Craigslist Removes Its Controversial Adult Section

Cyrus writes "The online classified website Craigslist has removed its controversial Adult Services portion of its website. Technology blog TechCrunch was the first to report the section had been blacked out with the word 'Censored.'"

Comments

oh darn

[ravenspear]

now all the prostitutes will post in casual encounters

Re:oh darn

[odies]

And what's wrong with prostitution anyway? In the end all girls cost money, many times much more than if you just get to the point right away. I'm in Thailand currently and it's all very casual - you go to a bar or gogo bar (not clubs), girls come to talk with you and you order them a few drinks and maybe play a round of billiard and just have good time. If you want to, you can take them to the nearest hotel or take them to your hotel with you for a night. Girls don't mind and sometimes they might even end up dating with you (happens easily as western guys are considered a huge score for a girl here).

In the end its nothing else than again some religious or "I define what people should be allowed to do!" persons trying to limit the fun people can have. If the girl herself wants to do it, there's no "victims". Hell, there are girls who love having a lot of sex and it's even better for them because they get paid for what they love. Other people really have to start living their own lives and stop thinking "I don't do this, so no one else can do it either!".

Re:oh darn

[ravenspear]

I agree completely and have nothing against prostitution, it's just that this will clog up the casual encounters section for people that aren't looking to pay money for sex. That's why it made much more sense to have a separate section for it.

Re:oh darn

[FuckingNickName]

If the girl herself wants to do it, there's no "victims".

Oh, that old argument.

Look, there are many good arguments for the legalisation of prostitution per se (even for minors, although the person paying for services would then likely be breaking some statutory rape law).

But it's without foundation to bring up the "lots of women want to do it" argument. And "want to do it", whatever the tedious capitalist he-may-be-interned-in-a-factory-but-at-least-he's-not-dying-in-the-fields armchair philosophers will tell you, must not be confused with "is desperate for money and willing to do it because there is no viable alternative". I have not read any evidence that a majority of prostitutes work because they enjoy being prostitutes. Have you?

Stop being a "prostitution is no initiation of force therefore it should be legal therefore it is OK" libertard and instead ask "Is it moral in general to pay for prostitutes?" Don't use the exception of the $xE6/year professional dominatrix with a fancy web site living in Hollywood and servicing the stars. Consider the average prostitute.

Re:oh darn

[Man On Pink Corner]

Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

I have not read any evidence that a majority of prostitutes^Wfast-food workers work because they enjoy being prostitutes^Wfast-food workers. Have you?

Re:oh darn

[FuckingNickName]

I've read through your post 3 or 4 times to try to work out what point you're trying to make. Possibly:

1. The initial hypothesis was that people may be prostitutes because they enjoy it, perhaps a specific case of the general "all jobs are voluntary so people surely do them because they enjoy them" nonsense. You've given another example of a job which people don't necessarily do because they enjoy, so I guess you're attempting to provide evidence against that hypothesis.
2. Fast-food work is as physically dangerous, emotionally debilitating,
   unregulated, lacking in any benefits, controlled by highly abusive bosses and as associated with severe social stigma as prostitution.
3. Fast-food workers across the world are typically as desperate for money as prostitutes.

Re:oh darn

[Anonymous Coward]

the point was, that people do all kinds of things when they are desperate for money, and they aren't illegal. so why single out prostitution as being somehow worse than the other ones? whether or not they *want* to, they are *willing* to in order to make a lot of money in a very short period of time.

Re:oh darn

[fredmosby]

When people were working in factories under horrible conditions for little pay they didn't solve the problem by making working in factories illegal, the workers unionized and the government passed minimum wage and safety laws. If we banned all the jobs that people only do for money there wouldn't be very many legal jobs.

Re:oh darn

[migla]

You're kind of right. Being able to hire people who need the money to do a shitty job is exploitation. But there's a big difference in being fucked by the exploiter figuratively and literally. Sex is intimate and can screw with you worse than the boredom and aching feet (or whatever) that flipping burgers entails. There are similarites between prostitution and other kinds of "wage slavery", but the two are generally in different leagues of fuckeduppedness.

Re:oh darn

[JWSmythe]

    Have you talked to many escorts to come to this conclusion? It really doesn't sound like it.

    Have you talked to your average worker in a fast food restaurant or big box store? Unless they're just out of high school, they're miserable.

    Stop forcing YOUR morality on others. It's a choice, both by the service provider, and by the customer. One way or another, we're all in the same business. We want something, and we give something for it. So your morality may say that you need to spend money on fancy dinners and expensive trinkets, coming to a climax where a lavish party is thrown because you put a multi-carat diamond on some poor girls finger. It's all down hill from there. Will you cheat on her? Will she divorce you and take half of what you have?

    Prostitution, under it's various names, is far more honest. You negotiate the fee for services rendered, and then you each get what you wanted. Simple. The same concerns apply in the interaction with her, or a girl you met elsewhere. Wear a condom, and keep track of your wallet.

    They made the choice to go into the industry. Their customers made the choice to get services from the industry. It's simple. I've known a few women who work in the industry, and they refuse the option of taking a "normal" job, for a fraction of the pay and losing flexibility with their life. Those of us who work in an office don't get the choice of saying "I have a headache, I don't want to work today", or "I have other things to do, pay me for Saturday night instead." None of them were forced to do it. Very few look back at a "regular" job with any sort of passion for it.

    I won't say that there aren't bad elements in the industry, but if you look at how many corporations work you'll see worse behavior. You have overworked, underpaid disgruntled people wondering if they have a job tomorrow. Will I get fired? Will the company be downsizing? Will the company fold? I've seen a lot of good hard working 9 to 5 people suddenly find themselves without an income, because they came into work, just to find that they didn't have a job any more. Maybe you're independently wealthy, and don't have to worry about such things, but for the rest of the world, we have bills to pay.

    Because of people like you, who have forced your morality on others, it's put these working women in danger. Legalization and acceptance of the industry is the only way to remove the bad elements of the industry.

Re:oh darn

[dissy]

But it's without foundation to bring up the "lots of women want to do it" argument. And "want to do it", whatever the tedious capitalist he-may-be-interned-in-a-factory-but-at-least-he's-not-dying-in-the-fields armchair philosophers will tell you, must not be confused with "is desperate for money and willing to do it because there is no viable alternative".

So instead of a situation of a desperate woman being a prostitute to pay the bills, you instead would rather that desperate woman be a prostitute to pay the bills AND be a criminal.
That's rather nice of you :/

Look, we both know the problem is desperation, and that is what needs to be solved.
Clearly neither of us have that solution, nor do the women doing this.

Why make them criminals just because they are already in a fucked up situation?
Because outlawing something does not stop it, especially when you are that desperate already.

If it was simply taxed and regulated like any other legal job, we wouldn't have any of the Other problems we get today with prostitution, and will be making the exact same dent in the desperation problem as now (read None)

Then a lot of those desperate women will not be criminals as well, and might have a better chance of improving their situation without a police record to follow them forever.

Right now it's very hard to help improve any of those peoples lives, as with a criminal record they can't easily do quite a lot of things we take for granted, such as getting a job.

Remove that one little barrier and it becomes that much easier to provide some real help.

Re:oh darn

[Man On Pink Corner]

It'll be interesting to see you justify a single assertion in that post without resorting to religious arguments, or without projecting your own personal moral hangups on the rest of humanity as a whole.

The truth is, prostitution is not a particularly dangerous job when it's kept above-board and regulated by health authorities. This move on Craigslist;s part will instead drive the trade farther underground than it already was.

Re:oh darn

[Anonymous Coward]

How about this simple argument: if person A wants to fuck person B, and person B wants to pay them to do it, who the fuck are you to tell them that they're not allowed to?

Re:oh darn

[Klinky]

Fastfood work can be just as mentally straining & bad for your body, especially if you're eating where you work because it's cheaper due to your employee discount than fixing food for yourself. If you have anyone else to support or you have flaky hours, you might need another job. Combine the physical nature of the job, the unhealthy environment & food then the mental stress of incompetent or power tripping management, aggressive and selfish customers, anxiety over working so hard yet not having enough money to pay for basic needs & the stigma attached to being a fast-food worker, I could see how it's not a lot better than being a prostitute.

Ultimately it does take a certain mindset to be a prostitute & not all prostitution is equal. Turning tricks under a bridge for $20 so you can go feed your addiction is not the same as someone earning $200 or $300 per visit & does not have an addiction. Also on the outside people will have no clue you're a prostitute, unless you're outed somehow. People will know you work in fast-food and that some how makes you a loser so will be nasty to you while you man the register or they'll heckle you while you're standing at the bus stop after your shift.

In conclusion neither job is healthy.

Re:oh darn

[snowgirl]

I speak from anecdotal evidence, so I know this does not apply to everyone in the field. There certainly are women who don't really want to do the job, and these people certainly deserve a path out of their professional field, but there are a number of people like that in almost all careers.

You'd be surprised that it doesn't take a big stretch for a woman to get to the 6 figure mark, or at least what would be a 6 figure income if their pay is used as "take home", and we extrapolate what they would be earning if they were paying their proper taxes, etc.

I know one particular former call girl who willingly and knowingly entered into the field of her own free will, and felt more honest about her earnings than when she was working as a computer programmer.

Most people object to prostitution on two grounds: human trafficking, which should be wrong anyways, mistreatment by their pimps, or the dangers presented by clients. Most people who are against prostitution are not against the prostitutes themselves. They see them as "trapped" in a position where they have a high likelihood of harm. Yet, if we legalized it, then human trafficking would still be wrong, mistreatment by their pimps could be handled by police and other governmental authorities, and protection against clients is guaranteed the same way.

In Sweden, prostitution is not illegal, but being a pimp and frequenting a prostitute are illegal. Imagine the wonderful nature of your transaction of: "if you stiff me, I can call the cops, and they'll arrest you, and I walk away." Clients won't screw their prostitutes in this case. The same with pimps. "Go ahead, slap me... I'll call the cops, and they'll haul you away, and I can admit openly that I'm a prostitute, and I won't get taken away."

How about making prostitution a SAFE profession, rather than demanding it be illegal to stop people from doing it? If you're concerned about their health from the sex alone, either physical and/or mental, then when shall we expect an intent to make promiscuity itself illegal?

Re:oh darn

[Dhalka226]

Stop being a "prostitution is no initiation of force therefore it should be legal therefore it is OK" libertard and instead ask "Is it moral in general to pay for prostitutes?"

Gee, I wonder if you've made up your mind in advance at all? "Stop being a retard who disagrees with me and instead ask a question that I will only allow you to conclude the same as I do without being insulted!" Hey, thanks! If you think that position is wrong, then the onus is on you to explain why.

If your hypothesis that most women are only prostitutes because they are desperate for money and there is no viable alternative is correct, then all you have done is criminalize what even you describe as their only choice to make money. At best, in your world, you stop them from doing the only thing they can do to survive. At worst they do it anyway and are criminals in addition to paupers, with all of the stigma and danger associated with any criminal activity. At least if it were legalized, there could be some protections in place both for the prostitutes and for the Johns. When "hope you don't get beaten and robbed" or "hope your pimp is a nice guy" are your only protections, there's something wrong.

So, the six-figure-a-year celebrity hookers probably want to do it and they're making money hand-over-fist, so I don't see an argument to prevent it from that extreme. The opposite extreme (buying into your argument) is that the women don't really want to do it but have no other choice to survive, making legalizing it a slightly better alternative to a terrible situation that actually has very little to do with prostitution and more to do with hopeless economic conditions. Somewhere in the middle are women who aren't sexual millionaires but either want to do it, don't care either way or don't particularly want to do it and don't need to but consider it easier or faster money than the available alternatives. I'm seeing an entire spectrum where not a single data point would lead me to the conclusion that prostitution should be illegal.

In fact, the only reason I can think of is the one supposed by your question: Imposing my set of morality on other people. My answer to your question about whether or not it is moral to pay for sex is "why the hell should I care?" If it doesn't involve me I don't find it to be any more my business than whether or not your wife or girlfriend (or boyfriend) is kinky in the sack. If it does, then I can exercise my own morality to my own actions and relations -- exactly as it should be. I wouldn't date a hooker, whether it was legal or not. I don't respect the behavior. It doesn't mean I need it to be criminal to prove my moral superiority.

Now, legalizing prostitution isn't simple; it's something that would need to be done carefully to achieve any of the potential benefits and avoid a clusterfuck of potential problems. Very probably other laws would need to be created or changed. But all in all, if "I don't approve of what you're doing with your body" is the best I can come up with to stop you... fuck me. No pun intended.

Re:oh darn

[Man On Pink Corner]

Slavery is already illegal, and should be.

Illegal immigration is already, well, illegal, and there are various arguments either way on whether it should be.

These are both entirely orthogonal to the question of whether prostitution should be legalized.

Re:oh darn

[FuckingNickName]

Have you talked to many escorts to come to this conclusion? It really doesn't sound like it.

The "escorts" you're probably thinking of are not representative of the global prostitution industry. I know this is /. and an awful lot of lonely men have paid $200+ for an escort and assume that "talking to an escort" (who you are paying to say what you want to hear) is somehow singular for "data", but it isn't.

Stop forcing YOUR morality on others.

Knee-jerk. Arguing that funding the prostitution industry may be immoral is not forcing anything.

It's a choice, both by the service provider, and by the customer.

All work is free choice to the extent that you also have the options to lie down on the streets and starve or jump off a cliff and die more quickly.

So your morality may say that you need to spend money on fancy dinners and expensive trinkets, coming to a climax where a lavish party is thrown because you put a multi-carat diamond on some poor girls finger. It's all down hill from there. Will you cheat on her? Will she divorce you and take half of what you have?

You are bitter and angry, and it's showing. Not that your bitterness and anger detract from the worth of your argument, but you're not presenting a decent argument anyway. Healthy human relationships are continually symbiotic, not about paying to seduce a woman and then crying because she doesn't give you what you want.

Because of people like you, who have forced your morality on others, it's put these working women in danger. Legalization and acceptance of the industry is the only way to remove the bad elements of the industry.

You're about the 5th poster to assume that I was arguing for the banning of prostitution, even though I started the argument by acknowledging that there are good arguments for legalisation and making clear that "moral" is not the same as "legal".

Prostitution should be legal and well regulated. "Acceptance" is another matter. For example, let's say you're in an evil socialist European state and there's a job opening for a prostitute - should you lose unemployment benefits if you don't take the position? Geeks are so accepting of the scientific method except when it comes to studying humans themselves - in this particular case, no psychologist will argue that the effect of fucking 50 strangers a day is generally as benign as serving 50 burgers a day. But are you arguing that, and what is your extraordinary evidence?

Re:oh darn

[PietjeJantje]

It is an urban legend that these women have no other options than prostitution. At most locations, this is false, they have. The other options don't pay as well though. These girls prefer relatively well-paid prostitution over working 10 hour shifts at a factory or selling food stuff on markets. If there are no other options, all the ugly girls and lowly educated men would die of starvation. Yes they are exploited, but how did they get there? All the high-profile stories about human trafficking and prostitution slavery, in the end it's only a small minority.

Re:oh darn

[kestasjk]

• It's not always women
• You're being morally presumptuous, basically saying you want to decide whether they should work as prostitutes based on whether you think it's wrong

I'm not commenting on whether I think it's right (I'd sure never consider it a career option), but I don't think it's right to decide for other people.

Re:oh darn

[Jafafa Hots]

I would never pay for sex. Hell, I'd never even go in a strip club, I consider it degrading for both the stripper and the patron. (Hint - guys, she's DOESN'T like you.)

But I also have a problem with the government saying when and why two consenting adults can have sex.

Of course though, exploitation of women is rampant, and the situation is pretty grim except in some places perhaps where there's serious regulation, mandatory health screening, benefits and crap.

Possible solution - don't tell a woman (or man for that matter) they can't ask for money (instead of a dinner, some coke, or "let me crash here for a few days") in exchange for sex, because why someone chooses to have sex isn't the government's business... but

outlaw PIMPING. Or, because prohibition doesn't usually work well, make it legal but regulate the living fuck out of it.

I mean, prostitution is illegal - so when pointing to the problem of prostitution and how horrible it is, it really doesn't necessarily follow that the solution is to make it illegal - it already is. Must not be working?

Re:oh darn

[xtracto]

There's one reason why some people call prostitution the oldest profession...

I think the main reason why prostitutes exist is because there is demand for it. And I believe there will always be.

The fact that in today's society it is "morally incorrect" to sell sexual services is just a temporary (in the hundreds of years span) thing.

But even if government would be able to ban all prostitution the only thing that would happen is that the service would become more expensive, and the people who provide the service would have less rights.

However, if prostitution was completely legal, open and accepted then it will only be a matter of calling a private number and safely providing/consuming those service at home.

The fact that some people choose to be prostitutes is because it gives them a certain amount of income for another certain amount of work. Sure, those same persons may be able to change their jobs but that would mean doing more work for less payment.

BTW, I remembered an interview a guy in Mexico made to 2 "male prostitutes" (Gigolos) from Mexico City. The two guys were professionals, one of them was a doctor. When asked why did they decide to prostitute they answered that it was because they earned a high salary doing this job whereas doing their day job was not profitable enough *for their lifestyle*

 

Re:oh darn

[Kilrah_il]

I don't know about you, but many times that I have sex with a "normal woman" I become somewhat poorer (although usually not 200$). I do admit that the one getting richer is the restaurant/bar and not the woman, so who is the victim here?

P.S. In a magazine in my country they once did a comparison of the price of getting laid between a hooker, one-night stand, steady girlfriend and wife. As you can guess, the hooker and the one-night stand were the cheapest.

Re:oh darn

[jewishbaconzombies]

There's plenty of other sites. Backpage.com is just one of many that comes to mind. Is Facebook is another.

Re:oh darn

[jez9999]

Here in Italy, an extremely high percentage of prostitutes are essentially Russian women who are slaves to crime organizations.

And that's just Berlusconi's women!

Re:oh darn

[FuckingNickName]

but many times that I have sex with a "normal woman" I become somewhat poorer (although usually not 200$)

Every time I've had sex, it's been a progression of a friendship into a kissy relationship into a fully sexual relationship. I've never targeted anyone - certainly not by buying anything. I've never counted up how much I've spent in some way benefitting that person up to the point I first had sex with them. I've not considered having sex a goal, or the end of anything. It just happens. It's nice but it's not essential.

It's weird to see so many people here talk of sex as the result of an investment. Perhaps well regulated prostitutes would be the moral option for them if it were established that the prostitutes were physically and mentally healthy and had full freedom of choice. Or perhaps they need a fuck buddy. Or friends who will take a tenner and give you a BJ. I'm not sure.

Re:oh darn

[JohnFluxx]

Why doesn't anyone just say "I don't care about the welfare of the fast food work as long as I get my food"?

I don't see why you keep singling out prostitution when your arguments apply to most jobs.

Re:oh darn

[FuckingNickName]

Oh, that's definitely a shitty thing to do too. A symbiotic partnership, simple fuck buddy arrangement or even mutually honest one night stand seem far healthier.

But enjoying physically and psychologically harmful working conditions day after day and believing (correctly or otherwise) that there's no way out is likely more harmful than hearing one lie about how pretty your eyes are. And johns ought to ask whether it's okay to pay to support that environment rather than playing the pseudo-libertarian "no physical force => legal => moral" card.

Re:oh darn

[mwvdlee]

We could also ask porn sites to move to the .xxx TLD, ask spammers to mark their mails with "[SPAM]" and ask black hat hackers to set an evil bit in all their packets.
The prostitutes will post where their posts will be read the most.

Re:oh darn

[noname444]

Are you saying that sex being more intimate than flipping burgers is a religious argument?

Re:oh darn

[AmiMoJo]

You can't equate prostitution with serving fast food. The former carries all sorts of risks, even when it's a licensed and regulated brothel. You think every customer is going to have a HIV and STD test first? Condoms are 100% effective? Sleeping with some disgusting old lard-arse who could never get a real date because you need the money has no psychological ramifications?

Sure, there are high class places where conditions are better, but unless the girl happens to be pretty good looking and lucky enough to land that kind of job they are not going to deal with all that stuff. It is far far different to working in MacDonalds.

Re:oh darn

[hairyfeet]

Actually I've known hookers and burger flippers (having actually lived in an apt building everyone called a "house of ill repute" due to the amount of hookers in it) and I'd have to say I felt MUCH sorrier for the burger flippers. The hookers had a nice place to work with good security, could refuse any patron that didn't want, and at the end of the week had plenty of money in their pockets after paying the bills.

Contrast this with the burger flippers who were always in pain from the constant overwork, stank horribly (because you really can't get that stench out of your skin even after multiple baths), usually had burns from grease pops and looked awful from all the oil buildup, and most needed state assistance because of the incredibly shitty pay.

So if you want the most abusive job, excluding pimps which are a product of prohibition, I'm gonna have to go with burger flipper. At least the hooker gets paid well for their job, whereas the burger flipper is lucky to be able to keep a roof over their head for MUCH longer hours and more hard physical labor.

Re:oh darn

[Jawnn]

By your logic, lots of dangerous occupations should be made illegal because they are dangerous or psychologically stressful. Of course, this is complete rubbish and we're left again with nothing but the puritanical notion that sex is "dirty" and that sex for money is especially dirty, which also, of course, is complete rubbish.

Re:oh darn

[HungryHobo]

It's a dirty job.
So?
There are people in this world who as part of their jobs have to spend all day surounded by human faeces working sewer maintainance with all the dangers of infections that entails.
There are people who work jobs where they can lose a limb to a saw blade.
Or be crushed in an industrial accident.
I know a girl who had a job where one of her duties was to put down the animals at a lab which used animal testing, think that has no psychological ramifications?
My father at one point worked in a slaughterhouse cleaning the grizzle, blood and brains off the walls and equipment. any psychological ramifications there?

There are high class office jobs where conditions are better, but unless the person happens to be skilled and lucky enough to land that kind of job they're not going to get those.

But sure, if sex is in any way involved then its special and it can't be considered in a reasonable adult manner.

Re:oh darn

[mangu]

Sleeping with some disgusting old lard-arse who could never get a real date because you need the money has no psychological ramifications?

How is that different from feeding some disgusting old lard-arse who could never get a real meal because you need the money?

Re:oh darn

[Posting=!Working]

There are plenty of jobs that have a similar list of risks. Some are worse.

For example, welding at a shipyard - Do you think they like getting burned everyday? Climbing up a 30 foot ladder to find it's not tied off at the top and one side is a half inch from freefall? Do you think the riggers have actually double checked every single time the crane picks up a huge sheet of steel that passes over your head? Crawling through a disgusting, stinking crawlspace under the floor of a barge while someone might start welding on the same piece of steel that your entire backside is pressed against? Having my safety depending on some dumb ass who couldn't get a job that required knowing how to read or do math? I think your chances are better with the condom.

I'll give you that working at most McDonalds is not nearly as bad, but all McDonalds are not the same.

Crappy McDonalds in crime ridden area- Ever had a gun shoved in your face while getting robbed? Ever been sprayed with mace for just working the drivethrough window? Had a smelly crazy homeless guy cough on you while ordering and try to pee on you when done? Been badly burned by fry grease?

I'm not saying prostitution isn't a crappy way to have to make a living. I'm just saying there are legal jobs that people take that carry a similar level risks and discomforts, and many people have no other choice but to take them.

I'm only talking about those who prostitute themselves for economic reasons. I am not including physically forced prostitution in any of this, that's slavery, and horrible.

Re:oh darn

[DerekLyons]

Have you talked to many escorts to come to this conclusion? It really doesn't sound like it.

Talking to escorts about the world of prostitution is like talking to McDonalds CEO about the world of fast food workers. Try talking to the girls down on the low track instead.
 

They made the choice to go into the industry.

Yeah, the same way someone who can't find a job making a living wage and with a future 'chooses' to go to work with McDonalds or Best Buy.
 
You, and many others answering here, have a seriously rosy view of the world.

Re:oh darn

[wmac]

You mean all prostitutes are prostitutes because they are poor?

Don't you remember the girl which messed up the governors life? She became a prostitute in order to become rich very fast. I personally knew a prostitute which owned and rented several apartments.

Some women try to find a rich man just because they want to become rich ASAP. What is the difference with a prostitute then? (except that some of them agree to be exclusive by signing a marriage contract).

Re:oh darn

[Hatta]

Those girls are poor this is how they live. They don't love sex anymore than you love working.

Sounds like a job. What's wrong with that? We allow people to do all sorts of awful, dangerous things for money, why not sex? Poor working conditions are a case for increased regulation, not prohibition.

There is *no* reason for prostitution to be illegal except for a perverse notion of sexual morality associated with religion. None.

Re:oh darn

[TooMuchToDo]

After working in the adult entertainment industry on the tech side, let me tell you that you're half-correct. Some girls do it because they're desperate. The other side of it (that you get wrong) is that there are girls who enjoy making $150K+/yr from sex. Hence, the need for a regulated sex industry (see: Amsterdam).

Re:oh darn

[ScrewMaster]

She's a friend of a friend, and comes over every night around 12:30 (well, AM...). Hell, she's asleep in my bed right now, poor soul! I'm on Slashdot (afterglow?)! If she wants to set up a payment system I might not be averse...

Like most such "sins", if you remove the pseudo-morality involved, the current governmental stance against it doesn't hold up. If you permit and regulate it (like any of the other common vices in this country), I believe that many of the associated problems will disappear, not to mention that you'll increase your tax revenue if all those high-class girls start declaring their currently illicit income.

The Prohibition Effect is very real, and invariably occurs when there is a tremendous demand and significant law-enforcement resources are devoted to restricting the supply. As other posters have pointed out, there are few absolute moral or ethical constraints here: much of it is simply cultural, what is considered acceptable by decades or centuries of tradition ... and what is not. Sexual repression has been a tradition in the United States since its inception, and I look at the anti-prostitution crowd as being a fading reflection of that.

Yes, I understand that prostitution can have negative consequences for those who engage in it, both for the customer and the supplier, and we'd probably be better off as a society if there were no hookers (probably, I'm not going to make an absolute statement there.) But so do many behaviors that people engage in, many of which are perfect legal. In the end forcing prostitution underground simply because some people find it offensive does everyone a disservice.

Re:WTF man

[ravenspear]

You could post in M4M, you'll get plenty of offers.

Idiots

[BlueCoder]

Some politician says ban this section and it will all go away...

Now the personals section is going to get even more polluted.

Casual Encounters will become the new adult section but it will spill over into the normal sections. Strictly platonic will probably become the "normal" area. If this is the intelligence of state attorney generals then we must have a lot of innocent people in jail.

Re:Idiots

[snowgirl]

There is a lot of belief in politics that if we make something illegal, people will stop doing it.

This idea is retarded, and recognizably inconsistent with reality.

Re:Consenting Adults

[Anonymous Coward]

The person that had to pay for drinks, a dinner, and a movie and didn't even get more than a peck on the cheak and an offer to do it again in a couple nights, in hope that you might get a proper kiss. A few weeks, a dozen hours or more, and a few hundred dollars, and they "might" get lucky...
 
  People like that hate the fact that someone can spend a fraction of that money for copious amounts of sex, and not have to have formed an emotional connection.... And the women like that hate it even more, because it really draws away from their bottom line... I mean dateability....
 
  One group hate that quick and easy solution they didn't think of first, and the other hates the compitition....

:rolleyes:

[KingAlanI]

Prostitution control is about as effective as drug control and gun control.

There, I fixed it!

[Auckerman]

This is the future of the Internet. Corporate censorship at the demand of the loudest group. One by one, sites are going to filter user areas. Then content. Starting with obvious things that few will care about, like prostitution. Slowly, everything is going to be so pasteurized that sites with no filters will be considered criminal organizations.

Look, whatever you think of it is irrelevant, abused or not, the racier parts of the internet are a necessary part of freedom. Draw the line of allowed hosted content straight through what most people find offensive and leave it there.

It may not happen in our lifetime, but if we don't demand full neutrality (for host and carriers), it's going to happen.

Re:Consenting Adults

[aztracker1]

In the end, yes... not always that one, first date... but continuing to date someone, in the hopes of marriage and commitment, sex is a large part of that... so technically, even in the purest sense, dating is about sex...

Re:Consenting Adults

[RsG]

However, if prostitution were legal...

Legal and regulated. The illegality of prostitution is only part of the problem with the current state of affairs.

Prostitution carries with it some serious societal issues. Coercion from pimps, poverty, VD, and back-alley abortions have been associated with prostitution for thousands of years. None of these will go away if the laws against soliciting are lifted.

Illegality adds another problem; it forces the business under the rug, leaving hookers essentially without legal recourse - they can be robbed, raped, killed, or otherwise harmed because the perp knows the victim won't go to the cops, or won't be missed.

Legalizing prostitution without regulating it will solve the last problem, but not the rest. Keeping it illegal only removes the problems from public view, and makes the situation worse for those involved. You need to legalize it, while imposing health and safety regulations.

Re:And as we all know...

[yincrash]

craigslist is the only adult services listing site that reports tips to the center for missing and exploited children. these listings are just going to go somewhere else that won't report any listings and will be harder for law enforcement to find.

Re:Consenting Adults

[cappp]

I'm not sure you're right there, at least in part. Prostitution is legal and regulated in a fair number of countries - Australia, New Zealand, Austria, Germany, The Netherlands, Canada for instance - and treated in a somewhat more complicated manner in many more - most of the rest of Europe, India, a smattering of Central American states, and so on. The sheer scale of the sexual industry in countries that have legal protections in place - which have reduced financial incentives for what would otherwise be illicit trades - suggests that a decent number of men and woman deliberately choose prostitution as a rational employment route. Superfreakenomics has an interesting chapter online which covers the basic topic.

That of course leaves the question of trafficking which is the usual problem raised i.e. does the prostitution industry provide a prime motivation for human trafficing. However there seems to be a significant lack of data supporting this. The Guardian ran an interesting piece covering this topic. I'm going to quote just the opening paragraph but its well worth a read if you find yourself with a free 10 minutes.

There is something familiar about the tide of misinformation which has swept through the subject of sex trafficking in the UK: it flows through exactly the same channels as the now notorious torrent about Saddam Hussein's weapons. In the story of UK sex trafficking, the conclusions of academics who study the sex trade have been subjected to the same treatment as the restrained reports of intelligence analysts who studied Iraqi weapons – stripped of caution, stretched to their most alarming possible meaning and tossed into the public domain. There, they have been picked up by the media who have stretched them even further in stories which have then been treated as reliable sources by politicians, who in turn provided quotes for more misleading stories.

Yes, that doesn't prove that sex workers necessarily enjoy their work. It doesn't prove that other forms of coercion don't exist.But it does frame the issue somewhat differently.

Re:Only seems to effect the USA

[Phurge]

If you'd bothered to read the article

You must be new here...

Stupid

[The Fanta Menace]

Someone's not thinking outside the box. They should have just spun off that part of the company and run it from another country with sensible attitudes towards sex (eg, The Netherlands or Belgium), where the US can't touch them.

Re:Consenting Adults

[cappp]

Yup, and frankly I imagine using sex slaves is far more work than it's worth when you're in a country where it's fine to just slap a job ad in the local paper.

Out of sight, out of mind

[Pilum99]

Since those ads are no longer easily viewed by the general public, some politicians will now consider it a victory against the evil sex trade. So now, instead of the sex trade of teenagers easily tracked by authorities and gov't officials, it has now gone back underground where it is harder to track and deal with those issues. Prohibition was supposed to improve society, but instead the booze went underground, organized crime developed, and more social problems arose as a result. Just as people like to imbibe, people also like to have sex (gasp! shock!). The allegory continues, just substitute "booze" for "sex trade".

Re:Consenting Adults

[mr_mischief]

Well, the victim is the 12-year-old runaway who has sex with countless strangers because her pimp is the only one who keeps her fed, or the 11-year-old girl kidnapped and shipped overseas to be sold into sexual slavery.

The problem is, that's not the only type of prostitution that's illegal. Stop the kidnappers when you can, and get the runaway back to her parents or into foster care.

Leave the adults to do what they want, and tax it and regulate it for safety. If there's a legal market for prostitution that doesn't include some of the worst abuses in the illegal market, the worst abuses will be less tolerated by those doing it legally. They'll report violent pimps, underage girls, kidnapped girls, and johns who hit or rob them much more often if they're not in fear of getting busted themselves.

And no, I am not in favor of prostitution. I've always had enough sex without paying for it, and I don't have a desire to start. I don't think it's the healthiest of activities for the whores or their clients. I'm not one to pry into the sex lives of others on a regular basis, though, and I think it's clear that banning and prosecuting prostitution makes things worse.

If they're going to do it and you can't stop them, make it safer for them to do it. Even people opposed to the practice need to be smart enough to see that banning it does no good.

Legality is not an endorsement by the state or by a town's population. We have legal tobacco products with heavy taxes that pay for press to keep people from smoking and chewing. We teach kids it is dangerous and irresponsible to smoke. Yet it's legal. Legality just means there's no reason for something to be illegal or that the benefits to legality outweigh the benefits to a ban and failed enforcement.

Re:What a stupid argument

[Man On Pink Corner]

How many fast-food workers get aids? How many people wanting to run for office have to hide their past flipping burgers? How many fast-food workers are killed by customers? How many fast-food workers are dependent on the turnout of the day for their salary? How many fastfood workers do not get sickdays etc etc (in civilized countries).

How many of the conditions you cite are consequences of the act's illegality, and not of the act itself?

The kind who says it is okay his iPod was made with slave labor because else these people would have just starved.

So who made your iPod?

Re:What a stupid argument

[Anonymous Coward]

Comparing prostitution with a normal job

See, there's your problem. How is sex work not a "normal" job?