End Human Trafficking

Human trafiking is barbaric, and is in fact slavery. It should be a death penalty offense worldwide [Wouldn't it be nice if the UN did something really useful regarding this traffic ?].

Prostitution should be legalized, licensed, and regulated, just like any other trade. There should be mandantory education requirements regarding STDs and sanitation, there should be periodic health testing, and there should be a minimum age established by law. Some basic self-defense training would be desireable.

If a woman has the right to choose whether or not to give birth, she should also have the right to decide if she wishes to use whatever physical attributes and talents she may possess to her monetary advantage.

Bringing the trade off the streets and back indoors, particularly in a group [brothel] or other secure setting, would make it far more difficult for those who prey on prostitutes to harm or rob them, to get away with it. Forcing prostitutes to work alone, unprotected, and in the darkness makes them as vulnerable as possible.

Oh, and BTW, can someone please explain to me the difference between porn actors and actresses and prostitutes ?

@ mike agri

Seems the difference is that the porn actors are being paid by a third party to have sex with each other while being photographed/videotaped, as opposed to one paying the other for sex.

I think it's ridiculous that one's legal and not the other.

Mike agri is So right. I couldn't have said it better myself. I don't know that I would go so far as to mandate sanitation requirements and/or health testing, because I believe most women will do these things on their own given the opportunity. I will however; agree wholeheartedly with a minimum age requirement and this should be Strictly enforced. 
This is the truest statement ever uttered regarding the business of prostitution.
"Forcing prostitutes to work alone, unprotected, and in the darkness makes them as vulnerable as possible." 

When will people wake up and see that legalizing is the only way to go??

I believe that prostitution can be approached in the same manner as the Governments of Germany and Canada did by providing medical AND dental care for the ladies/men of the night.  However, that would be TOO close to universal health care and that's just something the powers that be in the U.S. can't have.  I would be paramount to being, dare I say it....HUMANE?

Look it up; search for yourself. You will find this is true.

http://iabolish.org/slavery_today/primer/index.html

www.brandedphx.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/04/opinion/04iht-edkristof.1.19068466.html

Well, remember, never in the history of the planet have there been this many people.  I expect there are more non-slaves now than ever before, too.

A better question, if you want to do the Chicken Little thing, is whether there is a greater proportion of humanity enslaved now than ever before?  And there might be:  wealth is certainly more concentrated than it ever has been.

But it's a complex topic.  You need to be pretty careful about who you define as a slave.  US agriculture is based on the labor of an underclass, mostly Mexicans, who have very poor protections under the law, work very hard hours for very little pay, and live in remarkably poor spaces.

Are they slaves?  Well, no:  slaves go through barbed wire and risk getting shot to escape their servitude, whereas these people do that to enter into it.

But Conrad- We are not referring to Mexicans who work in the fields here. Everything you said is true but you failed to mention that they do this willingly because the pay they receive, though low by U.S standards, is WAY more than they would ever receive in Mexico. But we are not discussing that here. When a person is threatened with severe beatings, broken bones, and/or death to themselves or their loved ones if they do not work for you and they receive no compensation whatsoever, that is the purest form of slavery there is. How can you even think otherwise. These girls aren't given $500 on a Saturday night and told to go enjoy themselves. They are threatened with merciless violence each and every day unless they comply fully with their master(s). And this is why I am advocating to make prostitution legal for those women who would rather sell sexual favors than wait tables for $3 per hour. Because it will provide women who are being trafficked an outlet through the legal system that they do not currently have.  

It was a tangent, Mike.


It seems very, very likely that at least some of them were there through a free and deliberate choice, in preference to the alternatives, for money:  and such a prostitute's position would be more like a illegal Mexican farm-worker than a slave.

(Although I didn't have that in mind when posting.)

Umm, yes, I was thinking in terms of percentage of population, rather than actual numbers of people.

I know that most cultures in the past had slavery of some sort or other. I suspect the only ones (if you go back far enough) that didn't have them were the ones who couldn't afford to feed them. Certainly they were common enough in agricultural societies.

The Vikings had slaves, and sacrificed them to their gods right up until they converted to Christianity in 1000 CE. The Roman Empire relied heavily on slaves. Native North American tribes sometimes had slaves. Etc. etc. I think slavery used to be the normal way you treated your neighbours. Until the modern era.

I think people get cause and effect backwards here. Poverty does not cause human rights abuses, because people who would never treat others like that are likely to pull together under stress (as many did in the Holocaust) rather than turn on each other.

I think it's the other way around: human rights abuses cause poverty. Prostitution, sexual abuse, and poverty (being denied access to basic economic resources) are all the outcome of some people thinking they have the right to hold themselves above others at the others' expense.

Research has traced bigotry to authoritarian environments, especially authoritarian parenting. The shift away from authoritarian parenting after the Holocaust (via the research it led to) resulted in the generation of people who led the Civil Rights movement and the second wave of feminism, which led to where we are now.

Obviously, individual poverty affects individual decisions. However, I don't think poverty is the root source. I think basic attitudes are.

Denial of economic and social rights are a cause of poverty, yes. Some people pull together during times such as the Holocaust, agreed.

Consider the opposite, for example in Ukraine's 1930s Holdomor where all food was taken away and many were driven to cannbalism:

http://holodomor.org.uk/    

In this same Eastern European country last year, a member of their parliament spoke out about prostitution of the socially disenfranchised. He was referring to children in orphanges, between the ages of 3 and 6 and was justifying his immunity to prosecution as a parliamentarian on the grounds that it offered protection from law enforcers who were involved in the exploitation.

http://zik.com.ua/en/news/2008/03/26/130980 

We are talking here in a worldwide context, far wider than that of the domestic United States and the great majority who've never seen another part of the world.  We cannot include these acts as any acceptable freedom of choice, to engage in prostitution, when there is clearly no choice available.

The paper I link to above, lays out a set of interrelated problems in which poverty denies access to human rights which in turn operates a vicious circle to create more poverty. 70% of girls in this country who have been born into poverty leading to life in an orphanage will end up in street prostitution. Some will be trafficked, many will become infected with HIV where prevelance in Europe is highest and in the end, we are placed at risk by a threat that knows no boundaries.

The deputy referred to above, who spoke out last year has since died in a road accident. It's a common cause of death among those who speak out.

Jeff

 

http://holodomor.org.uk/   - - - bad link, 404 Error, (on my computer)

The link may have picked up trailing spaces Joseph. try this:

http://www.holodomor.org.uk/

LoyalPatriot USA:

Did you consider that maybe it's just an act? So you flew all the way to Amsterdam to have sex, and even then you had to pay for it. Is it too wild to assume that your impression of their content is simply wishful thinking on your side, and suppressed repulsion on theirs?

"The reason that women are capable of being "enslaved" is directly connected to the fact that it is illegal." 

You are So right Loyal patriot. You know what most people do many are simply refusing to accept it, that legalizing prostitution would bring an end to trafficking and sex slavery. I commend you for your intelligent and insightful comments. 

The idea that sex is an act with a single giver and a single receiver needs to be buried once and for all.  As long as we keep believing this ancient stereotype that sex is a sacrifice (of time, convenience, morality...) on women's part (which is to be compensated)- and only a matter of privilege on men's part, there will be an illusion of trade. And with it all the implications and side-effects brought on by its illogical argument and unfairness: sexist behaviour, discrimination, prostitution, unrealistic gender ideals, sexual insecurity etc.

Comparing (consensual) sexual intercourse to a service or merchandise is deeply flawed - since sexual intercourse, in itself, IS an exchange. (X having sex with Y and equally- Y having sex with X. Sex, being a mutual experience, cannot be "given" by X/Y to Y/X. It's made possible and experienced by both.)  Further adding of value and pricing on either side would mean overrating that side- while undermining the other. 

And to all the sex buyers out there (especially all the busy academics who post here frequently) if dating isn't an option, I recommend one-night stands. Even though this means the end of some exciting pretend games and revival of lame pickup lines, you will be rewarded with a notion that the other person is just as ho*ny, desperate and willing as you are.

Okay, first off, I certainly didn't mean to click "Like" on this comment, and there's no way to take it back. Oh well.

"As long as we keep believing this ancient stereotype that sex is a sacrifice (of time, convenience, morality...) on women's part (which is to be compensated)- and only a matter of privilege on men's part, there will be an illusion of trade."

The problem with that comment is that men do hire men, women do hire women, and women do, in fact, hire men. This "women = victim and man = buyer only" is another myth that needs to be put to bed.

Mike,

I'm pretty sure everyone is aware that straight women also buy sex, and so do homosexuals of both genders. But lets not waste time arguing which stereotype is leading, and what example is being discussed and repeatedly mentioned in this thread.

Even so, the sex formula (in 2nd paragraph) can be applied to any type of sex- (non-consensual acts excluded) -it doesn't even have to be between only 2 individuals.

But just to keep things clear, both straight and homosexual sex buyers would benefit from one-night stands, in my opinion.

I used the most common/most discussed scenario as an example to keep things simple, but the illusion of "sex trade" + the illogical argument for a necessary compensation exist in all types of prostitution, even many forms of socially acceptable relationships.

re your last paragraph: I'm afraid you misunderstood what I wrote. If you reread my previous post you will see that I don't describe prostitutes as victims- (i agree with you there) I do however imply that sex buyers are being scre*ed in more than one sense.

I clicked "like" on your comment, so that you can sleep tonight. Are we cool now?

There's a difference in between being a captive of anyone and a Cathouse where the women are willing participants. This should not be criminalized. Only holding women captive against their will and forcing them to comply should be a criminal offense. That and anyone beating, raping, threatening, or killing a woman engaged in the sex industry should also be prosecuted. Many times these crimes go unpunished because they are only prostitutes. HOW SAD!!! 

You know, I never thought I would see Srila Prabhupada (the aformentioned swami) quoted in such a debate. I can't really argue with one of the greatest spiritual minds of India. Jai Prabhupada!

I agree. I think legalizing prostitution would put an end to trafficking as well as reduce the number of assaults against these women. It would also free them up to freelance being able to keep the money they earn rather than working under the slave conditions they currently do. They would be able to report crimes such as rape or assault without fear of being prosecuted themselves. It's kind of like the drug dealer who gets shot in the shoulder. Does he report it to the police? Of course not.Because if he did HE would likely be the one to go to jail.

prostitution was legalized in the Netherlands in 2000, and human trafficking/forced prostitution has been on the RISE since. legalizing the exploitation of one person -- in exchange for dollars -- will never many anything better. it will only cheapen the value of women and make it more common to traffick them around.

Well; maybe they don't have laws against trafficking. If not; they should. I cannot speak for The Netherlands. Why don't you check out France? I have friends who live there and it is legal there too. Do some research and see what happens to a trafficker who is caught in France. I promise they don't go to that country. Furthermore; no one is talking about legalizing the exploitation of one person by another person. And just what do you think a woman working at Hooters is? That's not exploiting for pay? That doesn't cheapen the value of women? (Btw; there are male prostitutes too) What about women who WILLINGLY work at striptease establishments, Playboy magazine? The list is endless. Prostitution, were it legal, would be no different. The woman could freelance (do it on her own) or could enter into a Legal Contract with an employer to perform specified tasks, under clean, sanitary, safe, conditions in exchange for money. What's the damn difference????

Mike, it is true that most (all?) countries have both legal and illegal forms of exploitation, which does come across as hypocritical. But don't assume that whether it's legal or not reflects whether people who do it are happy with it.

And you forgot acting. Here's a recent example:
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0813526/

And I have my own opinion on sexualized content in acting on my website if you're curious. The link is in my profile.

It's interesting that you suggest raising the age of consent. The age of 18 is pretty arbitrary: at 18 society says to you "You're an adult now. Good luck." and it's just assumed (or hoped?) that you're ok. It used to be 16, then before that it was 11/12. It seems to be moving to 21.

When I took women's self defense, 10 out of the 12 of us were age 35 and up. In general, women don't start standing up for ourselves until 30s or 40s. The same may also be true of men.

So if we were going to raise the age of consent, I'd say make it age 35 or 40. Or better yet, base it on research. Unfortunately the research I'm familiar with indicates that age doesn't have much to do with how easy it is to pressure people into doing things they don't want to (e.g. the Milgram experiments).

