Bipartisan fascists go after Backpage et al

[Jolly_Penguin]

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?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

... 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.

To me, this is the key question in the debate. One has to assume that the average customer has far less experience and ability to determine if a prostitute is willing than a pimp or trafficker has in getting the prostitutes to cover up that fact and look willing for their johns. If that difference can't be determined and only 10% of the industry are trafficked women, then a guy who sees one prostitute a month is likely raping a sex slave every year.

Now, I'm fundamentally against the idea of the government criminalizing consensual sex between adults or telling adults what they can or cannot do with their own bodies, no matter what their reasoning is. Whether they're "upholding family values", "protecting underage girls", "preserving Christian ideals" or whatever other moral high horse of the greater good they use to justify it, there's not a need to include that in the solution. It will work, of course, the same as re-introducing prohibition will cause deaths from drunk driving and cirrhosis of the liver to plummet, but that doesn't mean that it's a good solution. You can delineate the different aspects of the industry and then work harder on dealing with the bad parts.

The only way to properly delineate them is through a regulatory framework and then aggressively target those who fall outside of that regulatory framework, because that's where the issues will exist.

 

[Toni]

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?

I don't think there is. I think that is what a lot of men use bars for: to pick up random strangers with whom to have sex. Women, too, although I am not certain either is truly after no strings sex. I've never been a man, so I honestly don't know.

 

[Toni]

... 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.

To me, this is the key question in the debate. One has to assume that the average customer has far less experience and ability to determine if a prostitute is willing than a pimp or trafficker has in getting the prostitutes to cover up that fact and look willing for their johns. If that difference can't be determined and only 10% of the industry are trafficked women, then a guy who sees one prostitute a month is likely raping a sex slave every year.

Now, I'm fundamentally against the idea of the government criminalizing consensual sex between adults or telling adults what they can or cannot do with their own bodies, no matter what their reasoning is. Whether they're "upholding family values", "protecting underage girls", "preserving Christian ideals" or whatever other moral high horse of the greater good they use to justify it, there's not a need to include that in the solution. It will work, of course, the same as re-introducing prohibition will cause deaths from drunk driving and cirrhosis of the liver to plummet, but that doesn't mean that it's a good solution. You can delineate the different aspects of the industry and then work harder on dealing with the bad parts.

The only way to properly delineate them is through a regulatory framework and then aggressively target those who fall outside of that regulatory framework, because that's where the issues will exist.

I understand the logic but it doesn't seem to be supported by what happens in real life. If it were, then my attitude would be different.

I'm not sure why you decided to introduce the details/statistics of a guy who visits a prostitute every month is likely raping one sex slave/year, on average.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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?

I don't think there is. I think that is what a lot of men use bars for: to pick up random strangers with whom to have sex. Women, too, although I am not certain either is truly after no strings sex. I've never been a man, so I honestly don't know.

Many of those pick ups in bars lead to one or the other person involved getting the idea that its more than a one night stand. That happens far less often with paid prostitutes.

 

[Toni]

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.

By asking him a question? To clarify?

Really?

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.

Heh. Your use of the word rape seemed rather loaded. And intentionally chosen to provoke a strong reaction.
Why? To get me to 'see your point?' This is not a tactic you used against other posters in this thread--you know: male posters. Why is that?

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 think you are the one who is attributing motives to me that I don't have. Why?

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?)

Heh. Prostitution is not about a woman doing with her body as she pleases. It's about a customer doing with her body as he pleases.

Yeah. I see you.

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?

Why is there good reason to give men the benefit of the doubt that they care/take precautions to ensure that any prostitute is of legal age and willing rather than coerced or trafficked?

Specifically because backpage was shut down over its tactics of changing terminology in ads that still indicate that the sex worker is (very) young. It seems to me that for backpage, a significant portion of its business model relied specifically on the fact that some of its customer base was actively seeking (too)young prostitutes.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

I understand the logic but it doesn't seem to be supported by what happens in real life. If it were, then my attitude would be different.

I'm not sure why you decided to introduce the details/statistics of a guy who visits a prostitute every month is likely raping one sex slave/year, on average.

That was a random number I picked for no reason to indicate that even if the incidence of trafficking is low in the industry, johns are still going to end up raping sex slaves.

And yes, you are correct in your analysis of how things work in the real world. I can't google around about prostitution from my work computer to post links, but there are basically two competing factors at work. The first is scaling, where the increase in demand caused from legalizing prostitution brings about a corresponding increase in sex trafficking to meet the market needs which are not covered by the legal parts of the industry and the second is substitution, where those who would have previously used a sex trafficked victim would instead use a legal and consenting adult. Most decent studies recognize the inherent issues involved in getting good numbers for either, but scaling beats out substitution by at least 10% by most of them. If you legalize prostitution, you're going to have more victims of sex trafficking as a result. Anyone who argues for the legalization of prostitution and doesn't acknowledge that fact is just as out to lunch as someone who argues that all prostitutes are victims when people who talk to prostitutes don't seem to have much trouble finding those who are quite willing to do it.

Similarly, if you legalize alcohol, you have a corresponding increase in the number of deaths due to alcohol. For instance, Saudi Arabia has an alcohol related death rate of about 1\60th of the US. http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/cause-of-death/alcohol/by-country/. That doesn't mean, however, that if you are against prohibition, you are implicitly in favour of young children getting murdered by drunk drivers, even though you know that prohibition would stop a large number of those deaths. The act of being able to drink is an acceptable one, even though there are negative consequences associated with it and you can work to reduce those consequences by other means than making it illegal to buy alcohol.

It's the same thing with prostitution. If two consenting adults want to have sex with each other, no shits should be given. Not giving those shits has negative consequences associated with it and you can work to reduce those consequences by other means than making it illegal for two consenting adults to have sex with each other.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

By asking him a question? To clarify?

You didn't just ask him to clarify Toni, and you know it. I know you know it because you reacted with hostility when I did the exact same to you. That you didn't see the parallel is just a demonstration of your willful blindness or immense bias.

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.

Heh. Your use of the word rape seemed rather loaded. And intentionally chosen to provoke a strong reaction.

And yet it wasn't. It was directly on point to an argument that you later attempted to refute. Your reading it in is entirely on you and not me. Just as it is entirely on you and not Derec in the first post you made in this thread.

Why? To get me to 'see your point?' This is not a tactic you used against other posters in this thread--you know: male posters. Why is that?

Because it wasn't a tactic I used at all. And if I did, I would not use it against women and not men. This is you yet again projecting.

I think you are the one who is attributing motives to me that I don't have. Why?

Why do you think that? And what motives do you think I am attributing to you? The only thing I am attributing to you is the tendency to attribute motives and put words into the mouths of others, which you have demonstrated here repeatedly. I'm not alone in seeing you do it.

Heh. Prostitution is not about a woman doing with her body as she pleases. It's about a customer doing with her body as he pleases.

It can't be both? Do you know how much money these women can make doing what they do? I know you are against women's bodies being controlled by men, and I am guessing that is why you are both against bans on abortion as why you are against rape and sex trafficking. But is telling a woman she can't make bank selling sex not also a case of telling a woman what she may and may not do with her body?

Why is there good reason to give men the benefit of the doubt that they care/take precautions to ensure that any prostitute is of legal age and willing rather than coerced or trafficked?

Because the presumption of innocence is a standard tenet of law and decency, or at least it used to be. And by banning all prostitution what precautions are there left for them to take? They are hampered from calling the police and reporting trafficking if they come upon it. Would regulation, licensing, etc not make this a lot easier?

Specifically because backpage was shut down over its tactics of changing terminology in ads that still indicate that the sex worker is (very) young. It seems to me that for backpage, a significant portion of its business model relied specifically on the fact that some of its customer base was actively seeking (too)young prostitutes.

Source? Where are you getting that from? Can you distinguish sex trafficked adds from adds that are not sex trafficked? If you can, then isn't that a GOOD thing? It would help the police target and catch the predators, would it not?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

It's the same thing with prostitution. If two consenting adults want to have sex with each other, no shits should be given. Not giving those shits has negative consequences associated with it and you can work to reduce those consequences by other means than making it illegal for two consenting adults to have sex with each other.

Well said.

As I said above, even if legal prostitution causes an increase in sex trafficking, the argument remains to be made that we should ban all prostitution because of it. Analogies to prohibition of alcohol, burkas, legalization of pot, etc seem to fall on deaf ears. Why is that? Just for good measure, how about abortion, lets throw that in there too. Maybe we should ban abortion because there are men who coerce women into getting them so they don't have to pay child support?

 

[Toni]

It's the same thing with prostitution. If two consenting adults want to have sex with each other, no shits should be given. Not giving those shits has negative consequences associated with it and you can work to reduce those consequences by other means than making it illegal for two consenting adults to have sex with each other.

Well said.

As I said above, even if legal prostitution causes an increase in sex trafficking, the argument remains to be made that we should ban all prostitution because of it. Analogies to prohibition of alcohol, burkas, legalization of pot, etc seem to fall on deaf ears. Why is that? Just for good measure, how about abortion, lets throw that in there too. Maybe we should ban abortion because there are men who coerce women into getting them so they don't have to pay child support?

I think a better way of dealing with these issues is to make prostitution more equal: no more female domination of the industry! No more prostitution until and unless more can be done to encourage men to become prostitutes! Since apparently men are the ones seeking sex with no strings, why not let them earn money doing what they want to do?

Why not insist that men go around in burkas? With blinders on, so that they cannot view women who tempt them so much? Or better yet: why not put men in chastity belts which can only be unlocked by their wives or their pimps? After all, men are responsible for well over 90% of all rapes. Why not address the problem at its core: men! Why not limit men's legal status to that of chattel so that they are no longer able to coerce women into anything?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I think a better way of dealing with these issues is to make prostitution more equal: no more female domination of the industry! No more prostitution until and unless more can be done to encourage men to become prostitutes! Since apparently men are the ones seeking sex with no strings, why not let them earn money doing what they want to do?

Many men do, and nobody here has said they shouldn't. But why do you insist on no more prostitution until more men do?

Why not insist that men go around in burkas? With blinders on, so that they cannot view women who tempt them so much?

Indeed. I have made that exact suggestion to Muslims. They don't tend to take kindly to it, but it is a good suggestion and underscores that women should be allowed to do as they wish.

After all, men are responsible for well over 90% of all rapes. Why not address the problem at its core: men! Why not limit men's legal status to that of chattel so that they are no longer able to coerce women into anything?

I'm guessing that you are joking here, but to what end? Are you intending a parallel to something Backpage did or something somebody in this thread has said?

 

[Toni]

You didn't just ask him to clarify Toni, and you know it.

But, I did.

I know you know it because you reacted with hostility when I did the exact same to you. That you didn't see the parallel is just a demonstration of your willful blindness or immense bias.

Hostility? Wow.

Heh. Your use of the word rape seemed rather loaded. And intentionally chosen to provoke a strong reaction.

And yet it wasn't. It was directly on point to an argument that you later attempted to refute. Your reading it in is entirely on you and not me. Just as it is entirely on you and not Derec in the first post you made in this thread.

How was it on point?

Why? To get me to 'see your point?' This is not a tactic you used against other posters in this thread--you know: male posters. Why is that?

Because it wasn't a tactic I used at all. And if I did, I would not use it against women and not men. This is you yet again projecting.

You are the one who said you did it 'to get me to see the parallel to what I did to Derek.' Sounds like a tactic to me.

I think you are the one who is attributing motives to me that I don't have. Why?

Why do you think that? And what motives do you think I am attributing to you? The only thing I am attributing to you is the tendency to attribute motives and put words into the mouths of others, which you have demonstrated here repeatedly. I'm not alone in seeing you do it.

Really? Do tell.

Heh. Prostitution is not about a woman doing with her body as she pleases. It's about a customer doing with her body as he pleases.

It can't be both?

It isn't like that. For prostitutes, sex is a job, not about their own pleasure.

Do you know how much money these women can make doing what they do? I know you are against women's bodies being controlled by men, and I am guessing that is why you are both against bans on abortion as why you are against rape and sex trafficking. But is telling a woman she can't make bank selling sex not also a case of telling a woman what she may and may not do with her body?

I am aware of how little money most prostitutes actually pocket for themselves. I have zero evidence that most women enter prostitution willingly. The average age at which prostitutes begin their trade is 15. It is impossible to say that they are making an actual choice at 18 or 19 or 21 if prostitution is the only life they've known.

Why is there good reason to give men the benefit of the doubt that they care/take precautions to ensure that any prostitute is of legal age and willing rather than coerced or trafficked?

Because the presumption of innocence is a standard tenet of law and decency, or at least it used to be. And by banning all prostitution what precautions are there left for them to take? They are hampered from calling the police and reporting trafficking if they come upon it. Would regulation, licensing, etc not make this a lot easier?

You misunderstand my position: I don't believe that prostitutes should be prosecuted for sex work. Period. Removing that fear would make it easier for them to report crimes, etc.

Specifically because backpage was shut down over its tactics of changing terminology in ads that still indicate that the sex worker is (very) young. It seems to me that for backpage, a significant portion of its business model relied specifically on the fact that some of its customer base was actively seeking (too)young prostitutes.

Source? Where are you getting that from? Can you distinguish sex trafficked adds from adds that are not sex trafficked? If you can, then isn't that a GOOD thing? It would help the police target and catch the predators, would it not?

OK, I'll post this AGAIN: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/11/us/backpage-ads-sex-trafficking.html

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

This whole issue is moot anyway. Two consenting adults can have sex regardless of laws about prostitution. Also, two consenting adults can have sex for money--they just have to get married first like Trump and Melania.

 

[Toni]

Many men do, and nobody here has said they shouldn't. But why do you insist on no more prostitution until more men do?

I'm all about equality.

After all, men are responsible for well over 90% of all rapes. Why not address the problem at its core: men! Why not limit men's legal status to that of chattel so that they are no longer able to coerce women into anything?

I'm guessing that you are joking here, but to what end? Are you intending a parallel to something Backpage did or something somebody in this thread has said?

Actually, I'm kind of serious. Why is rape prevention always about what women can and cannot do/say/wear/drink/go/behave? Why isn't it about putting limits on men's behavior?

Why should men not be required, as a condition of sex, to sign a legally binding paper that pledges to provide whatever financial and material and emotional support is necessary should a pregnancy result from the sex act?

I would not expect a man to be rendered infertile if the mother of his child is left infertile after a pregnancy or childbirth. Or to die if the mother dies as the result of complications from pregnancy or childbirth. Or to postpone necessary medical treatment until after a child is born. Or to submit to drug/alcohol testing as soon as a pregnancy is detected (although statistically speaking this might not be a bad idea. A significant number of women face complications to their pregnancies due to domestic abuse while they are pregnant.)

Why should not a man be required --not just allowed, but required--to take a parental leave (paid, of course) when his child is born or when he adopts? Why shouldn't he be required --not allowed but: required to take time away from work 50% of the time necessary to attend to any of his children's needs?

 

[laughing dog]

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 in the normal use of the term, no. Using your logic, guys who buy sex for the sake of underage sex from sex slaves with no emotional or long term ties have some sort of nobility about it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You are the one who said you did it 'to get me to see the parallel to what I did to Derek.' Sounds like a tactic to me.

Oh I see what you are saying. Why do you think I wouldn't do the same to anybody who constantly tries to put words into the mouths of others? Its not because you are female that I did that. Its because I have noticed you doing this more than anybody else on this board.

If you stop doing it I won't post that Cathy Newman vid again. Will I be posting that Cathy Newman vid again?

Heh. Prostitution is not about a woman doing with her body as she pleases. It's about a customer doing with her body as he pleases.

It can't be both?

It isn't like that. For prostitutes, sex is a job, not about their own pleasure.

Are there no women out there making gobs of money doing this, for themselves, without being coerced or abused by anybody? I'm sure Derec can introduce you to a few. Does the existence of women who are abused and coerced (and enslaved) make these women cease to exist?

I have zero evidence that most women enter prostitution willingly. The average age at which prostitutes begin their trade is 15. It is impossible to say that they are making an actual choice at 18 or 19 or 21 if prostitution is the only life they've known.

If they are getting into it at age 15, then that is statutory rape at the very least, even if they do want to do it. Does your having zero evidence that most women enter into prostitution willingly override a woman's right to do what she wants with her body if she does want to enter into prostitution willingly?

You misunderstand my position: I don't believe that prostitutes should be prosecuted for sex work. Period. Removing that fear would make it easier for them to report crimes, etc.

I wasn't talking about the prostitutes. I was talking about the customers. Have I misunderstood about them? Do you wish them to also not be prosecuted for seeing prostitutes? Shall we target these laws exclusively at pimps and abusers? If so, then we have no disagreement.

And the prostitutes able to report the crimes, for not being made criminals themselves by engaging in prostitution, is only so effective if they are controlled, threatened or enslaved by abusers as you have claimed most of them are, right?

 

[Toni]

Oh I see what you are saying. Why do you think I wouldn't do the same to anybody who constantly tries to put words into the mouths of others? Its not because you are female that I did that. Its because I have noticed you doing this more than anybody else on this board.

If you stop doing it I won't post that Cathy Newman vid again. Will I be posting that Cathy Newman vid again?

I'm pretty sure you'll need to post that vid after every one of your posts. Have at it.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

You misunderstand my position: I don't believe that prostitutes should be prosecuted for sex work. Period. Removing that fear would make it easier for them to report crimes, etc.

I wasn't talking about the prostitutes. I was talking about the customers. Have I misunderstood about them? Do you wish them to also not be prosecuted for seeing prostitutes? Shall we target these laws exclusively at pimps and abusers? If so, then we have no disagreement.

Wouldn't the argument about removing the fear of prosecution making it easier to report crimes work for customers as well? If there are indications that women are being trafficked, it seems to me that it would be best to removing as many impediments to reporting that as possible would be in the best interests of the victims. If a client thinks that a woman's situation looks sketchy but doesn't want to risk getting arrested by letting the police know that he visited a prostitute, that harms the woman.

 

[Toni]

You misunderstand my position: I don't believe that prostitutes should be prosecuted for sex work. Period. Removing that fear would make it easier for them to report crimes, etc.

I wasn't talking about the prostitutes. I was talking about the customers. Have I misunderstood about them? Do you wish them to also not be prosecuted for seeing prostitutes? Shall we target these laws exclusively at pimps and abusers? If so, then we have no disagreement.

Wouldn't the argument about removing the fear of prosecution making it easier to report crimes work for customers as well? If there are indications that women are being trafficked, it seems to me that it would be best to removing as many impediments to reporting that as possible would be in the best interests of the victims. If a client thinks that a woman's situation looks sketchy but doesn't want to risk getting arrested by letting the police know that he visited a prostitute, that harms the woman.

In areas where prostitution is legal, does this happen? Do customers report suspected abuse of prostitutes to authorities?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

In areas where prostitution is legal, does this happen? Do customers report suspected abuse of prostitutes to authorities?

I don't know. I would hope so. Looks like Amsterdam police have a hotline for it, so it would be nice if people used that.

I assume that your question also means that you have no idea whether or not the prostitutes would report more crimes without that fear since you can't see how it would be that eliminating the possibility of prosecution themselves as a result of making a report would lead to more reports of these crimes.