When folks are pro-prostitution, you can have the same kind of fun as with the worrybunnies who're all cranked and sanctimonious about overpopulation. You can insist that they name names. Who specifically are the ones who constitute excess humanity? To whom exactly have they recommended a career, or even a summer-break shift, of sex work?

Get those names. It'll be a short list.

And then you'll ask the enthusiast why they've never actually looked someone in the eye and said it out loud.

A distant acquaintance in L.A. uses the technique with the typically provincial SJWs who imagine themselves to be speaking for oppressed minorities… Whom they've never actually met.

Anybody remember a commenter named Cat Brother? He used to do that here, like, ten years ago.

Twitter Child Baseball Cuteness Part One: He'll spend the rest of his athletic life chasing the magic of that moment.

Twitter Child Baseball Cuteness Part Two: Note the dirt for his grip, the eager patience of his playmate, the diaper padding those slides into home, and the blunt, grown-up humility when he gets tagged on the second attempt.

I've had romantic opportunities with improbably beautiful women which were thaaaaat close....

Pilots must always remember to stop by the tower and file a flight plan…

Two pricks and an existential whine.

Status: quite true.

https://twitter.com/SeanTrende/status/1099051833107066880

Imagine you wanted to add three more syllables to the word "excruciating."

Paying a consenting adult for sex should not be news, a crime, or anyone else's business.

Let's take a look at what resulted in countries which have embraced legalized prostitution. Both Germany and New Zealand are experiencing human trafficking and exploitation of women far in excess of what they experienced prior to legalization.

Legalization is not all rainbows and unicorns, especially for the prostitutes..

> not all rainbows and unicorns

Exactly— People shouldn't be glib about this, as if it strike a posture of erotic sophistication.

No.

It is always claimed that prostitutes are being "exploited". If they are doing it against their will this is kidnapping and assault. But most of the time it is just ASSUMED that they are exploited because of course no one would be a prostitute of their own free will. Perhaps it is the best option of those available to them, or maybe they are lazy, or on drugs. Leave them alone, legalize it.

Saul Alinsky's Rules For Radicals #13

13. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

https://twitter.com/willsommer/status/1099109527784484865

Dear god Sixclaws, I thought that was a joke. Then I read the responses and I realized Sommer was completely serious. That's the problem with parody. No matter how silly and nonsensical you go there is always someone who is completely serious and even more silly and nonsensical.

@Ben,

Journalists -and that's a very liberal term- who work for these loss leader outlets figured out that Gawker's strategy also works for them: They go after the mundane people because unless there's a billionaire funding their victims' lawyers, they can pretty much get away with everything.

> But most of the time it is just
> ASSUMED that they are exploited
> because of course no one would
> be a prostitute of their own
> free will.

Your sarcasm is unauthorized. Yes, it is just "ASSUMED" most women would not spend a year in 1,500 encounters with "minimal" hygiene for imperceptible changes in their economic circumstance or opportunities.

"Most of the time," you say.



> Saul Alinsky's Rules

I can't tell what any of that means.

Crid: Go over to Maggie McNeil's web site (https://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/) and repeat your posts. Either you'll learn something, or you are incapable of learning... To begin with, your claim that escorts who charge $300 for a half-hour only gets an "imperceptible changes in their economic circumstance or opportunities" as compared to working at Walmart is ridiculous.

First of all, I'll visit the sites I wanna visit.

Secondly, I never said anything about "escorts who charge $300 for a half-hour."

Third, I never said anything about "working at Walmart."

Fourth, I don't think you spend much time with other people.

Crid,

"To whom exactly have they recommended a career, or even a summer-break shift, of sex work?
Get those names. It'll be a short list."

There are many vocations which I would not recommend to anyone, but that doesn't mean I'm going to make a crusade out of dissuading EVERYONE from entering them, let alone using the law to stop them.

"Yes, it is just "ASSUMED" most women would not spend a year in 1,500 encounters with "minimal" hygiene for imperceptible changes in their economic circumstance or opportunities."

There are plenty of women who take all the aspects of your scenario except the encounter count, for nothing more than servicing their own emotional health issues. A womanizing acquaintance frequently voiced his well-earned confidence that there was no level of ugliness, unfitness, poverty, age, or felony record for heinous crimes against women that would deprive him of access to sex with women as long as his radar for low self esteem remained functional. Both women and men can be equally indiscriminate in their choice of intimate encounters, only their reasons are different.

"First of all, I'll visit the sites I wanna visit."

You can't rationally dispute evidence you won't examine.

"Secondly, I never said anything about "escorts who charge $300 for a half-hour."

No, you didn't, but you made a generalization based on one extreme end of a spectrum. EVERY industry has an extreme exploitation segment, but that doesn't mean we outlaw commerce.

> that doesn't mean I'm going
> to make a crusade out of
> dissuading EVERYONE from
> entering them

You're undercooking the weirdness of your position. Sex work is like other jobs or it isn't. It isn't.

> There are plenty of women who
> take all the aspects of your
> scenario except the
> encounter count

Right. I say they shouldn't.

> You can't rationally dispute
> evidence you won't examine.

So present it. If you can't find the time or the articulation, I'll presume I know why not.

> you made a generalization
> based on one extreme end
> of a spectrum.

Sorry to have been unclear: I'd like to wipe the whole rainbow.

Glad we cleared that up!

"Paying a consenting adult for sex should not be news, a crime, or anyone else's business."

But it is stupid.

You're undercooking the weirdness of your position. Sex work is like other jobs or it isn't. It isn't.

It is, and like other occupations, it falls into a ranking of desirability. I've never recommended it to anyone because no one I know seems suited for it, but I'm aware of people whose mix of talents and other attributes makes it a realistic option. I've also never told anyone they should be a sanitation worker, or any number of other perfectly legal jobs that fill a need in our economy. The Discovey channel had a long series hosted by Mike Rowe devoted to exploring jobs that
most people wouldn't recommend. So, sorry, but your attempt to differentiate sex work from other jobs on the basis of whether one might recommend it to a friend is a failed syllogism.

Major premise: If you wouldn't recommend an occupation, that's a valid criteria for outlawing it.
Minor premise: X is an occupation you wouldn't recommend.
Conclusion: X should be illegal.
There are numerous values for X that falsify the syllogism.

Heck, I'd never recommend that anyone I like become a politician, and......OK so that one doesn't work.

"Right. I say they shouldn't."

*YOU* say - I missed the part where this ceased to be a free country with limited government and became a direct vehicle for imposing your personal taste on 330 million people. It's a free country, and people have the right to make lousy career (or relationship) choices of which you don't approve.

"So present it."

Markm did, in the form of a URL, just like formal academic writing uses footnotes. I didn't follow the link, but context suggests it leads to discussions among reasonably intelligent people who willingly choose sex work and are happy with the cost benefit equation.

"Sorry to have been unclear: I'd like to wipe the whole rainbow."

You were very clear - you'd like to wipe the whole rainbow and justify that impulse based on only the far infrared. You'd resurrect Mussolini because a few trains were late. That's not a valid argument, especially in, again, a free society.

Dennis - yes, I wholeheartedly agree that in many if not most cases, it is stupid.

However, if I had the power to outlaw everything I thought was stupid, it is almost certain that neither you nor Crid would want to live in that world. Out of consideration for you, Crid, and everyone else, I accept that I have no place using government to impose my definition of stupidity on others except where their stupidity materially infringes on my rights.

"Right. I say they shouldn't."

I agree 110%, and if they'll listen, I'll gladly spend an hour or two discussing why with them, but the decision is still theirs.

"Your entire fascist line of reasoning in this thread began with "when folks are pro-prostitution..." and is thus based on a false assumption. We're not pro-prostitution; we're pro-liberty. We don't necessarily like or endorse prostitution, but maybe we like or endorse owning guns, or inbibing intoxicants, or eating transfats, or anything else at which some type of busybodies take offense, and we realize that liberty is a sort of quid pro quo, so we give the tolerance we want to receive.

For instance, I find the recreational use of mind altering substances to be farm-animal stupid, but I'll defend anyone's right to do it, as long as my money isn't taken to relieve them from the consequences of their choices.