ajzepp Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Ahh, Ajz....dunno. Few prostitutes have much of a free will left to be considered capable of consent. I know that some say it's a victimless crime. A lot...most...prostituion is the running of women and some boys for third-party profit. I don't know if there is a modern term, but an old one was the "stockade". That's where the pimp takes those new, ofttimes slow and naive kids into a room, and has her beat and repeatedly, brutally raped over several hours and days, the idea being to render them senseless and subservient. They get out of line, they don't produce the money from tricks, they get more of the same. Most end up horribly diseased, disposable. Many came in with profound mental problems and that is increased. They become just...wet spots cowering in the night, stripped of their humanity, wondering when the next abuse, the next pain and degradation will come from. And if this is the day they die... 794391[/snapback] Well then that's a perferct example of who they SHOULD be going after....the abuser(s). Most of these women have been thrown in jail time and time again....they just end up back out on the street. I don't see what purpose it serves to continually throw them back in jail. I'd rather see these resources used to track down the abusers in the example you cited, or perhaps some sort of counseling. I just think it's absurd to have a female police officer dress up like a hooker, have her stand out on the street and then nail some poor schmuck who is just looking to get laid.
Alaska Darin Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Cincy, as usual, your opinions about the "liberal movement" are misguided, but I'll save that for another time. 794339[/snapback] Not any worse than yours...
KD in CA Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Maybe, we can stop the ACLU bashing long enough to ask if they can help us out on this one. 793812[/snapback] Except that most online poker players are white males and thus the ACLU couldn't give a rat's ass.
Bill from NYC Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Except that most online poker players are white males and thus the ACLU couldn't give a rat's ass. 794405[/snapback] True, unless you belong to the KKK. If so, those a-holes will gladly take your case.
Stussy109 Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Its all about the taxes... It really is unfair that joe schmoe Mr. Bodog can make 100's of millions off of US customers while his "busienss" is being conducted in US homes, and not pay any taxes. WHile everyone else has to conduct business and pay their fair share. Party Poker is based out of India if i recall correctly, let them pay soem taxes if they want to captialize on American customers. FWIW- I am a regular poker player both in live games in AC and online at Party Poker. I just think it is unfair for profit to be made overseas on american dollars without paying taxes.
KD in CA Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 I take a morning coffee and read the newspaper at a local McD's. I have a cig. Several times, I have gotton daggers shot at me- once or twice a few words - from people who along with their tubby kids are consuming large quantities of pancakes and 3 syrup packets, sausage, eggs, hash browns, and 32 ounce sodas...not to mention their burps, farts, and cell phone disturbances. I'm reminded of a South Park episode that lampooned the PC crowd. They took the kids to the Museum of Tolerance and taught them not to discriminate against people based on color, religion, sexuality, nat'l origin, etc., etc., etc. Then they stepped outside and started screaming obscenities at a guy walking by smoking a butt.
Acantha Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Ahh, Ajz....dunno. Few prostitutes have much of a free will left to be considered capable of consent. I know that some say it's a victimless crime. A lot...most...prostituion is the running of women and some boys for third-party profit. I don't know if there is a modern term, but an old one was the "stockade". That's where the pimp takes those new, ofttimes slow and naive kids into a room, and has her beat and repeatedly, brutally raped over several hours and days, the idea being to render them senseless and subservient. They get out of line, they don't produce the money from tricks, they get more of the same. Most end up horribly diseased, disposable. Many came in with profound mental problems and that is increased. They become just...wet spots cowering in the night, stripped of their humanity, wondering when the next abuse, the next pain and degradation will come from. And if this is the day they die... 794391[/snapback] Next week, on 21 Jumpstreet.
KD in CA Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Next week, on 21 Jumpstreet. 794416[/snapback] Wow....you pulled that one out of the vault.
Chilly Posted October 3, 2006 Posted October 3, 2006 Not any worse than yours... 794399[/snapback] Perhaps, but I'm not the one making the causal connection in this thread between developments and the liberal movement.
