Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Overly analytical guide to escorting

knowingless.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 465 posts

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#321

Post by fighterpilot »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #285
fighterpilot wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drug gangs destroying South America, tens of thousands dying due to Fentanyl-laced pills, lost tax revenue, huge taxpayer expense, petty crime used to fund overpriced drugs, are all signficiantly worse things than what you are afraid of. It's a laugh to see all these right-leaning people who pretend to be libertarians (not sure if that's you, but in general) but are actually in favor of a large state and authoritaria…

How is there any lost tax revenue if it's not taxed? Why should everything be taxed be default?

Opportunity cost of tax revenue.

  "Why should everything be taxed be default?"
The opportunity cost point was the least important in that list. If you don't want to tax it, that's fine with me.

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#322

Post by iammisc »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #305
iammisc wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Decriminalization of marijuana in many places is getting people talking about it more openly, for example. It's not everything but it's a start. sure... and that's the best argument to recriminalize. Having yet more drugs that disrupt mental faculties is not a good thing

Is it safe to assume you also support the prohibition of alcohol?

Do I believe the government has the authority to prohibit alcohol? Absolutely.

Do I think it's wise.... No. Our culture is too dependent on it.

If there was a country where alcohol wee not popular, I'd think it would be a good idea to keep it illegal.

Look, drinking is fun, but it's a luxury and can be dangerous.

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#323

Post by slothtrop »

Aella wrote: post #56
yedava wrote: post #53

> 41% reported sexual assault This is from a group of sex workers who appear to be screening their clientele. I wonder how high the number would be among sex workers who don't have the same amount of financial safety net that someone who can pick and chose their clients has. I also wonder how those assaults could be brought down, if that is even possible in the first place. I always hear how sex work just needs to be…

It should be decriminalized , not regulated. I would have liked to have been able to go to the police about the client who assaulted me, but unfortunately this didn't cross my mind as an option.

That's the Nordic model which has been a collosal failure. The workers get harassed by both police and clients alike, they are no better off. Actual legitimacy would allow workers to better organize and protect themselves, and would also better mitigate human trafficking by leveraging regulation. Germany is working on improving its laws to this end.

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#324

Post by mensetmanusman »

I wonder if crypto will enable future crimes like blackmail as a service.

E.g. > Escort moves to country B from country A.

> Acquires list of clients and determines their local contacts

> Leaves country B

> Informs previous clients that they need to submit monthly BTC payments or else contacts will receive secretly recorded videos

Continue to jump between countries and create larger baseline of blackmail dividends.

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#325

Post by slothtrop »

robrtsql wrote: post #299
newsclues wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Scenario B workers under legalization will lose their jobs/income. Marginalized workers in the cannabis industry got pushed out when Canada legalized cannabis.

This is why most sex workers are specifically in favor of decriminalization and not 'legalization'.

Ask the ones in Europe and Canada how that's going for them.

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#326

Post by iammisc »

fighterpilot wrote: post #266
iammisc wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Decriminalization of marijuana in many places is getting people talking about it more openly, for example. It's not everything but it's a start. sure... and that's the best argument to recriminalize. Having yet more drugs that disrupt mental faculties is not a good thing

Drug gangs destroying South America, tens of thousands dying due to Fentanyl-laced pills, lost tax revenue, huge taxpayer expense, petty crime used to fund overpriced drugs, are all signficiantly worse things than what you are afraid of. It's a laugh to see all these right-leaning people who pretend to be libertarians (not sure if that's you, but in general) but are actually in favor of a large state and authoritaria…

I'm not a libertarian and I'm not a small government person.

I believe inimited government, not small government.

If you need a giant government to enforce law then you need a big government.

For example, if you have a government of say 100 people, and they decided to hire 10 people and start a fast food restaurant I would be against this new government of 110 people. On the other hand, if the same government needed to hire 5000 people to combat drugs, I'd support that.

Why? Because limited government means government should only do a limited number of things. Opening a fast food restaurant is not the proper place of a government. Enforcing drug law is. Government can be as large as necessary to accomplish that.

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#327

Post by naasking »

iammisc wrote: post #316
EllieEffingMae wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're okay with one of these things but not the other, then you are applying a double standard based on a moralisation of sex. Sex as labour is no different than any labour, and there is no criticism of sex work that is whole an complete that does not also criticise the very system you're defending.

Sex is very different. Last I checked, no matter how much construction work you do, you will never construct another person, even by accident. Sex is not just another activity. Due to its effects of potentially creating a new human being, it is a category unto itself and deserves special treatment. For example, would you sell your pancreas? Why not? Is it because a vital organ is not in the same class of goods as say…

> For example, would you sell your pancreas? Why not? Is it because a vital organ is not in the same class of goods as say a lightbulb? [...] Your kind of equivocation is morally lazy and conveniently abiological.

Speaking of lazy, that's a pretty ridiculous comparison. Depriving yourself of a vital organ is not the same as renting out your genitals for a limited time.

"Making a new person" is also a complete red herring. You can hire a surrogate to carry a baby to term, which is also paying to use someone else's genitals to actually make a new person. The only meaningful difference is the absence of "sex", so I think it's clear what you really have a problem with.

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#328

Post by slothtrop »

Aella wrote: post #20
loxias wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It would be nice if we could just regulate this industry to protect the people in it. Amen to that. As an ignorant outsider looking in, the first thing that comes to mind is the possible huge safety benefits gained by collective bargaining. Even if it's not certified and recognized by the NLRB, there's gotta be something.

Decriminalization, that's mostly what sex workers want. I'm pretty wary of regulation, which often is done in misguided ways by people out of touch with sex workers' actual needs.

You don't speak for sex workers.

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#329

Post by MrWiffles »

denton-scratch wrote: post #275
lelandfe wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_United_S... It’s illegal everywhere but certain parts of Nevada. When you walk around the streets of Las Vegas you’ll therefore see hundreds and hundreds of fliers for girls. As for the history… it’s a sordid one. Read e.g https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chamberlain–Kahn_Act . The US imprisoned women with venereal diseases found near military bases. Things sort of w…

> “no longer prosecute prostitution and unlicensed massage” You can be prosecuted for giving an massage without a licence? I lived for a short while in the US, and regularly gave my female partner massages.

I think this is only in cases where you fake credentials as, or otherwise lead someone to believe, that you’re a licensed professional massage therapist. It’s not the most academically demanding thing, but doing that kind of work on someone you could really hurt them fairly bad if you don’t know what you’re doing whatsoever. So requiring licensure and prosecuting those who fake it makes sense.

Re: Overly analytical guide to escorting

#330

Post by creamytaco »

denton-scratch wrote: post #304
tomc1985 wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It strikes me somewhat oddly that one might pay so much for something that literally half the people on this planet is equipped to provide You're paying for looks, ease, simplicity, no strings, and so on... I get it. But idunno, that is a lot of money for one nut. Also suprised the San Diego price is so high, when there is a red light district literally on the border in Tijuana, and those girls charge $60-$100/hr US…

> It strikes me somewhat oddly that one might pay so much $1200 an hour, with a minimum 1.5 hours, so $1800. In addition to a 20-minute roll in the hay, you get an attractive, intelligent person for company, who is skillful at flattering men. So these "half the people on the planet": if they're not prostitutes, then you will have to date them. You are not going to cop if you take your date out to KFC. Even taking the…

This sounds completely off the mark for anyone that is moderately attractive, outgoing whilst possessing intelligence and social skills (I know, such a high bar to clear amongst SV types). The fact is, if one is above average in these areas, sex with attractive females doesn't cost one anything besides the time one puts in for the experience itself.

Throwing money at escorts is such a loser move (and the experience so far away from sex with a woman that truly desires you) that only someone who's never experienced the latter would seriously argue for paying 1200$ to have 20 minute sex with "an attractive, intelligent person for company, who is skillful at flattering men."

Post reply on HN