, I'm seting myself up as a huge party pooper here but:

The illegality of each of those things is negative.

So illegal = -1, legal = 1 right?

Of course, it does lead to the little known fact that doing any two legal things together is illegal.

No, not really...

Actually, GP said "The illegality of each of those things is negative." which is not "illegal = -1", it's "not illegal = -1", or "legal = -1". To see for sure that that's what's going on, take a look at the quote GP was referring to: "Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. So why isn't selling fucking legal?". So legal = not illegal = -1.

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[Kjella]

Actually, GP said "The illegality of each of those things is negative." which is not "illegal = -1", it's "not illegal = -1", or "legal = -1".

"The (not legality) of each of those things is (not positive).", the nots cancel out and you get "The legality of each of those things is positive". The trick is in the multiplication where he uses illegality*illegality = illegality, or -1^2 = -1 to arrive at positive illegality rather than positive legality. I think he had you fooled though.

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[syousef]

Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. So why isn't selling fucking legal?

That's just plain stupid. Let's replace fucking having children to demonstrate:

Having children is legal. Selling is legal. Why isn't having children and selling them legal?

I could give more examples but the basic premise is we accept that act of selling certain things has different consequences than selling general goods. More generally, combining two innocent concepts doesn't make the resulting act an innocent one.

I'm not saying I agree that prostitution should be a criminal act. What I am saying is the reasoning above is for red-necks: High impact words that fail basic logical analysis.

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[darkreaper00]

Actually, if you substitute "shoot a video" for "read a book", I think you're on the right track. As long as you can construe payment for the pr0n-making and not the sex, you should be in good shape.

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[Anonymous Coward]

Groening needs to watch:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0283900/

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[zacronos]

Actually, GP said "The illegality of each of those things is negative." which is not "illegal = -1", it's "not illegal = -1", or "legal = -1".

"The (not legality) of each of those things is (not positive).", the nots cancel out and you get "The legality of each of those things is positive".

Yes, both fucking and selling are legal.

The trick is in the multiplication where he uses illegality*illegality = illegality, or -1^2 = -1 to arrive at positive illegality rather than positive legality. I think he had you fooled though.

Except that GGGP only ever uses legal*legal = illegal, (and also legal*legal*legal = legal), which both work when legal = -1. I know that it seems like legal should be 1, but this is still not the case. If necessary, consider it a convention, just the way we treat electric current as if it flows in the direction of positive -> negative charge, even though that is not the case.

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[jez9999]

Seriously, why doesn't this happen more? Brothels install cameras in the rooms and if the police 'bust' them, they're all making movies? That's legal, right?

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[VShael]

Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. So why isn't selling fucking legal?

Because if God had wanted women to prostitute themselves, he would have given them a pussy, and free will.

Oh wait.

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[VShael]

Because it undermines the Church's attempt to monopolize men's source of pussy.

So true. But also other women of the non-prostitute variety, would also like to control men's access to pussy.

Which is why many of them look at prostitutes as if they were scabs crossing a picket line.

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[sesshomaru]

This is made extremely obvious by laws like IMBRA:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Marriage_Broker_Regulation_Act

Which exists purely for the purpose of keeping men from marrying non-American women.

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[Anonymous Coward]

What kind of curch supplies you with pussy?

Re:To quote Geroge Carlin...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's my understanding that during the witch burning period in history, standing and muttering was punishable by burning, drowning, or duck-weighing.

I've always wondered about these...

[religious freak]

I've looked at these a couple times with some friends. We've always wondered if these things are for real. I personally think you'll probably end up with a fat dude that wants to give you an STD. But since my friend is single and desperate, he wants to give it a shot.

Anybody know what's up with these? Aren't these just scam artists, fake, criminals, or just plain old fashioned prostitutes?

Re:I've always wondered about these...

[Quasar1999]

But since my friend is single and desperate

And by your friend, you mean you.

It's okay, it's slashdot, nobody will judge (and they'd be a hypocrite if they did!)

Re:I've always wondered about these...

[xstonedogx]

It's okay, you can tell us, which one is it? http://slashdot.org/~religious+freak/friends/

Re:I've always wondered about these...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just go to the yellow pages, its $250 an hour.

Re:I've always wondered about these...

[Anonymous Coward]

Some are real - it's all about being careful and cross referencing with other sites (like TER or BD). I mainly "hobby" during business trips, where I don't know the local landscape. I use (or I guess, used, past tense) CL for the quantity and a good representation of who is still in business and active. These are the ones I can xref to other sites and narrow my search to 1 or 2 final candidates. It works (or used to) well, I've gotten my fix on nearly every business trip the last 4 years.

Re:I've always wondered about these...

[religious freak]

Ha! Yeah, after I reread my post, I kind of thought it sounded like it was me. But it's really not. But either way - eh, it's the Internet so no one really cares.

I really am curious though, I figure I'll let him give it a shot and see what happens. I would try it after that, but I don't think my wife would much appreciate it :P

Re:I've always wondered about these...

[Anonymous Coward]

It really depends on the part of the country you are in. In high population areas, there are more scam posts. Most of the legitimate posts are from call girls or their agencies, and show up on a regular basis.

The generic "IM me at ********" with no phone number is usually scam artists. They want to you to pay a web site for "verification" purposes, and afterwards you can't find them for a date.

There are web sites where customers can verify the legitimacy of the worker, and on some (for a small fee) read reviews of the deeds performed written by customers. The erotic review (TER) is one such site, there are several others. It is still possible to game the review systems, just a little harder. Most workers rely on good reviews posted in one or more review forums.

There was someone who took several Craigslist service providers out for real dates... cannot find the web page for that, sorry.

Re:I've always wondered about these...

[guyminuslife]

Some are. Some are undercover vice cops. There is a plethora of news articles about, "The Oldest Profession Goes High-Tech," and give myriad examples of prostitutes, and johns, busted through Craigslist.

If you ever watched the TV show, "Secret Diary of a Call Girl," they mention prostitution web sites a lot, where hookers advertise and johns give reviews. I did some Googling around and yes, those sites exist, and are considered "safer" than Craigslist. I read through the forums on one of them and found it extremely entertaining---everything sexual or illegal is referred to in code words, there are Q&A sections and prostitution FAQs, etiquette guides, etc.

That said, my interest is purely academic and I've never tried it, so I can't give any advice for "your friend."

Re:I've always wondered about these...

[bluefoxlucid]

Sex is not something to be that desperate for; you have porn and a hand. Getting laid is an achievement; one night stands suck, but hell, you managed to land a girl without even getting her name, score! And if you keep it up, and get good at getting "in" with the girls, you might land a long-term friend with benefits or even a girlfriend with your slowly but steadily acquired charm.

Seriously, if you have FRIENDS that are GIRLS you can talk to them about being desperate. It's embarrassing, but they'll help you out. They'll try to tell you how to talk to girls, or hook you up with their friends, or sometimes even go ahead and sleep with you, depending on just how close you are. Just try not to cry or sound like a creep. In some cases they can be amazingly tolerant and will actually put effort into shaping you up into a bar-hopping chick magnet... even chicks need their hobbies I guess.

Re:I've always wondered about these...

[Anonymous Coward]

some of them are real, i'm sure. he should just be careful. i've looked at the pics and fapped, and I know from the pictures of different girls in front of the same wall that there's a whorehouse hereabouts.

just be careful. I'd maybe just go to a massage parlor with neon signs that say "Asian Massage" and "Hot Towels".
lol

Re:I've always wondered about these...

[CDMA_Demo]

but I don't think my wife would

Wife, huh?

Re:I've always wondered about these...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, they're ALL cops now.

If a real prostitute posts an ad, the cops know because THEY DIDN'T POST IT. So they go bust her in a sting operation.

