At 5/6/12 08:53 PM, MOSFET wrote:
At 5/6/12 06:45 PM, phsychopath wrote:
An annoying sentence by sentence rebuttal, that if phsychopath just read a few more sentences he would see an attempt at an explanation has been made, and in the end looked like an unthoughtful jerk.
If it's sentence by sentence, then by all means, how is it that I avoided reading sentences when I apparently replied to all of them individually?
Making it legal will not make it safer for women, all it does is legitimizes the industry. If you do legalize and regulate, someone playing by the rules would have to pay the workers fair wages, health insurance, and safe/clean working conditions. This cost is past onto the consumers, making it expensive for them.
Taxpayer money. Ever heard of it?
No doubt the women working in a legal house will be fine, and that's great. However, that doesn't help with human trafficking, or the exploitation of women. It won't deprive illegal houses of an industry.
They'll be more exposed and less desirable because they're unsafe, illegal and after the fact, a minority.
Illegal houses will still be illegal,
and they'll still operate as before.
Legalizing prostitution would give them air of legitimacy while not being legitimate at all.
I'm beginning to wonder if you even know what regulation is.
It also allows the notion that it's ok for women to be sold for sex.
No, it allows the notion that consenting adults can pay for sex, dipshit.
They would still be illegal, but jons will still want their services;
So they resort to the legal counterpart of the industry.
Younger girls, better control of their anonymity,
You've yet to explain specifically how this will give them better anonymity, so far this reply is nothing more than a regurgitation of what you've already said; you haven't elaborated at all.
or cheaper prices than the local legal house. Way more flexible business model than a legal, government backed, whore house.
This part of your argument is the only one that makes legitimate sense, but even so, how many people do you suppose will resort to something that is not only illegal, has a legal counterpart, but also has less outlets of than before?
Regulating it would also be an extra cost to the tax payer,
But you just said that it would all be costly to the john, so no, not according to your "statistics".
and frankly it's not an industry that has public support. Nor do I want it to have public support. I still see it as the exploitation of women,
You do realize that there exists such a thing as a prostitute right? They're called gigolos.
often exploiting them for being poor and needing money.
Go on the website called Backpage and see all the people who volunteer for prostitution. Additionally, would you prefer a person not have the option of prostitution as a means of escaping poverty under clean and legally protected circumstances, but rather under the dangerous ones involving serial killers looking for easy prey?
It would also make it government backed business. While it could be nice for awhile if regulations are done right, as we see in today's politics, it's easy for politicians to loosen regulations in the name of increasing economic growth and then system goes to shit.
Yes because the regulation of tobacco and alcohol has totally become lackluster over the years.
And yes, I've heard and seen a "bust" operation. Usually the poor girl has been forced to find clients and pass the payment to her pimp.
This is assuming that the call girl isn't her own pimp, but go on.
If caught, depending on the laws in the area, she's often given a choice, go to prison, or rat out her pimp.
If said pimp even exists. Stop being a pretentious fucktard and stop assuming that all hookers have pimps.
Often they get the help they need to be cared for.
Which is why it needs to be legalized and regulated. Condemning someone for trying to support themselves merely on the grounds of the profession itself, essentially a victimless crime, is not the way to get them away from prostitution.
Were she better educated, and if she were her own business woman, she could probably be more discrete in public and avoid getting busted.
Yeah that's not how busts work you little moron. A bust operation is where the cops schedule an appointment with the call girl on the pretense that they're actual costumers. They record the exchange of money and the sexual acts to prove in court that she's a prostitute. It's basically entrapment.
Simultaneously, there are plenty of hookers who operate on their own in just the same way you specified.
Increasingly, more localities are decriminalizing prostitution for prostitutes, which I do support, but prostitution should still illegal so authorities can go after jons and pimps.
Yeah here's the thing, if prostitution were legalized and regulated as a government backed business, pimps would cease to exist because their primary reason to exist is for the purpose of acting as manager for said prostitute. Additionally, what's wrong with the johns exactly? Oh and by the way, it's spelled "johns" not "jons".
Here's a person with more expertise on it. I am, after all, just some guy on the internet.
By all means that should mean that you've learned your expertise from him and therefore should be able to support your own argument. This isn't citing a source that proves a point, you're only detouring me to someone else's argument which you should be making yourself. The fact that you don't know everything he has to say on the subject and yet your argument simultaneously hinges on it proves you don't truly know what you're talking about.