Should brothels be banned?

[Deicida]

No need to lecture me on definitions. I understand very well myself. Thank You Very Much.

I understood what you meant as well but it was redundant. You're welcome

[ChillyPolly]

humans desire sex with other humans that they find physically attractive

It works roughly the same with us parrots.

Often, humans desire sex with those that do not find them attractive and no amount of acting responsibly towards a person that does not find you as attractive as you find them is going to help.

Gee, that's too bad. On the bright side, though, I understand that celibacy is rarely fatal ... not even in humans.

Prostitutes can fill this niche, they can allow a person (usually heterosexual male, granted) to make a financial exchange for a sexual desire.

The major difference is not the financial exchange. To win a mate, it helps to have money, or, even if one does not have much of that, something in the way of love, devotion and commitment.

The major difference is that the prostitute is relatively cheap, and has been maneuvered by circumstances (or whatever) to be not in a position to say no, to the point where she is more or less compelled to accept whomever pays her fee. If the prostitute were really able to turn men down the way other women do, and sleep only with men they like, most johns would themselves in the same boat, and she would not be able to fill that "niche" you are talking about.

Very often, and probably more often than not, the reason she is not in a position to say no to customers is because some pimp has maneuvered her into that position, and is doing his best to keep her there. And the lions share of the money will go into his pocket. That pimp is the often-invisible middleman, who ensures that she cannot say no.

Of course, you can always cut out the middle man, and commit your own rapes directly. Why delegate the coercion to a middle man? Or you can be a little more subtle and turn high-school girls into drug addicts yourself, so you can force them to sleep with you to feed their habit.

And a bloke should not hold it against another bloke that decides to purchase a prostitute because they can't fulfill their sexual desires with a willing partner at a given point in time.

In fact, I do NOT hold it against you if you cannot find a WILLING partner, as long as you don't find an UNWILLING one. Celibacy is a perfectly honorable option.

There is a reason why prostitution is referred to as the world's oldest profession and it's not going to go away unless sexual desire is removed from our whole species.

Rape is never going to go away either. But you can choose not to engage in it, and should. Now I admit that patronizing prostitutes is probably not quite as bad as directly committing rape. But still, one can choose not to engage in it, and (in my opinion) should.

[JonSnow4President]

It works roughly the same with us parrots.

Gee, that's too bad. On the bright side, though, I understand that celibacy is rarely fatal ... not even in humans.

The major difference is not the financial exchange. To win a mate, it helps to have money, or, even if one does not have much of that, something in the way of love, devotion and commitment.

The major difference is that the prostitute is relatively cheap, and has been maneuvered by circumstances (or whatever) to be not in a position to say no, to the point where she is more or less compelled to accept whomever pays her fee. If the prostitute were really able to turn men down the way other women do, and sleep only with men they like, most johns would themselves in the same boat, and she would not be able to fill that "niche" you are talking about.

Very often, and probably more often than not, the reason she is not in a position to say no to customers is because some pimp has maneuvered her into that position, and is doing his best to keep her there. And the lions share of the money will go into his pocket. That pimp is the often-invisible middleman, who ensures that she cannot say no.

Of course, you can always cut out the middle man, and commit your own rapes directly. Why delegate the coercion to a middle man? Or you can be a little more subtle and turn high-school girls into drug addicts yourself, so you can force them to sleep with you to feed their habit.

In fact, I do NOT hold it against you if you cannot find a WILLING partner, as long as you don't find an UNWILLING one. Celibacy is a perfectly honorable option.

Rape is never going to go away either. But you can choose not to engage in it, and should. Now I admit that patronizing prostitutes is probably not quite as bad as directly committing rape. But still, one can choose not to engage in it, and (in my opinion) should.

You seem to be under the misinformed opinion that no women that had other options would ever consent to being a prostitute. Some wouldn't. Some DO.

[Theon {HUNGRY WOLF} Stark]

I understood what you meant as well but it was redundant. You're welcome

If you understood then why the urge to explain the meaning? I wasn't thanking you for the explanation, I was telling to stop giving English lessons to me.

[Starks of Winter]

It seems like banning brothels in Westeros would be like the alcohol prohibition in the 1920s. So basically it would be incredibly unsuccessful. And it would be stupid to ban brothels, considering the current state of Westeros.

:agree:

Human nature never changes, no matter what laws you introduce.

[Dorian Martell]

Haha well... you can't say no attempts at peace were made. I was thinking more along the lines of strike your banners, come to me before dawn, and I will grant you your old seat in the council crown myself victor of this discussion and not rub your impending defeat in your face.

The Bell Curve showed that there is a clear correlation between socioeconomic status and IQ. I don't think anyone can argue that intelligence doesn't at least constitute some small part of a person's value.

Interaction with an intelligent person is better than interaction with an idiot. It's not that there are no exceptions to the rule, but the average interaction with a surgeon is better.

You cannot grant what you never had. Lick the blood off. We were not talking about intelligence, just manner of employment, and there are a ton of factors that lead to someone doing what they do. I mean, do you talk shit to firemen because they aren't surgeons? Also, why the hell should your personal metric determine a person's value. You are an elitist snob that looks down on folks.

Are you talking about that book? I think there is some academic work that disagrees with it. Is there something better about the stats models used in the Bell Curve and the data used in it that makes it better than other work?

What kind of metric are using to asses "better interaction". If there is no such metric, then how do you conclude "on average" it's better?

Yup

Now you've pissed me off. I've never been a surgeon but I've scrubbed toilets so f*** y***. Scrubbing toilets is not glam by any means but it's honest work and creates a clean environment. Because of my work history I respect the people who do work like that and treat them respectfully too.

I've met surgeons that are total and complete assholes so please, don't tell me I should respect someone because of what they do. It's who they are that counts. And that goes for sex workers as well as the toilet scrubber.

Preach!

Prohibition needs some explaining. Before prohibition was passed, alcoholism was rampant in the US. It was common for a man to get payments at the end of the month, go to the bar, drink away his entire paycheck, and leave his family to go hungry. Remember, the people who pushed for prohibition were mostly Progressives (the same group that pushed for suffrage and tried to outlaw child labor). After it was passed, alcohol consumption was cut back quite a bit. Eventually it was repealed, but not because it failed: it was repealed because people changed their mind (which is how a democracy works).

As for drugs, I don't get why people consider the war on drugs unnecessary. Meth, heroine, and crack are all proven to be extremely dangerous to human health and to cause rampant crime. Criminalizing them has cut back their use significantly.

At a certain point, the lawmakers have to draw a line when people go too far.

Prohibition never worked, that is why it is legal now. Criminalization has not cut back anything. It ha only made money for organized violent criminals. Suffrage and child labor have nothing to do with vice.

Drugs are the same, more money spent on drugs=more and cheaper cocaine, meth and heroin.

The lawmakers draw a line and people cross it. They execute people for drugs in Malaysia and Saudi Arabia and there are still drugs and users, otherwise they wouldn't be killing people for it

[Deicida]

If you understood then why the urge to explain the meaning?

Because your apparently didn't know the meaning.

I wasn't thanking you for the explanation, I was telling to stop giving English lessons to me.

Yeah I know. It was sarcasm

[Deicida]

You cannot grant what you never had. Lick the blood off. We were not talking about intelligence, just manner of employment, and there are a ton of factors that lead to someone doing what they do. I mean, do you talk shit to firemen because they aren't surgeons? Also, why the hell should your personal metric determine a person's value. You are an elitist snob that looks down on folks.

You claimed that the value of an interaction with a person is in no way related to their occupation. I provided you with proof of the correlation between occupation and intelligence. Therefore, unless you believe that intelligence does not affect value of interaction, I have proven you wrong.

I don't talk shit to firemen because I assume they chose their career. Like you said, there are factors other than money involved. The point is that I can't imagine anyone wanting to be a whore or a janitor. Most people with those kinds of jobs just aren't good enough or are too lazy to do anything else. Before anyone feels that I have attacked them personally, let me just repeat that there are exceptions.

I already admitted to the terrible crime of elitism.

Yup

Response to that post

[Dorian Martell]

You claimed that the value of an interaction with a person is in no way related to their occupation. I provided you with proof of the correlation between occupation and intelligence. Therefore, unless you believe that intelligence does not affect value of interaction, I have proven you wrong.

I don't talk shit to firemen because I assume they chose their career. Like you said, there are factors other than money involved. The point is that I can't imagine anyone wanting to be a whore or a janitor. Most people with those kinds of jobs just aren't good enough or are too lazy to do anything else. Before anyone feels that I have attacked them personally, let me just repeat that there are exceptions.

I already admitted to the terrible crime of elitism.

Response to that post

See, this is where you fail again. you mention exceptions for the sake of argument yet you operate as if they do not exist. It doesn't take a bell curve graph to understand that it requires a lot of intelligence to be a theoretical physicist. You have proven nothing except your failure to realize I have been saying for some time that intelligence is not the end all be all of a personal interaction. It is like you have never dealt with a smart asshole. I would say you are one but I don't think you are very smart.

