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

[Stuart Mackey]

Oh look, not all women want to be a whore and spread their legs for
a living! SHOCK! SURPRISE!

Not all people want to work shitty jobs (not in the sex industry) for minimum wage are you suggesting that they shouldn't have to do that either?

Making burgers is somewhat different to some people to letting a guy fuck you for half an hour and then getting a paycheck. As far as I know, making burgers is not against most peoples' morality.

When did politics come into it?

[Thinkmarble]

A spokesman for the Federal Labour Office said that if job seekers said they were prepared to work as, for example, dancers in strip bars, advisers could put them in touch with any suitable employers, but vacancies would not be displayed in job centres.

He also stressed job centres would not look for prostitutes on behalf of brothels, nor offer sex industry jobs to people who hadn't specifically mentioned it as an area of interest.

Speculation has grown over recent weeks that Germany's new welfare reforms, obliging the long-term unemployed to take any available job or risk losing their benefits, could lead to

women being offered jobs in the sex industry.

We remain skeptical about the literal truth of the version reported in the English press, however, because the issue seems to have received scant attention in the German press (at least that we can find). Most German-language sources on this topic point to an 18 December 2004 article from the Berlin newspaper Tageszeitung, which (as far as our rusty command of German allows us to discern) does not report that women in Germany must accept employment in brothels or face cuts in their unemployment benefits. The article merely presents that concept as a technical possibility under current law — it does not cite any actual cases of women losing their benefits over this issue, and it quotes representatives from employment agencies as saying that while it might be legally permissible to reduce unemployment benefits to women who have declined to accept employment as prostitutes, they (the agencies) would not actually do that.

[Darth Wong]

Well, it now looks even more like this woman is just playing the media game. I still think it's ironic that I (the left-winger) instinctively distrusted someone on social assistance claiming victimhood to the press, while the board's resident right-wingers collectively accepted her side of the story and leapt to defend her with ferocious moral righteousness.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well, it now looks even more like this woman is just playing the media game. I still think it's ironic that I (the left-winger) instinctively distrusted someone on social assistance claiming victimhood to the press, while the board's resident right-wingers collectively accepted her side of the story and leapt to defend her with ferocious moral righteousness.

*shrug*

It is one of those issues of individual rights Mike.

[Darth Wong]

Well, it now looks even more like this woman is just playing the media game. I still think it's ironic that I (the left-winger) instinctively distrusted someone on social assistance claiming victimhood to the press, while the board's resident right-wingers collectively accepted her side of the story and leapt to defend her with ferocious moral righteousness.

*shrug*

It is one of those issues of individual rights Mike.

Wrong. It is one of those issues of people trying to elevate over-generous handouts into a right.

[Thinkmarble]

*shrug*
It is one of those issues of individual rights Mike.

And I thought that it would be a case of having the chance to attack social security/legalization of prostitution.

[Alyrium Denryle]

*shrug*
It is one of those issues of individual rights Mike.

And I thought that it would be a case of having the chance to attack social security/legalization of prostitution.

No, I have no issue with prostitution.

Wrong. It is one of those issues of people trying to elevate over-generous handouts into a right.

No, maybe you should try not strawmanning my position. DO I beleive those handouts are a right? No. I view them as a necessary evil.

I dont beleive that anyone should EVER in any way shape or form be coerced into having sex. If they want to be a prostitute, fine, their body. But the government has NO RIGHT to take away ANYTHING on the basis of not wanting to be a prostitute. Even if what they are taking away is a social contract-granted priviledge.

[Alyrium Denryle]

It is that whole "RIght to bodily integrity generally trumps property rights" thing.

[Darth Wong]

It is that whole "RIght to bodily integrity generally trumps property rights" thing.

Do you have a FUCKING READING COMPREHENSION PROBLEM, asshole? It has been explained at least a dozen times that no one is being raped, yet you keep invoking language and metaphors designed for the assumption that she is.

[Darth Wong]

the government has NO RIGHT to take away ANYTHING on the basis of not wanting to be a prostitute.

Why not, and if so, why should a special exemption be made for prostitution but not any other health or moral issues? I'm sick of you continually restating your position as if it's a fact.

PS. and yes, the "guy who won't pay for dinner if he doesn't get sex" analogy fully applies, despte your denials. She can live on welfare, she doesn't actually need the extra payments to survive, and they are not a right. Assuming, of course, that this is a truthful story instead of pure bullshit on her part, which it increasingly sounds like it is.

[frigidmagi]

What happened to my body my choice?

[Darth Wong]

What happened to my body my choice?

Nothing. She can choose. She just can't expect to draw more than welfare for doing nothing.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Why not, and if so, why should a special exemption be made for prostitution but not any other health or moral issues? I'm sick of you continually restating your position as if it's a fact.

Because, it is coercion. See below for the definition and how this situation applies. Whether the unemployment benefits are a right or a priviledge is completely and utterly irrelevant to that fact. It is still a threat of reprisal in order to compel a woman to become a prostitute. WHich is not only in violation of german law, but a violalation of human rights and dignity.

