a CA group is going to court to nullify Cali's prostitution law
Tiredtraveler
Solo PL
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2017/10/20/cha…
The questions are:
How will the court rule: Since there is no history of the 9th circuit following the constitution, precedent, or the rule of law there is no telling how this will come down. But they are going to here the case. I'm not sure how I think this should turn out. The current California legislature will likely make a worse law to take the place of the current one but if the law is struck down it will trigger lawsuits all over the country.
Will this decrease or increase trafficking (forcible and underage): ...theoretically it should decrease it because young un-educated women (and men) will willingly do it part time for extra money and full time.(the attitude of many 18 - 30 year old's does not see a problem with selling it, that my be from the proliferation of porn, Hollywood's casual sex(fucking ugly, fat, old jerks to get a part in a movie), Hugh Hefner, who knows). With TV's sexualization of prepubescent children I do not think the underage trafficking will slow much because the pervs who indulge in that will still be around.
Will another regulatory agency pop up to license, supervise and harass: YES!!
Will states and cities react by limiting any and all contact in clubs: Yes that is a likely scenario.
Will there be a grace period before states, cities and regulators can get new rules into place: Very Likely
Will anything really change: ?
Your opinions??
Got something to say?
Start your own discussion
29 comments
+The illegal/black market side still exists.
+An added legal market exists.
+The pimps and trafficked women still exist in be illegal side
+The expanded market benefits customers and pimps, but not women.
The laws need to follow society not the other way around. Even if prostitution is legal, the stigma still exists. Women, even in the legal market, still WILL NOT go to the police. We see this parallel with Exotic Dancers. The dancers do everything they can to help they're dancers from police, their families, their future husbands, the communities. Women still feel stigmatized from being labeled a whore. That stigma doesn't go away, even if you legalize it. Society puts it there.
The benefit is for the customers because in addition to 'X' number of illegal prostitutes, there is now 'Y' legal prostitutes for a market of 'X+Y' and lower prices, most likely.
The trafficked women still get brutalized. Both types are prostitutes are stigmatized. And now prices are lower or her net is less due to taxation and regulation compliance. And the legal side subsidizes the illegal side. Lose-lose for the women.
I don't know what the answer is.
I think in the future, we might realize that in order to avoid sexual harrassment law suits, assault, and moral objects to sex, we might need to realize that going back for the old days where the dancer was physically separate from the customer -- either via glass wall on stage, the stage itself, or on a wooded crate -- might be the only sustainable model to avoid sexual harassment and assault cases.
I really think we need to consider that. Else we'll keep doing this dance of: it's a club, no it's a thinly veiled brothel, no it's a club, ... until the heat death of the universe.
Historically, if I recall correctly, prostitution was legal and most prostitutes (worldwide) were indigenous women, minorities, or underclass, which seemed to be tolerated. This was also the Progressive Era 1890-1920, so that probably played a role.
It is as if culturally and fiscally the United States is still perpetually stuck in 1919. Almost anytime I see conflicts like his I am reminded of the events of 1919 and how we're still arguing the same debate topics of 1919. IMO. I am probably reading too much into it.
That being said, I can't see CA legalizing it. They'll make up some lame excuse to beep the laws on the books.
If you at StripperWeb, the dancers, if the ones who don't do extras, the fear of BEING OUTED, is the her worst horror. And dancing is legal and more or less accepted. But the girls are still afraid of the whore label.
It also helps to explain the alternate reality at StripperWeb. If the dancers admit to extras or OTC, it's like admitting to themselves their their moms were right all along and being a dancer is a whore. Mentally they can't do it.
So they all jockey for the role of head nun in the convent.
Woodrow Wilson and his ilk started the morality police movement that led US down the prohibition road, and the belief that the government and the bureaucrat always know best.
They (the "progressives") were/are totally convinced of their WASP (now the political elite) superiority and that the other "lower races" need to be controlled or eliminated for their own good. (blacks, irish, italians, germans, orientals, native americans, all should not be allowed to procreate = planned parenthood was started in immigrant and black neighborhoods)
No possibility that individuals could possibly make decisions on their own!
That said, Fox News > Brietbart > InfoWars, as far as I'm concerned.
"lower races" need to be controlled or eliminated for their own good. (blacks, irish, italians, germans, orientals, native americans, all should not be allowed to procreate = planned parenthood was started in immigrant and black neighborhoods)
So doesn't it make sense that the white conservatives would be in favor of free, government funded abortion on demand? Or free birth control for poor people? Yet the party of white supremacy seems to be against these things. Oh well...
The same news bite is in the other news. The review of the California law is fact and is on the 9th district docket. The briefs are public record from previous fillings.
Woodrow Wilson is often haled as the father of modern progressivism and he was a democrat. His writings(which I have read) profess forced racial purity. Margret Sanger professed the same ideas of racial purity and control of the races through birth control and abortion.
"I think if we look in areas and nations where prostitution is legalized, the net result is it DOES NOT help the women.
+The illegal/black market side still exists.
+An added legal market exists.
+The pimps and trafficked women still exist in be illegal side
+The expanded market benefits customers and pimps, but not women."
Ok, probably. But as long as *someone* is benefited and no one is harmed, then that's a good law. Not every single law needs to be about "helping victims," or "the middle class," or "working single mothers," or "minorities," or whoever else they use when they need an excuse in Washington. Maybe this would help the trafficking victims. Maybe it wouldn't. I don't know. But they are being trafficked right now, regardless. Clearly some people do prefer the legal option when it's available, otherwise all the legal brothels around the world would have closed by now due to lack of business.
"The laws need to follow society not the other way around. Even if prostitution is legal, the stigma still exists."
That's not how America is supposed to work. We are supposed to be free here regardless of whether society approves of our personal conduct. During the Progressive Era, somehow, we decided that this should no longer be the case. Lots of other bad stuff came out of the Progressive Era: a world war, prohibition, the Federal Reserve, the first federal drug laws, the income tax, etc.
"Women, even in the legal market, still WILL NOT go to the police."
Maybe from time to time there are women who refuse to go to the police in a legal market, but they are the exception, not the rule. In northern Nevada, for example, the police routinely check the brothels.
"The benefit is for the customers because in addition to 'X' number of illegal prostitutes, there is now 'Y' legal prostitutes for a market of 'X+Y' and lower prices, most likely."
So? Were you also concerned about the livelihoods of the cable companies when they suddenly had to compete with Netflix? What you're saying is that prostitution should be illegal... but that they should still make tons of money illegally with artificially high prices. That doesnt make sense. Besides, the legal prostitutes will have taxes and licensing fees (which I do not approve of, but it's better than keeping it illegal), and that would artificially prop up prices. There. Does that make you feel any better? :)
Generally speaking, however, America is not ready for legal prostitution and most courts will respect that fact. However, the liberals on the 9th circuit are bat shit crazy. That's the only US court that I can imagine issuing such a ruling.
I'm not arguing against legal prostitution, but I do want to correct any false rationalizations that it will decrease criminal involvement. That's like saying smoking weed is healthy.
There are always gonna be reasons not to do something b/c it will hurt X, Y, Z - back in the mid-90s when welfare reform was on the table the battle-cry was that single women and kids were gonna be starving in the streets if welfare reform went thru yet in hindsight most agree it was a successful legislation.
I can't see how legalizing would be worse for anyone including women - will there still be issues, of course - but this is just looking at the corner-cases or worst-case scenarios - sure, there is illegal booz and cig sales; but how many on here routinely buy illegal booze or cigs, or know anyone that does - IDK anyone and never have - yet how many of us fuck "illegally".
Just like prohibition didn't work b/c most people still wanted to drink; even more people wanna have sex so prohibiting that is gonna be less successful than alcohol-prohibition - plus prohibition led to major gangs and crime (Al Capon, etc) just like illegal drugs hav led to major crime and gangs, and just like IMO illegal prostitution also most-likely leads to more-crime - not too-mention that in most areas w/ legal prostitution AFAIK the women are required to get tested regularly thus further making a point for legal being safer for everyone - i.e. w.r.t. alcohol there was more crime associated w/ prohibition that w/ alcohol being legal.
If P4P was so evil, then why is it allowed in Nevada - I know it's b/c of some loophole/grandfathering shit but still if it was such an "evil" it would not be allowed no-matter what type of loophole/grandfathering - plus I don't see huge side-effects of it being legal in NV like tremendous amount of pimping, etc - I see more issues in the places where it's illegal - and why is pornography allowed; it's basically the same shit, women getting paid to have sex - yet there is no overwhelming evidence of sex-trafficking in the porn industry o/w it would have been known and dealt-with.
It's hypocrisy - everyone likes, and for most part needs sex, and would like to have access to it as much as possible - IMO we are kidding ourselves w/ all the anti-P4P excuses and what-if's - it's mostly fear-mongering by those that have something to gain by keeping the status-quo.
After-all - it's a mantra in today's society that women can do w/e they want and can do w/e they want w/ their bodies, but not sell it? Hipocricy!!!
I agree with almost everything you guys said. My point, and I think some of you will agree with me, is that freedom is an end in itself and it is a positive good. Legalizing prostitution would make some people more free while not enslaving anyone else. Therefore, it's a good idea.
Brothels can be monitored and controlled, which eliminates a lot of the non-moral issues people have with prostitution. It's not a perfect solution but I think it's better than the alternatives.