A July 2012 report by the Global Commission on HIV and the Law, a UN-supported group whose members include heads of state and legal scholars, recommends a worldwide legalization of prostitution.
The commission specifically calls for the decriminalisation of private and consensual adult sexual behaviours, including same-sex sexual acts and voluntary sex work. “Laws that criminalize and dehumanize populations at the highest risk of HIV--including men who have sex with men, sex workers, transgender people and injecting drug users--drive people underground, away from essential health services and heighten their risk of HIV.”
But there are always two sides to the issue. Let us discuss them.
WHAT IS PROSTITUTION Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2007):
Prostitution 1 : the act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money 2 : the state of being prostituted : DEBASEMENT
SUMMARY OF MAIN CONTENTIONS Proponents of legalizing prostitution believe it would reduce crime, improve public health, increase tax revenue, help people out of poverty, get prostitutes off the streets, and allow consenting adults to make their own choices. They contend that prostitution is a victimless crime.
Opponents believe that legalizing prostitution would lead to increases in sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS, global human trafficking, and violent crime including rape and homicide. In Amsterdam, it has led to increases in organized crime and trafficking and has created an environment in which pimps operate with impunity under the title of "manager" or "facilitator." Far from empowering or protecting the prostituted women, where prostitution is legalized, the women are forced to pay rent and fees to a pimp to protect them from being beaten up such that they "can barely make a living." They contend that prostitution is inherently immoral, commercially exploitative, empowers the criminal underworld, and promotes the repression of women by men.
Illegal in 39 (39%); Afghanistan Albania Angola Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Barbados Cambodia China (including Taiwan) Croatia Cuba Dominica Egypt Grenada Guyana Haiti Iran Iraq Jamaica Jordan Kenya Korea, North Korea, South Liberia Lithuania Malta Philippines Romania Rwanda Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Vincent and Grenadines Saudi Arabia Slovenia South Africa Suriname Thailand Trinidad and Tobago Uganda United Arab Emirates
Legal in 50 (50%); Argentina Armenia Austria Belgium Belize Bolivia Brazil Canada Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Estonia Ethiopia Finland France Germany Greece Guatemala Honduras Hungary Indonesia Ireland Israel Italy Kyrgyzstan Latvia Luxembourg Mexico Netherlands New Zealand Nicaragua Norway Panama Paraguay Peru Poland Portugal Senegal Singapore Slovakia Switzerland Turkey United Kingdom (including Scotland) Uruguay Venezuela
Limited Legality in 11 (11%); Australia Bangladesh Bulgaria Iceland India Japan Malaysia Spain Sweden United States
LEGAL Prostitution should not be a crime. Prostitutes are not committing an inherently harmful act. What makes prostitution a 'victimless crime' in the sense that no one is necessarily harmed by it is that there are consenting adults involved.
ILLEGAL Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape -- acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent.
LEGAL We chose sex work after we did a lot of things we couldn't stand. Sex work is better. For me, sex work isn't my first choice of paying work. It just happens to be the best alternative available.
ILLEGAL The ILO [International Labour Organization] report admits that most women 'choose' prostitution for economic reasons. Surely no one can argue that this is free choice any more than the cattle in the squeeze chute choose to go to their death.
LEGAL Decriminalization would better protect people in the sex industry from violence and abuse.
...Police cannot and do not simultaneously seek to arrest prostitutes and protect them from violence.... Indeed, women describe being told, 'What did you expect?' by police officers who refused to investigate acts of violence perpetrated against women whom they knew engaged in prostitution. The consequences of such attitudes are tragic: Gary Ridgway said that he killed prostitutes because he knew he would not be held accountable. The tragedy is that he was right - he confessed to the murders of 48 women, committed over nearly twenty years. That is truly criminal.
ILLEGAL Regardless of prostitution's status (legal, illegal or decriminalized) or its physical location (strip club, massage parlor, street, escort/home/hotel), prostitution is extremely dangerous for women. Homicide is a frequent cause of death....
It is a cruel lie to suggest that decriminalization or legalization will protect anyone in prostitution. It is not possible to protect someone whose source of income exposes them to the likelihood of being raped on average once a week.
LEGAL For HIV/AIDS prevention to succeed, the conditions of risk have to change. The context - legal, social, economic - of sex work has to change, with repeal of criminal laws, access to visas and work permits, freedom of movement and association, and occupational safety and health regulations, to reduce the imposition of risk from above. Until then, it will be heroic, strong individuals that can insist on safe behaviours, leaving those who are less heroic, those who are more timid and afraid, to suffer the consequences of the context of risk.
ILLEGAL Even if a prostitute is being tested every week for HIV, she will test negative for at least the first 4-6 weeks and possibly the first 12 weeks after being infected.... This means that while the test is becoming positive and the results are becoming known, that prostitute may expose up to 630 clients to HIV. This is under the best of circumstances with testing every week and a four-week window period. It also assumes that the prostitute will quit working as soon as he or she finds out the test is HIV positive, which is highly unlikely. This is not the best approach for actually reducing harm. Instead, in order to slow the global spread of HIV/AIDS we should focus our efforts on abolishing prostitution.
LEGAL Sex work is legitimate work and problems within the industry are not inherent in the work itself. It is vulnerability, not sex work, which creates victims. Sex workers should enjoy the same labour rights as other workers and the same human rights as other people.
ILLEGAL ne needs to completely rid oneself of the voracity for cash to see that prostitution, although legalized, can never be a legitimate business because it will always be associated with crime, corruption, class, mass sexual exploitation and human trafficking.
Note: I prepared the materials to this thread only today. I might have missed something, or there might be better materials on the issue. Please do not hesitate to correct me or add something of value to the discussion. Also, there is another thread which is meant to be a discussion on a marketing scheme of a car wash service establishment by giving free sex to its customers, yet it has evolved into a discussion on prostitution. This thread is created to provide the proper materials on this topic for discussion.
Excuse me but it's not legal in Portugal, it might not be a crime for soliciting prostitution but it's certanly not legal!
Prostitution should legalized, since people will always want it and consume it! So it's better to make it clean, secure and turn a profit for the state, this insures a better protection for all involved, the state/prostitutes and clients!
You just couldn't help it, could you. :p Thanks for the thread.
I vote illegalize. I refuse to go down the path where the argument is reduced to choice. I likewise do not believe this issue should be framed as a moral issue. My problem with legalization, as the case in Europe and Amsterdam shows, legalization merely creates more systems of abuse - we could even say it legitimizes these systems - which ultimately defeats the purpose of legitimization itself.
Just like with 'drugs' the reason for the existence of prostitution is because there exist a demand. Supply follows the demand, not the other way around. This is why, historically, trying to ban things (effectively trying to cut off supply) never works, because the demand will still exist and people will go out of their way to supply it. And since prices tend to skyrocket when you try to ban the supply, people will go to extreme lengths to claim their share of the pie, which is a recipe for violence. So I take the pragmatic view: prostitution (like drugs and other vices) will exist anyway, unless you find a way to monitor everyone 24/7 or chemically alter them to stop demand or other draconic measures. So if it's going to happen anyway, it's better to make sure it happens in a safe and organized fashion, which can only be achieved through legalization.
Honestly never really thought about this before. I'd say I'm in between. I can see both sides are being correct, but I really can't side with either one yet. Definitly has me thinking though.
The political libertarian in me says I should shrug and let it be legalized, but my conservative morality doesn't want me to accept it in my state/country. Gaaaah.... >_<
I guess the best-case scenario in my view would be to legalize it, but have it run out of business by the citizens' choice to not engage in it. From a national standpoint, I'd let the states decide for themselves; Nevada, for example, would almost certainly choose to legalize prostitution. In my home state, I'd vote against it, because I think it's ultimately a harmful practice socially, emotionally, spiritually, and sometimes even physically, no matter how safe or consensual it becomes. I believe it is unnecessary and does not benefit society positively.
Very surprised to find Israel is on the "Legal" list. O_O
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
It's not. Stop repeating dumb sayings.
Isn't it though? Like wasn't religious prostitution an aspect of early civilizations (Sumer comes to mind). Not saying it's right or wrong - strictly historically speaking.
While it seems silly to make it illegal to provide a harmless service for monetary compensation, you got to look at it from the point of view of women. Sex is the biggest thing they hold over us and they know they can get us to do practically anything for it. Take it away and society may drastically change.
Prostitution is simply one of those things which, like drugs, we might not like and certainly can be harmful but people will not stop doing it and giving it an illegal status simply drives the trade underground and worsens the darker elements, such as human trafficking.
We need to accept that we cannot outright remove these elements from society, human beings are fundamentally flawed and we instead need to not try to create idealistic policy, we need to create policy which embraces our flaws and creates a balanced society.
We should crack down hard on the immoral elements but we reduce them even further by allowing the mainstream to be practised safely, it does not have to be waved in peoples faces but it should be available.
On September 29 2012 01:48 Praetorial wrote: This is one of the best OPs I've read in General in a long long time.
I honestly have no opinion on the matter, though I can see the argument either way.
Amen. Great OP. I had no idea the problem was exacerbated in Amsterdam after legalization.
I believe prostitution should be legal; however, this will only work if it is heavily regulated. Businesses that want to engage in this trade must obtain proper license after undergoing strict background checks, strong unions must be created for prostitutes to protect them from the tyranny of their bosses and to give them strength to stand up for themselves and protect their interests, prostitutes should only be 18+ (in America), prostitutes must undergo health checks at least once a month, clients must also be cleared (and bring proof of confirmation like a legitimate doctor's note from an approved clinic/hospital) before they themselves can be offered services (confirmation must be recent, within a month or two), prostitutes need to register with an agency before they can be legitimate (allows the government to keep track of them), males (whether prostitute or client) should always be required to use condoms, and prostitutes should not be allowed to solicit customers outside on the streets except in specifically designated areas.
iirc porn stars have some of the lowest rate of STDs (correct me if I'm wrong). With strict regulation this could work. The problem is that it requires a lot of work on the side of the government, and corruption can always be a problem (i.e., someone bribes a doctor to get them to confirm that an individual is STD-free when they actually aren't, or a business lines the pockets of a politician to get them to grant the business a trade license and gets regulatory/enforcement agencies to turn a blind eye to any wrongdoings). Corruption is always a problem in any business though, and I don't think it should be a reason to not legalize prostitution. With proper protection the spread of STDs should be minimal.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
It's not. Stop repeating dumb sayings.
I would imagine offering sexual favours for other favours, aka - if you go out and kill that animal for me I'll let you squeeze my boobies without biting your fingers off - does indeed go back quite a long time in our history. To be honest prostitution is just a natural development in our society, woman use the possiblity of or denial of sex to get their way in all kinds of situations, it stands to reason some people will eventually be making a living off of it. The same with security/guard/bouncer type jobs. I'm sure there were some caveman equivalents of really hard guys that got free food and women just to stand around and look super mean if any cavemen from other tribes came around. The more complex society becomes, the more of these type of positions exist e.g. financial analysts and IFAs. So to say prostitution is the oldest job known to man is extremely logical considering that is first and foremost what we know happened back then... otherwise we wouldn't be here debating this now ;-)
Edit : Voted in favour of prostitution
On September 29 2012 01:56 Evilmystic wrote: There is no reason for any sort of consensual activity between adults to be illegal.
Well said. Applies to more than just prostitution.
There's no point in arguing about drugs, coercion and corruption because these things are all present in every area of life and legalising prostitution can only help to reduce the frequency of these issues.
I think it should be legalized. It's just been around so long, and if it's legalized, at least someone higher up might actually know where the women/men are coming from.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
There might be a small fraction of people that have sex for money by free will - but that number is likely VERY small.
That's just a socialist propaganda. Choice between an unpleasant job and poverty or hunger is as legitimate as any other.
On September 29 2012 02:08 xrapture wrote: While it seems silly to make it illegal to provide a harmless service for monetary compensation, you got to look at it from the point of view of women. Sex is the biggest thing they hold over us and they know they can get us to do practically anything for it. Take it away and society may drastically change.
This is a troubling view on sex and the gender dynamics. It is borderline chauvinist and essentialist. Sex is merely an act. It may and does exert tremendous influence on people's actions and decision, both men and women, but the details of this dynamics is what we should really look at. It may be empowering for some to consider sexual favors as a form of power play, but is it not the case that they are the first to submit to this mechanism, and ultimately the ones most vulnerable?
On September 29 2012 02:04 Kaeru wrote:If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
But by that reasoning, only those born obscenely wealthy have free will.
Most MacDonalds workers work due to economic issues. But nobody I know would argue that fast food jobs should be banned for this reason.
A saner line would be "have reasonable alternatives to live above the poverty line other than prostitution". Even that has its own issues, though, the same way establishing a minimum wage has its own effects in a market.
Prostitution should be legal but there needs to be a lot of regulation around the matter and all those religious conservatives will never be convinced.
I can imagine that if legal prostitution paid well, for the seemingly little study/training it takes as a prostitute (this one is a big guess by me), that it'd cause more women in 3rd world countries to forgo getting further education once they've realized they can make a small living from doing their first job. For unsuspecting/naiv/young women, this feels like a trap.
In Sweden it's legal to sell sex but illegal to buy sex. Which is a fair law I guess, but I'm all for it if it's handled like in Germany. (If what I have heard is true)
On September 29 2012 02:16 zatic wrote: Those legal / illegal stats seem off. What is their definition of "legal"? No prosecution of sex workers? How about clients?
I did not want to needlessly lengthen the thread when the statistics could be easily acquired from the source, and the definition of legality and illegality is nuanced across the 100 countries. It would be too much or I would be committing grave cultural indiscretion by choosing some and not the others. You can check them out here: http://prostitution.procon.org/
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
It's not. Stop repeating dumb sayings.
Isn't it though? Like wasn't religious prostitution an aspect of early civilizations (Sumer comes to mind). Not saying it's right or wrong - strictly historically speaking.
The oldest profession is hunting/gathering of course, I mean think about it even if the first "civilization" had whores aplenty if people didn't have something to pay/trade with it wouldn't be prostitution so before the john can buy a date he must have gotten the income from somewhere which would be his profession, in a way. Its like the chicken and the egg, which came first the prostitute or the john?
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
There might be a small fraction of people that have sex for money by free will - but that number is likely VERY small.
You have to be careful about this line of thinking. It is free will to choose prostitution because of economical reasons. No one is forcing a poor woman to go into prostitution (unless they are actually forcing her, which falls into the realm of coercion/violence). She could be a maid, or a janitor, or wait tables, or work at McDonald's, but she chooses prostitution because it makes more money than those jobs. That may be a conscious choice of money over values, but it's still a choice.
As for violent crimes associated with prostitution, I'm confident that the number of violent acts associated with prostitution would drop to near zero levels if the practice was legalized. When a pimp beats up a prostitute under a government where her job is illegal, what is she supposed to do about it? Call the cops? If I come in to work and my boss beats the crap out of me, I go to HR and get his ass fired and press criminal charges. I'm confident in my rights because I did nothing wrong. Prostitutes would feel the same way if their profession was legitimized. On a similar note, if a John decides to rape or beat a prostitute, what is she supposed to do about it? If it was legal, she can press charges, and you can bet the threat of rape charges will keep people within the confines of what they paid for.
Nearly every part of the US culture is sexualized in one way or another. You can pay for sexy or the things that lead to sex but not for the actual sex. Never made sense to me.
On September 29 2012 02:22 MrF wrote: The oldest profession is hunting/gathering of course, I mean think about it even if the first "civilization" had whores aplenty if people didn't have something to pay/trade with it wouldn't be prostitution so before the john can buy a date he must have gotten the income from somewhere which would be his profession, in a way. Its like the chicken and the egg, which came first the prostitute or the john?
On this topic, I recall that a certain species of penguin has the males build nests out of rocks. Sometimes, pregnant females will have sex with one male or another, who will then give a particularly useful rock to the female in question.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
There might be a small fraction of people that have sex for money by free will - but that number is likely VERY small.
That's just a socialist propaganda. Choice between an unpleasant job and poverty or hunger is as legitimate as any other.
I don't know why it's socialist propaganda, feminist propaganda would probably be more accurate. But besides that, yes, if going into prostitution due to economics is coercion, than most people working are doing it out of coercion. I'm yet to see a reasonable argument that it's ok do be a ditch digger out of necessity, but not ok to be a prostitute for the same reason.
yeah I think too that the legal/ illegal stats are full of shit, in france some law passed not long ago that made sex workers very angry I regret not having paid attention back then, nevertheless this is enough not to pay attention to this movement
AFAIK it is fully illegal in the USA.... Unless you mean the fact that only the "John" and not the prostitute get in trouble for it, which is I believe how it is over here.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
There might be a small fraction of people that have sex for money by free will - but that number is likely VERY small.
That's just a socialist propaganda. Choice between an unpleasant job and poverty or hunger is as legitimate as any other.
I question this "hunger" factor. Freedom has always been a greater urge than physical comfort. And what is prostitution but a submission and a waiver of this freedom, of one's body and one's will. I think there is something more to it that this basic formula.
On September 29 2012 02:25 Jonoman92 wrote: AFAIK it is fully illegal in the USA.... Unless you mean the fact that only the "John" and not the prostitute get in trouble for it, which is I believe how it is over here.
It isn't. It's legal in some areas of the country, and semi-legal in other areas.
By the way, interesting fact about prostitution in the United States: while prostitution is categorically illegal, with some states enforcing limited legality, it is not illegal to record acts of sex between/among adults. Hence, porn.
Fantastic OP in my opinion. Nice presentation of the issue and arguments
Personally, I'm for the legalization of prostitution, as long as the environment and business can be safe and well-informed for all parties involved. Not that I'd ever be engaging in the activity (either as a prostitute or calling on one to fulfill my sexual needs), but I'm not about to tell someone they can't do something just because I find it less desirable than taking up a different occupation.
For me, it's much like the legalization of drugs... I choose to not personally take drugs (except occasionally drink alcohol), but as long as you're not negatively affecting anyone else's life, and as long as you're educated on the subject, feel free to do whatever you want on your own time. Knock yourself out with whatever drugs you want (just not literally, please).
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
There might be a small fraction of people that have sex for money by free will - but that number is likely VERY small.
You have to be careful about this line of thinking. It is free will to choose prostitution because of economical reasons. No one is forcing a poor woman to go into prostitution (unless they are actually forcing her, which falls into the realm of coercion/violence). She could be a maid, or a janitor, or wait tables, or work at McDonald's, but she chooses prostitution because it makes more money than those jobs. That may be a conscious choice of money over values, but it's still a choice.
Depends, since your economic needs may vary. The fact that prostitution makes more money than those jobs you listed (for similar training/study requirements) may mean that at the end of the day, it isn't a "choice" because your only options are "make all the money you need" or "make -not enough money- and only pay half of the bills/starve". Some women could be single moms with more than just themselves to take care off, I know here in the Philippines I can't support anyone other than myself at a McDonalds salary.
tldr; if you "need" more income, the decision to choose between more or less isn't really a choice.
On September 29 2012 02:28 either I or wrote: By the way, interesting fact about prostitution in the United States: while prostitution is categorically illegal, with some states enforcing limited legality, it is not illegal to record acts of sex between/among adults. Hence, porn.
So it's like... the opposite of Don't Ask Don't tell?
If you secretly do it and get paid, you're in trouble. But if you do it with some really bad acting, turn it into a video, and sell it in a store, it's totally fine.
On September 29 2012 02:28 either I or wrote: By the way, interesting fact about prostitution in the United States: while prostitution is categorically illegal, with some states enforcing limited legality, it is not illegal to record acts of sex between/among adults. Hence, porn.
So what you're saying is that, if I get caught having sex with a prostitute, all I need to say was that I was recording it on my phone for porn...and its ok?
I voted legalized, but that's different from me wanting to encourage it. The legalization has to happen to protect the women, but I'd still rather have barriers in place for people to engage in prostitution (both buying/selling). I think it's too easy for some young girl to be without options and then thinking: "hey, prostitution is the answer to my problems, free money". It's like when people without options can always join the army, it's something I feel should not be the case since you have industries that profit off of such people.
I saw a documentary once about a girl that did not want to be in prostitution, but thought it was the best option for her. She would be hurt often and miserable, yet men that visited her could supposedly go to sleep with a clear conscience because they did not break the law and did nothing wrong - just engaging in a harmless legal business transaction. But I think that everyone that sleeps with her in a sense violated her, because although she consented to the matter, she did not have good choices available to her. And this leads to her being somewhat defenseless and not being able to really stand up for herself, even if the customers are unpleasant or if she just is not in the mood/needs rest etc.
On September 29 2012 02:28 either I or wrote: By the way, interesting fact about prostitution in the United States: while prostitution is categorically illegal, with some states enforcing limited legality, it is not illegal to record acts of sex between/among adults. Hence, porn.
So what you're saying is that, if I get caught having sex with a prostitute, all I need to say was that I was recording it on my phone for porn...and its ok?
Not that simple. You have to meet certain conditions: 1. At the time of the act, she is not a prostitute but an adult actor. 2. You need the video and the means to distribute it as proof, I don't think personal collection counts, I have to check. 3. I am also not sure if it is in the entire country, my mistake for generalizing, but I am sure such is the case in California and Miami.
On September 29 2012 02:28 either I or wrote: By the way, interesting fact about prostitution in the United States: while prostitution is categorically illegal, with some states enforcing limited legality, it is not illegal to record acts of sex between/among adults. Hence, porn.
So it's like... the opposite of Don't Ask Don't tell?
If you secretly do it and get paid, you're in trouble. But if you do it with some really bad acting, turn it into a video, and sell it in a store, it's totally fine.
On September 29 2012 02:28 either I or wrote: By the way, interesting fact about prostitution in the United States: while prostitution is categorically illegal, with some states enforcing limited legality, it is not illegal to record acts of sex between/among adults. Hence, porn.
So it's like... the opposite of Don't Ask Don't tell?
If you secretly do it and get paid, you're in trouble. But if you do it with some really bad acting, turn it into a video, and sell it in a store, it's totally fine.
I am seriously pissed with the fact that so many people even consider the regulation of things like prostitution being anobody's business. If a woman wants make money by selling sex, why not? People do all sorts of weird shit for living ... but wait, this is sex, this has to be treated differently. Bullshit! This is just the same stupid fixation on everything sex-related that plagues the mankind.
It is wrong to force women to work as prostitues, as much as it is illegal to force them to work as dish cleaners. It is simply morally wrong (and thus must be made illegal) to force anyone to do any kind of work for you. Why should be prostituion singled out? Only because it is often forced? But that is because it is illegal.
To put it simply, prostituion should not be even regulated in law (aside of practicallities, as in every field). All the crimes that are allegedly caused by prostitution can be solved by enforcing the relevant law for them, not by illegalizing prostitution.
The same holds in my opinion also for example for drug use.
On September 29 2012 02:37 opisska wrote: I am seriously pissed with the fact that so many people even consider the regulation of things like prostitution being anobody's business. If a woman wants make money by selling sex, why not? People do all sorts of weird shit for living ... but wait, this is sex, this has to be treated differently. Bullshit! This is just the same stupid fixation on everything sex-related that plagues the mankind.
It is wrong to force women to work as prostitues, as much as it is illegal to force them to work as dish cleaners. It is simply morally wrong (and thus must be made illegal) to force anyone to do any kind of work for you. Why should be prostituion singled out? Only because it is often forced? But that is because it is illegal.
To put it simply, prostituion should not be even regulated in law (aside of practicallities, as in every field). All the crimes that are allegedly caused by prostitution can be solved by enforcing the relevant law for them, not by illegalizing prostitution.
The same holds in my opinion also for example for drug use.
I kindof agree, (but not quite as vehemently!) But the regulation issue is important.
Although prostitution is perfectly legal in the UK, the lack of regulation and historical taboo associated with it means it is well and truly an underground, seedy thing.
This had allowed sex trafficking to be a very real issue, with a lot of the girls here being eastern Europeans who have no choice in their profession. Although the anti regulatory argument you give is nice in principal, the sex trade is by its very nature, prone to attract bad people looking to exploit and profit. I believe it should be brought under a little more regulation, even where it is legal.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
There might be a small fraction of people that have sex for money by free will - but that number is likely VERY small.
That's just a socialist propaganda. Choice between an unpleasant job and poverty or hunger is as legitimate as any other.
I don't know why it's socialist propaganda, feminist propaganda would probably be more accurate. But besides that, yes, if going into prostitution due to economics is coercion, than most people working are doing it out of coercion. I'm yet to see a reasonable argument that it's ok do be a ditch digger out of necessity, but not ok to be a prostitute for the same reason.
Because an idea that you have a right to have a job or even specific job that is not unpleasant or dishonorable is of socialist origin. And it's a flawed idea. I don't care about feminist positions on this matter as I personally don't consider prostitution a bad job, it's as good as any other.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
There might be a small fraction of people that have sex for money by free will - but that number is likely VERY small.
That's just a socialist propaganda. Choice between an unpleasant job and poverty or hunger is as legitimate as any other.
I question this "hunger" factor. Freedom has always been a greater urge than physical comfort. And what is prostitution but a submission and a waiver of this freedom, of one's body and one's will. I think there is something more to it that this basic formula.
Prostitution doesn't limit your freedom any more than having to lift heavy things as a loader. And If you are forced into prostitution it's not different from being forced into doing something else as a slave worker. The problem here is slavery and human trafficking and not prostitution.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
There might be a small fraction of people that have sex for money by free will - but that number is likely VERY small.
That's just a socialist propaganda. Choice between an unpleasant job and poverty or hunger is as legitimate as any other.
I don't know why it's socialist propaganda, feminist propaganda would probably be more accurate. But besides that, yes, if going into prostitution due to economics is coercion, than most people working are doing it out of coercion. I'm yet to see a reasonable argument that it's ok do be a ditch digger out of necessity, but not ok to be a prostitute for the same reason.
Because an idea that you have a right to have a job or even specific job that is not unpleasant or dishonorable is of socialist origin. And it's a flawed idea. I don't care about feminist positions on this matter as I personally don't consider prostitution a bad job, it's as good as any other.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
There might be a small fraction of people that have sex for money by free will - but that number is likely VERY small.
That's just a socialist propaganda. Choice between an unpleasant job and poverty or hunger is as legitimate as any other.
I question this "hunger" factor. Freedom has always been a greater urge than physical comfort. And what is prostitution but a submission and a waiver of this freedom, of one's body and one's will. I think there is something more to it that this basic formula.
Prostitution doesn't limit your freedom any more than having to lift heavy things as a loader. And If you are forced into prostitution it's not different from being forced into doing something else as a slave worker. The problem here is slavery and human trafficking and not prostitution.
Ah, I see where you're coming from, though I don't really agree that anyone has said that they have the right to have to have a 'good' job, just that they don't have the right to take a 'bad' job. That's actually the problem, they outlaw these 'bad' jobs to supposedly protect people without realizing that they actually create worse situations by doing so.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
There might be a small fraction of people that have sex for money by free will - but that number is likely VERY small.
You have to be careful about this line of thinking. It is free will to choose prostitution because of economical reasons. No one is forcing a poor woman to go into prostitution (unless they are actually forcing her, which falls into the realm of coercion/violence). She could be a maid, or a janitor, or wait tables, or work at McDonald's, but she chooses prostitution because it makes more money than those jobs. That may be a conscious choice of money over values, but it's still a choice.
Depends, since your economic needs may vary. The fact that prostitution makes more money than those jobs you listed (for similar training/study requirements) may mean that at the end of the day, it isn't a "choice" because your only options are "make all the money you need" or "make -not enough money- and only pay half of the bills/starve". Some women could be single moms with more than just themselves to take care off, I know here in the Philippines I can't support anyone other than myself at a McDonalds salary.
tldr; if you "need" more income, the decision to choose between more or less isn't really a choice.
Is this an issue with prostitution or with economics? Say if another "unsavory" job, like working as a janitor, made more money than any other job (for similar training/study requirements), would people be arguing that it's immoral because poor people are forced into being janitors? Making or keeping prostitution illegal won't change the stratification of economic classes in a particular country, you're going to have to go deeper than that if you want to provide incentives to women not to go into prostitution.
Let's take a pragmatic approach here. The demand for sex is constant and persistent, and not everyone can get it for free whenever they want. Thus, the demand for prostitution is relatively constant, as is proven through the resilience of the industry through economic recessions/depressions all over the world. People want to pay for sex. Since there is a demand, there will be a supply, whether through legal or illegal means. The reason the prostitution industry is so dangerous to the prostitutes themselves is because it is illegal.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
It's not. Stop repeating dumb sayings.
Isn't it though? Like wasn't religious prostitution an aspect of early civilizations (Sumer comes to mind). Not saying it's right or wrong - strictly historically speaking.
The oldest profession is hunting/gathering of course, I mean think about it even if the first "civilization" had whores aplenty if people didn't have something to pay/trade with it wouldn't be prostitution so before the john can buy a date he must have gotten the income from somewhere which would be his profession, in a way. Its like the chicken and the egg, which came first the prostitute or the john?
Of course I mean one of the oldest professions - obviously for religious prostitution to exist there needs to be religion which implies religious occupations. Also "Hunter/Gatherer" isn't so much a profession pre-historically as "I'm really hungry and I notice that when I don't eat I tend to start dying a little bit" right? Imean - after humans started to develop their tool-use, communication and general intellectual skills it seems like most "professions" would be tribal in nature (i.e. healer/oral historian, tool creation) and I guess you could include hunter/gatherer separately at that point. I guess my point is that most everyone was a "hunter/gatherer" simply by way of necessity until separation of tasks was incorporated into homo sapiens social structure.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
There might be a small fraction of people that have sex for money by free will - but that number is likely VERY small.
You have to be careful about this line of thinking. It is free will to choose prostitution because of economical reasons. No one is forcing a poor woman to go into prostitution (unless they are actually forcing her, which falls into the realm of coercion/violence). She could be a maid, or a janitor, or wait tables, or work at McDonald's, but she chooses prostitution because it makes more money than those jobs. That may be a conscious choice of money over values, but it's still a choice.
Depends, since your economic needs may vary. The fact that prostitution makes more money than those jobs you listed (for similar training/study requirements) may mean that at the end of the day, it isn't a "choice" because your only options are "make all the money you need" or "make -not enough money- and only pay half of the bills/starve". Some women could be single moms with more than just themselves to take care off, I know here in the Philippines I can't support anyone other than myself at a McDonalds salary.
tldr; if you "need" more income, the decision to choose between more or less isn't really a choice.
Is this an issue with prostitution or with economics? Say if another "unsavory" job, like working as a janitor, made more money than any other job (for similar training/study requirements), would people be arguing that it's immoral because poor people are forced into being janitors? Making or keeping prostitution illegal won't change the stratification of economic classes in a particular country, you're going to have to go deeper than that if you want to provide incentives to women not to go into prostitution.
Let's take a pragmatic approach here. The demand for sex is constant and persistent, and not everyone can get it for free whenever they want. Thus, the demand for prostitution is relatively constant, as is proven through the resilience of the industry through economic recessions/depressions all over the world. People want to pay for sex. Since there is a demand, there will be a supply, whether through legal or illegal means. The reason the prostitution industry is so dangerous to the prostitutes themselves is because it is illegal.
Uhhh, all I did was comment against the notion that "going into prostitution is still a choice (of free will)", because it's riding on this technical definition of a "choice" rather than what it means to make a "free choice". Unless it was implied somewhere, I dont really have any issues about regulation, morality, etc. Unless I missed something.
On September 29 2012 02:37 opisska wrote: I am seriously pissed with the fact that so many people even consider the regulation of things like prostitution being anobody's business. If a woman wants make money by selling sex, why not? People do all sorts of weird shit for living ... but wait, this is sex, this has to be treated differently. Bullshit! This is just the same stupid fixation on everything sex-related that plagues the mankind.
It is wrong to force women to work as prostitues, as much as it is illegal to force them to work as dish cleaners. It is simply morally wrong (and thus must be made illegal) to force anyone to do any kind of work for you. Why should be prostituion singled out? Only because it is often forced? But that is because it is illegal.
To put it simply, prostituion should not be even regulated in law (aside of practicallities, as in every field). All the crimes that are allegedly caused by prostitution can be solved by enforcing the relevant law for them, not by illegalizing prostitution.
The same holds in my opinion also for example for drug use.
I kindof agree, (but not quite as vehemently!) But the regulation issue is important.
Although prostitution is perfectly legal in the UK, the lack of regulation and historical taboo associated with it means it is well and truly an underground, seedy thing.
This had allowed sex trafficking to be a very real issue, with a lot of the girls here being eastern Europeans who have no choice in their profession. Although the anti regulatory argument you give is nice in principal, the sex trade is by its very nature, prone to attract bad people looking to exploit and profit. I believe it should be brought under a little more regulation, even where it is legal.
So does the oil trade - and yet those bastards don't even have to operate around the law because they operate above it. Every profession attracts greedy scumbags who try their best to exploit us and all the other greedy scumbags - making it a race to see who can be the greediest and scumbaggiest. Just think if fossil fuels suddenly became like a schedule I controlled substance. The oil trade wouldn't disappear (if you think so you should probably investigate a phenomena colloquially referred to as "illegal drugs"). Do you think the ensuing black market for petroleum products would be safer or more dangerous than the previously held legal version?
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
There might be a small fraction of people that have sex for money by free will - but that number is likely VERY small.
You have to be careful about this line of thinking. It is free will to choose prostitution because of economical reasons. No one is forcing a poor woman to go into prostitution (unless they are actually forcing her, which falls into the realm of coercion/violence). She could be a maid, or a janitor, or wait tables, or work at McDonald's, but she chooses prostitution because it makes more money than those jobs. That may be a conscious choice of money over values, but it's still a choice.
Depends, since your economic needs may vary. The fact that prostitution makes more money than those jobs you listed (for similar training/study requirements) may mean that at the end of the day, it isn't a "choice" because your only options are "make all the money you need" or "make -not enough money- and only pay half of the bills/starve". Some women could be single moms with more than just themselves to take care off, I know here in the Philippines I can't support anyone other than myself at a McDonalds salary.
tldr; if you "need" more income, the decision to choose between more or less isn't really a choice.
Is this an issue with prostitution or with economics? Say if another "unsavory" job, like working as a janitor, made more money than any other job (for similar training/study requirements), would people be arguing that it's immoral because poor people are forced into being janitors? Making or keeping prostitution illegal won't change the stratification of economic classes in a particular country, you're going to have to go deeper than that if you want to provide incentives to women not to go into prostitution.
Let's take a pragmatic approach here. The demand for sex is constant and persistent, and not everyone can get it for free whenever they want. Thus, the demand for prostitution is relatively constant, as is proven through the resilience of the industry through economic recessions/depressions all over the world. People want to pay for sex. Since there is a demand, there will be a supply, whether through legal or illegal means. The reason the prostitution industry is so dangerous to the prostitutes themselves is because it is illegal.
Uhhh, all I did was comment against the notion that "going into prostitution is still a choice (of free will)", because it's riding on this technical definition of a "choice" rather than what it means to make a "free choice". Unless it was implied somewhere, I dont really have any issues about regulation, morality, etc. Unless I missed something.
You contended that it isn't a choice because women are forced into the profession for economic reasons. While this may be true in some parts of the world, I don't really see why this is relevant to the discussion of whether or not to legalize prostitution. Of course you don't want to give women the disproportionate incentive to go into prostitution because it is the only way to pay their bills, but if that is the situation, is it the fault of prostitution or the state of the economy?
Prostitution will always exist, legally or otherwise. If women feel forced to do it because it pays more than any of their other alternatives, that's an economic issue, not an issue with prostitution. It's for this reason I'm not really sure why this "free choice" argument is relevant to the discussion of whether or not to legalize it.
Free will is not the same thing as making a choice within limited means. Personally, I think most proponents of free will, or rather, absolute free will, are those of us privileged enough to actually have some a significant amount of money, legal protections, supportive environments and upbringings, etc. That isn't to say that there aren't prostitutes who go into this as a matter of choice, but I think to deny the fact that some people in certain sectors of the world go into jobs like this are doing so out of free will is ignorant. Not everyone has access even to janitorial jobs, and the fact that people bring that up as the alternative is an even more ignorant statement.
Soap box, done.
In addition to this post, I just wanted to suggest a graphic novel I read a few weeks ago called Paying For ItPaying For It It's autobiographical awesomeness about the few years the writer spent being a john. There's an extensive appendix making a case for the decriminlization (not regulation) of prostitution. It just humanizes the whole thing...
I actually think there is a debate that can be held over this issue, but at the risk of trivializin the matter I'm going to qute a stand up comedian who said: "If God wanted women to be able to prostitute themselves He would have given them free will and a vagina."
I think, like most moral issues, this is heavily dependent on context. There's an argument that was brought up in the "awesome" thread that prostitution is a form of violence against the prostitute; the money is forcing women to have sex with men they ordinarily wouldn't have sex with. Now, I hastily identified this as a bullshit argument, because I too am "forced" to work every day to make money and yet no one would consider workers victims of violence.
Then I started to think about the position women have traditionally held in societies, for most of history. Barred from getting any kind of normal job. Ostracized, publically beaten, hung as witches and whatnot when they fail to conform to societal norms. Taken away en masse to be slaves in someone else's country. Depending on the culture, and the woman's status, I think a woman may honestly reach a point where it's either prostitution or starvation, or at the least, crippling poverty. So given those circumstances I think prostitution really is like rape, because the women honestly have little choice.
I think in some areas of the US where pimps presently operate with impunity, simple legalization might well create a scenario like what the op said about Amsterdam, with women just being exploited all the more. For prostitution to be legal and still be moral, some things need to change. Mainly views of society and particularly law enforcement towards prostitutes. If a prostitute is raped or beaten by a John or would be pimp, it needs to be viewed seriously and steps need to be taken to protect the prostitute. If they can feel safe and free to make their own choices, as many "call girls" and whatever the term is for those really high class mistresses who find a sugar daddy to get them through college, etc, presently do, then I think the system could work.
This would leave us with more instances of men falsely accused, to be sure, but that's a problem for another day.
Just like any "illegal" kind of activity that makes a lot of money. If capitalism were to harness it in a way that made it more moral, not saying it is, but if we did, we would drive a lot of people out of poverty. There are a lot of girl that pay for college by stripping, this would be the same thing except more lucrative, and guys and girls would be able to do the same. That is one scenario, the other is that their is a huge increase in HIV/AIDS spread and this would result with terrible consequences. It has to be balanced is all I'm saying.
If you legalize it, you can control it, protect the workers, require STD tests, provide health benefits, protect the reliability of prices and income to the workers. Everything is documented and tracked, any problems that arise can be dealt with because it's all on the books. Nobody is exploited because everything requires consent and wages will be paid in full.
If you don't legalize it, you have no fucking idea what is happening or how the business is conducted, and no idea who is working the trade. Men and women (yes, both genders) will still become prostitutes, because people need money and for some, the only work they're willing/able to do is sex work. It's all under the table so nothing is documented, nobody knows who is doing what, there's no way to track health issues or other crimes. People will be exploited, wages will be lost or confiscated, or substituted with drugs or other contraband.
The illegality of prostitution directly feeds into the illegal drug trade also. There are so many people who do it to feed their addiction rather than their family. By legalizing it, you take the workers an extra step away from the drug trade. Where I live its well known that you can get a blowjob much cheaper if you barter with coke instead of cash.
So if there's going to be prostitution either way (its impossible to stop without auditing every sexual encounter between all people), why not create an environment where it can be done safely and legally?
Should be legal, makes it easier to create standards to protect all involved parties from crime, STD etc.
Apart from that prostitution will be around either way, legalized or not. Prisons are expensive enough or shall we make hookers and stoners cellmates?
Additionally if prostitution would somehow magically vanish over night, my guess would be that we would see a lot more violent crime after some time. Prostitution is a reliable source of teststerone reduction.
Sounds like it isn't working out all that well in Amsterdam. I would wait and see how the situation there develops before committing to policies anywhere else. Theorycraft can only get you so far.
On another note, I am surprised at how overwhelmingly in favour of legalisation TL is.
Edit: On seeing this:
On September 29 2012 05:49 AngryMag wrote: Additionally if prostitution would somehow magically vanish over night, my guess would be that we would see a lot more violent crime after some time. Prostitution is a reliable source of teststerone reduction.
I couldn't help but say something. I'm pretty sure sex does NOT reduce testosterone levels. Please provide a study to back this up if you are confident. And then another one to demonstrate that reduced testosterone is shown to reduce violent crime. And then another one to show that switching from illegal to legal prostitution would have any significant impact on this (nonexistant?) effect.
Is that statement actually based on anything at all?
Not sure what to think about this, it is a difficult topic. It is legal in the netherlands and its not a pretty sight tbh. It beeing illegal also has its disadvantages.
Making it legal could have a few interesting/difficult implications though. For example:In some countrys people only can get monney from the government to help them if they can not find a suitable job. When prostitution is legal, would it also be considered a suitable job? In other words, would women who now live from monney they get from the government (foodstamps or anny other way) be forced to prositute themselves or loose their support monney? I dont think annyone in this thread would answer that question with a "yes" but it could/should be one of the imlications if there realy was nothing wrong with prostitution. Think that most people feel that there is something wrong with prostitution.
Think i would vote for it to be illegal, but not activly enforced by authoritys. This leaves the option open for the police to judge every case individually and decide if action is needed or not.
On September 29 2012 02:16 zatic wrote: Those legal / illegal stats seem off. What is their definition of "legal"? No prosecution of sex workers? How about clients?
I did not want to needlessly lengthen the thread when the statistics could be easily acquired from the source, and the definition of legality and illegality is nuanced across the 100 countries. It would be too much or I would be committing grave cultural indiscretion by choosing some and not the others. You can check them out here: http://prostitution.procon.org/
I just looked through the list for the countries that I was surprised to find a Legal classification for (Turkey, Spain, Portugal). They happen to mentioned no sources. It seems that every country that doesn't actively enforce bans on prostitution gets the Legal stamp from the site.
My own ideal is:
Make prostitution legal only within regulated brothels for all parties involved. Make prostitution illegal outside of regulated brothels, but only persecute the clients (and pimps, should they be involved), but never the sex workers.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
It's not. Stop repeating dumb sayings.
It actually might be the second oldest profession, after all, they had to SELL the sex in the first place, this would indicate that MARKETING potentially could be the oldest profession.
Off topic, a couple of scientists successfully trained a monkey tribe to use currency based transactions with each other, like to buy food and such. Guess what the very first transaction the male monkeys did, *hint* it had to do with the females
As far as America goes, it's not the federal government's place to make prostitution illegal. That's a decision to be left to individual states. The same is true about the legality of drugs. I find it a bit annoying that the federal government has stuck their noses into these types of issues.
Personal opinion: There's nothing wrong with prostitution, but even if you think there is, it's not your business to make it illegal. Just because we don't like something, what gives us the right to tell others that they aren't allowed to do it? My Christian Bible says that gay people aren't allowed to get married, therefore it should be illegal for gays to get married! Isn't there something wrong with saying something like that? If you don't like gay marriage, don't marry a gay person. If you don't like drugs, don't use them, and tell your kids about the dangers of using them so that they won't either. If you don't like prostitution, don't hire a prostitute. Why restrict the freedom of others just because you don't like what they're doing?
On September 29 2012 07:14 MichaelDonovan wrote: Why restrict the freedom of others just because you don't like what they're doing?
Some of these things have wider-ranging social effects than merely the cost to the consumer. It's a more complex issue than you lay out.
If these things can be regulated and made as safe as possible, then that problem is reduced.
I understand that, but what I'm saying is that, at least from an American point of view, our federal government has no place in the issue. They really don't have the right to make these things illegal.
I have no problem with prostitution, but I'd never go for it since getting girls is a lot more enjoyable and challenging. My only issue is STDs. Prostitutes tend to be rife with STDs and tend to spread them. It's a huge issue.
I don't see how we can dictate what other people do with their bodies if it doesn't threaten anyone else or inflict on peoples freedoms.
If it's "illegal" prostitution that's a big difference but a brothel should be legal. I'm for big government doing shit like taxing so I can have a health treatment that doesn't cost 100 grand but I'm not for any government infringing on acts that have no affect on others.
On September 29 2012 07:34 JudicatorHammurabi wrote: I have no problem with prostitution, but I'd never go for it since getting girls is a lot more enjoyable and challenging. My only issue is STDs. Prostitutes tend to be rife with STDs and tend to spread them. It's a huge issue.
That's an assumed risk when a man hires a prostitute. He knows that he could get an STD. Prostitutes can only spread STDs to men like these who assess the risk of getting an STD and still have sex with her anyway. Could always use a condom. That helps quite a bit.
My mind fails to understand what stops me from paying for sex, if I wanted that, that is... prostitution is all over the internet, in my country there are so many webpages with huge lists of prostitutes, all you have to do is contact them and arrange the meeting, they can even come to your house, yea it's illegal alright but who cares? A prostitute can come to my house any day if I wanted to, then everything happends here, the law is so easily bypassed it's laughable.
I would definitely rail a prostitute if it were legal and regulated. As long as she is clean and I am clean I find it hard to find a reason not, unless the girl has severe emotional problems and having sex with random men is ruining her life but in this case it seems that she would be in the wrong line of work and others more qualified could take her slot.
I really think prostitution should be legalized then monetized by the government. Then, men could go fuck bitches after they make money. Same for gigalos, so women can have some. And if this ruins a marriage, then that is good because of trickle down. They would hire divorce lawyers which would create more jobs. And if the person receiving the sexual favor gets a sexual transmitted disease, then doctors get more work to do.
I really believe that legalizing prostitution would help so many people. Of course, one would need some sort of identification stating that he or she is 18+ years of age.
Last semester in my Human Sexuality course, I had to look up prostitution. I find this thread very interesting because a lot of people are agreeing that prostitution should be legalized. I find it ironic, however, because everyone in my Human Sexuality course thought it should still be illegal despite the benefits (well maybe 4/5 people agreed out of the entire class, but we were the minority).
I think prostitution and brothels should be legalized, with a high control to make sure that the prostitutes all aggree to do that and aren't forced. In that case, there is 0 good argument against prostitution, since it doesn't hurt anybody.
On September 29 2012 07:47 Kyhol wrote: I would definitely rail a prostitute if it were legal and regulated. As long as she is clean and I am clean I find it hard to find a reason not, unless the girl has severe emotional problems and having sex with random men is ruining her life but in this case it seems that she would be in the wrong line of work and others more qualified could take her slot.
If prostitution was legalized and monetized in a clean healthy way (brothel) then it would be clean sex... Porn Stars are pretty much the cleanest kootch in town, they get checked every month and have strict policies regarding STD's. Prostitution is "dirty" and "unclean" because it has to be thrown through the black market, if brothels existed there'd be a lot less dirt rolling around the streets etc.
But Conservatives who are so against policing and government intervention are going to say "But it's so unethical and god frowns upon it so we should intervene and police what you do with your body!"
How is selling you body for money any different from selling your labor to Walmart? We have this grand concept of sex that is still pretty much medieval.
On September 29 2012 08:00 Cosmos wrote: I think prostitution and brothels should be legalized, with a high control to make sure that the prostitutes all aggree to do that and aren't forced. In that case, there is 0 good argument against prostitution, since it doesn't hurt anybody.
I agree, as long as protections are put into place, to prevent people form being exploited, and limiting the spread of diseases, then prostitution is better legalized. Any industry that is forced underground creates criminal enterprises around it. Legalization would make prostitution safer, for both the prostitutes and the customers.
illegal, i really dislike prostitution and porn videos, realize that those ladies have fathers, how would you feel having a daughter or sister being a prostitute? It's wrong.
On September 29 2012 08:17 NMxMehmet wrote: illegal, i really dislike prostitution and porn videos, realize that those ladies have fathers, how would you feel having a daughter or sister being a prostitute? It's wrong.
My parents would be greatly disappointed if I ended up doing some sort of menial work, no doubt, but that's not an argument to ban those either.
It's not their brother or father's choice to make in the first place.
It should not be legalized. It should be legitimized. Pimps and such will still need to be disposed of where possible, and actual businesses need to pop up. Regulations such as condoms and proof of being STD-free would need to be created. Worker rights laws and other things common to other jobs will need to be introduced. Until we feel confident in our ability to legitimize prostitution, it should not be legalized. Of course, whether or not we are is a debate unto itself.
On September 29 2012 08:17 NMxMehmet wrote: illegal, i really dislike prostitution and porn videos, realize that those ladies have fathers, how would you feel having a daughter or sister being a prostitute? It's wrong.
My parents would be greatly disappointed if I ended up doing some sort of menial work, no doubt, but that's not an argument to ban those either.
It's not their brother or father's choice to make in the first place.
Yeah i know, obviously it's not there fathers or brothers choice or else no one would be a prostitute to begin with. And men who chose to legalize really have no respect for women. We really are lacking men, and women with dignity. it's sad
On September 29 2012 08:17 NMxMehmet wrote: illegal, i really dislike prostitution and porn videos, realize that those ladies have fathers, how would you feel having a daughter or sister being a prostitute? It's wrong.
Nice patriarchal attitude you got going on there.
I dislike the concept, but I'm willing to extend some thought to it because I honestly can't find anything I can put my finger on about and say "this is wrong". It should be legalized after consideration and careful thought.
On September 29 2012 08:17 NMxMehmet wrote: illegal, i really dislike prostitution and porn videos, realize that those ladies have fathers, how would you feel having a daughter or sister being a prostitute? It's wrong.
My parents would be greatly disappointed if I ended up doing some sort of menial work, no doubt, but that's not an argument to ban those either.
It's not their brother or father's choice to make in the first place.
Yeah i know, obviously it's not there fathers or brothers choice or else no one would be a prostitute to begin with. And men who chose to legalize really have no respect for women. We really are lacking men, and women with dignity. it's sad
How is it my place to tell a women what she can and cannot do with her body? How is it being sexist and showing I have no respect for women by covering them up and saying "Don't do what you want to do, don't do that!".
Also how is selling sex for money have anything to do with dignity? When did sex become such a special dea.. oh yeah, religion...
We let girls pose naked for money, have sex with other people having sex for money (porn), we let one of the darkest business around, modelling, sell sex for money (figuratively) but we can't let brothels ... exist?
All very interesting.
On September 29 2012 08:17 NMxMehmet wrote: illegal, i really dislike prostitution and porn videos, realize that those ladies have fathers, how would you feel having a daughter or sister being a prostitute? It's wrong.
I didn't know legality had anything to do with a father or brothers feeling towards something. ... HOW again is it wrong to let someone do what they feel is good? My father might think homosexuality is bad and he might have bad feelings if my brother or me were homosexuals! THATS REASON TO BAN IT!
On September 29 2012 07:47 Kyhol wrote: I would definitely rail a prostitute if it were legal and regulated. As long as she is clean and I am clean I find it hard to find a reason not, unless the girl has severe emotional problems and having sex with random men is ruining her life but in this case it seems that she would be in the wrong line of work and others more qualified could take her slot.
You're definitely not alone, and yes it might seem uncivilized that we need the law to keep us from temptations, but it's a key point to factor into discussion.
you are providing such a great service for this community by posting good threads like this, thank you <3
the matter at hand is indeed a very complicated one. i am taking jack nicholson's point of view, which is "i will never pay for sex". but things change, i would have never thought that i would pay for talking, guess what, i'm starting psychotherapy next month...
i believe in empowerment. concerning prostitution and "the whole political situation (debt crisis and so on)". in my opinion its the only way to better things. give people (prostitutes) a voice, and things might get better. i do see the dangers of populists and "who has the loudest voice gets away with everything, no matter 'good' or 'bad'". but pushing things into the dark (making them illegal) is not a solution. things come back to haunt society. we can't close our eyes. AUFKLÄRUNG, the only way to go to "improve" yourself, the society you live in, and everything else.
its a painful process, but it needs to be done.
to be at least a little bit on topic, the main problem i see in my homecountry (austria, home of jack unterweger): only prostitues are persecuted by the law, never ever has a whoremonger (sorry, don't know the english word for "freier") had any problems with the law (unless he is a murderer, rapists get away). all the blame is on the prostitues, never on the men who search for their services. its absurd.
I find it a bit strange that it has been made and still is illegal in so many places. If it would be legalized and regulated properly then I think it could work pretty well. And there is probably a lot of money to be made in that business.
Everyone with a working brain realizes that prostitution is already legal in many different ways and that explicit legalization will have more benefits than costs for all parties involved, whether taxpayers, police, johns, or the prostitutes themselves. Anyone who disagrees with this is simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution itself and not the actual logic of the proposition.
This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
I don't understand this argument. Who want's a society with guns and religion? Just so omega males can show off their guns and fanatics can wield ignorance? Only a guy who is X, Y, Z generalizations needs those!
Freedom is free, it shouldn't be subject to your moral code if it doesn't directly affect anyone. Do you get harmed with all the illegal prostitution? Hell no, so why is it your business if it won't harm anyone (in fact it will start cleaning up the STD's because it will definitely be regulated and kept clean meaning a less harmful system) to intervene?
I can't see how anyone can find a logical reason to deny prostitution except for their own moral principles which isn't grounds to legalize or make illegal anything. This is why polygamy is illegal, some people deem it is morally right and it is religious freedom while having sex with minors counters that moral claim as a harmful and directly effecting action.
On September 29 2012 09:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Everyone with a working brain realizes that prostitution is already legal in many different ways and that explicit legalization will have more benefits than costs for all parties involved, whether taxpayers, police, johns, or the prostitutes themselves. Anyone who disagrees with this is simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution itself and not the actual logic of the proposition.
This guy explains very clearly your position "simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution and not the actual logic of the proposition"
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
I don't understand this argument. Who want's a society with guns and religion? Just so omega males can show off their guns and fanatics can wield ignorance? Only a guy who is X, Y, Z generalizations needs those!