Do you have a FUCKING READING COMPREHENSION PROBLEM, asshole? It has been explained at least a dozen times that no one is being raped, yet you keep invoking language and metaphors designed for the assumption that she is.

coercion.
: the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will

THAT my friend, is the legal definition of coercion as per Webster's dictionary of law. Now, lets break it down a bit.

I think threatening to terminate someone's unempoyment benefits if someone does not accept a job as a hooker, counts as coercion under that definition. Seeing as the government would be using a threat of reprisal to compel someone to act against her will. In a sexual context that is RAPE. Hold on, let me define that for you as well, just in case you are to stupid to look at the damn definition.

According to the state of Illinois

* A forcible sex offense is any sexual act directed against another person, forcibly and/or against that person's will; or not forcibly or against the person's will where the victim is incapable of giving consent. Forcible sex offenses include forcible rape, forcible sodomy, sexual assault with an object, and forcible fondling.

See that, I do believe a woman being economically forced to have sex against her will is Forcible Sexual Assault. IE rape.

My reading comprehension is just fine. Better than yours apparantly.

[Alyrium Denryle]

What happened to my body my choice?

Nothing. She can choose. She just can't expect to draw more than welfare for doing nothing.

\
SHe can choose, just like a rape victim has a choice, it isnt a very good choice, nor is it fair or moral.

[Darth Wong]

Because, it is coercion. See below for the definition and how this situation applies. Whether the unemployment benefits are a right or a priviledge is completely and utterly irrelevant to that fact. It is still a threat of reprisal in order to compel a woman to become a prostitute. WHich is not only in violation of german law, but a violalation of human rights and dignity.

But it wouldn't be a violation of human rights and dignity to force people to take any other kind of job which violates moral or safety concerns on their part? I said it from the beginning, I'll say it again: if the policy is indeed wrong, it cannot be wrong ONLY for prostitution.

coercion.
: the use of express or implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment) or other intimidating behavior that puts a person in immediate fear of the consequences in order to compel that person to act against his or her will.

How is "continued payment of money for doing nothing, but in less generous quantities" an example of "implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment)"?

See that, I do believe a woman being economically forced to have sex against her will is Forcible Sexual Assault. IE rape.

"Economically forced"? That's fucking bullshit and you know it, you sophistic fucktard. Offering someone incentive to look for work (any kind of work, including prostitution) is not the same as taking something which is theirs by right. You could turn any incentive program into a "reprisal" or "coercion" situation with your fucked-up interpretation.

[frigidmagi]

So if she doesn't consent to laying on her back and being screwed by strangers we have a right to take away her benifits?

I'm sorry but being a Prostitute is not like working at Mickey Ds or being a janitor. The level of involment it calls for is more in the line of police of soldery. The difference there being that if you want a free and healthy nation you need some form of police and army, last I checked hookers weren't really vitual.

She has the right to say "No, I don't want to be a whore for a living." without any pressure or panality. I'm no fan of welfare, but this is to far.

I think the best way to avoid messes like this would to be make prostitution a lisenced profession. In theory at least the only poeple who would be in the brothels then are those who want to work there.

[Darth Wong]

So if she doesn't consent to laying on her back and being screwed by strangers we have a right to take away her benifits?

This EXACT argument has been posed before, several times. At least deal with my rebuttals to those previous instances rather than expecting me to repeat myself, asshole.

[Darth Wong]

OK, let's examine the logic here:

Suppose you're on welfare, and I as a mysterious benefactor offer you $1000 as an incentive to get a job within the next week. Suppose you don't try all that hard, and at the end of the week, you claim that the only job you can possibly get is a job in a brothel, which you won't do. So I don't pay you the $1000. Does this mean I just raped you? I should be thrown in jail? Because that's exactly what you're saying.

[Justforfun000]

Suppose you're on welfare, and I as a mysterious benefactor offer you $1000 as an incentive to get a job within the next week. Suppose you don't try all that hard, and at the end of the week, you claim that the only job you can possibly get is a job in a brothel, which you won't do. So I don't pay you the $1000. Does this mean I just raped you? I should be thrown in jail? Because that's exactly what you're saying.

Oh I totally agree with you on this one. When you put it in that particular context, it's easy to see your point.

But this doesn't really match this situation. As I explained earlier, you have to remember that this woman PAID into this insurance, and she has a contract with the government. Her period of benefits and the level thereof is something she is entitled to. It's NOT a handout. So if this specific job is the reason for them penalizing her and reducing her benefits, then it is wrong. Prostitution is definitely an employment option that anyone should have the right to refuse on moral grounds without penalty.

[Alyrium Denryle]

But it wouldn't be a violation of human rights and dignity to force people to take any other kind of job which violates moral or safety concerns on their part? I said it from the beginning, I'll say it again: if the policy is indeed wrong, it cannot be wrong ONLY for prostitution.

And it shouldnt. If someone has moral objections to working in an abortion clinic, they should not be compelled to do so, and if someone has a peanut allergy, they should not be compelled to work in a peanut processing plant.

However, you are comparing apples to oranges. Not wanting to work in a bar because you object to drinking, is a bit different than noit wanting to be a prostitute. One is an inconvenience, the other is allowing people to physically use you, and in the process expose you to disease. Fuck that shit., Any reasonable person ought to conclude that it is wrong to force someone into that.

How does "continued payment of money for doing nothing, but in less generous quantities" an example of "implied threats of violence or reprisal (as discharge from employment)"?

Because the giovernment is threatening to reduce her quality of life if she doesnt spread her legs for random men. It is a punishment, which if you speak english, is a synonym for reprisal.

"Economically forced"? That's fucking bullshit and you know it. Offering someone incentive to look for work (any kind of work, including prostitution) is not the same as taking something which is theirs by right.

"Economically forced"? That's fucking bullshit and you know it. Offering someone incentive to look for work (any kind of work, including prostitution) is not the same as taking something which is theirs by right.

WIth systemic unemployment like that which exists in germany(which is 11% not 18 percent my mistake) there isnt a whole lot of work to be had.

Of course if we want to go into Germany in particular, Basic human dignity is enshrined into their constitution... which means that, in their application, peopel ahve a right to welfare.

[Mange]

What happened to my body my choice?

Nothing. She can choose. She just can't expect to draw more than welfare for doing nothing.

Mike, please say that you're joking. I think that prostitution should be legal, but this kind of statements disgusts me. Germany is a paternalistic welfare state, which at times perhaps is too generous, but there's also a very high unemployment rate. I'm sure you have to provide some sort of evidence that you are an active job-seeker before you qualify for any benefits.

[Slartibartfast]

Am I the only one who sees the exception for prostitution as actually paying people off so they don't accept that job?

[Justforfun000]

Am I the only one who sees the exception for prostitution as actually paying people off so they don't accept that job?

I don't see how you can see it that way. Her continued ENTITLED employment insurance that she paid into would be simply continuing on as before by treating her right to consider that job as eligible for exemption based on moral and potentially physically hazardous conditions.

I gave many other examples that were analogous. I think any reasonable person would agree that those cases are more than valid exemptions for people. Nobody should be forced to consider certain types of jobs that are truly abhorrent to their morals and lifestyle. There are certain types of things that a fair size of the human population agree on as being objectionable, and that should be considered fairly. I don't consider a desire to not have sex for money with strangers to be a trivial reason to turn down a job.

[Darth Wong]

But it wouldn't be a violation of human rights and dignity to force people to take any other kind of job which violates moral or safety concerns on their part? I said it from the beginning, I'll say it again: if the policy is indeed wrong, it cannot be wrong ONLY for prostitution.

And it shouldnt. If someone has moral objections to working in an abortion clinic, they should not be compelled to do so, and if someone has a peanut allergy, they should not be compelled to work in a peanut processing plant.

Then you are not disagreeing with my initial statement on this issue. Our only remaining point of contention is your absurd claim that such a policy (if it were real, which it apparently is not) would actually constitute rape.

However, you are comparing apples to oranges. Not wanting to work in a bar because you object to drinking, is a bit different than noit wanting to be a prostitute. One is an inconvenience, the other is allowing people to physically use you, and in the process expose you to disease. Fuck that shit., Any reasonable person ought to conclude that it is wrong to force someone into that.

Once again, you treat your conclusion (that this constitutes coercion) as a premise.

Because the giovernment is threatening to reduce her quality of life if she doesnt spread her legs for random men. It is a punishment, which if you speak english, is a synonym for reprisal.

So any removal of an unwarranted, generous, and unncessary boon is "punishment", hence coercion? How do my "guy who won't pay for dinner" and "mysterious benefactor" analogies not apply, then?

WIth systemic unemployment like that which exists in germany(which is 11% not 18 percent my mistake) there isnt a whole lot of work to be had.

More bullshit. From other figures posted here earlier (which you conveniently ignored), the unemployment rate in WEST Germany is actually lower than the unemployment rate in Canada, and in Canada, you can get a job if you really want one.

Of course if we want to go into Germany in particular, Basic human dignity is enshrined into their constitution... which means that, in their application, peopel ahve a right to welfare.

Don't change the subject, asshole. I never said she shouldn't get welfare. I said she shouldn't get the higher unemployment benefit. And from the sounds of it, she shouldn't. Even if she wasn't lying about the prostitution case, you have to refuse MULTIPLE legitimate job offers in order to lose all your benefits, and that smells like a worthless layabout to me.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Then you are not disagreeing with my initial statement on this issue. Our only remaining point of contention is your absurd claim that such a policy (if it were real, which it apparently is not) would actually constitute rape.
Quote:

Basically



If she is lying about it, and she refused multiple job offers, then this particular aspect of the argument is irrelevant. ANd it seems we have no reason to be at each other's throats.