NationStates Jolt Archive

Domenica Niehoff

And I'm feeling as if the world is a little less for the loss now.

The only article (http://http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/leute/0,1518,607275,00.html) I could find on it is in German, I'm afraid.
I don't think many here will have heard of her, but when I was growing up in Germany in the 80s she was quite a colourful public figure. At the time, she had stopped working as a prostitute herself and was working very closely with Alice Schwarzer (another leader of the feminist movement in Germany) to get prostitution not only legalised, but make it a recognised profession. She was working as a street worker, and found that prostitutes, while not breaking any laws themselves, were exposed to violence and abuse without actual legal protection. They were paying taxes like everyone else, but were receiving far less social services in return (no health insurance, no unemployment benefits, no pensions, etc.)
Also, there was no legislation in place for regulating the employer-employee relationship in bordels, leading to further exploitation of the working women.

She has acheived a lot in her life, it is down to her work in making these shortcomings of the social system public that laws were introduced to protect prostitutes, to guarantee them social security and health care, as well as finally recognising prostitution as a profession.

I'm not one for medals myself, but in her case I would like to see her receiving the Bundesverdienstkreuz posthum.

It's nice having better odds of not being murdered, but really, not being a prostitute at all is a better employment situation, I think. We ought to discourage the industry, rather than cater to it.

It's nice having better odds of not being murdered, but really, not being a prostitute at all is a better employment situation, I think. We ought to discourage the industry, rather than cater to it.

Where there's demand, there will be supply.
It's called the oldest profession in the world for a reason.

Yes, not being a prostitute is for most people preferable to being a prostitute, but that's no reason to make the life of prostitutes more miserable by denying them the same legal protection granted to any other worker.

Where there's demand, there will be supply.
It's called the oldest profession in the world for a reason.

Yes, not being a prostitute is for most people preferable to being a prostitute, but that's no reason to make the life of prostitutes more miserable by denying them the same legal protection granted to any other worker.

You'll never eliminate the demand for prostitution, but legal sanctions can limit it. Around here, the police publish names of all people caught with prostitutes, and auction off their vehicles, for example. They say it has been effective.

It's nice having better odds of not being murdered, but really, not being a prostitute at all is a better employment situation, I think. We ought to discourage the industry, rather than cater to it.

It's called the world's oldest profession for a reason. It's been around longer than religion and it'll continue to be around at least, oh, until the world ends. As a profession it deserves at least as much respect as the law (certainly, it provides for more basic needs than the law) and it's practitioners deserve far more than they're getting. Training in the profession, medical benefits, retirement benefits, legal protections (possibly unionization), job retraining when disability, age or disease makes the profession non-viable, all should be given. I hardly call this catering to the industry, I call this facing reality.

You'll never eliminate the demand for prostitution, but legal sanctions can limit it. Around here, the police publish names of all people caught with prostitutes, and auction off their vehicles, for example. They say it has been effective.

Why would there be an interest to limit it? All you do is force it underground, with prostitutes themselves being the ultimate victims of not having legal protection and being exposed to even more violence.

You'll never eliminate the demand for prostitution, but legal sanctions can limit it. Around here, the police publish names of all people caught with prostitutes, and auction off their vehicles, for example. They say it has been effective.

Only at driving it elsewhere or putting a different face on it. It'll still be there just more cleverly disguised and worse for the women involved.

Aww, and I have an extra twenty - a free night, and a plane ticket to Deutschland all lined up for this weekend.

Aww, and I have an extra twenty - a free night, and a plane ticket to Deutschland all lined up for this weekend.

And you were hoping to spend the night with a 63-year-old ex-whore? :p

Only at driving it elsewhere or putting a different face on it. It'll still be there just more cleverly disguised and worse for the women involved.

Only if you accept that demand for prostitution can't be limited. Fewer cusomers mean fewer prositutes, and the fewer there are, the easier the problem is to monitor.

And you were hoping to spend the night with a 63-year-old ex-whore? :p

The night? Heh, more like the entire weekend

But I say 'night' to make me seem less desperate. ;)

Only if you accept that demand for prostitution can't be limited. Fewer cusomers mean fewer prositutes, and the fewer there are, the easier the problem is to monitor.

Assuming you consider it a problem.

Prostitution is only a problem because a patriarchal, theocratic male establishment made it a problem. I suspect that you are, or would like to be, part of that establishment (they're called Republicans).

I'm sure you're not very aware of ancient history, but the Assyrians actually made prostitution part of their religion. All unmarried girls were required to serve in the temple for a year - in a sexual capacity - before they could marry.

The biggest problem with prostitution is that it is illegal. The other problems with prostitution are easily fixed with the same protections and regulations that any other professional person has access to.

Only if you accept that demand for prostitution can't be limited. Fewer cusomers mean fewer prositutes, and the fewer there are, the easier the problem is to monitor.

Neither the legalisation nor recognising it as profession have triggered an increase in demand in Germany.
Try again.

Assuming you consider it a problem.

Prostitution is only a problem because a patriarchal, theocratic male establishment made it a problem. I suspect that you are, or would like to be, part of that establishment (they're called Republicans).

I'm sure you're not very aware of ancient history, but the Assyrians actually made prostitution part of their religion. All unmarried girls were required to serve in the temple for a year - in a sexual capacity - before they could marry.

The biggest problem with prostitution is that it is illegal. The other problems with prostitution are easily fixed with the same protections and regulations that any other professional person has access to.

The best approach would be a holistic one: not just punishing "johns," but also helping prostitutes find resources that can help them. So no, it isn't "prostitution is bad, because a woman's role is X and never Y," it's more like the methods of abating heroin abuse: punish dealers and traffickers, but also help users transition to a healthier lifestyle.

The best approach would be a holistic one: not just punishing "johns," but also helping prostitutes find resources that can help them. So no, it isn't "prostitution is bad, because a woman's role is X and never Y," it's more like the methods of abating heroin abuse: punish dealers and traffickers, but also help users transition to a healthier lifestyle.

The difference is, heroine is a poison and will eventually kill you.
Prostitution is a profession which, if prostitutes have the chance of going about it safely and protected, will feed them and their families.

The difference is, heroine is a poison and will eventually kill you.
Prostitution is a profession which, if prostitutes have the chance of going about it safely and protected, will feed them and their families.

I was comparing abatement methods, not drawing an analogy between the drug and the practice of prostitution.

I was comparing abatement methods, not drawing an analogy between the drug and the practice of prostitution.

Which brings us back to the original question : What interest do you have in abating it in the first place?

Which brings us back to the original question : What interest do you have in abating it in the first place?

The interest of all social work: improving the human condition; improving communities; ending the cycle of victimization that very often brings a person to prostitution. Those kinds of things.

The interest of all social work: improving the human condition; improving communities; ending the cycle of victimization that very often brings a person to prostitution. Those kinds of things.

How is prostitution afflicting the human condition?
And don't you think that legalising it, providing protection, health care, job securities etc is going to do much more to end victimisation than simply forcing the profession underground, where there's no protection for the women?

How is prostitution afflicting the human condition?
And don't you think that legalising it, providing protection, health care, job securities etc is going to do much more to end victimisation than simply forcing the profession underground, where there's no protection for the women?

Again, I think demand can be limited through enforcement. Legalization doesn't dispel the criminal milieu that surrounds prostitution, or lessen the tragedy of it. It's an attempt to put a lid on something, so that we can ignore it. Nothing is solved that way.

Assuming you consider it a problem.

Prostitution is only a problem because a patriarchal, theocratic male establishment made it a problem. I suspect that you are, or would like to be, part of that establishment (they're called Republicans).

Well, their are the health risks, for a start.

Also, an apparently unjustified assumption about the poster to whom you are responding. Someone can dislike prostitution with out being a theocrat, a sexist, or a Republican.

I'm sure you're not very aware of ancient history,

Well look, is it another unjustified assumption?

Unless you can show evidence that the poster in question lacks knowledge of ancient history, and that this has any bearing on the debate in question, I'd say this is a borderline ad hominum.

but the Assyrians actually made prostitution part of their religion. All unmarried girls were required to serve in the temple for a year - in a sexual capacity - before they could marry.

Legalized prostitution is one thing. I might even agree with it. Mandatory prostitution prior to marriage is something else altogether. In fact, that sounds like a sign of a "patriarchal, theocratic male establishment" to me, though I suppose I could be missing something.

I don't know if you're are trying to justify the Assyrian system or not, but you might want to think about defending your position with an example that sounds very much like simple sex slavery.

Again, I think demand can be limited through enforcement. Legalization doesn't dispel the criminal milieu that surrounds prostitution, or lessen the tragedy of it. It's an attempt to put a lid on something, so that we can ignore it. Nothing is solved that way.

Demand hasn't increased by removing enforcement. So what makes you think it'll decrease with enforcement?

Also, the way to remove the illegal activities surrounding prostitution is to provide a legal area in which prostitutes can work without fear, without health risks, and most importantly while being supported by the law. That way, there is no need for them to fall back on pimps for protection, and a way to avoid the violence.

Demand hasn't increased by removing enforcement. So what makes you think it'll decrease with enforcement?

Also, the way to remove the illegal activities surrounding prostitution is to provide a legal area in which prostitutes can work without fear, without health risks, and most importantly while being supported by the law. That way, there is no need for them to fall back on pimps for protection, and a way to avoid the violence.

Demand decreases when the people responsible for the demand (buyers) are the targets of enforcment, rather than the victims (prostitutes), who will, like a few people have said, move a block or two away and then return later. This is a newer approach, and as I said, I'm told that it's supposed to be effective.

Demand decreases when the people responsible for the demand (buyers) are the targets of enforcment, rather than the victims (prostitutes), who will, like a few people have said, move a block or two away and then return later. This is a newer approach, and as I said, I'm told that it's supposed to be effective.

It's not exactly new, Sweden has been doing it for ages now. Their success seems somewhat limited, as the result is pretty much what you said yourself.
Once the police is found targeting one area, the prostitutes move to another. Also, what prostitute would actually contact the police after having been beaten up by a customer in such circumstances? She'd run herself straight out of business.

It's not exactly new, Sweden has been doing it for ages now. Their success seems somewhat limited, as the result is pretty much what you said yourself.
Once the police is found targeting one area, the prostitutes move to another. Also, what prostitute would actually contact the police after having been beaten up by a customer in such circumstances? She'd run herself straight out of business.

It's relatively new. To quote a British government study:

Brewer et al (2007) suggested that arrest reduces the likely demand for future prostitution by 70%. Research amongst participants of the Vancouver Police Departments Prostitution Offender Program (POP) also found that the biggest concerns about being stopped for hiring a prostitute were embarrassment (30%)and getting a criminal record (28%). However, while risk of arrest may be a deterrent, the perceived risk of arrest is low, meaning that any deterrent effect is limited. As the REA notes “when the risk of discovery is so low, even in the most visible sector of the market, the consequences of paying for sex are sufficiently remote as to be exciting, yet not sufficiently high as to discourage. Two studies (Cameron and Collins 2003 and Brewer 2007), suggest that shifting the balance of risk could prove an effective strategy, although this may still be limited to the more visible aspects of the market.

Those are recent studies, and the jury is probably still out. But it's about targetting the victimizer, rather than punishing the victim, which is as it should be, I think. As to legalization, it doesn't end victimization, and never will. The same study:

In an effort to reduce exploitation and abuse, the Netherlands decriminalised brothels and street-prostitution in licensed premises or areas in 2000. Ministers visited the Netherlands in order to assess the impact of this measure. They found that the Dutch policy on prostitution did not appear to have resulted in a reduction in the number of people involved in prostitution, and the Dutch agencies still haveconcerns about the numbers of people being trafficked for sexual exploitation and the number of under-18s involved in the sector. The research by the London Metropolitan University concluded that the change had legitimised exploitative practices: “women who sell sex have to contend with long standing marginalisation and exploitative practices that are embedded within the political economy of the sex industry” and that regulation had not ended violence against prostitutes and had not reduced trafficking or the involvement of organised crime in prostitution.

As there is no evidence to suggest that overall demand, would be reduced through a licensing system, adopting the Dutch approach is not considered to be an effective option.

Link: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/tackling-demand?view=Binary

Again, I think demand can be limited through enforcement.

You don't really understand what the word demand means do you?

Demand is want. It's nothing to do with supply or people who are going about getting it. In the business of prostitution, demand is primarily horny people who want hassle free sex and have money to burn. Just that. That's all demand is. Want for something.

What do you propose to limit that? Employ thought police?

Go after the buyers you say. All that does is drive demand underground. It won't lessen, and people will come up with more inventive ways of getting what they want. Maybe less people will succeed, I'll not deny that, but it doesn't mean the demand has gone away.

You don't really understand what the word demand means do you?

Demand is want. It's nothing to do with supply or people who are going about getting it. In the business of prostitution, demand is primarily horny people who want hassle free sex and have money to burn. Just that. That's all demand is. Want for something.

What do you propose to limit that? Employ thought police?

Go after the buyers you say. All that does is drive demand underground. It won't lessen, and people will come up with more inventive ways of getting what they want.

Obviously I (and law enforcement agencies around the world) think that demand in this case is elastic, depending on penalties and the perception of one's likelihood of being penalized. You're describing an inelastic sort of demand, and many studies say you're wrong.

Obviously I (and law enforcement agencies around the world) think that demand in this case is elastic, depending on penalties and the perception of one's likelihood of being penalized. You're describing an inelastic sort of demand, and many studies say you're wrong.

Demand for basic urge fulfillment is hardly ever going to be anything but a constant unless you're chemically altering people.

Demand for basic urge fulfillment is hardly ever going to be anything but a constant unless you're chemically altering people.

Desire to avoid public humilation, criminal prosecution, fines, job termination and loss of property are also very strong and very basic. Desire is only half of demand, at any rate: the other half, willingness to pay a price, is what's being manipulated, rather than one's instincts. But even that can be changed through marketing and good PR.

Aww.

It's called the world's oldest profession for a reason.
Yeah, and it is the same reason that people say that "The English and the Americans are a people seperated by a common language."
Because people think that repeating a cliche is pithy and clever.
It's been around longer than religion and it'll continue to be around at least, oh, until the world ends.
That's a very bold claim. Care to back it? (I mean that prostitution precedes religion, I have no doubt that the practice is unlikely to end).
Assuming you consider it a problem.

Prostitution is only a problem because a patriarchal, theocratic male establishment made it a problem. I suspect that you are, or would like to be, part of that establishment (they're called Republicans).
1. Nobody is called a Republican outside the United States.
2. Not all people who oppose prostitution are conservative men. There are a number of feminists who don't like idea of women being forced to sell their bodies.
I'm sure you're not very aware of ancient history, but the Assyrians actually made prostitution part of their religion. All unmarried girls were required to serve in the temple for a year - in a sexual capacity - before they could marry.
So... because an ancient culture practiced sexual slavery as part of their religion, that justifies ... what again?

Not all people who oppose prostitution are conservative men. There are a number of feminists who don't like idea of women being forced to sell their bodies.
Quite, though prostitution and forced prostitution are two very different things.

Quite, though prostitution and forced prostitution are two very different things.
How many women, even in Germany, woke up one day and said, "I want to have sex with complete strangers for money! It'll be great, I'll be alienated from many of my friends and family. I'll be at much greater risk to attacks or sexually transmitted diseases. I'm so excited, I can't wait to start!"
And how many of them got in over their heads with drugs, debts, or mental disorders? How nice for them that Germany is assisting their slide through the cracks.
And even, let's assume, that a woman wants to be a prostitute for whatever reason. There are still many arguments against it, Carol Pateman or Laurie Shrage, for instance, similarly see prostitution as a way for the patriarchy (ooh, there's that word again) to reinforce female subordination.

How many women, even in Germany, woke up one day and said, "I want to have sex with complete strangers for money! It'll be great, I'll be alienated from many of my friends and family. I'll be at much greater risk to attacks or sexually transmitted diseases. I'm so excited, I can't wait to start!"
And how many of them got in over their heads with drugs, debts, or mental disorders? How nice for them that Germany is assisting their slide through the cracks.
On no account am I condoning the current practice(s) of prostitution; I'm certainly not saying that the current set-up is liberating, conducive to women's lib, etc.

However, I don't see how prostitution is necessarily a bad thing. If properly regulated, and, just as importantly, rehabilitated in the public image as a respectable profession, I see few problems with it.

And even, let's assume, that a woman wants to be a prostitute for whatever reason. There are still many arguments against it, Carol Pateman or Laurie Shrage, for instance, similarly see prostitution as a way for the patriarchy (ooh, there's that word again) to reinforce female subordination.
Though I'm not familiar with these two specific thinkers, I'm familiar (I believe) with the broad position; and I find it dubious. I feel it's only a tenable position if one assumes that sex is in some way bad, or at least that a woman can never be sexually alluring/sexually active without in some way kow-towing to patriarchy.

Again, with the caveat that I'm not talking about current prostitution practices.

EDIT: Further, the position, I believe, takes a more general stance on the issue of whether one can legitimately use one's own body in labour, arguing that this is impossible. The position would not only render prostitution as immoral and alienating, but also such pursuits as being an academic lecturer.

On no account am I condoning the current practice(s) of prostitution; I'm certainly not saying that the current set-up is liberating, conducive to women's lib, etc.

However, I don't see how prostitution is necessarily a bad thing. If properly regulated, and, just as importantly, rehabilitated in the public image as a respectable profession, I see few problems with it.
And I see little to no chance that prostitution will ever be "rehabilitated in the public image." Every instance of ancient, respected prostitution that I've ever seen mentioned was as part of a religious ceremony, and I don't really see hierodules making a come back. Not that it should, because in most of these cases "sacred prostitution" is synonymous with "sexual slavery."
Though I'm not familiar with these two specific thinkers, I'm familiar (I believe) with the broad position; and I find it dubious. I feel it's only a tenable position if one assumes that sex is in some way bad, or at least that a woman can never be sexually alluring/sexually active without in some way kow-towing to patriarchy.

Again, with the caveat that I'm not talking about current prostitution practices.

EDIT: Further, the position, I believe, takes a more general stance on the issue of whether one can legitimately use one's own body in labour, arguing that this is impossible. The position would not only render prostitution as immoral and alienating, but also such pursuits as being an academic lecturer.
I'm not saying that those women are necessarily right, I am simply objecting to the idea that it is impossible for a non-patriarchal, non-theocratic, female, non-establishment figure to be inherently opposed to prostitution.
There are others who believe that prostitution helps make sex filthy by reducing it to a monetary exchange. Basically, taking a serious look at how the joke about "paying for dinner"="paying for sex" might be impacting male-female relationships.

And I see little to no chance that prostitution will ever be "rehabilitated in the public image." Every instance of ancient, respected prostitution that I've ever seen mentioned was as part of a religious ceremony, and I don't really see hierodules making a come back.
I fear 'rehabilitated' was the wrong choice of word. Again, I'm not clamouring for a return to Vestal Virgins.

However, as many societies become more comfortable with active sexuality, I see no reason why prostitution would necessarily remain taboo.

I'm not saying that those women are necessarily right, I am simply objecting to the idea that it is impossible for a non-patriarchal, non-theocratic, female, non-establishment figure to be inherently opposed to prostitution.
Oh, I quite agree with your objection.

Every instance of ancient, respected prostitution that I've ever seen mentioned was as part of a religious ceremony, and I don't really see hierodules making a come back.

The Japanese Oiran, and European courtesan/mistresses were generally not related to any religious ceremony and were considered to be highly respected positions and usually only dealt with the upper strata of society. Unsurprisingly, anyone in either position was expected to not just have the looks, but be intelligent and well versed in contemporary subjects since they doubled as companions/people to talk/gripe to.

I think it's something that exists and will always exists...but we shouldn't be honoring it. I mean, have you ever met prostitutes? They have some fucked up lives, which usually end up leading them into prostitution. Alot of them, in Europe notably, are also brought from Eastern Europe or beyond.

The Japanese Oiran, and European courtesan/mistresses were generally not related to any religious ceremony and were considered to be highly respected positions and usually only dealt with the upper strata of society. Unsurprisingly, anyone in either position was expected to not just have the looks, but be intelligent and well versed in contemporary subjects since they doubled as companions/people to talk/gripe to.

Courtesans, in Venice for example, were highly regarded and maintained respectable homes. They were pramours of important men and just because they earned their living by selling their bodies, they weren't regarded as lowly people.

Courtesans, in Venice for example, were highly regarded and maintained respectable homes. They were pramours of important men and just because they earned their living by selling their bodies, they weren't regarded as lowly people.

Paramours Nanatsu, Paramours.

Courtesans didn't just sell sex though. They were expected to be capable of holding meaningful discussions with their patrons in politics and other contemporary subjects, not to mention get along with their patrons wives. In effect, they were a class of pseudo nobility in itself. It's one of the reasons why they were generally so respected.

Sex workers support the legalisation of prostitution.

To those who wish to keep it illegal, or make it illegal in places like Germany:

Why do you ignore the wishes of the actual people affected by the legislation?

http://dimpost.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/ayn_rand1.jpg

Ooops. Sorry, wrong whore.

Pardon me, this is a New York street whore...

http://www.centurywalkingtours.com/AR1.jpg

How many women, even in Germany, woke up one day and said, "I want to have sex with complete strangers for money! It'll be great, I'll be alienated from many of my friends and family. I'll be at much greater risk to attacks or sexually transmitted diseases. I'm so excited, I can't wait to start!"
And how many of them got in over their heads with drugs, debts, or mental disorders? How nice for them that Germany is assisting their slide through the cracks.
And even, let's assume, that a woman wants to be a prostitute for whatever reason. There are still many arguments against it, Carol Pateman or Laurie Shrage, for instance, similarly see prostitution as a way for the patriarchy (ooh, there's that word again) to reinforce female subordination.

Well, I know of two of my then fellow-students, who used the money to finance their time at university.
Back then, I sincerly wished I had their courage, because they made good money indeed.

Paramours Nanatsu, Paramours.

Courtesans didn't just sell sex though. They were expected to be capable of holding meaningful discussions with their patrons in politics and other contemporary subjects, not to mention get along with their patrons wives. In effect, they were a class of pseudo nobility in itself. It's one of the reasons why they were generally so respected.

Spelling mistake, my bad.

Indeed. They were expected to be well-learned and most of them also were excellent musicians.

A courtesan is mainly what one may call a high-class prostitute. A courtesan would offer her charms and sexual pleasures, generally and more usually to people of substantial wealth, in return for a good and respectable living, especially during hard times of poverty. Sometimes a courtesan would herself have enough expensive possessions such as jewelry and clothing as to pass for a noblewoman. In mid-16th century usage, 'courtesan' referred to a mistress and/or trained artisan of dance and singing, especially one associated with wealthy, powerful, or upper-class men who provided luxuries and status in exchange for companionship. In Renaissance Europe, courtesans played an important role in upper-class society, sometimes taking the place of wives at social functions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Courtesan

Sex workers support the legalisation of prostitution.

To those who wish to keep it illegal, or make it illegal in places like Germany:

Why do you ignore the wishes of the actual people affected by the legislation?

^^This.

I sincerely doubt that providing legal protection for prostitutes will encourage women to take up the profession. However, it is a way of helping those who do to do so in a comparatively safe way.

You'll never eliminate the demand for prostitution, but legal sanctions can limit it. Around here, the police publish names of all people caught with prostitutes, and auction off their vehicles, for example. They say it has been effective.
and where is this, pray tell?

got escort services? how about relaxation parlors? any increase in massage places or spas in your city?

And you were hoping to spend the night with a 63-year-old ex-whore? :p
Oh, I can imagine the stories she could tell...

Demand decreases when the people responsible for the demand (buyers) are the targets of enforcment, rather than the victims (prostitutes), who will, like a few people have said, move a block or two away and then return later. This is a newer approach, and as I said, I'm told that it's supposed to be effective. a block or two? boy are you blind...

Pope Lando II. you should be for the legalization of prostitution for one reason. it's the best way to kill it. think about smoking. how much taxation there is for buying cigs? you can legalize it and then bury it in red tape and taxes. hear me out...

Because it deals with the possible exchange of body fluids, you can institute tons of health regulations, fees, insurance, licencing and penalties. you have the normal paperwork that all businesses have to apply for, as well as upkeep of said licencing. you have (in the USA) OSHA which demands clean and safe working environments, so no more street walkers with back alley jobs and that adds overhead costs... which will be passed on to the client. so gone will be the days of the $50 handjob and hello starting prices of $200. and because it's legal, non-licenced workers can be hit with more fees and harsher punishments. also pimps who bitchslap their employees will be put behind bars and open for law suits from their employees for creating a 'harsh working environment'. put in a clause to protect those 'forced into the business' and you can effectively rescue victims of the slave trade as well as create another tool to shut them down. ;)

Angela Merkel's died?

Never heard of her. I guess it's because I was born in '94.

Gam-Gam was a Whore?!

Pope Lando II. you should be for the legalization of prostitution for one reason. it's the best way to kill it. think about smoking. how much taxation there is for buying cigs? you can legalize it and then bury it in red tape and taxes. hear me out...

Because it deals with the possible exchange of body fluids, you can institute tons of health regulations, fees, insurance, licencing and penalties. you have the normal paperwork that all businesses have to apply for, as well as upkeep of said licencing. you have (in the USA) OSHA which demands clean and safe working environments, so no more street walkers with back alley jobs and that adds overhead costs... which will be passed on to the client. so gone will be the days of the $50 handjob and hello starting prices of $200. and because it's legal, non-licenced workers can be hit with more fees and harsher punishments. also pimps who bitchslap their employees will be put behind bars and open for law suits from their employees for creating a 'harsh working environment'. put in a clause to protect those 'forced into the business' and you can effectively rescue victims of the slave trade as well as create another tool to shut them down. ;)

That's exactly it, though. If you notice the study I cited a page or so back, there's evidence that enforcement, rather than legalization, is the best course. I understand the analogy you're using and what you're saying, but in some cases, enforcement really does curtail demand; a lot of people seem to have the impression that prostitution is an inelastic good, and that you can't do anything about the demand for it for that reason. I just don't think that's the case.

How many women, even in Germany, woke up one day and said, "I want to have sex with complete strangers for money! It'll be great, I'll be alienated from many of my friends and family. I'll be at much greater risk to attacks or sexually transmitted diseases. I'm so excited, I can't wait to start!"
And how many of them got in over their heads with drugs, debts, or mental disorders? How nice for them that Germany is assisting their slide through the cracks.
And even, let's assume, that a woman wants to be a prostitute for whatever reason. There are still many arguments against it, Carol Pateman or Laurie Shrage, for instance, similarly see prostitution as a way for the patriarchy (ooh, there's that word again) to reinforce female subordination.

Exactly.

Makes me wonder, incidentally, to what degree my opposition to the practice was influenced by Dr. Shrage. She was my professor for social and political philosophy many years ago.

Angela Merkel's died?
http://morehockeylesswar.org/blog/images/bush-merkel.jpg
Not dead, just couldn't handle being a woman anymore after this.
Dead in a fashion then, i guess. *shrug*

And even, let's assume, that a woman wants to be a prostitute for whatever reason. There are still many arguments against it, Carol Pateman or Laurie Shrage, for instance, similarly see prostitution as a way for the patriarchy (ooh, there's that word again) to reinforce female subordination.

Why is it that everybody here automatically assumes all prostitutes are female?
There's a good-size protion of the market targeted at gays and at women themselves. I think if anything, claiming that prostitution is a patriarchal institution just shows your own patriarchal mindset.

Why is it that everybody here automatically assumes all prostitutes are female?
There's a good-size protion of the market targeted at gays and at women themselves. I think if anything, claiming that prostitution is a patriarchal institution just shows your own patriarchal mindset.

What percentage?

..and what percentage of customers, whether the prostitute is male or female, are male?

Very low to the first, very high to the second I would expect, I'd like to see some figures if you think it's in anyway equal.

Sex workers support the legalisation of prostitution.

To those who wish to keep it illegal, or make it illegal in places like Germany:

Why do you ignore the wishes of the actual people affected by the legislation?

All prostitutes?

Or just a subset who did not come to harm, or weren't coerced as opposed to the majority?

I'm sure I can find examples of slaves supporting slavery 'master keeps my family fed good and proper', why oh why do I ignore their wishes and not want to legalise slavery?

What percentage?

..and what percentage of customers, whether the prostitute is male or female, are male?

Very low to the first, very high to the second I would expect, I'd like to see some figures if you think it's in anyway equal.

So men having sex with men is enforcing patriarchal structures?
I never claimed it was equal, I merely pointed out that there is a sizable segment of prostitutes that isn't female.

All prostitutes?

Or just a subset who did not come to harm, or weren't coerced as opposed to the majority?

I'm sure I can find examples of slaves supporting slavery 'master keeps my family fed good and proper', why oh why do I ignore their wishes and not want to legalise slavery?

Looking into Domenica's history, she was abused and she did suffer from violent behaviour from pimps. Actually, both herself and her mother did.
That's exactly why she stepped up to gain legal recognition and protection for herself, to allow her to fight back and protect herself.

And that slavery comparison is completely made of fail.

That's exactly it, though. If you notice the study I cited a page or so back, there's evidence that enforcement, rather than legalization, is the best course. I understand the analogy you're using and what you're saying, but in some cases, enforcement really does curtail demand; a lot of people seem to have the impression that prostitution is an inelastic good, and that you can't do anything about the demand for it for that reason. I just don't think that's the case.

Enforcement won't work because that won't kill demand. HIGHER prices will kill demand. all enforcement will do is shift the market to different locations and put them under different disguises. and it's that action of Enforcement that allows Pimps to rule their 'workers' with fear because they know they can't go anywhere else.

Going after the Johns won't kill demand. all it will do is reduce the quality of the 'johns' to those deranged persons who won't mind slapping a gal around while having a good time. there are forums and sites out there that show how one can go about getting a prostitute in areas that boast high enforcement. yes, even in your 'much lauded' area of high enforcement.

So men having sex with men is enforcing patriarchal structures?
I never claimed it was equal, I merely pointed out that there is a sizable segment of prostitutes that isn't female.

Sizable?

What constitutes sizable?

Any figures?

Wiki says comparatively small, mostly servicing males, a few acting as escorts for females.

I'm just saying it's a weak argument this - oh there's male prostitutes as well.

EDIT: Just for clarification, I'm for decriminalisation for prostitutes, offering them full legal protection and maintaining the criminalisation for the customer, not for the act at any time - as in the police don't just act when they see evidence of a transaction - but at anytime a claim is made, whether of violence or non-payment or whatever - the customer is automatically guilty for visiting with a set fine/sentence, the merits of whatever claim taken as equal before the law.

Sizable?

What constitutes sizable?

Any figures?

Wiki says comparatively small, mostly servicing males, a few acting as escorts for females.

I'm just saying it's a weak argument this - oh there's male prostitutes as well.

Checking for figure... in the meantime, this (http://www.shvoong.com/social-sciences/1861263-male-prostitution/)might help you get a better understanding of the proportions and prevalence.

Edit :
No first-hand numbers, but if the numbers of arrests are anything to go by :

[quote]Average prostitution arrests include 70% females, 20% percent male prostitutes and 10% customers[/qoute]
http://www.bayswan.org/stats.html

That's US only, though.

Checking for figure... in the meantime, this (http://www.shvoong.com/social-sciences/1861263-male-prostitution/)might help you get a better understanding of the proportions and prevalence.

Just as a note, I added an edit of my views for context, no need to backpage, I add here:

EDIT: Just for clarification, I'm for decriminalisation for prostitutes, offering them full legal protection and maintaining the criminalisation for the customer, not for the act at any time - as in the police don't just act when they see evidence of a transaction - but at anytime a claim is made, whether of violence or non-payment or whatever - the customer is automatically guilty for visiting with a set fine/sentence, the merits of whatever claim taken as equal before the law.

Just as a note, I added an edit of my views for context, no need to backpage, I add here:

EDIT: Just for clarification, I'm for decriminalisation for prostitutes, offering them full legal protection and maintaining the criminalisation for the customer, not for the act at any time - as in the police don't just act when they see evidence of a transaction - but at anytime a claim is made, whether of violence or non-payment or whatever - the customer is automatically guilty for visiting with a set fine/sentence, the merits of whatever claim taken as equal before the law.

And what would that acheive? The prostitute would still be hurt when her customers can be punished just for having used her services. As a result, no prostitute would dare approach the police about abusive customers, as she would face losing her livelyhood in the process.

And what would that acheive? The prostitute would still be hurt when her customers can be punished just for having used her services. As a result, no prostitute would dare approach the police about abusive customers, as she would face losing her livelyhood in the process.

No, they are punished automatically on the service, the claim is considered separately.

So the customer can be done both for the service as well as the abuse, the service is simply automatic.

The fault is in my side for not being clear.

No, they are punished automatically on the service, the claim is considered separately.

So the customer can be done both for the service as well as the abuse, the service is simply automatic.

The fault is in my side for not being clear.

U-hu... so assume a prostitute brings up charges for a customer abusing her.
The customer gets punished for both the abuse, and the service.
Press hears of it, and the prostitute can never find another customer again, because the customers worry they might be reported to the police as well.
Result : The prostitute will stay well clear of the police, and prefer the protection of a pimp, who will beat up the abuser, but leaves regular customers in peace.

U-hu... so assume a prostitute brings up charges for a customer abusing her.
The customer gets punished for both the abuse, and the service.
Press hears of it, and the prostitute can never find another customer again, because the customers worry they might be reported to the police as well.
Result : The prostitute will stay well clear of the police, and prefer the protection of a pimp, who will beat up the abuser, but leaves regular customers in peace.

Why wouldn't that happen under legalisation?

The difference, for me, is that the client thinks twice, more likely to choose a reputable prostitute as well as less likely to commit abuse.

It will always be a facet of society, the aim is to minimise abuse.

Why wouldn't that happen under legalisation?

Because if prostitution is legal, the prostitute can only report abusive customers. Regular customers don't have to fear the law.

So essentially, the prostitute has the law on her side if she gets hurt, same as any other citizen, but can still work in her trade without being hassled unnecessarily.

Because if prostitution is legal, the prostitute can only report abusive customers. Regular customers don't have to fear the law.

So essentially, the prostitute has the law on her side if she gets hurt, same as any other citizen, but can still work in her trade without being hassled unnecessarily.

I edited again, I'm flipping off replies while watching TV, I'll put more thought into any replies from here on in.

I edited again, I'm flipping off replies while watching TV, I'll put more thought into any replies from here on in.

I've seen the edit.
But I've also years ago in Germany seen a documentary about the Swedish approach, which is punishing the customer but not the prostitute.
Several Swedish prostitutes were interviewed and they all said the same : if you punish customers, you're out of business.
First of all you will get less customers, as they fear you might report them as well.
And secondly, especially if you're wokring the street, you'll be driven away by the other prostitutes, as they will fear for their own trade.
The only thing that remains to you is to move town.

One of the interviewed girls had gone through that, and said she would never report anyone to police again. If she got abused, she'd turn to a pimp.

I've seen the edit.
But I've also years ago in Germany seen a documentary about the Swedish approach, which is punishing the customer but not the prostitute.
Several Swedish prostitutes were interviewed and they all said the same : if you punish customers, you're out of business.
First of all you will get less customers, as they fear you might report them as well.
And secondly, especially if you're wokring the street, you'll be driven away by the other prostitutes, as they will fear for their own trade.
The only thing that remains to you is to move town.

One of the interviewed girls had gone through that, and said she would never report anyone to police again. If she got abused, she'd turn to a pimp.

Sure, but the issue is that people look at specific claims against the overall effects.

No matter the 'solution', it's very easy to find one or two people affected the wrong way, but that ignores the greater amount of people who've benefitted.

Here:

But the outcomes, as revealed in the Univ. of London study, in the states under review that had legalized or regulated prostitution were found to be just as discouraging or even more discouraging than the traditional all round criminalization. In each case the results were dramatic in the negative.

Legalization and/or regulation of prostitution, according to the study, led to:

A dramatic increase in all facets of the sex industry,
A dramatic increase in the involvement of organized crime in the sex industry,
A dramatic increase in child prostitution,
An explosion in the number of foreign women and girls trafficked into the region, and
Indications of an increase in violence against women.

In the state of Victoria, Australia, where a system of legalized, regulated brothels was established, there was such an explosion in the number of brothels that it immediately overwhelmed the system's ability to regulate them, and just as quickly these brothels became a mire of organized crime, corruption, and related crimes. In addition, surveys of the prostitutes working under systems of legalization and regulation find that the prostitutes themselves continue to feel coerced, forced, and unsafe in the business.

From here: http://www.justicewomen.com/cj_sweden.html

The real issue with prostitution is that it's a hidden industry, meaning there's not a lot of actual studies and, currently, a certain brand of feminist is conducting the majority of studies, which allows people to point fingers and claim, lesbians!

Men abuse women in marriage, which is completely legal - marriage that is - abuse will always occur.

So, you can say that this solution does not solve abuse, but legalisation causes far greater numbers of prostitution, for which the police remain overwhelmed.

I'd love to live in a society where prostitution was completely legal, not that I'd bother either way, but I don't, I might never.

Enforcement won't work because that won't kill demand. HIGHER prices will kill demand. all enforcement will do is shift the market to different locations and put them under different disguises. and it's that action of Enforcement that allows Pimps to rule their 'workers' with fear because they know they can't go anywhere else.

Going after the Johns won't kill demand. all it will do is reduce the quality of the 'johns' to those deranged persons who won't mind slapping a gal around while having a good time. there are forums and sites out there that show how one can go about getting a prostitute in areas that boast high enforcement. yes, even in your 'much lauded' area of high enforcement.

Higher prices will kill demand - you're right. The price of having your vehicle impounded, or being arrested and fined, can be prohibitive, to say the least. The nominal increase in price that you might see if prostitution were legalized can't compare to this, and legalization won't and doesn't stop illegal prostitution, which persists alongside legal establishments where those exist. All of the horrors of unregulated prostitution are what will go "underground," if prostitution is legalized, simply because the criminals who abuse prostitutes will seek out those who are unregulated for their purposes. The studies I cited earlier include very promising numbers as to the effect of enforcement on demand. I would like us to implement policies based on evidence of how best to limit demand for prostitution, and increased enforcement is the most promising avenue.

All prostitutes?

Or just a subset who did not come to harm, or weren't coerced as opposed to the majority?

I'm sure I can find examples of slaves supporting slavery 'master keeps my family fed good and proper', why oh why do I ignore their wishes and not want to legalise slavery?

Tell you what, when you have evidence that a amjority of sex workers don't want it legalised, then you can post a link to that evidence. Meanwhile, here is a site that has lots of links to different sex worker's organisations:
http://www.bayswan.org/

Tell me when you find one that supports criminalisation!

...

From here: http://www.justicewomen.com/cj_sweden.html

...

So, you can say that this solution does not solve abuse, but legalisation causes far greater numbers of prostitution, for which the police remain overwhelmed.

I'd love to live in a society where prostitution was completely legal, not that I'd bother either way, but I don't, I might never.

Rather than reading websites by people who think it's a good idea to see female sex workers as victims (they actually say that), I went to a website put together by sex workers in Sweden. There opinion of the law in Sweden is as follows:

In short you can say that the Swedish sex-purchase law has increased the risks and violence sexworkers experience in Sweden, and that the law against procuring or pimping further more makes it impossible for sexworkers to work in a safe and secure environment.

http://www.sans.nu/engelska/laws.htm

Tell you what, when you have evidence that a amjority of sex workers don't want it legalised, then you can post a link to that evidence. Meanwhile, here is a site that has lots of links to different sex worker's organisations:
http://www.bayswan.org/

There are many reasons why prostitutes would support legalisation, the most obvious one being an increased market, curbing the market curbs income. Yet there are too many tales such as this:

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/a-call-girls-story/

Many prostitutes need to make complicated psychological adjustments to justify the use of their body as a sexual transaction, many of which are helped along by childhood abuse, allowing them to disassociate from an early age. For the happy few, we legitamise the suffering of the many.

It's nice to think that sex is just another thing we do, like kicking a ball, but it's not.

There's certainly many sites featuring ex-prostitutes calling for more intelligent measures, from CATW onwards.

Rather than reading websites by people who think it's a good idea to see female sex workers as victims (they actually say that), I went to a website put together by sex workers in Sweden. There opinion of the law in Sweden is as follows:

Even as I fully believe there's those who have 'success', the growth in prevalence causes a growth in correlated abuse due to simple numbers, there will always be prostitution and there will always be abuse, the goal is to limit that abuse, limit the market because there's only a finite supply of people willing to be prostitutes but the demand is enormous and, in legitamising and condoning it, a blind eye can be turned because it's legitimate in the eyes of the public.

http://www.eaves4women.co.uk/Documents/Factsheets/Prostitution%20factsheet.pdf

Honestly, do people think that police will suddenly become invested in the protection of prostitutes due to legalisation? Christ, it can be hard enough to push through rape cases, domestic abuse cases, non-prostitute abuse that is simply not taken care of by the system.

If it's hard for an ordinary person to step forward and claim abuse, do you really think things will magically change on legalisation?

..and that's just in the West

I have to vote against legalizing prostitution .


http://prostitution.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=1315

"Germany is one of several European nations where prostitution is legal. Germany came late to this game, in 2002. In only four years, it built up a work force some 400,000 strong for its multibillion-dollar annual prostitution business...

My admiration for relaxed European attitudes toward sex comes to an excruciatingly cacophonous halt on the issue of legalized prostitution.

Women's-rights activists believe the German government's sanctioning of sex services for World Cup visitors will drive the illicit international trade in sex trafficking. This, in turn, could force thousands of unwilling women into prostitution.

Whether women enter the sex trade willingly or not, no government should sanction prostitution. By its very nature, prostitution is demeaning to women and encourages anti-social, some would say depraved, behavior by men.

...German officials... should ban prostitution altogether."



"In Sweden, prostitution is officially acknowledged as a form of male sexual violence against women and children. One of the cornerstones of Swedish policies against prostitution and trafficking in human beings is the focus on the root cause, the recognition that without men’s demand for and use of women and girls for sexual exploitation, the global prostitution industry would not be able flourish and expand.

Prostitution is a serious problem that is harmful, in particular, not only to the prostituted woman or child but also to society at large. Therefore, prostituted women and children are seen as victims of male violence who do not risk legal penalties. Instead, they have a right to assistance to escape prostitution."


"Behind the facade of a regulated industry, brothel prostitutes in Nevada are captive in conditions analogous to slavery. Women often are procured for the brothels from other areas by pimps who dump them at the house in order to collect the referral fee. Women report working in shifts commonly as long as 12 hours, even when ill, menstruating or pregnant, with no right to refuse a customer who has requested them or to refuse the sexual act for which he has paid. The dozen or so prostitutes I interviewed said they are expected to pay the brothel room and board and a percentage of their earnings -- sometimes up to 50 percent. They also must pay for mandatory extras such as medical exams, assigned clothing and fines incurred for breaking house rules. And, contrary to the common claim that the brothel will protect women from the dangerous, crazy clients on the streets, rapes and assaults by customers are covered up by the management."

There are many reasons why prostitutes would support legalisation, the most obvious one being an increased market, curbing the market curbs income. Yet there are too many tales such as this:

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/19/a-call-girls-story/

....

Wow. One opinion piece with one anecdote. I asked for evidence that a majority of sex workers don't want it legalised.

There's certainly many sites featuring ex-prostitutes calling for more intelligent measures, from CATW onwards.

Can you provide links, please?

Even as I fully believe there's those who have 'success', the growth in prevalence causes a growth in correlated abuse due to simple numbers, there will always be prostitution and there will always be abuse, the goal is to limit that abuse, limit the market because there's only a finite supply of people willing to be prostitutes but the demand is enormous and, in legitamising and condoning it, a blind eye can be turned because it's legitimate in the eyes of the public.

You could substitute 'parenting' or 'driving a car' for 'prostitution' in this sentence, and it would still be true. Should we then criminalise parenting or driving a car?

http://www.eaves4women.co.uk/Documents/Factsheets/Prostitution%20factsheet.pdf

Are you trying to prove something with that link?

Honestly, do people think that police will suddenly become invested in the protection of prostitutes due to legalisation? Christ, it can be hard enough to push through rape cases, domestic abuse cases, non-prostitute abuse that is simply not taken care of by the system.

Good thing no one's arguing that.

Legalisation is one step in making sex workers safer. We also have to start accepting the fact that they are fully capable human beings capable of deciding what is best for them. And we also have to get rid of the sexism in our society that makes it difficult to prosecute cases of abuse against women, not just sex workers.

Legalising sex work doesn't make all the problems go away, it just removes one layer of stigma so that instead of being damned for being a 'whore' and a woman, they're only damned for being a woman, like half of our society.

Not to mention that most of the saex workers involved in the struggle to legalise sex work are also feminists, and are also part of our struggle to get rid of the stigma attached to the feminine.

If it's hard for an ordinary person to step forward and claim abuse, do you really think things will magically change on legalisation?

..and that's just in the West.

What does that mean? Those dirty Orientals are far worse? :rolleyes:

Higher prices will kill demand - you're right. The price of having your vehicle impounded, or being arrested and fined, can be prohibitive, to say the least. The nominal increase in price that you might see if prostitution were legalized can't compare to this, and legalization won't and doesn't stop illegal prostitution, which persists alongside legal establishments where those exist. yet Prostitution persists in cities that use those measures.
All of the horrors of unregulated prostitution are what will go "underground," if prostitution is legalized, simply because the criminals who abuse prostitutes will seek out those who are unregulated for their purposes.possibly, tho now you will have legal prostitutes also being on the lookout because those 'underground prostitutes' will be
1) stealing jobs from them
2) allowing abusive customers to roam free
3) those 'underground illegal prostitues' will be hurting the business.

which is still better than creating a situation where your 'illegal prostutues' will be trapped in that situation because the 'criminals' won't care if their cars are impounded etc... in fact, the situation would be worse because the pimps would blame such arrests and the loss of business on their girls who will have no where to run.
The studies I cited earlier include very promising numbers as to the effect of enforcement on demand. I would like us to implement policies based on evidence of how best to limit demand for prostitution, and increased enforcement is the most promising avenue.except your studies does not show that it's effective in stopping prostitution nor traffiking.


Brewer et al (2007) suggested that arrest reduces the likely demand for future prostitution by 70%. Research amongst participants of the Vancouver Police Departments Prostitution Offender Program (POP) also found that the biggest concerns about being stopped for hiring a prostitute were embarrassment (30%)and getting a criminal record (28%). However, while risk of arrest may be a deterrent, the perceived risk of arrest is low, meaning that any deterrent effect is limited. As the REA notes “when the risk of discovery is so low, even in the most visible sector of the market, the consequences of paying for sex are sufficiently remote as to be exciting, yet not sufficiently high as to discourage. Two studies (Cameron and Collins 2003 and Brewer 2007), suggest that shifting the balance of risk could prove an effective strategy, although this may still be limited to the more visible aspects of the market.

even your study admits it will only affect the Visible aspects of Prostitution. Nothing preventing the young and traffiked

In an effort to reduce exploitation and abuse, the Netherlands decriminalised brothels and street-prostitution in licensed premises or areas in 2000. Ministers visited the Netherlands in order to assess the impact of this measure. They found that the Dutch policy on prostitution did not appear to have resulted in a reduction in the number of people involved in prostitution, and the Dutch agencies still have concerns about the numbers of people being trafficked for sexual exploitation and the number of under-18s involved in the sector. The research by the London Metropolitan University concluded that the change had legitimised exploitative practices: “women who sell sex have to contend with long standing marginalisation and exploitative practices that are embedded within the political economy of the sex industry” and that regulation had not ended violence against prostitutes and had not reduced trafficking or the involvement of organised crime in prostitution.by regulating and creating reporting systems that protect the callers (like crime stoppers) you can eliminate those problem areas. what's the Dutch regulations for those areas? Give me specific sources that outline procedures and not just a generalized "it's still illegal."
and with the proper legislation, you can work on removing those practices.
and the purpose of the Dutch regulation was to what... regulate it to death or to just make it legal?

Wow. One opinion piece with one anecdote. I asked for evidence that a majority of sex workers don't want it legalised.

I'm simply explaining why you're far more likely to find prostitutes supporting legalisation, it's in their interest as it means a bigger market, along with greater abuse as a simple percentage of those numbers - regardless of what one might say about Sweden, figures dropped from 25, 000 to 2, 500.

Deep justification is often required to be a prostitute, some say they're 'doing a service' for men, some say it 'empowers' them, though many later realise that the person who pays always has the power, same for any business - and where a business is desperate for cash, it'll do anything.

Can you provide links, please?

http://www.catwinternational.org/

You could substitute 'parenting' or 'driving a car' for 'prostitution' in this sentence, and it would still be true. Should we then criminalise parenting or driving a car?

False analogy, the decision to drive a car or be a parent is vastly different to the ways by which people become prostitutes.

Are you trying to prove something with that link?

Yes, that legalisation has failed where tried, aside from NZ, which has specific geographic isolation coupled with a distributed and low population.

Good thing no one's arguing that.

Legalisation is one step in making sex workers safer. We also have to start accepting the fact that they are fully capable human beings capable of deciding what is best for them. And we also have to get rid of the sexism in our society that makes it difficult to prosecute cases of abuse against women, not just sex workers.

Legalising sex work doesn't make all the problems go away, it just removes one layer of stigma so that instead of being damned for being a 'whore' and a woman, they're only damned for being a woman, like half of our society.

Not to mention that most of the saex workers involved in the struggle to legalise sex work are also feminists, and are also part of our struggle to get rid of the stigma attached to the feminine.

I don't think legalisation equates to stigma, if anything, by bringing it into the open, it increases stigma, walk through the red light district of Amsterdam and tell me that it's a shrine to equal rights.

What does that mean? Those dirty Orientals are far worse? :rolleyes:

No, where supply is limited in the West, where do you think it's sourced from?

I work in Wanchai, HK, the Red light district, the US Navy were in town last night, that was fun. Even in the West, even where legalised, prostitution is very much tied with trafficking and criminal gangs.

I'm simply explaining why you're far more likely to find prostitutes supporting legalisation, it's in their interest as it means a bigger market, along with greater abuse as a simple percentage of those numbers - regardless of what one might say about Sweden, figures dropped from 25, 000 to 2, 500.

Deep justification is often required to be a prostitute, some say they're 'doing a service' for men, some say it 'empowers' them, though many later realise that the person who pays always has the power, same for any business - and where a business is desperate for cash, it'll do anything.

So, you're admitting that a majority of sex workers support legalisation, but you think that they are doing it for the wrong reasons? Doesn't that strike you as a bit judgemental? What makes you more intelligent about the siutaion than the sex workers themselves?

http://www.catwinternational.org/

Those are ex-sex workers? Most sex workers don't believe that "all prostitution exploits women, regardless of women's consent."

Maybe you meant to claim that there are organisations that support your idea that all sex workers are victims.

False analogy, the decision to drive a car or be a parent is vastly different to the ways by which people become prostitutes.

You were claiming that a higher rate of 'x' creates more abuse, therefore we should criminalise 'x'. I can put the phrase 'gun ownership' or 'drinking alcohol' in there, and it wouldn't change the logic of the argument.

Please explain why sex work is fundamentally different from any of these other practices.

Yes, that legalisation has failed where tried, aside from NZ, which has specific geographic isolation coupled with a distributed and low population.

Then quote the relevant text where it expalins that.

I don't think legalisation equates to stigma, if anything, by bringing it into the open, it increases stigma, walk through the red light district of Amsterdam and tell me that it's a shrine to equal rights.

You're right. Legalisation does not equate to stigma. Criminalisation does. You are arguing for criminalisation. Why are you arguing for added stigma to sex workers?

Oh wait, you're contradicting yourself. You think legalisation causes stigma. Too bad the sex workers directly affected (i.e. the ones who have to deal with the stigma) don't agree with you.

No, where supply is limited in the West, where do you think it's sourced from?

I work in Wanchai, HK, the Red light district, the US Navy were in town last night, that was fun. Even in the West, even where legalised, prostitution is very much tied with trafficking and criminal gangs.

Do you have any evidence for your claim that legal sex work is controlled by criminal orgainsations?

*snip*

You can read my links with the mindset of simply disagreeing or with an open mind, I'm more interested in discussion than point-counterpoint.

I want to switch this around and provide another perspective, that of the men who visit prostitutes.

http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/documents/Challenging_Men's_Demand.pdf

Look at the quotes by men on this, and, beyond that, look at where they visit, the places where it's legalised, legalisation increases prevalence and by that, increases abuse and, further, substantiates the unequal view of women.

Think of the men who visit and why, having read the link thoroughly, we're not talking of the majority of men, we're talking of those who will visit prostitutes, why they do, why they pay and the attitudes they have, it's not about the majority opinion, it's the minority opinion that visit and their attitudes and the effect that has on wider opinion of women.

The simple fact is that it’s all very easy to talk to prostitutes and hear their justification for why they chose their profession, it’s easy to decide that it’s just a choice over what one does with one’s body, yet if you understand the reasons why men, and whether the prostitute is male or female, the customer is nearly always male, engage in this.

Often you hear prostitutes talk about ‘empowerment’, they see the customer as weak, either sympathetically or with a certain contempt. Yet the payer is always the one with power and, for those who escape, the realization is that those men never saw the prostitute as a human, they see them as a tool, a means of easy gratification.

That mindset leads to the abuse visited on prostitutes, but what can often be the most traumatic is the realization that, as agents for clients, the prostitute never had power in the first place.

When we talk of choice, of rights over one’s body, too often the focus is on the prostitute herself, or himself, not on the type of person who visits them. Those people can fall under certain categories, the bit of fun on a lad’s night out, the lonely individual, the driven sexual male, the reasons why people visit prostitutes are not honest, they are not honest people in terms of paying for sex, it's not an equal thing to engage in.

This all ties in with the perspective of women, that they ‘never mean no’, that they ‘want it’, without the understanding that many are driven to prostitution through dire circumstances, as a last resort, that they have to switch off their mind while engaged in sex.

One can point to a minority who enjoy it, yet even those most ardent in support, the Tracy Quan’s of this world, have trouble with the idea of ‘empowerment’ because the fact remains, there’s the client and there’s the agent and the person who pays always has the power.

So, you're admitting that a majority of sex workers support legalisation, but you think that they are doing it for the wrong reasons? Doesn't that strike you as a bit judgemental? What makes you more intelligent about the siutaion than the sex workers themselves?

I can engage in Internet claims but what does it really prove?

You are arguing for criminalisation.

