Donald Trump has not been accused of paying for sex, but several supporters protesting outside of his trial on Monday wanted to make it clear that they have. It seems the crowds that come out to protest the persecution of the former president are getting smaller, and weirder
…
Today, however, the crowd had thinned to a handful of true believers and true characters – those who don’t leave their house without a giant flag, a bullhorn, and an offensive T-shirt they made themselves.
It’s not only that the crowds are getting smaller, it’s that they are getting significantly weirder.
Of the people willing to step up to a microphone outside the courthouse and defend Mr Trump for allegedly paying off a porn star to hide his alleged affair from prospective voters, two offered something of a wild defence: that they opposed the charges because they too had paid for sex on more than one occasion, and assumed most men had done the same.
It didn’t matter to them that Mr Trump is not being accused of paying for sex, but rather accused of having embarked on several extra-marital affairs and falsifying business records over payments made to hide those affairs from the voting public in 2016.
To be fair, even if you’re not going for a prostitute, men are still paying for sex in the end.
Buying dinner, gifts, paying for events, etc. All of that is what makes men more attractive in the eyes of females.
South Park did a good episode on it.
Edit: Seems like a lot of people have a problem with hard truths here, and that’s understandable.
But really, no need for the personal insults.
Your point would’ve been better recepted if you wouldn’t have said females.
Nothing that I said was sexist.
Can you point out what I said that wasn’t true?
“Never take relationship advice from someone who refers to women as feeeeeemales” is like the internet equivalent of “never trust a person with shiny gear”
If you think that sex even requires buying gifts, or that buying gifts makes men more “attractive”, you’re delusional.
I’m not so sure that the author wasn’t taken in by a Yes Men style prank. Because honestly, that sounds like satire and the satire wasn’t coming from the author of the article.
I agree, but I think there are hints here and there.
For example-
“What do you think I do in Thailand, just sit in a chair?” he asked, incredulously. “That’s what we do as men, you know?”
Thailand isn’t really famous for it’s ciswomen prostitutes…
Thailand isn’t really famous for it’s ciswomen prostitutes…
Uhh, what? Yes it is.
Isn’t that a crime in the US? Did these people just confess to crimes? But of course they’re “conservatives” so it’s OK.
TBF, I wouldn’t want people to be persecuted just for saying out loud that they did a crime. Imagine if I went outside today and shouted, “My house doesn’t have a secondary fire escape and is therefore outside building regulations!”. Should I then be investigated for committing a crime, or should someone just tell me to shut up and stop shouting in the middle of the road?
I would say it depends on the type of crime and the amount of detail. If you say out loud, “I murdered John Smith last Tuesday” and John Smith had been murdered last Tuesday, I think you should probably get investigated for the murder of John Smith.
If you say “I’ve had sex with a prostitute” but don’t go further than that in terms of any details, definitely not.
What an amazing little carveout, and since almost everyone has a phone with a camera…
This was the plot of an episode of Boston Legal. I wouldn’t assume it would actually hold up in court. In the story a professor of sex studies had paid a prostitute to answer some interview questions for a study, and he “got carried away”. But he was filming it, so they argued that he was actually making a pornographic film, which is protected speech.
Actually, prostitution is not legal in Clark County (where Las Vegas is). It is legal in the rest of Nevada, though. The sex workers that advertise in Vegas are based just outside of the county lines and travel into the city when called. The cops pretty much just look the other way so it seems legal there.
Well, let’s legalize prostitution. Regulate it, tax it, legitimize it.
Conservatives: hell no, we can’t have that depravity and vice. We need to punish women for sex outside of marriage. Oh, yeah…and no abortions for them either. (Unless it’s my daughter or mistress)
I see this sentiment a lot from the uneducated crowd, but unfortunately human trafficking seems to increase whenever sex work is legalized so I cannot condone it.
Human trafficking is there, anyway. The victims tend to be afraid, because they’re forced to do otherwise illegal things, and therefore don’t want to come forward. So what often happens under legalization is that a whole bunch of victims suddenly come out, which is now recorded as an increase in human trafficking.
So you’re saying it’s okay to torture and rape even more women and children because there were already women and children being raped and tortured anyways? I’m not seeing the logic, mate.
Studies show increases in the country where humans are sourced from, not explainable by “victims suddenly coming out”.
“Uneducated”
I think you need to do some reading, friend. Human trafficking is already a big problem. Legitimizing sex work and regulating it removes t some of the incentives to operate behind the scenes, just like legalizing pot, and frankly you get rid of the whole under-age thing because no government entity is going to allow that.
S/he’s right.
I wish it were true, but it’s really not. Human trafficking increases in both countries that legalize sex work and also countries where the humans are trafficked from. Tons of studies over many decades illustrate the cold hard truth.
If we are going to make it illegal, we really need to flip the laws and make it illegal to hire one. This would give those in the business a legal way of asking for help.
Not sure what you mean. Soliciting a prostitute is already illegal in most states.
It makes my head hurt how ridiculous conservatives are and how they spin things. They’re only making their lives harder. Imagine the amount of tax revenue that could be collected from legalizing prostitution.
It’s not a homogenous group. You’ve absolutely got libertarians on one end, wanting to dissolve the state and legalize a market for children as sexual commodities on one end. And then you’ve got the Holy Rollers on the order end, who think coffee and cigarettes need to be next on the chopping block.
They formed an alliance of convenience to crush the labor movement. But now they are very awkward bedfellows.
Let’s say it together: they don’t actually care about fiscal responsibility.
It’s obvious that they don’t because they only ever work one variable (spending) of the fucking equation:
spending - income = deficit
Even if you stop all of your spending entirely, you’ll remain in debt forever if you never have any income, so it’s a losing way to fix the problem, but that won’t stop them or their idiot voters from insisting upon it.
Also conservatives: Yeah, we still pay for sex. Rules only apply to other people.
They legitimately believe it should be fine to pay for sex, but should be illegal to be paid for sex.
You should take a look at some of the jons they pick up in prostitution stings. Overnight in jail for soliciting a prostitute and church the next day.
That old post that posited conservatism is “ingroups to protect, outgroups to bind” was really on the mark.
Oh yeah, and make it more difficult for those trapped in their situation to get out of it.
Gotta keep women in their place and under control, even if we say it’s the wrong place. It’s all about control and restricting their autonomy.
The fact that the article leads with “SKETCH” makes me think it’s satire.
Skit and sketch can be used interchangeably in reference to a short performance, usually comedic, but they do not have any particular connection to current events other than current events are often good material for parody.
We do not use either word in the context of satirical writing.
