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.
Related Stories
Could Prostitution Be Next to Be Decriminalized?
Marijuana has gone mainstream, casino gambling is everywhere and sports wagering is spreading. Could prostitution be next? Lawmakers across the country are beginning to reconsider how to handle prostitution, as calls for decriminalization are slowly gaining momentum.
Decriminalization bills have been introduced in Maine and Massachusetts; a similar bill is expected to be introduced to the City Council in Washington D.C. in June; and lawmakers in Rhode Island held hearings in April on a proposal to study the impact of decriminalizing prostitution.
New York may be next: Some Democratic lawmakers are about to propose a comprehensive decriminalization bill that would eliminate penalties for both women and men engaged in prostitution, as well as the johns whom they service. "This is about the oldest profession, and understanding that we haven't been able to deter or end it, in millennia," said Senator Jessica Ramos, a Democrat from Queens who is one of the plan's backers. "So I think it's time to confront reality."
[...] At a recent rally in Albany to repeal a statute criminalizing loitering for the purposes of prostitution, former sex workers stood next to lawmakers like Senator Ramos and Assemblyman Richard N. Gottfried, the chairman of the health committee. Organizers of the protest cast their efforts as a civil and economic rights battle — reflecting a broader progressive passion for gay and transgender rights, as well as criminal justice reform — that was also defending the rights of minorities and illegal immigrants, and even "bodily autonomy," the ability to make ends meet by any means necessary.
See also: Net worth of Americans aged 18 to 35 has dropped 34 percent since 1996: study
Previously: Prostitution Decriminalized: Rhode Island's Experiment
Washington, D.C. Bill Would Decriminalize Sex Work
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:20PM (68 children)
The only reason NOT to decriminalize prostitution is, it's hard for the tax man to get his cut. The prostitute isn't especially likely to declare all of his/her earnings, and the customer probably isn't claiming a tax deduction. So, the tax man has a valid reason to object to decriminalization.
What about the rest of us? What is our excuse? How is it any of our business? Joe thinks Angela can get his rocks off, he offers her fifty bucks or a hundred and fifty, who gives a damn? It's not like it's my money, or my wife, or anything else for that matter. I don't give the smallest damn what deal they make.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:23PM (9 children)
How is that any different than relying on a waitress to claim her tips?
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:36PM (1 child)
You sound sexist. You don't trust women?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:42PM
How is that any different than relying on $tip_receiver to claim $tips_received?
(Score: 4, Informative) by Tara Li on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:43PM (6 children)
Which is why the IRS no longer depends on wait staff to claim tips. Wait staff are presumed to make at least a certain amount in tips, and must show proof that they didn't. Meanwhile, for the most part, the business owner tracks the tips and if the wait staff isn't making enough in tips, the business owner is supposed to report that they got that much *anyway*. It's a screwed up thing now.
(Score: 3, Informative) by EvilSS on Wednesday August 09 2017, @04:36PM (4 children)
I'm sure if they legalized prostitution they would find some way to make sure the tax man got at least some of his cut.
(Score: 2) by Arik on Wednesday August 09 2017, @10:14PM (3 children)
Not at all. Just basic courtesy to have enough cash in your pocket for the tip, even if you're paying with a card.
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:00AM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:30AM
I haven't done statistics on it, but for the restaurant locations (US-based) I have done audit work for, my impression is that cash tips on credit cars are between 10% and 20% of all credit card transactions. They're uncommon, but probably a significant portion of waitstaff tips. There are also an unknown amount of cash tips on tour group meals which already have built in tip. That also even greater potential since Uncle Sam isn't expecting it on meals which are already tipped.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:39PM
What fucking courtesy is that? "I pay tax out my ass, but here is some cash so you can avoid paying your share! And so you can still claim those foodstamps, section 8, and medicaid. Don't worry though, the government will just raise my taxes to cover you."
Yeah, get fucked!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @09:18PM
Wait staff must still report their tips. They are assumed to make a minimum amount from tips, but that doesn't change the the fact they are legally required to report tip income. I don't know where you and the other idiot poster got that idea from.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:26PM (4 children)
It's sex outside of marriage you fool! Don't you understand what that can do to the moral fabric of society? I mean, women having sex with men for money! That's sinful! God forbid little johnny finds out men like his loser father in a dead end marriage pay her money to put their pee pee's in her hoo-ha.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:35PM (3 children)
Ho-hum.
Please point to a time - any time, any millenia, any epoch - in which sex only took place between married couples. Does "the world's oldest profession" mean ANYTHING to you?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @05:15PM (2 children)
Does "humor and mockery" mean ANYTHING to you?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @08:02PM (1 child)
Runaway is a reactionary, just one layoff from extremist.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:33AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Justin Case on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:43PM (3 children)
I'm not following you. You think it is easier for the tax man to get his grubbies on income from illegal activities?
I don't claim a tax deduction on my groceries either. So that makes it impossible to tax the grocery store?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:50PM (2 children)
No, no, of course I don't think it's easy to collect taxes on illegal activities - that's the point I'm making. The tax man isn't collected ANY tax on prostitution when it's illegal - but he's unlikely to get a full accounting of a private prostitute's earnings. Now, if the prostitute works in an established brothel, then MAYBE there will be a proper accounting. But, the woman trying to make a few bucks extra on the weekend is unlikely to put that on her tax forms.
The customer isn't filing any information, either.
The tax man is going to have a hell of a time collecting taxes, no matter whether it's legal or not, so from his point of view, we might as well keep it illegal.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @08:25PM
True story - tax men have a problem collecting taxes. My babysitter almost certainly didn't declare her (cash) weekend income. Nor did my lawnmower (another neighborhood person, paid in cash). Nor did the outside-the-HomeDepot hotdog salesmen. It is dubious whether the jeweler paid taxes for adjusting my watch links and reseating a provided new battery ($8, cash discount, $20 otherwise). It seems likely that the we-come-to-you massage people also misreport incomes. Making these activities illegal for tax purposes doesn't make any more sense than keeping prostitution illegal for tax purposes.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday August 11 2017, @08:39AM
That's not actually true in the USA, because a lot of people learned the Al Capone lesson. The IRS is not permitted to share information with law enforcement, so if you declare illegal earnings you pay tax, but if you don't then you can be prosecuted for tax evasion, which is a lot easier to prove than prostitution.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:49PM
How is it easier when it's criminalized? I would think it would be far easier to get taxes from legally running businesses. They may not get every dime, but they'd get a lot more than they get now.
See Marijuana and Colorado for example.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:50PM (34 children)
The reason to decriminalize is that it's an incredibly problematic practice to have legalized. People go into prostitution for various reasons, but the whole happy hooker trope that people imagine when talking about prostitution is hardly the status quo. There's plenty of sex slaves, drug addicts, lesbians as well as people who have previously been sexually abused working as prostitutes that you're not realistically going to clean it up in any reasonable way.
Just make the selling legal and keep the buying criminal. It's probably the most reasonable way of handling it that anybody has found. We're not realistically going to end the practice no matter how bad the consequences might be, but just cutting the abuses down would be a step in the right direction.
As far as why anybody should care, any time you've got people being exploited you should care as it has a corrosive effect on society in general. Just look at what damage rationalizing slavery did to the population. People who support prostitution are only somewhat better than the people who were boosting slavery. And, that's probably being generous as a large portion of modern day slaves in the US are prostitutes.
(Score: 2) by Justin Case on Wednesday August 09 2017, @04:00PM (2 children)
So maybe we should make slavery illegal. Because making things illegal works so well.
If there were even one person voluntarily choosing sex work in exchange for money -- not because they are forced -- would that be OK with you? Or are you merely trotting out slavery as an excuse to control other people whose behavior you don't like?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:42AM (1 child)
Slavery is already illegal, and yet it still happens. It happens specifically because people don't seem to care about the results of their selfishness. The solution here is to make selling of sex legal and come down hard on the johns, pimps and others that profit off it. It's ultimately, the only way to get anywhere.
Trying to regulate prostitution hasn't ever been particularly effective in preventing sex slavery. Even regulated strip clubs aren't immune to featuring slaves.
By leaving it criminal to buy and promote, it makes it much easier for the slaves to escape, it also significantly dampens the market for those looking to buy because not only do you know that you're being targeted by police, if the prostitute has a tremendous amount of leverage in the situation.
It's the same lame arguments about freedom that pot heads make trying to rationalize their decision. In both cases, there are major consequences for other people that aren't important because junkies have to have their fix.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:15PM
How exactly does making it illegal make it easier for slaves to escape? If anything I'd think the opposite is true.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 09 2017, @04:09PM (7 children)
Slavery is an issue separate from prostitution. Slavery is illegal, already. People engaging in slavery can be, and are, sent to prison for long periods of time, when they are caught. The fact that slavery and sex work sometimes overlap into the same cases with the same people is pretty much irrelevant to whether prostitution should be decriminalized.
As things stand right now, a woman who has been enslaved, and forced to prostitute herself for another person's profit, will be punished for being a victim - if caught.
"Stop punishing the victim" should be more than enough reason to decriminalize the slave's role in such a situation.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Wednesday August 09 2017, @04:54PM (3 children)
If neither the customer nor the victim get in trouble for it, it's more likely that they will report pimps. The person being pimped is usually trapped by the pimp, but the customer is only trapped by the illegality of his/her actions.
The more legal customers, the harder it [out there] is for the pimp.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 09 2017, @05:07PM (1 child)
Mmmmmm . . . maybe.
I've read a couple articles about prostitution in Europe that seemed to refute that idea. Of course, online articles are just that - some person's ideas about this or that. But, yes, you're basically saying something similar to my own post. The law tends to KEEP people trapped in an abusive relationship with the pimp, or whatever. You can't go to the police station to complain that the pimp is taking ALL of your proceeds from prostitution because the police will lock you up. You can't complain that your pimp beats you, because, ditto. You sure as HELL can't complain that your pimp won't share the drugs that your illicit income purchased. If you're a prostitute in the US, the cops only have two interests in you - free sex, or a bust.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday August 09 2017, @05:31PM
Yep, we agree.
Also, having other prostitutes be legal means that they can help the cops find the illegal ones.
There isn't an easy abuse-free system, but the ideal is to license and regulate the market such that prostitutes get the same protections as Jane-welder and Joe-hairdresser. As long as the profession carries a strong stigma and hides in corners, the workers have more problems exercising their rights, and are the victims of their potential employers and customers. The large cash sums implied attract even more unpleasant characters than that profession naturally does. Groups of independent providers keeping tabs on each other, while protected from third parties and monitored by independent support groups, is about the best we can hope.
People wanting to remove demand or offer are just delusional.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:23AM
With legal prostitution, pimps are just a variant of entertainment manager. And the courts would be there if pimps break contracts or the law just like any other entertainer/manager dispute that gets that far. So there is no reason to report pimps.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:45AM (2 children)
And yet nobody has come up with an effective strategy of dealing with the problem. Making it legal just increases the amount of money that's to be made by selling sex. With increased money comes all sorts of people trying to make money off of it. Strip clubs have done an OK job of avoiding it, but they're hardly free of the problem as there's all sorts of ways for unscrupulous people to get access to the cash that somebody else makes from sex work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:38AM (1 child)
Can you back up that claim with any hard data?
For alcohol, making it illegal increased the profits, and making it legal decreased them. The main profiteers of prohibition were the providers of alcohol.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:52PM
No, he can't back that up. You've already cited alcohol - and we have marijuana to look at today.
There is some possibility that legalizing prostitution would mean some modest increase in the total amount of money changing hands in America, but the price is unlikely to go up. When alcohol was legalized, more alcohol was sold, and the price went down. With marijuana, more of it is being sold, but the price hasn't changed drastically. Well, the smoke seems to have gone down some, but gubbermint tacked on their surcharges.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by shortscreen on Wednesday August 09 2017, @06:04PM (2 children)
This is the worst argument ever. Pretty much everyone "sells their body." It's called manual labor. Do you think miners are down there for the fun of it? No, they are there because they like getting paid. If this counts as exploitation in your book, then I guess we should ban it also. Free the wage slaves! Nobody should have to do a job they don't like! Not to mention, there are plenty of jobs which are more dangerous than (legal) sex work.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Wednesday August 09 2017, @07:48PM (1 child)
If a miner gets their lungs destroyed. It won't be contagious however.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:26AM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @09:05PM (3 children)
Wouldn't making selling legal just encourage abusive pimps?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:49AM (1 child)
No, it would make it so that prostitutes wouldn't have to worry about going to the police and being arrested.
There's nothing we can do that's going to completely solve these problems, but by legalizing the provision of sex for money, it would put the actual victims of these crimes in a position where they are better able to take care of themselves. Going full legalization, has serious problems as it becomes very hard to tell the difference between a slave and somebody that's choosing to sell sex.
Ultimately, we do have to acknowledge that the law isn't what's keeping most people from being prostitutes, it's that it's a terrible job full of unacceptable risks and that legalizing it isn't likely to increase the number of people offering their bodies for rent. But, it does open up a ton of room for people looking to take advantage of other folks.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:16AM
That's a ridiculous assertion to make. The key is freedom of movement. If the sex worker is physically restrained from leaving, it's slavery.
Sorry, that's another ridiculous statement. The law is the key reason the job is full of bad risks such as imprisonment, no legal recourse if the prostitute is cheated or assaulted, and no disease testing standards.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 10 2017, @09:12AM
It should also reduce the "need" for pimps. If workers can rely on the law for protection then the pimp becomes redundant. Clearing the pimps out of the industry would eliminate most of the problems associated with sex work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @11:50PM (2 children)
The same could be said for sailors (see Shanghaiing [wikipedia.org]), mining (see Company Towns [wikipedia.org], if not outright child slavery in Africa), and indeed pretty much any job (see suicide nets around Foxcomm in China).
You are using bad logic. Some people in prostitution have it bad and are being exploited. However, that doesn't mean that everybody in prostitution is there against their will. The way to fix that is making it public and regulated, rather than pushing it underground.
By analogy, consider an illegal immigrant working on the farm. He's forced to work 80 hours a week, and if he complains, the farm owner threatens to turn him over to ICE and have him deported. Compare that to an immigrant who is legally in the country. If he is pushed "too far," he can always just leave and find a better employer.
By analogy, consider what is happening to cannabis users in states which have legalized medical (and indeed recreational use). Prices have plummeted, gang-related violence related to drugs have as well (because there is less money in it), and in a very real way the industry is cleaning up, just because it has public and government attention. When the victims of mistreatment have a legal way to get their concerns addressed, the amount of mistreatment they receive drops dramatically.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:55AM (1 child)
And none of those things are currently legal. If you're going to claim I'm using bad logic, then you might want to not have posts that are completely full of shit.
Shanghaing, and the rest of it have been illegal for quite some time. ICE regularly conducts raids in an attempt to catch employers hiring illegal immigrants. It's been mixed in terms of success, but that is ongoing. Illegal immigration is a good example of why legalizing isn't likely to work. There's been millions of illegal immigrants in the US at most points of the last few decades, but finding them and enforcing the law tends to be rather tricky.
I've yet to see anybody here present a plausible plan for preventing the problem. I just got all sorts of Libertarian bullshit about how a person's body is their own and hand waving away the consequences.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:26AM
What consequences? You have yet to show that these concerns over "slavery" are even remotely justified in a transition from illegal to legal markets. After all, we have a lot of legal labor markets out there and they tend to strongly discourage slavery. The illegal slavery rings have to compete with the legal businesses.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Thexalon on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:40AM (11 children)
The best approach is, according to somebody who does a lot of charity work for prostitutes in my area: Make both the buying and selling legal, and make the pimping illegal. The fact that prostitution is illegal is part of what gives pimps control over the prostitutes. And that means that when the cops catch a prostitute, what they can then do is say "We want to get you out of your situation if you were forced into it. We can connect you with people who can get you a place to live that nobody else knows about, food, any psych help you need. Your job is to tell us what you know about the person or people controlling you."
Another thing to think about: In a black market, the only way to enforce contracts is through violence or a credible threat of violence. If you make prostitution legal, you take away the black market, which means that pimps no longer provide a useful service to anyone.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:30AM (10 children)
I disagree. In a legal market, a pimp is just a manager. While they're not everyone's favorite class of people, they've been legal in every legal labor market forever.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 10 2017, @09:25AM (9 children)
Right, and to what extent does a prostitute need a manager? Most of the time we are talking about lone workers who need to arrange and attend meetings with clients, manage the money they earn and keep well stocked up with condoms. It's not rocket science. As long as the worker is at least moderately intelligent and organised, and not completely smashed on drugs/ booze (removing the pimps will help enormously here) then there's no reason a sex worker needs a manager any more than a self-employed mobile hairdresser needs a manager.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @10:49AM (8 children)
Given how prevalent pimps are now? That indicates to me that pimps are needed quite a bit.
There we go. That's some useful pimp activities right there. When legalized, the "lone worker" will also need to keep up with the paperwork and testing.
But on the other hand, most hairdressers aren't self-employed or mobile.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 10 2017, @11:25AM (7 children)
Given how prevalent threadworms [wikipedia.org] are in the human population, that indicates that threadworms are needed quite a bit.
No, those are things anybody with half a brain and who takes their work seriously could deal with quite competently on their own. Just because someone is working in the sex trade, it doesn't mean they are an idiot.
SOME people might want / need somebody to take care of these things for them, and in that case a legal, licensed, regulated, professionally-run brothel would probably be the best place to get the necessary support services. There might be a limited market for "managers" like you describe, but they would need to be at least as carefully regulated as the workers themselves.
So?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:13PM (6 children)
I suppose you have something of a point. But then I can actually list numerous benefits to pimps. In addition to the benefits we've already described, pimps offer protection - from law enforcement, aggressive customers, and other criminals.
Why? When prostitution is legal, it's just a standard manager-entertainer relationship like the rest of the entertainment industry. There's more than enough regulation of that already via contract law and the courts. Sorry, but prostitution is not a unique thing that requires unique laws. It has a lot in common with other high risk entertainment jobs like adult films, stunt actors, and adult dancers. Contract law and basic criminal law already covers most of the problems that could happen between prostitute and pimp.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:43PM (5 children)
A lot of that is "protection" as in "racket". Once decriminalised, protection from law enforcement stops being a thing, and "other criminals" become just "criminals". In fact, law enforcement becomes the protection against aggressive customers.
I see where you're coming from and I'm not ruling it out completely, but what you don't want is a framework whereby the same old nasty pimps can simply rebrand themselves as "entertainment managers" and carry on, business as usual. These people would have to be very carefully regulated and scrutinised. I mean let's face it, there are enough sleazy, abusive "managers" in the entertainment industry as it is, it wouldn't exactly be a huge leap.
In theory, yes. In practise, there would be a crucial transitional period after decriminalisation when you'd want to really clean things up - clear out the pimps, identify and help the abused - and special laws or special initiatives would almost certainly be required to make sure that the future you're heading for is the best one possible, rather than letting bad old habits and practises reassert themselves.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:56PM (4 children)
Two questions here. Why would business carry on as usual? Legalization is a huge sea change. The illegality of prostitution is the key reason that such egregious abuse of the pimp-prostitute relation is possible. The prostitute doesn't have anyone to complain to. In the legal world, they have the court system, law enforcement, and various government-side labor regulators.
Second, why shouldn't those "old nasty pimps" have a chance at legitimizing their business? If they rebrand themselves as "entertainment managers" and then clean up their act so that they are obeying the laws of the land, then I'm fine with it.
I disagree that there is any need for special regulation to cover pimps. It's straightforward to apply the usual labor regulations and laws.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday August 11 2017, @12:13AM (3 children)
Pretty much all of the questions in your post above can be answered with "because pimps work on intimidation and psychological abuse." OK, so now the worker can legally go to the police and courts and whatever to report abuse. But a lot of the time, she won't, because she's under the thumb of a vicious, brutal little man and she has been for so long that she hardly knows any different any more. And now he tells her that hey, he's legit now, he's her manager and the law can't touch him and he has business cards to prove it and she'd better not fucking disagree...
The law is only half the picture. People's histories and traumas and lives and the things that drive and control them don't magically change overnight all over the country with a single signature in the capital. If you can clear the field now, then maybe in twenty years things will work the way you envisage but all the shit needs to be swept away first. A clean start, a solid foundation. Old wrongs need to be righted, old crimes need to be shown justice, the rot needs to be cut out. Once that's done, THEN you can talk about "entertainment managers"
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 11 2017, @12:41AM (2 children)
Put him in jail and his attitude will improve. Threats and extortion are still illegal. And where prostitution is legal, the prostitute has the venues to pursue justice. And for those unwilling to protect themselves? I'm unwilling to protect them as well. I believe it will massively backfire to attempt a rescue of a supposed victim that doesn't want rescuing. It doesn't matter if it's a drunk fratboy pulling a dangerous stunt or a messed up woman who refuses to leave an abusive relationship.
And I can't help but notice we've gone from "anybody with half a brain and who takes their work seriously could deal with quite competently on their own" to "because she's under the thumb of a vicious, brutal little man and she has been for so long that she hardly knows any different any more".
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Friday August 11 2017, @01:24AM (1 child)
It's not so much a case of white-knighting in to rescue the women, it's more a case of locking up the bad guys and making the problem go away. OK, people in those kinds of relationships almost certainly have other problems too, but get rid of that one and at least they have a chance of dealing with the others.
And yes, there are both kinds of women (and men for that matter) in prostitution and every one in between. The former know what they are getting into and can handle it. The latter got tricked or forced into it and really shouldn't be there. I'm just saying that you have to be careful that in creating an environment where the former can operate safely, you don't create an environment where the latter can be easily exploited. You need checks and safeguards, you can't just leave everyone to their own devices and hope everybody acts the way you think they ought to.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 11 2017, @02:58AM
Well, I still think that a normal legal environment does that well enough. But thinking about it, my real beef is that temporary laws generally aren't temporary. If you pass laws to protect clueless women from pimps now during a transition from illegal to legal prostitution, there's a good chance those laws will still be on the books 50 years from now, long after any conceivable reason for their existence has died of old age. So I think here that we're creating long term law for a short term problem that present day law would already deal with as well you can expect (after all, you can't outlaw dysfunctional personal and work relationships that people willingly enter into, right?).
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:01AM
Sorry, that's nonsense. What you are saying here, is that because various disadvantaged people go into prostitution, we must nerf prostitution's income potential and these sex workers' ability to improve their lives via their work. For their own good, of course. My view is that full legalization will do more to protect these workers than this pathetic half-legality will. And "problematic" is a trigger word for me. I get whiny over it especially when an "incredibly problematic practice" doesn't actually have a lot of problems to go with it (this lack of descriptiveness seems to be the problematic problem with "problematic" as currently used).
People want to fuck. I don't see some vague concern about alleged moral corrosion as a reason to get in their way, even in the situation of the usual prostitution transaction.
Now, you might get the impression that I really dislike your argument. That would be correct. It's a typical reaction of mine to moral arguments that make things worse. Prostitution is a particularly notorious target for counterproductive morality. Lots of people, including the prostitutes themselves, suffer because people want to help, but don't care about the consequences of their actions.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by kaszz on Wednesday August 09 2017, @05:09PM (7 children)
The problem is mainly disease transmission and given Murphy's law and condoms. It will be spread.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @05:33PM
That's not a problem for the virgin basement dwellers.
And a lot less of a problem for the couples who are really not having sex outside of marriage. They are more likely to be killed by a deadly flu or other plague than by an STD.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @05:52PM
With legalized prostitution, it is easy to add a regulation that each prostitute must have a regular test for STDs. Also, when prostitution is legal, it is much easier for the prostitute to actually enforce using a condom.
(Score: 2) by anotherblackhat on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:55AM (4 children)
So how do you explain the 40% drop in gonorrhea?
If the "problem" was really disease transmission, the evidence suggests that decriminalizing is the way to go.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday August 10 2017, @12:58AM (3 children)
Another twist is to test customers as well. That way the whole business would be pretty much nothing to bother with.
Oh btw.. That might collide with the habits of politicians, executive class people, and other sadists. ;)
(Score: 2) by anotherblackhat on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:26AM (2 children)
Is there any evidence that demanding testing helps?
As far as I know, there have been 0 incidents of HIV and lower incidence of STDs than the general population, according to reports from the legalizied brothels of Nevada.
Or to put it another way, all evidence shows that prostitutes are less likely to have STDs, not more.
It makes more sense to test people at random than the low risk group that is prostitutes and their customers.
There is real evidence that decriminalization reduces STDs in the general population.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:46AM (1 child)
Perhaps because those regulated brothel prostitutes requires condom. Or even testing?
If there is evidence that show what you say. Then it's great. Haven't seen any though.
(Score: 2) by anotherblackhat on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:30PM
Are you just trolling? The fine article has some.
Have you seen any evidence for your position? Or are you just quoting dogma?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @09:29PM (4 children)
This is wrong.There is another reason,it gives people idea that this is a legitimate career choice. It is not. It has a a sharp and constant decrease in earning potential, unlike almost ANY other career path. It is a dead end and advocating for normalizing it is economic equivalence of fight for 15. Not to mention it promotes degeneracy and erodes family values, which is straight our of Marxist playbook.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by qzm on Wednesday August 09 2017, @09:57PM (1 child)
Unlike, perhaps, professional sports? Modeling?
After all, as we know, no people have EVER changed their jobs - no sir, that is simply impossible..
Oh, and your second 'point' is simply trying to push your personal belief system as fact, get over yourself.
You do know there are plenty of places in the world where this is legalised, right? In most of them women enjoy a great deal more safety, health, and profit when working in this industry.
So, I can only assume that you are anti-women, right? Need to keep them down? shame on you.
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:01AM
It would change the power setup. That will attract some players from the shadows..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:57AM (1 child)
Why is it you people never use the term Marxist correctly?
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday August 10 2017, @10:14PM
Because if they knew what it meant they might realize they partially agree with some of what he wrote :D
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:24PM
Thanks for fleshing out the minimal submission, but the posted summary is largely editorializing preamble, leaving only the last few lines to describe the actual gist. It's like a book with 90 pages of "introduction" followed by 10 pages of actual text, and this in a summary no less.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:28PM
Giggity Giggity
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:46PM (12 children)
Pleasure is bad and of the devil, suffering is good and the end-times are coming, as heralded by the prophesies that told us that one of the indications would be bad laws being enacted. I see this going no-where in the US.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:53PM (2 children)
This has nothing to do with pleasure, having sex out of wedlock hasn't been illegal in a very long time. This is keeping the exploitation of prostitutes illegal.
If you want sex, there's no shortage of women giving it away for free if you can appear to have money and power. Which is much less morally problematic than the issues surrounding prostitution. Any woman that gets upset for being treated like a free whore deserves what she gets for acting like one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:55PM
I leave a couple twenties on the bedside table before leaving her in the hotel room.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @03:35AM
Since when has "appear to have money and power" been free? Prostitution is cheaper.
And what makes you think mandatory ostentatious displays of money and power just to have sex is less morally problematic than legal prostitution?
I see you really care about prostitute exploitation.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @04:38PM (1 child)
This is the country where an argument "It will encourage them to be promiscuous!" against the HPV vaccine is within the Overton window.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @06:06PM
haughty criticism from someone who shills for pharmaceutical companies.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Wednesday August 09 2017, @07:08PM (6 children)
Puritanism: the nagging fear that someone, somewhere, is having fun.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @09:33PM (5 children)
Right, you think the hooker is having fun? Are you fucking retarded or something?
Yeah this is 'fun', that is 'fun', then people who don't have 'fun' have to deal with long term effects of your 'fun', from drug epidemic, crime waves spawned from them, STDs galore, DWIs. But it's OK because it's just 'fun' and we all should loosen up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @10:11PM
"Right, you think the hooker is having fun? Are you fucking retarded or something?"
Most people, most of the time, probably are not having fun on their job. Hookers just get paid more for it.
And yes, some really do enjoy it. http://thehappyhookerdocumentary.com/ [thehappyhookerdocumentary.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday August 09 2017, @11:31PM
Maybe, maybe not. Some people enjoy their work, you know. Some people actually chose professions that they truly enjoy. Also, some women enjoy sex. I know, that's an anti-puritan point of view, but some women enjoy sex a little, others enjoy sex a lot, some few women just can't get enough sex.
You can easily make a case that a woman who has been a prostitute for years may not enjoy her job as much. But, stories have been published about part time Las Vegas prostitutes who say that they actually do enjoy the experience.
How about this idea? There is probably an entire spectrum of reasons and motivations to become a prostitute. For some, the fun and adventure may wear off very quickly. For others, the fun may last for years. Maybe if you find some old prostitutes, you can interview them, to learn how their careers have gone, and when the fun ends.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday August 10 2017, @09:39AM
The point you seem to be obstinately dodging is that the STDs, drugs, slavery etc are made worse by prohibition, not better.
It's not like there aren't a hundred jurisdictions around the world with varying degrees of legality around sex work to draw data from either. This isn't "opinion" or "conjecture", it's proven best practise: If you want to reduce all those long term effects you talk about, then you need to legalise sex work, regulate and enforce safe practises, support the workers and work at reducing the stigma around the sex industry.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @11:29AM
That's not relevant. The hooker is not the only party to the transaction. Plenty of peoples' jobs are to ensure that other people have fun. That doesn't mean they get to have fun too.
Yes.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:04PM
Hmm...have you ever done any sex work? Because I have. Not because I needed the money either. Some days I get a couple hundred bucks, some days I might only get ten or twenty, but I couldn't care less either way because I'm just doing it to entertain myself. The fact that people are willing to PAY for it is a bit of a turn-on to be honest.
But please, go ahead and continue trying to explain my own life to me. It's fucking hysterical.
Obviously that's not true in EVERY case, but the fact that it's a black market is a large part of the reason for that. Police don't protect "criminals". If some guy shows up at my day job and starts beating the shit out of me, security will grab him pretty quick and the cops will come throw him in jail. Prostitutes (in areas where it's not legalized) don't have security or police to come help, they're on their own. THAT is why it can be truly horrifying sometimes. And PEOPLE LIKE YOU are the only reason for it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Justin Case on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:48PM (24 children)
I own my car. If I choose, I can sell it for whatever price I and the buyer find agreeable.
Above all else, you should own your body. If the state says you can't sell your body, you must be owned by the state. You surely don't own yourself.
Agreements between two consenting adults should be nobody else's business. This is just the nosy busybodies trying to make sure nobody ever enjoys a second of their lives.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @03:55PM (12 children)
Not really, there's numerous things that you're not allowed to do with your body because they cause problems. For example, you can't use your fist to beat somebody up and you can't expose yourself to children at the playground.
Why is it that you people have so much trouble with the concept of externalities? Nobody is saying that people can't have sex, what we're saying is that the consequences of paying for it aren't what we as a society want to be dealing with. The people who are pushing for decriminalization and full legalization are mostly people that have no idea what prostitution is like and the problems surrounding it. There's a reason why around here we require education for anybody we catch soliciting a prostitute.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Justin Case on Wednesday August 09 2017, @04:03PM (3 children)
Well I can but your point is physically harming someone else is, and well should be, against the law. So to continue the analogy, I can't use the car I own to crash into your house either. That's not among the rights of ownership.
But if you own something, you are allowed to sell it.
So, nobody owns their own bodies.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by Mykl on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:36AM
No. You are essentially advocating the legalization of slavery (which is literally selling your body to somebody else). There are things that you can possess/own, but which cannot be sold or transferred. Examples are citizenship or qualifications such as degrees. Literally selling yourself into slavery is also illegal as ownership of your body is non-transferable.
Besides, prostitution would more accurately be described as renting your body to somebody else.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:02AM (1 child)
You argued that what we do with our bodies is our own business. You can argue with me all you want, but the reality is that what we do with our bodies isn't without limits. A lot of the things we do with our bodies do impact other people and society in general and it's naive to suggest otherwise.
Punching somebody in the face is something that most people agree is wrong, however, what if that person has insulted you? Is it still wrong? Or, how about if you think they're about to rob you? Still wrong?
The question is where we draw the line, it's clear to most adults that there are limits to our freedoms and that's necessary in order to ensure that we have freedoms rather than all being stuck doing whatever the most powerful people say we should do.
In this case, there's limited reason for this service to be legal and a few reasons that it shouldn't be. But, the people looking to legalize and decriminalize don't actually have any arguments, so this weak argument gets trotted out about how this is an unacceptable breach of our rights.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday August 11 2017, @03:25AM
What is the point of arbitrarily creating limits on personal freedoms merely because you conclude that limits to freedoms should exist? In the case of prostitution, sure, there are limited reasons for prostitution, but there are also limited reasons against prostitution. The deciding factor should be that people want prostitution. After all, if you're not allowed to use freedoms to pursue your desires, then they aren't really freedoms.
In a democratic, free world, you should have really compelling reasons for constraining freedoms. Not because there are "a few reasons" to constrain freedom or even weaker some weird cyclic argument where we constrain freedom because freedom must be constrained. In other words, our restrictions on what is allowed should be highly permissive with constraints coming from inflicting violation of other peoples' rights (your right to swing your fist ends at my nose) rather than pathetic and often imaginary concerns.
I'll note here that we have a remarkable lack of credible reasons for making prostitution illegal, not just in your post or in the thread, but in this entire discussion. And that is to be expected, since prostitution doesn't violated anyone's rights. Thus, arguing from a rights perspective, while it might be weak, it is also good enough due to the far weaker arguments of opposition to legal prostitution.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @04:07PM (1 child)
For one person to punch another person in the face involves the involuntary allocation of the punched person's resources (e.g., of the punched person's face). That is, you're still dealing with the question "Is this my body or not?"
As for exposing oneself to children at the playground, that too can be understood in the context of property rights, and the involuntary allocation of someone else's resources; at the very least, the owner of the playground could establish usage rules to which people entering the playground must agree in advance, including the agreement not to flash other people, etc.
What you call "externalities" is really just code for "poorly organized society".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:34AM
Exernalities is code word for somebody else is stuck cleaning up your mess you selfish asshole prick.
(Score: 3, Informative) by EvilSS on Wednesday August 09 2017, @04:39PM
You know professional boxing is a thing, right? And MMA, and martial arts tournaments, etc. So yes, there are currently legal ways that you can use your fist to beat up somebody.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @05:44PM (2 children)
That sentence doesn't say anything unless you specify what consequences you mean, why you consider those consequences as negative, and why you consider those consequences to be inevitable.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @05:46PM (1 child)
Oh, and I forgot: Who is "we".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @06:13PM
You can spot a collectivist a country-mile away. A collectivist confuses himself with everybody else, and the consequences of this confusion are dire.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @05:47PM
What if the cure to the problems is worse than the problems to begin with? That is the case with prohibition of drugs and it is also the case with prohibition of prostitution. Prohibition creates new externalities that are worse than the original problem.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @11:34AM
So the grandparent was asserting that because he owns his own body, that means he owns the bodies of other people too? Maybe you should learn what the argument is and think about what it actually means. Just because I own my fist, doesn't mean I get to beat up other people with it. But that's because I don't own those other people and hence, don't have the right to inflict harm upon them, not because you can wave some vague term like "problems" about.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @04:00PM (3 children)
I mean, one of the first things done when a person is diagnosed with being "male" is to send him to the operating room for genital-reconstruction surgery to have a swath of "his" genital tissue stripped away and burnt in an incinerator (or sold for research; look it up).
So, it's pretty clear that people do not own "their" bodies, especially not "their" sexual organs, especially if they suffer from a genetic aberration known as "deficient X chromosome" (known more colloquially as "Y chromosome").
(Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Wednesday August 09 2017, @08:08PM (1 child)
But that's not because of any laws.
It's just asshole or ignorant parents following societal (or religious) norms.
lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @11:04PM
Why are those norms a thing? Obviously, because no one thinks you own your own body.
It's not offtopic—it's answering the question; the answer is that American society does not think you own your own body, as evidenced by the history of norms and prohibitions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:00PM
No one can force circumcision of adults or force adults not to circumcise themselves.
We already have well established law that parents can act on behalf of their children with very wide latitude on what that means.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @05:16PM
Because those busybodies could never enjoy theirs so everyone else has to equally suffer.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 09 2017, @06:21PM
In the USA (and many other countries) I don't think you're allowed to sell your kidney. This is what you are allowed to sell: http://www.therichest.com/rich-list/10-body-parts-you-can-legally-sell-for-big-bucks/ [therichest.com]
So if you're in the USA the State owns you. You don't own yourself. Boohoo.
Seriously though, prostitution is NOT selling your body. It's more like services or at most renting. If you buy a car, the you can rip the doors off etc. But if you rent a car there are far more limits on what you are allowed to do. Usually the rented car has to be returned in decent working condition, full tank etc ;).
As for my opinion on prostitution as a job. You can talk about exploitation all you want but zillions of people in the world have crappy jobs they don't like, few/zero alternatives and those jobs don't pay as well as sucking dick.
Prostitution is a higher paying but mostly crappy job. Would you as a straight guy suck someone else's dick for money or take it up your butt? Given enough money maybe you would, but it's not going to be a task you enjoy. That's how most prostitutes probably feel about most customers after a while. Don't go flatter yourself that the hooker really finds you attractive etc. Maybe the naive noobs might, but after a while most get hardened. Say she likes you but you're mainly using her even if you treat her well and make it clear you aren't going to marry her etc, so what happens to her after a few cycles of this?
There will be those who are genuinely OK with that and if they are lucky they might have a few customers they actually like. But how many hookers can earn enough just servicing only the few she likes? Only a few lucky courtesans. Not most hookers.
If you really want to reduce prostitution (legal/illegal) and make it less "exploitative" provide this:
1) Universal healthcare
2) Basic Income or better job opportunities
3) Free/subsidized education
4) Availability of birth control
In poorer countries there are indeed sex slaves and trafficked victims, but in many cases many of the girls are _voluntarily_ doing it. Why? Because some beloved relative has cancer or whatever and the USD200/month job at the factory isn't going to pay for treatment. Or the girl for some unfortunate reason needs to support a bunch of people (grandparents, parents etc).
Once you have all that then we can say those going into prostitution are doing it not because they were born unlucky into a shitty life but they really want the job. And even then would-be prostitutes should be required to attend courses first so that they know the full disgusting bits of what it entails (there are plenty of stupid ignorant people out there). Better for them to know before they've taken out a mortgage etc. I just had a masseuse complained about a customer who smoked - said he was really smelly etc (she's fine with me, because I shower etc first). Now imagine a hooker having to fuck and suck some customer with BO, poor hygiene etc (yeah maybe you can reject customers but what if you've taken out a big mortgage and the Brothel Boss says your "acceptance rate" is too low?).
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:34AM (4 children)
I think the issue is of informed consent. Do you fully understand the ramifications of selling your body to someone else? What about body parts? What if you were offered one million euro/dollars/pounds for your hand? Do you think you fully understand what that means down the line? What about other organs, sure your liver will grow back, you can get by with only one lung, but how much is a reasonable sum of money to part with these bits of you?
I don't pretend to know what the emotional or physical cost of prostitution is for people doing the job long-term. How much would you charge someone to fuck you? Complete stranger with no knowledge of their medical history and only a thin piece of latex to protect you. There is also interview process, you don't get a few meeting to get a feel for the person before deciding whether they have intercourse with you or not. You only get a quick glance at them.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @01:20PM (3 children)
Do you fully understand what that means to not accept the offer? One million euro/dollars/pounds is life altering for the poor. It's unlikely that the rejection choice is any better understood than the acceptance choice. The game goes both ways.
(Score: 2) by Rivenaleem on Thursday August 10 2017, @02:11PM
And there is it. You can exploit someone in dire circumstances if full and complete ownership of your own body implies you can sell (non-replaceable) bits of yourself for cash. One million dollars was a figure out of thin air, but what about one thousand? What if someone is so poor that one thousand seems reasonable? What about 500?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 10 2017, @04:49PM (1 child)
I'd say less than 1% of poor would put that one million to good use, and soon after they would sell their other hand, at which point they would become cripples on society's dole once again. Giving them the option to cripple themselves for illusion of better life is the height of malice. And of course the first hand may fetch 1 million, but the market will quickly adjust and you will have idiots selling their hands for $5K within 3 months.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday August 10 2017, @08:49PM
Well, what are we doing with those hands anyway? I gather they're getting tossed in the trash in the above example. So if you know ahead of time that the hand and money will both be trashed in short order with more suffering resulting than before, then sure, it is malice.
But it isn't. It's a trade. That means both parties willingly entered into agreement.
You do realize this runs counter to the narrative that the poor are that way merely through bad luck?