Whats your opinion on the legality of Porn and Prostitution?

Any person can believe any job is immoral. Nearly all jobs have an element of danger. Courts have given the choice of military service or prison.

We now know how to offer employment to poor single mothers, particularly poor black women. Poor black women can become the sex workers of rich white people. This is the solution to race and economic disparity problems in the USA. White wealthy people will literally fxxk poor people and minorities so they don't have to be homeless.

Maybe white people wouldn't be so racist if they could hold minorities down by their hair and f..k them for a few bucks. The Democrats and Libertarians should run on the platform as a solution to race and economic disparity issues.

This is what the USA needs. Poor people standing on street corners holding signs reading "Will have sex for food." This would definitely improve every city and improve the USA's standing in the world.

 

I oppose free trade and I oppose selling sex. Free trade doesn't even exist today.

 

So you oppose government regulating prostitution, correct? What business is it of government if there is STD testing, registering who is a prostitute, or requiring condoms be used as it is no one's business.

 

Sorry, but no it's not. When a person sells themselves willingly, like a Congressman to special interests, then they are a prostitute. When they are forced to do so as a condition of employment or forced to do so, then the difference is one of choice.

 

Regulation in any industry makes sense for safety and quality.

 

Agreed here. Customers should be assured sex workers are both clean and working there of their own free will.

 

That's what prostitution is - voluntarily agreeing to sex as a condition of employment. No one is forced to engage as a prostitute unless that is the condition of employment - which is the condition of prostitution employment. There is no difference and your claim makes no sense. "I will hire you if you have sex with me and if not I won't" is exactly how prostitution works. The person is not forced to take the job. Everyone but me on this thread claims it is 100% legitimate to make sex a condition of employment as a prostitution, otherwise it isn't prostitution.

Is there something SPECIAL about wealthier or celebrity women that does not apply to all other women? Your view is "yes, POOR women can be told having sex is a condition of employment, but only poor women?" How is this any different than the CEO of FOX if he told Megan Kelly "you get a $2 million a year contract if you have sex with me" - compared to telling a woman "I'll give you $100 if you have sex with me." There is NO difference in principle or ethics.

 

The difference being that they are working as a sex worker. Having a boss tell you that you have to suck his **** as a condition of employment as an office worker is clearly a different matter.

 

Its no different. Sex workers often do more than sex nor is there any logic claiming a sex worker may only do sex anymore than any other employee may only have 1 task. If a clearly stated job duty area is sex, the person is a sex worker. If the person also has to put on a costume, do play acting, engage in conversation, do to dinner and/or clerical work, there is no difference. How would you even define the difference in law? Restrictions on what a sex worker is allowed to do? I thought the claim is people are free to sell themselves however they want to.

 

I already posted documentation that it is less likely a sex worker is acting voluntarily if prostitution is legal and there is no possible way to assure a sex worker is "clean."

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on this difference of opinion.

As the Reagan quote below attests, government shouldn't be telling us what we can't do to ourselves, only what we can't do to each other. Making prostitution and drug use, among other things, illegal crosses that line of protecting us from each other to protecting us from ourselves. I'm leery of empowering government to dictate morality based on the views of an elite few...this is exactly what the Democrats do and, IMO, far too many Republicans.

"Government exists to protect us from each other.
Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves."
-- Ronald Reagan

 

It is sad to see that everyone voting (but me) in REALITY support protecting sex and human trafficking in a Hollywood fantasy vision of prostitution:

Legalized Prostitution INCREASES sex and human trafficking:

"While sex trafficking implies force, fraud or coercion, it may not be easy for either consumers or law enforcement to distinguish individuals who are selling sex with their consent from those who do not. In a legalized environment, unlawful commercial sex acts can therefore masquerade as legal. In addition, with respect to the researchers’ second proposition, prostitution has long been a stigmatized practice. Legalization could therefore substantially increase demand, not only by removing the deterrent effect of punishment, but also by reducing stigma, which would make sex trafficking even more profitable. The net effect of legalizing prostitution may thus be, at worst, an increase, rather than a decrease, in the prevalence of trafficking.

A paper that analyzed up to 150 countries suggests that “countries where prostitution is legal experience larger reported human trafficking inflows.” A study of two different sources of trafficking data in Europe similarly concluded that sex trafficking is “most prevalent in countries where prostitution is legalized.” In my own research on the same topic, I have also found results that suggest a relationship between legal prostitution and sex trafficking.

It is also true that prostitution laws have consequences that stretch beyond the realms of modern slavery. Policymakers have to be concerned not only with sex trafficking, but also with other factors, such as the welfare of those who voluntarily engage in prostitution."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/realsp...izing-prostitution-may-not-work/#5e7be1016678

It is a myth that all prostitutes voluntarily are prostitutes. Legalization makes prosecuting forced prostitution nearly impossible to prosecute as it just just a woman's statement versus that of the pimps - and the woman has little power by comparison. With prostitution illegal, there is no duty to prove the pimp forced the woman into prostitution.

Nor can I think of ANY job as dangerous as prostitution that the government allows, other than the military in times of war.

For example, the federal requirements for anyone working around diseases is INTENSE. Yet there is virtually no way to protect prostitutes from TB and hepatitus - of which there are incurable strains - and STDs including incurable strains (condoms are not 100% protection). But I suppose that's ok because of? They are JUST prostitutes? Unless a government observer is required to be present, there is no added protection against violence or extremely degradating acts either. In fact, it could be claimed the violence or degradation was just part of the voluntary sex contract.

Again, in my view prostitution should remain a minor misdemeanor to keep it off the streets, but pimping should be a felony. With prostitution illegal, anyone who takes a percentage of the prostitution fee would be committing a felony and it only necessary to prove money was received by the pimp. Whether the prostitution was voluntary or not would not be even relevant.

 

But aren't you arguing the opposite? The clerical work could not be part of any contract that also includes sex work - or visa versa? Doesn't this message of yours exactly contradict your previous messages? Why couldn't a condition of Megan Kelly's contract also include sex if the government should stay out it as you now claim?

My main point in all this is that people are arguing for a Hollywood platitudes view of prostitution, and then duck what those same platitudes really mean in actual reality and in full application.

Ticketing prostitutes is no big deal. It keeps it off the streets and avoids all the massive pitfalls of fully legalizing it. The target should not be allowing employment contracts to require voluntarily agreeing to sex. The target should be pimps and sex traffickers, which legalization protects.

 

Okay....allow me to make this extremely clear:

I want you to run my store because you have experience and skill managing people and business.

This is legitimate business practice.

I also want you to shoot the guy who runs the store next door because they are competition.

This in not legitimate business practice and is illegal.

I want to hire a woman to run the cash register.

Legitimate.

I want to hire a woman to run the register and have her suck my c0ck.

Not legitimate.

 

safe sex between consenting adults should be all that matters!

 

Why is that not "legitimate?" How do you define the difference nor are people usually hired for a single job task. No one forced her to take the job. Why isn't it HER choice to offer herself for that employment?

Your example does not work because you are claiming prostitution should be legal, where shooting the guy in the other store is not. You example works IF prostitution is illegal.

Be specific. What tasks do you claim a prostitute should be prohibited from doing? What about laundry? Would be illegal to hire a prostitute for sex and to clean your apartment or do your laundry?

 

Sexual Harassment Laws.

 

Sure. Which is why there would be exceptions easily written into the rules. Should a Jew or Muslim be required to slaughter pigs and make bacon rather than accept welfare? According to you, that must be the case now because pig slaughter and bacon-making are legal activities and there are able-bodied Jews and Muslims who are on welfare.

You seem to care so much about poor black women, but have no problem saddling them with criminal records and relegating them to the rule of pimps should they decide they want to get into prostitution. Your tears would put a crocodile to shame.

 

And you propose shoving your morals down the throats of others using the force of laws and the rule of the worst sort of prostitutes: politicians. I'd take a prostitute over a moralist busybody like you any day. So would Jesus, apparently.

 

You should have been Bill Cosby's and Bill O'Reilly's spokesperson railing against "shoving morals down the throats of others."

Yes, I moralize against sex and human trafficking and passing laws making it almost impossible to catch and prosecute them.

If you are claiming Jesus supported prostitution you are totally off base. He described it as "sin." I don't. I describe it as very dangerous. Exceptionally so.

 

Legalizing prostitution protects pimps from prosecution.

 

You want to make it legal to hire people for sex - while opposing legalizing hiring people for sexual harassment. That is as great a contradiction as possible. Bizarre too. VERY.

People are posting messages like hiring a prostitute is just taking someone out on a date eager to do so for the fun of it.

 

This is what legalizing prostitution would protect:





Unless the person is of minor age, prosecuting sex traffickers or pimps is virtually impossible as there is no presumption of illegally, but rather a presumption of legality. Studies of where prostitution is legal prove legalizing prostitution increases sex and human trafficking - and for obvious reasons.

 

Ah, you are the one "moralizing." A person can not want to be a prostitute for other than moral reasons, contrary to your apparent claim. Since you claim it is not immoral, did you have a go at being a prostitute in your lifetime? If not, why not?

 

Describe "safe sex" in relation to TB, hepatitus, and STDs having sex with 1000 different strangers. How does that "safe sex" worth? Wearing surgical gowns and masks with triple condoms?

" The rates of STIs are from 5 to 60 times higher among sex workers than in general populations."
http://iqsolutions.com/section/ideas/sex-workers-and-stis-ignored-epidemic