Paying for sex, should it be illegal?

[Mudcat]

No one is being forced to do anything though if they willingly take a job.

Name one job comparable to prostitution.

 

[catsmate]

So facts backed by data is drivel to you?

What "facts backed by data" do you refer to? that document has only one piece of statistical data: "81% of the women in the Nevada legal brothels prostitution [sic] urgently want to escape it".
This appears to be derived from another (unavailable) document from he same group. These are no references to published studies or other supporting material.

 

[Myriad]

If money weren't in the equation, how many of those women would be willing to let perfect strangers have sex with them? And let's make no mistake, that's exactly we're talking about here. Women being required to perform acts that they wouldn't be normally comfortable doing with people they normally wouldn't be comfortable doing it with.

That isn't about sex, it's about power. You know, like rape.

That's hardly a valid argument. If money weren't in the equation, how many of those people standing behind counters asking me if I want fries with that (whether they find my company comfortable or not) would be willing to do that? That isn't about food, it's about power. You know, like rape.

Should we ban employment?

 

[Butter!]

I suppose that an interesting (though obviously simplistic) question could usefully be posed: what proportion of 18-30 year-old women who are financially secure and who do not have substance abuse issues choose to become prostitutes? And/or what proportion of current female sex workers fall into that category?

That would be interesting to see the hard data. I can only speak anecdotally - they're out there.

But here's something else to consider. The fact that sex work is illegal keeps a lot of people who would otherwise be okay with it out of the industry, because they don't want to get into legal trouble. People under the pressure of addiction or something similar might be more willing to take the risk despite its illegality. After all, they're already taking significant risks with their lifestyle. I believe that fact could skew the data quite a bit.

The women who work at the legal brothels in Nevada aren't abused or coerced, and they're mostly screened for illegal drug use too. So that's something too. Might be a good place to start investigating such an inquiry.

 

[Edx]

The supply most certainly does not met the demand since I recall a recent-ish poll stating that a majority of men would be willing to pay for sex if it were legal to do so. Where do they get the women and most importantly how?

How about you go on Saafe.info and imply they must all be trafficked, doing it against their own will, being coerced, that they are being raped, or something, and see how you're received.

Women being required to perform acts that they wouldn't be normally comfortable doing with people they normally wouldn't be comfortable doing it with.

That isn't about sex, it's about power. You know, like rape.

This is such a ridiculous argument.

I am not gay. I do not ever want a man to put their penis in my butt, or put their penis in my mouth. But if someone wanted to offer me enough money eventually I would let a man do that to/with me. I am not "being raped" just because I decide that I have a price.

These girls don't even have to alter their sexuality and can be extremely picky if they so desire, even using it like a casual sex dating website they get paid for if they really wanted to. They can earn in 2 hours or even less what they'd have to work a full time job to get the same money. Gee I wonder why it would seem attractive. They say once you've done it it is hard to stay away. Not because anyone is forcing you, or coercing you, but because the money is so damn good. If they enjoy sex and it isn't much of a big deal to them to have casual sex with some stranger, if they can earn more than a big city professional does in an hour, then could it be that they might actually be choosing to do this of their own volition? And believe me you do not need to be any kind of looker to do very, very well. They are not all doped up cracked out dirty meth addicts that will do it in the back seat for $20 or a hit of crack.

But if this can be called rape, then I guess all those gold diggers with rich old men must also be being raped. After all, without all that money they wouldn't be interested either. Honestly, women clearly do get trafficked and coerced in the sex industry, but a lot of men that pay for this are the real losers. They are willing to part with a ton of money just to experience female sexuality when they would have trouble giving their's away, as evidenced by all those personal ads on places like on certain reddit subs where men say they will literally do anything for a woman with no reciprocation expected. Isn't that the sad thing? Women get to do this and they can choose to do it as much or as little as they like, men don't get this choice. Women don't need you telling them that they are being harmed by capitalising on the fact that male sexuality is worthless but female sexuality is worth a crap ton. Or, maybe they do, since despite it being obviously true if you just open your eyes so many women still don't appear to understand this. You don't want to sell your sexuality as a woman? Ok, don't then. Some do.

You're required to have sex with people you don't know and potentially contract STDs or deal with unwanted pregnancies in a job you can't really talk about with others because of the social stigma that comes with it.

Name one other job like that.

So you can think of no other risky job or career can you? I can think of many that are far more risky and likely get paid far less.

 

[Puppycow]

If money weren't in the equation, how many of those women would be willing to let perfect strangers have sex with them?

If they didn't pay me to do my job I wouldn't do it. Would you?

 

[Butter!]

Name one job comparable to prostitution.

I don't know what you mean. Comparable in what sense? That's pretty subjective.

Not everyone hates the idea of sex with strangers. Some people do it for free every weekend.

 

[arthwollipot]

...the prices that Johns are willing to pay.

Clients.

Am I the only one who sees the contradiction?

Yes. In fact, you're manufacturing a contradiction.

 

[LondonJohn]

There's some that are, sure. It's a good job for a junkie because it's quick money and no really regular schedule to keep in a lot of cases. However, that's not an adequate reason to ban it. There's a lot of junkies who take house-cleaning jobs off Craigslist too for the same reason, quick cash on the spot. Should we ban that work too? Of course not.

Well obv I know why you've made the comparison to a cleaning job, but I expect that legislators take into account that offering yourself up sexually to a man (whom often you are initiating sex before barely a couple of sentences have been spoken between you....) is a far more sensitive and personal choice for a woman to make than cleaning someone's house.

I think that the overriding factor driving legislation in this area is that the consensus view is that for a large proportion of female sex workers, they don't enjoy their "jobs" and feel violated, but they feel that it's their best option under their circumstances. So the law deems that these types of people essentially need protection from themselves (as well as potentially from others). I think that extremists at both ends of this argument are wrong (and often use evangelical rhetoric in their arguments), but I do think that on balance prostitution should be legislated against.

Now, whether that creates an underground market in prostitution is a slightly different matter. Perhaps - as with drug law - those who are caught (at the "coal face", so to speak...) should be given education and support rather than criminal records and sheer punishment.

We often see legislation correctly applied for areas where, superficially, people seem capable of giving informed consent. For example, one might argue that it's entirely up to me whether or not I choose to wear a seatbelt when I drive my car. Yet it's against the law where I live not to wear a seatbelt when driving.

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Name one job comparable to prostitution.

Politician.

 

[Butter!]

Well obv I know why you've made the comparison to a cleaning job, but I expect that legislators take into account that offering yourself up sexually to a man (whom often you are initiating sex before barely a couple of sentences have been spoken between you....) is a far more sensitive and personal choice for a woman to make than cleaning someone's house.
I think that the overriding factor driving legislation in this area is that the consensus view is that for a large proportion of female sex workers, they don't enjoy their "jobs" and feel violated, but they feel that it's their best option under their circumstances. So the law deems that these types of people essentially need protection from themselves (as well as potentially from others). I think that extremists at both ends of this argument are wrong (and often use evangelical rhetoric in their arguments), but I do think that on balance prostitution should be legislated against.

Now, whether that creates an underground market in prostitution is a slightly different matter. Perhaps - as with drug law - those who are caught (at the "coal face", so to speak...) should be given education and support rather than criminal records and sheer punishment.

We often see legislation correctly applied for areas where, superficially, people seem capable of giving informed consent. For example, one might argue that it's entirely up to me whether or not I choose to wear a seatbelt when I drive my car. Yet it's against the law where I live not to wear a seatbelt when driving.

But that's just it - it's a choice. And it's a choice people make all the time. It's not illegal to have sex with people you've just met. It only becomes (technically) illegal when money's involved.

As for the seatbelt laws, a large justification for them is that people who aren't wearing seatbelts can become like "projectiles" in an accident, thus endangering others. It simplifies things to just make a blanket law requiring everyone to wear them. This situation is quite different, because the exact same sexual agreement is perfectly legal as long as no money changes hands. That's what makes it silly.

 

[Mudcat]

I don't know what you mean. Comparable in what sense? That's pretty subjective.

You're required to have sex with people you don't know and potentially contract STDs or deal with unwanted pregnancies in a job you can't really talk about with others because of the social stigma that comes with it.

Name one other job like that.

Some people do it for free every weekend.

I would advise people against that, too.

If they didn't pay me to do my job I wouldn't do it. Would you?

Since I'm trying to build experience with my current job, money is actually a secondary motive at best. So I might very well do so if I thought it would get me to where I wanted to go.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

New Zealand seems to make a positive case:

Organizations focusing on prostitution, HIV/AIDS and related legal problems discussed these and other issues at a recent meeting in Bangkok, where they discussed the U.N. study “Sex Work and the Law in Asia and the Pacific.”

“Nearly all countries of Asia and the Pacific criminalize some aspects of sex work, … [but] criminalization increases vulnerability to HIV,” said Cherie Hart, a spokeswoman for the U.N. Development Program (UNDP), describing the dangers of contracting the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), which causes acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS).

The report called for the decriminalization of prostitution because it found “no evidence from countries of Asia and the Pacific” that outlawing the sex trade has prevented HIV epidemics among sex workers and their clients.

...

New Zealand and Australia’s New South Wales province are models of how decriminalization of prostitution boosted condom use and slowed the spread of HIV, resulting in “extremely low or nonexistent” transmission of sexual diseases among prostitutes, said the report.

“I would like to be a sex worker in New Zealand,” said Mandeep Dhaliwal, director of the UNDP’s HIV, Health and Development Practice, when asked which countries in Asia were the best places for them to earn a living as a prostitute.

...

Problems are exacerbated when reformers and authorities voice shrill warnings about human-trafficking and forcibly “rescue” prostitutes who do not want to be “saved,” the report said.

“The language of some international and regional instruments have either implied a strong link between trafficking and sex work, or conflated these concepts,” it said, referring to local laws, international agreements and other formal legal arrangements.

Anti-trafficking laws should focus on minors in the sex trade and victims coerced or deceived into prostitution but not voluntary sex workers, the report said.

“Often, sex workers are portrayed as passive victims who need to be saved. Assuming that all workers are trafficked denies the autonomy and [choice] of people who sell sex,” the report said.

Prostitutes “rescued” against their will, often suffer an immediate and devastating loss of income.

Their colleagues, also working voluntarily, then often hide from authorities and end up in worse conditions where they are exploited and more vulnerable to HIV infection, the report said, adding that arresting customers is also a failed strategy.

“The UNAIDS Advisory Group on Sex Work has noted that there is no evidence that [anti-prostitution] initiatives reduce sex work or HIV transmission, or improve the quality of life of sex workers,” it said.

Linky.

The much praised "Swedish model" of making the purchaser illegal has mixed results:

In 2004, the Swedish police and the Ministry of Justice released a report on the state of prostitution since the 1998 reform, and found that:

• There were fewer sex clients, but a larger proportion were dangerous
• Sex workers had less time to assess clients
• The prices for sexual services had fallen
• More clients were ready to pay for unprotected sex
• Sex workers felt that their risk of violence had increased

The report also brought to light a new form of crime that had arisen: women posing as sex workers to rob clients (who would fear reporting the robbery to the police for fear of being charged with attempting to purchase sexual services).

...

In a 2005 document released by the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network, the organization stated that New Zealand’s model was “much more respectful of the autonomy, dignity and human rights of sex workers” compared to the Swedish laws.
The organization highlighted evidence that the Swedish law had not eliminated prostitution, and that it had resulted in more dangerous conditions for vulnerable women sex workers.
“The New Zealand model offers a better example of a reform that respects, protects and fulfills the human rights of sex workers and holds more promise for better protecting their health,” the organization wrote.

Linky.

In Canada, sex workers themselves seemed to favour the NZ approach over the Swedish one.

 

[LondonJohn]

I don't know what you mean. Comparable in what sense? That's pretty subjective.

Not everyone hates the idea of sex with strangers. Some people do it for free every weekend.

But don't you find it gets a bit soulless and impersonal after a while?


But being serious, I think you have many good points. I just think that the argument, while nuanced rather than black or white, falls just (but identifiably) on the side of the need for legislation. Perhaps one good potential solution might be similar to that adopted in Sweden, where the seller is decriminalised (but offered help and support), while the buyer is criminalised. It seems to have had significantly beneficial outcomes there.

 

[Butter!]

You're required to have sex with people you don't know and potentially contract STDs or deal with unwanted pregnancies in a job you can't really talk about with others because of the social stigma that comes with it.

