I have no interest in the "reality check" which is nothing but comments from yourself and your own self-serving links. You are unhealthily obsessed with this and the reenforcement of an argument which at it's basis is contrary to the principals of liberty and management of oneself. Nobody is listening just getting a bit irritated.
Running a legal brothel where it's illegal...sorta
- Thread starter DRBUZZ0
- Start date
-
- Tags
- prostitution
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Oh, dear, more principals! And this time of ”liberty and management of oneself”! Hilarious!
Nobody is listening, you say? Nobody at all??! It’s funny how you are able to make yourself the spokesperson for the rest of the world! I don’t doubt that you are not interested in links to information about prostitution, however. I didn’t expect you to be.Your puerile imagination seems to be all you need to fabricate your fantasies of ideal brothels – legal or illegal - as a wonderful business opportunity,
Your affinity with woowoos could not be more obvious.
Apropos of liberty, let me at least offer you this:
Nobody is listening, you say? Nobody at all??! It’s funny how you are able to make yourself the spokesperson for the rest of the world! I don’t doubt that you are not interested in links to information about prostitution, however. I didn’t expect you to be.Your puerile imagination seems to be all you need to fabricate your fantasies of ideal brothels – legal or illegal - as a wonderful business opportunity,
which you probably think is a very healthy preoccupation, so why worry about a reality check? It would only serve to ruin your fantasy, and all you need to feed it is your anecdotal evidence from former strippers …
Your affinity with woowoos could not be more obvious.
Apropos of liberty, let me at least offer you this:
Oh I stopped listening to you a long time ago. The only reason I continue to respond is that it's so hard to resist an opportunity to make a fool out of someone with such ridiculous arguments and who makes themselves look like such a... (I better stop right there).
In any case, I'm not going to read your stupid little commie nonsense. Yeah, people take jobs for the money which they otherwise wouldn't do. I remember having a conversation with captain obvious about this.
The quote in your signature is very telling. Anyone who suggests that "Abolishing" religion and thereby forcing "happiness" on everyone and sees Karl Marx as a great speaker of truth and valid theory for how to do things is not someone I'd care to even bother with.
Why don't you go back to Russia and see if you can get them to try that idea again. I think Putin's been working on it for some time. Unfortunately China seems to be putting that by the side. Uh??? Cuba maybe? Yeah. Excellent. You know there are so many damn americans who get into rickety boats and flea to a life in Cuba where they won't be exploited by society.
Seriously go read some books or something. Not philopsophy books, though. History books. Those actually deal with reality.
In any case, I'm not going to read your stupid little commie nonsense. Yeah, people take jobs for the money which they otherwise wouldn't do. I remember having a conversation with captain obvious about this.
The quote in your signature is very telling. Anyone who suggests that "Abolishing" religion and thereby forcing "happiness" on everyone and sees Karl Marx as a great speaker of truth and valid theory for how to do things is not someone I'd care to even bother with.
Why don't you go back to Russia and see if you can get them to try that idea again. I think Putin's been working on it for some time. Unfortunately China seems to be putting that by the side. Uh??? Cuba maybe? Yeah. Excellent. You know there are so many damn americans who get into rickety boats and flea to a life in Cuba where they won't be exploited by society.
Seriously go read some books or something. Not philopsophy books, though. History books. Those actually deal with reality.
Ah yes, the last resort of the utterly clueless: ad homs and not a single argument! Maybe you should start reading a couple of books or maybe just newspapers. It might help ruin your ignorance and improve your spelling …
Putin, for instance, is not a commie any more. (I don’t know if he ever was.) He is one of your guys. The US government does not like him but for other reasons than you appear to think. But every post from you so far has demonstrated that you are not too fond of books or articles that ”actually deal with reality”.
That you are not particularly fond of Cuba either would not come as a big surprise to anybody, I think. After all, this poor country managed to eliminate prostitution for three decades, but the unfortunate return of poverty in the 1990s also gave rise to prostitution again:
And I do not think that these quotations come from pro-Castro sites!
When you say that ”there are so many damn americans who get into rickety boats and flea to a life in Cuba”, I have to admit that I am not really sure if you are talking about these poor guys ….
Merry Christmas!
Putin, for instance, is not a commie any more. (I don’t know if he ever was.) He is one of your guys. The US government does not like him but for other reasons than you appear to think. But every post from you so far has demonstrated that you are not too fond of books or articles that ”actually deal with reality”.
That you are not particularly fond of Cuba either would not come as a big surprise to anybody, I think. After all, this poor country managed to eliminate prostitution for three decades, but the unfortunate return of poverty in the 1990s also gave rise to prostitution again:
And I do not think that these quotations come from pro-Castro sites!
When you say that ”there are so many damn americans who get into rickety boats and flea to a life in Cuba”, I have to admit that I am not really sure if you are talking about these poor guys ….
Merry Christmas!
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Can I declare this thread dead? I mean Dann has made a good case for prostitution to be legal in his last post. I doubt that DrBuzzo will argue it should be otherwise. Chillzero is here to make sure we keep to the rules. The lurkers can read and come to their own conclusions.
I declare this thread well and truly dead.
I declare this thread well and truly dead.
Last edited:
I guess that rjh01 is probably right about one thing. For the guys in this thread who consider brothels to be a wonderful business opportunity (and DrBuzzo is certainly one of those even though, for some reason, he objects to the term prostitution fan. Go figure), the fact that poverty is what forces poor people to become prostitutes:
“single mothers or young women out to make money to buy basic necessities such as cooking oil and soap. Adriana, a 20-year-old jinetera remarks, “there are many jineteras that do this to survive, out of necessity, to maintain their families, or because they have children and the father cannot/does not support them. He may have left to the U.S. and left her alone”. (…) The solution to this problem is not a legal one, but an economic one. If these women were provided with adequate support from the government, good salaries, decent rations prostitution would not be necessary. Absent an economic improvement, it will remain a way for Cuban women to utilize their exotic sexuality to survive.”
is neither an argument against poverty nor against prostitution. Instead they see it exclusively as
This is then what constitutes the much celebrated
The rich are free to decide whose sexual favours to buy. The poor have the liberty to exert their freedom to starve.
Yes, of course. Eliminating the circumstances which force people to undertake ‘services’ so vile that they have to take drugs in order to numb their senses to the acts, would amount to force in the egalitarian view of things, whereas actually undertaking these acts becomes an expression of the celebrated free will. And of course this also goes for the opium of the people, religion. A ‘skeptic’ does not want to consider eliminating the circumstances, which force upon people the choice between drugs and religion. This kind of abolishing religion by eliminating the force of poverty and destitution is not seen as something which liberates people who no longer have to manipulate their own view of the world by inventing superstitious delusions in order to be able to endure it.
Thus everything is turned upside-down in this ideology: Submission to the forces of capitalist poverty is celebrated as the ultimate freedom and any criticism of this condition is consequently considered to be outright tyranny, taking away people’s freedom of choice to become (for instance) prostitutes, addicts or a homeless (very realistic ‘career moves’ for a lot of people in any market economy).
And people who feel like discussing DRBUZZO’s suggestions of how to turn people’s people into money machines are the people with whom he cares to bother, since he is one of them himself:
This quotation already put it very nicely:
... and a happy New Year!
“single mothers or young women out to make money to buy basic necessities such as cooking oil and soap. Adriana, a 20-year-old jinetera remarks, “there are many jineteras that do this to survive, out of necessity, to maintain their families, or because they have children and the father cannot/does not support them. He may have left to the U.S. and left her alone”. (…) The solution to this problem is not a legal one, but an economic one. If these women were provided with adequate support from the government, good salaries, decent rations prostitution would not be necessary. Absent an economic improvement, it will remain a way for Cuban women to utilize their exotic sexuality to survive.”
is neither an argument against poverty nor against prostitution. Instead they see it exclusively as
and as
What the economic circumstances force people to do from this perspective turns out to be nothing but an exertion of their constitutional rights:
And this principle, of course, is the reason why poverty is such a splendid opportunity for people with money: Poor people are not only willing to do things that they find disgusting, they are forced to do so, not by a feudal despot, but by the wonderful compulsion of their financial circumstances. This is the logic of free will and free enterprise for poor people: They have the same constitutional rights as the people with money to exert their will to choose, but in their case the free choice is not one of deciding between investing in bordellos or stocks and bonds. They have to choose between all the glorious offers from people with private property who are thus able to pick and choose: If they want (poor) people to work for them in their factories, fields or sweat shops, they have the money to pay them and thus command over (sometimes) all their waking hours. And if they want (poor) people for sex they have the freedom to pay them to overcome their dislike and aversion to do so.
This is then what constitutes the much celebrated
i.e. the choices of the poor – if they have even those. If they are too weak or too old, working in a sweat shop may be out of the question, and if they are sexually unattractive, selling their sexual favours also is not an option.
The rich are free to decide whose sexual favours to buy. The poor have the liberty to exert their freedom to starve.
Yes, of course. Eliminating the circumstances which force people to undertake ‘services’ so vile that they have to take drugs in order to numb their senses to the acts, would amount to force in the egalitarian view of things, whereas actually undertaking these acts becomes an expression of the celebrated free will. And of course this also goes for the opium of the people, religion. A ‘skeptic’ does not want to consider eliminating the circumstances, which force upon people the choice between drugs and religion. This kind of abolishing religion by eliminating the force of poverty and destitution is not seen as something which liberates people who no longer have to manipulate their own view of the world by inventing superstitious delusions in order to be able to endure it.
Thus everything is turned upside-down in this ideology: Submission to the forces of capitalist poverty is celebrated as the ultimate freedom and any criticism of this condition is consequently considered to be outright tyranny, taking away people’s freedom of choice to become (for instance) prostitutes, addicts or a homeless (very realistic ‘career moves’ for a lot of people in any market economy).
And people who feel like discussing DRBUZZO’s suggestions of how to turn people’s people into money machines are the people with whom he cares to bother, since he is one of them himself:
As DRBUZZO et al see it, the only problem is that, so far, in many places it is still illegal, and that infringes upon their liberty to exploit the poor!
This quotation already put it very nicely:
... and a happy New Year!
JFrankA
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,054
*jumps into the frey, with both feet, just reading parts of this thread*
I am JFrankA and a prostitution fan.
My humble opinion: will legalizing prostitution solve all of it's problems? Of course not. However, it will help make some situtations better.
And I have to say not everyone goes into prostitution because of poverty. I know some escorts, who are prostitutes technically, who go into it because they actually enjoy it. They wouldn't do anything else.
About Dann's quote above, (and please, Dann, take no offense), what prostitutes where they surveying? Just streetwalkers or brothel workers or escorts or all of them? Also, I know I've been working in customer service for a number of years (my day job), and if I am "given the possibility of earning the same or better in acceptable working conditions and in which" I do not need to talk to customers anymore, I'd say yes.... Sorry, that's a very leading question.
And if I may add, not all protitutes are female. I know a couple of male prostitutes who work exclusively with male clients, and some who work exclusively with female clients (Yes, women use prostitutes too!!! I know a few who have!) and some for both.
...just wanted to make that clear.
'sides, if you want to get technical, the commercial "Every kiss begins with Kay" screams prostitution to me. I mean, they are basically saying that my girlfriend won't even give me a kiss unless I give her expensive jewerly?
I am JFrankA and a prostitution fan.
My humble opinion: will legalizing prostitution solve all of it's problems? Of course not. However, it will help make some situtations better.
And I have to say not everyone goes into prostitution because of poverty. I know some escorts, who are prostitutes technically, who go into it because they actually enjoy it. They wouldn't do anything else.
About Dann's quote above, (and please, Dann, take no offense), what prostitutes where they surveying? Just streetwalkers or brothel workers or escorts or all of them? Also, I know I've been working in customer service for a number of years (my day job), and if I am "given the possibility of earning the same or better in acceptable working conditions and in which" I do not need to talk to customers anymore, I'd say yes.... Sorry, that's a very leading question.
And if I may add, not all protitutes are female. I know a couple of male prostitutes who work exclusively with male clients, and some who work exclusively with female clients (Yes, women use prostitutes too!!! I know a few who have!) and some for both.
...just wanted to make that clear.
'sides, if you want to get technical, the commercial "Every kiss begins with Kay" screams prostitution to me. I mean, they are basically saying that my girlfriend won't even give me a kiss unless I give her expensive jewerly?
No, not everyone.*jumps into the frey, with both feet, just reading parts of this thread*
I am JFrankA and a prostitution fan.
My humble opinion: will legalizing prostitution solve all of it's problems? Of course not. However, it will help make some situtations better.
And I have to say not everyone goes into prostitution because of poverty.
This is a tricky quesion: Can you believe anybody who claims that he or she wouldn't do anything else? I don't think so. I've even met school teachers who claim that they wouldn't do anything else, and you probably have colleagues like that too.
I tend to have more faith in the lotto commercials on TV where people win (so much for reality) and immediately tell the boss to go ***** himself.
Which one?
I don't usually.
Sometimes I feel the same way about teaching high-school students, but even when I was young enough I never felt tempted to change to prostitution.
And if I may add, not all protitutes are female. I know a couple of male prostitutes who work exclusively with male clients, and some who work exclusively with female clients (Yes, women use prostitutes too!!! I know a few who have!) and some for both.
...just wanted to make that clear.
I don't doubt it, but the male prostitutes with female clients are probably so rare that they are more frequent in men's fantasies than in reality.
I don't know that one, but my answer is the same: Poverty stinks! When it forces people to become prostitutes or to get engaged or married (whatever).'sides, if you want to get technical, the commercial "Every kiss begins with Kay" screams prostitution to me. I mean, they are basically saying that my girlfriend won't even give me a kiss unless I give her expensive jewelry?
Poverty? You realize that there are plenty of upper middle class and rather comfortable women who would want (or expect) a big diamond ring and would be willing to do things in exchange for it such as kissing or more.
Jesus, it's not like everyone who does something for money is starving and dirt poor!
Jesus, it's not like everyone who does something for money is starving and dirt poor!
JFrankA
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,054
But you've proven my point. Many people in their jobs would be happy to leave it they were given the "possibility of earning the same or better in acceptable working conditions and in which" they aren't doing ...whatever. All I was saying there is the quote you gave:
doesn't mean a thing because I'm sure you'd get high figures with ANY occupation.
I do agree with you when you say that
but all I am saying is that there are plenty of examples when people get in the profession because they want to, and there are plenty of examples when people do things they don't like to do that is not prostitution because they need the money.
That's all.
Last edited:
No, I haven't proven your point, but you have drawn a conclusion from the quotation I gave you that you cannot really draw. You seem to be thinking that the prostitutes in San Fransisco were asked the question: 'If it would be possible for you to earn the same or better in acceptable working conditions, would you then still be turning tricks?'
Unfortunately I don't know the exact question being asked in the survey, but I can offer you a little more of the context of the quotation. Feel free to look up the rest of the article.
You are aware, I hope, that "plenty" is not a very exact specification. The percentage mentioned in one surveyI do agree with you when you say that
but all I am saying is that there are plenty of examples when people get in the profession because they want to, and there are plenty of examples when people do things they don't like to do that is not prostitution because they need the money.
That's all.
could be considered to be plenty even though it would still be a very small minority.
I also hope that you are aware that the expression "because they want to" would include even the women (or men) who make the 'choice' in order to be able "to feed her family and children", i.e. because poverty forces this choice upon them.
