a bit fucked up, your opinion?

[Spider_dude]

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20071012_Jill_Porter___Hooker_raped_and_robbed_-_by_justice_system_.html

[Hairbautt]

Let's take some quotes:

"The prostitute, a 20-year-old single mother..."
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v383/Hairbautt/Smilies/Dabs1.gif

"It's true the prostitute negotiated sex with the defendant - but not unprotected gang sex at gunpoint."
:dabs:

"...reducing rape to theft of services..."

Well it's up to the jury, not the judge ain't it? Rape is rape in my book anyways, but I don't hold any respect towards prostitutes...

"Police Detective Jack Ryan..."
:O

[Defy]

Rape is a terrible thing... but seriously now, when you're in the prostitution industry you're setting yourself up for nothing but trouble.

[huydini]

.....

[Chewie]

The idea that a prostitute is almost deserving of rape at gunpoint is sickening to me. It's no different to the suggestion that schoolgirls are asking to be assaulted by a paedo because they wear short skirts and makeup.

Just because something is on show doesn't mean it isn't a criminal act to take it without permission.
It's so childish and simplistic to blame the victim for a lack of vigilance or awareness.

BTW, I'm sure this doesn't belong in The Lounge...

[chalice]

The idea that a prostitute is almost deserving of rape at gunpoint is sickening to me. It's no different to the suggestion that schoolgirls are asking to be assaulted by a paedo because they wear short skirts and makeup.

Just because something is on show doesn't mean it isn't a criminal act to take it without permission.
It's so childish and simplistic to blame the victim for a lack of vigilance or awareness.

BTW, I'm sure this doesn't belong in The Lounge...


Agreed.

Can someone move this to The Drawing Room where we can all ignore it?

Edit: What I meant by that, SD, was, that's where it should have been in the first place. It's a serious discussion.

[Spider_dude]

yeah sorry i dont post anywhere else but here. if someone wants to move it, feel free.

[Beenieman]

rape is rape, but its hard to say that the defendant raped her because she did consent and he then didnt pay so it is theft of service in a way, When the other guys jined in then that was definatly rape. imho.

[psxcite]

Regardless of the circumstances - it's rape. I suppose if a cop is shot, he knew what he was getting into and should expect it.

[Busyman]

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/local/20071012_Jill_Porter___Hooker_raped_and_robbed_-_by_justice_system_.html

1. If she agreed to have sex with the first guy and he just didn't pay afterwards then it is not rape whatsoever. It's not even theft of services. That's just that one situation.

2. The other guys' situations were different. That's definitely rape. If the first guy was proven to have brandished a weapon, he's should go down as well.

3. The prostitute should have been arrested for solicitation. If the first guy admitted to offering money for sex then he should be arrested for solicitation as well.

4. The judge is an idiot....theft of services.:lol::lol: The prostitute probably didn't prove her case unless the defendants admitted to what they did.

5. Also the first guy should get a gun charge.

[Busyman]

The idea that a prostitute is almost deserving of rape at gunpoint is sickening to me. It's no different to the suggestion that schoolgirls are asking to be assaulted by a paedo because they wear short skirts and makeup.

Just because something is on show doesn't mean it isn't a criminal act to take it without permission.
It's so childish and simplistic to blame the victim for a lack of vigilance or awareness.

It's great to speak liberal cliches but it doesn't apply here.

First one should realize the danger of committing certain criminal acts. It is not the same as short skirts and makeup.

It's very on point to blame this victim for lack of vigilance or awareness. I'll never say she deserved it though.

Maybe you forgot that she was committing a criminal act and one that is known to involve a dangerous element.

[100%]

abuse

[kallieb]

Justice is supposed to be blind. Subsequently laws have to be applied irrespective of the circumstances within which they occur.

If we apply a moral judgement in situations like this we shift our focus from the offender to the victim. This is precisely why *rape shield* laws are in effect.

Sexual assault is defined at that precise point where consent no longer exists (or never existed in the first place). A person (man or woman) can engage in increasing sexualized behaviour with another and at any point along the way, up to and including penetration, if he/she says No, stop, or even by their actions indicates to any reasonable person that they no longer wish to continue, any furtherance of the behaviour is now criminal. Basically it's pull out and walk away time.

That a woman/man is a prostitute and sells sex is completely irrelevant. I cannot imagine how we can apply a different layer of basic human rights from one group from another.

Applying differential justice creates unspeakable moral dilemmas that none of us are even remotely entitled or equipped to navigate. For example, in the case of murder, would you consider it just to sentence someone to community service for killing a street person, but life in prison for killing a highly skilled professional? Would you amend the sentence if it was a situation where one street bum killed another, vs whether some rich guy killed a street bum in a dui situation (can we forget the novel Bonfire of the Vanities!).

There is a moral quicksand that we will all fall into if we try to consider who the deserving vs undeserving is. Is a prostitute automatically a morally bankrupt person. Would you consider one of the Fleet St/Wall St sharks more morally righteous. How do we measure the worth of another person, and whether they are valuable to our society or not.

Just my thoughts....

[Busyman]

Justice is supposed to be blind. Subsequently laws have to be applied irrespective of the circumstances within which they occur.

If we apply a moral judgement in situations like this we shift our focus from the offender to the victim. This is precisely why *rape shield* laws are in effect.

Sexual assault is defined at that precise point where consent no longer exists (or never existed in the first place). A person (man or woman) can engage in increasing sexualized behaviour with another and at any point along the way, up to and including penetration, if he/she says No, stop, or even by their actions indicates to any reasonable person that they no longer wish to continue, any furtherance of the behaviour is now criminal. Basically it's pull out and walk away time.

That a woman/man is a prostitute and sells sex is completely irrelevant. I cannot imagine how we can apply a different layer of basic human rights from one group from another.

Applying differential justice creates unspeakable moral dilemmas that none of us are even remotely entitled or equipped to navigate. For example, in the case of murder, would you consider it just to sentence someone to community service for killing a street person, but life in prison for killing a highly skilled professional? Would you amend the sentence if it was a situation where one street bum killed another, vs whether some rich guy killed a street bum in a dui situation (can we forget the novel Bonfire of the Vanities!).

There is a moral quicksand that we will all fall into if we try to consider who the deserving vs undeserving is. Is a prostitute automatically a morally bankrupt person. Would you consider one of the Fleet St/Wall St sharks more morally righteous. How do we measure the worth of another person, and whether they are valuable to our society or not.

Just my thoughts....

Your analogy would be more on point if applied it to criminals.

The examples you used have nothing to do with a person's lack of vigilence or awareness.

This was a prostitute and a john. In this example, she was comitting an illegal act.

This judge was idiot, however. If the judge said it was theft of services than it was rape. It means that in fact the prostitutes case was proven but the judge trivialized it.

I say it was rape but yes, THE PROSTITUTE WAS AN IDIOT AND DESERVES SOME BLAME FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO HER.

It seems when rape is involved everyone loves to say the cliched line, "don't blame the victim". By law, hell no you shouldn't.

