Sex work decriminalization, legalization, regulation, and ethics

[Barbi]

I believe Bit is right, we dont need any government regulations telling us how to operate our business.....The established providers here to the things that you are suggesting and we dont need anyone babysitting us...and as far as a self regulation industry that will never happen here because the government stands too much to make off of regulations, so that is humorous honestly....I dont see anyone here wanting their personal business put out on jump street through insurance billings handled through the corporate office which codes would certainly be a part of that and so forth...Plus it would require that the ladies all be situation in some type of brothel type situation in insure she is not out being stupid and getting herself into trouble, so there goes the discretion that is enjoyed right now for everyone...There are some here who might not see that as an issue but I do because I do have a life outside of here and suspect the other ladies to do and they can kiss that good bye despite the promises that might be being made now...

And from the say the new laws were put into affect it was done to harm the ladies in the hobby so there is only one reason to do that and that was to hide those who were being trafficked better by using new website and such buried in the dark web....So I would not be shocked in they retaliate soon by making some huge announcement that will affect the hobby since it is obvious those folks are tied into the government....

Edited July 19, 2019 by Barbi

[BadBoy]

There is really only one solution:

[Bit Banger]

7 hours ago, Bit Banger said:

There’s an old saying, “You can’t con an honest man.”

.  

Another aspect of this mantra is that the mark feels he’s done something which precludes his going to the authorities with a complaint.

Edited July 20, 2019 by Bit Banger

[jasminewaterss7]

Op’s feelings are valid ...but the things he’s worried about are trivial compared to what providers deal with on a daily basis (robbery, violence, fake money etc). 

[pfunk]

All I can say is...until it's decriminalized, it's theoretical. No one is going to set up a "hooker and john - behaviors and ethics board". 

[Prayforrain]

Jasmine, thanks for understanding. I also agree with you and think the issues of protecting sex workers are way more significant, I was just narrowing the topic to the ethical issues I am referring to. 

I think that any professional service, whether it’s sales, food and beverage, repair, or being a doctor, teacher, lawyer, etc. should adhere to a form of consumer protection also.  

I think many of us have looked at how to legitimize sex work (heck, just look at New York recently, and the organizations based in SF and other places) so that the same types of benefits and protections could be afforded to sex workers. New Zealand has some interesting laws regarding protections and even looking for a Minister of Prostitution, and there are a number of scholarly papers that address the complexities of decriminalizing or fully legalizing prostitution.

I can also see the point of of wanting to keep the government out of things but I think if the right framework was put into place, sex work could be fully legitimate and the ladies and gents who are less scrupulous would find it harder to operate compared to legitimate businesses.

[2Big]

Jeez, you're way overthinking this. Just bang the ho!

[gr8owl]

On 7/19/2019 at 5:24 PM, Bit Banger said:

What’s on your mind?  As long as you refrain from personal insults, we’re a fairly open minded crowd.  Don’t mind the spat between Gr8owl & myself; we’re old adversaries used to sparring about our ideas.

Besides a woman’s perspective on the topic is just as valid as the men’s.

Bit, I think the word "adversaries" is not very accurate or at least overstated. We agree more often than not, just not always.  It is just that neither of us is at all shy about expressing an opinion that runs contrary to the other's opinion.  But nothing wrong with that as long as it remains professional, polite and in the end OK to disagree.  "Adversaries" would Mitch McConnell and Bernie Sanders - who agree about nothing and both of whom are jackasses about it!  I will give you old however. 

[Bit Banger]

49 minutes ago, gr8owl said:

Bit, I think the word "adversaries" is not very accurate or at least overstated. We agree more often than not, just not always. ...

Yes, I could buy that.  How about compadres who scrap now & again, but never draw blood?

The point is that we disagree from time to time, but shake hands with no hard feelings afterwards.  Probably because we both focus in the issue instead of personal name calling and we both recognize that there is often a wide variety of opinions; we just don’t happen to share one.  Besides, what kind of friends would we be if we ALWAYS agreed with each other 😁