JFrankA
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,054
Okay, I have to read that post when I'm not at work or on break, because there's a lot there, but I do have a knee-jerk reaction, if I may. Your statement, (which seems to me to be a conclusion or summary to me, (and if I'm wrong please forgive me, I promise to read that when it's possible), in which you say:
...could apply to ANY profession. I work as a customer service rep. I do it out of poverty because I want to keep paying my child support payments. I get yelled at for no reason, correct problems without any thank you from my customers, I get blamed for company problems, I become an ear to people who want to tell me everything in their lives, all trying to keep a quota of number of calls taken.
Is it something I enjoy? No. I hate it. Given a choice, I'd do something else in a heartbeat ...IF THE PAY IS EQUAL OR MORE....
....so I am in this job because of poverty. I have to pay bill, child support, etc, so I do something I hate.
I'm sorry. I don't get the difference of doing any job you hate out of poverty (which is what plenty of people do), and doing prostitution out of poverty.
Poverty sucks. I agree. A lot of people are doing things they'd rather not do to keep it at bay. But doing things to keep it at bay includes LOTS of things other than prostitution.
Sorry, I don't get it. And if the difference is written in that post, I promise to read it
edited to add:
Okay I read it. It seems like a lot of confusing rhetoric to me. Sorry. To me, it doesn't prove a thing. It's trying to convince me that there's no free will when it comes to prostitution and if you are going to argue that, then I can argue right back that there is no free will in any job you take.
Everyone takes a job because of poverty. In that case, prostitution is no different than cooking at McDonalds.
And BTW, I consider cooking VERY intimate. Think of it: we all trust a stranger who we never met or even saw, to create something that we PUT INTO OUR BODIES and hope we don't get food poisoning from it. We trust people we don't know to deliever it, and the government to enforce the regulations on the food. (And I'm Italian, so you know how intimate we are about food! ).
So I still say:
I thought that was the question because that is what you quoted. Now you tell me you don't know what the exact question was. I say that the survey is moot because we don't know the question. As to the rest of it, I see opinions and rhetoric not facts. Sorry.
I will agree with you on this: Yeah, you're right. Poverty sucks. That's why everyone at one point or another does a job they'd rather not do ranging from prostitution to CEO of a fortune 500 company. So?
...could apply to ANY profession. I work as a customer service rep. I do it out of poverty because I want to keep paying my child support payments. I get yelled at for no reason, correct problems without any thank you from my customers, I get blamed for company problems, I become an ear to people who want to tell me everything in their lives, all trying to keep a quota of number of calls taken.
Is it something I enjoy? No. I hate it. Given a choice, I'd do something else in a heartbeat ...IF THE PAY IS EQUAL OR MORE....
....so I am in this job because of poverty. I have to pay bill, child support, etc, so I do something I hate.
I'm sorry. I don't get the difference of doing any job you hate out of poverty (which is what plenty of people do), and doing prostitution out of poverty.
Poverty sucks. I agree. A lot of people are doing things they'd rather not do to keep it at bay. But doing things to keep it at bay includes LOTS of things other than prostitution.
Sorry, I don't get it. And if the difference is written in that post, I promise to read it
edited to add:
Okay I read it. It seems like a lot of confusing rhetoric to me. Sorry. To me, it doesn't prove a thing. It's trying to convince me that there's no free will when it comes to prostitution and if you are going to argue that, then I can argue right back that there is no free will in any job you take.
Everyone takes a job because of poverty. In that case, prostitution is no different than cooking at McDonalds.
And BTW, I consider cooking VERY intimate. Think of it: we all trust a stranger who we never met or even saw, to create something that we PUT INTO OUR BODIES and hope we don't get food poisoning from it. We trust people we don't know to deliever it, and the government to enforce the regulations on the food. (And I'm Italian, so you know how intimate we are about food!
). So I still say:
I thought that was the question because that is what you quoted. Now you tell me you don't know what the exact question was. I say that the survey is moot because we don't know the question. As to the rest of it, I see opinions and rhetoric not facts. Sorry.
I will agree with you on this: Yeah, you're right. Poverty sucks. That's why everyone at one point or another does a job they'd rather not do ranging from prostitution to CEO of a fortune 500 company. So?
Last edited:
I don't think that you should look in the link for a description or an explanation of ”the difference of doing any job you hate out of poverty (which is what plenty of people do), and doing prostitution out of poverty”.
However, I like the way you describe your job and your reasons for doing it! It is not all that different from my own situation. I am dealing with students instead of customers, I correct and grade papers instead of taking calls, but like you I don't pretend to do it because my life would be meaningless without this activity. It gives me a pay check, and without the pay check, which I need, I'd be doing something else. I don’t work to kill time, which is what many people – at least in my country – claim is the major reason for working, as if the pay check were just an extra benefit.
So, yes, you and I both "do it out of poverty". I don't have to pay child support, but I suppose that you would also have to work even if you didn't have that expense on top of the others that an ordinary life demands. You have bills to pay, rent, have to put food on the table etc.
Unlike you, however, I don’t hate my job, but I do hate certain aspects of it, not least grading and (consequently) flunking students!
Still, like I said, even so I have never considered prostitution an option because I would hate to have sex with somebody I do not find attractive. And I think that most people would feel the same way
And even if you hate your job, it’s probably not so unsavoury that you have to do drugs in order to endure it.
And even though I don’t know the exact wording of the questions answered by the prostitutes in San Fransisco, but I seriously doubt that they were asked if they would rather be stinking rich, live in luxury and never have to work another day in their lives than turn tricks! Questions in surveys like tend to be fairly realistic.
In other words, and I mentioned this already: When you are poor, i.e. when you don’t have the independent means to support yourself, you are forced to find some other way of buying the necessities of life. This means that you depend on the people with money, to whom you sell your services, and to that extent you can compare yourself with a prostitute – or a pauper. The difference is that the latter (usually) don’t even have the options that you do: the skills required for your services to be useful to the moneyed interest – and in this society these skills depend on the competition from suppliers like yourself. If you are slower or don’t do the job as well as somebody else, you may be out of a job even though you are not by definition without working skills. In capitalism you are. If you cannot sell the skills you have, they are worth nothing.
Another study says:
(And, no, I never worked in that line of business either, but I was a teacher at the Hotel and Restaurant School of Copenhagen for seven years, teaching foreign languages and health and safety regulations for waiters, so I know that it’s not a particularly pleasant occupation either. Back then (18 years ago) the excess mortality rate for waiters from cirrhosis of the liver was 450 percent! And apropos of prostitution: The students’ entrance was in Skelbækgade, a well-known place to pick up streetwalkers in Copenhagen back then (probably still is), which was sometimes a problem when our students were waiting to be picked up by in the afternoon and were propositioned by cruising johns instead. Once I left half an hour after closing time and saw a girl leaning on my motorcycle. It was raining, and I asked her why she didn’t wait for her relatives inside since she could watch the street from the window. She told me that she would rather not, and even so I was so stupid that it took me a while to figure out that she was not a student and that it was important for her that people driving by could see her …).
So? Your willingness to abstract from this difference indicates that you don’t want to recognize it at all. Did you notice, by the way, that – as imperfect as they may be – so far I’m the only one to come up with anything other than anecdotal evidence in this debate? And not for the first time either …
Prostitution Reality Check
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2496288#post2496288
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2497034#post2497034
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2498549#post2498549
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2498551#post2498551
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2498821#post2498821
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2499382#post2499382
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2499417#post2499417
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2499546#post2499546
However, I like the way you describe your job and your reasons for doing it! It is not all that different from my own situation. I am dealing with students instead of customers, I correct and grade papers instead of taking calls, but like you I don't pretend to do it because my life would be meaningless without this activity. It gives me a pay check, and without the pay check, which I need, I'd be doing something else. I don’t work to kill time, which is what many people – at least in my country – claim is the major reason for working, as if the pay check were just an extra benefit.
So, yes, you and I both "do it out of poverty". I don't have to pay child support, but I suppose that you would also have to work even if you didn't have that expense on top of the others that an ordinary life demands. You have bills to pay, rent, have to put food on the table etc.
Unlike you, however, I don’t hate my job, but I do hate certain aspects of it, not least grading and (consequently) flunking students!
Still, like I said, even so I have never considered prostitution an option because I would hate to have sex with somebody I do not find attractive. And I think that most people would feel the same way
And even if you hate your job, it’s probably not so unsavoury that you have to do drugs in order to endure it.
And even though I don’t know the exact wording of the questions answered by the prostitutes in San Fransisco, but I seriously doubt that they were asked if they would rather be stinking rich, live in luxury and never have to work another day in their lives than turn tricks! Questions in surveys like tend to be fairly realistic.
In other words, and I mentioned this already: When you are poor, i.e. when you don’t have the independent means to support yourself, you are forced to find some other way of buying the necessities of life. This means that you depend on the people with money, to whom you sell your services, and to that extent you can compare yourself with a prostitute – or a pauper. The difference is that the latter (usually) don’t even have the options that you do: the skills required for your services to be useful to the moneyed interest – and in this society these skills depend on the competition from suppliers like yourself. If you are slower or don’t do the job as well as somebody else, you may be out of a job even though you are not by definition without working skills. In capitalism you are. If you cannot sell the skills you have, they are worth nothing.
No, I’m not going to argue that, and, no, that is not what the article says. It never claims that there is no free will, it is not a treatise on philosophy. Instead it describes the very limited alternatives that this free will has to choose between:
Another study says:
And a UN report has this to offer:
This might in accordance with your idea that:
But it does not justify your conclusion that:
You know that it is very different. It may be the same needs for money that makes you flip burgers or turn tricks, but that does not mean that the two jobs are indistinguishable, no matter how hard you try to abstract from the differences:
Yes, I know, but do you notice something very important in this description of the ‘intimate’ of cooking? You describe it from the point of view of the consumer, not from the point of view of the workingwoman or -man! The johns are not usually the ones who feel inclined to take drugs in order to be able to provide the kind of ‘service’ they sell. And even though burger flipping or other MacJobs may not be very pleasant, I don’t think that cooks tend to do drugs in order to endure their jobs.
(And, no, I never worked in that line of business either, but I was a teacher at the Hotel and Restaurant School of Copenhagen for seven years, teaching foreign languages and health and safety regulations for waiters, so I know that it’s not a particularly pleasant occupation either. Back then (18 years ago) the excess mortality rate for waiters from cirrhosis of the liver was 450 percent! And apropos of prostitution: The students’ entrance was in Skelbækgade, a well-known place to pick up streetwalkers in Copenhagen back then (probably still is), which was sometimes a problem when our students were waiting to be picked up by in the afternoon and were propositioned by cruising johns instead. Once I left half an hour after closing time and saw a girl leaning on my motorcycle. It was raining, and I asked her why she didn’t wait for her relatives inside since she could watch the street from the window. She told me that she would rather not, and even so I was so stupid that it took me a while to figure out that she was not a student and that it was important for her that people driving by could see her …).
No need to be sorry. I provided you with the quotation. You had the opportunity to read it. You cannot really blame me that you made the wrong conclusion based on a wrong assumption. Unfortunately studies aren’t always published along with the questionnaires that they are based on. And, like you, I wish that they were. I, too, would have liked to see the exact questions, but in this case I cannot help you. I haven’t got them.
So? That’s it. Not everyone, but definitely most people at one point or another do jobs they’d rather not do. Very few have the option of working as “CEO of a fortune 500 company”, however, and the people who don’t have any other options at all sometimes have to resort to prostitution. A lot of people have to do MacJobs for the rest of their lives, and some cannot even hope to get that. That is the truth about the relationship between work and wealth in the market economy.
So? Your willingness to abstract from this difference indicates that you don’t want to recognize it at all. Did you notice, by the way, that – as imperfect as they may be – so far I’m the only one to come up with anything other than anecdotal evidence in this debate? And not for the first time either …
Prostitution Reality Check
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2496288#post2496288
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2497034#post2497034
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2498549#post2498549
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2498551#post2498551
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2498821#post2498821
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2499382#post2499382
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2499417#post2499417
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=2499546#post2499546
No, I'd just like to live in such a world as opposed to the walled-off workers utopia where everyone stands in bread lines equally that the dirty little commies still like to spout about...
And how many damn times do we have to get a "Prostitution reality check"? Here's a little reality check for you:
(psst... they're not fleaing the market economy)
"anything besides anicdotal evidence" HA! No no, I'm not here to claim that there aren't some people who end up with crappy mc-jobs. I'll admit to that. But I'd rather live in a world where people end up with mc-jobs than in the world you offer as the solution, where people are instead worked to death in Syberian Coal mines.
Stop with your stupid reality checks, it's getting annoying. Here's something you should consider: Marx was wrong. But not as wrong as you are, because at least he didn't have the benifit of having seen his system fall apart every damn time it was tried on numerous occasions.
Not go take your reality checks back to the USSR.
And how many damn times do we have to get a "Prostitution reality check"? Here's a little reality check for you:
(psst... they're not fleaing the market economy)
"anything besides anicdotal evidence" HA! No no, I'm not here to claim that there aren't some people who end up with crappy mc-jobs. I'll admit to that. But I'd rather live in a world where people end up with mc-jobs than in the world you offer as the solution, where people are instead worked to death in Syberian Coal mines.
Stop with your stupid reality checks, it's getting annoying. Here's something you should consider: Marx was wrong. But not as wrong as you are, because at least he didn't have the benifit of having seen his system fall apart every damn time it was tried on numerous occasions.
Not go take your reality checks back to the USSR.
Last edited:
Which is what I am supposed to have been in favour of all along, right, DRSTRAWMAN???
No, of course not! They are on their way to the local brothel! And did you notice the woman who is being helped by five or six other guys? She is on her way to apply for a position in the same brothel. If you have a photo of her from the front, you'll notice that she is wearing a button saying, "I want to be a hooker, and my damn autocratic, liberty-bashing state won't let me!"
[qimg]http://www.depletedcranium.com/content_berlin_wall.jpg[/qimg]
Ah, yes, and the notorious We are gay and proud photo, which led to the downfall of Khruschev:
[qimg]http://www.depletedcranium.com/castro-khrushchev-2.jpg[/qimg]
Russia and Cuba just were not ready for gay liberation back them. Too much, too soon …
Is this supposed to be a quotation???
That’s very noble of you! I wasn’t even trying to prove the fact!
And where exactly did I offer that solution? Never mind …
Yes, I can easily imagine that you would rather stay in dreamland.
His??? System??? He wrote a book about a system, Das Kapital, but that cannot be the one that you are talking about since it appears to be doing rather well even though it goes through regular crises of a cyclical nature, but they tend to harm its poor inhabitants more than the system so it never falls apart on its own. I’ve read it a couple of times, in Danish, English and German, and it does not contain anything that is even remotely similar to something that has been “tried on numerous occasions”.
You should read it!!! I’ll add it to my list of required reading for your reality checks!
Well, you can take yours back to the brothel! You know, the place with all the lights and the security guards that you recommended in your opening post, right?
Is it really such a bad thing to cut out the middle man? To leave the entrepreneurial, go-getter spirit to the (wo)man in the street? I thought that was the whole idea of free enterprise?
Well, no, I guess the point of your ideal economy is simply to let the people with money take advantage of the poverty of the people who are left to fend for themselves with no other income.
By the way, isn’t there a word for people like that? Maybe you should pimp your argumentation before you try again …
JFrankA
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,054
Meaning no disrespect, and I've not the chance to completely read through all the stuff you posted, but no matter what facts you throw at me, I can counter with a universal fact:
Not everyone sees everything the same way.
It just seems to me that your position is absolute: if there wasn't poverty, there wouldn't be prostitution.
And there are three simple counters to that position:
1. Not everyone thinks the same way: therefore, not everyone who is a prostitute is in it to avoid poverty.
2. There are far worse things to do to avoid poverty: (coal mining, anyone?) And yes, that's a subjective viewpoint because you obvious believe that there's nothing worse than being a prostitute. I tend to disagree. Hence, my above statement of "Not everyone sees everything the same way" is fact.
3. If there were no prostitutes, the world would be incredibly boring! (Sorry, I couldn't resist...)
Now, out of curiosity, I'd like your final solution and opinion. Out of what I read from your posts, (and I apologize for not reading them all), you don't seem to have an opinion on it other than "poverty is the only cause for prositution". And if I get that wrong, please explain it, but be succinct.
I'll go first:
I feel that prostitution should be legal. Some people do it for money, some people really do enjoy the job. But if it's legal, then the people doing the job would be better protected, have health care, get a decent wage (perhaps help put a dent in poverty).
And yes, s/he would still be working for the "man", but let's face it, ninety percent of the country is.
Not everyone sees everything the same way.
It just seems to me that your position is absolute: if there wasn't poverty, there wouldn't be prostitution.
And there are three simple counters to that position:
1. Not everyone thinks the same way: therefore, not everyone who is a prostitute is in it to avoid poverty.
2. There are far worse things to do to avoid poverty: (coal mining, anyone?) And yes, that's a subjective viewpoint because you obvious believe that there's nothing worse than being a prostitute. I tend to disagree. Hence, my above statement of "Not everyone sees everything the same way" is fact.
3. If there were no prostitutes, the world would be incredibly boring!
(Sorry, I couldn't resist...) Now, out of curiosity, I'd like your final solution and opinion. Out of what I read from your posts, (and I apologize for not reading them all), you don't seem to have an opinion on it other than "poverty is the only cause for prositution". And if I get that wrong, please explain it, but be succinct.
I'll go first:
I feel that prostitution should be legal. Some people do it for money, some people really do enjoy the job. But if it's legal, then the people doing the job would be better protected, have health care, get a decent wage (perhaps help put a dent in poverty).
And yes, s/he would still be working for the "man", but let's face it, ninety percent of the country is.
Last edited:
JFrankA
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2006
- Messages
- 4,054
Well, there's more. I had to debate you on a couple of points. Sorry.
Assumption. Personally, I'd rather have sex with an unattractive person than flip a burger. I think that there are people who feel the same way I do. BTW, on a personal note, have you ever had a job where you had 100 strangers call you and tell you their life stories or yell at you for no reason or just act stupid? (Well, I would guess being a teacher, the answer is "yes, they're called students"), But I'm sorry, that can be just as exposing and degrading as sex with someone you're not attracted to.
Drugs are everywhere. No matter what job you're in. I can go to four people I know of in my non-prostitution, customer service job and buy drugs.
Sorry, that's an assumption. I say that they might've actually asked that question. You have no proof of what they asked. Also, what prostitutes were interviewed? Just streetwalkers? Did they ask escorts? Brothel workers? Hey, "golddiggers" (people who date an old person to get presents from him/her) are prostitutes too. Did they ask them? And why just San Fransisco? There are prostitutes everywhere? Why limit it to that?
Welcome to the world! That's just how it is. If you don't have the skills, you start at the bottom and train and learn. You are too slow? You improve. You work your tail off. That includes prostitution. You think madams are born? No, they grow up from bottom and worked to get to the position they are in. Again, your arguement can be turned to say that this applies to any job.
Did you start as teacher? Or did you have to start as student?
Again, I'm Italian. Apparently, you've never been in a kitchen when your Italian mother and father are cooking.
Aaaaand you've never been in a fast food kitchen with a bunch of teenagers.
Again, drugs are everywhere, no matter the profession. I'll grant you that it's more rampent in prostitution, but I can also say that drugs are rampart with the CEOs and vice CEO's of big companies. Look, drug use exists in all professions no matter where you go. If that wasn't so, why would there companies with drug testing programs?
You know, she could've been telling the truth.... But in that story, you were telling me about the high mortality rate for waiters. Sounds like being a waiter was just as dangerous as being a prostitute....
Assumption. Personally, I'd rather have sex with an unattractive person than flip a burger. I think that there are people who feel the same way I do. BTW, on a personal note, have you ever had a job where you had 100 strangers call you and tell you their life stories or yell at you for no reason or just act stupid? (Well, I would guess being a teacher, the answer is "yes, they're called students"
), But I'm sorry, that can be just as exposing and degrading as sex with someone you're not attracted to.Drugs are everywhere. No matter what job you're in. I can go to four people I know of in my non-prostitution, customer service job and buy drugs.
Sorry, that's an assumption. I say that they might've actually asked that question. You have no proof of what they asked. Also, what prostitutes were interviewed? Just streetwalkers? Did they ask escorts? Brothel workers? Hey, "golddiggers" (people who date an old person to get presents from him/her) are prostitutes too. Did they ask them? And why just San Fransisco? There are prostitutes everywhere? Why limit it to that?
