False story: sex work, unemployment benefits in Germany

[HaywoodJabloemy]

I see there was a thread on Merb earlier this year regarding a newswire story that went around the world, claiming that a 25 year old woman in Germany had been threatened with loosing her unemployment benefits if she refused to consider taking a job in a brothel as a sex worker. It appears no one here mentioned something important about this story --

IT IS NOT TRUE !

http://www.snopes.com/media/notnews/brothel.asp

More significantly, it appears the anti-sex trade types (both on the left and right) eagerly believed this silly story without questioning it, and used it as an example of the "evils" of liberalizing prostitution laws.
http://sisyphe.org/article.php3?id_article=1573
http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/2005_mar_apr/article_6.html

And in glancing over the website of the Subcommittee on Solicitation Laws, I notice it was brought up and apparently not questioned on consecutive days in March at the meetings in Montréal and Toronto.

 

[EagerBeaver]

As I have previously stated, if this was actually the law in Germany, I personally would have no problem with it, provided that this lady would have to be rejected by the brothel as not suitable for employment there, for whatever reason, in order to collect unemployment benefits. If they deem her attractive enough to work for them, but she refuses to work there, then no unemployment benefits for her!

If you are going to legalize prostitution, there is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring that those who are qualified seek such alternative employment, rather than become leeches sucking on the blood of the taxpayers who are working very hard to keep their money and pay less in unemployment taxes.

 

[eastender]

Very sick analogy

As I have previously stated, if this was actually the law in Germany, I personally would have no problem with it, provided that this lady would have to be rejected by the brothel as not suitable for employment there, for whatever reason, in order to collect unemployment benefits. If they deem her attractive enough to work for them, but she refuses to work there, then no unemployment benefits for her!

If you are going to legalize prostitution, there is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring that those who are qualified seek such alternative employment, rather than become leeches sucking on the blood of the taxpayers who are working very hard to keep their money and pay less in unemployment taxes.

First - there is a very big difference
between legalizing,de-criminalizing and
de-stigmatizing an activity.

Two - you are making an unfounded
assumption based on something that
never happened.Specifically you
are assuming that the person in question
in this hypothetical situation would have
to work as an actual prostitute.In brothels
there are jobs available that do not involve
prostitution.

Three - proponents of de-criminalizing
an activity or changing the parameters
of an activity never argue that everybody
should be required to participate.
Specifically when laws are passed
reducing the legal drinking age from the
age of 21 to 18 they do not oblige all
people in the age group to start
drinking alcoholic beverages or consume
a minimum quantity per annum.An opt
out or conscientious objector status
is always present or inherent.

Four - conversely obliging males of legal
age to frequent legal brothels or participate
in legal activities that would reduce the
tax burden is not part of your position.
Effectively your position is a
male chauvenist/elitist point of view
that subjegates women and others
below your economic status.

 

[EagerBeaver]

.
Effectively your position is a
male chauvenist/elitist point of view
that subjegates women and others
below your economic status.

Effectively your point of view is that of a punk who gives the illusion of being able to construct a logical argument but doesn't really say anything and hasn't said anything. As I recall you were previously suspended for punkish behavior on this Board.

Point 1- I know the difference between the activities and specifically stated I was talking about a legalized scenario.

Point 2 - I stated I was making an assumption.

Point 3 - We are not talking about decriminalizing, so stop changing the hypothetical.

Point 4 - There is no need to require that which has come naturally since the beginning of civilization, which is why they call it the world's oldest profession. I guess somewhere along the line you heard that expression? It just so happens that the male of the species produces testosterone, last time I checked women do not.

 

[HaywoodJabloemy]

...the male of the species produces testosterone, last time I checked women do not.

But they do. Where did you check?
http://www.legionmagazine.com/features/healthlifestyle/02-11.asp

Women's bodies also produce testosterone, albeit in much smaller amounts.

 

[EagerBeaver]

HJ,

I stand corrected. The point I was trying to make is that it is the males of our species that need to be fucked due to body chemistry. When that need is incapable of being satisfied on as regular a basis as we need, we pay for sex. It has always worked that way and always will. Irrespective of what the law is.

 

[HockeyFan4MSOG]

This line of thinking is wrong as forced occupation change such as this is intolerable based on sex, race or creed.

It would also be too easily circumvented as all one would have to do is claim religious beliefs.

Marital status, monogimous relationships would also be exemptions.

Also in short it would be another useless law (in the States).

However the IRS would require that all working escorts would have to pay in SS and income taxes as independent contractors. When the SP retired at 62-67 their SS would kick in. When they quit the business, they would get there 6 months of unemployement benefits if they paid in.
Unemployment benefits are not taxes outside whar the worker paid into the system. Extensions to Uemployment is normally based on the Federal government, and most likely part of the deficit.

Legal prostitution doesn't have to bring "governmental" rape...

 

[bond_james_bond]

I agree with EB

If it comes down to that, then it's time to face a choice.

What's worse? Starving from poverty? Or doing that kind of work (regardless of your opinions of it) and getting paid, at least?

 

[HockeyFan4MSOG]

. If they deem her attractive enough to work for them, but she refuses to work there, then no unemployment benefits for her!
.

If it comes down to that, then it's time to face a choice.

What's worse? Starving from poverty? Or doing that kind of work (regardless of your opinions of it) and getting paid, at least?

Unemployment checks is really an "insurance" in the USA its like a policy that you have to work, pay into the system, then you get the benefits. If you leave your job because you are not satisfied or fired you have to wait 4 weeks or something like that.. They rarely refuse benefits!!?

Now you are claiming that someone should be forced into this business against their will? If the forced sexual worker mutilated a penis with her mouth al le Louraine Bobit than I think you will get this point. State sued for forcing woman to commit sex act! Washington Post.

How would like it if you as a male were forced into prostitution to take it up the butt by Bubba because an escort agency thought you belonged? (Good looks, tight buns, and ohhh so pouty lips).

I think not!! Friday Night is canabis day? Don't leave me out of it, I want a hit.

 

[EagerBeaver]

HockeyFan:

You can't collect unemployment after 4 weeks if you are "dissatisfied with your job." If you are fired or laid off you can collect. Not for dissatisfaction. If that were the case we would have even more lazy asses sucking the blood out of us hardworking taxpayers.

 

[HockeyFan4MSOG]

Unless you quit or if you left a company because of legit reasons (company breaking laws.. employment or criminal.) you can get benefits. Maybe at a pentalty/reduced benefit... I stand corrected on the lazy part, they normally get fired though. .. unless you can make their life miserable as a boss.