NFL team owner Robert Kraft was swept up in a bust of a sex-trafficking day spa

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's obvious that at least one person on this thread is only going to believe what he wants, regardless of the evidence. Nobody said that because a woman is Chinese that she must be a sex slave. Nobody said that all women who engage in sex work are forced to do it. But, there is plenty of evidence that sex trafficking does exist and that it's a huge problem in the US. I'm having a very difficult time trying to understand why anyone would come to any different conclusion.

I am having a hard time understanding how anyone in this thread is concluding that anyone else in this thread disdagrees that sex slavery is a big problem.

These women said they were promised legitimate jobs if they came to the US, but then they were forced to do sex work. Why is that so difficult to believe?

Where are you getting that in this case? Where did anyone say they are forced into sex work. I mean of these particular women? Nobody has disputed that there exist women who are.

It's obvious that there are times when people sadly cling to what they want to believe rather than considering the evidence given to them.

Its also obvious when people imagine evidence where none exists, to fit a pattern they have in their minds. Its also obvious when people create strawmen to go against that have nothing to do with what the people they claim to respond to actually write.

As for listening to the women, yeah, that's a good idea. How about we do that? Has anyone actually asked these women about their situations? Offering them protection so they can answer honestly?

How about we listen to sex workers generally too? Instead of "riding to their rescue" as white knights bent on branding them criminals and shutting down their jobs, how about we listen to them when they so often tell us that they would like safety in their jobs, through decriminalization and regulation? No. They get ignored. Why won't people listen to these women? Because what they say doesn't fit the narrative.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Wrong. I pointed out that your argument was based on faulty reasoning - we don't know if there are going to be more charges. The lack of an immediate charge of sex trafficking does not mean these women were not sex slaves.

That's true. But who should the onus be on here? Why skip to the conclusion that they are sex slaves? Because they are Asian? Because they are immigrants? Would you skip to the same conclusion if they were not? Maybe because they work in massage parlours? Are all massage parlour workers sex slaves in your mind?

Has anybody bothered to ask the actual workers, and offer them protection so they can answer honestly?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Wrong. I pointed out that your argument was based on faulty reasoning - we don't know if there are going to be more charges. The lack of an immediate charge of sex trafficking does not mean these women were not sex slaves.

That's true. But who should the onus be on here? Why skip to the conclusion that they are sex slaves? Because they are Asian? Because they are immigrants? Would you skip to the same conclusion if they were not? Maybe because they work in massage parlours? Are all massage parlour workers sex slaves in your mind?

Has anybody bothered to ask the actual workers, and offer them protection so they can answer honestly?

From earlier in the thread:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/23/us/robert-kraft-trafficking-florida.html?module=inline

“I don’t believe they were told they were going to work in massage parlors seven days a week, having unprotected sex with up to 1,000 men a year,” said Sheriff William D. Snyder of Martin County, whose office opened the investigation. “We saw them eating on hot plates in the back. There were no washing machines. They were sleeping on the massage tables.”

The women were shuttled from place to place — not only to nearby parlors but also across the state

Does that sound like ... normal ... working conditions which shouldn't raise serious red flags?

Also, what about this:

Sheriff Snyder said he believed at least some of the women were working to pay off debt owed for what it cost to bring them to the United States. In some cases, the women’s passports were taken away.

How many jobs have you had where your employer "held onto" your passport while you were working there? Have you ever worked in a foreign country where there were costs involved in getting you to the job? If so, how many times were you personally responsible for those costs as opposed to it being a business expense which the company covers?

I'm just curious what it is something that would make you suspicious and conclude that the workers in a place are trafficking victims? If the above wouldn't do it, what would be the bar to get your spidey sense tingling?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

“I don’t believe they were told they were going to work in massage parlors seven days a week, having unprotected sex with up to 1,000 men a year,” said Sheriff William D. Snyder of Martin County, whose office opened the investigation. “We saw them eating on hot plates in the back. There were no washing machines. They were sleeping on the massage tables.”

Ah. I hadn't read that. Some red flags yes. I would be suspicious and investigate, but but I wouldn't conclude anything based on that. I know of a strip club in Toronto that operates not so differently, in terms of providing free housing to foreign dancers. And they are legit and force nothing on anyone. I know, because I worked with one of the dancers when she was part of a case years ago and she showed me the entire operation. Some weird stuff goes on there, but slavery and rape aren't among them. Girls actually have been kicked out of the free lodging and had contracts terminated and been sent home for being caught with drugs and for being prostitutes within and outside the club. I also know a few non-sex-industry-related work places that operate similarly, and mostly with recent immigrants who have not gotten apartments of their own yet, or who are not planning to stick around long enough for it to make sense to get them.

Sheriff Snyder said he believed at least some of the women were working to pay off debt owed for what it cost to bring them to the United States. In some cases, the women’s passports were taken away.

Working off debt raises a bit of a red flag but can also be legit. Passport confiscated, if that's true, is the strongest red flag here. I WOULD conclude something illegal is going on if that is true. Is it in this case? Did the women report this to the Sherriff or is this something he is just saying, or saying from another case? If its true, then that is damning.

Have you ever worked in a foreign country where there were costs involved in getting you to the job? If so, how many times were you personally responsible for those costs as opposed to it being a business expense which the company covers?

Actually yes. And it was my own expense both times I did it. As I said, that one on its own isn't damning. The passport one.... that is. Nobody has a right to take your passport.

What would be even better evidence and get my spidey sense tingling? A complaint from the actual women working there. The police should be offering them protection and encouraging them to do so, rather than criminalizing them for doing so and making them fear the police even when offered protection from the traffickers.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Here's what I find the most striking in the NY Times article

First, a health inspector spotted several suitcases. Then she noticed an unusual stash of clothing, food and bedding. A young woman who was supposed to be a massage therapist spoke little English and seemed unusually nervous.

Note how this all got found out. A health inspector was there. That's because this was posing (or possibly was) a legitimate massage parlour.

Note, that there are no health inspectors to notice such things in the more underground illegal brothels that exist around town.

Driving prostitution underground makes it easier, not harder, for traffickers to use and abuse victims.

 

[Toni]

What's wrong with New Republic? It's a magazine that's been around for more than a century.
I guess the fault you are finding with it is that the article exposes the ridiculously broad definition of "trafficking" prohibitionists employ.

No, Derec. I've been told repeatedly that I don't use good sources to form my opinions about how legalization would improve the plight of prostitutes. I use and have posted sources with a much better reputation for high journalistic and investigative standards than the New Republic, as well as sources of well known human rights organizations.

What? It doesn't feel good to be told that you don't use good sources. Huh.

In fact, I've spent a lot of time reading all sides of the issues from a variety of sources. I do believe that the lives of some prostitutes might be improved under legalization. I also believe that number is smaller than the number of people whose lives would be made worse. This is not the opinion I started out with. I am sincere when I say that I was surprised at the harms that are documented under legalized prostitution schemes. I understand the logic that legalization would make prostitution safer. It seems that legalization has a lot of similarities to legalizing opioids. In the US, an awful lot of people are addicted to legal drugs that were prescribed to them by physicians intending only to help. These drugs have been manufactured under all laws and regulations of the FDA and are closely monitored at every point in their production. And have caused untold harm to people who become addicted and those who abuse them recreationaly. Legalization doesn't always remove harm and sometimes can increase harm. It happens with at least some drugs. It also happens in prostitution. I wish as much as anybody else that were not the case.

The warrant was for human trafficking. That enabled them to do questionable things like video people in massage rooms. In the end, all they got was evidence that there was prostitution going on there, not human trafficking.

That does not seem to be correct.

Nothing overly emotional here.

Derec, you get quite upset and start calling names whenever someone talks about the negative effects of prostitution on prostitutes. I'm not the only person who has noticed.

I won't address the fact that you are referring to the sex workers as girls and therefore acknowledging that they are not adults

Please! This is the kind of dishonest arguing that infuriates me with you. Girl does not necessarily mean underage in the English language. I obviously meant adult women.

Given how certain you have seemed that a 16 year old can give consent to be a prostitute, I am not so sure that it is obvious that you mean 'adult women.'

but I will address that rape is rape even if the rapist chooses not to acknowledge the legal status of his victim.

But a non-rape is non-rape even despite what Toni wishes for.

Rape is a matter of law, not opinion. Coercion means there is no consent. Non-consensual sex is rape.

