Since hobbying is illegal, the only legal alternative outside of marriage and Nevada brothel is sugar dating. This could hurt the pocket unless you are wealthy.
So this prohibition make sex more expensive. Escorts charge more because there are higher risks. Sugar babies get to charge higher because the laws help to scare away competition.
At the end, the middle class and the poor are the ones loosing out in this prostitution war. Sugar dating is not cheap and could be a drain on the pocket. Escorts at least have a rate and a hobbyist could budget. The rich are the ones could do it legally through sugar dating or afford the high price of escort services.
Prohibition in US doesn't stop prostitution but drive up the price. The poor and middle class are the ones either denied a good time or else get caught in the legal system.
Posted By: Rudy50
I read a post on this board from February which linked to an article describing the mess in Amsterdam with legalized prostitution. The essay writer said legalization had led to higher levels of organized crime involvement and trafficking there. So, I reviewed the status of Canada's approach since I had heard the situation there is better, for the women as well as us "hobbyists".
Turns out that's true, but only for the type of hobby we do here: internet communication between independant and possibly agency providers and the buyers for paid-for sex.
From wiki, here is the current status of Canadian law on prostitution:
While prostitution is legal in Canada, most activities related to prostitution are illegal. Prohibitions include:
• Prohibiting the operation of common bawdy-houses. This prevents prostitutes from offering their services out of fixed indoor locations such as brothels, or even their own homes.
• Prohibiting living on the avails of prostitution. This prevents anyone, including but not limited to pimps, from profiting from another’s prostitution.
• Prohibiting communicating for the purpose of prostitution in public. This prevents prostitutes from offering their services in public, and particularly on the streets.
Many of these prohibitions were found constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in 1990 in the Prostitution Reference case. In 2007, court proceedings began in Ontario to re-challenge the constitutionality of these prohibitions, on the basis that it created significant harm to prostitutes and other sex workers.
Internet, email and telephone conversations are not considered "public" communication for purposes of he law. Query whether agencies as we see here are covered by the anti-pimp portion of the law.
The re-challenge referred to above is the case called Bedford v. Canada. It is scheduled for final argument before the Canadian Supreme Court on June 12th this year. Sex workers have challenged the constitutionality of the law for endangering prostitutes, forcing them into darker streets and faster verbal negotiations which make it tougher to evaluate the potential danger of the johns. The case is described in more detail in this link:
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/2013/04/04/Sex-Worker-Ruling/ Further reading suggests there is marked disagreement among Canadians on what to do about prostitution, to liberalize the current law or ban it entirely. Effectively the divisions have lead to stalemate, with no new legislation likely unless the Supreme Court throws the old law out. Chaos likely then.
For a guy like me, who participates only through internet, telephone and email with apparently willing businesswomen, the Canadian solution is good and non-exploitive of women.
