Quote:
Originally Posted by blankall
I wasn't really agreeing with you at all.
And you're argument about removing women from corners is also BS. Right now women don't have to work corners. They can work at massage parlors, advertise through craigslist. They work corners for other reasons that prostitution laws in themseleves are not capable of addressing.
Men also don't have to go to corners to find women. The kind of men who pick up desperate women, who look like crack whores, on corners are not going to pay for expensive bunny ranch type services.
As for decreasing demand, how do you know it wouldn't just force the women to charge less for their services, making them even more desperate?
Nope....doesn't "close the door" on anything. Prostitution is already legal. We are talking about legalizing bunny ranches and pimps. So stop clouding the issue.
Like I said before, it won't help desperate women and all it does do is encourage human trafficking.
|
We are? Really? Actually we're talking about turning an industry that has always existed into a regulated and controlled industry. I fail to see how doing so runs contrary to anything you've posted. Unless of course you think the fact that you can find hookers on craiglist now means that they aren't still under the control of pimps and that the evils of an underground sex trade don't exist there.
Seriously, how does a controlled, taxed, policed and regulated sex trade not present a step up for the well being of everyone involved? If this is an issue of beuracracy maybe you'd have a point, but that's not what you've argued. Less criminal elements involved in the sex trade? Check. More supervision and regualtion of conditions for workers? Check. Contained legal sites preventing sprawl into residential neighborhoods? Check.
BTW, please read my posts again. There are multiple instances where you've been arguing against a point despite the fact that I said the exact same thing as you. An example being the fact that there are issues involved that prostiution laws are not able to address, apparently you didn't agree with me at all yet you said the same thing I did in the post you quoted.