|
On October 01 2012 22:12 Velr wrote: It should be allowed.
BUT there are huge issues with all the crime evolving about it. Most prostitutes in fact don't do it out of their free will... So prohibiting it would probably be ok for the "greater good".
It's simple, guns are legal but running guns is not. prostitution becomes legal but running prostitutes would not, in Canada prostitution is legal but "pimps" are not, Body guards are and so are brothels but soliciting on the street is not. It's more highclass legality but at least it's something.
|
On October 01 2012 17:43 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Regarding ^
Actually that used to not be the case, but nowadays with the internet and asian massage parlors coming down it's a whole different game
I still disagree with that guy's post because it's dumb and there sure as hell is a skillset to being a prostitute
Is Sex Ed in high school where prostitutes learn how to have sex? What "skills" would you define that a "professional" prostitute has that a working mom doesn't have?
On October 01 2012 17:16 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2012 06:39 DigiGnar wrote:On October 01 2012 05:33 xM(Z wrote:On October 01 2012 03:00 DigiGnar wrote:On September 30 2012 19:13 xM(Z wrote:On September 30 2012 18:31 DigiGnar wrote: If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.) it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones. Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: ' people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.' What are you even talking about? "Makes no sense to compare the physical abilities of humans"? Am I reading that right? So, you're saying the Olympics makes no sense? Cause that surely is probably the BIGGEST comparison of human ability in history. All a prostitute needs is a dick/vagina. There are plenty of desperate people who don't care about if they are fucking someone without a hand. Shit, the person without the hand could end up turning more profit due to fetishes. My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers. you sugested that humans end up prostitutes because they have low iq else they could get better jobs, right?; and then concluded that since all stupid (low iq) people end up victimized by their employers, the fact that they're used for their physical or for their mental abilities is irrelevant. am i getting this?. (note: prostitutes rely mostly or solely on their physical abilities else they're out of a job). I suggested that people with low IQ have a hard/impossible time getting a good job. They end up, more often than not, as a dishwasher or a janitor. Tell me a rocket science who would rather mop the halls of a school, and tell me a person who mops the halls of school wouldn't want a better job. They are victims of society, because society doesn't allow them to be rocket scientists. You have to prove you can be one to be one, and no one with a low IQ will ever be a rocket scientist. The people who are working these shit jobs aren't victimized by their employers, the employers are victimized because they must pay a minimum amount to someone who mops the halls of a school or washes dishes for a restaurant. Higher labor costs = higher prices + lower pay for the higher ups. Higher prices makes the consumer a victim and the supply chain a victim. Less money to buy from the supply chain = less money the supply chain has. Prostitutes rely solely on demand of sex, not their physical abilities. There is no ability in having a vagina, except maybe one that can still get wet. Even then, there's billions of those. If I'm going to be desperate enough to pay for sex, I'm not going to really give a shit how good it is. As long as I get off, I'm good. All the woman literally has to do is literally nothing and take it. Sure, people have fetishes and will have to dish out money to receive their pleasure, but again, there is no ability in washing dishes. Anyone can do what they are told to do. Anyone can be told to get on all fours and act like a dog, and anyone can do that. (unless you want to bring in the missing limb people, but then they are actually getting cybernetic limbs nowadays.) What I'm suggesting is that if prostitutes who are in the field are victims due to economic reasons, then everyone else is a victim because of economic reasons. Don't you think a pimp would rather not give any money at all to his employees? you don't really know what you're talking about or maybe you're just trolling. - why would someone work for a pimp if they're not getting payed?. they can just work for themselfs. - prostitutes are chosen by the client based on the way they look and how much money does he has to spend on them. if you can get off fucking an std infested wet vagina that doesn't make it a standard for everyone else you know. my point was that even thow, from an economic perspective, everyone is a victim, there must be made a distinction here about the degree of victimization. even with your twisted logic you must agree that is better to have a living person then a dead person, even from an economic perspective ( since a dead person can't work).
Whores usually don't work for themselves. A guy would take advantage of her. That's why there's pimps, to protect the girls they themselves beat. (This isn't the case 100%) Also, a girl working for herself is going to have to find clientele, and a pimp already has that covered.
Whores are chosen by their looks, yes, no one ever said they weren't. However, the demand for the whore is really a demand for sex, and if you're desperate enough, the looks start to matter less and less.
Who said anything about an STD infested vagina? I surely didn't, and I don't think you did. So, whatever standard you're trying to imply here doesn't really work.
As far as a living person and a dead person, did you know what machines have been in the workplace for a very long time now? We don't even need a live person to be fucking anymore, we could actually just make an android that we wouldn't have to pay. (I'm very sure that's already being developed as we speak.)
|
On October 02 2012 01:42 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2012 17:43 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Regarding ^
Actually that used to not be the case, but nowadays with the internet and asian massage parlors coming down it's a whole different game
I still disagree with that guy's post because it's dumb and there sure as hell is a skillset to being a prostitute Is Sex Ed in high school where prostitutes learn how to have sex? What "skills" would you define that a "professional" prostitute has that a working mom doesn't have? Show nested quote +On October 01 2012 17:16 xM(Z wrote:On October 01 2012 06:39 DigiGnar wrote:On October 01 2012 05:33 xM(Z wrote:On October 01 2012 03:00 DigiGnar wrote:On September 30 2012 19:13 xM(Z wrote:On September 30 2012 18:31 DigiGnar wrote: If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.) it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones. Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: ' people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.' What are you even talking about? "Makes no sense to compare the physical abilities of humans"? Am I reading that right? So, you're saying the Olympics makes no sense? Cause that surely is probably the BIGGEST comparison of human ability in history. All a prostitute needs is a dick/vagina. There are plenty of desperate people who don't care about if they are fucking someone without a hand. Shit, the person without the hand could end up turning more profit due to fetishes. My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers. you sugested that humans end up prostitutes because they have low iq else they could get better jobs, right?; and then concluded that since all stupid (low iq) people end up victimized by their employers, the fact that they're used for their physical or for their mental abilities is irrelevant. am i getting this?. (note: prostitutes rely mostly or solely on their physical abilities else they're out of a job). I suggested that people with low IQ have a hard/impossible time getting a good job. They end up, more often than not, as a dishwasher or a janitor. Tell me a rocket science who would rather mop the halls of a school, and tell me a person who mops the halls of school wouldn't want a better job. They are victims of society, because society doesn't allow them to be rocket scientists. You have to prove you can be one to be one, and no one with a low IQ will ever be a rocket scientist. The people who are working these shit jobs aren't victimized by their employers, the employers are victimized because they must pay a minimum amount to someone who mops the halls of a school or washes dishes for a restaurant. Higher labor costs = higher prices + lower pay for the higher ups. Higher prices makes the consumer a victim and the supply chain a victim. Less money to buy from the supply chain = less money the supply chain has. Prostitutes rely solely on demand of sex, not their physical abilities. There is no ability in having a vagina, except maybe one that can still get wet. Even then, there's billions of those. If I'm going to be desperate enough to pay for sex, I'm not going to really give a shit how good it is. As long as I get off, I'm good. All the woman literally has to do is literally nothing and take it. Sure, people have fetishes and will have to dish out money to receive their pleasure, but again, there is no ability in washing dishes. Anyone can do what they are told to do. Anyone can be told to get on all fours and act like a dog, and anyone can do that. (unless you want to bring in the missing limb people, but then they are actually getting cybernetic limbs nowadays.) What I'm suggesting is that if prostitutes who are in the field are victims due to economic reasons, then everyone else is a victim because of economic reasons. Don't you think a pimp would rather not give any money at all to his employees? you don't really know what you're talking about or maybe you're just trolling. - why would someone work for a pimp if they're not getting payed?. they can just work for themselfs. - prostitutes are chosen by the client based on the way they look and how much money does he has to spend on them. if you can get off fucking an std infested wet vagina that doesn't make it a standard for everyone else you know. my point was that even thow, from an economic perspective, everyone is a victim, there must be made a distinction here about the degree of victimization. even with your twisted logic you must agree that is better to have a living person then a dead person, even from an economic perspective ( since a dead person can't work). Whores usually don't work for themselves. A guy would take advantage of her. That's why there's pimps, to protect the girls they themselves beat. (This isn't the case 100%) Also, a girl working for herself is going to have to find clientele, and a pimp already has that covered. Whores are chosen by their looks, yes, no one ever said they weren't. However, the demand for the whore is really a demand for sex, and if you're desperate enough, the looks start to matter less and less. Who said anything about an STD infested vagina? I surely didn't, and I don't think you did. So, whatever standard you're trying to imply here doesn't really work. As far as a living person and a dead person, did you know what machines have been in the workplace for a very long time now? We don't even need a live person to be fucking anymore, we could actually just make an android that we wouldn't have to pay. (I'm very sure that's already being developed as we speak.) so you had no point to make since you just make up stuff as you go along.
to go back to where you started from, it doesn't matter if everyone is a victim or not, what matters is the effect it (the victimization) has on each individual, on each life. i'm done.
|
Definitely should be legalized - honestly prohibiting anything just catalyzes the growth of underground black markets and crime.
|
On September 30 2012 09:42 Wombat_NI wrote: @Voltaire, always enjoy your posts even the ones I disagree with, nice to see your post regarding virginity. People boasting about getting laid is so laughable, it's hardly an exclusive club. Being an interesting and thought-provoking poster on here, and indeed doubtlessly in your day-to-day life is far more worthy of note.
Thanks
|
|
Checked the Belle de Jour blog and found nothing but adverts for her books, tantalizingly removed posts that are now adverts for her books, and posts about prostitution and gender relations issues. If by empowering she means empowering her to charge people money to read her uplifting and socially enlightening saga, I guess that quotation is correct.
|
My girlfriend and I have sex at night and that's ok. A man pays a woman to have sex and that's a prosecutable offense. A man pays a woman in a strip club 20$ a song to rub her ass on his dick, that's perfectly legal. What the fuck is wrong with this country.
|
My girlfriend and I have sex at night and that's ok. A man pays a woman to have sex and that's a prosecutable offense. A man pays a woman in a strip club 20$ a song to rub her ass on his dick, that's perfectly legal. What the fuck is wrong with this country.
