Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!ucsd!ucbvax!bloom-beacon!ora!daemon
From: gazit@cs.duke.edu (Hillel Gazit)
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Re: Legalization of Prostitution (bodies & rights)
Message-ID: <658250735@lear.cs.duke.edu>
Date: 16 Nov 90 02:37:24 GMT
References: 129@willett.pgh.pa.us> <7684.27388aae@uwovax.uwo.ca>
Sender: ambar@ora.com (Jean Marie Diaz)
Organization: Nefolet shel nemushot (Fallout of Wimps)
Lines: 23
Approved: ambar@ora.com

In article <7684.27388aae@uwovax.uwo.ca> (Eric Smith) writes:

>I find it rather mind-boggling that we're discussing, in 1990, on a
>feminist newsgroup, the question of whether or not the government should
>have a say in a woman's choice of sexual partners. 

Quite a few women feel that they are degraded and/or in a risk of
being raped because there are prostitutes around.  Most of the
feminists who don't think so don't see this subject as important
enough to debate.

>see why this should make the woman a criminal. The proper response to this
>is to provide viable job alternatives for these women. Those who choose
>to remain prostitutes (for whatever reason) should keep the money they earn,
>and receive police protection from pimps and unruly clients.

A situation like this will insure the safety of the clients as well,
and therefore the demand will go up.  When demand goes up, and the
risk (for the supplier) goes down, then the supply goes up.

An increase in the number women who *choose* to be prostitutes is
something that most main-stream feminists don't want to see...  (Just
try to fit it into the theory...)