This author claims to be in support of women's rights - well what about a woman's right to charge money for sex?  I don't understand why it's allright to clean people's fingernails, wash the dandruff out of their hair, squeeze their zits, rub their naked bodies with creams, cook for them, clean their houses for them, iron the clothes, do the wash, vacuum - every service possible is okay to offer - everything except sexual services.  Pish.  That's what I have to say to that.  As for the enslaving and raping of unconsenting children and adults?  This is a crime and it's not happening because of prostitution.  It's happening because some people are very evil and need to be controlled.

For heavens sake; I AM against trafficking. 100%. The problem is people like you don't realize that the one simple act of legalizing prostitution for women who would do it of their own volition would seriously deplete trafficking if not end it altogether which is our goal right? Tell me how it would not if you can. Because if these women could find protection in the legal system, don't you think they would take it? 

Amanda repeatedly mentions trafficked women. As in adults who are female. She isn't just talking about children.

And while having the ads in Craigslist makes it easier for the authorities to track killers, it also makes it easier for people to exploit people who have been forced into prostitution. It's not a fair exchange. My freedom in exchange for my killer being caught more easily? No thanks.

Oh, and I'm sorry, I can't be a normal, sane liberal for you. I've never voted that far to the right in my life. And I'm in my 40s. :D

A twit. I think I'm flattered. I learn so much in these debates.

Since you're new here, and missed the earlier debate on a previous thread, I was forced into prostitution long before the internet, so Craigslist did not come into it. I don't know if they would have used it today or not.

My current status is disabled chronic welfare recipient. No lattes. No support group. Definitely not cool or hip. I will admit to being overeducated and too well read in some things, though.

You know, based on my experience, making it legal or illegal makes no difference when THEY are between you and the door. The police can't help you if you can't get to them. And sometimes they can't help you even if you can. It is astonishing how little the police can actually do. Putting the onus on the victim to ask for and get help is unrealistic give they are usually the most powerless people in the equation.

"The argument is that people who willingly choose sex work reduce demand for those who are forced into it."

No, because there are so few who willingly choose it. When demand exceeds supply, then either the price goes up or people get forced into it. People who purchase sex don't seem to be too concerned with consent, since people are getting forced into it.

It might be different if people who choose to do sex work were more common, but they are the exception. As a rule, prostitutes want out. 89% worldwide, according to one set of research (google "prostitution research" for that one).

@ Anemone Cerridwen

I think you'd be surprised at the number--and the diversity--of women _and_ men who would go into sex work were it made legal.

Well, ya know, it is legal here (I'm in Canada), when it's indoors.

A lot of countries experiencing problems with trafficking allow individual prostitution in private, but not pimping or soliciting on the street. And yet the problems remain. Demand far exceeds willing supply.

"No, because there are so few who willingly choose it. When demand exceeds supply, then either the price goes up or people get forced into it."

And when the price goes up, more people choose to become hookers.

I can very easily turn your argument on its head:  making prostitutes criminals has not stopped trafficking.  Therefore, the criminalization of prostitution does not prevent, and possibly fosters, trafficking.

Of course making PROSTITUTES criminals doesn't do anything. I'm in favour of decriminalizing prostitutes and criminalizing the people who pay for sex.

Well, that's something of a step forward, and it shows you're doing better than Kloer.  But in practice, I'm not sure you can criminalize one end of a consensual cash transaction without criminalizing the other:  I'd imagine it would run up against some legal principle or another (conspiracy to commit a crime, if nothing else).

You don't want prostitution to happen, and you value women's rights, so you've put yourself in this weird bind where you can't mentally place women who decide to be prostitutes.  You need to make them victims, despite whatever protests they may make.

Where does this kind of thinking lead?  To locking them up for their own good.  The way you do that is usually by declaring them "sick," as at one time homosexuals were declared sick, and (in England) were forced to undergo sexual orientation reassignment therapy.  Which is why Alan Turing killed himself, by the way.

Respecting someone's autonomy means accepting it when they make decisions you don't like.

I guess you're new here. Amanda is also familiar with the Swedish model (criminalize the payer, decriminalize the prostitute), it's just that you can't repeat everything in every post. Check out some of the earlier posts on prostitution. I think one of them maxed out at over 400 comments before she locked it. Looks like we're going there on this one as well, after a slow start.

And I'm more concerned with those who don't choose prostitution, but get stuck in it and want to get out. Prostitution is not like homosexuality - it's not something you're born with. You want to compare something to homosexuality, go check out the autism blog.

Unfortunately, we have to close discussion threads once they reach a length that is beyond what the technology of the site can functionally support.  However, I will try and revists popular topics so that discussion can continue on other threads.

As *scabs?*  Workers who break picket lines, sabotaging those who are holding out for higher pay?

So, in your mind there are three kinds of sex workers:

* Slaves.  Hookers who have no choice.  Can't get another job, can't strike.
* Scabs.  All hookers in Germany, or the state of New Hampshire, where hooking is legal and pimping is not.
* Teamsters.  Housewives and girlfriends, presumably, who can go on strike for better benefits as long as their men don't resort to scabs.

Such women are worse than prostitutes, in my opinion:  in effect, they become Johns.

I don't understand the third one. Sex in a personal relationship is qualitatively different from commercial sex, primarily because it is in a relationship that both partners choose after taking time to consider. (Even a cheap one night stand is considerably different from commercial sex.)

Also, I would not classify ALL hookers in Germany, or New Hampshire, or those who work legally indoors in Canada, as scabs. Most of them don't want to be there either. Certainly, most of them don't go around actively promoting it as an alternative lifestyle. There are only a few who are truly consenting adults, and most of them keep quiet about it. (And some of them have concerns about others who aren't as well off as them.)

Look, it is a basic principle that more than a token amount of money is coercive. As soon as you add money to the equation, it becomes something qualitatively different from what it would be if no money were involved.

And I really do not understand this hostility towards wives and girlfriends. It has been a long time since wives were chattel in most modern countries. They actually have human rights, now. Moreso if they have their own money (rather than depend on their partner's money). Money equals power. The power to choose. Most prostitutes do not have that power. That is why they are prostitutes. Because someone else with more money than they have has the power to make them so.

Or is that why some people defend prostitutes and denigrate wives and girlfriends? Because wives and girlfriends can afford to talk back now? Is that the problem?

"I don't understand the third one. Sex in a personal relationship is qualitatively different from commercial sex, primarily because it is in a relationship that both partners choose after taking time to consider.  (Even a cheap one night stand is considerably different from commercial sex.)"

How so?  How would a person that chooses to provide sex as a service, not be able to take time to consider the situation?  In what way would choice suddenly be stripped in such a situation where actual force was not used?

"Also, I would not classify ALL hookers in Germany, or New Hampshire, or those who work legally indoors in Canada, as scabs. Most of them don't want to be there either. Certainly, most of them don't go around actively promoting it as an alternative lifestyle. There are only a few who are truly consenting adults, and most of them keep quiet about it. (And some of them have concerns about others who aren't as well off as them.)"

Source?

"Look, it is a basic principle that more than a token amount of money is coercive. As soon as you add money to the equation, it becomes something qualitatively different from what it would be if no money were involved."

Excuse me?  If by coercive you mean compelling, then perhaps, but that does nothing for your argument.  If on the other hand you mean forceful then I'm afraid your argument holds no water at all.  Unless you hold that any paid for manual labour is some form of slavery.

First of all, no one cares what you see the women who engage in the consensual selling of sex. That is between them and their God, if they believe in one. What I don't understand is how in the world you can say that you cannot tell the difference between prostitution and trafficking. If a woman is being trafficked, behind the sensual temptation and flirty attitude will be a look of fear. If you cannot see that you are blind.  

"Sex in a personal relationship is qualitatively different from commercial sex, primarily because it is in a relationship that both partners choose after taking time to consider. (Even a cheap one night stand is considerably different from commercial sex.)"

So prostitution should be illegal because sex is somehow sacred?

Would you accept such an argument against homosexuality?

Mike -

"If a woman is being trafficked, behind the sensual temptation and flirty attitude will be a look of fear. If you cannot see that you are blind."

In practice, that isn't true.  Find a video on YouTube called "The Day My God Died."

People are just very adaptable; and when trafficked prostitutes are in compliance with what's expected of them, there's not a reason for them to feel fear.  (Besides HIV and all that.)

Conrad- I believe you are wrong my friend. Have you ever watched MSNBC's I have and I could tell from watching these girls on my tv screen that they live in a constant state of fear. You said when they are in compliance with what's expected of them there is no reason for them to feel fear. I say they feel fear 24/7. I don't know where you're from but I grew up in the big apple and I have seen this up close and personal. Trust me; I have never hired a prostitute but if I ever did; I could tell you within 5 minutes whether she was doing it of her own free will or not. All you need to do is look deep into her eyes my friend. That is the one place where no emotion can hide for long. 

It's a cliche that people who pay for sex don't look at the prostitutes' faces. Two sources (plus what I've heard elsewhere): when I worked in for mineral exploration company, most of the women in the pin-ups in the core shack looked miserable, yet the men who put the pin-ups up didn't seem to notice. Norah Vincent in her book "Self-Made Man" also noted that the men she went to strip clubs with (disguised as a man) never looked at the strippers' faces.

You can't see if you don't look.

Anthony, you asked for sources. Here are two:

http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/prostitution_research/000116.html

http://ir.lib.sfu.ca/handle/1892/9250

The first is on the harm of prostitution both indoors and outdoors. The second is a study of high class prostitutes working indoors (some of whom were fine).

And I get my definitions of consent and coercion from psychology, heavily influenced by experiments like the Milgram experiments and the Stanford Prison experiment. Phillip Zimbardo has a good write up of the key experiments that went into the current code of ethics in his book "The Lucifer Effect". The APA code of ethics includes not offering coercive amounts of money to research subjects so it won't sway their judgement.

You said:
"Anthony, you asked for sources. Here are two:"

Thank you.  Though I still have reservations considering the contradictions in the conclusions of both papers, that is neither here nor there.

"And I get my definitions of consent and coercion from psychology, heavily influenced by experiments like the Milgram experiments and the Stanford Prison experiment."

These are classical experiments in situational attributes of behavior, more specifically the effect of obedience to authority and how imposed authoritative and obedient rolls can drastically change an otherwise normal social status and personal disposition.  They have little to do with coercion being attributed to monetary gain.  In any case you still haven't described how the service of sex renders payment as "coercion" while payment for virtually any other service would simply be consent.

"The APA code of ethics includes not offering coercive amounts of money to research subjects so it won't sway their judgement."

What does this have to do with the argument provided?  Those codes of ethics are made as a definitive line against academic dishonesty, in which it would be unethical to misrepresent data via outside influence.  Within the context of this discussion it's relatively meaningless.

The code of ethics is about more than academic honesty. It's also to make sure that subjects don't get hurt in experiments (or exploited in therapy). When I was a psychology student, I saw a lot of concern over the dynamics of power in research situations.

"The code of ethics is about more than academic honesty. It's also to make sure that subjects don't get hurt in experiments (or exploited in therapy). When I was a psychology student, I saw a lot of concern over the dynamics of power in research situations."

The example you provided:

"The APA code of ethics includes not offering coercive amounts of money to research subjects so it won't sway their judgement."

is clearly about academic honesty, and is still absolutely irrelevant in this conversation.  If you would like to provide another example I would be willing to listen.  However, please do not conflate offering money as a means for swaying judgment in a psychological trial with offering money to sway judgment in an employment setting.  They are clearly two very different things with obviously different ethical implications.

I don't see the difference. It's about not offering people more than token amounts of money to do something that might be harmful to them. If people really need the money, they may consent to do something that is not in their best interests, just in order to get the money they need. I don't have a specific real life example to give you, but can think of two fictional ones off the top of my head. There's "Indecent Proposal", the film where a woman consents to have sex for a million dollars and it nearly kills her marriage, and there's an episode of Laverne and Shirley where the two women are research subjects to earn enough money to attend an event, only to discover the experiments (doing without food or sleep) affect their behaviour at the event. The first fictional example is serious, the second totally humorous.

"I don't see the difference."

From what I can tell, it is the difference between misrepresenting oneself, or abusing one's position as an expert in psychology for personal or professional gain.  This is opposed to, say, paying someone to do a job.  Normally people wouldn't go around picking up your garbage.  It is not considered unethical to offer payment in order to sway their judgment.  Likewise, people wouldn't normally misrepresent data on a survey.  However, it is completely unethical to offer them money to do so.

"It's about not offering people more than token amounts of money to do something that might be harmful to them. If people really need the money, they may consent to do something that is not in their best interests, just in order to get the money they need."

Many people are offered money to do jobs that hazardous.  For example, textile mills, farmwork, police work, firefighting, etc.  As long as the person is fully aware of the danger, and capable of making a rational decision based on that knowledge, offering those jobs is not generally considered unethical (although one could certainly make a case, that is still beyond the scope of legality).

I could certainly see an argument where the job in question would absolutely necessitate harm on the employee.  However, given the second of the two papers you presented I'm not absolutely certain that is true in the case of prostitution.

"I don't have a specific real life example to give you, but can think of two fictional ones off the top of my head. There's 'Indecent Proposal', the film where a woman consents to have sex for a million dollars and it nearly kills her marriage, and there's an episode of Laverne and Shirley where the two women are research subjects to earn enough money to attend an event, only to discover the experiments (doing without food or sleep) affect their behaviour at the event. The first fictional example is serious, the second totally humorous."

Of course you'll understand if I'm a bit skeptical of these examples.  Not to mention I haven't actually seen either one.  I'm also not entirely convinced, given the descriptions, that anyone is actually at fault in either of those stories.

I mean, for sort of a silly example, lets consider the idea that the rich guy asks the wife to do something for one million dollars.  Only, this time he asks her to operate a wheat thrasher.  She does so but, horror of horrors, she loses an arm.  Does this place blame on the rich guy?  Perhaps, if he wasn't careful about safety and didn't clearly outline the risks associated, or perhaps even overemphasized the money while under-emphasizing the risk associated with the job.  Might it place blame on the husband and wife?  Again, perhaps if they were not careful, or overestimated their own ability to handle such a dangerous situation.  However, if all safety considerations were taken into account on both parties and the outcome still occurred, could it not simply be that neither party is to blame?  Could it be that the action itself is not inherently unethical, only dangerous?

You need to try it before you compare it to your own experiences.

I agree on the religion comment. We're back to the people vs Larry Flynt again. Will these intolerant lunatics never go away? There is a huge difference between something that is deemed to be wrong by society, and an all out crime, such as forcing women or young girls to perform sexual acts for money and They don't even see the money. The girls are working for free at a profession they did not choose. That is slavery and it is a crime. A woman over the age of 18, Consensually selling sex for money that she keeps or willingly splits with a partner, should not be a crime. This is the confusion that is causing all women/girls to be subject to the pain, abuse, threats, and the heartbreak of being FORCED into this profession against their will because they have no where to turn. They will not go to the police for fear they will be arrested for prostitution. If consensual prostitution were Not illegal, that fear would be removed and there would be more people reporting trafficking activities. 

"It is also unclear that prostitution, even without coercion, is a victimless crime.  Ask Alexandra DuPre, a young woman whose participation in a high-priced call girl service appears to have been entirely voluntary, who said she was quitting the business after seeing how much damage Elliot Spitzer's engaging her services had done to his family."

It's not legally a crime with a victim, but you can't outlaw every stupid thing a man can do to ruin his relationship with his family. This kind of thing is on Elliot Spitzer, on his conscience and it's something that'll bite him on the ass later. If he wants to go behind his wife's back and cheat on her, whether for free or pay, that's his responsibility, and his karma.

For an activity to have a victim, it has to infringe on a persons life, liberty or property. Having sex and charging for the service deprives someone of neither. Human trafficking deprives someone of all three, and we have crimes on the books for that: Kidnapping and wrongful imprisonment. If you add sex to the mix, then you have multiple counts of rape. This is where true victimhood happens.

So you can see there there is a pretty wide berth between a moron who cheats on his wife, and someone who kidnaps a human being and forces them into activities they don't want to do,

Damage Done: Part of the damage done is due to our really sex negative culture and a lack of openness and honesty within his relationship with his wife. Prostitution is a demonized profession, and not until this stigma is relived or until real relationship skills and sexual responsibility are taught to Americans can this really be alleviated. Prostitution did not ruin his marriage societal sex-negativity and a lack of honesty within the relationship; or barring the previous, perhaps just the fact that the world now knows and has judged him. 

Infidelity: Infidelity is not the problem of the sex worker. It is not the job of a sex worker to be a relationship counselor, therapist, or fidelity checker. If someone comes to a sex worker (without the partners' knowledge and consent) then that is a symbol that either there are unresolved issues with themselves, their relationship, or that they have an open relationship. In either case it is not an issue with sex work as a profession, it is an issue with the relationship and very strongly -  our sex negative culture with which there is a heavy stigma placed upon sexually liberated people, and those who take care of their sexual desires in a non-violent and mutually beneficial arrangement.

Getting Out: I'll bet the real reason why she is getting out is because, now due to her notoriety she is able to get more lucrative work - book, movie, talk shows, etc. You cannot tell me that prostitutes are wholely ignorant to the fact that married men come to them and the effect that this mave have on their relationship if their partner does not know.

Trafficking: And yes there are laws against rape, trafficking, and so on. They just need to be really enforced and pursued. Prostitutes need to be treated as a victim and not as a criminal.

Otix,

I beleive that your statement that most women in prostituion in the U.S. are "honestly enjoy their work and are happy with the compensation they receive" is incorrect.  I would be happy to read any supportive information you have for that statement.

The entire paragraph is this.

"Many prostitutes have nothing at all to do with human trafficking and are participating in the act either because they have no better option or they honestly enjoy thier work and the compensation they recieve.  In the U.S. that likely covers most prostitutes. 


You used half of a sentence to misrepresent what I said completely out of context.  This is another example of your bullshit tactics.

Yes, she misquoted you. But you still said that "many prostitutes have nothing at all to do with human trafficking". Do you have documentation for that?

Look, if someone is a crack whore and they whore themselves for thier drug of choice they are not a slave.  They are offering a service to get something they want.  That's not slavery or human trafficking that is called working for something that you want.

X otix, a link? You must be able to see the connection or as you call it the link.  No matter how simplified the solution can be explained you will not understand it if you didn’t understand the problem to begin with.  I gave you the correlation;

The strongest correlation between trafficking and prostitution is the perversion.  Legalizing prostitution would not end human trafficking, but would make it much easier to spot and stop.  Many using prostitution for perversion would rather stay with the illegal no-remorse danger of human trafficking, especially of children.  Even the relatively small amount of law enforcement now wasted on prostitution would be a very helpful addition in the fight against human trafficking.

Your statement only strengthens my point. 

Your "correlation" is the same as saying.  Legal driving does not end drunk driving in fact it makes it worse because when you allow driving, there will be so many people on the road that you can't tell who is drunnk and who is not.  Therefore, driving should be illegal that way if your on the road in a car the polics can know that you are drunk.

That sounds pretty idiotic to me

What is idiotic is trying to make a valid argument when “your” premise makes no logical sense and can not therefore be proven.  But people like you will just continue wasting precious time, money and lives trying too.  When you see something has NOT worked for fricken decades just give it up already!

My premis.

Drunk driving is wrong and having other drivers on the raod makes it difficult to tell the difference between happy sober drivers and drunk drivers.

Your premise:

Prostitution is wrong and making prostitution legal would make it harder to tell the difference between legal prostitutes and enslaved sex workers.

There is no difference in premises there just in subject matter.  the only real difference is your misguided morals blinding you from seeing the idiocy of your position.  You obviously clearly see the idiocy hen the subject is changed to something that doesnt offend YOUR morals as much.

CORRECTION FOR ABOVE POST:

My premis.

Drunk driving is wrong and having other drivers on the raod makes it difficult to tell the difference between happy sober drivers and drunk drivers.

Your premise:

HUMAN TRAFFICKING is wrong and making prostitution legal would make it harder to tell the difference between legal prostitutes and enslaved sex workers.

The falicy here is that Drunk driving is an inherant part of driving.  Obviously it is not.  The same goes for human trafficking and prostitution they are two different things.  Sometimes those engaged in prostitution are victims of human trafficking just as sometimes drivers are also drunk.  So what is the answer.  Your answer in terms of prositution is to make the whole thing illegal, so why is it different to say that all driving should be illegal to stop drunk driving?
There is no difference in premises there just in subject matter.  the only real difference is your misguided morals blinding you from seeing the idiocy of your position.  You obviously clearly see the idiocy hen the subject is changed to something that doesnt offend YOUR morals as much.

Even with your still wrong correction you are still wrong in the same manner as above, you are not taking the time to understand what I said or you just do not want to because your mind is made up (and made up in stone).

How in the world could you possilbly interpret this:  The strongest correlation between trafficking and prostitution is the perversion.  Legalizing prostitution would not end human trafficking, but would make it much easier to spot and stop.  Many using prostitution for perversion would rather stay with the illegal no-remorse danger of human trafficking, especially of children.  Even the relatively small amount of law enforcement now wasted on prostitution would be a very helpful addition in the fight against human trafficking.

AS THIS:
“Your premise:
Prostitution is wrong and making prostitution legal would make it harder to tell the difference between legal prostitutes and enslaved sex workers.

There is no difference in premises there just in subject matter.  the only real difference is your misguided morals blinding you from seeing the idiocy of your position.  You obviously clearly see the idiocy hen the subject is changed to something that doesnt offend YOUR morals as much.”

First off I did not say prostitution is wrong.  I am a roman catholic and I know prostitution should be made legal.  AGAIN: The strongest correlation between trafficking and prostitution is the perversion.  Legalizing prostitution would not end human trafficking, but would make it much easier to spot and stop.  Many using prostitution for perversion would rather stay with the illegal no-remorse danger of human trafficking, especially of children.  Even the relatively small amount of law enforcement now wasted on prostitution would be a very helpful addition in the fight against human trafficking.

lol yeah I misinterpreted something.. your right lol we are both arguing the same point.  my appologies.

Belinda I totally agree with you, but no one can or will ever be able to stop or change basic human instinct.  As a disabled female veteran your age; my military service has taught me that presently if prostitution was available for our troops in the Middle East the number of rapes occurring to our military women would drastically be decreased.

pat smith:

what do you mean, those rapists simply couldn't help their "basic instinct" because there were no prostitutes around? that's quite a statement.  human beings are sexual, and yet most will not resort to rape or paying for sex-

Yes it is quite a statement when taken out of context.  Notice I said the number of rapes (presently) occurring would be drastically decreased.   Not that the rapes would all stop, but that the number of rapes occurring would drastically decrease.

pat smith

But your theory completely relies on something taken out of contest. Rape is not a result of lack of sex. It's more complex than that- It's not just that you are oversimplifying, but your diagnose is wrong.

No; prostitution doesn't need to be stopped. FORCED prostitution ie; trafficking and slavery, needs to be stopped. There IS a difference. Wake up people. 

Doug, Somewhere above I post a link to a strategy paper based on research of social conditions in Eastern Europe, where a direct relationship between institutionalised children and prostitution has been long understood. Their own children have a high probability of becoming institutionalised in turn and they offer the raw material for both local prostitution and overseas trafficking.

We must make a clear distinction here, such that the full picture of supply and demand is understood. This is a far wider context than the interpretation given and for a site promoting social enterprise, quite shocking in the general lack of understanding of world issues.

The paper below describing the scale of the problem, has been taken seriously by government who have since responded by applying several of the recommendations therein.  

http://www.p-ced.com/projects/ukraine/national/

Hi Doug,

I would not suggest legalizing prostitution as a means to reduce human trafficking.  Law enforcement would have a significantly more difficult time identifying trafficking victims in a legal brothel than an illegal one, especailly if those victims have been coached to lie and say they are happy and want to be in the brothel.  Keeping prostitution illegal gives law enforcement important tools to identify and remove trafficking victims from exploitative situations.

I meant to say that moral restriction of their freedomn IS a form of subjugation also.

I don't think anyone CAN seperate morals from laws.  I haven't come across an amoral law (one that didn't spring from a moral viewpoint) yet.  Is there one?

You cannot argue this debate from your head alone.  Here our Indigenous nations would rather feign studipity than impart wisom to the unconscious and I suggest that American First Nations are no different.  Things move in cycles.  The guy who dumps on people like Amanda for her stand might one day need her help.  Its an impartial universe we Westerners are only just coming to grips with.  Yes, free speech, you'll be given what you ask for.  You want prosititution?  You will experience it from all sides. 

I can only imagine what goes through the mind of a trafficked prostitute reading some of this "wish list".   I've been reading Steve Biddulph's book "Manhood - A book about setting men free" and he talks about using sex as a means to not only demean yourself, but also women in general.  One sentence stands out ... "Once you have MADE LOVE, then just having sex will never do."  Sex is a whole-person thing, prostitution makes it a transaction between a penis and a vagina, and isn't that the whole agenda of trafficking?

Hi Catherine,

You are right that human rights are for everyone.  You will find many previous and future posts on this blog where I explore issues regarding prostitution and human trafficking with people who support the legalization and with women who are currently engaged in the commercial sex industry at some level.  The goal of engaging in these conversations is not to silense or marginalize, but rather to identify the best way to address the problems which do exist in the commercial sex industry- violence, abuse, rape, and trafficking.

This post was not criticizing people the stance that legalizing and regulating the commercial sex industry will improve the lives of women and girls.  That is another debate.  This post was criticizing the position that there is no hope for the women and girls who are in the commercial sex industry against their wills, and there is no hope for us to change things in the industry.  

Your voice, your experience, and your opinion expressed respectfully will always be welcome here, even if I disagree with your views.  I hope you will continue to engage in this important debate.

You support Catherine's human rights, you want her voice to be heard in this conversation, you respect her experience, and you think police should arrest her:

"Keeping prostitution illegal gives law enforcement important tools to identify and remove trafficking victims from exploitative situations."

Catherine; WOW!! Well put. I couldn't have made a better argument. Btw; How IS the sex trafficking trade there in Canada? Non-existent if my suspicions are correct. Someone made the ridiculous argument that there are not enough willing participants to fill the demand. Maybe if it were legal; there would be. 
I would also like to know why my post was deleted that contained a link to some Beautiful, Happy, Healthy, Well Paid Ecsorts in AtLanta Ga. Maybe because they are the Perfect rebuttal to Amanda's argument for keeping prostitution illegal? Hmmmm??? 

In Canada, we do have trafficking. We have people being trafficked in from Asia in Vancouver. I don't know how many. There was a raid on one or more massage parlours a while back and some "johns" were arrested as well as traffickers. We had people being trafficked in from Eastern Europe a while back on exotic dancer visas -  I think there was a scandal there. Also, people are trafficked in from Native reserves. The Downtown Eastside in Vancouver is considered to be one of the worst if not the worst ghetto in North America, and there is a lot of survival sex work there. (And a lot of murders and disappearances.) I have no idea what the proportion of consenting adults versus others is in Canada. I don't think anyone really does.

Catherine, how are we supposed to recognize all sex workers' rights? People who are trafficked are not in a position to help themselves - they generally need rescuing. People who are not trafficked supposedly do not need help, or can presumably access services when they need them. So the ones who are getting help are the ones who don't need it so much, and those who are the most powerless get the least support. It's like child abuse in a way - outside intervention is needed (and so often doesn't happen). Outsiders need to be able to tell when someone is being abused. How are they supposed to be able to do this? So far it seems that most people just see what they expect to see.

Practical suggestions welcome.

I am curious as well. 

www.spreadmagazine.org

Dear Catherine,

After reading your post which disapproves of both legalization and criminalization of prostitution, I assume that  you believe that prostitution should enjoy the same status as other social activities such as dinner parties or book discussion groups.  One makes no laws for them, neither does one tax them.

Would this assumption be accurate?

as a rukle 90% of people hate thier jobs.  Don't confuse someone not liking the only option they can think of to get by and the things they need in other words "work" with slavery or abuse.

This link:
http://sexinthepublicsquare.org/ElizabethsBlog/Melissa-Farley-in-Scotland)
didn't work for me. You need to remove the ) at the end to get it to work.

Criticizing published research is fair game. This particular critique is of Farley's study of people who pay for sex in Scotland. I think another researcher could get the missing details (consent, questionnaires etc.) from Farley. Normally that sort of thing is supposed to be available on request. I would not expect her research to be perfect. I don't expect anyone's to be.

There was research on "johns" reported in "Backstreets" (Hoigard and Finstad), which reported that they tended to be low in self esteem, and a study in Sex Roles, reporting that every one of the researchers was sexually harassed at one point or another during the research interviews. I don't remember anything else about either study, but at least there are other studies out there people can compare Farley's work to.

And at least we can look at her body of research and see that prostitution cannot be taken as a victimless crime, and that we need more good information so people know what is going on. It's food for thought.

I'm curious as to how representative Charlotte Seib's sample was.

Just to add a bit of fuel to this fire:

http://www.woodhullfoundation.org/content/otherpublications/WeitzerVAW-1.pdf

Hmm, quick question. Briefly … I’d settle for a world in which people were free to make choices for themselves, and that those choices were respected. And chocolate.

"This question isn't meant to be facetious."

Sorry, Ishe, neither's my reply. But I have really limited time to delineate a utopian vision of society - this ("a world in which people were free to make choices for themselves, and that those choices were respected") remains the closest I'm likely to have the time to elucidate here. I try to bring that world closer by increasing the realism and the respect with which we debate issues around sex work.

All I'm interested in is you fleshing out for me what your campaign ideology is all about.  I want to get real about your vision.  Lets make it a given that you want legalisation.  I'll leap to an assumption here that you also want the profession elevated to professional status.  Does that mean you incorporate to achieve some kind of accreditation, like doctors, or other type of profession.  Can you define for the profession a standard.  Then lets say you are at the bank for a loan.  The loan officer asks you for a business plan so that he/she can be confident of your ability to repay.  Can you do that?  Will you lay out an expansion plan maybe.  More girls, a more upmarket location.  How does your campaigning pan out in the big picture?  I just want to know what you actually stand for.  That's all.

hi Ishe

I’ve already said “a world in which people were free to make choices for themselves, and that those choices were respected”
and
“human rights and the full protection of the law for _everyone_ in the sex industry, whether by choice, circumstance or coercion,”
These are things that I want to be more than “soap bubbles”.

I’ve also explicitly and repeatedly referred to the harms of legalisation, but talked about decriminalisation; since you say “Lets make it a given that you want legalisation”, I don’t think you’ve been reading what I’ve written. 

You say “Can you define for the profession a standard.  Then lets say you are at the bank for a loan.  The loan officer asks you for a business plan so that he/she can be confident of your ability to repay.  Can you do that?”
You know, I don’t see developing financial services for people in the sex industry as an important part of my work right now. When we have the same human rights as non-sex workers, the same protection of the law, I’m sure there are people who will get around to that.  

You say “I just want to know what you actually stand for.”
I want a world in which people are free to make choices for themselves  - not “a more upmarket location.”

Is that trafficked as in brought in from another country, or trafficked as in forced in general? People use the word in different ways.

We have males working the street here. It probably varies a lot from country to country.

Trafficked as either Palermo Protocol or Sexual Offences Act 2003; the latter is so useless even the Home Office (who wrote the legislation) often use Palermo as the working definition. It would be great if Amanda did the same. 

from Wikipedia entry for Palermo protocol:
" "Trafficking in persons" shall mean the recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of 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."

So that means all coercion/exploitation? Including the conventional pimp scenarios? 5% seems low for that.

"Criminalising clients will have no impact upon these perpetrators of abuse and violence who are already committing criminal acts against sex workers."

True. These people are already criminals. So are the ones paying for sex with minors. And the ones paying for sex with adults who are being coerced. But they don't seem to be charged or convicted, much. Mostly because the people they hurt aren't in a position to get help, I guess. Or prejudice means the prostitute is just as likely to be charged as the perp (at least in some countries). Sigh.

hi Ishe

I’ve already said “a world in which people were free to make choices for themselves, and that those choices were respected”
and
“human rights and the full protection of the law for _everyone_ in the sex industry, whether by choice, circumstance or coercion,”
These are things that I want to be more than “soap bubbles”.

I’ve also explicitly and repeatedly referred to the harms of legalisation, but talked about decriminalisation; since you say “Lets make it a given that you want legalisation”, I don’t think you’ve been reading what I’ve written. 

You say “Can you define for the profession a standard.  Then lets say you are at the bank for a loan.  The loan officer asks you for a business plan so that he/she can be confident of your ability to repay.  Can you do that?”
You know, I don’t see developing financial services for people in the sex industry as an important part of my work right now. When we have the same human rights as non-sex workers, the same protection of the law, I’m sure there are people who will get around to that.  

You say “I just want to know what you actually stand for.”
I want a world in which people are free to make choices for themselves  - not “a more upmarket location.”

I imagine they'd tax it in exactly the same way that tax tips on waiters and waitresses, or even taxing sole proprietorships.

Thanks, Douglas, that's a nice thing to say. I'm aware most people are unable to overlook their personal reactions to commercial sex (ooh, it's icky) to examine the evidence - and often then try to find evidence to justify their personal reactions. So thanks for stepping away from that.

You're welcome. 

As I said, I have some personal distaste for your line of business.  As a matter of strong moral principle, however, I believe that you didn't surrender your status as a human being when you chose your line of work.  Simple as that.  In what I imagine as a more nearly ideal world, that attitude would be common enough that you wouldn't feel impelled to thank me for it.

But the world isn't nearly ideal, so, as I said, you're welcome.

Since pimping is illegal in Canada, but prostitution itself is legal, legal prostitutes are effectively sole proprietorships. So you declare your income and expenses and that's it. No licencing, no incorporation. Just your basic home-based business expenses. Of course, I have no idea how many prostitutes who work independently actually declare their income. Or if they ever get audited.

Just to be clear, I, like most human rights' focussed campaigns on sex work, campaign for decriminalisation, so sex work and associated services (eg running a brothel) would not be illegal.

Also, evidence shows that where sex workers have access to health care and the power to negotiate, our safe sex practise is more stringent than that of "amateurs"; I get a bit twitchy when people start talking about health check ups, as often this is predicated on the idea that it's us hookers need the checks not our clients, often reinforcing established cultural attitudes about "dirty" women. In fact, when supported in doing so, sex workers have been effective agents of safe sex training for clients - eg, in India working with long distance lorry drivers.

An enjoyable, evidence based  read  exploring public health issues in HIV/AIDS is Elizabeth Pisani's "The Wisdom of Whores."
http://www.wisdomofwhores.com/

“That's real human rights, that's REAL freedom of choice.”

Sounds like you feel that people who make choices with which you disagree aren’t making ‘real choices’: ‘for her own good’ is rarely an attitude which has benefited women.

“I don't think the answer is an Institute of Applied Prostitution”
We’re agreed there. IMO, the answer is respect for human rights and freedom of choice. Hopefully that’s something many readers of this blog agree with.

Ishe, I'm not sure I understand your point.  In countries such as the US, marriage is becoming less popular, living together without marriage more so.  Breakups, partner abuse and neglect of children seem to be rising precipitously at the same time.  Freedom of individual choice often comes at a price to others.

If you're suggesting that most of the problems in family and other interpersonal relations come from men, I think you're in fantasy land.  As far as I can tell from considerable experience, women and members of ethnic minorities, given the right motivation and opportunities, readily show that they can behave every bit as badly as white non-minority men.

Something like an Institute of Applied Prostitution has, in fact, been tried -- not by that name, of course -- on some campuses.  When I was an undergrad at Berkeley in the late 1960s, we had about a two-year stretch when prostitution pretty much disappeared near campus -- I guess the non-professional activity had driven the pros out of the market.  A few years later, and for many years thereafter, the San Francisco papers and Yellow Pages carried steamy ads inviting visitors to the Bay Area to come on over to Berkeley and see what all the excitement was about -- suffice it to say it didn't appear to be about "free love," as the offerings didn't appear (I didn't check in person) to be free.  The net result was an explosion of STDs in the Bay Area, mostly during the earlier years, when -- as Catherine said -- the activity was mostly _not_ professionals who were realistic about risks and treated their health as a valuable economic asset.  So, I'd agree, not a good solution.