Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
simple, reasonable and yet, oh.so.radical. Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2015 #1
+1 brer cat Feb 2015 #6
KnR--to the greatest page. nt tblue37 Feb 2015 #2
See? DeSwiss Feb 2015 #3
K & R SunSeeker Feb 2015 #4
Won't happen here so long as men control the law-making process. Scuba Feb 2015 #5
Because it's a half-solution that exports the problems. jeff47 Feb 2015 #7
Why shouldn't the Johns get psychological care? ismnotwasm Feb 2015 #11
Because we aren't looking for signs they are being manipulated. jeff47 Feb 2015 #12
... Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2015 #13
And how was that stopped by prostitution being illegal? jeff47 Feb 2015 #15
sounds like rationalization to me. you need to justify it, in your own mind. Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2015 #17
The goal is to stop people from being hurt. jeff47 Feb 2015 #23
What about looking for signs of potential for violence? ismnotwasm Feb 2015 #19
I'd argue we should be doing that to the entire population, not just Johns. jeff47 Feb 2015 #21
Possibly ismnotwasm Feb 2015 #24
Excellent post. Another fine quality post from ism. Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2015 #25
This is an article that cites a 2012 study ismnotwasm Feb 2015 #29
But doing nothing causes more harm. jeff47 Feb 2015 #27
Thus this discussion ismnotwasm Feb 2015 #28
your risk assessment is not correct and the countries that have legalized for over a decade is proof seabeyond Feb 2015 #33
you ignore the immediate and predictable consequence of legalization--increasing demand. geek tragedy Feb 2015 #35
You're defining trafficking as any movement. jeff47 Feb 2015 #37
increasing demand will increase the amount of stuff that gets done underground geek tragedy Feb 2015 #39
Except the demand is for the legal options jeff47 Feb 2015 #41
If the illegal option offers fewer rules and costs geek tragedy Feb 2015 #42
Which is why above I proposed regulations on the brothel. jeff47 Feb 2015 #45
Sexual harassment law is not based on the notion that it's not okay to ask people geek tragedy Feb 2015 #49
they are putting their trafficked girls in strip clubs. pretty well set place. seabeyond Feb 2015 #51
I like his use of the phrase "definitional problem" Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2015 #14
Feel free to explain the UK failing to find thousands of victims. jeff47 Feb 2015 #16
you want me to explain why men pay for sex? lol Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2015 #18
No, I want you to explain how the enormous number of trafficked women jeff47 Feb 2015 #22
I hope ism addresses this for you. At work now Tuesday Afternoon Feb 2015 #26
Are you saying they don't exist? ismnotwasm Feb 2015 #30
I'm saying that there were claims of a very large number in the UK jeff47 Feb 2015 #31
Then you don't understand the nature of prostitution ismnotwasm Feb 2015 #40
Nope, I'm doubting studies jeff47 Feb 2015 #43
Regulate what? ismnotwasm Feb 2015 #44
It's in post 7. jeff47 Feb 2015 #46
Oh. That one ismnotwasm Feb 2015 #47
Yep, you did a great job walking right back to the same place jeff47 Feb 2015 #48
I didn't agree with your original points. ismnotwasm Feb 2015 #50
show us this study. i cannot trust your interpretation of what you read. nt seabeyond Feb 2015 #34
It's not a study. It's actually looking for them. jeff47 Feb 2015 #36
ha ha ha ha seabeyond Feb 2015 #38
Yup. ismnotwasm Feb 2015 #20
it is not easier finding the taffickers if either side is illegal. legalizing makes it hardest for seabeyond Feb 2015 #32
so obvious, yes? I remember a sting in CA years ago. the police were rounding up the niyad Feb 2015 #8
Yeah that approach seems to die a quiet death ismnotwasm Feb 2015 #9
That evens out the power AwakeAtLast Feb 2015 #10
Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»History of Feminism»Sweden's Prostitution Sol...»Reply #5