Sorry, where?

You can read my links with the mindset of simply disagreeing or with an open mind, I'm more interested in discussion than point-counterpoint.

So, no evidence for your claims, then?

I want to switch this around and provide another perspective, that of the men who visit prostitutes.

http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/documents/Challenging_Men's_Demand.pdf

Why do you keep ignoring the POV of the actual sex workers?

Look at the quotes by men on this, and, beyond that, look at where they visit, the places where it's legalised, legalisation increases prevalence and by that, increases abuse and, further, substantiates the unequal view of women.

Rather than read 40 pages of that PDF, why don't you quote the relevant bits of text that support your claim that legalisation increases abuse of women and further substantiates an unequal view.

Think of the men who visit and why, having read the link thoroughly, we're not talking of the majority of men, we're talking of those who will visit prostitutes, why they do, why they pay and the attitudes they have, it's not about the majority opinion, it's the minority opinion that visit and their attitudes and the effect that has on wider opinion of women.

I have no idea what you mean by this sentence.

The simple fact is that it’s all very easy to talk to prostitutes and hear their justification for why they chose their profession, it’s easy to decide that it’s just a choice over what one does with one’s body, yet if you understand the reasons why men, and whether the prostitute is male or female, the customer is nearly always male, engage in this.

Or this one.

Often you hear prostitutes talk about ‘empowerment’, they see the customer as weak, either sympathetically or with a certain contempt. Yet the payer is always the one with power and, for those who escape, the realization is that those men never saw the prostitute as a human, they see them as a tool, a means of easy gratification.

I like how you get to tell everyone what everyone's real motivations are.

That mindset leads to the abuse visited on prostitutes, but what can often be the most traumatic is the realization that, as agents for clients, the prostitute never had power in the first place.

Since you're not a sex worker, and you apparently ignore the sex worler's voice in all this, how can you possibly know that?

When we talk of choice, of rights over one’s body, too often the focus is on the prostitute herself, or himself, not on the type of person who visits them. Those people can fall under certain categories, the bit of fun on a lad’s night out, the lonely individual, the driven sexual male, the reasons why people visit prostitutes are not honest, they are not honest people in terms of paying for sex, it's not an equal thing to engage in.

All johns are dishonest? Generalise much?

This all ties in with the perspective of women, that they ‘never mean no’, that they ‘want it’, without the understanding that many are driven to prostitution through dire circumstances, as a last resort, that they have to switch off their mind while engaged in sex.

One can point to a minority who enjoy it, yet even those most ardent in support, the Tracy Quan’s of this world, have trouble with the idea of ‘empowerment’ because the fact remains, there’s the client and there’s the agent and the person who pays always has the power.

First, legalisation of sex work does not tie into abusive views of women. Second, it makes it easier for those who are forced into sex work to get out of it. Third, legalisation inevitably and inherently gives more legal power to the sex worker.

I can engage in Internet claims but what does it really prove?

Whether or not you're right or wrong.

Sorry, where?

Well, if you oppose legalisation, you would then support criminalisation.

---------------------

So, why do we ignore the voice of sex workers who apparently wish to legalise sex work?

*snip*

Any comprehension issues are certainly my fault, so, to recap:

1. Legalisation increases the overall prevalence of prostitution
2. This also increases the base number of abuse and trafficking because:

a. There will also be a rise in illegal alongside legal, as has been shown in Holland, Germany, Australia – exceptions such as NZ are more to do with geography and population distribution than the system itself
b. Police do not have the resources to manage right now let alone when the practice explodes in number, as it has in Holland, there’s no magical protection
c. It remains hard enough for non-prostitutes to convict, let alone prostitutes
d. Accusing a customer still results in driving away other customers, meaning there remains no incentive to do so and therefore no more protection than now, unless through a pimp, which brings the illegal side into it – there’s little evidence that pimps protect anyway, often being part of the abuse

3. Legalisation puts a cost to the prostitute:

a. Registration, health checks, taxes – which prostitutes don’t pay by the way (taxes), Germany has to put a set fee to deal with this.

What this means is:

4. If you look at the Scotland .pdf, the great majority of customers are low end income earners, under 20K, if they cannot pay the higher cost, they will still need supply to meet demand, that will be illegal supply
5. Also in the .pdf, you see that most visited countries are Holland and Germany, yet there is no corresponding decrease in the home countries, simply an increase in the amount of visits overall
6. There’s no manufacturing, growing or training costs to being a prostitute, so it’s cheap as supply. Where there’s demand, and legal prostitution is too expensive due to associated costs, supply will be met.

Just show me where legalization has worked, where it hasn’t lead to an overall increase in traffic. Show me where legalization has lessened stigma, increased equality in the eyes of people, I don’t care what your prostitute sites say because they’re motivated by wanting an increased customer base, ‘sex workers’ are not considering the actual ramifications of what they’re asking for, a case of ‘I’m alright Jack’ while the increased lower end suffers.
The absolute number of abuse and trafficking increases. The solution I put forward has worked in decreasing overall numbers while placing no punishment whatsoever on the prostitute, that’s as much as one can do.

That mindset leads to the abuse visited on prostitutes, but what can often be the most traumatic is the realization that, as agents for clients, the prostitute never had power in the first place.


This is different from most service sectors how? The perspective you talk about where women are viewed as sub-human in some aspects aren't really any different than those who view say, your local fast food server as someone to perform a service, is paid for, and has no right to refuse. Do you argue that they should be viewed in a different way then?

It's a rather simple fact of life where people simply do not view everyone as equal to them as people, especially those who they simply deal with on a trade basis. Instead, they are often viewed as commodities or providers of service, not people in the personal sense. Prostitution is not really any different. If you want to change the prevalence of this sort of view, then you might as well get rid of humanity altogether. Focusing on prostitution merely points fingers at a convenient flash symptom, but not the perceived problem.

Look at the quotes by men on this, and, beyond that, look at where they visit, the places where it's legalised, legalisation increases prevalence and by that, increases abuse and, further, substantiates the unequal view of women.

Think of the men who visit and why, having read the link thoroughly, we're not talking of the majority of men, we're talking of those who will visit prostitutes, why they do, why they pay and the attitudes they have, it's not about the majority opinion, it's the minority opinion that visit and their attitudes and the effect that has on wider opinion of women.

The simple fact is that it’s all very easy to talk to prostitutes and hear their justification for why they chose their profession, it’s easy to decide that it’s just a choice over what one does with one’s body, yet if you understand the reasons why men, and whether the prostitute is male or female, the customer is nearly always male, engage in this.

Often you hear prostitutes talk about ‘empowerment’, they see the customer as weak, either sympathetically or with a certain contempt. Yet the payer is always the one with power and, for those who escape, the realization is that those men never saw the prostitute as a human, they see them as a tool, a means of easy gratification.

Do you see the guy who sells you a cinema ticket as a full human being? Or is he just the tool selling tickets, until they bring in a machine and won't need the human any more?

To claim that providing a service limits you to being a tool providing that service in the eyes of those purchasing is an incredibly dishonest argument.
We are all essentially selling ourselves in order to make a living. If you are employed, the way I am for example, you get paid to perform a certain service for a certain amount of time every day. If you have ethical problems with the particular kind of service, you are free to take another job, providing another service.


That mindset leads to the abuse visited on prostitutes, but what can often be the most traumatic is the realization that, as agents for clients, the prostitute never had power in the first place.

When we talk of choice, of rights over one’s body, too often the focus is on the prostitute herself, or himself, not on the type of person who visits them. Those people can fall under certain categories, the bit of fun on a lad’s night out, the lonely individual, the driven sexual male, the reasons why people visit prostitutes are not honest, they are not honest people in terms of paying for sex, it's not an equal thing to engage in.

This all ties in with the perspective of women, that they ‘never mean no’, that they ‘want it’, without the understanding that many are driven to prostitution through dire circumstances, as a last resort, that they have to switch off their mind while engaged in sex.

One can point to a minority who enjoy it, yet even those most ardent in support, the Tracy Quan’s of this world, have trouble with the idea of ‘empowerment’ because the fact remains, there’s the client and there’s the agent and the person who pays always has the power.


All the more reason to legalise prostitution and allow them to form unions in order to gain more power.
A non-unionised McDonald's employee doesn't have much power to refuse to sell burgers, either, yet people don't try to outlaw his job.

This is different from most service sectors how? The perspective you talk about where women are viewed as sub-human in some aspects aren't really any different than those who view say, your local fast food server as someone to perform a service, is paid for, and has no right to refuse. Do you argue that they should be viewed in a different way then?

Do you see the guy who sells you a cinema ticket as a full human being? Or is he just the tool selling tickets, until they bring in a machine and won't need the human any more?

...because the 'product' in prostitution is neither a cinema ticket nor a hamburger, it's a human being.

...because the 'product' in prostitution is neither a cinema ticket nor a hamburger, it's a human being.

No, the product in prostitution is sex.
You've pointed out before that customers aren't interested in the full human being, as in fact they rarely are in any other line of business.

1. Legalisation increases the overall prevalence of prostitution

Prove it.

2. This also increases the base number of abuse and trafficking because:

a. There will also be a rise in illegal alongside legal, as has been shown in Holland, Germany, Australia – exceptions such as NZ are more to do with geography and population distribution than the system itself.

