The Student Room Group

Clients of prostitutes criminalized in France

Scroll to see replies

I wonder if there will be gradations of offenses, like Murder 1, Murder 2, Manslaughter. I mean, is there a longer sentence for anal, but time off if you're especially good at oral?
Original post by Nameless Ghoul
Do you dislike McDonald's decor because you're at McDonald's?

Yes.

Same thing. Don't fling around "fallacy" if you're not willing to follow the logic.


I didn't even understand that comparison - I don't go to mcdoanlds for the decor and I don't even notice it - it doesn't affect me or my choice to dine there. it's a fallacy to say "x thinks y because he's from z" when there's no objective benefit to french people via this law, at least to non-prostitutes and prostitute-clients. the decor might objectively benefit the customers of mcdonalds (hypothetically) but the prostitution law example is political/subjective, not something we can assume based on geography or nationality. if we had this law here, how can we say "we only think x because we're from here" - it would assume, like I've said, that we objectively have something to gain or lose when that's actually not the case, unless you're an extremely principled person, which is usually never the case for people in society, obviously. if you're assuming that that french user *is* then I guess you're giving him a good compliment while criticising his point of view.
Original post by BigBabyJesus
I didn't even understand that comparison - I don't go to mcdoanlds for the decor and I don't even notice it - it doesn't affect me or my choice to dine there. it's a fallacy to say "x thinks y because he's from z" when there's no objective benefit to french people via this law, at least to non-prostitutes and prostitute-clients. the decor might objectively benefit the customers of mcdonalds (hypothetically) but the prostitution law example is political/subjective, not something we can assume based on geography or nationality. if we had this law here, how can we say "we only think x because we're from here" - it would assume, like I've said, that we objectively have something to gain or lose when that's actually not the case, unless you're an extremely principled person, which is usually never the case for people in society, obviously. if you're assuming that that french user *is* then I guess you're giving him a good compliment while criticising his point of view.


Yeah, I can see that.
Its a steep pinishment and i have doubts, but they are claiming 72% of women are trafficked, so they are just trying to slow down demand. positive results in sweden.
Reply 24
Avatar for Virgili
Virgili
2
I don't understand why people will suddenly stop doing it now, people who traffic do not give a damn about the laws, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it.
Original post by Virgili
Most ironic username award goes to.

I had no idea reversing the criminality of something was against our legal system, perhaps we should reverse the legalisation of homosexuality.


You suggested that "making a certain act illegal will encourage it's proliferation beyond the eyes of the law, so we should make it legal", in which case, literally everything is better off being legal and regulated- clearly not the case.

Perhaps you want to instead argue that "An act should be analysed to determine whether it will have a bigger impact criminalised rather than legal and that analysis should determine it's status", but there are many problems with this, because then you could say having stupid/wrong beliefs should be illegal.

And true, while my views have changed since I made this username, how about the stance that I stand for intellectual freedom in people, and I want to encourage the capacity for intellectual freedom by discouraging / banning things that make people mentally weaker- such as hedonism, degenerate behaviour, emotionality, and so on.
Original post by Nameless Ghoul
Yeah, I can see that.


okay, so now you're ****ing intentionally misconstruing what I was saying. great job...very respectable
why not just answer my questions instead as if you're on top of things?
Original post by BigBabyJesus
okay, so now you're ****ing intentionally misconstruing what I was saying. great job...very respectable
why not just answer my questions instead as if you're on top of things?


I was trying to give a constructive answer, but then you jumped in talking about fallacies and I got pulled off track.
I don't think we should legalise something that is essentially based on the exploitation of women, regardless of their age. Most prostitutes come from very deprived backgrounds and have been around drink, drugs, self-harm or at least some sort of emotional abuse from a very young age. I have read about women who claim that they've chosen the profession and that they feel empowered by it, but I struggle to believe it. Personally, I think that there is always some element of determinism behind their finding themselves in this profession, whether they realise it or not. I think fining their 'clients' is a good thing - the men (and women) who use prostitutes do exactly that - they use them. They have no respect for the vulnerable women that they are basically abusing.
Barbastelle
Seems a fine that Dominique Strauss Kahn could afford.
These prostitutes could be deviously trafficked or drugged beyond reality. If anyone wants to be a prostitute they should practice it as a freelancer.
Yes, of course driving sex industries further underground (making them far seedier and even less legitimate and ergo far more dangerous for sex workers) is a brilliant and level headed approach to help create more equality.
Original post by Barbastelle
I don't think we should legalise something that is essentially based on the exploitation of women, regardless of their age. Most prostitutes come from very deprived backgrounds and have been around drink, drugs, self-harm or at least some sort of emotional abuse from a very young age. I have read about women who claim that they've chosen the profession and that they feel empowered by it, but I struggle to believe it. Personally, I think that there is always some element of determinism behind their finding themselves in this profession, whether they realise it or not. I think fining their 'clients' is a good thing - the men (and women) who use prostitutes do exactly that - they use them. They have no respect for the vulnerable women that they are basically abusing.
Barbastelle


Define what you mean by "exploitation" and explain how it differs in this instance from any and all exchanges it could ubiquitously be applied to, then explain to me how pushing an industry further underground and out of sight will help the sex workers involved.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by Zarek
There is logic in this since prostitution is associated with terrible exploitation of vulnerable young women.

Original post by Barbastelle
I don't think we should legalise something that is essentially based on the exploitation of women, regardless of their age. Most prostitutes come from very deprived backgrounds and have been around drink, drugs, self-harm or at least some sort of emotional abuse from a very young age. I have read about women who claim that they've chosen the profession and that they feel empowered by it, but I struggle to believe it. Personally, I think that there is always some element of determinism behind their finding themselves in this profession, whether they realise it or not. I think fining their 'clients' is a good thing - the men (and women) who use prostitutes do exactly that - they use them. They have no respect for the vulnerable women that they are basically abusing.Barbastelle


And criminalisation just makes it harder to protect those women. Just like prohibition of drugs, and prohibition of alcohol before it, prohibition of prostitution just exacerbates the underlying problems and does absolutely nothing to help anyone. There's a ton of evidence to back this up, but we'd rather keep basing our laws on........ well, absolutely nothing.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by KingBradly
Define what you mean by "exploitation" and explain how it differs in this instance from any and all exchanges it could ubiquitously be applied to, then explain to me how pushing an industry further underground and out of sight will help the sex workers involved.


So, in your opinion, prostitutes are all free women who have chosen this way of life because it's what they want to do?
Barbastelle
Original post by JordanL_
And criminalisation just makes it harder to protect those women. Just like prohibition of drugs, and prohibition of alcohol before it, prohibition of prostitution just exacerbates the underlying problems and does absolutely nothing to help anyone. There's a ton of evidence to back this up, but we'd rather keep basing our laws on........ well, absolutely nothing.


But then should we not be trying to do something about it? This new law isn't criminalising the women, it's criminalising the men that seek them out. If the money that comes from fining them could go at least some way to getting women off the streets or helping to protect them from some of the dangers that come with what they're doing (i.e. STIs, unwanted pregnancies, violence or drug/alcohol abuse), then surely that's a good thing?
Barbastelle
Original post by Barbastelle
So, in your opinion, prostitutes are all free women who have chosen this way of life because it's what they want to do?
Barbastelle


No more or less so than someone working in McDonalds.

If they are coerced into it then of course that is very wrong and should be, and is, illegal. If the sex industry was properly regulated and audited it would help stop this happening.
Original post by KingBradly
No more or less so than someone working in McDonalds.

If they are coerced into it then of course that is very wrong and should be, and is, illegal. If the sex industry was properly regulated and audited it would help stop this happening.


Do you mean because of the low pay of working in MacDonald's or the stigma that goes with it (i.e. 'if you work in MacDonald's then you're stupid' or whatever)?

I think the difference between the two is that someone who works in MacDonald's might be a student looking for extra money, or someone living on their own or with a young child to support who needs the money. However, they could choose to work in any number of other shops (Poundland, New Look etc). While I'm not denying that it's a job I wouldn't personally enjoy, I would definitely rather be a MacDonald's worker than a prostitute - they're safer and don't have to feel dirty by selling their body; instead they're just doing a monotonous, underpaid job.

I understand what you're saying about trying to regulate it, but I'm just worried that legalising something like this might lead people to think it's ok. Even without the risks that come with prostitution (some of which I mentioned in my previous post), the emotional impact of prostitution must be awful for any woman.
Barbastelle
Original post by Josb
I'm not upset about that law since I don't use prostitutes. :biggrin:


^
this man pulls 9/10 girls from clubs week in week out.
Reply 39
Avatar for Zarek
Zarek
21
[QUOTE=JordanL_;64025839]And criminalisation just makes it harder to protect those women. Just like prohibition of drugs, and prohibition of alcohol before it, prohibition of prostitution just exacerbates the underlying problems and does absolutely nothing to help anyone. There's a ton of evidence to back this up, but we'd rather keep basing our laws on........ well, absolutely nothing.

I know prostitution is a complex issue, oldest profession and all that, and the cause and solutions to this 'industry' are about addressing poverty and depravation. But sometime the law just has to combat in some way what is clearly wrong, like mature men having sex with barely adult girls in very questionable circumstances. Why do you think so many countries are going down this route, it's because we know in our heart what is wrong here.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you