Snips and Snails and Puppy Dog Tales

Thanks for the interesting comment!

There are many examples of the government stepping in to protect the interests of those who cannot well do so themselves, as in the legislation many states have passed recently against high-interest payday loans, which trap the poor into an ever-increasing, inescapable cycle of debt. Do they not have the choice to sign on the dotted line or not? Sure, but some choices are rather less choices than others.

I'd agree that there should be protection for those who truly cannot decide for themselves (people with mental illnesses or retardation, and of course minors) but people who are poor? They have options in the current system (living on the street or going into a shelter, to name two), it's not like offering prostitution as another option would twist their arms into doing it...

And though it's not exactly related to this issue, I disagree with the government stepping in to stop those high-interest payday loans (again, with the exception of those unable to decide for themselves, not just people who don't feel like reading the small print). There isn't (or shouldn't be) anything illegal about me saying to you "I'll give you ten dollars for your hundred dollars", as it's your choice to say yes or no.

The overarching principle involved, even beyond protection of the vulnerable, is that the human body is not a saleable commodity.

I have to disagree with your logic in that paragraph. If it were selling yourself into slavery, then I'd agree, but arranging to get $20 for a blowjob? To me, that's as different as black and white. Assuming you're making your own decision to do it, how is deciding to have sex with someone for money different than deciding to take a job answering telephones for money? Yes, the act itself is different, but if it's your choice that should make all the difference. (If this were a case of a woman selling her breast to some guy forever, then I'd agree with you... especially if he wanted to cut if off and keep it in a jar!)

If it an issue of losing your own body for money, wouldn't things like going into the military be worse? You could die! If there's no other crime involved, prostitutes walk away with all their parts. And if we're talking feelings/soul/other un-physical things? Then the fact that this is a choice and can be stopped at any time should cover that.

Similarly, the state's argument against voluntary prostitution is that it looks a whole lot more voluntary when you're the john slapping the cash on the bedside table, than from the other end.

I'm not really sure what I think about that paragraph. I guess since we disagree on who the term "vulnerable citizens" can be applied to makes it hard to reply to.

Now, if you want to legalize marijuana, I'm your woman. Anyway, forgive me for pouring myself a glass of wine and pulling up a chair at your kitchen table. I'll just show myself out.

*laughs* I was thinking about drug legalization as I wrote this post. Oddly(?), I'm not as much for it as I am for legalized prostitution. I wouldn't be annoyed if it was legalized, but I'd be a little worried about more car accidents happening and such like that.

Thanks for the comment!

From:

fabularasa.livejournal.com

Oh, I'm so glad you replied! I live for this kind of stuff. Okay. *pours bigger glass of wine and kicks off shoes*

I guess since we disagree on who the term "vulnerable citizens" can be applied to makes it hard to reply to.

I am put in mind of Ben Franklin's apt saying, "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch." The fact is, any well-ordered democracy must guard against what Mill and others call the tyranny of the majority, and the hole in your argument, from where I'm sitting, is that there is such a thing as a vulnerable minority citizenry. By "vulnerable," I mean the poor, the uneducated, and the desperate -- and society has plenty of those, and it was not always their choice to be among that number, and it was not always their fault. People can be poor, uneducated and desperate through no real choice of their own, and women in this country represent a disproportionate number of them. Women especially can be vulnerable to both economical and physical depredation, and I would argue that prostitution is both.

how is deciding to have sex with someone for money different than deciding to take a job answering telephones for money?

Well, aside from the obvious, one job offers the possibility of bettering oneself and one does not. I mean, Heidi Fleiss aside, there's no real promotion potential in the world of prostitution, unless you count taking over the next streetcorner as a market opportunity. The majority of prostitutes, by far, are young girls of limited education, from less than ideal family situations, and in dire economic circumstances. It takes little imagination, I think, to see how someone's choices might be circumscribed in such a situation. The capitalist exchange going on between client and prostitute is inherently unequal and one over which the prosititute exerts little control.

To quote a civic study for Toledo, Ohio in 2000:

"Street prostitution is largely an economic crime. Women who have prostituted themselves on Toledo streets do so because they are poor. Results of a recent study of women in Toledo involved in prostitution revealed that 81% hadn't earned a high school diploma. Forty-eight percent, nearly half the women interviewed, had no previous work history. All of the women were eligible for welfare benefits and all came from families where their parents lived in poverty or fluctuated from poverty to working class throughout their childhood. None of the women were currently married, nor did any of the women who were parents consistently collect child support for the children they were attempting to raise. Therefore, street prostitution is largely representative of the poor, single, and less educated. With very few skills, a limited education, and minimal, if any, work experience, these women saw prostitution as a way to succeed in otherwise blocked entrances to conventional opportunities."

Make prostituion legal, you say. I say, why not work on un-blocking those "conventional opportunities" and assure that no woman has to turn to prostitution to support herself and her children? The way to break the cycle of crime and poverty is not to throw up one's hands and make the best of both.

And it's different from answering phones because, as I said before, the government does have a legitimate vested interest in preserving the integrity and dignity of the individual. I'm not alllowed to sell a kidney, and I'm not allowed to sell (or rent) any other part of my body, for exactly the same reason. The cheapening of one body degrades the entire body politic.

Now, I do think that the state's interest needs to be better expressed than in the punishing of those who have alrady been victimized by prostitution -- namely, the prostitutes themselves. Jail terms for solicitation should be automatically suspended, and women should be helped through subsidized work programs to find jobs that don't involve giving head to strangers. Jail the clients, not the prostitutes, if you're going to have illegal prostitution.

All right, Cokie Roberts is calling time and indicating you have the floor.

From:

came her via

lolaraincoat; fascinating arguments on both sides on a very difficult issue! sorry to butt in :-)

I'm not allowed to sell (or rent) any other part of my body, for exactly the same reason But you are allowed to participate in medical trials!!! Wouldn't that qualify?

As for the entire argument: coming from a country where prostitution is legal, where prostitutes pay income tax, are required to have regular health checkups and have a *voice*, I'm not sure whether the debate about legalization has any real relevance to the issues you talk about. All it does, I'd argue, is make the same act illegal and thereby effectively more dangerous. so if the government were *really* concerned about the integrity of its citizens' bodies, it'd acknowledge the existence of prostitution and regulate rather than criminalize it (and hopefully do all the things you suggest in terms of social changes to make it unnecessary for women to sell their bodies). (it is somewhat similar to the sex ed debate...one side screams, they're doing it, let us give them adequate info; the other believes/hopes that if we don't acknowledge it, it'll go away)

From:

I think

cathexys makes some good points as well. It's not like prostitution will ever go away -- if the government really wants to protect people, they'd acknowledge that it happens and work to make it safer and healthier.

(Sorry for the delayed comment,

cathexys. I don't check email over the weekend.)

From:

(Sorry for the delayed reply! I don't check email over the weekend.)

I'm going to reply to your comment out of order:

I'm not allowed to sell a kidney, and I'm not allowed to sell (or rent) any other part of my body, for exactly the same reason. The cheapening of one body degrades the entire body politic.

Someone who uses their talent to draw or take photos "rents" themself out as well. Heck, some artists call it "prostituting" themself when they make money by using their skills for some company.

I think we have some basic disagreements which will prevent us from being able to convince the other to switch sides. It sounds like you're saying "prostitution, no matter the person's reason or willingness to go into it, will cheapen and hurt that person"? I believe that if one makes the free decision to do it (no arm twisting, no physical or emotional pressure), then it's the same as me working at a job I hate day after day. It's a decision, it's a choice. As much as I hate the work itself, I'm here because *I* decided to be and because I haven't quit yet. If prostitution were legal, then someone would have the same exact options: Walk away at any time.

Make prostitution legal, you say. I say, why not work on un-blocking those "conventional opportunities" and assure that no woman has to turn to prostitution to support herself and her children?

Totally agreed. No one should be *forced* into it. No one should have to answer the question "prostitute myself or let my kids starve?". The government/people don't have to choose one thing or the other, we can work on making more opportunities andallowing prostitution to be legal.

By "vulnerable," I mean the poor, the uneducated, and the desperate -- and society has plenty of those, and it was not always their choice to be among that number, and it was not always their fault.

Agreed. I'm not suggesting that we force every poor person into doing this, just that it be an option for anyone (poor or not) to choose. They can get government support, they can live on the streets and collect cans, or they can do this. They could switch between the options! It's not like if they tried selling sex once that we'd brand their foreheads with a big "P".

(And think someone non-poor would never decide to work in the sex industry? I had such a bad day on Friday that while driving home I decided that even being a prostitute would be better than working here.)

I didn't go into this in my original post because I haven't done enough research to know how viable such an idea is, but I think if prostitution were legal, there would need to be a "union" (not like labor unions, just some sort of a protection/information group ...okay, maybe that sounds like a labor union) out there. Something that could hand out condoms, educate on pregnancy and STDs, maybe something to set uniform prices? Some group so that each prostitute, male or female, wouldn't be standing alone with nothing behind them.

From:

chrysoula.livejournal.com

Come lately, but hey.

I just wanted to comment that I think the fact that the majority of women in prosititution are in as dire straits as you describe reflects more prostitution's illegality and thus its dangerous nature rather than the dire straits a woman must be driven to before she considers exchanging sex for money. I am reasonably sure that if it were legal, and fully supported by the government, the statistical makeup of the industry would be different. Anyhow, on to reading more comments.

From:

vimeslady.livejournal.com

I'm having trouble with the logic of your arguments. Some people feel forced into prostitution, as though it weren't a voluntary choice, and do so even though it is illegal. How is making it legal going to make things worse for them? How does enforcing the laws against prostitution protect them and their dignity? You're making a good point for social programs to help the uneducated and poverty stricken, but this isn't an either/or situation. I cannot see how we are helping women who see no solution except prostitution by making that option illegal, therefore giving them no solution at all short of breaking the law. If some people are 'forced' into prostitution, it only degrades them more to make the profession illegal.

Reasonable, enforceable laws could keep minors and the mentally incompetent out of the business, and even include licensing that would require health checkups and STD education.

As far as prostitution hurting the dignity of our society... Last year a team of men stood almost hip deep in 100 gallons of raw sewage to pump out our septic system when it overflowed. Given a choice between a job like that and prostitution, I think it's safe to say that some people would prefer the latter.

From:

wanderingscribe.livejournal.com

Just sort of popping in to say that you guys have an interesting debate going on. I'm not coherent enough at this point to add in my two cents, but I'd like to say you both have valid points.

Prostitution is like slavery and does affect society negatively, and yet, outside of violence and disease, prostitutes aren't losing any free will. They're being paid for a job. Like any job, there are hazards, but they should be able to say "This is my job; I'm not doing anything wrong."

Or something. Bah. [sits back and watches the debate]

From:

Hello!

Prostitution is like slavery and does affect society negatively,

I'm curious about that. If it's the woman's (or man's) decision to take money for sex, how is it having a negative impact on society?

:)

From:

quasilemur.livejournal.com

I'm curious about that as well. First off, how it's like slavery. Your average soiled dove is not being abducted and forced into a life of sexual servitude. Certainly, this occurs occasionally, but like the prohibition of alcohol or current controlled substances, much of the negative activity is a result of the vice's illegality.

Secondly, I don't believe that prostitution in any way negatively affects society. How anyone can make such claims about a simple transaction of sex for money when our society condones and even rewards reprehensible corporate tactics is beyond me. More people and their dreams are crushed every day by our economic system than prostitution could ever hope to.

The parallel between prostitution and the sale of organs is also entirely specious. Certainly, the job has its physical risks (lessened exponentially if legalized and regulated), but any job does. And there are plenty far more dangerous. Ironically, there also plenty of jobs that demand more 'prostitution' of oneself than prostitution. I know I've been in jobs that exploited me far more than sleeping with old women for money ever could, and for far less money.

From:

More people and their dreams are crushed every day by our economic system than prostitution could ever hope to.

But isn't prostitution part of our economic system?

I'm not saying that how people have sex, with or without money changing hands, is wrong everywhere and always. I am saying that in the world as it exists now, with the economic system we have now, legalizing prostitution probably would not improve the lives of the prostitutes and might make their lives worse. I say why at great length further down the thread if you're interested ...

From:

wanderingscribe.livejournal.com

Because the way prostitution is set up today, you can't help but notice as you go around in social situations.

I can walk down a street, in broad daylight and see a hooker on the corner, shadowed by a pimp. If it was more subtle 'out of sight, out of mind', it wouldn't have such an impact. It wouldn't make me feel like 'OMG, our city is dangerous!'

Yeah, I know it's their choice to stand there and proposition someone, but I'm still gonna think that way and be paranoid about it.

From:

mulberryfields.livejournal.com

OK, so I'm a bit of a stranger (although actually we have met on drabble sites), dropping in my two cents. It's complicated. I very much agree with

fabularasa that prostitution dangerously exploits the vulnerable. I've worked with several young women who'd been jailed for prostitution when their economic choices were severely limited, and damn, it's no joke. On the other hand, I'm very open to the idea that it's the actual system of pimps and prostituting that exacerbates that situation, and that there might be a good chance of vastly improving that system if it were legalized.

I think it's neither like selling organs, nor answering the phone. It's not like selling organs because it's not actually selling the body, it's selling the act or the service. However, it's not like talking on the phone because sex is a charged issue and has to do with personal dignity and choice, and it's charged in a specific way for women. Additionally, the way a lot of prostitution operates now, women can end up as virtual slaves, not so much to their clients, but to their pimps. But again, that's something that could arguably improve with legalization.

From:

Hi, just popping by via the link from

fabularasa's lj. I mostly agree w/her and with Mulberry Fields here. I especially appreciate that Mulberry is arguing from the real experience of women who have sold sex for money, in legal, illegal and semi-legal ways. To extend that a little bit:

In places where prostitution is illegal, but the laws are not strictly enforced or only the prostitutes (rather than the johns) are subject to legal sanction, it's very easy for prostitutes to suffer all kinds of physical and economic coercion. There's a very fine line between slavery and prostitution when you look at the lives of, say, undocumented Thai migrants in Los Angeles who are forced into sex work. Even where prostitution is an option that may be better than most available (for instance, transgendered prostitutes in Salvador do Bahia, Brazil) this is only true for people whose options are more limited than those of other members of their societies. One more way that we can see this is that straight (or apparently straight) men don't prostitute themselves for straight women. AFAIK Cuba is the only place where this happens, at the moment, and only with tourist women hiring local men.

So, illegal prostitution is awful both because it withdraws the protections that the state might offer other workers, and because it encourages coercion.

But ... If you look at places where prostitution *is* legal, right now, you will not find happy autonomous workers. Once again, you find women (and occasionally men) who have to be coerced through physical or economic violence into engaging in this work. For example, in Amsterdam many sex workers are non-Europeans who might face legal limits on their abilities to work in other kinds of jobs in Europe. Or in Buenos Aires, 1880-1920, prostitution was legal but almost all the prostitutes were women who had been kidnapped or duped into leaving Eastern Europe and, again, could not escape from the brothels due to both physical violence and economic coercion (there were no other jobs they could do, legally.) A choice between prostitution and starvation, or between prostition and deportation, is not a free choice.

It is true that legalizing prostitution might, in theory, offer prostitutes more state protection from violence and coercion. In practice, though, it has not worked that way. Historians (a lot of historians study this) argue that this is because legalizing prostitution most often is done in the name of public health or convenience for consumers rather than the good of the workers.

Legalizing prostitution added quite brutal treatment of prostitutes by inspectors, doctors, social workers and other authorities to whatever violence and coercion they were already facing from pimps and johns. Laws regulating where prostitutes could and could not go in some places -- literally, there were neighborhoods they could not enter in, for instance, Mexico City between 1880 and 1910. Those laws also regulated how a prostitute could and could not dress. London prostitutes in the 19th century called the mandatory inspections and gynocological by male doctors in 19th and early 20th century "torture." In early 20th century Argentina prostitues working legally still were denied custody of their children. In colonial Nairobi, licensed prostitutes could not also take in laundry, serve meals or run bathhouses for their customers -- all of which *had* been done by prostitutes before legalization.

Call me cynical, but I think that the world legalizing prostitution would only add the coercive power of the state to the coercive power of johns and pimps.

It's a really interesting question, though. I'd like to know more about relatively rich places where prostitution is legal, but there are also strong protections for civil and human and worker's rights in place. (Amsterdam's the only one I can think of.) Those might provide an interesting counter-argument.

From:

well, i'm not sure that statements holds all the way. again, just coming from a narrow background, but i do believe that the unionization of german sex workers is moving in a better rather than worse direction. yes, your example of non-Europeans is a good one, but i'm not sure their situation is *worse* b/c of legalization. the thought of paid sick leave, for example, seems to me a move toward bettering work conditions rather than the opposite.

(i really know little about the field, but check out things like this article (http://www.verdi.de/0x0ac80f2b_0x00e98be3;internal&action=verdi_show_listenkopf_seite.action) that talks about the first (I think) conference for sex workers working toward more includive unionization...) [unions are de rode draad in the netherlands and verdi in germany apparently)

finally, in response to prostitution as part of our economy...let's not even get into marriage, will we :D

From:

Wow. Unionization did not even cross my mind. Very American of me, really -- I just do not associate "worker" with "union." And I am a union member myself!

But yes, if legal prostitution included labor unions for prostitutes, I would be all for it. Unfortunately in the US even the kinds of jobs that have been unionized since the first unions began, such as textile factory labor, are no longer likely to have unions now.

And as you well know, marriage and prostitution have much in common as economic institutions.

From:

pushdragon.livejournal.com

Prostitution (in some forms) is legal in some Australian states: Victoria and Queensland. Try Scarlet Alliance (www.scarletalliance.org.au), if you're curious. It's the site of one of Australia's peak bodies representing sex industry workers (the other is the Eros foundation which *I think* tends to represent the Industry more than individual workers).

Legalising prostitution hasn't stamped out exploitation or sex slavery, and indeed an illegal, unregistered industry is said to be flourishing alongside the registered industry. One aim of the reform, which legalised prostitution only out of specially licenced premises, was to end streetwalking and encourage prostitutes to operate out of brothels where they would work in safer environment. This hasn't happened and there are now proposals to legalise streetwalking in certain areas.

Does the failure of these reforms to produce "happy autonomous workers" mean that criminalising prostitution is preferable? I don't think so. I think we forget that unskilled, uneducated workers are not going to walk into comfortable office jobs simply because we deny them the avenue of prostitution. Low-level factory and labouring jobs, for instance. Your Argentinian, Mexican and London prostitutes are vaguely contemporaneous with Zola and Dickens. If gynaecological exams were the worst "torture" they had to face, they may actually have been better off than the 12 year olds working down the mines, the miners whose lungs would give out before 40.

Even today, working around heavy machinery exposes workers (mostly men, sometimes under-trained) to horrific injuries, yet we don't legislate to criminalise it (because, I would argue, it doesn't offend our ancient sensibilities on gender roles). Instead, we recognise that occupational health and safety reform and allowing workers to unionise and increase their bargaining power. Once we legalise prostitution, we are allowing prostitutes the same rights.

It's said (by the Scarlet Alliance) that Australia has the lowest rate of HIV/AIDS in the world, and I wonder if that's not facilited by having an environment where sex workers can organise, speak out and support each other without admitting to criminality.

Damn! I know this badly needs editing, but bastard net cafe is closing in 3 minutes, so sorry if I'm garbled.

Also, no-one is talking about drugs. Every analysis I've seen concludes that drugs and prostitution are inextricably linked. De-tox programmes (which are more likely, I think, to reach legal workers, who can be contacted through unions and licensed premises) surely have to be part of any solution.

thistle_chaster, this is a fabulous debate, and all your contributors have been beautifully articulate. I hope you don't mind my dropping by (via

lolaraincoat).

From:

Yes, thank you

thistle_chaser for hosting this interesting discussion!

Your Argentinian, Mexican and London prostitutes are vaguely contemporaneous with Zola and Dickens. If gynaecological exams were the worst "torture" they had to face, they may actually have been better off than the 12 year olds working down the mines, the miners whose lungs would give out before 40.

Well, no, gynocological exams weren't the worst that those legal, highly regulated prostitutes had to face -- they were also contemporaneous with Jack the Ripper, after all. But to the London prostitutes who complained about enforced exams, they symbolized all the ways that they had lost control over their own bodies. (The exams weren't about prostitute's health but were intended to protect johns from diseased prostitutes.)

And who knows if, given the choice, the miners would have preferred working as prostitutes or vice versa? It's unlikely that prostitutes lived significantly longer than miners. (Even today, Brazilian transgendered sex workers rarely live past 30.)

But your larger point, I think, is that just because legalizing prostitution in the past was only a way to further exploit and control prostitutes does not mean that legalizing prostitution now would be the same. And that's a good point; this is the flaw of all arguments based on historical precedent: the past does not repeat itself, after all. I guess I agree that places with strong state protections for workers, like western Europe, Canada, and Australia, legalized prostitution is a good idea. But in the US ... I don't know.

As I said up there somewhere, I failed to consider that legalizing sex work means that sex workers could have unions. Which goes to show you how powerful my US-formed assumptions about labor are!

It's said (by the Scarlet Alliance) that Australia has the lowest rate of HIV/AIDS in the world, and I wonder if that's not facilited by having an environment where sex workers can organise, speak out and support each other without admitting to criminality.

OTOH prostitution is also legal or semi-legal in places with high rates of HIV infection, like the Phillipines and Thailand. Legal prostitution does not automatically mean that sex workers have any more power or ability to protect themselves than other workers in their local economies.

From:

Actually, I just saw on CNN today that Thailand has been anexemplary country in the region in controlling the spread of AIDS (and they're actually facing the next AIDS wave from het couples!)

It just seems to be easier to reach prostitutes with education and condoms when they're not criminalized, don't you think?

From:

Really? Oops! Wrong again! Shows you what I know -- which is, not much. (Or not much that happened after about 1970, anyway.) But I could have sworn I read somewhere ... ah well.

But yes, I expect that it would be easier for prostitutes to obtain information and condoms (and, even more important, have the ability to insist that the men they have sex with *use* the condoms) in places where prostitution is legal. OTOH I would guess that legality of prostitution may not be the most important variable (compared to, say, state of development and mobility of population and rates of drug use and general access to health care) in preventing the spread of HIV.

But on the *other* other hand, what the hell do I know? (see above)

From:

Argh! this was unproofread. Sorry. But I think the meaning's still pretty clear. Except it should be "gynocological exams" up there in para 6.
(Reply to this) (Parent)

From:

idlerat.livejournal.com

Is there any way to keep what pimps and johns and others involved do (like those who kidnap or lure young women away from their homes, transport them etc) criminal, without subjecting prostitutes themselves to criminal penalties? We already have mandatory sentencing--maybe we could have mandatory un-prosecuting or something (to protect them not only from prison and fines but arrest, criminal proceedings and records).

I guess it depends on the circumstances--some people could probably be rescued from some situations, but services for the destitute are such utter shite that arresting streetwalkers, in New York, anyway, seems pointless. It's not like someone is going to step in and actually help them. But maybe, as some have suggested, it's just so dangerous and horrible that anything you can do to discourage people is just as well. Like heroine and coke, perhaps.

From:

Hmmm. Well, kidnapping and rape and physical abuse of all kinds are already illegal, which covers some of the horrific things that happen to undocumented immigrant women and girls forced into prostitution, presumably -- the problem there is that the legal system in the US doesn't take crimes that happen to prostitutes and undocumented workers as seriously as it takes crimes that happen to citizens who are not sex workers.

And I don't quite know how I feel about prosecuting the johns... they certainly should be prosecuted if the prostitutes are going to be, but maybe the prostitutes shouldn't be?

It's an interesting problem.

From:

I think you make a lot of good points! (And sorry for the delayed reply, I don't get to check email on the weekends.)

On the other hand, I'm very open to the idea that it's the actual system of pimps and prostituting that exacerbates that situation, and that there might be a good chance of vastly improving that system if it were legalized.

That's part of my theory on it, yes. If a woman decides to sell sex to make money, then that's her choice. However, to have a pimp controlling her, taking most of the money, using her, perhaps getting her hooked on drugs, that is something we should be working to prevent.

I think it's neither like selling organs, nor answering the phone. ... because sex is a charged issue

You're right. I knew when I was making the comparison that I was making it too simplistic. I believe it is closer to answering the phone than it is to selling a lung, but it's not the exact same thing.

Thanks for the comment!

From:

mulberryfields.livejournal.com

Thanks, and thanks for responding. I found both

lolaraincoat's and

cathexys's examples about the results of actual legalization very interesting. I think it has the potential to improve things, but lola makes a good point about whose welfare the state would look out for.

I guess on this issue I'm most interested in what can actually improve the lives of women who enter a difficult life of prostitution when they are faced with no economic alternatives - a little analogous to entering the military. In theory, I think I agree that it should be legal. In practice, my opinion would depend on whether the specific "system" in place were likely to make things better or worse for women.

Also - I'm adding you to my flist, I hope you don't mind?

From:

I don't mind at all! Thanks!

From:

kaiz.livejournal.com

I do see your point, but...personally, I think I'd feel a heck of a lot more comfortable with the idea if (most of) the male and female sex workers were actually exercising their right to choose a specific field of employment, as opposed to being forced to choose that work.

For instance, what if a man/woman had the option of choosing between an office job making $15/hour + benefits, a factory job making $17/hour + benefits, or sex work making ???/hour + whatever. If, in that case, the person picked the sex work, well then, I could nod and say, "Okay," because they have options.

But too often, sex workers don't have that kind of free choice. They're vulnerable in some way--addicted to drugs, underage, abused by/pimped out by their guardians, lacking in job skills or education, duped with false offers of employment and then enslaved by pimps who have paid off their relatives back home (the international trafficking in women and girls is just horrific).

Not that legalizing/regulating prostitution wouldn't help their plight, and not that the double standard (arrest the sex workers, let the johns go free) isn't bad, but...like I said, I'd feel a lot less squicky about the whole situation if most of the sex workers weren't being either overtly or covertly coerced into it in the first place.

From:

I agree that they should have a choice, either between X job that pays $$$ and prostitution which pays $$$, or between something like "government support" and "prostitution". No one should be forced into anything, sex-related job or not!

But too often, sex workers don't have that kind of free choice. They're vulnerable in some way--

Sadly, yes. At least by making it legal, you'd (probably?) get the pimps out of the system. Why would they be needed? Male and female prostitutes could work out of ... "offices"? Some place, so that they wouldn't be having sex in dangerous places and needing protection from cops and other pimps.

From:

pushdragon.livejournal.com

See, I feel so strongly about this I had to find another internet cafe, just to add two things.

Many commentators, including

fabularasa - doing some marvellous devil's advocate work there! - have argued that the coercion of some workers within the industry warrants criminalisation. My argument is that the under-educated, the drug addict and the illegal migrant are vulnerable whatever industry they work in. That *some* workers are exploited is not a moral argument for preventing the others from pursuing their chosen profession. More to the point, criminalisation is simply not a productive response.

In a recent British example, some 20 illegal migrants from China died while employed to collect cockles on the flats off the west coast. The tide came in, they were cut off, and they drowned. On investigation, it turned out the cockle industry is rife with exploitation of illegal migrants and appalling work practices. But no-one has suggested criminalising the cockle industry, because cockles, unlike women's bodies, are not considered the proper realm of state regulation. (One recent article is here: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/this_britain/story.jsp?story=539822)

I think our response to prositution is still coloured by our ancient sexual prejudices. In any other industry, particularly in a traditionally male indutry, we would regulate the industry to ensure safe standards. In the case of prostitution, we are too ready to presume that women are inherently unable to make their own decisions, and, deep down, I think there is still a (very biblical) revulsion at the idea that any woman could want to sell sex.

I agree with

fabularasa's argument that the state must offer prostitutes alternatives, education and assistance to seek other professions. Of course. But on a practical level, criminalising their current profession will actively hinder their choice to move into another area. They can't disclose their illegal work to a potential employer, leaving a tainting gap in their CV. Any criminal convictions will be a real handicap, with some jobs barred outright. Surely legalisation has to tbe the first step towards getting unwilling prostitutes out of the industry. Legal workers are also easier to find, to contact, if you want to attract them to some sort of rehab programme.

And pursuing the pimps and clients rather than the prostitutes? It's hard to catch a number of clients suffient to provide a deterrant, partly because prostitutes are reluctant to give evidence against them. And, in any event, I haven't yet seen an argument as to why a willing client should not be able to pay a prostitute for a service she is willing to provide.

We're all agreed on that much, aren't we? A woman (or a man, equally) should (in theory, at least) have the freedom to sell sexual services, and a client to purchase them. The argument, it seems to me, is only over the best method to minimise coercion and exploitation.

Thanks again,

thistle_chaser. My brain thanks you for this unexpected exercise!

From:

I think our response to prositution is still coloured by our ancient sexual prejudices.

That's one of the things that really, really bothers me about it. For some reason, we're still in the "sex is bad!" mindset.

We're all agreed on that much, aren't we? A woman (or a man, equally) should (in theory, at least) have the freedom to sell sexual services, and a client to purchase them. The argument, it seems to me, is only over the best method to minimise coercion and exploitation.

Nice summing up of it! :) And thanks for the comment!

From:

fishwhistle.livejournal.com

Hi, I'm a visitor who followed the link from lolaraincoat's livejournal....

Speaking of examples of relatively rich places where prostitution is legal, aren't there some legal brothels in Nevada, or is that no longer true? If so, how do the workers fare there?

From:

Hello!

Yes, prostitution is still legal in Nevada. (It's one of the things that state is known for!) I'm not sure how rich Nevada is though... I'd think it is more along average?

As for how they fare, I only know that in the news stories I read they seem to be doing fine. They don't work long hours and they get paid pretty well.

From:

gayle-martin.livejournal.com

I'm going to come back and comment in more depth probably tomorrow evening, but I just wanted to do a quick drive-by to correct the assumption here. I worked in several Nevada brothels. In most of them the workers are kept inside from anywhere between 10 days and 30 days, without permission to leave the premises except for doctor's visits or the sheriff's office for fingerprints. While working, it is usual to work a 14 hour shift and in some houses we had to be available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for the entire time we were inside.

As for money, the money is okay if the house is busy and not overstaffed with girls, but it is nothing like the money that can be made working illegally in pretty much any other state. I quit after a month because the drawbacks outweighed the very few advantages of legalized prostitution in Nevada. I made more more and had much better control over my circumstances working for myself.

I'll catch up with you tomorrow for some more comments. I'm out this evening and tomorrow I'll be at work all day.

From: