France bans "paying for sex"

[Exophase]

First, show me where the majority of women who are forced into it, I'm not seeing that mentioned anywhere. If it was still illegal and the female is caught, then that would actually a good thing because there are organizations that can help them like STRASS (French union of sex workers) or Movement of the Nest (if they want to quit).

I never ever said a majority of women, I said I didn't know how many it was. But it's DEFINITELY HIGHER than the number of people who are forced into paying prostitutes.

BTW, prostitutes are not strictly female either, just because they're usually portrayed this way.

And this has nothing to do with catching people, you can't punish someone for paying for sex if you never catch them with the person they're paying. I'm simply not seeing punishing victims of forced prostitution as being a good thing.

Second, I am well aware of why prostitution is illegal in this country partly due to conservative roots but it's also kept that way due to feminists.

There are some feminists who think that it should be a profession so both sides are at war - probably the ugly women want it prohibited because omg-male-dominance-patriarchy and the pretty ones want to have it as an option to work

Without any kind of sources this is pure speculation. Got any more than that?

So in the US, it's a two pronged attack from both sides. If the ugly feminists had their way (and it was legal like France), they would oonly penalize men like France just did and put the blame solely on them. This is an attack on men because it is healthy for men to have sex, not all men can get it for free. Canada is the same as well, they legalized solicitation but put the onus on the customer (men):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Canada#Sex_tourism

So globally the ugly feminists (politicians) outnumber the pretty ones (workers). :biggrin:

If the buyer is penalized then the sellers will lose the market if they're caught, just the same as now.

STRASS shows that there are tens of thousands of French women who make an honest living doing this and now they are going to have to solicit clients into homes from online. And btw, Canada recently ruled the same thing and Canadian sex workers said it endangers them even more:

So we are seeing these liberal countries up the risk factor for anyone who wants to sell their body. Brilliant.

Prostitution in an economy with 10% unemployment is creating more jobs and giving women a chance to earn a living instead of sucking the gov teat. Many social groups disagreed with the legislation, especially on helping them find a new life (i.e. new profession lol):

How are they "now" going to have to do things differently? It was already illegal for people to solicit, so you think this hurts their business more if the buyers get punished instead? They already had to do things covertly.

If it's illegal then both sides who were knowing and deliberate actors should be held accountable for their actions. Why should buyers not be punished for breaking the law? Because they have "needs"? Don't be ridiculous.

I know you want it to be legal but that's an entirely different battle.

 

[SP33Demon]

Makes me wonder even more why you are apparently allowed to interact with teen aged girls at this point from some of your previous posts in other threads.

Do their parents know your veiw points on this subject ?

You sound like a sex offender that has probably never been busted to me, to be honest about it.

Teenage girls? Wrong fan club, what did we tell you about your stalking - one at a time. :biggrin: I don't interact with any teenage girls nor care to, champ. Even if I wasn't married I can get pussy for free from women in their prime (late 20s-30s range). All I'd have to do is :flex:

 

[Victorian Gray]

Teenage girls? Wrong fan club, what did we tell you about your stalking - one at a time. :biggrin: I don't interact with any teenage girls nor care to, champ. Even if I wasn't married I can get pussy for free from women in their prime (late 20s-30s range). All I'd have to do is :flex:

Aww, isn't he cute. A 'Mini Me' Trumper, right down to the crude braggadocio.

 

[MongGrel]

Teenage girls? Wrong fan club, what did we tell you about your stalking - one at a time. :biggrin: I don't interact with any teenage girls nor care to, champ. Even if I wasn't married I can get pussy for free from women in their prime (late 20s-30s range). All I'd have to do is :flex:

Man, you even seem to have a memory problem.

Get off the roids dude.

Who is we ?

I'm just waiting to hear you say it.

Probably has something to do with mommy in your case.

 

[SP33Demon]

I never ever said a majority of women, I said I didn't know how many it was. But it's DEFINITELY HIGHER than the number of people who are forced into paying prostitutes.

BTW, prostitutes are not strictly female either, just because they're usually portrayed this way.

There's really no need to even discuss this without real numbers. You claim it's definitely higher on a hunch but I'm not buying it. Also, male prostitutes? I'd be surprised if it was more than 1% but again we have no numbers so why bother going there.

And this has nothing to do with catching people, you can't punish someone for paying for sex if you never catch them with the person they're paying. I'm simply not seeing punishing victims of forced prostitution as being a good thing.

I'm not seeing how the majority are victims. We have 30,000 women registered in STRASS, are they all victims? Of course not, this is their voluntary profession.

Without any kind of sources this is pure speculation. Got any more than that?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_views_on_prostitution
It's not speculation. Feminists can't even agree which side they're on and like I said it probably depends on their social capital (beauty) and whether they'd be able to even pull a client. France's Olivier is clearly not pulling shit which is why she's making it tougher for the ones who can.

If the buyer is penalized then the sellers will lose the market if they're caught, just the same as now.

The seller can always solicit other buyers. Losing a client here and there isn't going to dramatically transform the market unless they're living in a town with 50 people. To only penalize the buyer is ridiculous if the seller can continue to sell to others which then endangers other buyers (men) to criminal prosecution. You can't just prosecute one side and claim one is a "victim". Again, tell that to the 30,000 prostitutes in STRASS - that they're "victims". Also, this sets up a dangerous precedent for extortion. For example, if the prostitute threatens to snitch on a buyer unless the buyer pays her more? Then what if the guy threatens to kill her in rataliation? Who is the real victim in that scenario? You can't completely look the other way for only women and not men or shit like that is going to be created. It's creating chaos.

How are they "now" going to have to do things differently? It was already illegal for people to solicit, so you think this hurts their business more if the buyers get punished instead? They already had to do things covertly.

It explained this in the article. "Critics of the law say it will push prostitution further toward the Internet business model, making it harder to police.

“Prostitution on the street is already starting to disappear because of the Internet”, Mylene Juste, a Paris prostitute lamented in a recent interview with FRANCE 24.

She is among the sex workers who have rallied in the French capital in recent months to protest the new law. “This is the way I want to live my life. I want to be free to work as a prostitute, even on the street. I don’t want to be on the Internet”, she said.

Now these women will have to seek intermediaries on the internet, adding another level of danger to them. On the street they could meet potential clients face to face and assess the risk based on the person's behavior. Now they will have to deal with an extra person and she will have to rely on screening a person online as opposed to in person.

If it's illegal then both sides who were knowing and deliberate actors should be held accountable for their actions. Why should buyers not be punished for breaking the law? Because they have "needs"? Don't be ridiculous.

I know you want it to be legal but that's an entirely different battle.

If you are saying that both sides were deliberate actors, then why is only one actor being punished in a mutually consensual transaction? The ideal thing would be to fully legalize it for both sides where the prostitute registers in a database and any guy can solicit her in an app like Uber. You put in your CC, she shows up at your door in 10 minutes. There's nothing wrong with that despite what ugly feminist (who would miserably fail at prostitution) politicians think.

 

[SP33Demon]

Man, you even seem to have a memory problem.

Get off the roids dude.

Who is we ?

I'm just waiting to hear you say it.

Probably has something to do with mommy in your case.

Lay off the drugs dude. hahahaha. My fan club is so cute.

 

[woolfe9998]

http://www.france24.com/en/20160406-france-prostitution-law-sex-workers-divided

Here is a photo of the lonely cat lady who has made this law her life's work:

^So hawt! :biggrin: Why is it that most feminists are ugly as fuck?

Pig.

 

[OutHouse]

The comprehensive approach, which envisions an eventual eradication of prostitution

HAHAHAHAH, no French Whores? HAHAHAHAHAHAH

 

[Exophase]

There's really no need to even discuss this without real numbers. You claim it's definitely higher on a hunch but I'm not buying it. Also, male prostitutes? I'd be surprised if it was more than 1% but again we have no numbers so why bother going there.

So your argument is that the number of people forced into prostitution is higher than the number of people forced to purchase prostitutes.

Really, you believe there are people who are forced to purchase prostitution?

Or are you just not actually listening?

It's not speculation. Feminists can't even agree which side they're on and like I said it probably depends on their social capital (beauty) and whether they'd be able to even pull a client. France's Olivier is clearly not pulling shit which is why she's making it tougher for the ones who can.

Your claims that feminists hate prostitution because they're ugly and jealous is absolutely speculation and coming from a very gross place.

If you are saying that both sides were deliberate actors, then why is only one actor being punished in a mutually consensual transaction?

Where were you rallying against it when it was only the other side?

