|
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 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.
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 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. 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.
Remember, you won! [/edit]
|
Prostitution is not a sexist issue.
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 14:18 sunprince wrote:Show nested quote +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." hehe gotta love Chris Rock.
Yeah I get what you're saying.
|
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 14:34 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +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 14:38 Quetzalcoatl12 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2012 14:34 S_SienZ wrote: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.
I posted this 2 pages ago:
On October 01 2012 03:04 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +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. this guy gets it.
|
On October 01 2012 06:39 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +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).
|
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
|
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.
|
I am in favor of legislating prostitution.
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
|
Btw those studies are off, in Brazil it's not legal but have limited legality ....
|
I personally can't think of any issues doing it besides incentivizing it as a career path for desperate people.
|
government ran prostitution houses. its about time they (the government) are useful for something.
|
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".
|
|
|
|