Be careful. That study only found an increase in the reported incidents of human trafficking. That study could actually be used to support the OP’s claim that “…with some laws in place, there is a disincentivization for victims to report crimes.”
It is not entirely unexpected that, with legalization, more victims will feel empowered and safe to come forward seeking help. This would naturally result in higher rates of reported incidents of human trafficking, which was the case with Germany.
Prostitution has been with us throughout recorded history.
Legalizing it allows us to tax the crap out of it, and it makes it easier to impose public health rules and lessen the exploitation of the prostitutes themselves.
It should be legalized, but I definitely feel it should be zoned to protect residential neighborhoods and schools.
Lighten up. This is just jargon. I’m not writing a report with those terms. I’m surprised you didn’t inquire what a CW was (you ain’t gonna like it, Bunky).
The street walkers do solicit in residential neighborhoods and they are a blight. By targeting such activity (and worse) the specific community does see an improvement. And residents of those neighborhoods do actively request police action to get the hookers out of there.
You’re not going to win your argument pushing an all or nothing platform on this issue. I doubt few would support legalization if it meant sex workers were plying their trade in front of their homes, parks, or schools. I know I wouldn’t.
Kind of an aside: I follow a couple of sex workers on Twitter. Some of them draw a very clear distinction between “decriminalization” and “legalization”. Madeline Marlowe is one of the more vocal on this topic. AIUI, she sees “decriminalization” as the full, more-or-less unregulated, practice of sex work (which she favors), while “legalization” to her seems to mean that sex work is tolerated but still heavily restricted (which she opposes). To me, that seems sort of backwards. In drug policy debate, AIUI, “decriminalization” refers to drug offenses being moved from felonies to lesser offenses, while “legalization” means “have at it (with restrictions similar to alcohol use)”. Anyway, point is, sometimes I see folks getting caught up in the definitions.
In any case, I think I’m in favor of sex work being normalized and treated like other service occupations, probably subject to some kind of licensure like hairdressers or something. But I haven’t given the issue very serious study. Legalization seems to work fine in other places, and I don’t have any particular reason to be opposed to it.
I am fully in favour of legalised and regulated prostitution. However I think it should be restricted to indoors at licensed establishments.
I see several problems with streetwalking. I’ll just mention two of them quickly. There are several other reasons.
Where there is streetwalking, female passers-by, who are not in the business, frequently get harassed by males who mistake them for working girls. Better to keep it indoors where there is no mistake.
Prostitution carries certain risks for the girls. They may be at risk from violence from their customers. A brothel can hire security to protect its staff.
I think FULL legalization is better than decriminalization, and I’d be for that. At a minimum decriminalization is better than the current state of things. I do think that adults should be able to make adult decisions on this subject, but I concede that it’s complex and you can get situations where abuse happens. I think that most of this can be addressed in regulation and law, however, as well as enforcement of both of those things. To me, it would be a win/win. It would be better working conditions for the workers, tax revenue for the government, lower criminal activity, less stress on our legal system by making something so pervasive legal and overall just a safer and cleaner environment all around. There will, of course, but issues. Just like with legalization of marijuana, but they are far from insurmountable. And just like with marijuana I think the benefits of legalization far outweigh the cons to society as a whole.
Treating patients has nothing to do with morals, but do it without a proper license and you’ll be in more trouble than just getting fined. If street-walkers can be regulated and kept safe, fine. Street food is. I don’t know what kind of mandatory exam is being discussed? Health? Skill? People who cut hair have to prove they know what they’re doing, after all.
None of this has the slightest thing to do with morality.
If food service workers served food in private rooms naked, then we might need similar regulations. And food service establishments are heavily regulated.
I’d think that a guy who checked in using a driver’s license, say, would be much less likely to beat up a sex worker than an anonymous guy. Given that for almost all of the US the industry is underground already, it could only be an improvement. Marijuana legalization in California and other places involves taxes and regulations, and didn’t eliminate all underground growing. Still, it is a lot better than it being 100% illegal, isn’t it?
So how did they get addressed? Is it taxed? Are there protections?
…no I’m not going to lighten up. And I’d be just as outspoken if a law enforcement officer called black people the n word. If “whore” is a word that you consider jargon, if “street slag” is a term that law enforcement routinely use then there is something wrong with your department.
And yet you lament that you have to deal with this “ever other day” and you want stronger penalties than “fine and release.” Perhaps there is a better way to deal with this.
I’ve already won the argument though. Street walking is legal here. Its been legal since 2003. The numbers of street walkers has gone down. We’ve got 16 years of objective data you can examine if you want.
And its legal because the New Zealand framework was introduced and based on two things: a harm reduction model, and the legislation was put together both by women and by people that actually worked in the sex industry. When some political operatives tried to make it illegal again to solicit on the streets that was opposed by our social services, it was opposed by police, that change was considered to probably contravene our Bill of Rights.
One would think that the people who live in a country that considers itself “the land of the free” would have legalised sex work decades ago.
…I’ll be honest: on the face of it making streetwalking criminal doesn’t sound necessarily unreasonable. I think that before the law reforms went ahead in New Zealand I would have been one of many who would have thought that a ban on streetwalking would have been the right thing to do.
But the experiences of the last 16 years suggests otherwise. The data says the numbers of streetwalkers has gone down (as of the last estimates I saw that didn’t come from people opposed to the sex industry). Sex work is safer now. Sex workers are much more likely to go to the police than they did before. Sure, there are problems, I won’t pretend that there aren’t. But the experts here support the law as is. The police support it. The social workers support it. The science supports it, the numbers support it, sex workers support it.
If we look at the two things you mention here: the first is something that is going to happen regardless. Street harassment is an entire subject on its own. Taking streetwalkers off the streets won’t stop women getting harassed on the streets, and it is unfair to put the burden on sexworkers here and not on the people that are doing the harassing.
As to the second: well your second point assumes a brothel-centric framework, but that isn’t what we’ve implemented here. The law allows for up to four sex-workers to work in what is called a “small owner-operated brothel”. That essentially means a person can trade on their own, from their own house, without the additional obligations required of an operator. The law was designed to empower sexworkers so that they could work on their own. A solo-mum who works in the sex industry a couple of times a week from her own house isn’t going to have a security guard.
We’ve got a law enforcement officer here in this thread who calls streetwalkers “whore’s” and “street slags” and defends that by saying its merely jargon. I would be much more worried about streetwalkers in that sort of environment: an environment where law enforcement officers want these “whore’s” (and I’ll use his language) “hammered to the wall” and punished with more than just fines, I’d be much more worried about that than what we’ve done down here.
Hey Banquet Bear, thanks for your insight. This is really interesting. You say that small owner-operated brothels are allowed. Are larger brothers also allowed, or only small ones? If larger ones are not allowed, why is that distinction made?
…to be completely clear I’m specifically talking about mandatory invasive blood testing, something that many proponents of legalized sex work, and what some jurisdictions (like in parts of Australia) have implemented.
This subject has everything to do with morality. If it was about the science, about the data, if it was about fundamental human rights then we wouldn’t even be having this discussion. The laws would have been changed decades ago.
You walk around your private home naked. People who fuck often fuck in the nude. Should you be subjected to compulsory mandated blood testing? How does the addition of a monetary transaction change the equation?
Are you able to actually quantify this? Traceability isn’t required under the New Zealand framework. Sex workers are much more likely to come forward now than before the law change. Sex workers aren’t asking for traceability in legislative changes. So why do you think you know better?
I honestly couldn’t say. I think it would add unneeded complication that really isn’t needed. I think that it would mean people that operate outside of the confines of a brothel would simply not comply with the law, and I think that many people would stop going to brothels. I mean in the Robert Kraft case the state literally filmed him having sex in a brothel then threatened to make those tapes public. People on these boards thought it was hilarious but I was legitimately horrified. You want traceability? Then you are gonna need HIPAA level guidelines on how you keep peoples identities safe.
We passed the Prostitution Law Reform Act in 2003.
So to point out a few really important things here. The bill was drafted in consultation with women’s groups and sex workers. It was initially championed by National Party MP’s (the equivalent of a very moderate Republican Party here) and it was taken to Parliament by the Labour Party (the equivalent of a left-leaning Democrat Party here). It was a bill that had general cross-party support that was drafted, in part, by the people who were affected the most.
So what we ended up with here was policy that put the priorities and the safety of sex-workers first. These weren’t morality based laws passed by people who had literally never talked to someone in the sex industry. The laws aren’t focused on getting rid of sex workers, or making a distinction between “legal” and “illegal.” They weren’t focused on “getting votes.”
So of course it is taxed. Of course their are protections. Sex workers here can sue for sexual discrimination: and win. The police here don’t call them “whores.” They work with the sex worker community and produce documents like this. We produce occupational health and safety documents like this.
…owner-operated brothels are allowed under the act, the owner is defined as the operator. New Zealand is small business friendly. I run my own business, I’m a photographer, all I had to do to set up my business was to declare that I’m a sole trader, trading under this name, and I fill in an extra tax form at the end of the year. That’s it. And it is no harder for someone who wants to enter the sex industry to do exactly the same thing.
So the distinction exists so that there is no obligation nor a requirement for a person who wants to enter the sex industry to seek the “protection” of working in a brothel. They can operate from their own home. Or they can work with a couple of people they do know out of another premises. Its legislation designed to empower and protect.
In California, at least, actors and actresses who do porn films also get tested, though I’m not sure if that is from a law or what the industry agreed to to avoid there being a law. Given the increased risk in both cases, it seems reasonable to me.
The porn industry in the US does have traceability, in part to reduce the use of underage actresses.
Happily no one in this thread has brought up morality, so please don’t accuse people who are concerned with some of the issues mentioned here of prudism. I think we all have pretty much have been for legalization.
sigh I was referring to the risk of attack, since I was talking about traceability. But now you’ve brought it up, wouldn’t it be useful to be able to contact all those who have been in contact with a woman who gets an STD? Unless you’ve figured out how to drive that to zero.
If the small brothels keep records, then we’re good.
I understand why they don’t want it, since it would probably diminish business, given that we still live in a Puritan society and a lot of men don’t want anyone to know they are frequenting sex workers. But I was working on a woman working alone model. Multiple women (and multiple men) there at the same time makes the women safer.
I agree about the guidelines - the point was that there are conflicting concerns. Kraft got in trouble not just because he went to a brothel, but because he went to one implicated in human trafficking. I agree that this problem would be reduced with legalization, but until that happens don’t you think someone supporting places that do human trafficking should suffer the consequences? Ignorance is no excuse.
which doesn’t seem to make sense - but it makes sense a couple of sections later which explains what brothel operators must do. So it seems that larger and non owner-operated brothels are allowed, but have restrictions that don’t apply to the small owner-operated ones.
…“reasonable” isn’t an objective standard that is useful here. Can you quantify the increased risk here? The pool of pornstars is small, they tend to work within that small pool, arguably the nightclub scene is riskier than the porn industry.
Its illegal here to purchase cigarettes under a certain age. ID is required, but recording that ID to ensure traceability is not.
Lets get real fucking real here for a minute. People have been calling sex workers “whores” and “street slags” here in this very thread. That’s all about morality. That’s all about judging. This debate has never been about protecting sex workers and their clients. Because if if were then you and others would take the time to listen to what sex workers have to say. Its always been about morality. Its about policing what people can do with their bodies. You’ve taken a position in this thread that is based on you gut feelings, on what seems reasonable to you, not on what the evidence actually suggests.
sigh You were talking about food service workers.
Depends. Wouldn’t it be useful if we could contact everyone who you had been in contact with when you got an STD? Who did you fuck last night? We should keep a register. Everyone who fucks must be required to register the name, address and phone number so we can track people down just in case someone gets an STD.
Does that sound like a reasonable position to you?
They are not required too.
Its not about “diminishing business.” Its about two things: its about not driving the industry underground again, and its about not treating the sex industry as materially any different from any other industry. There is no evidence to suggest that traceability would makes things safer. So there wouldn’t be a point in adding complication to the law for no real material gain.
Under our framework in the “woman working alone model” they aren’t required to log records of who they fucked. Just about how much money they spent. Cash is legal tender here.
Well, yeah. About that:
I used the Kraft case as an example because of precisely this. The trafficking charge? Bullshit. This entire case? Bullshit. How much did this sting operation cost? What was the point? People got to have a laugh at a rich man. But this next bit:
Kraft gets to walk away. But some of the sex workers got charged with felonies. Thats entirely fucked up. The way that America treats sex workers is just entirely disproportionate and completely fucked up. They are treated as less than second-class citizens. They get called slurs and nobody defends them. They were the only people that got significant punishment in the Kraft case and nobody, including you, could give a fuck.
Human trafficking is much rarer than propaganda from the police and district attorney’s would have you think. Its a problem. But its also illegal here in New Zealand and not tolerated here either. But trafficking and sex work are two different things and it isn’t helpful to conflate the two.
Wait what? Of course ignorance is an excuse regarding culpability for supporting or participating in a crime. Ignorance is the difference between being a collaborator/co-conspirator and, arguably, a victim.
Not that anybody’s ignorance mitigates any other effects of the criminal enterprise, mind you, but there’s a difference between a dupe and an accessory.