|
On October 02 2012 01:42 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2012 17:43 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Regarding ^
Actually that used to not be the case, but nowadays with the internet and asian massage parlors coming down it's a whole different game
I still disagree with that guy's post because it's dumb and there sure as hell is a skillset to being a prostitute Is Sex Ed in high school where prostitutes learn how to have sex? What "skills" would you define that a "professional" prostitute has that a working mom doesn't have? Show nested quote +On October 01 2012 17:16 xM(Z wrote:On October 01 2012 06:39 DigiGnar wrote:On October 01 2012 05:33 xM(Z wrote:On October 01 2012 03:00 DigiGnar wrote:On September 30 2012 19:13 xM(Z wrote:On September 30 2012 18:31 DigiGnar wrote: If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.) it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones. Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: ' people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.' What are you even talking about? "Makes no sense to compare the physical abilities of humans"? Am I reading that right? So, you're saying the Olympics makes no sense? Cause that surely is probably the BIGGEST comparison of human ability in history. All a prostitute needs is a dick/vagina. There are plenty of desperate people who don't care about if they are fucking someone without a hand. Shit, the person without the hand could end up turning more profit due to fetishes. My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers. you sugested that humans end up prostitutes because they have low iq else they could get better jobs, right?; and then concluded that since all stupid (low iq) people end up victimized by their employers, the fact that they're used for their physical or for their mental abilities is irrelevant. am i getting this?. (note: prostitutes rely mostly or solely on their physical abilities else they're out of a job). I suggested that people with low IQ have a hard/impossible time getting a good job. They end up, more often than not, as a dishwasher or a janitor. Tell me a rocket science who would rather mop the halls of a school, and tell me a person who mops the halls of school wouldn't want a better job. They are victims of society, because society doesn't allow them to be rocket scientists. You have to prove you can be one to be one, and no one with a low IQ will ever be a rocket scientist. The people who are working these shit jobs aren't victimized by their employers, the employers are victimized because they must pay a minimum amount to someone who mops the halls of a school or washes dishes for a restaurant. Higher labor costs = higher prices + lower pay for the higher ups. Higher prices makes the consumer a victim and the supply chain a victim. Less money to buy from the supply chain = less money the supply chain has. Prostitutes rely solely on demand of sex, not their physical abilities. There is no ability in having a vagina, except maybe one that can still get wet. Even then, there's billions of those. If I'm going to be desperate enough to pay for sex, I'm not going to really give a shit how good it is. As long as I get off, I'm good. All the woman literally has to do is literally nothing and take it. Sure, people have fetishes and will have to dish out money to receive their pleasure, but again, there is no ability in washing dishes. Anyone can do what they are told to do. Anyone can be told to get on all fours and act like a dog, and anyone can do that. (unless you want to bring in the missing limb people, but then they are actually getting cybernetic limbs nowadays.) What I'm suggesting is that if prostitutes who are in the field are victims due to economic reasons, then everyone else is a victim because of economic reasons. Don't you think a pimp would rather not give any money at all to his employees? you don't really know what you're talking about or maybe you're just trolling. - why would someone work for a pimp if they're not getting payed?. they can just work for themselfs. - prostitutes are chosen by the client based on the way they look and how much money does he has to spend on them. if you can get off fucking an std infested wet vagina that doesn't make it a standard for everyone else you know. my point was that even thow, from an economic perspective, everyone is a victim, there must be made a distinction here about the degree of victimization. even with your twisted logic you must agree that is better to have a living person then a dead person, even from an economic perspective ( since a dead person can't work). Whores usually don't work for themselves. A guy would take advantage of her. That's why there's pimps, to protect the girls they themselves beat. (This isn't the case 100%) Also, a girl working for herself is going to have to find clientele, and a pimp already has that covered. Whores are chosen by their looks, yes, no one ever said they weren't. However, the demand for the whore is really a demand for sex, and if you're desperate enough, the looks start to matter less and less. Who said anything about an STD infested vagina? I surely didn't, and I don't think you did. So, whatever standard you're trying to imply here doesn't really work. As far as a living person and a dead person, did you know what machines have been in the workplace for a very long time now? We don't even need a live person to be fucking anymore, we could actually just make an android that we wouldn't have to pay. (I'm very sure that's already being developed as we speak.) I really don't think you have the requisite experience to fully understand what we're getting at here. If you really think that there is no skillset to having sex for a woman then that's the end of our discussion. I'm willing to meaningfully debate in an open, respectful manner, but that requires both of us to agree on some crucial postulates of which that there are varying levels of trainable skill involved in having sex as a woman and that there is a difference between good sex and bad sex are a part of. If I have to explain this to you, I'm wasting my time, because no matter how eloquently I can do it, it's something you'll just have to experience for yourself.
I'm not saying that to turn the argument on you as a person, I'm saying that because it's absolutely essential to having a debate about prostitution. It's similar to saying "what skill do you need to grill a steak? you just put it over fire."
|
On October 05 2012 19:09 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 01:42 DigiGnar wrote:On October 01 2012 17:43 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Regarding ^
Actually that used to not be the case, but nowadays with the internet and asian massage parlors coming down it's a whole different game
I still disagree with that guy's post because it's dumb and there sure as hell is a skillset to being a prostitute Is Sex Ed in high school where prostitutes learn how to have sex? What "skills" would you define that a "professional" prostitute has that a working mom doesn't have? On October 01 2012 17:16 xM(Z wrote:On October 01 2012 06:39 DigiGnar wrote:On October 01 2012 05:33 xM(Z wrote:On October 01 2012 03:00 DigiGnar wrote:On September 30 2012 19:13 xM(Z wrote:On September 30 2012 18:31 DigiGnar wrote: If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.) it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones. Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: ' people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.' What are you even talking about? "Makes no sense to compare the physical abilities of humans"? Am I reading that right? So, you're saying the Olympics makes no sense? Cause that surely is probably the BIGGEST comparison of human ability in history. All a prostitute needs is a dick/vagina. There are plenty of desperate people who don't care about if they are fucking someone without a hand. Shit, the person without the hand could end up turning more profit due to fetishes. My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers. you sugested that humans end up prostitutes because they have low iq else they could get better jobs, right?; and then concluded that since all stupid (low iq) people end up victimized by their employers, the fact that they're used for their physical or for their mental abilities is irrelevant. am i getting this?. (note: prostitutes rely mostly or solely on their physical abilities else they're out of a job). I suggested that people with low IQ have a hard/impossible time getting a good job. They end up, more often than not, as a dishwasher or a janitor. Tell me a rocket science who would rather mop the halls of a school, and tell me a person who mops the halls of school wouldn't want a better job. They are victims of society, because society doesn't allow them to be rocket scientists. You have to prove you can be one to be one, and no one with a low IQ will ever be a rocket scientist. The people who are working these shit jobs aren't victimized by their employers, the employers are victimized because they must pay a minimum amount to someone who mops the halls of a school or washes dishes for a restaurant. Higher labor costs = higher prices + lower pay for the higher ups. Higher prices makes the consumer a victim and the supply chain a victim. Less money to buy from the supply chain = less money the supply chain has. Prostitutes rely solely on demand of sex, not their physical abilities. There is no ability in having a vagina, except maybe one that can still get wet. Even then, there's billions of those. If I'm going to be desperate enough to pay for sex, I'm not going to really give a shit how good it is. As long as I get off, I'm good. All the woman literally has to do is literally nothing and take it. Sure, people have fetishes and will have to dish out money to receive their pleasure, but again, there is no ability in washing dishes. Anyone can do what they are told to do. Anyone can be told to get on all fours and act like a dog, and anyone can do that. (unless you want to bring in the missing limb people, but then they are actually getting cybernetic limbs nowadays.) What I'm suggesting is that if prostitutes who are in the field are victims due to economic reasons, then everyone else is a victim because of economic reasons. Don't you think a pimp would rather not give any money at all to his employees? you don't really know what you're talking about or maybe you're just trolling. - why would someone work for a pimp if they're not getting payed?. they can just work for themselfs. - prostitutes are chosen by the client based on the way they look and how much money does he has to spend on them. if you can get off fucking an std infested wet vagina that doesn't make it a standard for everyone else you know. my point was that even thow, from an economic perspective, everyone is a victim, there must be made a distinction here about the degree of victimization. even with your twisted logic you must agree that is better to have a living person then a dead person, even from an economic perspective ( since a dead person can't work). Whores usually don't work for themselves. A guy would take advantage of her. That's why there's pimps, to protect the girls they themselves beat. (This isn't the case 100%) Also, a girl working for herself is going to have to find clientele, and a pimp already has that covered. Whores are chosen by their looks, yes, no one ever said they weren't. However, the demand for the whore is really a demand for sex, and if you're desperate enough, the looks start to matter less and less. Who said anything about an STD infested vagina? I surely didn't, and I don't think you did. So, whatever standard you're trying to imply here doesn't really work. As far as a living person and a dead person, did you know what machines have been in the workplace for a very long time now? We don't even need a live person to be fucking anymore, we could actually just make an android that we wouldn't have to pay. (I'm very sure that's already being developed as we speak.) I really don't think you have the requisite experience to fully understand what we're getting at here. If you really think that there is no skillset to having sex for a woman then that's the end of our discussion. I'm willing to meaningfully debate in an open, respectful manner, but that requires both of us to agree on some crucial postulates of which that there are varying levels of trainable skill involved in having sex as a woman and that there is a difference between good sex and bad sex are a part of. If I have to explain this to you, I'm wasting my time, because no matter how eloquently I can do it, it's something you'll just have to experience for yourself. I'm not saying that to turn the argument on you as a person, I'm saying that because it's absolutely essential to having a debate about prostitution. It's similar to saying "what skill do you need to grill a steak? you just put it over fire."
Are you actually saying I need to experience good and bad sex? Like, I haven't? Are you throwing an ad hominen or whatever it's spelled at me? If so, then let me talk to your sisters/mothers/aunts/cousins who are reasonably attractive...
Have you been trained in sex? If so, then where does one get trained to have sex? What does one learn in skilled sex? Are you saying all people are inherently bad at sex and never get any better until they are trained? How many whores in history do you think have been trained?
|
On October 05 2012 12:26 Zahir wrote:Checked the Belle de Jour blog and found nothing but adverts for her books, tantalizingly removed posts that are now adverts for her books, and posts about prostitution and gender relations issues. If by empowering she means empowering her to charge people money to read her uplifting and socially enlightening saga, I guess that quotation is correct. Pretty much. She did it for the money and to promote her book rather than a genuine desire to share knowledge.
|
On October 06 2012 01:19 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2012 19:09 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On October 02 2012 01:42 DigiGnar wrote:On October 01 2012 17:43 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Regarding ^
Actually that used to not be the case, but nowadays with the internet and asian massage parlors coming down it's a whole different game
I still disagree with that guy's post because it's dumb and there sure as hell is a skillset to being a prostitute Is Sex Ed in high school where prostitutes learn how to have sex? What "skills" would you define that a "professional" prostitute has that a working mom doesn't have? On October 01 2012 17:16 xM(Z wrote:On October 01 2012 06:39 DigiGnar wrote:On October 01 2012 05:33 xM(Z wrote:On October 01 2012 03:00 DigiGnar wrote:On September 30 2012 19:13 xM(Z wrote:On September 30 2012 18:31 DigiGnar wrote: If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.) it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones. Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: ' people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.' What are you even talking about? "Makes no sense to compare the physical abilities of humans"? Am I reading that right? So, you're saying the Olympics makes no sense? Cause that surely is probably the BIGGEST comparison of human ability in history. All a prostitute needs is a dick/vagina. There are plenty of desperate people who don't care about if they are fucking someone without a hand. Shit, the person without the hand could end up turning more profit due to fetishes. My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers. you sugested that humans end up prostitutes because they have low iq else they could get better jobs, right?; and then concluded that since all stupid (low iq) people end up victimized by their employers, the fact that they're used for their physical or for their mental abilities is irrelevant. am i getting this?. (note: prostitutes rely mostly or solely on their physical abilities else they're out of a job). I suggested that people with low IQ have a hard/impossible time getting a good job. They end up, more often than not, as a dishwasher or a janitor. Tell me a rocket science who would rather mop the halls of a school, and tell me a person who mops the halls of school wouldn't want a better job. They are victims of society, because society doesn't allow them to be rocket scientists. You have to prove you can be one to be one, and no one with a low IQ will ever be a rocket scientist. The people who are working these shit jobs aren't victimized by their employers, the employers are victimized because they must pay a minimum amount to someone who mops the halls of a school or washes dishes for a restaurant. Higher labor costs = higher prices + lower pay for the higher ups. Higher prices makes the consumer a victim and the supply chain a victim. Less money to buy from the supply chain = less money the supply chain has. Prostitutes rely solely on demand of sex, not their physical abilities. There is no ability in having a vagina, except maybe one that can still get wet. Even then, there's billions of those. If I'm going to be desperate enough to pay for sex, I'm not going to really give a shit how good it is. As long as I get off, I'm good. All the woman literally has to do is literally nothing and take it. Sure, people have fetishes and will have to dish out money to receive their pleasure, but again, there is no ability in washing dishes. Anyone can do what they are told to do. Anyone can be told to get on all fours and act like a dog, and anyone can do that. (unless you want to bring in the missing limb people, but then they are actually getting cybernetic limbs nowadays.) What I'm suggesting is that if prostitutes who are in the field are victims due to economic reasons, then everyone else is a victim because of economic reasons. Don't you think a pimp would rather not give any money at all to his employees? you don't really know what you're talking about or maybe you're just trolling. - why would someone work for a pimp if they're not getting payed?. they can just work for themselfs. - prostitutes are chosen by the client based on the way they look and how much money does he has to spend on them. if you can get off fucking an std infested wet vagina that doesn't make it a standard for everyone else you know. my point was that even thow, from an economic perspective, everyone is a victim, there must be made a distinction here about the degree of victimization. even with your twisted logic you must agree that is better to have a living person then a dead person, even from an economic perspective ( since a dead person can't work). Whores usually don't work for themselves. A guy would take advantage of her. That's why there's pimps, to protect the girls they themselves beat. (This isn't the case 100%) Also, a girl working for herself is going to have to find clientele, and a pimp already has that covered. Whores are chosen by their looks, yes, no one ever said they weren't. However, the demand for the whore is really a demand for sex, and if you're desperate enough, the looks start to matter less and less. Who said anything about an STD infested vagina? I surely didn't, and I don't think you did. So, whatever standard you're trying to imply here doesn't really work. As far as a living person and a dead person, did you know what machines have been in the workplace for a very long time now? We don't even need a live person to be fucking anymore, we could actually just make an android that we wouldn't have to pay. (I'm very sure that's already being developed as we speak.) I really don't think you have the requisite experience to fully understand what we're getting at here. If you really think that there is no skillset to having sex for a woman then that's the end of our discussion. I'm willing to meaningfully debate in an open, respectful manner, but that requires both of us to agree on some crucial postulates of which that there are varying levels of trainable skill involved in having sex as a woman and that there is a difference between good sex and bad sex are a part of. If I have to explain this to you, I'm wasting my time, because no matter how eloquently I can do it, it's something you'll just have to experience for yourself. I'm not saying that to turn the argument on you as a person, I'm saying that because it's absolutely essential to having a debate about prostitution. It's similar to saying "what skill do you need to grill a steak? you just put it over fire." Are you actually saying I need to experience good and bad sex? Like, I haven't? Are you throwing an ad hominen or whatever it's spelled at me? If so, then let me talk to your sisters/mothers/aunts/cousins who are reasonably attractive... Have you been trained in sex? If so, then where does one get trained to have sex? What does one learn in skilled sex? Are you saying all people are inherently bad at sex and never get any better until they are trained? How many whores in history do you think have been trained? Are you trying to argue that experience has no bearing on ability in this?
|
On October 06 2012 02:30 Dfgj wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 01:19 DigiGnar wrote:On October 05 2012 19:09 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On October 02 2012 01:42 DigiGnar wrote:On October 01 2012 17:43 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Regarding ^
Actually that used to not be the case, but nowadays with the internet and asian massage parlors coming down it's a whole different game
I still disagree with that guy's post because it's dumb and there sure as hell is a skillset to being a prostitute Is Sex Ed in high school where prostitutes learn how to have sex? What "skills" would you define that a "professional" prostitute has that a working mom doesn't have? On October 01 2012 17:16 xM(Z wrote:On October 01 2012 06:39 DigiGnar wrote:On October 01 2012 05:33 xM(Z wrote:On October 01 2012 03:00 DigiGnar wrote:On September 30 2012 19:13 xM(Z wrote:On September 30 2012 18:31 DigiGnar wrote: If prostitutes are victims for being "pushed" into prostitution because of economic reasons, then you can say the same for pretty much any one who makes minimum wage. They are pushed into a shitty job because they can't get good ones. If you think prostitution should be illegal, then why not say something about minimum wage?
Would you pay a person with the IQ of 60 to do the same work a monkey can do for free? Well, you can't make monkeys work for you per se in the US, so you'd have to hire the person by law. This, in turn, would make the employer a victim, as well. They are being forced to pay for someone's life because he/she isn't able to really do much with his/her own. There literally is no skill in moping a floor or washing dishes.
Unless you want to help the person morally, but that can be bad for business. So, does morality make everyone a victim? Why else are the laws there? (Not for people of low IQ, but because of morals in general.) it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones. Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: ' people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.' What are you even talking about? "Makes no sense to compare the physical abilities of humans"? Am I reading that right? So, you're saying the Olympics makes no sense? Cause that surely is probably the BIGGEST comparison of human ability in history. All a prostitute needs is a dick/vagina. There are plenty of desperate people who don't care about if they are fucking someone without a hand. Shit, the person without the hand could end up turning more profit due to fetishes. My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers. you sugested that humans end up prostitutes because they have low iq else they could get better jobs, right?; and then concluded that since all stupid (low iq) people end up victimized by their employers, the fact that they're used for their physical or for their mental abilities is irrelevant. am i getting this?. (note: prostitutes rely mostly or solely on their physical abilities else they're out of a job). I suggested that people with low IQ have a hard/impossible time getting a good job. They end up, more often than not, as a dishwasher or a janitor. Tell me a rocket science who would rather mop the halls of a school, and tell me a person who mops the halls of school wouldn't want a better job. They are victims of society, because society doesn't allow them to be rocket scientists. You have to prove you can be one to be one, and no one with a low IQ will ever be a rocket scientist. The people who are working these shit jobs aren't victimized by their employers, the employers are victimized because they must pay a minimum amount to someone who mops the halls of a school or washes dishes for a restaurant. Higher labor costs = higher prices + lower pay for the higher ups. Higher prices makes the consumer a victim and the supply chain a victim. Less money to buy from the supply chain = less money the supply chain has. Prostitutes rely solely on demand of sex, not their physical abilities. There is no ability in having a vagina, except maybe one that can still get wet. Even then, there's billions of those. If I'm going to be desperate enough to pay for sex, I'm not going to really give a shit how good it is. As long as I get off, I'm good. All the woman literally has to do is literally nothing and take it. Sure, people have fetishes and will have to dish out money to receive their pleasure, but again, there is no ability in washing dishes. Anyone can do what they are told to do. Anyone can be told to get on all fours and act like a dog, and anyone can do that. (unless you want to bring in the missing limb people, but then they are actually getting cybernetic limbs nowadays.) What I'm suggesting is that if prostitutes who are in the field are victims due to economic reasons, then everyone else is a victim because of economic reasons. Don't you think a pimp would rather not give any money at all to his employees? you don't really know what you're talking about or maybe you're just trolling. - why would someone work for a pimp if they're not getting payed?. they can just work for themselfs. - prostitutes are chosen by the client based on the way they look and how much money does he has to spend on them. if you can get off fucking an std infested wet vagina that doesn't make it a standard for everyone else you know. my point was that even thow, from an economic perspective, everyone is a victim, there must be made a distinction here about the degree of victimization. even with your twisted logic you must agree that is better to have a living person then a dead person, even from an economic perspective ( since a dead person can't work). Whores usually don't work for themselves. A guy would take advantage of her. That's why there's pimps, to protect the girls they themselves beat. (This isn't the case 100%) Also, a girl working for herself is going to have to find clientele, and a pimp already has that covered. Whores are chosen by their looks, yes, no one ever said they weren't. However, the demand for the whore is really a demand for sex, and if you're desperate enough, the looks start to matter less and less. Who said anything about an STD infested vagina? I surely didn't, and I don't think you did. So, whatever standard you're trying to imply here doesn't really work. As far as a living person and a dead person, did you know what machines have been in the workplace for a very long time now? We don't even need a live person to be fucking anymore, we could actually just make an android that we wouldn't have to pay. (I'm very sure that's already being developed as we speak.) I really don't think you have the requisite experience to fully understand what we're getting at here. If you really think that there is no skillset to having sex for a woman then that's the end of our discussion. I'm willing to meaningfully debate in an open, respectful manner, but that requires both of us to agree on some crucial postulates of which that there are varying levels of trainable skill involved in having sex as a woman and that there is a difference between good sex and bad sex are a part of. If I have to explain this to you, I'm wasting my time, because no matter how eloquently I can do it, it's something you'll just have to experience for yourself. I'm not saying that to turn the argument on you as a person, I'm saying that because it's absolutely essential to having a debate about prostitution. It's similar to saying "what skill do you need to grill a steak? you just put it over fire." Are you actually saying I need to experience good and bad sex? Like, I haven't? Are you throwing an ad hominen or whatever it's spelled at me? If so, then let me talk to your sisters/mothers/aunts/cousins who are reasonably attractive... Have you been trained in sex? If so, then where does one get trained to have sex? What does one learn in skilled sex? Are you saying all people are inherently bad at sex and never get any better until they are trained? How many whores in history do you think have been trained? Are you trying to argue that experience has no bearing on ability in this?
What do you mean by experience? Experience as in like XP? Experience as in a single session of sex?
I'm trying to argue that you don't need to be trained to have sex. Being experienced in sex is another thing, like banging an entire football team at once because you want to get back at your dad or some shit. I don't view sex as something you level up in, like a character from the FF series...
|
United States5162 Posts
On October 06 2012 03:52 DigiGnar wrote:Show nested quote +On October 06 2012 02:30 Dfgj wrote:On October 06 2012 01:19 DigiGnar wrote:On October 05 2012 19:09 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:On October 02 2012 01:42 DigiGnar wrote:On October 01 2012 17:43 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: Regarding ^
Actually that used to not be the case, but nowadays with the internet and asian massage parlors coming down it's a whole different game
I still disagree with that guy's post because it's dumb and there sure as hell is a skillset to being a prostitute Is Sex Ed in high school where prostitutes learn how to have sex? What "skills" would you define that a "professional" prostitute has that a working mom doesn't have? On October 01 2012 17:16 xM(Z wrote:On October 01 2012 06:39 DigiGnar wrote:On October 01 2012 05:33 xM(Z wrote:On October 01 2012 03:00 DigiGnar wrote:On September 30 2012 19:13 xM(Z wrote: [quote] it makes no sense to equate or compare ones physical abilities with ones psychical abilities. to have a case here, you should compare a whole prostitute with a prostitute without hands or something and then argue who is pushed into what or who will get the good one. 60 iq prostitutes can/may be way better at their job then 100 iq ones.
Edit: 'cause i refuse to believe that what you argued was: 'people become/end up prostitutes because they're stupid/have low IQ.' What are you even talking about? "Makes no sense to compare the physical abilities of humans"? Am I reading that right? So, you're saying the Olympics makes no sense? Cause that surely is probably the BIGGEST comparison of human ability in history. All a prostitute needs is a dick/vagina. There are plenty of desperate people who don't care about if they are fucking someone without a hand. Shit, the person without the hand could end up turning more profit due to fetishes. My argument is that if economic issues make prostitutes "victims" then everyone is a victim because employers must pay a certain amount for work they would rather pay far less, or it nothing at all, and that some people who take such jobs can't get great paying jobs because they don't have the mental capabilities to think on high levels. Everyone is a victim. Employers, employees, supply chain, and customers. you sugested that humans end up prostitutes because they have low iq else they could get better jobs, right?; and then concluded that since all stupid (low iq) people end up victimized by their employers, the fact that they're used for their physical or for their mental abilities is irrelevant. am i getting this?. (note: prostitutes rely mostly