|
On August 03 2011 07:21 DetriusXii wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 07:12 Cel.erity wrote:On August 03 2011 07:04 DetriusXii wrote:On August 03 2011 06:56 Cel.erity wrote:On August 03 2011 06:48 DetriusXii wrote:On August 03 2011 06:10 Cel.erity wrote:
Can't believe how cheap you guys are. $50k, really? That's piss money for someone to rape you for 30 minutes. You'd be regretting that after you realize you can't even buy a decent car for 50 grand.
Everyone has a price, but come on. Give me a million or two at least. How old are you? When you're an adult, you stop thinking about lottery figures and start thinking about wage rate per hour. $50,000 for 0.5 hours is a pretty cheap night for work. And gay guys go through gay sex, so it can't be that disastrous to go through it willingly. 28, and a million dollars is not exactly a lottery figure for me, but see it as you like. I imagine different people would have varying difficulty with the "process", but for me, not worth it ever, no matter how busto I get. I think it might be better if you could make a consistent living off of it, since you'd get used to the "process" over time. I agree with you that living comfortably for a few hours of sex each year is worthwhile, but as a one time deal, you'd be filled with regret. Why would you have to quit your current job? Are you that single minded where once you tried the gay sex prostitution, you wouldn't be able to return to your current job ever? What mythical force prevents you from returning to the job you worked at? Not sure why you're being so hostile to someone for stating an opinion on a totally hypothetical fantasy situation that you happen to disagree with. It's not about quitting the job, it's about the fact that for one traumatizing event, $50k is not enough compensation at all. With each successive event, the process becomes less traumatizing, and eventually it will feel like $50k for doing nothing, which is great. However, I think you greatly overvalue what $50k can do for you. It's not exactly life-changing money. I have played poker for 10 years, and had many ups and downs, and I can tell you $50k is not nearly enough to make you a happier person. I've been flat broke, but I've never been at the point where I've said "oh man, I wish I could rent out my asshole for $50k". Having money and losing it gives you a more realistic perspective on how meaningless money really is. Money comes and goes, terrible memories are something you have to live with forever. I will never be at that point as well, but you keep on saying it would be a traumatizing event. How do you know it will be traumatizing towards all people? Not everyone has the same sex drive and some are capable of fucking older people. The view that sex for money is dirty is ingrained within Christian society, but it wasn't dirty to the citizens of Pompei.
Has nothing to do with being dirty. I've been defending it for the entire thread so obviously I don't give a shit about the morality of the act. However, unless you happen to be gay, you will likely find it quite painful and unpleasant. I have memories of being struck, losing hands in poker, losing girlfriends, and making a fool out of myself. I think back on them sometimes and I feel bad. Adding the memory of having my ass pounded by an old man is not worth $50k to me whatsoever, and I'll lay odds that you'd agree if you actually did it.
I've known a lot of people who have been strippers, prostitutes, drug dealers, and thieves. Some for a living and some only temporarily. I'm well aware that everyone handles experiences differently. However, in the vast majority of cases, people always think it will be easy money until they actually go through with it, like the story in the OP.
|
On August 03 2011 07:49 RoosterSamurai wrote:
How is being a garbageman anything like being a prostitute? Sanitation removal is a necessity for any kind of civilization in order to avoid living in squalor.
Prostitution, on the other hand, is the act of having sex for recreation (Not it's intended purpose). It offers no other benefit to society other than that.
Actually, strictly speaking from economics, recreation is just as valued by society as labor.
From a philosophical standpoint, if you want me to think up a job that's strictly unnecessary for society, Macdonald's employee or sex shop manager are also acceptable. I'm sure there are thousands more that also fit the definition.
|
Wow Tommie, your logic is so broken it's funny. We should make alcohol illegal because I don't want my sister to be an alcoholic too, right? Seriously, it's people's own choice (/mistake) if they want to become a prostitute. They could always do what men do and take up a crappy job. They choose not to for some reason (the obvious reason being it pays like shit).
