Bipartisan fascists go after Backpage et al

[Toni]

What is with you and Kiran believing that you know me and my circumstances better than me?

I won't apologize for thinking better of you than you seem to do.

And you said "might". That is interesting. You acknowledge that a romantic relationship is not necessarily more satisfying than a relationship with sex workers. Glad to hear that.

A lot depends on what one is willing to give and contribute. Apparently you are willing to toss a few bucks around now and then and call it good. Yay for you. Perhaps not so great for the other person. Yes: I wrote PERSON.

I see this as a self fulfilling prophesy. Maybe I just think more of you than you think of yourself. I apologize if this is too personal for me to write in this thread, but I wanted you to know that no matter how much you and I disagree about virtually everything, I see you as someone who deserves a good, loving relationship.

Maybe. But I am sick to trying. When women like to go for completely different kind of guy.

If your only relationships have been with sex workers, you are only going to know those who will only have a relationship with you for a defined period of time and for a defined amount of money. It's not a relationship, it's a transaction. But because it involves intimate acts, it feels like a relationship on some level.

Obviously you know you much better than I do. Maybe I'm wrong about the impressions I get from some of your posts.

As I've said before, my opinions about prostitution are colored by knowing a few girls and women who were prostituted and knowing enough about them and their lives to know how they got there.

I bet I know far more. And some I have been seeing for an extended period of time and learned a but about them. Note that you use the word "were prostituted". This use of passive voice robs these women of acknowledgement of agency. You do not think they should be able to choose this line of work.

Talk about robbing someone of agency--or attempting to do: I DO know those people. Knew them from childhood, some of them. I do KNOW their lives. And how little choice they had in any aspect of it. I DO know how desperate they were for love, affection, a decent meal, a bit of clean clothing.

And also reading enough to learn that legalizing prostitution does not stop but seems to increase trafficked sex workers who did not enter the business willingly but who were tricked and compelled.

I have seen zero good evidence that shows that legalizing sex work increases involuntary aspects of it. And why would that be the case anyway? Propose a plausible mechanism please. For example, when Rhode Island accidentally legalized sex work.

Try reading the links I posted upthread. As far as Rhode Island goes: crime was decreasing during this time across the US, not just RI.

Honestly, when I first started reading about legalizing prostitution, I was sure I would be convinced legalization was the better way to go. But the more I read, the more that I am not.

I doubt it. You seem to have a very visceral aversion to it. And the propaganda against it is to me very reminiscent to propaganda against legalization of weed or gay sex.

Considering what I saw happen to childhood friends, yeah, I do have a visceral reaction to those who prey upon the desperate in order to turn a buck off of their very difficult labor.

What you see as 'propaganda' is simply reporting of what happens. Do you honestly think the prostitutes you use tell you the truth? About anything? They tell you whatever version they think increases the likelihood they'll get what they want or need from you.

I am not impressed by the so called safe guards, especially by the testing for STIs which is present to protect customers but not sex workers who are discarded if they screen positive.

Well they would be prevented from continuing the work, which is reasonable. But they should not be "discarded" per se, I agree.

So, what should happen to them? How should they make their way in life?

I know very well what the intervals of time there are between initial infection and possibility of detection of virus: it's during that lag time that viruses such as HIV are most virulent--most transmittable.

That may be true, but testing still protects both parties. For one, it is beneficial to start treatment early rather than late.
Second, if a sex worker tests positive and that prevents her from infecting a client or two, these clients will not pass HIV to other sex workers. Thus these sex workers are protected from infection.

Derec, I've already gone over this with Jolly: This assumes that customers are infected by prostitutes. In the US, transmission is much more likely to be from male to female or male to male. See this: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/overview/ataglance.html

Yes, early treatment is extremely helpful in treating HIV infections. But one is still infected, treatment is still very..difficult and very expensive. And you still have HIV and must take a great deal of care with all aspects of your health and lifestyle in a way that is not compatible with prostitution. So where does a 30 year old HIV positive prostitute who has been turning tricks since she was 15 go? And how does she live?

I think we all know that there are customers who will insist on no condom just as there are prostitutes who are so desperate for money that they are willing to forgo the condom for the cash. Legalized prostitution reduces risks to health and safety but not enough. Legalized prostitution increases the risks that vulnerable people, often too young to be legal, are forced into that life. It's extremely difficult to get out, even if you are not compelled by a pimp.

The "sex without condom" demands are more likely in a completely unregulated market which we have with illegal sex work.

Yes, and unfortunately, illegal sex work increases in areas where there is sex work is legal. There is and will remain a demand for sex work that involves younger sex workers, more opportunity for violence, more opportunity for risk (i.e. no condoms). That might not be your thing, but it remains true.

 

[Derec]

Exactly HOW does testing for STIs (as is typically mandated for prostitutes working in legal prostitution) protect PROSTITUTES?

It does not protect her if she is infected, but the act of testing everybody means that fewer clients will get infected and that protects her in the end.

What? Because customers are less likely to pick up an STI from a prostitute? Really? You don't think they pick them up elsewhere????? Please.

HIV infection odds for heterosexual sex are low enough that if you do not get infected by person A you are unlikely to get infected by person B. The odds of contracting HIV as a man during PIV sex are 1 in 2500 (they are twice that for women due to difference in plumbing) per intercourse. A man could be banging just HIV positive women without a condom for ten years 3 times a week and still have only about 50% chance of getting infected.
So individual odds are low. Numerous infections still happen because they are many people around, and those transmissions can be reduced through testing.

For some levity, I came across this.

 

[Derec]

And yet the question stands. In the states, who is going to shoulder that particular liability should we legalize prostitution? I really think certain people underestimate how much a legal prostitute would cost following the Nevada model. It's not uncommon for them to go for a grand an hour in Nevada today if the internet is to be believed.

It's the scarcity model. Only a handful of locations in three rural counties. No Reno, certainly no Las Vegas.

Also, Denis Hof had a reality TV show on HBO some years ago. Not very recent publicity, I know, but still, Nevada brothels keep prices high through sheer notoriety that they are the only places where you can hire a sex worker legally.

Imagine if restaurants were banned across the US except in three rural counties in Nevada. Everywhere else in the US you are forced to prepare your own food or risk going to jail by going to underground restaurants or hiring private chefs off the Internet (at least until US Congress cracks down on all food service related websites). How much do you think a steak at one of Denis Hof's (who in this parallel universe had a HBO reality show called "Steakhouse" of course) rural Nevada restaurants would cost?
And if food service workers did not have other legal avenue for employment than a handful of restaurants in rural Nevada, would their treatment be better or worse than with a thriving legal food industry?

 

[Derec]

How about this, Why don't people like Derec go out and buy an Occulus rift and see how that treats them? The tech as is is pretty promising and only stands to get better with age.

And while we're at it, let's reverse Lawrence because you can just conjure yourself a male sex partner via VR. After all, I am not gay, so why should I care for freedoms of those different than myself. </sarcasm>

What is it with you and Toni despising freedom of people who have desires different than your own?
Hath not a whoremonger hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer as a boyfriend is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die? And if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that.

 

[Derec]

For reasons I've already explained. I am not convinced that legalizing prostitution would be a net benefit to society, and if that rando's post I linked and quoted a few pages back is to be believed then I am entirely right to be skeptical.

Some of it is certainly true. While I do not know how these ladies are treated, you must realize that allowing legal sex work in only very few places is not a healthy societal or economic model. It should be legal in all 50 states, in all the counties.

 

[Derec]

Few prostitutes enter sex work because that has been their ambition.

That is probably true for about 95% for all jobs. So what now? Ban all those jobs?

 

[laughing dog]

But I did.

You also wrote "And why should an open, honest transactional relationship be criminalized when those couched in relationshipy language are given a pass?

Why would you necessarily assume that Lord Kiran and his/her partner (sorry, I do not recall Lord Kiran's gender) are not in a loving and giving relationship?

It seemed that way from his description.

It seemed that way to you not to me. You assumed it was not a loving and giving relationship.

 

[Derec]

Nothing else should matter but the welbeing of the women in the industry, and that won't happen when it is illegal and shoved further underground.

