(Originally posted on Daily Kos)
Suppose you were in a position of power and given the opportunity to improve living conditions for millions of people within your jurisdiction. Would you do it? What if this proposition would also control the spread of disease? Would a proposal that would also protect your people from abuse be welcomed? The charges would be minimal, with most costs being covered by the revenue generated by the plan itself. This scheme would also curb a good percentage of street violence, without rescinding any person’s civil liberties. The proposition I write about is the legalization of the work of Adult Service Providers – including prostitution.
“Adult Service Providers” is a blanket term, referring to escorts, erotic entertainers, adult film stars, prostitutes, brothel managers, and adult website managers. Treating this variety of work like any other business would enable the same standards to apply to the sex industry. If a legal adult chooses to become an Adult Service Provider, often known as a “sex worker”, he or she would have the right to do so. Just like other businesses, professions with sex workers would be subject to strict health regulations and standards. This factor would likely lead to a sharp decline in STI/STD and AIDS rates among sex workers (and, of course, among their clientele). Since sex workers and their executives would be under the same laws as other companies; verbal, sexual, and physical abuse laws would now be able to protect millions of men and women from said abuse. As a result of these adult oriented institutions now being subject to strict regulation, persons or institutions that traffic humans or illegally take advantage of minors would be discovered and punished easier.
The current laws against the sex industry are unacceptable, because, rather than attempting to actually fix many problems, they pretend that prohibition will actually end an industry known colloquially as “the world’s oldest business.” It has been well over 100 years since most laws prohibiting prostitution were enacted, laws that have stood only to clutter our judicial system and overfill our jails – while doing nothing to protect the freedom of Americans. In other words, these laws have not ended human trafficking, they have not lowered STI or AIDS rates among sex workers, nor have they prevented minors from being used in sexual exploits.
Furthermore, most harmful pieces of legislation prohibiting the work of Adult Service Providers are “feel good” laws – enactments that serve little purpose other than to seem favorable. The success of keeping traditionally scorned-behavior – prostitution, the use of recreational drugs, etc. – illegal is irrelevant because said laws are not measured by actual success, but by how “safe” the laws make most of its citizens feel – even if millions of Americans suffer in the process. These laws, in essence, take away adults’ rights to their own sexuality, privacy, and freedom. Furthermore, as the American Civil Liberties Union wrote in a 2007 explanation, “Such laws [against prostitution] have traditionally represented one of the most direct forms of discrimination against women. The woman who engage[s] in prostitution is punished criminally and stigmatized socially while her male customer, either by the explicit design of the statute or through a pattern of discriminatory enforcement is left unscathed.”
Unfortunately, conservatives and many liberals actually staunchly support these “feel- good” laws, instead of the commonsense solution of legalization. Among liberals, feminists are debatably the most divided on this issue. Older feminists tend to disagree with the notions behind many sectors of the sex industry, due to its sexist tenancies, and are fine with its inadequate prohibition. However, many younger feminists (“third-wave feminists”)recognize that the government should respect a sex worker’s choice in his or her own line of work. On the other side of the political spectrum, some libertarians have come out in support of legalizing the work of Adult Service Providers, but most self-identified conservatives want no change of the status quo. While President Obama has never addressed the issue, due to his repeated actions of backing-away from socially liberal views, one can guess that he would be no more progressive on this issue than Glenn Beck.
Americans need to ask themselves if they are ready to let go of their idealistic world view and start fixing the country. At the end of the day, the sex industry is not going away. We can either embrace it, therefore making America a safer place for all, or we can continue allowing this failed system to waste more time, money, and resources, while simultaneously destroying countless lives. The choice is up to us; for the sake of the nation, I hope we pick the right one.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The World's Oldest Business .
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16451
How the hell could the prostitution industry ever reach decent health standards? Are they going to test every guy/girl that comes in for all STDs before they let them in? Or just hope the condom doesn't fail?
And plus, you can't say the prostitution prohibition is discriminating against women, because there are plenty of male prostitutes.
I agree with you up until the legalization/regulation part. Prostitution is legalized and regulated in Nevada, but there are still a lot of problems because the only legal place to work are brothels which often have a lot of labor rights abuses. Nevada also uses outdated testing statutes.
A system like New Zealand's would be much more useful, which is decriminalization.
The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women International (CATW) published a helpful report called “10 Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution.”
http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/prostitution_legalizing.html
The report cited evidence that legalizing the sex industry…
Increases prostitution
Legalization of prostitution in the State of Victoria, Australia, has led to massive expansion of the sex industry. Whereas there were 40 legal brothels in Victoria in 1989, in 1999 there were 94, along with 84 escort services. Other forms of sexual exploitation, such as tabletop dancing, bondage and discipline centers, peep shows, phone sex, and pornography have all developed in much more profitable ways than before.
…
Brothels in Switzerland have doubled several years after partial legalization of prostitution. …Switzerland had the highest brothel density of any country in Europe, with residents feeling overrun with prostitution venues, as well as experiencing constant encroachment into areas not zoned for prostitution activities.
…
Over the last decade, as pimping became legalized and then brothels decriminalized in the Netherlands in 2000, the sex industry expanded 25 percent.
Harms prostitutes
In the Netherlands, women in prostitution point out that legalization or decriminalization of the sex industry cannot erase the stigma of prostitution but, instead, makes women more vulnerable to abuse because they must register and lose anonymity. Thus, the majority of women in prostitution still choose to operate illegally and underground. Members of Parliament who originally supported the legalization of brothels on the grounds that this would liberate women are now seeing that legalization actually reinforces the oppression of women.
…
The Coalition Against Trafficking in Women International (CATW) has conducted 2 major studies on sex trafficking and prostitution, interviewing almost 200 victims of commercial sexual exploitation. In these studies, women in prostitution indicated that prostitution establishments did little to protect them, regardless of whether they were in legal or illegal establishments. "The only time they protect anyone is to protect the customers."
…
CATW's studies found that even surveillance cameras in prostitution establishments are used to protect the establishment. Protection of the women from abuse is of secondary or no importance.
…
[Since legalization increases prostitution] As men have an excess of "sexual services" that are offered to them, women must compete to provide services by engaging in anal sex, sex without condoms, bondage and domination and other proclivities demanded by the clients.
…
A legalized system of prostitution that mandates health checks and certification only for women and not for clients is blatantly discriminatory to women. "Women only" health checks make no public health sense because monitoring prostituted women does not protect them from HIV/AIDS or STDs, since male "clients" can and do originally transmit disease to the women.
It is argued that legalized brothels or other "controlled" prostitution establishments "protect" women through enforceable condom policies. In one of CATW's studies, U.S. women in prostitution interviewed reported the following: 47% stated that men expected sex without a condom; 73% reported that men offered to pay more for sex without a condom; 45% of women said they were abused if they insisted that men use condoms. Some women said that certain establishments may have rules that men wear condoms but, in reality, men still try to have sex without them.
…
Many factors militate against condom use: the need of women to make money; older women's decline in attractiveness to men; competition from places that do not require condoms; pimp pressure on women to have sex with no condom for more money; money needed for a drug habit or to pay off the pimp; and the general lack of control that prostituted women have over their bodies in prostitution venues.
So called "safety policies" in brothels did not protect women from harm. Even where brothels supposedly monitored the "customers" and utilized "bouncers," women stated that they were injured by buyers and, at times, by brothel owners and their friends. Even when someone intervened to control buyers' abuse, women lived in a climate of fear. Although 60 percent of women reported that buyers had sometimes been prevented from abusing them, half of those women answered that, nonetheless, they thought that they might be killed by one of their "customers."
…
In a 5-country study on sex trafficking done by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and funded by the Ford Foundation, most of the 146 women interviewed strongly stated that prostitution should not be legalized and considered legitimate work, warning that legalization would create more risks and harm for women from already violent customer and pimps. "No way. It's not a profession. It is humiliating and violence from the men's side." Not one woman interviewed wanted her children, family or friends to have to earn money by entering the sex industry. One stated: "Prostitution stripped me of my life, my health, everything."
Enables trafficking including sex slavery
A report done for the governmental Budapest Group stated that 80% of women in the brothels in the Netherlands are trafficked from other countries. [This indicates the dramatic increase in prostitution was made possible by a dramatic increase in trafficking of women.]
…
The link between legalization of prostitution and trafficking in Australia was recognized in the U.S. State Department's 1999 Country Report on Human Rights Practices, released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. In the country report on Australia, it was noted that…”in Australia…lax laws - including legalized prostitution in parts of the country - make [anti-trafficking] enforcement difficult at the working level."
The Christian Science Monitor reported that in Sweden, the only nation in the European Union that has criminalized prostitution, trafficking is less common than in other Nordic countries. An estimated 400 to 500 women are trafficked to Sweden a year compared to about 15,000 women being trafficked to Finland every year and 6,000 women being trafficked to Norway and Denmark. Agneta Borg, manager of Stockholm city government's prostitution unit, says, "The law [against buying sex] has helped. …"Police tell us that they've learned from wire-taps and other detective work that many of these trafficking gangs now try to avoid Sweden because we've focused so much on this issue – not just by passing the law, but because we've kept it high on our political agenda" (“Britain eyes Swedish law on sex workers,” January 10, 2008, http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/0110/p07s04-woeu.html).
Increases child prostitution
…child prostitution in the Netherlands has increased dramatically during the 1990s [during the process of legalization of prostitution]. The Amsterdam-based ChildRight organization estimates that the number has gone from 4,000 children in 1996 to 15,000 in 2001.
…
Child prostitution has dramatically risen in Victoria compared to other Australian states where prostitution has not been legalized. Of all the states and territories in Australia, the highest number of reported incidences of child prostitution came from Victoria.
Sends a message to society that women and girls are objects
After prostitution was legalized in Victoria Australia it become an accepted sideline of tourism. “The commodification of women has vastly intensified and is much more visible.”
…
When the legal barriers disappear, so too do the social and ethical barriers to treating women as sexual commodities. Legalization of prostitution sends the message to new generations of men and boys that women are sexual commodities and that prostitution is harmless fun.
…
Advertisements line the highways of Victoria offering women as objects for sexual use and teaching new generations of men and boys to treat women as subordinates. Businessmen are encouraged to hold their corporate meetings in these clubs where owners supply naked women on the table at tea breaks and lunchtime.
Does not increase women’s choice
Most of the women interviewed in CATW studies reported that choice in entering the sex industry could only be discussed in the context of the lack of other options. Most emphasized that women in prostitution had few other options. Many spoke about prostitution as the last option, or as an involuntary way of making ends meet. In one study, 67% of the law enforcement officials that CATW interviewed expressed the opinion that women did not enter prostitution voluntarily. 72% of the social service providers that CATW interviewed did not believe that women voluntarily choose to enter the sex industry.
…
Women in prostitution must continually lie about their lives, their bodies, and their sexual responses. Lying is part of the job definition when the customer asks, "did you enjoy it?" The very edifice of prostitution is built on the lie that "women like it." Some prostitution survivors have stated that it took them years after leaving prostitution to acknowledge that prostitution wasn't a free choice because to deny their own capacity to choose was to deny themselves.
…
Even a 1998 ILO (UN International Labor Organization) report suggesting that the sex industry be treated as a legitimate economic sector, found that "…prostitution is one of the most alienated forms of labour; the surveys [in 4 countries] show that women worked 'with a heavy heart,' 'felt forced,' or were 'conscience-stricken' and had negative self-identities. A significant proportion claimed they wanted to leave sex work [sic] if they could."
Increases governments’ dependence on prostitution
…the sex industry now accounts for 5 percent of the Netherlands economy.
…
Governments that legalize prostitution as "sex work" will have a huge economic stake in the sex industry. Consequently, this will foster their increased dependence on the sex sector.
Solution: punish the buyers and pimps, not the prostitutes
Sweden's Violence Against Women, Government Bill 1997/98:55 prohibits and penalizes the purchase of "sexual services" [but not the prostitutes]. It is an innovative approach that targets the demand for prostitution. Sweden believes that "By prohibiting the purchase of sexual services, prostitution and its damaging effects can be counteracted more effectively than hitherto." Importantly, this law clearly states that "Prostitution is not a desirable social phenomenon" and is "an obstacle to the ongoing development towards equality between women and men."
This was very, very instructive. Thank you. One thing I've always suspected is that legalizing or even decriminalizing prostitution would give employers even more of a reason to pressure female employees to behave and look like sexual commodities in addition to the job for which they are paid. For example, hostesses and waitresses would very likely be vulnerable to pressure to provide sexual services to customers even if they didn't want to, for fear of losing employment. And if it's legal, there won't be any way to keep it out of the job description. It's bad enough when waitresses are forced to wear skimpy outfits to survive and get their meager wages. This would make it even worse.
Thank you. I also like your blog.
In a lot of ways, laws like those in Sweden seem like the logical next step for the United States. However I get a little annoyed at this line: "Importantly, this law clearly states that 'Prostitution is not a desirable social phenomenon' . . . ." I can't agree.
Individuals need to be allowed sexual autonomy. It's our right to buy and sell services that don't cause harm and don't impinge on someone else's freedoms. Instead of looking at examples of what's gone wrong in other instances of legalization and saying, "That's, without question, what's going to happen if we legalize prostitution," let's look at those studies and try to find ways to combat those issues. Let's look at where legalized prostitution has done well, and try to imitate that.
And prostitution is not innately "an obstacle to the ongoing development towards equality between women and men." Not all prostitution is men hiring women. Though I'm sure it will always be mostly men hiring someone, men hire men, and there will be a market, albeit a small one, for women doing the hiring. Regardless, the focus ought to be on making the prostitute/client relationship more equal, not keeping this field illegal.
Legalizing prostitution will not be easy; it's something that will need to be done with a lot of care and a lot of research, and it will need to be done in steps. But it needs to be done if we want to consider ourselves a free society.
I agree, well said. I think as feminists we have to work towards legalizing prostitution. It would seem against feminism to argue otherwise. Having said that, what we want is legalized and SAFE prostitution for all involved. That's the true goal.
And I agree that there is nothing inherently wrong about purchasing a service like this so long as the conditions are fair and safe to all involved and no one is forced into anything.
This is why I think decriminalization is the better idea.
The situation of legalization/regulation in Nevada isn't working, for example.
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/blog/2009/02/09/resisting-sex-panic-sex-workers-struggle-evidencebased-regulation-nevada
The "Swedish model" also has problems.
http://www.bayswan.org/swed/swed_index.html
http://deepthroated.wordpress.com/2009/07/04/pye-jacobsson-on-the-realities-of-the-swedish-model/
While I don't think NZ's model of decriminalization doesn't have its own problems, it does help with the problems of violence by clients and law enforcement. (For example, an NZ sex worker was able to sue a client who covertly took off his condom.)
http://deepthroated.wordpress.com/2008/05/27/new-zealand-decrim-act-helps-health-and-safety-of-sex-workers-report-says/
Here's a good blog for transnational sex work and trafficking issues:
http://www.nodo50.org/Laura_Agustin/
MarySophia,
The main problem with your post is that you don't provide evidence to prove your points. I won't believe anything you say unless your evidence is stronger than mine.
I get a little annoyed at this line: "Importantly, this law clearly states that 'Prostitution is not a desirable social phenomenon' . . . ." I can't agree.Prostitution leads to the horrors of child prostitution and sex slavery, so why would you think that's a desirable phenomenon? And if you say it doesn't include those horrors I require evidence to believe you.
It's our right to buy and sell services that don't cause harmThe evidence shows that prostitution causes massive damage to society (AIDS, child rape, sex slavery, etc.). Also, an international study found that the majority of prostitutes suffer from a severe mental problem called Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome:
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/08/18/science/many-prostitutes-suffer-combat-disorder-study-finds.html?sec=health
Let's look at where legalized prostitution has done well, and try to imitate that.You assume that there are places where prostitution benefited society, but you provide no evidence of that.
the focus ought to be on making the prostitute/client relationship more equal, not keeping this field illegal.Do you believe all that's necessary is to make the prostitute/user relationship more equal or that the relationship should be equal?
Legalizing prostitution ...it needs to be done if we want to consider ourselves a free society.One freedom is exchanged for another. For example, you can't have the freedom to no do homework and the freedom to get an A at the same time. You have to give up an A to get the freedom to not do homework, or you have to give up spare time in order to study to get an A.
That is why when prostitution goes, children have more freedom from rape, people have more freedom from sexual slavery, and more freedom from AIDS, and more freedom from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, etc.
"The main problem with your post is that you don't provide evidence to prove your points."
This is absolutely true-- I haven't done much research into the issue, and you clearly have. My argument is a philosophical one: the right to buy and sell sex as a service, in my opinion, is a fairly basic civil right. I certainly don't claim to know nearly as much as you about this issue. But no amount of research will convince me that the problem is in granting people a civil right, rather than in societal attitudes toward sex and sex work.
"'Let's look at where legalized prostitution has done well, and try to imitate that.'
You assume that there are places where prostitution benefited society, but you provide no evidence of that."
By "where," I meant in what aspects, not just physically where.
"Do you believe all that's necessary is to make the prostitute/user relationship more equal or that the relationship should be equal?"
Sorry, yeah, I should have said "equal," not "more equal."
"For example, you can't have the freedom to no do homework and the freedom to get an A at the same time. You have to give up an A to get the freedom to not do homework, or you have to give up spare time in order to study to get an A."
This comparison bears few parallels to your actual point. It actually might come closer to proving my point, in that a person does, indeed, have the freedom to choose not to do his/her homework or to choose to do it well and get an A, and I'd like people to have the freedom to take part in prostitution or not, as the individual so chooses.
". . . when prostitution goes, children have more freedom from rape, people have more freedom from sexual slavery, and more freedom from AIDS, and more freedom from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, etc."
These things are not a result of prostitution. Any correlation between legalized prostitution and these issues is why we'll have to legalize prostitution very, very carefully and with a lot of research. But prostitution does not "go" when it's criminalized. It does become less visible, harder to regulate, and easier to stigmatize.
No matter the arguments against it, I cannot get behind anything that restricts sexual freedom that does not directly affect anyone but those choosing to partake.
Before reading the comments on this post I thought that prostitution should be legal. I believed like you said.
"No matter the arguments against it, I cannot get behind anything that restricts sexual freedom that does not directly affect anyone but those choosing to partake."
However the commenters here presented the frightening fact that legalized prostitution could effect everyone. Not just sex workers. What would protect employees from sexual exploitation? All employers would need to do is add 'sexual services' to the job description and their employees would only have the choices of comply or quit. What would prevent a secretary from having to blow her boss on his lunch break or waitress's from being required to sleep with her customers? I think exotic dancers would have to do a lot more than just dance if they wanted to keep their job. The potential for abuse is far too high.
MarySophia, you cut one of my quotes to make it seem incomprehensible and then said it had "few parallels" to my point. I guess you cut up the quote because it's my strongest argument and you were afraid of it? Here is the whole quote:
One freedom is exchanged for another. For example, you can't have the freedom to no do homework and the freedom to get an A at the same time. You have to give up an A to get the freedom to not do homework, or you have to give up spare time in order to study to get an A.That is why when prostitution goes, children have more freedom from rape, people have more freedom from sexual slavery, and more freedom from AIDS, and more freedom from Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome, etc.
Years ago, like you, I though legalizing prostitution was the best thing for society. However, once I found the evidence of all the terrible things prostitution has done to prostitutes and society as a whole, then I changed my mind. The evidence is very powerful and very consistent that most prostitutes and strippers suffer from much more mental illness than the average person, legalized prostitution increases regular prostitution, child prostitution and sex trafficking, then I realized that prostitution is a loss to society. Whatever benefits there might be such as possibly men getting more orgasms, does not offset the horrendous damage that prostitution does.
That is why I provided the analogy of grades to show clearly that one freedom always means loss of another freedom. It's the classic "you can't have your cake and eat it too" logic. You can't have the freedom to get straight A's and also have the freedom to never study. You can't have the freedom to win a karate championship and have the freedom of never fighting. A country can't legalize buying sex without also increasing prostitution, child prostitution, and sex slavery.
I know that you deny the evidence that this is true, hoping that somewhere someway prostitution can be legalized without increasing those horrors, But if you believed that legalizing prostitution would increase the number of child prostitutes would you still support it?
I didn't mean to take your quote out of context or cut it up in any way. I separated it because I had two separate points to make about the two parts of the quote, and I left off parts of statements ("One freedom is exchanged for another" and "That is why") that seemed unnecessary to the points I was making.
"That is why I provided the analogy of grades to show clearly that one freedom always means loss of another freedom."
Some freedoms are mutually exclusive (e.g., the freedom not to be killed outweighs the freedom to kill). Because I don't think that the other evidence you point to is a direct and inevitable result of legalized or decriminalized prostitution, I don't put prostitution in that category.
That being said, please point to the part of my arguments where I "deny the evidence." I believe all of your evidence (though I do question the causal element, especially in the statistics on mental illness). This is why, as I've previously stated, we need to be very researched and very careful in our legalization/decriminalization of prostitution, and need to do it one step at a time.
I'm not naively hoping for some magical cure to the horrors that can go along with prostitution; I am saying we need to address these problems (child prostitution, rape, AIDS, objectification of women, mental illness, etc.) as deeper societal issues, and not think that we can cure them through restricting the right to choose what we do with our bodies.
You started your last post denying the evidence then you asked me to point out when you denied the evidence. Here is an example from your last post where you deny the evidence that legalizing prostitution increases prostitution, child prostitution and sex slavery:
MarySophia: "I don't think that the other evidence you point to is a direct and inevitable result of legalized or decriminalized prostitution"
I provided huge amounts of evidence showing that in countries where prostitution was legalized prostitution, child prostitution, and sex slavery increased. If you forgot go back and reread the numerous studies proving the damage legalized prostitution causes.
we need to be very researched and very careful in our legalization/decriminalization of prostitution, and need to do it one step at a time.The research already shows that legalizing prostitution increases prostitution, child prostitution, and sex slavery. Also, in addition to the research common sense tells a person that if you legalize prostitution more people would purchase sex because they no longer fear punishment. Common sense tells you that pimps will advertise more and create more opportunities to use prostitutes when they know they won't be punished for it. Common sense tells you that when police no longer can arrest a pimp or raid a brothel because it's legal that makes it much harder to find the child prostitutes hidden by pimps and brothels. So in addition to the huge amounts of evidence proving that legalizing prostitution increases prostitution, increases child prostitution and increases sex slavery, it's basic common sense that that would happen.
we need to address these problems (child prostitution, rape, AIDS, objectification of women, mental illness, etc.) as deeper societal issues, and not think that we can cure them through restricting the right to choose what we do with our bodies.First of all, punishing pimps and johns does not restrict what people can do with their bodies. People can have sex every waking hour if they want to in a country where buying sex is illegal.
Second, I never said that making the purchase of sex illegal is going to end child prostitution, sex slavery, etc. I said that legalizing prostitution increases child prostitution, sex slavery etc.
Common sense tells you that when police no longer can arrest a pimp or raid a brothel because it's legal that makes it much harder to find the child prostitutes hidden by pimps and brothels.
Actually, common sense tells you that it could be the reverse. When sex workers are not in danger of arrest, they can safely turn to law enforcement for help if they need it. A child or adult who is not afraid of being arrested and jailed can report abuses. A legal brothel is in a known location, the police, health department, etc. can stop by at any time to inspect/investigate.
As an example, who do you think the police department can more closely monitor, your corner (legal) pharmacy, or the (illegal) crack house down the street? Obviously the workings of a legal business are much more transparent.
Voluptouspanic has an excellent point with the way criminalized prostitution treats ALL prostitutes the same - as lawbreakers. Law enforcement does not, and has no incentive to, separate out adults who have made a voluntary choice and children or other coerced people. Here in the US, underage girls are routinely charged, convicted, and jailed for prostitution. These children are not viewed as the victims they are, but rather as criminals.
analog: Actually, common sense tells you that it could be the reverse. When sex workers are not in danger of arrest, they can safely turn to law enforcement for help if they need it.
You totally misinterpreted what I said. In my first post on this thread I stated:
Solution: punish the buyers and pimps, not the prostitutes
A legal brothel is in a known location, the police, health department, etc. can stop by at any time to inspect/investigate.That's true but if it's legal for pimps and johns to buy sex it is very difficult to detain them and question them.
Here in the US, underage girls are routinely charged, convicted, and jailed for prostitution. These children are not viewed as the victims they are, but rather as criminalsYes, the United States has a policy of jailing child rape victims. I wrote an article about that:
http://journaloffeministinsight.blogspot.com/2009/08/why-does-us-jail-child-rape-victims.html
If I choose to sell sex or I choose to buy sex, that is between me and the person or people to whom I'm selling or from whom I'm buying. Period. No third party (not the government, and not a pimp) should be involved.
As for denying the evidence, a) the quote you cite is something I said after you told me I denied the evidence, and b) note the phrase "direct and inevitable." This is an important qualifier. I believe that it's possible, as I'll say for a fourth time, with research, care, and time (and I'll add in education this time) to safely allow for all civil rights in a free and equal society.
People don't live in a vacuum. When a person is prostituted that creates a domino effect that has harmful effects on the community. I've provided the evidence that legalizing prostitution causes massive trauma to society. No one should have the right to do something that causes extreme damage to society. That's not kind to everyone else.
As for denying the evidence, a) the quote you cite is something I said after you told me I denied the evidence,You denied the evidence of harm many times in previous posts. For example, in your first post you said:
'Prostitution is not a desirable social phenomenon' . . . ." I can't agree.
By not agreeing with the claim that prostitution is not good for society, you are denying the evidence I provided showing that it causes damage to society such as increasing child prostitution and sex slavery. In your second post you said:
These things [i.e. increasing sex trafficking] are not a result of prostitution.
That is a direct denial of the evidence. Study after study has shown that when a country legalizes prostitution sex services, child prostitution, and sex trafficking dramatically increase.
I will repeat my previous question again because it is at the crux of my argument:
If you believed that legalizing prostitution would increase the number of child prostitutes would you still support it?
I'm not asking you to stop denying the evidence. You have a right to deny good solid evidence. What I'm asking is if you believed the evidence, would you think that children should be sacrificed as rape victims in order to legalize prostitution?
OK, let me rephrase: I believe the evidence, but I don't believe that it proves what you claim it proves (that it's impossible to respect the sexual autonomy of adults and actively discourage the rape of children, among other societal ills).
"I'm not asking you to stop denying the evidence. You have a right to deny good solid evidence. What I'm asking is if you believed the evidence, would you think that children should be sacrificed as rape victims in order to legalize prostitution?"
If I thought that children would necessarily be raped as a direct cause of decriminalizing prostitution, of course I would support its criminalization.
I think this question is incendiary and unnecessary (as the answer is beyond blatantly obvious). It took a lot of will power not to answer it sarcastically.
"When a person is prostituted that creates a domino effect that has harmful effects on the community."
I'm not talking about "being prostituted" as a passive act, I'm talking about selling and buying sex as a transaction between two (or more) individuals, which, like any other fair business deal or sex act, affects only those involved in and making the decision.
I believe the evidence, but I don't believe that it proves what you claim it proves (that it's impossible to respect the sexual autonomy of adults and actively discourage the rape of children, among other societal ills).
I respect the sexual autonomy of adults as long as their sex does not harm society such as raping children. I told you in a previous post that, “People can have sex every waking hour if they want to in a country where buying sex is illegal.” Criminalizing pimping and buying sex does’t make it impossible to have sex. Buying sex is a financial transaction. Sex is sex.
Also, the evidence proves that legalizing prostitution increases prostitution, child prostitution, and sex slavery. So you are contradicting yourself when you say that you “believe the evidence” but don’t believe what I claim which I’ve repeatedly said is that legalizing prostitution increases prostitution, child prostitution and sex slavery.
If I thought that children would necessarily be raped as a direct cause of decriminalizing prostitution, of course I would support its criminalization.
But I have already provided very powerful evidence that legalizing prostitution increases child prostitution. Here is evidence that I had posted in my original post that you had responded to:
…child prostitution in the Netherlands has increased dramatically during the 1990s [during the process of legalization of prostitution]. The Amsterdam-based ChildRight organization estimates that the number has gone from 4,000 children in 1996 to 15,000 in 2001.
…
Child prostitution has dramatically risen in Victoria compared to other Australian states where prostitution has not been legalized. Of all the states and territories in Australia, the highest number of reported incidences of child prostitution came from Victoria.
So since the evidence shows that wherever the laws against prostitution are removed, child prostitution increases, why do you continue to promote the legalization of prostitution?
I'm not talking about "being prostituted" as a passive act, I'm talking about selling and buying sex as a transaction between two (or more) individuals, which, like any other fair business deal or sex act, affects only those involved in and making the decision.
I often refer to prostitutes as being prostituted, so when I said that term I was referring to all prostitutes. Also, I don’t see prostitution as a “fair transaction.” I see it as similar to a deal with the devil where the money given to the prostitute cannot repay what the prostitute has lost.
Furthermore, it’s not true that prostitution “affects only those involved in and making the decision” because I’ve already proven with gigantic amounts of evidence that increasing prostitution increases child prostitution and sex slavery.
child prostitution in the Netherlands has increased dramatically during the 1990s [during the process of legalization of prostitution].
I don't necessarily believe that is accurate, but let's say it is. So what? This only has meaning if you compare it to other places where prostitution was not legalized, and find that there was less child prostitution there. This study does NOT do that. Also, haven't you ever heard "correlation doesn't equal causation?" Just because two things happened at the same time does NOT mean they are cause and effect.
The study in question was NOT trying to show (and does not claim to show) that legalizing prostitution increased child prostitution. It was trying to demonstrate that legalization did not decrease the amount of child prostitution (which had been one of the original arguments for legalization in the Netherlands).
Of all the states and territories in Australia, the highest number of reported incidences of child prostitution came from Victoria.
Again, that does not necessarily mean what you claim. This says only that the number of REPORTED incidents has increased, not that the actual amount of child prostitution has increased. This data could just as easily be used to support my argument: When prostitution is legalized, the abuses (such as the abuse of children) can more easily be recognized and combated.
Also, I cannot find the ORIGINAL source for this data. I have found a lot of examples where it is cited, but not the original research. If you can, I would appreciate it if you could post it.
[regarding increase in Netherlands child prostitution] So what? This only has meaning if you compare it to other places where prostitution was not legalized, and find that there was less child prostitution there. This study does NOT do that.
Wrong. The study has meaning because as soon as pimps and johns were given more freedom, more pimps pimped children and more johns raped children. It’s logical that if you give pimps and johns more power, they will abuse their power more. Furthermore, you ignore the Australia study that did compare regions that legalized prostitution with regions were prostitution was not legalized. That study found that where prostitution was legalized, child prostitution dramatically increased and had more child prostitution than than regions where prostitution was not legalized.
haven't you ever heard "correlation doesn't equal causation?" Just because two things happened at the same time does NOT mean they are cause and effect.
Scientists do the same thing when they tell us what factors increase disease. The say if you do __________ then you are increase your chance of getting __________ disease by 40%. Scientists can credibly say that something is dangerous to humans if it consistently causes a negative effect even if it doesn’t affect every single person. The same way, when you look at the studies of places that legalized prostitution the evidence is so massive that it increases the sex industry including regular prostitution, child prostitution and sex slavery, that it’s credible to say that legalizing prostitution causes severe trauma to society. One or two studies is not enough. But dozens of studies with consistent results do prove the harm.
The study in question was NOT trying to show (and does not claim to show) that legalizing prostitution increased child prostitution. It was trying to demonstrate that legalization did not decrease the amount of child prostitution (which had been one of the original arguments for legalization in the Netherlands).
That is a direct contradiction of what the Raymond article said that I posted on my first post:
http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/prostitution_legalizing.html
Nowhere in the article does it say that the Netherlands child prostitution study did not try to show that legalizing prostitution increased child prostitution. Your statement that the study “was trying to demonstrate that legalization did not decrease the amount of child prostitution” is bizarre. It goes totally against the evidence documented in the study. I only want to discuss this subject with people who use logical reasoning. If you say something else that is bizarre and totally illogical I’ll stop talking to you because it is insulting to me and a waste of my time to talk to me that way.
This [Australia study] says only that the number of REPORTED incidents has increased, not that the actual amount of child prostitution has increased. This data could just as easily be used to support my argument: When prostitution is legalized, the abuses (such as the abuse of children) can more easily be recognized and combated.
Completely wrong. Legalizing prostitution gives pimps and johns power. The power to say no to the police. The power to avoid investigation. It makes it much easier for them to hide child prostitutes from authorities.
Also, I cannot find the ORIGINAL source for this data.
The data is from a report posted by the Vancoover Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter written by Janice Raymond who is from the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women International (CATW). The report cites the following references regarding the child prostitution data:
Netherlands study
Tiggeloven, Carin. (2001, December 18). "Child Prostitution in the Netherlands."
Australia study
1998 study undertaken by ECPAT (End Child Prostitution and Trafficking) who conducted research for the Australian National Inquiry on Child Prostitution
Janice Raymond, the author of the “10 Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution”,
is Professor Emerita of Women's Studies and Medical Ethics at the University of Massachusetts in Amherst.
http://www.catwinternational.org/bio_JaniceRaymond.php
Considering Raymond is an expert on the subject and a respected academic, I assume her sources are solid. However, if you want further information you can ask the University of Massachusetts for her contact information.
That is a direct contradiction of what the Raymond article said . . . Nowhere in the article does it say that the Netherlands child prostitution study did not try to show that legalizing prostitution increased child prostitution. Your statement that the study “was trying to demonstrate that legalization did not decrease the amount of child prostitution” is bizarre. It goes totally against the evidence documented in the study.
I think we need to differentiate between the ARTICLE by Janice Raymond and the STUDIES she cites within that article. Yes, Raymond does claim that legalizing prostitution increases child prostitution. She cites several studies that she feels support this thesis. She is overreaching. If you look at the actual data (not the dubious conclusions that Raymond draws from data but the data itself), it does not support this argument. Raymond says that the Netherlands study proves her thesis. The authors of the study do NOT say that. They are making a completely different point. I don't think we should just take Raymond's word for what these statistics mean. We need to look at the original data and draw our own conclusions.
The first statistic quoted, about how during and after the legalization process child prostitution increased in the Netherlands has little meaning. First, we cannot know whether child prostitution is actually increasing or if instead the knowledge of its occurrence is increasing. Because there is no baseline data on its extent. Obviously getting accurate statistics on something like this would be next to impossible.
Even if it is true, all that tells us is that child prostitution increased in that area. It does not tell us how that area compares to other places. Maybe child prostitution increased by the same amount or more in places that did not legalize prostitution? We don't know because that type of data is not included. In any event, it does not tell us that one thing caused the other. An example: What if I told you that 30% of people who spend the night in a hospital die? Would you conclude that hospitals kill people and that you should stay away for fear of death? Of course not, just because the two things are CORRELATED does not mean one CAUSES the other. There could be many other factors at play that led to the rise in child prostitution. This study does not even attempt to address that.
The statistic that cases of REPORTED child prostitution were higher in an area of Australia with legalized prostitution also does not support Raymond's thesis. This only tells us that REPORTED cases are higher. We have no way of knowing about all the possible UNREPORTED cases, of which we must assume there are many. It is equally possible that the increased surveillance of the sex industry made possible by legalization also allowed more victims to be identified.
You say that legalization gives pimps and johns more power, which allows greater abuse. That is not necessarily true. As it is now, prostitution occurs in the shadows. Legalization brings it into the light, allowing greater oversight and giving the prostitutes themselves more power and agency. Prostitutes who do not fear arrest can go to the police for help, they can seek out services from other agencies, they can protest bad treatment, etc. Do you honestly think that the state has less control over a legal business than an illegal one? The idea that the state has more power over a criminal than a licensed businessman is ridiculous. You say that pimps and johns could not be investigated if their activities were legal. That makes no sense, plenty of legal business are investigated all the time! Plenty of law-abiding citizens are questioned by the police. As it is now, the police can't even FIND the pimps and johns to question in the first place.
As it is now, if I am a john and I go to a brothel where I see a woman/child who I think is being abused, what do I do? I am not going to go to the police for fear of arrest. If it were legal to go to the brothel, I could just call up and report what I saw.
The data is from a report posted by the Vancoover Rape Relief and Women’s Shelter written by Janice Raymond . . . The report cites the following references regarding the child prostitution data: Netherlands study
Tiggeloven, Carin. (2001, December 18). "Child Prostitution in the Netherlands."
Yes, I saw the citations in the Raymond article, what I can't find is the original research. I can only find reports about the Tiggeloven study, I cannot find the study itself. Where was it published, by who? Who is Tiggeloven? What type of methodology did this study use, etc.? Again, without being able to analyze this data myself, I do not trust Raymond's interpretation of it.
I think we need to differentiate between the ARTICLE by Janice Raymond and the STUDIES she cites within that article. Yes, Raymond does claim that legalizing prostitution increases child prostitution. She cites several studies that she feels support this thesis. She is overreaching. If you look at the actual data (not the dubious conclusions that Raymond draws from data but the data itself), it does not support this argument. Raymond says that the Netherlands study proves her thesis. The authors of the study do NOT say that. They are making a completely different point. I don't think we should just take Raymond's word for what these statistics mean. We need to look at the original data and draw our own conclusions.
Are you saying that you found a copy of the Australia and Netherlands studies and that Raymond’s statistics are not in the studies? I highly doubt that a respected scholar like Raymond would cite a study and lie about what the statistics in the study are. Scholars are meticulous about statistics because they suffer severe career damage if they botch their research.
The first statistic quoted, about how during and after the legalization process child prostitution increased in the Netherlands has little meaning. First, we cannot know whether child prostitution is actually increasing or if instead the knowledge of its occurrence is increasing.
The increase in child prostitution has a lot of meaning. Tracking methods are not absolutely 100% perfect, but that doesn’t mean they are worthless just because they are not perfect. All sociological studies are not perfect. The important thing to recognize is the consistency of the studies showing that legalizing prostitution dramatically increases buying of sex including prostitution, child prostitution, and sex slavery. You have to see this as a whole to understand it.
Because there is no baseline data on its extent. Obviously getting accurate statistics on something like this would be next to impossible.
Nowhere in the Raymond article does it say there is no baseline data on child prostitution. What proof do you have to prove your point?
Even if it is true, all that tells us is that child prostitution increased in that area. It does not tell us how that area compares to other places.
I do not like to repeat myself. This conversation is becoming redundant. I said before that the Australia study compared regions where prostitution was legalized and regions where prostitution was not legalized. Also, instead of nitpicking this brief article why don’t you find data that actually proves your points: data that shows that child prostitution did not increase or lowered after the pimps and johns were given free reign by legalization.
What if I told you that 30% of people who spend the night in a hospital die? Would you conclude that hospitals kill people and that you should stay away for fear of death? Of course not, just because the two things are CORRELATED does not mean one CAUSES the other. There could be many other factors at play that led to the rise in child prostitution. This study does not even attempt to address that.
The hospital study is not similar to the legalization of prostitution studies. With the latter the researchers are studying the effect of introducing a new thing in society. A better example is what if the death rate at a hospital was 10% per month consistently for 7 years, then when a person with ________ virus was sent to the hospital the death rate increased to 40% and most of the extra deaths were from ________ virus. That shows that changing the environment of the hospital increased the death rate; it shows that the new thing (virus) is similar to the other new thing (deaths by virus). Similarly changing the environment of a society by legalizing prostitution increases prostitution, child prostitution, and sex slavery; in that case the new thing (legalizing paying for sex) is similar to the other new thing (increase in paying for sex with prostitutes, child prostitutes, and sex slaves).
It is equally possible that the increased surveillance of the sex industry made possible by legalization also allowed more victims to be identified.
Where did you get information that legalization increased surveillance of the sex industry?
prostitution occurs in the shadows. Legalization brings it into the light, allowing greater oversight and giving the prostitutes themselves more power and agency. Prostitutes who do not fear arrest can go to the police for help, they can seek out services from other agencies, they can protest bad treatment, etc. Do you honestly think that the state has less control over a legal business than an illegal one?
Legalization of prostitution makes some of it public, but other parts stay in the shadows especially child prostitution and sex slavery. Also, I’m not talking about the state controlling a sex business, I’m saying the state has less right to investigate and jail pimps and johns when what they’re doing is legal. When prostitution is illegal the police can instantly arrest a john caught in the act, detain him and from him get names, date, addresses, etc. But if prostitution is legal it’s very difficult to arrest johns (and pimps) to prosecute sex crimes. Often people involved in regular prostitution are closely linked (or the same) as people involved in child prostitution and sex slavery. So to end child prostitution and sex slavery it is vital to be able to arrest and detain pimps and johns.
As it is now, the police can't even FIND the pimps and johns to question in the first place.
Though it’s difficult to find pimps, it’s easy to find johns. Street sweeps can catch dozens of johns in one night. Internet stings have also proven to be an easy way to arrest johns. Here is an article about john stings:
http://i.abcnews.com/print?id=4488667
As it is now, if I am a john and I go to a brothel where I see a woman/child who I think is being abused, what do I do? I am not going to go to the police for fear of arrest. If it were legal to go to the brothel, I could just call up and report what I saw.
Anonymous phone calls and letters are the answer to that problem.
I saw the citations in the Raymond article, what I can't find is the original research. I can only find reports about the Tiggeloven study, I cannot find the study itself. Where was it published, by who? Who is Tiggeloven? What type of methodology did this study use, etc.? Again, without being able to analyze this data myself, I do not trust Raymond's interpretation of it.
I suggest you contact Raymond and ask her for a copy or source of the article. Also, I recommend checking the Internet for more information.
Are you saying that you found a copy of the ...studies and that Raymond’s statistics are not in the studies?
No, I am saying that I do not agree that these stats mean what Raymond says they do, i.e. that legalization promotes child prostitution.
When prostitution is illegal the police can instantly arrest a john caught in the act, detain him and from him get names, date, addresses, etc. But if prostitution is legal it’s very difficult to arrest johns (and pimps) to prosecute sex crimes.
But if illegality made it easier for law enforcement to function, why were these crimes not eradicated decades ago? Obviously leaving prostitution illegal is not working.
Often people involved in regular prostitution are closely linked (or the same) as people involved in child prostitution and sex slavery.
How do you figure? What data shows that? Why do you assume that a person who wants to purchase sexual services from a consenting adult also wants to rape a child? Do people who purchase Playboy magazine also want to buy kiddie porn? Why do the two have to go together?
if illegality made it easier for law enforcement to function, why were these crimes not eradicated decades ago? Obviously leaving prostitution illegal is not working.
Laws against pimping and buying sex make it easier to prosecute pimps and johns, but laws are not enough to eliminate prostitution completely. My main point is that legalizing prostitution increases prostitution, child prostitution and sex slavery, not that it causes those problems.
Also, some countries have a higher percentage of prostitutes and presumably some societies don’t have any prostitution based on what I’ve read. So, the term “the oldest “ is not true.
Nancy Kallitechnis: Often people involved in regular prostitution are closely linked (or the same) as people involved in child prostitution and sex slavery.
analog: How do you figure? What data shows that?
Pimps are selling/renting people like products. Pimps use the same business models as regular business people. For example, companies often create a product line which is a group of closely related products that are considered a unit. A paper manufacturer might offer a product line of paper including post-its, resume paper, and notebooks. People going to an office supply store ask for different kinds of paper so that’s why paper manufacturers see an advantage in offering a variety of paper products. Imagine going to the paper aisle and seeing only post-it notes. That never happens because in order to make the most money stores offer a variety of the same product.
The same is true of prostitution. Some people want to rent adult women, some want to rent children and others want to buy slaves. So, like a regular business person, a pimp sees the advantage of selling a variety of women and girls in order to make a maximum profit.
Also, pimps, like other organized crime, work together often exchanging women and girls. Most pimps recruit girls when they’re children or young teens so even if they offer adult women, some also offer underage girls. So there is a constant exchange of women, girls, and the most top selling people-sex slaves. Men who buy sexual services often go out to entertain themselves together. So the sex industry is filled with child prostitutes, sex slaves and regular prostitutes who often associate with the same pimps and johns. The sex industry is vile.
Former investment banker Siddharth Kara wrote a book about trafficking economics called "Sex Trafficking: Inside the Business of Modern Slavery." After finding that pimps make the most profit from sex slaves he stated, "Sex slavery is the profit-maximizing version of prostitution,"
Flynn, J. (2009). New Forms of Slavery. Zenit.
http://www.zenit.org/article-26316?l=english
Pimps make more profits renting underage girls than women. Kristy Childs, director of a center for rehabilitating prostitutes, says, “the purchasers want younger and younger girls." She said the younger girls are “usually hidden because they're susceptible to being noticed that they're very young.”
Koppelman, T. (2009). Bust Illustrates Bigger Child Prostitution Problem. Fox4kc.com.
http://www.fox4kc.com/news/wdaf-veronicas-voice-child-prostitution-71609,0,7906022.story
Why do you assume that a person who wants to purchase sexual services from a consenting adult also wants to rape a child? Do people who purchase Playboy magazine also want to buy kiddie porn? Why do the two have to go together?
Demand is inextricably connected to the worst aspects of prostitution. For example, in Isreal men demanded to rent girls and women for sex so traffickers imported foreign women, about 3,000 women per year. A few years ago the government and NGO implemented a program to end trafficking and rescued many of those women. However, because there was still a demand for paid sex the pimps started to use Isreali girls instead. "The demand for sex did not change, and the [gap] had to be filled. Israeli women filled it," said Adi Willinger, the Trafficking Coordinator at Hotline for Migrant Workers.
And now the Isreali women and girls are suffering because of the demand:
“Wolfe, Willinger and the senior deputy to Tel Aviv's district attorney, Dalia Avramoff, explain how Israeli women are normally lured into the sex trade: A pimp seeks out a vulnerable girl, usually between the ages of 12 and 15. He takes her in from the streets, or from an abusive home, providing her with "love" and protection. He then gets her addicted to drugs (most frequently heroin) and forces her to work for him as a prostitute in order to pay off her drug debt.”
Zebede, M. (2009). Traffickers target Israeli girls to replace foreign sex slaves. Haaretz.com.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1107851.html
So regardless of whether or not Isreali men want girls to be raped (statutory or forced), women and girls to be enslaved and/or addicted to drugs for the purpose of being coerced into prostitution that was done to meet their demand for sex.
If there were no drug addicts, no child prostitutes, and no sex slaves or prostitutes threatened with brutalization and death, then there would be much less prostitution and pornography.
When people rent prostitutes or watch porn it’s sometimes impossible to know for sure how old the prostitute is, whether they’re doing it because they suffer from drug addiction or fear of being beaten or killed by a pimp, or whether they are sex slaves, or whether they’re sad people who have been so severely traumatized by child abuse that they allow themselves to be objectified because they feel the don’t deserve better.
Buyers are not innocent if they don’t know a prostitute’s situation. Johns are the worst abusers of prostitutes whether they know they’re abusing prostitutes or not.
I didn't really want to get into this, but I really agree with you about research. But I'm a sociologist and I believe science can change the world, if done right.
The statistics on mental illness so frequently cited have very dubious methodology. Ronald Weitzer and others have made in depth criticisms.
Check out the link I posted to Laura Agustin's blog. Her work is really good, I think.
There is also research that suggests the reason sexual slavery persists is in part due to the lack of training for law enforcement in being able to recognize coerced individuals versus sex workers. Everyone is treated like a criminal. The Urban Justice Center's Sex Workers Project (sexworkersproject.org) has done some work on this, and there was recently a story in the news about the failures of San Francisco's "john schools". Furthermore, it's not sex work per se that causes sexual slavery. People are made vulnerable because of economic conditions, sexism, and other social structural factors. Coco Fusco has written about Cuban sex workers, and there's work by Kamala Kempadoo, as well as Wonders and Michalowski.
Anyway, that's a lot when I said I wasn't getting into it! But I agree with a lot of the points you have made.
I've posted on this site many times and a person who used the word "voluptuousness" in their username repeatedly promotes prostitution and never provides credible evidence. I provided a link to the esteemed New York Times. The research is by a psychologist who used excellent research techniques as described in the articles and Dr. Farley's research is peer reviewed.
You provided no links.
You provided no articles.
You provided no information about the research techniques of the Robert Weitzer and alleged "others" who supposedly back him up.
In short, you provided no evidence, and I don't even know your real name. You could be representing the sex industry blogging on this feminist site to promote the selling of sex to stop feminists from caring about the victims of prostitution like child prostitutes.
There is also research that suggests the reason sexual slavery persists is in part due to the lack of training for law enforcement in being able to recognize coerced individuals versus sex workers.Sex slavery is rape. Rape is caused by patriarchy:
http://journaloffeministinsight.blogspot.com/2008/12/male-dominance-causes-rape.html
it's not sex work per se that causes sexual slavery. People are made vulnerable because of economic conditions, sexism, and other social structural factors.I never said prostitution causes sex slavery. I said legalizing pimping and buying sex increases sex slavery.
just checked out your blog btw. That link to the matriarchal Minangkabau of Indonesia was fascinating. Imagine matrilineal customs coexisting with Islam. Sorta blows away all stereotypes.
Dominique, yes it's great to see that an Islamic society can treat women equally. It proves that the reason many Islamic countries have gender apartheid is because they practice a radical extremist version of Islam.
I know this wasn't specifically in regards to any of my posts, but I have a couple things I want to say.
"I provided a link to the esteemed New York Times. The research is by a psychologist who used excellent research techniques as described in the articles and Dr. Farley's research is peer reviewed."
I read this article. Nowhere in it does it mention decriminalized prostitution at all, never mind cases of PTSD being higher among legally working prostitutes than illegally working prostitutes.
As for legalized pimping-- who's arguing for that?
The New York Times article was for a response to voluptuouspanic who claimed that the the research about prostitutes having mental illness was shoddy. I provided the link as an example of excellent research that showed prostitutes have much more mental illness than the average person.
You're right that the article doesn't specifically mention whether the prostitutes worked in a region where prostitution was legalized. However, it does say that the prostitutes were from "San Francisco and six large cities in Europe, Asia and Africa" Prostitution is illegal in San Francisco so at least some of the prostitutes were on the opposite side of the law.
However, I doubt the legality matters much regarding how the prostitutes got Post-Traumatic Stress-Syndrome because on average only a tiny percentage of people, about 5% have PTSD and 2/3 of prostitutes had it. If all criminals had PTSD which is debilitating then the general public would know about it. Thus, the illegal aspect of prostitution probably has little or nothing to do with PTSD. In the article I posted on my first post, "10 Reasons for Not Legalizing Prostitution” it says one study found that prostitutes did not want prostitution to be legalized because it would empower johns who already treated the prostitutes badly.
As for legalized pimping-- who's arguing for that?I'm glad to hear at least you recognize pimps/madams harm prostitutes. Pimping also includes brothels.
I doubt the legality matters much regarding how the prostitutes got Post-Traumatic Stress-Syndrome because . . .about 5% have PTSD and 2/3 of prostitutes had it.
But again, correlation does NOT equal causation. Assuming these numbers are accurate (big assumption), we have no way of knowing how these women got PTSD. It is possible that they were suffering BEFORE they entered prostitution.
I am not naive, many people do enter the sex industry because they lack other options. Obviously the mentally ill do not have a lot of career choices. Perhaps PTSD is so debilitating that sufferers cannot work a 40 hour week? So they turn to prostitution where they make more money for less hours. You cannot show (and this study does not even claim to show) that the PTSD is a result of prostitution!
If all criminals had PTSD . . .the general public would know about it.
What makes you think that? Society in general does not care about the mental illness needs of criminals. Has a study been done showing that prostitutes have higher rates of PTSD than other non-violent offenders? I know of no such research.
one study found that prostitutes did not want prostitution to be legalized because it would empower johns who already treated the prostitutes badly.
But that is only one group of people! Plenty of sex workers DO want prostitution to be legalized! Google "sex worker rights," there are literally dozens of groups of former and current prostitutes who are advocating to have the laws changed.
we have no way of knowing how these women got PTSD. It is possible that they were suffering BEFORE they entered prostitution
Farley’s study tested male and female prostitutes and both genders had high levels of PTSD. However, it is possible that the prostitutes got PTSD before they became prostitutes, though I doubt it because of the extreme abuse the average prostitute suffers seems to indicate that’s the reason they have a lot of mental problems. But even if prostitutes got PTSD before they became prostitutes that also proves my point because if prostitution attracts people with severe mental disorder and regular healthy people tend to avoid it, then that indicates something is bad about prostitution.
Obviously the mentally ill do not have a lot of career choices. Perhaps PTSD is so debilitating that sufferers cannot work a 40 hour week? So they turn to prostitution where they make more money for less hours.
Based on my research most prostitutes become prostitutes in their early teens so working a 40 hour week isn’t an option, at least not in the United States where the average female prostitute begins being prostituted at age 12-14 and males at the age of 11-13.
http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/ceos/prostitution.html
Nancy Kallitechnis: If all criminals had PTSD . . .the general public would know about it.
analog: What makes you think that?
Because PTSD is a debilitating disease. Criminals are studied all the time and if 2/3 of criminals in U.S. jails had PTSD it would be obvious, but if a small percentage of jailed people, and prostitutes are a tiny percentage of the total criminal population, then it is easy to ignore.
Society in general does not care about the mental illness needs of criminals.
Maybe society doesn’t care about the criminals, but criminals are constantly being investigated by criminologists who try to understand them in order to stop crime.
Nancy Kallitechnis: one study found that prostitutes did not want prostitution to be legalized because it would empower johns who already treated the prostitutes badly.
analog: But that is only one group of people! Plenty of sex workers DO want prostitution to be legalized! Google "sex worker rights," there are literally dozens of groups of former and current prostitutes who are advocating to have the laws changed.
I was referring to “one study” from the Raymond article that said, ”In a 5-country study on sex trafficking done by the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women and funded by the Ford Foundation, most of the 146 women interviewed strongly stated that prostitution should not be legalized and considered legitimate work, warning that legalization would create more risks and harm for women from already violent customer and pimps …"No way. It's not a profession. It is humiliating and violence from the men's side." Not one woman interviewed wanted her children, family or friends to have to earn money by entering the sex industry.” I’ve done a lot of research on this subject and frequently read quotes of prostitutes and sex slaves who say the same. Also, the pro-prostitution sites and spokespeople are often paid by the billion-dollar sex industry, so it’s difficult to believe them.
the average female prostitute begins being prostituted at age 12-14 and males at the age of 11-13.
Again, you need to carefully read the ORIGINAL source of the data you cite. This study interviewed children living on the street in New York and asked the age at which they had entered prostitution. The researchers did NOT interview any adult prostitutes, any children not living on the street, any children not living in New York, etc. I don't think we can use the horrific experiences of one group of street children to extrapolate the starting age of the average American prostitute.
most of the 146 women interviewed strongly stated that prostitution should not be legalized . . . Not one woman interviewed wanted her children . . . to have to earn money by entering the sex industry.
Again, we can not extrapolate the desires of the millions of sex workers worldwide based on the views of less than 150 people. And notice that even some of these women DID want prostitution legalized. I doubt that the researchers found any prostitutes who wanted to pay fines, go to prison, or have an arrest record. As for not wanting others to enter the sex industry, I don't see why that matters. I don't think most fast food workers want their children to follow in their footsteps either. They want their kids to be doctors and lawyers. That doesn't mean that fast food is bad, it means that everyone wants their children to have more than they do.
the pro-prostitution sites and spokespeople are often paid by the billion-dollar sex industry, so it’s difficult to believe them.
A lot of these organizations are non-profits run by current and former prostitutes who are volunteers. I do agree that we need to look at the motivations behind advocacy and research organizations. Consider the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW - the organization co-founded by Janice Raymond) - their mission statement is to "end sexual exploitation in all its forms." That sounds fine, who doesn't support that goal? But their definition of exploitation includes adult sex workers (including strippers), and pornography. This is a fairly extreme anti-sex organization. Janice Raymond is best known for her anti-transexual writings. Melissa Farley is also an outspoken anti-pornography advocate.
I think we need to remember that legalization is about protecting the civil and human rights of CONSENTING ADULTS who want to buy and sell sexual services. Child prostitution and forced prostitution are horrible evils, but they do not have to be the inevitable byproducts of legalized/decriminalized prostitution.
You mentioned earlier that you wanted links to other information. Here are some non-profit prostitutes' rights groups:
www.bayswan.org
http://www.desireealliance.org
http://www.iswface.org
Also, procon.org has a whole page devoted to both sides of this issue at http://prostitution.procon.org
You might be interested in this publication:
http://www.mfa.nl/contents/pages/743/prost.pdf
It is produced by the Netherlands Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Sections 5, 6, and 7 discuss how legalization "protected prostitutes, protected people from being coerced into prostitution, and protected minors from sexual abuse.
Nancy Kallitechnis: the average female prostitute begins being prostituted at age 12-14 and males at the age of 11-13.
analog: Again, you need to carefully read the ORIGINAL source of the data you cite. This study interviewed children living on the street in New York and asked the age at which they had entered prostitution. The researchers did NOT interview any adult prostitutes, any children not living on the street, any children not living in New York, etc. I don't think we can use the horrific experiences of one group of street children to extrapolate the starting age of the average American prostitute.
Actually, if a site uses scholarly sources I normally don’t read the original document to verify every statistic. The site I got the statistics from is a U.S. government site which included scholarly references and so I accepted their statistics. Apparently you read the original document that the statistics are take from which is Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children in the U.S, Canada and Mexico by Richard J. Estes and Neil Alan Weiner: http://www.sp2.upenn.edu/~restes/CSEC.htm
I don’t believe you when you say the study is of only NY children, because I briefly read it and it states that it is an investigation of child exploitation in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico (28 cities total).
[regarding the 5-country European study] I doubt that the researchers found any prostitutes who wanted to pay fines, go to prison, or have an arrest record.
As I’ve said repeatedly on this thread, selling sex should be legal while buying sex and pimping should be outlawed. Under that system, prostitutes will never be arrested, yet prostitution will be illegal.
A lot of these [pro-prostitution] organizations are non-profits run by current and former prostitutes who are volunteers.
Non-profits exist from donations. The sex industry wants pro-legalization organizations to achieve their goal and the industry has extensive funds to donate to them.
Consider the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women (CATW - the organization co-founded by Janice Raymond) - their mission statement is to "end sexual exploitation in all its forms." That sounds fine, who doesn't support that goal? But their definition of exploitation includes adult sex workers (including strippers), and pornography. This is a fairly extreme anti-sex organization.
There’s nothing extreme about wanting to end child prostitution, sex slavery and jobs that cause massive psychological trauma to most workers or that attract mostly people with severe mental disorders who place themselves in a vulnerable position to be abused. What’s extreme is people promoting the legalization of an industry that is full of child rape, slavery and routinely brutalizes and drugs its workers for maximum profit.
There are many studies documenting that strippers suffer a lot of abuse and have a much higher rate of mental illness than average people. Psychiatrist Mary Anne Layden documented that “35% of strippers have Multiple Personality Disorder, 55% had Borderline Personality Disorder, and 60% had Major Depressive Episodes.”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resource.php?n=1078
I think we need to remember that legalization is about protecting the civil and human rights of CONSENTING ADULTS who want to buy and sell sexual services. Child prostitution and forced prostitution are horrible evils, but they do not have to be the inevitable byproducts of legalized/decriminalized prostitution.
Read my first post and you will see a lot of evidence that abuse including child rape and slavery has been the result of legalizing prostitution. There’s also more evidence on the Internet.
You might be interested in this publication:
http://www.mfa.nl/contents/pages/743/prost.pdf
It is produced by the Netherlands Ministry for Foreign Affairs. Sections 5, 6, and 7 discuss how legalization "protected prostitutes, protected people from being coerced into prostitution, and protected minors from sexual abuse.
That’s a false claim. Legalization has not “protected minors from sexual abuse” it has increased child prostitution (child rape). As I said before child prostitution dramatically increased during the legalization process of the 90’s in the Netherlands. Amsterdam’s ChildRight organization estimates that the number of child prostitutes increased from 4,000 children in 1996 to 15,000 in 2001, about one-third of which are trafficked from foreign countries.
http://www.rapereliefshelter.bc.ca/issues/prostitution_legalizing.html
“A report done for the governmental Budapest Group* stated that 80% of women in the brothels in the Netherlands are trafficked from other countries (Budapest Group, 1999: 11). As early as 1994, the International Organization of Migration (IOM) stated that in the Netherlands alone, "nearly 70 per cent of trafficked women were from CEEC Central and Eastern European Countries]"
Because Netherlands women are not poor enough to be lured into the sex industry to satisfy demand, desperate poverty-stricken people are trafficked (sometimes as slaves) into the country to fill the vacant “jobs” the Netherlands people don’t want to do. The Netherlands government was so callous to the suffering of people trafficked for sex that in the year 2000 the Dutch Ministry of Justice tried to create a quota of foreign "sex workers," arguing that it was necessary to import people of different races to perform prostitution because multi-racial prostitutes will increase profits for the Dutch sex industry.
I read the Netherlands Ministry for Foreign Affairs you provided a link to and the report said it doesn’t have any conclusions about the impact of legalizing prostitution (page 3). I noticed that the legalization requires prostitutes to pay taxes which make the government less motivated to acknowledge prostitution human rights abuses because they have become Big Pimp profiting from a sex industry full of abuse. When the government becomes a pimp, that’s a serious problem.
This is why I didn't want to get into this.
I really don't appreciate the personal attacks because I don't use my real name. How many people on this blog actually do? That's not fair, nor is it appropriate. I also do not "promote prostitution". I promote evidence-based harm reduction. I also really, really don't appreciate the malicious accusation that I don't care about those affected by trafficking and child prostitution. I happen to be deeply committed to activism to end these practices. Simply because I cannot get behind your evidence doesn't mean I am all these things you so cavalierly and maliciously accuse me of. Please refrain from personally attacking me because you cannot refute my sources.
I have listed many sources, time and time again. Simply because I do not post links to websites does not mean I haven't. I have listed many names of researchers. If you look them up on Google Scholar, you would find the articles and the research I'm talking about.
But, if you want links, I posted a whole bunch further up in this thread.
So, in the future, I would really appreciate it if you would refrain from personally attacking me because I don't agree with you. This is the last thing I will post to you on this blog, unless you are interested in actually reading the citations I've provided and engaging with me without relying on critiquing meaningless things like the fact that my alias isn't my real name.
I really don't appreciate the personal attacks because I don't use my real name.
I did not attack you and you should apologize for making a false accusation. I don’t use my real name and I don’t expect anyone else to. When I said I don’t know your real name I meant that I will not believe anything you say based on no evidence if you don’t even provide me with your name. You said you were a sociologist which implied you have expert knowledge of this sociological subject we’re discussing. So if you don’t offer any evidence, at least tell us your name and describe your research and any academic institutions you represent so that readers can verify that what you say has some validity. However, if you provide solid evidence as I have it’s not necessary to provide your academic credentials.
I also do not "promote prostitution".
I never said you do. Go back and read my post to verify that.
I promote evidence-based harm reduction.
Where is your evidence to prove that legalizing prostitution does not increase prostitution, child prostitution, and sex slavery?
I also really, really don't appreciate the malicious accusation that I don't care about those affected by trafficking and child prostitution.
You have made a false accusation. Carefully read all my posts and you will find that I have never accused you of not caring for the victims of prostitution.
happen to be deeply committed to activism to end these practices.
What are you doing to end child prostitution and trafficking?
Please refrain from personally attacking me because you cannot refute my sources.
By sources I guess you are referring to the names you have used of people who allegedly have documented evidence that legalizing prostitution does not increase prostitution, child prostitution and sex slavery. I could write a list of names but that’s not evidence. I’m not refuting your sources. I’m saying you have not posted any evidence to counter my evidence.
I have listed many names of researchers. If you look them up on Google Scholar, you would find the articles and the research I'm talking about.
Asking the readers to look up information is not providing evidence. Unless you offer credible evidence to me then I will not believe you. I don’t want to spend hours today researching thousands of pages of documents to find evidence to prove your point. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim, so if you make a claim you are responsible for finding the evidence to back it up.
if you want links, I posted a whole bunch further up in this thread.
I had earlier looked at the links you sent to Honeybee. However, you did not post what information is on the links that refutes my evidence. When I ask for evidence I’m searching for evidence that legalizing prostitution does not increase prostitution, child rape, sex trafficking, etc.