Welcome to the world! That's just how it is. If you don't have the skills, you start at the bottom and train and learn. You are too slow? You improve. You work your tail off. That includes prostitution. You think madams are born?
No, they grow up from bottom and worked to get to the position they are in. Again, your arguement can be turned to say that this applies to any job. Did you start as teacher? Or did you have to start as student?
Again, I'm Italian. Apparently, you've never been in a kitchen when your Italian mother and father are cooking.
Aaaaand you've never been in a fast food kitchen with a bunch of teenagers.
Again, drugs are everywhere, no matter the profession. I'll grant you that it's more rampent in prostitution, but I can also say that drugs are rampart with the CEOs and vice CEO's of big companies. Look, drug use exists in all professions no matter where you go. If that wasn't so, why would there companies with drug testing programs?
You know, she could've been telling the truth.... But in that story, you were telling me about the high mortality rate for waiters. Sounds like being a waiter was just as dangerous as being a prostitute....
No need to be sorry. I provided you with the quotation. You had the opportunity to read it. You cannot really blame me that you made the wrong conclusion based on a wrong assumption. Unfortunately studies aren’t always published along with the questionnaires that they are based on. And, like you, I wish that they were. I, too, would have liked to see the exact questions, but in this case I cannot help you. I haven’t got them.
[\quote]
Sorry, but then I do not trust the survey. I'm no mathemetician (I can't even spell it!
Yes. So? Some people go into prositution because of poverty, but (and this is my point) it's not always the reason. And to further my point, I can say that about any job at all you throw at me. There are people who find that there are things worse doing than having sex with someone.
but the source of your main point, the survey, is incomplete at best. And although admittingly I haven't read all of the posts you list, a lot of it seems to be confusing rhetoric trying to prove an opinion.
And who is sponsering the "prostitution research" website? Who is doing the research? I've looked and looked and, although I've seen a donation button, I don't see who is actually doing the research. I'm sorry if I seem disrespectful, I don't mean to be, but I would like a source.
Last edited:
I also don’t mean any disrespect, but what is the point of facts if they don’t count?
And your first, so-called “universal fact” (!) is nonsense:
It doesn’t even occur to you that this is one of the favourite argument of woowoos when their ideas are refuted by rational arguments and facts!? ‘No matter what you say, you cannot convince that there is no afterlife. I know that there is a God, so no argument or fact can convince me that there isn’t! This is the way I choose to see things.’
No, Frank, the prostitution fans are the ones who try to distort my position by making it into an absolute one. The same thing happened in the other thread about this theme. They insist that the elimination of prostitution would have to mean that not a single woman (or man) would ever consider sleeping with somebody for any other reason than sexual attraction. 1) They widen the concept into absurdity, and 2) they insist that it would have to mean absolutely everybody. (And they tend to forget that nobody has talked about trying to prevent the people who simply desire to have sex with ten or twenty other people a day from doing so. If this is actually their motive, they should go ahead and do so. Free will, remember? But a very different kind of free will than the one proclaimed by DRBUZZO, who enjoys playing the pimp in his idealized (il)legal brothel, which (since it is idealized anyway) probably wouldn’t include the exploitation of women who don’t have any real choice. In your fantasies you are the man!
I’m looking forward to those!
As I already said: If they still want to have sex with 10 people or more a day,
who’s stopping them?
Do you really think that it is necessary to preserve the noble institution of prostitution for this reason?
[/QUOTE]2. There are far worse things to do to avoid poverty: (coal mining, anyone?) And yes, that's a subjective viewpoint because you obvious believe that there's nothing worse than being a prostitute. [/QUOTE]No, Frank, now you have stopped making any kind of sense. ‘Meaning no disrespect’, but when you start inventing these obvious strawmen, it becomes impossible to have a serious discussion with you!
Yes, you disagree with your own strawman! Quelle surprise!
No, you are obviously right! Some people deal with the arguments of their opponents, other people invent arguments and attribute those to their opponents instead.
For you, maybe, not for the prostitutes.
Did you notice your own ”only”?
OK, you apologize for not reading all my posts, but would you please point out the one where I’m taking a stand on the question of legality/illegality of prostitution? I’m against the poverty that force people to sell their sexual favours for money instead of having it with people for fun, love, sexual attraction, to get off, whatever! So I'd prefer to make poverty illegal! As you already know, it isn't, and almost nobody is seriously interested in eliminating it. There are all kinds of measures (against begging and loitering, for instance) to prevent poor people from becoming a nuisance, but poverty is too useful for people in power to want to abolish it. It is what the present market economy is based on and reproduces on a permanent basis.
That explains the number of poor people!
I can see that you have added a new post. I won’t have time to answer that one till tomorrow. There’s a New Year’s Eve to celebrate. Without hookers, in my case.
But ... if you seriously want to know who is sponsoring the prostitution research, why don't you simply ask them?
PS The link to a prostitution report in this post appears to be 'sponsored' by the Australian government.
Yes, starving, for instance, or watching your children starve is probably much worse! Again your argument rests on your own strawman, but I never claimed that nothing is worse "than having sex with someone".
For your information: In most cases "having sex with someone" is actually marvellous, one of nature's most pleasant inventions. In most cases people don't even have to take drugs to overcome their aversion to having it. They enjoy it!!! But then we are talking about sex, not about prostitution, which is an entirely different matter ...