Is illlegal prositution an unfair restriction on a womans use of her own body?

[Scathach]

Was reading one of the (many) abortion threads and got thinking about this.

Why is it accepted that the government can legislate what a woman does with her own body? If someone wants to accept money for sex then surely it's her (or his I guess) own prerogative? Similarly for illegal drugs - if someone chooses to take them and accept the consequences why should anyone else be involved in that decision. I can see the argument that some drugs make people more likely to commit a crime, but then the illegal part of that should still be the crime itself, no?

[Mr Smashy]

Define 'unfair restriction'.

If you mean, is it constitutional for the feds to do it? The answer is, "of course not"

If you mean, can a state pass pretty much any law they want, assuming it doesn't violate the federal constitution? Pretty much.

I agree with you that I don't buy that slippery slope stuff - drugs = crime, therefore they need to go. You could make the same argument about drinking, about a bunch of things. How can anyone reasonably draw the line?

The founders knew you couldn't, which is why they left it to the governments closest to the people to decide this stuff.

[RickJay]

Was reading one of the (many) abortion threads and got thinking about this.

Why is it accepted that the government can legislate what a woman does with her own body? If someone wants to accept money for sex then surely it's her (or his I guess) own prerogative? Similarly for illegal drugs - if someone chooses to take them and accept the consequences why should anyone else be involved in that decision.
The argument against both is that the total social cost of prostitution or drugs is much greater than the corresponding loss of liberty. It isn't really much more complicated than that; the idea is that your right to do as you please is trumped by the overwhelming social cost of the behaviour.

To use a somewhat less dramatic (but still controversial to some people) example, why should the law require you to wear a selt belt? It's your body, right? If you want to take a chance of torpedoing out your windshield or being smushed by the steering column that's your choice. Seat belt laws are a restriction on liberty. However, as a society we have decided the benefits of preventing death and injury outweigh the relatively minor effect on our freedom.

Now, with respect to drugs and prostitution you have some pretty interesting arguments that the pros of those laws DON'T outweight the cons. Indeed, in the case of drug laws there is some evidence the laws do more harm that the drugs themselves. However. the underlying principle of reducing societal harm is there, even if your position is that it's misguided.

[Scathach]

Define 'unfair restriction'.

If you mean, is it constitutional for the feds to do it? The answer is, "of course not"

If you mean, can a state pass pretty much any law they want, assuming it doesn't violate the federal constitution? Pretty much.



I'm not American so the legalities (which are very much location based) aren't as important to me so much as the actual thinking behind it. In the vast majority of countries prostitution is illegal - is it just a kneejerk response to the fact that people find it distasteful? Or is there a more reasoned argument for legislating what a woman (or man!) can and cannot do despite it not hurting other people.

E.T.A
the underlying principle of reducing societal harm is there
I guess my question is, where do people think that the line is between reduction of social harm and overriding someones autonomy over their own body?

[Measure for Measure]

I think free speech, free assembly and due process are human rights. I'm not convinced that prostitution, drug abuse, disturbing the peace and creating public nuisances are.

Whether the state's laws with regards to drugs or prostitution are sensible is another matter. With respect to the US, I would advocate a harm reduction approach.

[Manda JO]

I guess my question is, where do people think that the line is between reduction of social harm and overriding someones autonomy over their own body?

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that while prostitution in theory seems to be about a woman's control of her own body, in practice it has a long history of women being exploited and abused: for every self-actualized $5000/night call girl out there, you have many, many strung-out teenagers living lives of quiet desperation and turning their income over to a "boyfriend".

Now, the obvious solution is to make the exploitative type illegal and not the self-actualized type. And in practice, that's kind of what we do: expensive call girls don't get busted like teenager on street corners. Legally, as a society we seem to have decided that it's too much trouble to try to sort out which is baby and which is bathwater, since the non-exploitative type is such a tiny fraction of the overall practice, and its better to be unfair to the handful of women who could be happy prostitutes than to allow the much larger portion of vulnerable women be abused.

It's like drinking ages. Sure, some underage kids would be perfectly fine to drink, and some really aren't mature enough to drink even when it's legal. But its impossible to test each individual, so we make a blanket law that leans towards the more cautious position.

[Little Nemo]

From a legal standpoint, the answer is definitely yes. It's the doctrine of police power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power) - the government has the authority to uphold social standards of morality on individuals.

[John Mace]

From a legal standpoint, the answer is definitely yes. It's the doctrine of police power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power) - the government has the authority to uphold social standards of morality on individuals.

In the US, this is not unrestricted. See Lawrence. If the SCOTUS was being consistent, anti-prostitution laws would be unconstitutional. But they aren't being consistent.

[Sitnam]

I think the idea is prostitution is assumed to be never a career by choice, by allowing it to be legal you're aiding the exploitation of woman unable to escape a horrible situation.

On the other hand the government exists to preserve your liberty and safety, so as long as you aren't hurting or infringing on others you should damn well be able to do whatever you want.

[Scathach]

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that while prostitution in theory seems to be about a woman's control of her own body, in practice it has a long history of women being exploited and abused: for every self-actualized $5000/night call girl out there, you have many, many strung-out teenagers living lives of quiet desperation and turning their income over to a "boyfriend".



I absolutely agree that the "pimping" style of prostitution is disgusting. But I think that the illegality of prostitution is what has reduced it to that. (If we ban guns then only criminals will have guns :) )

But if it was legal and without the current stigma, then I wonder how different it would be? Much as I hate the idea of women being bought and sold, I can't really get on board with making it an offense for a woman to accept money for sex if she's willing.

Also, I think the exploitation of women aspect should really be considered a different crime. Prostitution shouldn't be illegal, but maybe there should be a term similar to "statutory rape" for the women being used as cash cows for pimps. (In some cases, no doubt, the standard definition of rape would cover it unfortunately :( )

[Der Trihs]

My somewhat cynical view is that the primary purposes of prostitution being illegal is to one, produce the illusion it doesn't exist - you can still sell sex for profit, you just have to pretend you aren't. And two, raising the price of sex by making it scarcer; the same logic that's behind cutting off a girl's clitoris so she won't enjoy sex.

[Sitnam]

My somewhat cynical view is that the primary purposes of prostitution being illegal is to one, produce the illusion it doesn't exist - you can still sell sex for profit, you just have to pretend you aren't. And two, raising the price of sex by making it scarcer; the same logic that's behind cutting off a girl's clitoris so she won't enjoy sex.
So the US government is the De Beers of poon?

[Scathach]

My somewhat cynical view is that the primary purposes of prostitution being illegal is to one, produce the illusion it doesn't exist - you can still sell sex for profit, you just have to pretend you aren't. And two, raising the price of sex by making it scarcer; the same logic that's behind cutting off a girl's clitoris so she won't enjoy sex.

Ah yes, the nefarious gang of super pimps running the world are making prostitution illegal to drive up prices. Just like those car manufacturers suppressing electric cars so oil prices will remain high.

THE PEOPLE SHOULD KNOW!

[The Hamster King]

I think it has a lot to do with the fact that while prostitution in theory seems to be about a woman's control of her own body, in practice it has a long history of women being exploited and abused: for every self-actualized $5000/night call girl out there, you have many, many strung-out teenagers living lives of quiet desperation and turning their income over to a "boyfriend".Excellent post.

[Der Trihs]

Ah yes, the nefarious gang of super pimps running the world are making prostitution illegal to drive up prices. No, women in general. The anti-sex crusaders of all varieties have always been heavily female. Just like the people who sexually mutilate women to destroy their ability to destroy their ability to enjoy sex are also mostly women.

[Scathach]

And two, raising the price of sex by making it scarcer; the same logic that's behind cutting off a girl's clitoris so she won't enjoy sex.

Just like the people who sexually mutilate women to destroy their ability to destroy their ability to enjoy sex are also mostly women.

You are frankly bizarrely determined to work female genital mutilation into this discussion.

[Manda JO]

I absolutely agree that the "pimping" style of prostitution is disgusting. But I think that the illegality of prostitution is what has reduced it to that. (If we ban guns then only criminals will have guns :) )

But if it was legal and without the current stigma, then I wonder how different it would be? Much as I hate the idea of women being bought and sold, I can't really get on board with making it an offense for a woman to accept money for sex if she's willing.

Also, I think the exploitation of women aspect should really be considered a different crime. Prostitution shouldn't be illegal, but maybe there should be a term similar to "statutory rape" for the women being used as cash cows for pimps. (In some cases, no doubt, the standard definition of rape would cover it unfortunately :( )

Can you explain how you think making it illegal is what makes it exploitative? I really don't have a dog in this fight, but the analogy to guns doesn't really hold for me. Even if legal prostitution were available, pimps are going to be willing to sell blow jobs from the girls they control more cheaply than free-choosing women. The market will still be dominated by exploited women because they are cheaper, and they will be harder to detect if they are masked by legal prostitution.

I am not totally unsympathetic to your point of view in theory: I just don't know how to make it work in practice, and since we are very aware of just how disgusting and exploitative prostitution can be, I think we have to be very cautious of anything that could encourage those aspects.

[zoid]

I have no facts to back this up so take it as the rantings of just one dummy...

First I believe drugs and prostitution are completely different.
Some drugs are so inherently dangerous that they should be illegal.

Prostitution is inherently dangerous because it's illegal. I personally find it distasteful but that's no reason to ban it. I honestly believe that legalizing prostitution and providing the means to make it safe are the answer. These should include rules on an equitable split between the prostitute and the "house" or whatever you call it, as well as mandatory STD screenings for ALL participants, and (I know someone will crucify me for this) mental health screening for prostitutes to ensure they are capable of making this choice AND for johns to ensure they pose no threat.

[Scathach]

Can you explain how you think making it illegal is what makes it exploitative? I really don't have a dog in this fight, but the analogy to guns doesn't really hold for me. Even if legal prostitution were available, pimps are going to be willing to sell blow jobs from the girls they control more cheaply than free-choosing women. The market will still be dominated by exploited women because they are cheaper, and they will be harder to detect if they are masked by legal prostitution.

I am not totally unsympathetic to your point of view in theory: I just don't know how to make it work in practice, and since we are very aware of just how disgusting and exploitative prostitution can be, I think we have to be very cautious of anything that could encourage those aspects.

Honestly I agree, I wouldn't particularly call myself pro prostitution either. The guns analogy was mainly a joke, rather than a serious point.

I think legal prostitution would reduce exploitation simply by making it easier for people to get help from police without fear of prosecution. You can't really seek help from being beaten up by your pimp for not handing over your illegally obtained money.

mandatory STD screenings for ALL participants, and (I know someone will crucify me for this) mental health screening for prostitutes to ensure they are capable of making this choice AND for johns to ensure they pose no threat.

I disagree with this for the same reasons, it's still an intrusion into personal autonomy.

[zoid]

I disagree with this for the same reasons, it's still an intrusion into personal autonomy.

So no background checks for gun purchases then?
There's a limit to autonomy.

[jtgain]

It isn't really much more complicated than that; the idea is that your right to do as you please is trumped by the overwhelming social cost of the behaviour.


I disagree with this because almost any activity, taken in the aggregate, will tend to expose the sour side of that activity and lead to a social cost. The bedrock of individual freedom is that if my SPECIFIC activity is not harming someone, then it should be permitted.

If I don't wish to wear my seatbelt, then truly nobody is being harmed except me. Same way with smoking, drinking, eating junk food, or using the services of a prostitute. Now if you multiply the affects of all of these behaviors, they do hurt society, but by taking that step, there's really not a single personal freedom that will survive your scrutiny.

I agree with the post upthread. If the Supreme Court is going to hold that sodomy is a fundamental right, it should be intellectually honest and hold that prostitution is the same. What could possibly distinguish the two?

[Scathach]

So no background checks for gun purchases then?
There's a limit to autonomy.

Fair point. Std checks I can get behind - the mental health screening not so much. If someone wants to work on an oil rig or a similarly dangerous job are they required to take a mental health check? (Semi serious question, I honestly don't know if they are)

If I don't wish to wear my seatbelt, then truly nobody is being harmed except me. Same way with smoking, drinking, eating junk food, or using the services of a prostitute. Now if you multiply the affects of all of these behaviors, they do hurt society, but by taking that step, there's really not a single personal freedom that will survive your scrutiny.

I agree, the main principle should be if it doesn't harm someone else, well then go for it.

If the Supreme Court is going to hold that sodomy is a fundamental right, it should be intellectually honest and hold that prostitution is the same. What could possibly distinguish the two?
Wait, what?:dubious:

[zoid]

Fair point. Std checks I can get behind - the mental health screening not so much. If someone wants to work on an oil rig or a similarly dangerous job are they required to take a mental health check? (Semi serious question, I honestly don't know if they are)

There's one to join the military (at least there was when I looked into signing up), to be a commercial pilot, to be a policeman or fireman etc. I don't see how this is different.
My main concern with this requirement is to avoid the exploitation we've been talking about. I really don't wan to see daddy selling his severely retarded daughter who doesn't have the capability to make the decision.

