Libertarians are understandably of two minds about L'Affaire Spitzer. On the one hand, a dedicated public servant will probably lose his job, and may be indicted, due to consensual liaisons and payments that should be a private matter completely outside the ambit of Justice Department wiretaps. On the other hand, Spitzer's been hoisted by the moralistic petard that he can regulate any and all sexual behavior with which he disagrees, wherever it occurs. As Barabash said Monday, 'It couldn't have happened to a nicer guy.'
never realized it,how does a politician whose against such thing have access to it?
The Republican leader of the New Jersey Senate has promised to start impeachment proceedings if he doesn't resign in 48 hours.
Err, how does the New Jersey Senate impeach the Governor of New York?
Republicans including John McCain called for the sleazeball Larry Craig to resign.
So why didn't they initiate impeachment proceedings against him when he reneged?
In my opinion Larry Craig should have resigned or been impeached.
His quest for reckless sex is beyond sickening and illegal.
Of course Spitzer committed worse crimes.
But they should both be gone!
Larry Craig's quest for reckless sex?
Absolutely reckless sex.
What else would you call soliticiting random sex with total strangers in airport restrooms?
What "worse crime" did Spitzer commit?
Don't get me wrong, I think Larry Craig is one sick human being
that needs mental help and his ass tossed from the US Senate but
I'm sorry I must have missed the part of the Larry Craig story where he
actually paid for sex, transported a prostitute across state lines (a federal crime)
or "structuring" money which is the intentional structuring of financial transactions
involving cash in amounts less than $10,000 for the purpose of avoiding the filing
of "Currency Transaction Reports" with IRS and FBI.
Structured deposits? Now this one has two different responses from me. First-and correct me if I am wrong-but structured deposits only became a significant crime because of the Patriot Act correct?
QuoteStructured deposits? Now this one has two different responses from me. First-and correct me if I am wrong-but structured deposits only became a significant crime because of the Patriot Act correct?
By-product of the war on drugs. About the same time as seizure laws came into effect. Late 70's under Carter, early 80's under Reagan.
in other words repeal a bunch of laws and he didn't break any laws? ::)
in other words repeal a bunch of laws and that would mean he didn't break any laws?
actually paid for sex, transported a prostitute across state lines (a federal crime)
or "structuring" money which is the intentional structuring of financial transactions
involving cash in amounts less than $10,000 for the purpose of avoiding the filing
of "Currency Transaction Reports" with IRS and FBI.
Hey UP that may be the ticket
If people "dont see anything there that should be unlawful" we should not prosecute.
Maybe just allow everybody to just make up th laws they wish to abide by as they go along.
http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/united_states_of_america
The U.S. Department of State began monitoring trafficking in persons in 1994, when the issue began to be covered in the Department?s Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Originally, coverage focused on trafficking of women and girls for sexual purposes. The report coverage has broadened over the years, and U.S. embassies worldwide now routinely monitor and report on cases of trafficking in men, women, and children for all forms of forced labor, including agriculture, domestic service, construction work, and sweatshops, as well as trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation.
http://www.humantrafficking.org/updates/743
"Shocked and scared, the two women were subjected to physical, mental and sexual abuse over the next year as they were forced to work 12-hour shifts stripping for local Detroit men?s clubs. According to immigration customs agent Angus Lowe, the men controlled the women through intimidation with guns and threats to hurt family members back home.
Katya and her friend are two of the estimated 17,000 young women and girls annually who are forced to work in the sex industry in the U.S. by organized criminals. ?Chicago, Houston, St. Paul, Minnesota, these crimes are happening in every community in America big and small,? says Marcie Forman, Director of Investigations for ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcement.) ?We?re talking about money here. Millions of dollars and these people don?t think about these women as human beings. They think of them as dollars and cents,? Forman says. "
Prostitution SHOULD be legalized. Because, after all, such gratuitous legislation of morality violates our rights to participate in such victimless crimes.Quote
http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/united_states_of_america
The U.S. Department of State began monitoring trafficking in persons in 1994, when the issue began to be covered in the Department?s Annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. Originally, coverage focused on trafficking of women and girls for sexual purposes. The report coverage has broadened over the years, and U.S. embassies worldwide now routinely monitor and report on cases of trafficking in men, women, and children for all forms of forced labor, including agriculture, domestic service, construction work, and sweatshops, as well as trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation.
I'm so sick of the moralistic prudes who try to force their religious views down our throats by criminalizing the world's oldest profession. I mean it's anti-capitalism and anti-freedom.Quote
http://www.humantrafficking.org/updates/743
"Shocked and scared, the two women were subjected to physical, mental and sexual abuse over the next year as they were forced to work 12-hour shifts stripping for local Detroit men?s clubs. According to immigration customs agent Angus Lowe, the men controlled the women through intimidation with guns and threats to hurt family members back home.
Katya and her friend are two of the estimated 17,000 young women and girls annually who are forced to work in the sex industry in the U.S. by organized criminals. ?Chicago, Houston, St. Paul, Minnesota, these crimes are happening in every community in America big and small,? says Marcie Forman, Director of Investigations for ICE (Immigration Customs Enforcement.) ?We?re talking about money here. Millions of dollars and these people don?t think about these women as human beings. They think of them as dollars and cents,? Forman says. "
Damn those prudish bastards that want to keep prostitution illegal.
A criminal?
Uh? What are you talking about?
Under the Bank Secrecy Act, all financial institutions are required to file currency transaction reports
with the federal government for any deposit or withdrawal of more than $10,000.
Aw, I should have seen this coming.
Of course prostitution doesn't contribute to human trafficking. Of course that hooker you pick up on the streets of Washington or Seattle or Chicago hasn't been forced into the life. What the hell was I thinking? All victims of human trafficking wear wristbands to identify them. All kids who run away from abusive homes and find themselves in slavery have it tatooed on their foreheads. Drug addicted girls who support their habits by allowing losers to use them for sex have that right, don't they? And hey, if a kid is born with crack addiction or AIDS, it was the product of two consenting adults, right?
Oh no wait. I'm just pandering to those damned feminists, aren't I? I'm just using overdramatic hyperbolic strawman arguments. The fact that thousands of girls are forced into slavery has nothing to do with prostitution. Two separate issues entirely.
Except they're not. Prostitution is NOT a victimless crime. There are probably many girls who just figure, what the hell, it's my body and I don't mind giving it up for money. But show me a prostitute who enjoys her work. Perhaps the girls who get five thousand a hour (or however much they get to keep) figure the money is worth it, but it's far more degrading work to have any slob with enough money hump out his perversions on top of you than to scrub toilets or wait tables. And the vast majority of prostitutes are NOT high-priced "glamorous" call girls. No, I don't have figures to back up that claim, but I'm going to make it anyway.
Of course by making sure that those issues are kept separate from the issue of prostitution, you get to say "Hey, no fair. Those are side issues. Of COURSE I disagree with human trafficking! I don't want women exploited. I don't want to degrade women. I just think the consentual sex between two perfectly happy adults should be legal. It's freedom, damn it!"
But I'm wrong. Sex for money is mostly a victimless crime. Hookers are happy, baby. Just ask Xaviera Hollander. Penthouse would never lie to me.
What XO describes is one way of avoiding being reported.
Of course prostitution doesn't contribute to human trafficking.
Oh no wait. I'm just pandering to those damned feminists, aren't I? I'm just using overdramatic hyperbolic strawman arguments. The fact that thousands of girls are forced into slavery has nothing to do with prostitution. Two separate issues entirely.
Except they're not.
Prostitution is NOT a victimless crime. There are probably many girls who just figure, what the hell, it's my body and I don't mind giving it up for money. But show me a prostitute who enjoys her work.
Perhaps the girls who get five thousand a hour (or however much they get to keep) figure the money is worth it, but it's far more degrading work to have any slob with enough money hump out his perversions on top of you than to scrub toilets or wait tables.
Of course by making sure that those issues are kept separate from the issue of prostitution
Of course by making sure that those issues are kept separate from the issue of prostitution, you get to say "Hey, no fair. Those are side issues. Of COURSE I disagree with human trafficking! I don't want women exploited. I don't want to degrade women. I just think the consentual sex between two perfectly happy adults should be legal. It's freedom, damn it!"
But I'm wrong. Sex for money is mostly a victimless crime.
| Reason: Prostitution in the developing world has been getting a lot of attention lately, much of it because of the effort to stamp out human trafficking. Has the attention been positive or negative for sex workers? Quan: The movement led by prostitutes themselves is really concerned about trafficking. But we are concerned about it in a larger human rights context. We are really upset about people who use trafficking to attack the whole concept of prostitution. I think there is a lot of unexamined hatred toward prostitutes that gets expressed as compassion. Reason: So the issues of voluntary prostitution and human trafficking are being conflated. Quan: They're being exploited. People are exploiting, psychologically and emotionally, the issue of trafficking to turn a human rights problem into an anti-prostitution agenda. Reason: Is the argument that prostitution is necessarily exploitive? Quan: I'm not concerned that prostitution is exploitive. What does exploitive mean? People exploit minerals and their own power and each other. Exploitation is a fairly neutral term. The question is whether somebody is being abused or harmed physically. These people are trying to cast prostitution as something evil rather than something exploitive. Prostitutes exploit their clients all the time. And they're often exploited by madams. The idea of clients exploiting anyone is kind of laughable. It's like someone saying that someone running a shoe store is exploiting the labor of an employee. That's how businesses run. It's a fairly neutral term. The question is whether it's abusive. Reason: And the assumption is that it is always abusive? Quan: They are trying to say prostitution is a human rights violation. It's an absurd idea to me. Anti-prostitution activists have found an issue, human trafficking, that they can exploit and that pushes a lot of peoples' buttons. We're living in a time when we don't think slavery is acceptable. Which I would agree with. But people who are naive, who have never worked with a prostitute or hired a prostitute, people who have no natural organic contact with prostitutes, are easily manipulated into believing anything about prostitution. |
If I could find the Penn & Teller: Bullshit episode about prostitution, I would.
Let me help you out....
oh come on sirs
whats wrong with having airport restrooms full of disgusting people
soliciting random anonymous sex from strangers?
what a wholesome environment that will be for traveling families
walk into the restooom at O'Hare and have a bunch of slimeballs
staring down at your little kids while they wipe semen off themselves
yeah, hey it's a free country dude!
STD's are prevelent. I heard a study that HALF (did I mention HALF?) of the teenage Black girls aged something like 14-19 in this country have had an STD. And when it's extended to all races, it's literally 1/4th of all teenage girls in that age range have or have had an STD. And it's not specific to women. Men having flings as well, can spread it as well. They get spread, and the "victim" most often is not aware of what they just got with their fling.
Are Penn & Teller now considered authorities in this forum?
STD's are prevelent. .... They get spread, and the "victim" most often is not aware of what they just got with their fling.
I confess, I don't know why this is a reason to keep prostitution illegal.
Ummm, you're joking, right. Trying to prevent the spread of disease, by making a prime mode of its transmission illegal, you don't get??
Ummm, you're joking, right. Trying to prevent the spread of disease, by making a prime mode of its transmission illegal, you don't get??
In other words, it's not a victimless crime. The victim being the unknowing recipient of an STD, that then has to be treated, or risk infecting countless others......or worse
In other words, it's not a victimless crime. The victim being the unknowing recipient of an STD, that then has to be treated, or risk infecting countless others......or worse
If it's legal, it's easier to prevent the spread of disease and provide treatment.
Keeping it illegal means that those with diseases try to hide the fact so they don't have to admit to breaking the law...
QuoteUmmm, you're joking, right. Trying to prevent the spread of disease, by making a prime mode of its transmission illegal, you don't get??
Careful. Next thing ya know people will be demanding mandatory vaccines and anyone who objects will be labeled as wanting women to get cancer.
As I said to my father yesterday, the only thing stupider than a preacher getting caught "visiting" a prostitute is a politician who has practically made a career or moralistic crusades against prostitution and campaigned on ethics getting caught "visiting" a prostitute.
well
if it`s legal, condoms will be required
illegal as it is now ,strangely encourage non-condom use.
people keep forgetting the condom is the most complicated to use form of birth-control.
so it`s super easy to get folks to not use it.
In other words, it's not a victimless crime. The victim being the unknowing recipient of an STD, that then has to be treated, or risk infecting countless others......or worse
If it's legal, it's easier to prevent the spread of disease and provide treatment.
I don't see it, Ami. How does encouraging more of said behavior ---> decrease the spread of the disease??Keeping it illegal means that those with diseases try to hide the fact so they don't have to admit to breaking the law...
Many, if not most, are still going to hide it, regardless. Especially the married folk. It's an STD. And simply treating more of them doesn't equate to decreasing its spread. If anything, it'd likely make it worse, as I referenced aboveQuoteUmmm, you're joking, right. Trying to prevent the spread of disease, by making a prime mode of its transmission illegal, you don't get??
Careful. Next thing ya know people will be demanding mandatory vaccines and anyone who objects will be labeled as wanting women to get cancer.
I shall. No mandatory acts will be advocated from this end
well
if it`s legal, condoms will be required
illegal as it is now ,strangely encourage non-condom use.
people keep forgetting the condom is the most complicated to use form of birth-control.
so it`s super easy to get folks to not use it.
A reason frequently stated that if you make it legal then you can then tax it and impose regulations such as cleanliness and health standards, certainly desirable standards perhaps. The problem is that it violates our Judeo-Chrisitian heritage. Sex is to be within marital confines only. Anything else is taboo and that obviously incldues this issue.
Is there a feasible compromise?
Ummm, you're joking, right.
Trying to prevent the spread of disease, by making a prime mode of its transmission illegal, you don't get??
In other words, it's not a victimless crime. The victim being the unknowing recipient of an STD, that then has to be treated, or risk infecting countless others......or worse
Of course, "every time you masturbate? God kills a kitten."
Of course, "every time you masturbate? God kills a kitten."
Is that supposed to be a deterrent?
Trying to prevent the spread of disease, by making a prime mode of its transmission illegal, you don't get??
So you want to make all premarital sex illegal? No of course not.
In other words, it's not a victimless crime. The victim being the unknowing recipient of an STD, that then has to be treated, or risk infecting countless others......or worse
So if one gets an STD from not-paid-for sex, that is not a victimless crime? Well, it's not a crime because it's not illegal, but again, why is free sex okay but bought sex wrong?
Legal prostitutes would have obvious reasons to stay healthy and to prove they're healthy and free of STDs.
And I'm pretty sure they don't want to have the diseases either. So again, I don't see why STDs would be a reason to keep prostitution illegal.
Legal prostitutes would have obvious reasons to stay healthy and to prove they're healthy and free of STDs.
*snicker*....they might have reasons, but being that Spitzer apparently wasn't wearing anything, and this was a so called high end run organization, I'd say that arguement has little foundation
Spitzer tried to talk her out of the condom. She didn't allow it.
Are you advocating that any & all sex be made illegal?
*snicker*....they might have reasons, but being that Spitzer apparently wasn't wearing anything, and this was a so called high end run organization, I'd say that arguement has little foundation
men can spread them just as much as the women
And let me ask this follow-up question. for the folks that support legalizing prostitution, would you support repealing the laws on sharing IV needles? I mean, if it's being shared between consenting adults, there's no harm, correct?
>>No, I'm pointing out a double standard. Selling sex is illegal, but giving it away for free is not. If a person made the same arrangements for sex with the same people with and without exchanges of money, the ones without exchanges of money would be legal and the ones with would be illegal. This is not logical or reasonable.<<
I'm not sure if this represents a double standard, but it sure looks like apples and oranges.
Consensual sex is not prostitution minus the exchange of money. Not even remotely.
Care to expand of this?
You said,
>>If a person made the same arrangements for sex with the same people with and without exchanges of money, the ones without exchanges of money would be legal and the ones with would be illegal.<<
It's not the same arrangement. One is purchased, one is freely given. Apples and oranges. Had there not been money exchanged, there would have been no sex with a prostitute. The arrangement is not the same.
If money is exchanged for the expressed purpose of selling your body to someone for an agreed upon time, and agreed upon services, that is nothing like two people getting it on because they're hot for each other.
If money is exchanged for the expressed purpose of selling your body to someone for an agreed upon time, and agreed upon services, that is nothing like two people getting it on because they're hot for each other.
Hey, we may agree that prostitution might/could be legal, but don't pretend there's no differnce between me having sex with my wife and me having sex with a prostitute. It's dishonest.
| In 1907 a group of evangelicals visited Chicago's Everleigh Club brothel, where they handed out leaflets that said, "No 'white slave' need remain in slavery in this State of Abraham Lincoln who made the black slaves free." According to the Illinois poet Edgar Lee Masters, an Everleigh Club regular, "the girls laughed in their faces." In Sin in the Second City, the Atlanta-based journalist Karen Abbott recounts how Minna Everleigh, one of the club's proprietors, "explained graciously, patiently, that the Everleigh Club was free from disease, that [a doctor] examined the girls regularly, that neither she nor Ada [Everleigh, her sister and co-proprietor,] would tolerate anything approaching violence, that drugs were forbidden and drinks tossed out, that guests were never robbed nor rolled, and that there was actually a waiting list of girls, spanning the continental United States, eager to join the house. No captives here, Reverends." [...] Some anti-prostitution activists nevertheless believed the Everleigh ladies were no different from slaves. Then as now, opponents of prostitution assumed that no woman in her right mind consensually exchanges sex for money. Abbott challenges that view in her account of Chicago's red light district at the turn of the last century. She interweaves the stories of sex workers and clientele, evangelical activists and conservative bureaucrats, explaining how the term "white slavery" was routinely applied to consenting adults. Reading her historical account, you can hear echoes of that debate in the current crusade against sex trafficking, which similarly blurs the line between coercion and consent. [...] This narrative of deceived and kidnapped sex slaves might make for an exciting episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, but the truth is more complex. In 1999 the CIA estimated that 50,000 women in the U.S. are trafficked for sex each year, but that number seems to be wildly inflated. In September The Washington Post reported that, after spending $150 million on task forces and grants since 2000, the federal government had identified only 1,362 victims of sex trafficking in the U.S. The Post also reported that the original CIA estimate was the work of one analyst, who relied mainly on news clippings about overseas trafficking cases, from which she attempted to estimate U.S. victims. [...] Steven Wagner, former head of the anti-trafficking program within the Department of Health and Human Services, has commented on the millions of dollars "wasted" in grants aimed at combating sex slavery. "Many of the organizations that received grants didn't really have to do anything," he told The Washington Post last fall. "They were available to help victims. There weren't any victims." Tony Fratto, then deputy White House press secretary, said the issue is "not about the numbers. It's really about the crime and how horrific it is." There's no question the crime is horrific, but the numbers appear to be modest, unless you equate all prostitution with slavery. |
>>I don't recall saying there is no difference between you having sex with your wife and you having sex with prostitute. In fact, I'm fairly certain I never said anything of the sort.<<
You said if it wasn't for the money it would be exactly the same thing. It would be. But without the money it's not even a question.
Are you comparing sex slaves to $2000 an hour hookers?
So tell me, Pooch, does farming contribute to human trafficking? What about hiring people to clean one's house? Construction work, surely that contributes to human trafficking. Again, shall we outlaw these things, ending the demand for them as we obviously have with prostitution?
