Alleged prospective sex buyers in this scheme first had to respond to a survey and provide information online, including their driver’s license photos, their employer information, credit card information, and they often paid a monthly fee to be part of this.”
Wait, what? (͡•_ ͡• )
That should make the prosecutors jobs much easier.
Wow, imagine willingly providing that information to what you know is a criminal organization. The people who signed up are obviously a major security hazard to whoever they work for.
Yeah. This is the real issue here.
Sex work should be legal and the morality discussion here is about people lying to their spouses and if anybody is being forced into sex work… all interesting topics.
But anybody implicated in this situation needs all security clearances and access dropped because they are high risk morons.
It's signing up to a blackmail scheme.
...to get your dick wet
Oh, well in that case will you need me to provide my clearance number as well?
Obviously it’s the sex workers that are going to jail for this, for tricking all these high level citizens.
Or better yet, we actually publicly prosecute them, or at least "accidentally" leak the list
I'm guessing this is prostitution with extra steps to make sure they can wiggle out of it, but if we actually held them to consequences things would get better quickly
100%. I wouldn’t even give all that information to my online pharmacist and I need some of those medications to survive.
Yeah my employer don't need to know fuckall about what meds I'm on.
Seriously. How dumb do you need to be to be in an actual high ranking (government) position and willingly give up all that info to an even slightly shady organisation? Never mind an illegal prostitution network you are sure is both illegal and easily blackmailable.
Say something is exclusive and idiots will do anything to get in.
Facebook got so huge because at first you had to be in college to be on it. After a couple years they opened it up to everyone and pretty much everyone signed up.
Doesn't always work. See Google+.
how horny*
The ease of prosecuting is directly proportional to how wealthy and influential the accused is.
Remember, it's a legal system ... not a justice system ... you can easily distinguish the difference by how wealthy you are (or are not)
Sad but true
Could be a honey pot. Either the guys running it wanted to use the info to blackmail the clientele or sell the info to foreign intelligence
Or they use it for further identity fraud to open new locations.
Not really, because the people who made the survey are probably smart enough to not include anything about exchanging money for sex. Basically, there's nothing illegal about filling out a survey about who you are and what are your likes or dislikes. There's also nothing illegal for someone to pay another person for their time.
So no mention of exchanging money for sex and it's incredibly hard to prosecute.
No idea if you’re right or not but that’s not what I meant. I meant they don’t have to hunt down the johns, the johns already provided all the possible info the prosecutors would need to find them.
I think what the person above was implying is that having your name on that list is not de-facto evidence of participation. I'm sure the DOJ has more than just that one piece of evidence if they've already made arrests, because sex workers in America are nothing if not extremely careful about how they conduct their business to avoid exposing themselves or their clients to law enforcement stings.
Hell, if they're actually smart, they have red herrings in the list that muddies who is actually a client
How exactly does that help? It's not like they are going to do stake outs on these guys. It's not enough probable cause for any type of warrant or anything.
It would help support a case if you already had one, but as an entry point it's all but completely useless, if not actually completely useless.
Which is why they won't release the names, because doing so would open them up to lawsuits. All risk no reward.
Are Johns (and sex workers) even worth prosecuting? I think the DOJ is interested in a organized prostitution ring and it’s leaders, involved in conspiracy and money laundering, not a few dudes paying for (adult) sex.
I don’t think they’ll waste their time.
I'm guessing it was that one P411 website or whatever. That site has been in the news in the past. It baffles me that people would willingly comply with such invasive identification requirements for something that's illegal. I get the idea behind it is to try and prove that you're not a cop/murdery type of criminal in order to protect the sex workers, but... yeah, lol.
Criminals and criminals masquerading as religions love to get blackmail on their clientele/members, it's probably the more lucrative part of their enterprise, and it keeps those members/clientele loyal, because who wants their nasty ass secrets leaked out or sold to their enemies?
None of that's illegal, aside from the card info it's actually a lot of the things a trustworthy sex worker will be asking you for as a background check before agreeing to meet you.
Selling is legal, fucking is legal, why isn't selling fucking legal?
-- George Carlin
Seas he also the fella that said “Getting paid for sex is illegal… UNLESS YOU RECORD IT!”
For years I've contemplated the idea if I came into a bunch of money if starting a porn studio where the customer is an actor/actress in the porn.
We have a building and several "sets" with cameras recording, customer picks their "partner" and "set" and "shoot the porn", after they are done the video is burned on to a dvd(or blue ray or potentially put on a private file server).
The customer isn't paying for sex, they are paying for the video.
Pretty sure it would have a ton of legal push back and I would need a lot of money for the lawyers to fight the cases.
But 1. Safer for everyone imvolved(it's video taped so you won't beat/hurt/kill the other party) 2.technically legal just like shooting porn
This is actually a great idea for couples! The issue of course would be to make sure that the couples are actual couples.
You could have them sign a release indicating that it's a "photo studio", and you can have different prices: one for commercial use ($5,000 per hour) and one for private use ($100 an hour, and you're not allowed to commercially distribute the DVD.)
Think there is a big group of customers for sex who want it captured on video?
They get the only copy... I don't care if the watch it, post it online or just it for skeet shooting with a shotgun.
Not to mention the possible tie ins...imagine if the studio partnered with onlyfans... Or offered special spaces with live streaming(with permission) to people's Webcam sites.
"remember to join the stream this Saturday where we will be on location in the pleasure dome's sunset beach set for a special sex on the beach adventure"
You could burn it to a dvd or whatever, delete the file, and give the customer the only copy. Whether they choose to keep it or destroy it is their own choice.
The underlying assumption is the same as in abortion: that women can't be entrusted with agency over their own bodies.
Because one of the biggest issues with sex work, human trafficking, gets worse with legalization. Studies across Europe have shown that countries that outlaw prostitution see a decrease in human trafficking victims while countries that legalized or decriminalized it see an increase.
Unlike with drugs, you don't just create a way to increase the supply. A very small minority of women actually want to engage in sex work. And the few who do, usually envision the high class escort lifestyle. But working in a brothel charging $100 per client isn't something many want to do.
But legalizing prostitution increases demand. Which makes it more profitable for criminals to utilize human trafficking to fill that demand.
It also doesn't help at all with protecting victims of human trafficking. Victims of human trafficking are already protected. But they don't step forward because of threats against their own well being and that of their families. Something that doesn't change just because their work technically is legal now.
Which leaves a small percentage of people who fall into financial hardship and consider prostitution as a method of overcoming said hardship. For them that might slightly improve their situation. But that still means exploiting vulnerable people and isn't people engaging in sex work because they want to. And it's even questionable if people in these scenarios would follow the legal way.
So while initially it might seem like legalizing it solves a lot of issues, it is more difficult than that.
Us laws regarding sex work are firmly based in puritanical values not out of any concern whatsoever regarding trafficking.
Thanks for the data. I think the issue here is not that legal prostitution creates problems, but rather the government bodies being incompetent at protecting the victims, then.
There are other industries in which people "sell their bodies" for profit (the military and construction come to mind), and if those can be quite regulated, why can't prostitution?
We all sell our bodies for profit. To be fair though, wage theft is the most common form of theft. We're all prostitutes and we're almost all being taken advantage of, and we're in a system where we can't really get out.
I see this single study trotted out every time the subject comes up and the key factor to take into account is that this is reported trafficking. If legalized sex work means more light is shed on human trafficking that means more can be done about it.
key factor to take into account is that this is reported trafficking. If legalized sex work means more light is shed on human trafficking that means more can be done about it.
Just because more is reported doesn't mean more isn't also happening. In fact, one could reasonably expect reporting to go down as a percentage of incidents due to ordinary citizens not expecting sex workers to be involved in trafficking since sex work is now legal. That the number goes up after the stigma is removed seems to strongly indicate a correlation with a rise in actual trafficking.
More or less is a matter of comparison. How do you compare with an underground activity that cannot be tracked as easily?
How do you compare with an underground activity that cannot be tracked as easily?
As with anything, you can only work with the data you actually have.
Sure, but all you have is assumptions and you're assuming the increased reporting of trafficking means that trafficking is increasing rather than it just getting caught more. It's like when some governments fought over covid reporting. Keeping it hidden doesn't mean less of it is happening and making it more visible doesn't mean more of it is happening.
