Actually, the Victorians (at least in America) managed to regulate prostitution, even though it was illegal. Many, many towns had a system of varying fines that they used to steer illegal behavior into tolerable channels.
It says something that society today is not nearly as pragmatic as the “prudish” Victorian era.
Yes, this is the terminology I’m familiar with so I was a bit confused exactly what people meant by “decriminalization” during the thread. In my understanding following sex workers on the issue (and having spoken to a few people formerly involved in it), they generally use “legalization” to refer to things like licensing, mandatory STD testing requirements etc, whereas decriminalization refers to full out-and-out “you can have sex for money” (assuming no other crime is happening that makes it rape or a drug deal or espionage or whatever).
I’ve been swayed by this formulation of “decriminalization” because as a lot of former and present sex workers note, in countries where it’s “legalized” (in the sense of allowed but regulated with licenses and such) it generally creates restrictions that ultimately undermine the safety of sex workers or ignore the conditions that sex workers have to work under. This video has a lot of testimony from sex workers as well as an interview with Melissa Grant, a journalist and former sex worker that had a lot of good points that swayed me. In particular, licensing requirements often force sex workers to work in larger brothels owned by non-sex worker capitalists, rather than self organizing on their own terms, and if there’s one thing large corporate entities generally aren’t, it’s kind to their employees, especially not in the way sex work requires.
I think regulation/legalization is a step in the right direction, but I think full decriminalization (under this terminology) is ultimately better because governments have historically been… iffy at best at regulating this stuff. Especially when “stopping sex trafficking” is often used as a way to harm sex workers without doing much in the way of actually doing shit about human trafficking.
I take your point.
On the other hand, if we accept that the sex industry may have some degree of association with trafficking, human slavery, exploitation or similar issues, then a wholly unregulated sex industry seems problematic - particularly so in a culture like the US, where puritanical attitudes may lead some to view sex workers as not deserving of any kind of protection or as not having interests to which weight must be attached, precisely because they are sex workers.
Even if sex work is wholly legal, it’s likely to be a socially disdained and low-status occupation, and people who are desparate, vulnerable, socially excluded etc are likely to be over-represented among the ranks of sex workers. And those are the perfect conditions for fostering various kinds of exploitation and oppression of sex workers.
These concerns aren’t really addressed by pointing to examples of independent, autonomous, self-relian, unexploited sex workers. We don’t have to believe that *all[i\] sex workers are exploited in order to accept that the exploitation of sex workers is something we should be concerned about, and something we should guard against.
The problem, of course, is that regulation of the sex industry can function as a mechanism for oppressing sex workers just as readily as a mechanism for protecting them, and the same cultural attitudes which create the danger of exploitation in an unregulated sex industry create a danger that regulaton will function as a method of oppression. I’m not quite sure how you guard against this, other than by being rigorously clear about what the purpose and objects of the regulatory regime is, and assiduous in measuring its impact and effect. Policy here really needs to be evidence-driven, and not to proceed on (either progressive or conservative) preconceptions about, or ideological positions on, sex work.
Actually no, you haven’t. You’re comparing apples and oranges. I don’t know what is going on down in Z land any more than you know what’s happening here.
It’s cyclical. Gradually but swiftly a neighborhood will become inundated with prostitutes working the area. They’ll hang out in parks, in front of legit businesses, and near residential homes. They do/sell drugs, get into fights, vomit/urinate/defecate on public sidewalks, scream at pedestrians and motorists going by. They turn tricks in doorways of local businesses and in parking structures. They pass out on front lawns of peoples homes.
With their presence comes other derelicts. Major drug dealers, abusive clients, armed robbers, burglars, etc… Sex workers call in a lot of medical 911 calls, sometimes because they’ve been beat up or robbed, other times it’s just nuisance calls because they are cold or just really really stoned.
This all happens quicker than you’d think. And it typically happens in poorer neighborhoods. Residents come to community meetings demanding something be done. Mothers are afraid to let their children play outside. What would your response be to these people? Fuck you? So what if a hooker is blowing a guy in your parking garage?
So a focus patrol is initiated. Sting operations, saturation patrols, massive f.i. stops. The problem dissolves. But it doesn’t always stay that way because instead of getting charged with state crimes the D.A. lowers it to municipal cites, hence a slap of the wrist. And eventually it happens all over again.
If prostitution is legalized it needs to be regulated in the same way as other businesses. Selling alcohol is legal. We don’t let someone set up a beer tent outside of a school. Marijuana is legal in some areas. It’s not allowed to be sold or used on pubic sidewalks. Pharmaceuticals are legal. Walgreens isn’t allowed to flag down cars and sell the driver oxy. Hell, we don’t allow food trucks to park in front of private homes and sell their wares. I agree prostitution should be legalized, regulated, and taxed. But that doesn’t mean it should be legal to practice it everywhere.
…well actually yes I have. We’ve won here. We don’t have unnecessarily cruel and punitive punishment for sex workers here.
Well you could know if you liked. I’ve posted plenty of information in this thread for you to have a look at. And I know plenty about what is happening over there. And the language you’ve chosen to use in this thread says it all.
Do you want to know what its cyclical? Because you keep doing something that doesn’t work over-and-over-again.
A “hooker” or anyone blowing a guy in your parking garage would be illegal on a number of different fronts down here. That wouldn’t be trespassing where you are? Then you’ve got bigger problems than I imagined.
Maybe the “slap on the wrists” isn’t the problem. Maybe its the sting operations, the saturation patrols, the millions of dollars wasted. Maybe it all eventually happens all over again because you were doing it all wrong in the first place then you keep repeating that wrong thing.
Which is exactly what we have done here. You should look into it.
And sex workers are not allowed to set up in front of a school here either.
I’ve posted evidence in this thread that allowing streetwalking bought the numbers of streetwalkers down. The evidence strongly suggests that a harm-reduction model centred around not making it a crime to exchange money for sex would do more to clean up the streets than making the punishments harsher. So the very least you can do: especially as someone on the front lines, is not to dismiss what I say out of hand. There is plenty of data for you to look at.
If I had the binary choice between “saturation patrols” of law enforcement officers who call sex workers “whores” and “street slags” and who call for increasingly harsher punishments, of for “allowing for it to be legal to practice it everywhere”, I’ll take the latter thanks.
But we don’t have a binary choice to make. There are reasonable arguments to put forward to restrict streetwalking so that they can’t “practice it everywhere.” And the worst people to be making those decisions are those who openly display their prejudice.
Not that small in the center of the industry, which is outside LA. But is the size of the population really a factor? I’d say sex workers are more likely to spread diseases, since partners of porn actors outside of work likely know what they do, while partners of those who visit sex workers won’t in general know that the man has done so. There are also more people exposed. How many men does a sex worker screw in a day? Probably a lot more than a porn actress does - and she gets time off.
And of course no kids smoke. Records are kept just in case someone in authority sees what looks like an underage actor and is concerned. It’s for the protection of the filmmakers also. And obviously child porn is a lot worse than child smoking. If a kid smoking was equally as bad, then recording the face and id of the buyer would be a good move.
I and everyone else in this thread have been for legalization. If you want to find people outraged at women getting to control their bodies, I recommend you go visit a fundamentalist site or something.
Saying that we understand that sex work can be dangerous (due to men, just to be clear) and that we want to protect the sex workers is a long way away from saying sex is evil and sex workers are immoral.
I can understand why women who want to legalize sex work are not going to make a big deal about the downside - since the downside is a lot less important than the downside of criminalization, and that they don’t want to give ammunition to the idiots who see it as a moral issue. Strategically that makes sense. But I trust they’d be for protections if they prove to be necessary.
You were comparing protections to those of food service workers, and I was saying that they would only be similar if food service workers had to put themselves in the same kind of situations sex workers did.