I disagree. While well-being of sex workers is obviously very important, it should not be the sole concern. Well-being of customers should play a role as well. We are human also. If a client harms a sex worker, he should be prosecuted. If a sex worker harms a client, she should be prosecuted. And I also think freedom of all participants is too often ignored in these discussions.

As a classic liberal,I think freedom is an important value per se. And that is freedom of both clients and providers. That implies that no woman should ever be forced into sex work, but also that busybodies in the government should not prevent willing women from pursuing this line of work. Or prevent a client from seeking services from willing providers.

 

[Derec]

After Charlottesville, you and the other conservolibertarians defended actual Nazis waving actual Nazi flags while chanting classic Nazi slogans,

Yes. That's protected speech under the First Amendment.

you guys got really angry that people were there counterprotesting the Nazis,

I did not. Both sides have equal right to peacefully protest. But the Left things that leftist protesters have the right to burn gas stations of block highways, which is BS.
I do not believe as Charlottesville Nazis do, but they have the same right to march and wave flags as Antifas or #BLMers etc. do.

and yet here you are insisting that other people are the "real fascists."

Yes. Now I am not saying they are fascists because they are against legal sex work. One can be against legal sex work (as misguided a position as that is) and not be a fascist.
But I do not think you are aware of the scope of what just happened. They did not shut down one website. This new legislation is threatening all websites that are related to sex work. Not only sites where users post ads, but also discussion forums related to sex work. They all shut down because they now can be held criminally and civilly liable for posts made by third parties. Hitherto, the law protected websites from such liability, which ensured free and open Internet. Restricting freedom on the Internet is fascist.

I know many of you here like weed. Let's say a law passed that removed 230 protections from all websites that were weed related. Now feds could go after any 420 related discussion groups etc., and these sites would shut down to avoid getting criminally prosecuted. This is what is happening in the sex work community. Pretty much all websites have shut down, not just Backpage. It is chaos. Do you really think a single actual victim will be helped by this nonsense?

 

[Derec]

My issue with legalization is that illegal prostitution of unwilling sex workers increases: https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/lids/2014/06/12/does-legalized-prostitution-increase-human-trafficking/

How do they even define "human trafficking". They certainly do not do it in the article. Many prohibitionists do not constrain to "unwilling" women, but if a woman crosses a border and pursues sex work they count her as "trafficking victim". Obviously, when you legalize sex work, you will increase inflow of sex workers from countries with less favorable laws, inclding through illegal migration.

While the harm to sex workers increases with criminalization, harm to persons trafficked for sex work decreases.

Does it really? I very much doubt that.

There is a strong suggestion that a better way to go would be to go after pimps and customers, not prostitutes.

Why do you want to punish people like me for doing nothing wrong? Why do you so desperately want to throw me in jail?
And there is much evidence that the Swedish model is a failure. Certainly, the sex workers themselves hate it. But who cares about them right? As long as we punish the dirty clients!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X12001453#s0045

Again, how do we know that those women they count as "inflow" are actually unwilling? I only skimmed it, but they never provide a good definition of trafficking as far as I have seen, except maybe to tie it to illegal migration, which is not the same as being forced. Not at all. Second, they view the entire world and not just developed countries. Of course countries that have less well functioning societies will have higher instances of involuntary sex work. Thus, these countries skew the sample, since here we are talking about other developed countries like the US.
And papers like these assign a zero value to freedom of individuals, both on the client and provider side. But freedom is an important issue and should be assigned a value for all discussions regarding sex work.
Just like with marijuana, value of freedom to consume it should be a factor in whether to legalize it.

The other two articles are just cherry-picked anecdotes. Unlike those two women, sex workers in general do not support the Nordic models that turns their clients into criminals for doing nothing wrong.

 

[Toni]

Exactly HOW does testing for STIs (as is typically mandated for prostitutes working in legal prostitution) protect PROSTITUTES?

It does not protect her if she is infected, but the act of testing everybody means that fewer clients will get infected and that protects her in the end.

AGAIN: It's not likely that the client is getting infected from the sex worker. In the US, most transmission is male to female, not the other way around.

