Total Posts:15|Showing Posts:1-15
Jump to topic:

Lawerence vs. Texas and prostitution

darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 10:41:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm beating a dead horse but here it goes:

Lawerence vs. Texas was a famous supreme court case.
It made it unconstitution to make laws banning sodomy since banning actions that occur in the privacy of one's home between consenting adults is a violation of privacy and unconstitutional under the due process clause. Basically, all forms of sexual conduct between consenting adults in private is allowed.

Now, why doesn't this analysis apply to prostitution? This occurs between two consenting adults. What difference does it make on what condition the consent was made? If I buy a gift for a person, and this person happens to have sex with me after, could this be considered prostitution, since the condition might not have happened if the gift wasn't given.

It's no secret that many females will go for males that are financially successful. Why isn't this considered "prostitution" since the female is doing it for a money, just like a prostitute is doing it for the money.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 10:45:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 10:41:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
It's no secret that many females will go for males that are financially successful. Why isn't this considered "prostitution" since the female is doing it for a money, just like a prostitute is doing it for the money.

It's harder to prove their intent. They hide behind the illusion of them being "in love" and the government cannot decisively prove that they are there for the money once the old geezer drops dead.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 10:51:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 10:45:04 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 2/26/2011 10:41:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
It's no secret that many females will go for males that are financially successful. Why isn't this considered "prostitution" since the female is doing it for a money, just like a prostitute is doing it for the money.

It's harder to prove their intent. They hide behind the illusion of them being "in love" and the government cannot decisively prove that they are there for the money once the old geezer drops dead.

What about providing goods and services for free. See gift example. Also, the guy is usually expected to pay for the date.

Basically, as long as the most liquid asset (money) isn't directly involved, its not prostitution.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 10:54:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 10:51:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/26/2011 10:45:04 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 2/26/2011 10:41:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
It's no secret that many females will go for males that are financially successful. Why isn't this considered "prostitution" since the female is doing it for a money, just like a prostitute is doing it for the money.

It's harder to prove their intent. They hide behind the illusion of them being "in love" and the government cannot decisively prove that they are there for the money once the old geezer drops dead.

What about providing goods and services for free. See gift example.

If they are provided for free, than there is no fear of persecution by the government. I'm unsure why you are giving this example...?

Also, the guy is usually expected to pay for the date.

Expected to, yes. Do they have to? Of course not.

Basically, as long as the most liquid asset (money) isn't directly involved, its not prostitution.

Yes, since the definition of prostitution is "sex for money". Without money, it's just sex.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 11:04:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 10:54:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 2/26/2011 10:51:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/26/2011 10:45:04 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 2/26/2011 10:41:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
It's no secret that many females will go for males that are financially successful. Why isn't this considered "prostitution" since the female is doing it for a money, just like a prostitute is doing it for the money.

It's harder to prove their intent. They hide behind the illusion of them being "in love" and the government cannot decisively prove that they are there for the money once the old geezer drops dead.

What about providing goods and services for free. See gift example.

If they are provided for free, than there is no fear of persecution by the government. I'm unsure why you are giving this example...?


I'm not trying to avoid fear of persecution by the government. I'm explaining the retardeness of the law.

Also, the guy is usually expected to pay for the date.

Expected to, yes. Do they have to? Of course not.

Not the point. The point is it's an indirect way of paying for sex. Your not giving them money directly, but your providing goods and services to her, in exchange for sex (person might not have done it unless sex occured).


Basically, as long as the most liquid asset (money) isn't directly involved, its not prostitution.

Yes, since the definition of prostitution is "sex for money". Without money, it's just sex.

But it's still a medium of exchange that can involve goods and services. Only difference is, money is the most liquid medium of exchange. It makes no sense.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 11:10:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 11:04:08 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/26/2011 10:54:01 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 2/26/2011 10:51:20 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 2/26/2011 10:45:04 PM, annhasle wrote:
At 2/26/2011 10:41:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
It's no secret that many females will go for males that are financially successful. Why isn't this considered "prostitution" since the female is doing it for a money, just like a prostitute is doing it for the money.

It's harder to prove their intent. They hide behind the illusion of them being "in love" and the government cannot decisively prove that they are there for the money once the old geezer drops dead.

What about providing goods and services for free. See gift example.

If they are provided for free, than there is no fear of persecution by the government. I'm unsure why you are giving this example...?


I'm not trying to avoid fear of persecution by the government. I'm explaining the retardeness of the law.

All law is retarded. :P

Also, the guy is usually expected to pay for the date.

Expected to, yes. Do they have to? Of course not.

Not the point. The point is it's an indirect way of paying for sex. Your not giving them money directly, but your providing goods and services to her, in exchange for sex (person might not have done it unless sex occured).

Only if dates ended in sex 100% of the time. In reality, you are paying for the date and the food consumed. Sex is the bonus at the end.


Basically, as long as the most liquid asset (money) isn't directly involved, its not prostitution.

Yes, since the definition of prostitution is "sex for money". Without money, it's just sex.

But it's still a medium of exchange that can involve goods and services. Only difference is, money is the most liquid medium of exchange. It makes no sense.

No, it does not make sense. I'm a supporter of prostitution being legalized. I'm simply explaining why the government won't prosecute golddiggers like they will prostitutes.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2011 11:11:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Also, I have a feeling that if I made a swap website, and allowed sex to be swapped for goods and servies, I have a strong feeling I'm going to get arrested for pimping.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 11:28:51 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 10:41:16 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I'm beating a dead horse but here it goes:

Lawerence vs. Texas was a famous supreme court case.
It made it unconstitution to make laws banning sodomy since banning actions that occur in the privacy of one's home between consenting adults is a violation of privacy and unconstitutional under the due process clause. Basically, all forms of sexual conduct between consenting adults in private is allowed.

Now, why doesn't this analysis apply to prostitution? This occurs between two consenting adults. What difference does it make on what condition the consent was made? If I buy a gift for a person, and this person happens to have sex with me after, could this be considered prostitution, since the condition might not have happened if the gift wasn't given.:

There is no difference, which is why I seek to abolish prostitution laws.

No victim, no crime.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 11:42:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/26/2011 11:10:33 PM, annhasle wrote:

Also, the guy is usually expected to pay for the date.

Expected to, yes. Do they have to? Of course not.

Not the point. The point is it's an indirect way of paying for sex. Your not giving them money directly, but your providing goods and services to her, in exchange for sex (person might not have done it unless sex occured).

Only if dates ended in sex 100% of the time. In reality, you are paying for the date and the food consumed. Sex is the bonus at the end.


Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Paying for dinner is like buying a lottery ticket for sex. If you really think it is for the food and company, you have not seen guys go out to eat together.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 11:50:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The point is it's an indirect way of paying for sex. Your not giving them money directly, but your providing goods and services to her, in exchange for sex (person might not have done it unless sex occured).:

No, as Grey Parrot stated, it's more like playing the lottery. A woman does not have to sleep with you just because you bought her dinner. That's a gamble on your part, as there is no implicit contract stating that if you buy a woman dinner she is therefore beholden to you.

Is she aware that you might have some misplaced sense of obligation? Yes, but she doesn't have to act on that.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 12:35:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 11:50:43 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The point is it's an indirect way of paying for sex. Your not giving them money directly, but your providing goods and services to her, in exchange for sex (person might not have done it unless sex occured).:

No, as Grey Parrot stated, it's more like playing the lottery. A woman does not have to sleep with you just because you bought her dinner. That's a gamble on your part, as there is no implicit contract stating that if you buy a woman dinner she is therefore beholden to you.

Is she aware that you might have some misplaced sense of obligation? Yes, but she doesn't have to act on that.

That depends on the guys. Oddly enough, not all guys are looking for booty on the first date (I think it was on Ripley's Believe it or Not).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 12:48:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/27/2011 12:35:23 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/27/2011 11:50:43 AM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
The point is it's an indirect way of paying for sex. Your not giving them money directly, but your providing goods and services to her, in exchange for sex (person might not have done it unless sex occured).:

No, as Grey Parrot stated, it's more like playing the lottery. A woman does not have to sleep with you just because you bought her dinner. That's a gamble on your part, as there is no implicit contract stating that if you buy a woman dinner she is therefore beholden to you.

Is she aware that you might have some misplaced sense of obligation? Yes, but she doesn't have to act on that.

That depends on the guys. Oddly enough, not all guys are looking for booty on the first date (I think it was on Ripley's Believe it or Not).

As a woman, if you cannot tell the difference when you are eating out with your man and eating out with your girlfriends, guess what? It is not a date, it is just eating out. There is a reason why opposite sex activities are different than same sex activities in a heterosexual atmosphere.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,268
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 12:51:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm not at all saying that women think about sex for food when going out to eat, but it IS a high priority that she feels special and not generic.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 1:01:38 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
There's no difference really, between a gold digger and a prostitute, except a gold digger has an inflated opinion of herself... It doesn't make sense that one is legal while the other is illegal.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/27/2011 1:36:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Some people just don't like economic acts between consenting adults.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.