See, by your own logic you should talk trash about firemen, police, the folks that work on your car, the people that keep the power on or the person that delivers food to your store so you can buy it because they do not have a job that stems from higher education

And just because you are not capable of imagining something does not mean is doesn't exist. It just shows you are lacking in understanding yet are wholly willing to make judgements despite your glaring ignorance about a subject. you should make a run at politics. Elitism and ignorance have been the foundation of the republican party years.

There are women who choose to be sex workers. There are people who because of situations out of their control cannot get any job other than something blue collar. Not everyone has the opportunity to chose the best paths. Often circumstance dictates where they go. That is the point you fail to realize

[Theon {HUNGRY WOLF} Stark]

Because your apparently didn't know the meaning.

Yeah I know. It was sarcasm

I understood what you meant as well but it was redundant. You're welcome

Do yourself a favor and be consistent in your posts, otherwise you come off as willfully ignorant person, who argues just for the sake of arguing.

And this isn't only topic of the forums. Spend some time on other topics as well and learn how people discuss things in a good and productive ways, instead of going round and round.........

[ummester]

The major difference is that the prostitute is relatively cheap, and has been maneuvered by circumstances (or whatever) to be not in a position to say no, to the point where she is more or less compelled to accept whomever pays her fee. If the prostitute were really able to turn men down the way other women do, and sleep only with men they like, most johns would themselves in the same boat, and she would not be able to fill that "niche" you are talking about.

Very often, and probably more often than not, the reason she is not in a position to say no to customers is because some pimp has maneuvered her into that position, and is doing his best to keep her there. And the lions share of the money will go into his pocket. That pimp is the often-invisible middleman, who ensures that she cannot say no.

Of course, you can always cut out the middle man, and commit your own rapes directly. Why delegate the coercion to a middle man? Or you can be a little more subtle and turn high-school girls into drug addicts yourself, so you can force them to sleep with you to feed their habit.

I agree with JohnSnow4President here Polly - you seem to be assuming that every prostitute is a down on their luck streetwalker, controlled by some crime lord/drug dealer pimp. I won't deny that some are but there are also some who choose to sell sex, to make their bodies a commodity.

How do you feel about porn stars or strippers? It seems to me these people are happy to sell themselves as a very sexualised commodity and don't have an issue with it. What about celebrities (again both male and female) that so obviously sell themselves more on sex appeal than looks? Gold diggers? Where is the line drawn?

Sex sells because people are willing to pay for it (on various levels). Prostitution just seems one of those levels to me.

[Deicida]

See, this is where you fail again. you mention exceptions for the sake of argument yet you operate as if they do not exist. It doesn't take a bell curve graph to understand that it requires a lot of intelligence to be a theoretical physicist. You have proven nothing except your failure to realize I have been saying for some time that intelligence is not the end all be all of a personal interaction. It is like you have never dealt with a smart asshole. I would say you are one but I don't think you are very smart.

See, by your own logic you should talk trash about firemen, police, the folks that work on your car, the people that keep the power on or the person that delivers food to your store so you can buy it because they do not have a job that stems from higher education

And just because you are not capable of imagining something does not mean is doesn't exist. It just shows you are lacking in understanding yet are wholly willing to make judgements despite your glaring ignorance about a subject. you should make a run at politics. Elitism and ignorance have been the foundation of the republican party years.

There are women who choose to be sex workers. There are people who because of situations out of their control cannot get any job other than something blue collar. Not everyone has the opportunity to chose the best paths. Often circumstance dictates where they go. That is the point you fail to realize

Fail? Again? Me? You don't think I'm very smart? What is this madness...

I never said intelligence is the end all be all. In fact I stated several times that so long as it constitutes part of the value of a personal interaction, my argument is valid. Since we're being honest, I think your reasoning skills are a little underdeveloped. Exceptions and the possibility of an intelligent person being an asshole do not defeat my argument in any way. Consider this:

Assuming the following:

• the quality of a personal interaction is proportional to intelligence
• the quality of a personal interaction is inversely proportional to being an asshole
• income is proportional to intelligence
• the likelihood of being an asshole is unrelated to income

You can conclude that the quality of a personal interaction is proportional to income. Of course there are other factors, but as long as they are unrelated to income or intelligence (like the probability of being an asshole), they don't change the outcome in any way. I don't see what's so hard to understand.

Yes, I am ignorant of the inner workings of the minds of prostitutes. I'm sure it must all be very fascinating.

As for the Republican Party, that comment was more insulting than calling me stupid or an asshole. Don't lump me up with those conservative morons. I'd probably have to convert to Christianity before joining.

Do yourself a favor and be consistent in your posts, otherwise you come off as willfully ignorant person, who argues just for the sake of arguing.

And this isn't only topic of the forums. Spend some time on other topics as well and learn how people discuss things in a good and productive ways, instead of going round and round.........

Alright, let me explain this to you.

Because your apparently didn't know the meaning.

This refers to the meaning of the word "ethics"

I understood what you meant as well but it was redundant. You're welcome

This refers to the meaning of your post. I am being consistent.

[OldGimletEye]

Yes, I am referring to the book. A lot of work written in response to it criticizes the intentions of the authors without even addressing the data. A fair number of responses that do contain data and statistics are written in support of the book. You should have a look at the Reception section of the Wikipedia article I linked to or do more in-depth research if you're interested.

I wasn't necessarily talking about work that criticizes the authors intentions. I was talking about other empirical work that doesn't support the authors conclusions. I have read enough econometrics papers to know that the results can often depend upon 1) the statistical models used and 2) the data sets used. I was kind of hoping you would explain why the stats models and data used in the Bell Curve, and other work in support of it, are better than those stats models and data that find against the Bell Curve's conclusions. But, I guess I have to start reading the papers to figure that out, since I don't think a section in Wikipedia is going to really explain that.

I'm making the assumption that intelligence factors into the quality of an interaction.

Then you aren't stating an actual empirically verifiable fact, but just personal opinion. But even if you are right, the effect might be very small. Maybe you can estimate some discrete choice models and report back to us what you found about the marginal effect of intelligence on interactions.

[Deicida]

I wasn't necessarily talking about work that criticizes the authors intentions. I was talking about other empirical work that doesn't support the authors conclusions. I have read enough econometrics papers to know that the results can often depend upon 1) the statistical models used and 2) the data sets used. I was kind of hoping you would explain why the stats models and data used in the Bell Curve, and other work in support of it, are better than those stats models and data that find against the Bell Curve's conclusions. But, I guess I have to start reading the papers to figure that out, since I don't think a section in Wikipedia is going to really explain that.

Then you aren't stating an actual empirically verifiable fact, but just personal opinion. But even if you are right, the effect might be very small. Maybe you can estimate some discrete choice models and report back to us what you found about the marginal effect of intelligence on interactions.

True, Wikipedia is not going to explain it. I will though, if you tell me which econometrics papers you are referring to - you can't expect me to explain why the data sets and models used are better than any other possible combination.

Sure it technically is an opinion, but let's be reasonable. Or would you disagree with my assumption?

[ummester]

Assuming the following:

• the quality of a personal interaction is proportional to intelligence

the quality of a personal interaction is inversely proportional to being an asshole

income is proportional to intelligence

the likelihood of being an asshole is unrelated to income

You can conclude that the quality of a personal interaction is proportional to income. Of course there are other factors, but as long as they are unrelated to income or intelligence (like the probability of being an asshole), they don't change the outcome in any way. I don't see what's so hard to understand.

Intelligence doesn't guarantee income, if this is what you are trying to suggest. Also, lack of intelligence isn't always a detriment to promotion and income increase - I take it you have never worked in the Public Sector, where the dumbest are often promoted :D

Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

[Deicida]

Intelligence doesn't guarantee income, if this is what you are trying to suggest. Also, lack of intelligence isn't always a detriment to promotion and income increase - I take it you have never worked in the Public Sector, where the dumbest are often promoted :D

Have you ever heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect?

It doesn't guarantee it, but there is a correlation. Haha lol, you're right I haven't worked in the public sector. I imagine I wouldn't do too well ^^

Yes, I was very tempted to mention it a few posts ago, but good manners got the better of me. Anyway, I'm not trying to prove that income is related to intelligence. That's already been done.

[ummester]

Yes, I was very tempted to mention it a few posts ago, but good manners got the better of me. Anyway, I'm not trying to prove that income is related to intelligence. That's already been done.

Is this by way of IQ score to income correlations?

My take on Dunning-Kruger is that self awareness leads to bad performance in job interviews. As job interview performance is how (many) people gain income or an increase in it and self awareness is often related to intelligence, isn't the Dunning Kruger effect suggesting that intelligence can work against income increase? In short, smart people that are self aware can't sell themselves.

[OldGimletEye]

True, Wikipedia is not going to explain it. I will though, if you tell me which econometrics papers you are referring to - you can't expect me to explain why the data sets and models used are better than any other possible combination.

Actually, I can ask you to know something about the models used to estimate the effect of intelligence on income, since your the one citing empirical work in support thereof. I am not familiar with that area of academic/empirical work, but I thought you might be since you're citing it.

I am not citing any specific econometrics papers to rebut the assertion about intelligence on income levels. My point was that the results of a statistical study can depend the stats model used and the data used to estimate it. There are a lot of econometric papers that try to estimate various things. For instance there are papers that 1) try to estimate the incidence of corporate taxation, 2) try to test EMH hypothesis, 3) try to estimate the multiplier, or 4) try to estimate the effect of minimum wage on employment. In each of these type of analysis, different models can be used along with different data sets. The results of each type of paper will often depend on the model used and the data.

Just as an example: Determining the Multiplier

Some stats models that have been used are:

1. A Vector Auto Regression

2. A regime switching Vector Auto Regression

3. A DSGE model with the parameters calibrated from micro-economic studies

4. A Random Effect Model That Looks At Variation By Geographic area

5. A Vector Auto Regression That Uses A "News Variable" (As has been used by Ramy, Romer, etc)

Each type of these different models might give different results. For instance, a non-linear model is probably going to give a different result than a linear one. Also, the data sets can have an effect on estimates for various reasons. For instance, if you estimate a model with data that looks primarily at war time spending (and the reason for this would be to eliminate the problem endogenity) your results might differ considerably from a data set that covers the last half of the Twentieth Century (which would probably require to make some assumption to deal with endogenity problems). An argument can be made that some of these models are better than others.

Sure it technically is an opinion, but let's be reasonable. Or would you disagree with my assumption?

Your assumption might be correct. But its marginal effect might be very small. And there could be other factors that are way more important in determining the "quality of an interaction". Also, the marginal effect of intelligence on the quality of an interaction could possibly decline at some point, meaning that it's effect is not linear. And if certain levels of intelligence are correlated with negative personality traits, like arrogance or aloofness, then the effect of intelligence upon the "quality of an interaction" might turn negative at some point.

[LongRider]

Actually, I can ask you to know something about the models used to estimate the effect of intelligence on income, since your the one citing empirical work in support thereof. I am not familiar with that area of academic/empirical work, but I thought you might be since you're citing it.

I am not citing any specific econometrics papers to rebut the assertion about intelligence on income levels. My point was that the results of a statistical study can depend the stats model used and the data used to estimate it. There are a lot of econometric papers that try to estimate various things. For instance there are papers that 1) try to estimate the incidence of corporate taxation, 2) try to test EMH hypothesis, 3) try to estimate the multiplier, or 4) try to estimate the effect of minimum wage on employment. In each of these type of analysis, different models can be used along with different data sets. The results of each type of paper will often depend on the model used and the data.

Just as an example: Determining the Multiplier

Some stats models that have been used are:

1. A Vector Auto Regression

2. A regime switching Vector Auto Regression

3. A DSGE model with the parameters calibrated from micro-economic studies

4. A Random Effect Model That Looks At Variation By Geographic area

5. A Vector Auto Regression That Uses A "News Variable" (As has been used by Ramy, Romer, etc)

Each type of these different models might give different results. For instance, a non-linear model is probably going to give a different result than a linear one. Also, the data sets can have an effect on estimates for various reasons. For instance, if you estimate a model with data that looks primarily at war time spending (and the reason for this would be to eliminate the problem endogenity) your results might differ considerably from a data set that covers the last half of the Twentieth Century (which would probably require to make some assumption to deal with endogenity problems). An argument can be made that some of these models are better than others.

Your assumption might be correct. But its marginal effect might be very small. And there could be other factors that are way more important in determining the "quality of an interaction". Also, the marginal effect of intelligence on the quality of an interaction could possibly decline at some point, meaning that it's effect is not linear. And if certain levels of intelligence are correlated with negative personality traits, like arrogance or aloofness, then the effect of intelligence upon the "quality of an interaction" might turn negative at some point.

Damn, I'm impressed.

[LongRider]

According to Deicida the most intelligent people earn the highest incomes. The 'intelligent' people earning the high incomes are the only people with interesting conversations and worth talking too.

We've also learned on this thread that some of the women working in the legal Nevada brothels make very high incomes as do women working in high end escort services. (there maybe men in these services who make high incomes as well)

Ergo, high income prostitutes thereby constitute some of the most intelligent people on the planet and have the most interesting and sparkling conversations to boot.

It all makes sense now.