Craigslist w4m escort ad

craigslist w4m escort ad

There is a thin line between saying that very few people would make a choice, and very few people should make a choice. You are correctly asserting that you said "would" not "should", but others are correctly pushing back and saying that it is a common rhetorical technique to say one when actually meaning the other.

If you meant what you said in a non-normative manner, you may need to emphasize this fact to prevent the more common reading. Separately, I'm sure some people question whether you are correct that few would choose this lifestyle, and if so, why this would be.

Personally, I think you are right that few would choose to work as prostitutes but that the reason is the societal stigma associated with sex work. I don't know how popular the choice would be if the stigma would be removed and the pay remained high. You seem to be asserting that it would remain extremely unpopular, but I'm not sure that's correct.

Even if the stigma were removed, I think the years of human evolution which encourages men and women to pair-wise mate for life would make it hard on an emotional level for more people to provide sex as a service. Outside of our biological needs, the health risks would be difficult to manage as well.

Your contempt for their choices is bizarre and really offensive. If they have a better option, perhaps you could illustrate what that might be. Perhaps grab a coding job? Or waitressing, with all the benefits and pay that comes with and sexual harassment with no recourse, not much metoo for underpaid waitresses? Or, are you offering a job? What benefits come with being a prostitute?

If you're worried about sexual harassment with no recourse, picking a profession with astronomically higher risk of sexual violence would be the last choice any rational person would make.

You've built a strawman for my argument; I'm not showing contempt for the choice of picking prostitution; but I am saying that in the US engaging in it, as a seller or as a buyer constitutes being stupid. The increase risk of violence, sexual or otherwise, the risk to your families health, the risk to your own health, the risk to your career. All reasons why it's stupid. I believe decriminalizing prostitution would reduce the risks--but regardless, those who go into prostitution will still be exploited, regardless of it's legal status.

If it were decriminalized and remove it's social stigma I don't see more people becoming prostitutes. What's that and who exactly defined it?

And, as to who exactly, psychologists. From the Mental Help article: They convince themselves that prostitution is a choice and that none of the women they see are exploited. I would like to be confident that everyone I meet was able to get basic necessities like healthcare. Legalizing prostitution would open the door to reducing exploitation. Does the prostitute have a state issued sex worker ID? Are you paying at least the state-mandated minimum?

Did you pay via a certified escrow service that has strict requirements to watch for common signs of abuse? Compare that to what we have now, which is a total lack of transparency. Demand for sex is not going away. We need to prevent it from causing exploitation by creating a safe, legal option. My counter, if everyone had basic necessities met like health care, and universal basic income, would they choose to work as prostitutes?

Perhaps a certain kind of psychologist. Psychologists are not a monolithic block, and many would say that an individual's choice to pursue sex work could be "healthy" as long as it isn't causing them emotional distress or preventing them from living a fulfilling life. The "scorched earth" approach only gets support when the nature and scope of the issues are distorted. What are the real issues in play? One is prostitution, a form of sex work which is illegal in most of the United States.

The American public have varying feelings about its legal status, how enforcement should be carried out, etc. Public opinion doesn't support measures which endanger sex workers which FOSTA does , because they're already an at-risk group.

Public opinion is rightly massively against slavery in any form. What I would like to know is, how much slavery was taking place through the Craigslist personals section?

How much of it goes on in America? Can we get some real data injected into this discussion about the nature and the extent of actual forced sex labor?

Scorched earth tactics might be appropriate if America has developed a serious slavery problem again , but they need to be justified with facts. I've run across people who want to take a scorched earth approach to eradicating prostitution which will not work any more than the war on drugs did. They refer to all prostitution as trafficking in order to conflate the two issues, mislead the public and build support for their radical policies.

Neither of these agendas reflect public opinion. The thing is, while some people see it as a separate issue, there is a very common opinion deliberately fostered by the anti-prostitution lobby that prostitution is inherently and inalterably human trafficking, and invocation of the term "human trafficking" is now very commonly used as a cover for policies that are directed generally against prostitution, and not at either the place where human trafficking overlaps with prostitution and not at human trafficking unconnected to prostitution.

Thanks for the links! These Wikipedia articles demonstrate my point that the facts and data are very weak in the trafficking discussion, and that data is often misrepresented to exaggerate the size of the problem.

The percentage of these related to sex is not mentioned. This statement is also erroneous. The GSI's estimate was for the number of people in some form of "modern slavery," which by their definition includes certain kinds of prison labor among other things, and is unrelated to whether they were trafficked.

The same formula is used for Switzerland, Sweden, Germany, etc. I'm not trying to detract from the importance of the issue of modern slavery but mentioning the 57k out of context seems a bit misleading, the US is literally among the best in the world in this area and the number is so rough that it could be off by tens of thousands.

And again, it has nothing to do with trafficking, let alone sex trafficking! Why aren't we doing better studies and getting better data about the problem it purports to solve? I'll probably get downvotes for this, but the Republican leadership is uninterested in facts. They are only interested in their agenda, and if facts get in the way, they will ignore them.

It got a lot worse when Newt Gingrich took the reigns in Congress in the 90's. Since Obama was elected, it's gone into hyperdrive. They fucking hated that man. Everyone is only interested in their agenda in politics, calling for additional research just happens to sometimes further a side's agenda. As of right now, the Democrats are the one's who want additional research in most situations, but that doesn't mean they want more research universally, and when studies have come back negatively as they sometimes do , they are disregarded.

That said, there does seem to be an overall lack of trust in the scientific method among the political right, the reasons behind which being a bit more complicated than political efficacy. Your comment brings to mind this article: I recommend giving it a read if you'd like your attitude challenged. Illniyar 3 months ago. Actually prostitution is legal in Nevada but not in the big cities. So even that isn't so clear cut. Great point, I edited my comment to reflect this. Other countries have broader definitions.

Slavery is still legal in the USA according to the 13th Amendment. Here is a related WP article[1]. Retric 3 months ago. That number is pretending to be accurate the error bars are rediculus to have 3 digits.

Yeah it seems too odd that the population percentage is 0. From safety1st's excellent comment: The scorched earth mentality says that if you're not in favor of gun-banning, you're pro-murder.

If you're not in favor of policing all of your user-generated content instantaneously and at significant cost, then you are pro-childporn and pro-child-sexual-exploitation. When in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.

The form of this is a false equivalency or perhaps the https: Which is a pretty bad consequence, IMHO. This also creates a law open to abuse: If you have a corporate enemy that permits user-generated content, simply anonymously post some objectionable content to their site, take a screenshot, and then alert the authorities with the URL and screenshot.

It's like SWATting, except on a whole 'nother level! Is Giphy really to blame in this fiasco? How are they somehow more to blame than the person who actually posted this? And to make the system better they just took the system offline.

The next Craigs list will be on Tor and will have a child prostitute section. Congratulations on making things worse.

There was at least one that was very popular around 5 years ago, but I don't remember the name. But you are absolutely right, this is pushing sex workers further underground and therefore making their lives more dangerous. And now you'll have the "innocent" john sorting through ads selling any number of illegal offerings, because he will have to use the TOR version now. Can't help but think this will be a boon for those in the business of sex trafficking.

Would it be surprising to say that trading in this might include Bitcoin? Monero is the de facto standard currency in the deep web nowadays, not bitcoin.

TeMPOraL 3 months ago. About as surprising as noticing that e. I'd imagine they would use Monero or Zcash nowadays since those are proven fairly more anonymized. Bitcoin is wholly public so all it takes is one identifiable wallet to start profiling addresses they interact with. You used to be able to tumble the bitcoins but cant realistically do it anymore due to high fees. By Bitcoin I meant Blockchain based money.

But I couldn't edit it later on. Unless they send you suitcase with human being and they don't expect them to get back with cash, then yes, it would be surprising. But if people are content to swat away a problem until they can't see it anymore, despite that the ignored causes continues to generate more misery, then it's hard to be sympathetic to that defensible position. Especially since a lot of people just lost access to romantic venues because a minority of users make a living through sex.

Or that particular sites enable it? I think the point is: Bartweiss 3 months ago. Perhaps more directly - if we're trying to stop sex trafficking by shutting down the places where victims meet clients, we're going to have to ban streets.