or solely on their physical abilities else they're out of a job). I suggested that people with low IQ have a hard/impossible time getting a good job. They end up, more often than not, as a dishwasher or a janitor. Tell me a rocket science who would rather mop the halls of a school, and tell me a person who mops the halls of school wouldn't want a better job. They are victims of society, because society doesn't allow them to be rocket scientists. You have to prove you can be one to be one, and no one with a low IQ will ever be a rocket scientist. The people who are working these shit jobs aren't victimized by their employers, the employers are victimized because they must pay a minimum amount to someone who mops the halls of a school or washes dishes for a restaurant. Higher labor costs = higher prices + lower pay for the higher ups. Higher prices makes the consumer a victim and the supply chain a victim. Less money to buy from the supply chain = less money the supply chain has. Prostitutes rely solely on demand of sex, not their physical abilities. There is no ability in having a vagina, except maybe one that can still get wet. Even then, there's billions of those. If I'm going to be desperate enough to pay for sex, I'm not going to really give a shit how good it is. As long as I get off, I'm good. All the woman literally has to do is literally nothing and take it. Sure, people have fetishes and will have to dish out money to receive their pleasure, but again, there is no ability in washing dishes. Anyone can do what they are told to do. Anyone can be told to get on all fours and act like a dog, and anyone can do that. (unless you want to bring in the missing limb people, but then they are actually getting cybernetic limbs nowadays.) What I'm suggesting is that if prostitutes who are in the field are victims due to economic reasons, then everyone else is a victim because of economic reasons. Don't you think a pimp would rather not give any money at all to his employees? you don't really know what you're talking about or maybe you're just trolling. - why would someone work for a pimp if they're not getting payed?. they can just work for themselfs. - prostitutes are chosen by the client based on the way they look and how much money does he has to spend on them. if you can get off fucking an std infested wet vagina that doesn't make it a standard for everyone else you know. my point was that even thow, from an economic perspective, everyone is a victim, there must be made a distinction here about the degree of victimization. even with your twisted logic you must agree that is better to have a living person then a dead person, even from an economic perspective ( since a dead person can't work). Whores usually don't work for themselves. A guy would take advantage of her. That's why there's pimps, to protect the girls they themselves beat. (This isn't the case 100%) Also, a girl working for herself is going to have to find clientele, and a pimp already has that covered. Whores are chosen by their looks, yes, no one ever said they weren't. However, the demand for the whore is really a demand for sex, and if you're desperate enough, the looks start to matter less and less. Who said anything about an STD infested vagina? I surely didn't, and I don't think you did. So, whatever standard you're trying to imply here doesn't really work. As far as a living person and a dead person, did you know what machines have been in the workplace for a very long time now? We don't even need a live person to be fucking anymore, we could actually just make an android that we wouldn't have to pay. (I'm very sure that's already being developed as we speak.) I really don't think you have the requisite experience to fully understand what we're getting at here. If you really think that there is no skillset to having sex for a woman then that's the end of our discussion. I'm willing to meaningfully debate in an open, respectful manner, but that requires both of us to agree on some crucial postulates of which that there are varying levels of trainable skill involved in having sex as a woman and that there is a difference between good sex and bad sex are a part of. If I have to explain this to you, I'm wasting my time, because no matter how eloquently I can do it, it's something you'll just have to experience for yourself. I'm not saying that to turn the argument on you as a person, I'm saying that because it's absolutely essential to having a debate about prostitution. It's similar to saying "what skill do you need to grill a steak? you just put it over fire." Are you actually saying I need to experience good and bad sex? Like, I haven't? Are you throwing an ad hominen or whatever it's spelled at me? If so, then let me talk to your sisters/mothers/aunts/cousins who are reasonably attractive... Have you been trained in sex? If so, then where does one get trained to have sex? What does one learn in skilled sex? Are you saying all people are inherently bad at sex and never get any better until they are trained? How many whores in history do you think have been trained? Are you trying to argue that experience has no bearing on ability in this? What do you mean by experience? Experience as in like XP? Experience as in a single session of sex? I'm trying to argue that you don't need to be trained to have sex. Being experienced in sex is another thing, like banging an entire football team at once because you want to get back at your dad or some shit. I don't view sex as something you level up in, like a character from the FF series... Your reasoning on this is the most illogical and confusing stuff I've read in a while. You don't need to be trained to have sex, just like you could do a ton of other jobs without training. Of course, if you do get training and/or experience, you become better. Things like seduction and technique are two easily identified areas where a prostitute can distinguish herself, and both of those can be improved with training and/or experience.
Why the fuck are you even talking about RPG XP? Just to be obtuse?
|
I'm thinking, in the case of auctioning one's virginity, would it be considered prostitution?
|
On October 20 2012 10:51 Ra`s Al Ghul wrote: I'm thinking, in the case of auctioning one's virginity, would it be considered prostitution?
Um, yes of course. You're paying to have sex with someone.
|
On October 20 2012 11:52 Zooper31 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 10:51 Ra`s Al Ghul wrote: I'm thinking, in the case of auctioning one's virginity, would it be considered prostitution? Um, yes of course. You're paying to have sex with someone. I see a loophole then for the prostitutes.
They can just launch their sites and get clients directly there. They won't need intervention from the police and pimps. They get all the money.
|
On October 20 2012 12:00 Ra`s Al Ghul wrote:Show nested quote +On October 20 2012 11:52 Zooper31 wrote:On October 20 2012 10:51 Ra`s Al Ghul wrote: I'm thinking, in the case of auctioning one's virginity, would it be considered prostitution? Um, yes of course. You're paying to have sex with someone. I see a loophole then for the prostitutes. They can just launch their sites and get clients directly there. They won't need intervention from the police and pimps. They get all the money. Or they can just go the normal loophole route and become part of an escort service. Intercourse may not be on the books, but it's definitely never off the table.
|
I used the text to point things out, not necessarily thinking that the initial poster was of the opposite stance;
Simple version and intro- Vote; don't make prostitution legal, and make it illegal in the rest of the world. make pornography illegal. do not make pornography legal. -- ; Outside of husband and wife relations, "sex" is absolutely wrong( to say the least. ) Even within marriage, fantasy fetishes and 'unnatural acts' shouldn't be acted out and you need help if you do things like that. Procreation and sex aren't the same, and sex is irrelevant and not necessary for sustaining your life. Prostitution is 'beyond', or 'lower' than 'sex'.
