• hogunner@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    180
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Alleged prospective sex buyers in this scheme first had to respond to a survey and provide information online, including their driver’s license photos, their employer information, credit card information, and they often paid a monthly fee to be part of this.”

    Wait, what? (͡•_ ͡• )

    That should make the prosecutors jobs much easier.

    • IninewCrow@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      38
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      The ease of prosecuting is directly proportional to how wealthy and influential the accused is.

      Remember, it’s a legal system … not a justice system … you can easily distinguish the difference by how wealthy you are (or are not)

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Not really, because the people who made the survey are probably smart enough to not include anything about exchanging money for sex. Basically, there’s nothing illegal about filling out a survey about who you are and what are your likes or dislikes. There’s also nothing illegal for someone to pay another person for their time.

      So no mention of exchanging money for sex and it’s incredibly hard to prosecute.

      • hogunner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        No idea if you’re right or not but that’s not what I meant. I meant they don’t have to hunt down the johns, the johns already provided all the possible info the prosecutors would need to find them.

        • Furbag@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think what the person above was implying is that having your name on that list is not de-facto evidence of participation. I’m sure the DOJ has more than just that one piece of evidence if they’ve already made arrests, because sex workers in America are nothing if not extremely careful about how they conduct their business to avoid exposing themselves or their clients to law enforcement stings.

        • tookmyname@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Are Johns (and sex workers) even worth prosecuting? I think the DOJ is interested in a organized prostitution ring and it’s leaders, involved in conspiracy and money laundering, not a few dudes paying for (adult) sex.

          I don’t think they’ll waste their time.

        • EatATaco@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          How exactly does that help? It’s not like they are going to do stake outs on these guys. It’s not enough probable cause for any type of warrant or anything.

          It would help support a case if you already had one, but as an entry point it’s all but completely useless, if not actually completely useless.

          Which is why they won’t release the names, because doing so would open them up to lawsuits. All risk no reward.

    • DigitalTraveler42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Criminals and criminals masquerading as religions love to get blackmail on their clientele/members, it’s probably the more lucrative part of their enterprise, and it keeps those members/clientele loyal, because who wants their nasty ass secrets leaked out or sold to their enemies?

    • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      None of that’s illegal, aside from the card info it’s actually a lot of the things a trustworthy sex worker will be asking you for as a background check before agreeing to meet you.

    • bassomitron@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m guessing it was that one P411 website or whatever. That site has been in the news in the past. It baffles me that people would willingly comply with such invasive identification requirements for something that’s illegal. I get the idea behind it is to try and prove that you’re not a cop/murdery type of criminal in order to protect the sex workers, but… yeah, lol.

    • El Barto@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      92
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Selling is legal, fucking is legal, why isn’t selling fucking legal?

      – George Carlin

      • Rai@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        1 year ago

        Seas he also the fella that said “Getting paid for sex is illegal… UNLESS YOU RECORD IT!”

        • vrek@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          For years I’ve contemplated the idea if I came into a bunch of money if starting a porn studio where the customer is an actor/actress in the porn.

          We have a building and several “sets” with cameras recording, customer picks their “partner” and “set” and “shoot the porn”, after they are done the video is burned on to a dvd(or blue ray or potentially put on a private file server).

          The customer isn’t paying for sex, they are paying for the video.

          Pretty sure it would have a ton of legal push back and I would need a lot of money for the lawyers to fight the cases.

          But 1. Safer for everyone imvolved(it’s video taped so you won’t beat/hurt/kill the other party) 2.technically legal just like shooting porn

          • El Barto@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            This is actually a great idea for couples! The issue of course would be to make sure that the couples are actual couples.

            You could have them sign a release indicating that it’s a “photo studio”, and you can have different prices: one for commercial use ($5,000 per hour) and one for private use ($100 an hour, and you’re not allowed to commercially distribute the DVD.)

          • oshu@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Think there is a big group of customers for sex who want it captured on video?

            • bamboo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              You could burn it to a dvd or whatever, delete the file, and give the customer the only copy. Whether they choose to keep it or destroy it is their own choice.

            • vrek@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Not to mention the possible tie ins…imagine if the studio partnered with onlyfans… Or offered special spaces with live streaming(with permission) to people’s Webcam sites.

              “remember to join the stream this Saturday where we will be on location in the pleasure dome’s sunset beach set for a special sex on the beach adventure”

            • vrek@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              They get the only copy… I don’t care if the watch it, post it online or just it for skeet shooting with a shotgun.

    • quindraco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      61
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      The underlying assumption is the same as in abortion: that women can’t be entrusted with agency over their own bodies.

    • Asafum@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      My bet is on America’s conservative puritan history where anything good is bad.

      Also sex trafficking. At least that’s the argument for keeping it illegal. :(

      • Ð Greıt Þu̇mpkin@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Which is bollocks anyways because illegalization actually makes things less safe for all sex workers, but especially for trafficking victims who are now legally marginalized into dark number status

    • momtheregoesthatman@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Old white men elected themselves under the guise of voting (gerrymandering who?) and are too embarrassed and confused to allow women the rights they have as humans. Isn’t democracy silly.

    • Jimmyeatsausage@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’d say the diagram of “Why is sex work illegal” and “Why is abortion illegal” is almost a perfect circle.

      It’s about contolling other peoples’ bodies and weakening the separation of church and state.

    • Igloojoe@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      AFAIK, it’s not federally illegal, but mostly every state bans it. As how Nevada can have prostitution.

      • rchive@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re correct, it is not federally illegal in the US. Most things aren’t. Murder isn’t, either. However, traveling across state lines with a prostitute has gotten people in trouble with the federal government before.

    • masquenox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sex work differs from most other type of work in one very significant way - it’s an industry in which capitalists cannot really control the means of production unless slavery (ie, a person can become the private property of another) is legalized and institutionalized. In other words, a sex worker - for the most part - is not as easily coerced into selling their labor to capitalists like most workers can be, and capitalists hate when people have a way to opt out of being hosts for their parasitism.

      Sex work also has a way of subverting patriarchal norms upon which the status quo rests.

      This is not to say that sex work is automatically a revolutionary, anti-capitalist or even “empowering” thing by itself - there are plenty of ways in which our socio-economic systems allows and enables de facto slavery without calling it slavery - but it certainly doesn’t fit into the neat class hierarchy that capitalists wants society to be trapped within.

      • crackajack@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        15
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        You’re reading too much into it. The primary reason is puritan values. To be fair, the taboo on promiscuity is likely due to the lack of contraceptives and risks of getting sexually transmitted diseases. But access to contraceptives and education would lessen the risks these days. Though people are still creatures of habits so sex and sex work are still taboo for many without questioning why it has been in the first place.

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          You’re reading too much into it.

          No, I’m not… in fact, I’m not even scratching the surface.

      • stella@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Sex work also has a way of subverting patriarchal norms upon which the status quo rests.

        cough, what? No, it reinforces those norms. Men in power get to have women at their beck and call.

        This isn’t a capitalist thing. Just look at how profitable the sex industry is in Nevada.

        It’s a “holier than thou” thing that we just haven’t been able to get rid of in our society.

        As much as I like calling out greed for what it is, this simply isn’t one of those cases.

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          1 year ago

          cough, what?

          You read correctly the first time. It’s a lot more difficult to entrap sex workers in patriarchal hierarchies than a housewife (for instance)… this should not be too difficult to understand.

          This isn’t a capitalist thing.

          All sex work in the world today exists under a capitalist mode of production - as far as I can tell, there is (officially, at least) no such thing as “publicly-funded” sex work… and that is unfortunate.

          • JackbyDev@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            as far as I can tell, there is (officially, at least) no such thing as “publicly-funded” sex work… and that is unfortunate.

            You lost me.

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Due to both criminalization and demonization, sex workers are prevented from performing very necessary work in our society - such as being the only people that are qualified to perform sex education, for instance - so yes… it is quite unfortunate that sex work cannot be performed as a service to the public.

              • JackbyDev@programming.dev
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sex education is more about the changes your body goes through during puberty as well as how reproduction works. None of that is related to sex work. Sex work is about making people feel good.

                • masquenox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Sex education is more about the changes your body goes through during puberty as well as how reproduction works.

                  That’s basic biology - not sex education. The fact that you can’t even discern the difference proves the point.

      • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wait till you learn that you can be self employed outside of sex work.

        For the most parts its just christian morality still ingrained in our society.

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          1 year ago

          Wait till you learn that you can be self employed outside of sex work.

          Yes, the homeless people trying to sell me trinkets at the intersection certainly seems to prove your point.

          • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            12
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            The only self employed people you can think of are homeless dudes selling trinkets and prostitutes?

            • masquenox@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              8
              ·
              1 year ago

              The vast majority of “self-employed” people are utterly impoverished people doing survival work, Clyde - please tell me you don’t buy into the “entrepreneurship” fairy tales Reagan and Thatcher spooned into your parents’ brains through the telly back in the 80s. If you believed that, you might just as well believe in magic glass slippers that grants royalty.

              • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                You are confusing being self employed with gig economy bullshit. There are a lot of fields of occupation where being self employed makes sense und gives you more freedom. By the way - I’m talking from own experience being self employed fore quite some time now.

                • masquenox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  There are people living in shacks within a kilometer from where I’m typing this, Clyde… every second person living there has more (so-called) “entrepreneurship” in their big toe than you have in your entire body because they literally have to do it for survival.

                  I’m not confusing squat… the only thing you’ve managed to demonstrate here is that you talk from privilege and nothing else.

      • cricket98@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        I disagree with this entire claim. Sex workers are notorious for “having a price” to do nearly anything. I would say they are more susceptible to doing disgusting shit for money. There’s a reason why there’s an ongoing joke about sex workers getting shit on during their trips to dubai.

        • masquenox@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Sex workers are notorious for “having a price” to do nearly anything.

          And what do you think the rest of us do, eh Clyde? How many sex workers have to piss in bottles to make Jeff Bezos richer?

          There’s a reason we don’t use the term “prostitute” any more - it’s got something to do with the fact that understanding how capitalism works very quickly makes it real clear who the real “prostitutes” are…

          • cricket98@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think sex workers are pressured to get into progressively more disgusting shit because that’s what pays. The market is flooded at this point and the only thing you can do to stick out is either be famous or be willing to degrade yourself.

              • cricket98@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                I’m expressing my opinion on a public forum. I hate how internet comments have become an eternal game of gotchas. I can be aware of a topic without participating in it.

                • masquenox@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Is your opinion an informed one? Or are you just regurgitating propaganda you assume to be your opinion?

            • feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I have an MSc from a top UK university, my dissertation topic was labour abuse and work-related harm for which I received a distinction. I’m no puritan, but genuine “sex work” (outside the internet) is overwhelmingly negative for the actual workers and very few enter the industry from a position of personal or economic empowerment. This is the case to a shocking degree, even where it’s decriminalised. I’m not against it, per se, but it confuses me when people are strongly for it. So yeah, stay woke.

        • rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          I think most people who’ve actually thought about it would say either “sensitivity to and awareness of the plight of marginalized people” or the same but with “oversensitivity”, depending on which side of it you’re on.

  • GR4VY@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    130
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    I’m assuming they’re arresting the sex workers and not the politicians and military officials?

  • shiroininja@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    80
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Anybody remember that one piece about our servicemen being involved in trafficking women overseas about three years ago that was swept under the rug?

  • sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    70
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Customers are not named in the affidavit, according to the agent, because the investigation into their involvement is “active and ongoing.” these are the type of people who don’t get held accountable, ever.

    • stella@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Accountable for what? Something that should be legal in the first place?

      Do you also think marijuana users should be named and shamed?

      • Syrc@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        It should be legal but it’s not. Those are government officials with clearances which put up their Driver’s licenses and credit card information on an illegal site to bang hookers. That’s the issue.

        The “name and shame” argument is also meaningless. Take marijuana for example. If you’re a government official who is actively pushing for legalization and it comes up that you actually consume it… ok? Big news, you’re putting your mouth where your money is. Nobody cares, there’s no “shame” in being “named”. The issue comes when people are publicly against marijuana/prostitution and then engage in it. Those are hypocrites and should be shamed.

    • EatATaco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Or, you know, they don’t have any evidence that a crime actually was committed. These people aren’t morons and know that unless they are caught exchanging money for sex they are off the hook. The fact that they have their name in this group is not even remotely enough to even charge someone with a crime, let alone get a conviction.

  • Aceticon@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    66
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Ah, yes, 4-star generals in Procurement retiring to gold-plated consulting gigs in the very companies from which they ordered $1000 paper clips and congressional members using insider info from some congressional comission or other they’re in for trading on their portfolios is all fine, it’s paying for sex that’s the real problem with holders of high level official positions in America.

    • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      The bribery potential of those officials violating the laws they’re publicly supporting is the problem.

        • n0m4n@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Hoover amassed significant power by collecting files containing large amounts of compromising and potentially embarrassing information on many powerful people, especially politicians.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        True. Which is why it should be legalized and regulated. Very difficult to bribe someone with something they can just have whenever they want.

      • TauZero@mander.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        They said the same thing to justify banning gays from working for the government or serving in the military.

        • Skyrmir@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          11
          ·
          1 year ago

          Because lies are a security risk. Which is a major part of why it’s better to allow them into service openly. No secrets from the service, no leverage for betrayal.

          • TauZero@mander.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            1 year ago

            The show For All Mankind did a good take on the problem IMO. Being gay wasn’t illegal per se, but gay people could not be employed at NASA. They still joined, but they kept their orientation hidden. Then the security forces used the justification that gays keeping secrets were vulnerable to blackmail to go on witch hunts to seek and root out gays, and to defend the decision to ban gays from employment in the first place. It was a circular argument through-and-through. The base reason has always been prejudice. Didn’t help that in the show there were real Soviet spies running around trying to find gays to extort for NASA rocket secrets.

    • n0m4n@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      “It sure would be unfortunate if someone was to send pictures to the family, bosses and the media.”

      The potential for being compromised and coerced into overlooking a few budget items is one path to this graft.

  • Nobody@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    49
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    The client list will likely go in the same vault as Epstein’s. They’re all assets now.

  • toiletobserver@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    39
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’m sure they’ll be arresting and charging the politicians any and revoking security clearances any moment now…

  • tronx4002@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    1 year ago

    In this day and age where nothing stays secret, how is it hard for elected officials not do stupid stuff like visiting brothels?

      • Roboticide@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        Buddy, we’re still working on legalizing an absurdly common plant because for a while much of the country thought it was satanic or whatever.

        “In this day and age,” in America, of course it’s not legal yet. That is gonna take a long time.

        • roofuskit@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, it’s not illegal because people thought it was evil. It was illegal because it allowed the government to jail black men and war protestors and throw away the key.

          • lefaucet@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            …And because the cotton industry didn’t want to compete with hemp. … and more recently booze companies don’t want to compete with weed

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Yeah that isn’t true. Hemp is and always has been legal in many parts of the world and couldn’t compete with cotton for the bulk of applications.

              • lefaucet@slrpnk.net
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                My bad. I think I watched a documenrary on it like 15 years ago.

                Wikipedia says 1937 marijuana tax act effectively stopped hemp from being able to compete with heavy taxation and greatly reduced production. Thou it also attributes dupont and newspaper and timber magnate William Hearst and not cotton as the killer.

                Then in 1969 the courts struck down the Marijuana Taxation Act, but then the Controlled substances act of 1970 banned it all at a federal level.

                So yeas still shady AF, just not Cotton being shady. My bad

        • Smokeydope@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The plant legalization is happening relatively quickly all things considered. Its funny how fast the laws change the moment the rich pigs smell potential profits of a new industry and the pressure of missing out on pocketing some of that sweet sweet tax revenue neighboring states are collecting instead.

          • Roboticide@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Sure, but it’s also taking longer than it should. It’s also, fundamentally, not hard for even many conservatives to accept as “not that bad.”

            Legalized prostitution also has tremendous potential for new markets and profit, but it’s a lot harder for conservatives to accept compared to weed, as America is just too goddamn puritanical.

        • rchive@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          There’s a contingent of feminists who oppose prostitution for well being of the women reasons, too.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            I wasn’t aware that it was not possible for women to hate women. Especially younger more prettier ones.

            Good thing that never ever happens. Nope. Tall poppy syndrome is exclusively male.

        • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          A healthy society has healthy sex work.

          The issue with sex work is that, due to its black market nature, it almost requires sex slavery.

          There is no issue with people running onlyfans. Why? Because its legal, so those who want to do it can do so, and those forced into it feel safe going to the cops.

          A regulated, legal, legally protected sex industry would eliminate a lot of the issues with sex work. Much harder to traffick people when you need to file their taxes and pass frequent random inspections, and less profitable to traffick people when a legal brothel legally takes your customers.

          • cricket98@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            A healthy society has healthy sex work.

            I disagree. I don’t think paying prostitutes to fuck you is an essential need of society.

            There is no issue with people running onlyfans. Why? Because its legal

            Are we really making the argument that because it’s legal it means it’s good?

            A regulated, legal, legally protected sex industry would eliminate a lot of the issues with sex work. Much harder to traffick people when you need to file their taxes and pass frequent random inspections, and less profitable to traffick people when a legal brothel legally takes your customers

            Just because some rules have negative externalities doesn’t automatically mean we should get rid of the rule.

            • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              1 year ago

              Are we really making the argument that because it’s legal it means it’s good?

              If you cant read, sure. But the actual argument you were given was making it legal makes it safe.

              I dunno if you just dont pay attention, or what, but humans sell their bodies for a living. Not just for sex, but in general. Any society with work will have people who want to work by fucking.

              Unless you think onlyfans is full of people held at gunpoint? No, those are people choosing to make that content, for compensation.

              Making that content legal means legal requirements and restrictions to force sex work to be safe. I dont really care about your quaker fueled puritan ideals of “”“good”“” around sex, you can duke that out with your therapist. What I care about is making it safe.

              I want hookers off the street, where they are victims of murder, kidnapping, sex slavery, drug use, etc etc etc. Legal sex work gets them off the street and out of the hands of pimps.

              I want sex slaves freed, and no more kidnapped. Legal sex work drains the incentive of a sex black market, making it less profitable to sell someone into slavery when your would-be customers can get laid cheaper and legally.

              I want stds under control. Illegal sex work spreads them like wildfire. Legal sex work requires regular testing and treatment for both parties, hampering the spread of disease.

              People arent going to stop fucking, nor stop wanting money. Wake up or grow up about sex. Peoples lives are lost or ruined because of black market sex slavery. Legalizing sex work shines a light at that black market.

              • cricket98@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                6
                ·
                1 year ago

                Sex work does not contribute anything to society other than creepy men getting their fix.

                • wildginger@lemmy.myserv.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Like I said, you can save your creepy puritan cult bullshit for your therapist.

                  But Id like for less sex slaves in the world, thanks.

                • Murais@lemmy.one
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  That’s not even remotely true.

                  Have you ever actually spoken to a sex worker before?

                  They primarily sell intimacy.

                  People are able to tell and be things around sex workers that they can’t be in their daily lives.

                  In one of your other posts, you said that sex shouldn’t be commodified. Well, we live in a society where EVERYTHING is commodified while simultaneously alienating people to perform their peak consumption.

                  Sex isn’t holy. It’s a need that we all have, like water, food, and oxygen. When you make it so that people who are bad at getting it can’t get it at all, you make a population of stressed out, deprived, and desperate people.

                  Sex workers bring so much more to the table than being a cum dump. A good sex worker gives you a safe place to be yourself and meet your base, primal needs. That’s not just valuable, that’s invaluable.

    • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Where else are they going to get sex? From the woman they live with that is laughably called their wife?

      Look at Ted Cruz and tell me that there is a woman on the planet earth who will allow him inside her without money being exchanged.

  • YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the girls were sex trafficked I have a problem with this, if they were free to do as they please, then I have no issue with this.

    • TheSanSabaSongbird@lemdro.id
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      It’s because when people in highly-sensitive positions of power do things that they want to keep secret, they become a security risk by opening themselves up to the threat of blackmail.

      Whether or not they should want to keep their whoring secret is a different matter between them and their families and their voters. I don’t have a censorious take on that, I’m just telling you why it’s a security risk and is newsworthy.

  • guleblanc@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Who would have thought it. A brothel in Watertown. Cambridge I can see. What’s next, strip clubs in Belmont, Mitt Romney’s home town?