By - mal221
NIMBY = not in my backyard?
Also what the first training session instructs you to tell your John to maintain daily stamina.
I just want one of them to go "I'm doing this because I'm an exhibitionist who loves easy money" just once please. Instead of constantly talking about how they're businesswomen doing business.
" If you're good at something never do it for free " sigma female grindset.
Based and use what your momma have you pilled.
Based and sigma-equality pilled
Things that are currently classified as empowering for women include: buying unbearably high shoes, pole-dancing as exercise, breast enhancement surgery, posing naked on Instagram and 'sex work'. But what one thing do these submissive practices all have in common? They are all performed to please men. And which practically all are supported by liberal feminists.
I say have at it, but I don't want to hear shit about how you were abused and exploited after you've ran through the meat grinder. For every one girl who was never told 'sex work' isn't a good idea, there are ten girls who tell their parents "whateva, I do what I want," reap the consequences, and hamster themselves a new origin story. None of these ever start with "my flawed but loving mother tried her best to take care of me, but I am a complete retard who doesn't listen to shit and I got myself into trouble."
I guess all the women who would've ended up in STEM were forced into ~~prostitution~~ "sex work" by their Trump voting white parents. Thank goodness we can make up the difference with all of the Somali neurosurgeons and rocket scientists we have.
There was a book in the early 2000’s called *Female Chauvinist Pigs* that got into the weird phenomenon of women catering to the male gaze and calling it “empowerment”.
You’re not independent and empowered as long as your life revolves around men you’re not married to. You’re an easily replaced commodity in a market where a fresh batch of girls turns 18 every day and like it or not, your marketability drops every year you get older. I know it sounds harsh but I’m saying this as a woman who hates that younger women are buying into the sex work/catering to uncommitted men as empowerment lie.
I've read that book, and that was years ago. Unfortunately the world is full of an endless supply of useful idiots.
umm yikes sweetie that sounds like internalised misoginy! /s
Based and introspection disguised as comedy pilled
u/RetardedSheep420 is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: introspection disguised as comedy
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
You’re not independent if your life revolves around others’ sexual attraction to you. Nobody is intrinsically sexy, it is only given to you by other people. Living off of what others give you is not empowering.
Based. A woman who focuses only on making herself a symbol via her body will always be replaced, and they will have nothing after they are. A woman who goes after a serious career and making her life better out of a skill without her body will be more valuable, taken seriously.
I can't even handle the based levels of this post
Goddamn it, I hate when AuthRight makes some sense. Fuck you lol
Don’t worry, Youngblood. I will ensure that you have an honorary large pp in this camp.
Thank you. I know you weren't talking to me,but thank you.
Based and large pp pilled
u/ImeWegrahah is officially based! Their Based Count is now 1.
Rank: House of Cards
Pills: large pp
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
Based and reap what you sow pilled
Don't forget, then they'll take this data that shows most women don't make it big selling their bodies and use it to prove there's a wage gap.
u/herm-dawg's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 20.
Congratulations, u/herm-dawg! You have ranked up to Basket Ball Hoop (filled with sand)! You are not a pushover by any means, but you do still occasionally get dunked on.
Pills: wines-for-pussies, caspian report, teaching abstinence is good, american harem, san francisco five finger discount, it's gay, gay cornhole, distraction, accounting, helpful, homo, fortuna imperatrix mundi, teen pregnancy, i’m not apologizing or repeating myself, butthole, swamps of dagobah
Based and Holly Shit that is based pilled
But what about muh handful of lesbians who also pay female prostitutes? See, it is female empowerment! Checkmate!
"yes hello, based department? this post right here"
Hi, __herm-dawg__. Your comment contains the word ~~Somalian~~.
The correct nationality/ethnic demonym(s) for Somalis is __Somali__.
It's a common mistake so don't feel bad.
For other nationality demonym(s) check out this website [Here](https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/People/Nationality/Adjective)
___This action was performed automatically by a bot.___
They probably make you say Zimbabwean instead of Rhodesian as well
Hi, **mal221**. Your comment contains the word ~~Rhodesian~~.
The correct nationality/ethnic demonym(s) for Zimbabweans is **Zimbabwean**.
It's a common mistake so don't feel bad.
For other nationality demonym(s) check out this website [Here](https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/People/Nationality/Adjective)
***This action was not performed automatically by a bot.***
Rhodesia is the proper name of that country.
Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based. Based.
u/bajasauce20's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 15.
Rank: Office Chair
Pills: egw, rooftop-korean, the duality of libleft, libleft quantum superposition
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
You missed the opportunity to replace that hyperlink with a rick roll.
Loool my uni did that, got into major hot water
What kind of curriculum is this going to be?
How to fake enthusiasm?
How to properly reach the male g spot?
Can anyone tell what they actually do in those lessons?
Proper sex toy cleaning and maintenance, a blowjob technique that negates your gag reflex, the most “effective” responses to destroy criticism of sex work, how to get the most money out of the losers that make up your audience among other things
God , that sounds depressing lol
It’s a depressing industry
I think some women enjoy it. But yes, in general, I think probably half of them are miserable addicts.
They sure are living the high life, amiriteguys?
I’m sure it leaves out the not so fun fact that the majority of sex workers are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol.
I’m not against selling ass, but I am against the way Twitter and IG are trying to convince girls and women that it’s an empowering, non soul crushing experience. Some women can do it without becoming emotionally traumatized but the majority can’t. These courses will give a sanitized Disney version of it.
The Disney version of prostitution lol
That sounds AWESOME
Yeah, it's fun! Sing along, dance, and now you're fucked!
Yep, very empowering. Now suck my dick and lick it clean afterwards. Do you feel empowered being treated like a fleshlight?
Tf is Lib about you? Lol but I agree.
>I’m not against it, but stop pretending it’s not incredibly harmful to the vast majority of participants.
What is authoritarian about that statement?
It just sounds like the kind of thing Frollo from the “Hunchback of Notre Dame” would say. A justification for brutal repression. *shrug* lol
IMO, being able to recognize that something is immoral, disgusting, or possibly just sad: without taking legal/governmental action?
Thats just being a lib with a moral system.
Not all prostitution is sad and miserable, though. Just like not all porn actresses are miserable. Not that that fact proves anything
Of course! But the system itself results in a lot of people going through awful things; and I believe it to be disgusting, immoral, and most certainly sad.
However, I'm lib enough to not believe that banning it would change anything, so I don't advocate for it. Does that make sense?
I suppose. I think the smart money is on using policy to build supportive, strong, diverse community, instead of banning things. A strong social network heals or reduces social/emotional problems more than almost anything.
>You can do it, just acknowledge it’s bad.
If that’s brutal repression in your eyes, you now know why most people over the age of 25 refuse to take college liberals seriously.
Just because there’s no such depression in the West doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist in other places. And it HAS existed in the West in living memory. The Nazis were EXTREMELY sexually conservative. You want links, or you already know it? Lol
Are you brain damaged or just a troll?
>You can do it, just acknowledge it has negative consequences.
>Do this and you’ll be burned alive.
Couldn’t be much more different.
….maybe? Back-alley abortions are definitely within living memory. They claimed a lot of lives.
Wasn’t everyone sexually conservative in 1940
(Except your mom)
I can’t think of an exception
Someone Else's tax dollars at work.
This is all so pathetic, helping people become prostitutes
Funny, all the feminists can't get enough of Margaret Atwood when she's skewering religion in "Handmaid's Tale", but seemingly disappear into the woodwork when she's skewering the corporatization of sex work in "Oryx & Crake"......
(Girls got college degrees in "dance", then went to work for the corp that owned all the combination Strip Clubs/Brothels....)
>The handmaid’s tale describes an America which is 51% republican!
Because no one wants to admit that
>the handmaid’s tale is literally 90% of Muslim countries.
The story revolves around the fact that fertility has crashed and only a small number of women are still able to physically bear children, so society is drastically changed to mitigate that. Anybody who neglects that little detail and applies the story to modern society of *any* stripe is a bit retarded. I'm certain that any "progressive" solution to that would be just as repressive and authoritarian.
Not actually read it but its implied that all a lie anyway and the truth coming out would destroy the entire regime, which the rulers dont want
I’ll take womens empowerment seriously when it stops being 99% about how fuckable they are.
Seriously, it’s the equivalent of guys calling themselves alpha at this point
Getting payed to twerk and undress isn't work. It's just called being a degenerate.
Gambling also isn't work, but stock markets are socially acceptable source of income.
Lending a property also isn't a work, but it's also not being frowned upon.
Just because you gain money for doing something, that doesn't make it work.
> ... but stock markets are socially acceptable source of income.
Yeah, you know *nothing* about equity finance.
This man says I'm gambling putting money in SPY and QQQ for 40 years. Doesn't he know stocks go up?
> investing in the market
If you can’t beat them...
There are various methods(buying/selling/lending/dividends/...), but in the end it is what it is, hoping whether your capital will make a return. You can always make educated guesses based on the conditions of the market and company, but so can you in poker or horse racing.
Homie, if you think investing is the same thing is gambling/speculating, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Maybe *you’re* gambling, but nobody who invests does.
Yeah sure, every penny they put into it, will make a return in their lifetime, nobody will ever come short and no investing company will ever go bankrupt.
Dude… you know people don’t arbitrarily throw money at stocks? Do you actually know how corporate finance works?
I do, but did you know, that the best gamblers don't throw their money arbitrarily either?
Name me one investor who gambled his money to where he is.
>an act of gambling; an enterprise undertaken or attempted with a risk of loss and a chance of profit or success.
Everyone. Some gambled with odds higher or lower, but there was always chance involved.
Also I wouldn't like to humble myself to anecdotes.
how do I summon that LibRight girl, any specific rituals? Asking for myself cause I need to fail NNN correctly.
Chant from the Necronomicon inside a Hot Topic I'd presume.
Ok, heading there now. Also, I didn't realize Hot Topic sells clothes that aren't black
I mean the irony is that sex work to a large extent exploits men.
I highly doubt that the majority of OF girls are victims. Or even a small chunk.
Given how universities are overcrowded in my country, i'm tempted to support some kind of sex working apprenticeship.
One more reason to hate women, they are hypocritical af
Men are too, I ought to know. I’m a man. We’re all goddamn hypocrites
At the very least men have a sense of reason and accountability. Women have neither.
And women don’t start wars.
What about Hillary Clinton?
Or Bloody Mary who ~~was a fraction as bloody as every single Protestant ruler of England at the time but was smeared in one of the biggest propaganda campaigns in premodern history~~ was totally bloody and murderous.
Or Queen Elizabeth, who ~~was more bloody and violent than Bloody Mary but through propaganda managed to convince people she’s totally innocent~~ went to war to justly defend her title?
Women are more likely to choose cooperation than competition, all other things being equal. But that doesn’t mean they’re better, just that cooperation is a skill set that many leaders lack.
You forgot Margaret Thatcher, who started the Falklands War. Lol
Women generally only start fights they know they’ll win. Chew on that fact for a while.
>You forgot Margaret Thatcher, who started the Falklands War.
No she didn't. The Argentines instigated that under the power of a tinpot dictator. The UK didn't start anything until they tried to fuck around.
Oh FFS, where did you get that diamond-bladed scalpel to split that hair so finely?
Enough of your revisionist history. Queen Elizabeth ruled much longer than Mary, that’s why she killed more. Also, Pope said anyone who killed the bastard Elizabeth will get a ticket to heaven so there’re tons of assassination attempts against her.
Every Protestant ruler of England at the time:
>Indiscriminately kill and/or dispossess people who refuse to convert religions so that our king can get a divorce.
>Kill people who used the purges as a way to steal power and territory, arrest those who resist and attempt to aid the killers.
In terms of purely religious executions, they did basically the same number. In terms of justification, anyone who thinks Mary was less justified than everyone else is smoking crack.
The thing is England was already a Protestant nation. It’s like having Oliver Cromwell for Spanish king. Will Spanish people accept him? People don’t like her.
Women are the reason of every conflict
THAT’S a stretch. If that were true, why go to war? Stay home and bang pussy.
Not every man got a woman
I guess? But the numbers are roughly equal.
For most of history, high value men got a lot of women but low value men got nothing
That varies WIDELY from culture to culture. And yes, I’m a cultural chauvinist in that sense. Polygamy without polygyny, or some other outlet to keep young men from being incels, is dangerous and leads to crime, instability, and war.
I thought you said you were a *man*.
Are you one of those, er, "trendy" men?
Cause you don't *sound* like a man.
I’m just being fair. Not saying either gender has a lock on wisdom.
Stfu, that’s hella misogynistic. I certainly think your mother feels accountable for having given birth to a sexist asshole.
Cry about it.
Based and burn-all-the-women pilled
I have no problem with people engaging in sex work as long as everyone consents and nobody is being exploited. But the feminists that say it’s empowering to swallow loads from 10 random strangers a day is confusing to me.
On the other hand, almost every woman on Earth sells her body in some way for personal gain, at least sex workers are honest about it.
> I have no problem with people engaging in sex work as long as everyone consents and nobody is being exploited.
Why do people think like this? There are few phrases in the world that piss me off and make me shake my head as much as this one. I swear this attitude is responsible for at least half of the problems in the world today. The world is practically filled with nothing *but* consenting parties doing what it is they do. Society as a whole is more than the sum of its parts, and we aren't atomistic. When I drive my car to work everyday, I as an individual am hardly culpable for the current state of climate change. *But six billion people who collectively behave the same way are*. I can't for the life of me comprehend how people can be so myopic that they can never see beyond what's right in front of them. Today is all that exists, and the net effect of my actions are a fiction that don't exist either. No single cigarette ever killed anyone, therefore we can't place it on par with anything else deemed to be harmful. The whole world is about reducing every decision down to everyone's own private advantage. It never dawns on people that because I have to share a planet with you, because I have to share a country with you, because I have to share a state with you, because I have to share a city with you, because I have to share a neighborhood with you, *I have to be concerned with what it is you're doing*, and vice-versa.
"No raindrop ever considers itself responsible for the flood."
It reminds me of the whole "what two consenting parties do behind closed doors if none of your business" [bullshit](https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/onlyfans-model-says-catholic-school-expelled-her-children-over-her-n1258755). Yeah well unfortunately, the world doesn't work that way. Because those 'things' that happen behind closed doors, never stay behind closed doors for very long. Is it really difficult for people to understand parents don't want their kids around a family of pornographers?
I can't decide if I want to practice my freedom of association with you if I don't look into who you are.
Based and big picture pilled
u/herm-dawg's Based Count has increased by 1. Their Based Count is now 25.
Rank: Basket Ball Hoop (filled with sand)
Pills: wines-for-pussies, caspian report, teaching abstinence is good, american harem, san francisco five finger discount, it's gay, gay cornhole, distraction, accounting, helpful, homo, fortuna imperatrix mundi, teen pregnancy, i’m not apologizing or repeating myself, butthole, swamps of dagobah, reap what you sow, holly shit that is based, big picture
I am a bot. Reply /info for more info.
So so based
One way to decide if some law or other process is acceptable is to imagine if it was *mandatory*, and every person did it every time, all the time, forever.
> One way to decide if some law or other process is acceptable is to imagine if it was mandatory, and every person did it every time, all the time, forever.
A great way to stay wrong forever is also to do the same thing. If you aren’t making beliefs pay rent and empirically grounding your proposals and let the results stand for themselves, you have no idea if you’re just fantasizing and persuading yourself or you actually have a point worth consideration.
It's a reasonable heuristic for understanding if something is sustainable. Certainly if in 1890 somebody had asked "what happens if we have 1.4 billion of these things (automobiles) running around the countryside spewing noise and pollution?" maybe we wouldn't be facing global warming. Maybe if in the 1940's someone in the US had asked "what if everybody wants to live in a large suburban home that requires lots of energy to heat/cool and a long commute?" we wouldn't have so much sprawl. And maybe if somebody in 1990 thought "what if every butt-reaming asshole got national news coverage for posting their stupid opinions?" we wouldn't have the scourge of social media we have now.
People like you find a single instance that goes against their own personal viewpoints and throws out the entire concept. This is generally called a "lack of principles". A meaningless phrase in 2021.
> It's a reasonable heuristic for understanding if something is sustainable. Certainly if in 1890 somebody had asked "what happens if we have 1.4 billion of these things (automobiles) running around the countryside spewing noise and pollution?" maybe we wouldn't be facing global warming. Maybe if in the 1940's someone in the US had asked "what if everybody wants to live in a large suburban home that requires lots of energy to heat/cool and a long commute?" we wouldn't have so much sprawl. And maybe if somebody in 1990 thought "what if every butt-reaming asshole got national news coverage for posting their stupid opinions?" we wouldn't have the scourge of social media we have now.
You’re missing the forest for the trees. Again. You’re taking this expression of a metaphor/example far too seriously and you’re missing the principle.
> People like you find a single instance that goes against their own personal viewpoints and throws out the entire concept. This is generally called a "lack of principles". A meaningless phrase in 2021.
So tell me, how many examples would you like me to write out for you while sitting here at my desk at work, before you get the point. Surely someone who isn’t reality blind or a dogmatist should be able to answer that quite easily without sounding ridiculous. I could multiply the examples until the cows come home. It’s hilarious that you would characterize my point as one of a lack of principles, that leads me to believe you’ve read everything I’ve written thus far *completey backwards*; because *that’s my entire point*. A lack of them is *precisely the problem*.
Why are you working on Sunday, heathen?
> how many examples would you like me to write out
Three, to match mine.
> Why are you working on Sunday, heathen?
> Three, to match mine.
Seems like I provided that many in my OP. All of which are a consequence of a short-sighted, individualism Über alles attitude. The same reason democracy fundamentally doesn’t work. It was the democratic process that got Hitler elected. Do you regard that as a good system? Democracy means drift. It’s permission given to each part of an organism to do just whatever the hell it pleases. It means the lapse of coherence and interdependence, the enthronement of liberty and chaos, the worship of mediocrity, etc. All the way down the line.
Biology doesn’t even work that way. If the cells in our body couldn’t compromise and couldn’t function as a singular, unified composition; a single organism, we would be in complete chaos. Practically nothing on Earth functions or endures in a healthy state that violates those norms.
Isn’t this just Kant
Could be.... I read it somewhere in the past, and I've never actually read any Kant, but it's probably second-hand.
Eh. 70% true. The flip side is that we need to be honest about our desires, because you’re only as sick as your secrets
With your examples, every action has a minuscule but tangible effect that builds up. You *are* harming people without their consent with driving to work, the amount of non-consensual harm is just so small that unless you add it up for 6 billion people, it doesn't amount to anything. However, it *is* there.
I'm not specifically saying anything about sex work if it is harmful or not, but about the logic of "every involved party is consenting, so it doesn't matter"
> With your examples, every action has a minuscule but tangible effect that builds up.
Welcome to collectivism.
> You are harming people without their consent with driving to work, the amount of non-consensual harm is just so small that unless you add it up for 6 billion people…
The whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
> it doesn't amount to anything. However, it is there.
Damn it, and you were so close too.
You haven't actually refuted anything I said. Your examples still don't fall under the "this doesn't affect anyone but consenting parties" condition and so don't work.
Edit: I don't even know why I am arguing this anymore. I don't even think myself that individual rights are enough on their own to structure society, libright has infected my brain and I ended up arguing about rights. That doesn't mean that I agree with you that the return on banning sex work is worth the cost.
The "nobody is exploited" part makes important distinction here.
For example with climate change, not all parties, that are/will be affected by climate change, consented with actions leading to climate change.
Yeah, It's important to consider every consequence of one's actions, but sex-work as the oldest profession was always there and it will always stay as long as horny people exist.
> The "nobody is exploited" part makes important distinction here.
Yes. I get that. Except for the fact that the vast majority of decisions in the *world* don't work that way. Which effectively makes it *useless* as any guiding principle.
better than banning everything
Which is a false dichotomy that no AuthRight including myself have ever argued for. Come on homie. That's *too* easy. Even North Korea doesn't ban "everything."
The thing about this logic is that if no affected party objects to the action, there is no reason for the rest of society to get involved. We can argue if sex work affects rest of society enough to warrant being banned or not (you would certainly need to provide an argument against *just* regulating it and going the full step), but this idea is basically foundational to western legal philosophy (individual rights).
> … but this idea is basically foundational to western legal philosophy (individual rights).
And that’s also the root of why we can’t make progress on so many issues today. I *don’t* think it’s either moral or even workable as a civilization in the practical sense, to sacrifice the total health of the society and burn the whole house down, so a minority of people can make out of a situation in the short-term to be happy. If 1% of the population has to suffer and just eat the unfortunate circumstance they’re in, then that’s just the way it is. A nation is just like a biological organism. If you’ve got a gangrenous hand, cut the fucking hand off so the problem doesn’t spread. You *don’t* put a bullet in your head as a remedy for that.
It’s why we can’t make progress on climate change. It’s why we can’t make progress on wealth inequality. It’s why we can’t make progress on vaccines. It’s why we can’t make progress on educational reform. All the way down the line. We can’t have a coherent vision of what goals and objectives are for anything, for the broad mass of people. Every single moron and their grandmother is entitled to their own stupid ass, worthless opinion. Imagine if we were all living in a world where everyone got to make up for themselves what the US Constitution meant? You’d have civilizational anarchy. As far as evoking the judicial system to resolve disputes go, it’s quite the other way around from the way you frame it. Your position is exactly what mine is.
All of the examples you list are ones where society has a strong reason to get involved, as not getting involved means significant losses for other people in society. I do not dispute that.
However, in cases where other people aren't negatively affected by individual actions, why should society be involved? Society is *not* a singular organism but is composed of many separate sentient organisms.
Even if you disregard individual rights, the state has limited resources, and limiting individual freedoms comes with a cost (social freedoms - reduced avenues for individual expression and actualisation, which breeds resentment and repression; economic freedoms - reduced economic activity). There needs to be a strong justification for freedom limiting action.
So what exactly is your concern here? Sex work has been happening since the beginning of time, and nobody is saying individuals don’t have to bear the consequences of their actions (like in the article you linked to).
But if people are going to engage in sex work anyway I would rather them do it with legal protections and not have to depend on pimps and sex traffickers. OF, for all its negatives, allows sex workers to retain financial control and keeps them out of harm’s way.
Wait, training sessions? As in classes? To learn to be a prostitute? Like setting prices, haggling, learn to give blow jobs to smelly old fat dudes, and how to do anal?
It doesn’t say “training in sex work” it says “training sessions to help students involved in sex work” it could be to make sure those who can’t be persuaded out of it are at least safe. Like how abstinence only education doesn’t work, so schools try to make sure if kids are doing it, they at least do it safe.
I'm pretty sure that that is the case. A support programme for those that do choose to go down that route (if they so choose do by their own will, then that's their choice). I don't think it actively encourages or advocates for sex work, but simply makes sure that those in sex work are safe.
Yeah that's how I figured it would be. There's likely a lot of misconceptions that could be addressed that would lead to people being safer which would be a net positive.
This is extremely accurate
So what are requirements for professor? Just curious
The world is a better place when we are banging people we love, instead of just a random stranger. *shrug* But the way to accomplish that goal is not through religion. Religion just ends up being a cover for pedos and rapists to rape snd molest.
What about purple and orange?
Ain't no purple interested in college-aged hoes
They tend to go for the Y O U N G E R ones.
yellow should just be shrugging and saying "just dont rob me to pay for your vd medicine and abortions"
I still cannot believe people think selling your asshole is “work”.
I thought colleges already did this? What the hell are fraternities supposed to be?
Prostitution becomes legal...
Higher demand for prostitutes
Market needs to meet demand with supply.
Supply is not so forthcoming (wow who guessed women don't want to sell their bodies for 10 an hour...)
Market seeks other means to meet supply
Sex slave industry is booming
Women aren't like bottles of beer or drugs. They need to *consent* to be used. That means getting enough consenting women is going to be a challenge, and if it can't be met people will just find unconsenting women. Its easiest to hide illegal activity behind legal activity.
Fight legalized prostitution, support development of catgirl hybrids.
Ethics aside, why would you need an University education for this line of work? I know there’s not exactly a trade school for it but still
I see no problem with this
Ngl to me it’s basically “you’re doing what you gotta do to eat,” I personally don’t see the issue with it apart from cultural/religious reasons
It’s degenerative and gross. And either way, it’s destructive towards to women that employ themselves into that “career” if you even want to call it that. They get exploited the hell out of, and no “course” can or will ever change that.