MCDonalds is always hiring. There's always options. They might tell themselves that but truth is that they don't have to do it. Nobody in the west has to do jack shit.
All men who go to prostitututes or just the ones who beat them? I'm just gauging your views on the issue.
You still haven't explained while prostitution is endemically harmful? In Sweden its legal status means that its very hard for the state to keep an eye on them. In Germany most prostitutes work in brothels where the security is very tight. If your main issue with prostitution is the number or rapes or beatings, making it legal will solve the problem, right?
You're just assuming they have to sell themselves.
It also helps if your hometown is a huge university city. Stockholm university is massive compared to the size of Stockholm. I got surprised when I read it to. Off-course when your doing studies on something shady the statistics will always be ify. Its legal status makes it very hard.
We have the worst subsatance abuse rehab system in Europe. No country gives less money per capita to it than us. Not by far. We have the highest mortality rate of drug adicts in all of Europe.
We also have a zero tollerance system both against drugs and prostitution. Sweden proves that moralism doesn't work. Making it illegal doesn't protect the women. The logical error here is always that stuff made illegal will stop or recede. I think it's helpful to think of a market as a powerful river. We can't stop it with laws, only limit it's damages by channeling it into less damaging areas.
Well, hers does. She was to a large part responsible of making it legal in Germany.
I don't think Scotland and Sweden are all that different culturaly. Scotland has a Calvinist background which is Martin Luther on steroids. Same extreme moralistic foundation.
Not morality, moralism. Ok, I'll rewrite your sentance a smidgeon and you might see what I mean with moralism.
"I think it's immoral to help a women in need, so it motivates my opinion."
The same sentance but moralistically different slant. Your assuming that everybody who pays for sex are taking advantage of the prostitute. You make the sex buyer look like a monster. I just don't see it. As with any bussiness transaction it can go better or worse. I don't believe the woman is always on the losing end.
If she's on drugs she needs to raise lots of money. You haven't explained how she would do it if she didn't prostitute herself? Men on heroin steal stuff. Is that in any way better? I'd argue that it isn't safer for the woman in the least.
But this is assuming most prostitutes are on drugs. How about escorts? They don't have to fuck if they don't want to. Are they prostitutes? Or the people working at the local swingers club here. They fuck for money? In a sense. Shitty pay though![]()
My point is that I know women who are sluts. Women who actually like fucking. And who aren't too picky. They just like plenty of cock. My ex was just like it. She told me that if she had been in a financial squeeze when it came to money she'd do it in a second. We even talked about how we would set it up.
I personally think you're just projecting. You assume that just because you would never sell your body for money, that no woman would do it if they didn't have to. People are different. When I was younger I've been offered money by gay men for sex, and I've been very tempted. I'm just not particularly gay, so I passed on it.
I think it comes down to how big a deal you personaly think sex is. A lot of women think its something sacred only to be given out of love. This raises the price on it for the women who don't share this view. Capitalism at work.