U.N. Commission Calls for Legalizing Prostitution Worldwide

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Guessing you used dictionary.com for your definitions because after that last statement, if it dont bother me, then who cares...this is all i got

Originally posted by getreadyalready
This issue gets all muddied up by the people uptight about sex in general. It is no different than being paid to weedeat a ditch, run 100m, or sit in a cubicle all day. We're paid for our time and our labors, and what those labors are is agreed upon before hand, and we either do it or we don't take the job.

Weeding a ditch isn't programmed directly into your base brain. This logic stinks to high heaven.

reply to post by stolski21


I stated that yes, it should not bother you if it doesn't effect you.

Why would it?

And what harm is being done when two consenting adults pay each other for sex? Please tell me how that is wrong, or somehow harmfull to either party?

If you're going to use morality as a means to argue the point, don't bother, you've already lost.

Morality is subjective. And I don't make it a habit of removing people's rights just because I don't agree with their version of how the world works.

~Tenth

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

Originally posted by stolski21

Originally posted by tothetenthpower

That whole, " It's none of my business and it's none of yours"... isn't that one of the reasons why we are in the crapper? Cause we don't care about how others feel? Or we don't care enough to care? To many people in this world live with apathy in their core instead of empathy.. all I am saying

No it's quite the opposite actually, we are in this situation because some people thought they could legislate people's bodie's and decide for them what was ok and what wasn't when it came to sex.

I have no apathy towards this, I actually have more empathy than most people because I don't see the sex trade as criminal when done properly by consenting adults.

I encourage people to do whatever it is they please as long as they aren't hurting other people or cohersing other people into a trade they wish not be in.

It's none of my business what anybody else is doing with their lives, until they make it my business by involving me in some way. Either by infringing on my rights or my familly's etc..

Otherwise, live and let live and no government body should be legally allowed to create legislation that undermines your ability to govern yourself.

~Tenth

edit on 7/25/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)

But I also agree, after pondering a little, humans as a whole should be allowed to free roam and do as we please. Only as long as we are productive instead of destructive. No dumping radioactive sludge in Crystal Lake, or drill for oil. We need to be more mindful of the planet as a whole and be aware, " For EVERY action, is a equal and opposite reaction"

reply to post by Dhimmie


It seems to me that people are completely out of it. Not only do they think that if they legalize prostitution that they will some how magically get rid of the whole shady aspects or the pimps, which is a big no brainier that they wont. You would have only replaced one pimp for another, the other being society and big government and rules and regulations, .

How do you know it isn't about sex and power and control are used to achieve this. Without sex it isn't rape, so of course it is about sex to some degree.

And then we have people like you bro, who respond to me with the stupidest sh*t ever.

So, ya read that again and as you do answer your own question. Ya off-course its about power and control, and off-course its about sex, as a form of getting that power and control. If they really wanted it just to be about the sex, well then they would of just paid a pro, and gotten over with it and it would not be called rape. Really it is not all that hard to understand. Do you need pictures or something to help you understand such a simple concept?

Originally posted by getreadyalready
No evidence?

It is common theory that the "survival of species" instinct is superior to all others including "survival of self." In fact, most species will willingly march to their death for the opportunity to procreate. Usually it is the males making that sacrifice, sometimes even becoming a meal for the female!!

You may be happy to compare your behaviour to that of insect life, and I can see the correlation, but unless you can produce some evidence to the contrary, I stand by my previous comment, there is no evidence that there is any hard wired drive in human males to have sex, or procreate, with as many member of the opposite sex as possible, and in fact, much evidence to contradict such a stance.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
I think there is plenty of evidence to support the idea that males are hard-wired for procreation at all costs.

You may have been programmed by popular culture to believe in such a fallacy, but that's your software honey, nothing to do with evolution. You believe, seemingly, what the MSM want you to believe. Taking our closest relatives from the animal world as an example, the primates, it is more likely in fact that the females will take multiple partners, that way they can be assured that the strongest sperm, in competition, make it to the destination. And, of course, in such groups, as with most higher mammals, the male has to earn his breeding rights. Being hardwired for procreation is one thing, but what you claimed is that males are hardwired to inseminate as many females as possible. This is a complete and utter myth.

Originally posted by getreadyalready
On another topic, I was talking with a co-worker (female) about this subject over lunch, and I'm a full-grown, happy, well-adjusted, heterosexual male, and if a fat, disgusting man wanted to pay me $1000 per hour to grind around naked on top of me, I'd have to at least consider it!! She said it was a no-brainer, hell yeah she'd take the money! Now, some of these streetwalkers are getting more like $50 per hour, but they are supporting a drug habit and they don't have a lot to offer in the first place. $1000 per hour is not unrealistic for a pretty person with some self-respect, good hygiene, and a discerning clientele. I could work an hour or two per day under those conditions for that pay, no problem!

Well given that you have already claimed in this thread that you feel somewhat envious of the sex workers hourly rate and already feel as though you prostitute yourself in other ways, it does not surprise me that you would go the whole hog. Go for it, why not? Perhaps you've finally found your vocation in life.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by boncho

 

If a girl is giving out free gang bangs I don't see how it's much different than taking money for the same act.

Neither one has much self respect,
but yea, our culture is so over the self respect issue.

edit on 023131p://bWednesday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)

Thanks. At times, I just couldn't think of better words or terms to address the post. That is what I was brought up with is to have 'self respect' and to respect others. This has nothing to do with religion in anyway but basic humanity 101 of courtesy and compassion and ofcourse respect.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


I don't think morality is really that subjective, you know what is good and you know what is bad. If you see some kid crying on the side-walk cause, I dunno, his/her cat is in the tree ( I know classic and clever). Most people would probably just move on by without at least trying to help. Helping him would obviously be a good morale choice. If you see someone dying and you refuse to help, I would like to think that is a bad choice.

More people will get forcet in to this than do now.
you can not get a job?

Then you Must become a prostitut or lose your benifit.
even the diabled would have to become prostituts.
all they need to is lay down.

just another way to destroy the spiret of the people.
Next make slavery legal.
dont send them to jail just make them slaves.

In every country, nation, or state where prohibition against prostitution is non-existent or has been repealed the incidents of rape are far fewer than in countries, nations, or states where prostitution has been prohibited. One study estimates that if The United States repealed their prohibition laws on prostitution that incidences of rape would decrease by "roughly 25%" which means "roughly" 25,000 less rapes in the U.S. per year. 25,000 less rapes per year. 25,000 less rapes. Hard to remain sanctimonious about "feminism" when the data suggests that prostitution decreases rape significantly.

Scott Cunningham has done a study called Does decriminalization of indoor prostitution reduce rape and gonnorrhea? Evidence from Rhode Islands natural experiment

This study can be found online, but the author has made express wishes that his material not be cited or circulated without his permission. Out of respect to that I will not link or cite his study, but I point to it because it supports the previous cited study of decrease in rape while also showing a significant decrease in the incidences of gonorrhea.

As it always is, the pro-prohibitionists, whatever it is these people want prohibited, will get all sanctimonious and huff their puffery of outrage at the suggestion of "decriminalization", or as I would put it the repeal of dubious legislation, but the data suggests their puffery comes with an astonishing disregard for individuals and the victims. It is arguable that the pro-prohibitionists of prostitution are also pro 25,000 rapes more a year than without that prohibition.

reply to post by Biliverdin

but unless you can produce some evidence to the contrary, I stand by my previous comment, there is no evidence that there is any hard wired drive in human males to have sex, or procreate, with as many member of the opposite sex as possible, and in fact, much evidence to contradict such a stance.

If the female apes are taking multiple partners, doesn't that indicate that the males are also having sex with more than one partner?

As for human evidence, can I present to you the US's divorce rate due to infidelity, the single-parent statistics, the child support industry, the crimes of passion, murders, rapes, etc. How about the cliche of the man jumping out an upper story window with pants on one leg when a hubby comes home early? Things don't become cliche if they never happen. How about young males braving overbearing fathers with shotguns, just to get a goodnight kiss? You think that is love or lust? Sure, a lot of the examples are pop culture, but they were pop culture in the 90s, 80s, 70s, 60s, 50s, all the way back to the 1800s, 1700s, etc. Why do you suppose the religions are so intent on regulating the sexual activity?

If it wasn't an innate desire, we wouldn't need religious mandates and laws preventing it would we?

reply to post by buddha

More people will get forcet in to this than do now.
you can not get a job?

Then you Must become a prostitut or lose your benifit.

How can it possibly increase the forced number? If people are willingly doing it without threat of criminal repercussions, then why would someone take a chance and force an unwilling sex worker?

The reason there is force now, is because law-abiding citizens are forbidden from participating, but if it is legal, then a good legal alternative arises, and the need to force people into it evaporates.

Originally posted by stolski21
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

I don't think morality is really that subjective, you know what is good and you know what is bad. If you see some kid crying on the side-walk cause, I dunno, his/her cat is in the tree ( I know classic and clever). Most people would probably just move on by without at least trying to help. Helping him would obviously be a good morale choice. If you see someone dying and you refuse to help, I would like to think that is a bad choice.

Yeah but Right Vs Wrong and Morality are two different things entirely.

1.descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or,
a.some other group, such as a religion, or
b.accepted by an individual for her own behavior or
2.normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.

Source

Now yes, although right and wrong is mentioned, it's perceived right and wrong that makes the difference. Any rational person would help a person dying if they could, that's a given.

It's not rational to dislike somebody because they are a sex worker, especially if it was legal and not done on the streets.

Perhaps personally you find prostitution to be immoral and you loathe the thought. That's fine, you are entitled to that opinion, but you aren't entitled to lobby for the removal of somebody's rights to do so if they please.

Referring terms are ambiguous when the referents of a term differ from each other in sufficiently important ways. The original descriptive definition of “morality” refers to an actual code of conduct put forward by a society and accepted by the members of that society. When the examination of large diverse societies raised problems for this original descriptive definition, different descriptive definitions were offered in which “morality” refers to a code of conduct put forward by any group, or even by any individual.

Apart from containing some prohibitions on harming some others, different moralities can differ from each other quite extensively. Unlike the descriptive definitions of morality discussed earlier, which may have minimal implications for how a person should behave, the proposed normative definition of “morality” provides an explicit guide for how a person should behave. The proposed normative definition of “morality” is controversial but it does have some features that should be widely accepted.

The definition allows as meaningful the commonly asked question, “Why should I be moral?” It is also compatible with the commonly held view that it is not always irrational to be immoral, however it guarantees that it is never irrational to be moral. This definition also explains why we want others to act morally and why others want us to act morally.

I've known quite a few sex workers in my life working with various groups in my town and they were all great people other than the drugs and the violence they were subjected to because there was no legal and safe way for them to practice their chosen profession.

~Tenth

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
In every country, nation, or state where prohibition against prostitution is non-existent or has been repealed the incidents of rape are far fewer than in countries, nations, or states where prostitution has been prohibited. One study estimates that if The United States repealed their prohibition laws on prostitution that incidences of rape would decrease by "roughly 25%" which means "roughly" 25,000 less rapes in the U.S. per year. 25,000 less rapes per year. 25,000 less rapes. Hard to remain sanctimonious about "feminism" when the data suggests that prostitution decreases rape significantly.

Scott Cunningham has done a study called Does decriminalization of indoor prostitution reduce rape and gonnorrhea? Evidence from Rhode Islands natural experiment

This study can be found online, but the author has made express wishes that his material not be cited or circulated without his permission. Out of respect to that I will not link or cite his study, but I point to it because it supports the previous cited study of decrease in rape while also showing a significant decrease in the incidences of gonorrhea.

As it always is, the pro-prohibitionists, whatever it is these people want prohibited, will get all sanctimonious and huff their puffery of outrage at the suggestion of "decriminalization", or as I would put it the repeal of dubious legislation, but the data suggests their puffery comes with an astonishing disregard for individuals and the victims. It is arguable that the pro-prohibitionists of prostitution are also pro 25,000 rapes more a year than without that prohibition.

Think I am moving to Portugal , but this looks interesting so far, will have to look at it more when I am not at work, might not look well if my boss finds me looking at it.

Originally posted by SibylofErythrae
Selling your body does have consequences, and again you believe what you believe because YOU don't live with those consequences. That you are willing for your children to shoulder those consequences because you have buddies that would like to buy their vaginas for an evening (as long as they are adults) really doesn't say much about your priorities.

But hey, if your morals make your buddies' sexual wants more important to you, who am I to judge you?

edit on 25-7-2012 by SibylofErythrae because: (no reason given)

Bingo, how many men would want their daughters to be prostitutes?

I guess it is ok as long as it is someones elses daughter.

Originally posted by TheReclaimer
The question "what if your mother, sister, daughter became a prostitute?" is completely hypothetical.

So are the speculations about how it might help or fight disease or drop crime rates etc Hypothetical that is.

Originally posted by stolski21
reply to post by tothetenthpower

 

I don't think morality is really that subjective, you know what is good and you know what is bad. If you see some kid crying on the side-walk cause, I dunno, his/her cat is in the tree ( I know classic and clever). Most people would probably just move on by without at least trying to help. Helping him would obviously be a good morale choice. If you see someone dying and you refuse to help, I would like to think that is a bad choice.

This varies according to religion, society and/or cultures Trust me.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Originally posted by SibylofErythrae
Selling your body does have consequences, and again you believe what you believe because YOU don't live with those consequences. That you are willing for your children to shoulder those consequences because you have buddies that would like to buy their vaginas for an evening (as long as they are adults) really doesn't say much about your priorities.

But hey, if your morals make your buddies' sexual wants more important to you, who am I to judge you?

edit on 25-7-2012 by SibylofErythrae because: (no reason given)

Bingo, how many men would want their daughters to be prostitutes?

I guess it is ok as long as it is someones elses daughter.

WANT, is far more different than ACCEPTING.

You can accept something you don't want. I don't want the government telling me that I can't build a fence in my front yard without a building permit, but I accept it as the reality.

~Tenth

reply to post by Stormdancer777

Bingo, how many men would want their daughters to be prostitutes?

I guess it is ok as long as it is someones elses daughter.

Admittedly, it wouldn't be my first choice for a daughter's profession, but neither would plumber or truck driver.

If I give my daughter all the tools necessary to be successful, she is educated, she is self-confident, empowered, logical, and spiritual. If she can be honest with me and her mother, and she understands natural consequences to all of her actions, and she makes an informed decision to pursue sex as a trade (assuming it were legal), then I would have no problem with that.

If she were kidnapped, coerced, raped, enticed into drug use, or physically abused by a significant other, then I would take them apart into little bitty pieces and fertilize my fruit trees, but if she made a logical decision, and she were in control of her own actions, no problem.

reply to post by tothetenthpower


Whoa now, don't be putting things in my mouth, er words. Never said I loathe them, I respect every person and I most certainly do not wish their rights to be taken away. If the butt wipes that are trying so hard to get young women to be legal sex workers were to avert their energy, time and money to, maybe a fund for under privileged women school/college, that would be a tremendously GOOD step in the RIGHT direction.