The Darker Side of the News

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Sat Feb 03, 2018 2:50 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:I don't want to be the asshole of the day

So you went ahead and made yourself asshole of the month for February?

Mission accomplished, I guess...

Sableagle wrote:
Her actually wanting it and her enjoying it a lot. Two big fetishes of mine that just aren't on the menu.
Getting paid for it doesn't preclude enjoying it. And sure, being paid for it generally means being a lot better at pretending to enjoy it regardless of how good it actually is, but it's not like non-sex-workers never faked orgasms from time to time, either.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:17 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Mission accomplished, I guess...
Well look who crawled out of his den. First Weeks and now you.
elasto wrote:Going back to the surgery example, likewise it would be wrong if the patient's family held a gun to the surgeon's head and forced him to carry on against his wishes.
They wouldn't have to, if he quit and the patient died he might be charged with manslaughter or worse, but using a doctor was a poor choice of framing for my point. The question formulated in a more concise way is, if you choose take money for the sexual act does society have any obligation to treat it as a special case? For instance, if a sex worker charges 1000 dollars for normal coitus, do we value the crime for the 1000 dollars or make it more heinous?

@Weeks
The question of fairness involves societies psychosis on this point. Were it otherwise, customers would go to jail with the sex workers or neither would.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Ginger » Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:20 am UTC

Sex works abuses should be more heinous crimes, as they involve severe, psychological and physical repercussions. And the perps are real b words. Anyways, if you got brutalize by thugs doing dangerous work, wouldn't you wanna have laws to protects your rights as a human male? Or... are sex workers just suppose to suffer in silence and go to jails or prisons? Real question for you morriswalters.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby natraj » Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:40 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:The question formulated in a more concise way is, if you choose take money for the sexual act does society have any obligation to treat it as a special case? For instance, if a sex worker charges 1000 dollars for normal coitus, do we value the crime for the 1000 dollars or make it more heinous?


you're the only one saying society should treat it as a special case -- by treating it as though the sex worker has no more say over their own consent once money has entered into it. everybody else is saying that it should be treated just like any other time you fuck someone who doesn't consent, i.e., rape. you're the one pretending this is difficult or confusing or A Special Circumstance.

you book a sex worker, they express at literally any point in the appointment they refuse to sleep with you, you screw them anyway? rape.

the money is a separate issue that has literally nothing to do with whether or not that act is rape. it isn't Special Rape or Worse Rape or Less Bad Rape because you paid them. that's a disgusting fabrication all of your own.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

elasto
Posts: 3553
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby elasto » Sat Feb 03, 2018 1:38 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:The question formulated in a more concise way is, if you choose take money for the sexual act does society have any obligation to treat it as a special case? For instance, if a sex worker charges 1000 dollars for normal coitus, do we value the crime for the 1000 dollars or make it more heinous?

Well, let's compare it to 'normal' rape.

A girl and a guy meet in a bar. The girl already has a boyfriend but they had a fight that day and she's still angry with him.

The girl and the guy hit it off and go back to his place for nookie. The girl initially consents to sex but then remembers her boyfriend, feels guilty and changes her mind.

Despite the girl's resistance - first verbal and then attempts to push him away - the guy pulls off her clothes and forces himself into her.

To put it in your terms, how much do we value this crime in dollar terms? After all, the girl was willing to have sex with this guy for nothing. So the damages should be zero dollars, right..?

Obviously not. Consent is consent. It doesn't matter how much a woman is 'charging' for sex - whether it's a thousand dollars or nothing. Rape is still rape.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Ginger » Sat Feb 03, 2018 2:17 pm UTC

elasto I wanna dispute your, 'suing a hooker for monetary damages' claims. Being a hooker, and being a hookers' clients' are like... illegal... except in certain places so how you gonna sues them? YOU BOTH go down if either of you presses charges unless your hooker try to rape or assault or intimidate you some other illegal way and you never paid her or even said anything sexy to her 'cause she can use that against someone too.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 03, 2018 2:36 pm UTC

natraj wrote:you're the only one saying society should treat it as a special case
Given the makeup of the membership of this fora this shouldn't come as a particular surprise to you.
natraj wrote:everybody else is saying that it should be treated just like any other time you fuck someone who doesn't consent, i.e., rape.
Trust me, I am well aware of it. If it weren't the case this discussion wouldn't be taking place. We'd all be setting in a circle nodding sagely, going yes, yes. And if I were setting on a jury I might even agree with you and them. However in this space, at this moment, I'm trying to investigate the question, if you value sex for sale, should society as a whole treat it as more than theft if it is taken without paying for it? It may be theft with violence, but is it rape?

Using female pronouns, does the violation of the commercial act have parity with the random act of sexual violence we think of when we talk about rape. In neither case do we have consent, but in the case of the random woman, neither was there an expectation of a commercial transaction.

I believe previously you have chaffed at the inability to have an honest broker to protect your interests. Consider for the moment the purpose of a pimp. Who consents in this case? Have you subordinated your consent when you use a broker, otherwise described as a madam?
elasto wrote:To put it in your terms, how much do we value this crime in dollar terms? After all, the girl was willing to have sex with this guy for nothing. So the damages should be zero dollars, right..?
No. You had to reach to construct that nonsense, and it is demeaning to the female you inserted. I'm always a little amused at these kind of scenarios. You have her as a vapid little thing fluttering between consent and non consent at will, while the guy is suppose to be strong and do the right thing.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1871
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Sableagle » Sat Feb 03, 2018 3:10 pm UTC

If you adbuct someone and force him to build you four bird-boxes, three bat-boxes and a nesting set of coffee tables, does it matter whether he's a carpenter? If you, having lost some weight, force someone at gunpoint to take in your shirts at the waist, does it matter whether that person's a tailor? If twenty of us grab eight people, beat them with sticks, force them onto a boat, sit them at the oars and whip them to force them to row us upriver, does it matter whether they're Oxford Blues? Is it any worse to hold an accoutnant's family hostage to force him to drive you across the country than it would be to do the same thing to a taxi driver?

To introduce "withdrawn consent," let's imagine that ... let's call him Richard Fischer, for want of a better name ... Richard Fischer asks a carpenter to make him some furniture for the dining room. The carpenter comes round to Richard Fischer's home expecting to be making a table, some chairs, a sideboard, a display cabinet and/or a hostess trolley. Richard Fischer has some more specialised requests, involving holes in the chair seats, attachment points on the arms for restraints, a sideboard with a built-in fan pushing 20 litres/minute of air through it, sound-muffling intake and outlet vents, soundproofing linings and a lot of eye-bolts on the inside and a display cabinet with a head-harness on the inside level with a penis-height hole in the side wall. The carpenter thinks about this for a moment and decides that, without interviewing the other people presumably going to be involved in the enjoyment of this furniture, doing this job is just not a comfortable prospect, and says no. "Not happening. Not work I want. Thanks for your offer of business, but no." At that point, is there any difference between Richard Fischer pulling his gun and demanding that the carpenter make those items and Richard Fischer pulling his gun and demanding that the boy who helped him bring in his groceries make those items, apart from the expectation of a high-quality product?

Yes, crazy though it sounds, we do think men should be morally strong and do the right thing rather than being physically strong and doing the very, very wrong thing. It's one of those places where Lib Dem, Old Labour, New Labour, Tory, Democrat, Republican, Union pour un Mouvement Populaire, Parti Socialiste, Mouvement démocrate, Parti Communiste Français, Les Verts, Front National, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, CDU, CSU, SPD, Die Linke, Freie Demokratische Partei, Friedrich Ebert Foundation, Panellinio Sosialistiko Kinima, Partidul Democrat-Liberal, Partidul Social Democrat + Partidul Conservator, Uniunea Democrată Maghiară din România and the President of Iran all agree, apart from a few arseholes who believe the laws shouldn't apply to them and their mates but otherwise agree.

You don't have to agree with us. You could take a very different point of view, as espoused ... by ... ah ... ash-Shabab?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Quercus » Sat Feb 03, 2018 4:03 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote: the random act of sexual violence we think of when we talk about rape.


Less than 30% of rapes are committed by strangers to the victim (source). The image you have of rape is not a good reflection of reality.

You have her as a vapid little thing fluttering between consent and non consent at will, while the guy is suppose to be strong and do the right thing.


You do know that men are also entitled to withdraw consent at any point, right?

