Will you vote for a war on men, or sex work decriminalization?

While most of the "War on Women" Dogma is fictional, there appears to be a war on providers with 9 out of 10 pwostituti0n arrests being the escorts over their clients.

The upcoming presidential election will pit Hillary Clinton against Rand Paul. As a feminist, Ms. Clinton will do everything in her power to enforce gender equality or female superiority. As a Libertarian, Mr. Paul will attempt to eliminate victimless crimes. Either one of these will have an effect on your business.

With Clinton in office, the tables will be turned and "Johns" arrested for their illegal exploitation of escorts, you will have more control over them, but they may be far fewer in number.

With Paul in office, many sex "crimes" will be eliminated or not enforced, and there will be a larger legal escort marketplace, but far more competition.

Escorts, besides raw emotional statements, can you logically explain your support for one of these candidates in terms of how it affect the escort business?

After the male bloviators add their unwanted opinions, ladies please respond.

Are there any unintended consequences that you can predict with either of these candidates being elected?

Thoughtfully, -Mr. Peabody

You left out the possibility of the Hard-right Christian wing getting a chance at the post, via Mr. bush or one of the others. In that case, we'd all be placed in the stocks.
Remember the Ashcroft years?

Most prostitution laws are state laws, not federal laws. Only things like human trafficking and interstate commerce related stuff are enforced federally. So not sure how much the election really effects things.

I wrote this as confrontational as I get in an attempt to prompt a response (Sue N).
Maybe nobody wants their political views known here.

I am curious what you think about the 90%/10% escort/client arrest rate, and what motivates that statistic.

I'm guessing that the rate reflects the SW biz side. It's easier to manage than the escort biz and doesn't involve the cost of a room, etc.

But, to your point, if you suppress the supply then the hope is that Johns will be fewer. A pipe dream at best. You cannot legislate morality. Prohibition proved that. In those days they went after the suppliers and not so much the drinkers. MHO

Woah woah woah. You're telling me that men have more money and power than women? And "most of the war on women dogma is fictional"? Bullshit. (There's my political opinion.)

In a reality is doesnt matter who the president is, it will still boil down to local LE.

You're telling me that men have more money and power than women? And "most of the war on women dogma is fictional"? Originally Posted by JennsLolli

Of course.
Now, get your ass back in the kitchen where you belong.

I wrote this as confrontational as I get in an attempt to prompt a response (Sue N).
Maybe nobody wants their political views known here.

I am curious what you think about the 90%/10% escort/client arrest rate, and what motivates that statistic. Originally Posted by Mr Peabody

I honestly don't think it will matter who's in office.
I surely don't understand why prostitutes are considered victims, but arrested. That makes no sense to me.

I REALLY don't understand it when it comes to human trafficking. Why do they arrest human trafficking victims?

From a business standpoint, I hope they never legalize prostitution. One more thing the government will fuck up.

On the other hand, maybe if it was legalized the police could real work done, saving the actual trafficked victims. But I doubt it.

Hmmm. What motivates that stastic? My answer.... The war on women!

I'm sorry. I digress.

My last opinion, society still hates whores.

Of course.
Now, get your ass back in the kitchen where you belong.
Originally Posted by Tetas

Make sure you knock her up and take her shoes while you're at it!



As far as decriminalization goes, I doubt America is ready for that.

Hypothetically speaking, sex work would inevitably be regulated, therefore there will still be some cracking down going on. As far as competition goes, there will be many more guys hobbing if there is no deterrent. Competition is not an issue of one is making their living. Even if a lady works one hour a day she can sustain a decent lifestyle.

I see women in customer service on the daily who have absolutely no people skills. The way you guys tear some of these ladies up, I'm sure the great majority of women wouldn't last a day in this industry. Some are here because they need a quick buck and I'm sure anyone can do that for a little while. However, there are those who really know how to make a client feel really good and fulfilled on so many other levels. Wait, where am I going with this...?

Idk, any way, Hillary probably just wants all the hoez to herself!!

Oh that's right, I wanted to get all emo on you even though you asked me not to, bc that's what women do. DAMN IT.

Nice thread.

Thanks EBJ
Consider if Hillary is elected, pantsuits will be back in style.
If Jeb Bush gets a sex change, would you vote for him?
I am for a same-family white house ban!

EXCUSE ME???
Sir, Hillary and style do NOT belong on the same sentence. EVER!!!

Jeb Bush could chop his dick off, into lil pieces, simmer it all day in a pot of beans, eat it, and I would be happy to nominate Hillary in People's 50 most beautiful people over JB for president.

Besides we had healthcare reform like she wanted; so she's gonna need to come up with some better issues to address than propagating making the guys who provide me with income a perpetrator in a consensual crime.

That is as much political pontification as you will get out of me.
I know better than that.

Adam and Eve? We women get blamed for everything.. A man uses a hammer and smashes his finger.. Is it his carelessness? Nope.. it is the fight he had with his wife/gf three days ago that caused him to do it. IJS.. LOL!

How are we ever going to have a future like Firefly if sex trade continues to be illegal? I wanna be a companion. Like Inara.

I didn’t respond at first because the premise seemed really manufactured and a little non-sensical. I’m not quite sure what was being offered to discuss. I don’t see prostitution as being a big talking point in this election or any other, really. I’m not understanding how you got the narrative of the upcoming election as being one between a “war on men” vs. sex work decriminalization, as per the title of the thread.

I seriously doubt the real contenders will be Rand and Clinton anyway. My money’s on Rubio as the serious contender from the right.

That being said, I kind of get the impression that you think Clinton will be unfit, at least in one regard, to lead because as a woman she cannot lead without a prejudice against men? Does Obama only lead with the best interests of black people at heart? And if that’s the case, have all the white males who have heretofore been president only been leading with protecting their hegemony in mind? You don’t have to be a woman to be a good feminist, nor black to be a good civil rights activist, nor a white male fight to protect white, male prerogatives (okay wait, yeah, that last one, you pretty much do.).

I personally like the Clintons, although if Elizabeth Warren would run my allegiance would be divided. I like that woman. Both the Clintons have always voiced a very sober understanding of the way that government, non-profit and the private sector need to work together. I have never heard that from the right side, whether that be republican or libertarian. What I always see coming from the right is the incompatibility of the constructs in their minds and reality. Trickledown economics doesn’t work and pervasive deregulation leads to disaster. History has born this out, both new and old, over and over again. Government is not the boogeyman. It seems to me that the platforms of the right are looking for the old cold-war Reagan era language of good vs. evil and government has been turned into an easy antagonist here. It's a simple narrative, which has little to do with reality or what really creates happiness and stability for the most people.


I respect Rand Paul. I think he believes what he says. And, that’s not for nothing in this current political climate. My one real beef with the Clintons is that they are so polished and focus group driven. I love ex-president bill. Motherfucker speaks his mind.

But, that being said, my big concern is Rand’s economic platform, which I think will and should be his Achilles heel. There’s not a shred of evidence on the planet to support his ideas.

OK, just my dos centavos following.

First off, in politics -- either Dem or GOP -- there are only a few fields of somewhat common endeavor - national defense; national economy, meaning jobs, safe currency (the U.S. Dollar) and the like, to a degree including Tax policies that benefit business, individuals health care, family security, et. al. Most of the forgoing are pretty well settled as "fields" with a wide range of immediate or not so immediate relevance depending on the political party and the office holders.

After that come purely "social" or purely "moral" (or blends thereof) issues.

For example, "marriage" is no longer a social issue. It is purely moral (based on biblical proportions) and I lump a few other formerly social issues into the moral category, which to me include abortion, P4P, and a few other items, including pornography these days.

imo, gender equality, for example, is more of a social issue, than a moral issue. Ditto equal pay, restrictions on religious, marriage (yes, marriage in the sense of inheritance and plurality), and a few others like federal support of the more or less permanent jobless persons, AFDC, EITC, and the like. Social, not moral, in that the greater society (e.g. the taxpayer) is tasked with supporting such policies.

OK, now you know where I stand on the P question, for example.

Pretty obvious to me that damn few politicians will risk taking any position (except the missionary LOL!) on P except condemnation with a little bit of compassion for human trafficking victims.