Nobody is forcing them to be prostitutes. They themselves have chosen to do what they do. They are not "innocent young girls", they're 25 year old women with full knowledge of what they are doing and full power over whether or not they do it.
Tell me again, what part of that is amoral again? Or do you just want to be a pathetic "knight in shiny armor that protects women from danger" because the weak women in this world obviously can't take care of themselves, right?
|
United States5162 Posts
On August 03 2011 07:36 Derez wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 07:10 MrDudeMan wrote:On August 03 2011 07:04 Tommie wrote:On August 03 2011 06:55 acker wrote:On August 03 2011 06:53 Tommie wrote:
You are so fucking naive i dont have any words for it. It is their own responsibility offcourse. But I'm just shocked how everyone thinks its not a big deal. If this is how yanks feel about women im not surprised yankee girls think im amazing and say they never been with guys as respectful and sweet as me. ( funny by the way when ask if it were cool if it were their sisters or their moms im not allowed to use such a question in an argument or they give me an answer i dont believe at all being a theorycrafter ).
The rest of the rant aside, I'm pretty sure that it's Amsterdam that has a fully legal and unionized red light district, not America. I remember news about a sex worker strike there a couple years ago... Are you actually from the Netherlands? Yea I am. And ive been in the rld plenty of times. Im not a customer though. I dont feel any contempt to these women/men/anything in between. But so many people are god damn naive when it comes to prostitution. There is an union. Many independent sex workers are a member of it. But the majority of the ladies come from eastern europe/asia and have a pimp and they are in debt with their pimp for their journey. Sometimes forced to work by violence but most of the time the money is enough. It's a different ballgame from what this topic used to be all about tho. But this all exists because prostitution is illegal. If it were legal, the girls would get a lot more support and would not be forced into it, And there's a difference between a prostitute and a sex slave. He's actually very right. Prostitution is pretty much the result of economic circumstances, and legalizing/unionizing doesn't change fuck all about it. The dutch prostitution scene is probably the most regulated in the world, but that doesn't change the simple fact that most of the dutch prostitutes are foreigners coming from absolute poverty. Noone actually wants to be a prostitute. They do it for the money, either because they're addicted to dope or because they need money to survive. The red light district isn't some kind of entrepreneurship, it still is pure exploitation. It's understandable why women do it, it's just sad that they have to resort to it in the first place. As for this specific case, if you have no shot at paying off your college debt with your future job, the solution isn't legalizing prostitution, it's realigning the cost of the education with the expected value you get from it.
I don't want to work at all, but I need money to survive. Damn those economic circumstances. Does that mean I'm being exploited?
|
On August 03 2011 07:54 Tommie wrote:I think sex is accepted in society. Noone is gonna scream at you if you say: yo dude i have sex sometimes.  I get your point but its not the only difference. I think there is a big difference between being a garbageman and being a whore just apart from what society 'thinks'. ( if there is such a thing as society and if it can think )
I understand that the jobs are very different. I'm just saying the things tying these ladies down are the same things tying garbage men down to their jobs. Also, if society accepted selling sex then garbage collecting and prostitution would simply be jobs (And when I say prostitution, I don't mean people who are kidnapped and sold into it, I mean women who willingly pursue it).
|
On August 03 2011 07:53 Bartuc wrote:
Well I do think massive financial debts are in a similar 'conceptual family' (sorry, can't find the English word for this) as forms of coercion, since there is a certain negative force of significant strength applied on you that you simply cannot ignore.
But this same type of debt coercion applies to every job in society, not just prostitution. It makes no difference if "prostitution" is replaced with "Macdonalds employee", "garbageman", or "lawyer"; the negative coercion is still there. This is not exclusive to noncoercive prostitution.