Sure, but all you have is assumptions
Isn't that a bit of the pot calling the kettle black?
No, because you presented the study as supposed proof of more human trafficking.
First, I didn't present anything.
Second, it does prove that more human trafficking is reported.
You only have the assumption that bringing it into the light of day results in a higher rate of reporting against actual incidents. It's an interesting hypothesis, but without any evidence to support your assumption Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest answer is that the rates do not change drastically and there actually is more human trafficking to be reported.
You didn't present anything but you certainly act like you did. We're agreed in that it proves more human trafficking is reported but again, that doesn't mean more human trafficking is happening. Refer back to my example about covid case reporting. Incorrectly citing Occam's Razor doesn't strengthen your argument.
You didn't present anything but you certainly act like you did.
I did no such thing.
We're agreed in that it proves more human trafficking is reported but again, that doesn't mean more human trafficking is happening.
Unless the reporting rates go down, then it must certainly does.
Refer back to my example about covid case reporting.
Your example of a concerted effort of large governmental agencies to hide the actual reported numbers is not actually relevant here. It wouldn't even be relevant if it were just random underreporting outside of governments as it doesn't have any similarity to decriminalizing sex work.
Incorrectly citing Occam's Razor doesn't strengthen your argument.
You have made more assumptions than I have. Tell me how you think Occam doesn't apply. You can't just declare an argument to be invalid and expect anyone to take your seriously.
What evidence do you have to support your theory that decriminalizing an activity increases the rate of reporting? If you don't have any, then you don't even have an argument. You only have your suppositions and theories.
It's entirely possible that you're correct, and decriminalization increases reporting without increasing activity. I have yet to see what mechanism you propose causes this quite curious paradox, so without some explanation you'll have to concede that you at least can offer no actual reason to believe it's true.
Because one of the biggest issues with sex work, human trafficking, gets worse with legalization.
Yes, because legalizing sex work is just criminalizing sex work with extra steps. It's very easy to see an (alleged) "rise in sex trafficking" when the legalization shuffle allows politicians to all of a sudden decide what is "allowed" sex work and what is "sex trafficking."
This is why shitty studies like the one you linked is so thoroughly non-credible - it was performed without the input of the people who actually know what they are talking about - ie, sex workers themselves.
What the fuck are you talking about?
legalizing sex work is just criminalizing sex work with extra steps
So what's the solution?? You just made random assertions without any sources and didn't suggest any alternatives. All while skimming over the very real trafficking/coersion problems unique to sex work.
I was totally onboard with them but the longer they talk the weirder the takes get.
ROFLMAO! No, genius... trafficking is not unique to sex work in any way, shape, or form. If you weren't filled to the brim with anti-sex work hysteria you'd have known that already.
Do tell… is this the first time you’ve actually considered what sex workers themselves have to say about (so-called) “legalization?”
The sex workers with those opinions usually are the already more well off workers who perform escort or cam services, and isn't reflective of the bottom strata of sex worker experiences. It also doesn't address how more common sex work leads to higher trafficking rates.
trafficking is not unique to sex work in any way, shape, or form.
Lol I'd love any source on this whatsoever. I'm not sure how you defend this line of thought, or why you feel this way. You don't think human trafficking shares any of the same risk factors or conditions as sex work?
ROFLMAO!
LOLCOPTER
and isn’t reflective of the bottom strata of sex worker experiences.
You're going to have to do a whole lot better than hiding behind impoverished people.
It also doesn’t address how more common sex work leads to higher trafficking rates.
That has already been explained to you.
Lol I’d love any source on this whatsoever.
You need a source to tell you that labor and refugee trafficking is a thing?
I’m not sure how you defend this line of thought,
It's really simple... I have no wish to demonize and criminalize sex workers - unlike you.
My bet is on America's conservative puritan history where anything good is bad.
Also sex trafficking. At least that's the argument for keeping it illegal. :(
I believe the reason sex trafficking happens is because sex work is illegal.
Which is bollocks anyways because illegalization actually makes things less safe for all sex workers, but especially for trafficking victims who are now legally marginalized into dark number status
Old white men elected themselves under the guise of voting (gerrymandering who?) and are too embarrassed and confused to allow women the rights they have as humans. Isn't democracy silly.
I'd say the diagram of "Why is sex work illegal" and "Why is abortion illegal" is almost a perfect circle.
It's about contolling other peoples' bodies and weakening the separation of church and state.
Sex work differs from most other type of work in one very significant way - it's an industry in which capitalists cannot really control the means of production unless slavery (ie, a person can become the private property of another) is legalized and institutionalized. In other words, a sex worker - for the most part - is not as easily coerced into selling their labor to capitalists like most workers can be, and capitalists hate when people have a way to opt out of being hosts for their parasitism.
Sex work also has a way of subverting patriarchal norms upon which the status quo rests.
This is not to say that sex work is automatically a revolutionary, anti-capitalist or even "empowering" thing by itself - there are plenty of ways in which our socio-economic systems allows and enables de facto slavery without calling it slavery - but it certainly doesn't fit into the neat class hierarchy that capitalists wants society to be trapped within.
Sex work also has a way of subverting patriarchal norms upon which the status quo rests.
cough, what? No, it reinforces those norms. Men in power get to have women at their beck and call.
This isn't a capitalist thing. Just look at how profitable the sex industry is in Nevada.
It's a "holier than thou" thing that we just haven't been able to get rid of in our society.
As much as I like calling out greed for what it is, this simply isn't one of those cases.
cough, what?
You read correctly the first time. It's a lot more difficult to entrap sex workers in patriarchal hierarchies than a housewife (for instance)... this should not be too difficult to understand.
This isn’t a capitalist thing.
All sex work in the world today exists under a capitalist mode of production - as far as I can tell, there is (officially, at least) no such thing as "publicly-funded" sex work... and that is unfortunate.
as far as I can tell, there is (officially, at least) no such thing as "publicly-funded" sex work... and that is unfortunate.
You lost me.
Due to both criminalization and demonization, sex workers are prevented from performing very necessary work in our society - such as being the only people that are qualified to perform sex education, for instance - so yes... it is quite unfortunate that sex work cannot be performed as a service to the public.
Sex education is more about the changes your body goes through during puberty as well as how reproduction works. None of that is related to sex work. Sex work is about making people feel good.
Sex education is more about the changes your body goes through during puberty as well as how reproduction works.
That's basic biology - not sex education. The fact that you can't even discern the difference proves the point.
That's what I was taught in sex ed. What were you taught?
I think that is the problem.
Not even that.
Yikes.
Wait till you learn that you can be self employed outside of sex work.
For the most parts its just christian morality still ingrained in our society.
Wait till you learn that you can be self employed outside of sex work.
Yes, the homeless people trying to sell me trinkets at the intersection certainly seems to prove your point.
The only self employed people you can think of are homeless dudes selling trinkets and prostitutes?
The vast majority of "self-employed" people are utterly impoverished people doing survival work, Clyde - please tell me you don't buy into the "entrepreneurship" fairy tales Reagan and Thatcher spooned into your parents' brains through the telly back in the 80s. If you believed that, you might just as well believe in magic glass slippers that grants royalty.
You are confusing being self employed with gig economy bullshit. There are a lot of fields of occupation where being self employed makes sense und gives you more freedom. By the way - I'm talking from own experience being self employed fore quite some time now.
There are people living in shacks within a kilometer from where I'm typing this, Clyde... every second person living there has more (so-called) "entrepreneurship" in their big toe than you have in your entire body because they literally have to do it for survival.
I'm not confusing squat... the only thing you've managed to demonstrate here is that you talk from privilege and nothing else.
I like how even you write “entrepreneurship” in quotation marks and ad "so called", but than dismiss my point completely, that we might not be talking about the same thing. And than you get personal for no reason. Is everything OK, buddy? You need to went some anger and frustration? I would recommend some physical activity - much better than arguing with strangers on the internet.
I like how even you write “entrepreneurship” in quotation marks and ad “so called”
That's because I view the neoliberal fetishization of "entrepreneurism" no differently than I view the garbage anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers buy into.
but than dismiss my point completely
Your "point" was treated in the appropriate manner - your "point" merely revolved around the choice the privileged has when it comes to employment. This makes your "point" utterly irrelevant to this discussion.
Ah, to be a angry maximalist teenager again - sorry for bothering you, but that conversations almost feels illegal to me.
maximalist
I have no idea what "maximalism" is... but I sincerely doubt there's anything illegal about it.
I disagree with this entire claim. Sex workers are notorious for "having a price" to do nearly anything. I would say they are more susceptible to doing disgusting shit for money. There's a reason why there's an ongoing joke about sex workers getting shit on during their trips to dubai.
Sex workers are notorious for “having a price” to do nearly anything.
And what do you think the rest of us do, eh Clyde? How many sex workers have to piss in bottles to make Jeff Bezos richer?
There's a reason we don't use the term "prostitute" any more - it's got something to do with the fact that understanding how capitalism works very quickly makes it real clear who the real "prostitutes" are...
I think sex workers are pressured to get into progressively more disgusting shit because that's what pays. The market is flooded at this point and the only thing you can do to stick out is either be famous or be willing to degrade yourself.
I think
You think?
And this expertise on sex work comes from where?
I'm expressing my opinion on a public forum. I hate how internet comments have become an eternal game of gotchas. I can be aware of a topic without participating in it.
Is your opinion an informed one? Or are you just regurgitating propaganda you assume to be your opinion?
AFAIK, it's not federally illegal, but mostly every state bans it. As how Nevada can have prostitution.
You're correct, it is not federally illegal in the US. Most things aren't. Murder isn't, either. However, traveling across state lines with a prostitute has gotten people in trouble with the federal government before.
woke af
What does woke even mean?
It means staying awake, staying aware and thinking, not sleepwalking through life.
Implies the use of critical thinking. No wonder they hate it.
I have an MSc from a top UK university, my dissertation topic was labour abuse and work-related harm for which I received a distinction. I'm no puritan, but genuine "sex work" (outside the internet) is overwhelmingly negative for the actual workers and very few enter the industry from a position of personal or economic empowerment. This is the case to a shocking degree, even where it's decriminalised. I'm not against it, per se, but it confuses me when people are strongly for it. So yeah, stay woke.
I think most people who've actually thought about it would say either "sensitivity to and awareness of the plight of marginalized people" or the same but with "oversensitivity", depending on which side of it you're on.
I'm assuming they're arresting the sex workers and not the politicians and military officials?
Hopefully neither, and they’ll arrest the organizers/pimps/etc.
sex workers and clients should be the lowest priority.
You know what they say about hoping, you can hope in one hand and bang an escort in the other hand and see which hand fills up quicker.
My hand hurts
*hands
My hand hands
3 individuals sounds like just the pimps.
They'd probably have to confirm identities to arrest those folks, and also prove they aren't just getting name-dropped.
Just grabbing the pimps and workers is a lot easier and less case intense
Anybody remember that one piece about our servicemen being involved in trafficking women overseas about three years ago that was swept under the rug?
I only remember the rug as I’m supposed to.
To be fair, it did really tie the room together.
Smh someone says “One Piece” and you show up in the same thread. Pirates are of one mind, I tell you.
He pissed on the rug.
Customers are not named in the affidavit, according to the agent, because the investigation into their involvement is “active and ongoing.” these are the type of people who don't get held accountable, ever.
Accountable for what? Something that should be legal in the first place?
Do you also think marijuana users should be named and shamed?
It should be legal but it’s not. Those are government officials with clearances which put up their Driver’s licenses and credit card information on an illegal site to bang hookers. That’s the issue.
The “name and shame” argument is also meaningless. Take marijuana for example. If you’re a government official who is actively pushing for legalization and it comes up that you actually consume it… ok? Big news, you’re putting your mouth where your money is. Nobody cares, there’s no “shame” in being “named”. The issue comes when people are publicly against marijuana/prostitution and then engage in it. Those are hypocrites and should be shamed.
Heyo, I'm a heavy smoker!
Or, you know, they don't have any evidence that a crime actually was committed. These people aren't morons and know that unless they are caught exchanging money for sex they are off the hook. The fact that they have their name in this group is not even remotely enough to even charge someone with a crime, let alone get a conviction.
Ah, yes, 4-star generals in Procurement retiring to gold-plated consulting gigs in the very companies from which they ordered $1000 paper clips and congressional members using insider info from some congressional comission or other they're in for trading on their portfolios is all fine, it's paying for sex that's the real problem with holders of high level official positions in America.
The bribery potential of those officials violating the laws they're publicly supporting is the problem.
No such problem were paying for sex is legal.
Hoover amassed significant power by collecting files containing large amounts of compromising and potentially embarrassing information on many powerful people, especially politicians.
True. Which is why it should be legalized and regulated. Very difficult to bribe someone with something they can just have whenever they want.
They said the same thing to justify banning gays from working for the government or serving in the military.
Because lies are a security risk. Which is a major part of why it's better to allow them into service openly. No secrets from the service, no leverage for betrayal.
The show For All Mankind did a good take on the problem IMO. Being gay wasn't illegal per se, but gay people could not be employed at NASA. They still joined, but they kept their orientation hidden. Then the security forces used the justification that gays keeping secrets were vulnerable to blackmail to go on witch hunts to seek and root out gays, and to defend the decision to ban gays from employment in the first place. It was a circular argument through-and-through. The base reason has always been prejudice. Didn't help that in the show there were real Soviet spies running around trying to find gays to extort for NASA rocket secrets.
"It sure would be unfortunate if someone was to send pictures to the family, bosses and the media."
The potential for being compromised and coerced into overlooking a few budget items is one path to this graft.
The client list will likely go in the same vault as Epstein's. They're all assets now.
It does make one wonder who the real assets are.
They’re all assets now.
In the age of Trump, are those really assets anymore?
Seems like they're moreso assets of a bygone era.
I'm sure they'll be arresting and charging the politicians any and revoking security clearances any moment now...
Why would they revoke their security clearance?
Doing illegal stuff provides leverage for others to blackmail you to do more illegal stuff, like disclose state secrets
The potential for blackmail.
I really don’t understand the way the US works in regards to „bought“ sex… on the one hand prostitution is illegal (with the exception of Las Vegas parts of Nevada) and as soon as you point a camera on the paid fucking it is called PORN and it is still a multi billion dollar industry.
You guys are weird
Edit: changed the Las Vegas part
Prostitution isn't legal in Vegas. Parts of Nevada yes, but in Clark county where Las Vegas is located prostitution is illegal.
That's more insane than what the original comment pointed out.
It's very bizarre. Kinda shocking the gov't hasn't figured out the massive amount of tax revenue behind the legalization of sex workers.
Works in other countries at least. Here in Germany they just pay income tax, like everyone else. Actually they are freelancers usually…
On the other hand, Germany is still a bit backwards regarding cannabis legalization… but we are working on it.
Illegal income is taxed, technically, but paying that tax would also basically be a confession. That's how they got mobsters back in the day. So there ends up not being any when you're right and there absolutely could be good tax revenue there
Hell, it's not federally banned, so it's just states not being willing.
There are porn producers who do such a crappy job that I’d swear they only film so they have legal access to prostitution.
Like 90% of OF "fan meets" are filmed fucks because it's actually prostitution. Pretty sad they can't be honest because some people had weir hangups hundreds of years ago
Go on any hookup app or site and you'll see plenty of "content creators" willing to meet up and "make content."
It started a few centuries ago when this annoying group of people known as Puritans were expelled from their home country and sailed to north America.
The natives saved them from starvation and today still impose their beliefs and values on everybody. These hypocritical laws is but one example
They were not expelled from anywhere. They wanted to impose their religious doctrine on everyone else but every government keep telling them to fuck off.
The Puritans were a small sect, just looking for the religious freedom to punish the best majority of people who didn't believe the Puritans' theology. Their notion of "religious freedom" is similar to the U.S. Catholic bishops' notion. It's a violation of religious freedom when people can make their own choices, and don't have to obey a hierarchy.
I don't believe they were expelled?
I might be wrong...
It's easy to get confused because a lot of people who left England did so because they had no other prospects or no other choice, in the case of criminals or financial delinquents.
Reading up on the founding of the US is a doozy. Essentially, all the rejects of England sailed to the 'New World' because there was more opportunity for them there than at home.
The ones who had it good stayed in England.
Basically all the founders and settlers were groups who were too weird for Europe lol
What's weird is that loophole exists and people don't abuse it.
Like, I get the streetwalkers selling $10 BJs dont, but for "high end" organizations like this, just stick an old school camcorder in the room and let the John keep whatever grainy unidentifiable footage they make during the encounter.
If you're ever investigated, you're in the clear. If not, then no one even has to know.
Nah. A group tried this in Pensacola and got busted. Can't remember the details, but they were trying to pass prostitution off as pr0n because camera. Didn't fly.
I bet employment fraud would have a bigger jail sentence than prostitution.
It's called the "First Amendment," and you'll find it can be used to justify/unjustify all sorts of things depending on the current government in power.
In this day and age where nothing stays secret, how is it hard for elected officials not do stupid stuff like visiting brothels?
In this day and age, why aren't brothels and sex work legal?
Buddy, we're still working on legalizing an absurdly common plant because for a while much of the country thought it was satanic or whatever.
"In this day and age," in America, of course it's not legal yet. That is gonna take a long time.
No, it's not illegal because people thought it was evil. It was illegal because it allowed the government to jail black men and war protestors and throw away the key.
...And because the cotton industry didn't want to compete with hemp.
... and more recently booze companies don't want to compete with weed
Yeah that isn't true. Hemp is and always has been legal in many parts of the world and couldn't compete with cotton for the bulk of applications.
My bad. I think I watched a documenrary on it like 15 years ago.
Wikipedia says 1937 marijuana tax act effectively stopped hemp from being able to compete with heavy taxation and greatly reduced production. Thou it also attributes dupont and newspaper and timber magnate William Hearst and not cotton as the killer.
Then in 1969 the courts struck down the Marijuana Taxation Act, but then the Controlled substances act of 1970 banned it all at a federal level.
So yeas still shady AF, just not Cotton being shady. My bad
LSD was made illegal because of war protesters
The plant legalization is happening relatively quickly all things considered. Its funny how fast the laws change the moment the rich pigs smell potential profits of a new industry and the pressure of missing out on pocketing some of that sweet sweet tax revenue neighboring states are collecting instead.
Sure, but it's also taking longer than it should. It's also, fundamentally, not hard for even many conservatives to accept as "not that bad."
Legalized prostitution also has tremendous potential for new markets and profit, but it's a lot harder for conservatives to accept compared to weed, as America is just too goddamn puritanical.
Christianity. By demonizing it they can still use it but get to get angry at the women who work there.
There's a contingent of feminists who oppose prostitution for well being of the women reasons, too.
I wasn't aware that it was not possible for women to hate women. Especially younger more prettier ones.
Good thing that never ever happens. Nope. Tall poppy syndrome is exclusively male.
because sex should not be a commodity in a healthy society.
A healthy society has healthy sex work.
The issue with sex work is that, due to its black market nature, it almost requires sex slavery.
There is no issue with people running onlyfans. Why? Because its legal, so those who want to do it can do so, and those forced into it feel safe going to the cops.
A regulated, legal, legally protected sex industry would eliminate a lot of the issues with sex work. Much harder to traffick people when you need to file their taxes and pass frequent random inspections, and less profitable to traffick people when a legal brothel legally takes your customers.
A healthy society has healthy sex work.
I disagree. I don't think paying prostitutes to fuck you is an essential need of society.
There is no issue with people running onlyfans. Why? Because its legal
Are we really making the argument that because it's legal it means it's good?
A regulated, legal, legally protected sex industry would eliminate a lot of the issues with sex work. Much harder to traffick people when you need to file their taxes and pass frequent random inspections, and less profitable to traffick people when a legal brothel legally takes your customers
Just because some rules have negative externalities doesn't automatically mean we should get rid of the rule.
Are we really making the argument that because it's legal it means it's good?
If you cant read, sure. But the actual argument you were given was making it legal makes it safe.
I dunno if you just dont pay attention, or what, but humans sell their bodies for a living. Not just for sex, but in general. Any society with work will have people who want to work by fucking.
Unless you think onlyfans is full of people held at gunpoint? No, those are people choosing to make that content, for compensation.
Making that content legal means legal requirements and restrictions to force sex work to be safe. I dont really care about your quaker fueled puritan ideals of """good""" around sex, you can duke that out with your therapist. What I care about is making it safe.
I want hookers off the street, where they are victims of murder, kidnapping, sex slavery, drug use, etc etc etc. Legal sex work gets them off the street and out of the hands of pimps.
I want sex slaves freed, and no more kidnapped. Legal sex work drains the incentive of a sex black market, making it less profitable to sell someone into slavery when your would-be customers can get laid cheaper and legally.
I want stds under control. Illegal sex work spreads them like wildfire. Legal sex work requires regular testing and treatment for both parties, hampering the spread of disease.
People arent going to stop fucking, nor stop wanting money. Wake up or grow up about sex. Peoples lives are lost or ruined because of black market sex slavery. Legalizing sex work shines a light at that black market.
Sex work does not contribute anything to society other than creepy men getting their fix.
Like I said, you can save your creepy puritan cult bullshit for your therapist.
But Id like for less sex slaves in the world, thanks.
That's not even remotely true.
Have you ever actually spoken to a sex worker before?
They primarily sell intimacy.
People are able to tell and be things around sex workers that they can't be in their daily lives.
In one of your other posts, you said that sex shouldn't be commodified. Well, we live in a society where EVERYTHING is commodified while simultaneously alienating people to perform their peak consumption.
Sex isn't holy. It's a need that we all have, like water, food, and oxygen. When you make it so that people who are bad at getting it can't get it at all, you make a population of stressed out, deprived, and desperate people.
Sex workers bring so much more to the table than being a cum dump. A good sex worker gives you a safe place to be yourself and meet your base, primal needs. That's not just valuable, that's invaluable.
Sex isn’t holy. It’s a need that we all have, like water, food, and oxygen
You don't need sex. You sound like an incel with that kind of rhetoric. You can survive 100% fine without sex, but you can't without water, food and oxygen. I seriously hope you aren't that stupid.
Do you masturbate? Watch pornography? Have sexy dreams?
Oh, sorry, we having an internet argument. Let me come down to your level.
You are so very dumb stupid and it is so much that I can't believe it (because I am not, I am a very smart special boy). I am going to ignore your entire post and hyper focus on one sentence because it is so dumb and offensive that it is smelly and bad like a big poop dumpster on fire. No, wait, that would be an insult to poop dumpsters, so make it two poop dumpsters.
As you can see, my argument is incapable of being critiqued, and I am so good at making my point that you must back away and crown me Best Arguing Boy on the internet.
There. Now I'm glad that we've been productive and had good faith discourse and neither of us looks like a pedantic shithead.
Says you.
Where else are they going to get sex? From the woman they live with that is laughably called their wife?
Look at Ted Cruz and tell me that there is a woman on the planet earth who will allow him inside her without money being exchanged.
Power makes people hungry for more
Because elected officials are above the law until someone decides to blackmail them.
Was it run by this lady?
Oh sure, blame the capitalist.
I'd blame the communist, but communism is just a red herring.
If the girls were sex trafficked I have a problem with this, if they were free to do as they please, then I have no issue with this.
Since it’s illegal and probably secret from their wives, it opens the client to blackmail, which isn’t good for the public if they’re in government or military.
Regardless of whether someone was trafficked, folks in positions of power chosing* to disregard the law is itself an issue.
Sex shouldn't be illegal if it occurs between two consenting adults.
It shouldn't. But if elected officials are breaking the law instead of fixing it, that is bad.
Consent can be hard to judge when you have wildly disparate financial powers.
Not really.
I'd give 0 shits if people in 'positions of power' smoked marijuana while it was illegal.
Heck, I'd support them for their civil disobedience!
Nothing in the article suggests it wasn't consensual, but you never know
That is why the context matters.
Who would have thought it. A brothel in Watertown. Cambridge I can see. What's next, strip clubs in Belmont, Mitt Romney's home town?
And this is illegal and newsworthy why?
It's because when people in highly-sensitive positions of power do things that they want to keep secret, they become a security risk by opening themselves up to the threat of blackmail.
Whether or not they should want to keep their whoring secret is a different matter between them and their families and their voters. I don't have a censorious take on that, I'm just telling you why it's a security risk and is newsworthy.
When will the government do something I actually want them to do? What a fuckin shit.
I bet Rudy was there
He'll be leaking black goo for sure
This has been around for a long time. Used to just be 'escorts' but it doesn't surprise me it's continually far reaching
Fingers crossed that this is a non-partisan action.
I can guarantee no partisan will be named or charged.
Regular reminder that we know of a wealthy elite pedophile ring, who ran it and at least one person who was victimized by it, but not one of the wealthy elite pedophiles who patronized it has even been formally accused. This information is available. It exists. We have chosen as a society to give these child rapists a pass on their child rape.
Wait, what? (͡•_ ͡• )
That should make the prosecutors jobs much easier.
Wow, imagine willingly providing that information to what you know is a criminal organization. The people who signed up are obviously a major security hazard to whoever they work for.
Yeah. This is the real issue here.
Sex work should be legal and the morality discussion here is about people lying to their spouses and if anybody is being forced into sex work… all interesting topics.
But anybody implicated in this situation needs all security clearances and access dropped because they are high risk morons.
It's signing up to a blackmail scheme.
...to get your dick wet
Oh, well in that case will you need me to provide my clearance number as well?
Obviously it’s the sex workers that are going to jail for this, for tricking all these high level citizens.
Or better yet, we actually publicly prosecute them, or at least "accidentally" leak the list
I'm guessing this is prostitution with extra steps to make sure they can wiggle out of it, but if we actually held them to consequences things would get better quickly
100%. I wouldn’t even give all that information to my online pharmacist and I need some of those medications to survive.
Yeah my employer don't need to know fuckall about what meds I'm on.
Seriously. How dumb do you need to be to be in an actual high ranking (government) position and willingly give up all that info to an even slightly shady organisation? Never mind an illegal prostitution network you are sure is both illegal and easily blackmailable.
Say something is exclusive and idiots will do anything to get in.
Facebook got so huge because at first you had to be in college to be on it. After a couple years they opened it up to everyone and pretty much everyone signed up.
Doesn't always work. See Google+.
how horny*
The ease of prosecuting is directly proportional to how wealthy and influential the accused is.
Remember, it's a legal system ... not a justice system ... you can easily distinguish the difference by how wealthy you are (or are not)
Sad but true
Could be a honey pot. Either the guys running it wanted to use the info to blackmail the clientele or sell the info to foreign intelligence
Or they use it for further identity fraud to open new locations.
Not really, because the people who made the survey are probably smart enough to not include anything about exchanging money for sex. Basically, there's nothing illegal about filling out a survey about who you are and what are your likes or dislikes. There's also nothing illegal for someone to pay another person for their time.
So no mention of exchanging money for sex and it's incredibly hard to prosecute.
No idea if you’re right or not but that’s not what I meant. I meant they don’t have to hunt down the johns, the johns already provided all the possible info the prosecutors would need to find them.
I think what the person above was implying is that having your name on that list is not de-facto evidence of participation. I'm sure the DOJ has more than just that one piece of evidence if they've already made arrests, because sex workers in America are nothing if not extremely careful about how they conduct their business to avoid exposing themselves or their clients to law enforcement stings.
Hell, if they're actually smart, they have red herrings in the list that muddies who is actually a client
How exactly does that help? It's not like they are going to do stake outs on these guys. It's not enough probable cause for any type of warrant or anything.
It would help support a case if you already had one, but as an entry point it's all but completely useless, if not actually completely useless.
Which is why they won't release the names, because doing so would open them up to lawsuits. All risk no reward.
Are Johns (and sex workers) even worth prosecuting? I think the DOJ is interested in a organized prostitution ring and it’s leaders, involved in conspiracy and money laundering, not a few dudes paying for (adult) sex.
I don’t think they’ll waste their time.
I'm guessing it was that one P411 website or whatever. That site has been in the news in the past. It baffles me that people would willingly comply with such invasive identification requirements for something that's illegal. I get the idea behind it is to try and prove that you're not a cop/murdery type of criminal in order to protect the sex workers, but... yeah, lol.
Criminals and criminals masquerading as religions love to get blackmail on their clientele/members, it's probably the more lucrative part of their enterprise, and it keeps those members/clientele loyal, because who wants their nasty ass secrets leaked out or sold to their enemies?
None of that's illegal, aside from the card info it's actually a lot of the things a trustworthy sex worker will be asking you for as a background check before agreeing to meet you.
Why is sex work even illegal in the first place.
Selling is legal, fucking is legal, why isn't selling fucking legal?
-- George Carlin
Seas he also the fella that said “Getting paid for sex is illegal… UNLESS YOU RECORD IT!”
For years I've contemplated the idea if I came into a bunch of money if starting a porn studio where the customer is an actor/actress in the porn.
We have a building and several "sets" with cameras recording, customer picks their "partner" and "set" and "shoot the porn", after they are done the video is burned on to a dvd(or blue ray or potentially put on a private file server).
The customer isn't paying for sex, they are paying for the video.
Pretty sure it would have a ton of legal push back and I would need a lot of money for the lawyers to fight the cases.
But 1. Safer for everyone imvolved(it's video taped so you won't beat/hurt/kill the other party) 2.technically legal just like shooting porn
This is actually a great idea for couples! The issue of course would be to make sure that the couples are actual couples.
You could have them sign a release indicating that it's a "photo studio", and you can have different prices: one for commercial use ($5,000 per hour) and one for private use ($100 an hour, and you're not allowed to commercially distribute the DVD.)
Think there is a big group of customers for sex who want it captured on video?
They get the only copy... I don't care if the watch it, post it online or just it for skeet shooting with a shotgun.
Not to mention the possible tie ins...imagine if the studio partnered with onlyfans... Or offered special spaces with live streaming(with permission) to people's Webcam sites.
"remember to join the stream this Saturday where we will be on location in the pleasure dome's sunset beach set for a special sex on the beach adventure"
You could burn it to a dvd or whatever, delete the file, and give the customer the only copy. Whether they choose to keep it or destroy it is their own choice.
The underlying assumption is the same as in abortion: that women can't be entrusted with agency over their own bodies.
Because one of the biggest issues with sex work, human trafficking, gets worse with legalization. Studies across Europe have shown that countries that outlaw prostitution see a decrease in human trafficking victims while countries that legalized or decriminalized it see an increase.
Unlike with drugs, you don't just create a way to increase the supply. A very small minority of women actually want to engage in sex work. And the few who do, usually envision the high class escort lifestyle. But working in a brothel charging $100 per client isn't something many want to do.
But legalizing prostitution increases demand. Which makes it more profitable for criminals to utilize human trafficking to fill that demand.
https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/
One source of it.
It also doesn't help at all with protecting victims of human trafficking. Victims of human trafficking are already protected. But they don't step forward because of threats against their own well being and that of their families. Something that doesn't change just because their work technically is legal now.
Which leaves a small percentage of people who fall into financial hardship and consider prostitution as a method of overcoming said hardship. For them that might slightly improve their situation. But that still means exploiting vulnerable people and isn't people engaging in sex work because they want to. And it's even questionable if people in these scenarios would follow the legal way.
So while initially it might seem like legalizing it solves a lot of issues, it is more difficult than that.
Us laws regarding sex work are firmly based in puritanical values not out of any concern whatsoever regarding trafficking.
Thanks for the data. I think the issue here is not that legal prostitution creates problems, but rather the government bodies being incompetent at protecting the victims, then.
There are other industries in which people "sell their bodies" for profit (the military and construction come to mind), and if those can be quite regulated, why can't prostitution?
We all sell our bodies for profit. To be fair though, wage theft is the most common form of theft. We're all prostitutes and we're almost all being taken advantage of, and we're in a system where we can't really get out.
I see this single study trotted out every time the subject comes up and the key factor to take into account is that this is reported trafficking. If legalized sex work means more light is shed on human trafficking that means more can be done about it.
Just because more is reported doesn't mean more isn't also happening. In fact, one could reasonably expect reporting to go down as a percentage of incidents due to ordinary citizens not expecting sex workers to be involved in trafficking since sex work is now legal. That the number goes up after the stigma is removed seems to strongly indicate a correlation with a rise in actual trafficking.
More or less is a matter of comparison. How do you compare with an underground activity that cannot be tracked as easily?
As with anything, you can only work with the data you actually have.
Sure, but all you have is assumptions and you're assuming the increased reporting of trafficking means that trafficking is increasing rather than it just getting caught more. It's like when some governments fought over covid reporting. Keeping it hidden doesn't mean less of it is happening and making it more visible doesn't mean more of it is happening.
Isn't that a bit of the pot calling the kettle black?
No, because you presented the study as supposed proof of more human trafficking.
First, I didn't present anything.
Second, it does prove that more human trafficking is reported.
You only have the assumption that bringing it into the light of day results in a higher rate of reporting against actual incidents. It's an interesting hypothesis, but without any evidence to support your assumption Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest answer is that the rates do not change drastically and there actually is more human trafficking to be reported.
You didn't present anything but you certainly act like you did. We're agreed in that it proves more human trafficking is reported but again, that doesn't mean more human trafficking is happening. Refer back to my example about covid case reporting. Incorrectly citing Occam's Razor doesn't strengthen your argument.
I did no such thing.
Unless the reporting rates go down, then it must certainly does.
Your example of a concerted effort of large governmental agencies to hide the actual reported numbers is not actually relevant here. It wouldn't even be relevant if it were just random underreporting outside of governments as it doesn't have any similarity to decriminalizing sex work.
You have made more assumptions than I have. Tell me how you think Occam doesn't apply. You can't just declare an argument to be invalid and expect anyone to take your seriously.
What evidence do you have to support your theory that decriminalizing an activity increases the rate of reporting? If you don't have any, then you don't even have an argument. You only have your suppositions and theories.
It's entirely possible that you're correct, and decriminalization increases reporting without increasing activity. I have yet to see what mechanism you propose causes this quite curious paradox, so without some explanation you'll have to concede that you at least can offer no actual reason to believe it's true.
Yes, because legalizing sex work is just criminalizing sex work with extra steps. It's very easy to see an (alleged) "rise in sex trafficking" when the legalization shuffle allows politicians to all of a sudden decide what is "allowed" sex work and what is "sex trafficking."
This is why shitty studies like the one you linked is so thoroughly non-credible - it was performed without the input of the people who actually know what they are talking about - ie, sex workers themselves.
What the fuck are you talking about?
So what's the solution?? You just made random assertions without any sources and didn't suggest any alternatives. All while skimming over the very real trafficking/coersion problems unique to sex work.
I was totally onboard with them but the longer they talk the weirder the takes get.
Do tell... is this the first time you've actually considered what sex workers themselves have to say about (so-called) "legalization?"
None of this is a secret, Clyde.
ROFLMAO! No, genius... trafficking is not unique to sex work in any way, shape, or form. If you weren't filled to the brim with anti-sex work hysteria you'd have known that already.
The sex workers with those opinions usually are the already more well off workers who perform escort or cam services, and isn't reflective of the bottom strata of sex worker experiences. It also doesn't address how more common sex work leads to higher trafficking rates.
Lol I'd love any source on this whatsoever. I'm not sure how you defend this line of thought, or why you feel this way. You don't think human trafficking shares any of the same risk factors or conditions as sex work?
LOLCOPTER
You're going to have to do a whole lot better than hiding behind impoverished people.
That has already been explained to you.
You need a source to tell you that labor and refugee trafficking is a thing?
It's really simple... I have no wish to demonize and criminalize sex workers - unlike you.
Puritan values.
My bet is on America's conservative puritan history where anything good is bad.
Also sex trafficking. At least that's the argument for keeping it illegal. :(
I believe the reason sex trafficking happens is because sex work is illegal.
Which is bollocks anyways because illegalization actually makes things less safe for all sex workers, but especially for trafficking victims who are now legally marginalized into dark number status
Old white men elected themselves under the guise of voting (gerrymandering who?) and are too embarrassed and confused to allow women the rights they have as humans. Isn't democracy silly.
I'd say the diagram of "Why is sex work illegal" and "Why is abortion illegal" is almost a perfect circle.
It's about contolling other peoples' bodies and weakening the separation of church and state.
Sex work differs from most other type of work in one very significant way - it's an industry in which capitalists cannot really control the means of production unless slavery (ie, a person can become the private property of another) is legalized and institutionalized. In other words, a sex worker - for the most part - is not as easily coerced into selling their labor to capitalists like most workers can be, and capitalists hate when people have a way to opt out of being hosts for their parasitism.
Sex work also has a way of subverting patriarchal norms upon which the status quo rests.
This is not to say that sex work is automatically a revolutionary, anti-capitalist or even "empowering" thing by itself - there are plenty of ways in which our socio-economic systems allows and enables de facto slavery without calling it slavery - but it certainly doesn't fit into the neat class hierarchy that capitalists wants society to be trapped within.
cough, what? No, it reinforces those norms. Men in power get to have women at their beck and call.
This isn't a capitalist thing. Just look at how profitable the sex industry is in Nevada.
It's a "holier than thou" thing that we just haven't been able to get rid of in our society.
As much as I like calling out greed for what it is, this simply isn't one of those cases.
You read correctly the first time. It's a lot more difficult to entrap sex workers in patriarchal hierarchies than a housewife (for instance)... this should not be too difficult to understand.
All sex work in the world today exists under a capitalist mode of production - as far as I can tell, there is (officially, at least) no such thing as "publicly-funded" sex work... and that is unfortunate.
You lost me.
Due to both criminalization and demonization, sex workers are prevented from performing very necessary work in our society - such as being the only people that are qualified to perform sex education, for instance - so yes... it is quite unfortunate that sex work cannot be performed as a service to the public.
Sex education is more about the changes your body goes through during puberty as well as how reproduction works. None of that is related to sex work. Sex work is about making people feel good.
That's basic biology - not sex education. The fact that you can't even discern the difference proves the point.
That's what I was taught in sex ed. What were you taught?
I think that is the problem.
Not even that.
Yikes.
Wait till you learn that you can be self employed outside of sex work.
For the most parts its just christian morality still ingrained in our society.
Yes, the homeless people trying to sell me trinkets at the intersection certainly seems to prove your point.
The only self employed people you can think of are homeless dudes selling trinkets and prostitutes?
The vast majority of "self-employed" people are utterly impoverished people doing survival work, Clyde - please tell me you don't buy into the "entrepreneurship" fairy tales Reagan and Thatcher spooned into your parents' brains through the telly back in the 80s. If you believed that, you might just as well believe in magic glass slippers that grants royalty.
You are confusing being self employed with gig economy bullshit. There are a lot of fields of occupation where being self employed makes sense und gives you more freedom. By the way - I'm talking from own experience being self employed fore quite some time now.
There are people living in shacks within a kilometer from where I'm typing this, Clyde... every second person living there has more (so-called) "entrepreneurship" in their big toe than you have in your entire body because they literally have to do it for survival.
I'm not confusing squat... the only thing you've managed to demonstrate here is that you talk from privilege and nothing else.
I like how even you write “entrepreneurship” in quotation marks and ad "so called", but than dismiss my point completely, that we might not be talking about the same thing. And than you get personal for no reason. Is everything OK, buddy? You need to went some anger and frustration? I would recommend some physical activity - much better than arguing with strangers on the internet.
That's because I view the neoliberal fetishization of "entrepreneurism" no differently than I view the garbage anti-vaxxers and flat-earthers buy into.
Your "point" was treated in the appropriate manner - your "point" merely revolved around the choice the privileged has when it comes to employment. This makes your "point" utterly irrelevant to this discussion.
Ah, to be a angry maximalist teenager again - sorry for bothering you, but that conversations almost feels illegal to me.
I have no idea what "maximalism" is... but I sincerely doubt there's anything illegal about it.
I disagree with this entire claim. Sex workers are notorious for "having a price" to do nearly anything. I would say they are more susceptible to doing disgusting shit for money. There's a reason why there's an ongoing joke about sex workers getting shit on during their trips to dubai.
And what do you think the rest of us do, eh Clyde? How many sex workers have to piss in bottles to make Jeff Bezos richer?
There's a reason we don't use the term "prostitute" any more - it's got something to do with the fact that understanding how capitalism works very quickly makes it real clear who the real "prostitutes" are...
I think sex workers are pressured to get into progressively more disgusting shit because that's what pays. The market is flooded at this point and the only thing you can do to stick out is either be famous or be willing to degrade yourself.
You think?
And this expertise on sex work comes from where?
I'm expressing my opinion on a public forum. I hate how internet comments have become an eternal game of gotchas. I can be aware of a topic without participating in it.
Is your opinion an informed one? Or are you just regurgitating propaganda you assume to be your opinion?
Yes.
AFAIK, it's not federally illegal, but mostly every state bans it. As how Nevada can have prostitution.
You're correct, it is not federally illegal in the US. Most things aren't. Murder isn't, either. However, traveling across state lines with a prostitute has gotten people in trouble with the federal government before.
woke af
What does woke even mean?
It means staying awake, staying aware and thinking, not sleepwalking through life.
Implies the use of critical thinking. No wonder they hate it.
I have an MSc from a top UK university, my dissertation topic was labour abuse and work-related harm for which I received a distinction. I'm no puritan, but genuine "sex work" (outside the internet) is overwhelmingly negative for the actual workers and very few enter the industry from a position of personal or economic empowerment. This is the case to a shocking degree, even where it's decriminalised. I'm not against it, per se, but it confuses me when people are strongly for it. So yeah, stay woke.
I think most people who've actually thought about it would say either "sensitivity to and awareness of the plight of marginalized people" or the same but with "oversensitivity", depending on which side of it you're on.
Goodness knows.
I'm assuming they're arresting the sex workers and not the politicians and military officials?
Hopefully neither, and they’ll arrest the organizers/pimps/etc.
sex workers and clients should be the lowest priority.
You know what they say about hoping, you can hope in one hand and bang an escort in the other hand and see which hand fills up quicker.
My hand hurts
*hands
My hand hands
3 individuals sounds like just the pimps.
They'd probably have to confirm identities to arrest those folks, and also prove they aren't just getting name-dropped.
Just grabbing the pimps and workers is a lot easier and less case intense
Anybody remember that one piece about our servicemen being involved in trafficking women overseas about three years ago that was swept under the rug?
I only remember the rug as I’m supposed to.
To be fair, it did really tie the room together.
Smh someone says “One Piece” and you show up in the same thread. Pirates are of one mind, I tell you.
He pissed on the rug.
Accountable for what? Something that should be legal in the first place?
Do you also think marijuana users should be named and shamed?
It should be legal but it’s not. Those are government officials with clearances which put up their Driver’s licenses and credit card information on an illegal site to bang hookers. That’s the issue.
The “name and shame” argument is also meaningless. Take marijuana for example. If you’re a government official who is actively pushing for legalization and it comes up that you actually consume it… ok? Big news, you’re putting your mouth where your money is. Nobody cares, there’s no “shame” in being “named”. The issue comes when people are publicly against marijuana/prostitution and then engage in it. Those are hypocrites and should be shamed.
Heyo, I'm a heavy smoker!
Or, you know, they don't have any evidence that a crime actually was committed. These people aren't morons and know that unless they are caught exchanging money for sex they are off the hook. The fact that they have their name in this group is not even remotely enough to even charge someone with a crime, let alone get a conviction.
Ah, yes, 4-star generals in Procurement retiring to gold-plated consulting gigs in the very companies from which they ordered $1000 paper clips and congressional members using insider info from some congressional comission or other they're in for trading on their portfolios is all fine, it's paying for sex that's the real problem with holders of high level official positions in America.
The bribery potential of those officials violating the laws they're publicly supporting is the problem.
No such problem were paying for sex is legal.
Hoover amassed significant power by collecting files containing large amounts of compromising and potentially embarrassing information on many powerful people, especially politicians.
True. Which is why it should be legalized and regulated. Very difficult to bribe someone with something they can just have whenever they want.
They said the same thing to justify banning gays from working for the government or serving in the military.
Because lies are a security risk. Which is a major part of why it's better to allow them into service openly. No secrets from the service, no leverage for betrayal.
The show For All Mankind did a good take on the problem IMO. Being gay wasn't illegal per se, but gay people could not be employed at NASA. They still joined, but they kept their orientation hidden. Then the security forces used the justification that gays keeping secrets were vulnerable to blackmail to go on witch hunts to seek and root out gays, and to defend the decision to ban gays from employment in the first place. It was a circular argument through-and-through. The base reason has always been prejudice. Didn't help that in the show there were real Soviet spies running around trying to find gays to extort for NASA rocket secrets.
"It sure would be unfortunate if someone was to send pictures to the family, bosses and the media."
The potential for being compromised and coerced into overlooking a few budget items is one path to this graft.
The client list will likely go in the same vault as Epstein's. They're all assets now.
It does make one wonder who the real assets are.
In the age of Trump, are those really assets anymore?
Seems like they're moreso assets of a bygone era.
I'm sure they'll be arresting and charging the politicians any and revoking security clearances any moment now...
Why would they revoke their security clearance?
Doing illegal stuff provides leverage for others to blackmail you to do more illegal stuff, like disclose state secrets
The potential for blackmail.
I really don’t understand the way the US works in regards to „bought“ sex… on the one hand prostitution is illegal (with the exception of
Las Vegasparts of Nevada) and as soon as you point a camera on the paid fucking it is called PORN and it is still a multi billion dollar industry.You guys are weird
Edit: changed the Las Vegas part
Prostitution isn't legal in Vegas. Parts of Nevada yes, but in Clark county where Las Vegas is located prostitution is illegal.
That's more insane than what the original comment pointed out.
It's very bizarre. Kinda shocking the gov't hasn't figured out the massive amount of tax revenue behind the legalization of sex workers.
Works in other countries at least. Here in Germany they just pay income tax, like everyone else. Actually they are freelancers usually…
On the other hand, Germany is still a bit backwards regarding cannabis legalization… but we are working on it.
Illegal income is taxed, technically, but paying that tax would also basically be a confession. That's how they got mobsters back in the day. So there ends up not being any when you're right and there absolutely could be good tax revenue there
Hell, it's not federally banned, so it's just states not being willing.
There are porn producers who do such a crappy job that I’d swear they only film so they have legal access to prostitution.
Like 90% of OF "fan meets" are filmed fucks because it's actually prostitution. Pretty sad they can't be honest because some people had weir hangups hundreds of years ago
Go on any hookup app or site and you'll see plenty of "content creators" willing to meet up and "make content."
It started a few centuries ago when this annoying group of people known as Puritans were expelled from their home country and sailed to north America.
The natives saved them from starvation and today still impose their beliefs and values on everybody. These hypocritical laws is but one example
They were not expelled from anywhere. They wanted to impose their religious doctrine on everyone else but every government keep telling them to fuck off.
The Puritans were a small sect, just looking for the religious freedom to punish the best majority of people who didn't believe the Puritans' theology. Their notion of "religious freedom" is similar to the U.S. Catholic bishops' notion. It's a violation of religious freedom when people can make their own choices, and don't have to obey a hierarchy.
I don't believe they were expelled?
I might be wrong...
It's easy to get confused because a lot of people who left England did so because they had no other prospects or no other choice, in the case of criminals or financial delinquents.
Reading up on the founding of the US is a doozy. Essentially, all the rejects of England sailed to the 'New World' because there was more opportunity for them there than at home.
The ones who had it good stayed in England.
Basically all the founders and settlers were groups who were too weird for Europe lol
What's weird is that loophole exists and people don't abuse it.
Like, I get the streetwalkers selling $10 BJs dont, but for "high end" organizations like this, just stick an old school camcorder in the room and let the John keep whatever grainy unidentifiable footage they make during the encounter.
If you're ever investigated, you're in the clear. If not, then no one even has to know.
Nah. A group tried this in Pensacola and got busted. Can't remember the details, but they were trying to pass prostitution off as pr0n because camera. Didn't fly.
I bet employment fraud would have a bigger jail sentence than prostitution.
It's called the "First Amendment," and you'll find it can be used to justify/unjustify all sorts of things depending on the current government in power.
Not las Vegas, rural parts of Nevada
In this day and age where nothing stays secret, how is it hard for elected officials not do stupid stuff like visiting brothels?
In this day and age, why aren't brothels and sex work legal?
Buddy, we're still working on legalizing an absurdly common plant because for a while much of the country thought it was satanic or whatever.
"In this day and age," in America, of course it's not legal yet. That is gonna take a long time.
No, it's not illegal because people thought it was evil. It was illegal because it allowed the government to jail black men and war protestors and throw away the key.
...And because the cotton industry didn't want to compete with hemp. ... and more recently booze companies don't want to compete with weed
Yeah that isn't true. Hemp is and always has been legal in many parts of the world and couldn't compete with cotton for the bulk of applications.
My bad. I think I watched a documenrary on it like 15 years ago.
Wikipedia says 1937 marijuana tax act effectively stopped hemp from being able to compete with heavy taxation and greatly reduced production. Thou it also attributes dupont and newspaper and timber magnate William Hearst and not cotton as the killer.
Then in 1969 the courts struck down the Marijuana Taxation Act, but then the Controlled substances act of 1970 banned it all at a federal level.
So yeas still shady AF, just not Cotton being shady. My bad
LSD was made illegal because of war protesters
The plant legalization is happening relatively quickly all things considered. Its funny how fast the laws change the moment the rich pigs smell potential profits of a new industry and the pressure of missing out on pocketing some of that sweet sweet tax revenue neighboring states are collecting instead.
Sure, but it's also taking longer than it should. It's also, fundamentally, not hard for even many conservatives to accept as "not that bad."
Legalized prostitution also has tremendous potential for new markets and profit, but it's a lot harder for conservatives to accept compared to weed, as America is just too goddamn puritanical.
Christianity. By demonizing it they can still use it but get to get angry at the women who work there.
There's a contingent of feminists who oppose prostitution for well being of the women reasons, too.
I wasn't aware that it was not possible for women to hate women. Especially younger more prettier ones.
Good thing that never ever happens. Nope. Tall poppy syndrome is exclusively male.
because sex should not be a commodity in a healthy society.
A healthy society has healthy sex work.
The issue with sex work is that, due to its black market nature, it almost requires sex slavery.
There is no issue with people running onlyfans. Why? Because its legal, so those who want to do it can do so, and those forced into it feel safe going to the cops.
A regulated, legal, legally protected sex industry would eliminate a lot of the issues with sex work. Much harder to traffick people when you need to file their taxes and pass frequent random inspections, and less profitable to traffick people when a legal brothel legally takes your customers.
I disagree. I don't think paying prostitutes to fuck you is an essential need of society.
Are we really making the argument that because it's legal it means it's good?
Just because some rules have negative externalities doesn't automatically mean we should get rid of the rule.
If you cant read, sure. But the actual argument you were given was making it legal makes it safe.
I dunno if you just dont pay attention, or what, but humans sell their bodies for a living. Not just for sex, but in general. Any society with work will have people who want to work by fucking.
Unless you think onlyfans is full of people held at gunpoint? No, those are people choosing to make that content, for compensation.
Making that content legal means legal requirements and restrictions to force sex work to be safe. I dont really care about your quaker fueled puritan ideals of """good""" around sex, you can duke that out with your therapist. What I care about is making it safe.
I want hookers off the street, where they are victims of murder, kidnapping, sex slavery, drug use, etc etc etc. Legal sex work gets them off the street and out of the hands of pimps.
I want sex slaves freed, and no more kidnapped. Legal sex work drains the incentive of a sex black market, making it less profitable to sell someone into slavery when your would-be customers can get laid cheaper and legally.
I want stds under control. Illegal sex work spreads them like wildfire. Legal sex work requires regular testing and treatment for both parties, hampering the spread of disease.
People arent going to stop fucking, nor stop wanting money. Wake up or grow up about sex. Peoples lives are lost or ruined because of black market sex slavery. Legalizing sex work shines a light at that black market.
Sex work does not contribute anything to society other than creepy men getting their fix.
Like I said, you can save your creepy puritan cult bullshit for your therapist.
But Id like for less sex slaves in the world, thanks.
That's not even remotely true.
Have you ever actually spoken to a sex worker before?
They primarily sell intimacy.
People are able to tell and be things around sex workers that they can't be in their daily lives.
In one of your other posts, you said that sex shouldn't be commodified. Well, we live in a society where EVERYTHING is commodified while simultaneously alienating people to perform their peak consumption.
Sex isn't holy. It's a need that we all have, like water, food, and oxygen. When you make it so that people who are bad at getting it can't get it at all, you make a population of stressed out, deprived, and desperate people.
Sex workers bring so much more to the table than being a cum dump. A good sex worker gives you a safe place to be yourself and meet your base, primal needs. That's not just valuable, that's invaluable.
You don't need sex. You sound like an incel with that kind of rhetoric. You can survive 100% fine without sex, but you can't without water, food and oxygen. I seriously hope you aren't that stupid.
Do you masturbate? Watch pornography? Have sexy dreams?
Oh, sorry, we having an internet argument. Let me come down to your level.
You are so very dumb stupid and it is so much that I can't believe it (because I am not, I am a very smart special boy). I am going to ignore your entire post and hyper focus on one sentence because it is so dumb and offensive that it is smelly and bad like a big poop dumpster on fire. No, wait, that would be an insult to poop dumpsters, so make it two poop dumpsters.
As you can see, my argument is incapable of being critiqued, and I am so good at making my point that you must back away and crown me Best Arguing Boy on the internet.
There. Now I'm glad that we've been productive and had good faith discourse and neither of us looks like a pedantic shithead.
Says you.
Where else are they going to get sex? From the woman they live with that is laughably called their wife?
Look at Ted Cruz and tell me that there is a woman on the planet earth who will allow him inside her without money being exchanged.
Power makes people hungry for more
Because elected officials are above the law until someone decides to blackmail them.
Was it run by this lady?
Oh sure, blame the capitalist.
I'd blame the communist, but communism is just a red herring.
If the girls were sex trafficked I have a problem with this, if they were free to do as they please, then I have no issue with this.
Since it’s illegal and probably secret from their wives, it opens the client to blackmail, which isn’t good for the public if they’re in government or military.
Regardless of whether someone was trafficked, folks in positions of power chosing* to disregard the law is itself an issue.
Sex shouldn't be illegal if it occurs between two consenting adults.
It shouldn't. But if elected officials are breaking the law instead of fixing it, that is bad.
Consent can be hard to judge when you have wildly disparate financial powers.
Not really.
I'd give 0 shits if people in 'positions of power' smoked marijuana while it was illegal.
Heck, I'd support them for their civil disobedience!
Nothing in the article suggests it wasn't consensual, but you never know
That is why the context matters.
Who would have thought it. A brothel in Watertown. Cambridge I can see. What's next, strip clubs in Belmont, Mitt Romney's home town?
And this is illegal and newsworthy why?
It's because when people in highly-sensitive positions of power do things that they want to keep secret, they become a security risk by opening themselves up to the threat of blackmail.
Whether or not they should want to keep their whoring secret is a different matter between them and their families and their voters. I don't have a censorious take on that, I'm just telling you why it's a security risk and is newsworthy.
When will the government do something I actually want them to do? What a fuckin shit.
I bet Rudy was there
He'll be leaking black goo for sure
This has been around for a long time. Used to just be 'escorts' but it doesn't surprise me it's continually far reaching
Fingers crossed that this is a non-partisan action.
I can guarantee no partisan will be named or charged.
Regular reminder that we know of a wealthy elite pedophile ring, who ran it and at least one person who was victimized by it, but not one of the wealthy elite pedophiles who patronized it has even been formally accused. This information is available. It exists. We have chosen as a society to give these child rapists a pass on their child rape.
Which part is illegal?