legalizing prostitution

[CptStern]

the law (privacy rights) is only effective until challenged. it is only upheld legally if someone sues because their workplace demands a std test saying their rights have been violated. An employer could try making it mandatory until it's challenged. so technically so long as the people involved give consent they could force std tests. again I'm speaking from the canadian perspective because I'm unfamiliar with US law on this issue.

 

[jverne]

No. I am simply asking if you and your family were to be going out to dinner for the night would you want to have your kids subjected to that and have it be perfectly legal?

just quit it man.



@Stern

i'm truly shocked at your stance stern! i really wasn't expecting you to be against.

having regulated brothels is ions better than what we have now, where girls get exploited with absolutely no way of helping themselves.
immigrant going into the trade...well that's a complex issue, but now instead they work hard physical labor for less than minimal wage, where's the difference?

it's not even necessary to have customers checked for std...although in nevada brothels they do get a quick exam of their genitalia. as long as the workers are regularly checked than that is no problem. and personal freedom doesn't have anything to do with this...if nurses, cooks, doctors, military personnel,...have to do it...so can prostitutes.
why the hell are you even discussing this issue?

 

[Tyguy]

plus it's a lot safer to be in a well regulated environment as opposed to risking your life by entrusting your body to a stranger with no safeguard in place. I put people's lives ahead of assuaging any kind of assumed deviance.

 

[Eejit]

Don't some health professionals have to undergo regular checks for infections because of the risk of passing them to patients?

 

[Escaep]

just quit it man.

Just answer the question, man.

 

[CptStern]

Can you really argue that these tests would be forced on people, though?

yes, if a service provider says it provides std-free workers than their jobs hinge on that very point. So if say someone was fired because they refused to take an std test they could sue because it's in violation of privacy rights. Or say I apply to a job but refuse to take a drug test I could take them to court however since the charter of rights (right to privacy falls under this) only protects people from government not individuals it's up to the court to decide if your rights have been violated

I mean, I think people will just accept that if they want to legally purchase or sell sex, they'll have to undergo the required tests first; if they don't want to undergo those tests, no one would be forcing them to engage in the sex trade.

no but they would be prevented by those same rules ..so they could in theory say their rights are being violated as a consumer. again this all amounts to nothing but theory until someone sues

The thing about saying that your workplace forces you to undergo STD tests is that it's somewhat misleading; unlike normal jobs, the idea is that you actually have sex. It's a safety precaution that is actually directly relevant to the job itself, as opposed to other such tests that a workplace might try to force on employees (drug tests, for example). It's no different from mandating a colour blindness test for a pilot; while the matter of STDs is typically a more intimate topic than colour blindness, both instances are matters of safety.

labour laws protect you from unreasonable requests that may be at odds with privacy laws. no business in canada that I can thinkof has mandatory drug tests much less drug tests on a regular basis. it's too thin a line to tread and businesses are weary on stepping on individual rights. drug tests for example are almost unheard of in canada

I think that anyone who genuinely tried to sue on the grounds of a brothel mandating STD test for customers and employees would be shot down pretty quickly; the general idea being "What do you expect? It's a brothel."

perhaps in your neck of the woods, not so in canada. the case would be a pretty clear cut violation of privacy laws. it's one thing to demand this of your employees but the general public? it would be financial suicide. it would have to be mandatory across the country/province and even then it would only hold up legally till challenged

 

[jverne]

we as students had to take a blood and urine test check in the 3rd semester.

you have to take these these tests when you go in school for the first time (7 or something years), when going to "high school" and when in university. if not you are not allowed to go into next year.

personal freedom is great and all...but you canadians take it waaay to seriously. having checks every now and then is a must for public health because it can affect everybody. so why twist your panties about is so much?

 

[jverne]

Just answer the question, man.

i think you don't realize that your question is so...lacking...that it cannot be answered.

 

[Solaris]

we as students had to take a blood and urine test check in the 3rd semester.

you have to take these these tests when you go in school for the first time (7 or something years), when going to "high school" and when in university. if not you are not allowed to go into next year.

personal freedom is great and all...but you canadians take it waaay to seriously. having checks every now and then is a must for public health because it can affect everybody. so why twist your panties about is so much?

Woah that's outrageous.

A drugs test, just to be a student? They have no right to know what you consume. What drugs you take is not the business of the university.

 

[repiV]

The "exploitation of women" argument against legalised prostitution is total nonsense. Are we on the same planet here, this is women we're talking about who can charge between ?100 and ?300 an hour for what is in many cases a bit of fun for them, and in the worst case, a slightly unpleasant low-skilled job (and any other job that pays that well would be a damn sight more unpleasant). If anything, it's the men being taken advantage of!

 

[Llama]

Just answer the question, man.

The question was so lacking in any coherent argument or structure that it's damn near impossible to answer.

If we have to answer, we have to assume that legalising prostitution would allow street corner style women, rather than something such as a brothel (ie we have to make a totally retarded assumption) for the question to hold any weight.

What's your child going to see behind closed doors? Oh yeah that's right, nothing.

 

[jverne]

Woah that's outrageous.

A drugs test, just to be a student? They have no right to know what you consume. What drugs you take is not the business of the university.

no no...it's not drug tests. they ask you if you'd taken any drugs before the test and if you did they just tell you to come in a week or something...just don't ask me what do they do if you're a total junkie. as far as i know most of my friends who smoke marijuana just stayed clean of it a few days prior. so the checks are mostly for diseases. altough they diagnosed on my other friend that her blood was lacking in proper nutrients. but that's because she was/is anorexic, so they recommended her to visit a doctor immediately.

call it invasion of privacy...but i think getting a check every now and then is a good thing.

 

[jverne]

The "exploitation of women" argument against legalised prostitution is total nonsense. Are we on the same planet here, this is women we're talking about who can charge between ?100 and ?300 an hour for what is in many cases a bit of fun for them, and in the worst case, a slightly unpleasant low-skilled job (and any other job that pays that well would be a damn sight more unpleasant). If anything, it's the men being taken advantage of!

holy shit, at first i thought it was numbers and i was like "meh", but then i read repi...like wow

first of all...men taken advantage of is not the point here, and it has not that much to do with legalized prostitution. if it was legal women would be accounted for and inspected so i think that would mean a lot less minors in the trade and forced labor, since now they'd have a legislation that they can turn to when in need, which is way better than a punch in the face from her pimp.

second...well who are you exactly to tag a price on sex? sure they might get paid alot, but hey it's a totally different kind of job.

third....nobody (well almost) is restraining you to go into the sex trade. why not join the Chippendales or something, i'm sure they earn alot. or why not become a gigolo? you might get some fun an alot of money in no time.

forth...because we all know that having a big fat drunk who hasn't washed in a month having sex with you is alot of fun. (i'm referring to prostitutes and they having fun)

 

[repiV]

holy shit, at first i thought it was numbers and i was like "meh", but then i read repi...like wow

first of all...men taken advantage of is not the point here, and it has not that much to do with legalized prostitution. if it was legal women would be accounted for and inspected so i think that would mean a lot less minors in the trade and forced labor, since now they'd have a legislation that they can turn to when in need, which is way better than a punch in the face from her pimp.

I'm not quite sure what relation my post has to numbers, as I think prostitution should be legal. The words "no shit" spring to mind.

Most prostitutes aren't forced into the trade anyway, it's a complete and total myth. The vast majority work for themselves, because they want to. Men taken advantage of IS the point, I'm sick of all this feminist bullshit blaming men for everything when it's actually the women who are getting minted and the men who are losing out. Just because some prostitutes are trafficked or enslaved, it does not follow that prostitution = slavery and people trafficking. If someone was willing to pay me 150 quid for sex, I'd be really quite flattered. Conversely, handing over the same for sex doesn't say much about your own worth and value.

If they do go into prostitution purely for economic reasons, so what? You think other people do their jobs for the fun of it? Prostitution just so happens to be a very good way for unskilled women to make a serious amount of money, and even most professional women could make more money as an escort then they could doing their day jobs. Exploitation doesn't even come into it.

second...well who are you exactly to tag a price on sex? sure they might get paid alot, but hey it's a totally different kind of job.

Um, they tag a price on sex, when they advertise their services.

third....nobody (well almost) is restraining you to go into the sex trade. why not join the Chippendales or something, i'm sure they earn alot. or why not become a gigolo? you might get some fun an alot of money in no time.

I don't think I really have the necessary physique for such work.

forth...because we all know that having a big fat drunk who hasn't washed in a month having sex with you is alot of fun. (i'm referring to prostitutes and they having fun)

So everyone who has sex with a prostitute is a big fat drunk who hasn't washed in a month? If someone like that turned up, she could just as easily turn them away again.

I think you'll find the majority of people who use prostitutes are middle-aged, professional men on high salaries.

 

[Ravioli]

sry if repost in this thread

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH0d8elEg0Y

 

[The Monkey]

Social and moral considerations of who, exactly?

