# Germany can force a woman to work as a prostitute? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 31, 2005, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507 "2005-01-31T01:45:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bosda_di_chi_of_tricor/32/16845_2.png) [@Bosda\_Di\_Chi\_of\_Tricor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bosda_Di_Chi_of_Tricor)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/21 "2005-01-31T13:15:50Z")
> [@BlackKnight](#): > > I don’t see a problem with it. > > Nobody is being forced into prostitution. However, if they are able to find a job, any job, and refuse to take that job for whatever reason, then they lose their unemployment benefits. > > Quite frankly, I have moral objections to all sorts of jobs and companies. But I don’t think that should matter when it comes to unemployment benefits. > > That said, I think there should be a bit of leeway. I don’t know how their system works, but I think turning down a single job for any reason should not in itself be enough reason to lose benefits. Perhaps if you turn down two in a row, then you should lose benefits, or something of that nature. This would allow everyone a “freebie”, and prostitution would not have to be made the single exception to the law. I could turn down one because I don’t want to work for, say, a defense contractor; a vegan could turn down one because they don’t want to work in a meat packing plant; etc. After that, tough noogies. You know, I think that this is the single most inhumane thing I’ve seen posted on this Board, unrelated to nuclear war, genocide, or child abuse. I don’t think I wish to know you, Mr. **BlackKnight**. :mad: Moral bankruptcy, & all that… ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/22 "2005-01-31T13:33:24Z")
Wait a minute?! German unemployment benefits last OVER A YEAR? ---
**Author:** ![jjimm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ba8739/32.png) [@jjimm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jjimm)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/23 "2005-01-31T13:59:15Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Wait a minute?! German unemployment benefits last OVER A YEAR? In Ireland and the UK they can last in perpetuity. How’s the aneurism? 😉 > [@Starving Artist](#): > > This kind of thing is exactly the reason that many of us conservatives do not want the government in charge of “taking care” of us. Government can’t do anything efficiently! \ But throw in human beings – with their concomitant human nature – and you get crap like this. Except, of course, in a non-welfare state that I assume you espouse (correct me if I’m wrong), the choice for the unemployed is _still_ between total destitution and “any job at all”, which might indeed include the sex industry too. I don’t see how governmental involvement contributes anything at all to this ethical dilemma - the situation would be exactly the same without the government’s “cookie cutter”. ---
**Author:** ![kellner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/c2a13f/32.png) [@kellner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kellner)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/24 "2005-01-31T14:07:05Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Wait a minute?! German unemployment benefits last OVER A YEAR? After the most recent reforms the regular benefits last one year (by default 60% of your last net salary,) but there is a transition period where benefits for older people still last longer - up to 32 month for those over 57. After those benefits you get a minimum living wage for an indefinite time, plus possibly subsidized rent and benefits in kind. ---
**Author:** ![Mops](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mops/32/16494_2.png) [@Mops](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mops)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/25 "2005-01-31T14:37:40Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > So I take it the unemployed can go on the interview, but there is nothing the gov’t can to do ensure the applicant puts forth a good faith effort to get the job? Basically, yes. It used to be that such applicants told the employer “don’t bother with the interview, I’m just here because the employment office sent me”. After a number of employers reported this to the employment office this happens less often (but any applicant nominated by the employment office meets with prejudice because of this ☹ ). Nowadays unemployment benefits recipients who are not hired for a long time (years) can get a temporary public-service job assigned (peeling potatoes in a school cafeteria, sorting archives, sweeping parks, this sort of thing). If they refuse this their benefits get cut to a minimum level. > [@msmith537](#): > > Wait a minute?! German unemployment benefits last OVER A YEAR? The initial unemployment benefit (funded from unemployment insurance contributions; not means-tested) lasts one year (provided you have worked at least three years before that). After that a tax-funded, means-tested benefit cuts in which used to be indefinite but now is phased down to general welfare level over two years. A lot of the unemployed are unemployed for a long time because German companies usually consider unemployed fiftysomethings unemployable (most companies don’t hire _forty_somethings either, and generally being unemployed at the time when you apply for a job is considered a major black mark against you). More than 40 per cent of the unemployed have been unemployed for a year or longer. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/26 "2005-01-31T16:05:43Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > No “force” is going on at all. You have the\* options\* of: > > 1. Getting a different job or > 2. Not getting any more government dole money (not working at all) So, if I point a gun at you and say “gimme all your money” no FORCE is going on at all, because you have _options_ of: 1. Saying no and let me shoot you 2. Saying no and running away, or trying to 3. Saying no and trying to wrestle the gun away from me 4. Giving me your money My feeling is, so long as the options are sufficiently dire, they have the effect of force, which sounds like might be the case in some instances. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/27 "2005-01-31T16:11:01Z")
> [@jjimm](#): > > I don’t see how governmental involvement contributes anything at all to this ethical dilemma - the situation would be exactly the same without the government’s “cookie cutter”. Well, for libertarians and conservatives, any act of inhuman barbarity is A-OK if it’s done by a person or a corporation. It’s only when governments do it that it’s a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/28 "2005-01-31T16:12:59Z")
> [@tschild](#): > > A lot of the unemployed are unemployed for a long time because German companies usually consider unemployed fiftysomethings unemployable (most companies don’t hire _forty_somethings either, and generally being unemployed at the time when you apply for a job is considered a major black mark against you). More than 40 per cent of the unemployed have been unemployed for a year or longer. It’s not really very different over here in the U.S. for older workers, just there’s no sense that it’s anything but the workers’ fault. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/29 "2005-01-31T16:23:16Z")
The gun adds the “force” element. No gun in our OP. And as our expert in Germany **tschild** pointed out, the circumstances are far from what alarmists have speculated. So- if I find a pretty woman who needs to money, and offer her $100 for sex- i am now “forcing her” to go into prostitution? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/30 "2005-01-31T17:02:52Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > The gun adds the “force” element. No gun in our OP. And as our expert in Germany **tschild** pointed out, the circumstances are far from what alarmists have speculated. I still say sufficiently dire circumstances are equivalent to “force.” Let’s take your example: > [@](#): > > So- if I find a pretty woman who needs to money, and offer her $100 for sex- i am now “forcing her” to go into prostitution? :dubious: No, you are not, but depending on the nature of her need for money, her circumstances might force her into prostitution. If she needs to money to pay for premium cable channels, I’d say it’s a free choice – her circumstances are not dire at all. If she needs money because she is going hungry or homeless, or her children are, and she can find no other alternative, then I would say her circumstances are forcing her into prostitution, although you are not personally culpable, as you are not the one who rendered her starving, and are in fact offering her an alternative. But still, the starvation/homelessness thing has the effect of force. I do not see how a reasonable person could argue otherwise. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/31 "2005-01-31T18:07:17Z")
> [@Domokun](#): > > These are **venerable** people to begin with. They’re going to make the elderly work in the sex industry? ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/32 "2005-01-31T18:24:04Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > So- if I find a pretty woman who needs to money, and offer her $100 for sex- i am now “forcing her” to go into prostitution? :dubious: I don’t think your analogy is quite right. Try this one: An employer forces a woman to have sex or she will get her pay cut in half. In this case, the gov’t is the employer, since they are providing unemployment benefits. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/33 "2005-01-31T18:44:59Z")
> [@Starving Artist](#): > > Everything is applied in cookie-cutter fashion, and the people who are responsible for approving or denying benefits are wholly disconnected from and uncaring about the plight of those over whom they are making decisions. Huh? If many conservatives had their way, there would be no unemployment benefits at all. How is that not a cookie cutter solution made by people who are wholly disconnected and uncaring? Let’s assume for the moment that the article is factual. This “liberal” solution means that most people get money. Some few don’t because they turn down jobs they find morally repugnant. We compare that to the US market. Most people get money for a shorter time. Some few don’t because they turn down jobs or don’t find a new job fast enough. Now we compare that to the libertarian ideal. Most people don’t get money. Perhaps all. How can you argue that situation 1 is more “uncaring” than 2 or 3? How can you argue it is more “cookie cutter”? ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/34 "2005-01-31T19:38:17Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > I don’t think your analogy is quite right. > > Try this one: An employer forces a woman to have sex or she will get her pay cut in half. > > In this case, the gov’t is the employer, since they are providing unemployment benefits. Aha, but in the first analogy, the employee is doing the same amount of labour for less pay (unless she gives in) thus it is immoral, and unethical. )If she accepts the deal, that’s between her & her employer.) But I don’t consider Unemployment to be a “right”. ---
**Author:** ![ivylass](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/9de053/32.png) [@ivylass](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivylass)\ **Post date:** [January 31, 2005, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/35 "2005-01-31T20:00:36Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > But I don’t consider Unemployment to be a “right”. Neither do I, but they do in Germany, so I think we have to look at it from that standpoint. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/36 "2005-02-01T01:39:53Z")
> [@tschild](#): > > (yawn) it’s morning in Germany now. > > After reading the _Telegraph_ article I very much doubt its accuracy. For one, prostitution was not legalized in Germany two years ago, as the article states - it has been legal long before, subject to zoning restrictions and public-order regulations. What happened two years ago was mainly aligning employment law and social insurance law on prositution to that in other industries. Which did not amount to much because most prostitutes are self-employed anyway. > > The incident of a job seeker being referred by the job centre to a sex industry position was reported in the German press months ago, but in the context of of reporting on the job-offer database not being policed by the employment agencies (the job descriptions are usually entered into the system by the employers themselves, without an appreciable effort at review by the employment agency, which from time to time leads to media reporting on hilarious, outrageous or downright illegal job offers in the official database. My union journal usually features at least one of these each month.) > > The consequence of being denied benefits on refusing a sex industry job are pure speculation on the _Telegraph_’s part IMO, designed to spice up an article about an otherwise dull topic. The article does not state that such a penalty has actually been imposed or even threatened. My read on public opinion is that heads would roll if such a thing happened - the labour market reforms are unpopular enough; the government won’t want the feminists on the case too. > > Anyway refusing a job offer is contingent on being offered the job. People who don’t want the job offer have always found ways to be unacceptable enough in the job interview. Arriving with alcohol on your breath is sufficient. While I assumed the article was spiced up it you didn’t address the ability of companies to “go fishing” for labor through government databases. I would hope this is illegal. If the article is correct, a business could challenge anyone who doesn’t submit an application at their request. And on a side note: I can’t imagine why a whorehouse would object to someone with alcohol on their breath. I would assume that was a requirement for the job. ---
**Author:** ![UDS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecae2f/32.png) [@UDS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 2:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/37 "2005-02-01T02:27:01Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > While I assumed the article was spiced up it you didn’t address the ability of companies to “go fishing” for labor through government databases. I would hope this is illegal. If the article is correct, a business could challenge anyone who doesn’t submit an application at their request. Reading between the lines, what seems to happen is this; the employer registers his vacancy on the database, indicating (presumably in standardised “tick-the-box” form) the skills, characteristics, etc of the job specification. The agency then compares this with the skills, characteristics, etc of the candidates on it’s books and, where there is a match, notifies the _candidates_ of the vacancy. The first the employer knows of an individual candidate is when the candidate contacts him to enquire about the job. Even if the employer could identify a candidate who could have applied for the job but didn’t, why on earth would he wish to “challenge” the candidate? Nobody wants to force an uninterested candidate to work for him. The employers’ interest is to ensure that the _agency_ circulates the vacancy to all the appropriate candidates who might be interested and, if the employer applies pressure anywhere, it will be there. Remember, as far as employers are concerned, this is a cheap way of advertising a job vacancy. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/38 "2005-02-01T05:11:08Z")
It’s thread like this that remind me why, despite our current Presidential administration, I’m still a Republican. Here’s a fact that may have eluded those of you complaining about being “forced” to go work: unemployment benefits do not appear by magic. They are there because somebody else went to work and then gave some of their money to the government. So every person who argues they personally shouldn’t be forced to work is actually forcing other people to work. So we’ve got two choices. We can set up a system where nobody pays taxes, nobody receives any government services, and nobody is forced to work. Of course while nobody is forced to work, those who don’t starve to death. Or we can set up a system where some people are working and some people are not and the working people help support the non-working people. But the non-working people shouldn’t be surprised when the working people give them a nudge once in a while. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 7:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/39 "2005-02-01T07:51:27Z")
> [@](#): > > So, if I point a gun at you and say “gimme all your money” no FORCE is going on at all, because you have options of: > > 1. Saying no and let me shoot you > 2. Saying no and running away, or trying to > 3. Saying no and trying to wrestle the gun away from me > 4. Giving me your money > > My feeling is, so long as the options are sufficiently dire, they have the effect of force, which sounds like might be the case in some instances. Except in this case, instead of having a gun pointed at you and being threatened to be shot, the consequence is that nothing will happen to you and you’ll be completely ignored. You’d have to define “force” pretty loosely to call that a threat. ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [February 1, 2005, 7:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507/40 "2005-02-01T07:56:16Z")
> [@Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor](#): > > You know, I think that this is the single most inhumane thing I’ve seen posted on this Board, unrelated to nuclear war, genocide, or child abuse. Well, I’m glad you didn’t see my post about abusing radioactive child survivors of genocide! Is there a particular reason you singled out my post for this attack? Is not wanting tax-payer money to continually support someone who can work but won’t work such a horrible position? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/germany-can-force-a-woman-to-work-as-a-prostitute/287507.md?page=3)