Outlawing prostitution

I am afraid I had forgotten that today is easter. So I must apologize again for not being able to post today. I am obliged to go assist the preparation of the Holy Ham of Denying Death, the Lamb of God (with a nice mint sauce), Hard Boiled Eggs of Eternal Life, and a lovely Asparagus Salad that Taketh Away the Sins of the World ;)

Hope you all have a lovely day.
 
Can we be practical for a change? It is not the buyers of sex who are at risk of being exploited, but the sellers. So it makes sense to protect the sellers. The average age a female goes into prostitution is 13.

Also, I think somebody needs to prove that the vast majority of buyers are not exploitative control-freaky creeps, since that is the assumption that many insist we adhere to in these discussions. The pro-abuse crowd insists that everybody else prove every little damn thing, and it's high time they use the identical standards.

They insist we must prove prostitution is harmful, why do they not prove prostitution is healthy? Just repeating that mantra a thousand times does not make it true.

I'd like to see some proof that prositution is healthy for all parties involved. Surely that it not too much ask? And no, an anonymous story from an anonymous former stripper is anecdotal. I'd like an actual study, with citations, published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal of good standing, written by someone who is not affiliated with NAMBA.
 
Last edited:
Another thing, which I mentioned previously. There is a history of oppression -- a pattern of some men actively dominating women for their own benefit, other men passively accepting the status quo and a tiny few actively fighting for justice -- going back centuries. The degree of oppression has improved, but the desire to oppress has not.

Any interaction between men and women must be examined in light of this pattern. If you want to insist that this pattern has ceased and we no longer need to consider the desire of men to dominate and exploit women, then somebody needs to prove it.

The pro-abuse crowd also needs to prove that prostitution is outside this pattern. Otherwise, it's just the fox guarding the henhouse.
 
Smiley, could you try to rephrase your objection with less unsourced assertions, emotive and insulting language, and pathetic attempt as character assassination? BTW it's spelled NAMBLA.

// CyCrow
 
Last edited:
CyCrow wrote:
I'll include another link, http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi....x?cookieSet=1
that seems to present a reasonable view on prostitution.
Click to expand...

CyCrow, when I click on that link, all I get is an error. It says "client IP is blocked because: Spider trap hit"

Could you provide some more information about what the paper is? Title, author, etc, so I can find it and read it?

Thanks
Meg
 
Smiley said:
They insist we must prove prostitution is harmful, why do they not prove prostitution is healthy?
Click to expand...

Because in a free society, the default position should to allow it unless there is a reason why we shouldn't. No one should ever have to provide a reason why something SHOULD be allowed other than, "I want to do it."

I have given my example many times. I am currently allowed to stand in my driveway on one foot while singing Judy Garland songs during a rainstorm. There is no reason to do this other than I want to do it, and, in fact, it puts me at risk of catching pneumonia. However, there are no laws against, nor will there be laws against it. Why not? Because there is no reason why I should not be allowed to do it (provided I am not disturbing the peace, which is a real possibility given my singing voice, although the rain should drown that out to a large extent).

This will be legal until someone comes up with a reason why it shouldn't. Even if everyone agreed it was a silly thing to do, and that they didn't want to do it, that is no basis for outlawing it.

The things that illegal are that way because people have made an argument why it should not be allowed. That includes prostitution. What you are seeing here is people question the bases on which prostitution was outlawed. If those can be shown to be invalid, then there is no basis for keeping it illegal.

Lastly, having to show that prostitution is "healthy" is special pleading. Why should anyone have to show that an activity is "healthy" for it to be legal? Fast food places don't have to show that their food is healthy, yet it's not illegal. Rock climbing is highly dangerous, but still legal. IIRC, lumberjacks have the highest mortality rate of any (legal) profession, but it is legal. Why hold prostitution to a different standard?

ETA: BTW, rock climbing provides no benefit to society except for individual satisfaction. I think the same could be said for fast food joints.
 
Last edited:
CyCrow said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not arguing that pro-legislation folk want to force women into prostitution. I'm arguing that just legalizing prostitution does nothing to protect women from being forced into prostitution, so by legalizing prostitution you/we could unintentionally be encouraging traffickers to coerce more women into prostitution to fulfill "demand", unless we do something else to specifically crack down on trafficking.


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.
Click to expand...

I think you are stretching. Some papers might have some questionable research, true, however, I don't believe that automatically negates all "radical feminist positions".

