Bipartisan fascists go after Backpage et al

[Toni]

Exactly. Good catch. Exactly what she did to Derec above.

Even for you, this entire post is ludicrous.

It was meant to be, and its sad that you can't see how it mirrors what you've said.

Actually, I don't see how it mirrors what I've written or what I wrote to Derec.

My objections to prostitution are that as far as I can tell, it does nothing to lessen the trafficking of underaged sex workers and some data indicates the opposite.

Derec suggested that anyone who objects to the legalization of prostitution has an ax to grind--his words. I suggested he does as well. Perhaps that is over the line but to me, it is simply pointing out that everyone has a viewpoint. His is hardly objective and mine is not, either. Mine is actually based on studies and data from those studies. It's also based somewhat on some people I've known who were, at least for a time, sex workers. They did not get there through happy circumstances and it was tragic that one girl I knew (and she was definitely not an adult: we were both in high school) believed that the guy who was pimping her loved her. I had known her since she moved to town when we were in elementary school. Her life had been pretty devoid of anything resembling love or affection in all the time I knew her. Back when we were in elementary school, I tried to be friends with her and her sister but things got too...dysfunctional and I had no context or way of understanding that she needed some help or how to get it for her. Unfortunately, she's not the only person I knew in such bad circumstances. One girl tried to explain to me what was happening to her but it was so outrageous I could not believe her--I thought she must have been lying: no one would do such things to a child! We were 10. I was only very vaguely aware of what sex was. I still cannot forgive myself for that betrayal. Her uncle and aunt --or perhaps 'uncle and aunt' moved, taking her with them, at the end of the school year. Of fifth grade. Then there were young women I knew as adults. None of them had happy lives. All of them tried really hard to believe that men just gave them money and stuff because they liked them so much, because they were pretty. But they knew.

 

[laughing dog]

Exactly. Good catch.

You admit you are in favor of sex trafficking and underage sex?

Exactly what she did to Derec above.

Nope.

Even for you, this entire post is ludicrous.

It was meant to be, and its sad that you can't see how it mirrors what you've said.

Please do not attribute statements to me that I did not write.

 

[Toni]

Seeing a woman's face increases the lust in men and encourages rape. So Toni, do you oppose a new law that women, including yourself, must at all times wear a burka and may not leave the house without a male chaperone?

If you oppose the above, why? Shouldn't we presume it would reduce rape and isn't that a good thing? Are you for rape Toni????? *gasp*

Could you demonstrate that seeing a woman’s face increases the risk of rape?

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.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Actually, I don't see how it mirrors what I've written or what I wrote to Derec.

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

Are you for rape Toni????? *gasp*

You can't see the parallel? Neither person being addressed said they were in favour of what they are being presumed in favour of. Both are conclusions reached on the same form of logic. And both use the "so you're saying" tactic of trying to put words in another's mouth.

My objections to prostitution are that as far as I can tell, it does nothing to lessen the trafficking of underaged sex workers and some data indicates the opposite.

That doesn't mean Derec supports sex trafficking and child prostitution, nor have you presented any evidence of it even being true, especially in relation to backpage adds. A very good case can be made (and won at the Supreme Court of Canada) that it merely drives prostitutes onto the streets where they are more at risk.

Derec suggested that anyone who objects to the legalization of prostitution has an ax to grind--his words.

And I agree that he's wrong about that. Some of them DO have an ax to grind. Some of them are motivated by religious or toxic feminist revulsion to sex or prostitution as a whole. Probably many are that. Not all are though. Some, and I think you are one of these, truly believe legal prostitution means more sex trafficking.

It may. It may not. But even if you are right, you then have to make the argument that legal prostitution should be banned as a result. Hence Tom's post and my post noting that lots of things encourage other things (pot as a gateway drug, visible faces causing lust) that may then be monstrous, but its not justified to ban that first thing, because it often DOESN'T lead to that monstrous thing. We could simply lock our children up in their rooms or impose curfews at 6pm on all teenagers by the military. That would decrease many criminal activities. Should we do it?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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?

 

[Toni]

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?

Any pharmacy which is discovered to be dispensing illegal drugs or dispensing narcotics without a legitimate prescription would be shut down. And it should be. This does not mean that all or most pharmacies, physicians, medical centers, phone companies, the United States Postal Service, Federal Express or city streets should be shut down although all are necessary for pharmacies to engage in legitimate business.

Craigslist removed its personal ads in response to new laws against online sex trafficking. Backpage did not.

See the difference?

 

[laughing dog]

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?

If someone were proposing to shut down the internet, your question might be considered an appropriate extension of that argument. However, since no one is making that proposal, your question is just another example of misapplied shallow reasoning.

Where I used to live, motels that were used primarily for prostitution were shut down. Where I used to live, the streets that were rife with street walkers where essentially shut down by police patrols. And in many jurisdictions, people who solicit illegal sex from their automobiles have their vehicles confiscated.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

recognize that many customers are looking for intimacy rather than just sex and for some, not sex at all but someone to listen to them, to be physically close to them for some defined amount of time.

A better way to start to address the problems with prostitution would be to start to address the problems with people's emotional and social needs being met and what happens when they are left unmet.

How do you propose we address the problem of men feeling romantically lonely and sexually frustrated if not by prostitution? I'll refrain from asking if you think rape is a better outlet (which would further mirror you above). How about subsidized government prostitutes who we know are willing and well paid? They could even have a union. Do you have other ideas?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Any pharmacy which is discovered to be dispensing illegal drugs or dispensing narcotics without a legitimate prescription would be shut down. And it should be. This does not mean that all or most pharmacies, physicians, medical centers, phone companies, the United States Postal Service, Federal Express or city streets should be shut down although all are necessary for pharmacies to engage in legitimate business.

Backpage wasn't engaged in the dispensing of sex trafficking. It was merely a place where adds could be posted, and despite looking a little shady, it DID remove any and all adds that made reference to underage girls, an I'm not aware of any adds that admitted to sex trafficking. So how is this analogous to a pharmacy that dispenses illegal drugs or narcotics without a prescription? No, it is more like the roads, phone companies, postal service, etc in your above analogy.

 

[laughing dog]

Any pharmacy which is discovered to be dispensing illegal drugs or dispensing narcotics without a legitimate prescription would be shut down. And it should be. This does not mean that all or most pharmacies, physicians, medical centers, phone companies, the United States Postal Service, Federal Express or city streets should be shut down although all are necessary for pharmacies to engage in legitimate business.

Backpage wasn't engaged in the dispensing of sex trafficking. It was merely a place where adds could be posted, and despite looking a little shady, it DID remove any and all adds that made reference to underage girls, an I'm not aware of any adds that admitted to sex trafficking. So how is this analogous to a pharmacy that dispenses illegal drugs or narcotics without a prescription? No, it is more like the roads, phone companies, postal service, etc in your above analogy.

It was facilitating sex trafficking and profiting from that facilitation, Jolly Penguin. So it is much more analogous to the pharmacy then roads, etc....

How do you propose to address the problem of sex trafficking and underage sex trafficking? I will refrain from asking you about legalizing sex for any age (which mirrors your argument)?

 

[Toni]

Are you for rape Toni????? *gasp*

You can't see the parallel? Neither person being addressed said they were in favour of what they are being presumed in favour of. Both are conclusions reached on the same form of logic. And both use the "so you're saying" tactic of trying to put words in another's mouth.

Perhaps if you included context here, you would see that your outrage is baseless. The article that Derec linked in the OP specifically mentions stopping sex trafficking and child prostitution. Derec puts such terms in scare quotes. I am not the only reader to whom it seemed indicate that he does not recognize a problem with trafficking children.

Your reliance on using rape as a term to try to intimidate me is noted.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It was facilitating sex trafficking and profiting from that facilitation, Jolly Penguin.

So is the phone company.

- - - Updated - - -

The weirdest thing about Prostitution being illegal is that Porn is legal. And porn is nothing more than double prostitution filmed and sold. So I guess one way around prostitution laws is to make sure you film it and then offer to sell the tape to the officer who tries to arrest you.

 

[Toni]

Any pharmacy which is discovered to be dispensing illegal drugs or dispensing narcotics without a legitimate prescription would be shut down. And it should be. This does not mean that all or most pharmacies, physicians, medical centers, phone companies, the United States Postal Service, Federal Express or city streets should be shut down although all are necessary for pharmacies to engage in legitimate business.

Backpage wasn't engaged in the dispensing of sex trafficking. It was merely a place where adds could be posted, and despite looking a little shady, it DID remove any and all adds that made reference to underage girls, an I'm not aware of any adds that admitted to sex trafficking. So how is this analogous to a pharmacy that dispenses illegal drugs or narcotics without a prescription? No, it is more like the roads, phone companies, postal service, etc in your above analogy.

Backpage clearly facilitated sex trafficking and specifically sex trafficking of underaged persons. It just switched code words. That fooled no one and indeed, allowed prospective customers to further indulge their fantasy that they were 'helping' some poor little girl who just wandered into the big bad city, fresh from nice clean farm country.

- - - Updated - - -

It was facilitating sex trafficking and profiting from that facilitation, Jolly Penguin.

So is the phone company.

- - - Updated - - -

The weirdest thing about Prostitution being illegal is that Porn is legal. And porn is nothing more than double prostitution filmed and sold. So I guess one way around prostitution laws is to make sure you film it and then offer to sell the tape to the officer who tries to arrest you.

Some porn is legal. In porn, all participants are paid. Except in kiddie porn, of course. And porn where some of the participants are coerced.

 

[laughing dog]

It was facilitating sex trafficking and profiting from that facilitation, Jolly Penguin.

So is the phone company.

At least you are tacitly admitting that the road argument is ridiculous, so some progress is being made.

In the old days, shutting down the phone company is overkill because there are no other outlets for telephone calls. Now, there is competition, so it is at least feasible since people have other venues for telephone calls. I think the answer is historical inertia.

Now, I happen to think shutting down an internet service for this is like playing whack-a-mole. This traffic will migrate somewhere else. So unless someone is willing to devote the time and effort in persisting in whacking the moles, this will simply provide some temporary relief.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Your reliance on using rape as a term to try to intimidate me is noted.

Using the term rape intimidates you? Why? An argument could actually be made that legal prostitution serves to decrease rape; that having a legal outlet for sex for sexually frustrated men decreases the likelihood of them doing it by force. One could then do what you did to Derec above and infer that by opposing prostitution you support rape.

And his "scare quotes" are meant to suggest that sex trafficking and child prostitution are a smokescreen concern and that they really just want to shut down prostitution in general for puritan reasons. You and I may disagree with him on that, but he spelled that out explicitly. So to them skip to the conclusion that he supports sex trafficking and child prostitution is a totally unfair representation of what he said, and no better than had I suggested you support rape by the reasoning (or mis-reasoning) above.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Some porn is legal. In porn, all participants are paid. Except in kiddie porn, of course. And porn where some of the participants are coerced.

Sure. So why shouldn't the same apply to prostitution in general?

And I remain curious about your solution to the social issue of lonely sexually frustrated men.

 

[Toni]

Your reliance on using rape as a term to try to intimidate me is noted.

Using the term rape intimidates you? Why? An argument could actually be made that legal prostitution serves to decrease rape; that having a legal outlet for sex for sexually frustrated men decreases the likelihood of them doing it by force. One could then do what you did to Derec above and infer that by opposing prostitution you support rape.

And his "scare quotes" are meant to suggest that sex trafficking and child prostitution are a smokescreen concern and that they really just want to shut down prostitution in general for puritan reasons. You and I may disagree with him on that, but he spelled that out explicitly. So to them skip to the conclusion that he supports sex trafficking and child prostitution is a totally unfair representation of what he said, and no better than had I suggested you support rape by the reasoning (or mis-reasoning) above.

No: his use of scare quotes indicated to me that he is willing to overlook child trafficking and trafficking in general as an unpreventable evil so long as he continues to have access to a service he wishes to use.

Perhaps I went over the line when I asked him how he could be certain that the prostitutes he uses are not coerced. It is indeed a very personal question. I didn't ask to make him feel bad but because I am genuinely interested in how any client determines that the prostitute whose services he is purchasing is actually willing and of legal age. I don't know how much men who use prostitutes care about this (aside from the ones who clearly seek out 15 year olds or younger---btw, in the US, federal law says that 18 is the age of consent for prostitution) or how they determine that the sex worker is actually willing and not coerced. Again, I am assuming that this is just some lonely guy who needs a little human contact. We both know that is not all customers.

 

[Toni]

Some porn is legal. In porn, all participants are paid. Except in kiddie porn, of course. And porn where some of the participants are coerced.

Sure. So why shouldn't the same apply to prostitution in general?

And I remain curious about your solution to the social issue of lonely sexually frustrated men.

Why don't the work conditions in porn apply to prostitution? Why doesn't the compensation? The use of condoms, the mandatory testing for STIs (which has its limits in utility)? It's a much different power structure and frankly, the risks are much less. Even so, the risks are quite considerable to porn workers.

The same work conditions don't apply because in porn, the participants are all paid workers. One does not have power over the other. One is not purchasing the other. In prostitution, it doesn't work that way because that's not where the demand is. The demand is for sex workers who will do whatever the payer decides he wants them to do. One side has the power and it is not the sex worker.

I think that lonely people should seek out the company of others. Possibly other lonely people might be a place to start. Perhaps it isn't the best place to start. It probably varies quite a lot on circumstances. Of course, I realize what you do not seem to realize: there are plenty of lonely, sexually frustrated women out there, just as there are men in a similar position. Yet somehow, society has evolved that only men can expect to be provided with an attractive, young partner simply by being willing to throw down some money--for someone. No one seems keen on procuring handsome, virile young boys or men ----for women, that is. In fact, in discussions such as this, I am frequently the first and often the only person to mention that boys are also trafficked. Why is that? It is especially a big problem for youth in the LGBTQ community, who often have few or no other resources for survival. I don't understand why there isn't a bigger outcry about that tragedy.

 

[Toni]

Your reliance on using rape as a term to try to intimidate me is noted.

Using the term rape intimidates you? Why? An argument could actually be made that legal prostitution serves to decrease rape; that having a legal outlet for sex for sexually frustrated men decreases the likelihood of them doing it by force. One could then do what you did to Derec above and infer that by opposing prostitution you support rape.

And his "scare quotes" are meant to suggest that sex trafficking and child prostitution are a smokescreen concern and that they really just want to shut down prostitution in general for puritan reasons. You and I may disagree with him on that, but he spelled that out explicitly. So to them skip to the conclusion that he supports sex trafficking and child prostitution is a totally unfair representation of what he said, and no better than had I suggested you support rape by the reasoning (or mis-reasoning) above.

Heh. No the use of the word rape doesn't intimidate me but I am quite familiar with the habit of certain kinds of people using such terms as a threat, as a reminder of what can happen to women.

There is no legitimate argument to be made that legalizing prostitution would reduce rape. For one thing, prostitutes are frequent victims of rape. Legal or not, prostitution is widely available and could be used if a rapist just needed sex. That's not why rapists rape.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

No: his use of scare quotes indicated to me that he is willing to overlook child trafficking and trafficking in general as an unpreventable evil so long as he continues to have access to a service he wishes to use.

Which again, is you trying to push that onto him rather than him having said anything like that. You then immediately did that again, this time to myself, in your accusation that I was trying to intimidate you by mentioning rape, when an argument could actually exist regarding rape which I was noting. I do not wish to intimidate you, and I never will have that intention, rest assured.

I seriously implore you to break this habit of seeing views or agendas in people that they haven't stated. Tom's mod warning is along those lines as well. Its why I posted the Cathy Newman / Jordan Peterson video but you've done it twice again since I did. It is rude, but more importantly it completely derails conversation.

I don't know how much men who use prostitutes care about this (aside from the ones who clearly seek out 15 year olds or younger---btw, in the US, federal law says that 18 is the age of consent for prostitution) or how they determine that the sex worker is actually willing and not coerced. Again, I am assuming that this is just some lonely guy who needs a little human contact. We both know that is not all customers.

I see no reason to presume that men who use prostitutes don't care to use ones that are willing. I see good reason to give them the benefit of the doubt. I don't believe that Derec or others like him are out to rape women. They just want a little sex and are willing to pay for it, with willing providers. What's wrong with that? I see nothing wrong with that. A woman's body is hers to use how she pleases right? You are not out to control women and tell them what they must and must not do with their bodies, right? (see what I did there?)

So how then should we as society differentiate the men who DO want to pay to rape women (who yes I agree exist) and those who do not? Is legalization and good regulation not a step in that direction? Does banning all prostitution not blur those lines or even make them impossible to see?