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.
Really? I need to provide a definition of "somewhat" in a "Great Debate"?
Less = Absolute, Declaratory, Consistently Measurable, Permanent, & Always Below.*
Somewhat Less = inconsistency in those values.* Somewhat less, indicates a smaller deficiency than less, "usually or on average less" but does not preclude outliers. Less does preclude outliers.
"Facts of Life" The age range for men to father a child is considerably longer than the age range for women to bear a child, "on average" hence greater "time pressure" on women, whether single or married.
No just explain what conclusion one would come to:
this was the question: what conclusion should we infer from the statement: It's also a fact due to women's biological clock, that men are somewhat less interested in stable monogamous relationships than women. and how the qualifier somewhat less as opposed to less changes the conclusion.
I did not ask for the definition of somewhat.
From your statement I infer you are trying to state as fact that men aren't interested in relationships (marriage) because they dont want kids or at least not till they are 40 so they are in it for the sex. And women worry about having a baby so no sex without a monogamous relationship or marriage. Thus men marry (or enter serious monogamous relationship) to get sex and women because they want a baby before they are 40.
The age range is irrelevant in most cases. Just because you can father a child at 50 doesn't mean its a good idea or that you will be with a mate 20 years your junior. Its 2020, relationships and marriage are about more than sex and babies.
From Wikipedia: "When the Dutch government legalized prostitution in 2000, it was to protect the women by giving them work permits, but authorities now fear that this business is out of control: "We've realized this is no longer about small-scale entrepreneurs, but those big crime organizations are involved here in trafficking women, drugs, killings, and other criminal activities', said Job Cohen, the former mayor of Amsterdam."
From Wikipedia's source, a NY Times article titled "Amsterdam Tries Upscale Fix for Red-Light District Crime": "'We’ve realized this is no longer about small-scale entrepreneurs, but that big crime organizations are involved here in trafficking women, drugs, killings and other criminal activities,' said Job Cohen, the mayor. 'We’re not banning prostitution, but we are cutting back on the whole circuit: the gambling halls, the pimps, the money laundering.' The mayor said the cleanup was possible because of tough new zoning codes. The national government has also given cities more leeway to revoke licenses."
The article was written in 2008. A decade has since passed and I wonder whether Amsterdam's efforts to address the related criminal activities have proven successful? Or whether the situation has worsened?
Does anyone have any more current, documented information?
It looks like we need a thread called "Unintended Consequences of Decriinalizing Sex Work".
Thanks for posting this! This is essential information!
"Does Nothing" is absolute.
Three questions.
If testing workers "does nothing" what will be achieved by testing clients? Are you suggesting that the clients typically have more sex than the service providers?
If clients were tested regularly would you support legalization?
There's another forum dedicated to men who frequent sex workers and sometimes it sure seems like some are!
Now not really sure what taxation and regulation would look like but pretty sure I already don't like it. But then I always liked the Craiglist gotta pay my phone bill amateur than the full time professional escort.
Weeding out trafficking, absolutely but not in the current slash and burn style that forces men and women deeper underground or makes it more dangerous for the women who want to make their schedule and not work at Starbucks.
No just explain what conclusion one would come to:
this was the question: what conclusion should we infer from the statement: It's also a fact due to women's biological clock, that men are somewhat less interested in stable monogamous relationships than women. and how the qualifier somewhat less as opposed to less changes the conclusion.
I did not ask for the definition of somewhat.
From your statement I infer you are trying to state as fact that men aren't interested in relationships (marriage) because they dont want kids or at least not till they are 40 so they are in it for the sex. And women worry about having a baby so no sex without a monogamous relationship or marriage. Thus men marry (or enter serious monogamous relationship) to get sex and women because they want a baby before they are 40.
The age range is irrelevant in most cases. Just because you can father a child at 50 doesn't mean its a good idea or that you will be with a mate 20 years your junior. Its 2020, relationships and marriage are about more than sex and babies.
You infer incorrectly, and you're trying to put words in my mouth.
You originally said, "It's funny in 2020 that anyone (me) believes that men marry for sex, and women marry for a baby".*
That's an absolute, (all men marry for sex, and all women for babies) and not* what I said, and it's nowhere near the extent of my beliefs on marriage. Do you think 60 year old women marry in order to have a baby?
I do believe women of childbearing age (who do want to have a baby, in the traditional sense), face a more acute time clock than men, notwithstanding rumors of test tube babies, artificial insemination, sperm banks etc. It appears, (that's a qualifier), that nuance is not your strong suit.*
I've always felt sex work or prostitution should be legal.
I've never understood why it's not, when it would be hugely beneficial if it was..to all parties concerned.
You infer incorrectly, and you're trying to put words in my mouth.
You originally said, "It's funny in 2020 that anyone (me) believes that men marry for sex, and women marry for a baby".*
That's an absolute, (all men marry for sex, and all women for babies) and not* what I said, and it's nowhere near the extent of my beliefs on marriage. Do you think 60 year old women marry in order to have a baby?
I do believe women of childbearing age (who do want to have a baby, in the traditional sense), face a more acute time clock than men, notwithstanding rumors of test tube babies, artificial insemination, sperm banks etc. It appears, (that's a qualifier), that nuance is not your strong suit.*
While it is true that women "face a more acute time clock than men" as regards how age affects a woman's ability to conceive and bear children, both men and women face the same clock as far as their ability to produce healthy offspring.
Because of the changes that happen in eggs and sperm as we age, including damage to genetic material, children of older parents have a slightly higher risk of birth defects and genetic abnormalities. The risk of mental health problems and autism spectrum disorder is marginally higher in children of fathers older than 40 than in those with younger fathers.
Simply because a man can still father a child well into his declining years, doesn't mean that he should. Even if that risk is only "marginally higher," it still exists. There are unintended consequences to many things in life -- including one's desire is to procreate or merely copulate.
And children. Definitely more of them than "closeted homosexuals". Legalized prostitution doesn't slow the rate of human trafficking, if anything leaves room for worsening it. Take a look at Amsterdam.
Besides, sex work is pretty much legal so long as it's documented and posted on the internet, then labeled as "porn". It's completely unregulated to the point where you could get away with almost anything.
I suspect you get your Amsterdam stories from True Confessions. I'm sure they import workers from other parts of the world to meet individual tastes, but the vast majority of sex workers are local talent. The Dutch are a gorgeous people, and would be tough for people from shabbier nations to compete with. If sex workers feel they are abused, they can go the cops. They are not criminals, after all.
Holland is not the only nation with legal prostitution. Germany legalized prostitution in 2002, and has done a good job of regulating the industry. As the brothels move onto the books and streetwalkers move indoors, STDs have dropped precipitously and tax revenues have exploded. They shut down the brothels because of Covid-19, but reopened them on September 11. Last year, they reported $15 billion in revenues popping up, which used to be underground economy.
It's best to ask sex workers what the unintended consequences are:
I would support it being legalized. Having it be illegal has not stopped it, and everyone that works is selling some part of their body. With separation of church and state, and prostitution being a "moral" issue, I see no reason that it should be illegal. The thing is that the reason it is not legal in most places has more to do with the criminal elements that run the illegal prostitution business than with the moral objections. Big business for the criminal element.
I find the idea of prostitution totally disgusting and gross though. I do not believe that the majority of men are simply looking for sex when it comes to marriage, not in decades anyway, thus the "solution" for men to avoid marriage by making prostitution legal seems rather ridiculous to me.
Lots of married men hire prostitutes to do things their wife won't. They may have access to sex at home, but they don't have access to good sex.
this isnt a debatable issue. the government has no right to criminalize sex work. everyone has the right to do whatever they want as long as all people involved consent to the transaction.
While it is true that women "face a more acute time clock than men" as regards how age affects a woman's ability to conceive and bear children, both men and women face the same clock as far as their ability to produce healthy offspring.
Simply because a man can still father a child well into his declining years, doesn't mean that he should. Even if that risk is only "marginally higher," it still exists. There are unintended consequences to many things in life -- including one's desire is to procreate or merely copulate.
You won't find much dispute from me on that. I've made no comment on what people should or shouldn't do.
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.
