- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 3,779
- Reaction score
- 1,079
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Why don't the girls set aside a chunk of the couple hundred they make each night, and pay for the tuition themselves? Actually, wait a minute... Why would they want a job training program or vocational school? They already have a lucrative career. A couple hundred a night is more than some folks make flying airplanes.
I don't think anyone who makes a couple hundred bucks a night needs any taxpayer charity.
Both of you are making the assumption that hookers want to stay hookers, you assume that they enjoy what they do when that really isnt the case. Im sure there are definitely prostitutes that wouldnt take the programs because they make more doing what they do.If they're making that much a night, they're not going to be interested in any job training programs until they can't make that much a night anymore. That's a nice carrot you've got there, but you need a bigger stick.
Both of you are making the assumption that hookers want to stay hookers, you assume that they enjoy what they do when that really isnt the case. Im sure there are definitely prostitutes that wouldnt take the programs because they make more doing what they do.
If you provide an opportunity for people to get off the streets, get off drugs, and have a shot at a real life, there are a lot of people who'd stand up and take that chance. As a society, we receive the benefit of combating associated crime that tends to follow prostitution as well as re-integrating productive people back into our society.
The problem with this is that it assumes the prostitutes keep the money they earn. Since prostitution is illegal its very easy for any independent prostitutes to get attacked and so most end up with pimps who take most of the money. Making prostitution legal (as it is in the Netherlands) solves this problem and obviates the need for programs like that described in the OP. Ultimately the real answer is less government that brings prostitutes out of the shadows and into enough security for them to make a killing off their trade. Then the only thing to keep track of are victims of human trafficking and child prostitution rather than the entire industry.
No, the problem is that they're working in this horrid industry in the first place. Legalizing it only gives it a thin veneer of legitimacy; it's putting a band-aid on a festering injury that requires amputation. Prostitution encourages adultery and the objectification and abuse of women and should not be tolerated. The goal should be to eradicate it, not to encourage people to "make a killing" off of it.
In some manner aren't all workers who give their labor being objectified? If you want an industry where primarily men are objected look at logging or mining. Men make up almost all the work force and are objectified in that the businessmen and the customers care primarily about their labor not their status as human beings.
Its not that you have a problem with objectification ... it that you have a problem with objectifying sex in particular.
If you want sex to be romantic fine, never go to a prostitute and only have sex with those you really care about (I know that what I do). But this doesn't mean you should apply your own personal preference to everyone. If the buyer and seller don't mind sucking all the love and romance out of sex just to have fun so be it. Its not our business to say they shouldn't.
So none of your objections sway me. I say that prostitution should be legal because making it illegal is the cause of some of the worst abuses.
The city has a big problem with prostitution and associated crime. It tends to draw in a lot of associated crime as well as give a firm push to the drug market, but a lot of the girls feel they dont have any choice. Most of them have no skills and with the job market the way it is currently, making a couple hundred bucks a night versus $8 an hour flipping burgers....economics tends to win out.
The program he has in mind is essentially a program that takes in women and puts them through a rehabilitation program to get them off drugs (if they're using) and get their confidence level back up. After that, they are given credit for job training programs at community college or vocational school.
Civil has a point, sex IS technically considered labor. It's a service performed by someone for monetary compensation and in that respect is no different from a massage, physical therapy, or chiropractor. Lets not go getting emotional about it.That's a cop-out. Labor isn't sex. Labor is not an intimate act. Labor does not create and reinforce human pair bonds.
Again, Civil has a real point when he says we objectify people all the time. Have you ever worked low-end jobs? Minimum wage? Probably the most humiliating jobs I've ever worked were the minimum wage jobs where you WERE treated like an actual object rather than a human being by people who ought to know better.Yes. I have the same objection with the legal fringes of the sex industry that I do with prostitution. And they're valid objections. Objectifying sex hurts people and it encourages them to hurt others. It erodes the power and the beauty of something that is supposed to be one of the best parts of our lives.
Except morality is relative, why should we follow your particular brand of morality which says prostitution is not ok as opposed to mine which says it should be legalized and the workers protected?"It's none of our business" is the start of every argument in favor of allowing our culture and our society to spiral down the drains into the sewers of decadence and degradation. I say that the moral conduct of our fellow man is absolutely our business, and that every last one of us has an obligation to uphold that moral conduct.
Not true at all. There is nothing abusive about the act of exchanging sex for money in an atmosphere where both parties have the option of backing out. Illegal prostitution tends to attract crime, people who abuse the prostitutes because of what they do and they know the hooker probably wont turn them in because then they'll have to admit what they were doing.Prostitution is abusive in and of itself. Legalizing it will not change that.
Yes. I have the same objection with the legal fringes of the sex industry that I do with prostitution. And they're valid objections. Objectifying sex hurts people and it encourages them to hurt others.
It erodes the power and the beauty of something that is supposed to be one of the best parts of our lives.
Prostitution is abusive in and of itself. Legalizing it will not change that.
Civil has a point, sex IS technically considered labor. It's a service performed by someone for monetary compensation and in that respect is no different from a massage, physical therapy, or chiropractor. Lets not go getting emotional about it.
Again, Civil has a real point when he says we objectify people all the time. Have you ever worked low-end jobs? Minimum wage? Probably the most humiliating jobs I've ever worked were the minimum wage jobs where you WERE treated like an actual object rather than a human being by people who ought to know better.
Except morality is relative, why should we follow your particular brand of morality which says prostitution is not ok as opposed to mine which says it should be legalized and the workers protected?
Not true at all. There is nothing abusive about the act of exchanging sex for money in an atmosphere where both parties have the option of backing out.
Consider that we exchange sex for money all the time, if you take a girl out on a date to dinner and a movie, that's $40-50 or more. You go home at the end of the night and there is often the expectation of sex from one or both parties. It's not as forward as prostitution, but the principal is the same.
It does now? In what way?
The problem is your bringing in the force of law to enforce what is at its core an aesthetic concern. Aesthetics are ultimately subjective and arbitrary and thus make no sense to enforce in laws for everyone.
The women of the Dutch red light districts would likely beg to disagree.
Only because we MAKE it so. It IS possible to have sex without seeking the emotional aspect of it.That's exactly the problem. We are supposed to be emotional about sex. We are designed to be. Sex is more than just a massage, or physical therapy, or chiropracty.
Then where the **** did you work? I've had grown adults act worse than a three year old child because "they were paying customers". I had a grown man, a grown ****ing adult, look me straight in the eye and tell me I had to do whatever he wanted because "the customer is always right." People treat minimum wage employees like crap.Yes, I've worked low-end minimum wage jobs. I've worked them all my life. They weren't all that humiliating.
Good a reason as any, I suppose. Points for the directness but it lacks a certain...oh what is it....ah yes, validity. "I want it" is not sufficient reason for making something legal or illegal. If it were, there would be a hell of a lot fewer black people south of the Mason Dixon line.Because I say so.
And we know popular opinion is such a reliable way to tell what's right and wrong....if you're in the 5th grade.If that isn't good enough for you, we can argue and see whose morality more people want. You've probably got the advantage over me at this point, especially on the Internet. Or we could fight in the street. It doesn't matter how we decide, because no matter what, one of us is going to win and get to make the rules and the other is going to lose and have to accept it. Don't say it's best to let everyone decide for themselves, because that's your rules and I don't believe in them. Judging by the facts that we're a democratic society and prostitution is illegal throughout most of it, popular opinion was at least on my side at some point.
So it would seem a good idea to create a program to get them out of this kind of situation.Nothing I can say will convince you otherwise. It may be self-abusive, but I maintain that it is abusive nonetheless, and that both the prostitute and her customer are abusing themselves in different ways.
Be as insulted as you like, it's what our society has come to dictate as the "script" for a normal date.I find this comparison insulting, both to myself as a gentleman and to every woman that I have gone out on a date with.
It probably means you are a sociopath and thus the thoughts of said person wouldnt really be valid when held up against the group as a whole.I'm not talking about rape. I am talking about objectification. If you have a sexual partner-- or, more likely, a string of them-- whose pleasure and comfort you are not in the least bit concerned with, on an ongoing basis, you are going to become accustomed to not needing to be concerned with these things. You are going to grow expectations and desires based on that foundation. How do you think that will reflect in your treatment of your sexual partners that you are not paying? How do you think that will reflect in your sexual responses to those partners and their efforts to please you?
Actually there is a difference. One particular set of views can be much more economic, more in line with social harmony, or better at accomplishing a set goal. So on the grand moral scheme, no there's no difference but in microcosm, there is quite a bit of difference.All of society, all of culture, is built up of aesthetic concerns. There's no difference between my subjective and arbitrary views on prostitution and your subjective and arbitrary views on freedom. Or, for that matter, the subjective and arbitrary laws on every crime ranging from jaywalking to murder.
And they have the option to find a new career. They dont have pimps and drug addictions keeping them in that life.Of course they would. They are profiting handsomely from their own destruction.
I disagree that you need a bigger stick. You need to remove the stick. The women shouldn't be punished. Their scumbag slave masters should be punished for trafficking in women and children.
Only because we MAKE it so. It IS possible to have sex without seeking the emotional aspect of it.
Good a reason as any, I suppose. Points for the directness but it lacks a certain...oh what is it....ah yes, validity. "I want it" is not sufficient reason for making something legal or illegal.
I dont understand what's so hard about the idea that you can have sex without an emotional component.Without seeking it? Yes. Without being affected by it? No, it is not.
Well...yeah I do otherwise I'd agree with you.You really think your reasoning is any better or more valid?
And I explained to you they are not based in reason but rather a tunnel visioned view of that part of reality.I've posted my reasons for wanting prostitution to be stamped out
Translation= "I'm right and no one will ever change my mind"that you've dismissed them is of no consequence
But you cant justify why "proper moral conduct" is everyone's business. You're basically saying you're right because you think you're right and you dont need anymore than that. For yourself, that's true. However if you want to convince anyone else, you need some concrete reasons.The only difference is that you start your argument from "what consenting adults do in private is none of our business" and I start from "the proper moral conduct of society is everybody's business". They both boil down exactly to our respective statements of "I want it" as it pertains to the kind of society we want to live in.
And the customers. Without the customers, the industry will dry up all on its own.
Both of you are making the assumption that hookers want to stay hookers, you assume that they enjoy what they do when that really isnt the case. Im sure there are definitely prostitutes that wouldnt take the programs because they make more doing what they do.
Many face problems with drug addiction and the inability to leave the field because of people like pimps. Part of the program is getting law enforcement involved to break the hold of pimps and the threat of violence.Ok, but if the prostitutes don't like what they do, why do they need these programs? Why can't they pay for their own job training? A couple hundred a night is around $70,000 per year. Thats about twice the national average starting salary in a lot of professional fields. Why wouldn't they be able to afford these programs themselves?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?