If a john replies to one of the ads, chances are it's a cop ad, so he'll get there, hold out fifty bucks, and the entire cast of COPS, complete with cameras, will fling themselves out of the closet and tackle the guy.

It's a no-win situation. Seriously. DO NOT WANT.

Re:I've always wondered about these...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anybody know what's up with these? Aren't these just scam artists, fake, criminals, or just plain old fashioned prostitutes?

Most are real prostitutes. The ads are usually posted by their pimps, who arrange the girls' transportation and lodging. (The game of Craigslist is to post as many times per day without getting your account banned. Because everybody wants their ad to be listed first for greater visibility, and most recent = first. And since the girls are usually too busy, stoned, or distracted to post for themselves, that's pimps' work.) Other ads are posted by independent working-girls. Sometimes you'll even find a legitimate, "I'm a college girl who's never done this before" ad. But yes, most are real people looking to be paid for sex.

There aren't many outright "scam artists" on ERS. You will find some girls who will take the money and run; but it's rare, and even they are almost always actual prostitutes (who just decided, for whatever reason, that they could get away with dashing today). And there's a healthy dose of spam (dating sites, camgirls, etc.), but that is pretty well moderated. Actually, the "moderation" is a function of the game I mentioned above. To beat down the competition, pimps will flag each other's ads. So Pimp_X will flag Pimp_Y's ads...but when Camgirl_N posts into the top slot, all the pimps flag her together and she goes down quickly. (No pun intended.)

The AC above is correct: The purpose of Erotic Services, when it was created, was to siphon prostitution away from the personals section. Pimps aren't going to pay $10 for each ad, especially when they're used to posting 20 ads every day. They're just going to move into another section. So apart from making some attorneys general happy and diluting Obama's news cycle, I'm not sure what this is supposed to accomplish. It just returns Craiglist to the crappy state it was in years ago.

Re:I've always wondered about these...

[Anonymous Coward]

A few of my friends have definitely done it. AFAIK they all were pretty close to their pictures, though most of the time they angle is so it's pretty hard to tell. One (out of three, maybe?) was actually pretty damn hot. (I did see the ad, and a friend confirmed it was her) They do have people to answer to, and tend to have people that look after them if things go badly.

Re:I've always wondered about these...

[Anonymous Coward]

They are 99% real, if you are talking about the "services." the Casual encounters are as fake as plastic. You need to side on discretion. If the price is two low then its probably a scam. Read about 20 of them and you can tell which ones are off. Most pictures are acurate to about 15 pounds. You need to call before hand and can tell a lot, like if the girl sounds nervouse, high, noise in the background. Make sure you set the price firm beforhand. Bring Cash, and rubbers, maybe lube.

Some will be "incall" where you go to them, usually a seedy hotel, and "outcall" where they come to you, which has it's advantages, you can still meet them at a room you rent. As for the dude, there may be one, a pimp or bouncer, for the girls "protection," though they are ussually around the corner and/or out of sight.

Then there may just be the dude, with a gun, to take your money. Which is the biggest danger of them all, MAKE SURE YOU MEET AT A HOTEL NOT A PRIVATE RESIDENCE. Especially since you can't really go to the police or tell people where your going.

As for STD's If you use a rubber, the only two you can get are crabs, and maybe herpes which can be largly avoided by not geting oral or kissing.

I recomend the adds that sell themselves as erotic massage, becuase you can actually get the massage most of the time, which makes it feel less cheap and gives you more intamacy without having to bust a slob with a hoe.

It would be better to all three parties if it were legal. You, Them, The Law.

Why doesn't your "friend" try online dating? If he is really desperate there are plenty of ghastly women out there who will put-out for free just to feel wanted.

Re:I've always wondered about these...

[religious freak]

Yep. And to prove it I'm watching "Fool's Gold" right now... snuck away to check out /. for min :)

Go ahead ask me any fools gold question.. no self respecting non-married man would ever watch such a movie!

Re:I've always wondered about these...

[religious freak]

Ah, dammit, back to the movie...

Re:"I hope they work on cleaning the weird spammer

[Fluffeh]

Wow, so much amusement in that list. Rate that up as informative!!

I'm kind of suprised ...

[Starteck81]

... how many /.ers are pro prostitute.

On second thought it is kind of hard to get a date when you're living in your mom's basement.

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[compro01]

Seems to be more anti-stupid-pointless-counter-effective-morality-police-legislation than pro-prostitution.

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[houstonbofh]

... how many /.ers are pro prostitute.

It is less "pro prostitute" and more "anti restrictions." The government should not stop me from doing anything! (Unless it is someone else doing it to me)

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[Zironic]

I agree, I have no plans that involves paying for sex, but I think the prostitution laws are counter productive.

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[Brain Damaged Bogan]

uhh... isn't the whole point of prostitution getting someone else to do it to you?

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[justinlee37]

Agreed. If we legalized prostitution, the "sex service" industry would become safer in terms of health risks, and it would ALSO reduce unemployment! It's win/win for everybody!

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Seems to be more anti-stupid-pointless-counter-effective-morality-police-legislation than pro-prostitution.

I'm equally both. I fully support prostitution for a number of reasons - what other job is there that is so purely about making another person happy? I'm also in favor of legalized prostitution in 3rd world countries. Which is worse - slaving away in a sweat shop 14 hours a day 6 or 7 days a week, or fucking some rich local or foreigner once or twice a week and keeping the remaining 80 hours each week for yourself and your family?

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[CDMA_Demo]

(Unless it is someone else doing it to me)

Will You Please Think of The Kids!

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[Junior J. Junior III]

I'm anti-prostitution, and I'll tell you why:

At some point, some pointy-haired boss type will realize that, if prostitution is legal, that means they can add sexual services to whatever job description they want.

After that sucking corporate cock won't just be a metaphor for hating your shitty job, it'll be the literal truth.

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[evilviper]

The government should not stop me from doing anything! (Unless it is someone else doing it to me)

Under-age prostitutes for everybody!

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[JesseMcDonald]

The government should not stop me from doing anything! (Unless it is someone else doing it to me)

A better way to word that would be "all actions which harm others (against their will) should be illegal; nothing else should be." Also known as the Non-Aggression Principle. (*Some definitions apply.)

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And here we have a winner.

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds good to me! I agree with you completely. While we are at it, can we also have the government stop forcing me to participate in their retirement plan? I've already got one, thanks. And I'd also like government to never force me to participate in their health care plan, too.

And by not participating, I mean I will not take benefits if they stop taxing me for it. It is a fair trade, in my book.

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[Anonymous Coward]

The government is not competent to tell me who I may have sex with, or for what reasons. That's a point missed by the "license it" crowd--the government has no competence to license sex, either. Possibly they have the right to license someone who claims to be a sexual educator or who claims mental or physical health benefits for their services.

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[Mashiki]

Under-age prostitutes for everybody!

Wheel of morality turn, turn, turn. Tell us the lesson that we should learn.

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[Anonymous Coward]

agreed.

I am glad to say that I have never paid for sex, and never will. It's just pathetic to pay for it, just lower your freakin standards.

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[bmajik]

While i am onboard with legalized prostitution from a libertarian perspective, your joke isn't as funny as it sounds. There was a story of a woman in germany who went to the unemployment office and was referred to several pimps, essentially.

No idea if it is a true story or not. It has all the makings of a snopes special, but it does bear some consideration: what are the other legal effects of widespread legalized prostitution?

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[Junior J. Junior III]

Shit, I got modded funny? I had no idea. I'm dead serious about that!

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[maxume]

You read that wrong. There is a (against their will) implied in there.

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[evilviper]

I'm slightly embarrassed to have gotten that reference... Good show.

