Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think I said anything about addicts, dealers, etc. That's not what comes to mind for me when I think of a dreg. And, based on my reading when I looked it up to confirm, there is no reason for those types to come to mind either. Basest fits perfectly.
I don't believe I made any claims of what you think (correct me if I'm wrong about noting your mentions of 6 figure earnings). I do think it's easy to ignore the plights of others for personal gain,tho. Most do it every day in a variety of venues, myself included. For example, many shopt at walmart or similar. Somewhere, in the periphery of their minds, they know that most of the goods found at these places were wrought in nations that don't have labor laws, etc. They don't consume these products with ill-intent, rather, the realities are willfully ignored and tucked away so they're not bothersome. To be clear, I don't think this makes any of us bad people, but it does point to willfull ignorance.
I don't think women resort to selling themselves because it's illegal. They do it because they're lacking options. I would rather funnel tax dollars to these women to explore other interests. If prositution were to be made legal, it would be awesome to tax the heck out of it (from the John's pocket, of course) and to create a fund for them if they so desired.
People like me actually care. People like you just want to get your willy wet regardless of the plight of others. Again, this is not a sexual morality issue at all, so your assertion here falls flat. From where I sit, it's pretty silly. Sex has nothing to do with it; commodifying a human being with a necessary player like disparity encapsulates my position entirely.
Bring up the links from the .govs and let me know why you believe their mentions of trafficking are off the mark.
Firstly, we'll ahve to agree that a misunderstanding has occured concerning the term "dregs". Obviously you and I have different definitions.
Secondly, I think we agree that prostitution is the bottom of the barrel as far as options go. I also believe we will never agree that legalizing the industry will result in eliminating it as the bottom of the barrel.
Thirdly, those areas where you show human trafficing is highest are so not because of the legalization of prostitution, nor are those areas contain the highest volume of human trafficing either. Vegas, for example, has a long hsitory of criminal underworld activity. By legalizing prostitution across the board, you eliminate the possibility of those involuntary participates from those who do so willingly (for whatever reason). One simply will not be able to hide the slave among the workers.
Lastly, I have been a completely monogamous married man for over two decades. I have no need to purchase willy wetting services, and have never felt the urge to do so ever in my life.
Perhaps that is the reason I can look at this situation without letting pure emotion, and quite possibly relgiiously motivated morals, get in the way of rational thinking.
There have been many concerns that have been criminalized in an attempt to eliminate them from society, concerns based totally on religious precepts such as Prohibition of both booze and pot. And guess what, it merely dives those concerns underground and provides a steady wage to the criminal community in this Nation.
Prostitution is a contract between consenting adults. It needs to be treated as such.
The reality is that most women end up in prostitution due to disparity. Commodifying a person due to disparity doesn't sit well with me. I doubt it would sit well with most, but willful ignorance does the job pretty well with touchy subjects.
Women end up in prostitution due to disparity? unfortunately that's not my problem. not everyone that is under a bit of financial pressure ends up curb crawling!
Well, I cannot think of better ideas. For example, if a person smokes, they pay a higher premium. Why? Because they will be taken care of (by themselves or by society). If you are engaging in risky behavior it is the only responsible thing to do. Unfortunately, personal responsibility is not a popular concept for many. What I have in mind, for example, is if you prostitute, you should be licensed. To obtain a license you must have an std test. You must also have business insurance. If you're engaging prostitutes, again, you pay higher premiums for your insurance, however the market dictates. This is not unreasonable. I'm sure you don't complain that restaurants must be up to health codes, etc.
if a person smokes and their insurer forces them to pay higher premiums, that's fine by me. obviously that must be a voluntary arrangement between the insurers and the insured. i'd be all for and insurer voluntarily excluding hiv treatment or requiring additional payment for coverage. in the same way that you would pay extra to insure an expensive auto stereo. the key point here is that it should be voluntary.
Well, whatever the case may be, my responses specifically addressed an erroneous claim. One thing I came across that was surprising is that it's not only prostitution that runs hand in hand with trafficking, but also the softer side of the sex industry. There was one report reviewing a region in Canada with flourishing strip bars. I came across this a couple of years ago in a news article. I didn't link it here, tho, I'm sure it's archived on the net some where.
... and alcohol runs hand in hand with with domestic violence. that doesn't make a case for alcohol restrictions or regulations to be tightened, rather a case for domestic abuse to be better policed and more harshly punished imo. if sex slavery is the problem then that is what needs to be addressed. whether prostitution is legal and/or regulated does not fully address sex slavery and trafficing!
Free seems to be a relative term. I'm certainly not a prude, just the opposite. I take no issue with free love, sex willy nilly, etc. I'm an atheist, so I'm not bound up with a moralistic code when it comes to sex. Again, when disparity is involved, it's simply not a level playing field for all. Some have more freedoms/choices than others. That's my biggest concern. And I suspect it's not a concern for Johns or pimps.
no, it's not a relative term! in a consenting transaction between 2 (or more) adults, there is no disparity of freedom and choice between pros and johns. if however the said pro is being forced into it, there are already laws covering this. it is worth remembering that under this scenario there most definitely is a victim and as far as i'm concerned the transgressors of such laws should have the book thrown at them! while i'm here it is worth considering the turkish example. in turkey prostitution is legal. sex slavery it appears is not.
"An unlikely hero has emerged in Turkey to rescue victims of forced prostitution: the brothel customer. While the country's security forces are hardly renowned for their attention to human rights or sympathetic treatment of women, they have been chalking up impressive successes in finding and freeing trafficked women from brothels....
A charge-free hotline was set up in May by the UN's International Organisation for Migration (IOM) for women to call for help. It is staffed by multi-lingual operators who try to pinpoint where the women are - and then send in the police. But the second, more unexpected, factor is the chivalry of the Turkish brothel client. Since the hotline started, 74 per cent of tip-offs have come from men: customers who have learned to spot the difference between a professional prostitute, and someone who's been forced into it."
I don't think women resort to selling themselves because it's illegal. They do it because they're lacking options. I would rather funnel tax dollars to these women to explore other interests. If prositution were to be made legal, it would be awesome to tax the heck out of it (from the John's pocket, of course) and to create a fund for them if they so desired.
have you considered that johns will pay the lowest amount possible and pros will charge the highest amount they think the johns would be willing to pay. if you tax it, it's ultimately the pros who end up paying for this. then we get into the area which really concerns me and that is how should this be policed? do the bureaucrats set up cameras in the rooms to make sure that protection is used. do we get wholesome young irs bureaucrats manning brothels?
People like me actually care. People like you just want to get your willy wet regardless of the plight of others. Again, this is not a sexual morality issue at all, so your assertion here falls flat. From where I sit, it's pretty silly. Sex has nothing to do with it; commodifying a human being with a necessary player like disparity encapsulates my position entirely.
the only thing people like you care about is your belief that you know what's best for other people! thanks btw for the slur, but i don't need to pay to get my willy wet. very often people pay to not get phonecalls the next day. while i agree with you that many women are forced into this, i would argue that most people do it by choice because it pays better than mcdonalds!
Bring up the links from the .govs and let me know why you believe their mentions of trafficking are off the mark.
Opposing regulation is not logical. It's irresponsible and thoughtless.
what would you regulate then? specifically what regulations? how would you police it? what charges or fines would you levy against those who transgressed?
Lets not confuse "Legal Prostitution" with "Mandatory Prostitution"--No one is advocating that folks must frequent Prostitutes. Just if they do chose to do so, neither of them will end up in jail. ---People are being robbed in their homes, while sting operations are wasting valuable time and resources harassing Prostitutes. Yet the Police claim to be short handed. Law enforcement needs to get their Priorities straight, and use what limited resources they have going after Criminals that actually commit crimes against people. We have little time or money for "Morality Police". Leave that to the Individual.
I was discussion this topic with some of the Gals on My block earlier. they agreed that life would be easier, it they didn't have to worry about getting arrested. But none of them had any plans to quit regardless. so what good does it actually do to make prostitution illegal, if it doesn't stop prostitution? ?
hahahahaha, do you really think that our goal in opposing bans on prostitution was to end it? i suppose i'll have to spell it out for you then.
imo, this is first and foremost a Civil Liberties issue. the state has no business outlawing or regulating transactions between consenting adults.
secondly i oppose this because it takes valuable police resources away from fighting crimes which have real victims. murder, rape, theft, robbery, assault etc
It also diverts billions of taxdollars into fighting an unwinable war for which there are no victims.
hahahahaha, do you really think that our goal in opposing bans on prostitution was to end it? i suppose i'll have to spell it out for you then.
imo, this is first and foremost a Civil Liberties issue. the state has no business outlawing or regulating transactions between consenting adults.
secondly i oppose this because it takes valuable police resources away from fighting crimes which have real victims. murder, rape, theft, robbery, assault etc
It also diverts billions of taxdollars into fighting an unwinable war for which there are no victims.
imo, this is first and foremost a Civil Liberties issue. the state has no business outlawing or regulating transactions between consenting adults.
.
I have to disagree with you there. If I and my banker, both consenting adults, enter into a loan transaction, the state does have business in outlawing or regulating that transaction.
There is a compelling need for certain transactions to fall under a regulatory umbrella. However, I agree with you that prostitution probably shouldn't be one of them, because it is not a transaction (if out in the open) in which one party has disproportionate power or influence over the other, and there is no clear motive to misrepresent the terms of the transaction.
And lets be Honest here, some people due to a wide variety of reasons, can have sex no other way, than to pay for it. Old People, handicapped, or even just ugly people have little choice in the matter. So hey, give them a break. They are hurting no one. So show some compassion. Why compound their problems, by also making them Criminals?
I have to disagree with you there. If I and my banker, both consenting adults, enter into a loan transaction, the state does have business in outlawing or regulating that transaction.
i don't agree with you with regards to banking regulation. i don't see a difference in the two issues. for the purposes of this thread i'll leave it there
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
