Prostitution

[Angra Mainyu]

First off, I have never advocated baning it. That is impractical at best. I am advocating a system like Sweden's, which is best for the women working in the industry.
Just to be clear, I understand that, which is why I talked about banning paying for sex, not getting paid for sex.

Whether that's the best for the women (and men) working in the industry (and for others, since you gave another reason for supporting that system, namely changing a perception that "some women are just holes"), and whether that's also better overall, can be debated.


That does happen. Frequently. Even in Sydney which you are holding up as a shining example of legal prostitution. In 2006 the SMH reported that there were around 200 illegal brothels operating in Sydney, four times the number of legal ones. That is also more than there were before the NSW government legalised it. This is what I mean about normalising the perception that women can be freely bought for sex. If the government hadn't said that it was okay thousandsa of men/boys wouldn't have used a prostitute and would have had to have tried their luck in bars/online/supermarket etc. Where many would have failed. Darwinism at it's finest. Getting back on track, three years later the number has risen to 400.
I'm not sure this "Darwinism at it's finest" is supposed to be a good thing, or why it's "Darwinism".

But on the issue of illegal brothels, an alternative is to criminalize having sex with a prostitute that doesn't have the proper license - license which is given after a battery of tests, and has to be renewed periodically.


Why is it any more 'fucking low' to exploit someone's economic (or drug, or whatever) situation to feed one's sexual appetite, than to feed one's burger appetite? Why isn't it just as bad to buy fast food, or to take a shit in the food court toilets and thereby "coerce" the minimum wage cleaner into cleaning it?

Among other possible reasons, maybe because of the suffering the client is causing to the person in question, which the customer in the fast food industry does not inflict, as a result of the very different psychological characteristics of the acts in question.

To put it in other words: the prostitute who has to work as such to survive (or sustain her family, or whatever) may well experience being penetrated by the client as a humiliating, mentally painful event, a violation of her personal space, etc., that the client is inflicting on her, taking advantage of her situation, whereas the person who works at a fast food store is not likely to feel in that way violated by a hamburger's buyer.

Now, you could ask: why would they feel any different about those different acts?

That's a matter for psychologists to do research on, but the point is that it's real; they often do feel very different about it, so the client of the prostitute without a choice is inflicting pain that the other guy is not inflicting.

Furthermore, in the case of non-regulating prostitution at least, the client does not have any way of assessing whether the prostitute is in that situation, or even whether she's been directly coerced (threatened, trafficked and her passport stolen, etc.).

So, by having sex with prostitutes under such conditions (i.e., if the client cannot check the situation), the client just does not care about the suffering he may be inflicting, even if it's rape.

I think that that might make sex with non-regulated prostitutes a criminal offense, unless the client can show he had a way of figuring out it was indeed not a case of coercion (direct or as a result of taking advantage of the person's situation); still, there are other factors at play, which depend on the characteristics of each society, so there may not be a solution that fits all.

[Greatest I am]

Technically true. Once the prostitute has agreed to sex for a price then technical consent has been obtained. Where I have a problem is the assumption that she has gone into the transaction on an equal footing as the john. Fact is, she hasn't or she probably wouldn't be selling herself.

You may be right but those conditions that put her there are not in any way a direct responsibility of the John and what conditions put him there are of no consequence to the hooker. They are both there to nagotiate friction.

In terms of the transaction, they are equal and consenting adults. Hopefully adults anyway.

It is still degrading to both participants. IMO.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Angra Mainyu]

so it's better to ban paying for sex altogether.
I doubt it could be done.

Indeed, it's banned -- as in, illegal -- in many places. Doesn't seem to stop it.

But even if simple payment could be eliminated, people would just find a way around the ban. Barter, gifts, having to bleed the radiators and put up shelves... as I said earlier, evolutionarily, sex has always been paid for (think bower birds); it's just the money bit that's recent.
I'm not sure about that - I mean, about the lack of effectiveness; pay for sex is old, though from an evolutionary perspective, females may have had more of a choice regarding which gifts to accept than prostitutes in usual conditions today, so if coercion can't be avoided by strict regulations, a ban may be an alternative.

Based on the statistics, the ban seems to be working fairly well in Sweden, in terms of effectiveness in achieving its goal. It's not making prostitution disappear completely, but it's reducing it considerably.
After further reading, those statistics may not be so reliable after all; there seems to be a lot of controversy over the effectiveness of the law, as well as many other effects of it.

So, maybe we'll have to wait longer for more reliable assessments of the the effects of the law in question (and also the laws in Norway and Iceland, which in 2009 passed laws similar to the 1999 Swedish law).

[Loren Pechtel]

Sorry, but no. No matter *how* shitty my job might be, that doesn't make it slavery. Even if it were slogging through hip-deep mud in a platinum mine. And it doesn't matter how much I need the money, either. If I walk into it of my own free will, and I'm free to walk out again with no consequnces beyond my original situation, that's not slavery, it's not rape, and it's not coercion.

There are jobs where you are not permitted to walk out again whenever you want and they're still not slavery. There are many jobs where someone trusts their life to you completing what you started and the legal repercussions of not finishing such tasks can be severe.

[Loren Pechtel]

That does happen. Frequently. Even in Sydney which you are holding up as a shining example of legal prostitution. In 2006 the SMH reported that there were around 200 illegal brothels operating in Sydney (http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/illegal-brothels-flourish-across-sydney/2006/12/09/1165081201712.html), four times the number of legal ones.

Illegal in what fashion, though? Are these guys basically following the rules but not jumping through licensing hoops? Or are they way outside the rules?

Where we seem to be differing is our definition of prostitution. To you it is a job that women freely enter and are free to leave at any time. I see it as a job of last resort the job that you can't leave easily. I'd bet that most prostitutes would give their left tit to be in tech support or be a pension estimator. I'd bet most of them wish they hadn't been abused as children too. Or that they could kick the habit.

1) At the high end prostitution is a lot like he describes. At the low end it's a lot more like what you describe.

2) It's not the job's fault what her past was like. If you could somehow eliminate prostitution that wouldn't change her situation. It would likely make the addict turn to a life of crime, not get treatment.

Now find me a job that those same risks. Oolon's idea that working in a 19th Century coalmine was as bad as prostitution was rather apt. Except for the lack of rape that is. The difference is that we recognised that the coalmines had unsafe working conditions and made it safer. Why can't we do the same for prostitution.

The legal brothels here seem to have basically nothing unsafe about them. The law should be changed to remove some of the economic rules that aren't too good, though.

[Loren Pechtel]

Recognizing that many prostitutes, about 1/3 are there because of abuse in the home, as part of the legislation legalizing prostitution, I would like to see a public trial and law suit attached to each of these abused children before they can be licensed.

This would help to bring down the numbers of prostitutes that are basically forced into the profession.

I'd come at it differently. I'd like to see any prospective prostitutes have to spend a few hours with a shrink who looks at why they are doing it and if there is any evidence of coercion. The license is only granted if they are doing it of their own free will.

A good way to help those here and now. My way protection is given to future abused prostitution fodder.

Ta ta
Jailbird

I don't believe your way will do anything to prevent the offenses you're trying to prevent.

[Loren Pechtel]

I created a scenario for him that had one daughter as a dentist and the other daughter as a prostitute.

He said that he would used the services of the dentist daughter but, thank God he still has some sense, because he did decline to use his prostitute daughter.

There is hope for everyone.

Strange that fathers do not mind screwing someone else's daughter but balk at others using their daughters the same way.

A double standard created in their own minds to hide their depravity.

Men know of this double standard but ignore it to follow their dicks instead of leading them.

Ta ta
Jailbird

You're forgetting that using the services of his own daughter would be incest. Thus you aren't showing a double standard at all.

If you think that paid incest is not prostitution then it is one pissed off prostitute that has to gives samples to a cheep father.

Perhaps we will have to make up a new word. Let's make sure that we chose a word with dignity to it.

That act deserves a dignified name.

Ta ta
Jailbird

I'm saying he might not want to do his daughter because it was incest, not because he had some actual dislike of his daughter being a prostitute.

[Loren Pechtel]

What is unsociable about having sex that is between willing agreed participants? Or is it the exchange of money thta gets your panties in a bunch?

A sociable person should be able to enter a bar for instance and be able to communicate well enough and be socially adept enough to come out with someone who wants to be with him for himself. this is socialization in my view.
To walk in and be so gauche in social skills that all he can do is buy companionship from a hooker is to admit to not being of personal unpaid for value.

One should pity such.

What about those of us who don't drink?

And pitying those who lack the social skills doesn't address the issue. If they're on the autism spectrum they probably can't learn them, period.

Coke is the solution for your first and to your last, I don't know.
You assume a non prostitute world. This may not be realistic so that or your own abstenence may never be a problem. you just may have to drive further.

Ta ta
Jailbird



Regards
DL

I'm not going to hire one, period. I find the idea of sex with a stranger repulsive no matter how attractive she might be.

I have no moral problem with others hiring them, though. If you like sex with people you don't know it shouldn't matter if money is involved or not.

[Deadlokd]

An illegal brothel is an illegal brothel. They don't "jump through the hoops", you know, hoops like mandatory condom usage, medical checks, security etc. They import women to work, they don't pay their taxes and they pay off cops. Illegal is illegal.

Loren, I guarantee that there are far more low end prostitutes than Julia Roberts prostitutes. Great about the safe working conditions for Nevada's working girls. Now how about normalising women as commodities?

Angra, my Darwinism at it's finest was tongue in cheek, but apt since if the men can't find a 'mate' then their genes are not fit enough. Pure Darwinism. As for critiques of Sweden's laws I have found one blog (http://sensuellqkonsult.wordpress.com/2007/05/26/lies-about-sexwork-in-sweden/) and one text of a speech (http://www.bayswan.org/swed/rosswed.html) criticising it. I'm balancing that against the 60% of women who have accepted help and left the industry and the reduction of 80% of the number of johns, and I'd still call it a success.

[The AntiChris]

Why is it any more 'fucking low' to exploit someone's economic (or drug, or whatever) situation to feed one's sexual appetite, than to feed one's burger appetite? Why isn't it just as bad to buy fast food, or to take a shit in the food court toilets and thereby "coerce" the minimum wage cleaner into cleaning it?

Among other possible reasons, maybe because of the suffering the client is causing to the person in question, which the customer in the fast food industry does not inflict, as a result of the very different psychological characteristics of the acts in question.

To put it in other words: the prostitute who has to work as such to survive (or sustain her family, or whatever) may well experience being penetrated by the client as a humiliating, mentally painful event, a violation of her personal space, etc., that the client is inflicting on her, taking advantage of her situation, whereas the person who works at a fast food store is not likely to feel in that way violated by a hamburger's buyer.

Now, you could ask: why would they feel any different about those different acts?

That's a matter for psychologists to do research on, but the point is that it's real; they often do feel very different about it, so the client of the prostitute without a choice is inflicting pain that the other guy is not inflicting. This doesn't really address HNA's point.

Of course some prostitutes will suffer and others will shrug their shoulders and say "it's just a job".

By the same token though, some toilet cleaners will suffer (humiliation, low self-esteem etc and repulsion at the inherently unpleasant working conditions) whilst others will shrug their shoulders say "it's just a job".

Accepting money for providing sex doesn't automatically transform a benign natural activity into a uniquely dangerous and harmful activity. Any potential dangers can and should be minimised, as in all other employment, by formal regulation and by maintaining basic employee's rights. But this can only happen if prostitution is legalised.

Chris

[Deadlokd]

Is your sex life as satisfying as making burgers Chris? After you make a burger do you say/think "fuck, that was awesome!" and lie there spent and sated for a while? If you do, I want your recipe.

[Angra Mainyu]

Angra, my Darwinism at it's finest was tongue in cheek, but apt since if the men can't find a 'mate' then their genes are not fit enough. Pure Darwinism.
It does not work like that.

First, they could find a mate by paying for it. Banning them from doing that forcibly prevents them from finding a mate.

Second, other, richer males (but that depends not just on genetic but also on financial inheritance), will still likely find mates by giving all sorts of gifts to the females they want.


As for critiques of Sweden's laws I have found one blog and one text of a speech criticising it. I'm balancing that against the 60% of women who have accepted help and left the industry and the reduction of 80% of the number of johns, and I'd still call it a success.
If you take a look at the Wikipedia article on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Sweden), and the links it provides, you'll find considerably more debate.

As for the claims of 60% of women who have accepted help and left the industry and the reduction of 80% of the number of johns are, I've not found any source backing them up; on the contrary, it seems everyone agrees good statistics are hard to come by, so it's not really clear at all.

The article to which you linked states that "In the capital city of Stockholm the number of women in street prostitution has been reduced by two thirds, and the number of johns has been reduced by 80%.", but gives no sources, and it's talking about street prostitution. Critics say what happens is that prostitution has been driven underground, and to the internet.

A couple of links:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/01/16/1042520720227.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2009/0630/p10s01-woeu.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7D7nOh57-I8

I'll wait for more evidence.

[Angra Mainyu]

Why is it any more 'fucking low' to exploit someone's economic (or drug, or whatever) situation to feed one's sexual appetite, than to feed one's burger appetite? Why isn't it just as bad to buy fast food, or to take a shit in the food court toilets and thereby "coerce" the minimum wage cleaner into cleaning it?

Among other possible reasons, maybe because of the suffering the client is causing to the person in question, which the customer in the fast food industry does not inflict, as a result of the very different psychological characteristics of the acts in question.

To put it in other words: the prostitute who has to work as such to survive (or sustain her family, or whatever) may well experience being penetrated by the client as a humiliating, mentally painful event, a violation of her personal space, etc., that the client is inflicting on her, taking advantage of her situation, whereas the person who works at a fast food store is not likely to feel in that way violated by a hamburger's buyer.

Now, you could ask: why would they feel any different about those different acts?

That's a matter for psychologists to do research on, but the point is that it's real; they often do feel very different about it, so the client of the prostitute without a choice is inflicting pain that the other guy is not inflicting. This doesn't really address HNA's point.

Of course some prostitutes will suffer and others will shrug their shoulders and say "it's just a job".

By the same token though, some toilet cleaners will suffer (humiliation, low self-esteem etc and repulsion at the inherently unpleasant working conditions) whilst others will shrug their shoulders say "it's just a job".

Accepting money for providing sex doesn't automatically transform a benign natural activity into a uniquely dangerous and harmful activity. Any potential dangers can and should be minimised, as in all other employment, by formal regulation and by maintaining basic employee's rights. But this can only happen if prostitution is legalised.

Chris
Yes, my answer addresses the point, because the point was about the difference between exploiting someone's need by means of buying a burger, and exploiting someone's need by hiring them as prostitutes (and here, we're talking about prostitutes who do it because they don't really have a choice, in order to maintain themselves, their families, etc.).

The answer is that by going to McDonald's and buying a burger, the customer is not inflicting suffering on the worker (unless he treats her badly), so a possible relevant difference is the suffering the client is causing to the person in question (the prostitute), which the customer in the fast food industry does not inflict, as a result of the very different psychological characteristics of the acts in question (more details are in the post you're replying to).



Accepting money for providing sex doesn't automatically transform a benign natural activity into a uniquely dangerous and harmful activity.
No, but we were talking about women in some seriously desperate situations (see the exchange between Preno and His Noodly Appendage).

In addition, I pointed out to the case where coercion (direct or indirect) is common, and the clients have no way of telling. Perhaps, strict regulations could resolve the problem. Perhaps, they could do so only at a very high cost, so the pros and cons have to be considered.

Anyway, I don't want to repeat the points I already made, so I'll leave it at that.

[Deadlokd]

It doesn't look like days of wine and roses in Sweden after all. The main problem seems to be a lack of serious repercussions for the johns and not enough police resources. Add to that less support than they boast and it isn't the cure-all they advertised. If they fixed those things it may still work. And provide support for the women who stay in the industry.

A couple of things stood out:

Ever since Sweden adopted a law on January 1, 1999 that criminalised the purchase, but not the sale, of sexual services, street prostitution in Stockholm has dropped by more than two-thirds, said Ann Wilkens, of the city's social services.

"Before the law, between 350 and 400 prostitutes were working the streets in Stockholm. Today, there are no more than 100," Wilkens said.

While it isn't the 80% in the article I linked to it is still a sizable drop. Of course when the former street workers are now working through the 'net it isn't that much of a victory.

"Prostitutes are already a stigmatized group and this law says we don't want to stigmatize them further," she [Anna Jutterdal, a spokesperson for Stockholm city's prostitution unit, which offers healthcare and advice to about 200 women per week] says. "There is evidence that shows the sex-purchase law has changed attitudes. Young men are far more negative about prostitution here than in countries where it is legal to visit a prostitute."

Changing attitudes is good too. If Sweden can actually help the women and make the stick a bit bigger they may get somewhere.

[The AntiChris]

Accepting money for providing sex doesn't automatically transform a benign natural activity into a uniquely dangerous and harmful activity.
No, but we were talking about women in some seriously desperate situations (see the exchange between Preno and His Noodly Appendage). I should make it quite clear that I'm talking about legal, state-regulated prostitution. Illegal activities will always be less safe and carry a greater risk than legal activities.

Chris

[Greatest I am]

Recognizing that many prostitutes, about 1/3 are there because of abuse in the home, as part of the legislation legalizing prostitution, I would like to see a public trial and law suit attached to each of these abused children before they can be licensed.

This would help to bring down the numbers of prostitutes that are basically forced into the profession.

I'd come at it differently. I'd like to see any prospective prostitutes have to spend a few hours with a shrink who looks at why they are doing it and if there is any evidence of coercion. The license is only granted if they are doing it of their own free will.

A good way to help those here and now. My way protection is given to future abused prostitution fodder.

Ta ta
Jailbird

I don't believe your way will do anything to prevent the offenses you're trying to prevent.

Then if prosecuting those who break the law is not helpful, we may as well scrap all prosecutions as they do not effect those who will offend.
Good luck with your reasoning.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Greatest I am]

I created a scenario for him that had one daughter as a dentist and the other daughter as a prostitute.

He said that he would used the services of the dentist daughter but, thank God he still has some sense, because he did decline to use his prostitute daughter.

There is hope for everyone.

Strange that fathers do not mind screwing someone else's daughter but balk at others using their daughters the same way.

A double standard created in their own minds to hide their depravity.

Men know of this double standard but ignore it to follow their dicks instead of leading them.

Ta ta
Jailbird

You're forgetting that using the services of his own daughter would be incest. Thus you aren't showing a double standard at all.

If you think that paid incest is not prostitution then it is one pissed off prostitute that has to gives samples to a cheep father.

Perhaps we will have to make up a new word. Let's make sure that we chose a word with dignity to it.

That act deserves a dignified name.

Ta ta
Jailbird

I'm saying he might not want to do his daughter because it was incest, not because he had some actual dislike of his daughter being a prostitute.

Yep, none of us should mind our children being prostitutes.
Not.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Haswell]

Are you deliberately being misrepresentational? Do you suppose anyone would 'like' their child to be a prostitute?

[Greatest I am]

Are you deliberately being misrepresentational? Do you suppose anyone would 'like' their child to be a prostitute?

Why not?. Many here think it is just another fucking job.

Oops I made a joke by accident.


Ta ta
Jailbird

[Angra Mainyu]

Accepting money for providing sex doesn't automatically transform a benign natural activity into a uniquely dangerous and harmful activity.
No, but we were talking about women in some seriously desperate situations (see the exchange between Preno and His Noodly Appendage). I should make it quite clear that I'm talking about legal, state-regulated prostitution. Illegal activities will always be less safe and carry a greater risk than legal activities.

Chris
Okay, but that's not the case I was considering.

[Haswell]

Are you deliberately being misrepresentational? Do you suppose anyone would 'like' their child to be a prostitute?

Why not?. Many here think it is just another fucking job.

Oops I made a joke by accident.


Ta ta
Jailbird


Very nearly. But I doubt anyone who thinks prostitution is real and will not go away (and I include myself in that) would like their daughter to be a prostitute. Hypocritical? yes, but its a buyers market.

[His Noodly Appendage]

I wouldn't *like* my daughter to make a living cleaning toilets, either.

[Deadlokd]

Which would you prefer? Or, equally relevant, which would you prefer for your son?

[Oolon Colluphid]

Are you deliberately being misrepresentational? Do you suppose anyone would 'like' their child to be a prostitute?

Why not?. Many here think it is just another fucking job.

I was going to ask, yet again, about this weasel-word "just".

But instead, I'll simply ask you, GIA: In what way is it not 'just' another job? A shitty one, granted. One that I'd not do (not least because of the poor returns I'd get on my time investment). But, why not?

To repeat: nobody is denying that it may have one or two down sides. But how does it differ, qualitatively, from the job of being a miner, a mill worker, a sweat-shop clothes sewer, or a bored council worker?

Does anyone -- of lower social orders (being the simplest shorthand for 'those with fewer life choices') -- do anything to bring in money that they would do voluntarily and in their spare time?

Not only is it a fucking job, it's often the only fucking job available.

But so.

Fucking.

What?

Grab yerself a time machine, pop back a hundred years, and find a collier's lad who'd be in any different position. Those with the talents and who are in the right (wrong) place at the right (wrong) time, can -- and will, other things not being equal -- sell those skills.

Nobody's saying it's fair, or just, or nice. But there's a market, and those who can -- and cannot choose otherwise -- will supply the demand.

I'm not sure how many times I need say "it doesn't make it just", so I'll end with that for the sake of any slower-of-thinking among us.

[Oolon Colluphid]

Which would you prefer? Or, equally relevant, which would you prefer for your son?
So what?

If your argument is that one line of income-producing is more distasteful than another, knock yerself out thinking up unpleasantnesses to compare and contrast. It doesn't seem to me to be in the least bit relevant how unpleasant sex-selling can be. I know next-to-fuck-all about market economics, but that seems to be more than enough round here at the moment to notice that if someone wants to pay for sex, and someone needs money, someone will fill that demand, no matter how nasty the job of supplying the demand is. Sheesh.

[Oolon Colluphid]

I wouldn't *like* my daughter to make a living cleaning toilets, either.

Am I right in thinking that if it's a choice between toilet cleaning -- or letting saddoes fumble her -- and starvation, you'd go with the one that puts food in her mouth?

Me too. My daughter's eleven. I don't want her to become a prostitute. But needs must, if they must.

[Preno]

Are you deliberately being misrepresentational? Do you suppose anyone would 'like' their child to be a prostitute?

Why not?. Many here think it is just another fucking job.

I was going to ask, yet again, about this weasel-word "just".

But instead, I'll simply ask you, GIA: In what way is it not 'just' another job? A shitty one, granted. One that I'd not do (not least because of the poor returns I'd get on my time investment). But, why not?

To repeat: nobody is denying that it may have one or two down sides. But how does it differ, qualitatively, from the job of being a miner, a mill worker, a sweat-shop clothes sewer, or a bored council worker?It differs in that none of these jobs have the same kind of psychological (and often physical) consequences that prostitution does. How difficult is that to understand? How many miners or mill workers have been raped, assaulted or threatened? Why do you think such a disproportion number of prostitutes have been molested as children or are homeless or dependent on drugs?

[Loren Pechtel]

The article to which you linked states that "In the capital city of Stockholm the number of women in street prostitution has been reduced by two thirds, and the number of johns has been reduced by 80%.", but gives no sources, and it's talking about street prostitution. Critics say what happens is that prostitution has been driven underground, and to the internet.


Yeah--at anything other that the low end the internet makes a lot more sense as a medium.

I would like to see 100% of streetwalking gone. That doesn't mean I want to see prostitution banned, though.

[Loren Pechtel]

Recognizing that many prostitutes, about 1/3 are there because of abuse in the home, as part of the legislation legalizing prostitution, I would like to see a public trial and law suit attached to each of these abused children before they can be licensed.

This would help to bring down the numbers of prostitutes that are basically forced into the profession.

I'd come at it differently. I'd like to see any prospective prostitutes have to spend a few hours with a shrink who looks at why they are doing it and if there is any evidence of coercion. The license is only granted if they are doing it of their own free will.

A good way to help those here and now. My way protection is given to future abused prostitution fodder.

Ta ta
Jailbird

I don't believe your way will do anything to prevent the offenses you're trying to prevent.

Then if prosecuting those who break the law is not helpful, we may as well scrap all prosecutions as they do not effect those who will offend.
Good luck with your reasoning.

Ta ta
Jailbird

You seem to be trying to prevent the abuse that you say causes prostitution by going after the prostitutes.

If you want to deal with abuse how about targeting abuse??

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you deliberately being misrepresentational? Do you suppose anyone would 'like' their child to be a prostitute?

Why not?. Many here think it is just another fucking job.

Oops I made a joke by accident.


Ta ta
Jailbird

It is another job. Easy working conditions and quite high pay for a low-skill job.

Thus it comes down to how you view sex.

If someone already engages in sex casually and doesn't have emotional problems with sex with someone they find unattractive then why not? The experience here shows that violence and diseases need not be a part of it.


On a personal level I don't favor sex with strangers. The lowest relationship I would accept would be friends with benefits and I would never choose that over having someone to love. I would hope that any child of mine (I don't have any, nor any intentions of having any.) would share my attitudes and thus wouldn't be interested in being a prostitute.

I would also hope she would go into some skilled profession rather than a basically unskilled one.

[Bane]

I agree, Oolon. Of course, finding one's job distasteful is also subjective--someone might do tech support and like it (though that's probably rare)

[Preno]

It is another job. Easy working conditions and quite high pay for a low-skill job.Lmao, tell us more about what being a prostitute is like.

[Deadlokd]

Grab yerself a time machine, pop back a hundred years, and find a collier's lad who'd be in any different position. Those with the talents and who are in the right (wrong) place at the right (wrong) time, can -- and will, other things not being equal -- sell those skills.


You really should try reading the thread, it help with understanding. Why do you have to go back a hundred years to find some meagre comparison to prostitution? Why do we no longer have collier lads? Apart from machines that do the job better there is also a safety issue. No one would put a child in a position where he or she could be killed by a rockfall. But putting a woman at risk of being raped or killed by her client is okay right?

Which would you prefer? Or, equally relevant, which would you prefer for your son?
So what?

If your argument is that one line of income-producing is more distasteful than another, knock yerself out thinking up unpleasantnesses to compare and contrast. It doesn't seem to me to be in the least bit relevant how unpleasant sex-selling can be. I know next-to-fuck-all about market economics, but that seems to be more than enough round here at the moment to notice that if someone wants to pay for sex, and someone needs money, someone will fill that demand, no matter how nasty the job of supplying the demand is. Sheesh.

Apparently you know next-to-fuck-all about the lives of prostitutes too. The person bring up unpleasantness to compare and contrast would be you. Remember the collier lad?

I'm not going to repeat what Preno said but prostitution comes with a slew of issues that other jobs just don't have. Apart from rape, assault and murder there is also the fear of STIs.

You're coming across as if the deepest you have thought about prostitution is to watch Pretty Woman. It's a pity that movie didn't start a few nights before she met Richard Gere. Then you could have seen her jumping in a few dozen cars, head bobbing up and down and then her getting out clutching fifty bucks. Or you could have seen her being pushed from the car and landing in the gutter crying because the john didn't pay her. If it was a really bad night you could have watched her negotiate with half a dozen frat boys for the cost of a gang bang.

It's pretty sad Oolon.

[His Noodly Appendage]

False generalisation.

Do some prostitutes face poor working conditions, with no protections from abuse or exploitation?

Sure. No question of that, yeronner. But that's not related to the nature of the job.

That'd be like saying you should ban sausages because you got food poisoning once from a grotty little hotdog stand. It's not the fucking cylindrical shape that's the problem, it's the cockroaches crawling over the cart.

Then you could have seen her jumping in a few dozen cars, head bobbing up and down and then her getting out clutching fifty bucks.

I see lots of emotive language, but I don't see a point. You could equally speak of an ice-cream man "walking up to a few dozen strangers, box swinging left and right, then him getting away clutching three bucks" What precisely is wrong with someone doing a job, and getting paid for it?

[Deadlokd]

That'd be like saying you should ban sausages because you got food poisoning once from a grotty little hotdog stand. It's not the fucking cylindrical shape that's the problem, it's the cockroaches crawling over the cart.

Then you could have seen her jumping in a few dozen cars, head bobbing up and down and then her getting out clutching fifty bucks.

I see lots of emotive language, but I don't see a point. You could equally speak of an ice-cream man "walking up to a few dozen strangers, box swinging left and right, then him getting away clutching three bucks" What precisely is wrong with someone doing a job, and getting paid for it?

It isn't a situation of "once", it's a situation of almost common. Not common, but not far off. The fear is common.

Your ice-cream man is made of straw. In my sentence I mention actual working conditions. In yours you're making some shit up to make some point that only exists in your mind.

[His Noodly Appendage]

What the fuck are you talking about?

Yes, prostitutes get into cars, suck guys off, take the money, and leave.

What's so terrible about that?

Using the words "getting away" and "clutching" perfectly well indicate that you have a problem with the concept, but they don't even slightly make up for the total lack of an actual case for your position.

Ice-cream men do precisely what I've described. I've seen them hundreds of times, and I am describing normal working conditions. They walk through the park with a big box of ice-creams hanging round their neck, they go up to dozens of strangers, hand over the goods and get away, clutching their three bucks.

I don't feel the need to prosecute people for buying ice-cream, or to 'save' the vendors from their terrible fate, no matter how sensational the language I use to describe it.

Now, without appeal to emotion, explain why selling sex is a harmful thing.

[Deadlokd]

Because selling sex leads to psychological damage.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Nice assertion. Can you back it up?

Does cleaning toilets lead to psychological damage? How do you know?

[Haswell]

Because selling sex leads to psychological damage.


Reverse that and you may have a better assertion. Although I have no evidence for it.

I think we could do with a woman's perspective on this subject.

[Loren Pechtel]

It is another job. Easy working conditions and quite high pay for a low-skill job.Lmao, tell us more about what being a prostitute is like.

You realize I'm talking about the legal and properly controlled prostitution, not the illegal market that's full of abuses?

[Loren Pechtel]

Because selling sex leads to psychological damage.

Because selling sex leads to psychological damage.


Reverse that and you may have a better assertion. Although I have no evidence for it.

I think we could do with a woman's perspective on this subject.

I suggest the book Cop to Call Girl. It's about a woman who made that career change.

[Deadlokd]

I wouldn't *like* my daughter to make a living cleaning toilets, either.

Am I right in thinking that if it's a choice between toilet cleaning -- or letting saddoes fumble her -- and starvation, you'd go with the one that puts food in her mouth?

Me too. My daughter's eleven. I don't want her to become a prostitute. But needs must, if they must.

If any of my daughters had to go on the street to earn a dollar I'd step in and help. It's just what a good parent does. And in western democracies, it's just what a good state does too.

Nice assertion. Can you back it up?

Does cleaning toilets lead to psychological damage? How do you know?

Second part first. I cleaned toilets for years. It didn't damage me. Also it is still a fucking stupid analogy. There are very few cleaners who specialise in toilets. Most have mixed jobs, toilets, offices, shops etc. I used to clean a university gym. There were 18 toilets and four urinals there. It takes two minutes to clean a toilet. So that is 44 minutes a night I spent cleaning toilets. A prostitute would spend far longer than that with a cock in her mouth or vagina. Also no one sodomised me while I was cleaning the toilets, I wasn't at risk of being beaten by a urinal. No turd, no matter how nasty was going to mug me. Incidentally, I was robbed at knife point once when I was a taxi driver. That was a fucking unpleasant experience and that left a psychological scar. But cleaning dunnies? No.

Prostitution (http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/gw/Cmd?linkVars=SessionID%3D1001272056249510540616108 8%26BROWSER_STATE%3DGMResults%26ORBagentPort%3D146 10%26GM2K_FORM%3DGMResults%26LAST_HIDDEN_TIMESTAMP %3D1264643810459%26UserSearchText%3Dchild%2Babuse% 2Band%2Bprostitution%26sb_action%3DExpand%2BItem%2 B%253A%2B5%26HIDDEN_TIMESTAMP%3D1264643825625) does (http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/gw/Cmd?linkVars=SessionID%3D1001272056305330540616109 0%26BROWSER_STATE%3DGMResults%26ORBagentPort%3D146 10%26GM2K_FORM%3DGMResults%26LAST_HIDDEN_TIMESTAMP %3D1264643814833%26UserSearchText%3Dchild%2Babuse% 2Band%2Bprostitution%26sb_action%3DExpand%2BItem%2 B%253A%2B8%26HIDDEN_TIMESTAMP%3D1264643847276) damage (http://gateway.nlm.nih.gov/gw/Cmd?linkVars=SessionID%3D1001272056305330540616109 0%26BROWSER_STATE%3DGMResults%26ORBagentPort%3D146 10%26GM2K_FORM%3DGMResults%26LAST_HIDDEN_TIMESTAMP %3D1264644593105%26UserSearchText%3Dprostitution%2 Bmental%2Beffects%26sb_action%3DExpand%2BItem%2B%2 53A%2B4%26HIDDEN_TIMESTAMP%3D1264644603767) though.

[Ray Moscow]

I think a lot of the risk to prostitutes comes from the fact that they aren't protected by laws and regulations like other workers are. They are subject to abuse and exploitation from all sides, including from the police.

If the sex worker has control over her situation and reasonable protection -- in other words, if it's a legal and regulated business activity -- much of this risk disappears.

I don't see anything inherently wrong about selling sex, though of course it's not a choice that most people would make if they had good alternatives.

How could it be so wrong to sell something that one is perfectly entitled to give away as she/he chooses?

[Greatest I am]

Are you deliberately being misrepresentational? Do you suppose anyone would 'like' their child to be a prostitute?

Why not?. Many here think it is just another fucking job.

I was going to ask, yet again, about this weasel-word "just".

But instead, I'll simply ask you, GIA: In what way is it not 'just' another job? A shitty one, granted. One that I'd not do (not least because of the poor returns I'd get on my time investment). But, why not?

To repeat: nobody is denying that it may have one or two down sides. But how does it differ, qualitatively, from the job of being a miner, a mill worker, a sweat-shop clothes sewer, or a bored council worker?

Does anyone -- of lower social orders (being the simplest shorthand for 'those with fewer life choices') -- do anything to bring in money that they would do voluntarily and in their spare time?

Not only is it a fucking job, it's often the only fucking job available.

But so.

Fucking.

What?

Grab yerself a time machine, pop back a hundred years, and find a collier's lad who'd be in any different position. Those with the talents and who are in the right (wrong) place at the right (wrong) time, can -- and will, other things not being equal -- sell those skills.

Nobody's saying it's fair, or just, or nice. But there's a market, and those who can -- and cannot choose otherwise -- will supply the demand.

I'm not sure how many times I need say "it doesn't make it just", so I'll end with that for the sake of any slower-of-thinking among us.

You are right, it is not just and to just accept it because supply and demand is there makes it immoral to accept.

If we do not work to bring justice to our systems and just accept then we give in to evil.

For evil to grow, all good men need do is nothing. Acceptance of evil is the promotion of evil in MPOV.

That is my response to your so fucking what.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Greatest I am]

Recognizing that many prostitutes, about 1/3 are there because of abuse in the home, as part of the legislation legalizing prostitution, I would like to see a public trial and law suit attached to each of these abused children before they can be licensed.

This would help to bring down the numbers of prostitutes that are basically forced into the profession.

I'd come at it differently. I'd like to see any prospective prostitutes have to spend a few hours with a shrink who looks at why they are doing it and if there is any evidence of coercion. The license is only granted if they are doing it of their own free will.

A good way to help those here and now. My way protection is given to future abused prostitution fodder.

Ta ta
Jailbird

I don't believe your way will do anything to prevent the offenses you're trying to prevent.

Then if prosecuting those who break the law is not helpful, we may as well scrap all prosecutions as they do not effect those who will offend.
Good luck with your reasoning.

Ta ta
Jailbird

You seem to be trying to prevent the abuse that you say causes prostitution by going after the prostitutes.

If you want to deal with abuse how about targeting abuse??

For the 42nd time, I do not go after prostitutes and would not make prostitution illegal.

I have promoted the idea though that when legalizing, a strong focus of the legislation should target the abusive parents that have added these individuals to the ranks of prostitution.

This, I think, would reduce the numbers of abuse significantly.
Peer pressure works wonders and if abusive parents fear discovery more then we may save many children from such abuse.

So I am indirectly and rather directly targeting abuse.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Greatest I am]

I think a lot of the risk to prostitutes comes from the fact that they aren't protected by laws and regulations like other workers are. They are subject to abuse and exploitation from all sides, including from the police.

If the sex worker has control over her situation and reasonable protection -- in other words, if it's a legal and regulated business activity -- much of this risk disappears.

I don't see anything inherently wrong about selling sex, though of course it's not a choice that most people would make if they had good alternatives.

How could it be so wrong to sell something that one is perfectly entitled to give away as she/he chooses?

You provide your own answer with, as she/he chooses.

Prostitution does not generally have that option.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Daynna]

A lot of the problems plaguing prostitution are already illegal (at least in the U.S.). It is illegal to kidnap a person. It is illegal to force a person to do something against their will. It is illegal to sell children. Slavery is illegal. Drug use is illegal. Drugging someone else is illegal. Purposely spreading disease is illegal (I think?). Prostitution is a job, but the employees have no rights or protection because it has been driven underground.

I also notice a lot of this thread revolves around, "women don't WANT to be prostitutes because having sex is dirty and wrong." Some of you also equate a professionally run brothel with a crack whore down on main street trying to make enough money for her next fix.

[Loren Pechtel]

I think a lot of the risk to prostitutes comes from the fact that they aren't protected by laws and regulations like other workers are. They are subject to abuse and exploitation from all sides, including from the police.

Exactly. The big problem with prostitution is it's illegality.

[Deadlokd]

I also notice a lot of this thread revolves around, "women don't WANT to be prostitutes because having sex is dirty and wrong." Some of you also equate a professionally run brothel with a crack whore down on main street trying to make enough money for her next fix.

*sigh* You're going to have to ponit those posts out because I haven't seen that. You also appear to have ignored the part where prostitution is psychologically damaging to the people who do it.

I think the people who are all "they want to do it, it's their choice, there's nothing wrong with it," either use prostitutes now or have in the past and don't want to face the fact that their actions have/are harming others. I can't think why else they would ignore the evidence I have presented showing that there is damage.

[His Noodly Appendage]

Alan: your links are broken.

[Deadlokd]

They link to online journal articles. Follow the link and refresh or search again or something and they should show up. Otherwise I'll c&p the abstracts.

[Deadlokd]

First:

With the participation of 46 prostituted women in Korea, this study investigates the relationship between prostitution experiences, a history of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and disorders of extreme stress not otherwise specified (DESNOS). Prostituted women showed higher levels of PTSD and DESNOS symptoms compared to a control group. Women who had experienced both CSA by a significant other and prostitution showed the highest levels of traumatic stress. However, posttraumatic reexperiencing and avoidance and identity, relational, and affect regulation problems were significant for prostitution experiences even when the effects of CSA were controlled.

[Deadlokd]

Third:

PURPOSE: This study compared the mental symptoms, especially symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), of women who escaped prostitution, helping activists at shelters, and matched control subjects. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We assessed 113 female ex-prostitutes who had been living at a shelter, 81 helping activists, and 65 control subjects using self-reporting questionnaires on demographic data, symptoms related to trauma and PTSD, stress-related reactions, and other mental health factors. RESULTS: Female ex-prostitutes had significantly higher stress response, somatization, depression, fatigue, frustration, sleep, smoking and alcohol problems, and more frequent and serious PTSD symptoms than the other 2 groups. Helping activists also had significantly higher tension, sleep and smoking problems, and more frequent and serious PTSD symptoms than control subjects. CONCLUSION: These findings show that engagement in prostitution may increase the risks of exposure to violence, which may psychologically traumatize not only the prostitutes themselves but also the people who help them, and that the effects of the trauma last for a long time. Future research is needed to develop a method to assess specific factors that may contribute to vicarious trauma of prostitution, and protect field workers of prostitute victims from vicarious trauma.

[His Noodly Appendage]

And none of this refers to legal, regulated prostitution, with measures in place to protect workers from violence, OH&S issues, etc.

Yeah, no shit, you work outside the law, you end up dealing with lowlife scum who are free to abuse you because what are you going to do, call the cops?

I know, how about a study showing the hideous effects of shoe manufacturing, because so much of it is done in sweatshops by illegal aliens and child labour?

[Deadlokd]

I know, how about a study showing the hideous effects of shoe manufacturing, because so much of it is done in sweatshops by illegal aliens and child labour?

Maybe you could find that for us. Don't forget to mention the rape and murder rate.

You also read the newspaper reports on the huge number of illegal brothels in Sydney right? A number that wasn't anywhere near that high before the NSW government legalised it. And you read about the normalisation of women as commodities. And you still haven't answered my question; why is rape a separate crime?

[His Noodly Appendage]

Here's a hint: it's called "human resources" for a reason. All employment renders a person a commodity. By all means, seek to free people from the horrible abuse that is employment... but you've done bugger all to justify your special pleading in the case of prostitution.

And still you're coming up dry on even an argument - let alone evidence - for your claim that selling sex is inherently harmful. Circumstantially harmful, in an environment that exposes workers to harm specifically because you've made it illegal, sure - but that's a damn good argument in favour of keeping it legal and regulated.

Rape is a separate crime because nonconsensual sex is a Big Deal. But since that isn't the case with openly-practiced prostitution - any more than retail is extortion and theft - it's completely fucking irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Now, try again. Make a case for your position.

[Greatest I am]

A lot of the problems plaguing prostitution are already illegal (at least in the U.S.). It is illegal to kidnap a person. It is illegal to force a person to do something against their will. It is illegal to sell children. Slavery is illegal. Drug use is illegal. Drugging someone else is illegal. Purposely spreading disease is illegal (I think?). Prostitution is a job, but the employees have no rights or protection because it has been driven underground.

I also notice a lot of this thread revolves around, "women don't WANT to be prostitutes because having sex is dirty and wrong." Some of you also equate a professionally run brothel with a crack whore down on main street trying to make enough money for her next fix.

Drug use is illegal???

Pot has been California's highest cash crop for 30 years.
Drug use is illegal. LOL

Ever hear the term, lip service?

Note.--Contras, cocaine for drugs via the U S government.
Just who is making money from drugs.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

[QUOTE=Daynna;101759]A lot of the problems plaguing prostitution are already illegal (at least in the U.S.). It is illegal to kidnap a person. It is illegal to force a person to do something against their will. It is illegal to sell children. Slavery is illegal. Drug use is illegal. Drugging someone else is illegal. Purposely spreading disease is illegal (I think?). Prostitution is a job, but the employees have no rights or protection because it has been driven underground.

I also notice a lot of this thread revolves around, "women don't WANT to be prostitutes because having sex is dirty and wrong." Some of you also equate a professionally run brothel with a crack whore down on main street trying to make enough money for her next fix.

Drug use is illegal???

Pot has been California's highest cash crop for 30 years.
Drug use is illegal. LOL

Ever hear the term, lip service?

Note.--Contras, cocaine for drugs via the U S government.
Just who is making money from drugs.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[Greatest I am]

Here's a hint: it's called "human resources" for a reason. All employment renders a person a commodity. By all means, seek to free people from the horrible abuse that is employment... but you've done bugger all to justify your special pleading in the case of prostitution.

And still you're coming up dry on even an argument - let alone evidence - for your claim that selling sex is inherently harmful.
.

It was to the 50 or so victims of the Canadian pig farmer who was arrested for murdering them.

Would they have been helped by legalization?
Hard to say if legalization does not eliminate the illegal trade but who the fuck cares, it is just a high mortality job.

They are paid to take that risk. It's just part of the JOB.
Not.

Ta ta
Jailbird

[munnki]

I know, how about a study showing the hideous effects of shoe manufacturing, because so much of it is done in sweatshops by illegal aliens and child labour?

Maybe you could find that for us. Don't forget to mention the rape and murder rate.

You also read the newspaper reports on the huge number of illegal brothels in Sydney right? A number that wasn't anywhere near that high before the NSW government legalised it. And you read about the normalisation of women as commodities. And you still haven't answered my question; why is rape a separate crime?

An excellent study along these lines is done in No Logo by Naomi Klein

[Deadlokd]

I bought that a while ago but haven't read it yet. Can you summarise for us munnki?

Noodle, I think the onus is now on you to prove that full legalisation is the best option for all women and men in the industry. I think you also need to address the normalisation of prostitution in the public's mind and the large number of illegal establishments that grow up too. If you can find some studies that say that women who work in brothels have similar stress levels and fears to those that work in tech support or McDonalds or as a cleaner that would be great too.

[His Noodly Appendage]

No, the burden of proof is still on you, because you haven't presented one single fucking argument for your position.

All you've presented - apart from appeal to emotion and appeal to ick - is links to violence and poor working conditions associated with an illegal industry. Oh, and the fact that many of the people in the industry come from a background of abuse.

Maybe there's a retroactive effect - growing up to become a prostitute sends ripples back in time and causes people to abuse you as a child.

Or not.

Now pony up, if you can. Or are you going to keep making excuses and trying to deflect?

[Deadlokd]

No the burden of proof is now on you. I have shown that prostitution damages women and that damaged women become prostitutes. You, who hold the position that legal prostitution is not harmful must now prove that. You must prove that the lot of women and men in the industry is better and appealing to all women, not just those from a background of child and substance abuse. And equally important, you must prove that society as a whole benefits.

Because to be frank, you dismissing what I present is getting old. You have blinkers on and are unwilling to accept anything that may rock your carefully constructed image of the Wonderful World of the Happy Hooker™. Your entire argument consists of "no" while not presenting evidence to back yourself up. So, to paraphrase yourself, pony up.

[Octavia]

No the burden of proof is now on you. I have shown that prostitution damages women and that damaged women become prostitutes.

If anything, you've shown that prostitution may damage prostitutes (not all of whom are women, BTW) and that damaged individuals may become prositutes. The same claim could be made about alcoholism or other unsavoury life choices. It's is a far cry from claiming that prostitution damages all prostitutes, and that all damaged individuals become prostitutes - because patently they do not. You're extrapolating a correlation into a certainty, and are thus basing your position on an untruth.

You, who hold the position that legal prostitution is not harmful must now prove that.

Not harmful is not the same as less harmful. If the choice was between legal prostitution and no prostitution then I don't think we could find many people to disagree with you - but that isn't the choice. In the real world, the choice is between legal prostitution and illegal prostitution, and prostitutes are able to work in cleaner, safer conditions when prostitution is legal. That makes legalising it the better choice.

[Deadlokd]

No the burden of proof is now on you. I have shown that prostitution damages women and that damaged women become prostitutes.

If anything, you've shown that prostitution may damage prostitutes (not all of whom are women, BTW) and that damaged individuals may become prositutes. The same claim could be made about alcoholism or other unsavoury life choices. It's is a far cry from claiming that prostitution damages all prostitutes, and that all damaged individuals become prostitutes - because patently they do not. You're extrapolating a correlation into a certainty, and are thus basing your position on an untruth.

Except that I didn't say all, because that would be absurd. There are women, and men who enter the industry from a good place, physically and psychologically and suffer few, if any ill effects. This is far outweighed by the large number of people who do get affected by it, physically, psychologically and emotionally.

There are also many people who have been abused as children who have not prostituted themselves, however the large number of prostitutes that have been abused as children is significant. It indicates that people with good self-esteem and good mental health are far less likely to enter the industry.

You, who hold the position that legal prostitution is not harmful must now prove that.

Not harmful is not the same as less harmful. If the choice was between legal prostitution and no prostitution then I don't think we could find many people to disagree with you - but that isn't the choice. In the real world, the choice is between legal prostitution and illegal prostitution, and prostitutes are able to work in cleaner, safer conditions when prostitution is legal. That makes legalising it the better choice.

Again, the problem is that Noodle is just advocating straight legality which as I have shown does nothing to eradicate the illegal trade and in fact strengthens it. There are more illegal brothels in Sydney since legalisation than there were before it. So while that is great for the several hundred prostitutes who now have some measure of protection, it is worse for the thousand plus who have none. A market was created and 'businessmen' rushed in to fill demand.

Interesting article here (http://action.web.ca/home/catw/attach/AUSTRALIAlegislation20001.pdf) on the legalisation in Victoria in the 90's.

And here (http://uninews.unimelb.edu.au/news/5057/).

And here (http://catwa.org.au/files/images/Legalisation_-_a_failed_social_experiment.pdf).

[Deadlokd]

http://www.womensspace.org/phpBB2/2009/06/02/catharine-mackinnon-and-melissa-farley-in-its-wrong-to-pay-for-sex-debate/

[His Noodly Appendage]

If the choice was between legal prostitution and no prostitution then I don't think we could find many people to disagree with you

You'd find me, for one. I'm not saying it's the lesser of two evils, I'm saying it's just not an evil, period.

The quality of argument so far has been shit, frankly. Replace 'prostitution' with 'homosexuality', and you've got the empty hyperbolic ranting of every bigoted fundy in existence. No evidence, and no proposed mechanism - it's just something "everyone knows". And when called on his bullshit, he just tries to shift the goalposts. What a fucking surprise. He makes a positive claim - that prostitution is inherently harmful - and then when he can't, he demands his opponent prove a negative.

Gee, what does THAT remind anyone of?

As I've said, there's circumstantial harm- all of which (or at least enough to be consistent with other professions) can be attributed to the perils of working in an illegal and stigmatized industry, with no worker protections. And you know what, people in the GLBTQK community can get bashed, ostracized, fired, infected and all kinds of nasty stuff, too. Maybe we should aspire to creating a world where everyone is properly straight, to eliminate these evils?

Um, fuck no. If a whole lot of shit happens to a given socioeconomic group, social justice doesn't mandate eliminating the group, it mandates increasing protections and respect, so they get treated decently.

Show a direct, inherent link between prostitution and harm - even if not utterly inevitable. Like, ferinstance, smoking or obesity, so that you can justify acting to reduce it in society... or mind your own damn business. I'll note that we don't yet presume to make it illegal either to be overweight or to sell food to a fat person; if the harm of prostitution is so much more likely and severe that it's worth the loss of freedom incurred by legislating against it, then it's got to be an absolute picnic to demonstrate that it must be so.

What I suspect we're really seeing here is a mix of leftover christian sexual mores and naive prescriptive feminism.

[Deadlokd]

If the choice was between legal prostitution and no prostitution then I don't think we could find many people to disagree with you

You'd find me, for one. I'm not saying it's the lesser of two evils, I'm saying it's just not an evil, period.

The quality of argument so far has been shit, frankly. Replace 'prostitution' with 'homosexuality', and you've got the empty hyperbolic ranting of every bigoted fundy in existence. No evidence, and no proposed mechanism - it's just something "everyone knows". And when called on his bullshit, he just tries to shift the goalposts. What a fucking surprise. He makes a positive claim - that prostitution is inherently harmful - and then when he can't, he demands his opponent prove a negative.

Gee, what does THAT remind anyone of?

As I've said, there's circumstantial harm- all of which (or at least enough to be consistent with other professions) can be attributed to the perils of working in an illegal and stigmatized industry, with no worker protections. And you know what, people in the GLBTQK community can get bashed, ostracized, fired, infected and all kinds of nasty stuff, too. Maybe we should aspire to creating a world where everyone is properly straight, to eliminate these evils?

Um, fuck no. If a whole lot of shit happens to a given socioeconomic group, social justice doesn't mandate eliminating the group, it mandates increasing protections and respect, so they get treated decently.

Show a direct, inherent link between prostitution and harm - even if not utterly inevitable. Like, ferinstance, smoking or obesity, so that you can justify acting to reduce it in society... or mind your own damn business. I'll note that we don't yet presume to make it illegal either to be overweight or to sell food to a fat person; if the harm of prostitution is so much more likely and severe that it's worth the loss of freedom incurred by legislating against it, then it's got to be an absolute picnic to demonstrate that it must be so.

What I suspect we're really seeing here is a mix of leftover christian sexual mores and naive prescriptive feminism.

I just read your post and all I could see was strawmen. Replacing prostitution with homosexuality - strawman. Replace prostitution with obesity or smoking - strawmen.

I'm also presuming that you have paid no attention to the links I have posted about the damage that prostitution does. Or maybe the fact that they were written by feminists deems them beneath your notice.

What you are really seeing is an informed opinion backed up by studies by women on women. An opinion enforced by women who I admire very much. Some of whom have been very much involved in the industry you profess to know so very much about. So, with all due respect, you can shove your christian sexual mores and naive prescriptive feminism up your male privileged ass and perhaps try considering what women think about this industry.

I also notice with a lot of amusement that you accuse me of moving the goalposts but when I place a set right in front of you (in the shape of the real effects of legalisation) you pretend not to see them. It's as if you can't change your mind about something and won't pay attention to evidence that may disagree with your position.

In fact, your whole post screams "projection".

[His Noodly Appendage]

strawmen

http://media.lawrence.com/img/photos/2005/04/07/inigomontoya.jpg

[Deadlokd]

Oh please. Enjoy the thread Noodle. There's no point explaining basic facts to someone who won't listen.

[His Noodly Appendage]

It takes a certain kind of special person to declare victory in full retreat. It's not my fault you don't know what 'strawman' means.

Why don't you look it up on wikipedia?

[Deadlokd]

What fucking victory? Are women better off if prostitution is fully legalised? Obviously not, as I have proven with sources, unlike yourself who has assertions. Honestly, it's like arguing with a fundie.

Me: I have sources showing that this is true.

You: yeah well, I don't need sources, I JUST KNOW MY POSITION IS RIGHT.

I'll declare victory when no one is being exploited.

[His Noodly Appendage]

And for the Nth time:


You have presented evidence of harm when in conjunction with poor working conditions, and I have rejected the applicability of this to the general case. If you have an argument that the working conditions do not contribute to the harm in question, by all means present it.
You have shown a correlation between the advent of legalisation and an increase in unlicensed brothels. This is an enforcement issue, and nothing to do with the nature of prostitution itself (which you claim is inherently harmful). As such, it's completely irrelevant to your case.
You have shown a correlation between childhood abuse and a career in prostitution. Since an activity cannot cause past events, this is completely irrelevant when discussing the effects of prostitution.


You haven't shown jack shit, in other words.


You have not presented any evidence of harm resulting from legal, regulated prostitution with worker protections equivalent to other professions - thus presenting a level playing field on which to compare prostitution with other careers.
You have not suggested a mechanism by which harm could be inherent in prostitution.
You are making the positive claim, so the burden of proof lies with you.


No evidence, no mechanism, burden unfulfilled. Assertion fails.


When called on your lack of arguments, you've tried to shift the burden of proof.
You're assuming your conclusion with "when no one is being exploited".
You've appealed to emotion with "clutching" and "getting away", and neither defended nor conceded the point when called on it.
You've appealed to disgust with loaded descriptions of sex acts - and again abandoned the position without a word when called on it.
You've falsely dismissed critiques of your reasoning as 'strawmen', singularly failed to back up the rebuttal, and stomped off in a huff when called on it.
You're engaging in blatant sexism and apepal to authority by suggesting that the opinion of women - particularly ones you admire - is inherently more relevant. (and btw.. "an opinion enforced"? How the hell does one enforce an opinion?)


I think you're quite mistaken as to who's arguing like a fundie here.

I don't, indeed, need sources to point out that your case is utterly unconvincing. And I don't know I'm right. It's amazingly hard to 'know' a negative. I just know that you have singularly failed to present a compelling argument for what you claim to 'know'.

Or are you just a closed-minded atheist fundie for not accepting Pascal's wager as proof of god? Are you just sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen?

No?

[Deadlokd]

I'll type slowly so you can keep up.

And for the Nth time:


You have presented evidence of harm when in conjunction with poor working conditions, and I have rejected the applicability of this to the general case. If you have an argument that the working conditions do not contribute to the harm in question, by all means present it.

http://catwa.org.au/files/images/Legalisation_-_a_failed_social_experiment.pdf
3/ Making women safer
Concern for the safety of the women in prostitution is often given as one of the reasons for legalising or
decriminalising by governments. Women in prostitution experience two forms of violence, that which
is not paid for and that which is. Unpaid for violence includes rapes, assaults and murder. The paid for
or ‘commercial’ violence includes all the day to day prostitution activities that, research tells us,
prostituted women routinely have to dissociate emotionally from in order to survive. Women do not
escape the unpaid for violence in legal brothels. One example of unpaid for violence comes from the
classiest brothel in Melbourne, The Daily Planet, which was launched on the Stock Exchange in
February 2003. The Daily Planet has alarm buttons in the rooms that women can press to call the
bouncer. Unfortunately women only press these once they have been hit. A bouncer at the brothel
interviewed in the local paper explains that he runs up and breaks the door open when the bell rings
(the locks are flimsy) (Everything But the Girls. TheSunday Age 31/05/98). But the damage has already been done.
There is no way to prevent women being hit in the best run brothels and it is, according to the
bouncer’s account, not uncommon.

You have shown a correlation between the advent of legalisation and an increase in unlicensed brothels. This is an enforcement issue, and nothing to do with the nature of prostitution itself (which you claim is inherently harmful). As such, it's completely irrelevant to your case.

http://catwa.org.au/files/images/Legalisation_-_a_failed_social_experiment.pdf

2/ Controlling the size and shape of the industry and containing organised crime
The desire to contain organised crime was the most significant underlying reason for legalisation in
Victoria. This is one area in which legalisation is spectacularly unsuccessful. Where legalisation is
introduced there always seems to be an illegal sector which is considerably larger than the legal sector.
In Victoria estimates from the police and the legal brothel industry put the number of illegal brothels at
400, four times more than the legal ones (Murphy, Padraic 2002: Licensed brothels call for blitz on illegal sex shops. The
Age 3 June). Victoria, ACT and Queensland require police checks on prospective brothel owners to make
sure that they do not have criminal offences on their records. But such checks are not necessarily
effective. In Melbourne, for instance, one of the largest brothels was set up by the nephew of ‘the
notorious late Robert Trimbole’ (Hoser 1999). In some cases, it seems, brothel owners may just be
members of organized crime families who do not have offences to their names. In other cases men with
convictions can effectively run legal brothels whilst not being the official owners through frontspeople
or organisations.

Enforcement issue asde I note you adeptly sidestepped the issue of normalisation of women as a commodity (a phrase I got from several women). Well done. Nice sidestep.

You have shown a correlation between childhood abuse and a career in prostitution. Since an activity cannot cause past events, this is completely irrelevant when discussing the effects of prostitution.

The state of mind of people entering the industry is irrelevant? The fact that most (some estimates are up to 90%) of the people in the industry have been abused as children is irrelevant to the issue that men buy women as commodities, use them and then discard them. I think you don't want to see this point because it bursts your happy hooker bubble. People from good backgrounds generally do not become prostitutes. If you have fucked a hooker you have taken advantage of someone who had a childhood in which child sex abuse would have featured heavily. This is not conducive to a level playing field in which a john and prostitute can enter negotiations for the price of her vagina.



You haven't shown jack shit, in other words.


You have not presented any evidence of harm resulting from legal, regulated prostitution with worker protections equivalent to other professions - thus presenting a level playing field on which to compare prostitution with other careers.

See above. Also see previous remarks regarding the recurring dangers of sodomy in tech support and toilet cleaning. Further see remarks regarding rape and battery in tech support and toilet cleaning.

You have not suggested a mechanism by which harm could be inherent in prostitution.

Mary Sullivan’s research on the Occupational Health and Safety Codes for brothels developed in
Australia by state governments and prostitutes’ rights organizations is very useful for demonstrating the
violence of the industry (Sullivan, Mary. Making Sex Work in Victoria. PHD in progress 2003, Department of Political Science,
University of Melbourne). The idea behind OHS for brothels is that prostitution can be treated like
hairdressing or office work and the codes do cover such things as slipping on wet floors. However
where the codes address the violence of prostitution they show the reality of the power relations
involved in grim detail. There is a state supported programme on self-defence and conflict resolution
for the sex industry, for instance, which shows that prostituted women can find themselves in situations
similar to hostages. Women are trained in how to react to threatening situations (Quoted in Sullivan as above).
The Ugly Mugs programme which operates in all states that have legalised prostitution shows how
fundamentally dangerous the ‘work’ of prostitution is. In the programme reports on violent buyers are
distributed to police, social workers and prostituted women. This is not necessary in other forms of
women’s work. The OHS codes suggest that women exercise their ‘intuition’ to help work out whether
the buyers are likely to be violent. Prostituted women can, however, find themselves fined by their
employers if they refuse a client they consider to be dangerous.
The OHS codes recommend that sadomasochist practice is safer than conventional sex because it is less
likely to communicate sexually transmitted infections. But they recommend training in the use of
sadomasochist equipment such as branding irons, whips and canes, hot wax and piercing instruments
because of the damage they cause. Body fluids such as blood, vomit, urine, faeces, saliva and semen,
they point out, may contain infectious organisms. There is advice on how to do fistfucking of anus and
vagina which can tear the colon and be life threatening (Ibid).
Legalisation makes men more demanding of practices which women do not like and makes women
more powerless to resist them because of greater competition, and gives more power to the brothel
owners. One result is that there is a greatly increased demand for anal sex. Prostituted women charge
more for anal sex because it is always painful but charge extra if the penis is large because that causes

You are making the positive claim, so the burden of proof lies with you.

No, you are the one saying that in a legal well regulated industry where happy hookers frolic with their clients that no one gets harmed. The onus is on you. As it is, I've already shown that that utopia is bullshit.


No evidence, no mechanism, burden unfulfilled. Assertion fails.


When called on your lack of arguments, you've tried to shift the burden of proof.
You're assuming your conclusion with "when no one is being exploited".
You've appealed to emotion with "clutching" and "getting away", and neither defended nor conceded the point when called on it.
You've appealed to disgust with loaded descriptions of sex acts - and again abandoned the position without a word when called on it.
You've falsely dismissed critiques of your reasoning as 'strawmen', singularly failed to back up the rebuttal, and stomped off in a huff when called on it.
You're engaging in blatant sexism and apepal to authority by suggesting that the opinion of women - particularly ones you admire - is inherently more relevant. (and btw.. "an opinion enforced"? How the hell does one enforce an opinion?)


I think you're quite mistaken as to who's arguing like a fundie here.

I don't, indeed, need sources to point out that your case is utterly unconvincing. And I don't know I'm right. It's amazingly hard to 'know' a negative. I just know that you have singularly failed to present a compelling argument for what you claim to 'know'.

Or are you just a closed-minded atheist fundie for not accepting Pascal's wager as proof of god? Are you just sticking your fingers in your ears and refusing to listen?

No?

Your "rebuttal" was a macro from The Princess Bride. Awesome rebuttal. A strawman is drawing a false correlation between the topic and something else and then destroying the something else. The problem of course, is that there is no correlation between my stance on prostitution and homosexuality. It read like flail. There is also no correlation between prostitution and obesity or smoking so again, we have correlation fail and more strawmen.

So I present the opinion of women who are familiar with the industry and you cry sexism. That's interesting. Do you think women have reached equality with men? Is it a level playing field now? What about the fact that women who sleep with many men are often called whores, but men are studs?

Your positive, which you have presented over and over itt is that legalised and regulated prostitution is awesome and no one gets harmed. That it is better than an outright ban, that it is better than the system in Sweden, that it creates a lovely even playing field for the happy hookers to frolic.

I have shown you (not just asserted as you do) that legalised prostitution creates a climate of normalisation of women as commodities which leads to increased trafficking of women, increased street workers and the women in brothels still get injured.

Now please, rebut those points with more hand waving and clever deconstruction of everything except the actual evidence.

I have gotten emotional because it is an emotional subject. Unless you're you in which case it is just another topic to be dissected and then discarded.

[munnki]

Easy now, chaps, strong arguments sometimes win through slowly...

[munnki]

In answer to the question about No Logo, Deadlokd, it essentially takes the reader on a voyage from the services lead industry 'front-ends' of companies like Nike, Abercrombie etc... through to the areas where actual production takes place - the economic 'free zone' in Manilla - for example. It is a powerful indictment of how these companies by contracting out, rather than manufacturing inhouse, they have absolved themselves of any blame for how the contractors treat their workers and any responsibility for their production workers. Conditions in the production factories are incredibly bad - unions are shut down by force, workers are paid less than subsistence wages, rape and violence frequently occur to female workers.

This is a stilted summary but it is what the main body of the book is about. Klein is seeking to raise awareness. Here's the wiki-intro


The book focuses on branding, and often makes connections with the anti-globalization movement. Throughout the four parts (No Space, No Choice, No Jobs, and No Logo), Klein writes about issues such as sweatshops in the Americas and Asia, culture jamming, corporate censorship, and Reclaim the Streets. She pays special attention to the deeds and misdeeds of Nike, The Gap, McDonalds, Shell, and Microsoft and their lawyers, contractors, and advertising agencies. Many of the ideas in Klein's book derive from the influence of the Situationists, an art/political group founded in the late 1950s.

However, while globalization would appear to be a recurring theme, the topic itself is rarely addressed, and often indirectly. Klein would go on to discuss globalization in much greater detail in her next book, Fences and Windows.