Prostitution- Germany

[Provost Harrison]

Some of you people have led a very, very sheltered life. I wasn't purely referring to food but any standard of living; accommodation, healthcare, etc. And those are two things that you need in order to be able to successfully seek and acquire work...

[Dis]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Some of you people have led a very, very sheltered life. I wasn't purely referring to food but any standard of living; accommodation, healthcare, etc. And those are two things that you need in order to be able to successfully seek and acquire work...

depends on the type of work you are seeking.

[Provost Harrison]

I think the thing is Dissident that there should be no limit to the length of welfare, after all you can't just then allow people to rot. I think it has to be organised differently to the pure cash handouts that you get now. Accommodation (or payment of current standing housing arrangements at the time of loss of work etc) needs to be taken care out and certain provisions made, eg, the provision of food and other such necessities such as transport costs. But certainly not enough to be able to maintain a luxurious standard of living for which you would need a job to do. I see how the current system in the UK is abused to a point where professional people cannot actually afford to have children yet those who never work and are supported by the state can which is resulting in a lot of problems in society, especially when the children are just been born just to keep them in such a position and aren't really cared for properly.

There needs to be some radical reorganisation of welfare, but to just cut people off after an arbitrary 2 years is pretty inhumane.

[DarkCloud]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


What does that have to do with anything?

You're confirming my point: people are having an emotional, irrational response to prostitution.

Wouldn't you be pissed off if your wife/girlfriend had to prostitute herself? I know that I certainly would be.

Or do you not think that sex can be a special connection between two people?

Some people are quite loyal to each other- at least after marriage- so why the heck should one be forced to choose between starving or prostituting herself? Sex is supposed to be what makes marriage special.

And the STD tests aren't 100% perfect, neither are the precautions- and the WOMEN are the ones who are tested- not the MEN who are having sex with them- (frankly, MR. X could just walk in with genital warts... and pass it on and then oh woops! the prostitute can't have children anymore.) in essence it's impossible to guarantee safety to the women involved- so that's an even greater reason to not force anyone into prostitution.

A person can argue that by prostituting herself- less men would want to join with her in marriage...

So? Guynemer recently lost (well, dumped) his gf because she couldn't take the 80 hour weeks - we should extend this protection to doctors!

No argument there, but No one's forcing him to be a doctor. He knew what he was getting into when he signed on- it's a sad thing- but it's his choice.

and if she's married- it's very unfair to her spouse who might

Well, sucks for the spouse. Is this your only argument that prostitution should be in its own category - that it hurts marriages?

I would think that would be a large enough reason, but as I demonstrate above, there are other arguments.

b: have an added fear of 'underperforming' in bed, etc.
--

That's an argument?

Yes. Put yourself in the husband/boyfriend's place for a moment here.

admittedly, nude modelling is an issue I have less trouble with since it's more of a 'societal status' issue, in that a person might be ostracized from a church, friends, etc. for doing so- but even nude models today aren't chattle slaves in that they have to show their faces/certain parts of their bodies etc if they don't want to- they'll be paid less, yes- but they'll still be paid.

Eh, actually, by definition a nude model would have to show everything

That just shows your ignorance.

Making unemployment benefits contingent upon nude modelling is a grave double standard- those who don't want, say their face to be shown, might be argued by the nude modeling agency to be overly picky in resisting the job- and therefore should be inelgible for unemployment benefits... whereas people going into that industry of their own choice would not have that option.

It's not a double standard at all. It's consistent, rational application of a principle, disregarding our irrational, emotional prejudices.

1.) The true logical situation considers to what degree those emotional prejudices will interact with life and either adjust or change those prejudices or gradually alter them. I find it amusing if you think that both the psychological, theological, or spiritual objections will ever be overcome.

Also, In this instance, sex is logically defined as a connection between two people in an intimate relationship.

And, as no other job, prostitution requires the person to give oneself rather than ones services or skills, since one is touched, interacted with etc...

2.) It certainly conflicts with other principles, which calls it into question.

So the principle is to get people involved in gainful employment after being on unemployment insurance? And since prostitution is legalized, it is therefore gainful employment?

But lessee... Lady X wants to have a child- but she has to be on birth control beacuse of the prostituting she's been doing (becasue condoms aren't 100% secure)... and so she's susceptible to all sorts of diseases first off- and second- she can't have the child with her fiancee since she's on birth control.

I'm sure that's fair to enforce when societies clearly place a value on individual freedoms.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I think the thing is Dissident that there should be no limit to the length of welfare, after all you can't just then allow people to rot.

You can't just allow them to live off the government forever either.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
Wouldn't you be pissed off if your wife/girlfriend had to prostitute herself? I know that I certainly would be.

And it would be an emotional response.

Or do you not think that sex can be a special connection between two people?

So?

Tons of things can be special connections between two people. So what?

Some people are quite loyal to each other- at least after marriage- so why the heck should one be forced to choose between starving or prostituting herself? Sex is supposed to be what makes marriage special.

So?

And the STD tests aren't 100% perfect, neither are the precautions- and the WOMEN are the ones who are tested- not the MEN who are having sex with them- (frankly, MR. X could just walk in with genital warts... and pass it on and then oh woops! the prostitute can't have children anymore.) in essence it's impossible to guarantee safety to the women involved- so that's an even greater reason to not force anyone into prostitution.

AIUI from Diss again, people who visit houses of prostitution are required to wear condoms. And if the prostitution isn't safe, it should be banned.

No argument there, but No one's forcing him to be a doctor. He knew what he was getting into when he signed on- it's a sad thing- but it's his choice.

What if it was a job offer during his unemployment?

I would think that would be a large enough reason, but as I demonstrate above, there are other arguments.

No they're not. You're only argument is that it's bad for marriages. You're starting to sound like BK.

Yes. Put yourself in the husband/boyfriend's place for a moment here.

I'm sorry, I have difficulty viewing the suggestion that a job may make people worry about their performance in bed as a reason for treating that job differently from every other job as anything but absurd.

That just shows your ignorance.

nude Audio pronunciation of "nude" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nd, nyd)
adj. nud·er, nud·est

1. Having no clothing; naked.
2. Permitting or featuring full exposure of the body: a nude beach.
3. Law. Lacking any of various legal requisites, such as evidence.

1.) The true logical situation considers to what degree those emotional prejudices will interact with life and either adjust or change those prejudices or gradually alter them. I find it amusing if you think that both the psychological, theological, or spiritual objections will ever be overcome.

No, I think they should be ignored.

Also, In this instance, sex is logically defined as a connection between two people in an intimate relationship.

No. Sex is a two people getting off together.

And, as no other job, prostitution requires the person to give oneself rather than ones services or skills, since one is touched, interacted with etc...

The person is providing a service. Unless you propose to treat masseuses the same way (though, with prostitution illegal in DC, there's a certain amount of overlap between them and prostitutes ), or haircutters.

2.) It certainly conflicts with other principles, which calls it into question.

It already defeated those principles when prostitution was legalized in the first place.

So the principle is to get people involved in gainful employment after being on unemployment insurance? And since prostitution is legalized, it is therefore gainful employment?

Eh, yes, obviously. She's paid, isn't she?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
But lessee... Lady X wants to have a child- but she has to be on birth control beacuse of the prostituting she's been doing (becasue condoms aren't 100% secure)... and so she's susceptible to all sorts of diseases first off- and second- she can't have the child with her fiancee since she's on birth control.

I'm sure that's fair to enforce when societies clearly place a value on individual freedoms.

An actress can't get pregnant during a movie. Treat them the same way.

[Guynemer]

This is pretty ****ed up right here.

[Kuciwalker]

What is?

[DarkCloud]

What if it was a job offer during his unemployment?

You have to have a **$*ing DEGREE to become a doctor. You don't just approach a random person on the street and employ them as a doctor, or a nurse, or even a medical technician.

nude Audio pronunciation of "nude" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nd, nyd)
adj. nud·er, nud·est

1. Having no clothing; naked.
2. Permitting or featuring full exposure of the body: a nude beach.
3. Law. Lacking any of various legal requisites, such as evidence.

1.) I was talking about showing the face. not all nude models do so at the same time while displaying their 'wares' since showing the face or revealing the name can lead to harassment in real life.

The person is providing a service. Unless you propose to treat masseuses the same way (though, with prostitution illegal in DC, there's a certain amount of overlap between them and prostitutes ), or haircutters.

Oh yes, I'm certain that the masseuse's breasts are clasped and pulled on by the patient.
And haircutters-

AIUI from Diss again, people who visit houses of prostitution are required to wear condoms. And if the prostitution isn't safe, it should be banned.

1.) Condoms break.
2.) genital warts can be passed even if a condom is worn. They can be passed through abrasion.

as for the rest of your replies- whatever, if you can't see that forcing prostitution is taking away their personal rights over the use of their body in the ways that they authorize, then I don't see how you respect the individual in any way. And that, frankly is what Democracy and welfare and unemployment is based upon- respect for the individual- a grand concept which conflicts with forcing someone to take a job that could be 1.) unreasonably dangerous to their health, and 2.) unreasonably dangerous to their social/personal/sexual life... a job which basically could intrude on every aspect of their personality.

