Sweet Angle Smile
Montreal Escorts

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

pinkworm

Member
May 21, 2003
114
0
16
Visit site
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.
 

naughtylady

New Member
Nov 9, 2003
2,079
2
0
57
montreal
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
 

joeblow

Cunning Linguist
Sep 29, 2003
284
1
16
Visit site
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.
 

naughtylady

New Member
Nov 9, 2003
2,079
2
0
57
montreal
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
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
19,164
2,466
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
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! :mad:
 

joeblow

Cunning Linguist
Sep 29, 2003
284
1
16
Visit site
Ronnie,
Sorry, I didn't notice the smiley. I guess I over-reacted because whining about EI is one of my pet peeves.


EagerBeaver said:
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
 

naughtylady

New Member
Nov 9, 2003
2,079
2
0
57
montreal
joeblow>> all forgiven... though maybe I should still take you over my knee and spank you... on second thought, you just might like that :p

Ronnie,
Naughtylady
 

metoo4

I am me, too!
Mar 27, 2004
2,183
2
0
If only I knew...
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:

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
19,164
2,466
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
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.
 

naughtylady

New Member
Nov 9, 2003
2,079
2
0
57
montreal
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
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
19,164
2,466
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
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. :mad:

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:

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
19,164
2,466
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
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:

naughtylady

New Member
Nov 9, 2003
2,079
2
0
57
montreal
juzt_a_girl said:
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
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
19,164
2,466
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
naughtylady said:
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.

Ronnie, you are totally missing the point. I am making no such assumption. The employer determines whether the woman is employable. Whether the employer is in the best position to do so is irrelevant because in practice, a brothel is not going to pay for a psychological examination before they make a hiring decision nor is the government going to give them a subsidy or grant to do so. It may very well be that you are correct as a theoretical matter. But as a practical matter, the decision as to whether the employee is employable is made by the employer exclusively and with no assistance from psychological tests or profiles. Indeed there are very few occupations where an employer will make a hiring decision only after a psychological test and these are usually only in the public sector (e.g. fighter pilot in the Air Force).

There are a lot of emotional posts in this thread which simply do not take into account reality. What I post is reality because I deal with these realities every day, ladies.
 
Last edited:

metoo4

I am me, too!
Mar 27, 2004
2,183
2
0
If only I knew...
Ok, if I get EB and some others, since blood donor are paid in certain places, you can be forced to give blood if you are healthy, right?

EB, if tomorrow, you end-up with no job and with no money, will you go work as an escort? Don't forget there are male escorts who cather to mens... What? You're not gay? Who cares! If prostitution and living of the avails were legal, as long as you can have a hard-on, you can work, doesn't matter who the customer is... Can't get a hard-on with a guy? Your problem, fix it or no help from the state....

Doesn't make sense, right? So as forcing anybody to work as a prostitute.

I don't have any intimacy with the cashier at the grocery store, none with my mechanic, none with waitresses I see all over the place. The fact is, nowhere are you required to have intimacy with peoples who offer you services, besides sex workers. This is where the difference is: INTIMACY. When you get in peoples's personal space, when you can touch them, even kiss them, this is where you need them to agree to it. If not, it's a rape or an assault.

The fact the law consider prostitution as a job doesn't change a thing. The problem is somebody overlooked the ramifications of the legalisation. A provision should be inserted to allow sex work to be excluded from the mandatory work availability.

I'm surprised to see some people's position here. It looks like taking a revenge on that cute hottie they saw a while ago but could't bang her because she wasn't a prostitute or she refused them: now, she will have no choice...

I do not intend on attacking anybody here, please no flaming or name calling... It's only a point of view.
 

EagerBeaver

Veteran of Misadventures
Jul 11, 2003
19,164
2,466
113
U.S.A.
Visit site
metoo4,

You, like ronnie and juzt_a_girl, are making the case AGAINST legalization. I am merely pointing out what the state of things would be if there were legalization. Personally, I am against legalization, because I believe it would drive up prices dramatically.

As far as your rather interesting question as to whether I would make myself available to suck another man's cock if required to do so in order to collect unemployment compensation, the answer is no, I would not. I would not do so because I am not gay, and because I wouldn't want to. Which means I would not be able to collect unemployment compensation. And if that was the law, then so be it. I would try like hell to find another job. Fortunately, because I am college educated and have a postgraduate degree, I would likely be able to find one.
 
Last edited:

Avery

Gentleman Horndog
Jun 10, 2003
175
0
16
Winnipeg
Visit site
juzt_a_girl said:
I don't get English sometimes. Is this like American "color" and Canadian "colour"?

Yes, but in this instance, the preferred Canadian spelling is "legalization", the same as the American spelling. Outside of North America, it would be "legalisation". Canadian spelling is a mixture of British and American spelling.
 

naughtylady

New Member
Nov 9, 2003
2,079
2
0
57
montreal
That is right I am against legalisation, I do not need the government tregulation my business.

Decriminalising is something different. It is the articles 210 and 211 (the bawdy house or incalls laws) That need to be removed. Article 212 the procuring laws, that need to be removed (so I can legally ask another working girl if she wants to do a duo with me, make the fact that my and to make agencies fully legal; also I should be able to support my boyfriend or husband if I so choose, every other working woman in any other job can support whoever she wants.) and Finally Article 212 (communicating in public). This law causes more high risk behaviour than the others.
Articles 173 & 167(indecent acts) need to be clarified.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady
 

figeac83

New Member
Sep 23, 2003
23
2
3
Visit site
The question of legalization vs decriminalization is a worthy one, but let's not go overboard. It's not realistic for any government to force women into prostitution in lieu of unemployment. The US doesn't force all able bodied unemployed to join the Army and go to war, no one (except perhaps former minors who can still do the job but choose not to) is forced to work in coal mines or other obviously dangerous jobs. So Naughty and juzt, since you're required to pay taxes anyway (in theory), why would it be so bad to be legal?
 

naughtylady

New Member
Nov 9, 2003
2,079
2
0
57
montreal
The problem with legalisation vs decriminalisation, is wether we should be able to regulate ourselves (decriminalisation) or should the government regulate us (legalisation).
Let me just say I don't trust the government... and with the govermnent regulating sex workers, we would all have an official label as sex workers which could restrict our ability to travel to certain countries, like the USA for example. Bush already wont allow for known sex workers to get a travel visa or to immigrate.

Ronnie,
Naughtylady
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts