Bipartisan fascists go after Backpage et al

[Jolly_Penguin]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...acd97698cef_story.html?utm_term=.82155ac131f1

Why do you post a link with a pay wall?

Open in incognito window.

Didn't work. I didn't know that was a thing. Does that get around some paywalls? I will remember that for future use.

- - - Updated - - -

And you know what guys? Why can't a lonely man without a partner do what a lot of women do. Buy a bottle of high quality lube, and fantasize. It works for women, so why not men? Get some good sex toys while you're at it. And while I think of it, what if there aren't enough women who want to sell you sexual favors? What then? Women are under no obligation to service men, so stop acting like we are.

Nobody said that you are, but shouldn't your fellow women (and men) be allowed to do it for profit if they want to? Nobody said we should encourage or permit sex trafficking either.

Until you tie this into the actual OP, it seems you are complaining about a straw man.

I'm addressing the text I quoted, and especially the text I put in bold. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

 

[laughing dog]

I'm addressing the text I quoted, and especially the text I put in bold. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

Shutting down Backpage does not stop anyone from profiting from sex, so you were not even addressing the text that you quoted. It does not bother me in the least when you post drivel. But why does it bother you when someone tries to help you stay on topic?

 

[ZiprHead]

7 Sex Workers on What It Means to Lose Backpage

- - - Updated - - -

Open in incognito window.

Didn't work. I didn't know that was a thing. Does that get around some paywalls? I will remember that for future use.

Usually works fine for me at WaPo.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I'm addressing the text I quoted, and especially the text I put in bold. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

Shutting down Backpage does not stop anyone from profiting from sex, so you were not even addressing the text that you quoted. It does not bother me in the least when you post drivel. But why does it bother you when someone tries to help you stay on topic?

Apparently you didn't read the text I quoted. It didn't mention Backpage. You are just upset that I wasn't talking about the OP specifically and was addressing something else somebody said.

 

[bilby]

Ultimately it doesn't matter what level of trafficking, coercion or force people are prepared to tolerate; For all but the most extreme sociopaths, the goal is to get that level as close to zero as possible. The question is, how can that goal best be achieved?

As well as at what cost. These measures rarely come cost free in terms of freedom as well as in term of tax dollars as well as in terms other social problems being created or worsened. You could go truly extreme if you wanted to, and castrate all males at birth.

Freedom? Seriously?That's just nuts. The only freedom in question here is the freedom of women and young children. They have absolutely no freedom when it comes to being used and manipulated, coerced and imprisoned, so that some male can get his rocks off. Does banning sites like Backpage stop all aspects of this problem? Of course not, but it's wrong to simply turn our backs on things that facilitate criminal behavior. Freedom is never absolute. There are lots of things that we don't have the freedom to do, so pretending that this is an attack on one's freedom. That is quite a distortion of the word freedom.

And you know what guys? Why can't a lonely man without a partner do what a lot of women do. Buy a bottle of high quality lube, and fantasize. It works for women, so why not men? Get some good sex toys while you're at it. And while I think of it, what if there aren't enough women who want to sell you sexual favors? What then? Women are under no obligation to service men, so stop acting like we are.

Yeah, I don't really get that either.

I am assuming that the men in question - those described as incapable of finding a willing partner without paying them, and therefore unable to get any 'release' - have had both hands amputated at the wrist.

Actually, it would probably need to be above the elbow.

 

[Jarhyn]

Oh, one of these threads...

Here are the facts: in cities where Craigslist erotic services were offered, *fewer women died*.

The legislation here is going to kill women. It doesn't matter whether you agree with prostitution or not. It doesn't matter whether or not these sites "facilitated" human trafficking. It does t matter whether the women on these sites sometimes were sex slaves.

More. Women. Are. Going. To. Die.

Why? When you use an online service, women can vett their John's, rate them, and avoid ever having to meet a John who has a bad reputation. When you meet a guy face to face or over the phone, you don't get to do client research.

It's exactly the same problem as happened before the Advent of darknet markets for those seeking drugs. Someone doesn't pay or doesn't deliver on the street? Whelp, guess I'm gonna need to bust out my gun and shoot their ass. Someone doesn't pay or deliver on darknet? File a complaint and get them banned from the marketplace, and put their account on blast on the forums and possibly spread the address they use to other sellers to blacklist.

Online marketplaces for illicit services make them safer for everyone involved.

 

[SLD]

Ultimately it doesn't matter what level of trafficking, coercion or force people are prepared to tolerate; For all but the most extreme sociopaths, the goal is to get that level as close to zero as possible. The question is, how can that goal best be achieved?

As well as at what cost. These measures rarely come cost free in terms of freedom as well as in term of tax dollars as well as in terms other social problems being created or worsened. You could go truly extreme if you wanted to, and castrate all males at birth.

Freedom? Seriously?That's just nuts. The only freedom in question here is the freedom of women and young children. They have absolutely no freedom when it comes to being used and manipulated, coerced and imprisoned, so that some male can get his rocks off. Does banning sites like Backpage stop all aspects of this problem? Of course not, but it's wrong to simply turn our backs on things that facilitate criminal behavior. Freedom is never absolute. There are lots of things that we don't have the freedom to do, so pretending that this is an attack on one's freedom. That is quite a distortion of the word freedom.

And you know what guys? Why can't a lonely man without a partner do what a lot of women do. Buy a bottle of high quality lube, and fantasize. It works for women, so why not men? Get some good sex toys while you're at it. And while I think of it, what if there aren't enough women who want to sell you sexual favors? What then? Women are under no obligation to service men, so stop acting like we are.

First off, nobody is saying that you are under such obligations. Nobody is arguing that it is OK to enslave, misuse, coerce or force any women, or anyone underage, to engage in sex work. But it is a total misrepresentation to assume that every women involved is in such a situation. I posted links earlier to a study that totally debunked that myth. Simple google searches show many other sites for escorts beyond backpage. One site I looked at required verification for all posters. There was nothing specifically graphic. The women appeared to be a variety of ages, and almost all had their own websites. Maybe they're all fake. I don’t know. I didn’t try and find out. But with other studies confirming that the enslavement narrative is not the typical experience I’m highly skeptical that these women are in any way shape or form entrapped. They may be doing it for economic reasons, but shouldn’t that be their choice? And I’m not saying the answer has to be yes, but I think the answer shouldn’t be analyzed only from the perspective of the underage prostitute or the woman who is being forced into it. That’s not the only way it happens.

SLD

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why do we never see people calling for the criminalization of clothes, food, and electronics? All three industries are heavily tied to exploitation and enslavement around the world. Perhaps regulation, transparency, and targetting of actual wrongdoers is the better way to go?

 

[laughing dog]

I'm addressing the text I quoted, and especially the text I put in bold. I'm sorry if that bothers you.

Shutting down Backpage does not stop anyone from profiting from sex, so you were not even addressing the text that you quoted. It does not bother me in the least when you post drivel. But why does it bother you when someone tries to help you stay on topic?

Apparently you didn't read the text I quoted. It didn't mention Backpage. You are just upset that I wasn't talking about the OP specifically and was addressing something else somebody said.

Thank you for admitting you revel in posting derail after derail. I am not upset about anything. If you wish to appear as kneejerk ideologue who unwittingly argues to enable sex traffickers, feel free to do so. It clearly upsets you to have that pointed out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So, you are in favor of sex trafficking and child prostitution?

You're making the errant assumption that shutting down backpage will reduce these.

When this first hit the news I was in a thread on another place about it--and a SVU cop chimed in. He was opposed to it because backpage was such a useful intel source for finding the traffickers.

Apart from the hampering of law enforcement efforts the removal of internet sources increases the danger to the women. She's a lot safer using the internet to vet clients than streetwalking.

- - - Updated - - -

So Backpage and Craig's list were not used for trafficking children or unwilling sex workers?

Do you have any actual data that supports your claim that 99% of the ads placed on Backpage and Craig's List involve only legitimate sex workers?

What percentage of business devoted to child sex traffic and trafficking of other unwilling individuals is acceptable to you?

You realize a lot of what got taken out on Craigslist wasn't even sex workers at all? The personals section was about dating, although plenty of prostitutes posted there.

(Although Craigslist's changes are unrelated to the takedown of Backpage. It's a separate legal issue, repealing the safe harbor protection websites used to have. It's also taken down swaths of Reddit and FetLife and probably more that I haven't heard about.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The onus should be on those banning prostitution to prove that doing so saves sex workers, because the opposite seems just as if not more likely, and in the absence of evidence either way, we should err on the side of freedom. Note that erring against freedom here is NOT shown to be erring on the side of the victims, and could very well be the opposite.

Furthermore, legalization could go a long way towards combatting trafficking.

Have the state issue prostitution licenses. STD check and to get it they check what they reasonably can to reduce the trafficking. (They'll have the girl alone with no minders for an interview.) Prostitutes normally prefer to work under an assumed name--fine, you can have any name you want on the license. The photo must be yours, though. Anyone can enter a license # into a website and get the photo and whether it's current.

Now that it's easy for johns to check if a prostitute is licensed you can put heavy penalties on soliciting an unlicensed prostitute. This will greatly cut down on their patronage and it will separate out the transactions at a very low risk of exploitation from the ones with a high risk. The cops can focus on the latter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No better than you can demonstrate that allowing adds on backpage increases the risk of sex trafficking, no. It just feels righteously correct though, doesn't it?

It has been demonstrated that backpage provided an avenue for sex trafficking. That's an excellent reason to shut it down.

The internet has been demonstrated to provide an avenue for sex trafficking. Shut it down!

Airports have been demonstrated to provide an avenue for sex trafficking. Shut them down!

Streets have been demonstrated to provide an avenue for sex trafficking. Close them!

- - - Updated - - -

No better than you can demonstrate that allowing adds on backpage increases the risk of sex trafficking, no. It just feels righteously correct though, doesn't it?

It has been demonstrated that backpage provided an avenue for sex trafficking. That's an excellent reason to shut it down.

Most if not all sex trafficking uses telephones, automobiles, motels and city streets. Is that an excellent reason to shut them down? If not, why not?

I forgot about motels but I must disagree on telephones. Streetwalking doesn't use telephones.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Aside from sexually frustrated losers, there are also men who just want to get laid with no strings attached, and don't want to lead women on or hurt women emotionally by lying to them and telling them that they love them or want a long term relationship with them. These guys buy sex for the sake of sex and they don't want to rape women either. There is a sort of nobility in this, isn't there?

Not to mention men who aren't all that attractive and are in an area with a skewed sex ratio. (An awful lot of men in Silicon Valley can't get a woman because there aren't enough to go around.)

 

[laughing dog]

The internet has been demonstrated to provide an avenue for sex trafficking. Shut it down!

Airports have been demonstrated to provide an avenue for sex trafficking. Shut them down!

Streets have been demonstrated to provide an avenue for sex trafficking. Close them!

There is an obvious difference between shutting down backpage as a sanction for violating the law and shutting down streets, etc.... which makes such analogies appear ludicrous rather than insightful.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Earlier Toni made the claim that legalized prostitution doesn't do anything to alleviate rape. I've not yet seen any good research to back that claim up, and it is counter-intuitive. I have however seen research that leans the other way; finding correlation between legalized prostitution and decreased rape statistics.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...dents-of-rape-and_us_58c83be1e4b01d0d473bce8a




Particulars from the Holland study:

https://journalistsresource.org/stu...ustice/legal-prostitution-reduce-rape-holland







All of this came up with a simple google. I didn't see anything via that google leaning the other way. So can anyone link me to those studies if they exist?

It's not clear to me that the incidence of rape decreased throughout the country or only in zones with legalized prostitution.

What is clear to me is that in the US, the incidence of crime, especially violent crime, and including rape and sexual assault has dropped quite significantly from the early 1990's.

I don't see an actual causal relationship between legalized prostitution and a decrease in rapes in general. It is plausible that a decrease in rapes of sex workers and other crimes in legal prostitution zones decreased because of an increased and focused police presence.

Edited to add this link: https://www.statista.com/statistics/191226/reported-forcible-rape-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/

Why would you think the decline was only in the areas where they could work? Men can't travel?!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Other studies have shown that where prostitution has been legalized exploitation and underage prostitution drops by huge factors. There’re avenues of relief that are unavailable if the women are engaged in illegal activity.

SLD

That the underage stuff drops with legalization should be obvious. The underage gals can't get a job in the legal places and thus are shut out from a huge part of the market. Furthermore, the johns now have a good way to know the gal is of legal age.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A similar question could be asked: How many women have to be coerced into getting an abortion for it to make a difference? Would we ever see those on the left who seek to ban prostitution seek to ban abortion? I say on the left because those on the right already do.

Instead of derailing this thread with yet another inept attempt at analogy, how about answering a question that has been asked a number of times - what portion of forced/trafficked prostitution would make it unacceptable.

The problem is that this is the wrong question.

What that percentage is is unimportant.

First, look at the number of women, not the percentage.

Second, what's important is how this number changes with changes in the law.

Third, do not automatically assume that an increase means legalization is wrong. It could also mean a law with a poor ability to distinguish between trafficked and willing women.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/republicans-and-democrats-just-did-something-big-together/2018/04/11/38e90810-3cef-11e8-974f-aacd97698cef_story.html?utm_term=.82155ac131f1

I haven't read the entire thread, but apparently sites like Backpage are so harmful that it actually inspired a bipartisan act.

Take heart — the two parties just did do something big together. On Wednesday, President Trump will sign into law the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act , a bill designed to crack down on websites that knowingly facilitate the online sex trafficking of vulnerable persons, including underage boys and girls. And the FBI, informed by evidence collected during a nearly two-year bipartisan investigation by the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, just seized the website Backpage.com — which the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children says is responsible for 73 percent of the 10,000 child sex trafficking reports it receives each year — and arrested seven of its top executives.

Amazing. They actually did a two year study before they decided that Backpage.com was doing a lot of damage to innocent children. I really don't understand how any decent person would defend Backpage. Is evidence that this site was responsible for 73% of child sex trafficking of children not enough to ban the site?

Incomplete data, that's not enough to judge on.

1) What percent of the total prostitution ad market was Backpage? Only if it was less than 73% does this number mean anything.

2) How much of this is due to the cops regarding Backpage as easier pickings for hunting child sex trafficking?

3) Will getting rid of them make for more or less child sex trafficking in the future?


The overwhelming support this bill got is enough to make it highly suspect. Bills with such support are usually bad things that almost nobody dares vote against. If something is a good idea it will usually be passed before the support becomes so overwhelming.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...acd97698cef_story.html?utm_term=.82155ac131f1

Why do you post a link with a pay wall?

No paywall for me. I'm not a subscriber. I think they might have an articles/month limit--if so, go incognito or use another browser.

Note that the article in question also links to a rebuttal piece:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...rkers-so-mad-about-it/?utm_term=.0ec239f18b66

 

[Toni]

Earlier Toni made the claim that legalized prostitution doesn't do anything to alleviate rape. I've not yet seen any good research to back that claim up, and it is counter-intuitive. I have however seen research that leans the other way; finding correlation between legalized prostitution and decreased rape statistics.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entr...dents-of-rape-and_us_58c83be1e4b01d0d473bce8a




Particulars from the Holland study:

https://journalistsresource.org/stu...ustice/legal-prostitution-reduce-rape-holland







All of this came up with a simple google. I didn't see anything via that google leaning the other way. So can anyone link me to those studies if they exist?

It's not clear to me that the incidence of rape decreased throughout the country or only in zones with legalized prostitution.

What is clear to me is that in the US, the incidence of crime, especially violent crime, and including rape and sexual assault has dropped quite significantly from the early 1990's.

I don't see an actual causal relationship between legalized prostitution and a decrease in rapes in general. It is plausible that a decrease in rapes of sex workers and other crimes in legal prostitution zones decreased because of an increased and focused police presence.

Edited to add this link: https://www.statista.com/statistics/191226/reported-forcible-rape-rate-in-the-us-since-1990/

Why would you think the decline was only in the areas where they could work? Men can't travel?!

Increased police surveillance.