Bipartisan fascists go after Backpage et al

[Jolly_Penguin]

Derec, who are you to not let Toni tell you what you think and believe? Be honest Derec! You believe whatever she decides to project onto you so she can ignore all your points! Admit it! You monster!

Tee hee hee

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Do you realize that it's private health insurance companies that administer Part D for Medicare? Do you realize that it's those insurance companies that decide which drugs to cover? And, did you realize that an individual can call the insurance company or have their pharmacist or doctor call the company and get the HRT covered? Of course it's covered under the largest copay, which means that the individual will have to pay 50% of the cost. I am a Medicare recipient over the age of 65 who has convinced Silver Scripts to pay for part of my HRT for the past three years. The problem is that our drug costs are absurdly high, and our corporation controlled Congress doesn't want us to be able to negotiate for drug prices. What I once paid 55 per month for when I had no drug coverage insurance back in 2006, I now pay half of 188 dollars a month for the exact same drug. The full retail price is over 300 dollars according to my pharmacist. Why are hormones so expensive? Please do some DD before you make statements that aren't true. And, I'm sorry that I added to the derail, but it really annoys me when someone makes claims that aren't at all true. That is all.

They're following the government's lead. And my wife's PCP has squawked about HRT for transsexuals and gotten nowhere.

If you're paying that much, I suggest seeing if there's a cheaper solution that will work for you. My wife has to use two pills instead of one but until recently it was $20/3 months cash price. Wal-Mart took the medoxyprogesterone off their $10 list and wanted IIRC $36 this time so we went shopping around for the next fill. Looks like we will be able to do about $24.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Or how about treating girls and women well enough that they are able to get the education, training, and jobs that they need to make their own way in life and don’t have to spread their legs for random strangers 4-10 times a day.

You're assuming they have the ability to learn a trade that pays as well as prostitution. Most of them don't. (Not singling them out--most men can't, either.)

I’m assuming that the many, many pieces I’ve read are accurate and truthful, as well as my familiarity with some women I grew up with who, at least for a time, turned tricks, and that a great many prostitutes enter that line of work out of desperation, usually from some pretty dire situations. Boys also experience such traumas, but I don’t see anyone here suggesting that their best course of action is to turn tricks. Curious, isn’t it?

Prostitution is mostly a women's game. Pretty hard for a guy to make money turning tricks.

And a lot do turn to it because of dire situations--feeding a habit. It's about the only job an addict can hold down that pays enough.

 

[Derec]

Teachers and welders have degrees, licensures and certifications that document their skills and expertise that are easily transferable to other lines of work. They also likely have pensions and retirement plans that are portable.

Sex workers who retire because of disease or just retire can also move to other work within sex work industry. They can run agencies for example, take care of vetting, that sort of thing.
Or they could learn a new trade, like the disabled welder would have to. Sex work is a very people-centered business. Many of the skills would translate to social work or nursing. Speaking of which, I once saw a girl who was in nursing school.

 

[Derec]

Definitions don't have to be consistent.

Well, they should be as consistent as possible.

For example, if you are doing a meta-analysis and different analyses you are looking at use different definitions but achieve the same or similar findings, then it's worth collecting that and putting it into a larger context of a meta-study. Similarly, one may have to use the different types of measures that are available according to the sources of information and so one may look at different things measured differently and all may arrive at similar conclusions within a single study.

A reason why social sciences are about 2 on the Mohs Hardness Scale.

The problem I pointed out was mostly not between studies, but between definitions used in studies (relating to movement of workers, legal or illegal) and the interpretation of the study that this movement is somehow involuntary. That is a big difference in meaning and pretends the studies

For example, sex work is legal in Germany. So is waitressing. It is also a rich country. It will thus attract workers in both those fields who will immigrate into Germany, both legally and illegally. Why is a woman who moves to Germany off her own free will to pursue sex work automatically a trafficking victim but a woman who moves to Germany to work as a waitress is not?

Where there would be a serious no-no is in taking two different units of measure and adding them together while calling it only one of the units or conflating definitions in such a way to arrive at the opposite conclusion.

Like for example pretending that trafficking and immigration are the same thing.

 

[laughing dog]

Toni raised an interesting point. Why is it that no one has pointed out that men without the requisite abilities can turn to prostitution?

