Bipartisan fascists go after Backpage et al

[Tom Sawyer]

The hierarchy of needs is predicated on a dubious definition of 'need'. You could argue sex is important in maintaining good emotional/mental health but you'll notice that the hierarchy makes a clear division between sex and sexual intimacy. In that regard, masturbation works just fine, you don't 'need' a prostitute anymore than you 'need' avocado toast.

So what? If a man wants sex and a woman agrees to give it to them, why should it be the business of anybody else what the parameters of that agreement are? So long as everyone involved is a consenting adults, it shouldn't make a difference if that agreement is because "he's the love of my life and treats me like a queen" or because "he handed me an envelope of cash".

 

[Derec]

The hierarchy of needs is predicated on a dubious definition of 'need'. You could argue sex is important in maintaining good emotional/mental health but you'll notice that the hierarchy makes a clear division between sex and sexual intimacy. In that regard, masturbation works just fine, you don't 'need' a prostitute anymore than you 'need' avocado toast.

Masturbation is great, but again, sometimes I want more.

And I guess the comparison is apt, because there is as little reason for government to ban sex work as there is to ban avocado toasts. And both prevent many people from being able to afford a house.

 

[Derec]

And support his anti-woman agenda.

In this case it's very pro woman. Still very anti-radfem though as on this issue radfems are against the rights of some women.

 

[Derec]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-and-democrats-just-did-something-big-together/2018/04/11/38e90810-3cef-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html?utm_term=.82155ac131f1

A ridiculous piece of apologia for the draconian law change.

I haven't read the entire thread, but apparently sites like Backpage are so harmful that it actually inspired a bipartisan act.

Yeah, authoritarians in Congress came together across party lines to pass a harmful piece of legislation. I am so impressed.

Amazing. They actually did a two year study before they decided that Backpage.com was doing a lot of damage to innocent children. I really don't understand how any decent person would defend Backpage. Is evidence that this site was responsible for 73% of child sex trafficking of children not enough to ban the site?

Note that this claim is not that Backpage is responsible for 73% (or any particular percentage) of actual cases. It could be that it is a lot easier to monitor these ads and investigate suspicious ones. Which means that Backpage is worth more open than shut down, even when it comes to fighting trafficking!
FBI and Backpage could even cooperate if the government was not hell-bent on fighting all sex work, including by consenting adults.

 

[laughing dog]

Regardless of one's view of that law, it is a good that the law was appropriately applied as opposed to stretching the meaning of some other statute.

Again, the law was not appropriately applied, it was changed for the sole purpose of going after websites for posts by third parties.

Are you saying that the law, as written, was misapplied, or are you saying that it was properly applied but that you disagree? I ask, because from what I have read, there was no misapplication of any laws - (https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/09/politics/backpage-creators-indicted-on-prostitution-and-money-laundering-charges/index.html) that led to the closure.

 

[LordKiran]

The hierarchy of needs is predicated on a dubious definition of 'need'. You could argue sex is important in maintaining good emotional/mental health but you'll notice that the hierarchy makes a clear division between sex and sexual intimacy. In that regard, masturbation works just fine, you don't 'need' a prostitute anymore than you 'need' avocado toast.

So what?[1] If a man wants sex and a woman agrees to give it to them, why should it be the business of anybody else what the parameters of that agreement are?[2] So long as everyone involved is a consenting adults, it shouldn't make a difference if that agreement is because "he's the love of my life and treats me like a queen" or because "he handed me an envelope of cash"[3].

1. So, if you're going to argue that sex with another person is a biological necessity based on the hierarchy of needs on equal footing with food and water then I don't agree with that at all. There's a reason the HoN makes distinctions between physical gratification and psychological intimacy. They're not the same and the former doesn't strictly require the latter, or another human being involved for that matter.

2. Because changes like this can have greater impacts that involve all of us even if we don't particularly care for the company of an escort personally. I mean are you going to suggest that the individual is sacrosanct and has no obligations to the society within which they live? I consider myself largely individualist but I also recognize that this has limits and at a certain point your personal ability to do whatever you want must by necessity be curtailed to maintain a stable, healthy, and productive society. The most essential definition of anarchy I have ever heard is "Freedom without obligation" and to me that is spot on. Now I'm not necessarily saying that the sky will fall if we made prostitution legal tomorrow, but can you say with any real certainty or confidence what the consequences could be 50 years down the road? Its important to think about these things because culture and social attitudes don't change on a dime the way an economy can (Relatively speaking of course)

3. One tends to promote stable and healthy intimate relationships and foster families which by and large are a necessary component for people in general to feel complete and fully realized, and in doing so has a trickle effect onto society at large. Do you never think why it is the most politically unstable parts of the world tend to be filled with young unemployed boys/men with no wives? Idle hands are the devil's playground as they say. It's a dangerous state of affairs to have too many men and not enough social roles to go between them all. I'm not necessarily saying prostitution can't be justified along similar lines of promoting public welfare but that's my answer for what it's worth.

 

[LordKiran]

The hierarchy of needs is predicated on a dubious definition of 'need'. You could argue sex is important in maintaining good emotional/mental health but you'll notice that the hierarchy makes a clear division between sex and sexual intimacy. In that regard, masturbation works just fine, you don't 'need' a prostitute anymore than you 'need' avocado toast.

Masturbation is great, but again, sometimes I want more.

And I guess the comparison is apt, because there is as little reason for government to ban sex work as there is to ban avocado toasts. And both prevent many people from being able to afford a house.

Point is, just because food is a need does not mean you need specific foods, such that attempting to legitimize prostitution by spinning sexual intercourse with prostitutes as a need doesn't stand in my book.

 

[Derec]

Point is, just because food is a need does not mean you need specific foods, such that attempting to legitimize prostitution by spinning sexual intercourse with prostitutes as a need doesn't stand in my book.

A better analogy than a specific dish (which would be analogous to a particular sex worker) would be the idea that while we do require food, we may make food ourselves, get somebody to make it for us without overt payment or pay somebody to make food for us (like in a restaurant). While there is no requirement for me to go to restaurants for sustenance, neither is there a reason for government to ban restaurants.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Maybe someday Chipotle will be banned but not other restaurants.

 

[Derec]

1. So, if you're going to argue that sex with another person is a biological necessity based on the hierarchy of needs on equal footing with food and water then I don't agree with that at all. There's a reason the HoN makes distinctions between physical gratification and psychological intimacy. They're not the same and the former doesn't strictly require the latter, or another human being involved for that matter.

Actually the physicalness of actual sex with another person is quite different than masturbation, so I will disagree with you there. Even the testicles know the difference between fucking and jerking off, as sperm is higher in quality and quantity for intercourse vs. masturbation.
All that to say that while you will not die if you do not have sex it is not a trivial need either and should not be sacrificed lightly, especially for ideology.

2. Because changes like this can have greater impacts that involve all of us even if we don't particularly care for the company of an escort personally.

"Because changes like this (legalizing sodomy) can have greater impacts that involve all of us even if we don't particularly care for gay sex personally."
You do realize that many of the arguments beig advanced to argue against sex work have been used against gay sex, right?

I mean are you going to suggest that the individual is sacrosanct and has no obligations to the society within which they live?

No, of course not. But at the same time, an individual is the most important unit, and as such his or her freedoms should not be restricted needlessly.

I consider myself largely individualist but I also recognize that this has limits and at a certain point your personal ability to do whatever you want must by necessity be curtailed to maintain a stable, healthy, and productive society.

Again, same arguments about vague threats to "society" have been made against legalizing gay sex or gay marriage.

The most essential definition of anarchy I have ever heard is "Freedom without obligation" and to me that is spot on. Now I'm not necessarily saying that the sky will fall if we made prostitution legal tomorrow, but can you say with any real certainty or confidence what the consequences could be 50 years down the road? Its important to think about these things because culture and social attitudes don't change on a dime the way an economy can (Relatively speaking of course)

Prostitution has been described as the oldest profession in the world. While that can be argued, we know it is probably older than humanity. Like gay sex, it has been around for a long time and I doubt either will bring down the society.

