Prostitution poll

[vegas giants]

That is a desperate message. Rather than repetition, let's keep going in another direction.

Why not make this voluntary? If a person wants to hire only a licensed prostitute and/or a prostitute wants your "protection," why not make that optional?

A lot of other personal services are that way. For example, counseling:

1. Nothing required to be a church marriage counselor - and it is usually free
2. Palm reader/Tarot card reader - nothing required and generally small fee
3. Psychologist - lots required and high fee
4. Psychiatrist - the most required, maybe the highest fee.

Why not that? Why having the government become a pimp for everyone taking total control?

Second, why no STD testing to hire a prostitute?
Third, why not require everyone having sex to first get an STD test certification?

Finally, what if STD testing proves the prostitute does have an STD - Herpes, HIV, or some other. Then what? Can't sell sex? Only prostitutes with STDs can't have sex - and everyone else can infect as many people as they do?

We get it. You want these women to continue to be abused. Maybe you just hate women.



Legalize it and regulate it and everyone is safer

 

[joko104]

Example of what is falsely called "legalization."

Three gay guys named "Vegas," "Giant" and "Joko" are roommates. Live in an old double wide. Friends since kids, now young adults. They've had sex together a hundred times at least and promiscuous in general. They're at a McDonalds.

Joko asks both to buy her a burger and drink, plus he's out of gas, so will they give him $20?

Vegas says "sort of tapped out right now" and Giant says - smiling - says "what will you do for us if we do?"

Joko says, laughing, I'll suck you both off when we get back. Which of you wants to go first? Why don't you flip a coin."

Vegas and Giant each give Joko a $10, and Vegas gets her a burger and drink.

Vegas tosses a quarter air, but a hardass off duty cop sitting next to them catches it.

CURRENTLY: Being a hardass, the cop arrests all 3. The next day they are given time served, but do have a prostitution conviction each.

WHAT "LEGALIZE BUT REGULATE CAUSES"

The cop tells Vegas and Giant they can go on their way because prostitution is illegal, but arrests Joko charged with both not being licensed and no STD's certificate. The next day in court Joko is given 30 days to get the license and STD testing or the maximum fine would be imposed - $500, standard misdemeanor maximum - and if Joko does, then the minimum, often just a $1, but TWO prostitution convictions.
Since Joko didn't have $20, he doesn't have $50 for the license nor $150 for the STD test, so $1000 in fines. At $50 a day in that city, 10 days in jail.

To be legal under your system, this is what Joko has to say:
"Please quick drive me to city hall, I need a prostitution license. Since I need it immediately, there is a rush charge of $25, so I need $75 for that. Then I need to take me to the clinic. I need that rushed too, so it's $300, not $150. Plus I need 10% for the special prostitution tax and still need the $20 for gas - so I need $445.50. Oh, and then will you go thru Mickey Ds and get me something to eat. I guess I'll have to pay a prostitution tax on that too."

Vegas and Giant never had to do anything and never faced any risk. The other 2 don't know it, but Vegas has become HIV+. Vegas does know, but Vegas is an asshole and keeps it secret.

So Joko spent 10 nights in jail, has 2 prostitution convictions, and is made HIV+ by Vegas, plus now is on the public record as a prostitute - blowing his chance of ever becoming a lawyer as he hoped - and Vegas faces nothing, continuing to infect every man he has sex with.

You and the other "regulation control freaks" claim the reason they want it that way - calling it "legalization" - is to protect Vegas and Giant from Joko and, bizarrely, to protect Joko by jailing him, branding him for life a convicted prostitute whore, and destroying his career future.

I think that is called "the theater of the absurd."

 

[joko104]

We get it. You want these women to continue to be abused. Maybe you just hate women.



Legalize it and regulate it and everyone is safer

Maybe this is beyond you as it is complex so you now just resort to trolling. It is sad as it could be an interesting discussion, but you don't do those, do you? You just repeat yourself endlessly.

What it really means is you really don't give a damn about any of this, just to say what you want for you. I do care. But then I do know the topic and you haven't a clue. So naive you believe all prostitutes are female. :doh

 

[Rich2018]

I understand you want to control them...

No, I want to regulate their legalized industry for the safety of those working in it and those using it

...and believe you can force them to be who and what they are not - making them do what they would never do....

Like taking regular medical checks is something prostitutes wouldn't otherwise do ?

...there could be lots of new laws more harshly punishing them than the one misdemeanor charge...

But we're talking about LEGALIZING prostitution and regulating is to assure greater protection and safety of those in it, not handing out harsher penalties to those areas where prostitution is illegal
Or haven't you been able to grasp that yet ?

..I'll give an example again...

Yet another example from your fantasy world that you live in

...that woman could never be a high dollar prostitute....

How do you know?
Because YOU don't find her attractive you automatically assume her likely income - no doubt you've also surmised her likely IQ and reading/language/conversation skills etc

Why are you so judgmental - it's VERY clear you like putting women down. Why are you so misogynistic ?

...or maybe not for $10...

Yeah thought so, how do you know what a prostitute makes or where she/he can ply their trade in an area where prostitution is legal ?

...what you are talking about has no relevancy to her...

Absolutely yet your so quick to pass prejudiced calls on her. Why are you so judgmental

And in any case suppose you're remotely right - who are you to tell her what she must charge or even what she does for a living
If prostitution was legal everywhere in the USA, she would have that right and it's NONE of your business either way

...MOST prostitutes are NOT beautiful....

How do you know? Yet more of your prejudiced ideas?

Who are you to say what beauty is ?



https://chickenranchbrothel.com/index.php/ladies


They don't look too ugly to me, but then they work in an area where prostitution is legal

...Fast, cheap basic sex. $10 to $20 for 6 minutes....

Again you make a wild, unsupported claim

How do you know this ?

And what is the difference between legal and non-legal areas ?

...BJs are nothing to most prostitutes,...

Another unsupported claim, and even if it's true SO WHAT ???

...but very dangerous to a woman from HIV and others from oral sex to her from someone HIV+ etc....

What are your figurs for the spread of AIDS in legal v non-legal areas

I want to see your data, not hear your worthless, prejudiced opinion

...probably 75% or more of prostitution is no more than quickie cheap BJs...

Source?

Or as your favorite Wiki site puts it: Citation needed

....most prostitutes are not full time...

So what

Legal or non-legal states - do you have any data at all or just prejudiced opinion ???

...we aren't talking about the same thing....

We're mostly talking about prostitution in states where it is illegal and at least I'm talking about how much better it would be if it were legalized. And if legal areas how problems, how to improved these with better regulation

... I doubt any man has ever divorced a woman because he learned she took a job on an assembly line. I bet a million men have divorced because they learned their wife has sex with another man...

So prostitution is not a great way to make a living in YOUR opinion. Maybe experience as a prostitute/porn star/stripper actually makes some women MORE attractive to some men ?

How many men/women filed for divorce because their partner took a job as a cop or soldier ?
You claim to know these kind of answers.

 

[vegas giants]

Maybe this is beyond you as it is complex so you now just resort to trolling. It is sad as it could be an interesting discussion, but you don't do those, do you? You just repeat yourself endlessly.

What it really means is you really don't give a damn about any of this, just to say what you want for you. I do care. But then I do know the topic and you haven't a clue. So naive you believe all prostitutes are female. :doh

If you want an honest debate dont ever tell.me what my position is. Be honest. Dont lie about me and you will be treated in kind

 

[Rich2018]

Example of what is falsely called "legalization."

Three gay guys named "Vegas," "Giant" and "Joko" are roommates. Live in an old double wide. Friends since kids, now young adults. They've had sex together a hundred times at least and promiscuous in general. They're at a McDonalds.

Joko asks both to buy her a burger and drink, plus he's out of gas, so will they give him $20?

Vegas says "sort of tapped out right now" and Giant says - smiling - says "what will you do for us if we do?"

Joko says, laughing, I'll suck you both off when we get back. Which of you wants to go first? Why don't you flip a coin."

Vegas and Giant each give Joko a $10, and Vegas gets her a burger and drink.

Vegas tosses a quarter air, but a hardass off duty cop sitting next to them catches it.

CURRENTLY: Being a hardass, the cop arrests all 3. The next day they are given time served, but do have a prostitution conviction each.

WHAT "LEGALIZE BUT REGULATE CAUSES"

The cop tells Vegas and Giant they can go on their way because prostitution is illegal, but arrests Joko charged with both not being licensed and no STD's certificate. The next day in court Joko is given 30 days to get the license and STD testing or the maximum fine would be imposed - $500, standard misdemeanor maximum - and if Joko does, then the minimum, often just a $1, but TWO prostitution convictions.
Since Joko didn't have $20, he doesn't have $50 for the license nor $150 for the STD test, so $1000 in fines. At $50 a day in that city, 10 days in jail.

To be legal under your system, this is what Joko has to say:
"Please quick drive me to city hall, I need a prostitution license. Since I need it immediately, there is a rush charge of $25, so I need $75 for that. Then I need to take me to the clinic. I need that rushed too, so it's $300, not $150. Plus I need 10% for the special prostitution tax and still need the $20 for gas - so I need $445.50. Oh, and then will you go thru Mickey Ds and get me something to eat. I guess I'll have to pay a prostitution tax on that too."

Vegas and Giant never had to do anything and never faced any risk. The other 2 don't know it, but Vegas has become HIV+. Vegas does know, but Vegas is an asshole and keeps it secret.

So Joko spent 10 nights in jail, has 2 prostitution convictions, and is made HIV+ by Vegas, plus now is on the public record as a prostitute - blowing his chance of ever becoming a lawyer as he hoped - and Vegas faces nothing, continuing to infect every man he has sex with.

You and the other "regulation control freaks" claim the reason they want it that way - calling it "legalization" - is to protect Vegas and Giant from Joko and, bizarrely, to protect Joko by jailing him, branding him for life a convicted prostitute whore, and destroying his career future.

I think that is called "the theater of the absurd."

Yet another fatuous example of the fantasy world you live in.

 

[SDET]

It's amazing that this is a hill that some are willing to fight to the death over. The venue providing the location for the sex services could just as easily conduct the monthly STD test and advertise it AND security as a selling point. Customers are just as at risk of violence as the prostitute. Recall that it's he that has the cash both on him or in the bank if someone wants to do an express kidnapping.

Yet another fatuous example of the fantasy world you live in.

 

[Rich2018]

I lied? Then show that I did:

Write it: WRITE THAT YOU WANT TO REQUIRE ANY PERSON BEFORE GOING TO A PROSTITUTE:
1. TO FIRST GET A SEX LICENSE FROM GOVERNMENT
2. AN STD TEST CERTIFICATE - TO FREQUENTLY BE DONE OVER AND OVER AND
3, REPORT TO GOVERNMENT HOW MUCH THEY PAID PROSTITUTES EVERY YEAR
- just like you want required of prostitutes. Plus:
4. It is made a crime to have sex in an alley, back street, car etc with a prostitute.

1. I don't and have never said this
2. I don't and have never said this
3. No, never said that either
4. Nope, not to be a prostitute, a lewd act in public is another matter, even for amarried couple

ARE YOU CLEAR NOW ?

...would people be allowed under all the laws you want to have sex in alleys, back streets, cars etc if not with a prostitute? Everyone can BUT prostitutes?

Nope, a sexual act in public would remain illegal even for married couples

...don't you think EVERYONE should have to get a "sex license" and follow all your government prohibitions...

Nope, only when a legal transaction has been made

If you eat a sandwich at your house and poison yourself, it's quite different from if you buy a sandwich in a bar and do likewise


Though if your girlfriend knowingly gives you AIDS it is possible to sue her

...why dump only on prostitutes?

Business liabilities

Why "dump" on the bar - in order to provide protection in a public business transaction. If your boyfriend cuts your hair at home and accidentally cuts your ear, you have to suck it up. But if he works in a salon and charges you $$$ for a haircut and cuts your ear, you can sue for negligence

CLEAR NOW?

...promiscuous people may more spread HIV/STDs that prostitutes and maybe a higher percentage of prostitutes use condoms - and a much higher percentage likely only did a BJ....

Are prostitutes, in an area where prostitution is legal, more or less likely to contract an STD?

...how much do you want to control adults having sex with your new criminal laws?

None

Just regulate prostitution as every other business is regulated

You are aware that businesses, like restaurants, are tightly regulated or as you prefer it "controlled" ?
Do you know what a health inspector is? Have you ever heard of a restaurant closing because it failed an inspection? Is this what you regard as "control" ?


And before you say that's different, why is it? Both have regulatory bodies to ensure public heath and safety for those using the service.

 

[Rich2018]

It's amazing that this is a hill that some are willing to fight to the death over. The venue providing the location for the sex services could just as easily conduct the monthly STD test and advertise it AND security as a selling point. Customers are just as at risk of violence as the prostitute. Recall that it's he that has the cash both on him or in the bank if someone wants to do an express kidnapping.

Isn't the pursuit of happiness a core right in the DOI ?

What is your criteria on how this pursuit can be done ?

 

[joko104]

No, I want to regulate their legalized industry for the safety of those working in it and those using it

Like taking regular medical checks is something prostitutes wouldn't otherwise do ?

But we're talking about LEGALIZING prostitution and regulating is to assure greater protection and safety of those in it, not handing out harsher penalties to those areas where prostitution is illegal
Or haven't you been able to grasp that yet ?

Legal or non-legal states - do you have any data at all or just prejudiced opinion ??

We're mostly talking about prostitution in states where it is illegal and at least I'm talking about how much better it would be if it were legalized.

So prostitution is not a great way to make a living in YOUR opinion. Maybe experience as a prostitute/porn star/stripper actually makes some women MORE attractive to some men ?

How many men/women filed for divorce because their partner took a job as a cop or soldier ?
You claim to know these kind of answers.

No, we are debating all of prostitution. There is no state where prostitution is legal. There are some legal brothels with prostitution occurring there.

Hell, t any or no regulations on brothel and brothel prostitutes you can get away with. No one is forced to go work in a brothel. If they don't like all your rules and regulations, don't work in a brothel. I'd never go to a brothel. Why would I want to do that, 50% of my money going to the brothel? Risk being extorted over it? They are gaudy, no privacy, just some bizarre thing to me? If I wanted a top hooker, escort woman or an ex woman but maybe still willing circumstantially for the right person? I'd just pick up the phone and ask one I know to come over. Bet she wouldn't charge me a dollar, though. Friends don't charge friends.

You say prostitutes should be required to work in brothels - must be around other prostitutes. Can treat it like going out on a date. Can't be used to show up the ex wife or husband are a reunion, no clue she's a hooker. The ONLY prostitution you'd allow is in some red room with white heart pillows surrounded by competitors, Johns and managers telling her what she may and may not do - and who to do.

I say they don't have to be limited to a brothel and most won't and couldn't - regulations or not. The average person has less than a spare $500. None of them can afford a brothel prostitute without not being able to make rent at the end of the month.

The number of prostitutes I have known is certainly over a thousand. Some thru the club. Others not. I know some now, not a lot. "Know" means have been in my home and part of our social circle. Prior it is because I worked with them or where the worked out of. A few close friends. A few very close. A few as close as close can be. Friends don't charge friends. The cops were not their protectors. Men like me were.

Your squeaky clean sexual prudishness by your messages is combined with a Hollywood created view of prostitution, infatuated with brothels, plus some view opinion that the government must tell everyone the person was or is a prostitute. You are arguing how much men are looking for ex prostitutes for wives? You want to expose publicly them to help them as YOUR choice, not theirs. Claiming that age, appearance, weight, how classy all are irrelevant to what they can charge and who would hire them? There's just no point in "debating" any of that because it's just foolishness and trying to concoct claims to reach the conclusion you want to reach.

I gather what you want is all prostitution to be extremely illegal, except in highly regulated brothels with highly regulated hookers. Is that correct?

Everyone knows that wanting all prostitutes publicly branded and exposed for life is all about you. A prostitution license wouldn't protect a prostitute whatsoever in anyway. Prostitutes get raped in brothels. Their contract with the brothel is basically a consent to be raped contract. It all is about protecting you from them and not wanting them in your neighbor. You want them 20 miles out of town - or in jail - their choice - for you.

The poll isn't "Should brothels be legal and regulated?" It asks people to off-record state their personal knowledge and experience with prostitutes - and their opinion of prostitutes on a very personal basis. Brothels aren't even mentioned - though to be fair topics can evolve however they do.

You can keep debating brothels and want to imprison prostitutes who won't work in one and give half her money to the owner plus have the owner tell her who and what to do - and you can want to imprison prostitutes who couldn't get a job in one as you can think whatever you want. You can want the to have to register with government as a prostitute. You can want them to wear a sign reading "prostitute" when on the job. You want whatever you want.

 

[vegas giants]

1. I don't and have never said this
2. I don't and have never said this
3. No, never said that either
4. Nope, not to be a prostitute, a lewd act in public is another matter, even for amarried couple

ARE YOU CLEAR NOW ?




Nope, a sexual act in public would remain illegal even for married couples




Nope, only when a legal transaction has been made

If you eat a sandwich at your house and poison yourself, it's quite different from if you buy a sandwich in a bar and do likewise


Though if your girlfriend knowingly gives you AIDS it is possible to sue her




Business liabilities

Why "dump" on the bar - in order to provide protection in a public business transaction. If your boyfriend cuts your hair at home and accidentally cuts your ear, you have to suck it up. But if he works in a salon and charges you $$$ for a haircut and cuts your ear, you can sue for negligence

CLEAR NOW?



Are prostitutes, in an area where prostitution is legal, more or less likely to contract an STD?





None

Just regulate prostitution as every other business is regulated

You are aware that businesses, like restaurants, are tightly regulated or as you prefer it "controlled" ?
Do you know what a health inspector is? Have you ever heard of a restaurant closing because it failed an inspection? Is this what you regard as "control" ?


And before you say that's different, why is it? Both have regulatory bodies to ensure public heath and safety for those using the service.

Now he is desperate and is just lying about what others say.


It is his concession

 

[noonereal]

Usually I make polls public. I'll make this private for obvious reasons. I won't editorialize in this OP. The poll speaks for itself. (Hope I can do it in the 5 minute limit).

Private, MULTIPLE CHOICE poll. Check all that apply to you.

Only 5 people have hired a lot of prostitutes for sex?

WTF?

 

[joko104]

1. I don't and have never said this
2. I don't and have never said this
3. No, never said that either
4. Nope, not to be a prostitute, a lewd act in public is another matter, even for amarried couple

ARE YOU CLEAR NOW ?

I didn't say you did. Try reading my message again. I asked - and ask again - do you want to place the same basic requirements on people who hire prostitutes to protect the prostitutes as you as you want on prostitutes to protect those who hire them?

Prostitutes are overwhelmingly at great risk to Johns than visa versa. Yet you don't seem to care about that.

Why don't you want to require STD testing first on Johns? Why don't you require everyone who has sex - other than maybe with a spouse - to first be certified as STD free or otherwise have documentation to show? Why all your fixation just on laws at prostitutes?

 

[SDET]

Try my update to your post. Otherwise they couldn't afford them!

Only 5 people have hired a lot of prostitutes for sex speak Spanish?

WTF?

 

[SDET]

Your point that the laws can't be too strict is correct. I particularly scoff that those that want to place illegality on the customer. The customer can be robbed or express kidnapped. The sex provider can be assaulted. Anything more than a fine with available record expunction is important. Anything too heavy handed won't work.

I didn't say you did. Try reading my message again. I asked - and ask again - do you want to place the same basic requirements on people who hire prostitutes to protect the prostitutes as you as you want on prostitutes to protect those who hire them?

Prostitutes are overwhelmingly at great risk to Johns than visa versa. Yet you don't seem to care about that.

Why don't you want to require STD testing first on Johns? Why don't you require everyone who has sex - other than maybe with a spouse - to first be certified as STD free or otherwise have documentation to show? Why all your fixation just on laws at prostitutes?

 

[GreatNews2night]

I see nothing unusual in a Deaf person not learning the speak and read lips to an advanced level,

OK, you made many good points. I'm more inclined to believe in this aspect of your story, now. Still, the part that troubles me, is how, in your very long, complex, and rich descriptions above, there were so many details about her inner states of mind, while apparently you've never met her, and only had access to her in some forum where she wrote primitive English as a third grader.

I was more bothered by the richness in details, than by the parts I thought didn't add up.

Sure, OK, if born Deaf, and being French, her language skills or lack thereof in English are to be excused.

Still, how do you know so much about how she thinks and feels? A person you never met, who can barely express herself in English?

By the way, just FYI, it's spelled savant, and the complete expression is idiot savant. And she doesn't sound like one. Those are actually quite handicapped, while other than for being deaf, she doesn't appear all that handicapped, intellectually. An idiot savant is someone who is in all other aspects, intellectually disabled (what used to be called mentally retarded, now it's not PC to call them MR, so they're called IDD) but able to recite the entire phone book by heart, for example. See, reciting the entire phone book doesn't require intelligence... only requires prodigious memory, and the memory centers in the brain are not the same as the ones responsible for abstract advanced thinking.

Anyway, that's not important.

I don't want to doubt you... you've been a valuable member here, with interesting posts and topics.

