Ouch. :smack:
Oh, so she didn’t like her job so much? There’s a support group for that. It’s called everybody, and we meet at the bar.
Let’s take the girl from the story. For having sex with Spitzer once, she earned more than many girls do by working in a tedious job every day, all week. He’s reasonably attractive, and there is no reason to suppose he didn’t treat her nicely, and if he didn’t she could just stop it. Possibly she even has quite a good time while earning her living, and there are probably many who would do it for free. But you, in your wisdom, can see that she actually suffers from it, and orders that she has to go and find a boring, low-pay job instead.
If I were her, I would be pretty damn upset. If additionally I had the power to pass laws, I would find some people in your profession who are not being treated nicely, or are unhappy, and then declare your profession illegal too. Now you can go work in McDonalds.
On second thoughts, I take that back, Spitzer might not have been a good client, I know nothing about that. But there certainly are people who are good clients.
There were early fragmentary excerpts from one of the wiretaps, FWIW, that the prostitution ring’s scheduler cautioned “Kristen” ahead of time that Client 9 might ask her to do some things she didn’t want to do. Kristen was cool with that, but reported afterwards that there were no problems.
Time magazine says that Spitzer just last year signed a bill increasing possible jail time for prostitution johns from three months to a year. Oh, the irony…
I can’t count the number of ways Diogenes is misguided and wrong on this issue. He seems to think that prostitution can be victimless if it is decriminalized and regulated - though the experience of every place that has tried this hasn’t shown this to be the case. The Netherlands, probably the place that went furthest in regulating their sex industry, saw such a rise in trafficking and child prostitution that they now are cracking down again and closing down some brothels.
Most women who engage in prostitution were sexually abused as children, and most suffer from PTSD as a result of their lifestyle. That doesn’t exactly sound victimless to me.
Diogenes came into this thread and spread this stuff around even though it was completely untrue, and could be shown as such. The notion of a victimless crime when it comes to prostitution is a myth. Now, reasonable people may disagree about how to handle this, but only when they abandon their cherished little myths and get down to business.
For my figures above, I relied on Nicholas Kristof, who knows more about this subject than almost anyone. He too thought the Netherlands model might be a good idea at one time - until he actually took the time to look at it.
Why do you think you have a right to tell women who they can fuck or why?
You say that most prostitutes were abused as children. So what? So were most women who work in porn. Should porn be illegal too? The sex industry didn’t cause those women to be abused and it’s ludicrous to suggest that keeping prostitution illegal will somehow cause fewer children to be abused. What kind of asinine logic is that? You’re saying that prostitution is not a victimless crime, but all you’re actually citing is stuff that happens before they become prostitutes (by the way, I’d like to see a cite that legal prostitution causes PTSD. I’m calling a big, hairy bullshit on that).
I wonder if you could explain to the class why illegal prostitution with all its attendant exploitation, abuse and lack of regulation is better for the women who do it than legal prostitution.
Another question: if you think prostitutes are victims then why do you want to PUNISH them? That’s the stupidest aspect of anti-prostitution laws, in my opinion. I know of no other criminal law that prosecutes the putative victims. It’s moronic and it belies the insincerity behind the laws (which are really about puritanical religious codes and misogynistic attitudes towards female sexuality, not any genuine concern for “victims”). There’s no question that legal prostitution results in far less abuse than black market prostitution.
Not everyone who enters politics cuts his dick off.
Nor is it confined to prostitution. Years spent at any low-paying, low-status McJob are likely to take a heavy toll on one’s sense of personal self-worth as well. One might argue, a much heavier toll than prostitution, which at least pays well.
Why don’t you ask me what I think rather than assume I want to lock prostitutes up? Nowhere here have I stated that.
In fact, I am in considerable agreement with Kristof that an approach that decriminalizes selling sex but makes it a crime to buy sex works well - it attacks the problem from the demand side. Such an approach has been tried in Sweden, and they seem to be happy with the results there.
Ironically, Spitzer was going for the same thing in New York when he was working with other groups on a trafficking law - he insisted on much harsher penalties for johns.
You can say the same thing about working at a fast food place or many other legitimate jobs for that matter. :eek:
It’s debatable whether or not Lawrence overturned adultery and fornication laws; it probably did, but let’s say that Mr. Goody Two Shoes prosecutor in Myrtle Beach, SC doesn’t think so. He charges you with fornication for bringing your girlfriend for a week at the beach.
Now, he will almost be guaranteed to lose the case, but the Mann Act sets a very low standard:
“…any sexual activity for which any person can be charged with a criminal offense”
The plain text of the law says that if Mr. Goody Two Shoes CAN charge you with the criminal offense, rather or not you are charged or not, let alone convicted, then you have still violated the Mann Act by taking your girlfriend to a week at the beach.
At least that’s how I real the plain text…
That’s not an argument. You’re comparing prostitution with jobs that kids do to make pocket money in HS.
It’s as if you have no concept what the life of a prostitute is like in the real world. As was pointed out earlier, no girl starts out dreaming about becoming one. They enter the profession because of child abuse and drugs. Neighborhoods where prostitutes gather become havens for drug addicts. If you’re completely unaware of what goes on around you than ask a police officer what prostitution brings to a neighborhood.
You’re the guy with no concept, if you think only kids looking for pocket change hold down McJobs. You have no idea what a beat-down years of poverty can be.
Which is the reason I mentioned Lawrence v. Texas in discussing the inapplicability of the Mann Act to private escapades.
Under Lawrence, what you’re doing with your girlfriend at the beach is constitutionally protected conduct, and can’t be the basis of a criminal conviction (assuming your girlfriend is of legal age).
Only? No. Mostly? Yup.
Regards,
Shodan
The Heritage Foundation? Well, you can’t do better than that, when you’re looking for clear, non-partisan data. Fair and balanced, to coin a phrase…
In particular, the biggest problem with the Heritage study is they look only at workers earning the minimum age (or less). That means all the workers who, say, started out at the minimum wage but now earn a full 50cents more aren’t counted. Hence, it is no surprise that those earning exactly the minimum are quite new entrants into the job market.
A more informative study would look at the make-up of workers in a wage bracket (or various wage brackets) close to the minimum wage…but I don’t think that Heritage study was meant to be so much informative as it was meant to be useful for making their case.
IOW, having seen the point refuted, you are now wishing we were talking about something else.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m a little curious. If you include workers who are younger and older and those in school and out of school, haven’t you pretty much included everyone? Isn’t this like saying “Most workers who earn the minimum wage or less fall into two categories: people who wear hats and people who don’t wear hats.”