Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25

Thread: 'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'

  1. #1

    'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'

    I thought this was a joke at first. There can be a down size to legalizing prostitution.

    'If you don't take a job as a prostitute, we can stop your benefits'

    A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

    Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners – who must pay tax and employee health insurance – were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

  2. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    montreal
    Posts
    2,116
    Thank you for the link. Since the government is looking to review the prostitution laws this year, I forwarded it to someone from Stella who I know will be there on behalf of the decriminalisation movement. It is all in the wording of the laws. Nobody should be forced into doing anything they do want to do... including waiting on tables!

    Ronnie,
    Naughtylady
    They will forget what you said,
    they will forget what you did,
    but they will never forget the way you made them feel.

  3. #3
    Ronnie,

    Nobody is being forced to take jobs they don't like by EI-type programs. But on the other hand, society does not have to pay for individual preferences with respect to jobs. If I am unemployed and don't want to take an ordinary job because I find it demeaning or beneath my skills, I cannot expect society to pay for my preferences. This applies to all "waitress" type jobs in your example. However, as for SP jobs, I admit it's pushing the concept overboard because sexual services have only been recently been legalized in Germany and therefore cannot yet qualify as an ordinary socially accepted occupation.

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    montreal
    Posts
    2,116
    I was responding to the article... I thought by the smiley I chose you would have realized that my response was "tougue in cheek" so to speak. Did not mean to offend any.

    Ronnie,
    Naughtylady
    They will forget what you said,
    they will forget what you did,
    but they will never forget the way you made them feel.

  5. #5
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,147
    This is but a logical outgrowth of legalization. The government gets a piece of the pie. And I don't have a problem with requiring unemployment compensation seekers to attempt to secure employment with legal brothels. If they are rejected from employment at brothels because they are ugly or unattractive and cannot otherwise find gainful employment, then okay, let them collect unemployment compensation. But if they are lookers and employable in brothels, and have not pursued employment in that sector, why should they be permitted to leech on taxpayer monies? I work hard for my money and I don't want someone sitting on their ass eating potato chips and watching Jeopardy re-runs on my dollar, when they can be productively sucking on penises at the local brothel. It's all about whether you can be gainfully employed, or not. It's that simple.

    Let the voice of the taxpayer always be heard, and heard loudly!

  6. #6
    Ronnie,
    Sorry, I didn't notice the smiley. I guess I over-reacted because whining about EI is one of my pet peeves.


    Quote Originally Posted by EagerBeaver
    I work hard for my money and I don't want someone sitting on their ass eating potato chips and watching Jeopardy re-runs on my dollar, when they can be productively sucking on penises at the local brothel.
    EB: LMAO

  7. #7
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    montreal
    Posts
    2,116
    joeblow>> all forgiven... though maybe I should still take you over my knee and spank you... on second thought, you just might like that

    Ronnie,
    Naughtylady
    They will forget what you said,
    they will forget what you did,
    but they will never forget the way you made them feel.

  8. #8
    I am me, too!
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    If only I knew...
    Posts
    2,214
    Wow! I can imagine the quality of service...
    That's not a good idea. There is still a BIG difference between serving at tables and being a prostitute...
    Can the girls claim they're not qualified because they are virgins, or frigid? Will they get training?
    Forcing them would be an invitation for some girls to catch diseases so they can't work because of contagion...
    Last edited by metoo4; 02-03-2005 at 07:49 PM. Reason: typo

  9. #9
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,147
    Curious,

    A woman is free to choose not to work as a prostitute, however in exercising that choice she is not free to collect unemployment compensation if, by virtue of her looks, she is employable as a prostitute in a country where it has been legalized. People are simply not free to collect money for nothing and rip off the taxpayer. That is it, plain and simple.

  10. #10
    proud infidel
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    from the civilized world
    Posts
    1,983
    I agree with EB. It's not a question of liberty. Indeed the girl can choose whatever she wants and refuse to do whatever job she doesn't desire, but that doesn't give her the right to collect social benefits whenever she would like to. If the premise is the legalization of prostitution, then, according to the law, prostitution should be put on the same level as being a waitress or any other job or profession. Therefore, the right to receive or not any social benefits should apply to the sp in the same way it applies to everyone else. If the girl's turning down a job entails certain "social" consequences according to the law, then so be it. With legalization comes society's acknowledgment but also the obligation of complying with its rules and regulations. There should be no more "free passes" once you're recognized as legal.

    fml
    fml

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    montreal
    Posts
    2,116
    It takes alot more than looks and a pussy to be a prostitute. Just because the tasks involved are simple, and do not require any special training, does not mean anybody can be a prostitute. It takes a certain mentality, and head space also.
    If you do not have that, then she will burn out and possibly go into depression, which takes a long time to cure, and depending how severe she may need to be out of work for a long time place even more strains on the social support system. The stigmatisation alone is too much for many people to bear. Be realistic guys.

    Ronnie,
    Naughtylady
    They will forget what you said,
    they will forget what you did,
    but they will never forget the way you made them feel.

  12. #12
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,147
    Ronnie,

    The issues you mentioned would be dealt with by disability insurance and/or worker's compensation insurance. You are forgetting that we're talking about LEGALIZED prostitution.

    Why should a legalized brothel be any different than any other business in choosing who to hire? A brothel will only hire a woman if it thinks it will be able to make money off of her. Similarly, a law firm will only hire a secretary it thinks will be productive and make money for the firm. If, in either case, the woman looking for a job is deemed unemployable, then that is one thing. If she is deemed employable by the employer, that is quite another.

    It is ultimately the employer that will make the determination as to whether a woman is employable or not, not me or you. Thus, a legal brothel will take into consideration the factors you mentioned in determining whether to hire the woman. If those factors are considered and she is deemed unemployable, then she would be eligible for unemployment compensation if otherwise incapable of obtaining gainful employment.

    If, on the other hand, the woman is deemed capable of handling these factors by the employer, and she just doesn't want to do the job, then she should not be sitting on her ass eating the potato chips and watching Jeopardy re-runs at taxpayer expense. This is a very simple proposition and I do not understand why the posters here are just not getting it.

    Laziness is not to be rewarded by the government! We are not communist countries, the USA and Canada have capitalist systems!

    Furthermore, as noted above, the issues raised by Ronnie are potentially compensable though disability and/or worker's compensation insurance. We are talking about legalized prostitution here. You don't think insurance companies will sell this type of insurance in these jurisdictions?
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 02-05-2005 at 07:14 PM.

  13. #13
    Veteran of Misadventures
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    U.S.A.
    Posts
    13,147
    It is not criminal in ANY country to require a citizen to seek all possible gainful legal employment as a condition precedent to collecting unemployment compensation benefits. It is the LAW.

    The posts of juzt_a_girl and naughtlyady only serve to make a case AGAINST legalization of prostitution (albeit perhaps unwittingly). Governments treat businesses all alike when it comes to taxation and to the extent that the burden of unemployment compensation for women not wanting to work in brothels gets shifted, guess where it would get shifted? To the brothels via a special assessment, who would in turn either raise prices or make their employees (i.e., the legal prostitutes) assume the burden of that tax.
    Last edited by EagerBeaver; 02-05-2005 at 09:02 PM.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    montreal
    Posts
    2,116
    Quote Originally Posted by juzt_a_girl
    Yes, I am very much against legalization. Decriminalization is a whole other story.

    C.
    I am with you girl, what we need is decriminalisation, not legalisation.

    EagerBeaver>> You are assuming that an employer can better assess wether a woman is capable of determining wether or not she would make a good sex worker that she herself can. WRONG. An employer cannot see into her mind, nor is he trained to determine her mental state. Again, if you do not have the right mind set, you cannot succeed as a sex worker. Forcing women to have sex against their will is rape... even if you call it a job! We are talking about forcing people into sex work. Legal does not mean that just because she has a pussy she can do the job. Clearly the woman in the article may have the looks, and obviously a pussy, but just as clearly she is not capable of dealing with the stigmatisation amongst other things. Why are you assuming the worst of her just because she does not want to be a prostitute.

    The right to be a prostitute is just as important as the right not to be one!!

    Ronnie,
    Naughtylady
    They will forget what you said,
    they will forget what you did,
    but they will never forget the way you made them feel.

  15. #15
    proud infidel
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    from the civilized world
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by juzt_a_girl
    Considering that only a specific group has the monopoly on the means of productions (read: 99% are men)

    Also considering that in most cases, owner has never actually been employee...

    ...or that the dangers associated with this kind of job do in no way compare to those a lawyer or waitress might face...

    ...or that the social stigma doesn't just all of a sudden dissapear.
    Lets not compare apples to oranges.


    I chose to do this. The moment someone forces me to do it, under criminal law in most contries, that's called coercion.
    C.
    Men having the monopoly? Maybe so, but i don't see the relevance?

    Owner has never been an employee? Maybe, but is that relevant? Don't think so, just think of our dear owners in hockey .

    Prostitution is dangerous? Maybe, but i can think of a lot of other jobs that are probably even more dangerous (ie. soldiers).

    The social stigma not disappearing despite legalization? You might have an excellent point there Jag. But IMHO it's not through clandestineness that prostitution will gain better acceptance and or the rights of its members will get more easily defended.

    Decriminalization better than legalization? Isn't that what currently prevails in Canada with outcalls being legal? However despite this, there still exists a lot of "uneasiness" (for lack of a better word) with that profession. IMHO, i think it would make it "healthier for everyone to legalize it.

    Coercion? Who's forcing whom? Nobody said the girl 's obliged to become an sp.

    My .02

    fml
    fml

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •