Dan,

Alcohol sales are not illegal, just regulated. Regulations cover health checks, where, when and who, for the protection of the sex workers and their clients.

Perhaps instead of giving a blanket statement that the Victorian laws have failed, you could provide some substance to your claim. From what I see the issues relate to those who work "illegally" outside the controls.

SM:

Type this into "Google": Illegal sex trade in victoria....best of luck with your argument!

...And I dont accept your argument which implies regulation is possible without penalties...

Dan:

RObert/Vanna

...What you imply is the chicken came before the egg! When everybody knows there are no chickens without an egg involved! Pretty simple logics really…So, to project the theory onwards, without men there would be no sex trade…All-be-it the chicken and egg pronouncement is applied more flexibly here since, the sex trade will continue to some degree without the “men” factor; but on a much smaller scale. This proposition then proves that men are a major contributor to the sex trade and as such, responsible for its continuation!

Dan,

Regulation requires enforcement.

As with alcohol etc it is far more profitable to work outside the regulations, and not pay tax. That there are illegal brothels, does not mean the regulations work, it just means that they need further enforcement.

As with any industry, working within the regulations means no penalties, but outside the law is different. Having done the search, I don't find anything that contradicts this.

Diver dan
I oppose all forms of prostitution, but I think the author has simply taken the prostitution laws as an opportunity to make generalised, discriminatory and bigoted statements about “men”.

But by making these generalised, discriminatory and bigoted statements about men, the author also includes himself in his generalisation, discrimination and bigotry.

So if the author is a man, the author should have no objection to the statement that he also thinks of women in our society are "sexual objects who can be purchased, consumed and disposed of".

How the author studies law is beyond belief.

Or what type of law fully accepts generalisation, discrimination and bigotry such as that shown by the author.

Would it be university academic law?

diver dan, you are right that the bulk of the custoer base for prostitution is male. If males didn't use prostitutes services then there would be a lot less prostitution. Likewise if there were no female prostitutes there would be a lot less prostitution, you can argue that one in circles with no logical conclusion.

That does not make men responsible for the choices of women who chose to work as prostitutes nor does it give others any more right to insist that either the customers or the prostitutes say no than it gives someone to insist that someone say yes to a sexual activity.

It does not deal with the context that creates a need for prostitution for many (not having sexual needs met elsewhere). It doesn't deal with the persistance of prostitution throughout history pretty much regardless of the laws society put's in place.

What blaming men alone for prostitution does do is make a very negative comment about the capabilities of women, an extroardinarily patronising attitude to women which says that they can't be trusted to make their own decisions outside of a narrow socially defined set of criteria. Men on the other hand are apparently capable of making decisions and being responsible for them.

R0bert