3. One tends to promote stable and healthy intimate relationships and foster families which by and large are a necessary component for people in general to feel complete and fully realized, and in doing so has a trickle effect onto society at large. Do you never think why it is the most politically unstable parts of the world tend to be filled with young unemployed boys/men with no wives? Idle hands are the devil's playground as they say. It's a dangerous state of affairs to have too many men and not enough social roles to go between them all. I'm not necessarily saying prostitution can't be justified along similar lines of promoting public welfare but that's my answer for what it's worth.

I think public good should be furthered while causing least restriction of lives of individuals possible. Restricting ability of consenting adults to engage in sex for money is a big restriction of individual rights. Unless you can show that this is the only way some important public good can be achieved, other means should be employed instead. Not that I think that any public good is accomplished by banning consensual sex work, of course.

 

[LordKiran]

Point is, just because food is a need does not mean you need specific foods, such that attempting to legitimize prostitution by spinning sexual intercourse with prostitutes as a need doesn't stand in my book.

A better analogy than a specific dish (which would be analogous to a particular sex worker) would be the idea that while we do require food, we may make food ourselves, get somebody to make it for us without overt payment or pay somebody to make food for us (like in a restaurant). While there is no requirement for me to go to restaurants for sustenance, neither is there a reason for government to ban restaurants.

Sex with prostitutes is not a need, that was the point I was aiming to make and I made it fine. There are alternatives to avocado toast that preclude it from being a necessity, and the same goes for prostitutes.

 

[Derec]

Are you saying that the law, as written, was misapplied, or are you saying that it was properly applied but that you disagree? I ask, because from what I have read, there was no misapplication of any laws - (https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/09/politics/backpage-creators-indicted-on-prostitution-and-money-laundering-charges/index.html) that led to the closure.

So you have abandoned arguing that the feds did the right thing and are just arguing that they technically did not break any laws?

- - - Updated - - -

Sex with prostitutes is not a need, that was the point I was aiming to make and I made it fine. There are alternatives to avocado toast that preclude it from being a necessity, and the same goes for prostitutes.

Sex workers are the only way I can have sex with a woman. There is no alternative.

 

[laughing dog]

So you have abandoned arguing that the feds did the right thing and are just arguing that they technically did not break any laws?

It is doing the right thing to adhere to the law and to sanction law breakers. I seriously doubt you are implicitly arguing that the gov't should not enforce actual laws. If the feds thought Backpages was engaged in money laundering, they should act to enforce the laws. I am asking if you are claiming
1) the enforcement is illegal, or
2) there should be no enforcement of this actual law, or
3) there should be no law that Backpages violated by doing its business.

 

[LordKiran]

Actually the physicalness of actual sex with another person is quite different than masturbation, so I will disagree with you there. Even the testicles know the difference between fucking and jerking off, as sperm is higher in quality and quantity for intercourse vs. masturbation.
All that to say that while you will not die if you do not have sex it is not a trivial need either and should not be sacrificed lightly, especially for ideology. [1]


"Because changes like this (legalizing sodomy) can have greater impacts that involve all of us even if we don't particularly care for gay sex personally."
You do realize that many of the arguments beig advanced to argue against sex work have been used against gay sex, right? [2]

I mean are you going to suggest that the individual is sacrosanct and has no obligations to the society within which they live?

No, of course not. But at the same time, an individual is the most important unit, and as such his or her freedoms should not be restricted needlessly. [3]

I consider myself largely individualist but I also recognize that this has limits and at a certain point your personal ability to do whatever you want must by necessity be curtailed to maintain a stable, healthy, and productive society.

Again, same arguments about vague threats to "society" have been made against legalizing gay sex or gay marriage. [4]

The most essential definition of anarchy I have ever heard is "Freedom without obligation" and to me that is spot on. Now I'm not necessarily saying that the sky will fall if we made prostitution legal tomorrow, but can you say with any real certainty or confidence what the consequences could be 50 years down the road? Its important to think about these things because culture and social attitudes don't change on a dime the way an economy can (Relatively speaking of course)

Prostitution has been described as the oldest profession in the world. While that can be argued, we know it is probably older than humanity. Like gay sex, it has been around for a long time and I doubt either will bring down the society. [5]

3. One tends to promote stable and healthy intimate relationships and foster families which by and large are a necessary component for people in general to feel complete and fully realized, and in doing so has a trickle effect onto society at large. Do you never think why it is the most politically unstable parts of the world tend to be filled with young unemployed boys/men with no wives? Idle hands are the devil's playground as they say. It's a dangerous state of affairs to have too many men and not enough social roles to go between them all. I'm not necessarily saying prostitution can't be justified along similar lines of promoting public welfare but that's my answer for what it's worth.

I think public good should be furthered while causing least restriction of lives of individuals possible. Restricting ability of consenting adults to engage in sex for money is a big restriction of individual rights. Unless you can show that this is the only way some important public good can be achieved, other means should be employed instead.[6]

1. This would only be true if sex with prostitutes were your only means for obtaining sexual gratification from another person. It's not, so it isn't.

2. Makes sense if your society is based around the concept of spiritual purity that transcends physical pleasure or wants which includes not enjoying the things you eat, drink, or mate with overmuch. Not so much if it doesn't.

3. We can disagree on my reasoning but lets not say I didn't give reasons. That's not fair, Derec.

4. Indeed they have. People have often done terrible things in the name of some good intention. It's why we shouldn't stick to ideologies and instead judge individual changes on their individual merits. Which is exactly what we're doing now.

5. Old societies did lots of things that we don't do anymore, like use lead in their pipes (Cough...) Or enslave each other (Cough cough...) Just because things were done a thousand years ago doesn't mean they weren't in some way harmful to the societies (Or to the people that make them up) they occured in.

6. I think there's a legitimate case to be made establishing as a fundamental axiom of our social mores that sex and intimacy go hand in hand and that they are earned by taking risks, meeting new people and forming bonds, and not merely paid for.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Sex workers are the only way I can have sex with a woman.

Interestingly, when we discussed victims of trafficking, you had this to say:

These sob-stories are anecdotes, not data.

I am inclined now to be harsh with your response and discuss your "sob-story" and how irrationally created is the circumstance. Would you consider this to be fair or unfair based on your own minimization of other people's hurt?

 

[LordKiran]

Are you saying that the law, as written, was misapplied, or are you saying that it was properly applied but that you disagree? I ask, because from what I have read, there was no misapplication of any laws - (https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/09/politics/backpage-creators-indicted-on-prostitution-and-money-laundering-charges/index.html) that led to the closure.

So you have abandoned arguing that the feds did the right thing and are just arguing that they technically did not break any laws?

- - - Updated - - -

Sex with prostitutes is not a need, that was the point I was aiming to make and I made it fine. There are alternatives to avocado toast that preclude it from being a necessity, and the same goes for prostitutes.

Sex workers are the only way I can have sex with a woman. There is no alternative.

Derec i don't think that's true. I think that's a cop out because having to make yourself desirable would be more effort than you're willing to put forth and the idea that you might REALLY be undesirable to scare you so much that you don't ever want to find out. I think it's unfortunate that you feel that way, but I can promise that no prostitute will ever give you anything more than an ephemeral feeling of completeness. You can't fill the holes in your soul with pleasure in the hopes that it will make them any less deep and dark. I've spent my entire life watching people try and fail at just that and they were almost always worse off for it.

 

[Toni]

Are you saying that the law, as written, was misapplied, or are you saying that it was properly applied but that you disagree? I ask, because from what I have read, there was no misapplication of any laws - (https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/09/politics/backpage-creators-indicted-on-prostitution-and-money-laundering-charges/index.html) that led to the closure.