Being monogamous for 41 years means I don’t have to worry about such things. But during the AIDS epidemic someone diagnosed with HIV was supposed to inform all partners that they were at risk. A little black book would have helped. I’m fine with the data being kept at the brothel, with a check during inspections (but no copying.)
But I was thinking more of violence against sex workers, where a record would help prevent it.
BTW, don’t you think that the higher class madams have a record of who their charges are seeing? Good for marketing if nothing else. So they don’t have a problem with it.
Well there you go. My supermarket, my pharmacy and my hardware store all keep records on me and what I buy. So if sex work were no different from any other industry, they’d be tracking their customers desires.
I understand that men would rather not be tracked, but if he goes to a doctor to treat an STD he sure as hell gets tracked in the medical information system of the doctor’s office.
So no sex worker, working alone, gets beat up or abused? Sure she can report it now, which is a big advantage if legalization, but that doesn’t catch the guy.
They weren’t targeting him. He just walked into a place which they did target.
And there is plenty of sex trafficking going on.
That’s what happens when you’re rich. But I agree that the US does it wrong. That’s why I’m for legalization. The reason for that is not to make it easier for guys to get laid, but to protect women who are the victims of the trade, because it is illegal and thus there are no protections for them.
There are some guys who bring in women for unpaid housework - but the predominant destination of trafficked women is prostitution. As has been already mentioned, legalization should help this.
I dont think it will help much because some prostitutes will not want to get licensed or pay taxes and some johns will want basically a cheap lay.
…where is your data? How much more likely are sex workers to be able to spread disease? The question I put to you yet again is can you quantify any of this?
This doesn’t negate my point. Sex work has been legal since 2003. Traceability hasn’t been required. Can you make a case that the law isn’t working?
I’m “outraged” that you don’t want to listen to what sex workers are saying. They have said that your ideas won’t make them safer. Yet you continue to insist that your ideas would work.
You are playing “saviour” and you are not listening. Sex workers understand much better than you do what they need in order for them to be safer. They are telling you what they need. Why don’t you simply listen to what they say?
Nobody talks about the downsides more than women who want to legalize sex work. They completely understand what is going on. I’ve given you a case study on a platter. The data is out there. They are telling you what protections they need. Why ignore them?
Why would food service workers who served food in private rooms naked need to have traceability of the people they served food too? Do lap-dancers record the names of everyone’s lap they sit on?
But can we trust you? And with all due respect, can we trust your partner? I think we should set up a register, just in case. You think you don’t have to worry about these things, but trust me, I know better than you.
Well that doesn’t happen here I’m afraid. A little black book is not required by the legislation. Can you tell me what impact that has had?
Sex workers can and do record names, they do share that information with other sex workers, they go to extraordinary lengths to not only protect themselves, but to protect other sex workers as well. Legislation isn’t required to make that happen. They are not compelled to do this.
I keep a database of my customers as well for marketing purposes. I am not required to keep a database of my customers to satisfy the whims of the state though. Surely you can see the distinction?
But they aren’t compelled to track their “customers desires.”
“Doctors do their jobs” is not exactly news.
What strawman is this?
And this is simply victim blaming.
I never claimed they were targeting him. They were targeting sex workers on trumped up charges of trafficking.
Not at the Orchids of Asia spa it wasn’t.
This kind of “wishy washy” condemnation shows you really aren’t getting my point. The way sex workers are treated in America (and in most places in the world) is a human rights travesty. And nothing in America is going to change until those that have privilege start to get outraged about this. I’ve been saying the same thing on these boards over and over again since I started here. I have seen a change in attitudes. And that’s a good thing. However:
The biggest danger for sex workers in America is that they go down the road of the Nordic Model. The Nordic Model is seen as a compromise, its seen as palatable. But its a highly problematic approach that is opposed by pretty much every organization that advocates for sex workers.
So why am I here, arguing with a bunch of people who all are in favour of legalization? We are all on the “same side” are we not?
I’m arguing because you are not listening. If the voices of sex workers are not front and centre for this debate then whatever legislation is passed probably won’t follow the harm reduction model, will probably benefit big business, will simply shift the burden from the pimps and the brothel owners to a corporate overlord.
Because there is a difference between what **you think **will make sex workers safer and **what they are telling you **will make them safer. The Nevada model is arguably a safe model that provides all the protections you suggest in this thread. Its also a model that puts almost all the power in the hands of the brothel-keeper and leaves sex-workers with very little agency. The Nordic Model sounds like it does all the right things: but when it was introduced to Ireland a couple of years ago reported incidences of violent crime against sex workers went from 900 in the year prior to change to 1400 the year after, nearly a 50% increase.
We are now at the point were people are starting to “shrug their shoulders” and say “meh, I suppose legalization will be okay.” So now its time to start to argue about the details because the details matter. And once the push for legalization starts to get traction: just like in the medical marijuana you will start to see the same power structures fall into place. Just like how black people, who have been disproportionately jailed and punished for drug crimes are watching as white people use those same drugs to turn themselves into moguls, the same will happen in the sex industry as well if you don’t allow the voices of sex workers to be heard.
Great debate here. ** Banquet Bear ** - I have a question. Can you please share what New Zealanders did different (before legalization) to change public opinion and what were the lessons learned from that ?
Also - I do not do not know about NZ much. How diverse are the people in terms of religion, race and income ? Also does diversity in the society play a part into how easily societal attitudes are changed ?
Thank you
…these are great questions.
Arguably the tipping point for the vote in the House was this speech from transgender Member of Parliament Georgina Beyer. Beyer was a former sex worker and her speech was credited for flipping 3 votes for the reforms, which eventually passed by a vote of 60-59 (with one abstention).
(Reprinted in full per the NZ Copyright Act on Hansard Transcripts)
New Zealand has always been a culturally diverse progressive country. Georgina Beyer was a Maori transgender former sex worker who first got elected as Mayor of what was essentially a farming community and it barely ruffled any feathers at all. New Zealand was the first country to give women the vote. The rights of the indigenous people are enshrined in our founding document The Treaty of Waitangi. Coupled with our isolation from the rest of the world and a history of activism (from Hone Heke chopping down the flag pole to Bastion Point, to “dildo-gate”.
So it was on the backs of activism that the Prostitution Law Reforms got passed. The New Zealand Prostitutes Collective was formed in 1987. They began actively lobbying for reform in 1989. They garnered support from the New Zealand Federation of Business and Professional Women, the National Council of Women, the YWCA, and the AIDS Foundation. They found champions on the right from MP’s like Maurice Williamson and Katherine O’Regan, the bill was presented from the left by MP Tim Barnett, and when it got put to what is called a conscience vote (which means MP’s are free to vote not down party lines) and it eventually passed.
So it wasn’t a short process, about 14 years from the start of lobbying until the change in law. And it was driven by the sex industry with a focus on harm reduction, and it was supported by women and women’s organizations.
What I fear about the debate at the moment is that these voices are going to be ignored. The Nordic model didn’t come about through the process that happened in New Zealand. The objective of the Nordic model is to “decrease the demand for prostitution by punishing the soliciting of sex workers in order to slowly decrease the volume of the illegal sex industry overall.” It has completely different goals to what we did here and it was a model that was developed at arms length from the industry. In contrast the Nevada model is what happens when capitalists decide whats best for sex workers.
So we’ve got three competing models for the future direction of what could happen with legalised sex work in America. One of those models was the result of activism from sex workers. One of them was designed to eventually destroy the sex industry, and one of them is designed to profit off the labour of sex workers, leaving them with very little agency. Two of these models, in my most humblest of opinions, are VERY VERY BAD.
So it seems clear that the Overton Window is starting to shift and that the is going to be increased support for the legalization of sex work in America. My point that it isn’t enough to just support legalization, or decriminalization, or however you want to describe it. We have in this thread someone who both supports legalization and doesn’t see anything wrong with calling sex workers “whores” and “street slags.” That same person also supports harsher penalties for the most vulnerable of sex worker, those that work on the street. My point is that you can’t allow people that hold these sorts of attitudes control the debate. You can’t let them set the agenda. You can’t trust them to set the rules. They don’t care about sex workers. They care about votes, they care about property values, they care about keeping these people in their place.
Its about listening and amplifying the voices of sex workers. Its about putting your opinions aside for a bit and looking at the data. Here is Human Rights Watch’s position on decriminalization. Here is Amnesty International’s position on decriminalization. There is consistency here. This is about fundamental human rights.
If we’re going to change laws, I would favor an incremental approach where we start by eliminating punishment for people desperate enough to sell sex. Leave the other penalties as they are (buying sex, pimping). Let’s see how that goes and then course-correct from there.
One thing I’m always leery about, especially regarding legalization, is framing the sex trade as “sex work”. That’s problematic because it implies that prostitution is an occupation that people choose, when in reality for many it’s their last and only resort to avoid destitution. If we’re changing laws we shouldn’t be furthering the commodification of sex, we should just be protecting the people who feel like that’s their only option. The johns by definition are people who have power to compel sex, so they deserve no consideration.
Thanks again for your contributions, Banquet Bear.
The Amnesty position includes this:
As I mentioned above those uses of decriminalization and legalization seem sort of flip-flopped to me, but I’m on board with their overall point, so I’m not going to quibble with that. I was a member of Amnesty for years, and I generally respect both Amnesty and HRW, so their positions on the issues carry a fair amount of weight with me.
I started out this thread leaning toward the position that sex work should probably be normalized as any other service occupation, but not quite falling to that side of the fence. I think I’m pretty squarely on the decriminalize side now.
Correlation is not causation, and you’re not even sure if it’s cause or effect at work here. So this opinion isn’t worth anything.
Thank you Banquet Bear for the detailed answer.
Honestly I don’t think legalized prostitution is much worse than porn and porn is not only legal, they have lobbyists.
Legalizing prostitution would drastically reduce one of the pillars of organized crime.
Legalizing prostitution would improve safety and health.
And it’s not like you can’t already earn money with your body through strip clubs, even without the prostitution.
On the other hand, I’m concerned about the unintended consequences. Can we try it in a place like Florida first so if we screw it up, it won’t really make things much worse.
Doesn’t matter. Under broken windows (called “Quality of life enforcement” here) all violations are enforced to maximum extent.
Instead of being shooed away or issued municipal cites trespassers, loiterers, winos drinking in public, petty drug offenses, etc. are arrested and charged in circuit court, with jail time being the penalty. When the smaller violators are prosecuted in a given area it provides disincentive for the worser elements to appear. This method works whether you like it or not. It swiftly cleaned up quite a few neighborhoods that had gone downhill.
When there was a regime change at D.A.s office regarding prosecutions of petty offenses and this policy was stopped is when scenarios like I posted earlier happen. Incrementally but quickly neighborhoods go to shit and only then do the pols want something done about it. By then it becomes pointless tail chasing.
I don’t see the tyranny in mandating legal prostitution be done at a permanent brick and mortar location.
Do you feel that selling sex is inherently a low status occupation? Because an alternative explanation is that selling sex is a low status occupation because it’s illegal.
I don’t think it’s a low status occupation. I think many of the people who get into it may be low lifes whether it’s legal or not, but one could say that about several different career choices.
What it is, though, is a vice, like gambling, smoking, pot use, and drinking. Therefore I think it should be legal but contained to be practiced only in certain places.
Of course it is. Not because it’s illegal, but because it implies a woman has no marketable skills, knowledge or expertise other than using her body for sex.
I mean no one says “I hope my daughter grows up to be the world’s greatest prostitute”.
I think it’s more the other way around - because it’s low-status many women have avoided it unless they had no other option. (Or no choice at all.)
I think the actual reason it’s low-status is the obvious one - religious moralizing and jealousy. No wife likes the prostitute their husband is visiting, which makes the prostitute unpopular, which makes it easy to paint their behavior as immoral - and thus, low-status.