Author Topic: L'Affaire Spitzer  (Read 23385 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #90 on: March 12, 2008, 09:14:39 PM »

Are you advocating that any & all sex be made illegal?


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.


*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


That does not mean prostitutes would not have reasons to prove they are healthy and free of STDs or that most would not attempt to do so. Again, I doubt much that the prostitutes are interested in getting the STDs.


men can spread them just as much as the women


Of course they can. But I fail to see how that backs up your argument.


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?


I'm not sure exactly what laws you're talking about. I guess you mean regarding illegal drug use. That is a whole other issue. But I don't want to start that discussion until I know what you're talking about.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Rich

  • Guest
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #91 on: March 12, 2008, 10:07:39 PM »
>>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?

fatman

  • Guest
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #92 on: March 12, 2008, 10:25:27 PM »
Consensual sex is not prostitution minus the exchange of money. Not even remotely.

Yes it is.  What else would it be?

Prostitution = Consensual sex with financial exchange/barter/etc.

If an underling sleeps with her boss to advance her career, that's not necessarily illegal, depending on your state and the sexual harassment law there.  But if she charges her boss, that's illegal.  What's the difference?

fatman

  • Guest
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #93 on: March 12, 2008, 11:07:40 PM »



« Last Edit: March 12, 2008, 11:57:15 PM by fatman »

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #94 on: March 12, 2008, 11:53:23 PM »

>>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.


Really? The same arrangement for sex, the one with an exchange of money is illegal and the one without an exchange of money is legal. How is that apples and oranges?


Consensual sex is not prostitution minus the exchange of money. Not even remotely.

Care to expand of this?


Uh, no. It's your comment, you expand on it. You seem to be making a distinction between prostitution and consensual sex, but that doesn't make any sense. Consensual sex for money, prostitution, is still consensual sex. So please, explain your comment.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Rich

  • Guest
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #95 on: March 13, 2008, 12:43:51 AM »
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.

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8010
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #96 on: March 13, 2008, 01:44:39 AM »
for some reason I think of risky business
which tom cruise talks about the difference about a date and being with prostitute.

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #97 on: March 13, 2008, 02:36:11 AM »

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.


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.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8010
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #98 on: March 13, 2008, 03:12:21 AM »
well

money may not be exchanged
but money usually is being spent

Rich

  • Guest
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #99 on: March 13, 2008, 11:50:01 AM »
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.

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8010
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #100 on: March 13, 2008, 01:12:24 PM »
dishonest?
which one?

in either case both parties has full knowledge of what`s going on
if anything the second case has a greater degree of uncertainty

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #101 on: March 13, 2008, 01:44:07 PM »
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.

What if, in the former situation, they're hot for each other? What if, in the latter situation, they only sleep with each other because he paid for dinner and a movie?

Neither situation is clear cut.
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

kimba1

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8010
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #102 on: March 13, 2008, 02:00:12 PM »
I`ve heard some women only date to get free expensive dinners and to a much lesser degree diamond rings.


Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #103 on: March 13, 2008, 02:16:39 PM »

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.


But that is not what I said. Read it again.


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.


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.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--

Universe Prince

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3660
  • Of course liberty isn't safe; but it is good.
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: L'Affaire Spitzer
« Reply #104 on: March 13, 2008, 03:23:39 PM »
Just in time for this discussion, over at Reason Online, Joanne McNeil has an article talking about "white slavery" and human trafficking. A few excerpts:

      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.
      

Whole thing at http://www.reason.com/news/show/124977.html.
Your reality, sir, is lies and balderdash and I'm delighted to say that I have no grasp of it whatsoever.
--Hieronymus Karl Frederick Baron von Munchausen ("The Adventures of Baron Munchausen" [1988])--