Fjolsvith 3 months ago. Or why can't we ban churches because pastors can use them to rape or molest church members? Most monetary transactions involving victims of sex slaves involve money, should we remove it too? He's saying that this affects far more legitimate users than sex traffickers by multiple orders of magnitude, while at the same time not preventing sex trafficking from taking place anyway.

No, no, we don't ban money, we just move to systems where the government gets to monitor all your financial transactions in real time and they get to selectively block those they don't find morally wholesome.

End Prohibition of Sex Work Step 2. Stop Criminalizing Speech driving to further and further under ground were it is no longer tracable at all The "scorched earth" groups are in no way protecting victims, in fact they are making it WORSE by driving people to more shady platforms deep deep under ground, where law enforcement will be less likely to find information or victims.

End Prohibition of Sex Work All you have to do is study the laws of prostitution elsewhere in the world to understand that they have little to no influence on sex trafficking. Prostitution is legal, explicit, and even taxed in the Netherlands, but sex trafficking remains such a major problem that some large cities, like Utrecht, have outlawed prostitution locally to combat the issue. It may not end sex trafficking but legalising prostitution lowers harm levels on workers, but allowing them to seek medical care and police protection without risk of incarceration.

There is no down-side to legalisation as many would say for drugs, as it allows problems to have legal solutions. I'm not in disagreement with you about legalization of prostitution in general, but with regards specifically to sex trafficking, there is much evidence from several countries that legalization actually makes sex trafficking worse -- most likely due to increased demand for a service anyone can enjoy legally.

Could you cite some of this evidence? The issue comes up quite often in the local papers here in the Netherlands. Some other commenters here have pointed to some other reports from other countries.

You get those same benefits if you keep buying sex illegal but decriminalise selling. Some workers of the business in the Netherlands argue that the end of prohibition worsened conditions. Prostitution in the Netherlands and Drugs in Portugal seem to be the main ones. I assume things got worse because cowardly assholes are now allowed to treat the prostitutes disrespectfully. Before, the assholes that were afraid of the law wouldn't risk going to a prostitute.

Now that the law won't hurt them, they go and are demanding disrespectful assholes. Implying that there is some uptick in people who are "allowed to treat the prostitutes disrespectfully" in well-regulated societies is intellectually disingenuous.

HelloNurse 3 months ago. Abuse in a brothel involves an idiot, a prostitute and a lot of other people possibly including bouncers , while abuse of a street walker involves only an idiot, a prostitute and a lonely place. Guess what's easier to perpetrate, regardless of legality. The likelihood of customers that [would] make derogatory comments post encounter goes up. While the ratio is the same the hard number of negative feedback is 3 times greater. And psychologically negative feedback has much more weight that positive feedback which can weigh on an person's self-confidence and feeling of self-worth.

Thank you for the reply and insight. My point is, there are more people now openly able and willing to approach prostitutes who think "shut up and do what I say because I'm paying you [you low life worthless being who has to sell you body to make a living]". I'm not saying all people who use or are okay with prostitution think this, just that the supply of people who think this and act this way now find themselves able to openly go to prostitutes where as the law, and fear of it, kept these assholes from using prostitutes before.

What does this have to do with the discussion at hand? If your point is that some percentage of people are assholes who look down on others and that more people means more assholes overall, then this is already well understood. How this clarifies the topic at hand or in any way furthers the discussion is missing. Someone said they heard legalization made conditions worse. I was merely offering up an opinion of why that might be, if true.

Where are "closet" rude and mean people more likely to make degrading and derogatory comments? In public in front of others where their socially unacceptable behavior food service employees would be exposed?

Or behind closed doors with a single individual where they can freely say shit making the other feel small and themselves feel big?

Sorry, I forgot anecdotes, metaphors, and hypotheses are not allowed on HN. I'm truly sorry I wasn't able to effectively and clearly communicate how the dots connect. Noos 3 months ago. It got worse because no one wants to be a prostitute, and there has always been a strong coercive element to women entering that profession. When you legalize, you increase demand while the supply is still capped, so coercion rises to compensate. So the same "coercive element" could be said and has been said to drive people to enter any field of employment making all work for wages "coercive" by nature.

Where does the coercion appear? Thank you for replying. I'm sure you want the police and laws there to protect children from sexual exploitation. The same with drugs, you don't want smack and cocaine being sold in Boots. So there has to be a law, and that law is going to be too restrictive for some people and too lenient for others.

The laws and implementation of them swings back and forth all throughout time. We protect children from all manner of things because their brains have not formed to the point where we as a society believe they can make rational choices for themselves However if we are going to have a free society at some point you become an adult, at which point I do not believe the government should act as a parent over your life making choices as to what is "best" for you Allowing for that type of government means you lose self agency and your liberty.

Not sure what a boot is, in American English a boot is a type of shoe, I dont really know if I care that people sell drugs out of their shoes Aside from that, Yes I believe "smack", cocaine, and every other drug should be legal to sell to adults. The government has not business telling an adult what food, drink or drugs they are allowed or not allowed to take.

At most the government has an responsibility to enforce quality, and truthful advertisement laws i. In fact, Boots is now owned by Walgreens. It's official company name now is Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc but it's Walgreens who bought all the shares of Boots.

I believe 'the boot' is a British term for the trunk of an automobile, which I think fits the bill here: The context is the British pharmacy "Boots" - think Walgreens. The parent commenter's argument is that our society at large does not want heroin and coke sold at the corner drugstore.

They want these substances out of sight, out of mind. It's all very well for us to imagine legalized drugs would be safer and more easy to regulate, but a majority of people disagree - so for the time being, they will continue being sold out of the boots of cars. TheGrassyKnoll 3 months ago. Walgreens Boots Alliance, Inc. Taxed and regulated the same as alcohol and tobacco.

Start by legalizing prostitution and removing the black market. That won't end all trafficking, but will end a lot and will make it much easier to go after the remaining illegal black market as it's now been separated from the legal market. Comment about how people who don't learn are doomed to repeat history here.

How many black markets for harmless everyday goods and services do we need to ban before the idiots in charge start to understand these simple principles? They're constantly talking about markets, but clearly no one in government understands the first thing about them. Or, more likely, doesn't want to. It's much easier to hide illegally activity that mirrors legal activity than it is to hide illegal activity where all the surrounding paraphernalia is direct evidence.

Your assertion that legalisation of prostitution will lead to less trafficking of people seems naive to me - you create a larger market and allow people to easily hide. You bring forth a compelling theory, but I don't think it's true. Compare the market for contraband or counterfeited booze and cigarettes, which "mirrors" legal booze and cigarettes, with the market for cocaine and heroin, where "all the surrounding paraphernalia is direct evidence".

OK, go on, if someone is smoking an illegally imported cigarette it's nearly impossible to tell just by looking that there's been a crime.

If they're doing a line you know within a small error margin without any investigation. Why, because the former is hidden by the legally allowed behaviour. No, you can't tell if a given cigarette being smoked is contraband or not, but buying a pack of smuggled cigarettes is a very different experience from buying a legal pack.

Even a conscientious customer has very few options to check for themselves. If brothels on the other hand are legal, operators have every incentive to do this, and if anyone is looking for an illegal brothel which looks very different from a legal one, just like the place you're buying smuggled smokes looks very different from a , this "paraphernalia" is direct evidence that they're looking for something bad.

Sure, but the question is about the relative sizes of the markets and the amount of involuntary suffering involved. While I admittedly did not look up any hard data, I take it for granted that the cocaine market is much more of a public problem than the smuggled cigarette market.

This flies in the face of your admittedly compelling thought experiment. Siblings have made some compelling points regarding why that might be. Legal cigarettes cap the profits that can be had from illegal cigarette trade. With cocaine, you can charge x production costs. This creates incentives that are sure to produce an endless supply of dealers, regardless of how draconian enforcement is. It would probably also create a boom in prostitution - with the accompanying drawbacks.

Job Cohen, the former mayor of Amsterdam lamented in crime organizations and human traffickers taking advantage of their lax prostitution laws. You know that you can have consensual sexual relationships outside of marriage, right? They don't even have to be exclusive. Seriously, dude, if you're a "hungry man", open Tinder or just go to a local hook up bar. Hooking up for a one night stand is trivial. I look repulsive and my personality isn't much better.

Hookups are quite out of the question. But it must be nice to be attractive and have enough money to go out clubbing. Stop being such a goddamned quitter. Dressing well is the least important. Other people are happy to do it for you.

If I can meet biological needs like eating by paying some one and not having to hunt and farm, why shouldn't I have the option of doing the same with sex? If you want to, go for it. But feeling that you are charmless and ugly is unpleasant even if you can buy sex. These are problems that are at worst, and I do mean worst, ameliorable. If you tell yourself those things often enough, which frankly sound like what other people have said about you in the past, eventually you start to believe them as fact.

Both looks and personality can be improved upon, even if you are on a budget. Perhaps the commenter was merely making a point but no doubt your advice is invaluable. Glad you've been lucky, but don't make assumptions from data set of 1. It's trivial only for the most attractive and charismatic males. OkCupid has published some nice research on it. Luckily charisma can be learned and overcome all but the most outlying unattractive. But yea prostitution is the world's oldest profession for a reason - sometimes people just want a transactional sexual encounter.

For money, one can have no "equal parts" requirement - no need to reciprocate. It's not for everyone or for me but I can understand the attraction. Some people can indeed easily attract casual sexual partners in a matter of minutes or hours in almost any environment.

But the vast majority of the population cannot. It all depends on how do you agree upon this. I've been married, and I've been in open and polyamorous relationships, and difference is enormous. Frondo 3 months ago. Of course it can. Someone might want to have sex with you, and consent, and then they might want you to stop, and remove consent for you to continue. Continuing sex with someone after they tell you to stop, no matter what they said before, is sexual assault.

Well, yes it can. You have to dismiss massive amounts of male testimonies to say that consent has never ever been removed after the fact. The idea that there's a recurring massive problem of false convictions for rape is bizarre.

In most countries it's extremely difficult to get alleged rape prosecuted in the first place and the conviction rate is low. I'm not going to dispute that it might have happened in some cases but it's a comparatively rare problem. Also, I'm going to assume you're not a native English speaker - the contrasting group nouns should be "men" and "women" not "males" and "girls". This parenthetical is an odd leap. Perhaps it was meant to suggest that the author who is certainly fluent in, if not a native speaker of, English shouldn't use the word girls to refer to women?

No, its more like the Salem witch hunt. You mean, like millions of illegal immigrants who are working in farming, construction, fast food, and many other industries? How do you feel about scorched earth approach to those? Apparently trading your body for sex is somehow metaphysically different to trading your body for labor.

It most certainly is for an indeterminate number of people. PurpleBoxDragon 3 months ago. But if you suggest to legalize and regulate it as a means of protecting those who don't wish to participate, you will be seen as a demonic entity who is advocating for sex crimes to be legalized. I don't think one can defend a crusade that so easily and extremely ignores alternative solutions. I suspect a lot of the push is from very conservative or sex negative views who see this as an opening to roll back some of the recently won sexual freedoms.

TallGuyShort 3 months ago. It works both ways with different issues. Generally speaking every political discussion has degraded into accusing the other side of killing children. How can you compare being the victim of misdesigned automated system, who has no conscience and follows blind rules, to being the victim of a trafficker who has full understanding and responsibility for what he's doing and exploiting a mindless computer system designed for an entirely different purpose?

Now I agree we as a society should recognize that some tools, in the hands of the criminal, sociopath or insane can do a lot of harm, and it's fair to move and restrict them.

High explosives, nuclear material, anonymous banking are all examples of technologies that, while useful, can and should be restricted. But at no point it is a fault of the technology, and at no point should we examine the technology divorced from it's nefarious users who ultimately bear responsibility.

Restricting useful technology is an extreme measure reserved for the most dangerous situations, otherwise ANY technology can be used for harming others. This particular case seems completely out of balance and likely to have NO impact.

I think you may be misreading GP's point. My reading is that he's likening the frustrations of the non profits with getting through to what they consider faceless entities the companies to the lesser frustrations one may have when one's subjected to an optional IVR experience. In other words, paraphrasing liberally: I'm not sure how to take your comments, based on your other thoughts. We shouldn't have anonymous banking, i. I don't think he said anonymous banking should't be available at all - he explicitly said it was useful.

Money laundering is one example that comes to mind. If you're a proponent of Crypto currencies you've probably heard similar statements before - this criticism isn't new.

Yes, the instinct is understandable, but by the time we're putting NGO experts in government-sponsored working groups for the purpose of drafting legislation, it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that we're expecting something that rises high! Otherwise, we can almost, somewhat melodramatic exaggeration just let mobs with pitchforks take care of business and save a ton of effort.

Kalium 3 months ago. It it a deeply human response to an incredible frustration. After decades of struggle, to help the poor, vulnerable, and oppressed, it's down a couple of faceless corporations that don't seem to care.

Because if they just knew, if they just understood, if they just had a little human empathy and sympathy for the pain and suffering Why then they'd take all their money and smart people and Solve the Problem!

That this is perhaps an excessively simplistic view doesn't occur to people who fervently believe that it's simply a matter of making the useless arrogant dweebs do the right thing. Instead, it's scorched earth with good intentions. My heart aches for the wonderful people saving lives out there.

For their deep frustration, and for the purity of their beliefs and intentions. Yet, it's perhaps abstractly possible that empathy and good intentions might be subtly different from good policy. It is also quite unfitting and stupid and innefective. The difference is that this approach could work against IVRs, but not against sex trafficking. I've actually used CL personals to get some dates, and there are things I liked about it primarily text-focused medium can be nice, are there any more of those?

But it is obvious to anyone who has used them that CL personals were utterly overwhelmed by people who are selling the other kind of Saas Sex as a Service. This was a point of frustration for anyone looking for a connection however unconventional rather than a transaction. But worse, no matter your views on whether people should be able to voluntarily do sex work, with the majority of the w4m traffic being prostitution, it seems all but inevitable that there was some coerced trafficking regularly associated with it.

This was at least nominally against the terms of the personals section, but nobody selling cared at all and in some cases, were cheeky enough to flag legit not-selling-anything ads , and if craigslist mounted any serious effort to fix the problem, it wasn't one I noticed.

This legislation sounds like thoughtless single-dimension policy, but I'm not sure it burns down CL entirely on its own so much as it does forces CL to reckon with the fact that its personals section was already set on fire by pushers much earlier and that they didn't care enough to do anything about it. Which is fine, they obviously never derived revenue from it and are under no obligation to divert resources there or let that drag down the rest of their successful classifieds offering.

That is also largely the government fault because back in they more or less forced CL to close the Sections of the site that was dedicated to Adult Services Its their fault they forced craigslist to shut down a section openly advertising illegal content? I love the contortions people make. It's not like sex work is even legal in the majority of western nations.

They failed to stop the crime they were trying to stop, but did ruin something else, so the government's actions were a net negative. Are you at fault if you just make things worse?

I suspect most people would say yes. Governments have a long history of enforcing laws in ways that harm everyone but the criminals they were trying to stop. You shouldn't expect people to be pleased. You assume they were trying to stop the criminals in the first place. Hierarchy of Government Rationality as it pertains to criminal law 1. Control the population 3. Protect Businesses and the Wealthy people that fund Campaigns There is a very very big difference.

FireBeyond 3 months ago. There's also a difference in CL actively putting a section in that says "Illegal Services advertised here".

For clarity, there's no concern with legalizing these services, as far as I am concerned. You think it's a violation of your First Amendment rights to be unable to openly advertise criminal activities? Where does that line end? So what part of that is unclear to you? Freedom of speech is absolute. It you have a limit on speech is stops being free speech, and become regulated speech. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so.

They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control.

The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. To the extent that Jefferson's being brought in here to say "Yeah, well, that's just, like, [The Supreme Court's] opinion, man" and therefore to dismiss the idea that legally, free speech is not an unabridged right You know that judges are , tautologically, the arbiters of constitutional and legal questions and the supreme court the ultimate arbiters , right?

Even if you said "hey, we're getting rid of all these ultimate arbiter judges because they're oligarchy waiting to happen" the next question is "well, who decides what the law says? But unless you have a specific argument as to why they got it wrong, not only is it true that the court decision reflects the law of the land for now because that's how our system works, chances are pretty good that the court also had a better argument than random HN commentators, even if they have a favorite founding father quote at hand.

It might be better to reach for dissenting opinions instead. Agreed that judges are not infallible, and we must keep watch, both in appointments being made and the judgements they make. That's why the Constitution is structured the way it is. It's important that we continue to do so, particularly now. I also trust, unless proven otherwise, that these judges have studied the law and are acting in good faith, both as arbiters of justice and as American citizens.

These aren't isolated, unique cases. On the whole, I would defer to them over my own opinion, as I would for many experts. And, without additional information about you, I'd defer to their opinion over yours, as I'd expect you to, in the same situation, as well. I don't believe that there is some conspiracy across all of these judges and justices to systematically deprive citizens of rights. You are free to believe otherwise. I do believe that assuming bad faith across the board is a recipe for the destruction of community, society, and government.

Perhaps you believe we're already at that point. I don't believe we are, at least not yet. Given how arbitrarily laws are applied, it is the fault of the people choosing when to arbitrarily apply a law as to the impacts of arbitrarily applying that law. Symbiote 3 months ago.

Nothing bad, just "woman looking for man". I used to see ads in the local free paper with people looking for relationships. Naturally, m4m, w4w, mw4m etc are also understood. WorldMaker 3 months ago. They used to charge by the word in the personal ad, so people got into a lot of common abbreviation habits. The newsweeklies that used to carry personals lost a lot of ad revenue when Craigslist took over the space for free.

Some went bankrupt soon after CL added their city, even. Unlikely that they will get that ad revenue back with CL out of the game, as many won't want to touch personals again for similar reasons to CL, and a lot of the personals space is also moved on to the Match.

Then shut down Google too. Well in the case of this particular bill, at least some of the advocates for sex workers had some sense and spoke loudly and clearly about the bad consequences of this law. I suppose if you work directly with people on the front lines of that problem, Craigslist personals might seem pretty trivial in comparison. To me, the odd thing is they focus on that instead of legalization and helping people report abuses.

Legalization is far from perfect but abuse in Nevada brothels is much lower than as street walkers. It seems it's more a puritanical belief system than a genuine desire to render aid. I strongly believe that legalization is the only answer to the problem. Driving things underground is only going to cause more issues and abuse to the sex workers. It's kind of ironic when in France, for example, a law gets passed criminalizing the customers while the sex workers go in the street to protest that law saying that it will create more abuse and one year after, they were right.

Trying to stop behaviors that will always exist in human societies doesn't work, it just drives the demand underground and if things are illegal already, then other more illegal, more abusive behaviors start to surface.

Why do we have to "believe"? There are many examples to learn from, to see what works and what doesn't. For example, this study [0]. Using trafficking data from countries, the authors find that "countries where prostitution is legal experience a larger reported incidence of human trafficking inflows. The minimum estimate of sex trafficking victims in the country increased from 9, in to 11, in , to 12, in Sweden has one of the harshest stances on prostitution, and it's working just fine [1].

Those count reported cases, not convictions, and by design can't contain unreported cases. The ramp up into could indicate that law enforcement took a while to properly take advantage of that. That's a narrative like the comment I was responding to , not backed by any studies as far as I can tell. Sex trafficking has always been illegal, and the reasons for its under-reporting have little to do with prostitution being illegal.

The legalization narrative is about sexual abuse in the general sense both for sex workers and the broader population and not specifically trafficking. You are redefining English in attempt to use a paper that is entirely conjecture based on the predispositions of the authors. Sex workers are objecting to this law because it is cutting off their ability to communicate dangerous clients to each other. That will lead to an increase in them getting raped.

Like, I get you want to say "Sex trafficking bad and clearly that is the only issue that matters" but it is far from the only issue. Trafficked persons, in a legal environment, are going to have their place of work inspected, regular interviews with the police for licensing, and their citizenship status checked. The studies of early legalization Germany are so fun for opponents to push because they know Germany did not do this for the first years.

It is like comparing a known, obviously broken implementation and insisting all implementations look like that or that is the only measure of success. The higher number is for cities that license sex work in the tippelzone; the lower figure is for cities without a licensing process. That result persists beyond two years. Given these types of laws rarely change and are fairly uniform across regions, our knowledge about the impact of decriminalizing sex work is largely conjectural.

We exploit the fact that a Rhode Island District Court judge unexpectedly decriminalized indoor prostitution in to provide the first causal estimates of the impact of decriminalization on the composition of the sex market, rape offenses, and sexually transmitted infection outcomes.

Not surprisingly, we find that decriminalization increased the size of the indoor market. However, we also find that decriminalization caused both forcible rape offenses and gonorrhea incidence to decline for the overall population.

Our synthetic control model finds fewer reported rape offenses 31 percent decrease and 1, fewer cases of female gonorrhea 39 percent decrease from to I'm sure that places with legalized drugs also experience increases in drug trafficking inflows.

And the overall alcohol consumption in the USA rose after the prohibition. The authors note that legalization could have other positive effects, such making it easier for prostitutes to seek legal or medical help and decreasing rates of abuse and sexually-transmitted disease. The real key, and it's also highlighted in your [0] link, is if the situation is better for almost everyone after legalizing. About the Sweden example, claiming that "since the law came into effect fewer men reported purchasing sex and prostitutes were less visible" your [1] link is a winning situation is a bit lame.

Of course after a prohibition you expect the prostitution to go underground and less visible. It's like denying paedophilia just because nobody reports himself as a peadophile and you cannot see children on the streets. Yes it's a bad idea. Imagine we had legalized drugs, but barely anyone wanted to make them, because making them was nasty and degrading in a way that few people could even tolerate.

No matter what you did, you simply couldn't find enough people willing to make them. Paying them more wont help, because beyond a certain point the nastiness of making them can't be washed away with money. So the next step is coercing people to do so. Part of the power of abusing people is taking away people's paperwork and convincing them the police won't help them.

Arnt 3 months ago. FWIW there's been another reform in Germany. Brothels and prostitution are legal, provided prostitutes register with the police. Skipping that interview is a crime for the brothel owner , not just the prostitute.

A contradicting practical example is the situation with legal brothels in Turkey. The goverment wants them shut but the women working there wants them kept open, because otherwise they have no option but to go underground, and then they lose access to facilities like security and routine health controls. When some years ago the Istanbul municipality tried to shut them off the women protested: This does not take into account the increased number of ppl.

IanCal 3 months ago. Those numbers are all available. Germany's population is very stable and changed by 0. Just looking at a trend is not enough.

Firstly, The entire paper is guesswork. There are no official numbers to support the fact that legalising prostitution increases the victim count.

The discussion was about abuse, not about total number of trafficking incidents. Germany also failed to properly regulate its brothels with the same vigor as they apply to other industries which was genuinely unfortunate.

All it takes is going to legal brothels with business licenses and checking citizenship status. Sweden has more rapes per capita than any country outside of sub-saharan Africa.

So while there is a section for Women Seeking Men W4M , even for a casual encounter they are likely expecting dinner and drinks first, and the appearance of respectability.

Also, most women posting on casual encounters are A: Girls operating webcams they expect you to pay for aka spam. The reason so many str8 men indulge their bi-curiosity which you will come to learn and learn well throughout this piece on Craigslist is that they simply get fed up looking for women only to get scammed over and over again.

Most posts by men under M4W go ignored or are only answered by the previously mentioned hookers and webcam girls, and sometimes the occasional horribly unfortunate-looking real woman looking for a casual good time.

And yet, you always have to send them pics first. I know beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but most women actually looking for sex on Craigslist from everyone I know who's actually met up with one really aren't the type to socialize beyond a certain point or even know to look or groom past a certain I'm not saying it is impossible to meet an attractive woman on CL, I suppose if you keep trying it'll eventually happen. But same goes with meeting anyone you'll find attractive in pretty much any situation.

We live in an age of abbreviated words and phrases, mostly due to the wonderful world of the internet, which is still something "new", I don't care how many of you kids grew up with it. Anyway, no place on earth exemplifies this culture of abbreviation more than the Craigslist personals section, or the "Casual Encounters" section.

There are several CL shorthand terms, but I'd say these are some of the essentials. DDF means "drug and disease free" this is big in M4M encounters.

Oh, M4M is Men for Men btw. You do know what btw is though right?? After you know the lingo it's really just about making a post , including an image and waiting for fish to bite. Having a picture on there is really important, as a lot of people filter out the submissions without photos.

Much dumber people than you and I have figured out how to do this, so I'm going to focus on how not to make horrible mistakes while using this Starting with the people to avoid at all costs

.. Craigslist w4m escort ad


Locanto casual escorts today

About Chelsie Arthur