Certainly, I agree with making it an OPTION for people seeking work- but FORCING someone to take it- no- that's just ludicrous.

And once again, I cite- many governments clearly allow for Religious exemptions in ALL OTHER industries, why not this one? You can't force a Jew to work as a taste-tester in a non-kosher deli, can you? How is this any different?

Governments allow consientious objectors to refrain from fighting in wars, why not allow people to refrain from working as a whore?

It's very unfair to all people, and all women particularly.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
You have to have a **$*ing DEGREE to become a doctor. You don't just approach a random person on the street and employ them as a doctor, or a nurse, or even a medical technician.

What does that have to do with my point? He could have an MD but then decided he didn't want to be a doctor.

1.) I was talking about showing the face. not all nude models do so at the same time while displaying their 'wares' since showing the face or revealing the name can lead to harassment in real life.

I still fail to see how this is a huge distinction.

The problem is, either you should ban prostitution or make it like anything else. Don't

Oh yes, I'm certain that the masseuse's breasts are clasped and pulled on by the patient.

They have to use their hands they have to touch the person, in fact massage them. Are we getting into OMG breasts are teh evil janet jackson mode?

1.) Condoms break.

So safety precautions aren't perfect. They aren't in other jobs either, where them not being perfect makes someone die. Surely you don't want to force people into a job where they could die, do you?

2.) genital warts can be passed even if a condom is worn. They can be passed through abrasion.

Well then make it illegal for someone with genital warts, or any STD, to be a prostitute, or to purchase their services. Though I doubt they'd sell to the person with an STD, anyway.

as for the rest of your replies- whatever, if you can't see that forcing prostitution is taking away their personal rights over the use of their body in the ways that they authorize

It's the same for a laborer. Everyone has to use his body in his job.

Certainly, I agree with making it an OPTION for people seeking work- but FORCING someone to take it- no- that's just ludicrous.

No, it's being rational and consistent.

And once again, I cite- many governments clearly allow for Religious exemptions in ALL OTHER industries, why not this one? You can't force a Jew to work as a taste-tester in a non-kosher deli, can you? How is this any different?

Then allow for religious exemptions only...

Governments allow consientious objectors to refrain from fighting in wars,

Actually, no, they just make the conscientious objectors medics and such. This is because they can still be useful and it's not worth the fight.

It's very unfair to all people, and all women particularly.

Oh? So it's not all that bad for a male prostitute?

[DarkCloud]

Then allow for religious exemptions ...

That's good.

Actually, no, they just make the conscientious objectors medics and such. This is because they can still be useful and it's not worth the fight.

Then why not allow the women who don't want to be whores because of personal reasons [marriage, etc] (and who aren't religiously exempt) to work as attendants, supervisors, etc. and not sex tools. I'd be fine with allowing that.

Well then make it illegal for someone with genital warts, or any STD, to be a prostitute, or to purchase their services. Though I doubt they'd sell to the person with an STD, anyway.

It's not always obvious that someone has an STD. many std's, like chlamydia are dormant in males but can really #*#$-up a female's reproductive system and lead to cancer.

So safety precautions aren't perfect. They aren't in other jobs either, where them not being perfect makes someone die. Surely you don't want to force people into a job where they could die, do you?

In other jobs- when the safety precautions fail, they may lose an arm, leg, etc. but not the ability to reproduce... which is a factor that is a natural desire of human nature.

What does that have to do with my point? He could have an MD but then decided he didn't want to be a doctor.

Well, 1st off- I don't think that situation would ever occur... How many doctors actually go on unemployment insurance? How many actually NEED it...?

2nd, addressing the actual problem--- If I understand correctly, even people on unemployment can prove that certain jobs might be an 'unreasonable burden' on their lives. Prostitution would fall under that. And no unemployment employer can request that someone work more than 40 hours a week, if I understand correctly- if they require more than 40 hours, then Guynemeyer would have full rights to refuse that employment and still receive unemployment insurance.

[Az]

Kuci

Making an exemption for this is just prudish idiocy - After all, it's not that you want to keep sex special and beautiful - otherwise, you shouldn't have legalized prostitution anyway - It's just stupid, illogical prudishness, and an offense to all those working the field/street already.

[DarkCloud]

How about you work in the prostitution field against your will then?

[Kuciwalker]

How about you work in anything against your will then?