Live&DieBillsFootball Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Its all about the taxes... It really is unfair that joe schmoe Mr. Bodog can make 100's of millions off of US customers while his "busienss" is being conducted in US homes, and not pay any taxes. WHile everyone else has to conduct business and pay their fair share. Party Poker is based out of India if i recall correctly, let them pay soem taxes if they want to captialize on American customers. FWIW- I am a regular poker player both in live games in AC and online at Party Poker. I just think it is unfair for profit to be made overseas on american dollars without paying taxes. 794410[/snapback] I don't think that it is about the taxes. I read recently that England allows the companies to set up shop there and get a cut through taxes. The U.S. position has been to keep it out of the country and not get a cut. IMHO, the ban is a result of lobbying by the U.S. gaming industry and/or the Christian Right.
buckeyemike Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 IMHO, the ban is a result of lobbying by the U.S. gaming industry and/or the Christian Right. 794494[/snapback] Bet on the gamers. And I can't believe I just said that. Generally, the Christian Right is too busy going after online porn and gay marriage to worry about internet gambling. Except if it's James Dobson, who has researched studies showing what gambling addictions can do to families (and by the way, politics aside, I think he's right, because I've seen some of the effects of it). Nonetheless, if we decide to live in a free society, that's part of the price we pay and the risk we take. None of us want to live in a nanny state, which is what we're rapidly becoming, and it doesn't matter if it's liberal or conservative. I say this: if it doesn't hurt others and no one else is affected by my actions except myself, I state the following to our Potential Nanny Overlords: LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE AND SHUT THE HELL UP!!!
plenzmd1 Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Online Poker ban? Prohibition should be back on the books around 2008....funny how you will still be able to bet on horses...drop your entire paycheck on quickdraw...but I will not be able to throw a $100 into my PP account to play some poker in my own home....nice... 792497[/snapback] I have read alol five pages, and not seen this mentioned. You my friend, are on the money. On line lottery and horse bets fill the coffers of the state where the lottery and or horse track is located. This is simply a way for states to protect their revunue stream. This legislation has exectly ZERO to do with the moral/ethic issues of gambling. It is 100% to do with prtecting revenues of the states. Ya just cannot take the state of the teat at this point. Funny how the most regressive tax in the world(the various state lottery) isn't being banned here, only offshore gambling. Sate of MD gets nothing when lose $100 on Partypoker, but makes bout $28 dollars per $100 wagered on the lottery, and bout $18/$ wagered at one of the states tracks(whether online or at track/otb). This is simply a protectionist policy to keep those dollars in the staes coffers
ajzepp Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 This is simply a way for states to protect their revunue stream. This legislation has exectly ZERO to do with the moral/ethic issues of gambling. It is 100% to do with prtecting revenues of the states. That's why it's such bullschit when they get up there and talk about how it's the negative impact that gambling has on peoples' lives that serves as the basis for their motivation.
stuckincincy Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Well then that's a perferct example of who they SHOULD be going after....the abuser(s). Most of these women have been thrown in jail time and time again....they just end up back out on the street. I don't see what purpose it serves to continually throw them back in jail. I'd rather see these resources used to track down the abusers in the example you cited, or perhaps some sort of counseling. I just think it's absurd to have a female police officer dress up like a hooker, have her stand out on the street and then nail some poor schmuck who is just looking to get laid. 794396[/snapback] The feds have published a pamphlet for prostitutes...don't wear high heels, so they can run away, wear cotton underware for ventilation so to try and reduce infection harboring, and so forth. I know that sounds like a funny thing...but I commend them trying to help in even a small way. Yes...the entrapment is something I also don't like. I chalk it up as them just trying to do something, anything. There are any number of public and private and religious organizations that do try to provide the type of help you mention. Spotty success. But you know, people have always been sexually charged up, and the elders through a couple of thousand of years realized - mostly as a matter of practicality - that "one man - one woman", i.e. marriage and fidelity, offered the best possible way to maintain some sort of civility, and surely the best environment for the raising of children. And I realize that enforcement of such has had countless ugly moments and outcomes. I guess we just have to play the odds here.
ajzepp Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 The feds have published a pamphlet for prostitutes...don't wear high heels, so they can run away, wear cotton underware for ventilation so to try and reduce infection harboring, and so forth. I know that sounds like a funny thing...but I commend them trying to help in even a small way. Yes...the entrapment is something I also don't like. I chalk it up as them just trying to do something, anything. There are any number of public and private and religious organizations that do try to provide the type of help you mention. Spotty success. But you know, people have always been sexually charged up, and the elders through a couple of thousand of years realized - mostly as a matter of practicality - that "one man - one woman", i.e. marriage and fidelity, offered the best possible way to maintain some sort of civility, and surely the best environment for the raising of children. And I realize that enforcement of such has had countless ugly moments and outcomes. I guess we just have to play the odds here. 795132[/snapback] Why not just regulate it? I'm a strong proponent of the nuclear family too, and I think it's awful that there are so many broken families in this country. That being said, people are going to find ways to satisfy their sexual needs one way or the other. I don't think it's possible for the authorities to even come close to solving the problem doing things the way they are, so why not just decriminalize it, regulate it, and keep these women from having to fend for themselves on the streets?
taterhill Posted October 4, 2006 Author Posted October 4, 2006 Why not just regulate it? I'm a strong proponent of the nuclear family too, and I think it's awful that there are so many broken families in this country. That being said, people are going to find ways to satisfy their sexual needs one way or the other. I don't think it's possible for the authorities to even come close to solving the problem doing things the way they are, so why not just decriminalize it, regulate it, and keep these women from having to fend for themselves on the streets? 795208[/snapback] religious wackos
bills_fan Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Why not just regulate it? I'm a strong proponent of the nuclear family too, and I think it's awful that there are so many broken families in this country. That being said, people are going to find ways to satisfy their sexual needs one way or the other. I don't think it's possible for the authorities to even come close to solving the problem doing things the way they are, so why not just decriminalize it, regulate it, and keep these women from having to fend for themselves on the streets? Parts of Nevada already do exactly that. To my knowledge, they have not incurred additional problems as a result. It ridiculous that at least a few more states haven't tried it.
stuckincincy Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Why not just regulate it? I'm a strong proponent of the nuclear family too, and I think it's awful that there are so many broken families in this country. That being said, people are going to find ways to satisfy their sexual needs one way or the other. I don't think it's possible for the authorities to even come close to solving the problem doing things the way they are, so why not just decriminalize it, regulate it, and keep these women from having to fend for themselves on the streets? 795208[/snapback] Well, It's been attempted. Germany's Rapabond district in Hamburg, and Braunschweig's Puf Alley district come to mind. And folks claim that that's good - no chance of disease - but that's not so...whatever testing may occur, there is a latency. You won't have a ghost of a chance of regulating all. What do you do to those that don't comply with the laws? If and when you discover them, charge them with consumer fraud and again lock 'em up? I mentioned previously, that are numerous avenues of help. They are not perfect, I know. This is a deep subject, ajz. Plenty of significant allied issues. How about continuing it at a later date?
ajzepp Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Well, It's been attempted. Germany's Rapabond district in Hamburg, and Braunschweig's Puf Alley district come to mind. And folks claim that that's good - no chance of disease - but that's not so...whatever testing may occur, there is a latency. You won't have a ghost of a chance of regulating all. What do you do to those that don't comply with the laws? If and when you discover them, charge them with consumer fraud and again lock 'em up? I mentioned previously, that are numerous avenues of help. They are not perfect, I know. This is a deep subject, ajz. Plenty of significant allied issues. How about continuing it at a later date? 795247[/snapback] I don't think there needs to be the goal of "disease free" hookers. I could pick up a girl tonight at Borders or some other seemingly harmless place and for all I know she could be loaded with every STD in the book. I just think our government needs to be a little more creative when it comes to problem solving. Just because a solution is not perfect doesn't mean it's without merit. And I agree Tater, the religious nuts would lose their schitt if prostitution was decriminalized....
ajzepp Posted October 4, 2006 Posted October 4, 2006 Parts of Nevada already do exactly that. To my knowledge, they have not incurred additional problems as a result. It ridiculous that at least a few more states haven't tried it. 795234[/snapback] I agree. If the federal government won't do more to find solutions to the problems, then the states should take it in their own hands and try to improve the situation.
Recommended Posts