|
On November 27 2007 10:32 choboPEon wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2007 10:16 Rayzorblade wrote:
I think the most obvious argument is this:
If a woman (without any outside force) WANTS to fuck dudes for money, then WHO the fuck are YOU or the STATE to tell her what to do with her OWN body? its not really that simple for a lot of prostitutes that said, if it were legalized and heavily regulated it could be a lot safer for them. its the same truth that applies to a lot of laws that are a result of blind moral crusaders. too bad.
No, heavily regulated does not work, especially in the United States. Stop trying to enlarge the role of an inefficient government, especially where they should have no regards trying to regulate things.
|
Anyone ever gotten a prostitute from the old soviet bloc? If porn is any kind of indicator of how a prostitute would look like then Eastern Europe has it best.
|
If people want to use prosties, that's their choice.
Personally, I think it's pretty nasty, but hey, if you're that desperate for sex then so be it.
|
something liek 70% of titty bars/escort services have girls from the old soviet bloc over here. Im sure my fake russian accent must be flattering to them.
|
On November 27 2007 10:41 ManaBlue wrote:
I'm too afraid of STDs to be with a hooker.
I can't believe that issue isn't dominating this conversation. It's the first thing I thought about when I read the title.
Yeah it's same for me. STD's take all the fun out, cuz you have to be like super careful. Even though my 'evil' side got the best of me a couple of times and still did it, but I avoid prostitution as much as possible for the sheer reason of STDs.
|
On November 27 2007 10:49 kalami wrote:
Anyone ever gotten a prostitute from the old soviet bloc? If porn is any kind of indicator of how a prostitute would look like then Eastern Europe has it best.
Not prostitutes but had a Polish girl once. Agnjieska or w/e! And it sucked
|
On November 27 2007 10:41 ManaBlue wrote:
I'm too afraid of STDs to be with a hooker.
I can't believe that issue isn't dominating this conversation. It's the first thing I thought about when I read the title.
Ditto. I think this is the biggest issue for a lot of people; just think if you didn't have to worry about STDs at all.
|
On November 27 2007 10:47 hasuprotoss wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2007 10:32 choboPEon wrote:On November 27 2007 10:16 Rayzorblade wrote:
I think the most obvious argument is this:
If a woman (without any outside force) WANTS to fuck dudes for money, then WHO the fuck are YOU or the STATE to tell her what to do with her OWN body? its not really that simple for a lot of prostitutes that said, if it were legalized and heavily regulated it could be a lot safer for them. its the same truth that applies to a lot of laws that are a result of blind moral crusaders. too bad. No, heavily regulated does not work, especially in the United States. Stop trying to enlarge the role of an inefficient government, especially where they should have no regards trying to regulate things.
then that is the problem of an inneficient government not prostitution itself, also it would still be much better than the current situation
|
On November 27 2007 10:41 ManaBlue wrote:
I'm too afraid of STDs to be with a hooker.
I can't believe that issue isn't dominating this conversation. It's the first thing I thought about when I read the title.
That is a very valid point, however if you research about it you will realize the condom is actually very very safe, the chances of infection WITHOUTH condom while having vaginal sex is arround 500 to 1 !!! that is ridiculously low and withouth a god damn condom ffs!. anal sex is higher risk tho.
And also it only strenghtens legalization of prostitution to lower the STD rate.
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Legalizing prostitution as a means of reducing the rate of STD's... man, baal is brilliant. The world needs more policy makers like baal!
|
Australia3818 Posts
Prostitution is legal in Australia.
But I haven't been to one, I've been to Amsterdam too, but I still didn't partake. Had something to do with the amount of money I had though perhaps.
=]
|
On November 27 2007 11:38 {88}iNcontroL wrote:
Legalizing prostitution as a means of reducing the rate of STD's... man, baal is brilliant. The world needs more policy makers like baal!
yes moron simply because regulated prostition enforces the use of condom and wont allow infected prostitutes to work. and they have constant medical check-ups, eveything current prostitution does NOT have.
Debate how it would incrase STDs instead of making a fool out yourself.
|
On November 27 2007 10:26 greatmeh wrote:
if prostitution was legal then no one would need a girlfriend
LOL, my new quote hahahaha
but they would need wives ;d
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Legalizing prostitution would increase the amount of prostitutes which would increase the amount of people using/being prostitutes. You suggest this means more regulation of STDs with prostitutes. I offer that thats all good and fine. But who is regulating the patrons? Additionally, regulation is not some magical arguement that suddenly solves everything. Even with "regulation" in other industries we still have gross abuses of rules or even complete lack of coherence with rules. If private companies took over prostitution like you say, I would be willing to bet that STDs would just be a part of the game, sure they would gurantee that their prostitutes are all clean and they would check blah blah.. but I still think the increase in prostitutes/use would mean a lot of mistakes which overall would increase STD problems, not decrease.
Also I dont know why you dropped GI's arguement that all these checkups would not increase the price of a prostitute. If they are getting checked after each sexual interaction (the only logical explanation for your belief that STDs would go down) how do you think they are making up for that money? Its not like prostitution makes a huge amount of money as it is. they dont get checkups because they cannot afford it. If you suddenly add the cost of regular checkups (daily lol) they have to increase rates.
This means that the best way for them to make that money is to get the cheapest and most flippant checkups available (or none at all).. which would catch some but not all STDs and with the increase in supply you have an increase in STDs.
|
On November 27 2007 11:25 baal wrote:
That is a very valid point, however if you research about it you will realize the condom is actually very very safe, the chances of infection WITHOUTH condom while having vaginal sex is arround 500 to 1 !!! that is ridiculously low and withouth a god damn condom ffs!. anal sex is higher risk tho.
That statistic is completely meaningless without more context. Are we assuming random partner (most likely not a carrier), prostitute (more likely a carrier) or an actual carrier? Are we talking single-STD or multi-STD? Which STD are we talking about?
I think 1/500 is a very generous - for your argument - estimate, unless we are assuming the partner is randomly selected from the whole populace. Are you telling me I can have unprotected sex with five hundred low-class prostitutes before I am likely to contract an STD?
If so, STDs would have to base themselves on blood-transfusion to get around. Which they obviously don't. Of course, feel free to provide a source.
|
Ugh I would have never expect anything other than that come out of your mouth Incontrol and I have no clue why I'm even going to respond to it. But just because you love your own logic so much.
According to you there is this: Legalize prostitution->Increase in number of prostitutes-> increase in number of STD's.
Yeah, okay. Because once there are more prostitutes everyone will suddenly go to them! And once there are more of them it sure as hell isn't concentrated as much on a smaller number of girls making infection rates higher.
Oh hi.
Why wou drop GI's argument? If you increase the amount of checkups(They are done periodically and not after every sexual encounter, but it's cute that you would even think such thing, really.) You could take girls that contracted HIV out of business and so restrict them from spreading it. Whereas you have a girl without HIV working for years after contracting it if you keep it in the illegal scene. But I guess this all doesn't make sense to you cuz God forbid it. Oh and Checkups are FREE btw.
But seriously how cute of you to think more girls will enter the sex industry after you legalize it. Overall you are just a cute boy. Fluffy.
|
On November 27 2007 12:14 Zherak wrote:Show nested quote +On November 27 2007 11:25 baal wrote:
That is a very valid point, however if you research about it you will realize the condom is actually very very safe, the chances of infection WITHOUTH condom while having vaginal sex is arround 500 to 1 !!! that is ridiculously low and withouth a god damn condom ffs!. anal sex is higher risk tho. That statistic is completely meaningless without more context. Are we assuming random partner (most likely not a carrier), prostitute (more likely a carrier) or an actual carrier? Are we talking single-STD or multi-STD? Which STD are we talking about? I think 1/500 is a very generous - for your argument - estimate, unless we are assuming the partner is randomly selected from the whole populace. Are you telling me I can have unprotected sex with five hundred low-class prostitutes before I am likely to contract an STD?If so, STDs would have to base themselves on blood-transfusion to get around. Which they obviously don't. Of course, feel free to provide a source.
Ugh. The contraction rates vary a lot. It depends the stage of the infected person is in and the healthy the 'victim' is in at the given moment of intercourse. Then there is a condom, which if you used properly with lots of lube, will almost never tear. Then there is the thing that only a few % of the prostitutes are actually infected with HIV. Unless you go to Zimbabwe.
But just wtf at the bold part. Are you seriously that naive? You can contract it the first time you have it unprotected or you can bang 20 of them every yearh for the rest of your life and never get it. Wanna flip a coin for it?
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
On November 27 2007 12:19 {ToT}Strafe wrote:
Ugh I would have never expect anything other than that come out of your mouth Incontrol and I have no clue why I'm even going to respond to it. But just because you love your own logic so much.
According to you there is this: Legalize prostitution->Increase in number of prostitutes-> increase in number of STD's.
Yeah, okay. Because once there are more prostitutes everyone will suddenly go to them! And once there are more of them it sure as hell isn't concentrated as much on a smaller number of girls making infection rates higher.
Oh hi.
Why wou drop GI's argument? If you increase the amount of checkups(They are done periodically and not after every sexual encounter, but it's cute that you would even think such thing, really.) You could take girls that contracted HIV out of business and so restrict them from spreading it. Whereas you have a girl without HIV working for years after contracting it if you keep it in the illegal scene. But I guess this all doesn't make sense to you cuz God forbid it. Oh and Checkups are FREE btw.
But seriously how cute of you to think more girls will enter the sex industry after you legalize it. Overall you are just a cute boy. Fluffy.
You really dont even make an arguement. If they are done periodically they can contract STDs without being checked which would do almost nothing to check back the issue of increased STDs.
Checkups can be free but if the industry is privatized they need to provide transportation / regulation (both cost money buddy). There are inherent costs with things that seem basic, but when done on a larger scale add up especially when considered with a business plan.
Additionally, your arguement in regard to more = less concentrated use is mitigated by the more people using prostitutes. I think it makes logical sense that a big part of the reason why more people are not using prostitutes is because they are illegal. If I really have to further explain this to you then it becomes rather apparent that you are severely lacking in the thought power department and probably should not be humored with future replies.
And drop the "cute" garbage or whatever. We are discussing a hypothetical situation in which a huge country like USA legalizes prostitution, a situation that has not happened. Comparing it to Amsterdam or other places is silly. If I hypothosize that there could be potential checkups after each interaction I am not being nieve, its not like the functions of prostitution are common knowledge for fuck sakes. Also, the arguement that they get checked periodically is points for me, not you. If they have 1, 2 or 30 patrons between checkups they have a huge potential for contracting and spreading STDs.
And I just noticed you said that its "cute" I think legalizing prostitution would increase the amount of prostitutes. Really? Ok, you just nullified my hopeful optimism that you really werent so dumb to not be able to logically imagine the whole "illegal" aspect of the industry as a determent from a broader participant base.
|
You contradict yourself Incontrol, im sure you are aware how economy works... you cant say "zomg there will be a flood of prostitutes" and then claim they will be too expensive.
I am positive many girls would go this way if its legalized dropping their charges because the competition is hard.
Then later you say "they will skip the medical checkups" and then you say "they will be expensive for the medical checkups" what the fuck mate... make up your mind.
I agree it wont be perfect, its functionality absolutely depends on the legislation about it, how strict is the regulation, like how the whore house has to declare stuff to the state, also whore houses are liable to lawsuits about unclean girls and pretty much FORCING girls to always wear a condom reduces the STD rate a fucking lot, do you seriuosly believe a significant STD infections are caused by ripped condoms?, or the huge huge huge majority get infected while having unprotected sex.
As i were saying the system is not perfect and there might be some shady places, but if you just stick to the places with good reputation you will be fine, like if you go to Vegas and you want to gamble, you will go to a good casino, you wont go to some dirty building with no signs or anything, common customer's sense.
And drop the fucking prices argument already check up their prices in holland, you see beautiful girls for very reasonable prices.
|
How about the extremely expensive prostitutes who bill themselves as escorts. They can be extremely hot, but also ridiculously expensive ($600/hr+). Quality vs quantity?
Just an example:
http://www.eros-ny.com/eros.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