So you have abandoned arguing that the feds did the right thing and are just arguing that they technically did not break any laws?

- - - Updated - - -

Sex with prostitutes is not a need, that was the point I was aiming to make and I made it fine. There are alternatives to avocado toast that preclude it from being a necessity, and the same goes for prostitutes.

Sex workers are the only way I can have sex with a woman. There is no alternative.

Derec, I don't actually believe that. I realize that YOU believe that and because you believe that, you have ruled out any other avenues for generating a relationship with a woman or women that might ultimately be more satisfying. I see this as a self fulfilling prophesy. Maybe I just think more of you than you think of yourself. I apologize if this is too personal for me to write in this thread, but I wanted you to know that no matter how much you and I disagree about virtually everything, I see you as someone who deserves a good, loving relationship.

As I've said before, my opinions about prostitution are colored by knowing a few girls and women who were prostituted and knowing enough about them and their lives to know how they got there. And also reading enough to learn that legalizing prostitution does not stop but seems to increase trafficked sex workers who did not enter the business willingly but who were tricked and compelled. Honestly, when I first started reading about legalizing prostitution, I was sure I would be convinced legalization was the better way to go. But the more I read, the more that I am not. I am not impressed by the so called safe guards, especially by the testing for STIs which is present to protect customers but not sex workers who are discarded if they screen positive. I know very well what the intervals of time there are between initial infection and possibility of detection of virus: it's during that lag time that viruses such as HIV are most virulent--most transmittable. I think we all know that there are customers who will insist on no condom just as there are prostitutes who are so desperate for money that they are willing to forgo the condom for the cash. Legalized prostitution reduces risks to health and safety but not enough. Legalized prostitution increases the risks that vulnerable people, often too young to be legal, are forced into that life. It's extremely difficult to get out, even if you are not compelled by a pimp.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But the more I read, the more that I am not. I am not impressed by the so called safe guards, especially by the testing for STIs which is present to protect customers but not sex workers who are discarded if they screen positive.

What do you mean by discarded? If you mean not allowed to remain licensed prostitute, isn't that a good thing? And isn't protecting customers from STI necessarily going to protect the school workers from the same? If the customer is prevented from catching it, he can't pass it on.

I think we all know that there are customers who will insist on no condom just as there are prostitutes who are so desperate for money that they are willing to forgo the condom for the cash.

You would have to be crazy o suicidal to have sex with a prostitute and not use a condom. The vast vast majority of customers insist on them. The bigger concern here would be that sometimes they break.

Legalized prostitution increases the risks that vulnerable people, often too young to be legal, are forced into that life.

Does it? Or does it merely reroute where it takes place?

 

[Toni]

What do you mean by discarded? If you mean not allowed to remain licensed prostitute, isn't that a good thing? And isn't protecting customers from STI necessarily going to protect the school workers from the same? If the customer is prevented from catching it, he can't pass it on.

First of all, where would a prostitute acquire HIV? From either sharing needles or from sex, almost certainly with a male. Where would a customer get HIV? Needles or sex.

Of course anyprostiture with an activeSTI should be excluded from sex work until cured. With HIV, that’s permanently excluded. And then what does she do?how does she make a living? How does she pay for that very expensive, very unpleasant regime of antiretrovirals? Have you ever known anyone on them? I have: it’s not fun. Beats death but not fun.

It is extremely telling that your concerns are all for the customers, and not for the workers.

You would have to be crazy o suicidal to have sex with a prostitute and not use a condom. The vast vast majority of customers insist on them. The bigger concern here would be that sometimes they break.

Yes,condoms break and some customers don’t want to use them. Personally, I think you would have to be either crazy or suicidal to be a prostitute. But different strokes, hey.

Legalized prostitution increases the risks that vulnerable people, often too young to be legal, are forced into that life.

Does it? Or does it merely reroute where it takes place?

It seems to increase illegal sex trade.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is extremely telling that your concerns are all for the customers, and not for the workers.

I'd like to suggest to you that you break this habit of making very insulting assumptions about people. I said no such thing.