-
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....
-
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)
-
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?
-
of course its not a crime (or shouldn't be a crime)
-
need cash shatzy? [img]wink.gif[/img]
-
I dont think shatzy accepts the Euro or the guilder.
-
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*
-
Birthday coming up soon eh shatzy? [img]wink.gif[/img]
-
<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.
-
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.
-
I don't think it's strictly gender derived prejudice.
If a man asks a business women for sex, and offers money, he technically could be charged with harrassment.
The point being the initiator (prostitute) usually gets punished before the consumer. (the guy with the money).
The same applies to drugs. Yes, you can get arrested for buying or possessing drugs, but generally, the seller is the one that the police are the most interested in. Again, the supplier is considered the bigger fish.
-
i still don't think prostitution should be illegal
-
-
in my parts, prostitution is legal as long as the prostitute is over 18, pays taxes and gets checked regularly for diseases. it's a very regulated occupation (of the brothel variety girls). i don't really think streetwalkers are 100% legal. not entirely sure, but either way, most turn a blind eye.
i live about 10-15mins away from the red light district of sydney (kings cross) and when i'm going home late at night and passing through, it's very saddening to see the girls wearing next to nothing in the dead cold in order to attract business. i've never seen prostitution as a crime because.. well... it's never been one where i live unless it's underage, etc. most of the time though, there is much more than just sex that is going on. most prosties are junkies and the looping spiral goes from there (drugs, pimping, money laundering, etc).
there shouldn't be any punishment for prostitution because it shouldn't be a crime. when prostitution is illegal, that's when the customers can beat up the rent boys & girls because they are not protected by the law.
but onto the original issue of same punishment for both parties. i do not agree. in the case of the drug dealer v. drug buyer, a buyer has the aims of personal consumption. a drug dealer aims at unloading drugs to as many people as possible and making as much a profit from it as can be. there is a very distinct difference. a drug dealer does harm to others and profits whilst a drug user is only doing harm to self (yes, ok. this is arguable).
-
great post, as usual. i like hearing from
both zela and SF when it comes to differences
in diplomatic staples. especially since i
believe both of you give forthright and honest
opinions.
as for the dealer thing...
while it is true that dealers attempt to unload
product for profit, most dealers won't sell to
just anyone.
although i'm not precisely sure of a major
metropolis, i know that in this city, any real
dealer (that deals in large quantities of
illicit drugs) will not sell to anyone that isn't
already an established associate... same with
the associates...
i've seen many relational movies that show
heavy dealers (sometimes) behind a door with
a slot in which buyers drop cash and the dealer
drops product (no matter whom you are) or
something similar to that scenario.
i am unfamiliar with that type of thing.
the (drug pushing) system is so filtered that
it would be nearly impossible for the average
person to bump shoulders with the big man...
unless inadvertantly.
most street dealers (that would sell to anyone)
really have no more than an ounce or two to
sell from... and attempt to generate as much
business from that ounce in thinking that one
day they could sell more.
this never happens...
i was going to continue, but felt i was digging
myself a nice hole...
better stop now
-
forgot to add, in aus, brothels cannot be w/in 100m (from memory) of a church/school/etc.
on the drug issue: i do agree that there is a big fish that protects itself by a swarm of small time street hustlers that deal to just about anyone with the money. it has to take a really radical government to have any sort of effect in fighting the 'drug war'. ain't no democrasy going to help here. think taliban's totalitarian regime -> they got rid of the drug trade in afghanistan. ain't no lenient, bleeding heart, human rights conscious society ever gonna win the 'drug war'.
<H1>EVER!</H1>
-
*applause*
if only the militant bastard running the show
against 'terrorism' really stood by what he
said when he coined the drug ring a 'terrorism
on our streets'....
and i am intently interested in the perimeters
of the prostitution barrier in regards to
schools/churches, SF. how was it decided upon?
-
During a prostitution sting the people searching for sex, rather than giving, is the one that gets arrested. I know, because I tow their cars. They generally have a reasonable amount of money, since the cars we bring in are usually nice. Most of these people are married. Which is rather amusing when they bring their wives to help them pick up the car. [img]redface.gif[/img]
-
i find it absurd that prostitution is illegal anywhere when there are so many forms of exchanging x (which could be anything) for sex that it really does seem futile.
-
i'm sure the look on my face would be a tad bit different...
but then again, my situation wouldn't be like most
-
It is, but it is really funny to see the look on the mans face when the wife finds out he was arrested for prostitution and not something else.
-
Say shatzy, want to exchange euro's for services?
-
-
At the moment, 1 EUR = 1.04843 USD.
-
Hmm yeah, good thinking, i'd better wait for the dollar to be worth less.
-
LOL!!!
well i wouldn't want just any euro...
i want purty, shiny ones [img]smile.gif[/img]
-
I like the way Shatzy credits Soulfilms and Zela while IGNORING the fact that I brought up the consumer versus supplier argument.
Now I'll wait while you guys address the idea that until people don't favor those they have sex with over those they know as "mere" friends or associates, prosititution cannot be legal.
-
Blah blah blah... What, did someone say something?
-
<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 Super8 Filmmaking in the DigitalAge:
Now I'll wait while you guys address the idea that until people don't favor those they have sex with over those they know as "mere" friends or associates, prosititution cannot be legal.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
surely you do not mean that alex??!!
there is no way to govern people's feelings on such occasions, just as there is no way of knowing how an individual acts in such situations. what about in marriage? do you expect a husband (say) to only equally favour a friend, associate to wife?
by classification of friend to acquaintance, you have already added hierarchy.
-
to be honest, the reason why i 'ignored' your
post, alex, is because i simply do not see how
it applies.
since you have butchered the english language
with this:
<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">Now I'll wait while you guys address the idea that until people don't favor those they have sex with over those they know as "mere" friends or associates, prosititution cannot be legal.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>
i had to redefine it as:
prostitution cannot be legal until people favor
friends/associates over those they have sex with.
which doesn't make any sense at all.
as SF stated, it has nothing to do with creating
a 'new' heirarchy....
but rather, redefining our emotional/spiritual
attachments to sexual behavior.
now i will admit that i am not the one to say
this (as i completely disagree), but i assume
that the main reason why prostitution is illegal
(as defined by america) is because the established
norm for how a person should feel towards sex
is IMPOSED upon us at a very early age... this,
i feel, is also relational to pornography
(which i will spare in this conversation).
apparently there is a big ta-do-da about sticking
a penis in a vagina... something catastrophic
and etheral...
but i doubt anyone will argue that the bulk of
americans (or anyone) engaging in sex is really
doing it for child bearing. the major reason why
most people have sex (and you can argue this,
if you will) is for self-serving pleasure.
you can argue til the cows come home that most
people have sex to 'share with their partner'...
but then we open a bigger philosophical can o' worms.
assuming that most people have sex because of
pleasure only leads to comparisons of other
ways to derive self-serving pleasure...
eating a pizza over tofu, for example.
so technically...
as soon as we can redefine that whole spiritual
bs, the better off we... and prostitution will be.