The underprivileged.

The government certainly has an interest in protecting people from coercion, which is why I'm against the trade of sex slaves. But the personal decision in entering prostitution is just that, regardless of how poor you think it is. If a woman or man decides to sell their body in order to make ends meet, that is their perogative. You seem to think it's degrading and desperate, so you can just as well not purchase the services of a hooker. She can form her own opinions on her profession.

The abstraction of free choice becomes less relevant when speaking about people who are in a severe economic situation, when the only option out for them is to sell their body. How much freedom of choice do these women have?

And in a legitimate and regulated industry, she can feel free to leave it if she finds it debasing. Modern pornography contains quite a lot of material people find degrading to women, of which they partake in regularly as part of their job. How many of these people entered adult film because it's always what they wanted to do? Or did they do it because it helped pay their bills? I don't see anybody clamoring for an intervention on behalf of those poor, hapless souls.

The difference between the prostitution industry and the porn industry is that the porn industry does come with the side effects and is much more controlled. Prostitution could never hope to reach this level of regulation.

The government does not need to step in and save me from myself, which is the exact line of reasoning I use to justify putting whatever drug I want in my body. I'll get concerned when the act of screwing for money actually poses a threat to somebody. Besides, for all this talk of "protectin' the wimmin", it's not like current laws (at least here in the US) are helping these alleged victims. They get charged, fined, and incarcerated just the same as anybody. That's policy in line with deterrence, not welfare.

I've never said I supported the current US legislation (In fact, I know very little about it). I was just speaking about prostitution laws in general.

 

[Warbie]

Woah that's outrageous.

A drugs test, just to be a student?

If that was the case at my old school everyone I know would still be stuck in the first year.

Students not taking drugs - what will they think of next?!

 

[jverne]

I'm not quite sure what relation my post has to numbers, as I think prostitution should be legal. The words "no shit" spring to mind.

you and numbers have graphically similar avatars

Most prostitutes aren't forced into the trade anyway, it's a complete and total myth. The vast majority work for themselves, because they want to. Men taken advantage of IS the point, I'm sick of all this feminist bullshit blaming men for everything when it's actually the women who are getting minted and the men who are losing out. Just because some prostitutes are trafficked or enslaved, it does not follow that prostitution = slavery and people trafficking. If someone was willing to pay me 150 quid for sex, I'd be really quite flattered. Conversely, handing over the same for sex doesn't say much about your own worth and value.

meh...that's such a biased argument. i don't often see prostitutes driving in big expensive cars and such. ok it's anecdotal evidence...but hey i'd be happy if you prove me wrong.

although i do agree with you to a certain extent, i don't feel that i can objectively say if they earn too much or too little.

If they do go into prostitution purely for economic reasons, so what? You think other people do their jobs for the fun of it? Prostitution just so happens to be a very good way for unskilled women to make a serious amount of money, and even most professional women could make more money as an escort then they could doing their day jobs. Exploitation doesn't even come into it.

no argument here

Um, they tag a price on sex, when they advertise their services.

what i meant to ask, is about your argument that they are overpriced.

I don't think I really have the necessary physique for such work.

i think a lot can be done in this regard if you really desired it.

So everyone who has sex with a prostitute is a big fat drunk who hasn't washed in a month? If someone like that turned up, she could just as easily turn them away again.

I think you'll find the majority of people who use prostitutes are middle-aged, professional men on high salaries.

probably not but that doesn't mean it's fun. again...it's your biased opinion, you can't really objectively measure this.

 

[Escaep]

i think you don't realize that your question is so...lacking...that it cannot be answered.

FFS it is a simple yes or no question. Let me dumb it down.

The question was so lacking in any coherent argument or structure that it's damn near impossible to answer.

If we have to answer, we have to assume that legalising prostitution would allow street corner style women, rather than something such as a brothel (ie we have to make a totally retarded assumption) for the question to hold any weight.

What's your child going to see behind closed doors? Oh yeah that's right, nothing.

This is what I wanted. I was assuming that prostitution did mean street corner whores. And you honestly think that this now "legal" prostitution would keep things indoors? Give me a break.

 

[Eejit]

If you were a parent would you want your kids being subjected to that if it was legal?

No. I am simply asking if you and your family were to be going out to dinner for the night would you want to have your kids subjected to that and have it be perfectly legal?

FFS it is a simple yes or no question. Let me dumb it down.

It was an extremely vague question as we pointed out. There's certainly some dumbing down around here. FFS.


Why wouldn't legalising prostitution keep most of it indoors? You could only legalise prostitution in brothels but still stop the street-corner stuff - given an alternative, safer, comfortable, legal way to make their living there would be a lot less whores on the streets.

 

[Escaep]

It was an extremely vague question as we pointed out. There's certainly some dumbing down around here. FFS.


Why wouldn't legalising prostitution keep most of it indoors? You could only legalise prostitution in brothels but still stop the street-corner stuff - given an alternative, safer, comfortable, legal way to make their living there would be a lot less whores on the streets.

I guess some people don't understand you need to replace that with so called "legal" prostitution. You say making it legal would help keep it indoors? It is illegal in 48/50 states and it is still rampant.

 

[Eejit]

Oh right, so by "that" you mean legal prostitution. So your first post should have read: "If you were a parent would you want your kids being subjected to so called "legal" prostitution if it was legal?"
Oh that's so much clearer.

You say making it legal would help keep it indoors?

Yes I do say that.

It is illegal in 48/50 states and it is still rampant.

...and?

 

[Llama]

FFS it is a simple yes or no question. Let me dumb it down.



This is what I wanted. I was assuming that prostitution did mean street corner whores. And you honestly think that this now "legal" prostitution would keep things indoors? Give me a break.

Well, the only legal prostitution I'm aware of does keep things indoors because suprise, suprise, when it's legal it can be regulated.

Perhaps you should think things through next time you post to avoid the humiliation.

 

[Escaep]

Perhaps you should think things through next time you post to avoid the humiliation.

Funny, cause I feel no humiliation.

 

[repiV]

The underprivileged.


The abstraction of free choice becomes less relevant when speaking about people who are in a severe economic situation, when the only option out for them is to sell their body. How much freedom of choice do these women have?

So many things wrong with this viewpoint I don't even know where to begin. So let me get this straight, the problem as you see it is the only choice they have is to go into prostitution, and your solution to this is...wait for it...to take away their only choice, leaving them with none at all? Are you sure you don't want to rethink that one?

Not to mention that nobody is ever in such a bad situation that they have to turn to prostitution if they don't want to, unless they need to support an expensive drugs habit which is their own damn fault anyway and doesn't really fall under any reasonable definition of necessity.

The government is not mummy and daddy.

you and numbers have graphically similar avatars

I see.

meh...that's such a biased argument. i don't often see prostitutes driving in big expensive cars and such. ok it's anecdotal evidence...but hey i'd be happy if you prove me wrong.

How would you know if you saw prostitutes driving in big expensive cars? They're just ordinary women like any other, you can't tell just by looking at them.

although i do agree with you to a certain extent, i don't feel that i can objectively say if they earn too much or too little.

They earn the market rate. It's not about whether it's too much or too little, it's just "a lot". Who do you know that rakes in 150 an hour, or substantially more than that if they're very attractive and good at what they do?

what i meant to ask, is about your argument that they are overpriced.

I'm not saying they're overpriced, people are willing to pay that amount so that's what they charge. Fact is, they earn an incredibly large sum of money considering the skill, time and effort that goes into the work. 150 pounds an hour, based on a 40 hour week equals an annual salary of 288,000 per year pro-rata. And anyone else earning that sort of money would probably be working more like 80 hours a week.

It's hardly the women being exploited here.

i think a lot can be done in this regard if you really desired it.

I don't. It's not the point, though.

probably not but that doesn't mean it's fun. again...it's your biased opinion, you can't really objectively measure this.

Sometimes it's fun, sometimes it isn't. Just like any other job. It's hardly the worst work around by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Krynn72]

http://www.whedonsworld.com/pix/firefly/char/main/inara/inara03.jpg


TV has proven that it works. I vote yes.

 

[Eejit]

Oh god Krynn I have to change my boxers again.

Escape: saying no to legalising prostitution is saying no to Inara. Even gays wouldn't say no to Inara.

 

[Sulkdodds]

The "exploitation of women" argument against legalised prostitution is total nonsense. Are we on the same planet here, this is women we're talking about who can charge between ?100 and ?300 an hour for what is in many cases a bit of fun for them, and in the worst case, a slightly unpleasant low-skilled job (and any other job that pays that well would be a damn sight more unpleasant). If anything, it's the men being taken advantage of!

repiV, you're being typically absurd.