This is an example of you being a rape-apologist. According to you, the person who is enslaved must duly inform all those who pay money to rape her that she is indeed unwilling and/or under age or else the 'client' is to be held blameless. That's not how slavery works.

It's not an example of being a rape apologist. It's about not blaming people for things they had no knowledge of.

Sure it is. It's an example of someone not caring to know how willing the person is. Because it's not convenient.

Forced sex is rape. It is rape whether drugs, alcohol or blackmail or threats of violence or other serious threats are used to induce cooperation.

But if somebody unknowingly has sex with somebody like that, you still think it's rape?

Derec, please try to look at this from the standpoint of the victim: From the victim's standpoint, it is indeed rape.

And yes, I believe that if you initiate sexual contact, you need to be responsible enough to perform sufficient due diligence that ensures the other person is willing, not just afraid of the consequences if they resist or unable to express their own wishes or unable to escape.

It is the very rare person who does not realize that there is plenty of human trafficking involved in sex work. It seems to me that any decent human being would want to make certain that the person they were having sex with was a willing* participant and not coerced in some way or too drugged/drunk to know what was going on or to object or escape. *Willing = not acquiescing because of fear of harm to themselves or those they care about.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I've been told repeatedly that I don't use good sources to form my opinions about how legalization would improve the plight of prostitutes.

Your sources are ok. You just don't read them critically or respond to criticism of their points without attacking those who criticize them.

In fact, I've spent a lot of time reading all sides of the issues from a variety of sources. I do believe that the lives of some prostitutes might be improved under legalization. I also believe that number is smaller than the number of people whose lives would be made worse.

Did you read what Copernicus and southernhybrid wrote and linked to in the other thread? Did you read what Tom wrote about legalizing AND regulating prostitution? About how he expects an increase in trafficking but also making it easier to take down, for a net decrease? You haven't commented on that yet.

Rape is a matter of law, not opinion. Coercion means there is no consent. Non-consensual sex is rape.

And consensual sex isn't. There exist prostitutes who engage in both. Glad we can all agree for once.

Sure it is. It's an example of someone not caring to know how willing the person is. Because it's not convenient.

Not willing to know? Here is where legalization and licensing would come in very handy. When its all illegal, how exactly IS a john to know?

It is the very rare person who does not realize that there is plenty of human trafficking involved in sex work. It seems to me that any decent human being would want to make certain that the person they were having sex with was a willing* participant and not coerced in some way or too drugged/drunk to know what was going on or to object or escape. *Willing = not acquiescing because of fear of harm to themselves or those they care about.

Absolutely agree with this, which is another reason to legalize, regulate and license prostitution. Make it easy for the johns to know and undeniable that the john knows.

 

[laughing dog]

Wrong. I pointed out that your argument was based on faulty reasoning - we don't know if there are going to be more charges. The lack of an immediate charge of sex trafficking does not mean these women were not sex slaves.

That's true. But who should the onus be on here? Why skip to the conclusion that they are sex slaves? Because they are Asian? Because they are immigrants? Would you skip to the same conclusion if they were not? Maybe because they work in massage parlours? Are all massage parlour workers sex slaves in your mind?

The onus should be people to read the reports. This has nothing to do with their ethnicity or race. It has to do with the reports in the newspapers that anyone who actually gave a damn can access. Tom Sawyer in post #63 provides a link and quotes that anyone could access.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

What would be even better evidence and get my spidey sense tingling? A complaint from the actual women working there. The police should be offering them protection and encouraging them to do so, rather than criminalizing them for doing so and making them fear the police even when offered protection from the traffickers.

Except you are making that statement while knowing damn well that if it were a trafficking organization, the woman making the complaint would remember that she was lying to the cops about being a sex slave the minute she gets an email from home about how her brother inadvertently slit his own throat in a tragic shaving accident and retract her statement, thus scuttling the case. Since there's a non-zero chance that the brother was still alive and well when the local police went to investigate his tragic death, partnering with the foreign authorities to protect her family isn't a legitimate option when trying to protect her. Relying on the statements of victims of human trafficking is not a realistic way to determine whether or not there is human trafficking going on since the protection that the authorities can offer doesn't actually afford any protection.

It is very difficult to build an actual criminal case against human trafficking to shut these organizations down, but not difficult at all to shut them down for "health and safety concerns" and the like when these red flags occur. If they inadvertently shut down a legitimate site which was trying to trying to be frugal and save money by boarding a dozen willing woman in a room and trimming cleaning costs by not washing their sheets and lowering maintenance expenses on doors by locking them so the girls can't wear them out by going outside, then that's actually a small price to pay to undercut the funding of sex slavery which you'll be able to do in the other 99 situations you come across. Given that it's just as easy for these "health inspectors" to find these establishments as it is for the customers to find them, they really should be more proactive in finding them.

 

[Toni]

Your sources are ok. You just don't read them critically or respond to criticism of their points without attacking those who criticize them.



Did you read what Copernicus and southernhybrid wrote and linked to in the other thread? Did you read what Tom wrote about legalizing AND regulating prostitution? About how he expects an increase in trafficking but also making it easier to take down, for a net decrease? You haven't commented on that yet.

Rape is a matter of law, not opinion. Coercion means there is no consent. Non-consensual sex is rape.

And consensual sex isn't. There exist prostitutes who engage in both. Glad we can all agree for once.

Sure it is. It's an example of someone not caring to know how willing the person is. Because it's not convenient.

Not willing to know? Here is where legalization and licensing would come in very handy. When its all illegal, how exactly IS a john to know?

It is the very rare person who does not realize that there is plenty of human trafficking involved in sex work. It seems to me that any decent human being would want to make certain that the person they were having sex with was a willing* participant and not coerced in some way or too drugged/drunk to know what was going on or to object or escape. *Willing = not acquiescing because of fear of harm to themselves or those they care about.

Absolutely agree with this, which is another reason to legalize, regulate and license prostitution. Make it easy for the johns to know and undeniable that the john knows.

I do read critically. I am the person being attacked here.

I've also just read Tom's post about how hard it is to build an actual case against human trafficking. He's right. It's not just the sex industry but many other industries that we all utilize to some extent.

Licensing and legalization has not reduced trafficking. Anywhere. I wish that it did. The problem of trafficking exists across any industry because some people are willing to use other people to satisfy their own needs and wants without considering the needs and wishes of those providing whatever labor is involved. Because at least some people with some money--however little money they might have--are inclined to view those without money (power, agency, freedom) as being less than actual people. As being less than human.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I do read critically. I am the person being attacked here.

You attacked before you were attacked. You made some pretty nasty assertions against Derec and his motives before anyone attacked you or questioned yours. I hope you learn to notice yourself doing so in the future. It may lower the frequency of you being attacked.

I've also just read Tom's post about how hard it is to build an actual case against human trafficking. He's right. It's not just the sex industry but many other industries that we all utilize to some extent.

Agreed. But did you read what I asked above if you've read? Southernhybrid's post and links in the other thread? Loren's notes about Nevada and when prostitution was legal by accident in New Jersey (I think it was?). Or Tom's posts about legalization slightly increasing trafficking yet making it easier to take down, for a next lowering of it? You seem to have a filter against some interesting points that you don't respond to. They are often the more interesting points where your input would be most valuable.

Licensing and legalization has not reduced trafficking. Anywhere. I wish that it did.

That's a very bold statement. Where has it been legalized and heavily regulated? Nevada? Loren pointed to data showing decreases in trafficking and rape. Tom pointed to success in Toronto where the word is out that prostitution laws are not being enforced except in the case of trafficking. I didn't read you responding to either of them on these points.

The problem of trafficking exists across any industry because some people are willing to use other people to satisfy their own needs and wants without considering the needs and wishes of those providing whatever labor is involved.

Agreed. Legalization won't end trafficking or abuse. Depending on how we define "trafficking", it may even increase that. But it does expose it and make it easier to attack, which is a point Tom was making earlier.

Because at least some people with some money--however little money they might have--are inclined to view those without money (power, agency, freedom) as being less than actual people. As being less than human.

You've brought this point up a few times. I submit that the criminalization of prostitution puts prostitutes in a worse rather than better position in this regard as to social perception of them. People look down on criminals. And I further submit that what you speak of in the above quote also has a lot to do with why legislators don't listen to actual sex workers when making laws about sex work. They look down on them and don't value what they have to say. That needs to change. They need to be heard.

 

[Toni]

You attacked before you were attacked. You made some pretty nasty assertions against Derec and his motives before anyone attacked you or questioned yours. I hope you learn to notice yourself doing so in the future. It may lower the frequency of you being attacked.



Agreed. But did you read what I asked above if you've read? Southernhybrid's post and links in the other thread? Loren's notes about Nevada and when prostitution was legal by accident in New Jersey (I think it was?). Or Tom's posts about legalization slightly increasing trafficking yet making it easier to take down, for a next lowering of it? You seem to have a filter against some interesting points that you don't respond to. They are often the more interesting points where your input would be most valuable.

Licensing and legalization has not reduced trafficking. Anywhere. I wish that it did.

That's a very bold statement. Where has it been legalized and heavily regulated? Nevada? Loren pointed to data showing decreases in trafficking and rape. Tom pointed to success in Toronto where the word is out that prostitution laws are not being enforced except in the case of trafficking. I didn't read you responding to either of them on these points.

The problem of trafficking exists across any industry because some people are willing to use other people to satisfy their own needs and wants without considering the needs and wishes of those providing whatever labor is involved.

Agreed. Legalization won't end trafficking or abuse. Depending on how we define "trafficking", it may even increase that. But it does expose it and make it easier to attack, which is a point Tom was making earlier.

Because at least some people with some money--however little money they might have--are inclined to view those without money (power, agency, freedom) as being less than actual people. As being less than human.

You've brought this point up a few times. I submit that the criminalization of prostitution puts prostitutes in a worse rather than better position in this regard as to social perception of them. People look down on criminals. And I further submit that what you speak of in the above quote also has a lot to do with why legislators don't listen to actual sex workers when making laws about sex work. They look down on them and don't value what they have to say. That needs to change. They need to be heard.

Despite your claims, I haven't attacked Derec nor was I the first to bring up his personal stake in legalization of prostitution.

Thank you for acknowledging that legalization might increase trafficking. It seems to do just that. In fact, it seems very much to follow the same sorts of patterns that the opioid crisis has followed: legalized substance(service), duly regulated (and prescribed) yet widely and tragically abused, leaving a lot of death and destruction in its path.

Agriculture, and all aspects of the food industry and textile industries are all legal. Even well regulated. Domestic service has an extremely long history and an important place in society, particularly where both partners in a family work long hours. All of these legal, well regulated industries are filled with trafficking.

Where is the outrage? Where is the will to end the abuses against people who are vulnerable and forced into terrible working conditions?

Why would prostitution be different?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Where is the outrage? Where is the will to end the abuses against people who are vulnerable and forced into terrible working conditions?

Why would prostitution be different?

Maybe all it needs is more people talking about it for it to become a focus on people's give-a-shit-o'meter. Like with the #MeToo movement. People have been aware of and talking about how women are harassed and assaulted on the job for decades but suddenly it reached a critical mass and society as a whole decided to actually care and pay attention to the things they'd known about but gone out of their way to not really notice beforehand.

Perhaps it could be the same with sex slavery. We all drive by the neon signs for "spas" and we all know what's happening with them but we then go out of our way to turn our heads and continue on with our days. If the owner of an NFL team had decided to take a nap that afternoon instead of visit a place, we'd still know exactly as much as we do now about what was going on in those places (I mean, the reports about the conditions for the women there offered no surprising information we'd been unaware of) but we wouldn't be having a conversation about it. It could just take people not stopping that conversation this time.

 

[untermensche]

Where is the outrage? Where is the will to end the abuses against people who are vulnerable and forced into terrible working conditions?

Why would prostitution be different?

Like slavery.

Because people want it.

But if opportunity is severely restricted it may be an easier job than many.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Thank you for acknowledging that legalization might increase trafficking. It seems to do just that. In fact, it seems very much to follow the same sorts of patterns that the opioid crisis has followed: legalized substance(service), duly regulated (and prescribed) yet widely and tragically abused, leaving a lot of death and destruction in its path.

Regulation is the key. Legalization brings it out from the shadows. We can then ignore it, like in Amsterdam, or take it down, like in Toronto / Nevada.

There is no reason and no good excuse not to have good regulation and keep people safe. Failure to do so is inexcusable. Sweeping it under the rug is equally inexcusable. Can we agree on that much?

A problem with criminalization is that you've lost the ability to regulate.

Opiods are a comparison. Another is alcohol following prohibition.

Here's another comparison that also happens to involve the freedom of a woman to do what she wants with her body: Abortion. It was legalized and regulated. What was the result? I'd say far less coathanger abortions and safer results for all.

Agriculture, and all aspects of the food industry and textile industries are all legal. Even well regulated. Domestic service has an extremely long history and an important place in society, particularly where both partners in a family work long hours. All of these legal, well regulated industries are filled with trafficking.

Agreed. And police work hard to shut that trafficking down, and they should. Same should go for the sex industry. Now, of course you wouldn't call for agriculture or the textile industry or domestic service to be illegal as a whole. But imagine if any of them were and imagine how much harder it would then be to take down trafficking within these industries.

Where is the outrage? Where is the will to end the abuses against people who are vulnerable and forced into terrible working conditions?

If you think you have more outrage over slave workers, including sex slave workers than I do, or than anyone else in this forum does, then you are undeservedly elevating yourself to a false position of moral superiority. We care too. That includes Derec. Its one reason many of us want sex work legal and regulated.

Why would prostitution be different?

It shouldn't be. That's my point. You were the one arguing that it should be treated differently. You were arguing for banning the entire industry, including those who are working in it willingly (and making a lot of money doing so). Can you clarify this and reflect on your question to me here again?

 

[Toni]

Regulation is the key. Legalization brings it out from the shadows. We can then ignore it, like in Amsterdam, or take it down, like in Toronto / Nevada.

There is no reason and no good excuse not to have good regulation and keep people safe. Failure to do so is inexcusable. Sweeping it under the rug is equally inexcusable. Can we agree on that much?

A problem with criminalization is that you've lost the ability to regulate.

Opiods are a comparison. Another is alcohol following prohibition.

Here's another comparison that also happens to involve the freedom of a woman to do what she wants with her body: Abortion. It was legalized. What was the result? I'd say far less coathanger abortions and safer results for all.



Agreed. And police work hard to shut that trafficking down, and they should. Same should go for the sex industry. Now, of course you wouldn't call for agriculture or the textile industry or domestic service to be illegal as a whole. But imagine if any of them were and imagine how much harder it would then be to take down trafficking within these industries.

Where is the outrage? Where is the will to end the abuses against people who are vulnerable and forced into terrible working conditions?

You don't think there is outrage over sweatshop workers? Where have you been? And if you think you have more outrage over slave workers, including sex slave workers than I do, or than anyone else in this forum does, then you are undeservedly elevating yourself to a false position of moral superiority. We care too. That includes Derec. Its one reason many of us want sex work legal and regulated.

Why would prostitution be different?

It shouldn't be. That's my point. You were the one arguing that it should be treated differently. You were arguing for banning the entire industry, including those who are working in it willingly (and making a lot of money doing so). Can you clarify this and reflect on your question to me here again?

You really believe that there is no illegal prostitution in Nevada? In Toronto? In New Zealand?

Legalized prostitution seems to normalize the idea that girls are for sale. And boys, too, although that is always ignored here. That one can throw some money down and get your jollies off with the sex worker assuming all the risk. It normalizes the notion that women and girls can brushed and abused and discarded. That the only thing that matters is easy access to the parts desired.

I haven’t elevated myself at all. I’ve asked where is the outrage for other slaves and trafficked individuals in many industries. Where are the threads expressing the need for eliminating such practices.

All I got was the sound of crickets chirping.

It’s nice and all that you want to stick up for your buddy Derec. I think he can articulate for himself just how terrible he feels that slavery still exists.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You really believe that there is no illegal prostitution in Nevada? In Toronto? In New Zealand?

No, of course not. Where are you getting that from? Of course I don't believe that. I said legalization with regulation. That means a lot of it remains illegal, which would include trafficking, violation of regulations like STD checks and other health checks, some licencing, regulation on brothels and security companies working with them, etc.

Legalized prostitution seems to normalize the idea that girls are for sale. And boys, too, although that is always ignored here.

Girls are for sale. So are boys. That is life. Making consensual sex for money illegal doesn't change that.

It normalizes the notion that women and girls can brushed and abused and discarded.

Why did you just ignore boys, after saying they are too often ignored

And no, it doesn't. It actually allows for regulations that attack abusers and for laws and funding of social programs to help women (and men) so they don't get discarded. Taxes could also be collected through this and could assist in funding badly needed social programs.

As I wrote in the other thread, a serious problem with the sex industry that gets no attention whatsoever is that many sex workers get used to the big money, don't stay in school, and don't gain any work experience they can put on their resumes or use after they stop being sex workers. They get used to an expensive lifestyle. Drugs may be part of this but often are not; instead things like brand name clothes and expensive handbags and jewelry and always eating out etc are. Then they age or burn out and hit a figurative brick wall when they stop working in the industry. They get a minimum wage job (if they are lucky), and take a huge drop in how they are living. That can seriously screw up their heads, and I think there should be some counseling available for them.

That the only thing that matters is easy access to the parts desired.

This may not be the place to write about this, but being a skilled sex worker and maximizing money made in the trade is about far far more than access to body parts. Its about creating a fantasy, making guys (usually guys; varying from young guys who just want to fuck to disabled men to old men who just want to talk) feel sexy and wanted and desirable. You may be surprised who the most popular and biggest earning sex workers are. They aren't always the youngest or best looking. That's a huge part, but not all of it.

I’ve asked where is the outrage for other slaves and trafficked individuals in many industries. Where are the threads expressing the need for eliminating such practices.

Have you started any? We got this one about sex slaves. Indeed, where are the ones about other slaves? In fact, we don't see tons about sex slaves either. Them not being here doesn't mean you don't care though, right?

It’s nice and all that you want to stick up for your buddy Derec. I think he can articulate for himself just how terrible he feels that slavery still exists.

Derec isn't my "buddy". But yes, I will stick up for him when he gets slandered so extremely. Believe it or not, I will actually do the same for you if anyone accuses you of being a sex predator (you're not), of not caring if people are enslaved (you do care), or of only taking a position on an issue endangering the lives of others because you want to get laid (not true).

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Legalized prostitution seems to normalize the idea that girls are for sale. And boys, too, although that is always ignored here. That one can throw some money down and get your jollies off with the sex worker assuming all the risk. It normalizes the notion that women and girls can brushed and abused and discarded. That the only thing that matters is easy access to the parts desired.

OK, but illegal prostitution also seems to normalize the idea that they're for sale, given how normal the sale of them is in places where prostitution is illegal. It just makes the sale of them far more dangerous and risky for the people involved. Legalization also isn't some sort of end point where the industry is now good, it's a starting point from where you can actually begin to take steps to protect the workers and seems to clearly be the best of what may all just be a choice amongst bad options.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Legalized prostitution seems to normalize the idea that girls are for sale. And boys, too, although that is always ignored here. That one can throw some money down and get your jollies off with the sex worker assuming all the risk. It normalizes the notion that women and girls can brushed and abused and discarded. That the only thing that matters is easy access to the parts desired.

OK, but illegal prostitution also seems to normalize the idea that they're for sale, given how normal the sale of them is in places where prostitution is illegal. It just makes the sale of them far more dangerous and risky for the people involved. Legalization also isn't some sort of end point where the industry is now good, it's a starting point from where you can actually begin to take steps to protect the workers and seems to clearly be the best of what may all just be a choice amongst bad options.

..... waiting to see if Toni addresses this point this time.

 

[laughing dog]

Legalized prostitution seems to normalize the idea that girls are for sale. And boys, too, although that is always ignored here. That one can throw some money down and get your jollies off with the sex worker assuming all the risk. It normalizes the notion that women and girls can brushed and abused and discarded. That the only thing that matters is easy access to the parts desired.

OK, but illegal prostitution also seems to normalize the idea that they're for sale, given how normal the sale of them is in places where prostitution is illegal.

By most standards, making something illegal means it is not normalized.

It just makes the sale of them far more dangerous and risky for the people involved.

Hence the non-normalization.

Legalization also isn't some sort of end point where the industry is now good, it's a starting point from where you can actually begin to take steps to protect the workers and seems to clearly be the best of what may all just be a choice amongst bad options.

When evaluating policy proposals, "best" involves normative judgments over what possible outcomes are more desirable. Normative judgments are not scientific and reasonable people can disagree over what "best" means in a particular instance. When people disagree over what "the best" should encompass, there will be reasonable differences over policy proposals.