NationStates Jolt Archive

I gotta go with George Carlin:

"Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"

I gotta go with George Carlin:

"Selling is legal. Fucking is legal. Why isn't selling fucking legal?"

If Carlin's logic is applied to food,... most of them would taste like feet.

I read that article and it is pure liberal garbage. The author took a look at 8 brothels and claimed that legalized prostitution is beyond reform. He also claimed that it is a myth that men have sexual needs. This writer needs to put down the tofu and go and get a brain!

I read that article and it is pure liberal garbage. The author took a look at 8 brothels and claimed that legalized prostitution is beyond reform. He also claimed that it is a myth that men have sexual needs. This writer needs to put down the tofu and go and get a brain!
Congratulation, you invalidated any point you may have had by being a colossal asshat.

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.

I don't "know" that it's 'wrong' for someone to profit off of their sexual availability and/or appeal, and I'm pretty sure I'm not utterly unique in that. If someone freely chooses to accept money for sex acts I don't think it's inherently demeaning to them. I mean if it was me, and someone offered me cash to go to bed with them, it would be up to me whether I want to get with them and take the money. I would find no shame in that.

What I would (and do) find objectionable is pimping, where vulnerable people are pressed into (and kept, through coercion) prostititution. I find it objectionable when the state tries to enforce someone else's conservative sexual hang-ups on everyone else for no other reason than that someone "feels" it's 'wrong.' I find it objectionable when the entire social and economic regime leaves anyone in such a dire financial position that they feel compelled to prostitute themselves for money to survive because they can't get by any other way. I find non-consentual sexual slavery objectionable. But the objective act of having sex and taking money for it, in and of itself--o long as it's consentual, so long as both parties are informed of any medical issues, so long as neither person feels exploited and there's no coercion-- doesn't strike me as 'wrong.'

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.


Almost every case that I hear against prostitution are prefaced with (or at some later point betrays) a personal, subjective, emotional bias on the part of the plaintiff. "I/we/everyone feels X." But that isn't (or shouldn't be) sufficient to serve as the basis of laws that everyone-- including those who happen not to feel the same way-- have to live under. Unless some objective basis can be clearly demonstrated why a thing should be illegal, and remain illegal without any attempts at reform to mitigate whatever harm "might" be (but not necessarily is) endemic, then it comes down to personal choice, and as soon as one person's subjective feelings override another's personal choice simply because of a critical mass of popular support, then all I have to do to get you jailed for "immorality" is convince enough people to agree with me. That's where 'democracy' devolves into unprincipled mob-rule.

Plus, why is it almost every argument against prostitution seems to take for granted that the prostitutes who need protection or rescue (from others, from themselves, from whoever) are necessarily women? There are male prostitutes too, and the failure to mention them illustrates something in itself. Sexism, or patriarchy, I'm not exactly sure what the appropriate word is, but to talk about prostitution as though it's a) always bad, and b) always women, is suggestive of its own biases and assumptions that may damage the argument overall.

I think it comes down to a question of how much we should trust adults in our society.

Does anyone here thing that women are honestly too stupid to figure out who they want to have sex with? Or that they can't figure out for them selves whether "sex for money" is a good deal? I don't think most people make the decision lightly. They know what the stakes are, the risks, and the rewards. They don't simply wake up one morning and decide to be a prostitute.

And really, if both people concent, where exactly is the problem? The only potential problems are underage sex and coercion. Both can be solved by requiring liscences. Besides preventing those problems, you can require tests for disease.

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.


You're thinking about street prostitution here. With legal prostitution, whores are more likely to be organized in brothels - if it's a normal job, why shouldn't there be a pension plan as in any other business?

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.

Ah, but prostitution is perfectly legal over here. It seems to work well (there was something about it the newspaper lately - I think they estimated 1 sex worker (I guess that includes strippers and such) for about 100 people). Business must obviously go well, and it seems there are no complaints excepts for neighbours of brothels (which is understandable, what with them often being in midst of residential neighbourhoods).

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


Quite a range of social jobs, actually. After years in their business, they have learnt to listen to people's problems and probably also developped the ability to keep a healthy distance the their clients/patients. There was a project about this a couple of years ago. Can't remember where I read about that, though.

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.
This is true, but I doubt it will work. Like an earlier poster said, most women don't want to become prostitutes; but feel it is the only way they can make a living. If we made it public, offered decent salaries, and moved out of the inner-city into the special center, I doubt anyone would sign up.

What would be better would be to not crack down harder or to legalize it, but to try to take away the causes of it (poverty, poor education, etc.).

...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.
One could also argue that the Johns are the ones being exploited. I know that's what this girl I knew who was (and might still be) a stripper always thought.

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:
Lots of jobs are physically and psychologically harmful. Tell anyone who served in an army during wartime about physically and psychologically harmful professions.

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?"
The person was saying that most prostitutes hate their jobs. I was just saying that a lot of people hate their jobs.

Also, thanks, I love being called stupid.

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 of course you know how to run their lives better than they do?

I think it's total but it doesn't detract from my point - I'll try to check it out.
Actually it does. Your stats claim that 75% of prostitutes contract an STD. NO Nevadan working girl has done so since the start of health checks.

You claim that women are forced into it. Nevada law makes it clear that no woman is to be forced into working at the brothels.

In Nevada, abuse is reported and a crime (As a matter of fact, someone got arrested and tried for hitting a brothel worker about 3 months ago IIRC).

Pimping is also a crime.

So, yes, your scary stats reflect illegal prostitution and not Nevada's industry.

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.
Yes, it is because I call BS when I see something like that.

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.
Uh, JuNii, Nevada DOES require health inspections. Every week the working girls MUST get tested for STDs with an HIV check every month. Employee safety is also insured as attacking a prostitute is illegal and will get your arrested by Nevada police.

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.

Done in Nevada.

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.
Done in Nevada. Actually, if memory serves, a brothel owner was fined about 2 years ago for being in violation of OSHA rules.

3) With the proper lawyers, the employees can legally bring grivances to a legal and binding conclusion.
Done in Nevada.

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.
Women are licenced in Nevada. The locked in their rooms thing is spin, that's NOT what happens and NOT what the law was meant for!

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.
I thought that doms don't usually have sex with their clients.

Actually one Nevada prostitute is a millionaire if I remember right. She was on TV daytime talking about her life. Airforce Amy I think is her nick. She still did it because she enjoyed it. *shrug* there are worse and more exploitive jobs out there.

I thought that doms don't usually have sex with their clients.

They don't...no matter how good you are....damn them...damn them to heck:P

Uh, JuNii, Nevada DOES require health inspections. Every week the working girls MUST get tested for STDs with an HIV check every month. Employee safety is also insured as attacking a prostitute is illegal and will get your arrested by Nevada police.

Done in Nevada.

Done in Nevada. Actually, if memory serves, a brothel owner was fined about 2 years ago for being in violation of OSHA rules.

Done in Nevada.

Women are licenced in Nevada. The locked in their rooms thing is spin, that's NOT what happens and NOT what the law was meant for!

If that is true, then the article is mostly BS. I assumed that most of the legal brothels would take better care of their workers. Infact, most of the reports from legal brothels that I have seen (including one where the investigative reporter quit her job to work full time at the Nevada Brothel she was reporting on) was different than this article.

now that I think about it. what proof does this writer have to say that she went to LEGAL brothels?

If that is true, then the article is mostly BS. I assumed that most of the legal brothels would take better care of their workers. Infact, most of the reports from legal brothels that I have seen (including one where the investigative reporter quit her job to work full time at the Nevada Brothel she was reporting on) was different than this article.

now that I think about it. what proof does this writer have to say that she went to LEGAL brothels?
I'm kinda wondering myself. I did some checking and it seems as if she has been on a crusade to close Nevada's brothels for the last 13 years or so. Last year she had a book released that states many of the above and made a darling statement about how the women who say that they are happy in working there are not really happy.

What would be better would be to not crack down harder or to legalize it, but to try to take away the causes of it (poverty, poor education, etc.).

Now someone's thinking!Good idea.

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.

What of professional sportsman? Their careers are over in their mid-30's, and, in those sports where wages have some semblance of sense, they rarely earn enough to set them up for life.

I'm kinda wondering myself. I did some checking and it seems as if she has been on a crusade to close Nevada's brothels for the last 13 years or so. Last year she had a book released that states many of the above and made a darling statement about how the women who say that they are happy in working there are not really happy.

I'd really like you to think about the circumstances under which someone would make the choice to rely on lining up to be chosen by some drunken, sweaty man, in the 'hope' that 10 times a day they can be used as a receptacle for 10 different men or more and really tell me that this is a choice.

Think about that first decision - think about those girls you know and ask whether, unless under the most extraordinary circumstances, they would make the decision to choose such a career and be happy with that 'choice'.

The only purpose is to fulfil men's requirement and demand for women to be used this way - and, because there's not enough women who might freely make such a choice, coercion and force is used to ensure that demand is met.

To condone and legalise the ability for men to do this creates further demand and further coercion and exploitation by increasing the amount of brothels.

That increase does not come due to a willing supply but from an increased demand.

I'd really like you to think about the circumstances under which someone would make the choice to rely on lining up to be chosen by some drunken, sweaty man, in the 'hope' that 10 times a day they can be used as a receptacle for 10 different men or more and really tell me that this is a choice.
Let's go over this again. Were they kidnapped into it? No. Were they taken at gun point? No. Were they tricked into it? No. NONE of that happens in the legal brothels so how the HELL can YOU say what they chose or did not chose? If you bothered to read the links I posted, some of the working girls state quite clearly they were in it for the money or they actually enjoyed the work.

Think about that first decision - think about those girls you know and ask whether, unless under the most extraordinary circumstances, they would make the decision to choose such a career and be happy with that 'choice'.
Some of the working girls say so. YOU however seem to have this ESP that lets you know that they are not. Amazing.

Again, THAT is YOUR opinion! NOT theirs and if you tried to say so to some of the ladies out at the cat houses, they'd probably slap you silly.

The only purpose is to fulfil men's requirement and demand for women to be used this way - and, because there's not enough women who might freely make such a choice, coercion and force is used to ensure that demand is met.
Prove to me that the legal brothels in Nevada do so. Please do. Then show me how everyone in the state, from health care workers to local and state police, to the government of the State of Nevada is somehow missing it.

To condone and legalise the ability for men to do this creates further demand and further coercion and exploitation by increasing the amount of brothels.
You have no proof of this.

Then show me how everyone in the state, from health care workers to local and state police, to the government of the State of Nevada is somehow missing it

They're not missing it at all

Link (http://elpisproject.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/nevada-man-convicted-on-charges-related-to-the-sex-trafficking-of-minors/)

Link (http://www.nomas.org/node/65)

Are the "legal" brothels of Nevada somehow different? Not long ago at a conference in New York a woman spoke of her own nightmare years, of being prostituted in these legal Nevada brothels, of being abused and permanently injured by Johns, ruthlessly exploited by the Pimp-management. She was never in truth free to leave, and the other young women there were mostly under the control of some pimp. Pimps from major West coast cities would bring their stable to Nevada when things got "too hot" back in the City, check them into the locked-up rural brothels, then come back to retrieve their property weeks or months later, plus the profits. Surrounding the brothels are tall chain-link, razor-topped fences (clearly visible in the Times photograph), to "keep trouble-makers out;" more important, they help to keep the women inside.

There was a rich, powerful, high-flying pimp, said to control 1,000 prostituted women, prominently featured and quoted at length in the Times article from Nevada. The young male Times reporter kept this big important Pimp out of all the photographs, Invisible! (Instead, there was a photo of his front door.) But the reporter gushed about the Pimp in print, like a colorful minor celebrity (noting his hair style and his "steel blue eyes", his political views, and his plan to run for U.S. President.) The reporter declared that he was known as "America's Pimp," and gratuitously called that "an honorific".

Keep blinding yourself with the happy hooker myth - there may be a tiny majority who are but it's just not the norm.

Prostitution of women is not a small, social side-issue; these icy waters run very deep. Law Professor Margaret Baldwin (1992) has written unforgettably about the meaning of these cryptic words by Evelina Giobbe: "Prostitution isn't like anything else. Rather, everything else is like prostitution, because it is the model for women's condition."

The recognition is growing around the world that "prostitution," as it is practiced, is not a "willing, sex-for-money, happy-hooker transaction", but almost always, a devastating life-shattering exploitation of the most vulnerable young women and children, by powerful and callous men. There is growing international condemnation of one rather visible and horrific forms of prostitution, the international trafficking of huge numbers of young women, about two million per year, across the world from poor lands to wealthy ones, to be prostituted (Coalition Against Trafficking website, for the most information). Just four months ago, the Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden flew to Washington D.C. to bring the United States this message, so clear and direct that she hoped it might be heard even in Nevada:

What is "prostitution?" .... A serious form of male violence against women. Far too many men see women as objects, as something that can be bought and sold. According to Swedish law, it is no longer permitted to buy another human being for prostitution purposes. A woman's body is not the same as a glass of brandy or an ice-cream after a good dinner. Women and girls are... human beings, and therefore they are not for sale. Prostitution and trafficking in women touch upon the issues of human rights, gender inequality, sex and racial discrimination, and economic depravation, as well as the rule of law, crime control, law enforcement and corruption... Women are not for sale. Stop the prostitution and trafficking in women and children.

They're not missing it at all

Link (http://elpisproject.wordpress.com/2007/07/04/nevada-man-convicted-on-charges-related-to-the-sex-trafficking-of-minors/)
You missed the ILLegal prostitution part, AGAIN! Once more you're trying to say, well, since it happens in the illegal, unregulated sector, it MUST happen in the regulated legal sector. So proof of LEGAL working girls so trafficked please.

Link (http://www.nomas.org/node/65)
Keep blinding yourself with the happy hooker myth - there may be a tiny majority who are but it's just not the norm.
Let's see here. The source you posted is naught more than OMFG! stories with NO names, NO dates, NO places, NO information. And yet I am supposed to believe it?

Try this (Since you apparently missed it):
But if Sweet Lief, 39, is any representation of the typical Nevada prostitute, network television has a lot to learn about the business. Yes, Lief is a prostitute, but she is also a shrewd businesswoman with a nice house and two new cars, all thanks to her lucrative profession.

Working 12-hour shifts, three days a week at the Moonlight Bunnyranch in Lyon County, she is far from the tragically exploited prostitute of television lore. Last year, she said she earned just under $40,000 in a six-month period. Had she chosen to work the full year, she could have quite conceivably earned around $90,000.

Lief has been in the business for 17 years and has worked legally at brothels in both Lyon and Churchill counties as well as illegally in other states. But even with the additional costs that the regulation of legalized prostitution impose upon her, such as work card fees, medical fees and yes, federal income tax, she said she still makes more money in the legal environment than outside it, mainly because of the constant flow of customers.
http://www.jour.unr.edu/outpost/community/archives/com.gormley.prostitute3.html

Although it's perfectly legal to exchange sex for money here, it's not polite to talk about it. Politeness, delicacy, and "class," in the sense of etiquette and "good taste" replace the legal prohibitions against whoring. I still can't talk about sex and money in the same breath except behind closed doors—hiding the raw economic relationship where I’m working him for money, and he's paying me for sex.

The women who work here weren't forced into prostitution by poverty or drug addiction. They chose whoring over straight work largely because they found that prostitution was less exploitative and more lucrative than many straight jobs. Most come from middle class backgrounds, like me. Some are students or have graduate degrees. But as I talk to them, I find they’re much more conventional than the whores I know in San Francisco. They remind me of girls I knew in high school. In their company, I feel like the odd-girl-out. A mismatched patchwork of tomboy-nerd-perviness, I never quite fit together and certainly wasn’t anyone’s idea of what a girl should be. I imagine the girls in the brothel “fit in.” Long ago I’d given up trying.
http://www.womenwriters.net/may2003/archer.html

Again, you seem to be disregarding the opinions of the working girls, or replacing them with your own. You also want to try and pin the illegal problems onto the legal industry.

It's already posted:

Pimps from major West coast cities would bring their stable to Nevada when things got "too hot" back in the City, check them into the locked-up rural brothels, then come back to retrieve their property weeks or months later, plus the profits. Surrounding the brothels are tall chain-link, razor-topped fences (clearly visible in the Times photograph), to "keep trouble-makers out;" more important, they help to keep the women inside.

Do you really think the industry is filled with honest law-abiding chaps with nothing but the prostitutes welfare in mind?

It's a business and bad news is bad for business, especially one as sensitive as this. It's entirely in the interest for a brothel owner to ensure that his cattle do not press charges against abuse, do not stand up for the rights but rather, remain compliant to the wishes of the customer.

Is the customer likely to be a decent man who just wants a bit on the side?

Just think through what you're saying.

Prostitution of women is not a small, social side-issue; these icy waters run very deep. Law Professor Margaret Baldwin (1992) has written unforgettably about the meaning of these cryptic words by Evelina Giobbe: "Prostitution isn't like anything else. Rather, everything else is like prostitution, because it is the model for women's condition."

The recognition is growing around the world that "prostitution," as it is practiced, is not a "willing, sex-for-money, happy-hooker transaction", but almost always, a devastating life-shattering exploitation of the most vulnerable young women and children, by powerful and callous men. There is growing international condemnation of one rather visible and horrific forms of prostitution, the international trafficking of huge numbers of young women, about two million per year, across the world from poor lands to wealthy ones, to be prostituted (Coalition Against Trafficking website, for the most information). Just four months ago, the Deputy Prime Minister of Sweden flew to Washington D.C. to bring the United States this message, so clear and direct that she hoped it might be heard even in Nevada:

What is "prostitution?" .... A serious form of male violence against women. Far too many men see women as objects, as something that can be bought and sold. According to Swedish law, it is no longer permitted to buy another human being for prostitution purposes. A woman's body is not the same as a glass of brandy or an ice-cream after a good dinner. Women and girls are... human beings, and therefore they are not for sale. Prostitution and trafficking in women touch upon the issues of human rights, gender inequality, sex and racial discrimination, and economic depravation, as well as the rule of law, crime control, law enforcement and corruption... Women are not for sale. Stop the prostitution and trafficking in women and children.
Nice words, but... show me how the hell they relate to the legal prostitution business in Nevada.

It's like you're trying to say, "Since drugs dealt on the street cause so much crime, misery, and a large human toll, we must therefore shut down all the pharmacies!"

Let's see here. The source you posted is naught more than OMFG! stories with NO names, NO dates, NO places, NO information. And yet I am supposed to believe it?

Try this (Since you apparently missed it):

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


http://www.womenwriters.net/may2003/archer.html

Again, you seem to be disregarding the opinions of the working girls, or replacing them with your own. You also want to try and pin the illegal problems onto the legal industry.

Yet the point of this article is:

“no woman can work legally without agreeing to share her income with a state-licensed ‘pimp’” (162). Prostitution remains illegal in the counties housing Nevada’s main cities—Reno, Las Vegas, Carson City, and Lake Tahoe. City governments fear that too much tolerance of whoring might scare away tourists and detract from their main business, which is gambling (Congressional 516). Still, the women who work illegally in the cities far outnumber the brothel-workers in the sticks.

I feel somewhat protected here—but at what price? I am forbidden to work outside the brothel. I have to abide by their rules and give them half my pay. It doesn't feel that different from the classic trade-off, where "good girls" give up their sexual freedom in hope of protection from sexual violence.

Of course, the laws regarding prostitution are not primarily intended to protect whores. The fact that we can only work in state-licensed houses keeps the brothel owners in business and protects the neighbors from whores running loose in their streets and backyards (Chapkis 155). State regulations benefit everyone but the working girl.

Yet the point of this article is:

“no woman can work legally without agreeing to share her income with a state-licensed ‘pimp’” (162). Prostitution remains illegal in the counties housing Nevada’s main cities—Reno, Las Vegas, Carson City, and Lake Tahoe. City governments fear that too much tolerance of whoring might scare away tourists and detract from their main business, which is gambling (Congressional 516). Still, the women who work illegally in the cities far outnumber the brothel-workers in the sticks.

I feel somewhat protected here—but at what price? I am forbidden to work outside the brothel. I have to abide by their rules and give them half my pay. It doesn't feel that different from the classic trade-off, where "good girls" give up their sexual freedom in hope of protection from sexual violence.

Of course, the laws regarding prostitution are not primarily intended to protect whores. The fact that we can only work in state-licensed houses keeps the brothel owners in business and protects the neighbors from whores running loose in their streets and backyards (Chapkis 155). State regulations benefit everyone but the working girl.
No, that is NOT the point of the article. You need your reading comprehension checked. Again, they were not forced into it, like you keep claiming.

You ignore this of course:

Pimps from major West coast cities would bring their stable to Nevada when things got "too hot" back in the City, check them into the locked-up rural brothels, then come back to retrieve their property weeks or months later, plus the profits. Surrounding the brothels are tall chain-link, razor-topped fences (clearly visible in the Times photograph), to "keep trouble-makers out;" more important, they help to keep the women inside.

It's already posted:
No names, no places, no dates. No nothing. AFAIK, you made it up. Sorry, no dice.

Do you really think the industry is filled with honest law-abiding chaps with nothing but the prostitutes welfare in mind?

It's a business and bad news is bad for business, especially one as sensitive as this. It's entirely in the interest for a brothel owner to ensure that his cattle do not press charges against abuse, do not stand up for the rights but rather, remain compliant to the wishes of the customer.
Bull, it's business and it's a business that wants to stay in business. Like the casinos of Nevada, they toe the line because they know if they go over, they get shut down. This has happened before and will happen when someone gets stupid. The brothel owners know this.

Just think through what you're saying.
:rolleyes: I'm from Nevada. I was born and raised in Nevada (About 5 miles from the Moonlight Bunny Ranch actually), I knew a few of the working girls and I know Nevada politics and how this is played out every single year. So unless YOU have something to show beyond "How horrible!" I think I'll keep with what I know.

No, that is NOT the point of the article. You need your reading comprehension checked. Again, they were not forced into it, like you keep claiming.

The closing paragraph of the article:

Some women who work at the brothel for a long time develop friendships with their regular customers. But from my viewpoint, the brothel’s hustle-bustle environment works against this kind of closeness. The emphasis here is on rapid turnover, one client after another. The workers call their clients “customers” and negotiate different “prices” for different activities. This terminology is modeled on strip clubs. The self-employed whores I know in San Francisco charge their “clients” “hourly rates”—a terminology modeled on therapy.

My week in the brothel has shown me how thoroughly my assumptions about sex workers were based on a few exquisitely rare cultures in San Francisco. I had somehow acquired an irrational faith that all middle-class sex workers would be radical activists, committed to fighting for sexual freedom everywhere. I'd imagined that whores automatically flouted the bourgeois expectations of privacy around sex. Then I ran into mainstream America head-on in a Nevada brothel.From what I've seen, legalized prostitution is extremely confining. In some brothels the girls can't leave the premises, but we can ask for time off when we need it. After three days indoors, I go for a walk in rural Nevada. A few motorcycle bars around, some houses, not much else. The wide-open spaces don't ease my sense of confinement. I wonder why this whole experience feels so familiar. On the plane out of Reno I realize it reminds me, strangely, of visiting my parents.

You ignore this of course:
You ignore the no name, no date, no place, no nothing. What part of show proof are you not getting here? What part of illegal and doing so will get your license revoked in Nevada are you not getting? What part of every working girl in Nevada MUST go through a police background check and be finger printed and otherwise are you not getting? What part of weekly checks so just checking in and out would be quickly noticed are you not getting?

Show some goddamn proof of your allegations.

It's linked already, I merely reposting the same post I've linked already.

You can keep burying your head in the sand about all this and think that the legal industry in Nevada is some cotton-candy affair so men can get their kicks - without seeing that more girls in Nevada are out of brothels than in, that the people involved in owning brothels are not honest people in favour of full disclosure of what they do nor that it's not a rational choice for someone to start in this business nor realise the wider effects of legitamizing sex-for-sale and the portrayal of women that incurs but I'll post one more paragraph that's already been posted.

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).

This is the consequence of legalisation - entrenching the view that women are subordinate, to be bought and used and abused by men for their own personal pleasures.

That is what you are saying women 'choose' to do.

Condoning this view of women, regardless of safety, promotes the use of women this way, as shown by the fact that there are more women in prositution outside of brothels in Nevada than in.

You're intent on showing me the tiny minority of prostitutes who possibly 'enjoy' this, without understanding the wider implications of what this promotes, sustains and approves of...by legitamizing it.

Nowhere in the Constitution is there an Article IV, stating "The US government must dictate morality." The US government was designed to be amoral and areligious. State constitutions are also devoid of such a mandate.

Where's the option for legalizing AND deregulating the sex trade? Government regulation will only force the less-"talented" sex workers to go illegal again. Better to let the market regulate and test itself. If you don't want the threat of an STD, visit a reputable brothel that tests its girls. I say girls here for emphasis--in fact, hiring a male prostitute is much more dangerous (because of the bloated risk factor for HIV if you're enjoying a spot of sodomy in the gay community) and more common than you'd think. (i.e. Sen. Larry Craig's bathroom adventure)

Point is, legalization + government tampering is better than illegality, but the best solution is to legalize sex work, remove barriers preventing prostitutes from unionizing, and allow unions, businesses, and demand for quality, STD-free 'tutes, to control the integrity of the sex worker industry.

... and demand for quality, STD-free 'tutes, to control the integrity of the sex worker industry.

Exactly, let's have clean women to fuck as we wouldn't want to take any diseases back to our lovely wives.

This is more to protect men than women, in the same way that food health laws protect us not the chicken.

"Oops, you've an STD, no more brothel work for you, out on the street please as you're no longer any good for our customers"

Lovely attitude to women.

The closing paragraph of the article:
You missed the "But we can ask for time off". Again, working girls are not allowed out when working. When they are off duty, they can go anywhere they want to. The article I posted above that says she's in for three days out of the week.

You keep trying to show caging where none exist.

It has nothing to do with sex (as in gender). What I said applies to female and male prostitutes. This is not a feminist issue-- don't get sidetracked. This is an issue of the inefficiency of government. Prostitution's illegality hurts prostitutes, forcing those who might have only hired themselves out for a few nights to get involved in other illegal activities, like drugs. Illegality groups and polarizes subcultures. If you're a prostitute, you're more likely to smoke crack. If you like to smoke crack a lot, you're more likely to become a prostitute.

If I want to freebase cocaine in my basement and then hire a prostitute (who offers her services consensually for a price), then that is entirely my right. Along the same lines, if I want to become a prostitute for a living, that's my right.


And in terms of the prostitutes themselves contracting STDs; that's why prostitutes will unionize in a free market. The employees and/or unions will pressure their employer to require johns to go through STD testing before purchasing a service. If the employing business doesn't comply, then the prostitutes will strike, forcing it to.

It's linked already, I merely reposting the same post I've linked already.
No, it's not. You keep reposting and I keep on saying, there's no names. Who is this pimp? We don't know. Where did this happen? We don't know, Somewhere in Nevada, we're told, but we don't know where. When did this happen? We don't know. Could this have been back in the 80's under Conforte? Maybe, but Conforte has been in hiding for over 20 years now. Again, we don't know.

You can keep burying your head in the sand about all this and think that the legal industry in Nevada is some cotton-candy affair so men can get their kicks - without seeing that more girls in Nevada are out of brothels than in,
Again the girls outside of the brothels are ILLEGAL! What part of that are you not able to squeeze thought your thick skull?

that the people involved in owning brothels are not honest people in favour of full disclosure of what they do nor that it's not a rational choice for someone to start in this business nor realise the wider effects of legitamizing sex-for-sale and the portrayal of women that incurs but I'll post one more paragraph that's already been posted.
Which you have not shown nor have you proven. This has been 20 pages of your say so about an industry you obviously have never seen or know much of. But hell, Nevada always likes visitors so go to Nevada, drive out to a ranch and ask the girls yourself. I'm sure they would be more than happy to yell at you.

This is the consequence of legalisation - entrenching the view that women are subordinate, to be bought and used and abused by men for their own personal pleasures.

That is what you are saying women 'choose' to do.

Condoning this view of women, regardless of safety, promotes the use of women this way, as shown by the fact that there are more women in prositution outside of brothels in Nevada than in.

You're intent on showing me the tiny minority of prostitutes who possibly 'enjoy' this, without understanding the wider implications of what this promotes, sustains and approves of...by legitamizing it.
Australia is NOT Nevada!

The reason there are still free-lance, illegal prostitutes in Nevada is the heavy government regulation of the sex industry. Deregulate, and those prostitutes engaging in risky business will incorporate into safer brothels and demand STD checking for their clients and themselves.

I don't think they're any good - again, a prostitute has a job-expectancy of how long exactly? Then what does she do?
Until she's dead. And probably a bit after than.

Until she's dead. And probably a bit after than.

Yes, Nevada should legalise necrophilia to protect dead bodies as well :)

My problem is that abuse in Nevada brothels is well-documented by Melissa Farley, one of very few people who have actually studied this and yet posters on this board feel their personal opinion is more valid than someone who has:

...practiced as a clinical psychologist for more than 35 years.
She brings that experience to her consultations with agencies, governments, and advocates for prostituted and trafficked women. She has articulated the harms of prostitution and trafficking as an expert witness in a number of forensic evaluations, including a woman who was trafficked from East Asia to the United States.

She has a wide range of experience in teaching and consultation. Dr. Farley has provided consultation as an expert on the harm of prostitution to the Medical Examining Board of the State of California, San Diego, California 2002. In February 2003 she met with US State Department-sponsored visitors from Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, offering consultation regarding outreach and prevention of trafficking in women and children. Dr. Farley has been a faculty member of the Center for World Indigenous Studies for the past 3 years, and has taught seminars on research for social activism at CWIS in Yelapa, Mexico.

Dr. Farley has spoken and keynoted a number of conferences, speaking on
prostitution and trafficking. In her work, she has consistently addressed
the intricate connection between prostitution, racism, poverty and both
domestic and international trafficking. Farley has spoken about a
trafficking syndrome, which reflects the overwhelming stress experienced by women as a result of being trafficked for the purpose of prostitution or
other sexual exploitation.

Dr. Farley constructed and manages the Prostitution Research & Education
website (http://www.prostitutionresearch.com) which provides information
about trafficking and prostitution, including a list of agencies offering
services to women who have been in prostitution. The PRE website receives about 40,000 page views per month. Advocates in many countries have used the materials on the website on behalf of women and children in
prostitution. The site is contacted by survivors of prostitution, students,
teachers, government officials, criminal justice personnel, social workers,
legal advocates and NGOs that are developing services to women who have been prostituted or trafficked.

Dr. Farley is also extremely biased. She's an activist against prostitution; in fact, she put on a "Pimp and Ho' Protest" over a club that has "Pimp and Ho' night". Her website is devoted to the elimination of prostitution, because she believes that all sex work is rape. That's like when the government or Exxon commit a study on global warming--both have a strong agenda.

She's wrong, and there's a section on her website about "escaping prostitution", so to call her an "expert" is a huge misnomer. She is an activist, and is extremely biased. So yes, our opinions are at least as valid.

The studies she cites involve prostitution in illegal situations where prostitutes sell sex in unclean, unsafe, and unpredictable environments. None of her studies involve safe sex market practices.

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)

Contract to be raped?

Sex doesn't mean the same amount to anyone. Some people see sex as a purely physical thing, and if they can make money with it, all the power to them.

Dr. Farley is also extremely biased. She's an activist against prostitution; in fact, she put on a "Pimp and Ho' Protest" over a club that has "Pimp and Ho' night". Her website is devoted to the elimination of prostitution, because she believes that all sex work is rape. That's like when the government or Exxon commit a study on global warming--both have a strong agenda.

She's wrong, and there's a section on her website about "escaping prostitution", so to call her an "expert" is a huge misnomer. She is an activist, and is extremely biased. So yes, our opinions are at least as valid.

The studies she cites involve prostitution in illegal situations where prostitutes sell sex in unclean, unsafe, and unpredictable environments. None of her studies involve safe sex market practices.

Yet government bodies from Sweden to Unesco and more agree with her.

People are activist against global warming - who do you believe, the people doing proper research or the industries protecting their interests.

Are you saying she's a liar?

"The physical appearance of these buildings is shocking," says Farley. "They look like wide trailers with barbed wire around them - little jails." The rooms all have panic buttons, but many women told her that they had experienced violent and sexual abuse from the customers and pimps.

Another pimp told Farley matter-of-factly that many of the women working for him had histories of sexual abuse and mental ill-health. "Most," he said, "have been sexually abused as kids. Some are bipolar, some are schizophrenic."

Those who support the system claim that the regulations may help prevent pimping, which they see as a worse form of exploitation to that which occurs in brothels. According to Farley's research though, most women in legal brothels have pimps outside anyway, be they husbands or boyfriends. And, as Chong Kim, a survivor of prostitution who has worked with Farley, says, some of the legal brothel owners "are worse than any pimp. They abuse and imprison women and are fully protected by the state."

The women are expected to live in the brothels and to work 12- to 14-hour shifts. Mary, a prostitute in a legal brothel for three years, outlines the restrictions. "You are not allowed to have your own car," she notes. "It's like [the pimp's] own little police state." When a customer arrives, a bell rings, and the women immediately have to present themselves in a line-up, so he can choose who to buy.

Yes, Nevada should legalise necrophilia to protect dead bodies as well
That whoosh you heard was my point going right over your head.

People are activist against global warming - who do you believe, the people doing proper research or the industries protecting their interests.
And if you saw someone post an anti-abortion paper on this board done by Operation Rescue, you'd be skeptical, right? She's an activist who has a crusade. Other papers, done by people within the University of Nevada, Reno and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (See, I know the two universities, unlike your source) have a different take.

Are you saying she's a liar?
No, I'm saying she's biased. "LIKE a jail" this isn't an academic take, this is her own opinion. Just like these past twenty pages have been YOUR opinion.

That whoosh you heard was my point going right over your head.

To the contrary, I got your point and it's wrong - people over 40 are not getting customers and thus need to lower and lower their prices in order to secure business thus taking on more and more dangerous clients.

There's no welfare, health coverage, insurance, anything.

I took your point and countered on the idea that there's a market for everything - that it exists does not make it good.

I don't know why this was ever outlawed. It makes as much sense as prohibition of alcohol. Prostitution has been a part of every major civilization throughout history. People did not used to get married for love, they did it to seal deals and would usually find someone on the side for when the marriage got boring. That's one reason why divorce was so low.

The places where is has been legalized show none of the problems that doubters said would happen. Condoms and frequent testing ensure the health of the workers and making it legal allows each prosititute to be her own boss or work in a brothel rather than for a pimp.

Freelance and house companions, like casual but legal and regulated (for safety) drug use, are among the best things that could happen to society because they allow use to relax and enjoy the short time we have.

And if you saw someone post an anti-abortion paper on this board done by Operation Rescue, you'd be skeptical, right? She's an activist who has a crusade. Other papers, done by people within the University of Nevada, Reno and the University of Nevada, Las Vegas (See, I know the two universities, unlike your source) have a different take.


No, I'm saying she's biased. "LIKE a jail" this isn't an academic take, this is her own opinion. Just like these past twenty pages have been YOUR opinion.

No, this is her research based on going there and interviewing, one backed up by mulitudes of reports from governments and bodies alike from around the world - legalisation increases illegal prostitution by condoning it as an acceptable form of abuse.

As opposed to, really, your opinion.

And really, have you read this (http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c4/22/84/0647d25a.pdf) - because it comprehensively outlines why legalization is no good for all the reasons I've given - as posted way back.

To the contrary, I got your point and it's wrong - people over 40 are not getting customers and thus need to lower and lower their prices in order to secure business thus taking on more and more dangerous clients.

There's no welfare, health coverage, insurance, anything.

I took your point and countered on the idea that there's a market for everything - that it exists does not make it good.

Errr... legalized brothels do take care of the health of their workers... and consider the gal who made $40,000 in six months. Even if she is not getting insurance paid for by her employer, she can certainly afford to get her own, just like many of the rest of us do. Many industries do not offer health care. Currently *I* have no health insurance, and won't until I can afford to pay for it myself.

As to welfare, these women pay taxes on what they earn, just like everyone else (at least the legal ones do), so they have the same benefits the rest of us do.

What do you base your judgement that prostitutes over the age of 40 are not getting clients on? Do you have proof? Seems to me that some women over the age of 40 are absolutely stunning, and with so much more experience might well be PREFERRED over younger women.

To the contrary, I got your point and it's wrong - people over 40 are not getting customers and thus need to lower and lower their prices in order to secure business thus taking on more and more dangerous clients.

There's no welfare, health coverage, insurance, anything.

I took your point and countered on the idea that there's a market for everything - that it exists does not make it good.
Umm... maybe if it was truly treated like any other job whores could get a pension so they could retire in a timely manner and get health coverage and all that fun stuff?

Just a thought...

Errr... legalized brothels do take care of the health of their workers... and consider the gal who made $40,000 in six months. Even if she is not getting insurance paid for by her employer, she can certainly afford to get her own, just like many of the rest of us do. Many industries do not offer health care. Currently *I* have no health insurance, and won't until I can afford to pay for it myself.

As to welfare, these women pay taxes on what they earn, just like everyone else (at least the legal ones do), so they have the same benefits the rest of us do.

What do you base your judgement that prostitutes over the age of 40 are not getting clients on? Do you have proof? Seems to me that some women over the age of 40 are absolutely stunning, and with so much more experience might well be PREFERRED over younger women.

Sure as all the old-age porn mags show - please don't take minor examples of success and think that goes for 95% prostitutes - and please don't think that profiting, of which the brothels make far more, from the abuse of women is something to be condoned.

Anecdotal evidence of prostitutes saying they enjoy it is the same thing as anecdotal evidence of those brainwwashed by cults saying they enjoy it.

They're numbed to the effects, of which many studies have shown cause disassociation from the body due to continuous intercourse over one day as well as PTSD symptoms and the denial of circumstance seen by many oppressed people.

Seems to me that some women over the age of 40 are absolutely stunning, and with so much more experience might well be PREFERRED over younger women.
Especially with men who have daughters the age of the younger women...

Umm... maybe if it was truly treated like any other job whores could get a pension so they could retire in a timely manner and get health coverage and all that fun stuff?

Just a thought...

Dakini - what would it take for you personally to consider taking this job - to be fucked by different men 10 times a day, day after day - do you think it would be a choice of yours, or any friend you know, or do you think it would be out of a desperate rationale due to having few other options.

Would you make the choice?

Would any female you know?

Many of the arguments put forward here are the exact same arguments used to promote slavery

"Look, it provides them with good boarding and health"
"Look, this slave says he's really happy"
"Look, it's going to happen anyway, people will abuse black people, better to regulate it rather than have black market slavery"
"Hey, it's their choice"

These are the opinions being expressed

No, this is her research based on going there and interviewing,
And being shown to be biased and wrong. No matter how many times you say it, it doesn't make the faults I have already pointed out going away.

one backed up by mulitudes of reports from governments and bodies alike from around the world - legalisation increases illegal prostitution by condoning it as an acceptable form of abuse.
Again, your opinion. You still haven't shown all those bad things happening in Nevada's LEGAL brothels.

As opposed to, really, your opinion.
Pot, kettle. You ignore anything you don't like. You try to use data that was meant for one situation for another, and you refuse to take the actual women at their word. You have not been to Nevada you have not been to the cat houses. Why should I believe you?

And really, have you read this (http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c4/22/84/0647d25a.pdf) - because it comprehensively outlines why legalization is no good for all the reasons I've given - as posted way back.
Sweden IS NOT NEVADA!

Sure as all the old-age porn mags show - please don't take minor examples of success and think that goes for 95% prostitutes - and please don't think that profiting, of which the brothels make far more, from the abuse of women is something to be condoned.

Anecdotal evidence of prostitutes saying they enjoy it is the same thing as anecdotal evidence of those brainwwashed by cults saying they enjoy it.

They're numbed to the effects, of which many studies have shown cause disassociation from the body due to continuous intercourse over one day as well as PTSD symptoms and the denial of circumstance seen by many oppressed people.
Here we go again. Show me something that comes from Nevada's legal working girls and I'll believe you. Otherwise it's "I know better than the actual girls! They say they're happy, but I know the truth!"

What about those of us who go dutch?

Well, of course, according to bitter misogynists, none of us ever go Dutch or, God forbid, pay for the entire date.

Many of the arguments put forward here are the exact same arguments used to promote slavery

"Look, it provides them with good boarding and health"
"Look, this slave says he's really happy"
"Look, it's going to happen anyway, people will abuse black people, better to regulate it rather than have black market slavery"
"Hey, it's their choice"

These are the opinions being expressed
And many of the same you have put forward could be used to close down pharmacies. Sorry, your analogy doesn't work.

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.;)

*snort*

The same reason boys buy muscle cars, rims, radios that can be heard on mars and, oh, spend a good deal of time grooming themselves, too?

Here we go again. Show me something that comes from Nevada's legal working girls and I'll believe you. Otherwise it's "I know better than the actual girls! They say they're happy, but I know the truth!"

Panel: Brothels aid sex trafficking

LAS VEGAS -- "Pretty Woman is only a movie. Ain't no Richard Gere running out there trying to pick up your body," said Brenda Myers Powell, a founding member of the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation.

Powell was one of seven women describing the evils of prostitution, both legal and illegal, during a press conference on a report about sex trafficking and prostitution in Nevada Wednesday.

Former Nye County Commissioner Candice Trummell, who heads a new group called the Nevada Coalition Against Sex Trafficking, was one of the speakers.

She talked about slavery and human rights violations involved in prostitution.

Trummell said the three goals of her organization are to educate the public, identify needed services for victims of prostitution and "affect a fundamental change in Nevada's law concerning prostitution, sex trafficking and related matters."

"It is way past time for Nevada to be the last state in the United States of America to finally stand against all forms of slavery," she said. "It is time for Nevada to start hearings in the U.S. government on a crucial and very strong stance against legalized prostitution. The Nevada Coalition Against Sex Trafficking aims to replace the validity of Nevada as the safe haven for modern day slave traders with the legacy of Nevada having the most effective and complete programs."

The panel lobbied for state funding for support services for prostitutes who want to leave the business and felony penalties against their patrons as a way to crack down on illegal prostitution. None of the speakers, when questioned, said they specifically wanted to abolish legal prostitution in Nevada.

Nevada Assemblyman Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, said under his bill draft in the 2009 session, "It will be illegal to force women into prostitution in Nevada, that's what you have to look at.

"Now if you have somebody who actually wants to engage in that as a lifestyle, I believe we should have avenues for that, but it should also be controlled," he said. "If there is the slightest hint of coercion, then that has to be dealt with very severely."

The conference chairwoman, clinical psychologist Melissa Farley, author and executive director of the San Francisco-based organization Prostitute Research and Education, released statistics of a two-year report funded by the Trafficking in Persons Office of the State Department.

"A key finding on Nevada prostitution is first, most prostitution in Nevada is illegal, about 90 percent," Farley said. "A second key finding is, despite claims to the contrary, legal prostitution does not protect women from the violence, verbal abuse, physical injury or the diseases."

Farley charged many women in the legal brothels are under intense emotional stress. She said many prostitutes may say they're happy in the business, but she added, "Under duress from legal and illegal pimps, women hide their coerced status in prostitution."

Farley saved most of her criticism for illegal prostitution in Las Vegas, which she called, "the epicenter of North American trafficking for prostitution" with girls coming from every major city on the West Coast and other parts of America.

There's an awareness of human rights violations in sex trafficking in Nevada, but mainly for women who crossed an international border, she said. Authorities should be concerned about women who've been trafficked from Minneapolis as well as from Mexico, Farley said.

"We interviewed 45 women in the legal brothels -- 81 percent of them wanted to get out. Many of them were physically restrained, there was no way for them to get out," Farley said at the conclusion of the press conference. "Domestic violence shelters would be a great place to send them, outreach advertising to any of the brothels, 'If you want to get out, Nye County is willing to help you.'"

Copies of the Las Vegas yellow pages were prominent in front of the speakers. Farley said there were 173 pages in the directory explicitly advertising prostitution. Overall, Farley claimed prostitution was a $6 billion per year operation in Clark County with $24 million spent on advertising.

Legal brothels in Nye County are doing nothing to stop illegal prostitution in Clark County, she said.

"Also, we have an exchange of women from the legal brothels into illegal Las Vegas prostitution and back again," Farley said.

Many Pahrump residents commented that brothels have the advantage of keeping illegal prostitutes off the streets when Nye County commissioners decided against allowing a ballot question on the issue in 2004.

Trummell said she couldn't foresee prostitutes standing out on street corners in Pahrump -- even less so in other small Nye County towns -- soliciting sex in the event prostitution were made illegal.

But Trummell admitted if state legislators wanted to crack down on illegal streetwalkers, "The logical thing would be to allow it (prostitution) in places where you're going to have illegal prostitution." She admitted that comment wouldn't be popular with the panel.

Many prostitutes are told lies by pimps about the money, but much of it crosses hands to pimps as well as valets, taxi drivers, disc jockeys and others, Farley said. Myers Powell said legal brothels as well get 50 to 60 percent of a prostitutes earnings, and then the employees also have to pay rent.

"Nevada's rape rate is higher than the U.S. average and way higher than the rape rate in California, New York and New Jersey. Why is this? Legal prostitution creates an atmosphere in this state in which women are not humans equal to them, are disrespected by men, and which then sets the stage of increased violence against women," Farley said.

"I cringe when I hear it said that prostitution is a victimless crime," said Olivia Howard, another member of the Chicago Alliance Against Sexual Exploitation. She said people have a popular myth about "ladies of the night" who disappear in the daytime, unaware of the harsh reality and horrendous abuse.

"Prostituted women are no safer in indoor venues than they are on the street corner, jumping from car to car," Howard said.

Myers Powell said if an average prostitute has an average of five tricks per day, that's over 1,800 customers per year. "Men are in and out of her body, using her body like a toilet," she said.

At the end of the press conference, she angrily shouted at the audience, "They say, oh, c'est la vie, this is what they want to do. It's not happening like that, ladies and gentlemen. I want to see you turn 1,800 tricks a year, and over 10 years you might have 1 million sold, you could open up your own franchise."

Kathleen Mitchell, an ex-prostitute who founded a support group for prostitutes called Dignity, said, "Women are bought and sold on an auction block in any city in any state of the United States and also internationally. Sexual trafficking is one of the most inhumane forms of human slavery that there is."

She said the movie industry should stop glamorizing prostitution.

Ex-prostitute Jody Williams, founder of Sex Workers Anonymous, compared the promotion of prostitution with the way the tobacco companies marketed cigarettes. "They're taking advantage of your ignorance of the industry," she said.

Williams said ex-prostitutes came to her organization suffering from a variety of physical and emotional disorders. "Women in prostitution suffer from the same combat stress that Vietnam and combat vets do, but they have fewer services than vets do," she said.

The illegal pimps are replaced by "the legal pimps" in the brothels, Williams charged.

"The current law in Nevada which allows legal prostitution and talks about wanting them to use their earnings to generate tax dollars for the state of Nevada actually makes the state of Nevada a third pimp for these women," Williams said.

There's no welfare, health coverage, insurance, anything.


This is true. BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL.

You keep missing this fundamental point. Legal businesses offer their employees health insurance, retirement packages, and so forth. Pimps and human traffickers do not. Argue against legalized prostitution all you want, but for heaven's sake, stop using this nonsensical rationale. No one here thinks that prostitution as an illegal activity run by pimps and human traffickers is good, so pointing out all the ways in which it is bad is rather pointless. Instead, you might want to consider coming up with objections that would actually, y'know, apply to legalized, regulated prostitution.

This is true. BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL.

You keep missing this fundamental point. Legal businesses offer their employees health insurance, retirement packages, and so forth. Pimps and human traffickers do not. Argue against legalized prostitution all you want, but for heaven's sake, stop using this nonsensical rationale. No one here thinks that prostitution as an illegal activity run by pimps and human traffickers is good, so pointing out all the ways in which it is bad is rather pointless. Instead, you might want to consider coming up with objections that would actually, y'know, apply to legalized, regulated prostitution.

Oh but I have many times pointing to examples from Australia, Holland, Germany and more - showing that legalizing prostitution excaberates the problem, it does not diminish illegal prostitution - it raises it because society condones the basic act.

When will this get through everyone's heads - the main concern about legalisation is not that prostitutes get a better life - although that's only better stacked against illegality - it's that it expands the problem in itself.

90% of prostitutes in Nevada are illegal with Las Vegas as a centre for trafficking.

In Nevada, where prostitution has been legalized, the rape rates are the 4th highest in the country.

How does knowing the average age (13-17) and sexual abuse history (at least 75%) of prostituted women impact the assertion that prostitution is a "career choice"? What does it mean to freely choose sex work? How does knowing that 95% of prostituted women share their money with/relinquish it to a pimp compare with your beliefs about the financial incentive in prostitution?

What about the myth that prostitutes can earn significant money? In a study in the Netherlands of legalized prostitutes, their average salary was 9 Euros, then about 7$ an hour. How much do prostitutes really make in the US? In Nevada (where prostitution is legal)?

Vednita insists that prostitution is a continuum of slavery. In antebellum America, society condoned the rape of slaves by their male owners as a right of property. Vednita speaks of the persistence of that injustice in terms of the demographics of prostitutes (mostly poor black women) and johns (mostly middle-class to affluent white men). What connections (if any) do you observe between race and prostitution?

Let take this out of just brothels and look at strip clubs, which I believe are legal in the majority of states and tie into the same pandering to the abuse of women that has the end result in prostitution - because hey, people say stripping is not the same - but it's legal and supervised so...

Link (http://www1.umn.edu/aurora/insideviewofstripclubs.pdf)

Right from the start, drug and alcohol use is rampant. The dancers call it partying. They don’t realize that they are medicating themselves in order to do the work they do.

Also, the abortion rate is extremely high due to the fact that most have lost contact with family members due to what they do. They also feel they could never take the chance on flawing the body from carrying a child.
Additionally, the dancers believe they have no way to support a baby without dancing, and therefore can’t quit to have one. Basically, they are caught in a very real, painful Catch-22.

The girls, if they have never danced, are usually extremely against it and most of the time are hired as waitresses, even though waitresses are not needed. This makes the atmosphere become a part of their life. At
this point, they see it as a job, not as stripping, and are converted quite easily to dancing. Once they start dancing, they get used to being objectified. It becomes as important to them to hear how beautiful they are
200 times a day as it is to actually make the money from the dancing.

After a couple of years at this level, the dancer realizes she is getting older and attempts to fit back into society. She tries boyfriends, school, or really anything to cling to what is "normal." Realizing that she cannot live in both
worlds, she returns to the subculture of the adult business, actually despising the real world. This leads to more dependency on drugs and alcohol, which now makes her 100% lost to this life. The dancers will continue living like this until they realize they can no longer stay at their "current level," and keep making money and getting the compliments. Once they realize this, they begin to master more perverse things to make cash, and to make up for fading looks and dancer burnout.

The cycle then becomes even more vicious with depression, drugs, alcohol, and body mutilation to stay thin.
Finally, they realize they can no longer keep up with the new and younger girls and leave, going to one of five places.

1. They go to a very filthy, nasty club that’s full of girls in their position. Here they perform and do some of the most vile and filthy acts you can imagine to make money.

2. Some turn to prostitution, meeting customers outside of the club. The club now becomes a place for them to meet new "clients".

3. Some marry just to be able to survive. But the addictions to drugs and alcohol normally shatter and destroy these relationships.

4. Some actually do break away and go to school to become productive citizens, but the frequency of this is around 1 of 50.

5. They become society’s throwaway people. People used up – degraded, abused and even sold by the people who own these establishments.

Sadly, these young ladies over time, little by little, become manipulated, controlled, and finally destroyed by a world that our communities have closed their eyes to. Thinking back, there are three girls that seem to stand out rather clearly as examples of what can and often does happen to a young, innocent woman who naively gets sucked into the sexually-oriented business industry.

...and how do male pimps manage this?

First, you must make the girl feel at home in an environment that is so abnormal that most people have to be made comfortable. In fact, you could almost say they have to be "hardened" to the club life. This is easily
accomplished by working there as many hours as possible and by having all of the staff treat them as if they were long lost friends. It’s important for the management to do this also.

Second, after a few weeks, because the girl is now your friend, as a manager you bring up how short you are on girls that night or how short the amateur contestants are. You ask them to please help, that they don’t need to take their clothes off, but the club just needs an extra body. Usually, they happily agree to do this. You then have them change into dancing attire, usually a skimpy dress, a teddy, g-string or a t-bar (which is a very small pair of panties). Often, the girls, having become used to the environment and having seen nudity daily, are intoxicated with the sense of being on stage and are lured out of their clothing by the other girls, customers, and promises of large tips.

Now, at this point, the manager’s job just starts. But, if the girl has not taken her clothes off, the manager again has to start in on her about needing more help on the floor. Again, most of the girls will agree to help the manager out. At this time, you tell them that things are not that busy, and you take them out for dinner, "my treat." Of course, the club always writes this off! So you go out, have some drinks and small talk with the girl.
Returning to the club she now believes that you’re good friends, plus she is under the influence of alcohol. At this point, she easily disrobes on the customer’s request with the other girls welcoming a new dancer into their
ranks. The experienced dancers will then go on about how beautiful she is and how much money she’ll make.

Of course, even now, she still might have not disrobed. But, by this point, you are her friend and can make her feel guilty about not helping out more and ask her to please disrobe, as without her, you’ll not make much
money that night. She is needed. People who need her and customers who tell her how beautiful she is, surround her.

She now experiences a variety of emotions and, being human, needs to be needed. With this emotion fulfilled, she finds herself wanting to be complemented which she is, and she wants to make money, which she can.
You then play on the "what more can a girl want?" and the subject of self-worth never really comes up.

At this point, if she still has not disrobed, you let her know you no longer need her for her position, but dancing is open if she wishes to still work at the club. This does not work unless she has incurred debts and needs the
money, or she actually enjoyed the experience and doesn’t want to lose her new friends. If she stays, the manager must start training her to be a professional. This means changing almost everything about her
including her personality; she must now be passive/aggressive if she is to survive. This means that she needs to learn to say whatever it takes to make money. She can never talk about her personal life to anyone, as clients can hear this.

It's not that a person is sitting at home thinking 'hmmm..do I go for the waitressing job or become a prostitute? Well, let's weight up the benefits.'

To be in the position of going to a brothel to become a prostitute legally is the end-decision of a long process of abuse.

The problem with legalisation is that it condones this process by condoning the end-result.

Far more work can be done to help illegal prostitutes in all the ways people are proposing without having to legalise the profession, which only creates more and more victims overall.

1. She was a pretty, intelligent 20-year-old girl who came into the business as a waitress. She was, from what I could see, from the upper middle class and a loving Christian family. She attended Bowling Green State University in Ohio and was fluent in several languages, plus carried a 3.8 grade point average. She soon became interested in stripping. She started dancing and very quickly got caught up in the lifestyle of drugs, alcoholism, and lesbianism. I watched her life deteriorate for about two years. She has, as far as I know, gone on to graduate from school. But, still after five years, she has not left this subculture and only fallen deeper into it.

Oh no, not lesbianism!

Oh no, not lesbianism!

One of the things a dancer/prostitute does is form an immense hatred of men - immense, to the point where they become subsumed to a man's will because they disassociate themselves mentally. They're simply doing a job but it's not really them.

They do form extremely close bonds with other dancers/prostitutes and therefore gives rise to overt lesbianism - not a statement saying lesbianism is bad, but really a reflection of the hatred of men this work induces in a woman and the psychological effects that has - not in terms of lesbianism but in terms of being unable to see any man as a worthy being.

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.

I could say I've met a few. But then you'd ask me to prove it. And we'd be at another impasse.

How about this? My knowledge regarding the sex trade has given me a view that it's terrible to the workers involved, legal or not, in first world and developing countries. Your knowledge says otherwise. Apparently, there are differences in our knowledge based on where we've been and what we've seen.


You explain, then go back to talking about women sex workers.


Solely women sex workers? Where? You would have to do better than that if you wish to castigate me.


It's the truth. Be equal opportunity about this. All that's been said through this whole thread is

Sex worker is gender neutral.


Talk about women and men in the sex work industry and I'll be glad to.


The only one raising an issue about this is you at this point of time. I have clarified my stance with Kryozerkia and he appears to be satisfied that it was a misinterpretation.


I was responding to your idiotic snipe of an edit. The spelling/grammer nazi schtick is tired.

I do not ask that you must respond to me. If you wish to take offense at what I have to say, there is hardly anything I can do about it.

They do form extremely close bonds with other dancers/prostitutes and therefore gives rise to overt lesbianism - not a statement saying lesbianism is bad, but really a reflection of the hatred of men this work induces in a woman and the psychological effects that has - not in terms of lesbianism but in terms of being unable to see any man as a worthy being.

Perhaps this is true of some dancers.

Of the few I've known, none had any such issues.

Perhaps this is true of some dancers.

Of the few I've known, none had any such issues.

This is one of those effects of which the name escapes me.

We know the 'ok' ones because they're ok. They're the tiny minority or those at the start of the slippery slope of denial and abuse that ends in a life of prostitution.

As they fall deeper into the hole, and not all do, you will lose them as friends.

So 95% of this world is hidden to ordinary people and we 'know' the very few inherently because they're ok.

Clearly, you are not in favor of legalizing prostitution.

Since legal or no, it's not simply going to go away, what do you propose be done about it, then, specifically?

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.

Legality or illegality doesn't solve anything because it attacks supply, not demand. And the poisoning of attitudes that the demand does.


The two issues should be considered separate legal issues.


Vehicular manslaughter and drunk driving are separate legal issues, but often come together.


Because of the poisoned attitudes towards sexuality that still permeate elements of society.

There's a blurry line between liberal sexual attitudes and objectification. Where would you draw it?


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.

Educating people would help in alleviating this perception.


Good luck with that. I don't have much optimism in that regard. You'll always have your bigots and Neanderthals.


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.

This doesn't quite work for a simple reason. Liquor is inert. It has no sentience. Sex workers are very much alive and sentient.

They may be very well aware of their rights, but how does one count for the fact that they may still be coerced, with threats of violence and death? You can't threaten a bottle of wine. You can't even abuse it. But you can certainly abuse sex workers into compliance. Liquor doesn't complain if it's kept up in a mini-prison with armed guards with shoot to kill orders on runaways. But if that article about Nevadan brothels are true, a sex worker might feel like complaining, but certainly wouldn't dare unless they prefer dying.


Current existing models could be used. Existing models aren't perfect but they make for a starting framework that can be improved upon.


Not even adequate.


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.

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".


And all this added together somehow helps legalization reduce the problems of the sex trade?


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.

As I have said, the interpretation is false. I will avoid giving such an impression in the future.

Clearly, you are not in favor of legalizing prostitution.

Since legal or no, it's not simply going to go away, what do you propose be done about it, then, specifically?

Clearly :)

I've made the proposal - that we must treat the demand as criminal but not the supply.

We should openly fine and/or jail those who engage in securing the services of prostitution but not the prostitute themselves - who require an atmosphere where they feel comfortable reporting crime and abuse because it will not entail jail time and/or criminal status.

Pimping should, where possible, be heavily punished to try and let the prostitute control money and the acceptaance of client 100%.

Governments should state that going to secure the services of prostitutes is punishable and illegal rather than condoning the practice through legalisation.

Prostitutes can still provide service if necessary discreetly, in the knowledge that if they are abused, they can seek redress without undue punishment on themselves.

I'm not so naive to say we'll stamp it out, there'll always be street work - we won't, but we can work to decrease it heavily by applying pressure to the demand, not the supply.

This, in turn, should help slow trafficking by stamping out demand.

Prostitutes can still have health checks and welfare care because they know they won't be punished for seeking it. There are plenty of organisations available that help prostitutes and these would not disappear.

The practice would no more disappear underground than it already is - 90% of Nevada prostitution is illegal and the numbers are increasing - a consequence of legalisation that is mirrored in Australia, the Netherlands and Germany.

Soliciting a prostitute is already illegal, no?

My job isn't to protect idiots. My job is to protect my own interests. To do that I must protect my rights to pursue those interests. So to protect my rights I must protect the rights of others...no where in there does it say I have to protect some dumb idiot who falls for some con man. I defend their right to their bodies and anything they choose to do with 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.

I'm pretty sure you're on this particular thread to argue with Muravyets, even if you weren't intending so on the last one. :p

My job isn't to protect idiots. My job is to protect my own interests.
And, to be the Grand High Inquisitor for Straughn, iirc.
So it's kinda both worlds anyway, eh?

Soliciting a prostitute is already illegal, no?

Indeed but the prostitute is also charged - this means a prostitute is unlikely to ever stand up for herself or seek help because of the recriminations nor have control over her life.

Secondly, soliciting is illegal but, honestly, not particularly well-enforced in a society that essentially condones the practice to some extent, often due to the idea that 'it's just a bit of fun', and 'the women wouldn't do it if they didn't want to'.

As far as the clubs themselves following written law, I have copies of the Judgment Entry that since the day it was handed down has not been followed nor enforced. The club owner himself said not to follow it. This club also is part of a very large club chain.

Maybe the reason that it has not been enforced is that a lot of local law enforcement not only frequents these businesses, but also date the entertainers. This is true as well of firemen and city officials who all get in free. In fact, not long ago in a club in Detroit, an off-duty police officers lost his gun and could not find it. Another became mad at this girlfriend who was a dancer. Upon leaving, he discharged his gun into the door, hitting the owner of the club in the face.

radios that can be heard on mars
Not at all, Kat. We're just doing our bit for interplanetary harmony by giving the poor, music starved Martians something to listen to. ;)

Panel: Brothels aid sex trafficking
Tell me, do you bother to read the stuff you are posting?

Nowhere in there does it say that brothels are dealing in trafficked women. Farley (Whom we have already discussed has an obvious bias) does not say that. She says, ILLEGAL prostitution in Las Vegas is the epicenter for trafficking. You apparently missed that ILLEGAL point. Let me make it again, ILLEGAL. Do you read that? Do you comprehend that prostitution within Clark County (Including the Las Vegas Metro Area) is ILLEGAL?

The next point (The 45 women part) we have, again, no names, no places, no information. We're told these are legal brothels, but how the hell do we know? We don't.

Her comments about rape rates in Nevada being higher due to legalized prostitution is laughable at best. There's a lot more going on behind there.

Sorry, you fail once again to show anything to back your claims up.

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.
But it's a much better bet than criminalisation.

As I said, legalisation may not solve all the problems associated with the industry. It can solve some of them.

Criminalisation solves none of the problems associated with it, plus it's an issue of the state intervening in personal- and business lives.

Case closed. And I mean it.

By the way, every time I read your name, I ask myself: So where did he run?
:eek:

Oh. My. Fucking. God.

I only just saw that. Hundreds and hundreds of his posts I read, and I never stopped to think that "Soheran" is anything but a fantasy word.

God, I love life. :)

Dakini - what would it take for you personally to consider taking this job - to be fucked by different men 10 times a day, day after day - do you think it would be a choice of yours, or any friend you know, or do you think it would be out of a desperate rationale due to having few other options.
If I was desperate, I'd rather starve than whore myself out.

Would you make the choice?
No.

Would any female you know?
Yes. And it's not my choice to make for them, nor is it yours. Also, you neglect men in this equation, I know some men who would be more than happy to fuck 10 women a day and get health care and a pension plan out of it.

*snip*

Can you come up with something that doesn't involve this Farley women who is clearly biased?

One of the things a dancer/prostitute does is form an immense hatred of men - immense, to the point where they become subsumed to a man's will because they disassociate themselves mentally. They're simply doing a job but it's not really them.
Hahah. Seriously, where do you pull this shit out of, your ass?

People don't become lesbians because they hate men and like women, women are lesbians because they are attracted to other women. Now, she might not have acted that out as a Christian from a conservative family, but when she got out on her own...

We know the 'ok' ones because they're ok. They're the tiny minority or those at the start of the slippery slope of denial and abuse that ends in a life of prostitution.

As they fall deeper into the hole, and not all do, you will lose them as friends.

So 95% of this world is hidden to ordinary people and we 'know' the very few inherently because they're ok.
Dude, I know people who have stripped to make it through school. They never whored themselves out, they just danced and removed their clothes, then put them back on and went home to do their homework.

To the contrary, I got your point and it's wrong - people over 40 are not getting customers and thus need to lower and lower their prices in order to secure business thus taking on more and more dangerous clients.

There's no welfare, health coverage, insurance, anything.

I took your point and countered on the idea that there's a market for everything - that it exists does not make it good.

What's with the magical number of 40? What makes women over 40 automatically less pleasing than those under? Do they undergo some sort of demonic transformation that robs them of their once youthful appeal overnight?


There are plenty of women who I would never know are 40+ because they take damn good care of themselves and look well, stunning. There is nothing that says that once you turn 40 you can no long be good enough looking.

I want specific proof that women over 40 are NOT getting clientèle and therefore must reduce the price because until you can prove it, you're just blowing out your ass on that one.

As for a lack of: welfare, health coverage, insurance etc, I want you to tell me how many low paying jobs provide this? Could you go into a fast food restaurant or retail outlet and find someone who gets benefits and job protection? Maybe if they were the manager or even the district manager but those who are at the bottom get nothing and get screwed around.

There are thousands of jobs that don't have benefits, so exactly what is your point?

I smell penocha.

I smell a three day ban for flamebaiting and obscenity. Bye.

Hmm, really?

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

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

Having lived next door to, and gone to college with people who became "sanitation engineers" -- the money is very good, the medical benefits are very good, and one can retire early compared to other jobs.

Does anyone really grow up thinking, " I would LOVE to pick up other people's stinking messes -- especially in the dead of summer -- and risk getting infections from cuts and scrapes fouled by week-old spaghetti and cat poop?" Probably not.

Why could not the same be true of sex industry workers? "I don't *love* it, but it's good money, I'm good at it, the medical benefits (if legalized) are good, the pension (if legalized) is decent, and I can retire young."

I think neither of you have comprehended the issues.

I think you can't accept that people have differing opinions despite listening to your argument.

Congratulation, you invalidated any point you may have had by being a colossal asshat.

Ad hominem. Attack his argument -- don't discount any further argument from him as "invalidated... by being a colossal asshat."

If not, let's just say that there is a large number of posters who should be ignored by everyone, and that in many cases...

"The irony, it burns!"

But it's a much better bet than criminalisation.

As I said, legalisation may not solve all the problems associated with the industry. It can solve some of them.

Definitely not as is. As is it just compounds the problems.


Criminalisation solves none of the problems associated with it[/B], plus it's an issue of the state intervening in personal- and business lives.

Case closed. And I mean it.


Legalization is also an issue of the state intervening in personal and business lives. Taxes, regulations, etc, etc.

The argument of government interference applies whether it's illegal or not.

Indeed but the prostitute is also charged - this means a prostitute is unlikely to ever stand up for herself or seek help because of the recriminations nor have control over her life.

Which would not happen if it were a legal and well-regulated job.

Not at all, Kat. We're just doing our bit for interplanetary harmony by giving the poor, music starved Martians something to listen to. ;)

Or -- like those of us who take care in how we dress, trying to attract the attention of a possible mate.

It's more or less a mating ritual, male or female -- whether you're a frigate bird showing off your giant throat pouch or, "Want a lift home?" ;)

Legalise it and make help for prostitutes accessible more easily. You will not be able to reach people by criminalising them.

If it's the case that legalization so massively increases illegal prostitution... why?

The fact that the costs of being illegal are so low that it's preferable over accepting the regulations associated with being legal suggests that the laws aren't being enforced very effectively... but is this intrinsic to the nature of the problem or simply a matter of lax enforcement?

Perhaps the solution is to decriminalize the prostitutes who work in illegal brothels, thus enabling them to report the abuses they suffer, and helping the police shut down the illegal portions of the industry?

:eek:

Oh. My. Fucking. God.

I only just saw that. Hundreds and hundreds of his posts I read, and I never stopped to think that "Soheran" is anything but a fantasy word.

God, I love life. :)

Ah, but you're right.

"Soheran" is just a fantasy word. "So he ran" is purely coincidental. I myself didn't see it until long after I came up with it.

"Soheran" is just a fantasy word. "So he ran" is purely coincidental. I myself didn't see it until long after I came up with it.

I always thought of it pronounced as "SEW-herr-on"

I always thought of it pronounced as "SEW-herr-on"

I always thought it was So-her-ahn, and always wondered what that meant.

Definitely not as is. As is it just compounds the problems.
No, it doesn't. All the evidence presented in this thread fails to show the causal relationship between legalisation and the various bad things mentioned.

All it tells us that in a legalised system there are more people free to research and report the problems that occur anyways.

Legalization is also an issue of the state intervening in personal and business lives. Taxes, regulations, etc, etc.
I refer you to the JS Mill quote I had on page 2 or 3.

Seriously though, you don't think there is a difference between the severity of the imposition on people's personal lives?

And another question I wanted to ask: if you had your way and prostitution was outlawed, what do you think would happen?

I always thought of it pronounced as "SEW-herr-on"

I always thought it was So-her-ahn, and always wondered what that meant.

Deus Malum's right.

Amusingly enough the first two syllables come from the Hebrew for "prison guard" (or something along those lines, I don't remember exactly), and should technically be pronounced "SOH-hair"... a very strange origin for an anarchist nation's name, one that contrasts nicely with "so he ran," which is far more appropriate.

The truth of the matter is that "Soheran" was a name for a continent in a fantasy world I invented a long time ago, and needing of inspiration, all the continent names came from random Hebrew words and the names of people I knew.

Soheran, despite its name origin, was the "good" continent, the "holy" continent, one ruled by a benevolent theocracy (quite literally a theocracy--the emperor was appointed by prophets in direct communication with the gods of goodness), and in its original conception, Soheran the NS nation was also supposed to be a benevolent theocracy--a militantly leftist, feminist, socially liberal, queer-positive theocracy under which extensive democracy existed at the local level. (Naturally enough, this required inventing a new religion.)

So Soheran was a synthesis of several elements: geeky fantasy, leftist politics, and a desire to do something... different.

Quite by accident, it was with this nation and not another of my many that I began to post in NS General, and eventually I brought it in line with my actual religious and political views for that reason.

No, it doesn't. All the evidence presented in this thread fails to show the causal relationship between legalisation and the various bad things mentioned.

There does seem to be a fairly consistent pattern of increases in illegal prostitution as a result of decriminalization, but that doesn't make much sense.

Let take this out of just brothels and look at strip clubs, which I believe are legal in the majority of states and tie into the same pandering to the abuse of women that has the end result in prostitution - because hey, people say stripping is not the same - but it's legal and supervised so...

Link (http://www1.umn.edu/aurora/insideviewofstripclubs.pdf)

....okay, I have friends who strip, and what they've described to me bears exactly zero resemblance to this nonsense. I understand that you would feel degraded by stripping. So would I, which is why I don't do it. But to assert that all strippers necessarily feel the same way is just plain silly. One of my friends who strips is doing it to help pay her way through grad school. She certainly is not drugging herself up to deal with it, and she has no vestige of hate towards men (in fact, her boyfriend is a total sweetie, and most of their friends expect them to get engaged any day now). She simply finds stripping to be a comparatively fun and easy way to pay for her PhD program. She comes home with lots of funny anecdotes about stupid customers, and when those anecdotes involve the customers trying anything out of line, they also involve her club's very large, very respectful bouncers bodily removing said customers.

Deus Malum's right.

Amusingly enough the first two syllables come from the Hebrew for "prison guard" (or something along those lines, I don't remember exactly), and should technically be pronounced "SOH-hair"... a very strange origin for an anarchist nation's name, one that contrasts nicely with "so he ran," which is far more appropriate.

The truth of the matter is that "Soheran" was a name for a continent in a fantasy world I invented a long time ago, and needing of inspiration, all the continent names came from random Hebrew words and the names of people I knew.

Soheran, despite its name origin, was the "good" continent, the "holy" continent, one ruled by a benevolent theocracy (quite literally a theocracy--the emperor was appointed by prophets in direct communication with the gods of goodness), and in its original conception, Soheran the NS nation was also supposed to be a benevolent theocracy--a militantly leftist, feminist, socially liberal, queer-positive theocracy under which extensive democracy existed at the local level. (Naturally enough, this required inventing a new religion.)

So Soheran was a synthesis of several elements: geeky fantasy, leftist politics, and a desire to do something... different.

Quite by accident, it was with this nation and not another of my many that I began to post in NS General, and eventually I brought it in line with my actual religious and political views for that reason.

See, now you lost me at the last part. I've never seen my main nation on NSG as needing to be a reflection of my beliefs, which is why I've tried at great lengths to make Deus Malum the bestest evil theocracy ever. And I'm an atheist.

Edit: And as to the pronunciation, I'm going to chalk that up to the D&D-nerd hivemind.

No, this is her research based on going there and interviewing, one backed up by mulitudes of reports from governments and bodies alike from around the world - legalisation increases illegal prostitution by condoning it as an acceptable form of abuse.

As opposed to, really, your opinion.

And really, have you read this (http://www.sweden.gov.se/content/1/c4/22/84/0647d25a.pdf) - because it comprehensively outlines why legalization is no good for all the reasons I've given - as posted way back.

That is a synopsis of a conference. You will note that none of the women who compiled the paper are or were sex workers. I am amazed at your near perfect ability to exclude their voice from the debate.

Kathleen Mitchell, an ex-prostitute who founded a support group for prostitutes called Dignity, said, "Women are bought and sold on an auction block in any city in any state of the United States and also internationally. Sexual trafficking is one of the most inhumane forms of human slavery that there is."

Ex-prostitute Jody Williams, founder of Sex Workers Anonymous, compared the promotion of prostitution with the way the tobacco companies marketed cigarettes. "They're taking advantage of your ignorance of the industry," she said.

These are the first people you have quoted who actually have been involved in the sex trade. Congratulations.

Kathleen Mitchell is an ex-prostitute who founded a support group for people wishing to leave prostitution, not a support group for prostitutes as claimed in the article. Dignity, the support group she founded, is a Catholic organisation. Don't get me wrong. I think there is a need for her services and other groups like it. I simply do not think her methods are the entire solution.

Also, one can actively work to help people leave sex work without having a stance on the legalisation of prostitution, as shown by the second person in your quote, Jody Williams, founder of Sex Workers Anonymous. Here is their website:

http://www.sexworkersanonymous.com/

Sex Workers Anonymous does not feel the problem is with the sex industry in and of itself. We are a fellowship of people who have a desire to leave the sex industry - period. We have no opinion on the industry itself - whether it should be legalized or decriminalized or whether it's right or wrong or the people are good or bad. It doesn't matter about whether or not the sex industry is legal to us anymore than an alcoholic can justify taking that first drink because alcohol is sold legally. We just want to focus on our desire to leave the sex industry and to adjust to life afterwards.

So one's a born again christian and the other has no opinion on legalisation.

When will this get through everyone's heads - the main concern about legalisation is not that prostitutes get a better life - although that's only better stacked against illegality - it's that it expands the problem in itself.

The problem being what, exactly? There are many problems associated with prostitution, and your sources have been unable to show a causal link betwenn legalisation and an increase in these problems. Yes, I have read all your links.

The problem with legalisation is that it condones this process by condoning the end-result.

:rolleyes:

One of the things a dancer/prostitute does is form an immense hatred of men - immense, to the point where they become subsumed to a man's will because they disassociate themselves mentally. They're simply doing a job but it's not really them.

They do form extremely close bonds with other dancers/prostitutes and therefore gives rise to overt lesbianism - not a statement saying lesbianism is bad, but really a reflection of the hatred of men this work induces in a woman and the psychological effects that has - not in terms of lesbianism but in terms of being unable to see any man as a worthy being.

This is getting stupid. Now you are claiming to know the motivations of sexual orientation in sex workers? This is beyond arrogance. I suppose you know better than they why they are attracted to people. Reminiscent of the rationalisations for 'white mans burden'.

*snip*

I really don't - I'm well acquainted with the psychological studies on this:


Considering this evidence, sex work may be seen as a form of "emotion work" as referred to by Hochschild (1979, 1988), that is, a kind of work where one has to act in a way that is known to be false ("surface acting") or that actually transforms one's feelings ("deep acting"). Hochschild as well as others (e.g., Grandey, 2000) have stressed that emotional labor in the workplace can be related to heightened levels of burnout. Burnout has been defined as a syndrome of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and reduced personal competence as a consequence of long-lasting work-stress and a latent process of psychological erosion (Schaufeli, Maslach, & Marek, 1993). Hochschild proposed that emotion work relates to burnout because the management of emotions requires effort and because the commoditization of, and organizational control over, workers' emotions is unpleasant to the employee. Burnout seems to be most likely in the service-providing professions where workers have intensive professional contact with other people (e.g., patients or clients) and where their own personality is the most important instrument workers have at their disposal (Schaufeli & van Dierendonck, 1995). The literature on sex work, a service-providing profession by eminence, suggests that sex workers' distancing strategies may notably be associated with "depersonalization," which refers to a cold, indifferent, and cynical attitude toward one's clients; however, emotion work may also be associated with the other aspects of burnout. Cordes and Dougherty (1993), for example, proposed that repeated emotion regulation may induce emotional exhaustion, which workers then cope with by objectifying or depersonalizing their customers. This cynicism may, in turn, lead to feeling negative about themselves and their work to the point where they experience a diminished sense of personal competence and self-esteem.

Link (http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-5264577/Burnout-among-female-indoor-sex.html)

If it's the case that legalization so massively increases illegal prostitution... why?

The fact that the costs of being illegal are so low that it's preferable over accepting the regulations associated with being legal suggests that the laws aren't being enforced very effectively... but is this intrinsic to the nature of the problem or simply a matter of lax enforcement?

Perhaps the solution is to decriminalize the prostitutes who work in illegal brothels, thus enabling them to report the abuses they suffer, and helping the police shut down the illegal portions of the industry?

See, the simple fact is that it does - we can debate all day on the reasons why without ever coming to a concrete conclusion - especially here.

This is where I'm happy to say I'm speculating to some degree but it doesn't seem to much of a stretch to say that the reason it increases illegal supply is that it's implicitly condoned by legalisation.

What a government is saying is that for men to pay for a woman's body is ok, and therefore the demand for that increases as a consequence.

Think of Amsterdam, think of Las Vegas - by association one automatically thinks of the word 'hookers', or whatever derivative of that word one chooses to use.

It's a form of branding and the connotations of that word in association with those cities is excitement.

'Dude, Amsterdam, drugs and hookers!'

It may be that everyone here is such a moral upstanding person that these words don't excite them - and for the record I'm ok with most forms of drugs - but for many, many men, it does.

By creating an atmosphere of legality in terms of prostitution, one creates a sense of acceptance of the act itself - which gives rise to the idea that it's ok and all the ensuing assumptions that follow - that it's the women's choice, that it's just a bit of fun, when the reality is that for the vast majority, it's no fun whatsoever.

The evidence is clear that it causes great psychological harm for the great majority and I really have problems with people who feel that the abuse of women by men is acceptable as long as it's legalised when there's a clear correlation between legalisation and increased demand, thus forcing an increased demand in supply.

I am of two minds on the subject. On one hand, I don't see a moral problem with someone agreeing to have sex with another person for money (unless I bring religion in, which I don't do in politics). On the other hand, if America were to legalize prostitution, I could see the sex industry becoming a lot more visible, something I would NOT like, and I imagine a lot of people would agree with me (if you think that most people wouldn't have an issue, say so). The visibility of the sex industry is what made Las Vegas my least favorite city.

I think that the establishment of official red light districts, probably via use of existing zoning laws, could solve this problem. Cities may restrict brothels and advertisements to certain areas, but they may not exclude a brothel from the city limits without proving that they have a very good reason beyond not liking prostitution.

And I have an idea for protecting sex workers - establish a sex worker labor union. It worked for miners and factory workers, it can work for prostitutes.

While I have no significant data as to whether or not legalizing prostitution cuts down on illegal prostitution, I have a reason why it would: it draws away workers. If the pimps force their workers to stay on, the prostitutes contact the Sex Workers' Union, who contact the feds, who throw the pimps in jail.

Barringtonia, I have one question about all these studies you provided.

If a company is caught being affiliated with child labor in another country, the company is named. (K-mart)

If a company is caught perpetuating fraud that rips off people of their hard earned money, that company is named. (Enron)

If a company puts out defective items, those companies are named. (Mattell, Fisher Price, Goodyear)

So why does NONE of these "reliable, Independant" reports and researches NOT name the ranch or location of these brothels where all these God-Forsaken practices take place? if these events are happening in LEGALISED Brothels, why not plaster their name?

I have a feeling that these "independant researches and investigative reports" are actually going to the illegal places and trying to smear the legal ones by connecting them only with their profession.

Can you produce any reports that names a Legal Brothel doing these monstrous practices your other reports claims to occure in other unnamed 'legal' brothels?

it's not like they are shy. There are guide books sold in LAS VEGAS with their "Ranch" names, locations, contact information, services provided (limo pickup/Drop off to/from Las Vegas), approxomate costs and even reviews... so why are these independant researchers so reluctant to say "here at [name] the girls report that they are beaten, held prisoner, fed through bars, etc."

The evidence is clear that it causes great psychological harm for the great majority and I really have problems with people who feel that the abuse of women by men is acceptable as long as it's legalised when there's a clear correlation between legalisation and increased demand, thus forcing an increased demand in supply.

so are you also crusading against The Modeling Industry which causes hundreds of teen girls to starve themselves to fit the industry's concept of beauty?

- SNIP -

Think of Amsterdam, think of Las Vegas - by association one automatically thinks of the word 'hookers', or whatever derivative of that word one chooses to use.

It's a form of branding and the connotations of that word in association with those cities is excitement.

'Dude, Amsterdam, drugs and hookers!'

- SNIP -

By creating an atmosphere of legality in terms of prostitution, one creates a sense of acceptance of the act itself - which gives rise to the idea that it's ok and all the ensuing assumptions that follow - that it's the women's choice, that it's just a bit of fun, when the reality is that for the vast majority, it's no fun whatsoever.

Not for Amsterdam. It's more along the lines of "Amsterdam has legal weed!"

However, I'd sooner think of the pancakes I had while there; the french fries. C'mon, the food is something else worth getting excited over. "'Melk"! Anyone who's been (or lived there) will not just think of drugs or "hookers".

Sure the coffeeshops make it all that much more worth it. But when I think Amsterdam I think French Fries. I mean... fries with mayo in a paper cone.

By legalising weed, we accept that smoking it is perfectly fine and it is our choice. There are associated risks with smoking weed but it's our choice.

You might care to look into the legal aspects of prostitution before you continue. Of course, I won't change your mind but you can't assume that all are being exploited while the police and other law officials look in the other direction.

Meld Misdaad Anoniem (http://www.meldmisdaadanoniem.nl//Article.aspx?id=203) (The English version of the Dutch website)
Prostitution in the Netherlands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands) - Yes it's Wiki but there are a number of good links and studies here.

Barringtonia, I have one question about all these studies you provided.

If a company is caught being affiliated with child labor in another country, the company is named. (K-mart)

If a company is caught perpetuating fraud that rips off people of their hard earned money, that company is named. (Enron)

If a company puts out defective items, those companies are named. (Mattell, Fisher Price, Goodyear)

So why does NONE of these "reliable, Independant" reports and researches NOT name the ranch or location of these brothels where all these God-Forsaken practices take place? if these events are happening in LEGALISED Brothels, why not plaster their name?

I have a feeling that these "independant researches and investigative reports" are actually going to the illegal places and trying to smear the legal ones by connecting them only with their profession.

Can you produce any reports that names a Legal Brothel doing these monstrous practices your other reports claims to occure in other unnamed 'legal' brothels?

it's not like they are shy. There are guide books sold in LAS VEGAS with their "Ranch" names, locations, contact information, services provided (limo pickup/Drop off to/from Las Vegas), approxomate costs and even reviews... so why are these independant researchers so reluctant to say "here at [name] the girls report that they are beaten, held prisoner, fed through bars, etc."

Look, the US Justice Department itself understand that Las Vegas attracts huge amount of trafficking - please stop calling Farley a liar - it's similar to calling evolutionists liars because of misguided beleifs. Her book was state-sponsored:

S Justice Department Names Las Vegas Among 17 Most Likely Destinations

March 31, 2007

The US federal government believes Las Vegas is a top destination for "human trafficking" victims - from indentured servants to massage parlor workers and prostitutes held captive and forced to commit sex acts.

This belief has led the Justice Department to grant hundreds of thousands of dollars to Metro Police to tackle the problem.

But first, the Anti Trafficking League Against Slavery (ATLAS), an office within Metro that opened last month, needs to try to answer a basic question: Is there a human-trafficking problem here, and if so, how big is it? Terri Miller, ATLAS's civilian director and long one of the top Nevada activists against the sexual exploitation of women and children, and her boss, Metro Capt. Terry Lesney, say the need for the group is clear: There is a "huge" and growing sex-oriented trafficking problem in Las Vegas. Yet they quickly add that no statistics have ever been gathered and law enforcers never before have made it a top priority - so the scope of the problem still needs to be determined. Police in the past haven't paid sufficient attention to the signs that the prostitutes or others they're investigating may also be trafficking victims, they say - meaning the problem has gone underreported for years.

Miller says the problem has been made worse by Las Vegas' aggressive advertising promotions that encourage tourists to come here and sin all they like. "We're basically giving a green light for people to come here and exploit women and children," Miller says. ATLAS was formed as an extension of the ad hoc Nevada Human Trafficking Task Force, an interagency group set up by the U.S. attorney's office in Las Vegas in 2004.

The task force's first task was to determine whether, in fact, there was a human-trafficking problem, Lesney says. But because of the lack of hard data, she says, "we were struggling to quantify what we're dealing with." Federal law defines trafficking as what happens when children, teens, men or women are subjected to "force, fraud or coercion" for the purpose of sexual exploitation or forced labor.

Human trafficking is different from smuggling in that people who are smuggled voluntarily pay the smuggler, and when the person arrives, he or she is free, or is required to work under a job arranged by the smuggler until the debt is paid. Trafficking victims are enslaved, and if they are in debt to the trafficker, it's most often at rates too high to ever be able to pay. Victims are often lured by false promises, and are sometimes physically forced.

Sex trafficking victims can range from massage parlor workers brought in from overseas to prostitutes trafficked here from California or Arizona. Labor trafficking, including domestic servitude, agricultural or sweatshop labor, involves victims forced to work against their will, sometimes under the threat of violence.

Often, Miller and Lesney say, victims or their family members have been threatened by the traffickers and are afraid they will be deported if they come forward and cooperate with police. Between 17,000 and 20,000 people are trafficked into the United States annually, according to State Department estimates. Of those, it is unknown how many are brought to Nevada.

Rarely have defendants in Las Vegas been prosecuted as human traffickers, Lesney says, though there is a tough federal law passed in 2000 and even newer state laws that target those crimes. Until this month, she said, Metro didn't even have a booking code for alleged human trafficking violators. The largest human trafficking bust in the area in recent years was Operation Jade Blade. A national sting in 2000 netted five Las Vegas Valley residents, who were arrested for trafficking Asian prostitutes into the city. The women had been smuggled into the country for a fee, then were forced to pay back their debt by working as prostitutes.

In the last six years federal prosecutors have brought nine additional cases with strong trafficking elements into federal courts, according to the U.S. attorney's office in Las Vegas, including cases in which pimps brought girls or women into the region from other states to work as prostitutes. Each of those cases was smaller in scope than the Jade Blade bust, Nevada U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden concedes. Although he wouldn't comment on any ongoing investigations, he says there has been little funding to pursue deep investigations into trafficking cases. Bogden says he believes the work of the task force and Miller's office will change that.

"Any time you essentially enslave a human being and deprive a human being of their rights, that has to be a top priority," says Bogden, who will be stepping down from his post at the end of next month. Locally, there have been even fewer human trafficking cases charged and prosecuted in the last few years. According to District Court records, only one trafficking case has been prosecuted locally since 2005, when the Legislature put two new anti-trafficking laws on the books.

In that case, a woman was indicted by a Las Vegas grand jury on Dec. 12. Personna Coleman is alleged to have committed involuntary servitude - as well as kidnapping and several other crimes - when she restrained and threatened another woman, demanding that the woman earn her at least $1,000 by engaging in prostitution. Clark County prosecutors confirm they are pursuing at least two other trafficking cases , but the details and status of those cases were not made available.

Identified by a Justice Department risk analysis study as one of 17 cities nationwide most likely to be the top destinations for trafficking victims, federal officials gave a $370,000 grant to Metro officials late last year - as well as a smaller one to the local Salvation Army office. With it, ATLAS was born, with Miller serving as director. She started early last month and has a three-year contract with Metro. Miller, 48, worked with the Nevada Coalition Against Sexual Violence, and she has long been involved with a New York-based nonprofit group called SESAME, or Stop Educator Abuse, Misconduct and Exploitation.

Miller - a mother of four who describes herself as an "M.O.M., a Mom on a Mission" - began working against teacher abuse of students while living in Pahrump, including the investigation of a teacher who is serving a life sentence for sexual assault against a 17-year-old student. Miller said her efforts split the Pahrump community: "I was 50 percent vilified, and 50 percent hailed me as a heroine," she said. After 20 years in Pahrump, she and her family moved to the Las Vegas Valley in 2002.

Though a year younger than Miller, Lesney says she's finishing up her work after a 25-year career with Metro. She retires from the force in September, set to move back to her native Minnesota to be closer to family and to finish up her work on a doctorate in forensic psychology. Lesney says she finds satisfaction working on trafficking cases for the same reason she likes handling sexual assault and domestic violence cases: "You're dealing with real victims," she says. Miller and Lesney said they have three main goals for their new anti-trafficking office within Metro - to raise public awareness about the issue; to increase law enforcement's reporting of trafficking cases and then help coordinate investigations; and ultimately, to establish a service network for trafficking victims.

Earlier this month they instituted a mandatory, two-hour online training course on human trafficking for all Metro commissioned officers below the rank of deputy chief. More than 600 have taken the course so far, they said. Miller and Lesney, joined by other local and federal officials and victims' advocates, will hold a press conference on Feb. 6 to highlight the work of the new office. "I'm like a magnet right now," Miller says of her first eight hectic weeks on the job. "They're coming at me from all over to join the task force. I'm really in awe at how fast we're progressing."

Look, the US Justice Department itself understand that Las Vegas attracts huge amount of trafficking - please stop calling Farley a liar - it's similar to calling evolutionists liars because of misguided beleifs. Her book was state-sponsored:

Fails on all counts.
1) I never called Ms. Miller a liar.
2) I still don't see anything tying the Illegal human trafficking/Illegal prostitution/Illegal Brothels to the legal brothels.
3) the report does not name a legal brothel that is supporting the illegal act of Human Trafficking.
4) I never said, and it has never been said that Illegal Human Trafficking has stopped or will be stopped by legalizing prostitution.
5) there is still no proof that the Legal Brothels are committing these acts that you brought up with your other articles.
6) even that report fails to mention one legal brothel by name.

Fails on all counts.
1) I never called Ms. Miller a liar.

5) there is still no proof that the Legal Brothels are committing these acts that you brought up with your other articles.

Given we're talking about Melissa Farley, which I assume is what you meant by Ms. Miller - these 2 statements are contradictory.

I also want to make a correction to her book being state-sponsored - the report on Las Vegas trafficking is sponsored by the US Justice system, not her book - my error in writing.

At this point, further discussion is worthless. There is a disagreement of the very basic view of sex and prostitution.

Some posters think prostitution is inherently 'wrong' and, by its very nature, is abuse. This does not surprise me as I have met people who think all sex is abuse against women. When you come from the position that prostitution is wrong and fundamentally harms a woman, even thought the prostitutes don't know it and won't admit to it and argue vehemently against the idea of prostitution being nothing but abuse, these posters know better.

There is a definite selection bias - you can skew any study or survey to show whatever you want to show. If I wanted to publish a study showing prostitution in a negative light (because of personal bias and thinking it inherently 'wrong'), all I would need to do is interview street walkers in a poor neighborhood. On the other hand, I could just interview high end call girls to show that prostitution is fun, lucrative, completely safe, and a wonderful career.

I would suggest that most research will show negatives about prostitution because of 3 simple reasons. First, look at the sources of funding - where your money comes from, who pays you, and who is chosen to do the work will highly skew any sociological research. Secondly, criminalization of prostitution creates a correlation between it and other negative factors as the same criminal element is involved in both - a pimp who is a thief and drug dealer is not likely to be the paragon of virtue. Thirdly, studies are biased and skewed towards those that researchers find - a streetwalker is easy to spot while anything but the bottom level is much more difficult to find and interview.

I fully admit that there is a significant bias in my own viewpoint. All the sex workers I know do it because they enjoy it. They have a lot of fun, enjoy doing what they do, enjoy pleasing people, and make good money doing what they love. All but the most desperate choose their clients - only crack whores would have sex with any diseased drunk off the street.

In fact, a friend of mine is even teaching a workshop next week on sex work. He covers everything from health issues, legal issues, screening clients, how to decide what acts you will or wont do, profitability and money management, business organization, and advertising. He does this because he enjoys sex work and is happy to help people who are interested in doing it.

Most of the other sex workers I know would never be found by sociological researchers because it is illegal, considered immoral by most of society, and they have normal lives to protect. If it were not for the legal and social problems, you would know that prostitution is a huge business comprising far more than drug addled desperate people.

...and again, we're failing to concentrate on the fact that:


There is a large correlation between legalisation and a rise in illegal prostitution, as shown in Australia, Germany and Holland - not just Nevada.

Prostitution is a psychological as well as mostly physical harmful experience beyond being a continuation of objectification of women by men

The vast majority of prostitutes do not 'choose' to be so.


Concentrating on whether specific abuse has happened in a legal Nevada brothel - which has been shown by Melissa Farley - beyond the consequences of government condoned pimping, should not be the specific point of proof when the wider implications are so apparent.

Given we're talking about Melissa Farley, which I assume is what you meant by Ms. Miller - these 2 statements are contradictory.

I also want to make a correction to her book being state-sponsored - the report on Las Vegas trafficking is sponsored by the US Justice system, not her book - my error in writing.

my mistake, I did mean Ms Farley. :p

nope. they are not contradictory. where did she name any legal brothel that were doing this illegal practice and was NOT caught or punished by Nevada law?

...and again, we're failing to concentrate on the fact that:


There is a large correlation between legalisation and a rise in illegal prostitution, as shown in Australia, Germany and Holland - not just Nevada.

Prostitution is a psychological as well as mostly physical harmful experience beyond being a continuation of objectification of women by men

The vast majority of prostitutes do not 'choose' to be so.


Disproven before. For that matter, the information you provided about prostitution in Germany was hilarious - you seemed to insinuate that over 75% of the prostitutes in Germany are trafficked, I believe? This kinda bites with well over half of them being part-time prostitutes making money to make ends meet while they finish their degrees, after which a normal life follows. You'll excuse me for doubting the information you provide in general, given how far off it is.
'Is'? 'Can be', perhaps. But I somehow doubt that this is always the case - there's people in the business who do it because it helps them reaching sexual fulfillment, to name one example. There's also the sizeable fetish industry - you're telling me that it's the Domme that's degraded in a bit of paid-for BDSM?
And your third point is, frankly, a lie, insofar as countries where prostitution is legal are concerned. See also under my first point. Unless, of course, 'Needing money and getting a job even though you don't really like that job' is 'Force' to you. In which case prostitution is the least of your problems...

my mistake, I did mean Ms Farley. :p

nope. they are not contradictory. where did she name any legal brothel that were doing this illegal practice and was NOT caught or punished by Nevada law?

Here's a NY Times article with name of both - and, for the record, the Mayor of Las Vegas announced he would like to take a baseball bat to the author for writing this - it's all fun.

Minnesota's poor populate Las Vegas' poles

[Bob Herbert, NYTimes Select]

Amber is 19 years old and on Sunday she caught a flight out of Las Vegas’s McCarran International Airport and went home to a small town in Minnesota, not far from the Iowa border.

I’m rooting for her. She’s low on funds (“I’ve got my ticket, that’s about all,” she said), and she’s at a crucial turning point in her life.

The question is whether she will go off to college in Florida, and stick with it, which she insists is what she wants to do, or whether she will slip back into her life as a stripper and lap dancer, which is so often the start of the descent into the hell of prostitution.

“I hate the dancing,” she told me. “Sometimes I think I don’t have a strong enough mind for it, because of the way people treat me.”

I met Amber in Las Vegas last week. I was with Melissa Farley, a psychologist and researcher who was asked by the head of the U.S. State Department’s anti-trafficking office to do a study of the sex trade and its consequences in Nevada.

(She published the book-length study this week under the title, “Prostitution and Trafficking in Nevada: Making the Connections.”)

Amber’s story is far more typical than many Americans would like to acknowledge. There are many thousands of Ambers across the country, naïve kids from dysfunctional homes who are thrown willy-nilly into the adult, take-no-prisoners environment of the sex trade with no preparation, no guidance and no support at all.

They are the prey in the predatory world of pimps, johns and perverts that goes by the euphemism: adult entertainment.

Amber’s parents are divorced. Her mother, with whom she lives when she’s in Minnesota, is both physically and emotionally ill.

For awhile, she said, she had a stepfather who physically abused both her and her mother.

“He was on meth,” Amber said. “He’d hit us, scream at my mother. We’d make dinner and he’d go into a rage and throw away the whole dinner. So we’d go without dinner that night.”

Amber was both shy and rebellious and began dancing at a strip club in Minnesota on a dare. That was several months ago.

One afternoon a wrestling coach from her high school came in while she was dancing. “I was topless,” she said, “and I just wanted to crawl into a hole.”

She saved enough money to go to Vegas and tried out for a job there. “The manager told me, ‘You can’t work for me. You’re too big,’ ” she said. “So I didn’t eat for four days. All I had that whole time was one bowl of cereal and some water. It was horrible. I lost 10 pounds and went back. He made me take off all my clothes and dance for him. And then he said I was still too big. You have to be practically anorexic to dance for him.”

I asked why she continued dancing even though she hated it. Her face took on the puzzled look of a kid who had no good answer for not doing her homework.

“I don’t know,” she said. “It’s not very logical, is it?”

She got a job at Sheri’s Cabaret on South Highland Avenue, which trumpets to all and sundry that its dancers are completely nude. The owners of the cabaret also own Sheri’s Ranch, a legal brothel about an hour’s ride outside of Vegas.

“It’s unbelievable the way the customers degrade you,” Amber said. “Their hands are all over you and they’re always trying to have sex with you.”

I asked if she’d ever been tempted to give in. She waited a long moment before answering.

“Sometimes I am,” she said. “Sometimes a guy will offer a lot of money, and I might think that could help with whatever I need for that month. But then I think, I just can’t do that. Nobody should violate my body like that.”

I asked Amber why she was willing to talk candidly and on the record about her experiences. She said, “I want people to know what it’s like for us. They think we’re just a bunch of lowlifes who like to get naked for money. We’re not. We go through a lot.”

When I asked her if she ever wanted to get married and raise a family, she was unequivocal.

“No” she said. “I don’t want any of that. I just feel if I get married the guy will change and show his true colors. I don’t want that to happen to me.”

She swears she’s going to school and will try to find work in the fashion industry.

I asked if she thought she would ever go back to dancing.

“Probably not,” she said.

Oh, and looks like I was actually correct - it was state-sponsored

I met Amber in Las Vegas last week. I was with Melissa Farley, a psychologist and researcher who was asked by the head of the U.S. State Department’s anti-trafficking office to do a study of the sex trade and its consequences in Nevada.

Yay me.

For those thinking that girls don't become very cynical towards men, from the same article:

When asked if she wanted to be married.

“No” she said. “I don’t want any of that. I just feel if I get married the guy will change and show his true colors. I don’t want that to happen to me.”

OK.... and I know other sex workers who are NOT from broken homes, on drugs, abused, or hopeless. Who enjoy the work, are good at it, make a nice living, are saving for the future, are attending school (using the proceeds of their work to pay for it and will graduate with far fewer student loans than I did) and don't have to be rescued because they are just fine.

Meanwhile, I know a stock broker who was miserable at his job, hated every minute of it, and after 25+ years died at his desk an unhappy, broken man.

What else do you have?

OK.... and I know other sex workers who are NOT from broken homes, on drugs, abused, or hopeless. Who enjoy the work, are good at it, make a nice living, are saving for the future, are attending school (using the proceeds of their work to pay for it and will graduate with far fewer student loans than I did) and don't have to be rescued because they are just fine.

Meanwhile, I know a stock broker who was miserable at his job, hated every minute of it, and after 25+ years died at his desk an unhappy, broken man.

What else do you have?

Oh lord - everyone's personal knowledge of happy prostitutes fills me with alarm, it's often the only supposed evidence against every psychological report and more that have been posted.

"I know a happy prostitute" - what sort of argument do you think you're making here?

...and again, we're failing to concentrate on the fact that:


There is a large correlation between legalisation and a rise in illegal prostitution, as shown in Australia, Germany and Holland - not just Nevada. Several "massage Parlors in Hawaii were busted for Prostitution. more than previous years, yet Hawaii does NOT legalize prostitution. Same with Illegal Gambling.

all your reports show is that those illegal practices occure even where such practices are legal.

Can you show the rise in prostutution comparing all 50 states to prove that Nevada is growing faster by a wide margin?

The vast majority of prostitutes do not 'choose' to be so.
so show me where these reports focused only on the legal brothels and NOT prostitutes in general.

Concentrating on whether specific abuse has happened in a legal Nevada brothel - which has been shown by Melissa Farley - beyond the consequences of government condoned pimping, should not be the specific point of proof when the wider implications are so apparent.yet you are focusing on the Legal Brothels by your mention of "government condoned pimping". so when asked "where is the legal brothels named for having such actions" you reply with "that's not the point?"

so again, I have yet to see proof that these practices are being carried out by a "Legal" brothel and not just a brothel which could be either legal or illegal.

Did I say those ebil practices were NOT done? No.
Did YOU say those practices are being done by legal Brothels? Yes
Are you trying to tie the legal practices of other countries and their law enforcement practices together in a flimsy argument? YES.

the reason why I say the chances are those guilty are not legal is that several of the Legal places also have outcall services (according to the guide books.) where the woman will be driven to your Home/Hotel Room.

Kinda risky if those places mistreat their employees. What's stopping them from running or having the cops called?

Kinda risky if those places mistreat their employees. What's stopping them from running or having the cops called?

Your naivety is boring.

Your naivety is boring.

As is your lack of answering a serious question.

Oh lord - everyone's personal knowledge of happy prostitutes fills me with alarm, it's often the only supposed evidence against every psychological report and more that have been posted.

"I know a happy prostitute" - what sort of argument do you think you're making here?

YOU are posting "unhappy prostitute" stories... so the logical refute is a "happy prostitute" story. How are yours any different from mine (with the exception that yours are apocryphal and mine are first hand)?

Here's a NY Times article with name of both - and, for the record, the Mayor of Las Vegas announced he would like to take a baseball bat to the author for writing this - it's all fun.

Sigh...

ok. let's look at this article.

Minnesota's poor populate Las Vegas' poles



Amber is 19 years old and on Sunday she caught a flight out of Las Vegas’s McCarran International Airport and went home to a small town in Minnesota, not far from the Iowa border.

I’m rooting for her. She’s low on funds (“I’ve got my ticket, that’s about all,” she said), and she’s at a crucial turning point in her life.

The question is whether she will go off to college in Florida, and stick with it, which she insists is what she wants to do, or whether she will slip back into her life as a stripper and lap dancer, which is so often the start of the descent into the hell of prostitution.

“I hate the dancing,” she told me. “Sometimes I think I don’t have a strong enough mind for it, because of the way people treat me.”

I met Amber in Las Vegas last week. I was with Melissa Farley, a psychologist and researcher who was asked by the head of the U.S. State Department’s anti-trafficking office to do a study of the sex trade and its consequences in Nevada.

(She published the book-length study this week under the title, “Prostitution and Trafficking in Nevada: Making the Connections.”)

Amber’s story is far more typical than many Americans would like to acknowledge. There are many thousands of Ambers across the country, naïve kids from dysfunctional homes who are thrown willy-nilly into the adult, take-no-prisoners environment of the sex trade with no preparation, no guidance and no support at all.

They are the prey in the predatory world of pimps, johns and perverts that goes by the euphemism: adult entertainment.

Amber’s parents are divorced. Her mother, with whom she lives when she’s in Minnesota, is both physically and emotionally ill.

For awhile, she said, she had a stepfather who physically abused both her and her mother.

“He was on meth,” Amber said. “He’d hit us, scream at my mother. We’d make dinner and he’d go into a rage and throw away the whole dinner. So we’d go without dinner that night.”

Amber was both shy and rebellious and began dancing at a strip club in Minnesota on a dare. That was several months ago.nice background, won't argue anything here.

One afternoon a wrestling coach from her high school came in while she was dancing. “I was topless,” she said, “and I just wanted to crawl into a hole.” so she was dancing topless... technically not prostitution. but notice WHERE... Minnesota

She saved enough money to go to Vegas and tried out for a job there. “The manager told me, ‘You can’t work for me. You’re too big,’ ” she said. “So I didn’t eat for four days. All I had that whole time was one bowl of cereal and some water. It was horrible. I lost 10 pounds and went back. He made me take off all my clothes and dance for him. And then he said I was still too big. You have to be practically anorexic to dance for him.”sounds like a scam that's also prevailant in Hollywood.

also, I remember reading an article that Vegas Showgirls have to fit a certain look. so that the dance lines are as uniform as possible.

so far, the story is a typical pervy scam or fits the Vegas Showgirl look.

I asked why she continued dancing even though she hated it. Her face took on the puzzled look of a kid who had no good answer for not doing her homework.

“I don’t know,” she said. “It’s not very logical, is it?”so it's the industry's fault?

She got a job at Sheri’s Cabaret on South Highland Avenue, which trumpets to all and sundry that its dancers are completely nude. The owners of the cabaret also own Sheri’s Ranch, a legal brothel about an hour’s ride outside of Vegas. ahh... now we're getting closer. however, she worked at Sheri's Cabaret, which I believe is a CLUB, not a brothel.

the owners OWN a brothel also. A Legal Brothel.

“It’s unbelievable the way the customers degrade you,” Amber said. “Their hands are all over you and [B]they’re always trying to have sex with you.” So not a brothel, but the strip club. so how does this connect with the Legal Brothel and all the cries of being starved, held against their will at a BROTHEL?

we have a SWING and a miss here.

I asked if she’d ever been tempted to give in. She waited a long moment before answering.

“Sometimes I am,” she said. “Sometimes a guy will offer a lot of money, and I might think that could help with whatever I need for that month. But then I think, I just can’t do that. Nobody should violate my body like that.” A CHOICE... and she said, or at least indicated that she said, NO! was she forced? let's read on...

I asked Amber why she was willing to talk candidly and on the record about her experiences. She said, “I want people to know what it’s like for us. They think we’re just a bunch of lowlifes who like to get naked for money. We’re not. We go through a lot.” Sad stigma for those in that industry. but not everyone thinks that way.

When I asked her if she ever wanted to get married and raise a family, she was unequivocal.

“No” she said. “I don’t want any of that. I just feel if I get married the guy will change and show his true colors. I don’t want that to happen to me.” and this is related to those illegal or legal brothels how exactly?

She swears she’s going to school and will try to find work in the fashion industry.

I asked if she thought she would ever go back to dancing.

“Probably not,” she said. Good for her, I wish her Luck!

now. where does this tie in LEGAL brothels to all those claims of abuse reported by Ms Farley and those other independant reports?

Amber worked in a STIP JOINT. just as cruel and harsh, but not prostitution, unless YOU think stripping = Prostitution.

SHE made the choice to go to Vegas and work there. so where was she FORCED into Stripping?
She choose to stay in that job, so where was she FORCED to work?
she felt degraded... How is that the industry's fault?
Was she forced into sex? doesn't sound like it...

so how does a stripper's tale, a tale where she had control, prove that Legal Brothels are involved with Human trafficking, Slave labor, and even kidnapping?

Sigh...

ok. let's look at this article.

nice background, won't argue anything here.

so she was dancing topless... technically not prostitution. but notice WHERE... Minnesota

sounds like a scam that's also prevailant in Hollywood.

also, I remember reading an article that Vegas Showgirls have to fit a certain look. so that the dance lines are as uniform as possible.

so far, the story is a typical pervy scam or fits the Vegas Showgirl look.

so it's the industry's fault?

ahh... now we're getting closer. however, she worked at Sheri's Cabaret, which I believe is a CLUB, not a brothel.

the owners OWN a brothel also. A Legal Brothel.

So not a brothel, but the strip club. so how does this connect with the Legal Brothel and all the cries of being starved, held against their will at a BROTHEL?

we have a SWING and a miss here.

A CHOICE... and she said, or at least indicated that she said, NO! was she forced? let's read on...

Sad stigma for those in that industry. but not everyone thinks that way.

and this is related to those illegal or legal brothels how exactly?

Good for her, I wish her Luck!

now. where does this tie in LEGAL brothels to all those claims of abuse reported by Ms Farley and those other independant reports?

Amber worked in a STIP JOINT. just as cruel and harsh, but not prostitution, unless YOU think stripping = Prostitution.

SHE made the choice to go to Vegas and work there. so where was she FORCED into Stripping?
She choose to stay in that job, so where was she FORCED to work?
she felt degraded... How is that the industry's fault?
Was she forced into sex? doesn't sound like it...

so how does a stripper's tale, a tale where she had control, prove that Legal Brothels are involved with Human trafficking, Slave labor, and even kidnapping?

1. She was maybe not forced directly, but she felt she had to do it to make money. Thus it's better to help people who are involved in such stuff than encourage it by legalising it.

2. Legal or not, many people are in prostitution because they have no real choice in the matter (or at least feels as if they have no real choice) - for example, threatened by their pimp(s), tricked into prostitution (in ways previously referred to for example), etc. - legalising brothels and/or prostitution in general isn't going to stop this. Helping those who have a genuine need of money and locking up pimps is.

3. My suggestion: Make pimping illegal. Keep prostitution illegal, but only punish those actually running the "businesses" (as well as those who've tricked people into coming to the country), not those forced to do it. Help people who have a genuine need of money - in the UK, there's something called 'Jobseeker's Allowance'. It's not a very well-run scheme, but basically what it is SUPPOSED to be is an income from the government that is dependant upon you ACTIVELY seeking work as well as dependant upon your current income and 'assets'. All it needs is a few tweaks and it'd be great (at the moment it's eaither really lax, OR the Jobcentre (which you have to attend every fortnight with evidence that you've been looking for work) tries to shove you in a dead-end job) - there should be something like this in every country: It helps people who need food without them having to sell their bodies, and it makes it difficult to just keep scrounging off the government (at least it would if it was tweaked a bit - for example don't force people to sell their house just because it's worth a lot by refusing to give them any Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA)).

please stop calling Farley a liar

There is a difference between calling her biased and calling her a liar.
JuNii and others have expressed the opinion that she firmly had an agenda in mind when doing this study, and have shown why they believe it. Such an agenda would color the results of the study -- as people have also demonstrated through their own links and their own experiences.

You are making the factually incorrect statement that JuNii is calling her a liar.
A knowingly factually incorrect statement is....?

Main Entry: 1bi·as
Pronunciation: 'bI-&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French biais
1 : a line diagonal to the grain of a fabric; especially : a line at a 45 degree angle to the selvage often utilized in the cutting of garments for smoother fit
2 a : a peculiarity in the shape of a bowl that causes it to swerve when rolled on the green in lawn bowling b : the tendency of a bowl to swerve; also : the impulse causing this tendency c : the swerve of the bowl
3 a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others
4 a : a voltage applied to a device (as a transistor control electrode) to establish a reference level for operation b : a high-frequency voltage combined with an audio signal to reduce distortion in tape recording


Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lugati
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
transitive verb : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>
synonyms LIE, PREVARICATE, EQUIVOCATE, PALTER, FIB mean to tell an untruth. LIE is the blunt term, imputing dishonesty <lied about where he had been>. PREVARICATE softens the bluntness of LIE by implying quibbling or confusing the issue <during the hearings the witness did his best to prevaricate>. EQUIVOCATE implies using words having more than one sense so as to seem to say one thing but intend another <equivocated endlessly in an attempt to mislead her inquisitors>. PALTER implies making unreliable statements of fact or intention or insincere promises <a swindler paltering with his investors>. FIB applies to a telling of a trivial untruth <fibbed about the price of the new suit>.

An example of bias in statistics:

100% of the students in Katganistan's classes who took the English Regents passed. Only 85% of the students in Ms. Opp's classes passed the Regents.

(Katganistan had one student sitting for the Regents, and he passed. Ms. Opp had 200 students sitting for the Regents. Which group actually accomplished more?)

1. She was maybe not forced directly, but she felt she had to do it to make money. Thus it's better to help people who are involved in such stuff than encourage it by legalising it.so how was she indriectly forced to stip dance in Minniesota?

2. Legal or not, many people are in prostitution because they have no real choice in the matter (or at least feels as if they have no real choice) - for example, threatened by their pimp(s), tricked into prostitution (in ways previously referred to for example), etc. - legalising brothels and/or prostitution in general isn't going to stop this. Helping those who have a genuine need of money and locking up pimps is. funny, but if I was forced into a legal job by being 'threatened by someone else' I could take legal action. if I was Tricked into a legal job, I can leave. those examples only work if the line of 'work' is illegal.

If the place of work refuses to let me leave, then that place of work is guilty of kidnapping.

the only way those things could be legal is if I, as an adult, signed a contract. like actors do, and lawyers, and other legal businesses.

3. My suggestion: Make pimping illegal. Keep prostitution illegal, but only punish those actually running the "businesses" (as well as those who've tricked people into coming to the country), not those forced to do it. Help people who have a genuine need of money - in the UK, there's something called 'Jobseeker's Allowance'. It's not a very well-run scheme, but basically what it is SUPPOSED to be is an income from the government that is dependant upon you ACTIVELY seeking work as well as dependant upon your current income and 'assets'. All it needs is a few tweaks and it'd be great (at the moment it's eaither really lax, OR the Jobcentre (which you have to attend every fortnight with evidence that you've been looking for work) tries to shove you in a dead-end job) - there should be something like this in every country: It helps people who need food without them having to sell their bodies, and it makes it difficult to just keep scrounging off the government (at least it would if it was tweaked a bit - for example don't force people to sell their house just because it's worth a lot by refusing to give them any Jobseeker's Allowance (JSA)).
while that would be an agreeable solution. the problem is that there is a lack of evidence to convict the "pimp" or "traffickers" since people rarely speak up against them out of fear. and because of the "innocent till proven guilty" thing we got here in the US. there is NO guarentee that the Pimp or traffiker will be put away with their entire organization.

thus those caught in it will be trapped in a tangled web of fear and that will happen even if prostitution is legal or not.

After all, Pimps and Trafficers operate in other states as well as Nevada, thus it's not Legalising Prostitution that allows these people to run rampant.

There is a difference between calling her biased and calling her a liar.
JuNii and others have expressed the opinion that she firmly had an agenda in mind when doing this study, and have shown why they believe it. Such an agenda would color the results of the study -- as people have also demonstrated through their own links and their own experiences.

You are making the factually incorrect statement that this is calling her a liar.
A knowingly factually incorrect statement is....?

Main Entry: 1bi·as
Pronunciation: 'bI-&s
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French biais
1 : a line diagonal to the grain of a fabric; especially : a line at a 45 degree angle to the selvage often utilized in the cutting of garments for smoother fit
2 a : a peculiarity in the shape of a bowl that causes it to swerve when rolled on the green in lawn bowling b : the tendency of a bowl to swerve; also : the impulse causing this tendency c : the swerve of the bowl
3 a : BENT, TENDENCY b : an inclination of temperament or outlook; especially : a personal and sometimes unreasoned judgment : PREJUDICE c : an instance of such prejudice d (1) : deviation of the expected value of a statistical estimate from the quantity it estimates (2) : systematic error introduced into sampling or testing by selecting or encouraging one outcome or answer over others
4 a : a voltage applied to a device (as a transistor control electrode) to establish a reference level for operation b : a high-frequency voltage combined with an audio signal to reduce distortion in tape recording


Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavic lugati
intransitive verb
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression
transitive verb : to bring about by telling lies <lied his way out of trouble>
synonyms LIE, PREVARICATE, EQUIVOCATE, PALTER, FIB mean to tell an untruth. LIE is the blunt term, imputing dishonesty <lied about where he had been>. PREVARICATE softens the bluntness of LIE by implying quibbling or confusing the issue <during the hearings the witness did his best to prevaricate>. EQUIVOCATE implies using words having more than one sense so as to seem to say one thing but intend another <equivocated endlessly in an attempt to mislead her inquisitors>. PALTER implies making unreliable statements of fact or intention or insincere promises <a swindler paltering with his investors>. FIB applies to a telling of a trivial untruth <fibbed about the price of the new suit>.

I was going to say perjury, but it seems that you have invisible text thing going on there.

I was going to say perjury, but it seems that you have invisible text thing going on there.

? Um, what invisible text?

Diminishing black market activities - I think not.

The problem is that people using child prostitutes are pedophiles, those visiting the prostitutes who would be legalized (as child prostitutes WILL NOT BE) are an entirely different market. That's like expecting sales of heroin to go down because you're giving away free beer . . .

Dakini - what would it take for you personally to consider taking this job - to be fucked by different men 10 times a day, day after day - do you think it would be a choice of yours, or any friend you know, or do you think it would be out of a desperate rationale due to having few other options.

Would you make the choice?

Would any female you know?

For me, personally, as a HETEROSEXUAL MAN it would take a lot less per hour than the $1000 some of the women at the moonlight bunny are making.

? Um, what invisible text?

the ones right there... can't you see those invisible letters?!?

RIGHT THERE!!!!

See them yet? :D

This is where I'm happy to say I'm speculating to some degree but it doesn't seem to much of a stretch to say that the reason it increases illegal supply is that it's implicitly condoned by legalisation.
Uh... right. And that's why the illegal moonshine industry is FAR larger than the legal alcohol industry. :rolleyes:

Think of Amsterdam, think of Las Vegas - by association one automatically thinks of the word 'hookers', or whatever derivative of that word one chooses to use.
Ok, we're going to go through this one more time. I want you to pay attention. I am getting tired of you NOT doing so.

Nevada law states prostitution is illegal in all counties with populations over 400,000. Clark County is the only Nevada county where the population is over 400,000. Therefore: Prostitution is illegal in Clark County. Las Vegas is IN Clark County. Therefore: Prostitution is illegal in Las Vegas.

When people thing Vegas, they DON'T think hookers. They think casinos.

Trying to tie in the legal brothels out in the cow counties with the illegal situation in Las Vegas as you have been attempting to do so is intellectually dishonest.

The evidence is clear that it causes great psychological harm for the great majority
Which you STILL have not shown for the LEGAL brothels.

and I really have problems with people who feel that the abuse of women by men is acceptable as long as it's legalised when there's a clear correlation between legalisation and increased demand, thus forcing an increased demand in supply.
Except that you haven't shown it. There are actually LESS legal brothels in Nevada as the counties move on to other industries. If there was such a correlation, wouldn't there be more?

so how was she indriectly forced to stip dance in Minniesota?

funny, but if I was forced into a legal job by being 'threatened by someone else' I could take legal action. if I was Tricked into a legal job, I can leave. those examples only work if the line of 'work' is illegal.

If the place of work refuses to let me leave, then that place of work is guilty of kidnapping.

the only way those things could be legal is if I, as an adult, signed a contract. like actors do, and lawyers, and other legal businesses.


while that would be an agreeable solution. the problem is that there is a lack of evidence to convict the "pimp" or "traffickers" since people rarely speak up against them out of fear. and because of the "innocent till proven guilty" thing we got here in the US. there is NO guarentee that the Pimp or traffiker will be put away with their entire organization.

thus those caught in it will be trapped in a tangled web of fear and that will happen even if prostitution is legal or not.

After all, Pimps and Trafficers operate in other states as well as Nevada, thus it's not Legalising Prostitution that allows these people to run rampant.

Number 2: Only works if you can speak and read English and you aint scared of your pimps and aint constantly monitored by em

Your naivety is boring.
Your ignorance and unwillingness to concede it bores me as well.

Number 2: Only works if you can speak and read English and you aint scared of your pimps and aint constantly monitored by em
For the legal brothels though, said person is considered an independent contractor. As such, they get taken to the police to be fingerprinted and issued a work card. They have a background check. They get weekly health checks done by the county that they are in. The working girls are monitored by the state quite a lot.

For those thinking that girls don't become very cynical towards men, from the same article:

When asked if she wanted to be married.

For those thinking that black men aren't all criminals:

When asked if he'd ever committed a robbery.

"Yes," he said.

And another question I wanted to ask: if you had your way and prostitution was outlawed, what do you think would happen?

Nothing much would change. I've said it before, and now must say it again to get my point across.

Legalization AS IS changes nothing. Maybe it drives prices lower, but the effects on sex trade workers are practically non-existent due to existing societal biases and the still cheaper source of supply that trafficking provides.

Fix the societal attitudes, crush trafficking, enforce the laws rigorously, throw out biases in court ("you can't be raped because your a hooker" mentality), and maybe, and that's a big maybe, it might make things better.

All it does right now is give pimps the option to go legal.

the ones right there... can't you see those invisible letters?!?

RIGHT THERE!!!!

See them yet? :D

Nah, JuNii, I know it's rare but I'm being serious -- I didn't put white text in my post, so I was wondering where "invisible text" came from.

Kinda risky if those places mistreat their employees. What's stopping them from running or having the cops called?

The same thing that makes over a 100 people sit in their chair while a knife wielding loony puts their aircraft on a crash course.

The same thing that prevents trafficked women from running en-mass from their hideaway brothel even though they outnumber the pimps and guards 20 to 1.

Fear and intimidation.

You've obviously never been, or have, broken someone down to the level where they are too frightened to offer any resistance whatsoever. I've seen that sort of thing happen too often around here to know just how prevalent it is.

What a government is saying is that for men to pay for a woman's body is ok, and therefore the demand for that increases as a consequence.
No, the demand is always there, or at least the desire, but in a legalized situation the desire can be acted upon more often. Aside from that, illegal prostitution in places that have legal prostitution has nothing to do with the legal shit.

Think of Amsterdam, think of Las Vegas - by association one automatically thinks of the word 'hookers', or whatever derivative of that word one chooses to use.

It's a form of branding and the connotations of that word in association with those cities is excitement.

'Dude, Amsterdam, drugs and hookers!'
Actually, when I think of Amsterdam I think of drugs and when I think of Vegas I think gambling. Besides, haven't you established that prostitution isn't actually legal in Vegas because it's too big a city?

By creating an atmosphere of legality in terms of prostitution, one creates a sense of acceptance of the act itself - which gives rise to the idea that it's ok and all the ensuing assumptions that follow - that it's the women's choice, that it's just a bit of fun, when the reality is that for the vast majority, it's no fun whatsoever.
It should be a woman's choice and it should be that both parties should be able to enjoy themselves.

The evidence is clear that it causes great psychological harm for the great majority and I really have problems with people who feel that the abuse of women by men is acceptable as long as it's legalised when there's a clear correlation between legalisation and increased demand, thus forcing an increased demand in supply.
The evidence really isn't actually there just because you claim it is, you know.

For those thinking that girls don't become very cynical towards men, from the same article:

When asked if she wanted to be married.
Quote:
“No” she said. “I don’t want any of that. I just feel if I get married the guy will change and show his true colors. I don’t want that to happen to me.”



Give that the article described her relative short period stripping, but her long history of family issues (absent father, sick mother, abusive/addicted step-parental figure), it is rather disingenuous to imply that this attitude is derived entire from her brief dancing career.

Indeed, the fact that the girl sems suprised that men in strip clubs make sexual advances towards the dancers speak loudly of a emotional immaturity in this girl. What? She thought there were going to a strip club to critique her dancing on technical and artistic merit?

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.

Hey, just like Vegas!

Give that the article described her relative short period stripping, but her long history of family issues (absent father, sick mother, abusive/addicted step-parental figure), it is rather disingenuous to imply that this attitude is derived entire from her brief dancing career.

Indeed, the fact that the girl sems suprised that men in strip clubs make sexual advances towards the dancers speak loudly of a emotional immaturity in this girl. What? She thought there were going to a strip club to critique her dancing on technical and artistic merit?
Yeah, that girl seemed to be rather dumb.

Hey, just like Vegas!
Hey, NOT like Vegas where PROSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL!!!

God, how many times do I have to repeat this?

Hey, NOT like Vegas where PROSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL!!!

God, how many times do I have to repeat this?

As many times as it takes for you to realize that prostitution IS legal CLOSE ENOUGH to Vegas for the vast majority of NSG that IT DOESN'T MATTER. It's one county away, for fuck's sake (pun intended).

They assemble the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner in my home town of Everett, WA, but all the news reports about it say "Seattle". I don't get pissy about it. It's one county away, and close enough for jazz. Relax.

As many times as it takes for you to realize that prostitution IS legal CLOSE ENOUGH to Vegas for the vast majority of NSG that IT DOESN'T MATTER. It's one county away, for fuck's sake (pun intended).
90 miles is NOT what I would consider close. Yes, that IS the next county over from Las Vegas and where the closest cat house is to Vegas. Nevada only has 17 counties and most of them are very BIG.

In any case, given that we have one poster on this thread who has attempted to use the problems of illegal prostitution in Vegas as proof of problems in legal prostitution in the rest of Nevada, yeah, I feel compelled to point out that the two are not the same.

They assemble the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner in my home town of Everett, WA, but all the news reports about it say "Seattle". I don't get pissy about it. It's one county away, and close enough for jazz. Relax.
Come talk to me when NSG posters start claiming laws are the same when said laws have a direct effect upon the topic of debate. Or else I would assume that you wouldn't mind me saying that Canadian laws are the same as the laws in Washington State, after all, Canada is just a county away from a chunk of Washington, right?

Yeah, that girl seemed to be rather dumb.

It's easy to find one person from every segment of society and write a sob story, or motivational story - depending on the agenda of the writer.

Not that I think that stripping is a proffesion likely to engender great faith in base human instincts, but any semblance of a balanced approach to reporting is entirely absent from this piece. I knew many girls who stripped through college to cover expenses. Can't say that they loved the job, but they sure enjoyed the high income per hour worked as compared to their classmates.

If Carlin's logic is applied to food,... most of them would taste like feet.

:confused:

Wha?

90 miles is NOT what I would consider close. Yes, that IS the next county over from Las Vegas and where the closest cat house is to Vegas. Nevada only has 17 counties and most of them are very BIG.

In any case, given that we have one poster on this thread who has attempted to use the problems of illegal prostitution in Vegas as proof of problems in legal prostitution in the rest of Nevada, yeah, I feel compelled to point out that the two are not the same.


Come talk to me when NSG posters start claiming laws are the same when said laws have a direct effect upon the topic of debate. Or else I would assume that you wouldn't mind me saying that Canadian laws are the same as the laws in Washington State, after all, Canada is just a county away from a chunk of Washington, right?

Look -- you're getting your knickers in a twist because of geography. If Vegas wasn't there, the demand for legalized prostitution wouldn't be there either. It's fair to say "just like Vegas" because without Vegas, the brothels wouldn't exist.

The two jurisdictions treat the same issue differently. It's not so big a deal that you had to get all defensive about it.

90 miles is just over an hour away at freeway speeds in the desert. Close enough.

Hey, NOT like Vegas where PROSTITUTION IS ILLEGAL!!!

God, how many times do I have to repeat this?

My mistake (I was just going by what I had heard). Apparently though, it is legal in the state of Nevada, wherever it's legal to operate a brothel (Las Vegas is part of Clark County, and they apparently did not choose to make brothels legal).

Give that the article described her relative short period stripping, but her long history of family issues (absent father, sick mother, abusive/addicted step-parental figure), it is rather disingenuous to imply that this attitude is derived entire from her brief dancing career.

Indeed, the fact that the girl sems suprised that men in strip clubs make sexual advances towards the dancers speak loudly of a emotional immaturity in this girl. What? She thought there were going to a strip club to critique her dancing on technical and artistic merit?
"Spinning clockwise on the pole? Bah, everyone knows that spinning counterclockwise is the most aesthetically pleasing!"

"Spinning clockwise on the pole? Bah, everyone knows that spinning counterclockwise is the most aesthetically pleasing!"

Precisely! And, I mean, she called THAT putting her ankles behind her head? Sheesh.... she can't even keep a beat while pouting!



Ah well, at least she has nice t*ts.

It's like you sign a contract to be rapedThis is ridiculous and redundant. Rape is all about consent. So, if you sign a contract, you are providing consent, and thus not being raped.

Prostitution is not a bad thing, and it shouldn't be controlled or regulated. If two consenting adults make an arrangement, who are you to tell them they don't know what they want?

A girl goes out to party on saturday night. She meets a guy who buys all of her drinks then takes her home to have sex. He pays for her cab in the morning.

A girl goes out to party on saturday night. She meets a guy who is quite cynical it seems, in that he offers to give her cash instead of alcohol in return for sex.

Fuck.

Number 2: Only works if you can speak and read English and you aint scared of your pimps and aint constantly monitored by emif they cannot speak and read english, how are they licenced to work in a legal brothel?

The same thing that makes over a 100 people sit in their chair while a knife wielding loony puts their aircraft on a crash course.

The same thing that prevents trafficked women from running en-mass from their hideaway brothel even though they outnumber the pimps and guards 20 to 1.

Fear and intimidation.

You've obviously never been, or have, broken someone down to the level where they are too frightened to offer any resistance whatsoever. I've seen that sort of thing happen too often around here to know just how prevalent it is.read the newspapers. anyone acting crazy will be subdued by airline attendants AS WELL AS passengers.

any proof of such breaking of a person in a LEGAL BROTHEL?

As many times as it takes for you to realize that prostitution IS legal CLOSE ENOUGH to Vegas for the vast majority of NSG that IT DOESN'T MATTER. It's one county away, for fuck's sake (pun intended).

They assemble the new Boeing 787 Dreamliner in my home town of Everett, WA, but all the news reports about it say "Seattle". I don't get pissy about it. It's one county away, and close enough for jazz. Relax.sorry, but Vegas laws is quite specific. Close enough is not good enough.

Look -- you're getting your knickers in a twist because of geography. If Vegas wasn't there, the demand for legalized prostitution wouldn't be there either. It's fair to say "just like Vegas" because without Vegas, the brothels wouldn't exist.

The two jurisdictions treat the same issue differently. It's not so big a deal that you had to get all defensive about it.

90 miles is just over an hour away at freeway speeds in the desert. Close enough.can't say that. after all, there is prostitution and brothels in states where it's illegal. so even "without Vegas" the brothels would be there. why? most of the towns in Nevada started as mining towns. so chances are the brothels would still be there.

What? She thought there were going to a strip club to critique her dancing on technical and artistic merit?

This actually sounds like terrific fun.

This actually sounds like terrific fun.

LOL!

and one and two and... you call that a Pirotte? com'on get that leg up for the kick... follow. the. beat. oh, nononono... it's all wrong, put your clothes on and try again... from the top now!

*snip*

Kat - your intentions are good but misguided.

People are asking for proof that abuse is happening in legal brothels in Nevada. The book Melissa Farley has written documents this quite specifically. People are saying that she is biased and therefore the evidence is not right, essentially calling her a liar.

Yet she was commissioned by the Nevada government itself, off a US Justice Department report that Las Vegas is a centre of trafficking.

She's not some loony. She's the leading light in her field and to say that what she has written is not proof is simply wrong.

People are reading the article, written by a journalist, not Melissa Farley, and basing their opinions off that. I urge you to go and read the entire book - please.

Calling her biased is like calling an evolutionary scientist biased against creationism - technically true but with mountains of evidence to back their position.

Actually, when I think of Amsterdam I think of drugs and when I think of Vegas I think gambling. Besides, haven't you established that prostitution isn't actually legal in Vegas because it's too big a city?

I really don't care what you say you think to be honest - your perspective is irrelevant to the facts - that people associate Amsterdam with drugs and hookers, Las Vegas with gambling and strippers.

Statements just as 'well I know a happy hooker' and 'well I don't think of this association with Amsterdam/Las Vegas does not compare the the evidence posted time and time again with links.

The evidence really isn't actually there just because you claim it is, you know.

Absolutely, the evidence is there because it's there as opposed to you claiming you know happy hookers or that Las Vegas is not associated with stripping - which is your own personal opinion.

Kat - your intentions are good but misguided.

People are asking for proof that abuse is happening in legal brothels in Nevada. The book Melissa Farley has written documents this quite specifically. People are saying that she is biased and therefore the evidence is not right, essentially calling her a liar.
No, I'm calling her biased. We still have no names, places, dates, or whatever. This does not give credence to her argument.

Yet she was commissioned by the Nevada government itself, off a US Justice Department report that Las Vegas is a centre of trafficking.
No she wasn't. The US State Department is not a part of the State of Nevada.

She's not some loony. She's the leading light in her field and to say that what she has written is not proof is simply wrong.
Already shown the bias in her statements. All we have is her jumping up and down saying "This is wrong! This is wrong! I'm right!" but no actual proof to check against. Furthermore, she has come into criticism in Nevada (As I posted) for her stance because, again, she makes claims that counter the claims made by the working women themselves.

Calling her biased is like calling an evolutionary scientist biased against creationism - technically true but with mountains of evidence to back their position.
WHAT EVIDENCE?!

Not to mention you complaining about people not accepting evidence is very much a pot complaining about the complexion of the kettle.

I really don't care what you say you think to be honest - your perspective is irrelevant to the facts - that people associate Amsterdam with drugs and hookers, Las Vegas with gambling and strippers.

Statements just as 'well I know a happy hooker' and 'well I don't think of this association with Amsterdam/Las Vegas does not compare the the evidence posted time and time again with links.



Absolutely, the evidence is there because it's there as opposed to you claiming you know happy hookers or that Las Vegas is not associated with stripping - which is your own personal opinion.
No, you just claimed that Vegas was associated with hookers. Now it's strippers. Neither of which Vegas is known for. Showgirls perhaps, but they are not particularly strippers. Casinos and gambling now...

None of which still has anything to do with the legal brothels. You are trying for guilt by association and it isn't going to work.

Look -- you're getting your knickers in a twist because of geography. If Vegas wasn't there, the demand for legalized prostitution wouldn't be there either. It's fair to say "just like Vegas" because without Vegas, the brothels wouldn't exist.
Um... no. The legalized prostitution was an idea to get people out into the cow counties, it had nothing to do with Las Vegas. As a matter of fact, Vegas (At the time) fought against the measure and is STILL not happy with it.

The two jurisdictions treat the same issue differently. It's not so big a deal that you had to get all defensive about it.
So the laws in Washington are like the laws in Canada? Wow, I had no idea!

90 miles is just over an hour away at freeway speeds in the desert. Close enough.
Still not anywhere close to Vegas. There's a lot of desert between the two with nothing in it.

No, I'm calling her biased. We still have no names, places, dates, or whatever. This does not give credence to her argument.


No she wasn't. The US State Department is not a part of the State of Nevada.


Already shown the bias in her statements. All we have is her jumping up and down saying "This is wrong! This is wrong! I'm right!" but no actual proof to check against. Furthermore, she has come into criticism in Nevada (As I posted) for her stance because, again, she makes claims that counter the claims made by the working women themselves.


WHAT EVIDENCE?!

Not to mention you complaining about people not accepting evidence is very much a pot complaining about the complexion of the kettle.

No we don't, we have documented evidence of abuse from visits and interviews - otherwise you're saying she's making it up?

Either the abuse documented in LEGAL brothels happened or she's telling lies.

Aside from all then other points that you're ignoring in your quest to deny proof of abuse in those brothels.

No, you just claimed that Vegas was associated with hookers. Now it's strippers. Neither of which Vegas is known for. Showgirls perhaps, but they are not particularly strippers. Casinos and gambling now...

None of which still has anything to do with the legal brothels. You are trying for guilt by association and it isn't going to work.

Are you saying there is no prostitution in Las Vegas? That the city is not known for it? Despite a US Justice Department report?

How far does your own opinion go against documented evidence?

My mistake (I was just going by what I had heard). Apparently though, it is legal in the state of Nevada, wherever it's legal to operate a brothel (Las Vegas is part of Clark County, and they apparently did not choose to make brothels legal).
It is legal in certain parts of Nevada. Nevada law says that counties with populations under 400,000 (Currently only Clark County is over that number, but Washoe will probably get there by the next census) have the option of legalizing houses of prostitution. Of the counties under that population number, Washoe County (Reno), Douglas County, Lincoln County and Carson City (Independent city) have outlawed the practice. Churchill currently does not have a operating brothel though.

No we don't, we have documented evidence of abuse from visits and interviews - otherwise you're saying she's making it up?
I'm saying she could be talking of a situation that has been cleared up. She could be talking of something that has happened 20 years ago. We don't know.

Either the abuse documented in LEGAL brothels happened or she's telling lies.
Or she, like you, is spinning as fast as she can to support her views.

Aside from all then other points that you're ignoring in your quest to deny proof of abuse in those brothels.
Still haven't shown me any.

I'm saying she could be talking of a situation that has been cleared up. She could be talking of something that has happened 20 years ago. We don't know.

Ha ha - you're so stretching now.

Are you saying there is no prostitution in Las Vegas? That the city is not known for it? Despite a US Justice Department report?
No, I'm saying that if you grabbed one person off the street and asked them what word comes to mind when you mentioned Las Vegas, hookers ain't it.

How far does your own opinion go against documented evidence?
Tell me, does your back hurt from constantly moving your goal posts?

Ha ha - you're so stretching now.
Bull shit. We don't know! Listen, everything you have shown has NO NAMES! NO PLACES! NO DETAILS!

Hell, I COULD say, right here, right now, that I have proof that YOU work in a cat house in Nevada, and have nothing to back me up other than I say so. People would rightly drub me a liar and since I've been arguing with you for this long suspect that I am being less than truthful for a reason. They would ask me to prove it.

That's what I'm asking for, proof. We have none. You have not presented any. If this abuse has happened, show it to me. Show me the police reports. Show me the health reports (Remember, they get checked WEEKLY! Do you really think that county health care workers wouldn't notice abuse signs and not report? Sorry, but Nevada does have such laws that require such reporting).

You have nothing.

read the newspapers. anyone acting crazy will be subdued by airline attendants AS WELL AS passengers.

Because they know have an overriding fear that they WILL die if they let the crazy person do as he/she wants.

Prior to 9/11, how many people actually did that hmmm?

As long as people have a hope for survival, they're more likely to comply with abuse.

In the sex trade, you do NOT kill your entire workforce, so the threat of imminent death rallying all of them doesn't work.


any proof of such breaking of a person in a LEGAL BROTHEL?


The real breaking occurs in transit by traffickers. After that, it's just maintaining the atmosphere of coercion by the operators.

As for legal brothels, Nevada seems a good place to look.

The real breaking occurs in transit by traffickers. After that, it's just maintaining the atmosphere of coercion by the operators.

As for legal brothels, Nevada seems a good place to look.
Again though, the legal ones are fingerprinted and background checked. You really think a trafficker is going to be stupid enough to leave that kind of paperwork trail with the police and FBI?

People are asking for proof that abuse is happening in legal brothels in Nevada. The book Melissa Farley has written documents this quite specifically. People are saying that she is biased and therefore the evidence is not right, essentially calling her a liar.gee... if it's so well documented in the book, why don't you post some of em. those that name the place in the same paragraph/page where it states such abuse is going on in that named place.

Yet she was commissioned by the Nevada government itself, off a US Justice Department report that Las Vegas is a centre of trafficking.and in LAS VEGAS, Prostitution is ILLEGAL! thus any Brothels or Prostitution in LAS VEGAS is NOT LEGAL!

She's not some loony. She's the leading light in her field and to say that what she has written is not proof is simply wrong.yet you keep saying she investigated LEGAL brothels (even tho there are NONE in Las Vegas) can you post segments with links that tie any Legal Brothels to such abuse?

Calling her biased is like calling an evolutionary scientist biased against creationism - technically true but with mountains of evidence to back their position.and an Evolutionary Scientist will be Biased when studying Creationsim.

No we don't, we have documented evidence of abuse from visits and interviews - otherwise you're saying she's making it up? please post those interviews that positivily identify the Legal Brothel that it took place in.

Either the abuse documented in LEGAL brothels happened or she's telling lies. OR... think about it... those documented abuses took place in ILLEGAL BROTHELS! and the fact that she is only saying "Brothels" is a spin to make the innocent look guilty by association. you know.. like how Kenneth Foster was guilty for Murder even tho he wasn't near the murder victim.

Aside from all then other points that you're ignoring in your quest to deny proof of abuse in those brothels. "those Brothels" where's your insistance that those abuses took place in LEGAL BROTHELS?

Are you saying there is no prostitution in Las Vegas? That the city is not known for it? Despite a US Justice Department report?there is no LEGAL prostitution in Las Vegas.

Just like there is NO LEGAL PROSTITUTION in CALIFORNIA. nor In HAWAII. and if there is no LEGAL PROSTITUTION in your city/state, I'll bet you there will still be prostitutes.

How far does your own opinion go against documented evidence?farther than what you provided against LEGAL Brothels.

even your "dancer from Minniesota" got into strippin "on a dare". so I guess we need to ban the act of daring anyone just like the Game Tag is banned. :rolleyes:

Because they know have an overriding fear that they WILL die if they let the crazy person do as he/she wants.

Prior to 9/11, how many people actually did that hmmm?prior to 9/11 how many hijacked planes were deliberatly flown into buildings?

In the sex trade, you do NOT kill your entire workforce, so the threat of imminent death rallying all of them doesn't work.and this happens more in the legal brothels or the illegal ones?

The real breaking occurs in transit by traffickers. After that, it's just maintaining the atmosphere of coercion by the operators.and trafficking supplies the Legal or Illegal brothels?

As for legal brothels, Nevada seems a good place to look.in the USA, Nevada is the only place to look. and even then it's only certain areas of Nevada.

now where can we look to study Illegal Brothels in the US... how about everywhere else INCLUDING areas where it is legal.

gee... if it's so well documented in the book, why don't you post some of em. those that name the place in the same paragraph/page where it states such abuse is going on in that named place.

and in LAS VEGAS, Prostitution is ILLEGAL! thus any Brothels or Prostitution in LAS VEGAS is NOT LEGAL!

yet you keep saying she investigated LEGAL brothels (even tho there are NONE in Las Vegas) can you post segments with links that tie any Legal Brothels to such abuse?

and an Evolutionary Scientist will be Biased when studying Creationsim.

please post those interviews that positivily identify the Legal Brothel that it took place in.

OR... think about it... those documented abuses took place in ILLEGAL BROTHELS! and the fact that she is only saying "Brothels" is a spin to make the innocent look guilty by association. you know.. like how Kenneth Foster was guilty for Murder even tho he wasn't near the murder victim.

"those Brothels" where's your insistance that those abuses took place in LEGAL BROTHELS?

there is no LEGAL prostitution in Las Vegas.

Just like there is NO LEGAL PROSTITUTION in CALIFORNIA. nor In HAWAII. and if there is no LEGAL PROSTITUTION in your city/state, I'll bet you there will still be prostitutes.

farther than what you provided against LEGAL Brothels.

even your "dancer from Minniesota" got into strippin "on a dare". so I guess we need to ban the act of daring anyone just like the Game Tag is banned. :rolleyes:

Go read the book and get yourself an education before you claim she's not telling the truth or that she's making these interviews up.

Farley's book is based on a U.S. State Department-sponsored study of prostitution and trafficking in Nevada.

The U.S. Department of Justice has recognized Las Vegas as one of 17 cities where human trafficking is a concern.

The book includes interviews with and demographics of women working in legal Nevada brothels. It explores the link between legal brothels and psychological distress and disease, the trafficking of legal and illegal prostitutes in Nevada, escort and strip club prostitution in Las Vegas, advertising for prostitution and barriers to escaping prostitution.

The Nevada Coalition Against Sex Trafficking will work to educate people about trafficking, identify services for victims and change Nevada laws related to prostitution, said Trummell, the organization's director.

"It is way past time for Nevada to become the last state in the United States of America to finally stand against all forms of slavery," Trummell said. "It is time for Nevada to start adhering to the U.S. government's own official and very strong stance against legalized prostitution."

Attempts to outlaw prostitution in all of Nevada have cropped up but have not gotten far in the Legislature, which has shown a preference for letting rural communities handle the issue themselves.

prior to 9/11 how many hijacked planes were deliberatly flown into buildings?

In any time in history, when has breaking people as slaves ever resorted to killing all of them in one big funeral pyre?


and this happens more in the legal brothels or the illegal ones?


That it happens is cause for concern, not whether more of it does. If we use that argument we might as well let murderers go when they argue they did it less than serial killers.


and trafficking supplies the Legal or Illegal brothels?


Where the sex trade is illegal, the illegal brothels (duh). Where it's legal. Both. It's cheaper to have virtual slaves as your sex workers than proper workers who you pay wages to.


in the USA, Nevada is the only place to look. and even then it's only certain areas of Nevada.


Because how many other areas in the USA have legal prostitution?


now where can we look to study Illegal Brothels in the US... how about everywhere else INCLUDING areas where it is legal.

Here's one.

http://www.prostitutie.nl/studie/documenten/mensenhandel/researchcasestraffick.pdf

...and for those people who say that Las Vegas is not associated with prostitutes, it's very slogan is: What happens here, stays here.

It's called Sin City.

Just about gambling? Ha ha - you people make me laugh.

Go read the book and get yourself an education before you claim she's not telling the truth or that she's making these interviews up.

where have I said she wasn't telling the truth?

and yes, I will look for the report to read. I suggest you do the same since you failed to answer my questions about her report.

where have I said she wasn't telling the truth?

and yes, I will look for the report to read. I suggest you do the same since you failed to answer my questions about her report.

Either she's telling the truth about her documented interviews showing abusive conditions or she's not.

Is she? In which case it's evidence that abuse happens in legal brothels in Nevada.

*snip*

To be honest, I feel like it's at the point where I'm writing to 'win the debate' rather than highlight the issues anymore.

It can go on forever because there's always people who won't face the evidence of legalisation linked to increased prostitution overall - government sponsored pimping aside - nor that the vast majority of prostitutes, legal or not, are coerced by one means or another into the industry and instead ask for ultimate proof of abuse in legal brothels in Nevada - despite the evidence, which comes on top of evidence from legal brothels in Australia and Holland - as if they don't count.

So really, I'm done, the evidence is there and anyone who is truly interested in the issues can go read up on them or buy the book.

In any debate, there will be people whose minds simply will not change - if this thread has changed just one person's mind on the issue then good work has been done.

:)

In any time in history, when has breaking people as slaves ever resorted to killing all of them in one big funeral pyre? I like how you move from Legal Brothels to Illegal Prostitution to Hijacking planes and now to slaves. as if you're searching for the one argument to back your point.

That it happens is cause for concern, not whether more of it does. If we use that argument we might as well let murderers go when they argue they did it less than serial killers. so because a couple of Muslims flew a couple of planes into buildings, you are saying that all muslims must be watched. after all, the fact that muslims did this is proof that all muslims are ebil. :rolleyes:

funny, if these LEGAL brothels are legal, then they are subject to the Occupational Laws that govern how a Legal Business is run. so why are these legal brothels who are abusing their workers not being brought up with federal charges? OSHA alone would have a feild day with those Legal Brothels.


Where the sex trade is illegal, the illegal brothels (duh). Where it's legal. Both. It's cheaper to have virtual slaves as your sex workers than proper workers who you pay wages to.except if the Legal ones are caught with these slaves, they will be jailed. so again, there is a difference between Legal Brothels and Illegal ones. the Legal ones have to follow mandated regulations or be shut down.

Because how many other areas in the USA have legal prostitution? none. yet Barringtonia is trying to say that Nevada is the only place where prostitution takes place. nevermind that his earlier links and proofs are in other states or in Las Vegas itself where Prostitution is Illegal.

Barringtonia tries to make it look like Nevada is the ONLY STATE that trafficks people for sex. Rest assured, it is not. but (s)he focuses only on Nevada because it's the only state to have some form of Legal Prostitution. trying to equate Trafficking = Legal Prostitution. Should Human Traffiking stop? yes. will outlawing Prostitution in Nevada stop Human Trafficking or even stop Prostitution in Nevada? No.

Here's one.

http://www.prostitutie.nl/studie/documenten/mensenhandel/researchcasestraffick.pdfquick... answer me this. Dos this report cover Legal or Illegal prostitution?

or does it focus on Human Traffiking?

Go ahead and read your link for the answer.

then please provide the section in your report the proof that Legalized Prostitution supporting Illegal Human Trafficking.

in fact, most (if not all) of the nations focused in your link where Human Trafficking goes on has CRIMINALIZED Prostitution. so your article is proof that Human Trafficking will go on if not increase in Nevada should prostitution be criminalized.

Edit:
For the purpose of this research it therefore has to be defined clearly which part of trafficking according to the international definition is included and which part of illegal prostitution according to the Dutch definition. In fact, our research only relates to the field of prostitution in as far as there is also trafficking of human beings according to EU definition. This means that our results do not apply to prostitution in general, not even to all forms of illegal prostitution, but only to the criminal part. On the other hand, our research is narrowed down to trafficking for the purpose of exploitation of persons in prostitution. By necessity, because of lack of information in the absence of a legal framework, other forms of trafficking are excluded.
Here... even your report admits it only looks at prostitution where it's illegal and focused on human trafficking so this report proves that Human Trafficking is supported by ILLEGAL PROSTITUTION.

Our research is situated at the crossroads of trafficking and illegal prostitution. so they don't even take into account Legal prostitution.

For the sake of clarity it needs to be noted that our research does not focus on prostitution as such, but only on the criminal aspects of prostitution regarding trafficking.
so how can you say that your report supports the idea of Legal Prostitution supporting Human Trafficking?

and I suggest you take a closer look on how they are combatting Human Trafficking. Barringtonia wouldn't be so quick to praise you.

none. yet Barringtonia is trying to say that Nevada is the only place where prostitution takes place. nevermind that his earlier links and proofs are in other states or in Las Vegas itself where Prostitution is Illegal.

Barringtonia tries to make it look like Nevada is the ONLY STATE that trafficks people for sex. Rest assured, it is not. but (s)he focuses only on Nevada because it's the only state to have some form of Legal Prostitution. trying to equate Trafficking = Legal Prostitution. Should Human Traffiking stop? yes. will outlawing Prostitution in Nevada stop Human Trafficking or even stop Prostitution in Nevada? No.

Nevada, and Las Vegas specifically, is in the 17 named by the US Justice department itself and described as the epicentre. Nevada is inland.

The others are trade routes, ports and border cities where obviously trafficking is also high, it doesn't spring from underground you know.

So it's very pertinent to the situation.

Either she's telling the truth about her documented interviews showing abusive conditions or she's not.

Is she? In which case it's evidence that abuse happens in legal brothels in Nevada.

Is she? please provide a page and paragraph number where she names a legal brothel that abuses their workers.

please provide this proof from her well documented and well investigated report.

I assume you have it since you are so damned sure that she investigated Legal Brothels. post em and when I find my copy, I'll confirm it.

I'll wait.

if you cannot provide such evidence. then please tell me how she is NOT BIASED (I'm not calling her a liar) in her report.

...and for those people who say that Las Vegas is not associated with prostitutes, it's very slogan is: What happens here, stays here.

It's called Sin City.

Just about gambling? Ha ha - you people make me laugh.
You have never even been to Las Vegas, have you?

Gee, Reno is called the Biggest Little City in the World, guess it MUST mean Reno is a contradiction and a little city that's big.

Elko calls itself the Heart of Northeast Nevada, so it MUST be the central part, right?

And let's not get started on Battle Mountain and it's slogan of "The Armpit of America."

Please let me know as soon as you find out which battle Nevada, the Battle Born State, was born in, as well, ok?

Oh yeah, you do realize that gambling is a sin, according to Christianity, don't you?

Nevada, and Las Vegas specifically, is in the 17 named by the US Justice department itself and described as the epicentre. Nevada is inland.

The others are trade routes, ports and border cities where obviously trafficking is also high, it doesn't spring from underground you know.

So it's very pertinent to the situation.

so there is no trafficking of humans to other states, they're all just 'passing through"?

none in Florida? Altantic City? Hawaii? it's all going to Nevada? and what of the 16 other areas? do they have Legalized Prostitution?

if they don't, how can you support the idea that Legalized prostitution leads to Human trafficking?

so if the others 16 areas are entry points. then that's an argument to stopping illegal entry into the country. stop the flow in and suddenly I'll bet Nevada won't be an epicenter.

Legalization AS IS changes nothing. Maybe it drives prices lower, but the effects on sex trade workers are practically non-existent due to existing societal biases and the still cheaper source of supply that trafficking provides.

Fix the societal attitudes, crush trafficking, enforce the laws rigorously, throw out biases in court ("you can't be raped because your a hooker" mentality), and maybe, and that's a big maybe, it might make things better.
Even assuming you're right that legalisation doesn't improve any prostitute's position, safety and rights (which I don't think you are), you're comparing the current, imperfect situation of reality with a perfect, utopian vision.

Of course reality loses out.

The goal should be to come up with realistic scenarios and compare those. You can't "fix societal attitudes", at least not as a clearly defined policy or within a reasonable time frame, nor can you throw out bias in courts (though I would like to see the transcript of the judge that said "you can't get raped because you're a hooker"). Which means nothing changes for the prostitutes.

You can't crush trafficking, but you can enforce laws against it more strongly. Which, I believe, has been supported by everyone in this thread on all sides, and is not related to whether or not prostitution is illegal.

No, you're going to have to do better than that. Real-life solutions that somehow make criminalisation a more effective policy.

All it does right now is give pimps the option to go legal.
And if you outlaw pimping, only outlaws will be pimps.

*SNIP*
My last post because I do have much better things I have to be doing now.

So far you have claimed that Nevada's legal brothels should be shut down due to wide spread abuse. You have not documented such.

You claim trafficking exists in the legal brothels, but have not shown as such.

You claim that the working girls are unhappy, but cannot explain samples of those who state otherwise without resorting ti claims of brainwashing.

You use a source that has shown itself to be biased, and yet cannot show any independent verification (A hallmark of research you know, results HAVE to be able to be reproduced).

You claim that all prostitues in the legal brothels are forced into the life and to stay there without showing any links that back up such assertions that pertain to the legal brothels of Nevada, nor do you explain how this is possible given that the girls are given weekly checkups by county health care workers and tabs are kept by the police within 11 different counties.

You have tried to use data from other states dealing with illegal prostitution, other countries with systems far different from Nevada, and Las Vegas, which does not have legal prostitution as your evidence without saying why such evidence would or should have any bearing upon the situation in the legal brothels in the cow counties.

You ignore the realities of the political situation within Nevada (And/or wholly ignorant of) where a good majority of the legislature is just waiting for a brothel to screw up as to ban the lot of them. Any hint of systematic abuse as you have claimed would have been discovered by now and used in the Nevada State Legislature, and yet nothing of the sort has happened.

Adding on, nor can you explain how, if Dr. Farley has indeed discovered such abuse going on regularly, why she has not contacted the police, in defiance of Nevada's reporting laws.

Finally, and this is the one I love the most, you ignore any evidence to the contrary of your opinion, especially if it states that the girls of the cat houses are in there for money and are fine with this. You state over and over again that they MUST be unhappy, because you know they are, no matter what they say.

Do I claim that abuse has not happened? No. I know it has. Someone was arrested not too long ago for hitting a working girl, just like the law says should happen. Do I claim that the people in the business are nice? No. But they are there to make money, and like the casinos, they aren't going to put their money in jeopardy by having abuse and other violations of the law happen regularly. Doing so gets your license yanked, something that has happened before and will again. Do I think that all the girls are happy with being prostitutes? No. I'm sure many would like to do something else, just as I am sure most of us would like to be doing something else. But like the rest of us, they can quit if they want to.

Frankly, I repeat what I have said. Get off your high horse. Go to Nevada, drive out to a ranch, and ask the girls yourself. See what they actually say and then tell them you're there to save them and see how they respond.

I don't think you'll enjoy their reaction of laughing in your face, but who knows.

I like how you move from Legal Brothels to Illegal Prostitution to Hijacking planes and now to slaves. as if you're searching for the one argument to back your point.

You're the one trying to imply that breaking people's wills is not possible...

The rest of your argument in this regard is just so much chaff.


funny, if these LEGAL brothels are legal, then they are subject to the Occupational Laws that govern how a Legal Business is run. so why are these legal brothels who are abusing their workers not being brought up with federal charges? OSHA alone would have a feild day with those Legal Brothels.


You mean enforcement is perfect? They never turn a blind eye, are omniscient and have laws that are completely airtight and always provide proper justice?

I very much doubt that.

I've said time and time again. Legalization as is just doesn't work. There's so much that needs to be overhauled before it actually does.


except if the Legal ones are caught with these slaves, they will be jailed. so again, there is a difference between Legal Brothels and Illegal ones. the Legal ones have to follow mandated regulations or be shut down.


Saying that it's legal doesn't automatically mean it is. And more often than not, legal brothels flirt with illegal supply. The difference between the high ideals of legalization and reality is that too many times, it just doesn't work.


none. yet Barringtonia is trying to say that Nevada is the only place where prostitution takes place. nevermind that his earlier links and proofs are in other states or in Las Vegas itself where Prostitution is Illegal.

Barringtonia tries to make it look like Nevada is the ONLY STATE that trafficks people for sex. Rest assured, it is not. but (s)he focuses only on Nevada because it's the only state to have some form of Legal Prostitution. trying to equate Trafficking = Legal Prostitution. Should Human Traffiking stop? yes. will outlawing Prostitution in Nevada stop Human Trafficking or even stop Prostitution in Nevada? No.


Am I saying that trafficking only occurs in areas where prostitution occurs? No. Stop trying to put words in my post.

I'm saying that legalizing it doesn't make the ugly realities of human trafficking in the sex trade go away or even lessen its impact. A hell lot more needs to be done before even a viable working condition can be created.

What the hell is wrong with you people? Does the magic "It's legal" fairy make everything ok?


in fact, most (if not all) of the nations focused in your link where Human Trafficking goes on has CRIMINALIZED Prostitution. so your article is proof that Human Trafficking will go on if not increase in Nevada should prostitution be criminalized.


Did I, at any one point, say that criminalizing prostitution would increase or otherwise continue should prostitution be criminalized? Did I? Find it in my post if you can because I certainly made no such statement.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post until you do. Why? Because I'm tired of trying to get my point across while people beat a different drum and accuse me of that.

Frankly, I repeat what I have said. Get off your high horse. Go to Nevada, drive out to a ranch, and ask the girls yourself. See what they actually say and then tell them you're there to save them and see how they respond.

I don't think you'll enjoy their reaction of laughing in your face, but who knows.

I don't need to, a US State Dept sponsored study off the back of a US Justice Dept. report into human trafficking has done so for me:

During a two-year investigation, the author, Melissa Farley, visited eight legal brothels in Nevada, interviewing 45 women and a number of brothel owners. Far from enjoying better conditions than those who work illegally, the prostitutes she spoke to are often subject to slave-like conditions.

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."

Investigating the sex industry - even the legal part - can be dangerous. During one visit to a brothel, Farley asked the owner what the women thought of their work. "I was polite," she writes in her book, "as he condescendingly explained what a satisfying and lucrative business prostitution was for his 'ladies'. I tried to keep my facial muscles expressionless, but I didn't succeed. He whipped a revolver out of his waistband, aimed it at my head and said: 'You don't know nothing about Nevada prostitution, lady. You don't even know whether I will kill you in the next five minutes.'"

Farley found that the brothel owners typically pocket half of the women's earnings. Additionally, the women must pay tips and other fees to the staff of the brothel, as well as finders' fees to the cab drivers who bring the customers. They are also expected to pay for their own condoms, wet wipes, and use of sheets and towels. It is rare, the women told Farley, to refuse a customer. One former Nevada brothel worker wrote on a website: "After your airline tickets, clothing, full-price drinks and other miscellaneous fees you leave with little. To top it off, you are ... fined for just about everything. Fall asleep on your 14-hour shift and get $100 [£50] fine, late for a line-up, $100-500 in fines." (The women generally negotiate directly with the men over the money; what they get depends on the quality of the brothel. It can be anything from $50 for oral sex to $1,000 for the night, but that doesn't take account of the brothel's cut.)

Your personal opinion counts for nothing.

Go read the book.

Even assuming you're right that legalisation doesn't improve any prostitute's position, safety and rights (which I don't think you are), you're comparing the current, imperfect situation of reality with a perfect, utopian vision.

It doesn't have to be perfect. It doesn't have to be utopian. What it needs to be is fixed. Slapping on a "it's legal" patch does nothing without corresponding changes in legal frameworks and enforcement.

What I'm arguing against is the idea that somehow by making it legal, everything is already there, or on the road to improvement without needing much more. It's ludicrous.


The goal should be to come up with realistic scenarios and compare those. You can't "fix societal attitudes", at least not as a clearly defined policy or within a reasonable time frame, nor can you throw out bias in courts (though I would like to see the transcript of the judge that said "you can't get raped because you're a hooker"). Which means nothing changes for the prostitutes.


Here we go. Not exactly the same, but you can certainly see that kind of attitude of "it's the woman's fault for her occupation."

http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/illegally-park-ed/26661/?page=1

And if nothing changes for the prostitutes, why the attitude of "making it legal makes it better"?


No, you're going to have to do better than that. Real-life solutions that somehow make criminalisation a more effective policy.

Ever bang your head against a brick wall? Because it's starting to feel like that. Go look through my posts. Find where I've argued criminalization is better at solving the issue.

Find it. I dare you.


And if you outlaw pimping, only outlaws will be pimps.

They only move a step up the ladder to brothel managers.

I'm going to be blint, I live in nevada, I live in reno, right in downtown reno. In all the years I've spent downtown, I have NEVER seen an illegal prostitute. Our state requires liscences for prostitutes and that brothels and "adult services" which sell sex all meet minimum wage and occupational standards. So.. if illegal prostitution continues in Reno despite brothels... how come I've never seen it downtown around all the casinos. Our city isn't THAT big downtown, I'm sure I would have seen something... Oh, and as a resident, i rarely hear about poor conditions in brothels. Occasionaly, you get a nut job, or police find an illegal brothel, but hey, atleast they FIND the brothels... unlike other states in which prostitution is rampant along with crackwhores... From a resident's perspective, I have to say that while we have our problems, it's better than other major gambling regions...

What I'm arguing against is the idea that somehow by making it legal, everything is already there, or on the road to improvement without needing much more. It's ludicrous.
I don't think anyone seriously suggested that.

The point is: the default position has to be that it is legal. Human beings should have the right to do what they please.

Limiting that right is a serious matter. There needs to be a very strong case indeed for it to be okay. There's gotta be a wealth of evidence that in the default situation there are these and these problems, and by criminalising it we can solve them in this and this way. And that's then gotta be weighed up with the damage you do to liberty and happiness by making things illegal.

You can do that for murder, to take an example. So far I've seen nothing to suggest that you can do that for prostitution. Just because for invalid reasons prostitution was illegal throughout a part of Western history does not place the burden upon the argument for legalisation. In fact, there cannot be an argument for legalisation at all because it is the natural state of things. You have to justify a deviation from it.

I don't think anyone seriously suggested that.

The point is: the default position has to be that it is legal. Human beings should have the right to do what they please.

Limiting that right is a serious matter. There needs to be a very strong case indeed for it to be okay. There's gotta be a wealth of evidence that in the default situation there are these and these problems, and by criminalising it we can solve them in this and this way. And that's then gotta be weighed up with the damage you do to liberty and happiness by making things illegal.

You can do that for murder, to take an example. So far I've seen nothing to suggest that you can do that for prostitution. Just because for invalid reasons prostitution was illegal throughout a part of Western history does not place the burden upon the argument for legalisation. In fact, there cannot be an argument for legalisation at all because it is the natural state of things. You have to justify a deviation from it.

This is actually an interesting question and you make good points.

Is prostitution inherently bad?

The answer is no, if a person freely consents to being paid for sex, as you say, that is her choice.

Yet do the huge majority of people give that free consent?

We're getting into a debate over the nature of consent here and it's a valid debate for you to raise.

Yet consider what it takes for someone to 'consent' to being fucked 10 times a day, day after day, year after year.

I'm sure you'd agree that, although it's impossible to assert that no person chooses this, the majority are forced into the decision through desperate circumstances, coercion or outright force.

Would well-regulated legal brothels, with great care taken to ensure that this is not the case, help solve the problem. If it was possible on a wide-scale, one that met the enormous demand for paid-sex and acceptance of it as a condition, then I would certainly have to say yes, they would.

Yet this is not feasible in reality, it's doesn't even seem to be feasible on such a small scale as Nevada.

Again - the solution we're proposing, from Non Aligned States, to Multiland and others, who I feel are well-acquainted with the issues, is to criminalise the demand for such services and not the supply.

Legalisation only condones the demand by saying it's an acceptable thing - basing the 'improvement' against illegal prostitution - hardly a comparison.

We should not be condoning demand, nor should a government.

You're the one trying to imply that breaking people's wills is not possible... I never said that. I asked how those legal outcall services can keep an unhappy worker from bolting or even asking the 'John' to call for help. all your examples fit the Illegal Prostitution rackets that don't do outcall unless the john is friends or trusted by the pimp.

so you still failed to show how the Legal Brothels would break a woman in such a way without having the Nevada State Law hit them like a ton of bricks.

You mean enforcement is perfect? They never turn a blind eye, are omniscient and have laws that are completely airtight and always provide proper justice?Reality is closer to that than your view that anyone wearing a badge is corrupt and would toss the women back to the wolves than help them.

I very much doubt that.

I've said time and time again. Legalization as is just doesn't work. There's so much that needs to be overhauled before it actually does. Legalization is the first step. what will you do, criminalize it then try to overhaul it so it will work?

Saying that it's legal doesn't automatically mean it is. And more often than not, legal brothels flirt with illegal supply. The difference between the high ideals of legalization and reality is that too many times, it just doesn't work.WRONG. Saying thet're Legal means they have 1) a licence to run their business. 2) met and continuously meet the requirements that regulate their form of business. 3) Meet Federal guidelines set for their business. (things I, and others, have posted before.)

and please show the rousing success that Criminalizing Prostitution has in steming 1) Illegal Prostitution 2) Inhumane treatment of women/children 3) stopped Human Trafficking


Am I saying that trafficking only occurs in areas where prostitution occurs? No. Stop trying to put words in my post.yet you are the one supporting Barringtonia's claim that Legalizing Prostitution will increase Human trafficking.

I'm saying that legalizing it doesn't make the ugly realities of human trafficking in the sex trade go away or even lessen its impact. A hell lot more needs to be done before even a viable working condition can be created.And the first step to that "VIABLE WORKING CONDITION" is to Legalize it and enforce the regulations. By making it Illegal, all you do is force them underground where working conditions would be WORSE. how is that going to lessen the trade or improve working conditions?

so how can you make the sex trade "go away" or even lessen it's impact without legalizing prostitution?

What the hell is wrong with you people? Does the magic "It's legal" fairy make everything ok?there is a big difference between Legal anything and Illegal Same anything. you do know that right? just like there is a big difference between Legal Immigrants and Illegal Immigrants. however, if you can't see the difference between what is Legal and it's Illegal counterparts, then I question your claim that Leglaization doesn't work since you are obviously confusing Illegal Prostitution with Legal Prostitution.

Did I, at any one point, say that criminalizing prostitution would increase or otherwise continue should prostitution be criminalized? Did I? Find it in my post if you can because I certainly made no such statement. Aherm...
Where the sex trade is illegal, the illegal brothels (duh). Where it's legal. Both. It's cheaper to have virtual slaves as your sex workers than proper workers who you pay wages to. meaning it won't make a difference legal or not, infact, by your quote, it would make the illegal ones more attractive and put the legal ones at a disadvantage.

Here's one.

http://www.prostitutie.nl/studie/doc...estraffick.pdf proof that the trade will continue even if prostitution is Criminalized. yet you still maintain that legalization won't work. (yes, you keep saying as is. but how can you change it if you don't legalize it first. legalizing it allows the laws to change the working conditions without resorting in the arrest of the women and not the Pimp due to lack of evidence. by legalizing it, the law can then protect the victimized woman and arrest the pimp.)

now tell me how you can enact a change in Prostitution without legalizing it first.

the First change is through legalization. How? by stating right off the conditions needed to be set for legalization such as treatment of the employees (as set by Federal Labor Laws), Safety and health benchmarks for both Employees and Customers (OSHA), and other regulations the state can see fit to put in place.

then any laws can be enacted and enforced that would protect the workers from abuse from both employer and customer. And with a set guidline for Legal Prostitution, it allows stiffer fines and penalties for Illegal prostitution. Also opens up avenues to get those Illegal Pimps while offering better protection of the women they abuse.

but all that cannot be done if it's not legalized in the first place.

I'm not going to respond to the rest of your post until you do. Why? Because I'm tired of trying to get my point across while people beat a different drum and accuse me of that.then here's a clue. no one said the system is perfect. however, the system can be improved but how can that be done without legalizing prostitution?

NO ONE said to legalize prostitution with no regulations or restrictions. I and NEVRUN have stated that the law will be used to regulate and protect the workers. YOU insisted that human trafficking supports the Legal Brothels but do you offer proof? or are you relying on Barringtonia's Farley report?

Legalizing it does not mean accepting it as is. it means the Governemnt can set the conditions that needs to be met before it's granted a licence.

THAT IS SO FOR EVERY OTHER FORM OF BUSINESS THAT OPERATES LEGALLY IN THE USA.

I've mention regulations before. I've mention OSHA and other requirements that can be enforced with legal brothels. yet Barringtonia insists that Legalization won't work.

I will apologize for catching you in our back and forth, but I've tried to point out it's Barringtonia's points I'm arguing against in past posts. and I will say that you did come across as agreeing with Barringtonia that legalization won't work. (not Legalization as is) and I apologize if I was mistaken that your stance was Legalization won't work.

I'm going to be blint, I live in nevada, I live in reno, right in downtown reno. In all the years I've spent downtown, I have NEVER seen an illegal prostitute. Our state requires liscences for prostitutes and that brothels and "adult services" which sell sex all meet minimum wage and occupational standards. So.. if illegal prostitution continues in Reno despite brothels... how come I've never seen it downtown around all the casinos. Our city isn't THAT big downtown, I'm sure I would have seen something... Oh, and as a resident, i rarely hear about poor conditions in brothels. Occasionaly, you get a nut job, or police find an illegal brothel, but hey, atleast they FIND the brothels... unlike other states in which prostitution is rampant along with crackwhores... From a resident's perspective, I have to say that while we have our problems, it's better than other major gambling regions...
4th Street, heading out to Sparks.

Unless of course the Reno PD just swept it again. ;)

Your personal opinion counts for nothing.

Go read the book.
Neither does yours. Go to Nevada and see for yourself.

It doesn't have to be perfect. It doesn't have to be utopian. What it needs to be is fixed. Slapping on a "it's legal" patch does nothing without corresponding changes in legal frameworks and enforcement.
[Snipped]

I think you made a mistake... some... er... all those quotes you said were mine are not.

huh, that's odd, I've not seen anything of the sort and I live like two blocks from fourth, near wingfield. Honestly, I've never seen anything of the sort on 4th, must be near or past 395 I guess...

huh, that's odd, I've not seen anything of the sort and I live like two blocks from fourth, near wingfield. Honestly, I've never seen anything of the sort on 4th, must be near or past 395 I guess...
The last I saw of the walkers was around Wells, where the old road went under the bypass (The one that was closed due to the trench), but they may have moved around again.

Nice to see someone else from home on this board though. :)

It is nice to see someone else for home, you're right there... though should two nevadans, from reno no less, really be posting in a thread on Prostitution in nevada? not doing much for the name of our state are we? =P

It is nice to see someone else for home, you're right there... though should two nevadans, from reno no less, really be posting in a thread on Prostitution in nevada? not doing much for the name of our state are we? =P

Considering that a friend who lives in Vegas sent me a Cathouse of Nevada Guide book...

no worries. neither one of you are really damaging the name. but it's nice to know from the locals, what's going on in Nevada.

I'm sure you'd agree that, although it's impossible to assert that no person chooses this, the majority are forced into the decision through desperate circumstances, coercion or outright force.
Probably. The latter two are illegal though and your (and my) issue is with enforcement, and the former can be a right pain for the person in question, but is not something that can or should be solved by the state. These days, desperate economic circumstances are always also a function of the choices people make. Even if you went to a bad school, there is no reason to drop out or fail to perform. Even if you did drop out, there is no reason not to find and hold down a steady job (and finance further training and education). And if you're driven into the industry by drug habits, then we know whose fault that is too (except if your mum was an addict and you were born that way, I suppose, but even then there's support available if you're willing).

We mentioned the whole hypotheses in sociology thing before...whatever we know, the fact that even just one person does it tells us that it is in fact possible. We don't need a million Horatio Alger stories, we just need a single one to kill off the idea that people don't have a choice.

Again - the solution we're proposing, from Non Aligned States, to Multiland and others, who I feel are well-acquainted with the issues, is to criminalise the demand for such services and not the supply.
Well, if you outlaw going to a prostitute, only outlaws will be suitors. I'm not sure whether you want to skew the customer base in that direction. Plus, what do you think will happen - perfectly legal, open and transparent brothels with the police outside in case someone walks in? It doesn't matter whether its supply, demand or both, since the two are linked making one illegal drives the whole thing underground.

Ultimately, your suggestion is the same that forms the basis of the war on drugs. That's not working either, and I'd tentatively suggest that people are even less likely to give up on sex than to give up on drugs.

And no, you won't get all these suitors to just get sex somewhere else, the "correct" way. If they could do that, they would.

Legalisation only condones the demand by saying it's an acceptable thing - basing the 'improvement' against illegal prostitution - hardly a comparison.
All your arguments are based on the presumption that prostitution is in fact not an acceptable thing. And all your evidence comes from bad things that happened to prostitutes.

While I wouldn't suggest that bad things don't happen to prostitutes, I would question you setting one equal to the other. Lots of people get run over every day by cars, but that doesn't make driving a bad thing that shouldn't be condoned.

As I hinted previously: sometimes the world sucks. Sometimes things aren't perfect. But the way to deal with them is not to imagine a perfect world, but instead to react as best as realistically possible. So be realistic - if your suggestions were put into law, what do you actually really know will happen?

You knew it even when you wrote the OP: you won't make prostitution go away. It's one of the simplest, most basic trades possible, even Bonobos do it. Whenever an attractive human being (and in the case of women I suppose they have to be less attractive than a man might have to be) needs something, sex is a way to get it, given the other person is willing to trade. And let's face it, there seems to be a pretty significant number that is, and that seems to have been the case for a while now (say, all of human history).

So given that we know about all these problems with the industry, what makes you think that you can deal with them more effectively if the whole thing is driven underground where nobody can monitor or see what's going on?

We should not be condoning demand, nor should a government.
That presumes people care what government says about morality and right and wrong. I don't think they do.

I agree with Neu Leonstein here. If you criminalize not prostitutes but their customers, instead of law-abiding citizens, the only people who will go to them are those with no qualms about breaking the law.

This is not very good for the prostitutes.

I agree with Neu Leonstein here. If you criminalize not prostitutes but their customers, instead of law-abiding citizens, the only people who will go to them are those with no qualms about breaking the law.

This is not very good for the prostitutes.

Thanks Neu Leonstein - and although the post I'm quoting is not your full point, in answering I'd like to deal with this first.

For a great deal of reasons, even where legalised, if you take the example of Holland, the majority of prostitution is still illegal, visited both by criminals with a disregard for law as well as 'good upstanding citizens' anyway. Whether you legalise or not, this much doesn't make a difference. In fact, it's been shown to increase prostitution because it effectively advertises it to the world as legal.

This means that legalising prostitution actually increases abuse, criminality and sex trafficking.

If you allow what is essentially advertising of legality, you increase demand exponentially and, since the supply of willing, freely chosen supply is limited, you merely increase the abuse of non-willing, non-freely chosen supply.

For a variety of reasons, not least of which is the stigma of prostitution, legal establishments are far outweighed by illegal prostitution, I'll expand slightly on this below.

Secondly, we need to look at the nature of prostitution itself - it is not analogous to drugs and alcohol because in prostitution, the substance being abused is a living human being - hence the studies showing the psychological damage leading to PTSD and disassociation in prostitutes - as opposed to a drug or an alcohol.

Prohibition drove down alcohol sales at least though giving rise to a criminal underground - yet in prostitution, the criminal underground is there anyway because, unlike being able to supply limitless demand by increasing production of alcohol or drugs, you cannot just ramp up the production of willing, free-choosing prostitutes and therefore you need to resort to criminal methods to secure them to meet what has been shown to be near unlimited demand.

Legalising prostitution increases prostitution, look at the advertising, of which $42M is spent in Las Vegas, with 150 pages in the Yellow Pages offering escort services and billboards for brothels. This sends a clear message that prostitution is okay, increases demand and therefore increases abuse.

Ultimately, no, you will never stamp it out, but you can help decrease it significantly although, as you say, there will always be abuse and horrors. Placing the criminality on the 'johns' as opposed to the prostitutes, who are not themselves criminalised in this process, goes a long way to reducing the problem - and this has been shown as succesful in Sweden.

You know, Barringtonia, you keep asking people if they'd be willing to be a prostitute.

I know I would, and I would look forward to work each and every day in a legal brothel because I know my rights are protected and I happen to enjoy having sex. It pays well, too.

You know, I'm not saying that Dr. Farley lies, nor am I saying that the study she concluded contains falsehoods.

I will, however, state that having a person with a known position on an issue perform a study tends to suggest the the outcome of the study is a foregone conclusion.

She runs an organization called Prostitution Research & Education whose mission statement reads as follows (http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/about.html)


Mission: Prostitution Research and Education (PRE) is a 501(c) 3 nonprofit organization that conducts research on prostitution, pornography and trafficking, and offers education and consultation to researchers, survivors, the public and policymakers. PRE’s goal is to abolish the institution of prostitution while at the same time advocating for alternatives to trafficking and prostitution - including emotional and physical healthcare for women in prostitution. The root of the problem of trafficking for prostitution is men’s demand for prostitution. Emphasizing the roots of prostitution and trafficking in racism and poverty as well as lethal sexism, PRE collaborates with other organizations in all projects.

History: PRE was established in 1995 by Dr. Melissa Farley, a research and clinical psychologist. Since that time, thousands of researchers, legislators, survivors, activists, and advocates in the US and around the world have turned to PRE for carefully researched facts about trafficking and the sex industry. The work of PRE was reflected in the publication of Prostitution, Trafficking, and Traumatic Stress in 2004. 30 experts in prostitution and trafficking contributed chapters to the book, including a PRE-led study of the violence and emotional harm of prostitution in 9 countries. Research data from PRE has been provided to agencies around the world that offer services to women escaping prostitution.


Her blog is similarly one-sided: http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/blog/

Hey, she doesn't even like kinky sex between consenting (non-paying) adults! (http://www.mediawatch.com/wordpress/?p=21)

Indeed, her extreme views have been critiqued at large (http://www.woodhullfoundation.org/content/otherpublications/WeitzerVAW-1.pdf).

So, if you want to take her writing as gospel, be my guest. Some of us, however, understand the terms "propoganda", "bias", and "agenda", and treat opinions by those who make their living in that melieu with large grains of salt.

Ooooh! Dr. Farley's views on porn are also soooooooooooo unbiased! Let's read one of her letters to the editor shall we?

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/ohBROTHER/farley.html


I read with great concern Duane Allen's article "An Invitation to Transgressive Sex" in your Issue #24 (Summer/Fall 1992). I see this article as another liberal attempt to depoliticize sexual relationships; to focus on pleasure without an analysis of the power dynamics in sexual behavior. Sex is not separate from the rest of life. Since some of us still consider the personal to also be the political, then the behaviors which Allen advocates and their consequences should be analyzed from a feminist perspective.
The article was also of special concern to me because Duane has been my friend and ally. In 1985, we were arrested together for destroying pornography in Beloit, Wisconsin. I agree with him that: creating new forms for relations between women and men, and between women and women, and men and men, that undermine the gender roles to which we have been assigned in patriarchy, is a revolutionary act. But he puts us on notice in the second paragraph that he is "stepping outside of profeminist politics" and indeed he does just that. He dismisses "politically correct" sex and strips the issue of power relations from the discussion of sexuality. He then theoretically hunkers over to the right, joining the pornographers-as-feminists.
Never in the article is "transgressive sex" defined. Is this a tease or what? Maybe it is also a gender-disguising tease that he does not tell us his first name, either. (The article was authored by "D. Allen.") Here's how it looks to me: he is "gender-flipping" women right back to the good old days of being lipsticked, fucked (with penis, dildo, or whatever) and above all on our backs. Allen seems to be coming (pun intended) from a privileged white male position which must of necessity ignore the survival-level discussion of power relationships in sex which women and gay men of color dare not overlook. If he paid attention to these power relations, he might not have such a good time. It might interfere with his belief in sex-as-pleasure-and-pleasure-alone.
What could be more "main vein" than pornography? Allen deliberately obscures the power relations thrust on us by pornography. He so mystifies "transgressive sex" that it took me several readings to unveil the familiar notion of sex as violation permeating the article. When he discusses "subverting the pornographic narrative," he lists the components of pornography as he sees them: "see, make contact, undress, manipulate body parts, cum, part." I analyze what happens in pornography's "space of possibility" differently: see, target, trap, humiliate, threaten, rape, torture, "cum," shatter the other, leave for dead, just to name a few For a profeminist man to neutralize pornography's danger to women (and disempowered gay men) in this manner frightens and enrages me. I wonder: who are my allies in this struggle?
If the power relations stay the same. which rules is he transgressing? Allen seems to think all this is just a game where no one ever gets hurt. When he discusses "denaturalizing fetishized objects" (like leather, muscle, cockrings, and cocks) in erotic play, it doesn't sound like gender fuck to me, it sounds like mind-fuck. Would putting the leather back on the cow be denaturalizing it as a fetishized object? What he seems to be saying is that you can be a profeminist man and you can participate in exactly the same old sexual oppression if you just have the correct "transgressive consciousness."
Typically ambiguous, he cautions us in passing about the dangers of consensual transgression. He seems to be both cautioning us against and promoting sadistic sexual behavior at the same time. He lists as unacceptable: "deception and (emotional) violence." This is just one place of several in the article where he skirts the issue of physical violence as a real danger to those who are oppressed. It is also where he most transparently exhibits middle class, white male privilege
Despite the rebellious posture, Allen is breaking none of patriarchy's rules. When you read between the lines, he is advocating a reactionary view of sex as violation which is so familiar to us women. What I read here is a coy mystification of the liberal line that sadomasochism is a high form of genderfucking. Call it pleasure, call it transgressive, call it antifeminist, just don't call it feminist. MF



Oh yes - this is a woman I trust to give a "fair and balanced" report on anything to do with sex.

Hey, she doesn't even like kinky sex between consenting (non-paying) adults! (http://www.mediawatch.com/wordpress/?p=21)


Wow. I couldn't even make it through more than half of that little article. What a ridiculous load of hogwash. Ms. Farley has just lost a lot of credibility with me.

Wow. I couldn't even make it through more than half of that little article. What a ridiculous load of hogwash. Ms. Farley has just lost a lot of credibility with me.

Clearly she is a feminist in the Gloria Steinam vein who never found her bicycle...

Her hatred for men oozes from every pore in her writings.

Wow. I couldn't even make it through more than half of that little article. What a ridiculous load of hogwash. Ms. Farley has just lost a lot of credibility with me.

You beat me to it. She's using one example of people dressing up (in inappropriate costumes, but still...) to illustrate how the entire S&M community is anti-Semitic? Pure, unadulterated, bullshit.

In any debate, there will be people whose minds simply will not change - if this thread has changed just one person's mind on the issue then good work has been done.

:)

I'm thinking, after seeing Dr. Farley's perspective on sex in general, that perhaps this thread has changed some minds to think that legalizing and regulating prostitution, protecting prostitutes and watching out for their health and welfare is a very good idea. Thanks! Good job! :)

Clearly she is a feminist in the Gloria Steinam vein who never found her bicycle...

I've always been amazed that some feminists tell women to stop letting men tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies and then turn around and tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies. The irony is astounding.

I really don't care what you say you think to be honest - your perspective is irrelevant to the facts - that people associate Amsterdam with drugs and hookers, Las Vegas with gambling and strippers.
Wait, I thought you said that Vegas was associated with hookers, not strippers. Strippers and hookers are two entirely different groups of people.

I really don't care what you say you think to be honest - your perspective is irrelevant to the facts - that people associate Amsterdam with drugs and hookers, Las Vegas with gambling and strippers.

I highly doubt that as I ran a thread a long while ago asking which city is a better destination with the two choices being Paris and Amsterdam. There were very few if any responses about prostitution. Most people associated it with predominately weed and the windmills as well as other cultural aspects.

There were one or two mentions of the Red Light district but that was it.

Statements just as 'well I know a happy hooker' and 'well I don't think of this association with Amsterdam/Las Vegas does not compare the the evidence posted time and time again with links.

Well, given that most of your evidence comes from an extremely biased source... Honestly, your sources may contain some facts but it doesn't change that many people have their OWN perception that is undocumented of these places. Perhaps you might trying to do some research of your own to find out what people truly think instead of what they're being told to think.

I ask, have you actually been to either Amsterdam or Las Vegas? Seen it first hand for yourself or are you relying on the biased opinion of a feminazi who can't tell a hole in a doughnut from the hole in her ass?

Barringtonia, HERE!

Nevada's laws for regulating Prostitution. (http://www.sex-in-nevada.com/Bashful/THE_LAW/Nevada_Prostitution_Laws.html)

Sec. 2422. Coercion and enticement.
(a) Whoever knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual to travel in interstate or foreign commerce, or in any Territory or Possession of the United States, to engage in prostitution, or in any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

(b) Whoever, using the mail or any facility or means of interstate or foreign commerce, or within the special maritime and territorial jurisdiction of the United States knowingly persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any individual who has not attained the age of 18 years, to engage in prostitution or any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense, or attempts to do so, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 15 years, or both.
So Coercion and enticement (such as your traffickers) is against the law.

where are these trafficers that you espout going then... perhaps to the ILLEGAL brothels where they can be abused and mis treated.

oh and here's the law against harboring Foreigners brought in for Prostitution.
Sec. 2424. Filing factual statement about alien individual.
(a) Whoever keeps, maintains, controls, supports, or harbors in any house or place for the purpose of prostitution, or for any other immoral purpose, any individual, knowing or in reckless disregard of the fact that the individual is an alien, shall file with the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization a statement in writing setting forth the name of such individual, the place at which that individual is kept, and all facts as to the date of that individual's entry into the United States, the port through which that individual entered, that individual's age, nationality, and parentage, and concerning that individual's procuration to come to this country within the knowledge of such person; and Whoever fails within five business days after commencing to keep, maintain, control, support, or harbor in any house or place for the purpose of prostitution, or for any other immoral purpose, any alien individual to file such statement concerning such alien individual with the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization; or Whoever knowingly and willfully states falsely or fails to disclose in such statement any fact within that person's knowledge or belief with reference to the age, nationality, or parentage of any such alien individual, or concerning that individual's procuration to come to this country - Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

(b) In any prosecution brought under this section, if it appears that any such statement required is not on file in the office of the Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization, the person whose duty it is to file such statement shall be presumed to have failed to file said statement, unless such person or persons shall prove otherwise. No person shall be excused from furnishing the statement, as required by this section, on the ground or for the reason that the statement so required by that person, or the information therein contained, might tend to criminate that person or subject that person to a penalty or forfeiture, but no information contained in the statement or any evidence which is directly or indirectly derived from such information may be used against any person making such statement in any criminal case, except a prosecution for perjury, giving a false statement or otherwise failing to comply with this section.

So how would legalizing prostitution INCREASE traffiking since it's already against the LAW?

as for your constant claims of rising abuse, go look up FEDERAL LABOR LAWS. with Legalizing and regulating the business, both the Health of the employee and the customer will be looked after. the more Legal places there are, the greater the freedom to hunt down the illegal places. How does that work? With a legal, and Health inspected place to go (where YOU KNOW the workers are not forced into it,) you can then enlist the public's help in 'rescuing' those forced into Illegal prostitution and if you portray those illegal prostitutes as the victim (which would be easier with legalized places) you give those trapped a Legal way out AND those would be more likely to turn states evidence to give the prosecutors a legal way to get the trafficers and pimps who abuse them.

So again... Where did Ms. Farley go where she saw all these abuses and why Didn't she REPORT THEM in if they were LEGAL Brothels?

Can you show me the rise in trafficking and abuse in CANADA since Prostitution is Legal up there?

Wait, I thought you said that Vegas was associated with hookers, not strippers. Strippers and hookers are two entirely different groups of people.

to him it's all the same.

I also like the fact that he insists that PEOPLE's perception of Amsterdam and Las Vegas is one thing while in the same post discounts someones perception as "irrelevant".

many people have said they don't view Amsterdam or Vegas as Hooker central... so he incudes strippers and soon I expect the Chorus Girls will be added to that.

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.


You missed the point entirely. It's just as easy to find pro-prostitution links as it is to find anti-prostitution links. You only post from anti-prostitution links - how about looking a bit at the other side?

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.

You really believe that women are that stupid? The social stigma alone should be enough to turn all but the most desperate away from that particular line of work.

Are you saying she's a liar?

Mayby not a liar, but extremly biased in her work.


Lyla, a well known Ottawa Massage Sexworkers says;
This reminds me of Andrea Dworkin -- some "feminists" think that they somehow have the right to speak for all women in the sex industry and to climb on our backs to achieve some measure of respect in their own industry.

But the truth is, it's bullshit. Can they find sex workers to validate their theories? Sure! It's not terribly difficult to find someone eager to blame their misfortune on someone else.

The truth of the matter is that sex work does not in any way, shape or form resemble that described by these "career feminists." They're ambitious women who aren't above using other women's backs to climb upon.

It just pisses me off when they get government grants.


Comments from a Canadian sexworker who has been on the streets but now owns one of the more popular adult massage parlors in Toronto:

.. most women don't realize the psy problems until later. They are numb to it during. As for 'prostitution being a violation of the human rights of women'.. prostitution, most of the time, is their own choice with the exception of those who are forced into it. Prostitution to me, comes in many different avenues. Women who marry old rich men are prostitutes. Women who sleep with men to 'get to the top' are prostitutes. Prostitution to me, is using your body to gain. Men do it all the same. It's the regrets, justification and society I believe that make it hard.

(Farley treats us) .... as though women are children and we are all too stupid to make our own decissions?


Link (http://www.sexwork.com/whatisnew/farley.html).

No, this is her research based on going there and interviewing, one backed up by mulitudes of reports from governments and bodies alike from around the world - legalisation increases illegal prostitution by condoning it as an acceptable form of abuse.

As opposed to, really, your opinion.


Her "research" is so biased that I'm surprised she got anyone to pay for it.

On the other hand, several posters, who knows prostitutes, have posted their views and oppinion.

I know who I trust the most...

Oh lord - everyone's personal knowledge of happy prostitutes fills me with alarm, it's often the only supposed evidence against every psychological report and more that have been posted.

"I know a happy prostitute" - what sort of argument do you think you're making here?

Is it really that hard to accept that you might be wrong? That not all prostitutes are horibly abused victims of male agression?

it seems to me that making voluntary prostution illegal makes it that much more unlikely that the cops are going to devote their resources to the more pernicious human trafficking problem.

when the cops make a big splashy prostitution bust isnt it always men looking for vanilla sex with women who are more than willing to provide it? why arent they going after the horrifying stuff that no woman (or man) would do willingly (and even if there are willing women (and men) the customers arent interested in willing, they only want forced)? because its all illegal. there is no big differenciation between willing hookers and unwilling hookers.

if there were legal prostitution to serve the market of men (and women) who just want sex with no strings provided by women (and men) willing to provide it and free to come and go from the job as they please, it would leave the forced, dangerous needs-to-be-illegal prostitution to be aggressively pursued.

having all prostitution be illegal exacerbates the problems of sexual slavery.

LOL!

and one and two and... you call that a Pirotte? com'on get that leg up for the kick... follow. the. beat. oh, nononono... it's all wrong, put your clothes on and try again... from the top now!

I wonder how fast I could get kicked out of a club doing this. :D

British Government swayed by Barringtonia's POV (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2165900,00.html) :)

For clarification:

For those who think I say all prostitutes are forced, I have always taken care to say 'the majority', (if not 'the huge majority') or 'most'. For my actual, as opposed to perceived views on this:

Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13037098&postcount=446)

For those who think prostitutes are made safer by legalisation, my views are here:

Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13037308&postcount=457)

If there are coherent points made about these, as opposed to attacks on Melissa Farley or mis-perceived comments concerning what I have written, I'm happy to discuss as I have with the good points raised by Neu Leonstein.

For those with pedantic quibbles about hookers/strippers - go to Las Vegas and see the huge amount of advertising, or to Amsterdam and see the Red Light district - to say they're not associated with prostitution is obtuse.

Starting in the New Year survey, we asked the participants several questions regarding the LVCVA’s newest theme; “What happens here, stays here.”

49% had seen or heard the tag line in the July group. This continues the drop from 53% posted in April and 62% in January. When asked what the slogan meant to them, the most frequent response was to repeat the slogan (20%). The second most common response was (16%) was a variation of “ anything goes”. Key themes were privacy, sexual behavior, good times and partying. Clearly negative Reponses (sleazy, bad slogan, cheap, lying) added up to about 11%, a little higher than last month.

Link (www.mrcgroup.com/Tourism_in_Vegas.doc)

British Government swayed by Barringtonia's POV (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2165900,00.html) :)

:rolleyes: No you agree with the British government. Even still, the article only quotes those who are in favour of the bill; it doesn't sport opposition views or any give as much air time to critics as it does to supporters of the bill.

It also refers to forced prostitution arising from trafficking as oppose to consensual.

None of us ever disputed that something should be done to prevent women and men from being forced into prostitution. But making it illegal through an all-encompassing legislation that doesn't discriminate between forced and voluntary is putting a band-aid on a gunshot wound and hoping it gets better.

All this shows is that governments are more eager to try and apply a one-size fits all solution to a problem instead of using a more selective approach that is mindful of all aspects and not just what meets the eye. And it would seem you are too.


For those with pedantic quibbles about hookers/strippers - go to Las Vegas and see the huge amount of advertising, or to Amsterdam and see the Red Light district - to say they're not associated with prostitution is obtuse.

I've been to Amsterdam and the Red Light District is more than the home of Amsterdam's prostitutes. Yes it is definitely not a place for children but it's not all about "hookers". There are shops that cater to all and not everything in the Red Light District caters to people looking for a quick fuck. Yes it's a highly sexual place but sexual doesn't automatically equate prostitution.

While the best would certainly be that people do not have any desire for prostitutes, the current reality is that people do and that the government should legalize and regulate it. Even then, though, so many would hate the government for doing so.
Like most of modern western society's problems, no solution is really acceptable without a great deal of social reform/revolution.

:rolleyes: No you agree with the British government. Even still, the article only quotes those who are in favour of the bill; it doesn't sport opposition views or any give as much air time to critics as it does to supporters of the bill.

Tongue in cheek is lost on you.

Here's another large government study - link (http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C19E010B-1A4F-4918-97BD-F96AF7D7F150/0/mainreport.pdf)

I've been to Amsterdam and the Red Light District is more than the home of Amsterdam's prostitutes. Yes it is definitely not a place for children but it's not all about "hookers". There are shops that cater to all and not everything in the Red Light District caters to people looking for a quick fuck. Yes it's a highly sexual place but sexual doesn't automatically equate prostitution.

Initially I wrote something more snappy but, to be polite, I'm writing 'associated with' not 'solely identified by' - surveys show that, along with canals, museums, art, drugs and others, Amsterdam is associated with the sex trade, including prostitution as shown by the people answering in your honeymoon thread - it's a natural association that people didn't make about Paris.

Again, it's off the topic in terms of having to clarify again and I should really not bother to answer to misinterpretations of what I am clearly stating - I am not ambiguous in my writing.

For those with pedantic quibbles about hookers/strippers - go to Las Vegas and see the huge amount of advertising, or to Amsterdam and see the Red Light district - to say they're not associated with prostitution is obtuse.
I can go to Las Vegas and see the large ammounts of casinos. Your point has been torn to shreads more times that I can count on this thread.

I can go to Las Vegas and see the large ammounts of casinos. Your point has been torn to shreads more times that I can count on this thread.

Hence Las Vegas is also associated with gambling - are you merely proving my point?

Unless humans suddenly lose their sex drive, prostitution will always be with us.

There will always be people willing to engage in sexual acts for some money, and there will always be people willing to pay them.

Hence Las Vegas is also associated with gambling - are you merely proving my point?
Nope, proving that when people hear Las Vegas, hookers (And stippers since you seem to confuse the two for God knows what reason) are not the first thing that comes to people's minds.

British Government swayed by Barringtonia's POV (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2165900,00.html) :)

Sweden criminalised buying sex but decriminalised selling it eight years ago. Supporters of the scheme say it has slashed the number of brothels and clients and cut the level of sex trafficking into the country to hundreds of women. But some critics have suggested that women who remain in the sex industry have become more vulnerable as a result of the reforms.

This supports your assertion that criminalizing only the buyers is better how?

C.

Sweden criminalised buying sex but decriminalised selling it eight years ago. Supporters of the scheme say it has slashed the number of brothels and clients and cut the level of sex trafficking into the country to hundreds of women. But some critics have suggested that women who remain in the sex industry have become more vulnerable as a result of the reforms.

This supports your assertion that criminalizing only the buyers is better how?

C.

Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13037308&postcount=457)

If there are coherent points made about these, as opposed to attacks on Melissa Farley or mis-perceived comments concerning what I have written, I'm happy to discuss as I have with the good points raised by Neu Leonstein.


I hardly describe posting her own words and mission statement to be attacks. They simply point out her bias and agenda, and demonstrate her general opinion that virtually ALL sex is an affront to women. She admits to having been arrested for previous acts in her crusade in the letter I pointed out for one thing, so clearly this is a calling for this woman.

You are the one who has repeatedly pointed to her as the authoritative source. My pointing out that her mission dictates that she take a one-sided view is not an attack. It is akin to pointing out that the RNC is not neccessarily the best place to go to get a fair overview of the Bush Administration.



For those with pedantic quibbles about hookers/strippers - go to Las Vegas and see the huge amount of advertising, or to Amsterdam and see the Red Light district - to say they're not associated with prostitution is obtuse.

Link (www.mrcgroup.com/Tourism_in_Vegas.doc)

Differentiating between strippers and hookers is not a "pedantic quibble" either. They are entirely different professions where one provides titilation, and the other actual sex. Claiming otherwise is like telling me that the girl that flirts with me is doing the same thing as the one that actually f*cks me. Personally, I find those two activities to be markedly different.

Are their hookers in Vegas? No doubt. Certainly in Amsterdam.

However the notion you have often stated that legalizing prostitution will absolutely lead to increased prostitution seems suspect on it's face, and you have failed to properly substantiate it. One might also argue that, within certain tolerances, if the business increases a small percent but is done in a manner where worker safety is greatly enhanced through health screening, exclusion of pimps, controlled environments, then it still might be the preferred solution.

Which is worse? 100 prostitutes working street corners, getting into cars with strangers, dealing with pimps, and having little legal recourse for abuse? Or 150 prostitutes where customer access is controlled, std protection is mandated, health support is provided, girls get to keep their money earned (less taxes), and work conditions are monitored for safety?

Accepting that neither outcome is optimal, should you still not aim for the best protection possible for the women who ARE involved in the trade? Because arguing that legalization the industry can still result in problems is a valid point, but is also certainly not a solution to the existing status quo.

And given that you can't just wish the status quo away, pray tell what are you offering the girls currently trapped in the illegal industry by refusing to entertain the option of proper, legal oversight?

Nothing. That's what.

However the notion you have often stated that legalizing prostitution will absolutely lead to increased prostitution seems suspect on it's face, and you have failed to properly substantiate it. One might also argue that, within certain tolerances, if the business increases a small percent but is done in a manner where worker safety is greatly enhanced through health screening, exclusion of pimps, controlled environments, then it still might be the preferred solution.

Link (http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C19E010B-1A4F-4918-97BD-F96AF7D7F150/0/mainreport.pdf)

As the experience of Victoria, Australia demonstrates an expanding legal sector is accompanied by a similar increase in the illegal. This is for two reasons: some sex businesses seek to evade the demands of regulation; and women who are serious drug users are seldom able to comply with the rules and requirements oflegal brothels. It is also possible that a proportion of customers prefer the street prostitution scene. It is clear from research that the majority of those in street prostitution have serious drug problems. A legalisation strategy therefore serves to further criminalise and marginalise them.

On the basis of the materials examined, the case for legalisation is weak and unsubstantiated. The rationale behind both the law in the Netherlands and Victoria, Australia was to “provide more control over criminal behaviour and to ensure women were protected from violence and exploitation”. Neither of these aims seem to have been achieved, with organised crime, including trafficking, flourishing in both localities, and the illegal layers of the industry continuing to accommodate women who are funding drug addiction. As Anne-Marie Lizin, a member of the Belgium parliament commented: "You cannot say you're fighting the trafficking of people and at the same time legalise (brothels) because you open the market" (Noelle Knox, 2003).

A crucial component of the Swedish model is the decriminalisation of those selling sex – usually women. They are neither ‘regulated’ nor criminalised, and can remain free from police harassment and control from bosses and the state.

Most UK projects currently working with women in prostitution prioritise ‘harm reduction’ interventions, rather than focusing primarily on exit strategies, although some combine both, to varying degrees. The coordinator of the Maze Marigold project in East London believes that the two strategies work best when applied together – that harm reduction without exit strategies simply serves as a ‘band aid’24.
One pro-legalisation argument, which appeals to professionals, governments and activists, is that it will reduce trafficking. The evidence in the country reports, however, suggests that trafficking into countries/locations where aspects of prostitution are legal increases. The authors of the Australian report estimate that there are up to 200 women under ‘contract’ in Victoria at any one time, and that at least seven licensed brothels in Victoria have used trafficked women in the last year. Gunilla Ekberg from the Swedish ministry states that, as a result of the legislation criminalising buyers, Sweden has become less attractive for traffickers. Ingela Klinteberg, Deputy Chief District Prosecutor in Malmo comments:

The new law has had an effect on trafficking. The trafficked women have sometimes said to police that they overheard traffickers say that Sweden is a very unfriendly country to operate in, and that they should take them elsewhere, such as the Netherlands, where the traffickers can operate with impunity (Interview, 2003).

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.

The Mercury news link is 404.

The paragraph you have is from here:http://feministing.com/archives/005188.html

The 'facts' that you quote here come from an unsubstantiated post in the comments. Congratulations, you just quoted some anonymous internet poster.



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


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

The first one is an academic paper about prostitution in Denmark. Most of the sources for this paper are in accessible over the internet or are in Danish. It shows logical inconsistencies like classifying child abuse victims who go into prostitution as one type of prostitute, those who do it to support a drug habit as a second type, and then going on to discuss prostitution in general, leaving an impression in the mind of the reader that these are the only two types of sex workers. See the first full paragraph on page 73. More importantly, nowhere does it support your claim that legalisation would exacerbate the injustices that illegal sex workers currently face.

The second is an article by Melissa Farley. Assuming her statistics are correct and she has not been faulty in her interpretation of the data, you will at least admit that she gives us nothing to compare it with. So if 60% of sex workers worldwide are suffering PTSD, we have no idea if this would be improved or worsened by legalisation.

here is a synopsis of methodological criticisms of Farley.
http://www.woodhullfoundation.org/content/otherpublications/WeitzerVAW-1.pdf

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

Many of these staistics come form Farley. Those that do not come from studies that focus solely on street prostitutes, child prostitutes, and other groups that are victimised through social stigma and criminalisation. Please do not take the worst case scenario and apply it to a whole industry.

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

This one is nothing more than propaganda. Only once does it make anything resembling a substantiated claim, when it spoke of the arrest of a man who had forcibly detained some Thai sex workers. The fact that he was caught should be proof that legalisation works. Unfortunately, without a control group to compare it to, we have no clue if the situation has been worsened as the authors claim, or has been improved, as others contend.

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:

Despite my earlier criticisms of having no sex workers attend this conference on the effects of legalisation on prostitution, I carefully reread the whole thing. Again, we have the same tired claims, the same quotes from Farley, and the same inability to show a causal link between legalisation and the increase of problems associated with prostitution.

I'll do the others later.

Here's another large government study - link (http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C19E010B-1A4F-4918-97BD-F96AF7D7F150/0/mainreport.pdf)


Oh great, another study on how men subjugate women written by a lesbian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1177708,00.html) who concedes (although objects) that many people who read her columns have come to the conclusion that she is a man hater (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/julie_bindel/2007/03/julie_bindel.html). Perhaps, just perhaps, thy got that impression from the things she writes....

And, lo, to her "study we immediately find a rebuttal! (http://www.nswp.org/laws/doorninck-bindelresponse.html)


Some comments on "A critical examination of responses to prostitution in four countries: Victoria, Australia, Ireland, the Netherlands and Sweden," by Julie Bindel and Liz Kelly for the Routes Out Partnership Board

By Marieke van Doorninck, Mr A. de Graaf Foundation, Dutch Institute for Prostitution Issues (2004)


In these comments I will mainly focus on the chapter about the Netherlands. There are some major inaccuracies in the report about prostitution policies in the Netherlands.

First I have a few general remarks.

The title of the report is "A Critical Examination of the Different Responses..." but in my opinion the report is only critical towards the first three responses and very positive towards the last i.e. Sweden. That is very logical considering that the country reports on the Netherlands, Victoria and Ireland are written by opponents of the national legislation while the report on Sweden is written by the official advisor of the Swedish government on prostitution policies.




Let me guess... she doesn't like strippers either. Gee, who would have guessed.... (http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/AF8653FD-9FC4-4DE6-8238-CE629C7D6C3E/0/LapdancingReport.pdf)

British Government swayed by Barringtonia's POV (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2165900,00.html) :)

For clarification:

For those who think I say all prostitutes are forced, I have always taken care to say 'the majority', (if not 'the huge majority') or 'most'. For my actual, as opposed to perceived views on this:

Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13037098&postcount=446)


For those who think prostitutes are made safer by legalisation, my views are here:

Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13037308&postcount=457) fine, let's focus on this post then.

For a great deal of reasons, even where legalised, if you take the example of Holland, the majority of prostitution is still illegal, visited both by criminals with a disregard for law as well as 'good upstanding citizens' anyway. Whether you legalise or not, this much doesn't make a difference. In fact, it's been shown to increase prostitution because it effectively advertises it to the world as legal. ok. can you show how much prostitution there was in Holland before and after aspects of it was made legal?

Now Fallacy one.
This means that legalising prostitution actually increases abuse, criminality and sex trafficking. WRONG! Legalising Prostitution will increase prostitution. but Prostitution =|= abuse, Criminality, and sex trafficking. hence why they are classified differently in the eyes of the law. that's YOUR mind stigmatising Prostitutes. reducing them to criminal elements in your mind.

now what is your proof that it increases... because the number caught goes up? so that is proof that there's more? or could it be that because of Legalized Prostitution, more women are coming forward to turn in those bastards who are trafficking and abusing them.

Now this continues Fallacy one. that Prostitution = Abuse, Criminality, and Sex Trafficking.
If you allow what is essentially advertising of legality, you increase demand exponentially and, since the supply of willing, freely chosen supply is limited, you merely increase the abuse of non-willing, non-freely chosen supply. except that the Non-willing, non-freely chosen supply is the ILLEGAL Prostitution. not part of legallized Prostitutes.

For a variety of reasons, not least of which is the stigma of prostitution, legal establishments are far outweighed by illegal prostitution, I'll expand slightly on this below.the Stigma of Prostitution is caused by... the criminalization of prostitution. so what if prostitution was legalized and regulated as other businesses?

Secondly, we need to look at the nature of prostitution itself - it is not analogous to drugs and alcohol because in prostitution, the substance being abused is a living human being - hence the studies showing the psychological damage leading to PTSD and disassociation in prostitutes - as opposed to a drug or an alcohol. and with legalization of prostitution you can have programs in place to Psychologically help those suffering from PTSD especially if they are forced into it by their bastard pimp. as far as I know, Abuse of a Human is still illegal.

Now, please show how the prostitutes suffereing from PTSD and Disassociation in places where prostitution is ILLEGAL are getting better treatment?

You can show this right? or are you going to dodge this like you dodged my other questions and points?

Prohibition drove down alcohol sales at least though giving rise to a criminal underground - yet in prostitution, the criminal underground is there anyway because, unlike being able to supply limitless demand by increasing production of alcohol or drugs, you cannot just ramp up the production of willing, free-choosing prostitutes and therefore you need to resort to criminal methods to secure them to meet what has been shown to be near unlimited demand. and places that serve liquor without a liquor licence? what happens to those places? they get shut down and the owners arrested.

what happens if you criminalize prostitution? you arrest the prostitutes, but the pimps and the traffickers are free because of lack of evidence to convict.

Legalising prostitution increases prostitution, look at the advertising, of which $42M is spent in Las Vegas, with 150 pages in the Yellow Pages offering escort services and billboards for brothels. This sends a clear message that prostitution is okay, increases demand and therefore increases abuse. Sorry, but my last trip to vegas, I never saw any billboards for escort services or brothels. strip clubs and adult stores yes, but none for Brothels. Oh, wait... to you strippers = prostitutes as well... :rolleyes:
Better yet, any NSG'er in Vegas, can you provide proof of this?

Ultimately, no, you will never stamp it out, but you can help decrease it significantly although, as you say, there will always be abuse and horrors. Placing the criminality on the 'johns' as opposed to the prostitutes, who are not themselves criminalised in this process, goes a long way to reducing the problem - and this has been shown as succesful in Sweden.Criminalizing it only forces it underground where they gain a huge bonus that helps prevent detection. silence from the abused and kidnapped women. How can you be sure that the 'success' in Sweden is because there are actually fewer prostitution or because they are now well hidden.


For those with pedantic quibbles about hookers/strippers - go to Las Vegas and see the huge amount of advertising, or to Amsterdam and see the Red Light district - to say they're not associated with prostitution is obtuse. and look carefully at those advertisements. especially note where those bordellos are actually located.

imagine that... sex advertiseing in a Red Light District. what's next. Menus advertising food in Resturants?

Starting in the New Year survey, we asked the participants several questions regarding the LVCVA’s newest theme; “What happens here, stays here.”

49% had seen or heard the tag line in the July group. This continues the drop from 53% posted in April and 62% in January. When asked what the slogan meant to them, the most frequent response was to repeat the slogan (20%). The second most common response was (16%) was a variation of “ anything goes”. Key themes were privacy, sexual behavior, good times and partying. Clearly negative Reponses (sleazy, bad slogan, cheap, lying) added up to about 11%, a little higher than last month.
Link (www.mrcgroup.com/Tourism_in_Vegas.doc)[/QUOTE]

wow.. a full 11% all lumped together as Sleazy, Bad Slogan, Cheap, Lying...

and 16% means partying, Sexual Behavior and Good Times.

Gee so how many actually think sexual behavior in that study. must not be much if it had to be lumped with partying.

and of course the ONLY way one can get sex in Vegas is through prostitution.

Guess all those Wedding Chapels in Vegas has nothing to do with people celebrating their hasty nuptuals.

Hence Las Vegas is also associated with gambling - are you merely proving my point? glad you dropped the Stippers and hookers being associated with Las Vegas...

OH and i love your idea of not arresting those that sell sex, but those that buy it.

"it's not censorship if I let you say what you want, and arrest those that listen to you."

Sweden criminalised buying sex but decriminalised selling it eight years ago. Supporters of the scheme say it has slashed the number of brothels and clients and cut the level of sex trafficking into the country to hundreds of women. But some critics have suggested that women who remain in the sex industry have become more vulnerable as a result of the reforms.

This supports your assertion that criminalizing only the buyers is better how?

C.
Link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13037308&postcount=457)


he's now quoting himself as proof... Oh My God!!!

Link (http://www.glasgow.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/C19E010B-1A4F-4918-97BD-F96AF7D7F150/0/mainreport.pdf)

As the experience of Victoria, Australia demonstrates an expanding legal sector is accompanied by a similar increase in the illegal. This is for two reasons: some sex businesses seek to evade the demands of regulation; and women who are serious drug users are seldom able to comply with the rules and requirements oflegal brothels. It is also possible that a proportion of customers prefer the street prostitution scene. It is clear from research that the majority of those in street prostitution have serious drug problems. A legalisation strategy therefore serves to further criminalise and marginalise them.


Wow. So the drug addicts are breaking the law as hookers with a criminalized prostitution setup, but makes them even MORE criminal if continuing to do the same thing under a legalized framework?

How do they become more criminal than already criminal?

But decriminalizing them while targetting johns makes manna fall from the sky, cures their addictions, and solves everything?

Or does it just make it harder for them to earn a buck to feed their addiction and so they find other equally debasing ways of getting their fix?

To whit - so far, which of these solutions gets the help to the drug addict who needs it?

Right - none of them. Why? Because their main problem is their addiction, not their profession.

So focusing on addicts as the underlying basis of public policy regarding the sex trade is not really germaine to the question. They are two separate issues. How to deal with prostitution and how to deal with drug addiction. They have components that overlap, but are still seperate issues.

Sorry, but my last trip to vegas, I never saw any billboards for escort services or brothels. strip clubs and adult stores yes, but none for Brothels. Oh, wait... to you strippers = prostitutes as well... :rolleyes:
Better yet, any NSG'er in Vegas, can you provide proof of this?
I can do one better. The 9th Circut Court of Appeals just struck down a Nevada law making advertising brothels illegal in Nevada back in July. The law had stood since the 70's.
http://news.rgj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=200770831037

I THINK he means those folks handing out the flyers for escort services in Vegas... except that such flyer handlers have been deemed a public nusence and have been curtailed.

I THINK he means those folks handing out the flyers for escort services in Vegas... except that such flyer handlers have been deemed a public nusence and have been curtailed.
WHAT!!! :eek:

I love collecting those cards... :(

Guess I better keep the ones I have now... :p

WHAT!!! :eek:

I love collecting those cards... :(

Guess I better keep the ones I have now... :p
The casinos weren't happy with them. Sadly, Las Vegas now attracts equal ammounts of men and women and the women were a bit offended. Since casinos do everything they can to keep people happy and pumping money in...

The casinos weren't happy with them. Sadly, Las Vegas now attracts equal ammounts of men and women and the women were a bit offended. Since casinos do everything they can to keep people happy and pumping money in...

I just didn't like how they were crowded together. On a busy sidewalk that can be dangerous. People had to walk on the road to get around them.

can't say i'm happy they're gone, but not sad that they are.

Silliopolous and Gift-of-God, I thank you for your valid points and I can see that every point has it's counter-point though I'm not really changing my mind to be honest - it's obviously an open-ended debate.

Junii - your powers of misinterpretation of what I'm saying are extraordinary.

I effectively concede on this, not because I feel that I'm wrong but because the debate is open-ended and I have put my points of view across as largely as possible.

For the record, I'm a white, male - simply to clarify that I'm not doing this with some agenda.

I don't really have a complete answer, or am no longer willing to find, nor cites that concretely support my view, against all this - it's clear that there is no concrete evidence that would satisfy all either way.

I'm happy to have the subject raised, which I why I'm also happy to concede rather than continue as enough information on the subject is out for people to make up their own minds, as you have and I have.

I'd like to note that I've appreciated the contributions, not because I feel I own this thread but for the putting out of balanced, thoughtful views, of Silliopolous, Gift-of-God (his last at least :) ), Neu Leonstein as well as Non Aligned States and Multiland and, to some extent, NERVUN though on occasion I've been as stubborn as he.

Again, I'm not conceding my views, I'm conceding the effectiveness of debating what are very valid points on both sides.

I may contribute further where I feel like it but not so much :)

Junii - your powers of misinterpretation of what I'm saying are extraordinary.

Thanks, but I am still humbled by your ability in avoiding answering questions put to you, not just by me, but by others as well.

Reguardless of your views of me, I do know you are only trying to protect those who are victims of Human trafficking and Prostitution. Thus I want you to know that I hold no personal malace to either you or others who also share your vision of how things should be.

Peace.

to protect people by outlawing their jobs...


"oh, those poor kids that have to sew soccer balls 16 hours a day just to eat, we should get them all fired, for their own good"

If you give people a better alternative, they'll take it ( this applies no matter how good/bad a job is, I imagine if you could find a better job for bill gates, he'd take it) If you don't provide a better alternative and just eliminate the jobs they have now (forcing them into something worse) how is that helping them ??

Or is it just that you are so arrogant that you believe you know what's best for them better than they do for themselves ???

to protect people by outlawing their jobs...


"oh, those poor kids that have to sew soccer balls 16 hours a day just to eat, we should get them all fired, for their own good"

If you give people a better alternative, they'll take it ( this applies no matter how good/bad a job is, I imagine if you could find a better job for bill gates, he'd take it) If you don't provide a better alternative and just eliminate the jobs they have now (forcing them into something worse) how is that helping them ??

Or is it just that you are so arrogant that you believe you know what's best for them better than they do for themselves ???

Indeed - better to legalize child labour and create child labour shops where their rights can be monitored.

Granted, child labour is not analogous to women with free choice - merely pointing out the error of your comparison.

Link (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2165900,00.html)

Sweden criminalised buying sex but decriminalised selling it eight years ago. Supporters of the scheme say it has slashed the number of brothels and clients and cut the level of sex trafficking into the country to hundreds of women. But some critics have suggested that women who remain in the sex industry have become more vulnerable as a result of the reforms.

Again, the bolded part of the link you posted supports your argument that criminalizing the sex buyers protects the women how?

C.

Link (http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2165900,00.html)

Sweden criminalised buying sex but decriminalised selling it eight years ago. Supporters of the scheme say it has slashed the number of brothels and clients and cut the level of sex trafficking into the country to hundreds of women. But some critics have suggested that women who remain in the sex industry have become more vulnerable as a result of the reforms.

Again, the bolded part of the link you posted supports your argument that criminalizing the sex buyers protects the women how?

C.

:rolleyes:

Of course the sentence, pointing out that there are some critics to the idea I support, of which there is lengthy (biased, I know) support preceding, does not support my idea.

They're critical of it.

Junii - all is forgiven :p

I was going to only answer serious points and ignore repeats or silly points but I think more enjoyment will be had the other way around - other than repeats.

Looks like there'll be many to come.

Oh great, another study on how men subjugate women written by a lesbian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,1177708,00.html) who concedes (although objects) that many people who read her columns have come to the conclusion that she is a man hater (http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/julie_bindel/2007/03/julie_bindel.html). Perhaps, just perhaps, thy got that impression from the things she writes....



Actually, to be fair to Ms. Bindel, she doesn't just hate men. She hates hetrosexuals. Indeed, she is one of a very small minority who claim that her sexuality is indeed a choice, and that she chooses to be gay rather than deal with the alternative: (http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1372971,00.html)


If we wanted to be straight, we would be


Attempts to identify a genetic basis for homosexuality refuse to accept that sexual desire is a social construct

Julie Bindel
Tuesday December 14, 2004
The Guardian

...

All these claims serve the notion that there is something wrong with those of us who shun heterosexuality. Many lesbians and gays want to believe we were "born that way" to provoke sympathy and understanding. In the mid-1980s, during the kerfuffle around Section 28, I dared to write in a gay publication that being lesbian or gay was a positive choice. I was inundated with letters telling me what trouble I had caused, because if heteros thought we were choosing to be deviant, that means we are responsible, not our genes. Some said: "I have known I was gay since I was three months old. How can it be a choice?" Obviously she was exaggerating. It is rare to remember anything before two years old, by which time we are significantly socialised. You just have to look at the cries for Barbie dolls and Action Men from toddlers to see how masculine and feminine traits are taught to children almost from the womb.

While understandable that, as a response to horrific homophobia that still prevails in most cultures and societies, some in the gay community wish to pass the buck for their choice of sexual identity to a rogue gene, it plays into the hands of reactionary geneticists whose agenda is terrifying. They are seeking to prove that those outside of the white, able-bodied heterosexual norm are inferior. We must not collude.

Being gay or lesbian is obviously not a choice like which sauce to have with your pasta, but more a mix of opportunity, luck, chance and, quite frankly, bravery. It is a positive choice, and we do not need anyone with a test tube telling us otherwise. Heterosexuals? Some of them are OK, but I wouldn't want my daughter marrying one.


Oh yes, this is just the sort of unbiased person I want writing reports on issues of sexuality and sexual relations as CLEARLY she does not have any personal issues or axes to grind.....