Should prostitution be legal?

[dann]

And that something would be?

That was the point I made in my first post in this thread. Go back and read it.

Sorry no. It's very poor form to simply declare something wrong and end of story. You've got to at least make an argument.

The 'End of story' came from your post!

Demonstrate that prostitutes who ply their trade where it is legal are any more likely to self medicate than any other poor person?

You are the one who made the comparison with jobs like scientist, so why don't you come up with the statistics to prove your point? Because you cannot?

Present the statistic to prove that legalized prostitution is more dangerous?

Than being a policewoman or a scientist? Why don't you? It was your argument, RandFan!

 

[dann]

There is no known way outside of surgery to increase the size of your penis.

I guess you've made extensive studies?!

Living in East Germany won't make for a larger penis. BTW they are YOUR claims so you will have to prove them and a silly magazine article (yes silly) is not proof.

I'm supposed to have claimed that living in East Germany increased the size of your penis? I don't think so! Referring to your own strawmen is a very bad argument, RandFan! I think I quoted an American social researcher who claimed that sex was better in East than in West Germany and that penises were larger (longer? whatever!). I don't even think that she mentioned any cause and effect relationship, but in your world of strawmen I don't wonder that you made one up and as always forgot about it!
I haven't seen her statistics, but if true, I would venture a guess: The lack of oestrogens in the foodstuffs and in the environment in general might influence penis size, but not in fully matured individuals, of course, i.e. communism wouldn't make your penis any bigger, but the lack of oestrogen (or oestrogen-like substances) might be beneficial to the development of the penis in embryoes and boys growing up.
Apparently there was a drastic increase in the incidence of allergies in the East German population after the German reunification, something which might also be due to the exposure to chemicals less prevalent in the former socialist countries.

Most people wanted to get out of the DDR it sucked so bad. And when it was reunified few if any wanted communism so your article is really, really dumb

Which article? And what is dumb about it, RandFan? Apart from your strawmen, I mean ...
Don't you ever try to make sure that you refer to reality and not to your own distorted idea of it?

 

[dann]

I think that this is the "article" that RandFan thinks that he referred to.

 

[slingblade]

For the benefit of Mark and others (= I didn't know where else to place it):




This Saturday a friend of mine sent me a copy of a 40-minute-long German TV show, Sex im geteilten Deutschland, Sex in the divided Germany, by André Meier. This is my translation of my transcription from the intro:

Dagmar Herzog, historian, USA: ”What I experienced when I started working with the theme the sexuality of the Germans in the 1990s is that the former East German women with amiable condescencion and pity told me how much better the women had it in the East.”

Kurt Starke, sexual researcher: “There actually are differences between East and West, e.g. when an East German woman has sexual intercourse with somebody and doesn’t have an orgasm, she does not immediately get angry. Such things happen. The next time it will be more successful.“

Dagmar Herzog: “Sex was simply better and much easier for women in the East. ‘You poor women in the West, we feel sorry for you!’”
Speaker: "Now (after Germany was reunited) was the hour of the sociologists. They compared their studies from the latest decades and measured everything pertaining to German-German sex: the age at which young people start having it, change of partners, the length of penises. Even the rate of orgasms was allegedly twice as high as in the West. Sex in Socialism: earlier, more frequent, better.”

http://www.deckert-distribution.com/films/deckert_216.htm (English)
http://www.daserste.de/doku/beitrag_dyn~uid,kzgdetfhavauezt1~cm.asp (German)
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/,Ple5Lar/kultur/artikel/858/92766/ (German)
http://www.bavaria-film.de/index.php?id=350&news=8979 (German)

Bolding mine.

Dann, this IS your post, right? You made this translation, correct?

How is RandFan referencing himself, as you accuse, if you made the post?

 

[dann]

Neither I nor the German TV programme claims that living in East Germany would "increase the size of your penis". But apparently statistics showed that East German penises tended to be longer than their West German colleagues!
Apparently studies also showed that they had sex more frequently in the East and started at an earlier age.

Please, Slingblade, don't start defending RandFan's acute case of penis envy!

 

[dann]

I have more than a "fairy-tale" to go on, even if it isn't strictly scientific.

What do you have?

The studies that I have linked to in several posts above. I'm not going to repeat them again!

 

[Lonewulf]

Man, this thread has completely degenerated.

 

[RandFan]

I guess you've made extensive studies?!

I've just listened to the experts and I can follow their logic.

From urban legends

Let's logic it out. Enlarging a body part involves directing the body to manufacture new cells, build additional blood vessels and even skin and muscle tissue. If science stumbled across a real herb or chemical that could target one area of the body and force specific new tissue growth, wouldn't they use it for, say, burn victims? To help amputees grow new limbs? To let Christopher Reeves' spine rebuild itself so he can walk again? To help the military build muscle mass in their new line of genetic super soldiers? If such an astounding miracle cure were discovered, do you honestly think that society would let it be crassly peddled for profit as nothing but a boner bonus bringer?

I'm supposed to have claimed that living in East Germany increased the size of your penis?

No, you quoted an article that is obviously silly and stupid. It contains no scientific evidence and only makes silly and ridiculous claims.

 

[RandFan]

Neither I nor the German TV programme claims that living in East Germany would "increase the size of your penis".

Just use a little common sense. Why would the size of penises deviate from the norm in East Germany? There was no significant change to the gene pool. East Germany did not have a large influx of foreigners with larger average penis size. The claim is sill and rediculous on its face.

Now, there is NO SCIENCE FROM YOUR LINK.

Do Communists Have Better Sex ?​

There is no way for us to evaluate the claims. Zero. None. Nada. Zip. Add to that fact that the article/website/link/text (whatever) makes silly and stupid claims and it is safe to ignore it. There are no arguments and no evidence. It's worthless.

But apparently statistics showed that East German penises tended to be longer than their West German colleagues!

No, apparently you posted a review of a documentary (propaganda) that proves nothing and is a colossol waste of everyone's time.

Apparently studies also showed that they had sex more frequently in the East and started at an earlier age.

Apparently leprechauns and fairies are real. Prove that the East Germans had sex more frequently in the East.

 

[RandFan]

You are the one who made the comparison with jobs like scientist, so why don't you come up with the statistics to prove your point?

No, I'm quite sure I compared prostitution to inherently risky jobs when I was discussion the issue of safety. If I compared them to scientists it was likely that the compression was for something else.

You are the one that claimed that prostitution was dangerous. There is no rational basis to suppose that prostitution is more dangerous than other inherently risky jobs.

Assuming so then why not call for an end to the police?

 

[Lonewulf]

I never thought that this would become a literal dick comparison.

 

[slingblade]

Okay, I had hoped to see some studies or reports or something besides what I've got, which is anecdotal, unreliable and insignificant. But since I really haven't seen that yet, here's what I know. Take it for what it's worth, which isn't much, I admit.

According to my friend, the ladies in the Nevada Houses are quite safe from many things. But legalization has brought other problems.

STDs: The ladies are probably safer than the average person. There's the initial Sheriff's Card you have to get, which means a blood test and physical inspection for each lady before she starts work, and monthly blood tests and exams thereafter. Also, condoms are required by law for every kind of sexual contact except the preliminary "**** check" each worker must perform prior to sex. For that, the workers wear a latex glove.

On the other hand, no one requires the customers to be tested....the burden is still on the worker. My opinion is that this is not equitable, and helps maintain the public perception of prostitutes as "dirty."

Most workers will not allow anal sex, and according to my friend, some if not all houses forbid it. Most workers also do not permit kissing, and do not allow anything near their "place of business" that isn't found between the legs and doesn't have a condom on it, such as hands.

Rape and/or Physical Abuse: Happens, but is relatively rare. The houses have bouncers, panic buttons and intercoms in each room, and very thin walls. If a worker gets hinky about a "party," or if a party threatens her, she can get help in a blink. But there is a "however" to this, presented below.

Drug abuse: If it's illegal outside the house, it's illegal inside it. There are girls who are drug users, but according to my friend, at her house, it's mostly pot and perfectly legal alcohol. She said she didn't know many meth-heads at the houses, because it messes with you so much, it's hard to keep your job. If you get caught using drugs, even pot, you're out.

Unwanted Pregnancy: Most workers use multiple forms of birth control, so the risk is significantly reduced.

Now, what is dangerous or harmful in legal prostitution?

The workers don't get to keep as much of their money as you might think. The house takes a 50% cut off the top for each "party." Some houses also charge the workers room and board, and other petty expenses. Then, of course, there are taxes. If you work in a bad house, you can end up with only 25-30% of the charged price, or less. While that still beats all hell out of $5.15 an hour, it's certainly not a way to get rich quick.

Employers can be abusive--12-14 hour shifts; not allowing the workers to leave the house (or even step outside on the porch) at all during their "tour" (my friend works for a few weeks, then takes a few weeks off); and being more interested in the cash than the worker. This is the "however" to which I previously referred. Some houses resist allowing a worker to refuse a patron about whom she has a bad feeling, such as someone obviously drunk or high.

Some balance is rather built-in to that: if word gets around that you put your workers in danger, they'll go work at other houses if they can. But of course there will always be those who can't go elsewhere, for one reason or another.

I can't give you accurate figures on who the workers are. I know my friend, only as an example, comes from a middle-class background, is highly intelligent, and strikingly beautiful. But she's just one person, and that's not evidence of anything but one person. Worthless. I know.

I think, overall, making it legal and regulated is a good thing for everyone. But the system for that, as it stands now, can definitely be improved.

Speaking as one who has rarely ever had much money, I resent being denied the opportunity to charge cash for my favors if I so choose. I can still get "paid" for sex, with dinners and gifts, so why is it a big deal if I'd rather have a crisp $50 than a steak?

 

[RandFan]

Speaking as one who has rarely ever had much money, I resent being denied the opportunity to charge cash for my favors if I so choose. I can still get "paid" for sex, with dinners and gifts, so why is it a big deal if I'd rather have a crisp $50 than a steak?

It offends dann's sensibilities. Folks like dann aren't too big on things like choice and freedom.

 

[slingblade]

The studies that I have linked to in several posts above. I'm not going to repeat them again!

No, no don't. If I missed them, it's my bad, not yours. I'll look through the thread for them after supper.

And my apologies for accusing you of presenting nothing, when instead it was my bad for missing them somehow.

 

[The Great Hairy One]

Man, this thread has completely degenerated.

Yah, I gave up a while ago. Although Slingblade has made some excellent posts.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[The Great Hairy One]

No, no don't. If I missed them, it's my bad, not yours. I'll look through the thread for them after supper.

And my apologies for accusing you of presenting nothing, when instead it was my bad for missing them somehow.

Sling, please read the posts I made debunking the "evidence" Dann presented.

Cheers,
TGHO

 

[Lonewulf]

Yah, I gave up a while ago. Although Slingblade has made some excellent posts.

Wouldn't know, have her on ignore.

 

[slingblade]

Sling, please read the posts I made debunking the "evidence" Dann presented.

Cheers,
TGHO

I'll try to read them both: Dann's links and your debunking. Finding them in 23 pages is a bit of a challenge, but I'll manage.

My apology, however, was for stating nothing was presented. I was wrong about that. Even if what was offered is crap, it was still offered.

Oh, and while browsing the earlier posts, I thought of another point or two to make.

Some women do it, in part anyway, because they love sex. With many partners, for variety. And they really dig the idea of getting paid for something they'd be doing anyway, and with more measures in place to keep them safe than "freelancing" would offer. That's my friend, you see, so I know there is one woman in Nevada like that. It leads me to believe there might possibly be a few more. Maybe. But it's not evidence, I do know that.

Not all of the women who are sex workers are there because poverty, or even the threat of poverty, led them to believe they had no other choice. My friend, for example, could have gotten a decent job making more than minimum wage. She isn't married, has no kids, has only herself to worry about, and wasn't facing a choice of poverty or whoring. But she makes much better money at this, and can leave work for extended vacations whenever she likes, pretty much. I mean think: in her case alone, if she has a $10,000 month, she can take three months off, comfortably. That really doesn't sound so bad to me, all things duly considered, that is.

But I'm sure some women are at the houses because they do come from poverty, and the money is simply too good to resist. Some leave for the regular business sector and come back to the house, perhaps reluctantly, because the money just doesn't compare.

Just my worthless opinion, but I think you'd have to look a little bit to find a woman who felt "driven" to go to and stay forever at the houses by her poverty and lack of options. I'm sure they are there. I just don't think it's the helpless, hopeless situation being a street prostitute so often is.

Look, again this is all really meaningless, except to show there's one person who doesn't fit some of the arguments being presented. I think that there's some minor import to being able to show that kind of example. It does not make Dann's arguments moot. It just shows they are potentially falsifiable, not universally true, and bear re-examining.

 

[RandFan]

Look, again this is all really meaningless, except to show there's one person who doesn't fit some of the arguments being presented. I think that there's some minor import to being able to show that kind of example. It does not make Dann's arguments moot. It just shows they are potentially falsifiable, not universally true, and bear re-examining.

Dann, I believe, has conceded that such women do exist. There are a lot of them. High priced hookers are typically women who can get good jobs but they prefer the flexibility and the perks that come with the job. And there are perks. You often spend time with celebrities and wealthy people in great environments.

If prostitution disappeared tomorrow it wouldn't bother me one damn bit. I want women to have a choice. I want them to get an education. I want them to have opportunity. I want them to be healthy and happy. If they choose to be scientists then cool. If they choose to fly fighter jets or become police officers, basketball players, doctors, lawyers, President of The United States or even just become stay at home moms then whatever makes them happy makes me happy.

The best thing *we can do for women is to give them opportunities, education and a choice.

How dann can have a problem with that is beyond me.

*ETA: By "we" I mean society as a whole.

 

[slingblade]

If it disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn't bother me, either. It's not that I'm a huge fan of it or promote it. But there were a couple of times when my friend was visiting, that I really wished I was young enough and cute enough to go back to the house with her.

Just for a weekend, maybe.