"Sex-Work"

[Luminesa]

"There are no 'inherently shady' businesses!" That's a libertarian answer if I ever heard one. It's amazing how fast some people will go full hyper-libertarian on sex work while ignoring how often sex-workers are abused and exploited, and how big of an issue human trafficking is.

I wish Jreg were here. He could use this idea for a video.

???

[The Marlborough]

I wish Jreg were here. He could use this idea for a video.

???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mPazYL5Nks

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I wish Jreg were here. He could use this idea for a video.

???

You don't know Jreg?

Observe, be blessed into the light of the gospel: https://youtu.be/0ZKx_Jjuf-U

[Luminesa]

???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mPazYL5Nks

Ohhhhhhh. I have been enlightened. Thank ya’ll.

[Katganistan]

I mean, “no blacks or Jews” probably wouldn’t fly

So their only option is to be raped if they don't want to be sued up through the courts? Fantastic.

Given restaurants and businesses can and have had signs saying "No shirt, no shoes, no service" I would imagine that sex workers, if it were legalized, would have the right to refuse to serve someone whom they truly felt uncomfortable with/endangered by.

[The Marlborough]

So their only option is to be raped if they don't want to be sued up through the courts? Fantastic.

Given restaurants and businesses can and have had signs saying "No shirt, no shoes, no service" I would imagine that sex workers, if it were legalized, would have the right to refuse to serve someone whom they truly felt uncomfortable with/endangered by.

Whether we like it or not, there would be sex workers who would not want to have sex with someone on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. If the position is to use the legal system to coerce them into having sex with people they do not want to have sex with then that is rape.

[Odreria]

Well, what came to mind was anti-discrimination regulations on businesses.

I mean, “no blacks or Jews” probably wouldn’t fly, but there should obviously be legal clarification that straight prostitutes do not have to fuck gay clients, and vice versa?

You actually wrote this. Wow.
I don't care if it's President Xi, fire and brimstone from heaven, or what. Someone please end America.

[Katganistan]

Given restaurants and businesses can and have had signs saying "No shirt, no shoes, no service" I would imagine that sex workers, if it were legalized, would have the right to refuse to serve someone whom they truly felt uncomfortable with/endangered by.

Whether we like it or not, there would be sex workers who would not want to have sex with someone on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. If the position is to use the legal system to coerce them into having sex with people they do not want to have sex with then that is rape.

I do not think that the system would force them to have sex with someone they do not want to have sex with.

I think the system would protect them from the physical abuse that sex workers often face, and would provide them safer working conditions and fair payment for their work.

[Galloism]

As opposed to breathing.

I mean you can't live without breathing, you can live without sex, sex is technically a basic need BUT this basic need is also something that usually involves emotional attachment. Even if you're not looking to psychologically care about a person, the chemicals in your body do help to create an attachment of sorts when you have sex (I mean, Gallo, you're the married one and I'm the virgin, you know this). Nobody here can say they've never felt an emotional attachment to sex or to a person who has created their sexual attraction. And most people who have an emotional attachment to someone don't equate them to food (not that I'm saying YOU are, but some other people might. I remember a poster on this website saying that having sex was like eating a hamburger, which is one of the grossest things I've ever heard).

Unrelated question: where would one acquire the hamburgers that poster was eating?

[Washington Resistance Army]

Whether we like it or not, there would be sex workers who would not want to have sex with someone on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. If the position is to use the legal system to coerce them into having sex with people they do not want to have sex with then that is rape.

I do not think that the system would force them to have sex with someone they do not want to have sex with.

I think the system would protect them from the physical abuse that sex workers often face, and would provide them safer working conditions and fair payment for their work.

That system sounds like it would conflict with federal anti-discrimination legislation.

[Odreria]

Perhaps there is a reason that just about every human society since the paleolithic era has viewed prostitution as a job of ill-repute or sought to restrict it. It can't be a coincidence that they all arrived at the same conclusion.

I don't think the Roman's ever tried to make it illegal.

I do not think we should go back to the days when it was acceptable to screw the children you owned.

[Luminesa]

I mean you can't live without breathing, you can live without sex, sex is technically a basic need BUT this basic need is also something that usually involves emotional attachment. Even if you're not looking to psychologically care about a person, the chemicals in your body do help to create an attachment of sorts when you have sex (I mean, Gallo, you're the married one and I'm the virgin, you know this). Nobody here can say they've never felt an emotional attachment to sex or to a person who has created their sexual attraction. And most people who have an emotional attachment to someone don't equate them to food (not that I'm saying YOU are, but some other people might. I remember a poster on this website saying that having sex was like eating a hamburger, which is one of the grossest things I've ever heard).