Statements like these only reinforce the impression I get that some people, mostly those who are in favor of prostitution, see prostitutes as disposable entities, not actual persons, real, live individual human beings with feelings and wants and needs and hopes and dreams and value as human beings, as people, not as an animated sex toy to use and abuse to the full extent of the fee you paid....someone.

What? Because customers are less likely to pick up an STI from a prostitute? Really? You don't think they pick them up elsewhere????? Please.

HIV infection odds for heterosexual sex are low enough that if you do not get infected by person A you are unlikely to get infected by person B. The odds of contracting HIV as a man during PIV sex are 1 in 2500 (they are twice that for women due to difference in plumbing) per intercourse. A man could be banging just HIV positive women without a condom for ten years 3 times a week and still have only about 50% chance of getting infected.
So individual odds are low. Numerous infections still happen because they are many people around, and those transmissions can be reduced through testing.

For some levity, I came across this.

NO. There is NOTHING funny about HIV.

AND NO: YOU HAVE TO WEAR A CONDOM IF YOU HAVE SEX WITH A PROSTITUTE OR STRANGE OR ANYONE WHOSE HIV/STI STATUS ISN'T KNOWN AND DOCUMENTED.

A MAN CANNOT BANG AN HIV POSITIVE WOMAN FOR 10 YEARS AND BE SAFE FROM CONTRACTING HIV, PLUMBING BE DAMNED.

 

[Toni]

How do they even define "human trafficking". They certainly do not do it in the article. Many prohibitionists do not constrain to "unwilling" women, but if a woman crosses a border and pursues sex work they count her as "trafficking victim". Obviously, when you legalize sex work, you will increase inflow of sex workers from countries with less favorable laws, inclding through illegal migration.


Does it really? I very much doubt that.

There is a strong suggestion that a better way to go would be to go after pimps and customers, not prostitutes.

Why do you want to punish people like me for doing nothing wrong? Why do you so desperately want to throw me in jail?
And there is much evidence that the Swedish model is a failure. Certainly, the sex workers themselves hate it. But who cares about them right? As long as we punish the dirty clients!

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305750X12001453#s0045

Again, how do we know that those women they count as "inflow" are actually unwilling? I only skimmed it, but they never provide a good definition of trafficking as far as I have seen, except maybe to tie it to illegal migration, which is not the same as being forced. Not at all. Second, they view the entire world and not just developed countries. Of course countries that have less well functioning societies will have higher instances of involuntary sex work. Thus, these countries skew the sample, since here we are talking about other developed countries like the US.
And papers like these assign a zero value to freedom of individuals, both on the client and provider side. But freedom is an important issue and should be assigned a value for all discussions regarding sex work.
Just like with marijuana, value of freedom to consume it should be a factor in whether to legalize it.

The other two articles are just cherry-picked anecdotes. Unlike those two women, sex workers in general do not support the Nordic models that turns their clients into criminals for doing nothing wrong.

I'm sorry if definitions and data do not fit with your preferred world view and lifestyle preferences. You seem very invested in not understanding or not choosing to believe quite a number of articles linked in this thread.

Why do you think you are doing nothing wrong by violating laws against prostitution but black people who might have had a joint in their locker or in their vehicle deserve to be gunned down by police? You've used a past accusation of possession of pot to be proof that someone is bad and was engaging in criminal activity when they were killed, unarmed by police or by a wannabe self appointed neighborhood cop.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Written to Derec:

Why do you think you are doing nothing wrong by violating laws ...

What I find amazing is how in other threads regarding immigrants he discusses how immigrants need to adapt to the culture of the host nation.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Nah she's saying that the people most for legalized prostitution aren't particularly interested in the well being of the prostitutes.

That is not true. I do care about well-being of sex-workers.

It also disregards the many prostitutes who themselves want it legalized, and whom criminalizing it puts in harm's way. When the new laws were being drafted after the Supreme Court of Canada struck down the old prostitution laws (for this very reason), the government consulted with the public to determine what the new laws would be. But the Harper government didn't hear everyone equally. They listened extensively to church groups and some feminist groups, and they ignored and shut out groups of actual prostitutes, giving them only a very brief token listen and promptly disregarding everything they had to say.

Here is one of them.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zDqmedFE_Q[/youtube]

And here is another, going through the various models, including the ones some here are advocating

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VJRBx0JjM_M[/youtube]

Do you think that they "aren't particularly interested in the well being of the prostitutes"?

Also, if we are going to presume the motives of people who are for legalized prostitution (and marijuana), why don't we do the same to people who are against? Should we presume that because somebody opposes legalization of prostitution they are therefore not particularly interested in the well being of the prostitutes who are exposed to deadly danger on the streets because they can't screen clients appropriately and work more safely indoors? Should we attribute religious motivations to them?

Do you think there'd be any kind of safety net for prostitutes who contract diseases due to the nature of their work put into place if we legalized prostitution?

Depends on the jurisdiction. The healthcare aspect is easier in places like Germany and Netherlands because of their healthcare system. In the US there'd have to be some sort of supplemental insurance. I wonder how industries with very dangerous professions, like commercial fishermen or underwater welders. Perhaps those things can be adapted for sex workers as well, perhaps financed by the permit fees.

Also notice that the question was "do you think there'd be" and not "is there". Sex workers need such support NOW. It doesn't only become a concern if sex work is legalized.

Because I very much doubt it. Also good luck getting health insurance if you're a prostitute, that shit has hazardous/life threatening work written all over it.

All the more reason for universal single payer health care. Why won't your country, even your Democrat Party, support and push for it? Why did Obama not even try? They'd rather waste resources chasing consenting adults who want to have pay for play sex? Also all the more reason to have universal basic income, and yes, your obscenely wealthy country CAN afford it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

How do they even define "human trafficking".

First, note how its human trafficking and not sex trafficking specifically that they are purporting to measure. Second, they don't define it clearly in their summary because they don't measure it consistently. It was done by reporting from the various places (which themselves are different in culture) which all measure it and report on it independently and often differently. Third, it only speaks to REPORTED incidents, and not actual numbers of incidents. Why would we expect the same level of visibility and reporting of sex trafficking where prostitution is legal and not legal?

But apparently we are not allowed to point out these obvious flaws, because we are not writing this in a peer reviewed journal.

There is a strong suggestion that a better way to go would be to go after pimps and customers, not prostitutes.

Why do you want to punish people like me for doing nothing wrong? Why do you so desperately want to throw me in jail?
And there is much evidence that the Swedish model is a failure. Certainly, the sex workers themselves hate it. But who cares about them right? As long as we punish the dirty clients!

Decriminalizing the sex workers is certainly a step in the right direction.

I don't agree with the claims that keeping customers criminalized is going to help anyone. It just pushes sex workers into an odd (and fairly unique) position of selling a service that is legal to sell but illegal to buy. It creates an opportunity for blackmail. It keeps dangerous customers dangerous for fear of being arrested. But most importantly it encourages the sex workers to work in the same dangerous places and settings that they would if they were themselves criminalized, so they can get business.

Criminalizing "Pimps" depends very much on how "pimp" is defined. Pimps who force, rough up, or traffick sex workers should be jailed. But does "pimp" include security the sex worker hires? Does it include a driver she hires? A person who operate the phone or her website for her and take bookings? A person who books her motels and other incall locations for her? There are plenty of roles that may be seen as "pimp" that are in no way abusive towards the sex worker, and that in fact are a benefit and safety for her/him.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

But apparently we are not allowed to point out these obvious flaws, because we are not writing this in a peer reviewed journal.

You're allowed to do whatever you want, I'm just not going to go to great efforts to try to read and understand lengthy diatribes and opinions from biased detractors of a peer-viewed science work. Write freely, just don't expect that others have to read it.

 

[Derec]

You're allowed to do whatever you want, I'm just not going to go to great efforts to try to read and understand lengthy diatribes and opinions from biased detractors of a peer-viewed science work. Write freely, just don't expect that others have to read it.

Social science is a very soft science at best, sand is susceptible to ideological bias. If these "researchers" do not even have a meaningful and consistent definition of "trafficking", then their "research" is garbage.

- - - Updated - - -

What I find amazing is how in other threads regarding immigrants he discusses how immigrants need to adapt to the culture of the host nation.

The fuck are you talking about? Sex work has always been part of the American culture since the beginning.

 

[Derec]

I'm sorry if definitions and data do not fit with your preferred world view and lifestyle preferences.

The problem is that they are playing fast and loose with data. Conflating sex trafficking with all human trafficking. Conflating trafficking with voluntary migration. And so on.
And let's not pretend as if radical Christians and radical feminists do not have a "preferred world view" that does not include sex work.

You seem very invested in not understanding or not choosing to believe quite a number of articles linked in this thread.

Because they are all propaganda rather than objective research. Those flaws have been pointed out.

Why do you think you are doing nothing wrong by violating laws against prostitution

Not any more than a gay person did having gay sex pre Lawrence. Or any more than you do when you smoke a joint.
I think the laws against sex work are unconstitutional anyway.

but black people who might have had a joint in their locker or in their vehicle deserve to be gunned down by police?

When did I say that?
First of all, even when a shooting is justified, very few people deserve to die.
Second, it is not that some hypothetical guy has a joint in his car, but that he for example might have driven his car at police while trying to escape.

You've used a past accusation of possession of pot to be proof that someone is bad and was engaging in criminal activity when they were killed, unarmed by police or by a wannabe self appointed neighborhood cop.

If you are talking about St. Skittles, a) it was not just possession, but dealing, and not just pot but also codeine, and b) I used it to counter the one-sided media narrative that portrayed him in a very flattering but misleading manner. But in the end he was likely shot because he attacked Z and pounded his head against the ground. Evidence showed that much. But let's not digress further.

 

[laughing dog]

First, note how its human trafficking and not sex trafficking specifically that they are purporting to measure. Second, they don't define it clearly in their summary because they don't measure it consistently. It was done by reporting from the various places (which themselves are different in culture) which all measure it and report on it independently and often differently. Third, it only speaks to REPORTED incidents, and not actual numbers of incidents. Why would we expect the same level of visibility and reporting of sex trafficking where prostitution is legal and not legal?

Why would you expect a difference?

But apparently we are not allowed to point out these obvious flaws, because we are not writing this in a peer reviewed journal.

Is that obvious counterfactual claim a rhetorical device or is it an example of desperation? You can point any alleged flaw you want - no one is stopping you. But no one is required to take these allegations as either substantial or relevant. Most human trafficking is sex traffficking, so you have presented any reason why one would not associate an increased level of human trafficking with an increased level of sex trafficking. More importantly, your criticism ignores that any human trafficking should be avoided and if legalizing prostitution leads to an increase in human trafficking (whether that is sex trafficking or not) that is a good reason to be against legalizing prostitution.

Basically, your argument is that 1) the data is not consistently measured, and 2) nonsex human trafficking should be ignored in the discussion. Neither reason is a good reason to support legalizing prostitution.

A better argument is that the study conflates correlation with causation.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Social science is a very soft science at best, sand is susceptible to ideological bias. If these "researchers" do not even have a meaningful and consistent definition of "trafficking", then their "research" is garbage.

Definitions don't have to be consistent. For example, if you are doing a meta-analysis and different analyses you are looking at use different definitions but achieve the same or similar findings, then it's worth collecting that and putting it into a larger context of a meta-study. Similarly, one may have to use the different types of measures that are available according to the sources of information and so one may look at different things measured differently and all may arrive at similar conclusions within a single study. Or one may purposefully try out different definitions and different measures in order to show the robustness of findings. And any number of any other reasons for inconsistent definitions or measures...etc. Where there would be a serious no-no is in taking two different units of measure and adding them together while calling it only one of the units or conflating definitions in such a way to arrive at the opposite conclusion. Given that you think an inconsistent definition is in and of itself a problem when it isn't i.e. you don't know what you're talking about, the paper was written by scientists and peer-reviewed who would look for basic problems such as this, and that you have a vested interest in continuing to thumb your nose at our representative democracy by not following our laws, I am justified in not bothering to read your criticisms of the study any further. I may read a sentence here or there in a post, but the cost benefit is predicted to be very high cost and zero benefit. And I say zero benefit in particular and not "very little benefit" because you certainly won't change your mind that you're wrong about anything.