| ▲ | ChrisMarshallNY 12 hours ago |
| Here in NY, we had a [very short-term] governor, who used to be the Attorney General, get hoist by his own petard. While AG, he put in place, a monitoring regimen, that caught him, as Guv, using state funds to buy hookers and whatnot. For all I know, he might have gotten away with it, if he hadn’t been using state funds. It kinda ripped the lid off a bunch of fairly misogynistic attitudes, though. He didn’t last long, after that. |
|
| ▲ | Spooky23 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| Nah. A compliance officer at his bank filed a SAR because he was structuring wire transfers to bypass his reporting requirement. He wasn’t using state funds. The Feds started poking around, and voilà. The Southern District of NY US Attorney was a big game hunter for politicians, so his goose was cooked. Ironically, the lieutenant governor who replaced him came out swinging, disclosing that he did inhale, regularly had sex outside of his marriage, did cocaine and various other things. Lol. |
| |
| ▲ | Semaphor 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > Ironically, the lieutenant governor who replaced him came out swinging, disclosing that he did inhale, regularly had sex outside of his marriage, did cocaine and various other things. Lol. Hah, how did he do? | | |
| ▲ | fsckboy 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_prostitution_sca... succeeded as governor by David Paterson, a blind man... nothing says a blind governor can't embezzle funds to spend on prostitutes, but perhaps it's less common? wikip: Paterson launched a campaign for a full term as governor in the 2010 New York gubernatorial election, but he announced on February 26, 2010, that he would bow out of the race. During the final year of his administration, Paterson faced allegations of soliciting improper gifts and making false statements; he was eventually fined in excess of $62,000 for accepting free New York Yankees tickets. He was not charged with perjury. He was succeeded as governor by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Cuomo_sexual_harassment... |
|
|
|
| ▲ | yieldcrv 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Consuming sex work isn’t misogynistic, by definition as it doesnt involve contempt or hate of women, sex workers have a voice too and don’t want to be marginalized by that assumption or dilution of that word Just a view I see lacking and underrepresented in tech spaces But if there are other things you’re referring to with that governor then definitely mention those, separately |
| |
| ▲ | ChrisMarshallNY 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I don’t think it had that much to do with the hookers. I think a bunch of other behavior came to light, during the ensuing brouhaha. | |
| ▲ | BadHumans an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Buying sex doesn't make you a misogynist but misogynist can and often do buy sex. | |
| ▲ | binary132 40 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | actually I see this opinion every time I read comments on any article even remotely touching on the subject in a tech forum. | |
| ▲ | automatic6131 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >Consuming sex work isn’t misogynistic Something very much up for debate amongst leading scholars. I - personally - think buying sex is bad, and degrading to both parties. | | |
| ▲ | hnlmorg 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | I actually know people who have worked in various different professions in the sex industry and it really depends on an individual to individual basis just how “degrading” it is. There are obviously people who are exploited. So those instances should be treated with the full severity of the law. However there are genuinely others who enjoy the work and find it more empowering than degrading. So it’s not just an industry full of stereotypical sleaze bags exploiting vulnerable women. I’m not making an argument for nor against sex work here by the way. Just saying that you cannot treat this kind of topic with Boolean arguments like you have done. It’s a hell of a lot more complex than that. In my opinion what we really should be doing is spending more time making this industry safer for those that choose it, rather than pretending it can be eradicated and thus pushing it into dark corners where vulnerable individuals cannot be kept safe. | | |
| ▲ | ChrisMarshallNY 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Agreed. Also know a number of ex-sex workers. Some have truly horrific stories, like being gang-raped at age 12, and forced into a lifetime of prostitution. Others, actually chose the work, and did well. Then, there’s trafficking, which is often a nightmare situation. Not all the victims (or volunteers) are women, either. I think that the fact the profession is often illegal, makes things considerably worse, all around. It pretty much guarantees that bad guys/gals will be running things, and there will be no oversight. | | |
| ▲ | voidfunc 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Also have known a number of sex workers. Some were just part time dominatrixes, some full time anything goes girls. Most enjoyed the work. I think all were voluntary? Few last in it long-term. The ones that do often legitimize into doing fetish content videos and VIP escort services as they get older or they keep a small set of good clients. All of them also acknowledged it is a dangerous trade with plenty of horror stories. |
|
| |
| ▲ | Cumpiler69 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >Something very much up for debate amongst leading scholars Who are those "leading scholars" and what gives them authority to be the judge what consenting adults do with their body for a living or for entertainment? | | |
| ▲ | mensetmanusman 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | What gives anyone authority either way to say whether something is degrading? It comes down to consensus in practice. | | |
| ▲ | Cumpiler69 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Exactly. Random people should stop trying to play "morality police" on consenting adults engaging in legal activities in their own private spaces in their private time. It's none of your concern what other people do. | | |
| ▲ | vjk800 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | By stating that people's private business shouldn't concern others, you are also imposing a moral system on others. Throughout most of the history, and to many people even now, morality extends beyond what's observable to outsiders. See e.g. what most of the religions have to say on issues such as homosexuality or eating certain foods. I'm not saying I have the right answer to all of this either, I'm just pointing out that your "morally neutral" stance isn't as neutral as you'd like to think. | | |
| ▲ | HeatrayEnjoyer an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | Your religion example isn't helping. | |
| ▲ | Cumpiler69 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | >By stating that people's private business shouldn't concern others, you are also imposing a moral system on others Only in mental gymnastics. Staying out of other people's private lives is not a question of my own morality but also the law in most western democracies. I am free to do whatever I want as long as my freedom doesn't negatively affect anyone else. If you're not affected by what I'm doing in private, why are you trying to involve yourself in it and act as a judge? | | |
| ▲ | ben_w an hour ago | parent [-] | | You're literally telling other people to stop doing stuff that you don't want them doing, specifically the act of telling others what to do. You're allowed to do that, and we're allowed to point out that this doesn't work in practice and that the failure in practice is itself why we're not surprised or even upset about the hypocrisy. | | |
| ▲ | Cumpiler69 35 minutes ago | parent [-] | | >You're literally telling other people to stop doing stuff that you don't want them doing Telling people to respect the privacy you're awarded by law is nto telling them what to do. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Yeah it is. It literally is. The laws themselves were written to tell people what to do. That's why they come with actual punishments if you break them, not merely arguements like on the internet. And some of those laws don actually ban various acts associated with prostitution, though the stated reasons for such laws are also often out of sync with the consequences given what is easiest to prosecute. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | wizzwizz4 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > See e.g. what most of the religions have to say on issues such as homosexuality or eating certain foods. Can you name a specific religion? I can't think of any, but maybe that's because I misunderstand the religions. | | |
| ▲ | ben_w 37 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Any that takes Leviticus seriously will have issues with both food and male homosexuality, though I'd point out that not all denominations of Christianity do so about homosexuality and most Christians expressly reject the bits about food. People can be weirdly selective about such things, which is why I've not seen any suggestion by current christians that sacrificing a bird and dipping another bird in it's blood and then then shaking the blood soaked bird on the patient is a valid cure for leprosy. (Chapter 14:1-7) Just realised that the text in Leveticus if taken literally says women are not allowed to have straight sex, only gay sex: """You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination""" - Leviticus 18:22 That said, translations are more of an art than a science, that's why there are so many of them. It might instead be interpreted as a statement against being bisexual like me, where either gay or straight is fine but doing both is what the writer (from the Watsonian perspective, god) doesn't like. |
|
| |
| ▲ | cess11 an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | What do you mean, "consenting adults" and "private spaces"? It's transactional and commercial, someone is using money to get access to another's body, at least as exploitative as work generally is. It's something that wouldn't happen without the money, hence it obviously exerts some power in the relation. | | |
| ▲ | Cumpiler69 an hour ago | parent [-] | | >It's something that wouldn't happen without the money People never have sex, hook up or send nude pics of themselves without exchanging money? | | |
| ▲ | cess11 24 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You're conflating what sex workers do with what people who feel lust and excitement and decide to get intimate do. You should spend some time with sex workers. Pretty much the first lesson in this line of work is that you act well and submit to the whims and wishes of your clients, and the second lesson is to put some hard limits on what you'll do or you'll be abused. It's generally an act, one person faking attraction or friendship or whatever and another person paying for it. Sometimes sex workers get to know clients personally, but outside porn where the 'client', i.e. the producer or whoever is paying, isn't the one you're fucking I've never heard about a sex worker initiating a non-paying relationship with a client. To answer your actual question, no, this is not a common type of behaviour. | | |
| ▲ | Cumpiler69 13 minutes ago | parent [-] | | You're conflating sex workers with sex slaves. Nobody's forcing you to be a sex worker for them if the job is done within the confines of the law between consenting adults. Unemployment is low in the developed west, there are tens of thousands of other legal careers you can choose if you want to support yourself. There's no manufactured imbalance of power here since nobody's forcing you into sex work. You choosing to strip to gooners online for money is your voluntary choice as an adult and you own it. |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | ChoHag 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | [dead] |
|
|
