# Let's Get Some Hookers! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 19, 2001, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066 "2001-07-19T16:47:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 13
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [July 31, 2001, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/241 "2001-07-31T23:40:16Z")
**sailor** you’re not getting the point. Yes, of course other things are illegal blah blah blah. My point is that only by accepting the concept that it’s ok to buy sex, does the market for trafficking come into play. If those who would purchase sex were stopped, there would not be any incentive for folks to kidnap people and force them. Why do you (and others) insist that it **should** be ok for some one to purchase sex? You cannot purchase a kidney. You cannot purchase a child. Why do you believe that it shoud be ok to purchas sex? where is the benefit to society? Theres’ certainly negatives (trafficking is one large negative, and the problems with propety nearby etc etc).your ‘right’ to purchase sex must provide benefits outweighing those negatives. I’ve asked this before, and the only response was ‘well, in a free society blah blah blah’ but, we already regulate pretty much all commerce (which this would be) and don’t allow certain things at all (some listed above). Sexual release is a powerful force in humans, but again, it’s not necessary for some one else to provide that release. > [@](#): > > (1) Forcing someone to do anything against their will is _already_ illegal, sex or no sex. true > [@](#): > > (2) The prostitution we are talking of legalising is _voluntary_. Forcing people against their will would _remain_ illegal. there we have problems. In the first place we haven’t agreed on what consitutes ‘voluntary’. Is it voluntary when some one gets you addicted to drugs, so that you have no other means of earning sufficient quantities of $$ ? etc. and, in one of my links, you’ll note that the illegal trade also combines with bribery, lots of $$ to be had here, (not much going to the women working for it of course) And, again, it’s my point that once you accept as a given that some one **should** be able to buy sex, you’ve created a market for the illegal trade. As long as folks consider it their right to buy it, there will be an illegal trade. > [@](#): > > (3) It may be a bad career choice for some but the government is not here to protect us against our own bad choices. For other women it may be a _good_ career choice which is now legally not open to them. not my point. My point is that for the few who might choose it, their right to choose the trade is counterbalanced by the large amounts of harm it does to others. > [@](#): > > (4) The current policy makes criminals of all the women who have already chosen to do it. They would be _much_ better protected if it were legal and you show how little you care about them. Not necessarily true frankly. And I’ve given sites that talk about that. But, besides that, I’m more interested in diminishing the market - so, if instead of concentrating on the workers, we concentrate on the customers, the market would be diminished, and I see that as the only practical way to help reduce the numbers of trafficked people. > [@](#): > > (5) There are countries where prostitution is legal and I do not see them sinking into moral decay any more than the US. not my point. However, they are also heavily trafficked in people for forced prostitution as well. > [@](#): > > (6) Your attempts at linking legal prostitution with trafficking are ludicrous. We know some T-shirts are made illegally by children in sweatshops but we do not ban all T-shirts, rather, we go after the illegal activities while protecting the legal. why? cause you declare it to be? We know that **even where prostitution is legal** there’s trafficking. There are insufficient quantities of people who would freely choose the profession to serve all those who would use it. How can you get around that? Either accept that \*\*some \*\* people will be forced (a situation I find abhorant) or work to lessen the market. In the case of t-shirts, there isn’t a lack of people willing to work to make them, there is a lack for prostitution. > [@](#): > > (7) Following your reasoning the government could and should regulate homosexuality and other aspects of our sexual lives. You could argue that homosexuality is bad for society. It is the kind of thing we heard in school as children and, frankly, I don’t buy it. I do not see any valid reasons in your arguments, only your prejudice. IMHO, your prejudice should not prevent others from doing things which (no matter what you say) do _not_ harm other people taken as individuals or as society as a whole. not at all, and I don’t see how you can even come close to saying that’s my point. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2001, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/242 "2001-08-01T00:02:41Z")
(Well, **wring** already took care of most of these issues while I was writing this, but maybe some of my points are different enough to warrant posting it anyway…:)) **BK:** \*I said that since [lap dancing and prostitution] are so similar, what is the justification for one being illegal and the other not? In other words, although they are different, what is the difference that makes the difference in legality? Please do not ignore this question, I would like an answer. \* Well, I’m not **wring** , but I would have thought the answer was pretty self-evident. Physical contact between clothed people is much less risky in terms of pregnancy and STDs. It also requires less privacy—customers seem to be less self-conscious about it than about taking off their clothes and having skin-to-skin sex—so it’s more easily monitored. Given that there’s never likely to be any obvious universally-accepted boundary between legal and illegal kinds of commercialized sexuality (well, beyond a certain point, that is: making genuine snuff porn will probably never be legal while putting sexy models in clothing catalogues will probably never be illegal), it doesn’t seem to me particularly irrational to have lap dancing fall on one side of that line and prostitution on the other. _A question for anyone with an answer: How many places in the world allow prostitution? I have a hunch that it is only very few places, but I could be wrong._ Again, I recommend the [article](http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/12/platt-l.html) “Regulating the Global Brothel” by Leah Platt in the _American Prospect_ that I linked to a few pages ago in this thread. Says there that prostitution is legal in many parts of Europe as well as parts of South America and the Caribbean, and “semi-regulated” in several Asian countries. However, in most places where prostitution itself is legal, brothel-keeping or trafficking in prostitution is still criminal. already there. **sailor:** _(1) Forcing someone to do anything against their will is already illegal, sex or no sex._ Yeah, but that doesn’t change the practical hazards involved. Many prostitutes **are** in fact raped and/or abused, and legalizing prostitution would expand the opportunities for the rapists and abusers. I agree that a massive change in social perceptions, where prostitution would be established as a dignified profession whose practitioners are respected by society in general and diligently protected by law enforcement and other officials, would probably make prostitutes better off than they are now. But merely legalizing the act isn’t going to bring that about. It’s all very well to say that in **theory** , the customers of legal prostitutes have no more right to force them in any way than do the customers of illegal prostitutes. But that doesn’t get rid of the problem that in **practice** , they do have greater license to do so. \*(2) The prostitution we are talking of legalising is _voluntary_. Forcing people against their will would _remain_ illegal. \* Same problem: a fine theoretical distinction that gets very blurred in practice. _(3) It may be a bad career choice for some but the government is not here to protect us against our own bad choices._ Not quite true. Much of labor law is all about protecting us against our own bad career choices, especially those that we may “choose” in desperation because we don’t see any other way to survive. There are many things that are generally considered so dangerous or not good for you that you’re not allowed to choose to sell your labor at them, and I think such prohibitions are a perfectly legitimate function of government. Whether or not we believe that prostitution should be one of the career choices in the prohibited category, we can’t beg the issue by pretending that the government has no business making **any** such prohibitions. \*(4) The current policy makes criminals of all the women who have already chosen to do it. They would be _much_ better protected if it were legal and you show how little you care about them. \* Really? What evidence do we have that prostitutes really **would** be better protected if prostitution were legal? As I said, if we had a complete revolution in social mores to the point where it was an accepted and respected profession, that would doubtless be the case, but what makes you think that mere legalization would be adequate? (And I think it’s both unfair and silly to accuse **wring** of “not caring” about the current plight of prostitutes just because she is skeptical on that point.) \*(5) There are countries where prostitution is legal and I do not see them sinking into moral decay any more than the US. \* Good, but that’s rather vague, isn’t it? Never mind the general “sinking into moral decay” of entire nations; what is the specific situation for the sex workers themselves? How well are they treated, how secure are their lives and safety? To what extent does legalization affect their lives and work as compared with cultural traditions of prostitution? If we really want to consider legalization seriously, we need an awful lot of scrutiny of other countries’ experiences with it beyond a vague handwaving “well, they seem to be doing okay” type of remark. \*(6) Your attempts at linking legal prostitution with trafficking are ludicrous. We know some T-shirts are made illegally by children in sweatshops but we do not ban all T-shirts, rather, we go after the illegal activities while protecting the legal. \* Because we as a society have already long ago decided that we require a commercial garment trade, so we’re willing to put up with the burden of occasional abuses of it. We have **not** decided that we require a commercial sex trade (not up to the point of actual prostitution, at least), so it’s perfectly reasonable to weigh factors such as the burden of illegal abuses in deciding whether we want one. \*(7) Following your reasoning the government could and should regulate homosexuality and other aspects of our sexual lives. You could argue that homosexuality is bad for society. It is the kind of thing we heard in school as children and, frankly, I don’t buy it. I do not see any valid reasons in your arguments, only your prejudice. IMHO, your prejudice should not prevent others from doing things which (no matter what you say) do _not_ harm other people taken as individuals or as society as a whole. \* Whoa!! **Major** logical fallacy here. The situation is **not** comparable to that of homosexuality or other sexuality issues. The prostitution debate is not about regulating sex, but about regulating commerce. If **wring** were arguing against the legalization of fornication, or similarly regulating private sexual choices, I would be with you all the way in reproaching her for it. Private individual liberties **do** pose hazards to individuals and society (and I can’t believe that you can be seriously arguing that sexual activity doesn’t!), but for the most part we accept those hazards as the price of individual privacy and choice. When it comes to commercial exploitation, though (and I don’t necessarily mean “exploitation” only in the negative sense, I mean in general making money off of something), regulation becomes more invasive, and rightly so. As we’ve discussed in other threads, there are plenty of things that you are perfectly at liberty to choose to do as a private individual that you may **not** be employed to do nor employ others to do. You may hop in the sack with any consenting adults who want to join you, and tough noogies for anyone who has a problem with that. When it’s a commercial encounter, however, other factors are involved. Then we’re talking livelihoods, economic impact, the potential for economic coercion, worker safety, workplace rights, all those things that the government has a legitimate interest in monitoring. We may still end up deciding that the freedom to engage in this type of commerce outweighs in importance the burdens it may place on society. But it is not by any means an obvious call, and it is not by any means justified to assert that anyone who calls it differently from you is merely being “prejudiced”. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2001, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/243 "2001-08-01T00:30:54Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\* > Why do you (and others) insist that it **should** be ok for some one to purchase sex? You cannot purchase a kidney. You cannot purchase a child. Why do you believe that it shoud be ok to purchas sex? \*\* Quickie on this point…yet another item that wring has pretended not to see: the many times that various posters have pointed out the fallacy of this comparison. Sex is closer to a massage than a child or a kidney. It is a \* service \*, not a \* thing \*. And yet another thing wring has ignored: the fact that it is not about “the right to purchase”, it is about “the right to sell”. I don’t have the specific “right to purchase” a massage, so to speak, but certainly I have the right to sell a massage. Which will make the purchaser feel really good all over. What is the big damn deal if I include his penis in the massage? And as long as we’re on the subject, lots and lots of prostitution does not involve any skin-to-skin “sex” at all. It’s fantasy, talking, watching, posing…all kinds of things that a man (or woman) finds sexually gratifying that have nothing to do with oral intercourse or oral sex. I wonder if you’ll ignore these points made yet one more time, wring? Just because you ignore them doesn’t mean they are not legitimate. Oh, and one more quickie: you keep insisting, wring, that trafficking results because there is insufficient supply of hookers who freely choose the profession. I CHALLENGE you on this point: trafficking is not about supplying more hookers because there are not enough to service the demand, trafficking (which is illegal, again and again and again) occurs because there aren’t enough women \* willing to be pimped \*. The pimps steal women to use them to make money for themselves, not because johns come knocking on their doors saying “there aren’t enough hookers available! Could you go get me some more?” How ludicrous. So you might be right…with legalization, more women would be feel in control, protected, and able to make their own decisions without feeling the need to have a pimp, so the (CRIMINAL) traffickers might feel the need to traffick even more. And your answer to this is to \* punish the women who choose it freely and reject pimps. \* That’s like making criminals out of the liquor store owners who won’t sell liquor to minors when the minors get drunk by stealing the tequila instead. Give me a break. stoid (I’ll be back later - just wanted to make these points) ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2001, 1:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/244 "2001-08-01T01:05:41Z")
From the OP: > [@](#): > > But, let’s face it. People want to get laid. All the time. For probably 97% of the population it is the prime directive. Let’s think about this for a minute, jar. Were this were the case we wouldn’t be having this discussion. ---
**Author:** ![PunditLisa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/4af34b/32.png) [@PunditLisa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PunditLisa)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2001, 1:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/245 "2001-08-01T01:19:44Z")
> [@](#): > > I simply can’t see the downside to it. If you have a moral problem with it, stay out of the district, don’t spend your money and feel free to walk down the street haughtily at what a great person you are. Jar, it’s pretty apparent that you don’t have daughters. I do. And, trust me, I see a downside to legalizing prostitution. Or, if you have any sons, how would this grab you?: > [@](#): > > **WANT AD:** 55 year old man seeking blonde, youthful (18-23), good-looking, fit, male for one night. $1000. Call Sam at 555-2454 You don’t have to be a “great” person to morally opposed to this seedy business. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2001, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/246 "2001-08-01T01:27:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by PunditLisa \* > \*\* > You don’t have to be a “great” person to morally opposed to this seedy business. \*\* I’d like to take this opportunity to reiterate that I would never try to talk someone out of their moral objection to prostitution, in the same way I would never try to talk anyone out of their moral objection to abortion. As with abortion, I think it should be a matter of individual choice whether one indulges or supports it. stoid ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2001, 3:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/247 "2001-08-01T03:00:56Z")
ok, so even tho’ **stoid** has nothing to say about being wrong again (re: her absolute failure to provide requested evidence to support her position), she still feels that she can ‘demand’ of me. 1. One cannot have a ‘right to sell’ without a corresponding ‘right to buy’ - or is it your intention that sex workers can sell, but anyone who buys from them should get locked up? Wouldn’t that, in your world view, be a restraint of trade? 2. While the analogy between not being allowed to sell your body and sell your kidneys may not be perfect (I’d still contend that it demonstrates the fallacy of ‘I own my body & can do with it as I please’ concept though), the analogy of you’re not allowed to rent your womb for pay either is spot on. And, your ‘evidence’ I was wrong is quoted again on this page, doesn’t refute the point. In addition, as we discussed ad infinitum and you’ve failed to address, **if** your position is that the vagina/your sexuality is merely one additoinal aspect of your being/body w/o any additional significance, then there would be absolutely no need for rape laws at all. Any assault would be an assault. However, we ascribe a more serious punishment when the assault is against one’s sexuality/vagina etc. (yes, rape is wrong, however, the comparison : hit my face w/o permission = assault and some punishment, touch my vagina w/o permsion = sexual assault and **more significant** punishment is spot on). And, btw - the ‘talk, fanatasy etc.’ if that’s all that’s involved, the act is not prostitution, as defined under most laws. Your assesment about ‘there’s not enough prostitutes willing to work for pimps’ does not explain the coexistance of both legal and illegal brothels in places like Australia, as evidenced by the links I’ve provided. You’ll need evidence. But then, since you’ve not come up with any so far, my expectations aren’t high. All of this I’ve posted before. So, your additional assesment of me ‘ignoring’ these points is wrong as well. ---
**Author:** ![Sterra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8c91f0/32.png) [@Sterra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sterra)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2001, 5:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/248 "2001-08-01T05:03:44Z")
Stoid, maybe you should focus less on attacking wrings character and more on her arguements. [quoteWhy do you (and others) insist that it should be ok for some one to purchase sex? You cannot purchase a kidney. You cannot purchase a child. Why do you believe that it shoud be ok to purchase sex? where is the benefit to society? Theres’ certainly negatives (trafficking is one large negative, and the problems with propety nearby etc etc).your ‘right’ to purchase sex must provide benefits outweighing those negatives. I’ve asked this before, and the only response was ‘well, in a free society blah blah blah’ but, we already regulate pretty much all commerce (which this would be) and don’t allow certain things at all (some listed above).[/quote] Because we aren’t morally opposed to it. We might be morally opposed to purchasing a kidney or a child. It is generally ok to do something that affects you negatively. There are negatives and problems associated with everything should we ban everything untill we sufficently have proof that it provides benifits outweighing negatives? Your assertion that we should start out with the idea that something is wrong is silly. The idea that you should ban something when you have to ask why people even think it is ok is ignorant. > [@](#): > > sailor you’re not getting the point. Yes, of course other things are illegal blah blah blah. My point is that only by accepting the concept that it’s ok to buy sex, does the market for trafficking come into play. If those who would purchase sex were stopped, there would not be any incentive for folks to kidnap people and force them. That is correct. Too bad the people who purchase sex aren’t stopped. Which allows trafficking to flourish because the traffickers are the only ones they can go to. Not to mention the wasted effort put into stopping those who would purchase sex once instead of trying to stop permanently the people who traffick. Lots of people accept the concept that its ok to buy sex. You can’t just ignore them because you don’t understand their position. > [@](#): > > Jar, it’s pretty apparent that you don’t have daughters. I do. And, trust me, I see a downside to legalizing prostitution. > > ## Or, if you have any sons, how would this grab you?: quote: > > ## WANT AD: 55 year old man seeking blonde, youthful (18-23), good-looking, fit, male for one night. $1000. Call Sam at 555-2454 > > You don’t have to be a “great” person to morally opposed to this seedy business. So basically, whats your point? I don’t see the downside. Unless you want to say that sex is the one thing that is magically different when it comes to two mutually consenting adults doing something. > [@](#): > > Whoa!! Major logical fallacy here. The situation is not comparable to that of homosexuality or other sexuality issues. The prostitution debate is not about regulating sex, but about regulating commerce. The situation is much more about morality than commerce. Wrings point is about morality **“My point is that only by accepting the concept that it’s ok to buy sex”** and so is PunditLisa’s. Its about using laws to make people agree with you. How could it be about regulating commerce when it is banned, and banned by people citing moral reasons? ---
**Author:** ![BlackKnight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/eb8c5e/32.png) [@BlackKnight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlackKnight)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2001, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/249 "2001-08-01T05:17:49Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > **I’m not about to attempt to dig through 50 states worth of laws (plus international) to get various jurisidictions definition of what a lap dancer/stripper can and cannot do.** Neither am I. Which leaves us with the facts that: lapdances occur regularly, everyday, at clubs around the entire nation. I have never heard anyone claim that they are illegal. I have never heard of any busts on strip clubs that allow lapdances. I know of _cops_ that go to strip clubs where lapdances occur, although I don’t know if they get lapdances themselves. No, I haven’t quoted a law. No, I don’t think I have to. If lapdances are illegal (doubtful), then they are in the same realm as jaywalking. > [@](#): > > \*\*Now, you challenged me to find where you’d claimed that lap dancing and prostitution were the same. On this page you said > > > [@](#): > > > > \ The point being: If this is legal, why the heck isn’t prostitution legal, since there seems to be little difference? > > Close enough? I’ll grant you that you didn’t say ‘they’re the same’, but you did, in fact say ‘there seems to be little difference’.\*\* I am encouraged. You must really be desperate if you have to reach like this. “Little difference” does not mean “the same”. Period. > [@](#): > > **in the first place you’re claiming w/o proof, that it’s legal for the lap dancer to ‘grasp’ the customer’s crotch with their lap.** If you want “proof”, you’re going to be disappointed. If you want evidence, well, I’ve already presented some. > [@](#): > > **Before we go too far, maybe you should attempt to prove that? But otherwise, the differences seem to be that in one case one participant is either inserting a sex organ into an orifice or grasping it manually.** Ah, now things get interesting. Do you really think what part of the body does the grasping is important? Should it be legal to rub someone’s genitals with, say, your elbow but not your hand or mouth? Should it be legal for prostitution of some sort that does not involve penetration of an orifice? Why is an orifice something special? Any orifice, or just a few? The ear? The nose? The overarching question being: _Why do these things matter?_ The only honest answer I can give is: They don’t. There is a hypocrisy in allowing someone to rub part of their body on mine for the purpose of getting me off, but not allowing them to rub another part of their body on mine for the purpose of getting me off. There is a hypocrisy in allowing someone to rub part of their body against mine for the purpose of getting me off while I’m clothed, but not allowing someone to rub part of their body against mind for the purpose of getting me off while I’m naked. Unless you think some body parts are mystical or something. > [@](#): > > **And, in the lap dance, both specifically have their clothes on and not dislodged (ie zipper shut).** Since when is the person giving the lapdance necessarily clothed? Have you ever had a lapdance? > [@](#): > > **These are real differences to me.** Of course they are differences, just as me hitting someone in the face is different from me hitting them in the stomache. But fundamentally, they’re the same. You have not mentioned a single difference which would justify treating one as illegal and treating one as legal. > [@](#): > > **There’s places where prostitution is legalized and other places where it’s not. I’ve shown that where it’s legal, there’s still roughly 50/50 illegal/coerced trade. I’ve shown that where it’s illegal (ie in the US) there’s substantial illegal/coerced trade.** This is irrelevant. Have you shown that legalizing prostitution will increase forced prostitution/trafficking? If you have, I’ve missed it. > [@](#): > > \*\*and, the ‘harm’ for those who wouldn’t be able to go with this as a career choice is, IMHO, far less egregious than the harm done to people who are forced into prostitution. \*\* You do realize that this line of argument could be used to justify making _any_ occupation illegal, right? I’m beginning to think I’m in the presence of a True Believer. P.S. To answer a question not specifically asked of me: No, I would not have the slightest problem with any of my hypothetical daughters becomming prostitutes, so long as I knew they would have a safe working environment. Nor would I have any problem whatsoever with my hypothetical sons hiring prostitutes, so long as they did so legally and with care towards finding a well-regulated brothel. Or vice versa. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2001, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/250 "2001-08-01T05:33:30Z")
It’s time to let others speak. From [The San Francisco Task Force on Prostitution: Final Report March 1996](http://www.bayswan.org/2execsum.html) > [@](#): > > \*\* > In order to separate fact from fallacy, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors chartered the San Francisco Task Force on Prostitution in March of 1994, through a resolution introduced by Supervisor Terence Hallinan. > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > The committees and the Task Force as a whole received documents, heard testimony and sought input from every concerned constituency in the City: Business leaders, neighborhood activists, prostitute advocates, current and former prostitutes, clients, police, prosecutors and defense attorneys, health professionals, international scholars and at-large representatives. As expected with such a complex and potentially volatile issue, the Task Force could not reach consensus on every issue. Its recommendations represent the best efforts of all concerned to balance competing concerns. > > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > The Task Force discovered that the complaints leveled against prostitution really apply only to a fraction of the total industry and that those legitimate concerns are not being met by efficient and effective solutions. Yet not only are current responses ineffective, they are also harmful. They marginalize and victimize prostitutes, making it more difficult for those who want out to get out of the industry and more difficult for those who remain in prostitution to claim their civil and human rights. > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > The Task Force concluded that prosecution of prostitution has exacerbated problems in the industry including violence and chemical dependency, while enforcement further marginalizes prostitutes. > > The Task Force heard evidence that prostitutes are afraid to call the police when they are crime victims, for fear of being arrested themselves. Once a person gets a rap sheet as a known prostitute, she/he may be trapped and stigmatized for life, and may be unable to pursue other jobs. > > As noted in the Quality of Life section, enforcement of these laws does not solve neighborhood concerns. The Task Force findings indicate that decriminalization of prostitution could eventually reduce street prostitution and would enable the city to address the problems of the vulnerable populations who are currently part of the street economy.12 > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > Completely contrary to the policy of improving public health, the San Francisco Police Department had a policy of confiscating condoms from people arrested for prostitution-related offenses. Many of the condoms taken had been given to street workers by the City Department of Health. Further, if a person charged with soliciting prostitution had condoms when arrested, the District Attorney’s office used the condoms as evidence against them in court. > \*\* And THIS IS VERY INTERESTING: > [@](#): > > \*\* > Although recent international debate has focused much attention on forced trafficking and kidnapping, the abuse and exploitation of immigrants reported to the Task Force consisted of harassment by authorities and financial exploitation of immigrants and refugees including voluntary sex workers. 71 > > One result of this pressure is that many immigrants engaged in the sex industry are reluctant to report abuses such as rape, robbery and other forms of violence, including illegal curtailment of their freedom of movement. For the same reasons, many such workers choose not to avail themselves of outreach programs on HIV/AIDS prevention and similar services. 72 By decriminalizing prostitution, some of these pressures might be mitigated or abated. (See Appendix D: Laws and Law Enforcement: Resolution for Decriminalization Regarding Immigrant Issues.) > > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > For prostitutes, being labeled as a criminal can mean that a woman may lose custody of her children, especially since there is a mandatory jail sentence on second conviction. Very often prostitutes “lead double lives,” forced underground for fear of being evicted from their homes, losing their jobs, and the break-up of family and other relationships. Immigrants who work as prostitutes, particularly people of color, have fewer economic alternatives due to institutional racism and can face deportation if convicted of prostitution. Therefore they are unlikely to report violence against them. > > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > The majority of Task Force members came to the conclusion that decriminalization of prostitution was the best way to address the concerns of every constituency. > \*\* Regarding [[http://www.bayswan.org/Austraf.html](http://www.bayswan.org/Austraf.html)]]( [url) Alleged Trafficking of Asian Sex Workers in Australia > [@](#): > > \*\* > This joint statement is a pro-sex worker response to the anti-trafficking lobby which misleads many well meaning people into thinking that trafficking, “child prostitution” and sex tourism are enormous problems for Australia. With this statement we are offering a more realistic view that counters the anti-trafficking lobby and focuses attention on human rights infringements through the laws that discriminate against sex workers. We urge you to support our position. > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > Because the sex industry is criminalised in much of Australia and Asia and because sex workers cannot obtain work visas freely, some of the terms and conditions for workers on contract are exploitative. It is their illegal status as workers rather than the nature of their work that is a potent form of control in the hands of their employers. However Asian sex workers in Australia are not " trafficked " to Australia because the workers are aware of the work they will carry out and choose to enter freely into contracts. Recognising the complexity of the issues and taking into account the range of cultural and moral factors makes it difficult to talk about choice in this context. It is most important however, not to bring in moral views of sex workers as victims. It is sex workers rights and working conditions that need to be the focus. Our experience shows that women travelling to Australia know they are coming here to work in the sex industry. There are rare cases where sex workers have been deceived about the type of work they will do and this practice is totally unacceptable to us. > > \*\* [[http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/doezema-loose.html](http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/doezema-loose.html)]]( [url) International Studies Convention Washington, DC, February 16 - 20, 1999 Gender Issues, Vol. 18, no. 1, Winter 2000, pp. 23-50. > [@](#): > > \*\* > The mythical nature of this paradigm of the ‘white slave’ has been demonstrated by historians. Similarly, recent research indicates that today’s stereotypical ‘trafficking victim’ bears as little resemblance to women migrating for work in the sex industry as did her historical counterpart, the ‘white slave’. The majority of ‘trafficking victims’ are aware that the jobs offered them are in the sex industry, but are lied to about the conditions they will work under. Yet policies to eradicate trafficking continue to be based on the notion of the ‘innocent’, unwilling victim, and often combine efforts designed to protect ‘innocent’ women with those designed to punish ‘bad’ women: i.e. prostitutes. > > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > In this paper, I examine how narratives of ‘white slavery’ and ‘trafficking in women’ function as cultural myths, constructing particular conceptions of the issue of migration for the sex industry. The myths around ‘white slavery’ were grounded in the perceived need to regulate female sexuality under the guise of protecting women. They were indicative of deeper fears and uncertainties concerning national identity, women’s increasing desire for autonomy, foreigners, immigrants and colonial peoples. To a certain extent, these fears and anxieties are mirrored in contemporary accounts of trafficking in women. > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > White slavery’ came to mean the procurement, by force , deceit, or drugs, of a white woman or girl [2] against her will, for prostitution. [3] > > Contemporary historians are nearly unanimous in seeing the actual number of cases of ‘white slavery’, as defined above, as very few (Walkowitz 1980, Bristow 1982, Rosen 1982 [4], Corbin 1990, Guy 1991). Stories of ‘white slavery’, were in fact triggered by the actual increase in women, including prostitutes, migrating from Europe to find work (Guy 1991: 7). > > If the actual number of cases of white slavery was very small, how did it come about that the issue became so prominent? The extent of the ‘white slave panic’ in Europe and the United States has been extensively documented (Bristow 1977, 1982; Connelly 1980, Walkowitz 1980, Rosen 1982, Gibson 1986, Corbin 1990, Grittner 1990, Guy 1991, Fisher 1997, Haveman 1998). There were organisations world-wide devoted to its eradication; it received extensive coverage in the worlds media; was the subject of numerous novels, plays, and films; and led to a number of international conferences, new national laws and a series of international agreements. [5] > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > The re-emergence of ‘white slavery’, now called ‘trafficking in women’ as a political issue for feminists, human rights organisations, religious groups and others, and its reappearance on national and international political agendas can be dated from the beginning of the 1980s. While originally the focus was on the ‘traffic’ from Latin America and Asia to western Europe, increasingly, it is on women from Russia, the NIS and Eastern Europe being ‘trafficked’ to Western Europe, the United States and Asia (GSN 1997, Weijers and Lap-Chew 1997). There is also an increasing focus on inter-regional ‘traffic’ such as from Nepal to India (HRW 1995), and Burma to Taiwan (HRW 1995), and rural to urban ‘trafficking’ within Asian countries (Weijers and Lap-Chew 1997). > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > It is not my intent, I wish to emphasise, to indicate that all accounts of trafficking, including those referred to in this paper, are ‘false’ by calling ‘trafficking in women’ a myth. Women who travel for work in the sex industry are often lied to about the conditions they will work under, and in a number of cases are subjected to violence and/or find themselves working in slavery-like conditions. Some women are also lied to about the type of work they will be doing (GSN 1997, Weijers and Lap-Chew 1997). The repetition of the discursive foundations of ‘white slavery’ do, however, lead to the question of the extent to which the campaign against ‘trafficking in women’ revolves, like that on white slavery, around a relatively few number of cases that conform to the stereotype of the innocent girl lured or abducted into the sex industry. A systematic investigation of reports and statistics of ‘trafficking in women’, similar to those undertaken by chroniclers of the white slavery panic, has yet to be done. However, there are reasons to question the reliability of evidence of ‘trafficking in women’. > > Firstly, evidence of ‘trafficking’ is often based on unrevealed or unverifiable sources. The Global Alliance Against Trafficking in Women (GAATW), who undertook a year-and-a-half-long investigation into ‘trafficking in women’ internationally at the request of the UN Special Rapporteur On Violence Against Women, stated that finding reliable statistics on the extent of trafficking in women was virtually impossible, due to a lack of systematic research, the lack of a ‘precise, consistent and unambiguous definition of the phenomena [of trafficking in women]’ and the illegality or criminal nature of prostitution and ‘trafficking’ (Weijers and Lap-Chew 1997: 15). However, this does not stop ‘experts’ and journalists from quoting huge numbers. For example, a recent working paper prepared for the UN Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery quotes an estimate of one to two million women and children trafficked each year, but the figure is not referenced, nor is any research cited (IMADR 1998:1). > > Secondly, as the writers of the GAATW report note, when statistics are available, they usually refer to the number of migrant or domestic sex workers, rather than cases of ‘trafficking’ (Weijers and Lap-Chew 1997: 15). Statistics on ‘white slavery’ to Buenos Aires were based on the numbers and nationalities of registered prostitutes (Guy 1991: 7). In a striking parallel, a Global Survival Network (GSN) report (1997) uses the rise in numbers of Russian, Eastern European and NIS women in the sex industry in western Europe and the US as evidence of ‘trafficking’ (p. 5,7). But even these figures are not to be trusted: Kempadoo notes the extreme variations in estimates of numbers of prostitutes in Asia – estimates for the city of Bombay alone range from 100,000 to 600,000 (1998a: 15). As she remarks: > To any conscientious social scientist, such discrepancies should be cause for extreme suspicion of the reliability of the research, yet when it comes to sex work and prostitution, few eyebrows are raised and the figures are easily bandied about without question (1998a: 15). > Thirdly, and most significantly, there are emerging indications that it is sex workers, rather than ‘coerced innocents’ that form the majority of this ‘traffic’. GAATW, whose report is based for a large part on responses of organisations that work directly with ‘trafficking victims’, found that the majority of ‘trafficking’ cases involve women who know they are going to work in the sex industry, but are lied to about the conditions they will work under, such as the amount of money they will receive (Weijers and Lap-Chew 1997: 99). They also conclude that abduction for purposes of ‘trafficking’ into the sex industry is very rare (p.99). GSN (1997) also relates the testimonies of a number of ‘trafficked’ sex workers in their report. Research by the foundation for Women in Thailand found that by far the majority of women migrating from northern Thailand to Japan were aware that they would be working in the sex industry (Skrobanek 1997). This conclusion is supported by Watenabe (1998) who worked as a bar girl herself in Japan in the course of her research into Thai women migrating to the Japanese sex industry. Other research, such as that by Brockett and Murray (1994) in Australia, Anarfi (1998) in Ghana, Kempadoo (1998b) in the Caribbean, COIN (1998) in the Dominican Republic and the Salomon Alapitvany Foundation in Hungary (1998) [10] indicates that women seeking to migrate are not so easily ‘duped’ or ‘deceived’, and are aware that most jobs on offer are in the sex industry. > \*\* Enough of that, lets adventure into what we “know” about who is a prostitute… From [[http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/shaver-distort.html](http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/shaver-distort.html)]When]( [url) Sex Works Traditional Data Distort Our View of Prostitution > [@](#): > > \*\* > Over-reliance on official crime statistics, police reports, as well as clinical and social agency samples provides an incomplete and misleading portrait of prostitution and prostitutes. Field study interviews with sex workers present a different picture. Unfortunately, very few have been conducted in Canada and most – like the 10 field studies conducted for the Justice Department – are little known. (1) When results from the official and anecdotal data are compared to these field studies, it becomes clear that the former distort the picture by grossly over-estimating women’s involvement, misrepresenting the conditions of work, and exaggerating or overstating the disadvantaged backgrounds of sex workers. (2) > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > Not all prostitutes are victims and not all prostitution involves coercion: the majority of prostitutes work for themselves and do not necessarily have less education or more abusive backgrounds than others. More importantly, the differences between female and male prostitutes regarding job hazards and earning power suggest that the most undesirable aspects of prostitution are linked to broader social problems rather than the commercialization of sex. These findings should challenge us to reevaluate our thinking about prostitutes and prostitution. If we hope to improve the working conditions, reduce the injustice related to the service, and provide acceptable alternatives to street prostitution, we must do so with an accurate view of the situation. > \*\* From an [[http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/ishida\_morals.html](http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/ishida_morals.html)]]( [url) interesting paper written for an economics course by a former prostitute: > [@](#): > > \*\* > I am writing as a mixed race lesbian, a feminist and a former sex trade worker. I worked briefly on the streets as a juvenile prostitute, then through massage parlors and escort agencies until I developed my own clientele and was able to work independently as a ‘call girl’. I worked in Canada and the United States (California) over a span of nine years. I regret none of it. > > Through my work I was able to regain ownership of my own sexuality. It was an act of resistance , a turning of the tables from my experience as a sexually abused child. In taking control of my sexuality it was I who decided who, when, how and on what terms I would be sexual with another person. > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > ‘What’s a nice girl like you…’ the hard question is not why a woman would turn to prostitution, but why more do not. Economics is a study of decision making and the majority of prostitutes choose prostitution as the occupational alternative in a patriarchal society that affords the highest attainable standard of living. > The bottom line is money…with “square” jobs, I’ve put up with condescension and sexual harassment that would either take complicated grievance procedures to redress – with no guarantees… Besides, I had to worry about being fired if it was discovered I’m gay – all this for a wage I could not live on. The fact is, there’s a livable wage to be made in the sex business, and we decide when, where and with whom we’ll do what. Money talks, bullshit walks, and we don’t have to put up with anything we don’t want. > > - Peggy, lesbian-feminist college student and sex worker. (Delacoste 1987:25) > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > With rising divorce rates and more women opting to have children on their own, the reservation wage or the lowest wage one would accept to take a job is necessarily higher. The prostitute market is segmented and earnings vary considerably but even the streetwalker at the lower end of the hierarchy of price and quality can easily make $300. a night. (Delacoste:95) Vice police officers in Las Vegas estimate that some prostitutes in 1982 working the Las Vegas Strip could bring in $250,000. per year. Victoria prices in 1990 varied from $40 to $150. for a half hour and up to $250. for an hour. (Lavoie: TC, Mar 4/90) Most of this is never reported as income and is therefore tax free. > > Masseuses, escorts and bar prostitutes comprise the middle eschelons of the prostitute hierarchy. Reynolds gives approximate prices in U.S. funds for 1983 as ranging from $20. to $50. for manual or oral stimulation by masseuses and $50. to $100. per transaction for escorts and bar prostitutes. Call girls are at the top of the hierarchy with prices beginning at $100. or more. Conventional intercourse is typically $500. for an attractive, well dressed call girl. More exotic services such as bondage or domination involve greater expenditures. (1986:14-16) > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > In Sexual Coercion, Jo Ann Miller argues that , "Prostitution involves one gender’s taking advantage of its superior social status and manipulation the other gender…Because members of the less powerful group are compelled or forced physically or psychologically, to engage in a sexual act, prostitution is fundamentally coercive and exploitative. (1991: 47) This is again, a repetition of the idea of the prostitute as a “female captive”, as victims, unable to perceive their own subjugation. Such atitudes deny adult and human status to prostitutes. > > To accept this argument is to dismiss out of hand the voices of prostitute women who claim that they make individual decisions, be it based on choice or necessity, to sell sex on their own terms. Relative to men, the inferior social postion of women in our society denies us power and control in many areas of our lives. Prostitutes equalize the disparity in gender based status by choosing a profession that earns them large sums of money. The terms of access to her sexuality are set by the woman herself. Non-compliance to her terms is rape and should be dealt with to the full extent of the law. Money is one of the resources that women in our society are generally denied access to. The money earned by prostitutes is a source of economic power. > > We cannot disregard entirely the fact that for many women, the first time they felt powerful was the first time they turned a trick. > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > Sexual self-determination includes the right to have lesbian sex, to refuse sex and to initiate sex, to have sex across race or class lines, to have multiple partners or to offer sex for money. The right to be a prostitute is as important as the right to not be a prostitute. While some research suggests that a higher percentage of prostitutes were victims of childhood abuse than non-prostitutes, it is also true that many prostitutes were never abused and many non-prostitutes were. Child abuse is a serious violation of human rights, but it does not mean that victims do not survive and recover. Survivors should not have to be stigmatized in childhood or adulthood. Instead rights to medical , psychological or legal services and to safety and sexual self-determination should be affirmed. > > We must work to eliminate the whore-madonna divisions that separate us as women. This means affirming the dignity of women stigmatized for their color, class, history of abuse, marital or motherhood status, sexual preferance, disability or weight. Understanding means first listening to their voices and acknowledging their validity. The women’s movement must include prostitutes as spokeswomen and theorists. Prostitutes object to being treated as symbols of oppression and demand recognition and respect as workers. and as women. > \*\* I figure that’s all I should cram into a single post. I’ll be back with more. Sorry about the funky links, I’ll try to figure out the problem and do better next time. Oh, and \*\* Sterra \*\*, I am very, very careful not to attack people’s character, ever. I have attacked wrings arguments, and I have attacked wrings claims that she is motivated by concern for the prostitutes themselves, which I think is perfectly legitimate, given that it is very nearly the beginning and end of her arfument for keeping prostitution illegal… If there is something else. I apologize in advance and I hope someone will show me, because it is never my intent or desire to attack anyone’s character. How can I? I only know them from words on a message board. stoid ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2001, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/251 "2001-08-01T05:54:55Z")
“why doesn’t **stoid** attack my arguments instead of my character” excellent question. You and your supporters may not be morally opposed to the purchase of sex (obviously others disagree). However, since you apparently allow for ‘moral objections’ in other areas, then I guess you’d have to settle for being in second place on that one (since I’m not seeing a successful push on to legalize prostitution across the country, and with excellent reasons, IMHO). And, in the case of prostitution, the ‘postives’ seem only to apply to those (relatively few) folks who wish to pay for or sell those services. Certainly the other businesses around them in general are not reaping rewards. and, of course for those who are forced, the ‘negatives’ are quite substantial. So, again, negatives to the greater number outweighing the positives for the smaller number. (I understand the position, I simply don’t agree that it’s in our best interest to allow it). It’s about commerce (as **Kimstu** so patiently explained) because anytime you have money transactions, employement etc. it’s about commerece. If you wish to not include commerce into the deal, then we have no problem - I’m not opposed to various adults choosing w/o payment, w/o coercion to perform sex acts with or without love. **BlackKnight** you may wish to continue your focus on lap dancers. Until you come up with legal definitions etc. I don’t see the point and won’t bother. I answered briefly working with **my** understanding of what is legal in my jurisdiction (ie dancers not allowed to touch the customer) which would satisfy the issue of ‘what’s different’. You claimed that it occcured, I suggested that didn’t mean it was legal and asked for you to supply substance. You’ve declined several times. In the meantime, **Kimstu** has also posted additional substance to indicate what kinds of differences there are. It’s a red herring, you may wish to play with, I’ll decline. why bother answering questions not asked, if you don’t intend to answer the ones that are? Hell, you didn’t even bother attempting to answer the one you posed about ‘how many places have legalized prostitution’. I answered the ‘can’t prove trafficking increases’ above. There is no hard data (other than what I’ve provided) about trafficking in countries where it isn’t legal. I disagree on your contention that ‘this arguement can be used in any circumstance’. forced prostitution is simply serial rape. There is no analagous situation other than forced prostitution. True believer? I’ve seen what I’ve seen in real life, sought out info for what I have not seen, and do not believe that the greater majority of society would be better off. And no one here, certainly, has provided evidence to change my stance. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2001, 7:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/252 "2001-08-01T07:19:14Z")
More! [from here](http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/sdavis.html#failstoprotect) re A. How Criminalization Fails to Protect Prostitutes From Harm > [@](#): > > \*\* > A criminal record has psychological consequences as well. Studies have shown that the entire arrest process is in itself humiliating and degrading. Prostitutes queried on the subject have said that being arrested and their subsequent treatment at the hands of the law did far more damage to their self esteem than did the actual act of prostitution. [24] The message given the prostitute by society and reenforced by criminalization is that they are utterly worthless. While studies in both Canada and the United States have found that (contrary to popular belief) the majority of prostitutes do not use drugs, [25] there is the concern that the economic and psychological impact of an arrest record could increase alcohol or drug dependency which already exists. [26] This in turn would further prohibit a prostitute from leaving the life since she/he will require greater sums of money to support their drug habit. [27] > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > Studies in the United States, where “pimps” are considered by officials and prostitutes alike to be a significant problem, show that the combination of criminal laws against both the prostitute and those who associate with her have increased, not decreased the likelihood that the only relationships she will be able to have are with those who see her as an easy source of money. [38] The legal and social stigma attached to any man in a relationship with a prostitute, police harassment and the potential fines and jail term, effectively precludes a relationship with anyone except the archetypal pimp. The law acts as a self-fulfilling prophecy. While the stereotypical pimp is a rarity in Canada [39], the government’s insistence on following the U.S. model may help to change this fact. > \*\* And How criminalisation fails to protect the public: > [@](#): > > \*\* > However, recent studies have found no direct link between prostitution and any of these concerns. For instance a 1977 study by Barbara Millman showed that the connection between urban decay, crime and prostitution resulted because prostitution was only allowed to exist in areas the city had already written off. [43] By way of proof, Millman noted the effects of regulation in Boston, which quickly transformed an already borderline area into the “Combat Zone”. Millman found that the “anything goes” attitude of the police allowed crime to get out of hand. [44] Another study of the “Combat Zone” compared Boston to Holland where by contrast, when small brothels are integrated into already healthy neighbourhoods, such a decline does not happen. [45] > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > One important step on the road to a more efficient use of tax dollars would be to insist separate calculations be made and tallied, so that the tax payer may decide if the cost is really worth it. In the United States, where such calculations have been made, the results have been startling. For instance a 1987 study of the municipal costs to 16 major American cities found that a total of $120 million dollars were spent in 1985 to combat prostitution. To put this in perspective: with the $2.3 million New York City alone spent in 1985 controlling prostitution, the city could have purchased the entire 1982 police departments of Toledo, Tampa, Rochester or St. Paul, or the fire departments of Atlanta, Honolulu, Indianapolis, Miami, or St. Louis. [61] > \*\* More about [[http://www.swimw.org/engver.html](http://www.swimw.org/engver.html)]]( [url) trafficking and choice: > [@](#): > > \*\* > My starting point is that many, many migrants doing sexual jobs do not describe themselves as ‘forced’ or as having no other options in life. They may well have fewer options, or fewer agreeable options, than some other people, but they have them. Moreover, among those who suffer from poverty, bad marriages and the entire array of possible root factors, not everyone opts for sex work, just as not everyone opts to migrate. Theories of determinism cannot account for the human phenomenon of choice, while every choice is influenced by questions of class, gender, ethnicity, economic level and present social conditions (war, dictatorship, famine, violence, unemployment, etc.). Actions occur within geopolitical and economic structures and dynamics. > > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > When ‘migrant prostitutes’ are mentioned in Europe, most people automatically assume that they work ‘the street’, a stereotype continually reproduced by the press, with its predictable photos of women leaning over to talk to men in cars. For personal reasons, some migrants do prefer to do street prostitution. However, many others consider it better to be in clubs, flats or less visible places than the street (or than centrally located bars), where they are less exposed to the public gaze, even though this may imply being controlled more by employers. In any case, numerous international studies have shown that the street proportion of prostitution is only a fraction of the total. > > Another stereotype is the assumption that migrant workers have only two possibilities: ‘freedom’ or semi-enslavement, but in fact there is a wide range between the two extremes. Some people give money to ‘pimps’ for protection; many people give money to a girl- or boyfriend (as many people do, to their partners or spouses, outside the sex industry). There are families who share flats and income and friends who work together. There are people, under contract to work in clubs, who have scarcely any life outside and who are sometimes moved from place to place without being consulted. However, some of those people go along with that situation because it helps them save more money and they feel safer. Other people are truly trapped. Generalisations are useless. > > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > The usual assumption is that the poorer migrant will be found only in the lowest rung of any industry, but they can be found at all levels of the sex industry. Moreover, many migrant prostitutes do have formal training, even university education. The work may be a way to pay for a university career in Europe. As in every job, the worker has more chance to choose, control and move up after being in the business a certain amount of time, learning and finding his preferred level, depending on his individual capacities. > > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > In many studies of prostitutes, evidence shows that there does not always exist a clear line between work and client, on the one hand, and love and lover, on the other: A commercial aspect may coexist with feelings of love or affection. This may present as many advantages as disadvantages; some workers feel confused, others enjoy the confusion. > > With the exception of people who feel they have a ‘vocation’ for sex work, migrants working in the industry almost always say it’s temporary. Many leave and return later, but whether they like the work of not, the majority don’t identify themselves as prostitutes or sex workers. Anyone asking migrant sex workers whether they like being prostitutes or why don’t they leave prostitution may receive strange answers. Perhaps they don’t consider themselves prostitutes, or perhaps, since they view the situation is temporary, it doesn’t matter so much. Or perhaps when they see pained expressions on the faces of those asking the questions they prefer to tell anything but the truth. Once such questioners have left, a sex worker usually comments that when people say one is victimised and miserable as a prostitute one has probably never had to clean public toilets or had to suffer the sexual harassment that goes along with a lot of domestic work-the jobs supposedly more dignified than prostitution. > > For those who can only imagine feeling disgust at doing sex work, it would be a terrible choice. It turns out this is not the universal reaction; or that ‘disgust’ is only one component or moment among many, some neutral or positive. Looked at that way it’s like every other job in the world. > \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > What the Voice of America Report on Trafficking of Women omits is that women who want to travel and do sex work are dependent on black market traffickers. A large portion of exploitation and abuse of prostitutes and ‘trafficked women’ takes place because women are forced to rely on exploitative persons in order to travel, migrate and engage in prostitution. > > A serious problem with ‘anti-trafficking’ rhetoric is that it belies an avoidance of the acknowledgment that some women travel to do prostitution without being tricked, or kidnapped, and that we should not be rallying to deport them. Nor should any prostitute have to claim that she was forced in order to gain asylum, which is a result of even the most humane of anti-trafficking proposals. > > \*\* Apparently wring, your arguments about trafficking are nothing new, and a whole lot of people have big problems with them. [[http://www.bayswan.org/alliances.html](http://www.bayswan.org/alliances.html)]]( [url) More… > [@](#): > > \*\* > Sex workers share the concern about the abuses in labour migration. However, the term trafficking is a problematic term to describe these abuses. The term ‘trafficking’ has a history of being used against migrant prostitutes/sex workers. ‘Trafficking’ has many definitions and is often equated with (illegal) migration for sex work or with prostitution per se. Rather than protect women from violence and abuse, anti-trafficking measures are often used to police and punish female migrants and sex workers, and to restrict their freedom of movement. > \*\* Again and again…the answer to the problems \*\* you (wring) \*\* bring up turns out to be… \* legalization! \* From [[http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/redefining.html](http://www.walnet.org/csis/papers/redefining.html)]here]( [url) , written by Joe Bindmen of \*\* Anti-Slavery International: \*\* > [@](#): > > \*\* > The report disputes the identification of prostitution as a human rights violation akin to slavery which informs the 1949 Convention on the Suppression of the Traffic in Persons and of the Exploitation of the Prostitution of Others. The research reveals that rather than facing conditions of slavery, most men and women working as prostitutes are subjected to abuses which are similar in nature to those experienced by others working in low status jobs in the informal sector. > > This finding is supported by an investigation of the applicability of existing human rights and labour standards to issues of concern to men and women in the sex industry. The investigation concludes that most of these issues are subject to existing standards, developed to curtail abuses in other industries. However, the marginal position of sex workers in society excludes them from the international, national and customary protection afforded to others as citizens, workers or women. Their vulnerability to human and labour rights violations is greater than that of others because of the stigma and criminal charges widely attached to sex work. These allow police and others to harass sex workers without ever intervening to uphold their most elementary rights. > > The report finds that the dismissal of the entire sex industry as abusive obscures the particular violations of international norms which are of concern to sex workers. This approach also fails accurately to reflect the limited nature of the relationship negotiated between sex worker and client in the commercial transaction. This is not an employment relationship as the client does not have enduring power over the worker. Sex work can take place in the context of exploitative employment relationships, even slavery, where someone with enduring power over the worker constrains her power to negotiate with the client. This case does not support an assertion that all sex work is akin to slavery. Moreover, by distinguishing sex work from other forms of labour, such an approach reinforces the marginal, and therefore vulnerable, status of the sex worker. > > The report recommends that all national legislation which, in intent or in practice, results in the placing of sex workers outside the scope of the rule of law, should be repealed. The redefinition of prostitution as sex work is proposed as a preliminary condition for the enjoyment by sex workers of their full human and labour rights. Investigation is recommended into the mechanisms which exclude sex workers from the protection of existing human rights and non-industry specific labour standards. It is recognised that existing labour standards may not be adequate to protect the right to security of person in the context of sex work. It is suggested that of the intergovernmental organisations, the International Labour Organization is in principle best suited to the task of regulating working conditions to accommodate the special features of the sex industry. > \*\* From a report by a former sex worker (Dawn) who attended the Beijing conference on women: [[http://www.bayswan.org/Dawn.html](http://www.bayswan.org/Dawn.html)]]( [url) (here) > [@](#): > > \*\* > Although the realities of forced prostitution and kidnapping describe one aspect of prostitution, Dawn and other sex worker advocates from around the world claim that a great many take it upon themselves to travel and engage in sex work as a means to support themselves and their families. These women are exploited by persons who arrange their travel, and later use their vulnerability as sex workers against them. > > “It is most important that we make sure they have health and legal information, which is the way to help them. When you are in a country and you don’t speak the language, you don’t know the law. You only know what people tell you, and that could be misinformation.” > > Dawn brought to Beijing her concern that the solutions to address the worst aspects of ‘trafficking’ usually work against the women themselves, and ignore the reality that many women travel to work in the sex trades because the money they make in other countries may be much more than they could make at home. > > “Many people in Beijing spoke about concern about women in prostitution, but their answer was to pass more laws against prostitution. We tried to explain that they had to let the women working in the sex businesses speak for themselves. We tried to let people know the more law against prostitutes and prostitution, the more the authorities will be given the right to abuse them.” > > “The words prostitution and trafficking separate women from all women, but actually, we are all together. The words are overused, and the fact that we are all women gets cloudy. The same laws should apply to all of us, women who are immigrants in the garment industry, in the restaurant business or who work as dancers in as prostitutes.” > > “What we need is to get rid of some of the laws we have, so that women in who do the work are legal, and they are able to call the police and file charges against people who abuse them or exploit them.” > \*\* And good old Australia again…land of illegal prostitution, even though it’s Legal! Let’s take a closer look, shall we? > [@](#): > > \*\* > Red Light therefore presents to the wider community the facts about prostitution, without taking any moral stands. This is particularly important in South Australia where sex work is effectively made illegal by the current system of law. As Rose says, “Current South Australian Law tells us that sexuality which happens in a brothel is bad enough to go to gaol for. Most brothels in South Australia are run by women and most brothels provide a safe place to work because the worker has the company and protection of other workers on premises. In South Australia, the provision of sexual services for negotiated payment between consenting adults, that is prostitution per se, is not illegal. What is illegal is to keep a brothel, to be on premises frequented by prostitutes, and to consort with known prostitutes.” Sex workers in South Australia are pushed into the more hidden, isolated and potentially more dangerous forms of sex work such as escort work to hotels and private homes by this set of laws. \*\* Well, three hours spent coming up with cites and evidence is plenty. I think I’ve managed to counter or refute, \* \*\* with cites and evidence \*\* \* virtually everything you’ve said, even offhand remarks. I’m satisfied. Stoid And I suck at URL coding. I tried, but I’m tired. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2001, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/253 "2001-08-01T18:10:53Z")
Stoid, thanks for your effort. At this point I have run out of steam and your research is valuable in this thread. It seems though that nobody has been convinced of anything and everybody’s positions are more entrenched than at the beginning. Too bad. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2001, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/254 "2001-08-01T19:28:18Z")
one comment first: **stoid** there have been several people in this thread that have commented on your tone with me. People who are on your side, people on my side, I, myself have complained. Yet you still claim that you only respond to the argument and don’t get personal. Perhaps it’s time for some re-evaluation on your part. It ain’t just me sayin’ it. I applaud the fact that you sought out sites. As a suggestion when you’re listing them, remember please to leave a blank in front and after each one. Otherwise, you’ll end up with non links (I got to them anyhow 'cause I figured out what you did wrong). Just in the spirit of making life easier. let’s take 'em one at a time. The San Francisco task force. Yep, I’ve seen it. A couple of points you failed to highlight include: "As expected with such a complex and potentially volatile issue, the Task Force could not reach consensus on every issue. Its recommendations represent the best efforts of all concerned to balance competing concerns. " Which means that not all of the people on the committee agreed. There are, of course methodology problems - for instance when they claim that city residents ‘overwhelmingly disapprove of the prosecution of prostitutes’, their evidence is > [@](#): > > 6 On December 7, 1993, the San Francisco Examiner reported that, in a telephone poll based on over 10,000 calls from Examiner readers, 85% supported legalization of prostitution. quite a bit less than compelling. But then, there’s more. They also note that the enforcement option which they say ‘hasn’t worked’ focuses on arresting the females. Hmmm. yep, the only possible choices are arresting the females or making it legal. It’s also interesting to me that we only have the report, issued five years ago ie - where’s the follow up? did they do it? more on that in a bit. another interesting tidbit > [@](#): > > Once a person gets a rap sheet as a known prostitute, she/he may be trapped and stigmatized for life, and may be unable to pursue other jobs. If the ‘overwhelming majority’ is in favor of it, why would they they consider the person ‘stigmatized for life unable to pursue other jobs’? > [@](#): > > Adequate state and local laws already exist to respond when noise, trespassing and littering are problems. These infractions are punishable by fines, not by incarceration. Since they cannot be jailed upon conviction, people charged with these infractions do not have the right to a jury trial or an attorney. Since they are handled in traffic court, prosecution, defense and Sheriff’s resources are not needed. Failure to pay fines is a criminal offense, however; those who refuse to pay their fines may be prosecuted. Infractions are therefore a more cost-effective enforcement option than misdemeanors and felonies They expect that a **fine** will alleviate the trespassing and littering problem associated with the trade? (ie people having sex in the alley behind your store, condoms on the ground - it’s one of those real problems I’ve commented about). Let’s see, they speculate that the jail time hasn’t had any appreciable effect, but a **fine** alone will? Bottom line to this piece - what evidence that they allow us to see (ie the ‘telephone call in to the local newspaper = overwhelming support’) is shaky at best. To suggest that since their one tactic with prosecution (focusing on the sex worker) hasn’t worked, that legalization is the only other choice is based on a false dilemma. The situation isn’t 'either arrest hookers or make ‘em legal’, there are other options available (which I’ve mentioned before.) Now, as for what happened after they submitted that report. You should have kept searching for information. Seems that instead of legalization, San Francisco went with [this plan](http://www.regulatoryreform.org/innovations/fopp.htm) which (gasp) focused on the ‘demand’ side of the equation, and providing services for the sex workers to get out of the trade. have we had enough of that one? I think so. your next link was from “the Prostitutes Education Network”, which says > [@](#): > > This joint statement is a pro-sex worker hardly an unbiased source of information. I mentioned in previous threads with you on this subject, I don’t find it surprising at all that an organization with the goal to legalize prostitution would present some form of data to support it. I also found sites (I’m sure you saw them too) from a similar (but opposite) organization, that had the eradication of prostitution as it’s aim. I refrained from posting that link, because, well, it’s not compelling. Sorta like linking Rush Limbaugh’s site to prove some Republican mantra. I linked to a study that I know that you objected to, noting that you did object. You, however, link to a paper, quote it several times as if it’s the final authority, without bothering to note that the originators of the paper have an agenda. Rules are apparently different for you. I shouldn’t link to a site that you **say** is biased, but it’s dandy for you to link to one that actually shouts out that it’s biased. Now, in your next post you quote extensively from yet another offering from the “Prostitutes Education Network”, and two that looked rather interesting - of course, when you click on to the funding source for the papers, you find [this](http://www.walnet.org/csis/groups/nswp/index.html) > [@](#): > > Making Sex Work Safe — A Practical Guide for Programme Managers, Policy-Makers and Field Workers. Order now! and join the NSWP Email List. for example. On contrast, I linked to news sources (including ABC, testimony in front of our House of Representatives, a place called “[us.infostat.gov](http://us.infostat.gov)”, global march, and assorted university sponsored sites. I don’t find it surprising at all that after listing these sources, you feel your job is done, your point is made. But, like the dittoheads who continually quote Rush as their substantiation and substitute for facts, it comes up short. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2001, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/255 "2001-08-01T19:53:03Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by wring \* > \*\* > I don’t find it surprising at all that after listing these sources, you feel your job is done, your point is made. \*\* I am done, my point is made. It is a certainty that nothing will ever penetrate your prejudice. The fact that my sources are found on pro-legalization cites is nothing stunning, and it does not reduce the legitimacy of what is presented. As far as I’m concerned, it increases it. But then, throughout this thread you have dismissed the actual women who are prostitutes, arguing all along that the government knows better what their lives and experiences are and the cure for their suffering: more law! More Jail! That’ll save them! “,gov” as a reliable source of unbiased info…riiiiiight. :rolleyes: Thank you, \*\* Sailor \*\*, I was avoiding doing the research, not because I didn’t think I could find the material, I knew I could, I just also knew it was going to be what it was: a time-consuming pain in the ass. But I couldn’t let the lurkers of this thread go away thinking that \*\* wring’s \*\* version of prostitution was the ultimate truth, when I know it is anything but. Anyone who follows the links will discover that the material is vast, and that much of it is scholarly works written by people who have absolutely no investment whatsoever, and it is chock-full of bibliographies, statistics, and footnotes. Not to mention the \*\* voices of the prostitutes themselves. \*\* The fact is, the best thing we can do for the prostitutes of the world and ourselves is decriminalize what they do and start treating them like any other worker. And now, my friends, I leave you. There is no question that anyone who wants an education in the subject can learn plenty from this thread and all the links in it. This has taken entirely too much of my time as it is. stoid ---
**Author:** ![seawitch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@seawitch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/seawitch)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2001, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/256 "2001-08-01T20:04:41Z")
Yikes, long thread. I had so much I wanted to say when I opened it, but I’m worn out from reading. Let me just give a couple of overall impressions. **wring** - many of your arguements seem to stem from a belief that prostitution is the direct cause of rape, slavery, and several other assorted flavors of misery. I can’t agree with your theory of causation. You may not think prostitution is moral, and on that we will have to agree to disagree. But you really can’t claim to be in the majority on this. Furthermore, laws based solely on morality are a bad precedent; jail time for coveting your neighbor’s wife? I understand that you are passionate in your opinions. They are, however, only opinions. And mine differ. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2001, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/257 "2001-08-01T20:04:46Z")
One last thing I meant to mention a while ago… there is nothing at all surprising or unbelievable about statistics which say that large percentages, even majorities of Americans favor decriminalization. Look at this thread; without going back and counting, my memory says that there have been about 4 anti-legalization folk, and everyone else has been pro. If the SDMB isn’t a good microcosmic sampling of the American public, it differs only in that the education and IQ might tend to run a little \* higher \*. stoid ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [August 1, 2001, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/258 "2001-08-01T20:14:10Z")
Once again, instead of refuting or even addressing my argument, **stoid** resorts to a personal attack. I disagree w/ her and that makes me prejudiced? I point out that her sites are self promotional and she doesn’t see that as a fundemental flaw? wow. And, once again, she engages in the dishonest misrepresentation of my stance -dismissing women who are actual prostitutes? I’ve been clamoring for the plight of all of those forced, coerced etc. If not prostitutes, what are they? chopped liver I presume. . Apparently in **stoidland** the only women who can be called prostitutes are those who agree with **stoid**. The others I linked to must be something else entirely, the aforementioned chopped liver I suppose. You have no comment on the San Fransico cite? the one you were so proud of a few short hours ago? Only to find, much to your dismay that the city elected to **not** legalize it, but to (oh, the horrors), do what I’ve suggested? attempt to lower the demand, while providing alternate services to the sex workers themselves. Yep, I agree, you’ve presented (after 6 pages) a few cites from heavily ‘prolegalization’ organizations, I’ve presented a wealth of cites throughout, from a wide variety of sources that paint a different picture. the viewers are free to pick and choose. ---
**Author:** ![sailor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a587f6/32.png) [@sailor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sailor)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 12:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/259 "2001-08-02T00:35:50Z")
The September issue of Palyboy magazine, page 62, has an article about strippers. It mentions a strip club in San Francisco called The Lusty Lady. It is a place where there is a central stage surrounded by booths. The naked women perform on stage while the customers masturbate in the booths. A quarter buys 15 seconds before a shutter closes. The article is about how the strippers unionized and shut the place down with a strike and gained some concessions from the management. I would point out: (1) This is clearly sex for money, the only limitation is no physical contact and (2) these women were able to bargain for better conditions _because_ what they were doing was legal. If this was not legal they would have no legal protection and no recourse. ---
**Author:** ![DocCathode](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/doccathode/32/18773_2.png) [@DocCathode](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DocCathode)\ **Post date:** [August 2, 2001, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066/260 "2001-08-02T16:55:44Z")
I have been lurking on this thread. This is because my many posts in past threads on this subject were dismissed out of hand. ``` If you skipped those threads: I'm manic-depressive and have spent time living in psychiatric facilities. While there I've met large numbers of mentally ill women who had lived on the streets and exchanged sex for money. For a long time, the horror stories they told me had me convinced that prostitution should be legalised. I thought that legalisation and only legalisation would assure that prostitutes had entered the profession willingly and were safe. The many facts Wring cited convinced me otherwise. The horrors continued, and the public could ignore them, secure in their belief that legalisation had ended such abuse. ``` Why should a system of legal prostitution be more effective than the mental health system we were already in? Numerous, unreported rapes occured in the psych wards. If the government and the hospital staff can not prevent or even see rapes in a closed facility, how could it protect a prostitute who worked outside a legal brothel? I realise that this is not a perfect analogy. But both systems are designed by well-intentioned people, and both often fail the people they were designed to help. Previous threads have told me that Wring comes from a similar background. She worked at a center providing assistance to women who were or had been in jail. She cares about prostitutes for the same reasons I do. She has heard the horror stories first hand. Yes prostitutes suffer under criminalisation. Wring has plenty of cites showing that legalisation will not end that suffering. ``` As far as lap dancing- Under the laws that I know of, the customers are forbidden from touching a stripper's buttocks, breasts or genitals. The stripper is forbidden from touching any of the aforementioned areas to the cutomer's face or hands. The stripper is forbidden to stimulate the customer's genitals, but this is usually ignored. Many strippers will indeed cross the line from a legal lapdance to an illegal sex act. Many clubs will ignore this because it brings in money. A lapdance that pshysically stimulates the customer's genitals is illegal. The HBO series G-String Divas goes into great detail regarding the laws regulating stripper customer contact. It follows up with footage of strippers violating those laws. Peep shows and dungeons are in a gray area. Many cities do not consider these places illegal if no sexual contact occurs between staff and customers. Recently, however, the Philadelphia police department has(for reasons that escape me. The dungeons haven't changed. The laws haven't changed. Either the dungeons were illegal all these years an no one bothered to inform the dungeon owners or staff, or they were and are legal and the cops are arresting people who have not violated the law.) In general if the customer masturbates while viewing or listening to the sex worker but no sexual contact occurs, the transaction is legal. ``` [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lets-get-some-hookers/73066.md?page=14)