The unspoken issue at the center of prostitution is causation

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

Back in university one of my professors in a first year class said something that always stuck with me "Freedom is not merely being physically unimpeded by authority, it the absence of all coercion." He was comparing and contrasting what different philosophers had said about freedom over the course of history in what was otherwise a completely forgettable lecture, but that line was worth the price of admission.

The libertine attitude towards prostitution found in these parts seems to be that the actions between "consenting adults" to say an act without physical force is of no concern of the state or society. But this attitude completely ignores everything up the that point in a car, motel or wherever. Prostitutes are human beings and even the most ardent libertarian doesn't disagree that addiction, poverty and criminal elements can force people into the sex trade. Addiction, poverty and crime are just about universally recognized to be potentially highly coercive.

Can one seriously argue that a prostitute "performing" as issues of addiction, poverty and criminal influences linger in the background is a "consenting adult" as one would generally understand that to be?

The argument that follows from the libertines then completely makes me lose my shit. It is argued that legalization is somehow a panacea to these issues, and somehow regulating prostitutes somehow excuses the fact that one might be participating in the sex trade because of addiction, poverty or crime. As though an OSHA like agency was established by the Confederacy. Then they point to Europe, where boutique brothels that are little more than tacky tourist attractions are a sweeping solution when street prostitution (aka "the car trade&quot remains the domain of the most vulnerable remains unchanged and a whole underground sex trade is orchestrated online outside the reach of any regulation.

The issue at the center of any discussions of prostitution should be causation, a recognition that some tragic series of events probably delivered a given individual to the sex trade. Not creepy libertarian arguments about consenting adults as addiction, poverty or the criminal element lingers in the background. To argue for sweeping policies based on boutique brothels and high-priced escorts is as deluded and dishonest as any Republican argument. Especially when they sound like they were directly ripped from Risky Business or Reality TV.

Now, I realize this this and many other issues it is expected that the progressive position be total libertine level permissiveness and that any suggestion of impulse control where sex and substances are concerned is like totally fascist maaaan. But lets try looking at this issue as a culmination of circumstances in a persons life, not the fact that as they are blowing some loser he doesn't have a knife.

[The Magistrate]

1. The Problem Of Causation Goes A Little Deeper, Sir

When someone says they have made a voluntary choice, when does someone else get to say their choice was not really voluntary?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

3. So you believe coercion can't be proven?

[The Magistrate]

6. That Depends, Sir

It is certainly true there are people in the trade who are coerced, by what all would agree were acts of direct threat and violation that meet the dictionary and legal definitions.

It is certainly true there are people in the trade who act under internal compulsions which are clearly beyond their control, by addiction or deeply rooted disturbance.

Past the crystal clear first grade and the reasonably evident second grade, though, the ground becomes pretty shaky, for a view that 'coercion' is operating, to a degree that you can say people are not making voluntary choices.

A person who copes with a traumatic upbringing, say, or with bleak economic prospects, in a manner contrary to someone else's idea of how these things should be handled, may still be making a voluntary choice, choosing one of several available courses, and doing so on grounds as rational and informed as most choices made by most people.

The point is worth pressing, because the claim a person who says they are acting of their own volition really is not doing so, opens up a number of possibilities for dehumanization and coercion of its own.

[geek tragedy]

11. By the same token, the regulatory state doesn't care for the "freedom of contract'

argument advanced by the libertarian right when it comes to unsafe working conditions, child labor, and minimum wage.

If society deems it in its best interests to prevent people from working for $4.00 an hour, it can also deem it hostile to its interests to proscribe an institution that combines the worst elements of capitalism and male supremacism.

[The Magistrate]

16. But The Point At Issue, Sir, Is Coercion, Not Freedom Of Contract

The question is whether a person's statement they are acting voluntarily should be accepted as factual, and if not, why not. I am not arguing a position on whether it is a wise or a poor social policy to treat any particular thing as lawful or unlawful.

[geek tragedy]

18. In normative debates, it is perfectly acceptable to acknowledge the

absence of bright lines and factual certainty. What may count as coersion for a rape prosecutor may mean something else when evaluating whether it exists in real practice.

I believe the OP is arguing that the "absence of coersion" advanced by advocates of legalization is illusory when one examines the circumstances.

[The Magistrate]

24. The Standard Urged, Sir

Would if accepted require that just about everything people do be taken as the result of coercion. There could be no free act, if 'the absence of all coercion' were to be the definition, and coercion defined as broadly as it was in the opening here. Who does not move under economic need, under the effects of parentage and upbringing? Who is not shaped by elements of their mental and physical beings, which will impel in some directions and impede in others? If one wants to bite the bullet and uphold the proposition that this is indeed the case, that is one thing. To say it applies only ion one specific area, one fraught with long taboo and uneasiness, as well with ecstasy and deep desire, that has been regarded as both sacred and profane for as long as we have record of human thought --- that just will not pass muster.

[DirkGently]

128. "both sacred and profane."

Very nice.

[geek tragedy]

147. Tis the drawback, sir, of relying upon the Ayn Rand doctrine of morality

when defending prostitution or any other activity for that matter.

There is a reason why advanced states like Germany and The Netherlands wind up centers of sex trafficking after legalizing prostitution. The vast majority of their own women do not enter that field if they have any other possible opportunity, so they import women from Africa and Eastern Europe who are more desperate and susceptible to exploitation in order to keep up with demand from their men with too much cash and not enough conscience.

[The Magistrate]

154. Argument By Mad-Libs, Sir, Will Not Work On Me

The only element of this which engages my interest is the question of whether when a person says they are acting voluntarily, they ought to be believed, and if not, why not. You have not engaged that question, indeed, you have not even come close to doing so. The standard for saying people are actually being compelled, whatever they may say, set up in the original comments, is so broad as to effectively rule out the very idea of voluntary choice, were it to be applied broadly. The person who proposed it has suggested that it applies only in a specific field, but has not been able to provide any grounds on which this restriction is to rest.

How you manage to get from my querying whether people who say they act voluntarily should be believed, and if not, why not, to proclaiming me a Randite, a person who claims the highest moral good is self-aggrandizement, and that all persons should be regarded as mere implements for one's own benefit, whatever their own claims to self-hood or need may be, is one of those small mysteries, which along with the Trinity, and how many licks it takes to get to the center of a Tootsie-Pop, I suspect will go forever without adequate explication....

[geek tragedy]

156. Sir, that was the entire crux of the Lochner decision, the notion that

individual 'choice' is sancrosanct and that the state has no business interfering in economic relations between 'consenting' adults.

The answer to whether there is consent will depend on how one asks the question. "Did anyone force you to do this" is a different question than "would you be doing this if you had any other way to survive?"

The threshold question which has gone unasked is "of what relevance is it that there is 'consent' as usually informed under the most restrictive understanding of 'coersion?'

The more expansive one is in their definition of 'consent' means the less salient said consent is in application of real world policy.

[The Magistrate]

162. You Swing, And Miss, Sir, Again

What is under discussion is the question of whether a person who says they have chosen voluntarily should be believed, and if not, why not. The standard for saying people are acting under coercion set up at the start of this discussion is one that would hold virtually every human action in economic and social life must be regarded as coerced, if it were applied outside the field in which its proponent said it must be applied. This person has been unable, and his supporters here have also been unable, to provide any reason the criteria he set apply only to one specific field. The view that all human action in economic and social life is more or less coerced is one that can be argued soundly for, and indeed one that has a good deal to recommend it, though it makes many people uncomfortable, particularly in the modern West. What cannot be sustained reasonably, or argued soundly, is that virtually every human choice in a particular direction in a particular field of economic and social life is more or less coerced, but that in every other field of economic and social life, coercion is seldom if ever a factor when humans make choices.

And then there is the side-line you set up by calling me a Randite, claiming that my comments present, and are rooted in, a view that selfishness is the highest moral good. That was deliberate insult, which on the courteous assumption you are of at least average perspicacity, you certainly ought to have known was false when you made. The only moral view which could be honestly ascribed to my comments is a respect for others as agents in their own lives, even when they make choices in difficult circumstances, and even when they make choices I might not approve of. If you do not view people as autonomous, it is far too easy to come to view them as automatons, subject to a good deal of tinkering....

[geek tragedy]

166. Sir, the person is believed by the very fact that no rape charges are pressed.

Holding a gun to someone's head to force sexual intercourse is rape in every state but Texas., where a man may legally shoot a prostitute if he pays and she then refuses to copulate.

The realistic understanding of 'coersion' has been part of our law for decades, sir. OSHA is such an example, the 40-hour work week, overtime pay, sexual harassment prohibitions and protections for labor unions are all other examples of this.

Indeed, sir, the bakery employees in Lochner 'consented' to working more than 60 hours and more than 10 hours per day. Just as the exploited prostitutes 'consent' in prostitution.

In each case, the legislature rightfully disregarded this 'consent' and proscribed the societally harmful and exploitive practices.

[The Magistrate]

168. You Are Not Holding Up Your End Well Enough, Sir, To Hold My Interest

"I'm going home now. Someone bring me some frogs and some bourbon."

[geek tragedy]

171. Your surrender is accepted with humility, sir., nt

[opiate69]

173. And there it is!

It really is more about putting a mark in the "Win" column than actually exchanging ideas, or even - perish the thought - learning something, isn't it?

[geek tragedy]

175. No, the ideas were exchanged, it just turns out that the claim that

the rule of "economic transactions between consenting adults should be legal" has never been a rule in progressive governance, only rightwing libertarian, pro-exploitation governance.

[The Magistrate]

177. Now That, Sir, Is Funny

But I must get back to those frogs....

[opiate69]

181. Par for the course, Magistrate...

When certain proponents of certain authoritarian ideologies around here find themselves incapable of forming a compelling argument, they often are only left with resorting to labelling the opposition as some nebulous catch-phrase. Randian, libertarian, MRA, misogynist, etc, etc. Much easier, thus, to declare victory and end the discussion. Not unlike conservatives who label anything that goes against their particular grain as "liberal pablum"...

[freeplessinseattle]

40. Exceptionally well said, thank you eom

[DirkGently]

12. It can't be proven be simply assuming it.

That's the core of your difficulty here. You're assuming all sex trade is coercive, and that simply is not the case.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

17. I didn't say that. I said addiction, poverty and criminals are coercive.

If an individual is in poverty, substance abusing and under the influence of criminals, i'm going to make that leap.

I am uncomfortable with projecting the sex trade as depicted by reality TV on the whole thing and then arguing that since those Nevada brothels don't look so bad, we just don't have a problem universally.

[DirkGently]

26. Then address addiction, poverty, and criminals.

And while you're at it, address anti-worker coercive strategies in all industries. You'll find desperate and exploited people doing all kinds of things for a living. If anything, making something illegal makes it more prone to exploitation, not less.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

29. Men who exploit those in such circumstances need to be punished

Hence the law, hence public shaming.

[jeff47]

73. What punishment do you plan for the Walton family?

They're exploiting tons of people in such circumstances. Yet they're not facing any punishment.

[DirkGently]

129. Public shaming of the women, you mean.

Because that's what prostitution bans do. They put women in jail and give them criminal records. How does that help anyone not be exploited?

[Yavin4]

92. See coal miners in KY.

Far more dangerous than the sex trade.

[NaturalHigh]

215. I don't think I could ever go down in a coal mine.

Those have to be some brave men and women to go down there. Too much chance of being buried alive for me.

[duffyduff]

67. The Nevada brothels are not good

The women there are treated like shit and have very little ability to go anywhere except during "that time of the month."

The biggest lie ever told is that prostitution is a victimless crime.

It is a human rights violation.

[Tumbulu]

127. Absolutely right! nt

[Scootaloo]

66. What percentage do you feel is coercive?

We can agree that some percent must be coercive, due - as noted - to issues of economy, addiction, and personal pressure, yes? Do you think that whatever that percentage is, it should be overlooked in order to accommodate its non-coercive opposite?

We must also be aware of the fact that even a willing prostitute may change their mind, but still be bound by contract, in the "willing agreement between adults" argument. In which case contractual obligation becomes another coercion, which even if it does not lead to "forced performance," (fuck it, it's rape, this jargon is making my brain twitch) still leads to legal and financial hardship against someone who wishes to maintain autonomy over their body.

[DirkGently]

121. We never need to overlook coercion. Will making criminals out of prostitutes help?

... is the question in my opinion. If the contract thing is meant to be literal -- no, you can't be forced to perform a personal services contract of any kind. There are a lot of services people give involving their bodies that do not involve sex. And for exactly the reason you imply, you can't make them. You can't force someone cut your hair or design your living room if they change their mind either. If the suggestion is that there is somehow less power in performing something legally than illegally, I disagree. We've put a lot of effort into protecting workers, and it may not be going so well, but people in the criminal system do ... less well.

Which is maybe the core question. If the argument is that any "sex trade" is endemically oppressive to women, okay. But even that is not the same assuming it is entirely driven by the darkest depravation as a matter of course. Darker than what leads people to deal with drive-through customers?

The closest parallel I can think of that (for that point of view) that doesn't suggest a bias against sex, would be child labor. We don't permit children to "choose" to work. We assume they are being hurt. We assume they have no meaningful choice. Right.

But is this that?

What I hope the argument is not, is that ultimately, sex really does shame women, and we're okay with branding them criminals, for their own good.

[bemildred]

4. Yep, "who decides" whether someone has been coerced or compelled?

One tends naturally to favor the person in question. However they themselves may not be aware of their own coercion, or may not feel it as coercion, or may not be mature enough to know any better, and then it gets all subjective on you. I think that is why people disagree a lot about this subject, the issue is clear at the margins, but gets muddled in the middle.

And of course, also, if the decider is not the person in question, one must make sure that they too have not been coerced, so in that sense one has merely kicked the problem farther away and pretended that it has disappeared.

It's the sort of thing where I really like a good jury of ones peers.

[The Magistrate]

7. And Particularly So, Sir

When the matter is bound up in basic urges and moral taboo, about which people can be relied to get knotted up nicely....

[DirkGently]

2. Okay, but then you want to assume what the "causation" is?

You can't assume anyone who would engage is sex-for-pay is in it due to privation and abuse, anymore than the people working at McDonald's.

So, yes -- exploitation -- what you're calling "coercion" is the issue. You seem to suggest that "boutique brothels and high-priced" escorts are a dishonest approach, but if your real concern is exploitation -- virtual slavery, child abuse, etc., legalized sex trade can address that, at least as much as it's addressed in the rest of the wonderful world of employment.

What gets me about libertarians discussing "coercion," is that they pretend it only comes from government. As though a megacorp slashing wages and benefits by offshoring jobs isn't coercing anyone into working more cheaply.

Your argument seems to acknowledge that coercion can be due to imbalances in social and economic power, but then wants to assume that it's the only possible motivation for paid sex.

I don't think that's true. If what you're after is the sick, addicted, underaged, et al being mercilessly exploited by street-level sex trade, legalization DOES offer at least a partial solution. Safe, legal prostitution has the potential to kill the market for the more devastating forms of exploitation, and at least rise to the level of ordinary wage slavery.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

5. There is practically no connection between the two

You can't argue that "Safe, legal prostitution has the potential to kill the market for the more devastating forms of exploitation" when other than sex, a regulated brothel and street prostitution really have nothing to do with one another. They're completely different markets with different prostitutes and different johns.

[DirkGently]

8. If they're not connected, why do you oppose legalization ?

One, it stands to reason that legalized sex trade would impact street trade, but if you claim it's a completely different thing, you can't also oppose it on the basis it's all motivated by desperation.

[geek tragedy]

13. Look at the mainstreaming of porn. It has lead to an exponential

increase in niche, extreme genres. Because vanilla porn as it existed is now too expensive to produce and too mundane.

Legitimizing the purchase of sex will lead to an increase in volume, which will lead to an increase in the exploitation.

[The Magistrate]

21. That, Sir, Is A Reinhart & Rogoff Style Analysis

These two, it will be recalled, claimed to have discovered high government debt led to slow economic growth, though looked at more closely that had, in fact, demonstrated that slow economic growth led to high debt.

You do not find more 'niche' porn because 'vanilla' porn is too mundane, and saturation with 'vanilla' porn does not create 'niche' interests. What has actually happened is that persons with 'niche' interests are found to be worth catering to in a legal market. They are loyal and steady, with a good deal of their purchasing being driven by the customer's recognition that the fantastic obsession is not really realizable anyway. The 'niche' interests, however, have always been there, and in about the same proportions as found today, among the populace of porn consumers. An an analogy may be taken to homosexuality: it was formerly argued that if homosexuality was not socially repressed, the number of homosexuals would greatly increase, but all that has happened is that more people who have a homosexual orientation are open about it. The number has not increased, the people were always there. The coupling of 'niche' and 'extreme', as you have done, is also a bit tendentious. A very large proportion of 'niche' interests are quite innocuous, and even among those which involve pain or its suggestion, it is something the customer wishes to suffer, rather than to inflict.

[redqueen]

25. Pornographers disagree with you.

They, themselves, say that markets are driven by the quest for material to stimulate the consumer, and that as time goes on the search for more extreme acts intensifies. They, themselves, say that this is what is behind the increasing popularity of "abuse porn" and "rape porn"

So, no. Your theories do not match reality.

[The Magistrate]

33. And I Strongly Disagree, Ma'am

There is a great deal of pornography which deals with extreme pain inflicted on males, a great deal which focuses of elaborate costumes; there is pornography which focuses on particular body parts or shapes, and much else, and there is more of all of it. There are tremendous quanties of porn in circulation, very profitably for the circulators, which does not much differ from Playboy centerfolds fifty years ago. And the 'niche' and 'boutique' interests catered to are ancient, and can be found down through the history of human art and literature and religious and social practices. They are not new, they are not created de novo today. They are expressed more openly, perhaps, by those who have always held them. The customer may be emboldened to want, nay demand from producers, something that fits more exactly what has always been desired, seeing no reason to have something that just suggests a thing, but to see the thing itself, or at least a convincing representation of it.

[redqueen]

37. Search for it. Compare and contrast.

It's convenient to pull out the "but dominatrices!" argument, but it, also, does not reflect reality.

Search for dominatrix porn, and then search for regular old popular-as-fuck abuse porn. See what you find.

[The Magistrate]

39. That, Ma'am, Is Hardly The Only Element Referenced

I am an old man, and for most of my life something of a demimondaine. You may forgive me for hewing to my experiences and the conclusions I have drawn from them. You may, yourself, be misjudging the actual market....

[opiate69]

125. Exactly, Sir.

While the Chicken Little contingent is busy decrying the "ever-deteriorating state of civilized society", the fact of the matter is, there is nothing new under the sun, and these "proclivities" have been with us since time immemorial, only, thanks to the proliferation of instant access, the most egregious and extreme examples of the human experience are no longer relegated to dingy, furtive corners of society, but are available in streaming High Def instantaneously to all corners.