Other version;
1 : the act or practice of engaging in promiscuous sexual relations especially for money 2 : the state of being prostituted : DEBASEMENT
--
KEY ISSUES 1. Victimless Crime? - Hide Spoiler - LEGAL Prostitution should not be a crime. Prostitutes are not committing an inherently harmful act. What makes prostitution a 'victimless crime' in the sense that no one is necessarily harmed by it is that there are consenting adults involved. Prostitution should not be legal. Whether or not identified as "crime", definitely something wrong. The factors of consent and "physical-maturation" do not equate to right, acceptable or "not-immoral". The lack of physical assault via fists, guns or knives does not make it "unharmful". Mental/psychological, emotional harm("spirit/soul/morale/mental-health") something almost impossible to rectify/heal compared to physical wounds. ie; suicidal/homicidal thoughts. Anger and disgust in general. Sick acts aren't just sick from a people carrying on a tradition of making it seem sick, it's because those who do sick things know first hand that it is in deed sick, and makes you feel sick, and is just sick, undeniably, from experience. "It's just wrong". Why not say, "hey, there were thousands of people on the earth who never had 'sex' and were fine, that means we should all just be celibate and stop being obsessed with sex, hey, you don't 'die' from lack sex, it's not like water or calories, it's so obvious. No, instead say "what? they're just freaks, they're not 'normal', 'normal' people need 'sex', or else, we'll kill each other." Or speak for yourself and admit that if you don't get to have sex with someone you will become violent because you want sex that bad that you would kill someone, and that you need help. Why not say the killing part is from the person's own hostile inner problems, and not having to do with not having intercourse?
ILLEGAL Prostitution creates a setting whereby crimes against men, women, and children become a commercial enterprise.... It is an assault when he/she forces a prostitute to engage in sadomasochistic sex scenes. When a pimp compels a prostitute to submit to sexual demands as a condition of employment, it is exploitation, sexual harassment, or rape -- acts that are based on the prostitute's compliance rather than her consent. Agreed. Such things are, for lack of a better word, (or not) "evil". Ah, "destructive". --
2. Prostitution & Free Choice - Hide Spoiler - LEGAL We chose sex work after we did a lot of things we couldn't stand. Sex work is better. For me, sex work isn't my first choice of paying work. It just happens to be the best alternative available. Because it's better than a lot of things person a or b couldn't stand by comparison. So I stop working as a dishwasher and go work as cashier. Dish washing and fornicating for money aren't in the same category, prostitution cannot be referred to as "other" job.
ILLEGAL The ILO [International Labour Organization] report admits that most women 'choose' prostitution for economic reasons. Surely no one can argue that this is free choice any more than the cattle in the squeeze chute choose to go to their death.
Pressure women to choose human-degrading prostitution or death, due to bad governing by government, and thus, bad economy. 2 by legalizing pornography/businesses that conduct videotaping acts of fornication+people who shamelessly do it cause woman to think about considering it. If it there were no pornography tolerated, there could be less consideration to such things and stronger integrity. 3, who is to say these women were pure in their decision. "Oh, I know it's bad but I'm only doing it because I have to, since no one will hire me", "I rather get paid to fornicate than work a job, I don't care about morals, it's not wrong". --
3. Prostitution & Violence - Hide Spoiler - LEGAL Decriminalization would better protect people in the sex industry from violence and abuse.
...Police cannot and do not simultaneously seek to arrest prostitutes and protect them from violence.... Indeed, women describe being told, 'What did you expect?' by police officers who refused to investigate acts of violence perpetrated against women whom they knew engaged in prostitution. The consequences of such attitudes are tragic: Gary Ridgway said that he killed prostitutes because he knew he would not be held accountable. The tragedy is that he was right - he confessed to the murders of 48 women, committed over nearly twenty years. That is truly criminal. This has to do with the responsibility of the authorities/government and whether or not they properly serve as enforcers. If a person doesn't do his or her job enforcing the law, that's the individual person.
ILLEGAL Regardless of prostitution's status (legal, illegal or decriminalized) or its physical location (strip club, massage parlor, street, escort/home/hotel), prostitution is extremely dangerous for women. Homicide is a frequent cause of death....
It is a cruel lie to suggest that decriminalization or legalization will protect anyone in prostitution. It is not possible to protect someone whose source of income exposes them to the likelihood of being raped on average once a week.
--
4. HIV/AIDS Prevention - Hide Spoiler - LEGAL For HIV/AIDS prevention to succeed, the conditions of risk have to change. The context - legal, social, economic - of sex work has to change, with repeal of criminal laws, access to visas and work permits, freedom of movement and association, and occupational safety and health regulations, to reduce the imposition of risk from above. Until then, it will be heroic, strong individuals that can insist on safe behaviours, leaving those who are less heroic, those who are more timid and afraid, to suffer the consequences of the context of risk.
Not sure how well this was attempting to articulate advocacy of one or the other but, don't engage in intercourse, get tested; problem solved.
ILLEGAL Even if a prostitute is being tested every week for HIV, she will test negative for at least the first 4-6 weeks and possibly the first 12 weeks after being infected.... This means that while the test is becoming positive and the results are becoming known, that prostitute may expose up to 630 clients to HIV. This is under the best of circumstances with testing every week and a four-week window period. It also assumes that the prostitute will quit working as soon as he or she finds out the test is HIV positive, which is highly unlikely. This is not the best approach for actually reducing harm. Instead, in order to slow the global spread of HIV/AIDS we should focus our efforts on abolishing prostitution.
---
5. Prostitution as a Legitimate Business - Hide Spoiler - LEGAL Sex work is legitimate work and problems within the industry are not inherent in the work itself. It is vulnerability, not sex work, which creates victims. Sex workers should enjoy the same labour rights as other workers and the same human rights as other people. Stop thinking that prostitution is "work" or a "job". Degradation is an understatement as to what it is. People do get hurt, and die, inside, in their head and soul.
"A woman, who had been involved in pornography as an adult performer, killed herself today, after having performed for two years"- sound like that could or couldn't happen? ofcourse, it sounds like it could. You don't kill yourself from working as cashier. You don't feel disgusted like "that" from working an absolutely innocent thing like organizing files. People comprehend why people would feel "disgusted" in doing such things, because they know what it is. You can't pretend like it is harmless. People have, however, contributed the most futile attempt to support their desire, by bringing up that prostitution "isn't hitting people with physical weapons and mortally wounding them". Physically abuse isn't the one and only thing in the world that is wrong.
ILLEGAL ne needs to completely rid oneself of the voracity for cash to see that prostitution, although legalized, can never be a legitimate business because it will always be associated with crime, corruption, class, mass sexual exploitation and human trafficking. Yes.
|
|
|
|