Others (like cuddlyd00m - not to pick on him) might look at is as a problem with social welfare programs.

Well, that's a rather simplistic idea of my views. I do have a problem with Germany's welfare program. But even more, I have a problem with the moral collapse of an entire nation. The reason that the woman in question was put into that position was because of her previous job - as a waitress. The German government sees no difference between a brothel and a bar, so she was obviously qualified for the job. Similar things have happened to unemployed telemarketers being forced into phone-sex jobs - because there's no difference.

What if she's a married woman? What if she's a lesbian? What if she's taken a vow of chastity? There are all kinds of reasons something like this should never have come up. I understand if _you_ don't have a problem with being a prostitute, but there are plenty of people who do. The act of pushing someone into having sex when they don't want to has a name. It's rape - and that's NOT a victimless crime.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

I hope you didn't think I was being offensive, I wasn't trying to shortchange your views. On the contrary, I actually agree with at the very least the point you're trying to make here.

My point is that your argument has nothing to do with prostitution or welfare. You said it quite plainly here. Your argument has to do with rape. The reason prostitution is called a victimless crime is that when a sting occurs, they arrest both the hooker and the john. Both parties are criminals, there are no victims. Some might argue that the families are victims or the community, but that doesn't count. They're not victims, they're collateral damage. There are many things that are not crimes wherein the family or community suffers similar fates (say, alcoholism for instance, or teen pregnancy, or cancer, or simply being an asshole). In your example however you aren't talking about a willing hooker selling to a willing john. You are talking about a woman being forced to sell to a john. And yes, I would agree that constitutes rape. In our current legal system, if that occured the john would be arrested, as would the pimp. The hooker/rape victim would not be, as she is definitely the wronged party.

My point however is that the fact that its sex that is being sold is the red herring. To take your example, I'd say its just as wrong to force her into phone sex. Maybe she's married and her religion considers it adulterous. But moreso, would you force a strict vegan to work in a burger king or a meat packing plant? Would you force an Arab American man to join the army fighting in Iraq where he might very well be forced to take arms against his own family? Would you force someone afraid of heights to become a skyscraper window washer? Its true, I don't personally have a problem with prostitution, but that's orthogonal to the issue, because it runs deeper than rape. Being forced to work any job against your will, sexual or not, is a mark of slavery. That is where the problem comes into view.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

"Being forced to work any job against your will, sexual or not, is a mark of slavery."

Well-said. It's shocking they are forcing German women into sexual slavery. Historically reactionary, IMHO...

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

thanx. You hadn't commented in a while. I didn't even know if you were still reading.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Admittedly, I was not. I had very little time to be online at all through the holiday season, and I spent it playing World of Warcraft. Then I had friends from Boston here for 3 weeks, and one of them used my PC constantly. I only got back to LJ a few days ago. Forgot how much I missed it!

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

yeah, I saw you had posted for the first time in ages. Welcome back!

Now go back a couple of posts of mine and tell me where the name vixendarkfairy came from. :-)

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)