Nevada gives legalized prostitution uneasy embrace

Yahoo!News ^ | February 13, 2006 | Adam Tanner

[mlc9852]

MOUND HOUSE, Nevada (Reuters) - In a small Nevada town, a sign at the end of a poorly lighted street lined with warehouses bears an unusual message: "Warning-Sexual entertainment 300 yards ahead. If sex offends you, get out of here."

At the Bunny Ranch in Mound House, men travel many miles to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars to have sex in the only U.S. state to allow legal brothels.

Yet even in permissive Nevada, legal prostitution operates at the margins of society and, unlike other vices such as gambling and pornography, without mainstream America's embrace. The brothel owners themselves disagree whether to stay in the shadows or trumpet their services.

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[DragonflyX]

Pay for dinner? Ring? House? You always pay!

[swain_forkbeard]

"I guess not everyone has that kind of marriage."

Guess not. My marriage gets to include some humor.

[MineralMan]

"Pay for dinner? Ring? House? You always pay!"

Really? My wife and I both work for a living. Sometimes I make more than she does; sometimes she makes more than I do. We have only one checking account. Who's paying?

[investigateworld]

Not just wife's either. Last year the City of Berkley had a measure on their ballot directing the police department to make enforcing prostitution laws the lowest priority.
The hairy legged dykes joined with the church ladies to shoot it down.

[Protagoras]

Do you think many husbands have sex with prostitutes?

Unfortunately, many men have done it one time or another during their marriages. Depending on the society, it is more or less.

Imagine a man's shock if he went to one of these "businesses" and was led into a room and there was his daughter!

I will never have to experience that.

[Protagoras]

You always pay for sex. ALWAYS!

It's an old joke. But of course, it's untrue.

[FormerLib]

I was rather surprised to learn that the push for making prostitution illegal in the US during the end of the 19th Century was primarlity to help prevent women from being forced into prostitution (although some folks will swear it was all American Puritanism).

In places such as Holland where prostitution is legal, it comes with a level of government regulation that would make most stateside libertarians howl with fury. And recently, the Dutch have become troubled by increasing numbers of protitutes who operate outside of the law, most of whom have been forced into the profession against their wills.

[FormerLib]

>>>Why is prostitution illegal?

A most definite carry over from the religious laws of yesteryear.

Actually, prostitution was made illegal in the US towards the end of the 19th Century as a means of preventing women from being forced into the profession against their wills. Many claim it's just a remnant of Puritanism but those are the ones who haven't done their research.

[mlc9852]

Thanks for the info.

[sandbar]

>>>Really? My wife and I both work for a living. Sometimes I make more than she does; sometimes she makes more than I do. We have only one checking account. Who's paying?>>>

Absolutely Mineral Man. Same at our house. My husband doesn't 'pay' for me, we take care of our household. Together.

[sandbar]

>>>In places such as Holland where prostitution is legal, it comes with a level of government regulation that would make most stateside libertarians howl with fury. And recently, the Dutch have become troubled by increasing numbers of protitutes who operate outside of the law, most of whom have been forced into the profession against their wills.>>>

And of course that doesn't happen in America, where it is illegal?

[Protagoras]

Thanks, please provide a link if possible.

[sandbar]

>>>Actually, prostitution was made illegal in the US towards the end of the 19th Century as a means of preventing women from being forced into the profession against their wills. Many claim it's just a remnant of Puritanism but those are the ones who haven't done their research.>>>

No, the OFFICIAL reason was to prevent the spread of deadly diseases such as syphlis and gonorhea, but the outrage didn't begin until it changed from being a rural problem to an urban problem. And I believe for a minute that the puritan laws didn't affect it becoming illegal. It came along the lines of prohibition. The "Government knows best".

[FormerLib]

Thanks, please provide a link if possible.

Unfortunately, I learned all of this from books studying American history.

[FormerLib]

And of course that doesn't happen in America, where it is illegal?

And people without driver's licenses drive on the public roads here, too, despite that being illegal, can you believe it? Oh, the humanities!

Forcing someone into an illegal profession is much harder to do than it is if it were legal. Did it make 100% of the problem go away overnight? Hardly. When has any legislation been that effective?

[Protagoras]

Unfortunately, I learned all of this from books studying American history.

Oh. I have read scores of them as well, but I never came across that particular "fact".

[ScubieNuc]

"If we passed forced based laws (all of them) against everything offensive or immoral the ultimate result would be something akin to the Taliban rule in Afghanistan."

Really? The Taliban allowed the people to vote on their representatives, and they, in turn, created laws passed by a majority? These laws then could be apposed legally and reviewed by a "non politically" appointed court, which based it's decisions on a majority approved set of standards?

"If prostitution offends people -- should they simply stay away themselves (Jewish/Pork approach) or should they demand that everyone follow their personal rules (Muslim/Cartoon approach)."

In your personal life, this is a fine approach. However, when it comes to our political system, it is a false analysis. If the majority in a town, county, state, country, wish to propose laws that coincide with their morals, that is their right. If the laws are passed, then they should be inforced. That is VERY different from a Islamic dictate of imposing Sharia law on all.

All laws are the imposition of someones moral values onto others. Not trying to pass laws that would protect your moral underpinings in America, is equivalent to surrender. That I will not do.

It is a dangerous slope to compare the democratic process of America to the dictatorial process of Islam. If America's law's reflect Christian values, then that is done though a democratic process.

No law elliminates crime. To take a stance of...it'll always be around, so let's embrace it, is (IMO) surrendering to what you disagree with.

[Protagoras]

The Taliban allowed the people to vote on their representatives, and they, in turn, created laws passed by a majority?

I'm glad I didn't say anything remotely like that. I guess someone made that up.

If the majority in a town, county, state, country, wish to propose laws that coincide with their morals, that is their right.

Jim Crow.

And,,,governments don't have "rights". They have powers. Some are even legitimate.

Not trying to pass laws that would protect your moral underpinings in America, is equivalent to surrender.

No it's not.

That I will not do.

Not your call.

[Physicist]

So what do you call the men?

I call them "men".

Women have strong biological reasons for being very choosy about their sex partners, while men have strong biological reasons for being indiscriminate. Humans grew so accustomed to seeing that as "the way it ought to be" that they built social mores around it.

Is it fair? No. Is it right? No. Is it natural? Perfectly.

I have strong personal reasons for not lying with prostitutes--Mrs. P. would frown upon it--but I don't see prostitution as morally wrong, nor prostitutes as wicked, and I would not shun them in non-sexual contexts.

(Questions regarding how-would-I-feel-if-my-daughter-etc. cheerfully ignored.)