> If I was in a situation where I could either prostitute myself (legally, in a safe-enough environment like a legal club with a bouncer) or clean toilets (lega

> If I was in a situation where I could either prostitute myself (legally, in a safe-enough environment like a legal club with a bouncer) or clean toilets (legally, in a safe-enough enviroment) Maybe that's because you expect yourself to benefit from it as much as your friend or the girl who wrote the article. Will you disagree that decriminalizing it, just like that, will lead to an increase in competition in that sphere which, in turn, will lead to more and more people agreeing to all kinds of stuff which they wouldn't agree to before? The money will still be there, you will just have to "work harder" to get them, consensually, so some other Aella wouldn't be so picky anymore and will be greatful to have a client who will choke her and call a whore. I didn't watch interviews with prostitutes, but i watched interviews with pornstars. Whether they want it or not, most of them eventually have to bend as they are getting older and most of them are not educated and/or intelligent enough to save money or invest it into something which can help them get out of this. I couldn't find age statistics in porn but the average, 22, median is more interesting though. > She'd like to get a better accepted job with better job security that she can still work when she gets older So maybe that's what we need to talk about? If you had a choice between toilets and prostitution, it would've meant one thing - you wouldn't be as smart(educated+intelligent) as you are now so your chances to benefit from it would've been low and you would've likely ended with cleaning someone's dirty dick with your mouth instead of cleaning toilets with your hands. Considering that this prostitute was/is your friend, she must be educated and intelligent enough to keep your interest. Why was that the only choice for her, btw? Family violence or smth? > Recycled slippery slope FUD "somebody think of the children" argument, used a lots of times, e.g. when "they" claimed that same sex marriages would lead to people marrying their dogs, daughters and children. Oh come on, i didn't expect that you will compare child prostitution to "think about children" and then compare it to gay marriage. The fact that you can compare anything to some stupid religious shit doesn't instantly make those things false, it just makes people afraid to use those comparisons and carefully avoid them in the conversations, as otherwise it will instantly turn into "ah, you are one of those idiots! Not talking to you!" I am yet to develop this brain reflex of "no-no-no, can't say the kid word, bad, bad!" as I don't expect people to get the "gay marriage" reflex. Kids are just another age group, who(for some unknown reason) are protected from this shit by law. Change it to decriminalizing gladiator fights to the death or work for 112 hours per week - it's all the same in the sense of making it all worse, not better. But you say that until someone is standing behind you with a gun to your head it's all consensual. > I was planning to give you a more detailed response, but after reading this, and the "male capitalist bias" bull post you linked, I am honestly not so keen on spending brain cycles on arguing with you. I said "smth like", it was night already and I have problems with concentration: seen a canvas of the message which seemed close to what was on my mind but which i couldn't put into words, but didn't see the other part. I don't know what "male capitalist bias" is and i shouldn't have related to the messages i dont understand. Can remove that part from my message completely - it won't lose anything. Point taken, no hard feelings, my fault >> _In capitalistic society everything can be called labour, including selling people, their organs and their genitals for sex._ >Selling people and selling organs is hardly the same as doing some consensual work for paying customers. Ah, right, the slippery slope of consensual work. People who gave me themselves, part or whole, did that consensually. I'm just a retailer who wants to work honestly and without fear. I sell, you buy. I say, if a person wants to sell their organs or themselves completely, then it should be their lawful right, if there was no coercion. After all, what else do we actually own but the meat on our bones? > I am pretty sure nobody here even made that argument, but I guess it's easier to attack that strawman. Why is it a strawman? There is literally no barrier from going down or up on social security ladder but the barrier of public opinion and actions. Decriminalizing stuff, the way it is argued here by the majority, is a try to patch the consequence of the problem and avoidance of the problem itself. And I already said that i agree with decriminalization of the prostitution, as well as one for using heavy drugs, dont know why you ignored that. Considered it irrelevant? > Oh hurray, Marx is alive! Ah, sarcasm which is supposed to mean something but the sarcasm itself. I'm not a marxist, but it's pretty obvious, to me, that most people won't do anything until they really-really-really have nothing to lose, whether Marx is alive of dead. > Sorry, but you cannot eat "empowerment" and you cannot break the chains of "famine" or "overpopulation". No shit sherlock, maybe the reasons for overpopulation need a solution too? And not by throwing people into bioreactor, using them to fertilize the soil or making soap, but, you know, education and stuff. If 42 millions of prostitutes(in 2012, right now it should be much more than that) are being paid, then those money have to come from somewhere. How about using them for raising the quality of life of the people instead of making them have sex for that security(consensually ofc)? > What's the goal here? Bloody revolution against capitalism towards a collective utopia? > This would only work if everybody was pure and virtuous, and that's just not the reality. Wasn't my intention to get into this conversation but ok. The goal is raising the quality of life You don't get pure and virtuous people by some kind of a switch. It's a longterm goal which should be achieved by increasing the level of education and gradual raise of the quality of life, and, therefore, raising the awareness of society. Right now we have much more people thinking about racism, overpopulation, inequality, global warming and stuff than 50 years ago. Changes are not made by some kind of a global vote, you just need to have a critical mass with enough influence - tetraethyllead gasoline can confirm that. And, btw, right now we have a choice a choice between bloody revolution for your rights and bloody war for the rights of 1%, haven't you seen the news? And revolutions are much less bloody > You can make things fairer, and we should strive to do that. true > But "breaking chains" rhetoric in this context ... It really was rhetoric, i had a chance to use it so i did, no harm done. I meant what i wrote above. > ...is counter-productive at best, and destructive at worst, as well as divorced from reality. Since when striving for the improvement of the quality of life is counter-productive?