[Scathach]

There's one to join the military (at least there was when I looked into signing up), to be a commercial pilot, to be a policeman or fireman etc. I don't see how this is different.
My main concern with this requirement is to avoid the exploitation we've been talking about. I really don't wan to see daddy selling his severely retarded daughter who doesn't have the capability to make the decision.

Ah sorry - I misunderstood. I completely agree that people who have a diminished ability to give consent should be ruled out.

[RickJay]

I disagree with this because almost any activity, taken in the aggregate, will tend to expose the sour side of that activity and lead to a social cost. The bedrock of individual freedom is that if my SPECIFIC activity is not harming someone, then it should be permitted.
That's fine, but you're disagreeing with something I did not say. The OP wanted to know why it is accepted that the government should make such things illegal. I answered with a response which I think is completely true and beyond any rational rebuttal.

Whether or not a given behaviour SHOULD be illegal is another issue. My point was merely why it is commonly accepted that the government should have the power to make it illegal. Little Nemo has provided a relevant link to the doctrine of police power.

I do not personally think drugs should be illegal, nor do I think smoking or eating junk food and such should be illegal. Don't misunderstand me; I am simply trying to explain why the government has the power to make it so, not arguing for any one position.

If I don't wish to wear my seatbelt, then truly nobody is being harmed except me. Same way with smoking, drinking, eating junk food, or using the services of a prostitute. Now if you multiply the affects of all of these behaviors, they do hurt society, but by taking that step, there's really not a single personal freedom that will survive your scrutiny.
That is simply untrue. There are many personal freedoms that quite obviously HAVE survive "my" scrutiny, inasmuch as I personally do not oppose all freedoms. Nor, for that matter, is it the case that society at large has done so; while it is presently illegal to possess cocaine, it is not presently illegal to possess tobacco or alcohol, or to eat Double Whoppers, or to drive a snowmobile, or to do any number of silly and dangerous things. Clearly, some sort of decision is being made on a case by case basis.

Sometimes, of course, the decision's stupid. Marijuana is beyond any rational doubt a far less dangerous drug than alcohol, yet weed is illegal and alcohol is not (for the most part.) Again, I'm not supporting a given position.

I agree with the post upthread. If the Supreme Court is going to hold that sodomy is a fundamental right, it should be intellectually honest and hold that prostitution is the same. What could possibly distinguish the two?
If I may play devil's advocate, is is absolutely and unquestionably the case that prostitution is a service that promotes and encourages the exploitation, abuse and in many cases outright enslavement of women. It is commonly stated that that's only because it's illegal, but the liberalization of prostitution laws in some places present some very alarming evidence that legalized prostitution actually INCREASES exploitation and enslavement. The Netherlands, with liberal attitudes towards prostitution, has become an epicenter of sex slavery.

I admit as a person who leans towards a libertarian viewpoint that these facts about prostitution bother me and cause some cognitive dissonance; I'd like to believe that, like drugs, prostitution is something where government puritanism is itself the problem. But there is growing evidence that maybe it's not. I'm not saying it's yet a proven case one way or the other, but there IS evidence that prostitution brings with it slavery.

What ass-humping has to do with it I don't understand. I don't for an instant see the equivalence.

[Little Nemo]

In the US, this is not unrestricted. See Lawrence. If the SCOTUS was being consistent, anti-prostitution laws would be unconstitutional. But they aren't being consistent.Originally Posted by jtgain
If the Supreme Court is going to hold that sodomy is a fundamental right, it should be intellectually honest and hold that prostitution is the same. What could possibly distinguish the two?Kennedy specifically said that the Lawrence decision didn't apply to prostitution. He appeared to be make a distinction between sexual acts in a relationship, which he felt were covered by a right to privacy, and sexual acts like prostitution, which he felt were not private.

[Scathach]

But aside from the legalities - if making abortion is wrong because it removes a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, then how can prostitution be wrong?

[ITR champion]

I absolutely agree that the "pimping" style of prostitution is disgusting. But I think that the illegality of prostitution is what has reduced it to that.

But if it was legal and without the current stigma, then I wonder how different it would be?
To answer the question we need only look at the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal. In that country, the sex trade is controlled by criminal syndicates, which are involved in international human trafficking. They bring in women from Eastern Europe and Asia illegally who are completely dependent on the syndicates and force those women to work as prostitutes.

Thousands of years of human history assure us that women do not want to be prostitutes, and there have always been virtually no women willing to do it unless they are financially desperate or otherwise under the control of someone else. Legalizing prostitution only legitimizes the exploitation of women (and a very small number of men).

See this thread for cites and further discussion http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=545267&highlight=Netherlands+prostitution

[Scathach]

Thousands of years of human history assure us that women do not want to be prostitutes, and there have always been virtually no women willing to do it unless they are financially desperate or otherwise under the control of someone else.


Does the legality of prostitution have a material affect on the numbers of prostitutes? Because otherwise all you're doing is criminalising financially desperate women.

(Is criminalising a word? Or is it like disgruntled, in that one can never be gruntled?)

[Der Trihs]

Does the legality of prostitution have a material affect on the numbers of prostitutes? Because otherwise all you're doing is criminalising financially desperate women.Yes; I see no evidence that keeping it illegal helps anything. If legalizing it is causing problems with organized crime, it seems more likely to me that the problem is that they are doing it wrong. Perhaps the government needs to be more heavily involved.

Is criminalising a word? Apparently so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminalization), but spelled with a "z".

[zoid]

Thousands of years of human history assure us that women do not want to be prostitutes, and there have always been virtually no women willing to do it unless they are financially desperate or otherwise under the control of someone else. Legalizing prostitution only legitimizes the exploitation of women (and a very small number of men).

This is a place I was afraid to go. I was on the verge of saying IF prostitution is legalized a set % of the revenue must be set aside for educational/training proposes kind of like social security. Because to be blunt you can only spend so many years on your back and then what the hell do you do? The reason I was afraid to say it is that somewhere inside me it seems this is starting to subvert the whole point of allowing a woman to make her own choices. It seems like a real slippery slope.

[Scathach]

This is a place I was afraid to go. I was on the verge of saying IF prostitution is legalized a set % of the revenue must be set aside for educational/training proposes kind of like social security. Because to be blunt you can only spend so many years on your back and then what the hell do you do? The reason I was afraid to say it is that somewhere inside me it seems this is starting to subvert the whole point of allowing a woman to make her own choices. It seems like a real slippery slope.

The same could be said for strippers though, and no one suggests that they should be retrained.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's an ideal career choice or anything, but making it illegal surely only serves to make it more difficult for someone to get help if they're being exploited (as it seems they almost certainly are).

I'd like to hear a few more opinions on the abortion/prostitution, a woman has a right to control what happens to her own body dichotomy?

[Scathach]

Apparently so (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminalization), but spelled with a "z".

Woot! Does that mean I can start using gruntled too? :) (And I'm gonna claim my spelling is correct - the "z" in "s/z"ions is mainly an American thing no?)

[Scathach]

Yes; I see no evidence that keeping it illegal helps anything. If legalizing it is causing problems with organized crime, it seems more likely to me that the problem is that they are doing it wrong. Perhaps the government needs to be more heavily involved.


Here's an article talking about a lot of "windows" in the red light district in the Netherlands being closed down in an effort to combat organised crime.
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/265520
However, if it wasn't legal, wouldn't it be harder for the police to close down these things? Or at least, to know when violations are happening. (I'm open to arguments on this btw)

[Banquet Bear]

To answer the question we need only look at the Netherlands, where prostitution is legal. In that country, the sex trade is controlled by criminal syndicates, which are involved in international human trafficking. They bring in women from Eastern Europe and Asia illegally who are completely dependent on the syndicates and force those women to work as prostitutes.


...or you could look to New Zealand, where prostitution is also legal. In this country the 'sex trade" is not controlled by criminal syndicates who are involved in international human trafficking. And if criminals in the Netherlands are bringing in women illegally then everything should be done to stop it because they are criminals and it is illegal.


Thousands of years of human history assure us that women do not want to be prostitutes, and there have always been virtually no women willing to do it unless they are financially desperate or otherwise under the control of someone else. Legalizing prostitution only legitimizes the exploitation of women (and a very small number of men).


Thousands of years of human history have shown that some women do want to be prostitutes, and that many women are willing to do it even if they are financially well-off and not under the control of someone else. When legalizing prostitution is done properly it provides choice and provides protection. My post is my cite, as is yours.



See this thread for cites and further discussion http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=545267&highlight=Netherlands+prostitution

If you are going to make assertions in this thread you should really cite provide your cite in this thread. For example: I read that thread to find out where you got your information about the Netherlands. You linked to a New Yorker article which only contains the abstract that doesn't seem to support your thesis at all.

How about some real analysis on what the Netherlands example, if anything, means? If the criminal element is removed from prostitution, like the Netherlands government has been trying to do since 2008, would you still have a problem with it? Or is the criminal element just a strawman, and you would oppose legalized prostitution regardless of circumstance?

[Argent Towers]

Thousands of years of human history assure us that women do not want to be prostitutes, and there have always been virtually no women willing to do it unless they are financially desperate or otherwise under the control of someone else.

Come on now. How could you possibly know this? Have you interviewed every prostitute for the past few thousand years?

Even if what you're saying is true - you're really stretching the word "want" when you say women do not "want" to be prostitutes. I'm sure that the women in New York, for instance, who wind up escorting would rather be getting paid hundreds of dollars an hour to design clothes or whatever, but that's not going to happen. How else can they make that kind of money?

Escorts in London are charging several hundred pounds for just one hour. Could you tell me a job that a man could get, with no other skill besides being good-looking, that would pay him that kind of money? Go ahead, tell me.

Do all the guys who you see on hot summer days doing backbreaking work like hauling rocks, digging post holes, jackhammering concrete, etc want to be doing that? No, they would probably rather be fishing. But they have to pay their bills.

[zoid]

I kind of have to agree AT.
Besides it's not like any pig-shit-shoveler wants that position. Not a fair comparison I know but the argument just somehow feels flawed.

[TriPolar]

(And I'm gonna claim my spelling is correct - the "z" in "s/z"ions is mainly an American thing no?)

Yes. Another example of American exceptionalization.

[Argent Towers]

You do what you gotta do to make money. Some jobs are "beneath" some people; others don't mind it if it pays the bills. And maybe, just maybe, some enjoy it. But it's just a job.

I don't deny that there's exploitation involved in some prostitution. I'm just not willing to accept that the act is inherently exploitative as some seem to be claiming.

Historically it's been men, not women, who have always had the shittiest jobs. It's been men who, for thousands of years, have been charging headlong into masses of iron weapons, horseflesh and pain for no other reason that they were ordered to, and then spending their last remaining minutes or hours writhing on the ground bleeding to death or dying from infections. It's men who've put in double shifts in black-lung coal mines; men who've burned to death in fires; men who shoveled nuclear waste.

Got to feed the family, you know.

I'm not buying this whole victimhood jive with regards to prostitution.

[Scathach]

Historically it's been men, not women, who have always had the shittiest jobs. It's been men who, for thousands of years, have been charging headlong into masses of iron weapons, horseflesh and pain for no other reason that they were ordered to, and then spending their last remaining minutes or hours writhing on the ground bleeding to death or dying from infections. It's men who've put in double shifts in black-lung coal mines; men who've burned to death in fires; men who shoveled nuclear waste.

Got to feed the family, you know.

I'm not buying this whole victimhood jive with regards to prostitution.

Why on earth should the victimhood of men detract from the victimhood of women? It's not like suffering is a zero sum game.

[Argent Towers]

I'm not talking about the victimhood of men. I'm talking about men doing their jobs.

Prostitution is a job. It can be quite a horrible job, or quite a good one, for some women - but it's a job.

This is distinct from sex slavery, which is something else. But there are people here claiming that all prostitution is basically sex slavery, which I think is nuts.

[Qin Shi Huangdi]

No, legalizing prostitution would encourage unskilled women (and men) to those jobs as these would pay more than many other honest jobs for the unskilled for an ultimately unproductive job.

[zoid]

No, legalizing prostitution would encourage unskilled women (and men) to those jobs as these would pay more than many other honest jobs for the unskilled for an ultimately unproductive job.

I'm reasonably sure that the social stigma associated with the profession will not go away and that it would still be a quite significant deterrent for any previously good Christian women you're so worried will sully themselves after the passage of law.
I really don't think your Christian kindergarten teacher is going to flip on a dime and say "it's LEGAL now?! I'm IN!!!"

[Little Nemo]

But aside from the legalities - if making abortion is wrong because it removes a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, then how can prostitution be wrong?It's pretty much impossible to discuss a legal issue while leaving aside the legalities. I explained why it's legal for the government to prohibit prostitution. Morality is a whole different subject.

[Odesio]

Escorts in London are charging several hundred pounds for just one hour. Could you tell me a job that a man could get, with no other skill besides being good-looking, that would pay him that kind of money? Go ahead, tell me.


The same job providing sexual services to men.

[Argent Towers]

I'm not convinced there's the same kind of demand.

[Odesio]

I'm not convinced there's the same kind of demand.

Probably not, but I didn't get the impression that this was the point you were trying to make.

[ramel]

A very sexist thread everyone has got going here.

1. Men can be prostitutes too
2. Women can pay prostitutes for sex.

[blindboyard]

Can you explain how you think making it illegal is what makes it exploitative? I really don't have a dog in this fight, but the analogy to guns doesn't really hold for me. Even if legal prostitution were available, pimps are going to be willing to sell blow jobs from the girls they control more cheaply than free-choosing women. The market will still be dominated by exploited women because they are cheaper, and they will be harder to detect if they are masked by legal prostitution.

But it's getting along fine as it is, legalisation wouldn't suddenly make it accepted, it's already accepted.

I'd say that legal prostitution has a market advantage. You get a less morally dubious experience, so you feel less guilt, if you've got the sort of regulation common in legalised prostitution you've got a greatly reduced chance of getting a sexually transmitted disease, or of getting stabbed and robbed by her pimp. As far as I'm concerned market mechanisms militate against choosing cheaper, but illegal, prostitutes in a situation where legal and safe prostitutes are available for a higher price. You just need to ensure a better product is provided, which is done by government regulation. I mean, I could brew my own moonshine and drink it and go blind, or I could buy booze from government regulated breweries and distilleries.

[blindboyard]

No, legalizing prostitution would encourage unskilled women (and men) to those jobs as these would pay more than many other honest jobs for the unskilled for an ultimately unproductive job.

You're worried poor old McDonalds might be outcompeted for burger flippers by a new industry paying higher wages? Well, might encourage them to pay higher wages. Or, alternatively, they could just hire people more willing to take low wages than to get fucked up the arse for money. I know which job I'd rather have. Each to their own.

Thousands of years of human history assure us that women do not want to be prostitutes, and there have always been virtually no women willing to do it unless they are financially desperate or otherwise under the control of someone else. Legalizing prostitution only legitimizes the exploitation of women (and a very small number of men).

There's a reason that it's the oldest profession: there have always been people willing to do it. Marx said that the rich would always devise beliefs and religions to protect their position, and there have been religions whose worship heavily involves prostitution, in Greece and Babylon. There have been prostitutes who have formed trade associations, there's even a union in modern day Britain, ever since ancient Rome.

[Sitnam]

But aside from the legalities - if making abortion is wrong because it removes a woman's right to choose what to do with her body, then how can prostitution be wrong?
I think this is a solid argument, and would love someone refute this point.

[Evil Captor]

No, women in general. The anti-sex crusaders of all varieties have always been heavily female. Just like the people who sexually mutilate women to destroy their ability to destroy their ability to enjoy sex are also mostly women.

Leaving FGM out of it, I think George Bernard Shaw was on to something when he said "Sexual morality is the trade unionism of married women." I am reminded that brothels tended to disappear from Western towns as soon as married women started showing up in large numbers. It wasn't the men who complained about them.

[Evil Captor]

Kennedy specifically said that the Lawrence decision didn't apply to prostitution. He appeared to be make a distinction between sexual acts in a relationship, which he felt were covered by a right to privacy, and sexual acts like prostitution, which he felt were not private.

Yes, he did a CYA for a rationally inconsistent decision. It's not like the Supreme Court's decisions are a model of rationality nowadays.

[Evil Captor]

Thousands of years of human history assure us that women do not want to be prostitutes, and there have always been virtually no women willing to do it unless they are financially desperate or otherwise under the control of someone else. Legalizing prostitution only legitimizes the exploitation of women (and a very small number of men).

See this thread for cites and further discussion http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=545267&highlight=Netherlands+prostitution

((Bolding mine -- ec)). Economic desperation is not an argument against prostitution, it's an argument against not having strong social safety nets so women won't be forced to sell the use of their bodies to survive. Countries with no social safety nets, like most Third World countries and much of Eastern Europe, and countries with weak and tattered social safety nets, like the US, have no basis for outlawing prostitution, as they have created the conditions for it to thrive.

[Evil Captor]

No, legalizing prostitution would encourage unskilled women (and men) to those jobs as these would pay more than many other honest jobs for the unskilled for an ultimately unproductive job.

Unproductive? How is it unproductive?

[Evil Captor]

It's pretty much impossible to discuss a legal issue while leaving aside the legalities. I explained why it's legal for the government to prohibit prostitution. Morality is a whole different subject.

Careful examination of the thread topic will show that it asks if illegal prostitution is unfair, not if it's illegal. The thread topic is morality (in the sense of fairness) not legality.

[Evil Captor]

A very sexist thread everyone has got going here.

1. Men can be prostitutes too
2. Women can pay prostitutes for sex.

Everything I have ever read on the topic indicates that male prostitutes are a tiny, tiny percentage of female prostitutes, and that female customers of prostitutes are a tiny, tiny percentage of male customers. It's not sexism at play here, just a recognition of the facts on the sheets. Unless you have some data that contradict these points?

[Evil Captor]

But it's getting along fine as it is, legalisation wouldn't suddenly make it accepted, it's already accepted.

I'd say that legal prostitution has a market advantage. You get a less morally dubious experience, so you feel less guilt, if you've got the sort of regulation common in legalised prostitution you've got a greatly reduced chance of getting a sexually transmitted disease, or of getting stabbed and robbed by her pimp. As far as I'm concerned market mechanisms militate against choosing cheaper, but illegal, prostitutes in a situation where legal and safe prostitutes are available for a higher price. You just need to ensure a better product is provided, which is done by government regulation. I mean, I could brew my own moonshine and drink it and go blind, or I could buy booze from government regulated breweries and distilleries.

Now that US corporations have pretty much defeated unions in the US and can have things all their own way WRT workers, I think the ultimate effect of legalizing prostitution would be to greatly cheapen the wages of prostitutes. I could see the big strip clubs setting up big whorehouses, very nice carpeting you can be sure, as for the working conditions and wages of the employees, think "Would you like a blowjob with your hamburger?"

[villa]

In the US, this is not unrestricted. See Lawrence. If the SCOTUS was being consistent, anti-prostitution laws would be unconstitutional. But they aren't being consistent.


I agree with the post upthread. If the Supreme Court is going to hold that sodomy is a fundamental right, it should be intellectually honest and hold that prostitution is the same. What could possibly distinguish the two?

