NationStates Jolt Archive

The argument has often been that we should legalize prostitution to better protect women in the industry and, I'll admit, I sort of went along with that idea along the lines of 'it's a necessary evil'.

Yet does legalizing prostitution simply de-stigmatize it and therefore increase the amount of men likely to think 'it's not really that bad' and therefore increase the industry as a whole.

Is it a fundamentally bad thing, should it be criminalized further or less?

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2164107,00.html)

Well if it's legalized it should be run by the public sector as a company, or if private companies want to it must be heavily regulated and over viewed. That way you can at least start to move prostitution out of the scene with violence, drugs and the underground etc, after all sex is not a crime if both are consenting adults.

As distasteful as it might be, there is fundamentally no real reason that I can see for prostitution to be illegal... in some cultures, such as ancient Rome prostitution was not only legal, but common.

As distasteful as it might be, there is fundamentally no real reason that I can see for prostitution to be illegal... in some cultures, such as ancient Rome prostitution was not only legal, but common.

Doesn't make it right - the question is whether anyone 'chooses' to be a prostitute.

One real problem is that your job is over around 40, or at least you're lowering and lowering your price just to get a trick. There's no welfare, pension plan or likelihood of savings either.

I just can't see any justification for legalizing it anymore - it's simply degrading.

the less illegal it is the less likely it will be that young girls get conned into the lifestyle..Nevada brothels aren't perfect but are a lot better than what you find in most places where it is illegal.

I remember hearing that wearing a short skirt was essentially asking to be raped.

That's how ridiculous the idea that prostitutes ask to be raped is.

If you outlaw prostitution, only outlaws will be prostitutes.

:p

You ban prostitution, you ban porn.

Two consenting adults, no payment = legal.
Two consenting adults, payment = illegal.
Two consenting adults plus a camera and payment = legal.

My take on it is more of a, "Its their life choice" kind of thing. Perhaps if it was legalized, it would be more beneficial than just getting rid of the crime associated with it. It could be regulated and controlled and then perhaps such things as pension plans, insurance, and welfare would be available to them either through prostitution companies, or governments; and on another bright side might do something to halt the spread of venereal diseases because I'm near certain that regular medical screenings would be necessary.

the less illegal it is the less likely it will be that young girls get conned into the lifestyle..Nevada brothels aren't perfect but are a lot better than what you find in most places where it is illegal.

I just think that, unlike drugs, prostitution can be stigmatised because, unlike drugs, deep down we all know it's wrong. It should be stigmatized, it should be made to be a shameful thing but instead it's glorified in society as an okay reality. There's stripper bars and pornography and underneath this 'light' prostitution, worse is allowed to occur.

All the excuses I hear for prostitution simply seem hollow and essentially boil down to 'it's okay for men to treat women as objects', something that filters up through society and affects our judgment in all manner of areas.

If you outlaw prostitution, only outlaws will be prostitutes.

:p

The philosophy of the Sphinx!

I just think that, unlike drugs, prostitution can be stigmatised because, unlike drugs, deep down we all know it's wrong. It should be stigmatized, it should be made to be a shameful thing but instead it's glorified in society as an okay reality. There's stripper bars and pornography and underneath this 'light' prostitution, worse is allowed to occur.

All the excuses I hear for prostitution simply seem hollow and essentially boil down to 'it's okay for men to treat women as objects', something that filters up through society and affects our judgment in all manner of areas.
1. Men can be prostitutes too
2. A person should be able to do whatever they want with their own body, even if that includes renting it to another person for sex.
3. There's nothing inherantly wrong with prostitution. As long as the sellers have the right to refuse service and the parties involved can be assured some measure of safety from diseases, this should be fine.

I just think that, unlike drugs, prostitution can be stigmatised because, unlike drugs, deep down we all know it's wrong.
No more than "we all" know "deep down" that gay marriages are wrong.

I don't presume that I know better than the prostitute or the client. They can do whatever they want. Whatever negative stigma is attached to it is cultural (and as such already tainted with all sorts of religious ideas of morality and pleasure being bad).

1. Men can be prostitutes too
2. A person should be able to do whatever they want with their own body, even if that includes renting it to another person for sex.

This is the bit I can't disagree with - I was thinking of moderating to ban pimping as opposed to the prostitution itself - yet I still have issues with it as an industry and the fact that it's a too easy yet ultimately destructive act.

There's a film about a New York cab driver who got to know and interviewed prostitutes over 20 years because he so often found himself driving clients to a particular street. You watched 18 year olds who were 'just doing it to get by for now' become 38 year olds with broken teeth, on drugs, no self-esteem - just horrendous.

If you look at prostitution as a single act, it doesn't seem so bad, yet if you look at it as a life of self-destruction and abuse, you simply can't defend it.

the less illegal it is the less likely it will be that young girls get conned into the lifestyle..Nevada brothels aren't perfect but are a lot better than what you find in most places where it is illegal.

Legality doesn't work because the laws are still skewed heavily against the women involved, enforcement is a joke, and discrimination against their profession by other services is almost encouraged.

Making it legal doesn't protect anyone but the pimps.

No more than "we all" know "deep down" that gay marriages are wrong.

Yet gay marriage doesn't lead to a life of misery, quite the opposite I'd guess so no, it's not the same at all.

I don't presume that I know better than the prostitute or the client. They can do whatever they want. Whatever negative stigma is attached to it is cultural (and as such already tainted with all sorts of religious ideas of morality and pleasure being bad).

It's not the act, it's the consequences - I'd liken it to heroin, which, most tragically, is often the end-game for most prostitutes as well.

Yay for whores! I'm in that whole boat of, "Let 'em do it if they wanna, it's there life." Whose to say it's wrong? You don't like it, then don't get involved.

I just think that, unlike drugs, prostitution can be stigmatised because, unlike drugs, deep down we all know it's wrong. It should be stigmatized, it should be made to be a shameful thing but instead it's glorified in society as an okay reality. There's stripper bars and pornography and underneath this 'light' prostitution, worse is allowed to occur.

All the excuses I hear for prostitution simply seem hollow and essentially boil down to 'it's okay for men to treat women as objects', something that filters up through society and affects our judgment in all manner of areas.



The philosophy of the Sphinx!

It is only because prostitution is ILLEGAL that people think it is OK to treat prostitutes as objects. If it were legal, if prostitution were an honorable profession in the same way that therapy is, then prostitutes would be treated with respect.

Society has such twisted values in respect to sex that it is unlikely that prostitution will ever be legal. We see sex as dirty, something to be hidden and denied, rather than a natural part of life. It should NOT be a shameful thing, not be stigmatized. If only we could treat our own sexuality as a GOOD thing! Then prostitutes could be respected for the service they provide.

The argument has often been that we should legalize prostitution to better protect women in the industry and, I'll admit, I sort of went along with that idea along the lines of 'it's a necessary evil'.

Yet does legalizing prostitution simply de-stigmatize it and therefore increase the amount of men likely to think 'it's not really that bad' and therefore increase the industry as a whole.

Is it a fundamentally bad thing, should it be criminalized further or less?

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2164107,00.html)

Dating is a form of prostitution, even if women won't admit it. Look at it this way,in either case you pay for the services rendered, but with the hookers ( meaning the ones that don't expect dinner and a movie, long nights of listening to her horrendous nonsense, etc. ) at least, you can get the money transaction out of the way up front, and based on the long term save money. So basically I say less. In other countries where it is legal, sex crimes as compared to the U.S. are almost non entities.:cool:

It is only because prostitution is ILLEGAL that people think it is OK to treat prostitutes as objects. If it were legal, if prostitution were an honorable profession in the same way that therapy is, then prostitutes would be treated with respect.

Society has such twisted values in respect to sex that it is unlikely that prostitution will ever be legal. We see sex as dirty, something to be hidden and denied, rather than a natural part of life. It should NOT be a shameful thing, not be stigmatized. If only we could treat our own sexuality as a GOOD thing! Then prostitutes could be respected for the service they provide.

If you think making a living from selling your body for sex does anything for self-esteem you're wrong and I don't think that would change no matter how open society was about sex - it's not about other people thinking it's honorable, it's about how a prostitute sees him or herself in the long run and their value as a person.

It's an empty existence.

This is the bit I can't disagree with - I was thinking of moderating to ban pimping as opposed to the prostitution itself - yet I still have issues with it as an industry and the fact that it's a too easy yet ultimately destructive act.

There's a film about a New York cab driver who got to know and interviewed prostitutes over 20 years because he so often found himself driving clients to a particular street. You watched 18 year olds who were 'just doing it to get by for now' become 38 year olds with broken teeth, on drugs, no self-esteem - just horrendous.

If you look at prostitution as a single act, it doesn't seem so bad, yet if you look at it as a life of self-destruction and abuse, you simply can't defend it.
Ok, then how is that different than an 18 year old kid who just uses coke once in a while for fun who becomes a cokehead down the road?

Yet gay marriage doesn't lead to a life of misery, quite the opposite I'd guess so no, it's not the same at all.
If it led to a life of more misery than otherwise, people wouldn't choose to do it. The benefits obviously outweigh the cost for them.

Most prostitutes don't become prostitutes because it's their life-long dream. I understand and accept that. However, within that sentence also lies the reason you can't possibly want to outlaw it: they must be in a crappy situation and see prostitution as the best way out of it.

Extinguish prostitution and you take that option away from them, leaving them in a worse situation.

It's not the act, it's the consequences - I'd liken it to heroin, which, most tragically, is often the end-game for most prostitutes as well.
The consequences are not a given, but the result of choices. Someone mentioned Nevada (I'd recommend you watch the Love for Sale (http://www.veoh.com/tag.html?tag=love+for+sale&numResults=20&title=Tag%3a+love+for+sale&type=v) documentary series) - few of these ladies end up heroin addicts and serial rape victims.

Why? Because they're working within open, regulated and accepted businesses. Nothing is hidden, so they are free to make the best choices for them.

I'll just quickly quote JS Mill:
http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/m/mill/john_stuart/m645o/
That principle is, that the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection. That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinions of others, to do so would be wise, or even right. These are good reasons for remonstrating with him, or reasoning with him, or persuading him, or entreating him, but not for compelling him, or visiting him with any evil, in case he do otherwise. To justify that, the conduct from which it is desired to deter him must be calculated to produce evil to some one else. The only part of the conduct of any one, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

Dating is a form of prostitution, even if women won't admit it.
What about those of us who go dutch?

If it led to a life of more misery than otherwise, people wouldn't choose to do it. The benefits obviously outweigh the cost for them.

They have no way of measuring the costs as they enter - we don't for smoking either.

Most prostitutes don't become prostitutes because it's their life-long dream. I understand and accept that. However, within that sentence also lies the reason you can't possibly want to outlaw it: they must be in a crappy situation and see prostitution as the best way out of it.

Extinguish prostitution and you take that option away from them, leaving them in a worse situation.

This is my least favorite argument - there are other options and this trap is set because it seems the easiest in the short-term with no real appreciation of the long-term.

The consequences are not a given, but the result of choices. Someone mentioned Nevada (I'd recommend you watch the Love for Sale (http://www.veoh.com/tag.html?tag=love+for+sale&numResults=20&title=Tag%3a+love+for+sale&type=v) documentary series) - few of these ladies end up heroin addicts and serial rape victims.

Thanks - I'll look out for it, nothing I've seen or read leads me to believe that these would not be rare exceptions.

EDIT: Double thanks - I can watch online with that link

Why? Because they're working within open, regulated and accepted businesses. Nothing is hidden, so they are free to make the best choices for them.

I just smell promo video with agenda - did you read the article I posted?

They have no way of measuring the costs as they enter - we don't for smoking either.
Not exactly, but they do have a rough idea. And prostitution has been around for approximately 4000 years longer than smoking, so we have a better idea of the long-term effects.

This is my least favorite argument - there are other options and this trap is set because it seems the easiest in the short-term with no real appreciation of the long-term.
It's not a trap. Everyone involved wins, otherwise they wouldn't agree to it.

You're basically saying that these women are too stupid to think about the long term. I'd give them a bit more credit than that.

As JS Mill said, if you think someone is making a mistake you should argue with them, and give them alternatives or even pay them not to do it. But you shouldn't punish them if they don't follow your belief.

I just smell promo video with agenda - did you read the article I posted?
I have now. The documentary was made by a British lady for the BBC, so I'm not sure about the whole agenda thing. It might just be that she went to the better brothels.

The argument put forward in your article is just not very good. It says that because there are problems with some of the businesses and with the regulation, the whole thing should be driven underground again. To quote: "Once the people of Nevada learn of [prostitutes'] suffering and emotional distress, and their lack of human rights, they, like me, will be persuaded that legal prostitution is an institution that just can't be fixed up or made a little better. It has to be abolished."

There's neither an argument nor a solution presented here.

And though I shouldn't attack the source, I don't think it can hurt to have a look at who Melissa Farley is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Farley

There's a decent collection of links on that wiki page.

If you think making a living from selling your body for sex does anything for self-esteem you're wrong and I don't think that would change no matter how open society was about sex - it's not about other people thinking it's honorable, it's about how a prostitute sees him or herself in the long run and their value as a person.

It's an empty existence.

Currently, yes. If it were an honored profession, no, it would not be an empty existence. Courtesans were honored, showered with jewels, taken to fancy places, treated well... geishas are highly prized... it is all in how we, as a society, view it. If we treat someone as a valued person, then the person will feel valued. If we insist that what someone chooses to do is wrong, worthless, evil, whatever... then of course their self-esteem will be low.

And we are, unfortunately, a society that sees sex as something that is evil and wrong and shameful. So WE are the ones that devalue prostitutes.

If you outlaw prostitution, only outlaws will be prostitutes.

:p

Fucking win and sigged

Not exactly, but they do have a rough idea. And prostitution has been around for approximately 4000 years longer than smoking, so we have a better idea of the long-term effects.

I don't think they're any good - again, a prostitute has a job-expectancy of how long exactly? Then what does she do?

It's not a trap. Everyone involved wins, otherwise they wouldn't agree to it.

You're basically saying that these women are too stupid to think about the long term. I'd give them a bit more credit than that.

Come on...not too stupid, simply lack of alternative choices as easy in the short term as prostitution - everyone goes in thinking they can get out, that it's just this once, that they'll give up when they can.

Very few do.

As JS Mill said, if you think someone is making a mistake you should argue with them, and give them alternatives or even pay them not to do it. But you shouldn't punish them if they don't follow your belief.

Right, I'm not happy with imprisoning prostitutes - certainly pimps but that doesn't mean it can't be deeply criminalized. The stigma should be on the customer not the provider.

My point is that legalizing it makes it 'okay' and therefore drives more females (in the main) into an industry that holds a very bleak future for them.


I have now. The documentary was made by a British lady for the BBC, so I'm not sure about the whole agenda thing. It might just be that she went to the better brothels.

The argument put forward in your article is just not very good. It says that because there are problems with some of the businesses and with the regulation, the whole thing should be driven underground again. To quote: "Once the people of Nevada learn of [prostitutes'] suffering and emotional distress, and their lack of human rights, they, like me, will be persuaded that legal prostitution is an institution that just can't be fixed up or made a little better. It has to be abolished."

What future does a prostitute have? It's easy to get positive statements from a 20 year old but talking to a 30 year old looking down the barrel is different.

There's neither an argument nor a solution presented here.

And though I shouldn't attack the source, I don't think it can hurt to have a look at who Melissa Farley is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Farley

There's a decent collection of links on that wiki page.

Thanks.

The only solution is organized labor. A whore union would improve working conditions.

Although they might need a better name than "Whore Union"

I don't think they're any good - again, a prostitute has a job-expectancy of how long exactly? Then what does she do?
Something else, presumably. But that's her business, not mine. In fact, none of any of this is really our business.

Come on...not too stupid, simply lack of alternative choices as easy in the short term as prostitution - everyone goes in thinking they can get out, that it's just this once, that they'll give up when they can.

Very few do.
So bad decisionmaking is the problem. That topic seems to stretch all across NSG at the moment.

Right, I'm not happy with imprisoning prostitutes - certainly pimps but that doesn't mean it can't be deeply criminalized.
Pimps are just the enablers, like drug dealers, loan sharks and investment bankers. It's what you do with them that matters.

The stigma should be on the customer not the provider.
Isn't it? I know that if I went to my mates and said "hey, I went to a prostitute today", I wouldn't exactly be showered with praise.

What future does a prostitute have? It's easy to get positive statements from a 20 year old but talking to a 30 year old looking down the barrel is different.
Not sure whether they are in the two episodes online but there are a few older ladies there. It looks like they were good at their job and made a fair bit of cash. Together with their connections within the industry it allows them to retire like anyone else.

Thanks NL, from reading the links I found what I mean about long-term consequences:

I think that many many girls enjoy it. Enjoy the affection.. being wanted.. being so desired that men are willing to pay to spend time with them.. the touch and appreciation of the opposite sex.

At the same time, I believe that the biz haunts them to a degree.. otherwise.. they don't realize what it is doing to them psychologically.. until it catches up with them.. and when it does.. it comes in the disguise of loneliness; I call this phase the 'dark hole'. When I was in it.. every 6-8 months I would break down and cry.. not sure why.. feeling used.. feeling unwanted.. frustrated that men only wanted me for my body.. it gets to you.. and you don't realize it until it is there.. and then it hits hard

This from the pro-prostitution site (http://www.sexwork.com/whatisnew/farley.html)

It's an ultimately lonely and unfulfilling business - sure, you could say the same about picking potatoes but you can pick potatoes for as long as you like.

So bad decisionmaking is the problem. That topic seems to stretch all across NSG at the moment.

Except it's not a conscious decision as such, it's a train of events enabled by the acceptance of the industry - is smoking a 'bad decision'? Possibly, if not likely, but fully understandable given the tactics of the tobacco lobby.

Isn't it? I know that if I went to my mates and said "hey, I went to a prostitute today", I wouldn't exactly be showered with praise.

Hey, let's order a stripper for Ted's birthday!

Not sure whether they are in the two episodes online but there are a few older ladies there. It looks like they were good at their job and made a fair bit of cash. Together with their connections within the industry it allows them to retire like anyone else.

Exceptions do not prove a rule.

...or even pay them not to do it.

I'd say that this is called 'social security' or welfare state... :p

I think legalized prostitution would work (better) in a country where your basic needs and health care are covered even without having to resort to, well, whoring.

Though it would have to be equal opportunity business and extremely well controlled - for all levels: the employer, employee and the buyer - in order to prevent STD plagues, abuse of people and objectification of a specific gender.

After legalization, several government tools to raise the quality of the industry would be to impose a substantial minimum fee for different transactions and set a limit for sessions per day: Make it expensive and "time consuming" enough to force the quality of expected service higher.

Doesn't make it right - the question is whether anyone 'chooses' to be a prostitute.

One real problem is that your job is over around 40, or at least you're lowering and lowering your price just to get a trick. There's no welfare, pension plan or likelihood of savings either.

I just can't see any justification for legalizing it anymore - it's simply degrading.

you're either female or gay, and clearly not thinking. the question is about legalizing it. Legal jobs have benefits, and who's to say that when you're 40 you won't be worth it....well maybe you won't but someone who takes pride in their looks. Not only that the brothel may need managers, greeters and trainers, who's going to head that list, if not experienced people.

The argument has often been that we should legalize prostitution to better protect women in the industry and, I'll admit, I sort of went along with that idea along the lines of 'it's a necessary evil'.

Yet does legalizing prostitution simply de-stigmatize it and therefore increase the amount of men likely to think 'it's not really that bad' and therefore increase the industry as a whole.

Is it a fundamentally bad thing, should it be criminalized further or less?

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2164107,00.html)

That article is a fine argument for better enforcement of certain laws and possibly tighter regulations. It's not a good argument for outlawing prostitution.

You ban prostitution, you ban porn.

Two consenting adults, no payment = legal.
Two consenting adults, payment = illegal.
Two consenting adults plus a camera and payment = legal.

Nope. Porn and protitution are legally different. Otherwise porn would be illegal in most parts of the States. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/12/colb.pornography/index.html

1. Men can be prostitutes too
2. A person should be able to do whatever they want with their own body, even if that includes renting it to another person for sex.
3. There's nothing inherantly wrong with prostitution. As long as the sellers have the right to refuse service and the parties involved can be assured some measure of safety from diseases, this should be fine.

Forced confinement and other abuses in that article, however, are not fine.

Dating is a form of prostitution, even if women won't admit it. Look at it this way,in either case you pay for the services rendered, but with the hookers (meaning the ones that don't expect dinner and a movie, long nights of listening to her horrendous nonsense, etc. ) at least, you can get the money transaction out of the way up front, and based on the long term save money. So basically I say less.

I feel sorry for you.

In other countries where it is legal, sex crimes as compared to the U.S. are almost non entities.:cool:

This is often thrown around as a bit of accepted wisdom of which I am highly skeptical.

You ban prostitution, you ban porn.

Two consenting adults, no payment = legal.
Two consenting adults, payment = illegal.
Two consenting adults plus a camera and payment = legal.

What broad does it for free? You still pay, only instead of payment in full, it's rent a center.

I believe in prostitution being legalized. Just do it like the Prostitute Guild/Union in Amsterdam(might be wrong on place).

They get benefits, testing, just like any other job. even weekends, and holidays, i believe.

Better to legalize prostitution, and keep porn legal, then to have someone with sexual frustration take that out on someone walking home late at night. the number of rape victims would sky-rocket if both were illegal.

humanity has a sexual need. if it did not, there would not be billions of people doing it...right now as you read this.

i would like to say, too, that in the Rafe System, no prostitute has an STD, or ever been raped, battered, assulted, killed, or died of a drug overdose. We have a Guild here. And it is not some place worse then a motel 6, hole in hell place. Places looks like a resort.

Rafe
OOC

The argument has often been that we should legalize prostitution to better protect women in the industry and, I'll admit, I sort of went along with that idea along the lines of 'it's a necessary evil'.

Yet does legalizing prostitution simply de-stigmatize it and therefore increase the amount of men likely to think 'it's not really that bad' and therefore increase the industry as a whole.

Is it a fundamentally bad thing, should it be criminalized further or less?

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2164107,00.html)

I just think that, unlike drugs, prostitution can be stigmatised because, unlike drugs, deep down we all know it's wrong. It should be stigmatized, it should be made to be a shameful thing but instead it's glorified in society as an okay reality. There's stripper bars and pornography and underneath this 'light' prostitution, worse is allowed to occur.

All the excuses I hear for prostitution simply seem hollow and essentially boil down to 'it's okay for men to treat women as objects', something that filters up through society and affects our judgment in all manner of areas.



The philosophy of the Sphinx!

women ARE objects, even to themselves. Otherwise why buy new clothes, make up perfume, and purses,shoes on top of shoes. It isn't just cause of a sale.;)

No more than "we all" know "deep down" that gay marriages are wrong.

I don't presume that I know better than the prostitute or the client. They can do whatever they want. Whatever negative stigma is attached to it is cultural (and as such already tainted with all sorts of religious ideas of morality and pleasure being bad).

Or just plain gay sex, free or otherwise.

you're either female or gay, and clearly not thinking. the question is about legalizing it. Legal jobs have benefits, and who's to say that when you're 40 you won't be worth it....well maybe you won't but someone who takes pride in their looks. Not only that the brothel may need managers, greeters and trainers, who's going to head that list, if not experienced people.

I'm not sure I should bother answering you but...

Farley found a "shocking" lack of services for women in Nevada wishing to leave prostitution. "When prostitution is considered a legal job instead of a human rights violation," says Farley, "why should the state offer services for escape?" More than 80% of those interviewed told Farley they wanted to leave prostitution.

You ban prostitution, you ban porn.

Two consenting adults, no payment = legal.
Two consenting adults, payment = illegal.
Two consenting adults plus a camera and payment = legal.

Really, what if say I have sex a girl and then decide it was so great I give here some money out of no obligation?

Yet gay marriage doesn't lead to a life of misery, quite the opposite I'd guess so no, it's not the same at all.

unless the condom breaks.

It's not the act, it's the consequences - I'd liken it to heroin, which, most tragically, is often the end-game for most prostitutes as well.

anal sex can have that effect on people. Hey! how do you know so much about heroine, and hooking?

The only solution is organized labor. A whore union would improve working conditions.

Although they might need a better name than "Whore Union"

In places in the world where they are actually unionized, it is called the Sex Workers Union. It covers everyone from porn stars to pro Dommes and prostitutes to strippers.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with prostitution.
Sex is not some evil disgusting thing meant only for missionary position with the lights off through a small hole in the sheets only for the production of offspring.

Some of you people should be ashamed of yourselves - there is nothing wrong with sex, nothing wrong with enjoying sex, and nothing wrong with people having sex out of wedlock for nothing more than simple enjoyment. Sex is not something to be hidden away and not talked about. Sex is not something to be reviled. Sex is not a hideous thing everyone should pretend that nobody enjoys and is only used had when absolutely necessary for having children.

A prostitute, stripper, cabaret dancer, pro Dom or Domme, masseuse or masseur, or whatever provides a service the customer enjoys. Often the sex worker quite enjoys his or her work and chooses their profession because they enjoy doing what they do. The ones who do not tend to work in places where it is an illicit activity and they feel they have little choice. When it is a legitimate profession, they can enjoy the same legal protections as everyone else.

Just because you work in the sex industry does not mean you give tacit acceptance of being raped - far from it. That is equivalent to saying that any girl that goes on a date without a chaperone's is asking for it. Only when sex work is illegal do clients think they can get away with rape.

Sex work is providing a service - you are giving people pleasure. There is nothing wrong with that.

What about those of us who go dutch?

It's temporary.

In places in the world where they are actually unionized, it is called the Sex Workers Union. It covers everyone from porn stars to pro Dommes and prostitutes to strippers.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with prostitution.
Sex is not some evil disgusting thing meant only for missionary position with the lights off through a small hole in the sheets only for the production of offspring.

Some of you people should be ashamed of yourselves - there is nothing wrong with sex, nothing wrong with enjoying sex, and nothing wrong with people having sex out of wedlock for nothing more than simple enjoyment. Sex is not something to be hidden away and not talked about. Sex is not something to be reviled. Sex is not a hideous thing everyone should pretend that nobody enjoys and is only used had when absolutely necessary for having children.

A prostitute, stripper, cabaret dancer, pro Dom or Domme, masseuse or masseur, or whatever provides a service the customer enjoys. Often the sex worker quite enjoys his or her work and chooses their profession because they enjoy doing what they do. The ones who do not tend to work in places where it is an illicit activity and they feel they have little choice. When it is a legitimate profession, they can enjoy the same legal protections as everyone else.

Just because you work in the sex industry does not mean you give tacit acceptance of being raped - far from it. That is equivalent to saying that any girl that goes on a date without a chaperone's is asking for it. Only when sex work is illegal do clients think they can get away with rape.

Sex work is providing a service - you are giving people pleasure. There is nothing wrong with that.

Sure sure...not.

Germany Rethinking Legalized Prostitution
http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/world/14566682.htm

"Stopping human trafficking was one of the reasons that Germany legalized prostitution. The logic was that by legitimizing the trade, it would become safer and healthier.

But a United Nations report on human trafficking released last month still rated Germany "very high" as a destination for women forced into sex work, and some of those who supported legalization are reconsidering.

'I was with my party, the Greens, when we pushed for legalization,' said Hiltrud Breyer, a German member of the European Parliament. 'We really believed it would bring the profession out of the shadows and improve lives. I'm rethinking that position.'"

Some facts.

- Of an estimated 400,000 sex workers in Germany only 100 joined the service union ver.di and only 300-600 people listed their jobs as prostitute. If as much as a paltry 1% joined the union it would amount to 4,000 unionized sex workers instead of an infinitesimally small 100 representing .00025% of sex workers in Germany.

- The majority of prostitutes in Germany are not from Germany (60% to 80% by most estimates), they are mostly from Eastern Europe and Latin America. Germany is one of the world's biggest destinations for trafficking victims and legalization has grown those numbers while reducing the number of police raids intended to find victims.

- Despite legalization, 59% of German sex workers interviewed did not think legalization made them safer from rape and physical assault.

Really, what if say I have sex a girl and then decide it was so great I give here some money out of no obligation?

That would, in her eyes make you a sucker and in the eyes of your boys a pussy

That article is a fine argument for better enforcement of certain laws and possibly tighter regulations. It's not a good argument for outlawing prostitution.



Nope. Porn and protitution are legally different. Otherwise porn would be illegal in most parts of the States. http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/08/12/colb.pornography/index.html



Forced confinement and other abuses in that article, however, are not fine.


I feel sorry for you.


Not as sorry for you as I'll feel, if it's legalized. :eek:

This is often thrown around as a bit of accepted wisdom of which I am highly skeptical.

explain

Really, what if say I have sex a girl and then decide it was so great I give here some money out of no obligation?

If I was a girl I suspect would be highly offended but I'd take your money anyway because I'd think you a fool.

If I was a girl I suspect would be highly offended but I'd take your money anyway because I'd think you a fool.

I thought this topic is about free sex?

I remember hearing that wearing a short skirt was essentially asking to be raped.

That's how ridiculous the idea that prostitutes ask to be raped is.

To lesbian feminists, any act of penetrating the vagina, consented or otherwise, is rape.

To lesbian feminists, any act of penetrating the vagina, consented or otherwise, is rape.

Speaking of cracks, how much have you smoked tonight?

I've done my own research on this long before this thread.

Most women who are making money from sex (eg. street prostitution or in a brothel) are doing so because they HAVE to - either because they don't see another means of income, or are forced or otherwise pressured, or are too scared to do anything about it - for example, their pimp may threaten them with violence or/and actually attack them, including by way of rape.

Thus anyone, including the government, who supports such "trade" is indirectly supporting sexual abuse. And as the linked article from the original post states, to paraphrase, the people selling their bodies are often locked up - imprisoned, with no future and, unless they manage to escape (at risk of further, worse abuse) or someone manages to get the authorities to do something, no chance of a future.

Therefore the best things you can do are:
NOT support prostitution in any form
REPORT the brothels (or your suspicions about a building being a brothel - you won't get arrested for wasting police time if you make it clear it's just a suspicion) to the authorities
HELP the women and girls (and male prostitues) get safer, more rewarding employment (even if it's not more financially rewarding) - directly if possible - if not then indirectly; for example by providing leaflets for organisations which can help.

Many of the women (in both the USA and the UK) are tricked into coming into the country by promises of a good job and are then forced into prostitution. Often speaking little or no English (not their fault by the way - they've been promised the help they'll need by the people who end up forcing them into prostitution), they can often find it very difficult to even know what help is available, let alone access that help.

If you wanna get your rocks off, either get a girlfriend/boyfriend, or look for artistic nude pictures (on websites or in books), almost all of which are totally legal (even if they feature kids - for you p(a)edophiles out there) across the USA and the UK - so you don't have to contribute to exploitation by looking at people on porn sites who often get just as bad (or nearly as bad) a 'deal' as prostitutes. Artistic nude pictures are generally not done exploitatively.

I thought this topic is about free sex?

Apologies, I'm not really following you here?

[QUOTE=Non Aligned States;13031907]Legality doesn't work because the laws are still skewed heavily against the women involved, enforcement is a joke, and discrimination against their profession by other services is almost encouraged.

With that in mind, it balances out then. Because when women become privatized, independent hookers, ( wives ) the law doesn't protect the men all that well either. And skewed isn't even a strong enough word to describe it then. It's more like, raked over the coals.

To lesbian feminists, any act of penetrating the vagina, consented or otherwise, is rape.
I don't understand, does lesbian feminism entail chastity or something...?

Speaking of cracks, how much have you smoked tonight?

Lets just say, no more than you.

I don't understand, does lesbian feminism entail chastity or something...?

Basically, they ( agressive feminists) feel no matter what the circumstances, we ( men ) are violating womens bodies whenever we have intercourse.

I don't understand, does lesbian feminism entail chastity or something...?

Just chastity from men. There was a thing on court tv a while back, where it was discussed, in great detail.

Basically, they ( agressive feminists) feel no matter what the circumstances, we ( men ) are violating womens bodies whenever we have intercourse.

You're actually referring to Radical Feminists. There are many kinds of feminists btw. Liberal Feminists believe in equal rights.

Apologies, I'm not really following you here?

Let me give you my grand train of thought :

At first I read :

Really, what if say I have sex a girl and then decide it was so great I give here some money out of no obligation?

I thought,... whew, why would you pay for non consenting sex? It defeats the purpose, which is,... well, free sex.

Then of course you posted:

If I was a girl I suspect would be highly offended but I'd take your money anyway because I'd think you a fool.

This is of course confusing,... as if you were raped, and concious enough to notice that he is giving (or throwing) money at you, rather than taking the money, you'd grab something that can be used as a crude missile to throw at your assailant.

And then some process of thought between both of your comments and AP's combined with the topic title ergo :

I thought this topic is about free sex?

But I think that there things missing in the process, so, you post what you have. -_-

Sessboodeedwilla:
Wow. You've got some severe issues, man. I seriously suggest that you see a therapist about your views on women, dating and sex. Honestly, I'm not making a crack at you. I think you need help.

Now, on to the actual thread.

I do think that prostitution should be legalized, and I don't think that the argument being advanced by the article makes any sense. To use Barringtonia's own analogy to drugs (which I don't necessarily agree with, mind) several authoritative studies have shown that the frequency of drug use within a given population is not significantly reduced by criminalization of a substance. To wit, Americans use as many drugs as Amsterdammers, despite remarkably more strict drug laws in the United States. The main difference is that drugs purchased illegally in the 'States (such as cocaine, the example I'll use) tend to benefit rather more brutal drug lords rather than responsible suppliers.

I would contend that the Nevada system is deeply flawed, and is impacted in no small way by American views on the sex industry as a whole. For example, the article discusses a sheriff who does not permit prostitutes to go to bars, forces them to enter restaurants from the rear, etc. He is greatly exceeding his authority, and is essentially discriminating against sex workers because of their trade. The answer to this problem is not to somehow force the sex workers to find new jobs, it is to change the way that Americans (and, if you will, other societies) view sex workers.

As for the poor working conditions in brothels? I'd suggest, like many others, that someone form a sex workers' union. Forgive me for being a geek, but I was watching Firefly a few days ago, and in it there is a society (union, club, religion?) called the Companions; essentially courtesans. Their job is considered respectable, (significantly moreso than running a tramp freighter) and the Companion's Guild is able to 'black mark' customers who mistreat a Companion. Marked customers, apparently, do not receive the services of any registered Companions.

So why not have something similar in our world? First we need to change peoples' conception of the sex industry. It isn't inherently 'evil' or 'dirty' any more than unsolicited sex is. It is 'dirty' because of the behaviour of many pimps or madams, as well as others like the aforementioned sheriff. So let's solve the problem rather than drive it underground, eh?

Sessboodeedwilla:
Wow. You've got some severe issues, man. I seriously suggest that you see a therapist about your views on women, dating and sex. Honestly, I'm not making a crack at you. I think you need help.

Now, on to the actual thread.

I do think that prostitution should be legalized, and I don't think that the argument being advanced by the article makes any sense. To use Barringtonia's own analogy to drugs (which I don't necessarily agree with, mind) several authoritative studies have shown that the frequency of drug use within a given population is not significantly reduced by criminalization of a substance. To wit, Americans use as many drugs as Amsterdammers, despite remarkably more strict drug laws in the United States. The main difference is that drugs purchased illegally in the 'States (such as cocaine, the example I'll use) tend to benefit rather more brutal drug lords rather than responsible suppliers.

I would contend that the Nevada system is deeply flawed, and is impacted in no small way by American views on the sex industry as a whole. For example, the article discusses a sheriff who does not permit prostitutes to go to bars, forces them to enter restaurants from the rear, etc. He is greatly exceeding his authority, and is essentially discriminating against sex workers because of their trade. The answer to this problem is not to somehow force the sex workers to find new jobs, it is to change the way that Americans (and, if you will, other societies) view sex workers.

As for the poor working conditions in brothels? I'd suggest, like many others, that someone form a sex workers' union. Forgive me for being a geek, but I was watching Firefly a few days ago, and in it there is a society (union, club, religion?) called the Companions; essentially courtesans. Their job is considered respectable, (significantly moreso than running a tramp freighter) and the Companion's Guild is able to 'black mark' customers who mistreat a Companion. Marked customers, apparently, do not receive the services of any registered Companions.

So why not have something similar in our world? First we need to change peoples' conception of the sex industry. It isn't inherently 'evil' or 'dirty' any more than unsolicited sex is. It is 'dirty' because of the behaviour of many pimps or madams, as well as others like the aforementioned sheriff. So let's solve the problem rather than drive it underground, eh?

Problem with your reasoning: Legalising drugs may have proven to be good, legalising prostitution has proven to be bad. You don't always get similar results for different things.

As I've said, most of the time the women do NOT want to be prostitutes (see my previous post). At first yeh it seems great to some of them, but then the reality hits them and they don't see a way out so are exploited (and as I said, many are tricked/forced into prostitution anyway).

And as the article suggests, many people think it's O.K. to rape a prostitute.

Also you may wanna read the article again - the argument being advanced is mainly being advanced by the people who've had or have actual experience of working in the "industry" - and of course the best people to listen to are the ones who've been there.

With that in mind, it balances out then. Because when women become privatized, independent hookers, ( wives ) the law doesn't protect the men all that well either.


The bolded bit goes to show how much of a nutjob you are and that you should be kept far far away from any women whatsoever.

You appear to be the sort that proposes slavery based on gender. A loathsome viewpoint that should have died out centuries ago.

*snip*

Ah :)

You've stumbled on the outlines of a point though, there's a large debate over prostitution concerning the nature of consent - which I suppose is why the title, which is taken from the original article posted, is as it is.

Just chastity from men. There was a thing on court tv a while back, where it was discussed, in great detail.
Dude, their lesbians, meaning they don't like guys.

Except it's not a conscious decision as such, it's a train of events enabled by the acceptance of the industry - is smoking a 'bad decision'? Possibly, if not likely, but fully understandable given the tactics of the tobacco lobby.
Not having consciously thought about them can't protect you from the consequences of a decision. Not many drunk drivers consciously thought about running someone over, but it happens nonetheless and doesn't absolve them of the guilt.

Hey, let's order a stripper for Ted's birthday!
Oh, stripping is another thing entirely. One of my friends is a stripper, and I don't get the feeling she feels it's anything out of the ordinary. It pays better than any other part-time job she could have while studying, and the only really bad thing are the hours. So really, it's no different than working in any other night-time entertainment establishment.

Exceptions do not prove a rule.
No, but they certainly destroy one.

I'd say that this is called 'social security' or welfare state... :p
No, that would require taking other people's money to pay them. The idea is that if you have a problem with what she's doing, you can use some of your money to make this particular irritation go away.

I don't have a problem with a woman becoming a prostitute if she wants, so I don't see why my tax money should be spent on preventing it.

Problem with your reasoning: Legalising drugs may have proven to be good, legalising prostitution has proven to be bad. You don't always get similar results for different things.

As I've said, most of the time the women do NOT want to be prostitutes (see my previous post). At first yeh it seems great to some of them, but then the reality hits them and they don't see a way out so are exploited (and as I said, many are tricked/forced into prostitution anyway).

And as the article suggests, many people think it's O.K. to rape a prostitute.

Also you may wanna read the article again - the argument being advanced is mainly being advanced by the people who've had or have actual experience of working in the "industry" - and of course the best people to listen to are the ones who've been there.

If you accept that the Nevada system (for lack of a better term) is the system of legalized prostitution that we are looking at, then you are correct. I, however, don't say this at all. If anything, I say that we should have unions, government protection (c.f my thing about the sheriff) and the like. In other words, sex work should be treated like any other work. The workers should have health insurance provided by their place of business, should be free to go home, should not be forced to eat only when their bosses tell them to.

I won't presume to judge all prostitutes on the basis of one article concerning a book by a woman who clearly has a pre-formed opinion on the subject.

As I suggest, we need to change what we think about sex work, not just make it legal. Not doing the one while legalizing the other will, as you state, give us a system like the one in Nevada. We need to grow up as a society, past the point of 'sex is icky'. And then we can tackle issues like sex work.

I'll say it again. I don't support the system detailed by the article. I thought I made that clear. I support a system in which sex workers are respected by their customers, employers, and fellow citizens. I think a good way to start would be to form a union. I think we should spend less time emphasizing puritanical viewpoints in schools (abstinence only sex ed., etc.). I don't disagree with the article's assessment of the Nevada system, I do disagree with the idea that it is somehow universal to the sex industry.

Dude, their lesbians, meaning they don't like guys.
Okay, I have to say this. Being a lesbian means that they are not sexually attracted to men, not that they don't like men as people. I am a guy. I have lesbian friends. They do not hate me. QED.

I fail to see how a person can be raped if she enters into a contract (which definitely implies consent) to have sex for money. As long as she consents to take the money for the sex, then the sex is consensual. If she says no, that voids the contract.

If the problem is with violence against prostitutes, then sunshine is the best disinfectant, and the sex industry should be brought into the mainstream and regulated.

If someone beats up a girl at the brothel, have the police come and arrest him - make it the same draconian charge as domestic violence against a spouse or girlfriend.

I don't have a problem with a woman becoming a prostitute if she wants,

That's the problem. I don't have the facts and figures, but it's a safe bet to say that over 75% of the sex trade is done by trafficked women with threats of violence keeping them in line. Women generally don't WANT to get into the sex trade.

You're actually referring to Radical Feminists. There are many kinds of feminists btw. Liberal Feminists believe in equal rights.

Yes I know, thanks for the name correction, I couldn't quite get the name from out of the back of my head.

For Pete's sake, that's what I meant, what is this, 'take out context' day or something.
Yes.
EDIT: *sings* let's do the time warp again!

[QUOTE=Vandal-Unknown;13032126]Let me give you my grand train of thought :

At first I read :



I thought,... whew, why would you pay for non consenting sex? It defeats the purpose, which is,... well, free sex.

WRONG. There's no such thing.

Okay, I have to say this. Being a lesbian means that they are not sexually attracted to men, not that they don't like men as people. I am a guy. I have lesbian friends. They do not hate me. QED.

For Pete's sake, that's what I meant, what is this, 'take out context' day or something.

[QUOTE=Gurguvungunit;13032130]Sessboodeedwilla:
Wow. You've got some severe issues, man. I seriously suggest that you see a therapist about your views on women, dating and sex. Honestly, I'm not making a crack at you. I think you need help.

Well if you're a female, that's about what I'd expect you to say. And if you're a man...well let's just say, if you don't have them already, you've got some issues coming buddy. :p

Sess. Seriously. Stop typing. Go to your phonebook. Look up a qualified therapist in your major metropolitan area. Go to said therapist. Discuss your rather frightening views on the subject of marriage and sex.

That, or get over the girl that burned you so badly.
EDIT: Hm... you posted when I did. I know they say, don't feed the trolls. But I'm going to, because it's fun.
I'm a guy. What issues are these? Sex with women? Love? See, I view those as positive things, and hopefully together. Call me a romantic, I'll smile and nod.

Boy there's a lot of anger towards women coming out in this thread!

In New Zealand, and the state of Victoria in Australia, prostitution has been decriminalised. Queensland is considering it, as is Western Australia. Legal and licenced brothels are very safe for the workers. It's in a licenced premises, not dark side-streets. There are no pimps. It's clean, and off the street. There's a standardisation of prices. There's security, and if there's a troublesome customer the brothel is legally able to call the police to deal with it. Regular sexual health checks are required. As a legitimite business with a reputation to uphold (as well as a licence) any worker who turns up to work high gets sent home again. Thus it's also safer for the client.

Many of you seem to automatically equate the word 'prostitute' with 'victim'. That doesn't describe any of the workers I've known, and I've known a few women who've worked in brothels, and none of them were ever violently abused. None of them took the job out of desperation either.

Your scenarios of abused victims relates to a criminal underground form of prostitution. You can't assume the same will be true when it's brought out of the shadows.

But most importantly, most places that criminalise prostitution punish the prostitutes more heavily than the clients.

If we accept the idea that anyone working as a prostitute is a victim (which I don't, personally), doesn't criminalising, punishing, and leaving them to the 'mercy' of police (who aren't exactly renowned for their incorruptibility) victimise them more?
Why make things worse for a woman who (by this assumption) is already desperate?

I contend that the illegality of prostitution is the most direct cause of violence and abuse of working women, because if they report an assault and the police tag them as a prostitute, then their ability to bring charges of rape are greatly diminished (they'll have your credibility attacked, if they're listened to at all), plus they run the risk of being criminalised themselves. And cops can often be the abusers themselves.

Many of you are presenting an absolute moral belief, that "it's inherently wrong!", with arguments against prostitution that actually emphasise the worst aspects of the illegal trade, which are reduced or eliminated by decriminalisation.
At best, you're wishing that prostitution will disappear somehow. That hasn't happened ever in human history. Start dealing with the reality instead of impossible ideals.

The bolded bit goes to show how much of a nutjob you are and that you should be kept far far away from any women whatsoever.

You appear to be the sort that proposes slavery based on gender. A loathsome viewpoint that should have died out centuries ago.

Obviously you have reading comprehension issues. If we define prostitution as: exchanging goods for sex, then define dinner and a movie, valentines day gifts, and just because gifts. Do you really think when a man does these things that it's because of your oh so enchanting conversation, oh, wait, maybe it's your in depth political views, lol. Nooooo it's because he wants to see you naked. When he first lays eyes on you, do you really believe that he's thinking: man look at her, as good as she looks, I just have to know who she's voting for next november. lmao. Or try this one:Man look at that body, and that face, man she looks so good I really wan't to be her friend, so I can listen to her complain/discuss about the guy she's actually having sex with for hours on end. LMFAO. Yeah you find that guy and I'll introduce you to your gay friend, that you didn't know you had.:D

No, but they certainly destroy one.

In science yes, in sociology no. If 9 out of 10 prostitutes are unhappy with their career, the one exception does not destroy the rule.

Again, a person doesn't generally go into prostitution because they think it would be nice to offer a service, they do it because it's easy money without fully appreciating the consequences or thinking they can get out.

That's not even to start with the majority who are forced into it due to a societal acceptance, an acceptance that is heightened by legalizing it.

In what fashion is acceptance increased by legalization? I contend that the acceptance level will remain the same irrespective of what the government does, and I challenge you to provide figures to support your point. I used drug figures because they happen to be available, and both sex work and drug use carry social stigma. I do not acknowledge that drug use and sex work are connected in any way outside of that.

As the Kiwi above said, sex workers aren't necessarily unhappy about their work. It depends upon the atmosphere in which that work is being conducted, and the atmosphere that he describes is a positive one. The atmosphere in the United States is negative.

Now, which do we think matters more? Cultural and societal pressure, or the things that an overlarge and somewhat silly government says? I've got my pick, what's yours?

EDIT: And there is not societal acceptance in the United States for prostitution. There simply isn't. Please, stop saying that there is. And for the record? "Let's hire a stripper" =/= "let's go to a whorehouse".

Dude, their lesbians, meaning they don't like guys.

DUH. I know that, but the crusade is to recruit hetero women into the same way of thinking.:rolleyes:

Sess. Seriously. Stop typing. Go to your phonebook. Look up a qualified therapist in your major metropolitan area. Go to said therapist. Discuss your rather frightening views on the subject of marriage and sex.

That, or get over the girl that burned you so badly.
EDIT: Hm... you posted when I did. I know they say, don't feed the trolls. But I'm going to, because it's fun.
I'm a guy. What issues are these? Sex with women? Love? See, I view those as positive things, and hopefully together. Call me a romantic, I'll smile and nod.

I smell penocha.

DUH. I know that, but the crusade is to recruit hetero women into the same way of thinking.:rolleyes:
I have a lovely unicorn hair that I can sell you. It wards off women, gay men and lesbians. Only 500 dollars! TG me.

EDIT: Okay. So maybe you are getting some, 'cause it sure isn't me.

If we define prostitution as: exchanging goods for sex, then define dinner and a movie, valentines day gifts, and just because gifts...

Aside from the fact that this is completely offensive, it hinges upon the incorrect assumptions that a) only women are prostitutes b) only men pay for things in relationships and c) that women only have sex with men because men buy them things.

C.

Obviously you have reading comprehension issues. If we define prostitution as: exchanging goods for sex, then define dinner and a movie, valentines day gifts, and just because gifts. Do you really think when a man does these things that it's because of your oh so enchanting conversation, oh, wait, maybe it's your in depth political views, lol. Nooooo it's because he wants to see you naked. When he first lays eyes on you, do you really believe that he's thinking: man look at her, as good as she looks, I just have to know who she's voting for next november. lmao. Or try this one:Man look at that body, and that face, man she looks so good I really wan't to be her friend, so I can listen to her complain/discuss about the guy she's actually having sex with for hours on end. LMFAO. Yeah you find that guy and I'll introduce you to your gay friend, that you didn't know you had.:D

Congratulations. You've described yourself as hormone driven animal who can't differentiate between lust and love and sees women solely as sex objects.

How did you survive outside of the stone age?

Oh yes, you've also described the entire heterosexual human male population of the world as the same as you. Your arrogance is astounding. Just because you have a proto-brain incapable of ascribing more than lust in regards to women doesn't mean everyone is as deficient as you are.

WRONG. There's no such thing.

Well, Duh, yes there is, it's called rape.

Congratulations. You've described yourself as hormone driven animal who can't differentiate between lust and love and sees women solely as sex objects.

How did you survive outside of the stone age?

Oh yes, you've also described the entire heterosexual human male population of the world as the same as you. Your arrogance is astounding. Just because you have a proto-brain incapable of ascribing more than lust in regards to women doesn't mean everyone is as deficient as you are.

Stop candy-coating it. Tell him what you really think. ;)

Your scenarios of abused victims relates to a criminal underground form of prostitution. You can't assume the same will be true when it's brought out of the shadows.

It will be exactly the same if legalizing it is all you do. You need to change the culture of exploitation, get rid of archaic laws as well as courts/juries skewed against women in the trade, create laws guaranteeing fair and equitable business practices, enforce it rigorously and severely punish offenders.

Until you have all that, it will be exactly the same as before, only with more protection for the pimps.

In science yes, in sociology no. If 9 out of 10 prostitutes are unhappy with their career, the one exception does not destroy the rule.

Again, a person doesn't generally go into prostitution because they think it would be nice to offer a service, they do it because it's easy money without fully appreciating the consequences or thinking they can get out.

That's not even to start with the majority who are forced into it due to a societal acceptance, an acceptance that is heightened by legalizing it.

Consequences of doing it illegally. Such as police harassment. Or having to deal with pimps. Or a lack of protection against disease.
In legal brothels in NZ and Victoria, condoms are compulsory, and to ask for unprotected sex from a prostitute is a criminal offence. Showers before sex for the clients is also compulsory, and in Victoria the worker inspects the guy for signs of STDs even before the shower.

Everyone working in a legal brothel can 'get out' at any time. It's called quitting, just like any other job.

You're still attempting to argue that there's no improvement under legalisation. I challenge that assumption. And I've given you examples of places where the change has been positive.

I'm speaking from conversations with friends of mine who have worked in legal brothels. What actual knowledge do you have on the subject? Do you know anyone who's worked as a prostitute?

If you did meet someone who turned out to be a prostitute, how would that change your opinion of her? It sounds like you're just airing your own prejudices to me.

By the way, My on-topic two cents:

Everything that is wrong with prostitution is a deficiency in the society and not in the act of prostitution itself. When women feel(whether correctly or incorrectly) that they have no other option but to sell themselves for sex and/or abuse drugs and alcohol, those are symptoms of a disease, not the disease itself. *nod*

Yay for Goofy.

Every now and then, he has a relapse and posts a sensible, non-goofballian post. If it wasn't regular enough on record, I'd have thought someone had hijacked his account.

If you accept that the Nevada system (for lack of a better term) is the system of legalized prostitution that we are looking at, then you are correct. I, however, don't say this at all. If anything, I say that we should have unions, government protection (c.f my thing about the sheriff) and the like. In other words, sex work should be treated like any other work. The workers should have health insurance provided by their place of business, should be free to go home, should not be forced to eat only when their bosses tell them to.

I won't presume to judge all prostitutes on the basis of one article concerning a book by a woman who clearly has a pre-formed opinion on the subject.

As I suggest, we need to change what we think about sex work, not just make it legal. Not doing the one while legalizing the other will, as you state, give us a system like the one in Nevada. We need to grow up as a society, past the point of 'sex is icky'. And then we can tackle issues like sex work.

I'll say it again. I don't support the system detailed by the article. I thought I made that clear. I support a system in which sex workers are respected by their customers, employers, and fellow citizens. I think a good way to start would be to form a union. I think we should spend less time emphasizing puritanical viewpoints in schools (abstinence only sex ed., etc.). I don't disagree with the article's assessment of the Nevada system, I do disagree with the idea that it is somehow universal to the sex industry.

I see what you're saying and it would make sense if not for one very important point: Most women in prostitution don't wanna be there and many are forced/tricked into it in the first place. All the unions in the world aint gonna change that.

I fail to see how a person can be raped if she enters into a contract (which definitely implies consent) to have sex for money. As long as she consents to take the money for the sex, then the sex is consensual. If she says no, that voids the contract.

If the problem is with violence against prostitutes, then sunshine is the best disinfectant, and the sex industry should be brought into the mainstream and regulated.

If someone beats up a girl at the brothel, have the police come and arrest him - make it the same draconian charge as domestic violence against a spouse or girlfriend.

If she's tricked or forced into signing the contract, then her "consent" was not free and willing and so was not true consent. If she is starting the "job" because she sees no other way for providing for herself, then it may not be rape, but it's still exploitation - better to help her get another job rather than encourage her to do something she really doesn't want to do but feels she has no choice about

And the article refers to 'regulated' brothels. Not working. And why is violence against a spouse or girlfriend 'draconian' to you? Are you saying it should be allowed? It's actually very modern, as domestic violence was once pretty much ignored for years

Boy there's a lot of anger towards women coming out in this thread!

In New Zealand, and the state of Victoria in Australia, prostitution has been decriminalised. Queensland is considering it, as is Western Australia. Legal and licenced brothels are very safe for the workers. It's in a licenced premises, not dark side-streets. There are no pimps. It's clean, and off the street. There's a standardisation of prices. There's security, and if there's a troublesome customer the brothel is legally able to call the police to deal with it. Regular sexual health checks are required. As a legitimite business with a reputation to uphold (as well as a licence) any worker who turns up to work high gets sent home again. Thus it's also safer for the client.

Many of you seem to automatically equate the word 'prostitute' with 'victim'. That doesn't describe any of the workers I've known, and I've known a few women who've worked in brothels, and none of them were ever violently abused. None of them took the job out of desperation either.

Your scenarios of abused victims relates to a criminal underground form of prostitution. You can't assume the same will be true when it's brought out of the shadows.

But most importantly, most places that criminalise prostitution punish the prostitutes more heavily than the clients.

If we accept the idea that anyone working as a prostitute is a victim (which I don't, personally), doesn't criminalising, punishing, and leaving them to the 'mercy' of police (who aren't exactly renowned for their incorruptibility) victimise them more?
Why make things worse for a woman who (by this assumption) is already desperate?

I contend that the illegality of prostitution is the most direct cause of violence and abuse of working women, because if they report an assault and the police tag them as a prostitute, then their ability to bring charges of rape are greatly diminished (they'll have your credibility attacked, if they're listened to at all), plus they run the risk of being criminalised themselves. And cops can often be the abusers themselves.

Many of you are presenting an absolute moral belief, that "it's inherently wrong!", with arguments against prostitution that actually emphasise the worst aspects of the illegal trade, which are reduced or eliminated by decriminalisation.
At best, you're wishing that prostitution will disappear somehow. That hasn't happened ever in human history. Start dealing with the reality instead of impossible ideals.

What you are saying is exactly what the general public seem to think about the Nevada brothels - because that's the image portrayed and because the girls are not free to talk freely about their experiences.

Also I'm not saying ALL women don't want to be, or enjoy being, prostitutes. But as I said, I've done previous research and the majority don't. The women you refer to - how do you know they're not hiding what it's really like? After all, women don't usually talk about being sexually attacked to other people due to the idiotic beliefs of some people that sometimes they deserve to be attacked or/and the actions of someone else is their own fault.

Also, you say:

"I contend that the illegality of prostitution is the most direct cause of violence and abuse of working women, because if they report an assault and the police tag them as a prostitute, then their ability to bring charges of rape are greatly diminished (they'll have your credibility attacked, if they're listened to at all), plus they run the risk of being criminalised themselves. And cops can often be the abusers themselves."

But the legality of prostitution seems to be more of a cause. I can just imagine:
Prostitute: "I've been raped"
Cop: "Don't be silly, you're a registered prostitute, you can't be raped. You sell your body for sex legally anyway, so I'm not gonna help you

And then there are the many who are forced/tricked into it. You really think they won’t be scared (of their pimp/s) to tell cops in a ‘regulated’ industry?

In what fashion is acceptance increased by legalization? I contend that the acceptance level will remain the same irrespective of what the government does, and I challenge you to provide figures to support your point. I used drug figures because they happen to be available, and both sex work and drug use carry social stigma. I do not acknowledge that drug use and sex work are connected in any way outside of that.

As the Kiwi above said, sex workers aren't necessarily unhappy about their work. It depends upon the atmosphere in which that work is being conducted, and the atmosphere that he describes is a positive one. The atmosphere in the United States is negative.

Now, which do we think matters more? Cultural and societal pressure, or the things that an overlarge and somewhat silly government says? I've got my pick, what's yours?

EDIT: And there is not societal acceptance in the United States for prostitution. There simply isn't. Please, stop saying that there is. And for the record? "Let's hire a stripper" =/= "let's go to a whorehouse".

In Holland, it was made legal to be a prostitute and to purchase sexual services in 2000. This is reflective of the general attitude of Dutch society: in a recent poll, it was determined that 78% of the Dutch population
is in favor of legalized prostitution.

Rather than regulate and integrate prostitution into society, the Swedes have taken the opposite approach: criminalizing the purchase of sexual services. In contrast to the Dutch, two-thirds of the male Swedish population view prostitution as a violation against women and support criminalization.

Out of 8.5 million inhabitants in Sweden, 2500 are prostitutes, where as in Holland there are 25,000 prostitutes out of a population of 16 million inhabitants.

Dorit is a petite woman with blonde hair and a sing songy voice. At the table where we sat there were stray marks of dried pink nail polish. “If you are selling your body, of course you tell a happy story. If not, no one would buy you afterwards.” We question her about the massage clinics, where myth claims women are handsomely paid. “I don’t know the wealthy hooker
either,” she says, citing the numerous expenses they must pay: living expenses, condoms, underwear, and sometimes, childcare.

Link (http://www.humanityinaction.org/docs/Armario__Dollner,_2002.pdf)

In nine countries, across widely varying cultures, we found that two-thirds of 854 women in prostitution had symptoms of PTSD (Farley et al., 2003) at a severity that was comparable to treatment-seeking combat veterans (Weathers et al., 1993), battered women seeking shelter (Houskamp and Foy, 1991; Kemp et al., 1991), rape survivors (Bownes et al., 1991) and refugees from state-organized torture (Ramsay et al., 1993).

The women were interviewed in a range of contexts (Farley et al., 2003). Interviewers from supportive local agencies accompanied the researchers, and agency referrals were given in writing. In some countries, women and girls were interviewed at agencies that offered services specifically to women and girls in prostitution (Colombia, Thailand, Zambia). Elsewhere, women were interviewed in an STD clinic (Germany, Turkey), in the street (Canada, United States), or in brothels, strip clubs and massage parlors, as well as in the street (Mexico, South Africa). Women often reported that they prostituted in both indoor and outdoor locations.

The intensity of trauma-related symptoms was related to the intensity of involvement in prostitution. Women who serviced more customers in prostitution reported more severe physical symptoms (Vanwesenbeeck, 1994). The longer women were in prostitution, the more STDs they were likely to have experienced (Parriott, 1994).

Link (http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/showArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=FFXAYUFB5OOQ4QSNDLRCKH0CJUNN2JVN?articleID=175802490&pgno=2)

Every now and then, he has a relapse and posts a sensible, non-goofballian post. If it wasn't regular enough on record, I'd have thought someone had hijacked his account.

Even raving lunatics has their lucid moments.

Anyone who thinks that prostitutes are happy or choose to provide the service they provide is deluding themselves.

Even raving lunatics has their lucid moments.

They come in handy for getting past security checkpoints. :)

They come in handy for getting past security checkpoints. :)

What if they start introducing soap and mud checks?

Consequences of doing it illegally. Such as police harassment. Or having to deal with pimps. Or a lack of protection against disease.
In legal brothels in NZ and Victoria, condoms are compulsory, and to ask for unprotected sex from a prostitute is a criminal offence. Showers before sex for the clients is also compulsory, and in Victoria the worker inspects the guy for signs of STDs even before the shower.

Everyone working in a legal brothel can 'get out' at any time. It's called quitting, just like any other job.

You're still attempting to argue that there's no improvement under legalisation. I challenge that assumption. And I've given you examples of places where the change has been positive.

I'm speaking from conversations with friends of mine who have worked in legal brothels. What actual knowledge do you have on the subject? Do you know anyone who's worked as a prostitute?

If you did meet someone who turned out to be a prostitute, how would that change your opinion of her? It sounds like you're just airing your own prejudices to me.

Don't assume - for all you know I am a prostitute - I'll clearly state that I'm not but your assumptions don't add to your arguments nor do your personal opinions over research.

No one wants to be a prostitute, it's degrading, so don't try and make out that it's some kind of enjoyable job that just needs legal protection to make it safe.

Doesn't make it right

Ah, but what makes ANYTHING right? Or wrong? What, in fact, do these terms mean?

I may be playing the role of the annoying philosopher here, but if you can answer my questions WITHOUT resorting to circularities ("it's wrong because it's....you know, just wrong), claims that are not founded in reason (i.e., "Well, just turn to Leviticus blah blah blah) or anything that only leads to infinite regress (i.e., "X is wrong because it hurts people" is unnacceptable because you must then explain what makes hurting people wrong), I will travel to your place of residence and be your butler for the remainder of my years.

Teh Snip
Okay, *grins*. I'll give you that on the first point, perhaps decriminalization does increase acceptance. But is that wrong? Is it not possible to have legalized sex work and still support the women in that industry?

Second quote: Anecdotal, not particularly informative.

Third quote: While the figures themselves are probably correct (whenever you see an et. al, they MUST be right), I note that the nations being surveyed are nations in which the prevailing opinion is probably against prostitution (at least, societally and as a whole). Do we have numbers from New Zealand? Australia?

Sorry, I would type up a better rebuttal, but it's midnight and I'm trashed. I'm out, it's been fun matching wits with y'all. And Sess? Seriously. Get. Help. Now.

What if they start introducing soap and mud checks?

Then I'm fucked.

If they put a big mudpit next to every checkpoint....

But they don't. :)

No one wants to be a prostitute, it's degrading, so don't try and make out that it's some kind of enjoyable job that just needs legal protection to make it safe.

Hmm, really?

http://www.kohomban.net/dilbert/garbage_old.gif

There's a point there, albeit an obscure one.

I have a lovely unicorn hair that I can sell you. It wards off women, gay men and lesbians. Only 500 dollars! TG me.

EDIT: Okay. So maybe you are getting some, 'cause it sure isn't me.

lol:D

Well, Duh, yes there is, it's called rape.

At what cost to your soul?

What you are saying is exactly what the general public seem to think about the Nevada brothels - because that's the image portrayed and because the girls are not free to talk freely about their experiences.

Also I'm not saying ALL women don't want to be, or enjoy being, prostitutes. But as I said, I've done previous research and the majority don't. The women you refer to - how do you know they're not hiding what it's really like? After all, women don't usually talk about being sexually attacked to other people due to the idiotic beliefs of some people that sometimes they deserve to be attacked or/and the actions of someone else is their own fault.

Also, you say:

"I contend that the illegality of prostitution is the most direct cause of violence and abuse of working women, because if they report an assault and the police tag them as a prostitute, then their ability to bring charges of rape are greatly diminished (they'll have your credibility attacked, if they're listened to at all), plus they run the risk of being criminalised themselves. And cops can often be the abusers themselves."

But the legality of prostitution seems to be more of a cause. I can just imagine:
Prostitute: "I've been raped"
Cop: "Don't be silly, you're a registered prostitute, you can't be raped. You sell your body for sex legally anyway, so I'm not gonna help you

And then there are the many who are forced/tricked into it. You really think they won’t be scared (of their pimp/s) to tell cops in a ‘regulated’ industry?

The 'girls' in NZ and Aus are free to talk about their experiences. Sure there's still social stigma attached to the job, so they don't wear badges proclaiming "proud to be a prostitute" (most of 'em, anyway) but there's no coercion on the part of the brothel to silence them.

Rape is non-consensual sex. Any form of non-consensual sex. If I'm having sex with someone and they change their mind for whatever reason, or I try to do something they don't consent to (eg anal sex) and I attempt to force them, it's rape, no matter how consensual the sex had been up to that point. No means no, means a woman has the right to say no to any act irrespective of the circumstances.

Your scenario of the cop dismissing a rape claim by a prostitute is far more likely when the woman making the charge is in an illegal industry.

This is also because brothels have security, and a vested interest in preventing harm to the women who work for them. Any guy hitting or forcing themselves onto a woman in a brothel is asking for a world of pain. There'll be many witnesses, there'll be security, there'll be the ability for the brothel to involve the law immediately, and there'll be security camera footage proving that they were there. Your imagination is lacking.

Don't assume - for all you know I am a prostitute - I'll clearly state that I'm not but your assumptions don't add to your arguments nor do your personal opinions over research.

No one wants to be a prostitute, it's degrading, so don't try and make out that it's some kind of enjoyable job that just needs legal protection to make it safe.

I didn't assume, I asked if you had any direct information. You haven't answered.

"No-one wants to be a prostitute" - I'm not just friends with women who have freely and with no illusions, chosen to work, I went out with one of them. While she was working. And she'd tell me what her day was like, just like everyone else with a job. There was absolutely no fear, or coercion, involved whatsoever.

You tell me "don't assume" then follow it up with an assumption of your own. :rolleyes:

I'm talking about people working in the industry after decriminalisation. You're still applying your assumptions about illegal prostitution to a decriminalised scenario.

At what cost to your soul?

Oooh, spiritual costs, I thought we were only discussing material costs here.

Originally Posted by Barringtonia
No one wants to be a prostitute, it's degrading, so don't try and make out that it's some kind of enjoyable job that just needs legal protection to make it safe.

I'm crazy-go-nuts impressed that you managed to salvage some half-eaten opinion salad out of a dumpster and served it on a plate of FACT. Nobody wants to be a prostitute? There are some people who like to have sex in their own shit! Prostitution's Wall Street compared to that!

Degrading? Degrading is when a woman stays "in her place," pregnant from 17 until menopause, yet sexually repressed because of her gender.

FREEDOM from this bullshit lies in you. "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law," and the law shall ye follow.


Cheers!

Congratulations. You've described yourself as hormone driven animal who can't differentiate between lust and love and sees women solely as sex objects.

How did you survive outside of the stone age?

Oh yes, you've also described the entire heterosexual human male population of the world as the same as you. Your arrogance is astounding. Just because you have a proto-brain incapable of ascribing more than lust in regards to women doesn't mean everyone is as deficient as you are.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean All men, just men who have male organs that aren't some broads purse. Sorry for the mix up. By the way does yours sit with you when you use the computer, or did you already graduate from pussification u.

*snip*

I'm sorry if I don't take your assertions seriously given you're talking from unverifiable personal experience to back your claims against many links and research that claim the opposite.

I don't use personal experience in debating on the web because it's simply a reflection of your opinion not facts.

In countries where legalization has occurred there has been a corresponding rise in trafficking - I'll get you some stats.

I'm crazy-go-nuts impressed that you managed to salvage some half-eaten opinion salad out of a dumpster and served it on a plate of FACT. Nobody wants to be a prostitute? There are some people who like to have sex in their own shit! Prostitution's Wall Street compared to that!

Degrading? Degrading is when a woman stays "in her place," pregnant from 17 until menopause, yet sexually repressed because of her gender.

FREEDOM from this bullshit lies in you. "Do what thou will shall be the whole of the law," and the law shall ye follow.

Cheers![/FONT]

I'm crazy-go-nuts that you can't seem to read through the many supporting links posted in support of the one post that you seem to have jumped on.

The 'girls' in NZ and Aus are free to talk about their experiences. Sure there's still social stigma attached to the job, so they don't wear badges proclaiming "proud to be a prostitute" (most of 'em, anyway) but there's no coercion on the part of the brothel to silence them.

And you know this how? Unless you work in a brothel yourself, or have done the amount of research others and I have, you don't.

Rape is non-consensual sex. Any form of non-consensual sex. If I'm having sex with someone and they change their mind for whatever reason, or I try to do something they don't consent to (eg anal sex) and I attempt to force them, it's rape, no matter how consensual the sex had been up to that point. No means no, means a woman has the right to say no to any act irrespective of the circumstances.

Your scenario of the cop dismissing a rape claim by a prostitute is far more likely when the woman making the charge is in an illegal industry.

I don't think so. But since that aspect hasn't been proven either way, we'll have to agree to differ. The rest of what I said still stands though.

This is also because brothels have security, and a vested interest in preventing harm to the women who work for them. Any guy hitting or forcing themselves onto a woman in a brothel is asking for a world of pain. There'll be many witnesses, there'll be security, there'll be the ability for the brothel to involve the law immediately, and there'll be security camera footage proving that they were there. Your imagination is lacking.

No, they don't. They have a vested interest in profits - simple as. As many prostitutes have proved, they do not usually have an interest in the welfare of the women who work for them.



I didn't assume, I asked if you had any direct information. You haven't answered.

"No-one wants to be a prostitute" - I'm not just friends with women who have freely and with no illusions, chosen to work, I went out with one of them. While she was working. And she'd tell me what her day was like, just like everyone else with a job. There was absolutely no fear, or coercion, involved whatsoever.

You tell me "don't assume" then follow it up with an assumption of your own. :rolleyes:

I'm talking about people working in the industry after decriminalisation. You're still applying your assumptions about illegal prostitution to a decriminalised scenario.

I, on the other hand, am talking about prostitution in general. So whilst I don't like Barringtonia making assumptions after telling you not to, I can safely and accurately say that the MAJORITY (not all) of prostitutes aint enjoying themselves.

P.S. Note to any Christians who may be confused like many website owners out there: "Do what thou will" (which seems to me to be a licence to abuse) is not the same as "If it hamrs none, do what you will" or a similar phrase. One is from Satanism by the way, which has nothing to do with Wicca.

Oooh, spiritual costs, I thought we were only discussing material costs here.

my bad :D

Doesn't make it right - the question is whether anyone 'chooses' to be a prostitute.

One real problem is that your job is over around 40, or at least you're lowering and lowering your price just to get a trick. There's no welfare, pension plan or likelihood of savings either.

I just can't see any justification for legalizing it anymore - it's simply degrading.

You just pointed out the very reason why it SHOULD be legal. It has been legal in Germany for a good while, and recently prostitution was finally recognised as a profession. So now, there are health plans, welfare, pension plans, unemployment benefits and legal protection for the women.

I don't see what's degrading about it as such. The only degrading aspect is the way some societies treat prostitutes.

I'm sorry if I don't take your assertions seriously given you're talking from unverifiable personal experience to back your claims against many links and research that claim the opposite.

I don't use personal experience in debating on the web because it's simply a reflection of your opinion not facts.

In countries where legalization has occurred there has been a corresponding rise in trafficking - I'll get you some stats.

If there were no opinions or use of personal experience in debating, if the only admissable arguments were 'facts' then there'd be no debate in the first place, the 'facts' would speak for themselves.

You continue to assert your own assumptions as 'fact' despite apparently having no actual experience of the subject under discussion.

I live in a country where prostitution has been decriminalised, I've known women who've worked in the trade, and these personal experiences have shaped my opinions. There's nothing 'illegitimate' about citing examples to illustrate a point.

How is my argument less valid for having actually talked to prostitutes themselves to learn if they were being exploited or victimised?

You're making the same arrogant assumption that lawmakers make when they decide for someone else what they can do with their own body.

If you want to speak for prostitutes, it helps to speak to prostitutes. Otherwise you're another parochial asshole telling women what they can or can't do.

I'm sorry if I don't take your assertions seriously given you're talking from unverifiable personal experience to back your claims against many links and research that claim the opposite.

I don't use personal experience in debating on the web because it's simply a reflection of your opinion not facts.

While I don't doubt that there are many sad tales to be found in that particular line of work, I would be wary to trust those links you provided. They all seem to be biased against prostitution, especially those from Melissa Farley.

It's a matter of interviewing the right persons, I would say. I've had bad jobs and I've had good jobs. If you interviewed me while on the bad job, I would tell you that I was living a shitty life with a shitty job with a shitty boss... Well, you probably get the point. On the other hand, if you interviewed me now, I would tell you that I'm fairly content with my life and with my job.

Point is, I'm sure that you can find a lot of prostitutes who hate themselves, their job, their customers, and their life. And I'm equally sure that you can also find prostitutes who are happy with what they do and feel that they perform a valuable service to society.

Oh I'm sorry, I didn't mean All men, just men who have male organs that aren't some broads purse. Sorry for the mix up. By the way does yours sit with you when you use the computer, or did you already graduate from pussification u.

Did you ever think you might be talking to a woman? No? Now run away like the little troglodyte you are.

So whilst I don't like Barringtonia making assumptions after telling you not to..

I beg to differ, I'm not making assumptions at all about Yaltaboath as opposed to the assumptions he was making of me - it may be construed I'm making assumptions about prostitution but then I'm backing them up with actual linked evidence at least.

You just pointed out the very reason why it SHOULD be legal. It has been legal in Germany for a good while, and recently prostitution was finally recognised as a profession. So now, there are health plans, welfare, pension plans, unemployment benefits and legal protection for the women.

I don't see what's degrading about it as such. The only degrading aspect is the way some societies treat prostitutes.

I've provided links on the consequences of Germany legalizing it and that they're reconsidering.

If there were no opinions or use of personal experience in debating, if the only admissable arguments were 'facts' then there'd be no debate in the first place, the 'facts' would speak for themselves.

You continue to assert your own assumptions as 'fact' despite apparently having no actual experience of the subject under discussion.

I live in a country where prostitution has been decriminalised, I've known women who've worked in the trade, and these personal experiences have shaped my opinions. There's nothing 'illegitimate' about citing examples to illustrate a point.

How is my argument less valid for having actually talked to prostitutes themselves to learn if they were being exploited or victimised?

You're making the same arrogant assumption that lawmakers make when they decide for someone else what they can do with their own body.

If you want to speak for prostitutes, it helps to speak to prostitutes. Otherwise you're another parochial asshole telling women what they can or can't do.

My point is that you can't assume I haven't.

My other point is that I'm not relying on talking from experience, I am providing evidence and links to back myself up.

DUH. I know that, but the crusade is to recruit hetero women into the same way of thinking.:rolleyes:
Dude, I am a big believer in changing human nature through environment, but that's just insane, how can someone change someone else's innate sexuality, I wouldn't mind if you could quote a source of even one hetero being 'converted' to homosexuality.

It's a matter of interviewing the right persons, I would say. I've had bad jobs and I've had good jobs. If you interviewed me while on the bad job, I would tell you that I was living a shitty life with a shitty job with a shitty boss... Well, you probably get the point. On the other hand, if you interviewed me now, I would tell you that I'm fairly content with my life and with my job.

Point is, I'm sure that you can find a lot of prostitutes who hate themselves, their job, their customers, and their life. And I'm equally sure that you can also find prostitutes who are happy with what they do and feel that they perform a valuable service to society.

Jobs with statistics like these?

Adults working in prostitution reported the following:
• 82% had been physically assaulted;
• 83% had been threatened with a weapon;
• 68% had been raped while working as a prostitute;
• 84% experienced current or past homelessness.

Another study of adult prostitutes found the following:
• 73% had been raped, 71% since entering prostitution.
• In 84% of rapes, the rapist was a stranger to the victim.
• In 27% of rape cases, there were multiple assailants. The average number of assailants was four.
• 44% of rapes involved the use of a weapon.

73% of prostitutes reported being sexually assaulted as adults in situations unrelated to prostitution. Most of these were violent stranger rapes with physical injuries.

70% of prostitutes were victims of sexual assaults by customers.

Only 7% of sexually assaulted prostitutes sought counseling, and only 7% reported the crime to police.

2/3 of prostitutes reported being physically assaulted by customers and 2/3 reported being beaten by pimps.

50% of prostitutes reported being kidnapped by pimps; 76% were beaten by pimps; and 79% were beaten by customers.

SUICIDE

Venereal disease and suicide attempts are the two greatest health risks for juvenile prostitutes.

15% of all suicide victims are prostitutes.35
75% of prostitutes attempted suicide.36

Link (http://www.icasa.org/uploads/prostitution.pdf)

You just pointed out the very reason why it SHOULD be legal. It has been legal in Germany for a good while, and recently prostitution was finally recognised as a profession. So now, there are health plans, welfare, pension plans, unemployment benefits and legal protection for the women.

I don't see what's degrading about it as such. The only degrading aspect is the way some societies treat prostitutes...

...and the way their pimps treat them. And the brothels. And the police. Etc etc etc x lots.



If you want to speak for prostitutes, it helps to speak to prostitutes. Otherwise you're another parochial asshole telling women what they can or can't do.

No, you are a person who has looked at other research, from both sides of the debate. Though in my case, there's is the addition of having listened to prostitutes and ex-prostitutes.

Jobs with statistics like these?

Adults working in prostitution reported the following:
• 82% had been physically assaulted;
• 83% had been threatened with a weapon;
• 68% had been raped while working as a prostitute;
• 84% experienced current or past homelessness.

Another study of adult prostitutes found the following:
• 73% had been raped, 71% since entering prostitution.
• In 84% of rapes, the rapist was a stranger to the victim.
• In 27% of rape cases, there were multiple assailants. The average number of assailants was four.
• 44% of rapes involved the use of a weapon.

73% of prostitutes reported being sexually assaulted as adults in situations unrelated to prostitution. Most of these were violent stranger rapes with physical injuries.

70% of prostitutes were victims of sexual assaults by customers.

Only 7% of sexually assaulted prostitutes sought counseling, and only 7% reported the crime to police.

2/3 of prostitutes reported being physically assaulted by customers and 2/3 reported being beaten by pimps.

50% of prostitutes reported being kidnapped by pimps; 76% were beaten by pimps; and 79% were beaten by customers.

SUICIDE

Venereal disease and suicide attempts are the two greatest health risks for juvenile prostitutes.

15% of all suicide victims are prostitutes.35
75% of prostitutes attempted suicide.36

Link (http://www.icasa.org/uploads/prostitution.pdf)

Thank you

The argument has often been that we should legalize prostitution to better protect women in the industry and, I'll admit, I sort of went along with that idea along the lines of 'it's a necessary evil'.

Yet does legalizing prostitution simply de-stigmatize it and therefore increase the amount of men likely to think 'it's not really that bad' and therefore [QUOTE=Multiland;13032268]increase the industry as a whole.

Is it a fundamentally bad thing, should it be criminalized further or less?

And you know this how? Unless you work in a brothel yourself, or have done the amount of research others and I have, you don't.

I went out with a woman who worked in a brothel. Yes, I did research. So did she. On the system she was working within.
I haven't done research on the state of American prostitution, but neither am I making arguments about it.

I don't think so. But since that aspect hasn't been proven either way, we'll have to agree to differ. The rest of what I said still stands though.

What is your definition of rape then?
I don't 'agree to differ' because the rape argument has been raised a few times on this thread, and the assumption in all cases has been that a rape claim is automatically invalidated if the woman in question is a prostitute. If prostitution is a legitimate job, the police have to take a claim seriously. Especially given the amount of evidence immediately to hand when someone does act up in a brothel.

No, they don't. They have a vested interest in profits - simple as. As many prostitutes have proved, they do not usually have an interest in the welfare of the women who work for them.

They are legal businesses, subject to employment and workplace laws, as well as having to pass inspection for a licence to operate. This means they must have at least the equivalent level of interest in protecting their employees as anyone else.
A brothel with a bad reputation simply won't attract women to work for them, in an open marketplace. It's only when it is underground and un-policed that brothels can neglect their workers.

Remove the fear and the need to conceal what they do, and women working in prostitution will discuss work with others doing the same thing, just the same as anyone in any other job does. Word gets around. Reputation matters.

I, on the other hand, am talking about prostitution in general. So whilst I don't like Barringtonia making assumptions after telling you not to, I can safely and accurately say that the MAJORITY (not all) of prostitutes aint enjoying themselves.

I've quoted the OP to show you that the topic of the thread is whether legalisation is better or worse. Not 'prostitution in general'.
And again, you can say that about prostitutes in illegal environments.

The argument has often been that we should legalize prostitution to better protect women in the industry and, I'll admit, I sort of went along with that idea along the lines of 'it's a necessary evil'.

Yet does legalizing prostitution simply de-stigmatize it and therefore increase the amount of men likely to think 'it's not really that bad' and therefore



I went out with a woman who worked in a brothel. Yes, I did research. So did she. On the system she was working within.
I haven't done research on the state of American prostitution, but neither am I making arguments about it.



What is your definition of rape then?
I don't 'agree to differ' because the rape argument has been raised a few times on this thread, and the assumption in all cases has been that a rape claim is automatically invalidated if the woman in question is a prostitute. If prostitution is a legitimate job, the police have to take a claim seriously. Especially given the amount of evidence immediately to hand when someone does act up in a brothel.



They are legal businesses, subject to employment and workplace laws, as well as having to pass inspection for a licence to operate. This means they must have at least the equivalent level of interest in protecting their employees as anyone else.
A brothel with a bad reputation simply won't attract women to work for them, in an open marketplace. It's only when it is underground and un-policed that brothels can neglect their workers.

Remove the fear and the need to conceal what they do, and women working in prostitution will discuss work with others doing the same thing, just the same as anyone in any other job does. Word gets around. Reputation matters.



I've quoted the OP to show you that the topic of the thread is whether legalisation is better or worse. Not 'prostitution in general'.
And again, you can say that about prostitutes in illegal environments.

One of your quotes isn't from me (first one).

And like I said, I've researched both.

And since I can't be arsed arguing since you can't be arsed listening to everything I have previously posted, I'm not gonna bother with this any more.

P.S. As has been evidenced many times, the brothels are NOT interested in the welfare of their clients for the many reasons evidenced which I can't be arsed repeating.

I've provided links on the consequences of Germany legalizing it and that they're reconsidering.

Erm, where? I just looked through the thread but couldn't find that link.
Besides, I can't imagine they'd reconsider. The entire feminist movement backed the legalisation, their most popular promoter was Domenica Niehoff, who's a prostitute herself and organised unions for prostitutes.

Hmm, really?

http://www.kohomban.net/dilbert/garbage_old.gif

There's a point there, albeit an obscure one.

Yes, there is a point - does anyone want to be a garbage man?

People are forced into circumstances and this is a regrettable yet inescapable fact of life, what those circumstances are can vary widely.

I am in no way condemning a prostitutes choice, if anything I deeply emphasize with it. I am in no way looking down on prostitutes either, I am not saying that in and of itself that it makes a person immoral. It does not.

Yet to be a garbage man does not entail the lifestyle that is led by the majority of prostitutes, nor the psychological damage of disassociation and the resultant damage that does to someone nor does it entail a life that mostly runs out of options by 35-40 years old.

There are no 'degrees of garbage men' whereby the very lucky few may enjoy a vaguely defined success in terms of money and lifestyle as opposed to the vast majority who don't and garbage men do not endure the horrific abuse due to the very nature of their customer - who is very rarely respecting them nor the work they do.

We concentrate on the prostitute here without giving thought to the type of person who is the client, perhaps not even the majority, but many of whom tend to view women in a disrespectful manner and take advantage of that by treating them as a receptacle.

For a government to condone this through treating it as 'just another job' lends acceptance to an industry that has few positive aspects.

As much as I'm loathe to praise Sweden, given they do so much right, they have a better solution.

I agree that I cannot take away a women's, or man's, choice nor punish her for that choice - but we should not be condoning, as LG rightly points out, the underlying causes that force that choice.

Jobs with statistics like these?

I assume these are statistics for the US? I read the pdf but didnt see anything stating where the stats were gathered.

In which case, youre still using stats from illegal prostitution, and not making any case to show that legalisation perpetuates these problems.

One of your quotes isn't from me (first one).

And like I said, I've researched both.

And since I can't be arsed arguing since you can't be arsed listening to everything I have previously posted, I'm not gonna bother with this any more.

P.S. As has been evidenced many times, the brothels are NOT interested in the welfare of their clients for the many reasons evidenced which I can't be arsed repeating.

I know the first quote isnt from you, read my last paragraph. "Ive re-quoted the OP..."
And you follow this by accusing me of not reading your posts...:rolleyes:

Well, yes, a garbage man doesn't have interaction with his 'clients', but I would imagine that a garbage man would face just as much abuse and derision from general society as a prostitute. Certainly, many prostitutes are forced into the job through circumstances beyond their control such as poverty, but this can be said of many, many other jobs, as can the high rate of assaults (although perhaps not sexual assault), and the lack of options in older age. Maybe not all in the same job, but they're not uncommon. What's your opinion on, say, gambling?

Jobs with statistics like these?
Link (http://www.icasa.org/uploads/prostitution.pdf)

Scary statistics for sure, but...

1) They appear no less biased that the other links posted, consentrating solely on the abuse / victim idea.
2) They appear to be for the US only. I would like to see worldwide statistics.
3) They use a lot of quotes. Without access to those publications I can't judge their worth. But if they're as biased as this I doubt they're worth much.

You can find sorces pointing the other way with just a bit of googling...


...[T]o suggest that prostitutes who do not see themselves as victims just don't know any better is patronizing and contradicts the very essence of feminism -- the freedom to make one's own choices.


Recent research has shown that many of us are extremely educated and experienced in the straight business world. We chose sex work after we did a lot of things we couldn't stand. Sex work is better. For me, sex work isn't my first choice of paying work. It just happens to be the best alternative available. It's better than being president of someone else's corporation. It's better than being a secretary. It is the most honest work I know of.


Link (http://www.prostitutionprocon.org/questions/choice.htm).


There's such a stigma about the money!... Well, that's the big taboo: sleeping with men for money. It's perfectly legal--in this state anyway--for a woman to have sex with anyone she chooses, at any time. But the minute five cents changes hands--then boom! She's a whore, and she goes to jail. It's ludicrous.



Treat adult women who become prostitutes as adults who are capable of making choices for their own lives. Stop trying to impose moral or social values on us and then tell us 'it's for our own good!!!!


Link (http://www.prostitutionprocon.org/questions/prostitute.htm).

Aside from the fact that this is completely offensive, it hinges upon the incorrect assumptions that a) only women are prostitutes b) only men pay for things in relationships and c) that women only have sex with men because men buy them things.

C.

assumption my ass, and it's meant to be offensive...to the guilty.:gundge:

Jobs with statistics like these?

Adults working in prostitution reported the following:
• 82% had been physically assaulted;
• 83% had been threatened with a weapon;
• 68% had been raped while working as a prostitute;
• 84% experienced current or past homelessness.

Another study of adult prostitutes found the following:
• 73% had been raped, 71% since entering prostitution.
• In 84% of rapes, the rapist was a stranger to the victim.
• In 27% of rape cases, there were multiple assailants. The average number of assailants was four.
• 44% of rapes involved the use of a weapon.

73% of prostitutes reported being sexually assaulted as adults in situations unrelated to prostitution. Most of these were violent stranger rapes with physical injuries.

70% of prostitutes were victims of sexual assaults by customers.

Only 7% of sexually assaulted prostitutes sought counseling, and only 7% reported the crime to police.

2/3 of prostitutes reported being physically assaulted by customers and 2/3 reported being beaten by pimps.

50% of prostitutes reported being kidnapped by pimps; 76% were beaten by pimps; and 79% were beaten by customers.

SUICIDE

Venereal disease and suicide attempts are the two greatest health risks for juvenile prostitutes.

15% of all suicide victims are prostitutes.35
75% of prostitutes attempted suicide.36

Link (http://www.icasa.org/uploads/prostitution.pdf)

suicide is the leading cause of death in police officers, and people in washington state, too. what's your point.

I assume these are statistics for the US? I read the pdf but didnt see anything stating where the stats were gathered.

In which case, youre still using stats from illegal prostitution, and not making any case to show that legalisation perpetuates these problems.

Read away (http://action.web.ca/home/catw/attach/AUSTRALIAlegislation20001.pdf):

Each week 60,000 Victorian men spend $7 million on prostitution, with the legalised industry turning over more than $360 million a year and drawing on some 4500 prostituted women and girls (The Age, 28 Feb, 1999). When one considers that Victoria’s population is around 3.5 million people, these figures attest to how mainstream buying the right to sexually abuse a woman has become in the state.

Women are thus forced to experience exploitation on the streets, illegally, or from sex “businessmen” in brothels. For women in legal brothels, managers and owners demand up to 50% to 60% of takings. This is in the face of strong competition among prostituted women for “clients” as increasing numbers of women enter prostitution, and as men have an excess of sexual services on offer for them to buy. Legalisation, then, makes it harder for women to earn a living through prostitution.

Once prostitution is legitimised as an acceptable commercial practice, few ethical barriers exist to prevent newly brutal forms of exploitation. The sex industry was quick to recognise that, along with a woman’s vagina and anus, all of her reproductive capacities are sellable products.

...and the way their pimps treat them. And the brothels. And the police. Etc etc etc x lots.



No, you are a person who has looked at other research, from both sides of the debate. Though in my case, there's is the addition of having listened to prostitutes and ex-prostitutes.

he's talking about those HBO specials, apparently they qualify you as an expert.

Read away (http://action.web.ca/home/catw/attach/AUSTRALIAlegislation20001.pdf):

Uh, your quotes say that, first, "Look how many people pay for prostitution and how much they spend!" and second, "There is strong competition amongst prostitutes for clients, making it harder to earn a living."

*snip*

I agree that point of view is subjective - what is right or wrong as another poster has pointed out - but the weight of evidence is fairly clear that the industry is simply no good and shouldn't be condoned by legalisation of that industry. I think the counterpoints in your very own link - which thanks for that by the way - show this.

Again, I ask you to look at Sweden where purchase of sex is illegal whereas selling is not - it's a distinction that lays the stigma where it ought to lie.

Uh, your quotes say that, first, "Look how many people pay for prostitution and how much they spend!" and second, "There is strong competition amongst prostitutes for clients, making it harder to earn a living."

I'm merely pointing out that legalization does not solve the problems inherent with prostitution, in many ways it amplifies them - which is what I was asked to do.

More is contained in the article linked to the 'read away' - I was merely pruning some examples.

Yes, there is a point - does anyone want to be a garbage man?

People are forced into circumstances and this is a regrettable yet inescapable fact of life, what those circumstances are can vary widely.

I am in no way condemning a prostitutes choice, if anything I deeply emphasize with it. I am in no way looking down on prostitutes either, I am not saying that in and of itself that it makes a person immoral. It does not.

Yet to be a garbage man does not entail the lifestyle that is led by the majority of prostitutes, nor the psychological damage of disassociation and the resultant damage that does to someone nor does it entail a life that mostly runs out of options by 35-40 years old.

There are no 'degrees of garbage men' whereby the very lucky few may enjoy a vaguely defined success in terms of money and lifestyle as opposed to the vast majority who don't and garbage men do not endure the horrific abuse due to the very nature of their customer - who is very rarely respecting them nor the work they do.

We concentrate on the prostitute here without giving thought to the type of person who is the client, perhaps not even the majority, but many of whom tend to view women in a disrespectful manner and take advantage of that by treating them as a receptacle.

For a government to condone this through treating it as 'just another job' lends acceptance to an industry that has few positive aspects.

As much as I'm loathe to praise Sweden, given they do so much right, they have a better solution.

I agree that I cannot take away a women's, or man's, choice nor punish her for that choice - but we should not be condoning, as LG rightly points out, the underlying causes that force that choice.

I have a question. why should we care if it's legalized or not? it seems to me the only reason you should worry about it is if you think you might find yourself either: compelled to a) sell ass or b) buy ass. If it makes you feel better, the law can't make you do either. And who gives a rats ass, and I mean REALLY cares. is there one among you who has saved a prostitute from such a sinful, and dangerous life? If you didn't, how do you know you can? Maybe they are born hookers. gay people say they are born gay. we may never know for sure. But what we do know is if they are adults, they can pretty much do what the fuck they damn well please. And if you really give a shit. you'll do a whole lot more out on the street, than you will, plopped down in front of a computer, growing corns on your ass. And if the problem is that you just don't approve...well all I can say is, don't solicit one, and you won't be subjected to her nastiness.:rolleyes: But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Maybe not all in the same job, but they're not uncommon. What's your opinion on, say, gambling?

Good question for which I need to switch my brain for an answer to show the distinction, suffice to say the gambler is more akin to the client of prostitution as opposed to the prostitute themselves.

Good question for which I need to switch my brain for an answer to show the distinction, suffice to say the gambler is more akin to the client of prostitution as opposed to the prostitute themselves.

Why? Many people are trapped in a vicious cycle of gambling when they attempt to regain their losses, and it destroys many lives. I imagine a reasonable percentage are lured by the prospect of some quick and easy money. Not too different to prostitution through some of the causes and effects you have brought up.

Helping prostitutes to get out of the vicious cycle of misery they're in through

Illegalising prostitution, thus
criminalising the prostitutes, thus
punishing them for being tricked/ financially forced/ whatever into prostitution, and giving them a criminal record that'll
limit or outright destroy employment opportunities in other industries and
give the people running the industry a means to intimidate their charges, keeping them in check and forcing them to stay inside the industry while
drastically reducing security standards in the same and
increasing the pimps' profit span as there is no longer an opportunity for the actual sex workers to legally enforce 'Just' wages, which in turn reduces their ability to get out of the business again

is not logical. End of story.

You can agree or disagree with prostitution all you want - personally, I'd not be happy if my hypothetical daughter (Or, hell, son) ended up being a prostitute, regardless of whether it'd be the fucked-up street kind or the pseudo-classy 1000-dollar-a-night top-tier brothel, so I can't say I particularly approve of the business -, but criminalising it hurts exactly the people that are (Often) victimised in the first place.

Legalising prostitution - specifically, licencing prostitution, to hurt the 'Scene' a bit more - is, quite frankly, the most efficient mean to keep it under control, limited, and secure. It doesn't work 100%, of course - the street can always bid lower (Right now, 30€ a fuck, a few streets over from where I am, and it's painful to walk down that street) -, but it's just about the best solution there is, together with criminalising the actual human trafficking and pseudo-slavery that ends up there. Which is the real problem. Punish the people who traffick and, well, for all practical intends and purposes, enslave prostitutes, ensure that prostitutes get safe work environments, and you've done rather a lot.

Punish the prostitutes, and the traffickers and pimps have yet another means at intimidating and blackmailing their women. Well done.

The idea that 'Illegalising Prostitution' works is presumably based on the idea that there's no demand, nor any offers for it when it's illegal. This is wrong. There'll always be both, whether you like it or not. Hence, the police being, you know... Busy with it whenever it's illegal. And, of course, the follow-up problems of it being illegal... STDs, drugs, an ever-growing criminalisation...

All that can be done is to channel both, offer and demand, into vaguely safe conditions, as opposed to pools of complete misery. And the way to do this is, simply, legalisation. Certainly not promotion - I'd never dare to consider prostitution 'Just another profession'. But illegalising it?

Silly. It'd be rather like giving a prison sentence to the guy who just had his car stolen, while letting the people who stole it go away free.

This is the bit I can't disagree with - I was thinking of moderating to ban pimping as opposed to the prostitution itself - yet I still have issues with it as an industry and the fact that it's a too easy yet ultimately destructive act.

There's a film about a New York cab driver who got to know and interviewed prostitutes over 20 years because he so often found himself driving clients to a particular street. You watched 18 year olds who were 'just doing it to get by for now' become 38 year olds with broken teeth, on drugs, no self-esteem - just horrendous.

If you look at prostitution as a single act, it doesn't seem so bad, yet if you look at it as a life of self-destruction and abuse, you simply can't defend it.

Not all prostitutes are 'street-walkers.' In fact, only about a quarter of them are.

If prostitution were legal, the most common form would probably be the brothel.

The only solution is organized labor. A whore union would improve working conditions.

Although they might need a better name than "Whore Union"

I think it's a fine name. Though, I suppose perhaps "Guild of Courtesans" or, to take a page from Jacqueline Carey, "Court of the Night-blooming Flowers" sounds a bit fancier.

Why? Many people are trapped in a vicious cycle of gambling when they attempt to regain their losses, and it destroys many lives. I imagine a reasonable percentage are lured by the prospect of some quick and easy money. Not too different to prostitution through some of the causes and effects you have brought up.

Yeah - I really need to word my response carefully to this, which entails me thinking about gambling for a bit but there is a difference, I just need to coherently explain it to myself first.

It may be that the majority of gamblers do it 'just for fun' rather than a narrow means of fulfilling a need for money whereas I don't think the majority of prostitutes do, there's a choice value involved in there somewhere - again, I really feel the gambler is more akin to the client but I just need to look at gambling a bit closer to work out my thoughts

I think it's a fine name. Though, I suppose perhaps "Guild of Courtesans" or, to take a page from Jacqueline Carey, "Court of the Night-blooming Flowers" sounds a bit fancier.

The Girls of Sin City would sound about right.

Mess with one and you'll be cut open and served like sushi. Now that's a Union.

*snip*

...and thus condone it and lead to a large rise in the practice without any guarantee of safety as has been shown in Victoria, Aus.

I think it's clear that criminalising the industry but not the prostitute is the most effective means of dealing with this.

I have now read the entire thread... and basically, to those saying it should be illegal... who are you to tell a person what he/she can or cannot do with their own body?

And what gives you the right to decide what two consenting adults can and cannot do in private?

I also find it amusing that whenever anyone offers an argument in favor of legalizing prostitution, Barringtonia and friends are just like "No, you're wrong!"

So, if it's so horrible for people to charge money for sex, why aren't you guys out saving prostitutes instead of arguing on an internet forum?

The argument has often been that we should legalize prostitution to better protect women in the industry and, I'll admit, I sort of went along with that idea along the lines of 'it's a necessary evil'.

Yet does legalizing prostitution simply de-stigmatize it and therefore increase the amount of men likely to think 'it's not really that bad' and therefore increase the industry as a whole.

Is it a fundamentally bad thing, should it be criminalized further or less?

Link (http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,2164107,00.html)

I think you have a flawed view of right and wrong. (But then I get that opinion about you quite often.)

Prositution has the stigma it does because it's currently illegal and thus cannot be regulated. Without regulation, you have serious abuse of the prostitutes--both male and female--as well as drug abuse, a lack of safe conditions, and so on and so forth, none of which can be stopped by the prostitute seeking police help because the prostitute is already committing a crime.

Regulated prostitution, as seen in many countries, as well as the state of Nevada, would be fine and dandy, because the prostitute can be protected by police and have their occupation regulated like any other occupation, with appropriate health and safety standards.

Moral judgments shouldn't even factor into it...apart from certain moral viewpoints, there is no harm to society or anyone else by prostitution, so long as it is done safely, which can be easily done without banning the occupation altogether. This is just another reason people should not legislate based on morality.

Personally, I'm all for full legalization, be the prostitute male, female, transsexual, or what have you. Would I ever use the service myself, though? Probably not.

Forced confinement and other abuses in that article, however, are not fine.
I'm highly skeptical of that article though, there were a number of things in it that where spinned so much it took me a few moments to recognize what they actually came from.

The "Forced confinement" for example is a Nevada law that keeps the prostitute from working out on the side, while the girl is working in the brothel on her shift, that's what it's for. But, if she quits, she is free to go.

Also, I'm not sure why the author did a spin job on the medical checks.

Finally though, I really have doubts about her actual research as written. She said she did a survey at the University of Nevada. Except that there are two universities with that name.

*snip*

*snip*

I think neither of you have comprehended the issues.

I think neither of you have comprehended the issues.

Oh, because if we understood, then surely we would agree with you?

Please, cut the arrogance. If I want to charge people money to have sex with me (not that I'd get much business, I don't think I'm all that attractive a dude), that should be my right. Obviously I'd reserve the right to refuse service to anyone, as is the case with all businesses.

Anti-prostitution laws are just another case of government trying to legislate 'morality.'

What goes on between consenting adults in private is no concern of yours, whether or not money changes hands.

I think neither of you have comprehended the issues.

I also find it amusing that whenever anyone offers an argument in favor of legalizing prostitution, Barringtonia and friends are just like "No, you're wrong!"

*chuckles*

*chuckles*

;)

Anti-prostitution laws are just another case of government trying to legislate 'morality.'

Indeed. The most perceptive critics of prostitution have always granted this.

It does not follow that full legalization is the answer, or that full legalization cannot be done in a very wrong way.

This is not at all a simple civil liberties issue, as anyone who has paid attention to the articles and statistics Barringtonia has posted (there are many others) should realize.

...because the point is that prostitution is not 'just another job'. So you can't treat it as 'just another job'. It creates severe exploitation that is simply not remedied by legalization.

It's not simply an individual choice to go into the profession or not and it's psychologically if not physically harmful in the long-term and here's the point:

Government-condoned legalisation simply expands the problem, creates greater demand and therefore necessitates greater supply.

This is not some 'Pretty Woman' world where the men are good, kind people nor where the owners of brothels are good, kind people looking out for the interests of their employees either.

It's not a matter of consensual sex.

It would be utterly fantastic if it were a simple exchange of money for services but it simply isn't.

Indeed. The most perceptive critics of prostitution have always granted this.

It does not follow that full legalization is the answer, or that full legalization cannot be done in a very wrong way.

This is not at all a simple civil liberties issue, as anyone who has paid attention to the articles and statistics Barringtonia has posted (there are many others) should realize.

Thank you.

Indeed. The most perceptive critics of prostitution have always granted this.

It does not follow that full legalization is the answer, or that full legalization cannot be done in a very wrong way.

This is not at all a simple civil liberties issue, as anyone who has paid attention to the articles and statistics Barringtonia has posted (there are many others) should realize.

At its core it is. Yes it gets more complex, almost any issue one can think of does. But essentially, you either believe the government has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies, or you don't.

Yes, legalization can be done in a wrong way. However, making criminals of people for something they do with their own body is, as far as I'm concerned, not the answer.

It's not simply an individual choice to go into the profession or not and it's psychologically if not physically harmful in the long-term and here's the point
You still have not convinced me of this point. Yes, I HAVE read your articles, but I'm also a native Nevadan who has read far more articles in my local newspaper for years which states quite the opposite by the working girls.

Government-condoned legalisation simply expands the problem, creates greater demand and therefore necessitates greater supply.
Uh... right. And you're getting this from where?

It's not a matter of consensual sex.
Your opinion on the matter, not fact.

That's the problem. I don't have the facts and figures, but it's a safe bet to say that over 75% of the sex trade is done by trafficked women with threats of violence keeping them in line. Women generally don't WANT to get into the sex trade.
That's true. But trafficking is already illegal, and since it does involve hurting others I think that's quite okay.

So rather than outlawing prostitution, there should be better measures against trafficking.

That's true. But trafficking is already illegal, and since it does involve hurting others I think that's quite okay.

So rather than outlawing prostitution, there should be better measures against trafficking.

I completely agree. Even in a situation where prostitution is legal, trafficking is still illegal, because that breaks the "do what you want but don't harm others" rule.

Nobody is supporting sex slavery here. At least, I should hope not.

You still have not convinced me of this point. Yes, I HAVE read your articles, but I'm also a native Nevadan who has read far more articles in my local newspaper for years which states quite the opposite by the working girls.


Uh... right. And you're getting this from where?


Your opinion on the matter, not fact.

No - I really haven't seen anyone, aside from myself, post evidence and links to back up their own opinions on this matter, which is what everyone is doing without reading the evidence behind what I'm saying, which I've tried to keep free from personal opinion and conjecture.

...and thus condone it and lead to a large rise in the practice without any guarantee of safety as has been shown in Victoria, Aus.

I think it's clear that criminalising the industry but not the prostitute is the most effective means of dealing with this.Pity that there has been a remarkable increase in the safety of the practice and the living standard of the people working in the industry when it'd been legalised (Sorta) in Germany. Oh, without a large rise in the practice, no less. Of course, Germany also has Unions for prostitutes and other such shiny things...

In any case. How exactly do you intend to criminalise the industry but not the workers therein when they, lets say, do it on their own free will.

It happens, you know. Checking the newspaper... Six job offers in the sector. All with various guarantees, and most certainly without coercion being involved - what with, erm, interested people being meant to ask for the job.

Stuff your 'It's all horrible and abusive and the most terrible thing on earth!' whining, and deal with the fact that it's not. No more so than mining - clearly, because miners in china are working and living in horrible conditions this must be the case for everything related to mining.

Whoops, wait. It's not.

May the good Swedes set you straight.

Link (http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c4/22/84/0647d25a.pdf)

Aside from earlier links showing the negative effects from German legalization already posted :rolleyes:

You keep refering to those, but after reading the thread I couldn't find a single such link.

*snip*

May the good Swedes set you straight.

Link (http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c4/22/84/0647d25a.pdf)

Aside from earlier links showing the negative effects from German legalization already posted :rolleyes:

That's true. But trafficking is already illegal, and since it does involve hurting others I think that's quite okay.

So rather than outlawing prostitution, there should be better measures against trafficking.

The problem is that victims of trafficking are too often treated like perpetrators of trafficking and the actual traffickers get away Scott free. And existing laws to legalize prostitution provide little to no actual protection to sex trade workers. It's easily abused, poorly enforced and the stigmas attached to it automatically give bias against the victims.

Legalizing it doesn't solve anything simply because it protects the clients and pimps far more than anything it gives to the workers.

It won't work without a complete overhaul of laws regarding the sex trade and removal of gender bias in courts, which is practically impossible in just about any country you go to.

Why? Because you have cavemen like Sessboodeedwilla in enough positions of power or numbers to threaten said position to ever prevent any sort of egalitarian measure from coming up.

You may be a decent guy, I can understand why you think that things like legalization will prevent exploitation and victimization. But the truth is, there's a hell lot more depraved sexists idiots who see women as baby factories and receptacles of lust than there are decent people.


Nobody is supporting sex slavery here. At least, I should hope not.

Sessboodeedwilla apparently seems to.

Pity that there has been a remarkable increase in the safety of the practice and the living standard of the people working in the industry when it'd been legalised (Sorta) in Germany. Oh, without a large rise in the practice, no less. Of course, Germany also has Unions for prostitutes and other such shiny things...


Germany appears to have a rise of trafficked women to work in the sex trade since it was legalized though. And might I remind you that trafficked women are effectively slaves as far as their treated?


It happens, you know. Checking the newspaper... Six job offers in the sector. All with various guarantees, and most certainly without coercion being involved - what with, erm, interested people being meant to ask for the job.


Of course they all give guarantees. They might even promise the moon. But how often are these very same offers just bait for impoverished women to take before they slap them in chains hmm?

Phillipines, Indonesia, Ukraine, China, Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar. The list just goes on, but these are some of the worst places of trafficking going on where women are tricked, and in some cases literally kidnapped to be shipped off to some first world country as sex slaves.

Why should Germany be any different?

Germany appears to have a rise of trafficked women to work in the sex trade since it was legalized though. And might I remind you that trafficked women are effectively slaves as far as their treated?

I think that has a lot more to do with the fact that the legalisation coincided with the opening of Eastern Europe. I wouldn't blame the legislation that protects women, but rather the sudden ncrease in the availability of gullible victims.

No - I really haven't seen anyone, aside from myself, post evidence and links to back up their own opinions on this matter, which is what everyone is doing without reading the evidence behind what I'm saying, which I've tried to keep free from personal opinion and conjecture.
Actually, yes you have been. That ICASA page for example addresses illegal prostitution, not legal, which means I ask, again, where you get the idea that Nevada prostitutes working in the legal brothels were forced into it.

As to what I said:
http://www.nevadaappeal.com/article/20050907/NEWS/109070051
http://www.lvrj.com/news/9612332.html
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p105470_index.html
http://www.womenwriters.net/may2003/archer.html

Edit: Added in
http://www.jour.unr.edu/outpost/community/archives/com.gormley.prostitute3.html

I think it's clear that criminalising the industry but not the prostitute is the most effective means of dealing with this.
Okay, you made a claim.

Now back it up. Show us how criminalising the industry makes prostitution an easier, safer or less attractive job to those who are desperate.

Aside from earlier links showing the negative effects from German legalization already posted :rolleyes:
No, you haven't. There is no cause-effect relationship there.

In fact, now when I want to click on the link it won't lead anywhere. So if you could repost it, that would be good.

The problem is that victims of trafficking are too often treated like perpetrators of trafficking and the actual traffickers get away Scott free. And existing laws to legalize prostitution provide little to no actual protection to sex trade workers. It's easily abused, poorly enforced and the stigmas attached to it automatically give bias against the victims.
But you do realise that legal prostitution and effective laws against trafficking are two seperate issues, right?

I mean, in Germany prostitution is recognised as regular work by the state to the point that an unemployed woman once almost had her welfare money cancelled because she refused an available job in a brothel (but that may just be an urban myth...you get the point). If a prostitute isn't paid the money she is owed, she can go and sue the brothel. Try doing that to your pimp if prostitution is illegal.

It won't work without a complete overhaul of laws regarding the sex trade and removal of gender bias in courts, which is practically impossible in just about any country you go to.
I'd rather you not turn this into a gender issue.

You may be a decent guy, I can understand why you think that things like legalization will prevent exploitation and victimization.
I think that making it illegal will not prevent exploitation and victimisation. And that just about settles the case, because you sure as hell can't build an argument for criminalisation on anything else.

That's the problem. I don't have the facts and figures, but it's a safe bet to say that over 75% of the sex trade is done by trafficked women with threats of violence keeping them in line.
Then shouldn't trafficing of human beings be the focus instead of prostitution?

I thought,... whew, why would you pay for non consenting sex? It defeats the purpose, which is,... well, free sex.

WRONG. There's no such thing.
Free in monetary cost? Yes, there is.

I, on the other hand, am talking about prostitution in general. So whilst I don't like Barringtonia making assumptions after telling you not to, I can safely and accurately say that the MAJORITY (not all) of prostitutes aint enjoying themselves.
How is this different than a job in the fast food industry? Do you think most of the people serving you at McDonald's like their jobs?

How is this different than a job in the fast food industry? Do you think most of the people serving you at McDonald's like their jobs?

You're just being stupid now. That's like saying "how is being made to work lots of hours in a hospital any different from rape? Do you think people like working in hospitals for lots of hours?"

Jobs with statistics like these?

Link (http://www.icasa.org/uploads/prostitution.pdf)
These are american statistics. You know, where prostitution isn't legal. How does this reflect on legal prostitution?

But you do realise that legal prostitution and effective laws against trafficking are two seperate issues, right?


The laws may be separate, but the compounded effects are not. They are interlinked.


I mean, in Germany prostitution is recognised as regular work by the state to the point that an unemployed woman once almost had her welfare money cancelled because she refused an available job in a brothel (but that may just be an urban myth...you get the point). If a prostitute isn't paid the money she is owed, she can go and sue the brothel. Try doing that to your pimp if prostitution is illegal.

This only works in nice, legal places run by brothel owners who care more about the law than maximizing profits.

Those are in short supply.


I'd rather you not turn this into a gender issue.


The sad sorry state of it is that gender biases (not gender!) does play quite a big role in it, laws notwithstanding. But I won't go into it any further.


I think that making it illegal will not prevent exploitation and victimisation. And that just about settles the case, because you sure as hell can't build an argument for criminalisation on anything else.

Legalization as it currently stands does not protect the workers from victimization. Legalization and enforcement specifically tailored to target the exploiters and pimps, maybe.

And that's a big maybe.

The problem is that victims of trafficking are too often treated like perpetrators of trafficking and the actual traffickers get away Scott free. And existing laws to legalize prostitution provide little to no actual protection to sex trade workers. It's easily abused, poorly enforced and the stigmas attached to it automatically give bias against the victims.

Legalizing it doesn't solve anything simply because it protects the clients and pimps far more than anything it gives to the workers.

It won't work without a complete overhaul of laws regarding the sex trade and removal of gender bias in courts, which is practically impossible in just about any country you go to.

Why? Because you have cavemen like Sessboodeedwilla in enough positions of power or numbers to threaten said position to ever prevent any sort of egalitarian measure from coming up.

You may be a decent guy, I can understand why you think that things like legalization will prevent exploitation and victimization. But the truth is, there's a hell lot more depraved sexists idiots who see women as baby factories and receptacles of lust than there are decent people.

Sessboodeedwilla apparently seems to.

I'm certainly not going to try to defend Sessboodeedwilla. He has some disturbingly neanderthal opinions regarding women. And he really needs to get over whichever ex-girlfriend hurt him soooo much. (insert sad face)

I will state unequivocably that I believe trafficking is abhorrent.

Trafficking also raises a point regarding passport laws, which ultimately are a means of First World control over the movement of (mostly) Third World people. It's essentially the same reasoning that's being applied to prostitution laws; that of blaming the victim. I suspect that's a whole thread of its own. Sadly I also suspect that Barringtonia and Multiland would just follow us there and start shouting again.

I disagree that decriminalisation "protects the clients and pimps far more than anything it gives to the workers" based on what I've seen over the past seven-odd years in NZ and Vic. No, I can't produce a statistical analysis to support my own personal experiences. Yes, there are still streetwalkers, despite decriminalisation.

I really wish I could just summon my many friends who've worked in (legalised) industries in NZ and Vic to give their personal experiences. But even if I did, without them revealing their identities in an open forum (not gonna happen!), the Barringtonias and Multilands of the world will still dismiss any account they would make in counter-argument against their immutable positions of morality, on the grounds that they have statistics (based entirely on analysis of illegal systems) to prove their point and I can't 'prove' my sources.

I just want to make the point that decriminalisation can be effective in improving (not solving, just improving) the situation.

I argue that decriminalisation is the first step in improving the situation. You can't just expect a twinkling of someone's nose to overturn centuries of ingrained bigotry.

In changing the opinions of courts, cops, the public, first you have to work on the stigma. Removing laws that criminalise the prostitute more than the client has to be one of the first steps in this process.

As long as it's illegal, the conservative morality brigade have the upper-hand in that they can fall back on the lazy argument that 'illegal' means 'wrong', and as it's the woman breaking the law, it's the woman who deserves punishment in the form of criminalisation (above the line) and abuse (below the line).

I agree with (what I understand to be) your fundamental argument: that a shift in societal mindset is required for law reform to be truly effective. I support (what I understand to be) the same goal as you: the end of victimisation, particularly sexual victimisation, of women.

I just think that change has to come in stages, and the first stage is removing the laws that directly criminalise women. The introduction of laws that support the right of women to choose for themselves what (and how) they do with their bodies (be it prostitution, abortion, or anything else).

You're just being stupid now. That's like saying "how is being made to work lots of hours in a hospital any different from rape? Do you think people like working in hospitals for lots of hours?"

Again, you make an unsubstantiated direct comparison between prostitution and rape.
Again, you fail to distinguish between illegal (and therefore circumspect) and legal (regulated, if implemented properly) prostitution.

Again, you present the worst-case scenario as the norm.
Again, you fail to consider the fact that criminalisation has done nothing to diminish the role of prostitution in all societies.

Who's being 'stupid'?

Germany appears to have a rise of trafficked women to work in the sex trade since it was legalized though. And might I remind you that trafficked women are effectively slaves as far as their treated?No causal relationship. This happened - somewhat unsurprisingly - when the borders to Eastern Europe opened up, and loads of desperate people wanted to get into the west by all means necessary. It's not particularly logical to claim that explicitly illegal trafficking is supported by legalised prostitution when the latter has insufficient secrecy to actually profit from the trafficking.

It's an additional problem, but has little to do with legalised prostitution, given the, ah... Illegal nature of it.

Of course they all give guarantees. They might even promise the moon. But how often are these very same offers just bait for impoverished women to take before they slap them in chains hmm?Which is what's the case when it comes to trafficking. You'll excuse me for doubting that 'Bait' works when there's regular medical checks, insurance & co involved.

Phillipines, Indonesia, Ukraine, China, Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar. The list just goes on, but these are some of the worst places of trafficking going on where women are tricked, and in some cases literally kidnapped to be shipped off to some first world country as sex slaves.... and? Nobody is arguing in favour of human trafficking. Which leads me to the conclusion that you fail at reading. Come back when you've mastered the skill.

You keep refering to those, but after reading the thread I couldn't find a single such link.

Try post 44.

EDIT: I understand the argument has moved to this being a result of the opening of Eastern Europe,
yet read the Swedish link on the last page for more.

Try post 44.Gets a 404. But we'll go with the bits you quoted.

- Of an estimated 400,000 sex workers in Germany only 100 joined the service union ver.di and only 300-600 people listed their jobs as prostitute. If as much as a paltry 1% joined the union it would amount to 4,000 unionized sex workers instead of an infinitesimally small 100 representing .00025% of sex workers in Germany.Well, duh. There's unions other than ver.di about (Although ver.di doesn't particularly like this). And the 'job' tends to be a secondary thing - secondary to things like, lets say, studying - as a kind of part-time thing.

- The majority of prostitutes in Germany are not from Germany (60% to 80% by most estimates), they are mostly from Eastern Europe and Latin America. Germany is one of the world's biggest destinations for trafficking victims and legalization has grown those numbers while reducing the number of police raids intended to find victims.Covered in previous posts. No causal relationship (Well, no direct causal relationship. The disturbing lack in police raids is a problem - it is, however, not prostitution-exclusive. Police is lacking in general).

- Despite legalization, 59% of German sex workers interviewed did not think legalization made them safer from rape and physical assault.So 44% think it did...?

And you think this is a bad thing?

May the good Swedes set you straight.Prostitution in Sweden is illegal. Your point?

Incidentally, it's illegal in Ireland, too. Pity there's still plenty of prostitutes in Dublin.

You can wish for it as much as you want - but you're not going to get rid of it. For as long as humans have sexual & economic desires, prostitution will stay, regardless of how much you fight against it. The only difference is whether you get prostitution regulated (I.e. for HIV checks) or not (Worth noting - registered prostitutes have no significantly increased health risks, when compared to the population at large. Unregistered, illegal ones working 'Underground' on the other hand qualify as bioweapons). Now, if you prefer assorted diseases, violence & drug abuse to spread as much as it can, sure, illegalise it all you want...

Prostitution in Sweden is illegal. Your point?

Incidentally, it's illegal in Ireland, too. Pity there's still plenty of prostitutes in Dublin.

You can wish for it as much as you want - but you're not going to get rid of it. For as long as humans have sexual & economic desires, prostitution will stay, regardless of how much you fight against it. The only difference is whether you get prostitution regulated (I.e. for HIV checks) or not (Worth noting - registered prostitutes have no significantly increased health risks, when compared to the population at large. Unregistered, illegal ones working 'Underground' on the other hand qualify as bioweapons). Now, if you prefer assorted diseases, violence & drug abuse to spread as much as it can, sure, illegalise it all you want...

Post 94 for you sir.

Read the actual link from 2 pages ago as well - it's long so take your time, it's worth it as you'll realise where you err.

No causal relationship. This happened - somewhat unsurprisingly - when the borders to Eastern Europe opened up, and loads of desperate people wanted to get into the west by all means necessary. It's not particularly logical to claim that explicitly illegal trafficking is supported by legalised prostitution when the latter has insufficient secrecy to actually profit from the trafficking.

It's a lot cheaper to bribe some inspector, forge documents and never pay wages to your slave labor and reap profits from the "Its legal" appearance as opposed to paying regular wages.


It's an additional problem, but has little to do with legalised prostitution, given the, ah... Illegal nature of it.

A problem compounded by legalizing the trade WITHOUT appropriate enforcement levels and laws that punish those that trade in trafficked women, be they end line clients or the traffickers themselves, much less laws that actually help shield the victims.


Which is what's the case when it comes to trafficking. You'll excuse me for doubting that 'Bait' works when there's regular medical checks, insurance & co involved.

How does tricking desperate people not square with medical checks?


... and? Nobody is arguing in favour of human trafficking. Which leads me to the conclusion that you fail at reading. Come back when you've mastered the skill.

You just don't get it do you? I'm not saying you are arguing directly in favor of human trafficking. I'm saying that legalizing prostitution AS IS results in increased trafficking. It doesn't work to protect the ones in the trade because the laws still heavily favor the brothel owners.

Death penalty.

Death penalty.

For the customers perhaps :)

That's what people seem to be missing, it's not the supply that's the problem it's the demand.

We should not legalise the demand.

Jobs with statistics like these?

Adults working in prostitution reported the following:
• 82% had been physically assaulted;
• 83% had been threatened with a weapon;
• 68% had been raped while working as a prostitute;
• 84% experienced current or past homelessness.

Another study of adult prostitutes found the following:
• 73% had been raped, 71% since entering prostitution.
• In 84% of rapes, the rapist was a stranger to the victim.
• In 27% of rape cases, there were multiple assailants. The average number of assailants was four.
• 44% of rapes involved the use of a weapon.

73% of prostitutes reported being sexually assaulted as adults in situations unrelated to prostitution. Most of these were violent stranger rapes with physical injuries.

70% of prostitutes were victims of sexual assaults by customers.

Only 7% of sexually assaulted prostitutes sought counseling, and only 7% reported the crime to police.

2/3 of prostitutes reported being physically assaulted by customers and 2/3 reported being beaten by pimps.

50% of prostitutes reported being kidnapped by pimps; 76% were beaten by pimps; and 79% were beaten by customers.

SUICIDE

Venereal disease and suicide attempts are the two greatest health risks for juvenile prostitutes.

15% of all suicide victims are prostitutes.35
75% of prostitutes attempted suicide.36

Link (http://www.icasa.org/uploads/prostitution.pdf)

A fine bunch of stats that again argue for enforcement of a number of laws utterly unrelated to prostitution. And I may have missed it, but you haven't refuted that those are the stats related illegal prostitution in the US, have you?

I'm highly skeptical of that article though, there were a number of things in it that where spinned so much it took me a few moments to recognize what they actually came from.

The "Forced confinement" for example is a Nevada law that keeps the prostitute from working out on the side, while the girl is working in the brothel on her shift, that's what it's for. But, if she quits, she is free to go.

Also, I'm not sure why the author did a spin job on the medical checks.

Finally though, I really have doubts about her actual research as written. She said she did a survey at the University of Nevada. Except that there are two universities with that name.

Aha. I thought it sounded a bit wonky.

Scary statistics for sure, but...

1) They appear no less biased that the other links posted, consentrating solely on the abuse / victim idea.
2) They appear to be for the US only. I would like to see worldwide statistics.
3) They use a lot of quotes. Without access to those publications I can't judge their worth. But if they're as biased as this I doubt they're worth much.

You can find sorces pointing the other way with just a bit of googling...




Link (http://www.prostitutionprocon.org/questions/choice.htm).





Link (http://www.prostitutionprocon.org/questions/prostitute.htm).

I found this post on page 7.

It's kind of disgusting that this was the first post that actually quoted sex workers.

let me make this clear:

Prostitutes want to legalise prostitution.

http://www.walnet.org/csis/groups/swat/about_swat.html

The Sex Workers Alliance of Toronto (S.W.A.T.) was founded in 1992 to fight for sex workers rights to fair wages, and safe and healthy working conditions. S.W.A.T. opposes any law that criminalizes sex work. S.W.A.T. provides health and legal information, and free condoms. Volunteers support others working in the sex trade by doing outreach and court watch. S.W.A.T. also educates service providers and policy makers about the needs of sex workers.

I repeat:

Prostitutes want to legalise prostitution.

http://www.spoc.ca/index.html

TORONTO -- On Wednesday, March 21, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. a press conference will be held announce the launching of a constitutional challenge to strike down three provisions of the Criminal Code which prevent sex workers from working in a safe and secure environment. The press conference will be held at St. Lawrence Community Recreation Centre, 230 The Esplanade, Toronto, Ontario.

Terri Jean Bedford (former Bondage Bungalow dominatrix), Valerie Scott (former sex worker and current Executive Director of Sex Professionals of Canada - SPOC), and Amy Lebovitch (current sex worker and SPOC spokesperson), will be initiating an application in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice seeking the constitutional invalidation of s.210 (bawdy house), s.212(1)(j) (living on the avails) and s.213(1)(c) communicating for the purpose of prostitution) of the Criminal Code.

I wonder why it took over a hundred posts before someone thought of asking the prostitutes.

No - I really haven't seen anyone, aside from myself, post evidence and links to back up their own opinions on this matter, which is what everyone is doing without reading the evidence behind what I'm saying, which I've tried to keep free from personal opinion and conjecture.

Your links boil down to several types:

1. Links that show a connection between psychological problems and illegal prostitution. None of these show a causal link between the problems and the prostitution. These problems may result from social stigma attached to prostitution, or people who have these problems may be forced into prostitution. Your links are unclear on that.

2. Editorial pieces about how bad legalised prostitution is. Not a single one of these was put together by a prostitute.

Barringtonia, you have decided for yourself that you know better than the prostitutes themselves how they should run their business. While your arrogance is bron of good intentions, it implies a lack of intelligence and will on the part of sex workers.

And Sessboodeedwilla, welcome to my ignore list.

A fine bunch of stats that again argue for enforcement of a number of laws utterly unrelated to prostitution. And I may have missed it, but you haven't refuted that those are the stats related illegal prostitution in the US, have you?

I think it's total but it doesn't detract from my point - I'll try to check it out.

Aha. I thought it sounded a bit wonky.ç

Not really, I'm assuming you're talking about the Uni. of Nevada issue?

The review is written by a British journalist so it could simply be an instance of omission - the editors may have cut the full name included in the actual report due to ignorance that their was a distinction to be made.

I think the report itself would specify the actual university - although I'm tired of hunting for all the cites as I've switched to Apple (and it's lack of right-click c+p ability) the onus is on me I suppose.

*snip*

Vancouver disagrees with you.

Link (http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/prostitution_legalizing.html)

As does a 5 country study:

In a 5-country study on sex trafficking done by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and funded by the Ford Foundation, most of the 146 women interviewed strongly stated that prostitution should not be legalized and considered legitimate work, warning that legalization would create more risks and harm for women from already violent customer and pimps (Raymond et al, 2002). "No way. It's not a profession. It is humiliating and violence from the men's side." Not one woman interviewed wanted her children, family or friends to have to earn money by entering the sex industry. One stated: "Prostitution stripped me of my life, my health, everything."

I'll place it all out actually.

Please respond to these as I'm rather tired of making the same points over and over again:

10 Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution

by Janice G. Raymond
Coalition Against Trafficking in Women International (CATW)
(March 25, 2003)

Summary

The following arguments apply to all state-sponsored forms of prostitution, including but not limited to full-scale legalization of brothels and pimping, decriminalization of the sex industry, regulating prostitution by laws such as registering or mandating health checks for women in prostitution, or any system in which prostitution is recognized as "sex work" or advocated as an employment choice.

As countries are considering legalizing and decriminalizing the sex industry, we urge you to consider the ways in which legitimating prostitution as "work" does not empower the women in prostitution but does everything to strengthen the sex industry.

Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution is a gift to pimps, traffickers and the sex industry.
Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution and the sex industry promotes sex trafficking.
Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not control the sex industry.It expands it.
Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution increases clandestine, hidden, illegal and street prostitution.
Legalization of prostitution and decriminalization of the sex Industry increases child prostitution.
Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not protect the women in prostitution.
Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution increases the demand for prostitution. It boosts the motivation of men to buy women for sex in a much wider and more permissible range of socially acceptable settings.
Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not promote women's health.
Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not enhance women's choice.
Women in systems of Prostitution do not want the sex industry legalized or decriminalized.
Arguments:

1. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution is a gift to pimps, traffickers and the sex industry.

What does legalization of prostitution or decriminalization of the sex industry mean? In the Netherlands, legalization amounts to sanctioning all aspects of the sex industry: the women themselves, the so-called "clients," and the pimps who, under the regime of legalization, are transformed into third party businessmen and legitimate sexual entrepreneurs.

Legalization/decriminalization of the sex industry also converts brothels, sex clubs, massage parlors and other sites of prostitution activities into legitimate venues where commercial sexual acts are allowed to flourish legally with few restraints.

Ordinary people believe that, in calling for legalization or decriminalization of prostitution, they are dignifying and professionalizing the women in prostitution. But dignifying prostitution as work doesn't dignify the women, it simply dignifies the sex industry. People often don't realize that decriminalization, for example, means decriminalization of the whole sex industry not just the women. And they haven't thought through the consequences of legalizing pimps as legitimate sex entrepreneurs or third party businessmen, or the fact that men who buy women for sexual activity are now accepted as legitimate consumers of sex.

CATW favors decriminalization of the women in prostitution. No woman should be punished for her own exploitation. But States should never decriminalize pimps, buyers, procurers, brothels or other sex establishments.

2. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution and the sex industry promotes sex trafficking.

Legalized or decriminalized prostitution industries are one of the root causes of sex trafficking. One argument for legalizing prostitution in the Netherlands was that legalization would help end the exploitation of desperate immigrant women trafficked for prostitution. A report done for the governmental Budapest Group* stated that 80% of women in the brothels in the Netherlands are trafficked from other countries (Budapest Group, 1999: 11). As early as 1994, the International Organization of Migration (IOM) stated that in the Netherlands alone, "nearly 70 per cent of trafficked women were from CEEC Central and Eastern European Countries]" (IOM, 1995: 4).

The government of the Netherlands promotes itself as the champion of anti-trafficking policies and programs, yet cynically has removed every legal impediment to pimping, procurement and brothels. In the year 2000, the Dutch Ministry of Justice argued for a legal quota of foreign "sex workers," because the Dutch prostitution market demands a variety of "bodies" (Dutting, 2001: 16).

Also in the year 2000, the Dutch government sought and received a judgment from the European Court recognizing prostitution as an economic activity, thus enabling women from the EU and former Soviet bloc countries to obtain working permits as "sex workers" in the Dutch sex industry if they can prove that they are self employed. NGOs in the Netherlands have stated that traffickers are taking advantage of this ruling to bring foreign women into the Dutch prostitution industry by masking the fact that women have been trafficked, and by coaching the women how to prove that they are self-employed "migrant sex workers."

In the one year since lifting the ban on brothels in the Netherlands, NGOs report that there has been an increase of victims of trafficking or, at best, that the number of victims from other countries has remained the same (Bureau NRM, 2002: 75). Forty-three municipalities in the Netherlands want to follow a no-brothel policy, but the Minister of Justice has indicated that the complete banning of prostitution within any municipality could conflict with "the right to free choice of work" (Bureau NRM: 2002) as guaranteed in the federal Grondwet or Constitution.

In January, 2002, prostitution in Germany was fully established as a legitimate job after years of being legalized in so-called eros or tolerance zones. Promotion of prostitution, pimping and brothels are now legal in Germany. As early as 1993, after the first steps towards legalization had been taken, it was recognized (even by pro-prostitution advocates) that 75 per cent of the women in Germany's prostitution industry were foreigners from Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay and other countries in South America (Altink, 1993: 33). After the fall of the Berlin wall, brothel owners reported that 9 out of every 10 women in the German sex industry were from eastern Europe (Altink, 1993: 43) and other former Soviet countries.

The sheer volume of foreign women who are in the prostitution industry in Germany - by some NGO estimates now up to 85 per cent - casts further doubt on the fact that these numbers of women could have entered Germany without facilitation. As in the Netherlands, NGOs report that most of the foreign women have been trafficked into the country since it is almost impossible for poor women to facilitate their own migration, underwrite the costs of travel and travel documents, and set themselves up in "business" without outside help.

The link between legalization of prostitution and trafficking in Australia was recognized in the U.S. State Department's 1999 Country Report on Human Rights Practices, released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. In the country report on Australia, it was noted that in the State of Victoria which legalized prostitution in the 1980s, "Trafficking in East Asian women for the sex trade is a growing problem" in Australia…lax laws - including legalized prostitution in parts of the country - make [anti-trafficking] enforcement difficult at the working level."

3.Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not control the sex industry. It expands it.

Contrary to claims that legalization and decriminalization would regulate the expansion of the sex industry and bring it under control, the sex industry now accounts for 5 percent of the Netherlands economy (Daley, 2001: 4). Over the last decade, as pimping became legalized and then brothels decriminalized in the Netherlands in 2000, the sex industry expanded 25 percent (Daley, 2001: 4). At any hour of the day, women of all ages and races, dressed in hardly anything, are put on display in the notorious windows of Dutch brothels and sex clubs and offered for sale -- for male consumption. Most of them are women from other countries (Daley, 2001: 4) who have in all likelihood been trafficked into the Netherlands.

There are now officially recognized associations of sex businesses and prostitution "customers" in the Netherlands that consult and collaborate with the government to further their interests and promote prostitution.

These include the "Association of Operators of Relaxation Businesses," the "Cooperating Consultation of Operators of Window Prostitution," and the "Man/Woman and Prostitution Foundation," a group of men who regularly use women in prostitution, and whose specific aims include "to make prostitution and the use of services of prostitutes more accepted and openly discussible," and "to protect the interests of clients" (NRM Bureau, 2002:115-16).

Faced with a dearth of women who want to "work" in the legal sex sector, the Dutch National Rapporteur on Trafficking states that in the future, a proposed "solution" may be to "offer [to the market] prostitutes from non EU/EEA countries, who voluntarily choose to work in prostitution…" They could be given "legal and controlled access to the Dutch market" (NRM Bureau, 2002: 140). As prostitution has been transformed into "sex work," and pimps into entrepreneurs, so too this potential "solution" transforms trafficking into voluntary migration for "sex work." The Netherlands is looking to the future, targeting poor women of color for the international sex trade to remedy the inadequacies of the free market of "sexual services." In the process, it goes further in legitimizing prostitution as an "option for the poor."

Legalization of prostitution in the State of Victoria, Australia, has led to massive expansion of the sex industry. Whereas there were 40 legal brothels in Victoria in 1989, in 1999 there were 94, along with 84 escort services. Other forms of sexual exploitation, such as tabletop dancing, bondage and discipline centers, peep shows, phone sex, and pornography have all developed in much more profitable ways than before (Sullivan and Jeffreys: 2001).

Prostitution has become an accepted sideline of the tourism and casino boom in Victoria with government-sponsored casinos authorizing the redeeming of casino chips and wheel of fortune bonuses at local brothels (Sullivan and Jeffreys: 2001). The commodification of women has vastly intensified and is much more visible.

Brothels in Switzerland have doubled several years after partial legalization of prostitution. Most of these brothels go untaxed, and many are illegal. In 1999, the Zurich newspaper, Blick, claimed that Switzerland had the highest brothel density of any country in Europe, with residents feeling overrun with prostitution venues, as well as experiencing constant encroachment into areas not zoned for prostitution activities (South China Morning Post: 1999).

4. Legalization/decriminalzaton of prostitution increases clandestine, hidden, illegal and street prostitution.

Legalization was supposed to get prostituted women off the street. Many women don't want to register and undergo health checks, as required by law in certain countries legalizing prostitution, so legalization often drives them into street prostitution. And many women choose street prostitution because they want to avoid being controlled and exploited by the new sex "businessmen."

In the Netherlands, women in prostitution point out that legalization or decriminalization of the sex industry cannot erase the stigma of prostitution but, instead, makes women more vulnerable to abuse because they must register and lose anonymity. Thus, the majority of women in prostitution still choose to operate illegally and underground. Members of Parliament who originally supported the legalization of brothels on the grounds that this would liberate women are now seeing that legalization actually reinforces the oppression of women (Daley, 2001: A1).

The argument that legalization was supposed to take the criminal elements out of sex businesses by strict regulation of the industry has failed. The real growth in prostitution in Australia since legalization took effect has been in the illegal sector. Since the onset of legalization in Victoria, brothels have tripled in number and expanded in size - the vast majority having no licenses but advertising and operating with impunity (Sullivan and Jeffreys: 2001).

In New South Wales, brothels were decriminalized in 1995. In 1999, the numbers of brothels in Sydney had increased exponentially to 400-500. The vast majority have no license to operate. To end endemic police corruption, control of illegal prostitution was taken out of the hands of the police and placed in the hands of local councils and planning regulators. The council has neither the money nor the personnel to put investigators into brothels to flush out and prosecute illegal operators.

5. Legalization of prostitution and decriminalization of the sex industry increases child prostitution.

Another argument for legalizing prostitution in the Netherlands was that it would help end child prostitution. In reality, however, child prostitution in the Netherlands has increased dramatically during the 1990s. The Amsterdam-based ChildRight organization estimates that the number has gone from 4,000 children in 1996 to 15,000 in 2001. The group estimates that at least 5,000 of the children in prostitution are from other countries, with a large segment being Nigerian girls (Tiggeloven: 2001).

Child prostitution has dramatically risen in Victoria compared to other Australian states where prostitution has not been legalized. Of all the states and territories in Australia, the highest number of reported incidences of child prostitution came from Victoria. In a 1998 study undertaken by ECPAT (End Child Prostitution and Trafficking) who conducted research for the Australian National Inquiry on Child Prostitution, there was increased evidence of organized commercial exploitation of children.

6. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not protect the women in prostitution.

The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women International (CATW) has conducted 2 major studies on sex trafficking and prostitution, interviewing almost 200 victims of commercial sexual exploitation. In these studies, women in prostitution indicated that prostitution establishments did little to protect them, regardless of whether they were in legal or illegal establishments. "The only time they protect anyone is to protect the customers."

In a CATW 5-country study that interviewed 146 victims of international trafficking and local prostitution, 80% of all women interviewed suffered physical violence from pimps and buyers) and endured similar and multiple health effects from the violence and sexual exploitation (Raymond et al: 2002).

The violence that women were subjected to was an intrinsic part of the prostitution and sexual exploitation. Pimps used violence for many different reasons and purposes. Violence was used to initiate some women into prostitution and to break them down so that they would do the sexual acts. After initiation, at every step of the way, violence was used for sexual gratification of the pimps, as a form of punishment, to threaten and intimidate women, to exert the pimp's dominance, to exact compliance, to punish women for alleged "violations," to humiliate women, and to isolate and confine women.

Of the women who did report that sex establishments gave some protection, they qualified it by pointing out that no "protector" was ever in the room with them, where anything could occur. One woman who was in out-call prostitution stated: "The driver functioned as a bodyguard. You're supposed to call when you get in, to ascertain that everything was OK. But they are not standing outside the door while you're in there, so anything could happen."

CATW's studies found that even surveillance cameras in prostitution establishments are used to protect the establishment. Protection of the women from abuse is of secondary or no importance.

7. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution increases the demand for prostitution. It boosts the motivation of men to buy women for sex in a much wider and more permissible range of socially acceptable settings.

With the advent of legalization in countries that have decriminalized the sex industry, many men who would not risk buying women for sex now see prostitution as acceptable. When the legal barriers disappear, so too do the social and ethical barriers to treating women as sexual commodities. Legalization of prostitution sends the message to new generations of men and boys that women are sexual commodities and that prostitution is harmless fun.

As men have an excess of "sexual services" that are offered to them, women must compete to provide services by engaging in anal sex, sex without condoms, bondage and domination and other proclivities demanded by the clients. Once prostitution is legalized, all holds are barred. Women's reproductive capacities are sellable products, for example. A whole new group of clients find pregnancy a sexual turn-on and demand breast milk in their sexual encounters with pregnant women. Specialty brothels are provided for disabled men, and State-employed caretakers who are mostly women must take these men to the brothels if they wish to go (Sullivan and Jeffreys: 2001).

Advertisements line the highways of Victoria offering women as objects for sexual use and teaching new generations of men and boys to treat women as subordinates. Businessmen are encouraged to hold their corporate meetings in these clubs where owners supply naked women on the table at tea breaks and lunchtime.

A Melbourne brothel owner stated that the client base was "well educated professional men, who visit during the day and then go home to their families." Women who desire more egalitarian relationships with men find that often the men in their lives are visiting the brothels and sex clubs. They have the choice to accept that their male partners are buying women in commercial sexual transactions, avoid recognizing what their partners are doing, or leave the relationship (Sullivan and Jeffreys: 2001).

Sweden's Violence Against Women, Government Bill 1997/98:55 prohibits and penalizes the purchase of "sexual services." It is an innovative approach that targets the demand for prostitution. Sweden believes that "By prohibiting the purchase of sexual services, prostitution and its damaging effects can be counteracted more effectively than hitherto." Importantly, this law clearly states that "Prostitution is not a desirable social phenomenon" and is "an obstacle to the ongoing development towards equality between women and men."**

8. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not promote women's health.

A legalized system of prostitution that mandates health checks and certification only for women and not for clients is blatantly discriminatory to women. "Women only" health checks make no public health sense because monitoring prostituted women does not protect them from HIV/AIDS or STDs, since male "clients" can and do originally transmit disease to the women.

It is argued that legalized brothels or other "controlled" prostitution establishments "protect" women through enforceable condom policies. In one of CATW's studies, U.S. women in prostitution interviewed reported the following: 47% stated that men expected sex without a condom; 73% reported that men offered to pay more for sex without a condom; 45% of women said they were abused if they insisted that men use condoms. Some women said that certain establishments may have rules that men wear condoms but, in reality, men still try to have sex without them. One woman stated: "It's 'regulation' to wear a condom at the sauna, but negotiable between parties on the side. Most guys expected blow jobs without a condom (Raymond and Hughes: 2001)."

In reality, the enforcement of condom policy was left to the individual women in prostitution, and the offer of extra money was an insistent pressure. One woman stated: "I'd be one of those liars if I said 'Oh I always used a condom.' If there was extra money coming in, then the condom would be out the window. I was looking for the extra money." Many factors militate against condom use: the need of women to make money; older women's decline in attractiveness to men; competition from places that do not require condoms; pimp pressure on women to have sex with no condom for more money; money needed for a drug habit or to pay off the pimp; and the general lack of control that prostituted women have over their bodies in prostitution venues.

So called "safety policies" in brothels did not protect women from harm. Even where brothels supposedly monitored the "customers" and utilized "bouncers," women stated that they were injured by buyers and, at times, by brothel owners and their friends. Even when someone intervened to control buyers' abuse, women lived in a climate of fear. Although 60 percent of women reported that buyers had sometimes been prevented from abusing them, half of those women answered that, nonetheless, they thought that they might be killed by one of their "customers" (Raymond et al: 2002).

9. Legalization/decriminalization of prostitution does not enhance women's choice.

Most women in prostitution did not make a rational choice to enter prostitution. They did not sit down one day and decide that they wanted to be prostitutes. Rather, such "choices" are better termed "survival strategies." Rather than consent, a prostituted woman more accurately complies to the only options available to her. Her compliance is required by the very fact of having to adapt to conditions of inequality that are set by the customer who pays her to do what he wants her to do.

Most of the women interviewed in CATW studies reported that choice in entering the sex industry could only be discussed in the context of the lack of other options. Most emphasized that women in prostitution had few other options. Many spoke about prostitution as the last option, or as an involuntary way of making ends meet. In one study, 67% of the law enforcement officials that CATW interviewed expressed the opinion that women did not enter prostitution voluntarily. 72% of the social service providers that CATW interviewed did not believe that women voluntarily choose to enter the sex industry (Raymond and Hughes: 2001).

The distinction between forced and voluntary prostitution is precisely what the sex industry is promoting because it will give the industry more security and legal stability if these distinctions can be utilized to legalize prostitution, pimping and brothels. Women who bring charges against pimps and perpetrators will bear the burden of proving that they were "forced." How will marginalized women ever be able to prove coercion? If prostituted women must prove that force was used in recruitment or in their "working conditions," very few women in prostitution will have legal recourse and very few offenders will be prosecuted.

Women in prostitution must continually lie about their lives, their bodies, and their sexual responses. Lying is part of the job definition when the customer asks, "did you enjoy it?" The very edifice of prostitution is built on the lie that "women like it." Some prostitution survivors have stated that it took them years after leaving prostitution to acknowledge that prostitution wasn't a free choice because to deny their own capacity to choose was to deny themselves.

There is no doubt that a small number of women say they choose to be in prostitution, especially in public contexts orchestrated by the sex industry. In the same way, some people choose to take dangerous drugs such as heroin. However, even when some people choose to take dangerous drugs, we still recognize that this kind of drug use is harmful to them, and most people do not seek to legalize heroin. In this situation, it is harm to the person, not the consent of the person that is the governing standard.

Even a 1998 ILO (UN International Labor Organization) report suggesting that the sex industry be treated as a legitimate economic sector, found that "…prostitution is one of the most alienated forms of labour; the surveys [in 4 countries] show that women worked 'with a heavy heart,' 'felt forced,' or were 'conscience-stricken' and had negative self-identities. A significant proportion claimed they wanted to leave sex work [sic] if they could (Lim, 1998: 213)."

When a woman remains in an abusive relationship with a partner who batters her, or even when she defends his actions, concerned people don't say she is there voluntarily. They recognize the complexity of her compliance. Like battered women, women in prostitution often deny their abuse if provided with no meaningful alternatives.

10. Women in systems of prostitution do not want the sex industry legalized or decriminalized.

In a 5-country study on sex trafficking done by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and funded by the Ford Foundation, most of the 146 women interviewed strongly stated that prostitution should not be legalized and considered legitimate work, warning that legalization would create more risks and harm for women from already violent customer and pimps (Raymond et al, 2002). "No way. It's not a profession. It is humiliating and violence from the men's side." Not one woman interviewed wanted her children, family or friends to have to earn money by entering the sex industry. One stated: "Prostitution stripped me of my life, my health, everything."

Conclusion:

Legislators leap onto the legalization bandwagon because they think nothing else is successful. However, as Scotland Yard's Commissioner has stated: "You've got to be careful about legalizing things just because you don't think what you are doing is successful."

We hear very little about the role of the sex industry in creating a global sex market in the bodies of women and children. Instead, we hear much about making prostitution into a better job for women through regulation and/or legalization, through unions of so-called "sex workers," and through campaigns which provide condoms to women in prostitution but cannot provide them with alternatives to prostitution. We hear much about how to keep women in prostitution but very little about how to help women get out.

Governments that legalize prostitution as "sex work" will have a huge economic stake in the sex industry. Consequently, this will foster their increased dependence on the sex sector. If women in prostitution are counted as workers, pimps as businessmen, and buyers as consumers of sexual services, thus legitimating the entire sex industry as an economic sector, then governments can abdicate responsibility for making decent and sustainable employment available to women

Rather than the State sanctioning prostitution, the State could address the demand by penalizing the men who buy women for the sex of prostitution, and support the development of alternatives for women in prostitution industries. Instead of governments cashing in on the economic benefits of the sex industry by taxing it, governments could invest in the futures of prostituted women by providing economic resources, from the seizure of sex industry assets, to provide real alternatives for women in prostitution.

Notes:

*Budapest Group. (1999, June). The Relationship Between Organized Crime and Trafficking in Aliens. Austria: International Centre for Migration Policy Development. The Budapest process was initiated in 1991. Nearly 40 governments and 10 organizations participate in the process, and about 50 intergovernmental meetings at various levels have been held, including the Prague Ministerial Conference.

**The National Rapporteur on trafficking at the National Swedish Police has stated that in the 6 months following the implementation of the Swedish law in January 1999, the number of trafficked women to Sweden has declined. She also stated that according to police colleagues in the European Union that traffickers are choosing other destination countries where they are not constrained by similar laws. Thus the law serves as a deterrent to traffickers. Quoted in Karl Vicktor Olsson, "Sexkopslagen minkar handeln med kvinnor," Metro, January 27, 2001: 2.

REFERENCES

Altink, Sietske. (1995). Stolen Lives: Trading Women into Sex and Slavery (London: Scarlet Press).

Budapest Group. (1999, June). The Relationship Between Organized Crime and Trafficking in Aliens. Austria: International Centre for Migration Policy Development.

Bureau NRM. (2002, November). Trafficking in Human Beings: First Report of the Dutch National Rapporteur. The Hague. 155 pp.

Daley, Suzanne. (2001, August 12). "New Rights for Dutch Prostitutes, but No Gain." New York Times, pp. A1 and 4. Dutting, Giseling. (2000, November). "Legalized Prostitution in the Netherlands - Recent Debates. Women's Global Network for Reproductive Rights, 3: 15-16.

IOM (International Organization for Migration). (1995, May). "Trafficking and Prostitution: the Growing Exploitation of Migrant Women from Central and Eastern Europe. Budapest: IOM Migration Information Program.

Lim, Lin Lean (1998). The Sex Sector. International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland.

Raymond, Janice G., Donna M. Hughes, Donna M. and Carol A. Gomez (2001). Sex Trafficking of Women in the United States: Links Between International and Domestic Sex Industries, Funded by the U.S. National Institute of Justice. N. Amherst, MA: Coalition Against Trafficking in Women. Available at http://www.catwinternational.org

Raymond, Janice G., Jean d'Cunha, Siti Ruhaini Dzuhayatin, H. Patricia
Hynes, Zoraida Ramirez Rodriguez and Aida Santos (2002). A Comparative Study of Women Trafficked in the Migration Process: Patterns, Profiles and Health Consequences of Sexual Exploitation in Five Countries (Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand, Venezuela and the United States). (2002). Funded by the Ford Foundation. N. Amherst, MA: Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW). Available at http://www.catwinternational.org

South China Morning Post (1999, September 10)."Brothel Business Booming at a Legal Red-Light District Near You."

Sullivan, Mary and Jeffreys, Sheila. (2001). Legalising Prostitution is Not the Answer: the Example of Victoria, Australia. Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, Australia and USA. Available at http://www.catwinternational.org

Tiggeloven, Carin. (2001, December 18). "Child Prostitution in the Netherlands." Was available at http://www.nw.nl/hotspots/html/netherlands011218.html.

you know in America they have tantric sex classes where you can pay for lessons in sex. So I would like to announce that I am now teaching my own patented art of love making. $200 a lesson.

the ignorance demonstrated by the OP is staggering. It is also nearly beyond belief that somehow he would equate the "horrible" existance of prostitutes as the act of prostitution itself and NOT the fact that it is illegal leading to:

1) no workplace protection

2) no minimum wage protection

3) no insurance

4) no clean enviornments

And the wonder of legalizing it is that IT GETS REGULATED and treated like EVERY OTHER JOB

What does legalization of prostitution or decriminalization of the sex industry mean? In the Netherlands, legalization amounts to sanctioning all aspects of the sex industry: the women themselves, the so-called "clients," and the pimps who, under the regime of legalization, are transformed into third party businessmen and legitimate sexual entrepreneurs.
So? What's the difference between them and any other third party businessman?

the ignorance demonstrated by the OP is staggering. It is also nearly beyond belief that somehow he would equate the "horrible" existance of prostitutes as the act of prostitution itself and NOT the fact that it is illegal leading to:

1) no workplace protection

2) no minimum wage protection

3) no insurance

4) no clean enviornments

And the wonder of legalizing it is that IT GETS REGULATED and treated like EVERY OTHER JOB

Read post 190 and come back to me - I've posted enough and the facts are quite clear.

Vancouver disagrees with you.

Link (http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/prostitution_legalizing.html)

As does a 5 country study:

That article was written by a woman who has never worked in the sex trade, and presumably wants to 'save' the 'poor victims' just like you. I repeat: you have yet to quote a single sex worker directly. All your links are from people like this, who claim to speak for sex workers. My links are to websites that are run by, and for, sex workers.

Also, the study you speak of interviewed 146 women. That's about 29 per country. The two links I gave you are for groups representing far more than 150 people in Canada alone. And we don't get to look at the study, do we? We just get the interpretation by Ms. Raymond.

And the Sex Workers Alliance of Vancouver also agrees with me.

http://www.walnet.org/csis/groups/swav/index.html

That was hard. The Vancouver site had a reward for missing prostitutes in the Vancouver area. Made me think of the Pickton trial.

If prostitution had been legalised in Vanvouver ten years ago, they wouldn't be picking body parts out of a pig farm right now.

Barringtonia, I have one question for you: Do you think prostitutes should have the right to decide if their profession should be legal or not?

Read post 190 and come back to me - I've posted enough and the facts are quite clear.

I've read it, and that post makes the same damned stupid mistake you do. It operates under the presumption that legalizing prostitution means simply making the acts currently going on legal and not, like, regulating it.

You know, like every other job.

The arguments are beyond stupid, they are beyond ascinine. Your "facts" demonstrate only that you're not the only one who can't think straight on the matter and can't seem to figure out that legalizing prostitution would also mean REGULATING prostitution, and not merely going "ok, it's legal now" and that prostitution that does not adhere to those regulations will still be JUST AS ILLEGAL.

In short, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

So? What's the difference between them and any other third party businessman?

This I don't mind answering as it's a reasonable question. It links to Hamilay's point - what about gambling? Does that not prey on weakness, exploit and destroy people?

As I've said before, selling one's body in and of itself is not a problem, it's a free choice as much as gambling is.

Yet many many countries don't allow specific advertising of gambling itself, much as advertising for smoking has been severely curtailed.

It's really a question of valid choice in entering a contract, what that contract entails and the consequences of entering into it.

Much as I cannot blame a 13 year old for smoking their first cigarette, I can blame the industry that allows if not promotes that choice.

I cannot blame a person for taking a first hit of heroin but, knowing the eventual consequences in nearly all cases, and the circumstances often involved in making the 'choice' to have that first hit, I can see the decision as one wish should be hard to make due to the scarcity.

I think it's total but it doesn't detract from my point - I'll try to check it out.

Well, if it deals with illegal prostitution, then wouldn't that be an argument for legalisation? Or at least enforcement of laws alreadfy on the books. I wonder if we found another profession that was thought of as unworthy and who's practioners were regular victems of crime, let's say convenience store clerks, would you outlaw the profession? Or would you enforce existing laws against kidnapping, assault, and rape?

Not really, I'm assuming you're talking about the Uni. of Nevada issue?

Not really - just the whole "prostitution is de ebil" spin it seemed to have. NERVUN's comments served to confirmed my suspicions that is was spun pretty badly.

The review is written by a British journalist so it could simply be an instance of omission - the editors may have cut the full name included in the actual report due to ignorance that their was a distinction to be made.

Or maybe it was just a spin job?

And even if it isn't, why focus on criminalising sex for money, as opposed to enforcement of laws against kidnapping, assault, and rape?

although I'm tired of hunting for all the cites as I've switched to Apple (and it's lack of right-click c+p ability) the onus is on me I suppose.

's what ya get for going Apple...

Barringtonia, I have one question for you: Do you think prostitutes should have the right to decide if their profession should be legal or not?

As much as heroin addicts should have the right to decide whether heroin should be legal.

I've read it, and that post makes the same damned stupid mistake you do. It operates under the presumption that legalizing prostitution means simply making the acts currently going on legal and not, like, regulating it.

You know, like every other job.

The arguments are beyond stupid, they are beyond ascinine. Your "facts" demonstrate only that you're not the only one who can't think straight on the matter and can't seem to figure out that legalizing prostitution would also mean REGULATING prostitution, and not merely going "ok, it's legal now" and that prostitution that does not adhere to those regulations will still be JUST AS ILLEGAL.

In short, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone on this forum is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Despite all the studies cited in the post you're still going on your own opinion - because clearly it's better.

As much as heroin addicts should have the right to decide whether heroin should be legal.

so, yes then

Well, if it deals with illegal prostitution, then wouldn't that be an argument for legalisation? Or at least enforcement of laws alreadfy on the books. I wonder if we found another profession that was thought of as unworthy and who's practioners were regular victems of crime, let's say convenience store clerks, would you outlaw the profession? Or would you enforce existing laws against kidnapping, assault, and rape?

Except for the extent of criminality that goes alongside, rise in trafficking and more and studies cited have shown,

Or maybe it was just a spin job?

I need to get back to you on the report cite but she's 35 years in psychology and I don't think she'd be so easily caught out compared to the idea that the journalist made an omission through ignorance.

And even if it isn't, why focus on criminalising sex for money, as opposed to enforcement of laws against kidnapping, assault, and rape?

I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing for criminalising the demand.

's what ya get for going Apple...

:)

Despite all the studies cited in the post you're still going on your own opinion - because clearly it's better.

absolutly. Why?

Because I'm not the one crafting studies with a built in bias trying to "save the poor oppressed prostitute" with my own opinions despite not having any actual work in the field, ever.

Because I am capable of actually looking at similar areas like pornography and realizing that when there is a well regulated industry, while there will be a black market, this black market is severely dimished. After all, why work for no minimum wage, no health insurance and no on the job safety when you can work in a real job with all the benefits therein?

Because I don't have some bullshit paternalistic perspective where I presume that I know better than someone else what to do with their own body.

Because I don't commit serious breaches of academic integrity by publishing numbers of those who agree with me absent the numbers of the overall sample size.

Because I recognize that despite ongoing criminalization the profession has, and will continue to exist, and that regulating a profession that will exist anyway only serves to make it safer

In short, my position is better because I'm not a patronizing fuck with a moral axe to grind who instead of actually trying to get some regulation and stability to the profession would prefer to have people continue to sell themselves in an unregulated and unsafe black market because I'm trying to "save" them.

As much as heroin addicts should have the right to decide whether heroin should be legal.

This is an odd analogy that doesn't really answer my question. A simple yes or no will suffice. If not, a clear explanation would be appreciated.

Except for the extent of criminality that goes alongside, rise in trafficking and more and studies cited have shown,

So rather than enforce laws on the books you want to push the sex industry underground where the laws have no chance of being enforced? That's nonsensical. At least if it's legal, there'll be an opprotunity to work on enforcing the laws that are your real concerns.

I need to get back to you on the report cite but she's 35 years in psychology and I don't think she'd be so easily caught out over the idea that the journalist made an omission through ignorance.

If it's the journo's ommission, so be it. But it sounds like nasty spin from the academic to me.

I'm not arguing that, I'm arguing for criminalising the demand.

That's rather like the anti-firearm advocates argument that all ought to be deprived of their rights because of a few who break the laws.

:)

:p

This is an odd analogy that doesn't really answer my question. A simple yes or no will suffice. If not, a clear explanation would be appreciated.

apparently consensual sex between adults is analogous to a highly addictive drug that can kill you.

it tells you a lot about the OPs perceptions does it not?

Because I am capable of actually looking at similar areas like pornography and realizing that when there is a well regulated industry, while there will be a black market, this black market is severely dimished.

Your opinion of yourself is compelling and worthy of study itself.

Another argument for legalizing prostitution in the Netherlands was that it would help end child prostitution. In reality, however, child prostitution in the Netherlands has increased dramatically during the 1990s. The Amsterdam-based ChildRight organization estimates that the number has gone from 4,000 children in 1996 to 15,000 in 2001. The group estimates that at least 5,000 of the children in prostitution are from other countries, with a large segment being Nigerian girls (Tiggeloven: 2001).

Child prostitution has dramatically risen in Victoria compared to other Australian states where prostitution has not been legalized. Of all the states and territories in Australia, the highest number of reported incidences of child prostitution came from Victoria. In a 1998 study undertaken by ECPAT (End Child Prostitution and Trafficking) who conducted research for the Australian National Inquiry on Child Prostitution, there was increased evidence of organized commercial exploitation of children.

Diminishing black market activities - I think not.

apparently consensual sex between adults is analogous to a highly addictive drug that can kill you.

it tells you a lot about the OPs perceptions does it not?

To be honest, I have no idea what Barringtonia meant. None at all.

To be honest, I have no idea what Barringtonia meant. None at all.

The point, which has been explained before, is that prostitutes do not understand the consequences of their decision when entering, and often feel that it's something they'll do for a bit, to tide themselves over or whatever excuse gets them over the initial act, which often makes them sick before they become numbingly used to it.

20 years later and their life is effectively finished - what other job is so poorly paid, so restrictive even when 'regulated', so over when looks are gone, so open to violent abuse, so open to long-term psychological damage.

And would be the same whether legalised or not.

Yet again, I'm not criminalising the supply, I'm criminalising the demand - legalising brothels makes it acceptable for people to go to places and pay for sex, which in itself may be fine, but the consequent side-effects for the majority is quite destructive.

Your opinion of yourself is compelling and worthy of study itself.

I have an extraordinarily high opinion of myself, partially, but not exclusively because I am capable of academic and intellectual honesty, and not letting my personal morality interfere with others lives.

Things you seem incapable of.

you are likewise incapable of understanding that the mere presence of correlation does not positively indicate causation.

The point, which has been explained before, is that prostitutes do not understand the consequences of their decision when entering

and I'm going to let that point stand there a little bit, just so we all can see exactly what kind of person you are.

I have an extraordinarily high opinion of myself, partially, but not exclusively because I am capable of academic and intellectual honesty, and not letting my personal morality interfere with others lives.

Things you seem incapable of.

you are likewise incapable of understanding that the mere presence of correlation does not positively indicate causation.

Perhaps you need more then.

As men have an excess of "sexual services" that are offered to them, women must compete to provide services by engaging in anal sex, sex without condoms, bondage and domination and other proclivities demanded by the clients. Once prostitution is legalized, all holds are barred. Women's reproductive capacities are sellable products, for example. A whole new group of clients find pregnancy a sexual turn-on and demand breast milk in their sexual encounters with pregnant women. Specialty brothels are provided for disabled men, and State-employed caretakers who are mostly women must take these men to the brothels if they wish to go (Sullivan and Jeffreys: 2001).

Advertisements line the highways of Victoria offering women as objects for sexual use and teaching new generations of men and boys to treat women as subordinates. Businessmen are encouraged to hold their corporate meetings in these clubs where owners supply naked women on the table at tea breaks and lunchtime.

A Melbourne brothel owner stated that the client base was "well educated professional men, who visit during the day and then go home to their families." Women who desire more egalitarian relationships with men find that often the men in their lives are visiting the brothels and sex clubs. They have the choice to accept that their male partners are buying women in commercial sexual transactions, avoid recognizing what their partners are doing, or leave the relationship (Sullivan and Jeffreys: 2001).

and I'm going to let that point stand there a little bit, just so we all can see exactly what kind of person you are.

Haha - I think I see what's happening here - people seems to be placing a negative connotation on the word prostitute and creating a transferral to assuming I think lowly of prostitutes when, in fact, I'm standing up for exploited people.

Perhaps I should write: The point, which has been explained before, is that people do not understand the consequences of their decision when entering prostitution.

Your opinion of yourself is compelling and worthy of study itself.



Diminishing black market activities - I think not.

Your paragraph is from the Raymond article and refers to a newspapr article, not a study, done by Carin Tiggeloven.

Here is the complete article:

http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/netherlands011218.html

You will note that the article does not mention any link between legalisation of prostitution and increased child prostitution except in the last paragraph:

According to ChildRight, police should give more attention to child prostitution, instead of focusing primarily on child pornography or drug abuse. "Drugs, weapons caches or trucks loaded with child porn are much more exciting than a 14-year-old girl victim", concludes Mr Knippenberg. It's a view flatly contradicted by a police spokesman, who points out that "a national project group has been set up after the government moved to legalise prostitution earlier this year. We know pretty well what's going on."

Legalisation of prostitution apparently makes it easier for cops to know what's going on, according to the cops.

The causal link that Raymond claims, and is trying to support, is not established by her source material.

I was unable to even find the EPCAT study.

Haha - I think I see what's happening here - people seems to be placing a negative connotation on the word prostitute and creating a transferral to assuming I think lowly of prostitutes when, in fact, I'm standing up for exploited people.

Perhaps I should write: The point, which has been explained before, is that people do not understand the consequences of their decision when entering prostitution.

You just said that it is your belief that prostitutes are incapable of understanding the consequences of their actions.

How is insulting their faculties and insinuating that prostitutes are not capable of making informed decisions for themselvs NOT thinking lowly of them?

Yeah, you keep on standing up for exploiting people by....preventing any effective means for them to take control of their own profession and avoid exploitation.

How saintly of you, you must REALLY care to want to do absolutly nothing effective what so ever. The world is truly better off with people like you who want to penalize the people they claim to want to save.

No, wait...

The point, which has been explained before, is that prostitutes do not understand the consequences of their decision when entering, and often feel that it's something they'll do for a bit, to tide themselves over or whatever excuse gets them over the initial act, which often makes them sick before they become numbingly used to it.

Let's see what's wrong with this statement?

Well, they don't become prostitutes until they actually enter the "job".

It's rather presumptuous to assume that the people who enter prostitution enter blind-folded unaware of any foreseeable consequences. Yes younger people may be less aware of the consequences but the majority likely know what they are in for and are prepared to deal with it.

Not everyone is the same and not everyone will enter it for the same reasons nor have the same reactions as you have described. Some people may enjoy it and like going for the ride.

20 years later and their life is effectively finished - what other job is so poorly paid, so restrictive even when 'regulated', so over when looks are gone, so open to violent abuse, so open to long-term psychological damage.

Why 20 years? What's so magical about that number? I've seen older women who look great for their age and plenty of younger ones who look like they've been thrown aside like last night's rancid left overs.

No one's life is necessarily finished after 20 years.

In fact, if prostitution was legalised there would still be a place for older prostitutes who could assume an entertaining role or a managerial role or one that serves to aid younger workers who may been having difficulties and helping to police the industry.

Older workers who may not be as in demand for sexual work can still work in their area if it was legalised by doing other tasks.

Yes regulation may not protect everyone but it will certainly help make the general conditions better. There are jobs that still remain unsafe because employers don't adequately educate younger works about their rights (such as the right to refuse to do work that may be dangerous) and any potential dangers that may exist on the job.

Name me one regulated profession where the work environment is free of all those evils you've cited.

Your paragraph is from the Raymond article and refers to a newspapr article, not a study, done by Carin Tiggeloven.

Here is the complete article:

http://www.radionetherlands.nl/currentaffairs/region/netherlands/netherlands011218.html

You will note that the article does not mention any link between legalisation of prostitution and increased child prostitution except in the last paragraph:



Legalisation of prostitution apparently makes it easier for cops to know what's going on, according to the cops.

The causal link that Raymond claims, and is trying to support, is not established by her source material.

I was unable to even find the EPCAT study.

Quote the entire article:

The number of Dutch children working in prostitution has increased dramatically over the past five years: from 4,000 to 15,000 according to figures published by the Amsterdam-based ChildRight organization. Dutch police says the numbers are much lower, but acknowledges there is a big problem. This week, a major conference on the global child sex trade went underway in the Japanese city of Yokohama.
Most children that end up in prostitution in the Netherlands are boys or young under aged asylum-seekers – particularly Nigerian girls. ChildRight claims this group numbers some 5,000 children. But recent years have seen a significant rise on the number of Dutch girls forced into the sex industry. Among them are an estimated 5,000 runaway or homeless children, many of whom are mentally retarded. Another large group (also 5,000) are ‘ordinary' Dutch schoolgirls, aged 13 or 14 from a "regular home environment" who are lured into prostitution by so-called "lover-boys".

Theo Knippenberg, the Director of ChildRight describes the lover-boys as handsome-looking adolescents who appear to have made it in life. They're well-dressed, drive expensive cars and lavish presents on these young and susceptible girls, who will quickly fall in love with them. "Of course, they'll have sex and after a while the girl will be forced to have sex with one of his friends, which will open the way for prostitution."

Research methods
ChildRight has based its findings on interviews with local relief workers, advice centres and police detectives from youth and vice squads. Police sources question the estimation of 15,000 and say it doesn't fit with their figures, which suggest that predominantly girls from migrant communities are still most at risk. The UN Children's Organisation UNICEF says it's unable to corroborate the figures, but its spokesperson Maud Drooghlever Fortuyn says that in her view, the estimates point to a serious problem, that appears to get bigger."


ChildRight Worldwide was founded in 1994 by Dutch Nobel Laureates Jan Tinbergen and Simon van der Meer.
It aims to bring child abuse to wider public attention, focusing primarily on child slavery and child labour.

Reporting to Police
ChildRight says official police figures are based on the number of cases that are reported. But, says Theo Knippenberg, "not many girls actually go to the police, which means that the true scale of the problem remains unknown." He believes that many detectives working for youth and vice squads are aware of the problem, but can do little about it as long as girls don't report.

According to ChildRight, police should give more attention to child prostitution, instead of focusing primarily on child pornography or drug abuse. "Drugs, weapons caches or trucks loaded with child porn are much more exciting than a 14-year-old girl victim", concludes Mr Knippenberg. It's a view flatly contradicted by a police spokesman, who points out that "a national project group has been set up after the government moved to legalise prostitution earlier this year. We know pretty well what's going on."

UNICEF
ChildRight has presented its report to this week's second World Congress against the Commercial Exploitation of Children in Yokohama. The gathering is also attended by UNICEF. Its spokesperson Maud Drooghlever Fortuyn says "it should be absolutely clear that the commercial exploitation of children in the sex industry cannot be tolerated. You can't just say: children should know what they're doing. This should be stopped, it should be punishable by law."

Not a diminishing problem by any means.

Perhaps I should write: The point, which has been explained before, is that people do not understand the consequences of their decision when entering prostitution.

Is this prostitute specific or all sex workers?

The world is truly better off with people like you who want to penalize the people they claim to want to save.

No, wait...

Just to show where you're lacking reading comprehension:


Yet again, I'm not criminalising the supply, I'm criminalising the demand - legalising brothels makes it acceptable for people to go to places and pay for sex, which in itself may be fine, but the consequent side-effects for the majority is quite destructive.

Is this prostitute specific or all sex workers? And what consequences are they not understanding exactly?

Honestly - it's late in my part of the world and I'm tired of repeating myself to the same questions that are asked by different people, dealt with, then someone comes in later with the same question - no reflection on you to be sure but I'm off to sleep.

The point, which has been explained before, is that prostitutes do not understand the consequences of their decision when entering, and often feel that it's something they'll do for a bit, to tide themselves over or whatever excuse gets them over the initial act, which often makes them sick before they become numbingly used to it.

So, you believe that sex workers are simply too unintelligent to realise what they're getting into?

What about those active sex workers who are currently working in the sex trade and want to legalise it? Are they simply ignorant of the reality?

Haha - I think I see what's happening here - people seems to be placing a negative connotation on the word prostitute and creating a transferral to assuming I think lowly of prostitutes when, in fact, I'm standing up for exploited people.

Perhaps I should write: The point, which has been explained before, is that people do not understand the consequences of their decision when entering prostitution.

What is happening is that you are placing a negative connotation on prostitutes, making them seem like exploited and ignorant waifs who need to be saved from their own bad mistakes.

And the bolded parts from the Tiggeloven article do not support Raymond's claim of causality between legalisation and an increased rate of child prostitution.

Just to show where you're lacking reading comprehension:

You're indirectly penalising those that you want to save because by criminalising demand you're penalising those offering the supply because then no one is there to buy the service. It's an indirect consequence of the choice to penalise the demand.

Just to show where you're lacking reading comprehension:

yeah, because that makes a real difference. I'm not criminalizing prostitution, I'm just making engaging in their services illegal!

Which makes...no actual difference what so ever as it still makes the interaction illegal and pushes it underground.

:rolleyes:

The point, which has been explained before, is that prostitutes do not understand the consequences of their decision when entering, and often feel that it's something they'll do for a bit, to tide themselves over or whatever excuse gets them over the initial act, which often makes them sick before they become numbingly used to it.
And some love their job. You are painting with a broad brush.

20 years later and their life is effectively finished - what other job is so poorly paid, so restrictive even when 'regulated', so over when looks are gone, so open to violent abuse, so open to long-term psychological damage.
So the pro fem dom who makes $300/hr isn't possibly putting any of that money away? Not all sex workers are poorly paid my friend.

Doesn't make it right - the question is whether anyone 'chooses' to be a prostitute.

One real problem is that your job is over around 40, or at least you're lowering and lowering your price just to get a trick. There's no welfare, pension plan or likelihood of savings either.

I just can't see any justification for legalizing it anymore - it's simply degrading.

Because if it was legal then all the things you complain about would no longer be the case. A hooker would be self-employed, subject to self-employment tax, but also eligible for social security. She would get to keep more of her own money because pimps could be prosecuted for assault and battery, if they had a place at all it would simply be as agents with a 10% cut like any other promoter. So she would be able to save for retirement, which they can't do now because most of their money goes to motel rooms and pimps.

Honestly - it's late in my part of the world and I'm tired of repeating myself to the same questions that are asked by different people, dealt with, then someone comes in later with the same question - no reflection on you to be sure but I'm off to sleep.

Okay, let me be specific. Are you also talking about pro fem doms and women who let men touch their feet?

And cut the fucking douchbaggery, okay?

There are jobs that still remain unsafe because employers don't adequately educate younger works about their rights (such as the right to refuse to do work that may be dangerous) and any potential dangers that may exist on the job.


Reality contradicts your happy world of regulation. Legalizing prostitution the way it's been done opens the door to further objectification of women, which in turn leads to further reduction of use and knowledge of said rights because the brothel operators and clients see nothing wrong with it. You don't accord chairs or chickens rights do you?

One only needs to see places where the sex trade is legal to know just exactly how bad the objectification is done. Take Australia for example. Women are advertised like commodities, promises of 'anything goes' are prevalent.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that somehow, this sort of legalization empowers prostitutes? The entire societal perception of the sex trade is further tainted by these ideas, placing women not as equal humans, but on the level of livestock.

It's a downward spiral.

Reality contradicts your happy world of regulation. Legalizing prostitution the way it's been done opens the door to further objectification of women, which in turn leads to further reduction of use and knowledge of said rights because the brothel operators and clients see nothing wrong with it. You don't accord chairs or chickens rights do you?

One only needs to see places where the sex trade is legal to know just exactly how bad the objectification is done. Take Australia for example. Women are advertised like commodities, promises of 'anything goes' are prevalent.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that somehow, this sort of legalization empowers prostitutes? The entire societal perception of the sex trade is further tainted by these ideas, placing women not as equal humans, but on the level of livestock.

It's a downward spiral.

Living in a state where sex work laws are extremely lax, I'd have to disagree. The laws have been like this as long as I've been alive and I've never seen this downward spiral. Women are trated the same here as anywhere.

And why are you singling out women? Are male sex workers impervious to objectification or is it just okay to objectify men?

Reality contradicts your happy world of regulation. Legalizing prostitution the way it's been done opens the door to further objectification of women, which in turn leads to further reduction of use and knowledge of said rights because the brothel operators and clients see nothing wrong with it. You don't accord chairs or chickens rights do you?

One only needs to see places where the sex trade is legal to know just exactly how bad the objectification is done. Take Australia for example. Women are advertised like commodities, promises of 'anything goes' are prevalent.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that somehow, this sort of legalization empowers prostitutes? The entire societal perception of the sex trade is further tainted by these ideas, placing women not as equal humans, but on the level of livestock.

It's a downward spiral.

No, I'm saying that there are jobs that are subject to regulations as well as current existing labour laws yet they are far from perfect. Why should one potentially dangerous job be legal while another not be legal? That's what my point is.

I never said anything about regulation solving the problems, in fact, the one thing you quote me on was me admitting the regulation hasn't made everything safer and that employers who have a responsibility to ensure that their employees know their rights may not always follow up on that and subsequently there are younger workers who are injured on the job because of it.

Knowing that they have rights is empowering for any person. How they use those rights is their choice. But if the profession was legalised it would give them a viable legal recourse if they needed. It is difficult to seek help now because prostitution is illegal and if any worker went for help they would inherently incriminate themself in the process.

As long as their profession was legal, they would have one less thing to worry about and isn't that ideally better?

Regulation doesn't solve everything but it gives a legal framework for people so they know what the rules are.

Now, one thing, seeing how prostitution isn't just a female slanted career, why do you have no objection to men being treated as sexual objects as women are? Or are women the only ones capable of being prostitutes?

Like any profession, it is equally accessible for both genders.

Why no concern for the objectification of male prostitutes or are they not worthy of the same level of "concern" that exists for the females?

Male prostitutes are just as exploitable and they are as equally objectifiable.

Living in a state where sex work laws are extremely lax, I'd have to disagree. The laws have been like this as long as I've been alive and I've never seen this downward spiral. Women are trated the same here as anywhere.

And how exactly are the women treated there hmm? The sex workers that is.


And why are you singling out women? Are male sex workers impervious to objectification or is it just okay to objectify men?

Hardly. However, you very rarely see advertising for male sex workers in countries where it is legal compared to female sex workers. Male sex workers aren't impervious to being objectified, but are certainly less objectified than females.

And how exactly are the women treated there hmm? The sex workers that is.
I personally know several. They love their job, have retirement plans, never been raped, and have extremely high self esteem.

Hardly. However, you very rarely see advertising for male sex workers in countries where it is legal compared to female sex workers. Male sex workers aren't impervious to being objectified, but are certainly less objectified than females.

First part is explained by supply and demand. Here I'd say the ads are about 25% to 75%. I just want to know what the difference is between the pro dom in her sexy lengerie and the guy flashing his ass? How is one less objectified than the other?

No, I'm saying that there are jobs that are subject to regulations as well as current existing labour laws yet they are far from perfect. Why should one potentially dangerous job be legal while another not be legal? That's what my point is.


For a simple reason. Compared to other hazardous professions, the laws and enforcement covering the sex trade and illicit supply (read trafficking) has about as much effectiveness as a wet tissue paper at stopping a flood.

Societal attitudes are further poisoned against sex trade workers who become stigmatized regardless of the legality of their profession.

Nobody cares if you work in a mineshaft or have a job on the bomb squad. But if you're a prostitute, suddenly people don't want to associate with you, reports of sexual abuse are laughed off on the basis of "You're a prostitute, you can't be abused", and parents hide their children from you, which may lead to said children throwing stones at you for being a "bad person".

The demand, and its perception of supply, is the problem, not the supply itself.


Knowing that they have rights is empowering for any person. How they use those rights is their choice. But if the profession was legalised it would give them a viable legal recourse if they needed. It is difficult to seek help now because prostitution is illegal and if any worker went for help they would inherently incriminate themself in the process.

That might work for locally born and knowledgeable people, but all it would do is force brothel operators to source traffickers as a cheaper and more pliant supply.


Regulation doesn't solve everything but it gives a legal framework for people so they know what the rules are.


Rape is illegal. Yet the conviction rate is low, and if you're a prostitute, you can forget getting a conviction.

The rules are generally worthless in this scenario because of biases in the ones interpreting them.


Now, one thing, seeing how prostitution isn't just a female slanted career, why do you have no objection to men being treated as sexual objects as women are? Or are women the only ones capable of being prostitutes?


I may have mentioned women in my earlier examples, but I certainly did not under any circumstance or place say that the objectification of men as sex objects for sale is acceptable.

Anything you thought implying that is inherently false.

I personally know several. They love their job, have retirement plans, never been raped, and have extremely high self esteem.

That's evading the question. I asked how they were treated. That means seeing with your own eyes how people treat them. Not whether they loved their jobs. Pay attention to how they go about their non-work related business like shopping and otherwise. See how people who know their profession treat them. Observe the differences between those interactions and others.


First part is explained by supply and demand. Here I'd say the ads are about 25% to 75%. I just want to know what the difference is between the pro dom in her sexy lengerie and the guy flashing his ass? How is one less objectified than the other?

A matter of coverage. Women are more prominent in advertisements for the sex trade than men.

The rate of objectification is slower. But the fact remains that both are objectified.

And it's 'lingerie' not 'lengerie'

That's evading the question. I asked how they were treated. That means seeing with your own eyes how people treat them. Not whether they loved their jobs.
Like eveyone else. Fuck, better than most to be honest.


A matter of coverage. Women are more prominent in advertisements for the sex trade than men.

The rate of objectification is slower. But the fact remains that both are objectified.
It's supply and demand. And you singling women out is insulting and bigoted.

And if the best you can do is nit pick my spelling, fuck off.

I signed a contract to be raped once.





Jokes on them, you can't rape the willing. <.< >.>

I signed a contract to be raped once.





Jokes on them, you can't rape the willing.

You mean you got married without a pre-nup?:D





Unless that's part of the fantasy. *nods*

Like eveyone else. Fuck, better than most to be honest.

Mmmhmm, I'll have to take your word for it. But I'm a bit skeptical about that claim. I'm sure you, being reasonable, would understand.


It's supply and demand. And you singling women out is insulting and bigoted.


Ah, so now you take offense regardless of my explanation that it doesn't really make any difference whether it's men or women being objectified?

Clever. I could almost say it's an original response. But on NSG, sadly. It isn't

Will you now focus on the actual point of objectification, or will you continue to bang on that singular drum of "I singled out women only"?


And if the best you can do is nit pick my spelling, fuck off.

I did quite a bit more than just that. But I remind you that it was you, not I, who decided to start this little debate between the both of us.

Perhaps you should wait a while, take in some perspective of what is important to respond to with vehemence and what isn't, before you reply.

(Thread too long. catching up... but untill then... apologies if this has been said before.)

Legalising prostitution is one thing, but following though and making sure that those legal brothels conform with current health and saftey regulations is what seems to be lacking.

Meanwhile, illegal brothels are on the increase in Nevada, as they are in other parts of the world where brothels are legalised. Nevada's illegal prostitution industry is already nine times greater than the state's legal brothels. "Legalising this industry does not result in the closing down of illegal sex establishments," says Farley, "it merely gives them further permission to exist."

Here Nevada fails. By legalsing prostitution, it gives Nevada an excuse to crack down on the illegal brothels and prostitution, including tacking on such fines as "Operating without a licence", "Operating without a Health Permit", etc...

but in order for that to work, Nevada has to require the same from their "Legal" brothels. including regular health inspections as well as insuring employee safetly.

it's one thing to just say "legalise" it but it's another to make sure the work place is a safe place for both employees and customers.

The solution, Farley believes, is to educate people about the realities of legalised abuse of women. "Once the people of Nevada learn of [prostitutes'] suffering and emotional distress, and their lack of human rights, they, like me, will be persuaded that legal prostitution is an institution that just can't be fixed up or made a little better. It has to be abolished." The prevailing attitude in Nevada remains as it was a few centuries back though - that men have sexual "needs" that they have a right to fulfil. Outside one of the legal brothels a sign reads: "He who hesitates, masturbates."

Wrong. It can be fixed, it just need to be treated like any other business. Here are some steps to help "improve" brothel working conditions.

1) Healthcare workers are required to have regular checkups. due to the nature of their work, the same can be required from legal Brothel workers.

2) OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and other Occupational Regulators will have access to make sure that employee safety is factored into the workplace.

3) With the proper lawyers, the employees can legally bring grivances to a legal and binding conclusion.

4) by requiriing regular licencing and inspections, it can insure places where "women are locked in their rooms" would become illegal. amounting to slave labor.

it's one thing to say it's legalised, but in order to be effective in both insuring worker safety, it has to be regulated and treated like any other business.

For a simple reason. Compared to other hazardous professions, the laws and enforcement covering the sex trade and illicit supply (read trafficking) has about as much effectiveness as a wet tissue paper at stopping a flood.

Yes trafficking is a big issue and a concern but trafficking occurs for more than just the sex trade. It needs to be tackled but keeping prostitution illegal because trafficking exists will not solve either problem.

The two issues should be considered separate legal issues.

As long as people are un(der)-educated they will be exploited. As long as the law works against them, they will use underground means to achieve their ends.

Trafficking happens because often people are desperate. Or the people can be taken advantage of.

Societal attitudes are further poisoned against sex trade workers who become stigmatized regardless of the legality of their profession.

Because of the poisoned attitudes towards sexuality that still permeate elements of society.

Nobody cares if you work in a mineshaft or have a job on the bomb squad. But if you're a prostitute, suddenly people don't want to associate with you, reports of sexual abuse are laughed off on the basis of "You're a prostitute, you can't be abused", and parents hide their children from you, which may lead to said children throwing stones at you for being a "bad person".

Once again because of attitudes surrounding sex and sexuality. We're still rather oppressed in this respect. We've got yet to come to terms with our sexuality and see it as something natural rather than something that is dirty because of skewed morality that is stuck in the 19th century.

The demand, and its perception of supply, is the problem, not the supply itself.

Educating people would help in alleviating this perception.

That might work for locally born and knowledgeable people, but all it would do is force brothel operators to source traffickers as a cheaper and more pliant supply.

That is true.

This could be dealt with through regulation in that brothel operators would need an operator's license and be able to prove that their workers are not trafficked in and that the workers are aware of their rights. It may not be a perfect idea and a black market would still exist but it would make enforcement easier because those who agree with the law would be able to prove their compliance as they would have the license and such.

Just as now there are restaurants that are required by law to have a liquor license in order to sell liquor; those who don't are shut down and those who do are able to run their business. Those who sell liquor to minors have their licenses revoked... etc.

Current existing models could be used. Existing models aren't perfect but they make for a starting framework that can be improved upon.

Rape is illegal. Yet the conviction rate is low, and if you're a prostitute, you can forget getting a conviction.

The conviction rate is low because of a number of factors, including and not limited to: cultural impediments that create shame in the victim and force them not to report it because it is frowned upon in their culture; the victim not seeking medical attention instantly and possibly destroying any evidence that existed. There are many reasons that lead to a low rate of conviction.

The rules are generally worthless in this scenario because of biases in the ones interpreting them.

Because there are attitudes that still exist that place the blame on the victim because the victim may have previously held many relationships or have said "yes" on different occasions before saying "no".

I may have mentioned women in my earlier examples, but I certainly did not under any circumstance or place say that the objectification of men as sex objects for sale is acceptable.

Even if you didn't mean for it to, the lack of mention of men and the explicit mention of women led to the interpretation as such.

Mmmhmm, I'll have to take your word for it. But I'm a bit skeptical about that claim. I'm sure you, being reasonable, would understand.
Why ask the question then? You already have this preconceived notion in your brain. I live in a state that's embraced public nudity, we aren't a bunch of prudes here. I mean, none of my friends walk down the street with a t-shirt saying "I'm a sex worker." But in conversation, people are fascinated when they find out what they do. They want to hear stories, want advice, as soon as "I'm a pro dom" comes out of her lips, she's the life of the party.

Or another friend that lets rich old men touch her feet. She doesn't so much get asked for stories. People usually wrinkle their nose at the thought of the fetish, then they want to know how much you can make. Then it's a bunch of "Really? That much?"

It's funny, I actually know sex workers on a personal level, and I bet you haven't so much as said "hi" to one.


Ah, so now you take offense regardless of my explanation that it doesn't really make any difference whether it's men or women being objectified?
You explain, then go back to talking about women sex workers.

Clever. I could almost say it's an original response. But on NSG, sadly. It isn't
It's the truth. Be equal opportunity about this. All that's been said through this whole thread is

Will you now focus on the actual point of objectification, or will you continue to bang on that singular drum of "I singled out women only"?
Talk about women and men in the sex work industry and I'll be glad to.


I did quite a bit more than just that. But I remind you that it was you, not I, who decided to start this little debate between the both of us.
I was responding to your idiotic snipe of an edit. The spelling/grammer nazi schtick is tired.

um

whats the huge horror of women being "objectified'?

um

whats the huge horror of women being "objectified'?

The fact that it's just women being objectified, and not men AND women. You see, I'm an equal-opportunity sexist; what's good for women is good for men I say. :p

um

whats the huge horror of women being "objectified'?

Because we are delicate flowers who should be protected from the big bad world. Objectification of women also leads to bad prime time TV, higher interest rates, the death of terrestrial radio and athlete's foot.

ahhh thanks for the explanations.

prostitution like all physical jobs is open to exploitation. having it be legal and regulated gives the worker the best opportunity to do her job in a safe and profitable manner.

Prostitution and the objectification of women...

Some people say prostitution objectifies women. Some people argue that it empowers women. I think it can do both. Some systems would degrade women, while some would not.

I am not a sex worker. I cannot claim that I would know how to set up an empowering system, or that it should be legalised everywhere.

But I would guess that the sex workers themselves would be more than capable of organising themselves and creating a system that empowers them. If they feel that legalisation is part of the answer, then I support them.

The anti-legalisation crowd has put forth many arguments from many sources. As has the other side. I would like to point out that the anti-legalisation group has sources about sex workers.

The pro-legalisation side has sources by sex workers.

I think I know who I believe.

I think its fine unless they're forced into it. In this I think government regulation or complete take over of the industry would be a good thing. The only problem that I see is that some poorer families may just force their older children to go into this proffession to make money for them and that is just not right.

At its core it is.

Maybe. But unfortunately public policy cannot just be concerned with the "core" of issues. Society is more complicated than that.

But essentially, you either believe the government has the right to tell people what they can and cannot do with their bodies, or you don't.

Or maybe you believe that people can do what they want with their bodies, but they shouldn't be abused and exploited... and that it should really be what they want, not what they are coerced into doing by economic and social forces.

Which means that even if you support legalization, and I do, you support it being done in a certain way--a way that takes into account the complexity and breadth of the problem, and that is willing to address it systematically and not just adopt a simplistic laissez-faire attitude that only enables abuse.

Pretending that prostitution, at least prostitution as it currently exists in a society that is racist, sexist, and characterized by massive economic inequality, is somehow representative of "sexual liberation" is precisely the wrong way to go about it. It ignores the material reality for an abstraction.

However, making criminals of people for something they do with their own body

Criminal penalties against prostitutes is clearly a wrong approach that only worsens the problem. Even if the critics of prostitution are right, it amounts to blaming the victim. Its only justification can be a moral puritanism that should not be legally enforced by the government.

Objectification of women also leads to bad prime time TV.

Anyone who doesn't agree with this has obviously never seen 'According to Jim.'

Maybe. But unfortunately public policy cannot just be concerned with the "core" of issues. Society is more complicated than that....snips Soheran's long and excellent post...Criminal penalties against prostitutes is clearly a wrong approach that only worsens the problem. Even if the critics of prostitution are right, it amounts to blaming the victim. Its only justification can be a moral puritanism that should not be legally enforced by the government.

I agree. A laissez-faire system of legalisation will only compound the problems if the society is sexist and/or has puritanical views of sex.

This is why I keep harping on having sex workers and their support networks at the forefront of any movement towards legalisation. I believe we can trust them not to exploit themselves.

By the way, every time I read your name, I ask myself: So where did he run?

I don't see what the big deal is. So prostitutes have sex for money instead of pleasure. Well who in the world doesn't do their job for the money? If people liked their jobs we wouldn't have retirement.