However, if a two drug dealing brothers were making a buy of a kilo of cocaine and one gets shot in the buy....sure I'd say the guy who shot him should get jail time.

However, THE GUY WHO GOT SHOT DESERVES SOME BLAME FOR WHAT HAPPENED TO HIM.

He was comitting a criminal act which is known to involve that danger. He ain't a total victim.

The guy minding his own business that gets shot is.

I also love how people try to use the bum on the street and high paid professional as if that's somehow the same as a person comitting a criminal act.

Fanfuckingtastic. :ermm:

[kallieb]

Interesting argument but life doesn't always fit into these neat little boxes. I stand by my position that applying a moral judgement to the application of wrong in a criminal proceeding defeats the purpose of blind justice.

You might tire of the ol' dead professional vs dead bum; but where do you draw the line. The edge of reason is easy to see; but what about the middle. When does one stop saying someone is to blame for their own tragedy. When you feel satisfied. Who is granted that exalted honour to determine who gets justice vs who does not. How do we choose these people. The venue of where these judgements occur has to be considered. Justice isn't meted out in some cheesy townhall meeting. This is in a highly structured court of law. Consider also the implications if these so called lesser criminals get off easy. Would it feel better for you if next time the loser jumps out and rapes your sister or neighbour?? Imagine the hue and cry. He should of been in jail....Why was he out....etc etc.

What if someone of value to you finds themselves in a court of law and being judged by someone who happens to be highly intolerant of a sub-class of society that this person is a member of. That justice is weighed against factors that are outside of what happened is unacceptable.

I appreciate the passion of your argument, but in all due respect, it is too simplistic for our complex times. Until you can satisfactorily work out all the nuances of the middle situations, and not just those edge cases, your rationale will not afford justice to all.

We all have basic rights, and not just those afforded to us only when others think we are deserving. That is not a society that I would feel proud of, nor wish to be a member of.

During a very difficult political debate in my country, a wise leader made a very compelling argument that sticks with me still: When it comes to a question of human rights, since when do we consider it acceptable for the majority to consider what the rights should be for a minority.

Reflect on these words. They are very wise.

[weenden]

rape sux bastards should be castrated thats why it happens every day if there were stiff conseqenses people may think twice if not castrated maybe something that would make someone think

[Busyman™]

Interesting argument but life doesn't always fit into these neat little boxes. I stand by my position that applying a moral judgement to the application of wrong in a criminal proceeding defeats the purpose of blind justice.

You might tire of the ol' dead professional vs dead bum; but where do you draw the line. The edge of reason is easy to see; but what about the middle. When does one stop saying someone is to blame for their own tragedy. When you feel satisfied. Who is granted that exalted honour to determine who gets justice vs who does not. How do we choose these people. The venue of where these judgements occur has to be considered. Justice isn't meted out in some cheesy townhall meeting. This is in a highly structured court of law. Consider also the implications if these so called lesser criminals get off easy. Would it feel better for you if next time the loser jumps out and rapes your sister or neighbour?? Imagine the hue and cry. He should of been in jail....Why was he out....etc etc.

What if someone of value to you finds themselves in a court of law and being judged by someone who happens to be highly intolerant of a sub-class of society that this person is a member of. That justice is weighed against factors that are outside of what happened is unacceptable.

I appreciate the passion of your argument, but in all due respect, it is too simplistic for our complex times. Until you can satisfactorily work out all the nuances of the middle situations, and not just those edge cases, your rationale will not afford justice to all.

We all have basic rights, and not just those afforded to us only when others think we are deserving. That is not a society that I would feel proud of, nor wish to be a member of.

During a very difficult political debate in my country, a wise leader made a very compelling argument that sticks with me still: When it comes to a question of human rights, since when do we consider it acceptable for the majority to consider what the rights should be for a minority.

Reflect on these words. They are very wise.

Sighhh, your paragraphs are wasted on me, Jonno....

I already said that the law is the law. One shouldn't get away with breaking the law or his/her actions trivialized by law, due to lack of vigilance or awareness by the the victim.

However, your analogies have nothing to do with this case and the prostitute deserved, if nothing else, a scolding by the judge, and at the most, a penalty because she broke the law too.

This is only drawing this type of response because it was rape. This is not a woman that was simply scantily dressed.
My situation with the person buying cocaine is more appropriate.

The person that shot him deserves to be punished to the full extent of the law. He does not deserve to get off because the guy he shot was committing a criminal act (buying cocaine from him).

However, to say that there should be no words of scrutiny and blame for his own actions is idiotic and cliche.

Yeah uh huh...in some cases, the victim deserves some blame for their own actions if it is the main cause of them being the victim in the first place. Again, I don't discount the act of the aggressor at all.

[kallieb]

This is you:


However, your analogies have nothing to do with this case and the prostitute deserved, if nothing else, a scolding by the judge, and at the most, a penalty because she broke the law too.This is the article:


He asked if she'd have sex with his friend, too, and she agreed for another $100. The friend showed up without money, the gun was pulled and more men arrived.
When a fifth man arrived and was invited to join, DeSipio said, he asked why the girl was crying - and declined. He helped her get dressed so she could leave.
My thoughts:

Granted all the facts of the case are not being presented but what is stated is that a gun was introduced into the mix, and at least 3 more men had sex with this woman, stopping at the last man who indicates that she is crying. Are you suggesting that someone is capable of making informed consent when a gun is pointed at them.

Sexual assault occurs when consent is withdrawn in a manner that is either stated or implied. I suggest that a gun negates any presumption of consent. Suggesting otherwise is just hanging onto an opinion out of stubbornness.

You again:


Yeah uh huh...in some cases, the victim deserves some blame for their own actions if it is the main cause of them being the victim in the first place. Again, I don't discount the act of the aggressor at all.Me:

So Scholar, please suggest some legal language as to how our laws need to be re-written to manage all these various scenarios where you feel the victim needs to shoulder some of the blame. Shall we say that Sexual Assault sections of various Criminal Codes be re-written to say....if the victim has acted recklessly or provocatively the crime committed is a lesser offense.

Who determines such subjectivity.

It's so easy and flippant to make such bold statements as...the victim deserves some blame....but you need to translate that into law, policy and procedures that then blankets us all. What kind of fallout do you think will occur then? Will people be better served by the justice system, or will be go backwards.

Judges cannot act arbitrarily. They are entrusted to determine what weight is to be assigned to evidence, and then apply this evidence the the applicable law.

I for one do not desire to see justice applied arbitrarily, and when it is I then say welcome to the dark ages.

[coldnorth]

Two criminal acts, both disgusting but, in my opinion, the rape is far more so regardless of the circumstances. It seems to me that there should be charges for all involved, the men for rape and the woman for prostitution.

[Busyman™]

This is you:

This is the article:


He asked if she'd have sex with his friend, too, and she agreed for another $100. The friend showed up without money, the gun was pulled and more men arrived.
When a fifth man arrived and was invited to join, DeSipio said, he asked why the girl was crying - and declined. He helped her get dressed so she could leave.
My thoughts:

Granted all the facts of the case are not being presented but what is stated is that a gun was introduced into the mix, and at least 3 more men had sex with this woman, stopping at the last man who indicates that she is crying. Are you suggesting that someone is capable of making informed consent when a gun is pointed at them.

