It's like demanding the US president should go to prison because some CIA team somewhere does some really shady stuff that he doesn't know about. Shareholders might still choose to fire that guy, but it's a choice they have, they do not have to if they are satisfied with his performance. How come that people today lose their ability to reason as soon as bankers are involved?
It's similar to the National Socialists reasoning when they blamed the Jews for everything bad "because they had the all money and controlled the world". Who can then be held responsible when a big company commits criminal acts?
Maybe they should arrest all people who opened those fraudulent accounts. Maybe that will be a deterrent. But in general a CEO should have a duty to ask questions why a certain division seems to be doing well.
Maybe it has to do with earnings targets that are simply unachievable? I see that in my own company. The top guys are setting shorter and shorter deadlines and in my view the quality of engineering suffers.
Top management doesn't technically know when people are cutting corners but they could easily have listened to people that the demands are too high. Same goes for persons that didn't necessarily know about it but acted negligent or ignored standard procedures that are in place to prevent such a thing. If it was then he has to be held accountable. But his head might roll in the end regardlessly as people always need a scapegoat, no matter if it's his fault or not.
Yet when the government takes action it should not do so just to punish a scapegoat, they should punish because the person broke a law. As a general rule, we don't hold people criminally liable for simple negligence. As a general rule, knowing that something is illegal isn't part of the required mental state, even for acts that require doing something "knowingly"; that usually refers to knowing the specific facts that make the act illegal, not knowing the law under which those acts are illegal.
I did not say "simple" negligence, that is determined by others who know the specifics of this case. Criminal law makes a distinction between gross negligence locking the doors to a busy club so people can't get out which then catches on fire and kills everyone , and ordinary negligence securing a heavy thing in the air with just a knot that falls and kills someone.
Even if someone "should have known," that is almost never enough for criminal liability. Thanks I know, I said that I don't know the specifics and that others lawyers will have to decide on that. Well the head of the Community Banking division should definitely have known. But she's being allowed to retire with her full financial package. They fired employees because they were opening fake accounts. Wells found these people on their own and fired them. In normal people world, this is proof that Wells was taking the problem of fake accounts seriously.
It also sounds like a horrible place to work, but that's a separate issue. If that's the case they should be paid like the CEO of a small internet company. You take the money, you take the responsibility. It doesn't have to be collusion, in fact, I can easily imagine that there's no large scale coordination, maybe just coordination in small person teams. For any incentive scheme, there's going to be a subset of people trying to game it. I think it's made more concrete by thinking of how many times you've thought of an app, business, screenplay, etc.
Logical answer right here. No conspiracy theories, for once. It's not credible that C-level management were unaware. Either internal anti-fraud controls failed, or this activity was actively ignored at management direction. At the very least, the C-level manager at the top of the organization that engaged in this fraud was responsible for a system failure and should be dismissed for cause, without their bonus or severance.
Having a lawyer say "Huh, I guess they didn't know" is exactly the cover they need for feigned ignorance. It means nothing of the sort. People socialize with coworkers all the time, and workarounds for dumb metrics is exactly the sort of thing that get gossipped about.
And "figure out how to make fake accounts" is pretty easy. This absolutely doesn't need coordination at all. Once worked somewhere that management measured you by number of checkins. Engineers didn't need to talk with each other at all to get those numbers going way up.
And they did, you betcha. Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. Kim dot com is facing extradition to a country he has never set foot in, for crimes far less than what Rumsfeld, Cheney and Wolfowitz have done. Justice is a sort of illusion. Before Mega when has was a Ponzi scheme operator and self-professed super-hacker he posted pictures all the time of his trips around the world in super-yacht, private jets and expensive cars.
The CEO has money, connections, and the thin veneer of respectability. The issues involved are not so simple and emotive as the ones relating to sex and minors. Plus the person who has him arrested is running for US Senate and sees a free way to get extra press coverage. Wells Fargo execs have better lawyers, and they went to the same schools as prosecutors, they dress alike, and there is no significant revolving door arrangement between prosecutors and online prostitution enterprises.
Because he plays golf with a lot of politicians at the country club. By going after the CEO they are setting a precedent. They want to make sure no investor would invest into something that challenges government authority. Wells Fargo CEO will not be touched for the same reason why big banks get bailouts, Hillary clinton is not in jail and Obama is still a president despite killing thousands of innocent people around earth.
They are too close to powers. Hillary is not in jail because her actions did not rise to the level of criminal prosecution. Look at General Petraeus. He willfully gave highly classified material to his mistress. He got a plea deal and didn't serve any time.
So how is it that Clinton who did not intentionally divulge classified material nor put an authorized server on the classified network, now deserves to be punished more harshly than Petraeus? That doesn't make any sense. You can be a Hillary apologist for the sake of political arguments. The thing is if I had done the exact same thing I would be termed a traitor and put in jail.
Obama is just an mechanism. In case of Iraq war I think Bush and a large part of his administration must be jailed. The vice lobby is apparently kinda weak. Probably because a corporation like Wells Fargo will have extensive documentation of procedures and training that establishes sufficient evidence that there were efforts to constrain employee behavior to lawful acts in pursuit of the metrics which they ended up maximizing through unlawful acts that it will take a lot of digging, at a minimum, to have a viable case of executive criminal culpability.
Two wrongs don't make a right. Buge on Oct 7, It is fine to steal as long as it is only a small percentage of your income? When the threshold is to prove in court beyond a reasonable standard of doubt, it's going to be hard to prove that some horrible scheme that was never going to generate money open a bunch of accounts customers don't know about and won't use, aside from some small amount of fees that will annoy customers was undertaken deliberately, especially when it would only be a small part of the enterprise.
Buge on Oct 9, If it's a tiny percentage, or none at all, the CEO might not know about it. I know I'm glad that authorities take this more seriously. Because bankers are better at committing fraud and hiding their tracks? FWIW, this headline is not completely accurate. The story itself says further down the page, "Ferrer was arrested on felony charges of pimping a minor, pimping, and conspiracy to commit pimping.
There's also a story from a young girl who was forced into sex work, which is certainly awful, and some stuff about studies and claims of sex trafficking, but there's a clickbait factor to the headline. There are a variety of new state and federal laws on sex trafficking which were passed in recent years, and nobody associated with Backpage has been charged under any of them, afaict.
It is unlikely that Ferrer was her pimp as it is usually understood. It looks like that the state wants to charge him as a pimp because he provided a venue for sex workers to advertise and therefore was effectively doing promotion.
It is unclear at this point whether the court will agree with that interpretation or not. I am sure the 15 yo was brought into the charging documents as a sob story for the public and later the jury and to pressure the accused to make some sort of a plea deal.
The effect of removing these venues is simply to push the trade further underground, thereby obstructing oversight and participant safety. Out of millions of ads posted annually, they should have known that those three women were underage. Even after they checked the "I am 18" box. Or maybe someone is trying to get headlines on how they are tough on crime. I'm pretty sure backpage has been on LE radar at least since CL shuttered their adult services section.
It's pretty widely known as a site used to hire prostitutes, those three women were probably more representative than you think. Prostitution with anything other than free and full consent by someone with full capacity to give consent is sex trafficking; pimping a minor, therefore, is a sex trafficking charge.
Not special or outstanding; average. Pyxl on Oct 7, When I read that person's sentence I think, "So, what kind of prostitution charge is average or not special? Whether this is true or false could be validated by seeing what kind of prostitution cases are commonly brought vs uncommonly brought. I don't even want to know how you consider a child prostitution charge "average or not special".
It's not that these charges are average, it's that trafficking charges are a distinct group from prostitution; prostitution charges are the far more standard group, and hence are run-of-the-mill, even though the specific charges within that group are not typical of that group. Sex trafficking includes among other commercial coerced sex any instance of prostitution which involves anything other than free and full consent from someone with capacity to consent to sex; minors by definition lack capacity to consent, so pimping a minor is an offense which falls completely within the bounds of sex trafficking.
Unlike simple pimping, solicitation, etc. ZoF on Oct 7, Your comments here are based on emotion, others are approaching this analytically. This stuff happens; just like murder, rape, arson, etc. It's irrational to get upset about someone using a common idiom to convey that this isn't a typical instance of child prostitution. DanBC on Oct 7, The vast majority of children involved aren't there through free choice.
