If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(International Business Times)   British politicians call for 'Nordic model' of prostitution. Hard to see how anyone could get upset by having Nordic models as prostitutes   (ibtimes.co.uk) divider line 81
    More: Cool, Hard to See, Nordic, Wales, Karl Shuker, Nordic model, England, gender inequality, prostitution  
•       •       •

5742 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Mar 2014 at 9:15 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



81 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-03-03 08:24:42 AM  
Not enough variety.
 
2014-03-03 09:04:59 AM  
Too much white girl ass.
 
2014-03-03 09:17:39 AM  
Uhhh...can I see examples first, please?
/tyvm
 
2014-03-03 09:20:27 AM  
Seems to me that if anyone is criminalized, it should be people who are forcing women into prostitution against their will. If we shift the criminal prosecution from the supply side to the demand side, are we just letting the people committing the most heinous crimes off the hook?
 
2014-03-03 09:21:55 AM  
What about a 'Nordic Model' of bookmarking threads?
 
2014-03-03 09:22:10 AM  
Can we get a picture of what a Nordic Model might look like?
 
2014-03-03 09:23:25 AM  

meanmutton: Seems to me that if anyone is criminalized, it should be people who are forcing women into prostitution against their will. If we shift the criminal prosecution from the supply side to the demand side, are we just letting the people committing the most heinous crimes off the hook?


This is my uneducated guess here, but I'll bet that coercing women into prostitution without consent is illegal in Scandinavia and every other Western country,
 
2014-03-03 09:24:07 AM  
Bookmark

/I'll be back
 
2014-03-03 09:27:39 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-03-03 09:28:58 AM  

Abe Vigoda's Ghost: [img.fark.net image 660x448]


That's not a she...
 
2014-03-03 09:30:02 AM  
Now we're getting somewhere!  I predict there will be bipartisan support for this measure.

/Maybe the French model for mistresses should be adopted, also.
//And the German model for bondage and discipline.
///We could name it the RAWR!!! bill.
 
2014-03-03 09:30:45 AM  
Oh, please make this happen here in the US. The apocalyptic level of right wing warrgarbl will be a wonder to behold.
 
2014-03-03 09:32:45 AM  
And again, just like every other time this comes up, many of the women involved will say "F*ck off, this is what we do for a living, please don't make my life harder", but they will be ignored by the moral crusaders, the politicians who want to impress the moral crusaders and that (large) portion of the feminist community that want to enforce behavioural standards on other women in the name of equality.

Meanwhile the 'customers' will simply find a discrete way to carry on doing what they're doing, and real progress on human trafficking  will be foiled again because YOU CAN'T FIND THE KIDNAPPERS IF YOU MAKE EVERYONE HIDE.


fark's sake, honestly.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-03-03 09:33:24 AM  

zulius: Uhhh...can I see examples first, please?

This is the first thing that came up on GIS so it must be representative.



encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com
 
2014-03-03 09:34:43 AM  

TV's Vinnie: Oh, please make this happen here in the US. The apocalyptic level of right wing warrgarbl will be a wonder to behold.


I think someone like Bernie Sanders should talk this up in the Senate for precisely this reason.

Even if they can't get the legislation passed, any time you can get the Republicans talking about prostitution, they're bound to say something incredibly stupid.
 
2014-03-03 09:41:10 AM  
Unfortunately, it won't make a difference as there isn't one lass on that rotten island up to Nordic levels of beauty.

though I bet the gum jobs are great
 
2014-03-03 09:41:57 AM  
While they're at it, make selling drugs legal and focus on putting the user in jail.
 
2014-03-03 09:46:48 AM  
What a Nordic model may look like:
http://imgur.com/EkL1hdA
 
2014-03-03 09:47:39 AM  
Why is it that the Free Market seems to work everywhere except for places where it might make right-wingers feel "icky?"
 
2014-03-03 09:49:31 AM  

zulius: Uhhh...can I see examples first, please?
/tyvm


iwritealot.com

She has Nordic blood in her
 
2014-03-03 09:51:46 AM  
rob.nu
 
2014-03-03 09:52:36 AM  
cdn.niketalk.com
 
2014-03-03 10:05:09 AM  

AbiNormal: [cdn.niketalk.com image 500x399]


The justification on the bottom line is off oh I see what you did there.
 
2014-03-03 10:07:51 AM  
Nordic model (probably safe for work)
 
2014-03-03 10:08:17 AM  

Skarekrough: Why is it that the Free Market seems to work everywhere except for places where it might make right-wingers feel "icky?"


As you'll note, this solution doesn't try a free market solution either. It's just another version of the leftist line, "women always right, men always wrong" .
 