For those people who claim to be only interested in discussing the points and not the people, one would expect relevant and thoughtful replies. At the least, someone of that character might suggest the question was off-topic. At this writing, I have not seen any posts that might be construed as actually addressing the actual content of the question. I have seen posts that purport to address that question but only contain evasions and sophomoric insults. I wonder why such an interesting question would generate such disappointing responses from such a self-proclaimed enlightened group of free thinkers.

 

[bilby]

Toni raised an interesting point. Why is it that no one has pointed out that men without the requisite abilities can turn to prostitution?

For those people who claim to be only interested in discussing the points and not the people, one would expect relevant and thoughtful replies. At the least, someone of that character might suggest the question was off-topic. At this writing, I have not seen any posts that might be construed as actually addressing the actual content of the question. I have seen posts that purport to address that question but only contain evasions and sophomoric insults. I wonder why such an interesting question would generate such disappointing responses from such a self-proclaimed enlightened group of free thinkers.

I figured that the existence of male prostitutes was too well known to be worthy of comment.

I see no reason why the law should prohibit prostitutes of any gender; it's a complete non-issue with regard to the question of whether legalisation is a good thing, which it is for prostitutes of both sexes, and those such as transsexuals who don't neatly fit either category.

If someone wants to earn money by selling sexual services, then they shouldn't be prohibited from doing so by law - any more than they should be prohibited from selling any other personal or intimate services.

Nothing I have said in this thread in any way applies only to female prostitutes selling services to male customers. If you have assumed that, then that's your error.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I’m assuming that the many, many pieces I’ve read are accurate and truthful, as well as my familiarity with some women I grew up with who, at least for a time, turned tricks, and that a great many prostitutes enter that line of work out of desperation, usually from some pretty dire situations. Boys also experience such traumas, but I don’t see anyone here suggesting that their best course of action is to turn tricks. Curious, isn’t it?

Yes, it is. I'm going to think about that some more.

All I have is speculation that is perhaps not even consistent with itself:

More men want sex and don't care who it's from. Less women want sex and do care whom they have it with. So "demand" in the "market" is different, creating more "opportunities" or a gap for women. Some men do have extreme perverse desires, too, and are desperate...which is why some girls are stolen and auctioned.

The sex must flow.

Women historically have been in the role of having less freedom, catering to men, such as harems, dancing, even just sex and childcare and homecare...look even at tribes. Desperate men historically create wars, beg, kill, steal, rape.

Speaking of which we're being told that if women don't prostitute themselves, if it goes away, rapes will increase. So it's true: the sex must flow. The sex for men.

So in the modern world what are men doing who need or want money but cannot get it through ordinary means? I speculate that they commit crimes, but that the crimes have different rates per category. If they're drug addicts stealing maybe more than women? Armed robbery more. Pimping. If not drug addicts, selling things in the black market, drugs, ? It would be interesting to see statistics.

What about young men who need money for college? I don't hear anyone suggesting they should prostitute themselves and it's a thing I've never heard of. Going back to speculations above, the "market" is very little, very little demand. Much of the market may also be men, but gay men seeking other men. So maybe straight men can prostitute themselves to gay/bi men more than to straight women which I think someone else already suggested but only when difference between genders was brought up by Toni. So what else do they do, not go, get into something else, possibly crime if really desperate or military?

*note that I am talking in generalities and averages here...

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If men want more money, why don't they just have one of their dad's friends from the country club give them a position? That's what I did and it worked out fine. If others are too lazy to ask the butler to go into Father's study and request he make a few phone calls, that's really their own fault and they're stuck with nothing more than whatever the monthly allowance from their trust fund gets them.

It's pretty simple and straightforward and if they don't want to do it, there's no cause for them to blame the lack of opportunities for men in the prostitution industry for their lack of income.

 

[laughing dog]

Toni raised an interesting point. Why is it that no one has pointed out that men without the requisite abilities can turn to prostitution?

For those people who claim to be only interested in discussing the points and not the people, one would expect relevant and thoughtful replies. At the least, someone of that character might suggest the question was off-topic. At this writing, I have not seen any posts that might be construed as actually addressing the actual content of the question. I have seen posts that purport to address that question but only contain evasions and sophomoric insults. I wonder why such an interesting question would generate such disappointing responses from such a self-proclaimed enlightened group of free thinkers.

I figured that the existence of male prostitutes was too well known to be worthy of comment.

I see no reason why the law should prohibit prostitutes of any gender; it's a complete non-issue with regard to the question of whether legalisation is a good thing, which it is for prostitutes of both sexes, and those such as transsexuals who don't neatly fit either category.

If someone wants to earn money by selling sexual services, then they shouldn't be prohibited from doing so by law - any more than they should be prohibited from selling any other personal or intimate services.

Nothing I have said in this thread in any way applies only to female prostitutes selling services to male customers. If you have assumed that, then that's your error.

You have presented a good argument but it does not address Toni's (and my) point - Why is it that no one has pointed out that men without the requisite abilities can turn to prostitution? That question is independent of the merits of legalizing prostitution. I believe the point of the question is try to induce some serious introspection on the part of some of the vociferous kneejerk ideologues of legalizing prostitution. For example, I have never seen a post where someone seriously suggested a man become a prostitute in order to pay for higher education, yet someone has seriously suggested a woman become a prostitute in order to pay for higher education in this thread. Yes, it is possible that was simply careless and unthinking usage, but it is just as possible that it was not unthinking and sexist (or misogynist).

Her point is a very good one, and it merits serious consideration, not the infantile and sophomoric reactions from the usual suspects.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Toni raised an interesting point. Why is it that no one has pointed out that men without the requisite abilities can turn to prostitution?

For those people who claim to be only interested in discussing the points and not the people, one would expect relevant and thoughtful replies. At the least, someone of that character might suggest the question was off-topic. At this writing, I have not seen any posts that might be construed as actually addressing the actual content of the question. I have seen posts that purport to address that question but only contain evasions and sophomoric insults. I wonder why such an interesting question would generate such disappointing responses from such a self-proclaimed enlightened group of free thinkers.

I figured that the existence of male prostitutes was too well known to be worthy of comment.

I see no reason why the law should prohibit prostitutes of any gender; it's a complete non-issue with regard to the question of whether legalisation is a good thing, which it is for prostitutes of both sexes, and those such as transsexuals who don't neatly fit either category.

If someone wants to earn money by selling sexual services, then they shouldn't be prohibited from doing so by law - any more than they should be prohibited from selling any other personal or intimate services.

Nothing I have said in this thread in any way applies only to female prostitutes selling services to male customers. If you have assumed that, then that's your error.

You have presented a good argument but it does not address Toni's (and my) point - Why is it that no one has pointed out that men without the requisite abilities can turn to prostitution? That question is independent of the merits of legalizing prostitution. I believe the point of the question is try to induce some serious introspection on the part of some of the vociferous kneejerk ideologues of legalizing prostitution. For example, I have never seen a post where someone seriously suggested a man become a prostitute in order to pay for higher education, yet someone has seriously suggested a woman become a prostitute in order to pay for higher education in this thread. Yes, it is possible that was simply careless and unthinking usage, but it is just as possible that it was not unthinking and sexist (or misogynist).

Her point is a very good one, and it merits serious consideration, not the infantile and sophomoric reactions from the usual suspects.

What is it that you're talking about? Nobody has any issues with men becoming prostitutes if that's what they want.

A strawman position should at least have a minor bit of relation to the argument you're creating a strawman to counter.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I joined the army not for being patriotic but instead because I needed a job and there would be some benefit to paying back student loans. The military requirements in theory are pretty strict, like they asked about pot use. My recruiter lied a number of times, got me to lie, on forms to get in, and then even threatened me not to tell anyone. But in any case, if you've committed crimes, smoked pot, or have minor health issues, like even back problems,, it's much less of an opportunity. Some of that is true for other jobs too.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You have presented a good argument but it does not address Toni's (and my) point - Why is it that no one has pointed out that men without the requisite abilities can turn to prostitution? That question is independent of the merits of legalizing prostitution. I believe the point of the question is try to induce some serious introspection on the part of some of the vociferous kneejerk ideologues of legalizing prostitution. For example, I have never seen a post where someone seriously suggested a man become a prostitute in order to pay for higher education, yet someone has seriously suggested a woman become a prostitute in order to pay for higher education in this thread. Yes, it is possible that was simply careless and unthinking usage, but it is just as possible that it was not unthinking and sexist (or misogynist).

Her point is a very good one, and it merits serious consideration, not the infantile and sophomoric reactions from the usual suspects.

What is it that you're talking about? Nobody has any issues with men becoming prostitutes if that's what they want.

A strawman position should at least have a minor bit of relation to the argument you're creating a strawman to counter.

Up until she said something no one suggested it. It is too late to suggest it now. Where's the introspection? I don't see it. Is it the post about the butler?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You have presented a good argument but it does not address Toni's (and my) point - Why is it that no one has pointed out that men without the requisite abilities can turn to prostitution? That question is independent of the merits of legalizing prostitution. I believe the point of the question is try to induce some serious introspection on the part of some of the vociferous kneejerk ideologues of legalizing prostitution. For example, I have never seen a post where someone seriously suggested a man become a prostitute in order to pay for higher education, yet someone has seriously suggested a woman become a prostitute in order to pay for higher education in this thread. Yes, it is possible that was simply careless and unthinking usage, but it is just as possible that it was not unthinking and sexist (or misogynist).

Her point is a very good one, and it merits serious consideration, not the infantile and sophomoric reactions from the usual suspects.

What is it that you're talking about? Nobody has any issues with men becoming prostitutes if that's what they want.

A strawman position should at least have a minor bit of relation to the argument you're creating a strawman to counter.

Up until she said something no one suggested it. It is too late to suggest it now. Where's the introspection? I don't see it. Is it the post about the butler?

Here's one from the first page of the thread:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?13621-Bipartisan-fascists-go-after-Backpage-et-al&p=527420&viewfull=1#post527420

You know that people are going to be renting prostitutes and you know that there will be people forcing unwilling girls and boys into it

Here's one from a few weeks ago:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?13621-Bipartisan-fascists-go-after-Backpage-et-al&p=527692&viewfull=1#post527692

Many men do, and nobody here has said they shouldn't. But why do you insist on no more prostitution until more men do?

I stopped skimming through the thread for examples of it after the first two in the first few pages. What are you basing the claim that nobody had suggested it on? It seems to be completely unrelated to anything anyone is talking about.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Up until she said something no one suggested it. It is too late to suggest it now. Where's the introspection? I don't see it. Is it the post about the butler?

Here's one from the first page of the thread:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?13621-Bipartisan-fascists-go-after-Backpage-et-al&p=527420&viewfull=1#post527420

You know that people are going to be renting prostitutes and you know that there will be people forcing unwilling girls and boys into it

Here's one from a few weeks ago:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?13621-Bipartisan-fascists-go-after-Backpage-et-al&p=527692&viewfull=1#post527692

Many men do, and nobody here has said they shouldn't. But why do you insist on no more prostitution until more men do?

I stopped skimming through the thread for examples of it after the first two in the first few pages. What are you basing the claim that nobody had suggested it on? It seems to be completely unrelated to anything anyone is talking about.

You. You said earlier you were just referring to female gender because most prostitutes are female.

I think you are really missing a point though and frankly being nasty to Toni without properly addressing the core issue. Up until very recently women were property and actually they still often are. Society hasn't completely moved past this just like Obama being President didn't mean an end to racism. Virgin dowries treat girls like property much like virgin girls being auctioned or married off and pimps own their bitches but in a different way. Interestingly much of those so-called conservative countries allow harems and prostitution at least unofficially like Turkey. Prostitution probably came from patriarchy and slavery in much the same way that religious beliefs were also used to justify the superiorness of the tribe, inferiority of others and ownership of people. I don't think it's a coincidence at all that the market is for females and when there are gaps, trafficking makes up for it due to the demand.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Here's one from the first page of the thread:
https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?13621-Bipartisan-fascists-go-after-Backpage-et-al&p=527420&viewfull=1#post527420



Here's one from a few weeks ago:

https://talkfreethought.org/showthread.php?13621-Bipartisan-fascists-go-after-Backpage-et-al&p=527692&viewfull=1#post527692

Many men do, and nobody here has said they shouldn't. But why do you insist on no more prostitution until more men do?

I stopped skimming through the thread for examples of it after the first two in the first few pages. What are you basing the claim that nobody had suggested it on? It seems to be completely unrelated to anything anyone is talking about.

You. You said earlier you were just referring to female gender because most prostitutes are female.

I think you are really missing a point though and frankly being nasty to Toni without properly addressing the core issue. Up until very recently women were property and actually they still often are. Society hasn't completely moved past this just like Obama being President didn't mean an end to racism. Virgin dowries treat girls like property much like virgin girls being auctioned or married off and pimps own their bitches but in a different way. Interestingly much of those so-called conservative countries allow harems and prostitution at least unofficially like Turkey. Prostitution probably came from patriarchy and slavery in much the same way that religious beliefs were also used to justify the superiorness of the tribe, inferiority of others and ownership of people. I don't think it's a coincidence at all that the market is for females and when there are gaps, trafficking makes up for it due to the demand.

