Bipartisan fascists go after Backpage et al

[Derec]

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.

In fact, most transmission is through gay sex and intravenous drug use.

For heterosexual vaginal sex, you are right that male-to-female transmission is about twice as likely as female-to-male. But those odds are still fairly close together. A woman can definitely infect a man with HIV, which means that it is possible for a sex worker to infect a male client.

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.

I think those are your own prejudices about sex worker clients, to be honest. Nothing I have written suggests any of this.

NO. There is NOTHING funny about HIV.

Where have you been?
A Misunderstanding
And that episode aired all the way back in 2002.

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.

Obviously. Donald Glover was doing a stand-up routine, not recording a public service announcement.

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

Not safe. 50-50 odds are not safe. I was just trying to illustrate what 1 in 2500 odds mean. And that if a person does not get infected by person A, it is very unlikely that they would be infected by somebody else, contrary to what you said.

Also, you don't have to yell. We can read you just fine in lower case.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

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?

For a number of reasons. Sex workers who are abused and trafficked have less to fear of gong to police. Customers who see abuse or trafficking have less to fear from going to police. Sex workers can organize and hire employees and be transparent (and regulated). Police can focus on catching and bringing more sex traffickers to justice. All of that would increase the number of sex trafficking incidents reported (which is what they measured rather than actual sex trafficking incedents that happen). The number of actual incidents of sex trafficking could be unchanged or even go down while the number of reported and identified sex trafficking incidents go up. This study would miss that.

And nice attempt to reverse the onus. The onus is the study and those pushing it to explain away this potentially confounding factor. You can't credibly make the claim that legalized prostitution means more actual sex trafficking without doing so.

Basically, your argument is that 1) the data is not consistently measured and 2) nonsex human trafficking should be ignored in the discussion.

No, that's your strawman. I never wrote that. I wrote that measuring one thing and concluding on another is not good research, even if the one is a subset of the other, and that inconsistent measurement criteria across comparison groups is also not good research.

If there is an increase in total ice cream sales when flowers wilt, that does not mean wilting flowers cause an increase in chocolate ice cream sales, especially if "ice cream" is defined differently where flowers are wilting and where they are not.

Neither reason is a good reason to support legalizing prostitution.

Again with the attempt to reverse the onus. Both are good reasons to call this study into question, and this study was cited the basis of Toni and Don's claim that legalized prostitution causes more sex trafficking.

If legalized prostitution has no demonstrated effect on the number or severity of sex trafficking, then it should be legalized, for a myriad of unrelated issues that you, Toni and Don are not addressing, such as a woman's right to do what she wants with her body and the much more dangerous woriking conditions sex workers are exposed to due to criminalization.

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

Which I noted to Toni when this study was first brought up.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

In fact, most transmission is through gay sex and intravenous drug use.

I didn't realize it was so one sided. So homophobes do have some sort of reason to fear the gay between consenting adults who are not them after all, since those guys could be bi and infect somebody that they then catch the disease from. But this would also give them a basis to be FOR gay marriage. I always found it odd that they would attack gay men for being promiscuous and then seek to deny them from entering a contract of monogamy.

 

[Toni]

In fact, most transmission is through gay sex and intravenous drug use.

Yes, I believe that graphic is from a link I posted. Did you notice that 22% of the incidence of male HIV cases is through high risk heterosexual contact? You know: hookers, people with many different sex partners (such as hookers), people who use needles to inject drugs (you know: hookers).

For heterosexual vaginal sex, you are right that male-to-female transmission is about twice as likely as female-to-male. But those odds are still fairly close together. A woman can definitely infect a man with HIV, which means that it is possible for a sex worker to infect a male client.

Yes, but she's much more at risk than he is.

I think those are your own prejudices about sex worker clients, to be honest. Nothing I have written suggests any of this.

I don't agree. I have seen absolutely nothing in any of your posts that expresses one iota of care or concern about sex workers or what happens to someone after they are unable to work because they have contracted HIV.

NO. There is NOTHING funny about HIV.

Where have you been?
A Misunderstanding
And that episode aired all the way back in 2002.

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.

Obviously. Donald Glover was doing a stand-up routine, not recording a public service announcement.

Still not funny.

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

Not safe. 50-50 odds are not safe. I was just trying to illustrate what 1 in 2500 odds mean. And that if a person does not get infected by person A, it is very unlikely that they would be infected by somebody else, contrary to what you said.

Also, you don't have to yell. We can read you just fine in lower case.

Apparently you don't read well because you clearly don't actually understand or are choosing to ignore what you find inconvenient. And what do you mean, if a person does not get infected by person A they are not likely to get infected by someone else????? That's not how contracting ANY virus works.

 

[laughing dog]

For a number of reasons. Sex workers who are abused and trafficked have less to fear of gong to police. Customers who see abuse or trafficking have less to fear from going to police. Sex workers can organize and hire employees and be transparent (and regulated). Police can focus on catching and bringing more sex traffickers to justice. All of that would increase the number of sex trafficking incidents reported (which is what they measured rather than actual sex trafficking incedents that happen). The number of actual incidents of sex trafficking could be unchanged or even go down while the number of reported and identified sex trafficking incidents go up. This study would miss that.

First, your assertions about who would have less fear from going to the police is unfounded. Second, if human trafficking increases and most human trafficking is sex trafficking, then you need to come up with an actual fact-based reason why one would think that an increase in human trafficking does not entail an increase in sex trafficking. Claiming it is a possible that it doesn't is not a fact-based reason - it is wishful thinking. More importantly, if legalizing prostitution increases human trafficking, that should be a sufficient criticism of legalizing prostitution regardless of some hypothesized effect on the change in the trafficking of sex work tracking alone.

And nice attempt to reverse the onus. The onus is the study and those pushing it to explain away this potentially confounding factor. You can't credibly make the claim that legalized prostitution means more actual sex trafficking without doing so.

If legalized prostitution increases human trafficking and most human trafficking is sex tracking, then unless you can show otherwise, that means legalized prostitution increases sex trafficking. Apparently, reversing the onus means using basic reasoning.

No, that's your strawman...

Wrong - it is the foundation of your criticism.

If there is an increase in total ice cream sales when flowers wilt, that does not mean wilting flowers cause an increase in chocolate ice cream sales, especially if "ice cream" is defined differently where flowers are wilting and where they are not.

Sorry, but that analogy is inept because there is no correlation between total ice cream sales does not mostly include wilting flowers.

Again with the attempt to reverse the onus. Both are good reasons to call this study into question, and this study was cited the basis of Toni and Don's claim that legalized prostitution causes more sex trafficking.

It is an application of basic reasoning. First, neither is a good reason to call this study into question. Second, your entire point is to discredit the study in order to buttress your argument of legalizing prostitution.

Which I noted to Toni when this study was first brought up.

You should stick to that argument because at least it has a semblance of a basis in fact and reason, unlike your other alleged "flaws".

 

[Angra Mainyu]

In fact, most transmission is through gay sex and intravenous drug use.

I didn't realize it was so one sided. So homophobes do have some sort of reason to fear the gay between consenting adults who are not them after all, since those guys could be bi and infect somebody that they then catch the disease from. But this would also give them a basis to be FOR gay marriage. I always found it odd that they would attack gay men for being promiscuous and then seek to deny them from entering a contract of monogamy.

Some accept the contract, as long as it's a civil union, but they believe that marriage is between a male and a female. Others oppose both. It's a religious thing, for most of them. Some also have philosophical arguments (and in fact, that's the strongest argument against gay marriage, though I reckon it fails).

Of course, even if we grant the data gives them some reason to be worried (but I think not reasonably so, as they could just use condoms) when it comes to male gay sex, it does not when it comes to female gay sex. But they also oppose it.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If legalized prostitution increases human trafficking...

But again, this "study" doesn't show that. All it shows is a higher REPORTING of human trafficking where prostitution is legalized. Again, that could be a good thing if more of what's happening is being found out. Sweeping something under a rug doesn't make it cease to exist. And also again, the onus is on you here if you are arguing that this study is any basis for criminalizing prostitution, as there are there excellent reasons to legalize. You completely ignore the harm done to sex workers forced underground and unable to screen clients properly, unable to hire drivers/security, etc. You need justify putting these women at so much more risk and a bad study that doesn't even show what you say it does won't get you there.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

If legalized prostitution increases human trafficking...

But again, this "study" doesn't show that. All it shows is a higher REPORTING of human trafficking where prostitution is legalized. Again, that could be a good thing if more of what's happening is being found out. Sweeping something under a rug doesn't make it cease to exist. And also again, the onus is on you here if you are arguing that this study is any basis for criminalizing prostitution, as there are there excellent reasons to legalize. You completely ignore the harm done to sex workers forced underground and unable to screen clients properly, unable to hire drivers/security, etc. You need justify putting these women at so much more risk and a bad study that doesn't even show what you say it does won't get you there.

Even if one accepts, for the sake of argument, that legalizing prostitution increases the demand to levels which aren't met by legal prostitutes and this causes an increase in sex trafficking to cater to the expanded market, would that be an acceptable trade off?

It's safer for prostitutes, there's less STDs, everything is regulated and monitored and so on and so forth. If there is this downside to legalization weighing against all these benefits, is it still worth it? Personally, I think it is. You still want the police to target the illicit side of the industry with the better tools they'd then have available to them to mitigate this downside, but the pros outweigh the cons, IMHO.

 

[laughing dog]

If legalized prostitution increases human trafficking...

But again, this "study" doesn't show that. All it shows is a higher REPORTING of human trafficking where prostitution is legalized. Again, that could be a good thing if more of what's happening is being found out. Sweeping something under a rug doesn't make it cease to exist. And also again, the onus is on you here if you are arguing that this study is any basis for criminalizing prostitution, as there are there excellent reasons to legalize. You completely ignore the harm done to sex workers forced underground and unable to screen clients properly, unable to hire drivers/security, etc. You need justify putting these women at so much more risk and a bad study that doesn't even show what you say it does won't get you there.

The onus is always on those who wish to change the status quo. In most of the US, prostitution is illegal, so the onus is on you to show why it should be legalized.

The claim that the alleged increase in human trafficking might be due to increased reporting would be more compelling if you had actual evidence to support that claim. Otherwise, it just another example of you reaching for anything to discredit the study.

The idea that illegal prostitution prohibits prostitutes from properly vetting potential clients or hiring drivers, etc... is ridiculous. We know that because there are plenty of "escort" services that vet clients and hire security. etc.... Legalizing prostitution may reduce the costs involved in vetting or hiring drivers. etc....

 

[Toni]

If legalized prostitution increases human trafficking...

But again, this "study" doesn't show that. All it shows is a higher REPORTING of human trafficking where prostitution is legalized. Again, that could be a good thing if more of what's happening is being found out. Sweeping something under a rug doesn't make it cease to exist. And also again, the onus is on you here if you are arguing that this study is any basis for criminalizing prostitution, as there are there excellent reasons to legalize. You completely ignore the harm done to sex workers forced underground and unable to screen clients properly, unable to hire drivers/security, etc. You need justify putting these women at so much more risk and a bad study that doesn't even show what you say it does won't get you there.

Even if one accepts, for the sake of argument, that legalizing prostitution increases the demand to levels which aren't met by legal prostitutes and this causes an increase in sex trafficking to cater to the expanded market, would that be an acceptable trade off?

It's safer for prostitutes, there's less STDs, everything is regulated and monitored and so on and so forth. If there is this downside to legalization weighing against all these benefits, is it still worth it? Personally, I think it is. You still want the police to target the illicit side of the industry with the better tools they'd then have available to them to mitigate this downside, but the pros outweigh the cons, IMHO.

I am continually amazed at how much concern proponents of legalized prostitution express for the safety and well being of prostituteswhile at the same time accepting any potential increase in harm to those who are forced into prostitution. Or worse, refusing to acknowledge that forced prostitution is actually an issue. It seems to be willful ignorance and quite self serving. Some want to draw comparisons with prohibition. But let’s look at current illegal drug trade: there is no shortage of individuals willing to engage in the various aspects of drug dealing despite its Olga’s status. Yet somehow we are to believe that legalizing sex trade will magically increase the number of prostitutes willing to have sex with multiple strangers although sec work puts them at increased risk of violence and disease—which are not eliminated by legalization.

If so many women were willing to have sex with strangers for no reason other than an exchange of money, there would be no reason for prostitution.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The idea that illegal prostitution prohibits prostitutes from properly vetting potential clients or hiring drivers, etc... is ridiculous.

