Poll: Prostitution
- Thread starter The Infamous Scamola
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My thoughts exactly. I feel the same way about weed as well.bindox said:Legalize it, let them buy a business license like every other business, and pay taxes. Then they would have all the physical protection (police) of any other business, which they should have anyway as human beings. They could get health insurance and set up store fronts. And they can be regulated by the HEALTH DEPARTMENT.
I think it should be legal if the person is willig to do it. Because a prostitue sells their body, and when the government says you are not allowed to do that they are basically saying that you do not own your body, they do.
Legalize it, then put a tax on it, do the same for weed....... Boom no more recession!
Legalize it, then put a tax on it, do the same for weed....... Boom no more recession!
As I stated above, I think its immoral. I was commenting on the case of women who are forced into prostitution, and thus have no choice. I think society is responsible for this because it is social problems and inequality that eventually forces women to the point that they need to resort to prostitution. An adjusted social structure would give women the opportunity to not have to resort to this. Of course I'm assuming here that society has the obligation to better itself, and you may disagree, but that's my opinion.Agayek said:
To further clarify, for anyone who goes into prostitution for the nymphomaniacal goal of actually enjoying it, I think they have a screw lose and I think they need help to have no greater goal in life or better things to do then be a prostitute. Note again, that I will probably not be responding to any further quotes.
You emotional people are not thinking logically.hippo24 said:
This woman.
By her choice.
Auctions her viriginity to help pay for school.
By her desire.
Through an established, and well-maintained brothel famous around the world.
By her volition.
She will select whoever best meets her requirements and monetary offer.
I say bravo. Congrats. You go girl.
The link you sent was great, thanks. The commentary you provided was shallow and turned something innocent into human trafficking, and I find this mockery disgusting, personally.
There are drugged, kidnapped, addicted young teens raped for days on end for petty change, and THAT is what you're calling "treating women like objects"?
I'm all for legalised regularted prostitution, alcohol is taxed, tobacco is taxed, gambling is taxed, its not like the governments of the world have any kind of stance on taking immoral money as tax.
As for protecting the women who do this, sure the government wouldn't do a perfect job, but they'd do a better one than none at all.
My main point however is, if it was legalised, and this question is coming from someone with little legal knowledge, whats to stop someone high on their moral horse, say, creating a website designed to 'out' prostitutes.
Ignoring the is it/isn't it moral question for a moment, as to how much more accepted it might be if legalised, at present I'm of the belief that the majority of prostitutes would not choose to have it made public what they did for a living, especially those with children.
(This isn't a 'think of the children' thread, more defensive of the prostitutes right to privacy.)
If it was legal, is there any way to stop some moral leader idiot deciding it's his duty to 'expose' all the hookers he can?
Also, with the UK's history of data protection security, how long after legalisation before a laptop with a complete list of registered sex workers is found left on a train and printed on the Daily Mail's site. Which would be ironic, given the morals of the tabloids.
I'm guessing at present it's perfectly legal to run a story that 'Sheila Davis is a receptionist' for example. Admittedly a rather dull one, but you know if the right wing went anti filing... maybe confusing them for pedo files, I wouldn't put it past Mail readers, they'd have 2 page articles about exposed shameless receptionists.
As for protecting the women who do this, sure the government wouldn't do a perfect job, but they'd do a better one than none at all.
My main point however is, if it was legalised, and this question is coming from someone with little legal knowledge, whats to stop someone high on their moral horse, say, creating a website designed to 'out' prostitutes.
Ignoring the is it/isn't it moral question for a moment, as to how much more accepted it might be if legalised, at present I'm of the belief that the majority of prostitutes would not choose to have it made public what they did for a living, especially those with children.
(This isn't a 'think of the children' thread, more defensive of the prostitutes right to privacy.)
If it was legal, is there any way to stop some moral leader idiot deciding it's his duty to 'expose' all the hookers he can?
Also, with the UK's history of data protection security, how long after legalisation before a laptop with a complete list of registered sex workers is found left on a train and printed on the Daily Mail's site. Which would be ironic, given the morals of the tabloids.
I'm guessing at present it's perfectly legal to run a story that 'Sheila Davis is a receptionist' for example. Admittedly a rather dull one, but you know if the right wing went anti filing... maybe confusing them for pedo files, I wouldn't put it past Mail readers, they'd have 2 page articles about exposed shameless receptionists.
*Cleans the coca cola, which he was drinking when he saw the poll results, off his computer screen.*
Seriously, You have got to...I mean you dont really think that...*shakes his head* I dont even know what to say, well I just lost points in humanity department again.
Seriously, You have got to...I mean you dont really think that...*shakes his head* I dont even know what to say, well I just lost points in humanity department again.
Please, keep petty curse words out of this. It really makes you seem like a child.Ignignoct said:
And yes, I indirectly insulted him after he did likewise to me. Just because he's not capable of understanding what he's reading doesn't give him a pass to be a dick. So I guess we're at a similiar situation with you.
And obviously the quote is flawed. I was the one refering to the world, not him. And I never stated a percentage, it had nothing to do with my original statement. Please, grow up. Or troll somewhere else. And you can't mess with quotes, forget which poster said what, and actually think you'll be taken seriously.
Haha, that's cute. Just continously repeating what I say.Ignignoct said:
People aren't that stupid, they can just read the thread. Constantly quoting things and changing them must be fun, but don't believe it's the prank of the decade.
I'm done now, this is just wasting both of our time and derailing the topic. But it was nice meeting you.