Of course it does; sex is sold constantly. The police don’t care as long as you go though a charade that you aren’t doing so.
What you claim police care about is irrelevant as well is what police care about.
A trifle incoherent.
By the way, when was the last time the cops arrested a woman for having sex with a man who bought her dinner? Ever hear the term “dinner whore”? Or kept her, giving her gifts while she provides sex. A “kept woman” is just as much a prostitute as a streetwalker; she gets away with it because she’s respecting the taboo and pretending not to be a prostitute.
I think what he is getting at is that the fact that police don’t choose to enforce laws against an illegal act doesn’t make that act legal.
What police care about and what you claim police care about is irrelevant to what is and isn’t illegal. Is that better?
Never heard of it and if it happened, I don’t think the cops involved would have their jobs long as it would be a ridiculous arrest. There’s no laws being broken in your scenario. Plenty of women have had sex with me after I bought them dinner and no laws were broken. Or did you mean that she had sex with him in exchange for dinner? Never heard of anyone being arrested for that either- it’s a little hard to prove.
Sure, I’ve heard the expression. So what?
Did your father buy your mother gifts, clothes, food, etc? Was your mother a whore?
This is getting stupid and I’m going to stop responding to you now. I doubt I’ll be able to convince you of anything.
My honest reaction is to wonder why the Bensalem Township police have nothing better to do with their time than troll Craigslist looking for people to bust for prostitution in neighboring counties. Her ad even states that she lives in Philly, not Bensalem Township or even Bucks County.
She should have just prostituted herself for a virtual item like a World of Warcraft mount and it wouldn’t have involved the exchange of sex for a ‘real’ item, hence not legally prostitution. Hmm -that or she had offered cyber-sex in exchange for the tickets.
You don’t have your body no matter what. Indeed, that’s one of the central and most convincing arguments against legalizing prostitution: by having commercial sex within the domain of the law, you set up situations where other people take control of that most intimate capital, with the result that many people who engage it don’t have control of their own bodies.
Needless to say, this doesn’t look like one of those instances. It’s perfectly within the rights of the police to arrest someone for this, but that doesn’t make it worth their time.
Fantome is right, although prostitution is usually defined as a misdemeanor. Police, ironically, rarely care about enforcing certain things. Running a red light is more likely to get a cop on your tail than scalping or prostitution.
Yea yea Freedom is Slavery I get it.
How is this discrimination? It’s bloody stupid, but it isn’t discrimination, as I don’t believe the law allows anyone to sell sexual favors.
It’s discrimination against the poor. If you have no asset but your body you can just starve.
So your argument is that it’s MORE likely for someone to be forced or coerced into prostitution if it were legal?
:eek:
Well ok. Anything that involves a price system is discriminatory against the poor. Capitalism is discriminatory against the poor.
Kind of makes the phrase discriminatory pretty bloody meaningless.
Laws preventing the selling of one’s children are discrimination against the poor, because if you have no asset but your child you can just starve.
There are much better reasons to oppose laws against prostitution that an incorrect claim it is discriminatory.
I fail to see how using the term correctly makes it meaningless but YMMV.
Your children are people with their own rights and protections this is a disingenuous argument that doesn’t merit further attention.
:rolleyes: People should have the right to use their bodies as they see fit. Having sex for money is no worse than doing backbreaking construction.
It is meaningless because every law that prevents any kind of economic interaction can be classified as discriminatory. Hell, any law that prevents anything can be if you argue that people who are poor may have only that method that is now banned of earning money, and so the law prevents them from the capacity to earn enough money to eat. It is a specious argument.
I’d actually agree with you if you said prostitution laws were enforced in a discriminatory fashion. But the laws themselves aren’t discriminatory in a meaningful way.
Wow. Way to utterly miss the point. I oppose these laws. People should have the right to use their bodies as they see fit. Having sex for money is no worse than doing backbreaking construction. But it is not bloody discriminatory to ban it any more than it is discriminatory to ban selling children.
Now that doesn’t mean that I am equating laws against prostitution to laws against selling children. Reading it that way is completely mistaken. Calling it a disingenous argument is a sign you have missed the point.
Fair enough. Since we are not in substantive disagreement I’ll accept your point of semantics on the use of the word discriminatory.
mswas, I doubt you have a different definition of “discriminatory” since you said this:
“Laws preventing the selling of one’s children are discrimination against the poor”
What’s your definition of discriminatory?
No he didn’t. I did.
Oops, sorry. I still don’t see how he’s using another definition of “discriminatory” than the commonly used definition and the only definition for it that I’m aware of.
villa’s point wasn’t that I was using the word incorrectly but that I was using it in a way that was legally insignificant.