Outlawing prostitution

[billydkid]

It may well be that there are women in this society who are victimized by their circumstance to the extent that their only recourse is to sell sex. It is hard for me to imagine how that would be except in the case of an addict who needs more than just a sufficient amount of money as one would make from an ordinary job in order to get by. In other words, like many people they turn to criminalized activity in order to make more money then they could possibly make at a job requiring their skill level. But this really has absolutely no bearing in terms of why prostitution is criminalized. Have you noticed that the all the ways that a poor and uneducated person have to make significant amounts of money are criminalized in our society? I would guess that the majority of prostitutes are not street walking runaways trying to survive - and you could certainly argue that these people are victims of society - does it really make sense to victimize them further by criminalizing the only apparent way they have to support themselves? - I would guess that the majority of prostitutes are women like the one Spitzer was associated with, very good looking women who see an opportunity to make astonishing sums of money using what God gave them and I hardly see these women as victims. These are grownup people making their own decisions who should be free to exploit their gifts for their own benefit without interference from a moralistic nanny state. Who are you are I to tell them they shouldn't be allowed to do it? If you were to ask these women whether they consider themselves victims I'm sure most would laugh at you. Prostitution is legal in Nevada. What is the harm other than you might not approve of it? Where people ever got the notion that they might have the right to tell other people what to do when it has nothing to do with them is completely beyond me. Yet many, many people feel perfectly comfortable doing just that. As long as they are not interfering with your right to live like you want, how the hell is it any of your business?

 

[Prometheus]

It may well be that there are women in this society who are victimized by their circumstance to the extent that their only recourse is to sell sex. It is hard for me to imagine how that would be except in the case of an addict who needs more than just a sufficient amount of money as one would make from an ordinary job in order to get by. In other words, like many people they turn to criminalized activity in order to make more money then they could possibly make at a job requiring their skill level. But this really has absolutely no bearing in terms of why prostitution is criminalized. Have you noticed that the all the ways that a poor and uneducated person have to make significant amounts of money are criminalized in our society? I would guess that the majority of prostitutes are not street walking runaways trying to survive - and you could certainly argue that these people are victims of society - does it really make sense to victimize them further by criminalizing the only apparent way they have to support themselves? - I would guess that the majority of prostitutes are women like the one Spitzer was associated with, very good looking women who see an opportunity to make astonishing sums of money using what God gave them and I hardly see these women as victims. These are grownup people making their own decisions who should be free to exploit their gifts for their own benefit without interference from a moralistic nanny state. Who are you are I to tell them they shouldn't be allowed to do it? If you were to ask these women whether they consider themselves victims I'm sure most would laugh at you. Prostitution is legal in Nevada. What is the harm other than you might not approve of it? Where people ever got the notion that they might have the right to tell other people what to do when it has nothing to do with them is completely beyond me. Yet many, many people feel perfectly comfortable doing just that. As long as they are not interfering with your right to live like you want, how the hell is it any of your business?

Have you actually noticed anyone in this thread arguing that prostitution should be criminalized? The general drift of this discussion so far seems to be that most prostitutes are victims, not criminals, and they need and deserve compassion and help. Those who are not victims, however many of them there are, should be allowed to do what they want, insofar as it does not make it easier for criminal organizations to victimize others. We've been discussing whether or not there might be some way to reduce trafficking of what are essentially sex-slaves. If you think that these are a minority compared to high-priced call girls, then I think you have lead a very sheltered life.

 

[Mark6]

Would you want your daughter to be a decoy cop busting would-be johns?

I have two daughters, and frankly I would prefer that they worked as prostitutes (in a safe, controlled environment) than as police sting decoys. Nothing is more corrupting to law enforcement than doing sting operations -- which in turn are made necessary by criminalizing consensual behavior.

 

[meg]

I think the whole subject is complicated. It's way more than "should prostitution be legal?". It is not only a moral question, but a social question.

For me, the morals involved have very little to do with sex. I believe that whatever two consenting adults decide to do between themselves is nobody's business but their own. If they agree to exchange sex for money, that's their business, not mine. I think that a lot of people support legalization of prostitution for this reason, and I understand their logic.

However, when one looks at research, statistics, and interviews of prostitutes, one finds that the definition of prostitution as "an agreement between two people to exchange sex for money" is not really accurate. There is a dark side that many people don't want to look at or talk about.

From "The Link Between Prostitution and Sex Trafficking" http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/38790.htm

Prostitution and related activities—including pimping and patronizing or maintaining brothels—fuel the growth of modern-day slavery by providing a façade behind which traffickers for sexual exploitation operate.

Where prostitution is legalized or tolerated, there is a greater demand for human trafficking victims and nearly always an increase in the number of women and children trafficked into commercial sex slavery.

Of the estimated 600,000 to 800,000 people trafficked across international borders annually, 80 percent of victims are female, and up to 50 percent are minors. Hundreds of thousands of these women and children are used in prostitution each year.

Women and children want to escape prostitution
The vast majority of women in prostitution don’t want to be there. Few seek it out or choose it, and most are desperate to leave it. A 2003 study first published in the scientific Journal of Trauma Practice found that 89 percent of women in prostitution want to escape.[1] And children are also trapped in prostitution—despite the fact that international covenants and protocols impose upon state parties an obligation to criminalize the commercial sexual exploitation of children.

Prostitution is inherently harmful
Few activities are as brutal and damaging to people as prostitution. Field research in nine countries concluded that 60-75 percent of women in prostitution were raped, 70-95 percent were physically assaulted, and 68 percent met the criteria for post traumatic stress disorder in the same range as treatment-seeking combat veterans[2] and victims of state-organized torture.[3] Beyond this shocking abuse, the public health implications of prostitution are devastating and include a myriad of serious and fatal diseases, including HIV/AIDS.

A path-breaking, five-country academic study concluded that research on prostitution has overlooked "[t]he burden of physical injuries and illnesses that women in the sex industry sustain from the violence inflicted on them, or from their significantly higher rates of hepatitis B, higher risks of cervical cancer, fertility complications, and psychological trauma."[4]

State attempts to regulate prostitution by introducing medical check-ups or licenses don’t address the core problem: the routine abuse and violence that form the prostitution experience and brutally victimize those caught in its netherworld. Prostitution leaves women and children physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually devastated. Recovery takes years, even decades—often, the damage can never be undone..

So, while I believe it is a woman's right to do whatever she wishes with her own body, I have a real problem with many of the human rights violations that happen to prostitutes. I believe that is it a fundamental right of every human being to not be abused, assaulted, raped, or forced to prostitute themselves.

When we talk about choice, about consent, we have to talk about what a real choice looks like. I do not believe that a woman that becomes a prostitute out of fear, hoplessness, desperation, or a lack of alternatives is really "making a choice". A genuine consent, a genuine choice is only possible if a person has a sense of physical safety, a sense of equality with customers, and some real alternatives to choose.

So how do we solve both problems? I see that it could, at least hypothetically, be possible to reform prostitution into an industry that strives to ensure that prostitutes are only doing it by their own choice, and that the industry actively creates a safe and healthy working environment, but I have a hard time trying to figure out exactly what that would mean. Educational programs perhaps, programs that help prostitutes to leave the industry whenever they want, programs to test not only prostitutes but clients for disease, programs for counselling, programs to help solve the problems women face that force them into prostitution, strict, harsh and immediate punishments for those enterprises that violate workers rights, increasing police protection of hookers from abusive clients..

How much would all that cost, though? And is the goal of "a safe and healthy environment for prostitutes" the best use of that money? How much of our tax dollars should go toward this? What benefit will society get out of it? Why should we do it? It really comes down (for me) to the question "why are we doing this again?" Is the demand for an industry that exchanges money for sex worth the cost? Is it a reasonable demand? Is it right to make the people who don't want to exchange sex for money pay taxes to support an industry they oppose?

I get why the swedes have decided to go after the demand, rather than the prostitutes. In many ways it makes the most sense. I think their system is also not perfect, though. Critics state that prostitutes are even more vulnerable to violence now that they are forced underground. But then one can also ask, how much are we obligated to protect people that choose to operate in a risky, violent business? That comes back around to how much of that "choice" is/was really a "choice"? And why is prostitution such an inherently dangerous job?

I do not know the answers, obviously, but I would enjoy a discussion that engaged seriously in some of these deeper questions.

I found this site to be an interesting read:

Overseas Models of Prostitution Law Reform:
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2005/sex-industry-in-nz-literature-review/part2.html

 

[Mark6]

I get why the swedes have decided to go after the demand, rather than the prostitutes. In many ways it makes the most sense. I think their system is also not perfect, though. Critics state that prostitutes are even more vulnerable to violence now that they are forced underground. But then one can also ask, how much are we obligated to protect people that choose to operate in a risky, violent business? That comes back around to how much of that "choice" is/was really a "choice"? And why is prostitution such an inherently dangerous job?

I do not know the answers, obviously, but I would enjoy a discussion that engaged seriously in some of these deeper questions.

I rather like the Japanese model. Exchanging sex for money is not illegal, but ANY third-person involvement is. Punishable offenses include: procuring a person for prostitution, receiving compensation from the prostitution of others, furnishing a place for prostitution, furnishing funds for prostitution, and coercing or inducing a non-prostitute to become a prostitute through force, money, or any material means.

So if a Japanese woman can not make rent, decides to make a quick yen, and goes onto street -- or puts up an online ad, -- it is not illegal. But if her landlord so much as suggests the idea, she can have him arrested.

 

[NobbyNobbs]

Since when did paying for sex become a human urge???!

In the same vein, when did paying for food become a human urge???!

 

[Mark6]

Since when did paying for sex become a human urge???!

In the same vein, when did paying for food become a human urge???!

When a hungry female Australopithecus offered her pussy to a male who offered her a fresh kill... come to think of it, this also answers dann's question! Actually, both paying for food (with sex) and paying for sex (with food) predate Australopithecus by millions of years. Apes and monkeys do it quite often.

 

[meg]

I really hate made up "facts".

Do you have some evidence to support your notion that apes and monkeys pay for food with sex or vica versa? Please show it.

Also, please explain how you know the social agreements made by Australopithecus? Show your evidence please.

I realize your post was probably made completely in jest. Unfortunately, I've read through these prostitution discussion long enough to realize that there really are a great many men that seem to think prostitution is an appropriate response to mens "natural sexual urges". Throwing made up facts into the discussion really doesn't help anyone.

Please either show some evidence or retract your post.

Thanks very much

 

[Mark6]

I really hate made up "facts".

Do you have some evidence to support your notion that apes and monkeys pay for food with sex or vica versa?

Yes. I have to get 15 posts in order to post links, so here goes...

 

[Mark6]

Post 13

 

[Mark6]

Post 14

 

[Mark6]

Post 15

 

[Mark6]

I did not make it up, and it is very easy to find on the web:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/09/11/eachimp111.xml

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p3l31012333t7432/

Here is trading grooming for sex:

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1700821,00.html

http://books.google.com/books?id=TJ...Hh8arV9&sig=jo5tgb8QrUlcOA0gejfNCckAR8o&hl=en

Time after time Stanford saw male chimpanzees dangle a dead colobus monkey in front of a swollen female, sharing it with her only after she allowed him to mate.

And here is an even more sophisticated example of exchanging something for sex:

http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/001105.html

What I wrote about Australopithcus was partly a joke, but judging from the habits of other primates, such behavior very likely did occur.

 

[meg]

Wow. I stand corrected. Thanks Mark6. Interesting articles.

 

[Dorian Gray]

So you're saying that selling it should be outlawed instead of buying it?

 

[CyCrow]

I think the whole subject is complicated. It's way more than "should prostitution be legal?". It is not only a moral question, but a social question.

For me, the morals involved have very little to do with sex. I believe that whatever two consenting adults decide to do between themselves is nobody's business but their own. If they agree to exchange sex for money, that's their business, not mine. I think that a lot of people support legalization of prostitution for this reason, and I understand their logic.

However, when one looks at research, statistics, and interviews of prostitutes, one finds that the definition of prostitution as "an agreement between two people to exchange sex for money" is not really accurate. There is a dark side that many people don't want to look at or talk about.

From "The Link Between Prostitution and Sex Trafficking" http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/rls/38790.htm

That State Department link contains a couple of quotes I find relevant:

The U.S. Government adopted a strong position against legalized prostitution in a December 2002 National Security Presidential Directive based on evidence that prostitution is inherently harmful and dehumanizing, and fuels trafficking in persons, a form of modern-day slavery.

- That is not evidence against legalized prostitution. No civilized country with legal prostitution has legalized slavery. It's pretty clear to me that the US stance is based partly on "public morality" issues, just as much as concern for victims of abuse. The arguments are based on protecting women and children, as these seem to go down better with the public...

I've read the reports on prostitutionresearch.com, and it's pretty clear they are very biased against legalized prostitution. There's a deep split in the organizations working to help prostitutes over that issue, between those that define all prostitution as violence against women, and those who seek to improve the conditions of sex-workers.

If you read this report http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/pdf/Prostitutionin9Countries.pdf with a critical eye, you will see where the numbers are coming from... The Methods chapter is very revealing. The countries include Canada Germany and USA, Mexico, Thailand, Zambia and South Africa. It should be obvious that conditions are extremely different in these countries. Furthermore, when selecting subjects in Canada: "we interviewed 100 women prostituting in or near Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, one of the most economically destitute regions in North America". Not exactly a representative selection, and certain to catch economically desperate women. In Germany: "The German women were from a drop-in shelter for drug addicted women..." So in a country with legal prostitution and safe brothels, drug-addicts are chosen. A pattern emerges... Street prostitutes in San Fransisco etc. The selection process is quite effective in avoiding any prostitutes working voluntarily. The problem is that the numbers from this paper is repeatedly used to quantify the danger of prostitution. It's wrong, it's deliberate misrepresentation, and it's unfortunately working well enough for the State Department to swallow it whole.

This example makes me very weary of any numbers touted by the radical feminist side.

Grant-making implications of the U.S. government policy
As a result of the prostitution-trafficking link, the U.S. government concluded that no U.S. grant funds should be awarded to foreign non-governmental organizations that support legal state-regulated prostitution.

And here's the payoff ;-)

So, while I believe it is a woman's right to do whatever she wishes with her own body, I have a real problem with many of the human rights violations that happen to prostitutes. I believe that is it a fundamental right of every human being to not be abused, assaulted, raped, or forced to prostitute themselves.

Obviously. If you are arguing against that anyone here is promoting that, you are fighting a strawman.

When we talk about choice, about consent, we have to talk about what a real choice looks like. I do not believe that a woman that becomes a prostitute out of fear, hoplessness, desperation, or a lack of alternatives is really "making a choice". A genuine consent, a genuine choice is only possible if a person has a sense of physical safety, a sense of equality with customers, and some real alternatives to choose.

I mostly agree. The problem with the radical feminist position is that it goes one step further and declares that the it's essentially impossible to make a genuine choice, that there's always some form of coercion or underlying mental problem that makes it impossible to truly choose to sell sex.

So how do we solve both problems? I see that it could, at least hypothetically, be possible to reform prostitution into an industry that strives to ensure that prostitutes are only doing it by their own choice, and that the industry actively creates a safe and healthy working environment, but I have a hard time trying to figure out exactly what that would mean. Educational programs perhaps, programs that help prostitutes to leave the industry whenever they want, programs to test not only prostitutes but clients for disease, programs for counselling, programs to help solve the problems women face that force them into prostitution, strict, harsh and immediate punishments for those enterprises that violate workers rights, increasing police protection of hookers from abusive clients..

Prostitutes can be rougly divided into categories, with different actions appropriate for each. These categories are not exact and non-overlapping, but it's an improvement over a one-solution-fits-all approach.

Illegal/non-regulated group:

- Trafficked slaves: Very illegal, police action required. Customers suspecting such activity should be obligated to notify authorities, probably anonymously. Knowingly taking advantage of these should be a crime.
- Underaged prostitutes, often runaways: Report to local Child Protection Agency. Illegal to buy sex from.
- Drug addicts: Treating the drug problem is the primary focus. It is probably less expensive for society that they get money from selling sex than theft and robberies.
- Illegal immigrants: These can't work legally, and can be taken advantage of by threats of deportation or violence. Pimping them should be very illegal.

