'You don't take a job as a prostitute, we cut your benefits'

[Obloquium]

I have two questions. First, how many people here want to legalize prostitution and make special exemptions in unemployment law to ensure no one actually loses benefits for not taking up the trade? Second, does anyone really believe that a welfare state that lends prostitution moral statute in law would demonstrate courage in consistency and deny exemption to the unemployed faced with the prospect of selling their bodies or forfeiting benefits?

[Darth Wong]

I have two questions. First, how many people here want to legalize prostitution and make special exemptions in unemployment law to ensure no one actually loses benefits for not taking up the trade?

I want to legalize prostitution. UI benefit size and duration should be based on your period of prior employment and then cut off, so you drop down to welfare. Extension of UI benefits based on assessment of your job search efforts is a ridiculously abuse-prone system. When people go out looking for jobs, they should be sincerely looking for work, not just trying to satisfy their UI office so they can get a fatter handout. So all of this hullaballoo is pretty much irrelevant to the way I would prefer to see a UI system set up.

Second, does anyone really believe that a welfare state that lends prostitution moral statute in law would demonstrate courage in consistency and deny exemption to the unemployed faced with the prospect of selling their bodies or forfeiting benefits?

They would have to allow it to be lumped in with other reasons for rejecting work assuming you have one of these wrong-headed "extension of UI benefits based on pretensions of job search" systems if they wish to be ethically consistent, but as the right-wingers have demonstrated here, there is a sizable proportion of the populace which would elevate this particular issue above any and all other conceivable reasons why someone might want to refuse a job, even risks to one's life. That part of the populace would have no problem with an inconsistent policy.

[Tommy J]

I have two questions. First, how many people here want to legalize prostitution and make special exemptions in unemployment law to ensure no one actually loses benefits for not taking up the trade? Second, does anyone really believe that a welfare state that lends prostitution moral statute in law would demonstrate courage in consistency and deny exemption to the unemployed faced with the prospect of selling their bodies or forfeiting benefits?

I'm in favor of legalizing it as well with a caveat. The state of Nevada a long time ago legalized prostitution but outside of the city of Las Vegas. In Nevada only 1 county if I recall is it legal and regulated by the state. The women have to have regular STD and blood tests.

I would not be in favor however in legalizing it everywhere. One can imagine a prostitute setting up a 'home business' near a school, playground, or more 'legitimate' business and it causing problems.

Also, I wouldn't let people operate out of their homes. I'd strictly enforce laws that required prostitutes to work out of certain locations that were zoned for that activity -- no different than you local strip club.

[Darth Wong]

I would not be in favor however in legalizing it everywhere. One can imagine a prostitute setting up a 'home business' near a school, playground, or more 'legitimate' business and it causing problems.

Legalizing it everywhere would not necessarily lead to that outcome. Hot dog sales are legalized everywhere, but you still need permits to set up a hot dog stand, and you can't just do it wherever you want.

[Thinkmarble]

It may be worth to point out, that in princple you can actually tell the Arbeitsamt that you won't take a job due to it being unsuitable and then you would not get your benefits cut.
Problem is that the office is the one who decides if indeed a job is unsuitable, and the regulation and readiness to deem an job as unsuitable for you depends to a very large extent upon the question who long you have been unemployed.
If you have been unemployed for 3 weeks you get away with rejecting a job offer below your qualification (eg. you have an MSc and get an job offer as an waiter) or in a different city.
The situation looks different if you have been unemployed for 2 years.
If you have child you will also get more leeway.
You always have the option of legal recourse.

And now on to quote SGBII Chapter 2 Paragraph 10 Part 1

(1) Dem erwerbsfähigen Hilfebedürftigen ist jede Arbeit zumutbar, es sei denn, dass
1. er zu der bestimmten Arbeit körperlich, geistig oder seelisch nicht in der Lage ist,

Any work is suitable for the needy who can work, with the following exceptions.
1. He is not able to do the specific work for health, mental or soul reasons.

Soul, does not really hit it home.
Emotional and/or moral may capture the meaning better.

Not quite satisfied with the translation.

[Tommy J]

I would not be in favor however in legalizing it everywhere. One can imagine a prostitute setting up a 'home business' near a school, playground, or more 'legitimate' business and it causing problems.

Legalizing it everywhere would not necessarily lead to that outcome. Hot dog sales are legalized everywhere, but you still need permits to set up a hot dog stand, and you can't just do it wherever you want.

Requiring permits as you noted is probably a more apt solution. The whole concept makes me chuckle. Today, prostitutes for the most part work off of street corners and/or work for a 'pimp' or 'madam' who gets them dates.

Legalizing it from an economic point of view is hilarious. Just think of it. It would create:

1. Standardized pricing for blow jobs vs. regular sex vs. kinky sex

2. The possibility of price wars between competing groups. '$10 blow job day at Madam foos'

3. A corporation the equivalent of Walmart could get into the act ultimately and create a chain of locations further deluding the market.

4. Their could be prostitute unemployment statistics no different then their broken out by industry today.

5. Women and Men would fill out applications and be interviewed for the job. What would the job interview be like.....take off your clothes, for women show me your tits, for men show me your dick....and then some sort of evaluator would access their abilities and skills for the job.

Interviewer: Can you suck good dick

Pros: Yea

Interviewer: Demonstrate

Pros: OK, performs the act

Interviewer: Sorry honey, you didn't get the job because you just don't know how to use your tongue enough.


6. Then of course like proscription drugs today the US would have cheaper prostitutes from Canada.

7. Trade sanctions against other countries who's prostitutes were being government funded vs. not.

And so on...............

[Obloquium]

I'm in favor of legalizing it as well with a caveat.

Just for the record, I'm against legalizing prostitution. I'm sure that could spawn a thread in and of itself, and I think we're all more interested in how a successful legalization scheme might play out

I would not be in favor however in legalizing it everywhere. One can imagine a prostitute setting up a 'home business' near a school, playground, or more 'legitimate' business and it causing problems.

Darth Wong already pointed out permits as a means of reconciling legalization with other societal interests. Licensing ican also impose desired obligations to a greater extent on individual courtesans, but my guess is at a greater cost to the state.

Here's another question. Should people like me, who vehemently oppose prostitution, consider tightly regulated legalization a way to diminish the trade?

[Mange]

I would not be in favor however in legalizing it everywhere. One can imagine a prostitute setting up a 'home business' near a school, playground, or more 'legitimate' business and it causing problems.

Legalizing it everywhere would not necessarily lead to that outcome. Hot dog sales are legalized everywhere, but you still need permits to set up a hot dog stand, and you can't just do it wherever you want.

Yes, this is true. I also think that heavy regulations and registration of brothel visitors could be necessary.

[Tommy J]

Here's another question. Should people like me, who vehemently oppose prostitution, consider tightly regulated legalization a way to diminish the trade?

As a Business School Graduate I will tell you that absolutely nothing will eliminate or diminish this trade. It's the oldest business in mankinds history, short of trading for food or water.

Legalizing it will allow government to tax and regulate this industry and it has the positive effect of perhaps lowering STD transmissions.

Lonely or sexually frustrated people or people who want to experiment sexually will find this outlet legal or not.

It will however:

1. Create additional tax revenue

2. Demarganilize an industry that existed forever; for which we as a society give a wink and a nod acceptance to but then still 1/2 ass try to law enforce against.

3. Regulate where and when it occurs.

4. Most probably reduce HIV infection rates

5. Reduce drug use among prostitutes by legitimizing their business.

I'm just curious, why are you so 'vehemently against' prostitution when the person choosing to be such is doing it by choice and/or economic necessity?

[Obloquium]

I'm just curious, why are you so 'vehemently against' prostitution when the person choosing to be such is doing it by choice and/or economic necessity?

Let's just say for a great many reasons all stemming from irrational religious beliefs. Needless to say, my position is irrelevant insofar as addressing common secular interests affected by the sex trade. I've got some research to do on this issue before I decide whether or not legalization does more harm than good overall. Thanks for your points.

[Tommy J]

^^^^^

I find it interesting that we live in a society where people are so vociferously opposed to legalized prostitution and drug sales but unopposed to cigarette and alcohol sales.

In the first two examples by regulating and taxing these industries we could lower crime, virtually wipe out the Columbian Drug cartel, provide medical assistance to people who need it most, end violence against prostitutes as well as people who buy and sell drugs. And so on.

[Justforfun000]

I find it interesting that we live in a society where people are so vociferously opposed to legalized prostitution and drug sales but unopposed to cigarette and alcohol sales.

It doesn't surprise me though. As that guy just admitted, his objection to prostitution is based on " irrational religious beliefs". That pretty well rules out any sensibility on these different issues in terms of comparison. At least for people with religious beliefs.

Some would be all for the legalization of alcohol and cigarettes, but would think you're a heathen to eat lobster. At least true fundies anyway.

When you introduce religion into the arena as a "reason" for something, it no longer deals with sense and logic. It's to be taken as a position of "I believe it's wrong because my beliefs say so". That's as far as it can be taken with that immovable position.

[LadyTevar]

Easy: a job and an entitlement are two different things. One should be grateful for any handouts beyond what you need just to survive, instead of demanding them as an entitlement.

So, if you or your wife needed those handouts, you'd let the government talk her (or you) into a sex-based job such as stripping or prostitution?

"Needed" for what? I already said that handouts beyond what you need to survive cannot be considered an entitlement. You're deliberately confusing the situation by mixing up such extra handouts with subsistence welfare.

From the way it sounded, if she didn't take the job, she would be LOSING some of those subsistence welfare payments.

[Darth Wong]

From the way it sounded, if she didn't take the job, she would be LOSING some of those subsistence welfare payments.

She would only be losing her unemployment payments, and that article is massively distorting the true situation. Even in the unlikely case that her unemployment office rejected her claim that the job was unacceptable, she would have had to refuse several different previous legitimate job offers as well, in order to make the article's claim of total benefit loss come true. And even in that case, she could simply switch from unemployment benefits to general welfare benefits.

Someone was trying to play to the press in this case.

[Patrick Ogaard]

...
And now on to quote SGBII Chapter 2 Paragraph 10 Part 1

(1) Dem erwerbsfähigen Hilfebedürftigen ist jede Arbeit zumutbar, es sei denn, dass
1. er zu der bestimmten Arbeit körperlich, geistig oder seelisch nicht in der Lage ist,

Any work is suitable for the needy who can work, with the following exceptions.
1. He is not able to do the specific work for health, mental or soul reasons.

Soul, does not really hit it home.
Emotional and/or moral may capture the meaning better.

Not quite satisfied with the translation.

How about the following off the cuff translation? (Courtesy of Uebersetzungsbuero Ogaard)

A person requiring assistance but capable of working shall find any work acceptable, except such specific work as he or she is physically, intellectually or emotionally incapable of performing.