prostitution off-topic branch thread

~

 

Your right, this is stupid. I’m going to call you out straight so we can put this to rest. Why don’t you tell us exactly what you believe the STD contraction rate to be among prostitutes in comparison to non-prostitutes. If you can’t give a guess on a percentage rate, then tell us whether you believe STD contraction among non-prostitutes is the same, higher, or lower than among prostitutes.

And… That’s how you support your argument? Because the dictionary doesn’t distinguish the two they must be the same??

If your gf, or wife, or daughter, or mother was abducted and forced into sex slavery, would you call her a prostitute too?

 

Nobody made the claim there isn't a dark underbelly. But what Chera is saying is that the dark underbelly was overhyped and unfairly sterotyped.

My main issue in this thread is the notion, like from e7, that sex slaves = prostitutes, and that a distinction between the two is invalid, and a hassel to make.

^ THAT makes me angry because it's lazy logic, it's false, and it is insulting to REAL victims of slavery.

You don't think the prostitute sterotype isn't told to victims of human trafficking as a weapon of psychological manipulation? You bet they are!!!

Pimp/kidnapper: "no one will help a prostitute like you they'll just deport you back home"

Victim: *is silent* scared probably feels trapped.

 

I 100% agree.

 

I should also mention that there is human trafficking for other purposes. The international adoption business is rife with baby trafficking (should we ban adoption?), many other sectors of the world economy have reported slavery: mining, fabric manufacturing, etc.

But in no case, is slavery the average means of production for the simple fact that slavery is ineffective to consumers. And nothing could be truer in the case of prostitution:

There are excellent, nasty, gorgeous, fun-loving prostitutes out there. Sex slaves could never compete in the service they provide unwillingly. And that's why sex slavery is a fringe phenomenon.

But I go further: sex slavery is by definition not prostitution, because slavery does not involve payment. Prostitution is the consensual exchange of sex for money. Slaves do not hold wages.

Slavery should be punished wherever it happens, whether it's done under the guise of prostitution or any other service or product. But the consensual exchange of sex for money between adults must go on and it's nobody's business but that of the parties involved.

=====
Edit: lol! I just thought about another business that is rife with slavery and STDs: marriage. That's right, marriage.

 

No. But if the term "prostitute" is used, it is reasonable to assume that what you mean by "prostitute" is what the dictionary defines as a prostitute. If you are only talking about consensual "high class call girls", then you should not use the term "prostitute", since there is every reason to think that females who exchange sex for money are all prostitutes, regardless of whether they have a pimp who is forcing them into it or not.

I think that the consensual high-class call girl scene is probably not too bad. There are problems there too, but not as much as in other forms of prostitution. Pimped prostitution and street walking are pretty bad, I think.

My logic isn't lazy, I am. I can't believe I've been drawn into this debate again, which is essentially going nowhere.

here is the definition of a prostitute from an on-line dictionary:

note that the term "willingly" is only used in the third usage, as when it's used as an analogy to the primary usages

By the dictionary definition, a prostitute is a prostitute whether she is a willing prostitute or a forced prostitute by virtue of the absence of such a distinction in the definition.

There is indeed a distinction to be made between a forced and unforced prostitute, but that distinction does not exist within the term "prostitute".

If you only want to talk about consensual, high-class call girls only, then please use that term, or one similar, rather than using the term "prostitute", which one would reasonably consider to mean "woman who engages in sexual intercourse for money" regardless of whether she is forced to do so or not.

So as I understand it, a woman who is enslaved by a pimp has to give them pimp money. How she gets it is irrelevant to the pimp. She could tap dance, rob banks, or sell watches for all the pimp cares. She has sex in exchange for money, so that she can give money to the pimp to avoid whatever threat that the pimp holds over her

I know of no instance where a pimp/kidnapper has substituted the term "prostitute" for "sex slave" as a means of manipulating victims , nor do you provide any evidence for such a scenario other than an imaginary dialogue.

Further, I see no compelling reason to think that saying "no one will help a prostitute like you" versus "no one will help a sex-slave like you" would effect any substantive change whatsoever

What is more plausible (and I have heard reported) is that pimps will beat/rape victims, threaten to do the same, addict them to drugs, or take away passports in order to enslave them.

that is correct

I think this understates the prevalence of slavery

No, because enslaved prostitutes can and do receive money from johns, of which the pimp takes all or part

In some cases, a woman is trapped or tied up, and does not receive money from the john.

See the dictionary definition above. Enslaved prostitutes are allowed to keep some of their money in some cases

Beyond this, a woman who has no option for employment other than prostitution is essentially a slave. The same is true for a woman who is addicted to drugs

 

The most positive experience is that the hooker makes her money safely, and the john feels the money was spent wisely. At some point I would think hookers really aren't horny and instead are running a business. Johns themselves like the freedom of no connection. There are times too that a friendship develops because the john prefers that particular girl. That's cool.....they probably talk and laugh for a while beforehand.

 

You know that’s not what we’re talking about. This isn’t about us trying to only use high class prostitutes to make our case. All classes should be included. We only have an issue with you trying to place sex slaves in the same category as the other prostitutes.

BTW, I love how you refused to answer my questions yet again. This time I’m calling you out on it. Now I asked you some direct questions and I want you to stop bullshitting and give me some direct answers. You’ve been intentionally vague, dancing your way around the issues this whole thread. I can at least respect people who will stand up and reply in defense of their argument, even though I may not agree with them. But I have no respect for people who selectively pick apart things, dance around key issues, and answer only what they feel promotes their argument in the most favorable light.

So my question to you now is, are you going to man up and provide some direct answers to the questions I posed to you? Or are you going to continue to play these little games to try and spin the argument in your favor?

 

No, I'd argue to say that that's only true if the marriage was not monogamous (aka: cheating happened, and someone brought some STD/STI home with them).
In which case, why marry at all, except for the obvious answer of how the law would treat the people in a marriage financially with taxes.

The business model for marriage, mainly revolves around cake making, dress shopping, tux renting/shopping, and finding a venue.


-----

@e7, while I like the dictionary and all, it by no means is a good primary source to debate the nuances of abstract and dynamics issues in society like that of the process of exchanging a sexual act for monetary gain.

Literally, ok fine I get what your saying and you're technically right, but this thread is not and should not be about dogmatic black and white definitions, because life isn't like that.

I would argue that in the case of sexual human trafficking (we all acknowledge that non-sexual human trafficking exists for labor, baby breeding adoption businesses, etc. exist), the men, women and children caught up in that are PROSTITUTED, but by no means are they prostitutes, in the context of what this thread was talking about.

Remember the premise of this thread was to discuss LEGALIZING and regulating the process, to the point where the dynamics of doing so would/might change the industry itself.

We aren't just talking about high class call girls either (escorts or whatever you call them), there would potentially be different classes of service, but ALL regulated to promote safety. This is in contrast to the current underground shady dealing that happens on the streets, where the harm does tend to take place. (aka: lots of those studies were citing or basing their premises off that culture that is illegal and shady, their conclusions are to me...DUH)

 

bout 80%

 

It seems like some or all of you are trying to make the argument that not all women who exchange sex for money are prostitutes. It seems that you are arguing that women who exchange sex for money and who are controlled by pimps, have drug addictions, mental illness, or who are economically desperate must be put into the category of "sex slave" and treated separately from prostitutes.

From my perspective, it's like you're saying the overwhelming majority of pets bark. If I were to then point out that cats and fish don't bark, you would say that cats and fish must be considered "slave animals", and therefor must be considered in another category apart from dogs. You then argue that since only dogs are the real pets, one can make a blanket statement that the vast majority of pets bark.

I think it's fine if you want to just talk about purely consensual prostitutes (i.e., ones who are exchanging sex for money without being threatened or controlled by a pimp, addicted to drugs, mentally ill, or economically desperate), but if you use the term "prostitute" instead of "purely consensual prostitutes", it's like making blanket statements about pets when you are really only talking about dogs. Using incorrect terms leads creates statements which are misleading.

So if you want to talk only about purely consensual prostitutes, please use the term "purely consensual prostitutes" or some other term that clearly differentiates between the women who exchange sex for money that you are referring to, and the women who exchange sex for money that you are not referring to.

What question is that that I have been "dancing" around?


you quoted me as saying:

and said:

to which I replied:

to which you said:

I then referenced earlier quotes and replied:

to which you replied:

to which I replied:

to which you replied:

even though I made clear that I had made it unequivocally clear that the assertion that legalized, regulated prostitution would reduce the rate of std's does not imply that that the majority of std's are transmitted via prostitution, nor does it make any particular claim about the total number of std's transmitted via prostitution

you followed by making the statement:

Let me again answer the question that you seem to be asking

1. I don't know

2. I don't care

3. I never made any statement about the relative rates of std transmission among prostitutes versus non prostitutes

4. the assertion that legalized, regulated prostitution would reduce the rate of std's does not imply that that the majority of std's are transmitted via prostitution, nor does it make any particular claim about the total number of std's transmitted via prostitution


5. If you don't think that I've answered your question, please re-read this post instead of posting something about how I've been dodging your question.

If you post again about how I've been dodging your question, or ask the same question again, I may respond by one or several of the following:

1. post a poll asking forum members to read all or portions of this thread and vote on whether or not my initial statement implied a comparison between prostitution and non-prostitution std transmission rates

2. accuse you of being a troll

3. ignore any further posts you make on the subject

 

Ok. So you admit that you have no clue about what the STD contraction rates are for neither prostitutes nor non-prostitutes.

You still haven't answer my other question (see below).

^^^ That's a yes or no question BTW

 

That's an awfully high number. What exactly is a vulnerable prostitute to you? I'm just trying to understand how you got to such a number.

 

Yes e7, I would consider "pets" a form of slavery.

Although it's not a complete apples to apples comparison because comparing the treatment of dogs/cats/fish, is completely different and more complex when the conversation is talking about HUMAN BEINGS, and the standard of treatment the developed world expects for said human beings.

Again I would even go so far as to say the dictionary needs revision, to acknowledge the difference between "forced sexual prostitutes" and "consenting sexual prostitutes".

And xxaru, it's obvious from his posts, that YES he would describe any girl he knows (family or not) that gets sold for sex against her will as a prostitute. He hasn't answered that question directly, but it can be logically derived.

 

Without going back and trying to pick out who said what, regarding STD transmission rates for prostitutes vs. non-prostitutes, I recall some literature we had in one of my undergrad classes that was a study that showed the transmission rates to/from prostitutes was much lower than they were for the general population, primarily because prostitutes took more measures to protect themselves than the general population does. There's also the fact that not a single instance of HIV transmission has ever been documented in the brothels in Nevada (and the incidence of any STD transmission is so low as to be imperceptible).

 

I guess he's never going to answer that question directly...

 

emotional intelligence.

 

Well, we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. To suggest that the vast majority of all prostitutes lack emotional intelligence IMO is a ridiculous and unfair accusation. It tells me that my intuition about you was correct in that you think no normal woman would choose to be a prostitute. They must be emotionally challenged, etc. etc.

I wonder if you think most promiscuous women are also emotionally challenged?

 

I concur with that. I know women who worked as escorts to put themselves through college, and they were juts fine emotionally.

 

There MUST be something wrong with any woman who likes casual sex. Especially if they figure they can make a buck out of it. Obv.

raped
high school drop out
drugs
low self-esteemed from neglecting parents
impoverished
slave
minor

I mean, clearly. Pick one.

------

Edit1: Oh, and they obviously know nothing about what risks laying with a strange man might entail or STDs. God forbid they should be able to carry a gun, a condom, and protect themselves. They certainly couldn't know more than us enlightened people who selflessly have their best interest in mind because we're such do gooooders.

Edit2: What about male prostitutes? What about transvestites? *crickets* No wonder feminists hate gay men so much. They get in the way of their whole theory about how the patriarchy and porn and creepy old men in general are conspiring to make pretty little girls have anal sex against their will.