2014-03-03 10:12:59 AM  

hp6sa: What a Nordic model may look like:
http://imgur.com/EkL1hdA


I bit and swallowed hook, line and sinker.  **fist bump**
 
2014-03-03 10:13:09 AM  

gerrymander: Skarekrough: Why is it that the Free Market seems to work everywhere except for places where it might make right-wingers feel "icky?"

As you'll note, this solution doesn't try a free market solution either. It's just another version of the leftist line, "women always right, men always wrong" .


As opposed to the "rightest" line, "women are irresponsible tempting sluts and men are so oppressed in this nation led almost entirely by men".
 
2014-03-03 10:13:43 AM  

gerrymander: Skarekrough: Why is it that the Free Market seems to work everywhere except for places where it might make right-wingers feel "icky?"

As you'll note, this solution doesn't try a free market solution either. It's just another version of the leftist line, "women always right, men always wrong" .


Right-wing: Criminalise the dirty women doing the nasty things
Left-wing: Criminalise the men forcing the poor women to do the nasty things

Meanwhile none of this actually reduces prostitution or tackles human trafficking. It's like the drug war 2.0, or possibly the drug war 1.0 as people have been trying to stop prostitution since the dawn of time. It's never worked. But by all means keep farking that chicken.
 
2014-03-03 10:17:56 AM  

gerrymander: Skarekrough: Why is it that the Free Market seems to work everywhere except for places where it might make right-wingers feel "icky?"

As you'll note, this solution doesn't try a free market solution either. It's just another version of the leftist line, "women always right, men always wrong" .


As opposed to the rightist line "Hey everyone, the line starts here for my sister/wife!"
 
2014-03-03 10:36:12 AM  

Skarekrough: Why is it that the Free Market seems to work everywhere except for places where it might make right-wingers feel "icky?"


Because right-wingers are illogical, hypocritical dickheads.
 
2014-03-03 10:39:49 AM  
Prosecute the johns instead of the prostitutes? Never going to happen.

For the same reason that we don't go after the people who hire illegal immigrants instead of the immigrants.

$$
 
2014-03-03 10:45:48 AM  
The last time the Nordic X came to England in droves, it was to rape and pillage.
 
2014-03-03 10:48:04 AM  
"Hey, babe! I've got a twelve inch penis!"
 
2014-03-03 10:51:24 AM  

sbchamp: "Hey, babe! I've got a twelve inchmillimeter penis!"


FTFY
 
2014-03-03 11:01:07 AM  
"Cool" tag, really subby?
 
2014-03-03 11:02:51 AM  

gerrymander: As you'll note, this solution doesn't try a free market solution either. It's just another version of the leftist line, "women always right, men always wrong" .


wyltoknow: As opposed to the "rightest" line, "women are irresponsible tempting sluts and men are so oppressed in this nation led almost entirely by men".



So why not try a reasonable middle of the road approach of, say, sex between consenting adults is their own farking business and no one else's??

/see what I did there?

Oh, and:

TV's Vinnie: Because right[insert any direction here]-wingers are illogical, hypocritical dickheads.

 
2014-03-03 11:12:54 AM  
Came for Nordic models, leaving with blue balls.
 
2014-03-03 11:20:04 AM  

Pangea: Prosecute the johns instead of the prostitutes? Never going to happen.


What are you talking about, they do prostitution stings all the time. In some places it is an easy way to get publicly shamed even before a conviction.
 
2014-03-03 11:24:21 AM  

gerrymander: Skarekrough: Why is it that the Free Market seems to work everywhere except for places where it might make right-wingers feel "icky?"

As you'll note, this solution doesn't try a free market solution either. It's just another version of the leftist line, "women always right, men always wrong" .


Awwww, you're cute when you get all derpy like that.
 
2014-03-03 11:27:12 AM  
Evangelical Christian Gavin Shuker led the report into the Nordic model

Farkers' heads a splode.
 
2014-03-03 11:32:37 AM  
How about they go with a reasonable model, anad make prostitution legal?

Still waiting to see Harper's attempt to get around the court decision and keep prostitution illegal.
 
2014-03-03 11:34:21 AM  

Son of Thunder: Evangelical Christian Gavin Shuker led the report into the Nordic model

Farkers' heads a splode.


Why?

The 'Nordic Model' involves creating more criminals. I don't know if most of you folks bothered to even think past "Nordic Models!" but the Nordic model of prostitution decriminalises only the women that do it, keeps any sort of brothel or security for them illegal and criminalises their customers. It's not like it's some sort of (real, not USA) liberal ideal where everything gets legalised, regulated and (to some extent) sanitised.
 
2014-03-03 11:46:29 AM  

Munchkin City Coroner: gerrymander: As you'll note, this solution doesn't try a free market solution either. It's just another version of the leftist line, "women always right, men always wrong" .

wyltoknow: As opposed to the "rightest" line, "women are irresponsible tempting sluts and men are so oppressed in this nation led almost entirely by men".


So why not try a reasonable middle of the road approach of, say, sex between consenting adults is their own farking business and no one else's??


The thing is, that's what the UK already has, more or less. Prostitution is legal. There are all kinds of related things that aren't legal, like pimping and streetwalking, but the basic principle of 'exchange money for sex privately' is already the law of the land.

Going to the Nordic model is a huge step backwards.
 
2014-03-03 12:17:15 PM  

gerrymander: Munchkin City Coroner: gerrymander: As you'll note, this solution doesn't try a free market solution either. It's just another version of the leftist line, "women always right, men always wrong" .

wyltoknow: As opposed to the "rightest" line, "women are irresponsible tempting sluts and men are so oppressed in this nation led almost entirely by men".


So why not try a reasonable middle of the road approach of, say, sex between consenting adults is their own farking business and no one else's??

The thing is, that's what the UK already has, more or less. Prostitution is legal. There are all kinds of related things that aren't legal, like pimping and streetwalking, but the basic principle of 'exchange money for sex privately' is already the law of the land.

Going to the Nordic model is a huge step backwards.


So the UK uses the same method as Canada, "prostitution is legal, but you can't do it without breaking all these other laws"?

If you want to protect prostitutes, legitimize their actions and make it feasible for them to come forward.

You think criminalizing their customers will facilitate this? If a prostitute is known to go to the police, do you think they will get a lot of business?

The best case is for it to be practiced legally, indoors, and with a group of people working together and able to provide for security. In other words, a brothel.

This doesn't mean you cannot prosecute people involved in human trafficing, exploitation, etc. It removes one obstacle stopping their victims from coming forward.
 
2014-03-03 12:31:46 PM  

zulius: Uhhh...can I see examples first, please?
/tyvm


img.gawkerassets.com
 
2014-03-03 12:35:44 PM  

Gothnet: gerrymander: Skarekrough: Why is it that the Free Market seems to work everywhere except for places where it might make right-wingers feel "icky?"

As you'll note, this solution doesn't try a free market solution either. It's just another version of the leftist line, "women always right, men always wrong" .

Right-wing: Criminalise the dirty women doing the nasty things
Left-wing: Criminalise the men forcing the poor women to do the nasty things

Meanwhile none of this actually reduces prostitution or tackles human trafficking. It's like the drug war 2.0, or possibly the drug war 1.0 as people have been trying to stop prostitution since the dawn of time. It's never worked. But by all means keep farking that chicken.


Prostitution (or to be precise, the use of prostitutes) seems to be one of those human things, like drinking alcohol, that some people simply MUST do.  Those people who need* prostitutes will continue to pay for them, no matter how many laws you enact.  And, human nature being what it is, so long as there are people who need prostitutes, there will be people and groups willing to supply that need.  So, yes, I think trying to end prostitution is futile.  And when you have something like prostitution or alcohol that simply will not go away, no matter what, criminalizing it is wasted effort.  Far better to use law enforcement to mitigate it.

So, yes.  Far better to keep it legal, and regulate it for health and safety.  Keep it out in the open and take steps to ensure worker's rights.  What we need, to put it simply, is safety regulations and health inspectors.  Not arrests and jail sentences.

After those steps are put into place, then it would be good to look at why people hire prostitutes (as opposed to getting sexual gratification by some other means) and seeing what, if anything, can be done to address that.

*I realize that many will argue that nobody NEEDS to hire a prostitute but I'm speaking pragmatically.  I mean "need" in the way a meth addict "needs" meth and will commit crimes to procure it.
 
2014-03-03 12:41:36 PM  

gerrymander: Munchkin City Coroner: gerrymander: As you'll note, this solution doesn't try a free market solution either. It's just another version of the leftist line, "women always right, men always wrong" .

wyltoknow: As opposed to the "rightest" line, "women are irresponsible tempting sluts and men are so oppressed in this nation led almost entirely by men".


So why not try a reasonable middle of the road approach of, say, sex between consenting adults is their own farking business and no one else's??

The thing is, that's what the UK already has, more or less. Prostitution is legal. There are all kinds of related things that aren't legal, like pimping and streetwalking, but the basic principle of 'exchange money for sex privately' is already the law of the land.



I asked before in another prostitution thread, but I don't think anyone answered.  If you're going to make prostitution legal, I can see why you might make some associated activities such as streetwalking and pimping illegal, but why brothels?

Are not brothels the most sane, non-disruptive way to have legal prostitution?  Why is having a prostitute do business out of her own apartment better?
 
2014-03-03 12:42:15 PM  

Sgt Otter: zulius: Uhhh...can I see examples first, please?
/tyvm

[img.gawkerassets.com image 531x800]


I used to be a prostitute like her, but then I took an arrow to the knee.
 
2014-03-03 12:43:03 PM  
So they want to make it, legal to sell but illegal to buy?
 
2014-03-03 01:04:13 PM  

chimp_ninja: ,any time you can get the Republicans talking <strike>about prostitution</strike>, they're bound to say something incredibly stupid.


FTFY.
 
2014-03-03 01:09:23 PM  

ciberido: Are not brothels the most sane, non-disruptive way to have legal prostitution? Why is having a prostitute do business out of her own apartment better?


Less chance of someone else skimming off her earnings, or at least that's the theory.

That said, there are a lot of people who like the security and predictability of working for someone else over the uncertainty of being self-employed.
 
2014-03-03 01:11:45 PM  
I'm on the make it legal, tax, and regulate it. Tack huge crimes and jail time on to those who use coercion, trafficking, and force to push people into prostitution. Also, give those forced into the profession financial support to get out and protection from those trafficking. Could also include whistle-blower status and citizenship rights for those that help stop trafficking of foreign peoples. Making it legal at least shines some light and makes it harder for those doing it illegally through illegal means.

Also, I see sexual needs as needs, some people find it hard to have real relationships (mental illness like social anxiety, extreme shyness, and even just bad social skills), but still want and need human contact even if they have to pay for it. If you look at statistics from Canada you can see that not just men use prostitutes even women do (both male and female) and in more numbers than most would suspect. Sometimes both men and women want sex with no attachments, where they can just pay, get off, and leave without having to worry about another's needs.
 
2014-03-03 01:18:16 PM  

ciberido: Prostitution (or to be precise, the use of prostitutes) seems to be one of those human things, like drinking alcohol, that some people simply MUST do.


Best evidence is that it's a behavior common to all primates, not just humans.   Teach a monkey to use money, and he'll give it to a female monkey in exchange for sex.

http://www.zmescience.com/research/how-scientists-tught-monkeys-the- co ncept-of-money-not-long-after-the-first-prostitute-monkey-appeared/
 
2014-03-03 01:28:57 PM  

ShatteredMinds: Sometimes both men and women want sex with no attachments, where they can just pay, get off, and leave without having to worry about another's needs


There's that.

Also, sometimes people want to have sex with someone more physically attractive than they could attract on their own.   Or they prefer the certainty and convenience of buying exactly what they want, over investing time money and effort playing the dating game to get an uncertain outcome.
 
2014-03-03 01:35:43 PM  
Munchkin City Coroner:

Oh, and:

TV's Vinnie: Because right[insert any direction here]-wingers are illogical, hypocritical dickheads.


You haven't been following the rapetastic comments that come dribbling out of the average rightwingers' mouths, have you?
 
2014-03-03 01:38:28 PM  

gerrymander: Munchkin City Coroner: gerrymander: As you'll note, this solution doesn't try a free market solution either. It's just another version of the leftist line, "women always right, men always wrong" .

wyltoknow: As opposed to the "rightest" line, "women are irresponsible tempting sluts and men are so oppressed in this nation led almost entirely by men".


So why not try a reasonable middle of the road approach of, say, sex between consenting adults is their own farking business and no one else's??

The thing is, that's what the UK already has, more or less. Prostitution is legal. There are all kinds of related things that aren't legal, like pimping and streetwalking, but the basic principle of 'exchange money for sex privately' is already the law of the land.

Going to the Nordic model is a huge step backwards.


absolutely.
there are a few things which could be done to make things better for the working girls - such as allowing 2 girls to work in the same house for security for each other (currently 2 working girls would qualify as a brothel, and is illegal)

but the current situation in the UK is reasonable = prostitution is legal.... street solicitation, pimping and trafficking are not
 
2014-03-03 01:45:53 PM  

ShatteredMinds: Also, I see sexual needs as needs, some people find it hard to have real relationships (mental illness like social anxiety, extreme shyness, and even just bad social skills), but still want and need human contact even if they have to pay for it. If you look at statistics from Canada you can see that not just men use prostitutes even women do (both male and female) and in more numbers than most would suspect. Sometimes both men and women want sex with no attachments, where they can just pay, get off, and leave without having to worry about another's needs.


If you'll forgive me for repeating myself, we can argue about whether or not a person truly NEEDS sex, we can talk about Mazlow's hierarchy and so on, but to keep the question very practical: if a significant number of people will go so far as to break laws to get something, if entire black markets have existed and will exist to supply it, arguing about whether or not it is "truly a need" is moot.

It is, for pragmatic purposes, a need until such time as you have some practical means of making it not so.  Which I do not see happening any time soon.

Criminalizing prostitution is like attempting to stop the flow of a mighty river.  You can build a damn, you can try to divert the river, whatever you think best ; but in the end, all that water is going to go SOMEWHERE.
 
2014-03-03 01:47:55 PM  

clyph: ShatteredMinds: Sometimes both men and women want sex with no attachments, where they can just pay, get off, and leave without having to worry about another's needs

There's that.

Also, sometimes people want to have sex with someone more physically attractive than they could attract on their own.   Or they prefer the certainty and convenience of buying exactly what they want, over investing time money and effort playing the dating game to get an uncertain outcome.


Hadn't thought about it before, but their could also be reasons like sexuality. A person thinks they have homosexual or bi tendencies and wants a safe [in that its with no one they know or who might talk about it] way to try out a side of their sexuality they're not yet comfortable with.
 
2014-03-03 01:53:12 PM  

ShatteredMinds: clyph: ShatteredMinds: Sometimes both men and women want sex with no attachments, where they can just pay, get off, and leave without having to worry about another's needs

There's that.

Also, sometimes people want to have sex with someone more physically attractive than they could attract on their own.   Or they prefer the certainty and convenience of buying exactly what they want, over investing time money and effort playing the dating game to get an uncertain outcome.

Hadn't thought about it before, but their could also be reasons like sexuality. A person thinks they have homosexual or bi tendencies and wants a safe [in that its with no one they know or who might talk about it] way to try out a side of their sexuality they're not yet comfortable with.


Or is shy about asking a potential mate whether they would take a dump on your chest; while you have a foot long dildo shaped like the Archbishop of Canterbury up your ass; a fleshlight on your dick; while you both sing the Armenian national anthem.in Pig Latin.

...or..uh...something.
 
2014-03-03 02:54:07 PM  

meanmutton: Seems to me that if anyone is criminalized, it should be people who are forcing women into prostitution against their will. If we shift the criminal prosecution from the supply side to the demand side, are we just letting the people committing the most heinous crimes off the hook?


Cause no one wants to be paid two or six hundred dollars an hour for their time.

You just gotta force them against their will.
 
2014-03-03 03:09:00 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Too much white girl ass.


No such thing. Especially not if we are talking about Nordic model ass.
 
2014-03-03 03:22:55 PM  

ciberido: If you'll forgive me for repeating myself, we can argue about whether or not a person truly NEEDS sex, we can talk about Mazlow's hierarchy and so on, but to keep the question very practical: if a significant number of people will go so far as to break laws to get something, if entire black markets have existed and will exist to supply it, arguing about whether or not it is "truly a need" is moot.

It is, for pragmatic purposes, a need until such time as you have some practical means of making it not so.  Which I do not see happening any time soon.

Criminalizing prostitution is like attempting to stop the flow of a mighty river.  You can build a damn, you can try to divert the river, whatever you think best ; but in the end, all that water is going to go SOMEWHERE.


Same argument could be made for legalizing murder.  It has existed throughout history, in every culture, in plenty of nonhuman species, and criminalizing it hasn't stopped it.
 
2014-03-03 03:28:04 PM  

dywed88: If you want to protect prostitutes, legitimize their actions and make it feasible for them to come forward.


They don't want prostitution, it is not only about making prostitutes safe, they want to end it. They think it is a form of violence against women and incompatible with gender equality.  That is the "Nordic Model".
 
2014-03-03 03:55:49 PM  

Riche: zulius: Uhhh...can I see examples first, please?
/tyvm

[iwritealot.com image 850x637]

She has Nordic blood in her


Damn she looks trashy in that pic.

I'll be back later for a closer examination
 
2014-03-03 03:57:55 PM  

ciberido: I asked before in another prostitution thread, but I don't think anyone answered.  If you're going to make prostitution legal, I can see why you might make some associated activities such as streetwalking and pimping illegal, but why brothels?

Are not brothels the most sane, non-disruptive way to have legal prostitution?  Why is having a prostitute do business out of her own apartment better?


A well-run brothel is superior in almost every way to the "each prostitute works out of her own apartment" model. A badly-run brothel offers easy options for pimping, bribery, extortion, and human trafficking.

Personally, I'm in favor of brothels, but I understand the concern the UK laws address.
 
2014-03-03 04:15:45 PM  

gerrymander: ciberido: I asked before in another prostitution thread, but I don't think anyone answered.  If you're going to make prostitution legal, I can see why you might make some associated activities such as streetwalking and pimping illegal, but why brothels?

Are not brothels the most sane, non-disruptive way to have legal prostitution?  Why is having a prostitute do business out of her own apartment better?

A well-run brothel is superior in almost every way to the "each prostitute works out of her own apartment" model. A badly-run brothel offers easy options for pimping, bribery, extortion, and human trafficking.

Personally, I'm in favor of brothels, but I understand the concern the UK laws address.


Except the moment you allow brothels, you allow state supervision and regulation.

You also remove the risk and fears of a prostitute getting arrested for coming forward.
 
2014-03-03 04:23:07 PM  

Son of Thunder: ciberido: If you'll forgive me for repeating myself, we can argue about whether or not a person truly NEEDS sex, we can talk about Mazlow's hierarchy and so on, but to keep the question very practical: if a significant number of people will go so far as to break laws to get something, if entire black markets have existed and will exist to supply it, arguing about whether or not it is "truly a need" is moot.

It is, for pragmatic purposes, a need until such time as you have some practical means of making it not so.  Which I do not see happening any time soon.

Criminalizing prostitution is like attempting to stop the flow of a mighty river.  You can build a damn, you can try to divert the river, whatever you think best ; but in the end, all that water is going to go SOMEWHERE.

Same argument could be made for legalizing murder.  It has existed throughout history, in every culture, in plenty of nonhuman species, and criminalizing it hasn't stopped it.


Murder is illegal because it directly harms somebody.

The (non-moral) justification for restricting prostitution is that it indirectly harms people (such as human trafficking). Except I see no evidence that it protects people any more than laws directly against those things, and makes it harder to protect the victims.

The reason for prostitution laws is an attempt to enforce morals on society, the protecting prostitutes is just a justification because the moral argument won't fly.
 
2014-03-03 04:29:33 PM  

Son of Thunder: ciberido: If you'll forgive me for repeating myself, we can argue about whether or not a person truly NEEDS sex, we can talk about Mazlow's hierarchy and so on, but to keep the question very practical: if a significant number of people will go so far as to break laws to get something, if entire black markets have existed and will exist to supply it, arguing about whether or not it is "truly a need" is moot.

It is, for pragmatic purposes, a need until such time as you have some practical means of making it not so.  Which I do not see happening any time soon.

Criminalizing prostitution is like attempting to stop the flow of a mighty river.  You can build a damn, you can try to divert the river, whatever you think best ; but in the end, all that water is going to go SOMEWHERE.

Same argument could be made for legalizing murder.  It has existed throughout history, in every culture, in plenty of nonhuman species, and criminalizing it hasn't stopped it.



You know, it actually occurred to me that someone might make that comparison, and I even started to write an additional sentence or two to explain why my argument DIDN'T logically extend to murder, but then I thought to myself, "No, keep it short, and nobody's going to make that dumb of an extension.  You can leave it unsaid that this doesn't extend to crimes with clear victims."  So I deleted those lines and posted the shorter version.

So, yeah.  Thanks for reminding me that even after all this time, I am still too optimistic with regard to Fark threads.
 
2014-03-03 04:35:39 PM  

ciberido: Son of Thunder: ciberido: If you'll forgive me for repeating myself, we can argue about whether or not a person truly NEEDS sex, we can talk about Mazlow's hierarchy and so on, but to keep the question very practical: if a significant number of people will go so far as to break laws to get something, if entire black markets have existed and will exist to supply it, arguing about whether or not it is "truly a need" is moot.

It is, for pragmatic purposes, a need until such time as you have some practical means of making it not so.  Which I do not see happening any time soon.

Criminalizing prostitution is like attempting to stop the flow of a mighty river.  You can build a damn, you can try to divert the river, whatever you think best ; but in the end, all that water is going to go SOMEWHERE.

Same argument could be made for legalizing murder.  It has existed throughout history, in every culture, in plenty of nonhuman species, and criminalizing it hasn't stopped it.


You know, it actually occurred to me that someone might make that comparison, and I even started to write an additional sentence or two to explain why my argument DIDN'T logically extend to murder, but then I thought to myself, "No, keep it short, and nobody's going to make that dumb of an extension.  You can leave it unsaid that this doesn't extend to crimes with clear victims."  So I deleted those lines and posted the shorter version.

So, yeah.  Thanks for reminding me that even after all this time, I am still too optimistic with regard to Fark threads.


Then you should stop arguing for decriminalization based on historical ubiquity, and focus only on an argument from lack of harm.
 
2014-03-03 04:40:53 PM  
dywed88:
Except the moment you allow brothels, you allow state supervision and regulation.

Why?


If you're thinking of some sort of nevada mustang ranch style set-up them maybe the state would take an interest,
but
In the UK a brothel is classed as any place where two or more prostitutes work

As I understand it, working girls want to be able to work safely - and some feel that having two working girls in an apartment can help that
 
2014-03-03 04:53:20 PM  

Son of Thunder: ciberido: You know, it actually occurred to me that someone might make that comparison, and I even started to write an additional sentence or two to explain why my argument DIDN'T logically extend to murder, but then I thought to myself, "No, keep it short, and nobody's going to make that dumb of an extension.  You can leave it unsaid that this doesn't extend to crimes with clear victims."  So I deleted those lines and posted the shorter version.

So, yeah.  Thanks for reminding me that even after all this time, I am still too optimistic with regard to Fark threads.

Then you should stop arguing for decriminalization based on historical ubiquity, and focus only on an argument from lack of harm.


Sure, fine, if you need the obvious spelled out for you painstakingly.

Let's see.  How about "Any activity between consenting adults should be legal unless it can be demonstrated empirically that it victimizes someone or causes measurable harm to society."

Oh, yeah, I guess I should also add:

"Murder should be illegal because it victimizes a person."

Happy now?
 
2014-03-03 05:01:00 PM  

furterfan: dywed88:
Except the moment you allow brothels, you allow state supervision and regulation.

Why?


If you're thinking of some sort of nevada mustang ranch style set-up them maybe the state would take an interest,
but
In the UK a brothel is classed as any place where two or more prostitutes work

As I understand it, working girls want to be able to work safely - and some feel that having two working girls in an apartment can help that


First, all work places face standards and regulation. A brothel would be no different.

Second, due to the public health concerns a brothel should face stricter standards (like those at a restaurant).

In the endn it would be treated the same as any other business.

Sure, there would still be grey and black markets, but most prostitutes could be brought into the light and would have more protections than today, and it would be even worse if they criminalized prostitution.
 
2014-03-03 05:05:51 PM  

Son of Thunder: ciberido: Son of Thunder: ciberido: If you'll forgive me for repeating myself, we can argue about whether or not a person truly NEEDS sex, we can talk about Mazlow's hierarchy and so on, but to keep the question very practical: if a significant number of people will go so far as to break laws to get something, if entire black markets have existed and will exist to supply it, arguing about whether or not it is "truly a need" is moot.

It is, for pragmatic purposes, a need until such time as you have some practical means of making it not so.  Which I do not see happening any time soon.

Criminalizing prostitution is like attempting to stop the flow of a mighty river.  You can build a damn, you can try to divert the river, whatever you think best ; but in the end, all that water is going to go SOMEWHERE.

Same argument could be made for legalizing murder.  It has existed throughout history, in every culture, in plenty of nonhuman species, and criminalizing it hasn't stopped it.


You know, it actually occurred to me that someone might make that comparison, and I even started to write an additional sentence or two to explain why my argument DIDN'T logically extend to murder, but then I thought to myself, "No, keep it short, and nobody's going to make that dumb of an extension.  You can leave it unsaid that this doesn't extend to crimes with clear victims."  So I deleted those lines and posted the shorter version.

So, yeah.  Thanks for reminding me that even after all this time, I am still too optimistic with regard to Fark threads.

Then you should stop arguing for decriminalization based on historical ubiquity, and focus only on an argument from lack of harm.


Those are two separate arguments.

The fact that it doesn't harm anyone is important and he took it as a given.

Then to argue why action should be taken, he pointed out that enforcement has failed throughout history and the lengths people are willing to go for it means that there is a strong incentive and enforcement will be unlikely to succeed.

Then you move on to the argument about how current laws harm people by preventing them from coming forward or being protected.
 
2014-03-03 05:10:53 PM  

dywed88: Those are two separate arguments.



Yes.  One good one and one bad one.
 
2014-03-03 05:17:29 PM  

dywed88: The (non-moral) justification for restricting prostitution is that it indirectly harms people (such as human trafficking). Except I see no evidence that it protects people any more than laws directly against those things, and makes it harder to protect the victims.


That isn't wrong, but there is more to it, or at least some people think there is.

The idea that prostitution should be illegal because it is sinful or morally wrong comes from the political right (at least in the USA and probably elsewhere).  The idea that prostitution should be illegal because it harms women comes mainly in the USA from the political left, though you will see some odd overlap.

It's a bit of a split, actually, in feminist ideology.  You've got a large group of feminists (largely second-wave) who see prostitution and pornography as intrinsically misogynistic exploitation that perpetuates patriarchy.  Then there is another group of feminists (mainly newer and younger and largely associated with the third-wave) who call themselves "sex-positive feminists."

I know nobody wants a wall of text, so to keep it short and sweet: the idea is that legalizing prostitution (or pornography) and trying to clean it up and regulate it won't "fix" the underlying problem, which is the fundamentally promotes bad things like patriarchy and rape culture and so on.  To really boil it down, the argument as I understand it is that it promotes the idea of women as sex objects and nothing can ever change that.

I disagree with this because there's no proof.  Show me a study that gives real, substantial evidence that jerking off to "Naughty Midget Lesbians 7" MEASURABLY changes men's attitudes towards women or correlates statistically with domestic abuse or rape or, well, ANYTHING bad, and then I'll consider throwing in my lot with the sex-negative feminists.  But until then, I'm stuck agreeing with the sex-positive feminists.

I'm assuming here that the same argument applies equally to both pornography and prostitution, but if anyone cares to argue that they should be considered differently, I'm all ears.
 
2014-03-03 05:19:01 PM  

Son of Thunder: dywed88: Those are two separate arguments.


Yes.  One good one and one bad one.


Any particular reason why you're so hostile about this?  Is this a sore spot for you or are you just having a bad day?
 
2014-03-03 05:22:42 PM  
while men who create the demand often walk away, without taking responsibility for the damage they do."

By paying someone to have sex instead of buying them dinner and drinks you cause them damage?


When will we get over the puritanical delusion that sex is harmful?
 
2014-03-03 05:58:57 PM  

dywed88: gerrymander: ciberido: I asked before in another prostitution thread, but I don't think anyone answered.  If you're going to make prostitution legal, I can see why you might make some associated activities such as streetwalking and pimping illegal, but why brothels?

Are not brothels the most sane, non-disruptive way to have legal prostitution?  Why is having a prostitute do business out of her own apartment better?

A well-run brothel is superior in almost every way to the "each prostitute works out of her own apartment" model. A badly-run brothel offers easy options for pimping, bribery, extortion, and human trafficking.

Personally, I'm in favor of brothels, but I understand the concern the UK laws address.

Except the moment you allow brothels, you allow state supervision and regulation.

You also remove the risk and fears of a prostitute getting arrested for coming forward.


On one hand, government officials can be bribed or coerced. On the other, two of the serious downsides of brothels (vs. the private apartment scenario) are the loss of discretion about assignations, and increased impersonality of service -- both of which would be exacerbated by regulatory oversight.

I'm on your side on this, but let's not pretend that "government" is a magic wand that makes the world unambiguously better. A trade-off you're willing to make is still a trade-off.
 
2014-03-03 06:41:15 PM  

gerrymander: dywed88: gerrymander: ciberido: I asked before in another prostitution thread, but I don't think anyone answered.  If you're going to make prostitution legal, I can see why you might make some associated activities such as streetwalking and pimping illegal, but why brothels?

Are not brothels the most sane, non-disruptive way to have legal prostitution?  Why is having a prostitute do business out of her own apartment better?

A well-run brothel is superior in almost every way to the "each prostitute works out of her own apartment" model. A badly-run brothel offers easy options for pimping, bribery, extortion, and human trafficking.

Personally, I'm in favor of brothels, but I understand the concern the UK laws address.

Except the moment you allow brothels, you allow state supervision and regulation.

You also remove the risk and fears of a prostitute getting arrested for coming forward.

On one hand, government officials can be bribed or coerced. On the other, two of the serious downsides of brothels (vs. the private apartment scenario) are the loss of discretion about assignations, and increased impersonality of service -- both of which would be exacerbated by regulatory oversight.

I'm on your side on this, but let's not pretend that "government" is a magic wand that makes the world unambiguously better. A trade-off you're willing to make is still a trade-off.


One of the big arguments for brothels is specifically that it brings people together and increases security if some customer decides to do something stupid.

And nobody has said that single person operations should be banned. And I would bet that the higher priced operations would tend to be smaller.

Sure government officials could be bribed or lazy, but then the worst case scenario is the same as it is right now.

The point remains that the best way to fight exploitation of women is simply to bring them out in the open and ensure that legal protections are available without penalty.
 
2014-03-04 01:47:20 AM  

VladTheEmailer: ShatteredMinds: clyph: ShatteredMinds: Sometimes both men and women want sex with no attachments, where they can just pay, get off, and leave without having to worry about another's needs

There's that.

Also, sometimes people want to have sex with someone more physically attractive than they could attract on their own.   Or they prefer the certainty and convenience of buying exactly what they want, over investing time money and effort playing the dating game to get an uncertain outcome.

Hadn't thought about it before, but their could also be reasons like sexuality. A person thinks they have homosexual or bi tendencies and wants a safe [in that its with no one they know or who might talk about it] way to try out a side of their sexuality they're not yet comfortable with.

Or is shy about asking a potential mate whether they would take a dump on your chest; while you have a foot long dildo shaped like the Archbishop of Canterbury up your ass; a fleshlight on your dick; while you both sing the Armenian national anthem.in Pig Latin.

...or..uh...something.



Well, I, for one, am glad I have a 3 day weekend coming up.....
 
2014-03-04 01:48:28 AM  

Son of Thunder: ciberido: If you'll forgive me for repeating myself, we can argue about whether or not a person truly NEEDS sex, we can talk about Mazlow's hierarchy and so on, but to keep the question very practical: if a significant number of people will go so far as to break laws to get something, if entire black markets have existed and will exist to supply it, arguing about whether or not it is "truly a need" is moot.

It is, for pragmatic purposes, a need until such time as you have some practical means of making it not so.  Which I do not see happening any time soon.

Criminalizing prostitution is like attempting to stop the flow of a mighty river.  You can build a damn, you can try to divert the river, whatever you think best ; but in the end, all that water is going to go SOMEWHERE.

Same argument could be made for legalizing murder.  It has existed throughout history, in every culture, in plenty of nonhuman species, and criminalizing it hasn't stopped it.


SSSSShhhhhhhh.......... don't give those Ruskies any idears.......
 
Displayed 81 of 81 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report