As for collecting a judgement, it can be difficult when the defendant has no money, but you could have an eye towards setting a precedent to use against a deeper pocketed foe. Originally Posted by Jewish LawyerWho? Who is the deep-pocket you are eventually going to get? High-end hookers? Or an agency? There aren't any Exxons or GMs in the hobby and there won't be even if legalized. It is legal in Nevada and they have maybe a half dozen, barely solvent brothels located in the sticks. And that is true also in other countries that have legalized prostitution. Canada? Germany? The Netherlands? Do they have some Fortune 500 brothels I'm not aware of?
You are always going to be chasing individual women to try to collect a judgment. Generally poor, desperate women who just want to be left alone. Do you think you will ever get a legislature in this country to pass laws that will essentially require women to give up control over their own bodies in order not to be sued? What jury that has women on it is ever going to find against a woman in that situation?
As to forcing a woman to fuck a injured member of a protected class, of course that wouldn't be required. But you have to differentiate between women who are casually indifferent to multiple sex partners and ply the sex trade, who have sex with 3-4 different whiteys per week, but no blacks - and a woman who dates in the traditional sense and stays with one man. In general, a woman in the sex trade can't credibly claim traumatization from sex with a stranger. Originally Posted by Jewish LawyerWow. Holy shit, is that ever a loaded gun.
Talk about self-contradiction. You start out by saying (about forced sex) "...of course that wouldn't be required". However, you then follow with a huge "BUT you have to differentiate..." And EVERYTHING that comes after that essentially says that they WILL be forced to have sex.
You say we "HAVE TO" differentiate between a hooker and a woman who dates "traditionally" with one man? Why? Who says? Because I think the female majority in this country, which has fought for about a century to get control over their own bodies, is going to have something to say about that - namely a big "Fuck you".
And I reject the "straw woman" you set up - comparing a prostitute ONLY to the woman who stays with one man. What about sluts who sleep around, but only in their own race? Can't they be sued even if they fuck for fun, not money?
And then, of course, the coup de grace: "'a woman in the sex trade can't credibly claim traumatization from sex with a stranger". Well. There you have it. A prostitute can't be traumatized if she is raped.
It isn't just "sex with a stranger", is it? We can assume he IS a stranger. That misses the point. It is sex with someone she does NOT WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH. That is the REAL point that you keep eliding. A woman - any woman - can be traumatized if she is forced to have sex with someone against her will. And it does NOT have to be a stranger - a woman can be raped by her husband, ex-boyfriend, co-worker, male relative - you name it.
And if you use the law to force a women to have sex with someone she does not want to have sex with, it is rape. Plain and simple. There is no getting around it with novel interpretations of the 14th Amendment or the Commerce Clause.
Once paid sex becomes a lawful activity, it becomes a commercial act, and is thus differentiated from private, consensual, non-commercial sex, rendering the comparison with uncompensated dating invalid. Originally Posted by Jewish LawyerWhy is it invalid? Doesn't a women STILL have the right to control her own body even if she wants compensation?
As a side note, there is very little dating that is "uncompensated" - and that includes marriage. As my dad used to say "one way or another you always end up paying for it". Prostitution is just more explicit about the price you pay going in).
Once paid sex becomes a lawful activity, it becomes a commercial act, and is thus differentiated from private, consensual, non-commercial sex, rendering the comparison with uncompensated dating invalid. I think it would be necessary to write an exemption into the law, given the highly personal nature ... of even commercial sex, to allow blatant discrimination against blacks to appropriately balance the interests of all concerned in the event legalization of commercial sex occurs. Originally Posted by Jewish LawyerHow is it "differentiated"? By mandating forced rape?
And why is an exemption necessary? If all prostitution laws were simple repealed, are you saying that our current civil rights laws mandate - or at least permit - a court to order the forced rape of any prostitute that won't see a particular race, unless those civil rights laws are modified by an exemption?
Many a current precedent started out a laughable premise. Originally Posted by Jewish LawyerAnd a far larger number of laughable premises stayed that way.
Civil law or criminal law - it doesn't matter. If a hooker refuses to have sex with Race X, what do you do? What are your remedies or punishments?
Under criminal law, you can fine her or imprison her. Good luck collecting a fine on 99.9% of the hookers in this country. They know that and they'll just ignore you. They won't even show up in court.
That leaves prison. If a hooker cannot avoid a year in prison except by having sex with someone, is that not rape? If you told a woman (non-hooker) you were going to hold her hostage in your basement for a year, but you'll let her go immediately if she has sex with you, isn't that rape?
Under civil law, you can sue for monetary damages or seek a court order requiring her to do something (i.e., suck your dick).
Sue for damages? If you get a judgment you are in the same boat as the criminal fine. Good luck collecting the judgment.
A court order requiring her to have sex with the plaintiff? What if she says "Fuck off"? Does the judge send the marshalls out to drag her over to the plaintiff house and hold her down while he fuck her?
The fundamental problem is that you start out with an incorrect premise: that once a cash exchange occurs, you can treat paid sex the same way as renting an apartment.
You can't. Doing so necessitates acting as if a woman has not right to choose. That incorrect premise sets up a conflict between a woman's fundamental right to control her own body and anti-discrimination laws.
If I'm wrong, tell me how. Walk me through it step-by-step. I want to know how the law can be used to force an unwilling woman to have sex a man - just because she took money for it from other men.
And while you're at it, throw in a discussion about forced lesbianism. Because if paid sex is a regular commercial transaction that removes a woman's right to control her own body, then if the law won't allow her to discriminate based on race, why would it allow her to discriminate based on gender?
