Straight Dope Message Board

[Barack Obama]

Okay so the immediate conversation goes like this. Hey lets decriminalize or legalize prostitution. Then someone responds with either, no cuz bible, or it'll increase human trafficking. Now looking at the response we can actually debate (rationally), there are a few cases to be made that decriminalization could lead to a decrease in human trafficking. The reason being is with some laws in place, there is a disincentivization for victims to report crimes. By decriminalizing sex work, these people will be more willing to report whatever happen to them. With legalization you could regulate these practices and tax businesses operating as brothels. Which could further decrease conflict and crimes committed in relation to sex workers. IE a pimp slapping his ho for not giving him her money.

I think I've made a similar thread on this topic before, but I want to be specific, should we decriminalize, and if so should we go a step further and legalize. Here are a few articles I found on the issue.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org...zation/2017-01

https://rewire.news/article/2019/07/...lize-sex-work/

My belief is, prohibition never works in the way people initially hoped it to work. Especially for things like this. Right now in America since popular sites like Backpages and craigslist got hit by the feds. many sex workers resorted to hitting the streets and joining businesses that essentially operate as pimps such as massage parlors, most of the time they still directly advertise themselves without a middleman, but those middlemen or pimps have certainly increased as less popular prostitution/escort sites have became relied on. And those who are desperate enough to hit the streets, are obviously putting themselves in more danger by not being able to talk to a customer first before meeting them. Sex work is a perfectly acceptable occupation, whether you think it's immoral or not the fact remains there is a strong argument to be made in favor of decriminalizing sex work. 1

[adaher]

Full legalization is the best protection against human trafficking. Decriminalization would make human trafficking worse since legitimate businesses can't run brothels or call girl services, so you'd just continue to have the dirtbags do it outside of government supervision. Legal businesses can be regulated. Criminals can't. 2

[Lamoral]

It makes absolutely no sense that you can go to someone and pay them money to stick needles into your body, but you can't pay them for sex. So, yeah, it should. 3

[adaher]

Especially in the modern age, where hooking up over the internet has mostly replaced streetwalkers and brothels. Of course, if you hook up for free it's 100% legal. But if you pay for it, then it's not. Senseless. 4

[Banquet Bear]

...you've done this thread before. My position on decriminalisation remains unchanged. Its legal and regulated here, the world didn't end because of it, people in the sex industry think that they are safer now than they were before the law change. 5

[Barack Obama]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

...you've done this thread before. My position on decriminalisation remains unchanged. Its legal and regulated here, the world didn't end because of it, people in the sex industry think that they are safer now than they were before the law change.

I know and I mentioned it in the OP. I want to hear arguments for or against decriminalization or legalization. This is such a serious topic that receives little attention so I don't mind bringing the topic it's self up again, but the point of this thread is different from that initial one i made a while back. I kinda have evidence to support my claims now. 6

[RioRico]

Criminalizing "sins" sure eliminates them, right?

Criminalization provides leverage over the buyers and sellers, drives up prices, provides corrupt cops and judges with a nice cut of the action, and is just generally a handy control feature. What's a society not to like?

IMHO what adults want to do sexually with other adults, and what if any quid quo pro may apply, is only society's business when public nuisance (don't block the sidewalk or frighten the horses) and safety intrude. I can see the validity of training, licensing, and screening commercial sexworkers, not unlike cosmetologists and dental techs. I can also see strict regulation to prevent exploiting the underage; some jurisdictions seeking customers may lower the age of majority. Screen and license pimps as brokers, too. Or will unlicensed violators abound?

I don't see legalization happening anytime soon in the US. Corruption is too rewarding. 7

[pkbites]

I'm all for full legalization, regulation, mandatory exams etc..

But only if those who practice it illegally (i.e. street walkers, pimps, Johns, unlicensed whores, etc) get hammered to the wall. No more pay a fine and walk. Make legal prostitution acceptable and illegal prostitution extremely unattractive to practice or patronize. 8

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by pkbites

I'm all for full legalization, regulation, mandatory exams etc..

But only if those who practice it illegally (i.e. street walkers, pimps, Johns, unlicensed whores, etc) get hammered to the wall. No more pay a fine and walk. Make legal prostitution acceptable and illegal prostitution extremely unattractive to practice or patronize.

..."unlicensed whores?" Seriously? Aren't you in law enforcement? Is that the way you normally talk about sex workers?

Street walking is legal here in New Zealand. Why should it be illegal, and if it were to be illegal why would the penalty be anything more than a fine?

We don't have mandatory exams here in New Zealand. Why do you need mandatory exams in the United States, and if you are going to have mandatory exams for sex workers would you also require mandatory exams for food workers as well? 9

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

Street walking is legal here in New Zealand. Why should it be illegal, and if it were to be illegal why would the penalty be anything more than a fine?

We don't have mandatory exams here in New Zealand. Why do you need mandatory exams in the United States, and if you are going to have mandatory exams for sex workers would you also require mandatory exams for food workers as well?

Is it taxed? If it is, there will be an incentive to avoid the tax, which makes it illegal. So maybe the solution would be to charge underground sex work for tax evasion, not for sex work. That would get the pimps also.

How do you handle privacy? Users would want privacy, but there should be some sort of traceability in case of disease or violence against the sex worker.

I'm all for legalization, but there are still issues. 10

[adaher]

That's tough though. Sex for money happens all the time, it only gets enforced against if you've got multiple customers paying in cash. If you've got one sugar daddy the law won't touch you, or if you take payment in non-cash forms, like expensive dinners and hotel stays and gifts, they won't touch you. Sex by its nature is nearly unregulatable. 11

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by Voyager

Is it taxed? If it is, there will be an incentive to avoid the tax, which makes it illegal. So maybe the solution would be to charge underground sex work for tax evasion, not for sex work. That would get the pimps also.

...this doesn't answer either of my questions which were specifically about street-walkers and mandatory exams, and also about if you wanted to make them illegal why would you make the penalty anything stronger than a fine?

How do you handle privacy? Users would want privacy, but there should be some sort of traceability in case of disease or violence against the sex worker.

Why would this be treated differently than any other worker? Why does there need to be any more traceability than you would need with food service workers? Would traceability decrease violence or simply push the industry underground?

I'm all for legalization, but there are still issues.

The same can be said for every single currently legal industry. What industry doesn't have "issues?"

Sex work is legal in New Zealand. Many, I would argue almost all of the issues got addressed in a way that was both positive for sex workers and their clients and for society at large. This really isn't a big and complicated thing to figure out. 12

[pakputeh]

Originally Posted by adaher

Full legalization is the best protection against human trafficking. Decriminalization would make human trafficking worse since legitimate businesses can't run brothels or call girl services, so you'd just continue to have the dirtbags do it outside of government supervision. Legal businesses can be regulated. Criminals can't.

Some researchers have found a link between legalized prostitution and sex trafficing.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/06/17...n-trafficking/

Some salient facts:

As an example, they discuss Germany, which legalized prostitution in 2002. The minimum estimate of sex trafficking victims in the country increased from 9,870 in 2001 to 11,080 in 2002, to 12,350 in 2003.

I do not know if this would always hold true, or if there are confounding factors. But it's not a simple as 'legalization means less human trafficking' 13

[adaher]

Was it really legalized in the sense that businesses could operate openly, or legalized only in the sense that the government wouldn't interfere with transactions? The former creates a regulatable industry, the latter just makes life easy for pimps and traffickers.

That's why I'm not a big fan of drug decrimanalization. As Yoda says, "Either do or do not". 14

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by pakputeh

Some researchers have found a link between legalized prostitution and sex trafficing.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/06/17...n-trafficking/

Some salient facts:

As an example, they discuss Germany, which legalized prostitution in 2002. The minimum estimate of sex trafficking victims in the country increased from 9,870 in 2001 to 11,080 in 2002, to 12,350 in 2003.

I do not know if this would always hold true, or if there are confounding factors. But it's not a simple as 'legalization means less human trafficking'

...that article is essentially a rework of this article here:

https://themonkeycage.org/2013/06/le...nkey%20Cage%29

That article starts with the line "One of the advertised advantages of legalizing prostitution is that it should reduce illegal human trafficking." But that isn't really true at all. Most arguments in favour of legalized sex work is along the lines of what Human Rights Watch said here:

Originally Posted by HRW

Criminalizing adult, voluntary, and consensual sex – including the commercial exchange of sexual services – is incompatible with the human right to personal autonomy and privacy. In short – a government should not be telling consenting adults who they can have sexual relations with and on what terms.

Criminalization exposes sex workers to abuse and exploitation by law enforcement officials, such as police officers. Human Rights Watch has documented that, in criminalized environments, police officers harass sex workers, extort bribes, and physically and verbally abuse sex workers, or even rape or coerce sex from them.

Human Rights Watch has consistently found in research across various countries that criminalization makes sex workers more vulnerable to violence, including rape, assault, and murder, by attackers who see sex workers as easy targets because they are stigmatized and unlikely to receive help from the police. Criminalization may also force sex workers to work in unsafe locations to avoid the police.

https://www.hrw.org/news/2019/08/07/...decriminalized

They do talk about trafficking, but they say this:

Sex work is the consensual exchange of sex between adults. Human trafficking and sexual exploitation of children are separate issues. They are both serious human rights abuses and crimes and should always be investigated and prosecuted.

Laws that clearly distinguish between sex work and crimes like human trafficking and sexual exploitation of children help protect both sex workers and crime victims. Sex workers may be in a position to have important information about crimes such as human trafficking and sexual exploitation of children, but unless the work they themselves do is not treated as criminal, they are unlikely to feel safe reporting this information to the police.

So its a strawman argument. And its based on research that I consider to both be flawed and out-of-date: it compared trafficking estimates between Denmark and Sweden when both countries had very different methodologies in how they reached those estimates. 15

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

..."unlicensed whores?" Seriously? Aren't you in law enforcement? Is that the way you normally talk about sex workers?

Street walking is legal here in New Zealand. Why should it be illegal, and if it were to be illegal why would the penalty be anything more than a fine?

We don't have mandatory exams here in New Zealand. Why do you need mandatory exams in the United States, and if you are going to have mandatory exams for sex workers would you also require mandatory exams for food workers as well?

A food worker can't give someone a serious STD. Well, they can, but usually it's not a normal workplace hazard.

YMMV in Kiwi land. But street prostitution in my city is a leading cause/indicator of more serious crimes. I'm a believer in the Broken Windows Theory. It also is what a lot of people think of here when they think of prostitution which is one reason why they oppose legalization. FYI, in the one state here where prostitution is legal, street hookers are not. 16

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by pkbites

A food worker can't give someone a serious STD.

...but a food worker can give someone hepatitis A. Does that not concern you?

YMMV in Kiwi land. But street prostitution in my city is a leading cause/indicator of more serious crimes.

People fucking is a leading cause/indicator of more serious crimes? Really? A crime worthy of harsher penalties than a fine?

I'm a believer in the Broken Windows Theory.

Sex work involves the exchange of money for sexual services. So how does the Broken Windows Theory apply here? What is it exactly about this exchange you think should be criminal? What is the problem you are trying to solve?

It also is what a lot of people think of here when they think of prostitution which is one reason why they oppose legalization.

Well perhaps you might consider that you are part of the problem. Calling them "whores" certainly doesn't help.

FYI, in the one state here where prostitution is legal, street hookers are not.

In the one state in the United States where prostitution is legal they've adopted a system that is both exploitive and degrading. Its a terrible implementation of legalized sex work that benefits brothel owners and isn't anything close to what sex workers have advocated for. 17

[msmith537]

Originally Posted by RioRico

I don't see legalization happening anytime soon in the US. Corruption is too rewarding.

Prostitution is legal in Brazil and they still manage to reward corruption.

Originally Posted by pkbites

A food worker can't give someone a serious STD. Well, they can, but usually it's not a normal workplace hazard.

Food workers can give people serious food related diseases like E Coli, Botulism or Hepatitis. That's why we have health inspectors for restaurants.


Although now I have this amusing image of Amsterdam Red Light District style kiosks with New York City style "A", "B", etc inspection ratings in the window. 18

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

Sex work involves the exchange of money for sexual services. So how does the Broken Windows Theory apply here? What is it exactly about this exchange you think should be criminal? What is the problem you are trying to solve.

You did read my post where I said I was in favor of legalization, correct?



I deal with cw’s almost every other night. They’re doing more than just selling sex. Where they are there are far more serious crimes going on. Robbery, sexual assault, burglary, narcotics trafficking. You name it. By eliminating the small violators the vicinity looks less attractive to the more hard core criminals, and then vice versa. Street walkers are a blight on any urban landscape. You don’t have to agree with that, but it’s the way I see it. And those street walkers are routinely far more used, abused, raped, battered, and assaulted than the professionals working in Nevada. Get rid of the street slags and implement a Regulated sex worker profession and I’m all for legalizing it. 19

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by pkbites

You did read my post where I said I was in favor of legalization, correct?

...I read the post where you called them "whores", I most certainly did that.

I deal with cw’s almost every other night. They’re doing more than just selling sex. Where they are there are far more serious crimes going on. Robbery, sexual assault, burglary, narcotics trafficking. You name it.

If they are doing the serious crime then arrest them for the serious crime.

By eliminating the small violators the vicinity looks less attractive to the more hard core criminals, and then vice versa.

You aren't eliminating the small violators. You are simply targeting them. You state you deal with them every other night. The elimination strategy is going very poorly.

Street walkers are a blight on any urban landscape. You don’t have to agree with that, but it’s the way I see it. And those street walkers are routinely far more used, abused, raped, battered, and assaulted than the professionals working in Nevada. Get rid of the street slags and implement a Regulated sex worker profession and I’m all for legalizing it.

"Whores." "Street Slags." "Blight."

These are human beings you are talking about. These aren't crimes of the century. You describe them as "small violators". Do you really think small violators deserve such dehumanizing labels?

Oh silly me. Of course you think they deserve those labels. That's why you doubled down from "whores" to "street slags." I can't wait to see what you call them next. Actually, I can wait, and would prefer that you didn't, if you could please. 20

[Bear_Nenno]

Originally Posted by pakputeh

Some researchers have found a link between legalized prostitution and sex trafficing.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2013/06/17...n-trafficking/

Some salient facts:

As an example, they discuss Germany, which legalized prostitution in 2002. The minimum estimate of sex trafficking victims in the country increased from 9,870 in 2001 to 11,080 in 2002, to 12,350 in 2003.

I do not know if this would always hold true, or if there are confounding factors. But it's not a simple as 'legalization means less human trafficking'

Be careful. That study only found an increase in the reported incidents of human trafficking. That study could actually be used to support the OP's claim that "...with some laws in place, there is a disincentivization for victims to report crimes."

It is not entirely unexpected that, with legalization, more victims will feel empowered and safe to come forward seeking help. This would naturally result in higher rates of reported incidents of human trafficking, which was the case with Germany.

The actual study can be found here: https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/45198/1/Ne...rease_2012.pdf 21

[Tatterdemalion]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

..."unlicensed whores?" Seriously? Aren't you in law enforcement? Is that the way you normally talk about sex workers?

Street walking is legal here in New Zealand. Why should it be illegal, and if it were to be illegal why would the penalty be anything more than a fine?

We don't have mandatory exams here in New Zealand. Why do you need mandatory exams in the United States, and if you are going to have mandatory exams for sex workers would you also require mandatory exams for food workers as well?

Greetings from the People's republic of California 22

[Jasmine]

1) Sex: Everyone wants it.

2) Prostitution has been with us throughout recorded history.

3) Legalizing it allows us to tax the crap out of it, and it makes it easier to impose public health rules and lessen the exploitation of the prostitutes themselves.

It should be legalized, but I definitely feel it should be zoned to protect residential neighborhoods and schools. 23

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

"Whores." "Street Slags." "Blight.".

Lighten up. This is just jargon. I’m not writing a report with those terms. I’m surprised you didn’t inquire what a CW was (you ain’t gonna like it, Bunky).

The street walkers do solicit in residential neighborhoods and they are a blight. By targeting such activity (and worse) the specific community does see an improvement. And residents of those neighborhoods do actively request police action to get the hookers out of there.

You’re not going to win your argument pushing an all or nothing platform on this issue. I doubt few would support legalization if it meant sex workers were plying their trade in front of their homes, parks, or schools. I know I wouldn’t. 24

[Barack Obama]

Originally Posted by pkbites

Lighten up. This is just jargon. I’m not writing a report with those terms. I’m surprised you didn’t inquire what a CW was (you ain’t gonna like it, Bunky).

The street walkers do solicit in residential neighborhoods and they are a blight. By targeting such activity (and worse) the specific community does see an improvement. And residents of those neighborhoods do actively request police action to get the hookers out of there.

You’re not going to win your argument pushing an all or nothing platform on this issue. I doubt few would support legalization if it meant sex workers were plying their trade in front of their homes, parks, or schools. I know I wouldn’t.

the post literally above you states they would support zoning laws on prostitution.

Your point is moot and doesn't refute the argument for legalization. 25

[Little Nemo]

I think we should. If it was my choice, sex work, gambling, and drugs would all be legalized. At least for adults. 26

[Defensive Indifference]

Kind of an aside: I follow a couple of sex workers on Twitter. Some of them draw a very clear distinction between "decriminalization" and "legalization". Madeline Marlowe is one of the more vocal on this topic. AIUI, she sees "decriminalization" as the full, more-or-less unregulated, practice of sex work (which she favors), while "legalization" to her seems to mean that sex work is tolerated but still heavily restricted (which she opposes). To me, that seems sort of backwards. In drug policy debate, AIUI, "decriminalization" refers to drug offenses being moved from felonies to lesser offenses, while "legalization" means "have at it (with restrictions similar to alcohol use)". Anyway, point is, sometimes I see folks getting caught up in the definitions.

In any case, I think I'm in favor of sex work being normalized and treated like other service occupations, probably subject to some kind of licensure like hairdressers or something. But I haven't given the issue very serious study. Legalization seems to work fine in other places, and I don't have any particular reason to be opposed to it. 27

[Peter Morris]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

Street walking is legal here in New Zealand. Why should it be illegal, and if it were to be illegal why would the penalty be anything more than a fine?

I am fully in favour of legalised and regulated prostitution. However I think it should be restricted to indoors at licensed establishments.

I see several problems with streetwalking. I'll just mention two of them quickly. There are several other reasons.

1) Where there is streetwalking, female passers-by, who are not in the business, frequently get harassed by males who mistake them for working girls. Better to keep it indoors where there is no mistake.

2) Prostitution carries certain risks for the girls. They may be at risk from violence from their customers. A brothel can hire security to protect its staff. 28

[XT]

Originally Posted by Barack Obama

Okay so the immediate conversation goes like this. Hey lets decriminalize or legalize prostitution. Then someone responds with either, no cuz bible, or it'll increase human trafficking. Now looking at the response we can actually debate (rationally), there are a few cases to be made that decriminalization could lead to a decrease in human trafficking. The reason being is with some laws in place, there is a disincentivization for victims to report crimes. By decriminalizing sex work, these people will be more willing to report whatever happen to them. With legalization you could regulate these practices and tax businesses operating as brothels. Which could further decrease conflict and crimes committed in relation to sex workers. IE a pimp slapping his ho for not giving him her money.

I think I've made a similar thread on this topic before, but I want to be specific, should we decriminalize, and if so should we go a step further and legalize. Here are a few articles I found on the issue.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org...zation/2017-01

https://rewire.news/article/2019/07/...lize-sex-work/

My belief is, prohibition never works in the way people initially hoped it to work. Especially for things like this. Right now in America since popular sites like Backpages and craigslist got hit by the feds. many sex workers resorted to hitting the streets and joining businesses that essentially operate as pimps such as massage parlors, most of the time they still directly advertise themselves without a middleman, but those middlemen or pimps have certainly increased as less popular prostitution/escort sites have became relied on. And those who are desperate enough to hit the streets, are obviously putting themselves in more danger by not being able to talk to a customer first before meeting them. Sex work is a perfectly acceptable occupation, whether you think it's immoral or not the fact remains there is a strong argument to be made in favor of decriminalizing sex work.

I think FULL legalization is better than decriminalization, and I'd be for that. At a minimum decriminalization is better than the current state of things. I do think that adults should be able to make adult decisions on this subject, but I concede that it's complex and you can get situations where abuse happens. I think that most of this can be addressed in regulation and law, however, as well as enforcement of both of those things. To me, it would be a win/win. It would be better working conditions for the workers, tax revenue for the government, lower criminal activity, less stress on our legal system by making something so pervasive legal and overall just a safer and cleaner environment all around. There will, of course, but issues. Just like with legalization of marijuana, but they are far from insurmountable. And just like with marijuana I think the benefits of legalization far outweigh the cons to society as a whole. 29

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

...this doesn't answer either of my questions which were specifically about street-walkers and mandatory exams, and also about if you wanted to make them illegal why would you make the penalty anything stronger than a fine?

Treating patients has nothing to do with morals, but do it without a proper license and you'll be in more trouble than just getting fined. If street-walkers can be regulated and kept safe, fine. Street food is. I don't know what kind of mandatory exam is being discussed? Health? Skill? People who cut hair have to prove they know what they're doing, after all.
None of this has the slightest thing to do with morality.

Why would this be treated differently than any other worker? Why does there need to be any more traceability than you would need with food service workers? Would traceability decrease violence or simply push the industry underground?

If food service workers served food in private rooms naked, then we might need similar regulations. And food service establishments are heavily regulated.
I'd think that a guy who checked in using a driver's license, say, would be much less likely to beat up a sex worker than an anonymous guy. Given that for almost all of the US the industry is underground already, it could only be an improvement. Marijuana legalization in California and other places involves taxes and regulations, and didn't eliminate all underground growing. Still, it is a lot better than it being 100% illegal, isn't it?

Sex work is legal in New Zealand. Many, I would argue almost all of the issues got addressed in a way that was both positive for sex workers and their clients and for society at large. This really isn't a big and complicated thing to figure out.

So how did they get addressed? Is it taxed? Are there protections? 30

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by Tatterdemalion

Greetings from the People's republic of California

...I was referring to invasive exams, like compulsory blood testing regimes, not an online test. 31

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by pkbites

Lighten up. This is just jargon. I’m not writing a report with those terms.

...no I'm not going to lighten up. And I'd be just as outspoken if a law enforcement officer called black people the n word. If "whore" is a word that you consider jargon, if "street slag" is a term that law enforcement routinely use then there is something wrong with your department.

The street walkers do solicit in residential neighborhoods and they are a blight. By targeting such activity (and worse) the specific community does see an improvement. And residents of those neighborhoods do actively request police action to get the hookers out of there.

And yet you lament that you have to deal with this "ever other day" and you want stronger penalties than "fine and release." Perhaps there is a better way to deal with this.

You’re not going to win your argument pushing an all or nothing platform on this issue. I doubt few would support legalization if it meant sex workers were plying their trade in front of their homes, parks, or schools. I know I wouldn’t.

I've already won the argument though. Street walking is legal here. Its been legal since 2003. The numbers of street walkers has gone down. We've got 16 years of objective data you can examine if you want.

And its legal because the New Zealand framework was introduced and based on two things: a harm reduction model, and the legislation was put together both by women and by people that actually worked in the sex industry. When some political operatives tried to make it illegal again to solicit on the streets that was opposed by our social services, it was opposed by police, that change was considered to probably contravene our Bill of Rights.

One would think that the people who live in a country that considers itself "the land of the free" would have legalised sex work decades ago. 32

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by Peter Morris

I am fully in favour of legalised and regulated prostitution. However I think it should be restricted to indoors at licensed establishments.

I see several problems with streetwalking. I'll just mention two of them quickly. There are several other reasons.

1) Where there is streetwalking, female passers-by, who are not in the business, frequently get harassed by males who mistake them for working girls. Better to keep it indoors where there is no mistake.

2) Prostitution carries certain risks for the girls. They may be at risk from violence from their customers. A brothel can hire security to protect its staff.

...I'll be honest: on the face of it making streetwalking criminal doesn't sound necessarily unreasonable. I think that before the law reforms went ahead in New Zealand I would have been one of many who would have thought that a ban on streetwalking would have been the right thing to do.

But the experiences of the last 16 years suggests otherwise. The data says the numbers of streetwalkers has gone down (as of the last estimates I saw that didn't come from people opposed to the sex industry). Sex work is safer now. Sex workers are much more likely to go to the police than they did before. Sure, there are problems, I won't pretend that there aren't. But the experts here support the law as is. The police support it. The social workers support it. The science supports it, the numbers support it, sex workers support it.

If we look at the two things you mention here: the first is something that is going to happen regardless. Street harassment is an entire subject on its own. Taking streetwalkers off the streets won't stop women getting harassed on the streets, and it is unfair to put the burden on sexworkers here and not on the people that are doing the harassing.

As to the second: well your second point assumes a brothel-centric framework, but that isn't what we've implemented here. The law allows for up to four sex-workers to work in what is called a "small owner-operated brothel". That essentially means a person can trade on their own, from their own house, without the additional obligations required of an operator. The law was designed to empower sexworkers so that they could work on their own. A solo-mum who works in the sex industry a couple of times a week from her own house isn't going to have a security guard.

We've got a law enforcement officer here in this thread who calls streetwalkers "whore's" and "street slags" and defends that by saying its merely jargon. I would be much more worried about streetwalkers in that sort of environment: an environment where law enforcement officers want these "whore's" (and I'll use his language) "hammered to the wall" and punished with more than just fines, I'd be much more worried about that than what we've done down here. 33

[Defensive Indifference]

Hey Banquet Bear, thanks for your insight. This is really interesting. You say that small owner-operated brothels are allowed. Are larger brothers also allowed, or only small ones? If larger ones are not allowed, why is that distinction made? 34

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by Voyager

Treating patients has nothing to do with morals, but do it without a proper license and you'll be in more trouble than just getting fined. If street-walkers can be regulated and kept safe, fine. Street food is. I don't know what kind of mandatory exam is being discussed? Health? Skill? People who cut hair have to prove they know what they're doing, after all.

...to be completely clear I'm specifically talking about mandatory invasive blood testing, something that many proponents of legalized sex work, and what some jurisdictions (like in parts of Australia) have implemented.

None of this has the slightest thing to do with morality.

This subject has everything to do with morality. If it was about the science, about the data, if it was about fundamental human rights then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The laws would have been changed decades ago.

If food service workers served food in private rooms naked, then we might need similar regulations. And food service establishments are heavily regulated.

You walk around your private home naked. People who fuck often fuck in the nude. Should you be subjected to compulsory mandated blood testing? How does the addition of a monetary transaction change the equation?

I'd think that a guy who checked in using a driver's license, say, would be much less likely to beat up a sex worker than an anonymous guy.

Are you able to actually quantify this? Traceability isn't required under the New Zealand framework. Sex workers are much more likely to come forward now than before the law change. Sex workers aren't asking for traceability in legislative changes. So why do you think you know better?

Given that for almost all of the US the industry is underground already, it could only be an improvement. Marijuana legalization in California and other places involves taxes and regulations, and didn't eliminate all underground growing. Still, it is a lot better than it being 100% illegal, isn't it?

I honestly couldn't say. I think it would add unneeded complication that really isn't needed. I think that it would mean people that operate outside of the confines of a brothel would simply not comply with the law, and I think that many people would stop going to brothels. I mean in the Robert Kraft case the state literally filmed him having sex in a brothel then threatened to make those tapes public. People on these boards thought it was hilarious but I was legitimately horrified. You want traceability? Then you are gonna need HIPAA level guidelines on how you keep peoples identities safe.

So how did they get addressed? Is it taxed? Are there protections?

We passed the Prostitution Law Reform Act in 2003.

Originally Posted by Wiki

In 1997, a number of groups came together to hold a Women's Forum in Wellington, out of which a working group developed to draft a bill, including the NZPC [New Zealand Prostitutes Collective], academics, women's groups (New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women, National Council of Women, YWCA), and the AIDS Foundation. Other individuals included legal volunteers and MPs, in particular Maurice Williamson (National, Pakuranga 1987–2017), Associate Minister of Health (1990–1996), and Katherine O'Regan (National, Waipa 1984–1996, List 1996–1999), who championed the bill in parliament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosti...eform_Act_2003

So to point out a few really important things here. The bill was drafted in consultation with women's groups and sex workers. It was initially championed by National Party MP's (the equivalent of a very moderate Republican Party here) and it was taken to Parliament by the Labour Party (the equivalent of a left-leaning Democrat Party here). It was a bill that had general cross-party support that was drafted, in part, by the people who were affected the most.

So what we ended up with here was policy that put the priorities and the safety of sex-workers first. These weren't morality based laws passed by people who had literally never talked to someone in the sex industry. The laws aren't focused on getting rid of sex workers, or making a distinction between "legal" and "illegal." They weren't focused on "getting votes."

So of course it is taxed. Of course their are protections. Sex workers here can sue for sexual discrimination: and win. The police here don't call them "whores." They work with the sex worker community and produce documents like this. We produce occupational health and safety documents like this.

Here is the act if you want to read more. 35

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by Defensive Indifference

Hey Banquet Bear, thanks for your insight. This is really interesting. You say that small owner-operated brothels are allowed. Are larger brothers also allowed, or only small ones? If larger ones are not allowed, why is that distinction made?

...owner-operated brothels are allowed under the act, the owner is defined as the operator. New Zealand is small business friendly. I run my own business, I'm a photographer, all I had to do to set up my business was to declare that I'm a sole trader, trading under this name, and I fill in an extra tax form at the end of the year. That's it. And it is no harder for someone who wants to enter the sex industry to do exactly the same thing.

So the distinction exists so that there is no obligation nor a requirement for a person who wants to enter the sex industry to seek the "protection" of working in a brothel. They can operate from their own home. Or they can work with a couple of people they do know out of another premises. Its legislation designed to empower and protect. 36

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

...to be completely clear I'm specifically talking about mandatory invasive blood testing, something that many proponents of legalized sex work, and what some jurisdictions (like in parts of Australia) have implemented.

In California, at least, actors and actresses who do porn films also get tested, though I'm not sure if that is from a law or what the industry agreed to to avoid there being a law. Given the increased risk in both cases, it seems reasonable to me.
The porn industry in the US does have traceability, in part to reduce the use of underage actresses.

This subject has everything to do with morality. If it was about the science, about the data, if it was about fundamental human rights then we wouldn't even be having this discussion. The laws would have been changed decades ago.

Happily no one in this thread has brought up morality, so please don't accuse people who are concerned with some of the issues mentioned here of prudism. I think we all have pretty much have been for legalization.

You walk around your private home naked. People who fuck often fuck in the nude. Should you be subjected to compulsory mandated blood testing? How does the addition of a monetary transaction change the equation?

*sigh* I was referring to the risk of attack, since I was talking about traceability. But now you've brought it up, wouldn't it be useful to be able to contact all those who have been in contact with a woman who gets an STD? Unless you've figured out how to drive that to zero.
If the small brothels keep records, then we're good.

Are you able to actually quantify this? Traceability isn't required under the New Zealand framework. Sex workers are much more likely to come forward now than before the law change. Sex workers aren't asking for traceability in legislative changes. So why do you think you know better?

I understand why they don't want it, since it would probably diminish business, given that we still live in a Puritan society and a lot of men don't want anyone to know they are frequenting sex workers. But I was working on a woman working alone model. Multiple women (and multiple men) there at the same time makes the women safer.

I honestly couldn't say. I think it would add unneeded complication that really isn't needed. I think that it would mean people that operate outside of the confines of a brothel would simply not comply with the law, and I think that many people would stop going to brothels. I mean in the Robert Kraft case the state literally filmed him having sex in a brothel then threatened to make those tapes public. People on these boards thought it was hilarious but I was legitimately horrified. You want traceability? Then you are gonna need HIPAA level guidelines on how you keep peoples identities safe.

I agree about the guidelines - the point was that there are conflicting concerns. Kraft got in trouble not just because he went to a brothel, but because he went to one implicated in human trafficking. I agree that this problem would be reduced with legalization, but until that happens don't you think someone supporting places that do human trafficking should suffer the consequences? Ignorance is no excuse.

And thanks for the links. 37

[doreen]

Originally Posted by Defensive Indifference

Hey Banquet Bear, thanks for your insight. This is really interesting. You say that small owner-operated brothels are allowed. Are larger brothers also allowed, or only small ones? If larger ones are not allowed, why is that distinction made?

The section linked to goes on to say that

Despite anything in subsection (1), a sex worker who works at a small owner-operated brothel is not an operator of that business of prostitution, and, for the purposes of this Act, a small owner-operated brothel does not have an operator.

which doesn't seem to make sense - but it makes sense a couple of sections later which explains what brothel operators must do. So it seems that larger and non owner-operated brothels are allowed, but have restrictions that don't apply to the small owner-operated ones. 38

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by Voyager

In California, at least, actors and actresses who do porn films also get tested, though I'm not sure if that is from a law or what the industry agreed to to avoid there being a law. Given the increased risk in both cases, it seems reasonable to me.

..."reasonable" isn't an objective standard that is useful here. Can you quantify the increased risk here? The pool of pornstars is small, they tend to work within that small pool, arguably the nightclub scene is riskier than the porn industry.

The porn industry in the US does have traceability, in part to reduce the use of underage actresses.

Its illegal here to purchase cigarettes under a certain age. ID is required, but recording that ID to ensure traceability is not.

Happily no one in this thread has brought up morality, so please don't accuse people who are concerned with some of the issues mentioned here of prudism. I think we all have pretty much have been for legalization.

Lets get real fucking real here for a minute. People have been calling sex workers "whores" and "street slags" here in this very thread. That's all about morality. That's all about judging. This debate has never been about protecting sex workers and their clients. Because if if were then you and others would take the time to listen to what sex workers have to say. Its always been about morality. Its about policing what people can do with their bodies. You've taken a position in this thread that is based on you gut feelings, on what seems reasonable to you, not on what the evidence actually suggests.

*sigh* I was referring to the risk of attack, since I was talking about traceability.

*sigh* You were talking about food service workers.

But now you've brought it up, wouldn't it be useful to be able to contact all those who have been in contact with a woman who gets an STD? Unless you've figured out how to drive that to zero.

Depends. Wouldn't it be useful if we could contact everyone who you had been in contact with when you got an STD? Who did you fuck last night? We should keep a register. Everyone who fucks must be required to register the name, address and phone number so we can track people down just in case someone gets an STD.

Does that sound like a reasonable position to you?

If the small brothels keep records, then we're good.

They are not required too.

I understand why they don't want it, since it would probably diminish business, given that we still live in a Puritan society and a lot of men don't want anyone to know they are frequenting sex workers.

Its not about "diminishing business." Its about two things: its about not driving the industry underground again, and its about not treating the sex industry as materially any different from any other industry. There is no evidence to suggest that traceability would makes things safer. So there wouldn't be a point in adding complication to the law for no real material gain.

But I was working on a woman working alone model. Multiple women (and multiple men) there at the same time makes the women safer.

Under our framework in the "woman working alone model" they aren't required to log records of who they fucked. Just about how much money they spent. Cash is legal tender here.

I agree about the guidelines - the point was that there are conflicting concerns. Kraft got in trouble not just because he went to a brothel, but because he went to one implicated in human trafficking.

Well, yeah. About that:

Originally Posted by NY POST

“There are no individuals that have been involved in this investigation or this prosecution that arise out of the Orchids of Asia spa that are being charged with human trafficking,” he said.

“We’ve vetted this case, we’ve done our due diligence, there is no human trafficking that arises out of this investigation.”

https://nypost.com/2019/04/12/prosec...raft-spa-case/

I used the Kraft case as an example because of precisely this. The trafficking charge? Bullshit. This entire case? Bullshit. How much did this sting operation cost? What was the point? People got to have a laugh at a rich man. But this next bit:

Originally Posted by NY Post

All of the “masseuses” caught on camera engaging in a sexual act will be charged with felonies or misdemeanors, he added.

Kraft gets to walk away. But some of the sex workers got charged with felonies. Thats entirely fucked up. The way that America treats sex workers is just entirely disproportionate and completely fucked up. They are treated as less than second-class citizens. They get called slurs and nobody defends them. They were the only people that got significant punishment in the Kraft case and nobody, including you, could give a fuck.

I agree that this problem would be reduced with legalization, but until that happens don't you think someone supporting places that do human trafficking should suffer the consequences? Ignorance is no excuse.

Human trafficking is much rarer than propaganda from the police and district attorney's would have you think. Its a problem. But its also illegal here in New Zealand and not tolerated here either. But trafficking and sex work are two different things and it isn't helpful to conflate the two. 39

[begbert2]

Originally Posted by Voyager

but until that happens don't you think someone supporting places that do human trafficking should suffer the consequences? Ignorance is no excuse.

Wait what? Of course ignorance is an excuse regarding culpability for supporting or participating in a crime. Ignorance is the difference between being a collaborator/co-conspirator and, arguably, a victim.

Not that anybody's ignorance mitigates any other effects of the criminal enterprise, mind you, but there's a difference between a dupe and an accessory. 40

[Flyer]

Originally Posted by adaher

Full legalization is the best protection against human trafficking. Decriminalization would make human trafficking worse since legitimate businesses can't run brothels or call girl services, so you'd just continue to have the dirtbags do it outside of government supervision. Legal businesses can be regulated. Criminals can't.

Actually, the Victorians (at least in America) managed to regulate prostitution, even though it was illegal. Many, many towns had a system of varying fines that they used to steer illegal behavior into tolerable channels.

It says something that society today is not nearly as pragmatic as the "prudish" Victorian era. 41

[Jragon]

Originally Posted by Defensive Indifference

Kind of an aside: I follow a couple of sex workers on Twitter. Some of them draw a very clear distinction between "decriminalization" and "legalization". Madeline Marlowe is one of the more vocal on this topic. AIUI, she sees "decriminalization" as the full, more-or-less unregulated, practice of sex work (which she favors), while "legalization" to her seems to mean that sex work is tolerated but still heavily restricted (which she opposes). To me, that seems sort of backwards. In drug policy debate, AIUI, "decriminalization" refers to drug offenses being moved from felonies to lesser offenses, while "legalization" means "have at it (with restrictions similar to alcohol use)". Anyway, point is, sometimes I see folks getting caught up in the definitions.

In any case, I think I'm in favor of sex work being normalized and treated like other service occupations, probably subject to some kind of licensure like hairdressers or something. But I haven't given the issue very serious study. Legalization seems to work fine in other places, and I don't have any particular reason to be opposed to it.

Yes, this is the terminology I'm familiar with so I was a bit confused exactly what people meant by "decriminalization" during the thread. In my understanding following sex workers on the issue (and having spoken to a few people formerly involved in it), they generally use "legalization" to refer to things like licensing, mandatory STD testing requirements etc, whereas decriminalization refers to full out-and-out "you can have sex for money" (assuming no other crime is happening that makes it rape or a drug deal or espionage or whatever).

I've been swayed by this formulation of "decriminalization" because as a lot of former and present sex workers note, in countries where it's "legalized" (in the sense of allowed but regulated with licenses and such) it generally creates restrictions that ultimately undermine the safety of sex workers or ignore the conditions that sex workers have to work under. This video has a lot of testimony from sex workers as well as an interview with Melissa Grant, a journalist and former sex worker that had a lot of good points that swayed me. In particular, licensing requirements often force sex workers to work in larger brothels owned by non-sex worker capitalists, rather than self organizing on their own terms, and if there's one thing large corporate entities generally aren't, it's kind to their employees, especially not in the way sex work requires.

I think regulation/legalization is a step in the right direction, but I think full decriminalization (under this terminology) is ultimately better because governments have historically been... iffy at best at regulating this stuff. Especially when "stopping sex trafficking" is often used as a way to harm sex workers without doing much in the way of actually doing shit about human trafficking. 42

[UDS]

Originally Posted by Jragon

. . . I think regulation/legalization is a step in the right direction, but I think full decriminalization (under this terminology) is ultimately better because governments have historically been... iffy at best at regulating this stuff. Especially when "stopping sex trafficking" is often used as a way to harm sex workers without doing much in the way of actually doing shit about human trafficking.

I take your point.

On the other hand, if we accept that the sex industry may have some degree of association with trafficking, human slavery, exploitation or similar issues, then a wholly unregulated sex industry seems problematic - particularly so in a culture like the US, where puritanical attitudes may lead some to view sex workers as not deserving of any kind of protection or as not having interests to which weight must be attached, precisely because they are sex workers.

Even if sex work is wholly legal, it's likely to be a socially disdained and low-status occupation, and people who are desparate, vulnerable, socially excluded etc are likely to be over-represented among the ranks of sex workers. And those are the perfect conditions for fostering various kinds of exploitation and oppression of sex workers.

These concerns aren't really addressed by pointing to examples of independent, autonomous, self-relian, unexploited sex workers. We don't have to believe that [i]all[i\] sex workers are exploited in order to accept that the exploitation of sex workers is something we should be concerned about, and something we should guard against.

The problem, of course, is that regulation of the sex industry can function as a mechanism for oppressing sex workers just as readily as a mechanism for protecting them, and the same cultural attitudes which create the danger of exploitation in an unregulated sex industry create a danger that regulaton will function as a method of oppression. I'm not quite sure how you guard against this, other than by being rigorously clear about what the purpose and objects of the regulatory regime is, and assiduous in measuring its impact and effect. Policy here really needs to be evidence-driven, and not to proceed on (either progressive or conservative) preconceptions about, or ideological positions on, sex work. 43

[pkbites]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

I've already won the argument though.

Actually no, you haven't. You're comparing apples and oranges. I don't know what is going on down in Z land any more than you know what's happening here.

It's cyclical. Gradually but swiftly a neighborhood will become inundated with prostitutes working the area. They'll hang out in parks, in front of legit businesses, and near residential homes. They do/sell drugs, get into fights, vomit/urinate/defecate on public sidewalks, scream at pedestrians and motorists going by. They turn tricks in doorways of local businesses and in parking structures. They pass out on front lawns of peoples homes.
With their presence comes other derelicts. Major drug dealers, abusive clients, armed robbers, burglars, etc.. Sex workers call in a lot of medical 911 calls, sometimes because they've been beat up or robbed, other times it's just nuisance calls because they are cold or just really really stoned.

This all happens quicker than you'd think. And it typically happens in poorer neighborhoods. Residents come to community meetings demanding something be done. Mothers are afraid to let their children play outside. What would your response be to these people? Fuck you? So what if a hooker is blowing a guy in your parking garage?

So a focus patrol is initiated. Sting operations, saturation patrols, massive f.i. stops. The problem dissolves. But it doesn't always stay that way because instead of getting charged with state crimes the D.A. lowers it to municipal cites, hence a slap of the wrist. And eventually it happens all over again.

If prostitution is legalized it needs to be regulated in the same way as other businesses. Selling alcohol is legal. We don't let someone set up a beer tent outside of a school. Marijuana is legal in some areas. It's not allowed to be sold or used on pubic sidewalks. Pharmaceuticals are legal. Walgreens isn't allowed to flag down cars and sell the driver oxy. Hell, we don't allow food trucks to park in front of private homes and sell their wares. I agree prostitution should be legalized, regulated, and taxed. But that doesn't mean it should be legal to practice it everywhere. 44

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by pkbites

Actually no, you haven't.

...well actually yes I have. We've won here. We don't have unnecessarily cruel and punitive punishment for sex workers here.

You're comparing apples and oranges. I don't know what is going on down in Z land any more than you know what's happening here

Well you could know if you liked. I've posted plenty of information in this thread for you to have a look at. And I know plenty about what is happening over there. And the language you've chosen to use in this thread says it all.

It's cyclical. Gradually but swiftly a neighborhood will become inundated with prostitutes working the area. They'll hang out in parks, in front of legit businesses, and near residential homes. They do/sell drugs, get into fights, vomit/urinate/defecate on public sidewalks, scream at pedestrians and motorists going by. They turn tricks in doorways of local businesses and in parking structures. They pass out on front lawns of peoples homes.

With their presence comes other derelicts. Major drug dealers, abusive clients, armed robbers, burglars, etc.. Sex workers call in a lot of medical 911 calls, sometimes because they've been beat up or robbed, other times it's just nuisance calls because they are cold or just really really stoned.

This all happens quicker than you'd think. And it typically happens in poorer neighborhoods. Residents come to community meetings demanding something be done. Mothers are afraid to let their children play outside.

Do you want to know what its cyclical? Because you keep doing something that doesn't work over-and-over-again.

What would your response be to these people? Fuck you? So what if a hooker is blowing a guy in your parking garage?

A "hooker" or anyone blowing a guy in your parking garage would be illegal on a number of different fronts down here. That wouldn't be trespassing where you are? Then you've got bigger problems than I imagined.

So a focus patrol is initiated. Sting operations, saturation patrols, massive f.i. stops. The problem dissolves. But it doesn't always stay that way because instead of getting charged with state crimes the D.A. lowers it to municipal cites, hence a slap of the wrist. And eventually it happens all over again.

Maybe the "slap on the wrists" isn't the problem. Maybe its the sting operations, the saturation patrols, the millions of dollars wasted. Maybe it all eventually happens all over again because you were doing it all wrong in the first place then you keep repeating that wrong thing.

If prostitution is legalized it needs to be regulated in the same way as other businesses.

Which is exactly what we have done here. You should look into it.

Selling alcohol is legal. We don't let someone set up a beer tent outside of a school.

And sex workers are not allowed to set up in front of a school here either.

Marijuana is legal in some areas. It's not allowed to be sold or used on pubic sidewalks. Pharmaceuticals are legal. Walgreens isn't allowed to flag down cars and sell the driver oxy. Hell, we don't allow food trucks to park in front of private homes and sell their wares.

I've posted evidence in this thread that allowing streetwalking bought the numbers of streetwalkers down. The evidence strongly suggests that a harm-reduction model centred around not making it a crime to exchange money for sex would do more to clean up the streets than making the punishments harsher. So the very least you can do: especially as someone on the front lines, is not to dismiss what I say out of hand. There is plenty of data for you to look at.

I agree prostitution should be legalized, regulated, and taxed. But that doesn't mean it should be legal to practice it everywhere.

If I had the binary choice between "saturation patrols" of law enforcement officers who call sex workers "whores" and "street slags" and who call for increasingly harsher punishments, of for "allowing for it to be legal to practice it everywhere", I'll take the latter thanks.

But we don't have a binary choice to make. There are reasonable arguments to put forward to restrict streetwalking so that they can't "practice it everywhere." And the worst people to be making those decisions are those who openly display their prejudice. 45

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Banquet Bear

..."reasonable" isn't an objective standard that is useful here. Can you quantify the increased risk here? The pool of pornstars is small, they tend to work within that small pool, arguably the nightclub scene is riskier than the porn industry.

Not that small in the center of the industry, which is outside LA. But is the size of the population really a factor? I'd say sex workers are more likely to spread diseases, since partners of porn actors outside of work likely know what they do, while partners of those who visit sex workers won't in general know that the man has done so. There are also more people exposed. How many men does a sex worker screw in a day? Probably a lot more than a porn actress does - and she gets time off.

Its illegal here to purchase cigarettes under a certain age. ID is required, but recording that ID to ensure traceability is not.

And of course no kids smoke. Records are kept just in case someone in authority sees what looks like an underage actor and is concerned. It's for the protection of the filmmakers also. And obviously child porn is a lot worse than child smoking. If a kid smoking was equally as bad, then recording the face and id of the buyer would be a good move.

Lets get real fucking real here for a minute. People have been calling sex workers "whores" and "street slags" here in this very thread. That's all about morality. That's all about judging. This debate has never been about protecting sex workers and their clients. Because if if were then you and others would take the time to listen to what sex workers have to say. Its always been about morality. Its about policing what people can do with their bodies. You've taken a position in this thread that is based on you gut feelings, on what seems reasonable to you, not on what the evidence actually suggests.

I and everyone else in this thread have been for legalization. If you want to find people outraged at women getting to control their bodies, I recommend you go visit a fundamentalist site or something.
Saying that we understand that sex work can be dangerous (due to men, just to be clear) and that we want to protect the sex workers is a long way away from saying sex is evil and sex workers are immoral.
I can understand why women who want to legalize sex work are not going to make a big deal about the downside - since the downside is a lot less important than the downside of criminalization, and that they don't want to give ammunition to the idiots who see it as a moral issue. Strategically that makes sense. But I trust they'd be for protections if they prove to be necessary.

*sigh* You were talking about food service workers.

You were comparing protections to those of food service workers, and I was saying that they would only be similar if food service workers had to put themselves in the same kind of situations sex workers did.

Depends. Wouldn't it be useful if we could contact everyone who you had been in contact with when you got an STD? Who did you fuck last night? We should keep a register. Everyone who fucks must be required to register the name, address and phone number so we can track people down just in case someone gets an STD.

Does that sound like a reasonable position to you?

Being monogamous for 41 years means I don't have to worry about such things. But during the AIDS epidemic someone diagnosed with HIV was supposed to inform all partners that they were at risk. A little black book would have helped. I'm fine with the data being kept at the brothel, with a check during inspections (but no copying.)
But I was thinking more of violence against sex workers, where a record would help prevent it.
BTW, don't you think that the higher class madams have a record of who their charges are seeing? Good for marketing if nothing else. So they don't have a problem with it.

Its not about "diminishing business." Its about two things: its about not driving the industry underground again, and its about not treating the sex industry as materially any different from any other industry. There is no evidence to suggest that traceability would makes things safer. So there wouldn't be a point in adding complication to the law for no real material gain.

Well there you go. My supermarket, my pharmacy and my hardware store all keep records on me and what I buy. So if sex work were no different from any other industry, they'd be tracking their customers desires.
I understand that men would rather not be tracked, but if he goes to a doctor to treat an STD he sure as hell gets tracked in the medical information system of the doctor's office.

Under our framework in the "woman working alone model" they aren't required to log records of who they fucked. Just about how much money they spent. Cash is legal tender here.

So no sex worker, working alone, gets beat up or abused? Sure she can report it now, which is a big advantage if legalization, but that doesn't catch the guy.

https://nypost.com/2019/04/12/prosec...raft-spa-case/

I used the Kraft case as an example because of precisely this. The trafficking charge? Bullshit. This entire case? Bullshit. How much did this sting operation cost? What was the point? People got to have a laugh at a rich man. But this next bit:

They weren't targeting him. He just walked into a place which they did target.
And there is plenty of sex trafficking going on.

Kraft gets to walk away. But some of the sex workers got charged with felonies. Thats entirely fucked up. The way that America treats sex workers is just entirely disproportionate and completely fucked up. They are treated as less than second-class citizens. They get called slurs and nobody defends them. They were the only people that got significant punishment in the Kraft case and nobody, including you, could give a fuck.

That's what happens when you're rich. But I agree that the US does it wrong. That's why I'm for legalization. The reason for that is not to make it easier for guys to get laid, but to protect women who are the victims of the trade, because it is illegal and thus there are no protections for them.

Human trafficking is much rarer than propaganda from the police and district attorney's would have you think. Its a problem. But its also illegal here in New Zealand and not tolerated here either. But trafficking and sex work are two different things and it isn't helpful to conflate the two.

There are some guys who bring in women for unpaid housework - but the predominant destination of trafficked women is prostitution. As has been already mentioned, legalization should help this. 46

[Urbanredneck]

I dont think it will help much because some prostitutes will not want to get licensed or pay taxes and some johns will want basically a cheap lay. 47

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by Voyager

Not that small in the center of the industry, which is outside LA. But is the size of the population really a factor? I'd say sex workers are more likely to spread diseases, since partners of porn actors outside of work likely know what they do, while partners of those who visit sex workers won't in general know that the man has done so. There are also more people exposed. How many men does a sex worker screw in a day? Probably a lot more than a porn actress does - and she gets time off.

...where is your data? How much more likely are sex workers to be able to spread disease? The question I put to you yet again is can you quantify any of this?

And of course no kids smoke. Records are kept just in case someone in authority sees what looks like an underage actor and is concerned. It's for the protection of the filmmakers also. And obviously child porn is a lot worse than child smoking. If a kid smoking was equally as bad, then recording the face and id of the buyer would be a good move.

This doesn't negate my point. Sex work has been legal since 2003. Traceability hasn't been required. Can you make a case that the law isn't working?

I and everyone else in this thread have been for legalization. If you want to find people outraged at women getting to control their bodies, I recommend you go visit a fundamentalist site or something.

I'm "outraged" that you don't want to listen to what sex workers are saying. They have said that your ideas won't make them safer. Yet you continue to insist that your ideas would work.

Saying that we understand that sex work can be dangerous (due to men, just to be clear) and that we want to protect the sex workers is a long way away from saying sex is evil and sex workers are immoral.

You are playing "saviour" and you are not listening. Sex workers understand much better than you do what they need in order for them to be safer. They are telling you what they need. Why don't you simply listen to what they say?

I can understand why women who want to legalize sex work are not going to make a big deal about the downside - since the downside is a lot less important than the downside of criminalization, and that they don't want to give ammunition to the idiots who see it as a moral issue. Strategically that makes sense. But I trust they'd be for protections if they prove to be necessary.

Nobody talks about the downsides more than women who want to legalize sex work. They completely understand what is going on. I've given you a case study on a platter. The data is out there. They are telling you what protections they need. Why ignore them?

You were comparing protections to those of food service workers, and I was saying that they would only be similar if food service workers had to put themselves in the same kind of situations sex workers did.

Why would food service workers who served food in private rooms naked need to have traceability of the people they served food too? Do lap-dancers record the names of everyone's lap they sit on?

Being monogamous for 41 years means I don't have to worry about such things.

But can we trust you? And with all due respect, can we trust your partner? I think we should set up a register, just in case. You think you don't have to worry about these things, but trust me, I know better than you.

But during the AIDS epidemic someone diagnosed with HIV was supposed to inform all partners that they were at risk. A little black book would have helped. I'm fine with the data being kept at the brothel, with a check during inspections (but no copying.)

Well that doesn't happen here I'm afraid. A little black book is not required by the legislation. Can you tell me what impact that has had?

But I was thinking more of violence against sex workers, where a record would help prevent it.

Sex workers can and do record names, they do share that information with other sex workers, they go to extraordinary lengths to not only protect themselves, but to protect other sex workers as well. Legislation isn't required to make that happen. They are not compelled to do this.

BTW, don't you think that the higher class madams have a record of who their charges are seeing? Good for marketing if nothing else. So they don't have a problem with it.

I keep a database of my customers as well for marketing purposes. I am not required to keep a database of my customers to satisfy the whims of the state though. Surely you can see the distinction?

Well there you go. My supermarket, my pharmacy and my hardware store all keep records on me and what I buy. So if sex work were no different from any other industry, they'd be tracking their customers desires.

But they aren't compelled to track their "customers desires."

I understand that men would rather not be tracked, but if he goes to a doctor to treat an STD he sure as hell gets tracked in the medical information system of the doctor's office.

"Doctors do their jobs" is not exactly news.

So no sex worker, working alone, gets beat up or abused?

What strawman is this?

Sure she can report it now, which is a big advantage if legalization, but that doesn't catch the guy.

And this is simply victim blaming.

They weren't targeting him. He just walked into a place which they did target.

I never claimed they were targeting him. They were targeting sex workers on trumped up charges of trafficking.

And there is plenty of sex trafficking going on.

Not at the Orchids of Asia spa it wasn't.

That's what happens when you're rich. But I agree that the US does it wrong.

This kind of "wishy washy" condemnation shows you really aren't getting my point. The way sex workers are treated in America (and in most places in the world) is a human rights travesty. And nothing in America is going to change until those that have privilege start to get outraged about this. I've been saying the same thing on these boards over and over again since I started here. I have seen a change in attitudes. And that's a good thing. However:

That's why I'm for legalization. The reason for that is not to make it easier for guys to get laid, but to protect women who are the victims of the trade, because it is illegal and thus there are no protections for them.

The biggest danger for sex workers in America is that they go down the road of the Nordic Model. The Nordic Model is seen as a compromise, its seen as palatable. But its a highly problematic approach that is opposed by pretty much every organization that advocates for sex workers.

So why am I here, arguing with a bunch of people who all are in favour of legalization? We are all on the "same side" are we not?

I'm arguing because you are not listening. If the voices of sex workers are not front and centre for this debate then whatever legislation is passed probably won't follow the harm reduction model, will probably benefit big business, will simply shift the burden from the pimps and the brothel owners to a corporate overlord.

Because there is a difference between what you think will make sex workers safer and what they are telling you will make them safer. The Nevada model is arguably a safe model that provides all the protections you suggest in this thread. Its also a model that puts almost all the power in the hands of the brothel-keeper and leaves sex-workers with very little agency. The Nordic Model sounds like it does all the right things: but when it was introduced to Ireland a couple of years ago reported incidences of violent crime against sex workers went from 900 in the year prior to change to 1400 the year after, nearly a 50% increase.

We are now at the point were people are starting to "shrug their shoulders" and say "meh, I suppose legalization will be okay." So now its time to start to argue about the details because the details matter. And once the push for legalization starts to get traction: just like in the medical marijuana you will start to see the same power structures fall into place. Just like how black people, who have been disproportionately jailed and punished for drug crimes are watching as white people use those same drugs to turn themselves into moguls, the same will happen in the sex industry as well if you don't allow the voices of sex workers to be heard. 48

[am77494]

Great debate here. Banquet Bear - I have a question. Can you please share what New Zealanders did different (before legalization) to change public opinion and what were the lessons learned from that ?

Also - I do not do not know about NZ much. How diverse are the people in terms of religion, race and income ? Also does diversity in the society play a part into how easily societal attitudes are changed ?

Thank you 49

[Banquet Bear]

Originally Posted by am77494

Great debate here. Banquet Bear - I have a question. Can you please share what New Zealanders did different (before legalization) to change public opinion and what were the lessons learned from that ?

Also - I do not do not know about NZ much. How diverse are the people in terms of religion, race and income ? Also does diversity in the society play a part into how easily societal attitudes are changed ?

Thank you

...these are great questions.

Arguably the tipping point for the vote in the House was this speech from transgender Member of Parliament Georgina Beyer. Beyer was a former sex worker and her speech was credited for flipping 3 votes for the reforms, which eventually passed by a vote of 60-59 (with one abstention).

(Reprinted in full per the NZ Copyright Act on Hansard Transcripts)

Originally Posted by Georgina Beyer

I rise to make my contribution to the third reading of this bill, which I support. I would like to begin by expressing my gratitude to the members of this Parliament for a considered and varied debate from both sides and both points of view. Along with that, I congratulate supporters of both sides of the argument for their contribution, which expresses a fair view from both sides of the nation. I particularly congratulate and pay great credit to Tim Barnett, who has had the courage and commitment to see this bill through to this most important point.

I support the bill, because, as everybody knows, I have had experience in the sex industry—and I am the only member of this Parliament to have had it. If I had had a law like this to protect me and give me some teeth for redress when I was 16 and 17 years old—even on entering into the sex industry—then I might have been spared the 5 or so years I spent in that industry. Barriers would have been created against people who would coerce those under 18 to enter the sex industry in the first place. I support this bill for all the prostitutes I have ever known who have died before the age of 20 because of the inhumanity and hypocrisy of a society that would not ever give them the chance to redeem whatever circumstances made them arrive in that industry.

This bill provides some of that protection. It provides people like me at that time with some form of redress for the brutalisation that might happen when a client pulls a knife. The horror of that situation is that it could be a life and death one—one does not know—but it would have been nice to know that instead of having to deal out justice afterwards to that person myself, I might have been able to approach the authorities—the police in this case—and say: “I was raped, and, yes, I’m a prostitute, and, no, it was not right that I should have been raped, because I said no, and it was not paid attention to.”

I think of all the people I have known in that area who have suffered because of the hypocrisy of our society, which, on the one hand, can accept prostitution, while, on the other hand, wants to push it under the carpet and keep it in the twilight world that it exists in. We are bringing prostitution reform into the light with some of what is proposed in this bill, and the criminal element does not necessarily like to be standing in the glare of greater public influence over how an industry like this might be conducted within our society. It is about accepting that that occurs, and it is about accepting the fact that the people who work in this industry deserve some human rights. I plead with those members in this House who are wavering right up to the wire, to think, for heaven’s sake, of the people of whom I have just spoken, including myself, who might be spared some of the hideous nature of the way society treats prostitutes—because that is here with us.

But if one does have fears, this legislation will be reviewed in 5 years to see how it is operating and whether it is effective. If this bill passes tonight, in 5 years we will be able to reassess its worth. That is something that those who are wavering should be comforted by. But to do nothing now would be irresponsible of this Parliament, because the status quo would remain, and that is unacceptable. This is our one chance in perhaps 20 years to do something. Whatever side of the argument we take, I know we all come from a humanitarian point of view, but I beg members to consider the side I am on, and the side many others in this House are on also. It is the side I consider to be right. It does not diminish, in my opinion, the opinions of those who are against this bill, because some valid points have been made, but not to address this issue now, with this possibility, is not right.

I will conclude by saying that right now we have a sex industry, and we have legislation based on an outmoded double standard. Let us change, please, the part we can.

https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/hans...bill-procedure

New Zealand has always been a culturally diverse progressive country. Georgina Beyer was a Maori transgender former sex worker who first got elected as Mayor of what was essentially a farming community and it barely ruffled any feathers at all. New Zealand was the first country to give women the vote. The rights of the indigenous people are enshrined in our founding document The Treaty of Waitangi. Coupled with our isolation from the rest of the world and a history of activism (from Hone Heke chopping down the flag pole to Bastion Point, to "dildo-gate".

So it was on the backs of activism that the Prostitution Law Reforms got passed. The New Zealand Prostitutes Collective was formed in 1987. They began actively lobbying for reform in 1989. They garnered support from the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women, the National Council of Women, the YWCA, and the AIDS Foundation. They found champions on the right from MP's like Maurice Williamson and Katherine O'Regan, the bill was presented from the left by MP Tim Barnett, and when it got put to what is called a conscience vote (which means MP's are free to vote not down party lines) and it eventually passed.

So it wasn't a short process, about 14 years from the start of lobbying until the change in law. And it was driven by the sex industry with a focus on harm reduction, and it was supported by women and women's organizations.

What I fear about the debate at the moment is that these voices are going to be ignored. The Nordic model didn't come about through the process that happened in New Zealand. The objective of the Nordic model is to "decrease the demand for prostitution by punishing the soliciting of sex workers in order to slowly decrease the volume of the illegal sex industry overall." It has completely different goals to what we did here and it was a model that was developed at arms length from the industry. In contrast the Nevada model is what happens when capitalists decide whats best for sex workers.

So we've got three competing models for the future direction of what could happen with legalised sex work in America. One of those models was the result of activism from sex workers. One of them was designed to eventually destroy the sex industry, and one of them is designed to profit off the labour of sex workers, leaving them with very little agency. Two of these models, in my most humblest of opinions, are VERY VERY BAD.

So it seems clear that the Overton Window is starting to shift and that the is going to be increased support for the legalization of sex work in America. My point that it isn't enough to just support legalization, or decriminalization, or however you want to describe it. We have in this thread someone who both supports legalization and doesn't see anything wrong with calling sex workers "whores" and "street slags." That same person also supports harsher penalties for the most vulnerable of sex worker, those that work on the street. My point is that you can't allow people that hold these sorts of attitudes control the debate. You can't let them set the agenda. You can't trust them to set the rules. They don't care about sex workers. They care about votes, they care about property values, they care about keeping these people in their place.

Its about listening and amplifying the voices of sex workers. Its about putting your opinions aside for a bit and looking at the data. Here is Human Rights Watch's position on decriminalization. Here is Amnesty International's position on decriminalization. There is consistency here. This is about fundamental human rights. 50