But your supporting evidence proves only that coersion, enslavement, public sex and caberets have a negative effect on society as a whole. No where have you proven that trading sex for money has a negative effect on anyone.
You have been shown that the legalization of prostitution has allieivated some, although not all, of the very things you object to.
If you take away an individual right for the good of society, shouldn’t the positive effects of this limitation of freedom be demonstrated? Where have you proven this to be true?
Clue # 1. Try demonstrating how " trading $$ for sex" is not irretrivably linked to
(ie, show me a situation where the one occurs without the other - that’s what the Amsterdam link demonstrated - even when you had legalized prostitution, you inevitably had the rest of it too).
Clue #2 Society as a whole includes people. Therefore, since the evidence show society as a whole are damaged, your second part of the statement ‘no proof that is has a negative effect on anyone’ is ludicrous.
If society as a whole is damaged, it doesn’t really matter that a few individuals might be benefited. Greater good for the greater numbers ya know?
If you cannot see that, then there’s really no sense in answering you further.
I don’t think this either a fair nor an accurate reading of Biggirl, Wring. It rather looks like a debating tactic. I believe she has raised important analytical points. Your responses strike me as bullying without proper analytical or factual support, per arguments prior.
I am solely concerned with 1 and 3.
That is quite clear.
The balance of this restriction is neither necessary or logical on a non-morality based analysis. Since, for the purposes of my position, I am excluding the pubic morality(*) moral argument, let me indicate why it fails on the grounds I have chosen: the restriction of drug addiction and abject poverty are not relevant to the issue of job choice. We don’t make this judgement in re other jobs, and presuming we are not taking a moral position on the issue of sex for money, there is no reason to do so here.
Coercion from my point of view, must follow the ordinary sense of the term in regards to economic relations. That is, if there is some form of direct coercion — be it physical or implied threat — which keeps the worker in place.
Any other definition I reject as irrelevant.
(*: in excluding the argument I am not rejecting it out of hand, although personally I could care less for it. Rather, I am attempting to focus on an actual logically reducible argument. To be clear, if a majority of a population wish to ban an activity, and it is within their constitutional scope, then they’re welcome to.)
In regards to medical care, I believe this has been adequately addressed: I think the balance is in favor of a positive public health outcome in terms of legalization and control for pubic health risks. Individual exposure to risk within a properly regulated framework, and presuming public health gains — as in any profession with health risks — is not a matter of criminalization. As far as property values, as I said, this is irrelevant. Plenty of industries lower property values, that is not relevant to an issue of criminality. I would appreciate the discussion not bring in irrelevancies.
Ancillary criminal conduct is a serious not easily disposed of. Herein lies my hesitation in re legalization. However, I remain unconvinced the issue is any more insurmountable, based on available information, than that of gambling or indeed place of public alcohol consumption which are also associated with ancillary criminal conduct, lower property value etc.
Irrelevant, I am not arguing free speech or rights. I am arguing based on socio-economic cost- benefit analysis. In re the SC analysis, we mix the public morality issue and their line of reasoning in that regard with cost-benefit. Insofar as I am not in agreement with their logic in re obscenity etc., I am not enthusiastic about their analyses of governmental interest in re this domain.
I am removing your continued property value discussion as it is irrelevant.
Well, I see this as an inflammatory and non-analytical response which does nothing to further an understanding of the issue. The two problems, in my view of course, are not of the same nature. A proper analogy may be drawn to gambling or alcohol consumption.
The real question is weighing the relative costs of criminalization versus legalization against the relative gains of criminalization versus legalization. This may not be fully possible of course given the lack of good data, and other objections based on public morality.
I fail to see ** any ** logical support for this proposition. Underground activities generally are ** harder ** to keep track of, including who is participating. Black markets are characterized by their lack of transparency.
To examine in detial:
This depends on the vagaries of enforcement and makes a positive assumption in regards capacity to adequately identify the black market participants. Given examples in re other black markets in re drugs and in a historical perspective, gambling and alcohol, I think this assumption is not logically supportable. (Reading the assumption as a significant percentage of participants will be identified above that achieved through non-criminalization means.)
The above once more displays the fallacy of the excluded middle. Presumably the issue of drug problems can be dealt with also in a regulated environment, so this does not uniquely recommend criminalization. Further, given current policy and actions in re drugs, I don’t believe either criminalization or regulation truly address the drug issue in America. It is in fact, a separate problem.
I once more note, I consider this an irrelevant objection in the context of a properly regulated industry.
I have removed the non-regulated decriminalization as I don’t see this as an actual option.
As does any industry.
Your logic here once more fails. If we are presuming a regulated industry, with registration etc. in order to legally operate in the business, then coerced participants should be able to be identified. Certainly there is no reason to presume that the situation is worse than under criminalization.
Actual issues: on one hand legalization, removing the crime, can encourage abuses to be reported. On the other hand, insofar as illegal immigration and forced labor play a role here and those forced into prostitution may fear being deported, forced participants may not go to the authorities. However, this problem remains with criminalization.
Your logic here utterly fails to impress me. There is no reason to presume the latter part of your clause here. First: there is the false presumption that criminalization or not addresses the issue of forced participation (using the economic and not your wide-ranging definition). Given my understanding that (and my knowledge is essentially of Europe) most if not all coerced participation is via illegal immigrant exploitation, the issue of fear of deportation and thus non- reporting remains regardless of legal status. I also question your characterization of “structure and support” of the legal system in re criminalized model and then leaping to the onus being put upon the coerced in re a regulated system. I see no reason for this presumption.
I once again note property values are not relevant to the analysis. In regards to criminality issues, these may or may not be positively affected: as I noted previously, no policy should be expected to eliminate problems. Not criminalization, not legalization. Rather, the question is and remains which will end up with the larger positive net effect.
Quite possibly, ergo we must balance the gains and losses. And the extent to which the effects of the legal trade outweigh the illegal trade. Nota bene: as far as I am concerned unregulated remains illegal.
I would not call your readings unbiased.
I find your analysis in reaching the latter conclusion to be fundamentally flawed and skewed. Aside from the issue of inappropriately framing the coercion issue, I believe that your approach to the public health issue is also flawed.
Collounsbury – your assessment of my dispute with Biggirl is flawed. She raised a point, I answered it, she repeated her original point without addressing my answer. I repeat, since she continues to make the same point without response to the answer, it’s a waste of my time.
Ok, so you only want to look at legalization vs. illegalization (if that’s a word). Fine. Others were looking also for a medium ground.
I am curious as to your rationale for hesitation if you agree that a certain percentage of sex workers are there involuntarily, and yet you don’t see it as a rationale for keeping the practice illegal.
The rationale for inclusion of drug addiction, is fairly simple and straight forward. In the first place, your idea that ‘we don’t make exceptions for other professions regarding this’ is incorrect. Sports figures, actors, machine operators all risk loosing their jobs over drug addiction. There’s more, but that will do for now.
One cannot legally be bound to a contract signed while under the influence, why would you reject as ‘irrelevant’ the concept that a career choice made under the influence and based on the economic realities of that dependency is less than voluntary?
While there may be some evidence that some sex workers would get treated for STD’s under a legalization plan, please address how to handle the sex worker who is opting to continue with an unregulated employment (which occurs, remember?)
And, both you and Biggirl make the same, wrong assertion that property values is not a legitimate concern. Once again, for the record – yes, indeed other industries and businesses can cause property values to diminish or cause other problems. However, in each case presented, there are other specific benefits accrued to society as a whole with these industries. The same cannot be demonstrated for the sex industry. In addition to the lonnng list of negatives associated with the sex trade.
My comments about free speech were used as an example of individual rights vs. societal rights. You failed to address that. My point with that section is that individual rights and freedoms are often restricted when they conflict with the rights of the society as a whole. So, the individual who wishes to purchase sexual favors to the detriment of the rest of the society should have their wishes declined.
My remarks about making things legal since they occur anyway were flippant. However, so is the argument that “people are going to do it anyhow”. That same argument would apply to absolutely every criminal behavior. So, please chastise the posters who originally raised the issue instead of me.
Absolutely correct. However, we do have some data available, and not simply from the aspect of public morality. The data available suggests that there are actual, negative impacts from the practice certainly to those who in close proximity, let alone the issues of the workers themselves, their families, the clients families etc.
curious. You seem to be agreeing that by having the practice legalized, that the attending illegal activities would be more difficult to discover.
My discussion re: probationary sentences etc. were aimed at assisting those sex workers who are in the trade through the coercive nature of drug addiction. I thought I ‘d made that clear.
Now, you make this statement re the cites I gave “readings not unbiased” This bothers me, since the tone is that I am wasting my time, and everyone else’s with ‘flawed’ arguments and ‘biased’ cites. what exactly, if you will, do you mean by that? Do they support what I say? Yes. They represent a wide range of places, from news sources, to governmental sources, to a personal website of a former sex worker. I don’t recall a whole lotta cites from the other side. But, in any event, I call on you to explain calling them “Biased” (or more accurately ‘not unbiased’}.
And so , having rejected much of my arguments as ‘irrelevant’ to you, you declare my assumptions unsupported. Sorry. I disagree, they are not irrelevant to the discussion, nor to the people involved. You can disagree all you wish. Please, however, provide some evidence to support your position.
Since wring is no longer responding to me and Collounsbury made most of the same points as I am trying to make, only much more eloquently than I ever could, this post is mostly unneccessary. Yet I went through a lot of trouble writing it, so I’m going to post it any way. Criminalizing prostitution stops illegal human trade
Proof of this is given in this link, which shows that in Amsterdam women are coerced into prostitution even though it is legal there.
To prove a different point, wring provided this link that shows that traffiking is flourishing even where protitution is illegal.
Given that criminals are far more reluctant to report crimes than non-criminals, it stands to reason that putting these kidnapped women in the midst of a bunch of criminals instead of people who are legally plying their trade would make it far less likely that these crimes will be reported.
Criminalizing prostitution stops distruptions in families
No proof is given for this. I don’t see how arresting prostitutes can be anything but distruptive. In case I need proof of this, here is a link to show just how disruptive it is. Here’sanother in case one cite is not enough. One more to emphasize my point.
Criminalizing prostitution keeps property values from going down.
I’m not even sure how to address this. I think (although I’m not sure) that wring is saying arresting streetwalkers is linked somehow to keeping property values up. And it is up to me to somehow prove that not arresting streetwalkers will keep property values up. O.K., I’ll give it a shot.
Property values go down if there are streetwalkers in the vicinity. A properly regulated prostitution industry will keep streetwalkers out residential neighborhoods. Also, continued police activity brings property values down. Less police activity means a less reduction in property value.
(An aside. If you have streetwalkers in your neighborhood, it is more than likely the property value in said neighborhood is already depressed.)
Criminalizing prostitution stops the spread of disease
How? I contend that the exact opposite is true. Where prostitution is legal there are mandatory check-ups and condom use. Where it is not legal there is mandatory nothing.
I have tried throught this thread to answer all questions presented to me by wring. She, on the other hand has dismissed everything I have said as irrelevant and invalid.
I was going to ask (again) if there was anything inherent and intrinsic in the act of trading sex for money that calls for prostitution to be criminalized, but since I seem to be on wring’s ignore list I probably won’t even get the flippant and rude dismissals that have been being passed off as answers, much less a thoughtful response.
Yes. It offends the sensibilities of those to whom it represents turpitude. Not to mention, though I will anyway, the fact that it really irritates some people because it scrapes all the bullshit off of the oldest transaction humanity knows: sex for stuff.
I know most of the people around here hate it when I say this because they find it so inconceivable, but for a large number (we won’t quibble about majorities) of women, prostitution absolutely is empowering. SHe decides who, when and how much. And nobody has to run any games on anybody else to get what they want.
In the final analysis, it is simply astonishing to me that anyone, much less the government, feels they have the right to tell a woman (or a man) whether they can receive money for sex. What possible business that is of anyone not a party to the transaction is beyond me.
No, I don’t think so, rather you have approached from another direction without directly addressing her analysis.
I believe I already made that clear, you are making the logical leap that there is causation. I know from other industries on the low end of the social scale that there is, above all among those industries where illegal immigrant labor is used, coercion irrespective of illegality. Therefor, logically speaking one can not make the leap to causation. You seem not to want to follow this logic, as you wish.
It’s also wrong and non relevant. As is your response, where mix the idea of expelling drug users from the workplace with the concept of banning the actual business. Quite simply, this illogical, other than of course you want prostitution to be illegal. Insofar as there is a drug problem, it can addressed within the same context as any other industry.
I restate, coercion in re employment is to be considered only in the matter of its standard definition. Widening it serves no purpose here other than to gerrymander standards.
Because, quite simply, (a) if the contract is made other the influence then its void, we already have legal recourse. Of course proving this is in fact the problem. The problem is no different than any other form of employment, including those which you do not find morally objectionable. (b) economic dependency is a matter completely seperate in fact, and I see no reason to introduce once more a novel standard simply because the issue is morally offensive to a segement of the population. If we were to make such arguments in re economic dependency = economic coercion, well we no longer have the capitalist system. This line of logic leads us down well-known paths. I am sure that Aynrandlover or Freedom or others on the libertarian side of things would love to expound on how dangerous this line of analysis is.
In any I regard this as simply attempting to muddy the waters.
Non-regulated trade is not legal. Ergo subject to police control. Same as before. No change. A properly constructed legalization needs to have carrots and sticks. From my limited understanding of the Senegalese example, sex-trade workers, prostitutes have near 100% participation in the health aspects, free check ups and the like. Carrot. Stick, you’re subject to police action for non-participation.
In re the legal of business, no it is not for your complaining, a proper concern. It is a matter of regulation and zoning, not criminalization. The businesses which may be described as having negative effects on neighbors property values are legion, from power plants to bars to nightclubs to mines.
We do not, in any of the above cases, react by criminalizing the activity. Of course we do see historically one exception, that is of course the bars and nightclubs -to the extent they served alcohol. That of course was repealed. Otherwise, one regulates and zones. A matter of cost and benefit, balancing gains versus losses.
I am unaware there are real benefits accrued to society by bars, per se. Socialization? Entertainment, well sex is entertainment – excluding the moral equation for the purpose of this analysis. If it were not, we wouldn’t see so much aping of it, nor pornography. Further, in terms of costs and benefits, one looks for reducing burden on society, as per legal consumption of alcohol. If legalization reduces the burden, has positive public health effects, then Therefor, it strikes me that once more we are not using objective standards.
Because I regard it as irrelevant. If I were arguing it is not legal for you to criminalize prosititution, then it would be relevant. That is not the argument at all. So, I see no reason to waste time addressing irrelevancies.
That is a particularly mis-guided, willfully so I have to say, reading. My statement in re black market activities was, I think clear. You asserted that continued criminalization will produce better data in re participation. I simply observed that illegal/black market actiities are characterized by their lack of transparency and difficulties in collecting data, knowing who is involved etc. I find no reason to beleive that this is not also the case in re prostution. Ergo, legalized one should have a better idea of who is participating. Illegal activities remain, of course, illegal and ergo in the same state. There is no logical reason to say that they become “more difficult.” Rather, those activities which remain illegal remain in the same state.
It means that from my point of view the conclusions you are drawing are coming from a particular pre-concieved position. That’s fine, but it’s not unbiased. You have your position, you’re reading the data in that light. I do think you are making a number of analytical errors, but that is dicussed above.
Why? I’m basing my analysis on the present evidence. My entire intervention is based around my feeling that the evidence presented was not being analyzed in rigorous manner. I feel I have adequately suggested that there is another, logical reading of the evidence. On the other hand, this may not make the case in its entirety.
Collounsbury - if you are going to attempt a socio-economic analysis of the situation, you are 100% wrong to exclude public attitudes from the equation.
The goal of any government should be to maximize utility in the country. To those who believe prostitution is wrong, their net utility will be reduced by legalizing it. The question must be whether the aggregate reduction in utility amongst those who believe that it should be illegal will be offset by the increase in utility amongst those who think that it should be legal.
Now obviously this in principle is an extraordinarily difficult analysis to do, since each person will have a multivariate non-linear utility function appropriate to their value system.
However I am trying to demonstrate that there is a large utility drain from the attitudes towards women that prostitution is both a symptom and feedback cause of.
Or to present it in a more readable fashion: as a society, or as a culture if you wish, we decide that some things are not acceptable. At this point it is largely irrelevant whether we could better regulate those involved in the unacceptable activity if we were to legalize it since Legalisation is a tacit condonence of the act.
From this point of view, it is entirely reasonable to compare the attitudes towards the criminalization of murder, theft, fraud, insider trading or any other illegal activity you care to name: as a society we do not wish to condone them. We wish to stop their taking place. If we wish to do this, we must make them illegal so that we have a tool to stop it happening.
Now, Biggirl, Stoid et al - I’d like to address the comparison between trading sex for money and trading groceries for money. Maybe it is my Western 20th century-informed opinion, but I’d suggest that there is a difference. Sex involves the insertion of one person’s body part into another’s. By definition this is intimate and will involve emotional contact. People - even, I have no doubt, prostitutes - need their personal space in everyday life. This is about the biggest invasion of personal space there is and shouldn’t be treated so lightly.
My point? Well - when one gives over money to the grocer in order to buy some groceries, the transaction doesn’t involve the setting aside of such personal mores. To a certain extent, yes, this is also a coercive act - in that without the money the grocer wouldn’t be handing you those groceries - but the coersion has negligable effect since we have not decided as a society that there is not a personal invasion associated with handing over groceries. On the other hand when a man gives a woman money to have sex with him, when she would not otherwise of her own free will do so, he is causing her to allow invasion of that personal space in a manner we would find unacceptable if he were using a different coercive means, such as drugs or physical strength.
To crystallize the above argument by thinking about it from a slightly different perspective:
In England, if you are unemployed and wish to collect your dole money from the government you must (within reason) accept any job offer they present to you. Whether or not this is the case over in the US I do not know - regardless, I suspect many people think that this is how things should be run. It is not hard to postulate such a system.
Anyhow - if prostitution was legal like any other profession then when you go to collect your dole money, you could quite easily be told “Right, we have a position for you. On Monday you start work in a brothel.”
To my mind this would be unacceptable. Why? Because I would feel each “transaction” was, basically, a rape.
Collounsbury - I hope that the above also gives some indication as to why I feel your analysis is ultimately bereft unless you include some take on morality.
[sub]::muttering…:: Or maybe I’m just an old-school feminist liberal left behind in the wake of corporate capitalism. After all, nothing should be left unsacrificed in the persuit of the almighty dollar. mumble mumble mumble[/sub]
In terms of actually formulating policy, quite true, which is why I explicitely noted that I was (a) excluding moral questions for reasons of clarity (b) not intending to comment on their validity by such an exclusion, but simply doing so clarify the analysis.
However, in terms of understanding aspects of the argument, one has break them out in a coherent way in order to understand the actual policy and its actual reasons.
Frankly, fairly clearly current policy does not depend on a dollar and cents cost benefit analysis, but on other issues. That’s not wrong at all, societies make choices.
Quite right. However, the utility is not the sole function, I believe that in Senegal most folks have attitudes in re the subject not so different from the West, however there was a large gain to be had in re public health. There you go, an offsetting consideration. Further, to an extent as in the drug legalization question, one needs to ask in terms of formulating policy whether the public is correctly assessing its utility. It may be that the gains they think they are getting from a given policy are not actually there. In which case as a policy maker, one has a duty to inform and possibly change.
Absolutely, and they may, in this case, have different values per public versus private action.
Shrug. I this is an unprovable. Further, I disagree that there is a necessary connection between the two.
I begin to have trouble with this when you start with invasion of personal space. It’s an invasion if it is unwelcome. I don’t presume to judge the myriad reasons why it might be welcome.
You’re making the presumption either act involves personal mores. I don’t believe this is a necessary or reasonable one.
To comment further:
I don’t think this is coercion in any meaningful sense, per my comments above in the prior messages. Definitions of coercion which include freely decided transactions exclude free market commerce in general. I see from your comment below that you may indeed have an issue in that regard. That would be a whole different discussion so we will have to agree to disagree on this point.
(a) the issue of personal invasion – in many ways the personal space issue is no different than that of a massage. If there is no coercion and both parties consent, there is no issue of invasion of personal space.
(b) you’re presuming to judge “her free will” and the reasons behind. I take a woman out to dinner, wine her and dine her, she knows I’m an accomplished professional with dinero, she sleeps with me for various reasons. I see no necessary support for your presumption of coercion.
Dole Example:
Could but not necessarily. Obviously this is a policy issue – but insofar as I understand the present American system --being out of the country now-- one is not compelled to take work which is morally offensive to the person. E.g. I have never heard of a woman having her benefits pulled because there are exotic dancing jobs available and she did not take one.
I think we can lay this aside as an issue easily dealt with in the framework of regulation.
In this particular case, yes.
Bereft? Well, from your point of view, yes I understand it quite well. I don’t have much regard for the whole issue, but seperate from that, the discussion is clearer if one deals with the issues seperately. I do note once more that I did not (in terms of the larger public policy rather than my personal point of view) reject morality, I abstracted away in order to clarify some arguments while keeping the issue in the foreground.
Perhaps that would be the case. I don’t see how corporate capitalism works into this, however.
Err, what I mean by this was that the act involves violating personal mores. Obviously it does involve them at some level, even if in the absence thereof.
I will respond at length to the whole deal, but before I do, this:
**Originally posted by Biggirl
**
deserves special attention.
Look back, please. I would respond at length, using sites to support my point, you would respond with “It is moral outrage that keeps prostitution illegal. All the other reasons are quite ancillary.” then, you follow up with "Let me reiterate in case my meaning has been lost. The reason why prostitution is still illegal is because a great many people have a moral problem with it. " and yet again "Selling sex for money involves two people (or more if that’s what you’re paying for). Everything else is ancillary. There is nothing inherent in the act of selling sex that warrents it’s criminalization. Except that people just don’t like it. " and then "I believe prostitution laws interfere with personal rights and freedoms. If two consenting adults want to trade money for sex, that is their personal business. Whether or not I or anybody else finds it distastful or think it degrading should have no bearing on the matter. " and your next one was "It shouldn’t be a crime to sell sex. This is an intrusion on the rights of people to with their own bodies what they " can you see why I made the statement that you were simply repeating yourself?
It was only after those quotes that I started saying in essence. ok, if you’re not going to support your postion, answer my challenges, why should I bother answering you?
And, now I’m the bad guy? you posted stuff about other occupations, I asked for you to provide a single occupation that simulataneously: caused both real and percieved damages to those not engaged in the activity, and had no benefit intrinsict to itself for the rest of society. (IOW, farming, mining, etc all have serve greater needs of the population as a whole). And instead of providing such an example, you merely repeated your position that you don’t think it should be interfered with, THAT’S what I refused to answer.
I spent quite a bit of time assembling the links, looking for them etc. and to be dismissed with “I believe prostitution laws interfere with personal rights and freedoms” as if I hadn’t shown that more than an individual’s own personal rights were involved, well, I thought it was (what were the terms you used? oh yea) rude and dismissive.
All individuals living in a complex society are subject to having their personal freedoms limited somewhat. All of us. The bill of rights and constitution provide for the right to ‘life, liberty and pursuit of happiness’ . Note that it does not say that you are entitled to everything you want. And once one individual’s rights to life, liberty pursuit etc causes another individual to loose some of their rights, then the first one’s are curtailed. So, you may believe all day long that prostitution as a trade only effects the persons engaging in it, but others vehemently disagree. Those include, of course, courts (including SCOTUS), and Cecil (who’s column I linked called it a ‘nuisance’).
and as for your links about the effects of incarceration and specifically on moms etc. you’re preaching to the choir. I ran a correction center for women for 14 years, remember? But, the links do NOT demonstrate that the dire effects suffered by the families of those arrested for engaging in prostitution were limited to those due to the incarceration. IME, the familiy members were suffering long before incarceration, and due specifically to both the prostitution and the other ancillary issues (violence, drug addiction etc.).
First of all Biggirl I did not make the assertion that criminalization stops illegal trafficing in humans. Instead, I showed the legalization does not stop the illegal trafficing in humans. As for relative numbers (if there’s fewer trafficed in legalized areas etc.), we don’t have data, except to note that most of legal sex workers in Amsterdam are foreigners. The same is not true (from what data I’ve seen) of the US. We apparently do have some coming in, but there’s no shortage of home grown workers.
I also did not assert that Criminalization stops disruption in the families. (this is going to take forever if I have to answer positions I didn’t take). Legalization certainly doesn’t either. Again the relative numbers are not available, and impossible to distinguish the disruption factors due to simply the incarceration of the sex worker vs. the other aspects of the trade (odd hours, emotional toll, physical abuse, substance abuse etc.).
I also did not assert that criminalization stops property values from going down. What I did show is that prostitution is linked to property values going down. Legalizing the process would change that… How??? Not that I can see, or that you’ve demonstrated.
’
I’ve also not asserted that criminalization would stop the spread of disease (when are you going to actually answer an arguement that I DID pose?) as a matter of fact, I noted that there was some evidence that regulation of the trade made some avenues into the reduction of spread of disease. But I also note for the record, that for those sex workers who test out positive, they aren’t allowed to work legally anymore, but how do you prevent them from working illegally?
I’ll move on to some one elses. For the Record Biggirl I answered each item you just posed. Of course, not one of them were positions that I had taken.
So you’re saying that many women enjoy being prostitutes because, were they not prostitutes, they could not be able to choose who they would have sex with or when and how often they would have it? If this is true, then how can you say that these women made a free choice to become prostitutes? I would not consider the choice between having no control over my sex life and becoming a prostitute a choice at all.
I don’t doubt that some women feel that prostitution really is the only way for them to have control of their sex lives. It may even be that in our society most women cannot control their sex lives without engaging in some form of prostitution, even if it is not literally a sex-for-money transaction. But if this is the case it is because there is something deeply wrong with our society. Prostitution would be a symptom of that problem rather than its cure.
I would be all for legalizing prostitution if I thought it could be done in such a way that the only prostitutes would be people who had made a genuinely free choice to become prostitutes, and that these people would not be exploited. As I have said before, I think this is possible in theory but have seen no evidence that it could currently happen in the real world. It certainly cannot happen if women become prostitutes because they think it is the only way they can have control over their own bodies.
and now on to Collounsbury : Biggirl has repeated her assertions, not answered my questions, just submitted a long list of rebuttals to arguements that I didn’t make, and you still see me being evasive? hmmm.
You submit that I’m using the causation falicy. Gotcha. When dealing, however, with the social sciences, it is very difficult to weed out specific cause/effect analysis. Also a factor is individual vs. societal needs. So, while the individual, for example, may desire to have the marching band practice in his backyard from 2 am to 6 am, but since other people would be adversely affected, it probably wouldn’t be allowed. Conversely, if an industry has problems and issues, and is needed for the common good (such as farming), the industry would be allowed, but attempts would be made to diminish the problems associated with it. So far, no one has demonstrated, despite my requests, that prostitution is necessary for the common good.
Similarly, your dismmissal again as irrelevant, the issue of drug addiction is wrong. When the link is as strong as it is with prostitution (except of course, for the individual persons that Stoid knows, the objective data certainly links the two), it is a relevant issue. If you had an industry where a great percentage of the people were addicted, the issues relative to the addiction certainly are relevent to the discussion of prostitution as a whole.
Both you and Biggirl continue to attempt to carefully slice the issue of prostitution from all of the other ancillary factors. Can’t reasonably be done. One has prostitution, one has the other problems as well. You do this to attempt to bring about a discussion of exactly and only the monetary transaction between two individuals sex for money.
However, it does not exist except as a factor in the greater society. Women prostituted themselves in order to survive in the past. and still do. Since currently the prostitution also includes drug addictions, problems for neighborhoods, problems for other people in the society and the practice performs no instrinsically necessary function for the society as a whole, it is futile to attempt to discuss the issue simply as the one finite act. It is linked, and irretrievably so.
Most of the observable data indicates a strong link (not a causal, I don’t know one causes the other, I merely note that where one has prostitution, one also has substantial percentage of drug addiciton). Stoid maintains that there are legions of other sex workers out there who aren’t studied, but without supporting evidence, it would seem (not just to me, but to the hosts of other people conducting reasearch), that Stoids folks are the minority.
your discourse on ‘economic coercian’ doesn’t really address the concern that I have. Perhaps I wasn’t clear. Certainly there are vile jobs all over the place. Most people have some level that they will not go to. And certainly, that level is different for each person, and of course no, we don’t disallow fast food places 'cause folks don’t like working there. (wasn’t that a reduction to absurdity falicy you tried there?). During the ‘old west’ days, there were only a few positions that a woman could have in society. A wife/child/housekeeper/maid, a teacher, or a prostitute. If the woman had no male/household to protect her and live with, did not have the education necessary for being a teacher, she entered into prostitution or starved. That’s economic coercion that the examples you showed did not have.
Again, both SCOTUS and a host of many others, see the link to reduction of property values as a valid and overriding concern. You wish to continue to negate it. Fine. There’s no further position to take, since you have mandated that the wishes of the few would overide the rights of the many.
(and by the way, you derided me for my frustration with** Biggirl’s ** continued repittion of her point without addressing mine, then go on to say ". So, I see no reason to waste time addressing irrelevancies. " ?? Interesting that only I am held accountable for this)
You addressed my question about you calling the links ‘not unbiased’, by saying that I had preconceived notions and the links, therefore supported them? You called the links ‘not unbiased’. If my sources agree with my conclusions, and my sources are fine, then why are you using ‘not unbiased’? You know what? nevermind. You have decided that my opinions are preconceived, therefore my points are irrelevant, my supporting documentation, tho’ it does support my arguement, are irrelevant. There is no point.
This is going nowhere. I have better things to do with my time than to re-answer the same tired stuff. Those who wish to effect a change in the laws feel free to make the attempt.
FTR. Those people who are involved in prostitution involuntarily (through drugs, economic conditions, or coercion) need help to get out of the life. Legalizing the process would not help them.
Wring, it’s your replies which brought me into this, and I suspect will keep me in it. Your analysis lacks cohesive logic. Why don’t you simply argue the moral angle, since that is where you actually are coming from? Further, I see no reason for your abusive tone towards Biggirl. You may not agree nor like her analysis of the same data, which we all admit is ambiguous, but that does not call for bullying responses. (Of course I realize I have oft been accused of the same so say this with a bit of humbleness, nonetheless, I believe that BG’s repies have not merited your tone.)
To which I have already replied, as did Biggirl, that this is not a function of prostitution but of immigration policy. If not prostitution then something else.
I also observed that one would not expect any policy to utterly stop any problem, rather the problem is the benefits versus losses involved.
In other words, you are erecting a false standard of analysis.
In other words, the whole thing is apples and oranges and thus largely irrelevant. Waffling does not make coherent arguments.
Now in re Property Values:
This is simply disingenuous. First, property values are not relevant to criminalization, many industries, up to and including such perfectly legal industries such as the bar and nightclub industry share this issue. One deals with the property value issue in the same framework, through zoning and regulation. Very simple.
In re continuation of illegal work and health issues:
Insofar as I responded, this is a trifle disingenuous also: Firstly in re the example of Senegal, where I derive my information from personal communication with the head of Population Council (a friend) participation is high in the public health aspects. Insofar as regulation is posited and therefor subject to state controls, we have a method of control and one can suppose a reduction of risk and incidence. As mentioned before ** no ** policy eliminates risks or problems, to posit critiques on this basis is neither honest nor rational.
Your analysis continues to reflect the classic fallacy of the excluded middle as well as confusing correlation with causation.
Now, a few comments on the reply directed to me.
No, I do see you using straw men and incorrectly characterizing her responses, at least from my point of view. Evasion would imply that you are understanding the issue within the same framework, I don’t think that is happening.
Quite true.
I believe that I replied in this vein already. You ignored that. Fine, however let us not pretend that it has not been addressed. Now, if you wish to reject on moral grounds sex as commercial recreation and entertainment, feel free to do so, although I personally see no problem. Further, I have already noted I see your standard as unnecessary. My analysis has been based around reduction of social costs. Insofar as that is possible, although not ipso facto the result of legalization, I see legalization (of prostitution, much illegal drugs) as recommendable. Again, you mischaracterize the responses.
Drug addiction is also easily linked to being a rock and roll star, a hollywood star, etc. ad nauseum. This is not a proper basis to argue for criminalization of the activity. One can address this within the context of regulation and treatment. I already made this observation, so I see no reason to develop the issue.
From your POV, which is not terribly convincing to me. You continue to commit a number of logical fallacies, not the least of which is that of the excluded middle. By positing black or white solutions, you exclude a range of analytical choices and seriously mischaracterize the issue. This is the issue which brought me into the discussion --I frankly don’t care to pay for play so I am not particularly interested in the subject— however I do prefer clear, clean analysis.
One has clubs, one has other problems along with it. Etc. I find your argument unconvincing.
Your arguments are by assertion, based on logic which I have already suggested which is faulty. (A) The connection between drug abuse and the profession strikes me as neither necessary nor sufficient for criminalization. I don’t even see it as necessary to the profession. A linkage which may be an artefact of its illegality more than an inherent feature of the profession. Again, while you rightly note that issues of causation are difficult to establish in re social problems, asserting causation is not good logic nor good policy. (B) In re intrinsic value, here we have a value judgement. I may or may not agree with it, in fact I don’t, but leaving that aside, I might — as did those who pushed through Prohibition— that alcohol provides little or no intrinsically necessary positive contribution to society, above all bars and clubs where all kinds of negative things go on. However, this is not a basis for criminalization.
Your argument remains obscure to me: insofar as it is understandable, I do not see an objective standard upon with one introduces your broad based coercion. As such, I remain firm in my opinion that the standard view of coercion, not the slippery slope version, is the proper standard.
See, this is precisely the sort of argumentation which drew me into this debate. Firstly, it’s unnecessarily bullying (mind you I appreciate some good sarcasm and gloves off pokes when we have fine, clear evidence and someone is just being stupid. Should I come to be convinced the evidence is at a good level of confidence I will humbly accept a whumping) and secondly badly mischaracterizes my comments. The later is rather unforgivable in my book — above all since it is hard to see this as a misreading, although I could be wrong.
I have already stated, in re the substance of the subject, that the issue of property values is not an issue of criminalization but rather regulation. I have never stated or even suggested that “a minority” overrides a “majority” — indeed insofar as regulation is developed by a democratic government it most certainly will be a majority choice. To say that this is not an issue of criminalization does not mean it is not of concern, but rather I do not see it as logically supporting criminalization.
So, let us leave aside straw men, and deal with meat. You seem to be packing it in, sorry about that, but I frankly do not see you as addressing the issues in an intellectually rigorous and honest way.
Maybe yes, maybe no. In terms of a clear and strict definition of involuntary, I rather see the issue as one of immigration law and the vagaries of application than of prostitution per se. By the way, in re evidence, my read is you have an a priori reading thereof and the issue of selection bias is operative. But that’s just me.
Thank you wring for the thoughtful and non-dismissive response.
I keep repeating myself because you have yet to answer any of my questions. All you have done is reiterated the problems attendant to prostitution. Yes, we agree that there are problems with prostitution as it is practiced now. I see that you have read my questions because you have listed them in your post, but where have you answered them?
Why do you hold prostitution to a different standard than all other professions?
Is selling sex for money inherently bad? If so why?
It appears that you believe prostitution to be something it is not, as evidenced by this remark:
**
Demonstrate to me how it is “irretrivably linked”. You are making assumptions that you seem to think everyone else should also be making. I did not make these assumptions so therefore:
Which is kind of funny because this is exactly what I think you are doing.
By having a well regulated industry where customers can go to and know the workers are checked regularly? And is it me, or does this objection highlight one of the better reasons why prostitution should be legal?
You don’t think that taking streetwalkers off the street is going to help this problem? And here is the double standard again. The one where prostitution needs to meet some greater standard because it’s. . . um, I don’t know. I’m still waiting for the answer.
You’re right, you did not say these exact words. What you said was:
**
Which I took to mean that the way families deal with the distruption of prostitution in their neighborhood is by arresting the prostitutes. Which doesn’t work evidenced by the fact that this still continues to be a problem.
Does Denmark have a streetwalker problem? Not according to this site. They don’t have a pimping problem either. But it doesn’t matter because I’m sure you’ll find this irrelevant.
It seems to me your fustration is more out not wanting to step off of your soapbox and debate than my repeated questions.
do not presume to tell me, please that my motivation is ‘obviously from the moral standpoint’. You don’t know me.
Prostitution is characterized as a victimless crime, and IME, it is wrongfully so characterized. You dismiss the issues of harm to bystanders, property owners etc. since you percieve that the simple exchange is different from the practice. Perhaps in a less complex society (tho I have doubts), definately in a simulated world of a computer, but hardly so in real life.
You characterize my frustration with Biggirl with being rude. She, too called it rude and dismissive. It was bothersome to me, since I’ve never seen/had a problem with her before in any other thread. Furthermore, I do not agree that my tone was abusive, I called her no names, I didn’t refer to her arguments in rude terms. Blunt, yes. But I was extremely polite up until I percieved her not answering my counter points. Polite did not elicite additional information. Blunt did.
I understand your position. You wish to examine the practice in a clinical fashion, simply analyzing each facet from purely analytical viewpoint, thinking that this gives your position more weight, since you contend that you aren’t swayed by emotion etc. However, since we speak of the practice in real world with real people and issues, I think your analysis leaves much to be desired. However, I’m sure you’ll disagree.
Studies have been linked to show harm done. instead of analyzing the information within it or contesting the source as biased, you wish to dismiss them, since I provided them and I ‘have a preconcieved position’.
This frankly really irritates me. By submitting that, you imply that I search only for things that support my view, and trash/hide the things that don’t. In every other debate that I’ve been in on, if there were studies or facts shown that do not support my view, I looked at them. If they were from a reliable source, I modified my position as necessary. Re: reliable source, I did not find, for example a right wing columnists’ article to be compelling evidence of election issues, nor did I find Stoids links from her step mom’s organization to be compelling evidence that their experience was anything like the norm for sex workers. The former because the source had an agenda that coincided with the ‘evidence’ presented, the latter, the same objection as well as the fact that there were many other sites that supported the contrary.
I can deal with the disagreement about the issue. I am seriously offended at this.
Biggirl. You and I have never (to my knowledge) had a problem before. I acknowledge that I got curt with you. Can we both agree to dispense with the attitude? (such as this: “It seems to me your fustration is more out not wanting to step off of your soapbox and debate than my repeated questions.”) Seriously. I think the rudest I got was saying I’d not answer you until you did more than repeat your assertions. If I am wrong and was more rude than that, I apologize, but this is not the tone I wish to continue with, either giving or recieving.
we seem to come at this from a fundementally different perspective. For me, to undertake a drastic change in how society conducts itself, there needs to be compelling evidence to suggest that it is in the greater best intersts of us all. That is why questions like ‘why shouldn’t it be legal’ don’t make sense to me. Because you see, the point at which the question should have/could have been asked, has been and gone.
We live in a complex society, with a dynamic ecosystem of interrelations. For example, the issue with gas prices is more than simply the cost to run some one’s SUV, it includes the trucking industry, which connects it to virtually all retail busineses, as well as domestic oil production, import/export ratios etc. So, say, simply insisting that all trucks use ethanol vs. diesal, may have one intended effect, but many other unintended consequences. And, until all or most of the potentials are worked out, one shouldn’t make drastic changes.
In order to do this with prostitution, there are several methods that can be used. We can attempt to discern the current level of the practice and ascertain the relative numbers, percentages etc. This would be (IMHO) close to impossible because of the current illegality of the act (It’s also why we can’t do decent studies on the effects of currently illegal drugs) We can look at what has happened in areas where there has been some legalization, and study the effects. This is a more reasonable approach. I asked for data on the first page. The only one (until just now, thanks) was the ones I found re: Amsterdam. The only info I had re: Nevada were a few links that didn’t detail if there were problems or not, and the notion gleened from past newstories, that the ranches were intentionally located in remote areas. Whoops, spoke too soon. Biggirl please check your link, three times, no access. I would be happy to look at it. I had honestly looked for any links relating to the issues.
I have the opinion that the problems are irretrievably linked because to date, the only evidence that I have been able to see (both from other people here and searching on my own), have prositution linked to drugs, crime, lower property values etc. Other occupations have risks. But, it isn’t always true that say, whereever you have a movie set, you have drugs, crime etc. The only cites I’ve seen so far that don’t link them were stoids step mom’s links (which, like I said, are from a source with an agenda and are in direct conflict with other hard data from non -agenda’d sources). Ya got other evidence, I’d love to see it.
Other industries cause problems, but, again, the inevitabiltiy isn’t there. I would be willing to see them notlinked if anyone could provide data where there aren’t problems. (other than aforementioned type of source. reaseach facility, health organization, governmental link, news etc.)
The STD transmission rate is the only thing that I can see that might be of benefit. However, one of Stoids’ non step mom links in the other debate (I believe it was the CDC or something similar) demonstrated effectively for me that prositution was not a significant source of STD transmission. IOW, if STD transmission is your main concern, then your efforts would be better served working with high school students (IIRC, and I’m not certain that was the highest risk group).
The argument you quoted Biggirl about how society deals with the disruption - they use prostituion sweeps to (1) remove some of the problems and (2) at least get them to move out of an affected area. It’s less than a perfect tool, naturally, but legalization would remove that. It’s much more difficult to deal with ‘zoning’ issues (you’re not allowed to operate a business in a residential area for example), than criminal matters.
Now, is it more clear why your question “why souldn’t it be legalized” isn’t an answerable one, and why I’m focused on "why should it be?
and from this It seems that prostitutes are, in addition to their wages (which have been decreasing), collecting whatever the form of public welfare is, in order to subsist. It also finds that street walkers still exist.
a quote from there "Prostitution thus acts as barrier - effective if invisible - to receiving help to solve
prostitution-related social problems. This counts as true for non-prostitution related problems as
well. ", though on the plus side they don’t report much of a problem with pimps. (though they do admit that they don’t look for them either, just respond to complaints.)
Hey, I’m trying to find information that doesn’t suggest there’s continued problems.
Nor anyone on this board anyone else, ergo one judges by what one sees and reads.
Frankly, I don’t know why you are offended by this, as you clearly are. I have stated more than once I do see the moral critique as valid. I don’t personally share it, but I do see it as valid.
So, calm.
I fail so see a critique here, outside the moral one. I also don’t follow the issue of the computer, other than a sort of quasi-ad hominem that I am some sort of bloodless machine. Well, that might be true, certainly I’ve heard it before, but I still do not see the relevance.
It is. Sometimes that is understandable. I think, however, in re BG it is not warrented.
So, some of the posters I have gotten into tiffs in other threads I had no problem with outside of the specific subject.
I understand. Often what we write comes off diffenently than what we think it should. However, at least she and I read it in that manner. I suggest that this is not random.
All the same, if I thought it warrented I would not make comment here. However, I don’t think it is.
I do.
Firstly, let me say that I don’t consider myself a cold hearted person. Quite the contrary.
However, I do seek to try to address and resolve problems analytically understanding that I can not resolve all poverty and suffering. So, I want to know what is the most effective way to achieve the greater good per whatever standards seem achievable.
Harm is also done through poverty, etc. However, it is not abolishable through fiat. Ergo, one seeks other routes.
I do not think this is an accurate description of any of my arguments or analyses. I may be wrong, but per my memory, it is not the case.
No, I meant that you are interpreting the data through a particular analytical lens and excluding a number of other items. I refer you to my references to the fallacy of the excluded middle.
I understand that, see the above.
I understand and in the last reference, I agree.
I beleive you have misunderstood me, however to the extent to which I may have implied incorrectly that you were unwilling to look at new data, I do apologize.
If I may add that I would like to thank you for the gesture.
I wanted to add in regards to my Senegal information some documentation. While I hope I have established some degree of reliability in re the information I provide, I do not intend to rely only on personal communications. This does not really add anything new, but I feel quite uncomfortable not providing cites, even though in re this discussion I have preferred to remain dependent on the information provided.
So, in addition to the PC information, let me suggest the following: http://www.mg.co.za/mg/news/97mar2/25mar-aids.html
As the article suggests, the issue is not perfect (e.g. in re bureaucratic problems, but on the other hand, having worked in the 3rd world the issues mentioned are truly routine.). However, given the imperfections of the situation, the developing world is not easy, it appears from a public health standpoint the issue is clear.
in fact, according to this link there seems to have been quite the explosion in immigrant prostitute population in the past 10 years in Denmark.
Is it a coincidence that there’s concern about the illegal importation of women into Denmark and other countries?
I suggest that since, now I’ve found 2 countries with legalized prostitution, Netherlands which has most of their prostitutes are immigrants, and now Denmark with an explosion of same, there is some additional reason to be cautious in our drive to legalize it here. Is this an increase world wide (of world wide trafficing?)
Our experiences with migrant farm workers should give us additional reason to be concerned about the relative levels of immigrants in the biz. But that’s just me.