|
On September 29 2012 14:45 either I or wrote:Show nested quote +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 14:49 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:Show nested quote +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 14:55 either I or wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On September 29 2012 14:57 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On September 29 2012 15:05 either I or wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
Any hookers here on TL.net?
User was warned for this post
|
On September 29 2012 15:16 Friedrich Nietzsche wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
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 15:22 either I or wrote:Show nested quote +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.
http://sciencenordic.com/what-drives-prostitute
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.
|
United States24343 Posts
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.
We should bad coffee shops though!
|
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.
Go America
|
|
|
|