just wondering ... your opinion please

[SHATOUSHKA]

this tangent comes all the way from the bean scene,
so in case you are wondering where i got it
from, now you know.

the (indirect) topic was about prostitutes.
and i started thinking about stuff....

this is something i've thought before...
thank goodness the bean scene refreshed my
memory of it because i wanna get some other
opinions on it. there are two aspects that
i want to focus on, and i will segregate
this post so that (hopefully) the two
questions will remain obvious.

QUESTION ONE --

take your average, media-enduced vision
of a prostitute. for the sake of argument,
lets make it a female. =P

so we all know she goes around and directly/indirectly
solicits sexual favors for money. occassionally
she makes the choice whether or not she
performs those favors and to whom she
performs them with.

the same is (essentially) true of he that
requests those favors. wouldn't you agree?

QUESTION TWO --

when it comes to crime judgment, USUALLY
the punishment goes to the person committing
the crime -- as with a person that steals,
kills, etc.
in some cases, punishment is issued to both
the committer and the recipient -- as with
drug dealers/buyers.

why is it then, that prostitutes are the
criminals... and not the person using the
prostitute???

(this question could also be asked of ticket scalping) =P

i guess what i'm saying is -- as long as a
service is needed/desired/requested, then
punishment should go both ways. sure, you
could claim that politicians lose their
position when busted, or an average family
could be broken... but thats not really
the same penalty as what a prostitute
receives.

i note the word 'same' because even in cases
of drug soliciting, the dealer receives a
larger penalty than that of the buyer...
for some reason, though they both receive
some penalty of law.

you cannot claim that it is because of the
rule against society itself -- as in, the
rule is that you cannot 'use' drugs, therefore
the sale/purchase of drugs is illegal...
because technically, the law is in regards
to possessing illicit drugs...
in which the penalty is then assessed based
upon the reason you possess it.

i guess i just find this a bit skewed.
i'm wondering why, in the case of prostitution,
only the one party is the criminal....

[zelazny]

Well, there is the wierd notion that we must 'protect' values and morals..blabla..
Which is done by making sure that all that could compromise them is kept tightly under the lid.

(Still, prostitution is legal over here, i mean, as soon as you guys figure out you can tax it, you bet it'll become legal)

[TastinGood]

Question One:
Yes, I suppose that both parties would indeed make choices.

Question Two:
I have always assumed that the members on both sides of the 'crime' (giver and the recipent) were treated with the same punishment.
What that punishment is, I do not know. If anyone could fill us in on the penalties of such actions, I would greatly appreciate it. I will look online and if I find anything I will certainly post the results.

Back in 1995 or so when Hugh Grant was busted, both he and Heidi Fliess were arrested. His mugshot was everywhere. I do not remember what his sentence was though...probably just a fine.

I can only assume that the reason they would prosecute the prostitute more severly would be because of the fact that they assume that the prostitute would be the one more likely to be a repeat offender.
Should that be how it is? No. They should not pass punishment on one based on if they THINK you might do it again in the future.

I feel like I am rambling and may not have gotten much across in this post.

I guess I am saying that both parties should be prosecuted the same.

But of course, that begs the question....should it be a crime in the first place? What do ya'll think?

[SHATOUSHKA]

of course its not a crime (or shouldn't be a crime)

[zelazny]

need cash shatzy? [img]wink.gif[/img]

[TastinGood]

I dont think shatzy accepts the Euro or the guilder.

[SHATOUSHKA]

actually, as only zela knows...
i'm deftly interested in collecting
the euro.... one from every participating
country (or however that works).

i think you (zela) said something about it
being somewhere around 60-something dollars.

of course, it would be ok if i had to visit
each place in order to get them.
but i would accept a donation as well. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

must.... have.... coins....

*shatzy drools*

[zelazny]

Birthday coming up soon eh shatzy? [img]wink.gif[/img]

[Alex]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#25004f"><font size=2 face="Tempus Sans ITC, Tahoma">Originally posted by shatzy:
of course its not a crime (or shouldn't be a crime)</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was thinking the same thing....however, this new society would have to quash a very big prejudice.

That prejudice is favoring the people in life we have sex with over everyone else.

Make Prostitution legal, but only if every person on the planet would agree to not favor one person's company, business, coversation, loan approval, etc, over another merely because of sex.

Life is a paradigm, drink it up.

[SHATOUSHKA]

i think that the gender-derrived prejudice is
only a surface flaw. these types of flaws are
only created when there is an adequate supply
of alternates available.

its the common problem of choice.

choice creates too many complications.