It isn't ridiculous. It is the argument we used to successfully strike down Canada's old prostitution laws and it has a lot of data behind it. You clearly don't know what you are talking about, or don't care about the safety of sex workers.

Maybe you should take a moment to watch the videos I posted above where two women speak of they were personally put at risk due to these laws

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

If there is this downside to legalization weighing against all these benefits, is it still worth it?

I would say that depends on the numbers and severity of each. How many murders is worth freeing a sex slave?

What tips it for me is that we know that the increased risk to sex workers due to criminalization is real whereas it takes convoluted flawed "studies " (plus massive social and religious bias encouraging people to accept them) to create results to back a aclaimed decrease in sex trafficking.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Even if one accepts, for the sake of argument, that legalizing prostitution increases the demand to levels which aren't met by legal prostitutes and this causes an increase in sex trafficking to cater to the expanded market, would that be an acceptable trade off?

It's safer for prostitutes, there's less STDs, everything is regulated and monitored and so on and so forth. If there is this downside to legalization weighing against all these benefits, is it still worth it? Personally, I think it is. You still want the police to target the illicit side of the industry with the better tools they'd then have available to them to mitigate this downside, but the pros outweigh the cons, IMHO.

I am continually amazed at how much concern proponents of legalized prostitution express for the safety and well being of prostituteswhile at the same time accepting any potential increase in harm to those who are forced into prostitution. Or worse, refusing to acknowledge that forced prostitution is actually an issue. It seems to be willful ignorance and quite self serving. Some want to draw comparisons with prohibition. But let’s look at current illegal drug trade: there is no shortage of individuals willing to engage in the various aspects of drug dealing despite its Olga’s status. Yet somehow we are to believe that legalizing sex trade will magically increase the number of prostitutes willing to have sex with multiple strangers although sec work puts them at increased risk of violence and disease—which are not eliminated by legalization.

If so many women were willing to have sex with strangers for no reason other than an exchange of money, there would be no reason for prostitution.

There's nothing to be amazed about. If making a change makes some things safer and some things more dangerous, then it's a good change if the increased safety is more than the increased danger. It all depends on the numbers either way.

Also, who is it that's refusing to acknowledge that forced prostitution isn't an issue? After seven or eight threads on this topic over the years, one would think that you'd realize that there are zero people with that position.

 

[laughing dog]

It isn't ridiculous.

Of course it is. We know that prostitutes have hired security and drivers and vetted clients when prostitution is illegal. Hence it is pretty clear that legalizing prostitution does not enable these activities. And that conclusion does not require deep thinking.

It is the argument we used to successfully strike down Canada's old prostitution laws and it has a lot of data behind it.

I doubt there is data that showed that illegal prostitution prohibited prostitutes from properly vetting clients or hiring security? Then how do escort services hire drivers and security and vet clients? As I said, legalizing may reduce the costs of those activities, but it does not enable them. Furthermore, the fact an argument is part of a successful effort does not mean it cannot be ridiculous.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about, or don't care about the safety of sex workers.

More emotional shallow thinking. Using your reasoning, either you do not know what you are talking about or you don't care about trafficked sex workers.

Maybe you should take a moment to watch the videos I posted above where two women speak of they were personally put at risk due to these laws

Are you under the delusion that I am unaware of the potential dangers? If I produced testimony of a trafficked sex worker where prostitution is legal, would you then agree that prostitution should be illegal?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Also, who is it that's refusing to acknowledge that forced prostitution isn't an issue? After seven or eight threads on this topic over the years, one would think that you'd realize that there are zero people with that position.

Except there are not zero people whose positions may mean that they are enabling forced prostitution even if they are against it.

Just like there are not zero people who's positions mean that they are enabling the unnecessary death and injury of prostitutes, even if they are against that. Making the argument that this would be something that they don't actually care about would be lame and stupid, though.

 

[laughing dog]

Also, who is it that's refusing to acknowledge that forced prostitution isn't an issue? After seven or eight threads on this topic over the years, one would think that you'd realize that there are zero people with that position.

Except there are not zero people whose positions may mean that they are enabling forced prostitution even if they are against it.

Just like there are not zero people who's positions mean that they are enabling the unnecessary death and injury of prostitutes, even if they are against that.

