User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 130

Thread: Buying Sex

  1. #71
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    There's a mistake, I think, in describing it as legalised, its not really legal, its decriminalised, in that they wont be prosecuting anyone who is a prostitute but they will prosecute their clients.
    Actually, we have regulated sex work. All sex workers are individually registered, and brothels are also registered. And they are subject to health and safety regulations and police checks to keep out the criminals.

    Nonetheless we recognise that most sex workers are drug addicted and/or mentally ill. It's plain to us that sex workers are victims at the bottom of the social heap, and so they are taken advantage of by patriarchal men.

    We are slowly winding back the power of men over women and children. However we do recognise that patriarchal men will fight back together with women under the spell of the Stockholm Syndrome.

    It's a long struggle but worth every hard step of the way.

  2. #72
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    The bolded represents flawed law. Does it not? Should not governmental laws be held to the highest standard and integrity possible. Criminalizing something, while legalizing it's antecedent, is morally reprehensible from a national standpoint.
    It's part of a social movement that started with the abolition of institutional slavery in 1833 for the first time in history. And the same social movement continues to work for the most vulnerable members of our community today.

  3. #73
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aphrodite-gone-awry View Post
    Victor, since you repped me, I thought this the best place to respond. I did not personally insult anyone, so I'm not sure what you are referring to... If you are referring to yourself, I was simply asking you a question, which I am wont to do in most threads I participate in where I become curious about the op or another responder. Instead of threatening banning, perhaps you could just have ignored me, or asked me to refrain from asking you personal questions in-thread.

    Besides, I see no insult in asking someone if they live with their mother. Is that an insult?

    I thought we had quite an interesting connection. Now my feelings are a bit hurt.....
    You have insulted me personally on this thread, not once but twice. Each time you have done it with a disingenuous question. So I point out to you and everyone else that personal insults are against the rules on Central and may lead to banning,

  4. #74
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    You have insulted me personally on this thread, not once but twice. Each time you have done it with a disingenuous question. So I point out to you and everyone else that personal insults are against the rules on Central and may lead to banning,

    You are just no fun, are you.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  5. #75
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    "The Whistleblower", Revisited.

    I would strongly recommend we go and see, "The Whisltleblower", a movie out now.

    I think if we see the movie, we would feel that those who buy sex should be brought before our Criminal Courts.

    Of course they will be innocent until proven guilty, and the trial will be subject to the stringent rules of evidence, and they will receive the best defence available.

    In this way, not only will justice be done, it will be seen to be done.

  6. #76
    Senior Member Little_Sticks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    1,370

    Default

    I don't understand. Prostitution works in Amsterdam and cat houses. Some people don't really mind living like that. What's wrong with letting those people give a service to other people that are more than willing to pay large sums of money for? Some people value certain things in ways that most may not appreciate, but it would be criminal to deny them because of majority consensus if we assume allowing it to happen is criminal.

    This wouldn't mean you can't help the people that get into it for the wrong kind of reasons if it's not illegal; but it would mean you don't create a scenario like what resulted with the prohibition, something that the drug wars don't seem to get. The people want drugs more than the people want to take them away. The same thing happens with sex. People are willing to risk their reputations for sleazy sex. It's wanted that much.

  7. #77
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Power Over Women

    Quote Originally Posted by Little_Sticks View Post
    I don't understand. Prostitution works in Amsterdam and cat houses. Some people don't really mind living like that. What's wrong with letting those people give a service to other people that are more than willing to pay large sums of money for? Some people value certain things in ways that most may not appreciate, but it would be criminal to deny them because of majority consensus if we assume allowing it to happen is criminal.

    This wouldn't mean you can't help the people that get into it for the wrong kind of reasons if it's not illegal; but it would mean you don't create a scenario like what resulted with the prohibition, something that the drug wars don't seem to get. The people want drugs more than the people want to take them away. The same thing happens with sex. People are willing to risk their reputations for sleazy sex. It's wanted that much.
    And slaves were wanted that much, but we banned slavery in 1833.

    It's a question of power.

    In a slave society, the owners had power over slaves, and in a patriarchal soxiety, men have power over women.

    However the great project of liberal democracy is the limitation of power, and in this case the limitaton of power over women.

    However power is never given up freely, so we need to limit the power of the patriarchy.

    And at his stage of the movement, we have legalised and regulated sex work, and so the next step in limiting the power of men is to criminalise the buying of sex.

    They told us for thousands of years that the aboltion of slavery wouldn't work, it would desroy the economy, and it would hurt the slaves, and the need for slaves is so great. Nonetheless, we abolished slavery for the first time in history in 1833.

    So of course we are hearing the same arguments against criminalising the buying of sex.

    However the genii is out of the bottle and the cat is out of the bag, and Sweden has criminalised the buying of sex. And civilized societies will eventually follow Sweden.

  8. #78
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    @Victor, why haven't you addressed the following points?


    Quote Originally Posted by 93JC View Post
    Some women were voting in Australia in the 1890s. White women in the colonies of South Australia and Western Australia were allowed to vote beginning in 1895 and 1899, respectively. (Women were not allowed to stand for parliament in Western Australia until 1920.)

    By contrast the voting rights of white men, let alone women, were not universal in Tasmania until 1896.

    Aboriginal voting qualifications varied from state to state and were not universal.



    White women's suffrage was granted at the federal level in 1902 with the passing of the Commonwealth Franchise Act. The first election in 1901 was based on the laws of the pre-existing colonies, so only white women in South Australia and Western Australia were allowed to vote.

    Voting rights for white women continued to vary across the country, state-by-state, until 1923 when Victoria finally granted women the right to stand for parliament.

    Aboriginal Australian voting rights were specifically excluded in the Commonwealth Franchise Act, as were the voting rights of all other non-Whites. People of Indian descent were allowed to vote following court action by an Indian migrant in 1924. Piecemeal amendments allowed certain aborigines to vote (generally only men, such as the amendments in the 1940s that allowed aboriginal war veterans to vote), and Australia's racist voting policies were not eliminated entirely until the 1960s.

    Speaking of the continent, women in the Territory of Papua and New Guinea were not allowed to vote until 1964.



    That the Australian constitution contains a proviso allowing New Zealand to join the Commonwealth does not mean that Australia can claim any credit for the advances of human rights by its more progressive neighbour.

    Also, the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833 was quite late in the timeline of slavery abolition. More progressive colonies within the British Empire that had abolished slavery well before then. Upper Canada banned slavery in 1793.

    And the Slavery Abolition Act was not universal across the British Empire: slaves were still allowed in areas held by the East India Company (comprising most of the modern day India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) and on Ceylon (modern day Sri Lanka).

  9. #79
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor
    And slaves were wanted that much, but we banned slavery in 1833.

    It's a question of power.

    In a slave society, the owners had power over slaves, and in a patriarchal soxiety, men have power over women.

    However the great project of liberal democracy is the limitation of power, and in this case the limitaton of power over women.

    However power is never given up freely, so we need to limit the power of the patriarchy.

    And at his stage of the movement, we have legalised and regulated sex work, and so the next step in limiting the power of men is to criminalise the buying of sex.

    They told us for thousands of years that the aboltion of slavery wouldn't work, it would desroy the economy, and it would hurt the slaves, and the need for slaves is so great. Nonetheless, we abolished slavery for the first time in history in 1833.

    So of course we are hearing the same arguments against criminalising the buying of sex.

    However the genii is out of the bottle and the cat is out of the bag, and Sweden has criminalised the buying of sex. And civilized societies will eventually follow Sweden.
    The problem with your argument, Victor, is that slaves were forced into slavery. If what we are debating against is forced prostitution, that's sex slavery, and that should certainly be illegal. If, however, we are debating the merits of a legal, regulated, legitimate system of prostitution, which people may enter of their own free will, and may leave it with their own free will, then the comparison to slavery is faulty.

  10. #80
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,524

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 93JC View Post
    @Victor, why haven't you addressed the following points?
    I am grateful you have correctly given us the details.

    Thank you.

Similar Threads

  1. Ducks and sex "arms race"
    By rivercrow in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-15-2014, 01:53 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO