Languish.org

QuoteProstitution in Germany
A giant Teutonic brothel

Has the liberalisation of the oldest profession gone too far?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.static-economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Ffull-width%2Fimages%2Fprint-edition%2F20131116_EUP004_0.jpg&hash=4aeda4053e91201fb864fee663f9fe494ada0a0f)
She can get health insurance and a pension

HOW modern and liberated Germany's Social Democrats and Greens sounded in 2001. They were in government and wanted to raise the legal and social status of prostitutes. So they enacted a law to remove the stigma from sex work by, for example, giving prostitutes full rights to health insurance, pensions and other benefits. "Exploiting" sex workers remained criminal, but merely employing them or providing them with a venue became legal. The idea was that responsible employers running safe and clean brothels would drive pimps out of the market.

Germany thus embarked on an experiment in liberalisation just as Sweden, a country culturally similar in many ways, was going in the opposite direction. In 1999 the Swedes had made it criminal to pay for sex (pimping was already a crime). By stigmatising not the prostitutes but the men who paid them, even putting them in jail, the Swedes hoped to come close to eliminating prostitution.

The two countries' divergent paths have become hot political fodder in Germany. The centre-right camp led by Angela Merkel, the chancellor, voted against the 2001 prostitution law. In September it won the election but fell short of a majority in parliament. Mrs Merkel is now negotiating with the Social Democrats (SPD), the co-authors of the law, to form a coalition. And although the SPD is reluctant to acknowledge that it made an outright mistake, it is conceding that changes are needed.

Prostitution seems to have declined in Sweden (unless it has merely gone deep underground), whereas Germany has turned into a giant brothel and even a destination for European sex tourism. The best guess is that Germany has about 400,000 prostitutes catering to 1m men a day. Mocking the spirit of the 2001 law, exactly 44 of them, including four men, have registered for welfare benefits.

The details vary regionally, because the federal states and municipalities decide where and how brothels may operate. (Berlin is the only city without zoning restrictions.) In some places, streetwalkers line up along motorways with open-air booths nearby for quickies. In others, such as Saarbrücken, near the border with a stricter country like France, entrepreneurs are investing in mega-brothels that cater to cross-border demand.

If all these sex workers were in the business of their own free will, that would still be within the spirit of the 2001 law. Prostitutes' associations insist that this is largely the case. But nobody denies that many women become sex workers involuntarily. Of particular concern are girls from poor villages in Romania and Bulgaria who may have been forced, tricked or seduced to come to Germany. Once there, they are trapped as Frischfleisch (fresh meat) in brothels, perhaps because they owe money to their traffickers or fear reprisals against their families at home.

Extreme opponents of prostitution in Germany, such as Alice Schwarzer, a radical feminist, conflate modern slavery and sex work, arguing that they are "inextricably entangled". (Ms Schwarzer has issued a petition, signed by celebrities, to criminalise paying for sex as Sweden has.) Barbara Kavemann and Elfriede Steffan, two social researchers, say that slavery and sex work are in fact separate phenomena, and that occurrences of forced labour by Romanians and Bulgarians in the trade, as in agriculture and other sectors, "have little to do with the prostitution law" and much more with the accession of those countries to the European Union in 2007.

Known cases of human trafficking have actually decreased in Germany, from 987 in 2001 to 482 in 2011. Sceptics counter that most cases never become known because the girls are afraid to testify. The link between liberalisation of prostitution and human trafficking thus remains controversial. One study of 150 countries found that legalisation expands the market for sex work and thus increases human trafficking. Prostitutes' associations have attacked the study as poorly sourced.

In the end, the policy choice comes back to culture and ideology, argues Susanne Dodillet at the University of Göteborg. Both the Swedish and the German laws originated in the feminist and left-leaning movements in these countries. But whereas progressive Swedes view their state as able to set positive goals, Germans (the Greens, especially) mistrust the state on questions of personal morality as a hypocritical and authoritarian threat to self-expression. Only this can explain why Swedes continue overwhelmingly to support their policy, and Germans theirs.

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21589922-has-liberalisation-oldest-profession-gone-too-far-giant-teutonic-brothel

I don't really have a strong opinion about this either way. On the one hand it is obvious that a lot of Eastern Europeans work as prostitutes in Germany. I live in a very conservative city, but close to a smallish red-light district and there are prostitutes waiting for customers on the next street from my house in the evenings. So it's really ubiquitous. And I guess that there is a lot of crime around prostitution still, especially human trafficking. On the other, I don't think the state has any business to regulate this beyond let's say work safety regulations and the like.

I'm okay with legalizing, regulating, and taxing it & all, but I object to calling them "sex workers".

It's a sad commentary on the current state of France that they have to travel to Germany to hump.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2013, 02:13:57 PM
It's a sad commentary on the current state of France that they have to travel to Germany to hump.

It's not legal there?

I was a bit thrown off by this statement"

QuoteProstitution seems to have declined in Sweden (unless it has merely gone deep underground), whereas Germany has turned into a giant brothel and even a destination for European sex tourism. The best guess is that Germany has about 400,000 prostitutes catering to 1m men a day. Mocking the spirit of the 2001 law, exactly 44 of them, including four men, have registered for welfare benefits.

44 people out of 400,000 people have signed up for welfare benefits?  That doesn't sound like a lot.

Rereading that article, I am surprised about the numbers given. 400,000 prostitutes are about 1% the workforce. Under the assumption that they'll be overwhelmingly female that suggests that 1 in 50 working females is a prostitute. That sounds like the number is too high and might be inflated for political reasons. Under the assumption that most of their business will be domestic and not sex tourism, the number of 1 million customers per day also seems rather high. That would mean that adult German males visit a prostitute about ten times per year if it was perfectly evenly distributed, which I very highly doubt. I would assume that many never ever visit a prostitute, so the remaining minority (?) would have to be very regular customers. 

And people wonder why Germany has such a such a high trade balance.

Quote from: derspiess on November 14, 2013, 02:15:46 PM
It's not legal there?

Don't know.  But the article did say there are giant sex factories at the border serving Frenchman boys.

Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2013, 02:16:34 PM
Rereading that article, I am surprised about the numbers given. 400,000 prostitutes are about 1% the workforce. Under the assumption that they'll be overwhelmingly female that suggests that 1 in 50 working females is a prostitute. That sounds like the number is too high and might be inflated for political reasons. Under the assumption that most of their business will be domestic and not sex tourism, the number of 1 million customers per day also seems rather high. That would mean that adult German males visit a prostitute about ten times per year if it was perfectly evenly distributed, which I very highly doubt. I would assume that many never ever visit a prostitute, so the remaining minority (?) would have to be very regular customers.

That's nothing.  In Victorian England it was estimated that 1 in 12 unmarried women above the age of puberty was a prostitute.

Sweden retardedly made buying sex illegal around the turn of the century.

What do you mean it has gone too far? It seems to be working.

Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2013, 02:02:25 PM

QuoteProstitution in Germany
A giant Teutonic brothel

Has the liberalisation of the oldest profession gone too far?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.static-economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Ffull-width%2Fimages%2Fprint-edition%2F20131116_EUP004_0.jpg&hash=4aeda4053e91201fb864fee663f9fe494ada0a0f)
She can get health insurance and a pension

HOW modern and liberated Germany's Social Democrats and Greens sounded in 2001. They were in government and wanted to raise the legal and social status of prostitutes. So they enacted a law to remove the stigma from sex work by, for example, giving prostitutes full rights to health insurance, pensions and other benefits. "Exploiting" sex workers remained criminal, but merely employing them or providing them with a venue became legal. The idea was that responsible employers running safe and clean brothels would drive pimps out of the market.

Germany thus embarked on an experiment in liberalisation just as Sweden, a country culturally similar in many ways, was going in the opposite direction. In 1999 the Swedes had made it criminal to pay for sex (pimping was already a crime). By stigmatising not the prostitutes but the men who paid them, even putting them in jail, the Swedes hoped to come close to eliminating prostitution.

The two countries' divergent paths have become hot political fodder in Germany. The centre-right camp led by Angela Merkel, the chancellor, voted against the 2001 prostitution law. In September it won the election but fell short of a majority in parliament. Mrs Merkel is now negotiating with the Social Democrats (SPD), the co-authors of the law, to form a coalition. And although the SPD is reluctant to acknowledge that it made an outright mistake, it is conceding that changes are needed.

Prostitution seems to have declined in Sweden (unless it has merely gone deep underground), whereas Germany has turned into a giant brothel and even a destination for European sex tourism. The best guess is that Germany has about 400,000 prostitutes catering to 1m men a day. Mocking the spirit of the 2001 law, exactly 44 of them, including four men, have registered for welfare benefits.

The details vary regionally, because the federal states and municipalities decide where and how brothels may operate. (Berlin is the only city without zoning restrictions.) In some places, streetwalkers line up along motorways with open-air booths nearby for quickies. In others, such as Saarbrücken, near the border with a stricter country like France, entrepreneurs are investing in mega-brothels that cater to cross-border demand.

If all these sex workers were in the business of their own free will, that would still be within the spirit of the 2001 law. Prostitutes' associations insist that this is largely the case. But nobody denies that many women become sex workers involuntarily. Of particular concern are girls from poor villages in Romania and Bulgaria who may have been forced, tricked or seduced to come to Germany. Once there, they are trapped as Frischfleisch (fresh meat) in brothels, perhaps because they owe money to their traffickers or fear reprisals against their families at home.

Extreme opponents of prostitution in Germany, such as Alice Schwarzer, a radical feminist, conflate modern slavery and sex work, arguing that they are "inextricably entangled". (Ms Schwarzer has issued a petition, signed by celebrities, to criminalise paying for sex as Sweden has.) Barbara Kavemann and Elfriede Steffan, two social researchers, say that slavery and sex work are in fact separate phenomena, and that occurrences of forced labour by Romanians and Bulgarians in the trade, as in agriculture and other sectors, "have little to do with the prostitution law" and much more with the accession of those countries to the European Union in 2007.

Known cases of human trafficking have actually decreased in Germany, from 987 in 2001 to 482 in 2011. Sceptics counter that most cases never become known because the girls are afraid to testify. The link between liberalisation of prostitution and human trafficking thus remains controversial. One study of 150 countries found that legalisation expands the market for sex work and thus increases human trafficking. Prostitutes' associations have attacked the study as poorly sourced.

In the end, the policy choice comes back to culture and ideology, argues Susanne Dodillet at the University of Göteborg. Both the Swedish and the German laws originated in the feminist and left-leaning movements in these countries. But whereas progressive Swedes view their state as able to set positive goals, Germans (the Greens, especially) mistrust the state on questions of personal morality as a hypocritical and authoritarian threat to self-expression. Only this can explain why Swedes continue overwhelmingly to support their policy, and Germans theirs.

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21589922-has-liberalisation-oldest-profession-gone-too-far-giant-teutonic-brothel

I don't really have a strong opinion about this either way. On the one hand it is obvious that a lot of Eastern Europeans work as prostitutes in Germany. I live in a very conservative city, but close to a smallish red-light district and there are prostitutes waiting for customers on the next street from my house in the evenings. So it's really ubiquitous. And I guess that there is a lot of crime around prostitution still, especially human trafficking. On the other, I don't think the state has any business to regulate this beyond let's say work safety regulations and the like.

Numbers aside (I tend to agree with you), I don't really see a problem with that.  if prostitution is illegal in Sweden, it will certainly be harder to validate the exact numbers.
For social benefits, well, some of them probably have "cover" jobs, like "consultant" or something other to avoid too much scrutiny by fiscal authorities, and they possibly kept it by habit.  Some others, well, some others might be too stoned to understand the concept of "social benefits" or foreign workers who are probably not eligible.

Awesome.

Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2013, 02:02:25 PM

QuoteProstitution in Germany
A giant Teutonic brothel

Has the liberalisation of the oldest profession gone too far?

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.static-economist.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Ffull-width%2Fimages%2Fprint-edition%2F20131116_EUP004_0.jpg&hash=4aeda4053e91201fb864fee663f9fe494ada0a0f)
She can get health insurance and a pension

HOW modern and liberated Germany's Social Democrats and Greens sounded in 2001. They were in government and wanted to raise the legal and social status of prostitutes. So they enacted a law to remove the stigma from sex work by, for example, giving prostitutes full rights to health insurance, pensions and other benefits. "Exploiting" sex workers remained criminal, but merely employing them or providing them with a venue became legal. The idea was that responsible employers running safe and clean brothels would drive pimps out of the market.

Germany thus embarked on an experiment in liberalisation just as Sweden, a country culturally similar in many ways, was going in the opposite direction. In 1999 the Swedes had made it criminal to pay for sex (pimping was already a crime). By stigmatising not the prostitutes but the men who paid them, even putting them in jail, the Swedes hoped to come close to eliminating prostitution.

The two countries' divergent paths have become hot political fodder in Germany. The centre-right camp led by Angela Merkel, the chancellor, voted against the 2001 prostitution law. In September it won the election but fell short of a majority in parliament. Mrs Merkel is now negotiating with the Social Democrats (SPD), the co-authors of the law, to form a coalition. And although the SPD is reluctant to acknowledge that it made an outright mistake, it is conceding that changes are needed.

Prostitution seems to have declined in Sweden (unless it has merely gone deep underground), whereas Germany has turned into a giant brothel and even a destination for European sex tourism. The best guess is that Germany has about 400,000 prostitutes catering to 1m men a day. Mocking the spirit of the 2001 law, exactly 44 of them, including four men, have registered for welfare benefits.

The details vary regionally, because the federal states and municipalities decide where and how brothels may operate. (Berlin is the only city without zoning restrictions.) In some places, streetwalkers line up along motorways with open-air booths nearby for quickies. In others, such as Saarbrücken, near the border with a stricter country like France, entrepreneurs are investing in mega-brothels that cater to cross-border demand.

If all these sex workers were in the business of their own free will, that would still be within the spirit of the 2001 law. Prostitutes' associations insist that this is largely the case. But nobody denies that many women become sex workers involuntarily. Of particular concern are girls from poor villages in Romania and Bulgaria who may have been forced, tricked or seduced to come to Germany. Once there, they are trapped as Frischfleisch (fresh meat) in brothels, perhaps because they owe money to their traffickers or fear reprisals against their families at home.

Extreme opponents of prostitution in Germany, such as Alice Schwarzer, a radical feminist, conflate modern slavery and sex work, arguing that they are "inextricably entangled". (Ms Schwarzer has issued a petition, signed by celebrities, to criminalise paying for sex as Sweden has.) Barbara Kavemann and Elfriede Steffan, two social researchers, say that slavery and sex work are in fact separate phenomena, and that occurrences of forced labour by Romanians and Bulgarians in the trade, as in agriculture and other sectors, "have little to do with the prostitution law" and much more with the accession of those countries to the European Union in 2007.

Known cases of human trafficking have actually decreased in Germany, from 987 in 2001 to 482 in 2011. Sceptics counter that most cases never become known because the girls are afraid to testify. The link between liberalisation of prostitution and human trafficking thus remains controversial. One study of 150 countries found that legalisation expands the market for sex work and thus increases human trafficking. Prostitutes' associations have attacked the study as poorly sourced.

In the end, the policy choice comes back to culture and ideology, argues Susanne Dodillet at the University of Göteborg. Both the Swedish and the German laws originated in the feminist and left-leaning movements in these countries. But whereas progressive Swedes view their state as able to set positive goals, Germans (the Greens, especially) mistrust the state on questions of personal morality as a hypocritical and authoritarian threat to self-expression. Only this can explain why Swedes continue overwhelmingly to support their policy, and Germans theirs.

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21589922-has-liberalisation-oldest-profession-gone-too-far-giant-teutonic-brothel

I don't really have a strong opinion about this either way. On the one hand it is obvious that a lot of Eastern Europeans work as prostitutes in Germany. I live in a very conservative city, but close to a smallish red-light district and there are prostitutes waiting for customers on the next street from my house in the evenings. So it's really ubiquitous. And I guess that there is a lot of crime around prostitution still, especially human trafficking. On the other, I don't think the state has any business to regulate this beyond let's say work safety regulations and the like.

Liverals  :wub:

It hasn't gone far enough.  It's still an ocean away.  :(

Yuk.

Quote from: derspiess on November 14, 2013, 02:15:46 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2013, 02:13:57 PM
It's a sad commentary on the current state of France that they have to travel to Germany to hump.

It's not legal there?

The S-Bahn (rapid transit/regional train) between Strasburg and Kehl/Offenburg (on the other margin of the Rhine) is even called by some the Love Train ;) German efficiency and cheap prizes attract people

Brothels are not legal (proxenetism is ilegal) and hookers get sometime into trouble if they "advertise" their services (too much) their services in the street specially due to some dumb law enacted by Sarkozy but enforced with varying degrees. Still, prostitution is not yet banned though the left in power plans to ban it which won't solve the problem at all and make it go underground i.e worse but that has not stopped Sweden.

Quote from: DGuller on November 14, 2013, 05:55:54 PM
It hasn't gone far enough.  It's still an ocean away.  :(

:lol:

The OP doesn't answer one basic question that frames the entire issue:

1. Is the point of liberalization to recognize that the act of prostitution is not in an of itself a necessarily "wrong" activity, and hence it should be legalized, or
2. Is the point of liberalization of these laws to simply make an undesirable, yet inevitable, activity less problematic?

If the point of decriminalizing prostitution is recognizing that it should never have been criminal to begin with, then who cares if there is a lot more prostitution? That should not really be seen as a negative, right?

But if the position of the state is the prostitution is in and of itself not a desirable activity, but perhaps criminzliaing it is worse than the problem to begin with, then concern that there might be MORE prostitution as a result of legalizing it is valid. In that case, it is kind of like drugs - you would really rather there be as little use of it as possible, but perhaps the "solution" of criminalizing it is worse than the problem.

In that case, then maybe Sweden does have the right idea - they want to minimize prostitution while at the same time also minimizing the negative impacts that come with criminalizing it.

I don't think in most cases there is really a "good" answer here - there are certainly some bad ones though.

Needless to say I agree with the Swedes :mellow:

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2013, 08:18:53 PM
Needless to say I agree with the Swedes :mellow:

Why?

Presumably you don't people to interfere with whom you fuck.  Shouldn't you reciprocate?

I thought basically most of Europe was now Germany's prostitute ?   :bowler:

Quote from: mongers on November 14, 2013, 08:33:03 PM
I thought basically most of Europe was now Germany's prostitute ?   :bowler:

Do you think that's a clever line or are you ironically imitating someone who thinks that's a clever line? :hmm:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2013, 08:37:03 PM

Quote from: mongers on November 14, 2013, 08:33:03 PM
I thought basically most of Europe was now Germany's prostitute ?   :bowler:

Do you think that's a clever line or are you ironically imitating someone who thinks that's a clever line? :hmm:

I was a joke on the UKIP/Little Englander viewpoint here, hence the bowler.   :)

I guessed right! :punk:

I'm starting to understand mongers.  :unsure:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2013, 08:41:03 PM
I guessed right! :punk:

I'm starting to understand mongers.  :unsure:

To be fair to me, some of the people who support them are pretty 'oddball' characters, which is putting it politely, more accurately a certain section of their voters are racists, who wouldn't subscribe to any notion of melting pots etc.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2013, 08:32:43 PMWhy?

Presumably you don't people to interfere with whom you fuck.  Shouldn't you reciprocate?

You must mistake for some sort of liberal :P

We shouldn't necessarily be entirely sexually free because what we can and can't do affect all of society and how we value/view sections of it. There are all sorts of limits we place on it based on consent and ability to consent, age and sometimes taboo.

I don't think we should accept prostitution. I think buying sex from a woman who may (and often will) not want to have sex is an obscenity that shouldn't be legal and I think it is a major driver of people trafficking. Honestly I think in many cases it's an institutionalised form of violence against women. But I think arresting the women or rent boys is clearly targeting the victim and it should be the pimps or the men purchasing prostitutes who are arrested.

I believe a lot of research shows that most prostitutes were abused, many started as prostitutes very young and there are links to addiction. This is a problem for social workers not police, but men buying women is a problem for the police.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2013, 08:56:35 PM
I think buying sex from a woman who may (and often will) not want to have sex is an obscenity that shouldn't be legal

By this do you mean a woman who is being coerced or do you mean a woman who is not particularly horny at that moment?

Bleh.  No compassion for the men who have problems and are driven to sleep with whores?

Sex tourism is a problem but that's down to everyone else having silly rules, not Germany.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2013, 08:56:35 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2013, 08:32:43 PMWhy?

Presumably you don't people to interfere with whom you fuck.  Shouldn't you reciprocate?

You must mistake for some sort of liberal :P

We shouldn't necessarily be entirely sexually free because what we can and can't do affect all of society and how we value/view sections of it. There are all sorts of limits we place on it based on consent and ability to consent, age and sometimes taboo.

I don't think we should accept prostitution. I think buying sex from a woman who may (and often will) not want to have sex is an obscenity that shouldn't be legal and I think it is a major driver of people trafficking. Honestly I think in many cases it's an institutionalised form of violence against women. But I think arresting the women or rent boys is clearly targeting the victim and it should be the pimps or the men purchasing prostitutes who are arrested.

I believe a lot of research shows that most prostitutes were abused, many started as prostitutes very young and there are links to addiction. This is a problem for social workers not police, but men buying women is a problem for the police.

I though the figures for women trafficked into this country for prostitution had been blown out of the water, for not being up to 'back of envelope' standard.

edit:
This is worth a read:
Is the number of trafficked call girls a myth?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7819984.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7819984.stm)

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2013, 09:02:13 PM
By this do you mean a woman who is being coerced or do you mean a woman who is not particularly horny at that moment?

Both.

QuoteBleh.  No compassion for the men who have problems and are driven to sleep with whores?

None whatsoever :P

QuoteI though the figures for women trafficked into this country for prostitution had been blown out of the water, for not being up to 'back of envelope' standard.

There's various studies.

That article cites raids of however many targets finding 250 women who were trafficked. In 2010 police raids rescued 750 women and in 2011 almost 1000. Perhaps it was simply that it wasn't a priority and the police lacked the intelligence at an earlier point. Similarly I believe there's some LSE academics who've done research and generally found that legalising or decriminalising prostitution increases human trafficking.

The last estimate I saw by the police - based on academic research - was that there were around 2600 trafficked prostitutes but up to around 9000 'vulnerable migrants'. AI thought that was a rather conservative estimate and there's enormous variation within the UK - so over 95% of prostitutes in London are foreign-born, with an inevitably higher number of trafficked women, while I think around 33% of prostitutes in Yorkshire were. And of course the problem with any attempt at dealing with human trafficking is that, with the general exception of women from Eastern Europe, the victims are also illegal immigrants so they've committed a crime anyway and are treated as such.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2013, 09:22:59 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2013, 09:02:13 PM
By this do you mean a woman who is being coerced or do you mean a woman who is not particularly horny at that moment?

Both.

QuoteBleh.  No compassion for the men who have problems and are driven to sleep with whores?

None whatsoever :P

QuoteI though the figures for women trafficked into this country for prostitution had been blown out of the water, for not being up to 'back of envelope' standard.

There's various studies.

That article cites raids of however many targets finding 250 women who were trafficked. In 2010 police raids rescued 750 women and in 2011 almost 1000. Perhaps it was simply that it wasn't a priority and the police lacked the intelligence at an earlier point. Similarly I believe there's some LSE academics who've done research and generally found that legalising or decriminalising prostitution increases human trafficking.

The last estimate I saw by the police - based on academic research - was that there were around 2600 trafficked prostitutes but up to around 9000 'vulnerable migrants'. AI thought that was a rather conservative estimate and there's enormous variation within the UK - so over 95% of prostitutes in London are foreign-born, with an inevitably higher number of trafficked women, while I think around 33% of prostitutes in Yorkshire were. And of course the problem with any attempt at dealing with human trafficking is that, with the general exception of women from Eastern Europe, the victims are also illegal immigrants so they've committed a crime anyway and are treated as such.

I thought this interesting:

Quote
She and her team did some research, ringing up massage parlours and escort agencies in London, asking exactly what sort of services they offered and what nationality the workers were. It is significant, she notes, that in two-thirds of cases researchers were told the prostitutes would not offer anal sex. 

"That suggests to me that more sex workers in indoor prostitution in London exercise more control over the details of their working practices than a lot of the commentators believe," says Ms O'Connell.

Shelf, what's you experience with prostitutes you've known/encountered.

Quote from: derspiess on November 14, 2013, 09:02:47 PM
Bleh.  No compassion for the men who have problems and are driven to sleep with whores?

Women are oppressed.  Etc.

Actually, in this case I guess they are.  That's why the solution to the problem, like all problems, is nationalization.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2013, 09:22:59 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2013, 09:02:13 PM
By this do you mean a woman who is being coerced or do you mean a woman who is not particularly horny at that moment?

Both.

I do work all the time when I'd rather be doing something else.  In fact, it's 100% of the time.

How is that any different?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2013, 09:32:29 PMI do work all the time when I'd rather be doing something else.  In fact, it's 100% of the time.

How is that any different?

Yeah. But there's a difference between working in an office and giving the boss a blowjob. If you look at the fact that so few German prostitutes have decided to enter an employment contract I think that gives an idea that this isn't seen as any other job by the women involved.

I imagine for some it's a case of not wanting to make it official. It's a temporary solution to pressing financial need. For others there are difficulties with their sexual rights against their employment ones. If it's an employment contract and you're just not 'horny' then, unlike the prostitutes Mongers mentioned, could they really turn down anal if that's in their contract? Or a client who was into something, whatever, else that they felt uncomfortable doing? The fact is this isn't their time or labour that's being bought it's their sexuality. Men buying women and not for any service but to use them sexually to fulfil that man's desires.

You're looking at it as work, but look at it as sex. In what other context would it be okay for a man to sexually use a woman who has no interest in having sex (with him or in general)? Why is that okay because money's involved?

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2013, 09:45:58 PM
You're looking at it as work, but look at it as sex. In what other context would it be okay for a man to sexually use a woman who has no interest in having sex (with him or in general)? Why is that okay because money's involved?

In the context of a relationship/marriage? After all there are times when one partner doesn't feel so keen on having sex but has it anyway for the enjoyment of their liked/loved one.

I don't know why it suddenly becomes so different if the exchange of money is clear and explicit. Besides, there are plenty of escorts who make it very clear what they will and will not do as part of the contract.

Also I don't think anybody is supporting actual slavery.  Not even Admiral Yi.

Just kidding, bro.  Gotta stay in character.

Shelf, it's OK for the same reason that me staring at a computer screen for 8 hours is OK.  It's OK because there's no reason not for it to be OK.

I have no idea what you're talking about with that employment contract thing.

Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2013, 09:52:27 PMIn the context of a relationship/marriage? After all there are times when one partner doesn't feel so keen on having sex but has it anyway for the enjoyment of their liked/loved one.

Yeah, to an extent. I mean isn't the difference there that there is some sexual feeling and love (to whatever extent) even if it's not felt at that moment? This is why 'horny' is a poor word, it suggests if the prostitute was actually in a sexual mood then she'd be absolutely down with sleeping with the punter. I think a problem with prostitution is that that's not the case, it's a woman's sexuality being used by a man for his desire - for money.

QuoteI don't know why it suddenly becomes so different if the exchange of money is clear and explicit.

I don't think it does, unless you view prostitution as work (and I'd disagree with you), which is precisely a problem I have with it.

QuoteBesides, there are plenty of escorts who make it very clear what they will and will not do as part of the contract.

Something that could be potentially lost if they were in an employment contract with a brothel, much like other workers lose the right to refuse to do work-related tasks they dislike.

If prostitution isn't work, why am I paying for it?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2013, 09:55:39 PM
Shelf, it's OK for the same reason that me staring at a computer screen for 8 hours is OK.  It's OK because there's no reason not for it to be OK.

I've given my reasons for it not being ok. If we can't agree that there's a difference between you having to stare at a computer screen and you have to suck off a middle-aged German businessman then I'm not sure we'll get much further :P

QuoteI have no idea what you're talking about with that employment contract thing.

Where you baffled?

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2013, 10:01:51 PM
I've given my reasons for it not being ok. If we can't agree that there's a difference between you having to stare at a computer screen and you have to suck off a middle-aged German businessman then I'm not sure we'll get much further :P

Well your objection seems to consist of thinking sex for money is a bad thing, which is not terribly enlightening.

QuoteWhere you baffled?

Over there.  No, a little lower.

I don't know what it means and why you think it makes a difference.  A contract with who?  The john? 

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2013, 09:59:44 PM
Yeah, to an extent. I mean isn't the difference there that there is some sexual feeling and love (to whatever extent) even if it's not felt at that moment? This is why 'horny' is a poor word, it suggests if the prostitute was actually in a sexual mood then she'd be absolutely down with sleeping with the punter. I think a problem with prostitution is that that's not the case, it's a woman's sexuality being used by a man for his desire - for money.

I don't see why that's necessary though unless you are putting some special or sacred value on sex.

Also what is your take on kept women then? Bad?

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2013, 09:59:44 PM
I don't think it does, unless you view prostitution as work (and I'd disagree with you), which is precisely a problem I have with it.

I'm not sure what you mean with the disagreement piece. It isn't work, it is? :unsure:

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2013, 09:59:44 PM
Something that could be potentially lost if they were in an employment contract with a brothel, much like other workers lose the right to refuse to do work-related tasks they dislike.

Okay so that's an argument against brothels, not prostitution.

Quote from: garbon on November 14, 2013, 10:06:25 PMI don't see why that's necessary though unless you are putting some special or sacred value on sex.

Of course I put a special value on sex - as I say I think we as societies do, there are lots of restrictions about it. If nothing else it's a fundamental part of a person's personality.

QuoteI'm not sure what you mean with the disagreement piece. It isn't work, it is? :unsure:

I disagree with the idea that it's work like any other.

QuoteOkay so that's an argument against brothels, not prostitution.

But that employment contract with a brothel is often necessary for the women to exercise their employee's rights which is part of the purpose of the German law.

QuoteWell your objection seems to consist of thinking sex for money is a bad thing, which is not terribly enlightening.

But that's not the issue. Why money make it okay for someone to be able to sexually use another person?

I think sexuality is something we treat differently than other jobs or services, with good reason. I mean you probably feel as much sexual willing for a john as the average prostitute does. Is that fundamentally the same as you having to stare at a computer screen?

I fuck any disease-free chick for $9.99.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2013, 10:15:10 PM
But that's not the issue. Why money make it okay for someone to be able to sexually use another person?

Money doesn't make it OK.  It's already OK.

QuoteI think sexuality is something we treat differently than other jobs or services, with good reason. I mean you probably feel as much sexual willing for a john as the average prostitute does. Is that fundamentally the same as you having to stare at a computer screen?

I think Grab On (or the Log) was right when he said you view sex as some sacred thing we can't sully with a commercial nexus.  The Virgin Mary and all that.

I sympathize with Shielbh in a moral sense on this issue, but not in a legal sense.

Quote from: Zanza on November 14, 2013, 02:16:34 PM
Rereading that article, I am surprised about the numbers given. 400,000 prostitutes are about 1% the workforce. Under the assumption that they'll be overwhelmingly female that suggests that 1 in 50 working females is a prostitute. That sounds like the number is too high and might be inflated for political reasons. Under the assumption that most of their business will be domestic and not sex tourism, the number of 1 million customers per day also seems rather high. That would mean that adult German males visit a prostitute about ten times per year if it was perfectly evenly distributed, which I very highly doubt. I would assume that many never ever visit a prostitute, so the remaining minority (?) would have to be very regular customers.

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

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2013, 08:56:35 PM
I believe a lot of research shows that most prostitutes were abused, many started as prostitutes very young and there are links to addiction. This is a problem for social workers not police, but men buying women is a problem for the police.

[Ide]Nationalize it! Send the pimps to the gulag, centralize the business by building giant brothels and putting bureaucrats in charge. Sign them all up for pensions and health care, including mental health.[/Ide]

EDIT: Dammit, fucking beaten :angry:

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2013, 09:45:58 PM
In what other context would it be okay for a man to sexually use a woman who has no interest in having sex (with him or in general)? Why is that okay because money's involved?

It is okay exactly 100% of the time in every context so long as she consents freely.  Why she consents is her business isn't it?

Also I was not aware 100% of Prostitution involved men buying sex with women.

Has anyone here ever hired a hooker?

Quote from: Valmy on November 14, 2013, 11:47:10 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2013, 09:45:58 PM
In what other context would it be okay for a man to sexually use a woman who has no interest in having sex (with him or in general)? Why is that okay because money's involved?

It is okay exactly 100% of the time in every context so long as she consents freely.  Why she consents is her business isn't it?

Also I was not aware 100% of Prostitution involved men buying sex with women.

It may not be 100%, but it's pretty close to it....

I mostly agree with Shelf. 

For me, prostitution is a problem simply because it violates the most fundamental and arguably universal moral law, namely reciprocity or the golden rule.  What if it was your sister, mother or daughter who was working as a prostitute?  It's just not in the same league as working a boring office job or whatever.  Realistically speaking, the only girls who get into it are either addicts, victims of abuse or trafficking, girls from grinding 3rd world poverty, or some kind of combination of those factors.  Thus it feeds on previous human misery. If it were truly a legitimate choice, I wonder why we don't see more middle-class girls from happy backgrounds going into it...

Quote from: Camerus on November 15, 2013, 01:01:24 AM
If it were truly a legitimate choice, I wonder why we don't see more middle-class girls from happy backgrounds going into it...

Yeah because it isn't as if our society doesn't shame women for being sexually promiscuous let alone getting paid for sex.

Hell, we flip out and fire teachers if we find out they did a porno.

Actually, where does porn fall on this spectrum? Is it wrong to enjoy porn?

Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 01:06:49 AM

Quote from: Camerus on November 15, 2013, 01:01:24 AM
If it were truly a legitimate choice, I wonder why we don't see more middle-class girls from happy backgrounds going into it...

Yeah because it isn't as if our society doesn't shame women for being sexually promiscuous let alone getting paid for sex.

Hell, we flip out and fire teachers if we find out they did a porno.

I doubt girls would be dying to work in brothels if only it weren't for the social stigma.

You are changing the argument though. You first posited why is it that we don't see more middle-class girls from happy backgrounds...now you are advancing some bizarre argument about people dying to work in the field.

Quote from: Camerus on November 15, 2013, 01:01:24 AM
I mostly agree with Shelf. 

For me, prostitution is a problem simply because it violates the most fundamental and arguably universal moral law, namely reciprocity or the golden rule.  What if it was your sister, mother or daughter who was working as a prostitute?

I go to a different brothel.  Yuck.

Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2013, 01:15:30 AM

Quote from: Camerus on November 15, 2013, 01:01:24 AM
I mostly agree with Shelf. 

For me, prostitution is a problem simply because it violates the most fundamental and arguably universal moral law, namely reciprocity or the golden rule.  What if it was your sister, mother or daughter who was working as a prostitute?

I go to a different brothel.  Yuck.

:D

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 14, 2013, 11:20:07 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 14, 2013, 08:56:35 PM
I believe a lot of research shows that most prostitutes were abused, many started as prostitutes very young and there are links to addiction. This is a problem for social workers not police, but men buying women is a problem for the police.

[Ide]Nationalize it! Send the pimps to the gulag, centralize the business by building giant brothels and putting bureaucrats in charge. Sign them all up for pensions and health care, including mental health.[/Ide]

EDIT: Dammit, fucking beaten :angry:

^_^

Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2013, 11:59:07 PM
Has anyone here ever hired a hooker?

Pat hired a POW once.

Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 01:15:14 AM
You are changing the argument though. You first posited why is it that we don't see more middle-class girls from happy backgrounds...now you are advancing some bizarre argument about people dying to work in the field.

:huh:  Not at all.  I understood you were suggesting it was due to societal "shame" that frowns upon promiscuity that is preventing girls from happy middle-class backgrounds entering the field.  I said I doubted that.  Change "dying to" to "wanting to" if it makes you feel better.

Quote from: Camerus on November 15, 2013, 01:01:24 AM
I mostly agree with Shelf. 

For me, prostitution is a problem simply because it violates the most fundamental and arguably universal moral law, namely reciprocity or the golden rule.  What if it was your sister, mother or daughter who was working as a prostitute?  It's just not in the same league as working a boring office job or whatever.  Realistically speaking, the only girls who get into it are either addicts, victims of abuse or trafficking, girls from grinding 3rd world poverty, or some kind of combination of those factors.  Thus it feeds on previous human misery. If it were truly a legitimate choice, I wonder why we don't see more middle-class girls from happy backgrounds going into it...

More seriously, I really am not sure that's true.  Porno chicks aren't all addicts/abuse victims/poor (3d World wise)/whatever.  And that's in many regards similar to prostitution.

I think where you'd see malaise creep in is the day-in, day-out grind, so to speak.  There is a fair amount of empirical evidence that commodifying sex undermines its role in romantic relationships.  So I wouldn't recommend it as a career.  But as a summer job while at MIT or Georgia Tech?  Why not?  And in the process you help sexually inactive, frustrated men; aggregate utility is increased.

P.S. A guy I knew was an escort for a while.  Last I saw, he seemed to be normal.

Quote from: Habbaku on November 15, 2013, 01:23:03 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2013, 11:59:07 PM
Has anyone here ever hired a hooker?

Pat hired a POW once.

I tried to google the acronym, but all I got was stuff about Japanese war crimes.

Quote from: Habbaku on November 15, 2013, 01:23:03 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 14, 2013, 11:59:07 PM
Has anyone here ever hired a hooker?

Pat hired a POW once.

I thought it was a gift from his host, who just happened to be a war criminal.

Quote from: Ideologue on November 15, 2013, 01:25:07 AM

Quote from: Camerus on November 15, 2013, 01:01:24 AM
I mostly agree with Shelf. 

For me, prostitution is a problem simply because it violates the most fundamental and arguably universal moral law, namely reciprocity or the golden rule.  What if it was your sister, mother or daughter who was working as a prostitute?  It's just not in the same league as working a boring office job or whatever.  Realistically speaking, the only girls who get into it are either addicts, victims of abuse or trafficking, girls from grinding 3rd world poverty, or some kind of combination of those factors.  Thus it feeds on previous human misery. If it were truly a legitimate choice, I wonder why we don't see more middle-class girls from happy backgrounds going into it...

More seriously, I really am not sure that's true.  Porno chicks aren't all addicts/abuse victims/poor (3d World wise)/whatever.  And that's in many regards similar to prostitution.

My understanding about girls in porn (and I could be wrong and am too lazy to Google it) is basically that they do it once or at most twice, and then realize it's a shitty life and get out of it.  So if it is the same as prostitution, a girl who turned a trick once or twice then got out of it isn't in the same league as the girl working night after night on the street corner or brothel. 

If we grant the moral argument, what does that have to deal with the legal argument?

People who want to ban prostitution represent the age-old idea that female sexuality cannot be entrusted to actual females. It must be controlled by wiser minds. I disagree with this, I think that women are in fact able to make decisions about their sex lives.

Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 01:56:49 AM
People who want to ban prostitution represent the age-old idea that female sexuality cannot be entrusted to actual females. It must be controlled by wiser minds. I disagree with this, I think that women are in fact able to make decisions about their sex lives.

how un-ethical of you

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 01:45:31 AM
If we grant the moral argument, what does that have to deal with the legal argument?

Isn't that what ultimately all law is based on? Agreed upon public morals? Enough people came to believe slavery is immoral so it was banned, enough people  believed that drinking alcohol was ok so prohibition was ended.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 14, 2013, 11:12:58 PM
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.

Quote from: Camerus on November 15, 2013, 01:24:22 AM

Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 01:15:14 AM
You are changing the argument though. You first posited why is it that we don't see more middle-class girls from happy backgrounds...now you are advancing some bizarre argument about people dying to work in the field.

:huh:  Not at all.  I understood you were suggesting it was due to societal "shame" that frowns upon promiscuity that is preventing girls from happy middle-class backgrounds entering the field.  I said I doubted that.  Change "dying to" to "wanting to" if it makes you feel better.

I think social shame does play a big role in considering prostitution a a viable option. We've what, multiple millenia of denigrating it?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 14, 2013, 10:38:12 PM
I think Grab On (or the Log) was right when he said you view sex as some sacred thing we can't sully with a commercial nexus.  The Virgin Mary and all that.

It's not religious at all. As I say I think socially sex is treated specially because we're aware that sexuality is a fundamental part of who we are. So if it's like work or any other service would it be okay to remove someone's benefits because they refused to take a job offered them in a brothel?

QuoteThat would mean that adult German males visit a prostitute about ten times per year if it was perfectly evenly distributed, which I very highly doubt. I would assume that many never ever visit a prostitute, so the remaining minority (?) would have to be very regular customers.

I suppose if there's a significant portion of European sex tourism going to Germany that accounts for part of it. But I think this is part of the problem I have, if prostitution is legal, easily available and destigmatised then, money aside, why wouldn't men use it regularly? Why do anything else? It seems very 18th century.

QuoteIt is okay exactly 100% of the time in every context so long as she consents freely.  Why she consents is her business isn't it?

I disagree. First of all there's lots of talk about coercion and obviously a violent pimp is coercive. But as I say from what I've read most prostitutes have been sexually abused before becoming a prostitute. They start early. Many have serious problems with addiction and almost all - including in Germany - do it because of a particularly tough financial system. I don't see how that's not coercive. It may be socially coercive but if a job is linked to sexual abuse, addiction and poverty then I'm not convinced we can easily talk about people consenting to go into it.

Secondly I'm troubled by a society moving towards accepting that women can be bought for sexual use by men. I think that's a social issue as much as anything to do with individuals and it's problematic in terms of how we view and treat women.

Also it just seems like yet another sexual liberation for women that primarily benefits men. We come from a society that accepted prostitution. It was absolutely the norm until the early twentieth century, I don't think we should go back to that. I don't see a problem with men having to masturbate instead of using a woman.

QuoteAlso I was not aware 100% of Prostitution involved men buying sex with women.

No I include rent boys in all this - except for the gender stuff - because I think much of it's true there. The number of women buying male prostitutes is tiny, it is overwhelmingly of men on women. But it would go there too I don't think men should be bought for sexual use either.

QuoteYeah because it isn't as if our society doesn't shame women for being sexually promiscuous let alone getting paid for sex.

Obviously that's wrong. No-one's saying shame the women, they've had that for long enough. Shame and arrest the men. I think part of the rationale for the Swedish system has been that this is an overwhelmingly gender-specific problem - men buying women.

Which is part of why I like that model. I believe recently 40 women, many from Romania so possibly not there legally, testified against their punters and pimps. I think that's great. That the women involved feel comfortable and safe enough that the state isn't going to trouble them and that we're not going to shame them that they feel able to participate in the trial of the men who used them.

QuoteMore seriously, I really am not sure that's true.  Porno chicks aren't all addicts/abuse victims/poor (3d World wise)/whatever.  And that's in many regards similar to prostitution.

Yeah. If I'm honest I have issues with porn too. I can't fully work them out but I'd say there's two big problems I have which is the element of coercion, which I think is a stronger theme in gay porn because of all the gay-for-pay, and the way that money is draining out of porn thanks to the internet and I think it is moving to cutting costs on the talent as it were.

Quote from: ShelfFirst of all there's lots of talk about coercion and obviously a violent pimp is coercive.

Being a violent, coercive boss is illegal, even in Germany. The only way pimps get away with it is when the job itself is illegal, making it impossible for the victims of the crime to report them.

Quote
But as I say from what I've read most prostitutes have been sexually abused before becoming a prostitute.

Sexual abuse is illegal. Prosecute and criminalize that.

Quote

They start early. Many have serious problems with addiction

Many non-prostitutes have serious problems with addiction. Deal with that problem.

I will grant that the percentage of people with drug problems who go into prostitution is almost certainly much higher than those who do not. On the other hand, the percentage of people with drug problems who drink too much alcohol is almost certainly much higher as well. Should we make drinking alcohol illegal?

People with drug problems almost certainly turn to a variety of shitty jobs at a much higher rate than non-addicts. Should those other shitty jobs be outlawed?

Being a drug addict sucks in general. Deal with that problem - prostitituion, to the extent that it is a secondary effect, is most certianly a *secondary* effect of drug and sexual abuse.

Quote
and almost all - including in Germany - do it because of a particularly tough financial system.

Almost everyone in a shitty job is in the shitty job because of financial coercion. Most people in non-shitty jobs are there because of "financial coercion".

What I don't understand about this argument is that by definition, the people you are attempting to protect would be better off without your protection. After all, if giving middle aged men blowjobs is a crap job, then the only reason people are doing it is because the alternatives is even worse. You are demanding that they go with the alternative, which must in fact be a worse choice.

All the issues I've listed here are secondary effects - abuse, drug use, crappy financial alternatives. If you object to these things, object to them. If you made those circumstances better, fewer people would resort to shitty jobs.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2013, 06:25:33 AM

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 01:45:31 AM
If we grant the moral argument, what does that have to deal with the legal argument?

Isn't that what ultimately all law is based on? Agreed upon public morals? Enough people came to believe slavery is immoral so it was banned, enough people  believed that drinking alcohol was ok so prohibition was ended.

No, not at all. There are lots of things that people think is immoral that is not illegal.

You are advocating for the tyranny of the majority.

Quote from: Camerus on November 15, 2013, 01:01:24 AM
I mostly agree with Shelf. 

For me, prostitution is a problem simply because it violates the most fundamental and arguably universal moral law, namely reciprocity or the golden rule.  What if it was your sister, mother or daughter who was working as a prostitute?  It's just not in the same league as working a boring office job or whatever.  Realistically speaking, the only girls who get into it are either addicts, victims of abuse or trafficking, girls from grinding 3rd world poverty, or some kind of combination of those factors.  Thus it feeds on previous human misery. If it were truly a legitimate choice, I wonder why we don't see more middle-class girls from happy backgrounds going into it...

How did you come to this conclusion about the backgrounds of hookers?

I read an article about internet prostitution (and some serial killer of internet prostitutes) which suggested quite the opposite--women from very ordinary backgrounds who were attracted by the good money and independence.

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 09:10:13 AM

Quote from: ShelfFirst of all there's lots of talk about coercion and obviously a violent pimp is coercive.

Being a violent, coercive boss is illegal, even in Germany. The only way pimps get away with it is when the job itself is illegal, making it impossible for the victims of the crime to report them.

Quote
But as I say from what I've read most prostitutes have been sexually abused before becoming a prostitute.

Sexual abuse is illegal. Prosecute and criminalize that.

Quote

They start early. Many have serious problems with addiction

Many non-prostitutes have serious problems with addiction. Deal with that problem.

I will grant that the percentage of people with drug problems who go into prostitution is almost certainly much higher than those who do not. On the other hand, the percentage of people with drug problems who drink too much alcohol is almost certainly much higher as well. Should we make drinking alcohol illegal?

People with drug problems almost certainly turn to a variety of shitty jobs at a much higher rate than non-addicts. Should those other shitty jobs be outlawed?

Being a drug addict sucks in general. Deal with that problem - prostitituion, to the extent that it is a secondary effect, is most certianly a *secondary* effect of drug and sexual abuse.

Quote
and almost all - including in Germany - do it because of a particularly tough financial system.

Almost everyone in a shitty job is in the shitty job because of financial coercion. Most people in non-shitty jobs are there because of "financial coercion".

What I don't understand about this argument is that by definition, the people you are attempting to protect would be better off without your protection. After all, if giving middle aged men blowjobs is a crap job, then the only reason people are doing it is because the alternatives is even worse. You are demanding that they go with the alternative, which must in fact be a worse choice.

All the issues I've listed here are secondary effects - abuse, drug use, crappy financial alternatives. If you object to these things, object to them. If you made those circumstances better, fewer people would resort to shitty jobs.

Yes.

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 09:11:09 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2013, 06:25:33 AM

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 01:45:31 AM
If we grant the moral argument, what does that have to deal with the legal argument?

Isn't that what ultimately all law is based on? Agreed upon public morals? Enough people came to believe slavery is immoral so it was banned, enough people  believed that drinking alcohol was ok so prohibition was ended.

No, not at all. There are lots of things that people think is immoral that is not illegal.

You are advocating for the tyranny of the majority.

That's how society works. If the majority thinks strongly enough about issue X they will have the laws on X changed, through the democratic process if possible, through force if necessary.

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 09:10:13 AMWhat I don't understand about this argument is that by definition, the people you are attempting to protect would be better off without your protection. After all, if giving middle aged men blowjobs is a crap job, then the only reason people are doing it is because the alternatives is even worse. You are demanding that they go with the alternative, which must in fact be a worse choice.

All the issues I've listed here are secondary effects - abuse, drug use, crappy financial alternatives. If you object to these things, object to them. If you made those circumstances better, fewer people would resort to shitty jobs.

As I say I don't think prostitution is just a job and I think there are coercive elements to it beyond pimps.

But I like the Swedish model which tries to do precisely that. They've got 'exit programs' which try and provide comprehensive social support for women who want to leave prostitution. The government provides counselling, housing in a shelter, job training and education in addition to helping the women who wish to leave claim normal benefits. Similarly I think there needs to be a shift for women who've been trafficked so that they're seen as victims, not illegal immigrants to deport back home.

I read a study by the NZ Government about women leaving prostitution and they observed that exit programs and funding are far lower in areas that legalise prostitution, perhaps because there's a sense that they've dealt with the issue.

As I say I want a situation were women who may not be in the country legally feel comfortable and safe testifying against their pimps and clients, because they know there's an alternative.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 08:39:50 AM
Secondly I'm troubled by a society moving towards accepting that women can be bought for sexual use by men. I think that's a social issue as much as anything to do with individuals and it's problematic in terms of how we view and treat women.

Oh, good Lord.  The ability of a woman to sell for profit what she would normally give away for free is the essence of capitalism.

PROSTITUTION IS EMPOWERMENT

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 09:23:08 AM

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 09:10:13 AMWhat I don't understand about this argument is that by definition, the people you are attempting to protect would be better off without your protection. After all, if giving middle aged men blowjobs is a crap job, then the only reason people are doing it is because the alternatives is even worse. You are demanding that they go with the alternative, which must in fact be a worse choice.

All the issues I've listed here are secondary effects - abuse, drug use, crappy financial alternatives. If you object to these things, object to them. If you made those circumstances better, fewer people would resort to shitty jobs.

As I say I don't think prostitution is just a job and I think there are coercive elements to it beyond pimps.

But I like the Swedish model which tries to do precisely that. They've got 'exit programs' which try and provide comprehensive social support for women who want to leave prostitution. The government provides counselling, housing in a shelter, job training and education in addition to helping the women who wish to leave claim normal benefits. Similarly I think there needs to be a shift for women who've been trafficked so that they're seen as victims, not illegal immigrants to deport back home.

I read a study by the NZ Government about women leaving prostitution and they observed that exit programs and funding are far lower in areas that legalise prostitution, perhaps because there's a sense that they've dealt with the issue.

As I say I want a situation were women who may not be in the country legally feel comfortable and safe testifying against their pimps and clients, because they know there's an alternative.

When alcohol was outlawed in the US, all kinds of coercive elements, crime, violence etc. got associated with alcohol production and trade. Just to have an obvious example. I get the impression that you want to keep prostitution illegal because of the aspects of it given to it by its illegal status.

What are the coercive elements beyond pimps Shelf?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 09:35:36 AM
What are the coercive elements beyond pimps Shelf?

Maybe that if you do not sleep with that creepy john, and put up with his shit, you might not be able to make rent or eat?  Just a guess there.

That would seem a strange coercion in Germany with its robust welfare state though.

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 09:37:55 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 09:35:36 AM
What are the coercive elements beyond pimps Shelf?

Maybe that if you do not sleep with that creepy john, and put up with his shit, you might not be able to make rent or eat?  Just a guess there.

Pfft, most of us have been in the service industry at one time or another.  Dealing with shitty customers comes with the territory.

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 09:37:55 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 09:35:36 AM
What are the coercive elements beyond pimps Shelf?

Maybe that if you do not sleep with that creepy john, and put up with his shit, you might not be able to make rent or eat?  Just a guess there.

That would seem a strange coercion in Germany with its robust welfare state though.

Err, still, at the end of the day, if it is a legal business, she can decide to either service Creppy John, or not. Yes, if she does not service him, her income for the month will be lower (duh), but the choice is free and entirely hers.
Now if it is illegal, than the situation is entirely different. She does not have the protection of the law from either creepy john, or her pimp.

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 09:37:55 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 09:35:36 AM
What are the coercive elements beyond pimps Shelf?

Maybe that if you do not sleep with that creepy john, and put up with his shit, you might not be able to make rent or eat?  Just a guess there.

Yeah, but Yi has the same problem if he doesn't stare at his computer screen for 8 hours.

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 09:37:55 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 09:35:36 AM
What are the coercive elements beyond pimps Shelf?

Maybe that if you do not sleep with that creepy john, and put up with his shit, you might not be able to make rent or eat?  Just a guess there.

That would seem a strange coercion in Germany with its robust welfare state though.

How is she going to make rent without a job?

Quote from: Tamas on November 15, 2013, 09:34:01 AM
When alcohol was outlawed in the US, all kinds of coercive elements, crime, violence etc. got associated with alcohol production and trade. Just to have an obvious example. I get the impression that you want to keep prostitution illegal because of the aspects of it given to it by its illegal status.

Except the evidence by the LSE is that trafficking in women increases when you legalise prostitution. Funding and policies to help women out of prostitution decline. And obviously the market is normalised, the male right to have sex is too important, so we'll create a market that needs new women.

I don't want to keep anything as it is in this country. As I say I think the Swedish model of prosecuting men and making it a crime to buy sex while offering help and social support for the women if they want to exit prostitution including illegal immigrants.

QuoteWhat are the coercive elements beyond pimps Shelf?

I mentioned them. It may be different in the US, but in the UK around 70% of prostitutes spent time in the care system. About 50% were sexually abused at home and over 80% were physically abused. Over 90% have problems with addiction, particularly drugs. And around three-quarters are motivated by poverty. That's a lot of social factors that I think amount to coercion and certainly make the belle du jour idea of totally free consent problematic.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 09:45:10 AM
I mentioned them. It may be different in the US, but in the UK around 70% of prostitutes spent time in the care system. About 50% were sexually abused at home and over 80% were physically abused. Over 90% have problems with addiction, particularly drugs. And around three-quarters are motivated by poverty. That's a lot of social factors that I think amount to coercion and certainly make the belle du jour idea of totally free consent problematic.

Yeah but Prostitution is illegal in the UK isn't it?  You would expect stats like that in a black market setting. In the US we only have a few Nevada counties where it is legal but I do not know the stats on their poverty and abuse and all that, the population we are talking here is very small anyway.  I would be interested to see stats in Germany regarding their legal government protected prostitutes.

Quote from: Tamas on November 15, 2013, 09:39:52 AMErr, still, at the end of the day, if it is a legal business, she can decide to either service Creppy John, or not. Yes, if she does not service him, her income for the month will be lower (duh), but the choice is free and entirely hers.

Unless she signs an employment contract where it's legal to access he rights to benefits and legal protection of workers. But then she's hardly in a position to refuse or she'll have broken her contract and could lose her job.

And if you look at the background the overwhelming majority of women working in prostitution are coming from, I'm not sure we should be so casually talking about 'free and entirely her' choice.

QuoteNow if it is illegal, than the situation is entirely different. She does not have the protection of the law from either creepy john, or her pimp.

That's why you make it illegal to buy sex. Again I'd point to the Swedish example which has seen 40 prostitutes, mainly from Romania, testifying against their pimps and clients because they're safe. They're not the criminals but the victims of a crime.

Do most victims of a crime typically come out of it several hundred dollars richer?

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 09:48:54 AM
Unless she signs an employment contract where it's legal to access he rights to benefits and legal protection of workers. But then she's hardly in a position to refuse or she'll have broken her contract and could lose her job.

Ok if she has zero options besides being a prostitute and she is not in a position to refuse for fear of whatever desperate state not being a prostitute is going to put her in, how is making the one profession she must do to survive illegal going to help her? 

I guess I don't get it, why is this the only job in the entire nation of Germany she must do?  She cannot just go live on welfare or take a job scrubbing toilets or selling drugs or something?  Presuming we are talking about a legal EU citizen able to work and sign contracts in Germany.

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 09:47:43 AMYeah but Prostitution is illegal in the UK isn't it?  You would expect stats like that in a black market setting. In the US we only have a few Nevada counties where it is legal but I do not know the stats on their poverty and abuse and all that, the population we are talking here is very small anyway.  I would be interested to see stats in Germany regarding their legal government protected prostitutes.

Yeah. There are separate studies from the LSE and a German university that both say legalised prostitution increases human trafficking. So there's that and apparently around 75% of German prostitutes are from abroad, mainly from poorer European countries.

In terms of the purposes of legalisation, it's failed. According to Der Spiegel the Family Ministry said it hadn't brought about any measurable improvement in the social coverage of prostitutes. The working conditions and ability exit prostitution hadn't improved. There's no 'solid proof to date' that the law had reduced crime. And apparently there are almost no cases of prostitutes suing for their wages.

Another side effect is that Germany is a sex tourism destination now and, with the EU, there's an easy access to pools of cheap labour. Apparently the price of prostitution in Germany is low and falling. Again I think that indicates problems with how the law works in terms of the women involved.

It seems to me that this legal approach would benefit pimps and brothels - no raids - far more than prostitutes, especially when compared to Sweden.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 10:00:30 AM
It seems to me that this legal approach would benefit pimps and brothels - no raids - far more than prostitutes, especially when compared to Sweden.

Well how do they benefit in Sweden without any legal clients?  So...it is great to be prostitute in Sweden, sure you will not make any money but beyond that it is awesome?

QuoteYeah. There are separate studies from the LSE and a German university that both say legalised prostitution increases human trafficking. So there's that and apparently around 75% of German prostitutes are from abroad, mainly from poorer European countries.

In terms of the purposes of legalisation, it's failed. According to Der Spiegel the Family Ministry said it hadn't brought about any measurable improvement in the social coverage of prostitutes. The working conditions and ability exit prostitution hadn't improved. There's no 'solid proof to date' that the law had reduced crime. And apparently there are almost no cases of prostitutes suing for their wages.

Another side effect is that Germany is a sex tourism destination now and, with the EU, there's an easy access to pools of cheap labour. Apparently the price of prostitution in Germany is low and falling. Again I think that indicates problems with how the law works in terms of the women involved.

That seems like not impossible problem to fix.  Why not make it only legal for German citizens?  Also it seems weird that providing benefits and workers protection for people gives them exactly zero advantages of any sort.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 10:00:30 AM
It seems to me that this legal approach would benefit pimps and brothels - no raids - far more than prostitutes, especially when compared to Sweden.

Careful, now you are saying it is fine to illegalize something so that the people doing it could earn more.  :huh:

I can`t possibly see how your views on prostitution being unethical match with your apparent disapproval of legal prostitution becoming cheaper.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 10:00:30 AM
Another side effect is that Germany is a sex tourism destination now and, with the EU, there's an easy access to pools of cheap labour. Apparently the price of prostitution in Germany is low and falling. Again I think that indicates problems with how the law works in terms of the women involved.

This seems to be a case of the EU labor mobility laws working.

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 10:00:23 AMOk if she has zero options besides being a prostitute and she is not in a position to refuse for fear of whatever desperate state not being a prostitute is going to put her in, how is making the one profession she must do to survive illegal going to help her? 

Again I'd use the example of Sweden. The man commits the crime, the woman is offered a range of social support including access to shelters, counselling, education and job training and full information and help claiming on the normal welfare state. There's lots you can do to help the women involved.

QuoteI guess I don't get it, why is this the only job in the entire nation of Germany she must do?  She cannot just go live on welfare or take a job scrubbing toilets or selling drugs or something?  Presuming we are talking about a legal EU citizen able to work and sign contracts in Germany.

I'd guess the decline in investment in exit policies in countries that legalise prostitution probably doesn't help. Also the link with addiction is extremely harmful. In the UK most women in prostitution first experienced prostitution before they were 16 and the numbers who came from care suggest that chances are many women didn't have a settled home and may not have finished any education.

If her family paid a lot of money for her to go to Germany or the UK then she may have been trafficked and those people still have some control over her family and she may have to pay off the debt. There's all sorts of reasons.

It is striking that Germany has a legal sex work market and it needs women from abroad to meet demand, 75% are from abroad. There aren't a great number of German women who've maybe received an education there, live in a relatively rich country, know the benefit system and speak the language fluently who are working as prostitutes. It needs girls who aren't from a wealthy country, don't know the benefit system, don't have a support network and don't necessarily speak the language.

QuoteThis seems to be a case of the EU labor mobility laws working.

They're mostly from Eastern Europe that doesn't generally have access to Germany's labour market.

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 10:04:48 AMWell how do they benefit in Sweden without any legal clients?  So...it is great to be prostitute in Sweden, sure you will not make any money but beyond that it is awesome?

I think it helps if you don't see them as prostitutes, destined to prostitute :P

Prostitution has declined and women have been able to leave. That's the benefit.

QuoteThat seems like not impossible problem to fix.  Why not make it only legal for German citizens?  Also it seems weird that providing benefits and workers protection for people gives them exactly zero advantages of any sort.

You have to sign up for the welfare state. You need to regularise your status. So far less than 1% of prostitutes have and as I say almost none have ever sued their 'employers' for wages that they didn't receive.

QuoteCareful, now you are saying it is fine to illegalize something so that the people doing it could earn more.  :huh:

I can`t possibly see how your views on prostitution being unethical match with your apparent disapproval of legal prostitution becoming cheaper.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. I don't understand the point, sorry.

Edit: Here's the Der Spiegel article on it, which is interesting though not stats heavy:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-despite-legality-of-prostitution-in-germany-a-902533.html

What does "in care" mean?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 10:07:43 AM
This seems to be a case of the EU labor mobility laws working.

Incidentally as you're talking about the labour aspect again, you didn't answer, would you be comfortable refusing benefits to someone who refused to take an available job as a prostitute?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 10:19:22 AM
What does "in care" mean?

They've been put in the care system. Kids who've been taken away from their parents for however long.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 10:19:43 AM
Incidentally as you're talking about the labour aspect again, you didn't answer, would you be comfortable refusing benefits to someone who refused to take an available job as a prostitute?

I would not be comfortable declining unemployment insurance to someone who refused a job as a prostitute.

Does your objection to the industry disappear for prostitutes who are not emotional and psychological cripples or victims of trafficking?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 10:24:38 AMI would not be comfortable declining unemployment insurance to someone who refused a job as a prostitute.

So as you asked me earlier, what's the difference between work and sex work?

QuoteDoes your objection to the industry disappear for prostitutes who are not emotional and psychological cripples or victims of trafficking?

No. I think it is damaging to society. The 18th century model, or even Germany were apparently around 20% of men have bought a woman for their sexual purposes, I think is a problem for how we as a society value women.

It's a different, wider set of issues if most prostitutes are in the belle du jour model though.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 10:30:40 AM
So as you asked me earlier, what's the difference between work and sex work?

Negative social stigma, possible moral objections.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 10:30:40 AM
So as you asked me earlier, what's the difference between work and sex work?

Not sure what your question is trying to prove, though.  I can't imagine that one would be denied unemployment insurance because they refused work that would be a health risk and greatly be against their own moral code. 

Quote from: Camerus on November 15, 2013, 01:01:24 AMRealistically speaking, the only girls who get into it are either addicts, victims of abuse or trafficking, girls from grinding 3rd world poverty, or some kind of combination of those factors.  Thus it feeds on previous human misery. If it were truly a legitimate choice, I wonder why we don't see more middle-class girls from happy backgrounds going into it...

I sometimes visit the biggest Spanish forum on the Web. A few months ago there was a very interesting thread started by a guy who worked as a bartender in a brothel, where he related his experiences and answered questions.

He said he was surprised by how many girls didn't fit that profile. They would "work" for a few weeks or months then went back to normal life once they had enough money for whatever it is they needed.

Quote from: derspiess on November 15, 2013, 10:34:50 AMNot sure what your question is trying to prove, though.  I can't imagine that one would be denied unemployment insurance because they refused work that would be a health risk and greatly be against their own moral code.

That there's a difference between prostitution and staring at a computer for 8 hours. And then the reasons. Yi's is social stigma and moral objection both of which are kind of external. My view is that sexuality is a fundamental core part of yourself which makes sex work different and fundamentally exploitative.

QuoteNegative social stigma, possible moral objections.

Okay. But in the Netherlands for example it's been held that it's part of a PA's job if asked to book a hooker for her boss. How do think the moral objections play there?

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 10:39:35 AM
That there's a difference between prostitution and staring at a computer for 8 hours.

There's also a difference between staring at a computer and other legal jobs that are either gross or many/most would find morally objectionable.

QuoteAnd then the reasons. Yi's is social stigma and moral objection both of which are kind of external. My view is that sexuality is a fundamental core part of yourself which makes sex work different and fundamentally exploitative.

Like I said, I'm with you on moral grounds.  But I just can't see your legal case.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 10:39:35 AM
My view is that sexuality is a fundamental core part of yourself which makes sex work different and fundamentally exploitative.

Would it be fair to say you think it's impossible to make an informed, free decision to be a ho?  That any ho who claims to have done so is lying or deluding themself?

Don't understand the fundamental core part thing.  Creativity is a core part, yet people are paid for that.  Intelligence, memory, etc., etc., etc.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 10:09:38 AM
Again I'd use the example of Sweden. The man commits the crime, the woman is offered a range of social support including access to shelters, counselling, education and job training and full information and help claiming on the normal welfare state. There's lots you can do to help the women involved.

Ok so why does she being a prostitute gain her this access?  Why not just go get that stuff and skip the prostitute step?

QuoteI'd guess the decline in investment in exit policies in countries that legalise prostitution probably doesn't help. Also the link with addiction is extremely harmful. In the UK most women in prostitution first experienced prostitution before they were 16 and the numbers who came from care suggest that chances are many women didn't have a settled home and may not have finished any education.

Ok but not getting any education and prostituting before 16 has zero to do with legal prostitution, all that is illegal.

QuoteIf her family paid a lot of money for her to go to Germany or the UK then she may have been trafficked and those people still have some control over her family and she may have to pay off the debt. There's all sorts of reasons.

Yes but I am pretty sure that is all illegal.

QuoteIt is striking that Germany has a legal sex work market and it needs women from abroad to meet demand, 75% are from abroad. There aren't a great number of German women who've maybe received an education there, live in a relatively rich country, know the benefit system and speak the language fluently who are working as prostitutes. It needs girls who aren't from a wealthy country, don't know the benefit system, don't have a support network and don't necessarily speak the language.

Well the UK has an illegal sex market and seems to do the same.  Heck weren't those Swedish prostitutes Romanians?

This does strike me as an impact of the EU.  All legal prostitutes in the US have to be US citizens or have some sort of permit to work.  Here it seems they can just get Jane Doenescu from Romania and there is nothing the authorities can do about that.

Quote from: derspiess on November 15, 2013, 10:47:27 AM
Like I said, I'm with you on moral grounds.

Are you really? You think the john is committing a sin but the prostitute is an innocent victim?

Quote from: derspiess on November 15, 2013, 10:47:27 AM
Like I said, I'm with you on moral grounds.  But I just can't see your legal case.

I think the current situation doesn't work. I think the evidence from countries that have legalised prostitution is that that doesn't work. There's increased trafficking, no measurable improvements in social or working conditions of the women involved, and no drop in crime. The only benefits seem to be for the exploiters. The clients are more able to do it, with no social stigma to them, and there's been a drop in prices. Similarly brothels and pimps are safer from raids.

Given that, as well as moral grounds, I think Sweden offers a better a model. Stigma is attached to the men, not the women. The crime isn't selling but purchasing sex. There's been a decline in prostitution. There's a robust system of help for women who want to leave prostitution. And there is a lower rate of trafficking in Sweden than elsewhere.

I don't agree with prostitution, but I also think there's a very practical case that the Swedish system works better.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 10:30:40 AM
No. I think it is damaging to society. The 18th century model, or even Germany were apparently around 20% of men have bought a woman for their sexual purposes, I think is a problem for how we as a society value women.

It's a different, wider set of issues if most prostitutes are in the belle du jour model though.

Well there is a demand for sex.  A demand people are willing to pay for to be filled.  Are you suggesting if we somehow valued women more there would be no demand because...I don't know....sex drives are only a result of not valuing people?

I suppose maybe if we stopped this culture of rape and slut shaming women would just have sex with all men all the time for free.  But that is kind of a conjecture.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 15, 2013, 10:52:15 AM

Quote from: derspiess on November 15, 2013, 10:47:27 AM
Like I said, I'm with you on moral grounds.

Are you really? You think the john is committing a sin but the prostitute is an innocent victim?

Well, not that part.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 10:47:43 AMWould it be fair to say you think it's impossible to make an informed, free decision to be a ho? 

Broadly yeah. I wouldn't say lying or deluding themselves but it is largely an industry that exists selling women who are in the least position to choose for men. I'm not convinced there's any more choice in 'choosing prostitution' than, say, 'choosing poverty'.

QuoteWell the UK has an illegal sex market and seems to do the same.  Heck weren't those Swedish prostitutes Romanians?

Trafficking exists everywhere and I think the UN did a study globally and estimated that about 80% of it is for sexual purposes. No doubt chances are that even though it's bad in the UK or Germany it's still better than other places.

As I say there's an article here:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/human-trafficking-persists-despite-legality-of-prostitution-in-germany-a-902533.html

And of course as I said the problem is where it's legal it'll become more normal, back to the 18th century. Why would a man wank when he can go to a flat rate brothel or get a blow job for €10?

QuoteOk so why does she being a prostitute gain her this access?  Why not just go get that stuff and skip the prostitute step?

Because she's particularly vulnerable.

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 10:55:43 AMWell there is a demand for sex.  A demand people are willing to pay for to be filled.  Are you suggesting if we somehow valued women more there would be no demand because...I don't know....sex drives are only a result of not valuing people?

I think if we valued women more we'd probably think a man have to masturbate isn't that bad and it's certainly better than him being able to buy a woman to use.

Edit: I suppose I don't see sex as a human right :P

QuoteI suppose maybe if we stopped this culture of rape and slut shaming women would just have sex with all men all the time for free.  But that is kind of a conjecture.

But again this puts men's sexual needs first as some sort of desperate priority.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 11:06:49 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 10:47:43 AMWould it be fair to say you think it's impossible to make an informed, free decision to be a ho? 

Broadly yeah. I wouldn't say lying or deluding themselves but it is largely an industry that exists selling women who are in the least position to choose for men. I'm not convinced there's any more choice in 'choosing prostitution' than, say, 'choosing poverty'.

You are answering my hypothetical question with an answer about tendencies and generalities. 

Even using your UK stats, there is some % of prostitutes who were NOT abused, NOT "in care," NOT crackheads, etc.  Let's assume for the sake of argument that there is one honest prostitute in Salem.  Would you be for or against her voluntarily plying her trade?

Quote from: derspiess on November 15, 2013, 10:47:27 AM
Like I said, I'm with you on moral grounds.  But I just can't see your legal case.

Agreed - I just can't understand the argument being made that given option A (bad) and option B (also bad, and for some definitionally worse than A) somehow removing option A improves the lot of the "victim".

All of Shelf's objections pretty much amount to "The job sucks, and the only people who do it do so because their life sucks". That is

A) Probably not true when you remove the criminal aspect out of the job, and
B) Kind of tautological. Of course if you define a job as being undesirable, the onlyl people who end up doing it tend to be people whose circumstances are such that they can generally only manage undesirable jobs.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 11:08:26 AM

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 10:55:43 AMWell there is a demand for sex.  A demand people are willing to pay for to be filled.  Are you suggesting if we somehow valued women more there would be no demand because...I don't know....sex drives are only a result of not valuing people?

I think if we valued women more we'd probably think a man have to masturbate isn't that bad and it's certainly better than him being able to buy a woman to use.

Um who the fuck doesn't think this?  At least in mainstream society.  Buying the services of a prostitute is pretty fucking stupid thing to do by every measure. 

QuoteEdit: I suppose I don't see sex as a human right :P

I wasn't either I was talking about the demand that creates the supply, I was not talking about human rights.  I never even hinted at human rights...so....

Quote

QuoteI suppose maybe if we stopped this culture of rape and slut shaming women would just have sex with all men all the time for free.  But that is kind of a conjecture.

But again this puts men's sexual needs first as some sort of desperate priority.

What puts what first now?  I was just theorizing what would stop the demand for sex, obviously kidding a bit.  I do not view men's sexual needs as any sort of priority for anybody but the man himself.  The only concern of society is the impact of those sexual needs.  You know: babies and diseases and all that.  What does that have to do with what we are talking about?

Quote from: derspiess on November 15, 2013, 10:58:02 AM
Well, not that part.

I suspect what happened in Sweden was the paternalist lefties allied with the liberals to decriminalize it and then allied with the conservatives to recriminalize it with the current emphasis on the customers.

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 11:12:33 AM

Quote from: derspiess on November 15, 2013, 10:47:27 AM
Like I said, I'm with you on moral grounds.  But I just can't see your legal case.

Agreed - I just can't understand the argument being made that given option A (bad) and option B (also bad, and for some definitionally worse than A) somehow removing option A improves the lot of the "victim".

All of Shelf's objections pretty much amount to "The job sucks, and the only people who do it do so because their life sucks". That is

A) Probably not true when you remove the criminal aspect out of the job, and
B) Kind of tautological. Of course if you define a job as being undesirable, the onlyl people who end up doing it tend to be people whose circumstances are such that they can generally only manage undesirable jobs.

Legalizing doesn't seem to remove the criminal aspect from the job though. Trafficking has increased in Germany since legalization and none of the proposed social benefits have come to fruition. It would seem that the policy has completely failed to achieve its aims. Why do you think it will succeed in the future?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 11:11:43 AMEven using your UK stats, there is some % of prostitutes who were NOT abused, NOT "in care," NOT crackheads, etc.  Let's assume for the sake of argument that there is one honest prostitute in Salem.  Would you be for or against her voluntarily plying her trade?

I answered your question. I think it's damaging to society. I think it normalises men buying women for sex. Which has far wider implications. It's a different argument.

But it's also not terribly useful to point to one belle du jour and ignore the vast majority of prostitutes and the general social situation of the women involved.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 15, 2013, 11:16:04 AM

Quote from: derspiess on November 15, 2013, 10:58:02 AM
Well, not that part.

I suspect what happened in Sweden was the paternalist lefties allied with the liberals to decriminalize it and then allied with the conservatives to recriminalize it with the current emphasis on the customers.

Feminists criminalised it - on the men. I am entirely supportive of, in Julian Assange's words, the Saudi Arabia of feminism :lol:

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2013, 11:17:25 AM
Legalizing doesn't seem to remove the criminal aspect from the job though. Trafficking has increased in Germany since legalization and none of the proposed social benefits have come to fruition. It would seem that the policy has completely failed to achieve its aims. Why do you think it will succeed in the future?

The article does not support this rather extreme position.  In fact it says trafficking may have decreased.  Where are you getting this from?

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 11:14:38 AMUm who the fuck doesn't think this?  At least in mainstream society.  Buying the services of a prostitute is pretty fucking stupid thing to do by every measure.

And mainstream society changes. How do you think it would change if men could freely and cheaply buy sex?

As I say this is the society we've come from. It was the norm for men with money to buy sex, I'm not sure we should go back to it.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2013, 11:17:25 AM

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 11:12:33 AM

Quote from: derspiess on November 15, 2013, 10:47:27 AM
Like I said, I'm with you on moral grounds.  But I just can't see your legal case.

Agreed - I just can't understand the argument being made that given option A (bad) and option B (also bad, and for some definitionally worse than A) somehow removing option A improves the lot of the "victim".

All of Shelf's objections pretty much amount to "The job sucks, and the only people who do it do so because their life sucks". That is

A) Probably not true when you remove the criminal aspect out of the job, and
B) Kind of tautological. Of course if you define a job as being undesirable, the onlyl people who end up doing it tend to be people whose circumstances are such that they can generally only manage undesirable jobs.

Legalizing doesn't seem to remove the criminal aspect from the job though. Trafficking has increased in Germany since legalization and none of the proposed social benefits have come to fruition. It would seem that the policy has completely failed to achieve its aims. Why do you think it will succeed in the future?

I don't think either of those conclusions are at all supported by the facts on the ground.

If trafficking has increased, then allocate resources to stop trafficking, which is illegal.

What are these proposed social benefits that have not come to fruition? They seem rather vague and poorly defined.

I think people who don't like prostitution have defined the "aims" such that they can conclude that they have not been reached.

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 11:14:38 AM
Um who the fuck doesn't think this?  At least in mainstream society.  Buying the services of a prostitute is pretty fucking stupid thing to do by every measure. 

I don't think this.  I find sticking my dick in a woman much preferable to jerking off.

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 11:14:38 AM
Buying the services of a prostitute is pretty fucking stupid thing to do by every measure. 

As opposed to, say, buying the services of a girlfriend or a wife.  But those are OK, since they're services paid for along a much longer timeline.   :P

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 11:22:37 AM
The article does not support this rather extreme position.  In fact it says trafficking may have decreased.  Where are you getting this from?

There's two academic studies, one by a German university and one by LSE which both indicate that trafficking increases when prostitution is legalised. Given that 75% of prostitutes in Germany are from abroad and most, not just Eastern Europe, but Romania and Bulgaria (who aren't part of the free movement of labour in the EU) yet would further suggest there's more trafficking than is being caught. Similarly the EU estimates that 23 000 people have been trafficked within the EU, around two-thirds for sexual purposes (lower than the global average estimated by the UN).

Denmark which also legalised prostitution (for self-employed prostitutes) has four times the rate of human trafficking than Sweden.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 11:23:56 AM

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 11:14:38 AMUm who the fuck doesn't think this?  At least in mainstream society.  Buying the services of a prostitute is pretty fucking stupid thing to do by every measure.

And mainstream society changes. How do you think it would change if men could freely and cheaply buy sex?

As I say this is the society we've come from. It was the norm for men with money to buy sex, I'm not sure we should go back to it.

I don't think that is a fair comparison though - there were a lot of other things about that society that were very different, especially how it relates to women and their power and control over themselves.

Picking out this one narrow aspect of it, and then pretending like the entire society was defined by THAT aspect, with the implication being that if you allow prostitution then society in general will have to conform to all the OTHER aspects, is a bit disingenuous.

In fact, I would argue that the society you are talking about had vastly more fundamental issues in how it treated women, and their right to make their own choices, and even their view of a woman's own ability to make her own rational choices, as being the true issue to be had with that look into gender roles. And your attitude towards women seems to be much more in line with that fundamental view, that women are not capable of making their own informed choices about their sexuality and what it means to them.

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 11:24:53 AM
What are these proposed social benefits that have not come to fruition? They seem rather vague and poorly defined.

Legal and employment rights. They weren't poorly defined, they were one of the major purposes of legalisation.

QuoteI think people who don't like prostitution have defined the "aims" such that they can conclude that they have not been reached.

Not at all. The trafficking is from two academic studies, neither of which concludes one way or the other on legalisation. This is the conclusion of the LSE report:

QuoteThe likely negative consequences of legalised prostitution on a country's inflows of human trafficking might be seen to support those who argue in favour of banning prostitution, thereby reducing the flows of trafficking. However, such a line of argumentation overlooks potential benefits that the legalisation of prostitution might have on those employed in the industry. Working conditions could be substantially improved for prostitutes—at least those legally employed—if prostitution is legalised. Prohibiting prostitution also raises tricky "freedom of choice" issues concerning both the potential suppliers and clients of prostitution services.

Similarly the research that indicated that there was no measurable social benefits, improvements in working conditions or drop in crime was prepared the by the Ministry responsible in Berlin. Similarly in the Netherlands the police estimate that 50-90% of prostitutes aren't working as prostitutes voluntarily and find human trafficking a particular factor in that. Which is why the Dutch are planning to de-liberalise prostitution.

I am skeptical about those trafficking and involuntary estimates.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 10:53:56 AM
The clients are more able to do it, with no social stigma to them

I don't think that's an accurate description of Germany. Maybe I am just prudish and have a prudish social circle, but I would say that it has a very high social stigma. There is no acceptance for it on an individual level, only on a more anonymous societal level.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 11:28:33 AM

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 11:22:37 AM
The article does not support this rather extreme position.  In fact it says trafficking may have decreased.  Where are you getting this from?

There's two academic studies, one by a German university and one by LSE which both indicate that trafficking increases when prostitution is legalised. Given that 75% of prostitutes in Germany are from abroad and most, not just Eastern Europe, but Romania and Bulgaria (who aren't part of the free movement of labour in the EU) yet would further suggest there's more trafficking than is being caught. Similarly the EU estimates that 23 000 people have been trafficked within the EU, around two-thirds for sexual purposes (lower than the global average estimated by the UN).

Denmark which also legalised prostitution (for self-employed prostitutes) has four times the rate of human trafficking than Sweden.

23000?  A year?  A decade?  Since the creation of the EU in 1993?  We have 17.5 thousand every year.  And we have illegal prostitution.

Hey that is almost exactly the same ratio to population if it is by year isn't it? :hmm:

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 11:29:43 AMI don't think that is a fair comparison though - there were a lot of other things about that society that were very different, especially how it relates to women and their power and control over themselves.

From the Der Spiegel article:

QuoteWhen the Pussy Club opened near Stuttgart in 2009, the management advertised the club as follows: "Sex with all women as long as you want, as often as you want and the way you want. Sex. Anal sex. Oral sex without a condom. Three-ways. Group sex. Gang bangs." The price: €70 during the day and €100 in the evening.

According to the police, about 1,700 customers took advantage of the offer on the opening weekend. Buses arrived from far away and local newspapers reported that up to 700 men stood in line outside the brothel. Afterwards, customers wrote in Internet chat rooms about the supposedly unsatisfactory service, complaining that the women were no longer as fit for use after a few hours.

Around 20% of German men have used a prostitute - to me that sounds like it's moving towards a norm.

QuoteIn fact, I would argue that the society you are talking about had vastly more fundamental issues in how it treated women, and their right to make their own choices, and even their view of a woman's own ability to make her own rational choices, as being the true issue to be had with that look into gender roles. And your attitude towards women seems to be much more in line with that fundamental view, that women are not capable of making their own informed choices about their sexuality and what it means to them.

I understand that but I think it's superficial. To me this seems like another sexual liberation of women that's primarily benefiting men.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 11:39:30 AM
I understand that but I think it's superficial. To me this seems like another sexual liberation of women that's primarily benefiting men.

I don't really see the vast benefits of having my daughter nabbed by some sex trader.  But I guess only johns count as men?

Quote from: Zanza on November 15, 2013, 11:38:06 AM
I don't think that's an accurate description of Germany. Maybe I am just prudish and have a prudish social circle, but I would say that it has a very high social stigma. There is no acceptance for it on an individual level, only on a more anonymous societal level.

No social stigma's a bit strong. But as I say from what I've read about 20% of men have used prostitutes and there's a high number that do so routinely. I think if it's present and available then that'll increase over time and the stigma will decline.

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 11:29:43 AM
And your attitude towards women seems to be much more in line with that fundamental view, that women are not capable of making their own informed choices about their sexuality and what it means to them.

:yes:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 11:36:34 AM
I am skeptical about those trafficking and involuntary estimates.

I think you're naive/optimistic :P

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 11:45:52 AM

Quote from: Zanza on November 15, 2013, 11:38:06 AM
I don't think that's an accurate description of Germany. Maybe I am just prudish and have a prudish social circle, but I would say that it has a very high social stigma. There is no acceptance for it on an individual level, only on a more anonymous societal level.

No social stigma's a bit strong. But as I say from what I've read about 20% of men have used prostitutes and there's a high number that do so routinely. I think if it's present and available then that'll increase over time and the stigma will decline.

My super quick search revealed 15-20% for Americans.

I think that victimless crimes should be kept to a minimum in modern society. They are horrible.

FYI, when prostitution was legal in Sweden it was socially unacceptable in polite society to use their services.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 11:47:39 AM
I think you're naive/optimistic :P

I think you're a Catholic prude who's susceptible to feminazi propaganda.  So we're even.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 11:20:45 AM
Feminists criminalised it - on the men. I am entirely supportive of, in Julian Assange's words, the Saudi Arabia of feminism :lol:

Being a feminist doesn't stop someone from being a paternalist. Just from calling herself one.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 11:28:33 AM

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 11:22:37 AM
The article does not support this rather extreme position.  In fact it says trafficking may have decreased.  Where are you getting this from?

There's two academic studies, one by a German university and one by LSE which both indicate that trafficking increases when prostitution is legalised.

Could you define trafficking fr me? I think maybe I don't understand what you mean..."

Quote
Given that 75% of prostitutes in Germany are from abroad and most, not just Eastern Europe, but Romania and Bulgaria (who aren't part of the free movement of labour in the EU) yet would further suggest there's more trafficking than is being caught.

I don't follow.

If we find that in any particular job, if more people doing the job are from somewhere else, does that mean we should make the job illegal because there must be trafficking?

Quote
Similarly the EU estimates that 23 000 people have been trafficked within the EU, around two-thirds for sexual purposes (lower than the global average estimated by the UN).

You seem to have a serious problem with trafficking. Why not address that?

I just googled a bit in German sources. The only thing that is common among all of them is that there seem to be very few statistics about every aspect of prostitution, be it the number of prostitutes, the number of clients, the revenue of the industry, human trafficking etc. The conservative and reputable FAZ had a recent article on it which stated as much and pointed out that the whole debate is very ideological and few hard facts are actually known.

Quote from: Zanza on November 15, 2013, 11:57:28 AM
I just googled a bit in German sources. The only thing that is common among all of them is that there seem to be very few statistics about every aspect of prostitution, be it the number of prostitutes, the number of clients, the revenue of the industry, human trafficking etc. The conservative and reputable FAZ had a recent article on it which stated as much and pointed out that the whole debate is very ideological and few hard facts are actually known.

That is certainly what this discussion feels like - people are just kind of assuming the results they want to be the case to support their pre-conceived notions.

Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 11:48:54 AM
My super quick search revealed 15-20% for Americans.

That seems awfully high.  As many as one in five guys has banged a hooker?

Yeah that is pretty crazy.  You cannot even slip across the border to Mexico for it anymore (well...safely anyway).

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 12:03:24 PM
Yeah that is pretty crazy.  You cannot even slip across the border to Mexico for it anymore (well...safely anyway).

But it is pretty easy to engage the services of an escort.

Quote from: derspiess on November 15, 2013, 12:00:09 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 11:48:54 AM
My super quick search revealed 15-20% for Americans.

That seems awfully high.  As many as one in five guys has banged a hooker?

Sounds low if you look at Hollywood war movies.  :P

On a personal note I'm concerned that there is a very real risk of BDSM becoming illegal in Sweden 15-20 years from now. If we accept victimless crimes regarding prostitution then why not regarding BDSM? Or whatever other victimless activity the feminazis let their retarded gaze rest on? Freedom of sex is a bit like freedom of speech, we really should try to keep it intact and not eaten away by "good" (as if!) intentions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcTP7YWPayU

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 11:55:50 AMCould you define trafficking fr me? I think maybe I don't understand what you mean..."

Trade in human beings. The normal is a family entering into debt to the traffickers, or buying their service to get someone from, say, Bulgaria or Nigeria to the UK with the guarantee of the job. Sometimes the women are brought to the other country by a native who pretended to be her boyfriend and fall in love. Sometimes they'll be aware they're going for the purposes of sex work.

When the person arrives there normally their ability to contact their family is largely cut-off. Normally they're then made to work - in the EU around two thirds are sexual, 25% or so is forced labour and the rest tends to be a bit more obscure (and darker) like the trade in children or organs.

In sex work they're often raped first and then made to work in a brothel, or for a pimp. Often to pay off the debt that they've incurred getting there. The women tend not to get much of the money they make. Also because they're illegal immigrants there tends to be a lot of difficulty in them ever reporting someone and even if they could go home many wouldn't want to after working as a prostitute. From the Der Spiegel article for example one of the women, originally from Moldavia, said she regularly worked 18 hours a day.

I think it's the same definition everywhere, no?

QuoteIf we find that in any particular job, if more people doing the job are from somewhere else, does that mean we should make the job illegal because there must be trafficking?

I don't want to make the job illegal. I want to criminalise demand for it and offer ways out for the women involved.

QuoteYou seem to have a serious problem with trafficking. Why not address that?

Absolutely. Two thirds of the demand is trafficking for sexual purposes. We should do something about that :P

QuoteI think you're a Catholic prude who's susceptible to feminazi propaganda.  So we're even.

:lol: But I would point out that at least if you're going to legalise prostitution so they can pay taxes and get benefits then I think you need an extremely intrusive state presence to regulate the industry. Which may not have happened in Germany because that's traditionally the role of unions, perhaps?

Edit: And I would say I've always had a social conservative streak, I'm not terribly liberal on most social issues. I've never thought that decriminalising drugs would be good. I'm relatively pro-life. I think marriage should be encouraged. I don't instinctively think a more liberal social attitude's a good thing.

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 11:58:52 AMThat is certainly what this discussion feels like - people are just kind of assuming the results they want to be the case to support their pre-conceived notions.

But I've laid out several statistics on women likely to be prostitutes in the UK, the prevalence of human trafficking especially where legalised, the failure of legalisation on other points and the successful angles from the Swedish view. I err to the Swedish side because I don't agree with prostitution, but looking into it more I can't see a fact-based argument against it.

Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 12:09:24 PM
On a personal note I'm concerned that there is a very real risk of BDSM becoming illegal in Sweden 15-20 years from now. If we accept victimless crimes regarding prostitution then why not regarding BDSM? Or whatever other victimless activity the feminazis let their retarded gaze rest on? Freedom of sex is a bit like freedom of speech, we really should try to keep it intact and not eaten away by "good" (as if!) intentions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcTP7YWPayU

I'm not entirely opposed to the British government's desire to ban extreme porn :blush: :ph34r:

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 12:11:52 PM
Trade in human beings. The normal is a family entering into debt to the traffickers, or buying their service to get someone from, say, Bulgaria or Nigeria to the UK with the guarantee of the job.

I think this demonstrates very well that much of the hullaballoo about trafficking is bunk.  It's comparable to defining rape as including unwanted sexual advances.

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?

In order to take this seriously you need to separate out the real instances of coercion.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 12:19:32 PMWhy 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?

Seriously? :blink:

Very often the women don't know (though some do) they're told they're going to be nannies or similar. They don't get barely any of the money from their fucking that goes to the traffickers and they've got no choice in the issue.

Seriously.  The fact that trafficking "very often" involves X doesn't make trafficking immoral, unethical, or wrong.  It makes X wrong.

Surely the fact it's illegal makes it wrong.

You can't possibly be serious. 

:lol:

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 12:29:37 PM
You can't possibly be serious.

Yeah. I'll be more specific people in Romania and Bulgaria currently have no right to live or work in Germany.

Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 12:03:57 PM

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 12:03:24 PM
Yeah that is pretty crazy.  You cannot even slip across the border to Mexico for it anymore (well...safely anyway).

But it is pretty easy to engage the services of an escort.

Is it?  I have to admit I have never looked into it.  Also to me escort = really expensive for rich old guys.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 12:11:52 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 11:55:50 AMCould you define trafficking fr me? I think maybe I don't understand what you mean..."

Trade in human beings. The normal is a family entering into debt to the traffickers, or buying their service to get someone from, say, Bulgaria or Nigeria to the UK with the guarantee of the job. Sometimes the women are brought to the other country by a native who pretended to be her boyfriend and fall in love. Sometimes they'll be aware they're going for the purposes of sex work.

When the person arrives there normally their ability to contact their family is largely cut-off. Normally they're then made to work - in the EU around two thirds are sexual, 25% or so is forced labour and the rest tends to be a bit more obscure (and darker) like the trade in children or organs.

In sex work they're often raped first and then made to work in a brothel, or for a pimp. Often to pay off the debt that they've incurred getting there. The women tend not to get much of the money they make. Also because they're illegal immigrants there tends to be a lot of difficulty in them ever reporting someone and even if they could go home many wouldn't want to after working as a prostitute. From the Der Spiegel article for example one of the women, originally from Moldavia, said she regularly worked 18 hours a day.

I think it's the same definition everywhere, no?

Oh no, I don't think that is the case nor do I even think the definition is at all the same when you are talking about it.

I think this is standard "carefulyl sloppy definitions" so you can define traficking as something brutally bad (as you have here), then reference it in much more general terms in order to drive up the numbers, then conclude that there is a massive problem.

It is like the entire debate over "rape" where you start by refrencing a study that says "50% of women have reported being the victims of unwanted sexual contact" then note that sexual assault is often rape, then suddenly we are talking about 50% of women having been "raped", in the context of someone actually attacking them and forcing them to have unwanted sex, as opposed to their boyfriend being a bit pushy the other night.

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.

Quote

QuoteIf we find that in any particular job, if more people doing the job are from somewhere else, does that mean we should make the job illegal because there must be trafficking?

I don't want to make the job illegal. I want to criminalise demand for it and offer ways out for the women involved.

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?

Quote

QuoteYou seem to have a serious problem with trafficking. Why not address that?

Absolutely. Two thirds of the demand is trafficking for sexual purposes. We should do something about that :P

Then do something about it. Allocate more resources to catching and stopping it. Trying to stifle the demand is stupid, and won't work. It hasn't ever worked - there is a reason it is called "the oldest profession" or whatever.

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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 12:32:08 PM
Yeah. I'll be more specific people in Romania and Bulgaria currently have no right to live or work in Germany.

I think that only applies to employees, not self-employed persons. It's just an assumption, but I would expect virtually all prostitutes to be working based on what they themselves can generate as revenue and not based on a wage from an employer.

And even if it were, that will end on 31-Dec of this year, so it's not relevant for the discussion of future policy.

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 12:32:50 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 15, 2013, 12:03:57 PM

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 12:03:24 PM
Yeah that is pretty crazy.  You cannot even slip across the border to Mexico for it anymore (well...safely anyway).

But it is pretty easy to engage the services of an escort.

Is it?  I have to admit I have never looked into it.  Also to me escort = really expensive for rich old guys.

They advertise all over the place. But yes, I suppose you do need a few hundred to do so.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 12:32:08 PM
Yeah. I'll be more specific people in Romania and Bulgaria currently have no right to live or work in Germany.

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

From what I recall from a female cop show they did in Cincy, it's not prohibitively expensive to get a young, at least average looking call girl.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 12:50:32 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 15, 2013, 12:32:08 PM
Yeah. I'll be more specific people in Romania and Bulgaria currently have no right to live or work in Germany.

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

Ouch.  In today's feminist neo-paternalistic age women can only be victims.

Yahoo answers gave me this. :D

QuoteSo, if you are looking for more of a hookerish type escort you will be paying around $200 or less per hour. Medium type escort around $250-500/hr. usually with a 2 hour min. & then more high end runs you around $750-$5,000/hour & some may require a full day booking & plenty of notice.

2h minimum? :(

Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 01:22:50 PM
2h minimum? :(

Makes sense.  They have to amortize transportation.  Chinese delivery places have minimum orders, why not hookers?

The selection of whores on the dayton Backpage escort section is NASTY.

I wonder if Columbus is better?

I would guess that this disagreement with Shelf is about 90% BS smoke and mirrors,and mostly just something much more fundamental.

He thinks the state should enforce his particular mores, and I don't think the state should be in the business of enforcing anyone's mores.

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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 01:25:14 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 01:22:50 PM
2h minimum? :(

Makes sense.  They have to amortize transportation.  Chinese delivery places have minimum orders, why not hookers?

Do poor people get sex stamps?

Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 01:53:36 PM
Do poor people get sex stamps?

Not yet.  Maybe in the next 50 years.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 01:56:14 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 01:53:36 PM
Do poor people get sex stamps?

Not yet.  Maybe in the next 50 years.

I can't wait.

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 01:48:53 PM
He thinks the state should enforce his particular mores, and I don't think the state should be in the business of enforcing anyone's mores.

That is an odd use of the word "mores" as it is usually used in the context of community standards rather than individual standards.

So let me as you this to help clarify you position.  Do you think the state should make laws regarding any mores?

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2013, 02:06:59 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 01:48:53 PM
He thinks the state should enforce his particular mores, and I don't think the state should be in the business of enforcing anyone's mores.

That is an odd use of the word "mores" as it is usually used in the context of community standards rather than individual standards.

So let me as you this to help clarify you position.  Do you think the state should make laws regarding any mores?

I think the default position should be that the state needs to prove a compelling need to pass any law that restricts individuals rights to liberty.

In this case, I start from a different point than Shelf. I get where he is coming from, and from a moral perspective, I largely (although not entirely) agree with his views and concerns.

But I start from a basic standpoint that looks like this.

Person A and Person B are in a room.

Person A has a bunch of money.

Person B would like some of that money.

Person B *wants* to exchange some personal service with Person A, and Person A would rather have that service than the money.

So here we have a situation where two people, both completely free to make their own decisions and choices, wish to engage in a completely private transaction.

My position is that nobody else has any right to tell them they cannot, without showing a very compelling reason why they ought not to be allowed.

Shelf looks at this from the other end - he says that Person B would never agree to such an exchange unless there were factors involved that as a society we ought not to tolerate. Poverty, drug use, abuse, trafficking, etc., etc.

I say you should address those factors if it is those factors that you are concerned about, rather than outlawing the transaction. Because outlawing the transaction outlaws it even for those cases where those factors don't actually exist.

Shelf has made what I think are a few good points.

1. Paying a woman who is drawn to prostitution because of psychological or emotional problems for sex can be seen as "exploitation."

2.  Coercion does exist in prostitution.  Paying a pimp to have sex with a woman who is beaten daily and chained to a bed is wrong.

3.  Legalizing prostition could have the effect of increasing coerced prostitution.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 02:27:18 PM
Shelf has made what I think are a few good points.

1. Paying a woman who is drawn to prostitution because of psychological or emotional problems for sex can be seen as "exploitation."

2.  Coercion does exist in prostitution.  Paying a pimp to have sex with a woman who is beaten daily and chained to a bed is wrong.

3.  Legalizing prostition could have the effect of increasing coerced prostitution.

I think 1 and 2 are both good (but obvious) points.

I think #3 is very unlikely.

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 02:15:35 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2013, 02:06:59 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 01:48:53 PM
He thinks the state should enforce his particular mores, and I don't think the state should be in the business of enforcing anyone's mores.

That is an odd use of the word "mores" as it is usually used in the context of community standards rather than individual standards.

So let me as you this to help clarify you position.  Do you think the state should make laws regarding any mores?

I think the default position should be that the state needs to prove a compelling need to pass any law that restricts individuals rights to liberty.

Ok I understand your position now.  Incidentally, you have summarized rather well the test that is required for the state to infringe individual constitutional rights under the Canadian Charter.

Quote from: Valmy on November 15, 2013, 09:37:55 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 09:35:36 AM
What are the coercive elements beyond pimps Shelf?

Maybe that if you do not sleep with that creepy john, and put up with his shit, you might not be able to make rent or eat?  Just a guess there.

That would seem a strange coercion in Germany with its robust welfare state though.

Do you accept that capitalism is coercion and employment within its context is by definition exploitation?  EXCELLENT.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2013, 02:35:40 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 02:15:35 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2013, 02:06:59 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 01:48:53 PM
He thinks the state should enforce his particular mores, and I don't think the state should be in the business of enforcing anyone's mores.

That is an odd use of the word "mores" as it is usually used in the context of community standards rather than individual standards.

So let me as you this to help clarify you position.  Do you think the state should make laws regarding any mores?

I think the default position should be that the state needs to prove a compelling need to pass any law that restricts individuals rights to liberty.

Ok I understand your position now.  Incidentally, you have summarized rather well the test that is required for the state to infringe individual constitutional rights under the Canadian Charter.

You two are talking about different things.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc74/2003scc74.html

The Charter doesn't protect "liberty" (which is what Berkut was talking about).  Rather, it guarantees specific enumerated rights (which is what CC mentioned).  That includes the right to free speech, the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to vote, and so on and so forth.  If the government wants to infringe those specific enumerated rights the government must show a fairly compelling need (I don't wish to go into the whole Oakes test right now).

But there are all manner of "rights" that are not listed in the Charter.  The right to put whatever substance you want in your body, or the right to sell your body for sex.  There, the government does not need to show a "compelling need".  As long as the government can show that there is a need that is more than "insignificant or trivial", then government is fully allowed to enact laws within its constitutional jurisdiction.

No real difference from the US - but I am not talking about what the government has the power to do, but rather what the government ought to do, insofar as we as voters have the choice to promote or oppose particular legislation.

I would not claim that a law banning prostitution was un-Constitutional, as it clearly is not. I do think it is against the basic principles that ought to inform our tolerance for government interference in our lives. But I recognize that I am one of those strange people who think that the concept of personal liberty means more than passing lip service while we go about promoting government that enforces our own particular brand of conformity and "morality" on others.

This is old ground - we've long since established that for the vast majority, the concept of personal liberty carries almost no actual practical weight.

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 04:59:21 PM
No real difference from the US - but I am not talking about what the government has the power to do, but rather what the government ought to do, insofar as we as voters have the choice to promote or oppose particular legislation.

I would not claim that a law banning prostitution was un-Constitutional, as it clearly is not. I do think it is against the basic principles that ought to inform our tolerance for government interference in our lives. But I recognize that I am one of those strange people who think that the concept of personal liberty means more than passing lip service while we go about promoting government that enforces our own particular brand of conformity and "morality" on others.

This is old ground - we've long since established that for the vast majority, the concept of personal liberty carries almost no actual practical weight.

:rolleyes:

Which is my long-established response to your climbing up on that particular cross.

Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2013, 05:01:05 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 04:59:21 PM
No real difference from the US - but I am not talking about what the government has the power to do, but rather what the government ought to do, insofar as we as voters have the choice to promote or oppose particular legislation.

I would not claim that a law banning prostitution was un-Constitutional, as it clearly is not. I do think it is against the basic principles that ought to inform our tolerance for government interference in our lives. But I recognize that I am one of those strange people who think that the concept of personal liberty means more than passing lip service while we go about promoting government that enforces our own particular brand of conformity and "morality" on others.

This is old ground - we've long since established that for the vast majority, the concept of personal liberty carries almost no actual practical weight.

:rolleyes:

What I like about Self is that he is at least honest to simply state that he doesn't care all that much about liberty when he makes it clear he doesn't care that much about liberty. :P

You still in favor of the state forcing people to be married to people they don't want to be married to, counselor?

Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2013, 05:01:05 PM
Which is my long-established response to your climbing up on that particular cross.

How is that climbing on a cross? That doesn't even make sense.

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 05:03:29 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2013, 05:01:05 PM
Which is my long-established response to your climbing up on that particular cross.

How is that climbing on a cross? That doesn't even make sense.

Climbing up on a cross = making a martyr of yourself.  The poor, tragic figure who is the only one who truly cares about liberty...

I think you're overstating your case Beeb.

There are plenty of people in the world who don't view individual freedom as the default position.

Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2013, 05:05:47 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 05:03:29 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2013, 05:01:05 PM
Which is my long-established response to your climbing up on that particular cross.

How is that climbing on a cross? That doesn't even make sense.

Climbing up on a cross = making a martyr of yourself.  The poor, tragic figure who is the only one who truly cares about liberty...

Still doesn't make any sense. I do not suffer anything because I have a particular viewpoint not shared by people like you, so how would I be a martyr? It's not like I am out protesting or something over your not caring about liberty.


And I certainly did not say I was the only one who cares about liberty - I said plenty of people who SAY they care about liberty do not. *Everyone* claims to care about liberty - but most people actually don't when it comes to making actual choices about the law. You are a case study. Most self styled "conservatives" are, in fact.


But my point is that almost everyone says they care, but few actually do. The contrast is between the number who claim to care and the number who actually do, as evidenced by their stance on actual issues. Not that I am some kind of special unique flower.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 02:27:18 PM
Paying a pimp to have sex with a woman who is beaten daily and chained to a bed is wrong.

What, is that an extra charge?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 05:07:53 PM
I think you're overstating your case Beeb.

There are plenty of people in the world who don't view individual freedom as the default position.

True, but Berkut has frequently taken the position that most people don't actually understand freedom and liberty and he was one of the enlightened few that does.  It has yet to dawn on him that one person's understanding of liberty and freedom may differ from another.

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 11:24:53 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 15, 2013, 11:17:25 AM

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 11:12:33 AM

Quote from: derspiess on November 15, 2013, 10:47:27 AM
Like I said, I'm with you on moral grounds.  But I just can't see your legal case.

Agreed - I just can't understand the argument being made that given option A (bad) and option B (also bad, and for some definitionally worse than A) somehow removing option A improves the lot of the "victim".

All of Shelf's objections pretty much amount to "The job sucks, and the only people who do it do so because their life sucks". That is

A) Probably not true when you remove the criminal aspect out of the job, and
B) Kind of tautological. Of course if you define a job as being undesirable, the onlyl people who end up doing it tend to be people whose circumstances are such that they can generally only manage undesirable jobs.

Legalizing doesn't seem to remove the criminal aspect from the job though. Trafficking has increased in Germany since legalization and none of the proposed social benefits have come to fruition. It would seem that the policy has completely failed to achieve its aims. Why do you think it will succeed in the future?

I don't think either of those conclusions are at all supported by the facts on the ground.

If trafficking has increased, then allocate resources to stop trafficking, which is illegal.

What are these proposed social benefits that have not come to fruition? They seem rather vague and poorly defined.

I think people who don't like prostitution have defined the "aims" such that they can conclude that they have not been reached.

It's not poorly defined at all. Out of 400,000 only 44 have signed up for social services. That was one of the main goals of the law.

That's better than Obamacare.

You can't say that!! But it got said!

Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2013, 05:27:25 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 05:07:53 PM
I think you're overstating your case Beeb.

There are plenty of people in the world who don't view individual freedom as the default position.

True, but Berkut has frequently taken the position that most people don't actually understand freedom and liberty and he was one of the enlightened few that does.  It has yet to dawn on him that one person's understanding of liberty and freedom may differ from another.

It's not about understanding it, it's about thinking it's important or not. BB (for example) understands liberty, it's just not terribly important to him.

Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 05:53:56 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2013, 05:27:25 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 05:07:53 PM
I think you're overstating your case Beeb.

There are plenty of people in the world who don't view individual freedom as the default position.

True, but Berkut has frequently taken the position that most people don't actually understand freedom and liberty and he was one of the enlightened few that does.  It has yet to dawn on him that one person's understanding of liberty and freedom may differ from another.

It's not about understanding it, it's about thinking it's important or not. BB (for example) understands liberty, it's just not terribly important to him.

People understand it differently.  The liberty of an anarchist and the liberty of a capitalist are different, but both may hold that liberty dear.  150 years ago some boys in grey fought to preserve liberties and freedoms that are no longer highly regarded in this day.

Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2013, 04:40:08 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2013, 02:35:40 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 02:15:35 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2013, 02:06:59 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 01:48:53 PM
He thinks the state should enforce his particular mores, and I don't think the state should be in the business of enforcing anyone's mores.

That is an odd use of the word "mores" as it is usually used in the context of community standards rather than individual standards.

So let me as you this to help clarify you position.  Do you think the state should make laws regarding any mores?

I think the default position should be that the state needs to prove a compelling need to pass any law that restricts individuals rights to liberty.

Ok I understand your position now.  Incidentally, you have summarized rather well the test that is required for the state to infringe individual constitutional rights under the Canadian Charter.

You two are talking about different things.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc74/2003scc74.html

The Charter doesn't protect "liberty" (which is what Berkut was talking about). 

You are being a bit pedantic here BB.  Liberty is a useful American term thst substitutes for the individual freedoms in the Charter.  ie unless you want to get into a picky consitutional debate he is essentially saying the same thing.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2013, 06:31:35 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 05:53:56 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2013, 05:27:25 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 05:07:53 PM
I think you're overstating your case Beeb.

There are plenty of people in the world who don't view individual freedom as the default position.

True, but Berkut has frequently taken the position that most people don't actually understand freedom and liberty and he was one of the enlightened few that does.  It has yet to dawn on him that one person's understanding of liberty and freedom may differ from another.

It's not about understanding it, it's about thinking it's important or not. BB (for example) understands liberty, it's just not terribly important to him.

People understand it differently.  The liberty of an anarchist and the liberty of a capitalist are different, but both may hold that liberty dear.  150 years ago some boys in grey fought to preserve liberties and freedoms that are no longer highly regarded in this day.

BB isn't an anarchist, a capitalist or, AFAIK, a slave owner or slave owner enabler.

Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 06:42:15 PM
BB isn't an anarchist, a capitalist or, AFAIK, a slave owner or slave owner enabler.

Source?  :yeahright:

While BB may not be a capitalist by occupation, I've seen no reason to believe he's not one by ideology.

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.

Keep following the chain though - what about visual depictions of nudity with the intent of arousing a customer?

Is Playboy fundamentally exploitative, regardless of the opinions of the models involved? The Sports Illustrated Swimsuit edition?

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

Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 07:53:34 PM
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.

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 15, 2013, 07:08:40 PM
While BB may not be a capitalist by occupation, I've seen no reason to believe he's not one by ideology.

:rolleyes: "Trust me. I'm a doctor by ideology."

Quote from: Legbiter on November 15, 2013, 08:01:57 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 07:53:34 PM
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.

Iceland: only good for location shooting, and even then only about half the time.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2013, 06:33:04 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2013, 04:40:08 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2013, 02:35:40 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 02:15:35 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2013, 02:06:59 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 01:48:53 PM
He thinks the state should enforce his particular mores, and I don't think the state should be in the business of enforcing anyone's mores.

That is an odd use of the word "mores" as it is usually used in the context of community standards rather than individual standards.

So let me as you this to help clarify you position.  Do you think the state should make laws regarding any mores?

I think the default position should be that the state needs to prove a compelling need to pass any law that restricts individuals rights to liberty.

Ok I understand your position now.  Incidentally, you have summarized rather well the test that is required for the state to infringe individual constitutional rights under the Canadian Charter.

You two are talking about different things.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc74/2003scc74.html

The Charter doesn't protect "liberty" (which is what Berkut was talking about). 

You are being a bit pedantic here BB.  Liberty is a useful American term thst substitutes for the individual freedoms in the Charter.  ie unless you want to get into a picky consitutional debate he is essentially saying the same thing.

It's not pedantic in the last - it's the central reasoning of Malmo-Levine, which I linked to.  Pot activists tried to argue that the government needed to show a 'compelling need' before criminalizing pot.  The SCC disagreed.

Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2013, 09:08:56 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2013, 06:33:04 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 15, 2013, 04:40:08 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2013, 02:35:40 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 02:15:35 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 15, 2013, 02:06:59 PM

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 01:48:53 PM
He thinks the state should enforce his particular mores, and I don't think the state should be in the business of enforcing anyone's mores.

That is an odd use of the word "mores" as it is usually used in the context of community standards rather than individual standards.

So let me as you this to help clarify you position.  Do you think the state should make laws regarding any mores?

I think the default position should be that the state needs to prove a compelling need to pass any law that restricts individuals rights to liberty.

Ok I understand your position now.  Incidentally, you have summarized rather well the test that is required for the state to infringe individual constitutional rights under the Canadian Charter.

You two are talking about different things.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/2003/2003scc74/2003scc74.html

The Charter doesn't protect "liberty" (which is what Berkut was talking about). 

You are being a bit pedantic here BB.  Liberty is a useful American term thst substitutes for the individual freedoms in the Charter.  ie unless you want to get into a picky consitutional debate he is essentially saying the same thing.

It's not pedantic in the last - it's the central reasoning of Malmo-Levine, which I linked to.  Pot activists tried to argue that the government needed to show a 'compelling need' before criminalizing pot.  The SCC disagreed.

It is completely pedantic, because you are making a point you know does not apply to the discussion. There is no question about what the state needs to do, as I already stated. The discussion is about what the state ought to do.

Just because the Constitution allows the state to do something doesn't make it a good idea.

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

Quote from: Capetan Mihali on November 15, 2013, 07:30:12 PM
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.

Quote from: Zanza on November 15, 2013, 06:40:38 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 14, 2013, 11:12:58 PM
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.

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 16, 2013, 08:44:34 AM

Quote from: Zanza on November 15, 2013, 06:40:38 AM

Quote from: jimmy olsen on November 14, 2013, 11:12:58 PM
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.

:mmm:

Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 07:53:34 PM
We must punish the sluts by taking away their livelihood. It's for their own good.

:hmm:

Quote from: Legbiter on November 15, 2013, 08:01:57 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 07:53:34 PM
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.

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 12:36:03 PMI 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.

QuoteSo 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.

QuoteI 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.

QuoteEverything 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.

QuoteIf 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?

QuoteMore 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.

Quote from: derspiess on November 16, 2013, 03:55:50 PM

Quote from: Legbiter on November 15, 2013, 08:01:57 PM

Quote from: The Brain on November 15, 2013, 07:53:34 PM
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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2013, 07:47:51 PM

QuoteIf 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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2013, 08:05:29 PM
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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2013, 08:10:17 PM
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.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2013, 08:12:36 PM
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:

QuoteTrafficking 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:

QuoteDefinition
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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2013, 08:15:50 PM
Here's the definition of trafficking:

QuoteTrafficking 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?

Okay.

QuoteWhy 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.

QuoteWhat 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:

QuoteIt 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%).

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2013, 08:48:53 PM
Okay.

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

QuoteCoercion 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.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2013, 06:31:35 PM
150 years ago some boys in grey fought to preserve liberties and freedoms that are no longer highly regarded in this day.

Right to your property is still highly regarded.

I don't regard it.  Especially Raz' property.

I'd be wary of exercising one's right to Raz's property.  That nigga's nuts, you don't know how that goof would respond.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 15, 2013, 09:12:31 AM
How did you come to this conclusion about the backgrounds of hookers?

I read an article about internet prostitution (and some serial killer of internet prostitutes) which suggested quite the opposite--women from very ordinary backgrounds who were attracted by the good money and independence.

Social service workers, commentary from ex-prostitutes, and personal observation of the kinds of girls walking the streets. 

Of course, there are any number of self-destructive behaviors we already criminalize that are "victimless."  There's the meth-head who "knows" better than the state that he needs another hit of meth, for example. 

But ultimately, I suppose you can create either narrative to some extent successfully, since there are examples of each:  prostitutes as victims or prostitutes as women empowering themselves with smart economic decisions.  Certainly both sides here have presented highly moralistic arguments for each.

In the end, my own problem with making prostitution illegal is just a pragmatic one, namely the fact it will never go away and the fear if it's illegal it will increase the power of criminal pimps and further degrade the life of the girls working in the industry.  I also wonder whether prostitution doesn't serve an important societal function for men in certain ways, especially within the confines of what has become a somewhat more matriarchal society.  Still, I do have the grave concerns about prostitution being exploitation of the vulnerable, and have not really been convinced in this thread to abandon them.

Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2013, 09:46:54 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2013, 06:31:35 PM
150 years ago some boys in grey fought to preserve liberties and freedoms that are no longer highly regarded in this day.

Right to your property is still highly regarded.

It really depends on what that property is.  The right to your meth lab is not highly regarded.  A great deal of property is heavily regulated.  There are lots of "infringements" on property rights in things like the fields of investing, finance, real estate etc.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 16, 2013, 07:47:51 PM
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.

OK, the first part of this is a strawman--I don't think anyone here has seriously argued that men should be free to purchase sex from a prostitute, that it is (or should be) some sort of right.

And the second part, I just can't see how it can possibly logically follow that making prostitution legal can make it harder for women to exit the field and increase coercion against them.  And as far as coercion is concerned, whether prostitution is legal or not, we have laws against slavery and forced labor.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2013, 10:59:12 PM

Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2013, 09:46:54 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2013, 06:31:35 PM
150 years ago some boys in grey fought to preserve liberties and freedoms that are no longer highly regarded in this day.

Right to your property is still highly regarded.

It really depends on what that property is.  The right to your meth lab is not highly regarded.

No, but your right to require the cops to have evidence before deciding your house is a meth lab is pretty highly regarded.

Quote from: dps on November 17, 2013, 12:44:40 PM
And the second part, I just can't see how it can possibly logically follow that making prostitution legal can make it harder for women to exit the field and increase coercion against them.  And as far as coercion is concerned, whether prostitution is legal or not, we have laws against slavery and forced labor.

Well I could see that it could make it harder in the sense that you would then need to divine the level of coercion involved in the decision to prostitute oneself. Did she willing become/stay a prostitute or is the pimp forcing her? Is she lying when she says she was not forced?

Seems a bit trickier than when it is illegal and you just go after anyone involved with the activity.

Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2013, 12:57:15 PM

Quote from: dps on November 17, 2013, 12:44:40 PM
And the second part, I just can't see how it can possibly logically follow that making prostitution legal can make it harder for women to exit the field and increase coercion against them.  And as far as coercion is concerned, whether prostitution is legal or not, we have laws against slavery and forced labor.

Well I could see that it could make it harder in the sense that you would then need to divine the level of coercion involved in the decision to prostitute oneself. Did she willing become/stay a prostitute or is the pimp forcing her? Is she lying when she says she was not forced?

Seems a bit trickier than when it is illegal and you just go after anyone involved with the activity.

Yeah, but if prostitution is illegal, that in itself is a huge disincentive for someone to come forward and say that they were forced into it, because they've just admitted to engaging in a criminal activity, and it's too easy for the authorities to take the attitude thay they're saying they were coerced to try to excuse their own culpability.  If it's legal, though, the prostitute isn't admitting to a crime just by saying that's what their doing for a living.

Quote from: fhdz on November 17, 2013, 12:48:28 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 16, 2013, 10:59:12 PM

Quote from: Valmy on November 16, 2013, 09:46:54 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 15, 2013, 06:31:35 PM
150 years ago some boys in grey fought to preserve liberties and freedoms that are no longer highly regarded in this day.

Right to your property is still highly regarded.

It really depends on what that property is.  The right to your meth lab is not highly regarded.

No, but your right to require the cops to have evidence before deciding your house is a meth lab is pretty highly regarded.

That's a different right.  The right against unreasonable search and seizure was not always as highly regarded as it is today in the US.  Thank God for the Warren Court.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 16, 2013, 09:01:22 PM
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 think the commas are separating different means of getting control of a person. But that's the Palermo Declaration, it's UN definition.

In English law, from what I understand, the focus is on their situation at the end. So if their 'employment' was exploitative and someone knowingly moved them or facilitated the move into that employment then they're guilty of trafficking. What defines trafficking from smuggling, or kidnapping for that matter is generally the end result is exploitation of some sort, including sexual.

QuoteI 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.

I'd argue the bigger problem is that there's just not enough data on or attention paid to it. It's a crime that's only really been thought about for a few years. I think possibly because the West's experience is quite new. It was something that we only really thought of in relation to Gulf States and migrant workers. In the UK I think it only really came to public attention with the death of the Chinese cocklepickers. So until the last couple of years the UK used to prosecute people who'd been trafficked for illegal immigration and the traffickers.

But even now if the women claim to have been trafficked then that's not an insurmountable problem. That's why we have a legal system.

Most of the statistics I've used are from governments. The Eurostat figure, for example, was collected by the various local governments - most used the police as their sole source, others also included information from border control and immigration authorities, social workers and some charities. I suspect that the prostitution figures are probably the most accurate because they may be in touch with the outside more - charities or social workers working with prostitutes - while forced labourers wouldn't need that. If anything I think we're probably massively under-reporting the trade in men and boys, similarly there's generally very little academic research done in that area.

QuoteOK, the first part of this is a strawman--I don't think anyone here has seriously argued that men should be free to purchase sex from a prostitute, that it is (or should be) some sort of right.

Let me rephrase it then: the right to buy and sell sex. The argument that two adults should be free to make whatever choice they want in practice is an argument that men should be free to buy sex. And as I say I'm highly dubious on the actual freedom of the women involved.

QuoteAnd the second part, I just can't see how it can possibly logically follow that making prostitution legal can make it harder for women to exit the field and increase coercion against them. 

First of all states try less because they think they've solved the problem of prostitution. That was the conclusion of the New Zealand government (where prostitution is legal) faced with the unexpected consequences.

Secondly I think the Swedish model is right on this, I think it's analogous to offering treatment to addicts but prosecuting dealers and suppliers. They prosecute pimps and give the clients the option of a fine or a court appearance. The women are offered social services some of which is specially tailored towards prostitutes who want to exit, including counselling, job training and education programs.

In addition because of that focus there's the example of 40 prostitutes (many from Romania) testifying against their pimps, their clients and their traffickers. I think that's hugely positive.

As I say the qualms about legalisation aren't just coming from a moral perspective but the actual experience. The Dutch, the Finns and I believe the Kiwis and the Danes are all reconsidering their prostitution laws precisely because the arguments for legalisation didn't really pan out. I believe Norway's already followed the Swedes. When they did their ombudsman report on its effectiveness they found that street prostitution had fallen by 50% (many of those women using the exit programs), there was a rise in internet prostitution, but no observable rise in indoor prostitution - massage parlours and so on. According to surveys the number of men who've used a prostitute has, roughly, halved and prostitution in Sweden has declined unlike other neighbouring countries and other countries that legalised it where prostitution is a growing business.

I think the moral argument is against legalisation, but I also think the effectiveness argument is too. Perhaps it's simply that what is often a trade in desperate people isn't necessarily going to be like any other market on liberalisation.

QuoteWell I could see that it could make it harder in the sense that you would then need to divine the level of coercion involved in the decision to prostitute oneself. Did she willing become/stay a prostitute or is the pimp forcing her? Is she lying when she says she was not forced?

Seems a bit trickier than when it is illegal and you just go after anyone involved with the activity.

But no-one wants that. That's what we had in the bad old days and it didn't work.

QuoteYeah, but if prostitution is illegal, that in itself is a huge disincentive for someone to come forward and say that they were forced into it, because they've just admitted to engaging in a criminal activity, and it's too easy for the authorities to take the attitude thay they're saying they were coerced to try to excuse their own culpability.

I think the buying of sex and the exploitation of third parties should be a crime, not the selling of sex.

I really don't think coercion is the key here.

Quote from: dps on November 17, 2013, 01:02:45 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 17, 2013, 12:57:15 PM

Quote from: dps on November 17, 2013, 12:44:40 PM
And the second part, I just can't see how it can possibly logically follow that making prostitution legal can make it harder for women to exit the field and increase coercion against them.  And as far as coercion is concerned, whether prostitution is legal or not, we have laws against slavery and forced labor.

Well I could see that it could make it harder in the sense that you would then need to divine the level of coercion involved in the decision to prostitute oneself. Did she willing become/stay a prostitute or is the pimp forcing her? Is she lying when she says she was not forced?

Seems a bit trickier than when it is illegal and you just go after anyone involved with the activity.

Yeah, but if prostitution is illegal, that in itself is a huge disincentive for someone to come forward and say that they were forced into it, because they've just admitted to engaging in a criminal activity, and it's too easy for the authorities to take the attitude thay they're saying they were coerced to try to excuse their own culpability.  If it's legal, though, the prostitute isn't admitting to a crime just by saying that's what their doing for a living.

Fair enough.

Quote from: Berkut on November 15, 2013, 09:18:10 PM
It is completely pedantic, because you are making a point you know does not apply to the discussion. There is no question about what the state needs to do, as I already stated. The discussion is about what the state ought to do.

Just because the Constitution allows the state to do something doesn't make it a good idea.

Once Berkut has intuitively gotten the legal test correct.  BB, the thing you missed is that Berkut is using an example where the state breaches a right through legislation.  In Canada that takes us to a s.1 analysis where the Court in Malmo Levine expressly said that questions of harm and balancing are directly addressed.  However in the Malmo Levine case the court didnt get to the s.1 analysis because they found no breach of s.7 rights.

Executive Summary - you avoided Berkut's argument by assuming away the breach of a right.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 18, 2013, 12:15:58 PM
Once Berkut has intuitively gotten the legal test correct.  BB, the thing you missed is that Berkut is using an example where the state breaches a right through legislation.  In Canada that takes us to a s.1 analysis where the Court in Malmo Levine expressly said that questions of harm and balancing are directly addressed.  However in the Malmo Levine case the court didnt get to the s.1 analysis because they found no breach of s.7 rights.

Executive Summary - you avoided Berkut's argument by assuming away the breach of a right.

And, just to make the distinction clear: in the US, rights are presumed to exist except where the various constitutions say otherwise.  As I understand from Beeb, in Canada rights are all enumerated; in the US, they explicitly are not.  The USSC has recognized the right to privacy, for instance, even though it is not enumerated in the US Constitution.

I dont think BB meant to go that far.  It is true that our Charter has a number of enumerated rights but we also come from a long legal history of having unwritten rights.  As a result the rights enumerated in the Charter are not an exhaustive list of all rights protected by law (only those protected under the Charter) and the rights that are enumerated in the Charter are given a wide and liberal interpretation.

Property Rights are a good example.  Although we do not have an express enumerated property right in our Charter, property rights still exist and are given considerable weight whenever the Court interprets legislation which attempts to diminish those rights (although not within the context of a Charter analysis).  However, we do not go as far as American jurisdprudence for the reasons you have stated.

As I said to BB, for the purposes of the argument Berkut was making these distinctions dont really matter that much. 

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 20, 2013, 04:06:10 PM
I dont think BB meant to go that far.  It is true that our Charter has a number of enumerated rights but we also come from a long legal history of having unwritten rights.  As a result the rights enumerated in the Charter are not an exhaustive list of all rights protected by law (only those protected under the Charter) and the rights that are enumerated in the Charter are given a wide and liberal interpretation.

Property Rights are a good example.  Although we do not have an express enumerated property right in our Charter, property rights still exist and are given considerable weight whenever the Court interprets legislation which attempts to diminish those rights (although not within the context of a Charter analysis).  However, we do not go as far as American jurisdprudence for the reasons you have stated.

As I said to BB, for the purposes of the argument Berkut was making these distinctions dont really matter that much.

Okay.  Thanks for clearing that up for me.  I agree with you about it not being relevant to Berkut's argument.

Looks like France is rejecting the German experience and opting to go with the Swedish method.

http://www.salon.com/2013/11/26/prostitution_france_wants_to_punish_clients/

QuotePARIS (AP) — France's government is pushing one of Europe's toughest laws against prostitution and sex trafficking, and other countries are watching closely. Advocates hope that a draft French law going to parliament Wednesday will help change long-held attitudes toward the world's oldest profession — by punishing the customer and protecting the prostitute.

The bill, however, is facing resistance in a country with a libertine reputation and a Mediterranean macho streak, and has prompted petitions defending those who buy sex. Signatories include screen icon Catherine Deneuve —who played a prostitute in the cult film "Belle de Jour" — and crooner Charles Aznavour.

Prostitution is currently legal in France, but brothels, pimping and soliciting in public are illegal.

The bill has prompted debate about sex and sexism in France, where former International Monetary Fund chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn is facing charges of aggravated pimping. He denies wrongdoing, though his lawyer has defended Strauss-Kahn's free-wheeling sex life.

It has also called attention to the evolution of the sex business, as the number of foreign prostitutes, especially from Asia and eastern Europe, has soared in recent years.

The proposed law would introduce a 1,500-euro ($2,000) fine —rising to 3,000-euro at the second offense— for the clients of prostitutes. They could also be forced to attend classes aimed at highlighting the harms of prostitution.

The bill aims to decriminalize the estimated 40,000 prostitutes in France, by scrapping a 2003 law that bans soliciting on the streets, and making it easier for foreign prostitutes to remain legally in France if they enter a process to get out of prostitution. One of the bill's authors, Maud Olivier, says it's about "getting rid the consequence of unequal and archaic relationships between men and women."

Other countries such as Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands, where brothels are legal, are especially interested in the French experience.

"If France moves, that could be the turning point for other European countries," said Gregoire Thery, secretary-general of the Mouvement du Nid, an organization which says it helps 5,000 prostitutes in France each year.

The proposed law —written by a group of lawmakers from both right and left and backed by the Socialist government— follows the example of Sweden, which passed similar legislation in 1999.
advertisement

A report commissioned by the Swedish government showed that the number of people involved in street prostitution in Sweden's three largest cities dropped from around 730 in 1999 to 300-430 a year in the 10 years after that. At the same time, street prostitution in neighboring Norway and Denmark increased.

The Netherlands went the other way, legalizing prostitution in 2000. But the policy has come in for criticism for playing into the hands of criminals and human traffickers who exploit women. The government is now aiming to crack down on human trafficking by tightening laws.

Supporters of the French draft law argue that it could reduce sex trafficking and empower prostitutes.

"The current law is not on our side so we keep being trapped in that system, and the client knows that, he plays with that. When we hear about 'prostitution by choice,' I think that it is still prostitution as violence toward women, and we cannot keep tolerating that violence anymore," said Rosen Hicher, 57, who was a prostitute from 1988 to 2009.

"One day, a client told me: 'If you don't accept to do it without condom, I will call the police,'" she told a news conference. "I was able to say to him: 'clear off'. But another one wouldn't because she would be under control of a pimp or would be sold by her husband, her father or her brother."

Opponents of the French bill argue the opposite, and fear that cracking down will push prostitutes into a dangerous position: Being forced to hide, they would be even more at the mercy of pimps and violent clients, and cut off from the organizations able to help them.

"More clandestine practices means we would find ourselves in more secluded places, and therefore subject to possible violence," Thierry Schaffauser, a 31-year old escort and spokesman for sex workers' group Strass, told The Associated Press.

And in dealings with the client, he said, prostitutes would "have less power because when you make less profit, you might have to accept clients that you wouldn't normally accept, accept doing something you might not have accepted before."

A contentious open letter titled "Hands off my whore" was released last month by a group of men, including a lawyer for Strauss-Khan, in favor of a man's right to buy physical pleasure.

And earlier this month, a petition emerged, signed by 60 celebrities, including Deneuve and Aznavour, saying: "Without supporting or promoting prostitution, we reject the penalization of those who prostitute themselves and those who buy their services, and we ask for a real debate without ideological prejudice."

Among them was a former minister of culture and education, Jack Lang, who told the AP that he is "very cautious about penalizing clients — for reasons of principle, of personal belief, kind of subjective reasons. That must not be a hasty decision."

___

Malin Rising in Stockholm and Mike Corder in Amsterdam and Masha Macpherson in Paris contributed to this report.

I feel like I'm missing something with that article. It said public solicitation, pimping and brothels are illegal but then has quotes regarding how people wouldn't be stuck under pimps if laws change.

Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2013, 07:32:03 AM
I feel like I'm missing something with that article. It said public solicitation, pimping and brothels are illegal but then has quotes regarding how people wouldn't be stuck under pimps if laws change.

The Bill aims to make public solicitation legal under certain circumstances.  The prostitute could then in theory deal with their customers directly which would allow her operate without a pimp.

Just because pimping is illegal doesnt mean that they dont exist. ;)

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2013, 01:06:40 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2013, 07:32:03 AM
I feel like I'm missing something with that article. It said public solicitation, pimping and brothels are illegal but then has quotes regarding how people wouldn't be stuck under pimps if laws change.

The Bill aims to make public solicitation legal under certain circumstances.  The prostitute could then in theory deal with their customers directly which would allow her operate without a pimp.

Just because pimping is illegal doesnt mean that they dont exist. ;)

Yeah, but I think Garbon's point was that if prostitution itself is made legal it doesn't seem to automatically follow that the pimps would cease to exist.

Quote from: dps on November 29, 2013, 04:04:49 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2013, 01:06:40 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2013, 07:32:03 AM
I feel like I'm missing something with that article. It said public solicitation, pimping and brothels are illegal but then has quotes regarding how people wouldn't be stuck under pimps if laws change.

The Bill aims to make public solicitation legal under certain circumstances.  The prostitute could then in theory deal with their customers directly which would allow her operate without a pimp.

Just because pimping is illegal doesnt mean that they dont exist. ;)

Yeah, but I think Garbon's point was that if prostitution itself is made legal it doesn't seem to automatically follow that the pimps would cease to exist.

Then he would not have read the article very well.  Prostitution itself is already legal.  The problem is that public solicitation is not.  If public solicitation is permitted then that would significantly cut out the role of the pimp.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 29, 2013, 04:09:52 PM

Quote from: dps on November 29, 2013, 04:04:49 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 28, 2013, 01:06:40 PM

Quote from: garbon on November 27, 2013, 07:32:03 AM
I feel like I'm missing something with that article. It said public solicitation, pimping and brothels are illegal but then has quotes regarding how people wouldn't be stuck under pimps if laws change.

The Bill aims to make public solicitation legal under certain circumstances.  The prostitute could then in theory deal with their customers directly which would allow her operate without a pimp.

Just because pimping is illegal doesnt mean that they dont exist. ;)

Yeah, but I think Garbon's point was that if prostitution itself is made legal it doesn't seem to automatically follow that the pimps would cease to exist.

Then he would not have read the article very well.  Prostitution itself is already legal.  The problem is that public solicitation is not.  If public solicitation is permitted then that would significantly cut out the role of the pimp.

Except if you go back to the original article, it seems the German experience is that liberalization doesn't have that effect.

Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2013, 04:11:25 PM
Except if you go back to the original article, it seems the German experience is that liberalization doesn't have that effect.

The Germans have a different model.  They decriminalized the whole lot - including pimping.  So I am not sure any valid analogy can be made.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 29, 2013, 04:14:12 PM

Quote from: Barrister on November 29, 2013, 04:11:25 PM
Except if you go back to the original article, it seems the German experience is that liberalization doesn't have that effect.

The Germans have a different model.  They decriminalized the whole lot - including pimping.  So I am not sure any valid analogy can be made.

Yes, but if both solicitation and pimping are legal, and pimping doesn't fulfill some function, then one would expect it to fade out.  That it hasn't suggests that it does serve some function, and would probably still do so even if it continues to be illegal even when solicitation itself is legal. 

Quote from: dps on November 29, 2013, 04:29:30 PM
Yes, but if both solicitation and pimping are legal, and pimping doesn't fulfill some function, then one would expect it to fade out.  That it hasn't suggests that it does serve some function, and would probably still do so even if it continues to be illegal even when solicitation itself is legal.

If public solicitation is made legal but pimping remains illegal then the prostitute can obtain the assistance of the state to rid herself of a pimp.  If the state condones pimping then nothing much will change since pimps will, now legally, be able to exert the same kinds of controls they always have had on the most vulnerable.

Depends if we're talking about Harvey Kietel style manipulation of the vulnerable, Heidi Fleiss style brokering, or Taken style productivity encouragement.

A documentary about the whole thing: NSFW!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUBQLPgQ2RA&list=PLlGSlkijht5gyYNkhTOmpP-3AKawhjkdv

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 05:52:10 PM
Depends if we're talking about Harvey Kietel style manipulation of the vulnerable,

OMG HAWT

Quote from: Zanza on September 08, 2014, 01:59:37 PM
A documentary about the whole thing: NSFW!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUBQLPgQ2RA&list=PLlGSlkijht5gyYNkhTOmpP-3AKawhjkdv

Very interesting.

The chicks sitting around the bar nude is kind of weird.

Hope there's at least some Handi-Wipes for those bar stools.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2014, 11:31:53 PM

Quote from: Zanza on September 08, 2014, 01:59:37 PM
A documentary about the whole thing: NSFW!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUBQLPgQ2RA&list=PLlGSlkijht5gyYNkhTOmpP-3AKawhjkdv

Very interesting.

The chicks sitting around the bar nude is kind of weird.

Yeah, that's actually a bit of a turnoff.

I don't find it a turnoff and I think it would be helpful for avoiding unpleasant surprises; I was thinking it must be pretty uncomfortable for a woman starting out.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on November 29, 2013, 05:52:10 PM
Depends if we're talking about Harvey Kietel style manipulation of the vulnerable,

what exactly do you mean by this?

Taxi Driver  :secret:

Kietel wasn't in Taxi Driver.

Keitel was, though :smarty:

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F4%2F49%2FBundesarchiv_Bild_183-H30220%252C_Wilhelm_Keitel.jpg%2F220px-Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H30220%252C_Wilhelm_Keitel.jpg&hash=c581fe65923f1568b5ced0443f810252dc704cb5)

The Germans really struggle with doing things in moderation.