|
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.
|
I think it should be legal, it happens anyway so why not earn money on it
|
On October 01 2012 03:00 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +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).
|
On October 01 2012 04:39 NerdFace wrote:I think it should be legal, it happens anyway so why not earn money on it
I can somewhat understand people wanting to mooch off the rich but this is just twisted. Bend over and take it yourself if you want some cash.
|
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. Show nested quote +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 October 01 2012 05:33 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +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?
|
On September 30 2012 23:27 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2012 22:30 Asol wrote:On September 30 2012 21:49 QuackPocketDuck wrote: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 October 01 2012 08:35 Asol wrote:Show nested quote +On September 30 2012 23:27 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On September 30 2012 22:30 Asol wrote:On September 30 2012 21:49 QuackPocketDuck wrote: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 09:48 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +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 10:21 Jormundr wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2012 09:48 sunprince wrote: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.
Ad hominem much?
|
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.
|
On October 01 2012 11:05 Dfgj wrote: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 11:20 Le French wrote:Show nested quote +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.
|
On October 01 2012 12:16 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Simply put: her body, her choice.
|
That does not make it sexist. The rule is not based on gender, but on profession.
|
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.
|
|
|
|