It's Wrong To Pay For Sex-Intelligence Squared U.S.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 16 лип 2024
- The goal of IQ2 US is to raise the level of public discourse on our most challenging issues. To provide a new forum for intelligent discussion, grounded in facts and informed by reasoned analysis. To transcend the toxically emotional and the reflexively ideological. To encourage recognition that the opposing side has intellectually respectable views. To engage the live audience as active participants who will ask questions and decide which speakers have carried the day by voting on the motions both before and after the debate.
For: Melissa Farley
For: Catharine MacKinnon
For: Wendy Shalit
Against: Sydney Barrows
Against: Tyler Cowen
Against: Lionel Tiger
===================================
Subscribe: bit.ly/IQ2onUA-cam
Official site: iq2us.org/vote
IQ2US Twitter: bit.ly/IQ2Twitter
IQ2US Facebook: bit.ly/IQ2onFacebook
===================================
25:05: working at a factory line is not a choice. Pushing papers is not a choice. Building houses until your back breaks isn't a choice. Cleaning someone else's toilets isn't a choice. Having a job at all usually is not a choice. I don't see how prostitution is different from other jobs that 99% of people would never do if given the choice.
Ann Hodges You don't understand my point or deliberatly built a strawman.
I have worked in a factory, not because I liked the job but because I needed the money. It most certainly is about the money but that doesn't make it rape. Working in a factory isn't slavery. Work almost invariably includes elements which you rather wouldn't deal with.
I was not attracted to all the machines I've worked with. Some were outright dirty, others were clearly unsafe. But some were technical marvels that inspired me to become an engineer. I did not perceive that job as slavery. I earned good money. Most prostitutes perceive their job the same way.
Ann Hodges I did not declare myself a winner. Your argument being a strawman doesn't make me correct my default. It does make you wrong though.
I have never "bought" a woman in my life but I did make finacial transactions with intelligent, adult women who knew fully well what was going on. They were happy with the deal and so was I. No pimps involved, these are one on one deals between consenting adults.
And that's why your argument is an invalid strawman. You're not involved in the transaction. In a consenting sex act, your opinion is not asked for.
Furhtermore, I'm not the one comparing women to machines. Prostitution is a service job, much like engineering or administration. One person needs something another person provides and a transaction makes that possible. A prostitution can be hired, machines are bought.
Ann Hodges I never bought a woman in my life. If I never started, I don't have to stop. That's the very definition of a strawman argument.
But I've seen prostitutes and I've paid them for their services and time. That's not buying them. I never owned these women.
Ann Hodges I've bought masseuse for 45 mins. With force of money I've forced her to touch my back.
Ann Hodges I don't like exploitation of any type, not just woman. The masseuse also offers tantric massages, because she like it and she is interested in it. Touching man parts are across the line for you, or it isn't exploitation of woman?
What a useless debate. Neither side was addressing the same proposition and the conversation went no where.
I think someone should have brought up the fact that prostitution already is legal taking the form of pornography.
Porn performers are almost never prosecuted for prostitution.
"human rights being violated"
How does a person making a conscious choice to choose a risky job lose his human rights?
This is what happens when you demonize something by its darkest side. This goes for prostitution or the military. Sometimes it's necessary, but not always.
Human agency cannot be understated here. People have a free will. There are things that are inherently wrong. The only difference between a crime and simply an immoral act is if somebody else is getting hurt against their will.
gideondavid30
Indeed.
By sacrificing their dignity . . . which, by the way, is not inherent to all risky jobs, but is inherent to prostitution.
I don't think they adequately answered the mining comparison. They argue that a person stuck in a poor area who is pressured into mining as their only option has their human rights violated, but from that it does not follow that all mining should be illegal (and I think that if they argued that position, people who love their all modern technology would rightfully be appalled). When it comes to sex, however, they argue that a person who has no other option aside from sex-work has their human rights violated, and all sex work is wrong. If not all mining is wrong, then clearly not all sex work is wrong.
Criminalizing prostitution because some girls are abused is like arguing for criminalizing labor because some people are enslaved.
Criminalizing prostitution because most girls are abused in one way or another is like arguing for criminalizing labor because most people are enslaved one way or another. In a perfect world where prostitution does not have all these horific symptoms and reasons of origin, it should be legal to pay for someone who is freely giving up his or her body for your pleasure. This is not that world.
Carlos André Góes Libtards never miss an opportunity to spill their empty minds, especially when they can argue that existential good is bad, and vice versa.
I think a more worthy endevour would be to try to legalize public executions for child sex offenders.
Carlos André Góes I think it should not happen its quite low
My perception is that they're criminalizing the men who solicit sex to prostitutes because (insert the darkest side of prostitution that you mentioned), just like they criminalize the users of drugs rather than dealing with the problems that drug users face. They're making the argument that formed later to be called "rape culture." They are addressing the symptom (men), not the problem (why men consider hiring a prostitute in the first place).
Money for sex = Prostitution
Gifts for sex = Dating
Gifts and money to avoid sex = Marriage
+BloodofPatriots Yes, all women only want money from their bf or husband and all married women don't have the need for intimacy... thank you for generalizing.
Vanessa Voxx Don't like it thrown back at you? Turn on the television anytime, cupcake, then stop your hyperbolic bitching.
"Turn on the television...."
I get it now! Y'all formed all your opinions on women from Breaking Bad. I was wondering where all this archaic shit was coming from.
+BloodofPatriots
Nailed it.
But: money for sex + recoding = porn
Paying for sex can take forms other than just plain old prostitution. Anyone familiar with how relationships between man and women work knows that there is usually a an exchange of goods or services that usually go in the direction of the male to the female. One of the most cherished institutions of man is based on paying for sex.
its not like women are expected to buy us rings, propose to us and pay for an expensive wedding.. its not like if we have a kid, split up and both lose our jobs.. she'll go to jail for child support while I get free money from the government... ijs
An element of prostitution is built into the nature of human sexuality. The desire for, and the risks associated with, partnered sex aren't 100% in most cases. Therefore, the one who desires more compensates; the one who takes less risk compensates.
Something wrong with a societal structure, that selling your body to make money for $600 pair of boots is an okay thing to do...
Yes, we all agree that rape is wrong, child trafficking is wrong, and child abuse is wrong. The question was is it wrong for 2 consenting adults to engage in an economic transaction? I'd have to say no. If I were wealthy and I wanted to offer an attractive woman I met on the street a large amount of money to have a drink, dinner, and then sleep with me afterwards, should that be illegal?
It's really about whether it takes an emotional toll on the person being paid. But that's not a legal issue. There isn't much research on this, so this kind of debate doesn't have much to base itself on if you're using every other angle they're using. A pretty crappy debate actually.
A guy like Hugh Hefner had sex with over a thousand women in large part because they wanted the $ from posing for his mag or to live in his mansion. But that's not illegal.
In the words of the immortal Charlie Harper every time you have sex you have to pay regardless. When you pay a professional you pay for her to leave.
+droken barrow
"When you pay a professional you pay for her to leave."
I agree, that's one thing you pay for. Other things you pay for include:
- The kind of painful, humiliating sex you've grown accustomed to seeing in porn.
- A woman who is much younger, thinner and better looking than you are.
- Having power over another human being.
"every time you have sex you have to pay regardless"
This is simply not true. Maybe it was true at one point in time. Maybe it's true in certain cultures, or with certain kinds of women. But it's not universally true by a long shot, and a lot of that is due to feminism. Let's not forget who invented marriage, or what its original purpose was. I personally have found that it's men who get uncomfortable when I suggest we go dutch.
Whenever an opposing question comes that seeks to ground the debate in first principles the "for" side fold like a cheap stack of cards.
- Wendy contributed almost nothing to the debate.
- Melissa cherry-picked abuse cases from her own study (mostly from places where the practice is illegal?).
- Catharine got what she knew about the subject through her clients?
- Sydney ran a business when it was illegal and her experience was limited to the people she dealt with in her business.
- Lionel and Tyler were a bit lonely in a place where people were not interested in looking at the bigger picture and/or rational discussions, but instead submitted readily to emotions.
How about supporting hash punishment for abuses while looking at the issue in terms of rights? A person (a man or a woman) has the right to his or her own body. In a civilized society, contractual relationships between consenting adults should be legal.
I'm halfway through this now, and this is just great!
The three speakers who did not think paying for sex is wrong were very poor. Lionel Tiger waffled on about engagement rings and chimps, and I don't think anyone had a clue what he was on about. The woman on his side was a former pimp, taking 40% of her girls' income (she always calls them "girls"). The other man on her side was reduced to bringing the case of a paraplegic man as his only justification for it being acceptable to pay for sex. I was yelling at the screen - "but they are only about 1% of johns! What excuse do the other 99% have?" I hoped one of the feminists would say this, but they didn't, which was a disappointment.
I was also disappointed that the motion "It is wrong to pay for sex" was twisted by all six speakers into "It is wrong to sell sex". That placed all the focus onto women who sell it and their rights to do so. Feminists can bring powerful arguments to the table by focusing on men's assumed "right" to enter women's orifices. Not one of the six speakers even touched on this aspect, despite it being the actual debate question.
"And you won?" "We won $745 million in the southern district of New York, before a jury like you." - hahaha MacKinnon is such a fucking boss
Okay...so? That's like saying you were a good lawyer on a similar case somewhere else, so you should win here too. I thought she was appealing way too much to emotion and being way over the top here.
I'm glad the newer IQ2 debates don't have this hissing, it's tremendously disrespectful.
Why did no one adress the fact that paying for sex has nothing to do with the abuse of it. People abuse anything and everything.
Okay we get it, Child Abuse, Rape, Violence. We get it. No one is in favor of that. stop reiterating that. Answer the goddam question.
If all public schools had boarding school facilities, then any girl or boy who wanted to leave home, could go to live in a boarding school where they would have food, a roof over their head, a safe place to live and still continue with their education.
To criminalize the John and not the prostitute is like criminalizing the junky but not the dealer. It makes no since.
Ann Hodges
Well then fight against forced prostitution instead of just prostitution.
Arrest the Johns having sex with underage girls. Arrest the Johns who have killed some of the women. Arrest the pimps and madams kidnapping little girls and FORCING them to do this.
But why would you arrest the woman whose late on her bills and decides to make a quick couple hundred dollars with sex? Why would you arrest the John who pays this woman after both CONSENTED to the agreement?
Its like if they did the exact same thing with no money involved its legal. But if he gives her money for it all of a sudden its illegal. Your saying this makes since?
Ann Hodges
"Consensual sex is just consensual sex."
Ok cool, well lets go ahead and make prostitution legal. Because its just consensual sex.
If a woman decides to sell herself on her own free will, the John should not go to jail for paying her for the services she is WILLING to provide for the right price.
So the john is not raping her, this woman isnt being forced. So therefore this should be legal. Right?
Ann Hodges
"The reward for sex is sex - you're doing it because you want to have sex. That is what consensual means."
Now heres the real definition of consent
Consent - permission for something to happen or agreement to do something."
So if the prostitute AGREES to have sex with the John for money. She is consenting based on the AGREEMENT that he pays her a fee. When he pays her the fee she will give him PERMISSION to have sex with her. Prostitution is consensual sex. By definition.
It's not free will if 1) economic necessity (also known as survival sex).
The woman dosnt have to have sex to survive. She is CHOOSING on her own FREE WILL to have sex to pay her bills and take care of her family. She could have got a normal Job but she CHOSE to pay her bills with sex. If SHE makes that decision herself, why should we take her rights away to do so.
2) there is any 3rd party involved (ex. pimps - which is trafficking)
First off, trafficking should be banned. You know why? Because in trafficking a woman is FORCED to have sex. I am talking about prostitution. Not human trafficking. They simply are not the same thing
A grown woman making the decision herself to have sex for money is NOT the same thing as a 12 year old girl being kidnapped and forced to have sex with men triple her age. So if you want to ban human trafficking. Ill be with you on that. But if a woman wants to pay her college loans off with sex, leave her and her johns alone
Ann Hodges
No I am not denying that some women are forced into prostitution. And that is WRONG. I already said this. You keep making this generalization of saying ALL prostitutes are forced to do it. Thats just false.
So lets condemn human trafficking and prostitutes who are forced to have sex. Im with you on that.
But lets not take away the rights of the women who are not forced to do it.
Ok Ill ask you this question and I want you to answer honestly.
If a woman, wants to buy a new car, and decides to have sex for money to get that car is she being forced into prostitution?
Ann Hodges
"You condemn human trafficking but refuse to acknowledge that prostitution affects trafficking and that legalizing prostitution causes trafficking to increase tenfold around it."
So should we get rid of porn sites on the internet because people can use it to upload child porn? Like you refuse to draw distinctions.
Legalizing prostitution is not Legalizing human trafficking. They still would have to remain in the shadows. Because kidnapping and forcing anyone into having sex will always be against the law.
Having sex for money is not the problem. Kidnapping and rape are the problems.
So if you want to keep kidnapping and rape illegal, Im with you 100%.
"You don't see wealthy women entering the world of prostitution for fun."
But I do see very wealthy Escorts that dont even have to have sex for money anymore but do it anyway.
Like a pornstar is a prostitute. These women are literally having sex for money. But for some reason that is legal and prostitution is not. Your saying that makes since?
The 'for' side really argued "prostitution is bad" rather than the motion. All kinds of non-prostitution sex has a transactional element, a lot of time benefiting the woman rather than man.
Hmm, I have to admit I was quite disappointed by the outcome.
Yeah. Too predictable, for both sides. At least that's how I saw it.
The people who hissed and booed should be ashamed.
That first lady lost me immediately when whe compared rape to forcing someone to eat a hamburger. That is maybe the dumbest and most heniously ignorant analogy I have ever heard.
Then she talks about girls selling their bodies because they've been sexually abused at home. As if prostitution is responsible for domestic abuse.
Or women being kept as sex slaves.
"Someone knew what was going on" she says about houses keeping sex slaves prisoners. Yes? Those slavers obviously knew the were doing something completely illegal and didn't care at all about treating people like slaves for profit. What does that have to do with prostitution in general?
Should we outlaw pets because dancing bears exist?
Factories because sweat shops exist?
Hunting because poachers exist?
You can have your reasons for wanting something to be deemed wrong, but citing examples of the most deplorable abuse of what you want to ban is just ridiculous.
Dictators tend to use public speaking to keep their country obedient and submissive. And most - if not all - dictators are men. So let's ban men from all public speaking.
The analogy of sexual rape to forcing someone to eat a burger was brilliant. All she is saying is that if we treat buying sex the same way we treat buying a hamburger why is there a difference between forcing someone to eat a hamburger and forcing sex on someone. Presumably the woman being raped enjoys sex, so why is forcing someone to do something they like to do anyway, such a violation? It would be annoying if someone forced us to eat a hamburger but it wouldn't be as nearly a traumatic experience. Why? Because some things we consider inviolable. Why sex? That is a question for our psychologists and sociologists.
@@canteluna That's a rape analogy, not a paying for sex analogy.
As far as the quadriplegic argument. it seems unfair to ignore that the woman who is potentially being coerced into this situation isn't necessarily comfortable with the idea of having sex with a quadriplegic. Sorry, but that's her right- the simple reality is that most men would not want to hook up with a quadriplegic for money either. As Farley said, that's a problem with our culture, but simply being disabled does not grant you the right to take part in de facto rape, if we accept that that's what prostitution all too often is. The right to sexual agency is a basic human right. Respect for the sexual agency of others is a basic, universal responsibility.
And for the record, his justifications for buying prostitutes are strikingly similar to the justifications used by rapists- that has no bearing on whether or not his argument is valid, but neither do the examples he cited say anything about the validity of the anti-solicitation arguments.
what makes you think women are being forced into prostitution? they know their options and when they weigh those options against each other, prostitution seems the best option. if you prohibit it, they're worse off because they have to resort to options that are less desirable to them.
DripStopShop I dunno if you noticed, but prostitution already is prohibited in much of the world and the US in particular, and has been for some time. We're not talking about punishing prostitutes, we're talking about whether or not their solicitation should be illegal or morally unjustifiable. Dealing with the root causes of why women find themselves needing to become prostitutes is a different issue, but prostitution is clearly not the ideal or even the most practical answer to the problem of women living in desperate poverty. You don't hear of too many women out there buying homes out in the suburbs with money they make in prostitution. They stay poor, they just don't starve. You could just as well be putting the money men spend on prostitution into welfare and the women receiving it wouldn't be losing a large portion of their profits to a pimp or madame. As far as why I think women are being forced into prostitution, it was explained in detail in the video. If you don't agree with Melissa Farley's facts, that's a whole other matter.
americanslime
"we're talking about whether or not their solicitation should be illegal or morally unjustifiable."
-i know. i thought i made it clear that i think it shouldnt be illegal. but morality is a totally different discussion. if you wanna have a philosophy discussion, then you'll have to open up that vein with some sort of argument. there were no arguments pertaining to moral philosophy in this video.
"prostitution is clearly not the ideal or even the most practical answer to the problem of women living in desperate poverty. You don't hear of too many women out there buying homes out in the suburbs with money they make in prostitution. They stay poor, they just don't starve."
-just that their career doesnt elevate their socioeconomic status doesnt mean that it's not the best option on their table. it's a fact that people tend to not have a very strong desire to change their SES (up OR down) from the one they grew up in. i suppose the people at the bottom dont see anything wrong with it because it's all they know. and for those who do have a desire to elevate their SES, it's often very difficult for a whole slew of different reasons that we all know about. it's not fair to ask them to be in that sliver of the population that goes from projects to suburbs (which is what you're doing when you're advocating for their jobs to continue being targeted for removal by the legal system), especially when you have no suggestions for improving their circumstances AND when poor prostitutes (and even higher-SES prostitutes) see their earnings as a pretty fat sack of doh, relative to what they would probably have been making if they werent prostituting (as long as they arent too ugly).
"You could just as well be putting the money men spend on prostitution into welfare and the women receiving it wouldn't be losing a large portion of their profits to a pimp or madame."
-you're hitting on a key misunderstanding the feminist side of the debate had.
this isnt about whether paying for the services of a prostitute is altruistic, or right. it's about whether it's WRONG. it's a business transaction just like any other, fundamentally. this debate is about whether the free market should be interrupted by outlawing prostitution. keep trying to give one reason why it's wrong (and not just not right).
"As far as why I think women are being forced into prostitution, it was explained in detail in the video. If you don't agree with Melissa Farley's facts, that's a whole other matter."
-well i found all the points made by her side on the matter totally useless, so why dont you pick which one you find most convincing. (i think i addressed one in the second paragraph though)
DripStopShop Ugh. I really don't have time to be getting into a big long debate about this. I'll try to be brief.
"there were no arguments pertaining to moral philosophy in this video." This is largely an argument over whether or not prostitution is in reality, at least in a pretty significant number of cases, paid rape. Obviously this argument is meant to communicate that buying prostitutes is morally unjustifiable. The response on the other side is essentially to just refuse to believe (with vague suppositions and anecdotal evidence) that many/most prostitutes do not want to be prostitutes and have no other realistic alternative.
"-just that their career doesnt elevate their socioeconomic status doesnt mean that it's not the best option on their table."
That's the problem. I am not convinced the best society can do for these women is to make them dependent on people who sexually exploit them without actually improving their economic position.
.
"-you're hitting on a key misunderstanding the feminist side of the debate had"
No, I'm not. If you want to hear why buying prostitutes is wrong, the answer is simple: it's very often rape and child molestation (just about every study on the subject finds the majority of women enter prostitution when underaged). That's not what I'm talking about. You're arguing that prostitution is the best option these women have. You're trying to frame this discussion into a situation where you're looking out for their best interests, and I'm explaining that you could take exactly the same resources that are currently being put into prostitution to do a great deal more good for the women involved in it, without using their economic desperation as a means of sexual coercion. There's no question about that: there's a great deal of money going into prostitution, yet at best only a little over half gets to the women who needed it in the first place, and the physical and emotional cost for them is often immense. You want to be a frigid capitalist, go ahead, but don't pretend you're arguing for their best interests.
"-well i found all the points made by her side on the matter totally useless, so why dont you pick which one you find most convincing."
You find her research useless? Why?
I do not agree that prostitution is "de facto rape" much like working in a factory isn't "de facto slavery". It's a false analogy and poisons the debate.
why isn't the topic "should prostitution be legal"?
Nobody debates "It's wrong to pay for murder", they debate whether we should go to war or not.
Nobody debates "It's wrong to take people's money" they debate whether taxes are too high
Men aren't being sold - Its because woman are hard wired to be maintained. And men are hard wired to maintain. Men are noble, not women.
+Lola Grey ...If out of 100 men 25 where bad and 75 good, then 100% of the bad could decide to rape someone weaker than them. So to say that the majority of rapist are men makes a lot of sense. What is in question here in the video is if men are noble in nature and women not.
That first woman was horrible, she wants to control everything about everybody
Tyler Cowen was the only one who made a cogent argument that stuck to the motion. I tend to agree I think the vote was hijacked. The team for motion absolutely lost the debate. They couldn't even answer the basic question that Cowen pushed and the moderator emphasized (1:13:50) and frankly for the audience to boo and hiss is shameful and flies in the face of civil debate, the exact thing they paid to sit in and watch.
There is a very obvious problem with this 'debate', even before I listen to it. Just looking at the names, all three on one side of the debate are female and at least two of the three (probably all three) on the other side are almost certainly male. So you have - to generalise - consumers debating producers.
There is no 'balance' here, no recognition of alternative perspectives - it seems from the panel that people who are likely to be paid for sex are against its sale, while people who are likely to be paying are for its sale. That is not an accurate representation of how the debate exists in the world outside of this debating chamber.
What about male prostitutes? This is not solely a women's problem.
Ann Hodges Do you have any reason to think in his case he would NOT have a choice if propositioned by a man? Outside of trafficed sex workers, prostitutes can always leave if they don't agree with the setting or potential client.
Ann Hodges Again, The question of the debate is not "It's wrong to pay for sex with exploited, trafficked, traumatised females" no matter how stongly you want it to be.
Ann Hodges You may call it sex, everyone else would call that rape. Not a single person in the video disagreed that paying to rape children and exploited women is wrong however, it kept getting dragged back into that narrow topic instead of exploring other more interesting questions like deconstructing the question itself more deeply like what EXACTLY are the meaning of -pay- and -sex- as expressed in the debate question? What are the scope and spectrum of pay-for-sex situations and attitudes around the world? I was disappointed that the moderator didn't move on to more interesting scenarios.
The debate was really one side's diatibe about woman exploitation and inequality.
Ann Hodges Bad analogy. When you buy food you OWN it. When you pay for sex you are purchasing a SERVICE. Of course, you can purchase "sex" with another person without their consent as is the case of exploited females but, isn't that really better classified as rape? Just like when you get hired by a company, they are not buying you like a slave are they?
As i mentioned in another comment, It turns out that there are Japanese Medical Sex Workers who assist disabled people in w/ ejaculation. And it's financed by taxpayers! Please explain to Japan's medical community and its citizens how they are exploiting and unequal to their medical sex workers?
Ann Hodges
"Well, again, it's because paying for sex is intrinsically connected to the exploitation and inequality of women."
No it is not. It is intrinsically conected with the fact that sex is scarce a commodity, for men at least, and woman profit by making men pay for it.
The amount of misogyny in the audience is astounding. Even after the anti-prostitution position clearly won the amount of men who voted for the pro-prostitution position increased. Gross.
It is misogyny because men shouldn't give their opinions on what women should be allowed to do. Men don't know what it feels like to be a woman so their opinions mean jack shit and if they give an opinion on what should be acceptable for women then they're doing it out of entitlement and out of being privileged. I don't give a fuck if a man wants prostitution to be allowed because I know he's male and that's what males like. Misogyny is hatred for women which is the same as having disrespect for women. Their disrespect for women is them agreeing that women should be able to prostitute themselves and work for sex. The women who agree that prostitution is right are agreeing due to being influenced by the patriarchy and trying to impress males because they feel like an inferior sex.
Why do I even bother arguing with another typical white, privileged, male who feels entitled to give his opinion on any subject even if he doesn't understand it. Prostitution is not consent it's misogyny and violence against women. You as a male don't have a right to say what is misogynistic and what is not because you're not female and you don't get effected by misogyny. The fact that you want to argue for the men who think prostitution is good even after the anti-prostitution side gave so much proof as to how it's violence and rape towards women is misogynistic itself.
"Let's pay attention to the 0.1% minority that is not actually getting raped instead of the 90+% majority that is getting raped whenever the johns are paying to have their way (i.e. rape) them"...typical fucking male logic... You might need to re-watch the whole debate and pay attention to all the points Melissa Farley refuted. If prostitution has failed to be legalized and regulated in countries like New Zealand and Australia then it is too dangerous to even be considered. And, you, as a male, shouldn't have a say on whether or not you think prostitution is consensual or not because you would not be the seller you would be the buyer. Maybe your partner (if you have one) should start charging you for money out of "consensual love". A man telling a woman whether or not prostitution is rape for them is like a white man telling a black man what is racially degrading and what is not.
Prostitutes who "willfully do prostitution" are *sex trafficked* into doing it. The sex industry is full of *sex trafficking* those who are economically misfortunate to get jobs else where so they do prostitution as a last resort. Prostitution was set up by men because men wanted women to become poor to the extent that they'd have to prostitute themselves for males. It is sex inequality because the female sex has to depend on the male sex for money either way.
All prostitution is rape because the woman is asking for a payment to do sex work which means she doesn't intrinsically like it. And like a typical pro-sex work misogynist, you are, you ignore the large majority who report rape and focus on a tiny minority in first world countries who claim they like it because you are a male who likes sex and feels entitled to having it. And you are obviously a keyboard warrior who is arguing for the sake of arguing because you took my example of "0.1%" as a literal statistic in which it wasn't a literal statistic recorded, it was an example of a minority measurement as so was my example of "90+%" being a majority. If you want statistics you can look them up yourself. I have statistics of rape crimes in prostitution but I don't owe them to you.
I gave the sarcastic example of your girlfriend charging you because girlfriends don't charge their boyfriends for sex since they are in a relationship. The only relationships prostitutes have are abusive relationships with their pimps.
Oh yeah...and as for your point on the woman in the motion claiming her prostitutes had a good experience she was proven a liar in the debate when Wendy Shalit direct quoted from her book how her prostitutes went through physical and emotional abuses. Barrow's sex- workers didn't enjoy their work like she claimed they did, they were getting raped. Once again, you did not watch the entire debate because you are a biased entitled male who thinks he can mansplain to women about how their not being raped.
Printed Lizzard
Headbangers like you give feminism a bad name! And as for Melissa Farley's garbage, come on. Her 'research' has been exposed as being riddled with so many flaws, from use of self-selecting samples to pulling a definition of PTSD out of her arse without having any of the expertise to do so. I suppose by having the temerity to point this out to you I have incurred the epithet of 'entitled mansplainer', to which my response is that that's water off my back. The only question I would ask is that why are you here, given that it's so damned awful listening to us mansplainers giving our views on the topic? Why don't you piss off to 'Feminist Current', or some other weblog that's the domain of the fruitcake fringe of the feminist movement, and leave us in peace?
Issue boils down to consent.
Those that cannot give consent should not pay for sex.
Those that do pay for sex have issues but they should have the right to pay for sex.
Regulation is better than no regulation. Prostitution will happen with or without laws.
This debate needs to be redone with a panel able to engage it without reducing to conventional payment for sex. i.e. Men -->Women
Yes, I saw a story about one woman who was 44 and lost her virginity to a professional. She loved it. This is not an entirely one way debate, mostly but not totally, and it really feeds into the 'men are pigs' sentiment.
If some people think that prostitution is "buying" a human being, why are engagement rings so expensive (and almost a requirement that the man spends 3 month's salary for one); why is pornography legal; and why do many woman look for a man that is "rich" ?
Because aliens
301st viewer The Lizard shape changers or the big eyed gray thingies?
John Dahlman stds, using girls for cash etc its not right this is why its always been a shady thing people do not a public behavior
TheGiantKiller8 Well, why does the government make it illegal ? It can't be for human health or well-being because they poison our food, water, and air without thinking twice about it.
Im not saying to do anything 'legal' All I am saying is its a shameful and the prostitutes need help while men who need sex need family system to help get married(my own view)
Fantastic point. :)
This debate was absolutely horrible to watch. The single decent argument was a question from the audience, and was not followed through, in fact wasn't allowed to posed in it's entirety.
I could of course write a long rant about how and why this is the case, but to what end? The debate is over and all that would be gained from it would be one of those infamous youtube flame wars going nowhere.
Still, at least one point must be made, just in case someone should notice it and acknowledge at least a hint of wisdom.
Imagine a single mother working two full time jobs at a pitiful salary and under pitiful condition. Overworked, stressed and paying with her health, and likely also the health of her child. She can't find another job, in fact she don't even have the energy to try, and she can't just leave because that would mean losing that cardboard box someone dare call an apartment, starvation for her and her child and so on and so forth.
This is of course a horrible, but not at all an uncommon story, and you don't even need to visit one of those poor countries they talk about, you can stay right where you are.
The question then become the same as asked multiple times during the debate. Does she have a choice? Of course not! She is in the exact same situation as some would claim is the case with just about every single prostitute world wide, which is some claim by the way. She may not get raped on a daily basis, but she is still physically and mentally molested just the same.
Following that epiphany, the next question should be obvious. Is it wrong in general to pay people for the work they do? That is in essence what has been proposed, though no one seem to recognize this fact. And again I provide the answer. Of course not! It is wrong for greedy assholes to take advantage of weak desperate people and treat then like crap, regardless of profession! How can this fact have eluded those well educated, and probably well funded, morons?
It is wrong to take advantage of women, weak, desperate or otherwise, as is the case with men, children and other variety to sufficiently intelligent beings. No one in their right mind would question that!
This is not to say that there is no problem, but there are lots of problems. Women are not just being trafficked for prostitution, in fact it's not only women who are being trafficked. There are lots of situation where a cheap labor force can come in handy, and prostitution is just one of many. And in fact, the damage is not only done to the poor people I just described. Oh no, as it is, I my self have immense problems find a proper job, exactly because a cheap labor force is available.
In conclusion, it's a problem with the system, not the profession, so get of your high horse, and deal with the real problems, not least that of your own unfounded preconceptions and moral prejudice.
Well, I guess it became a rant after all, so let the flame war begin, but don't you dare tell me that all prostitutes are taken advantage of, mentally ill, or whatever common argument you may come up with. I know better and so should you, otherwise you haven't made the slightest effort to investigate the subject. There are many problems in the world, some of which relate to prostitution, but prostitution is not the problem.
Best regards.
Yes.
I abhor all the horrible things the pro side brought up; however, I also don't like that they forcibly transformed the debate from 'paying for sex is wrong' to 'abusive prostitution is wrong' (an indefensible scarecrow) by inferring that that is always what paying for sex is.
Also the person who was hissing should have been removed. They were not helping making the argument better, they were inciting.
I agree to an extent, although I think the Pro side was arguing that in reality (as opposed to some pure philosophical paradise), abusive prostitution is what actually ends up happening. I.e. even where prostitution is regulated, unregulated prostitution tends to exist right alongside it. But I agree that there are plenty of arguments against it without focusing on abusive/criminal practices. I also wish they had focused on the ethical question as opposed to the legal one.
The argument made is that by paying for sex, you are supporting a system that is built upon exploitation and rape. Even in Amsterdam where prostitution is legal, 70% of prostitutes there do not have legal papers, suggesting they were trafficked.
+Skyy Piano By prohibiting you are supporting a system of violence, STD increases and trafficking.
It must be legalized and regulated on a massive scale before the black market will take a hit.
@@derp8575 Aka if everyone legalized it. But good lord we are a long way from that. Even so. If it was legal everywhere, the black market would disappear, like with hard drugs.
@@squamish4244 Vote accordingly. Otherwise the black market will exist.
Kevin baggett,
I'm glad you brought up the point. It wouldn't look that much different from guys point of view. Now put yourself in woman's shoes. The pretty girl could have walked away from you at any point. It doesn't matter how much it cost you to pay for dinner. If you do one stupid thing before sex she can walk away because it turns her off. In this dating relationship, she is the equal partner in the relationship and money is just something that happened in the process.
Now can a sex worker feel the same way? Is she an equal partner? Could she walk away from you? From the money?(at this point you are more like money)
It's not black and white. You can find woman with "lover" paying her, so she doesn't need to work. Yes, yes, yes... in perfect world, she can find good payed job position she would love and has great money from it, lot of travelling, etc. and he can meet his young love, which would love him even without money.... (Sex slavery or need to prostitute both sexes for living is wrong! We should have social-net and tools to prevent it. Bad heavy drugs are forbidden and still you can get it.)
I was also curious about why no one addressed why prostitute ages were not regulated? Seems like that would be the first thing one would write into a law.
It obviously is at the bunny ranches in Nevada. What about everywhere else that it's legal?
Where can i find the UK version
1:23:00 wow... well done on not at all answering that perfect 'miner situation' question. It was perfectly posed. No-one even addressed it. Pay attenion moderator! Also 'against-side', payy attention too! The 'pro-side' already didn't address the similarly well-posed 'fisher situation' example that was given in the opening statements (31:00).
I wonder if Melissa Farley has ever answered a question in her life, all she did was deflect all night.
Very nice debate for being able to hear different opinions. Simply it's wrong to pay for sex!
At the risk of starting a war in here, this reminds me of what I so often see in the God debate. Where one side chooses to forego the actual question and instead focuses on either anecdotal evidence (which, while often emotionally provocative, is meaningless in an intelligence-based forum), or changing the definition of the motion into one that no one would disagree with. Good on you, Lionel, for not letting the first speaker get away with trying to do just that.
I wish they really spent time countering each other's points here, it feels like they didn't really go anywhere. The pro-prostitution people just said "yea but those harmful statistics don't represent every prostitute" and the anti-prostitute people just kept saying "yea but these harmful statistics represent SOME of the prostitutes, isn't that enough?"
I came here to find a good and informative debate like the other debates I have seen from Intelligence squared. But im sad to see it turned out to be a debate where the team debating for the motion never adressed the proposition in its sense, but rather talked about illegal prostitution. I therefore find it hard to believe how the poll showed those results. It must have been a strategy from the cleary biased "hissing" group to make it look like the FOR team delivered good arguments, and therefore strenghten their cause.
Seemed like the debate was whether exploitation is wrong. I think the for side missed the distinction that was trying to be made with voluntary exchange.
against the motion were 46% those for it were 45%
the motion failed
When I was at uni in New Zealand, quute a few young female students worked p/t as sex workers to get ahead on tuition fees. Most of the ones I spoke with had a sensible, hard-nosed and steely-eyed realistic attitude towards sex work. They knew the risks, they knew to leave their emotions at the door and they knew that it was not a career. Having said all that, I realize this is anecdotal and so not worth much. But it seems salient to mention that they were not coerced and they could leave any time. Personally, I wouldn't have anything to do with it but aren't we supposed to bring our objectivity to these topics? Nano-loans/micro-loans to poor women in developing nations is a worthwhile and pragmatic solution. A rising tide etc Enough with the emotionally charged rhetoric.
Nope. Rape is not like forcing a hamburger; it's like robbery and forcing a hamburger at the same time.
they didn't give a breakdown of men vs women votes....what a shame
Absolutely. It's not an ideal arrangement, but it acknowledges a reality that moralists on both sides fail to appreciate (or seek to deny): People want sex, and if they can't get it for free, many will gladly pay for it.
For the motion is 45 %. Against is 46 %. How can for the motion win???
For moved the most people - that's how these debates work.
The affirmative are arguing that slavery and rape is wrong. Of course. The missed the point of the proposition.
Regulation is making the best of a bad situation.
It would be ideal for nobody to pay for sex and for sex and marriage to be inseparable.
Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect society (has there ever been one?).
Legalizing, legitimizing, and regulating rape is making the best of a bad situation? Bad for whom? Do you mean the "bad" situation of economically empowered men being unable to maintain a healthy relationship with a woman? Or do you mean the "bad" situation of the successful married man whose wife won't let him practice depravity and sexual abuse on her?
@@henzsol6771 How about a man who is disabled, financially strained and cannot attract a woman, and otherwise, he will never have sex in his life? (It happens.) Is it rape then? Also, I believe rape involves coercion, not agreement.
Why is it that both of the people against this, speak of this only in the terms of rape?? They are being extremely closed minded if they think that all prostitute sex is a form of rape.
Yes, this was a very interesting part of the debate. Most of the arranged marriages in traditional countries are essentially fathers selling their daughters as an object.
In many Muslim countries, women (often girls) don't even have to present at the legal part of the marriage! Their fathers can sign for them and collect the (dowry) pay for them.
This debate is hard to look at because both sides mainly agree with each other. They just hold different definitions of the word prostitution. The side against prostitution is talking about the women abuse within the trade, which everyone can agree on is terrible and horrifying. The side who is for prostitution looks at prostitution as a job, freely chosen, or a one woman (or man) business. They're just talking straight passed each other and it's just hard to look at.
my oppinion is that everything with moral consent is fine. anything forced is obviously bad! And I think the economist is right; when prostitution is legal it can be regulated and the black market (bad market) will shrink because it can't stand up to the legal (regulated) competition.
Oh wow, I'm a bit further in the video now and I see the host agrees with me... He is awesome!
And what's up with the hissing? This must be the most annoying crowd I've yet seen in these debates. Save it for the question round and let the people on stage speak without interuption you selfcentered bastards. I don't care for your invisible oppinion!
Most females look at MARRIAGE like it's nothing but a job.
adrienne gellman Citation, please.
Exactly. I fell like it has parallels to the debate on drug legalisation. Criminalising it is fuelling crime and filling criminals' wallets. It's costing the tax payer money and it is increasing the number of drug addicts who become subservient to criminals when they could be seeking help without shame.
what do you call paying for dates (paying for sex) What do you call getting married Paying for what the women will do
Its supposed to be a life long companion ship to start a family. Are you looking for a wife who's a prostitute If so why not?
@@gman4074 But there may be an element of sex for sale in marriage.
legalisation is the only way, driving it into back streets is a crime
I agree, no one is entitled to sex. But as George Carlin observed, "Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal? You know, why should it be illegal to sell something that's perfectly legal to give away?"
