When hundreds of grass-roots women's rights organisations around the world support the Nordic Model, you think it's fake/regressive left? Fake regressive left is thinking men have a right to buy women's bodies, and that women enjoy it.
Thank you for answering the question: the money is to keep herself fed and a roof over her head. The transaction has absolutely nothing to do with women's sexuality, and everything to do with male fantasy. He's buying her consent because she has no other choice. He's bypassing consent with money.
You really think there are far worse jobs? How would you like to be anally raped 20 times a day? Can you think of a worse 'job' than having a strange man stick his penis up your anus not once, not twice, but twenty times a day.
You have been inculcated and manipulated by the regressive left media that panders to men and their rights to orgasm above all else. This is a good piece on why it's not a job 'just like any other': http://logosjournal.com/2014/watson/ This is what the MSM does not report, because it does not run with their narrative that prostitution is full of happy hookers. This is a snippet:
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) is responsible for overseeing worker safety and health in the U.S. They specify the standards for worker safety regarding in employment contexts that include exposure to blood borne pathogens and other potentially infectious materials (of which sperm counts)[19], as they are concerned with the potential transmission of HIV or Hepatitis, or other infectious diseases. The sexual acts that form the necessary working conditions for (persons) women selling sex means that routine “Occupational Exposure” is intrinsic to the “job”. Occupational exposure “means reasonably anticipated skin, eye, mucous membrane, or parenteral contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials that may result from the performance of an employee’s duties.”[20] Employers must “list … all tasks and procedures or groups of closely related task and procedures in which occupational exposure occurs…” and [t]his exposure determination shall be made without regard to the use of personal protective equipment.”[21] So, presumably, every potential sex act would need to be on the list, as “tasks”, in which occupational exposure occurs, and the list needs to be made without reference to condom use because the list is required list exposure threat without reference to personal protective equipment
Condom use certainly would be a minimum requirement for compliance with OSHA standards. However, condom use will not be sufficient to meet OSHA regulations, for: “All procedures involving blood or other potentially infectious materials shall be performed in such a manner as to minimize splashing, spraying, spattering, and generation of droplets of these substances.”[22] Condoms break, they are not foolproof. Moreover, condoms break more frequently in anal sex. The CDC states that receptive anal sex with an HIV positive person, even with a condom, represents a 100X greater risk for contracting HIV than oral sex with a condom.[23] Anal sex, with an HIV positive partner, without a condom puts the “recipient” at a 2000X greater risk for contracting HIV than oral sex with a condom.[24] Condoms, while reducing risk, does not eliminate it, nor arguably does it “minimize risk” per the OSHA standard; Condoms also don’t protect against all sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The CDC makes clear that, though condoms can reduce some STIs, they are not effective for all STIs, HPV and genital ulcers occur in places that condoms don’t cover, and hence condom use is not necessarily an effective prophylactic in all cases.[25] Moreover, we know that even where condoms are required by law, “clients” often prefer not to use them.[26] We also know that the most vulnerable among persons selling sex are the least likely to use condoms (to have the power to require purchasers of sex to use them), for example, transgendered persons and “migrant sex-workers.”[27]
Wow, are you seriously quoting The Huffington Post? They are part of the Fake Left, the Regressive Left, mates with Soros. The Nordic Model has been instituted by the world's most feminist countries.
You are a shill, and you're trotting out the same, old tired line of Open Society and Soros in talking about the 'agency' of prostitutes. What 'agency' does a woman trying to keep a roof over her head have? It would be great to call it 'choice' when women 'choose' prostitution when the only other 'choice' they have is homelessness and starvation.
It's extremely paternalistic and misogynistic to speak up for johns, punters, sex buyers, which is what you're doing. You care not a jot for the vulnerable women in prostitution; you want johns to be able to abuse and rape these women.
It is a fallacy to say that prostitutes LIKE having sex with men they can't stand the sight of or the smell of. Fat, dirty, creepy old men who think they can do anything to a woman once they've paid for her. Men who act out their violent fantasies on women; men who hate-fuck women.
It's also extremely paternalistic to try to draw a nexus between prostitution and women enjoying sex. That myth has been created by men who want to keep justifying and rationalising their abuse of vulnerable women; the same men who want to believe that what they're doing is not abuse; the same men who want the world in which women can be bought and sold like cattle can continue. The Happy Hooker myth is that--a myth. Here's a little fact for you: prostitution is ALL about men's right to sex and women's bodies. Prostitution is the antithesis of women's sexuality. In prostitution women are expected to put forward and pretend for the man who's buying her. She has to put aside her urge to vomit, her own human-ness, her own sexuality, to get through it. That's why women who cannot dissociate from it cannot make good prostitutes. The only ones who can survive are those who dissociate. That dissociation then leads to mental illness like anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, which then leads to drugs and alcohol, and other mind-numbing chemicals.
Every single woman I've known who prostituted herself ended up hating all men. They'll talk about 'taking one for the team'. Sure, they know how to have an orgasm with a punter, but they switch themselves off while doing so.
Every women who has had to prostitute herself, and has the hindsight and objectivity, will tell you of their hatred of the job.
If the prostitute really wants to have sex, what's the money for? If it's such a great job, why aren't female doctors, lawyers and CEO's rushing to do it as well? I'll wait while you think about it.
You've misunderstood. The Nordic Model decriminalises the selling of sex. A woman can sell sex anywhere she wants--outside a church or a school. Because the Nordic Model acknowledges the imbalance of power in the transaction, and recognises that the danger in prostitution comes from the violence of the buyers, it is buying that is decriminalised. It is the men who are punished. That men are bypassing consent with money, and coercing a desperate women into unwanted sex. Prostitution is basically paid rape.
You're defending nation-wide legalization of prostitution, based on 1) your approval of a handful of county-regulated, county-profiting businesses that operate in the middle of Nowhere, NV, 2) an "it's going to happen anyway, so might as well" attitude, and 3) saying "research has shown" without citing it, or acknowledging the fact that opposition research exists.
You'll probably get your way, but nobody will EVER convince me that legalizing the "renting" of human beings — many of whom are vulnerable, manipulatable, at-risk, desperate... — for sex, is anything but barbaric.
Soros funds most red-umbrella organisations, being those orgs that advocate for decriminalisation or legalisation of prostitution. Soros has given Human RIghts Watch $100 million. Soros has also heavily funded Amnesty International, which a couple of years ago declared that its position on prostitution was that it should be decriminalised or legalised. Human Rights Watch backed Amnesty on this issue.
All independent women's rights organisations around the world advocate for the Nordic Model of prostitution. The Nordic Model has been adopted by Sweden, Norway, France, Northern Ireland, Canada and a couple of other countries. It acknowledges the imbalance of power in the transaction: the buyer is usually a middle-class male; the seller is usually an impoverished, marginalised woman who has few real choices in life. Studies show that the overwhelming majority of prostituted women come from dysfunctional childhoods, with abuse and trauma. Many, in an attempt to re-frame that trauma, turn to prostitution. In fact, prostitution further re-traumatises and that's why many end up drug-addicted and with alcohol-problems. Studies also show that prostituted women suffer the same rates of PTSD as do war veterans. This is not a job just like any other. Studies also show that jurisdictions which have legalised/decriminalised prostitution are prime trafficking destinations and that legalisation increases trafficking. Germany, the Netherlands are good examples. There are not enough local women to fill demand in first-world countries, so women are trafficked from Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia. Many are lured by promises of work as waitresses or housecleaners. When they arrive, they are forced to service up to 20 men a day, their passports are confiscated, and they are held in debt-bondage. In Germany there are flat-rate brothels which offer menus where men can choose from gang bangs, anal sex without condoms, cutting and torturing of women. Germany acknowledges it has a problem but Merkel has failed to tackle the issue because of the tax dollars it brings into government coffers.
Despite this knowledge, Amnesty (and WHO & UNAids) have all declared that they're on the side of decriminalisation of johns/punters/sex buyers. The violence in prostitution comes from the sex buyers. The Nordic Model seeks to end demand. It criminalises the buying of sex, not the selling. Women are free to go to the police to report on violent punters knowing that they will be protected by the authorities. Also part of the Nordic Model are counselling offered to women wanting to exit the industry. They are provided with job training, housing assistance and alcohol and drug counselling. Jill Stein adopted the Nordic Model as her policy position.
Amnesty sought members who were on board with wanting to call for decriminalisation. It stacked its branches. It did no consultation and simply pushed forward its policy. Douglas Fox, a UK pimp, took credit for Amnesty's policy. Amnesty International has lost a lot of credibility because of this, as now everyone knows it is a paid flunky of Soros. Emails to members were leaked, members told of how they were left in the cold when it came to voting. It was a fait accompli; a done deal.
Soros funds all the red umbrella orgs (that I know of) in third world countries like India and Thailand. Sangram is one such organisation that claims it represents prostitutes. Head of Sangram, Meena Seshu, was found to have trafficked children back into brothels after they'd been rescued. Somehow, Sangram was receiving USAid money. There was a big deal made of the issue when it happened. Sorry for the long post.
Porn stars have cameras and witnesses, prostitutes don't. Legalized prostitution is a lawyer's dream. From safeguards against rape, to discrimination claims, to... I can't imagine the regulations they'd propose, but it would be a fun read.
I respect your belief in adult body sovereignty. However, FBIanon says that George Soros is the head of the serpent so to speak. Considering his financial ties to groups like NAMBLA I don' think it exclusively involves adults either. In this instance I am more than happy to be wrong though.
I'm no expert on this issue, and I don't have a position on it morally, but it seems to me that legalizing prostitution would be safer for the prostitutes, if the transactions are not illegal, then prostitutes can use the police if they are in danger, there can be arrests for threats/assault, and the courts can be used for nonpayment issues. Basically pimps are made extraneous, and vulnerable people are less likely to be groomed or trafficked.
I don't have a stance either but I read something about having the criminal aspect to it allowed for the police to remove the girls, get them away from the pimps, and offer help and actually being able to get many of them out of the pimps control. It seemed to be used as a tool and not a weapon. Now if the police see it (assuming it's a decent cop), they can't do anything.
I can understand and respect that view although I disagree with it (legalized prostitution in Germany is still no picnic, for example.). My view is that Soros is probably already behind human trafficking (FBIanon claims this) and is simply trying to smokescreen his efforts and possibly socially legitimize some of it.
I can't imagine prostitution being a picnic for anyone and I wouldn't want anyone forced into that kind of work for whatever reason, don't get me wrong.
Many countries have that and it is regulated, disease free and much safer and financially viable for the ladies.......
I am not a fundie but obviously many are......be you Muslim, baptist or any other brain damaged individual.
You've been fed a lie that it's much safer and financially viable. I know many women who've worked under decriminalisation and said that it's much worse that illegal.
I'm hardly a fundie. Not even religious. I just don't think Soros actually cares about HIV rates and that he has ulterior motives. Also legalized prostitution isn't some sort of social panacea, dumbass.
Billions of dollars is tied up in the HIV-AiDs industry because of the money poured into it by governments. Those on the gravy train are keen to keep that train moving. That's one of the reasons they fight hard for decriminalisation, so that they can keep getting the government money to fight AIDs. If there weren't a big sex industry, AIDs money would drop off.
Piscina ago
When hundreds of grass-roots women's rights organisations around the world support the Nordic Model, you think it's fake/regressive left? Fake regressive left is thinking men have a right to buy women's bodies, and that women enjoy it.
Thank you for answering the question: the money is to keep herself fed and a roof over her head. The transaction has absolutely nothing to do with women's sexuality, and everything to do with male fantasy. He's buying her consent because she has no other choice. He's bypassing consent with money.
You really think there are far worse jobs? How would you like to be anally raped 20 times a day? Can you think of a worse 'job' than having a strange man stick his penis up your anus not once, not twice, but twenty times a day.
You have been inculcated and manipulated by the regressive left media that panders to men and their rights to orgasm above all else. This is a good piece on why it's not a job 'just like any other': http://logosjournal.com/2014/watson/ This is what the MSM does not report, because it does not run with their narrative that prostitution is full of happy hookers. This is a snippet:
OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) is responsible for overseeing worker safety and health in the U.S. They specify the standards for worker safety regarding in employment contexts that include exposure to blood borne pathogens and other potentially infectious materials (of which sperm counts)[19], as they are concerned with the potential transmission of HIV or Hepatitis, or other infectious diseases. The sexual acts that form the necessary working conditions for (persons) women selling sex means that routine “Occupational Exposure” is intrinsic to the “job”. Occupational exposure “means reasonably anticipated skin, eye, mucous membrane, or parenteral contact with blood or other potentially infectious materials that may result from the performance of an employee’s duties.”[20] Employers must “list … all tasks and procedures or groups of closely related task and procedures in which occupational exposure occurs…” and [t]his exposure determination shall be made without regard to the use of personal protective equipment.”[21] So, presumably, every potential sex act would need to be on the list, as “tasks”, in which occupational exposure occurs, and the list needs to be made without reference to condom use because the list is required list exposure threat without reference to personal protective equipment
Condom use certainly would be a minimum requirement for compliance with OSHA standards. However, condom use will not be sufficient to meet OSHA regulations, for: “All procedures involving blood or other potentially infectious materials shall be performed in such a manner as to minimize splashing, spraying, spattering, and generation of droplets of these substances.”[22] Condoms break, they are not foolproof. Moreover, condoms break more frequently in anal sex. The CDC states that receptive anal sex with an HIV positive person, even with a condom, represents a 100X greater risk for contracting HIV than oral sex with a condom.[23] Anal sex, with an HIV positive partner, without a condom puts the “recipient” at a 2000X greater risk for contracting HIV than oral sex with a condom.[24] Condoms, while reducing risk, does not eliminate it, nor arguably does it “minimize risk” per the OSHA standard; Condoms also don’t protect against all sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The CDC makes clear that, though condoms can reduce some STIs, they are not effective for all STIs, HPV and genital ulcers occur in places that condoms don’t cover, and hence condom use is not necessarily an effective prophylactic in all cases.[25] Moreover, we know that even where condoms are required by law, “clients” often prefer not to use them.[26] We also know that the most vulnerable among persons selling sex are the least likely to use condoms (to have the power to require purchasers of sex to use them), for example, transgendered persons and “migrant sex-workers.”[27]
Piscina ago
Wow, are you seriously quoting The Huffington Post? They are part of the Fake Left, the Regressive Left, mates with Soros. The Nordic Model has been instituted by the world's most feminist countries.
You are a shill, and you're trotting out the same, old tired line of Open Society and Soros in talking about the 'agency' of prostitutes. What 'agency' does a woman trying to keep a roof over her head have? It would be great to call it 'choice' when women 'choose' prostitution when the only other 'choice' they have is homelessness and starvation.
It's extremely paternalistic and misogynistic to speak up for johns, punters, sex buyers, which is what you're doing. You care not a jot for the vulnerable women in prostitution; you want johns to be able to abuse and rape these women.
It is a fallacy to say that prostitutes LIKE having sex with men they can't stand the sight of or the smell of. Fat, dirty, creepy old men who think they can do anything to a woman once they've paid for her. Men who act out their violent fantasies on women; men who hate-fuck women.
It's also extremely paternalistic to try to draw a nexus between prostitution and women enjoying sex. That myth has been created by men who want to keep justifying and rationalising their abuse of vulnerable women; the same men who want to believe that what they're doing is not abuse; the same men who want the world in which women can be bought and sold like cattle can continue. The Happy Hooker myth is that--a myth. Here's a little fact for you: prostitution is ALL about men's right to sex and women's bodies. Prostitution is the antithesis of women's sexuality. In prostitution women are expected to put forward and pretend for the man who's buying her. She has to put aside her urge to vomit, her own human-ness, her own sexuality, to get through it. That's why women who cannot dissociate from it cannot make good prostitutes. The only ones who can survive are those who dissociate. That dissociation then leads to mental illness like anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, which then leads to drugs and alcohol, and other mind-numbing chemicals.
Every single woman I've known who prostituted herself ended up hating all men. They'll talk about 'taking one for the team'. Sure, they know how to have an orgasm with a punter, but they switch themselves off while doing so.
Every women who has had to prostitute herself, and has the hindsight and objectivity, will tell you of their hatred of the job.
If the prostitute really wants to have sex, what's the money for? If it's such a great job, why aren't female doctors, lawyers and CEO's rushing to do it as well? I'll wait while you think about it.
Piscina ago
You've misunderstood. The Nordic Model decriminalises the selling of sex. A woman can sell sex anywhere she wants--outside a church or a school. Because the Nordic Model acknowledges the imbalance of power in the transaction, and recognises that the danger in prostitution comes from the violence of the buyers, it is buying that is decriminalised. It is the men who are punished. That men are bypassing consent with money, and coercing a desperate women into unwanted sex. Prostitution is basically paid rape.
rooting4redpillers ago
You're defending nation-wide legalization of prostitution, based on 1) your approval of a handful of county-regulated, county-profiting businesses that operate in the middle of Nowhere, NV, 2) an "it's going to happen anyway, so might as well" attitude, and 3) saying "research has shown" without citing it, or acknowledging the fact that opposition research exists.
You'll probably get your way, but nobody will EVER convince me that legalizing the "renting" of human beings — many of whom are vulnerable, manipulatable, at-risk, desperate... — for sex, is anything but barbaric.
Piscina ago
Soros, Open Society and Amnesty: https://thinkoutsidetheboxer.wordpress.com/2014/10/06/ngos-the-best-pr-and-spin-doctors-that-sex-industry-money-can-buy/
Piscina ago
If you're interested in being made aware of the reality (and not buying into the MSM BS about this) read these:
Study showing decriminalisation increases trafficking: https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/
Dr Kraus worked with prostituted women: https://liberationlanguage.wordpress.com/2014/02/02/dr-ingeborg-kraus-prostitution-and-choice/ http://www.trauma-and-prostitution.eu/en/ The reality of Germany's prostitution industry: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2929695/Girls-sleep-20-men-NIGHT-men-say-sex-service-seedy-world-Germany-s-biggest-brothel-revealed-s-totally-legal.html
Piscina ago
'Consenting'? When a woman is trying to keep a roof over her head and put food in her mouth, it's hardly a 'choice'.
Piscina ago
Soros funds most red-umbrella organisations, being those orgs that advocate for decriminalisation or legalisation of prostitution. Soros has given Human RIghts Watch $100 million. Soros has also heavily funded Amnesty International, which a couple of years ago declared that its position on prostitution was that it should be decriminalised or legalised. Human Rights Watch backed Amnesty on this issue.
All independent women's rights organisations around the world advocate for the Nordic Model of prostitution. The Nordic Model has been adopted by Sweden, Norway, France, Northern Ireland, Canada and a couple of other countries. It acknowledges the imbalance of power in the transaction: the buyer is usually a middle-class male; the seller is usually an impoverished, marginalised woman who has few real choices in life. Studies show that the overwhelming majority of prostituted women come from dysfunctional childhoods, with abuse and trauma. Many, in an attempt to re-frame that trauma, turn to prostitution. In fact, prostitution further re-traumatises and that's why many end up drug-addicted and with alcohol-problems. Studies also show that prostituted women suffer the same rates of PTSD as do war veterans. This is not a job just like any other. Studies also show that jurisdictions which have legalised/decriminalised prostitution are prime trafficking destinations and that legalisation increases trafficking. Germany, the Netherlands are good examples. There are not enough local women to fill demand in first-world countries, so women are trafficked from Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia. Many are lured by promises of work as waitresses or housecleaners. When they arrive, they are forced to service up to 20 men a day, their passports are confiscated, and they are held in debt-bondage. In Germany there are flat-rate brothels which offer menus where men can choose from gang bangs, anal sex without condoms, cutting and torturing of women. Germany acknowledges it has a problem but Merkel has failed to tackle the issue because of the tax dollars it brings into government coffers.
Despite this knowledge, Amnesty (and WHO & UNAids) have all declared that they're on the side of decriminalisation of johns/punters/sex buyers. The violence in prostitution comes from the sex buyers. The Nordic Model seeks to end demand. It criminalises the buying of sex, not the selling. Women are free to go to the police to report on violent punters knowing that they will be protected by the authorities. Also part of the Nordic Model are counselling offered to women wanting to exit the industry. They are provided with job training, housing assistance and alcohol and drug counselling. Jill Stein adopted the Nordic Model as her policy position.
Amnesty sought members who were on board with wanting to call for decriminalisation. It stacked its branches. It did no consultation and simply pushed forward its policy. Douglas Fox, a UK pimp, took credit for Amnesty's policy. Amnesty International has lost a lot of credibility because of this, as now everyone knows it is a paid flunky of Soros. Emails to members were leaked, members told of how they were left in the cold when it came to voting. It was a fait accompli; a done deal.
Soros funds all the red umbrella orgs (that I know of) in third world countries like India and Thailand. Sangram is one such organisation that claims it represents prostitutes. Head of Sangram, Meena Seshu, was found to have trafficked children back into brothels after they'd been rescued. Somehow, Sangram was receiving USAid money. There was a big deal made of the issue when it happened. Sorry for the long post.
Tanngrisnir ago
No need to apologize for the long posts. I learned a lot from your comments links. Really appreciate it.
rooting4redpillers ago
Porn stars have cameras and witnesses, prostitutes don't. Legalized prostitution is a lawyer's dream. From safeguards against rape, to discrimination claims, to... I can't imagine the regulations they'd propose, but it would be a fun read.
Tanngrisnir ago
I respect your belief in adult body sovereignty. However, FBIanon says that George Soros is the head of the serpent so to speak. Considering his financial ties to groups like NAMBLA I don' think it exclusively involves adults either. In this instance I am more than happy to be wrong though.
2impendingdoom ago
I'm no expert on this issue, and I don't have a position on it morally, but it seems to me that legalizing prostitution would be safer for the prostitutes, if the transactions are not illegal, then prostitutes can use the police if they are in danger, there can be arrests for threats/assault, and the courts can be used for nonpayment issues. Basically pimps are made extraneous, and vulnerable people are less likely to be groomed or trafficked.
eiggaMAD ago
I don't have a stance either but I read something about having the criminal aspect to it allowed for the police to remove the girls, get them away from the pimps, and offer help and actually being able to get many of them out of the pimps control. It seemed to be used as a tool and not a weapon. Now if the police see it (assuming it's a decent cop), they can't do anything.
Tanngrisnir ago
I can understand and respect that view although I disagree with it (legalized prostitution in Germany is still no picnic, for example.). My view is that Soros is probably already behind human trafficking (FBIanon claims this) and is simply trying to smokescreen his efforts and possibly socially legitimize some of it.
Fingersweating ago
Well that was eye opening about legal prostitution in Germany. Hmm. Fascinating.
2impendingdoom ago
I can't imagine prostitution being a picnic for anyone and I wouldn't want anyone forced into that kind of work for whatever reason, don't get me wrong.
Tanngrisnir ago
Nah, I gotcha. Sorry, just a figure of speech.
2impendingdoom ago
I think we agree, Soros = evil, prostitution = sad.
geosprintforever ago
Many countries have that and it is regulated, disease free and much safer and financially viable for the ladies....... I am not a fundie but obviously many are......be you Muslim, baptist or any other brain damaged individual.
Piscina ago
You've been fed a lie that it's much safer and financially viable. I know many women who've worked under decriminalisation and said that it's much worse that illegal.
Tanngrisnir ago
I'm hardly a fundie. Not even religious. I just don't think Soros actually cares about HIV rates and that he has ulterior motives. Also legalized prostitution isn't some sort of social panacea, dumbass.
http://nypost.com/2014/06/10/germany-experiencing-brothel-boom-but-is-prostitution-safer/
Scablifter ago
It is in New Zealand.
Piscina ago
Billions of dollars is tied up in the HIV-AiDs industry because of the money poured into it by governments. Those on the gravy train are keen to keep that train moving. That's one of the reasons they fight hard for decriminalisation, so that they can keep getting the government money to fight AIDs. If there weren't a big sex industry, AIDs money would drop off.