even sven calm? Did I say all? no. however, point of fact is that some johns are rapists (one of the problems prostitutes face is that when they are raped, law enforcement doesn’t take it as seriously, figuring it for a compensation dispute vs. a crime). In addition, anyone who have been with those who have been trafficked for example, are in fact forcing sex (if they’ve not chosen to be prositutes). Those in my local city who were with the under age prostitutes could be prosecuted for CSC, and the van full of guys who beat and raped my client years ago, they, too were rapists.
BlackKnight you want to quibble with me about word usage - fine, then let’s keep the topic on what the debate is about- prostitution. not lap dancers, phone sex etc. You’re the one claiming that it’s the same, prove it - you find the relevant legal language, it’s your argument, not mine. Find the regulations regarding lap dancing (yes, there would be some).
Stoid - YOU are disappointed in ME? you are really begining to annoy me. and that frankly takes quite a bit. You have the gall to say **I’m ** not answering challenges? way back, I said that women are not allowed to be paid to be surrogates (their medical bills can be reimbursed). You said it wasn’t true. I asked for proof. You came back with what you call ‘evidence’ which was something to the effect of ‘I’ve talked to many people who did this and they got…’ If that’s what you consider 'answering a challenge", I’m quite happy for you to feel that I haven’t. As far as I know, I’ve answered everything asked.
On the other hand, you’ve continually and erroneously accused me of wanting only to see female prostitutes criminalized. That is a material and factual misrepresentation of my position, and here you are doing it again. I’ve **repeatedly ** in this debate called for the enforcement on the john, and expressed strong concerns for all of those who are being forced into the trade. That’s been my focus. To continually misrepresent my point like you do is a dishonest debate tactic.
“(one of the problems prostitutes face is that when they are raped, law enforcement doesn’t take it as seriously, figuring it for a compensation dispute vs. a crime)”
This problem could be eliminated if prostitution were legal. I believe that crimes as horrible as rape and murder are not deterred by the law. If you are disturbed enough to rape or kill someone you are not concerned with the law…you have a serious problem. I really don’t think legalizing prostitution would cause an increase in the amount of rape cases against prostitutes. If anything it would give prostitutes who were raped a way to bring the perpetrator to justice.
There could be surveillance cameras in the rooms of the brothels. If at any time the prostitute feels uncomfortable and asks the customer to stop or leave the customer will stop or leave or else be charged with rape.
Prove it. The problem is that currently the police look at a hooker being raped as being a dispute about pay. Changing the law will not change the police perception -unless you can demonstrate it will.
The survelience cameras are used in the legal brothels for exactly that purpose (remember me talking about 'gee whiz what other profession has rape as a specific occupational hazard) What about the illegal brothels? and again, you’re assuming that the police will change their attitudes.
And maybe it should. Artificially elevating the sex act as some sort of “sacred” behavior that can’t be bought or sold is the cause of much of the hangup in this debate.
You analogy is flawed. Surely you can see that there is a world of difference between an unwanted physical act and a mutually consented one. Legalizing prostitution is not opening the door to rape because there would ostensibly be laws protecting the employees from unwanted physical abuse, just like I can’t go into McDonalds and beat up the cooks for not grilling a steak for me.
Cite? Or is this some more artificial elevation of the sex act as some sort of “sacred” behavior again?
>> Prostitution is the ultimate trading of the body and soul.
Soul? What kind of nonsense is this? Give me a break! I know many more people who have traded their souls to work in an office.
There are a class of women who, to provide comfort to others, do disgusting things which I would not do for love or money. I would not want to do it and I would not want anyone I loved to do it because I know it is very hard but it is a needed service. They do it because they find pleasure in comforting others (even if it means dealing with unpleasant things) and because they are paid to do it. They are the nurses who take care of the old and sick. Prostitution, in my book, is very similar. I would not want to do it myself, but I am glad there are people willing to do it.
I have a lot more respect for protitutes than I have for many people working “respectable” jobs. They have truly sold themselves, body and soul, for a handful of coins.
I think she may be referring in part to the following sequence:
(Cheerleading post by Stoid omitted)
This was not a question. But it was posted in response to some of your arguments, and you never answered it in any way. I’m curious if you have withdrawn from your position on levels of trafficking, and if not, how you rebut this response.
You asked for cites after I said I had known (a) surrogate. I answered you. I said it wasn’t in the contract, but it didn’t have to be in order to be happening. End of story. This isn’t a debate about surrogate mothering. It’s a debate about prostitution. You were unwilling to venture into other comparisons and be made to back up your assertions about them with Black Knight, take your own advice.
Oh, we have to make sure it’s in the form of a question? Great: what’s your response to all the posts that have been made in refutation of your assumptions about what would happen if prostitution were legal? Go back and read 'em.
Your “focus” is well established, and I haven’t misrepresented it at all. * YOu want to keep prostitution illegal. * Is that a misrepresentation? How could it possibly be so? The result of this is that * alll prostitutes are criminals *. I haven’t even thought about, much less referred to your wanting to see all the johns arrested as well. So maybe that’s where I missed out: I failed to clarify that you want every single person involved in trading sex for money to be a criminal. (What about the pimps? Aren’t * they * the worst offenders of all, considering your great concern at all the rampant coercion and trcikery going on? I’ll assume the answer is yes.)
The end result of this is that women are jailed, their children are taken from them, they are left with a record that virtually destroys their ability to get out of what they are doing and into something else…and this is what you have spent 5 pages defending as a good thing. I don’t think I’ve mischaracterized a damn thing. These are the facts as you have presented them, you just don’t like the dark side of your great solution to the problem of kidnapping and slavery, which is making (keeping) prostitution a crime, to be brought into the light. But it is what it is.
I have a right to my opinion, as we all do. And my opinion, which is formed exclusively from ** your own words ** is that you hate prostitution, but not exclusively because some women are “forced” into doing it (yet another question that was asked that you elected to ignore. And I asked very nicely, too. Where’s all the evidence for the hordes of women in the United States being “forced” to do it against their will? Fourth time, I think: coercion and trickery are not kidnapping and slavery.), but for the same reason lots of people do: it offends your sensibilities. I am of the opinion, again based on your own words, that you are glad to see anyone who freely chooses it suffer for it. And you are willing to see the “forced”, “coerced” and “tricked” suffer beside them, rather than see the willing ones be free to make choices that offend you. You don’t * like * the fact that “your” prostitutes will suffer, but in the end you’re ok with it. Because the fact is, wring, if you weren’t, you’d be for legalization. Because legalization inthe United States of America would make it easier and safer for women who did not want to be prostitutes to escape any unwanted situation. It’s a great deal harder to seek help for your situation when you have to say: “He forced me to be a criminal”. This isn’t India. This isn’t the Sudan. This is the good ol’ US of A.
Frankly, your indignation doesn’t impress me.
Too easy. Cops used to treat domestic violence as none of their business, too. But they learned. I’m sure they can be taught to treat prostitutes as what they are as well, which is women with the right not to be raped, just like wives are women with the right not to be beaten. Or raped, since that is now acknowledged as well, that husbands have no more right to their wives’ bodies than anyone else. The culture is getting it, wring: no one has a right to anyone else’s body without their permission. The last stop on this learning curve is hookers, and it will be a helluva lot easier when what they do is not a crime.
“The problem is that currently the police look at a hooker being raped as being a dispute about pay. Changing the law will not change the police perception -unless you can demonstrate it will.”
Wring- If prostitution is legalized there is no more “police perception” because it will be the law. The hooker gets money before he/she and the customer go into the room. The surveillance cameras in the room record the event. If the hooker gets uncomfortable he/she asks the customer to leave and gives him or her their money back. If the customer is in the room for the predetermined amount of time with no problems, the hooker can not try to say that the customer did not pay them enough because the fee was negotiated and the money changed hands before they entered the room. Maybe hooker and customer could sign a contract before hand. No “perceptions” involved. Either she gets paid and willfully partakes in the sex act, or she asks the customer to leave and refunds the money. If the customer does not leave immediately, no questions asked, he or she is charged with rape.
“The surveillance cameras are used in the legal brothels for exactly that purpose (remember me talking about 'gee whiz what other profession has rape as a specific occupational hazard) What about the illegal brothels? and again, you’re assuming that the police will change their attitudes.”
Wring- The illegal brothels will be just like brothels are now…illegal, and unsafe for the prostitutes. I don’t think that if you are arguing that ALL brothels should remain illegal that you need to ask me “what about the illegal brothels?”. Obviously you think they should be illegal for a reason.
What about the illegal brothels? You seem to be the one with all the credible web pages about prostitution. What CAN be done about rape in ILLEGAL brothels?? You yourself said that many of the rape cases are seen as a dispute over pay and not a violent crime.
The illegal brothels that exist after prostitution is legalized will be faced with the same problems that EVERY SINGLE brothel faces today, but at least the legal brothels could be regulated and laws could be enforced properly.
And as far as an occupation that has rape as a hazard…how about a stripper? Not a stripper at a club, but a stripper that goes to a bachelor party with 50 horny guys and takes all her cloths off. I guess the term used in the yellow pages is “escort”.
ENugent I have answered repeatedly. In areas where prostitution is already legal (and I’ve pointed this out over and over) there still is a substantial amount of illegal trade. IE - even where it’s legal there aren’t sufficient willing persons to fill the demand. this creates a demand for the illegal trade. No one has been able to even begin to demonstrate that there would be any large increase of people willing to prostitute themsevles, should it be legal, to serve the current demand, let alone any increase.
stoid you forget that the entire exchange is located right here in this thread. on page three, I asked for ‘cite’ which here means evidence, proof. your reply was
Cite as in asking for proof does not equal one single personal anecdote. So, it’s really quite amusing that you’re chastising me for ‘misstating facts’ I asked for proof of your statement, you gave us a story. That ain’t proof and you know it.
I have answered every challenge. list any you think I’ve missed. Like the one above, I’ve answered time and again.
and seriously if you cannot honestly reframe my point, don’t bother addressing me. You’ve done it again.
In short -
you refuse to supply evidence when asked, and continue to claim that you refuted a point.
you intentionally mischaracterize my point so that the minor point becomes the major ideal. This is intellecutally dishonest. I’ve brought it to your attention and you keep on doing it. You claim I ‘hate’ prostitution. I’d ask you to prove that, but then you’d only respond that you know some one who sat next to some one else several years ago who thinks that they heard me say that.
You want data? This is how it works, stoid you asked me for proof that people are trafficked into the US for prostitution.
See how that’s done? now, you spoke so eloquently in other threads about children, you’ll note in the above documents, that trafficking in children is an especial problem, and not just in the US of course, tho’ it may cater to US customers once again, in an area where prostitution is legal, the trade is carved out to cater to tourists looking for ‘young’ girls. And, of course, one of the defenses of the john in those cases (and indeed in the cases of all of the above folks) is ‘it was their choice’.
Once you make the decision that it’s ok for a person to sell their body and some one else can buy it, all of these other things fall right into place. All of those folks in the US are convinced that the prostitute they’re with made a choice. It is likely to not be true. Certainly there’s a substantial number of cases where it isn’t.
You keep focusing on the very few who may be making a choice. I contend that by doing that, you are helping create the illusion that those who are prostituting themselves have chosen to do so. And (to beat the dead horse) since even where it’s legal there’s insufficient people who chose to do this to meet the demand, there is therefore the demand for the illegal coerced trade (over and above the drug addicted trade that stoid wants to sweep under the rug).
(re: ‘too easy’, you’ll need to come up with a better defense than that, since a; even w/domestic violence programs, cops often still ignore the problem, many years after the call to arms, and b’ you’ll have to provide some evidence that the social stigma associated with sex workers disappates. Evidence. see, like I did?? )
kabbes and wring
I’ve got a hijack-ish question. Why doesn’t legal prostitution work? Why doesn’t good money drive out bad in the free market of sex? Why doesn’t regulation work with prostitution in the same way it works for other areas of trade and industry which are not easily regulated?
I don’t consider Costa Rica as a prime example of why prositution won’t work in America, but it was a chilling article anyway. Lousy ABC 20/20 reporters appealing to my emotions…
In short, let us pretend that I agree with your point and don’t deny your data (and IRL I don’t deny the data)…what’s the deal here?
The fact that there is illegal prostitution in areas where prostitution is legal does not prove that legalization increases trafficking (which is what you said). That was the whole point of my post.
This has nothing to do with how I feel about prostitution, it’s about economics. I have no argument that illegal trade will still exist after legalization, but for any other good, microeconomics suggests that the overall effect should be to reduce the amount of illegal trade, but to increase the total amount of trade. If you want to suggest that prostitution is unlike any other good or service in this regard, I think the burden’s on you, not me, to show it.
Let’s take this out of the realm of the emotional for a moment, shall we? (Or at least this emotion). Importing sea turtle shells is illegal in the US. There is a significant black market in tortoiseshell. Suppose that it became legal to sell tortoiseshell that came from farms that release a substantial number of sea turtles back into the ocean (there is such a farm in the Cayman Islands, in fact), thereby not contributing to the depopulation of the species. There’s not much farmed tortoiseshell, so the black market probably wouldn’t totally disappear. But do you really think that the total amount of tortoiseshell sold illegally would go up? This could only happen if the number of people who were induced to buy tortoiseshell by the fact of legalization exceeded the capacity of turtle farms, and if some of those people then chose to patronize the black market instead.
I have not seen any evidence that an illegal market was bigger in the presence of legalization than it would be anyway (e.g., that illegal activity increased when prostitution was legalized). And that’s what you’d have to show to support your thesis that trafficking would get worse if prostitution were legalized.
we cannot know how many sex workers there are currently. However, there are some things we can know. I’ve presented data in this & other threads about the levels of trafficking. Lots of it.
Now, the levels of sex workers (roughly) include:
high level call girls who do out call services and charge a lot. Think Heidi Fliess. As for #'s, I’d call on you to figure out, relatively, how many folks you’d think could afford this sort of service. I’m figuring that the relative number/percentage of these folks is small (based on economics - relatively fewer folks can afford to drop several grand for an evenings entertainment vs. the # of folks willing to pay $20 for a blow job). I’d believe that most of these are not trafficked.
Middle level in brothels. I’ve demonstrated through links that even in brothels, the illegal trade is quite apparent. In areas where prostitution is legal, the ratio was something like 50/50. Costs vary here, but again, the price would be more than the $20 blow job, so, relative numbers would be more than #1 but less than # 3. But would include a significant percentage of trafficked, and may also include those who have substance abuse issues and this is the only way they can make enough $$ to keep up the habit. Tho’ stoid would have these be counted as ‘there by choice’, I’m not convinced of that. In any event, there’s more of these than #1, and it would appear that roughly half are there illegally.
Street walkers. These most definately include the trafficked women and those with a serious addiction, certainly they include minors who have run away. (no I cannot prove that all fall into those categories, but it’s certainly most do) Now, again, you may decide that the drug users have some level of acqueicense, but IME, when they’re not on drugs, they’re also not on the streets. This group certainly is the largest of all the groups (since again economics would tend to follow - there’s more folks who can afford the $20 than the several hundred or several thousand).
And, so I conclude that the greatest likely number of folks are not there strictly through choice.
and in any event. Once you have established that at some level it’s ‘ok’ to buy some one, you’ve established a market for that service. And, there will be those who will seek to supply that service. Since there’s insufficient numbers of people willing to provide the service (for even the current market), there is incentive for some one to attempt to fufill that service by illegal means. which means that to have prostitution there will be both incentive and a market for forced prostitution and I find that result unacceptable.
So, certain few people who would otherwise choose this occupation will have to find another career option. Certain other people who would want this service will need to find another outlet for their sexual release (remember sexual release does not necessarily have to be with a partner, certainly doesn’t need to be with a purchased partner, there are options) I find that far less reprehensible for society as a whole than to turn a blind eye to the trafficking in people (including children) to service other peoples sexual gratification. (ie ‘not allowing some few people to do what they want = bad’ but 'allowing great numbers of children and other unwilling participants to be extorted, kidnapped, coerced, and otherwise forced into accepting repeated serial rapes = horrendously bad ')
And so, I find that the greater good for the greater number demands that we not support the concept of buying/renting some one’s body.
(ENugent - I see what you’re saying, but even if I cannot prove that trafficking would go upfrom where it is now in a place where it’s legal -and we don’t know that it won’t-, I’ve shown that even in legal places, there’s roughly a 50/50 split. And, to encourage a market for that level of harm to half of those who ply the trade so that the rest can have their first choice, is something that I cannot condone. Accepting prostitution as a viable trade provides the market and incentive for the forced trade).
No, I do not. You said that you had said something, which was not the case. I was pointing this out.
Not rapists, not traffickers, not slavery, …
Want to find a quote to support that assertion?
I do not like strawman arguments.
I said that lapdances have “little difference” from sex. (Both involve physical contact for the purpose of sexual gratification.) I said that since they 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.
I still belive the burden of proof lies with you to show that lapdances are illegal. If lapdances are illegal, then every single strip club that I know of would have to be shut down. Something so well-known and ubiquitous could not avoid being the target of police, unless it’s one of those things like jay-walking or sodomy: things technically illegal but nobody really cares about. I contend that since there doesn’t seem to be any mad rush (or any action of any kind) to shut down strip clubs that allow lapdances, that lapdancing be considered prima facie legal until shown otherwise.
A point about sex: Some have pointed out that sex is seen as something special, or different. This is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether sex is something special, or different, in the context of this debate.
Further more, even if it can be shown that sex is somehow special in the context of this debate, it must be shown that it is special in a way that affects the debate.
To my knowledge, this has not been done.
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.
wring, you keep beating around the same bush (so to speak) but it comes down to something very simple:
(1) Forcing someone to do anything against their will is already illegal, sex or no sex.
(2) The prostitution we are talking of legalising is voluntary. Forcing people against their will would remain illegal.
(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.
(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.
(5) There are countries where prostitution is legal and I do not see them sinking into moral decay any more than the US.
(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.
(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.
Anyway, we’re just going round the same bush over and over…
BlackKnight you’ve got to be kidding. On this very page you bring up lap dancing
So, I suggest that’s it’s up to you to prove your assertion (ie that strippers/lap dancers can legally touch customers), not me. 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.
Now, you challenged me to find where you’d claimed that lap dancing and prostitution were the same. On this page you said
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’.
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. 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. in lap dancing neither is happening. And, in the lap dance, both specifically have their clothes on and not dislodged (ie zipper shut). These are real differences to me. not to you? This could certainly account for legal/vs illegal distinction. and again, since you brought them up, it’s yours to research.
How many places in the world is it legal? Tell ya what, I’ve done a bunch of digging for data, how about you doing some?
Re: you don’t believe the numbers greater good etc. Ok, how about this. 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. once again, it would seem that more are illegal trade than not.
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.
Or is this some more artificial elevation of the sex act as some sort of “sacred” behavior again?