The inner world of a prostitute

[Derec]

I am in favor of the Swedish model where the prostitutes are not considered criminals but the customers and pimps are.

So because some shoes are made in sweat shops, all people buying shoes should be locked up? That's pretty much the "logic" of the Swedish model.

And earlier you claimed to be sympathetic toward those of us who have a difficult time finding sexual relationships otherwise. As I suspected, that feigned sympathy was just BS. You want to throw us all in jail.

But more than that, I am in favor of genuine economic reform that provides better alternatives for all women (and for men, too).

Even with a better safety net there will be genuine demand for sexual services and women (and men) willing to fulfill them. What's wrong with letting them pursue that line of work without criminalizing their customers?

 

[DrZoidberg]

It makes me realise how stupid it is that prostitution is ever illegal anywhere. I mean... how else is a psychologist supposed to cure something like this unless they can sleep with the client/patient. We live in a very stupid world. Prostitutes don't get nearly enough respect. They deserve the respect any other qualified job gets. It is not a no skill job.

Exactly. Sex work should not only be legal, but also destigmatized. We should not be looking down on prostitutes nor their clients.

Once it's legal it'll quickly become destigmatized. That's my impression in Denmark. It's still not seen as a fancy job, of course. But it's at least seen as a proper job.

 

[DrZoidberg]

And the observation regarding the fact that money--i.e., being paid--is itself an inherently coercive act and that it's a safe bet none of the prostitutes would be doing the same thing to any of their clients if it were not the fact that they were being paid. Which tends to blow the whole "they love having sex" rationalization out of the water. I'm sure they do, but that's not the question.

If you consider 'being paid' an 'inherently coercive act', that blows up the entire idea of commerce out of water. Are you 'coercing' an electrician to fix your wiring by offering money? I am sure he or she would hardly do it for free.

But of course you, Toni and other prohibitionists do not see electricians, plumbers, beauticians, etc. that way. Only sex workers. And that explains all your arguments against sex work.

I don't think Koyaanisqatsi has any ideas of his own. He's just regurgitating rescue industry tropes. That have always been absolute bullshit. It's just moralism. Old timey hateful moralism. The interesting thing is that it's misogyny. It's the traditional old idea of trying to control women's lives because they are the housewives that raise our kids and their sanctity must be protected for the good of the nation. I find it interesting how often feminists aren't at all fighting for women's right to do what they think feels right for them. Just because you don't like something and find the idea abhorrent, doesn't mean other people also do. Feminists so often fight for various ways to keep controlling women, and of course implying that women who don't support their cause are bad women. I know there's a lot of feminists who genuinely are fighting for women's rights. But they keep being muscled out from public view by the moralistic loudmouths.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I am in favor of the Swedish model where the prostitutes are not considered criminals but the customers and pimps are.

So because some shoes are made in sweat shops, all people buying shoes should be locked up? That's pretty much the "logic" of the Swedish model.

And earlier you claimed to be sympathetic toward those of us who have a difficult time finding sexual relationships otherwise. As I suspected, that feigned sympathy was just BS. You want to throw us all in jail.

The Swedish model is worse than that. To use your analogy, it makes all shoe companies into sweat shops. It universally makes life worse for prostitutes. It's intention is to punish women for being prostitutes and try to force them out of the job and get them into morally acceptable jobs. Just like the old prostitution laws, which had the same mechanic, but this one makes life even worse for prostitutes. Swedish prostitutes liked it better back in the day when selling sex was illegal and buying it legal. Because the job was safer then. Violence against prostitutes has gone up since the Swedish model was introduced. No prostitute likes it.

The only reason it's heralded as a success is because of propaganda. The people who pushed through the law in Sweden did so only to further their own political careers. They obviously don't give a rats ass about prostitutes, or women in general. They never talk to the prostitutes. They never invite prostitutes to speak at their conferences. They've failed to find any prostitute who is grateful for their work. Or even ex-prostitute. This law was pushed through with zero input from the people it was supposed to help. And when it failed, it's failure has been covered up. Still nobody is talking to the prostitutes. They have never been allowed to express themselves in any major Swedish newspapers, in spite of their best efforts. It's a conspiracy within the feminist movement. They're clearly afraid of what these women might say. Afraid they might say things that will pop their inflated balloon of over-importance.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And the observation regarding the fact that money--i.e., being paid--is itself an inherently coercive act and that it's a safe bet none of the prostitutes would be doing the same thing to any of their clients if it were not the fact that they were being paid. Which tends to blow the whole "they love having sex" rationalization out of the water. I'm sure they do, but that's not the question.

If you consider 'being paid' an 'inherently coercive act', that blows up the entire idea of commerce out of water. Are you 'coercing' an electrician to fix your wiring by offering money? I am sure he or she would hardly do it for free.

But of course you, Toni and other prohibitionists do not see electricians, plumbers, beauticians, etc. that way. Only sex workers. And that explains all your arguments against sex work.

I don't think Koyaanisqatsi has any ideas of his own. He's just regurgitating rescue industry tropes. That have always been absolute bullshit. It's just moralism. Old timey hateful moralism. The interesting thing is that it's misogyny. It's the traditional old idea of trying to control women's lives because they are the housewives that raise our kids and their sanctity must be protected for the good of the nation. I find it interesting how often feminists aren't at all fighting for women's right to do what they think feels right for them. Just because you don't like something and find the idea abhorrent, doesn't mean other people also do. Feminists so often fight for various ways to keep controlling women, and of course implying that women who don't support their cause are bad women. I know there's a lot of feminists who genuinely are fighting for women's rights. But they keep being muscled out from public view by the moralistic loudmouths.

Binary, simplistically minded bullshit. If you're not with us, you're against us. Idiotic, but since you can't seem to think in a non-binary manner, let's put things into that frame so that you can follow along.

As I pointed out previously, there are two very different discussions (monologues, really) going on itt. Both are equally valid. You are defending a certain percentage of prostitutes that are 100% operating of their own free will. Myself and others are concerned about the other percentage that are NOT operating 100% of their own free will.

Neither one of us knows exactly what those percentages are. You just keep speaking for ALL prostitutes and that ALL prostitutes are 100% acting of their own free will and they just love to have sex and it's all candy and roses. That is obviously not the case for ALL prostitutes.

Even if 99% of ALL prostitutes were operating of their own free will, there would still be concern about the 1% that aren't. We're not talking about someone working in a fucking Ikea against their will; we're talking about state-sanctioned rape, basically. Where it is currently criminalized, it's still rape, so the decriminalization aspect to the argument merely shifts who the pimps are, not whether or not the harms are being properly addressed.

As I have also agreed many times, I am in full favor of decriminalizing prostitution from the sex workers perspective (i.e., not making it illegal to sell your body). I am on the fence about making the buying of someone else's body illegal, however, as that puts the focus where it belongs; on the motivations of the people looking to buy someone else's body, which in turn would put the focus on the people who are causing the majority of the harms against the prostitutes (the "Johns"). Not ALL Johns. If memory serves from something I read when this childishly binary shit-fest first started, it's something on the order of 20% and those figures do not significantly change when it is decriminalized, so how that gets addressed is also of concern to me.

It may not be to you, but then I don't give a flying fuck about you, nor do I just accept anything you post simply because you know some prostitutes.

In regard to making being a "John" illegal (and yes, I'm using that as a general term that includes women who go to prostitutes), we once again have a divergence of monologues, with you and your ilk arguing about 100% innocent individuals who, for whatever personal or social reason can't manage to have sex without paying, but there is also the other percentage of "Johns" who are not 100% innocent individuals who just can't manage to have sex without paying, etc., etc., etc.

Iow, this whole fucking thread is about two valid positions talking past each other about two entirely different set of concerns that no one model yet seems to address. The best possible solution, imo, is pouring billions into sex robot technology, but then, because human nature is as horrible as a Nazi, I am equally convinced that such a shift would then inevitably result in an increase in human trafficking because men, in particular, get bored easily and haven't evolved beyond the drive to fuck anything that moves or has a moist hole.

The inherent and unique problem with prostitution is that a body is a commodity that is not autonomous (like a toaster or a software program). The best measure of "rights" has always been the old trope that my rights end where your body begins. But that's completely blurred when it comes to prostitution, because the body is now the commodity being bargained over.

That's why all of this bullshit strawman noise about "you're just a moralist puritan" is so utterly fucking boring. I'm sure there are a lot people out there--most likely in the forefront--making such noise, but I don't see anyone itt making moralist arguments. As I have also pointed out that I have been to a prostitute in Amsterdam I can't exactly take any kind of moral position on the matter even if I wanted to.

Which brings us back around to the fact that there are no simple answers. Everyone itt seems to agree, at least, that prostitutes should not be criminally punished. As for Johns, perhaps something along the lines of the "medical marijuana" model could be implemented in order to better prevent abuse? If you can prove a medical/psychological need, you get a license to fuck or the like.

Again, we're talking about making the state the pimp, so the regulatory oversight/rules of the state should also apply in some fashion, such as getting a license to drive a car or smoke medicinal pot or buy prescription drugs or open a fucking food cart ffs. Something along these lines so that both sides of the chasm feel like their concerns are being addressed and not just DO WHAT I SAY BECAUSE I KNOW A PROSTITUTE!

And yes, of course, sex workers should have their say in ALL of this, but it's not a matter of just accepting anything they say as gospel. Which then takes us right back to my pointing out the same fucking thing to you in regard to your anecdotes. They are useful, but not the end-all-be-all to the complexity of the issues.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And the observation regarding the fact that money--i.e., being paid--is itself an inherently coercive act and that it's a safe bet none of the prostitutes would be doing the same thing to any of their clients if it were not the fact that they were being paid. Which tends to blow the whole "they love having sex" rationalization out of the water. I'm sure they do, but that's not the question.

If you consider 'being paid' an 'inherently coercive act', that blows up the entire idea of commerce out of water.

No, it actually does not.

Are you 'coercing' an electrician to fix your wiring by offering money?

Yes, that is precisely what you are doing.

I am sure he or she would hardly do it for free.

Right, so you have to coerce them into doing it for you, precisely because they would NOT do it for you for free. Do you not understand that you are actually making my point for me?

Do you seriously think that the women you pay to have sex with you would do what they do without your payment? I don't mean to be cruel, but surely this is not the first time that thought has occurred to you. You are literally coercing them into fucking you. It's not something they are doing of their own free will. If they didn't need the money, they would not be fucking you.

Or maybe they would. I don't know them, so you should ask, but my guess is that if it weren't for their need of the money, they wouldn't be fucking you. Which means they aren't acting of their own free will, they are acting out of their need for money.

There is a difference between choosing to act in a particular way and having no choice but to act in a particular way.

 

[DrZoidberg]

...

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

...

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As I pointed out previously, there are two very different discussions (monologues, really) going on itt. Both are equally valid. You are defending a certain percentage of prostitutes that are 100% operating of their own free will. Myself and others are concerned about the other percentage that are NOT operating 100% of their own free will.

This is incorrect. I and many proponents of legalization of prostitution do have victims of sex slavery in mind, as well as willing sex workers being in mind. We consider both. We care about both. Our arguments address both. The Supreme Court of Canada decision that found the old prostitution laws in Canada unconstitutional was based entirely on the safety of people working as sex workers. No, you won't convince anyone here supporting the legalization of prostitution that they only think about willing sex workers.

The only argument against us relies on loose definitions of "sex trafficking" that does not equal sex slavery. It is fundamentally a question of choice. Should women have control over their own bodies and be allowed to do what they want with their bodies, so long as it isn't directly hurting anybody else? This question comes up in the abortion context too, but in that context there is the competing "right to life" of the unborn. Wherever you stand on the abortion issue, the prostitution issue doesn't have that direct competing interest. An act of willing prostitution isn't killing anyone or anything.

Regulation of prostitution provides us with tools we can use both against sex slavery and for the safety and health of both the sex workers and society at large via their clients. Inspections can be done, without legal workers feeling a need to hide in the shadows or take things underground into the criminal element. STD testing can be mandated as well, which could save lives. Even a union could be formed, as I hear has happened in New Zealand, where they actually listened to the sex workers.

You just keep speaking for ALL prostitutes and that ALL prostitutes are 100% acting of their own free will and they just love to have sex and it's all candy and roses. That is obviously not the case for ALL prostitutes.

Obviously isn't. But so what? You have yet to establish that criminalizing Johns makes anything better for the people in the industry who are enslaved or abused. I point again to the Juno Mac video I posted above, where she goes through the practicalities of what making customers criminals does to sex workers. Its not more safe for them, but considerably less safe.

And if you equate "coercion" with "being offered more money than would make at another job, so decides to do it", then why should we care if people are "coerced"? It would include everyone offered a job over minimum wage. Personally, I'd need something more dire to meet my own definition of "coercion".

As I have also agreed many times, I am in full favor of decriminalizing prostitution from the sex workers perspective (i.e., not making it illegal to sell your body). I am on the fence about making the buying of someone else's body illegal, however, as that puts the focus where it belongs; on the motivations of the people looking to buy someone else's body, which in turn would put the focus on the people who are causing the majority of the harms against the prostitutes (the "Johns"). Not ALL Johns.

So don't criminalize all Johns and all prostitution. Criminalize the harms.

Iow, this whole fucking thread is about two valid positions talking past each other about two entirely different set of concerns that no one model yet seems to address. The best possible solution, imo, is pouring billions into sex robot technology, but then, because human nature is as horrible as a Nazi, I am equally convinced that such a shift would then inevitably result in an increase in human trafficking because men, in particular, get bored easily and haven't evolved beyond the drive to fuck anything that moves or has a moist hole.

Sex robots are an excellent idea, but a bit out of the price range of most men and far below par with actual sex workers. A lot of what sex workers do for their clients isn't the sex act itself. It will be a while before AI can equal a good sex worker.

The inherent and unique problem with prostitution is that a body is a commodity that is not autonomous (like a toaster or a software program). The best measure of "rights" has always been the old trope that my rights end where your body begins. But that's completely blurred when it comes to prostitution, because the body is now the commodity being bargained over.

You aren't buying somebody's body. This isn't a butchery. You are buying a service they perform for you, as is the case with most jobs. This one just happens to involve intimate services, and different sex workers have different boundaries on what they will and will not do.

That's why all of this bullshit strawman noise about "you're just a moralist puritan" is so utterly fucking boring.

That's what people tend to conclude when no good argument is made against sex work otherwise, because it is so commonly the case. Maybe you and Toni have other reasons that you have yet to present. Maybe you'll decide to address the loose definitions of "sex trafficking" and "coercion" used above.

Which brings us back around to the fact that there are no simple answers.

There is a simple answer: Legal until and unless a good basis to render something illegal is presented.

Everyone itt seems to agree, at least, that prostitutes should not be criminally punished. As for Johns, perhaps something along the lines of the "medical marijuana" model could be implemented in order to better prevent abuse? If you can prove a medical/psychological need, you get a license to fuck or the like.

Why? Why shouldn't everyone be allowed to be a customer? And if it isn't about moralistic stuff, trying to force men to date in order to have sex, then why make this particular exception?

Again, we're talking about making the state the pimp

I don't think anybody has called for the creation of a national sex care system, where sex workers are government employees. Interesting concept though.

 

[DrZoidberg]

...

 

[DrZoidberg]

...

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I and many proponents of legalization of prostitution do have victims of sex slavery in mind, as well as willing sex workers being in mind.

That's not what I said. I said there are two different discussions going on, but I'm tired of this childish bullshit, so fine, let's dig through the horseshit and see what substance can be found...

The only argument against us relies on loose definitions of "sex trafficking" that does not equal sex slavery.

You've stuffed that strawman repeatedly. The accusation seems to be that any time anyone says "sex trafficking" that because they are not specifying willful vs coerced, it just automatically defaults to willful and thus "moralists" are trying to pull a fast one through equivocation.

I have never once made such a false equivocation, nor did any of the studies I posted previously. In fact, the one I quoted at length goes into significant detail regarding precisely that issue (emphasis mine):

Human trafficking is a clandestine, criminal activity, with those being trafficked and involved in such activities being part of ‘hidden populations’
...
Among the currently available sources, the aforementioned Report on Trafficking in Persons: Global Patterns (UNODC, 2006) has also collected and presented data on incidences of human trafficking at the country level; therefore the utilization of this report best serves the purpose of our study. The UNODC Report provides cross-country information on the reported incidence of human trafficking in 161 countries, measuring trafficking flows on a six-point scale. To the best of our knowledge, this report is the only source with comparable data across countries and covering most countries in the world, which also differentiates between the intensity levels of human trafficking inflows. Our empirical analysis is based on the UNODC data given that we want to test the impact of prostitution laws on the degree of human trafficking.

Here is the UNODOC report's definition of human trafficking:

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

As you can clearly see, there is nothing in that definition that can be misinterpreted to include "willful participation." Crystal clear?

Here is the study again for you to ignore again Does legalized prostitution increase human trafficking? To reiterate, this study has clearly noted that their empirical evidence comes primarily from the UN study, which in turn clearly noted what they mean by "trafficking."

With that in mind, here is yet another interesting point noted by the study that you will likewise ignore (emphasis mine):

What will be the effect of legalizing prostitution on the demand, supply, and thus equilibrium quantity of prostitution? Starting with the demand effect, some clients will be deterred from consuming commercial sex services if prostitution is illegal and they expect that there is a reasonable probability of being prosecuted, as this raises the costs of engaging in such activities. Legalizing prostitution will therefore almost invariably increase demand for prostitution.8

Concerning supply, legalizing prostitution will induce some potential sex workers (or their pimps) to enter the market, namely those who were deterred from offering such services by the threat of prosecution and for whom the pay premium that arose from the illegality of prostitution represented insufficient compensation – i.e., the risk of prosecution creates costs that are not easily expressed in monetary terms and can therefore not be compensated for with a higher wage. One might conjecture that supply could also decrease given that the state will want to raise taxes from legalized prostitution, whereas illegal prostitution, by definition, does not entail payment of taxes. However, this is not the case. Those unwilling or unable to operate legally (including meeting the legal obligation to pay taxes), can continue to operate illegally. Before, their business was illegal because prostitution was illegal; now their business is illegal due to their tax evasion in the shadow economy. Supply could only decrease under the assumption that the state prosecutes tax evasion more vigorously than it prosecuted illegal prostitution before, which, we believe, will not be the case.9 As is the case with demand, supply will therefore increase as well. With demand and supply both increasing, the equilibrium quantity of prostitution will be higher in the legalized regime compared to the situation where prostitution is illegal.

If the scale of prostitution becomes larger once it is rendered legal, will the incidence of human trafficking also increase? The increased equilibrium quantity of prostitution will, for a constant share of trafficked prostitutes among all prostitutes, exert an increasing scale effect on the incidence of international trafficking for prostitution purposes.10 This is the effect Jakobsson and Kotsadam (2011) take into account. It is only part of the whole story, however. The full answer to the question depends on what happens to the composition of prostitutes and whether any substitution effect away from trafficked prostitutes (towards domestic prostitutes or foreign prostitutes legally residing and working in the country) is stronger than the scale effect. Under conditions of illegality, a certain share of prostitutes will consist of trafficked individuals, given the difficulties in recruiting individuals willing to voluntarily work in such an illegal market.11 This share of trafficked prostitutes is likely to fall after legalization. Sex businesses wishing to take advantage of the legality of prostitution (instead of remaining illegal) would want to recruit more national citizens or foreigners legally residing with a work permit in the country since employing trafficked foreign prostitutes (or, for that matter, illegally residing foreign prostitutes that were not trafficked) endangers their newly achieved legal status.12

However, the legalization of prostitution will not reduce the share of trafficked prostitutes to zero. First, there may be insufficient supply among domestic or legally residing foreign individuals, given the risky and unattractive nature of prostitution which persists even after legalization. Second, trafficked individuals are significantly more vulnerable and exposed to the demands of their pimps, which makes their continued employment attractive to some extent. For example, a greater portion of their earnings can be extracted, making their pimps’ business more lucrative than operating with legal prostitutes. Third, clients might have preferences for “exotic” sex workers from geographically remote places whose nationals are unlikely to have legal rights to reside in the country. There is consequently a substitution effect away from illegally trafficked prostitutes (as well as illegally residing non-trafficked prostitutes) to legally residing prostitutes, but just how strong this substitution effect is remains an empirical matter. In sum, the effect of legalization of prostitution on the international trafficking of human beings is theoretically indeterminate as the two effects, with unknown magnitudes, work in opposite directions. We therefore now turn to our empirical analysis [aka UNODOC] to shed light on whether, on average, the substitution effect or the scale (quantity) effect dominates.
...
We have sufficient data for Germany to compare the number of trafficking victims in the pre- and post-legalization period. For Sweden and Denmark, we lack such data. We therefore compare the available data for Sweden after the prohibition of prostitution with data for Denmark, where prostitution was legalized. Sweden and Denmark have similar levels of economic and institutional development, and a similar geographic position, which, as our quantitative analysis shows, are important determinants of human trafficking.

Sweden amended its prostitution law in 1999 by prohibiting all forms of commercial sex and punishing the purchase of sex with a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of six months. Prior to the amendment, Sweden allowed self-employed individual prostitution while prohibiting brothel operation (Di Nicola et al., 2005). The amendment was introduced after long debates over the root causes of prostitution in Swedish society, with the new law stating that prostitution by nature is always exploitative, and that the purchase of sexual services provided by women and girls amounts to discrimination against them (Ekberg, 2004). Furthermore, this new law links prostitution to human trafficking and specifically states the former as an alleged cause of the latter (Ekberg, 2004).
...
Contrary to Sweden, Germany introduced a more liberal prostitution law in 2002. Today, prostitution in Germany is regulated by law and regarded as a ‘regular job’ subject to tax payment and retirement schemes (Di Nicola et al., 2005). Prior to 2002, Germany only allowed individual, self-employed prostitution without third party involvement. Having a liberal prostitution regime, Germany is known to have one of the largest prostitution markets in Europe, with about 150,000 people working as prostitutes (Global report data used in Danailova-Trainor and Belser, 2006). This means that the number of prostitutes in Germany is more than 60 times that of Sweden, while having a population (82 million inhabitants) less than 10 times larger. In terms of human trafficking victims, the ILO estimated the stock of victims in Germany in 2004 to be approximately 32,800 – about 62 times more than in Sweden (Danailova-Trainor & Belser, 2006). Again, the share of trafficked individuals among all prostitutes appears to be quite similar in both countries, corroborating the view that any compositional differences across prohibitionist and legalized prostitution regimes are likely to be small.

Additionally, Di Nicola et al. (2005) provide annual estimates of trafficking victims used for sexual exploitation in Germany over the 1996-2003 period, which can shed some light on the changing number of trafficked prostitutes. The estimates show that the number of victims gradually declined between 1996/97, the first years of data collection, and 2001, when the minimum estimate was 9,870 and the maximum 19,740.37 However, this number increased upon fully
legalizing prostitution in 2002, as well as in 2003, rising to 11,080-22,160 and 12,350-24,700, respectively.38 This is consistent with our result from the quantitative analysis indicating a positive correlation between the legal status of prostitution and inward trafficking.

Again, are we clear? THIS study is not falsely equating legal recruitment with illegal trafficking, so all of your arguments in that regard are not applicable to the findings of this study.

It is fundamentally a question of choice. Should women have control over their own bodies and be allowed to do what they want with their bodies, so long as it isn't directly hurting anybody else?

Wrong question. And wrong focus. Of course all people should have control over their own bodies. ONCE AGAIN, we are having two different discussions.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is refreshing to see somebody actually address the "Sex Trafficking" definition problem. And I admit I didn't read what you wrote earlier in the thread because I was focused on Toni and had you on ignore due to your aggressive behaviour in other threads. But I'm reading you now, and will continue to read you so long as you are civil.

I skimmed through the article you linked to and read what you quoted from it plus a little more. This isn't a study where they measured human trafficking according to what you quoted above. This is a comparison of data that they got from all over the place, which would have used many different definitions, and uncontrolled variables all over the place. They are comparing country to country, all of which will have measured it in different ways.

A better indicator would be real world investigations into before and after. Such as when Rhode Island accidentally legalized prostitution and rape reports fell: https://www.zmescience.com/research/studies/legalized-prostitution-less-rapes-54354/ Correlation doesn't prove causation of course, but that's a pretty interesting happening.

Or when the UK did their huge investigation into sex trafficking and failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into it: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/oct/20/government-trafficking-enquiry-fails

Current and former ministers have claimed that thousands of women have been imported into the UK and forced to work as sex slaves, but most of these statements were either based on distortions of quoted sources or fabrications without any source at all.

While some prosecutions have been made, the Guardian investigation suggests the number of people who have been brought into the UK and forced against their will into prostitution is much smaller than claimed; and that the problem of trafficking is one of a cluster of factors which expose sex workers to coercion and exploitation.

Acting on the distorted information, the government has produced a bill, now moving through its final parliamentary phase, which itself has provoked an outcry from sex workers who complain that, instead of protecting them, it will expose them to extra danger.

The study you linked to was also addressed back when it came out in Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...annals-of-bad-economic-research/#1333bf925727

 

[Derec]

No, it actually does not.

If you view exchange of money for services rendered as "coercive" rather than voluntary, yes, it does.

Are you 'coercing' an electrician to fix your wiring by offering money?

Yes, that is precisely what you are doing.

I do not think you know the meaning of the word coerce.

coerce (third-person singular simple present coerces, present participle coercing, simple past and past participle coerced)

(transitive) To restrain by force, especially by law or authority; to repress; to curb.
(transitive) To use force, threat, fraud, or intimidation in an attempt to compel one to act against his will.
(transitive, computing) To force an attribute, normally of a data type, to take on the attribute of another data type.

It is precisely not what one is doing when exchanging money for a service from a professional willingly offering such services.

I am sure he or she would hardly do it for free.

Right, so you have to coerce them into doing it for you, precisely because they would NOT do it for you for free. Do you not understand that you are actually making my point for me?

No, I definitely am not.

Do you seriously think that the women you pay to have sex with you would do what they do without your payment?

She would not. But that doesn't make it coercive. It makes it a professional transaction.

I don't mean to be cruel, but surely this is not the first time that thought has occurred to you. You are literally coercing them into fucking you. It's not something they are doing of their own free will. If they didn't need the money, they would not be fucking you.

They are doing it of their own free will. Just like the electrician is fixing your wiring out of his own free will. Even if you are paying him. If you coerce him to fix your wiring, you could go to jail.

Or maybe they would. I don't know them, so you should ask, but my guess is that if it weren't for their need of the money, they wouldn't be fucking you. Which means they aren't acting of their own free will, they are acting out of their need for money.

I don't want to get into the whole philosophical debate about "free will" here, but to my best knowledge, no philosophical school views free will abrogated if an action is motivated by money.

There is a difference between choosing to act in a particular way and having no choice but to act in a particular way.

And both a sex worker and an electrician have a choice to act a particular way. They can quit and seek other employment for example.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Even if 99% of ALL prostitutes were operating of their own free will, there would still be concern about the 1% that aren't. We're not talking about someone working in a fucking Ikea against their will; we're talking about state-sanctioned rape, basically. Where it is currently criminalized, it's still rape, so the decriminalization aspect to the argument merely shifts who the pimps are, not whether or not the harms are being properly addressed.

In an ideal world there would not be the 1%. In the real world we aren't going to stomp out prostitution, we should be looking for how to reduce the number of women who are not consenting.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

And I admit I didn't read what you wrote earlier in the thread

How big of you.

I skimmed through the article you linked to and read what you quoted from it plus a little more. This isn't a study where they measured human trafficking according to what you quoted above. This is a comparison of data that they got from all over the place, which would have used many different definitions, and uncontrolled variables all over the place. They are comparing country to country, all of which will have measured it in different ways.

Sigh. Read it again:

The UNODC Report provides cross-country information on the reported incidence of human trafficking in 161 countries, measuring trafficking flows on a six-point scale. To the best of our knowledge, this report is the only source with comparable data across countries and covering most countries in the world, which also differentiates between the intensity levels of human trafficking inflows. Our empirical analysis is based on the UNODC data given that we want to test the impact of prostitution laws on the degree of human trafficking.
...
We therefore now turn to our empirical analysis to shed light on whether, on average, the substitution effect or the scale (quantity) effect dominates.
...
This is consistent with our result from the quantitative analysis indicating a positive correlation between the legal status of prostitution and inward trafficking.

They used UNODC data--which in turn used a clear definition of unwilling trafficking in its own study--to form their analysis and found it correlated with other studies as well.

A better indicator

Would be what you conceded:

Correlation doesn't prove causation of course, but that's a pretty interesting happening.

And then went on with:

Or when the UK did their huge investigation into sex trafficking and failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into it:

Wrong. As your own source noted (after the attention grabbing headline):

Of the 406 real arrests...There were just five men who were convicted of importing women and forcing them to work as prostitutes. These genuinely were traffickers, but none of them was detected by Pentameter, although its investigations are still continuing.

So, even in a flawed police report, they still found 1.2% of confirmed traffickers, but of course, those five men were traffickers, so there are also the women they trafficked to consider. Here are the names of those men from your article:

Two of them — Zhen Xu and Fei Zhang — had been in custody since March 2007, a clear seven months before Pentameter started work in October 2007.

The other three, Ali Arslan, Edward Facuna and Roman Pacan

In regard to Xu and Zhang:

The court heard that more than 20 girls had been recruited abroad in poor areas of China and Thailand and then forced to work as prostitutes when they came to this country.

In regard to Arslan, Facuna and Pacan:

Slovakian Edward Facuna, 54, and Czech-born Roman Pacan, 39, both from Peterborough, were jailed for 11 years each for trafficking the Slovakian teenager into the UK for sexual exploitation.

Ali Arslan, 43, got 14 years for controlling the Hackney brothel and another in Luton where the teenager worked two years later, controlling prostitution for gain, controlling a child prostitute and trafficking the teenager within the UK for sexual exploitation.
...
The judge said although the court heard of only two girls being forced to prostitute themselves, Ali Arslan's brothels employed up to 50 eastern European women and almost certainly included others made to sell their bodies.

So, out of just five confirmed traffickers (out of 406 arrests), we have upwards of 70 women (probably more) who were likely forced into prostitution. Anyone want to extrapolate that?

The study you linked to was also addressed back when it came out in Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwor...annals-of-bad-economic-research/#1333bf925727

Yeah, again, he makes the exact same mistake you just did:

But how are we to work out which definition [of trafficking] they are using? It's not something that I can immediately see them explaining in the paper.

I just explained precisely how above, but shall reiterate the point he conveniently omitted after having quoted almost exactly the same section I did (regarding Germany and Sweden and the like):

This is consistent with our result from the quantitative analysis indicating a positive correlation between the legal status of prostitution and inward trafficking.

Again, what they were saying was that the evidence regarding Germany and Sweden and Denmark correlated to the analysis they conducted on the data from the more comprehensive UNODOC study, which, once again, did in fact rigorously control and account for the definition of trafficking as being precisely about non-willing trafficking.

So thank you as you just reiterated the mistakes you had made with someone at Forbes making the exact same easily rectifiable mistakes, so I got to clarify two birds with one stone.

ETA: Just to make it crystal clear, here is what the Forbes article quoted from my study and then stated verbatim:

Additionally, Di Nicola et al. (2005) provide annual estimates of trafficking victims
used for sexual exploitation in Germany over the 1996-2003 period, which can shed some
light on the changing number of trafficked prostitutes. The estimates show that the number of
victims gradually declined between 1996/97, the first years of data collection, and 2001, when
the minimum estimate was 9,870 and the maximum 19,740.

However, this number increased upon fully legalizing prostitution in 2002, as well as in 2003, rising to 11,080-
22,160 and 12,350-24,700, respectively.​

If that's the number in the sex slavery definition of trafficking then clearly we've got an enormous problem and we'd be correct in taking very severe action against those who do it. If it's the illegal immigrant definition then I, as above, would simply shrug my shoulders. But how are we to work out which definition they are using? It's not something that I can immediately see them explaining in the paper.

Now from the study (emphasis mine):

Additionally, Di Nicola et al. (2005) provide annual estimates of trafficking victims used for sexual exploitation in Germany over the 1996-2003 period, which can shed some light on the changing number of trafficked prostitutes. The estimates show that the number of victims gradually declined between 1996/97, the first years of data collection, and 2001, when the minimum estimate was 9,870 and the maximum 19,740.37 However, this number increased upon fully legalizing prostitution in 2002, as well as in 2003, rising to 11,080-22,160 and 12,350-24,700, respectively.38 This is consistent with our result from the quantitative analysis indicating a positive correlation between the legal status of prostitution and inward trafficking.

The Forbes author literally quoted the exact same section I did, but then just left off the qualifying sentence at the end that ties their analysis to the UNODOC data and definition.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Even if 99% of ALL prostitutes were operating of their own free will, there would still be concern about the 1% that aren't. We're not talking about someone working in a fucking Ikea against their will; we're talking about state-sanctioned rape, basically. Where it is currently criminalized, it's still rape, so the decriminalization aspect to the argument merely shifts who the pimps are, not whether or not the harms are being properly addressed.

In an ideal world there would not be the 1%. In the real world we aren't going to stomp out prostitution, we should be looking for how to reduce the number of women who are not consenting.

Fully agree. As I've repeated now for I believe the fifth time, I absolutely think we should decriminalize the sex worker. In regard to the "John" however, I'm still on the fence. As I said before, I think we should treat it like we do a prescription drug or a medical marijuana license or the like. That way anyone who wants to go to a prostitute is cleared and tracked and if they commit any harm, the police can grab them easily.

If we're talking about removing the harms and the stigma of sex work, then that must work both ways and no one going to a prostitute for innocent reasons should have any problems with that.

As for, say, married men or women wanting to cheat on their spouses? I don't see a valid reason why the State should somehow appease such people by not making them likewise divulge their intentions, but if someone can make a good argument for it, by all means go ahead.

ETA: Another advantage of the licensing or "prescription" approach (whatever you want to call it) is that it also provides a way to help mitigate against trafficked prostitution in that only legal/approved/licensed whatever brothels/prostitutes can scan the John's card or whatever it would be.

Iow, there are incentives and methods for both Johns and sex workers to protect each other against trafficked prostitution.

 

[Derec]

Something to consider re this whole discussion.

 

[TSwizzle]

I've heard of the Moonlight Bunny Ranch, it was part of a HBO series, I forget what the series was called but it was quite interesting and entertaining. Anyway, one of the girls opens up about her experience.

A 27-year-old who claims to be America's best paid legal sex workers has shared intimate details about her job - which she says can earn her a staggering $1 million a year. Alice Little, who was born in Ireland and now lives in Carson City, Nevada, first began working in the legal sex trade in 2016, however she slams suggestions that her work is focused solely on wearing 'skimpy sexy lingerie' and 'shaking her booty', insisting that the bulk of her job involves helping couples 'rediscover intimacy'. 'Nothing ever felt as fulfilling as working in a legal brothel. It fits me perfectly,' she said in a first-person piece written for HuffPo, in which she explains how she first started working at the Moonlite Bunny Ranch, and why she loves her chosen career so much.

DailyMail

Part sex worker, part marriage counselor, part therapist it seems.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

That’s one anecdote. Here are some others:

Sexual exploitation began for me as an adult woman orchestrated by organized crime in the stripping industry. After experiencing many forms of gender-based violence-teen dating violence, gang rape, domestic violence, sexual harassment in the workplace, sexual assault, stalking and police brutality, I deemed myself worthless. In my life, one form of violence led to another and the cycle repeated itself throughout my adulthood, normalizing violence and abuse.

Self-deception of worthlessness and normalized violence and abuse made me vulnerable to the sex trade and the traffickers who profit from it. It took me sixteen years and an important question to realize I was trafficked, as we didn’t have that language back then and were simply deemed “bad girls”. My life’s passion is to abolish the sex trade, debunk erroneous myths and expose sexual exploitation as a harmful practice of abuse towards largely women and girls based on toxic male masculinity and entitlement to women’s bodies. My work stems from my lived experiences and it is my honor to effect positive change and social recognition for survivors through public speaking, training, best practices, testimony and public policy work world-wide.

My body, mind, and spirit survived so many things for so many years. The sexual exploitation and violence I endured was almost like something that happened to someone else. If I had told myself the truth about what was being done to me, my psyche would have splintered into a million pieces.

Prostitution occurs at the nexus of racial, economic and gender-based violence and oppression. It constitutes a violation of the most fundamental human rights and embodies harms unimaginable. For the vast majority of those exploited, it is NOT chosen and stems from a toxic combination of vulnerabilities. In practice, prostitution and trafficking are inextricable. There can be no end to trafficking and sexual exploitation without strong abolitionist politics and a firm commitment to dismantling systems of prostitution.

- Autumn Burris, Denver, USA
...
I got into prostitution as a homeless fifteen-year-old girl on the streets of Dublin. I met a young man in his early twenties who thought it would be a good idea if I were made available to men sexually so he could benefit financially. Of course he didn’t put it like that, but that is exactly what happened. Nor did he ever tell me he was my pimp, but that is what he was. I remained in prostitution for seven years, being exploited at all levels: street red-light zones, massage parlours and escort agencies in hundreds of locations across three Irish cities.

None of the women and girls I met in prostitution remotely compared to the 'happy hooker' image that’s peddled relentlessly by those who have a financial stake in misrepresenting the reality of prostitution, earned either off their pimping or off their books, blogs and TV shows. I have seen nothing anywhere that leads me to regard the term ’sex work’ with anything less than the contempt it deserves. I have attended funerals and avoided others, have been assaulted sexually and physically too many times to count and witnessed a relentless wave of female misery, which often expressed itself in alcoholism and narcotic addiction as a direct result of the psychological torment inherent to ritualistic unwanted sex.

When I look back now I see that prostitutuion lured and consumed those of us who were already marginalised in society. If you were poor, if you were disadvantaged, if you had come from a broken home or had vulnerabilities connected to prior cycles of abuse, especially sexual abuse, prostitution was there waiting for you. Prostitution is a trap, and it’s not a coincidence that all over the world it ensnares those who are already struggling to survive.

- Rachel Moran, Dublin, Ireland
...
Growing up in a home with alcohol and violence is so damaging for children. What I learned was to behave and make everybody happy no matter what I felt, needed or wanted. I wasn´t allowed to have any boundaries and being a witness to violence against my mother traumatised me in so many ways. When pedophiles showed up and gave me this harmful kind of attention it was so ambivalent. Because I was desperate to feel that I was wanted, needed and liked, but they utilised that desperation and abused me in different ways from when I was between 10-17 years old.

For me, sexual abuse was a direct route into prostitution. The same kind of destructive abuse chosen by myself, because I knew this feeling and recognised myself in this situation, even though the situation traumatised me over and over again. But I didn’t know better. I thought that the only winning-hand I had was my sexuality, and I sold it to feel that I had some kind of power or control over the abuse. That I maybe wasn´t abused, but that I chose to be what the men wanted from me. Sometimes it doesn’t even make any sense to me. But I know that exceeding or breaking a child´s boundaries can ruin that child’s life – not only in the exact situation, but for the rest of that person’s life.

We need to fight this violence. And we can start by saying no to the paid sexual abuse that is the buying of sex. Because those who say they chose it, can choose something else. Those who didn’t, can’t!

- Tanja Rahm, Copenhagen, Denmark
...
I entered prostitution in my early forties. I had lost my job because it was a short-term contract and it was difficult to find a new one. The unpaid bills mounted up and the only way to get out of the situation was to find some kind of work. After I had sold all the possessions on ebay that I could live without, I decided, in deep fear and desperation, to sell my body.
After I had made the decision, initially it felt good to know I was getting the financial situation under control. I was relieved that I had found a way to improve my situation on my own and to leave the pressure and fear of poverty behind me. I somehow believed as well that it was a meaningful step for me as a woman, a sexually liberating step, but it was like crossing an invisible border and at the same time removing all boundaries.

I offered my body to be abused for money. With the first ‘date’ it was crystal clear that prostitution is not about fulfilling a woman’s sexual desire. Prostitution is by its nature all about fulfilling men’s sexual fantasies without caring one bit about women’s desires, boundaries, humiliation, shame, pain or disgust.

What I know today is that women are victimised by the system prostitution by innumerable perpetrators, and at the same time victimised by a society which is not only allowing but encouraging prostitution by accepting it as a 'job like any other'. We are victims of a society blind in one eye, advancing the wealth of a privileged few over the suffering of an incalculable number of women and children.

- Marie Merklinger, Stuttgart, Germany

But I’m evidently a misogynist moralist for pointing out that not every prostitute thinks it’s all a carefree, adult, sexually liberating bed of roses.