Re:I'm kind of suprised ...

[Brain Damaged Bogan]

You read that wrong. There is a (humour) implied in there.

Analogy to copyright?

[tepples]

What is wrong with the whole damned thing is this: prostitution is illegal, even though there are no victims for this crime, and I don't care what you think about how there is illegal activity all through the sex industry, it would not be nearly as prevalent if it were a legal business for which folk could lose their license if they were doing bad things.

Likewise: What is wrong with the whole damned thing is this: commercial infringement of copyright in orphaned works is illegal, even though there are no victims for this crime, and I don't care what you think about how there is illegal activity all through the publishing industry, it would not be nearly as prevalent if it were a legal business for which folk could lose their license if they were doing bad things.

Re:Analogy to copyright?

[zappepcs]

somehow, your post made me think of someone trying to patent the vagina... interesting thought, and I'm sure patent examiners might be for it... still, I don't get the relationship here.

Re:Analogy to copyright?

[tepples]

still, I don't get the relationship here.

I was drawing an analogy between the prohibition of fake sex for hire and the prohibitions resulting from copyright in works that have no recognized owner. Regular readers of Slashdot's YRO section might be more familiar with the latter. Would I have had better luck with a car analogy?

Re:Analogy to copyright?

[Pig Hogger]

somehow, your post made me think of someone trying to patent the vagina...

Fortunaly, gays are getting off easily there, because no one would be able to patent the asshole: there is plenty of prior art!!!

Re:Analogy to copyright?

[Captain Splendid]

Would I have had better luck with a car analogy?

Yes. What you did was like slowing down the car with the handbrake instead of downshifting.

Re:Analogy to copyright?

[Profane MuthaFucka]

Fortunaly, gays are getting off easily there

uh Huh huh. Look what you wrote.

Re:Analogy to copyright?

[EllisDees]

Exactly who would come after you for infringing the copyright of a work of unknown origin?

Re:Analogy to copyright?

[tepples]

Exactly who would come after you for infringing the copyright of a work of unknown origin?

The "no plaintiff, no judge" rule hasn't applied since national legislatures began to criminalize the commercial infringement of copyright. The Federal Bureau of Investigation or foreign counterparts can always prosecute criminal copyright infringement.

Re:Analogy to copyright?

[EllisDees]

Ok, I suppose it is possible, but would the FBI really spend time going after someone distributing copyright works if nobody is complaining about it?

Bummer

[xs650]

There goes my social life.

MOD PARENT UP!

[religious freak]

Funniest crap on the Internet I've read in a long time!

Re:MOD PARENT UP!

[Anonymous Coward]

TER = http://www.theeroticreview.com/ ... good provider review site, good way to minimize LE risk and have a good idea what to expect for sorting, ranking, and choosing

BD = http://www.bigdoggie.net/ ... another review site (though I really don't use it that much)

The nice thing about TER is that if you post a review you get a certain number of free days premium access (BD might do the same, not sure)

And the wife doesn't know ...

Re:"I hope they work on cleaning the weird spammer

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd think these guys are allergic to showers...

Well, I doubt they're allergic to golden showers. :-)

Craigslist is slowly losing it's merit.

[Joe Snipe]

About two weeks ago they decided to "curb spammers" by charging $25 to list a help wanted ad. When questioned, they offer up a FAQ which states that "We've charged for jobs in San Francisco for 10 years, no destruction so far."
So one of the most expensive cities in the union is the base for comparison?

I'm seeing a trend and I'm not liking it.

Re:Craigslist is slowly losing it's merit.

[R2.0]

Yeah, how dare Craigslist charge money! I mean, it's not like one of the most visited sites in the world has bandwidth bills. Or employees. Or legal fees. Or offices.

Greedy bastards.

Re:Craigslist is slowly losing it's merit.

[Repossessed]

Given the number of crap postings that have no details about the job requirements, *good*, I'm sick of talking to some idiot who has no idea what the job he's representing is and posted the ad because he gets payed per referral, instead of actually wanted a specific set of skills.

Re:Craigslist is slowly losing it's merit.

[Joe Snipe]

It might work in the Tech or professional sector, but it doesn't fly for lower class jobs or jobs in the restuarant/hospitality field, and for these groups craigslist was a real boon.

I'm sorry you had problems finding a job and got suckered into referral posts and the like, but separating the wheat from the chaff is expected when you have an unfiltered data set. Now that they have chosen to filter, the true value of the sight is diminished, as is it's uniqueness.

Re:Craigslist is slowly losing it's merit.

[Joe Snipe]

Don't be silly, there are plenty of ways they could increase revenue if that was the goal. It's not. Read the FAQ I posted above, this is solely a measure taken to curb spam. Hell read the summary above, their donating their hooker fees to charity. Not one iota I mentioned was referring to craigslists lust for money, and I don't know where you came to that conclusion at all.

MOD PARENT UP!

[religious freak]

I mean if you think looking for whores is informative. I don't see anything wrong with it, I just don't think my wife would appreciate me partaking in it. Plus I can't say it's too appealing to me because I get as much as I want - but if someone wants to go for it, more power to ya!

Though I'm not sure what TER and BD are...

Big Deal

[teddaman]

Go to Walgreens and buy a pre-paid Visa card. While you're there, grab a Crack Phone for $20 and post your ad from an anon email account. Profit!

Better a mule than anchovenist

[Anonymous Coward]

Slippery when wet isn't the best of grip, and what if the deeper the tunnel the shallower to your neck?

So it really becomes a 'fun tax'

[jmcwork]

The providers will just add the 'advertising fee' to their prices. So the average price will go from $250 to $275. Er, I mean it will go from whatever they charge now to that plus $25. (Damn, now I have to rework my budget!)

"No victims"

[PCM2]

What is wrong with the whole damned thing is this: prostitution is illegal, even though there are no victims for this crime

Let's get over this idea that there are "no victims" in the crime of prostitution. The victims are the prostitutes. Yes, some people do willingly trade sex for money. A great, great many do not. Prostitutes are preyed upon daily by pimps, johns, drug dealers, human traffickers, and sadists. If we decriminalized the business of prostitution, some of this would disappear but some of it would not. Amsterdam, which has legalized prostitution, has recently recognized the influence of international organized crime on its red light district.

Deregulating immorality does NOT work.

Re:"No victims"

[Fulcrum of Evil]

pop quiz: does making it illegal make prostitution more or less susceptible to criminal influence?

Re:"No victims"

[glwtta]

If we decriminalized the business of prostitution, some of this would disappear but some of it would not.

So, decriminalization would lead to improvements, but it's not perfect, so the status quo is better? Doesn't make much sense.

That said, I'm no expert here, since everything I know about prostitution I learned by watching that show where Billy Piper takes her kit off a lot. On mute.

Re:"No victims"

[Anonymous Coward]

Pffff, making it illegal makes it less susceptible to criminal influence, just like booze.

Re:"No victims"

[marxmarv]

Prostitutes are preyed upon precisely because the arbitrarily illegal status of their work excludes them from meaningful police protection.

Re:"No victims"

[Anonymous Coward]

The thing is, alcohol is a staple of the entire world. While all may not agree with how it's used, almost everyone agrees it has a place.

Prostitution on the other hand is completely different. There is no way to go back in time and suddenly make it part of society and acceptable. Even in certain past times when it was "acceptable" it was almost entirely in societies and were on the verge of failing with their eventual downfall not fall behind.

Re:"No victims"

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Prostitution on the other hand is completely different. There is no way to go back in time and suddenly make it part of society and acceptable. Even in certain past times when it was "acceptable" it was almost entirely in societies and were on the verge of failing with their eventual downfall not fall behind.

Lol. Shows what you know. Prostitution is legal in most of Europe as well as Canada.

It's not called the world's oldest profession as a joke.

Re:"No victims"

[EvolutionsPeak]

Prostitution is the willing exchange of money for sex. When prostitutes are victimized by pimps, johns, drug dealers, etc., it is not because they are engaging in the act of prostitution with those people. The crime they are victim to may be abuse, assault, kidnapping, or whatever else, but it is not prostitution. You are implying that by making prostitution a crime, you are protecting prostitutes. That is clearly absurd. The way to protect prostitutes is to bring justice against those who harm them.

Re:"No victims"

[BathTub]

Why is paying for sex immoral?

Re:"No victims"

[JesseMcDonald]

there are no victims for this crime

Let's get over this idea that there are "no victims" in the crime of prostitution.

(Emphasis mine.)

What you say is true, but what the GP says is also true. The act of prostitution itself harms no one but the one choosing to commit it, and thus fits the definition of a victimless crime perfectly. The prostitute may in fact be a victim of other crimes, and there may exist victims of separate crimes associated with (but not caused by) prostitution, but it is nonetheless a crime for which there are no victims.

Re:"No victims"

[evilviper]

does making it illegal make prostitution more or less susceptible to criminal influence?

Even if per-capita criminal activity goes down, the sheer increase in the number of prostitutes is very likely to more than counter-act that effect.

IMHO, a supply of easy money is unhealthy for anybody, and professions where such success is very short-term, quickly leads to large numbers of poor people, desperate to maintain their expensive habits (and I don't *just* mean drugs).

Re:"No victims"

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand your line of thought and wish to take it to its logical conclusion (along with subscribing to your newsletter).

If many people related to, or performing an activity are victimised, the act must be made illegal and no legal method for the act should exist.

Can you think of anything this applies to other than prostitution? I can!

  - Downloading! I know, there's plenty of legal stuff out there. But you also know (straight from the horse's mouth!) 95% of all torrents are for copyright infringing material. I propose we begin by shutting down the Pirate Bay, and end with your internet connection (Studies also prove you're a pirate if you have internet, and if you don't, you probably are anyways. And you probably steal purses and cable TV.).

  - Progress! How many times does mother nature have to bleed before mankind has finished raping her? We'll start with just about every factory in China and end with wherever you work (Studies prove your work bought stuff that was made in a factory that raped the environment!)

  - Speeding! So many people get killed through this action alone. Lets start by banning the Indy 500 and end with your local Marathon.

  - Drugs! I'm sure you agree that the victims in a drug deal are the users. We'll start with the Columbian captaining his yacht(s) and end with the pharmacy down the street from you .

  - Law Enforcement! How many times do we have to hear of proven tales of brutality caused by these people. We'll start with the internment camps at Guantanamo Bay and end with whoever is hanging out at your local Dunkin' Donuts.

  - Rule by others. You've seen plenty of times where those you may have even voted for have done things that have seriously harmed many, many, many people. You know for yourself we need to start with the President and end with the Mayor of your town/city/hamlet.

Although, I do see a problem that I hope you have an answer to: I'm not totally certain how to stop others from getting themselves into situation where they can be hurt without the rule of law, and that makes me someone who needs to be made illegal! So help me out: Straight razor or noose, which is best?

Re:"No victims"

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong! The act of prostitution IS a victimless crime. All of the reasons you cited (abuse from pimps/johns/drug dealers, human trade, etc.) happen after the fact. Someone trading money for sex is not going to directly cause the creation of drug dealers or sadists. There are also plenty of women out there (mostly escorts), who work for themselves and don't deal with pimps or johns.

While were on the subject, why don't we take a step back and reconsider this stereotypical view you have on prostitutes. Its quite obvious that when you think of prostitutes you are picturing the classic Hollywood crackwhore, on the side of the street. I would however like to turn your attention to the fact that millions of people each day are involved in elaborate prostitution schemes. When a guy takes a girl out for a movie and dinner, and then brings her home and has sex; is that not prostitution? The guy has traded not only money, but time as well, for sex.

If your problem is with the abuse that prositutes might incur from working in shady areas, then make use of the current laws on the book to stop it. Do not criminalize something that has no victim. Now if you are simply offended and aghast at the idea that people might actually want to have sex with complete strangers; then take your archaic puritan ideals home with you, do not force them on the rest of us.

Re:"No victims"

[Spasemunki]

Keeping prostitution illegal makes it easier and more likely that prostitutes will be victimized. Currently, prostitutes must rely on pimps for a number of things. They ensure that clients pay (because prostitutes can't make use of the civil legal system to settle bills), they may protect prostitutes from violent clients (because prostitutes can't go to the cops), etc. Who is going to work for an abusive pimp who takes an arbitrary cut from their wages if there are legal, regulated options? The question is not whether legalizing prostitution would eliminate all of its ills, but whether it would improve the situation and reduce the harm done to society. Deregulating immorality may not work, but historically failed prohibition policies seem to create more harm than their alternative.

Re:"No victims"

[Hordeking]

Pffff, making it illegal makes it less susceptible to criminal influence, just like booze.

Kind of like drugs, right?

Re:"No victims"

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, dont forget that thing in germany where they were going to require a lady to work as a prostitute or lose her unemployment benefits (she was looking for any job but that one)

Re:"No victims"

[sukotto]

Prostitution is legal in most of Europe as well as Canada.

Please back that up with some documentation.

Re:"No victims"

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Prostitution is legal in most of Europe as well as Canada.

Please back that up with some documentation.

Come on dude, about a million web pages back it up in one way or another. But here's one that spells it out in simple black and white in the first few sentences.

Re:"No victims"

[ragethehotey]

Even if per-capita criminal activity goes down, the sheer increase in the number of prostitutes is very likely to more than counter-act that effect.

IMHO, a supply of easy money is unhealthy for anybody, and professions where such success is very short-term, quickly leads to large numbers of poor people, desperate to maintain their expensive habits (and I don't *just* mean drugs).

Except for the fact that if there was any increase in the number of prostitutes (because of it being legal), the average amount of money a prostitute is paid would go down an according amount, keeping both sides in check and resulting in no long term difference.

Supply, meet demand.

Re:"No victims"

[Anonymous Coward]

Paying too much for sex is immoral.

Re:"No victims"

[ciderVisor]

[Citation needed]

Re:"No victims"

[Eunuchswear]

So, the victims are the prostitutes. A defensible position. Who are the criminals? Who goes to jail?

Legalize prostitution. Criminalize the clients.

Re:"No victims"

[Eunuchswear]

Wow, what a reliable source:

Prostitution is LEGAL (with some restrictions that aren't that bad) in Canada, most all of Europe including England, France, Wales, Denmark, etc.

Let's put England and Wales as two countries, even though they have the same law.

Let's claim the legal harassment of prostitutes and clients is "not all that bad". (UK curb crawling laws, French "raccolage passif", (i.e. it's a crime to dress sexy in a public place), UK and French laws against brothels (i.e. it's a crime to own or run an establishment where more than one prostitute works)...)

The important European country "etc" is a nice touch.

Re:"No victims"

[PCM2]

Who is going to work for an abusive pimp who takes an arbitrary cut from their wages if there are legal, regulated options?

The "arbitrary cut" that most pimps take out of the earnings of the prostitutes who work for them is 100 percent. That's right, your typical streetwalker makes nothing, zero, zip. The pimp "takes care of the money for her," because she's "no good with money." If you don't believe me, ask a pimp. Read Iceberg Slim. Or, the Hughes Brothers made a documentary called American Pimp, which wasn't very good overall, but was pretty clear on this point.

So, while I understand what you're getting at, I'll ask a counter-question: Who is going to work for an abusive pimp, even if there is no legal, regulated option, when the pimp is going to take all their money? That's not a business. That's just being, uh ... victimized, maybe?

You ask who would work for an abusive pimp if there were any other options. Let's get past this idea that prostitutes work as prostitutes completely by choice, and throw the question out there as-is. Who would work for an abusive pimp if there were any other options? Yet it happens all the time. It happens because this is the nature of the abuse.

Women who work in a sex industry that caters 99.9 percent to the basest desires of men stand a very high chance of being abused or victimized -- if not physically, then emotionally, financially, etc. This is going to be true whether society formally condones prostitution or not. The act of seeking sexual gratification without concern for your partner is an asocial act, and as such it should be (at minimum) monitored carefully.

Re:"No victims"

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Let's put England and Wales as two countries, even though they have the same law.
The important European country "etc" is a nice touch.

Are you seriously trying to have a pissing contest over semantics?
Just what do you hope to prove by doing so? All I see is a guy waving around a teeny-tiny internet penis.

Prostitution is legal in almost every european country - that doesn't mean pimping and brothels are, but then again, alcohol consumption is legal in every european country and yet public intoxication, often no more than simply drinking in a public park, is not. That there are limits on the extremes does not negate the fact that the core practice - money for sex - is legal.

Re:"No victims"

[Eunuchswear]

Prostitution may be legal in "most" of Europe, but everywhere prostitutes are being thrown in jail. Some legality.

Maybe it's 'cos I'm a CS type of guy, but I can't write "semantics" off as easily as some people.

Re:"No victims"

[PCM2]

pop quiz: does making it illegal make prostitution more or less susceptible to criminal influence?

Trick question. If you stop calling the people participating in the act "criminals," then the criminal influence disappears. The behavior does not, however. The question is whether it is healthy for society to condone the behaviors associated with the prostitution industry.

Living in San Francisco, I have seen firsthand what happens when you condone prostitution. Our former district attorney, Terrence Hallinan, basically made it known that prostitution offenses would not get prosecuted in the City of San Francisco a few years back. The result was totally predictable. The corner of 17th and Capp, which previously had been a known location for crack whores, gradually became a full-on outdoor brothel. Pimps drove in vans full of hookers from Richmond and Oakland and had them work the corners. Where once you had filthy, toothless women in sweatpants, now you had women in plastic hot pants and six inch heels, ducking behind cars when the police rolled by. Three blocks over on 20th Street, pimps would beat up prostitutes out in front of the steps of my friend's house, you'd have men cruising around the neighborhood accosting women alone on the street, and hookers would be using drugs in people's doorways.

So when you folks talk about victimless prostitution and legalizing it, please be a little more specific. Cuz just not calling the people criminals anymore ain't going to work.

Downtown in San Francisco, you have countless Asian massage parlors, many of which are staffed by women who have been trafficked from mainland China on promises of good jobs, etc. Once they get here they are basically held hostage, forced to "work off their travel expenses" -- which will never be worked off, because their debts to their kidnappers mysteriously keep growing. Across town, in the sleepy avenues of the Sunset District, there are whole houses full of these women. These women are not choosing to work for their pimps for protection, or because they can't make an honest living as prostitutes any other way. They are victims of international crime rings who have friends and family thousands of miles away, some of which will never see them again.

I'm sorry, but you Slashdotters are talking like typical men. All you want to see is the hot chick who's willing to have sex with you. The truth is that prostitution has destroyed the lives of thousands of women. The happy-go-lucky, sex-positive female who chose the sex industry as a fun, hot way to make a living is the minority. The majority are people who are living on the margins of life, many of whom do not know how to get out and return to normalcy. If you legalize prostitution itself, the people who prey on these women will only marginalize them some other way -- by giving them a drug habit, for example, or through emotional and physical abuse.

Oh, and by the way -- that district attorney I mentioned? Know what he's doing now? He's counsel for the Mitchell Bros. O'Farrell Theatre, which is widely acknowledged as being essentially a legalized brothel. Legalized, in the sense that the cops turn a blind eye to it. You can get pretty much whatever you want at the Mitchell Bros. if you have enough money. And that's the key to it -- these are the types of people who are going to push to bring more vice into communities, because they want the money that it will bring. They don't give a damn about the lives that are being ruined in the streets and behind closed doors, so long as they can get a steady stream of coeds to be strippers-turned-hookers in their clubs.

To me, this is a part of our society to be ashamed of -- not condoned.

Re:"No victims"

[bytesex]

That's an urban myth, invented by the Sun.

Re:"No victims"

[Ed Avis]

Your example is not of a case where prostitution was legalized, but of a case where it remained illegal but the police abdicated their responsibility to enforce the law. That is quite different.

If it were legal, prostitutes wouldn't need to be on the streets at all. They could set up premises, pay taxes, and be entitled to police protection just the same as any legitimate business. They wouldn't need pimps or to hide when a police car drove by.

Again, who is regulating these massage parlours? An ordinary business like a grocery store or a car parts factory cannot traffic people from China and keep them hostage. It would be difficult to explain to the tax authorities, health and safety inspections, the unions and all the rest of the framework society has developed to keep companies behaving responsibly. If nothing else, the customers would simply tell the police if they spotted something suspicious. So why doesn't it happen in San Francisco? Isn't it because these places are illegal and nobody who goes there wants the police to know about it? If prostitution were fully legalized then seedy backstreet massage parlours would soon be driven out of business by legitimate, clean, tax-paying and safe sex businesses. After all, which would you rather visit?

I fully agree that just turning a blind eye to breaking the law is not the right answer. If prostitution is illegal then that needs to be enforced vigorously, because often habitual lawbreaking in one area leads on to criminality elsewhere. So 'condoning prostitution' while keeping it legal is a bad idea; but legalizing prostitution is quite different.

Re:"No victims"

[PCM2]

Legalize prostitution. Criminalize the clients.

It amounts to the same thing. In fact, if you criminalize being a john, prostitutes will have more reason to avoid the police, because they need to attract johns to make money. Besides, contrary to popular belief, hauling in a load full of hookers is not exactly a prize collar for your average beat cop. Prostitutes are usually more valuable as informers for other crimes, such as drug trafficking or gang activity. Plus, many streetwalkers are all too happy to get hauled in every once in a while -- at least they get a bed and a free meal, and it sure beats getting the crap beaten out of them for not having made enough money.

Re:"No victims"

[PCM2]

I can see that point of view, but unfortunately condoning it is exactly the approach being pushed in San Francisco. We just defeated a proposition that would not legalize prostitution, but instead would forbid the police department from responding to any calls about prostitution. Got that? The laws against prostitution would not change, but if I called the cops and said there were hookers working in my front yard they would not be permitted to act on that call. We just voted on this proposition on November 4. It failed by only 16 percentage points, largely because of strong advocacy by sex industry interests.

Re:"No victims"

[Eunuchswear]

It amounts to the same thing.

Uh, no it doesn't? It may also have perverse effects, but not the same ones.

In fact, if you criminalize being a john, prostitutes will have more reason to avoid the police, because they need to attract johns to make money.

How do they make money in prison?

Prostitutes are usually more valuable as informers for other crimes, such as drug trafficking or gang activity.

So your cool with the idea of forcing people to risk their lives by threatening them with jail? Like I said, criminalize the johns. They probably know more about crime than the pro's.

Re:"No victims"

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Prostitution may be legal in "most" of Europe, but everywhere prostitutes are being thrown in jail. Some legality.

Maybe it's 'cos I'm a CS type of guy, but I can't write "semantics" off as easily as some people.

Utter failure to comprehend the alcohol analogy. You apparently have just as much problem with alcohol drinks being thrown in jail too.

Re:"No victims"

[mdwh2]

Let's get over this idea that there are "no victims" in the crime of prostitution. The victims are the prostitutes. Yes, some people do willingly trade sex for money. A great, great many do not.

You might as well say "The victims are women" - after all, whilst some people willingly have sex, many women are raped. Does this mean it makes sense to say that "There are victims in the act of sex"? That it's okay to demonise or even criminalise sex as a whole? Of course not - it's rape that's wrong.

So let's say that there are victims in rape, sex slavery and so on, and stop trying to conflate the issue with consensual acts.

The OP is spot on - the victims you claim are victims of the crime of rape and sex slavery, not victims of buying sex. Consider, even if sex slaves were used for free, it would obviously still be wrong!

Re:"No victims"

[jez9999]

What show is that? Doctor Who?

Re:"No victims"

[mdwh2]

Trick question. If you stop calling the people participating in the act "criminals," then the criminal influence disappears. The behavior does not, however.

Not at all - the criminal behaviour referred to is rape and sex slavery, and that would still be criminal. So the question of whether people would still participate in criminal behaviour if prostitution was legal is fair, because no one is claiming that rape should be legalised(!)

Now if you're now switching the debate to saying that prostitution is bad even if it's legal, then you should say so - without conflating the issue with acts that would still be illegal, like rape, as you did in your earlier post.

Cuz just not calling the people criminals anymore ain't going to work.

You are the one doing the labelling trick - labelling them as "criminals", and then concluding that it's criminal behaviour.

I'm sorry, but you Slashdotters are talking like typical men.

Ah yes, what a great argument. You're the one who wants to tell women what they are allowed to do - you're the typical man. Perhaps you should ask people who work in that industry what they want, rather than telling them?

The happy-go-lucky, sex-positive female who chose the sex industry as a fun, hot way to make a living is the minority.

Firstly, your evidence? Secondly, that doesn't justify criminalising innocent people, when the illegal things would still be illegal.

Re:"No victims"

[sorak]

Ok, so the pimps would become managers, the Johns would become customers, and the drug dealers would remain drug dealers.

But, what about human trafficking? Do honestly believe that women are being kidnapped from Nevada brothels and sold into slavery? Do you have any evidence?

As for sadism, well, if you walk into Wal-Mart and just start destroying things, what do you think would happen? There is no guarantee that nobody is going to run on a crazed rampage through Wal-Mart tomorrow, but the legitimacy of the business ensures that anyone who does such things is more likely to get arrested, and banned from the store.

As for deregulating immorality, welcome to America! Morality should have never been regulated in the first place. The attempt to do so has only strengthened organized crime and underground subcultures.

Re:"No victims"

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh? I heard that for a fee of GBP 80 (for one hour), the worker gets 40 plus tips and the establishment 40. I'm not sure where the taxes/national insurance get deducted from though. That compares favourably to most IT jobs, and sure beats cleaners wages (GBP 10 per hour). That's London though, other countries may vary.

Re:"No victims"

[smooth wombat]

Posting really late to this discussion but as if to add to the discussion, CNN has this article which covers both sides of the argument.

I guess it's one perspective. In the case of the first woman, her clients were prescreened so the chance of her having a problem was significantly minimized. Not so with the latter woman.

Re:"No victims"

[gillbates]

Let's not forget that once prostitution becomes a legal profession, it will be considered 'work' from the perspective of unemployment agencies. How long will it be before turning down a job as a prostitute means invalidating one's eligibility for unemployment benefits?

Re:"No victims"

[Slashdot Parent]

Let's not forget that once prostitution becomes a legal profession, it will be considered 'work' from the perspective of unemployment agencies.

This is a silly argument. Exotic dancing is already legal. Do you see women being forced to become strippers or lose unemployment benefits?

I didn't think so.

Re:"No victims"

[kadehje]

Again, who is regulating these massage parlours? An ordinary business like a grocery store or a car parts factory cannot traffic people from China and keep them hostage. It would be difficult to explain to the tax authorities, health and safety inspections, the unions and all the rest of the framework society has developed to keep companies behaving responsibly.

In the U.S., it's same people that regulate the construction and agriculture industry, as well as retailers like Wal-Mart and various other businesses. While farmers, construction companies and stores do not usually import people illegally, they certainly often take full advantage of illegals that have entered on their own. Unhappy with what you're getting "under the table" and your working hours and conditions for putting up drywall, harvesting crops, or stocking shelves? Your boss is very willing to refer you to INS for these issues if you complain publicly or jump ship to a competitor. In the latter case, they'd be able to hit both your new employer and the employee for immgration issues by phoning in an anonymous tip.

I don't whether these Chinese women are smuggled in or sneak themselves into the U.S., but in either case I would hazard to guess that they're not exactly on a level playing field in terms of employment once they're here.

Re:"No victims"

[Anonymous Coward]

Three blocks over on 20th Street, pimps would beat up prostitutes out in front of the steps of my friend's house, you'd have men cruising around the neighborhood accosting women alone on the street, and hookers would be using drugs in people's doorways.

I don't think anyone is even suggesting that assault and battery, or trespassing, be legalized.

Once they get here they are basically held hostage, forced to "work off their travel expenses"

Nor is anyone advocating legalization of kidnapping or slavery.

I'm sorry, but you Slashdotters are talking like typical men. All you want to see is the hot chick who's willing to have sex with you.

*sigh* No. All I want is to set a precedent that the government exists to protect our freedom, not take it away, and isn't empowered to otherwise shape peoples' lives, especially at such a personal level as our bodies. If we can legalize prostitution, then we can also end the drug war. We can end the idea of our government mandating profanity filters on the internet, before we start copying the idea from other countries. And all that is really just the tip of the iceberg.

There are so many ways that a person can make a decision that is harmful to themselves. If we outlawed them all, we'd have to repeal the first amendment.

Liberty is a big deal, and it kind of pisses me off when people cheapen it by saying it's mere horniness or a desire to get high on pot or whatever. It's all those things but also way, way more -- it's everything any person might want, short of infringing someone else's rights.

Re:"No victims"

[pitchpipe]

The victims are the prostitutes.

Weird that the victim comes out richer. I would argue that if anybody is the victim, it is the john. Let's analyze this:

1. Two strangers come together for sex.
2. One leaves with more money, the other with less.

Wouldn't you think if there was a victim, it would be the person who participated in exactly the same act, but came out with less money? The john is the victim of his sex drive.

Re:"No victims"

[Anonymous Coward]

What show is that? Doctor Who?

Secret Diary of a Call Girl

Re:"No victims"

[maxume]

Your injecting the assumption that all johns would automatically be in prison indicates that you aren't interested in a serious conversation.

Re:"No victims"

[Nevyn]

Let's get over this idea that there are "no victims" in the crime of prostitution.

Selling things is legal, sex is legal, but if we combine the two it should be illegal/immoral/create-victims.

The victims are the prostitutes. [...] Prostitutes are preyed upon daily by pimps, johns, drug dealers, human traffickers, and sadists.

Sure, and I'm "preyed" upon daily by the bank that owns my mortgage, my boss, the people I buy food from ... people I buy NYSE shares from, and those who I sell it too. Bonus for me, all of those things are legal entities ... human traffickers, not so much.

Deregulating immorality does NOT work.

So you don't eat swine, or allow your wife to speak/vote/show-her-face ... right? Or maybe you just mean the made up morality of your particular religion is what we should all follow? -- feel free to FOAD.

Re:"No victims"

[Spasemunki]

I understand your point- it is a mistake to take a sanitized view of prostitution as it currently exists. People are tricked, manipulated and forced into prostitution, and the continuing abuse keeps them in place. That sucks, and it's unlikely that even the best legalization scheme could eliminate all of that. But I think that there's a harm management issue here: how do we minimize or reduce the harm that flows from the sex trade, even if we can't eliminate it entirely?

You mention that the sex trade should be monitored carefully, and I agree. However, I think that the way to ensure the maximum possible monitoring is to make the trade legal. There's a disincentive right now for sex trade workers to cooperate with police or other possible sources of monitoring because they are always at risk for arrest or other harassment. I think at the very least that legalizing prostitution would not result in more abuse of the type you are describing, could likely result in less, and would definitely have an improved outcome in terms of public health, the safety of at least a subset of people in the sex trade, the use of police resources, and tax revenue. That to me is a big enough gain that it has to be seriously considered, even if we're uncomfortable with the idea of being seen as condoning an activity that may hide abuses.

Re:"No victims"

[evilviper]

The illegality of prostitution does a significant amount to suppress both supply, and demand. Hence, larger numbers of prostitutes will be servicing a larger number of customers/johns.

Re:"No victims"

[rhyder128k]

It's an urban myth that was http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp">debunked long ago.

Re:"No victims"

[unlametheweak]

Deregulating immorality does NOT work.

Prostitution has nothing to do with immorality.

Like the banking industry though, regulating and legalizing prostitution is helpful (like in Nevada). What is obvious is that criminalizing prostitution does not work; it only drives the business underground and makes victims of innocent people.

Re:"No victims"

[unlametheweak]

Your examples seem to be well chosen. I've met prostitutes who do make lots of money. In this case you're not even referring to prostitution but to the act of pimping and more specifically human slavery. Taking advantage of people is well known in the garment industry as well. It would be far better to make the garment industry illegal, for then people would not have any moral scruples and excuses for being naked.

Your last paragraph shows where your objectivity and honesty (and morality, or lack-there-of) lie:

Women who work in a sex industry that caters 99.9 percent to the basest desires of men stand a very high chance of being abused or victimized -- if not physically, then emotionally, financially, etc. This is going to be true whether society formally condones prostitution or not. The act of seeking sexual gratification without concern for your partner is an asocial act, and as such it should be (at minimum) monitored carefully.

Personal ads

[bluefoxlucid]

There's no spammers on the "personals," it's the "casual" (mostly w4m tagged) that are spam.

Re:Personal ads

[kobaz]

No spammers on the personals? Really? Have you looked lately? Or even posted an ad?

I've had some pretty decent results on craigslist. Lately it's all spam. Try posting a regular ad in any of the personals sections. Proceed to wait about 24 hours, and then watch the spam roll in. It's all dating site spam in the form of "I can't give my number out, so visit my site at getahotdate.com"

The best luck I've had on craigslist was when I bought a car ski rack from a girl who posted a for sale ad... now we're dating.

Re:Personal ads

[bluefoxlucid]

oh, yeah, that happens. I mean cas is full of men, gay men, and sexy-asian-spam-bot-w4m-join-my-dating-site-craigslistsex.tk ads; there's real women posting (I've talked to a couple, didn't hook up though), but they're lost amid the noise in cas-w4m. In "regular" LTR, the actual posts are mostly real; the replies are mostly spam.

Re:Personal ads

[Alsee]

I bought a car ski rack from a girl who posted a for sale ad... now we're dating.

She had a great rack.

-

Re:Niggers Agree With State AGs to Curb "Spear Chu

[jack2000]

I c wut u did thar. A forcedmeme ? On the intertube? Inconceivable!

Erotic services going to cost money to post?

[DaveV1.0]

I see a business opportunity.

And this confirms identity how?

[Anonymous Coward]

You could just get a Mastercard/American Express/Visa gift card and register it with a phony name and address. It's not like the credit card companies verify the registration info you give them for a gift card...

In related news ...

[PPH]

...CraigsList will be sending their representatives wearing big floppy hats, full length fur coats and numerous gold chains around to collect their fee from erotic service workers.

Euphemism

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course they're not going to do anything about the women who post that they're looking for a "generous gentleman" or a "sugar daddy". This type of arrangement is only slightly less blatant, yet considered OK.

Amen to cleaning up the other sections

[NinthAgendaDotCom]

I like the sentiment about cleaning up the regular personals. Craigslist is still good for selling things, but the personals section is a joke. The signal to noise ratio is much lower than it used to be, and I think that's mostly due to spammers.

Now if only they can get rid of get rich schemes

[Skapare]

... so we can easily see when a real job ever gets posted.

This sucks

[BlueQuark]

... Now how in the world am I going to get a date!

Last girl I dated from craigslist told me to drink a lot of pineapple juice...
and bring plenty of roses. :-D

Now where will I go?

[Anonymous Coward]

So now where will I go to hire a show which has a a boatload of midgets and they're in command, of a full-grown woman on her knees and hands, got a long hard donkey and a farmgirl too and the braying's so dismaying when he starts to spoo?

TELL ME, WHERE WILL I GO FOR THIS NOW!?!?!?

Re:"I hope they work on cleaning the weird spammer

[rleamon]

That is the most righteous link I've ever clicked through from /.

Dont remember where I heard this from...

[Anonymous Coward]

Coming from some one with a equestrian back ground...

It is illegal to jack off a horse for fun.
It is legal to get payed to jack off a horse.

It is legal to jack someone off for fun.
It is illegal to get payed to jack someone off.

Not so.

[Jane Q. Public]

In the few places where it is legal in the U.S., such as Nevada, the commercial operations show a very different side of the coin.

The workers tend to be happy, they make a good income, AIDS is simply unknown, and other diseases are extremely rare. They get regular tests and medical checkups. Nobody has to "see" anybody they don't want to. Beating the girls does not happen... nobody would work there, and the beater would go to jail. The owners and operators simply do not tolerate that kind of bullshit.

You can say that the vast majority are mistreated... but that same majority are doing it ILLEGALLY on the streets. If you honestly compare where it is legal and where it is not, the story is vastly different.

pre-paid credit cards

[NotQuiteReal]

Good enough to help elect a president, good enough to buy hooker ads.

Not much difference between the two (hookers and politicians, no offense).

Re:pre-paid credit cards

[Anonymous Coward]

I disagree. With a prostitute you get something for your money.

Re:pre-paid credit cards

[Alsee]

I disagree. With a prostitute you get something for your money.

No, both give you a thorough screwing for your money.

-

See the SF Chronicle story

[Anonymous Coward]

The SF Chronicle has a good story on this.

They cited Maxine Doogan, of the Erotic Services Providers Union, as opposing this change. "They always end up further pushing into poverty the class of workers who don't have access to those tools of capitalism. Back to the streets - that's what's going to happen."

She has a point. Being a street hooker is a lousy job, but many call girls do OK. With online booking, hookers don't need a pimp. This matters. San Francisco also has the problem that the chain that owns most of the strip clubs pushes their dancers into prostitution, and on miserable financial terms. An online alternative is a win for the working girl.

Maxine herself (whom I've met) is a successful call girl and a competent political organizer. She is the brains behind Proposition K, to decriminalize prostitution in San Francisco. It lost on Tuesday, but it got 43% of the vote, and I think she'll get it passed next time. She's not looking for legalization. She doesn't want to be forced to work for a licensed brothel, as in Germany or Nevada. She wants independence for sex workers, as in New Zealand. Legalization along Nevada lines would legitimize the systematic exploitation of sex workers by clubs, particularly that strip club chain which dominates SF clubs.

Anyway, that's some of the political background.

theeroticsection.com weighs in

[Anonymous Coward]

From the site: theeroticsection.com

Craigslist has set a new president and added a level of respectability to its site. Today Craigslist has implemented a feature not to punish but to protect the females that post in their erotic section. Although lots of money will be generated from this change, this small contribution to there site is worth all they go through to insure the safety of its posters. Hats off to you crags.Â
See Craigslist Announcement:
http://blog.craigslist.org/2008/11/joint-statement-with-attorneys-general-ncmec/

The site Dontlookanyfurther.com does indeed still have a 100% free erotic ad section, and they will further continue to make steps to insure safety and make sure that no exploitation or trafficking is in existence on there site , and found in there ads. All suspected ads will be immediately erased by staff.
I offer this to many women or men who consider the sex business as the only way. Well its not. There are many ways to improve your situation and many organizations to assist you. If you are the subject of exploitation, please do yourself a favor, call the police and remove yourself from the company of those persons.

context?

[alanshot]

Why is it illegal to sell something you can GIVE AWAY for free? Thats what I want to know.

Difference between porn and prostitution

[coolsnowmen]

If the /. stereotype holds true, then someone on here knows more about porn than I do. so could you please explain why: Porn is legal, but prostitution (in most places) is not.
In porn, people are paid to have sex on film.
In prostitution someone, maybe both, are paid to have sex, maybe on film.

So is it ok to pay for sex as long as the money goes through a 3rd party (my 'manager' if you will)?

In the words of the late, great George Carlin...

[ZxCv]

"Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"

Re:"I hope they work on cleaning the weird spammer

[0100010001010011]

So I guess this would count as a 'gaming partner'?

They're Just Going to Move Here

[Greyfox]

"Hot young model into S&M, Watersports and Bondage seeks bi guys and girls for total dominance. No weirdos."

You know it's coming...

No, this is.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/cht/654534964.html

It got chilly in here all of a sudden. BRB, someone just entered through my back do@%

Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do

[ciderVisor]

Well said, man. You might find some interesting reading material in Peter McWilliams' book 'Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do'. The overview is available online:

http://www.mcwilliams.com/books/aint/101.htm

Huge benefit for some

[sesshomaru]

Eros.com, Bigdoggie.net, the Erotic Review, there are a lot of happy campers out there this day....

Church and State overlap forbids this

[Trip6]

There's still way too much crossover between church and state in this country to allow this to happen. Just look at the gay marraige ban votes and tell me they weren't religiously motivated.

Clearly an open source opportunity

[Registered Coward v2]

Here you have a commercial product that costs money, has no support nor warranty. However, you have a lot of people with the basic skills needed to provide the same product for free; either individually or as part of a community.

Fixing bugs will be a challenge but medicine is up to the task.

Why has no one thought of that before; oh yea - the sixties. I vaguely remember them. Never mind.

prostitution should be legal

[circletimessquare]

however, it should be highly regulated

the problem with a lot of the posts here is the identification that since its happening between consenting adults, no wrong is being done, no one is being harmed

this is absolutely false

the problem with prostitution is it increases disease rates and it increases slavery-like exploitation. this hurts everyone. to pretend that prostitution doesn't have this downside is just ignorance

the solution to this is not to make prosititution illegal, but the solution is ALSO not to just let it function free and clear of government involvement and regulation

you need:
1. frequent inspection by healthcare workers, std screening, and immunizations
2. legal aid
3. emotional and psychological counseling
3. overseeing by financial investigators
4. licensing

much as with the current crisis in the financial world, there exists a sort of idiotic group amongst us that thinks that no regulation is not only ok, but for some reason, the ideal. no, some things in life are not self-regulating, or are only self-regulating to a point, and then you need active effort by government institutions to keep things running smoothly. does anyone honestly believe otherwise?

so it goes with financial markets, so it goes with prostitution. to think otherwise is a sort of willful ignorance of the lessons of history, especially recent history

Re:prostitution should be legal

[cdrguru]

Sorry, but there isn't enough money in it for the level of oversight that you would like. That level of oversight would require either taxing the heck out of prostitution or subsidising the regulators from all taxpayers. Neither one is really going to fly.

There is another basic problem. If prostitution were an entprenural activity, that woudl be one thing. The problem is that it generally isn't. The "boss" almost always is explotative and turns it into a demeaning, eploitative job.

I don't know how to fix that. If you could get the explotation out of it, it could be an honorable profession fulfilling a real need. But the way it is conducted in the US today, it isn't and likely never can be.

Whu??

[bondjamesbond]

I had no idea there was an ERS section of Craigslist.

craigslist = pimp

[TheLastUser]

Isn't craigslist technically guilty of living off the avails of prostitution? I mean, they are taking money to market prostitutes right?

We Should Learn from the Rest of the World!

[Anonymous Coward]

I know I shouldn't be surprised by this latest Craig's List crackdown but I can't help but be appalled that the government is still trying to force their way into our bedrooms. Not only that, but in these times of economic downturn, imagine the tax windfall that the government would get out of legalizing prostitution. I was reading the other day that the Brazilians have not only legalized prostitution, but they have also set up a website with tips to help them run their businesses better: http://tinyurl.com/5hd2uw[/url] . It seems like everywhere that prostitution has been legalized, standards and safety have improved. If the government suddenly cracked down on people having oral sex with their wives then there would be a massive upheaval. The problem with prostitution is that the majority of us who support it, are two embarrassed to group together and make noise.

p.s I wanted to create an account so that I wouldn't appear as "anonymous coward" but the site kept timing out on me.

Loopholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Still ways to post on Erotic Services "anonymously"...Go to wal-mart and buy a prepaid credit card and have a metro-pcs phone activated under a fake name because they DO NOT ask for ID. Walla!!! Problem Solved :)

Re:Loopholes

[Anonymous Coward]

Walla!!!

Voila. It's French.

Walla is half of a city in Washington.

If you want an equivalent expression that doesn't require you to think about French spelling, try "Bob's your uncle".

Reading Between the lines...

[KozmoKramer]

I don't see much discussion of what the real implications are of these changes. The requirement to have phone numbers and credit card info used, means that the government would now like a way to get the information on the guys (johns) who are seeing these working ladies. I could understand if this was just about going after the underage prostitutes and the pimps that pimp them out, but it is not. It is about giving the agents who are not good enough to the "War on Terra" something to do. They will now be online busting johns. My advice to anyone seeing online hookers is to,

1) Purchase a disposable phone with CASH.
2) Purchase a laptop and use a public wi-fi to get your hooker info.
3) Check the ladies you are seeing against hooker review sites.

It is only a matter of time before this data mining exercise gets misused as well. Look at what happened to Elliot Spitzer. The same things is bound to happen to another public official sooner or later, now that they are attempting to mine data on phone records.

Lady Wank Champagne!

[Philip K Dickhead]

Don't FNORD forget the
candycoloredclown, candycoloredclown!

And so it begins: An Ass Tax!

[Anonymous Coward]

...this effectively is an Ass Tax!

Going a bit off topic, but ...

[PPH]

Which is why many of them look at prostitutes as if they were scabs crossing a picket line.

... this was just the topic of a heated conversation I had with a few friends. In spite of the union-like solidarity women like to adopt and The Rules they try to impose upon us, women are never going to form a cartel on nookie. I hate to invoke the names of pop psychologists and others like Dr. Phil or Tom Leykis. But I have to agree with them on this point: men compete for some goal, women compete against each other to achieve something.

I related my (long past) experiences picking women up in bars. I'd see a group of them sitting together at a table and, when I approached, I'd see them shake their heads "no". That was almost a guarantee that, although they'd turn me down at the table, if I hung around in the back, before the night was over, most if not all would slip me their phone numbers.

It may go against women's nature, but the moral of the story fr women is: figure out how to outdo your competition, not drag them down.
For men: use women's instinct to stab each other in the back and start a fight over you.