a bit fucked up, your opinion?

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. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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)

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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. ;)

---

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. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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. ;)

---

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

---

The IRS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

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.

does anyone actually care how many pimps there are?