Bipartisan fascists go after Backpage et al

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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.

I don't think that is the core of the issue. I think the core of the issue is that when such things are discussed, even by well-meaning people, there are two parts of the brain. One is desirous and one is rational. The desirous part of the brain may be more for legalizations while the rational part may formulate opinions in an entirely different way, being for, against, or somewhere in between. Being able to detach one's self from any possible biases in rational thinking while still realizing that one has a right to desire things is a difficult thing to do. Do we prioritize the well-being of women here in the forum? Does everyone? There's another thread here where someone just had to post a link to a woman whose breasts were exposed while she was arguably abused by police because he thinks breasts are cool to look at. There is little empathy there, mostly objectification. If a "woman" is thought of as an object and if prostitution is a desirous means to that object, then such a person may refer to prostitutes as women because they are not detaching themselves and thinking rationally. There is no proof here, just a suggestion, but what I have written on the subject since about trying to answer Toni's question has largely been ignored, only defensively and superficially addressed and only in part. There is some thinking I have done but no rational response to the greater part of what I wrote. Now I see a response to a single sentence in post#539 and nothing else. What is the purpose to have rational discussion here if it's only tongue in cheek mocking, accusations, and little discussion? Could you move forward? Can Toni? Can JP? Can I? Let's.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Fine, let's move forward. The data seems to show that legalizing prostitution leads to less dead prostitutes, less STDs, less rapes as well as giving police a better set of tools to target sex slavery and not criminalizing consensual sex between tow adults. This would hold true for both male and female prostitutes. Legalization seems to be the best option for anyone concerned with the lives and health of prostitutes.

I don't know what you're looking for in regards to a response to Toni's post. It's unrelated to any position I have and looks to be unrelated to any position anyone else has, so there's nothing really to be said about it.

 

[laughing dog]

Fine, let's move forward. The data seems to show that legalizing prostitution leads to less dead prostitutes, less STDs, less rapes as well as giving police a better set of tools to target sex slavery and not criminalizing consensual sex between tow adults. This would hold true for both male and female prostitutes. Legalization seems to be the best option for anyone concerned with the lives and health of prostitutes.

The data also seems to show that legalizing prostitution leads to more human trafficking and sex trafficking, so your conclusion should have at the end "and unconcerned about the freedom of people" if one wants to be even handed.
Yes I know that there are some questions about that data, but there are similar reasons to doubt the accuracy or reliability on the safety of prostitutes. The reality is that there is no perfect data for any of these measures.
In the end, people's views on this matter depends more on their ideological leanings and what they feel is more important. That does not mean those who think differently are wrong or misguided or do not care about either health or freedom.

I don't know what you're looking for in regards to a response to Toni's post. It's unrelated to any position I have and looks to be unrelated to any position anyone else has, so there's nothing really to be said about it.

I agree that there is nothing more to be said about it even though it is glaringly related to some of the positions taken by people in this thread.

 

[Derec]

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

Those are two different things. Sawyer used "want" in the sense of a voluntary decision, not desire. Same as with any other jobs really.

The difference between male and female sex workers is one of demand. But both sexes should be free to pursue sex work if they so choose, and clients should be free to hire them.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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.

Except that people including myself HAVE pointed out that men with or without "the requisite abilities", whatever you mean by that, can turn to prostitution. They just can't make as much money doing it. It isn't as viable an option for them. How many times do you need to be told this before you recognize it is an answer? Tom further pointed out that men are not always mentioned and sometimes women are spoken of exclusively when talking about prostitution because the vast majority of them are women, so it becomes like talking about construction workers and saying "these men" and not mentioning that some small number of them are women. That doens't mean male sex workers or female construction workers don't exist. Moreover this nitpick runs in both directions, as we didn't see much talk of protecting men from sex trafficking and that was spoken mainly of in terms of women as well.

 

[laughing dog]

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

Those are two different things. Sawyer used "want" in the sense of a voluntary decision, not desire. Same as with any other jobs really.

For some reason, you feel that clarification changes something. It does not.

The difference between male and female sex workers is one of demand. But both sexes should be free to pursue sex work if they so choose, and clients should be free to hire them.

Completely irrelevant to the point in my post.

 

[Derec]

The data also seems to show that legalizing prostitution leads to more human trafficking and sex trafficking,

No, it does not. The most the data shows is that legalized sex work leads more sex workers to move there from other countries, and the Prohibitionist side pretends that's the same as trafficking.

so your conclusion should have at the end "and unconcerned about the freedom of people" if one wants to be even handed.

I think Polish women should have the freedom of movement to work in Germany as sex workers the same as waiters or factory workers.
We do care about freedom of these women, but we do not see how going after consenting adults is going to improve freedom of those forced into sex trade one bit. Instead, Prohibitionists advocate restricting freedoms of consenting adults, on both sides of the business.

Yes I know that there are some questions about that data, but there are similar reasons to doubt the accuracy or reliability on the safety of prostitutes.

It's more than doubts. It's measuring something completely different and pretending you are measuring an increase in trafficking.

The reality is that there is no perfect data for any of these measures.

And a free society should err on side of more freedom. Things should not be prohibited unless there are very good reasons to ban it. Not shoddy claims by iliberal ideologues.

- - - Updated - - -

For some reason, you feel that clarification changes something. It does not.

Well that's on you. Most people understand the difference and its significance.

Completely irrelevant to the point in my post.

How so? Sex work is a viable option for many women, but not for many men.

 

[laughing dog]

No, it does not. ..

Wrong.

And a free society should err on side of more freedom. Things should not be prohibited unless there are very good reasons to ban it. Not shoddy claims by iliberal ideologues.

Or shoddy claims by "liberal" ideologues.

Well that's on you. Most people understand the difference and its significance.

I agree. Because the issue of "want" however defined was not relevant to the original question.

How so? Sex work is a viable option for many women, but not for many men.

Whether that claim is true is debatable, but it is irrelevant to the original question.

 

[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.

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.

It's not a good point.

It's not really a point at all - unless you are desperate to have people understand how poor your extrapolation skills are.

If a person is able to fund their studies more easily through prostitution than through any other employment situation, then they should have that option.

Their gender doesn't change that one iota.

 

[laughing dog]

It's not a good point.

It's not really a point at all - unless you are desperate to have people understand how poor your extrapolation skills are.

If a person is able to fund their studies more easily through prostitution than through any other employment situation, then they should have that option.

Their gender doesn't change that one iota.

And yet, for some reason, there are people who only suggest that as an option for women - that was the point you and others appear unable to glean.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And yet, for some reason, there are people who only suggest that as an option for women - that was the point you and others appear unable to glean.

No, there are not. Nobody has suggested women should do it. And everybody has stated men can also do it if they want to. Men just can't make as much money at it. Are you really this dense or are you trolling? Methinks the latter.

 

[Toni]

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.

It's not a good point.

It's not really a point at all - unless you are desperate to have people understand how poor your extrapolation skills are.

If a person is able to fund their studies more easily through prostitution than through any other employment situation, then they should have that option.

Their gender doesn't change that one iota.

Bilby, you're an intelligent, well educated man with decent reasoning skills. So it seems to me that you are missing the point I was trying to make quite deliberately. I wondered why people only talk about prostitution as an opportunity for women. It never comes up as an opportunity for men.

As for people needing to prostitute themselves in order to be able to afford college, that seems like a very barbaric system to me. I always thought better of Australia than that.

 

[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.

It's not a good point.

It's not really a point at all - unless you are desperate to have people understand how poor your extrapolation skills are.

If a person is able to fund their studies more easily through prostitution than through any other employment situation, then they should have that option.

Their gender doesn't change that one iota.

Bilby, you're an intelligent, well educated man with decent reasoning skills. So it seems to me that you are missing the point I was trying to make quite deliberately. I wondered why people only talk about prostitution as an opportunity for women. It never comes up as an opportunity for men.

As for people needing to prostitute themselves in order to be able to afford college, that seems like a very barbaric system to me. I always thought better of Australia than that.

For the same reason that fewer people talk about being a professional athlete as a job opportunity for women. They are perfectly capable of doing so and many do so quite successfully, but there are far fewer people willing to pay money to watch women's sports than men's, so the salaries are accordingly lower and there aren't as many teams for them to join. Nobody's stopping women from becoming professional athletes, but it's probably not going to be as lucrative for them as it would be for a man of similar athletic skill.

Similarly, there are far fewer customers willing to pay money for male prostitutes than there are for female prostitutes, particularly if the man isn't interested in providing homosexual sex. They should feel perfectly free to do so if that's their choice and some can surely do quite well for themselves, but it's probably not going to be as lucrative for them as it would be for a woman of similar attractiveness.

 

[Toni]

And yet, for some reason, there are people who only suggest that as an option for women - that was the point you and others appear unable to glean.

No, there are not. Nobody has suggested women should do it. And everybody has stated men can also do it if they want to. Men just can't make as much money at it. Are you really this dense or are you trolling? Methinks the latter.

Demonstrably false on all points. No surprise there.

https://www.cosmopolitan.com/uk/love-sex/sex/a11658313/male-escort-questions-answered/

11. How much do you charge?
My hourly rate is listed on my site at £350, but I tend not to take hourly bookings as I don’t get that much pleasure from a quick random ‘shag'. My average booking is about £1,000 for 4 hours, plus travel expenses. I charge up to £2,500 for a 24 hour booking. Most female clients tend to be very different from guys when hiring escorts. Many female escorts I know can literally turn up, act like a porn star for an hour, and once the guy cums, he’s content. My clients require a lot more time and attention. Sex is mental after all.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/vdppzj/an-interview-with-britains-most-expensive-male-escort-873


https://www.statisticbrain.com/prostitution-statistics/
Average price/trick = $60.
Average annual earnings (please note this is distinct from income) = $215,000/year. Which means that the average prostitute turns just under 10 tricks a day/365 days/year.

No one does that for fun. Or because 'the money is good.'

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No, there are not. Nobody has suggested women should do it. And everybody has stated men can also do it if they want to. Men just can't make as much money at it. Are you really this dense or are you trolling? Methinks the latter.

Demonstrably false on all points. No surprise there.

What you quoted there is demonstrably false on all points? Who suggested women should do it? Who said men don't have the option if they want to? Do you REALLY believe that most or even many men can make anywhere near as much as women can make in prostitution?

No one does that for fun. Or because 'the money is good.'

Do none of them do it because the money is good? I've met a few who did quite well for themselves when I interviewed them for the court challenge we did that got Canada's anti-prostitution laws struck down. Are you calling them all liars? Would you like Derec to provide you with some numbers? I bet he knows some who do very well as well.

 

[laughing dog]

And yet, for some reason, there are people who only suggest that as an option for women - that was the point you and others appear unable to glean.

No, there are not. Nobody has suggested women should do it. And everybody has stated men can also do it if they want to.

Suggesting something as an option is not the same as suggesting one should do it. And now everybody is suggesting men can also do it - which simply provides evidence to Toni's original observation - one that provoked a minor cavalcade of misplaced indignation, irrelevancies and insults. All of which suggests her remark hit a raw nerve among a number of

Men just can't make as much money at it.

For some reason, you and others feel the need to repeat irrelevant and unproven assertion of fact.

Are you really this dense or are you trolling? Methinks the latter.

Your response is evidence that you are projecting the former.

 

[Toni]

What you quoted there is demonstrably false on all points? Who suggested women should do it? Who said men don't have the option if they want to? Do you REALLY believe that most or even many men can make anywhere near as much as women can make in prostitution?

Why should they not be able to? I don't get it. Most male prostitutes service male clientele so it can't be that their clients won't pay.

No one does that for fun. Or because 'the money is good.'

Do none of them do it because the money is good? I've met a few who did quite well for themselves when I interviewed them for the court challenge we did that got Canada's anti-prostitution laws struck down. Are you calling them all liars? Would you like Derec to provide you with some numbers? I bet he knows some who do very well as well.

Exactly how good is the money if one must turn 3,583.3 tricks/year-or almost 10 a day-- to earn those 'big bucks?'

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why should they not be able to? I don't get it. Most male prostitutes service male clientele so it can't be that their clients won't pay.

How many gay men do you think there are who hire prostitutes? How many straight men do you think there are who hire prostitutes? Is there as much gay porn as straight porn? Is the market for male porn stars as good as it is for female ones? They can do gay porn right?

Exactly how good is the money if one must turn 3,583.3 tricks/year-or almost 10 a day-- to earn those 'big bucks?'

Perhaps you should ask them. I have a friend who works as merely a stripper and is paying for law school that way (though still in the process of getting into it) and she makes $600 on a bad night, in about 6 hours. Escorts can do even better. Again, it depends on how hot you are, your gender, etc. Some can make a fortune doing it, and that is quite a privilege for them to have that option. Others can't, so they don't have such a privilege.

What does any of this have to do with legalization of prostitution or Backpage btw?

 

[Derec]

To get back to the actual point that this is a horrible piece of legislation.

[Craigslist Erotic Services] led
to approximately 335 fewer female homicides for the years that Craigslist erotic
services was active in the United States up until the year before its closure (2002-
2009). While some effects dissipated after Craigslist closed, the long run effects
of Craigslist erotic services entry on increased independence, reduced agency employment,
reduced unsafe sex, reduced outcalls, increased screening and decreased
murder persisted throughout the Backpage era.

The Effect of Online Erotic Services Advertising on Prostitution Markets, Pricing, and Murder∗

 

[bilby]

It's not a good point.

It's not really a point at all - unless you are desperate to have people understand how poor your extrapolation skills are.

If a person is able to fund their studies more easily through prostitution than through any other employment situation, then they should have that option.

Their gender doesn't change that one iota.

And yet, for some reason, there are people who only suggest that as an option for women - that was the point you and others appear unable to glean.

Who are those people? How does their error in any way undermine my reasoned arguments for a legalised and regulated sexual services industry?

Why, in short, should I or anyone else care about this red herring?

- - - Updated - - -

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.

It's not a good point.

It's not really a point at all - unless you are desperate to have people understand how poor your extrapolation skills are.

If a person is able to fund their studies more easily through prostitution than through any other employment situation, then they should have that option.

Their gender doesn't change that one iota.

Bilby, you're an intelligent, well educated man with decent reasoning skills. So it seems to me that you are missing the point I was trying to make quite deliberately. I wondered why people only talk about prostitution as an opportunity for women. It never comes up as an opportunity for men.

As for people needing to prostitute themselves in order to be able to afford college, that seems like a very barbaric system to me. I always thought better of Australia than that.

Nobody needs to.

That's not a reason for nobody to be allowed to.