Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:03PM   Printer-friendly
from the touchy-subject dept.

Submitted via IRC for Bytram

Around the world, there's a growing movement to decriminalize sex work. Last year, Amnesty International, the largest human rights group in the world, came out with a recommendation that governments should decriminalize consensual sex work and develop laws that ensure workers are "protected from harm, exploitation and coercion." A United Nations commission has also come out in support of legalizing prostitution.

But the idea is a divisive one, stirring impassioned debates and concerns about the ways varying approaches could harm sex workers. Amnesty's recent policy drew strong support from public health advocates and intense backlash from those aiming to end prostitution completely.

Understanding the scope, harms and public health implications of policies addressing the world's oldest profession is really tricky. While prostitution - the buying and selling of sex - is a multibillion dollar industry, the sex trade is clandestine by nature. It's taboo. That makes it really hard to study, especially in the United States.

That's most often the case, except in this one part of the country, where the laws of prostitution were totally upended. It's a peculiar story that's largely left out of the current discussion. The place in question is not Nevada, where there's a small number of regulated brothels in certain rural counties.

It's a whole state - Rhode Island.

For several years, ending in 2009, indoor prostitution such as in massage parlors, strip clubs and through online escorts, was not a crime in this tiny New England State.

The whole thing happened somewhat unintentionally. But at the time, it fueled a heated public debate about sex, crime and health.

Years later, some are revisiting the lessons learned.

Source: http://www.newsworks.org/index.php/local/item/105393-prostitution-decriminalized-rhode-islands-experiment


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 4, Disagree) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday August 09 2017, @07:31PM (26 children)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Wednesday August 09 2017, @07:31PM (#551256) Journal

    ...what to make of this.

    From a pure harm-reduction standpoint, legalizing it is better than the current model we have...BUT...what i want to see is the Nordic Model, which is basically "selling is legal, buying isn't." This was explained to me by a close friend a trafficking survivor early on in my involvement with the movement, and her arguments made perfect sense.

    The one problem I see here is that this doesn't address the problem of pimps. She has been suffering with health issues and disabilities for 34 years, longer than I have been alive, because of what her pimp did to her, at age 16, *after having been his sex slave for 4 years,* SINCE THE AGE OF GODDAMN 12. I am not going to go into specifics, but it has completely unfit her for any kind of work other than working from home (which she IS doing...) and she probably will not live to see age 60 or even 55 at this rate. I am the only reason she is alive and working, and I am helping her on less than $20,000 a year gross income from 3 jobs.

    So I would propose a modified Nordic model: buying is illegal. Selling is legal iff (note the extra f in there, that is an "if and ONLY if" clause) the person in question is directly selling her, or his, services. Pimps are illegal as all holy fuck and the penalty for pimping ought to be right up there with buying.

    I will never, ever, ever forgive the sons of bitches who did this to her, or the other survivors, and especially not all the ones who didn't make it. Ever. Not until I visit them in hell and see for myself that they're paying their dues, and then see what kind of awful lives they get reincarnated into.

    But more than that...understand something: demand is created by johns, not pimps. If there were no johns, there would be no pimps. And something has gone massively fucking wrong with people when they think they have a right to another person's sexuality, at *any* price. Johns tend to be messed-up individuals; my poor friend tells me her worst "bad dates" would choke her out, hit her, threaten to break her bones, or even threaten to kill her. They got off on her fear and pain. And she says the worst of them were clergy, law enforcement, and even professors.

    No real effort to address prostitution is going to be complete without a sea change in how people, especially men, view sexuality, especially womens'. This isn't to leave out men in "the life," as one of my contacts is a man (and I would not wish his suffering on my worst foe). And while I don't know how many women go looking for male prostitutes, they are precisely as wrong and evil as men who go out whoring and for the same reasons.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=1, Interesting=2, Overrated=1, Disagree=2, Total=6
    Extra 'Disagree' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by maxwell demon on Wednesday August 09 2017, @08:01PM

    by maxwell demon (1608) on Wednesday August 09 2017, @08:01PM (#551271) Journal

    because of what her pimp did to her, at age 16, *after having been his sex slave for 4 years,* SINCE THE AGE OF GODDAMN 12.

    Which would remain illegal even after legalizing prostitution.

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @08:42PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @08:42PM (#551287)

    my poor friend tells me her worst "bad dates" would choke her out, hit her, threaten to break her bones, or even threaten to kill her. They got off on her fear and pain. And she says the worst of them were clergy, law enforcement, and even professors.

    It sure would be nice if she could then seek police protection without fear of prosecution.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @09:06PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @09:06PM (#551298)

    something has gone massively fucking wrong with people when they think they have a right to another person's sexuality, at *any* price.

    A "right", no.

    I fail to see what is massively wrong with a consensual agreement among adults. Sex is not immoral, desiring sex is not immoral, and the willingness to pay money for it is not immoral. It seems like the vast majority of the problems with the sex industry are compounded by its illegality.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @10:03PM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @10:03PM (#551327)

      the willingness to pay money for it is not immoral

      My viewpoint is a little different. I think sex is morally supposed to be more than a physical thing. If you're literally just paying someone for it, it's no more than a physical thing...And I'd consider that immoral.

      It's one of those things that keeps humans from just being animals.

      I know that's a pretty unpopular view that many people won't agree with, but I'd urge you to consider what the point of sex is; maybe it's possible to get past the cynicism and see that it should and even can be more than just physical relief.

      (But then, this article's discussion is focused on legality, not morality. One involves should/should not, but the other involves shall/shall not.)

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @11:27PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @11:27PM (#551348)

        I don't believe that sex is inherently sacred or meaningful and I don't believe that humans have souls that separate them from other animals.

        what the point of sex is

        Our intentions can give meaning to our words and actions. That is why we can give more meaning to sex and turn the act into "making love".

        Sadly, not everyone can find someone they can love.

        Thanks for pushing-back.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by fyngyrz on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:20AM (2 children)

        by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:20AM (#551368) Journal

        I think sex is morally supposed to be more than a physical thing.

        That's fine. For you. Those of us who think otherwise would just as soon you keep your personal or club's views on morality completely and utterly out of our lives, thanks.

        The only "moral" issue here, insofar as there is one, is that of informed consent.

        We can discuss what "informed" means, and we can discuss what "consent" means, and those are rich and interesting topics with broad applicability, in fact as near as I can tell universal applicability, but as soon as you, or anyone, starts to impose rules on top of those... y'all can totally trust me to keep your secrets, because I'm not listening.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:55AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:55AM (#551381)

          Different AC:

          I largely agree with you.

          There is at least one other moral aspect to some kinds of sex: responsibility. Responsibility to know your health status, even if asymptomatic, when engaging in sexual contact and the responsibility for the chance of pregnancy.

          You could argue that this could be covered under "informed", but people do not always make a good faith effort to inform themselves about their health status (because the truth can be scary) or actually consider the implications or risk of a pregnancy. Being ignorant in these matters would be irresponsible - not necessarily deceptive.

          • (Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Thursday August 10 2017, @07:21PM

            by fyngyrz (6567) on Thursday August 10 2017, @07:21PM (#551816) Journal

            You could argue that this could be covered under "informed", but people do not always make a good faith effort to inform themselves about their health status (because the truth can be scary) or actually consider the implications or risk of a pregnancy. Being ignorant in these matters would be irresponsible - not necessarily deceptive.

            I would argue exactly that.

            I view it as the responsibility of the educational system to inculcate the needed understanding. It's an awful failure that it generally doesn't.

            I think "informed" should be a matter of licensing. The line in the sand drawn by age that our chickenshit legislators have gone for is woefully unsuited to the task of actually letting us know if someone actually has a sufficient knowledge of sexuality, sexual health, social consequences at the time, etc. Sex can be just as dangerous to your life, and the lives of others, as a car wreck. It can radically change your future, all manner of knock-on effects are known, some medical, some emotional, some financial, etc. You should be tested; and I want to see your certification before we play.

            it's probably a good idea to formalize consent, too. Somehow. Man, there's a conversation starter. :)

            It's a huge can of worms, because the superstitious and the wanna-be mommy types will instantly try and impose their bat-shittery upon any sane attempt to clean up the huge, stinking mess they've made for the rest of us.

            It'd be nice if someone set up a private implementation of these things. Seeing as how getting the government to actually do the right thing here would be like trying to push a bank vault up a hill with a single q-tip.

      • (Score: 2) by t-3 on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:51AM

        by t-3 (4907) on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:51AM (#551377)

        So are you religious, and think sex is something that should only happen between a man and woman who are married, or you one of those people who have been brainwashed by renaissance-era troubadours? "Love" is a social construct, historically it's never been a factor in marriage or sex. Current views around marriage and sex descend from concerns about inheritance and legitimacy, with a heaping portion of racism and societal control on top. My morals tell me: people should be able to do what they like with their own bodies as long as they don't infringe on anyone else's rights. Sure, prostitute yourself, but non-consensual pimping is wrong (note the non-consensual, there's nothing wrong with a manager or agent, but nobody should be forced). People should also be free to seek the purchase of services from others as long as these services are willingly offered and not dangerous (the mentally disabled and those not capable of legal consent should obviously be protected, safe working conditions should be enforced (premises and persons regularly inspected and validated), mutilation/physical harm should be limited). With proper regulation, legal prostitution is entirely workable and would eliminate a lot of the trafficking, strip club "vip areas", etc. Of course, to really solve a lot of the problems, drugs ALSO need to be legal, and other black market economies brought into the light, because as long as there are desperate people there is an opportunity for exploitation...

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:34AM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:34AM (#551459) Journal

        I am absolutely with you on this, although I try not to let it inform my feelings about policies. Sex is...amazing, so, so, SO much more than just the physical aspect of it. I've only had two partners (and only wanted one; was really hoping for a civil union, and we had broken up before SSM was allowed in law). What they say about feeling like one soul, about melting into your lover, it's all true, all of it. You CAN just fuck, but for me personally, I'll just rub off or finger myself if all I want is an orgasm. There's a world of difference between having sex and making love.

        --
        I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by bob_super on Wednesday August 09 2017, @09:12PM

    by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday August 09 2017, @09:12PM (#551301)

    > If there were no johns, there would be no pimps. And something has gone massively fucking wrong with people
    > when they think they have a right to another person's sexuality, at *any* price.

    Religion and society frown upon men getting laid easily or for free, yet they have a strong impulse to it.
    They don't buy "a right to another person's sexuality", they buy the certainty of their own outcome. Some of them also buy experiences that they wouldn't get through the tortuous and uncertain accepted dating process.
    The fact that so many go overboard and hurt their provider is, as was already pointed out, a side effect of the social choice to make it near impossible for their victim to report the abuse. I won't choke and rape my baker, even if it makes my croissant taste a million times better, because I'd have to chat with not-nice uniformed people.

    > Pimps are illegal as all holy fuck and the penalty for pimping ought to be right up there with buying.

    We'll have to disagree. Pimps should be hung by a butcher's hook through the genitals until they die (with extra burning in the case of underage). Buyers, at least those who do not seek victims or abuse, should have a legal safe protected offer from willing safe licensed providers. Sick buyers can be dealt with with aggravated assault and rape charges, like my baker example would.

    Too many things would need to change in our civilization to remove demand. And there are incentives for people to provide the offer. There are stats saying that providing the offer is beneficial to reduce related crime. We just need a safe way to do it.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Arik on Wednesday August 09 2017, @09:55PM (7 children)

    by Arik (4543) on Wednesday August 09 2017, @09:55PM (#551324) Journal

    "what i want to see is the Nordic Model, which is basically "selling is legal, buying isn't." This was explained to me by a close friend a trafficking survivor early on in my involvement with the movement, and her arguments made perfect sense."

    More like perfect nonsense.

    "The one problem I see here is that this doesn't address the problem of pimps. She has been suffering with health issues and disabilities for 34 years, longer than I have been alive, because of what her pimp did to her, at age 16, *after having been his sex slave for 4 years,* SINCE THE AGE OF GODDAMN 12."

    All solidly covered under other laws.

    "Selling is legal iff (note the extra f in there, that is an "if and ONLY if" clause) the person in question is directly selling her, or his, services. Pimps are illegal as all holy fuck and the penalty for pimping ought to be right up there with buying."

    What might the "victims" have to say about this?

    How do allegedly protective laws get used against whores? For example, in both the United States and Europe, it is common practice for the police to use anti-pimping laws to ignore a whore's right to privacy. In pursuit of pimps, the police may break into the home of a known whore, riffle or confiscate her possessions, and harass anyone they find on the premises. The fear of such laws being used in reprisal makes many prostitutes reluctant to speak out or to become involved in community affairs. In turn, this makes them more alienated and less likely to break out of prostitution.

    Anti-pimping laws also act as a barriers to those prostitutes who wish to marry and get out of the business in that manner. The husband, even of an ex-whore, becomes automatically vulnerable to charges of pimping. This is true even of husbands who do not live primarily off their wives' whoring, but who share household expenses with her.

    But what of the husbands or lovers who are fully dependent on profits from prostitution? Are they not parasites living off the sexual wages of their wives? Whores are quick to point out that other women have the right to support their husbands and lovers. No one passes laws forbidding waitresses, lawyers, feminists, or secretaries from having dependent men in their lives. Why are whores the only women legally singled out in this manner?

    -- " rel="url2html-4395">http://www.wendymcelroy.com/vern2.htm

    "No real effort to address prostitution is going to be complete without a sea change in how people, especially men, view sexuality, especially womens'."

    I think we can agree on that at least.

    "And while I don't know how many women go looking for male prostitutes, they are precisely as wrong and evil as men who go out whoring and for the same reasons."

    But you won't extend the same opprobrium to women that go out looking for men that can be exploited for money, to women that go out looking for Johns.

    Why not?

    --
    If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:07AM (6 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:07AM (#551440) Journal

      My opinions on all this are still a bit conflicted, as the original post stated right at the start.

      What has me worried is a lot of the "just legalize it!" types are operating under the same basic assumption that hard libertarians or laissez-faire advocates do, viz., that all humans are rational actors 100% of the time. This is an especially odd thing to believe about law enforcement, who would *have* to be such for their ideas to work, and strikes me as an oddly, well, un-libertarian idea to hold. Humans are pretty screwed up (har har) about sex and sexuality, and I'd wager most people are too emotional to make "just legalize it!" work.

      Most of what you're quoting at me there is a reflection of dysfunctional enforcement of existing laws, rather than bad laws themselves, and for the reasons why see above about people, especially LEOs, not being rational actors. People prostituting themselves, especially women, are often viewed as less than human--if even only subconsciously--and their treatment by those with enforcement powers proves it...leaving aside what my poor friend has told me about how many "bad dates" WERE police. This is not something that will be solved with simple legal or technical changes, not least because you cannot legislate morality.

      Furthermore, calling one of these trafficking survivors whore, ho, prostitute, etc., is their River Styx; once you cross that there is no going back. J, my friend, was 12 fucking years old when she was orphaned and spent 4 years in a living Hell, ending with getting a knife stuck up her vagina by her pimp one day when he was just plain angry over something, which left her with disabling injuries that have forever unfit her for any normal job. I will leave the nature and extent of these to your imagination; think about what other organs and systems are in the general region aside from the reproductive tract. She saw a friend of hers pressed into "the life" at age fucking NINE, and that same friend watched that same pimp throw her mother out a third-story window, who then died an agonizing death over three or four days.

      And you want to sum up their suffering with "whore," as if they got up one fine morning and decided they were going to sell their bodies for money!

      Finally, your last comment, "But you won't extend the same opprobrium to women that go out looking for men that can be exploited for money, to women that go out looking for Johns. Why not?" exposes you as the "butbutbutbut WHUDDABOUT DA MENZ?! WIMMINZ IZ ALL GOLD DIGGARS!" type I suspected you were. You don't really care about the actual people being forced into prostitution, as you don't seem to draw a distinction between someone being pimped out and someone, for example, running a webcam show. The same goes for your scare quotes around "victims."

      Do you know what it is to "buy sex" from most people selling it? It is commercial rape. It is paying someone, most often not the someone you will be having sex with, money to use that someone's body, and very often mind, as a living masturbation toy. The proportion of johns who are just "lonely, good ol' boys looking for a relaxed shag and a chat" are so small as to be insignificant compared to the fucked-up, abusive, sociopathic sadists who more often than not vent the very worst of their evil against someone who is powerless to resist, and violate them in the worst ways.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by shortscreen on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:35AM (1 child)

        by shortscreen (2252) on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:35AM (#551478) Journal

        The proportion of johns who are just "lonely, good ol' boys looking for a relaxed shag and a chat" are so small as to be insignificant compared to the fucked-up, abusive, sociopathic sadists who more often than not vent the very worst of their evil against someone who is powerless to resist, and violate them in the worst ways.

        As long as it's criminalized, this is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Prohibition will filter out the benign johns, because they don't want to risk getting busted. The only johns that remain will be the ones who don't care about laws or have nothing to lose.

        Further more, decriminalization would make it possible to advertise terms and conditions and negotiate contracts carrying the force of law. A sex worker could simply state up front "I will not do X, Y, or Z" or decline to serve clients who ask for outlandish stuff. Clients who break the agreement could be made to face legal action.

        Lastly, while the idea that all men are wanna-be Boston Stranglers or Marquis de Sades may be a popular and amusing one, I don't think it is true. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that most who desire to be intimate with a woman don't wish to harm/abuse her but would just as soon see her enjoy herself.

        I see no reason to expect that ending prohibition would lead to more abuse than what exists currently.

        • (Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:45AM

          by Rivenaleem (3400) on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:45AM (#551523)

          Yes, this is along the same lines of "If you ban something, only criminals do it". Will there still be some shady practices if it is decriminalised? Sure there will. There's shady practices in all sectors of legal occupations, because no matter how legal something is, you're going to find a shady person trying to do something illegal to get a step ahead of their peers.

      • (Score: 2, Flamebait) by Arik on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:48AM

        by Arik (4543) on Thursday August 10 2017, @05:48AM (#551480) Journal
        "My opinions on all this are still a bit conflicted, as the original post stated right at the start."

        I could understand your *feelings* being conflicted, and empathize with that, but how can ones opinions be conflicted? That sounds to me like you have realized they are internally inconsistent?

        "What has me worried is a lot of the "just legalize it!" types are operating under the same basic assumption that hard libertarians or laissez-faire advocates do, viz., that all humans are rational actors 100% of the time."

        Yeah, no, we don't do that, not at all.

        Rather we posit that the ideal situation for full human actualization is one that results in us coming as close to that as possible. An entirely different position really.

        "This is an especially odd thing to believe about law enforcement, who would *have* to be such for their ideas to work"

        I don't follow. Legalization works by removing the authorization for law enforcement to intrude. How does that rely on LEOs behaving rationally? I honestly can't follow that at all.

        On the other hand, for ideas like 'we want anti-pimp laws but we don't want them used except against paragons of evil' you must rely, not so much on LEOs being 'rational' (where does that even enter in here?) but rather on them having, and using, a great degree of insight, empathy, and discretion - in situations where it could easily get them in trouble but is not likely to give them any benefit at all. By most standards, that would be more accurately summarized by saying that YOUR path of action is the one that can only work if LEOs do NOT behave rationally. And, in fact, it doesn't seem to have ever really worked that way, anywhere.

        I'm going to snip the gruesome story, it's horrifying and of course if it's true it's horrible. It's also, again, absolutely well covered under other laws. The problem was not that what was done to her was legal, just because you make something illegal doesn't mean it can't happen, capisce?

        "And you want to sum up their suffering with "whore," as if they got up one fine morning and decided they were going to sell their bodies for money!"

        Not at all, you've misunderstood that about as completely as it's possible to understand anything. First off not my word, but a quote, and I left a link to the source. Second, it's a word that sex worker advocates use deliberately, purposefully. COYOTE, for instance, advertises their meets as 'Whore Conventions.' An excellent book on the subject you should read is called "A Vindication of the Rights of Whores."

        What's offensive here is not what I say, but what you hear.
        --
        If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
      • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 10 2017, @09:50AM

        by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Thursday August 10 2017, @09:50AM (#551538) Journal

        What has me worried is a lot of the "just legalize it!" types are operating under the same basic assumption that hard libertarians or laissez-faire advocates d

        Have you considered that maybe there are two camps on the other side of the argument?
        "Just legalise" == Laissez faire capitalists
        "Legalise, regulate & support" == SOCIALISM!!!!!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:30PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:30PM (#551589)

        The proportion of johns who are [...]

        Keep in mind that your sample set is probably incredibly biased due to the nature of your job, the availability heuristic, and the representative heuristic.

        Anecdotes can be useful to point out problems with a position or the complexity of an issue, but your example, as mentioned by others, would still be very wrong and illegal even if prostitution were legalized. If you have any examples that would get worse as a result of legalization, then those would be much more useful for discussion.

        Your personal knowledge on this matter is very valuable.

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 10 2017, @09:52PM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday August 10 2017, @09:52PM (#551897) Journal

          Again: as I said before, from a purely harm-reduction standpoint, legalization and regulation are better than the status quo. Between the two, I support that. But I want to see an end to this entirely, and sooner rather than later. And simply changing laws and regulatory frameworks isn't enough, because people are stupid in general and stupid about sex in particular. There is no clean-cut, easy solution to this.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:04AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:04AM (#551364)

    Except, the swedish model DOESN'T work.

    Prostitution's still around, the prostitutes don't report their customers, even borderline abusive ones, oh, and since the selling is legal but not buying, you have created a perfect trafficking situation:

    A common method now is for Polish, Russian and other prostitutes to be dumped on the ferries across the baltic, sell their services for a day or two, then go back to where they came from. The german sex workers unions are up in arms because it's spread more STD's again.(they love the fact that they get more customers due to the Swedish model, otherwise...)

    And the swedish model was never intended to work. It's basically a 3rd wave feminist law, created as a propaganda tool.

    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:11AM

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:11AM (#551442) Journal

      And this is why I'm advocating for a modified version of it. Simply making a hard "buying illegal, selling legal" law leads to precisely the kind of horrible knock-on effects you mentioned. That's going to be the basis for the solution but it needs heavy nuance and tweaking. What we want to accomplish with this is stopping the pimping and the trafficking, and attacking the problem at the root (johns; no supply without demand!).

      I am personally not opposed, at least on principle and "in a vacuum" as it were, to individual people selling sexual services face to face, or doing something like explicit webcam shows. But the pimping has to stop. And ideally I'd like it to get to the point where no one *has* to resort to the world's oldest profession. If they *want* to, well, that's another story, and we should have provisions for that.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:40AM

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:40AM (#551421)

    my poor friend tells me her worst "bad dates" would choke her out, hit her, threaten to break her bones, or even threaten to kill her. They got off on her fear and pain. And she says the worst of them were clergy, law enforcement, and even professors.

    The ones in law enforcement don't surprise me one iota. Probably at least half the people in law enforcement are there because they lust for power over other people.

    The ones in clergy make me curious: how many were Roman Catholic, and how many were evangelical Protestants, and how many non-evangelical (I'm sure you don't know the answer, this is rhetorical). Seems like the Catholic clergy tend to mostly be into boys and young men, probably because going into the priesthood was, for a long time, a convenient way for a gay man to have a socially-respectable profession which also conveniently eliminated the need to try to explain why he wasn't married. Inevitably, some small fraction of these men lose control after too many years of celibacy and take advantage of teenage boys they're in contact with, or were harboring such tendencies and intentionally went into the priesthood knowing it'd give them contact with potential victims.

    The one about professors kinda surprises me. Most professors do a lot more than just teach college students, in fact that seems to be almost an afterthought in their job description; if they really wanted contact with vulnerable kids they'd become high school teachers as that job path is much easier.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:47AM (3 children)

    by TheRaven (270) on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:47AM (#551525) Journal

    From a pure harm-reduction standpoint, legalizing it is better than the current model we have...BUT...what i want to see is the Nordic Model, which is basically "selling is legal, buying isn't." This was explained to me by a close friend a trafficking survivor early on in my involvement with the movement, and her arguments made perfect sense.

    This sounds like someone who has never learned any game theory. If it's legal to sell but illegal to buy then the only customers for the seller will be criminals. The incentive for the buyer is therefore to ensure that the seller is engaged in some other illegal activity, which encourages slavery (the pimps are doing something illegal, so they won't report the johns, and the prostitutes are kept from reporting anyone by other illegal means).

    In a model where both are legal, prostitutes have an inventive to report slaves to the police because they're competition (and probably cheaper) and there's no legal repercussion if you report them.

    --
    sudo mod me up
    • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 10 2017, @10:11PM (2 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday August 10 2017, @10:11PM (#551907) Journal

      For like the third time, this is why I--and she, she's not stupid!--aren't advocating for a simple, hard "sell legal, buy illegal" rule. I suspect she's natively more intelligent than me actually; she took to Linux and taught herself a bunch of Haskell in a matter of months, whereas I can't program more than a little C after years of trying.

      Again...we know there's no easy solution to this. It's called "world's oldest profession" for a reason. This is going to need grassroots change from peoples' formative years; people need to be taught that rape is as unthinkable as murder, that no one has a right to anyone else's body.

      --
      I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
      • (Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday August 11 2017, @08:36AM (1 child)

        by TheRaven (270) on Friday August 11 2017, @08:36AM (#552201) Journal

        people need to be taught that rape is as unthinkable as murder

        I'm pretty sure most people are taught this already, but the rest of your post seems inconsistent. Are you trying to end prostitution or are you trying to end slavery? The former is a lot harder, because until we live in a post scarcity society a large proportion of the population are going to be selling their bodies and minds in various ways (and I've always found it odd that selling your body is regarded as worse than selling your sense of ethics - and less lucrative).

        --
        sudo mod me up
        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday August 11 2017, @04:55PM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday August 11 2017, @04:55PM (#552422) Journal

          Definitely end slavery and exploitation. I am not actually against people choosing to do something like webcam shows or stripping, am ambivalent about people actually selling sexual services on their own and not due to coercion or desperate need, but am completely opposed to pimping, exploitation, and all that surrounds it.

          You're right about post-scarcity, though I take massive, massive issue with equating selling your labor and selling your body for sex.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...