Freedom is free, it shouldn't be subject to your moral code if it doesn't directly affect anyone. Do you get harmed with all the illegal prostitution? Hell no, so why is it your business if it won't harm anyone (in fact it will start cleaning up the STD's because it will definitely be regulated and kept clean meaning a less harmful system) to intervene?
I can't see how anyone can find a logical reason to deny prostitution except for their own moral principles which isn't grounds to legalize or make illegal anything. This is why polygamy is illegal, some people deem it is morally right and it is religious freedom while having sex with minors counters that moral claim as a harmful and directly effecting action.
On September 29 2012 09:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Everyone with a working brain realizes that prostitution is already legal in many different ways and that explicit legalization will have more benefits than costs for all parties involved, whether taxpayers, police, johns, or the prostitutes themselves. Anyone who disagrees with this is simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution itself and not the actual logic of the proposition.
This guy explains very clearly your position "simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution and not the actual logic of the proposition"
I guess I know who you are. You are a guy who has lots of posts on team liquid and feels no shame that you have to PAY for sex, lol. If you want to be a keyboard warrior, then you can win all the internet arguments against me you want. I got laid probably 80 times this year and never had to pay (minus dinner, gifts, etc... but I also get gifts in return)
Why don't you just got get a fleshlight and some vaseline. You wouldn't defend prostitution if you weren't having difficulties with the opposite sex. Lastly, I advise to read some books on how to score with women. You can "win" the argument, but at the end of the day, you're probably the type of guy who lost his virginity when you were 25. You probably get a panic attack each time you ask a girl out.
For guys like you, I hope the only time you can ever get a decent lay is with a prostitute. Oh yeah, and you're also "the boss" on forum sites like team-liquid, and you're probably a diamond league starcraft player, so congrats to you so much!
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
I don't understand this argument. Who want's a society with guns and religion? Just so omega males can show off their guns and fanatics can wield ignorance? Only a guy who is X, Y, Z generalizations needs those!
Freedom is free, it shouldn't be subject to your moral code if it doesn't directly affect anyone. Do you get harmed with all the illegal prostitution? Hell no, so why is it your business if it won't harm anyone (in fact it will start cleaning up the STD's because it will definitely be regulated and kept clean meaning a less harmful system) to intervene?
I can't see how anyone can find a logical reason to deny prostitution except for their own moral principles which isn't grounds to legalize or make illegal anything. This is why polygamy is illegal, some people deem it is morally right and it is religious freedom while having sex with minors counters that moral claim as a harmful and directly effecting action.
On September 29 2012 09:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Everyone with a working brain realizes that prostitution is already legal in many different ways and that explicit legalization will have more benefits than costs for all parties involved, whether taxpayers, police, johns, or the prostitutes themselves. Anyone who disagrees with this is simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution itself and not the actual logic of the proposition.
This guy explains very clearly your position "simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution and not the actual logic of the proposition"
I guess I know who you are. You are a guy who has lots of posts on team liquid and feels no shame that you have to PAY for sex, lol. If you want to be a keyboard warrior, then you can win all the internet arguments against me you want. I got laid probably 80 times this year and never had to pay (minus dinner, gifts, etc... but I also get gifts in return)
Why don't you just got get a fleshlight and some vaseline. You wouldn't defend prostitution if you weren't having difficulties with the opposite sex. Lastly, I advise to read some books on how to score with women. You can "win" the argument, but at the end of the day, you're probably the type of guy who lost his virginity when you were 25. You probably get a panic attack each time you ask a girl out.
For guys like you, I hope the only time you can ever get a decent lay is with a prostitute. Oh yeah, and you're also "the boss" on forum sites like team-liquid, and you're probably a diamond league starcraft player, so congrats to you so much!
That's cool and all, but instead of sitting here... On an Internet forum... Insulting people for being on Internet forum... why don't you go up to some prostitutes and explain why what they do is immoral and ought to remain illegal. Since only "keyboard warriors" try to have discussions online.
IMO the legality of prostitution for each individual region should be decided upon - by the people.
Reasons for this is due to how no two cultural mindsets between two entirely different regions would be common. For example Amsterdam versus Afghanistan. It's almost fallacy to even compare these two completely different areas.
There are many areas where prostitution - out in the open - is absolutely illegal. Yet escort services is considered fine. And we all know what, in many cases, escort services entails(but of course, not always).
What one region does successfully as far as legalizing prostitution, may not work so well in another. Having said that, I think the state of things as they are today, should not simply change, for its own sake.
Legalizing would certain help people in many scenarios; access to health care and other standard privileges.
On September 29 2012 09:50 kokomojowelieole wrote:
On September 29 2012 09:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
I don't understand this argument. Who want's a society with guns and religion? Just so omega males can show off their guns and fanatics can wield ignorance? Only a guy who is X, Y, Z generalizations needs those!
Freedom is free, it shouldn't be subject to your moral code if it doesn't directly affect anyone. Do you get harmed with all the illegal prostitution? Hell no, so why is it your business if it won't harm anyone (in fact it will start cleaning up the STD's because it will definitely be regulated and kept clean meaning a less harmful system) to intervene?
I can't see how anyone can find a logical reason to deny prostitution except for their own moral principles which isn't grounds to legalize or make illegal anything. This is why polygamy is illegal, some people deem it is morally right and it is religious freedom while having sex with minors counters that moral claim as a harmful and directly effecting action.
On September 29 2012 09:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Everyone with a working brain realizes that prostitution is already legal in many different ways and that explicit legalization will have more benefits than costs for all parties involved, whether taxpayers, police, johns, or the prostitutes themselves. Anyone who disagrees with this is simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution itself and not the actual logic of the proposition.
This guy explains very clearly your position "simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution and not the actual logic of the proposition"
I guess I know who you are. You are a guy who has lots of posts on team liquid and feels no shame that you have to PAY for sex, lol. If you want to be a keyboard warrior, then you can win all the internet arguments against me you want. I got laid probably 80 times this year and never had to pay (minus dinner, gifts, etc... but I also get gifts in return)
Why don't you just got get a fleshlight and some vaseline. You wouldn't defend prostitution if you weren't having difficulties with the opposite sex. Lastly, I advise to read some books on how to score with women. You can "win" the argument, but at the end of the day, you're probably the type of guy who lost his virginity when you were 25. You probably get a panic attack each time you ask a girl out.
For guys like you, I hope the only time you can ever get a decent lay is with a prostitute. Oh yeah, and you're also "the boss" on forum sites like team-liquid, and you're probably a diamond league starcraft player, so congrats to you so much!
That's cool and all, but instead of sitting here... On an Internet forum... Insulting people for being on Internet forum... why don't you go up to some prostitutes and explain why what they do is immoral and ought to remain illegal. Since only "keyboard warriors" try to have discussions online.
I only have 94 posts, so just stfu. I have a very full life. I am watching the tampa bay rays game. I have a job, girlfriend, car, apartment, and growing some weed in my bathroom, so try & top that, bro!
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
I don't understand this argument. Who want's a society with guns and religion? Just so omega males can show off their guns and fanatics can wield ignorance? Only a guy who is X, Y, Z generalizations needs those!
Freedom is free, it shouldn't be subject to your moral code if it doesn't directly affect anyone. Do you get harmed with all the illegal prostitution? Hell no, so why is it your business if it won't harm anyone (in fact it will start cleaning up the STD's because it will definitely be regulated and kept clean meaning a less harmful system) to intervene?
I can't see how anyone can find a logical reason to deny prostitution except for their own moral principles which isn't grounds to legalize or make illegal anything. This is why polygamy is illegal, some people deem it is morally right and it is religious freedom while having sex with minors counters that moral claim as a harmful and directly effecting action.
On September 29 2012 09:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Everyone with a working brain realizes that prostitution is already legal in many different ways and that explicit legalization will have more benefits than costs for all parties involved, whether taxpayers, police, johns, or the prostitutes themselves. Anyone who disagrees with this is simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution itself and not the actual logic of the proposition.
This guy explains very clearly your position "simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution and not the actual logic of the proposition"
I guess I know who you are. You are a guy who has lots of posts on team liquid and feels no shame that you have to PAY for sex, lol. If you want to be a keyboard warrior, then you can win all the internet arguments against me you want. I got laid probably 80 times this year and never had to pay (minus dinner, gifts, etc... but I also get gifts in return)
Why don't you just got get a fleshlight and some vaseline. You wouldn't defend prostitution if you weren't having difficulties with the opposite sex. Lastly, I advise to read some books on how to score with women. You can "win" the argument, but at the end of the day, you're probably the type of guy who lost his virginity when you were 25. You probably get a panic attack each time you ask a girl out.
For guys like you, I hope the only time you can ever get a decent lay is with a prostitute. Oh yeah, and you're also "the boss" on forum sites like team-liquid, and you're probably a diamond league starcraft player, so congrats to you so much!
fascism isn't fun, br0. Give a reason why it would be actually bad, as opposed to creating a strawman and just attacking your believed "omega male stereotype" of someone who'd purchase prostitution services.
On September 29 2012 09:50 kokomojowelieole wrote:
On September 29 2012 09:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
I don't understand this argument. Who want's a society with guns and religion? Just so omega males can show off their guns and fanatics can wield ignorance? Only a guy who is X, Y, Z generalizations needs those!
Freedom is free, it shouldn't be subject to your moral code if it doesn't directly affect anyone. Do you get harmed with all the illegal prostitution? Hell no, so why is it your business if it won't harm anyone (in fact it will start cleaning up the STD's because it will definitely be regulated and kept clean meaning a less harmful system) to intervene?
I can't see how anyone can find a logical reason to deny prostitution except for their own moral principles which isn't grounds to legalize or make illegal anything. This is why polygamy is illegal, some people deem it is morally right and it is religious freedom while having sex with minors counters that moral claim as a harmful and directly effecting action.
On September 29 2012 09:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Everyone with a working brain realizes that prostitution is already legal in many different ways and that explicit legalization will have more benefits than costs for all parties involved, whether taxpayers, police, johns, or the prostitutes themselves. Anyone who disagrees with this is simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution itself and not the actual logic of the proposition.
This guy explains very clearly your position "simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution and not the actual logic of the proposition"
I guess I know who you are. You are a guy who has lots of posts on team liquid and feels no shame that you have to PAY for sex, lol. If you want to be a keyboard warrior, then you can win all the internet arguments against me you want. I got laid probably 80 times this year and never had to pay (minus dinner, gifts, etc... but I also get gifts in return)
Why don't you just got get a fleshlight and some vaseline. You wouldn't defend prostitution if you weren't having difficulties with the opposite sex. Lastly, I advise to read some books on how to score with women. You can "win" the argument, but at the end of the day, you're probably the type of guy who lost his virginity when you were 25. You probably get a panic attack each time you ask a girl out.
For guys like you, I hope the only time you can ever get a decent lay is with a prostitute. Oh yeah, and you're also "the boss" on forum sites like team-liquid, and you're probably a diamond league starcraft player, so congrats to you so much!
That's cool and all, but instead of sitting here... On an Internet forum... Insulting people for being on Internet forum... why don't you go up to some prostitutes and explain why what they do is immoral and ought to remain illegal. Since only "keyboard warriors" try to have discussions online.
I only have 94 posts, so just stfu. I have a very full life. I am watching the tampa bay rays game. I have a job, girlfriend, car, apartment, and growing some weed in my bathroom, so try & top that, bro!
Anyone can do all that shit and still have a ton of posts and nerdy side hobbies and shit. But deep down you know that. You're just trying to piss people off on the net for kicks, like that kid who says shit like "no life faggot" after losing a game in gold league. I'm not judging you, but your posts are fucking annoying. Ive already fallen for your semi trolling enough so I guess I'll just leave it at that.
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
On September 29 2012 10:23 kokomojowelieole wrote: Weed is way safer than prostitution, and why the hell it's illegal, I dunno.
This is sick. Who wants society to have more stoned, out of their minds, druggies who don't do anything for society? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is depressed & has no self esteem & shunned with no personality needs a escapist mechanism like weed!
On September 29 2012 10:16 kokomojowelieole wrote:
On September 29 2012 09:57 Zahir wrote:
On September 29 2012 09:50 kokomojowelieole wrote:
On September 29 2012 09:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
I don't understand this argument. Who want's a society with guns and religion? Just so omega males can show off their guns and fanatics can wield ignorance? Only a guy who is X, Y, Z generalizations needs those!
Freedom is free, it shouldn't be subject to your moral code if it doesn't directly affect anyone. Do you get harmed with all the illegal prostitution? Hell no, so why is it your business if it won't harm anyone (in fact it will start cleaning up the STD's because it will definitely be regulated and kept clean meaning a less harmful system) to intervene?
I can't see how anyone can find a logical reason to deny prostitution except for their own moral principles which isn't grounds to legalize or make illegal anything. This is why polygamy is illegal, some people deem it is morally right and it is religious freedom while having sex with minors counters that moral claim as a harmful and directly effecting action.
On September 29 2012 09:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Everyone with a working brain realizes that prostitution is already legal in many different ways and that explicit legalization will have more benefits than costs for all parties involved, whether taxpayers, police, johns, or the prostitutes themselves. Anyone who disagrees with this is simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution itself and not the actual logic of the proposition.
This guy explains very clearly your position "simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution and not the actual logic of the proposition"
I guess I know who you are. You are a guy who has lots of posts on team liquid and feels no shame that you have to PAY for sex, lol. If you want to be a keyboard warrior, then you can win all the internet arguments against me you want. I got laid probably 80 times this year and never had to pay (minus dinner, gifts, etc... but I also get gifts in return)
Why don't you just got get a fleshlight and some vaseline. You wouldn't defend prostitution if you weren't having difficulties with the opposite sex. Lastly, I advise to read some books on how to score with women. You can "win" the argument, but at the end of the day, you're probably the type of guy who lost his virginity when you were 25. You probably get a panic attack each time you ask a girl out.
For guys like you, I hope the only time you can ever get a decent lay is with a prostitute. Oh yeah, and you're also "the boss" on forum sites like team-liquid, and you're probably a diamond league starcraft player, so congrats to you so much!
That's cool and all, but instead of sitting here... On an Internet forum... Insulting people for being on Internet forum... why don't you go up to some prostitutes and explain why what they do is immoral and ought to remain illegal. Since only "keyboard warriors" try to have discussions online.
I only have 94 posts, so just stfu. I have a very full life. I am watching the tampa bay rays game. I have a job, girlfriend, car, apartment, and growing some weed in my bathroom, so try & top that, bro!
Anyone can do all that shit and still have a ton of posts and nerdy side hobbies and shit. But deep down you know that. You're just trying to piss people off on the net for kicks, like that kid who says shit like "no life faggot" after losing a game in gold league. I'm not judging you, but your posts are fucking annoying. Ive already fallen for your semi trolling enough so I guess I'll just leave it at that.
What semi-trolling are you talking about? (in this thread? or in other thread? I honestly don't remember you or recognize your screen name)
Here is what I posted in another thread about prostitution:
On September 28 2012 10:33 TheAmazombie wrote: I live in Nevada where we have legal brothels (Right down the street from where I live), safe testing, and all that. I agree with it. While I have never actually been in one, though I am curious how it all works, I have met some of the ladies that work out there. They are a part of my local community, good, honest, working women that are, for the most part, just trying to make a living like everyone else.
I personally have no issue with it at all think that is should be legalized and controlled safely. Just wanted to add my 2 cents for the professional women since I actually interact with them and their business is part of my local community. I hope that some day we will evolve the idea as a safe and legal practice. I still don't understand how we think that paying people to have sex is okay as long as it is on camera for retail sale and distribution, but for personal direct contact it is wrong. Silly people.
I will add the simple truth of it: It is not a question of having prostitution or not, it is a question of having it safely and controlled vs. dangerous. It will ALWAYS exist because sex will always exist for humans. Might as well accept that, evolve this idea, learn and grow our knowledge and basis of it.
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
On September 29 2012 10:23 kokomojowelieole wrote: Weed is way safer than prostitution, and why the hell it's illegal, I dunno.
This is sick. Who wants society to have more stoned, out of their minds, druggies who don't do anything for society? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is depressed & has no self esteem & shunned with no personality needs a escapist mechanism like weed!
I work 40 hours/week at Home Depot, and have been there for over 3 years. I just got hooked on marijuana from my brood war days back in college. I'm 28 and have a psychology degree & have student loans & shit, but I still make $23/hour and have only $20k left to pay on my student loans. My jeep cherokee is paid off, and I get professional stuff like sodium lights thanks to my job. I can engineer a killer weed setup for bathrooms, and my job affords me the technical knowledge to never get caught.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
There might be a small fraction of people that have sex for money by free will - but that number is likely VERY small.
such a bullshit argument. How many McDonald's workers would choose to work there if they were better qualified or had some other skill that would allow them to have a better job? Answer... none. We all all pushed in to jobs we don't want to do or wouldn't choose to do if we had a better option.
Very few people have free will over which job they do, the vast majority of people do not like their job or at least would prefer a different one. Women or men who become prostitutes would probably like a better job or different job but the simple fact is that they can make money doing it and so long as they aren't harming anyone (ok, some guys like to be harmed during sex, we shall exclude that from this line of argument) they should be free to do it.
Legalising anything makes it safer for all involved. Prostitution happens, prohibition doesn't work. Its the same as drugs. Legalise it, tax it, regulate it. Do you know how much extra tax would be paid if prostitution and drugs were legal? A fuck ton, thats how much. Billions of dollars/pounds/insert your currency here.
The next time i hear the "having no better alternative means they are forced to become prostitutes" I think I will give up on this world. 99% of the population are prostitutes, just not in a sexual sense. We all whore ourselves out in some way, I am a musician... the amount of times i've had to play gigs I didn't want to because I needed the money would astound you. At the end of the day, what someone else chooses to do, for whatever reason they choose to do it, is none of your business.
I could go on a campaign about how if we just educated people better, no one would ever have to work at McD's and how terrible it is that these people are forced to work there because they have no better alternative. Guess what... if i did... everyone would laugh at me.
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
On September 29 2012 10:23 kokomojowelieole wrote: Weed is way safer than prostitution, and why the hell it's illegal, I dunno.
This is sick. Who wants society to have more stoned, out of their minds, druggies who don't do anything for society? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is depressed & has no self esteem & shunned with no personality needs a escapist mechanism like weed!
I work 40 hours/week at Home Depot, and have been there for over 3 years. I just got hooked on marijuana from my brood war days back in college. I'm 28 and have a psychology degree & have student loans & shit, but I still make $23/hour and have only $20k left to pay on my student loans. My jeep cherokee is paid off, and I get professional stuff like sodium lights thanks to my job. I can engineer a killer weed setup for bathrooms, and my job affords me the technical knowledge to never get caught.
my mockery was of your argument, not of you. your explanation of how you're successful, etc, is the flaw in your argument as well. I could substitute a hypothetical subject who used prostitution services into your response and it'd still be fine (if i replaced the obvious)
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
On September 29 2012 10:23 kokomojowelieole wrote: Weed is way safer than prostitution, and why the hell it's illegal, I dunno.
This is sick. Who wants society to have more stoned, out of their minds, druggies who don't do anything for society? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is depressed & has no self esteem & shunned with no personality needs a escapist mechanism like weed!
I work 40 hours/week at Home Depot, and have been there for over 3 years. I just got hooked on marijuana from my brood war days back in college. I'm 28 and have a psychology degree & have student loans & shit, but I still make $23/hour and have only $20k left to pay on my student loans. My jeep cherokee is paid off, and I get professional stuff like sodium lights thanks to my job. I can engineer a killer weed setup for bathrooms, and my job affords me the technical knowledge to never get caught.
Not going to stoop to your level by personally insulting other forum members, but if you think being able to hold down a low paying menial job and growing weed in your bathtub makes you the epitome of cool and puts you in a position to be able to insult other forum members, then you are way off base my friend.
I didn't realise that legalisation in places like Amsterdam made it less safe than places where prostitution is illegal, however I still think any act between two consenting adults should be legal. I don't buy the 'they are forced to do it to make a living' argument since that can be said about any low paying job, and distinguishing prostitution because sex is taboo and a lot of people are uncomfortable with the concept of it is not a valid argument. Its the prostitutes body, he/she can do what they want with it.
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
Uhm what's wrong with them? It's call characteristic and they were born with it, some might not be confident or attractive. By the end of the day, it's not easy to change it right? I mean do men go to doctor and ask for plastic surgery? May be yes but not all. So plz have some respect for those who has less luck than you are.
I want to lean towards 'don't make it illegal' but I still would want some protections to keep it out of the public eye. Things like making it illegal to advertise in public would make me happy since I don't want to constantly encounter 'come have sex with our hookers' ads (or worse yet, little kids etc).
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
Uhm what's wrong with them? It's call characteristic and they were born with it, some might not be confident or attractive. By the end of the day, it's not easy to change it right? I mean do men go to doctor and ask for plastic surgery? May be yes but not all. So plz have some respect for those who has less luck than you are.
From the sound of it most of us have more luck than him even if most of the things he said about himself are true. I'd trade in a gf, job, and being the main character on breaking bad to not have to be a horrible person.
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
I don't understand this argument. Who want's a society with guns and religion? Just so omega males can show off their guns and fanatics can wield ignorance? Only a guy who is X, Y, Z generalizations needs those!
Freedom is free, it shouldn't be subject to your moral code if it doesn't directly affect anyone. Do you get harmed with all the illegal prostitution? Hell no, so why is it your business if it won't harm anyone (in fact it will start cleaning up the STD's because it will definitely be regulated and kept clean meaning a less harmful system) to intervene?
I can't see how anyone can find a logical reason to deny prostitution except for their own moral principles which isn't grounds to legalize or make illegal anything. This is why polygamy is illegal, some people deem it is morally right and it is religious freedom while having sex with minors counters that moral claim as a harmful and directly effecting action.
On September 29 2012 09:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Everyone with a working brain realizes that prostitution is already legal in many different ways and that explicit legalization will have more benefits than costs for all parties involved, whether taxpayers, police, johns, or the prostitutes themselves. Anyone who disagrees with this is simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution itself and not the actual logic of the proposition.
This guy explains very clearly your position "simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution and not the actual logic of the proposition"
I guess I know who you are. You are a guy who has lots of posts on team liquid and feels no shame that you have to PAY for sex, lol. If you want to be a keyboard warrior, then you can win all the internet arguments against me you want. I got laid probably 80 times this year and never had to pay (minus dinner, gifts, etc... but I also get gifts in return)
Why don't you just got get a fleshlight and some vaseline. You wouldn't defend prostitution if you weren't having difficulties with the opposite sex. Lastly, I advise to read some books on how to score with women. You can "win" the argument, but at the end of the day, you're probably the type of guy who lost his virginity when you were 25. You probably get a panic attack each time you ask a girl out.
For guys like you, I hope the only time you can ever get a decent lay is with a prostitute. Oh yeah, and you're also "the boss" on forum sites like team-liquid, and you're probably a diamond league starcraft player, so congrats to you so much!
In the words of Ron Burgandy, that escalated quickly.
Side Edit: I also want to note not a single generalization you made was even relatively accurate, you managed to over shoot my actual age by 7 years, I'll keep that a secret though since I doubt you'll be able to solve the complicated math problem of 25-7, you seem rather ... simple.
You decide to generalize me as a "guy like me" for pointing out you have no viable argument against it except for moral principle by throwing insults, making claims you cannot prove and using strawman arguments. Being in a healthy relationship that is sexually monogamous (no money drained on condoms) for two years I feel safe to say that 80 in a single year is approximately around the same for me but I don't keep track.
As others have pointed out, you're a bit of a simpleton so I'll let you get back to being whatever you characterize yourself as while you make up terms for everyone else while I'll be "the boss" ^^.
Oh and I enjoy the "you're probably a diamond starcraft league player!!!" ^^ + Show Spoiler +
you dare enter here!? This is a conversation on prostitution and you challenge my STARCRAFT 2 SKILLS?+ Show Spoiler +
that challenge! 1300 Masters MassiveB.645, GG SON : D For I am an arm chair master
On September 29 2012 11:32 micronesia wrote: I want to lean towards 'don't make it illegal' but I still would want some protections to keep it out of the public eye. Things like making it illegal to advertise in public would make me happy since I don't want to constantly encounter 'come have sex with our hookers' ads (or worse yet, little kids etc).
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
Uhm what's wrong with them? It's call characteristic and they were born with it, some might not be confident or attractive. By the end of the day, it's not easy to change it right? I mean do men go to doctor and ask for plastic surgery? May be yes but not all. So plz have some respect for those who has less luck than you are.
From the sound of it most of us have more luck than him even if most of the things he said about himself are true. I'd trade in a gf, job, and being the main character on breaking bad to not have to be a horrible person.
Can't have pimps, can't be on the streets, brothels are ok and guards are ok. I think if I recall advertising in ads on like the yellow pages is ok but you can't buy out ads.
SideEdit:
On September 29 2012 10:16 kokomojowelieole wrote:
On September 29 2012 09:50 kokomojowelieole wrote:
On September 29 2012 09:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
I don't understand this argument. Who want's a society with guns and religion? Just so omega males can show off their guns and fanatics can wield ignorance? Only a guy who is X, Y, Z generalizations needs those!
Freedom is free, it shouldn't be subject to your moral code if it doesn't directly affect anyone. Do you get harmed with all the illegal prostitution? Hell no, so why is it your business if it won't harm anyone (in fact it will start cleaning up the STD's because it will definitely be regulated and kept clean meaning a less harmful system) to intervene?
I can't see how anyone can find a logical reason to deny prostitution except for their own moral principles which isn't grounds to legalize or make illegal anything. This is why polygamy is illegal, some people deem it is morally right and it is religious freedom while having sex with minors counters that moral claim as a harmful and directly effecting action.
On September 29 2012 09:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Everyone with a working brain realizes that prostitution is already legal in many different ways and that explicit legalization will have more benefits than costs for all parties involved, whether taxpayers, police, johns, or the prostitutes themselves. Anyone who disagrees with this is simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution itself and not the actual logic of the proposition.
This guy explains very clearly your position "simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution and not the actual logic of the proposition"
I guess I know who you are. You are a guy who has lots of posts on team liquid and feels no shame that you have to PAY for sex, lol. If you want to be a keyboard warrior, then you can win all the internet arguments against me you want. I got laid probably 80 times this year and never had to pay (minus dinner, gifts, etc... but I also get gifts in return)
Why don't you just got get a fleshlight and some vaseline. You wouldn't defend prostitution if you weren't having difficulties with the opposite sex. Lastly, I advise to read some books on how to score with women. You can "win" the argument, but at the end of the day, you're probably the type of guy who lost his virginity when you were 25. You probably get a panic attack each time you ask a girl out.
For guys like you, I hope the only time you can ever get a decent lay is with a prostitute. Oh yeah, and you're also "the boss" on forum sites like team-liquid, and you're probably a diamond league starcraft player, so congrats to you so much!
That's cool and all, but instead of sitting here... On an Internet forum... Insulting people for being on Internet forum... why don't you go up to some prostitutes and explain why what they do is immoral and ought to remain illegal. Since only "keyboard warriors" try to have discussions online.
I only have 94 posts, so just stfu. I have a very full life. I am watching the tampa bay rays game. I have a job, girlfriend, car, apartment, and growing some weed in my bathroom, so try & top that, bro!
The more I read your comments the more I feel like we're filling in the "accuse everyone else about what you're insecure about" You have 94 posts because your account was made in August while most accounts have been made at least a year ago -.-
If I were to generalize your age like you seem to do I would either approximate 12-16 and pray that's the case because of how ... you... argue? but I could be very wrong and perhaps you're just an immature adult.
On September 29 2012 09:50 kokomojowelieole wrote:
On September 29 2012 09:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
I don't understand this argument. Who want's a society with guns and religion? Just so omega males can show off their guns and fanatics can wield ignorance? Only a guy who is X, Y, Z generalizations needs those!
Freedom is free, it shouldn't be subject to your moral code if it doesn't directly affect anyone. Do you get harmed with all the illegal prostitution? Hell no, so why is it your business if it won't harm anyone (in fact it will start cleaning up the STD's because it will definitely be regulated and kept clean meaning a less harmful system) to intervene?
I can't see how anyone can find a logical reason to deny prostitution except for their own moral principles which isn't grounds to legalize or make illegal anything. This is why polygamy is illegal, some people deem it is morally right and it is religious freedom while having sex with minors counters that moral claim as a harmful and directly effecting action.
On September 29 2012 09:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Everyone with a working brain realizes that prostitution is already legal in many different ways and that explicit legalization will have more benefits than costs for all parties involved, whether taxpayers, police, johns, or the prostitutes themselves. Anyone who disagrees with this is simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution itself and not the actual logic of the proposition.
This guy explains very clearly your position "simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution and not the actual logic of the proposition"
I guess I know who you are. You are a guy who has lots of posts on team liquid and feels no shame that you have to PAY for sex, lol. If you want to be a keyboard warrior, then you can win all the internet arguments against me you want. I got laid probably 80 times this year and never had to pay (minus dinner, gifts, etc... but I also get gifts in return)
Why don't you just got get a fleshlight and some vaseline. You wouldn't defend prostitution if you weren't having difficulties with the opposite sex. Lastly, I advise to read some books on how to score with women. You can "win" the argument, but at the end of the day, you're probably the type of guy who lost his virginity when you were 25. You probably get a panic attack each time you ask a girl out.
For guys like you, I hope the only time you can ever get a decent lay is with a prostitute. Oh yeah, and you're also "the boss" on forum sites like team-liquid, and you're probably a diamond league starcraft player, so congrats to you so much!
In the words of Ron Burgandy, that escalated quickly.
You decide to generalize me as a "guy like me" for pointing out you have no viable argument against it except for moral principle by throwing insults, making claims you cannot prove and using strawman arguments. Being in a healthy relationship that is sexually monogamous (no money drained on condoms) for two years I feel safe to say that 80 in a single year is approximately around the same for me but I don't keep track.
As others have pointed out, you're a bit of a simpleton so I'll let you get back to being whatever you characterize yourself as while you make up terms for everyone else while I'll be "the boss" ^^.
Oh and I enjoy the "you're probably a diamond starcraft league player!!!" ^^ + Show Spoiler +
you dare enter here!? This is a conversation on prostitution and you challenge my STARCRAFT 2 SKILLS?+ Show Spoiler +
On September 29 2012 11:32 micronesia wrote: I want to lean towards 'don't make it illegal' but I still would want some protections to keep it out of the public eye. Things like making it illegal to advertise in public would make me happy since I don't want to constantly encounter 'come have sex with our hookers' ads (or worse yet, little kids etc).
On September 29 2012 11:15 tuho12345 wrote:
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
Uhm what's wrong with them? It's call characteristic and they were born with it, some might not be confident or attractive. By the end of the day, it's not easy to change it right? I mean do men go to doctor and ask for plastic surgery? May be yes but not all. So plz have some respect for those who has less luck than you are.
From the sound of it most of us have more luck than him even if most of the things he said about himself are true. I'd trade in a gf, job, and being the main character on breaking bad to not have to be a horrible person.
Can't have pimps, can't be on the streets, brothels are ok and guards are ok. I think if I recall advertising in ads on like the yellow pages is ok but you can't buy out ads.
Prostitution is legal in Canada but legally impractical, because you cannot solicit customers in a lot of situations.
On September 29 2012 09:50 kokomojowelieole wrote:
On September 29 2012 09:44 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
I don't understand this argument. Who want's a society with guns and religion? Just so omega males can show off their guns and fanatics can wield ignorance? Only a guy who is X, Y, Z generalizations needs those!
Freedom is free, it shouldn't be subject to your moral code if it doesn't directly affect anyone. Do you get harmed with all the illegal prostitution? Hell no, so why is it your business if it won't harm anyone (in fact it will start cleaning up the STD's because it will definitely be regulated and kept clean meaning a less harmful system) to intervene?
I can't see how anyone can find a logical reason to deny prostitution except for their own moral principles which isn't grounds to legalize or make illegal anything. This is why polygamy is illegal, some people deem it is morally right and it is religious freedom while having sex with minors counters that moral claim as a harmful and directly effecting action.
On September 29 2012 09:16 jdseemoreglass wrote: Everyone with a working brain realizes that prostitution is already legal in many different ways and that explicit legalization will have more benefits than costs for all parties involved, whether taxpayers, police, johns, or the prostitutes themselves. Anyone who disagrees with this is simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution itself and not the actual logic of the proposition.
This guy explains very clearly your position "simply expressing their psychological disgust for prostitution and not the actual logic of the proposition"
I guess I know who you are. You are a guy who has lots of posts on team liquid and feels no shame that you have to PAY for sex, lol. If you want to be a keyboard warrior, then you can win all the internet arguments against me you want. I got laid probably 80 times this year and never had to pay (minus dinner, gifts, etc... but I also get gifts in return)
Why don't you just got get a fleshlight and some vaseline. You wouldn't defend prostitution if you weren't having difficulties with the opposite sex. Lastly, I advise to read some books on how to score with women. You can "win" the argument, but at the end of the day, you're probably the type of guy who lost his virginity when you were 25. You probably get a panic attack each time you ask a girl out.
For guys like you, I hope the only time you can ever get a decent lay is with a prostitute. Oh yeah, and you're also "the boss" on forum sites like team-liquid, and you're probably a diamond league starcraft player, so congrats to you so much!
In the words of Ron Burgandy, that escalated quickly.
You decide to generalize me as a "guy like me" for pointing out you have no viable argument against it except for moral principle by throwing insults, making claims you cannot prove and using strawman arguments. Being in a healthy relationship that is sexually monogamous (no money drained on condoms) for two years I feel safe to say that 80 in a single year is approximately around the same for me but I don't keep track.
As others have pointed out, you're a bit of a simpleton so I'll let you get back to being whatever you characterize yourself as while you make up terms for everyone else while I'll be "the boss" ^^.
Oh and I enjoy the "you're probably a diamond starcraft league player!!!" ^^ + Show Spoiler +
you dare enter here!? This is a conversation on prostitution and you challenge my STARCRAFT 2 SKILLS?+ Show Spoiler +
that challenge! 1300 Masters MassiveB.645, GG SON : D For I am an arm chair master
On September 29 2012 11:32 micronesia wrote: I want to lean towards 'don't make it illegal' but I still would want some protections to keep it out of the public eye. Things like making it illegal to advertise in public would make me happy since I don't want to constantly encounter 'come have sex with our hookers' ads (or worse yet, little kids etc).
On September 29 2012 11:15 tuho12345 wrote:
On September 29 2012 09:37 kokomojowelieole wrote: This is sick. Who wants society to have more strippers, prostitutes, and hand-job massage parlors? Just so omega males can get laid? Only a guy who is desperate & unattractive & no personality needs a prostitute.
Uhm what's wrong with them? It's call characteristic and they were born with it, some might not be confident or attractive. By the end of the day, it's not easy to change it right? I mean do men go to doctor and ask for plastic surgery? May be yes but not all. So plz have some respect for those who has less luck than you are.
From the sound of it most of us have more luck than him even if most of the things he said about himself are true. I'd trade in a gf, job, and being the main character on breaking bad to not have to be a horrible person.
Can't have pimps, can't be on the streets, brothels are ok and guards are ok. I think if I recall advertising in ads on like the yellow pages is ok but you can't buy out ads.
Prostitution is legal in Canada but legally impractical, because you cannot solicit customers in a lot of situations.
It's mainly high end prostitution you are right as in rich people because they know the connections to the brothels but it is legal as I said.
Illegal prostitute increases human trafficking in my opinion... Prostitutes are harder to find making sex slaves fetch a higher price, making criminal organizations more likely to pursue it as a means of making money.
On September 29 2012 01:56 Evilmystic wrote: There is no reason for any sort of consensual activity between adults to be illegal.
By this logic any factory health and safety laws shouldn't exist...
I'm with most of the posters in this thread. By legalising it, you give the government and the law much more control. This would be brilliant for fighting STD's, reducing violence against prostitutes, and stopping human trafficking.
I agree that legalizing it would give the prostitutes a safer work environment.. but prostitution is still "selling yourself". You're giving up your body to someone that is willing to pay for it and is kind of counter to the whole monogamous thing that humans have relied on to create healthy families where children can flourish and live healthy lives..
All in all I do believe it should be .. decriminalized. If just to protect the people who are doing it. But I really do not think this should be a profession that is talked up or a profession that is seen as admirable or great or whatever. In the end you really are selling yourself and likely any chances for a normal/happy monogamous relationship just for fast money. Just as the johns are looked down on for paying for sex, I think there should still be stigma attached to the people selling it.
edit.
I'd like to add that I really dislike the idea of prostitution. Especially in 3rd world countries where the rich can easily pray on whatever woman or girl that they want just by waving enough money infront of them or their parents faces. I understand that in north america and Europe it's more of an 'empowered woman' movement to allow women to protect themselves and prostitute freely.. but it should be noted that prostitution is far more demeaning and degrading in other parts of the world. Especially when you think of how many people that are sold into or tricked into prostituting (read nepal, india, pakistan).
On September 29 2012 13:33 drwiggl3s wrote: I agree that legalizing it would give the prostitutes a safer work environment.. but prostitution is still "selling yourself". You're giving up your body to someone that is willing to pay for it and is kind of counter to the whole monogamous thing that humans have relied on to create healthy families where children can flourish and live healthy lives..
All in all I do believe it should be .. decriminalized. If just to protect the people who are doing it. But I really do not think this should be a profession that is talked up or a profession that is seen as admirable or great or whatever. In the end you really are selling yourself and likely any chances for a normal/happy monogamous relationship just for fast money. Just as the johns are looked down on for paying for sex, I think there should still be stigma attached to the people selling it.
edit.
I'd like to add that I really dislike the idea of prostitution. Especially in 3rd world countries where the rich can easily pray on whatever woman or girl that they want just by waving enough money infront of them or their parents faces. I understand that in north america and Europe it's more of an 'empowered woman' movement to allow women to protect themselves and prostitute freely.. but it should be noted that prostitution is far more demeaning and degrading in other parts of the world. Especially when you think of how many people that are sold into or tricked into prostituting (read nepal, india, pakistan).
To just comment on your first paragraph what is working? everyday I go and work to pay my debt off I feel like I'm selling my soul and time away to go nowhere... But I have too, if I was a good looking girl while being able to make a rate you yourself get to set for about 5-20 minutes of activity I would have a hard time choosing what I do over that.
On September 29 2012 13:33 drwiggl3s wrote: I agree that legalizing it would give the prostitutes a safer work environment.. but prostitution is still "selling yourself". You're giving up your body to someone that is willing to pay for it and is kind of counter to the whole monogamous thing that humans have relied on to create healthy families where children can flourish and live healthy lives..
All in all I do believe it should be .. decriminalized. If just to protect the people who are doing it. But I really do not think this should be a profession that is talked up or a profession that is seen as admirable or great or whatever. In the end you really are selling yourself and likely any chances for a normal/happy monogamous relationship just for fast money. Just as the johns are looked down on for paying for sex, I think there should still be stigma attached to the people selling it.
edit.
I'd like to add that I really dislike the idea of prostitution. Especially in 3rd world countries where the rich can easily pray on whatever woman or girl that they want just by waving enough money infront of them or their parents faces. I understand that in north america and Europe it's more of an 'empowered woman' movement to allow women to protect themselves and prostitute freely.. but it should be noted that prostitution is far more demeaning and degrading in other parts of the world. Especially when you think of how many people that are sold into or tricked into prostituting (read nepal, india, pakistan).
To just comment on your first paragraph what is working? everyday I go and work to pay my debt off I feel like I'm selling my soul and time away to go nowhere... But I have too, if I was a good looking girl while being able to make a rate you yourself get to set for about 5-20 minutes of activity I would have a hard time choosing what I do over that.
I think that you are just making clear the case that you are unhappy with your job. If that's true you should seek new training, or try to find greener pastures in your industry. Failing that, feel free to prostitute yourself if you are okay with giving up your body for just "5-20 minutes of activity"...
On a serious note, this is exactly the type of comment I dislike. People thinking prostitution is just easy money that can set them free from their debt or money worries.. People who talk like that are just seeing the positive side of it and not realizing the impact it would have on their social lives, relationships, status in the world and etc. Going into prostitution isn't something that should be taken lightly, but unfortunately for many people today, it is. All because of the promise of easy free money for minimal work.
There are more important things in life than easy money and financial security. Things such as family, self respect, self worth, and knowing you are valued for more than just the shape of your genitals.
--- no disrespect to people who do prostitute, I just wish people wouldn't take that choice of lifestyle so lightly. It isn't just "20 minutes of activity", being a prostitute is often a complete lifestyle change and a lifestyle commitment for people.
I would be all for legalizing it if Amsterdam didnt exist. As his sources point out, legalizing it does nothing to make it safer or better for everyone, its still just a shit show just like drugs would be even if they were legal. Shady practices attract shady people, just how it is
Yes but only if, 1) Free will of employees 2) Frequent/Stingent health check up (both parties) 3) Locations must be strategic (not near a school etc) 4) Age restrictions (both parties) 5) Security cameras and guards to prevent rape/stalking 6) A quick crash course on how to deal with certain situations for employees
I like the effort that went to creating this thread. The OP provided good take off points for discussion. I am however disappointed that even at 7 pages now, we never had a true enlightening, violent or not, discussion on the matter.
All I'm reading are motherhood statements on freedom of choice, oldest profession, consensus between adults, and other general statements that do not really encourage discovery and creation of information on the issue. For this thread to really progress, we need to focus on the issues and have a comprehensive discussion on it, simultaneously or one at a time. Otherwise, everyone will just say "Legalize because freedom" or "Illegal because morality" and nothing more.
I want to focus the discussion on a key issue - prostitution as a better career option. The myth goes that it is better be a prostitute and make some money than to choose to work at a minimum wage job. The truth to this matter is instantly revealed once you consider the dynamics of its choice as a career option. Who become prostitutes? The poor and the underprivileged. Right away, there already are immediate preconditions which discriminate against the poor, thereby making the claim as a career option questionable. I support the Swedish model, prostitution, legal or illegal, is an institutionalized sexual oppression or as a human rights violation. Whether legal or not, the decision to enter prostitution is not a product of free choice or a selection among the options, but is possible only because of a lack of alternative survival options. Women who enter prostitution usually do not choose whether they want to be doctors, lawyers, astronauts, teacher, or prostitutes. This "choice" is therefore nothing more that a survival strategy, borne out of a lack of any real advantageous set of options.
On September 29 2012 08:17 NMxMehmet wrote: illegal, i really dislike prostitution and porn videos, realize that those ladies have fathers, how would you feel having a daughter or sister being a prostitute? It's wrong.
You do realise that with it being illegal girls who want to do it (for w/e reason) would just do it behind their parents back right? And you'd be surprised at the most dumbest reasons they do it for too. Dumbest I've heard so far from a 18 year old was that she needed money for a fucking handbag, thankfully though, that one was talked out of it.
I definitely agree that a lot of prostitutes are doing it due to the survival aspect; having no other options to earn a decent income. That's why I find it unfortunate that the most vocal people for legalization are the prostitutes who feel that the "career" is an empowering one and one that shouldn't be looked down on. Although I am in support of legalization to create a safer environment for these women who are now in the trade (and for the people who use their services), I really disagree with the idea that prostitution is a career choice, or just an alternative to being a doctor, lawyer, etc. In reality most prostitutes are infact doing what they're doing due to lack of better opportunities. It really comes down to family values and in what enviroment a child is brought up. Whether it be poverty, or just having shitty or abusive parents. I think more value would be created by giving these troubled children and their parents real resources to deal with their problems so that they can in the future choose for themselves to be a lawyer, engineer, doctor etc. over the idea of selling themselves for money/drugs/housing or whatever.
edit tldr: help lift families and children out of poverty, and no child will grow up thinking prostitution is a healthy career choice. (save maybe the dumb girl in the post above who just REALLY wanted that handbag.)
On September 29 2012 14:23 drwiggl3s wrote: Really good points S_SienZ and either I or.
I definitely agree that a lot of prostitutes are doing it due to the survival aspect; having no other options to earn a decent income. That's why I find it unfortunate that the most vocal people for legalization are the prostitutes who feel that the "career" is an empowering one and one that shouldn't be looked down on. Although I am in support of legalization to create a safer environment for these women who are now in the trade (and for the people who use their services), I really disagree with the idea that prostitution is a career choice, or just an alternative to being a doctor, lawyer, etc. In reality most prostitutes are infact doing what they're doing due to lack of better opportunities. It really comes down to family values and in what enviroment a child is brought up. Whether it be poverty, or just having shitty or abusive parents. I think more value would be created by giving these troubled children and their parents real resources to deal with their problems so that they can in the future choose for themselves to be a lawyer, engineer, doctor etc. over the idea of selling themselves for money/drugs/housing or whatever.
I wouldn't say survival, but more of materialistic wants.
Survival applies to the very lowest tier of prostitutes, generally the ones most men would pay to keep away from, they generally are only able to charge about 20-30 euro per hour, coz frankly a lot of them look pretty damn fucked up.
Most hookers above the line of decent in terms of attractiveness generally are students who overspent w/e their parents are giving them or people with full time regular jobs (just not high end ones like doctor / lawyer) like office clerk / cashier. They make enough to survive, they just realise that more money would be sweet and that this gravy train is for a limited time only. Your "career" lifespan is shorter than athletes I would say.
On September 29 2012 14:13 either I or wrote: I like the effort that went to creating this thread. The OP provided good take off points for discussion. I am however disappointed that even at 7 pages now, we never had a true enlightening, violent or not, discussion on the matter.
All I'm reading are motherhood statements on freedom of choice, oldest profession, consensus between adults, and other general statements that do not really encourage discovery and creation of information on the issue. For this thread to really progress, we need to focus on the issues and have a comprehensive discussion on it, simultaneously or one at a time. Otherwise, everyone will just say "Legalize because freedom" or "Illegal because morality" and nothing more.
I want to focus the discussion on a key issue - prostitution as a better career option. The myth goes that it is better be a prostitute and make some money than to choose to work at a minimum wage job. The truth to this matter is instantly revealed once you consider the dynamics of its choice as a career option. Who become prostitutes? The poor and the underprivileged. Right away, there already are immediate preconditions which discriminate against the poor, thereby making the claim as a career option questionable. I support the Swedish model, prostitution, legal or illegal, is an institutionalized sexual oppression or as a human rights violation. Whether legal or not, the decision to enter prostitution is not a product of free choice or a selection among the options, but is possible only because of a lack of alternative survival options. Women who enter prostitution usually do not choose whether they want to be doctors, lawyers, astronauts, teacher, or prostitutes. This "choice" is therefore nothing more that a survival strategy, borne out of a lack of any real advantageous set of options.
I hope you are in the mood for some philosophical exploration. Let us examine the "choice" assumption you focused on here. If we are only to abstractify this as an issue of legitimate choice, still, there is always that choice of non action. What I am trying to emphasize here is that if we evaluate the validity of this "choice" option, then it proves impoverished in the face of the actual philosophical contengencies of the choices at hand. Which brings us to the conclusion that, no matter its limitations, deciding to become a prostitute is still a choice, among many, that women make.
On September 29 2012 14:13 either I or wrote: I like the effort that went to creating this thread. The OP provided good take off points for discussion. I am however disappointed that even at 7 pages now, we never had a true enlightening, violent or not, discussion on the matter.
All I'm reading are motherhood statements on freedom of choice, oldest profession, consensus between adults, and other general statements that do not really encourage discovery and creation of information on the issue. For this thread to really progress, we need to focus on the issues and have a comprehensive discussion on it, simultaneously or one at a time. Otherwise, everyone will just say "Legalize because freedom" or "Illegal because morality" and nothing more.
I want to focus the discussion on a key issue - prostitution as a better career option. The myth goes that it is better be a prostitute and make some money than to choose to work at a minimum wage job. The truth to this matter is instantly revealed once you consider the dynamics of its choice as a career option. Who become prostitutes? The poor and the underprivileged. Right away, there already are immediate preconditions which discriminate against the poor, thereby making the claim as a career option questionable. I support the Swedish model, prostitution, legal or illegal, is an institutionalized sexual oppression or as a human rights violation. Whether legal or not, the decision to enter prostitution is not a product of free choice or a selection among the options, but is possible only because of a lack of alternative survival options. Women who enter prostitution usually do not choose whether they want to be doctors, lawyers, astronauts, teacher, or prostitutes. This "choice" is therefore nothing more that a survival strategy, borne out of a lack of any real advantageous set of options.
I hope you are in the mood for some philosophical exploration. Let us examine the "choice" assumption you focused on here. If we are only to abstractify this as an issue of legitimate choice, still, there is always that choice of non action. What I am trying to emphasize here is that if we evaluate the validity of this "choice" option, then it proves impoverished in the face of the actual philosophical contengencies of the choices at hand. Which brings us to the conclusion that, no matter its limitations, deciding to become a prostitute is still a choice, among many, that women make.
On September 29 2012 14:38 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:13 either I or wrote: I like the effort that went to creating this thread. The OP provided good take off points for discussion. I am however disappointed that even at 7 pages now, we never had a true enlightening, violent or not, discussion on the matter.
All I'm reading are motherhood statements on freedom of choice, oldest profession, consensus between adults, and other general statements that do not really encourage discovery and creation of information on the issue. For this thread to really progress, we need to focus on the issues and have a comprehensive discussion on it, simultaneously or one at a time. Otherwise, everyone will just say "Legalize because freedom" or "Illegal because morality" and nothing more.
I want to focus the discussion on a key issue - prostitution as a better career option. The myth goes that it is better be a prostitute and make some money than to choose to work at a minimum wage job. The truth to this matter is instantly revealed once you consider the dynamics of its choice as a career option. Who become prostitutes? The poor and the underprivileged. Right away, there already are immediate preconditions which discriminate against the poor, thereby making the claim as a career option questionable. I support the Swedish model, prostitution, legal or illegal, is an institutionalized sexual oppression or as a human rights violation. Whether legal or not, the decision to enter prostitution is not a product of free choice or a selection among the options, but is possible only because of a lack of alternative survival options. Women who enter prostitution usually do not choose whether they want to be doctors, lawyers, astronauts, teacher, or prostitutes. This "choice" is therefore nothing more that a survival strategy, borne out of a lack of any real advantageous set of options.
I hope you are in the mood for some philosophical exploration. Let us examine the "choice" assumption you focused on here. If we are only to abstractify this as an issue of legitimate choice, still, there is always that choice of non action. What I am trying to emphasize here is that if we evaluate the validity of this "choice" option, then it proves impoverished in the face of the actual philosophical contengencies of the choices at hand. Which brings us to the conclusion that, no matter its limitations, deciding to become a prostitute is still a choice, among many, that women make.
You mean the choice between death and not death?
Oh dear Kierkegaard! That was smart.
In it's extreme form, yes. Qualified further, as a consequence of the choice of being a prostitute or not. I'll give you the first word.
On September 29 2012 14:38 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:13 either I or wrote: I like the effort that went to creating this thread. The OP provided good take off points for discussion. I am however disappointed that even at 7 pages now, we never had a true enlightening, violent or not, discussion on the matter.
All I'm reading are motherhood statements on freedom of choice, oldest profession, consensus between adults, and other general statements that do not really encourage discovery and creation of information on the issue. For this thread to really progress, we need to focus on the issues and have a comprehensive discussion on it, simultaneously or one at a time. Otherwise, everyone will just say "Legalize because freedom" or "Illegal because morality" and nothing more.
I want to focus the discussion on a key issue - prostitution as a better career option. The myth goes that it is better be a prostitute and make some money than to choose to work at a minimum wage job. The truth to this matter is instantly revealed once you consider the dynamics of its choice as a career option. Who become prostitutes? The poor and the underprivileged. Right away, there already are immediate preconditions which discriminate against the poor, thereby making the claim as a career option questionable. I support the Swedish model, prostitution, legal or illegal, is an institutionalized sexual oppression or as a human rights violation. Whether legal or not, the decision to enter prostitution is not a product of free choice or a selection among the options, but is possible only because of a lack of alternative survival options. Women who enter prostitution usually do not choose whether they want to be doctors, lawyers, astronauts, teacher, or prostitutes. This "choice" is therefore nothing more that a survival strategy, borne out of a lack of any real advantageous set of options.
I hope you are in the mood for some philosophical exploration. Let us examine the "choice" assumption you focused on here. If we are only to abstractify this as an issue of legitimate choice, still, there is always that choice of non action. What I am trying to emphasize here is that if we evaluate the validity of this "choice" option, then it proves impoverished in the face of the actual philosophical contengencies of the choices at hand. Which brings us to the conclusion that, no matter its limitations, deciding to become a prostitute is still a choice, among many, that women make.
You mean the choice between death and not death?
Oh dear Kierkegaard! That was smart.
In it's extreme form, yes. Qualified further, as a consequence of the choice of being a prostitute or not. I'll give you the first word.
Ok. Let's make sure we are doing this right. Do we agree on the causative implications of the choice or non-choice? Or do we discuss it in the limited context of choice per se?
On September 29 2012 14:49 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:45 either I or wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:38 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:13 either I or wrote: I like the effort that went to creating this thread. The OP provided good take off points for discussion. I am however disappointed that even at 7 pages now, we never had a true enlightening, violent or not, discussion on the matter.
All I'm reading are motherhood statements on freedom of choice, oldest profession, consensus between adults, and other general statements that do not really encourage discovery and creation of information on the issue. For this thread to really progress, we need to focus on the issues and have a comprehensive discussion on it, simultaneously or one at a time. Otherwise, everyone will just say "Legalize because freedom" or "Illegal because morality" and nothing more.
I want to focus the discussion on a key issue - prostitution as a better career option. The myth goes that it is better be a prostitute and make some money than to choose to work at a minimum wage job. The truth to this matter is instantly revealed once you consider the dynamics of its choice as a career option. Who become prostitutes? The poor and the underprivileged. Right away, there already are immediate preconditions which discriminate against the poor, thereby making the claim as a career option questionable. I support the Swedish model, prostitution, legal or illegal, is an institutionalized sexual oppression or as a human rights violation. Whether legal or not, the decision to enter prostitution is not a product of free choice or a selection among the options, but is possible only because of a lack of alternative survival options. Women who enter prostitution usually do not choose whether they want to be doctors, lawyers, astronauts, teacher, or prostitutes. This "choice" is therefore nothing more that a survival strategy, borne out of a lack of any real advantageous set of options.
I hope you are in the mood for some philosophical exploration. Let us examine the "choice" assumption you focused on here. If we are only to abstractify this as an issue of legitimate choice, still, there is always that choice of non action. What I am trying to emphasize here is that if we evaluate the validity of this "choice" option, then it proves impoverished in the face of the actual philosophical contengencies of the choices at hand. Which brings us to the conclusion that, no matter its limitations, deciding to become a prostitute is still a choice, among many, that women make.
You mean the choice between death and not death?
Oh dear Kierkegaard! That was smart.
In it's extreme form, yes. Qualified further, as a consequence of the choice of being a prostitute or not. I'll give you the first word.
Ok. Let's make sure we are doing this right. Do we agree on the causative implications of the choice or non-choice? Or do we discuss it in the limited context of choice per se?
On September 29 2012 14:49 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:45 either I or wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:38 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:13 either I or wrote: I like the effort that went to creating this thread. The OP provided good take off points for discussion. I am however disappointed that even at 7 pages now, we never had a true enlightening, violent or not, discussion on the matter.
All I'm reading are motherhood statements on freedom of choice, oldest profession, consensus between adults, and other general statements that do not really encourage discovery and creation of information on the issue. For this thread to really progress, we need to focus on the issues and have a comprehensive discussion on it, simultaneously or one at a time. Otherwise, everyone will just say "Legalize because freedom" or "Illegal because morality" and nothing more.
I want to focus the discussion on a key issue - prostitution as a better career option. The myth goes that it is better be a prostitute and make some money than to choose to work at a minimum wage job. The truth to this matter is instantly revealed once you consider the dynamics of its choice as a career option. Who become prostitutes? The poor and the underprivileged. Right away, there already are immediate preconditions which discriminate against the poor, thereby making the claim as a career option questionable. I support the Swedish model, prostitution, legal or illegal, is an institutionalized sexual oppression or as a human rights violation. Whether legal or not, the decision to enter prostitution is not a product of free choice or a selection among the options, but is possible only because of a lack of alternative survival options. Women who enter prostitution usually do not choose whether they want to be doctors, lawyers, astronauts, teacher, or prostitutes. This "choice" is therefore nothing more that a survival strategy, borne out of a lack of any real advantageous set of options.
I hope you are in the mood for some philosophical exploration. Let us examine the "choice" assumption you focused on here. If we are only to abstractify this as an issue of legitimate choice, still, there is always that choice of non action. What I am trying to emphasize here is that if we evaluate the validity of this "choice" option, then it proves impoverished in the face of the actual philosophical contengencies of the choices at hand. Which brings us to the conclusion that, no matter its limitations, deciding to become a prostitute is still a choice, among many, that women make.
You mean the choice between death and not death?
Oh dear Kierkegaard! That was smart.
In it's extreme form, yes. Qualified further, as a consequence of the choice of being a prostitute or not. I'll give you the first word.
Ok. Let's make sure we are doing this right. Do we agree on the causative implications of the choice or non-choice? Or do we discuss it in the limited context of choice per se?
Suspended, for now. Just discuss your points.
First, I disagree. There has to be a minimum level of survivability. This has to be met first or the discussion on "choice" is ideal and impractical. I maintain that this choice is directly a product of this basic need. I deny, only in this instance, with reservations on statistics and evidence that may later prove otherwise, that we have to go as far as arguing for the choice of non-action, or not working at all and just die, instead of working as a prostitute. This is a moral route, one we should not take. This choice, as SK says, is a deception. And much more the non-choice course. Nowhere in history has this proven true. One has to always meet the minimum level of survival.
On September 29 2012 14:57 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:55 either I or wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:49 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:45 either I or wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:38 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:13 either I or wrote: I like the effort that went to creating this thread. The OP provided good take off points for discussion. I am however disappointed that even at 7 pages now, we never had a true enlightening, violent or not, discussion on the matter.
All I'm reading are motherhood statements on freedom of choice, oldest profession, consensus between adults, and other general statements that do not really encourage discovery and creation of information on the issue. For this thread to really progress, we need to focus on the issues and have a comprehensive discussion on it, simultaneously or one at a time. Otherwise, everyone will just say "Legalize because freedom" or "Illegal because morality" and nothing more.
I want to focus the discussion on a key issue - prostitution as a better career option. The myth goes that it is better be a prostitute and make some money than to choose to work at a minimum wage job. The truth to this matter is instantly revealed once you consider the dynamics of its choice as a career option. Who become prostitutes? The poor and the underprivileged. Right away, there already are immediate preconditions which discriminate against the poor, thereby making the claim as a career option questionable. I support the Swedish model, prostitution, legal or illegal, is an institutionalized sexual oppression or as a human rights violation. Whether legal or not, the decision to enter prostitution is not a product of free choice or a selection among the options, but is possible only because of a lack of alternative survival options. Women who enter prostitution usually do not choose whether they want to be doctors, lawyers, astronauts, teacher, or prostitutes. This "choice" is therefore nothing more that a survival strategy, borne out of a lack of any real advantageous set of options.
I hope you are in the mood for some philosophical exploration. Let us examine the "choice" assumption you focused on here. If we are only to abstractify this as an issue of legitimate choice, still, there is always that choice of non action. What I am trying to emphasize here is that if we evaluate the validity of this "choice" option, then it proves impoverished in the face of the actual philosophical contengencies of the choices at hand. Which brings us to the conclusion that, no matter its limitations, deciding to become a prostitute is still a choice, among many, that women make.
You mean the choice between death and not death?
Oh dear Kierkegaard! That was smart.
In it's extreme form, yes. Qualified further, as a consequence of the choice of being a prostitute or not. I'll give you the first word.
Ok. Let's make sure we are doing this right. Do we agree on the causative implications of the choice or non-choice? Or do we discuss it in the limited context of choice per se?
Suspended, for now. Just discuss your points.
First, I disagree. There has to be a minimum level of survivability. This has to be met first or the discussion on "choice" is ideal and impractical. I maintain that this choice is directly a product of this basic need. I deny, only in this instance, with reservations on statistics and evidence that may later prove otherwise, that we have to go as far as arguing for the choice of non-action, or not working at all and just die, instead of working as a prostitute. This is a moral route, one we should not take. This choice, as SK says, is a deception. And much more the non-choice course. Nowhere in history has this proven true. One has to always meet the minimum level of survival.
This is philosophically naive. Choices are always burdened with consequences, and it is irrelevant to weigh one over the other in terms of this if the only problem is the value of choice. They are all the same. The respective consequences are merely trivial and are secondary. You argue that no choice actually exists yet even in its own terms, this choice does not have to be made at all. So the only issue is, you make it or not.
On September 29 2012 14:57 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:55 either I or wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:49 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:45 either I or wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:38 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:13 either I or wrote: I like the effort that went to creating this thread. The OP provided good take off points for discussion. I am however disappointed that even at 7 pages now, we never had a true enlightening, violent or not, discussion on the matter.
All I'm reading are motherhood statements on freedom of choice, oldest profession, consensus between adults, and other general statements that do not really encourage discovery and creation of information on the issue. For this thread to really progress, we need to focus on the issues and have a comprehensive discussion on it, simultaneously or one at a time. Otherwise, everyone will just say "Legalize because freedom" or "Illegal because morality" and nothing more.
I want to focus the discussion on a key issue - prostitution as a better career option. The myth goes that it is better be a prostitute and make some money than to choose to work at a minimum wage job. The truth to this matter is instantly revealed once you consider the dynamics of its choice as a career option. Who become prostitutes? The poor and the underprivileged. Right away, there already are immediate preconditions which discriminate against the poor, thereby making the claim as a career option questionable. I support the Swedish model, prostitution, legal or illegal, is an institutionalized sexual oppression or as a human rights violation. Whether legal or not, the decision to enter prostitution is not a product of free choice or a selection among the options, but is possible only because of a lack of alternative survival options. Women who enter prostitution usually do not choose whether they want to be doctors, lawyers, astronauts, teacher, or prostitutes. This "choice" is therefore nothing more that a survival strategy, borne out of a lack of any real advantageous set of options.
I hope you are in the mood for some philosophical exploration. Let us examine the "choice" assumption you focused on here. If we are only to abstractify this as an issue of legitimate choice, still, there is always that choice of non action. What I am trying to emphasize here is that if we evaluate the validity of this "choice" option, then it proves impoverished in the face of the actual philosophical contengencies of the choices at hand. Which brings us to the conclusion that, no matter its limitations, deciding to become a prostitute is still a choice, among many, that women make.
You mean the choice between death and not death?
Oh dear Kierkegaard! That was smart.
In it's extreme form, yes. Qualified further, as a consequence of the choice of being a prostitute or not. I'll give you the first word.
Ok. Let's make sure we are doing this right. Do we agree on the causative implications of the choice or non-choice? Or do we discuss it in the limited context of choice per se?
Suspended, for now. Just discuss your points.
First, I disagree. There has to be a minimum level of survivability. This has to be met first or the discussion on "choice" is ideal and impractical. I maintain that this choice is directly a product of this basic need. I deny, only in this instance, with reservations on statistics and evidence that may later prove otherwise, that we have to go as far as arguing for the choice of non-action, or not working at all and just die, instead of working as a prostitute. This is a moral route, one we should not take. This choice, as SK says, is a deception. And much more the non-choice course. Nowhere in history has this proven true. One has to always meet the minimum level of survival.
This is philosophically naive. Choices are always burdened with consequences, and it is irrelevant to weigh one over the other in terms of this if the only problem is the value of choice. They are all the same. The respective consequences are merely trivial and are secondary. You argue that no choice actually exists yet even in its own terms, this choice does not have to be made at all. So the only issue is, you make it or not.
I concede the philosophical nature of choice. Good point. But there are practical consequences to be met here, one that greatly influences the value of the choices to make. Still, it is equally naive to assume non-action is a choice, practically speaking.
I've been to 9 prostitutes in my life, every one better then the next,. Up untill the age....24 or 23 and let me just say, that I swear, one time a prostiute actualy said, "Don't step on my dick bro" When I reached in to the wrong pocket for the wallet. It was a mistake but she thought I was starting to act out some lie. Anyways, I just lost all feeling or connection to them after that. Not to mention I found my wife and have 3 kids now >< :p
On September 29 2012 15:16 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 15:05 either I or wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:57 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:55 either I or wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:49 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:45 either I or wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:38 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:13 either I or wrote: I like the effort that went to creating this thread. The OP provided good take off points for discussion. I am however disappointed that even at 7 pages now, we never had a true enlightening, violent or not, discussion on the matter.
All I'm reading are motherhood statements on freedom of choice, oldest profession, consensus between adults, and other general statements that do not really encourage discovery and creation of information on the issue. For this thread to really progress, we need to focus on the issues and have a comprehensive discussion on it, simultaneously or one at a time. Otherwise, everyone will just say "Legalize because freedom" or "Illegal because morality" and nothing more.
I want to focus the discussion on a key issue - prostitution as a better career option. The myth goes that it is better be a prostitute and make some money than to choose to work at a minimum wage job. The truth to this matter is instantly revealed once you consider the dynamics of its choice as a career option. Who become prostitutes? The poor and the underprivileged. Right away, there already are immediate preconditions which discriminate against the poor, thereby making the claim as a career option questionable. I support the Swedish model, prostitution, legal or illegal, is an institutionalized sexual oppression or as a human rights violation. Whether legal or not, the decision to enter prostitution is not a product of free choice or a selection among the options, but is possible only because of a lack of alternative survival options. Women who enter prostitution usually do not choose whether they want to be doctors, lawyers, astronauts, teacher, or prostitutes. This "choice" is therefore nothing more that a survival strategy, borne out of a lack of any real advantageous set of options.
I hope you are in the mood for some philosophical exploration. Let us examine the "choice" assumption you focused on here. If we are only to abstractify this as an issue of legitimate choice, still, there is always that choice of non action. What I am trying to emphasize here is that if we evaluate the validity of this "choice" option, then it proves impoverished in the face of the actual philosophical contengencies of the choices at hand. Which brings us to the conclusion that, no matter its limitations, deciding to become a prostitute is still a choice, among many, that women make.
You mean the choice between death and not death?
Oh dear Kierkegaard! That was smart.
In it's extreme form, yes. Qualified further, as a consequence of the choice of being a prostitute or not. I'll give you the first word.
Ok. Let's make sure we are doing this right. Do we agree on the causative implications of the choice or non-choice? Or do we discuss it in the limited context of choice per se?
Suspended, for now. Just discuss your points.
First, I disagree. There has to be a minimum level of survivability. This has to be met first or the discussion on "choice" is ideal and impractical. I maintain that this choice is directly a product of this basic need. I deny, only in this instance, with reservations on statistics and evidence that may later prove otherwise, that we have to go as far as arguing for the choice of non-action, or not working at all and just die, instead of working as a prostitute. This is a moral route, one we should not take. This choice, as SK says, is a deception. And much more the non-choice course. Nowhere in history has this proven true. One has to always meet the minimum level of survival.
This is philosophically naive. Choices are always burdened with consequences, and it is irrelevant to weigh one over the other in terms of this if the only problem is the value of choice. They are all the same. The respective consequences are merely trivial and are secondary. You argue that no choice actually exists yet even in its own terms, this choice does not have to be made at all. So the only issue is, you make it or not.
I concede the philosophical nature of choice. Good point. But there are practical consequences to be met here, one that greatly influences the value of the choices to make. Still, it is equally naive to assume non-action is a choice, practically speaking.
The philosophical is practical. It was you who first brought up the aspect of choice, I merely extended it.
Prostitutes do not deserve our (through government) money to protect them. They have made the moral leap that cannot be undone. Sex is a gift for married couples. They can pervert it any way they want, but they do not deserve any support. The same is true for men who pay for sex.
On September 29 2012 15:28 VegetarianPeaceLove wrote: I've been to 9 prostitutes in my life, every one better then the next,. Up untill the age....24 or 23 and let me just say, that I swear, one time a prostiute actualy said, "Don't step on my dick bro" When I reached in to the wrong pocket for the wallet. It was a mistake but she thought I was starting to act out some lie. Anyways, I just lost all feeling or connection to them after that. Not to mention I found my wife and have 3 kids now >< :p
Almost none of that post made sense. Whose pocket were you reaching into? Why would that equate a response about stepping on prostitutes dick? Wasn't this a female prostitute? Why did she have a dick? What lie are you possibly acting out? What made you lose a connectiong to them? You literally explained nothing and left us with some wierd story that doesn't make sense.
On September 29 2012 14:02 Glaceau wrote: I would be all for legalizing it if Amsterdam didnt exist. As his sources point out, legalizing it does nothing to make it safer or better for everyone, its still just a shit show just like drugs would be even if they were legal. Shady practices attract shady people, just how it is
Pretty sure it's safer to be a legal hooker in Amsterdam than an illegal one in any other major city...
Been poking around for studies online. The one I really want to read is "prostitution in denmark", a Danish study of the effects of legalization, but I can't seem to find a translated version.
However, here's an article that gives some cliffs notes.
The most relevant quote: “Firstly, we have halved the estimated number of prostitutes in Denmark. Secondly, the public debate about prostitution as poor wretches or happy hookers is distorted – most prostitutes are somewhere between these two extremes."
Let me just say I do not like equating prostitution to rape, because that really is an insult to legitimate rape victims. I think prostitution can indeed be part and parcel of an institutionalized system of subjugation, sexually and otherwise, of women. But prostitution is by no means in itself a form of oppression. I think it's very important to make that distinction. It's all about context. A high end call girl in the US who forms a sex for money relationship with some executive in order to buy fashionable clothing and pay for her education, is not a victim in any sense. However, this is by no means the most common form of prostitute. Bearing in mind the above quote, I think what is important here is to look at the net effect of legalization, and what other policies might be enacted to prevent the growth of a system in which prostitutes are indeed victims.
The swedish model has some valuable lessons to offer on this subject - not so much in the unfair criminalization of johns, who serve as moral scapegoats - But rather in the services and counseling offered to registered prostitutes, which have helped lift many of them out of prostitution and into more dignified and secure ways of life.
However, at the end of the day legalization carries one immense risk, and that is of stimulating demand to the point where human trafficking increases. This is probably the main reason conditions for prostitutes are not all that great in Amsterdam. Not a problem that can be logic'd away very easily.
On September 29 2012 11:32 micronesia wrote: I want to lean towards 'don't make it illegal' but I still would want some protections to keep it out of the public eye. Things like making it illegal to advertise in public would make me happy since I don't want to constantly encounter 'come have sex with our hookers' ads (or worse yet, little kids etc).
We have free newspapers circulated in public transport here in the Netherlands (it's probably universal) and they're completely filled with telephone sex ads. It's really annoying, you're trying to read the sport news and you constantly have to skip over NAUGHTY HOUSEWIFE WANTS TO BE TOUCHED messages.
I'm against it due to moral reasons, but as a sort-of libertarian I don't want to restict women who choose to enter into this type of work (if you call it work) nor their clients.
I for one will never participate in said behavior, as it is both degrading and shameful. I'm sure my pride would also take a hit if I had to resort to paying for sexual favors.
"However, at the end of the day legalization carries one immense risk, and that is of stimulating demand to the point where human trafficking increases"
Making it legal definatly increases demand, despite what other posters in this thread claim. If we only take the example of amsterdam, People all over the world come to visit amsterdam for the red light district and the cofee shops, people who would not have come if it would not have been legal.
On September 29 2012 22:46 Rassy wrote: "However, at the end of the day legalization carries one immense risk, and that is of stimulating demand to the point where human trafficking increases"
Making it legal definatly increases demand, despite what other posters in this thread claim. If we only take the example of amsterdam, People all over the world come to visit amsterdam for the red light district and the cofee shops, people who would not have come if it would not have been legal.
It may not be the cause that legalization would increase demand... it could be other factors besides the legality of prostitution that make the red light district popular... such as the fact that legal prostitution is uncommon, or prostitution hubs are uncommon. Who's to say that making it legal everywhere wouldn't completely dissipate that effect? I'm not saying you're wrong... just that a popular red light district doesn't necessarily mean that legalization would increase demand.
prostitution is illegal in both thailand and philippines, but guess what? they are probably the two most famous countries for sex. there's no real point in making it illegal. it'll happen anyway.
ps: just came back from philippines! thank you to "star" for making my holiday so memorable :D
On September 29 2012 22:46 Rassy wrote: "However, at the end of the day legalization carries one immense risk, and that is of stimulating demand to the point where human trafficking increases"
Making it legal definatly increases demand, despite what other posters in this thread claim. If we only take the example of amsterdam, People all over the world come to visit amsterdam for the red light district and the cofee shops, people who would not have come if it would not have been legal.
Tbh imo sex in amsterdam is simply a "convenience" thing, it's sort of there when the REAL reason to go there was weed, well up til recently anyway.
I don't know anybody who goes to the Netherlands just for sex tbh, countries liek Thailand got waaaay more variety and much cheaper for Westerners. Plus food's better and they have better tourist spots, you can't be fucking 24/7.
Listen...chances are...if we trace back the people we have all had sex with.. we have all had sex everyone in this thread has fucked each other....well that's fun.
On September 29 2012 23:55 iamtrickster wrote: Listen...chances are...if we trace back the people we have all had sex with.. we have all had sex everyone in this thread has fucked each other....well that's fun.
Go America
lol
I think one of the issues with Amerterdam being "prostitute central" may just be that its one of the few places where prostitution is so openly legal. I'm not sure but I suspect that once you start to see more open attitudes in other countries, people won't have to flock to Amsterdam to enjoy prostitution services, and so all the negative side effects of being a big magnet for that will also be reduced to the point of being manageable.
Its an interesting situation, because if its illegal it becomes more dangerous for prostitutes. If its legal, then maybe that opens the door for people to run more brothels but still secretly abuse their women. I'm not really sure which one is safer, but I think for one the government is going to have an easier time dealing with prostitution if its in the open rather than hidden in random apartment buildings or seedy neighbourhoods. And secondly, they also have to consider that many women have a legitimate human right to work in that occupation if they want to, and they deserve recognition and protection like anyone else.
So you could either work hard to stop all prostitution everywhere (nearly impossible), or you could work hard to prevent the abuse of women but respect their rights (and you only have to police certain areas, which makes it easier). I would prefer the latter. Also morally speaking I don't see anything wrong with prostitution, if the girl truly enjoys sex and the guy wants to have an amazing time (sexually) that he can't get otherwise, why not?
For the girls that go into it strictly because they need money, it is unfortunate but in the end if women feel forced to become prostitutes to live a decent life, it says far more about problems in society than it does that prostitution is bad. I think the focus is on the wrong thing here. Even if a girl feels like she has to be raped in order to live a decent standard of life...are you going to take that choice away from her? She clearly did it because it was the better of two alternatives. At least she can live with prostitution. But the solution really lies in other areas (social programs, maybe improving minimum wage, etc.)
On September 29 2012 14:13 either I or wrote: I like the effort that went to creating this thread. The OP provided good take off points for discussion. I am however disappointed that even at 7 pages now, we never had a true enlightening, violent or not, discussion on the matter.
All I'm reading are motherhood statements on freedom of choice, oldest profession, consensus between adults, and other general statements that do not really encourage discovery and creation of information on the issue. For this thread to really progress, we need to focus on the issues and have a comprehensive discussion on it, simultaneously or one at a time. Otherwise, everyone will just say "Legalize because freedom" or "Illegal because morality" and nothing more.
I want to focus the discussion on a key issue - prostitution as a better career option. The myth goes that it is better be a prostitute and make some money than to choose to work at a minimum wage job. The truth to this matter is instantly revealed once you consider the dynamics of its choice as a career option. Who become prostitutes? The poor and the underprivileged. Right away, there already are immediate preconditions which discriminate against the poor, thereby making the claim as a career option questionable. I support the Swedish model, prostitution, legal or illegal, is an institutionalized sexual oppression or as a human rights violation. Whether legal or not, the decision to enter prostitution is not a product of free choice or a selection among the options, but is possible only because of a lack of alternative survival options. Women who enter prostitution usually do not choose whether they want to be doctors, lawyers, astronauts, teacher, or prostitutes. This "choice" is therefore nothing more that a survival strategy, borne out of a lack of any real advantageous set of options.
Thanks for this reply. Yes, I think if we really want to discuss this topic, we should flesh out the details.
On your points, do you consider this choice in the extreme duality/Kierkegaard sense, or simply as one of the practical choices?
EDIT: Ah, Friedrich Nietzsche beat me to it. You conceded too soon. Simply deny the non-choice option. Women, even if they argue it in philosophical terms, do not have to reach the non-choice end, that is, not choosing prostitution thereby not choosing any means of employment at all, to fulfill the condition of choice. The choice towards prostitution, by virtue of first principles, IS the non-choice.
I seriously have no opinion about whether it should be totally allowed or totally forbidden. What makes me sick is the "in between" solution as we have in France. It's so damn hypocrite.
Make it a job like any other job, like in Netherland, or just go for total prohibition, like in Sweden.
On September 30 2012 00:37 Biff The Understudy wrote: I seriously have no opinion about whether it should be totally allowed or totally forbidden. What makes me sick is the "in between" solution as we have in France. It's so damn hypocrite.
Make it a job like any other job, like in Netherland, or just go for total prohibition, like in Sweden.
What kind of solution do you have? I'm not sure if Sweden should even be thought of as 'limited legality'. The just of it is that it's illegal to buy but not to sell sex. This means that the prostitutes being drugged down and shipped from the third world and bought as sex slaves won't be charged themselves, but the person kidnapping them, selling them and buying them will. If something is illegal to buy, it's pretty much illegal.
The basic principle of demand and supply works in here. Prostitution has many victims, but so does overexploitation of the work force (precious stones, our favourite electronics, sweatshops, etc.), child labour. As long as there is demand for sexual services, there will be supply, same with everything else. I'd rather have prostitution legalized, than prosecuted, at least the government will be wasting money on making sure the people involved have rights and responsibilities, rather than tracking down underground prostitution networks, where said people are abused on a daily basis and have no basic rights.
I say legalize at times in life people take big risks stupid risks but really i see no reason to help out a man or women who did not think of protection before engaging in sexual acts and hereafter acquiring a transmitted infection/disease. Though difficult at times you should make it practice or just habit not to say I do understand even those spur of the moment necessities.
Protect yourself though it may be a fun and enjoyable experience you don't want to have sex for the first time and then figure out later that you should have been way more careful.
Finally I realize the general scope my post is showing though I will not go into the "what about rape?" issues though terrible at times I view it more as a case by case kind of thingy, other than that I bid you adieu.
I think its best if it stays ilegal. Its a luxury so if it brings anything bad it can just go to hell for all I care. Perhaps when humans that do this become less stupid, then we can have it be legalized. Though if people were not as stupid there may not even be prostitution to begin with. As of course you burn a huge amount of money on that...
On September 29 2012 23:55 iamtrickster wrote: Listen...chances are...if we trace back the people we have all had sex with.. we have all had sex everyone in this thread has fucked each other....well that's fun.
Go America
Uh... we all have a common ancestor, sure. But you can't go backwards dozens of generations and then also go forwards down other branches to come back to other people and say we've fucked each other.
lol. That's not really how it works.
Unless you're saying that the people I've fucked have fucked other people, who have fucked other people, who (...) have fucked you (across just this generation). Which is obviously just as absurd, considering TL is a global community and the vast majority of people on this site haven't had sex with a huge number of partners, let alone internationally.
I'd be surprised if a single pair of TL members ever shared a sex partner, even if you go through a second or third degree of connection.
On September 30 2012 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Which is obviously just as absurd, considering TL is a global community and the vast majority of people on this site haven't had sex.
On September 30 2012 02:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Which is obviously just as absurd, considering TL is a global community and the vast majority of people on this site haven't had sex.
I shortened your post for you. :p
LOL
At first I thought to myself, "I didn't really say it that way," and then I thought to myself, "but that's probably true too v.v".
On September 29 2012 23:55 iamtrickster wrote: Listen...chances are...if we trace back the people we have all had sex with.. we have all had sex everyone in this thread has fucked each other....well that's fun.
Go America
Not me because I'm a virgin
and I don't feel ashamed to say it because I've had offers for sex before... from both girls and boys
Legal prostitution? O_o But there would be so few women left for us poor guys who are part of the lady gaga generation.. They'd all be out making easy money,, =/
On September 29 2012 23:55 iamtrickster wrote: Listen...chances are...if we trace back the people we have all had sex with.. we have all had sex everyone in this thread has fucked each other....well that's fun.
Go America
Not me because I'm a virgin
and I don't feel ashamed to say it because I've had offers for sex before... from both girls and boys
being a virgin is never something to be ashamed of.. I wish i was one,, when i was a virgin, sex was such a glorious thing,,
On September 30 2012 08:19 Zinnwaldite wrote: Legal prostitution? O_o But there would be so few women left for us poor guys who are part of the lady gaga generation.. They'd all be out making easy money,, =/
On September 29 2012 23:55 iamtrickster wrote: Listen...chances are...if we trace back the people we have all had sex with.. we have all had sex everyone in this thread has fucked each other....well that's fun.
Go America
Not me because I'm a virgin
and I don't feel ashamed to say it because I've had offers for sex before... from both girls and boys
being a virgin is never something to be ashamed of.. I wish i was one,, when i was a virgin, sex was such a glorious thing,,
and now that you've had it you're disappointed with it?
maybe you're just not having it with the right people
On September 29 2012 23:55 iamtrickster wrote: Listen...chances are...if we trace back the people we have all had sex with.. we have all had sex everyone in this thread has fucked each other....well that's fun.
Go America
Not me because I'm a virgin
and I don't feel ashamed to say it because I've had offers for sex before... from both girls and boys
Meh I think this forum has a 18+ general audience so I doubt anyone will give you a hard time over being a virgin, a good percent probably are so you're fine.
I'm more interested in the bisexual offerings, what's up with that? lol
On September 29 2012 23:55 iamtrickster wrote: Listen...chances are...if we trace back the people we have all had sex with.. we have all had sex everyone in this thread has fucked each other....well that's fun.
Go America
Not me because I'm a virgin
and I don't feel ashamed to say it because I've had offers for sex before... from both girls and boys
Meh I think this forum has a 18+ general audience so I doubt anyone will give you a hard time over being a virgin, a good percent probably are so you're fine.
I'm more interested in the bisexual offerings, what's up with that? lol
I'm in college. And at my college, there are lots of gay guys trying to have promiscuous sex. They are so indiscreet about it that they will literally ask for it. I don't really care; most of them are probably used to living in the closet for most of their lives and now that they've found a place where they can be open about it they are enjoying the freedom to the fullest extent.
People have ownership over their own bodies. They can use their body for whatever purpose they wish, so long as it respects that same right of others.
Should prostitution be legal? Of course it should be. Women can have sex in exchange for money, so can men. It is their body, nobody has any right to declare that they can't have sex in exchange for goods or services.
The problem is that the sex industry is plagued by crime and has a great deal of force, be it overt or covert force. This can't be allowed. Weed out the criminals, permit those that engage in the business willingly to keep doing so.
The Amsterdam red-light district used to be a great deal more friendly. These days it is almost entirely women who are simply beaten into becoming prostitutes.
legalised is better than illegal as if its illegal it will result in crime and corruption (which is why it was legalised in much of australia). Also its really a not a matter for government to regulate peoples social behaviour.
Legalisation also reduces the incentive to engage in sex slavery and other activities that would force vunerable individuals to be forced into a dependant position by another party.
On September 30 2012 08:56 cristo1122 wrote: legalised is better than illegal as if its illegal it will result in crime and corruption (which is why it was legalised in much of australia). Also its really a not a matter for government to regulate peoples social behaviour.
Legalisation also reduces the incentive to engage in sex slavery and other activities that would force vunerable individuals to be forced into a dependant position by another party.
I don't think that legalizing prositution will greatly influence whether the women are enaged in it willingly or by force.
It will make the whole scene more public, but even in Holland you have illegal prostitution (since the legal zone is extremely limited and very expensive).
Like I said before, in Amsterdam the amount of women that are prostitutes are increasingly there against their will, or being taken advantage of (having their pay taken from them).
Why was the red light area better a few decades ago? What changed? Not much. Criminals got smarter and Eastern-Europe opened up.
I agree that the problem in prostitution is the criminal force that runs through it, but removing that corruption isn't done by legalizing it, you need to combine it with intensive police attention.
But try and gather support for helping women that are prostitutes. Not exactly a demographic that stirs up the base, sad to say. Prostitute or whore is still an insult, and women that have these professions are still generally viewed as sub-human.
So, as much as I am in favor of legalizing prostitution, I think it is a mistake to try and portray the situation as better than it is. After legalizing it, there are a lot of things that need to happen before that industry can be considered healthy.
Legalization with restriction such as zone and so forth would definitely be much more suitable than criminalization any day. Criminalization of anything makes their involvement dangerous for all the participants. Unlike drugs, prostitution is not an endangerment to health (in term of mental and physiological changes). It is a choice by the individual and doing so doesn't turn an individual to become a danger to himself or others. The restriction is to provide haven for children and family groups who does not wish to be located near the vicinity of the "operation".
Many people fall victim by circumstances of their lives and forced into prostitution. The profession that they do put them at odd with society and is shun from everyone else. Prostitution should be a choice of lifestyle not an obligation due social outcome. Legalization will allow openness and in openness you can help those individual to escape the profession who does not wish to participate.
Is there anybody here with any actual experience with the subject, as in, people in the industry, or people who at the very least really know someone in there? I don't see this topic moving anywhere if all there is to say is "I read this report that said X, and I felt like it made sense so I believe X".
We could answer more questions about career choice then.
If we can think up some measures for eliminating the correlation of organized crime and legalized prostitution then I don't see any downside.
My thoughts on increased HIV/STI occurence rates in individuals participating in prostitution, is that it's either 1) not causative, but rather some correlation exists with those who currently engage in it (perhaps do to its illegality) or 2) it's more complicated than people suspect.
On the issue at hand, with most things I feel legalisation, even of things you may not partake in our agree with is generally preferable to keeping it illegal. As with drugs, many of the negative sides of prostitution come forth more from the crime that springs up to meet a demand for the service. The central act and whether it is acceptable or not is immaterial to me when there is such a black market already operating. You have to be pragmatic and accept that prostitution isn't disappearing, they don't call it the oldest profession for nothing.
@Voltaire, always enjoy your posts even the ones I disagree with, nice to see your post regarding virginity. People boasting about getting laid is so laughable, it's hardly an exclusive club. Being an interesting and thought-provoking poster on here, and indeed doubtlessly in your day-to-day life is far more worthy of note.
Prostitution has a negative overall effect on society. Even if it were legal, I would like to live in a world where people don't have to sell the intimate nature of their bodies to make a living.
On September 29 2012 15:16 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 15:05 either I or wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:57 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:55 either I or wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:49 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:45 either I or wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:38 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 29 2012 14:13 either I or wrote: I like the effort that went to creating this thread. The OP provided good take off points for discussion. I am however disappointed that even at 7 pages now, we never had a true enlightening, violent or not, discussion on the matter.
All I'm reading are motherhood statements on freedom of choice, oldest profession, consensus between adults, and other general statements that do not really encourage discovery and creation of information on the issue. For this thread to really progress, we need to focus on the issues and have a comprehensive discussion on it, simultaneously or one at a time. Otherwise, everyone will just say "Legalize because freedom" or "Illegal because morality" and nothing more.
I want to focus the discussion on a key issue - prostitution as a better career option. The myth goes that it is better be a prostitute and make some money than to choose to work at a minimum wage job. The truth to this matter is instantly revealed once you consider the dynamics of its choice as a career option. Who become prostitutes? The poor and the underprivileged. Right away, there already are immediate preconditions which discriminate against the poor, thereby making the claim as a career option questionable. I support the Swedish model, prostitution, legal or illegal, is an institutionalized sexual oppression or as a human rights violation. Whether legal or not, the decision to enter prostitution is not a product of free choice or a selection among the options, but is possible only because of a lack of alternative survival options. Women who enter prostitution usually do not choose whether they want to be doctors, lawyers, astronauts, teacher, or prostitutes. This "choice" is therefore nothing more that a survival strategy, borne out of a lack of any real advantageous set of options.
I hope you are in the mood for some philosophical exploration. Let us examine the "choice" assumption you focused on here. If we are only to abstractify this as an issue of legitimate choice, still, there is always that choice of non action. What I am trying to emphasize here is that if we evaluate the validity of this "choice" option, then it proves impoverished in the face of the actual philosophical contengencies of the choices at hand. Which brings us to the conclusion that, no matter its limitations, deciding to become a prostitute is still a choice, among many, that women make.
You mean the choice between death and not death?
Oh dear Kierkegaard! That was smart.
In it's extreme form, yes. Qualified further, as a consequence of the choice of being a prostitute or not. I'll give you the first word.
Ok. Let's make sure we are doing this right. Do we agree on the causative implications of the choice or non-choice? Or do we discuss it in the limited context of choice per se?
Suspended, for now. Just discuss your points.
First, I disagree. There has to be a minimum level of survivability. This has to be met first or the discussion on "choice" is ideal and impractical. I maintain that this choice is directly a product of this basic need. I deny, only in this instance, with reservations on statistics and evidence that may later prove otherwise, that we have to go as far as arguing for the choice of non-action, or not working at all and just die, instead of working as a prostitute. This is a moral route, one we should not take. This choice, as SK says, is a deception. And much more the non-choice course. Nowhere in history has this proven true. One has to always meet the minimum level of survival.
This is philosophically naive. Choices are always burdened with consequences, and it is irrelevant to weigh one over the other in terms of this if the only problem is the value of choice. They are all the same. The respective consequences are merely trivial and are secondary. You argue that no choice actually exists yet even in its own terms, this choice does not have to be made at all. So the only issue is, you make it or not.
I concede the philosophical nature of choice. Good point. But there are practical consequences to be met here, one that greatly influences the value of the choices to make. Still, it is equally naive to assume non-action is a choice, practically speaking.
The philosophical is practical. It was you who first brought up the aspect of choice, I merely extended it.
What the fuck are you two even talking about? I tried to follow and reread it. At some point I though I get it, but then I'm confused again. Say you choose to be a prostitute because you have no other choice, and then you argue that this choice does not exist? What?
On September 30 2012 11:01 Bigtony wrote: I would like to live in a world where people don't have to sell the intimate nature of their bodies to make a living.
I think most people agree with you on this, although I don't think whether it's legal or illegal has any bearing. Making it illegal doesn't make people suddenly not need income, as I'm sure you know.
One of the issues i felt hasn't been brought up is that we assume that prostitutes will have sex with anyone. I'm not entirely sure this is the case, whats to say that prostitutes will only provide their services to attractive costumers? Would it be fair to discriminate against less attractive people who want to purchase a service? Would the monetary exchange be the same for customers of different races and ethnic groups? If it isn't are we promoting racism or something? Overall i think prostitution could be a viable profession but what should it be based around? I'm interested to hear other peoples opinions!
On September 30 2012 11:01 Bigtony wrote: I would like to live in a world where people don't have to sell the intimate nature of their bodies to make a living.
I think most people agree with you on this, although I don't think whether it's legal or illegal as any bearing. Making it illegal doesn't make people suddenly not need income, as I'm sure you know.
Same thing with drug dealers, I doubt drug dealers come into the profession out of love for the job. They need to make money to bay bills like everyone else but they turned to illegal activities instead because they are easier. Magically making it legal isn't going to stop them from doing it, they will just have an easier time not worrying about being arrested.
I think it should be legal and able to be regulated by the government and as well as non-regulated.
For the sex workers regulated by the government, it is taxed, however the sex workers and clients are health screened.
And if your neighbor down the screen wants to sell you sex in exchange for any other kind of personal favor, well that's just fine too, but it's not taxed or regulated, although completely legal.
In summary, let people do what they want to do, it's in their freedom (imo), but we can at least provide some means of controlling it by providing regulated brothels as well.
On September 30 2012 11:01 Bigtony wrote: I would like to live in a world where people don't have to sell the intimate nature of their bodies to make a living.
I think most people agree with you on this, although I don't think whether it's legal or illegal has any bearing. Making it illegal doesn't make people suddenly not need income, as I'm sure you know.
Same thing with drug dealers, I doubt drug dealers come into the profession out of love for the job. They need to make money to bay bills like everyone else but they turned to illegal activities instead because they are easier. Magically making it legal isn't going to stop them from doing it, they will just have an easier time not worrying about being arrested.
It seems like you are pointing out an inaccuracy in what I said, but I don't see any.
Bigtony was implying that making prostitution illegal would rescue people from the need to do things such as sell the intimate nature of their bodies to make a living. Obviously, it wasn't his intention (I assume), but to be sure/clear I pointed out that whether it's illegal or not does not affect whether or not people are compelled to such drastic measures.
Your statement seems to imply that I was saying making hard drug dealing legal will make people less likely to feel the need to be drug dealers... which I was not aiming for.
I won't justify a stance of "make prostitution legal" with "making it legal/illegal doesn't make the need for income go away" lol
On September 30 2012 12:44 Grobyc wrote: I think it should be legal and able to be regulated by the government and as well as non-regulated.
For the sex workers regulated by the government, it is taxed, however the sex workers and clients are health screened.
And if your neighbor down the screen wants to sell you sex in exchange for any other kind of personal favor, well that's just fine too, but it's not taxed or regulated, although completely legal.
In summary, let people do what they want to do, it's in their freedom (imo), but we can at least provide some means of controlling it by providing regulated brothels as well.
BJ for mowing your lawn? I agree stuff like that should be allowed, who says people don't do that know just behind closed doors.
On September 29 2012 23:55 iamtrickster wrote: Listen...chances are...if we trace back the people we have all had sex with.. we have all had sex everyone in this thread has fucked each other....well that's fun.
Go America
Uh... we all have a common ancestor, sure. But you can't go backwards dozens of generations and then also go forwards down other branches to come back to other people and say we've fucked each other.
lol. That's not really how it works.
Unless you're saying that the people I've fucked have fucked other people, who have fucked other people, who (...) have fucked you (across just this generation). Which is obviously just as absurd, considering TL is a global community and the vast majority of people on this site haven't had sex with a huge number of partners, let alone internationally.
I'd be surprised if a single pair of TL members ever shared a sex partner, even if you go through a second or third degree of connection.
2nd and 3rd degree definatly, and i think there must be quiet a few 1st degrees also, just think of all the groups of friends who play sc and who live near eachoter, its not that unlikely they shared a sexpartner. My guess is at least 10 among active posters. Interesting is also to think how manny steps would be needed to connect you to everyone in the world who more or less regulary has sex. It must be somewhere between the 20th degree i think?
On September 30 2012 11:01 Bigtony wrote: I would like to live in a world where people don't have to sell the intimate nature of their bodies to make a living.
I think most people agree with you on this, although I don't think whether it's legal or illegal as any bearing. Making it illegal doesn't make people suddenly not need income, as I'm sure you know.
Same thing with drug dealers, I doubt drug dealers come into the profession out of love for the job. They need to make money to bay bills like everyone else but they turned to illegal activities instead because they are easier. Magically making it legal isn't going to stop them from doing it, they will just have an easier time not worrying about being arrested.
Bad example. Drug users have a direct negative effect on society and children that employees adverse and dangerous drugs. Prostitutes, if legal, would simply sell their body to the highest bidder. Who suffers? The prostitutes, it's their choice that is freedom and the buyer? If it's regulated and clean (not illegal) then there is no issue again.
A better example would be the practice of religion. I believe religion to be unethical and immoral and teaches imaginary things, I believe it has a negative effect on the mind and teaches it to be close minded and also I believe it leads to violence and disorder among different religions. Yet why is it legal while my moral compass believes it should be illegal? Because my morality and my ethics should not dictate how other people use their free will and unless that free will directly (key word) inhibits another persons free will then I can't find a reasonable argument to correct it.
There is no real arguable reason in today's society to ban prostitution, their is only an ethical "I feel like we just shouldn't have this". But is that good enough?
Of course if you provide some reason why it should be banned or what type of effects it has then feel free to share them ^^
On September 30 2012 11:01 Bigtony wrote: I would like to live in a world where people don't have to sell the intimate nature of their bodies to make a living.
I think most people agree with you on this, although I don't think whether it's legal or illegal as any bearing. Making it illegal doesn't make people suddenly not need income, as I'm sure you know.
Same thing with drug dealers, I doubt drug dealers come into the profession out of love for the job. They need to make money to bay bills like everyone else but they turned to illegal activities instead because they are easier. Magically making it legal isn't going to stop them from doing it, they will just have an easier time not worrying about being arrested.
Bad example. Drug users have a direct negative effect on society and children that employees adverse and dangerous drugs. Prostitutes, if legal, would simply sell their body to the highest bidder. Who suffers? The prostitutes, it's their choice that is freedom and the buyer? If it's regulated and clean (not illegal) then there is no issue again.
A better example would be the practice of religion. I believe religion to be unethical and immoral and teaches imaginary things, I believe it has a negative effect on the mind and teaches it to be close minded and also I believe it leads to violence and disorder among different religions. Yet why is it legal while my moral compass believes it should be illegal? Because my morality and my ethics should not dictate how other people use their free will and unless that free will directly (key word) inhibits another persons free will then I can't find a reasonable argument to correct it.
There is no real arguable reason in today's society to ban prostitution, their is only an ethical "I feel like we just shouldn't have this". But is that good enough?
Of course if you provide some reason why it should be banned or what type of effects it has then feel free to share them ^^
Um no it's not a bad example. You're overthinking way too much and turned this into a debate about religion, god knows how, pun intended. I used drug dealer as an example of an illegal activity people do to make money, same rule applies to prostitution and my example is perfectly fine. This conversation is about doing illegal things to earn a living, nothing about morals or negative effects on society.
On September 30 2012 12:44 Grobyc wrote: And if your neighbor down the screen wants to sell you sex in exchange for any other kind of personal favor, well that's just fine too, but it's not taxed or regulated, although completely legal.
Bartering of services is taxable in the U.S. Difficulty of enforcement is a different matter. But one can't say it's not taxed, at least in the U.S.
On September 30 2012 08:56 cristo1122 wrote: legalised is better than illegal as if its illegal it will result in crime and corruption (which is why it was legalised in much of australia). Also its really a not a matter for government to regulate peoples social behaviour.
Legalisation also reduces the incentive to engage in sex slavery and other activities that would force vunerable individuals to be forced into a dependant position by another party.
I don't think that legalizing prositution will greatly influence whether the women are enaged in it willingly or by force.
It will make the whole scene more public, but even in Holland you have illegal prostitution (since the legal zone is extremely limited and very expensive).
Like I said before, in Amsterdam the amount of women that are prostitutes are increasingly there against their will, or being taken advantage of (having their pay taken from them).
Why was the red light area better a few decades ago? What changed? Not much. Criminals got smarter and Eastern-Europe opened up.
I agree that the problem in prostitution is the criminal force that runs through it, but removing that corruption isn't done by legalizing it, you need to combine it with intensive police attention.
But try and gather support for helping women that are prostitutes. Not exactly a demographic that stirs up the base, sad to say. Prostitute or whore is still an insult, and women that have these professions are still generally viewed as sub-human.
So, as much as I am in favor of legalizing prostitution, I think it is a mistake to try and portray the situation as better than it is. After legalizing it, there are a lot of things that need to happen before that industry can be considered healthy.
The point, though, is that legalization makes things better. It doesn't make the problems magically disappear, but it helps.
If prostitution was legal and regulated in the same manner that strip clubs are, then much of the problems would be effectively addressed.
On September 30 2012 12:03 SoOThSLaYeR wrote: Excellent post OP.
One of the issues i felt hasn't been brought up is that we assume that prostitutes will have sex with anyone. I'm not entirely sure this is the case, whats to say that prostitutes will only provide their services to attractive costumers? Would it be fair to discriminate against less attractive people who want to purchase a service? Would the monetary exchange be the same for customers of different races and ethnic groups? If it isn't are we promoting racism or something? Overall i think prostitution could be a viable profession but what should it be based around? I'm interested to hear other peoples opinions!
again great OP
The sad truth of the matter is that if you sign up to work in a brothel, call girl service or sign a contract to be someone's paid sex partner over a period of time, etc, then you will come under pressure to have sex with people or at times that you really don't want to. The most humane system would be to avoid "contractual" sex as much as possible, a smart prostitute would avoid working anywhere or signing contracts for anything where he/she would be pressured to not refuse sex later. Best system is relative autonomy and the ability to pick and choose sessions and clientele, like a lot of other independent professionals have. Anti discrimination laws tend not to focus on these types of independent transactions, more on fair and equal access to businesses and public accommodations...
Basically, you should have the right to enter a brothel and receive the same services as anyone else. However brothels should only be facilitators, allowing you to meet prostitutes, who are themselves autonomous and independent professionals. Thus no discrimination (at least not on the brothels part) if one or all of them turn you down. I also like the idea of prostitutes paying a fee to be in the brothel rather than having their rates be decided for them, large cuts taken out of all their nightly profits, etc which feels more like exploitation.
Decentralization with non coercive support structures is key.
On September 30 2012 12:03 SoOThSLaYeR wrote: Excellent post OP.
One of the issues i felt hasn't been brought up is that we assume that prostitutes will have sex with anyone. I'm not entirely sure this is the case, whats to say that prostitutes will only provide their services to attractive costumers? Would it be fair to discriminate against less attractive people who want to purchase a service? Would the monetary exchange be the same for customers of different races and ethnic groups? If it isn't are we promoting racism or something? Overall i think prostitution could be a viable profession but what should it be based around? I'm interested to hear other peoples opinions!
again great OP
The sad truth of the matter is that if you sign up to work in a brothel, call girl service or sign a contract to be someone's paid sex partner over a period of time, etc, then you will come under pressure to have sex with people or at times that you really don't want to. The most humane system would be to avoid "contractual" sex as much as possible, a smart prostitute would avoid working anywhere or signing contracts for anything where he/she would be pressured to not refuse sex later. Best system is relative autonomy and the ability to pick and choose sessions and clientele, like a lot of other independent professionals have. Anti discrimination laws tend not to focus on these types of independent transactions, more on fair and equal access to businesses and public accommodations...
Basically, you should have the right to enter a brothel and receive the same services as anyone else. However brothels should only be facilitators, allowing you to meet prostitutes, who are themselves autonomous and independent professionals. Thus no discrimination (at least not on the brothels part) if one or all of them turn you down. I also like the idea of prostitutes paying a fee to be in the brothel rather than having their rates be decided for them, large cuts taken out of all their nightly profits, etc which feels more like exploitation.
Decentralization with non coercive support structures is key.
But if prostitutes could decide on who exactly to have sex with wouldn't that exactly like real life and meeting a woman? Minus the money of course. The type of people who go to prosititutes don't have the looks, resources, ability, etc to get woman normally so why would prostitutes be any better if they have just as much freedom with their choices, they are just going to get turned down too regardless.
It's a tricky thing really.
I only see this either turning all woman into prostitutes for a certain price or prostitution would go out of business if only good looking attractive guys are given the OK. Which if that happens, why are they going to prostitutes in the first place, they obviously can get some action for free from normal woman.
Would prostitution be only be for a very small subset of people who are below average looking but still doable, but lack any type of socializing behavior needed to get woman? Which would be fixed by simply being upfront and paying for it.
On September 30 2012 11:01 Bigtony wrote: I would like to live in a world where people don't have to sell the intimate nature of their bodies to make a living.
I think most people agree with you on this, although I don't think whether it's legal or illegal as any bearing. Making it illegal doesn't make people suddenly not need income, as I'm sure you know.
Same thing with drug dealers, I doubt drug dealers come into the profession out of love for the job. They need to make money to bay bills like everyone else but they turned to illegal activities instead because they are easier. Magically making it legal isn't going to stop them from doing it, they will just have an easier time not worrying about being arrested.
Bad example. Drug users have a direct negative effect on society and children that employees adverse and dangerous drugs. Prostitutes, if legal, would simply sell their body to the highest bidder. Who suffers? The prostitutes, it's their choice that is freedom and the buyer? If it's regulated and clean (not illegal) then there is no issue again.
A better example would be the practice of religion. I believe religion to be unethical and immoral and teaches imaginary things, I believe it has a negative effect on the mind and teaches it to be close minded and also I believe it leads to violence and disorder among different religions. Yet why is it legal while my moral compass believes it should be illegal? Because my morality and my ethics should not dictate how other people use their free will and unless that free will directly (key word) inhibits another persons free will then I can't find a reasonable argument to correct it.
There is no real arguable reason in today's society to ban prostitution, their is only an ethical "I feel like we just shouldn't have this". But is that good enough?
Of course if you provide some reason why it should be banned or what type of effects it has then feel free to share them ^^
Um no it's not a bad example. You're overthinking way too much and turned this into a debate about religion, god knows how, pun intended. I used drug dealer as an example of an illegal activity people do to make money, same rule applies to prostitution and my example is perfectly fine. This conversation is about doing illegal things to earn a living, nothing about morals or negative effects on society.
But it's not comparable... An illegal thing that harms people vs an illegal thing that doesn't. If religion was illegal it would fit that criteria of indirect harm that prostitution (note the comparison on ethical/moral concern) and that is the discussion and why religion/prostitution can be compared where the only comparison between drug dealing and prostitution is that you make money, then I suppose my job as an IT tech is comparable to prostitution by that comparison.
Like I said, unless you can present some reason why it should be illegal other then "well... it's already illegal, it's kinda unethical in my opinion and you make money" that is an invalid argument.
On September 30 2012 11:01 Bigtony wrote: I would like to live in a world where people don't have to sell the intimate nature of their bodies to make a living.
I think most people agree with you on this, although I don't think whether it's legal or illegal as any bearing. Making it illegal doesn't make people suddenly not need income, as I'm sure you know.
Same thing with drug dealers, I doubt drug dealers come into the profession out of love for the job. They need to make money to bay bills like everyone else but they turned to illegal activities instead because they are easier. Magically making it legal isn't going to stop them from doing it, they will just have an easier time not worrying about being arrested.
Bad example. Drug users have a direct negative effect on society and children that employees adverse and dangerous drugs. Prostitutes, if legal, would simply sell their body to the highest bidder. Who suffers? The prostitutes, it's their choice that is freedom and the buyer? If it's regulated and clean (not illegal) then there is no issue again.
A better example would be the practice of religion. I believe religion to be unethical and immoral and teaches imaginary things, I believe it has a negative effect on the mind and teaches it to be close minded and also I believe it leads to violence and disorder among different religions. Yet why is it legal while my moral compass believes it should be illegal? Because my morality and my ethics should not dictate how other people use their free will and unless that free will directly (key word) inhibits another persons free will then I can't find a reasonable argument to correct it.
There is no real arguable reason in today's society to ban prostitution, their is only an ethical "I feel like we just shouldn't have this". But is that good enough?
Of course if you provide some reason why it should be banned or what type of effects it has then feel free to share them ^^
Um no it's not a bad example. You're overthinking way too much and turned this into a debate about religion, god knows how, pun intended. I used drug dealer as an example of an illegal activity people do to make money, same rule applies to prostitution and my example is perfectly fine. This conversation is about doing illegal things to earn a living, nothing about morals or negative effects on society.
But it's not comparable... An illegal thing that harms people vs an illegal thing that doesn't. If religion was illegal it would fit that criteria of indirect harm that prostitution (note the comparison on ethical/moral concern) and that is the discussion and why religion and prostitution can be compared where the only comparison between drug dealing and prostitution is that you make money, then I suppose my job as an IT tech is comparable to prostitution by that comparison.
Like I said, unless you can present some reason why it should be illegal other then "well... it's already illegal, it's kinda unethical in my opinion and you make money" that is an invalid argument.
Again the fact that the activity harms people has absolutely nothing at all to do with the conversation at hand. Only you brought it up and it's pointless. Once again though you bring up religion saying it should be illegal, which makes no sense at all. I'm not even going to bother to argue your opinions on what constitutes harming society and and what doesn't because that has no place in the matter.
We are talking purely in terms of an action that is illegal, produces money, and is something you'd think people wouldn't want to do by choice.
Did you bother to read where this conversation started? Or do you just wanna talk about why I disagree with your views on religion? In which case that's completely OT and I'm just gonna stop replying.
I cannot begin to express how much it pleases me that TeamLiquid, a site dedicated to the Real Time Strategy franchise, "Starcraft", supports prostitution via the poll results.
You know the only reason you were banned the first time (from what it looks like) is for saying you were expecting to be banned, which is what you're doing again.... Why would you even bring that up? Posting well really isn't hard, but martyring/predicting bans for yourself is basically insta-ban.
You know the only reason you were banned the first time (from what it looks like) is for saying you were expecting to be banned, which is what you're doing again.... Why would you even bring that up? Posting well really isn't hard, but martyring/predicting bans for yourself is basically insta-ban.
I thought his post was OT and kinda funny too. Then saw he was predicting another ban and was like "wut"
On September 30 2012 12:03 SoOThSLaYeR wrote: Excellent post OP.
One of the issues i felt hasn't been brought up is that we assume that prostitutes will have sex with anyone. I'm not entirely sure this is the case, whats to say that prostitutes will only provide their services to attractive costumers? Would it be fair to discriminate against less attractive people who want to purchase a service? Would the monetary exchange be the same for customers of different races and ethnic groups? If it isn't are we promoting racism or something? Overall i think prostitution could be a viable profession but what should it be based around? I'm interested to hear other peoples opinions!
again great OP
The sad truth of the matter is that if you sign up to work in a brothel, call girl service or sign a contract to be someone's paid sex partner over a period of time, etc, then you will come under pressure to have sex with people or at times that you really don't want to. The most humane system would be to avoid "contractual" sex as much as possible, a smart prostitute would avoid working anywhere or signing contracts for anything where he/she would be pressured to not refuse sex later. Best system is relative autonomy and the ability to pick and choose sessions and clientele, like a lot of other independent professionals have. Anti discrimination laws tend not to focus on these types of independent transactions, more on fair and equal access to businesses and public accommodations...
Basically, you should have the right to enter a brothel and receive the same services as anyone else. However brothels should only be facilitators, allowing you to meet prostitutes, who are themselves autonomous and independent professionals. Thus no discrimination (at least not on the brothels part) if one or all of them turn you down. I also like the idea of prostitutes paying a fee to be in the brothel rather than having their rates be decided for them, large cuts taken out of all their nightly profits, etc which feels more like exploitation.
Decentralization with non coercive support structures is key.
But if prostitutes could decide on who exactly to have sex with wouldn't that exactly like real life and meeting a woman? Minus the money of course. The type of people who go to prosititutes don't have the looks, resources, ability, etc to get woman normally so why would prostitutes be any better if they have just as much freedom with their choices, they are just going to get turned down too regardless.
It's a tricky thing really.
I only see this either turning all woman into prostitutes for a certain price or prostitution would go out of business if only good looking attractive guys are given the OK. Which if that happens, why are they going to prostitutes in the first place, they obviously can get some action for free from normal woman.
Would prostitution be only be for a very small subset of people who are below average looking but still doable, but lack any type of socializing behavior needed to get woman? Which would be fixed by simply being up front and paying for it.
Many freelance prostitutes actually have their own boundaries. Here in the UK you can clearly see on their ads a lot of them have disclaimers that say things like "Sorry I don't see black / middle eastern men etc" and they all generally reserve the right to cancel an appointment for whatever reason.
Yes it is kind of like real life, imo it's no different from gold diggers, it's a balance between how much you want the money and how much you can stand the guy. Only scenario where they will be forced to do ANY guy is if their pimp forces them too. And personally I think pimping should be illegal.
And from a hooker's POV, it also depends on how many clients they have so that they can afford to be picky. The really hot ones that are reasonably priced obviously can be, but the really meh looking ones can't.
On September 30 2012 11:01 Bigtony wrote: I would like to live in a world where people don't have to sell the intimate nature of their bodies to make a living.
I think most people agree with you on this, although I don't think whether it's legal or illegal as any bearing. Making it illegal doesn't make people suddenly not need income, as I'm sure you know.
Same thing with drug dealers, I doubt drug dealers come into the profession out of love for the job. They need to make money to bay bills like everyone else but they turned to illegal activities instead because they are easier. Magically making it legal isn't going to stop them from doing it, they will just have an easier time not worrying about being arrested.
Bad example. Drug users have a direct negative effect on society and children that employees adverse and dangerous drugs. Prostitutes, if legal, would simply sell their body to the highest bidder. Who suffers? The prostitutes, it's their choice that is freedom and the buyer? If it's regulated and clean (not illegal) then there is no issue again.
A better example would be the practice of religion. I believe religion to be unethical and immoral and teaches imaginary things, I believe it has a negative effect on the mind and teaches it to be close minded and also I believe it leads to violence and disorder among different religions. Yet why is it legal while my moral compass believes it should be illegal? Because my morality and my ethics should not dictate how other people use their free will and unless that free will directly (key word) inhibits another persons free will then I can't find a reasonable argument to correct it.
There is no real arguable reason in today's society to ban prostitution, their is only an ethical "I feel like we just shouldn't have this". But is that good enough?
Of course if you provide some reason why it should be banned or what type of effects it has then feel free to share them ^^
Um no it's not a bad example. You're overthinking way too much and turned this into a debate about religion, god knows how, pun intended. I used drug dealer as an example of an illegal activity people do to make money, same rule applies to prostitution and my example is perfectly fine. This conversation is about doing illegal things to earn a living, nothing about morals or negative effects on society.
But it's not comparable... An illegal thing that harms people vs an illegal thing that doesn't. If religion was illegal it would fit that criteria of indirect harm that prostitution (note the comparison on ethical/moral concern) and that is the discussion and why religion and prostitution can be compared where the only comparison between drug dealing and prostitution is that you make money, then I suppose my job as an IT tech is comparable to prostitution by that comparison.
Like I said, unless you can present some reason why it should be illegal other then "well... it's already illegal, it's kinda unethical in my opinion and you make money" that is an invalid argument.
Again the fact that the activity harms people has absolutely nothing at all to do with the conversation at hand. Only you brought it up and it's pointless. Once again though you bring up religion saying it should be illegal, which makes no sense at all. I'm not even going to bother to argue your opinions on what constitutes harming society and and what doesn't because that has no place in the matter.
We are talking purely in terms of an action that is illegal, produces money, and is something you'd think people wouldn't want to do by choice.
Did you bother to read where this conversation started? Or do you just wanna talk about why I disagree with your views on religion? In which case that's completely OT and I'm just gonna stop replying.
I have no issue with religion, again I was making reference to that example of prostitution and religion as something that "you'd think people wouldn't want to do by choice". Seems to fit.
Is the only comparison between prostitution and drug dealing/using that it produces money and it's not something someone may want to do? If that's the case my part time job should be illegal by that comparison so as I said it is a poor comparison. Unless of course you can perhaps find another way they compare that would warrant its legality to come in question such as drug dealing/using is.
same thing with weed. if weed can be legalized then so should prostitution(with limits and regulations of course).
i personally think that women would no longer be "forced" into it by pimps if it because a legit and legal business. basides, a pimp would force a women into it regardless of if its legal or not. thats just the way i see it
I believe religion to be unethical and immoral and teaches imaginary things, I believe it has a negative effect on the mind and teaches it to be close minded and also I believe it leads to violence and disorder among different religions.
Are you trolling me or do you have short term memory loss?
On September 30 2012 15:18 NeMeSiS3 wrote:
Is the only comparison between prostitution and drug dealing/using that it produces money and it's not something someone may want to do? If that's the case my part time job should be illegal by that comparison so as I said it is a poor comparison. Unless of course you can perhaps find another way they compare that would warrant its legality to come in question such as drug dealing/using is.
Your part time job is not illegal therefore it doesn't fit me criteria which I based my analogy on.
On September 30 2012 14:10 Zooper31 wrote:
We are talking purely in terms of an action that is illegal, produces money, and is something you'd think people wouldn't want to do by choice.
This is my basis for my analogy if you can't remember. If you can think of something else that fits better in this criteria then please show me.
I believe religion to be unethical and immoral and teaches imaginary things, I believe it has a negative effect on the mind and teaches it to be close minded and also I believe it leads to violence and disorder among different religions.
Are you trolling me or do you have short term memory loss?
Is the only comparison between prostitution and drug dealing/using that it produces money and it's not something someone may want to do? If that's the case my part time job should be illegal by that comparison so as I said it is a poor comparison. Unless of course you can perhaps find another way they compare that would warrant its legality to come in question such as drug dealing/using is.
Your part time job is not illegal therefore it doesn't fit me criteria which I based my analogy on.
We are talking purely in terms of an action that is illegal, produces money, and is something you'd think people wouldn't want to do by choice.
This is my basis for my analogy if you can't remember. If you can think of something else that fits better in this criteria then please show me.
Think this conversation is over.
Whether legal or not should never be discussed when comparing. Legality relatively means nothing, it is the reasoning behind such things that comes into question, if you lived in Uganda would you follow behind the law that relatively condemns gay people to death? No in an educated discussion you are discussing the direct consquences and indirect consequences so saying "your part time job is not illegal therefore it doesn't fit my criteria which I based my analogy on" puts your analogy and comparison into a bad light, you're basing your analogy off pre dispositions. It usto be legal to own slaves, you made money owning slaves and it's not something we'd want someone to do so I suppose that wouldn't fit either because it was legal then?
Your viewpoint on my comment on religion is completely out of context. The reason religion was used as a context of argument was because it was discussing the ethics and morality of a subject and not the indirect or direct consequences so by comparison because of a possible (I suppose I phrased it incorrectly, I was making up a situation comparable) dislike of the ethics of religion and treatment we should make it illegal as well just like prostitution due to a similar debate on ethics and not cause/effect/harm.
I don't see why you're dodging the reason why it is a good/bad comparison, explain to me how comparing drug dealers and prostitutes fit in any realistic manner... "It's illegal, it makes money and it makes people feel ethically non-supportive" is a pretty poor comparison to make any point.
"I think this conversation is over" <-- snap, see what I did there? I inserted a facetious comment to try and assert some form of logical dominance over a conversation. If I'm to be a hypocrite and mock what others do and then repeat it in a similar gesture, I may as well enjoy myself while I do it.
And if the "basis of your analogy" is just a poor basis to begin with into a subject regarding prostitution then you shouldn't be wondering why someone would question or poke at it. Saying "It's illegal and it makes money" is a rather odd thing to make an argument out of, especially since you didn't take the time to define the variables such as why/to what end is it illegal? How does it make money, where does that money go and could we perhaps see that money go elsewhere?
I don't even want to note the last part because it is entirely subjective, how you feel about something should not ever have an opinion when it comes to legality. You may say "well I feel poorly about rape!" but rape is the direct assault of a person, it inhibits freedom of a person and it then has reasons to be made illegal whereas you can't simply say "Rape is illegal, be gone with it!". You have to explain that stance, feelings have nothing to do with it and if they did then homosexuality would still not be recognized because the majority of Americans (although quickly dissipating) are religious people who believe homosexuality is a choice and we shouldn't allow a choice against god.
If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.)
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
There might be a small fraction of people that have sex for money by free will - but that number is likely VERY small.
what do u think how many people work any job by "free will" and not because of economical issues ? (getting money to live)
On September 30 2012 18:31 DigiGnar wrote: If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.)
it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones.
Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: 'people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.'
I say make it legal, Get them some kind of health benefits and governmental regulation so it's safer. It's just like Weed people are going to find a way do it either way. So why not tax the living shit out of it.
I believe religion to be unethical and immoral and teaches imaginary things, I believe it has a negative effect on the mind and teaches it to be close minded and also I believe it leads to violence and disorder among different religions.
Are you trolling me or do you have short term memory loss?
Is the only comparison between prostitution and drug dealing/using that it produces money and it's not something someone may want to do? If that's the case my part time job should be illegal by that comparison so as I said it is a poor comparison. Unless of course you can perhaps find another way they compare that would warrant its legality to come in question such as drug dealing/using is.
Your part time job is not illegal therefore it doesn't fit me criteria which I based my analogy on.
We are talking purely in terms of an action that is illegal, produces money, and is something you'd think people wouldn't want to do by choice.
This is my basis for my analogy if you can't remember. If you can think of something else that fits better in this criteria then please show me.
Think this conversation is over.
He seriously wasn't talking about religion. He used religion as an example to illustrate how any individual should be allowed to partake in an activity as long as there actions don't harm another persons individual freedom. IE: If we are both consenting to prostitution its fine, because there is no harm if its between consenting individuals both making choices that have no physical effect on anyone else.
He was saying that saying it should be illegal because its immoral/bad/illegal already or whatever is stupid. Then he made a comparison to religion to illustrate how morality and right and wrong is in the eye of the beholder and unless there choice directly effects the freedom of another there is no just cause to ban something. IE: I think its fine to use any drugs, but I don't think it is fine to use drugs/drink and drive because now your behavior carries the chance to cause harm to others.
His example was simply that just because HE thinks religion is bad/horrible doesn't mean he thinks it should be banned/illegal. Which is functionally what many anti-prostitution arguments boil down to. Subjecting others to your personal morality is wrong.
You know the only reason you were banned the first time (from what it looks like) is for saying you were expecting to be banned, which is what you're doing again.... Why would you even bring that up? Posting well really isn't hard, but martyring/predicting bans for yourself is basically insta-ban.
I thought his post was OT and kinda funny too. Then saw he was predicting another ban and was like "wut"
Prostitution isn't my cup of tea but I have no problem with the idea of legalizing it. Of course the way it is described by the OP in the Netherlands sounds terrible and I would want to see protections against organized crime. However, I believe with stringent protective measures included with legalizing legislature, prostitution could be an acceptable business.
Really nice OP. Fair, objective, a good read. A real rarity.
It's ok, its f@#d we live in a world where people are forced to make that choice but a world where you can't pay for sex is just as messed up. I'd rather fight for prostitute's rights at work than a ban on prostitution etc. Basically what I'm trying to say just like with any product, you want good sex? get a proffesional to do it..
EDIT: always wanted to make a similar thread on bribery and corruption, however I'm far too sarcastic to create threads and not able to produce OP of this quality
On September 30 2012 20:11 ArtOfStyLe wrote: i think it should be legalized especially since most of those women have no other way to survive...
problem is today that, the majority of the women who're doing prostitution aren't doing it because they have no other way to survive, but because the money is so much better than the pay they'd get for a job, educated or not. so if it wasn't legal, it'd aspire more young women to do the same, and that'd create an even bigger issue for the economy and the society of which these women live in.
On September 30 2012 18:03 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: I love prostitutes, they make me happy, and I think I make them happy, too.
Nah, man.. You devour a little part of their souls every time.. You're a soul sadist..
Where do you get this from? That's quite an uninformed, biased judgment you're making. Some of them hate their jobs but how is it any different from a gold digger dating a guy she hates for money? At least I'm considerate, nice, not disgusting, and respectful. Some of them actually enjoy their work, you know. Imagine you could get paid to have sex as a guy! And then suddenly a pretty good-looking, pretty interesting and generally nice girl comes in to pay for sex with you instead of a fat/old/decrepit/neurotic one!
I've had a lot of real conversations with these girls and trust me, unless you've had a conversation with one of them yourself, there's no way you'll understand. Sure, some of them hate their lives, but I'm sure some office workers hate their lives, too. It doesn't make office work immoral as a whole. Some of them really love what they do. No joke.
prostitution should be legal. Why is porn legal, while prostitution is not? Double standards. Also working physical work is certainly legal, and you get your ass worked out in some jobs. Why is providing sex to ppl who want to buy it is illegal is beyond me. Its pretty much same thing, you get paid for doing physical work in this case, having sex.
People here want to legalize prostitution but then "tax the shit out of it"? They already would be paying income taxes and you would place more upon them because you look down on their profession? Giving the state a monopoly over the pimping industry for revenue purposes. It is sick and twisted. Legalize prostitution, and leave them the fuck alone.
I am from the Netherlands, and searched alot about prostitution in Amsterdam after i read the OP. I could find scientific numbers about an increase in organized crime in Amsterdam, but i'm wondering if it's because of the legalization of prostitution. The articles especially tell that the total amount of prostitution has increased, and is still increasing, mainly beause of the amounts of tourists and the demand of prostitution in Amsterdam. A factor why prostitution has increased, is because a lot of Eastern European woman can more easily travel (or be trafficked) to the Netherlands nowadays.
So an increase in prostitution, is of course an increase in organised crime, although it does not mean it has something to do with the legalization in the Netherlands. (no direct causality)
Of course there is a shocking amount of trafficking of girls and organised crime which collaborates with the coffeeshops in Amsterdam. However, the local municipality is only recently starting to investigate the actual quantity of illegal activities after the legalization of brothels in this district. (alot of investigational research is been done though, especially about human trafficking, but not with actual numbers)
side note: Amsterdam is recently starting to decrease the amount of prostitution, by decreasing the amount of "red light windows". But this measure from the municipality in Amsterdam only increaed the amount of organised crime in the region. (http://vorige.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2631666.ece/Wallen_minder_ramen,_meer_ellende_) This because alot of foreign woman can not find another job in the Netherlands, except for going underground in illegal circuits. It appeared that Dutch woman do find other jobs, after decreasing the amount of windows.(http://www.parool.nl/parool/nl/5/POLITIEK/article/detail/234551/2009/04/01/Prostituees-niet-ondergronds-na-sluiten-ramen.dhtml)
I'm very sorry but alot of the sources are in Dutch, and i could not find English alternatives. Appearantly alot of research in the Netherlands is still done in Dutch, which is an entire problem of it's own :-)
People have such a retarded way of looking at free will.
Just because a person chooses to sell their body for money doesn't mean that person actually wants that. I think very very very few prostitutes actually do it by "pure free will". Selling one's body is not something you enjoy, even if it gives temporary physical pleasure. I'd say the very vast majority of prostitutes really don't enjoy their job and do it because it's the only way out of misery, or atleast a way to keep yourself from drowning.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
There might be a small fraction of people that have sex for money by free will - but that number is likely VERY small.
You have to be careful about this line of thinking. It is free will to choose prostitution because of economical reasons. No one is forcing a poor woman to go into prostitution (unless they are actually forcing her, which falls into the realm of coercion/violence). She could be a maid, or a janitor, or wait tables, or work at McDonald's, but she chooses prostitution because it makes more money than those jobs. That may be a conscious choice of money over values, but it's still a choice.
As for violent crimes associated with prostitution, I'm confident that the number of violent acts associated with prostitution would drop to near zero levels if the practice was legalized. When a pimp beats up a prostitute under a government where her job is illegal, what is she supposed to do about it? Call the cops? If I come in to work and my boss beats the crap out of me, I go to HR and get his ass fired and press criminal charges. I'm confident in my rights because I did nothing wrong. Prostitutes would feel the same way if their profession was legitimized. On a similar note, if a John decides to rape or beat a prostitute, what is she supposed to do about it? If it was legal, she can press charges, and you can bet the threat of rape charges will keep people within the confines of what they paid for.
On September 30 2012 21:43 Asol wrote: Could you provide proof of ANY of those statements ZERG_RUSSIAN?
If you really need proof that badly go find some highly paid hooker and ask her yourself..
??
Normally in a discussion you post proof else the argument is, well, invalid. Why would I try to get proof for his statements?
You just asked me for proof and then said "why would i try to get proof"
Take it or leave it, I'm not going to videotape a private conversation with a hooker under the premise of winning an argument on the internet. This is my experience and I'm guessing it's more experience than you have. If you don't believe me, I don't really care, I'm still going to fuck hookers and have meaningful conversations and relationships with them, even if just subjectively.
On September 29 2012 08:27 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote: It should not be legalized. It should be legitimized. Pimps and such will still need to be disposed of where possible, and actual businesses need to pop up. Regulations such as condoms and proof of being STD-free would need to be created. Worker rights laws and other things common to other jobs will need to be introduced. Until we feel confident in our ability to legitimize prostitution, it should not be legalized. Of course, whether or not we are is a debate unto itself.
I think this is a win post. While i think legalisation is a necessary step towards legitimisation, i agree that the core issues are things you mention.
Debates like this are often clouded by issues around the profession, instead of the profession itself. I think issues like oppression of women are legitimate, and need to be taken care of, but they need to be seen as independent issues from the moral question 'is prostitution bad or not?'.
On September 30 2012 23:11 nebula. wrote: People have such a retarded way of looking at free will.
Just because a person chooses to sell their body for money doesn't mean that person actually wants that. I think very very very few prostitutes actually do it by "pure free will". Selling one's body is not something you enjoy, even if it gives temporary physical pleasure. I'd say the very vast majority of prostitutes really don't enjoy their job and do it because it's the only way out of misery, or atleast a way to keep yourself from drowning.
Just because a person chooses to work in a factory for money doesn't mean that person actually wants that. I think very very very few laborers actually do it by "pure free will". Working in a factory is not something you enjoy, even if it may give temporary physical pleasure. I'd say the very vast majority of laborers really don't enjoy their job and do it because it's the only way out of misery, or atleast a way to keep yourself from drowning.
On September 30 2012 23:11 nebula. wrote: MOST PEOPLE don't enjoy their job and do it because it's the only way out of misery, or atleast a way to keep yourself from drowning.
On September 30 2012 23:11 nebula. wrote: People have such a retarded way of looking at free will.
Just because a person chooses to sell their body for money doesn't mean that person actually wants that. I think very very very few prostitutes actually do it by "pure free will". Selling one's body is not something you enjoy, even if it gives temporary physical pleasure. I'd say the very vast majority of prostitutes really don't enjoy their job and do it because it's the only way out of misery, or atleast a way to keep yourself from drowning.
I don't think I've ever heard someone define free will as being free from constraints from nature, rather than other individuals. You just called a great many well regarded philosophers retarded, and suggested that one can only have free will if they are omnipotent. Such a definition for free will kind of makes the term useless for meaningful and practical discussion.
On September 30 2012 23:49 TzTz wrote: Should work be illegal because of slavery? It's the same with prostitution...
So many things wrong with these parallelism, while they may appear true superficially.
1. Work usually entails some level of contract, hence agreement, but slavery...? 2. Labor/work requires skills acquired through some formal level of education and experience, but prostitution...? 3. Prostitution by definition is the submission of something intrinsically ethical, if I may borrow from feminist language, while labor/work is a function of external qualities of a human being.
On September 30 2012 23:49 TzTz wrote: Should work be illegal because of slavery? It's the same with prostitution...
So many things wrong with these parallelism, while they may appear true superficially.
1. Work usually entails some level of contract, hence agreement, but slavery...? 2. Labor/work requires skills acquired through some formal level of education and experience, but prostitution...? 3. Prostitution by definition is the submission of something intrinsically ethical, if I may borrow from feminist language, while labor/work is a function of external qualities of a human being.
I hope its clear
1. I think he was saying that human trafficking and slavery isn't a reason to ban legitimate prostitution just as slavery isn't a reason to ban legitimate forms of work. 2. This isn't true at all. Plenty of labor requires few to no skills. Alternatively, many high end prostitutes are trained in seduction. The fact that some prostitutes are payed more than others, and significantly more, demonstrates that individual prostitutes have qualities that raise their value, be it physical attractiveness or something else. But even if your point was true, I hardly see how its relevant. 3. I don't think I understand this, it largely sounds like mumbo jumbo. It also sounds like something that isn't relevant. If someone wants to submit something intrinsically ethical, whatever the hell that means, I'd say they can do so if they damn please. But wouldn't something like modelling be doing the same thing? Modelling is considered legitimate work.
On October 01 2012 00:14 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 30 2012 23:49 TzTz wrote: Should work be illegal because of slavery? It's the same with prostitution...
2. Labor/work requires skills acquired through some formal level of education and experience, but prostitution...?
Oh hoho believe me experience makes a LOOOOOT of difference.
Any hot girl thinking she can make a quick buck by simply taking her clothes off and lying there is out of her mind.
A few bad reviews, word spreads like wildfire and you can kiss your gravy train goodbye.
Labor/work requires skills? Not underpaid labor by any means, life a few boxes and run the cashier compared to having to put out quality sex for X amount of time? If any labor/work requires skill then it's generally something well paid but like a spectrum that is only one end, the cheap easy labor for bad money can be compared and require hardly any skills.
Are your posts even serious replies? Du you just hit post without even knowing what the thing you are replying to means?
What skills do you require to be a prostitute if all you need is a vagina? How you are marketed after that is another matter, but as far as being "qualified" for the "job", all you need is a vagina (if you are a woman prostitute, and lets not talk about prostitutes of other gender to limit the discussion). Same reply to the "experience" argument.
3. I don't think I understand this, it largely sounds like mumbo jumbo. It also sounds like something that isn't relevant. If someone wants to submit something intrinsically ethical, whatever the hell that means, I'd say they can do so if they damn please. But wouldn't something like modelling be doing the same thing? Modelling is considered legitimate work.
Judith Butler. "Intrinsically ethical" means the "power positioning" of owning your body.
Ha, prostitution illegal in China, good joke. I've never seen a good reason for why prostitution should not be legal. I guess crime and the abuse of women are the biggest concerns but I feel that these 2 factors are much more prevalent when prostitution is illegal and you have to go to pimps and what not. I remember reading some article about how prostitution was outlawed because of stds and bastard children; I don't actually know if that's true but with contraceptives today that should not be nearly as large a problem. Never gonna happen in the United States though, the bible says it's wrong.
On October 01 2012 00:14 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:
On September 30 2012 23:49 TzTz wrote: Should work be illegal because of slavery? It's the same with prostitution...
2. Labor/work requires skills acquired through some formal level of education and experience, but prostitution...?
Oh hoho believe me experience makes a LOOOOOT of difference.
Any hot girl thinking she can make a quick buck by simply taking her clothes off and lying there is out of her mind.
A few bad reviews, word spreads like wildfire and you can kiss your gravy train goodbye.
Labor/work requires skills? Not underpaid labor by any means, life a few boxes and run the cashier compared to having to put out quality sex for X amount of time? If any labor/work requires skill then it's generally something well paid but like a spectrum that is only one end, the cheap easy labor for bad money can be compared and require hardly any skills.
What you need to do the work is not the same as what you need to be able to continue to do the work.
On October 01 2012 01:09 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: smokeyhoodoo, S_SienZ, and NeMeSiS3
Are your posts even serious replies? Du you just hit post without even knowing what the thing you are replying to means?
What skills do you require to be a prostitute if all you need is a vagina? How you are marketed after that is another matter, but as far as being "qualified" for the "job", all you need is a vagina (if you are a woman prostitute, and lets not talk about prostitutes of other gender to limit the discussion). Same reply to the "experience" argument.
3. I don't think I understand this, it largely sounds like mumbo jumbo. It also sounds like something that isn't relevant. If someone wants to submit something intrinsically ethical, whatever the hell that means, I'd say they can do so if they damn please. But wouldn't something like modelling be doing the same thing? Modelling is considered legitimate work.
Judith Butler. "Intrinsically ethical" means the "power positioning" of owning your body.
I would have to say that your post is just as poorly thought out as those you are criticizing. Let me explain by examples: To be a prostitute all you need is a vagina To work an assembly job all you need is hands To be president all you need is citizenship
These are all drastic oversimplifications which have no practical use. Furthermore, they serve to dehumanize the worker and discredit the profession.
My opinion is that if prostitution is to be legalized, then we need to severely improve the working conditions of prostitutes. For instance, contracts that prevents people from committing violent, degrading or harmful acts etc. without the consent of the prostitute, but that makes court cases hard to decide due to the prostitute being able to claim that they did not consent to said acts even if they agreed during the negotiations (and heavily in favor of the prostitute, like the state of rape cases being severely in the favor of the victim, even if the accused perpetrator is innocent).
I personally have never used prostitutes, so I cannot state exactly how prostitution works. My points of views are with brothels in mind, not street-sold prostitution. Though I would argue that if it is to be legalized, then they need to be confined to certain locations due to it being easier to monitor that way compared to the street-selling ways.
EDIT: Perhaps something like a government-run prostitution system could be used in order to try and prevent situations where pimps take advantages over their prostitutes. However, with the risk of corruption in the governments, I doubt this could be a viable solution as an end to these crimes.
On October 01 2012 01:09 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: smokeyhoodoo, S_SienZ, and NeMeSiS3
Are your posts even serious replies? Du you just hit post without even knowing what the thing you are replying to means?
What skills do you require to be a prostitute if all you need is a vagina? How you are marketed after that is another matter, but as far as being "qualified" for the "job", all you need is a vagina (if you are a woman prostitute, and lets not talk about prostitutes of other gender to limit the discussion). Same reply to the "experience" argument.
3. I don't think I understand this, it largely sounds like mumbo jumbo. It also sounds like something that isn't relevant. If someone wants to submit something intrinsically ethical, whatever the hell that means, I'd say they can do so if they damn please. But wouldn't something like modelling be doing the same thing? Modelling is considered legitimate work.
Judith Butler. "Intrinsically ethical" means the "power positioning" of owning your body.
On October 01 2012 01:09 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: smokeyhoodoo, S_SienZ, and NeMeSiS3
Are your posts even serious replies? Du you just hit post without even knowing what the thing you are replying to means?
What skills do you require to be a prostitute if all you need is a vagina? How you are marketed after that is another matter, but as far as being "qualified" for the "job", all you need is a vagina (if you are a woman prostitute, and lets not talk about prostitutes of other gender to limit the discussion). Same reply to the "experience" argument.
3. I don't think I understand this, it largely sounds like mumbo jumbo. It also sounds like something that isn't relevant. If someone wants to submit something intrinsically ethical, whatever the hell that means, I'd say they can do so if they damn please. But wouldn't something like modelling be doing the same thing? Modelling is considered legitimate work.
Judith Butler. "Intrinsically ethical" means the "power positioning" of owning your body.
I would have to say that your post is just as poorly thought out as those you are criticizing. Let me explain by examples: To be a prostitute all you need is a vagina To work an assembly job all you need is hands To be president all you need is citizenship
These are all drastic oversimplifications which have no practical use. Furthermore, they serve to dehumanize the worker and discredit the profession.
I don't think you understand him. He is saying the issue on what you need for the "job" and what you need in order to still be on your "job" are two different things. Remember he was replying to a post comparing work slavery to prostitution. In this regard, I think it is important to make sure that we are clear on our definitions and assumptions on the topic, and that is the practical purpose for us here.
On October 01 2012 01:25 Zvenn3n wrote: My opinion is that if prostitution is to be legalized, then we need to severely improve the working conditions of prostitutes. For instance, contracts that prevents people from committing violent, degrading or harmful acts etc. without the consent of the prostitute, but that makes court cases hard to decide due to the prostitute being able to claim that they did not consent to said acts even if they agreed during the negotiations (and heavily in favor of the prostitute, like the state of rape cases being severely in the favor of the victim, even if the accused perpetrator is innocent).
I personally have never used prostitutes, so I cannot state exactly how prostitution works. My points of views are with brothels in mind, not street-sold prostitution. Though I would argue that if it is to be legalized, then they need to be confined to certain locations due to it being easier to monitor that way compared to the street-selling ways.
EDIT: Perhaps something like a government-run prostitution system could be used in order to try and prevent situations where pimps take advantages over their prostitutes. However, with the risk of corruption in the governments, I doubt this could be a viable solution as an end to these crimes.
WHAT? Government-run prostitution is like the worst idea a human being has ever thought of and uttered.
On September 30 2012 23:11 nebula. wrote: People have such a retarded way of looking at free will.
Just because a person chooses to sell their body for money doesn't mean that person actually wants that. I think very very very few prostitutes actually do it by "pure free will". Selling one's body is not something you enjoy, even if it gives temporary physical pleasure. I'd say the very vast majority of prostitutes really don't enjoy their job and do it because it's the only way out of misery, or atleast a way to keep yourself from drowning.
Just because a person chooses to work in a factory for money doesn't mean that person actually wants that. I think very very very few laborers actually do it by "pure free will". Working in a factory is not something you enjoy, even if it may give temporary physical pleasure. I'd say the very vast majority of laborers really don't enjoy their job and do it because it's the only way out of misery, or atleast a way to keep yourself from drowning.
who says that's not an argument against the neutrality of work? maybe this form of work is wrong too.
On October 01 2012 01:09 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: smokeyhoodoo, S_SienZ, and NeMeSiS3
Are your posts even serious replies? Du you just hit post without even knowing what the thing you are replying to means?
What skills do you require to be a prostitute if all you need is a vagina? How you are marketed after that is another matter, but as far as being "qualified" for the "job", all you need is a vagina (if you are a woman prostitute, and lets not talk about prostitutes of other gender to limit the discussion). Same reply to the "experience" argument.
3. I don't think I understand this, it largely sounds like mumbo jumbo. It also sounds like something that isn't relevant. If someone wants to submit something intrinsically ethical, whatever the hell that means, I'd say they can do so if they damn please. But wouldn't something like modelling be doing the same thing? Modelling is considered legitimate work.
Judith Butler. "Intrinsically ethical" means the "power positioning" of owning your body.
Your mind is scattered and strange.
I really dun't hit reply without reading, what skills does sex have? Well there is a reason there is "bad sex, good sex" and if sex is legalized and brothels have prostitutes with meager to no skills in the sack then no one would go there... It's even relatively insulting to women in general that you're implying good sex just requires a vagina and laying there ^^
On October 01 2012 01:09 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: smokeyhoodoo, S_SienZ, and NeMeSiS3
Are your posts even serious replies? Du you just hit post without even knowing what the thing you are replying to means?
What skills do you require to be a prostitute if all you need is a vagina? How you are marketed after that is another matter, but as far as being "qualified" for the "job", all you need is a vagina (if you are a woman prostitute, and lets not talk about prostitutes of other gender to limit the discussion). Same reply to the "experience" argument.
3. I don't think I understand this, it largely sounds like mumbo jumbo. It also sounds like something that isn't relevant. If someone wants to submit something intrinsically ethical, whatever the hell that means, I'd say they can do so if they damn please. But wouldn't something like modelling be doing the same thing? Modelling is considered legitimate work.
Judith Butler. "Intrinsically ethical" means the "power positioning" of owning your body.
I would have to say that your post is just as poorly thought out as those you are criticizing. Let me explain by examples: To be a prostitute all you need is a vagina To work an assembly job all you need is hands To be president all you need is citizenship
These are all drastic oversimplifications which have no practical use. Furthermore, they serve to dehumanize the worker and discredit the profession.
What skill do you need in order to be a photo model, or stand in an assembly line? Just because it takes none, or, atleast to you "seems" it takes none doesn't mean that it isnt a profression or that it doesn't take skill.
On October 01 2012 01:09 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: smokeyhoodoo, S_SienZ, and NeMeSiS3
Are your posts even serious replies? Du you just hit post without even knowing what the thing you are replying to means?
What skills do you require to be a prostitute if all you need is a vagina? How you are marketed after that is another matter, but as far as being "qualified" for the "job", all you need is a vagina (if you are a woman prostitute, and lets not talk about prostitutes of other gender to limit the discussion). Same reply to the "experience" argument.
3. I don't think I understand this, it largely sounds like mumbo jumbo. It also sounds like something that isn't relevant. If someone wants to submit something intrinsically ethical, whatever the hell that means, I'd say they can do so if they damn please. But wouldn't something like modelling be doing the same thing? Modelling is considered legitimate work.
Judith Butler. "Intrinsically ethical" means the "power positioning" of owning your body.
Your mind is scattered and strange.
I really dun't hit reply without reading, what skills does sex have? Well there is a reason there is "bad sex, good sex" and if sex is legalized and brothels have prostitutes with meager to no skills in the sack then no one would go there... It's even relatively insulting to women in general that you're implying good sex just requires a vagina and laying there ^^
You just made it official. You are a fool who just hits reply but dun'tread and understand the post first. Whether a woman knows how to give "good sex" or not is external to the argument when the issue at hand is that all you need to be a (woman) prostitute is a vagina, and having a vagina is not a skill.
On September 30 2012 11:01 Bigtony wrote: I would like to live in a world where people don't have to sell the intimate nature of their bodies to make a living.
I think most people agree with you on this, although I don't think whether it's legal or illegal has any bearing. Making it illegal doesn't make people suddenly not need income, as I'm sure you know.
Same thing with drug dealers, I doubt drug dealers come into the profession out of love for the job. They need to make money to bay bills like everyone else but they turned to illegal activities instead because they are easier. Magically making it legal isn't going to stop them from doing it, they will just have an easier time not worrying about being arrested.
It seems like you are pointing out an inaccuracy in what I said, but I don't see any.
Bigtony was implying that making prostitution illegal would rescue people from the need to do things such as sell the intimate nature of their bodies to make a living. Obviously, it wasn't his intention (I assume), but to be sure/clear I pointed out that whether it's illegal or not does not affect whether or not people are compelled to such drastic measures.
Your statement seems to imply that I was saying making hard drug dealing legal will make people less likely to feel the need to be drug dealers... which I was not aiming for.
I won't justify a stance of "make prostitution legal" with "making it legal/illegal doesn't make the need for income go away" lol
Few pages back but I just wanted to clarify:
My point is not that making prostitution illegal will make people stop. My point is the exact opposite - making something legal or illegal does not change (for the most part) how people act. Even if prostitution is legalized (which I'm not really against because I think people should be able to do pretty much whatever they want without interference from the government), I would want people to not need/want to do it. I would want to live in a community that was strong enough that no one needed to be a prostitute and that no one would want to use their services.
On October 01 2012 01:09 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: smokeyhoodoo, S_SienZ, and NeMeSiS3
Are your posts even serious replies? Du you just hit post without even knowing what the thing you are replying to means?
What skills do you require to be a prostitute if all you need is a vagina? How you are marketed after that is another matter, but as far as being "qualified" for the "job", all you need is a vagina (if you are a woman prostitute, and lets not talk about prostitutes of other gender to limit the discussion). Same reply to the "experience" argument.
3. I don't think I understand this, it largely sounds like mumbo jumbo. It also sounds like something that isn't relevant. If someone wants to submit something intrinsically ethical, whatever the hell that means, I'd say they can do so if they damn please. But wouldn't something like modelling be doing the same thing? Modelling is considered legitimate work.
Judith Butler. "Intrinsically ethical" means the "power positioning" of owning your body.
I would have to say that your post is just as poorly thought out as those you are criticizing. Let me explain by examples: To be a prostitute all you need is a vagina To work an assembly job all you need is hands To be president all you need is citizenship
These are all drastic oversimplifications which have no practical use. Furthermore, they serve to dehumanize the worker and discredit the profession.
What skill do you need in order to be a photo model, or stand in an assembly line? Just because it takes none, or, atleast to you "seems" it takes none doesn't mean that it isnt a profression or that it doesn't take skill.
That is exactly what I said?
On October 01 2012 01:22 Jormundr wrote: These are all drastic oversimplifications which have no practical use. Furthermore, they serve to dehumanize the worker and discredit the profession.
This is another thread about free will. Prostitution should be legal because it's a choice. Suggesting that crime rate will rise after prostitution becomes legal is ludicrous because the only reason prostitution is in such a bad state in most countries is because it has to be run underground. It's the same reason people think that legalizing drugs would be bad - because they think that if more drugs available, that will mean more people will want them which then means more people will cause crime trying to get those drugs.
But if there was a readily available legal way to do that didn't require you to go through the Pharmacy, then we wouldn't have crime problems when it came to drugs. The same can be said about prostitution - If it were legal, the crimes surrounding it would go down because now there's a way to regulate it.
On September 30 2012 23:11 nebula. wrote: People have such a retarded way of looking at free will.
Just because a person chooses to sell their body for money doesn't mean that person actually wants that. I think very very very few prostitutes actually do it by "pure free will". Selling one's body is not something you enjoy, even if it gives temporary physical pleasure. I'd say the very vast majority of prostitutes really don't enjoy their job and do it because it's the only way out of misery, or atleast a way to keep yourself from drowning.
Just because a person chooses to work in a factory for money doesn't mean that person actually wants that. I think very very very few laborers actually do it by "pure free will". Working in a factory is not something you enjoy, even if it may give temporary physical pleasure. I'd say the very vast majority of laborers really don't enjoy their job and do it because it's the only way out of misery, or atleast a way to keep yourself from drowning.
who says that's not an argument against the neutrality of work? maybe this form of work is wrong too.
you're misunderstanding the point. Every job can be filled in his story. Maybe every form of work is wrong. Btw, i don't know what you mean by the neutrality of work.
On September 30 2012 23:11 nebula. wrote: People have such a retarded way of looking at free will.
Just because a person chooses to sell their body for money doesn't mean that person actually wants that. I think very very very few prostitutes actually do it by "pure free will". Selling one's body is not something you enjoy, even if it gives temporary physical pleasure. I'd say the very vast majority of prostitutes really don't enjoy their job and do it because it's the only way out of misery, or atleast a way to keep yourself from drowning.
Just because a person chooses to work in a factory for money doesn't mean that person actually wants that. I think very very very few laborers actually do it by "pure free will". Working in a factory is not something you enjoy, even if it may give temporary physical pleasure. I'd say the very vast majority of laborers really don't enjoy their job and do it because it's the only way out of misery, or atleast a way to keep yourself from drowning.
who says that's not an argument against the neutrality of work? maybe this form of work is wrong too.
you're misunderstanding the point. Every job can be filled in his story. Maybe every form of work is wrong. Btw, i don't know what you mean by the neutrality of work.
neutrality as in "this is a legit contractual agreement so it's okay, entirely free from ethical judgement."
On October 01 2012 02:11 hoby2000 wrote: Another thread that should be closed -
This is another thread about free will. Prostitution should be legal because it's a choice. Suggesting that crime rate will rise after prostitution becomes legal is ludicrous because the only reason prostitution is in such a bad state in most countries is because it has to be run underground. It's the same reason people think that legalizing drugs would be bad - because they think that if more drugs available, that will mean more people will want them which then means more people will cause crime trying to get those drugs.
But if there was a readily available legal way to do that didn't require you to go through the Pharmacy, then we wouldn't have crime problems when it came to drugs. The same can be said about prostitution - If it were legal, the crimes surrounding it would go down because now there's a way to regulate it.
That's all that needs to be said.
You mean close one of the best posts in the General section, despite the controversial nature of the issue? If TL were to close all the thread starting with the worst, this thread would be among the last 10 it would close. Also, there was a discussion, one that gave me migraines, on choice in pages 7 and 8 that might be useful for you.
I ask again, what the fuck was that discussion about?
On October 01 2012 02:11 hoby2000 wrote: Another thread that should be closed -
This is another thread about free will. Prostitution should be legal because it's a choice. Suggesting that crime rate will rise after prostitution becomes legal is ludicrous because the only reason prostitution is in such a bad state in most countries is because it has to be run underground. It's the same reason people think that legalizing drugs would be bad - because they think that if more drugs available, that will mean more people will want them which then means more people will cause crime trying to get those drugs.
But if there was a readily available legal way to do that didn't require you to go through the Pharmacy, then we wouldn't have crime problems when it came to drugs. The same can be said about prostitution - If it were legal, the crimes surrounding it would go down because now there's a way to regulate it.
That's all that needs to be said.
You mean close one of the best posts in the General section, despite the controversial nature of the issue? If TL were to close all the thread starting with the worst, this thread would be among the last 10 it would close. Also, there was a discussion, one that gave me migraines, on choice in pages 7 and 8 that might be useful for you.
I ask again, what the fuck was that discussion about?
Unfortunately TL is in such a sorry state that even an excellent OP does nothing to stop all the idiots from dumping an endless thread of shit into General.
On October 01 2012 02:11 hoby2000 wrote: Another thread that should be closed -
This is another thread about free will. Prostitution should be legal because it's a choice. Suggesting that crime rate will rise after prostitution becomes legal is ludicrous because the only reason prostitution is in such a bad state in most countries is because it has to be run underground. It's the same reason people think that legalizing drugs would be bad - because they think that if more drugs available, that will mean more people will want them which then means more people will cause crime trying to get those drugs.
But if there was a readily available legal way to do that didn't require you to go through the Pharmacy, then we wouldn't have crime problems when it came to drugs. The same can be said about prostitution - If it were legal, the crimes surrounding it would go down because now there's a way to regulate it.
That's all that needs to be said.
You mean close one of the best posts in the General section, despite the controversial nature of the issue? If TL were to close all the thread starting with the worst, this thread would be among the last 10 it would close. Also, there was a discussion, one that gave me migraines, on choice in pages 7 and 8 that might be useful for you.
I ask again, what the fuck was that discussion about?
Unfortunately TL is in such a sorry state that even an excellent OP does nothing to stop all the idiots from dumping an endless thread of shit into General.
That thread has a horrible OP with practically nothing to discuss. If posters on this thread decide to go retarded, the solution is not to close the thread but to ban them.
It's just one of those things that are good in essence, yet we manage to fuck it up and make it something dark and sketchy. I think making this stuff legal and socially acceptable would make a big difference, yet I think it's hard or maybe even impossible to achieve.
On October 01 2012 02:11 hoby2000 wrote: Another thread that should be closed -
This is another thread about free will. Prostitution should be legal because it's a choice. Suggesting that crime rate will rise after prostitution becomes legal is ludicrous because the only reason prostitution is in such a bad state in most countries is because it has to be run underground. It's the same reason people think that legalizing drugs would be bad - because they think that if more drugs available, that will mean more people will want them which then means more people will cause crime trying to get those drugs.
But if there was a readily available legal way to do that didn't require you to go through the Pharmacy, then we wouldn't have crime problems when it came to drugs. The same can be said about prostitution - If it were legal, the crimes surrounding it would go down because now there's a way to regulate it.
That's all that needs to be said.
You mean close one of the best posts in the General section, despite the controversial nature of the issue? If TL were to close all the thread starting with the worst, this thread would be among the last 10 it would close. Also, there was a discussion, one that gave me migraines, on choice in pages 7 and 8 that might be useful for you.
I ask again, what the fuck was that discussion about?
Unfortunately TL is in such a sorry state that even an excellent OP does nothing to stop all the idiots from dumping an endless thread of shit into General.
I don't believe anyone who ended up in prostitution set out to do so. I think it's a result of misfortune. However, I'd be really interested if there was some evidence for that, as I've never seen any, it's just a belief with no basis in good evidence.
Although, that's not particularly an argument for it being illegal. All over the world people have to take shit jobs they don't want to be doing, remove the job and that person is in an even worse scenario; that person has ended up as a prostitute because the other option is worse. And pragmatically speaking they'll likely do it anyway but in an illegal and unsafe fashion.
The only argument I'd support is that by making it legal you are somehow making it more socially acceptable, and I personally believe that it shouldn't be.
On September 30 2012 18:31 DigiGnar wrote: If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.)
it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones.
Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: 'people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.'
What are you even talking about? "Makes no sense to compare the physical abilities of humans"? Am I reading that right? So, you're saying the Olympics makes no sense? Cause that surely is probably the BIGGEST comparison of human ability in history. All a prostitute needs is a dick/vagina. There are plenty of desperate people who don't care about if they are fucking someone without a hand. Shit, the person without the hand could end up turning more profit due to fetishes.
My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers.
On October 01 2012 02:56 Deadeight wrote: I don't believe anyone who ended up in prostitution set out to do so. I think it's a result of misfortune. However, I'd be really interested if there was some evidence for that, as I've never seen any, it's just a belief with no basis in good evidence.
Trust me quite a few actually set out to do so, especially single university students who are attractive enough to demand a high price. These people can afford to come all the way to the UK from China / Hong Kong to study funded by their parents so all that crap about being in a poor state financially is bullshit as foreign students pay about double to triple the amount of tuition fees compared to the locals.
Think about it, you're single, this is a way to "get some" in a practical, certain way in terms of scheduling etc and you have the potential to make bout 1k-2k GBP a night.
On October 01 2012 02:56 Deadeight wrote: I don't believe anyone who ended up in prostitution set out to do so. I think it's a result of misfortune. However, I'd be really interested if there was some evidence for that, as I've never seen any, it's just a belief with no basis in good evidence.
Trust me quite a few actually set out to do so, especially single university students who are attractive enough to demand a high price. These people can afford to come all the way to the UK from China / Hong Kong to study funded by their parents so all that crap about being in a poor state financially is bullshit as foreign students pay about double to triple the amount of tuition fees compared to the locals.
Think about it, you're single, this is a way to "get some" in a practical, certain way in terms of scheduling etc and you have the potential to make bout 1k-2k GBP a night.
What the hell?! Guess I'm naive about this stuff then.
But then I don't really understand why people would pay for a prostitute when picking up a girl is the easiest thing to do in a UK club. Though I guess quality is an issue.
On October 01 2012 02:56 Deadeight wrote: I don't believe anyone who ended up in prostitution set out to do so. I think it's a result of misfortune. However, I'd be really interested if there was some evidence for that, as I've never seen any, it's just a belief with no basis in good evidence.
Trust me quite a few actually set out to do so, especially single university students who are attractive enough to demand a high price. These people can afford to come all the way to the UK from China / Hong Kong to study funded by their parents so all that crap about being in a poor state financially is bullshit as foreign students pay about double to triple the amount of tuition fees compared to the locals.
Think about it, you're single, this is a way to "get some" in a practical, certain way in terms of scheduling etc and you have the potential to make bout 1k-2k GBP a night.
What the hell?! Guess I'm naive about this stuff then.
But then I don't really understand why people would pay for a prostitute when picking up a girl is the easiest thing to do in a UK club. Though I guess quality is an issue.
Ye quality is def an issue.
If you're interested in knowing more I believe there was an article online bout a matchmaking website (basically uni girls and rich men would sign up to get matched) and the owners released some statistics bout which unis had the most girls pursuing such stuff. Amongst the chinese this type of thing is called "compensated dating" instead of prostitution.
On September 30 2012 18:31 DigiGnar wrote: If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.)
it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones.
Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: 'people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.'
My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers.
Don't forget the desirability (not desire in terms of pleasure) of work. There is always an incentive needed to do work, but a work must have innate positive values socially and personally. This is tricky since you can ague that personal (sex feels good) and social (people "need" to have sex, "income", ) values also exist in prostitution, but they are certainly not comparable to professions like being a doctor (treating other people and the personal fulfillment of doing good or extending a person's life, albeit at the cost of a leg) an engineer, a lawyer etc. Victimhood in prostitution is more apparent because these elements are more problematic in prostitution that in other professions.
This is a fantastic OP as prae said. I'm generally ambivalent on this issue and can definitely see why there are very good, legitimate points to be made for either side. If I had to take a stand, I think a stronger set of laws could potentially help, coupled with decriminalization.
I am strongly in favor of legalizing and regulating prostitution.
It makes it safer for both the clients and the prostitutes when the establishment is in the open and can afford to require STD screening.
It removes (or at least reduces) the influence of drugs in the prostitution industry.
Allows for another form of taxable revenue for the state.
Honestly, everyone wins and no one loses when it comes to legalizing prostitution. Especially since it's something that's going to continue being practiced underground anyway regardless, so why not just legalize it and make it safer and taxable.
Obviously I'm only referring to the practice of consenting adults with my above post. Child Prostitution and Human Sex Slave Trafficking are definitely something that is a huge problem in the world, and something that needs more attention, but consenting adult prostitution isn't even in the same league as those two crimes, and shouldn't share in their stigma.
On September 30 2012 18:31 DigiGnar wrote: If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.)
it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones.
Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: 'people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.'
What are you even talking about? "Makes no sense to compare the physical abilities of humans"? Am I reading that right? So, you're saying the Olympics makes no sense? Cause that surely is probably the BIGGEST comparison of human ability in history. All a prostitute needs is a dick/vagina. There are plenty of desperate people who don't care about if they are fucking someone without a hand. Shit, the person without the hand could end up turning more profit due to fetishes.
My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers.
you sugested that humans end up prostitutes because they have low iq else they could get better jobs, right?; and then concluded that since all stupid (low iq) people end up victimized by their employers, the fact that they're used for their physical or for their mental abilities is irrelevant. am i getting this?. (note: prostitutes rely mostly or solely on their physical abilities else they're out of a job).
On October 01 2012 01:09 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote: smokeyhoodoo, S_SienZ, and NeMeSiS3
Are your posts even serious replies? Du you just hit post without even knowing what the thing you are replying to means?
What skills do you require to be a prostitute if all you need is a vagina? How you are marketed after that is another matter, but as far as being "qualified" for the "job", all you need is a vagina (if you are a woman prostitute, and lets not talk about prostitutes of other gender to limit the discussion). Same reply to the "experience" argument.
3. I don't think I understand this, it largely sounds like mumbo jumbo. It also sounds like something that isn't relevant. If someone wants to submit something intrinsically ethical, whatever the hell that means, I'd say they can do so if they damn please. But wouldn't something like modelling be doing the same thing? Modelling is considered legitimate work.
Judith Butler. "Intrinsically ethical" means the "power positioning" of owning your body.
So let me get this straight--you've never been to a prostitute and you're telling us all about exactly how little skill it takes to be one?
I'm telling you, because I go frequently enough, it takes a LOT of skill. Sex isn't something that a girl can just sit there and it's all the same, the quality of it varies WILDLY with the girl's experience and skill. Especially when it comes to things like tongue and sucking the right spots and even knowing how much pressure to put where and when.
Everyone in this thread giving their input about prostitution should really go out and experience it for themselves before they spout off biased, not well-thought out, uneducated opinions.
On September 30 2012 18:31 DigiGnar wrote: If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.)
it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones.
Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: 'people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.'
What are you even talking about? "Makes no sense to compare the physical abilities of humans"? Am I reading that right? So, you're saying the Olympics makes no sense? Cause that surely is probably the BIGGEST comparison of human ability in history. All a prostitute needs is a dick/vagina. There are plenty of desperate people who don't care about if they are fucking someone without a hand. Shit, the person without the hand could end up turning more profit due to fetishes.
My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers.
you sugested that humans end up prostitutes because they have low iq else they could get better jobs, right?; and then concluded that since all stupid (low iq) people end up victimized by their employers, the fact that they're used for their physical or for their mental abilities is irrelevant. am i getting this?. (note: prostitutes rely mostly or solely on their physical abilities else they're out of a job).
I suggested that people with low IQ have a hard/impossible time getting a good job. They end up, more often than not, as a dishwasher or a janitor. Tell me a rocket science who would rather mop the halls of a school, and tell me a person who mops the halls of school wouldn't want a better job. They are victims of society, because society doesn't allow them to be rocket scientists. You have to prove you can be one to be one, and no one with a low IQ will ever be a rocket scientist.
The people who are working these shit jobs aren't victimized by their employers, the employers are victimized because they must pay a minimum amount to someone who mops the halls of a school or washes dishes for a restaurant. Higher labor costs = higher prices + lower pay for the higher ups. Higher prices makes the consumer a victim and the supply chain a victim. Less money to buy from the supply chain = less money the supply chain has.
Prostitutes rely solely on demand of sex, not their physical abilities. There is no ability in having a vagina, except maybe one that can still get wet. Even then, there's billions of those. If I'm going to be desperate enough to pay for sex, I'm not going to really give a shit how good it is. As long as I get off, I'm good. All the woman literally has to do is literally nothing and take it. Sure, people have fetishes and will have to dish out money to receive their pleasure, but again, there is no ability in washing dishes. Anyone can do what they are told to do. Anyone can be told to get on all fours and act like a dog, and anyone can do that. (unless you want to bring in the missing limb people, but then they are actually getting cybernetic limbs nowadays.)
What I'm suggesting is that if prostitutes who are in the field are victims due to economic reasons, then everyone else is a victim because of economic reasons. Don't you think a pimp would rather not give any money at all to his employees?
On September 30 2012 21:43 Asol wrote: Could you provide proof of ANY of those statements ZERG_RUSSIAN?
If you really need proof that badly go find some highly paid hooker and ask her yourself..
??
Normally in a discussion you post proof else the argument is, well, invalid. Why would I try to get proof for his statements?
You just asked me for proof and then said "why would i try to get proof"
Take it or leave it, I'm not going to videotape a private conversation with a hooker under the premise of winning an argument on the internet. This is my experience and I'm guessing it's more experience than you have. If you don't believe me, I don't really care, I'm still going to fuck hookers and have meaningful conversations and relationships with them, even if just subjectively.
Right. In my mind if you're going to have a discussion and you say something then you have to prove it. I could say that I have visited over three billion hookers in the world, and yet they all live happy lives and love what their doing. If someone calls me out on this, well, "This is my experience and I'm guessing it's more experience than you have. If you don't believe me, I don't really care, ". I hope you do see the problem.
If you can't provide proof, I don't see any reason to believe you. This is the internet - anyone can say anything, but if you're in a more serious thread arguing for prostitution then you've got to provide some sort of proof for your statements.
On September 30 2012 21:43 Asol wrote: Could you provide proof of ANY of those statements ZERG_RUSSIAN?
If you really need proof that badly go find some highly paid hooker and ask her yourself..
??
Normally in a discussion you post proof else the argument is, well, invalid. Why would I try to get proof for his statements?
You just asked me for proof and then said "why would i try to get proof"
Take it or leave it, I'm not going to videotape a private conversation with a hooker under the premise of winning an argument on the internet. This is my experience and I'm guessing it's more experience than you have. If you don't believe me, I don't really care, I'm still going to fuck hookers and have meaningful conversations and relationships with them, even if just subjectively.
Right. In my mind if you're going to have a discussion and you say something then you have to prove it. I could say that I have visited over three billion hookers in the world, and yet they all live happy lives and love what their doing. If someone calls me out on this, well, "This is my experience and I'm guessing it's more experience than you have. If you don't believe me, I don't really care, ". I hope you do see the problem.
If you can't provide proof, I don't see any reason to believe you. This is the internet - anyone can say anything, but if you're in a more serious thread arguing for prostitution then you've got to provide some sort of proof for your statements.
You also don't have any reason to believe the post he was refuting, yet you seem to have no issues believing that prostitutes all despise what they do. The only reason you're demanding proof from him is because his statement contradicts your personal beliefs.
There are plenty of biographies out there written by prostitutes, and many of them say that it's a job to them. Not a soul-destroying, bottom-of-the-mud, pathetic job that they can never escape, but simply a job.
And for some ex-prostitutes, some of the biggest issues isn't the job itself, but the fact that it's not officially recognized as a job by the government, so they have no worker's rights.
On October 01 2012 04:36 Vindicare605 wrote: Honestly, everyone wins and no one loses when it comes to legalizing prostitution. Especially since it's something that's going to continue being practiced underground anyway regardless, so why not just legalize it and make it safer and taxable.
There are people who lose when prostitution is legalized: women.
Economically speaking, the "price" for access to vaginas is reduced when prostitution is legalized. A large pillar of our societal status quo is the phenomenon of men busting their asses in order to provide for a woman who in turn provides sexual release. If a man can visit his local brothel and procure reasonably safe and anonymous company for a fair price, it makes it much more difficult for regular women to obtain a man's resources. Which means that all the economic sectors that profit from women lose access to male wealth.
This is why polls consistently show that while a majority of men favor legalized prostitution, a majority of women do not. Similar numbers and logic apply to pornography. The truth is, crusaders against prostitution and pornography care nothing about the safety of women or tax dollars; their objective is to control male sexuality so that women don't lose out. Whenever you have people opposing a "victimless" crime, there's always a rational reason.
On October 01 2012 04:36 Vindicare605 wrote: Honestly, everyone wins and no one loses when it comes to legalizing prostitution. Especially since it's something that's going to continue being practiced underground anyway regardless, so why not just legalize it and make it safer and taxable.
There are people who lose when prostitution is legalized: women.
Economically speaking, the "price" for access to vaginas is reduced when prostitution is legalized. A large pillar of our societal status quo is the phenomenon of men busting their asses in order to provide for a woman who in turn provides sexual release. If a man can visit his local brothel and procure reasonably safe and anonymous company for a fair price, it makes it much more difficult for regular women to obtain a man's resources. Which means that all the economic sectors that profit from women lose access to male wealth.
This is why polls consistently show that while a majority of men favor legalized prostitution, a majority of women do not. Similar numbers and logic apply to pornography. The truth is, crusaders against prostitution and pornography care nothing about the safety of women or tax dollars; their objective is to control male sexuality so that women don't lose out. Whenever you have people opposing a "victimless" crime, there's always a rational reason.
Oh look, the "men only need women for their cunts" argument again. Please do go on explaining how women everywhere will become obsolete.
Next post please at least attempt to temper your patriarchal/misogynist biases.
On October 01 2012 04:36 Vindicare605 wrote: Honestly, everyone wins and no one loses when it comes to legalizing prostitution. Especially since it's something that's going to continue being practiced underground anyway regardless, so why not just legalize it and make it safer and taxable.
There are people who lose when prostitution is legalized: women.
Economically speaking, the "price" for access to vaginas is reduced when prostitution is legalized. A large pillar of our societal status quo is the phenomenon of men busting their asses in order to provide for a woman who in turn provides sexual release. If a man can visit his local brothel and procure reasonably safe and anonymous company for a fair price, it makes it much more difficult for regular women to obtain a man's resources. Which means that all the economic sectors that profit from women lose access to male wealth.
This is why polls consistently show that while a majority of men favor legalized prostitution, a majority of women do not. Similar numbers and logic apply to pornography. The truth is, crusaders against prostitution and pornography care nothing about the safety of women or tax dollars; their objective is to control male sexuality so that women don't lose out. Whenever you have people opposing a "victimless" crime, there's always a rational reason.
Oh look, the "men only need women for their cunts" argument again. Please do go on explaining how women everywhere will become obsolete.
You have it backwards. People who oppose prostitution are the ones who believe that men only need women for their cunts; that's why they're scared of anything that might lower the price. People who favor legalized prostitution, as I do, think that a monopoly on sex is not a power that women need (and in fact, it holds women back when they try to depend on it). Legalized prostitution is a step towards a more egalitarian society.
On October 01 2012 10:21 Jormundr wrote:Next post please at least attempt to temper your patriarchal/misogynist biases.
On October 01 2012 11:03 sunprince wrote: Ad hominem much?
He's not attacking the person. He's attacking the assumptions in the argument, and suggesting that said assumptions are based on biases.
Unless evidence is substantiated to support a charge of misogyny, it's an ad hominem. In this case, it's based on nothing more than a strawman, and even if his accusation of "thinking that men only need women for their cunts" was true, that doesn't demonstrate misogyny anymore than "thinking that women only need men for their wallets" demonstrates misandry, or thinking that humans only need cows for food demonstrates a hatred of cows.
There's also the distinct possibility that he conflated my views with the views of anti-prostitution crusaders, which I merely described rather than advocated for.
On October 01 2012 04:36 Vindicare605 wrote: Victimless crime is victimless.
I am strongly in favor of legalizing and regulating prostitution.
It makes it safer for both the clients and the prostitutes when the establishment is in the open and can afford to require STD screening.
It removes (or at least reduces) the influence of drugs in the prostitution industry.
Allows for another form of taxable revenue for the state.
Honestly, everyone wins and no one loses when it comes to legalizing prostitution. Especially since it's something that's going to continue being practiced underground anyway regardless, so why not just legalize it and make it safer and taxable.
Obviously I'm only referring to the practice of consenting adults with my above post. Child Prostitution and Human Sex Slave Trafficking are definitely something that is a huge problem in the world, and something that needs more attention, but consenting adult prostitution isn't even in the same league as those two crimes, and shouldn't share in their stigma.
Amsterdam is learning its lessons and is starting to criminalize it again.
On October 01 2012 04:36 Vindicare605 wrote: Victimless crime is victimless.
I am strongly in favor of legalizing and regulating prostitution.
It makes it safer for both the clients and the prostitutes when the establishment is in the open and can afford to require STD screening.
It removes (or at least reduces) the influence of drugs in the prostitution industry.
Allows for another form of taxable revenue for the state.
Honestly, everyone wins and no one loses when it comes to legalizing prostitution. Especially since it's something that's going to continue being practiced underground anyway regardless, so why not just legalize it and make it safer and taxable.
Obviously I'm only referring to the practice of consenting adults with my above post. Child Prostitution and Human Sex Slave Trafficking are definitely something that is a huge problem in the world, and something that needs more attention, but consenting adult prostitution isn't even in the same league as those two crimes, and shouldn't share in their stigma.
Amsterdam is learning its lessons and is starting to criminalize it again.
Yeah, too bad it went down like that. Just by looking at it, it's clear that the women are not really benefiting from it. I'm going to miss the Russians.
Two points. I'm only assuming male client female prostitute for the sake of simplicity.
Some males are unable to have sex without visiting a prostitute. (males with physically deformities, autism, or social anxiety have a much harder time having sex then someone without these challenges). To prevent these people from having sex because you think it is morally wrong shows a complete lack of empathy.
Preventing a prostitute from selling sex for money is sexist. Telling her that she cant sell sex for money because its exploiting her are being controlling and paternalistic. Its up to her to decide what she will do with her body, not lawmakers.
For those using the argument that she only has two choices A. starve or B. prostitute. so we should ban prostitution. What happens if option B is taken away? She is left with only option A, to starve. If you truly wanted to help prostitutes you would work to get her option C, a good paying middle class job, not take away her only means of survival.
On October 01 2012 11:59 adacan wrote: Preventing a prostitute from selling sex for money is sexist.
Please explain how having such an opinion is gender discrimination.
In Western society, we believe that people have the right to do whatever we want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else. Criminalizing prostitution is an infringement upon that right, and the burden of this infringement falls disproportionately upon women.
I think if the girl is a loser & if the guy is a loser, then it should be celebrated as the union of ultimate, indefensible "fail" between two coequal members of society. I'm all for calling out society's double-standard on the amount of "fail" we produce that are losers in school then meet back up under such self-defining scenarios.
If prostitution makes you happy, go for it. But don't expect society's blessing nor for everybody to treat you the same because of it.
On October 01 2012 12:34 Dfgj wrote: That does not make it sexist. The rule is not based on gender, but on profession.
It's not sexist in theory, but it's sexist in practice.
Just like requiring people under 6 feet tall to pay extra taxes would not be sexist in theory, but would be sexist in practice.
Or how certain Jim Crow laws such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and grandfather clauses were not racist in theory, but in practice were a racist means of denying suffrage to blacks.
On October 01 2012 11:59 adacan wrote: Preventing a prostitute from selling sex for money is sexist.
Please explain how having such an opinion is gender discrimination.
Having an opinion is not gender discrimination by definition. You can hold any opinion you want and not discriminate. Its when you act on those opinions that you discriminate. the majority of prostitutes are women, . When you ban prostitution the ban affects women disproportionately. To use the drug analogy, the laws mandating 100x harsher penalties for crack compared to powdered cocaine never mentions race. But the fact that the laws were written in such a way that it disproportionately affects minorities makes the writing of the laws racist.
On September 30 2012 21:43 Asol wrote: Could you provide proof of ANY of those statements ZERG_RUSSIAN?
If you really need proof that badly go find some highly paid hooker and ask her yourself..
??
Normally in a discussion you post proof else the argument is, well, invalid. Why would I try to get proof for his statements?
You just asked me for proof and then said "why would i try to get proof"
Take it or leave it, I'm not going to videotape a private conversation with a hooker under the premise of winning an argument on the internet. This is my experience and I'm guessing it's more experience than you have. If you don't believe me, I don't really care, I'm still going to fuck hookers and have meaningful conversations and relationships with them, even if just subjectively.
Right. In my mind if you're going to have a discussion and you say something then you have to prove it. I could say that I have visited over three billion hookers in the world, and yet they all live happy lives and love what their doing. If someone calls me out on this, well, "This is my experience and I'm guessing it's more experience than you have. If you don't believe me, I don't really care, ". I hope you do see the problem.
If you can't provide proof, I don't see any reason to believe you. This is the internet - anyone can say anything, but if you're in a more serious thread arguing for prostitution then you've got to provide some sort of proof for your statements.
We're not having a discussion. I posted anecdotal evidence of personal experience and you asked if I could prove it. That's not a discussion, you're just nitpicking because you have nothing but your opinion and you want to reduce my credibility to your level.
I didn't say that all of them love it, I said that some of them are quite happy doing what they're doing, and I'm happy that they're happy, because it makes me happy too, and that in turn can make them more happy. It would be quite a different experience if all prostitutes hated their jobs and lives. They don't, and I wouldn't knowingly visit one that did unless I wanted to cheer them up, assuming they're going to suck a random guy's dick for money anyway.
Basically what you're saying is that it's impossible for my conclusions to be true because I can't provide you with a documented source on it, which to me says that you don't believe that prostitutes can be happy people, period. I'm going to respectfully disagree and leave it at that unless you can actually articulate what your point of view is instead of just nitpicking mine.
[edit] If you really care that much about being the "winner" then sure, you won, even though you didn't provide any actual argument or evidence or statements. I honestly just want to share my experiences with people because I think it might broaden their outlooks on life.
The fact that there are much more female prostitutes than males is simply a symptom of gender inequality that's everywhere in our society since a long time ago. In an ideal world where there is an equal amount of wealthy females with the money there would be as many gigolos as hookers.
Claiming it to be a feminist issue only shows how much feminist don't care about real equality as gigolos do exist and deserve just as much protection / welfare form the legitimizing / legalizing of the industry.
On October 01 2012 14:07 S_SienZ wrote: The fact that there are much more female prostitutes than males is simply a symptom of gender inequality that's everywhere in our society since a long time ago. In an ideal world where there is an equal amount of wealthy females with the money there would be as many gigolos as hookers.
Unless you are hiring extremely high-class escorts, prostitution is generally not sufficiently expensive that it is limited only to the wealthy. In reality, johns tend to be of lower socioeconomic status than average.
The real reason there are many more female prostitutes is because female sexuality has greater value. It is much easier for the average woman to procure sex from a random stranger than it is for the average man. The demand for sexual access to females is higher than the demand for sexual access to males (while the inverse is true of the supply), and prostitution primarily exists to make up that gap. Yes, there are exceptions (old women, gay/trans prostitution, etc) but the general rule holds.
To use a simple quote from a comedian, "Pussy costs money. Dick is free."
On October 01 2012 14:07 S_SienZ wrote: The fact that there are much more female prostitutes than males is simply a symptom of gender inequality that's everywhere in our society since a long time ago. In an ideal world where there is an equal amount of wealthy females with the money there would be as many gigolos as hookers.
Unless you are hiring extremely high-class escorts, prostitution is generally not sufficiently expensive that it is limited only to the wealthy. In reality, johns tend to be of lower socioeconomic status than average.
The real reason there are many more female prostitutes is because female sexuality has greater value. It is much easier for the average woman to procure sex from a random stranger than it is for the average man. The demand for sexual access to females is higher than the demand for sexual access to males (while the inverse is true of the supply), and prostitution primarily exists to make up that gap. Yes, there are exceptions (old women, gay/trans prostitution, etc) but the general rule holds.
To use a simple quote from a comedian, "Pussy costs money. Dick is free."
It seems like so many people here are standing behind the argument of inevitability. People have always solicited prostitutes, any effort to illegalize it is doomed to fail, and will only contribute to the criminal side of it. While I can see the foundation of such an argument, I simply cannot agree with it. Man is naturally inclined towards a conflicted state. While the presence of a conscious directs us towards moral living, our physical desires and urges drive us towards a more primal state. I would argue that the basis of civilization is upholding our moral ideals above our primal. More commonly, this would be referred to as a conflict between the Soul (metaphorically speaking) and the flesh.
To legalize something merely because it is inevitable completely reverses what society strives for. Theft is inevitable, poverty is inevitable, racism, cruelty, and to use an extreme example, murder, are all inevitable. Does that mean we should tolerate them? I feel the answer is obvious. Where as prostitution may appear to be an action with consent on both sides, I believe that in 90% of the cases, women, most likely single mothers, students, or run-aways are driven to prostitution because of financial difficulties. The very thought of someone having to sell their body to live, to support a family, or to pay off debts, sickens me. If you can't imagine that, try to picture a friend or a sister being put in the same situation. I simply can't see how anyone can look at prostitution and not think "That's inherently wrong."
On October 01 2012 14:28 Quetzalcoatl12 wrote:To legalize something merely because it is inevitable completely reverses what society strives for. Theft is inevitable, poverty is inevitable, racism, cruelty, and to use an extreme example, murder, are all inevitable. Does that mean we should tolerate them? I feel the answer is obvious. Where as prostitution may appear to be an action with consent on both sides, I believe that in 90% of the cases, women, most likely single mothers, are driven to prostitution because of financial difficulties. The very thought of someone having to sell their body to live, to support a family, or to pay off debts, sickens me. If you can't imagine that, try to picture a friend or a sister being put in the same situation. I simply can't see how anyone can look at prostitution and not think "That's inherently wrong."
You're making so many assumptions here.
While it is true that there are some who are like you described, many are not. I can't recall exactly but there was some sort of documentary done in the UK about prostitutes and a lot of them were actually in the middle ground between "OMG I need this to live" and the stereotypical high class call girl pulling thousands a night.
90% is definitely a statistic out of your ass, it's definitely not that high.
On October 01 2012 14:28 Quetzalcoatl12 wrote:To legalize something merely because it is inevitable completely reverses what society strives for. Theft is inevitable, poverty is inevitable, racism, cruelty, and to use an extreme example, murder, are all inevitable. Does that mean we should tolerate them? I feel the answer is obvious. Where as prostitution may appear to be an action with consent on both sides, I believe that in 90% of the cases, women, most likely single mothers, are driven to prostitution because of financial difficulties. The very thought of someone having to sell their body to live, to support a family, or to pay off debts, sickens me. If you can't imagine that, try to picture a friend or a sister being put in the same situation. I simply can't see how anyone can look at prostitution and not think "That's inherently wrong."
You're making so many assumptions here.
While it is true that there are some who are like you described, many are not. I can't recall exactly but there was some sort of documentary done in the UK about prostitutes and a lot of them were actually in the middle ground between "OMG I need this to live" and the stereotypical high class call girl pulling thousands a night.
90% is definitely a statistic out of your ass, it's definitely not that high.
I said I believe, never quoted it as a fact. An actual percentage would be impossible to compile. In the United States its certainly true that the vast majority of prostitutes are either under aged, under the thumb of a pimp, or impoverished single mothers. Granted, never having personally known a prostitute all my knowledge is second hand.
EDIT: I should say a vast number, not majority. Though the group of high class escorts are obviously a huge minority, and the idea of a middle class prostitute is completely foreign to me.
On October 01 2012 14:28 Quetzalcoatl12 wrote:To legalize something merely because it is inevitable completely reverses what society strives for. Theft is inevitable, poverty is inevitable, racism, cruelty, and to use an extreme example, murder, are all inevitable. Does that mean we should tolerate them? I feel the answer is obvious. Where as prostitution may appear to be an action with consent on both sides, I believe that in 90% of the cases, women, most likely single mothers, are driven to prostitution because of financial difficulties. The very thought of someone having to sell their body to live, to support a family, or to pay off debts, sickens me. If you can't imagine that, try to picture a friend or a sister being put in the same situation. I simply can't see how anyone can look at prostitution and not think "That's inherently wrong."
You're making so many assumptions here.
While it is true that there are some who are like you described, many are not. I can't recall exactly but there was some sort of documentary done in the UK about prostitutes and a lot of them were actually in the middle ground between "OMG I need this to live" and the stereotypical high class call girl pulling thousands a night.
90% is definitely a statistic out of your ass, it's definitely not that high.
I said I believe, never quoted it as a fact. An actual percentage would be impossible to compile. In the United States its certainly true that the vast majority of prostitutes are either under aged, under the thumb of a pimp, or impoverished single mothers. Granted, never having personally known a prostitute all my knowledge is second hand.
You know why? Coz it's illegal.
Underaged workers won't be able to get a permit if it's regulated. Girls are forced to go under pimps because they lack the networks to the proper channels. Openly advertising would get them arrested etc.
Here in the UK prostitution is legal but pimping and soliciting is illegal, which is a nice balance imo.
On October 01 2012 02:56 Deadeight wrote: I don't believe anyone who ended up in prostitution set out to do so. I think it's a result of misfortune. However, I'd be really interested if there was some evidence for that, as I've never seen any, it's just a belief with no basis in good evidence.
Trust me quite a few actually set out to do so, especially single university students who are attractive enough to demand a high price. These people can afford to come all the way to the UK from China / Hong Kong to study funded by their parents so all that crap about being in a poor state financially is bullshit as foreign students pay about double to triple the amount of tuition fees compared to the locals.
Think about it, you're single, this is a way to "get some" in a practical, certain way in terms of scheduling etc and you have the potential to make bout 1k-2k GBP a night.
All I know is that in the 2 times that I have had sex with prostitutes, one my fratmen paid, the other had such a great time she asked not to be paid, I forget anything about morality or gender equality and what ever else people complain about these days. I just wanted to f*** them hard, that's all that matters.
On October 01 2012 14:46 googolplex wrote: All I know is that in the 2 times that I have had sex with prostitutes, one my fratmen paid, the other had such a great time she asked not to be paid, I forget anything about morality or gender equality and what ever else people complain about these days. I just wanted to f*** them hard, that's all that matters.
On September 30 2012 18:31 DigiGnar wrote: If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.)
it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones.
Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: 'people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.'
What are you even talking about? "Makes no sense to compare the physical abilities of humans"? Am I reading that right? So, you're saying the Olympics makes no sense? Cause that surely is probably the BIGGEST comparison of human ability in history. All a prostitute needs is a dick/vagina. There are plenty of desperate people who don't care about if they are fucking someone without a hand. Shit, the person without the hand could end up turning more profit due to fetishes.
My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers.
you sugested that humans end up prostitutes because they have low iq else they could get better jobs, right?; and then concluded that since all stupid (low iq) people end up victimized by their employers, the fact that they're used for their physical or for their mental abilities is irrelevant. am i getting this?. (note: prostitutes rely mostly or solely on their physical abilities else they're out of a job).
I suggested that people with low IQ have a hard/impossible time getting a good job. They end up, more often than not, as a dishwasher or a janitor. Tell me a rocket science who would rather mop the halls of a school, and tell me a person who mops the halls of school wouldn't want a better job. They are victims of society, because society doesn't allow them to be rocket scientists. You have to prove you can be one to be one, and no one with a low IQ will ever be a rocket scientist.
The people who are working these shit jobs aren't victimized by their employers, the employers are victimized because they must pay a minimum amount to someone who mops the halls of a school or washes dishes for a restaurant. Higher labor costs = higher prices + lower pay for the higher ups. Higher prices makes the consumer a victim and the supply chain a victim. Less money to buy from the supply chain = less money the supply chain has.
Prostitutes rely solely on demand of sex, not their physical abilities. There is no ability in having a vagina, except maybe one that can still get wet. Even then, there's billions of those. If I'm going to be desperate enough to pay for sex, I'm not going to really give a shit how good it is. As long as I get off, I'm good. All the woman literally has to do is literally nothing and take it. Sure, people have fetishes and will have to dish out money to receive their pleasure, but again, there is no ability in washing dishes. Anyone can do what they are told to do. Anyone can be told to get on all fours and act like a dog, and anyone can do that. (unless you want to bring in the missing limb people, but then they are actually getting cybernetic limbs nowadays.)
What I'm suggesting is that if prostitutes who are in the field are victims due to economic reasons, then everyone else is a victim because of economic reasons. Don't you think a pimp would rather not give any money at all to his employees?
you don't really know what you're talking about or maybe you're just trolling. - why would someone work for a pimp if they're not getting payed?. they can just work for themselfs. - prostitutes are chosen by the client based on the way they look and how much money does he has to spend on them. if you can get off fucking an std infested wet vagina that doesn't make it a standard for everyone else you know.
my point was that even thow, from an economic perspective, everyone is a victim, there must be made a distinction here about the degree of victimization. even with your twisted logic you must agree that is better to have a living person then a dead person, even from an economic perspective ( since a dead person can't work).
On October 01 2012 14:46 googolplex wrote: All I know is that in the 2 times that I have had sex with prostitutes, one my fratmen paid, the other had such a great time she asked not to be paid, I forget anything about morality or gender equality and what ever else people complain about these days. I just wanted to f*** them hard, that's all that matters.
It is hard to think of anything else when you are banging someone.
Have read some comments in here saying stuff like "Amsterdam has learned his lesson and is criminalizing prostitution again" Could anyone provide some proof of this. Quick Google searches provided nothing of this sort. As far as i know it's complete bullshit...
EDIT: nvm timmsh already answered it for me on page 12
BUT there are huge issues with all the crime evolving about it. Most prostitutes in fact don't do it out of their free will... So prohibiting it would probably be ok for the "greater good".
On October 01 2012 22:12 Velr wrote: It should be allowed.
BUT there are huge issues with all the crime evolving about it. Most prostitutes in fact don't do it out of their free will... So prohibiting it would probably be ok for the "greater good".
It's simple, guns are legal but running guns is not. prostitution becomes legal but running prostitutes would not, in Canada prostitution is legal but "pimps" are not, Body guards are and so are brothels but soliciting on the street is not. It's more highclass legality but at least it's something.
On October 01 2012 17:43 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Regarding ^
Actually that used to not be the case, but nowadays with the internet and asian massage parlors coming down it's a whole different game
I still disagree with that guy's post because it's dumb and there sure as hell is a skillset to being a prostitute
Is Sex Ed in high school where prostitutes learn how to have sex? What "skills" would you define that a "professional" prostitute has that a working mom doesn't have?
On September 30 2012 18:31 DigiGnar wrote: If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.)
it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones.
Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: 'people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.'
What are you even talking about? "Makes no sense to compare the physical abilities of humans"? Am I reading that right? So, you're saying the Olympics makes no sense? Cause that surely is probably the BIGGEST comparison of human ability in history. All a prostitute needs is a dick/vagina. There are plenty of desperate people who don't care about if they are fucking someone without a hand. Shit, the person without the hand could end up turning more profit due to fetishes.
My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers.
you sugested that humans end up prostitutes because they have low iq else they could get better jobs, right?; and then concluded that since all stupid (low iq) people end up victimized by their employers, the fact that they're used for their physical or for their mental abilities is irrelevant. am i getting this?. (note: prostitutes rely mostly or solely on their physical abilities else they're out of a job).
I suggested that people with low IQ have a hard/impossible time getting a good job. They end up, more often than not, as a dishwasher or a janitor. Tell me a rocket science who would rather mop the halls of a school, and tell me a person who mops the halls of school wouldn't want a better job. They are victims of society, because society doesn't allow them to be rocket scientists. You have to prove you can be one to be one, and no one with a low IQ will ever be a rocket scientist.
The people who are working these shit jobs aren't victimized by their employers, the employers are victimized because they must pay a minimum amount to someone who mops the halls of a school or washes dishes for a restaurant. Higher labor costs = higher prices + lower pay for the higher ups. Higher prices makes the consumer a victim and the supply chain a victim. Less money to buy from the supply chain = less money the supply chain has.
Prostitutes rely solely on demand of sex, not their physical abilities. There is no ability in having a vagina, except maybe one that can still get wet. Even then, there's billions of those. If I'm going to be desperate enough to pay for sex, I'm not going to really give a shit how good it is. As long as I get off, I'm good. All the woman literally has to do is literally nothing and take it. Sure, people have fetishes and will have to dish out money to receive their pleasure, but again, there is no ability in washing dishes. Anyone can do what they are told to do. Anyone can be told to get on all fours and act like a dog, and anyone can do that. (unless you want to bring in the missing limb people, but then they are actually getting cybernetic limbs nowadays.)
What I'm suggesting is that if prostitutes who are in the field are victims due to economic reasons, then everyone else is a victim because of economic reasons. Don't you think a pimp would rather not give any money at all to his employees?
you don't really know what you're talking about or maybe you're just trolling. - why would someone work for a pimp if they're not getting payed?. they can just work for themselfs. - prostitutes are chosen by the client based on the way they look and how much money does he has to spend on them. if you can get off fucking an std infested wet vagina that doesn't make it a standard for everyone else you know.
my point was that even thow, from an economic perspective, everyone is a victim, there must be made a distinction here about the degree of victimization. even with your twisted logic you must agree that is better to have a living person then a dead person, even from an economic perspective ( since a dead person can't work).
Whores usually don't work for themselves. A guy would take advantage of her. That's why there's pimps, to protect the girls they themselves beat. (This isn't the case 100%) Also, a girl working for herself is going to have to find clientele, and a pimp already has that covered.
Whores are chosen by their looks, yes, no one ever said they weren't. However, the demand for the whore is really a demand for sex, and if you're desperate enough, the looks start to matter less and less.
Who said anything about an STD infested vagina? I surely didn't, and I don't think you did. So, whatever standard you're trying to imply here doesn't really work.
As far as a living person and a dead person, did you know what machines have been in the workplace for a very long time now? We don't even need a live person to be fucking anymore, we could actually just make an android that we wouldn't have to pay. (I'm very sure that's already being developed as we speak.)
On October 01 2012 17:43 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Regarding ^
Actually that used to not be the case, but nowadays with the internet and asian massage parlors coming down it's a whole different game
I still disagree with that guy's post because it's dumb and there sure as hell is a skillset to being a prostitute
Is Sex Ed in high school where prostitutes learn how to have sex? What "skills" would you define that a "professional" prostitute has that a working mom doesn't have?
On September 30 2012 18:31 DigiGnar wrote: If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.)
it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones.
Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: 'people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.'
What are you even talking about? "Makes no sense to compare the physical abilities of humans"? Am I reading that right? So, you're saying the Olympics makes no sense? Cause that surely is probably the BIGGEST comparison of human ability in history. All a prostitute needs is a dick/vagina. There are plenty of desperate people who don't care about if they are fucking someone without a hand. Shit, the person without the hand could end up turning more profit due to fetishes.
My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers.
you sugested that humans end up prostitutes because they have low iq else they could get better jobs, right?; and then concluded that since all stupid (low iq) people end up victimized by their employers, the fact that they're used for their physical or for their mental abilities is irrelevant. am i getting this?. (note: prostitutes rely mostly or solely on their physical abilities else they're out of a job).
I suggested that people with low IQ have a hard/impossible time getting a good job. They end up, more often than not, as a dishwasher or a janitor. Tell me a rocket science who would rather mop the halls of a school, and tell me a person who mops the halls of school wouldn't want a better job. They are victims of society, because society doesn't allow them to be rocket scientists. You have to prove you can be one to be one, and no one with a low IQ will ever be a rocket scientist.
The people who are working these shit jobs aren't victimized by their employers, the employers are victimized because they must pay a minimum amount to someone who mops the halls of a school or washes dishes for a restaurant. Higher labor costs = higher prices + lower pay for the higher ups. Higher prices makes the consumer a victim and the supply chain a victim. Less money to buy from the supply chain = less money the supply chain has.
Prostitutes rely solely on demand of sex, not their physical abilities. There is no ability in having a vagina, except maybe one that can still get wet. Even then, there's billions of those. If I'm going to be desperate enough to pay for sex, I'm not going to really give a shit how good it is. As long as I get off, I'm good. All the woman literally has to do is literally nothing and take it. Sure, people have fetishes and will have to dish out money to receive their pleasure, but again, there is no ability in washing dishes. Anyone can do what they are told to do. Anyone can be told to get on all fours and act like a dog, and anyone can do that. (unless you want to bring in the missing limb people, but then they are actually getting cybernetic limbs nowadays.)
What I'm suggesting is that if prostitutes who are in the field are victims due to economic reasons, then everyone else is a victim because of economic reasons. Don't you think a pimp would rather not give any money at all to his employees?
you don't really know what you're talking about or maybe you're just trolling. - why would someone work for a pimp if they're not getting payed?. they can just work for themselfs. - prostitutes are chosen by the client based on the way they look and how much money does he has to spend on them. if you can get off fucking an std infested wet vagina that doesn't make it a standard for everyone else you know.
my point was that even thow, from an economic perspective, everyone is a victim, there must be made a distinction here about the degree of victimization. even with your twisted logic you must agree that is better to have a living person then a dead person, even from an economic perspective ( since a dead person can't work).
Whores usually don't work for themselves. A guy would take advantage of her. That's why there's pimps, to protect the girls they themselves beat. (This isn't the case 100%) Also, a girl working for herself is going to have to find clientele, and a pimp already has that covered.
Whores are chosen by their looks, yes, no one ever said they weren't. However, the demand for the whore is really a demand for sex, and if you're desperate enough, the looks start to matter less and less.
Who said anything about an STD infested vagina? I surely didn't, and I don't think you did. So, whatever standard you're trying to imply here doesn't really work.
As far as a living person and a dead person, did you know what machines have been in the workplace for a very long time now? We don't even need a live person to be fucking anymore, we could actually just make an android that we wouldn't have to pay. (I'm very sure that's already being developed as we speak.)
so you had no point to make since you just make up stuff as you go along.
to go back to where you started from, it doesn't matter if everyone is a victim or not, what matters is the effect it (the victimization) has on each individual, on each life. i'm done.
On September 30 2012 09:42 Wombat_NI wrote: @Voltaire, always enjoy your posts even the ones I disagree with, nice to see your post regarding virginity. People boasting about getting laid is so laughable, it's hardly an exclusive club. Being an interesting and thought-provoking poster on here, and indeed doubtlessly in your day-to-day life is far more worthy of note.
"Prostitution was empowering" As Belle de Jour, Dr Brooke Magnanti achieved global notoriety for years with a blog about her sexual encounters as a high-class escort in London.
"Prostitution was empowering" As Belle de Jour, Dr Brooke Magnanti achieved global notoriety for years with a blog about her sexual encounters as a high-class escort in London.
Checked the Belle de Jour blog and found nothing but adverts for her books, tantalizingly removed posts that are now adverts for her books, and posts about prostitution and gender relations issues. If by empowering she means empowering her to charge people money to read her uplifting and socially enlightening saga, I guess that quotation is correct.
My girlfriend and I have sex at night and that's ok. A man pays a woman to have sex and that's a prosecutable offense. A man pays a woman in a strip club 20$ a song to rub her ass on his dick, that's perfectly legal. What the fuck is wrong with this country.
My girlfriend and I have sex at night and that's ok. A man pays a woman to have sex and that's a prosecutable offense. A man pays a woman in a strip club 20$ a song to rub her ass on his dick, that's perfectly legal. What the fuck is wrong with this country.
On October 01 2012 17:43 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Regarding ^
Actually that used to not be the case, but nowadays with the internet and asian massage parlors coming down it's a whole different game
I still disagree with that guy's post because it's dumb and there sure as hell is a skillset to being a prostitute
Is Sex Ed in high school where prostitutes learn how to have sex? What "skills" would you define that a "professional" prostitute has that a working mom doesn't have?
On September 30 2012 18:31 DigiGnar wrote: If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.)
it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones.
Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: 'people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.'
What are you even talking about? "Makes no sense to compare the physical abilities of humans"? Am I reading that right? So, you're saying the Olympics makes no sense? Cause that surely is probably the BIGGEST comparison of human ability in history. All a prostitute needs is a dick/vagina. There are plenty of desperate people who don't care about if they are fucking someone without a hand. Shit, the person without the hand could end up turning more profit due to fetishes.
My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers.
you sugested that humans end up prostitutes because they have low iq else they could get better jobs, right?; and then concluded that since all stupid (low iq) people end up victimized by their employers, the fact that they're used for their physical or for their mental abilities is irrelevant. am i getting this?. (note: prostitutes rely mostly or solely on their physical abilities else they're out of a job).
I suggested that people with low IQ have a hard/impossible time getting a good job. They end up, more often than not, as a dishwasher or a janitor. Tell me a rocket science who would rather mop the halls of a school, and tell me a person who mops the halls of school wouldn't want a better job. They are victims of society, because society doesn't allow them to be rocket scientists. You have to prove you can be one to be one, and no one with a low IQ will ever be a rocket scientist.
The people who are working these shit jobs aren't victimized by their employers, the employers are victimized because they must pay a minimum amount to someone who mops the halls of a school or washes dishes for a restaurant. Higher labor costs = higher prices + lower pay for the higher ups. Higher prices makes the consumer a victim and the supply chain a victim. Less money to buy from the supply chain = less money the supply chain has.
Prostitutes rely solely on demand of sex, not their physical abilities. There is no ability in having a vagina, except maybe one that can still get wet. Even then, there's billions of those. If I'm going to be desperate enough to pay for sex, I'm not going to really give a shit how good it is. As long as I get off, I'm good. All the woman literally has to do is literally nothing and take it. Sure, people have fetishes and will have to dish out money to receive their pleasure, but again, there is no ability in washing dishes. Anyone can do what they are told to do. Anyone can be told to get on all fours and act like a dog, and anyone can do that. (unless you want to bring in the missing limb people, but then they are actually getting cybernetic limbs nowadays.)
What I'm suggesting is that if prostitutes who are in the field are victims due to economic reasons, then everyone else is a victim because of economic reasons. Don't you think a pimp would rather not give any money at all to his employees?
you don't really know what you're talking about or maybe you're just trolling. - why would someone work for a pimp if they're not getting payed?. they can just work for themselfs. - prostitutes are chosen by the client based on the way they look and how much money does he has to spend on them. if you can get off fucking an std infested wet vagina that doesn't make it a standard for everyone else you know.
my point was that even thow, from an economic perspective, everyone is a victim, there must be made a distinction here about the degree of victimization. even with your twisted logic you must agree that is better to have a living person then a dead person, even from an economic perspective ( since a dead person can't work).
Whores usually don't work for themselves. A guy would take advantage of her. That's why there's pimps, to protect the girls they themselves beat. (This isn't the case 100%) Also, a girl working for herself is going to have to find clientele, and a pimp already has that covered.
Whores are chosen by their looks, yes, no one ever said they weren't. However, the demand for the whore is really a demand for sex, and if you're desperate enough, the looks start to matter less and less.
Who said anything about an STD infested vagina? I surely didn't, and I don't think you did. So, whatever standard you're trying to imply here doesn't really work.
As far as a living person and a dead person, did you know what machines have been in the workplace for a very long time now? We don't even need a live person to be fucking anymore, we could actually just make an android that we wouldn't have to pay. (I'm very sure that's already being developed as we speak.)
I really don't think you have the requisite experience to fully understand what we're getting at here. If you really think that there is no skillset to having sex for a woman then that's the end of our discussion. I'm willing to meaningfully debate in an open, respectful manner, but that requires both of us to agree on some crucial postulates of which that there are varying levels of trainable skill involved in having sex as a woman and that there is a difference between good sex and bad sex are a part of. If I have to explain this to you, I'm wasting my time, because no matter how eloquently I can do it, it's something you'll just have to experience for yourself.
I'm not saying that to turn the argument on you as a person, I'm saying that because it's absolutely essential to having a debate about prostitution. It's similar to saying "what skill do you need to grill a steak? you just put it over fire."
On October 01 2012 17:43 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Regarding ^
Actually that used to not be the case, but nowadays with the internet and asian massage parlors coming down it's a whole different game
I still disagree with that guy's post because it's dumb and there sure as hell is a skillset to being a prostitute
Is Sex Ed in high school where prostitutes learn how to have sex? What "skills" would you define that a "professional" prostitute has that a working mom doesn't have?
On October 01 2012 17:16 xM(Z wrote:
On October 01 2012 06:39 DigiGnar wrote:
On October 01 2012 05:33 xM(Z wrote:
On October 01 2012 03:00 DigiGnar wrote:
On September 30 2012 19:13 xM(Z wrote:
On September 30 2012 18:31 DigiGnar wrote: If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.)
it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones.
Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: 'people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.'
What are you even talking about? "Makes no sense to compare the physical abilities of humans"? Am I reading that right? So, you're saying the Olympics makes no sense? Cause that surely is probably the BIGGEST comparison of human ability in history. All a prostitute needs is a dick/vagina. There are plenty of desperate people who don't care about if they are fucking someone without a hand. Shit, the person without the hand could end up turning more profit due to fetishes.
My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers.
you sugested that humans end up prostitutes because they have low iq else they could get better jobs, right?; and then concluded that since all stupid (low iq) people end up victimized by their employers, the fact that they're used for their physical or for their mental abilities is irrelevant. am i getting this?. (note: prostitutes rely mostly or solely on their physical abilities else they're out of a job).
I suggested that people with low IQ have a hard/impossible time getting a good job. They end up, more often than not, as a dishwasher or a janitor. Tell me a rocket science who would rather mop the halls of a school, and tell me a person who mops the halls of school wouldn't want a better job. They are victims of society, because society doesn't allow them to be rocket scientists. You have to prove you can be one to be one, and no one with a low IQ will ever be a rocket scientist.
The people who are working these shit jobs aren't victimized by their employers, the employers are victimized because they must pay a minimum amount to someone who mops the halls of a school or washes dishes for a restaurant. Higher labor costs = higher prices + lower pay for the higher ups. Higher prices makes the consumer a victim and the supply chain a victim. Less money to buy from the supply chain = less money the supply chain has.
Prostitutes rely solely on demand of sex, not their physical abilities. There is no ability in having a vagina, except maybe one that can still get wet. Even then, there's billions of those. If I'm going to be desperate enough to pay for sex, I'm not going to really give a shit how good it is. As long as I get off, I'm good. All the woman literally has to do is literally nothing and take it. Sure, people have fetishes and will have to dish out money to receive their pleasure, but again, there is no ability in washing dishes. Anyone can do what they are told to do. Anyone can be told to get on all fours and act like a dog, and anyone can do that. (unless you want to bring in the missing limb people, but then they are actually getting cybernetic limbs nowadays.)
What I'm suggesting is that if prostitutes who are in the field are victims due to economic reasons, then everyone else is a victim because of economic reasons. Don't you think a pimp would rather not give any money at all to his employees?
you don't really know what you're talking about or maybe you're just trolling. - why would someone work for a pimp if they're not getting payed?. they can just work for themselfs. - prostitutes are chosen by the client based on the way they look and how much money does he has to spend on them. if you can get off fucking an std infested wet vagina that doesn't make it a standard for everyone else you know.
my point was that even thow, from an economic perspective, everyone is a victim, there must be made a distinction here about the degree of victimization. even with your twisted logic you must agree that is better to have a living person then a dead person, even from an economic perspective ( since a dead person can't work).
Whores usually don't work for themselves. A guy would take advantage of her. That's why there's pimps, to protect the girls they themselves beat. (This isn't the case 100%) Also, a girl working for herself is going to have to find clientele, and a pimp already has that covered.
Whores are chosen by their looks, yes, no one ever said they weren't. However, the demand for the whore is really a demand for sex, and if you're desperate enough, the looks start to matter less and less.
Who said anything about an STD infested vagina? I surely didn't, and I don't think you did. So, whatever standard you're trying to imply here doesn't really work.
As far as a living person and a dead person, did you know what machines have been in the workplace for a very long time now? We don't even need a live person to be fucking anymore, we could actually just make an android that we wouldn't have to pay. (I'm very sure that's already being developed as we speak.)
I really don't think you have the requisite experience to fully understand what we're getting at here. If you really think that there is no skillset to having sex for a woman then that's the end of our discussion. I'm willing to meaningfully debate in an open, respectful manner, but that requires both of us to agree on some crucial postulates of which that there are varying levels of trainable skill involved in having sex as a woman and that there is a difference between good sex and bad sex are a part of. If I have to explain this to you, I'm wasting my time, because no matter how eloquently I can do it, it's something you'll just have to experience for yourself.
I'm not saying that to turn the argument on you as a person, I'm saying that because it's absolutely essential to having a debate about prostitution. It's similar to saying "what skill do you need to grill a steak? you just put it over fire."
Are you actually saying I need to experience good and bad sex? Like, I haven't? Are you throwing an ad hominen or whatever it's spelled at me? If so, then let me talk to your sisters/mothers/aunts/cousins who are reasonably attractive...
Have you been trained in sex? If so, then where does one get trained to have sex? What does one learn in skilled sex? Are you saying all people are inherently bad at sex and never get any better until they are trained? How many whores in history do you think have been trained?
"Prostitution was empowering" As Belle de Jour, Dr Brooke Magnanti achieved global notoriety for years with a blog about her sexual encounters as a high-class escort in London.
Checked the Belle de Jour blog and found nothing but adverts for her books, tantalizingly removed posts that are now adverts for her books, and posts about prostitution and gender relations issues. If by empowering she means empowering her to charge people money to read her uplifting and socially enlightening saga, I guess that quotation is correct.
Pretty much. She did it for the money and to promote her book rather than a genuine desire to share knowledge.
On October 01 2012 17:43 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Regarding ^
Actually that used to not be the case, but nowadays with the internet and asian massage parlors coming down it's a whole different game
I still disagree with that guy's post because it's dumb and there sure as hell is a skillset to being a prostitute
Is Sex Ed in high school where prostitutes learn how to have sex? What "skills" would you define that a "professional" prostitute has that a working mom doesn't have?
On October 01 2012 17:16 xM(Z wrote:
On October 01 2012 06:39 DigiGnar wrote:
On October 01 2012 05:33 xM(Z wrote:
On October 01 2012 03:00 DigiGnar wrote:
On September 30 2012 19:13 xM(Z wrote:
On September 30 2012 18:31 DigiGnar wrote: If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.)
it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones.
Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: 'people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.'
What are you even talking about? "Makes no sense to compare the physical abilities of humans"? Am I reading that right? So, you're saying the Olympics makes no sense? Cause that surely is probably the BIGGEST comparison of human ability in history. All a prostitute needs is a dick/vagina. There are plenty of desperate people who don't care about if they are fucking someone without a hand. Shit, the person without the hand could end up turning more profit due to fetishes.
My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers.
you sugested that humans end up prostitutes because they have low iq else they could get better jobs, right?; and then concluded that since all stupid (low iq) people end up victimized by their employers, the fact that they're used for their physical or for their mental abilities is irrelevant. am i getting this?. (note: prostitutes rely mostly or solely on their physical abilities else they're out of a job).
I suggested that people with low IQ have a hard/impossible time getting a good job. They end up, more often than not, as a dishwasher or a janitor. Tell me a rocket science who would rather mop the halls of a school, and tell me a person who mops the halls of school wouldn't want a better job. They are victims of society, because society doesn't allow them to be rocket scientists. You have to prove you can be one to be one, and no one with a low IQ will ever be a rocket scientist.
The people who are working these shit jobs aren't victimized by their employers, the employers are victimized because they must pay a minimum amount to someone who mops the halls of a school or washes dishes for a restaurant. Higher labor costs = higher prices + lower pay for the higher ups. Higher prices makes the consumer a victim and the supply chain a victim. Less money to buy from the supply chain = less money the supply chain has.
Prostitutes rely solely on demand of sex, not their physical abilities. There is no ability in having a vagina, except maybe one that can still get wet. Even then, there's billions of those. If I'm going to be desperate enough to pay for sex, I'm not going to really give a shit how good it is. As long as I get off, I'm good. All the woman literally has to do is literally nothing and take it. Sure, people have fetishes and will have to dish out money to receive their pleasure, but again, there is no ability in washing dishes. Anyone can do what they are told to do. Anyone can be told to get on all fours and act like a dog, and anyone can do that. (unless you want to bring in the missing limb people, but then they are actually getting cybernetic limbs nowadays.)
What I'm suggesting is that if prostitutes who are in the field are victims due to economic reasons, then everyone else is a victim because of economic reasons. Don't you think a pimp would rather not give any money at all to his employees?
you don't really know what you're talking about or maybe you're just trolling. - why would someone work for a pimp if they're not getting payed?. they can just work for themselfs. - prostitutes are chosen by the client based on the way they look and how much money does he has to spend on them. if you can get off fucking an std infested wet vagina that doesn't make it a standard for everyone else you know.
my point was that even thow, from an economic perspective, everyone is a victim, there must be made a distinction here about the degree of victimization. even with your twisted logic you must agree that is better to have a living person then a dead person, even from an economic perspective ( since a dead person can't work).
Whores usually don't work for themselves. A guy would take advantage of her. That's why there's pimps, to protect the girls they themselves beat. (This isn't the case 100%) Also, a girl working for herself is going to have to find clientele, and a pimp already has that covered.
Whores are chosen by their looks, yes, no one ever said they weren't. However, the demand for the whore is really a demand for sex, and if you're desperate enough, the looks start to matter less and less.
Who said anything about an STD infested vagina? I surely didn't, and I don't think you did. So, whatever standard you're trying to imply here doesn't really work.
As far as a living person and a dead person, did you know what machines have been in the workplace for a very long time now? We don't even need a live person to be fucking anymore, we could actually just make an android that we wouldn't have to pay. (I'm very sure that's already being developed as we speak.)
I really don't think you have the requisite experience to fully understand what we're getting at here. If you really think that there is no skillset to having sex for a woman then that's the end of our discussion. I'm willing to meaningfully debate in an open, respectful manner, but that requires both of us to agree on some crucial postulates of which that there are varying levels of trainable skill involved in having sex as a woman and that there is a difference between good sex and bad sex are a part of. If I have to explain this to you, I'm wasting my time, because no matter how eloquently I can do it, it's something you'll just have to experience for yourself.
I'm not saying that to turn the argument on you as a person, I'm saying that because it's absolutely essential to having a debate about prostitution. It's similar to saying "what skill do you need to grill a steak? you just put it over fire."
Are you actually saying I need to experience good and bad sex? Like, I haven't? Are you throwing an ad hominen or whatever it's spelled at me? If so, then let me talk to your sisters/mothers/aunts/cousins who are reasonably attractive...
Have you been trained in sex? If so, then where does one get trained to have sex? What does one learn in skilled sex? Are you saying all people are inherently bad at sex and never get any better until they are trained? How many whores in history do you think have been trained?
Are you trying to argue that experience has no bearing on ability in this?
On October 01 2012 17:43 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Regarding ^
Actually that used to not be the case, but nowadays with the internet and asian massage parlors coming down it's a whole different game
I still disagree with that guy's post because it's dumb and there sure as hell is a skillset to being a prostitute
Is Sex Ed in high school where prostitutes learn how to have sex? What "skills" would you define that a "professional" prostitute has that a working mom doesn't have?
On October 01 2012 17:16 xM(Z wrote:
On October 01 2012 06:39 DigiGnar wrote:
On October 01 2012 05:33 xM(Z wrote:
On October 01 2012 03:00 DigiGnar wrote:
On September 30 2012 19:13 xM(Z wrote:
On September 30 2012 18:31 DigiGnar wrote: If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.)
it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones.
Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: 'people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.'
What are you even talking about? "Makes no sense to compare the physical abilities of humans"? Am I reading that right? So, you're saying the Olympics makes no sense? Cause that surely is probably the BIGGEST comparison of human ability in history. All a prostitute needs is a dick/vagina. There are plenty of desperate people who don't care about if they are fucking someone without a hand. Shit, the person without the hand could end up turning more profit due to fetishes.
My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers.
you sugested that humans end up prostitutes because they have low iq else they could get better jobs, right?; and then concluded that since all stupid (low iq) people end up victimized by their employers, the fact that they're used for their physical or for their mental abilities is irrelevant. am i getting this?. (note: prostitutes rely mostly or solely on their physical abilities else they're out of a job).
I suggested that people with low IQ have a hard/impossible time getting a good job. They end up, more often than not, as a dishwasher or a janitor. Tell me a rocket science who would rather mop the halls of a school, and tell me a person who mops the halls of school wouldn't want a better job. They are victims of society, because society doesn't allow them to be rocket scientists. You have to prove you can be one to be one, and no one with a low IQ will ever be a rocket scientist.
The people who are working these shit jobs aren't victimized by their employers, the employers are victimized because they must pay a minimum amount to someone who mops the halls of a school or washes dishes for a restaurant. Higher labor costs = higher prices + lower pay for the higher ups. Higher prices makes the consumer a victim and the supply chain a victim. Less money to buy from the supply chain = less money the supply chain has.
Prostitutes rely solely on demand of sex, not their physical abilities. There is no ability in having a vagina, except maybe one that can still get wet. Even then, there's billions of those. If I'm going to be desperate enough to pay for sex, I'm not going to really give a shit how good it is. As long as I get off, I'm good. All the woman literally has to do is literally nothing and take it. Sure, people have fetishes and will have to dish out money to receive their pleasure, but again, there is no ability in washing dishes. Anyone can do what they are told to do. Anyone can be told to get on all fours and act like a dog, and anyone can do that. (unless you want to bring in the missing limb people, but then they are actually getting cybernetic limbs nowadays.)
What I'm suggesting is that if prostitutes who are in the field are victims due to economic reasons, then everyone else is a victim because of economic reasons. Don't you think a pimp would rather not give any money at all to his employees?
you don't really know what you're talking about or maybe you're just trolling. - why would someone work for a pimp if they're not getting payed?. they can just work for themselfs. - prostitutes are chosen by the client based on the way they look and how much money does he has to spend on them. if you can get off fucking an std infested wet vagina that doesn't make it a standard for everyone else you know.
my point was that even thow, from an economic perspective, everyone is a victim, there must be made a distinction here about the degree of victimization. even with your twisted logic you must agree that is better to have a living person then a dead person, even from an economic perspective ( since a dead person can't work).
Whores usually don't work for themselves. A guy would take advantage of her. That's why there's pimps, to protect the girls they themselves beat. (This isn't the case 100%) Also, a girl working for herself is going to have to find clientele, and a pimp already has that covered.
Whores are chosen by their looks, yes, no one ever said they weren't. However, the demand for the whore is really a demand for sex, and if you're desperate enough, the looks start to matter less and less.
Who said anything about an STD infested vagina? I surely didn't, and I don't think you did. So, whatever standard you're trying to imply here doesn't really work.
As far as a living person and a dead person, did you know what machines have been in the workplace for a very long time now? We don't even need a live person to be fucking anymore, we could actually just make an android that we wouldn't have to pay. (I'm very sure that's already being developed as we speak.)
I really don't think you have the requisite experience to fully understand what we're getting at here. If you really think that there is no skillset to having sex for a woman then that's the end of our discussion. I'm willing to meaningfully debate in an open, respectful manner, but that requires both of us to agree on some crucial postulates of which that there are varying levels of trainable skill involved in having sex as a woman and that there is a difference between good sex and bad sex are a part of. If I have to explain this to you, I'm wasting my time, because no matter how eloquently I can do it, it's something you'll just have to experience for yourself.
I'm not saying that to turn the argument on you as a person, I'm saying that because it's absolutely essential to having a debate about prostitution. It's similar to saying "what skill do you need to grill a steak? you just put it over fire."
Are you actually saying I need to experience good and bad sex? Like, I haven't? Are you throwing an ad hominen or whatever it's spelled at me? If so, then let me talk to your sisters/mothers/aunts/cousins who are reasonably attractive...
Have you been trained in sex? If so, then where does one get trained to have sex? What does one learn in skilled sex? Are you saying all people are inherently bad at sex and never get any better until they are trained? How many whores in history do you think have been trained?
Are you trying to argue that experience has no bearing on ability in this?
What do you mean by experience? Experience as in like XP? Experience as in a single session of sex?
I'm trying to argue that you don't need to be trained to have sex. Being experienced in sex is another thing, like banging an entire football team at once because you want to get back at your dad or some shit. I don't view sex as something you level up in, like a character from the FF series...
On October 01 2012 17:43 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Regarding ^
Actually that used to not be the case, but nowadays with the internet and asian massage parlors coming down it's a whole different game
I still disagree with that guy's post because it's dumb and there sure as hell is a skillset to being a prostitute
Is Sex Ed in high school where prostitutes learn how to have sex? What "skills" would you define that a "professional" prostitute has that a working mom doesn't have?
On October 01 2012 17:16 xM(Z wrote:
On October 01 2012 06:39 DigiGnar wrote:
On October 01 2012 05:33 xM(Z wrote:
On October 01 2012 03:00 DigiGnar wrote:
On September 30 2012 19:13 xM(Z wrote: [quote] it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones.
Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: 'people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.'
What are you even talking about? "Makes no sense to compare the physical abilities of humans"? Am I reading that right? So, you're saying the Olympics makes no sense? Cause that surely is probably the BIGGEST comparison of human ability in history. All a prostitute needs is a dick/vagina. There are plenty of desperate people who don't care about if they are fucking someone without a hand. Shit, the person without the hand could end up turning more profit due to fetishes.
My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers.
you sugested that humans end up prostitutes because they have low iq else they could get better jobs, right?; and then concluded that since all stupid (low iq) people end up victimized by their employers, the fact that they're used for their physical or for their mental abilities is irrelevant. am i getting this?. (note: prostitutes rely mostly or solely on their physical abilities else they're out of a job).
I suggested that people with low IQ have a hard/impossible time getting a good job. They end up, more often than not, as a dishwasher or a janitor. Tell me a rocket science who would rather mop the halls of a school, and tell me a person who mops the halls of school wouldn't want a better job. They are victims of society, because society doesn't allow them to be rocket scientists. You have to prove you can be one to be one, and no one with a low IQ will ever be a rocket scientist.
The people who are working these shit jobs aren't victimized by their employers, the employers are victimized because they must pay a minimum amount to someone who mops the halls of a school or washes dishes for a restaurant. Higher labor costs = higher prices + lower pay for the higher ups. Higher prices makes the consumer a victim and the supply chain a victim. Less money to buy from the supply chain = less money the supply chain has.
Prostitutes rely solely on demand of sex, not their physical abilities. There is no ability in having a vagina, except maybe one that can still get wet. Even then, there's billions of those. If I'm going to be desperate enough to pay for sex, I'm not going to really give a shit how good it is. As long as I get off, I'm good. All the woman literally has to do is literally nothing and take it. Sure, people have fetishes and will have to dish out money to receive their pleasure, but again, there is no ability in washing dishes. Anyone can do what they are told to do. Anyone can be told to get on all fours and act like a dog, and anyone can do that. (unless you want to bring in the missing limb people, but then they are actually getting cybernetic limbs nowadays.)
What I'm suggesting is that if prostitutes who are in the field are victims due to economic reasons, then everyone else is a victim because of economic reasons. Don't you think a pimp would rather not give any money at all to his employees?
you don't really know what you're talking about or maybe you're just trolling. - why would someone work for a pimp if they're not getting payed?. they can just work for themselfs. - prostitutes are chosen by the client based on the way they look and how much money does he has to spend on them. if you can get off fucking an std infested wet vagina that doesn't make it a standard for everyone else you know.
my point was that even thow, from an economic perspective, everyone is a victim, there must be made a distinction here about the degree of victimization. even with your twisted logic you must agree that is better to have a living person then a dead person, even from an economic perspective ( since a dead person can't work).
Whores usually don't work for themselves. A guy would take advantage of her. That's why there's pimps, to protect the girls they themselves beat. (This isn't the case 100%) Also, a girl working for herself is going to have to find clientele, and a pimp already has that covered.
Whores are chosen by their looks, yes, no one ever said they weren't. However, the demand for the whore is really a demand for sex, and if you're desperate enough, the looks start to matter less and less.
Who said anything about an STD infested vagina? I surely didn't, and I don't think you did. So, whatever standard you're trying to imply here doesn't really work.
As far as a living person and a dead person, did you know what machines have been in the workplace for a very long time now? We don't even need a live person to be fucking anymore, we could actually just make an android that we wouldn't have to pay. (I'm very sure that's already being developed as we speak.)
I really don't think you have the requisite experience to fully understand what we're getting at here. If you really think that there is no skillset to having sex for a woman then that's the end of our discussion. I'm willing to meaningfully debate in an open, respectful manner, but that requires both of us to agree on some crucial postulates of which that there are varying levels of trainable skill involved in having sex as a woman and that there is a difference between good sex and bad sex are a part of. If I have to explain this to you, I'm wasting my time, because no matter how eloquently I can do it, it's something you'll just have to experience for yourself.
I'm not saying that to turn the argument on you as a person, I'm saying that because it's absolutely essential to having a debate about prostitution. It's similar to saying "what skill do you need to grill a steak? you just put it over fire."
Are you actually saying I need to experience good and bad sex? Like, I haven't? Are you throwing an ad hominen or whatever it's spelled at me? If so, then let me talk to your sisters/mothers/aunts/cousins who are reasonably attractive...
Have you been trained in sex? If so, then where does one get trained to have sex? What does one learn in skilled sex? Are you saying all people are inherently bad at sex and never get any better until they are trained? How many whores in history do you think have been trained?
Are you trying to argue that experience has no bearing on ability in this?
What do you mean by experience? Experience as in like XP? Experience as in a single session of sex?
I'm trying to argue that you don't need to be trained to have sex. Being experienced in sex is another thing, like banging an entire football team at once because you want to get back at your dad or some shit. I don't view sex as something you level up in, like a character from the FF series...
Your reasoning on this is the most illogical and confusing stuff I've read in a while. You don't need to be trained to have sex, just like you could do a ton of other jobs without training. Of course, if you do get training and/or experience, you become better. Things like seduction and technique are two easily identified areas where a prostitute can distinguish herself, and both of those can be improved with training and/or experience.
Why the fuck are you even talking about RPG XP? Just to be obtuse?
On October 20 2012 10:51 Ra`s Al Ghul wrote: I'm thinking, in the case of auctioning one's virginity, would it be considered prostitution?
Um, yes of course. You're paying to have sex with someone.
I see a loophole then for the prostitutes.
They can just launch their sites and get clients directly there. They won't need intervention from the police and pimps. They get all the money.
Or they can just go the normal loophole route and become part of an escort service. Intercourse may not be on the books, but it's definitely never off the table.
I used the text to point things out, not necessarily thinking that the initial poster was of the opposite stance;
Simple version and intro- Vote; don't make prostitution legal, and make it illegal in the rest of the world. make pornography illegal. do not make pornography legal. -- ; Outside of husband and wife relations, "sex" is absolutely wrong( to say the least. ) Even within marriage, fantasy fetishes and 'unnatural acts' shouldn't be acted out and you need help if you do things like that. Procreation and sex aren't the same, and sex is irrelevant and not necessary for sustaining your life. Prostitution is 'beyond', or 'lower' than 'sex'.
Other version;
1 : the act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money 2 : the state of being prostituted : DEBASEMENT
--
KEY ISSUES 1. Victimless Crime? - Hide Spoiler - LEGAL Prostitution should not be a crime. Prostitutes are not committing an inherently harmful act. What makes prostitution a 'victimless crime' in the sense that no one is necessarily harmed by it is that there are consenting adults involved. Prostitution should not be legal. Whether or not identified as "crime", definitely something wrong. The factors of consent and "physical-maturation" do not equate to right, acceptable or "not-immoral". The lack of physical assault via fists, guns or knives does not make it "unharmful". Mental/psychological, emotional harm("spirit/soul/morale/mental-health") something almost impossible to rectify/heal compared to physical wounds. ie; suicidal/homicidal thoughts. Anger and disgust in general. Sick acts aren't just sick from a people carrying on a tradition of making it seem sick, it's because those who do sick things know first hand that it is in deed sick, and makes you feel sick, and is just sick, undeniably, from experience. "It's just wrong". Why not say, "hey, there were thousands of people on the earth who never had 'sex' and were fine, that means we should all just be celibate and stop being obsessed with sex, hey, you don't 'die' from lack sex, it's not like water or calories, it's so obvious. No, instead say "what? they're just freaks, they're not 'normal', 'normal' people need 'sex', or else, we'll kill each other." Or speak for yourself and admit that if you don't get to have sex with someone you will become violent because you want sex that bad that you would kill someone, and that you need help. Why not say the killing part is from the person's own hostile inner problems, and not having to do with not having intercourse?
ILLEGAL Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape -- acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. Agreed. Such things are, for lack of a better word, (or not) "evil". Ah, "destructive". -- 2. Prostitution & Free Choice - Hide Spoiler - LEGAL We chose sex work after we did a lot of things we couldn't stand. Sex work is better. For me, sex work isn't my first choice of paying work. It just happens to be the best alternative available. Because it's better than a lot of things person a or b couldn't stand by comparison. So I stop working as a dishwasher and go work as cashier. Dish washing and fornicating for money aren't in the same category, prostitution cannot be referred to as "other" job.
ILLEGAL The ILO [International Labour Organization] report admits that most women 'choose' prostitution for economic reasons. Surely no one can argue that this is free choice any more than the cattle in the squeeze chute choose to go to their death.
Pressure women to choose human-degrading prostitution or death, due to bad governing by government, and thus, bad economy. 2 by legalizing pornography/businesses that conduct videotaping acts of fornication+people who shamelessly do it cause woman to think about considering it. If it there were no pornography tolerated, there could be less consideration to such things and stronger integrity. 3, who is to say these women were pure in their decision. "Oh, I know it's bad but I'm only doing it because I have to, since no one will hire me", "I rather get paid to fornicate than work a job, I don't care about morals, it's not wrong". --
3. Prostitution & Violence - Hide Spoiler - LEGAL Decriminalization would better protect people in the sex industry from violence and abuse. ...Police cannot and do not simultaneously seek to arrest prostitutes and protect them from violence.... Indeed, women describe being told, 'What did you expect?' by police officers who refused to investigate acts of violence perpetrated against women whom they knew engaged in prostitution. The consequences of such attitudes are tragic: Gary Ridgway said that he killed prostitutes because he knew he would not be held accountable. The tragedy is that he was right - he confessed to the murders of 48 women, committed over nearly twenty years. That is truly criminal. This has to do with the responsibility of the authorities/government and whether or not they properly serve as enforcers. If a person doesn't do his or her job enforcing the law, that's the individual person. ILLEGAL Regardless of prostitution's status (legal, illegal or decriminalized) or its physical location (strip club, massage parlor, street, escort/home/hotel), prostitution is extremely dangerous for women. Homicide is a frequent cause of death....
It is a cruel lie to suggest that decriminalization or legalization will protect anyone in prostitution. It is not possible to protect someone whose source of income exposes them to the likelihood of being raped on average once a week.
-- 4. HIV/AIDS Prevention - Hide Spoiler - LEGAL For HIV/AIDS prevention to succeed, the conditions of risk have to change. The context - legal, social, economic - of sex work has to change, with repeal of criminal laws, access to visas and work permits, freedom of movement and association, and occupational safety and health regulations, to reduce the imposition of risk from above. Until then, it will be heroic, strong individuals that can insist on safe behaviours, leaving those who are less heroic, those who are more timid and afraid, to suffer the consequences of the context of risk.
Not sure how well this was attempting to articulate advocacy of one or the other but, don't engage in intercourse, get tested; problem solved. ILLEGAL Even if a prostitute is being tested every week for HIV, she will test negative for at least the first 4-6 weeks and possibly the first 12 weeks after being infected.... This means that while the test is becoming positive and the results are becoming known, that prostitute may expose up to 630 clients to HIV. This is under the best of circumstances with testing every week and a four-week window period. It also assumes that the prostitute will quit working as soon as he or she finds out the test is HIV positive, which is highly unlikely. This is not the best approach for actually reducing harm. Instead, in order to slow the global spread of HIV/AIDS we should focus our efforts on abolishing prostitution.
--- 5. Prostitution as a Legitimate Business - Hide Spoiler - LEGAL Sex work is legitimate work and problems within the industry are not inherent in the work itself. It is vulnerability, not sex work, which creates victims. Sex workers should enjoy the same labour rights as other workers and the same human rights as other people. Stop thinking that prostitution is "work" or a "job". Degradation is an understatement as to what it is. People do get hurt, and die, inside, in their head and soul.
"A woman, who had been involved in pornography as an adult performer, killed herself today, after having performed for two years"- sound like that could or couldn't happen? ofcourse, it sounds like it could. You don't kill yourself from working as cashier. You don't feel disgusted like "that" from working an absolutely innocent thing like organizing files. People comprehend why people would feel "disgusted" in doing such things, because they know what it is. You can't pretend like it is harmless. People have, however, contributed the most futile attempt to support their desire, by bringing up that prostitution "isn't hitting people with physical weapons and mortally wounding them". Physically abuse isn't the one and only thing in the world that is wrong.
ILLEGAL ne needs to completely rid oneself of the voracity for cash to see that prostitution, although legalized, can never be a legitimate business because it will always be associated with crime, corruption, class, mass sexual exploitation and human trafficking. Yes.
On October 20 2012 13:07 d[s]c wrote: I used the text to point things out, not necessarily thinking that the initial poster was of the opposite stance;
LEGAL Sex work is legitimate work and problems within the industry are not inherent in the work itself. It is vulnerability, not sex work, which creates victims. Sex workers should enjoy the same labour rights as other workers and the same human rights as other people. Stop thinking that prostitution is "work" or a "job". Degradation is an understatement as to what it is. People do get hurt, and die, inside, in their head and soul.
"A woman, who had been involved in pornography as an adult performer, killed herself today, after having performed for two years"- sound like that could or couldn't happen? ofcourse, it sounds like it could. You don't kill yourself from working as cashier. You don't feel disgusted like "that" from working an absolutely innocent thing like organizing files. People comprehend why people would feel "disgusted" in doing such things, because they know what it is. You can't pretend like it is harmless. People have, however, contributed the most futile attempt to support their desire, by bringing up that prostitution "isn't hitting people with physical weapons and mortally wounding them". Physically abuse isn't the one and only thing in the world that is wrong.
[/b]
Your format is confusing to me, but I disagree with this wholeheartedly. Society is what makes people feel this way. Why do you think there are homosexuals who kill themselves because they are gay today? Its not that being gay is wrong, its the environment the person has been in that gives them that perception. If cashiers were looked down upon in today's society you can better believe there would be the occasional person who would kill themselves because they were a cashier. The act itself is less important than the stigma attached to it.
edit: I get the format now, and only kept what you posted. Either way I disagree
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases. .
haha right just like most of us don't work our jobs out of free will
I actually agree with the sentiment but it's a ridiculous argument to try to make and a terrible reason to make something illegal.
As an individual who would never hire a prostitute, I would say this is something that should be legalized and taxed if possible. The OP was quite good. The responses quite reasonable.
My stance though, I would never hire a prostitute I would not judge people who would and have. Doesn't matter if you think you are ugly or good looking. This is more if people wish to please a need and wish to do it in a reasonable way. What is the real difference from dating a girl paying for the meal then sleeping with her? No different to me. I prefer to build a relationship and then sleep with the woman months after, but I don't judge people who go to bars and sleep with girls, that's their way, and mine is different, doesn't mean one way is wrong or right, just different routes. If everyone was the same the world would be different.
Also listening to snake eater right now from the Metal Gear Solid series, this song is amazing. Look it up.
edit: Spelling error. maybe more but it's what I found =o Sorry.
On October 20 2012 13:07 d[s]c wrote: "A woman, who had been involved in pornography as an adult performer, killed herself today, after having performed for two years"- sound like that could or couldn't happen? ofcourse, it sounds like it could. You don't kill yourself from working as cashier. You don't feel disgusted like "that" from working an absolutely innocent thing like organizing files. People comprehend why people would feel "disgusted" in doing such things, because they know what it is.
Also you have some really, really messed up views on sex. I feel genuinely sorry for you. Sex is a celebration of passion and the human body, even the icky parts.
Dsc I don't think I've ever disagreed with someone on this forum as vehemently as I do with what you just typed. Your entire premise revolves around what is, quite frankly, an archaic view of sex the likes of which horror stories are made from.
On October 20 2012 14:00 Jayme wrote: Dsc I don't think I've ever disagreed with someone on this forum as vehemently as I do with what you just typed. Your entire premise revolves around what is, quite frankly, an archaic view of sex the likes of which horror stories are made from.
Everything he posted seems to be completely ignorant of how real life works =/
He honestly thinks prostitutes and escorts "risk getting raped weekly"... he also seems to think that prostitute as a word means females and that only evil men would ever dare pay for sex
When i think of lets say a cripple or a really ugly person not getting any. What are they going to do? I dont think they will just accept a life of fapping off. They will either 1) forcefully get sex (rape) , or 2)higher a prostitute.
I think if prostitution was legalized, it would actually lead to less women being raped or killed. These women who would once work in the dirty streets jumping into random cars with strangers , Would now be in Sanctioned Legal Hoe houses that have improved standards of hygiene/ STD and HIV testing and protection for the women. And it can be taxed......
There is like absolutely no reason prostitution should be illegal.
In certain country's i dont think it would be advised to legalize though due to outrageous religious believes some people have in this world about prostitution which would lead to wars or riots. (Muslims want their women covered up from head to toe and wont accept this)
When they touched on the fact that they are "forced" to resign to prostitution due to economic reasons, how is illigalizing it going to help. You're just taking the only source of income available to them away. Of course, being homeless and dying of hunger is legal, so...
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases. .
haha right just like most of us don't work our jobs out of free will
I actually agree with the sentiment but it's a ridiculous argument to try to make and a terrible reason to make something illegal.
oh yes xD 80% of the people would do other jobs if they have the money to do xD
for me its always funny seeing in america "stars" getting "caught" with prostitutes so big scandal etc and here its just like who cares ^^
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases. .
haha right just like most of us don't work our jobs out of free will
I actually agree with the sentiment but it's a ridiculous argument to try to make and a terrible reason to make something illegal.
I don't think it's that far fetched. I'll try to illustrate what I mean using an example:
A young woman becomes unemployed. She's a scientist by profession, but right now no jobs in her area of expertise are available. Now, she'll usually be eligible for some kind of subsidiaries, however they may look in a given country. However, this societal support comes with the requirement to actively look for a job, any kind of job, even if it has nothing to do with her actual profession.
Case 1) She gets offered a job in a bakery. The labor is boring her, she's totally overqualified, she hates getting up at 4 o'clock in the morning... nevertheless, we would expect her to take that job, at least until she gets a better one, because those are reasonable constraints.
Case 2) She gets offered a job as a prostitute. She doesn't want to engage in sex for money. Nobody would even argue that her subsidiaries should be cut if she refuses, because it is unreasonable to expect her to accept the constraints involved in this field of work.
What I'm getting at is that, yes, a lot of people do jobs out of necessity and not out of "free will". But the burden of being a baker by necessity is far far smaller than the one of being a prostitute. Mind you, I'm not saying that prostitution is a case sui generis... I'd argue that the same goes, for example, for the job of a soldier (even though the reasons are completely different, I don't think you can reasonably expect everybody to engage in warfare). And neither am I saying that the idea of a prostitute choosing her profession not by necessity is completely absurd. Still, prostitution is not a job like any other, and the cases of jobs posing such unreasonable constraints are scarce and quite exceptional, imho.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
But nobody wants to be a prostitute by free will. It is because they have no money, so they have to be a prostitute.Does that make sense?
I disagree with this. Sex has a lot of social bullshit tied up with it and everyone has their own subjective perspective, the idea that nobody would be a prostitute because you can't imagine it is fundamentally flawed.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
But nobody wants to be a prostitute by free will. It is because they have no money, so they have to be a prostitute.Does that make sense?
The average prostitute, were she to fairly receive her income, earns several times more than someone with a masters.
There are plenty of women that would gladly be prostitutes for the money that is involved. Saying that nobody wants to be a prostitute is ridiculious. You can find people that will let themselves be pissed on for free, but sex for money is too kinky?
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
But nobody wants to be a prostitute by free will. It is because they have no money, so they have to be a prostitute.Does that make sense?
That can be said for a shitload of occupations. Most people have a problem with prostitution because of the social construct of prostitution being unethical. I'd argue there are much more "unethical" jobs (e.g., most corporate business), and there are many "prostitutes" who market their body for material/social gain without being recognized as "prostitutes."
On September 30 2012 11:01 Bigtony wrote: I would like to live in a world where people don't have to sell the intimate nature of their bodies to make a living.
I think most people agree with you on this, although I don't think whether it's legal or illegal has any bearing. Making it illegal doesn't make people suddenly not need income, as I'm sure you know.
And that exactly goes on to show you how ruined our societies are. I feel like prostitution is only a consequence of much bigger problems that we need to tackle first.
Never paid for it (directly), but I see no issue with it. Should be legal and regulated. Safety for the buyer and seller etc. How can it be illegal to accept money to sleep with someone anyway? Makes no sense whatsoever.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
There might be a small fraction of people that have sex for money by free will - but that number is likely VERY small.
That's just a socialist propaganda. Choice between an unpleasant job and poverty or hunger is as legitimate as any other.
Well said! I was disgusted when I read that too.... How many people choose jobs they love compared to jobs they need because of economical factors.
If job A pays more than job B, or if job B doesn't exist, then you choose job A.
If it's legalised then it can be regulated. I think the regulations need to be improved (on countries where it is currently legal) to justify legalisation in countries that are considering the switchover. In the US where legal brothels seem to be run by 'natives' and staffed by 'natives' (AKA not trafficked) the system seems to work best
On October 20 2012 13:07 d[s]c wrote: "A woman, who had been involved in pornography as an adult performer, killed herself today, after having performed for two years"- sound like that could or couldn't happen? ofcourse, it sounds like it could. You don't kill yourself from working as cashier. You don't feel disgusted like "that" from working an absolutely innocent thing like organizing files. People comprehend why people would feel "disgusted" in doing such things, because they know what it is.
Also you have some really, really messed up views on sex. I feel genuinely sorry for you. Sex is a celebration of passion and the human body, even the icky parts.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
But nobody wants to be a prostitute by free will. It is because they have no money, so they have to be a prostitute.Does that make sense?
This sentence is just....wrong. Yes, people exist in this world that would love to be a prostitute if it were legalized. Even more so, there are people who are prostitutes in places where it's illegal to do it, but they still do it because they're good at it, and they're protected by their employers.
Saying that no one would ever want to be a prostitute out of their own free will is a terrible generalization, and a very wrong one.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
There might be a small fraction of people that have sex for money by free will - but that number is likely VERY small.
That's just a socialist propaganda. Choice between an unpleasant job and poverty or hunger is as legitimate as any other.
Well said! I was disgusted when I read that too.... How many people choose jobs they love compared to jobs they need because of economical factors.
If job A pays more than job B, or if job B doesn't exist, then you choose job A.
Free will doesn't factor in here.
Umm no. Maybe you are not qualified enough for Job A. Maybe there are no openings in job A. Maybe you really dislike job A. Human beings are not mindless maximizers working in a vacuum, there are a lot of structural-social-cultural constraints on human action and choice.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
But nobody wants to be a prostitute by free will. It is because they have no money, so they have to be a prostitute.Does that make sense?
Nobody works at McDonald's by free will. It is because they have no money, so they have to be a burger flipper.
Workers of the world unite?
My first job was at McDonalds. I could have worked at: Tim Horton's, WalMart, BK, Wendy's, grocery store, paper route, any restaurant, ANY other minimum wage job.
Obviously we all need money, obviously to obtain said money legally, we need to work. Therefore, we choose to work. WHERE and WHAT we choose to do? We choose via our own free will.
On September 29 2012 01:50 noD wrote: As long as they are doing by free will no problem ... It's actually the oldest job known by man
I wonder what precentage of prostitutes that do it by free will is. If someone choose prostitution because of economical issues - thats not free will. Thats being pushed into it. Same goes for acknowledgement issues and actually most cases.
There might be a small fraction of people that have sex for money by free will - but that number is likely VERY small.
That's just a socialist propaganda. Choice between an unpleasant job and poverty or hunger is as legitimate as any other.
Well said! I was disgusted when I read that too.... How many people choose jobs they love compared to jobs they need because of economical factors.
If job A pays more than job B, or if job B doesn't exist, then you choose job A.
Free will doesn't factor in here.
Umm no. Maybe you are not qualified enough for Job A. Maybe there are no openings in job A. Maybe you really dislike job A. Human beings are not mindless maximizers working in a vacuum, there are a lot of structural-social-cultural constraints on human action and choice.
Regardless of structural-social-cultural constraints, we use free will to make any and all of our choices in life. (unless we're slaves) and these choices include what job to work. Unless you're trying to say the ONLY job said person could POSSIBLY find is prostitution. Which we all know simply isn't the case.
Also, the fact that you "chose to dislike job A"?? Free Will.
I think prostitution should be legalized but also regulated and controlled.
In my country, austria, prostitution in registered bordels is legalized, street prostitution is prohibited and only allowed in special areas.
The Prostitute has to have medical checkups once a week(basic STD checkup) and every half year a very meticulous checkup.
This checkups will be registered in a special card every prostitude owns and the police checks the the bordels regulary if they catch someone without card or without a medial checkup, depending on how long they didnt have a checkup they must pay a fine etc.
I think it is very good decision from my gouvernement to have medical checkups but it is not enough.
I think what is very important is to restrict working hours, some bordels and prostitutes work almost 24/hours shifts, clearly this should be limited.
Also not all but the most part of prostitutes com from countrys with a poor economy, which is not the main problem, but they dont know their rights, they dont understand english or german etc. they are taken advantage of very often,they work hard but must give most of their money to their bordel owner or even worse their "protector" if they have one.
I think prostitution needs some lobby in our country, with additional laws providing a better working condition and if the prostitute gets their fair share of the money earned i think it is ok.
So i think it should be legalized but only with good laws supporting the safty both in health and working conditions and the wage.
On October 20 2012 23:02 b3n3tt3 wrote: If every moral aspect is disregarded, it would be very practical to legalize prostitution. Prostitutes would be allowed benefits of a normal worker.
What is immoral about 2 consenting adults having sex? Unless you're bringing religion into the discussion, sex isn't immoral.
prostitution being legal is just bullshit, because that indicates it is under control. the right word would be tolerated.
in hanover/germany we got really many prostitutes. on the streets (major point funnily enough being where a big police station is located), as well as a main red light district (which also has some of the cities better music clubs) and at least two smaller. so if you are into nightlife, its quite likely you have met prostitutes. one thing you will notice is that pretty much none of them speaks german besides "hitting" on you with some random phrase including the word fuck and a price (which is about 30 euros, in case anyone wonders). you really thing those girls got a work permission? they try to get the maximum out of this for a few weeks/months and then get the fuck out of here back to eastern europe, thailand or whatever.
On October 20 2012 23:12 Corvi wrote: prostitution being legal is just bullshit, because that indicates it is under control. the right word would be tolerated.
in hanover/germany we got really many prostitutes. on the streets (major point funnily enough being where a big police station is located), as well as a main red light district (which also has some of the cities better music clubs) and at least two smaller. so if you are into nightlife, its quite likely you have met prostitutes. one thing you will notice is that pretty much none of them speaks german besides "hitting" on you with some random phrase including the word fuck and a price (which is about 30 euros, in case anyone wonders). you really thing those girls got a work permission? they try to get the maximum out of this for a few weeks/months and then get the fuck out of here back to eastern europe, thailand or whatever.
Just because they did a terrible job legalizing it where you're from doesn't mean it can't be correctly legalized elsewhere in the world.
On October 20 2012 13:07 d[s]c wrote: "A woman, who had been involved in pornography as an adult performer, killed herself today, after having performed for two years"- sound like that could or couldn't happen? ofcourse, it sounds like it could. You don't kill yourself from working as cashier. You don't feel disgusted like "that" from working an absolutely innocent thing like organizing files. People comprehend why people would feel "disgusted" in doing such things, because they know what it is.
Also you have some really, really messed up views on sex. I feel genuinely sorry for you. Sex is a celebration of passion and the human body, even the icky parts.
Also an efficient method to spread disease
Absolutely! Obviously as a species we need to stop having sex in order to prolong the survival of species and not die from disease... Wait!
The main concern should be for the women involved (the actual workers). If it's legalised it should be to their benefit, protection and overall wellbeing. Not to appease our personal, moral and social views. Thinking otherwise reeks of closet misogyny.
On October 20 2012 13:07 d[s]c wrote: "A woman, who had been involved in pornography as an adult performer, killed herself today, after having performed for two years"- sound like that could or couldn't happen? ofcourse, it sounds like it could. You don't kill yourself from working as cashier. You don't feel disgusted like "that" from working an absolutely innocent thing like organizing files. People comprehend why people would feel "disgusted" in doing such things, because they know what it is.
Also you have some really, really messed up views on sex. I feel genuinely sorry for you. Sex is a celebration of passion and the human body, even the icky parts.
Also an efficient method to spread disease
there is almost 0 STIs in porn because of rigorous screening and control. a more legal and open sex business could and should have the same standards.
On September 29 2012 02:04 Lann555 wrote: Just like with 'drugs' the reason for the existence of prostitution is because there exist a demand. Supply follows the demand, not the other way around. This is why, historically, trying to ban things (effectively trying to cut off supply) never works, because the demand will still exist and people will go out of their way to supply it. And since prices tend to skyrocket when you try to ban the supply, people will go to extreme lengths to claim their share of the pie, which is a recipe for violence. So I take the pragmatic view: prostitution (like drugs and other vices) will exist anyway, unless you find a way to monitor everyone 24/7 or chemically alter them to stop demand or other draconic measures. So if it's going to happen anyway, it's better to make sure it happens in a safe and organized fashion, which can only be achieved through legalization.
I completely agree with Lann555 and could not have said it better myself. Such straight forward logic. It is amazing that the powers that be don't seem to understand this.
On October 20 2012 23:12 Corvi wrote: prostitution being legal is just bullshit, because that indicates it is under control. the right word would be tolerated.
in hanover/germany we got really many prostitutes. on the streets (major point funnily enough being where a big police station is located), as well as a main red light district (which also has some of the cities better music clubs) and at least two smaller. so if you are into nightlife, its quite likely you have met prostitutes. one thing you will notice is that pretty much none of them speaks german besides "hitting" on you with some random phrase including the word fuck and a price (which is about 30 euros, in case anyone wonders). you really thing those girls got a work permission? they try to get the maximum out of this for a few weeks/months and then get the fuck out of here back to eastern europe, thailand or whatever.
In the case of Germany, the Thai women are generally man-baiters who caught their prey in Thailand, and not soujourning desmoiselles. Their original purposes were almost always securing the financial advantage of a German husband for themselves, their children or families, however, this not a problem sufficiently widespread to warrant special attention. Personally I have only met a few women in Germany who met this description. Others who met this description may have come from India or Latin America, and it's not always certain that they impose great domestic burdens upon their enthralled quarries.
Eastern Europe continues to invade Germany with its infinite supply of venturing vixens, but trafficking is not a major problem here either. Germany's frozen but effective regulations regime maintains a semblence of order and safety, and minimises the risk for all parties.
What is less savory is connected to the general immigration problem in Germany, and the increasingly uprooted feeling of many Metropolitan down town areas. I was shocked out of my boots when I arrived in the Main Station of Frankfurt am Main, and walked across the road only to find that the entire area opposite the station was a Red Light District. In some larger cities like Munich or Berlin, worldly establishments are placed in similarly accessible locations, in public view.
All this is related to the condition that probably the majority of both the purveyors and their clientel are now non-German, whose presences in the CBD, combined with the Ali Baba Kebab shop and the Egypt-call-centre next door, have exorcised many German cities of their venerable and ancient souls. (Immigrants being in my estimation though only the second cause; the first being non-sexual traffic.) Germany may have avoided the white flight and suburbanisation which have been denuding American cities of their charm for many generations now, but it is coming on all the same, with Berlin being the advanced example. To these large and portentous trends the presence of urban prostitution is but a drop in the bucket. It works its cancerous appendages across the diseased bodies of towns and cities as only Germans can manage it: safely, orderedly, and efficiently. For the partisans of commercialised Eros, it is indeed a paragon of those secondary virtues.
On October 20 2012 23:12 Corvi wrote: prostitution being legal is just bullshit, because that indicates it is under control. the right word would be tolerated.
in hanover/germany we got really many prostitutes. on the streets (major point funnily enough being where a big police station is located), as well as a main red light district (which also has some of the cities better music clubs) and at least two smaller. so if you are into nightlife, its quite likely you have met prostitutes. one thing you will notice is that pretty much none of them speaks german besides "hitting" on you with some random phrase including the word fuck and a price (which is about 30 euros, in case anyone wonders). you really thing those girls got a work permission? they try to get the maximum out of this for a few weeks/months and then get the fuck out of here back to eastern europe, thailand or whatever.
You're operating with the assumption that prostitution is bad, but you have yet to explain why prostitution is bad.
In other words, you don't actually have a logical argument.
On October 20 2012 23:12 Corvi wrote: prostitution being legal is just bullshit, because that indicates it is under control. the right word would be tolerated.
Legal literally just means permitted by law. It doesn't indicate a thing about control, it just means it's not explicitly disallowed. It's legal for me to masturbate, too, and that sure isn't under control.
On October 21 2012 16:58 Voltaire wrote: Watching the TV show "Cathouse" makes me want to visit a brothel in Nevada.
A lot of these girls enjoy their jobs. There are plenty of people willing to do this safely and legally.
Oh suuuure. HBO horny series is such a great source of information. And the whores looked soooo happy. Isn't the world beautiful?
"A grotesque exercise in the dehumanization of women is carried out routinely at Sheri's Ranch, a legal brothel about an hour’s ride outside of Vegas. There the women have to respond like Pavlov’s dog to an electronic bell that might ring at any hour of the day or night. At the sound of the bell, the prostitutes have five minutes to get to an assembly area where they line up, virtually naked, and submit to a humiliating inspection by any prospective customer who has happened to drop by" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15herbert.html?_r=1
Brothels impose some extraordinary restrictions on commercial sex workers" in order to "separate sex workers from the local community": some places forbid prostitutes to leave the brothels for extended periods of time, while other jurisdictions require the prostitutes to leave the county when they are not working; some places do not allow the children of the women who work in the brothels to live in the same area; some brothel workers who have cars must register the vehicle with the local police, and workers are not permitted to leave the brothel after 5pm; in some counties registered sex workers are not allowed to have cars at all. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/apr/03/nevada-prostitution-
If you believe their PR, Nevada's legal brothels are safe, healthy – even fun – places in which to work. So why do so many prostitutes tell such horrific tales of abuse? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/07/usa.gender
But of course I guess in libertarian's fantasy world, protitution is all great because women chose it freely. You know. They enjoy being raped 30 times a day for the profit of abusive bosses with a contract that transform them into semi slaves.
A brothel owner is somebody who, when it gets down to the very essence, is nothing more than a slave-owner Assemblyman Bob L. Beers http://www.lvrj.com/news/9612332.html
On October 21 2012 16:58 Voltaire wrote: Watching the TV show "Cathouse" makes me want to visit a brothel in Nevada.
A lot of these girls enjoy their jobs. There are plenty of people willing to do this safely and legally.
Oh suuuure. HBO horny series is such a great source of information. And the whores looked soooo happy. Isn't the world beautiful?
"A grotesque exercise in the dehumanization of women is carried out routinely at Sheri's Ranch, a legal brothel about an hour’s ride outside of Vegas. There the women have to respond like Pavlov’s dog to an electronic bell that might ring at any hour of the day or night. At the sound of the bell, the prostitutes have five minutes to get to an assembly area where they line up, virtually naked, and submit to a humiliating inspection by any prospective customer who has happened to drop by" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15herbert.html?_r=1
Brothels impose some extraordinary restrictions on commercial sex workers" in order to "separate sex workers from the local community": some places forbid prostitutes to leave the brothels for extended periods of time, while other jurisdictions require the prostitutes to leave the county when they are not working; some places do not allow the children of the women who work in the brothels to live in the same area; some brothel workers who have cars must register the vehicle with the local police, and workers are not permitted to leave the brothel after 5pm; in some counties registered sex workers are not allowed to have cars at all. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/apr/03/nevada-prostitution-
If you believe their PR, Nevada's legal brothels are safe, healthy – even fun – places in which to work. So why do so many prostitutes tell such horrific tales of abuse? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/07/usa.gender
But of course I guess in libertarian's fantasy world, protitution is all great because women chose it freely. You know. They enjoy being raped 30 times a day for the profit of abusive bosses with a contract that transform them into semi slaves.
A brothel owner is somebody who, when it gets down to the very essence, is nothing more than a slave-owner Assemblyman Bob L. Beers
If you don't like the conditions for working as a prostitute, don't be a prostitute. Get a job at McDonald's or Wal-Mart. You are in charge of your own life. Make your own decisions. We really can't help it if they're too stupid to get away from this horrible, horrible job that they have.
It's their choice that they'd rather get fucked for money instead of working for it like everyone else. It's probably not as bad as working at Wal-Mart in their minds. Should we make working at Wal-Mart illegal as well?
[edit] Personally, I've met about 4 happy prostitutes for every 1 depressed one. That's a better ratio than people working at most fast-food places. [/edit]
On October 21 2012 18:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 21 2012 16:58 Voltaire wrote: Watching the TV show "Cathouse" makes me want to visit a brothel in Nevada.
A lot of these girls enjoy their jobs. There are plenty of people willing to do this safely and legally.
Oh suuuure. HBO horny series is such a great source of information. And the whores looked soooo happy. Isn't the world beautiful?
"A grotesque exercise in the dehumanization of women is carried out routinely at Sheri's Ranch, a legal brothel about an hour’s ride outside of Vegas. There the women have to respond like Pavlov’s dog to an electronic bell that might ring at any hour of the day or night. At the sound of the bell, the prostitutes have five minutes to get to an assembly area where they line up, virtually naked, and submit to a humiliating inspection by any prospective customer who has happened to drop by" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15herbert.html?_r=1
Brothels impose some extraordinary restrictions on commercial sex workers" in order to "separate sex workers from the local community": some places forbid prostitutes to leave the brothels for extended periods of time, while other jurisdictions require the prostitutes to leave the county when they are not working; some places do not allow the children of the women who work in the brothels to live in the same area; some brothel workers who have cars must register the vehicle with the local police, and workers are not permitted to leave the brothel after 5pm; in some counties registered sex workers are not allowed to have cars at all. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/apr/03/nevada-prostitution-
If you believe their PR, Nevada's legal brothels are safe, healthy – even fun – places in which to work. So why do so many prostitutes tell such horrific tales of abuse? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/07/usa.gender
But of course I guess in libertarian's fantasy world, protitution is all great because women chose it freely. You know. They enjoy being raped 30 times a day for the profit of abusive bosses with a contract that transform them into semi slaves.
A brothel owner is somebody who, when it gets down to the very essence, is nothing more than a slave-owner Assemblyman Bob L. Beers
If you don't like the conditions for working as a prostitute, don't be a prostitute. Get a job at McDonald's or Wal-Mart. You are in charge of your own life. Make your own decisions. We really can't help it if they're too stupid to get away from this horrible, horrible job that they have.
It's their choice that they'd rather get fucked for money instead of working for it like everyone else. It's probably not as bad as working at Wal-Mart in their minds. Should we make working at Wal-Mart illegal as well?
Yeaaah, world is so simple
"If you don't want to be beaten by your husband, leave him": let's stop making laws against beating your wife "If you don't want to be exploited to death and harass by your boss, leave your job": let's stop making any rules about working conditions
Should I carry on? I can find 50 more.
[edit] Personally, I've met about 4 happy prostitutes for every 1 depressed one. That's a better ratio than people working at most fast-food places. [/edit]
Yeah? I'm sure you really know about those "happy" prostitute. Cuz you know, they tell everybody everything.
And if you don't see the difference between being unhappy selling burgers and what was described in those articles in terms of slavery, rape, humiliation, degradation etc..., you really have a problem.
On October 20 2012 13:07 d[s]c wrote: "A woman, who had been involved in pornography as an adult performer, killed herself today, after having performed for two years"- sound like that could or couldn't happen? ofcourse, it sounds like it could. You don't kill yourself from working as cashier. You don't feel disgusted like "that" from working an absolutely innocent thing like organizing files. People comprehend why people would feel "disgusted" in doing such things, because they know what it is.
Also you have some really, really messed up views on sex. I feel genuinely sorry for you. Sex is a celebration of passion and the human body, even the icky parts.
Sex is just sex ok. It can be a celebration. It can be humilitation.
On October 21 2012 18:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 21 2012 16:58 Voltaire wrote: Watching the TV show "Cathouse" makes me want to visit a brothel in Nevada.
A lot of these girls enjoy their jobs. There are plenty of people willing to do this safely and legally.
Oh suuuure. HBO horny series is such a great source of information. And the whores looked soooo happy. Isn't the world beautiful?
"A grotesque exercise in the dehumanization of women is carried out routinely at Sheri's Ranch, a legal brothel about an hour’s ride outside of Vegas. There the women have to respond like Pavlov’s dog to an electronic bell that might ring at any hour of the day or night. At the sound of the bell, the prostitutes have five minutes to get to an assembly area where they line up, virtually naked, and submit to a humiliating inspection by any prospective customer who has happened to drop by" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15herbert.html?_r=1
Brothels impose some extraordinary restrictions on commercial sex workers" in order to "separate sex workers from the local community": some places forbid prostitutes to leave the brothels for extended periods of time, while other jurisdictions require the prostitutes to leave the county when they are not working; some places do not allow the children of the women who work in the brothels to live in the same area; some brothel workers who have cars must register the vehicle with the local police, and workers are not permitted to leave the brothel after 5pm; in some counties registered sex workers are not allowed to have cars at all. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/apr/03/nevada-prostitution-
If you believe their PR, Nevada's legal brothels are safe, healthy – even fun – places in which to work. So why do so many prostitutes tell such horrific tales of abuse? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/07/usa.gender
But of course I guess in libertarian's fantasy world, protitution is all great because women chose it freely. You know. They enjoy being raped 30 times a day for the profit of abusive bosses with a contract that transform them into semi slaves.
A brothel owner is somebody who, when it gets down to the very essence, is nothing more than a slave-owner Assemblyman Bob L. Beers
If you don't like the conditions for working as a prostitute, don't be a prostitute. Get a job at McDonald's or Wal-Mart. You are in charge of your own life. Make your own decisions. We really can't help it if they're too stupid to get away from this horrible, horrible job that they have.
It's their choice that they'd rather get fucked for money instead of working for it like everyone else. It's probably not as bad as working at Wal-Mart in their minds. Should we make working at Wal-Mart illegal as well?
Yeaaah, world is so simple
"If you don't want to be beaten by your husband, leave him": let's stop making laws against beating your wife "If you don't want to be exploited to death and harass by your boss, leave your job": let's stop making any rules about working conditions
[edit] Personally, I've met about 4 happy prostitutes for every 1 depressed one. That's a better ratio than people working at most fast-food places. [/edit]
Yeah? I'm sure you really know about those "happy" prostitute. Cuz you know, they tell everybody everything.
And if you don't see the difference between being unhappy selling burgers and what was described in those articles in terms of slavery, rape, humiliation, degradation etc..., you really have a problem.
You've drawn an equivalency between domestic violence and sex work. The reason protection against violence needs to be legally enshrined is obvious, would you like to make the case why protection from sex work when working as a prostitute needs to be legally enshrined? Right now it seems like a false equivalency. Unless the prostitute is forced to have sex with the client by the brothel then it is not rape. If the brothel negotiates a fee on her behalf and pays her for it then it is a business transaction between her and the client. If she does not wish to have sex with the client then she can quit her job. At no point is it rape, rape is when someone does not or cannot consent to sex and sex happens anyway.
Almost all forms of employment are labour on some else's behalf for the profit of someone else. However that alone does not make it slavery because there is always the potential for the employee to say "I quit" and go home. They may be in trouble if they do, for example if they have accepted a contract and fail to fulfill their obligations, but they always have the freedom to do so. That same distinction is what makes prostitutes not rape victims. Now, should one of them say "I quit" and the brothel owners refuse to allow them to quit then it'll become rape. But that is a completely separate issue. You don't deal with drunk drivers by banning cars, you don't deal with abusive brothel owners by banning prostitution.
Biff some of the links you supplied were written by third parties, inferring their own conclusions about what the women thought instead of posting what the women thought. Who's to say if they really felt humiliated? I may be going out in about an hour to buy a $6.50 copy of the Sunday NYT but I don't take every journalist at face value.
Your other links, while directly pertaining to what I wish were addressed (personal experience in legalized sex trade industry) in the earlier links, show and describe the horrible and sometimes horrifying reality of unregulated and wicked prostitution. I would support legalization but I would also support prosecution for anyone who abuses prostitutes or prostitutes that abuse customers. Just because they suck dick for money does not mean regular laws do not apply to them.
While I don't believe prostitution should be legalized as the last thing I would want it prostitutes freely roaming the street I am extremely hypocritical on the fact that I find it literally LOL funny that paying for sex is illegal yet not paying for sex is legal.
It's a tricky subject for me, on one hand I don't see why not, on the other I'm like HELL NO.
Well you're not allowed to sell your oranges or car stereos on the street unless you have a permit. I can't imagine if there was a legal alternative someone would want to risk being arrested for an improper business
On October 21 2012 18:59 Probe1 wrote: Biff some of the links you supplied were written by third parties, inferring their own conclusions about what the women thought instead of posting what the women thought. Who's to say if they really felt humiliated? I may be going out in about an hour to buy a $6.50 copy of the Sunday NYT but I don't take every journalist at face value.
Your other links, while directly pertaining to what I wish were addressed (personal experience in legalized sex trade industry) in the earlier links, show and describe the horrible and sometimes horrifying reality of unregulated and wicked prostitution. I would support legalization but I would also support prosecution for anyone who abuses prostitutes or prostitutes that abuse customers. Just because they suck dick for money does not mean regular laws do not apply to them.
Yeah; look, I agree completely.
I do not have an opinion on the subject. I just reacted to my libby friend's Voltaire saying that legal prostitution was so great because he saw this show about Nevada's "whore paradise". It's not a paradise. It's apparently legal sexual slavery.
My libertarian side (not this american far right shit à-la like Ayn Rand or Ron Paul, let's be clear) tells me that after all, your body is your property, and you do with it what you want to do.
The problem is that I have never heard of a single place on earth (except mayyybe for Holland, but even there it's super controversial) where prostitutes had decent living conditions without hearing all kind of monstrous stories and testimonies from people having been there.
My principles would make me an adept of the Dutch solution: a very strictly regulated legal market that makes sure that it is done in precise conditions that prevent all type of abusing, but I think facts make me lean towards the Swedish one: prohibition. I think everybody agrees nowadays in Sweden that it was a great idea, even people who fought for legalisation at the time prohibition started.
They say prostitution is a victimless crime but all too often you are the one that describes it in reality. I agree and cannot deny that legalized prostitution comes with great risk.
In my mind I would vote for legalizing prostitution if 'the Dutch solution' was the option given. But I believe that those monstrous stories are in the most part, factual. If we could legalize it and it would offer a safer and better solution for the men and women who will regardless of the law engage in prostitution, I would vote yes.
If all we did was sweep the matter under the rug so the living room didn't look as messy then, of course the Swedish way is right.
Edit: And here we have why it is such a contentious issue :p To legalize we would pretty much have to successfully promise safer working conditions and healthier cities because of legalization. That's a tough goal.
On October 21 2012 19:24 Probe1 wrote: If all we did was sweep the matter under the rug so the living room didn't look as messy then, of course the Swedish way is right.
Well, apparently they got rid of the rug also.
In all seriousness, I think they manage to basically just erradicate prostitution. It's a bit extreme, but again, the alternative is not great for what I've seen.
Legalizing prostitution clearly decreases the risks if we take for fact that demand for sex will always dictate an illicit market for it in the absence of a legal one.
This isn't one like drugs where you can argue that people will harm themselves. If prostitution is legal and well-regulated then logically the illegal market will diminish and likely generally disappear. Suddenly, prostitutes have worker's rights and can report abuse by clients and employers. Prices are likely to fall, as well.
On October 21 2012 16:58 Voltaire wrote: Watching the TV show "Cathouse" makes me want to visit a brothel in Nevada.
A lot of these girls enjoy their jobs. There are plenty of people willing to do this safely and legally.
Oh suuuure. HBO horny series is such a great source of information. And the whores looked soooo happy. Isn't the world beautiful?
"A grotesque exercise in the dehumanization of women is carried out routinely at Sheri's Ranch, a legal brothel about an hour’s ride outside of Vegas. There the women have to respond like Pavlov’s dog to an electronic bell that might ring at any hour of the day or night. At the sound of the bell, the prostitutes have five minutes to get to an assembly area where they line up, virtually naked, and submit to a humiliating inspection by any prospective customer who has happened to drop by" http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/15/opinion/15herbert.html?_r=1
Brothels impose some extraordinary restrictions on commercial sex workers" in order to "separate sex workers from the local community": some places forbid prostitutes to leave the brothels for extended periods of time, while other jurisdictions require the prostitutes to leave the county when they are not working; some places do not allow the children of the women who work in the brothels to live in the same area; some brothel workers who have cars must register the vehicle with the local police, and workers are not permitted to leave the brothel after 5pm; in some counties registered sex workers are not allowed to have cars at all. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2009/apr/03/nevada-prostitution-
If you believe their PR, Nevada's legal brothels are safe, healthy – even fun – places in which to work. So why do so many prostitutes tell such horrific tales of abuse? http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/07/usa.gender
But of course I guess in libertarian's fantasy world, protitution is all great because women chose it freely. You know. They enjoy being raped 30 times a day for the profit of abusive bosses with a contract that transform them into semi slaves.
A brothel owner is somebody who, when it gets down to the very essence, is nothing more than a slave-owner Assemblyman Bob L. Beers http://www.lvrj.com/news/9612332.html
Voluntary prostitution isn't rape. Calling it rape is an insult to anyone who has actually been raped before.
Thing is, people in prostitution are being screwed right this second. Thousands, probably hundreds of thousands of prostitutes are in action right now. It's affecting absolutely no one apart from the people involved. I'm not affected at all, and yeah I feel sorry for some of them that hate their job, but I feel sorry for my mum who works 3 jobs and NEVER sits down. Like, if people have bad jobs then that's that.
Personally, I would never engage in prostitution, or have intercourse with one. Just my 2 cents.
I was going to make a thread on this, but OP is far more comprehensive than I would have done. What do you folks think, if you haven't had your say already in this thread?
I see absolutely nothing wrong with it unless it is forced. I've seen people argue vehemently that the legalization of prostitution enables and encourages human trafficking. However, the evidence they presented did not seem final and conclusive.
There is a strong narrative (that I grew up with myself), that most prostitutes are desperate, abused, drug addicted, etc. And parallel to this is Johns being portrayed as always abusive, physically disgusting, and misogynistic. I've participated in a few online forums that had both providers and clients, and those stereotypes were the exception far more than the rule. True, those operating on the internet are probably more empowered and wealthy than street walkers, and yet it's enough for me to cast doubt on the exploitation narrative. Exploitation exists of course, but it's hard to find out conclusively what the actual prevalence is.
On June 21 2015 09:36 Glowsphere wrote: I was going to make a thread on this, but OP is far more comprehensive than I would have done. What do you folks think, if you haven't had your say already in this thread?
I see absolutely nothing wrong with it unless it is forced. I've seen people argue vehemently that the legalization of prostitution enables and encourages human trafficking. However, the evidence they presented did not seem final and conclusive.
There is a strong narrative (that I grew up with myself), that most prostitutes are desperate, abused, drug addicted, etc. And parallel to this is Johns being portrayed as always abusive, physically disgusting, and misogynistic. I've participated in a few online forums that had both providers and clients, and those stereotypes were the exception far more than the rule. True, those operating on the internet are probably more empowered and wealthy than street walkers, and yet it's enough for me to cast doubt on the exploitation narrative. Exploitation exists of course, but it's hard to find out conclusively what the actual prevalence is.
Should just make brothels legal and regulate them. Sex is already treated like a commodity, so might as well monetize it.
On June 21 2015 09:36 Glowsphere wrote: I was going to make a thread on this, but OP is far more comprehensive than I would have done. What do you folks think, if you haven't had your say already in this thread?
I see absolutely nothing wrong with it unless it is forced. I've seen people argue vehemently that the legalization of prostitution enables and encourages human trafficking. However, the evidence they presented did not seem final and conclusive.
There is a strong narrative (that I grew up with myself), that most prostitutes are desperate, abused, drug addicted, etc. And parallel to this is Johns being portrayed as always abusive, physically disgusting, and misogynistic. I've participated in a few online forums that had both providers and clients, and those stereotypes were the exception far more than the rule. True, those operating on the internet are probably more empowered and wealthy than street walkers, and yet it's enough for me to cast doubt on the exploitation narrative. Exploitation exists of course, but it's hard to find out conclusively what the actual prevalence is.
The problem I've always had with that narrative is that almost every bad effect of prostitution would be overcome by legalization and regulation. The illegality of it makes it a much much more dangerous proposition than if it were just legalized and regulated. But religious groups and certain moronic feminists tend to have such an issue with it that politicians view this very real issue as too taboo to even touch. If any politician actually ran on a platform of legalization/regulation then they would get demonized by the media/enemies as someone who just wants to bang whores, ignoring the legitimate safety and societal reasons to legalize it which is really a damn shame.
On June 21 2015 09:36 Glowsphere wrote: I was going to make a thread on this, but OP is far more comprehensive than I would have done. What do you folks think, if you haven't had your say already in this thread?
I see absolutely nothing wrong with it unless it is forced. I've seen people argue vehemently that the legalization of prostitution enables and encourages human trafficking. However, the evidence they presented did not seem final and conclusive.
There is a strong narrative (that I grew up with myself), that most prostitutes are desperate, abused, drug addicted, etc. And parallel to this is Johns being portrayed as always abusive, physically disgusting, and misogynistic. I've participated in a few online forums that had both providers and clients, and those stereotypes were the exception far more than the rule. True, those operating on the internet are probably more empowered and wealthy than street walkers, and yet it's enough for me to cast doubt on the exploitation narrative. Exploitation exists of course, but it's hard to find out conclusively what the actual prevalence is.
The problem I've always had with that narrative is that almost every bad effect of prostitution would be overcome by legalization and regulation. The illegality of it makes it a much much more dangerous proposition than if it were just legalized and regulated. But religious groups and certain moronic feminists tend to have such an issue with it that politicians view this very real issue as too taboo to even touch. If any politician actually ran on a platform of legalization/regulation then they would get demonized by the media/enemies as someone who just wants to bang whores, ignoring the legitimate safety and societal reasons to legalize it which is really a damn shame.
That was my thinking as well, but someone on another forum once said that the Netherlands and Germany were having huge problems with human trafficking, and they posted a bunch of numbers. Others countered that the numbers were being inflated by groups whose funding and existence relies on high numbers of human trafficking victims. It was awhile ago so I forget what sources were being used. The funny thing is I've seen several escorts say they actually don't want prostitution legalized, because it will cut into their profits badly once the government is involved and taking a share.
I'll preface by saying my opinion on this is heavily influenced by anecdotal experience. So, keep that in mind.
One of my ex-girlfriends was a prostitute for a few years (before I met her.) I met some of her friends who were also prostitutes. She was also a recovering heroin addict. Endemic among them was usually some sort of childhood or adolescent sexual abuse, followed by abandonment / running away, and then drug usage to cope with either past trauma or current prostitution.
My ex was diagnosed with PTSD and a mixed bag of personality disorders from narcissistic, histrionic, dependent, borderline, and anti-social disorders all under a personality disorder "not otherwise specified." A lot of the women I met were like my ex.
I think it should be legalized. The problem remains though that we don't have many programs in place to get them off drugs, which is tied in with it for many. Drugs are used to dissociate from the fact that they're selling themselves to people for money. Many of her friends become prostitutes to make enough money to buy the drug of their choice, or they got on drugs after they became one. It was soul crushingly cyclical. The money used to incarcerate them for prostitution could be used instead to fund programs to get them off drugs. That would be my personal hope.
As for whether or not prostitution is consensual and the morality of all that it's slippery. Being personally involved with a former prostitute I saw someone who had a hard time trying to adjust to a normal job, who felt that prostitution was gut wrenching but simple. Still, she was tortured by it. She felt she would never be normal. That sort of nihilism was rampant in her group. So while it is their body, I feel like the idea that it's psychologically healthy is the exception rather than the rule.
[Just for clarity, I know that this is anecdotal and personal and not a study on the effects and origins of prostitution in women.]
On June 21 2015 09:36 Glowsphere wrote: I was going to make a thread on this, but OP is far more comprehensive than I would have done. What do you folks think, if you haven't had your say already in this thread?
I see absolutely nothing wrong with it unless it is forced. I've seen people argue vehemently that the legalization of prostitution enables and encourages human trafficking. However, the evidence they presented did not seem final and conclusive.
There is a strong narrative (that I grew up with myself), that most prostitutes are desperate, abused, drug addicted, etc. And parallel to this is Johns being portrayed as always abusive, physically disgusting, and misogynistic. I've participated in a few online forums that had both providers and clients, and those stereotypes were the exception far more than the rule. True, those operating on the internet are probably more empowered and wealthy than street walkers, and yet it's enough for me to cast doubt on the exploitation narrative. Exploitation exists of course, but it's hard to find out conclusively what the actual prevalence is.
The problem I've always had with that narrative is that almost every bad effect of prostitution would be overcome by legalization and regulation. The illegality of it makes it a much much more dangerous proposition than if it were just legalized and regulated. But religious groups and certain moronic feminists tend to have such an issue with it that politicians view this very real issue as too taboo to even touch. If any politician actually ran on a platform of legalization/regulation then they would get demonized by the media/enemies as someone who just wants to bang whores, ignoring the legitimate safety and societal reasons to legalize it which is really a damn shame.
This is a huge problem. Not even necessarily for running a platform of it, but just being able to have a sensible debate.
There are so many important issues that get drowned out by these histrionics. "Whore banger" as you say here, "junkies" on drug legalisation, "murderer" or "granny killer" for euthanasia. It's so tedious.
Anecdotal experience is important and interesting Gryffindo, thanks for sharing. I can imagine that drugs might be a coping mechanism. Although I have no moral repugnance for the job, still I think it would be a difficult one on an emotional and physical level.
Marvellosity, I agree that it's one of those topics that never even sees the light of day (honest debate), thus you can't help but be ignorant about it unless you purposely go digging. I think the drug "debate" is similarly tainted by one narrative which admits no nuance or questioning.
Over here the government took an ideological approach to deal with Prostitution in Canada. The prostitutes are free to practice their trade, but it is illegal to purchase sexual services.
On June 22 2015 02:46 soul55555 wrote: Over here the government took an ideological approach to deal with Prostitution in Canada. The prostitutes are free to practice their trade, but it is illegal to purchase sexual services.
Which has actually backfired and made things more dangerous for them. Now pimps can force them to work more without worry of them being caught, and customers are more nervous because they are the ones taking on most of the risk.
One of those decisions that seemed good on paper but in application wasn't good.
On June 22 2015 02:57 Glowsphere wrote: Wasn't that model based on Sweden? It seems kind of silly and nonsensical to me.
Yes that's correct Sweden adopted the model of asymmetrical prohibition, which criminalizes the purchase of sexual services. Though in Canada prostitutes can still be arrested if they practice their trade near schools, churches and playground.
On June 22 2015 02:57 Glowsphere wrote: Wasn't that model based on Sweden? It seems kind of silly and nonsensical to me.
Yes that's correct Sweden adopted the model of asymmetrical prohibition, which criminalizes the purchase of sexual services. Though in Canada prostitutes can still be arrested if they practice their trade near schools, churches and playground.
I went to Googling for the intent behind asymmetrical prohibition, and found a document that reviews the arguments pretty succinctly:
The logic of asymmetrical prohibition rests on two main arguments denying that female sex sellers truly “consent” to sell sex. The first infantilizes sex sellers. Because the “average” prostitute began selling sex as a child, she never consents to acts of prostitution as an adult. She effectively is a child. The second holds that various inequalities – poverty, colonialism, patriarchal social relations – force females to sell sex. Because sex buyers exploit such females, the state should criminalize sex buyers, but not sellers, as they are the buyer’s victims.
Is it wrong to say that asymmetrical prohibition is mostly politically and ideologically driven, specifically by feminists?
Isn't there a practicality about giving forced sex sellers an avenue to seek help from authorities without being criminalised, after the fact of the act?
On June 22 2015 03:52 TokO wrote: Isn't there a practicality about giving forced sex sellers an avenue to seek help from authorities without being criminalised, after the fact of the act?
That makes sense. I know in the US at least it is often the sellers being targeted in mass sting operations. I guess it becomes harder to make a distinction about what is forced, when we have influential parties arguing that it is all forced.
On June 22 2015 03:52 TokO wrote: Isn't there a practicality about giving forced sex sellers an avenue to seek help from authorities without being criminalised, after the fact of the act?
Actually, if I recall correctly, cops used to forward caught prostitutes to various help organizations rather than actually putting them behind bars. With the new legislation in Canada, they're no longer redirecting them, so many of the programs that were in place are no longer as effective and have to downsize.
Essentially, the legislation made it so prostitutes are now ignored by police, which does even less to help them than what was happening previously.
On June 21 2015 09:36 Glowsphere wrote: I was going to make a thread on this, but OP is far more comprehensive than I would have done. What do you folks think, if you haven't had your say already in this thread?
I see absolutely nothing wrong with it unless it is forced. I've seen people argue vehemently that the legalization of prostitution enables and encourages human trafficking. However, the evidence they presented did not seem final and conclusive.
There is a strong narrative (that I grew up with myself), that most prostitutes are desperate, abused, drug addicted, etc. And parallel to this is Johns being portrayed as always abusive, physically disgusting, and misogynistic. I've participated in a few online forums that had both providers and clients, and those stereotypes were the exception far more than the rule. True, those operating on the internet are probably more empowered and wealthy than street walkers, and yet it's enough for me to cast doubt on the exploitation narrative. Exploitation exists of course, but it's hard to find out conclusively what the actual prevalence is.
The problem I've always had with that narrative is that almost every bad effect of prostitution would be overcome by legalization and regulation. The illegality of it makes it a much much more dangerous proposition than if it were just legalized and regulated. But religious groups and certain moronic feminists tend to have such an issue with it that politicians view this very real issue as too taboo to even touch. If any politician actually ran on a platform of legalization/regulation then they would get demonized by the media/enemies as someone who just wants to bang whores, ignoring the legitimate safety and societal reasons to legalize it which is really a damn shame.
This is a huge problem. Not even necessarily for running a platform of it, but just being able to have a sensible debate.
There are so many important issues that get drowned out by these histrionics. "Whore banger" as you say here, "junkies" on drug legalisation, "murderer" or "granny killer" for euthanasia. It's so tedious.
That's strange, since prostitution is legal in UK. None of phrases you have used gets used by any media that I have read whenever such issues are being discussed by politicians in the UK.
legalization is a no brainer. just like legalizing drugs, it will destroy the criminal element, it will remove non violent offenders from the prison system so that their lives don't get ruined while the actual bad guys can be locked up, and there will be tons of tax revenue. its just win/win all around.
its hilarious that the feminists who argue women should do anything they want with their body and preach sexual empowerment suddenly do a 180 regarding prostitution. guess what feminists? the reason there are women coerced into sex slave trade is same reason drug cartels exist. as soon as it is made legal, the criminal element will lose to actual businesses. see history of US prohibition, a similarly moronic idea proposed by feminists that failed spectacularly. there are women who want to sell their bodies (see porn industry), not all of them are drug addicts with daddy issues. but for some reason feminists feel threatened by this.
On June 23 2015 03:07 fishjie wrote: legalization is a no brainer. just like legalizing drugs, it will destroy the criminal element, it will remove non violent offenders from the prison system so that their lives don't get ruined while the actual bad guys can be locked up, and there will be tons of tax revenue. its just win/win all around.
that's really not true at all. Ever since liberalization of prostitution here in Germany human trafficking has increased as the legality of prostitution has created a huge grey area where prosecution is almost impossible.
"Axel Dreher, a professor of international and development politics at the University of Heidelberg, has attempted to answer these questions, using data from 150 countries. The numbers were imprecise, as are all statistics relating to trafficking and prostitution, but he was able to identify a trend: Where prostitution is legal, there is more human trafficking than elsewhere."
Ideologically, I believe if someone wants to sell their body, they should be able to. Unfortunately, that isn't the case most of the time with Prostitution and isn't the business we're talking about. Prostitution should be illegal. It's a shitty business to be in and that's why most of the trade is ran by shitty people and criminal organizations (even in legalized countries). It's a dangerous job (legal or illegal), most woman are manipulated or forced into the sex-trade ending with death or life-long emotional scaring in most cases. If someone really wanted to sell their body, there is the more common avenue of finding someone who'll take care of them financially in return for companionship. Of course, there is also the porn industry. The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
On June 23 2015 03:07 fishjie wrote: legalization is a no brainer. just like legalizing drugs, it will destroy the criminal element, it will remove non violent offenders from the prison system so that their lives don't get ruined while the actual bad guys can be locked up, and there will be tons of tax revenue. its just win/win all around.
that's really not true at all. Ever since liberalization of prostitution here in Germany human trafficking has increased as the legality of prostitution has created a huge grey area where prosecution is almost impossible.
"Axel Dreher, a professor of international and development politics at the University of Heidelberg, has attempted to answer these questions, using data from 150 countries. The numbers were imprecise, as are all statistics relating to trafficking and prostitution, but he was able to identify a trend: Where prostitution is legal, there is more human trafficking than elsewhere."
Interesting, sounds like the problem is due to brothels and lower end prostitutes, not escorts. A number of working girls in Nevada have negative stories about working conditions there as well. I'm thinking with full legalization everywhere, it will move toward independent girls working legally. There's been quite a few articles written by former escorts who were not coerced and made lots of money. There's one by Torontolife.com called "Secret life of a bay street hooker". At work so not gonna link. But basically, these indepdent/agency girls make a ton of money a year and can carve out a good life for themselves. They choose their clientele and do the background checks, rather than brothel system where girls may be trafficked and they have no say in who they see and what is allowed.
Over here the government took an ideological approach to deal with Prostitution in Canada. The prostitutes are free...
I started packing my bags for Canada until I read the rest
As for the selling of bodies, that's what most low skill jobs basically are. One simply becomes a cog in a machine and is rarely granted the freedom to be human.
Obviously trafficking is bad, but we don't call farmers "labor traffickers" when they do the same or worse to their workers, many of whom are just as 'forced' into their job as a typical prostitute.
One thing that should come with the legalization of prostitution is money management. Even at street prices a decent prostitute can make between $500-$1000 dollars a day. Which should be more than enough to mean she can quit and go to school or start a business or whatever after a few years tops. Try and find that kind of opportunity elsewhere on the job market for a high school graduate/dropout.
One problem is that with prostitution the idea that a 'pimp' or a boss is taking the lions share of the profits rings as a bit more disgusting to most than when it happens in other businesses.
The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
You base this upon what? You don't think that someone could rationally choose to take $300+ and hour to simulate sex, rather than slave away all day long to make a fraction of the amount? And what is it that makes customers "shitty, ignorant and uncaring"?
On June 23 2015 03:07 fishjie wrote: legalization is a no brainer. just like legalizing drugs, it will destroy the criminal element, it will remove non violent offenders from the prison system so that their lives don't get ruined while the actual bad guys can be locked up, and there will be tons of tax revenue. its just win/win all around.
that's really not true at all. Ever since liberalization of prostitution here in Germany human trafficking has increased as the legality of prostitution has created a huge grey area where prosecution is almost impossible.
"Axel Dreher, a professor of international and development politics at the University of Heidelberg, has attempted to answer these questions, using data from 150 countries. The numbers were imprecise, as are all statistics relating to trafficking and prostitution, but he was able to identify a trend: Where prostitution is legal, there is more human trafficking than elsewhere."
Interesting, sounds like the problem is due to brothels and lower end prostitutes, not escorts. A number of working girls in Nevada have negative stories about working conditions there as well. I'm thinking with full legalization everywhere, it will move toward independent girls working legally. There's been quite a few articles written by former escorts who were not coerced and made lots of money. There's one by Torontolife.com called "Secret life of a bay street hooker". At work so not gonna link. But basically, these indepdent/agency girls make a ton of money a year and can carve out a good life for themselves. They choose their clientele and do the background checks, rather than brothel system where girls may be trafficked and they have no say in who they see and what is allowed.
The dominant thing here and in the Netherlands are brothels with the overwhelming majority of prostitutes being Eastern European girls that get here under very shady circumstances. These are two pretty big countries as far as evidence goes and there really isn't any case that would indicate that things turn out better anywhere else.
This has nothing to do with feminist ideology but is simply a reality of a business in which the good that is being traded is a person's body. It's completely fair to say that based on what we know so far liberalization is a pretty horrible idea.
On June 23 2015 03:07 fishjie wrote: legalization is a no brainer. just like legalizing drugs, it will destroy the criminal element, it will remove non violent offenders from the prison system so that their lives don't get ruined while the actual bad guys can be locked up, and there will be tons of tax revenue. its just win/win all around.
that's really not true at all. Ever since liberalization of prostitution here in Germany human trafficking has increased as the legality of prostitution has created a huge grey area where prosecution is almost impossible.
"Axel Dreher, a professor of international and development politics at the University of Heidelberg, has attempted to answer these questions, using data from 150 countries. The numbers were imprecise, as are all statistics relating to trafficking and prostitution, but he was able to identify a trend: Where prostitution is legal, there is more human trafficking than elsewhere."
Interesting, sounds like the problem is due to brothels and lower end prostitutes, not escorts. A number of working girls in Nevada have negative stories about working conditions there as well. I'm thinking with full legalization everywhere, it will move toward independent girls working legally. There's been quite a few articles written by former escorts who were not coerced and made lots of money. There's one by Torontolife.com called "Secret life of a bay street hooker". At work so not gonna link. But basically, these indepdent/agency girls make a ton of money a year and can carve out a good life for themselves. They choose their clientele and do the background checks, rather than brothel system where girls may be trafficked and they have no say in who they see and what is allowed.
The dominant thing here and in the Netherlands are brothels with the overwhelming majority of prostitutes being Eastern European girls that get here under very shady circumstances. These are two pretty big countries as far as evidence goes and there really isn't any case that would indicate that things turn out better anywhere else.
This has nothing to do with feminist ideology but is simply a reality of a business in which the good that is being traded is a person's body. It's completely fair to say that based on what we know so far liberalization is a pretty horrible idea.
Seems like outlawing foreign sex workers would remedy that pretty easily. I imagine there are politicians with an interest in keeping them around (they are probably getting some form of kickback from org crime [at least that's how it would work here])
On June 23 2015 03:07 fishjie wrote: legalization is a no brainer. just like legalizing drugs, it will destroy the criminal element, it will remove non violent offenders from the prison system so that their lives don't get ruined while the actual bad guys can be locked up, and there will be tons of tax revenue. its just win/win all around.
that's really not true at all. Ever since liberalization of prostitution here in Germany human trafficking has increased as the legality of prostitution has created a huge grey area where prosecution is almost impossible.
"Axel Dreher, a professor of international and development politics at the University of Heidelberg, has attempted to answer these questions, using data from 150 countries. The numbers were imprecise, as are all statistics relating to trafficking and prostitution, but he was able to identify a trend: Where prostitution is legal, there is more human trafficking than elsewhere."
Interesting, sounds like the problem is due to brothels and lower end prostitutes, not escorts. A number of working girls in Nevada have negative stories about working conditions there as well. I'm thinking with full legalization everywhere, it will move toward independent girls working legally. There's been quite a few articles written by former escorts who were not coerced and made lots of money. There's one by Torontolife.com called "Secret life of a bay street hooker". At work so not gonna link. But basically, these indepdent/agency girls make a ton of money a year and can carve out a good life for themselves. They choose their clientele and do the background checks, rather than brothel system where girls may be trafficked and they have no say in who they see and what is allowed.
The dominant thing here and in the Netherlands are brothels with the overwhelming majority of prostitutes being Eastern European girls that get here under very shady circumstances. These are two pretty big countries as far as evidence goes and there really isn't any case that would indicate that things turn out better anywhere else.
This has nothing to do with feminist ideology but is simply a reality of a business in which the good that is being traded is a person's body. It's completely fair to say that based on what we know so far liberalization is a pretty horrible idea.
Seems like outlawing foreign sex workers would remedy that pretty easily. I imagine there are politicians with an interest in keeping them around (they are probably getting some form of kickback from org crime [at least that's how it would work here])
The EU has free labour movement after all so there really is no way to outlaw "foreign" workers in legal businesses even if they might be working involuntarily which is also pretty hard to proof. That's the whole problem of legalized prostitution. Its so shady by nature that law enforcement simply has no handle.
On June 23 2015 03:07 fishjie wrote: legalization is a no brainer. just like legalizing drugs, it will destroy the criminal element, it will remove non violent offenders from the prison system so that their lives don't get ruined while the actual bad guys can be locked up, and there will be tons of tax revenue. its just win/win all around.
that's really not true at all. Ever since liberalization of prostitution here in Germany human trafficking has increased as the legality of prostitution has created a huge grey area where prosecution is almost impossible.
"Axel Dreher, a professor of international and development politics at the University of Heidelberg, has attempted to answer these questions, using data from 150 countries. The numbers were imprecise, as are all statistics relating to trafficking and prostitution, but he was able to identify a trend: Where prostitution is legal, there is more human trafficking than elsewhere."
Interesting, sounds like the problem is due to brothels and lower end prostitutes, not escorts. A number of working girls in Nevada have negative stories about working conditions there as well. I'm thinking with full legalization everywhere, it will move toward independent girls working legally. There's been quite a few articles written by former escorts who were not coerced and made lots of money. There's one by Torontolife.com called "Secret life of a bay street hooker". At work so not gonna link. But basically, these indepdent/agency girls make a ton of money a year and can carve out a good life for themselves. They choose their clientele and do the background checks, rather than brothel system where girls may be trafficked and they have no say in who they see and what is allowed.
The dominant thing here and in the Netherlands are brothels with the overwhelming majority of prostitutes being Eastern European girls that get here under very shady circumstances. These are two pretty big countries as far as evidence goes and there really isn't any case that would indicate that things turn out better anywhere else.
This has nothing to do with feminist ideology but is simply a reality of a business in which the good that is being traded is a person's body. It's completely fair to say that based on what we know so far liberalization is a pretty horrible idea.
Seems like outlawing foreign sex workers would remedy that pretty easily. I imagine there are politicians with an interest in keeping them around (they are probably getting some form of kickback from org crime [at least that's how it would work here])
The EU has free labour movement after all so there really is no way to outlaw "foreign" workers in legal businesses even if they might be working involuntarily which is also pretty hard to proof. That's the whole problem of legalized prostitution. Its so shady by nature that law enforcement simply has no handle.
Seems like it would be a reasonable restriction? I don't really see a lot of difference between that type of sex trafficking and what we do with Mexican labor.
I think the main problem wrapped in the 'trafficking' rhetoric is that they are promised one thing before they leave their native country and get a raw deal when they get to wherever they are going.
Because it's largely illegal and even where legal it's heavily influenced by the criminal element (and corrupt politicians) and they just force them into terrible conditions.
There's no reason a woman would need to work 8+ hours or 5-7 days a week in a legitimate sex business. Those kind of working conditions are a result of exploitative business operations not the sex working itself.
On June 23 2015 03:33 G5 wrote: The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
This statement made is one of opinion and not fact. You, like far too many others, throws out grand proclamations without bothering to cite any source.
hey i'm just curious, is pimping culture the same throughout? like EU vs NA.
are all prostitution establishments have pimp-like relationship between employee and employer or is it more business like in EU or even in US?
much like drugs, i can't help but think the places that illegal are done underground and people are exposed to more other illegal activities, meanwhile in places that are legal, i'd imagine its carried out like any other business establishment.
G5 is thinking about street walkers, and doesn't realize there is a high tier of ex-models college educated escorts who enjoy getting free travel and gifts, and being very selective with their clientele. We're talking like 1k per hour rates. He laughably states "there is the more common avenue of finding someone who'll take care of them financially in return for companionship" which is exactly what these high end escorts do.
Another interesting article was Asa Akira talking about the brief time she escorted. It ultimately wasn't for her, but it wasn't because she was forced into it. She has no issue with having sex for money. Give me a break with that white knighting stuff
I am surprised to see some studies show that trafficking has increased, but there are definitely women who enjoy doing this as I have mentioned. They make more money than you ever will. Much like porn stars, not everybody is a victim. Acting as though they are and that they have no ability to make decisions with their own body is ridiculous.
On June 23 2015 07:29 fishjie wrote: G5 is thinking about street walkers, and doesn't realize there is a high tier of ex-models college educated escorts who enjoy getting free travel and gifts, and being very selective with their clientele. We're talking like 1k per hour rates. He laughably states "there is the more common avenue of finding someone who'll take care of them financially in return for companionship" which is exactly what these high end escorts do.
Another interesting article was Asa Akira talking about the brief time she escorted. It ultimately wasn't for her, but it wasn't because she was forced into it. She has no issue with having sex for money. Give me a break with that white knighting stuff
I am surprised to see some studies show that trafficking has increased, but there are definitely women who enjoy doing this as I have mentioned. They make more money than you ever will. Much like porn stars, not everybody is a victim. Acting as though they are and that they have no ability to make decisions with their own body is ridiculous.
I do realize there are the "high tier of ex-models blah blah" and most of those fall into the same category. Sure, you will find some that enjoy it but that's true about almost anything and isn't a valid point.
The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
You base this upon what? You don't think that someone could rationally choose to take $300+ and hour to simulate sex, rather than slave away all day long to make a fraction of the amount? And what is it that makes customers "shitty, ignorant and uncaring"?
Simulate sex? This is what a stripper does, not a prostitute. And yes, I'm sure plenty could and do choose it as a profession but most don't. I call their customers that because they are either ignorant to the industry they're engaging in/supporting or don't care.
On June 23 2015 03:33 G5 wrote: The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
This statement made is one of opinion and not fact. You, like far too many others, throws out grand proclamations without bothering to cite any source.
I've worked in half-way houses / rehabilitation programs for minors and many of the female residents were former prostitutes. I've watch enough documentaries, sat through enough seminars, and spoken to enough former prostitutes to tell you it's a shitty business and most are forced/manipulated. Here's a few sources for you:
Starting with Child Prostitution:
"It is extremely clear that persons engaged in prostitution are not happy with their unfortunate choice of profession. Countless studies report that over 80% of prostitutes say they wish to get out of prostitution. This information does not explain why women do not get out of prostitution. There is plenty of statistically based studies on prostitutes reporting reasons why they do not quit their jobs and do something legitimate.
About 40% of prostitutes are former child prostitutes who were illegally forced into the profession through human trafficking or once were teenage runaways. Many of the runaways fled because their homes were abusive, poor, or did not approve of them. There is a nationwide trend of increased frequency of child prostitution as a result of runaways. Many men feel that they are safer from AIDS if they have sex with younger prostitutes, increasing the market for younger prostitutes. 60% percent of children reported missing as a result of running away become prostitutes for some period of time to survive." - sex-crime.laws.com
40% of all human trafficking cases were of a child average age of 12-14. - Department of Justice
And then in general:
"Many people believe that prostitution is a choice and a valid career path. However, this is a fallacy. Nearly all prostituted women do not choose to engage in prostitution of their own volition, but rather have been forced or coerced against their will. In the cases where women are not forced outright to engage in prostitution, they are generally forced into it by their circumstances, e.g. addiction and poverty. Additionally, 90 percent of prostituted women have been physically abused as children*, 74 percent have been sexually abused by a family member**, 50 percent have been sexually abused by a non-family member***, and 75 percent have drug problems****, damaging factors that further remove the “choice” from the equation. Once involved in prostitution, women are very often abused or murdered by johns and by pimps. In surveys of prostituted women, consistently 89 to 96 percent said that they wanted to exit the prostitution system but could not due to a lack of healthcare, money, education, and other basic resources. There is no real difference between prostitution and slavery.
Certainly no child every “chooses” to be prostituted. And yet, the average age of the entry into prostitution in the United States is 12 to 14 years old. This is a serious challenge to the idea that women choose to be prostituted."
* Giobbe, E.; Harrigan, M; Ryan, J; Gamache, D (1990) Prostitution: A Matter of Violence against Women. WHISPER. Cited in Encyclopedia of Women and Gender: Sex Similarities and Differences and the impact of Society on Gender. 2. San Diego: Academic Press, 2002, page 882.
On June 23 2015 03:33 G5 wrote: The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
This statement made is one of opinion and not fact. You, like far too many others, throws out grand proclamations without bothering to cite any source.
Actually, why don't you go find me some statistics that say most female prostitutes freely go into it and are happy to stay in it and enjoyed all the sex and money a glamorous life of prostitution gave them.
On June 23 2015 07:29 fishjie wrote: G5 is thinking about street walkers, and doesn't realize there is a high tier of ex-models college educated escorts who enjoy getting free travel and gifts, and being very selective with their clientele. We're talking like 1k per hour rates. He laughably states "there is the more common avenue of finding someone who'll take care of them financially in return for companionship" which is exactly what these high end escorts do.
Another interesting article was Asa Akira talking about the brief time she escorted. It ultimately wasn't for her, but it wasn't because she was forced into it. She has no issue with having sex for money. Give me a break with that white knighting stuff
I am surprised to see some studies show that trafficking has increased, but there are definitely women who enjoy doing this as I have mentioned. They make more money than you ever will. Much like porn stars, not everybody is a victim. Acting as though they are and that they have no ability to make decisions with their own body is ridiculous.
I do realize there are the "high tier of ex-models blah blah" and most of those fall into the same category. Sure, you will find some that enjoy it but that's true about almost anything and isn't a valid point.
The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
You base this upon what? You don't think that someone could rationally choose to take $300+ and hour to simulate sex, rather than slave away all day long to make a fraction of the amount? And what is it that makes customers "shitty, ignorant and uncaring"?
Simulate sex? This is what a stripper does, not a prostitute. And yes, I'm sure plenty could and do choose it as a profession but most don't. I call their customers that because they are either ignorant to the industry they're engaging in/supporting or don't care.
On June 23 2015 03:33 G5 wrote: The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
This statement made is one of opinion and not fact. You, like far too many others, throws out grand proclamations without bothering to cite any source.
I've worked in half-way houses / rehabilitation programs for minors and many of the female residents were former prostitutes. I've watch enough documentaries, sat through enough seminars, and spoken to enough former prostitutes to tell you it's a shitty business and most are forced/manipulated. Here's a few sources for you:
Starting with Child Prostitution:
"It is extremely clear that persons engaged in prostitution are not happy with their unfortunate choice of profession. Countless studies report that over 80% of prostitutes say they wish to get out of prostitution. This information does not explain why women do not get out of prostitution. There is plenty of statistically based studies on prostitutes reporting reasons why they do not quit their jobs and do something legitimate.
About 40% of prostitutes are former child prostitutes who were illegally forced into the profession through human trafficking or once were teenage runaways. Many of the runaways fled because their homes were abusive, poor, or did not approve of them. There is a nationwide trend of increased frequency of child prostitution as a result of runaways. Many men feel that they are safer from AIDS if they have sex with younger prostitutes, increasing the market for younger prostitutes. 60% percent of children reported missing as a result of running away become prostitutes for some period of time to survive." - sex-crime.laws.com
40% of all human trafficking cases were of a child average age of 12-14. - Department of Justice
And then in general:
"Many people believe that prostitution is a choice and a valid career path. However, this is a fallacy. Nearly all prostituted women do not choose to engage in prostitution of their own volition, but rather have been forced or coerced against their will. In the cases where women are not forced outright to engage in prostitution, they are generally forced into it by their circumstances, e.g. addiction and poverty. Additionally, 90 percent of prostituted women have been physically abused as children*, 74 percent have been sexually abused by a family member**, 50 percent have been sexually abused by a non-family member***, and 75 percent have drug problems****, damaging factors that further remove the “choice” from the equation. Once involved in prostitution, women are very often abused or murdered by johns and by pimps. In surveys of prostituted women, consistently 89 to 96 percent said that they wanted to exit the prostitution system but could not due to a lack of healthcare, money, education, and other basic resources. There is no real difference between prostitution and slavery.
Certainly no child every “chooses” to be prostituted. And yet, the average age of the entry into prostitution in the United States is 12 to 14 years old. This is a serious challenge to the idea that women choose to be prostituted."
* Giobbe, E.; Harrigan, M; Ryan, J; Gamache, D (1990) Prostitution: A Matter of Violence against Women. WHISPER. Cited in Encyclopedia of Women and Gender: Sex Similarities and Differences and the impact of Society on Gender. 2. San Diego: Academic Press, 2002, page 882.
To be fair, prostitution is currently illegal, and usually done either as a last resort or unwillingly. That along with the dangers of dealing with pimps and customers, not to mention the correlation with drug use, means there wouldn't be a lot of positive experiences.
Legalize it, regulate it, protect the workers with brothels, and (at least attempt to) make it no longer stigmatized, and you'll likely see different opinions on the matter. It's really not all that different from the porn industry.
On June 23 2015 07:29 fishjie wrote: G5 is thinking about street walkers, and doesn't realize there is a high tier of ex-models college educated escorts who enjoy getting free travel and gifts, and being very selective with their clientele. We're talking like 1k per hour rates. He laughably states "there is the more common avenue of finding someone who'll take care of them financially in return for companionship" which is exactly what these high end escorts do.
Another interesting article was Asa Akira talking about the brief time she escorted. It ultimately wasn't for her, but it wasn't because she was forced into it. She has no issue with having sex for money. Give me a break with that white knighting stuff
I am surprised to see some studies show that trafficking has increased, but there are definitely women who enjoy doing this as I have mentioned. They make more money than you ever will. Much like porn stars, not everybody is a victim. Acting as though they are and that they have no ability to make decisions with their own body is ridiculous.
I do realize there are the "high tier of ex-models blah blah" and most of those fall into the same category. Sure, you will find some that enjoy it but that's true about almost anything and isn't a valid point.
On June 23 2015 04:14 Glowsphere wrote:
On June 23 2015 03:33 G5 wrote: ...
The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
You base this upon what? You don't think that someone could rationally choose to take $300+ and hour to simulate sex, rather than slave away all day long to make a fraction of the amount? And what is it that makes customers "shitty, ignorant and uncaring"?
Simulate sex? This is what a stripper does, not a prostitute. And yes, I'm sure plenty could and do choose it as a profession but most don't. I call their customers that because they are either ignorant to the industry they're engaging in/supporting or don't care.
On June 23 2015 05:51 soul55555 wrote:
On June 23 2015 03:33 G5 wrote: The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
This statement made is one of opinion and not fact. You, like far too many others, throws out grand proclamations without bothering to cite any source.
I've worked in half-way houses / rehabilitation programs for minors and many of the female residents were former prostitutes. I've watch enough documentaries, sat through enough seminars, and spoken to enough former prostitutes to tell you it's a shitty business and most are forced/manipulated. Here's a few sources for you:
Starting with Child Prostitution:
"It is extremely clear that persons engaged in prostitution are not happy with their unfortunate choice of profession. Countless studies report that over 80% of prostitutes say they wish to get out of prostitution. This information does not explain why women do not get out of prostitution. There is plenty of statistically based studies on prostitutes reporting reasons why they do not quit their jobs and do something legitimate.
About 40% of prostitutes are former child prostitutes who were illegally forced into the profession through human trafficking or once were teenage runaways. Many of the runaways fled because their homes were abusive, poor, or did not approve of them. There is a nationwide trend of increased frequency of child prostitution as a result of runaways. Many men feel that they are safer from AIDS if they have sex with younger prostitutes, increasing the market for younger prostitutes. 60% percent of children reported missing as a result of running away become prostitutes for some period of time to survive." - sex-crime.laws.com
40% of all human trafficking cases were of a child average age of 12-14. - Department of Justice
And then in general:
"Many people believe that prostitution is a choice and a valid career path. However, this is a fallacy. Nearly all prostituted women do not choose to engage in prostitution of their own volition, but rather have been forced or coerced against their will. In the cases where women are not forced outright to engage in prostitution, they are generally forced into it by their circumstances, e.g. addiction and poverty. Additionally, 90 percent of prostituted women have been physically abused as children*, 74 percent have been sexually abused by a family member**, 50 percent have been sexually abused by a non-family member***, and 75 percent have drug problems****, damaging factors that further remove the “choice” from the equation. Once involved in prostitution, women are very often abused or murdered by johns and by pimps. In surveys of prostituted women, consistently 89 to 96 percent said that they wanted to exit the prostitution system but could not due to a lack of healthcare, money, education, and other basic resources. There is no real difference between prostitution and slavery.
Certainly no child every “chooses” to be prostituted. And yet, the average age of the entry into prostitution in the United States is 12 to 14 years old. This is a serious challenge to the idea that women choose to be prostituted."
* Giobbe, E.; Harrigan, M; Ryan, J; Gamache, D (1990) Prostitution: A Matter of Violence against Women. WHISPER. Cited in Encyclopedia of Women and Gender: Sex Similarities and Differences and the impact of Society on Gender. 2. San Diego: Academic Press, 2002, page 882.
To be fair, prostitution is currently illegal, and usually done either as a last resort or unwillingly. That along with the dangers of dealing with pimps and customers, not to mention the correlation with drug use, means there wouldn't be a lot of positive experiences.
Legalize it, regulate it, protect the workers with brothels, and (at least attempt to) make it no longer stigmatized, and you'll likely see different opinions on the matter. It's really not all that different from the porn industry.
Legalizing it really doesn't change much. It'd be nice if it did but it doesn't and examples are everywhere. The major thing legalization does is protect pimps and makes it difficult to local/prosecute things like kidnapping and illegal forms of trafficking. The point I'm trying to make is that it's a shitty business and shitty people are attracted to shitty industries like prostitution, legal or illegal.
Take a look at Mexico where it's decriminalized nation-wide and 13 states actually regulate it:
"Mexico is a source, transit, and destination country for persons trafficked for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation. Poverty, corruption and the violent drug war have contributed to the proliferation of sexual slavery in the country; much of the sex business is controlled by criminal gangs. Groups considered most vulnerable to human trafficking include women and children, indigenous persons, and undocumented migrants" US State Department
"Young female migrants recounted being robbed, beaten, and raped by members of criminal gangs and then forced to work in table dance bars or as prostitutes under threat of further harm to them or their families. The majority of non-Mexican trafficking victims come from Central America; lesser numbers come from Brazil, Cuba, Ecuador, China, Taiwan, South Korea, India, Uruguay, and Eastern European countries. Victims are also trafficked to the United States" Human Rights Report
Edit: I saw another report on TV or something (forget where exactly) a couple weeks ago that basically stated prostitution is so prolific in Mexico's cities that border the United States like Ciudad Juarez and Tijuana that 1/3rd of all women in those cities are or have at some point been involved in the sex trade and something like 1/6th of all high school aged girls are actively in the sex trade.
I'd wager most prostitutes in Canada get into it by themselves because the money is insanely good for some of them. And it's still pretty damn good for most of them.
On June 23 2015 12:26 SK.Testie wrote: I'd wager most prostitutes in Canada get into it by themselves because the money is insanely good for some of them. And it's still pretty damn good for most of them.
It is, within the next week I'm going to be writing a very long blog about how to implement prostitution, as it's something I fully believe in.
If we use the guy scale, in my city, a 5-6/10 prostitute charges 150-250 hour, a 7/10 200-300, and a 8-9/10 300-450. 10/10 400-600. It is all protected, there are a variety of services, from weekend getaways, to blowjobs and massages, to pure companionship, to some kinky dominatrix stuff.
My girlfriend and I have a very uhh... I dunno unique sex life, and hiring a sex worker for a threesome is something we'd consider, and it's nice that we have a discreet way of doing so, with literally a 0% chance of punishment. Honestly, my girlfriend was considering working in the industry, as we're both in university and not rich, but I told her I'd prefer other avenues for her. Anyway, now she sells worn underwear, and underwear with period blood in it for big bucks.
A safe market for exchange of these services is crucial. Just because they are sensitive topics in society doesn't mean they are undesirable... People don't want to talk about them enjoying getting pegged by their girlfriends, or whatever else they might enjoy, but it's important that they are allowed to find what they are looking for without hurting others.
Prostitution is no longer something where girls stand on a street and make places in town shady. It involves a website like this http://edmonton.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/ (for a random Alberta city), where you contact a woman with an unblocked number, and she can come to your house, or you to hers, and perform free consensual sex if you happen to give her a donation.
Nobody else is being affected by this, and I know several girls who willingly chose to go this route. Yeah, it's not as fun as it seems... It seems good when you think about a half-decent looking guy like you, and thinking it's like enjoyment for the girl. But then there are also the 60 year old men who are fat, show up drunk, bad breath, etc. But again, the money is really good, and quite safe from what I've heard from the girls here.
It's far from perfect, but legalizing it can help so much. They can freely report abusive numbers, abusive customers, gets checked for diseases and verified by the government. And better unify efforts for abusive customers, just to name a few things to help the girls.
Not only that, but the guys buying the sex can report it if it seems like some girls are working for an agency, or are putting up fake pictures for example. If the government is able to regulate and legalize it, they can actually receive tax money through prostitution (in ways of income tax), and come put certain regulations in place, like you need to get certified to become a prostitute. A certification will make sure you are clean, and if human trafficking is a concern, you could make certain laws like: "You must be be a Canadian citizen, or must have been a Canadian citizen for at least 5 years to be allowed to work in the sex industry"... This would help prevent this.
Anyway, lots of unexplored potential, and I think I'll be rallying for legalization of prostitution in my city over the summer.
On June 23 2015 12:26 SK.Testie wrote: I'd wager most prostitutes in Canada get into it by themselves because the money is insanely good for some of them. And it's still pretty damn good for most of them.
It is, within the next week I'm going to be writing a very long blog about how to implement prostitution, as it's something I fully believe in.
If we use the guy scale, in my city, a 5-6/10 prostitute charges 150-250 hour, a 7/10 200-300, and a 8-9/10 300-450. 10/10 400-600. It is all protected, there are a variety of services, from weekend getaways, to blowjobs and massages, to pure companionship, to some kinky dominatrix stuff.
My girlfriend and I have a very uhh... I dunno unique sex life, and hiring a sex worker for a threesome is something we'd consider, and it's nice that we have a discreet way of doing so, with literally a 0% chance of punishment. Honestly, my girlfriend was considering it, as we're both in university and not rich, but I told her I'd prefer other avenues for her. Anyway, now she sells worn underwear, and underwear with period blood in it for big bucks.
A safe market for exchange of these services is crucial. Just because they are sensitive topics in society doesn't mean they are undesirable... People don't want to talk about them enjoying getting pegged by their girlfriends, or whatever else they might enjoy, but it's important that they are allowed to find what they are looking for without hurting others.
Prostitution is no longer something where girls stand on a street and make places in town shady. It involves a website like this http://edmonton.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/ (for a random Alberta city), where you contact a woman with an unblocked number, and she can come to your house, or you to hers, and perform free consensual sex if you happen to give her a donation.
Nobody else is being affected by this, and I know several girls who willingly chose to go this route. Yeah, it's not as fun as it seems... It seems good when you think about a half-decent looking guy like you, and thinking it's like enjoyment for the girl. But then there are also the 60 year old men who are fat, show up drunk, bad breath, etc. But again, the money is really good, and quite safe from what I've heard from the girls here.
It's far from perfect, but legalizing it can help so much. They can freely report abusive numbers, abusive customers, gets checked for diseases and verified by the government. And better unify efforts for abusive customers, just to name a few things to help the girls.
Not only that, but the guys buying the sex can report it if it seems like some girls are working for an agency, or are putting up fake pictures for example. If the government is able to regulate and legalize it, they can actually receive tax money through prostitution (in ways of income tax), and come put certain regulations in place, like you need to get certified to become a prostitute. A certification will make sure you are clean, and if human trafficking is a concern, you could make certain laws like: "You must be be a Canadian citizen, or must have been a Canadian citizen for at least 5 years to be allowed to work in the sex industry"... This would help prevent this.
Anyway, lots of unexplored potential, and I think I'll be rallying for legalization of prostitution in my city over the summer.
A lot of great points. Although I already feel a little awkward going to a pride type event without my girlfriend, some event to support legalized prostitution sounds like 100x more awkward with or without my gf lol.
On June 23 2015 12:26 SK.Testie wrote: I'd wager most prostitutes in Canada get into it by themselves because the money is insanely good for some of them. And it's still pretty damn good for most of them.
It is, within the next week I'm going to be writing a very long blog about how to implement prostitution, as it's something I fully believe in.
If we use the guy scale, in my city, a 5-6/10 prostitute charges 150-250 hour, a 7/10 200-300, and a 8-9/10 300-450. 10/10 400-600. It is all protected, there are a variety of services, from weekend getaways, to blowjobs and massages, to pure companionship, to some kinky dominatrix stuff.
My girlfriend and I have a very uhh... I dunno unique sex life, and hiring a sex worker for a threesome is something we'd consider, and it's nice that we have a discreet way of doing so, with literally a 0% chance of punishment. Honestly, my girlfriend was considering it, as we're both in university and not rich, but I told her I'd prefer other avenues for her. Anyway, now she sells worn underwear, and underwear with period blood in it for big bucks.
A safe market for exchange of these services is crucial. Just because they are sensitive topics in society doesn't mean they are undesirable... People don't want to talk about them enjoying getting pegged by their girlfriends, or whatever else they might enjoy, but it's important that they are allowed to find what they are looking for without hurting others.
Prostitution is no longer something where girls stand on a street and make places in town shady. It involves a website like this http://edmonton.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/ (for a random Alberta city), where you contact a woman with an unblocked number, and she can come to your house, or you to hers, and perform free consensual sex if you happen to give her a donation.
Nobody else is being affected by this, and I know several girls who willingly chose to go this route. Yeah, it's not as fun as it seems... It seems good when you think about a half-decent looking guy like you, and thinking it's like enjoyment for the girl. But then there are also the 60 year old men who are fat, show up drunk, bad breath, etc. But again, the money is really good, and quite safe from what I've heard from the girls here.
It's far from perfect, but legalizing it can help so much. They can freely report abusive numbers, abusive customers, gets checked for diseases and verified by the government. And better unify efforts for abusive customers, just to name a few things to help the girls.
Not only that, but the guys buying the sex can report it if it seems like some girls are working for an agency, or are putting up fake pictures for example. If the government is able to regulate and legalize it, they can actually receive tax money through prostitution (in ways of income tax), and come put certain regulations in place, like you need to get certified to become a prostitute. A certification will make sure you are clean, and if human trafficking is a concern, you could make certain laws like: "You must be be a Canadian citizen, or must have been a Canadian citizen for at least 5 years to be allowed to work in the sex industry"... This would help prevent this.
Anyway, lots of unexplored potential, and I think I'll be rallying for legalization of prostitution in my city over the summer.
A lot of great points. Although I already feel a little awkward going to a pride type event without my girlfriend, some event to support legalized prostitution sounds like 100x more awkward with or without my gf lol.
I think the person who will care about your image the most is yourself, the others wont care. If I see a normal looking guy, I wouldn't think prostitute or buyer (though nothing wrong with that), just someone who believes in personal freedom when it's not at the expense of other people.
I think it's just a social stigma that was founded in western countries by Christianity, and since more or less all European countries and US + Canada are predominantly christian, it's something that's around. However, when you have an ever increasing atheist/agnostic population, or a population that is following it's religion a lot less strictly for whatever reasons, then you must have people to fight for the rights of those people. A lot of the controversial topics (gay marriage and abortion are the first that come to mind) are due to religion the country was built on... In the same way gay marriage is being legalized, I think prostitution bears many similarities, and will/should follow suit.
hmm, i got one. the only reason i'd support a legalization of prostitution would be if it will also come with "the quota" applied to its businesses/employees and such. (you know, when it's all about equality, the 50/50 male/female should be mandatory)
On June 23 2015 12:26 SK.Testie wrote: I'd wager most prostitutes in Canada get into it by themselves because the money is insanely good for some of them. And it's still pretty damn good for most of them.
It is, within the next week I'm going to be writing a very long blog about how to implement prostitution, as it's something I fully believe in.
If we use the guy scale, in my city, a 5-6/10 prostitute charges 150-250 hour, a 7/10 200-300, and a 8-9/10 300-450. 10/10 400-600. It is all protected, there are a variety of services, from weekend getaways, to blowjobs and massages, to pure companionship, to some kinky dominatrix stuff.
My girlfriend and I have a very uhh... I dunno unique sex life, and hiring a sex worker for a threesome is something we'd consider, and it's nice that we have a discreet way of doing so, with literally a 0% chance of punishment. Honestly, my girlfriend was considering it, as we're both in university and not rich, but I told her I'd prefer other avenues for her. Anyway, now she sells worn underwear, and underwear with period blood in it for big bucks.
A safe market for exchange of these services is crucial. Just because they are sensitive topics in society doesn't mean they are undesirable... People don't want to talk about them enjoying getting pegged by their girlfriends, or whatever else they might enjoy, but it's important that they are allowed to find what they are looking for without hurting others.
Prostitution is no longer something where girls stand on a street and make places in town shady. It involves a website like this http://edmonton.backpage.com/FemaleEscorts/ (for a random Alberta city), where you contact a woman with an unblocked number, and she can come to your house, or you to hers, and perform free consensual sex if you happen to give her a donation.
Nobody else is being affected by this, and I know several girls who willingly chose to go this route. Yeah, it's not as fun as it seems... It seems good when you think about a half-decent looking guy like you, and thinking it's like enjoyment for the girl. But then there are also the 60 year old men who are fat, show up drunk, bad breath, etc. But again, the money is really good, and quite safe from what I've heard from the girls here.
It's far from perfect, but legalizing it can help so much. They can freely report abusive numbers, abusive customers, gets checked for diseases and verified by the government. And better unify efforts for abusive customers, just to name a few things to help the girls.
Not only that, but the guys buying the sex can report it if it seems like some girls are working for an agency, or are putting up fake pictures for example. If the government is able to regulate and legalize it, they can actually receive tax money through prostitution (in ways of income tax), and come put certain regulations in place, like you need to get certified to become a prostitute. A certification will make sure you are clean, and if human trafficking is a concern, you could make certain laws like: "You must be be a Canadian citizen, or must have been a Canadian citizen for at least 5 years to be allowed to work in the sex industry"... This would help prevent this.
Anyway, lots of unexplored potential, and I think I'll be rallying for legalization of prostitution in my city over the summer.
A lot of great points. Although I already feel a little awkward going to a pride type event without my girlfriend, some event to support legalized prostitution sounds like 100x more awkward with or without my gf lol.
I think the person who will care about your image the most is yourself, the others wont care. If I see a normal looking guy, I wouldn't think prostitute or buyer (though nothing wrong with that), just someone who believes in personal freedom when it's not at the expense of other people.
I think it's just a social stigma that was founded in western countries by Christianity, and since more or less all European countries and US + Canada are predominantly christian, it's something that's around. However, when you have an ever increasing atheist/agnostic population, or a population that is following it's religion a lot less strictly for whatever reasons, then you must have people to fight for the rights of those people. A lot of the controversial topics (gay marriage and abortion are the first that come to mind) are due to religion the country was built on... In the same way gay marriage is being legalized, I think prostitution bears many similarities, and will/should follow suit.
Yeah, I'm a work in progress. Lingering effects of a conservative upbringing.
On June 23 2015 03:33 G5 wrote: The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
This statement made is one of opinion and not fact. You, like far too many others, throws out grand proclamations without bothering to cite any source.
Actually, why don't you go find me some statistics that say most female prostitutes freely go into it and are happy to stay in it and enjoyed all the sex and money a glamorous life of prostitution gave them.
How about articles written by actual porn stars and escorts themselves? Porn stars are essentially escorts who get paid, the main difference being they are on camera. And much like prostitutes, the stereotype is that all porn girls are drug addicts with daddy issues. Not saying that doesn't happen, but painting them all with that same brush is sensationalist. Girls like Jenna Haze and Jenna Jameson have gone on to build businesses of their own. Nina Hartley, whose been around forever, makes educational sex videos. Trying to paint them all as victims is demeaning to women. God forbid there are women who actually enjoy sex and can make a profit off it and do what they want with their bodies.
I don’t hate men. I am not a victim of child trafficking. I have never been raped, or drugged, or done porn. I’m not an addict. I never had a pimp. I don’t suffer from what my American girlfriends call “daddy issues” and what my shrink refers to as “malformed identity centering on early childhood abandonment.”
She added: 'Sex work means I can afford Sydney, it's expensive but I love the lifestyle and I earn enough that it means I can work half the year and travel the rest. 'I have always loved travel, learning about new food, languages and customs. There is something really romantic about being totally alone in a place where nobody knows you or anything about your past, a totally fresh start.' A former dancer, Summer (her work name) first dabbled in the sex trade in Liverpool three years ago. 'I'm rebellious by nature and always knew from the age of 12 I would try it,' she explained.
OH BUT SHE MUST BE A LYING WHORE TOO, HOW DARE SHE TRAVEL THE WORLD AND ENJOY A GOOD LIFE
On June 23 2015 16:34 xM(Z wrote: hmm, i got one. the only reason i'd support a legalization of prostitution would be if it will also come with "the quota" applied to its businesses/employees and such. (you know, when it's all about equality, the 50/50 male/female should be mandatory)
What?
Sorry, but why? When we look at construction jobs, we don't have quotas, when we have servers, we don't have quotas... Women have shown much less interest than men certain fields. Most male sex workers are for the gay community. Usually the only thing that women require is like someone to go to a wedding with and other social companionship and whatnot.
A year or two back, I read this blog of a guy, who worked as a prostitute for several years, and in all his life, he only had one or two women. Yes, I know at times it may look like women get the better deal of out this gender equality stuff, but I think it's sorting itself out.
Men will always make more money than women, because biologically they are more competitive, take more risks, and prefer to work in jobs that are more dangerous and stressful. I don't have a specific source now, but it's things I've had discussed in some of my previous classes like behavioral and experimental economics, as well as personal research. If you disagree with this statement, you are free to find me a reputable paper.
Anyway, the women who choose to live the life of potentially being undesirable to men, potentially being outcast by their friends for what their doing, as well as working in a more dangerous and contractor type position than the average woman deserve a pay premium. Construction companies discriminate towards the favor of men due to physical strength, so having an industry for women (which already exists), shouldn't cause any harm?
And legalization of sex industry would also likely lower prices, which would bring benefit to the male population.
On June 23 2015 16:34 xM(Z wrote: hmm, i got one. the only reason i'd support a legalization of prostitution would be if it will also come with "the quota" applied to its businesses/employees and such. (you know, when it's all about equality, the 50/50 male/female should be mandatory)
What?
Sorry, but why? When we look at construction jobs, we don't have quotas, when we have servers, we don't have quotas... Women have shown much less interest than men certain fields. Most male sex workers are for the gay community. Usually the only thing that women require is like someone to go to a wedding with and other social companionship and whatnot.
A year or two back, I read this blog of a guy, who worked as a prostitute for several years, and in all his life, he only had one or two women. Yes, I know at times it may look like women get the better deal of out this gender equality stuff, but I think it's sorting itself out.
Men will always make more money than women, because biologically they are more competitive, take more risks, and prefer to work in jobs that are more dangerous and stressful. I don't have a specific source now, but it's things I've had discussed in some of my previous classes like behavioral and experimental economics, as well as personal research. If you disagree with this statement, you are free to find me a reputable paper.
Anyway, the women who choose to live the life of potentially being undesirable to men, potentially being outcast by their friends for what their doing, as well as working in a more dangerous and contractor type position than the average woman deserve a pay premium. Construction companies discriminate towards the favor of men due to physical strength, so having an industry for women (which already exists), shouldn't cause any harm?
And legalization of sex industry would also likely lower prices, which would bring benefit to the male population.
i appreciate your somewhat detailed response to what was meant to be an assholery, that would appease in some way my misogynistic side (beating women at their own game, yea!).
i would still not support a legalization of this. i see it way closer to organ selling. you are selling the sex, literally. you're not cutting it off or anything but it's way up there. sure, the way you talk about it, wrap it in layers of intimacy, present it as a cure to loneliness; or how it's - where pure desire meets kindness, understanding, acceptance ... i don't know man, i'm not buying it. without the sex you have nothing to sell, right?; so everything you build around it it's just smoke designed to make the dirty part of it all, less strenuous to a 1st world mind. (i read and i'm aware of your "only needed for company, no sex involved" angle, but that is an exception to the rule and while yea that could exist, you can't use it as an argument when you're trying to sort out rules for the other 99% of it)
On June 23 2015 03:33 G5 wrote: The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
This statement made is one of opinion and not fact. You, like far too many others, throws out grand proclamations without bothering to cite any source.
Actually, why don't you go find me some statistics that say most female prostitutes freely go into it and are happy to stay in it and enjoyed all the sex and money a glamorous life of prostitution gave them.
How about articles written by actual porn stars and escorts themselves? Porn stars are essentially escorts who get paid, the main difference being they are on camera. And much like prostitutes, the stereotype is that all porn girls are drug addicts with daddy issues. Not saying that doesn't happen, but painting them all with that same brush is sensationalist. Girls like Jenna Haze and Jenna Jameson have gone on to build businesses of their own. Nina Hartley, whose been around forever, makes educational sex videos. Trying to paint them all as victims is demeaning to women. God forbid there are women who actually enjoy sex and can make a profit off it and do what they want with their bodies.
I don’t hate men. I am not a victim of child trafficking. I have never been raped, or drugged, or done porn. I’m not an addict. I never had a pimp. I don’t suffer from what my American girlfriends call “daddy issues” and what my shrink refers to as “malformed identity centering on early childhood abandonment.”
She added: 'Sex work means I can afford Sydney, it's expensive but I love the lifestyle and I earn enough that it means I can work half the year and travel the rest. 'I have always loved travel, learning about new food, languages and customs. There is something really romantic about being totally alone in a place where nobody knows you or anything about your past, a totally fresh start.' A former dancer, Summer (her work name) first dabbled in the sex trade in Liverpool three years ago. 'I'm rebellious by nature and always knew from the age of 12 I would try it,' she explained.
OH BUT SHE MUST BE A LYING WHORE TOO, HOW DARE SHE TRAVEL THE WORLD AND ENJOY A GOOD LIFE
I read some of the articles, they were quite interesting, but I'm not sure why you think a few happy go lucky anecdotes matter in the face of the fact that overwhelmingly, across the globe, and as shown in this thread, prostitution is not voluntary. Where it is legal the rates of trafficing and violence goes up, not down. I simply think it's worth it to inconvienence a couple of rich ex models if that helps preventing more 16 year old slaves being force fed heroin just to statisfy some urge people have. That's the consequentialist argument.
On a more basic level, the things we allow to be for sale says something about the soceity we want. Wealth and income disparity doesnt really matter terribly if all money buys you is a nicer car and fancier vaccations. But if you also get to pay for political influence, education, healthcare, sex... Or put differently, in a stratified society, putting a price on something gives the wealthy power of the poor with respect to that thing. For example there is a reason we don't allow healthy people to sell their hearts. Because when money can buy your family not just a better car, but health and prospects, then suddenly giving your life in exchange for money becomes a deal some people would see themselves mandated to take.
To me selling sex is a less extreme version of this. To most people (I gladly admit, not all) sex and your own body is intimatly associated with integrity, joy, privacy... In a stratified society, to put a price on such things is to essentially mandate sections of the population to give them up. And I find that abhorent.
edit: person above went totally ninja on me re: the organ donation analogy ^^
On June 23 2015 03:33 G5 wrote: The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
This statement made is one of opinion and not fact. You, like far too many others, throws out grand proclamations without bothering to cite any source.
Actually, why don't you go find me some statistics that say most female prostitutes freely go into it and are happy to stay in it and enjoyed all the sex and money a glamorous life of prostitution gave them.
How about articles written by actual porn stars and escorts themselves? Porn stars are essentially escorts who get paid, the main difference being they are on camera. And much like prostitutes, the stereotype is that all porn girls are drug addicts with daddy issues. Not saying that doesn't happen, but painting them all with that same brush is sensationalist. Girls like Jenna Haze and Jenna Jameson have gone on to build businesses of their own. Nina Hartley, whose been around forever, makes educational sex videos. Trying to paint them all as victims is demeaning to women. God forbid there are women who actually enjoy sex and can make a profit off it and do what they want with their bodies.
I don’t hate men. I am not a victim of child trafficking. I have never been raped, or drugged, or done porn. I’m not an addict. I never had a pimp. I don’t suffer from what my American girlfriends call “daddy issues” and what my shrink refers to as “malformed identity centering on early childhood abandonment.”
She added: 'Sex work means I can afford Sydney, it's expensive but I love the lifestyle and I earn enough that it means I can work half the year and travel the rest. 'I have always loved travel, learning about new food, languages and customs. There is something really romantic about being totally alone in a place where nobody knows you or anything about your past, a totally fresh start.' A former dancer, Summer (her work name) first dabbled in the sex trade in Liverpool three years ago. 'I'm rebellious by nature and always knew from the age of 12 I would try it,' she explained.
OH BUT SHE MUST BE A LYING WHORE TOO, HOW DARE SHE TRAVEL THE WORLD AND ENJOY A GOOD LIFE
I read some of the articles, they were quite interesting, but I'm not sure why you think a few happy go lucky anecdotes matter in the face of the fact that overwhelmingly, across the globe, and as shown in this thread, prostitution is not voluntary. Where it is legal the rates of trafficing and violence goes up, not down. I simply think it's worth it to inconvienence a couple of rich ex models if that helps preventing more 16 year old slaves being force fed heroin just to statisfy some urge people have. That's the consequentialist argument.
On a more basic level, the things we allow to be for sale says something about the soceity we want. Wealth and income disparity doesnt really matter terribly if all money buys you is a nicer car and fancier vaccations. But if you also get to pay for political influence, education, healthcare, sex... Or put differently, in a stratified society, putting a price on something gives the wealthy power of the poor with respect to that thing. For example there is a reason we don't allow healthy people to sell their hearts. Because when money can buy your family not just a better car, but health and prospects, then suddenly giving your life in exchange for money becomes a deal some people would see themselves mandated to take.
To me selling sex is a less extreme version of this. To most people (I gladly admit, not all) sex and your own body is intimatly associated with integrity, joy, privacy... In a stratified society, to put a price on such things is to essentially mandate sections of the population to give them up. And I find that abhorent.
edit: person above went totally ninja on me re: the organ donation analogy ^^
Did you happen to have any articles where it wasn't a third world nation, or they didn't have a huge drug problem? Drugs and poverty force people into a lot of stuff, and illegal immigrants are forced into a lot more fields than just prostitution. There doesn't seem to be anything wrong with prostituion, but instead with thr climate around it. Legalization and regulation helps because it takes away business from gangs and pimps. Regulation also makes kit cleaner and safer for both sides. Someone also mentioned that government could make money off of it through with taxes.
On June 23 2015 03:33 G5 wrote: The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
This statement made is one of opinion and not fact. You, like far too many others, throws out grand proclamations without bothering to cite any source.
Actually, why don't you go find me some statistics that say most female prostitutes freely go into it and are happy to stay in it and enjoyed all the sex and money a glamorous life of prostitution gave them.
How about articles written by actual porn stars and escorts themselves? Porn stars are essentially escorts who get paid, the main difference being they are on camera. And much like prostitutes, the stereotype is that all porn girls are drug addicts with daddy issues. Not saying that doesn't happen, but painting them all with that same brush is sensationalist. Girls like Jenna Haze and Jenna Jameson have gone on to build businesses of their own. Nina Hartley, whose been around forever, makes educational sex videos. Trying to paint them all as victims is demeaning to women. God forbid there are women who actually enjoy sex and can make a profit off it and do what they want with their bodies.
I don’t hate men. I am not a victim of child trafficking. I have never been raped, or drugged, or done porn. I’m not an addict. I never had a pimp. I don’t suffer from what my American girlfriends call “daddy issues” and what my shrink refers to as “malformed identity centering on early childhood abandonment.”
She added: 'Sex work means I can afford Sydney, it's expensive but I love the lifestyle and I earn enough that it means I can work half the year and travel the rest. 'I have always loved travel, learning about new food, languages and customs. There is something really romantic about being totally alone in a place where nobody knows you or anything about your past, a totally fresh start.' A former dancer, Summer (her work name) first dabbled in the sex trade in Liverpool three years ago. 'I'm rebellious by nature and always knew from the age of 12 I would try it,' she explained.
OH BUT SHE MUST BE A LYING WHORE TOO, HOW DARE SHE TRAVEL THE WORLD AND ENJOY A GOOD LIFE
I read some of the articles, they were quite interesting, but I'm not sure why you think a few happy go lucky anecdotes matter in the face of the fact that overwhelmingly, across the globe, and as shown in this thread, prostitution is not voluntary. Where it is legal the rates of trafficing and violence goes up, not down. I simply think it's worth it to inconvienence a couple of rich ex models if that helps preventing more 16 year old slaves being force fed heroin just to statisfy some urge people have. That's the consequentialist argument.
On a more basic level, the things we allow to be for sale says something about the soceity we want. Wealth and income disparity doesnt really matter terribly if all money buys you is a nicer car and fancier vaccations. But if you also get to pay for political influence, education, healthcare, sex... Or put differently, in a stratified society, putting a price on something gives the wealthy power of the poor with respect to that thing. For example there is a reason we don't allow healthy people to sell their hearts. Because when money can buy your family not just a better car, but health and prospects, then suddenly giving your life in exchange for money becomes a deal some people would see themselves mandated to take.
To me selling sex is a less extreme version of this. To most people (I gladly admit, not all) sex and your own body is intimatly associated with integrity, joy, privacy... In a stratified society, to put a price on such things is to essentially mandate sections of the population to give them up. And I find that abhorent.
edit: person above went totally ninja on me re: the organ donation analogy ^^
I find nothing morally wrong with selling one's own body, as long as its a decision not made under coercion. What's wrong is human sex trafficking and slavery. This is why Eliot Spitzer (who got in trouble for seeing an escort and yet going after prostitutes as an attorney general) was not a hypocrite. The girl he was seeing was making a ton of money and was in no way coerced.
Maybe legalizing all prostitution isn't the correct answer, given the increase of trafficking as a result. Going after pimps, shutting down brothels that degrade women, and getting street walkers help instead of treating them as criminals might be better policies. There are definitely many girls who do quite well for themselves, and are not "victims". If I could make ten grand in one hour, I'd take it. Unfortunately, I'm a dude, and male prostitutes aren't in high demand. But you bet your ass I'd take a rich sugar momma, as would a lot of guys. A lot of these women who are being exploited in brothels were hoping for a life like that. With the right policy that can happen. High end prostitution is basically a modern version of a no strings attached discrete mistress. Gold digging isn't illegal, and its essentially selling your body. Porn isn't illegal, and it IS selling your body on camera. So there is no logical reason for prostitution to be illegal either.
On June 23 2015 16:34 xM(Z wrote: hmm, i got one. the only reason i'd support a legalization of prostitution would be if it will also come with "the quota" applied to its businesses/employees and such. (you know, when it's all about equality, the 50/50 male/female should be mandatory)
What?
Sorry, but why? When we look at construction jobs, we don't have quotas, when we have servers, we don't have quotas... Women have shown much less interest than men certain fields. Most male sex workers are for the gay community. Usually the only thing that women require is like someone to go to a wedding with and other social companionship and whatnot.
A year or two back, I read this blog of a guy, who worked as a prostitute for several years, and in all his life, he only had one or two women. Yes, I know at times it may look like women get the better deal of out this gender equality stuff, but I think it's sorting itself out.
Men will always make more money than women, because biologically they are more competitive, take more risks, and prefer to work in jobs that are more dangerous and stressful. I don't have a specific source now, but it's things I've had discussed in some of my previous classes like behavioral and experimental economics, as well as personal research. If you disagree with this statement, you are free to find me a reputable paper.
Anyway, the women who choose to live the life of potentially being undesirable to men, potentially being outcast by their friends for what their doing, as well as working in a more dangerous and contractor type position than the average woman deserve a pay premium. Construction companies discriminate towards the favor of men due to physical strength, so having an industry for women (which already exists), shouldn't cause any harm?
And legalization of sex industry would also likely lower prices, which would bring benefit to the male population.
i appreciate your somewhat detailed response to what was meant to be an assholery, that would appease in some way my misogynistic side (beating women at their own game, yea!).
i would still not support a legalization of this. i see it way closer to organ selling. you are selling the sex, literally. you're not cutting it off or anything but it's way up there. sure, the way you talk about it, wrap it in layers of intimacy, present it as a cure to loneliness; or how it's - where pure desire meets kindness, understanding, acceptance ... i don't know man, i'm not buying it. without the sex you have nothing to sell, right?; so everything you build around it it's just smoke designed to make the dirty part of it all, less strenuous to a 1st world mind. (i read and i'm aware of your "only needed for company, no sex involved" angle, but that is an exception to the rule and while yea that could exist, you can't use it as an argument when you're trying to sort out rules for the other 99% of it)
I did not mean to layer it in intimacy - yes, at the end of the day, it is about the sex. Lets no confuse the desire for a vagina and sex though, if the only thing you're after is some moist feeling of a vagina, you could use your hand, have a fancy masturbation tool, etc. I'd imagine a sex worker that simply lays there and does and says nothing isn't very successful... So use your imagination why someone would hire a hooker, whether that's to defeat social stigma of being a virgin, feel powerful, fulfill the desire of being inside a woman, wanting to hear the moans, whatever reasons.
For the reason above, I'd look at it more of being a service than a rental of a vagina (or dick). Our economy is built on the premise of renting your body to perform services for others, there are some that require you to invest yourself into them little, and some a lot. For example, if your an accountant, you can be quite physically and mentally disconnected from your work. On the other hand, if you're a doctor, a server, a pole dancer, or one of those people that go swimming in poop to do mechanical inspections, you are naturally closer to what you do. You can argue that you give up some of those conventional work freedoms or whatever, because you are asked of things that in a "normal" job you wouldn't be, but they are things that need to be done, and things that people will want to do given that there is a pay premium. I would say it's much the same for sex work.
I'm from a really multicultural part of the world, so things often need to be sugar coated a little bit because someone is bound to get pissed off about everything. So if it's immoral to you, fine. But what if the other 50% of the population (theoretical numbers) have no issue with it, and think it's fully moral? Why would you prevent these people from doing it if the people you hang out with and your friends would be unaffected?
The argument is that more legalization is more human trafficking, and that is a real argument for why to not legalize it, as it would increase dangers to the population even if you are not a part of the industry itself. However, I think a lot of it may be due to implementation, and like pointed out before, potentially being third world countries or something like that. As long as the choice isn't sex work or poverty, I believe the risks of human trafficking are greatly reduced. Not to mention, if it wasn't such a difficult topic to discuss in society, we could make sure that parties aren't being instead of taken advantage of, instead of "They're doing illegal shit, why should we care what's going on there?", much like the US does with it's prison population (and to an extent other western countries).
On June 23 2015 03:33 G5 wrote: The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
This statement made is one of opinion and not fact. You, like far too many others, throws out grand proclamations without bothering to cite any source.
Actually, why don't you go find me some statistics that say most female prostitutes freely go into it and are happy to stay in it and enjoyed all the sex and money a glamorous life of prostitution gave them.
How about articles written by actual porn stars and escorts themselves? Porn stars are essentially escorts who get paid, the main difference being they are on camera. And much like prostitutes, the stereotype is that all porn girls are drug addicts with daddy issues. Not saying that doesn't happen, but painting them all with that same brush is sensationalist. Girls like Jenna Haze and Jenna Jameson have gone on to build businesses of their own. Nina Hartley, whose been around forever, makes educational sex videos. Trying to paint them all as victims is demeaning to women. God forbid there are women who actually enjoy sex and can make a profit off it and do what they want with their bodies.
I don’t hate men. I am not a victim of child trafficking. I have never been raped, or drugged, or done porn. I’m not an addict. I never had a pimp. I don’t suffer from what my American girlfriends call “daddy issues” and what my shrink refers to as “malformed identity centering on early childhood abandonment.”
She added: 'Sex work means I can afford Sydney, it's expensive but I love the lifestyle and I earn enough that it means I can work half the year and travel the rest. 'I have always loved travel, learning about new food, languages and customs. There is something really romantic about being totally alone in a place where nobody knows you or anything about your past, a totally fresh start.' A former dancer, Summer (her work name) first dabbled in the sex trade in Liverpool three years ago. 'I'm rebellious by nature and always knew from the age of 12 I would try it,' she explained.
OH BUT SHE MUST BE A LYING WHORE TOO, HOW DARE SHE TRAVEL THE WORLD AND ENJOY A GOOD LIFE
I read some of the articles, they were quite interesting, but I'm not sure why you think a few happy go lucky anecdotes matter in the face of the fact that overwhelmingly, across the globe, and as shown in this thread, prostitution is not voluntary. Where it is legal the rates of trafficing and violence goes up, not down. I simply think it's worth it to inconvienence a couple of rich ex models if that helps preventing more 16 year old slaves being force fed heroin just to statisfy some urge people have. That's the consequentialist argument.
On a more basic level, the things we allow to be for sale says something about the soceity we want. Wealth and income disparity doesnt really matter terribly if all money buys you is a nicer car and fancier vaccations. But if you also get to pay for political influence, education, healthcare, sex... Or put differently, in a stratified society, putting a price on something gives the wealthy power of the poor with respect to that thing. For example there is a reason we don't allow healthy people to sell their hearts. Because when money can buy your family not just a better car, but health and prospects, then suddenly giving your life in exchange for money becomes a deal some people would see themselves mandated to take.
To me selling sex is a less extreme version of this. To most people (I gladly admit, not all) sex and your own body is intimatly associated with integrity, joy, privacy... In a stratified society, to put a price on such things is to essentially mandate sections of the population to give them up. And I find that abhorent.
edit: person above went totally ninja on me re: the organ donation analogy ^^
I like most of what you said, so I'll just focus on the points I disagree with.
In the first paragraph, before we immediately jump to the conclusion that more legalization = more trafficking, maybe more time should be spent trying to improve the system to prevent this. I haven't done my research on this topic specifically, but I think this can be mostly prevented. Next, you're not simply inconveniencing a few rich ex-models, you're inconveniencing the many people who would like these services, as well as the women that would like to make money in this way. You're also inconveniencing the government not receiving any income tax from the people working in prostitution, as well as the women who are currently working in a black market in more dangerous conditions than otherwise.
I really like your second paragraph, it's just a nice philosophical thing I agree with it. However, a better way to deal with wealth and income disparity (if it's something you believe is bad), is welfare and a progressive tax system, tax breaks for families, etc... Instead of what you're proposing, which is just don't let rich people buy anything besides improved versions of what the poor people buy.
We should as a society agree what is dangerous to be sold (so guns, dangerous chemicals, food with low health standards, dangerous toys, or things that have a high potential of hurting people besides the user), and we don't sell those things. We also don't allow certain things, because most of society believes it's immoral and not right for people to be doing, whether that's drugs, necrophilia, suicide, euthanasia, etc. But the rest is fair game.
For example, a "rich" person is able to buy a house so he has more privacy, a rich person is able to buy a car to he can get to places quicker. A rich person is able to buy a cleaning lady so he doesn't have to do house chores, or he's able to buy a gym membership, hygiene products, etc so he's able to look better than that homeless bum. The poor person is still able to orgasm, the poor person is still able to find a girlfriend... The rich person certainly receives a benefit, but I wouldn't say it's any larger than what I listed prior. I agree that certain things, money should not be able to buy, as it would defeat the pillars of our society - so like buying the law, or political power, or essentially buying slaves (the sex work or poverty example I gave)... But so long as the woman has an alternative, it doesn't break any "fundamental human rights".
Like you said, to some people, their body is very special, and culturally or morally it's a right that you should fundamentally have. But the people who value having some more money so they can go on more vacation, or eat better food in exchange for temporarily giving up some of their rights to their body willingly, why not? The crucial thing is that the freedom of choice about entering sex work remains.
The reason why I have never used prostitutes is because of fear of HIV/AIDS. You never know if a prostitute has HIV/AIDS, so I can't believe people still use prostitutes.
On June 25 2015 20:49 RapidTiger wrote: The reason why I have never used prostitutes is because of fear of HIV/AIDS. You never know if a prostitute has HIV/AIDS, so I can't believe people still use prostitutes.
I know right? Why use a prostitute when you can just use a girl from a bar? They're WAY cleaner.
On June 23 2015 03:33 G5 wrote: The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
This statement made is one of opinion and not fact. You, like far too many others, throws out grand proclamations without bothering to cite any source.
Actually, why don't you go find me some statistics that say most female prostitutes freely go into it and are happy to stay in it and enjoyed all the sex and money a glamorous life of prostitution gave them.
How about articles written by actual porn stars and escorts themselves? Porn stars are essentially escorts who get paid, the main difference being they are on camera. And much like prostitutes, the stereotype is that all porn girls are drug addicts with daddy issues. Not saying that doesn't happen, but painting them all with that same brush is sensationalist. Girls like Jenna Haze and Jenna Jameson have gone on to build businesses of their own. Nina Hartley, whose been around forever, makes educational sex videos. Trying to paint them all as victims is demeaning to women. God forbid there are women who actually enjoy sex and can make a profit off it and do what they want with their bodies.
I don’t hate men. I am not a victim of child trafficking. I have never been raped, or drugged, or done porn. I’m not an addict. I never had a pimp. I don’t suffer from what my American girlfriends call “daddy issues” and what my shrink refers to as “malformed identity centering on early childhood abandonment.”
She added: 'Sex work means I can afford Sydney, it's expensive but I love the lifestyle and I earn enough that it means I can work half the year and travel the rest. 'I have always loved travel, learning about new food, languages and customs. There is something really romantic about being totally alone in a place where nobody knows you or anything about your past, a totally fresh start.' A former dancer, Summer (her work name) first dabbled in the sex trade in Liverpool three years ago. 'I'm rebellious by nature and always knew from the age of 12 I would try it,' she explained.
OH BUT SHE MUST BE A LYING WHORE TOO, HOW DARE SHE TRAVEL THE WORLD AND ENJOY A GOOD LIFE
Cherry picking a few girls that got into it freely/enjoyed it is hardly a statistic. Do you actually know what a statistic is? Show me the numbers that back your argument or stop arguing it.
P.S. The delivery on what you wrote is laughable lol
On June 25 2015 20:49 RapidTiger wrote: The reason why I have never used prostitutes is because of fear of HIV/AIDS. You never know if a prostitute has HIV/AIDS, so I can't believe people still use prostitutes.
There is a red light district 100 meters from where I live and my impression is that these people are not that happy. There are often groups of hooligans hanging around leering at the girls, you also hear reports of drug addiction and the fact that most of them are from Eastern Europe.
I don't think people with an education and a choice want to become prostitutes. I'm sure you can find a handful of women that enjoy the life of an escort or dancer or whatever, but there is a darker undercurrent. Personally I can't understand why foreign prostitutes are allowed in this country, it just seems an invitation for this seedy, coercive system.
It has been ten years since New Zealand parliamentarians, after considerable debate and encouragement from sex workers, mainstream women’s organizations, and public health advocates, voted for changes to the laws governing prostitution.
The Prostitution Reform Act 2003 (PRA) heralded a significant turnaround in approach, repealing laws that had been used to criminalize sex workers and created circumstances that contributed to their vulnerability. Rather, the aim of the PRA is to decriminalize prostitution and safeguard the human rights of sex workers, while protecting them from exploitation. The law also states the importance of promoting sex workers’ welfare and occupational safety and health, and that the law be conducive to public health. In addition, it prohibits the “use in prostitution” of people who are under 18.
“Low-Key” Decriminalization
Today, as it was before the change in law, sex work is widespread, and mostly occurs in a low-key way in minor towns and in every major city throughout New Zealand. Yet the industry has not grown in the last ten years. It's not obvious that the sex trade has been decriminalized: brothels are not on every corner, nor are “sex for sale” signs flashing at the unsuspecting.
However, inside, brothels now display safer-sex information prominently. Sex workers are allowed to work in managed brothels with no size restrictions, or to collectivize and work as equals with colleagues, or to work alone. Home occupation and standard business zoning laws generally apply — although there have been some city councils who have been successfully challenged in court for the development of unreasonable bylaws restricting the location of brothels. Street-based sex work is allowed and there is no regime of licensing or mandatory testing of individual sex workers.
Sex worker registers are a thing of the past, in recognition that it is not sex workers who need monitoring as criminals. However, operators of brothels, and anyone involved in directing sex workers for profit, are required to have an operator’s certificate. These certificates are issued by the District Court and withheld from people with specific convictions, including those for violence.
The PRA enables sex workers to reach out for help and access justice if necessary. While the police were previously the enforcers of anti-prostitution laws, they are now widely regarded by sex workers as their allies in the prevention of violence. The police, too, report the effectiveness of decriminalization in building non-coercive relationships with sex workers as a violence prevention strategy.
While decriminalization has not stopped all violence — as no law alone could achieve this in any context — there is overwhelming evidence that decriminalization has enabled sex workers to decline contact with people they perceive to be potentially dangerous clients.
The law also explicitly reinforces the right of sex workers to refuse to continue providing services to any client, to prevent the confusion that sex workers give away this right as contractors to brothel operators. The government has published guidelines with input from sex workers that expands on this, and which address issues of security and safety in the context of sex work.
Anti-Trafficking Tool
Decriminalization of sex work creates many opportunities to head off exploitation, and is significant as an anti-trafficking tool – Immigration New Zealand continues to report that they have found no instances of sex trafficking in New Zealand, despite their determined forays into the migrant sector of the sex industry.
Reports that large numbers of youth are now trafficked by gangs into prostitution are not backed up by police evidence. Government and community-based agencies, including peer-based sex worker groups, collaborate to assist youth who are involved in sex work. This collaboration would not have occurred prior to decriminalization due to mistrust of the police.
Decriminalization has also created higher standards and expectations in relation to occupational safety and health. Sex workers, and even their clients, will blow the whistle if they suspect something in the work place that doesn’t look quite right.
There have been mundane complaints about withheld money by clients or brothel operators, which have been resolved in an easy to access Disputes Tribunal setting in the local district court (though there is an arbitrator rather than a judge, and no lawyers are present), to more serious reports of underage sex workers being illegally hired, resulting in jail time for brothel operators. Sex workers have utilized their right to combat workplace sexual harassment from their bosses using human rights legislation; a right unimaginable prior to decriminalization and probably unobtainable while brothel-keeping was illegal.
Better Communication
There is also a freeing up of communication. Prior to the law change, the sex industry was hidden under a range of misleading identities, such as escort agencies and massage parlors, which had to pretend that commercial sex was not their main purpose. This distancing inhibited the health promotion strategies that sex workers and brothel operators now use to build a strong culture of safer sex.
Today, people who are considering sex work are unlikely to arrive at a business with the promise of “Earn $$$ Now” and “onsite training available” and be unaware that its real purpose is to provide commercial sex services. Instead, they are legally able to seek practical and realistic information to inform their decision to become a sex worker.
Of course, negotiations between sex workers and their clients can be more focused on the things that matter. Sex workers can negotiate more carefully without the pressure of wondering if their next client is an undercover cop who is about to arrest them and count their condoms, or someone who may cause them other kinds of harm.
Corruption has also been nipped in the bud, with the police recently prosecuting one of their own for unlawfully trying to extort sexual favors from a sex worker with traffic offences.
The Department of Labour has produced guidelines after consulting with sex workers and brothel operators, which expand on issues of security and describe safe ways in which to provide services such as “outcalls” to the homes of clients. They also address sexual and reproductive health themes and promote the importance of regular, but non-mandatory, testing, in recognition that it is condom use and other safer sex practices, and not testing, that most effectively prevents the spread of sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The law forbids brothel operators promoting or implying that their staff are free from STIs, but requires them to explicitly promote safer sex. The prevalence of sexually transmissible infections for the country’s estimated 5,000 sex workers is in line with other general populations, with HIV remaining negligible. Medical Officers of Health, under the auspices of the Ministry of Health, have the power to inspect brothels and check compliance with health and safety requirements. The police only routinely visit to inspect liquor licenses.
The approach to allow sex work to occur, supported by labor and other mainstream laws, is now accepted by most people in New Zealand. There are local controversies, such as the lack of zoning for street-based sex workers, which ignite debate, with a bill before the parliament to give councils the power to do so. Interestingly, the police have backed the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective in opposing this bill, recognizing that informal agreements are more effective than imposed legal regimes.
Decriminalization of prostitution is being called for by sex workers in many countries, including India, Fiji, Scotland and, of course, the United States. For sex workers, it goes much deeper than repealing key parts of legislation that criminalize their work. Like others, they want the rights and responsibilities to participate in society without discrimination. The New Zealand model of law reform is a step to creating conditions that allow this to happen.
On June 28 2015 19:43 Grumbels wrote: There is a red light district 100 meters from where I live and my impression is that these people are not that happy. There are often groups of hooligans hanging around leering at the girls, you also hear reports of drug addiction and the fact that most of them are from Eastern Europe.
I don't think people with an education and a choice want to become prostitutes. I'm sure you can find a handful of women that enjoy the life of an escort or dancer or whatever, but there is a darker undercurrent. Personally I can't understand why foreign prostitutes are allowed in this country, it just seems an invitation for this seedy, coercive system.
Most aren't "allowed", many get into this country and then are put into the sex trade because they can't do anything else.
On June 28 2015 19:43 Grumbels wrote: There is a red light district 100 meters from where I live and my impression is that these people are not that happy. There are often groups of hooligans hanging around leering at the girls, you also hear reports of drug addiction and the fact that most of them are from Eastern Europe.
I don't think people with an education and a choice want to become prostitutes. I'm sure you can find a handful of women that enjoy the life of an escort or dancer or whatever, but there is a darker undercurrent. Personally I can't understand why foreign prostitutes are allowed in this country, it just seems an invitation for this seedy, coercive system.
Most aren't "allowed", many get into this country and then are put into the sex trade because they can't do anything else.
I'm talking about the Netherlands, which accepts sex workers from places like Romania and Bulgaria. I find that very dubious, because these people live in a foreign country, don't speak the language and are most likely rotated between various cities and countries so that the local police can never get a good grip on them. It invites abuse and creates an underclass.
I think if prostitution is supposed to be a viable and legitimate profession, it should at least demonstrate that it can attract local workers. If not, it feels to me like you're just importing underprivileged people from poor countries to do the dirty jobs others don't want to do.
On June 28 2015 19:43 Grumbels wrote: There is a red light district 100 meters from where I live and my impression is that these people are not that happy. There are often groups of hooligans hanging around leering at the girls, you also hear reports of drug addiction and the fact that most of them are from Eastern Europe.
I don't think people with an education and a choice want to become prostitutes. I'm sure you can find a handful of women that enjoy the life of an escort or dancer or whatever, but there is a darker undercurrent. Personally I can't understand why foreign prostitutes are allowed in this country, it just seems an invitation for this seedy, coercive system.
Most aren't "allowed", many get into this country and then are put into the sex trade because they can't do anything else.
I'm talking about the Netherlands, which accepts sex workers from places like Romania and Bulgaria. I find that very dubious, because these people live in a foreign country, don't speak the language and are most likely rotated between various cities and countries so that the local police can never get a good grip on them. It invites abuse and creates an underclass.
I think if prostitution is supposed to be a viable and legitimate profession, it should at least demonstrate that it can attract local workers. If not, it feels to me like you're just importing underprivileged people from poor countries to do the dirty jobs others don't want to do.
Oh sorry, didn't know about the specific place. Is there something wrong in Romania and Bulgaria, because I don't think I've heard of another country where foreign sex workers are able to do that. Edit: Unless they're allowed to work and travel anywhere in the continent (can't remember how much of Europe that's allowed in), then it's just a consequence of that. They're probably promised that they'll make more and then go to the Netherlands.
On June 23 2015 03:33 G5 wrote: Ideologically, I believe if someone wants to sell their body, they should be able to. Unfortunately, that isn't the case most of the time with Prostitution and isn't the business we're talking about. Prostitution should be illegal. It's a shitty business to be in and that's why most of the trade is ran by shitty people and criminal organizations (even in legalized countries). It's a dangerous job (legal or illegal), most woman are manipulated or forced into the sex-trade ending with death or life-long emotional scaring in most cases. If someone really wanted to sell their body, there is the more common avenue of finding someone who'll take care of them financially in return for companionship. Of course, there is also the porn industry. The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
Ah, the old, shaming argument. Let me give you some insight into how the prostitution business really works in the United States of America. Since you want to come on here and shame people for some reason, let me give you a first hand experience of how the industry actually works.
The vast majority of escorts/prostitutes even in the United States are actually working towards or already have a college degree. They are intelligent, capable women who chose a certain avenue of life because they either needed alot of money very quickly, or they simply didn't have many alternatives. Is it a lifestyle for everyone? No. Do you have a few girls who are occasionally managed/pimped? Yes. Those girls however, are very easy to spot. It's pretty simple to tell who they are, as you can tell clearly by a few tell tale signs such as how often do they work, certain tattoos, what kind of policies they have (NBA or no black africans is almost a for sure sign), and how they handle themselves through communication. They also charge less then your average girl in the market because they are attempting to go for volume, rather than for the occasional work shift. For example, in the major cities of Dallas, Austin, Houston, and San Antonio, the average price for an escort will run you about $300 USD/hr. Any girls running below this typically run monthly specials or they are managed. Why? Because higher volume means more money in the long run if the girl is able to sustain herself. That being said, there are a few crazy girls out there who go all out around $250 in the Texas area and just go all out and just try and get money by the truckloads (Talked to a girl once who made an absurd 40k a month, turning like 6-8 clients a day).
Your typical girls who are 300, 400, 500, or 600 an hour however typically only see maybe like 3-5 clients a week if even that (sometimes they go through dry spells where they don't even see a client for weeks, depends on how things go). They will typically establish regulars who will see them on a weekly basis for an hour, and that's where the vast majority of their income comes from. However, these types of girls are usually college students, or working on their masters, and are of a 'higher quality' (hate using that term, but kind of hard to word it) then your typical lower end girls. These girls are 100% independent, they may have someone that they trust to handle their booking (typically a former escort girl), but that's about it. They do what they do because they enjoy their work, like the money, and are using their work as a stepping stone to get into a better place in life. Where alot of girls get in trouble though is when they get addicted to the lifestyle, and that's where I wish there were more programs to help them exit. They get addicted to the easy money, are at a fairly young age, and do stupid shit like blowing their money on Chanel Bags and Red Bottoms (Loubatans). I mean, it's ok to splurge once inawhile because they make a shitload of money, however most of them have no idea on how to handle the amount of money they have, so they just do dumb shit with it for the most part. That being said, alot of girls are smart, save, and work towards improving their lives. I've met girls who retired from the business who are quite successful, many of them who went on to become nurses, physician assistants, and lawyers. It's absolutely ridiculous to believe that everyone is put into a life or death situations. Many of these girls were actually part time dancers/strippers/etc. and were approached, they researched it, got into it, and loved it. It's not a long term job, but it is something that allowed many of these women who came from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds to rise up and do something with their lives. No one was forced to do shit.
How do I know all of this? Because I have a very close friend who used to work as an escort, has retired, and went on to become a successful physician assistant. Is she proud of what she did? Probably not. Did it take an emotional toll on her? 100%. But in her situation, she didn't have very many options at all. She did enjoy her work though (to an extent), and I was fully supportive of her. So this whole belief that 'most women are trafficked' is a load of bullshit. Your holier than thou attitude is a load of bullshit too. Many of the women in the industry (who I've personally got to meet through my friend) are just trying to better their own lives, make something of themselves, and doing what they have to. Yes, many of the women who enter the industry didn't come from great families, so they really didn't have many choices. So guess what? You can go fuck off. Seriously. You have no fucking clue as to how the industry even works.
User was temp banned for this post based on poor moderation history
On June 29 2015 11:11 soul55555 wrote: I know this is out of sequence, but a group of sex workers filed a Lawsuit to decriminalize Prostitution in California.
On June 23 2015 03:33 G5 wrote: Ideologically, I believe if someone wants to sell their body, they should be able to. Unfortunately, that isn't the case most of the time with Prostitution and isn't the business we're talking about. Prostitution should be illegal. It's a shitty business to be in and that's why most of the trade is ran by shitty people and criminal organizations (even in legalized countries). It's a dangerous job (legal or illegal), most woman are manipulated or forced into the sex-trade ending with death or life-long emotional scaring in most cases. If someone really wanted to sell their body, there is the more common avenue of finding someone who'll take care of them financially in return for companionship. Of course, there is also the porn industry. The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
Ah, the old, shaming argument. Let me give you some insight into how the prostitution business really works in the United States of America. Since you want to come on here and shame people for some reason, let me give you a first hand experience of how the industry actually works.
The vast majority of escorts/prostitutes even in the United States are actually working towards or already have a college degree. They are intelligent, capable women who chose a certain avenue of life because they either needed alot of money very quickly, or they simply didn't have many alternatives. Is it a lifestyle for everyone? No. Do you have a few girls who are occasionally managed/pimped? Yes. Those girls however, are very easy to spot. It's pretty simple to tell who they are, as you can tell clearly by a few tell tale signs such as how often do they work, certain tattoos, what kind of policies they have (NBA or no black africans is almost a for sure sign), and how they handle themselves through communication. They also charge less then your average girl in the market because they are attempting to go for volume, rather than for the occasional work shift. For example, in the major cities of Dallas, Austin, Houston, and San Antonio, the average price for an escort will run you about $300 USD/hr. Any girls running below this typically run monthly specials or they are managed. Why? Because higher volume means more money in the long run if the girl is able to sustain herself. That being said, there are a few crazy girls out there who go all out around $250 in the Texas area and just go all out and just try and get money by the truckloads (Talked to a girl once who made an absurd 40k a month, turning like 6-8 clients a day).
Your typical girls who are 300, 400, 500, or 600 an hour however typically only see maybe like 3-5 clients a week if even that (sometimes they go through dry spells where they don't even see a client for weeks, depends on how things go). They will typically establish regulars who will see them on a weekly basis for an hour, and that's where the vast majority of their income comes from. However, these types of girls are usually college students, or working on their masters, and are of a 'higher quality' (hate using that term, but kind of hard to word it) then your typical lower end girls. These girls are 100% independent, they may have someone that they trust to handle their booking (typically a former escort girl), but that's about it. They do what they do because they enjoy their work, like the money, and are using their work as a stepping stone to get into a better place in life. Where alot of girls get in trouble though is when they get addicted to the lifestyle, and that's where I wish there were more programs to help them exit. They get addicted to the easy money, are at a fairly young age, and do stupid shit like blowing their money on Chanel Bags and Red Bottoms (Loubatans). I mean, it's ok to splurge once inawhile because they make a shitload of money, however most of them have no idea on how to handle the amount of money they have, so they just do dumb shit with it for the most part. That being said, alot of girls are smart, save, and work towards improving their lives. I've met girls who retired from the business who are quite successful, many of them who went on to become nurses, physician assistants, and lawyers. It's absolutely ridiculous to believe that everyone is put into a life or death situations. Many of these girls were actually part time dancers/strippers/etc. and were approached, they researched it, got into it, and loved it. It's not a long term job, but it is something that allowed many of these women who came from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds to rise up and do something with their lives. No one was forced to do shit.
How do I know all of this? Because I have a very close friend who used to work as an escort, has retired, and went on to become a successful physician assistant. Is she proud of what she did? Probably not. Did it take an emotional toll on her? 100%. But in her situation, she didn't have very many options at all. She did enjoy her work though (to an extent), and I was fully supportive of her. So this whole belief that 'most women are trafficked' is a load of bullshit. Your holier than thou attitude is a load of bullshit too. Many of the women in the industry (who I've personally got to meet through my friend) are just trying to better their own lives, make something of themselves, and doing what they have to. Yes, many of the women who enter the industry didn't come from great families, so they really didn't have many choices. So guess what? You can go fuck off. Seriously. You have no fucking clue as to how the industry even works.
User was temp banned for this post based on poor moderation history
Everything I have learned, read, and watched including massive studies done/statistics pretty much 100% contradicts your argument. Considering what I reference is from experts in the field and actual statistics, I put faith in those numbers than your opinion on "how this works". Especially considering you actually said How do I know all of this? Because I have a very close friend who used to work as an escort. Quoting your 1 friend in my opinion is absolutely nothing compared to the massive surveys and research done on the thousands of girls that these statistics come from. You even go as far as to say "No one was forced to do shit.". That makes your argument so invalid it's absurd because there are quite literally facts supporting the exact opposite lol. I understand you have an opinion and want to voice it (that is after all what a debate is about) but if you want to change anyone's mind, why not come in with some actual numbers from reputable sources than coming in with your aggressive "you're an idiot" tactics because you "know a former prostitute". Maybe if you approached things logically and calmly you wouldn't be sitting there with a temp-ban as well.
On June 23 2015 03:33 G5 wrote: Ideologically, I believe if someone wants to sell their body, they should be able to. Unfortunately, that isn't the case most of the time with Prostitution and isn't the business we're talking about. Prostitution should be illegal. It's a shitty business to be in and that's why most of the trade is ran by shitty people and criminal organizations (even in legalized countries). It's a dangerous job (legal or illegal), most woman are manipulated or forced into the sex-trade ending with death or life-long emotional scaring in most cases. If someone really wanted to sell their body, there is the more common avenue of finding someone who'll take care of them financially in return for companionship. Of course, there is also the porn industry. The problem with prostitution is that nearly every single prostitute was manipulated or forced into prostitution. Almost no one wakes up and says "I'm going to try prostitution out". That situation is ridiculously rare. This is a shitty industry and legalizing it in my opinion will just give protections to the shitty people that run these businesses and the shitty ignorant/uncaring people who are customers to these businesses.
Ah, the old, shaming argument. Let me give you some insight into how the prostitution business really works in the United States of America. Since you want to come on here and shame people for some reason, let me give you a first hand experience of how the industry actually works.
The vast majority of escorts/prostitutes even in the United States are actually working towards or already have a college degree. They are intelligent, capable women who chose a certain avenue of life because they either needed alot of money very quickly, or they simply didn't have many alternatives. Is it a lifestyle for everyone? No. Do you have a few girls who are occasionally managed/pimped? Yes. Those girls however, are very easy to spot. It's pretty simple to tell who they are, as you can tell clearly by a few tell tale signs such as how often do they work, certain tattoos, what kind of policies they have (NBA or no black africans is almost a for sure sign), and how they handle themselves through communication. They also charge less then your average girl in the market because they are attempting to go for volume, rather than for the occasional work shift. For example, in the major cities of Dallas, Austin, Houston, and San Antonio, the average price for an escort will run you about $300 USD/hr. Any girls running below this typically run monthly specials or they are managed. Why? Because higher volume means more money in the long run if the girl is able to sustain herself. That being said, there are a few crazy girls out there who go all out around $250 in the Texas area and just go all out and just try and get money by the truckloads (Talked to a girl once who made an absurd 40k a month, turning like 6-8 clients a day).
Your typical girls who are 300, 400, 500, or 600 an hour however typically only see maybe like 3-5 clients a week if even that (sometimes they go through dry spells where they don't even see a client for weeks, depends on how things go). They will typically establish regulars who will see them on a weekly basis for an hour, and that's where the vast majority of their income comes from. However, these types of girls are usually college students, or working on their masters, and are of a 'higher quality' (hate using that term, but kind of hard to word it) then your typical lower end girls. These girls are 100% independent, they may have someone that they trust to handle their booking (typically a former escort girl), but that's about it. They do what they do because they enjoy their work, like the money, and are using their work as a stepping stone to get into a better place in life. Where alot of girls get in trouble though is when they get addicted to the lifestyle, and that's where I wish there were more programs to help them exit. They get addicted to the easy money, are at a fairly young age, and do stupid shit like blowing their money on Chanel Bags and Red Bottoms (Loubatans). I mean, it's ok to splurge once inawhile because they make a shitload of money, however most of them have no idea on how to handle the amount of money they have, so they just do dumb shit with it for the most part. That being said, alot of girls are smart, save, and work towards improving their lives. I've met girls who retired from the business who are quite successful, many of them who went on to become nurses, physician assistants, and lawyers. It's absolutely ridiculous to believe that everyone is put into a life or death situations. Many of these girls were actually part time dancers/strippers/etc. and were approached, they researched it, got into it, and loved it. It's not a long term job, but it is something that allowed many of these women who came from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds to rise up and do something with their lives. No one was forced to do shit.
How do I know all of this? Because I have a very close friend who used to work as an escort, has retired, and went on to become a successful physician assistant. Is she proud of what she did? Probably not. Did it take an emotional toll on her? 100%. But in her situation, she didn't have very many options at all. She did enjoy her work though (to an extent), and I was fully supportive of her. So this whole belief that 'most women are trafficked' is a load of bullshit. Your holier than thou attitude is a load of bullshit too. Many of the women in the industry (who I've personally got to meet through my friend) are just trying to better their own lives, make something of themselves, and doing what they have to. Yes, many of the women who enter the industry didn't come from great families, so they really didn't have many choices. So guess what? You can go fuck off. Seriously. You have no fucking clue as to how the industry even works.
User was temp banned for this post based on poor moderation history
Everything I have learned, read, and watched including massive studies done/statistics pretty much 100% contradicts your argument. Considering what I reference is from experts in the field and actual statistics, I put faith in those numbers than your opinion on "how this works". Especially considering you actually said How do I know all of this? Because I have a very close friend who used to work as an escort. Quoting your 1 friend in my opinion is absolutely nothing compared to the massive surveys and research done on the thousands of girls that these statistics come from. You even go as far as to say "No one was forced to do shit.". That makes your argument so invalid it's absurd because there are quite literally facts supporting the exact opposite lol. I understand you have an opinion and want to voice it (that is after all what a debate is about) but if you want to change anyone's mind, why not come in with some actual numbers from reputable sources than coming in with your aggressive "you're an idiot" tactics because you "know a former prostitute". Maybe if you approached things logically and calmly you wouldn't be sitting there with a temp-ban as well.
Your statistics are already fucked up because most of the time your numbers are based on surveys or self-reports. As such, the vast majority of women who are actually independent escorts will not be willing to divulge any kind of information at all because of the nature of their work. Your numbers are skewed and you know it, and trying to use research on this particular topic is going to fail miserably. Anyone with a minor in statistics and some logic could have figured out that you're basically just fucking using skewed numbers for the purpose of your argument.
If you had any real experience in the sex worker industry you would know that the vast majority of research done on sex work is a load of rubbish. I could easily find multiple studies that completely contradict what you are saying.
Despite this attention, prosecutions, convictions and rescues have been scarce relative to funding, leading critical scholars to argue that CSEC is a moral panic. The following article, based on fourteen months of participant-observation between 2009 and 2010 with social service providers, law enforcement officials, not-for-profit directors and local clergy from a voluntary participation federal anti-trafficking taskforce in Atlantic City, New Jersey provides an ethnographic account of the ways that helping professionals confront the challenges and contradictions of implementing policy and advocating for an invisible target population that is rarely, if ever, visible in their work lives.
So let's not play the 'I have the numbers to support my stupid hypothesis about the sex work field when I have absolutely 0 experience in the field.'
Oh, and before you also say 'You're just making shit up' do realize that every legitimate and objective researcher has talked about how you can't just make claims about the sex worker industry, especially in a country like the United States, because you simply cannot have valid data. Not just that, almost all the research that you cited or even talked about, specifically is targeting the street walking population of sex workers in the United States, which is a fraction of what it used to be, and is minuscule compared to the entire sex industry as a whole currently.
Pretty much, almost all the research you cite is going to be garbage, because the vast majority of your research specifically targets streetwalkers, or the research is done by someone who is part of the anti-sex work industry (if you look up many of their names you'll find that they are actually in fact part of the political right who vastly opposes the legalization of sex work). I'm not saying that there aren't immoral/shady things going on in the sex industry, however to try and paint a picture that the entire sex industry is somehow made up of mostly pimped out underaged girls is hilarious. That's the farthest thing from the truth, especially if you know anyone from the sex worker industry.
So again, before going all 'higher than all mighty' on the rest of us, do us a favor, interview a sex worker, ask for her opinions, and actually get educated on the subject for once.