Page 13 of 16 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 156

Thread: The inner world of a prostitute

  1. Top | #121
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    14,347
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    30,033
    Rep Power
    76
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    I am in favor of the Swedish model where the prostitutes are not considered criminals but the customers and pimps are.
    So because some shoes are made in sweat shops, all people buying shoes should be locked up? That's pretty much the "logic" of the Swedish model.

    And earlier you claimed to be sympathetic toward those of us who have a difficult time finding sexual relationships otherwise. As I suspected, that feigned sympathy was just BS. You want to throw us all in jail.

    But more than that, I am in favor of genuine economic reform that provides better alternatives for all women (and for men, too).
    Even with a better safety net there will be genuine demand for sexual services and women (and men) willing to fulfill them. What's wrong with letting them pursue that line of work without criminalizing their customers?

  2. Top | #122
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    7,686
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    13,432
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    It makes me realise how stupid it is that prostitution is ever illegal anywhere. I mean... how else is a psychologist supposed to cure something like this unless they can sleep with the client/patient. We live in a very stupid world. Prostitutes don't get nearly enough respect. They deserve the respect any other qualified job gets. It is not a no skill job.
    Exactly. Sex work should not only be legal, but also destigmatized. We should not be looking down on prostitutes nor their clients.
    Once it's legal it'll quickly become destigmatized. That's my impression in Denmark. It's still not seen as a fancy job, of course. But it's at least seen as a proper job.

  3. Top | #123
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    7,686
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    13,432
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    And the observation regarding the fact that money--i.e., being paid--is itself an inherently coercive act and that it's a safe bet none of the prostitutes would be doing the same thing to any of their clients if it were not the fact that they were being paid. Which tends to blow the whole "they love having sex" rationalization out of the water. I'm sure they do, but that's not the question.
    If you consider 'being paid' an 'inherently coercive act', that blows up the entire idea of commerce out of water. Are you 'coercing' an electrician to fix your wiring by offering money? I am sure he or she would hardly do it for free.

    But of course you, Toni and other prohibitionists do not see electricians, plumbers, beauticians, etc. that way. Only sex workers. And that explains all your arguments against sex work.
    I don't think Koyaanisqatsi has any ideas of his own. He's just regurgitating rescue industry tropes. That have always been absolute bullshit. It's just moralism. Old timey hateful moralism. The interesting thing is that it's misogyny. It's the traditional old idea of trying to control women's lives because they are the housewives that raise our kids and their sanctity must be protected for the good of the nation. I find it interesting how often feminists aren't at all fighting for women's right to do what they think feels right for them. Just because you don't like something and find the idea abhorrent, doesn't mean other people also do. Feminists so often fight for various ways to keep controlling women, and of course implying that women who don't support their cause are bad women. I know there's a lot of feminists who genuinely are fighting for women's rights. But they keep being muscled out from public view by the moralistic loudmouths.

  4. Top | #124
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    7,686
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    13,432
    Rep Power
    51
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Toni View Post
    I am in favor of the Swedish model where the prostitutes are not considered criminals but the customers and pimps are.
    So because some shoes are made in sweat shops, all people buying shoes should be locked up? That's pretty much the "logic" of the Swedish model.

    And earlier you claimed to be sympathetic toward those of us who have a difficult time finding sexual relationships otherwise. As I suspected, that feigned sympathy was just BS. You want to throw us all in jail.
    The Swedish model is worse than that. To use your analogy, it makes all shoe companies into sweat shops. It universally makes life worse for prostitutes. It's intention is to punish women for being prostitutes and try to force them out of the job and get them into morally acceptable jobs. Just like the old prostitution laws, which had the same mechanic, but this one makes life even worse for prostitutes. Swedish prostitutes liked it better back in the day when selling sex was illegal and buying it legal. Because the job was safer then. Violence against prostitutes has gone up since the Swedish model was introduced. No prostitute likes it.

    The only reason it's heralded as a success is because of propaganda. The people who pushed through the law in Sweden did so only to further their own political careers. They obviously don't give a rats ass about prostitutes, or women in general. They never talk to the prostitutes. They never invite prostitutes to speak at their conferences. They've failed to find any prostitute who is grateful for their work. Or even ex-prostitute. This law was pushed through with zero input from the people it was supposed to help. And when it failed, it's failure has been covered up. Still nobody is talking to the prostitutes. They have never been allowed to express themselves in any major Swedish newspapers, in spite of their best efforts. It's a conspiracy within the feminist movement. They're clearly afraid of what these women might say. Afraid they might say things that will pop their inflated balloon of over-importance.

  5. Top | #125
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,940
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by DrZoidberg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    And the observation regarding the fact that money--i.e., being paid--is itself an inherently coercive act and that it's a safe bet none of the prostitutes would be doing the same thing to any of their clients if it were not the fact that they were being paid. Which tends to blow the whole "they love having sex" rationalization out of the water. I'm sure they do, but that's not the question.
    If you consider 'being paid' an 'inherently coercive act', that blows up the entire idea of commerce out of water. Are you 'coercing' an electrician to fix your wiring by offering money? I am sure he or she would hardly do it for free.

    But of course you, Toni and other prohibitionists do not see electricians, plumbers, beauticians, etc. that way. Only sex workers. And that explains all your arguments against sex work.
    I don't think Koyaanisqatsi has any ideas of his own. He's just regurgitating rescue industry tropes. That have always been absolute bullshit. It's just moralism. Old timey hateful moralism. The interesting thing is that it's misogyny. It's the traditional old idea of trying to control women's lives because they are the housewives that raise our kids and their sanctity must be protected for the good of the nation. I find it interesting how often feminists aren't at all fighting for women's right to do what they think feels right for them. Just because you don't like something and find the idea abhorrent, doesn't mean other people also do. Feminists so often fight for various ways to keep controlling women, and of course implying that women who don't support their cause are bad women. I know there's a lot of feminists who genuinely are fighting for women's rights. But they keep being muscled out from public view by the moralistic loudmouths.
    Binary, simplistically minded bullshit. If you're not with us, you're against us. Idiotic, but since you can't seem to think in a non-binary manner, let's put things into that frame so that you can follow along.

    As I pointed out previously, there are two very different discussions (monologues, really) going on itt. Both are equally valid. You are defending a certain percentage of prostitutes that are 100% operating of their own free will. Myself and others are concerned about the other percentage that are NOT operating 100% of their own free will.

    Neither one of us knows exactly what those percentages are. You just keep speaking for ALL prostitutes and that ALL prostitutes are 100% acting of their own free will and they just love to have sex and it's all candy and roses. That is obviously not the case for ALL prostitutes.

    Even if 99% of ALL prostitutes were operating of their own free will, there would still be concern about the 1% that aren't. We're not talking about someone working in a fucking Ikea against their will; we're talking about state-sanctioned rape, basically. Where it is currently criminalized, it's still rape, so the decriminalization aspect to the argument merely shifts who the pimps are, not whether or not the harms are being properly addressed.

    As I have also agreed many times, I am in full favor of decriminalizing prostitution from the sex workers perspective (i.e., not making it illegal to sell your body). I am on the fence about making the buying of someone else's body illegal, however, as that puts the focus where it belongs; on the motivations of the people looking to buy someone else's body, which in turn would put the focus on the people who are causing the majority of the harms against the prostitutes (the "Johns"). Not ALL Johns. If memory serves from something I read when this childishly binary shit-fest first started, it's something on the order of 20% and those figures do not significantly change when it is decriminalized, so how that gets addressed is also of concern to me.

    It may not be to you, but then I don't give a flying fuck about you, nor do I just accept anything you post simply because you know some prostitutes.

    In regard to making being a "John" illegal (and yes, I'm using that as a general term that includes women who go to prostitutes), we once again have a divergence of monologues, with you and your ilk arguing about 100% innocent individuals who, for whatever personal or social reason can't manage to have sex without paying, but there is also the other percentage of "Johns" who are not 100% innocent individuals who just can't manage to have sex without paying, etc., etc., etc.

    Iow, this whole fucking thread is about two valid positions talking past each other about two entirely different set of concerns that no one model yet seems to address. The best possible solution, imo, is pouring billions into sex robot technology, but then, because human nature is as horrible as a Nazi, I am equally convinced that such a shift would then inevitably result in an increase in human trafficking because men, in particular, get bored easily and haven't evolved beyond the drive to fuck anything that moves or has a moist hole.

    The inherent and unique problem with prostitution is that a body is a commodity that is not autonomous (like a toaster or a software program). The best measure of "rights" has always been the old trope that my rights end where your body begins. But that's completely blurred when it comes to prostitution, because the body is now the commodity being bargained over.

    That's why all of this bullshit strawman noise about "you're just a moralist puritan" is so utterly fucking boring. I'm sure there are a lot people out there--most likely in the forefront--making such noise, but I don't see anyone itt making moralist arguments. As I have also pointed out that I have been to a prostitute in Amsterdam I can't exactly take any kind of moral position on the matter even if I wanted to.

    Which brings us back around to the fact that there are no simple answers. Everyone itt seems to agree, at least, that prostitutes should not be criminally punished. As for Johns, perhaps something along the lines of the "medical marijuana" model could be implemented in order to better prevent abuse? If you can prove a medical/psychological need, you get a license to fuck or the like.

    Again, we're talking about making the state the pimp, so the regulatory oversight/rules of the state should also apply in some fashion, such as getting a license to drive a car or smoke medicinal pot or buy prescription drugs or open a fucking food cart ffs. Something along these lines so that both sides of the chasm feel like their concerns are being addressed and not just DO WHAT I SAY BECAUSE I KNOW A PROSTITUTE!

    And yes, of course, sex workers should have their say in ALL of this, but it's not a matter of just accepting anything they say as gospel. Which then takes us right back to my pointing out the same fucking thing to you in regard to your anecdotes. They are useful, but not the end-all-be-all to the complexity of the issues.

  6. Top | #126
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,940
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Derec View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    And the observation regarding the fact that money--i.e., being paid--is itself an inherently coercive act and that it's a safe bet none of the prostitutes would be doing the same thing to any of their clients if it were not the fact that they were being paid. Which tends to blow the whole "they love having sex" rationalization out of the water. I'm sure they do, but that's not the question.
    If you consider 'being paid' an 'inherently coercive act', that blows up the entire idea of commerce out of water.
    No, it actually does not.

    Are you 'coercing' an electrician to fix your wiring by offering money?
    Yes, that is precisely what you are doing.

    I am sure he or she would hardly do it for free.
    Right, so you have to coerce them into doing it for you, precisely because they would NOT do it for you for free. Do you not understand that you are actually making my point for me?

    Do you seriously think that the women you pay to have sex with you would do what they do without your payment? I don't mean to be cruel, but surely this is not the first time that thought has occurred to you. You are literally coercing them into fucking you. It's not something they are doing of their own free will. If they didn't need the money, they would not be fucking you.

    Or maybe they would. I don't know them, so you should ask, but my guess is that if it weren't for their need of the money, they wouldn't be fucking you. Which means they aren't acting of their own free will, they are acting out of their need for money.

    There is a difference between choosing to act in a particular way and having no choice but to act in a particular way.

  7. Top | #127
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    7,686
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    13,432
    Rep Power
    51
    ...
    Last edited by Tom Sawyer; 05-16-2019 at 05:44 PM. Reason: Personal Comments removed

  8. Top | #128
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,940
    Rep Power
    0
    ...
    Last edited by Tom Sawyer; 05-16-2019 at 05:44 PM. Reason: Consistency edit

  9. Top | #129
    Member ***
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    8,465
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    11,909
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    As I pointed out previously, there are two very different discussions (monologues, really) going on itt. Both are equally valid. You are defending a certain percentage of prostitutes that are 100% operating of their own free will. Myself and others are concerned about the other percentage that are NOT operating 100% of their own free will.
    This is incorrect. I and many proponents of legalization of prostitution do have victims of sex slavery in mind, as well as willing sex workers being in mind. We consider both. We care about both. Our arguments address both. The Supreme Court of Canada decision that found the old prostitution laws in Canada unconstitutional was based entirely on the safety of people working as sex workers. No, you won't convince anyone here supporting the legalization of prostitution that they only think about willing sex workers.

    The only argument against us relies on loose definitions of "sex trafficking" that does not equal sex slavery. It is fundamentally a question of choice. Should women have control over their own bodies and be allowed to do what they want with their bodies, so long as it isn't directly hurting anybody else? This question comes up in the abortion context too, but in that context there is the competing "right to life" of the unborn. Wherever you stand on the abortion issue, the prostitution issue doesn't have that direct competing interest. An act of willing prostitution isn't killing anyone or anything.

    Regulation of prostitution provides us with tools we can use both against sex slavery and for the safety and health of both the sex workers and society at large via their clients. Inspections can be done, without legal workers feeling a need to hide in the shadows or take things underground into the criminal element. STD testing can be mandated as well, which could save lives. Even a union could be formed, as I hear has happened in New Zealand, where they actually listened to the sex workers.

    You just keep speaking for ALL prostitutes and that ALL prostitutes are 100% acting of their own free will and they just love to have sex and it's all candy and roses. That is obviously not the case for ALL prostitutes.
    Obviously isn't. But so what? You have yet to establish that criminalizing Johns makes anything better for the people in the industry who are enslaved or abused. I point again to the Juno Mac video I posted above, where she goes through the practicalities of what making customers criminals does to sex workers. Its not more safe for them, but considerably less safe.

    And if you equate "coercion" with "being offered more money than would make at another job, so decides to do it", then why should we care if people are "coerced"? It would include everyone offered a job over minimum wage. Personally, I'd need something more dire to meet my own definition of "coercion".

    As I have also agreed many times, I am in full favor of decriminalizing prostitution from the sex workers perspective (i.e., not making it illegal to sell your body). I am on the fence about making the buying of someone else's body illegal, however, as that puts the focus where it belongs; on the motivations of the people looking to buy someone else's body, which in turn would put the focus on the people who are causing the majority of the harms against the prostitutes (the "Johns"). Not ALL Johns.
    So don't criminalize all Johns and all prostitution. Criminalize the harms.

    Iow, this whole fucking thread is about two valid positions talking past each other about two entirely different set of concerns that no one model yet seems to address. The best possible solution, imo, is pouring billions into sex robot technology, but then, because human nature is as horrible as a Nazi, I am equally convinced that such a shift would then inevitably result in an increase in human trafficking because men, in particular, get bored easily and haven't evolved beyond the drive to fuck anything that moves or has a moist hole.
    Sex robots are an excellent idea, but a bit out of the price range of most men and far below par with actual sex workers. A lot of what sex workers do for their clients isn't the sex act itself. It will be a while before AI can equal a good sex worker.

    The inherent and unique problem with prostitution is that a body is a commodity that is not autonomous (like a toaster or a software program). The best measure of "rights" has always been the old trope that my rights end where your body begins. But that's completely blurred when it comes to prostitution, because the body is now the commodity being bargained over.
    You aren't buying somebody's body. This isn't a butchery. You are buying a service they perform for you, as is the case with most jobs. This one just happens to involve intimate services, and different sex workers have different boundaries on what they will and will not do.

    That's why all of this bullshit strawman noise about "you're just a moralist puritan" is so utterly fucking boring.
    That's what people tend to conclude when no good argument is made against sex work otherwise, because it is so commonly the case. Maybe you and Toni have other reasons that you have yet to present. Maybe you'll decide to address the loose definitions of "sex trafficking" and "coercion" used above.

    Which brings us back around to the fact that there are no simple answers.
    There is a simple answer: Legal until and unless a good basis to render something illegal is presented.

    Everyone itt seems to agree, at least, that prostitutes should not be criminally punished. As for Johns, perhaps something along the lines of the "medical marijuana" model could be implemented in order to better prevent abuse? If you can prove a medical/psychological need, you get a license to fuck or the like.
    Why? Why shouldn't everyone be allowed to be a customer? And if it isn't about moralistic stuff, trying to force men to date in order to have sex, then why make this particular exception?

    Again, we're talking about making the state the pimp
    I don't think anybody has called for the creation of a national sex care system, where sex workers are government employees. Interesting concept though.

  10. Top | #130
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    7,686
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    13,432
    Rep Power
    51
    ...
    Last edited by Tom Sawyer; 05-16-2019 at 08:16 PM. Reason: Discussing moderation in-thread

Similar Threads

  1. Take a Retired Prostitute to Lunch Day
    By ideologyhunter in forum Miscellaneous Discussions
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-13-2018, 09:16 PM
  2. Is it racist for a prostitute to reject black men?
    By NobleSavage in forum Political Discussions
    Replies: 832
    Last Post: 12-15-2017, 11:27 AM
  3. Is having sex with a prostitute as bad as raping her?
    By chrisengland in forum Morals & Principles
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 04-21-2015, 04:29 PM
  4. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 04-15-2015, 08:08 AM
  5. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 03-25-2014, 04:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •