Germans must work as prostitutes?

username · 31st January 2005, 09:08 AM

Quote:

A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year.

Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners â€“ who must pay tax and employee health insurance â€“ were granted access to official databases of jobseekers.

Now this is just wrong.

First Swedes imprisoning pastors for preaching from the bible against homosexuality inside their churches and now Germany requiring folks to become prostitutes or lose unemployment benefits?

The US is frequently criticised, sometimes fairly, other times not, but as an American it is almost refreshing to see that other nations are screwy as well

Darat · 31st January 2005, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by username
Germans must work as prostitutes

Now this is just wrong.

First Swedes imprisoning pastors for preaching from the bible against homosexuality inside their churches and now Germany requiring folks to become prostitutes or lose unemployment benefits?

The US is frequently criticised, sometimes fairly, other times not, but as an American it is almost refreshing to see that other nations are screwy as well

The logic seems pretty sound to me.

The state makes a benefit available to unemployed people, one of the conditions is that you must be willing to take any job you are suitable for...

Do I think this is right or wrong?

Well I donâ€™t think the â€œsex industryâ€ is â€œwrongâ€ so no problems on those grounds.

I think it would be wrong if the state was in effect saying â€œyou must have sexâ€ however I think there is a way out of that particular dilemma. Consider that is the fact that we legislate that a â€œsexual actâ€ must be consensual else it is a criminal offence. Therefore no one can be forced by the state to undertake a sexual act, whether the sex industry is legal or not.

Number Six · 31st January 2005, 09:38 AM

Wait a second...no one can be forced to have sex against their will but then again no one can be forced to, say, be an accountant against their will, but if you're on unemployment and an accountant job comes open that you can do then they can make you take it or else cut your benefits.

That article makes it sound like her choices are (a) have sex as a prostitutes or (b) lose benefits. If that's really what's happening it just seems wrong.

richardm · 31st January 2005, 09:39 AM

One thing that's worth bearing in mind is that the Telegraph is a right-wing newspaper that is rabidly anti-EU. So any story that might reflect badly on our European neighbours is liable to by hyped out of all reality.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that there are some critical details missing from the story (e.g. the true parts).

RussDill · 31st January 2005, 09:42 AM

I think this is being made more of a big deal than it is. In the US, if you don't take a job by the time your unemployment benifits expire, you lose you benifits. Isn't the same thing happening here? Or do unemployment benifits in germany extend beyond their expiration and terminate if you don't take a suggested job?

Suppose you'd need that in germany given their unemployment rates.

username · 31st January 2005, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RussDill
I think this is being made more of a big deal than it is. In the US, if you don't take a job by the time your unemployment benifits expire, you lose you benifits. Isn't the same thing happening here? Or do unemployment benifits in germany extend beyond their expiration and terminate if you don't take a suggested job?

For me the issue is the fact that the job is prostitution. The legality of prostitution isn't a concern to me nor is the 'morality' of the job, although I am sure many would find working as a prostitute to be immoral or against their religion or whathaveyou.

Imagine a married couple with kids struggling to make ends meet and the wife is forced to choose between selling her body for sex or not putting food on the table due to loss of unemployment compensation. That just seems absurd.

In the US, as far as I know you don't have to take just any job. You have to go out and apply for x number of jobs within a certain time frame. If you are accepted for a job you applied for you have to have a 'good' reason for turning it down. As far as I know there is no such thing as a "suggested" job that you must accept or lose benefits.

Psi Baba · 31st January 2005, 10:52 AM

From the article:

Quote:

The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars.

Wow. German bars must be pretty wild places if they are indistinguishable from brothels! St. Pauli Girl takes on whole new meaning . . .

AWPrime · 31st January 2005, 10:54 AM

I think, I found the original german article:

http://www.taz.de/pt/2004/12/18/a0077.nf/text

RussDill · 31st January 2005, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by username
In the US, as far as I know you don't have to take just any job. You have to go out and apply for x number of jobs within a certain time frame. If you are accepted for a job you applied for you have to have a 'good' reason for turning it down. As far as I know there is no such thing as a "suggested" job that you must accept or lose benefits.

Being on unemployment is the US is not comfortable, unless your severance package was really good, so there is a great deal of motivation to get a new job quickly. Perhaps in germany, being on unemployment isn't so bad, so they need to provide greater motivation.

Tricky · 31st January 2005, 11:02 AM

If it's at all like the US, then you don't have to keep the job, just show that you tried. If they fire you because you are no good as a sex worker (since you are unable to remove your clothes in front of a stranger), then you're back on the dole.

But suppose some down-and-out girl took the job in order to keep their benefits, fully intending to be so bad that she would have to be fired. But then, her very first "john" is a tender, caring young man who is there just because he wants companionship. The girl takes the job, and realizes what an important job she does for lonely men. She becomes a devoted and hard-working prostitute, rising in the ranks until she is the most loved and beloved woman in all of Germany.

Well, that's the way it happens in the movies anyway.

toddjh · 31st January 2005, 11:11 AM

In general, I think people on unemployment should be required to take a job if they're qualified for it, but I do think there should be exceptions when the person has a strong ethical or religious objection to it. That objection should be examined closely, but I don't think many people would have trouble believing that a woman would have a strong objection to having sex with strangers all day.

Jeremy

SwissSkeptic · 31st January 2005, 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AWPrime
I think, I found the original german article:

http://www.taz.de/pt/2004/12/18/a0077.nf/text

Yes that's the original article and it's talking about a hypothetical scenario that might happen because of a new legislation and seems to have a strong agenda against it. As far as I understand it no particular person had to make a choice to work as a prostitute or else to lose benefits. But maybe some of the German posters here can clear things up...

bjornart · 31st January 2005, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by richardm
One thing that's worth bearing in mind is that the Telegraph is a right-wing newspaper that is rabidly anti-EU. So any story that might reflect badly on our European neighbours is liable to by hyped out of all reality.

It wouldn't surprise me to learn that there are some critical details missing from the story (e.g. the true parts).

I did a search on the woman's name. One hit. The telegraph article.
As the German article linked to above points out, this is a hypothetical conjecture based on the legalisation of brothels together with unemployment benefit legistlation.
In the article a representative of the unemployment office admits that theoretically a brothel could register openings with the unemployment office, and that theoretically someone then could not turn down the job. But he also points out that A) brothels don't register openings for prostitutes with the unemployment office for several reason, and B) no unemployment office employee wishing to keep his job would be stupid enough to refuse the reasonable answer "no I won't work in a brothel" from a prospective employee

username · 31st January 2005, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by bjornart
In the article a representative of the unemployment office admits that theoretically a brothel could register openings with the unemployment office, and that theoretically someone then could not turn down the job. But he also points out that A) brothels don't register openings for prostitutes with the unemployment office for several reason, and B) no unemployment office employee wishing to keep his job would be stupid enough to refuse the reasonable answer "no I won't work in a brothel" from a prospective employee

Yes, but:

As to A, the reasons brothels don't register job openings with the unemployment office could change. The article says at least one brothel has registered positions with the UE office.

As to B, it would seem that the UE office worker could get fired after the UE office was sued by the brothel for allowing the unemployed person to opt out of the employment when they cannot opt out for other employment opportunities.

I can totally accept that this is a hypothetical scenario, but hypothetical doesn't mean it cannot happen. Indeed the Telegraph article states it has happened. Whether or not the woman will lose her benefits is not yet certain.

I am not familiar with the Telegraph, one person said it is a right wing propaganda paper. That could be the case, I don't know. Regardless, the bias of the source doesn't seem relevant as long as the facts presented are accurate.

ZeeGerman · 31st January 2005, 01:28 PM

Holy cow, I thought this was a skeptics board.

1. There is no actual case.
Evereything is completely hypothetical.

2. Fact is, prostitutoin is legal and yes, hypothetically, someone who is suggested a job as a prostitute and declined could lose his benefits.
3. Another fact is, that the employees of the job agencies are supposed to use common sense in their decisionsand they usually do. And if you think the job suggestion is not acceptable you can sue the agency when they cut your money. Has happened before and will happen again. That's what courts are for. In a hypothetical case like this its a 100% win.

The legislation cannot forsee all possible combinations of circumstancies.

Should they write down in the law , that vegans must not be forced to work in a slaughter house, or a muslim/jew in a pigs farm, or a gay in a well known skin-head bar?

Really....

Zee

Number Six · 31st January 2005, 01:48 PM

Well it's reported as fact on that website so while we can be skeptical of the source (as we should be with all sources), the fact that the article states it as having occurred makes people think that it has occurred.

I first saw the article on a message board in the context of "Ha, ha, those Europeans are doing crazy things again" and I thought it might not be strictly true but I can't go back and say "Hey, some European guy on another message board said it's not true" so I'd like to have a website to send them to refuting the article.

ZeeGerman · 31st January 2005, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Number Six
Well it's reported as fact on that website so while we can be skeptical of the source (as we should be with all sources), the fact that the article states it as having occurred makes people think that it has occurred.

I first saw the article on a message board in the context of "Ha, ha, those Europeans are doing crazy things again" and I thought it might not be strictly true but I can't go back and say "Hey, some European guy on another message board said it's not true" so I'd like to have a website to send them to refuting the article.

So read the TAZ article. It's a hypothetical discussion, nothing more.

And why would anyone care to refute everything stupid the telegraph pulls out of its arse?

Zee

Number Six · 31st January 2005, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZeeGerman
So read the TAZ article. It's a hypothetical discussion, nothing more.

And why would anyone care to refute everything stupid the telegraph pulls out of its arse?

Zee

I'm talking about a message board in the USA, where telling them to read the TAZ article isn't an option since they can't read German and telling them the article is wrong because it's the Telegraph isn't an option because they don't know anything about the Telegraph.

hgc · 31st January 2005, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Number Six
Well it's reported as fact on that website so while we can be skeptical of the source (as we should be with all sources), the fact that the article states it as having occurred makes people think that it has occurred.

I first saw the article on a message board in the context of "Ha, ha, those Europeans are doing crazy things again" and I thought it might not be strictly true but I can't go back and say "Hey, some European guy on another message board said it's not true" so I'd like to have a website to send them to refuting the article.

Sometimes you just have to resort to common sense. Yes, skepticism allows for it (at least my brand of skepticism does). Az ZG says, it's easy to see how the consequence of combination of 2 unrelated laws could lead to this conumdrum. Now who really believes that anyone in Germany will ever lose their unemployment benefits because they refuse to work as a prostitute, despite what appears on The Telegragh website? Raise your hands.

Ian Osborne · 31st January 2005, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
It's easy to see how the consequence of combination of 2 unrelated laws could lead to this conumdrum. Now who really believes that anyone in Germany will ever lose their unemployment benefits because they refuse to work as a prostitute, despite what appears on The Telegragh website? Raise your hands.

A similar conundrum arose in the UK a few years back, when the Government closed the dedicated military recruitment offices and made the armed forces advertise in job centres instead. As we also demand the unemployed take any job they're capable of doing, some commentators pointed out we'd reintroduced conscription by the back door. And yet, I don't recall a single case of someone losing benefits for refusing to enlist, and I doubt there ever has been such a case.

Skeptic · 31st January 2005, 07:58 PM

Yes that's the original article and it's talking about a hypothetical scenario that might happen because of a new legislation and seems to have a strong agenda against it.

That seems to be the case, indeed. All the article is saying is: "there are now two laws on the books (unemployment and legalized prostitution) which, in this hypothetical scenario, would lead to an absurd result".

This is hardly surprising or odd. Laws are made by human beings; the lawbooks are not some logically consistent complete body covering all possible scenarios, but a collection of more or less ad hoc decisions. That there are two laws who are in conflict in some situations is almost guaranteed for any country whose laws are not completely elemenrtary.

Such contradictions are resolved in various ways, but it's obvious that however resolved in this case, it is inconcievable that women will be in fact forced to work as prostitutes. Most likely, the law will simply be amended to allow women to refuse working in brothels without any penalty.

By the way, such contradictions are at least as old as Plato: for instance, if it is good to help our friends and it is also good to keep our promises, what if our friend comes and demands the knife he loaned us when he is not in his right mind? Either way you'd have to break the (moral) law.

This is not the place for a deep discussion of that particular socratic dialogue (in the REPUBLIC), but we can all be glad a reporter wasn't around to record it, or no doubt we would be treated to a headline saying NEW GREEK MORALITY FORCES MEN NOT TO KEEP THEIR PROMISES, or NEW GREEK MORALITY FORCES MEN TO GIVE KNIVES TO INSANE PEOPLE, depending on which horn of the dilemma poor Cephalus, Socrates' antagonist in this case, had chosen.

Ladewig · 1st February 2005, 03:25 AM

How hard would it be to convince a unemployment benefits clerk that you were not qualified for a job in a brothel?

How hard would it be to fail a job interview at a brothel?

MRC_Hans · 1st February 2005, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by AWPrime
I think, I found the original german article:

http://www.taz.de/pt/2004/12/18/a0077.nf/text

Fine, thanks!

What it is about (as some have already said), is that because of legislation making prostitution a legal trade, hypothetically, an unemployed person (most likely a woman

) could be referred to work as a prostitute.

However, since other laws say that you cannot be forced to have sex against your will, this is really moot, and I suspect the article is somewhat tongue-in-cheek (this is difficult to judge since German humor is ...... well, different).

Hans

ZeeGerman · 1st February 2005, 05:29 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Fine, thanks!

What it is about (as some have already said), is that because of legislation making prostitution a legal trade, hypothetically, an unemployed person (most likely a woman ) could be referred to work as a prostitute.

However, since other laws say that you cannot be forced to have sex against your will, this is really moot, and I suspect the article is somewhat tongue-in-cheek (this is difficult to judge since German humor is ...... well, different).

Hans

Well, the article is from the TAZ by all means. the paper is so far to the left, it would (figuratively) thrown on the US publication map land far west of Hawaii.

They definitely have some beef with the current cuts made to the social net and the article fits to that agenda.

Zee

Ed · 1st February 2005, 05:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hgc
Sometimes you just have to resort to common sense. Yes, skepticism allows for it (at least my brand of skepticism does). Az ZG says, it's easy to see how the consequence of combination of 2 unrelated laws could lead to this conumdrum. Now who really believes that anyone in Germany will ever lose their unemployment benefits because they refuse to work as a prostitute, despite what appears on The Telegragh website? Raise your hands.

(hand goes up)

You appear to be making a judgement about prostitution that suggests that there is something wrong with it and people would understand someone not taking such a job. If that is true, why was it legalized?

ZeeGerman · 1st February 2005, 06:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
(hand goes up)

You appear to be making a judgement about prostitution that suggests that there is something wrong with it and people would understand someone not taking such a job. If that is true, why was it legalized?

Heading in a false dilemma. Not everything that is legalized has to be acceptable to everybody.

And yes, people will understand. That's the way it works over here. As Hans pointed out, the hypothetical scenario would be in clear breach with other laws. So, it''s not gonna happen. You can take our word for it or not, its a non issue..

Zee

DivaLasVegas · 1st February 2005, 06:54 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SwissSkeptic
Yes that's the original article and it's talking about a hypothetical scenario that might happen because of a new legislation and seems to have a strong agenda against it. As far as I understand it no particular person had to make a choice to work as a prostitute or else to lose benefits. But maybe some of the German posters here can clear things up...

Hi @ all

when i first read the threadopener i thought * oh me good god* anti german propaganda at the jref* *gg*

As i am german i have just read the article and it is in fact true, that germans out of work COULD be made to take any job, no matter what. That has to do with the new legislation Harz IIII.
It has been known here that germans on benefit ( 68% of there income) are just not willing to take ANY job on that does not pay more than there benefit. This benefit will be paid in full for 1 year only. After that the new Harz IIII legislation will make them take either a job of there own choice or they will HAVE to take a 1 Euro Job to get there benefit paid. Meaning to get benefit they are made to work for an extra Euro per hour ( max. approx. 150â‚¬ a month) and get there benefit paid on top.

I find this a good idea....especially as we have a never ending supply of people who parade there butt on talkshows and brag that they are not working because the benefit is to GOOD *shock horror*

But in the end i hope this new rule, on taking jobs in a brothel, also applies to men, hihi

Any spelling mistakes are my property but you may keep them as a gift *g*

MRC_Hans · 1st February 2005, 06:59 AM

Welcome from lurk-land DLV

!

Good to see you as we are rather short on Germans here.

You can keep your spelling errors, however, as I'm quite capable of making my own (and so are most others here, heheh).

Hans

DivaLasVegas · 1st February 2005, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
Welcome from lurk-land DLV !

Good to see you as we are rather short on Germans here.

You can keep your spelling errors, however, as I'm quite capable of making my own (and so are most others here, heheh).

Hans

Thank you, kind Sir !

I`am very happy to be here with you all and i am looking forward to some good discussions.

ZeeGerman · 1st February 2005, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by DivaLasVegas
Hi @ all

when i first read the threadopener i thought * oh me good god* anti german propaganda at the jref* *gg*

As i am german i have just read the article and it is in fact true, that germans out of work COULD be made to take any job, no matter what. That has to do with the new legislation Harz IIII.
It has been known here that germans on benefit ( 68% of there income) are just not willing to take ANY job on that does not pay more than there benefit. This benefit will be paid in full for 1 year only. After that the new Harz IIII legislation will make them take either a job of there own choice or they will HAVE to take a 1 Euro Job to get there benefit paid. Meaning to get benefit they are made to work for an extra Euro per hour ( max. approx. 150â‚¬ a month) and get there benefit paid on top.

I find this a good idea....especially as we have a never ending supply of people who parade there butt on talkshows and brag that they are not working because the benefit is to GOOD *shock horror*

But in the end i hope this new rule, on taking jobs in a brothel, also applies to men, hihi

Any spelling mistakes are my property but you may keep them as a gift *g*

Wow, a german skepchick. That'll be the first here. Willkommen und viel SpaÃŸ.
Schnee in Bielefeld?

Zee

DivaLasVegas · 1st February 2005, 07:07 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZeeGerman
Wow, a german skepchick. That'll be the first here. Willkommen und viel SpaÃŸ.
Schnee in Bielefeld?

Zee

Thanks for the welcome !

Leider nein :-( Regen Regen Regen *Ã¤chtz*

Graculus · 1st February 2005, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZeeGerman
Well, the article is from the TAZ by all means. the paper is so far to the left, it would (figuratively) thrown on the US publication map land far west of Hawaii.

They definitely have some beef with the current cuts made to the social net and the article fits to that agenda.

Zee

So, we have a far left wing paper examining a hypothetical, and a mainstream right paper (the Telegraph) presenting it as truth. Hmmmm.....

bjornart · 1st February 2005, 09:21 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by username
Yes, but:

As to A, the reasons brothels don't register job openings with the unemployment office could change. The article says at least one brothel has registered positions with the UE office.

Yes, they could change. Which is why it was necessary to mention the B, part. As to the one brothel registering position that's according to the unsupported article we're just now picking apart.

Quote:

As to B, it would seem that the UE office worker could get fired after the UE office was sued by the brothel for allowing the unemployed person to opt out of the employment when they cannot opt out for other employment opportunities.

I think you fail to realize that in most of Europe courts judge on the intent of a law, rather than the letter. Besides even the letter of the law isn't to ensure employers get a chance at every UE person, but to ensure that someone who simply refuses all job offers doesn't get benefits.

Quote:

I can totally accept that this is a hypothetical scenario, but hypothetical doesn't mean it cannot happen. Indeed the Telegraph article states it has happened. Whether or not the woman will lose her benefits is not yet certain.

I am not familiar with the Telegraph, one person said it is a right wing propaganda paper. That could be the case, I don't know. Regardless, the bias of the source doesn't seem relevant as long as the facts presented are accurate.

Hypothetical doesn't mean it cannot happen, no, but considering A and B (again) it's not bloody likely. I never mentioned the bias of the source, what I looked at was the facts. And they don't pan out. You really think a case like this wouldn't make news in Germany, and in the rest of Europe? A search on the woman's name turned up just one hit, the Telegraph article. Whether the Telegraph is biased or not these facts seem to be from the reporters imagination.

DivaLasVegas · 1st February 2005, 09:49 AM

You are right of course and i can confirm as of yet, this has not happened here.

There would be such an outcry that you could hear the screams at the JREF

Beerina · 1st February 2005, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Darat
The logic seems pretty sound to me.

The state makes a benefit available to unemployed people, one of the conditions is that you must be willing to take any job you are suitable for...

Do I think this is right or wrong?

Well I donâ€™t think the â€œsex industryâ€ is â€œwrongâ€ so no problems on those grounds.

I think it would be wrong if the state was in effect saying â€œyou must have sexâ€ however I think there is a way out of that particular dilemma. Consider that is the fact that we legislate that a â€œsexual actâ€ must be consensual else it is a criminal offence. Therefore no one can be forced by the state to undertake a sexual act, whether the sex industry is legal or not.

Well, should an unemployed heterosexual male be forced to become a gay gigilo should a job opportunity open up? After all, in our sexuality-neutral society, well, it's not so bad. The John mostly just wants to suck your c**k for awhile.

Then again, I thought in Europe you didn't have to take any job, just one that's similar to your established career. There's nothing like prostitution except prostitution, although a Vegas showgirl might have a tough time arguing that to a judge.

On the gripping hand, everything is like prostitution in that you're selling efforts by your body to your customer.

Art Vandelay · 1st February 2005, 11:05 PM

I think this shows the problem with unemployment insurance. Besides the fact that the people who need it most (people who haven't had a job recently) don't get it, being unemployed isn't an objective circumstance, like a house fire or a totaled car. I've wondered about similar situations in the US. What about stripping? Telemarketing? Deep sea diving? Scabbing? Graveyard shifts? Abortionist? Homeopathic salesman?

BTW, there a major case in the US where a woman was denied unemployment after turning down a job that required her to work on the Sabbath. I don't remeber what the resulkt of her appeal was.

Quote:

Originally posted by Tricky
If it's at all like the US, then you don't have to keep the job, just show that you tried.

I don't think that's true. If you're fired for cause, the company can notify unemployment not to pay your benefits.

Quote:

Originally posted by Beerina
Well, should an unemployed heterosexual male be forced to become a gay gigilo should a job opportunity open up? After all, in our sexuality-neutral society, well, it's not so bad. The John mostly just wants to suck your c**k for awhile.

I don't have much experience in this area, but I would think that most Johns would want to be on the other end.

SwissSkeptic · 2nd February 2005, 12:33 AM

Snopes has now a short piece about the article

31st January 2005, 09:08 AM	#1
username Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 837	Germans must work as prostitutes? Germans must work as prostitutes Quote: A 25-year-old waitress who turned down a job providing "sexual services'' at a brothel in Berlin faces possible cuts to her unemployment benefit under laws introduced this year. Prostitution was legalised in Germany just over two years ago and brothel owners â€“ who must pay tax and employee health insurance â€“ were granted access to official databases of jobseekers. Now this is just wrong. First Swedes imprisoning pastors for preaching from the bible against homosexuality inside their churches and now Germany requiring folks to become prostitutes or lose unemployment benefits? The US is frequently criticised, sometimes fairly, other times not, but as an American it is almost refreshing to see that other nations are screwy as well
username Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 837

31st January 2005, 09:32 AM	#2
Darat Lackey Administrator / JREF Forum Liaison Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 64,804	Re: Germans must work as prostitutes? Quote: Originally posted by username Germans must work as prostitutes Now this is just wrong. First Swedes imprisoning pastors for preaching from the bible against homosexuality inside their churches and now Germany requiring folks to become prostitutes or lose unemployment benefits? The US is frequently criticised, sometimes fairly, other times not, but as an American it is almost refreshing to see that other nations are screwy as well The logic seems pretty sound to me. The state makes a benefit available to unemployed people, one of the conditions is that you must be willing to take any job you are suitable for... Do I think this is right or wrong? Well I donâ€™t think the â€œsex industryâ€ is â€œwrongâ€ so no problems on those grounds. I think it would be wrong if the state was in effect saying â€œyou must have sexâ€ however I think there is a way out of that particular dilemma. Consider that is the fact that we legislate that a â€œsexual actâ€ must be consensual else it is a criminal offence. Therefore no one can be forced by the state to undertake a sexual act, whether the sex industry is legal or not.
	__________________ If it were all so simple! If only there were evil people somewhere insidiously committing evil deeds, and it were necessary only to separate them from the rest of us and destroy them. But the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart? - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn 1918-2008

31st January 2005, 09:38 AM	#3
Number Six JREF Kid Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,017	Wait a second...no one can be forced to have sex against their will but then again no one can be forced to, say, be an accountant against their will, but if you're on unemployment and an accountant job comes open that you can do then they can make you take it or else cut your benefits. That article makes it sound like her choices are (a) have sex as a prostitutes or (b) lose benefits. If that's really what's happening it just seems wrong.
Number Six JREF Kid Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,017

31st January 2005, 09:39 AM	#4
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	One thing that's worth bearing in mind is that the Telegraph is a right-wing newspaper that is rabidly anti-EU. So any story that might reflect badly on our European neighbours is liable to by hyped out of all reality. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that there are some critical details missing from the story (e.g. the true parts).
richardm Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 9,270	__________________ Rimmer: Look at her! Magnificent woman! Very prim, very proper, almost austere. Some people took her for cold, thought she was aloof. Not a bit of it. She just despised fools. Quite tragic, really, because otherwise I think we'd have got on famously.

31st January 2005, 09:42 AM	#5
RussDill Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,328	I think this is being made more of a big deal than it is. In the US, if you don't take a job by the time your unemployment benifits expire, you lose you benifits. Isn't the same thing happening here? Or do unemployment benifits in germany extend beyond their expiration and terminate if you don't take a suggested job? Suppose you'd need that in germany given their unemployment rates.
	__________________ The woods are lovely, dark and deep but i have promises to keep and lines to code before I sleep And lines to code before I sleep

31st January 2005, 10:50 AM	#6
username Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 837	Quote: Originally posted by RussDill I think this is being made more of a big deal than it is. In the US, if you don't take a job by the time your unemployment benifits expire, you lose you benifits. Isn't the same thing happening here? Or do unemployment benifits in germany extend beyond their expiration and terminate if you don't take a suggested job? For me the issue is the fact that the job is prostitution. The legality of prostitution isn't a concern to me nor is the 'morality' of the job, although I am sure many would find working as a prostitute to be immoral or against their religion or whathaveyou. Imagine a married couple with kids struggling to make ends meet and the wife is forced to choose between selling her body for sex or not putting food on the table due to loss of unemployment compensation. That just seems absurd. In the US, as far as I know you don't have to take just any job. You have to go out and apply for x number of jobs within a certain time frame. If you are accepted for a job you applied for you have to have a 'good' reason for turning it down. As far as I know there is no such thing as a "suggested" job that you must accept or lose benefits.
username Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 837

31st January 2005, 10:52 AM	#7
Psi Baba Homo Skepticalis Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Occupying my barstool Posts: 3,183	From the article: Quote: The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars. Wow. German bars must be pretty wild places if they are indistinguishable from brothels! St. Pauli Girl takes on whole new meaning . . .
	__________________ Save Caribbean Rum! (seriously)

31st January 2005, 10:54 AM	#8
AWPrime Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,929	I think, I found the original german article: http://www.taz.de/pt/2004/12/18/a0077.nf/text
AWPrime Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2004 Posts: 2,929	__________________ Sir Arthur C. Clarke - "Any sufficiently advanced technology, to the uninformed observer, is indistinguishable from magic." c4ts - "Jesus loves the little children, Nice and fat and honey roasted..." Lancastic = Demonstrative of outstanding personal effort in the exposing of frauds. Rob Lister - "The enemy of my enemy probably tastes yummy. "

31st January 2005, 11:02 AM	#9
RussDill Illuminator Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 3,328	Quote: Originally posted by username In the US, as far as I know you don't have to take just any job. You have to go out and apply for x number of jobs within a certain time frame. If you are accepted for a job you applied for you have to have a 'good' reason for turning it down. As far as I know there is no such thing as a "suggested" job that you must accept or lose benefits. Being on unemployment is the US is not comfortable, unless your severance package was really good, so there is a great deal of motivation to get a new job quickly. Perhaps in germany, being on unemployment isn't so bad, so they need to provide greater motivation.
	__________________ The woods are lovely, dark and deep but i have promises to keep and lines to code before I sleep And lines to code before I sleep

31st January 2005, 11:02 AM	#10
Tricky Briefly immortal Moderator Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: The Group W bench Posts: 42,374	If it's at all like the US, then you don't have to keep the job, just show that you tried. If they fire you because you are no good as a sex worker (since you are unable to remove your clothes in front of a stranger), then you're back on the dole. But suppose some down-and-out girl took the job in order to keep their benefits, fully intending to be so bad that she would have to be fired. But then, her very first "john" is a tender, caring young man who is there just because he wants companionship. The girl takes the job, and realizes what an important job she does for lonely men. She becomes a devoted and hard-working prostitute, rising in the ranks until she is the most loved and beloved woman in all of Germany. Well, that's the way it happens in the movies anyway.

31st January 2005, 11:11 AM	#11
toddjh Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: USA Posts: 3,252	In general, I think people on unemployment should be required to take a job if they're qualified for it, but I do think there should be exceptions when the person has a strong ethical or religious objection to it. That objection should be examined closely, but I don't think many people would have trouble believing that a woman would have a strong objection to having sex with strangers all day. Jeremy

31st January 2005, 12:08 PM	#12
SwissSkeptic Critical Thinker Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 390	Quote: Originally posted by AWPrime I think, I found the original german article: http://www.taz.de/pt/2004/12/18/a0077.nf/text Yes that's the original article and it's talking about a hypothetical scenario that might happen because of a new legislation and seems to have a strong agenda against it. As far as I understand it no particular person had to make a choice to work as a prostitute or else to lose benefits. But maybe some of the German posters here can clear things up...

31st January 2005, 12:27 PM	#13
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,398	Quote: Originally posted by richardm One thing that's worth bearing in mind is that the Telegraph is a right-wing newspaper that is rabidly anti-EU. So any story that might reflect badly on our European neighbours is liable to by hyped out of all reality. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that there are some critical details missing from the story (e.g. the true parts). I did a search on the woman's name. One hit. The telegraph article. As the German article linked to above points out, this is a hypothetical conjecture based on the legalisation of brothels together with unemployment benefit legistlation. In the article a representative of the unemployment office admits that theoretically a brothel could register openings with the unemployment office, and that theoretically someone then could not turn down the job. But he also points out that A) brothels don't register openings for prostitutes with the unemployment office for several reason, and B) no unemployment office employee wishing to keep his job would be stupid enough to refuse the reasonable answer "no I won't work in a brothel" from a prospective employee
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,398	__________________ Well, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU LIKE TO BELIEVE, GODDAMMIT! I DEAL IN THE FACTS! -Cecil Adams

31st January 2005, 01:06 PM	#14
username Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 837	Quote: Originally posted by bjornart In the article a representative of the unemployment office admits that theoretically a brothel could register openings with the unemployment office, and that theoretically someone then could not turn down the job. But he also points out that A) brothels don't register openings for prostitutes with the unemployment office for several reason, and B) no unemployment office employee wishing to keep his job would be stupid enough to refuse the reasonable answer "no I won't work in a brothel" from a prospective employee Yes, but: As to A, the reasons brothels don't register job openings with the unemployment office could change. The article says at least one brothel has registered positions with the UE office. As to B, it would seem that the UE office worker could get fired after the UE office was sued by the brothel for allowing the unemployed person to opt out of the employment when they cannot opt out for other employment opportunities. I can totally accept that this is a hypothetical scenario, but hypothetical doesn't mean it cannot happen. Indeed the Telegraph article states it has happened. Whether or not the woman will lose her benefits is not yet certain. I am not familiar with the Telegraph, one person said it is a right wing propaganda paper. That could be the case, I don't know. Regardless, the bias of the source doesn't seem relevant as long as the facts presented are accurate.
username Muse Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 837

31st January 2005, 01:28 PM	#15
ZeeGerman Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Just far enough from Detroit that it's OK Posts: 784	Holy cow, I thought this was a skeptics board. 1. There is no actual case. Evereything is completely hypothetical. 2. Fact is, prostitutoin is legal and yes, hypothetically, someone who is suggested a job as a prostitute and declined could lose his benefits. 3. Another fact is, that the employees of the job agencies are supposed to use common sense in their decisionsand they usually do. And if you think the job suggestion is not acceptable you can sue the agency when they cut your money. Has happened before and will happen again. That's what courts are for. In a hypothetical case like this its a 100% win. The legislation cannot forsee all possible combinations of circumstancies. Should they write down in the law , that vegans must not be forced to work in a slaughter house, or a muslim/jew in a pigs farm, or a gay in a well known skin-head bar? Really.... Zee
	__________________ Wenn die Katze ein Pferd wäre, könnte man die Bäume raufreiten. Afta ol, ve arr frrom ze lend of tschoklet (The Simpsons "Das Kraftwerk")

31st January 2005, 01:48 PM	#16
Number Six JREF Kid Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,017	Well it's reported as fact on that website so while we can be skeptical of the source (as we should be with all sources), the fact that the article states it as having occurred makes people think that it has occurred. I first saw the article on a message board in the context of "Ha, ha, those Europeans are doing crazy things again" and I thought it might not be strictly true but I can't go back and say "Hey, some European guy on another message board said it's not true" so I'd like to have a website to send them to refuting the article.
Number Six JREF Kid Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,017

31st January 2005, 03:06 PM	#17
ZeeGerman Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Just far enough from Detroit that it's OK Posts: 784	Quote: Originally posted by Number Six Well it's reported as fact on that website so while we can be skeptical of the source (as we should be with all sources), the fact that the article states it as having occurred makes people think that it has occurred. I first saw the article on a message board in the context of "Ha, ha, those Europeans are doing crazy things again" and I thought it might not be strictly true but I can't go back and say "Hey, some European guy on another message board said it's not true" so I'd like to have a website to send them to refuting the article. So read the TAZ article. It's a hypothetical discussion, nothing more. And why would anyone care to refute everything stupid the telegraph pulls out of its arse? Zee
	__________________ Wenn die Katze ein Pferd wäre, könnte man die Bäume raufreiten. Afta ol, ve arr frrom ze lend of tschoklet (The Simpsons "Das Kraftwerk")

31st January 2005, 03:16 PM	#18
Number Six JREF Kid Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,017	Quote: Originally posted by ZeeGerman So read the TAZ article. It's a hypothetical discussion, nothing more. And why would anyone care to refute everything stupid the telegraph pulls out of its arse? Zee I'm talking about a message board in the USA, where telling them to read the TAZ article isn't an option since they can't read German and telling them the article is wrong because it's the Telegraph isn't an option because they don't know anything about the Telegraph.
Number Six JREF Kid Join Date: Sep 2001 Posts: 5,017

31st January 2005, 03:27 PM	#19
hgc Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 13,028	Quote: Originally posted by Number Six Well it's reported as fact on that website so while we can be skeptical of the source (as we should be with all sources), the fact that the article states it as having occurred makes people think that it has occurred. I first saw the article on a message board in the context of "Ha, ha, those Europeans are doing crazy things again" and I thought it might not be strictly true but I can't go back and say "Hey, some European guy on another message board said it's not true" so I'd like to have a website to send them to refuting the article. Sometimes you just have to resort to common sense. Yes, skepticism allows for it (at least my brand of skepticism does). Az ZG says, it's easy to see how the consequence of combination of 2 unrelated laws could lead to this conumdrum. Now who really believes that anyone in Germany will ever lose their unemployment benefits because they refuse to work as a prostitute, despite what appears on The Telegragh website? Raise your hands.
	__________________ Bowel-shaking earthquakes of doubt and remorse assail him and wail him with monster truck force. - Cake, The Distance Was there a second singer on the grassy Knowles? - Stephen Colbert

31st January 2005, 04:25 PM	#20
Ian Osborne JREF Kid Tagger Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Wiltshire Posts: 6,383	Quote: Originally posted by hgc It's easy to see how the consequence of combination of 2 unrelated laws could lead to this conumdrum. Now who really believes that anyone in Germany will ever lose their unemployment benefits because they refuse to work as a prostitute, despite what appears on The Telegragh website? Raise your hands. A similar conundrum arose in the UK a few years back, when the Government closed the dedicated military recruitment offices and made the armed forces advertise in job centres instead. As we also demand the unemployed take any job they're capable of doing, some commentators pointed out we'd reintroduced conscription by the back door. And yet, I don't recall a single case of someone losing benefits for refusing to enlist, and I doubt there ever has been such a case.
	__________________ "Faith without doubt leads to moral arrogance, the eternal pratfall of the religiously convinced" - Joe Klein, Time magazine "The fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." - Carl Sagan

31st January 2005, 07:58 PM	#21
Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Behind the chessboard Posts: 18,361	Yes that's the original article and it's talking about a hypothetical scenario that might happen because of a new legislation and seems to have a strong agenda against it. That seems to be the case, indeed. All the article is saying is: "there are now two laws on the books (unemployment and legalized prostitution) which, in this hypothetical scenario, would lead to an absurd result". This is hardly surprising or odd. Laws are made by human beings; the lawbooks are not some logically consistent complete body covering all possible scenarios, but a collection of more or less ad hoc decisions. That there are two laws who are in conflict in some situations is almost guaranteed for any country whose laws are not completely elemenrtary. Such contradictions are resolved in various ways, but it's obvious that however resolved in this case, it is inconcievable that women will be in fact forced to work as prostitutes. Most likely, the law will simply be amended to allow women to refuse working in brothels without any penalty. By the way, such contradictions are at least as old as Plato: for instance, if it is good to help our friends and it is also good to keep our promises, what if our friend comes and demands the knife he loaned us when he is not in his right mind? Either way you'd have to break the (moral) law. This is not the place for a deep discussion of that particular socratic dialogue (in the REPUBLIC), but we can all be glad a reporter wasn't around to record it, or no doubt we would be treated to a headline saying NEW GREEK MORALITY FORCES MEN NOT TO KEEP THEIR PROMISES, or NEW GREEK MORALITY FORCES MEN TO GIVE KNIVES TO INSANE PEOPLE, depending on which horn of the dilemma poor Cephalus, Socrates' antagonist in this case, had chosen.

1st February 2005, 03:25 AM	#22
Ladewig Hipster alien Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: not measurable Posts: 16,828	How hard would it be to convince a unemployment benefits clerk that you were not qualified for a job in a brothel? How hard would it be to fail a job interview at a brothel?
	__________________ Is the JREF message board training wheels for people who hope to one day troll other message boards? It is not that hard to get us to believe you. We are not the major leagues or even the minor leagues. We are Pee-Wee baseball. If you love striking out 10-year-olds, then you'll love trolling our board.

1st February 2005, 04:02 AM	#23
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,602	Quote: Originally posted by AWPrime I think, I found the original german article: http://www.taz.de/pt/2004/12/18/a0077.nf/text Fine, thanks! What it is about (as some have already said), is that because of legislation making prostitution a legal trade, hypothetically, an unemployed person (most likely a woman ) could be referred to work as a prostitute. However, since other laws say that you cannot be forced to have sex against your will, this is really moot, and I suspect the article is somewhat tongue-in-cheek (this is difficult to judge since German humor is ...... well, different). Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

1st February 2005, 05:29 AM	#24
ZeeGerman Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Just far enough from Detroit that it's OK Posts: 784	Quote: Originally posted by MRC_Hans Fine, thanks! What it is about (as some have already said), is that because of legislation making prostitution a legal trade, hypothetically, an unemployed person (most likely a woman ) could be referred to work as a prostitute. However, since other laws say that you cannot be forced to have sex against your will, this is really moot, and I suspect the article is somewhat tongue-in-cheek (this is difficult to judge since German humor is ...... well, different). Hans Well, the article is from the TAZ by all means. the paper is so far to the left, it would (figuratively) thrown on the US publication map land far west of Hawaii. They definitely have some beef with the current cuts made to the social net and the article fits to that agenda. Zee
	__________________ Wenn die Katze ein Pferd wäre, könnte man die Bäume raufreiten. Afta ol, ve arr frrom ze lend of tschoklet (The Simpsons "Das Kraftwerk")

1st February 2005, 05:55 AM	#25
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	Quote: Originally posted by hgc Sometimes you just have to resort to common sense. Yes, skepticism allows for it (at least my brand of skepticism does). Az ZG says, it's easy to see how the consequence of combination of 2 unrelated laws could lead to this conumdrum. Now who really believes that anyone in Germany will ever lose their unemployment benefits because they refuse to work as a prostitute, despite what appears on The Telegragh website? Raise your hands. (hand goes up) You appear to be making a judgement about prostitution that suggests that there is something wrong with it and people would understand someone not taking such a job. If that is true, why was it legalized?
Ed god Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 8,691	__________________ "The history of science is the record of dead religions" Phrases And Philosophies For The Use Of The Young Oscar Wilde (1854-1900) Our Guarentee: One obscure (or not) Python reference per day.

1st February 2005, 06:36 AM	#26
ZeeGerman Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Just far enough from Detroit that it's OK Posts: 784	Quote: Originally posted by Ed (hand goes up) You appear to be making a judgement about prostitution that suggests that there is something wrong with it and people would understand someone not taking such a job. If that is true, why was it legalized? Heading in a false dilemma. Not everything that is legalized has to be acceptable to everybody. And yes, people will understand. That's the way it works over here. As Hans pointed out, the hypothetical scenario would be in clear breach with other laws. So, it''s not gonna happen. You can take our word for it or not, its a non issue.. Zee
	__________________ Wenn die Katze ein Pferd wäre, könnte man die Bäume raufreiten. Afta ol, ve arr frrom ze lend of tschoklet (The Simpsons "Das Kraftwerk")

1st February 2005, 06:54 AM	#27
DivaLasVegas Scholar Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: at the end of the sauerkrautchain Posts: 50	Quote: Originally posted by SwissSkeptic Yes that's the original article and it's talking about a hypothetical scenario that might happen because of a new legislation and seems to have a strong agenda against it. As far as I understand it no particular person had to make a choice to work as a prostitute or else to lose benefits. But maybe some of the German posters here can clear things up... Hi @ all when i first read the threadopener i thought * oh me good god* anti german propaganda at the jref* gg As i am german i have just read the article and it is in fact true, that germans out of work COULD be made to take any job, no matter what. That has to do with the new legislation Harz IIII. It has been known here that germans on benefit ( 68% of there income) are just not willing to take ANY job on that does not pay more than there benefit. This benefit will be paid in full for 1 year only. After that the new Harz IIII legislation will make them take either a job of there own choice or they will HAVE to take a 1 Euro Job to get there benefit paid. Meaning to get benefit they are made to work for an extra Euro per hour ( max. approx. 150â‚¬ a month) and get there benefit paid on top. I find this a good idea....especially as we have a never ending supply of people who parade there butt on talkshows and brag that they are not working because the benefit is to GOOD shock horror But in the end i hope this new rule, on taking jobs in a brothel, also applies to men, hihi Any spelling mistakes are my property but you may keep them as a gift g

1st February 2005, 06:59 AM	#28
MRC_Hans Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Whithin earshot of the North Sea Posts: 16,602	Welcome from lurk-land DLV ! Good to see you as we are rather short on Germans here. You can keep your spelling errors, however, as I'm quite capable of making my own (and so are most others here, heheh). Hans
	__________________ Don't. Just don't.

1st February 2005, 07:01 AM	#29
DivaLasVegas Scholar Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: at the end of the sauerkrautchain Posts: 50	Quote: Originally posted by MRC_Hans Welcome from lurk-land DLV ! Good to see you as we are rather short on Germans here. You can keep your spelling errors, however, as I'm quite capable of making my own (and so are most others here, heheh). Hans Thank you, kind Sir ! I`am very happy to be here with you all and i am looking forward to some good discussions.
	__________________ Any spellingmistakes are my own property, but you may keep them as a gift ! :-) Schizophrenia is better than eating alone g

1st February 2005, 07:01 AM	#30
ZeeGerman Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Just far enough from Detroit that it's OK Posts: 784	Quote: Originally posted by DivaLasVegas Hi @ all when i first read the threadopener i thought * oh me good god* anti german propaganda at the jref* gg As i am german i have just read the article and it is in fact true, that germans out of work COULD be made to take any job, no matter what. That has to do with the new legislation Harz IIII. It has been known here that germans on benefit ( 68% of there income) are just not willing to take ANY job on that does not pay more than there benefit. This benefit will be paid in full for 1 year only. After that the new Harz IIII legislation will make them take either a job of there own choice or they will HAVE to take a 1 Euro Job to get there benefit paid. Meaning to get benefit they are made to work for an extra Euro per hour ( max. approx. 150â‚¬ a month) and get there benefit paid on top. I find this a good idea....especially as we have a never ending supply of people who parade there butt on talkshows and brag that they are not working because the benefit is to GOOD shock horror But in the end i hope this new rule, on taking jobs in a brothel, also applies to men, hihi Any spelling mistakes are my property but you may keep them as a gift g Wow, a german skepchick. That'll be the first here. Willkommen und viel SpaÃŸ. Schnee in Bielefeld? Zee
	__________________ Wenn die Katze ein Pferd wäre, könnte man die Bäume raufreiten. Afta ol, ve arr frrom ze lend of tschoklet (The Simpsons "Das Kraftwerk")

1st February 2005, 07:07 AM	#31
DivaLasVegas Scholar Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: at the end of the sauerkrautchain Posts: 50	Quote: Originally posted by ZeeGerman Wow, a german skepchick. That'll be the first here. Willkommen und viel SpaÃŸ. Schnee in Bielefeld? Zee Thanks for the welcome ! Leider nein :-( Regen Regen Regen Ã¤chtz
	__________________ Any spellingmistakes are my own property, but you may keep them as a gift ! :-) Schizophrenia is better than eating alone g

1st February 2005, 07:45 AM	#32
Graculus Scholar Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 88	Quote: Originally posted by ZeeGerman Well, the article is from the TAZ by all means. the paper is so far to the left, it would (figuratively) thrown on the US publication map land far west of Hawaii. They definitely have some beef with the current cuts made to the social net and the article fits to that agenda. Zee So, we have a far left wing paper examining a hypothetical, and a mainstream right paper (the Telegraph) presenting it as truth. Hmmmm.....
Graculus Scholar Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 88

1st February 2005, 09:21 AM	#33
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,398	Quote: Originally posted by username Yes, but: As to A, the reasons brothels don't register job openings with the unemployment office could change. The article says at least one brothel has registered positions with the UE office. Yes, they could change. Which is why it was necessary to mention the B, part. As to the one brothel registering position that's according to the unsupported article we're just now picking apart. Quote: As to B, it would seem that the UE office worker could get fired after the UE office was sued by the brothel for allowing the unemployed person to opt out of the employment when they cannot opt out for other employment opportunities. I think you fail to realize that in most of Europe courts judge on the intent of a law, rather than the letter. Besides even the letter of the law isn't to ensure employers get a chance at every UE person, but to ensure that someone who simply refuses all job offers doesn't get benefits. Quote: I can totally accept that this is a hypothetical scenario, but hypothetical doesn't mean it cannot happen. Indeed the Telegraph article states it has happened. Whether or not the woman will lose her benefits is not yet certain. I am not familiar with the Telegraph, one person said it is a right wing propaganda paper. That could be the case, I don't know. Regardless, the bias of the source doesn't seem relevant as long as the facts presented are accurate. Hypothetical doesn't mean it cannot happen, no, but considering A and B (again) it's not bloody likely. I never mentioned the bias of the source, what I looked at was the facts. And they don't pan out. You really think a case like this wouldn't make news in Germany, and in the rest of Europe? A search on the woman's name turned up just one hit, the Telegraph article. Whether the Telegraph is biased or not these facts seem to be from the reporters imagination.
bjornart Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 2,398	__________________ Well, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU LIKE TO BELIEVE, GODDAMMIT! I DEAL IN THE FACTS! -Cecil Adams

1st February 2005, 09:49 AM	#34
DivaLasVegas Scholar Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: at the end of the sauerkrautchain Posts: 50	@ Bjornart You are right of course and i can confirm as of yet, this has not happened here. There would be such an outcry that you could hear the screams at the JREF
	__________________ Any spellingmistakes are my own property, but you may keep them as a gift ! :-) Schizophrenia is better than eating alone g

1st February 2005, 11:17 AM	#35
Beerina Sarcastic Conqueror of Notions Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: A floating island above the clouds Posts: 23,835	Re: Re: Germans must work as prostitutes? Quote: Originally posted by Darat The logic seems pretty sound to me. The state makes a benefit available to unemployed people, one of the conditions is that you must be willing to take any job you are suitable for... Do I think this is right or wrong? Well I donâ€™t think the â€œsex industryâ€ is â€œwrongâ€ so no problems on those grounds. I think it would be wrong if the state was in effect saying â€œyou must have sexâ€ however I think there is a way out of that particular dilemma. Consider that is the fact that we legislate that a â€œsexual actâ€ must be consensual else it is a criminal offence. Therefore no one can be forced by the state to undertake a sexual act, whether the sex industry is legal or not. Well, should an unemployed heterosexual male be forced to become a gay gigilo should a job opportunity open up? After all, in our sexuality-neutral society, well, it's not so bad. The John mostly just wants to suck your c**k for awhile. Then again, I thought in Europe you didn't have to take any job, just one that's similar to your established career. There's nothing like prostitution except prostitution, although a Vegas showgirl might have a tough time arguing that to a judge. On the gripping hand, everything is like prostitution in that you're selling efforts by your body to your customer.
	__________________ "Great innovations should not be forced [by way of] slender majorities." - Thomas Jefferson The government should nationalize it! Socialized, single-payer video game development and sales *now!* More, cheaper, better games, right? Right?