Trump supporters gather outside courthouse and ask: Who among us hasn’t paid for sex?

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.

tootoughtoremember,

Sex work is work. And if it’s work, there are customers.

There’s probably a long list of reasons to criticize these Trump supporters, including not understanding what this case in particular is about, but being customers of sex work ain’t it.

Demonizing customers of sex work maintains the taboo and hurts the movement to legitimize, legalize, regulate, and provide normal employment benefits to sex work.

Emerald,

If conservatives really don’t like sex work because it is exploitative, they should want capitalism eradicated. It kinda shows the real reason they actually don’t like sex work.

tootoughtoremember,

Conservatives don’t like sex work because it ruins the “wife will submit to her husband” power dynamic around sex they were taught is the norm.

Sex work being illegal, and as a result inherently ripe for exploitation, is the feature not a bug to conservatives.

AromaticNeo,

deleted_by_author

    •
    chiliedogg,

    But it’s also about “weirdos” who admit to paying for sex.

    cosmicrookie,
    @cosmicrookie@lemmy.world avatar

    Wait! Is prostitution legal in the US?

    tootoughtoremember,

    Only in Nevada, in the form of brothels. And they only operate in a handful of counties.

    UnderpantsWeevil,
    @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

    Conservatives love to hate on sex workers, particularly when they are migrants or POC or (God help us all) LGBT.

    Demonizing customers of sex work maintains the taboo and hurts the movemen

    The prevailing view of Republicans in this moment is that Stormy Daniels is trying to extort Trump for more money and using the NY Southern District as leverage.

    Far from demonizing customers, this view holds the client up as a victim and the sex worker as some kind of intrusive parasite who has failed to know her place.

    tootoughtoremember, (edited )

    Totally agree with you. But this:

    this view holds the client up as a victim and the sex worker as some kind of intrusive parasite who has failed to know her place.

    Is because their golden god can do no wrong. That every law he broke was somehow not his fault, and clearly the fault of the accuser or corrupt prosecutors. They will shift the focus away from an argument they can’t win, campaign funds being used for non-campaign purposes, to anything they can get the base whipped up about.

    But my complaint isn’t even about that. My problem is that this article demonizes these Trump supporters for one wrong reason. That characterizing customers of sex work as weirdos for admitting it, regardless of their presidential candidate of choice, hurts the effort to legitimize sex work. There’s a lot of fish in the barrel of criticism for this group, no need for the author and OP to support a conservative anti-sex work narrative at the same time.

    UnderpantsWeevil,
    @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

    Is because their golden god can do no wrong.

    I think its a more broad understanding of sex workers as disposable playthings.

    My problem is that this article demonizes these Trump supporters for one wrong reason. That characterizing customers of sex work as weirdos for admitting it, regardless of their presidential candidate of choice, hurts the effort to legitimize sex work.

    There’s a general generic insult in modern media that boils down to “you’re fat and ugly and nobody wants to fuck you”. And the anti-Trumpers latch on to people visiting sex workers as an opportunity to hurl out this age-old insult. If this was an article about a movie star or popular musician admitting to patroning sex workers, I doubt the criticisms would match.

    melpomenesclevage,

    yeah. I’m not opposed to giving them the wall, but I’m a little opposed to slut shaming them.

    p5yk0t1km1r4ge,
    @p5yk0t1km1r4ge@lemmy.world avatar

    I read this in Jordan Kleppers voice. Man, you can’t make this shit up, it just writes itself lmao

    Erasmus,
    @Erasmus@lemmy.world avatar

    Ah yes - the party of the Christian church isn’t it? 😂

    UnderpantsWeevil,
    @UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world avatar

    Nonsense. In Christ’s church you don’t pay for sex. You just molest an alter boy, as God intended.

    Kolanaki,
    @Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

    🙋‍♂️

    I’ve only been paid for sex, never paid for it myself.

    capem, (edited )

    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.

    ripcord,
    @ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

    This is such an unhealthy take.

    Sorry, man

    capem,

    It’s just reality.

    ripcord,
    @ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

    Yeah, sorry to hear that for you

    capem,

    It’s reality for all of us.

    People here like to ignore hard truths, though.

    ripcord,
    @ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

    It’s really not.

    I mean, it’s two things, really. I’m sorry to hear that “females” in your life are all that shallow. I mean, not going to say that many people don’t like being treated or etc, but I never really dated women who cared about that stuff much, personally. But second, treating dating so transactionally is, well, a shame.

    capem,

    We’re just going to have to disagree on this.

    ripcord,
    @ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

    Probably we just have had different experiences.

    Which is why I was saying sorry

    whostosay,

    To be more fair, it’s irrelevant to the case that he paid for sex.

    ripcord,
    @ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

    Not irrelevant, but it’s not the illegal thing he’s on trial for.

    ThatWeirdGuy1001, (edited )
    @ThatWeirdGuy1001@lemmy.world avatar

    Your point would’ve been better recepted if you wouldn’t have said females.

    BreakDecks,

    Nah, it was sexist already without the dehumanizing language.

    capem,

    Nothing that I said was sexist.

    Can you point out what I said that wasn’t true?

    BreakDecks,

    Buddy, you call women “females”. That alone is a gigantic red flag that you don’t respect women. Nobody that respects women talks like that. Women certainly notice shit like that when they’re considering whether or not a man is worth their time and energy.

    As for your insistence that I prove you wrong, let’s just say that I have no doubt that you’re telling the truth when you say that women won’t sleep with you organically. Everything else is just an extremely toxic expression of opinion that doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously by anyone who knows better.

    You might want to self-reflect on the way you feel about women and consider why so many people here aren’t seeing things the way you do. Nothing about what you said rings true to me, because I’ve always treated women like they are human beings who exist for reasons other than fulfilling my sexual desires. That mentality has gotten me a lot farther than your attitude seems to have gotten you.

    capem, (edited )

    Nobody that respects women talks like that.

    Wrong, but ok.

    let’s just say that I have no doubt that you’re telling the truth when you say that women won’t sleep with you organically.

    I never said that. You must not be able to comprehend English like the other guy who claimed I said it was “required.”

    I specifically said: “Buying dinner, gifts, paying for events, etc. All of that is what makes men more attractive in the eyes of females” which is true.

    You’re arguing against what I’m not saying and getting mad at me for it, lol.

    You might want to self-reflect on the way you feel about women and consider why so many people here aren’t seeing things the way you do.

    Well: you and the other guy are showing me you can’t read well, the snowball effect is very prevalent on these forums, and many of you people just ignore facts you don’t like or pretend they don’t make sense.

    Are you familiar with argumentum ad populum? You should come across it when you go to college.

    BreakDecks,

    I specifically said: “Buying dinner, gifts, paying for events, etc. All of that is what makes men more attractive in the eyes of females” which is true.

    That might true for you if “Buying dinner, gifts, paying for events, etc.” is the bulk of what you can offer a woman you are interested in. The fact that you use derogatory language to make this point leads credibility to that theory in relation to you.

    Are you familiar with argumentum ad populum? You should come across it when you go to college.

    Good lord, just shut up. Your entire point here is just an anecdotal fallacy in that you think your personal experiences with women constitute a universal truth about women. What I’m telling you isn’t that my point of view is right because people agree with me - I’m telling you that if you smell shit everywhere you go, to check your shoes.

    capem,

    and many of you people just ignore facts you don’t like or pretend they don’t make sense.

    Thanks for proving my point.

    Medium “articles” are just blogs, by the way.

    I’m telling you that if you smell shit everywhere you go, to check your shoes.

    Or maybe grow up and see things for what they really are. Money runs the world, sweetie.

    You’re just trying to attack me personally because I’m saying things you do not like. It’s better to be ignorant than to accept hard truths, in your mind.

    hydroptic,

    “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”

    capem,

    Can you point out what I said that wasn’t true?

    ButtCheekOnAStick,

    If you think that sex even requires buying gifts, or that buying gifts makes men more “attractive”, you’re delusional.

    capem,

    It doesn’t “require” it.

    All of that is what makes men more attractive in the eyes of females.

    Brush up on your reading comprehension.

    BreakDecks,

    To be fair, if you have an extremely toxic personality that no woman seeking a desirable partner would tolerate, it’s probably easier to court less serious women with gifts in a bid for transactional sex.

    As for the “females” bit, sure, women are females, but so is my dog, and she’s literally a removed (lol at my instance censoring me for saying this).

    So if you can’t muster humanizing language like “woman”, and instead cling to sterile and human-nonspecific language like “females”, you aren’t wrong, you’re just an asshole.

    But yes, this guy absolutely is delusional if he thinks this is the way of the world.

    AttackMuffin,

    I hope you can find yourself a healthy relationship one of these days pal.

    Sam_Bass,

    That statement alone tells you all you need to know about his people

    ivanafterall,
    ivanafterall avatar

    If they're paying for it, they're not following his advice, which is to take it by force.

    n0m4n,

    Melania pays and pays and pays…

    ripcord,
    @ripcord@lemmy.world avatar

    Like, she is paying some dude on the side and you’re implying she does it all the time, or…?

    n0m4n,

    She is married to Donald. Every day of her life, she pays.

    WhiskyTangoFoxtrot,

    I really don’t care, do U?

    Daft_ish,

    Ok but like we know you already have the incel vote on lock down.

    Ioughttamow,

    This, isn’t the onion?

    FiniteBanjo,

    I had the same reaction last week when a bunch of GOP reps starting speaking in tongues on the floor.

    harrys_balzac,

    That made my physically ill when I read about it. That’s some serious theatrics and/or mental illness.

    CileTheSane,
    @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

    Satire is dead, reality killed it.

    echodot,

    Most countries remove their moron politicians. The United States just allows them to remain president until the end of term.

    CileTheSane,
    @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca avatar

    3rd world countries like the US have all sorts of backwards politics.

    DudeImMacGyver,

    Me, I haven’t.

    crusa187,

    Chud Life Baby 😎

    Yes, let’s legalize and give protections to all the sex workers.

    Chuds: No, not like that!!

    DarkGamer,
    DarkGamer avatar

    Trump, champion and hero to the lowest common denominator

    YurkshireLad,

    The fact that the article leads with “SKETCH” makes me think it’s satire.

    MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown,

    TIL “sketch” has an additional meaning in UK English.

    Thanks!

    YurkshireLad,

    Is Skit the North American equivalent?

    MyTurtleSwimsUpsideDown,

    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.

    SquishyPandaDev,
    @SquishyPandaDev@yiffit.net avatar

    FFS he is not in trouble for paying for sex. He is in trouble for paying hush money using campaign funds. Good lord, conservatives are so brainwashed

    NABDad,

    Just like Clinton wasn’t in trouble for the blowjob. He was in trouble for lying about it under oath. But everyone who talks about it now says he got impeached for a blowjob.

    HubertManne,
    HubertManne avatar

    Exactly. He got impeached for lying about questioning unrelated to the investigation on him after the actual subject of the investigation bore no fruit.

    Asafum,

    It’s exactly why Republicans cried “purgery trap” when people wanted to have Trump testify as president. They knew what they did during the Clinton investigation and just assume Democrats would somehow “force” Trump to lie about something completely unrelated…

    The Clinton investigation was over real estate and somehow made it’s way over to blow jobs.

    disguy_ovahea, (edited )

    I just had this argument with a friend of mine. It’s even legal to pay someone to sign an NDA. The charges are “Falsifying business records in the first degree.”

    It’s not a “hush-money trial” it’s “criminal business fraud.”

    SkybreakerEngineer,

    Don’t forget election interference

    disguy_ovahea,

    That’s a separate trial in Georgia. He also has the classified documents case tried in Florida.

    ickplant,
    @ickplant@lemmy.world avatar

    The Stormy Daniels case is also about election interference. He interfered in the election by paying to conceal critical information that may have changed voters’ minds.

    disguy_ovahea,

    Where do you see that in the charges? I read through them all and didn’t see it.

    ickplant,
    @ickplant@lemmy.world avatar

    It’s not in the charges, it’s the nature of the case. This isn’t my opinion but that of legal expert from the podcast Legal Scrutiny. And they know their shit.

    disguy_ovahea,

    I could see conviction in this case being used as evidence in the election fraud trial, but he’s not being tried by a federal prosecutor. It’s a criminal trail brought up by the State of NY.

    the_crotch,

    I mean, this is right out of the liberal playbook. They’ve been screaming for 30 years that Clinton was impeached for a blowjob. He wasn’t. He was impeached for purjury, trying to cover up the blowjob. Same shit different party.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • news@lemmy.world
  • PowerRangers
  • DreamBathrooms
  • mdbf
  • magazineikmin
  • khanakhh
  • Youngstown
  • everett
  • slotface
  • tacticalgear
  • rosin
  • thenastyranch
  • kavyap
  • tsrsr
  • ethstaker
  • Leos
  • vwfavf
  • GTA5RPClips
  • Durango
  • osvaldo12
  • cisconetworking
  • hgfsjryuu7
  • InstantRegret
  • cubers
  • modclub
  • normalnudes
  • ngwrru68w68
  • tester
  • anitta
  • All magazines
    •