When your argument is that women can choose freely to take part in an economic transaction for their own benefit, you must concede that the same is absolutely true of the men who are on the other end of that transaction; they are not in any way being 'exploited' by deciding to spend money in place of the effort required for everyday seduction. Not to mention that currently prostitution, being illegal, exists in a zone where workers have very little protection from whatever abuses of human rights their employers choose to visit upon them. There is a big difference between nice, clean escort agencies (if any great proportion really are 'nice' and "clean') and the hole that a large proportion of sex workers are forced (yes) to exist in - not least because human trafficking is involved to such a large extent.

Most prostitutes aren't forced into the trade anyway, it's a complete and total myth.

Are you seriously claiming that currently illegal prostitution isn't a pretty important humanitarian issue? Do you really mean to say that "exploitation doesn't even come into it"?

I have a whole lot of studies that say otherwise, should you wish to see them.

The abstraction of free choice becomes less relevant when speaking about people who are in a severe economic situation, when the only option out for them is to sell their body. How much freedom of choice do these women have?

This is true of many low-end jobs for many people in poverty. We are living in a system where people are often forced to work to stay alive.

In any case, women in dire straights will continue to plump for prostitution as a viable career option whether it is legal or not. If it is illegal, they will be 'forced into' a profession which is unregulated and potentially very dangerous. If it is legal, they will be 'forced into' one that is subject to rules and regulations like any other, and where the authorities won't be able to use their status as people involved in crime as an excuse to ignore their problems.

FAKEDIT: Toaster already said this.

It would be extremely difficult to create a proper framework whereby prostitution would work as a legal industry. But it would be worth doing.

 

[repiV]

repiV, you're being typically absurd.

When your argument is that women can choose freely to take part in an economic transaction for their own benefit, you must concede that the same is absolutely true of the men who are on the other end of that transaction; they are not in any way being 'exploited' by deciding to spend money in place of the effort required for everyday seduction.

I never said otherwise. Nonetheless, it's the women who are empowering themselves in this situation, and the men are the fools.

Not to mention that currently prostitution, being illegal, exists in a zone where workers have very little protection from whatever abuses of human rights their employers choose to visit upon them. There is a big difference between nice, clean escort agencies (if any great proportion really are 'nice' and "clean') and the hole that a large proportion of sex workers are forced (yes) to exist in - not least because human trafficking is involved to such a large extent.

Prostitution is not illegal in the UK, and most prostitutes in the UK are self-employed.

Are you seriously claiming that currently illegal prostitution isn't a pretty important humanitarian issue? Do you really mean to say that "exploitation doesn't even come into it"?

Like I said, prostitution is not illegal in this country. People trafficking is a separate issue altogether, either way the street whores and enslaved women of this world are a very small proportion of the overall picture.

 

[Ennui]

Escape: saying no to legalising prostitution is saying no to Inara. Even gays wouldn't say no to Inara.

This is a rock-solid argument. I approve!

 

[Sulkdodds]

I never said otherwise. Nonetheless, it's the women who are empowering themselves in this situation, and the men are the fools.

But not exploited in any way. Someone who buys 2Fast2Furious on DVD is a 'fool'.

Fair point about prostitution itself not being illegal in the UK, but its vectors are; it's still possible to exist in a legal black hole about it, and in any case we are not just talking about the UK. People trafficking is not a seperate issue at all, as an increasing amount of prostitutes are trafficked.

This study found that even in the 'off street' community, only 15% of workers were British or West European, raising the suspicion of trafficking since "the off street sex industry in London overwhelmingly employs non-British nationals". It also notes how Outreach agencies are finding it increasingly difficult to determine the exact nationality of prostitutes because a lot of prostitutes are lying about their nationalities, and further that the sex industry is becoming more covert all the time: the strong possibility is that many of the workers dont' have legal immigration status, which is something their employers can exploit. Note that 'off street' does not mean 'escort'; it means saunas, 'massage parlours', brothels. In such studies there is wide anecdotal mention of exploitative action by pimps and traffickers (eg look over pp26).

most prostitutes in the UK are self-employed.

the street whores and enslaved women of this world are a very small proportion of the overall picture.

Going to back these up? And would it matter?

 

[jverne]

How would you know if you saw prostitutes driving in big expensive cars? They're just ordinary women like any other, you can't tell just by looking at them.

well yeah...can't really dispute here.

They earn the market rate. It's not about whether it's too much or too little, it's just "a lot". Who do you know that rakes in 150 an hour, or substantially more than that if they're very attractive and good at what they do?

nobody. obviously prostitution is a well paid job.

I'm not saying they're overpriced, people are willing to pay that amount so that's what they charge. Fact is, they earn an incredibly large sum of money considering the skill, time and effort that goes into the work. 150 pounds an hour, based on a 40 hour week equals an annual salary of 288,000 per year pro-rata. And anyone else earning that sort of money would probably be working more like 80 hours a week.

It's hardly the women being exploited here.

nobody. obviously prostitution is a well paid job, so? let men (yes, men) exploit themselves if they want. and i really wasn't the one bitching about how prostitutes get exploited.

I guess some people don't understand you need to replace that with so called "legal" prostitution. You say making it legal would help keep it indoors? It is illegal in 48/50 states and it is still rampant.

i recommend you visit this site http://www.facepalm.org/

 

[repiV]

But not exploited in any way. Someone who buys 2Fast2Furious on DVD is a 'fool'.

Yes, true. My point is that it's certainly not a case of the poor, hard done by prostitute.

Fair point about prostitution itself not being illegal in the UK, but its vectors are; it's still possible to exist in a legal black hole about it, and in any case we are not just talking about the UK.

Not even a black hole really, escort services are not illegal nor are brothels with only one girl working at any one time.

People trafficking is not a seperate issue at all, as an increasing amount of prostitutes are trafficked.

This study found that even in the 'off street' community, only 15% of workers were British or West European, raising the suspicion of trafficking since "the off street sex industry in London overwhelmingly employs non-British nationals". It also notes how Outreach agencies are finding it increasingly difficult to determine the exact nationality of prostitutes because a lot of prostitutes are lying about their nationalities, and further that the sex industry is becoming more covert all the time: the strong possibility is that many of the workers dont' have legal immigration status, which is something their employers can exploit. Note that 'off street' does not mean 'escort'; it means saunas, 'massage parlours', brothels. In such studies there is wide anecdotal mention of exploitative action by pimps and traffickers (eg look over pp26).

For a start, London has a very high population of non-British nationals - something like 33%. It also has a high population of illegal immigrants, and what better way to earn money and stay under the radar than to be a hooker? It doesn't necessarily follow that there is any sort of exploitation involved. London has a massive underbelly of questionable legal status - in some parts of east London the majority of drivers on the roads don't even have a licence or insurance, coming from overseas and existing outside of the system.

Also, food for thought - what better way for eastern European women to take money home than to come to London, work as a prostitute for a while and go back? They would earn far more here than they ever could in Poland etc.

Your study does not include escorts, who must surely account for the majority of the trade.

Of course people trafficking goes on, but it's not as widespread in the sex industry as people would commonly believe.

British women who go into the industry are bound to be more well-educated and would surely be much more likely to work for themselves, earning a lot more money in the process and having much more freedom over their work.

Going to back these up? And would it matter?

It's impossible to know for sure. I've lived in London for most of my life, and in the entirety of Soho there are maybe half a dozen brothels. I've never, ever encountered a street hooker. There are, however, shitloads and shitloads of escorts and escort agencies.

It matters because people see prostitution as being synonymous with exploitation and people trafficking, but that's not the case at all. It just happens to be an industry that is ripe pickings for organised crime, mostly because some aspects of it are illegal and because the taboo nature of it keeps it mostly free from scrutiny.

 

[Raziaar]

Legalizing prostitution eliminates the thrill.

 

[jverne]

Legalizing prostitution eliminates the thrill.

good point! :cheese:

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Its not the governments job to babysit sane adults. It should stop coercion (e.g. sexual slavery, etc.) but not consenting activities.

 

[Kase]

Prostitution a Job for the people so dumb that they had to become whores, and they are Hired by the such sad people so sad infact, that they had to hire a hooker to get laid

 

[Llama]

Prostitution a Job for the people so dumb that they had to become whores, and they are Hired by the such sad people so sad infact, that they had to hire a hooker to get laid

This, ladies and gentlemen, is an 'Idiot'.

The 'Idiot' can be found across all social groups, but there are defining features that make them easy to spot regardless of social standing.

One of the main features known among Idiot-hunters is the 'plastic bubble world' - This highly unusual state keeps the specimen in a mental bubble where the fact not everyone else has the same life as them ceases to have meaning.
Lines of thinking such as "Well this person may not have the same priviledges as me" no longer become relevant in the bubble-world, along with linked phrases such as "desperate poverty" - for the idiot knows not of them, therefore neither will it care.

 

[Eejit]

Kase is basically trying to explain to us why he's a gigolo.

 

[Llama]

I know I made a hugely asshole-ish post but hell, people who think in two black and white need to be told they're idiots. xD