Why does Ted want to legalize prostitution?

The poster who worships misogynist Youtubers exposes himself as a misogynist?
Wow, you could knock me over with a feather!
Never saw that coming!

You’ll go on a date one of the days.

You think you're being funny. But, regardless, the question would be if he expected sex afterword and if he did get sex on that date, did he consider dinner the "down payment"?

I'm curious about how dates the woman has organised and things we've done with no cost line up with this.

There's an old Woody Allen joke from Shadows and Fog where his character says to a prostitute, "I've never paid for sex in my life." And the prostitute replies, "Oh, you just think you haven't."

This was like in 1981, before it was super-obvious how cringe he was.

You still have to listen to her talk, so still got a pay.

And here we have it.

If you consider a conversation with a friend a price to be paid then you need better friends.

Please explain this to whoever you do go out with that you consider talking to her the price you need to pay for sex.

Depends. If it's a Tender date or something where you're just trying get laid, then it pretty much is a type of transaction. If it's a girl you really like and really want to get to know her then it's all good and you don't mind having a nice conversation with and you probably don't want to rush into things.

Some women want money.
Some women want love and affection.
Some women want commitment.
Some women want a reciprocally good time in the bedroom.
Most want some combination of these.

But yes, one way or another, a man always pays for it.

Did you let the woman know, the one you’re only dating just to get laid, that the only reason you’re going on a date with her is to get laid? If not, you deserve all she bilks out of you.

Legalize and regulate. Seems like that would be better for sex workers, better for clients, better for pretty much everybody.

If you are only looking for one of the above, you’re doing it wrong.

Just a suggestion, but you might want to look at a potential mate as human rather than an object that must be tolerated so that she will be your cook, maid, and sex worker.

I don't date women just for sex and I haven't been on a date in years.

Trying to have a conversation with you is a bit like throwing dodgeballs. Any statement, questions, response, from me you don’t respond to, you just dodge it. What’s up with that?

I gave you an answer.

Not at all what I said or what I think, but thanks for the usual Jenee-brand wildcard nonsense.

God damn, this thread is old.

And so are all of us.

I read a book about it years ago that argued decriminalizing prostitution is much better than legalizing it, because legalization is just another form of criminalization with more regulations.

Elaborate, please.

No way

Decriminalizing something simply something means it's not a crime anymore. Prostitutes can operate as freely as any other contract labourer.

Legalizing something means it's still a crime under certain circumstances. Canada legalized cannabis, but that didn't reduce the number of cannabis related laws on the books, it actually increased them considerably. Now there's licensing and mandatory registration and all sorts of regulatory hoops for sellers to jump through, as well as limits on how much individual customers can purchase at a given time.

It's often argued that legalizing prostitution is good because it'll help the law protect the most vulnerable and desperate sex workers, but the most vulnerable and desperate sex workers won't be eligible for licensing and regulation and all the protections that would come with that. They'll still be operating illegally, accepting the clients that the licensed workers won't and performing the acts that the licensed workers can't.

Thank you. Some semantics here.

I would say that you're not describing the necessary difference between "decriminalization" and "legalization." You're simply (and correctly) describing the problems with licensure requirements. Legalization does not necessarily entail licensure.

Decriminalization without legalization is problematic because both sex workers and clients could still be subject to non-criminal sanctions (eg, fines) if they're caught. Sex work is still considered wrongdoing in this scenario, and the workers don't get labor rights.

@14thDoctor

It shows.

Huh, wonder why?

Also, seems like you probably shouldn't be attempting to insult Dicky like you did in post 92 if you're going through a multi-year dry spell on dates.

Could be an American/Canadian language thing, but around here "legalization" means "no longer a crime under very specific circumstances," while "decriminalization" means "not a crime in and of itself."

Example: BC is going to decriminalize simple possession of small amounts of certain drugs for adults. You're 18 and the cops catch you carrying a small amount of meth and breaking no other laws? They can't do anything to you.

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/possession-of...drugs-will-be-decriminalized-in-b-c-1.5925897

Meanwhile cannabis is "legalized," which makes it sound like there's no more restrictions, but you can go to jail for 5 years for simply possessing too much, or 14 years for growing more than you're allowed for personal use.

https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/cannabis/

We read your posts here, yet you never put out for us.

I'm not sure if this is the right legal distinction, but the description I've often heard of decriminalization in this case is that hiring a prostitute would remain illegal, and being a pimp would remain illegal, but being a prostitute would either not be illegal, or there would be no penalties. Which at least would take away the factor where sex workers who are the victims of violence are afraid to report it because they'll risk being prosecuted themselves.

Whoomp, there it is