I believe Slavery was an Evolutionary Step...

[ColinEssex]

So in the USA, if a female hooker is touting for business on a street, a car draws up, man inside, hooker gets in car and they go off to do the biz.
Is that illegal? If so who is the perpetrators, the hooker or man?
Col

 

[NauticalGent]

So in the USA, if a female hooker is touting for business on a street, a car draws up, man inside, hooker gets in car and they go off to do the biz.
Is that illegal? If so who is the perpetrators, the hooker or man?
Col

In some states, like Nevada, prostitution is legal although heavily regulated. Per your question, even in Nevada, both parties would be in violation and subject to arrest.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

So in the USA, if a female hooker is touting for business on a street, a car draws up, man inside, hooker gets in car and they go off to do the biz.
Is that illegal? If so who is the perpetrators, the hooker or man?
Col

In most states, it is illegal for both parties. Nevada allows prostitution in brothels but not on-street activities.

 

[ColinEssex]

Thank you. It seems a bit harsh to me.
In the UK it's easier to go to a 'massage' parlour, of which there are hundreds. In London, they openly display their 'services'. In Belgium, the girls sit virtually naked in shop windows to entice you in. I stayed in Brussels and (unknown to me) my hotel was in the red light district, all a bit much before breakfast.
Col

 

[NauticalGent]

Since you all asked me my opinion on this subject , I'll share it. I would never want one my daughters doing it but I do not look down upon the ladies who do it or their patrons.

While in Italy, the Americans stationed there would slander them and I would ask them had they ever had to wonder where the next meal was coming from or if they were going to have a roof over their head for themselves or family.

I have never been tested that way so I have no idea what measures I would take if I were.

 

[NauticalGent]

What I do object to are the criminals who force women to participate.

Agreed. They are the lowest life forms on earth.

Much as I hate state control over anything, the control gives the "sellers" (usually women) a semblance of safety to allow them to ply their trade.

I too do not like Government regulation, but if there MUST be some, it is better at the state level where it belongs...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The most important part is that the employees can be legally covered by insurance and workman's comp and a few other benefits. They get paid in a way that they don't have to file a so-called 5th-amendment tax return. They are legal.

 

[ColinEssex]

I agree with Pat. The gangmasters are the scum who force these girls into this trade, similar to the gangmasters who fleece refugees of money , usually thousands of euros each to cross the English Channel in overloaded rubber boats, many of whom sink en route to the UK.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

We have something similar. The "coyote" is the name applied to those who help refugees cross the USA/Mexican border. They take the money, often leave their "passengers" locked in a truck, and disappear, slinking off into the night. I'm not a violent person most of the time, but I would find it hard to grieve if someone killed a coyote.

 

[Isaac]

Women will never have equality until men get arrested at the same time and with the same frequency as their amant pour la nuit gets arrested. And until the baby-daddy can be forced to take a monetary interest in the kid he started before he left his one-night stand.

Why use the future tense?

The point we are making is that currently, only the man gets in trouble. The prostitutes are all considered trafficking victims.

Or maybe you were referring to the past I take it

 

[Isaac]

Certainly anyone who forces anyone into any type of servitude is an absolutely terrible thing!
Unfortunately though, currently in the USA, many people have misunderstood the connection between drug addiction and female prostitutes.
It is exceedingly common, if not the majority of female prostitutes, who have a drug addiction and are willingly selling sex for drug money.
The fact that there are inevitably males involved in the 'group' (as they tend to form groups in order to become more efficient and make more $ than they could separately) does not make the females 'trafficked', nor crime victims, necessarily.

I am simply pointing that out, not necessarily blaming anyone, except perhaps feminism, which has gone a bit far and excused everyone for everything, except of course, men.

The point is there is some of everything - people who actually do coerce women (or men, as there are plenty of male prostitutes here too) into such an industry is deplorable and must be prosecuted fully. That said, it is also not right to search for, and find, a person to assign blame to in cases where a woman is simply suffering from an addiction that has persuaded her to sell herself for money, in many cases with the help of males, who are generally also addicts no different from her, only lacking the thing that can be sold.

There is some of everything, and people should be cautious about "automatically" tending towards assigning blame in any direction but rather pursue accuracy based on each case.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Why use the future tense?

The point we are making is that currently, only the man gets in trouble. The prostitutes are all considered trafficking victims.

Or maybe you were referring to the past I take it

Because the laws are still asymmetric with respect to who gets arrested for the crime. No, Isaac, you are wrong. Prostitutes still get arrested in many jurisdictions. And the second part of what I said is still an issue as well. Men can flee an area and get out of paying for the seeds they sowed. I personally know of at least three cases where the men weaseled their way out of child support, leaving women high and dry - and preggers. It ALWAYS takes two to tango, and men have danced around their responsibilities for a long time. Child abandonment should be an extraditable crime, though I don't think it happens often enough to count for much.

 

[Isaac]

Maybe we live on different planets. What I see is that in the past, women were targeted for prostitution more than men. In the current, men are targeted and exposed with regularity, while women all become trafficking victims. The only evidence needed is a man somewhere participating in the money collection and the prosecution is in full swing. It's human nature to find someone else to blame for the situation. Many prosecutors have even made public statements that they are no longer prosecuting prostitution, and have made their reasoning clear: Because they believe most prostitution is trafficking in some way or another. Although, anyone who has been close to addiction knows full well that is not how and why most women of the streets are out there on the streets..

I agree, of course, that men should never abandon their responsibilities toward their children.

Men should be required to be financially responsible and, of course, be given equal custodial rights as a reward, similarly to how we often hear custodial effort associated with the burden women bear. They should go hand in hand.

Another massive influence on babies-without-marriages is society's boundless efforts to permit sex outside of marriage. A pretty simple solution would mostly solve the problem, or at least have a very big impact: Promote the idea that, although most people may not be perfect in this regard and that's fine, but at least promote the idea that it should be between a married couple. Amazing how the simplest of traditions solve the most complex-seeming problems.

There are major financial incentives not to marry, too. Those all need to be eliminated. Stop rewarding babies-without-marriage financially and you will be amazed how quickly the problem shrinks. Eliminate many of the ways women tend to gain the upper hand in divorces and you also may find more men willing to commit to something that no longer seems like such an unreasonable risk/reward ratio.

You are right that there are plenty of irresponsible men who leave their children and families. We just disagree about a question of degree and to a smaller extent, the reasons.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

We just disagree about a question of degree and to a smaller extent, the reasons.

I think we can agree that the current trend towards respecting women is good. The reasons that they were disrespected, however, are going to sit less well. Many major religions including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam treat women as inferior to men. You can name many good things that religion offers, but that misogynist attitude is not one of them.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

There are major financial incentives not to marry, too. Those all need to be eliminated. Stop rewarding babies-without-marriage financially and you will be amazed how quickly the problem shrinks. Eliminate many of the ways women tend to gain the upper hand in divorces and you also may find more men willing to commit to something that no longer seems like such an unreasonable risk/reward ratio.

Or you MIGHT just look at it in a different light...

You want to stop rewarding babies-without-marriage: In so doing, you completely deny the concept of that social safety net that everyone demands. You are against abortion... but are you against babies starving after they are born? Now you are penalizing the mother AND the child, because what mother is going to starve her child? Where is that Christian charity? Have you thought that through?

You want to eliminate women getting the upper hand in divorces: That shows your failure to recognize that women are also disadvantaged in the world of work so a guy who has a job will be hurt less than the woman who now has another mouth to feed. Ever hear of "the glass ceiling"? It is not a myth. It is a harsh reality for all too many women. My wife got the house in her divorce from her first husband, but because she had been busy caring for HIS babies, she lacked an advanced education. He got a new wife within months after the divorce. She got time-limited alimony. Just as well, because his ability to pay was diminishing rapidly after his 2nd divorce and 3rd marriage.

You complain about something that seems like such an unreasonable risk/reward ratio: But that is actually the point... if the guy is looking for an easy evening with no consequences, try five-finger Mary. Otherwise, the woman bears ALL of the risk while the guy gets all of the reward. Try keeping your pants zipped.

Your use of that particular style of logic is absolutely indicative of NOT understanding the problem. And in fact, it may make YOU a part of the problem since you appear to condone guys "sowing their wild oats" and "plowing fertile fields" and other farming euphemisms. You have been indoctrinated by your misogynist, female-suppressing religious background that is SO insidious that you don't even recognize it.

Isaac, you are a generally good guy. If it seems like I'm rubbing your face in something unpleasant, just remember I am responding to your own words. I honestly don't think you realize just HOW indoctrinated you are.

 

[Isaac]

Or you MIGHT just look at it in a different light...

You want to stop rewarding babies-without-marriage: In so doing, you completely deny the concept of that social safety net that everyone demands. You are against abortion... but are you against babies starving after they are born? Now you are penalizing the mother AND the child, because what mother is going to starve her child? Where is that Christian charity? Have you thought that through?

You want to eliminate women getting the upper hand in divorces: That shows your failure to recognize that women are also disadvantaged in the world of work so a guy who has a job will be hurt less than the woman who now has another mouth to feed. Ever hear of "the glass ceiling"? It is not a myth. It is a harsh reality for all too many women. My wife got the house in her divorce from her first husband, but because she had been busy caring for HIS babies, she lacked an advanced education. He got a new wife within months after the divorce. She got time-limited alimony. Just as well, because his ability to pay was diminishing rapidly after his 2nd divorce and 3rd marriage.

You complain about something that seems like such an unreasonable risk/reward ratio: But that is actually the point... if the guy is looking for an easy evening with no consequences, try five-finger Mary. Otherwise, the woman bears ALL of the risk while the guy gets all of the reward. Try keeping your pants zipped.

Your use of that particular style of logic is absolutely indicative of NOT understanding the problem. And in fact, it may make YOU a part of the problem since you appear to condone guys "sowing their wild oats" and "plowing fertile fields" and other farming euphemisms. You have been indoctrinated by your misogynist, female-suppressing religious background that is SO insidious that you don't even recognize it.

Isaac, you are a generally good guy. If it seems like I'm rubbing your face in something unpleasant, just remember I am responding to your own words. I honestly don't think you realize just HOW indoctrinated you are.

You often equate sentiments I describe as existing, and that sometimes, in some contexts, are grounded in truth, as if they were my own personal pov. Ie I'll describe something that some guys experience, then you'll requote it as if I had said that was the whole thing all the time.

You act as if I am on the lunatic on the fringe, I think you forget that billions of people are successfully living out the general life, marriage, faith, relatively content family experience which I describe.
The question is which of us is leaning more on bias vs experience or history?
I'm not sure.

I know, Doc, I don't take offense to what you say at all. I have enough observation & personal experience or testimonies bearing out most of my assertions - too many to leave me "wanting" for anyone's validation nor causing me to seek agreement for any such purpose

 

[Isaac]

I think we can agree that the current trend towards respecting women is good. The reasons that they were disrespected, however, are going to sit less well. Many major religions including Judaism, Christianity, and Islam treat women as inferior to men. You can name many good things that religion offers, but that misogynist attitude is not one of them.

Doc I just know you'll "like" this
It encapsulates just too many viewpoints I just may agree with a bit ... From my indoctrination, of course, certainly not from real world common sense observations!

Rookie Woman Wears Actual Clothing To Gym

CYPRESS, CA — Members of a local gym were shocked and distracted today after a woman — who was clearly new and not familiar with the expected attire of exercising females — spent her entire workout actually wearing clothing.

babylonbee.com

I guess my fave quote is

"When you're a woman coming to the gym, the first rule is to expose your body so you can get men to look at you and then become offended and angry that men are looking at you. Everyone knows this!"

 

[The_Doc_Man]

You act as if I am on the lunatic on the fringe, I think you forget that billions of people are successfully living out the general life, marriage, faith, relatively content family experience which I describe.

No, Isaac, I categorically DO NOT think of you as a fringe lunatic. I merely pointed out that a given position has consequences and I gave some logical (if not exclusive) examples of such consequences. I have both a blessing and a curse... I can imagine myself in various situations. When I am working on my novels, it can be a blessing to step through scenes logically (or illogically, since I AM working on a fantasy series). But the curse is that I can imagine the path people are on and can imagine which way it leads. It pains me to see such suffering, both actual and potential. But I am powerless to do much about it except to point out to people when their decisions will likely lead to poor results.

I don't play chess because often I'm too slow at imagining sequences and the die-hards play chess on a timer. But as a programmer, I can see pathways in my head and design complex code "shooting from the hip." (I don't always hit the target; I'm not perfect, after all, and have never claimed otherwise.) If I have any oddity in my life, it is the ability to switch between the forest and the trees quickly... and not always pick the same tree. It is part of that same ability to see things in logical progressions. It is the quintessential skill for system analysis, and I did that for the U.S. Navy for 28 1/2 years, and for TANO Corporation for 12 years.

As to your "billions of people...living the life" claim, a larger number of billions are not, due to poverty, disease, poor education, and oppressive governments.

 

[Isaac]

You'd be surprised. If there's one thing I've seen a lot of in Mexico, it's people living in poverty and poor education, and to an extent oppressed by crime, cartels and a corrupt useless government - living with what appears to be a lot more happiness than most Americans. They are happy because they value and preserve their family and their faith above all else.

Some of the poorest, most "oppressed" people are quite a bit happier than the most well-off Americans.

Anyway, and the examples I mentioned of men, women, divorce, marriage, they are all from personal experience with friends and people I know.
One of the greatest characters I have ever known got screwed over in a divorce/custody in a way that I realized was actually really common. Men used to have the upper hand, but they don't any more.

What I support is real equality. Not solutions that offer misandry as a solution to former misogyny.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

What I support is real equality. Not solutions that offer misandry as a solution to former misogyny.

I have no problem with the idea. But it has to start in childhood by teaching children about fairness to include gender fairness. For instance, a divorce court finding is already too late since one side or the other suffered before they got there.