• Cruxifux
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    6 days ago

    Fuck for free? I mean… you know people enjoy having sex right?

  • MachineFab812@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    edit-2
    6 days ago

    Okay, but now we all need shirts saying “I’mma non-profit whoreganization” and/or “support your local non-profits”.

    I thought about spewing some bull-shit about expecting money, versus expecting free meals, versus expecting sex or nudes or whatever, but lets be real, none of us gets an excuse for any of it.

  • kirbowo808@kbin.melroy.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    12
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 days ago

    Honestly from the comments I’ve been reading and seeing first hand how society stigmatises and judges sex workers, it does honestly make me feel completely hopeless about the world esp as sex workers are often never seen as human in general, despite what other people would put up with mistreatment, coercion sending nudes, yet shame ppl that do this work for a living, which is just so fucked up and so backwards. Sex workers should be treated with dignity and respected. Not the other way around. They are just trying to earn a living, like most of us are.

    • wildwhitehorses@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      Imagine if seeing a sex worker wasn’t negatively stigmatised. It would help a lot of people blow off steam I a safe healthy environment. Less aggression, less crimes etc

  • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    34
    ·
    7 days ago

    I don’t think little of whores and I don’t think people against legalization in general do either.

    I think little of pimps who kidnap children and sell them. A business that increases when prostitution becomes legal.

    • De_Narm@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      21
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 days ago

      Does it though? There are plenty of countries with legal prostitution and I’ve never seen any statistics about illegal prostitution being on the rise there.

      It’s one of those claims both sides could make and actually believe in. There might even be data for both sides, given enough cherry-picking that is.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        7 days ago

        It’s been matter of fact for over a decade LINK, they looked at large scale trends in 150 countries and they controlled for variables such as higher rates of finding criminals by examining the supplier countries as well as the countries that legalize prostitution and found increases across the board.

        Legal prostitution leads to increased human trafficking.

        If a side claims that science is wrong then it’s not the side you want to be on.

        • zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          21
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          I already mentioned the problems with your source is another comment, but now I’m going to address the “science”.

          First up, science doesn’t run on certainty. If you had actually read the paper, you might have noticed this sentence:

          Therefore, the true number of human trafficking victims is unknown (Belser, de Cock & Mehran, 2005).

          Science also does not take place in a vacuum; it is political. The statistics gathered rely on political entities that have agendas. The statistics are imperfect. They even mention this:

          The main limitation of the UNODC data however is that reporting will arguably depend on the quality of institutions, judicial and police effectiveness, in particular, but also on how aware the international community is about trafficking problems in a particular country.

          Until you learn to read things not to prove a point, but to understand them, get science’s name out of your mouth.

          • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            12
            ·
            7 days ago

            You “mentioned the problems” by saying the clear increase in human trafficking was something you could live with.

            • zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              19
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              No, I did not. I know your reading comprehension isn’t the best, but come on, or my comments are there to go back to and reread. You can even quote me. Go ahead. Tell me where I addressed trafficking and not your misinterpretation of the source.

    • dohpaz42@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      7 days ago

      I don’t think little of whores…

      Says the person who calls prostitutes by a derogatory name. 🙄

                • FundMECFSResearch@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  7
                  arrow-down
                  8
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  7 days ago

                  both are slurs. One’s got far more heavy historical context of slavery and oppression, but both are words used to stigmatise and insult a certain group, and they have been reclaimed by various extents by said groups.

                  And for the record you casually using the word “whore” is probably more insulting than me comparing two words that are used to oppress groups.

            • zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              7 days ago

              They already said it’s derogatory. It’s like if somebody called you on idiot. The denotation would be that your intelligence is lacking. The connotation would be that you’re a lesser person for it and cause issues for those around you. In the same way, whore and prostitute have to some denotation but different connotations with the former having the negative connotation. Is that simple enough for you to understand now?

                • zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  7 days ago

                  No, it doesn’t make it ok because somebody else does it or that the blame should be on the party that did it first. That’s an argument a five year old might think is clever; nobody here thinks it is. You have an opportunity to learn here. Will you take it or will you continue to blame others for your poor behavior?

        • zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          27
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          Ffs, read more than the abstract.

          On average, countries where prostitution is legal experience larger reported human trafficking inflows.

          That “on average” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. I know it’s really hard to read all the way to the end, but that’s where the pictures are. The regression chosen is linear, but the relationship looks to be anything but. Some countries have to substitution effect overshadow the scale effect, some see the opposite. Reducing it to legalized prostitution increases trafficking is facile at best.

          graph from cited source showing trafficking vs prostitution

    • kirbowo808@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      I think you’re confusing with sex trafficking with sex work/prostitution, which are completely two different things mind you. Ones non consensual and had coercive control, whilst the other is consensual and has full body autonomy.

      • finitebanjo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        6 days ago

        Studies and research and numbers, measured many times over a hundred years and more all the time, shows that when legal prostitution is allowed then you also see a rise in the number of victims of kidnapping and being forced into sex work, victims of rape for profit. An increase of slavery and abuse of innocent children.

        Is this new statement clear enough for you to understand my words?

        The idea of legal prostitution is attractive, always will be as a flaw in our brains, but it simply is not worth the unintended consequences. And you should also be wary than many of its advocates are men of power who smell profits to be made.

      • HowManyNimons@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        7 days ago

        I’m English and in England. I’m having a bit of trouble with “u get left on read…” Can someone help me out please?

        • SwordInStone@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          16
          ·
          7 days ago

          left on “read” (past participle) = the guy doesn’t reply.

          It relates to the messaging apps showing “read” when someone has read the message, but not yet replied.

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

          I’m an American, and I had to ask my wife what that was the first time I saw it. And then I needed an explanation on why that was a problem, because I had thought the point of text messages was that you could read it and get back at your convenience, as opposed to a phone call you have to respond to in the moment.

          Apparently I’m old.

          • johannesvanderwhales@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            6 days ago

            One advantage of SMS over other messengers. As far as I’m concerned whether I’ve read a message or not is nobody’s fucking business but my own.

            • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              6 days ago

              Exactly, which is why I refuse to enable read receipts or use services where it can’t be disabled.

              I’ll get notifications and read them without actually opening them, and I’ll also open messages without actually reading them. I don’t want people to make assumptions based on the read status, so I refuse to engage with that feature.

        • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 days ago

          English is my third language and I had no problem understanding it (and neither did whoever or whatever is behind the account you replied to, and I’ve got them tagged as a russian — or chinese — troll bot account)…

          I do wish, however, that anyone who writes “U” instead of “you” would slowly die of exploding anal cists and haemorrhoids, though, I’ll give you that.

            • leftzero@lemmynsfw.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              6 days ago

              When you send someone a message in some messaging system which has read confirmations (like whatsapp, for instance, or outlook), and the message is marked as read (or you receive a message read confirmation, or whatever equivalent your messaging system has), but they never actually reply, which often implies that they don’t want to (or can’t be bothered to, same difference). Whatever the case they probably don’t have as much respect for you as you have for them.

              As a metaphor I suppose it can also mean doing something for someone without getting anything in return, even though reciprocation would normally be expected.