My nastiness to Toni was tongue in cheek and used to mock her constant accusations that those who disagreed with her were misogynists because it had gotten really lame and stupid. Also, the vast majority of prostitutes are female, so discussions about the industry center around women. That in no way implies that any of the arguments for or against it don't equally apply to men, transgendered people or non-gendered extraterrestrials who sell themselves to those who want some hot alien sex so they can afford to buy some plutonium to fire up their spaceship engines and get home. Simplifying the sentence by saying her instead of him or her in no way implies that you're ignoring men anymore than if you say "So, if you go to a lawyer and he tells you ..." in any way implies that you don't think women are able to become lawyers.

The implication that either side of the debate has any sort of lack of knowledge or recognition that there are also men in the industry is just inane.

 

[laughing dog]

Nobody has any issues with men becoming prostitutes if that's what they want.

I will repeat part of my post

For example, I have never seen a post where someone seriously suggested a man become a prostitute in order to pay for higher education, yet someone has seriously suggested a woman become a prostitute in order to pay for higher education in this thread. Yes, it is possible that was simply careless and unthinking usage, but it is just as possible that it was not unthinking and sexist (or misogynist).

. There is nothing there about wanting or desiring to become a prostitute.

A strawman position should at least have a minor bit of relation to the argument you're creating a strawman to counter.

I agree, and thank you for providing an example (see above).

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Boys also experience such traumas, but I don’t see anyone here suggesting that their best course of action is to turn tricks. Curious, isn’t it?

Girls experience such traumas, but I don't see anyone here suggesting that their best course of action is to turn tricks either. Is that curious?

I have never seen a post where someone seriously suggested a man become a prostitute in order to pay for higher education, yet someone has seriously suggested a woman become a prostitute in order to pay for higher education in this thread. Yes, it is possible that was simply careless and unthinking usage, but it is just as possible that it was not unthinking and sexist (or misogynist).

I don't recall seeing anybody suggest or encourage a man to become a prostitute in order to pay for higher education either. Nor have I seen anyone in this thread suggest or encourage a woman become one to do so. What I did see is somebody note that a woman has the privilege of having that choice far moreso than a man does. Nobody said that a woman SHOULD do it. Nobody suggested that men can't do it. What has been said repeatedly is that (attractive) women have more of a market for it, and can make considerably more money doing it. And I know women who have used that opportunity to gain higher education as well as many other advantages in life. Men and less attractive women, while they may be able to make some money in prostitution, don't have that path open to them to that extent.

Aside from the trolling that is obviously going on here, this does raise the question of WHY there is so much bigger a market for female sex partners than for male sex partners. That's a question maybe more suitable for the science section of this board, but I think the core of the answer is basic biology, of eggs being more scarce and taking more resources to produce than sperm, and the fact that women get pregnant and men don't. This applies to most animals and not just humans. It creates a desire in women to find male partners who will help support them and not fly away on them (deadbeat husbands and dads) and it creates a desire in men to scattershot sperm as far and wide as possible (evolution pressure to spread their DNA as much as possible). You can see that carry over into society where women become seen as precious baby making resources, and men as disposable support and war resources. Its why "women and children first" is a thing. Its where monogamous marriage contracts come from. Its also why romance novels are almost exclusively for women and porn without pretext is almost exclusively for men.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Prostitution probably came from patriarchy and slavery in much the same way that religious beliefs were also used to justify the superiorness of the tribe, inferiority of others and ownership of people.

Its a lot simpler than that. Prostitution came from the fact than men want to get laid and are far less picky about with whom they do it. Derec has made himself an example of that in this very thread. He wants to get laid. He's not picky enough about it to require himself to be in a long term loving exclusive stable relationship with the woman he has sex with. He probably wants to have sex with multiple women as well. That's sex drive. That's biology. That doesn't come from patriarchy or slavery, though it may contribute to it.

 

[laughing dog]

I don't recall seeing anybody suggest or encourage a man to become a prostitute in order to pay for higher education either. Nor have I seen anyone in this thread suggest or encourage a woman become one to do so.

Aside from the trolling that is obviously going on here,

Ironic that the main contributor to this "trolling" is concerned about it.

this does raise the question of WHY there is so much bigger a market for female sex partners than for male sex partners. .....

In your entire post, you managed to avoid dealing with "Why is it that no one has pointed out that men without the requisite abilities can turn to prostitution?" Truly fascinating.