[enough]

36. I salute you, Sir, for stamina, skill, and other virtues I would not presume to enumerate.

Not sarcasm.

[geek tragedy]

145. Vanilla porn is a dying industry, sir.

I am old enough to remember when pornography had plots (albeit really insipid ones). I do not recall the genre of porn in which the woman places in her mouth objects or organs which immediately beforehand had been inserted into her rectum.

This sort of thing is now a popular request of husbands and boyfriends to the women they purportedly love. My wife, a divorce attorney, is all too familiar with this kind of intimate request.

Part of the appeal of porn is that it is frowned upon. Once vanilla porn lost it's taboo and perceived edginess, that element of its appeal went away.

Marketing, sir.

[opiate69]

148. Faulty memory, sir.

The modern porn movie industry started as 8mm "shorts", for showing at peep show cinemas. While movies such as "Behind the Green Door" did introduce long-form, plot-driven movies to the genre, for every "Devil in Miss Jones" there were still thousands upon thousands of narrowly focused, plotless releases. And this is still the case. Some of the most expensive, elaborate porn movies ever released have been done within the last few years. "Pirates" and its sequel were so regarded for their plots and effects that heavily edited, non-porn versions have been released. Of course, just like always, these movies can be found in your local store right along side hundreds of plotless movies as well. I've had the pleasure of being involved in discussions about the state of the industry with people like Ernest Greene and his wife Nina Hartley and while it is true that sales have dropped, the consensus is this is due to many factors such as pirating and the proliferation of sites which allow people to upload clips for free, allowing consumers to find exactly what they want, quickly and cheaply.

[geek tragedy]

150. Was "A2M" a genre back in the day? nt

[opiate69]

155. There were few specific "genres" such as that back on the day..

But it most definitely did occur in movies back then. However, as stated previously, the proliferation of free, specific clips on the internet has made specific acts much easier for those so inclined to find and focus on.

[The Magistrate]

157. You Are Simply Wrong, Sir

While this tangential to what is actually under discussion, namely whether a person is acting freely or not, and whether a person's self-report of acting freely should be believed or not, and if not, why not, there might be some small value to engaging your comments.

It seems a certain sexual act troubles you. You seem to imagine there was a pristine time of sexual behavior when this act was un-known, that it is a new thing under the sun. No such time existed; no newly invented sexual act has arisen. As the song says, 'There's no such thing as an original sin.'

A divorce lawyer's practice is by its nature certain to draw a sample of people unhappy with their intimate lives, and disposed to place their spouses in as bad a light as possible. The same sort of sampling problem has affected psychiatric assessment of homosexuality, and a variety of other categories of sexual behavior, since it was only persons conflicted and unhappy over their desires and behaviors who fetched up in a doctor's office. Granted, being conflicted and unhappy over one's sexual desires will be more common if these are objects of social disapproval, even condemnation, than if they meet with social approval, or even simply indifference.

In a society which has deep taboos on sexual behavior, which has long nurtured a religiously inculcated feeling sexual desire is at best dangerous and at worst evil, there will be an element of 'forbidden fruit' attached to any sexual expression, and there will be an extra frisson of transgression attached to any sexual expression. In a society which manages to maintain this inner disapproval even as it exploits sexual desire at every level of commercial enterprise, and displays the signifiers of sexual receptivity and desire openly and widely in this use, there is going to be a lot of tension and confusion.

[geek tragedy]

158. Sir, the example was illustrative.

You are doubtlessly aware of others, including those where the man places both hands around his partner's throat while copulating, etc.

My wife specializes in representing victims of domestic violence, so your comparison of their objections to degrading and physically unhealthy sex acts as akin to homophobia or sexual dysfunction is most inapt.

And, I may point out, that merely because an act is old does not mean that it is not gaining prominence, nor does it counsel us that said act, as requested by a man of another man or woman, isn't a per se act of degradation undertaken with the active disregard for that person's well-being, physical or otherwise.

[The Magistrate]

163. Not Just Mere Special Pleading On Your Part, Sir, But A Poor Job Even Of That

You might as well just say there is some stuff that makes you go 'ick...' and leave it at that. There is some stuff that makes me go 'ick...' as well. I do not suggest my 'ick...' should be the ground for social standards, if not for laws, however, or spend much time denouncing or condemning people who insist on doing something that makes me go 'ick....'.

[geek tragedy]

170. Sir, I have no advocated banning said practices or their portrayal

so please be more careful in your claims.

Insofar as you believe that degrading women and exposing them to physical and psychological harm and disease is a mere ideosyncratic 'ick' factor and are properly placed beyond social critique, I must part ways with you on that point as well. Pressuring someone to ingest their own fecal material goes a step beyond listening to the Rush Limbaugh show.

[The Magistrate]

174. Many Do Suppose Their 'Ick...' To Be Moral Absolute, Sir

There is not a word you have said above that is not urged even today in some quarters against male homosexual practice, with every bit as high a dudgeon of self-righteousness and certainty real psychological and physical harm and degradation is being inflicted.

Moral crusaders, of whatever ilk, have a more in common with each other than they do with the general run of humanity. Their refusal to realize and recognize this is, of course, a great source of humor for the rest of us.

[geek tragedy]

178. Sir, I believe your argument was incomplete, in that in addition to lumping

critiques of misogyny alongside the bigotry of homophobia, you neglected to lump them in with the Jim Crow-era proscriptions against miscegenation.

To the extent that you equate the claim that ingesting fecal matter is unhealthy with historical homophobia, I would direct you to the "employees must wash hands" signs in restaurant bathrooms.

[The Magistrate]

180. You Are Indeed, Sir, Working In A Long Tradition....

And the blank lack of self-awareness you display about it puts this deep into 'don't know whether to laugh or cry' territory.

Still, I have my frogs for solace and distraction....

[geek tragedy]

182. Sir, we simply disagree as to whether criticizing degradation and misogyny

makes one akin to Fred Phelps.

Cheers.

[The Magistrate]

183. No, Sir: You Make It Obvious You Use His Tactics

In what you are sure is a good cause only, of course....

[geek tragedy]

184. Sir, I did not think you capable of this great of a fail.

But comparing someone to Fred Phelps in earnestness over opposing degradation and misogyny, well, congratulations, you may earn runner-up status for the site today (first prize going to the now-purged chap who worried that Obama's America had become Nazi Germany).

[The Magistrate]

185. I Am Capable Of a Great Deal You Probably Do Not Suspect, Sir

All my life, I have hated surprises I did not arrange....

You have shown yourself up as just one more 'moral panic-keer', and so forfeit any claim to be engaged seriously.

[geek tragedy]

186. Sir, tis true that I choose not to turn a blind eye

to the dynamics of capitalist exploitation, globalism, and misogyny when they overlap with issues of sexuality.

In this way, I consciously violate the rule prevalent amongst many a male liberal, "boners uber alles."

I would note with some interest your invocation of historical homophobia, given that one of the most homophobic ruling political parties in the Western hemisphere are Venezuela's Bolivarians, of whom you have never conceded a single flaw.

[DirkGently]

30. Therefore banning porn would eliminate exploitation?

... or would you expect worse exploitation in an illegal black market?

That's the parallel you'd need to draw to make that argument.

[geek tragedy]

146. Banning porn is a nonstarter for any number of reasons, the Internet

and impossible standards to apply being first and foremost, alongside the First Amendment.

But, legitimizing prostitution as an activity, transforming the pimp into a small business owner, and the john a mere consumer of services, will inevitably lead down a bad path.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

14. The utopian safe, clean, regulated, even unionized blah, blah, blah brothels

would capture only the higher end of the sex trade that has already migrated off the streets and predominantly online, not drug addicts and runaways that the "legal" brothels wouldn't want anything to do with. They are the most vulnerably to violence and harm.

[MattBaggins]

32. Too add on to your prediction

I fear that legalizing prostitution would result in Law Enforcement and Politicians being able to ignore the ongoing street porn.

Legalize it and they will claim "nothing to see here, the problem has been fixed."

[jeff47]

81. Depends how you legalize it.

Most places that legalized prostitution have kept the "street trade" illegal.

For example, it's still illegal to be a street walker in the Netherlands. Now, the government experienced so many people remaining streetwalkers that they created some accommodations for them. But the act itself is still illegal, and police could crack down.

[Honeycombe8]

9. You can say THAT again, Walt.

I've made that argument myself. No little girl wants to be a prostitute when she grows up. It's something that happens, not something they seek out. A prostitute is someone who has hit bottom, there's no other way out to make a decent living. The female "skid row." They are generally troubled people, and their lives will get worse as time goes on. There are no benefits, no paid vacation days, no Social Security in their futures. They are not regarded as people by their johns, since after all they're in the business of selling a service that has to do with body parts. Their interactions with men in that scenario, and the way that men in that scenario behave, leaves the women with a non-healthy view of men, naturally.

I saw a documentary on strippers, where sometimes some strippers were encouraged to provide services. This was as bad for those women as I imagine straight-out prostitution is. One ex-stripper in particular was marred for life, after she left the business (she was one of the lucky ones...she got married). But her view of men, she said, was forever ruined. She saw them in the sleezy, inconsiderate, uncaring, vulgar way they acted at the strip joints. I don't recall if she stayed married or not.

[jeff47]

83. What little girl dreams of working at Wal-Mart or McDonalds?

Should we make those jobs illegal?

There's plenty of people stuck in those jobs. They're suffering from plenty of poverty. And they get no benefits, paid vacation or sick days.

There's a ton of dead-end low-wage crappy jobs that no one ever dreams of when they're a child. But you are using that reason only to ban one.

[Honeycombe8]

195. That's ridiculous. nt

[jeff47]

197. Then explain how it's different.

There's tons of terrible jobs out there that scar people for life. You want to ban one. What is different about that one?

[Major Nikon]

10. Prohibition of consentual adult activity has never worked

So I'm not really sure what you expect to achieve by pondering causation.

The idea that prostitution is inherent to drug addiction is nonsensical and not well supported. Prostitution has existed and flourished for literally several millenia prior to the proliferation of illicit drugs. The idea that prostitution is the result of criminal activity is even more nonsensical. In almost all areas of the US, prostitution is illegal, which by default assigns it the purview of criminals. That's what prohibition does.

The argument of those who want prostitution to remain illegal is not really that much different than the arguments of those who argue against the legalization of drugs. X is illegal and therefore bad because the criminal element is heavily involved so it should remain illegal. Seems a bit circular to me.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

19. to ignore the circumstances that deliver individuals to the sex trade is abhorrent

It is a prohibition on exploitation, legalization doesn't chance the tragedy of the situation.

And where do you think "legal" brothels in Europe get their women? Accountemps?

[Major Nikon]

22. Your argument is little more than an emotional one

You seem to suggest that since some prostitutes are being exploited, I am ignoring the problem by advocating for reform that includes legalization. It's nothing more than underhanded intellectual dishonesty that posits that if I don't agree with you, I must be part of the problem. Believe it or not, I've heard that one before.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

31. If something is exploitative, why the hell would you legalize it?

The only result from legalization elsewhere has been shifting the risk entirely from criminals who traffick women and the men who patronize them to the women themselves, who are shifted from being created as victims to targets for immigration enforcement.

[Major Nikon]

46. If something is not exploitative, why the hell would you illegalize it?

Works both ways.

As I said before, you haven't even begun to make the case that prostitution is universally exploitative and I'm also supposed to accept your assertions on the "result from legalization elsewhere" as if you can just cherry pick examples and claim not only that's the way it always is, but the way it has to be.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

49. Are you willing to err on the side of it being universally unexploitive?

So men with means might enjoy their call girls without fear of prosecution and just chalk everything else, much of which is extremely brutal to a cost of doing business so Elliot Spitzer can get a blowjob in peace?

[Major Nikon]

52. I'm pretty sure the current approach is not working

YMMV.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

53. Is the current approach to armed robbery working?

Men commit a crime, get arrested and prosecuted. What isn't working?

[opiate69]

78. If the aim is to eliminate robbery, then emphatically, no, it's not working

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

89. so, given that robbery can't be eliminated, should it them be unpunished?

[opiate69]

93. Of course not.

But, there again, the idea of "punishment" leads to a whole host of other discussions, such as the criminal justice system, recidivism, institutionalization, etc. So in the larger scheme of things, I tend to agree with the premise of your OP - that if we truly want to reduce or eliminate prostitution, we need to address causal factors, and keep the victims out of the poverty/drug/institution cycle, but as things stand, criminalizing people who choose to exchange sexual favors for money - for whatever reason, is not achieving anything more than perpetuating the cycle.

[jeff47]

85. Robbery is consensual? (nt)

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

87. Is "I need to do this for my next hit" actually consensual?

What about "I need to do this or I lose my motel room", how about "I need to do this or the bikers are going to beat me".

Causation matters.

[jeff47]

97. Well, every day I say "I need to do this to feed my family".

and I'm a software developer, not a prostitute.

Prostitutes are not in as unique a position as you claim.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

126. Can you direct me to the pig farm with a mass grave of Java developers?

I think a prostitute getting into a car with a strange man is a slightly different situation than yours.

[jeff47]

141. If you think the potential danger is the reason to ban it

then there's a few problems with your argument.

First, there's jobs that are more dangerous. For example, coal miners and commercial fishermen. You aren't trying to ban those jobs.

Second, legalization would make the job much safer. Legalization would mean the prostitute could work out of a brothel or other location that she controls. That provides far more safety.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

153. and you think the archetypical street walker is going to find work in a brothel?

This is the inherent flaw in the argument, there are two sex trades and other than sex they really don't have a whole lot in common and a solution that might be slightly passible even with its own externalities in one, isn't going to apply to the other.

[jeff47]

161. Why not?

The street walker is walking the street because she has no other way to drum up business, and no other location to do her business.

Once she could do her business at a fixed address, why would she keep choosing the street?

If your answer is "brothels will be too high-class", I'd argue there will be high-end and low-end brothels, just like there's high-end and low-end resturaunts. Or high-end and low-end strip clubs if you want to keep the subject sexual.

[redqueen]

27. "where do you think "legal" brothels in Europe get their women? Accountemps?"

It is from the ranks of the most desperately poor women that these "jobs" are filled.

Of course, many people are studiously avoiding acknowledging the significance of this fact. Naturally.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

35. They only acknowledge what is convenient to either they personal ends or permissive ideology.

and latch on to any outlier who backs up the Risky Business\Pretty Woman\Cat House version of things and then apply that to skid row and trafficking victims.

[Major Nikon]

42. You raise a good point

Leaving prostitution illegal and forcing it underground under the purview of criminality certainly creates more opportunities for people in that situation. It's kind of like saying we should keep drugs illegal to create more business opportunities for youth in poverty.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

44. Given the whole Tyrell Replicant business didn't really work out...

What non-criminal source do you propose to source these willing, uncoerced prostitutes from?

[Major Nikon]

50. The sex industry actually emcompasses millions of workers

Some of which is perfectly legal and some isn't. Believe it or not, there's no shortage of perfectly willing applicants.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

55. So why go to the trouble of trafficking?

If America is just chalk full of red blooded American girls ready to receive your bodily fluids, why do Asian, Latin American and Eastern European gangsters traffik in women?

[The Magistrate]

59. Surely It is Not All Foreigners Involved In The Evil, Sir?

Surely you can find some red-blooded American men involved, native born, white, even....

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

61. Absolutely there are, but why go to the trouble?

If America is just teaming with women who want to be prostitutes, but just lack of opportunity... why bother?

[The Magistrate]

65. Yet You Went Directly To The Swarthy And the Yellow, Sir....

This is a subject fraught with complications, and you make it very clear you have given little or no thought to many of them, and may not even be aware of many more.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

69. I think you have missed the point,

It is being said that there is no shortage of American women who are willing to be prostitutes, okay. Lets take for granted that is true. I haven't met any, but I don't leave the suburbs very much. If that is true why then would gangs bother trafficking women into this country?

Human smuggling is a pretty difficult and high-cost endeavor, there must be some sort of unmet demand being fulfilled.

[The Magistrate]

70. You Seem To Have Missed A Thing Or Three As Well, Sir

You leap to the foreign as the exemplar and totem of the evil you are rousing yourself to oppose, the dark outsider standing as the ultimate exploiter. Among the things this casts into relief is the question of purity, which often provides the real ground of high dudgeon on matters involving sexual behavior.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

75. Dark outsiders? Purity? I think I have missed more than that.

Ethnic gangs traffik women. That isn't really up for debate. But as criminal gangs are inherently profit driven enterprises... why bother importing women when we have all these unemployed American girls just ready to start hooking? If only somebody would give them a shot.

[The Magistrate]

79. Again, Sir: The Subject 'Makes You Lose Your Shit' As You Said Above

It shows in your comments.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

82. Why not answer the question instead,

If criminal gangs are profit motivated, why engage in such an economically futile activity as trafficking women when there are all these American girls ready to go?

[The Magistrate]

84. Your Thought Processes Here Interest Me, Sir

Nothing else about this does much, at present. I do not think you are thinking straight on the matter, and you have said as much yourself.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

88. My Thought Processes?

Says the guy playing a character in everything he posts? It would be as though I finished every post with "you want a toe? I can get you a toe."

[The Magistrate]

91. The Reference To Toes Escapes Me, Sir

Is is from some movie or other?

[bettyellen]

211. You are just hilarious when you are stumped, Sir.

[redqueen]

77. It's a distraction.

There are black and white people living in Mexico, too, not just "swarthy" people

It is the most desperate who are trafficked, and yes, since it is easier to threaten and coerce people who are trafficked in from other countries (by confiscating passports, requiring them to exorbitant fees for their travel, etc), that's of course the most popular method traffickers use to ensure they maintain control of their "product".

[joeglow3]

167. Is that maybe because we make it a criminal offense

Look at the abortion "industry" prior to the 70's. Why would anyone look at that and think we should make it legal?

Make it legal and don't throw people in jail and I bet you would see a more diverse group of willing participants.

[redqueen]

189. The "abortion 'industry'"?!?!?!?!

And no, its legal in Germany and Amsterdam and foreign women are trafficked in to meet demand for women who can be abused.

[joeglow3]

193. Yes. I used that term on purpose.

And following your logic, since we have seen a couple of disgusting abortion doctors, we should make the whole practice illegal.

However, looking at what your concerns are, the legality of prositution would have NO influence on what you are concerned about. Thus, you want to limit the rights of law-abiding people because others will break the law no matter what. By your own logic, the laws you support do NOTHING to address the problems you have.

Thus, I think there is another reason why you support keeping it illegal and you want to use this as your crutch. I am guessing, like many others here, you want to push your morals on everyone else.

[Major Nikon]

68. For the same reasons non sex workers are trafficked I reckon

Furthermore the numbers available suggest exactly the opposite is occurring. The US government estimates there are 14,500–17,500 individuals trafficked annually into the United States and not all of those are trafficked for sex. There's around a million prostitutes in the US and the turnover rate is quite high. I'll let you do the math to find out where exactly most of them are coming from.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/07/HumanTrafficking/LitRev/#How

So basically you are saying that instead of addressing the trafficking problem directly, we should instead take a shotgun approach and instead target everyone involved in the trade regardless of whether they are involved consensually or not, because that approach has worked so well for us in the past.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

71. Ofcourse most of them are American, but still - why bother?

And trafficking is also a domestic problem, but if America is just teaming with these women why traffik internationally at all?

And yes, I absolutely favor going after everyone involved in the trade.

Like the age of consent, there has to be a societal standard. Some people won't agree with it, but the line has to be somewhere.

[Major Nikon]

98. So far your line seems to be status quo

I'm not seeing anything that leads me to believe otherwise.

Keep in mind that status quo includes re-victimizing by force of law those who have already been victimized, as well as victimizing by force of law those involved in consensual adult activities because you think the idea of quid pro quo is icky.

Just sayin'

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

122. If "victimizing by force of law" means arrested men who patronize prostitutes...

Yes, I am fine with that.

Not to go HoFer on you, but I don't believe there is anything consensual about someone under the spell of addiction, poverty or criminality having sex with men for money. When the alternative might be withdrawl, homelessness or reprisals.

[Major Nikon]

131. Evidently you don't think it's possible for the transaction to be consensual

And you appear to only favor making one part of the transaction illegal. Sounds very much like Sheilla Jeffries' and other's idea of reform which has been tried in Sweden, and has utterly failed to stem prostitution, protect prostitutes, or reduce trafficking. In fact, most or all of the metrics on those things are going the other way.

http://feministire.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/swedish-police-stats-show-more-not-less-prostitution-and-trafficking/

Furthermore you keep floating the idea that all prostitutes are under some "spell" that you can't seem to provide any data to support, as if the more you repeat it the truer it becomes.

http://jezebel.com/5952587/empowered-sex-workers-want-to-redefine-prostitution-in-the-bay-area

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

133. If you want to try hanging that around my certified Dudebro™ neck, go for it.

I acknowledge there are outliers, particularly referring to the boutique industry. But you can't legislate for society as a whole for that any more than you can set the age of consent based on the preferences of sexually precocious children.

[Major Nikon]

135. I understood you to say that prostitution = rape

I don't believe there is anything consensual about someone under the spell of addiction, poverty or criminality having sex with men for money.

Now you suggest a statistical aberration of consensual prostitution exists. I'd be interested to know what your ballpark figure is. Do you think it's like .001% consensual, .1%, 1%? It would be certainly helpful if you could provide at least some kind of idea of what you speak, otherwise I might make a false assumption and get accused of hanging something around your dudeneck.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

136. I don't think that statement is obtuse,

My whole point is causation matters, if your paid sex partner is performing because of addiction, poverty or criminality, that is wrong and you are doing something wrong that deserves criminal prosecution.

What I said in the very beginning is that the boutique sex trade shouldn't be extrapolated as a sweeping solution because its circumstances just don't apply elsewhere. I'm sure there are plenty of Manhattan and Hollywood callgirls\rentboys who are pretty happy with their situation, and good for them. But no more than a handful of twelve year olds who imagines themselves to be Marquise de Merteuil or Vicomte de Valmont (or whatever the current teen drama equivalents are) and ready to go is that a sound basis for public policy.

[Major Nikon]

137. It's either consensual or it isn't

That seems to me to be a pretty good way to sort out what should be legal and what shouldn't. Honestly I have more respect for the Shiela Jeffrey's argument that holds all prostitution as rape. At least in their mind they are not advocating for the prosecution of consensual sexual activity. You seem to have a different idea.

Just sayin'

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

152. and I believe a sex act performed out of addiction, poverty or criminality isn't.

I said that in the very first post.

I think the harm caused by prostitution resulting from addiction, poverty and criminality is sufficient that it remain illegal. if that is inconvenient to Elliot Spitzer and "Kristen", well that is unfortunate.

I will be watching my mailbox for my invitation to TransPhobeCon.

[Major Nikon]

176. Then you believe it is rape

Which is what non consensual sex is. And although you remain unclear and uncommitted on what portion of prostitution is rape, you suggest that it's all but the tiniest majority which isn't rape (which seems to be predicated on the dollar figures involved).

Just so we're clear.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

198. And this is different from statutory rape how exactly?

A sexually precocious youth might "consent" but society has decided that circumstances and decency over-rule that. A prostitute that might "consent" but is actually acting on an external influence that really forces them. This is generally well understood by all but those who make excuses for the sex trade either for their own convenience or permissive ideology.

[Major Nikon]

199. Thanks for hanging that on my dudeneck

I've never used a prostitute and have no desire to do so, but I get the obvious implication you're trying to make which is that anyone who disagrees with you must use them on a regular basis. I just chalk it up to intellectual insidiousness, but if that's where you want to go, more power to you. It says more about you than it does about me if someone cares to think about it much, and if they don't they are probably not someone who has an opinion I value anyway. I don't agree that the idea of prostitution = rape is even in the same ballpark as mainstream thought on the subject and seems to be only held mostly by those who subscribe to the most radical ideas.

It's different from statutory rape because by definition sex with someone incapable of consent is rape which obviously applies to someone below the age of consent. In order to make that definition apply to adult prostitution by your logic you have to assume that someone who is poor, or addicted to drugs, or who is involved with a criminal element is incapable of giving consent. This might be true if someone is extremely intoxicated and incapable of consent. It might also be true if they are being forcibly coerced by a pimp. The former would constitute rape with or without a prostitution statute in most jurisdictions (and should). The latter would be mostly limited to street level prostitution which remains illegal in pretty much all advanced nations that have implemented some type of legalization scheme. The idea that most prostitutes fall into the latter category is also not well supported by the available data. Street level prostitution only constitutes about 10-30% of the prostitution market for pretty much all advanced nations and even within that minority data set there's not much to suggest that even most are represented by pimps. The idea that someone who is poor is incapable of consent in an advanced country with a social safety net where people don't starve is even less convincing.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

200. I said no such thing, I think this is mostly ideological

An ideology where for one not to be perceived an oppressive religious fascist by the even more over the top "progressives" they must be not just tolerant but a rah-rah enthusiast for any and all forms of sexual activity and substance abuse.

Street level prostitution has changed with the internet and it varies by region largely depending on the vice tolerance of local law enforcement. But the woman being advertised online isn't necessarily or likely in a better set of circumstances than a decade or more ago or enjoy a significantly better back story.

And yes, I 100% believe that "someone who is poor, or addicted to drugs, or who is involved with a criminal element is incapable of giving consent." for the purposes of the creepy libertarian "sex worker" or "service provider" narrative.

[Major Nikon]

201. Evidently your definition of consent takes on different meanings depending on context

So consent doesn't really mean consent, but something entirely different so long as we're on the subject of prostitution which is a special case which deserves it's own private definition, that you have yet to define, but all of this is generally understood by like, everyone, except those in which you don't agree with who are obviously apologists or regular customers of prostitutes.



I think I've gone as far down this rabbit hole as I'm going to go.


Cheers!

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

202. Many things take on different meanings depending on context

And yes, prostitution is a very special case.

[Major Nikon]

203. In this case, only to the subliterate

YMMV.

1con·sent
intransitive verb \kən-ˈsent\
Definition of CONSENT
1
: to give assent or approval : agree <consent to being tested>
2
archaic : to be in concord in opinion or sentiment

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consent

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

204. Suggest that defense to whats-her-face in Florida

YMMV indeed.

[Major Nikon]

205. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_emotion

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

206. Where is the logical fallacy?

It is an example of where your interpretation of consent runs head-long into context. The context being the circumstances of the consenting individual and how the law applies to them or recognizes their capacity.

[Major Nikon]

207. I'm not going to debate nonsense

Just sayin'

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

208. So the idea that consent is subject to context is nonsense to you?

Age and sobriety are contexts generally accepted to affect consent just about everywhere, so why isn't coercion by any means equally or more applicable than either of those?

[Major Nikon]

209. The word "consent" has one meaning to those who are fully literate

I've already explained this to you and provided a proof for my assertion, vis-à-vis Webster's dictionary. If you want to feign illiteracy, more power to you, but I'm not going there with you. So the answer to your question is yes, I'm pretty sure it is nonsense, by definition.

Coercion, age, and sobriety (at least when it reaches the point at which consent is incapable) are all valid reasons why consent does not apply. In the case of coercion, if someone where holding a gun to a person's head and compelling them to perform a sex act, then consent clearly does not apply. All of these things are already covered by applicable laws other than prostitution itself and someone in violation would almost certainly be prosecuted under those instead of prostitution as the penalties are considerably higher. However, that's not what you are talking about at least near as I can tell through the gibberish. You are trying to justify illegalizing consensual (using the fully literate meaning of that word) sexual activities. The simple rule I live by is that if sex is consensual between adults, it's none of my business. It's a pretty simple concept really and it applies in all sorts of situations other than prostitution. This doesn't mean I believe the activity shouldn't be regulated. I just believe in addressing problems directly, rather than addressing symptoms of problems or things that are only casually related to problems.

Your idea seems to be based on the idea that you are in a superior position to those involved in prostitution and therefore can and should make moral choices for them. I tend to think that there's already too many involved in that business. The reason I said I have more respect for the rad-fem argument on prostitution is at least they believe all prostitution is rape. I really don't see much difference between your position and hardcore social conservatives who oppose prostitution for puritanical reasons. Then again, at least those people have a book they can reference for legitimacy. You can't seem to even reference the dictionary for yours.

Just sayin'

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

210. If you want to feign ignorance, more power to you.

Just please refrain from ever giving anyone legal advice should they be caught with their pants down because you "using the fully literate meaning of that word" isn't going to get them very far.

I believe that addiction, poverty and criminality are every bit as coercive as a weapon and in the case of criminality somebody with a weapon isn't usually very far away, so the same principles should apply.

I'm not expecting you to agree with me, but I'm not going to drop it just because you took Tom Cruise's "What a capitalist" monologue in Risky Business to heart.

I love the internet, in the same day I can be one of the Marxist hoard that needs to be executed for treason after the teabagger revolution, a man hating rape-frenzied rad-fem and a puritanical social conservative.

[Major Nikon]

212. You failed to mention exactly the alleged ignorance I was alleged to have feigned

So I must agree that I am ignorant of it, but I'm not convinced that's my fault.

I pointed out that the specific situations you described are more felonious crimes and are covered by other laws. If this is not true then please provide a proof that extends beyond your personal opinion.

I believe that addiction, poverty and criminality are every bit as coercive as a weapon and in the case of criminality somebody with a weapon isn't usually very far away, so the same principles should apply.

Which is a good case for the heavy regulation of pandering, which I'm not in opposition.

I'm not expecting you to agree with me, but I'm not going to drop it just because you took Tom Cruise's "What a capitalist" monologue in Risky Business to heart.

I made it quite clear up front I wasn't agreeing with you and I never asked you to drop anything. I never watched the movie you referenced, so I can assure you that isn't the case.

I love the internet, in the same day I can be one of the Marxist hoard that needs to be executed for treason after the teabagger revolution, a man hating rape-frenzied rad-fem and a puritanical social conservative.

I don't find much value in sob stories.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

213. You seem ignorant of the fact the dictionary is not the penal code of any land

And you have expressed repeatedly that you do not believe that coercion by addiction, poverty or criminality undermines the ability to give consent. That is our fundamental disagreement. You accept that it might be purely coincidental that a woman with an addiction, or in poverty or with a pimp lingering around the corner will just happen to have sex with you in exchange for money at that very moment. Just as though you picked her up in the lunch line at an accounting conference and decided to head upstairs instead of attend the FASB session.

Yes, heavy regulation... criminals have always proven themselves to be very receptive to regulation. Cigarettes and Alcohol are both legal, yet there are billion dollar black market industries around evading taxes and regulations, usually to sell at a discount. But that would never happen in a noble regulated sex trade.

[Major Nikon]

216. Now you're just being disingenuous

You seem ignorant of the fact the dictionary is not the penal code of any land.

The dictionary is the basis of penal code just as it is with any fully literate endeavor. If there are any laws that define consent within a cab ride of your gibberish then I would be glad to have a look at them. Instead of a proof for my alleged ignorance this seems to dig your own hole that much deeper.

And you have expressed repeatedly that you do not believe that coercion by addiction, poverty or criminality undermines the ability to give consent.

I have claimed no such thing even once, much less repeatedly. Any disagreement here exists only in your imagination. This was your statement:

"I don't believe there is anything consensual about someone under the spell of addiction, poverty or criminality having sex with men for money."

Your claim wasn't that any of those things undermined consent. Your claim was they precluded it. If you want to walk that statement back, feel free to do so, but please don't move the goalposts and then claim I'm disagreeing with you on something I never have as I'm simply going to throw your own words back at you.

You accept that it might be purely coincidental that a woman with an addiction, or in poverty or with a pimp lingering around the corner will just happen to have sex with you in exchange for money at that very moment. Just as though you picked her up in the lunch line at an accounting conference and decided to head upstairs instead of attend the FASB session.

I accepted no such thing. I never denied that some people engage in survival sex. Your claim is that situation fits all prostitution except for a small statistical aberration which is an assertion you have provided zero proof.

"I acknowledge there are outliers, particularly referring to the boutique industry."

Yes, heavy regulation... criminals have always proven themselves to be very receptive to regulation.

Not only is this a circular argument, it ignores the reality that legal brothels which can and do provide a far safer working environment for prostitutes can and do exist.

Cigarettes and Alcohol are both legal, yet there are billion dollar black market industries around evading taxes and regulations, usually to sell at a discount. But that would never happen in a noble regulated sex trade.

One of those things used to be illegal, yet no longer is. If you think we'd be better off reverting to the way it was, I'd be glad to hear your reasons.

[treestar]

105. It's not an "industry."

If there are applicants, and they are willing, it's because they need the money. there ought to be a better way.

[Major Nikon]

114. If my job stopped paying me tomorrow, I wouldn't show up for work

Most people involved in gainful employment are there because they need the money.

I've tried to find a job where I can drive expensive sports cars and fly fast airplanes upside down all day, but those seem to be few and far between.

in·dus·try
[in-duh-stree] Show IPA
noun, plural in·dus·tries for 1, 2, 7.
1.
the aggregate of manufacturing or technically productive enterprises in a particular field, often named after its principal product: the automobile industry; the steel industry.
2.
any general business activity; commercial enterprise: the Italian tourist industry.
3.
trade or manufacture in general: the rise of industry in Africa.
4.
the ownership and management of companies, factories, etc.: friction between labor and industry.
5.
systematic work or labor.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/industry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_industry

[treestar]

116. Then there should be no problem with people choosing to go down into

mines, etc., and companies should not be legally prohibited from failing to take an safety precautions that would cost they money and cut into profits. There is always someone to "choose" to "freely" go down the mines because they need the money.

That's what a civilized society is for. To draw the lines for dangers that no one should have to undergo just to survive.

[Major Nikon]

118. If one ignores the false dichotomy you just presented...

You might actually be on to something. Instead of simply making prostitution illegal and hoping it will go away due to the efforts of a copious supply of finger waggers and other well wishers keeping the sex trade stigma alive and well, the pragmatic solution seems to be to control it through legalization and regulation, which is how all other legal professions are controlled.

Just sayin'

[jeff47]

86. Where do you think Wal-Mart and McDonalds get their employees?

There's plenty of people exploiting the labor of the desperately poor. But those jobs are legal.

If you're going to claim this exploitation means prostitution must remain illegal, then it's time to shut down virtually all minimum-wage employers.

[brooklynite]

15. Do you believe the construction industry should be shut down?

Yes, plenty are well-paid (many members of Unions), but some are unskilled (sometimes undocumented) day laborers who suffer from dangerous working conditions, low pay and limited medical benefits. Should we stop everyone from working in the construction industry, or make working conditions better for everyone?

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

20. Reductio ad absurdum

The quintessential creepy libertarian talking point.

[The Magistrate]

38. But It Is Not Absurd, Sir

By the standard you set up, tremendous numbers of people are coerced into dangerous and exploitative employments, due to want, due to mental and emotional shapings that impede them from even imagining success in other directions. People take great harm from a variety of employments of this sort, all around the world.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

43. It is completely absurd,

Unless one occupies the most cynical libertarian head space prostitution isn't employment. And extrapolating unskilled employment with one coerced by addiction, poverty or criminality into the most brutal and potentially violent situation of all is ridiculous.

[The Magistrate]

47. Unfortunately, Sir, You Are Wrong

You will not see that, clearly, and it is not worth my time to press the matter on the slim chance you could be made to see the fallacies and special pleadings your distinction without a difference rests on.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

51. The only fallacies here are yours and others false equivalencies

If you want to convince me that the circumstances of prostitutes are even similar to those of construction workers, your time would be better spent elsewhere.

[The Magistrate]

54. The Subject 'Makes You Lose Your Shit', Sir, As You Said Above

You have made that abundantly clear by the quality of your follow-on comments.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

56. Forgive me, I react strongly to enablers of sexual exploitation.

Everyone has a hang-up, that is mine.

[The Magistrate]

58. Sounds Like Answering One Of Those 'What Is Your Biggest Flaw?' Questions At A Job Interview, Sir

The answer is supposed to be always a 'flaw' that is really a great virtue, with much to commend you to a potential employer....

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

60. It probably would come across better than "I talk like Rumpole of the Bailey" Sir...

It annoys my co-workers, Sir.

[The Magistrate]

62. I Doubt It, Sir....

"Short of a circus, there's nothing packs up and clears outta town quicker than the Christmas spirit."

[joeglow3]

165. How do you define "employment"

I get massages because they feel good. Is that degrading to the person having to spend an hour giving me a massage? How about when my wife gets a pedicure? Is she degrading the person touching her?

Or, do YOU get to draw the line in the sand that everyone else must abide by? Do you have to resort to childish insults if someone dares draw that line in the sand somewhere different from you?

[treestar]

106. They are making buildings useful to society

That will last a long time. Society has seen that the risk of accident is lower than the benefit of the buildings and structures created.

Whereas a much more physically invasive way of making a living has dangers not worth the "benefit" of somebody getting sex when they can't get it a better way. Society decides that it not worth the benefit - thus it is illegal.

[jeff47]

111. The massive number of prostitutes would imply the same

It's an activity that's illegal in virtually all the US, but you can have a prostitute at your door faster than a pizza.

That would imply that society made the same trade-off, wouldn't it?

[redqueen]

23. The constant refrain that it's always been around is a pathetic dodge.

The fact is it has been made legal in several countries, and in every one of those countries, they are struggling to deal with their problems with human trafficking and organized crime. As more evidence piles up, the dodge won't be so easy to fall back on.

From the Der Spiegel article:

German law enforcement officers working in red-light districts complain that they are hardly able to gain access to brothels anymore. Germany has become a "center for the sexual exploitation of young women from Eastern Europe, as well as a sphere of activity for organized crime groups from around the world," says Manfred Paulus, a retired chief detective from the southern city of Ulm. He used to work as a vice detective and now warns women in Bulgaria and Belarus against being lured to Germany.

Statistically speaking, Germany has almost no problem with prostitution and human trafficking. According to the Federal Criminal Police Office (BKA), there were 636 reported cases of "human trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation" in 2011, or almost a third less than 10 years earlier. Thirteen of the victims were under 14, and another 77 were under 18.

There are many women from EU countries "whose situation suggests they are the victims of human trafficking, but it is difficult to provide proof that would hold up in court," reads the BKA report. Everything depends on the women's testimony, the authors write, but there is "little willingness to cooperate with the police and assistance agencies, especially in the case of presumed victims from Romania and Bulgaria." And when women do dare to say something, their statements are "often withdrawn."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-despite-legality-of-prostitution-in-germany-a-902533.html

Conveniently for the many privileged apologists for this multi-billion dollar global industry, the influence of organized crime (as well as good, old-fashioned psychological terrorism) ensure that the many ugly truths stay easy to hide (or, more accurately, ignore).

As I've said elsewhere, the writing is on the wall. It's only a matter of time before the many excuses and rationalizations ring hollow to any progressive.

[Violet_Crumble]

64. I live somewhere where it's legal and that's not true

I really don't get it. Are you opposed to prostitution being legalised in the US? If the reality in the US is remotely like what I've seen on episodes of Cops, it's a total nobrainer and it should be legalised safe and well regulated like it is here.

[jeff47]

94. Your claims sound very much like those made before the UK prostitution sweep in 2002-ish.

There were similar claims that there was enormous numbers of exploited women and trafficked women.

So the UK authorities conducted a massive sweep of the country. They offered protection to the UK citizens, and a free ticket home to the foreign women. No testimony required, so the women would not be endangered by a pimp. And they interviewed many, many thousands of women.

2 women took the free plane ticket. 0 UK citizens took them up on their offer.

So I have a lot of doubt that the anti-prostitution folks claim that the official stats are massively under-reported are true. Because in the best measure we have so far, they were very, very wrong.

And if trafficking and exploitation is your concern, it's really not that hard to fix.

For example, the Germans are having trouble getting access to brothels? Have the law require inspections. Have the law require private, one-on-one interviews with the women to identify any who are being trafficked or coerced. Have the law give them a free plane ticket home if they're being trafficked, and a witness-protection-like system for German women.

Throwing women in jail for prostitution is a terrible solution to this problem. And throwing only men in jail for prostitution guarantees most of the horrible side-effects will continue.

[MotherPetrie]

28. K&R

[lumberjack_jeff]

34. Environment, talent and poverty constrains our choices.

Choosing to be a doctor was an impractical choice for me, for all of the above reasons. Am I less free than the valedictorian at Overlake high school in Mercer Island? Sure.

Am I enslaved? Am I helpless? Do the remaining choices all equal coercion? I don't think so. Within the realm of choices available to me, I believe that I have agency over my life. Good decisions as well as bad.

I think there's a sexist element in this discussion. A grown woman who makes questionable choices is "forced", a grown man who makes questionable choices is stupid. "Of course he is going to rob the 7-11! His drug addiction left him no other choice!"

It's infantilizing.

It seems unrealistic to expect that society is going to stop the business through laws, and there are a lot of good arguments that the effort itself is harmful. I think the best you can hope for is to bring the trade partly into the daylight where we can get rid of the pimps.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

41. Now that is a big leap,

Every one has a limit to their potential, but you can't equate the inability of yourself to perform as a doctor with forces that can relegate people to prostitution. Poverty, addiction and criminality are a little more limiting than getting a B- in high school biology.

Prostitution is something terrible, and for some it might merely be a poor decision. But for many it is a trap they can't escape.

[lumberjack_jeff]

48. Many people's circumstances and conditions constrain their choices to an even greater degree than me

My day job is working with individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities, so I get the idea of constrained choices.

Nevertheless, all of us make choices within the ones available to us. The fact that turning tricks pays better than working as a hotel maid (a job for which she'd probably need to get sober, if for no other reason than it doesn't pay well enough to support the habit) doesn't make it something other than a choice.

Individuals may be predisposed to make the wrong choice, but it's still a choice.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

57. So, if one of your students or patients ends up on the street and in that position

You would say that they "chose" it?

[lumberjack_jeff]

74. My participants make their own choices.

They may occasionally need help understanding the consequences of those choices, but my main goal is to make them understand and respect the fact that they are self empowered.

Most people don't learn to respect the power of their choices until they make (and must live with) a bad one.

The alternative is perpetual childhood.

So your answer is "sometimes".

[backscatter712]

45. You lost me at "libertine".

You use that word the way it's traditionally used. The way an authoritarian would use it.

[Le Taz Hot]

139. +1

They lose me at the name-calling. I figure they don't want to debate so much as they want to pontificate.

[riderinthestorm]

63. I can only quote Justice Potter Stewart - I know it when I see it

He was famously speaking about porn.

But for those of us who work with women at shelters (which includes prostitutes, sex trade workers like strippers etc), the sad truth is that most of them are drug addicted or were molested as children and damaged. Its easy to spot the "coercion" of poverty, addiction and criminal elements when one "sees" it daily. The women themselves go to massive amounts of therapy to recognize what's happened and why they've made these choices (and how to STOP making them).

The causative factors for many prostitutes are all to apparent to those of us who deal with them regularly.

The prostitutes themselves - when they finally seek help and treatment - acknowledge this.

I certainly understand there are gray areas but there are real factors that cause most people to de-couple sex from a loving relationship. Ignoring those factors as causative agents means we can also ignore so many of society's ills (like child molestation and addiction and criminal elements like pimps etc) when it comes to sex crimes. How convenient....

[jeff47]

72. According to your argument, I am coerced to go to work every day.

I definitely would not show up if I was not getting paid. But I have this terrible addiction to getting enough money to provide for my family. So I show up every workday and do the job.

The difference is I develop software at work instead of have sex at work. So you seem to think that because you approve of my job, my being 'forced' to go to work every day is just fine if not admirable.

I will not argue that prostitutes love their job. Just like I will not argue that Wal-Mart cashiers love their job. Both jobs are generally chosen only by people experiencing poverty. Why is the first horrific, while the second is admirable?

[gollygee]

76. People on welfare are required to search for work

Should they be required to become prostitutes to support themselves, since it's no different than working at Walmart? Should men be required to become prostitutes as well (for men, as that's the market?)

[jeff47]

96. They are required to search, they don't have to accept any offer.

The rules are similar to many state's unemployment rules. Which I've had the misfortune to be on multiple times.

The rule is you have to look for work. You do not have to accept any job that was offered. I did not have to accept a job at McDonalds just because I was on unemployment. In fact, I was not required to even see if they were hiring.

Thus I have no expectation that people on welfare would be required to accept a job as a prostitute.

[treestar]

101. omg

because the people at Walmart still have their physical integrity? They are not having to use their private parts on the job? They aren't subjected to STDs or AIDS (just colds). They are a lot safer at work, physically? They aren't at nearly the risk of being attacked and killed at work? They may not make much, but at least they could bring suits to the EEOC or the like if their rights are violated? They just still have their dignity?

[jeff47]

103. And not everyone would rank those above "making enough money to eat".

Yes, I can see you'd never choose prostitution. That doesn't mean other people won't look at the same choices and choose differently.

Why shouldn't they be allowed to do so?

[treestar]

104. Allowed?

Allowed to subject oneself to that every day, as a job? What a great privilege!

Society has seen fit to say this is not something people should ever have to do. We should have a social safety net that protects women from having no better choice.

[jeff47]

108. Even with a safety net, people will select that profession

They'll look at the choices before them, and for whatever reason decide to be a prostitute.

For example, there's the archetype of the young woman choosing prostitution because she can make a lot of money with not a lot of work hours, allowing her to graduate from college with no debt.

I have no idea how often that archetype occurs, or even if it ever does. But why should that path be barred if she chooses it?

[treestar]

115. Because it's dangerous

To her health. To her safety. Money isn't everything. Have a better social safety net and cheaper tuition. No young woman should be doing this to get through college! That's horrible. What a failed society.

[jeff47]

142. So are a ton of other jobs.

You aren't trying to make coal mining illegal, for example.

I understand it's not a choice you would make. But there's plenty of people making choices you would not make. That doesn't mean every choice you wouldn't make should be illegal.

[treestar]

143. And we try to make coal mining illegal, don't we?

The benefit to society from the other jobs is there to consider too.

And it's far more dangerous for a young girl to be alone in a room with a stranger than to be in a coal mine, even unregulated.

Heck, what if he doesn't pay? Prostitutes have that problem sometimes, too.

What if he beats her or FSM forbid even kills her? That happens.

There's got to be a better way. I don't even care if they take my money to give it to her for college (that's how Republicans would put it).

[jeff47]

144. All of the problems you cite would be reduced by legalization.

First, we aren't trying to make coal mining illegal. No one is proposing to ban it.

Second, statistics show that this:

And it's far more dangerous for a young girl to be alone in a room with a stranger than to be in a coal mine, even unregulated.

is wrong. Coal miners are more likely to die on the job than prostitutes.

But the dangers you cite would be greatly reduced by legalization. Legalization would let the prostitute work out of a brothel, or other location she controls. That would allow her to employ security personnel or other measures to protect herself. Keeping it illegal forces prostitutes to work in more dangerous conditions.

People are going to choose to be prostitutes regardless of the legality of the profession. They will do so for a variety of reasons, and we can not eliminate all of those reasons. For example, prostitutes still exist in countries with very strong safety nets. If it was only about poverty, that wouldn't be the case.

[opiate69]

109. Why? Is sex itself inherently degrading?

[treestar]

113. Selling it to strangers is wonderful?

And there is no perceivable different between doing that and having it with someone you care for?

[opiate69]

117. Oh, I'm sure there's a difference..

thing is, it's not a binary equation. There's an entire continuum between "disgusting" and "wonderful", and what's "disgusting" for some people, is just dandy for others, and vice-versa.

[treestar]

119. It doesn't have to do with any prudery

It has to do with dignity of the person. If they wanted to have whatever kind of sex with someone they liked without paying or having to pay, it would not be exploitation.

[opiate69]

120. OK, so it's the financial component that makes it exploitative...

How then, is it any different than any of the other financial arrangements we all engage in on a daily basis?

[treestar]

138. It's so personal

Involves one's body in a really personal way.

How is it possible not to see the difference?

[LadyHawkAZ]

159. Because we don't see a difference.

We really don't. The ones that do sex work voluntarily don't have those kinds of issues with their body or their sexuality. That divide in attitudes is also why people can't understand how we can go off duty and still have a wonderful sex life with our partners. It's just not a thing.

Also something to consider: even those who have gotten caught in the whole guilt trip of your value lies in how many times your genitals have been used and do have issues with it, still want the right to not be treated as a criminal, or be abused or killed. There is no safety, and little chance of exit, under criminalization. I wish people would get past their prejudices and understand that one simple point.

[opiate69]

172. As usual, my dear LadyHawk, you say what I was trying to, exponentially better!

[joeglow3]

164. Because not everyone shares your values

Sucks that we are not all clones. However, it is rather arrogant to think everyone's views should be adjusted to align with yours. What is someone thinks it is degrading for two men to share intimate acts with each other? What if people think it is degrading to sex with someone on a first date?

[markiv]

80. we currently have a military draft, it's just economic

instead on direct numerical consciption

similar concept

[Yavin4]

90. "that some tragic series of events probably delivered a given individual to the sex trade."

Every person involved in the sex trade is there, not by choice but by circumstance. They are all coerced and have no free will.

[Squinch]

95. Very well said. And to all those equating prostitution and working at Walmart,

your ignorance of the situations you are discussing is staggering.

[jeff47]

99. Then explain it.

Calling people names will not advance your position. Thus those of us equating prostitution with any other lousy job will continue to do so.

So explain why it's so different. You might convince someone. But tossing insults will convince no one.

[Squinch]

188. Are you still out there kidding yourself?

[jeff47]

196. So your goal is just to insult then?

Ah well. I had given you the benefit of the doubt that you actually wanted to discuss issues on a discussion board. Oh well, we'll just get back to the discussion without you.

[LadyHawkAZ]

192. Well ok then,

Go ahead and enlighten my ignorance.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

100. Having read through this, it seems some actual facts are in order

...as I don't see a lot in this thread.

A few:

http://womensissues.about.com/od/rapesexualassault/a/Wuornos.htm

The average age for girls entering prostitution is between 12-13.** And studies show that 75 to 95% of all prostitutes were sexually abused as children.***

Source: http://www.womenslaw.org/simple.php?sitemap_id=148

I don't know how you can argue that someone starting a "profession" at 12 or 13 is doing it of her own free will.

As for if legalization makes this any better, the actual evidence from the Netherlands and Germany argue against that, if that Der Spiegel article is to be believed. Nevada may be a different case, don't know.

[opiate69]

107. Facts would be nice...

Of course, the claim that:

The average age for girls entering prostitution is between 12-13.**

Is actually some "creative" accounting. (Or, inability to read statistics.. ).
http://www.politifact.com/oregon/statements/2013/mar/02/diane-mckeel/Is-average-age-entry-sex-trafficking-between-12-an/

The ruling

We’ve galloped across the country and found that definitions are fuzzy, statistics are murky and nobody knows for sure. We’ve learned that many organizations continue to repeat the statistic that the average age of entry into juvenile prostitution is between 12 and 14 years, despite the research being old and limited.

We found a professor who said there is some research backs up the claim, and another expert who warned that sample sizes are inadequate and research limited. One of the most widely cited sources told us that any numbers, even his, are estimates.

We conclude McKeel’s statement is partially accurate -- there are some studies -- but missing important detail. The studies speak only to juveniles, and the studies themselves are speculative. There is no nationally representative, comprehensive sample. We rate the statement Half True.

And yet, they're trotted out as inviolate gospel...


And, you claim that:

And studies show that 75 to 95% of all prostitutes were sexually abused as children.***

Yet, the page you linked to says:

Fifty-seven percent reported a history of childhood sexual abuse, by an average of 3 perpetrators.

So, feel free to drop back by when/if ever you have these "facts" you speak of nailed down.

[Benton D Struckcheon]

190. Hmm. Lemme see if I've got this straight.

Since the low end is a mere 57% with a history of abuse, with a mere three perpetrators per reportee, it's just jim-dandy to continue to exploit the person involved by renting them for your pleasure?
Yeesh.

[opiate69]

194. Oh, so my numbers are a "low end"...

You seem quite adept at reading that which has not been written. First, the numbers you cited which happened to be conspicuously absent from the actual links you provided, and then some inferrence about me thinking it was "jim dandy" to exploit people yada yada, when a cursory glance at my post reveals no such statement. I guess it`s a good thing I quit smoking cigarettes recently.. there`s an over-abundance of straw about which could easily turn into a conflagaration.

[treestar]

102. Yeah, it'll never be convincing that it is actually a free choice of profession

until there is a complete social safety net and 0% female unemployment.

[jeff47]

110. Psst. Some prostitutes are men. (nt)

[treestar]

112. Them too.

0% unemployment, good safety net.

[HiPointDem]

123. "the absence of all coercion" = no such thing. to live in the wild is to live under coercion, & to

live in society is to live under coercion.

there never has been and never will be such 'freedom' & if there were there would be nothing human, because the process of becoming human is a process of coercion.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

124. You never took philosophy did you,

[HiPointDem]

134. why don't you just address the post with your philosophy

[Canuckistanian]

130. This is true. Legalization carries a LOT of potential problems

Like, how do you ensure that sex workers are truly independent and consenting?

Most legalization schemes leave a GIANT loophole that would protect sexual predators and pimps from prosecution.

And then there are the problems of protection. I DOUBT LEAs would be so keen to protect sex workers in real life.

[backscatter712]

149. The whole point of legalization, be it of drugs, or of prostitution, is harm reduction.

When these things are illegal, there's no way to regulate. So prostitutes are essentially black-market sex-slaves, STD spreads rampantly because Johns refuse to use protection, there's no testing, the women themselves are scarlet-lettered and labeled as criminals. Nobody wins.

By legalizing, we can do things like have brothels be licensed, subjected to regular inspections, sex-workers can be tested, required to be paid a living wage, protected from abuse by the management (aka pimps) or by Johns. Sex workers and clients can be required to be tested and to use protection.

Does that mean the prostitution doesn't suck? No, I'm just saying that legalization enables regulation, so this industry can be made to suck less.

[LittleBlue]

132. The only thing creepy here is the voyeuristic obsession with

controlling what consenting adults do privately.

The rest, meh. There are alternative careers to prostitution.

[Safetykitten]

140. I saw something nasty in the woodshed!

How did Democrats become such Puritans?

[backscatter712]

151. Good question. The authoritarianism is leaving a hell of a stench!

Awesome Youtube clip, BTW!

[The Straight Story]

160. Your body, your choice. Period.

Although many around these parts only apply that to abortion and love controlling others I still that people should be allowed to make their own choices and not have a small group of mostly old white men in another state make choices for them.

[Taverner]

169. We live in a capitalist society where everything is for sale except sex

The irony was not lost on Marx

[Skittles]

179. I do hear you

I think prostitution is sick, sordid and dehumanizing but criminalizing it simply doesn't work

[redqueen]

187. People keep analogizing the sex trade to the drug trade.

It's a false analogy.

Black market drugs mean they might not be safe to use, which is analogous to sex workers who haven't been tested for STDs, so as far as that comparison goes, no problem.

But there's no analogy for the demand for underage sex workers, or other underground workers who will continue to be coerced, trafficked, or conditioned to fill the demand for prostitutes who will accept abuse, unsafe sex, etc.

This is why the only way to deal with this problem is to criminalize demand.

[NaturalHigh]

214. Demand is ALREADY criminalized.

Sort of like drugs.

How's that working out?

[Benton D Struckcheon]

191. Texas delivers justice

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022957451

This is the kind of thing prostitutes face. Forget that Texas acquitted this POS. This is not far from the reality prostitutes face every day.
Many years ago I read a story in the NY Times of a brothel that had been closed down. It had a staircase with floor to roof bars on it. Why? To keep the johns from tossing the women over the bannister to the floor below.