No, Derec. I've been told repeatedly that I don't use good sources to form my opinions about how legalization would improve the plight of prostitutes. I use and have posted sources with a much better reputation for high journalistic and investigative standards than the New Republic, as well as sources of well known human rights organizations.
I gave you concrete reasons why these sources were not good - they tend to be written by people (like radical feminist Julie Bindel for example) who are against sex work a such, and use "trafficking" as a cudgel for their prohibitionist aims. That includes using a completely useless definition of trafficking - a point you have yet to address adequately
In fact, I've spent a lot of time reading all sides of the issues from a variety of sources.
I do not believe you have. If you had, you'd have read up on why the definition of trafficking (which lists all immigrant sex workers as "trafficking victims") is bogus.
I do believe that the lives of some prostitutes might be improved under legalization. I also believe that number is smaller than the number of people whose lives would be made worse.
I do not see how anybody's lives would be made worse by not criminalizing consensual sex work.
This is not the opinion I started out with. I am sincere when I say that I was surprised at the harms that are documented under legalized prostitution schemes.
What harms would those be? If the freed police resources (that are no longer used to entrap consenting adults) are used to fight real human trafficking, I do not see how things would not be much better. And even if nothing is done, I do not see how things would get worse.
Unless of course, you use a definition of human trafficking that sees all immigrant sex workers as automatic trafficking victims. Of course legal sex work in a wealthy country will encourage people from other counties to move there for purposes of work, including sex work. If a sex worker moves from Poland to Germany because she can earn more money there, she is a "sex trafficking victim" according to you. But if a waitress moves from Poland to Germany, that's fine for some reason?
If I define moving for the purpose of food service work as "trafficking", I could conclude that many restaurant workers in the US are trafficking victims and declare you a horrible person for frequenting establishments that employ people not from US. What's the difference?
I understand the logic that legalization would make prostitution safer.
Which should make you skeptical toward people who want to ban sex work anyway peddling statistics that they compiled using bogus definitions of "trafficking".
Derec, you get quite upset and start calling names whenever someone talks about the negative effects of prostitution on prostitutes. I'm not the only person who has noticed.
I get upset when people suggest I am a rapist, or say that I should be either arrested or spend my life being celibate. Wouldn't you be?
And by the way, this is the same bullshit used to justify banning gay sex. Things like linking gay sex with abuse of children - you likewise use underage prostitutes to justify going after consensual adults. Or how people would say that gays should just be celibate or be with those of opposite sex.
Given how certain you have seemed that a 16 year old can give consent to be a prostitute, I am not so sure that it is obvious that you mean 'adult women.'
Oh please! I never said that 16 year olds should be allowed to be sex workers. But that the same time, a 16 year old turning tricks does not automatically mean she is being forced to do it either.
And it is obvious I mean adult women here as there wasn't even any allegation that anybody under 18 worked at that spa.
Rape is a matter of law, not opinion.
Including your own opinion. Note that nobody was charged with rape here.
Coercion means there is no consent. Non-consensual sex is rape.
There is no allegation that Kraft coerced anybody. Again, all charges are for things like "soliciting prostitution" and "keeping a house of ill repute", which are garden variety anti-sex work charges.
Sure it is. It's an example of someone not caring to know how willing the person is. Because it's not convenient.
Not at all.
Derec, please try to look at this from the standpoint of the victim: From the victim's standpoint, it is indeed rape.
By the person doing the forcing. Not the person unknowingly having sex with the victim.
And yes, I believe that if you initiate sexual contact, you need to be responsible enough to perform sufficient due diligence that ensures the other person is willing, not just afraid of the consequences if they resist or unable to express their own wishes or unable to escape.
How do you think that should work in practice? Say you visit a legal prostitute in Amsterdam. What do you think every customer should have to do every single visit?
It is the very rare person who does not realize that there is plenty of human trafficking involved in sex work.
Especially when you define it the way you and your fellow prohibitionists do ...
I now feel like those execs on the ice floe in South Park.
