Why is prostitution illegal?

[JFrankA]

..written at work. Please forgive my tone (if it gets harsh) and my grammer and spelling.

I'm sure there are people who would like to have sex in the middle of Times Square at midday. Perhaps you'd like to film them at it?

Wow... Just wow. Talk about a good example of a slippery slope and a red herring...... (Not to mention a charactor attack...)

The problem you've got to overcome, JFrankA, is the vast majority of people believe sex is a behaviour to be carried out discretely and in private. Pornography is a gray area for a lot of people, me included, while in-your-face street prostitution is over the line.

I understand that. I've never said that it should be on the streets. My arguement is that the law you think is such a great idea drives the streetwalker FURTHER underground - thus doing the equivelent of "sweeping them under the rug" rather than dealing with the problems these people have.

Legalised brothels seem like a good idea until you read the research and discover they don't really affect the level or amount of exploitation.

You rejected that research in the beginning of this thread BECAUSE it was about legal brothels and it didn't involve the street walker....

All they appear to do, in fact, is change pimps and madams from often nasty criminals into often nasty business people.

Appear? Really? Appearences can be decieving. Seems to me that anything, business, desires, goal, can turn anyone from one negative personality type to another.....

Yes, I did.

No, you're not. You're pick and choosing depending on what you are defending at the time.

I replied with: So? As in: What relevance does that have to do with the current debate?

[/quote]

Everything! You are defending a law that many of us are saying that it's not a good idea, but everytime we make points about it, you seem to switch gears.

It goes to show, simply by this response (and your previous post) that the only reason prostitution is illegal is because of moral beliefs:

1) "the vast majority of people believe sex is a behaviour to be carried out discretely and in private" - a perception. And one, actually, I agree with.

2) "be discrete about your personal business" - morals. Again, believe it or not, I agree with this one as well. However, you have to tell me, if it's illegal to buy sex, then when you do, everyone knows, including your co-workers because you've been jailed or whatever, where's the discretion? Seems to me if it's legal it would be MORE discrete.....

3) "send the wrong kind of message out" - morals and perception.

There has not been one scrap of evidence of any other reason that prostitution is illegal. It's all about a moral stance. Period.

Making buying sex illegal and enforcing the law takes prostitution off the streets. It gets rid of brothels. It makes it illegal for pimps to exist. Women who are hurt by clients have the protection of the law. Given that these are some of the aspects of prostitution which readily lead to exploitation, it seems like a good place to start to me.

But the facts prove otherwise. All you are doing is sweeping it under the rug and not facing the problems first hand. There are women STILL doing it, STILL getting hurt and this isn't helping them. Pimps STILL exist. Trafficking STILL exists. Read the article. Don't read the ones that just talk to the government and the law makers. Read the ones that actually interview the street walkers. The ones who are really in there.

You are so concerned with exploitation and abuse, yet you are championing a law that does half the job without the guts to go all the way. Face the problem. Make it legal all around. That way you can add regulations. You can say "look you can be an escort but don't street walk here" or "you can own a brothel but here are the regulations you have to follow to keep everyone safe".

I'll say it again: this law is nothing but a band-aid that makes "moral" people not see the trouble because it get further buried.

You said it's a good start. I will say it's a start but it doesn't go anywhere near far enough to be even "okay".

 

[fullflavormenthol]

Making buying sex illegal and enforcing the law takes prostitution off the streets.

Really? Lets take Vegas as an example. You know they actually average about 300 to 400 prostitution busts per month. Actually the enforcement of prostitution laws takes away from the enforcement of other laws. BUT, regardless...the reality on the ground is far from your statment.

It gets rid of brothels.

Pushes them underground yes, but doesn't get rid of them any more than prohibition gets rid of bars.

It makes it illegal for pimps to exist.

Illegal, yes. Of course it actually increases the power of the pimp in the process. Pimps thrive on the situation created by the illegality of prostitution.

Women who are hurt by clients have the protection of the law.

No. Actually the fact that they engaged in illegal behavior means it is less likely for a rape victim to get justice if she was also a prostitute.

Given that these are some of the aspects of prostitution which readily lead to exploitation, it seems like a good place to start to me.

So do you believe that the current situation is working?

 

[dann]

It would certainly decrease the number of women entering the profession, which would drive up wages until supply meets demand.

I knew that I had a good quotation about this, but it took some time to find it:

The idea that the market is a big coordinator between needs and production, that it does this much better than a plan ever could, this idea is in truth a pure tautology. It asserts as a service nothing more than the fact that all goods that are sold find a buyer. Again, to make clear the thought: If the great coordination service of the market is that only those needs that are backed by money enter into the magnificent coordination service, and those which have no real money or not enough money count for nothing; and if on the other side of the coordination service, the products are only those that are marketable, that are saleable products, thus that find a buyer, and everything that has bad quality or too high a price or has been produced in too high an amount so that it could not be sold at the market equilibrium, then the famous market equilibrium is a pure tautology: Everything has been sold that also found a buyer, for every commodity that was sold, a buyer appeared -- yes, that is probably correct.... But here the whole scam is to act as if this is a service. This tautology always applies. It applies in the largest economic crisis just like in the biggest famine and it applies in a boom.
http://www.ruthlesscriticism.com/What_is_Free_Market.htm

 

[pgwenthold]

If you eliminate option #8, what have you really done for her? You haven't given her any new options, or made options #1-#7 any more attractive.

I made this same point in the other prostitution thread, sort of. The comment was made (as has been made here) that girls who run away from home often end up in prostitution. That is an amazing observation, if you think about it. Apparently, their situation at home is so bad that prostitution is preferable. Given how many think prostitution is obviously such a bad thing, can you imagine what their home lives must be like?

But the question is, what happens if you get rid of prostitution? Will it make their home lives any better? No, it will just lead more of them to stay there!

The same goes for the whole "most prostitutes were molested as children" (Fiona has brought that up). It may be true, but I don't understand the point? What does that have to do with making prostitution illegal/legal, or even getting rid of it? You could eliminate prostitution completely, and these girls will still have been molested. Prostitution is a consequence of molestation/bad home life/poverty/other issues, not the cause of it. Therefore, eliminating prostitution won't solve the underlying issue.

Prostitutes are doing what they do because it is presumably better than the alternatives they see before them. For the most part, I suspect it is the money, which can be very good, or at least better than what they could otherwise get given their skill level (yeah, they could work at McDs for minimum wage, or they could sell their body for a lot more). Now, unless you are willing to pony up for a massive education program to get prostitutes into better situations where they can make a better living, then taking away the prostitution option doesn't really help them.

I'd be happy to see more social programs to help people get away from the problems that cause them to take up prostitution, and I'd be willing to pay taxes to support them. Unfortunately, I don't see a lot of people talking about doing that.

 

[gdnp]

I agree that stigmatisation of the prostitutes is wrong. I want to stigmatise people who treat others as objects, rather than human beings.

(snip)

What I’m basically saying is I don’t have a problem with people buying other people’s time and attention, I do have a problem with people being able to (think they can) buy or lease out other people’s bodies.

You have said this, or variations of this, several times, and I wonder why you differentiate between sex and other services.

If I hire a bunch of guys to dig a ditch, am I not leasing their bodies? Perhaps this doesn't count, because they do not touch me, or directly give me pleasure.

What about hiring a hair stylist to wash and cut my hair? Do my nails? Am I not leasing not only her time but her body?

What about a masseuse? She touches me and gives me pleasure, I pay for her time. Perfectly legal. Yet if I pay her to touch my genitalia and bring me to orgasm, she is guilty of prostitution. Why is one leasing of her body legitimate in your mind and another exploitation?

Do you think all prostitutes are created equal--interchangeable objects? Or that some might be better than others, able to give their customers more pleasure? Like a better singer, or a better cook, or a better actress? Might some women take pride in that work, and deserve greater financial rewards for it? Why is this one particular way that one human being can bring pleasure to another so objectionable to you when the others are not?

I can only think of one legitimate answer: that sex is wrong. Massage my shoulders: no problem. Touch my genitalia: criminal prostitute. A moral judgment.

 

[articulett]

We already have laws against public displays of lewdness... this isn't about that... clearly, lots of people don't want to be subject to such things. This is about whether it should be legal for adults to have sex for whatever reasons they want and or give money to whomever they want even when the exchange involves sex. You cannot use side issues unless you have data.

No one is arguing about whether public lewdness should be legal... or littering of condoms-- or molesting kids--or non-consensual sex--we already have laws that deal with those things specifically and there is no evidence that making prostitution illegal has any affect on the efficacy of those laws. In fact, there is no evidence that illegal prostitution has any efficacy on lessening the exploitation of women and women in the industry are less likely to perceive themselves as being exploited when their decisions are freely chosen, instead of based on trying to get around some law.