And there is no way in hell we're outlawing debt.
|
On August 03 2011 07:56 dybydx wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 07:49 RoosterSamurai wrote:On August 03 2011 07:46 acker wrote:On August 03 2011 07:44 Bartuc wrote:
Unless we are talking about things that tie a person down to prostitution specifically. Problem is, it has to only apply to prostitution or it can be applied just as equally to any other job. Like banning or shaming garbagemen, ridiculous as it is. Most people who become garbagemen are "forced" into the situation to survive, if we use the same "forced" as applied to prostitution... How is being a garbageman anything like being a prostitute? Sanitation removal is a necessity for any kind of civilization in order to avoid living in squalor. Prostitution, on the other hand, is the act of having sex for recreation (Not it's intended purpose). It offers no other benefit to society other than that. prostitution is taxable income and should be included in your tax return. the society benefits by higher level of employment and increased tax revenue. in addition, those girls will be able to afford an education that they otherwise can not and buy more expensive clothing, dine in more expensive restaurants in support of the economy. also, ppl who would otherwise be criminals or be called a perv, like dominic strauss-khan will be able to obtain sex with a 20 yr old legally, safely and still be regarded as a generous man helping a woman in need.
Well there's two different perspectives I think. Firstly you can have women who are 'forced' into this choice which they may consider to be the 'lesser of two evils' as I think some people mentioned before, but that doesn't mean that the choice won't be 'damaging' for them anyway just because it's the lesser of two evils. The fact that they are in a position where they have to choose such a thing is the root detriment here though. Secondly, you have women who may view this as an easy way of paying off debts, and have a rather casual perspective of whoring themselves out in the process. Depending on the context, I may personally have disrespect for such actions/attitude.
On August 03 2011 08:00 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 07:53 Bartuc wrote:
Well I do think massive financial debts are in a similar 'conceptual family' (sorry, can't find the English word for this) as forms of coercion, since there is a certain negative force of significant strength applied on you that you simply cannot ignore. But this same type of debt coercion applies to every job in society, not just prostitution. It makes no difference if "prostitution" is replaced with "Macdonalds employee", "garbageman", or "lawyer"; the negative coercion is still there. This is not exclusive to noncoercive prostitution. And there is no way in hell we're outlawing debt.
I'm not denying the coercion isn't there in other jobs, just that there is a difference in terms of implication as to whether this coercion forces you to accept a low-paid job, or to whore yourself out. The magnitude of the abovementioned implication is of course based on both societal opinion and personal opinion :-)
|
On August 03 2011 07:59 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:
Wow Tommie, your logic is so broken it's funny. We should make alcohol illegal because I don't want my sister to be an alcoholic too, right? Seriously, it's people's own choice (/mistake) if they want to become a prostitute. They could always do what men do and take up a normal job. They choose not to for some reason (the obvious reason being it pays like shit).
Nobody is forcing them to be prostitutes. They themselves have chosen to do what they do. They are not "innocent young girls", they're 25 year old women with full knowledge of what they are doing and full power over whether or not they do it.
Tell me again, what part of that is amoral again? Or do you just want to be a pathetic "knight in shiny armor that protects women from danger" because the weak women in this world obviously can't take care of themselves, right?
Great post man now try to find the world illegal in one of my posts.
And knight in shiny armour doesnt sound pathetic to me it sounds baller.
|
On August 03 2011 07:59 MrDudeMan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 07:54 Tommie wrote:I think sex is accepted in society. Noone is gonna scream at you if you say: yo dude i have sex sometimes. I get your point but its not the only difference. I think there is a big difference between being a garbageman and being a whore just apart from what society 'thinks'. ( if there is such a thing as society and if it can think ) I understand that the jobs are very different. I'm just saying the things tying these ladies down are the same things tying garbage men down to their jobs. Also, if society accepted selling sex then garbage collecting and prostitution would simply be jobs (And when I say prostitution, I don't mean people who are kidnapped and sold into it, I mean women who willingly pursue it).