Just so you know, I agree that Farley uses emotive language, and I'm not impressed by that either. I would much rather let good research and facts dictate to me the situation than have someone tell me what to think. I'm not going to throw all of Farley's research out, though, because of it. I think you presume to know more about her intentions and what she could have done than is realistic. You presume she only talked to street walkers intentionally to skew her findings, I suspect that most of her research was done on streetwalkers because they were easier to find and more willing to talk to her.

Interesting article here, on the difficulty in getting or doing good research on prostitution:

Prostitution: Reconsidering Research by Wendy McElroy
http://www.zetetics.com/mac/articles/spin1199.html

I also found another interesting source of information here:
http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/pubtrfrep.htm
I have not read them all, but the few that I have seem to be a bit more neutral in their language.

Thinking about Smiley's request for evidence that prostitution is healthy for all parties involved..

The Fact Sheet on Domestic Sex Trafficking and Prostitution in the United States quotes a mortality in a long-term cohort (1967-1999) study of 1,969 prostitutes in Colorado Springs that says:

The extrapolated workplace homicide rate for prostitutes in this study was 204 per 100,000.
Click to expand...

That comes in at over twice as dangerous as the most dangerous jobs.

According to this article about the most dangerous jobs in the US:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/pf/jobs_jeopardy/

1 Logging workers 92.4/100,000
2 Aircraft pilots 92.4/100,000
3 Fishers and fishing workers 86.4/100,000
4 Structural iron and steel workers 47.0/100,000
5 Refuse and recyclable material collectors 43.2/100,000
6 Farmers and ranchers 37.5/100,000
7 Roofers 34.9/100,000
8 Electrical power line installers/repairers 30.0/100,000
9 Driver/sales workers and truck drivers 27.6/100,000
10 Taxi drivers and chauffeurs 24.2/100,000


If I'm doing the math right, more prostitutes die per 100,000 than trash collectors, farmers, roofers, electrical installers, truck drivers, and taxi drivers all put together.
 
meg said:
Well, I'm not arguing that pro-legislation folk want to force women into prostitution. I'm arguing that just legalizing prostitution does nothing to protect women from being forced into prostitution, so by legalizing prostitution you/we could unintentionally be encouraging traffickers to coerce more women into prostitution to fulfill "demand", unless we do something else to specifically crack down on trafficking.
Click to expand...
I would argue that legalisation makes it easier to enforce laws against forced and underage prostitution, as the the legal establishments can be controlled much more easily. The advantages of complying with the law are great enough, much easier advertising, no risk of long prison terms, to make most establishments comply. Here's a report on the legalisation in the Netherlands: http://www.prosentret.no/images/stories/prostitusjon/sammendrag nedeland.pdf (summary)
http://www.prosentret.no/images/stories/prostitusjon/nederlandsk evaluering av legalisering.pdf (full report)
Almost no underage girls were found in the research, and the few found were 17. The number of illegal foreign nationals has decreased.

meg said:
I think you are stretching. Some papers might have some questionable research, true, however, I don't believe that automatically negates all "radical feminist positions".

Just so you know, I agree that Farley uses emotive language, and I'm not impressed by that either. I would much rather let good research and facts dictate to me the situation than have someone tell me what to think. I'm not going to throw all of Farley's research out, though, because of it. I think you presume to know more about her intentions and what she could have done than is realistic. You presume she only talked to street walkers intentionally to skew her findings, I suspect that most of her research was done on streetwalkers because they were easier to find and more willing to talk to her.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't automatically negate all radfem positions, but it fails to support the assertion that "all prostitution is violence against women". The research can, if read carefully, give useful insight on the conditions in the lowest strata of prostitution. It cannot be used, as Farley tries, as a argument against prostitution/sex-work in general.

meg said:
Interesting article here, on the difficulty in getting or doing good research on prostitution:

Prostitution: Reconsidering Research by Wendy McElroy
http://www.zetetics.com/mac/articles/spin1199.html
Click to expand...

Good find, it illustrates the deep split between the camps, has a good point about the careless way some figures are thrown around in the debate.

meg said:
I also found another interesting source of information here:
http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/pubtrfrep.htm
I have not read them all, but the few that I have seem to be a bit more neutral in their language.
Click to expand...
meg said:
Thinking about Smiley's request for evidence that prostitution is healthy for all parties involved..

The Fact Sheet on Domestic Sex Trafficking and Prostitution in the United States quotes a mortality in a long-term cohort (1967-1999) study of 1,969 prostitutes in Colorado Springs that says:

The extrapolated workplace homicide rate for prostitutes in this study was 204 per 100,000.
Click to expand...
This includes a lot of dangerous street prostitution, so a high rate isn't unexpected. The homicide rate is 18 times greater than average. Drugs, alcohol and HIV are also important killers.

Street/drug related prostitution is bad, no argument there.

meg said:
That comes in at over twice as dangerous as the most dangerous jobs.

According to this article about the most dangerous jobs in the US:
http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/pf/jobs_jeopardy/

1 Logging workers 92.4/100,000
2 Aircraft pilots 92.4/100,000
3 Fishers and fishing workers 86.4/100,000
4 Structural iron and steel workers 47.0/100,000
5 Refuse and recyclable material collectors 43.2/100,000
6 Farmers and ranchers 37.5/100,000
7 Roofers 34.9/100,000
8 Electrical power line installers/repairers 30.0/100,000
9 Driver/sales workers and truck drivers 27.6/100,000
10 Taxi drivers and chauffeurs 24.2/100,000


If I'm doing the math right, more prostitutes die per 100,000 than trash collectors, farmers, roofers, electrical installers, truck drivers, and taxi drivers all put together.
Click to expand...

You can't really add "per 100,000" numbers ;-) As before, you can't really compare all kinds of prostitution. Here's a report about legalisation in Germany: http://www.prosentret.no/images/stories/prostitusjon/tyskland ii-1.pdf
One interesting data point: 85% of prostitutes have health insurance. What's the rate in the US?

// CyCrow
 
CyCrow said:
Here's a report about legalisation in Germany: http://www.prosentret.no/images/stories/prostitusjon/tyskland ii-1.pdf
One interesting data point: 85% of prostitutes have health insurance. What's the rate in the US?
Click to expand...

Interesting report, but are you sure that it supports your ideas?

http://www.prosentret.no/images/stories/prostitusjon/tyskland ii-1.pdf
”A further reason for the Act’s low degree of impact stems from the option the legislator chose of linking provision of social security and improvement in working conditions in prostitution to the formation of employment contracts. So far, people working in prostitution have not made use of this possibility, and the expectation that, when the Act came into force, employment relationships subject to compulsory insurance would be created in prostitution, has not been fulfilled. Apart from isolated cases, which were difficult to track down, no employment contracts in prostitution were concluded. The majority of prostitutes prefer to be self-employed. Owners/managers of prostitution businesses have not taken on the role of employer. Neither group has any idea about how waged employment relationships subject to compulsory insurance could be set up in this sector. There are no feasible models that take account of the specific features of the field of prostitution.

The intention to convert this unregulated form of work into a legally regulated type of employment has not been achieved.” p. 32

“People take decisions of whether to take advantage of legal regulations after weighing up the pros and cons of doing so or not doing so. If taking advantage of a legal provision entails a financial burden, for example, it would be a powerful obstacle. This would be relevant, for example, if brothel owner/managers or prostitutes were thinking about employment relationships subject to compulsory insurance, which would entail deductions for both parties and therefore a decrease in earnings that are traditionally ‘cash in hand’. On the other hand, when considering currently the pros and cons of working as an employee, the long-term security provided by social insurance, such as acquiring pension right, offers only a small advantage. This is particularly true for people who intend to work only temporarily in prostitution and for migrant women who are in Germany primarily to earn money but plan to live in the long term in their country of origin.” p. 33

Read about the ”Unresolved problems and undesired side effects” on p. 38.
 
meg said:
Well, I'm not arguing that pro-legislation folk want to force women into prostitution. I'm arguing that just legalizing prostitution does nothing to protect women from being forced into prostitution, so by legalizing prostitution you/we could unintentionally be encouraging traffickers to coerce more women into prostitution to fulfill "demand", unless we do something else to specifically crack down on trafficking.
Click to expand...
First, how does prohibiting prostitution prevent women from being forced into prostitution? How does it do anything except to further victimize people who you perceive as being victims? If prostitution were legal why would there be "traffickers". It is the black market that produces traffickers in whatever trade you want to talk about? Assuming prostitution were legalized - underage prostitution would still be illegal, so how would anything change in that regard? Is the owner and operator of the Bunny Ranch a "trafficker"? I have seen that Bunny Ranch show on HBO and the women involved hardly seem to view themselves as victims. They see a way to make tremendous amounts of money doing something most of them seem to thoroughly enjoy?

Would your argument be that they "shouldn't" enjoy it? or that they are victims even if they don't think or feel they are? It seems to me we a very much still stuck with this notion from the fifties that sex is something men do to women and I can't help but hear faint echoes of Andrea Dwarkin and this notion that all women are to some nominal degree "victims" in any sexual relationship. Sex with underage people will continue to be illegal and "forcing" anyone into prostitution will continue to be illegal - so I am completely unclear what the hazards are of decriminalizing victimless behavior between two consenting adults.

Just as no good at all and much harm has come from every other attempt to control the voluntary, victimless behavior of consenting adults, the same is true of prostitution. Of course, just as with recreational drug use, the argument becomes of about the potential possible associated consequences, simply because there is no legitimate argument for justifying how a given group of people should be able to decide how another group of people should behave inspite of the fact that it in no way interferes with the rights of the first group of people except to offend their sensibilities. But, the fact is, all of those consequences exist anyway, just as the offending behavior continues to exist. Criminalizing the behavior of consenting adults does nothing but make criminals of people who have done nothing to harm others. This whole idea of "vice" crimes is, frankly, absurd in a free society. The law should not be about morality. It should be about protecting the rights of individuals.
 
dann said:
Interesting report, but are you sure that it supports your ideas?
Click to expand...

Are you clear on what my ideas are?

As the report says, standard working contracts (by the hour etc) can't really work for prostitution, because it conflicts with basic rights (also stipulated in the law) for working girls to choose which clients they will see and what services they will provide to each client. It does however allow brothels etc to legally employ non-sex-working employees normally, for bartending, cleaning, security etc.

I can't imagine the people who knew the scene thought it would happen, but the it's principle that sex-work is legal that's important.

As for the conditions becoming worse in the illegal sector, thats somewhat balanced by the reduction of prevalence of illegal prostitution. The total "volume of problems" is still reduced.

Now, just for a change of pace, can any of you come up with what your "ideal law" on the subject is? Or at least sketch out the guiding principles (no need to get into the legalese). It should probably be mentioned what cultural/legal/economic framework the law is suitable for.

// CyCrow
 
CyCrow said:
Now, just for a change of pace, can any of you come up with what your "ideal law" on the subject is? Or at least sketch out the guiding principles (no need to get into the legalese). It should probably be mentioned what cultural/legal/economic framework the law is suitable for.
Click to expand...

Yes -- and I already posted it. Maybe not "ideal", but pretty close:

I 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 legal. But if her landlord so much as suggests the idea, she can have him arrested. And there is no chance of a brother owner claiming he/she is "doing best for the girls" while keeping them chained up. Not that I believe it happens in Europe (or Nevada) nearly as much as you seem to claim, but Japan's law makes it impossible in principle.
 
Mark6 said:
Not that I believe it happens in Europe (or Nevada) nearly as much as you seem to claim, but Japan's law makes it impossible in principle.
Click to expand...

Not "you" CyCrow. I got my posters mixed up.
 
Mark6 said:
Yes -- and I already posted it. Maybe not "ideal", but pretty close:

I 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.
Click to expand...

It's not the worst model by any means, and very similar to the current legal status here in Norway. The primary problem is that is doesn't distinguish between "good" and "bad" pimps, and as many prostitutes still need services like an apartment, advertising and security, it adds the cost of illegality to these services. Many criminals are rational actors, so the price of illegal services must offset the risk of being caught. This leads to a lot of money being channeled through more or less organized crime.

Almost all migrant/foreign prostitutes in Norway have some sort of pimp/agent that handles practical things like apartments, mobile phones, advertising etc. But the relationship isn't always purely exploitative. Here's an abstract (in english) http://kilden.forskningsradet.no/c17224/artikkel/vis.html?tid=47143 of this masters thesis: http://www.prosentret.no/images/stories/prostitusjon/irina_ polyakova.pdf (in norwegian, dann should be able to read it if he would like)

Mark6 said:
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 legal. But if her landlord so much as suggests the idea, she can have him arrested. And there is no chance of a brother owner claiming he/she is "doing best for the girls" while keeping them chained up. Not that I believe it happens in Europe (or Nevada) nearly as much as you seem to claim, but Japan's law makes it impossible in principle.
Click to expand...

Do you have any sources on how this law works out in practice in Japan? The japanese porn law is an example of a seemingly mostly symbolic law that simply causes genitals to be pixelated out, while allowing some of the weirdest and hardest S/M films in the world to be produced and sold.

I have also read about what effectively amounts to brothels in japan, maybe a similar loophole is used, or is it illegal but hard to prosecute? Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Japan seems to indicate that the former is true: "...definition of prostitution is strictly limited to coitus."


So it must be remembered that it's not just the intention of the law that counts, the unintended side effects tend to be dominant when legislating sex. I believe a law that explicitly gives rights to prostitutes in relation to clients and brothel owners/agents/pimps is a better idea.

// CyCrow
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom