The discussion is about whether we should change some of these rules. The federal government and/or some state governments once banned interracial marriage, same sex marriage, gambling and marijuana use to some degree. Hell, some even tried to regulate the things we did with our spouses in our bedrooms. But they were only doing the will of the majority. Things change if enough people want them to.
I thought this whole discussion centered on “If the US made prostitution legal should some sort of registration/licensing be required”. You keep jumping between the hypothetical and current state. Moving the goalposts makes it extremely difficult to have a meaningful conversation.
…if they willingly chose to do what for money? Have sex? And how exactly would they be “flaunting” it? Can you describe to me what you think a sex worker looks like and how they behave?
If someone didn’t tell you that they were a sex worker, how exactly would you know they were a sex worker? What is “sex worker specific behaviour” that you can use to identify a sex worker the way you would identify someone with racist attitudes?
Well you did write this:
“Icky??” Is that what you think sucking dicks or spreading her legs or bending over in a hotel room for money is? Just “icky”?
You write that sentence with such disdain. You’ve yet to explain if its the sex that disgusts you or the combination of sex and money. And if it is the addition of money, what difference does it make?
Why exactly would you want to help them get out of it? Why would someone have to be desperate to want to exchange sex for money?
…discussing the real world implications of the implementation of the OP’s suggestion is an imminently sensible and appropriate thing to do. The OP doesn’t state anything at all about this being a US centric discussion, I don’t know where you got that from.
I addressed your points. If directly addressing your points is defined by you as “moving the goalposts” then absolutely we will not be having a meaningful conversation: but that isn’t my fault.
Hmm… I really dont know. Your really making me think. If what your say is true, that a person really DOES like giving sexual favors for money and they arent doing it just because they are desperate or being forced to do it, I really dont know. And what does a sex worker look a hooker (male or female) look like? I’m not sure of that either.
I’m not sure of that either. I just cannot fathom a person doing such a life willingly. I guess those that make the top money like getting $10,000 a night from rich people I guess I could see that money.
Not sure. Do you know how many are doing it because the LIKE it vs. how many are forced?
This all seems to be a moot discussion, though, because legalization of prostitution is still political poison here in the U.S., unless there have been changes in the political climate which I haven’t picked up on (a very real possibility).
Unfortunately, I estimate we are still at least twenty or thirty years away from legalization.
I remember in the 1980’s, a history of marijuana use in the past was basically an instant ticket to rejection for political candidates, supreme court nominees, etc.
Then in the 90s, it was acceptable enough for Clinton to acknowledge use, but with the infamous “I didn’t inhale” qualification.
Finally, with Bush and Obama, college-age use was no longer a career ender, and the legalization movement really started being successful.
Re: prostitution, aside from that county in Nevada which seems to be an anomaly, I can’t think of any time that I have heard a politician say that we should take a good hard look at legalizing prostitution, because to do so would be political suicide still. And I suspect it will be for the foreseeable future.
I am not even sure if there have been any politicians whose career survived being found to have visited a prostitute.
Who will be the Clinton of prostitution? “Well, I fucked her, but I didn’t come.” That will be the turning point!
…this is a summary of a report conducted in 2007 of sex workers and their clients:
http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/sex-work/page-5
And the actual report.
Bear in mind these are NZ statistics: and there may well be big differences between our experiences and the experiences in other countries. For example due to our isolation we don’t have a problem with trafficking.
That’s ridiculous. Attitudes like his only have to be in the minority.
In 2005, roughly 39% of Americans supported gay marriage. Today, it’s well over 50% and legal in many states.
In 2012, 38% of Americans thought that prostitution should “definitely” or “probably” be legalized.
Will attitudes towards prostitution change enough in 10 years so that we have a similar avalanche of legalization? I don’t know, but it’s clearly possible.
…nah. And wellanuff explains why. There is no lobby group out there pushing hard for the rights of sex workers. Look how much effort has been expended so far since 2005 to push for gay marriage. When was the last protest you remember by people wanting to decriminalize sex work? No one really wants it. No one is going to fight for it. And no politician is going to go near it. With virtually no one out there to champion it, what is going to cause this avalanche?
Ok, so let’s get to the main focus of the thread. One of the things we (the OP?) should decide on, is “why are we legalizing prostitution?”. This is all just a theoretical discussion and so often happens it is all based about some kind of “ideal” system for regulating prostitution in a form that treats it as any other profession while also keeping in check some perceived negative consequences. Based on considerations as “in principal adults should be allowed exchange money for sex”; “public health should be protected as much as possible”; “make it a business as any other”.
This is all fine, in reality however, one of the biggest - if not the biggest - consideration in legalizing prostitution in first world countries, is to improve the plight op sex workers. I can’t recall any political discussions in Europe about how adults should be allowed to exchange sex for money in principle (although plenty of people would agree with this). Any discussion about (new) laws with regard to prostitution are based on improving the situation for sex workers.
An example: a new law is on its way in Germany, one thing that was dropped from the original draft is mandatory testing.The reasoning being it would put more demands on the girls with the effect that they might feel (even) more negative about authorities and might prefer to work in the illegal side of the market. Second one they dropped: raising the minimum age to 21; not because of some principle that 18 is the moment you become of age, but because it will push these young girl into illegality. (For the record, I know quite a few girls who have been in this job for about 2 years now, that are not going to want to take a break for 1 year, because some new law was adopted.
In many places (Netherlands at least) prostitutes can get themselves tested for free. The Dutch organization focused on STD prevention even advises about how to work safely if you have an STD; you can find it on the website (it’s in Dutch, soaaids Nederland; the health clinics are filled with flyers in Polish, Romanian, Bulgarian, Hungarian, etc.). They are strictly against any mandatory testing or even mandatory condom use (which is in the new German proposal btw, but nobody knows how it could be actively implemented).
These few examples hopefully show that the focus in reality is less with the principle, and more with the real circumstances of the sex workers. It is not a privilege (given by the state) to work as a sex worker, it is reality that it happens and regulation is mostly focused on making sure circumstances are as good as possible.
Getting back to the plan:
Registration means you’ll be on a government list: many prostitutes will not want to be, if only because they don’t trust the authorities. They’ll stick to the black market.
Mandatory testing is expensive and will probably be something some government agency is going to want to check: more government involvement, great! And what if a girl happens to have the clap? At least some will be deterred by this and most clients really don’t care about a girl having a recent test (they’re going to be safe anyway, right?).
An initial investment of 1000 dollars might be little for most businesses, but for many still too much. Especially women who turn to this profession because they need the money. This is a sure way to create pimps, people who provide the initial investment and then expect to be paid back much more. This is literally how most of the human traffickers work.
Second problem with the money: it means someone who starts will need to do at least a handful of “dates” to break even. What if she decides after the first client it isn’t for her? A choice between even more debt or continuing: the government as pimp “forcing” women to keep selling their body.
Then you create the problem of the more expensive government approved prostitutes with their higher rates versus the large (in this case I’d expect, very large) illegal sector. It is already widely known that the Nevada brothels are much, much more expensive than the girls that work illegally. You can be pretty sure the “legal prostitutes” will want the police to act against this unfair competition (if they dare to organize themselves). So you either have a group of legal prostitutes that feels they are being stiffed, or a new “war on illegal prostitutes”. That’s going to be great for the standing in society of sex workers.
In order to have any positive effect, in short: regulation should improve conditions for all sex workers and not increase the burden or place additional demands (or at least as little as possible).
Regulation and working with the authorities happens more often than you may think. Prostitutes often inform the police of their “business” and address of work. Usually the police are fairly tolerant(though this may vary from area to area). Where the police do crack down is when multiple girls work from the same houuse or flat. This is viewed as a brothel.
My main concern with “regulation” is in cost. Regulation will result in girls becoming fully taxable. Tax will increase price and may result in clients looking for business with the illegal trade. Add the likelihood of an eventual “sin tax” and prices may increase further.
“38% of Americans think it should be legalized” and “No one really wants it” are mutually inconsistent statements. One is supported by data; the other is not.
No politician would go near gay marriage for a number of years, either. Even Obama didn’t support it.
Arguably, legalized prostitution has many more benefits for people not directly involved (i.e., the voting base) than gay marriage. While gay marriage imposes a small tax burden on the rest of the population and (aside from intangibles) is probably a net negative, legalized prostitution will have significant benefits in lower crime, more effective police, increased tax revenue, etc. (it’s more like legalized marijuana in that regard).
It’s not yet at a critical point. But in 10 years, who knows? Lots of things are political poison–until they aren’t.
The OP, as quoted above, did reference US specifics. Your argument has been solely NZ centric. Diffferent culture, different viewpoint. One can’t argue that what works in NZ will work in the US, or vice versa. Your ‘facts’ com from an organization who’s sole purpose is to advocate for NZ sex workers - don’t you think there may be a bit of bias there? Here is a case in point (Warning: PDF). It’s an independent study of sex workers in San Fransisco, CA. The gist of the study is that sex workers want their profession legalized, but they don’t want to pay taxes - big surprise, who does? The salient point is that 83% of the prostitues in the study agreed with the statement “Sex workers should be required to undergo health screenings to be able to do sex work”. Hmmm. 83% is a lot. And this was a study of the most marginalized sex workers out there.
No, you gave another viewpoint, which is fine for this forum, but it ain’t the voice of God by any stretch. Different countries with legalized or quasi-legalized prostitution have different rules and regulations. They all say theirs work wonderfully. To some extent, they are all correct. To some extent, they are all wrong.
You move the goalposts when you keep jumping back to the “XXX doesn’t go to jail for their job”. So what - the hypothetical is that protitution is made legal, jail is no longer an issue.
…your assertion is actually not backed up by data. “YouGov” offers respondents to its surveys rewards like tote bags, t-shirts and PrePaid Gift Cards. How many people responded to that cite of yours? What was the margin of error? Have a read of a review of YouGov from a site called “paid survey update”:
I stated that “no one really wants it.” If people really wanted it, they would fight for it. Answering “yes” on a survey is not fighting for a cause.
Here is another survey for you. The question was:
J. Louis Harris and Associates asked that question of 2,126 respondents. The response?
65% of respondents were in favour of some sort of decriminalization. When was the survey carried out?
Lets pretend that the survey you cited (that it looks like was the first result you got off google) is accurate. That would mean support for decriminalization of prostitution has dropped by nearly half over the last 30 odd years. And you are no closer to changing the status quo than you were when support for the idea was at its peak.
You stated that my comments were “ridiculous” but the actual very best you can do is throw your arms up in the air and go “who knows?”
Well obviously the correct answer to that question is “no-one does.”
I’m sure that plenty of people might think that prostitution should be made legal: but there are very few that are willing to fight for it. And in order to cause an avalanche you have to have people who are willing to go into battle for the cause. And apart from the odd editorial article here and there it isn’t a cause that has anyone championing it at all. The change happened in NZ because over a long period of time organizations like the Prostitutes Collective lobbied for the change. They got the ear of sympathetic Members of Parliament and managed to get the reforms passed into law. Nothing like this is happening or has happened in the United States at all: even at the State level.
The reaction by some of the people in this thread to the mere idea of sex in exchange for money has been of physical revulsion. Imagine instead of sex work, we were talking about gay sex, and we had posters here expressing physical revulsion at the mere idea of gay sex. Those people would have been taken to task by other posters: and deservedly so. But sex work? No one really cares.
…it referenced US specifics as the inspiration for this thread: but the question he/she asked was not US specific at all.
Why the scare quotes around the words “facts?” Which facts do you not think are accurate?
I’ve cited a range of sources from all around the world. I haven’t cited anything from the NZ Prostitutes Collective: but I did cite something prepared by the Scarlet Alliance, which is an Australian organization, not a NZ one. I know the two countries are easily confused, but we are the ones that shag sheep and Australians are the ones that throw another shrimp on the barbie and ride around on their kangaroos all day.
And rather than arguing from incredulity, why don’t you point out what facts are wrong?
And yes, organizations who have a sole purpose to advocate for sex workers do indeed have a bias and they are open and upfront about it.
The St James Infirmary sound like an outstanding organization. And they mention this in the report:
The report acknowledges that the setting in which the survey was conducted may well have influenced the response to that question. As you state: this was a survey of the most marginalised sex workers out there: in fact they are over represented in the sample. From the survey results a third of respondents were street walkers: but street walkers only represent between 10-20% of sex workers in San Francisco (cite Prostitution: A Difficult Issue For Feminists by Priscilla Alexander). So I wouldn’t necessarily read too much into the response to that question: and I would accept the report authors statement that the setting the question was asked in may have influenced the response.
I don’t proclaim to be god, nor do I claim to be the voice of god. And I actually did address your points.
This makes no sense at all. If you feel there are problems with legalised sex work in countries like New Zealand, then just come out and tell us what they are. But don’t be wishy washy about it.
Rather than making something up: can you quote something specific that I have said that is an example of goal post shifting? If you bring up something like porn actors then I don’t think there is anything wrong with pointing out that a significant difference between the two professions is that porn actors have never been routinely thrown in jail while sex workers are sitting in jail all over the United States right now. That isn’t a goal post shift. That is directly addressing your point. And as for my opinion “I don’t think that throwing people in jail for the crime of having sex would ever be acceptable. So you might be willing to “leave it at that”, but its something that I can’t do.” Thats just how I feel. But that isn’t a shift of the goal posts at all.
And of course, jail is still an issue. If prostitution is made legal, but only registered prostitutes are allowed to lawfully engage in sex for money, then unregistered prostitutes would have to be punished some how. I’m gonna assume that punishment would be a combination of fines and ultimately imprisonment. So yeah, jail is of course still an issue.
Things change. You start talking about an issue rationally on a message board and years later state legislators are debating it. Sometimes it’s a few years, sometimes it’s many.
No. This Never should happen.
This never should be, and I don’t honestly care about the sophocracic arguments or the greasy scumbags who’d dump load after load of money out of their rears all over politicians to make this happen. This Never should happen.
…sometimes its Never. I Honestly hope its Never.
“Hey. You know how “sometimes God says No”? Well, sometimes PEOPLE say No. F-ck God if he disagrees…”
Because the study was done by an industry advocacy group which, by your own admition, is biased. That means the whole study, and each conclusion, is in question.
My bad, I thought I remembered a “.nz” extension on that URL.
See answer to your scare quotes question.
Yep, all properly done studies mention any factors that could influence the results. The study itself was independently constructed and conducted. The infirmary location was used because it is a place where study subjests could be readly found. That makes selection easier, but less random. As such it should be noted.
You come off to me as having all the answers and any other viewpoint is wrong. Others may read you differently.
Already did, and never was. I believe that, in order to be legalized, prostitution should be regulated.
Yes, of course it is. The hypothetical presented is “prostitution is now legal, how should it be regulated?”. Brining present state into tha is ignoring the hypothetical and moving the goal post.
Ok, that gets a :rolleyes:. Of course individuals who break the law take the chance of facing the consequences. That’s just silly.
I’ve been back through this thread a couple of times now and I’m still not sure what it is you are saying should never happen.
…that doesn’t mean the facts are wrong. One might be able to argue the conclusions are wrong: but that isn’t what you have done. You’ve argued that climate studies are in question because they have been compiled by climate scientists.
You haven’t answered the scare quotes question.
Do you agree or disagree with the studies conclusions? What facts did the study get wrong?
Just because an organization is biased, it doesn’t mean that it has gotten the facts wrong.
And as you point out: the purpose of the Scarlett Alliance is to advocate for sex workers. To speak out for their interests, and to protect their well being. Its going to promote a position that sex workers want because it makes their jobs safer and better for them. Which was the entire point of why I posted it. Do you think that the Scarlett Alliance wants to promote a position that makes its workers less safe?
Um, okay?
I’m questioning your viewpoint. Most people in this thread, heck, most people in real life, form their opinion of the sex industry by what they see on TV. I would suggest, based on your answers in this thread, that the only thing you know about “what sex workers want” is based on that survey you cited because you had to google it to attempt to rebut my point.
This message board is about fighting ignorance. If you want to live in a bubble, go ahead. I believe I have valuable insight into an industry that many people outside of watching “Special Victims Unit” don’t really have. If you want to ignore what I have to say, then simply stop engaging me.
Prostitution is regulated in New Zealand. What makes you think that it isn’t?
The hypothetical presented was “these are my ideas on how to regulate prostitution. What do you think?”
If I had ignored the hypothetical (which I hadn’t) that wouldn’t be “moving the goal posts.” That would be “ignoring the hypothetical.” I don’t actually think you understand what moving the goal posts actually means. Because if it meant what you imply then bringing up the present day situation of porn actors was a goal post shift as well.
If you want to bring up porn: I have the right to point out the most important differences between porn and sex work. One has practically not been illegal, and the other has almost always has been. That is not a goal post shift at all.
So jail is an issue yes? But you just finished saying jail isn’t an issue. Make you mind up.