Edit: Also I'm not quite sure how changing ones mind a single time constitutes a "fluttering"

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:09 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:Less than 30% of rapes are committed by strangers to the victim (source). The image you have of rape is not a good reflection of reality.
The image I have of rape is complex. However lets keep it to apples for apples. If we are comparing rape as the outcome of a commercial transaction, the perpetrator and the victim might be thought of as strangers. So for the purposes of this discussion it might be better to take only that subset of rapes practiced by strangers.
Quercus wrote:You do know that men are also entitled to withdraw consent at any point, right?

Edit: Also I'm not quite sure how changing ones mind a single time constitutes a "fluttering"
I believe I made it clear that in the case I was discussing the male was the aggressor, so consent is not an issue other than as it relates to the female.

Elasto posited a case of a emotionally confused female who withdraws consent after feeling remorse when confronted with the fact versus the fantasy. If my use of fluttering disturbs you, dismiss it. The point was that she is allowed the emotional confusion and the ability to withdraw consent because of remorse while the male aggressor is disallowed that emotional confusion. It's a signalling issue. it doesn't make it right, but it bears on how the issue as described by elasto falls out. The aggressor is expected to show better judgement. That seems to be unbalanced in its expectations.

@Sableagle
Don't confuse the position I take in a discussion like this with my view of reality. I take the contrary view to move the discussion ahead. What I might feel about it personally isn't to the point. I resent gmalivuk because he makes it personal. I anticipated that when I suggested I would be seen as an asshole. Up he pops and validates my view of reality.
Sableagle wrote:Yes, crazy though it sounds, we do think men should be morally strong and do the right thing rather than being physically strong and doing the very, very wrong thing.
Then you've just made a women a second class citizen, by inferring that he should be better than her. If she wants to sit at the table as an equal the she can't afford that kind of charity. And for the purposes of this discussion that she needs to think in front of the issue. In point of fact whatever you think men should do, I think of what men will do. I'll give you a partial list. Lie, murder, maim, steal and otherwise run all over the rights of anyone they think they can.

User avatar
DaBigCheez
Posts: 833
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2011 8:03 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby DaBigCheez » Sat Feb 03, 2018 5:31 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Don't confuse the position I take in a discussion like this with my view of reality. I take the contrary view to move the discussion ahead.

The devil can advocate for himself just fine, thank you very much.
existential_elevator wrote:It's like a jigsaw puzzle of Hitler pissing on Mother Theresa. No individual piece is offensive, but together...

If you think hot women have it easy because everyone wants to have sex at them, you're both wrong and also the reason you're wrong.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1744
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Quercus » Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:10 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:The image I have of rape is complex. However lets keep it to apples for apples. If we are comparing rape as the outcome of a commercial transaction, the perpetrator and the victim might be thought of as strangers. So for the purposes of this discussion it might be better to take only that subset of rapes practiced by strangers.


I don't think that follows. I would say that a sex work client isn't a stranger to the sex worker unless the rape happens immediately upon their first encounter. I don't know how common that scenario is, but given that's it's only one of several possibilities, it's fair to say that both rape during sex work and rape overall the perpetrator is sometimes a stranger and sometimes not.

morriswalters wrote:The point was that she is allowed the emotional confusion and the ability to withdraw consent because of remorse while the male aggressor is disallowed that emotional confusion. It's a signalling issue.


It's not a symmetrical situation in that way. There is zero emotional confusion or signalling difficulty associated with the statement "I don't want to do this any more", "please stop" or similar. That's a simple instruction. If there is confusion a simple "do you want this?" suffices to clear it up entirely - get a yes, good to go, get anything else, stop and talk. The male in this scenerio is allowed exactly the same things as the female - the ability to give consent, to withdraw consent and the responsibility to only proceed if consent is given and to stop if it is withdrawn. I fail to see how that is unequal.

Don't confuse the position I take in a discussion like this with my view of reality. I take the contrary view to move the discussion ahead.

Doing that without stating upfront what represents your own views and what does not tends to come across as weaselling out of taking any responsibility for your own statements - to use a quantum mechanical analogy, every statement becomes a superposition of "your view" and "a contrary view". You resolve it to your view if you like the outcome of the conversation, and a contrary view if you don't. That might not be what you're doing, but the fact that you are reserving the ability to do that at any point is tiresome in the extreme for everyone else.

Sableagle wrote:Yes, crazy though it sounds, we do think men should be morally strong and do the right thing rather than being physically strong and doing the very, very wrong thing.
Then you've just made a women a second class citizen, by inferring that he should be better than her. If she wants to sit at the table as an equal the she can't afford that kind of charity. And for the purposes of this discussion that she needs to think in front of the issue. In point of fact whatever you think men should do, I think of what men will do. I'll give you a partial list. Lie, murder, maim, steal and otherwise run all over the rights of anyone they think they can.


It's possible to phrase Sableagle's statement in an entirely gender-neutral way, yet still retain the core principle: "those in a position of power in a sexual scenario should not abuse that power to violate others consent". That applies whether that power is physical, emotional, legal or otherwise. Do you see an issue with that phrasing?

elasto
Posts: 3553
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby elasto » Sat Feb 03, 2018 6:20 pm UTC

Ginger wrote:elasto I wanna dispute your, 'suing a hooker for monetary damages' claims. Being a hooker, and being a hookers' clients' are like... illegal... except in certain places so how you gonna sues them? YOU BOTH go down if either of you presses charges unless your hooker try to rape or assault or intimidate you some other illegal way and you never paid her or even said anything sexy to her 'cause she can use that against someone too.

Well, MW was the one trying to claim that 'because someone charges money for sex, taking sex from that person without consent is purely a financial offence'.

I was pushing that to the logical conclusion, asking if his worldview implies that 'if someone has sex for free is their sex therefore valueless in the eyes of the law?'

Obviously it's not: Just because someone would give sex for free, it doesn't mean sex can be taken from that person for free...

Basically, what MW is missing is the 'emotional distress' potion of a crime: Just because a sex worker might have sex with someone for a fee, it doesn't mean they can't suffer huge distress by being forced to have sex against their will. It's no different to how a shop worker might hand over goods for a fee but that doesn't mean they can't suffer huge distress by being forced to hand over goods by someone holding a gun to their head.

MW also seems to assume that a sex worker will have sex with anyone just so long as they have the cash; While that might be broadly true at the low end where someone is doing sex for drugs I don't imagine it's true across the board. A sex worker might routinely refuse clients who are too dirty, abusive or whatever.

Quercus wrote:
morriswalters wrote:The point was that she is allowed the emotional confusion and the ability to withdraw consent because of remorse while the male aggressor is disallowed that emotional confusion.

There is zero emotional confusion or signalling difficulty associated with the statement "I don't want to do this any more", "please stop" or similar. That's a simple instruction. If there is confusion a simple "do you want this?" suffices to clear it up entirely - get a yes, good to go, get anything else, stop and talk. The male in this scenerio is allowed exactly the same things as the female - the ability to give consent, to withdraw consent and the responsibility to only proceed if consent is given and to stop if it is withdrawn. I fail to see how that is unequal.

As a man who has fallen into a sexual encounter and denied consent only to have the woman ignore my wishes and proceed anyway - I have to concur that this is an exactly symmetrical situation.

Sure, it might be much more common for the woman to withdraw consent only for the man to ignore that than vice-versa, but there is a clear responsibility on both sexes to respect the wishes of their partner here.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:19 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:Doing that without stating upfront what represents your own views and what does not tends to come across as weaselling out of taking any responsibility for your own statements
Alright, then we agree and have nothing else to talk about. Which I believe I have already related. If I respond to you past ths point you may take my statements at face value.
Quercus wrote:It's not a symmetrical situation in that way. There is zero emotional confusion or signalling difficulty associated with the statement "I don't want to do this any more", "please stop" or similar. That's a simple instruction.
You can take this as my actual position. That simply ignores reality. It's one thing in a bar to say I'm not interested and having a reasonable expectation that the other party will understand. It is altogether a different thing to first say yes and then get to the point of consummation and then throw on the brakes. In terms of what you do about it as a third party if you have to stand in judgement, then the default has to lie with the women, she said stop and that has to mean stop. But on the other hand it isn't totally unreasonable to understand that on some level the signal will not be as strong as it might have been in the first case. This wouldn't change how I would vote on a verdict, but it might play into what I would find reasonable as a punishment.
elasto wrote:Well, MW was the one trying to claim that 'because someone charges money for sex, taking sex from that person without consent is purely a financial offence'.
Not precisely. If I burgle your home it is one type of crime, if I shot you in the course of a robbery it is another. My point is to ask if rape is the right charge in this case. Rape is actually a crime against the essential nature of autonomy. I control me. And you have no right at any level to remove that control. This is true for everyone. What I am trying to reach to is the nature of a sexual transaction for money. A store clerk who is robbed at gunpoint is violated on a number of levels even assuming he or she isn't actually shot. Is rape the crime, or is the crime something else.

elasto
Posts: 3553
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby elasto » Sat Feb 03, 2018 8:04 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Rape is actually a crime against the essential nature of autonomy. I control me. And you have no right at any level to remove that control. This is true for everyone. What I am trying to reach to is the nature of a sexual transaction for money. A store clerk who is robbed at gunpoint is violated on a number of levels even assuming he or she isn't actually shot. Is rape the crime, or is the crime something else.

What is the source of the distress when a store clerk is robbed? It's loss of control, fear of injury, fear of death and so on. Whether the criminal makes off with $5 or $900 at the end of it is basically irrelevant to the degree of distress caused. Some people might bounce back and some might suffer severe PTSD.

What is the source of the distress when a person is raped? It's loss of control (including of their own body), fear of injury, fear of death and so on. Whether the person accepts money for sex or has sex for free is basically irrelevant to the degree of distress caused. Some people might bounce back and some might suffer severe PTSD.

Rape is obviously a much greater violation than robbery, hence the greater penalty under law. As you say: "Rape is actually a crime against the essential nature of autonomy. I control me. And you have no right at any level to remove that control" - which is as true for a sex worker as anyone else.

Are we just splitting hairs here or is there genuine disagreement going on..?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10147
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Feb 03, 2018 9:18 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Rape is obviously a much greater violation than robbery


Not so obvious, actually, given that it's not universal throughout the world and time where rape is given harsher sentences than theft.

elasto
Posts: 3553
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby elasto » Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:01 pm UTC

Well, I was talking specifically to MW when I said that - giving him the benefit of the doubt that he views rape as a more serious crime than theft.

However you are quite right that many societies today do not view rape as serious - and even in our own societies in times gone by it was not viewed a crime for a husband to rape their wife, for example.

And under such misconceptions sex workers suffer even to this day...

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:31 pm UTC

elasto wrote:What is the source of the distress when a store clerk is robbed? It's loss of control, fear of injury, fear of death and so on. Whether the criminal makes off with $5 or $900 at the end of it is basically irrelevant to the degree of distress caused. Some people might bounce back and some might suffer severe PTSD.
But we don't hand down sentences on the emotional distress. We judge based on the financial loss and the manner of the robbery. Although you might find it odd to look at it in this way, which mechanism is likely to produce the better punishment?
elasto wrote:Are we just splitting hairs here or is there genuine disagreement going on..?
I truly don't know. What I've attempted to do is to challenge my own bias. My emotional response in terms of rape is to shoot first and let the RNG sort it out. But combine that with sex workers and my thinking is much more muddy. In any case I need to give this more thought. But I don't feel like defending my character any longer.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby natraj » Sat Feb 03, 2018 10:51 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:My emotional response in terms of rape is to shoot first and let the RNG sort it out. But combine that with sex workers and my thinking is much more muddy. In any case I need to give this more thought. But I don't feel like defending my character any longer.


wow you know what would help un-muddy it for you, if you started thinking of us as human beings instead of objects.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:10 pm UTC

I do think of you as human. And I see no real point in continuing. Your default is that I'm a bigot in terms of what I think about sex workers.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1993
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Weeks » Sat Feb 03, 2018 11:56 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
elasto wrote:Rape is obviously a much greater violation than robbery


Not so obvious, actually, given that it's not universal throughout the world and time where rape is given harsher sentences than theft.
"ACKSHUALLY in some other place not in the context of this discussion, some people disagree about the value of human life!"
NieXS wrote:Oh god that smiley ruined it.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Mutex wrote:Enjoy the shoe!

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby natraj » Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:20 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:Your default is that I'm a bigot in terms of what I think about sex workers.


yeah given how you keep arguing that raping me isn't real rape i can't imagine how anyone could come to this conclusion.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
Fractal_Tangent
Today is my Birthday!
Posts: 923
Joined: Thu Feb 19, 2009 9:34 pm UTC
Location: Here, I suppose. I could be elsewhere...

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Fractal_Tangent » Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:42 am UTC

morriswalters wrote:
I'm trying to investigate the question, if you value sex for sale, should society as a whole treat it as more than theft if it is taken without paying for it? It may be theft with violence, but is it rape?


Of course using this logic, if a sex worker rapes a client, that's 'aggressive gifting'1. No? Well, I'm glad we worked that one out.

1[Appropriate Citation]
eSOANEM wrote:
right now, that means it's Nazi punching time.


she/her/hers
=]

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby morriswalters » Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:06 am UTC

Fractal_Tangent wrote:Of course using this logic, if a sex worker rapes a client, that's 'aggressive gifting'1. No? Well, I'm glad we worked that one out.
When that situation pops up forget to call me.

dg61
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby dg61 » Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:25 am UTC

I mean, you can't reasonably compel someone to provide services for you. Compel a refund if services paid for aren't rendered(although you could just bill for time), but I think this a case where compelling services rendered is pretty awful.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby gmalivuk » Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:41 am UTC

morriswalters stop posting in this thread, and in fact stop posting ever on the topics of sex work or sexual assault
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
PAstrychef
for all intimate metaphysical encounters
Posts: 2916
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 6:24 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby PAstrychef » Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:44 am UTC

In point of law, emotional distress is specifically part of the list of charges available in cases of crimes against persons. Those include both rape and robbery, armed or not, and the amount stolen is only of consequence as part of sentencing. So the premise that raping a sex worker is only a financial crime is, prima facie, wrong.
Don’t become a well-rounded person. Well rounded people are smooth and dull. Become a thoroughly spiky person. Grow spikes from every angle. Stick in their throats like a puffer fish.

dg61
Posts: 282
Joined: Mon Jan 18, 2010 8:30 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby dg61 » Sun Feb 04, 2018 7:52 am UTC

Pastrychef is correct; also emotional distress is in fact a tort iirc, and you can most certainly sue over it. Also it's a pretty fucking gross premise.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Ginger » Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:02 am UTC

Yes, if you have emotive damages, feels damages, harassment, or they like severely abuse or try to threaten or brainwash you damages. Or the perp went way, way over the lines and put you through sufferings. You can sue for extra monies. That... doesn't make the pains of being an illegal street walker go away though. Or the pains of being the jane/john of an illegal street walkers. Doesn't fix... societies' problems re: hookers, sex works, consent and non-consent. Doesn't change... loneliness, substances abuses, diseases and injecting in alleyways re: hookers. Doesn't change nothing except... you got a few thousands, hundreds more. Like wow?
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

Leovan
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:31 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Leovan » Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:45 am UTC

Actually, I'm kind of curious how you would handle the situation of removed consent as a professional. Say the John pays for sex, then you all kiss, get naked, he's horny and you realize you really don't want to do this.
You say no, he says ok but wants his money back. Do you return it all, or do you insist on keeping part of it for services rendered (you are naked after all, you've spent 10-15 minutes together already, maybe you traveled all the way to his home, etc). What if you've already given a blowjob to get him ready, but you don't want to have sex, even though that's what he paid for. (Actually, do people usually pay before or after?If after, would you say no then ask for part of the fee?)
I'm guessing it would depend on the reason for reneging on the verbal contract. You feel unsafe vs you realize he's diseased vs you feel disgusted for some reason.
Has this happened before? How did the guy (or gal) take it? How do you get them from "Let's get it on" totally ready to "they're serious, stop", without say a slap to the face? Is this something you mentally prepare for before work or something you never really think about till it happens?
I'm just curious. It's work in a highly charged environment (emotionally and physically) and I'd like to know more about how you handle it.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Ginger » Sun Feb 04, 2018 9:52 am UTC

I am getting too into the thread so... got to remind myself to breathe. Anyways TWs for preceding posts contents.

Spoiler:
Lots of my clients wanna stop halfway through... and when that happens... I keep their funds UNLESS: I like them one or they specifically requests their monies back two, which they rarely do, they just wanna leave usually. And when I wanna stop halfway through after giving a blowjob? They do not get complains times they do not get to criticize... or get their monies back or sue, or even tell ME 'no you cannot stop.' Encounter ends and I... walk away. And when I am dealing with pushy sex fiends I try to appeal to their egos... just like I like. I'm as submissive and nicely goodly about their... multiple, severe sex flaws and hangups as I can be.


And sometimes thank them for making the merciful decision to let ME, their professional, retract my consent. Which should be my rights at all times illegal jobs or no.

and something more trigger like re: dating ppls that pay, how they get you r-ready for it and constantly

Spoiler:
And I... really and for truly, wanna ban... the commonly held male practice of drinking/drugging your female love interest to multiple deaths. I do not need to be more lighthearted, bubbly and giggly, for you... that way. Please? Please, I am begging you, if you wanna get me drunk or high so I cannot retract my consent then I might do it, I won't even regretting or suing YOU for it. Yet: Why has date rape become acceptable for young men? Young women... commonly abuse me in such a way to steal my mind so I can't retract consent by. Using over the counter meds. Not drugs or alcohols. Just my experiences.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby natraj » Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:35 pm UTC

if they change their mind once i am at the appointment and have collected money, i keep the money. i don't see how that's any more complicated than literally any other service profession i have worked in. as a dog walker if i show up at someone's house to walk their dog and they're home and say "we don't need a walk today" they also still pay me for the walk because we had an appointment and they wasted my time coming out to it. if they change their mind and actually give me notice and cancel, that's different obviously.

some people do take non refundable deposits but i don't.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

Chen
Posts: 5470
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:47 pm UTC

natraj wrote:if they change their mind once i am at the appointment and have collected money, i keep the money. i don't see how that's any more complicated than literally any other service profession i have worked in. as a dog walker if i show up at someone's house to walk their dog and they're home and say "we don't need a walk today" they also still pay me for the walk because we had an appointment and they wasted my time coming out to it. if they change their mind and actually give me notice and cancel, that's different obviously.

some people do take non refundable deposits but i don't.


Seems pretty reasonable, same as any other appointment based profession. And in the opposite case, where the professional cancels, a full refund is generally all that is required in all but extreme cases. Loss of reputation and patronage of course would also be common if a professional canclled in the middle of an appointment, depending on the reasons.

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Ginger » Sun Feb 04, 2018 12:49 pm UTC

I don't think clients should ever have a refund. They are forcefully dating a woman or girl so. And they don't get damaging my reputations with gossipy rumors about my healthcare practices, whether or not I left makeup marks on their stuffs or my bedroom techniques if I cancel either. Just my feels. I mean, they are illegal criminals and so am I, so why they get the rights to damage my reputation if I cancel an appointment? They should be doing better things if they worry so much about losing they hard earned money.
Last edited by Ginger on Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:12 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1817
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby natraj » Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:04 pm UTC

Chen wrote:Seems pretty reasonable, same as any other appointment based profession. And in the opposite case, where the professional cancels, a full refund is generally all that is required in all but extreme cases. Loss of reputation and patronage of course would also be common if a professional cancelled in the middle of an appointment, depending on the reasons.


yup, people who do take a deposit will generally refund it if they cancel but not refund it if the client cancels although some people have varying policies for if you give enough notice on cancellation. most people are entirely non-refundable (if client cancels) deposits though because sex work clients are notoriously flakey. i am not sure i know of anyone who collects all the appointment money beforehand i feel like that is the kind of thing you could only do with clients you have a long-standing relationship with and are relatively sure you trust/you'll continue to see and no new client is going to just electronically send a sex worker they don't know a large sum of cash anyway so it's probably less relevant.

the only 2 times i have ever cancelled after showing up for an appointment were once (mid-appointment) when a client was pressuring me to do things that were unsafe and against my boundaries and once (just after showing up) when they wanted me to leave with them and go have the appointment in a different un-agreed upon location -- i didn't give either of them them their money back in that case, but i also make it pretty clear beforehand things i will and won't do that they explicitly broke so i didn't feel bad about it. there's a number of other things that i would hypothetically cancel an appointment for but i have been extremely lucky and none of them have happened to me. in some cases it's also extremely hypothetical about "would i keep the money" like, i have had friends in situations where the reason they are leaving the appointment is "this person is violent and not safe" and both weighing "do i want to antagonize them further by not returning their money if they remember and make a big deal of it" and "am i in a position to get out of here quickly and safely in that event" are highly fraught questions that many of my compatriots have had to juggle, i've just been thankful to never be in that position.
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

Chen
Posts: 5470
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2008 6:53 pm UTC
Location: Montreal

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Chen » Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:17 pm UTC

Ginger wrote:I don't think clients should ever have a refund. They are forcefully dating a woman or girl so. And they don't get damaging my reputations with gossipy rumors about my healthcare practices, whether or not I left makeup marks on their stuffs or my bedroom techniques if I cancel either. Just my feels. I mean, they are illegal criminals and so am I, so why they get the rights to damage my reputation if I cancel an appointment? They should be doing better things if they worry so much about losing they hard earned money.


Damaging reputation is always a risk when performing any activity. Theres no way of avoiding that. Mitigation is generally to take reviews with a grain of salt, but everyone is clearly entitled to an opinion on services rendered.

An argument can be made, as natraj did above, on when refunds are appropriate. The sexual and illegal nature of the activity here certainly affects the practical application of refunds. Im sure in places where sex work isnt illegal theres some pretty solid, up front, rules for how refunds and the like work (say in an Amsterdam brothel or whatnot).

User avatar
Ginger
Posts: 1029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2008 10:00 am UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Ginger » Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:28 pm UTC

I long to work in an Amsterdam brothel. Okay, I guess like technically, a refund should be a common business practices if a client... did everything right and I feel like it yet if I don't? They still not getting it no matter how much they beg, on they knees, which I'd actually like them to do. Because they makes me do it c-constantly? Anyways that's everything I had to say re: clients, withdrawn consents, non-consent and hooking right now thank you for reading.
Amy Lee wrote:Just what we all need... more lies about a world that never was and never will be.


Azula to Long Feng wrote:Don't flatter yourself, you were never even a player.

User avatar
pogrmman
Posts: 531
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:53 pm UTC
Location: Probably outside

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby pogrmman » Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:06 pm UTC

Apparently, even in 2018, Texas prisoners don’t have the right to air conditioning. Frankly, that’s appalling. I’ve spent a few summer days/nights either outside or inside without AC and it isn’t always fun. Sure, going out in 95°+ heat is fine when it’s 70° and dry inside, but it’s not if you have nowhere to escape from. It also doesn’t cool down a ton at night — lows in the low 80s aren’t terribly unusual.


In San Antonio in the summer of 2011 (hottest on record), the AC broke for a week in the building I was staying in. It was pretty miserable. And I was still able to spend 5-6 hours in buildings with AC (in the day). Even though it was hotter outside, we all tried to spend as much time as we could outdoors because of the lack of air movement inside.


I’m stunned that my state lets inmates be treated like this. Sure, I know prison conditions aren’t great anywhere, but this is inhumane and dangerous. It’s easy to get heat stroke — especially when there’s minimal air movement and it’s humid. Even if you don’t have heat stroke, it just saps the energy from you.


EDIT: The inmates are asking to have the prison temperature below 88°. College station breaks 88° 129 days per year, and has a daily average that high 11 days a year.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10147
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Feb 04, 2018 6:24 pm UTC

Wait, don't the guards need AC too? I don't know much about Texas prisons, but I can't imagine that the guards never patrol the halls.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8218
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: The Darker Side of the News

Postby Zohar » Sun Feb 04, 2018 8:48 pm UTC

Guards get a lot of things inmates don't. For example, in PA at least, inmates aren't allowed to smoke, yet guards are, and they hang out around inmates all the time. Presumably the guards have access to AC areas on a regular basis (the article states installing AC in the housing areas, not the entire prison).

I'm obviously pro but I'm curious if this has further implications on homeless people. Will there be cases suing businesses for getting rid of homeless people who are looking for a safe haven from scorching heat or freezing cold? I sure hope so.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: addams and 13 guests