The fact that it's in Europe and most people that are trafficked are also from Europe probably has something to do with that.
How are all of these foreign nationals going to get into the US in the first place in the current security climate?
Iowa City prostitution sting catches 12
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
The fact that it's in Europe and most people that are trafficked are also from Europe probably has something to do with that.
How are all of these foreign nationals going to get into the US in the first place in the current security climate?
We have about 11 million illegal immigrants in this country. Maybe the sex traffickers could ask a few of them how they got in to get some ideas.
While many of the sex slaves in Amsterdam came from other parts of Europe, many of them also came from Africa and Asia. Sex traffickers can be very clever when there is so much money at stake. They convince the girls to move to another country for college or a job offer or some other enticing offer. Once they get them far away from home they use drugs or threats of violence to control them.
If you legalize prostitution in America then the demand will increase because potential customers no longer have to worry about getting arrested and humiliated and having their marriages/families ruined. And if the demand increases then the supply will have to increase to keep pace. That means we need more prostitutes and they're going to have to come from somewhere.
Yes, although to a lesser extent than Amsterdam. Right now there are only 17 legal brothels in Nevada with about 300 licensed prostitutes. That's fairly easy to keep track of. But if we legalize it nationwide and have hundreds of legal brothels with thousands of licensed prostitutes, it's going to be much more difficult to keep track of everyone. And if we legalize escort services, Backpage prostitution, etc, then it will be impossible to keep track of everyone. The demand will increase and more women will be working in prostitution, either by choice or by force.
Edit to clarify that most of the human trafficking in Nevada occurs in Las Vegas, where prostitution is illegal but very much in demand because of the high number of tourists.
So basically fly them into Mexico then have then cross over through the desert?
This is seriously your idea or are you being intentionally moronic?
Pretty stupid argument that could also be made about legalizing marijuana or even alcohol at the end of Prohibition.
Making something legal and safe gives a strong incentive for people to use the legal services over the illegal ones for a whole host of reasons. You have to be pretty dumb not to understand that.
The point is that you don't legalize everything. You make it very selective so that the government can keep on eye on everything.
Will it be perfect? Of course not, but certainly better than the current situation where there is no government oversight whatsoever and demand will never decrease, very similar to the war on drugs.
It is just a losing argument. It's only a matter of time until society shifts to the correct point of view.
But it wouldn't require a nationwide regulatory system. It would always be locally regulated, and never legal everywhere. Hell, there are still dry counties in this country.
Uh, no, Skip. You only think that's my 'moronic' idea because you're still basing your argument on the flawed notion that most of the girls would be coming from Europe. Some of them might come from Europe. Some of them would come from Canada. Some of them would come from Mexico or through Mexico from places like Honduras or Cuba or Guatemala. They don't necessarily have to come from other countries. Many of them would come from within our own borders.
Legalizing prostitution will increase the demand. That is a virtual certainty. And if the supply needs to increase in order to match the demand then the people who stand to profit from prostitution are going to get the girls wherever they can get them.
Right now there are box trucks criss-crossing our interstates, jammed full of illegal immigrants pissing in empty milk cartons. Many of them are destined to hang drywall or work in restaurants and hotels. Do you honestly think the people who smuggled them into this country couldn't also sneak in a few whores? How naive are you that you think border patrol is going to stymie human trafficking?
Wait, I thought your position was that women should have the right to rent themselves out as cum dumpsters and men should have the right to hire them without worrying about the gubmint interfering. Now you're saying that it should only be legal under specific circumstances? Explain what should be legal and what should remain illegal.
Does that mean that Backpage callgirls and johns would still be subject to arrest and humiliation? So the people who were arrested in this sting operation would still be subject to arrest in your scenario? How are the Amanda Guzzles of the world supposed to get a job at a fancy schmancy brothel? How is she supposed to pay her rent?
I think marijuana should be legalized, but your comparison is invalid. If the demand for marijuana increases then marijuana suppliers simply grow more plants. Nobody gets forced into sex slavery to meet the marijuana demand. So holster your false analogy.
We regulate everything else. Why couldn't the sex work industry be regulated? You'd need a license, and then you could advertise for your services and ply your trade.
Well, I would imagine (no proof) that more men would use prostitutes if the legal threat was gone, which would still be not okay to their wives. And more women would enter the profession as well. I do believe the legal threat (and associated family and career damage) present today (in most places) dissuades many men and women from partaking. So I see damage to families (like with gambling/casinos/the lottery) and to careers.
No, prostitution is illegal due to the coercive property of money, not due to the negative effects on families. We the people do not and should not legislate away adultery; that is a decision made by consenting adults not coerced by money (and yeah the sugar daddy scenario is a bit tricky).
Again, and forever, it is the coercive power of money on the highly vulnerable that is the dividing line.
Hilarious that you ask questions and then button-hole me before I answer...
I am in fact a conservative, and, yes, the taxpayers are going to pay for the benefits programs for these people, just like we do for many vulnerable/poor.
Ok. I remember a show on HBO some time ago called Cathouse. No idea if it is still on. There was a girl on that show who had been an escort for about 15 years, illegal then legal. She makes 300k a year and loves her job. No moral dilemmas whatsoever. She isn't being coerced. She isn't being forced. Her customers are consensual. Why should her providing this service be illegal? It is no more morally reprehensible than picking up a girl at a bar and having sex. It is significantly safer for everyone involved. The last I knew, a customer has never gotten an STD from a legal brothel in Nevada.
Point is, if there is one customer and one prostitute who are both willing, I don't see the necessity for making it illegal. If you are going to use the coercive property of money argument, money corrupts everything it touches. Absolutely everything.
By your logic, people who have never fired a gun aren't qualified to debate gun laws and Second Amendment rights.
Holy shit, you're a moron.
Why would someone risk arrest by answering a backpage ad when then can just walk into a legal brothel somewhere and get the same "service" in a safe, legal enironment?
It is like saying that nobody will buy legal pot in a store because they'd rather use their local dealer.
You legalize it only in certain situations (i.e. government certified brothel with regular health checkups, background checks of the workers to make sure they're not being trafficked, etc.) so that the government can regulate it and tax if for the common public good.
Just like in Colorado you can walk into a public store and buy pot from a licensed dealer, but you can't go into business and sell it for yourself without the proper government permits.
You're an idiot.
Sociological studies would tend to suggest that they've been with more than their fair share, actually.
It's kind of like the "anti-gay pastor is really a closeted homo" effect.
Moral crusaders are very often the biggest scumbags on the planet IRL.
For punishment all those johns should be sentenced to sex with Guzzle. Hell we should send that mess to Gitmo and turn her loose on the detainees. That'd make them talk.
Gee, I just can't imagine a scenario where someone would use an illegal online service instead of going to a legal brothel. Unless of course there is no legal brothel close to them. Or maybe they can't afford the high prices at the brothel. Or maybe they don't own a car and want someone who can come to their home. Or maybe they're on a business trip and want someone who can come to their hotel. Or maybe they don't want to risk being seen in public at a brothel where every square inch of common space is being videotaped. Should I keep going or do you get the point by now? Why do people participate in illegal gambling when they could just walk into any casino?
I am sort of tired in this thread if the suggestion is that my anti-prostitution stance is oriented around the morality of the sex act. It is not. I have no problem with consenting adults, even strangers, having sex.
The immorality is the tying of it to money.
The immorality is the tying of it to money.
So you're okay with someone debasing themselves by standing on street corners dressed like a hot dog holding a sign advertising a restaurant for money, but your not okay with doing the exact same thing (standing on the street corner in a ridiculous outfit) in order to make money?
Oh, come on. That is not even close. The hot dog guy is just advertising. The hooker standing there has the base transaction to deliver.
Cowtipper: That case is so much on the edge. I guess by now, the $300k a year woman is in fact not "vulnerable" or desperate or the like, and really could choose to not hook if she wanted to. That case is just too out there versus the vast majority of the cases.
Ole Shane was just used as an example of a commonplace name that got no remarks, whereas poor Amanda, by dint of her unusual last name got plenty. And admit it, most clicked on this to see if any athletes, professors, politicians or clergymen were on here. Though, I suppose athletes would brag they didn't need no prossies.
Are you suggesting that legalizing prostitution eliminates forced prostitution?
Entirely? Of course not.
You can't bet on sports in a casino outside of Nevada, dipshit.
You really are one dumbass mother fuker.
How do you think local weed dealers are fairing these days in Colorado?
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
McNamara Remains the Starter Despite Turnovers, Lack of Production
- Latest: hawk_a_holic
-
