The search itself is great. My searches are mainly automotive related and I enjoy that you can do a nationwide search for a specific car or car parts. CSmart is a very good app for CL users but needs tweaking to get some bugs worked out after listing an item and Starring it, if you make changes to the ad it changes in the ad but not in the title for the thumbnail.
Even though it recalls the original info on the thumbnail if you go in the ad the corrected info is updated in the ad. It's more of an inconvenience for now until an update hopefully corrects this bug PS, I run these on an iPhone and iPad.
This app is only available on the App Store for iOS devices. Tap large listing images to show new photo viewer with zoom. When listing sort is grouped by city, the city groups are ordered by distance from your last known location. When you click the "google map" link within a listing, driving directions will automatically load in Google Maps if you have it installed or built in Maps App if not.
New setting for customizing the posting city. Issues where city bubble was black and empty or "null" was displayed for city. If you're on an iPhone 4 don't install this update. Wait until the next update! Fixed crashing for certain searches. Fixed saved search loading. Fixed crashing when refine search button is pressed. Improved clarity of Category and Location selection usage. Nov 24, Version 4. Great app Jul 31, Good but can be better Aug 29, CSmart for CL, very good but needs polishing Age Rating You must be at least 17 years old to download this app.
Developer Website App Support. Family Sharing With Family Sharing set up, up to six family members can use this app. StockSpy Realtime Stock Market.
No, they aren't the same. Unfortunately, googling decriminalization vs legalization gets me articles that state the exact opposite of my understanding. As I understand it, decriminalization means making no law against it.
Legalization means making laws about it that boil down to regulation. Thus, decriminalization is more free. This article seems to be generally in line with my understanding: Example of making it worse: From what I gather, prostitution in Las Vegas is mostly run by the mafia and legalization has not led to women being free to be their own boss, set their own hours, etc.
Legalization of prostitution often means sex workers are subjected to a lot of rules and regulations such that it becomes akin to wage slavery rather than freedom to pursue work independently like a small business owner. I will suggest Obamacare as another example of regulation making things worse.
I'm quite poor and being hit with harsh financial penalties on my taxes this year for failing to have full coverage for all of last year. Prior to Obamacare, I could just forego having healthcare and the government did not get all up in my business about why I did that and whether or not I was allowed to do that, etc.
My support of decriminalization of prostitution comes from having read Working: My Life as a Prostitute by Dolores French. Prior to becoming a prostitute, she was a political activist.
The reason you get those google results is because your understanding is not consistent with how other people use the words. Your suggested usage is reasonable, but it's not the usage that is common, and I suggest that you change your understanding. Legalization has always meant "making it legal", which in most societies means "removing laws that make it illegal" though it might mean something different in North Korea, if you see what I mean. Decriminalization is a wishy-washier idea, that includes lightening or removing criminal penalties, while potentially keeping other penalities.
For example, changing indictable offenses to non-indictable offenses in the U. Prostitution should be legalized , not merely have the penalties lightened. And that alone is not sufficient; legal regimes that legalize the actual act of sex-for-money, but still force most prostitutes to hide from the cops I'm looking at Canadian law, here are still inadequate, because such regimes still victimize sex workers consensual or otherwise.
It's simply a human rights issue. I also think it's clear that some degree of regulation is desirable, but I think that reasonable people can disagree on this. DoreenMichele 88 days ago. My understanding of the difference is rooted in the opinions of Dolores French who was a sex worker and political activist. She advocated for decriminalization, not legalization, because it was more beneficial to sex workers. I find some articles that fit with that framework and some that don't.
I don't think it's just me. It's a little more complicated than that. I do try to be mindful that the words get used inconsistently and I do try to make a point of clarifying my intended meaning. I'm human and I don't always remember that this is an ongoing issue. I have provided both a link to an article that communicates my understanding of the topic as well as cited the original source where I got the info, plus stated as clearly as I can that googling it may lead to additional confusion because articles on the topic are contradictory.
Some agree with my understanding. Some say the opposite. I have no idea whatsoever why that would be reason for you to turn this into a personal attack and justification for apparently your personal frustration with me. My understanding is you are British.
You could more charitably chalk up any communication difficulties between us to cultural differences and to being "separated by the same language. This is also basically the Portugal approach to drug control, which appears to be working.
You think we would have learned with the experience from Prohibition to inform us I understand what you're saying. However, compare sex work to slavery which it often is. Nobody wants to be a slave. Some desperate people might agree to be enslaved to pay off a debt. You could say that if someone agrees to be enslaved, it's OK. But I'd argue that removing certain choices promotes freedom.
If slavery is illegal, a person found with slaves can't force the slaves to say they agreed to this arrangement; the arrangement itself is illegal and the slave holder is always in the wrong. I think treating prostitution the same way makes sense. People are free to sleep with whom they choose, but when it's done for money, it's far too easy for exploitation to occur.
If we say it's always illegal, we remove the veneer of respectability that enables one person to exploit another "by agreement". Note that in both cases we should target the exploiter and not the victim. The point isn't "you can't be a slave", but "you can't enslave anyone. I would argue that the sea between "sex slavery" aaaand "sex worker" is just as vast as that between professional engineer and enslaved engineer.
Again, polite society would have you think otherwise Please can we call sex workers pleasure technicians? A pleasure engineer should require a degree By saying that a person can't voluntarily agree to become a slave, you are saying that you, not they, have the right to determine what happens to them. That is the essence of slavery right there. By taking away their choice you are claiming ownership over them. You haven't eliminated slavery at all; you've just assumed the role of slave-owner yourself "for their own good", much as other slave owners throughout history have justified their actions by claiming that their slaves would be incapable of managing on their own as free individuals.
That is the essence of slavery right there I think you're being hyperbolic. It is not possible for all people to have all freedoms. My freedom to go where I want is limited by your freedom to decide who comes on your property.
Like it or not, we have to collectively draw boundaries that restrict some freedoms in order to preserve others.
Some of these tradeoffs are tricky. If large numbers of people start protesting their inability to become slaves, I'll reconsider. Meanwhile, large numbers of people are currently being forced into slavery - See, this is the sort of contradiction inherent in the "positive rights" worldview. Positive "rights" are always in conflict, which is very convenient when you're looking for an excuse to pick and choose which rights other people have and not very useful as a framework for a stable society.
Negative rights, on the other hand, never conflict; there is really only one fundamental right, which is self-ownership: The only actions are out of bounds are those which would infringe on others' rights of self-ownership. From this you can infer other rights like the freedom of speech, freedom of association, the right to privacy, and the right not to be enslaved against your will, and together with others you can cooperate to provide each other with things which, while desirable, are not rights, such as food, shelter, defense, gainful employment, and healthcare.
And I agree that this is wrong. The key difference is that these people were forced into slavery—it wasn't their choice. Obviously it's not a very attractive option under any circumstance, but one can easily imagine situations where the alternative might be worse. If you need what someone else can provide, and have nothing else of sufficient value to barter for it, giving up your freedom might be a price you'd be willing to pay.
No one else should presume to take that option from you. Putting aside the fact that it isn't your right which you're trading away, and consequently that this isn't your decision to make, it doesn't actually protect anyone. A person who was coerced into such a situation could simply say so, forcing the other party to prove that they had agreed to it in exchange for some form of consideration. AFNobody 3 months ago. That logic makes pornography illegal.
Most US sex workers fled CL and use Instagram now or any chat program that provides location distances. In other countries Weechat is the preferred method to find companions for hire. You'll also find countless escort ads in any adult social media hookup site like say, Fetlife or Adult Friend Finder.
A warning to anybody thinking of building a gigantic illegal escort listing service or agency and hosting it in Russia or via Tor, imagine the massive effort to come after you in hopes they discover political rivals have been using your service. This was interesting to me, so I researched a little. Apparently, the real volume of transactions has moved to https: As usual, the internet routes around censorship.
Shutting down one avenue, just pushes these people back into the shadows where its going to be a LOT harder to track down and find them. With CL being up, it was public, traceable and arrests could be made discretely and out of public view. Nothing should be demonized. Anything that hinders humanity should be regulated and monitored, proportional to the threat. That is all that is needed.
Out of sight and out of mind enables thriving dark markets. To eliminate dark markets, the open market must be all inclusive. There needs to be only one market. For darker material, we need more aggressive inclusion tactics.
For example, pedophilia should be considered an extremely dangerous disease. No one would ever be protected or cured or neutralized , and carriers would be hiding among us. Well no we can't make the sex trade disappear, but we can certainly make it more difficult and by extension less prevalent.
While I agree that the current measure is overblown, I do understand where the people behind the legislation are coming from. Because something can be used for terrorism, like cars, ban all cars.
That kind of mentality tends to come from reactionary conservatives in my experience. If it was legal, it could be better regulated, and they could operate with more safety While I'm in favor of decriminalizing adults engaging in adult behavior, I don't believe anyone goes into selling sex with a healthy attitude towards sex. They're typically victims of sexual abuse at a young age, which has warped their perspective, leading them to believe that their biggest value is to sell their bodies for sex.
Let me provide a few questions on prostitution: Readers of HN 1. Would you move to Nevada to work in your spare time as a legal prostitute? It's all the benefits of being an Uber driver, but with much better per-hour pay, no vehicle lease, and relatively no upkeep costs. You get to chose the clients you service, but you have service. To offset the pain of moving, in addition to the money you make as a prostitute, you also get a sizable pay-raise for your day job.
Not everyone can get a six-figure tech job, so the money and self sufficiency that affords is a good alternative to a low-paying entry-level position. Your teenage child tells you they have decided to be a prostitute to save-for and pay for college. You've put away enough money for them, but they refuse to take it, and instead want to earn their way.
Do you encourage them? What if you didn't have any money saved up? Would you support their decision? My point of view isn't to demonize those who have gone into prostitution now, in the past, or in the future, but recognize that it's not a choice that pretty much any of us would make for ourselves, nor the ones we care about.
My day job as a programmer in Silicon Valley already pays a lot, and I expect the pay to increase over time, but if the ratio of [prostitution pay] to [day job pay] was as high as it is for most people, then, yes, I think it'd make sense to do that. If a whole lot of them did that, then I expect the price would drop a great deal, so such a campaign might be dishonest—well, actually, in some respects that is like a stereotype of a STEM campaign, with some companies bemoaning how hard it is to find talent while not raising their low wages.
Other than that concern, yeah, I'd be happy with such a campaign. I don't have children of my own yet, but I have sisters and a niece and female friends, so I will imagine them in that situation.
I would have two concerns: STDs and hard drug use. For the first, I would look up some statistics—e. For the second, I would make certain that my child a knew about the risks of various drugs, b was prepared to deal with pressure to take drugs, and c knew that she could leave at any time and come back home.
After those concerns were addressed, yes, I would consider it an interesting experience for my child to have. Lucrative, get to see a bunch of people in an unusual set of circumstances, probably get practice in negotiation and in reading people, etc. You could use the same argument against anything that groups of people consider "immoral".
Alterations of the position: They're typically victims of religious indoctrination at a young age, which has warped their perception, leading them to believe in a false god" "While I'm in favor of people having freedom, I don't think anybody uses narcotics with a healthy attitude towards their health.
They're typically victims of immoral liberal households at a young age, which has warped their perception, leading them to believe that drugs are OK" Basically, you're making a moral decision and saying that anybody that ends up making a contrary decision for themselves must be damaged due to their upbringing.
What morale decision am I making? There is a thin line between saying that very few people would make a choice, and very few people should make a choice. You are correctly asserting that you said "would" not "should", but others are correctly pushing back and saying that it is a common rhetorical technique to say one when actually meaning the other.
If you meant what you said in a non-normative manner, you may need to emphasize this fact to prevent the more common reading. Separately, I'm sure some people question whether you are correct that few would choose this lifestyle, and if so, why this would be. Personally, I think you are right that few would choose to work as prostitutes but that the reason is the societal stigma associated with sex work.
I don't know how popular the choice would be if the stigma would be removed and the pay remained high. You seem to be asserting that it would remain extremely unpopular, but I'm not sure that's correct. Even if the stigma were removed, I think the years of human evolution which encourages men and women to pair-wise mate for life would make it hard on an emotional level for more people to provide sex as a service.
Outside of our biological needs, the health risks would be difficult to manage as well. Your contempt for their choices is bizarre and really offensive. If they have a better option, perhaps you could illustrate what that might be. Perhaps grab a coding job? Or waitressing, with all the benefits and pay that comes with and sexual harassment with no recourse, not much metoo for underpaid waitresses?
Or, are you offering a job? What benefits come with being a prostitute? If you're worried about sexual harassment with no recourse, picking a profession with astronomically higher risk of sexual violence would be the last choice any rational person would make. You've built a strawman for my argument; I'm not showing contempt for the choice of picking prostitution; but I am saying that in the US engaging in it, as a seller or as a buyer constitutes being stupid.
The increase risk of violence, sexual or otherwise, the risk to your families health, the risk to your own health, the risk to your career. All reasons why it's stupid. I believe decriminalizing prostitution would reduce the risks--but regardless, those who go into prostitution will still be exploited, regardless of it's legal status.
If it were decriminalized and remove it's social stigma I don't see more people becoming prostitutes. What's that and who exactly defined it? And, as to who exactly, psychologists. From the Mental Help article: They convince themselves that prostitution is a choice and that none of the women they see are exploited.
I would like to be confident that everyone I meet was able to get basic necessities like healthcare. Legalizing prostitution would open the door to reducing exploitation. Does the prostitute have a state issued sex worker ID? Are you paying at least the state-mandated minimum? Did you pay via a certified escrow service that has strict requirements to watch for common signs of abuse? Compare that to what we have now, which is a total lack of transparency.
Demand for sex is not going away. We need to prevent it from causing exploitation by creating a safe, legal option. My counter, if everyone had basic necessities met like health care, and universal basic income, would they choose to work as prostitutes? Perhaps a certain kind of psychologist. Psychologists are not a monolithic block, and many would say that an individual's choice to pursue sex work could be "healthy" as long as it isn't causing them emotional distress or preventing them from living a fulfilling life.
The "scorched earth" approach only gets support when the nature and scope of the issues are distorted. What are the real issues in play? One is prostitution, a form of sex work which is illegal in most of the United States. The American public have varying feelings about its legal status, how enforcement should be carried out, etc.
Public opinion doesn't support measures which endanger sex workers which FOSTA does , because they're already an at-risk group. Public opinion is rightly massively against slavery in any form. What I would like to know is, how much slavery was taking place through the Craigslist personals section? How much of it goes on in America? Can we get some real data injected into this discussion about the nature and the extent of actual forced sex labor? Scorched earth tactics might be appropriate if America has developed a serious slavery problem again , but they need to be justified with facts.
I've run across people who want to take a scorched earth approach to eradicating prostitution which will not work any more than the war on drugs did. They refer to all prostitution as trafficking in order to conflate the two issues, mislead the public and build support for their radical policies. Neither of these agendas reflect public opinion. The thing is, while some people see it as a separate issue, there is a very common opinion deliberately fostered by the anti-prostitution lobby that prostitution is inherently and inalterably human trafficking, and invocation of the term "human trafficking" is now very commonly used as a cover for policies that are directed generally against prostitution, and not at either the place where human trafficking overlaps with prostitution and not at human trafficking unconnected to prostitution.
Thanks for the links! These Wikipedia articles demonstrate my point that the facts and data are very weak in the trafficking discussion, and that data is often misrepresented to exaggerate the size of the problem. The percentage of these related to sex is not mentioned. This statement is also erroneous. The GSI's estimate was for the number of people in some form of "modern slavery," which by their definition includes certain kinds of prison labor among other things, and is unrelated to whether they were trafficked.
The same formula is used for Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, etc. I'm not trying to detract from the importance of the issue of modern slavery but mentioning the 57k out of context seems a bit misleading, the US is literally among the best in the world in this area and the number is so rough that it could be off by tens of thousands.
And again, it has nothing to do with trafficking, let alone sex trafficking! Why aren't we doing better studies and getting better data about the problem it purports to solve? I'll probably get downvotes for this, but the Republican leadership is uninterested in facts.
They are only interested in their agenda, and if facts get in the way, they will ignore them. It got a lot worse when Newt Gingrich took the reigns in Congress in the 90's.
Since Obama was elected, it's gone into hyperdrive. They fucking hated that man. Everyone is only interested in their agenda in politics, calling for additional research just happens to sometimes further a side's agenda. As of right now, the Democrats are the one's who want additional research in most situations, but that doesn't mean they want more research universally, and when studies have come back negatively as they sometimes do , they are disregarded. That said, there does seem to be an overall lack of trust in the scientific method among the political right, the reasons behind which being a bit more complicated than political efficacy.
Your comment brings to mind this article: I recommend giving it a read if you'd like your attitude challenged. Illniyar 3 months ago. Actually prostitution is legal in Nevada but not in the big cities.
So even that isn't so clear cut. Great point, I edited my comment to reflect this. Other countries have broader definitions. Slavery is still legal in the USA according to the 13th Amendment. Here is a related WP article. Retric 3 months ago. That number is pretending to be accurate the error bars are rediculus to have 3 digits. Yeah it seems too odd that the population percentage is 0. From safety1st's excellent comment: The scorched earth mentality says that if you're not in favor of gun-banning, you're pro-murder.
If you're not in favor of policing all of your user-generated content instantaneously and at significant cost, then you are pro-childporn and pro-child-sexual-exploitation. When in fact, nothing could be further from the truth. The form of this is a false equivalency or perhaps the https: Which is a pretty bad consequence, IMHO.
This also creates a law open to abuse: If you have a corporate enemy that permits user-generated content, simply anonymously post some objectionable content to their site, take a screenshot, and then alert the authorities with the URL and screenshot. It's like SWATting, except on a whole 'nother level! Is Giphy really to blame in this fiasco? How are they somehow more to blame than the person who actually posted this? And to make the system better they just took the system offline.
The next Craigs list will be on Tor and will have a child prostitute section. Congratulations on making things worse. There was at least one that was very popular around 5 years ago, but I don't remember the name.
But you are absolutely right, this is pushing sex workers further underground and therefore making their lives more dangerous. And now you'll have the "innocent" john sorting through ads selling any number of illegal offerings, because he will have to use the TOR version now. Can't help but think this will be a boon for those in the business of sex trafficking. Would it be surprising to say that trading in this might include Bitcoin? Monero is the de facto standard currency in the deep web nowadays, not bitcoin.
TeMPOraL 3 months ago. About as surprising as noticing that e. I'd imagine they would use Monero or Zcash nowadays since those are proven fairly more anonymized. Bitcoin is wholly public so all it takes is one identifiable wallet to start profiling addresses they interact with. You used to be able to tumble the bitcoins but cant realistically do it anymore due to high fees. By Bitcoin I meant Blockchain based money. But I couldn't edit it later on.
Unless they send you suitcase with human being and they don't expect them to get back with cash, then yes, it would be surprising. But if people are content to swat away a problem until they can't see it anymore, despite that the ignored causes continues to generate more misery, then it's hard to be sympathetic to that defensible position. Especially since a lot of people just lost access to romantic venues because a minority of users make a living through sex.
Or that particular sites enable it? I think the point is: Bartweiss 3 months ago. Perhaps more directly - if we're trying to stop sex trafficking by shutting down the places where victims meet clients, we're going to have to ban streets.
Fjolsvith 3 months ago. Or why can't we ban churches because pastors can use them to rape or molest church members? Most monetary transactions involving victims of sex slaves involve money, should we remove it too? He's saying that this affects far more legitimate users than sex traffickers by multiple orders of magnitude, while at the same time not preventing sex trafficking from taking place anyway.
No, no, we don't ban money, we just move to systems where the government gets to monitor all your financial transactions in real time and they get to selectively block those they don't find morally wholesome. End Prohibition of Sex Work Step 2. Stop Criminalizing Speech driving to further and further under ground were it is no longer tracable at all The "scorched earth" groups are in no way protecting victims, in fact they are making it WORSE by driving people to more shady platforms deep deep under ground, where law enforcement will be less likely to find information or victims.
End Prohibition of Sex Work All you have to do is study the laws of prostitution elsewhere in the world to understand that they have little to no influence on sex trafficking. Prostitution is legal, explicit, and even taxed in the Netherlands, but sex trafficking remains such a major problem that some large cities, like Utrecht, have outlawed prostitution locally to combat the issue. It may not end sex trafficking but legalising prostitution lowers harm levels on workers, but allowing them to seek medical care and police protection without risk of incarceration.
There is no down-side to legalisation as many would say for drugs, as it allows problems to have legal solutions. I'm not in disagreement with you about legalization of prostitution in general, but with regards specifically to sex trafficking, there is much evidence from several countries that legalization actually makes sex trafficking worse -- most likely due to increased demand for a service anyone can enjoy legally.
Could you cite some of this evidence? The issue comes up quite often in the local papers here in the Netherlands. Some other commenters here have pointed to some other reports from other countries. You get those same benefits if you keep buying sex illegal but decriminalise selling.
Some workers of the business in the Netherlands argue that the end of prohibition worsened conditions. Prostitution in the Netherlands and Drugs in Portugal seem to be the main ones. I assume things got worse because cowardly assholes are now allowed to treat the prostitutes disrespectfully. Before, the assholes that were afraid of the law wouldn't risk going to a prostitute. Now that the law won't hurt them, they go and are demanding disrespectful assholes. Implying that there is some uptick in people who are "allowed to treat the prostitutes disrespectfully" in well-regulated societies is intellectually disingenuous.
HelloNurse 3 months ago. Abuse in a brothel involves an idiot, a prostitute and a lot of other people possibly including bouncers , while abuse of a street walker involves only an idiot, a prostitute and a lonely place. Guess what's easier to perpetrate, regardless of legality.
The likelihood of customers that [would] make derogatory comments post encounter goes up. While the ratio is the same the hard number of negative feedback is 3 times greater. And psychologically negative feedback has much more weight that positive feedback which can weigh on an person's self-confidence and feeling of self-worth. Thank you for the reply and insight. My point is, there are more people now openly able and willing to approach prostitutes who think "shut up and do what I say because I'm paying you [you low life worthless being who has to sell you body to make a living]".
I'm not saying all people who use or are okay with prostitution think this, just that the supply of people who think this and act this way now find themselves able to openly go to prostitutes where as the law, and fear of it, kept these assholes from using prostitutes before. What does this have to do with the discussion at hand?
If your point is that some percentage of people are assholes who look down on others and that more people means more assholes overall, then this is already well understood.
How this clarifies the topic at hand or in any way furthers the discussion is missing. Someone said they heard legalization made conditions worse. I was merely offering up an opinion of why that might be, if true. Where are "closet" rude and mean people more likely to make degrading and derogatory comments? In public in front of others where their socially unacceptable behavior food service employees would be exposed?
Or behind closed doors with a single individual where they can freely say shit making the other feel small and themselves feel big? Sorry, I forgot anecdotes, metaphors, and hypotheses are not allowed on HN. I'm truly sorry I wasn't able to effectively and clearly communicate how the dots connect.
Noos 3 months ago. It got worse because no one wants to be a prostitute, and there has always been a strong coercive element to women entering that profession. When you legalize, you increase demand while the supply is still capped, so coercion rises to compensate.
So the same "coercive element" could be said and has been said to drive people to enter any field of employment making all work for wages "coercive" by nature. Where does the coercion appear? Thank you for replying. I'm sure you want the police and laws there to protect children from sexual exploitation. The same with drugs, you don't want smack and cocaine being sold in Boots. So there has to be a law, and that law is going to be too restrictive for some people and too lenient for others.
The laws and implementation of them swings back and forth all throughout time. We protect children from all manner of things because their brains have not formed to the point where we as a society believe they can make rational choices for themselves However if we are going to have a free society at some point you become an adult, at which point I do not believe the government should act as a parent over your life making choices as to what is "best" for you Allowing for that type of government means you lose self agency and your liberty.
Not sure what a boot is, in American English a boot is a type of shoe, I dont really know if I care that people sell drugs out of their shoes Aside from that, Yes I believe "smack", cocaine, and every other drug should be legal to sell to adults. The government has not business telling an adult what food, drink or drugs they are allowed or not allowed to take. At most the government has an responsibility to enforce quality, and truthful advertisement laws i. In fact, Boots is now owned by Walgreens.
It's official company name now is Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc but it's Walgreens who bought all the shares of Boots. I believe 'the boot' is a British term for the trunk of an automobile, which I think fits the bill here: The context is the British pharmacy "Boots" - think Walgreens. The parent commenter's argument is that our society at large does not want heroin and coke sold at the corner drugstore.
They want these substances out of sight, out of mind. It's all very well for us to imagine legalized drugs would be safer and more easy to regulate, but a majority of people disagree - so for the time being, they will continue being sold out of the boots of cars. TheGrassyKnoll 3 months ago. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. Taxed and regulated the same as alcohol and tobacco. Start by legalizing prostitution and removing the black market. That won't end all trafficking, but will end a lot and will make it much easier to go after the remaining illegal black market as it's now been separated from the legal market.
Comment about how people who don't learn are doomed to repeat history here. How many black markets for harmless everyday goods and services do we need to ban before the idiots in charge start to understand these simple principles?
They're constantly talking about markets, but clearly no one in government understands the first thing about them. Or, more likely, doesn't want to. It's much easier to hide illegally activity that mirrors legal activity than it is to hide illegal activity where all the surrounding paraphernalia is direct evidence.
Your assertion that legalisation of prostitution will lead to less trafficking of people seems naive to me - you create a larger market and allow people to easily hide.
You bring forth a compelling theory, but I don't think it's true. Compare the market for contraband or counterfeited booze and cigarettes, which "mirrors" legal booze and cigarettes, with the market for cocaine and heroin, where "all the surrounding paraphernalia is direct evidence".
OK, go on, if someone is smoking an illegally imported cigarette it's nearly impossible to tell just by looking that there's been a crime. If they're doing a line you know within a small error margin without any investigation. Why, because the former is hidden by the legally allowed behaviour.
No, you can't tell if a given cigarette being smoked is contraband or not, but buying a pack of smuggled cigarettes is a very different experience from buying a legal pack. Even a conscientious customer has very few options to check for themselves.
If brothels on the other hand are legal, operators have every incentive to do this, and if anyone is looking for an illegal brothel which looks very different from a legal one, just like the place you're buying smuggled smokes looks very different from a , this "paraphernalia" is direct evidence that they're looking for something bad.
Sure, but the question is about the relative sizes of the markets and the amount of involuntary suffering involved. While I admittedly did not look up any hard data, I take it for granted that the cocaine market is much more of a public problem than the smuggled cigarette market. This flies in the face of your admittedly compelling thought experiment. Siblings have made some compelling points regarding why that might be. Legal cigarettes cap the profits that can be had from illegal cigarette trade.
With cocaine, you can charge x production costs. This creates incentives that are sure to produce an endless supply of dealers, regardless of how draconian enforcement is. It would probably also create a boom in prostitution - with the accompanying drawbacks. Job Cohen, the former mayor of Amsterdam lamented in crime organizations and human traffickers taking advantage of their lax prostitution laws.
You know that you can have consensual sexual relationships outside of marriage, right? They don't even have to be exclusive.
Seriously, dude, if you're a "hungry man", open Tinder or just go to a local hook up bar. Hooking up for a one night stand is trivial. I look repulsive and my personality isn't much better. Hookups are quite out of the question. But it must be nice to be attractive and have enough money to go out clubbing. Stop being such a goddamned quitter.
Dressing well is the least important. Other people are happy to do it for you. If I can meet biological needs like eating by paying some one and not having to hunt and farm, why shouldn't I have the option of doing the same with sex? If you want to, go for it.
But feeling that you are charmless and ugly is unpleasant even if you can buy sex. These are problems that are at worst, and I do mean worst, ameliorable. If you tell yourself those things often enough, which frankly sound like what other people have said about you in the past, eventually you start to believe them as fact. Both looks and personality can be improved upon, even if you are on a budget. Perhaps the commenter was merely making a point but no doubt your advice is invaluable.
Glad you've been lucky, but don't make assumptions from data set of 1. It's trivial only for the most attractive and charismatic males. OkCupid has published some nice research on it. Luckily charisma can be learned and overcome all but the most outlying unattractive. But yea prostitution is the world's oldest profession for a reason - sometimes people just want a transactional sexual encounter. For money, one can have no "equal parts" requirement - no need to reciprocate.
It's not for everyone or for me but I can understand the attraction. Some people can indeed easily attract casual sexual partners in a matter of minutes or hours in almost any environment. But the vast majority of the population cannot. It all depends on how do you agree upon this. I've been married, and I've been in open and polyamorous relationships, and difference is enormous. Frondo 3 months ago. Of course it can.
Someone might want to have sex with you, and consent, and then they might want you to stop, and remove consent for you to continue. Continuing sex with someone after they tell you to stop, no matter what they said before, is sexual assault. Well, yes it can. You have to dismiss massive amounts of male testimonies to say that consent has never ever been removed after the fact.
The idea that there's a recurring massive problem of false convictions for rape is bizarre. In most countries it's extremely difficult to get alleged rape prosecuted in the first place and the conviction rate is low.
I'm not going to dispute that it might have happened in some cases but it's a comparatively rare problem. Also, I'm going to assume you're not a native English speaker - the contrasting group nouns should be "men" and "women" not "males" and "girls". This parenthetical is an odd leap. Perhaps it was meant to suggest that the author who is certainly fluent in, if not a native speaker of, English shouldn't use the word girls to refer to women?
No, its more like the Salem witch hunt. You mean, like millions of illegal immigrants who are working in farming, construction, fast food, and many other industries? How do you feel about scorched earth approach to those? Apparently trading your body for sex is somehow metaphysically different to trading your body for labor. It most certainly is for an indeterminate number of people. PurpleBoxDragon 3 months ago. But if you suggest to legalize and regulate it as a means of protecting those who don't wish to participate, you will be seen as a demonic entity who is advocating for sex crimes to be legalized.
I don't think one can defend a crusade that so easily and extremely ignores alternative solutions. I suspect a lot of the push is from very conservative or sex negative views who see this as an opening to roll back some of the recently won sexual freedoms.
TallGuyShort 3 months ago. It works both ways with different issues. Generally speaking every political discussion has degraded into accusing the other side of killing children. How can you compare being the victim of misdesigned automated system, who has no conscience and follows blind rules, to being the victim of a trafficker who has full understanding and responsibility for what he's doing and exploiting a mindless computer system designed for an entirely different purpose? Now I agree we as a society should recognize that some tools, in the hands of the criminal, sociopath or insane can do a lot of harm, and it's fair to move and restrict them.
High explosives, nuclear material, anonymous banking are all examples of technologies that, while useful, can and should be restricted.
But at no point it is a fault of the technology, and at no point should we examine the technology divorced from it's nefarious users who ultimately bear responsibility. Restricting useful technology is an extreme measure reserved for the most dangerous situations, otherwise ANY technology can be used for harming others.
This particular case seems completely out of balance and likely to have NO impact. I think you may be misreading GP's point. My reading is that he's likening the frustrations of the non profits with getting through to what they consider faceless entities the companies to the lesser frustrations one may have when one's subjected to an optional IVR experience. In other words, paraphrasing liberally: I'm not sure how to take your comments, based on your other thoughts. We shouldn't have anonymous banking, i.
I don't think he said anonymous banking should't be available at all - he explicitly said it was useful. Money laundering is one example that comes to mind. If you're a proponent of Crypto currencies you've probably heard similar statements before - this criticism isn't new. Yes, the instinct is understandable, but by the time we're putting NGO experts in government-sponsored working groups for the purpose of drafting legislation, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that we're expecting something that rises high!
Otherwise, we can almost, somewhat melodramatic exaggeration just let mobs with pitchforks take care of business and save a ton of effort.
Kalium 3 months ago. It it a deeply human response to an incredible frustration. After decades of struggle, to help the poor, vulnerable, and oppressed, it's down a couple of faceless corporations that don't seem to care. Because if they just knew, if they just understood, if they just had a little human empathy and sympathy for the pain and suffering Why then they'd take all their money and smart people and Solve the Problem!...