But maybe the whole thing about this woman is a bit on the fantasy side... you know, people add more details to her basic story, and maybe in that forum they did too... It becomes this huge elaborated thing, when maybe in real life, all that she is, is a pretty woman who is deaf and who has a rich husband who praises her looks and fashion sense more than her smarts. There are plenty of examples of this situation, but this particular example, sorry, does sound quite embellished.

Still, it's a compelling read, and again, you have good writing skills. You do know how to make things interesting; so, like I said, you could earn money by being a writer. I like reading your posts. But do I believe 100% in what you are saying? No. But maybe it's a story that was embellished before it got to you; not really your doing.

See what I'm doing? I'm giving you a face-saving way out, here.

That's your opportunity to say: "OK, it was pretty embellished, sorry. I got carried away. I heard this story probably already quite embellished, and I added some more to it. Anyway, let's drop it. Forget about this story and let's focus again on the debate about legalization of prostitution."

 

[joko104]

I think what is going on here - why there is little connection in debating - was revealed in Vegas refusing to say if any of the fabulously happy Nevada brothel prostitutes he knows are black - and SDET talking about Latino prostitutes in poor countries who are cheap.

I'll set aside the investigative reporter who interviewed brothel prostitutes in Nevada, naming and quoting many, that 80% hate it and some called it abusive sex slavery and legalized rape, with the brothel taking at least half their money totally contradicting Vegas' anecdotal evidence.

Instead, to notice the racial and economic factors, which I see as racism and economic bigotry.

Vegas is a financially secure older white man. The $10,000+ a month prostitutes who told him they are awesomely happy also all white upper middle class beautiful young white women. Therefore, he want all laws to be about white privileged upper income white men and white women. To hell with everyone else.

I have stated for the decade I've been on this forum that I am not white, was a runaway at 15 with exactly nothing - total destitution - and from age 16 to 29 worked in a large black ghetto nightclub, strip club and neighborhood vice-crimes center for which nearly all the prostitutes and all the men were black, extremely low income, very low education, lots of drugs, lots of alcoholics, lots of criminal records.

Vegas upon upper income white privileged life and people - versus mine on bottom income people of color.

So Vegas and the other financially secure white men on this topic who share is opinion what laws to protect and control their beautiful upper income young white women in their worship of government control freakism - with no rules on themselves at all - but also wanting all those poor and non-white ghetto hookers thrown in jail. And if they WANT to try to be a prostitute, the rich white brothel owner has to be willing to hire them taking 50%. But why would a brothel owner hire black ghetto hookers for white racists?

Vegas Giant's messages are not JUST of white supremacy racism and economic bigotry he furiously wants institutionalized and enforced by criminal laws, but allso all the special rights and privileges he wants well-off white people like him to have that no poor black person can have because he's got money and they don't. HE gets to hire prostitutes if he wants because he can afford top dollar whores in brothels. And screw all the poor people who can't. Poor black and other poor prostitutes and Johns - plus eliminate all the prostitutes that don't met his high dollar standards.

It comes down to that for his messages and many of the others. Upper income white supremacy, racist and economic bigotry - demanding this be fully institutionalized within government by criminal laws.

Remember Bill Clinton? How many laws can white Democrats want specifically focusing on imprisoning poor black people and give them criminal records? Upper income WHITE people can afford pure cocaine. Poor black people can only afford crack. So pass massive criminal laws on crack and not cocaine white Democrat style. That is Vegas Giant's messages reality - regardless of his conscious motive - legalize prostitution for high income white men like him can afford and so criminalize prostitution by and for poor black people that they go to jail or prison.

Welcome again to the perpetually racist Democratic Party!

SDET? Nothing even hints his motivations and comments have anything to do with race - and has no problem with poor and cheap non-white Caucasian hookers. Nor do I. He seems to like them. So do I.

Rich white men about rich white prostitutes - versus a non white man who was poor about poor low income hookers. That is the debate. The difference is they want total control of the poor low income black hookers in ways that make all of them criminals - and I don't want any hookers to be made criminals, even their rich white hookers.

^ That is the real debate.

 

[GreatNews2night]

Your point that the laws can't be too strict is correct. I particularly scoff that those that want to place illegality on the customer. The customer can be robbed or express kidnapped. The sex provider can be assaulted. Anything more than a fine with available record expunction is important. Anything too heavy handed won't work.

