A giant Teutonic brothel - Has liberalization gone too far?

[garbon]

Yeah that is pretty crazy.  You cannot even slip across the border to Mexico for it anymore (well...safely anyway).

But it is pretty easy to engage the services of an escort.

Is it?  I have to admit I have never looked into it.  Also to me escort = really expensive for rich old guys.

They advertise all over the place. But yes, I suppose you do need a few hundred to do so.

[Admiral Yi]

Yeah. I'll be more specific people in Romania and Bulgaria currently have no right to live or work in Germany.

If that's the case, then surely the Rumanian and Bulgarian women (those that go to Germany voluntarily) are criminals, not victims of trafficking.

[derspiess]

From what I recall from a female cop show they did in Cincy, it's not prohibitively expensive to get a young, at least average looking call girl.

[derspiess]

Yeah. I'll be more specific people in Romania and Bulgaria currently have no right to live or work in Germany.

If that's the case, then surely the Rumanian and Bulgarian women (those that go to Germany voluntarily) are criminals, not victims of trafficking.

Ouch.  In today's feminist neo-paternalistic age women can only be victims.

[garbon]

Yahoo answers gave me this.

So, if you are looking for more of a hookerish type escort you will be paying around $200 or less per hour. Medium type escort around $250-500/hr. usually with a 2 hour min. & then more high end runs you around $750-$5,000/hour & some may require a full day booking & plenty of notice.

[The Brain]

2h minimum?

[Admiral Yi]

2h minimum?

Makes sense.  They have to amortize transportation.  Chinese delivery places have minimum orders, why not hookers?

[Ed Anger]

The selection of whores on the dayton Backpage escort section is NASTY.

I wonder if Columbus is better?

[Berkut]

I would guess that this disagreement with Shelf is about 90% BS smoke and mirrors,and mostly just something much more fundamental.

He thinks the state should enforce his particular mores, and I don't think the state should be in the business of enforcing anyone's mores.

Everything about whether decrminalization works or not is pretty much driven from the fact that he is starting from a conclusion, and then evaluating the evidence backwards from there.

[The Brain]

2h minimum?

Makes sense.  They have to amortize transportation.  Chinese delivery places have minimum orders, why not hookers?

Do poor people get sex stamps?

[Admiral Yi]

Do poor people get sex stamps?

Not yet.  Maybe in the next 50 years.

[The Brain]

Do poor people get sex stamps?

Not yet.  Maybe in the next 50 years.

I can't wait.

[crazy canuck]

He thinks the state should enforce his particular mores, and I don't think the state should be in the business of enforcing anyone's mores.

That is an odd use of the word "mores" as it is usually used in the context of community standards rather than individual standards.

So let me as you this to help clarify you position.  Do you think the state should make laws regarding any mores?

[Berkut]

He thinks the state should enforce his particular mores, and I don't think the state should be in the business of enforcing anyone's mores.

That is an odd use of the word "mores" as it is usually used in the context of community standards rather than individual standards.

So let me as you this to help clarify you position.  Do you think the state should make laws regarding any mores?

I think the default position should be that the state needs to prove a compelling need to pass any law that restricts individuals rights to liberty.

In this case, I start from a different point than Shelf. I get where he is coming from, and from a moral perspective, I largely (although not entirely) agree with his views and concerns.

But I start from a basic standpoint that looks like this.

Person A and Person B are in a room.

Person A has a bunch of money.

Person B would like some of that money.

Person B *wants* to exchange some personal service with Person A, and Person A would rather have that service than the money.

So here we have a situation where two people, both completely free to make their own decisions and choices, wish to engage in a completely private transaction.

My position is that nobody else has any right to tell them they cannot, without showing a very compelling reason why they ought not to be allowed.

Shelf looks at this from the other end - he says that Person B would never agree to such an exchange unless there were factors involved that as a society we ought not to tolerate. Poverty, drug use, abuse, trafficking, etc., etc.

I say you should address those factors if it is those factors that you are concerned about, rather than outlawing the transaction. Because outlawing the transaction outlaws it even for those cases where those factors don't actually exist.

[Admiral Yi]

Shelf has made what I think are a few good points.

1. Paying a woman who is drawn to prostitution because of psychological or emotional problems for sex can be seen as "exploitation."

2.  Coercion does exist in prostitution.  Paying a pimp to have sex with a woman who is beaten daily and chained to a bed is wrong.

3.  Legalizing prostition could have the effect of increasing coerced prostitution.