They changed my mind. This is the first and only debate out of the fifteen plus I've listened to on intelligence squared that I've actually switched sides on. I was against the motion (for the reasons the negative side stated rightly), but now I'm for it. Weird. I'm really surprised at myself. lol The funny thing is that a lot of the arguments that the positive side had were bull. Goudarzi's feminazi comment below mine isn't too far off the mark. Some of those girls are scary. haha My reasoning for changing is actually a bit off topic. It's because I don't think sex is a need. It's an imperative, a desire, and a goal...and yet it is not a need. Each of us chooses what sort of meaning we put onto the things that happen in our lives. I'm sure that both the payers and the payees within each of those circumstances had their own stories to tell (both to themselves and to others), and it's through those stories that the meanings come into being. I would like to point out, however, that my interpretation of the word 'wrong' here is that of moral wrongness...not ethical or legal. I don't believe that it is something that you, me or anyone can really judge.
At around 57:30 "Women shouldn't have to make the choice between poverty and prostitution". There is a thing called dignity, you know.
i think it's pretty cool women get to have that choice. instead of men having the choice between poverty and.. poverty. in my entire life i've only seen about 2 female bums. i see a male bum easily once a week.
STFU
I never said I did. I never have.
You are fuckin mangina. Who pay for women dignity? You taxes the men, aight? If you are women, you must be a feminazi. If you are men, then you are mangina
If you don't pay you can't have sex as long as marriage costs a lot
And the result is that marriage do not prevent rape and abuse
You can hear the feminists in the crowd "ssSSSSsssssssSSSSSSSSSSSSss". Typical.
PEOPLE do it out of desperation, and no "choosing" to have sex for money or withdrawing from heroin isn't much of a choice is it. Keep in mind most of them have already been sexually abused so theyre already more numb than the average person about it. I wish there was more places and help for them to go but our government up here is slashing social programs and drug rehab centres. We have a huge drug problem here, there isn't even any point in arresting someone doing heroin in the street anymore
Very good debate but I hate when people in the crowd boo and hiss and jeer at the people who are brave enough to stand up a debate contentious issues like these. As Hitchens said "By the way, if you knew how you sounded when you hissed, you wouldn't do it: you sound like such berks when you do that."
If there were institutions that allowed women and men to become wealthy via prostitution would they still be considered victims or slaves?
Because its an overwhelming majority of women compared to men victimized...No ones saying its ok for either gender
The thing the Negative should have stressed was that, if they could find even one circumstance in which it is NOT wrong to pay for sex, they win the debate. And there are a large number of those circumstances that exist.
The first speaker will be played by Vanessa Bayer in the movie.
I think the hissing was a bad choice on the audience because it detracts from the ability of the person to present their argument and prematurely colors an undecided person's decision before they can hear the argument.
Is it wrong to buy a romance novel? A sex toy? These pay for sexual pleasure. Paying for the services of a sex worker is not much different.
To those who believe that the studies discussed are actually representative, go look at the studies. They would be laughed out of any scientific journal for how biased their samples are.
Was this debate intentionally one sided? In the book "Taking the crime out of sex work- New Zealand sex workers' fight for decriminalisation", researchers concluded after interviews with over 700 sex workers that the decriminalisation has had positive effects for the prostitutes safety and health. Maybe you should've gotten experienced researchers on both sides of this debate otherwise, it only serves as propaganda for one side.
If you follow the slippery slope every service job is a form of coercion, not just sex jobs. The money you are given is the force needed to get the service out of you. So, jobs are wrong.
*+bigchunk1* "very service job is a form of coercion," why not jsut every job, period?
Except in the service industry women typically don't get raped or murdered during their shift, and female servers (& bartenders) have legal protections that prostitutes don't have since sex work is illegal. I would argue that prostitution should be regulated akin to the service industry, yet, additionally, the service industry needs better legislation because people are still treated like fucking garbage.
Give them a loaf of bread? Condesending b...
No fact. Your logical is use them instead
That ex-prostitution business owner has really dumb comments.
This was a good debate, except for the hissing in the audience, the people for the proposition did not have a good argument.
The hissing, the snickering, the laughing out of turn...wtf? I've never heard it in the more recent debates I've listened to, even though there are a lot of debates way more triggering than even this one.
Sex, politics and religion - the three things that should never be discussed in polite company. If you want to get people excited, talk about sex. If you want to get them really excited, talk about politics. If you want to get them to completely lose their shit and have existential breakdowns, talk about religion.
When someone is arrested for prostitution, that person will have trouble getting a "straight" job for life. Outlawing prostitution may drive someone to continue in it because the record makes a regular job so difficult!
Is there a serious case study that shows that prostitution before and after legalization has been made worse or better in a given area?
Re Bloomingdales, voluntary sex is NOT the same as prostitution.
It seems unfair to argue from the POV of a man in the presence of so many women or in a society where women set morals. He is just never going to convince the room of his stance that paying for sex is moral.
I feel like the side debating in support of the motion would also be more than happy to debate for a motion stating that scientific progress is morally wrong; they'd simply focus exclusively on any scientific progress made by the Nazis during the Holocaust. Everyone debating against the motion, just as occurs here, would completely agree with them on the points they raise but then themselves raise points that were not related to the Holocaust and advancements in science made by the Nazis but would be unable to engage the opposition on those points because the debaters for the motion that scientific progress was wrong would refuse to acknowledge any points un-related to the Holocaust.
"A woman who wanted but could not afford a pair of $600 boots chooses to earn that money in a three hour session which included perhaps 12 minutes of actual sexual activity with a man who was psychologically unable - due to his physical defects and the subsequent rejections he's endured from other women in his past - to pursue a more traditional and "healthy" relationship with women... but who still wished to have a sexual experience. Is he morally wrong to pay her for sex?"
"Raping and trafficking in toddlers is bad. It's not good and therefore paying for sex is not good."
"Uh... well yes, I'll agree with your point about raping and trafficking toddlers. We all agree: that is bad. However that's unrelated to my point so would you perhaps like to address my point? No? Alright then, thanks for showing up... I suppose...:
"a man who was psychologically unable - due to his physical defects and the subsequent rejections he's endured from other women in his past - to pursue a more traditional and 'healthy' relationship with women"
Is this you extrapolating? Reasons I heard Sydney list were: they were too busy for relationships, they had invalid wives who could no longer pleasure them sexually, and they liked spending time with pretty girls.
And lets be honest, it's all about that last one. :) I don't care how damaged you are, you can find a woman who will be happy and grateful to spend time with you if you're willing to settle for older and uglier.
How about if you were willing to settle? Nevermind, I know the answer to that question. It's funny how empathy disappears when we talk about the real issues men face. It's as if there was a gender role being forced on us. You, who hates when men force gender roles upon you, wouldn't be in favor of doing that to men, would you? Nooo, of course not. That would be a double standard. lol
My boyfriend is unemployed and I support both of us. I love my job and am super happy being there. He is an artist who loves being at home, is a great cook and is naturally neat while I'm a giant slob. We are both very, very happy with this arrangement. So I have no idea what you're talking about.
Margaret Graham
I'm glad you are the exception to the rule. Really, I am, because that's hard to find. However "My experience is exception to the rule, therefore the rule doesn't exist." is not a good way to make your case just because you want to shut the other person down. I'll leave you to remain delusional in blind opposition to anything you don't agree with. smh
+BeastNation2009 That may be rule among the people you hang out with. It is very much not the rule in my circles. As in literally, I don't know anyone who behaves in the way you describe, except for people on TV. That said most of my friends are young leftist free-thinking East Coast liberal artists and so are pretty feminist and opposed to traditional gender roles.
Plus also like I said I'm kinda overweight and ugly so I'm grateful to be with this guy. Really pretty girls tend to get spoiled, I find.
I'd be fine with women not being valued or remunerated for their sexual appeal/availability if men weren't valued for their financial appeal/availability. But of course, American women would be way too hypocritical to agree to that.
The emphasis of ritual and implication of more value on form and presentation than on content or validity of virtue itself attacks real determination and verification of the truth or falsity of supposed morality. Reality does matter. If reality is missed, what of ritual?
Watching this in 2023 with the prominence of onlyfans is the perfect kind of despair
instead of dinner and a movie why shouldn't it be okay to just skip the middle man, i give ya the $70ish that would total and we go straight to the sack? seems like a fair plausible thing to do between two consenting adults.
Jay tom What kind of horrible sex is everyone having that they feel like one partner needs compensation? Am I the only one who believes in sex for the sake of mutual pleasure? This whole thread is full of comments along the lines of "all sex is bought". Think about how horrific that is: You only have to pay if you gotta balance out the lack of enthusiasm on one side. That's bad sex at best and abuse at worst.
Besides the obvious point that you shouldn't be able to window shop and buy humans, how someone doesn't find that disturbing is beyond me. If you would be ok with your child being picked out like an object from the window then that's your point of view, otherwise don't be ok with it for other peoples children
i personally think Eliot Spitzer would have been a better debater on this topic thanks to his first hand experience LOL
I've watched so far about 50 debates and this was by far the most ridiculously underwhelming and furthest from intelligence not to mention its powers. I was undecided before, and I still am. For the motion debators didnt answer the the question in hand even once. They were relentlessly abusing the women in the audience by appealing to their motherly and emotional instinct. The moral philosophy of buying sex was completely neglected it this debate because intellectual debate cant be done with one side refusing to toggle the matter at hand. And I have a feeling that they did it because they knew that only way for them to win was with populism!
I thought it was hideous, I couldn't get past the first woman so i have no idea what the other side put forward. Dreadful.
I thought the moral aspect was discussed...and the people opposed to prostitution were very much leaning into the morality.
But I felt the actual title of the debate, the *legality* of prostitution, which is a related but distinct issue, wasn't nearly discussed enough. It was a 'prostitution good vs. bad' debate instead of questions of legal issues, what that would mean for the protection for prostitutes etc. That last crucial part was barely discussed.
so... it's legal to pay two people to have sex on camera... but not to pay for someone to have sex with you directly... okay...
They'd love to prohibit that as well. Their goal would ultimately be the same: incarcerate men who create or participate in pornographic films. Underground markets would flourish, and sadly much more child pornography would surface, along with videos of trafficked women.
Prohibitionists wish to alter reality unfortunately to the detriment of those they supposedly wish to protect.
All of those markets are already flourishing. Spend half an hour on Motherless and I guarantee you'll find CP and borderline rape. And that's not even deep web.
You guys argue that sex work isnt about the abuse of women but I can find ten videos that prove you wrong in the time it took me to type this.
And the fact that you want to blame rape and trafficking and child porn on people like me instead of the guys who create and watch it is pretty classic.
+Margaret Graham Trafficking for sure, as rape will still occur whether sex work is prohibited or not.
Visit a Nevada Bunny Ranch. Report back how many children employees you observe on the premises. Or how many trafficked people are employees. Your investigation will be short-lived.
You want the black market over legal, regulated markets? Fine. No blood on my hands.
Margaret Graham I can also find pornographic videos of women whipping, torturing, and berating men.....
Men are free to do with their money what they want. Women are free to do with their bodies what they want. We are free.
Throughout the debate, I thought that it was pretty obvious that the FOR side's arguments were weak and were constantly making an "appeal to emotion" fallacy by talking about coerced prostitution and trafficking which was not the topic. I am highly surprised that the audience voted more for the FOR side in the end.
I totally agree with you on the "for" side's cheap repeated effort to appeal to emotions and lacking rational arguments. However, unfortunately, we all know that people respond to emotional appeals and sometimes "emotional blackmail" far easier than they do to logic, reason. And "that" my friend ... is the biggest flaw in all democratic systems.
I barely managed 10 minutes, i thought you were exaggerating but no, it is far worse than you say. Full of lovely facts such as the average age girls become prostitutes being 13 OR 14, or that rape is worse than being force fed solid foods. That the word "hot" somehow encourages prostitution. Holy cow this stuff came right out of a very deep echo chamber somewhere in the bowels of social justice unreality.
It's interesting to note that in the UK the motion wasn't carried (the against won)
Julien Teychené That is interesting, though we are quite good at recognising that you cannot legislate personal morality. If promiscuous sex itself is legal and relatively safe, it comes down to is money in exchange for service questionable? Not at all, therefore it is hard to carry the motion, no matter how much one might dislike prostitution in general.
Actually coerced sex was the topic. The subject was is it wrong to pay for sex. That includes payment for all kinds of sex with all kinds of people under many different circumstances. There was no caveat that it was consensual sex between adults within an equal society. If payment for sex is OK, then it blurs the lines for when it's not.
It's not surprising that a larger amount of men think prostitution is OK. They are the sex that benefits most from it. Even the negative side made the case for benefiting men - ie, disabled, lonely, don't want to be "unfaithful" to their wives. And the Madam chose to overlook the negative effects on women which she had written about in her own book.
As with all grey subjects, it's about harm vs benefit. The negative failed to demonstrate that the benefits outweighed the harm.
Hissing feminist animals.
When some-one doesn't have an identity, they can't fight for their own rights?
+Sharon O'Donnell
I should have put a full stop rather than a question mark after that statement.
True judgement can never be reached for either side for u can not read the brains understanding of ideas, emotions and feelings. Words are a poor reflection of character.