January 31st, 2005

Previous Entry Next Entry
08:54 pm - on whoring... the cure for our unemployment woes...

(24 comments | Leave a comment)

on whoring... the cure for our unemployment woes... - graffiti.maverick — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile

Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr


[User Picture]From: stuntviolist Date: February 1st, 2005 - 12:06 am (Link)
I'm sorry, but this has all the markings of an urban legend. It's just so silly that it has to be true.

According to the "World Sex Guide":
Prostitution is legal but does not yet have the status of a regular profession (health care, unemployment benefits, collective bargaining etc). Prostitutes do have to pay taxes though. Communities can and do forbid prostitution in certain areas and/or at certain times of the day.

This seems to imply that prostitution could not be forced upon someone for unemployment reasons. Besides she could just move to a locality that banned it. All EU citizens have freedom of movement.

As far as I can see there are no reports of this in the mainstream press (which would be all over it) the German press, the Swedish press, the Norwegian press or the Spanish-language press.
[User Picture]From: cuddlyd00m Date: February 1st, 2005 - 01:05 am (Link)
I'm sorry, but this has all the markings of an urban legend.

In my original post on the subject (which helped spark Mav's rant) I mentioned that it sounded like one to me, too. Having done some net research, I can't find anything other than the story put out by a London newspaper. British newspapers are notoriously bad about publishing utter crap, so this may all be nothing. I can't find anything saying it's wrong, though, so I suppose we'll just have to wait for Snopes to pick up on it.

Still, it is generating interesting discussion.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: February 1st, 2005 - 06:39 am (Link)
I actually did do a google news search before I posted and turned up a few more papers, but I realize that they could all have just gotten the story off a wire report and so that still doesn't mean anything.

As you said however, I was much more interested in generating interesting discussion than anything else.
[User Picture]From: stuntviolist Date: February 1st, 2005 - 09:48 am (Link)
I agree that it's interesting discussion, I guess I'm a little hyped up on the "urban legend" stuff right now because people keep repeating them to me as if they are fact.

I totally agree that someone should not be forced into a job they do not want. In fact, I thought that in PA you could refuse a certain number of jobs before your unemployment benefits would be affected. I may be incorrect though. My only experience with unemployment was when I was cut down to part time hours for two months several years ago.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: February 1st, 2005 - 10:26 am (Link)
If I understand it and remember correctly, you're expected to accept jobs in your field that pays at least 80% of your former salary, or something like that. If you turn down jobs, then the Unemployment office reviews it to see if you're reason is good enough.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: February 1st, 2005 - 06:37 am (Link)
yeah, it might very well be an urban legend. Who knows. It didn't really mater that much though, as I was more interesting in the ranting than I was in the particulars of what spawned it.

As for moving, I also consider that to not be a good solution. You can always move. You shouldn't necessarilly have to, though.

• Go to Top