
Inside the world of legalised prostitution in Germany - ca98am79
http://s.telegraph.co.uk/graphics/projects/welcome-to-paradise/
======
smegel
The reality is prostition helps many young girls in their early 20s escape
poverty and set themselves up for life. They can easily earn 100-200k a year,
and after 2-3 years buy a house and move onto other occupations or start a
family. Ones that stay on beyond that do so out of desperation or laziness, a
tiny minority are actually forced to stay in the industry against their will.

People who critize this need to understand the options for women from places
of abject poverty are not great either.

~~~
allegory
This. I had a friend who got herself through a medicine degree in the UK via
prostitution. Her parents' income was too high to get a grant and good loan
but they couldn't help her because of the chains of debt. She told them she
was working in Dominos branch.

She's a surgical reg now, happily married for over 10 years with two children
so did ok out of it and wasn't harmed in any way and says she quite enjoyed
it.

~~~
jacquesm
That's a pretty rare story though. It could have very easily ended up with her
either dead or pushed to use drugs. Think of her as the lucky exception in a
long long string of girls that tried the same thing and that ended up being
eaten by 'the life'. I have not one but _two_ nieces that ended up like that
and where once they were bright and healthy girls they are now shadows.

~~~
allegory
I think it depends how and who markets you. If you're not in control of it,
then it's not going to end well.

------
joshfraser
For me, it comes down to a really simple principle: Your body, your rules. Why
should some people get to tell other people what they can or can't do with
their own bodies? Our responsibility as a society is to figure out how to make
it as safe as possible for the people who find them in the unfortunate
situation where prostitution looks like the best option.

Edited to be gender neutral.

~~~
capisce
Yes - your body, your rules, but in the reality of sex trafficking legalizing
prostitution doesn't always ensure that. And as for the women who choose it
freely but only because they are in the "unfortunate situation" where it seems
like the best option, maybe we could introduce basic income so that many of
them would not have to consider this option in the first place. I would say
that's our responsibility as a society.

~~~
k-mcgrady
>> "in the reality of sex trafficking legalizing prostitution doesn't always
ensure that"

But isn't forced prostitution a problem whether we make it legal or illegal?
Are there any studies that show whether forced prostitution/trafficking goes
up or down with legalisation?

>> "And as for the women who choose it freely but only because they are in the
"unfortunate situation" where it seems like the best option"

There are plenty of jobs people do because they are the only option. They are
physically difficult, dangerous, and pay much less than prostitution. In the
documentaries/articles I've read where this point is made it often comes out
that the person could do another job but it pays less and they would rather do
prostitution as it pays more. Although I do agree with your point about a
basic income. I think that would solve a lot of societies problems. It would
also be interesting to then see how many people stay in prostitution when they
have no financial reason to do so.

~~~
capisce
>> Are there any studies that show whether forced prostitution/trafficking
goes up or down with legalisation?

The Netherlands, where prostitution is legal and regulated, is still one of
the top destinations of human trafficking:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands#Human_trafficking)

~~~
k-mcgrady
But are the levels of trafficking made any better by outlawing prostitution?
If legality has a minimal effect on trafficking the other benefits brought
about by legalisation (regulation, safer working conditions etc.) might be
worth legalisation.

------
andrewstuart
I can't remember a time when prostitution was illegal in Australia. It's hard
to understand countries where it's not legal. Funny even that's it's an
interesting topic.

~~~
forrestthewoods
You really can't understand why it would be illegal? Even if you are radically
opposed it should be pretty damn easy to come up with a long list of reasons
as to why someone else might wish it to be illegal.

~~~
ObviousScience
Can you name a few that aren't just "sex is bad, so I'll legislate that" or "a
woman shouldn't sleep around"?

~~~
capisce
From the article:

"Sex trafficking statistics are frustratingly incomplete, but a recent report
estimated the number of victims in Europe at 270,000."

We accept this form of modern slavery?

"Denmark, which decriminalised prostitution in 1999 – the same year Sweden
made the purchase of sex illegal - has four times the number of trafficking
victims than its neighbour despite having around half the population."

There's a good argument against legalization.

~~~
morgante
> "Denmark, which decriminalised prostitution in 1999 – the same year Sweden
> made the purchase of sex illegal - has four times the number of trafficking
> victims than its neighbour despite having around half the population."

That's not very strong evidence. It could easily be that the sex industry in
Denmark was thriving pre-1999 and floundering in Sweden (with policy choices &
trafficking as results).

Better proof would be comparing the growth rates in trafficking between two
countries with similar base rates, where one legalized and one didn't.

Intuitively, I hope you can understand why many people think legalization can
be a great tool for combatting trafficking. By doing so, you move the sex
trade out into the open and away from gangs/criminal syndicates and allow for
regulations which can serve public health & anti-slavery purposes.

~~~
peterfirefly
Perhaps there are many Swedish and Norwegian customers in Denmark?

------
Eliezer
I wonder whether legislating a minimum rate paid for prostitution (e.g. 100
euros per hour), with violations criminal for the underpayer but not for the
prostitute, would have resulted in a nicer-looking industry. In other words,
whether it would have been practically possible to selectively legalize high-
end sex work.

~~~
capisce
Or even better, pay them basic income - now women would no longer need to
prostitute themselves out of desperation, and only the ones who really saw
this as a lucrative career would choose it.

~~~
ekianjo
Yeah, pay basic income then prices for everything goes up and you are back at
sqiare1.

~~~
capisce
Source?

~~~
ekianjo
Source of what? Economic Principles?

~~~
capisce
I'm asking for the source of your claim that implementing basic income would
make no difference whatsoever.

Sure, some prices would rise. Basic income needs to be continuously calibrated
relative to the cost of basic living. That said, I don't see any good reason
to expect that the price of say food would rise beyond people's ability to
buy. Western countries already produce way more food than is necessary, so
supermarkets end up throwing a lot away. With increased demand there would be
increased production of food, clothes, and other essential items.

Market forces would still be in effect, so rent prices would reach a new
equilibrium. As long as there are more apartments than people, rents would
stay at a level that people could afford (or the empty apartments would lower
rents until people could afford to live there). If there are not enough
apartments, more would be built in cheap locations to satisfy demand. Sure,
basic income wouldn't make everyone able to live in New York, but that's not
the goal.

~~~
ekianjo
No economic system is an island anymore. First, where do you get the supply of
money to provide basic income to everyone? Seeing that most western countries
and knee deep in debt, I guess you mean printing money then? Inflation would
then go rampant, leading to rising prices, and rising commodity prices for
everything that is not produced in the said country. Depending where you are
that could have a very big impact on your daily purchasing power.

And then you'd have to raise prices again because your "basic income" is not
basic anymore to sustain paying for rents, for stuff more than bare minimum.
In other words, more debts.

That's a simplified explanation of what would be going on, but it gives a
general idea of why it would not work so well in practice, and why it's not
sustainable.

By the way in most countries you have a "basic income" already for people who
have no resources whatsoever (not for everyone in society) - it's very limited
but that's enough to buy food usually. The idea is nothing new.

~~~
capisce
Western countries are knee deep in public debt, but very rich when it comes to
private wealth. We don't need to print money, we just need to increase taxes a
bit, especially on the wealthiest 1 %. Inflation is an unfair tax as it
targets middle class savers the most, instead of the rich who have most of
their wealth in real estate, shares and bonds, etc.

Some prices would rise, but not enough to offset the benefits of basic income.
Our economy has more than enough productivity and wealth to provide everyone
with food and shelter. The majority of food production is largely automated
and does not require a lot of cheap labor.

Your claim that basic income is not sustainable is unsubstantiated. Basic
income is a great way to share the proceeds of automation and increased
productivity among the many instead of just among the few.

~~~
ekianjo
Are you one of the Occupy Wall Street guys? :)

It's very easy for corporations or rich individuals to move away from places
were tax increase too much. More unemployment, is that what you want? Because
when such companies/people move, they don't spend their money locally anymore.
Yeah, and they are free to move, unless you want to set up a totalitarian
regime.

And the claim that taxing the very rich will save the government from its debt
is hilarious, seeing that the US government, for example, has dozens of
trillions of USD in debts and I have yet to hear about any company who has a
trillion of net worth.

~~~
capisce
One of the Occupy Wall Street guys, like Obama?
[http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/obama-tax-
inver...](http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/07/obama-tax-inversion-
walgreens-avoid-executive-powers)

Sure, tax evasion is a problem, but the fact is taxes have been on a downward
curve for decades now. Wealth and corporate tax evasion is a race to the
bottom, and requires international cooperation. Should we just shrug and let
inequality grow without bounds? We don't need to restrict people's freedom to
move, but the EU and US could for example cooperate on introducing tariffs on
companies that base their operations in tax havens. Of course, there is still
a lot that could be achieved on a purely national level too.

The US public debt is at 18 trillion USD, whereas total private net worth is
at least three times that amount:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_Unite...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_position_of_the_United_States)

Sounds like it should be possible to reduce the public debt to a more
manageable level.

~~~
ekianjo
Well you are obviously on another end of the political spectrum, I consider
that taxes are way too high in many countries, and that governments should
restrict the scope of what they do instead of increasing the tax burden on
generations to come. Obviously this is not a very popular stance to have these
days, but I am strongly convinced this is the best one if we are serious about
our economic future.

~~~
capisce
While I am strongly convinced more redistribution is needed if we are serious
about the well being of humanity. Economy should be a tool to serve humanity,
not the other way around. Unless your head has been stuck in the sand, you
might have noticed that pretty much all the increased profits generated since
the 1970s have gone to the very few and rich.

[http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/05/u-s-
income-i...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2013/12/05/u-s-income-
inequality-on-rise-for-decades-is-now-highest-since-1928/)

Even if you only care about economic growth and not about inequality, there is
evidence that economic growth is held back by the current levels of
inequality:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-
ine...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/06/upshot/alarm-on-income-inequality-
from-a-mainstream-source.html?abt=0002&abg=0)

Where is the evidence for the case that taxes are way too high? Growing public
debt will also be a burden on generations to come.

~~~
ekianjo
> Unless your head has been stuck in the sand, you might have noticed that
> pretty much all the increased profits generated since the 1970s have gone to
> the very few and rich.

Unless you head has been stuck in the sand, worldwide poverty has decreased
significantly since the 1970s and that's become the market has been more
opened than before, not because governments have been overspending.

> Even if you only care about economic growth and not about inequality, there
> is evidence that economic growth is held back by the current levels of
> inequality

Bullshit. Inequality increase is obviously normal. Someone who starts with
more capital will see their absolute income rising faster than someone with
lower capital, so obviously "inequality" will rise no matter what. It would be
very strange if it went the other way around. Besides, Inequality is bullshit
because the level of life for almost everyone on Earth has increased
generation after generation, and the poor have been getting less poor than
they were, so for almost everyone it is a positive trend. Look at China, if
you want an example of how hundred of millions of people benefit from a newly
opened market to get out of poverty.

> Where is the evidence for the case that taxes are way too high? Growing
> public debt will also be a burden on generations to come.

What evidence do you need? When 45% of you gross salary goes back to the
government in taxes, that's the only evidence you need.

EDIT/ And, you know, if you want to help the poor, nobody prevents you from
giving your savings and income to charity or to whoever you like. You know,
you don't need the government to do that for you with added inefficiency and
bureaucracy.

~~~
capisce
Yes, worldwide hunger has fallen by 17 percent since 1990 (a lot less than
world economic and productivity growth in the same period), but there are
still 842 million people who don't have enough to eat. We could pat ourselves
on the back and say "well done", or we could consider the fact that we're
settling for a lot less than what we are capable of -
[http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats](http://www.wfp.org/hunger/stats)

Inequality increase might be "normal" in our current political systems, but
that doesn't make it desirable or inevitable. A progressive tax on wealth and
income could prevent it from getting out of hand. Inequality is not bullshit,
because first of all the extreme wealth in the hands of the rich could go a
long way to feed and house the hungry and poor, and secondly wealth is power.
Wealth can buy political power through lobbying and campaigning, ensuring that
policies tend to shift ever in favour of the wealthy. Thus extreme inequality
corresponds to extreme imbalances in power, undermining our democratic
institutions.

On the first point, "you could approximately double the incomes of those
living on less than $1.25 a day worldwide by transferring to them one-third of
the consumption growth enjoyed by the world’s richest 1 percent since 1990.
Think of it as bringing the consumption levels of the global 1 percent back to
where they were around 2003 or 2004, in return for wiping out global absolute
poverty. Is that such an unreasonable tradeoff?" \-
[http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-09/how-to-
end-g...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-12-09/how-to-end-global-
income-inequality#p1)

And while a lot of Chinese have moved from poverty to wage slavery, the
economic narrative isn't really that rosy there either:
[http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-30/chinas-
incom...](http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-04-30/chinas-income-
inequality-gap-widens-beyond-u-dot-s-dot-levels)

You claimed the fact that people had been lifted out of poverty since the
1970s was a sign that the economy was doing well. Why then is a 45 % tax such
a problem, assuming the people paying it don't end up below the poverty level?
Considering what governments provide in terms of infrastructure, safety,
education, social security, and health care, is that so much to ask for? It
seems only fair to pay back to society for the opportunities provided for us.
Also from a utilitarian stand-point societies with less inequality have less
crime and improved well-being (assuming the GDP per capita is not too low of
course). Tax is a necessary part of a well functioning society, not a
bogeyman. We should just make taxation more fair by not making the middle
class pay a disproportionate share - the wealthy often pay a significantly
lower tax percentage on their earnings due to income being taxed higher than
capital gains.

High tax rates do not prevent economic growth, in fact the opposite seems to
be the case: "During the 1950s and early 1960s, the top bracket income tax
rate was over 90%--and the economy, middle-class, and stock market boomed." \-
[http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-
rates](http://www.businessinsider.com/history-of-tax-rates)

Tax rates are at an all-time low, inequality levels are soaring, and economic
growth is poor. The gains from the high levels of productivity growth we've
seen since the 1970s have been accumulating among a small elite. Doesn't seem
very ideal to me.

------
lispm
> When Germany legalised prostitution in 2002 it triggered an apparently
> unstoppable growth in the country’s sex industry.

One needs to be careful when making judgements about what the causes were for
this growth.

One need to keep in mind that Germany has several strong driving forces for
change in our society and around us.

* economic collapse in former east europe

* change in political and economic systems

* open borders

* a lot of poor and desperate people in Germany and in neighbor countries.

* Many european countries further in the east are even worse in most ways: no jobs, no perspective, corruption, very little recovery, ...

* Germany had an economic recovery during the last decade and has been able to control the effects of the world-wide financial crisis on its economy.

* the Euro in Germany and west Europe remained stable. In those troubled country in the east, there is no Euro. Some smaller countries now joined the Eurozone.

We had the reunification of east and west germany. 20 million people had a
drastic change in life, with their economy collapsing, authorities gone, the
political system changed, jobs gone, ... Some recovery happened in the last
decade, but that was very tough for many people and dampened by a lot of money
from mostly western parts of Germany. All borders to neighbor countries are
now wide open. All the east european countries went through even harder
economic times. The financial crisis made it even worse. High unemployment in
neighbor countries, especially for young people, while unemployment in Germany
was going down. Many people moved to west europe for work. Legal or not.
Eastern neighbors all joined the EU, which for example now means that people
can move freely and work freely in other countries.

Thus it's not easy to compare it with other countries and it is not possible
to think about prostitution independent from the other developments. The
number of people in prostition is not just depending on the type of law.
Germany has rich West Germany and an added East Germany. At its border it has
countries with a lot of poor people, formely all communist. This difference in
wealth, job opportunities, etc. creates enough opportunities which can be
exploited. Thus we would have seen a lot increase in the sex business, whether
we would have legalized it or not. Trying to control that with police and laws
would have been very very difficult. There are open borders to all sides.
Thinking that young women from eastern Europe would not been here, if laws
were tougher is naive. We didn't open the borders to create new ones.

I think it was a smart move to prevent people from going underground. Still it
makes sense to look if changes to the laws etc. are necessary after more than
a decade.

~~~
oakaz
As I know the border of Germany is pretty strict. I hear lots of horror
stories from not only well educated people, but also people write books, makes
music, etc. Even well known singers can't get visa to give their concert in
Germany sometimes.

So how come unemployed people from poor neighbor countries can just go Germany
and do prostution? It sounds realistic at first hear but thinking about the
border officers in Germany, I think you kinda wanna think majority of the
prostutes are not Germans.

~~~
lispm
What you hear is wrong. German border controls are mostly non existent. In a
physical way. Drive over the border and you are in Germany. No fence. No
controls. Border controls are down to a minimum.

Poland is next to us. No one in Poland needs a visa. There are no real border
controls between Poland and us.

The Czech are next to us. No one needs a visa. No real border controls.

France is next to us. No real border controls. Nobody needs a visa. We even
have the same currency.

Everybody in the EU (505 million people) can work move and work everywhere
(mostly). Nobody needs a visa.

Even from countries where a visa is needed, moving to Germany and staying
illegal is relatively easy.

And so on.

~~~
qwerta
German road police bullies Czech and Polish drivers a lot. 'Random' road
control means that entire content of car ends up on the road. And while German
society is relatively open, you need fluent German language with NO ACCENT to
be fully accepted, it is very far from US or UK.

~~~
lispm
> German road police bullies Czech and Polish drivers a lot. 'Random' road
> control means that entire content of car ends up on the road.

Where I live, I have never seen that at all. Even then, if the police does not
find anything, Czech and Polish drivers are perfectly fine to drive on German
streets. Since they are in the EU, they can freely live and work in Germany -
they just need to follow the usual German and EU laws.

That's also not important in this context. Prostitutes from east european
countries can easily move into Germany. It also does not matter if they speak
German or not. Most speak enough German to be able to work here in their
business.

> And while German society is relatively open, you need fluent German language
> with NO ACCENT to be fully accepted, it is very far from US or UK.

The is no requirement to have no foreign accent to live in Germany. The city
where I live has around 13% population which doesn't have a German passport.
That's the official numbers. Then add people who are living illegal and people
who have passports from more than one country.

~~~
oakaz
You must be a joke. Germany is where it's a casual thing to burn minorities
alive. I'm not even talking about the holocaust;

2008:
[http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/02/fire-f12.html](http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2008/02/fire-f12.html)

1993:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solingen_arson_attack_of_1993](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solingen_arson_attack_of_1993)

More:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Germany](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Germany)

And as a minority in Oakland, I feel like home and I know enough horror
stories to avoid visiting Germany as long as I don't have a good reason.

~~~
qwerta
This is just total bullshit. Germany has 80+ millions people and what you
referred are very isolated accidents. German Turks are doing MUCH better than
any minority in America.

And I am SICK of racist stereotypes about Germans. Yes their police does
profiling and people from post-soviet get less promoted, but this also applies
to East-Germans!

What I was talking about is not racism, but sort of conservatism.

~~~
gambiting
Yeah I do not understand what is going on with HN today. Half of the comments
here are showing Germans as some racists bastards with tight border controls -
when the reality couldn't be further from the truth. And I am not even German.

~~~
oakaz
are you europen, american or middle eastern?

~~~
gambiting
Are these the 3 only options? Define "European"? Sweden, Greece, Russia and
Turkey are all parts of Europe,but I imagine you would be a lot quicker to
call someone from Turkey "middle eastern". Also, with this classification
someone from Brazil or Mexico is also American, since they live in one of the
Americas, and you seem to prefer continental or regional denominations rather
than ones based on state.

But technicalities aside - I am from Poland. Country which has every reason to
hate Germans the most. Yet my opinion of Germans is that they are incredibly
polite, worried to be perceived as even a little bit racist, and the part
about border crossings is completely made up. Even before the Schoengen zone
was opened, if you were stopped at the German border, sure, they could
disassemble half of your car - but then they would put everything back
together exactly as it was, and they would apologise for taking your time.
Compared to the Belorussian, Ukrainian or Russian borders, where you have to
be careful to not get shot.

~~~
oakaz
Turkey is the shittiest name to call Thrace, Anatolia and North Mesopotamia.
Thrace is the european part, Anatolia is the asian part, and North Mesopotamia
is the middle eastern part of this country. And majority is the influenced by
persian & middle eastern culture rather than European.

I'm saying this as somebody grew up there. You have to ask the experience of
those who actually experience the discrimination, not speaking on behalf of
them. Where else in the world we have racists burning houses belong to
minorities alive in 2010s? Even last year, a singer couldn't give a concert to
the Turkish people there because she couldn't get a visa. If she gets visa,
she may not pass the border since all the officers ask you "why are you in
Germany?" and if you say you wanna travel they keep asking "travelling where?"
"shopping what?" "studying what?" Now even celebs bring newspapers to show the
officers to prove that they won't stay too long there!

It's a fact that being a middle eastern or being from a middle eastern
influenced country let you face different attitude everywhere in the world.
I'm saying this as an atheist guy who had to face it.

~~~
lispm
Isn't Turkey one of the more minority unfriendly and oppressive countries?

www.minorityrights.org/download.php?id=183

[http://usefoundation.org/view/869](http://usefoundation.org/view/869)

Some christians seem to have a hard time in Turkey:

[http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/christians-in-turkey-
fearfu...](http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/christians-in-turkey-fearful-
after-knife-wielding-men-terrorize-istanbul-
church.aspx?pageID=238&nID=68399&NewsCatID=393)

[http://www.speroforum.com/a/YGCTQMTWMQ13/73995-Turkey-
Christ...](http://www.speroforum.com/a/YGCTQMTWMQ13/73995-Turkey-Christian-
churches-assaulted-and-vandalized#.U_xC_Uu57Hg)

[http://morningstarnews.org/2014/07/hostilities-at-
catholic-c...](http://morningstarnews.org/2014/07/hostilities-at-catholic-
church-in-istanbul-turkey-leave-parishioners-fearing-worse/)

[http://armenpress.am/eng/news/717094/christian-churches-
atta...](http://armenpress.am/eng/news/717094/christian-churches-attacked-in-
turkey.html)

~~~
oakaz
Yes it is, and that's why I left there. By the way, I doubt it's as worse as
countries where minorities are burnt alive in 2010s.

------
spingsprong
With any new industry there's bound to be bugs in the system. Most other
industries have laws regulating them going back decades or even over a
century. You're not gonna get it perfect from day 1.

~~~
thaumasiotes
Seems kind of funny to describe The Oldest Profession as a "new industry".
Prostitution laws have a history much longer than one century.

------
unicornporn
I really think that everybody here should see the documentary "Dreamworld: The
Biggest Brothel" that is made inside the largest brothel in Europe.

Here's the trailer:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shv1FAxToHM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Shv1FAxToHM)

------
janezj
After watching movie The Unknown Woman by Giuseppe Tormatore, I always
associate prostitution as explotation of women, I just wish that there are
happy girls enjoing its jobs. But there are also beasts seling their bodies to
other beasts.

------
forgotpasswd3x
Why was the title changed from the OPs original title, which much better
characterized the story?

~~~
jdmichal
The title would normally be changed to "Welcome to Paradise", which is the
article title. Due to the content, not sure if a mod will reduce it to just
that...

~~~
forgotpasswd3x
Right, which is why I believe the original title was more informative than the
updated title. (Original title being: "Welcome to Paradise: inside the world
of legalised prostitution", which I believe could have only been made more
accurate to the story by adding "in Germany")

IIRC, the reason for changing submission titles is to ensure clarity, and
dissuade editorialization, however this submission was changed to a _less
clear_ title.

~~~
dang
We changed it to the doc title, but without the baity prefix.

------
jensen123
Women get pregnant. Men do not. That means that, one way or another, men have
to support women financially. Traditional marriage is one way, prostitution
another.

However, in our culture there seems to be a bias that marriage is somehow
better than prostitution. I find that odd.

Traditional monogamous marriage seems incredibly boring. The biggest problem
with prostitution, I think, is STDs, because each prostitute has sex with so
very many men.

I wish there was some sort of solution somewhere between traditional marriage
and prostitution.

Maybe the reason why our culture has this bias in favor of monogamous
marriage, is that the majority of the population is not easily bored?

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _Maybe the reason why our culture has this bias in favor of monogamous
> marriage, is that the majority of the population is not easily bored?_

Then again, you see the proliferation of divorces and many married people end
up having lovers on the side. So I'd say our culture is getting increasingly
easy-bored.

I think the main reason for this bias is that marriages in the past were
primarily an economic construct, merging the wealth of two families, where the
married couple were only the vehicle for binding the contract. This, plus of
course the economic benefits of spawning and raising kids. You can see this
today in parts of the world where people still do arranged marriages.

Compared to prostitution, this would be like the difference between a cozy
corporate job and freelancing in an unstable market. In the first case, you
get insurance, health benefits, stable and predictable salary, and you expect
to be employed for long time - so you and your family can make long-term
plans. In the second case, you don't get any of that, and your main concern is
whether you'll earn enough money now to last through an unpredictably-long
period of time where there won't be any work for you to do - so you can't plan
ahead at all.