This is just flat out wrong. There's nothing in Lawrence that requires the legalization of prostitution. Not only as has been pointed out did Kennedy specifically exempt prostitution, his rationale for the protection of sodomy was its role as part of sexual expression. Prostitution, on the other hand, is a business transaction (one that should IMHO be legalized). Supreme Court cases often treat commercial matters differently to private ones - look at First Amendment jurisprudence for a moment.

It's the same ridiculous argument that we saw repeatedly about Lawrence and the gay marriage debate - if we find sodomy protected, or allows SSM, then we will have to allow incest and bestiality et al. It doesn't hold water.

[Tom Tildrum]

This is just flat out wrong. There's nothing in Lawrence that requires the legalization of prostitution. Not only as has been pointed out did Kennedy specifically exempt prostitution, his rationale for the protection of sodomy was its role as part of sexual expression. Prostitution, on the other hand, is a business transaction (one that should IMHO be legalized). Supreme Court cases often treat commercial matters differently to private ones - look at First Amendment jurisprudence for a moment.

It's the same ridiculous argument that we saw repeatedly about Lawrence and the gay marriage debate - if we find sodomy protected, or allows SSM, then we will have to allow incest and bestiality et al. It doesn't hold water.

IIRC, the argument for extension is that Lawrence held that legislation that is based purely upon moral disapproval will not survive rational-basis scrutiny, the lowest level of review. Then the inquiry as to prostitution becomes whether the laws forbidding it are based upon other, legitimate societal interests or just impermissible moral opprobrium.

[ITR champion]

Does the legality of prostitution have a material affect on the numbers of prostitutes? Because otherwise all you're doing is criminalising financially desperate women.
Undoubtedly there's someone in the United States who is desperate enough to work for four dollars an hour. Nonetheless the government does not allow anyone to work for four dollars an hour. Minimum wage laws protect people who are in desperate financial circumstances by not allowing anyone to hire them for a pittance. Likewise workplace safety laws protect people who are desperate to take extremely dangerous jobs. And it the same manner, laws against prostitution protect those who are financially desperate enough that they might turn to prostitution.

[ITR champion]

Economic desperation is not an argument against prostitution, it's an argument against not having strong social safety nets so women won't be forced to sell the use of their bodies to survive. Countries with no social safety nets, like most Third World countries and much of Eastern Europe, and countries with weak and tattered social safety nets, like the US, have no basis for outlawing prostitution, as they have created the conditions for it to thrive.
The best approach is for a country to have both a strong social safety net and a ban on prostitution, thus providing two layers of protection against women being exploited as prostitutes. Similarly the best way to prevent deaths from mines collapses is to ban the most dangerous types of mining of have a system of safety inspections, but the absence of one type of protection does not mean that a nation should not implement the other type.

[villa]

IIRC, the argument for extension is that Lawrence held that legislation that is based purely upon moral disapproval will not survive rational-basis scrutiny, the lowest level of review. Then the inquiry as to prostitution becomes whether the laws forbidding it are based upon other, legitimate societal interests or just impermissible moral opprobrium.

Certainly true. It's an argument Kennedy has made before. My point was simply that his discussion of sexual intimacy makes clear that there aren't the societal interests at stake that there would be in, for example, prostitution.

[Little Nemo]

Yes, he did a CYA for a rationally inconsistent decision. It's not like the Supreme Court's decisions are a model of rationality nowadays.I don't know. I think it's a valid point that sex within a relationship should be protected while a commercial transaction like prostitution can be regulated.

[Little Nemo]

Careful examination of the thread topic will show that it asks if illegal prostitution is unfair, not if it's illegal. The thread topic is morality (in the sense of fairness) not legality.It's admittedly headed off in that direction but I felt the OPWhy is it accepted that the government can legislate what a woman does with her own body? If someone wants to accept money for sex then surely it's her (or his I guess) own prerogative? Similarly for illegal drugs - if someone chooses to take them and accept the consequences why should anyone else be involved in that decision. I can see the argument that some drugs make people more likely to commit a crime, but then the illegal part of that should still be the crime itself, no?was asking about the legal basis for the government's power to regulate prostitution.

[SecretaryofEvil]

I recently posted the following in a different thread, and I feel a lot of it may be of interest to the debaters. The statements I made were based on information given to me my the police and based on my personal observations. I realize this is not the hard statistics that work best in Great Debates, but hard statistics can be hard to find in an illegal industry.

When I lived in DC, I volunteered for HIPS, Helping Individual Prostitutes Survive. The focus was on streetwalkers, who generally are desperate people who don't have a ton of options available to them. We did things like give them condoms, let them know where they could get free STD testing and other healthcare, put them in contact with homeless shelters and battered women's shelters, help them get their kids on food assistance, etc. We had a lot of contact with the DC police, although we did not work for them. Based on those experiences, I can make the following pertinent statements.

1. If you think trying to help prostitutes is only about helping women, you're completely wrong. More than 1/3 of the streetwalkers were men. Half of the men were cross dressers or transgendered, the other half just openly worked as men. Their clients were also men (in case you're wondering). Apparently DC has a slightly higher than average rate of openly male streetwalkers when compared to other American cities.

2. Streetwalking is not the most common form of prostitution, and most prostitutes do not have pimps. According to the DC police, most prostitutes advertised on the internet, or worked as "bar girls." Bar girls would flirt with men in a bar, then offer to leave with the men and seal the deal in exchange for cash. These types of prostitutes rarely had pimps. There were a few brothels and call girl services, but these were not common. Many of the streetwalkers had pimps, but certainly not all of them. Some of the prostitutes complained about their pimps, but the far more common complaint was that people tried to rob them. The male prostitutes also suffered a lot of random attacks, since some people's version of a good time was to beat up a male prostitute.

3. The version of a pimp from movies or music, in which the pimp makes a lot of money and has a "stable of hos," is almost never realistic. Most pimps are desperately poor individuals themselves, who essentially live off their girlfriend who happens to be a prostitute. And yes, they tend to be exceptionally scummy individuals, and most them are violent towards the prostitutes they extort or mooch from. Of course the wheel always keeps spinning, and many pimps who violently extort prostitutes are themselves subsequently extorted by other, tougher criminals.

4. The police do arrest pimps, although rarely for some sort of direction of harlotry charge, which are difficult to prove. Most of them get arrested for assault or extortion. Someone who is pimping out underage girls will usually be charged with statutory rape or child molestation (very serious crimes). Depending on the exact circumstances they will sometimes be prosecuted with kidnapping, or under some old "white slavery" laws which involve transporting a female for the purposes of prostitution.

[gatorslap]

Prostitution is legal in Nevada, but heavily regulated. I think their version of legalized prostitution is okay, but it doesn't really "solve the problem" of illegal prostitution, because from what I gather, they have just as many illegal prostitutes as anywhere else.

I don't see banning prostitution as a "restriction on a womans use of her own body". Sex isn't illegal; taking money for it is. The "use of her own body" part isn't what's restricted.

Prostitution of the street-walking sort is a public nuisance and its criminality is therefore quite justified IMO. I'm less sure when it comes to more discreet forms of prostitution.

[ruadh]

My somewhat cynical view is that the primary purposes of prostitution being illegal is to one, produce the illusion it doesn't exist - you can still sell sex for profit, you just have to pretend you aren't. And two, raising the price of sex by making it scarcer; the same logic that's behind cutting off a girl's clitoris so she won't enjoy sex.

The perception of sex workers as vectors of disease has a lot to do with it. A lot of the red light districts in the US were shut down by the feds after World War 1, particularly those near military bases, because of these fears. See Foucault's History of Sexuality and also this (http://www.amazon.com/No-Magic-Bullet-Venereal-Paperbacks/dp/0195042379) book.

Nowadays there's a lot more recognition that criminalisation itself promotes the spread of disease, for example, by discouraging sex workers from carrying condoms since they are often used by police as evidence of prostitution (policies of this sort are amazingly widespread). In Sweden since buying sex was outlawed in 1999, a common complaint of street sex workers is that their "normal" customers have gone elsewhere due to fear of arrest, but the ones who demand unsafe sex are still around and they (the sex workers) feel more pressure to concede because their incomes have decreased and so they have a greater need for the money.

In New Zealand condom use in commercial sex is mandated by law and this will be enforced (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4685513.stm) if the sex worker presses charges. I suspect you are unlikely to see that happening where prostitution is illegal.

[Scathach]

It's admittedly headed off in that direction but I felt the OPwas asking about the legal basis for the government's power to regulate prostitution.


Actually I'm really most interested in the divide in thinking between "Abortion should be allowed because otherwise you're removing a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her own body" and "Prostitution should not be allowed because the social cost outweighs the personal freedom"

The specific laws as such vary from country to country anyway, it's just the mindset I'm wondering about.

(Although obviously, I'm not queen of the thread or anything, people can discuss whatever they want :) )

[Evil Captor]

The DC stats are interesting. I'm very suspicious of all these complaints that most prostitutes are sex slaves imported by organized gangs, because people who dislike prostitution have a long history of using this tactic to make it appear all prostitutes are hapless victims of criminals, thus outlawing prostitution is a way of going after the criminals behind the prostitutes. You can still see stuff like this all over broadcast media. I don't really KNOW what the facts are, I'm just real damn suspicious of their purveyors, based on their past histories.

[Apollyon]

The best approach is for a country to have both a strong social safety net and a ban on prostitution, thus providing two layers of protection against women being exploited as prostitutes. Similarly the best way to prevent deaths from mines collapses is to ban the most dangerous types of mining of have a system of safety inspections...Arguably your analogy of mine safety would mean that for prostitution the best approach is for a country to have a strong social safety net, (so that those who don't want to participate aren't forced into it), and enforce safe working conditions (so that those who do want to participate are as safe and supported as is possible), and then let those who wish to mine get on with mining.

[doreen]

Actually I'm really most interested in the divide in thinking between "Abortion should be allowed because otherwise you're removing a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her own body" and "Prostitution should not be allowed because the social cost outweighs the personal freedom" One factor is that criminalizing prostitution doesn't seek to prevent anyone from doing anything with their own body. It simply prevents that person from charging for it in a specific way.

[gatorslap]

"Abortion should be allowed because otherwise you're removing a woman's right to do whatever she wants with her own body"

Is that reasoning the view held by most who believe abortion should be legal? A lot of pro-choice propaganda talks about "back-alley abortions" -- the premise being that people are going to do it anyway, so it should remain legal so it can be regulated and kept (relatively) safe. It's not just about letting women do what they want. Abortion is a pretty complex issue.

[Napier]

Of course it's an unfair restriction.

[Evil Captor]

One factor is that criminalizing prostitution doesn't seek to prevent anyone from doing anything with their own body. It simply prevents that person from charging for it in a specific way.

So having sex to barter for housing, transportation, day care, or chickens would be OK so long as no cash is exchanged?

[doreen]

So having sex to barter for housing, transportation, day care, or chickens would be OK so long as no cash is exchanged? It's probably legal under most prostitution laws, and certainly wouldn't be prosecuted. If I have sex with a man in exchange for him paying my rent and other bills, how could someone on the outside distinguish that situation from a relationship?

[Kearsen]

I absolutely agree that the "pimping" style of prostitution is disgusting. But I think that the illegality of prostitution is what has reduced it to that. (If we ban guns then only criminals will have guns :) )

But if it was legal and without the current stigma, then I wonder how different it would be? Much as I hate the idea of women being bought and sold, I can't really get on board with making it an offense for a woman to accept money for sex if she's willing.

Also, I think the exploitation of women aspect should really be considered a different crime. Prostitution shouldn't be illegal, but maybe there should be a term similar to "statutory rape" for the women being used as cash cows for pimps. (In some cases, no doubt, the standard definition of rape would cover it unfortunately :( )

A question just popped in my mind, how do porn movies/cites get around the fact that they are paying for people to have sex?

[clairobscur]

No, legalizing prostitution would encourage unskilled women (and men) to those jobs as these would pay more than many other honest jobs for the unskilled for an ultimately unproductive job.

I'm not sure why we should have a policy of preventing unskilled people from making more money than they would usually get. This argument seems about as valid as stating that they shouldn't be allowed to get an education because then they would find better paying jobs too.

As for prostitution being unproductive : it isn't. It's providing a service that people want, which is what most jobs amount to nowodays. You could equally argue that casinos shouldn't be allowed because gambling isn't a productive activity, movie directors, game designers and singers be arrested because watching movies, listening to music or playing games isn't productive, etc...

There might be good arguments against legalizing prostitution, but those two definitely aren't.

[Scathach]

No, legalizing prostitution would encourage unskilled women (and men) to those jobs as these would pay more than many other honest jobs for the unskilled for an ultimately unproductive job.

What's not "honest" about being a prostitute?

[Scathach]

One factor is that criminalizing prostitution doesn't seek to prevent anyone from doing anything with their own body. It simply prevents that person from charging for it in a specific way.

I dunno, if you can legally pay me to have sex in a porn film, but removing the director and camera man makes it magically illegal then I think that it's a bit too specific to be justifiable.

[doreen]

I dunno, if you can legally pay me to have sex in a porn film, but removing the director and camera man makes it magically illegal then I think that it's a bit too specific to be justifiable.Maybe, but I didn't say it was justifiable. I said it was a factor in why people can think that that people have the right to do what they want with their own bodies and at the same time believe prostitution should be illegal.

[Scathach]

Maybe, but I didn't say it was justifiable. I said it was a factor in why people can think that that people have the right to do what they want with their own bodies and at the same time believe prostitution should be illegal.

But you said that charging for it is what makes the difference, and I'm saying that porn stars charge money for sex without any problem.

(Not trying to be antagonistic - genuinely trying to understand your viewpoint- it's just hard to get nuances across in text :))

[gatorslap]

Porn stars are paid by the producer of the porn, not the person they're having sex with.

[Kobal2]

A question just popped in my mind, how do porn movies/cites get around the fact that they are paying for people to have sex?

I would assume that they argue they're not paying people to have sex, but to act. They pretend really really well your Honor, but that's the magic of Hollywood ! :)

But I seem to remember Cecil writing a column about just that (http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2845/why-arent-porn-actors-charged-with-prostitution) - how Cali came to be the porn capital of the USA because someone tried this prostitution angle in court and got tossed out due to the way prostitution is defined in the Cali law code.
Since then, no other state has tried it again for fear of a similar result.

[doreen]

But you said that charging for it is what makes the difference, and I'm saying that porn stars charge money for sex without any problem.

(Not trying to be antagonistic - genuinely trying to understand your viewpoint- it's just hard to get nuances across in text :))

See Cecil's column for why porn actors/directors have few problems. But in terms of people's thinking, I suspect many of those who think prostitution should be illegal also believe porn should be illegal.

Charging doesn't only make a difference in prostitution by the way- I can legally donate a kidney to my sister, and I can donate my kidney to someone else in a daisy chain that eventually leads to someone else donating a kidney to my sister , but I can't legally sell my kidney nor can my sister legally buy one.

[Scathach]

I can legally donate a kidney to my sister, and I can donate my kidney to someone else in a daisy chain that eventually leads to someone else donating a kidney to my sister , but I can't legally sell my kidney nor can my sister legally buy one.

This is a good point actually - so the thinking is that behaviours which are could cause you harm are illegall to profit by (if that makes sense :)) I'm not sure I agree that prostitution is necessarily harmful but I think the parallel is a fair one in that paying for something can change the nature of an action.

[Evil Captor]

It's probably legal under most prostitution laws, and certainly wouldn't be prosecuted. If I have sex with a man in exchange for him paying my rent and other bills, how could someone on the outside distinguish that situation from a relationship?

Well if you had several men contributing varying amounts of cash toward making the rent with whom you have similar relationships, is that any different, from the viewpoint of the law or morality?

[Recovering Republican]

The thing is, in a pure, legal, constitutional aspect, in a world where abortion is legal, prostitution should be legal as well. If you want to accept the notion of the body as property, then one should be able to dispense with it as one sees fit. The notion that a woman can have sex with a stranger for free, but it becomes a crime when money changes hands is a bit silly.

That said, no court is ever going to actually say that. Judges, at the end of the day, are politicians and live in a political reality where Vitter can scream morality by day and visit brothels at night.

[doreen]

Well if you had several men contributing varying amounts of cash toward making the rent with whom you have similar relationships, is that any different, from the viewpoint of the law or morality?
Morally, to me it's all the same, whether someone is offering every man stopped at a red light a $5 blowjob, someone is charging $300/hour for "companionship", someone agrees to have sex in exchange solely for financial support or someone gets married just to be taken care of.
No law prohibits the last example, a few might prohibit the third and although the second is usually illegal it is rarely prosecuted. The laws really only affect the prostitutes who solicit customers in public places- and that is the type of prostitution that is both most likely to be exploitative and to impose social costs on others. I suppose there might be some way to eliminate the activities that impose the social costs while leaving the prostitution itself legal. I don't however, see that helping the prostitutes any. Nobody's offering $5 blowjobs at the stoplight or soliciting customers in a casino if they could get $300/hr through an escort service.

[ruadh]

Nobody's offering $5 blowjobs at the stoplight or soliciting customers in a casino if they could get $300/hr through an escort service.

Actually, there are a certain proportion of sex workers who choose to remain on the street even when they could (legally and/or practically) work for an escort or other indoor service. The reasons they give include being their own boss, thus being able to keep all the money they make, set their own hours and feel they have a greater degree of control over whether or not to accept the transaction, and the camaraderie that exists among street workers. They're only a small proportion, granted, but then street workers as a whole are only a small proportion of sex workers.

[SecretaryofEvil]

I thought this article might be pertinent. It discuses actual hard numbers regarding human trafficking and child prostitution in the United States. Big surprise, the estimated high number of trafficked girls is completely baseless, and would appear to exaggerate the actual numbers by hundreds of thousands.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-06-29/news/real-men-get-their-facts-straight-sex-trafficking-ashton-kutcher-demi-moore/

[Evil Captor]

I thought this article might be pertinent. It discuses actual hard numbers regarding human trafficking and child prostitution in the United States. Big surprise, the estimated high number of trafficked girls is completely baseless, and would appear to exaggerate the actual numbers by hundreds of thousands.

http://www.villagevoice.com/2011-06-29/news/real-men-get-their-facts-straight-sex-trafficking-ashton-kutcher-demi-moore/

Just like I thought. Less than a thousand verifiable cases of child prostition nationwide. And hundreds of millions of federal government dollars for those that crank up the numbers, plus the people who are cranking up the numbers are the Usual Suspects in the old sexual repression game -- think Catholics, Mormons and evangelicals. Almost as bogus as the turn of the century white slavery scandal. Well, maybe more bogus when you think of the money angle. Sickening, really.

[ruadh]

And hundreds of millions of federal government dollars for those that crank up the numbers, plus the people who are cranking up the numbers are the Usual Suspects in the old sexual repression game -- think Catholics, Mormons and evangelicals.

Here in Ireland, the leading "rescue" organisation for trafficking victims is run by the very same religious orders (http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0625/1224299584327.html) who ran the Magdalene Laundries in which young women were imprisoned and forced to work as virtual slaves for the Church. Those orders have received €87 million from the state in the past five years alone and that's not even counting the money the rescue organisation gets.

Almost as bogus as the turn of the century white slavery scandal.

It's the direct descendant of the white slavery scandal, though it has branched out a bit. In a lot of ways it's also comparable to the "Satanic child abuse in nurseries" panic of the 1980s, though more profitable for its promoters.