Yes, I'd agree with that. Either it's illegal and both sides are illegal, or it's legal and both sides are legal.

To make it legal for the prostitute and illegal for the John, like I said, is akin to saying "it's legal to make and sell TV sets but it's illegal to purchase one." Well, how would that work? Who would want to make and sell TV sets, if customers couldn't buy them legally? It's utterly absurd and inconsistent.

I think both sides should be made legal, so that both sides are safer and cleaner and can reach out for and get legal help if things go wrong.

I still think that pimping should remain outlawed, just as much as slavery is outlawed. Gross forms of exploitation that often do slide into human trafficking have no business being legal.

But the prostitute and her John? As long as two consenting adults want to freely engage in this transaction, "I'm selling sex"; "I want to buy it", there is no reason to call it illegal, other than hyper-moral and religious ones, and I'm not a hyper-moral person, and much less a religious person, so I don't see the point.

 

[vegas giants]

I think what is going on here - why there is little connection in debating - was revealed in Vegas refusing to say if any of the fabulously happy Nevada brothel prostitutes he knows are black - and SDET talking about Latino prostitutes in poor countries who are cheap.

I'll set aside the investigative reporter who interviewed brothel prostitutes in Nevada, naming and quoting many, that 80% hate it and some called it abusive sex slavery and legalized rape, with the brothel taking at least half their money totally contradicting Vegas' anecdotal evidence.

Instead, to notice the racial and economic factors, which I see as racism and economic bigotry.

Vegas is a financially secure older white man. The $10,000+ a month prostitutes who told him the are awesomely happy also all white upper middle class beautiful young white women. Therefore, he want all laws about white privileged upper income white men and white women. To hell with everyone else.

I have stated for the decade I've been on this forum that I was am not white, a runaway at 15 with exactly nothing - total destitution - and from age 16 to 29 worked in a large black ghetto nightclub, strip club and neighborhood vice-crimes center for which nearly all the prostitutes and all the men were black, extremely low income, very low education, lots of drugs, lots of alcoholics, lots of criminal records.

So Vegas and the other financially secure white men on this topic what laws to protect and control their beautiful upper income young white women in their worship of government control freakism - with no rules on themselves at all - but wanting all those poor and non-white ghetto hookers thrown in jail. And if they WANT to be a prostitute, the rich white brothel owner has to be willing to hire them taking 50%. But why would a brothel owner hire black hookers for white racists?

Vegas Giant's messages are not JUST of his white supremacy racism and economic bigotry, but all fixed at all the special rights and privileges he wants well-off white people like him to have that no poor black person can have. HE gets to hire prostitutes if he wants because he can afford top dollar whores in brothels. And screw all the poor people who can't.

It comes down to that for his messages and many of the others. Upper income white supremacy, racist and economic bigotry - demanding this be fully institutionalized within government by criminal laws.

Remember Bill Clinton? How many laws can white Democrats want specifically focusing on imprisoning poor black people and give them criminal records? Upper income WHITE people can afford pure cocaine. Poor black people can only afford crack. So pass massive criminal laws on crack and not cocaine. That is Vegas Giant - legalize prostitution high income white men like him can afford and so criminalize prostitution by and for poor black people that they go to prison.

Welcome again to the perpetually racist Democratic Party!

SDET? Nothing even hints his motivations and comments have anything to do with race - unlike Vegas and the others - has no problem with poor and cheap non-white Caucasian hookers. Nor do I.

Rich white men about rich white prostitutes - versus a non white man who was poor about poor low income hookers. That is the debate. The difference is they want total control of the poor low income black hookers in ways that make all of them criminals - and I don't want any hookers to be made criminals, even their rich white hookers.

^ That is the real debate.

This post is one lie after another.


Here is the bottom line. You hate women and have hangups about sex so you are afraid to let women decide for themselves if prostitution should be legal or not. You could care less if they get beaten everyday by a pimp.


Now.....how do you like me representing your argument for you?


Legalize it, regulate it and let women choose for themselves.



But then I am.pro womans rights

 

[joko104]

Democratic logic: "I want to pass lots more controlling-you laws and rules that criminalize what you are doing to protect you from yourself and that don't apply to me."

Not like there aren't a million messages on this forum like that.

 

[joko104]

This post is one lie after another.

Here is the bottom line. You hate women and have hangups about sex so you are afraid to let women decide for themselves if prostitution should be legal or not. You could care less if they get beaten everyday by a pimp.

Now.....how do you like me representing your argument for you?

Legalize it, regulate it and let women choose for themselves.

But then I am.pro womans rights

^ Real low brain stuff. Not one word of what you have written on this topic allows prostitutes to decide for themselves - are will you now answer my asking if you would allow your regulations to be optional to prostitutes - for the prostitute to decide whether to be a licensed or non-licensed prostitute?

Generally, your messages like above is when you don't want to even tell you what your position really is.

Again your message reek of sexism as you incessantly declare all prostitutes are female. Or is that because you only want these rules against female prostitutes and not male prostitutes?

Constantly declaring prostitution is a "women's rights issue" is as misogynistic as it gets and tells of your view of the difference between men and women: To your mind in your messages women are prostitutes, men aren't. I will keep pointing that out. I guess misogynistic fits well with racism and economic bigotry.

 

[joko104]

Let me try to education you, Vegas:

[h=1]Male prostitution is Nevada’s newest legal profession[/h]

 

[joko104]

Legalize it, regulate it and let women choose for themselves.

:thinking GREAT slogan. Let me use it to see if you agree with it.

Every adult in the USA on election day should be allowed to vote, even if in prison or a non-citizen as everyone in the USA is affected by our government. Legalize voting. Instead, regulate it:

1. The person has to have a voting license to be renewed once a year.

2. The person has to pass a knowledge test on the US Constitution, the basic government structure for the level of government they are voting on, and on the basic tasks of each office they are voting about for local, county, state and federal elections with a grade of at least 70% correct answers on 5 choice multiple choice questions - no more than 500 nor less than 250 questions. If failing, they can retake the test once a month.

4. The person has to take the same test, different questions, before voting in each election. The tests can be in their language and provisions for alternative ways to have people with disabilities take the tests including illiteracy.

3. To pay for this protection of people's rights, the license and renewal fee is $25 and the testing fee is $150 each time it is taken.

Voting... legalize it, regulate it, and let people decide for themselves.

:lol: at your slogan.

 

[vegas giants]

:thinking GREAT slogan. Let me use it to see if you agree with it.

Every adult in the USA on election day should be allowed to vote, even if in prison or a non-citizen as everyone in the USA is affected by our government. Legalize voting. Instead, regulate it:

1. The person has to have a voting license to be renewed once a year.

2. The person has to pass a knowledge test on the US Constitution, the basic government structure for the level of government they are voting on, and on the basic tasks of each office they are voting about for local, county, state and federal elections with a grade of at least 70% correct answers on 5 choice multiple choice questions - no more than 500 nor less than 250 questions. If failing, they can retake the test once a month.

4. The person has to take the same test, different questions, before voting in each election. The tests can be in their language and provisions for alternative ways to have people with disabilities take the tests including illiteracy.

3. To pay for this protection of people's rights, the license and renewal fee is $25 and the testing fee is $150 each time it is taken.

Voting... legalize it, regulate it, and let people decide for themselves.

:lol: at your slogan.

Voting is already legalized and regulated. We can debate about which regulations we should have but the fact is it is legal and regulated.


The same should be true for prostitutes. Ask them.....they will tell us the best way to regulate the industry

 

[vegas giants]

:thinking GREAT slogan. Let me use it to see if you agree with it.

Every adult in the USA on election day should be allowed to vote, even if in prison or a non-citizen as everyone in the USA is affected by our government. Legalize voting. Instead, regulate it:

1. The person has to have a voting license to be renewed once a year.

2. The person has to pass a knowledge test on the US Constitution, the basic government structure for the level of government they are voting on, and on the basic tasks of each office they are voting about for local, county, state and federal elections with a grade of at least 70% correct answers on 5 choice multiple choice questions - no more than 500 nor less than 250 questions. If failing, they can retake the test once a month.

4. The person has to take the same test, different questions, before voting in each election. The tests can be in their language and provisions for alternative ways to have people with disabilities take the tests including illiteracy.

3. To pay for this protection of people's rights, the license and renewal fee is $25 and the testing fee is $150 each time it is taken.

Voting... legalize it, regulate it, and let people decide for themselves.

:lol: at your slogan.

Voting is already legalized and regulated. We can debate about which regulations we should have but the fact is it is legal and regulated.


The same should be true for prostitutes. Ask them.....they will tell us the best way to regulate the industry