A giant Teutonic brothel - Has liberalization gone too far?

[Ideologue]

The liberty to reproduce nested quotes in our posts is protected by our First Amendment.

[frunk]

More on point, I'd like to explore the actual distinction between pornography and prostitution, beyond anecdotes cutting in both directions (trafficked vs. doing it a little while, drug-addled vs. sane, etc.) -- if anything, the semi-permanency and dissemination of the sexual exploitation in pornography seems to make it potentially more damaging to the sex worker.

In both cases, someone is being paid to engage in sex acts they wouldn't usually perform (or don't independently desire performing) with someone they wouldn't usually perform them with, for the gratification of another.  I don't get fundamentally why the gratification of the at-home masturbator vs. the actual sex partner changes the ethical equation.  The fact that an act of prostitution is being filmed and circulated globally doesn't stop it being prostitution, does it?

I can't in good conscience support criminalizing the users of prostitutes more than the users of recorded acts of prostitution.

And then the question of the "grey area" world of sex work, primarily strippers.  Who, I'm told, do more than just take their clothes off onstage (e.g. physically stimulate the genitals of paying clients via lap-dances, etc.).  Do these customers, even the ones who do no more than watch (and throw singles on-stage), "buy a woman" for gratifying their desire?  It doesn't seem that distinguishable from prostitution or pornography to me.

Prostitution is fine as long as it's recorded for posterity or in places where other people can watch and appreciate.  I guess.

[jimmy olsen]

I've seen 500,000 to 1 million thrown around for Korea, a country with only 50 million people.

Let's say Korea has 25 million women. 10 million will be too old or too young to work as prostitutes. So 1 million prostitutes out of 15 million women, so a 1:15 quota? If you then assume that young women are over-represented among prostitutes, the demographic of say 20-30 year old Korean women would have a 1:10 quota of prostitutes. Sounds way inflated.

1 in 10 I'd be surprised, 1 in 20 I wouldn't. Even though the Amsterdam style rows of windows are limited to the biggest cities, it's everywhere. Barber shops, massage parlors, karaoke bars, etc all serve as fronts for prostitution.

[DGuller]

I've seen 500,000 to 1 million thrown around for Korea, a country with only 50 million people.

Let's say Korea has 25 million women. 10 million will be too old or too young to work as prostitutes. So 1 million prostitutes out of 15 million women, so a 1:15 quota? If you then assume that young women are over-represented among prostitutes, the demographic of say 20-30 year old Korean women would have a 1:10 quota of prostitutes. Sounds way inflated.

1 in 10 I'd be surprised, 1 in 20 I wouldn't. Even though the Amsterdam style rows of windows are limited to the biggest cities, it's everywhere. Barber shops, massage parlors, karaoke bars, etc all serve as fronts for prostitution.

[derspiess]

We must punish the sluts by taking away their livelihood. It's for their own good.

[derspiess]

We must punish the sluts by taking away their livelihood. It's for their own good.

Feminism: the pussy cartel of old and ugly women, against their younger, more beautiful counterparts.

Correct.

[Sheilbh]

I suspect that is exactly what we are seeing here with these reports of "trafficking" - you are engaged in what looks like to me a very clear attempt to draw a connection between "75% of sex workers come from out of the country" to "most of this is trafficking" when in fact there is no reason to assume that just because someone went to Germany and became a sex worker, they were "trafficked". There is no connection between those two data points at all.

I've never said most of this is trafficking. I've said there's evidence in academic studies - which were not against legalising prostitution - that if you legalise prostitution you have an increase in trafficking. In addition the UN report found that 80% of trafficking was for sexual purposes, but in the EU that's actually around 60%. Given that and given that around 75% of prostitutes in Germany are from elsewhere, many from countries that don't have free labour market movement in the EU yet, it's reasonable to assume that trafficking isn't a small and declining problem in Germany. I'd add that mongers pointed to an article about raids in the UK over two years that only found 250 women who'd been victims of trafficking, the two subsequent years they found 750 and 1000 respectively. I imagine a lot of that difference came from police priorities and intelligence.

So if 60% of the people working construction in Germany are immigrants, can we assume that they must have been trafficked, and we should criminalize demand for construction workers?

No, but if it accounted for 60% of human trafficking in the EU and there was evidence that construction practice in Germany led to an increase of forced labourers who'd been trafficked then it should absolutely be investigated.

I still don't buy the "studies" that show that increased legalization has resulted in increased trafficking. The data there seems pretty smelly to me, largely the kind of analysis you cited above, where we conclude that trafficking must be going up because most of the workers are from somewhere else, therefore they much be trafficked.

When did you read them to get your suspicion of the data?

As I see it there are a few arguments about it.

I don't believe you can describe prostitution as a free choice. In the UK the statistics show that the majority of prostitutes in this country have come from difficult backgrounds, many having experienced abuse as children. They often started in prostitution before they were of the age of consent. The overwhelming majority have problems with addiction. I can't find any information on the background of prostitutes in Germany except their nationality, but in that legal market demand was so high that there weren't enough Germany women (who I'd suggest, in Germany, would be most able to make a free and informed choice) to meet it. The majority of prostitutes are from the poorest part of Europe.

In both cases you have a market made up of men and women in desperate situations. That level of difference in power entirely wipes out any sense of a free bargain between the parties. If there was that inequity we would step in if it was a rental contract far less the purchase of sex. The opposite argument to this seems to proceed as if prostitutes are generally of the belle du jour model. If you're addressing the one hypothetical case of a woman who quite happily and freely chooses, and is able to choose, to sell sex while ignoring the evidence of what prostitution is in our societies then I think it's wholly inadequate.

Secondly the legalisation is linked to a rise in trafficking. This seems to be seen as an aggressive system of delivering work visas. I don't understand that perspective. I can't see the difference between human trafficking for sexual purposes in Europe and, say, the trafficking of maids or labour from the Philippines and Nepal to the Gulf. It's a negative consequence of legalisation.

Finally I think there is a social issue which is wider. I think in a society where prostitution is legal you will see a normalisation in the use of prostitutes by men. The process that's happened to porn in the last couple of decades is an example of that normalisation of once aberrant sexual behaviour. I take the point that women's position in society is better now than it has been. But I'm not convinced that it is sufficiently strong that the legal and open selling of women wouldn't affect how women are valued and viewed. If nothing else I'd need some evidence of that given that in our own history, but also in contemporary societies that more regularly use prostitution, there is not a positive view of women.

The best argument for legalisation is that you can bring prostitution out of the shadows. The women are able to fully claim their social benefits - they can contribute to social insurance, have pensions and so on. They can also improve their working conditions, not least through unionisation. But the evidence in Germany is that 44 prostitutes signed up to claim their social rights. There have been almost no cases of them seeking wages stolen by pimps, or employers. The Ministry in charge found no measurable improvement in their social rights, or their working conditions and no reduction in the crime associated with prostitution. I think this is probably because it doesn't address the fact that many of the women involved - 75% not from Germany - are particularly vulnerable to their 'employers' or their clients. To me it suggests you either need far, far more state regulation and involvement in prostitution or that the approach doesn't work.

Again I'd point out that countries that have decriminalised are either planning laws to de-liberalise prostitution or its a subject of heavy debate. Finland and the Netherlands are in the former camp and Germany the latter. These are not socially conservative states with a pre-conceived idea of sexual morality. They're very liberal and have tried legalisation and, based on their experience, are no longer convinced it works.

I don't see this as an area the state needs to prove a compelling good to intervene, because it's already heavily involved. The question is, given that our current position is failing, what is another, better approach. My own view is that the priority shouldn't necessarily be the freedom of men to purchase sex, but the ability of women to exit prostitution if they want and to reduce the coercion against them. Given that I think the Swedish approach works better. I'd say it's similar to wanting not to legalise drugs, but to move addicts to treatment and target law enforcement against dealers.

Everything about whether decrminalization works or not is pretty much driven from the fact that he is starting from a conclusion, and then evaluating the evidence backwards from there.

I've not seen any evidence yet that legalisation would work. No-one's produced any here.

If that's the case, then surely the Rumanian and Bulgarian women (those that go to Germany voluntarily) are criminals, not victims of trafficking.

Which is exactly a problem and what makes them so vulnerable. How are they able to report an abusive pimp or client to the police when they're legally criminals?

More on point, I'd like to explore the actual distinction between pornography and prostitution, beyond anecdotes cutting in both directions (trafficked vs. doing it a little while, drug-addled vs. sane, etc.) -- if anything, the semi-permanency and dissemination of the sexual exploitation in pornography seems to make it potentially more damaging to the sex worker.

To be clear what I've said about trafficking and drug use are based on some form of evidence - by the UN, EU and Home Office - against that there are anecdotes of bourgeois hookers looking for a thrill.

But I agree. I think porn is a difficult topic which I'm not fully thought through on. As I said earlier I think it's sort of pressed home in gay porn even more precisely because a lot plays on the idea of gay-for-pay. Which basically makes the porn about someone not even remotely enjoying the act and doing it solely for your pleasure. And as I said to Ide I think things are getting worse now that the money is draining out of porn. It's becoming cheaper and I suspect more dangerous and more damaging for the people involved. It's a problem.

The only possible distinction I can think off the top of my head is a sort of utilitarian one.

[Ed Anger]

We must punish the sluts by taking away their livelihood. It's for their own good.

Feminism: the pussy cartel of old and ugly women, against their younger, more beautiful counterparts.

Correct.

No wonder I can't troll Meri anymore. With that, I hang my misyogny crown in the closet and retire.

[Admiral Yi]

If that's the case, then surely the Rumanian and Bulgarian women (those that go to Germany voluntarily) are criminals, not victims of trafficking.

Which is exactly a problem and what makes them so vulnerable. How are they able to report an abusive pimp or client to the police when they're legally criminals?

You changed the subject.  We were talking about whether trafficking, as you defined it, is wrong.  Specifically if it is a wrong done to the woman.

[Sheilbh]

You changed the subject.  We were talking about whether trafficking, as you defined it, is wrong.  Specifically if it is a wrong done to the woman.

You need to unpack a bit. I was answering your question about them being criminals and they are. Which is precisely why they're so easy to abuse and so vulnerable. Which isn't specific to women or prostitutes, it also covers the men who are often forced labourers and, most especially, the children who are part of the trade.

[Admiral Yi]

You need to unpack a bit. I was answering your question about them being criminals and they are. Which is precisely why they're so easy to abuse and so vulnerable. Which isn't specific to women or prostitutes, it also covers the men who are often forced labourers and, most especially, the children who are part of the trade.

No you weren't.  You were answering my question about why trafficking is a wrong committed against women by pointing out that it is illegal.

[Sheilbh]

No you weren't.  You were answering my question about why trafficking is a wrong committed against women by pointing out that it is illegal.

Here's the definition of trafficking:

Trafficking in persons shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or removal of organs.

How is it not wrong?

In addition it's wrong to break the law as a rule.

Edit: Here's the CPS on the distinction between smuggling and trafficking:

Definition
In terms of prosecutions it is important to understand the difference between persons who are smuggled and those who are trafficked; in some cases the distinction between a smuggled and trafficked person will be blurred and both definitions could easily be applied. It is important to examine the end situation when the victim is recovered to determine whether someone has been smuggled or trafficked.

A number of factors help distinguish between smuggling and trafficking:
Smuggling is characterised by illegal entry only and international movement only, either secretly or by deception (whether for profit or otherwise);
Smuggling is a voluntary act and there is no further exploitation by the smugglers once they reach their destination;
There is normally little coercion/violence involved or required from those assisting in the smuggling.

Smuggling is normally defined as the facilitation of entry to the UK either secretly or by deception (whether for profit or otherwise). The immigrants concerned are normally complicit in the offence so that they can remain in the UK illegally. There is normally little coercion/violence involved or required from those assisting in the smuggling.

Trafficking involves the transportation of persons in the UK in order to exploit them by the use of force, violence, deception, intimidation or coercion. The form of exploitation includes commercial sexual and bonded labour exploitation. The persons who are trafficked have little choice in what happens to them and usually suffer abuse due to the threats and use of violence against them and/or their family.

[Admiral Yi]

Here's the definition of trafficking:

Trafficking in persons shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation shall include, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or removal of organs.

How is it not wrong?

It's wrong.  If you look back however, you'll notice I specifically asked you about hypotheticals that did not involve coercion. 

What is the methodology used to determine whether women who moved across a border to sell sex were coerced?

[Sheilbh]

Okay.

Why should it be a crime to lend the cost of a bus ticket to go from Rumania to Germany in order to fuck for money?  Why should it be a crime for a brothel in Germany to ask a Rumanian "talent scout" to go find willing prostitutes?

It depends on the circumstances where it's legal and I don't know about Germany's labour law at all. Obviously the first problem is whether it's legal for her to be in the country at all. What I'd say would start to alarm me would be any misrepresentation of the work involved. If the woman involved wasn't presented with her work contract. If hindrances were put on her leaving the job, or paying off the debt. And of course her conditions at work. If the employer is basically keeping a percentage of her earnings to pay for the debt then if that isn't at a set figure or percentage for a set time then I think it's entering dodgy territory. Those are ideas off the top of my head.

What is the methodology used to determine whether women who moved across a border to sell sex were coerced?

Coercion isn't necessarily the key as it says fraud, deception, abuse of power are all equally used. I imagine that's an issue of evidence and investigation though. Were they or their family threatened? Were they socially isolated by the trafficker or recipient? Were they threatened with being reported to the authorities and deported? Were they told they had to pay off debt incurred by their family? Another coercive act that's come up in cases in African communities is the threat of the use of witchcraft against them or their families.

But as I said it's very difficult to catch and to deal with, the CPS has as much here:

It is a crime that is clandestine; it is a form of modern day slavery and victims may be physically or psychologically "imprisoned" in either residential properties (as domestic servants) or places offering sauna and massage services. They are not visible;
Trafficked victims do not always wish, or are not always able to, cooperate with the authorities as they often fear the consequences of giving evidence against their traffickers;
Victims of forced labour are reluctant to report; however bad their circumstances, they consider their situation here to be better than that offered in their home country;
Human trafficking cases nearly always cross borders and jurisdictions, requiring investigations and evidence to be obtained from source and transit countries.

This goes beyond prostitution and sex. As I say the EU figures say about 25% are for forced labour, that isn't sexual. There's also the trade in organs and, even worse, in children. But Eurostat says that around 80% of the victims of trafficking are women and the EU's report on trafficking says 60% of it is for sex trade purposes (which is, of course, lower than the global figure of 80%).

[Admiral Yi]

Okay.

I see now how my question was unclear.  Please forgive my harsh tone Shelf.

Coercion isn't necessarily the key as it says fraud, deception, abuse of power are all equally used.

So you interpret the sentence to mean:

Trafficking in persons shall mean the [things done] by means of ... a position of vulnerability (for example)?

That's not proper English.

I have two basic problems with trafficking statistics: one, it seems like many of the organizations are advocacy groups rather than strict searchers after the truth.  Two, I suspect they rely heavily on self-reporting by women who have a great deal of incentive to claim they were coerced and virtually none to admit they are involved voluntarily.