I believe Slavery was an Evolutionary Step...

[GPGeorge]

Also known as the "Who??? ME??" defense.

 

[NauticalGent]

Exactly...we know our own!

 

[Isaac]

Just one question Isaac: Did it hurt when you pulled that out of your arse??

Actually, it felt kinda good.

Ok, BUSTED.
I keep a list of words that watching Frasier has taught me.

Watch for upcoming posts where I try to sneak in churlish, loutish, and lambent. !!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Now what have I done? Are you accusing me of sodomistic, necrophile? Sorry, but your post is confusing - Meghan and Harry - I've not mentioned them for months. Have I lied or is it the banter about cowboy hats that upset?
It seems to me anything with my name here warrants a bollocking.

Col

Your first paragraph in post #95 seemed to be an attempt to excuse behavior that has already been explained as "out of line." It's the past. Let it go. I will if you will. The Woody Allen movie quote is related to your behavior in USA slang. "Beating a dead horse" is a more colloquial way of saying "persistent to a fault" or "doesn't know when to let go." And that is what got you into trouble when I got on your case before.

Actually, I was going along with your joke regarding the "cowboy hats." The only reason I wear hats these days is because of my aging process. I am now more likely than ever before to get sunburned scalp if I don't wear a hat or cap. And the LAST thing I need these days is to overheat my already tired brain by going outside without something on my head.

 

[ColinEssex]

It wasn't a joke. I've noticed that southerners wear cowboy hats more than more northern states. That may explain why JR Ewing wore one as Dallas is in Texas (I think)

 

[Pat Hartman]

I've noticed that southerners wear cowboy hats more than more northern states.

Northerners/Easterners Never wear cowboy hats (unless they're kids playing cowboys and indians) since they were never cowboys. and so wearing a "cowboy" hat would be cultural appropriation And that would get them called racists by the left. Cowboys are a uniquely "western" class of people. Generally Texas and Oklahoma but sometimes states to the west and north that are part of the great plains which is where cattle grazed. The culture is very much alive in Texas and Oklahoma but not so much in other states where cowboys actually worked.

We men just have to be careful nowadays, at least in the United States they are no longer considered prostitutes. They are all considered trafficking victims...

I think I remember the turning point. I was living in Miami in 1972-1973 and the Miami Herald started printing the name of the "John' when they arrested a prostitute. I was shocked when I saw that happen but didn't quite recognize it as a turning point but it seems like it was.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Women will never have equality until men get arrested at the same time and with the same frequency as their amant pour la nuit gets arrested. And until the baby-daddy can be forced to take a monetary interest in the kid he started before he left his one-night stand.

 

[ColinEssex]

So in the USA, if a female hooker is touting for business on a street, a car draws up, man inside, hooker gets in car and they go off to do the biz.
Is that illegal? If so who is the perpetrators, the hooker or man?
Col

 

[NauticalGent]

So in the USA, if a female hooker is touting for business on a street, a car draws up, man inside, hooker gets in car and they go off to do the biz.
Is that illegal? If so who is the perpetrators, the hooker or man?
Col

In some states, like Nevada, prostitution is legal although heavily regulated. Per your question, even in Nevada, both parties would be in violation and subject to arrest.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

So in the USA, if a female hooker is touting for business on a street, a car draws up, man inside, hooker gets in car and they go off to do the biz.
Is that illegal? If so who is the perpetrators, the hooker or man?
Col

In most states, it is illegal for both parties. Nevada allows prostitution in brothels but not on-street activities.

 

[ColinEssex]

Thank you. It seems a bit harsh to me.
In the UK it's easier to go to a 'massage' parlour, of which there are hundreds. In London, they openly display their 'services'. In Belgium, the girls sit virtually naked in shop windows to entice you in. I stayed in Brussels and (unknown to me) my hotel was in the red light district, all a bit much before breakfast.
Col

 

[NauticalGent]

Since you all asked me my opinion on this subject , I'll share it. I would never want one my daughters doing it but I do not look down upon the ladies who do it or their patrons.

While in Italy, the Americans stationed there would slander them and I would ask them had they ever had to wonder where the next meal was coming from or if they were going to have a roof over their head for themselves or family.

I have never been tested that way so I have no idea what measures I would take if I were.

 

[Pat Hartman]

I also don't have a problem with sex for money on either side. What I do object to are the criminals who force women to participate. Because, now we are back to essentially slavery again. Nevada has the right idea. Much as I hate state control over anything, the control gives the "sellers" (usually women) a semblance of safety to allow them to ply their trade.

 

[NauticalGent]

What I do object to are the criminals who force women to participate.

Agreed. They are the lowest life forms on earth.

Much as I hate state control over anything, the control gives the "sellers" (usually women) a semblance of safety to allow them to ply their trade.

I too do not like Government regulation, but if there MUST be some, it is better at the state level where it belongs...

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The most important part is that the employees can be legally covered by insurance and workman's comp and a few other benefits. They get paid in a way that they don't have to file a so-called 5th-amendment tax return. They are legal.

 

[ColinEssex]

I agree with Pat. The gangmasters are the scum who force these girls into this trade, similar to the gangmasters who fleece refugees of money , usually thousands of euros each to cross the English Channel in overloaded rubber boats, many of whom sink en route to the UK.
Col

 

[The_Doc_Man]

We have something similar. The "coyote" is the name applied to those who help refugees cross the USA/Mexican border. They take the money, often leave their "passengers" locked in a truck, and disappear, slinking off into the night. I'm not a violent person most of the time, but I would find it hard to grieve if someone killed a coyote.

 

[Isaac]

Women will never have equality until men get arrested at the same time and with the same frequency as their amant pour la nuit gets arrested. And until the baby-daddy can be forced to take a monetary interest in the kid he started before he left his one-night stand.

Why use the future tense?

The point we are making is that currently, only the man gets in trouble. The prostitutes are all considered trafficking victims.

Or maybe you were referring to the past I take it

 

[Isaac]

Certainly anyone who forces anyone into any type of servitude is an absolutely terrible thing!
Unfortunately though, currently in the USA, many people have misunderstood the connection between drug addiction and female prostitutes.
It is exceedingly common, if not the majority of female prostitutes, who have a drug addiction and are willingly selling sex for drug money.
The fact that there are inevitably males involved in the 'group' (as they tend to form groups in order to become more efficient and make more $ than they could separately) does not make the females 'trafficked', nor crime victims, necessarily.

I am simply pointing that out, not necessarily blaming anyone, except perhaps feminism, which has gone a bit far and excused everyone for everything, except of course, men.

The point is there is some of everything - people who actually do coerce women (or men, as there are plenty of male prostitutes here too) into such an industry is deplorable and must be prosecuted fully. That said, it is also not right to search for, and find, a person to assign blame to in cases where a woman is simply suffering from an addiction that has persuaded her to sell herself for money, in many cases with the help of males, who are generally also addicts no different from her, only lacking the thing that can be sold.

There is some of everything, and people should be cautious about "automatically" tending towards assigning blame in any direction but rather pursue accuracy based on each case.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Why use the future tense?

The point we are making is that currently, only the man gets in trouble. The prostitutes are all considered trafficking victims.

Or maybe you were referring to the past I take it

Because the laws are still asymmetric with respect to who gets arrested for the crime. No, Isaac, you are wrong. Prostitutes still get arrested in many jurisdictions. And the second part of what I said is still an issue as well. Men can flee an area and get out of paying for the seeds they sowed. I personally know of at least three cases where the men weaseled their way out of child support, leaving women high and dry - and preggers. It ALWAYS takes two to tango, and men have danced around their responsibilities for a long time. Child abandonment should be an extraditable crime, though I don't think it happens often enough to count for much.