France makes paying a lady or gent for sex against the law.

[sutty27]

Correct. Exactly like in Rhode Island since 2009. Which is why bringing in Rhode Island's past "legalisation" is completely irrelevant to supporting your argument.

You repeating your argument does not make it any more valid. It's just repeating your argument.

Any more advances on your position, or is that it?

 

Rhode island, paying for sex illegal, then it became legal and rapes fell.

 

France, paying for sex not illegal, now it is illegal, based on all the evidence and what happened in Rhode island rapes will rise.

 

Its the same thing in reverse.

[Cyclone]

So, what are the sex worker rape stats in Rhode Islands since 2009, then?

 

now that is a very interesting question, as it goes a long way to strengthening the correlation between legal status and rape. (Was it specifically of sex workers though, or just in general, I thought the latter).

[L00b]

Its the same thing in reverse.

If it's "in reverse", it's not the same thing: correlation never implies causation, it has to be proven.

France, paying for sex not illegal, now it is illegal, based on all the evidence and what happened in Rhode island rapes will rise.

France Rhode island, paying for sex not illegal, 2009 it is illegal, based on all the evidence and what happened in Rhode island rapes will should have risen again in the last 7 years.

 

Have they?

 

If you want to successfully imply causation, that's what you have to show.

 

If you can't, then your theory falls flat on its arse.

now that is a very interesting question, as it goes a long way to strengthening the correlation between legal status and rape. (Was it specifically of sex workers though, or just in general, I thought the latter).

That's precisely what sutty has to show to prove his argument, and why I've been asking him since yesterday.

 

His argument is a syllogism without any objective basis (which may be worsened by reports that the statistical datum of the Rhode Island researchers was actually a non-trivial outlier).

Edited April 8, 2016 by L00b

[sutty27]

So, what are the sex worker rape stats in Rhode Islands since 2009, then?

 

|

 

Not sure why you think that is relevant, surely the more important figure would be all rapes, not just sex worker rape stats.

 

To put it crudely,

 

Ugly stupid man wants sex and knows he can walk down the road and pay a nice looking girl to have sex with him without getting into trouble.

 

or

 

Ugly stupid man wants sex but knows if he pays for it he could be prosecuted, he sees a nice looking girl on her own, drags her into the park and rapes her instead of paying.

[Cyclone]

The French sex workers themselves do not appear to be in favour of the change.

 

The demonstrators outside parliament in Paris, numbering about 60, carried banners and placards one of which read: "Don't liberate me, I'll take care of myself".

Members of the Strass sex workers' union say the law will affect the livelihoods of France's sex workers, estimated to number between 30,000 and 40,000.

 

And the argument is that it makes it more dangerous

 

But many advocacy groups warn the model makes sex work more dangerous.

Catherine Stephens, an activist with the UK-based International Union of Sex Workers, and a sex worker herself, says criminalisation makes those in the industry "much more likely to have to accept clients who are obscuring their identity, which benefits people who want to perpetrate violence".

 

As Loob says though, this is not a criminalisation, it's just a shift in which party of the transaction is criminalised. It's not directly comparable to the Rhodes situation as that was a change to legal from illegal. France are just altering WHO they criminalise in what was already a criminal act.

 

My position is that it should be legalised and regulated.

 

The BBC rather confusingly finishes with

 

Prostitution itself is not a crime in France, but pimping, human trafficking, brothels and buying sex from a minor are all already against the law.

 

Being a prostitute is not illegal, but anyone paying for the service is breaking the law...

Edited April 8, 2016 by Cyclone

[L00b]

Not sure why you think that is relevant, surely the more important figure would be all rapes, not just sex worker rape stats.

My bad, sutty, I had been trying to discuss the topic with you on an intelligent, objective and informed basis, without realising

To put it crudely,

 

Ugly stupid man wants sex and knows he can walk down the road and pay a nice looking girl to have sex with him without getting into trouble.

 

or

 

Ugly stupid man wants sex but knows if he pays for it he could be prosecuted, he sees a nice looking girl on her own, drags her into the park and rapes her instead of paying.

that the debate was exceeding your intellectual capacity by such a margin

[Cyclone]

You've misunderstood what he said L00b. He never said "rapes of sex workers". He just said "rapes".

[MickyA]

It seems as though France has taken steps to make paying for sex against the law.

 

This will put some of the ladies out of work and on the dole.

 

In a lot of cases these lasses act as social workers befriending clients and forming long lasting relationships that are beneficial to both parties.

Some experts in the field think that the services provided should be available to the disabled on the national health, in this Country any way.

 

Does this also apply to guys going out and getting a thai bride I wonder

[carosio]

But isn't one party "intentionally encouraging or assisting an offence", or its French equivalent, if there is one?

[sutty27]

The French sex workers themselves do not appear to be in favour of the change.

 

 

 

And the argument is that it makes it more dangerous

 

 

 

As Loob says though, this is not a criminalisation, it's just a shift in which party of the transaction is criminalised.

 

Its moving the criminality of it onto the men and men are the most likely to commit rape. Men could pay for sex without prosecution and now they can't without the risk of prosecution, hence some will move to rape.

 

That didn't happen in Rhodes, in Rhodes men would have been prosecuted for paying for sex, the the laws changed and men could pay for sex without fear of prosecution, the result was that rapes stats fell.

 

---------- Post added 08-04-2016 at 13:56 ----------

 

My bad, sutty, I had been trying to discuss the topic with you on an intelligent, objective and informed basis, without realising

that the debate was exceeding your intellectual capacity by such a margin

 

I too have been trying to discuss the topic on an intelligent, objective and informed basis, but it does appear that your intellectual capacity isn't up to the task.

 

---------- Post added 08-04-2016 at 13:57 ----------

 

You've misunderstood what he said L00b. He never said "rapes of sex workers". He just said "rapes".

 

I think he probably did it wilfully.

Edited April 8, 2016 by sutty27