Being forced into prostitution, duh, yes, that has something to do with prostitution. Gee, when you put it that way, it still doesn't change that prostitution in and of itself should not be a crime. Being maids and butlers and workers on a farm should still be legal but enslaving people into such work, yes, that should be a crime. Because, yes, there is a difference between enslavement and voluntary action.
If I could find the Penn & Teller: Bullshit episode about prostitution, I would.[/color]
Don't you think deciding that ought to be up to the women? Or men?
I'm not trying to keep them separate. I'm trying to illustrate that there is a difference between coerced action and voluntary action. If person A gives money to person B, that is okay. If, on the other hand, B mugs A and forces A to surrender money, that is bad. It's not the exchange of money from one to the other that is bad. It is it coercion that is bad. If person C decides to take a job as a maid or butler with person D, there is nothing wrong with that. It is a consensual arrangement. If, on the other hand, D forces C into domestic service against C's will, that is wrong. It's not the work as a maid or butler that is wrong, rather it is the enslavement that is wrong. There is a difference between coerced action and voluntary action.
By trying to illustrate that there is a difference between coerced action and voluntary action, and by saying that a person owns his/her body, yes, I get to disagree with enslavement apart from prostitution and say that consensual sex between adults should be legal. That you want to conflate human trafficking with prostitution, as if the two were exactly and always the same issue, is not my fault or sufficient reason for me to do the same.
Again, if one person voluntarily consents to perform sex with another person in exchange for money, who is the victim? Whose rights have been abused? The one who agrees to the exchange of his/her time and effort for money? The one who has decided to exchange his/her money for a service? What rights then have been trampled in this voluntary and consensual exchange?
The point was to use the episode to show Pooch a prostitute who enjoys her work, which he specifically asked to see. (That sounds really dirty, but I don't how to phrase it so it doesn't.)
Of course, "every time you masturbate? God kills a kitten."
Is that supposed to be a deterrent?
Spitzer tried to talk her out of the condom. She didn't allow it.
Oh good golly. Is it exactly and precisely the same, no. It is, however, the same action in the same place with the same people. Apples and apples.
But you are illustrating the problem. The same action in the same place with the same people, one with payment and one without, and you're saying the two instances are completely different even though they really are not.
QuoteSo tell me, Pooch, does farming contribute to human trafficking? What about hiring people to clean one's house? Construction work, surely that contributes to human trafficking. Again, shall we outlaw these things, ending the demand for them as we obviously have with prostitution?
Sorrry, UP, those are strawmen.
Neither farming, domestic work, construction or other types of work are analogous to prostitution. Let me put it this way. Suppose I unknowingly hire a maid who has been forced into the business. As sad as this might be, the worst thing I have done is hired a slave to participate in an otherwise perfectly legitimate activity. If I hire a hooker who has been forced into that business, I am participating in a rape. Of course no jury would convict me of that particular crime because obviously, it wouldn't be intentional. But one could not really say that the sex in such a case was consentual, could one? Having sex with a woman without her consent is, in fact, rape.
To continue the analogy, suppose I deliberately forced a woman to clean my house, or forced a man at gunpoint to build me a shed. My crime is limited to, I suppose, kidnapping. But if I hold a woman at gunpoint and force her to give me a BJ, the crime is much more serious - and should be.
So even forcing someone to do something can be justified - or at least viewed as neutral - if separated from WHAT they are forced to do.
But there is a perfectly valid element in the gun control argument. If we didn't have guns, nobody would get killed by guns.
In the case of criminalizing prostitution, it is true that some guys who want to have sex with some girls who are perfectly happy to have sex with them for pay lose that ability.
But considering the cost in STD's, unwanted pregnancies, broken homes and other ills that come as a natural result of any infidelity,
But considering the cost in STD's, unwanted pregnancies, broken homes and other ills that come as a natural result of any infidelity, and then factoring in the worldwide traffic in slaves for the sex trade, the risks of outlawing this activity do NOT outweigh the benefits. While there are inherent rights to free trade and control over one's actions, in this particular case abridging such rights is not the loss of an essential freedom.
It would not, however, be something I would consider a definitive argument. I assume, since you said this in response to my query about finding a hooker who was actually happy, that the magical duo have found some Xaviera types. You know what? There were an awful lot of happy slaves. Except for, not really.
QuotePerhaps the girls who get five thousand a hour (or however much they get to keep) figure the money is worth it, but it's far more degrading work to have any slob with enough money hump out his perversions on top of you than to scrub toilets or wait tables.QuoteDon't you think deciding that ought to be up to the women? Or men?
Yes. That's exactly my point.
I agree with your analysis (and sometimes I agree with Urinalysis, but that's another point entirely).
In its most theoretical sense, a consenting man and woman participating in a paid sexual transaction (and lets take it to the basics by saying that neither is married or has any other aggrivating circumstances) are doing nothing more wrong than violating God's commandments (assuming those laws are as I believe them to be in the matter). As such, a secular nation probably has no business regulating such behavior.
But in fact, prostitution quite frequently isn't that simple. It involves at its worst forcible rape and at the other end of the spectrum, spreading of diseases, degradation of women, enabling substance abuse and destroying families. These are, in fact, a reality.
The potential loss of a rathe dubious sort of freedom does not outweigh the good that is done by at least legally discouraging these kinds of behaviors.
I know that criminalizing an activity will not eliminate it, but it will keep it at a lower level.
QuoteBy trying to illustrate that there is a difference between coerced action and voluntary action, and by saying that a person owns his/her body, yes, I get to disagree with enslavement apart from prostitution and say that consensual sex between adults should be legal. That you want to conflate human trafficking with prostitution, as if the two were exactly and always the same issue, is not my fault or sufficient reason for me to do the same.
Yes, but I think that this is the main reason I view libertarian ideals with the same skepticism as liberal ones. I think they are based on a narrow view of a broader world.
QuoteAgain, if one person voluntarily consents to perform sex with another person in exchange for money, who is the victim? Whose rights have been abused? The one who agrees to the exchange of his/her time and effort for money? The one who has decided to exchange his/her money for a service? What rights then have been trampled in this voluntary and consensual exchange?
Well, as I say in the purest instance of this type of thing, you would be correct.
Let me ask this. Would you consent to a law that made anyone found to have had sex with a victim of human trafficking (and that ranges from a girl kidnapped in some third world country to a woman beaten into submission by a pimp) regardless of their own personal knowledge of the victim's status, guilty of rape?
Because in the end, that is what such a transaction is, whether the john knows it or not.
To put it from another perspective, if your daughter were kidnapped and forced into prostitution, what would you do if you were left in a room alone with one of her poor, ignorant johns, who were only, after all, just exercising their rights? I gotta tell you, if it was me, the local hooker population would be short one customer.
Sometimes, societal norms are the norms for a reason.
I don't know if I am right about this, but I think this may be a conflict of perspectives.
ROFLMAO!! If I let my wife read that post, UP, she will hunt you down and kill you! :D
I'm not saying you can't argue that it is not a double standard, but I think you're completely wrong to call it a strawman argument.
Making a person do work against his or her will is slavery. Slavery, I gotta say, seems plenty bad to me. And frankly your implication that sex is not an "otherwise perfectly legitimate activity" is ridiculous.
I don't see why. The crime is more despicable, yes, but not more serious.[/color]
Possibly, but that does not provide any reason why prostitution, in and of itself, should be a crime.
Well, I suppose that could be a valid argument of some sort, but frankly I think it one of the weakest arguments for gun control laws, because, and you'll love this, it ignores the reality of the nature of the problem.
In the case of criminalizing prostitution, it is true that some guys who want to have sex with some girls who are perfectly happy to have sex with them for pay lose that ability.
Yes, but those people are not really the people about whose rights I'm concerned. I'm more concerned with the right of the individual as owner of his/her body. Does a person own his/her body, yes or no?
And yet, we haven't outlawed premarital sex or adultery. Huh.
But considering the cost in STD's, unwanted pregnancies, broken homes and other ills that come as a natural result of any infidelity, and then factoring in the worldwide traffic in slaves for the sex trade, the risks of outlawing this activity do NOT outweigh the benefits. While there are inherent rights to free trade and control over one's actions, in this particular case abridging such rights is not the loss of an essential freedom.
Sure it is. The individual has a fundamental right to decide what to do with his/her time and effort. (No, not to kill people or do nothing at work or any other wild worst possible extreme scenarios.) And yes, actually the risks of outlawing the activity do outweigh supposed benefits. It not only leaves prostitution a wholly black market business (obviously prostitution hasn't stopped happening at all), it leaves people in the business, for whatever reason, without recourse to the law. If they are raped, if they are abused, if they are robbed, they cannot turn to the police for help. That is not a benefit to society. That only reinforces the underground nature of the business.
I see. So, and by all means correct me if I'm wrong, your position is apparently then that no prostitute could ever be happy as a prostitute, and even if some prostitutes say they are happy, they really aren't happy because... they just can't be?
It is? 'Cause I coulda sworn your position in this conversation was against allowing people to decide that for themselves. You are arguing that prostitution should be illegal, are you not?
OW! I think I just got hit in the head with hammer.. oh wait, no, it was just that pun. Give me a minute. There is a sort of throbbing pain in my temples, and I'm seeing little white points of light... I'll be okay... just give me a minute...
Yay! I win! Oops, sorry. You were saying?
That is sort of like saying the spectrum goes from red at one end to orange at the other end. You've left out a whole lot of the spectrum here. Yes, forcible rape and degradation of women is at one end, but at the same time, healthy women choosing of their own free will to do something they enjoy and find it neither rape nor degrading is also part of the spectrum. This too is a reality.
I do not agree that freedom to exercise ownership of one's body is dubious. It should be the default position. (Can I use the word "position" in this discussion without it seeming like a... oh crap, I've just called attention to it. Nevermind, forget I said anything about it.)
I don't believe that is at all an assumption that we can accurately make.
Um, I'm gonna have to say here that I am fairly certain that of the two of us, I'm not the one imposing a narrow view of a broader world. In point of fact, I'd say I'm the one arguing that the issue of prostitution is broader than your, imo, apparently narrow view of it.
I don't think it has to be all that pure to be correct. No pun intended. Really. Anyway, frankly I think the scenario I presented is generally more prevalent that you seem willing to admit and would certainly be more prevalent were prostitution legal.
Going back to the examples of domestic work and construction, using the labor of someone forced into the work against their will is slavery whether the employer knows it or not. And again, we're not outlawing those professions.
I cannot honestly say how I would react. Not saying I'd be happy and cordial with the "john", but, to be honest, I hope I would keep in mind that the "john" was not responsible for the kidnapping and enslavement of my daughter. I'm not big on punishing people for things they didn't do.
Societal norms are always the norms for a reason. That doesn't mean the reason(s) is(are) always good or correct.[/color]
in other words repeal a bunch of laws and that would mean he didn't break any laws? ::)
You are confusing a "double" standard with a "different" standard. I have a different SORT of standard concerning sex crimes because they are a different SORT of crime.
So to compare being forced to do work that is - even when forced - a legitimate type of work, it differs from being forced to have sex, which is rape. Try it this way. Suppose I force my kid to do the dishes.
There is nothing inherently wrong with housework, even if it is forced on you. There is, however, a difference between consentual sex and sex that is forced on you.
Quoting sex workers who view sex as nothing more than a business isn't going to do much to prove your point. Frankly, I give it the same credence I do tobacco companies claiming that tobacco is not addictive.
Exactly my point. Yes, the argument IS quite weak. But if we view it apart from the essential right to bear arms, it has merit. That's why I said I had an ulterior motive and I was playing "devil's advocate." They seem at first glace to be the same argument, but they are not.
Obviously people own their own bodies, but when someone is forced into sexual slavery that ownership is violated.
As long as you fail to consider the realities of the trade, or to "conflate the issues" you can easily dismiss the problems associated with this crime by making the noble appeal to freedom. I see it differently.
You quoted the portion of my argument that supported your point, but omitted the portion immediately following which added in this factor. Once again, if you separate the issues, you can ignore the total reality of the situation.
Now here you requote the same statement, but add in the qualification I made.
You claim that people have fundamental rights, but then acknowledge that there are circumstances where those rights should be reasonably restricted.
I always hear the "black market" argument when talking about abortion, drugs, or other issues of so-called "moral" crimes. Well, in fact, a hooker who is beaten, robbed, or raped CAN call the police. If she is really worried about prosecution, she can simply say she has been robbed and plead the fifth concerning anything else.
Further, to use you "double standard" argument, many women are in perfectly legal marriages and are beaten and raped continuously. Yet they cannot contact police because of fear of retribution from the perpetrator. We wouldn't, however, outlaw marriage
That's because, once again, in spite of the inherent risks of marriage, the right to marry and raise a family is an essential element of freedom. And I maintain that boinking for pay is not.
The restriction on the right to control one's own body is justified because of the nature of the restriction, just as it should be (but sadly is not) in the abortion issue.
But I gotta tell you, a bad day on the job fixing copiers beats the hell out of a bad day having sex with strangers for money. If my customer is unhygenic, physically abusive or just plain ugly, I don't have to worry about that as a copier tech.
Like I said, a lot of slaves were happy - because people can adapt to and cope with the worst of circumstances. If you were fortunate to have a reasonably decent master and overseers with a sense of decency, the work aspect of slavery was probably no worse than the average free white farmhand or domestic worker. But of course, even when it was accepted with the serenity of one who could not control it, it was the overriding issue. I think most hookers probably have that same basic mindset: "Hey, it's just a job like any other job." But it isn't.
QuoteIt is? 'Cause I coulda sworn your position in this conversation was against allowing people to decide that for themselves. You are arguing that prostitution should be illegal, are you not?
Yes, because among other issues, the right to control one's own body is often TAKEN AWAY from the hooker. As such, freedom of choice IS my issue. But you keep dismissing that by insisting it is a side issue. It isn't.
Transactions with even the happiest of hookers still are subject to all of the "lesser" offenses I mentioned.
(STUPID PUN ALERT: You are certainly not being a DO-BEE when participating in such activities. Though certainly a doobie or two might be involved. So it is, indeed, doobie-us.) See, I'm getting better.
Of course, ownership of one's body, in a general sense, is an essential right. But restricting the right to one particular, rather doobi - no, I can't do that - dubious activity is not the same as abolishing the right - anymore than restricting the ability to shout "fire" in a crowded theater abolishes free speech.
I agree that it is slavery, but I disagree that the nature of the crime is the same. Sex is far more intimate than construction work. Forcing a person to clean your house DOES violate their freedom, but forced sex DIRECTLY violates the body. The nature of sex is not just "mystically" different. In fact, I believe that sex is a sacred issue, and an awful lot of people agree with that general view. But even without that view which some choose to label "puritan," sex is physically more intimate than any other activity. The direct penetration of one human being by another is, without further qualification, as intimate an activity as is possible. It is just not the same as being forced to do anything else.
Ann is spot on with her analysis
and infuses some much needed humor into the situation. I enjoy watching eviscerate the left and expose their hypocritical under belly. It's just giving them some of their own medicine
btw..you should look up the defintion of endure
Victim?
LOL, far from it.
Now thats laughable!
I'm guessing by Rich's post that Ann Coulter is the author of the article. (ChristiansUnited4LessGvt failed to provide a source or an author.) But this is one reason why I don't have a lot of respect for her. She spouts ad hominem diatribes full of moralizing nonsense. I am not out to defend Spitzer, but the kind of rhetoric found in the article is sophomoric at best and contributes nothing of value to this conversation.
It's how they're going to fix it for the telecoms and Bush and his cronies.
I'm no fan of Anne Coulter, but I think the "ad hominem" counterpoint in this particular column falls flat. This issue is directly related to the man's character.
The very nature of the issue is ad hominem.
Rather, I think people are saying the laws should be changed now, to avoid this sort of situation happening in the future and the counterargument made is that this is tantamount to saying we should just do away with laws completely, and that would eliminate crime.
That you want to separate out sex crime as different only reinforces for me that you're using a double standard. You're excusing it by arguing that it is separate. That is just the way I see it.
Seriously though, I gotta stop you right there. No one is saying that making your child wash the dishes is comparable to forcing someone to have sex.
I'm talking about actual enslavement, people enslaved and forced to do work, domestic cleaning, construction, et cetera. The job in and of itself is still a legitimate action; it is the enslavement that is wrong.
Sex in and of itself is a legitimate action, but forcing someone to do it is what is wrong. Consensual sex between adults is okay. Rape is not. Consensual prostitution should be okay. Coerced prostitution should not be.[/color]
There is nothing inherently wrong with housework, even if it is forced on you. There is, however, a difference between consentual sex and sex that is forced on you.
There is a difference between consensual prostitution and being forced into it.
Counterarguments from prostitutes are lies? That is awfully convenient.
Then I'm not sure what your point is here. I guess you're trying to say something about me pointing out that there is a difference between consensual sex and coerced sex, but I don't at all see how your example applies.
Obviously people own their own bodies, but when someone is forced into sexual slavery that ownership is violated.
While I am refusing to conflate slavery with prostitution, I am not failing to consider the realities of the trade. In point of fact, considering the realities of the trade is exactly what I am doing.
People often mistake support for individual rights for support for lawless behavior. (Not saying you would, just saying it happens.) I prefer to cut off such dumb arguments before they start.[/color]
And you think I'm ignoring the reality of the situation?
Not quite the same situation. The abused wife has no reason to fear retribution from the police. The prostitute does.
I maintain that authority over one's body is [an essential element of freedom].
But I gotta tell you, a bad day on the job fixing copiers beats the hell out of a bad day having sex with strangers for money. If my customer is unhygenic, physically abusive or just plain ugly, I don't have to worry about that as a copier tech.
If prostitution were legal, the prostitute probably wouldn't have to deal with that either.
The problem here is that you're comparing prostitution as a whole with enslavement. The implication being that there is no such thing as voluntary and consensual prostitution, but that implication is, of course, wrong.
That you want to separate out sex crime as different only reinforces for me that you're using a double standard. You're excusing it by arguing that it is separate. That is just the way I see it.
The law agrees with me. Most people do. I'll ask again, why do we put people who sexually abuse others (rapists, child molesters and the like) on a list but not those who physically abuse others? Sexual abuse is different from other forms of abuse. I'll ask again, why do you say that sex crime is more despicable than similar non-sexual crimes (I know I am generalizing your statement, but that was the gist of it) if sex is not different?
This line of argument reminds me of an accusation of racism an African-American NCO made against our commander. He was late getting back from leave (which constitutes AWOL) and failed to call us to let us know (which would normally have resulted in his getting an extension and being OK). The reason he gave was that he had been arrested for DUI and was unable to call. Leaving aside the serious nature (and lame excuse) of that issue, our Commander found the "I couldn't call because I was in jail" story a little hard to believe. So he called the jurisdiction the NCO claimed he had been arrested in and found no record of it. Our commander decided to prosecute, because the lie was the last straw. The NCO insisted that other people who were white were treated differently. He mentioned me by name, because the commander had worked out flex time arrangements with me to come in late and leave late. Since I was therefore, by the NCOs reckoning "late" everyday without punishment, it was clear a double standard was in place. He gets back a day late from leave and he is prosecuted. I come in late every day and that's OK. Obviously, the only difference is that I was white and he was black. Double standard. Of course, it wasn't a double standard. They were different situations that required a different standard. That is the issue here. Sex crimes are a legally recognized different category of crime.Seriously though, I gotta stop you right there. No one is saying that making your child wash the dishes is comparable to forcing someone to have sex.
