banquetbear
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2003
- Messages
- 1,765
banquetbear
Just wanted to genuinely say thanks for taking the time with me to explain your views. This is not really much of an issue in the US yet, that's definitely too bad. This is a subject where I do not have strong views and am still working with and comparing ideas.
...I appreciate your thoughts. Just bear in mind though: you are approaching this as an "intellectual exercise." I can't do that: I know too many people that have been hurt or are dead because of the way things used to be.
I was raised in a religious bubble a bit like a cult, I like to assert that I am an atheist but also aware there there is a sense I am never completely free. So a tool I use is to try and see the issue from other's point of view, to break things down and try to think differently for just a little while. My strategy on the information I posted was to simply work backward: If I lived in NZ, what issues might I find there? I am sorry of some of those sites have religious links but that does not mean that I advocate their views.
I don't care if an organisation is religious or not. The authors of your cite was an interesting aside after I had examined the work they presented. It is perfectly possible to be a religious organisation and to have views that I agree with: even though I'm an atheist. I happen to disagree with the views in your cite: not because they are religious but because they argue from emotion and not from objective evidence.
I definitely have some problems understanding how the government there works. It seems much more parental than here. I'm not saying wrong but just a different mindset that influences things very broadly.
It is much less paternal. If I decide to have sex in exchange for money here, the State doesn't interfere unless one of the principals set up to ensure the safety of the participants is violated. How do you see that as "more parental?" Your state has stricter controls on not only what you can do with your money but also what you can do with your body.
The difficulty I have is not so much in legalization, but in thinking of prostitution as a business - I find the ethics of it too hard to overcome. If I owned a business with 2000 people, but every year it included 20 of them to be beaten and abused just a part of doing business - I would abandon the business. So for me to accept these business owners as advocates and spokespeople for women's dignity or equality seems fundamentally flawed. I could understand a view that maybe we should accept this violence as always there and so this is a compromise. I'm not like 'aargh' this is icky.
But this isn't about you. You don't need to be an advocate and spokesman for women's (and mens of course) dignity or equality. People in the sex industry are more than capable of advocating for themselves. What they want though is for people (like you) to start listening, and to stop lecturing.
I am genuinely curious about how NZ does with their laws. No, I could not find any statistics and I suspect the lack of statistics is on purpose.
Why on earth would you think that? We hardly live in a police state here. You are making an assumption that there has to be a problem: you don't need to do that. If you think the government is hiding something then let me know and I'm more than happy to make an official information request on your behalf.
There are some statistics, but they do with the impact that disassociation causes. To be dismissive about statistics that show prostitution does harm to women's mental health and future success does leave me with nothing much else to say here.
I'm dismissive of statistics you haven't produced. I don't think that there is anything wrong with that.
This is a secular site that has statistics. They don't really make a single specific argument that is convincing that prostitution is part of a spectrum of violence, but they have quite a collection. As a male, I'm not sure I could ever completely accept their view - a pattern of thinking I probably can't escape. But I found it interesting reading if there are those like me who are interested in getting a broader view of the opinions.
The cite may well be "secular", but I would hardly call it objective or scientific and I can't track down many of the article's primary sources. For example, Sheila makes the claim that "40 percent of clients had used prostituted women without wearing condoms" which doesn't jibe with the statistics that I'm familiar with, and is contradicted by this cite here, which is more in line with my knowledge of the industry.
http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/publications/proceedings/14/perkins.pdf
"Condoms were used by 98 per cent of the 1990-91 sample in sexual contacts with
their clients. The survey found 95 per cent of prostitutes used them on every occasion
regardless of the type of sexual activity or the familiarity of the clients. This is a considerable increase on the 1985-86 samples where only 70 per cent of the prostitutes surveyed used condoms on every occasion. "
Both of the sets of statistics are a quarter of a century old. You can't blame the failure to curb police corruption on the sex industry. There isn't anything particularly convincing in your cite that would lead me to want to make prostitution no longer legal here.