UTMC

Ok, so I wasn't sure if this should be in politics or what...

But it is pretty interesting.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... germ30.xml

article wrote:any woman under 55 who has been out of work for more than a year can be forced to take an available job – including in the sex industry – or lose her unemployment benefit.

I don't see the problem with working as a prostitute in a country where it's legal, supervised, and maintained. As far as complaining about the "morality" of being contacted, I think I'd be more inclined to buy that if they continued to contact her after she'd initially declined. Cut off the government cheese for a couple of weeks and let's see how far those moral arguments go. 'Sides, how bad could German sex be? In, out, repeat if needed. Nothing like efficiency!

Well, that article wasn't entirely correct. Prostitution has been legal for quite a while, but is still considered to be immoral by law.
The law change in 2002 only part-legalised the "promotion of prostitution", e.g. pimping, but under strict guidelines, and gave extended legal rights to both prostitues and their customers.
And they could, in theory, force her to work in a brothel or strip-club - just not as a prostitute or stripper. The right to sexual self-determination is taken quite seriously, any court would immediately side with her on the issue if the employment agency people wanted her to do any other job than bartender or maid.

Thank you for the hometown perspective, DerGolgo.

So it seems to hinge on this one attorney's contention that the law no longer considers providing direct services to be immoral.

I would like to see footnotes on this statement, be it from Merchthild Garweg or the text of the law.

Article wrote:The government had considered making brothels an exception on moral grounds, but decided that it would be too difficult to distinguish them from bars. As a result, job centres must treat employers looking for a prostitute in the same way as those looking for a dental nurse.

I'm guessing it's in the fact that "looking for" and "hiring" are still held separate? You must allow yourself to be interviewed, but you can't be required to take the job (before benefits are at risk)?

All in all, just curious. Personally I consider all highly skilled artisans to be of great societal value, but I can't imagine a democratic state compelling someone into sexual service.

Then again, I find it hard to understand criminalizing sexual services.

I'm sooo damned cornfused.

^ Sorry ^
I'm with stupid.

Anonymous wrote:
I'm guessing it's in the fact that "looking for" and "hiring" are still held separate? You must allow yourself to be interviewed, but you can't be required to take the job (before benefits are at risk)?

Well, now they can require you to take a job. Of course, cou can refuse, but then you loose a substantial part of your welfare. Any second refusal means you loose welfare period, and all you get are a roof over your head and food vouchers.

Allowing people to deny work on moral grounds could get dicey. There is no shortage of companies with morally questionable business practices. Should someone collect welfare when Wal-mart is willing to hire them? Or General Electric?

Rabbit_Fighter wrote:Allowing people to deny work on moral grounds could get dicey. There is no shortage of companies with morally questionable business practices. Should someone collect welfare when Wal-mart is willing to hire them? Or General Electric?

I guess the question is: Is doing something directly objectionable, like spreading 'em for some pasty office clerk, or is your employer doing something objectionable while you yourself work as an office clerk so you can afford to pay some chick to spread 'em for you.

I am, of course, referring to a one of the non-humping positions offered by these fine employers.

Rabbit_Fighter wrote:I am, of course, referring to a one of the non-humping positions offered by these fine employers.

All bosses fuck their employees... the only real issue is wether or not they actualy use a phalic object.

I'm moving to Germany.

Delphia wrote: All bosses fuck their employees... the only real issue is wether or not they actualy use a phalic object.

I beg to differ! All bosses fuck their employees alright, but not all bosses let their customers fuck their employees!

And there are many more reasons why a young lady could and should refuse to take a job as a whore:
- It's a high risk work environment. Think about rape, AIDS, greedy pimps, thugs and all that.
- It's still a job of low social standing. Chances to get a real job afterwards are pretty slim should only one employer find out about her previous work. Honestly, would you hire an ex-prostitute for a job as "IT professional"?
- In some more backward areas of Germany she'll even have problems to get a lease. Hell, some landlords don't accept students or same sex couples in their houses, so guess what they do with a prostitute?
- After all it's nothing but a waste of time! Time she could use to sample real job experience in her field of expertise.
- Emploers are looking for lots of those clever little Indians, since in Germany we don't have enough IT people. Why can't the dept for employment find an IT job for her?

Maybe she's just too damn ugly for even the IT nerds. She'll have to find a construction job if the pasty-positions don't work out for her.