Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Discussion Thread -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (3579)	3/3/2010 3:36:52 PM
From: one_less	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3816

Well then we misunderstood each other. Good point about the Pimp being charged with sexual harassment. That never occured to me. I wasn't thinking of the Pimp forcing her to have sex though. I was thinking that the Pimp is paying her to have sex and she has an obligation to provide sex for pay. But my point was positioned a bit more general. The prostitute is bound to comply with the conditions of employment. Provide sex for the pay you receive or lose your job. Why could any other employer not stipulate the same conditions? Why could an employer not tell an employee to provide sex to some prospective client to secure a contract? "(Or she could become an independent contractor and dump the manager.)? Sounds easy but not realistic. I think we've already established that most prostitutes (90%) would like to get out of the 'business' but can't see how to make that work, even to the point of suicide as the only apparent option. Which further puts a dent into the whole its for 'freedom' angle. Practically speaking this duck walks like 'sex slave trade.'