I didn't say or imply that you were. I said that forcing someone to do housework is not inherently bad. I wasn't comparing sex to chores (though my wife sometimes does . . .) I was comparing housework to housework.I'm talking about actual enslavement, people enslaved and forced to do work, domestic cleaning, construction, et cetera. The job in and of itself is still a legitimate action; it is the enslavement that is wrong.
Well and good, but there is more to forcing a person to have sex than there is to forcing someone to do housework. I am not saying that sex is, in itself, not a legitimate act. It's a little difficult to word this in such a way that I can make this more clear, or perhaps you are just rejecting my point outright. But to try to clarify, sex is legitimate when between two married adults, or at least two people who are attracted mutually to each other. I leave aside for this debate my own moral feelings about extramarital sex. Having sex with strangers indiscrimately, however, is different from preparing food for strangers. Working as a short order cook does not significantly differ from making dinner for your kids (though I have never cooked for a goat, myself. Curse you.). Having sex with someone to whom you are not attracted does, in fact, differ significantly from having sex with someone who at least turns you on, if not someone with whom you are in love. There are both powerful physical and emotional issues that are associated with sex as in no other activity. As such, to compare forced sex with slavery in any other form is not valid.Sex in and of itself is a legitimate action, but forcing someone to do it is what is wrong. Consensual sex between adults is okay. Rape is not. Consensual prostitution should be okay. Coerced prostitution should not be.[/color]
There is nothing inherently wrong with housework, even if it is forced on you. There is, however, a difference between consentual sex and sex that is forced on you.
There is a difference between consensual prostitution and being forced into it.
Yes, but there is the main point of my argument. I have already conceded that consentual prostitution is not inherently wrong on any non-moral level. You are correct to say that nobody is having their rights violated in such a hypothetical transaction. The problem is that you ignore the other side of the coin. You keep framing the issue as one of the ideal hooker-john transaction being a matter of personal freedom and making prostitution illegal violating that freedom. This goes back to the reason I reject libertarianism. It views the world in terms of black and white. The ideal is not the norm. Far too many hookers are in the business by force, either by human trafficking or by abuses of other kinds which amount to the same thing. My father forced my mother to sell herself when he wouldn't hold a job. That's not hypothetical. She wasn't kidnapped and shipped here from a foreign country. But she was the victim of human trafficking nonetheless. Further, even those women (and men, since the situations are often the same) who are not in the business by physical force or coercion, are in the business by choice to support a drug habit, or for other dubious reasons. They DO get STDs - the high-class and street hookers alike. They DO have unwanted pregnancies, many of which are aborted, and many of which come to term to create babies who are born with AIDS or addicted to drugs. You talk about the ideal of a perfectly clean hooker and the well-groomed, sweet guy just out for a good time, both protected by indestructable condoms and otherwise able to live a perfectly normal life. Porn works that way, real life does not. I do not look at the ideal situation. I look at the whole picture. Yes, I am sure there are lots of transactions that work just fine. But I am more than willing to bet that the majority, and I don't even think it is close, of hookers are in the game because of circumstances beyond their control, whether by force or by bad circumstance. I don't believe we should legislate based on the worst-possible scenario, but I don't believe we should legislate based on the ideal situation either. I think we should weight the issue and decide what is best. The inherent ills of prostitution outweigh by far the inherent good, if any beyond straight capitalism. (Well, maybe gay capitalism if it's a guy-guy thing or . . . NO WAIT, that wasn't a pun! It was a legimate acknowlegement of alternative lifestyles! What are you, some kinda homophobe??) I don't think prostitution should be illegal because sex is bad. I think it should be illegal because the aggregate outcome of prostitution is bad. It increases misery and does not proportionately add anything positive to society or life in general.Counterarguments from prostitutes are lies? That is awfully convenient.
Counterarguments from organizations representing any profit-making ventures are suspect. One could equally argue "Counterarguments from tobacco companies are lies? That's awfully convenient." Yet they were. I don't know if the people you quoted are "lying" and I never said they were. I simply don't accept the view of someone interested in making money on a venture as unbiased. NORML isn't likely to play up studies that indicate medical problems with marijuana, and would very likely hide such findings if their own studies found this to be true. NARAL (IIRC) deliberately misrepresented the amount of third trimester abortions and got caught at it years ago when the issue was being discussed. Democrats trumped up issues about Bush being AWOL and then doctored documentation to "prove" the point. People lie, usually to get gain or avoid trouble. In the case of sex-workers, both motivations are there. So forgive me if I am skeptical about their claims.Then I'm not sure what your point is here. I guess you're trying to say something about me pointing out that there is a difference between consensual sex and coerced sex, but I don't at all see how your example applies.
Yeah, that's fair enough. I took the metaphor a bit out to left field. Let me try to state it more clearly. [This will end badly, I just know it . . .] I do not dispute that women should have control of their own bodies. But I think that in certain cases, protecting the rights of one person may involve restricting the rights of others. I brought up gun control as an issue where this argument might be used to support the gun control side. It is better to keep the law-abiding citizen from having a gun, they say, than to let all of these terrible murderers have them. That statement, without further examination, makes sense. I mean, no guns - no gun-deaths. However, once you bring up the simple point that this leaves honest people without defense against bad guys (since it doesn't really limit access to bad guys, just makes it harder to get them) the argument falls apart. Reality overrules the ideal. We have an actual need - often a literal matter of life and death - for access to arms. So when we look at the potential good of controlling guns and weigh it against the potential bad, I think the right to bear arms supercedes the potential reduction in gun-related violence. On this issue (hookers) though, I look at restricting the inherent right of a woman to screw whomever she chooses to be outweighed by the very real potential of women LOSING their right to choose through coercion or force. But that is not the only issue I brought up, it is just the one that I think tips the scales. There are many other ills associated with prostitution - like broken familes, STDs, child neglect, etc. - that are also good reasons to keep such activity illegal. And, unlike gun control where there is a very real NEED for access to weapons, there is no ACTUAL NEED for prostitution. Nobody is going to break into our home in the middle of the night and be deterred by the fact that we have a prostitute in our nightstand. Nobody is going to lose their life because a prostitute isn't available. No government will be able to oppress us because there are enough hookers distributed among the population. So while I think that the evils of gun access are outweighed by the benefits - thereby legitimizing the continued legality of guns even in the face of horrible gun-related deaths - I think the ills of prostitution outweigh the potential benefits - thereby legitimizing the continued illegality of the business even in the face of curtailed rights to boink for bucks. Nobody disputes that bad guys shouldn't have guns. Nobody disputes that a person should have ultimate control over their own body. It's just that these arguments are outweighed, in the minds of gun-rights advocates and anti-prostitution advocates respectively, by the ultimate cost/benefit ratio. It looks like a double standard (not to bring up another point already covered, but there ya go). The "whole" issue of gun control has to include the horrible cost of guns - and some would argue that such a cost is a clear reason for restricting our rights to guns. Since I argue that the "whole" issue of prostitution justifies keeping it illegal, how can I reconcile my opposition to gun control? But they are different issues, the ultimate cost/benefit ratio plays out differently. There is no contradiction or double standard. They are different issues. Clear as mud, huh?
Obviously people own their own bodies, but when someone is forced into sexual slavery that ownership is violated.
No one is contradicting that.
While I am refusing to conflate slavery with prostitution, I am not failing to consider the realities of the trade. In point of fact, considering the realities of the trade is exactly what I am doing.
People often mistake support for individual rights for support for lawless behavior. (Not saying you would, just saying it happens.) I prefer to cut off such dumb arguments before they start.[/color]
And you think I'm ignoring the reality of the situation?
Not quite the same situation. The abused wife has no reason to fear retribution from the police. The prostitute does.
I maintain that authority over one's body is [an essential element of freedom].
But I gotta tell you, a bad day on the job fixing copiers beats the hell out of a bad day having sex with strangers for money. If my customer is unhygenic, physically abusive or just plain ugly, I don't have to worry about that as a copier tech.
If prostitution were legal, the prostitute probably wouldn't have to deal with that either.
The problem here is that you're comparing prostitution as a whole with enslavement. The implication being that there is no such thing as voluntary and consensual prostitution, but that implication is, of course, wrong.
You should publish a book, Poochie. You have such a skill with the pen/pad/type..... Remember the old typewriters? I used the old Royal once upon a time, myself.
Does your deadline involve such a thing?
Both Pooch and UP are excellent debaters Cynthia, they show how it is possible to debate and talk an issue out without becoming overly personal. Sometimes I log in just to check out their posts. I don't necessarily always agree with one or the other, but it's always a pleasure to read their posts.
And they're not the only ones. I don't want to name names because I'm afraid that I will almost certainly leave someone out, but when I think of 3DHS, I don't usually think of the extremes, but of the good debate that does happen here.
The law agrees with me. Most people do. I'll ask again, why do we put people who sexually abuse others (rapists, child molesters and the like) on a list but not those who physically abuse others? Sexual abuse is different from other forms of abuse.
I'll ask again, why do you say that sex crime is more despicable than similar non-sexual crimes (I know I am generalizing your statement, but that was the gist of it) if sex is not different?
I said that forcing someone to do housework is not inherently bad. I wasn't comparing sex to chores (though my wife sometimes does . . .) I was comparing housework to housework.
(though I have never cooked for a goat, myself. Curse you.).
Having sex with someone to whom you are not attracted does, in fact, differ significantly from having sex with someone who at least turns you on, if not someone with whom you are in love. There are both powerful physical and emotional issues that are associated with sex as in no other activity. As such, to compare forced sex with slavery in any other form is not valid.
You keep framing the issue as one of the ideal hooker-john transaction being a matter of personal freedom and making prostitution illegal violating that freedom.
This goes back to the reason I reject libertarianism. It views the world in terms of black and white.
You talk about the ideal of a perfectly clean hooker and the well-groomed, sweet guy just out for a good time, both protected by indestructable condoms and otherwise able to live a perfectly normal life.
I do not look at the ideal situation. I look at the whole picture.
I don't believe we should legislate based on the worst-possible scenario, but I don't believe we should legislate based on the ideal situation either.
It increases misery and does not proportionately add anything positive to society or life in general.
Counterarguments from organizations representing any profit-making ventures are suspect. One could equally argue "Counterarguments from tobacco companies are lies? That's awfully convenient." Yet they were. I don't know if the people you quoted are "lying" and I never said they were. I simply don't accept the view of someone interested in making money on a venture as unbiased.
On this issue (hookers) though, I look at restricting the inherent right of a woman to screw whomever she chooses to be outweighed by the very real potential of women LOSING their right to choose through coercion or force.
But that is not the only issue I brought up, it is just the one that I think tips the scales. There are many other ills associated with prostitution - like broken familes, STDs, child neglect, etc. - that are also good reasons to keep such activity illegal.
Nobody is going to break into our home in the middle of the night and be deterred by the fact that we have a prostitute in our nightstand.
Nobody is going to lose their life because a prostitute isn't available.
No government will be able to oppress us because there are enough hookers distributed among the population.
The "whole" issue of gun control has to include the horrible cost of guns - and some would argue that such a cost is a clear reason for restricting our rights to guns. Since I argue that the "whole" issue of prostitution justifies keeping it illegal, how can I reconcile my opposition to gun control? But they are different issues, the ultimate cost/benefit ratio plays out differently. There is no contradiction or double standard. They are different issues. Clear as mud, huh?
I know, but you are discounting it by separating it from the act of sex itself. You are perfectly justified in doing that, at first glance, but the issue is NOT sex. It is prostitution.
Women who are forced into sexual slavery can, in many cases, become outcasts - even be stoned to death - in their societies even after rescue. At the very best, they are forced to participate in something inherently evil in their own minds, religions or cultures. Nobody forced into domestic work, construction or other such ventures will carry that kind of stigma.
You separate the issue of human trafficking, which I consider to be an inherent part of the issue. As such, I think you are viewing only part of the issue and calling it the whole.
QuotePeople often mistake support for individual rights for support for lawless behavior. (Not saying you would, just saying it happens.) I prefer to cut off such dumb arguments before they start.
That is pretty convenient, because you get to - once again - separate the consequences of an action from the action itself. To characterize arguments as "dumb" just because you do not agree with them is to reject rational debate - even if they are, in fact, dumb.
I think you ignored the qualification of that point that followed what you quoted. "Granted, most cops are going to be less than sympathetic in such circumstances - and in a lot of cases the hooker just won't take the chance. But THAT is a personal choice on the part of the hoooker, and if she gets the help, the cops would have no more sympathy for the john than the hooker." I'm ignoring nothing. I know its a real world.
Why? Do you think that only attractive, friendly, well-groomed people will frequent legal hookers?
I think that many hookers have adapted as well, and would describe themselves as happy. But that does not mean that prostitutes who make that claim are any more happy than slaves who made that claim - and many southern apologists use the "happy slave" argument to justify slavery.
she reveals more about her supporters than she ever does about the "Left".
Very skilled indeed. She's drives them absolutely bat shit!
God bless her!
(http://i.timeinc.net/time/covers/1101050425/what_did_she_say/photo/coulter_02.jpg)