Prove it.

b. Police do not have the resources to manage right now let alone when the practice explodes in number, as it has in Holland, there’s no magical protection

c. It remains hard enough for non-prostitutes to convict, let alone prostitutes

d. Accusing a customer still results in driving away other customers, meaning there remains no incentive to do so and therefore no more protection than now, unless through a pimp, which brings the illegal side into it – there’s little evidence that pimps protect anyway, often being part of the abuse

These do not increase the level of abuse and trafficking.

3. Legalisation puts a cost to the prostitute:

a. Registration, health checks, taxes – which prostitutes don’t pay by the way (taxes), Germany has to put a set fee to deal with this.

What this means is:

4. If you look at the Scotland .pdf, the great majority of customers are low end income earners, under 20K, if they cannot pay the higher cost, they will still need supply to meet demand, that will be illegal supply
5. Also in the .pdf, you see that most visited countries are Holland and Germany, yet there is no corresponding decrease in the home countries, simply an increase in the amount of visits overall
6. There’s no manufacturing, growing or training costs to being a prostitute, so it’s cheap as supply. Where there’s demand, and legal prostitution is too expensive due to associated costs, supply will be met.

Wait.

If you're going to use economic justifications to treat people like criminals, then you would have to criminalise all industries where there is a white market and a black market. Like construction, or restaurants, or most of the other services we use. Unless you can explain why sex work is different.

Just show me where legalization has worked, where it hasn’t lead to an overall increase in traffic. Show me where legalization has lessened stigma, increased equality in the eyes of people,

Here you go (http://www.justice.govt.nz/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/international-approaches/summary.html):

Prostitution has been legalised in countries such as the Netherlands, Germany, Iceland, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Turkey, Senegal, the USA state of Nevada, and many Australian states (Victoria, Queensland, ACT and Northern Territory)....

While firm conclusions are hard to draw, there is some evidence emerging on four fronts:

1. Health, safety and working conditions are improved in decriminalised regimes (e.g. New South Wales) and to some extent within legalised regimes (e.g. Victoria, Queensland, Netherlands, and Nevada).

2. The social exclusion of sex workers may have lessened somewhat in legalised and decriminalised regimes. Sex workers in jurisdictions with the heaviest regulation appear to suffer the greatest degree of stigma.

I don’t care what your prostitute sites say because they’re motivated by wanting an increased customer base,

You know the motivations of sex workers that well? I find this hard to believe since you admit to ignoring their voice.

‘sex workers’ are not considering the actual ramifications of what they’re asking for,

And apparently you know better than they what their lives are like. This is the height of arrogance.

a case of ‘I’m alright Jack’ while the increased lower end suffers.
The absolute number of abuse and trafficking increases. .

You have yet to prove this.

The solution I put forward has worked in decreasing overall numbers while placing no punishment whatsoever on the prostitute, that’s as much as one can do.

We could also, you know, listen to what the sex workers have to say.

Prove it.

As opposed to your link, which admits its research is both thin and inconclusive..

http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=7014&department=BLI&categoryid=reports

What studies are being done to prove that legalized prostitution increases sex trafficking?

The State Department’s TIP report confirms that through research by academic, scientific and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) there is a direct link between prostitution and trafficking. Prostitution contributes to trafficking in persons by serving as a front behind which traffickers for sexual exploitation operate, the report states. The International Organization for Migration estimates that 500,000 women are annually sold into prostitution in Europe.

Research shows that legalizing prostitution does not remedy the problem of sex trafficking but rather increases it. Where prostitution is legalized, the price for sexual services includes medical examinations, brothel rent and registration fees. In efforts to circumvent these fees, a black market for prostitution emerges. The black market provides cheaper prices, and pimps do not need to adhere to the health codes or age limits the countries set into place.

All of this information, of course, is logical. In the more developed nations, girls and women do not usually choose to go into prostitution because they have opportunities; in addition, they are usually protected so only runaway girls and others in vulnerable situations are in danger of getting lured into the trap of pimps and johns. Thus, the traffickers go to countries where destitute people are looking for a chance to improve their lives. They are prey to the unscrupulous criminals who lure, entrap, lie, ensnare and seduce the unsuspecting and vulnerable children and women. They take them into an isolated place, steal their passports and beat them into submission, so that they will do anything they are told.

Countries with legalized prostitution have three to 10 times as many non-registered women prostitutes as registered prostitutes. Many non-registered women are victims of sex trafficking.

The mentioned USA 2008 TIP report: http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2008/

From which..

Where there is legal prostitution, governments have found they have to address ways that sex trafficking continues to flourish. As Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen told the New York Times earlier this year, “We realized that big crime organizations are involved here in trafficking women, drugs, killings, and other criminal activities.” Organized crime networks do not register with the government, pay taxes, or protect people in prostitution. As government policies have shifted, so have criminal methods. Mayor Cohen added, “Trafficking in women continues. Women are now moved around more, making police work more difficult.” In a worthy step to the Netherlands’ credit, the city recently closed about one-third of Amsterdam’s infamous red-light district—closing establishments that it found were engaged in illegal activities. Authorities have needed to keep moving after the traffickers because legalization and regulation have not dried up sex trafficking, which has continued apace. Meanwhile, some countries such as Bulgaria have decided not to legalize prostitution, which will avoid the added burden of regulation.

In contrast to a legal regulation model, Sweden chose in 1999 to criminalize sex buying, pimping, and brothel keeping, while also decriminalizing the act of prostitution. Since around that date, there has been a decrease in known human trafficking cases, and a shrinkage of the commercial sex industry. Subsequently, other governments such as in South Korea, Denmark, and Scotland have variously considered or implemented measures aimed at shrinking the realm of legality for buying commercial sex. These experiments bear further examination as efforts to narrow the vulnerability to sex trafficking.

Anyway, luckily I don’t really have to worry about your opinion since most governments are coming round to mine -

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/world/europe/06bulgaria.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

SOFIA, Bulgaria, Oct. 5 — The Bulgarian government, which had been planning to legalize prostitution, abruptly reversed itself on Friday, part of a broad trend in Europe to impose bans as a way to combat sexual trafficking.

“We should be very definite in saying that selling flesh is a crime,” Rumen Petkov, the interior minister, said at a forum on human trafficking on Friday, also attended by the president, the minister of justice and the United States ambassador to Bulgaria.

Bulgaria is only the latest European country to shift its approach to prostitution. Finland last year made it illegal to buy sex from women brought in by traffickers, and Norway is on the verge of imposing an outright ban on purchasing sex.

Even in Amsterdam, the city government has proposed shutting down more than a quarter of the famed storefront brothels in the red-light district. And in the Czech Republic and the three Baltic republics, attempts at legalization similar to the Bulgarian one have been turned back.

There’s a distinction between criminalizing prostitution and going after the demand, all the protection of legalization can be conferred, the issues with legalization avoided and, most importantly, the overall prevalence tackled.

Anyway, other sources..

http://www.humanityinaction.org/docs/Armario__Dollner,_2002.pdf
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/16796891.html
http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/catwaust/files/leginvic.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/hughes/hughes200405110833.asp
http://sisyphe.org/spip.php?article1596
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1168921/posts
http://www.humantrafficking.org/updates/745

...because the 'product' in prostitution is neither a cinema ticket nor a hamburger, it's a human being.

That's slavery, not prostitution. Do you think it is bad to be a taxi driver? What about gardeners? How about road sweepers? They all provide non-academic services with their bodies, and other implements of their trade, much like prostitution.

As opposed to your link, which admits its research is both thin and inconclusive..

http://www.beverlylahayeinstitute.org/articledisplay.asp?id=7014&department=BLI&categoryid=reports

That website also claims abstinence only programs work, and that pay equity is wrong.

But they might be right about this, so we should check their research. Which you have thoughtfully provided:

The mentioned USA 2008 TIP report: http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2008/

From which..

And now we can see that their research doesn't actually say that legalisation of sex work increases trafficking. It only says that it hasn't eradicated it.

Anyway, luckily I don’t really have to worry about your opinion since most governments are coming round to mine -

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/06/world/europe/06bulgaria.html?pagewanted=1&_r=2

So, just because governments also ignore the voices of sex workers, that makes it a good idea?

There’s a distinction between criminalizing prostitution and going after the demand, all the protection of legalization can be conferred, the issues with legalization avoided and, most importantly, the overall prevalence tackled.

I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to say here.

Anyway, other sources..
http://www.humanityinaction.org/docs/Armario__Dollner,_2002.pdf
http://www.startribune.com/opinion/commentary/16796891.html
http://mc2.vicnet.net.au/home/catwaust/files/leginvic.htm
http://www.nationalreview.com/hughes/hughes200405110833.asp
http://sisyphe.org/spip.php?article1596
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1168921/posts
http://www.humantrafficking.org/updates/745

What's the point of all these links?

------------------------

Anyways, I originally asked why the sex worker's voice is ignored in these debates.

You said that the voice of those who promote legalisation were a minority of sex workers and that most were abused victims. You did not provide evidence for that.

You then suggested that the sex workers promoting legalisation were doing so only to increase their consumer base. You did not provide evidence for this either.

You also claimed that legalisation increases the rate of abuse and trafficking. No evidecne for that either.

I am not a sex worker. I do not claim that I know what is best for them. So, instead I listen to them. Why shouldn't our governments do the same?