I didn't intend to imply otherwise. The term "child prostitution" is associated is a few countries with some severe failings of law enforcement to protect children from harm. Notably, in the UK some police forces were saying that children could chose to become prostitutes, and these children were promiscuous. Anderkent on Oct 7, Only in America you would think that a 16 or 17 year old would never choose to have sex for benefits unless forced into it.
DanBC on Oct 8, And I didn't say "never", I said in the vast majority. And the child we're talking about here is 15, not 16 or Your comment was wrong on every point. Anderkent on Oct 14, I've apologised for the 'US' comment in the other thread. It was out of place. However, I don't think you're being entirely fair either. FWIW, you said 'Notably, in the UK some police forces were saying that children could chose to become prostitutes, and these children were promiscuous. If you only meant the 'vast majority' of children doesn't want to become prostitutes, then I don't know what the point of the quote was.
Similarly, nothing about your parent post mentions an age range more specific than 'children', which by default I take to mean anyone legally underage and thus not allowed to make decisions. Somewhere between 12 and 18 both boys and girls become interested in sex; some of them will want to use it to gain higher status. The person you're replying to is from the UK. Why the anti-American sentiment? Mostly a cheap shot. It does seem to me people in USA are more prudish about sex and overprotective of children, to the point of denying the underage any agency.
But it's a more nuanced discussion, and it's easier to write a snark. When we find a child who is paid to provide sex we almost always find someone who has been subject to coercive abuse. It is very rare that we find children who freely make that choice. Protecting children from that harm --and it is very severe harm-- is important.
Wouldn't this mostly be because of what your search process is biased to find? Shielding people from reality doesn't change it, just makes it's ultimate realization more painful.
This was no more a prostitution website than Craigslist, before Craigslist struck a deal with attorney generals of several states to shut down its Adult Classifieds section . In fact, given Craigslist scale it had many more prostitution and probably child prostitution ads.
Because the times have changed, or because Craigslist was much bigger and an arrest of Craig would have unleashed a huge wave of rage from free speech supporters as a violation of the principles of Section c of the Communications Decency Act, since classifieds sites are republishers, rather than publishers of content and should not be responsible for the classifieds content.
Craigslist also charges for some real estate and job ads, but most listings are free". Probably because Craig'slist also have a sizable business in other areas not related.
ChoHag on Oct 8, It's certainly easier to start with groups who only participate in activities which are uncomfortable to publicly defend. I remember this very vaguely about year back but I believe Backpage pretty much publicly said they were there to fill the void. If Craigslist doesn't want to deal with it, then come on over! Craigslist was a warning shot. Backpage new that fully and sprinted into harms way. Backpages, unlike Craigslist, doesn't really have any other business then adulkt ads.
I was wondering about this too. Specifically, I thought websites were held harmless for the content they carry. If somebody posts a threat to the President or something else illegal on a website, is the website liable?
If something slanderous shows up in Google, is Google liable for slander? How does that work? My unverified impression masquerading as understanding is that your liability scales with the level of editorial oversight you provide: It's possible that the government talked to both. Craigslist walked away from hosting that service, and Backpage did not? I'm just speculating, but the Craigslist thing was a while ago, and should have at least been seen by others as a message to get out.
Even if you are morally opposed to prostitution, is there really any benefit to authorities when you remove a centralized location and move it to the street or many different websites? If you really want to manage the prostitution "problem", having it all on a single website seems like a benefit for managing and researching the issue. SwellJoe on Oct 7, Most sex workers agree that their safety is improved dramatically by having the business side of it out in the open.
And, there have been studies on sex worker safety that indicate strongly that legal prostitution is safer for everyone; it also reduces coercion when it is not underground women don't need a pimp, if law enforcement is on their side. Since I started paying attention a few years ago, I've noticed that most commentary from law enforcement and politicians on the subject of prostitution frames it as "human trafficking" or just "trafficking", even when there were no non-consenting parties involved and nearly all prostitution is between consenting adults.
It is misleading, unethical, and actively harmful to the safety of the people they're claiming to help, but, they do it anyway. The implication that someone is being forced into sexual slavery makes them seem like the good guys in the story Of course no one wants to see children being sexually abused. No one wants to see children or otherwise at-risk people forced into prostitution.
But, that's already illegal; they don't have to victimize all sex workers to pursue and prosecute those crimes. The kicker here is that the police found these kids who had been forced into sexual slavery because of the ads on this site. Had it been completely underground, they wouldn't have found them, wouldn't have been able to set up a sting, and wouldn't have been able to get the girls out of a dangerous and abusive situation.
Now, it goes further underground, where the risk is even higher. The research I found, both scholarly and anecdotal, totally supported this. The worst thing I found is that there were many incidences of rape or abuse by clients, pimps, or even cops that were made easier to get away with via the stigma of prostitution. Just bringing up the details of the crime was enough to get themselves arrested. In some cases, judges tossed it out since they equated prostitution with asking for it.
So, taking action like this isn't just taking a stand against the act of prostitution: Not even necessarily people participating. It can be just a caring person that runs afoul of the pimps that want the status quo to remain for specific women.
There was an out-pour of articles on this topic after MyRedBook closure, e. Thanks for the article. This part jumped out: This negative effect on positive reviews is totally believable after all the stories I've seen about people extorting eBay or Amazon store owners for good reviews. This needs further research to figure out how to reduce its effect. It's essentially a form of subversion in practice where prostitutes get positive reviews the more dangerous i.
STD's they are for their more honest clients. On top of pregnancy risks. It also seems logical that having a market in the sunlight makes a 'black market' for the same goods much less appealing. I have to further speculate that the same type of 'impact' we see from legalizing 'recreational use' would also be mirrored with this topic; possibly to an even more positive degree.
There's idealism on both sides of the argument. On one hand, there are those who believe that conducting these arrangements in the open is safer for all involved parties. On the other hand, there are those who believe that sex work can never truly be consensual, because even if consent is given, a sex worker may have felt pressured to seek this life because all other choices available to them to make a living and attain food and shelter were sub-par or nonexistent.
This argument supposes that given a different, idealized circumstances free of such pressures, few people would choose sex work. I find this argument very similar to the idea of age of consent, in which society declares that people below a certain age are incapable of informed consent, and similarly, the widespread societal taboo against suicide, which implicitly suggests that no rational person free of undue pressures would consent to ending their own life, therefore anyone who commits suicide was pushed to do so by serious factors that impaired their ability to properly consent.
Finally, there are those who just want to be 'tough on crime', and actions like this fit the bill at first blush, while letting it operate would be construed by the same population as inaction. It's great many found their dream career and are getting paid to do what they love.
But for most what work is just work, a means to an end. Not sure why sex workers should be especially singled out and stigmatized. Would the janitor who cleaned the toilets in your office be doing that if they weren't getting paid to?
Would you even be in said office if you weren't getting paid to be there? Chris on Oct 7, Anyone can be a janitor, it is a lot harder to be a male prostitute at scale. No one should feel shame at having a toilet at the office and needing to pay someone to help clean it. Everyone should feel shame at coercing a person who would otherwise not have sex with them into having sex with them.
Buying someone's labor is different than buying their bodily autonomy and consent to sex. You have a strange definition of "coercing" This isnt rape, it's just paying for an exchange. If a person doesn't want to use their body, they're free not to. Manual labor also involves using your body with wear and tear, it's not that different or special.
If that's the fiction you need to tell yourself to avoid feeling shame at condoning the use of prostitutes, I guess I can't really stop you. The sex workers don't care about your morals. They have different morals than you and care about different things.
Stop telling them and other people what morals they should have. Regulated prostitution may be bad in your eyes but unregulated prostitution is even worse for those who are already in this industry.
Don't let perfect be the enemy of good. The heart of the matter is simple: She may be doing this willingly, or she may have been coerced. So you are willingly taking the risk that you're raping somebody. The conclusion is that it is an immoral act to visit a prostitute. And that's all you need to know really. Oh and here's another dirty little secret for you: The world is a darker place than you may prefer to believe.
I don't think so. I have 2 close friends who used to be prostitutes, and I'm pretty sure both of them would eye-roll hard at this. All you're doing is willfully choosing the focus on the dark instances, regardless of their actual prevalence, and try to claim that the whole picture is like that across the board.
Only because it's all illegal. If prostitution was legal, you could go to a well-reputed bordello where the managers are known, and know that everyone in there is doing it consensually. I'm sure the owners would be happy to provide background checks for all employees, if it gets the police out of their business.
We have a perfectly good approach already; it's called the Nordic model. Arrest johns, not prostitutes. And there are thousands of former sex workers that will give you an earful about what you think you know about prostitution and what prostitutes think.
I know several sex workers personally, and regularly sit on the sidelines of their discussions when they talk about their work in sex-positive spaces. I can assure you that all of them would prefer that it were a lot easier to perform their job without fear of the police, or of losing their home, or of the stigma from friends and family.
They also have a tendency to wish that people who didn't want to be in their line of work didn't have to be in their line of work. So why not actually try to solve that problem - reach out to individuals, listen to them, and help them achieve their goals - instead of trying to tell people what they want and don't want?
The only reason I can think of is that that doesn't allow you to force your morality on people. I reach out to would-be purchasers of sex and those who would defend them, and point out the dire consequences of their approach. Economic transfer doesn't suddenly make rape something one should aspire to or tolerate. I was talking about sex workers. The ones you're not listening to. Specifically, if the goal is to help sex workers who want help, the solution is It's to perform research into the barriers to seeking help, and try to remove those barriers.
It's not to prevent consensual trade between a person who has few issues with their job, and someone seeking their services. If, on the other hand, the goal is to eradicate sex work against the wishes of those sex workers for reasons of morality, punishing people who participate in it is a wonderful idea.
The goal is to eradicate sex work for reasons of "morality," exactly how the slavery abolition movement had no other reasons besides "morality. Exactly what about sex work is immoral, when the sex worker can choose their clients? Is it that sex is inherently something special that other work isn't? The sex workers aren't the ones whose moral choice is in question here; the sex purchasers are the ones who should feel shame and whose behavior is for society to condone or to curtail.
Slaves weren't the bad actors in that peculiar institution, either. You're missing the question. Slavery is immoral because it's immoral to curtail the rights of people indefinitely. Which rights does consensual sex work curtail? The right of a person to not have sexual access to their body be reduced to the object of purchase with the purpose to gratify a person who holds economic power over them.
Purchasing sex is an abuse of power. This isn't really an opt-out right; surely there are people who would "consent" to situations of slavery or apartheid. This doesn't mean we should make those things legal. That's a very specific right, and very very based in a specific morality, isn't it? There's certainly a good many people who don't think sex is as magical or special a thing as you obviously do. Many think of sex work as nothing more special than being expected to perform labour for several hours a day for a pittance.
No, it's not based in any other morality than having bodily autonomy free from exploitation. If you want to disambiguate it from sex, consider whether someone should be able to sell and thus another person to buy an organ.
Then consider that the demand for purchasing sex massively outstrips the demand for purchasing organs. Selling an organ implies the loss of something necessary for a full life. Not having an organ results in shortened lifespan and lower quality of life.
If you could grow back the organ in a matter of seconds, we wouldn't have an issue with it. It'd be sore and likely physically demanding, but so's a lot of work. Selling sex doesn't imply the loss of anything. Literally thousands upon thousands of current and former prostitutes disagree.
And literally thousands and thousands of current and former sex workers agree. They have conferences, and industry groups, they lobby Governments, they have systems by which they can ensure the safety of themselves and each other and pick out their own clients. This isn't the situation of somebody who was trafficked half-way across the world and forced into sex slavery.
The solution is not to make sex work illegal, or to make seeking it illegal. It's to help the people who don't want to be performing sex work. It's to give them food, and shelter, and training to re-enter the job market. But that's expensive, and it's difficult to explain to people with Christian moralities about sex why you'd allow people to perform sex work if they wanted to.
Which is to say, it's about imposing morality. You want to force these people into options they've already decided are worse than having sex for money because you're more comfortable with them earning money that way, and your moral judgement is more important than their freedom.
No, I want men to stop thinking that exploiting the economic and social disadvantages of women is an acceptable way to get sex. Because I'm a decent human being and would like other men to be decent human beings. WTF, you're so ridiculously one-sided about this in both thought and action. It seems you dont know what decent means either. Stop thinking you know better for the entire industry. Thimothy on Oct 7, Ah, the Nordic model The country in the middle bans prostitution and offloads it to the neighboring countries.
I have yet to see any macro advantage on it, besides a little reduction and a lot of smug people feeling better about themselves. A while ago I spent quite some time researching the prostitution thing, trying to make up my mind about it.
I remember the UN report on global trafficking being specially enlightening. The conclusions I took from it: It just drives the prostitution underground, and as the pimps are already doing something illegal they don't mind going the extra mile, make it straightforward slavery and abuse the women so much than they are too terrified to escape. A small country like Sweden can offload the prostitution to nearby countries, but if all Europe were to do that the consequences would probably be really dire for a lot of women.
As there is a lot of legal prostitution going on, it's easier to get away with the trafficking. In Europe usually takes the shape of organized crime importing awful lot of women from western Europe to Holland and Germany.
Long term, it's thought to increase the well being of prostitutes, both imported and local, but we still have to grok how to do it without make it without the traffic. This is the situation in most countries, and the implementations vary wildly. In some countries the police does not intervene at all and it's a cesspool of mafias fighting for control, others make it a tourist attraction, while others haven't made it legal but don't prosecute the prostitutes.
Curiously enough, this last approach is the one that gets the best results at stopping exploitative human trafficking as long as pimping is really prosecuted, don't remember anyone really explaining why.
My guess is that in this situation large scale trafficking operations stand out much more, but who knows. Swedes are a tiny bit hypocrites in this one. Indeed just having one region legalize skyrockets trafficking. Prices also go down, so prostitution becomes less attractive to locals as a way to make money which means foreigners in poor countries have to be imported, which leads to trafficking rings.
Vice claims of the k prostitutes in Germany two-third's are foreign http: It's extremely difficult to stop gangsters from trafficking because they operate in the trafficked persons home country as well, so if you run to the police in Germany or Canada they can seek retribution on your family members back home in Ukraine, Vietnam ect.
Thus the not legal nor illegal does a good balance of preventing super brothels opening up full of imported sex workers while at the same time being able to arrest pimps without relying on the testimony of the sex workers.
That's the one where they criminalized landlords who knowingly rented to sex workers, then used that law to kick sex workers out of their homes for reporting their rapes to the police, right? The best part is that when Amnesty International took a stance against this, the sleazy slimeballs in the anti-trafficking movement accused them of making it up because those countries didn't criminalize sex workers which technically they didn't - just everyone around them.
Am I correct in interpreting that as you suggesting that anti-prostitution activists did not, in fact, claim that Amnesty International were making things up when they pointed out the negative outcomes of "the Nordic model" for sex workers, the people you're claiming it was supposed to protect?
Amnesty International relied on a flawed and now-retracted study that initially said violence against women had increased in Norway since banning the purchasing of sex, when in reality it had not. That is basically making things up. Quarrelsome on Oct 7, Every model has trade-offs, the trade-off of the Nordic model is that clients are less willing to disclose information which makes it more difficult for sex workers to weed out violent troublemakers.
Implementing the Nordic model would in some cases undo some recent advances in identifying and blocking these ugly clients and result in some workers being violently abused or even possibly killed. Don't go thinking there is a silver bullet here, all solutions somewhat suck. Sorry to break the news to you: So's all of capitalism - what is employment but the buying of somebody's body and mind? But I don't see people like you arguing towards the end of that, or the reduction of the circumstances which cause people to perform sex work - only reducing people's options within the framework we've already forced them to live in.
I know people who have chosen sex work over a minimum wage job at McDonald's - apparently they think the sex work is less degrading, and it's much better paying. Also, I assume you don't actually mean bodies, as that would imply you're similarly against non-sexual modelling, acting, etc etc, where people employ people directly for their bodies, to varying degrees.
But I don't see people like you arguing towards the end of that This isn't germane to the issue, which is that purchasing sex is a reprehensible act. However, there is indeed a strong strain of anti-capitalist thought in radical feminism; it surprises me that you don't know this. I meant literally their bodies, not images of their bodies, or actions that their bodies perform. I meant direct access to their mouths, rectums, vaginas for the purpose of sexual gratification.
I suppose if purchasing that kind of access had other purposes besides sexual gratification, "sex" wouldn't seem like such a special case. I moderate a handful of self-titled "social justice warrior" chatrooms, which are full of everyone from libertarian socialists to anarcho-communists. I'm reasonably aware of various strands of feminism. I've been having a discussion on the morality of sex work for much of today.
Sex work is immoral for the same reasons other work is immoral. It's not a special case, and shouldn't really be treated much differently.
If you want to protect the sex worker from the necessity of performing their work, you should be similarly protecting the minimum wage retail clerk from the necessity of performing their work. Neither is worse than the other, and they have similar solutions. Again you are misrepresenting my position; it's not that "sex work" is somehow more immoral than other work, it's that the purchase of sex is immoral, shameful, and frankly, pathetic.
It has nothing to do with capitalism vs. Even under capitalism, purchasing e. What you're purchasing matters; it's not all the same. Assuming you own a TV - the purchase of your television was immoral, shameful, and pathetic - you bought into the incredibly poor working conditions of various mines in developing countries, coercive labour in China, and more. And yet you bought it for entertainment. If you don't own a TV, I'm reasonably sure I could pick out something else you've done that involved coerced labour that you didn't need to.
The solution is to get rid of the system which is coercive. It's not to tell everybody who ever wanted to buy a television not to within the context of capitalism. No, the purchase of a television is less immoral, shameful, and pathetic than the purchase of sex. It is qualitatively different. There is nothing inherent in my possession of a television that demeans or degrades another human being; it's simple circumstance that makes working conditions more or less morally acceptable.
The purchase of sex inherently demeans and degrades another human being because it places one's own sexual gratification over another person's bodily autonomy. I'm a contractor, and I get to choose my clients.
If I don't want to work with someone, I don't. Why would it be "inherently" demeaning in sex work, if they got to choose their clients and there were better protection and regulation? Why is it an implementation issue with your TV purchase, and an inherent issue with sex work? I don't follow the logic. HN comments really don't do justice to the answer to this question, please consider http: Human rights are universal and inalienable.
They cannot be reduced to the instrumentality of individual choice alone because individual choice can and does include the right to harm or propagate harm on others or inflict harm on oneself. You're arguing on the premise that someone can dictate someone elses values on human rights.
Which I would argue is a worse violation. OK, in that case we had no right to prosecute the Holocaust, and saying that we did is a worse violation than the Holocaust You honestly went with Godwin's law on this? Yes, even really ugly people have libidos and find someone to have sex with them. But you are deluding yourself into thinking that there are seperate clean and unclean populations. The population of women who aren't recieving money for sex isn't particularly clean or hygenic.
As they get older they are more likely to have more sexual partners so there life time chance of having a sexually transmitted disease just goes up from there. About the only thing that really protects any one individual is the percentage of time they use condoms correctly when having sex.
Originally Posted by Lycanmaster. Originally Posted by nichirenx. A coworker of mine related that her daughter's high school, one of the better regarded ones locally, had a student blood drive. Originally Posted by Djuna. Originally Posted by Redisca. Unfortunately, people believe -- and in fact, perpetuate and exaggerate -- all sorts of crazy myths about teenagers, especially teenage girls.
And this continues despite the fact that these myths have been thoroughly debunked on numerous occasions. Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Additional giveaways are planned. Detailed information about all U.
Similar Threads Having sex with an escort , Relationships, replies In love with my escort , Relationships, replies BF is looking for escort online , Relationships, 35 replies my girlfriend is an escort , Relationships, 41 replies Escort Services??
Men who use escort services on craigslist, backpage, etc young, kids, American..