Name one other job like that.

But you're not required to do anything. You set your own terms ahead of time on a case-by-case basis. This is why I keep talking about women working for themselves. I'm not talking about women working for pimps. I'm talking about women who choose their jobs themselves. If they don't want to do something, they don't do it.

As for legal jobs with stigma in many circles - stripping, pharmaceutical rep, butcher, sniper, abortionist.

I would advise people against that, too.

You're entitled to your opinion, of course, and I'm not saying it's necessarily the healthiest thing to do either. But there's a world of difference between advising someone against something and making it illegal.

 

[Myriad]

I think that the overriding factor driving legislation in this area is that the consensus view is that for a large proportion of female sex workers, they don't enjoy their "jobs" and feel violated, but they feel that it's their best option under their circumstances. So the law deems that these types of people essentially need protection from themselves (as well as potentially from others). I think that extremists at both ends of this argument are wrong (and often use evangelical rhetoric in their arguments), but I do think that on balance prostitution should be legislated against.

Here's the problem, though: if they feel that it's their best option under the circumstances, what does taking that option away do, other than force them into an even worse option?

Unless they're usually wrong about it being their best option. Can you say that with any certainty?

If you can, then most likely what they're wrong about is some long-term drawback, some externality of the transaction they're not taking into account when weighing that option, such as health or safety or future job prospects down the road. Those externalities could be internalized (e.g. as they already are for most jobs by mandatory surcharges for health insurance, disability, retirement, OSHA regulations and so forth), but only if the activity is legal.

 

[Butter!]

But don't you find it gets a bit soulless and impersonal after a while?


But being serious, I think you have many good points. I just think that the argument, while nuanced rather than black or white, falls just (but identifiably) on the side of the need for legislation. Perhaps one good potential solution might be similar to that adopted in Sweden, where the seller is decriminalised (but offered help and support), while the buyer is criminalised. It seems to have had significantly beneficial outcomes there.

I wouldn't know. I haven't had sex in over 2 years, and I've never had a one-night stand in my life. (I used to be a counselor, that's where my anecdotes come from.)

However, I think it could be argued that many if not most jobs become soulless and impersonal to some degree after awhile. It's all a matter of what each individual person can deal with.

And I totally agree that there's a need for legislation by the way! Even if it were legal, plenty of regulation would, I think, be necessary to make it really safe. Chief among those, licenses contingent upon STD testing and things like that. I am in no way advocating the sexy wild west.

 

[Howie Felterbush]

Name one job comparable to prostitution.

Working at Subway.

I mean, you're paying someone to do something your wife should be doing.

 

[Mudcat]

Clients.

You can call them what you like. Doesn't change what they are.

Yes. In fact, you're manufacturing a contradiction.

You saying so doesn't make it so.

 

[LondonJohn]

But that's just it - it's a choice. And it's a choice people make all the time. It's not illegal to have sex with people you've just met. It only becomes (technically) illegal when money's involved.

As for the seatbelt laws, a large justification for them is that people who aren't wearing seatbelts can become like "projectiles" in an accident, thus endangering others. It simplifies things to just make a blanket law requiring everyone to wear them. This situation is quite different, because the exact same sexual agreement is perfectly legal as long as no money changes hands. That's what makes it silly.

1) OK: try legislation mandating the wearing of helmets when riding a motorbike.

2) I really think that we need to move beyond the comparison of a) a guy and a girl hooking up in a bar and going off to have sex and b) a woman making herself commercially available for sex, and a man buying that service. It's facile to say that simply because the same physical act is involved, and that the parties might have known each other for a similar time period, there is necessarily any sort of ethical or moral equivalence.

Context and circumstances make all the difference here. Another (simplistic, obviously) example: a doctor prescribes Tramadol (a very strong painkiller) for a specified condition to a patient, Mr A, who collects (and pays for) the drugs from a pharmacist, Mr B, and takes them home and ingests them. Not illegal, obviously. But if a dealer, Mr X, with a stash of Tramadol sells them to Mr Y, who the takes the drugs home and ingests them, then both Mr X and Mr Y are breaking the law. Yet the same basic thing is happening in both instances: one person is selling Tramadol to the other person, and the other person is ingesting the drugs.