"when most people are either concerned about gun violence in general regardless of political motivation or they're concerned about politically motivated shootings rising due to right wing fear propaganda."

In the simplest form:

"most people are either A or they're B."

There's no confusion about people being opposite things at the same time like your previous post claimed.  

The grammar is a bit confusing because I was talking about nondistinct subgroups of a larger group.  

>So both a minority of liberals and conservatives think and feel the same way about something, so it's a conservative trait then because it's seen as negative?

No, it's a conservative trait because it's a historic status quo.    

Preserving status quo is by definition conservative.  

>Just because the act fits the narrative doesn't necessarily mean the killer did so for the reasons that are being conveyed

Sorry but if your argument is that a secret liberal decided drive 9 hours just to murder people to make conservatives look like bad guys, that's a level paranoia I am not going to argue with.  

Apparently it was suicide but i think it was a hit.

Guns and murder are very different.  Murder is factually wrong regardless of your framework.  Prostitution isn't.  

Sex is a very different thing from guns.  You can't take sex away from people.  You can take guns away.  

If you'd mentioned drugs, I would say yes.  All drugs should be legalized.  

How do you feel about banning alcohol?

The problem I have here, is that it feels like you are setting up a false dichotomy.

Full legalization and the nordic model aren't the only solutions, and there plenty of middle grounds between the two.

>You know why that is? 

Sexism is another reason why that is.  People view women having sex to be an impure thing, and something to be actively discouraged.  

>After Germany introduced full legalization of prostitution in 2003, for example, they saw a 70% increase in sex trafficking within the decade. 

The official statistics show the opposite.  A decline in sex trafficking since the passage of the law.  

"The number of trafficking victims has actually decreased steadily since the mid-1990s. According to a Feminist Ire article, numbers decreased from 1200-1500 victims in the mid 1990s to 600-700 from 2008-11 to 425 in 2013.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trafficking-and-the-state_b_8038252

A lot of authors will point out that prostitution isn't actually as legal as you are claiming.  Most of the German states have regulations that severely limit prostitution.  So federally, it's legal, but in the German states, they aren't as legal.  

Anal sex=rape culture.  

Yikes.  

I'm guessing you have a high opinion of homosexual men, by your argument they are also reinforcing rape culture.  

So because the author says it must be so, as well as some flimsy data.  

Orgasming is complicated, because different people have different wants and they feel things differently.

Way to simplify a complex issue.  

https://www.npr.org/2012/04/17/150589059/carrying-dreams-why-women-become-surrogates

A lot of the issue is

-that you're conflating the entire subject with some very problematic aspects.  

It's problematic to conflate the entire subject of porn with human trafficking.  It's problematic to conflate porn with rape.  Are there problems with how a portion of porn is produced?  Absolutely, but conflating that portion with all of it is problematic.  It's like saying cars should be banned because some of them are used to move drugs around.  

There are a lot of patriarchal issues with how a lot of porn is produced, absolutely.  That doesn't mean that porn is inherently patriarchal.  

-that you're mixing up complicated correlation with causation

Like the claim that women are having less sex or fewer orgasms.  That could be the product of a lot of different things.  Like higher work expectations.  Women are no longer expected to be stay at home moms, and a lot of women are pursuing actual careers.  That could lead to less sex.  A lot of these issues are vastly complicated.  

Some of these issues could be related to genetics, diet, culture, or something else.  All of which are monstrously complicated things.  

There is some research showing a few things, but you really want research to be done several times.  And you really want the research to be done correctly, and done in a way to try showing the difference between correlation and causation.  Without trying to guess at what the causation is.  

Correlation is easy.  You can find apparent correlations with a lot of things.  I saw a correlation between organic food produce and autism rate over the past few decades.  That doesn't mean there's any causation between the two things.  It might be a random correlation, both of them might be indirectly related.  

That's the problem I have with a lot of your studies.  A lot of them show that there might be a correlation, but proving that there's actually a causation is much, much harder.

Regarding prostitution

Okay well history also shows that it's rather impossible to completely stamp out murder in any society of scale too, so I then guess legalizing it, thereby making it as common as possible, is the most sensible course, right? Or hey, if you ban assault weapons, you'll just relegate their sale to the criminal underground and they won't become any less common, just like the NRA says...right?

Around the turn of the century, a number of Western countries embarked on divergent experiments of how to reform prostitution policy. Some introduced what subsequently has become known as the "Nordic model" and criminalized the buying of sex, while others introduced full legalization of brothels, pimping, all of it. Today, the Nordic model -- which criminalizes sex-buying, pimping, and brothel ownership (but doesn't penalize prostitutes themselves, as it views prostituted women as the victims of an exploitative industry) -- continues to be embraced by more countries all the time, while full legalization, by contrast, hasn't had any new takers in over a decade. You know why that is? Because criminalizing johns works and legalizing everything makes the trafficking of women and children more common.

After Germany introduced full legalization of prostitution in 2003, for example, they saw a 70% increase in sex trafficking within the decade. Today, Germany's "brothel king", Jurgon Rudloff, is currently serving a five year prison sentence for similarly trafficking sex slaves in from abroad to service the heightened demand for prostitute services that resulted from legalization. In the Netherlands, most of the legal brothels have now been closed because they've been caught trafficking sex slaves in (which isn't legal) and the same is true of those famous communities in Nevada where prostitution has been formally legalized here in the U.S. Amsterdam's new mayor, Femke Halsema of GroenLinks (a left-leaning environmentalist party similar to the Green Party here in the U.S.), who is also the city's first female mayor, will be banning tours of the city's (in)famous red light district starting next year in a policy move supported by 80% of the city's prostitutes and is actively weighing other major changes such as banning prostitute windows. The city has been overrun by wealthy, foreign partiers, who now outnumber actual citizens on any given day of the year, as a result largely of legalizing brothels. That's how well it's going. One senses a definite policy direction here away from limitless permissiveness and toward cracking down. I could go on, but it's really the same story everywhere.

Liberals and progressives like to make the claim that full legalization of prostitution benefits the women employed in said field. When I point out that the actual result of that policy everywhere has been major increases in enslavement, not unionization (as they assure us), I find that they don't have much to say. It's as if they've just been choosing to buy into the talking points of a kazillion-dollar global industry, most often for self-interested reasons...

Prostitution is a major problem in my community (and I don't just mean among younger women) for two basic reasons: 1) because drugs are a major problem in my community, and 2) because, resulting in no small part from the former, sexual abuse is also not uncommon. Most of the prostituted women here had experienced both drug addiction and sexual abuse at the hands of a loved one before entering the field, and both of those things really seem to play a role. Pimps often pay women in drugs, for example, to keep them trapped in the business and rape is something that I can attest to from first-hand experience tends to tell you a lot about what you're worth to the world. Personal liberty is not an appreciable factor in the equation, in my observation. Most of them hate working as prostitutes, and indeed many investigations have born out that prostitutes tend to survive by dissociating themselves from their situation in the moment (as in pretending that they're somewhere else, doing something else), which I think tells you just how much "fun" they're actually having. Making a pattern of dissociation sometimes even leads to the wholesale loss of one's sense of identity, to where they no longer remember things like who they are, where they are, etc.

It ought to tell you something that a recent survey of American high school students found that most wouldn't have sex with someone they didn't want to for less than $2 million, while the average prostitute does so for less than $200. What does that tell you about the level of self-worth that's involved?

The goal here should be to minimize the commonality of prostitution, not to normalize what is, matter-of-factly, rape in all but semantics. That's what the Nordic model, as it has become known, does. And that's why it's the approach that's supported by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women.

Concerning pornography

I'm reminded of a quote by Andrea Dworkin:

"Feminists are often asked whether pornography causes rape. The fact is that rape and prostitution caused and continue to cause pornography. Politically, culturally, socially, sexually, and economically, rape and prostitution generated pornography; and pornography depends for its continued existence on the rape and prostitution of women."

Pornography is basically just prostitution on film. We are likewise talking about the same basic demographic here composing its workforce: survivors of sexual abuse. That's who you're masturbating to. The fact is that the sex industry as a whole could not exist without rape. This fact alone is reason enough for one who possesses a conscience to object thereto.

But it's much more than that. Pornography isn't just a reflection and outgrowth of rape culture, it also reinforces it. The wanton proliferation of online pornography in recent decades is demonstrably changing the sex practices of the male population in the direction of abuse. We are seeing major increases in practices like heterosexual anal sex (which women's bodies are not designed for), involuntary choking, "jackhammering" to the point of causing vulva fissures, and other practices that men are learning from online pornography, and it's resulting in women starting to lose interest in having sex with men altogether. (see point 4 of this article for a metric ton of research on this subject).

And frankly, pornography also just makes the sex lives of everyday women more miserable in ways that are more psychological as well. For example, survey data over the last two decades has found that, as this article puts it, "Since 1999, the number of women experiencing orgasm during intercourse always or nearly always has fallen from 56 percent to 46 percent." The author of the linked article mainly credits the proliferation of online pornography in the interim with that result, being as it was found that "in 50 popular video clips included in the study [on porn's impact], only 18.3 percent of women were shown to reach orgasm, and stimulation of the clitoris or vulva only featured in 25 percent of these."

On surrogacy

Surrogacy is a specifically misogynistic practice by virtue of the fact that it harms only women by definition.

The thing about prostitution is, that your information is either outdated or plain wrong.

For instance, sex trafficking dropped quite a lot after prostitution got legalized in Germany.

Also, it was very beneficial for the prostitutes themselves, for several reasons:

1. Pimps are not just still outlawed, but at the same time their punishments got increased a lot.
2. Prostitutes can now safely go to the police when they are threatened. Before, they would have locked the prostitute up on the spot, making them think twice about spilling the beans of their harassers and pimps.
3. They got full healthcare coverage like any other German citizen.
4. Since it was the pimps who drugged them to keep them compliant, drug usage has also dropped a lot when they got cut out of the loop. Additionally, they now have access to drug therapies due to the healthcare coverage.
5. German bordellos are very clean and safe. Drug usage is strictly forbidden in them. From what I know they are closer to some 3 or 4 star hotels inside, nothing compared to the usual sleaziness that was before. That makes it safer for both the prostitutes and their clients.

As you can see, the big winners out of it were the prostitutes, the big losers the pimps. Of course, the pimps did not die out, but it's getting more and more difficult for them as the prostitutes don't have to fear the police anymore for calling them out.

As for the pornography, I see where you come from with your argument, but I think you overshoot a bit. Also keep in mind that there's porn from women by women for women. It's still pretty rare since, let's face it, most clients are male, but also steadily a growing movement.

Btw, did you know that the German prostitutes right's association is called Hydra? Gives the Hail Hydra from Marvel comics and movies a whole new spin

See my response to the-pi-guy here for further commentary because I don't feel like repeating myself. This is me against everyone else in this community and I just don't have the time or energy to individualize all my replies to the similar points and arguments, especially considering how low the likelihood of anyone changing their mind appears to be.

I'll say I don't disagree with you about some points.

I have a lot of caution when it comes to legalizing prostitution. There are too many warning signs in other countries who have legalized prostitution and even when legal, the industry often isn't really healthy. In my opinion, the ideal end goal is reaching a point where prostitution is both legal and healthy (and I don't believe you can have the latter without the former), but I don't know how realistic that goal is. If legalization promotes more bad outcomes than good, it is not a step I believe we should take. That said, trafficking isn't the only point of focus here. We also have to pay mind to the general well being of those within the industry, which tends to improve with legalization. Those two points should be weighed against each other to reach the most positive conclusion.

As for the rest, I would say that it is impracticable at the least. You aren't going to outlaw porn, so I'd have to ask what legislative changes would you propose in order to right these perceived wrongs?

And I'll conclude by saying this. When you come in swinging with big controversial ideas, you are going to be asked to defend them. Often we have mostly right v left debates, but if you are bringing radical leftist ideas, you are going to be challenged by this forum's leftists. That's one of the things I like about the left. We aren't shy about debating each other. I feel there are so many unsavory elements in the modern right that even moderates on the right kind of have to cover their ears and ignore it in order to justify their continued support of the right. So, I want to say, don't feel bad that it seems like everyone it attacking you. This is just healthy political discourse doing what it is supposed to do!

There's an awful lot above to respond to and I don't know how to break up posts so that I can respond to parts thereof individually, but I'll do my best to separate sub-topics. I'm not going to spend much time on my response though, as I can tell that you're probably not going to change your mind about anything no matter what I say. You seem very determined to maintain your position.

Supposedly I support "taking sex away from people" and "banning alcohol."

This is hyperbolic nonsense. Over-dramatic much?

Supposedly I'm setting up a false dichotomy

No, I'm approximating policy approaches so that the difference in effects can be seen.

Trafficking and rape

Sorry, but sex trafficking is definitely on the rise specifically in countries that have more or less fully legalized prostitution, including in Germany specifically.

Also, 70 to 90% of women and children in commercial sex were sexually abused before they entered the field, which goes to show you that this is a business that cannot do, cannot exist, without sexual violence.

Supposedly I'm homophobic because I pointed out that 70% of women who've practiced anal sex report pain as a result

You obviously know very little about the different ways in which the male and female bodies work, so let me give you a quick anatomy lesson: 1) men have penises that achieve orgasm, and 2) men also have prostates, which are conducive to butt orgasms. Women have neither of these things. Therefore, men's bodies are designed to enjoy anal sex on both the delivering and receiving ends, while for women, unsurprisingly, pain is instead by far the most common experience associated with the practice.

Dismissal of the female orgasm as unimportant

I can personally guarantee you that women very broadly want to experience orgasm during sex. We're not a different species. Women almost always do, in fact, achieve orgasm during sex with other women. The rate for women is much lower in heterosexual experiences though. The trouble, in other words, seems to be that both men and the culture just simply don't much care about authentic female pleasure, or at least not as much as about male pleasure.

Surrogacy

Surrogacy is an uncomplicated issue morally, as far as I'm concerned. I'm sorry, but while a few women may feel that surrogacy benefits them in some way, the  fact is that it is clearly harmful to far more women. No one is entitled to a child, let alone to one with their own personal DNA.

It's like people don't read past a newspaper clipping these days.  We've got former pres. Bill Clinton on a more substantial case than Trump in one key reason alone: Epstein's private jet logs.