Bipartisan fascists go after Backpage et al

[Jolly_Penguin]

Wouldn't the argument about removing the fear of prosecution making it easier to report crimes work for customers as well? If there are indications that women are being trafficked, it seems to me that it would be best to removing as many impediments to reporting that as possible would be in the best interests of the victims. If a client thinks that a woman's situation looks sketchy but doesn't want to risk getting arrested by letting the police know that he visited a prostitute, that harms the woman.

Absolutely

 

[Toni]

In areas where prostitution is legal, does this happen? Do customers report suspected abuse of prostitutes to authorities?

I don't know. I would hope so. Looks like Amsterdam police have a hotline for it, so it would be nice if people used that.

I assume that your question also means that you have no idea whether or not the prostitutes would report more crimes without that fear since you can't see how it would be that eliminating the possibility of prosecution themselves as a result of making a report would lead to more reports of these crimes.

I don’t know if prostitutes would be more able to come forward. I would assume so, but I suspect that they would still face large barriers with being believed by law enforcement. This is also an issue that all women face when reporting rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, etc.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In areas where prostitution is legal, does this happen? Do customers report suspected abuse of prostitutes to authorities?

Yes. And even if they didn't, wouldn't you want to encourage them to do so?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I don’t know if prostitutes would be more able to come forward. I would assume so, but I suspect that they would still face large barriers with being believed by law enforcement. This is also an issue that all women face when reporting rape, sexual assault, domestic violence, etc.

Right, but removing the legal impediment of them risking arrest themselves if they come forward can only improve the reporting situation, correct? This seems to be such a trivially obvious point that it can just be accepted ipso facto. The degree to which it would help is an open question since there are all these other issues involved in making the reports, but allowing them to go to the police about abuse with this worry removed is a positive and not neutral or a negative.

I fail to see how the same logic would not apply from the customers' point of view. There are many customers who just wouldn't care. There are many more who would want to say something but feel that the risk to themselves of getting law enforcement involved in their whoring is too high anyways. There are some who enjoy the encounter more because of this. Then there are some who would take action and call the cops. The amount of customers in this last group is an open question, but allowing them to go to the police about abuse with this worry removed is a positive and not neutral or a negative.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

After all, men are responsible for well over 90% of all rapes. Why not address the problem at its core: men! Why not limit men's legal status to that of chattel so that they are no longer able to coerce women into anything?

When you post stuff like this, do you not see the double standard wherein if men posted that about women they would be crucified? Or do you just not care?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Actually, I'm kind of serious. Why is rape prevention always about what women can and cannot do/say/wear/drink/go/behave? Why isn't it about putting limits on men's behavior?

It is and it should be. Rape is illegal. Men are put in jail for it. Neither men nor women should be required to wear anything in particular, go anywhere in particular, drink or not drink, etc. Women should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies too, especially when unlike in the case of abortion, that something they decide to do isn't killing or harming anybody who hasn't consented, like having sex in exchange for money.

Why should men not be required, as a condition of sex, to sign a legally binding paper that pledges to provide whatever financial and material and emotional support is necessary should a pregnancy result from the sex act?

Financial support is already in the law books. Men are already forced to pay that whether or not they intended a baby to result. As for emotional support, how would you enforce that?

I would not expect a man to be rendered infertile if the mother of his child is left infertile after a pregnancy or childbirth. Or to die if the mother dies as the result of complications from pregnancy or childbirth. Or to postpone necessary medical treatment until after a child is born. Or to submit to drug/alcohol testing as soon as a pregnancy is detected (although statistically speaking this might not be a bad idea. A significant number of women face complications to their pregnancies due to domestic abuse while they are pregnant.)

Sure, but what does any of that have to do with willing prostitutes? Male or female?

Why should not a man be required --not just allowed, but required--to take a parental leave (paid, of course) when his child is born or when he adopts?

Why should he be? Are pregnant women? I know some who go back to work immediately.... like as in days after.

Why shouldn't he be required --not allowed but: required to take time away from work 50% of the time necessary to attend to any of his children's needs?

Why should he be? Is she? She has the option of adopting out, abortion, etc. He is at least forced to pay child support.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Seeing a woman's face increases the lust in men and encourages rape. So Toni, do you oppose a new law that women, including yourself, must at all times wear a burka and may not leave the house without a male chaperone?

If you oppose the above, why? Shouldn't we presume it would reduce rape and isn't that a good thing? Are you for rape Toni????? *gasp*

Could you demonstrate that seeing a woman’s face increases the risk of rape?

No better than you can demonstrate that allowing adds on backpage increases the risk of sex trafficking, no. It just feels righteously correct though, doesn't it?

Don’t the ads, at least promote illegal prostitution.., which is... as a reminder, illegal?

Where as showing one’s face is completely legal. Which makes your parallel absurd on its... well face.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Don’t the ads, at least promote illegal prostitution.., which is... as a reminder, illegal?

Where as showing one’s face is completely legal. Which makes your parallel absurd on its... well face.

Showing ones face, and hair, is completely legal here and now. That isn't and hasn't always bee the case and there are people who are pushing for it not to be the case. Prostitution is completely legal elsewhere and at other times as well, so no the parallel is not absurd by that logic, except perhaps to an authoritarian.

 

[Toni]

Don’t the ads, at least promote illegal prostitution.., which is... as a reminder, illegal?

Where as showing one’s face is completely legal. Which makes your parallel absurd on its... well face.

Showing ones face, and hair, is completely legal here and now. That isn't and hasn't always bee the case and there are people who are pushing for it not to be the case. Prostitution is completely legal elsewhere and at other times as well, so no the parallel is not absurd by that logic, except perhaps to an authoritarian.

Really? WHEN exactly has it ever been illegal to show one's face here (by here, I assume you mean in North America)? Or anywhere outside of some parts of the mid-east and northern Africa?

WHO exactly is pushing for it to be illegal for a woman to show her face in public in North America?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

WHO exactly is pushing for it to be illegal for a woman to show her face in public in North America?

In North America? Nobody that I am aware of. But by the logic you outlined above, perhaps they should be? (now cue laughing dog and Toni to tell me I am saying they should be...).

 

[laughing dog]

Don’t the ads, at least promote illegal prostitution.., which is... as a reminder, illegal?

Where as showing one’s face is completely legal. Which makes your parallel absurd on its... well face.

Showing ones face, and hair, is completely legal here and now. That isn't and hasn't always bee the case and there are people who are pushing for it not to be the case.

Please post links with some evidence.

Prostitution is completely legal elsewhere and at other times as well, so no the parallel is not absurd by that logic, except perhaps to an authoritarian.

Since your premise (boldfaced above) appears delusional, it is absurd by logic.

 

[laughing dog]

WHO exactly is pushing for it to be illegal for a woman to show her face in public in North America?

In North America? Nobody that I am aware of. But by the logic you outlined above, perhaps they should be? (now cue laughing dog and Toni to tell me I am saying they should be...).

Coming from someone who thinks it is some type of noble action to use a prostitute, your comment is hilariously stupid.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

your comment is hilariously stupid.

Horray for you. You have nothing of value to add so you say stupid.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Don’t the ads, at least promote illegal prostitution.., which is... as a reminder, illegal?

Where as showing one’s face is completely legal. Which makes your parallel absurd on its... well face.

Showing ones face, and hair, is completely legal here and now. That isn't and hasn't always bee the case and there are people who are pushing for it not to be the case.

So your original point was to go off topic because your original claim was showing one’s face increased chances of rape. But now you talking about how this was illegal but legal now and other places legal. I’m uninterested in that derail. The claim you made was unsupported and you don’t want to support it. That is all that needs to be said.

 

[laughing dog]

your comment is hilariously stupid.

Horray for you. You have nothing of value to add so you say stupid.

It is disingenous to separate out a portion of a sentence out of context in order to draw a conclusion.
Furthermore, coming from the poster of "Nobody that I am aware of. But by the logic you outlined above, perhaps they should be? (now cue laughing dog and Toni to tell me I am saying they should be...)" and “Showing ones face, and hair, is completely legal here and now. That isn't and hasn't always bee the case and there are people who are pushing for it not to be the case.” (BTW, still waiting for evidence to support that one), and the unforgettable “These guys buy sex for the sake of sex and they don't want to rape women either. There is a sort of nobility in this, isn't there?”

And all of this because you feel the need to rush to interject straw man after incredibly inane straw man in debating whether Backpage deserved its treatment for refusing to take down ads advocating illegal activity. The OP has nothing whatsoever to do with whether prostitution ought to be legal. Hence, your posts are literally without value to the actual topic.

 

[Toni]

It is and it should be. Rape is illegal. Men are put in jail for it. Neither men nor women should be required to wear anything in particular, go anywhere in particular, drink or not drink, etc. Women should be allowed to do what they want with their bodies too, especially when unlike in the case of abortion, that something they decide to do isn't killing or harming anybody who hasn't consented, like having sex in exchange for money.

But prostitution isn't about women doing what they want with their bodies. It's about them (perhaps) getting paid to allow others to do what they want to the woman's body. Or for her to do what someone else wants to their body. Seriously: it's not about a woman's desires at all.

Financial support is already in the law books. Men are already forced to pay that whether or not they intended a baby to result. As for emotional support, how would you enforce that?

I dunno. Plenty of men are pretty skilled at avoiding paying support. I'm neither a judge nor a lawyer. Enforcement of emotional support would need to be figured out by the court system.

I would not expect a man to be rendered infertile if the mother of his child is left infertile after a pregnancy or childbirth. Or to die if the mother dies as the result of complications from pregnancy or childbirth. Or to postpone necessary medical treatment until after a child is born. Or to submit to drug/alcohol testing as soon as a pregnancy is detected (although statistically speaking this might not be a bad idea. A significant number of women face complications to their pregnancies due to domestic abuse while they are pregnant.)

Sure, but what does any of that have to do with willing prostitutes? Male or female?

Well, it doesn't. I guess you didn't follow my post very well. That was part of a side bar about recognizing that biologically men do not and cannot and should not be made to bear the same risks that women bear as a result of sex, mutual or not.

Why should not a man be required --not just allowed, but required--to take a parental leave (paid, of course) when his child is born or when he adopts?

Why should he be? Are pregnant women? I know some who go back to work immediately.... like as in days after.

Sure, I know women who go back to work immediately--as in the day or two after. Whether they want to or not. And I know women who are quite open about hoping for a c-section because then they can get a longer maternity leave.

What I was talking about was maternity/paternity leave, not a leave during pregnancy. I was kind of joking when I wrote that originally, but why not? It would do a lot to close the pay gap, actually, if men were mandated to take leaves after a new child arrives--coordinated with his partner's leave, of course.

Why shouldn't he be required --not allowed but: required to take time away from work 50% of the time necessary to attend to any of his children's needs?

Why should he be? Is she? She has the option of adopting out, abortion, etc. He is at least forced to pay child support.

It's his child and as much his responsibility as it is hers to provide all necessary care for the child.

In the US, a woman cannot give her child up for adoption without the consent of the biological father. Both have to agree. Women can be ordered to pay support as can men.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So your original point was to go off topic because your original claim was showing one’s face increased chances of rape. But now you talking about how this was illegal but legal now and other places legal.

Whether something is or is not legal is no basis for whether it should be legal, unless you are an authoritarian. I mentioned the faces being visible as an example of an argument that could be made (not one that is necessarily a good one), along with pot being a "gateway drug", etc. I raised that point in addressing Toni's logic regarding the topic of prostitution. What I was addressing is the concept of claiming something should be banned, as Toni has, because it may lead to or enable something else we oppose. It is a logic against freedom and one I oppose.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

But prostitution isn't about women doing what they want with their bodies.

It is, if what they want to do with their bodies is earn great quantities of money by doing a particular task. If you seek to outlaw them from doing so, how are you not telling them what they may and may not do with their bodies?

I dunno. Plenty of men are pretty skilled at avoiding paying support. I'm neither a judge nor a lawyer. Enforcement of emotional support would need to be figured out by the court system.

Sure, plenty of men are criminals and assholes. Plenty of women are too. That doesn't mean we shouldn't make their maliscious actions legal (or their innocent ones illegal).

Well, it doesn't. I guess you didn't follow my post very well. That was part of a side bar about recognizing that biologically men do not and cannot and should not be made to bear the same risks that women bear as a result of sex, mutual or not.

Ok, I don't see why that is relevant here, but ok. I don't disagree.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So your original point was to go off topic because your original claim was showing one’s face increased chances of rape. But now you talking about how this was illegal but legal now and other places legal.

Whether something is or is not legal is no basis for whether it should be legal, unless you are an authoritarian. I mentioned the faces being visible as an example of an argument that could be made (not one that is necessarily a good one), along with pot being a "gateway drug", etc. I raised that point in addressing Toni's logic regarding the topic of prostitution. What I was addressing is the concept of claiming something should be banned, as Toni has, because it may lead to or enable something else we oppose. It is a logic against freedom and one I oppose.

You raised thoughts that aren’t very relevant in an attempt to try and make a point. Just because you tried an analogy doesn’t mean you hit a nail on its head.

Prostitution is banned in most parts of US, ads for it on that site are illegal. Poor Derec.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Prostitution is banned in most parts of US, ads for it on that site are illegal. Poor Derec.

But they didn't shut Backpage down in just most parts of the US. They shut it down altogether, including outside the US altogether.