I understand being against prostitution, but do you not see the difference between, say, a woman that wants nice things so she dates rich men and has sex with them in hopes that they will buy her nice things and a women posting an ad where she flatly advertises that she will exchange sex for merchandise?
Because prosecuters prosecute criminals. That’s their job.
Unless police officers baited her into posting that ad, it seems there was no entrapment.
K fair enough. It’s still ridiculous. You should be able to fuck someone for anything you want. That’s discrimination of the worst kind, telling someone that the one asset that they have no matter what, they aren’t able to capitalize on.
Hey now screwing whoever they want for whatever they want is the realm of lawyers it just wouldn’t be fair if all these unlicensed women went out and did the same thing!
In general I’m against prostitution laws. That said prostitution laws exist and a majority of people want them to continue so I think it’s reasonable for the police to find and prosecute people who wish to sell themselves regardless of what they take in payment.
This is what is known as “daring the police not to arrest you”. They almost have to go after you when you do something stupid like this. Moral right or wrong (and I am 100% behind the legalization of prostitution), it is still illegal and the police have an obligation to interfere. It is, in point of fact, their actual job to do so.
I may believe (and do in fact) that I have a moral right to smoke a doobie. If I placed an ad offering to exchange weed for Phillies tickets, even the most blind-eye John Law has an obligation to get off his ass and come bust me for it. Even if it is really, reeeeeally good weed. Smells like blueberries. Even for nosebleed seats. I am willing to negotiate.
If a person says you must give me these things for a single sexually session it is prostitution. When the offer is extended to people you have never met then there is little doubt it is something other then prostitution.
Has it somehow escaped your attention that every single state in the United States has laws against prostitution? Even Nevada, which legalizes it in some counties, does not offer blanket freedom to engage in prostitution.
So when you say, “You should be able to fuck someone for anything you want,” you’re simply whining about some vision of how you think things should be. You think it should be true, and that’s the extent of your analysis of the issue, huh? And considering your first shot out of the gate was to call the officers stormtroopers and hilariously suggest that the woman was entrapped into advertising the exchange of sex for tickets on Craiglist, I think you’ve made clear the analytical effort you’ve devoted to the issue at hand.
Yes, in my vision of how things should be, I believe in Freedom to exchange the only asset you have in order to better your material situation. If you have nothing else to offer then sex should be a viable option.
Argumentum Ad Hominem is not a stable way to establish the intellectual superiority of one’s position.
She didn’t advertise sex, and no, I really don’t see the difference between a woman pretending to be interested in someone just to get material things and being honest and negotiating for said things. In face, I think the latter case is more moral.
The ad didn’t mention sex. It just said she would “do anything” for Phillies tickets–then the cops called and in the insuing conversation, sex came up.