Sexual assault occurs when consent is withdrawn in a manner that is either stated or implied. I suggest that a gun negates any presumption of consent. Suggesting otherwise is just hanging onto an opinion out of stubbornness.

You again:


Yeah uh huh...in some cases, the victim deserves some blame for their own actions if it is the main cause of them being the victim in the first place. Again, I don't discount the act of the aggressor at all.Me:

So Scholar, please suggest some legal language as to how our laws need to be re-written to manage all these various scenarios where you feel the victim needs to shoulder some of the blame. Shall we say that Sexual Assault sections of various Criminal Codes be re-written to say....if the victim has acted recklessly or provocatively the crime committed is a lesser offense.

Who determines such subjectivity.

It's so easy and flippant to make such bold statements as...the victim deserves some blame....but you need to translate that into law, policy and procedures that then blankets us all. What kind of fallout do you think will occur then? Will people be better served by the justice system, or will be go backwards.

Judges cannot act arbitrarily. They are entrusted to determine what weight is to be assigned to evidence, and then apply this evidence the the applicable law.

I for one do not desire to see justice applied arbitrarily, and when it is I then say welcome to the dark ages.

Wow do you have a reading comprehension problem?

I never said the victim shoulder the blame law-wise.

In fact I have said that over and over and over and over.

As per the discussion I have said that the judge is an idiot. If the case for theft of services was proven then so was rape.

Jonno, you never fail at trying to show you're smart just for showing you're smartsake and act like you miss everything else. Why do you go through motions of relaying what sexual assault is? Get off your podium.

Again this is not simply the girl in a short skirt and, yet again, my example of the coke buyer fits this perfectly.

However, the victim does deserve a scolding since she was committing a crime that ultimately led to her being a victim.

Newsflash*** A scolding doesn't mean the law goes against her. Hell judges do it with people that get off on technicalities ALL THE TIME.

[kallieb]

what the hell is a jonno????? and if it is an insult, shame.

Aside from this, I'm just trying to stay on topic, as per the boundaries of this particular forum. I read the article, considered the for/against opinions that followed and offered my own. If you wish to start another thread to debate matters verging off of the original subject thread than please do and I'd be happy to chime in.

If we are talking apples and oranges so be it. I'm just trying to stay on point.

One suggestion: Please try to reply in a manner that is not comprised mostly at picking away at my personality, and if you can do so for more than a paragraph I'll be impressed.

[Snee]

How I see this:

If prostitution is illegal, how can it be theft of services?

If someone stole drugs off a drug dealer, would the stealing be a crime, like?

It's (what was done to the hooker is) rape and assault, though.

As for the rest, engaging in prostitution is stupid (it IS risky, and illegal there after all), assuming you have any sort of viable choice in the matter, some people don't. And the prostitute should probably have been prosecuted for it, although if I understand the internets correctly, it's not a very serious crime at all, in Philadelphia, just north of jaywalking or something, like :blink: (I may have have that wrong, though.)

I reckon the judge is an arse for not recognising that she's letting a sexual predator off far too lightly, I mean, from what I understand it was done to two women. And fuck her for hardly giving a fuck about an abused human being, prostitute or not.

[Rat Faced]

Stupid Laws will never be repealed as long as they're respected.

Stupid Laws include prostitution, which is based upon Morals that are in no way universal and cannot be "controlled".

Laws that protect individuals forced into this situation, Im fine with... but frankly, what 2 consenting adults wish to do is no business of The Police, The Courts or Society.

There was no "Consent" as no money had changed hands.. it doesnt matter WHEN someone says no, the fact is that when that word is uttered, anything following is Assault.

To say that it is not Rape because she'd consented and then no money had changed hands is akin to saying that Rape cannot exist within marriage as the Bride had publically given permission at the ceremony.

[j2k4]

During a very difficult political debate in my country, a wise leader made a very compelling argument that sticks with me still: When it comes to a question of human rights, since when do we consider it acceptable for the majority to consider what the rights should be for a minority.

Reflect on these words. They are very wise.

Wise?

Hmmmmm...

If the majority has no qualification to consider "rights", to whom, then, to we defer?

The minority?

The individual?

Do you prefer the decision be made by executive fiat?

Do you have a problem with public referenda (heretofore and customarily decided in favor of the, um...majority)? :whistling

[Rat Faced]

During a very difficult political debate in my country, a wise leader made a very compelling argument that sticks with me still: When it comes to a question of human rights, since when do we consider it acceptable for the majority to consider what the rights should be for a minority.

Reflect on these words. They are very wise.

Wise?

Hmmmmm...

If the majority has no qualification to consider "rights", to whom, then, to we defer?

The minority?

The individual?

Do you prefer the decision be made by executive fiat?

Do you have a problem with public referenda (heretofore and customarily decided in favor of the, um...majority)? :whistling

Unless its an American Election :P

[Busyman™]

How I see this:

If prostitution is illegal, how can it be theft of services?

If someone stole drugs off a drug dealer, would the stealing be a crime, like?

It's (what was done to the hooker is) rape and assault, though.

As for the rest, engaging in prostitution is stupid (it IS risky, and illegal there after all), assuming you have any sort of viable choice in the matter, some people don't. And the prostitute should probably have been prosecuted for it, although if I understand the internets correctly, it's not a very serious crime at all, in Philadelphia, just north of jaywalking or something, like :blink: (I may have have that wrong, though.)

I reckon the judge is an arse for not recognising that she's letting a sexual predator off far too lightly, I mean, from what I understand it was done to two women. And fuck her for hardly giving a fuck about an abused human being, prostitute or not.
Nice post.

Prostitution is much worse than jaywalking but not as bad as murder, of course.

If you (the man) even offered money for sex, you'd go to jail. We have hooker traps all the time where a woman (cop) dresses scantily, walks about, and waits for men to offer up.

They are caught on tape and the man goes to jail for solicitation.

[j2k4]

Wise?

Hmmmmm...

If the majority has no qualification to consider "rights", to whom, then, to we defer?

The minority?

The individual?

Do you prefer the decision be made by executive fiat?

Do you have a problem with public referenda (heretofore and customarily decided in favor of the, um...majority)? :whistling

Unless its an American Election :P

Mayhap you flaming lefties ought to suss a way to graft the Electoral particulars to the vote(s) of your choice, then:

Voila!!(as they say in France)

Rampant idiocy, dressed as, well...something else entirely. :whistling

[Busyman™]

Stupid Laws will never be repealed as long as they're respected.

Stupid Laws include prostitution, which is based upon Morals that are in no way universal and cannot be "controlled".

Laws that protect individuals forced into this situation, Im fine with... but frankly, what 2 consenting adults wish to do is no business of The Police, The Courts or Society.

Well of course it is. In the case of prostitution, even if it was legal, it must be taxed since it is income.

It is done this way in Nevada where it is legal in some parts.

[kallieb]

Wise?

Hmmmmm...

If the majority has no qualification to consider "rights", to whom, then, to we defer?

The minority?

The individual?

Do you prefer the decision be made by executive fiat?

Do you have a problem with public referenda (heretofore and customarily decided in favor of the, um...majority)? :whistling

Hi,

In certain matters related to fundamental rights I do believe it necessary at times to not rely upon the populace to guide what the law -- or common practice of a Society -- should be.

Rather than rely upon examples from my own country,that you might not be familiar with, I'll use an example specific to your own.

Consider the difficult history of the plight facing black people in your Southern States prior to the enactment of your Civil Rights Act in 1964. This particular piece of legislation applied itself to the entire country; but the greatest ripple effect of changes were to be had in the South.

If a referendum, or some other means to gauge public opinion was to have been put to the populace of the Southern States from the mid-1950's forward, I respectfully suggest that the majority view would be to continue to maintain the separateness of Black and White people regarding school registration, ability to vote, employment, housing etc etc etc.

It took action by your President at the time, Lyndon Johnson, as well as rulings by your Supreme Court, to force the changes and even then the changes came at a very great price.

Thus, relying upon the majority to consider the rights of the minority would not have been preferable in this case as social movement would never have been possible otherwise.

Studying the history of Social Welfare evolution displays a similar dynamic consistently over time, namely: Those in power are reluctant to give it up easily, especially in a climate of bias, stereotype or prejudice.

This tiny example above is just one of many; but is the most striking one because the level of systemic discrimination and resistance to change is so well recorded in history that it is easily recalled.

So, my starting premise that the majority should not be entrusted to rule on the rights of a minority, clearly apply in this case.

[j2k4]

Wise?

Hmmmmm...

If the majority has no qualification to consider "rights", to whom, then, to we defer?

The minority?

The individual?

Do you prefer the decision be made by executive fiat?

Do you have a problem with public referenda (heretofore and customarily decided in favor of the, um...majority)? :whistling

Hi,

In certain matters related to fundamental rights I do believe it necessary at times to not rely upon the populace to guide what the law -- or common practice of a Society -- should be.

Rather than rely upon examples from my own country,that you might not be familiar with, I'll use an example specific to your own.

Consider the difficult history of the plight facing black people in your Southern States prior to the enactment of your Civil Rights Act in 1964. This particular piece of legislation applied itself to the entire country; but the greatest ripple effect of changes were to be had in the South.

If a referendum, or some other means to gauge public opinion was to have been put to the populace of the Southern States from the mid-1950's forward, I respectfully suggest that the majority view would be to continue to maintain the separateness of Black and White people regarding school registration, ability to vote, employment, housing etc etc etc.

It took action by your President at the time, Lyndon Johnson, as well as rulings by your Supreme Court, to force the changes and even then the changes came at a very great price.

Thus, relying upon the majority to consider the rights of the minority would not have been preferable in this case as social movement would never have been possible otherwise.

Studying the history of Social Welfare evolution displays a similar dynamic consistently over time, namely: Those in power are reluctant to give it up easily, especially in a climate of bias, stereotype or prejudice.

This tiny example above is just one of many; but is the most striking one because the level of systemic discrimination and resistance to change is so well recorded in history that it is easily recalled.

So, my starting premise that the majority should not be entrusted to rule on the rights of a minority, clearly apply in this case.

I beg to differ.

You attempt to make your case by citing salient points - all well and good - then fail to cite the most salient of them all, which is that the civil rights act, if placed before the public even in the "dark ages" of the 60s, would have been by it's very definition a national referendum, and would also certainly have carried on that basis, never mind what the southern states individually or regionally would have decided.

You seem to have the impression we Americans are nostalgic for the days of the pickaninny express.

You have have been misled at some point, obviously, but no matter - I am here to relieve you of your misapprehensions as re: America. :whistling

[kallieb]

I make no presumptions of *pickaninny*. I'm sorry but I really don't even know what that means. I'm not of your country and don't share your history. I used an example of your own country so that it would be more respectful to the discussion, rather than talk to you about goings-on in another place.

Regardless of this, the example I provided was only used to exemplify the steps required to move minority rights forward at a time, that history tells us, when the majority of the population in the region at that time wanted absolutely nothing to do with making these changes to minority rights happen.

I do not believe that anyone can seriously suggeste that the application of the Civil Rights Laws and the move to de-segregate many aspects of Southern society was embraced and supported by the majority of the population in the states of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia etc.

The Civil Rights Act clearly was made binding and legal through due process; but that is not to suggest that this kind of *radical* thinking was embraced by a majority of the populace at the time -- especially in the deep south. The majority of the population hated, fought against, and did everything within their state and statutory power to try and fight desegregation.

This example was used by myself to demonstrate the point that "if" the majority of the population in those states were left to decide the course of rights for Black people (the minority) then today Black people would likely still be having to use separate washrooms and drinking fountains.

This is why you cannot always leave it to the majority to determine the rights of the minority. Sometimes, especially in these regional kinds of examples, you need to override the wishes of most people to ensure that fundamental social justice prevails.

If you wish more examples where a majority opinion was superseded in order to assure minority rights I'd be happy to look further, but I need more time as I'm going into a busy night. Or else you can look it up for yourself. Hit up google and look up Women's Suffrage, Abortion Rights, Rights of Women in Traditional countries, etc. You will find over and over repeated examples where legislators, judges and other agents of change have had to push rights-based legislation forward over the objections of the majority of the population so that minority rights are enshrined and protected.

[kallieb]

Finding articles. It's easy actually.

Here's one. I'll stay away from USA history for a second. This one is on Establishing Voting Rights for women in Afghanistan. It was made the law, but did so by going against a strong majority opinion. And if the majority had their way women's voting rights in Afghanistan would be reversed. I find it disturbing that many women are suffering if they try to exercise a vote. As 42% of the population, woman qualify as they are a demographic minority; and when you consider their status: economically, socially, etc, they are even more oppressed.

Anyway, Link to the article: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1008-03.htm

I'm sure I can find but have to leave in 5 minutes.

In case the question: What's the point, is raised. This article typifies how minority rights for women was legislated even though the vast majority of the population is deeply against furthering the rights of women; and how difficult it is for the women when they try to assert their rights.

[Rat Faced]

Stupid Laws will never be repealed as long as they're respected.

Stupid Laws include prostitution, which is based upon Morals that are in no way universal and cannot be "controlled".

Laws that protect individuals forced into this situation, Im fine with... but frankly, what 2 consenting adults wish to do is no business of The Police, The Courts or Society.

Well of course it is. In the case of prostitution, even if it was legal, it must be taxed since it is income.

It is done this way in Nevada where it is legal in some parts.


You miss the point.

Stupid Laws should always be repealed instead of wasting valuable Police Resources enforcing them. I have no problem breaking Stupid Laws and never will.

If it's a Crime, where is the victim?

Sometimes there is one, the Prostitute herself. The resources used in this area should be aimed at the reasons why she/he has been forced into Prostitution in the 1st place.

Certain women will always take advantage of the fact that some men, for various reasons, will pay for sex (and vise versa). It's something that has happened since pre-history, it will happen until the forceable future..

If you cant stop it, then at least control or influence it... and allow the Prostitute/Escort etc to pay tax and contribute to society like everyone else.

It's a business, treat it as such. Everyone will be safer and happier as it's taken out of the hands of the underworld.

In some places, that particular trade is honoured.

In the USA they allow hard core pornography to be sold, yet Prostitution is illegal... Hypocritical or what?

Do the actresses not get paid? If they do, then they are having sex for money ie: Prostitution. The REASON is immaterial.

In the UK Prostitution is perfectly legal. Solicitation is not: ie Once you have clients you're OK, but getting them in the 1st place is illegal... again: Stupidity.

Most people in the UK know they're stupid Laws (including the Police) and ignore them accordingly most of the time. Occasionally, if pushed, they may raid a Brothel and they arent keen on Street Walkers...not because they're Prostitutes, but to protect women in the area that aren't. This depends upon which Police Force is in operation... eg: Northumbria clamp down when it becomes "too open", Scotland/Merseyside appear to be anything goes as prostitutes advertise openly in these areas.


Again, i say the fact she was a Prostitute is immaterial. Anyone that takes that into account is a prig.

[j2k4]

I make no presumptions of *pickaninny*. I'm sorry but I really don't even know what that means. I'm not of your country and don't share your history. I used an example of your own country so that it would be more respectful to the discussion, rather than talk to you about goings-on in another place.

You "used" an example of my country, a country you do not belong too, whose history you do not share, in order to attempt to lecture me?


Regardless of this, the example I provided was only used to exemplify the steps required to move minority rights forward at a time, that history tells us, when the majority of the population in the region at that time wanted absolutely nothing to do with making these changes to minority rights happen.

You once again miss my point, but nevermind that for the nonce.

The lens through which you've chosen to view America and Her history is blemished, and probably dirty, into the bargain.

Are you sure you are not looking through the wrong end.

You have overlooked another important fact in your rush to commit "reasoned discourse":

Leaving aside for the moment the fact the vast majority of the country would have supported the Civil Rights Act, overriding and crushing any southern opposition, the enactment of the CRA had no effect whatsoever on southern attitudes for more than a generation, and there are still many places south of the Mason-Dixon Line a person of color dares not go.


I do not believe that anyone can seriously suggeste that the application of the Civil Rights Laws and the move to de-segregate many aspects of Southern society was embraced and supported by the majority of the population in the states of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia etc.

Indeed.

What has that to do with anything?

Perhaps you should clarify:

Do you mean to seriously suggest that the mere enactment of the CRA would change southern attitudes, or instantly erase practicable racism?


The Civil Rights Act clearly was made binding and legal through due process; but that is not to suggest that this kind of *radical* thinking was embraced by a majority of the populace at the time -- especially in the deep south. The majority of the population hated, fought against, and did everything within their state and statutory power to try and fight desegregation.

It was embraced by the majority of the populace.

I expect you are suffering the popular misconception that "Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, etc." are the U.S. in microcosm, and that all of our country lies in "the deep south".


This example was used by myself to demonstrate the point that "if" the majority of the population in those states were left to decide the course of rights for Black people (the minority) then today Black people would likely still be having to use separate washrooms and drinking fountains.

Well, then.

My turn to be clear-

Your "example" is...oh, let's see, how shall I put this...slipshod, or, if you prefer, defective, and worthless.


This is why you cannot always leave it to the majority to determine the rights of the minority. Sometimes, especially in these regional kinds of examples, you need to override the wishes of most people to ensure that fundamental social justice prevails.

You keep leaving that nail exposed:

Your regional example is not applicable.


If you wish more examples where a majority opinion was superseded in order to assure minority rights I'd be happy to look further, but I need more time as I'm going into a busy night. Or else you can look it up for yourself. Hit up google and look up Women's Suffrage, Abortion Rights, Rights of Women in Traditional countries, etc. You will find over and over repeated examples where legislators, judges and other agents of change have had to push rights-based legislation forward over the objections of the majority of the population so that minority rights are enshrined and protected.

Why don't you hit google?

You can begin your education by typing the word "pickaninny". :whistling

[j2k4]

In the USA they allow hard core pornography to be sold, yet Prostitution is illegal... Hypocritical or what?



In the UK Prostitution is perfectly legal. Solicitation is not: ie Once you have clients you're OK, but getting them in the 1st place is illegal... again: Stupidity.

I think both would more aptly be termed nonsensical.

However, I do find it curious that (given the obvious care taken in constructing that quoted) the pejorative term chosen to apply in the first instance reflects a quality of prejudice against the U.S. when considered relative to the mildly self-effacing term used to describe the Brits:

While the British may occasionally act stupidly, Americans, while being stupid, add a distinctive and unique brand of conceit.

Well done, sir. :whistling

[Snee]

How I see this:

If prostitution is illegal, how can it be theft of services?

If someone stole drugs off a drug dealer, would the stealing be a crime, like?

It's (what was done to the hooker is) rape and assault, though.

As for the rest, engaging in prostitution is stupid (it IS risky, and illegal there after all), assuming you have any sort of viable choice in the matter, some people don't. And the prostitute should probably have been prosecuted for it, although if I understand the internets correctly, it's not a very serious crime at all, in Philadelphia, just north of jaywalking or something, like :blink: (I may have have that wrong, though.)

I reckon the judge is an arse for not recognising that she's letting a sexual predator off far too lightly, I mean, from what I understand it was done to two women. And fuck her for hardly giving a fuck about an abused human being, prostitute or not.
Nice post.

Prostitution is much worse than jaywalking but not as bad as murder, of course.


I checked some legal site off of Philly before posting that, and indecent exposure was worse than prostitution in Philadelphia. A felony even, which prostitution isn't. It sounded like prostitution earns you a fine, at worst.

Maybe it's my values that are a bit skewed, or maybe it's the people doing the legislation who are mentals.

Not saying flashing little kids or something can't be a horrible thing, but if indecent exposure is cathegorically worse than prostitution, prostitution can't be much of a crime.

I'm a product of another way of thinking than what seems to dominate in parts of the US in that respect, though.

EDit: Actually, doing a bit more research, prostitution is a misdemeanor, apparently, and misdemeanors can earn you everything from a small fine up to twelve months in a local jail depending on what the crime is, as opposed to a felony, which puts you in prison. (I'm pretty hazy on the distinction between jail and prison, tbh. Except that one appears to involve more buggery, if t'telly is correct.)

EDitII: Jaywalking can be a misdemeanor too, I see, or an infraction, depending on the jurisdiction.

[Busyman™]

Nice post.

Prostitution is much worse than jaywalking but not as bad as murder, of course.


I checked some legal site off of Philly before posting that, and indecent exposure was worse than prostitution in Philadelphia. A felony even, which prostitution isn't. It sounded like prostitution earns you a fine, at worst.

Maybe it's my values that are a bit skewed, or maybe it's the people doing the legislation who are mentals.

Not saying flashing little kids or something can't be a horrible thing, but if indecent exposure is cathegorically worse than prostitution, prostitution can't be much of a crime.

