From an exploitation perspective what is important is that the girl is working willingly. If you start earmarking certain instances where you personally decide the reasons are heinous like drugs and sending money to relatives then that is just you applying your own arbitary rules , and rules that you by your own admission dont proactively follow thru with as you dont ask the prostitutes you see why they are working so you have no idea why they are working. So its all just nonsensical holier than thou posturing .
Utter bollocks.
I said that I will make my judgements based on the evidence I see and am able to ascertain. I know from when I lived near a red light district that many of the girls working the streets were like wraiths. Shadows of former people. Will I go there, no. Are all those who work the streets on drugs...no. Does my attitude to the risk overcome the potential reward.....no. Not even close.
Yes, morals and ethical choices are personal. I know what mine are and will detail of asked. You say that you feel that you can't express your opinion and yet when invited you don't share but deflect and project onto others.
If a prostitute told me she was working willingly to earn money to send home to her relatives i would have no problem with going ahead , providing there were no other red flags to suggest she was in any way being exploited and lying to me.
Cool, me neither. And if she were working just to get her next fix and she told you as much?
And if you are advocating denying women the right to work willingly as prostitutes if they want to because you decide in your high moral wisdom it is exploitation to do it for such and such reason you are walking shoulder to shoulder with the anti-prostituttion lobby.
Yes, but I'm not. You seem to have gone full circle here. Look at my standpoint on this which I have directed you to several times and compare it to your own.
I would say the indications are that you dont approve of alot of prostitution and would wipe it out , that makes you part ally with the anti prostitution lobby , would you agree with that.
No I wouldn't; and I'm puzzled as to how you could ever draw that conclusion. I don't know what proportion of SPs are coerced, trafficked or exploited so can't comment on "a lot". It would seem from the reviews I read on here, which I admit is going to be less than 5% of all postings and almost all around my locality, that almost all of the positive business is conducted with those SPs that have the mental capacity to make their own decisions.
Now I'd expect actually that this forum is probably have a higher proportion of folks that aren't dabbling in the markets which have a higher vulnerability to exploiting the SPs.
Maybe again your own personal experiences are giving a different impression of the size of different markets within the scope of paid sex.
Yes some addicts are not willingly doing it , those that are subject to the qualifying criteria for exploitation as given by the cps , coercion etc. They are being exploited just the same as any prostitute who is not a drug addict and is subject to the qualifying criteria for exploitation. And quid pro quo drug addicts who arnt subject to those exploitation criteria and any prostitute who isnt subject to those exploitation criteria isnt being exploited.
By the definition of the CPS. And definitions change. And as I said in my last response "an example is not necessarily a whole definition. Neither is an omission proof." The law is not a moral code in itself. If you choose to make it one then that is up to you. If the law changes would your behaviour? And if it did is that because of the morality of keeping to the law or because you genuinely now felt what was morally right before became morally wrong at the point of Royal Assent?
Also at risk of even further clouding the point, the CPS isn't even the law. It's motivations an actions are based on things other than morality.
Obviously girls who are being exploited as per the conventional understanding of coercion and enslavement should be protected and should not be punted , but what you are describing as exploitation is something completely of your own devising, basically to the effect of condemning what other people do while saying what you do is fine , arbitary and selfish.
Right....what do you mean by the "conventional understanding of coercion and enslavement"? is this convention the same as the "well known" statement that started this whole thing?
Yes, I may draw my conclusions based on evidence and act according to that. Why wouldn't I?
And when have I condemned anyone? The only thing I have condemned here is you asserting facts or presenting truths that have no basis beyond your own experience. And even then I think condemned is overly strong for what I've done. After all, you've been able to ignore this point in your responses to date.
Tbh i dont know quite what to make of you jonty , your coming out with this anti-prostitution arguements with the seeming intent of vilifying other punters and representing yourself as some punter with super elevated morality. Maybe you really do practice your elevated ideas of morality or it could just all be bullshit. How can you even be sure some of the girls you punt arnt drug users or alcies. And fuck nows what they spend the money on 
And now you are arguing a point that isn't even there. I have never here given an anti-prostitution argument. I have given anti-exploitation arguments (although you believe my definition to be too broad). I do believe that society (through its statutory agencies) has a role in protecting and assisting the vulnerable.
I don't care what you make of me. I do wonder whether I don't fit into the pigeon holes you have in your mind and this is why you are trying to project what you think is being said onto my posts. I don't know if you are used to people eventually agreeing with you - but here's my opinion - I bet it's to shut you up before going to a different pub.
