Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
hmm, I guess if the woman aren't being pimped out, they're being protected, they're not drug addicts or sick, and they want to follow this as a vocation (is that the word to use?) then its going to be a service that's going to be provided no matter what. I'd rather have it above the table instead of in back alleys and basements where the worker is genuinely being abused and at risk.
There's a reason why prostitution is the oldest progression going back to when Oga auctioned off her body to Og for two pieces of flint and a dead brontosaurus. Because there are guys out there that will buy sex or power.
We might as well make some tax revenue off of it, and try to keep the girls safe.
|
I'm not criticizing you in particular on this, because I often fall victim to the same assumption myself--but it's worth noting that many sex workers are male. (to be sure, the customers are usually male either way I think)
And of course, as someone else pointed out, it was never prostitution that was illegal--it was communication for the purposes of soliciting prostitution, and keeping a common bawdy-house. If we remember that fact, it may help us to keep our eye on the ball so to speak--that the objective is to develop laws that permit sex workers to work in places and in ways that are safe for them.
My view is this: our law has been backwards all along. It has forbidden the safest forms of sex work (in a setting and place controlled by the sex worker) and permitted the least safe forms (street prostitution and so-called "out calls"). We need laws that do exactly the reverse.