It boils down to the available data (not some idealized but unattainable data) and what one feels is more important.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I am continually amazed at how much concern proponents of legalized prostitution express for the safety and well being of prostituteswhile at the same time accepting any potential increase in harm to those who are forced into prostitution. Or worse, refusing to acknowledge that forced prostitution is actually an issue. It seems to be willful ignorance and quite self serving.

And I am amazed how easily that is to put in a mirror for you and how well it seems to fit you when I do.

I am continually amazed at how much concern proponents of criminalized prostitution express for the harm to those who are forced into prostitution at the same time accepting the increased danger to sex workers as a whole. Or worse, refusing to acknowledge that increased danger to sex workers due to these laws is actually an issue. It seems to be willful ignorance and quite self serving.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

These aren't discrimination researchers, they aren't overlooking the obvious. The point of the RI data is that the relevant crimes decreased more than other crime.

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.

But they have no reason to lie to researchers. They'll get paid the same no matter what they say.

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.

Evidence?

 

[Toni]

Even if one accepts, for the sake of argument, that legalizing prostitution increases the demand to levels which aren't met by legal prostitutes and this causes an increase in sex trafficking to cater to the expanded market, would that be an acceptable trade off?

It's safer for prostitutes, there's less STDs, everything is regulated and monitored and so on and so forth. If there is this downside to legalization weighing against all these benefits, is it still worth it? Personally, I think it is. You still want the police to target the illicit side of the industry with the better tools they'd then have available to them to mitigate this downside, but the pros outweigh the cons, IMHO.

I am continually amazed at how much concern proponents of legalized prostitution express for the safety and well being of prostituteswhile at the same time accepting any potential increase in harm to those who are forced into prostitution. Or worse, refusing to acknowledge that forced prostitution is actually an issue. It seems to be willful ignorance and quite self serving. Some want to draw comparisons with prohibition. But let’s look at current illegal drug trade: there is no shortage of individuals willing to engage in the various aspects of drug dealing despite its Olga’s status. Yet somehow we are to believe that legalizing sex trade will magically increase the number of prostitutes willing to have sex with multiple strangers although sec work puts them at increased risk of violence and disease—which are not eliminated by legalization.

If so many women were willing to have sex with strangers for no reason other than an exchange of money, there would be no reason for prostitution.

There's nothing to be amazed about. If making a change makes some things safer and some things more dangerous, then it's a good change if the increased safety is more than the increased danger. It all depends on the numbers either way.

Also, who is it that's refusing to acknowledge that forced prostitution isn't an issue? After seven or eight threads on this topic over the years, one would think that you'd realize that there are zero people with that position.

Maybe I misunderstood your post but you wrote that the good outweighed the bad. Maybe you don’t see forced prostitution as bad?? Maybe you see it as an acceptable trade off??? Happy for any clarity you might wish to share.

 

[Jarhyn]

Of course it is. We know that prostitutes have hired security and drivers and vetted clients when prostitution is illegal. Hence it is pretty clear that legalizing prostitution does not enable these activities. And that conclusion does not require deep thinking.
I doubt there is data that showed that illegal prostitution prohibited prostitutes from properly vetting clients or hiring security? Then how do escort services hire drivers and security and vet clients? As I said, legalizing may reduce the costs of those activities, but it does not enable them. Furthermore, the fact an argument is part of a successful effort does not mean it cannot be ridiculous.

You clearly don't know what you are talking about, or don't care about the safety of sex workers.

More emotional shallow thinking. Using your reasoning, either you do not know what you are talking about or you don't care about trafficked sex workers.

Maybe you should take a moment to watch the videos I posted above where two women speak of they were personally put at risk due to these laws

Are you under the delusion that I am unaware of the potential dangers? If I produced testimony of a trafficked sex worker where prostitution is legal, would you then agree that prostitution should be illegal?

So because a high end prostitute makes enough money to hire security, and enough prestige that she can turn down clients, who are interested enough in her in particular to wait for a vetting process, and has enough of a reputation that people trust her with real identities, an unknown or perhaps less attractive prostitute can obviously do the same. Great argument. Oh, and she probably also has to have a pimple or criminal owner in order to accomplish these things.

Never mind that she could just NOT hire a bodyguard, NOT be involved with a pimp, and NOT have to have a reputation as a high-end "escort" for her to jump on craigslist, post a listing for a tiny commission, and only accept offers from men who have alright reputations.