Legal sex-workers:
So what are the motivations for the rest? Some suggestions:

- Extreme poverty: Treat the symptom. Western societies shouldn't let anyone starve.
- Moderate poverty: Here sex-work is a higher paying alternative to flipping burgers etc. It should be an individual choice, most people wouldn't choose it. Realistic risk assessment and job tips should be available from other sex-workers.
- Desire for sex/excitement: Some say this group doesn't exist. I say it's fairly rare, but not unknown. It is usually not the only/primary reason, that's money, but sex-workers are not precluded from having a good time with their customers.

I'll include another link, http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2007.00010.x?cookieSet=1
that seems to present a reasonable view on prostitution.

How much would all that cost, though? And is the goal of "a safe and healthy environment for prostitutes" the best use of that money? How much of our tax dollars should go toward this? What benefit will society get out of it? Why should we do it? It really comes down (for me) to the question "why are we doing this again?" Is the demand for an industry that exchanges money for sex worth the cost? Is it a reasonable demand? Is it right to make the people who don't want to exchange sex for money pay taxes to support an industry they oppose?

It wouldn't cost a thing, instead it would bring in taxes from legal brothels, channel less money to pimps and organizers of illegal activities, and result in less spending in the justice system. OK, income from fines for prostitution offenses would go down...

I get why the swedes have decided to go after the demand, rather than the prostitutes. In many ways it makes the most sense. I think their system is also not perfect, though. Critics state that prostitutes are even more vulnerable to violence now that they are forced underground. But then one can also ask, how much are we obligated to protect people that choose to operate in a risky, violent business? That comes back around to how much of that "choice" is/was really a "choice"? And why is prostitution such an inherently dangerous job?

The swedes have adopted the radical feminist view on prostitution. As for results, they are not as clear as the radical feminist want to believe. The visible street prostitution went down initially, but appear to be increasing again. Some customers drive to Denmark instead. The consequences seem to be underresearched.

As for risk, prostitution isn't INHERENTLY very dangerous, as the primary risk factors aren't tied to the act itself. The risk of violence isn't higher than for e.g. social workers, the risk of disease can be easily managed with condoms and customer assessment. The primary remaining risks are mental, "burning out" sexually and having trouble maintaing normal relationships. Access to easy money can lead to indiscriminate spending and short-term economic thinking. Access to drugs is higher than many other environments, but no more so than musicians etc.

I do not know the answers, obviously, but I would enjoy a discussion that engaged seriously in some of these deeper questions.

I found this site to be an interesting read:

Overseas Models of Prostitution Law Reform:
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2005/sex-industry-in-nz-literature-review/part2.html

Agree, that's not a bad overview. On this page: http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2005/sex-industry-in-nz-literature-review/part1a.html
you can see that only 2.5% of prostitutes in NZ work in the street, which should make it even more clear that the Farley-numbers above are anything but representative.

Prostitution has a very bad rep, partly deserved, but the overstatement of problems and ideological base of the radical feminist position doesn't make good policy. Do you remember the claim that 40000 women would be trafficked to Germany for the Soccer World Championship? Here's what happened: http://www.iom.int/jahia/webdav/sha.../documents/World_Cup_2006_CT_Draft_Report.pdf
I have no respect for organisations that have to lie to get their point across.

Finally, thank you for being open-minded about this, it's an interesting discussion.

// CyCrow

 

[meg]

I do not have the time to respond at great length today, but I do want to make a couple of quick comments.

While declaring that I have created a strawman, your own post seems quite bent on declaring that the US Dept of State position as well as the Swedish Government's position is the "radical feminist position".

Then, you state:

The problem with the radical feminist position is that it goes one step further and declares that the it's essentially impossible to make a genuine choice, that there's always some form of coercion or underlying mental problem that makes it impossible to truly choose to sell sex.

and

Prostitution has a very bad rep, partly deserved, but the overstatement of problems and ideological base of the radical feminist position doesn't make good policy.

Is this not a strawman argument? Or maybe it's some kind of ad hominem (ad feminem?) 'This is nothing but an aardvark statement. Aardvark positions should be ignored because aardvarks also say ____.'


You also stated:

Not exactly a representative selection, and certain to catch economically desperate women. In Germany: "The German women were from a drop-in shelter for drug addicted women..." So in a country with legal prostitution and safe brothels, drug-addicts are chosen. A pattern emerges...

But you kind of cherry picked that. The full sentence regarding the German women is

The German women were from a drop-in shelter for drug addicted women, from a program which offered vocational rehabilitation for those prostituted, and were also referred by peers, and by advertisement in a local newspaper.

I'll try to write more tomorrow.

Meg

 

[CyCrow]

I do not have the time to respond at great length today, but I do want to make a couple of quick comments.

While declaring that I have created a strawman, your own post seems quite bent on declaring that the US Dept of State position as well as the Swedish Government's position is the "radical feminist position".

I was only saying that if you claim that pro-legalisation advocates want to force women into prostitution etc, then you are fighting a strawman. It was sort of pre-emtive, but the argument isn't unknown.

I don't know the inner workings of the State Department, so that is a guess/inference. The page references the report from Farley as an argument for its position however. As for underlying reasons, can you imagine Bush stating that he supports the right of sex-workers to sell their services? Appearing to support such "immoral" practices?

As for the swedish law, its explicitly stated that prostitution is interpreted as a form of violence (against women).

Is this not a strawman argument? Or maybe it's some kind of ad hominem (ad feminem?) 'This is nothing but an aardvark statement. Aardvark positions should be ignored because aardvarks also say ____.'

You could say that it is an argument from reverse authority. As I said, feminism isn't a unified movement by any means, and there are wildly varying viewpoints on this issue from people who call themselves feminists. Melissa Farley claims to be an expert on prostitution and violence against women, and attacking her work isn't an an hominem, it's attacking her credentials. I'm claiming that the extreme radical feminist position is wrong, because it is not supported by solid research, and a large number of claims made are provably untrue.

But you kind of cherry picked that. The full sentence regarding the German women is

The German women were from a drop-in shelter for drug addicted women, from a program which offered vocational rehabilitation for those prostituted, and were also referred by peers, and by advertisement in a local newspaper.

Good, you read the source. Yeah, my quote was incomplete, and I was a bit too quick in parsing it. Still, another table gives 70% drug use for the German prostitutes. The argument still stands, the overwhelmig selection bias makes the conclusions in the paper invalid for the majority of prostitutes. Here's a pretty good rebuttal of Farleys work: http://www.woodhullfoundation.org/content/otherpublications/WeitzerVAW-1.pdf

// CyCrow

 

[Michael C]

I Here's a pretty good rebuttal of Farleys work: http://www.woodhullfoundation.org/content/otherpublications/WeitzerVAW-1.pdf

And here's a pretty good reply to that rebuttal: http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/documents/FarleyResptoWeitzer.pdf

Caveat: as yet I have only skimmed through both these papers. I'll wait until I have had the time to read them in detail before commenting on them.

 

[CyCrow]

And here's a pretty good reply to that rebuttal: http://www.rapecrisisscotland.org.uk/documents/FarleyResptoWeitzer.pdf

Caveat: as yet I have only skimmed through both these papers. I'll wait until I have had the time to read them in detail before commenting on them.

I read it, and the primary objection about selection bias is glossed over. Simply because it is not possible to get a truely random sample of prostitutes, it is not acceptable to use any selection you like and pretend it is representative. Mixing third-world prostitution into it just makes it worse. A bit of circular logic, where the results from the critiqued 9-country paper is used to defend the definition of prostitution as violence, as if it was already proven. Reluctant admittance that there is less violence in indoor prostitution, with a cop-out of a vague reference to "several studies" that report similar levels of psychological violence.

Otherwise, it's more of the same emotive language, carefully selected anecdotes, and a blind eye to the results from other researchers that get "wrong" results.

// CyCrow