I'm a product of another way of thinking than what seems to dominate in parts of the US in that respect, though.

EDit: Actually, doing a bit more research, prostitution is a misdemeanor, apparently, and misdemeanors can earn you everything from a small fine up to twelve months in a local jail depending on what the crime is, as opposed to a felony, which puts you in prison. (I'm pretty hazy on the distinction between jail and prison, tbh. Except that one appears to involve more buggery, if t'telly is correct.)

EDitII: Jaywalking can be a misdemeanor too, I see, or an infraction, depending on the jurisdiction.

Oh yes agreed. Prostitution for women and guys will get you jail time but not hard time in the least. However, jaywalking will net you a ticket to pay....no handcuffs.

Buggery? Isn't that buttfucking?

[Busyman™]

Well of course it is. In the case of prostitution, even if it was legal, it must be taxed since it is income.

It is done this way in Nevada where it is legal in some parts.


You miss the point.

Stupid Laws should always be repealed instead of wasting valuable Police Resources enforcing them. I have no problem breaking Stupid Laws and never will.

If it's a Crime, where is the victim?

Sometimes there is one, the Prostitute herself. The resources used in this area should be aimed at the reasons why she/he has been forced into Prostitution in the 1st place.

Certain women will always take advantage of the fact that some men, for various reasons, will pay for sex (and vise versa). It's something that has happened since pre-history, it will happen until the forceable future..

If you cant stop it, then at least control or influence it... and allow the Prostitute/Escort etc to pay tax and contribute to society like everyone else.

It's a business, treat it as such. Everyone will be safer and happier as it's taken out of the hands of the underworld.

In some places, that particular trade is honoured.

In the USA they allow hard core pornography to be sold, yet Prostitution is illegal... Hypocritical or what?

Do the actresses not get paid? If they do, then they are having sex for money ie: Prostitution. The REASON is immaterial.

In the UK Prostitution is perfectly legal. Solicitation is not: ie Once you have clients you're OK, but getting them in the 1st place is illegal... again: Stupidity.

Most people in the UK know they're stupid Laws (including the Police) and ignore them accordingly most of the time. Occasionally, if pushed, they may raid a Brothel and they arent keen on Street Walkers...not because they're Prostitutes, but to protect women in the area that aren't. This depends upon which Police Force is in operation... eg: Northumbria clamp down when it becomes "too open", Scotland/Merseyside appear to be anything goes as prostitutes advertise openly in these areas.


Again, i say the fact she was a Prostitute is immaterial. Anyone that takes that into account is a prig.

With the fact that the fella raped her, I agree. With the fact that she was committing a crime known to be dangerous, she's was idiot.

You also seem to have an anything goes attitude.

I imagine you think gambling, prostitution, polygamy, and all kinds of abortions and drugs should be legal everywhere.

Just because something can't be stopped doesn't mean you cave in every time and allow it.

I also can't believe you brought up pornography. Fucking isn't illegal and A ain't payin' B. Also some porno is illegal.

[Snee]

I checked some legal site off of Philly before posting that, and indecent exposure was worse than prostitution in Philadelphia. A felony even, which prostitution isn't. It sounded like prostitution earns you a fine, at worst.

Maybe it's my values that are a bit skewed, or maybe it's the people doing the legislation who are mentals.

Not saying flashing little kids or something can't be a horrible thing, but if indecent exposure is cathegorically worse than prostitution, prostitution can't be much of a crime.

I'm a product of another way of thinking than what seems to dominate in parts of the US in that respect, though.

EDit: Actually, doing a bit more research, prostitution is a misdemeanor, apparently, and misdemeanors can earn you everything from a small fine up to twelve months in a local jail depending on what the crime is, as opposed to a felony, which puts you in prison. (I'm pretty hazy on the distinction between jail and prison, tbh. Except that one appears to involve more buggery, if t'telly is correct.)

EDitII: Jaywalking can be a misdemeanor too, I see, or an infraction, depending on the jurisdiction.

Oh yes agreed. Prostitution for women and guys will get you jail time but not hard time in the least. However, jaywalking will net you a ticket to pay....no handcuffs.

Buggery? Isn't that buttfucking?

Yes.

They used to run that show Oz late at night here, so I ended up seeing some of it when I couldn't sleep.

I'm never breaking your laws if I go to the US, is all I'm saying :ermm:

[Busyman™]

Oh yes agreed. Prostitution for women and guys will get you jail time but not hard time in the least. However, jaywalking will net you a ticket to pay....no handcuffs.

Buggery? Isn't that buttfucking?

Yes.

They used to run that show Oz late at night here, so I ended up seeing some of it when I couldn't sleep.

I'm never breaking your laws if I go to the US, is all I'm saying :ermm:

:lol:

Yeah Emerald City was supposed to be better than gen pop.

Jail over here sucks from what I'm told. A friend of mine is in jail for attempted murder. He's a pretty big guy and he says it's fucked up.

Jail wouldn't bode well for a pretty faced, height challenged guy like myself. I tell you this, I'd be one nasty mofo in jail. I'd let my beard grow to epic proportions, I wouldn't wash, and I'd let shit cake up around my ass.:sick:

[Snee]

Jail wouldn't bode well for a pretty faced, height challenged guy like myself. I tell you this, I'd be one nasty mofo in jail. I'd let my beard grow to epic proportions, I wouldn't wash, and I'd let shit cake up around my ass.:sick:

Good plan :glag: :pinch:

[Rat Faced]

You miss the point.

Stupid Laws should always be repealed instead of wasting valuable Police Resources enforcing them. I have no problem breaking Stupid Laws and never will.

If it's a Crime, where is the victim?

Sometimes there is one, the Prostitute herself. The resources used in this area should be aimed at the reasons why she/he has been forced into Prostitution in the 1st place.

Certain women will always take advantage of the fact that some men, for various reasons, will pay for sex (and vise versa). It's something that has happened since pre-history, it will happen until the forceable future..

If you cant stop it, then at least control or influence it... and allow the Prostitute/Escort etc to pay tax and contribute to society like everyone else.

It's a business, treat it as such. Everyone will be safer and happier as it's taken out of the hands of the underworld.

In some places, that particular trade is honoured.

In the USA they allow hard core pornography to be sold, yet Prostitution is illegal... Hypocritical or what?

Do the actresses not get paid? If they do, then they are having sex for money ie: Prostitution. The REASON is immaterial.

In the UK Prostitution is perfectly legal. Solicitation is not: ie Once you have clients you're OK, but getting them in the 1st place is illegal... again: Stupidity.

Most people in the UK know they're stupid Laws (including the Police) and ignore them accordingly most of the time. Occasionally, if pushed, they may raid a Brothel and they arent keen on Street Walkers...not because they're Prostitutes, but to protect women in the area that aren't. This depends upon which Police Force is in operation... eg: Northumbria clamp down when it becomes "too open", Scotland/Merseyside appear to be anything goes as prostitutes advertise openly in these areas.


Again, i say the fact she was a Prostitute is immaterial. Anyone that takes that into account is a prig.

With the fact that the fella raped her, I agree. With the fact that she was committing a crime known to be dangerous, she's was idiot.

You also seem to have an anything goes attitude.

I imagine you think gambling, prostitution, polygamy, and all kinds of abortions and drugs should be legal everywhere.

Just because something can't be stopped doesn't mean you cave in every time and allow it.

I also can't believe you brought up pornography. Fucking isn't illegal and A ain't payin' B. Also some porno is illegal.

I'm not saying she wasn't an idiot... I was saying some women are forced into the position and THAT is a crime worth persuing.

I dont have an "anything goes" attitude, I'm saying there is no Victim ergo: why is it a Crime?

With drugs there obviously is a victim, the user.. and quite possibly many other victims of the user to feed his habit.. how can it NOT be a crime to run drugs? (Depending upon your definition of Narcotics)

Polygamy can be a "Moral" law with no victim, Government interfering in anothers culture/beliefs/personal life.. However in this case, there could be a victim, if one of the spouses doesnt know of the other etc etc... I would place it as a "Civil" matter though, not a criminal. Poygamy is perfectly legal in quite a proportion of the countries of the world.. your moral code is what defines it as "wrong", not any form of logical thought.

As to your attitude to pornography; you seem to be saying its OK to pay someone to have sex with a seperate party, but not with you. That would indicate that Prostitution is also OK as long as its via a pimp (or Acting/Modelling Agency) on your part?

[Busyman™]

With the fact that the fella raped her, I agree. With the fact that she was committing a crime known to be dangerous, she's was idiot.

You also seem to have an anything goes attitude.

I imagine you think gambling, prostitution, polygamy, and all kinds of abortions and drugs should be legal everywhere.

Just because something can't be stopped doesn't mean you cave in every time and allow it.

I also can't believe you brought up pornography. Fucking isn't illegal and A ain't payin' B. Also some porno is illegal.

I'm not saying she wasn't an idiot... I was saying some women are forced into the position and THAT is a crime worth persuing.

I dont have an "anything goes" attitude, I'm saying there is no Victim ergo: why is it a Crime?

With drugs there obviously is a victim, the user.. and quite possibly many other victims of the user to feed his habit.. how can it NOT be a crime to run drugs? (Depending upon your definition of Narcotics)

Polygamy can be a "Moral" law with no victim, Government interfering in anothers culture/beliefs/personal life.. However in this case, there could be a victim, if one of the spouses doesnt know of the other etc etc... I would place it as a "Civil" matter though, not a criminal. Poygamy is perfectly legal in quite a proportion of the countries of the world.. your moral code is what defines it as "wrong", not any form of logical thought.

As to your attitude to pornography; you seem to be saying its OK to pay someone to have sex with a seperate party, but not with you. That would indicate that Prostitution is also OK as long as its via a pimp (or Acting/Modelling Agency) on your part?

Oh so now you nitpick what could be a crime and people are victims of themselves.

Ok I'll bite.

If prostitution was legal, child prostitution increases, it would deal a huge blow to women's dignity and health, pimps increase, johns increase, the sex trade increases overall.

It is illegal for women to walk outside with there breasts showing yet men can go topless.

Who's the victim if someone sees the woman topless....certainly not me.:naughty:

...and you do have anything goes attitude. Logically, if no one is directly hurt it should be legal.

Drug use is in the same boat as prostitution. There is room to harm yourself.

[Rat Faced]

Child Prostitution rises:

Wheres your evidence? Does Nevada have 1000's of them and everywhere else none?

I'd argue that if Prostitution was regulated like any other business, it would be harder to hide this. Obviously someone that was "registered" would be over the age of consent and anyone that wasn't would be breaking some law; whether it was underage sex, deliberatly putting others at risk from some disease or tax evasion and so more police resources could be put into stamping these type of things out.

The Agency that regulates doesn't even have to be an arm of Government unless it abused the system set out.


Dignity and Health:

Those women who's dignity suffers from the availability of Porn and strip joints already suffer. How will it increase? It may actually decrease over time as it becomes socially acceptable.

Health can only increase, as Prostitutes would almost certainly be required to have regular check ups in order to carry on working..

Pimps inrease:

No, all evidence shows that Pimps decrease. Its no longer a Crime, they dont need one to "look after you". They can set themselves up in a safe environment with the support of the authorities and able to hire security if they require it.

It wouldnt totally get rid of Pimps, as there would still be Prostitution outside of any regulations eg: as you have suggested Child, Forced, Drug Addicts etc etc ... But at least Police could concentrate their resources to combat these, and these types/reasons for Prostitution are criminal the victim being the Prostitute themselves.


Johns Increase:

Probably, by exactly the amount that just didnt know where to look beforehand but wish to engage a Prostitute. I would submit that's probably is not by much, except tourists and visitors to the area. Certainly the number of Prostitutes and price a decent one costs certainly does not indicate a lack of punters already.


Sex Trade Increases:

If something becomes socially acceptable then there generally is a Growth. However, it will always be restricted to those that wish to enter that Trade. No one is suggesting that you push your children into Prostitution. There is nothing saying that you shouldnt teach your children to live by your own code: Just that you shouldnt push your's onto everyone else.

The fact that "Prostitution" is illegal, doesn't mean that its morally wrong as "Moral" is not a Universal concept. Prostitution is legal, and even respected, in plenty of otherwise "Moral" countries.

The fact that Prostitution is illegal causes, in my opinion, more problems than not.

[Busyman™]

Child Prostitution rises:

Wheres your evidence? Does Nevada have 1000's of them and everywhere else none?

I'd argue that if Prostitution was regulated like any other business, it would be harder to hide this. Obviously someone that was "registered" would be over the age of consent and anyone that wasn't would be breaking some law; whether it was underage sex, deliberatly putting others at risk from some disease or tax evasion and so more police resources could be put into stamping these type of things out.

The Agency that regulates doesn't even have to be an arm of Government unless it abused the system set out.


Dignity and Health:

Those women who's dignity suffers from the availability of Porn and strip joints already suffer. How will it increase? It may actually decrease over time as it becomes socially acceptable.

Socially acceptable hoes? Good point. That's a very good acceptable trade to expose those daughters to.

Health can only increase, as Prostitutes would almost certainly be required to have regular check ups in order to carry on working..

Pimps inrease:

No, all evidence shows that Pimps decrease. Its no longer a Crime, they dont need one to "look after you". They can set themselves up in a safe environment with the support of the authorities and able to hire security if they require it.

It wouldnt totally get rid of Pimps, as there would still be Prostitution outside of any regulations eg: as you have suggested Child, Forced, Drug Addicts etc etc ... But at least Police could concentrate their resources to combat these, and these types/reasons for Prostitution are criminal the victim being the Prostitute themselves.

The pimp would now be accepted as a legit business man. Of course it would increase

Johns Increase:

Probably, by exactly the amount that just didnt know where to look beforehand but wish to engage a Prostitute. I would submit that's probably is not by much, except tourists and visitors to the area. Certainly the number of Prostitutes and price a decent one costs certainly does not indicate a lack of punters already.

Just like anything else, as more things are accepted (like homosexuality) the more they become the norm. Something that was once underground is part of normal legal livelihood.

Johns would increase a lot.

Sex Trade Increases:

If something becomes socially acceptable then there generally is a Growth. However, it will always be restricted to those that wish to enter that Trade. No one is suggesting that you push your children into Prostitution. There is nothing saying that you shouldnt teach your children to live by your own code: Just that you shouldnt push your's onto everyone else.

The mere fact of it being a legit business would make it easier for children or those borderline to accept doing it. It's simply the nature of things. Since it would be socially acceptable, you could have a mother grooming her 17 year-old for the sex trade.

Nice going....since it's socially acceptable and all.

The fact that "Prostitution" is illegal, doesn't mean that its morally wrong as "Moral" is not a Universal concept. Prostitution is legal, and even respected, in plenty of otherwise "Moral" countries.

The fact that Prostitution is illegal causes, in my opinion, more problems than not.

I disagree. I submit that setting up the infrastructure and maintenance for prostitution has more problem than it being a misdemeanor.

[Rat Faced]

Perhaps you should actually look at the facts in Countries where this happens, instead of leaving it to what you think would happen. eg: There's only problems with Pimps if the entire act is illegal... I can't think of a country that has a problem with Pimps and also has legal Prostitution, except in the areas I mentioned that remain in the underworld.

Unless you accept that Model Agencies/Acting Agencies are Pimping.... but you don't. Perhaps because you like to watch Porn, but that would go against your own Moral Code re: Prostitution?

US Law in this area is based upon British Common Law, as is most of the American Legal System... that doesn't mean that the British got it right all those 100's of years ago (nor has it today).

[j2k4]

I will, (as does Busyman on occasion) state I haven't read most of this last back-and-forth between the two of you, but feel nonetheless your clash could be foreshortened by noting more clearly the fact that, were the sex question resolved to legality, the pimps/pimping question would largely subside on it's own, a casualty of the very act of legalization.

Pimps would shortly go the way of the buggy-whip. :whistling

[Rat Faced]

OMG .... whats that, twice we've agreed on something?? :lol:

[j2k4]

OMG .... whats that, twice we've agreed on something?? :lol:

Not sure; what do you think I meant? :whistling

[sArA]

For what its worth....I agree with RF & J2K4 (hi there guys :)) Legalise prostitution and you remove the majority of nasty people involved, legitimise it and you get revenue to the governments coffers, leaving more money to concentrate on getting the nasty people (nasty people being those who force, bully and steal from the prossies)

[Rat Faced]

Kev didnt exactly say that...

He just agreed on the point re: Pimps if the trade was legalized.

I'd be VERY surprised if he actually agreed with the whole argument. ;)

[j2k4]

For what its worth....I agree with RF & J2K4 (hi there guys :)) Legalise prostitution and you remove the majority of nasty people involved, legitimise it and you get revenue to the governments coffers, leaving more money to concentrate on getting the nasty people (nasty people being those who force, bully and steal from the prossies)


Kev didnt exactly say that...

He just agreed on the point re: Pimps if the trade was legalized.

I'd be VERY surprised if he actually agreed with the whole argument. ;)

Well, if I did, I don't have the slightest idea why the government should have a piece of the action.

Read my sig, ffs.

BTW-

Hello, sArA - lovely to see you again. :)

[Busyman™]

I will, (as does Busyman on occasion) state I haven't read most of this last back-and-forth between the two of you, but feel nonetheless your clash could be foreshortened by noting more clearly the fact that, were the sex question resolved to legality, the pimps/pimping question would largely subside on it's own, a casualty of the very act of legalization.

Pimps would shortly go the way of the buggy-whip. :whistling

No they wouldn't.

They'd be legal pimps.:ermm:

Whoring would be socially acceptable and a profession that many more would strive for versus something that's now shunned.

The owner of a brothel in Nevada is still a pimp or madame.

They still get a cut of a whore's earnings.

The only thing legalization would do is make it more fair to the hooker and cut down on disease, possibly.

[Busyman™]

Kev didnt exactly say that...

He just agreed on the point re: Pimps if the trade was legalized.

I'd be VERY surprised if he actually agreed with the whole argument. ;)

Well, if I did, I don't have the slightest idea why the government should have a piece of the action.

The IRS.

[j2k4]

I will, (as does Busyman on occasion) state I haven't read most of this last back-and-forth between the two of you, but feel nonetheless your clash could be foreshortened by noting more clearly the fact that, were the sex question resolved to legality, the pimps/pimping question would largely subside on it's own, a casualty of the very act of legalization.

Pimps would shortly go the way of the buggy-whip. :whistling

No they wouldn't.

They'd be legal pimps.:ermm:

Whoring would be socially acceptable and a profession that many more would strive for versus something that's now shunned.

The owner of a brothel in Nevada is still a pimp or madame.

They still get a cut of a whore's earnings.

The only thing legalization would do is make it more fair to the hooker and cut down on disease, possibly.

So then you don't feel the need for the "protective" services of the pimp would dwindle?

A madame, possibly not; not all prostitutes would desire to contract independently, I suppose.

I guess a pimp could be reclassified as a madame, but still desire to be called a pimp...no, actually, i don't see that happening, as any decent prostitute would/should sic the law on a bitch-slappin' pimp.

No, no more need for pimps, sorry. :whistling





Well, if I did, I don't have the slightest idea why the government should have a piece of the action.

The IRS.

That goes without saying. but does not constitute a "piece" of the action, any more than your own tax contribution.

[Busyman™]

No they wouldn't.

They'd be legal pimps.:ermm:

Whoring would be socially acceptable and a profession that many more would strive for versus something that's now shunned.

The owner of a brothel in Nevada is still a pimp or madame.

They still get a cut of a whore's earnings.

The only thing legalization would do is make it more fair to the hooker and cut down on disease, possibly.

So then you don't feel the need for the "protective" services of the pimp would dwindle?

A madame, possibly not; not all prostitutes would desire to contract independently, I suppose.

I guess a pimp could be reclassified as a madame, but still desire to be called a pimp...no, actually, i don't see that happening, as any decent prostitute would/should sic the law on a bitch-slappin' pimp.

No, no more need for pimps, sorry. :whistling





Well, if I did, I don't have the slightest idea why the government should have a piece of the action.

The IRS.

That goes without saying. but does not constitute a "piece" of the action, any more than your own tax contribution.

Sorry but seeing that government gets no piece from prostitutes, pimps, madames and johns now, I'd constitute the government taking 30% of checks and johns paying sales tax as
.....a piece of the action.:ermm:

Also if you are talking protective services of pimps then say that then.

A pimp is still a pimp. There are freelance hookers now that have no pimp.

What you mean is that legalization would most likely make it more fair to the hooker. In many cases, a pimp is getting his cut. In others (the unfair cases), the pimp takes all the money (and I mean all of it) and only provides clothing, room, and board.

The first case won't change in the case of a legal brothel.

[ilw]

does anyone actually care how many pimps there are?