If the cost of enforcing anti-prostitution laws show no efficacy for preventing or mitigating any kinds of measurable exploitation--then it's time to evolve our legislation accordingly. Laws should have goals in mind-- they cost money to enforce and so the goal should provide a measurable benefit--not some moral "feel good" nonsense that is not correlated with any measurable good to society or the people involved.

If you cannot say that Prostitution is illegal because it prevents exploitation of women as measured by levels of drug abuse, rape, venereal disease, battery, etc. then you are proffering an opinion not based on evidence. It's an opinion allowed to become a law that costs society money to enforce. Society has a vested interest in what it's getting for it's expenses. I think that it's better to enforce laws that actually harm people-- and not spend resources trying to figure out if someone could be said to have made a direct exchange of cash for a sex act so you can fine them, humiliate them, lock them up or spend funds doing whatever the laws require.

How is illegal prostitution more likely to be beneficial than prohibition? Did prohibition stop public drunkeness, alcoholism... do blue laws cut down on drunk driving or does it just make all the drunks go on the road at once taxing the police force? I'm not a liberatarian-- I am a smart person, however -- I want to ensure that the money my tax dollars are spent on have measurable benefits to society-- and I don't think legislating morality does. In fact, I think it puts the government where it doesn't belong. If there are harms-- make the laws address those harms... and where there is no harm, let the consenting adults decide for themselves what to exchange for what.

So for those who think prostitution should be illegal--can you explain why it's better than prohibition-- or do you think we should have prohibition again too?

 

[skeptifem]

The reason the buying and selling of organs and infants in civilised parts of the world is illegal is because it is recognised that no matter what regulation is put in place, these situtations are ripe for exploitation.

you continue to want to compare two things that are nothing alike. factory workers are exploited all over the world, is there something wrong with factory work? **** no. its the system that allows the exploitation to occur.

Looking at the areas of the world which have legalised prostitution it appears to have little to no impact on the exploitative/criminal aspects of the trade. Things stay pretty much the same, except the market generally grows, because buying sex becomes defensible as "just another service".

'pretty much the same'?! are you kidding me? Do you know ANYTHING about the bunny ranch in nevada? Women there have security that can help them if there is something violent occuring, they have condoms provided to them, they get tested for diseases regularly. It is nothing like working the streets.

if you think that illegal prostitution is better for the prostitutes... you are being willingly ignorant at this point because there is so much information thats been presented to show that its much better for prostitutes to work legally.

They are, in general, salaried jobs. Somehow I don't think many prostitutes would accept being paid a salary for what they do.

I dont think you know what you are talking about, again. but thats another thread.

As for the emotional toll of, say, working in emergency medicine compared to prostitution, there is no comparison. The emotional toll of prostitution is more similar to that experienced by soldiers after hand to hand combat on a battlefield. It is quite clear from reading how many prostitutes do not allow kissing that they have to shut down emotionally to perform their work.

???emergency workers dont have to shut down their emotions? Have you worked with any? those people act like robots.

and I dont understand why its bad for prostitutes to be emotionally distant at work. Should they feel things for their clients? that would be pretty stupid of them, dont you think? If someone is ok with having meaningless sex more power to them. I dont think emotion is a neccesary component for enjoyable sex anyway.

So get rid of the punters. Change how men in our societies perceive women. Feminists claim they want equality, but they really don't seem to have the balls to do what's required to achieve it.

I love when people address 'feminists' as if they are a single entity that agrees all the time. prostitution is a complicated issue that many feminists disagree on. there isnt a single feminist perspective on prostitution. there are plenty of feminists who are in the sex industry currently.

Or are most women happy that many men consider them mainly as providers of sex for payment/reward?

That's the attitude legalising prostitution reinforces.

maybe the problem is that no one sees prostitutes as people who are just doing their job- not as someone who needs protection from their own choices/must be mentally defective for choosing their line of work. Making prostitution a legit job may help in that respect.

and wtf there are plenty of male and trans prostitutes, its not just a womens issue.

 

[articulett]

What nails said.

When factory workers or others are exploited, they can collectively bargain or legislate for protections-- how can someone in an "illegal job" do that? When you make prostitution illegal you take away the power of the law to help such people.

You waste tax payer money enforcing ineffective laws while you could be taxing the profits and making money you could use to keep people from being exploited in the ways they feel they are being exploited!

It's laws that up the minimum wage and set the work hours and OSHA regulations that keep legal workers from being exploited... why would you deny this right to anyone by deeming their profession "illegal"? Can't we trust the workers and clients to barter fairly?--And if not, how does making it illegal stop exploitation?

Can anyone give an argument for keeping prostitution illegal that couldn't also be used for making alcohol illegal. Lots of people are exploited by alcohol and alcohol related crimes. Some people become alcoholics... some kids are born with fetal alcohol syndrome. If you want to keep alcohol purchase legal, would it be fair to accuse you of not caring about these victims? Isn't that what those who want to keep prostitution illegal are doing?

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I can only think of one legitimate answer: that sex is wrong. Massage my shoulders: no problem. Touch my genitalia: criminal prostitute. A moral judgment.

How much would I have to pay you to massage my shoulders?

How much would I have to pay you to give me oral sex?

How much would I have to pay to perform anal sex on you?

How much extra if I didn't want to use a condom?

ETA: BTW, under the law I favour it's not "criminal prostitute", it's "criminal client".

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I dont think emotion is a neccesary component for enjoyable sex anyway.

<snip>

I don't think coagulated milk products are necessary for a cheese sandwich.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/prostitution_legalizing.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Fiona]

But that is irrelevant as to whether there is any good reason to make it illegal-- the question in the OP.

No.That was not the question in the opening post.The question was why is it illegal. Since it is not illegal in many places the answer presumably lies in the history of each culture.

Check your own communication and intentions and apologize accordingly before handing out advice about what you perceive as my lack. You seem to have missed that a lot of people are not following you. You've done this before. No one but you seems to understand why you know or care about why prostitution exists or who is qualified to answer. Unless I've missed someone showing signs of following you... have I?

I am curious, Articulett. Who is it you speak for and are you a representative of that group or a delegate from it?

You think you are making valid points, but you repeatedly proffer opinions as though they are evidence of something --but they are just opinions designed to support your preformed conclusion-- same as Ivor. You ignored peer reviewed evidence and proffered a sound bite that you thought was evidence for your preformed conclusion that prostitution is inherently exploitative.

Can you show me where I have done this, please? I think I am founding on the evidence that the status of prostitution as legal or illegal makes little difference to the industry: though what evidence there is tends to suggest that legalising it may tend to worsen the situation. There are too many confounding factors to be sure, or so it seems to me. For now I think it is not a relevant policy response.

The same goes for the whole "most prostitutes were molested as children" (Fiona has brought that up). It may be true, but I don't understand the point?

It is true that many prostitutes were abused as children. It is also true that many are very poor, and a lot are illegal immigrants without papers. The reason I see this as relevant is that some of the people here are arguing that this is a job like any other, and that people make a free choice to become sex workers: and maybe some do. However many do not have a free choice, in the sense that term is normally understood, because they have been abused from an early age, or because they no access to other sources of income. Like it or not, this means that the choices they make are not based on the range of options open to most of us. As shown by the Dutch experience, most people who do have choice do not choose this line of work.

Not everyone here is arguing that there are hosts of happy hookers with hearts of gold who provide a valuable service for the disabled and socially inept: but this is one thread in the argument and the evidence for it is woefully short. That is the point I was addressing. It is fluffy, but false

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Really? Lets take Vegas as an example.

<snip>

Yes, let's. I've walked up the strip in the evening, with all those guys thrusting those little cards in your face - you'd think they'd at least get someone to sweep them up. Then there's those convenient boxes on the sidewalk, full of magazines offering services.

Yes, I can see the governor is really trying to clamp down on prostitution in Vegas.

 

[dann]

Is that what that was? I wasn't able to find the point of it at all. (But often Dann seems to be in his own conversation to me. I used to think it was, perhaps, a language thing.)

Could she possibly be talking about her contributions to this thread?
No, that can’t be the case. I think that her inability to find the point was psychological and not in any way based on linguistic problems.
And she seems to be in full agreement with JFrankA without missing out on “the point of it all”.

I am curious, Articulett. Who is it you speak for and are you a representative of that group or a delegate from it?

She does not speak for me!!!! (But that hardly comes a surprise to you.)
I guess it is her usual reference to all the imaginary PMs supporting her.
Great post!

 

[NobbyNobbs]

It is true that many prostitutes were abused as children. It is also true that many are very poor, and a lot are illegal immigrants without papers. The reason I see this as relevant is that some of the people here are arguing that this is a job like any other, and that people make a free choice to become sex workers: and maybe some do. However many do not have a free choice, in the sense that term is normally understood, because they have been abused from an early age, or because they no access to other sources of income. Like it or not, this means that the choices they make are not based on the range of options open to most of us. As shown by the Dutch experience, most people who do have choice do not choose this line of work.

I'm not sure I agree. I don't see why your average prostitute has any less access to working a basic minimum wage job than, say, someone working their way through college. No, they may not have "free choice" in that they don't have a doctorate and can pick and choose...but that goes for many, many people who are not prostitutes as well. I'm sure many "fell into" the career they are in...but aside from pressure from a pimp, I don't see what's keeping them there if they really wanted to get out.

 

[JFrankA]

*sigh* Ivor, back to the Human Trafficking issue again?

You know, Human Trafficking has been growing in all aspects of prostitution: whether it's illegal, semi-legal (by that I mean the "Swedish law"), and legal. If you really care about Human Trafficking then you go after those who are doing it. Human Trafficking doesn't just involve sex, it involves chocolate, adoption of children, plastics and a whole range of manual labor work. Why isn't that ever mentioned on the threads when one screams "Human Trafficking"?

I have never said that making prostitution legal will solve the Human Trafficking problem. In fact, it won't. Obviously, keeping it illegal doesn't do a whole hell of a lot either, and the "Swedish law" won't do a damn bit as well, (as pointed out in the article I posted, Human Trafficking went up since the "Swedish law" was implemented, but as I stated, to be fair, it went up all over).

As to the sex industry increasing, after reading the snippet you posted, I have to reply in that immortal phrase you used...

So?

How much would I have to pay you to massage my shoulders?

How much would I have to pay you to give me oral sex?

How much would I have to pay to perform anal sex on you?

How much extra if I didn't want to use a condom?

ETA: BTW, under the law I favour it's not "criminal prostitute", it's "criminal client".
I don't think coagulated milk products are necessary for a cheese sandwich.

What is the point of this? Sorry, it seems to me that it does nothing to support your stance.....

Yes, let's. I've walked up the strip in the evening, with all those guys thrusting those little cards in your face - you'd think they'd at least get someone to sweep them up. Then there's those convenient boxes on the sidewalk, full of magazines offering services.

Yes, I can see the governor is really trying to clamp down on prostitution in Vegas.

Oooh! I get it. You think prostitution is the major cause of littering........

Of course, under the "Swedish law", it would be legal to print up and distribute those pieces of paper, but illegal to take them....

EDIT TO ADD: And let me throw in my own "What Nails said...", too.

 

[pgwenthold]

It is true that many prostitutes were abused as children. It is also true that many are very poor, and a lot are illegal immigrants without papers. The reason I see this as relevant is that some of the people here are arguing that this is a job like any other, and that people make a free choice to become sex workers: and maybe some do. However many do not have a free choice, in the sense that term is normally understood, because they have been abused from an early age, or because they no access to other sources of income. Like it or not, this means that the choices they make are not based on the range of options open to most of us. As shown by the Dutch experience, most people who do have choice do not choose this line of work.

And? No one is claiming that everyone will chose it!!! In fact, if you read what I wrote above, you see I addressed this directly: they chose it because (sadly) it is better than the other options available to them. This could mean different things, of course. It could be that it is very good. However, it could also mean that the OTHER options are all that bad. Or it could be a combination of the two. You and others seem to want to think it only means the first. No one is saying that, and I was explicit that it isn't the case. In fact, I tend to lean toward the third.

But again, you miss the point. The fact that poor and abused people turn to prostitution is not an argument against prostitution. Prostitution is a consequence of poverty and abuse, and these problems will not go away if we eliminate prostitution. The women who are currently so destitute that they turn to prostitution are still going to be destitute, and they are going to be just as willing to degrade themselves in order to survive. Given that the blackmarket is the best money for someone with their skillset, don't be surprised if they still find themselves there.

As I said, I'd be willing to pay more taxes to support education opportunities for prostitutes and the other poor. How about you? Because that's what's going to be needed to create more opportunities.

 

[JFrankA]

As I said, I'd be willing to pay more taxes to support education opportunities for prostitutes and the other poor. How about you? Because that's what's going to be needed to create more opportunities.

Hear, hear.

Pgwenthold brings up a good point. Instead of worrying what message prostitution sends to men, or ponificating that povery is the cause of prostitution, this is on way of how to attack the real problem without band-aids, mirrors or rhetoric.

 

[Fiona]

Of course it is. That is why I said that at the moment I think legalising or not legalising prostitution is an irrelevant policy response. Certainly the underlying problems are what needs to be tackled.This is dann's argument, I think, and it is also mine. It relates directly to why prostitution exists.

 

[Mobyseven]

I don't think coagulated milk products are necessary for a cheese sandwich.

I didn't think that deliberately misrepresenting someone's words were necessary for internet forum discussions, but here we are.