I said IF both sides are deliberate actors both should be punished. Unfortunately it's difficult to discern if the seller is a deliberate actor; obviously if they're being coerced they'll also be under threat to not reveal that. So there's at least some argument as to why this risk shouldn't be accepted, no matter how much of a minority this may be.

The ideal thing would be to fully legalize it for both sides where the prostitute registers in a database and any guy can solicit her in an app like Uber. You put in your CC, she shows up at your door in 10 minutes. There's nothing wrong with that despite what ugly feminist (who would miserably fail at prostitution) politicians think.

Once again, legalization is neither here nor there, especially in America. No point even arguing it when too many conservatives oppose it.

 

[disappoint]

There's a subforum for this kind of thread. The Garage. Take it to a mechanic, this thread is backfiring badly.

 

[SP33Demon]

So your argument is that the number of people forced into prostitution is higher than the number of people forced to purchase prostitutes.

Really, you believe there are people who are forced to purchase prostitution?

Or are you just not actually listening?

I see what you're saying but these are different topics. One is that the definition of "being forced" is a very grey area and technically falls under sex trafficking (already illegal). Anti-prostitution feminists are defining this via blanket legislation by claiming they are ALL victims when that is blatantly false (e.g. 30000 women registered sex workers). The other is that while I won't dispute that *some* are forced via trafficking, I still don't see how a) you can ever prove they're being forced (unless you arrest them and promise anonymity) or trafficked and b) I don't see how that excuses both the male and female from being arrested. Like I said, being arrested is actually a good thing for prostitutes because it can be a way to get them help through organizations *if they want to*. And these groups would ideally set up anonymity and a new life for some of them. Yet these politicians think that arresting only the man is a the solution. It's not, it's going to cause more crime and endanger sex workers more.

Your claims that feminists hate prostitution because they're ugly and jealous is absolutely speculation and coming from a very gross place.

So you dispute that prettier women would have more clientele? That is the bottom line. We don't all get trophies and we don't all win. Some women are prettier in the populace and some men are more handsome. I don't care if you think that's a very gross topic, it's a fact. Ugly women feminists have less options so they want to level the playing field by neutralizing pretty women's power. Feminism is more of a war of women vs women, hence slut shaming. Calling someone a slut because they can get laid and someone ugly cannot is a natural response since one party has more power than the other. Feminism is about taking power from these two groups and men usually get caught in the crossfire since men are usually the object of desire for women. Hotter guy = more power, get it?

Where were you rallying against it when it was only the other side?

I said IF both sides are deliberate actors both should be punished. Unfortunately it's difficult to discern if the seller is a deliberate actor; obviously if they're being coerced they'll also be under threat to not reveal that. So there's at least some argument as to why this risk shouldn't be accepted, no matter how much of a minority this may be.

I've always been "rallying" against both sides because both should be able to conduct consensual transactions. It's retarded either way to only penalize one sex and not the other. But there you go again, saying this "risk" of being "forced" shouldn't be accepted. The bottom line is that you will never be able to eliminate this "risk" of people getting forced into doing things they don't want. We are talking about two different things: sex trafficking is already illegal everywhere. Noone is disputing that. But to take away prostitutes' livelihoods under the assumption that consensual prostitution always = sex trafficking is fucking retarded (i.e. what this new legislation boils down to). One is a profession, while the other is banned in just about every country. To say the two are the same is exactly what feminiticians are betting on. And you appear to have bitten the hook.
From wiki's definition of sex trafficking:

Most victims find themselves in coercive or abusive situations from which escape is both difficult and dangerous. Locations where this practice occurs span the globe and reflect an intricate web between nations, making it very difficult to construct viable solutions to this human rights problem.

Also:

Pimp-controlled trafficking

In pimp-controlled trafficking, the victim is controlled by a single pimp. The victim can be controlled by the pimp physically, psychologically, and/or emotionally.

A common process is for the pimp to first gain the trust of the victim, called the grooming stage. They seek to make the victim dependent on them. Once the victim is comfortable, the pimp moves to the seasoning stage, where they will ask the victim to perform sexual acts for the pimp, which the victim may do because they believe it is the only way to keep the trafficker's affection. The requests progress from there and it can be difficult for the victim to escape.[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_trafficking#Pimp-controlled_trafficking

This sounds an awful lot like what you are describing with forced prostitution, correct? This is called sex trafficking or pimp-controlled trafficking where the victim falls in love with the pimp. Do you really think legislation is going to prevent people from falling in love with their pimps? Seriously man.

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm conflicted.
They seem to be conflating prostitution with slavery and abuse.
Do they really think a heavy handed attack on the former helps address the latter?

 

[MongGrel]

Lay off the drugs dude. hahahaha. My fan club is so cute.

The problem is you have no fan club in reality, and are basically a steroid induced raging twerp.

You need fans to have a fan club.

Yet it continues, for some reason.

Mommmmmyyyyyyy .......................

 

[SP33Demon]

The problem is you have no fan club in reality, and are basically a raging maniac.

Yet it continues, for some reason...

Mommmmmyyyyyyy .......................

You love to stalk me, admit it. Every thread here has childish posts like this. If you want, we can arrange a Skype with my shirt off and I'll touch my nipples for you. Deal?

 

[MongGrel]

You love to stalk me, admit it. Every thread here has childish posts like this. If you want, we can arrange a Skype with my shirt off and I'll touch my nipples for you. Deal?

I'm not stalking anything.

If you post a lot I'll see you a lot.

Is all there is to it.

 

[brycejones]

If you want, we can arrange a Skype with my shirt off and I'll touch my nipples for you. Deal?

Is that what your wife's bull likes you to do while he bangs her?

 

[Darwin333]

So in the US, it's a two pronged attack from both sides. If the ugly feminists had their way (and it was legal like France), they would oonly penalize men like France just did and put the blame solely on them. This is an attack on men because it is healthy for men to have sex, not all men can get it for free. Canada is the same as well, they legalized solicitation but put the onus on the customer (men): So globally the ugly feminists (politicians) outnumber the pretty ones (workers).

What it sounds like is that you are concerned that a beta like you will not be able to get attractive poon if you can't pay for it and laws like these make it much riskier for you to pay for that ever elusive attractive poon... Or attractive penis, whatever floats your boat bud, I don't judge. The point being that the next time you try to purchase some poon or penis you don't want to go to jail while the prostitute (be it a him or her) goes free. That's actually a pretty valid point.

 

[rommelrommel]

This (and weed legalization) is where Canada has the U.S. beat by a mile.

I added part of the article in the OP for you.

Weed is not legal here. Not even decriminalized. The police are more likely to turn a blind eye to personal use in some cities and parts of the country.

Prosititution is not legal in the way you think it is either. The Supreme Court of Canada tossed out some of the old laws. The government had a year or so to rewrite the laws but wrote ones even worse than the originals. Those will probably be tossed out too. For most purposes, engaging in prostitution is still going to run afoul of several laws.

 

[Darwin333]

Weed is not legal here. Not even decriminalized. The police are more likely to turn a blind eye to personal use in some cities and parts of the country.

Prosititution is not legal in the way you think it is either. The Supreme Court of Canada tossed out some of the old laws. The government had a year or so to rewrite the laws but wrote ones even worse than the originals. Those will probably be tossed out too. For most purposes, engaging in prostitution is still going to run afoul of several laws.

Since it seems like it's the only way that he can get sex with someone he finds even remotely attractive I can honestly understand why he is so concerned. He can always try the bunny ranch but from what I've read it sounds expensive but maybe that's just what attractive ass costs? Then again this is ATOT so shouldn't he be making 7 figures with a 14" cock and driving a Lambo? Honestly, I do see the problem if he is the only one getting arrested when he tries to solicit some high class poon. Blue balls in jail has got to suck on many different levels.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Unless they also ban the other forms of prostitution (marriage and such) nothing will change. Even in Iran there's prostitution, the only difference is that there you 'get married' for an hour to make it legal.

 

[mikeymikec]

I'm conflicted.
They seem to be conflating prostitution with slavery and abuse.
Do they really think a heavy handed attack on the former helps address the latter?

On the face of it, the law doesn't sound like a good idea IMO, however:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35982929

"we know that 85% of prostitutes here are victims of trafficking,"

Assuming for a moment that Maud Olivier didn't pull this stat out of her ass, consider that if 85% of any group of people were directly involved in illegality of a particular type, wouldn't most people want something fairly heavy-handed done about it (and perhaps rightly so)?

However, I'm quite skeptical about that statistic because if a lawmaker *knows* that an exact number of people are directly involved in an illegal activity, then surely it also follows that all of that number have been identified and with sufficient evidence to put a stop to all of those operations (or at least severely impede them). If they knew all that, then there would be some massive police raids, and instead of penalising customers of the oldest profession (which does not directly target the problem, if anything it makes the plight of those being trafficked / enslaved worse as there is no money coming in), they could score a massive hit against what apparently is an extremely serious problem, which would likely make crime figures in France plummet for years to come (IMO it's reasonable to assume that if one's career is as morally bankrupt as trafficking/slavery, then they're probably doing other illegal stuff as well).

----

http://www.france24.com/en/20160406-france-prostitution-law-sex-workers-divided

More feminist crap to try and repress men by shifting the "blame" from prostitutes to men buying the sex. Yes, because the prostitutes are completely innocent! This is what happens when liberals are in charge, they try and shift the blame to the men and shame them for having perfectly normal urges to fuck. That's what testosterone does, it makes us want to fuck. The women running the show in France need to take an endocrinology class.

Here is a photo of the lonely cat lady who has made this law her life's work:

^So hawt! :biggrin: Why is it that most feminists are ugly as fuck?

In the end this is really about feminists trying to kill competition from prostitutes to try and make their (ugly) pussies more valuable by taking power away from men. Don't be surprised if these same dipshit feminists try to ban sexbots. Then the jig is up, women will really lose a lot of their power over us and the claws will come out for the few decent bachelors out there.

More like low testosterone posters who don't want to fuck good looking women (even if prostitutes). We get it, you sit on a computer all day so your BMI is through the roof and many of you have low test. Go out to a gym and stop eating so dam much and maybe your chemicals will return back to normal. :biggrin: Be a man, not a feminist. Banning sex for most of you guys should upset you.

These two posts have completely convinced me that your level of delusion is so great that you're not worth spending any more of my time ever discussing anything with you. That other thread where you started bragging about your high IQ was a pretty obvious warning sign, but this... wow.

Christ dude, just as a side note, if you knew anything more than a biased cereal-packet explanation of feminism, you'd know that some people who describe themselves as feminists are against prostitution (as they feel it objectifies/degrades women, etc), and there are other self-described feminists who are totally fine with prostitution (ie. "their body, their choice"). That point is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Hugo Drax]

sounds like the brown bag law. Now prostitution will just exist but it will be called escort service. The interactions will be called dates.

Prostitution in the us is rampant but not visible. Between the strip clubs with champagne rooms and websites for "escorts" and asian massage parlors The industry will continue to thrive.

Thrse laws are primarily to prevent streetwalkers and obvious displays of prostitution. No one wants to see them in thier neighborhood or next door.


I wonder if these laws kicked in because its becoming too visible in france?

 

[Exterous]

As someone who doesn't have to pay for sex, I'm having trouble sharing your outrage.

Ignoring his crazy posts (most of which I didn't bother reading) there are examples that legal prostitution results in lower rates of certain violent crimes and STDs:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/07/17/when-rhode-island-accidentally-legalized-prostitution-rape-and-stis-decreased-sharply/

There may well be issues with human trafficking in France but it will be interesting to see if they replace that problem with another one.

 

[MajinCry]

It's pretty much kicking a dead, beaten and decaying corpse of a horse, but I thought I'd just take issue with SpeeDo 'ere, again; lad seems to think that feminists are some sort of concentrated group, akin to a political party.


From Oxford Dictionaries:

Feminist:

feminist
Pronunciation: /ˈfɛmənɪst/
noun
A person who supports feminism.

Feminism:

feminism
Pronunciation: /ˈfɛmɪnɪz(&#601m/
noun
[mass noun]
The advocacy of women’s rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes

It's a contextual label, if anything. But it certainly isn't some man-hating organization, hell-bent on entrapping men in prison.


I'd get all righteous, but the other posters have covered the insanity and bizarre ego-belligerence, so...Eh.

 

[SP33Demon]

What it sounds like is that you are concerned that a beta like you will not be able to get attractive poon if you can't pay for it and laws like these make it much riskier for you to pay for that ever elusive attractive poon... Or attractive penis, whatever floats your boat bud, I don't judge. The point being that the next time you try to purchase some poon or penis you don't want to go to jail while the prostitute (be it a him or her) goes free. That's actually a pretty valid point.

Actually I'm married. Nice try, troll.