Dumb and Dumber

[phreak]

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Can...+likely+target+pimps+johns/9781831/story.html


I can't believe it: how retarded politicians should be to even consider the 'Nordic' model? Where is this assumption that all prostitutes are victims coming from? And if some of them are victims of trafficking, etc, it is clearly the government's fault of not legalizing a perfectly normal occupation. But holding clients responsible for this? We are talking about gross violation of human rights in this case. I'm ashamed of being a Canadian!

What about protecting the client's rights? Protecting clients from fake pictures, B&S, not providing services listed in ads? This is actually outright fraud, which should be penalized in the first place, but somehow it's not even a topic of discussion.

 

[Ms Erica Phoenix]

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Can...+likely+target+pimps+johns/9781831/story.html


I can't believe it: how retarded politicians should be to even consider the 'Nordic' model? Where is this assumption that all prostitutes are victims coming from? And if some of them are victims of trafficking, etc, it is clearly the government's fault of not legalizing a perfectly normal occupation. But holding clients responsible for this? We are talking about gross violation of human rights in this case. I'm ashamed of being a Canadian!

The assumption comes from the abolitionists 'statistics' about the average age of entry, the percentage with substance/mental health issues, the number of non-citizens involved...because no one wants to hear about how a woman in her thirties decided that she wanted to enjoy a much better standard of living than she was able to afford on her 9 - 5 salary.

 

[Lo-ki]

"What about protecting the client's rights? Protecting clients from fake pictures, B&S, not providing services listed in ads? This is actually outright fraud, which should be penalized in the first place, but somehow it's not even a topic of discussion. "

That would be a great thing. Would totally bust the asien market. They totally excell in that department fo FAKE pics.

Loki

 

[Lo-ki]

"What about protecting the client's rights? Protecting clients from fake pictures, B&S, not providing services listed in ads? This is actually outright fraud, which should be penalized in the first place, but somehow it's not even a topic of discussion. "

That would be a great thing. Would totally bust the Asian market and some others. They totally excel in that department for FAKE pics.

Loki

 

[Chef99]

"What about protecting the client's rights? Protecting clients from fake pictures, B&S, not providing services listed in ads? This is actually outright fraud, which should be penalized in the first place, but somehow it's not even a topic of discussion. "

That would be a great thing. Would totally bust the Asian market and some others. They totally excel in that department for FAKE pics.

Loki

If you don't have the right to want/purchase these services then why would they have to protect you from fraud? It's like expecting the government to protect you from buying fake crack if buy it...

The whole "model" is naively based on the concept of supply and demand, if they make demand illegal then demand goes away and the supply will dry up; problem solved... yeah, right...

 

[HankQuinlan]

http://www.theprovince.com/news/Can...+likely+target+pimps+johns/9781831/story.html


I can't believe it: how retarded politicians should be to even consider the 'Nordic' model? Where is this assumption that all prostitutes are victims coming from? And if some of them are victims of trafficking, etc, it is clearly the government's fault of not legalizing a perfectly normal occupation. But holding clients responsible for this? We are talking about gross violation of human rights in this case. I'm ashamed of being a Canadian!

What about protecting the client's rights? Protecting clients from fake pictures, B&S, not providing services listed in ads? This is actually outright fraud, which should be penalized in the first place, but somehow it's not even a topic of discussion.

You clearly don't live in the same world as the rest of us. The rest of us live in a country filled with moralizers, politicians who will do and say whatever their research tells them will get votes, and an apathetic public who don't care about what doesn't affect them personally (or are afraid to publically admit that it does).

 

[phreak]

The assumption comes from the abolitionists 'statistics' about the average age of entry, the percentage with substance/mental health issues, the number of non-citizens involved...because no one wants to hear about how a woman in her thirties decided that she wanted to enjoy a much better standard of living than she was able to afford on her 9 - 5 salary.

If that's the case, why not fight 'substance/mental health issues', trafficking, abuse, etc. that can be most efficiently done by legalizing prostitution. But banning paying for sex, which is based on absolutely healthy and natural desire to have sex is so simplistic and obviously idiotic.

 

[phreak]

If you don't have the right to want/purchase these services then why would they have to protect you from fraud? It's like expecting the government to protect you from buying fake crack if buy it...

The whole "model" is naively based on the concept of supply and demand, if they make demand illegal then demand goes away and the supply will dry up; problem solved... yeah, right...

The government don't have any intention to ban offering of sex, but somehow want to criminalize purchasing of sex. How retarded is that? If it is legal to sell, how come it is illegal to buy? These dumb fucks clearly lack any legal or even common sense. So if selling is not a crime, I expect buying to be legit too, and I expect my consumer rights to be protected.

 

[phreak]

You clearly don't live in the same world as the rest of us. The rest of us live in a country filled with moralizers, politicians who will do and say whatever their research tells them will get votes, and an apathetic public who don't care about what doesn't affect them personally (or are afraid to publically admit that it does).

Unfortunately I do... What puzzles me is that the justice Peter MacKay probably expects to get votes by publicly announcing his intentions to persecute law abiding citizens who are willing to steal? rob? grow pot? no!... just have sex as consenting adults! I can't believe Canadians can actually 'buy' this crap. We are not in the US, for fuck's sake!

 

[phreak]

Oh, they will make selling illegal, alright. Just not a criminal code offence with jail time or high fines associated with it because they don't want to punish the 'victims'. If they do not make selling a crime, it won't pass constitutional muster because legal sellers will be endangered chasing wary illegal buyers into dark and isolated places. Making both buying and selling illegal, but with asymetrical penalties is more likely to pass the court's smell test if any form of criminalization will.

I'm still puzzled: how is it possible to criminalize sex between consenting adults? Wouldn't it be against some fundamental freedoms? Even if a prostitute is a victim of god knows what (which may or may not be the case), I have no knowledge of that, and I'm not victimizing her by buying sex as long as the sex is consensual. It's quite the opposite - I pay money which may help her to solve problems she may experience.

 

[HankQuinlan]

I'm still puzzled: how is it possible to criminalize sex between consenting adults? Wouldn't it be against some fundamental freedoms? Even if a prostitute is a victim of god knows what (which may or may not be the case), I have no knowledge of that, and I'm not victimizing her by buying sex as long as the sex is consensual. It's quite the opposite - I pay money which may help her to solve problems she may experience.

Again, you're not in the same world as the rest of us. Prostitution is a crime in almost every country in the world, with only a few exceptions. "The Land of the Free" to the south of us, with its supposed emphasis on personal rights, sees no problem making it a crime (with the exception of a few Nevada counties, where it must be done only the prescribed way). In our country, they have eliminated the laws criminalizing sex between consenting adults, and prostitution has not been illegal for some time. The government has every "right" to reverse that, and make PAYING for sex illegal.

You are using logic...this has nothing to do with logic. It has to do with politics.

 

[HankQuinlan]

It's easy. The government introduces a bill in the House of Commons. The bill is debated and passed by the house. The senate reviews it and passed it. Then the Governor General signs it into law and POOF. It is now illegal. If Quebec can make it illegal for margerine to be yellow, but OK to be any other colour, the sky's the limit. There doesn't have to be a rational reason to make it illegal. It just has to make it though the process. Maybe the courts will over turn it in the future, but until then, the law is what gets through the process.

Or perhaps when you said "How is it possible..." you meant "how can politicians rationally defend making this illegal". What you need to accept is that there is the holy grail of "Objective Truths" and there is the reality of the truths that each person holds in their mind as a result of their education, upbringing, life experiences and personal biases. In every case, some truths people hold are objectively true and some are not. The fact that we have ones that are not is not generally because we are bad or evil people. It is because the reality we perceive that is created by everything that we have exerienced in the past creates the framework that supports the truths we hold. And there frameworks are often very difficult to change because of the interlocking nature of all the other truths we hold. If one is open to it, education and persuasion can bend the framework to accommodate revised truths. Few people can accommodate a radical change in their framework of truth & fewer still can do so quickly.

Thus, many politicians hold truths about prostitution that are very different from ours, even as we, as a group, share certain truths about prostitution and also have some differences. In their own minds, they believe tat what they propose is the best action to take. Most of us hold a differnet belief. Both groups believe that they are holding objective truths. Neither is, but one group is probably closer to it than the other. perhaps time will tell who that is.

Some people's "truths", however, are much closer to this:

 

[phreak]

Well, we are getting a bit too philosophical... The issue is not whether prostitution is 'good' or 'bad', or whether considering it 'good' or 'bad' is 'objective' truth or not. The issue is way more serious than that - it's about criminal prosecution (persecution?) of innocent people. Let's just assume that Peter MacKay has never been with a prostitute, and never will; he is a family guy, and never cheated on his wife. As a result, he hates prostitution and people who buy sex. This is his 'truth', which is the result of his 'education, upbringing, life experience and personal bias'. Considering that we live in a 'democratic', 'civilized' society, does this mean that Peter MacKay should be willing to criminally prosecute knowingly innocent citizens just for having a different opinion on this matter? Would it make sense to sacrifice fundamental freedoms in order to reduce human trafficking and abuse related to prostitution and criminally punish those who have nothing to do with trafficking and abuse (clients)? Actually doing so would be quite barbaric. I don't have any problem with the fact that Peter MacKay's views on prostitution are different from mine, but his actions are absolutely despicable even considering his 'education, upbringing, life experience and personal bias'. That's what makes it so shocking.

As regards 'Prostitution is a crime in almost every country in the world, with only a few exceptions', that is exactly the other way around. Prostitution is a crime in only a few countries under Sharia law. In most of Europe, Americas and Asia prostitution is either legal and regulated by governments or de facto not prosecuted at all. Which European countries ban prostitution besides of couple of 'Scandinavian model' examples? Can you imagine a politician suggesting to prosecute people for buying sex in Holland, Germany or France? It won't happen because people don't even see prostitution as an issue worth discussing. It's been legal for many decades (centuries), and everyone was happy about it.

 

[Ms Erica Phoenix]

I'm still puzzled: how is it possible to criminalize sex between consenting adults? Wouldn't it be against some fundamental freedoms? Even if a prostitute is a victim of god knows what (which may or may not be the case), I have no knowledge of that, and I'm not victimizing her by buying sex as long as the sex is consensual. It's quite the opposite - I pay money which may help her to solve problems she may experience.

Don't tell US, baby, tell your MP!!!

 

[phreak]

There is a basic logical error in your comment: People who commit acts which are against the law are not innocent, however much you may wish it to be so for your own personal reasons.

Also, to claim that purchasing or selling sexual services is a fundamental freedom has the same validity as saying the purchasing and selling of nuclear weapons is a fundamental freedom or the purchasing and selling of a person's bodily tussues. There is no fundemental freedom to unrestricted commercial activity. Society has the right and the obligation to place some limits to prevent harm to individuals and general society. The challenge is determining where those limits should be.

No, PeaceGuy, there is no logical error: if a law is inherently persecutory, people who commit acts against this law are still innocent. Why do I consider the law against buying sex as inherently persecutory? Because it criminalizes such a perfectly normal and healthy activity as heaving consensual sex between adults, which causes no harm to anyone. And the reason why it does so is for Peter MacKay's 'own personal reasons'. When it comes to alleged harm to individuals (prostitutes) which he wants to prevent, there are two points which need to be proven first: is there any harm in each particular case and who causes the harm. Clients deal only with adult consenting girls, clients don't know about trafficking, pimps, etc - clients are not in a position to do the job government and police fail to do. Also there are plenty of girls (in my experience the vast majority), who are not harmed or abused in any way and are in this business for big bucks compare to other girls in the same situation who simply work 9 to 5 jobs. And some of them even like fucking many different guys for money. So each case is different, and only legally illiterate person and also lacking common sense as well can make a blanket statement that all prostitutes are abused by definition. Whether prostitutes are abused or not is not their clients' fault, but rather the fault of the government which deliberately refuses to regulate sex trade and provide legal protection for prostitutes. It a shame for Canada if Peter MacKay can get away with his insane public statements. All I can say if this guy remains the justice minister - we definitely don't have any justice in this country.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

No, PeaceGuy, there is no logical error: if a law is inherently persecutory, people who commit acts against this law are still innocent. Why do I consider the law against buying sex as inherently persecutory? Because it criminalizes such a perfectly normal and healthy activity as heaving consensual sex between adults, which causes no harm to anyone. And the reason why it does so is for Peter MacKay's 'own personal reasons'. When it comes to alleged harm to individuals (prostitutes) which he wants to prevent, there are two points which need to be proven first: is there any harm in each particular case and who causes the harm. Clients deal only with adult consenting girls, clients don't know about trafficking, pimps, etc - clients are not in a position to do the job government and police fail to do. Also there are plenty of girls (in my experience the vast majority), who are not harmed or abused in any way and are in this business for big bucks compare to other girls in the same situation who simply work 9 to 5 jobs. And some of them even like fucking many different guys for money. So each case is different, and only legally illiterate person and also lacking common sense as well can make a blanket statement that all prostitutes are abused by definition. Whether prostitutes are abused or not is not their clients' fault, but rather the fault of the government which deliberately refuses to regulate sex trade and provide legal protection for prostitutes. It a shame for Canada if Peter MacKay can get away with his insane public statements. All I can say if this guy remains the justice minister - we definitely don't have any justice in this country.

but the sex is NOT consensual

the sex is coerced in the case of prostitution - coerced by the exchange of money

it's consensual only in the case of normal dating or casual sex

don't trick yourself by using fancy semantics - own the fact that you are a whoremonger... i do and i'm proud of it

 

[phreak]

but the sex is NOT consensual

the sex is coerced in the case of prostitution - coerced by the exchange of money

it's consensual only in the case of normal dating or casual sex

don't trick yourself by using fancy semantics - own the fact that you are a whoremonger... i do and i'm proud of it

Hi Vancity_cowboy,

Though I may be a 'whoremonger' I still have to disagree with you on the issue of coerced sex and refer you to the definition of the term 'coerce':

- To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
- To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly.
- To bring about by force or threat.
- To compel or restrain by force or authority without regard to individual wishes or desires.
- To bring about through force.
- To dominate or control, esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.

As you can see paying for sex has nothing to do with the definitions above: clients don't force prostitutes to have sex, they don't threaten them either, they clearly don't have sex with prostitutes against their wishes. Clients don't even initiate sex - they respond to ads of prostitutes who clearly state they want to have sex and provide explicit details about how exactly they want to be fucked. Clients simply pay for services which is no different than paying for dinner in a restaurant or for a cab. Whether prostitutes like their job or not is a different story - there are plenty of people who don't like their 'normal' jobs, but still choose to do them due to various circumstances. Following your logic any person who has a minimum wage job can claim coercion by the exchange of money as doing a likely unpleasant job which only results in life in poverty and misery is obviously not something a normal person would wish to do. If prostitutes are coerced, exploited and abused by pimps and human traffickers, it is not clients' fault either; and there is no valid reason why clients' should be prosecuted for state and law enforcement failure to prevent abuse by pimps and human traffickers.

As regards the statement that sex is 'consensual only in the case of normal dating or casual sex', this is absolute nonsense from legal point of view. Any sex without violence or fear is consensual, money or no money. And if a prostitute is willing to fuck me for free, I wouldn't mind that - unfortunately they always proactively ask for cash without me even bringing up the subject...

 

[vancity_cowboy]

Hi Vancity_cowboy,

Though I may be a 'whoremonger' I still have to disagree with you on the issue of coerced sex and refer you to the definition of the term 'coerce':

- To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
- To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly.
- To bring about by force or threat.
- To compel or restrain by force or authority without regard to individual wishes or desires.
- To bring about through force.
- To dominate or control, esp. by exploiting fear, anxiety, etc.

you're right and i'm wrong

i almost always consider myself so well-read and clever that i assume that the definitions i have developed through context are correct, and from time to time my imagination has to be reigned in by the dictionary definition. this is one of those times

carry on

 

[Ms Erica Phoenix]

but the sex is NOT consensual

the sex is coerced in the case of prostitution - coerced by the exchange of money

it's consensual only in the case of normal dating or casual sex

don't trick yourself by using fancy semantics - own the fact that you are a whoremonger... i do and i'm proud of it

Let me chime in here, just between us whores and whoremongers...

Are you saying that I am having non-consensual sex every time I have a guest here? That your money is somehow forcing me to have sex with you? I disagree. As soon as I invite him in the door, I have consented. When I take off my clothes, I've consented. When I put your dicK in my mouth, I've consented. When you ask if we can skip the condom because you're so clean, and I say NO Fucking WAY! that's non-consent. At least, in my humble opinion.

 

[vancity_cowboy]

Let me chime in here, just between us whores and whoremongers...

Are you saying that I am having non-consensual sex every time I have a guest here? That your money is somehow forcing me to have sex with you? I disagree. As soon as I invite him in the door, I have consented. When I take off my clothes, I've consented. When I put your dicK in my mouth, I've consented. When you ask if we can skip the condom because you're so clean, and I say NO Fucking WAY! that's non-consent. At least, in my humble opinion.

and if when i showed up at the door i said i really like you but i don't want to spend any money to fuck you, your answer would be?

i thought so

so the money does have some effect on influencing your behaviour, as it does not have with a casual sex partner

this is what i am getting at. unfortunately i used the word coercion above, which was the wrong choice of words

it's the exchange of money that makes it prostitution