Unrelated question: where would one acquire the hamburgers that poster was eating?

I don’t know and did not ask.

[Katganistan]

I do not think that the system would force them to have sex with someone they do not want to have sex with.

I think the system would protect them from the physical abuse that sex workers often face, and would provide them safer working conditions and fair payment for their work.

That system sounds like it would conflict with federal anti-discrimination legislation.

This isn't quite the same thing, but here is a discussion on whether or not an actor in a porn film can be compelled to do a scene or work with someone they don't want to.

The consensus seems to be that they cannot be compelled to work, but if there are specific damages (that is -- the film was heavily promoted even before it was made, special venues were rented, et cetera, the employer that the actor signed the contract with COULD sue for damages.

They're speaking about contracts for porn actors (who are sex workers), and the fact that they cannot be forced to perform if they refuse -- however they may bear financial repercussions for that refusal.

[The Free Joy State]

I do not think that the system would force them to have sex with someone they do not want to have sex with.

I think the system would protect them from the physical abuse that sex workers often face, and would provide them safer working conditions and fair payment for their work.

That system sounds like it would conflict with federal anti-discrimination legislation.

So, prostitutes have signs that says, "No abusers, no gropers, no weirdos who make the worker feel uncomfortable" -- none of those are a protected class (as people who do not wear shirts to a restaurant are not a protected class and can be refused without penalty).

The state is not going to coerce people into having sex with someone against their will.

[The Marlborough]

That system sounds like it would conflict with federal anti-discrimination legislation.

This isn't quite the same thing, but here is a discussion on whether or not an actor in a porn film can be compelled to do a scene or work with someone they don't want to.

The consensus seems to be that they cannot be compelled to work, but if there are specific damages (that is -- the film was heavily promoted even before it was made, special venues were rented, et cetera, the employer that the actor signed the contract with COULD sue for damages.

They're speaking about contracts for porn actors (who are sex workers), and the fact that they cannot be forced to perform if they refuse -- however they may bear financial repercussions for that refusal.

Which is still wrong. The porn industry is known to have massive problems with abuse and coercion and I wouldn't be surprised if this is used as a threat.

[The Marlborough]

That system sounds like it would conflict with federal anti-discrimination legislation.

So, prostitutes have signs that says, "No abusers, no gropers, no weirdos who make the worker feel uncomfortable" -- none of those are a protected class.

The state is not going to coerce people into having sex with someone against their will.

What about people who are a protected class? Lets say there is a prostitute that refuses to have sex with black men, what then?

[Washington Resistance Army]

That system sounds like it would conflict with federal anti-discrimination legislation.

This isn't quite the same thing, but here is a discussion on whether or not an actor in a porn film can be compelled to do a scene or work with someone they don't want to.

The consensus seems to be that they cannot be compelled to work, but if there are specific damages (that is -- the film was heavily promoted even before it was made, special venues were rented, et cetera, the employer that the actor signed the contract with COULD sue for damages.

They're speaking about contracts for porn actors (who are sex workers), and the fact that they cannot be forced to perform if they refuse -- however they may bear financial repercussions for that refusal.

I'd say those are two very different things, yes. If, for example, you work at a brothel then there's not really any good argument to be made that you can deny service to someone who comes in because you don't like them or aren't attracted to them or whatever. It's a place of business offering a service, you can't just arbitrarily deny it, that's just fodder for a 14A court case.

[Galloism]

This isn't quite the same thing, but here is a discussion on whether or not an actor in a porn film can be compelled to do a scene or work with someone they don't want to.

The consensus seems to be that they cannot be compelled to work, but if there are specific damages (that is -- the film was heavily promoted even before it was made, special venues were rented, et cetera, the employer that the actor signed the contract with COULD sue for damages.

They're speaking about contracts for porn actors (who are sex workers), and the fact that they cannot be forced to perform if they refuse -- however they may bear financial repercussions for that refusal.

I'd say those are two very different things, yes. If, for example, you work at a brothel then there's not really any good argument to be made that you can deny service to someone who comes in because you don't like them or aren't attracted to them or whatever. It's a place of business offering a service, you can't just arbitrarily deny it, that's just fodder for a 14A court case.

I mean, only if it’s a state run brothel. Individuals and businesses can’t be sued for violating the 14th amendment.

[Katganistan]

This isn't quite the same thing, but here is a discussion on whether or not an actor in a porn film can be compelled to do a scene or work with someone they don't want to.

The consensus seems to be that they cannot be compelled to work, but if there are specific damages (that is -- the film was heavily promoted even before it was made, special venues were rented, et cetera, the employer that the actor signed the contract with COULD sue for damages.

They're speaking about contracts for porn actors (who are sex workers), and the fact that they cannot be forced to perform if they refuse -- however they may bear financial repercussions for that refusal.

Which is still wrong. The porn industry is known to have massive problems with abuse and coercion and I wouldn't be surprised if this is used as a threat.

It's not different from an actor or singer breaking a contract and having to bear the consequences for it -- which might include not being able to work for anyone else during the period they were contracted to work for the person who contracted their services as well as repaying any money they were given to perform.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'd say those are two very different things, yes. If, for example, you work at a brothel then there's not really any good argument to be made that you can deny service to someone who comes in because you don't like them or aren't attracted to them or whatever. It's a place of business offering a service, you can't just arbitrarily deny it, that's just fodder for a 14A court case.

I mean, only if it’s a state run brothel. Individuals and businesses can’t be sued for violating the 14th amendment.

So you're correct, this is why you shouldn't stay up late.

[Galloism]

I mean, only if it’s a state run brothel. Individuals and businesses can’t be sued for violating the 14th amendment.

So you're correct, this is why you shouldn't stay up late.

Because I’ll catch you?

[The Marlborough]

Which is still wrong. The porn industry is known to have massive problems with abuse and coercion and I wouldn't be surprised if this is used as a threat.

It's not different from an actor or singer breaking a contract and having to bear the consequences for it -- which might include not being able to work for anyone else during the period they were contracted to work for the person who contracted their services.

It is very different considering that it involves sex acts and there are laws against coercing people into sex.

[Thepeopl]

Monogamy is not evolutionary at all lmfao. Its a rejection of our evolutionary instincts.

Except for all the animals that are monogamous. So saying monogamy is only a social construct is likely false.

Now our current concept of monogamy as being for life likely is social. Men wanting to ensure they are the father of children they help raise does provide a genetic advantage. So jealousy( for lack of better word) to a degree is likely encoded into men. Because those who are not jealous often spend their time raising at least a share of other men's children.

https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/birds ... d=18949572
You mean this, right? About 90 % of the "monogamous" species has 50% non partner offspring.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20150228 ... n-partners
https://www.livescience.com/1135-wild-s ... -rare.html

[The Free Joy State]

So, prostitutes have signs that says, "No abusers, no gropers, no weirdos who make the worker feel uncomfortable" -- none of those are a protected class.

The state is not going to coerce people into having sex with someone against their will.

What about people who are a protected class? Lets say there is a prostitute that refuses to have sex with black men, what then?

Those criteria may apply to people of protected characteristics, too. If she refused him, not because of his race, but because of any of those reasons -- there would be no conceivable problem.

She could also refuse because she did not want to sleep with anyone else, or did not want to have sex at that specific time (even a prostitute is entitled to say 'no').

If she refused, telling him it was because of his race and that she only slept with white people, he might have a discrimination claim. Which, ultimately, he should lose, as no-one is entitled to remove someone else's bodily sovereignty -- even if said other person is a racist.

[Katganistan]

It's not different from an actor or singer breaking a contract and having to bear the consequences for it -- which might include not being able to work for anyone else during the period they were contracted to work for the person who contracted their services.

It is very different considering that it involves sex acts and there are laws against coercing people into sex.

Then clearly you did not read the source I posted.
No, the law cannot compel you to perform a sex act you do not wish to perform. A contract cannot force you to do something illegal -- I can't make you sign a contract to commit murder, then use the courts to force you to do it. Nor can it force someone to have sex.

The law cannot compel a singer to get on stage and sing if they decide not to either.

What the law CAN do is force the service provider to return any money they have been given for said act, might be barred from working for anyone else for the specific time period agreed on in the contract, and might be forced to pay damages if the person they signed the contract with is out money that can't be recouped by a replacement actor.

And if word gets around that a particular provider of services is unreliable, that is, breaks many contracts, it's reasonable that they may find it difficult to find work in that industry.