It's interesting, because so many people work for companies that do (subjectively) immoral things, like abuse farm animals, screw small businesses, use overseas slave labor, etc. and the reason they work for these companies is why? Because they need the money. Joe Schmoe who works as an accountant at Tyson foods is seen as an everyman while his bosses bully the competition and torture innocent animals, but Sally Sultry is seen as a worthless whore because she gets her money by engaging in a consensual act between two people that hurts nobody. Hypocrisy, really. Joe would probably rather be a doctor saving lives and Sally would rather be playing SC2 in Korea, but not everyone can live their dream, you know?
(Note: I wasn't singling you out, I quoted you because I agreed with you.)
|
On August 03 2011 08:05 Bartuc wrote:
Well there's two different perspectives I think. Firstly you can have women who are 'forced' into this choice which they may consider to be the 'lesser of two evils' as I think some people mentioned before, but that doesn't mean that the choice won't be 'damaging' for them anyway just because it's the lesser of two evils. The fact that they are in a position where they have to choose such a thing is the root detriment here though.
If prostitution is taken due to debt concerns and the woman is free to choose other jobs if she wished, prostitution is no different from any other job you'd take when debt-constrained. The extent of "damage" differs on the person but, if they have a choice to choose other jobs, they've determined the "damage" is less than what they think they'd have taken at any other job.
On August 03 2011 08:05 Bartuc wrote:
Secondly, you have women who may view this as an easy way of paying off debts, and have a rather casual perspective of whoring themselves out in the process. Depending on the context, I may personally have disrespect for such actions/attitude.
Not my right to tell you whether or not to approve, I guess.
On August 03 2011 08:05 Bartuc wrote:
I'm not denying the coercion isn't there in other jobs, just that there is a difference in terms of implication as to whether this coercion forces you to accept a low-paid job, or to whore yourself out. The magnitude of the abovementioned implication is of course based on both societal opinion and personal opinion :-)
The coercion is identical; there is no difference. Either you're debt-contained, or you're not. If prostitution is the ONLY way for someone to overcome their debt, then outlawing or shunning it is even worse in implication.
|
On August 03 2011 07:41 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 07:36 Derez wrote:
He's actually very right. Prostitution is pretty much the result of economic circumstances, and legalizing/unionizing doesn't change fuck all about it. The dutch prostitution scene is probably the most regulated in the world, but that doesn't change the simple fact that most of the dutch prostitutes are foreigners coming from absolute poverty. To be frank, they could work at a minimum wage job if the wanted to. Who put a gun to their head and told them to work for higher pay? After all, the majority are working in the legal side, not the illegal side, coercion certainly isn't a factor for most of them... Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 07:36 Derez wrote:
Noone actually wants to be a prostitute. They do it for the money, either because they're addicted to dope or because they need money to survive. The red light district isn't some kind of entrepreneurship, it still is pure exploitation. The second sentence does not follow. No one works for anything but money to survive, except maybe the rich. A tenth of prostitutes in the RL district are addicted to drugs. They have the choice to work in a lower-wage profession if they want to, except the ones tied up in the illegal, not the legal, prostitution business. Explain why it's all pure exploitation. Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 07:39 Tommie wrote:
Saying this so simply. There are a million shades of grey between choosing and being forced. That makes you naive. But it was also a reply to the view of prostitution many people seem to have.
I'd like people to think a bit about this instead of giving the easy answer: oh its their choice so its no problem. That's true for any job, not just prostitution.
First of all: A minimum wage job (in holland) pays more then prostitution. Their hourly rate is higher, but they lose significant amounts because they average about 2 customers a day and have to pay for their 'overhead costs' (space, 'organisation') on top of that.
Secondly: Women in prostitution (in holland) can't actually compete for minimum wage jobs. Even getting a minimum wage job requires certain skills, like speaking the language and being mentally able of showing up for work every day (which is hard when you're addicted to booze or drugs, which it is estimated that over half of them are, not just a tenth).
Thirdly: The women working as prostitutes aren't in the same position as your normal 'average joe'. If I loose my job, I'll collect social security and while I'll have to cut back on everything, in the grand scheme of things, I'll be relatively comfortable and I won't be on the streets. You can't make the same argument for the ukrainians/nigerians/thais currently standing behind the windows in Amsterdam.
And keep in mind that the red light district is actually the 'highlight' of dutch, legalized, prostitution. The other part of it is the women in my hometown standing around an official hooker parking lot in the middle of nowhere, or those working in an extremely shady club downtown. It's all legal, and it being legal is better then it being illegal, but it's still sad as fuck.
These women are choosing a 'job' that offers them better opportunities then they would have had in their home countries, that's true, but that reflects more on the dire conditions part of this world lives in then on the actual merits of prostitution.
|
Great post man now try to find the world illegal in one of my posts.
And knight in shiny armour doesnt sound pathetic to me it sounds baller.
You really don't sound old enough to post on such a grown up subject
|
On August 03 2011 08:10 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 08:05 Bartuc wrote:
Well there's two different perspectives I think. Firstly you can have women who are 'forced' into this choice which they may consider to be the 'lesser of two evils' as I think some people mentioned before, but that doesn't mean that the choice won't be 'damaging' for them anyway just because it's the lesser of two evils. The fact that they are in a position where they have to choose such a thing is the root detriment here though. If prostitution is taken due to debt concerns and the woman is free to choose other jobs if she wished, prostitution is no different from any other job you'd take when debt-constrained. The extent of "damage" differs on the person but, if they have a choice to choose other jobs, they've determined the "damage" is less than what they think they'd have taken at any other job.
Yeah of course, if they make such a choice the damage is the lesser of two evils. But I think if I would have such a massive debt that either I have to choose between robing a bank and potentially ending up in jail or spending 30 minutes with an 80 year old guy, that doesn't make the end result any less shitty/detrimental so to say ;-)
But I'm off to get some sleep now, got to do some work tomorrow ;-\
|
On August 03 2011 07:39 Tommie wrote:
They're CHOOSING to do this, they aren't forced whatsoever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Saying this so simply. There are a million shades of grey between choosing and being forced. That makes you naive. But it was also a reply to the view of prostitution many people seem to have.
I'd like people to think a bit about this instead of giving the easy answer: oh its their choice so its no problem.
Are we not still talking about the article from the OP, where it's college student girls that are doing it more frequently, or are we just talking about prostitution in general? I was assuming the former.
|
On August 03 2011 08:10 Derez wrote:
First of all: A minimum wage job (in holland) pays more then prostitution. Their hourly rate is higher, but they lose significant amounts because they average about 2 customers a day and have to pay for their 'overhead costs' (space, 'organisation') on top of that.
I'm fairly certain this depends on the prostitute. Some go for a lot of money, some don't. This also applies to foreign prostitutes.
Two customers a day also implies a lot of extra time. Are you sure this isn't a side job?
On August 03 2011 08:10 Derez wrote:
Secondly: Women in prostitution (in holland) can't actually compete for minimum wage jobs. Even getting a minimum wage job requires certain skills, like speaking the language and being mentally able of showing up for work every day (which is hard when you're addicted to booze or drugs, which it is estimated that over half of them are, not just a tenth).
If they can't even compete for minimum-wage jobs due to language barriers, then the alternative is even worse. The half statistic is independently unverified, which is why I'm using the 10% one.
That said, there are plenty of people in minimum wage jobs that speak broken English. Anyone going through a drive-through can testify to that. The barrier doesn't seem too big.
On August 03 2011 08:10 Derez wrote:
Thirdly: The women working as prostitutes aren't in the same position as your normal 'average joe'. If I loose my job, I'll collect social security and while I'll have to cut back on everything, in the grand scheme of things, I'll be relatively comfortable and I won't be on the streets. You can't make the same argument for the ukrainians/nigerians/thais currently standing behind the windows in Amsterdam.
Once again, the alternative is even worse. If they can't even make money at minimum wage and have no safety net...one offers a way up, the other doesn't.
On August 03 2011 08:10 Derez wrote:
And keep in mind that the red light district is actually the 'highlight' of dutch, legalized, prostitution. The other part of it is the women in my hometown standing around an official hooker parking lot in the middle of nowhere, or those working in an extremely shady club downtown. It's all legal, and it being legal is better then it being illegal, but it's still sad as fuck.
These women are choosing a 'job' that offers them better opportunities then they would have had in their home countries, that's true, but that reflects more on the dire conditions part of this world lives in then on the actual merits of prostitution.
If it wasn't better and they weren't coerced, most of them wouldn't be in the Netherlands. I do agree this type is sad, though. Guess it's part of your "least harm" doctrine, just like drugs...
On August 03 2011 08:14 Bartuc wrote:
Yeah of course, if they make such a choice the damage is the lesser of two evils. But I think if I would have such a massive debt that either I have to choose between robing a bank and potentially ending up in jail or spending 30 minutes with an 80 year old guy, that doesn't make the end result any less shitty/detrimental so to say ;-)
The action you choose is what you consider the lesser evil, neither evil is identical.
|
On August 03 2011 08:11 BadgerBadger8264 wrote:Show nested quote +Great post man now try to find the world illegal in one of my posts.
And knight in shiny armour doesnt sound pathetic to me it sounds baller. You really don't sound old enough to post on such a grown up subject
You dont sound like fun to me. This twat was making such I shitty post I just could not respond in any serious manner. I got the same with you. Funny you dont reply to the twat accusing ( lol accusing ) me of being a knight in shiny armour, who also did not read my post at all/did not understand it, but you do reply to my post which is encouraging and stimulative: ' Great post man now try to find the world illegal in one of my posts.'
AND FUNNY:
' And knight in shiny armour doesnt sound pathetic to me it sounds baller'
|
This site honestly should be shut down. It is immoral to prey on the poor and this is nothing short of prostitution.
|
On August 03 2011 08:24 IAttackYou wrote:
This site honestly should be shut down. It is immoral to prey on the poor and this is nothing short of prostitution.
The site doesn't prey on the poor. It "preys" on college students who don't want to work off their debt the traditional way. Also, anyone who's super poor with a college degree most likely had a ton of financial aid to pay for their tuition AND part of their housing costs, so they're already better off than most students from the middle class. And if you're from the middle class and just out of college, you're most likely going to be fine. It's for girls that want the easy way out, that's it.
|
On August 03 2011 07:49 RoosterSamurai wrote:Show nested quote +On August 03 2011 07:46 acker wrote:On August 03 2011 07:44 Bartuc wrote:
Unless we are talking about things that tie a person down to prostitution specifically. Problem is, it has to only apply to prostitution or it can be applied just as equally to any other job. Like banning or shaming garbagemen, ridiculous as it is. Most people who become garbagemen are "forced" into the situation to survive, if we use the same "forced" as applied to prostitution... How is being a garbageman anything like being a prostitute? Sanitation removal is a necessity for any kind of civilization in order to avoid living in squalor. Prostitution, on the other hand, is the act of having sex for recreation (Not it's intended purpose). It offers no other benefit to society other than that.
Not it's intended purpose? Says who? Your religion? Children are just a side effect to one of my favorite recreational activities.
I see nothing wrong with it and believe the site should be left up. I would do the same if I was in their position. I would do it now if it worked for males.
|
This is prostitution, not that I think it should be illegal, but it is. Further, who thinks these girls are going to stop putting out for $$ when the loans are paid off ? Are they then going to take some office job when they could just continue making significantly more $$ prostituting themselves ? College loans are a red herring. These girls are simply learning they can make more $$ selling themselves than by any other means.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
