Typhusoid said:I heard that Jackie Smith (U.K politician) has passed a legislation stating that if a prostitute has been coerced into it then their client is guilty. To me this just doesn't make sense I was wondering about your views.
This. Set up brothels for prostitutes to work in, completely cut out the whole "waiting on street corners" thing.rossatdi said:The way I figure it prostitution is only a social evil if the women are put in danger. Legalise and regulate it and you'll stop many women from being abused.
It'd generally fall under "Refusal of Service" which is perfectly legal. You don't where a condom, she refuses to do the deed and you won't be able to use the brothel's services (except, perhaps, the toilets?rossatdi said:I think two conditions ought to be part of the regulation:
1) Monthly (is that too extreme) STD checks, and healthy insurance (supplied by the brothel or government or what have you, I'm British so we don't need it but it's a concern)
2) Condoms for all penetrative sex. Now that's a little graphic and I apologise but it's necessary. A prostitute should have legal grounds to demand a customer use one.
Why is it nessasary? Customers would have background checks and prostitutes would be on the pill so...rossatdi said:I think two conditions ought to be part of the regulation:
1) Monthly (is that too extreme) STD checks, and healthy insurance (supplied by the brothel or government or what have you, I'm British so we don't need it but it's a concern)
2) Condoms for all penetrative sex. Now that's a little graphic and I apologise but it's necessary. A prostitute should have legal grounds to demand a customer use one.
I can agree with these.rossatdi said:I think two conditions ought to be part of the regulation:
1) Monthly (is that too extreme) STD checks, and healthy insurance (supplied by the brothel or government or what have you, I'm British so we don't need it but it's a concern)
2) Condoms for all penetrative sex. Now that's a little graphic and I apologise but it's necessary. A prostitute should have legal grounds to demand a customer use one.
Perhaps a recent (last 3/6/12 months or something) clean bill of sexual health from the doctor or something. If we're making the guys wear condoms, it's less necessary, but erring on the side of caution is often a good thing.ZenMonkey47 said:I can agree with these.rossatdi said:I think two conditions ought to be part of the regulation:
1) Monthly (is that too extreme) STD checks, and healthy insurance (supplied by the brothel or government or what have you, I'm British so we don't need it but it's a concern)
2) Condoms for all penetrative sex. Now that's a little graphic and I apologise but it's necessary. A prostitute should have legal grounds to demand a customer use one.
Should the customer's medical records also be taken into account?
I think these are how the prostitution laws work in Amsterdamme.rossatdi said:I think two conditions ought to be part of the regulation:
1) Monthly (is that too extreme) STD checks, and healthy insurance (supplied by the brothel or government or what have you, I'm British so we don't need it but it's a concern)
2) Condoms for all penetrative sex. Now that's a little graphic and I apologise but it's necessary. A prostitute should have legal grounds to demand a customer use one.
What the hell?! You think someone will rape woman and give her 300 bucks?! Makes no sense.curlycrouton said:Typhusoid said:I heard that Jackie Smith (U.K politician) has passed a legislation stating that if a prostitute has been coerced into it then their client is guilty. To me this just doesn't make sense I was wondering about your views.
Why doesn't it make sense? If they are coerced into sex with someone else, i.e. raped, then yes, the male is most certainly guilty.
No, forced into it by a pimp. It happens, a lot.SuperFriendBFG said:What the hell?! You think someone will rape woman and give her 300 bucks?! Makes no sense.curlycrouton said:Typhusoid said:I heard that Jackie Smith (U.K politician) has passed a legislation stating that if a prostitute has been coerced into it then their client is guilty. To me this just doesn't make sense I was wondering about your views.
Why doesn't it make sense? If they are coerced into sex with someone else, i.e. raped, then yes, the male is most certainly guilty.