Bipartisan fascists go after Backpage et al

[Jolly_Penguin]

I don't think anybody here is advocating for the freedom to take advantage of people who are in a "non thinking process". That would be sex without consent and therefore rape.

We already have laws against rape. So leave consenting adults alone, yeah?

Drug addicts are in a non-thinking process when they turn tricks. That is absolutely what was going on with backpage much of the time and much of the time with prostitution.

So make that argument. Its a rape argument. And many here may agree with you on it. Its not a prostitution argument. There are plenty of times in prostitution where no drugs are in any way involved.

Backpage and Derec should respect and follow US law unless they are in a situation where they must survive by not following laws.

I definitely don't agree with this sort of authoritarianism. I will break laws that I find immoral or wrong even if they are not a surefire threat to my life.

 

[Toni]

So make that argument. Its a rape argument. And many here may agree with you on it. Its not a prostitution argument. There are plenty of times in prostitution where no drugs are in any way involved.

Backpage and Derec should respect and follow US law unless they are in a situation where they must survive by not following laws.

I definitely don't agree with this sort of authoritarianism. I will break laws that I find immoral or wrong even if they are not a surefire threat to my life.

So you are ok with money laundering, trafficking unwilling sex workers and child prostitution? Because that’s not what you said earlier and I don’t believe that you or Derec or anyone here is ok with any of those. What is much less clear is to what extent you think that such things as trafficking sex workers and child prostitution is simply a sad, inpleasanr side effect that a free society must tolerate—so men can get their rocks off for a modest fee.

 

[bilby]

So make that argument. Its a rape argument. And many here may agree with you on it. Its not a prostitution argument. There are plenty of times in prostitution where no drugs are in any way involved.

Backpage and Derec should respect and follow US law unless they are in a situation where they must survive by not following laws.

I definitely don't agree with this sort of authoritarianism. I will break laws that I find immoral or wrong even if they are not a surefire threat to my life.

So you are ok with money laundering, trafficking unwilling sex workers and child prostitution? Because that’s not what you said earlier and I don’t believe that you or Derec or anyone here is ok with any of those. What is much less clear is to what extent you think that such things as trafficking sex workers and child prostitution is simply a sad, inpleasanr side effect that a free society must tolerate—so men can get their rocks off for a modest fee.

Nobody here (as far as I can tell from what they have written) is OK with trafficking sex slaves, child prostitution, or any other forms of rape. Not one person has said that any of these things can, should, or must be tolerated for any reason.

Every single person who has posted in this thread has expressed the desire to minimise these things.

The point of contention is whether legalisation; decriminalisation; or criminalisation, of sex work that involves only consenting adults, will help or will hinder efforts to eliminate these bad things.

I firmly believe that legalisation reduces these harms, and that criminalisation increases them. As a result, I see your well intentioned position as being dangerous and counterproductive; and it is on that basis alone that I refuse to accept your calls for continuing criminalisation of sex work.

Despite your unfounded and rather insulting slurs towards other posters in this thread, there remains no evidence whatsoever that any of them oppose you for the reasons you are claiming (rather than for the reasons I set out above, which are the exact opposite of the motives you are ascribing to them). You should stop making these ad-hominem claims; they seriously weaken your arguments.

 

[Toni]

So you are ok with money laundering, trafficking unwilling sex workers and child prostitution? Because that’s not what you said earlier and I don’t believe that you or Derec or anyone here is ok with any of those. What is much less clear is to what extent you think that such things as trafficking sex workers and child prostitution is simply a sad, inpleasanr side effect that a free society must tolerate—so men can get their rocks off for a modest fee.

Nobody here (as far as I can tell from what they have written) is OK with trafficking sex slaves, child prostitution, or any other forms of rape. Not one person has said that any of these things can, should, or must be tolerated for any reason.

Every single person who has posted in this thread has expressed the desire to minimise these things.

The point of contention is whether legalisation; decriminalisation; or criminalisation, of sex work that involves only consenting adults, will help or will hinder efforts to eliminate these bad things.

I firmly believe that legalisation reduces these harms, and that criminalisation increases them. As a result, I see your well intentioned position as being dangerous and counterproductive; and it is on that basis alone that I refuse to accept your calls for continuing criminalisation of sex work.

Despite your unfounded and rather insulting slurs towards other posters in this thread, there remains no evidence whatsoever that any of them oppose you for the reasons you are claiming (rather than for the reason I set out above). You should stop making these ad-hominem claims; they seriously weaken your argument.

As I've written before, many times (and been called a liar for it) I seriously assumed that legalization would reduce trafficking of unwilling individuals as prostitutes. That does not seem to be the case. I've posted articles about sex trafficking in Australia. Here's more about sex trafficking in Canada:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...-trafficking-works-in-canada/article28700689/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/a...r-human-trafficking-says-new-report-1.2771631

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...ex-trade-sweep-find-3-at-risk-youth-1.2764637

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/...rafficking-training/module-2/aboriginal-women

http://natoassociation.ca/human-trafficking-in-canada-a-continuous-call-to-action/

I've also posted links to academic articles and research papers that outline how legalization works to actually increase the demand for prostitutes, which demand cannot be met by willing participants. I think that all of us agree that any minor must be considered an unwilling participant. In the US, federal law specifies that no individual under the age of 18 can be considered to be a willing prostitute.

The average age most frequently cited for beginning prostitution in the west is 15. This is an age at which one is not able to sign a contract, get a tattoo or piercing without parental consent, drive a motor vehicle or vote or to sign a lease or open a bank account on one's own.

It is clear to me that what might be an unintended consequence of supporting legalization is the fact--the absolute fact--that demand outstrips willing supply and that demand is a supply that starts before anyone is legally (or ethically or morally) able to give consent in many cases.

Your well intentioned support of legalization in fact becomes a unintentional but de facto support for trafficking minors and unwilling participants which is reprehensible and repugnant to all of us. But it happens.

Trust me: I really wish that legalization would remove the ills of sex work. It seems to do for some few relatively lucky ones. I'm less concerned about them. They have the wherewithal, the agency to have advocated for a change in laws that provides them with greater protections. They are making a choice.

I see nothing and no one advocating for effectively shutting down trafficking in minors or unwilling participants--that is: rape vicitms.

I see that Canada's legalized sex work has not prevented this:

https://www.thecut.com/2018/04/toronto-van-attack-alek-minassian-incel-misogyny-canada.html


https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/us/incel-rebellion-alek-minassian-toronto-attack-trnd/index.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...itlement-mens-rights-elliot-rodger/550635002/


I see claims that legalized prostitution 'reduces rape.' To me, this simply suggests a belief by some that men are entitled to sex, regardless of the effect on those they have sex with.

I see that no one here has any problems calling me names and hurling insults my way, but everyone gets mighty sensitive when they don't like that I ask a question about whether someone is ok with sex trafficking, including trafficking of minors which as far as I have been able to discover is actually a natural consequence of prostitution, legal, or merely tolerated.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

So make that argument. Its a rape argument. And many here may agree with you on it. Its not a prostitution argument. There are plenty of times in prostitution where no drugs are in any way involved.

It's not a rape argument as no one is high, well maybe sometimes. It's an argument that people who are addicted slaves to crack and heroine do not make rational decisions. So when you talk about freedom, it isn't quite freedom. Obviously, if you're calling it rape, you're not getting it.

So Backpage and Derec should respect and follow US law unless they are in a situation where they must survive by not following laws.

I definitely don't agree with this sort of authoritarianism. I will break laws that I find immoral or wrong even if they are not a surefire threat to my life.

It is not an authoritarian argument to say in a society that is generally free with a representative democracy voting on your behalf that you should follow the laws. And when Derec emigrated to our country, he agreed to follow our laws, not laws from Germany. So yes, Derec and Backpage should follow the laws of our representative democracy.

Moreover, legalization of prostitution would not have solved the problem of BackPage and child sex trafficking and crack addicts and pimps using heroine addicted hookers in hotel rooms. Then posting on BackPage. So this discussion of legalization is a giant tangent and red herring from the op.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

So you are ok with money laundering, trafficking unwilling sex workers and child prostitution? Because that’s not what you said earlier and I don’t believe that you or Derec or anyone here is ok with any of those.

Good. Because no, I'm not ok with those things. Are you? I presume not as well.

What is much less clear is to what extent you think that such things as trafficking sex workers and child prostitution is simply a sad, inpleasanr side effect that a free society must tolerate—so men can get their rocks off for a modest fee.

I'm not convinced of your premise to that inquiry, for reasons I've already stated earlier in the thread, so to no extent.

Are you good with the death and endangerment of sex workers? Again, I'll presume not, yet you haven't much addressed those points.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I'm saying the quality of those stats is basically zero.

Your claim is pretty unreliable. If you disagree with one of the numbers, do you have a better source of information with a different number?

I don't have better numbers. I'm just saying that site looks like there was zero rigor behind the collection of the data.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

YOU and some others dispute data and assertions and reasoning because you don’t like them

I don't think that's so. We gave you good reasons why the other study you posted is flawed.

Your reasons were flawed - as have been pointed out many times. Demanding perfect data is a rather unattainable standard in these circumstances, but when one uses flawed and imperfect data (as the pro-legalization crowd does) while demanding an unattainable standard from those with whom they disagree, an additional element of hypocrisy arises.

We aren't demanding perfect data. We are asking for reasonable data, not something that belongs in a garbage can.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

As I've written before, many times (and been called a liar for it) I seriously assumed that legalization would reduce trafficking of unwilling individuals as prostitutes. That does not seem to be the case.

We believe you thought that and you think that. We just don't agree with you. And that disagreement is not based on the insulting motives you have decided to attribute to us. Notice that nobody here is accusing you of wanting more sex workers to be in more danger and die because you see sex workers as dirty filth. Some people do think that. We haven't accused you of that sort of thinking. We're not assuming the worst in you. Why must you assume the worst in us?

I've also posted links to academic articles and research papers that outline how legalization works to actually increase the demand for prostitutes

Yes, and we addressed that and the flaws and lack of reliability in it. I suppose we can do that again if you like, but I would rather suggest reading what has already been posted rather than skimming past it again.

The average age most frequently cited for beginning prostitution in the west is 15. This is an age at which one is not able to sign a contract, get a tattoo or piercing without parental consent, drive a motor vehicle or vote or to sign a lease or open a bank account on one's own.

It is an age when being a prostitute would be illegal because sex with a minor is illegal. That doesn't mean being a prostitute should be illegal for people who are not minors. Same with the drug argument we just saw. Again, that may be a rape argument, but its not a prostitution argument.

Your well intentioned support of legalization in fact becomes a unintentional but de facto support for trafficking minors and unwilling participants which is reprehensible and repugnant to all of us. But it happens.

Is your support for anti-prostitution laws unintentional defacto support for the death and endangerment of sex workers?

Trust me: I really wish that legalization would remove the ills of sex work.

That would be nice, wouldn't it? Nobody here has claimed that it would though.

I see nothing and no one advocating for effectively shutting down trafficking in minors or unwilling participants--that is: rape vicitms.

Really? You don't know that their are police efforts to shut down unwilling sex trafficking and child prostitution? Do you also not know that there are similar efforts to fight against child porn?

Or did you mean that you don't notice people in this thread writing about that? What do you conclude from that? Do you conclude that therefore people must not care? Because that would be a fallacy.

I see that Canada's legalized sex work has not prevented this

Canada doesn't have legalized sex work in the way you are imagining. Have you been to Canada? We struck down the prostitution laws, but they were upheld until the government could write new ones, which they have modeled after the nordic model now. And why in the world would you think that legalized sex work would stop a crazy person from driving a van into pedestrians?

I see claims that legalized prostitution 'reduces rape.' To me, this simply suggests a belief by some that men are entitled to sex, regardless of the effect on those they have sex with.

That is curious. Statistics in Rhode Island did show that. You may question those stats of course and maybe you have alternate explanations for what happened there, but this suggests a belief to you in some that men are entitled to sex regardless of the effect on those they have sex with? Why? How does A connect to B there? That seems a rather random adhom.

I see that no one here has any problems calling me names and hurling insults my way

The only name I've called you is your screen name. You really need to read your own posts. Calling out your adhoms, insults, and projection is to be expected. And no, its not because you are a woman. It is because you are hurling adhoms, insults, and insulting straw persons. Learn to write with more respect, and perhaps you will find what gets reflected back at you to be more respectful. And before you dismiss me as a horrible person or whatever, not that Tom, bilby, and many others have had this same issue with your postings in this thread. And no, its not because [insert insulting assumed motive here].

but everyone gets mighty sensitive when they don't like that I ask a question about whether someone is ok with sex trafficking, including trafficking of minors which as far as I have been able to discover is actually a natural consequence of prostitution, legal, or merely tolerated.

Did you get sensitive when I asked you if you are ok with sex workers being killed?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

YOU and some others dispute data and assertions and reasoning because you don’t like them

I don't think that's so. We gave you good reasons why the other study you posted is flawed. I'm not bothering to look at this new data you are linking to since you yourself say you don't believe it so there is no point.

But I DO think that is what you have done—multiple times and what Loren does continually, often without actually reading my posts and certainly not the links. Rarely is there anything like data or a link to a study to
counter what I’ve posted. And Loren’s clinging to an extremely small and flawed ‘study’ about accidentally legalized prostitution in Rhode Island doesn’t come close to being rigorous or anything other than some supposed correlations. For people who purport to be data driven and tech savvy, there is little evidence of such.

You haven't shown any flaws in the Rhode Island study, only that it's not ideal. This "data", however, appears to have been compiled by rank amateurs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

So make that argument. Its a rape argument. And many here may agree with you on it. Its not a prostitution argument. There are plenty of times in prostitution where no drugs are in any way involved.

Backpage and Derec should respect and follow US law unless they are in a situation where they must survive by not following laws.

I definitely don't agree with this sort of authoritarianism. I will break laws that I find immoral or wrong even if they are not a surefire threat to my life.

So you are ok with money laundering, trafficking unwilling sex workers and child prostitution? Because that’s not what you said earlier and I don’t believe that you or Derec or anyone here is ok with any of those. What is much less clear is to what extent you think that such things as trafficking sex workers and child prostitution is simply a sad, inpleasanr side effect that a free society must tolerate—so men can get their rocks off for a modest fee.

What you don't understand is that illegal doesn't mean gone and legal doesn't mean there's more of it.

For a simple example: Abortion is generally more common in places it's illegal.

Also, beware of cop math.

How about this example of child sex trafficking?

http://reason.com/blog/2018/01/25/texas-cops-arrest-teens-who-sell-sex

 

[bilby]

So you are ok with money laundering, trafficking unwilling sex workers and child prostitution? Because that’s not what you said earlier and I don’t believe that you or Derec or anyone here is ok with any of those. What is much less clear is to what extent you think that such things as trafficking sex workers and child prostitution is simply a sad, inpleasanr side effect that a free society must tolerate—so men can get their rocks off for a modest fee.

Nobody here (as far as I can tell from what they have written) is OK with trafficking sex slaves, child prostitution, or any other forms of rape. Not one person has said that any of these things can, should, or must be tolerated for any reason.

Every single person who has posted in this thread has expressed the desire to minimise these things.

The point of contention is whether legalisation; decriminalisation; or criminalisation, of sex work that involves only consenting adults, will help or will hinder efforts to eliminate these bad things.

I firmly believe that legalisation reduces these harms, and that criminalisation increases them. As a result, I see your well intentioned position as being dangerous and counterproductive; and it is on that basis alone that I refuse to accept your calls for continuing criminalisation of sex work.

Despite your unfounded and rather insulting slurs towards other posters in this thread, there remains no evidence whatsoever that any of them oppose you for the reasons you are claiming (rather than for the reason I set out above). You should stop making these ad-hominem claims; they seriously weaken your argument.

As I've written before, many times (and been called a liar for it) I seriously assumed that legalization would reduce trafficking of unwilling individuals as prostitutes. That does not seem to be the case. I've posted articles about sex trafficking in Australia. Here's more about sex trafficking in Canada:

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...-trafficking-works-in-canada/article28700689/

http://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/a...r-human-trafficking-says-new-report-1.2771631

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manit...ex-trade-sweep-find-3-at-risk-youth-1.2764637

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/...rafficking-training/module-2/aboriginal-women

http://natoassociation.ca/human-trafficking-in-canada-a-continuous-call-to-action/

I've also posted links to academic articles and research papers that outline how legalization works to actually increase the demand for prostitutes, which demand cannot be met by willing participants. I think that all of us agree that any minor must be considered an unwilling participant. In the US, federal law specifies that no individual under the age of 18 can be considered to be a willing prostitute.

The average age most frequently cited for beginning prostitution in the west is 15. This is an age at which one is not able to sign a contract, get a tattoo or piercing without parental consent, drive a motor vehicle or vote or to sign a lease or open a bank account on one's own.

It is clear to me that what might be an unintended consequence of supporting legalization is the fact--the absolute fact--that demand outstrips willing supply and that demand is a supply that starts before anyone is legally (or ethically or morally) able to give consent in many cases.

Your well intentioned support of legalization in fact becomes a unintentional but de facto support for trafficking minors and unwilling participants which is reprehensible and repugnant to all of us. But it happens.

Trust me: I really wish that legalization would remove the ills of sex work. It seems to do for some few relatively lucky ones. I'm less concerned about them. They have the wherewithal, the agency to have advocated for a change in laws that provides them with greater protections. They are making a choice.

I see nothing and no one advocating for effectively shutting down trafficking in minors or unwilling participants--that is: rape vicitms.

I see that Canada's legalized sex work has not prevented this:

https://www.thecut.com/2018/04/toronto-van-attack-alek-minassian-incel-misogyny-canada.html


https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/25/us/incel-rebellion-alek-minassian-toronto-attack-trnd/index.html

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...itlement-mens-rights-elliot-rodger/550635002/


I see claims that legalized prostitution 'reduces rape.' To me, this simply suggests a belief by some that men are entitled to sex, regardless of the effect on those they have sex with.

I see that no one here has any problems calling me names and hurling insults my way, but everyone gets mighty sensitive when they don't like that I ask a question about whether someone is ok with sex trafficking, including trafficking of minors which as far as I have been able to discover is actually a natural consequence of prostitution, legal, or merely tolerated.

Nobody starts work as a prostitute in a legal brothel in the west at 15. That average is for both illegal and legal sex work, and as such is useless for assessing which is more harmful. However when coupled with the strict licencing conditions in those jurisdictions with appropriate licencing and inspection regimes (such as my home state), it is very obvious that the number is being pulled down by the illegal industry - the average in the legal sector cannot be below 18 (or in many jurisdictions, 21), unless fraud is commonplace - and around here, it's most certainly not. As such, having a legal industry is likely to sharply raise that average, and as such is a good thing. Of course, you don't have the numbers to actually say whether this average is far higher in places with legal sex work than in places without it. You just assume that it is a universal truth in all jurisdictions, and draw an erroneous conclusion from that poor assumption.

And the oh so shocking and surprising reason why people get mighty sensitive when you ask whether someone is ok with sex trafficking, including trafficking of minors, is that it is a seriously insulting thing to ask someone. NOBODY is OK with it, and implying that people are, and that it is this, and not their actual stated arguments, that leads them to the conclusion that criminalization is a bad thing, is a massive insult.

Oddly, people get mighty sensitive when accused of something heinous that they not only do not do, but are seeking to prevent others from doing.

And claims that legalized prostitution reduces rape are a no-brainer - every person under the age of consent, and any person coerced into sex work, is being raped. By removing those people from the industry, you necessarily reduce the rate of rape - lawful prostitution is not rape, while much of the unlawful industry is. Your implication that the rapes in question are somehow the rapes of non sex workers, victimized by men who are out of control as a result of not having access to prostitutes to release their pent up sex drives would be fucking hilarious if it wasn't for the sad fact that you seem to seriously think it's a thing. All rapes are equally undesirable, whether the victim is a sex worker or not. And no legal prohibition in history has ever eliminated (or even seriously reduced) the existence of sex workers. Prostitutes will have sex for money under ANY legal system. In a licenced and legal system, the vast majority of that sex will not be rape. In environments where prostitution is unlawful, a larger proportion of that sex will be rape. So legalization must lower the incidence of rape of sex workers - and there's no sane reason to imagine that it causes an equal or greater incidence of rapes of non sex workers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

BTW, stumbled on some more data on income:

(Look at the top of page 6)
https://www.beyond-the-gaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/BtGbriefingsummaryoverview.pdf

Unfortunately, this is only a summary, it appears the whole thing is published as a book.

Also, note how they present the data. Even though this is only a summary they indicate how they collected the data and what the sample sizes are for each piece of data they present. Compare how they do it vs that garbage that was linked earlier to see part of why I called that other stuff garbage.

 

[Toni]

BTW, stumbled on some more data on income:

(Look at the top of page 6)
https://www.beyond-the-gaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/BtGbriefingsummaryoverview.pdf

Unfortunately, this is only a summary, it appears the whole thing is published as a book.

Also, note how they present the data. Even though this is only a summary they indicate how they collected the data and what the sample sizes are for each piece of data they present. Compare how they do it vs that garbage that was linked earlier to see part of why I called that other stuff garbage.

Loren, I am glad that you finally learned how to do an internet search and to post a link.

Here's another link:

https://www.refinery29.com/money-di...se&bucketing_referrer=https://www.google.com/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

BTW, stumbled on some more data on income:

(Look at the top of page 6)
https://www.beyond-the-gaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/BtGbriefingsummaryoverview.pdf

Unfortunately, this is only a summary, it appears the whole thing is published as a book.

Also, note how they present the data. Even though this is only a summary they indicate how they collected the data and what the sample sizes are for each piece of data they present. Compare how they do it vs that garbage that was linked earlier to see part of why I called that other stuff garbage.

Loren, I am glad that you finally learned how to do an internet search and to post a link.

Here's another link:

https://www.refinery29.com/money-di...se&bucketing_referrer=https://www.google.com/

The Nevada brothels are too small a sample to have much of an effect on overall prostitute income and since the situation isn't at all comparable they can't be used as a sample.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Why does it matter what the average income of a sex worker is? The fact remains, whatever thr average income is (and we do know that for some its a lot), that many people willingly decide to do the work. If not for the pay I cant imagine for what, but they do, and there is no sound basis to take that opportunity away from them.

 

[Toni]

BTW, stumbled on some more data on income:

(Look at the top of page 6)
https://www.beyond-the-gaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/BtGbriefingsummaryoverview.pdf

Unfortunately, this is only a summary, it appears the whole thing is published as a book.

Also, note how they present the data. Even though this is only a summary they indicate how they collected the data and what the sample sizes are for each piece of data they present. Compare how they do it vs that garbage that was linked earlier to see part of why I called that other stuff garbage.

Loren, I am glad that you finally learned how to do an internet search and to post a link.

Here's another link:

https://www.refinery29.com/money-di...se&bucketing_referrer=https://www.google.com/

The Nevada brothels are too small a sample to have much of an effect on overall prostitute income and since the situation isn't at all comparable they can't be used as a sample.

Because I am a US citizen, I post almost exclusively about how things are in the US because I know the most about those. Nevada brothels are held up as an example of just how much money a (young, hot, very fortunate) prostitute can earn under a legalized system. So, I posted probably the most favorable piece I could find about just how wonderful it is and how much you can earn as a prostitute.

I am curious about your objections to the piece. Did you actually do any of the math? (I did). She's turning a LOT of tricks to pull down the money she claims to earn.

Did you actually read your link? I did. The link I posted made prostitution sound much more pleasant and much more lucrative than your link.

But I agree: the Nevada brothels are relatively lucrative and relatively safe and about as good a model of legalized, well regulated prostitution as I've read of. Very few prostitutes in the US, in the west and certainly world wide have it so good.

 

[Toni]

Why does it matter what the average income of a sex worker is? The fact remains, whatever thr average income is (and we do know that for some its a lot), that many people willingly decide to do the work. If not for the pay I cant imagine for what, but they do, and there is no sound basis to take that opportunity away from them.

I think you were the one who introduced the 'fact' that prostitution is a very lucrative business and gosh aren't they lucky! I could be wrong.

We all know that many prostitutes do not do sex work willingly--demand far outstrips supply of willing sex workers.

I'm not sure that I would agree that most or many prostitutes enter sex work willingly. If the average age that a sex worker begins sex work is 15 as is most often cited, then it is difficult to see how at 18, when one is actually legally able to make such a choice, it is a 'free choice' having spent a good portion of their adolescence being raped and more.

Let's step away from sex work and make it farm labor: picking strawberries, for instance. If you began when you were 15, you missed a lot of school, a lot of opportunities at education and job training for other, safer, more lucrative and long lasting work. If you continue in that line of work when you are 18, 19, 20, is it really a choice? Or is it just the path of least resistance after you've been worked pretty hard by people who don't care for your best interests and who abuse your youth and lack of power to maximize their own earnings? What kind of choices do you have if you can barely read, have no high school diploma, have no family who can help you, no place to live, etc.?

A whole lot of people stay in the same towns, continue to work on farms, in the family business, follow the path of least resistance.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Let's step away from sex work and make it farm labor: picking strawberries, for instance. If you began when you were 15, you missed a lot of school, a lot of opportunities at education and job training for other, safer, more lucrative and long lasting work. If you continue in that line of work when you are 18, 19, 20, is it really a choice?

Yes, it is. Especially if it paid better than other jobs you may consider, which picking strawberries doesn't. And because we have slave labour (and we do) in agriculture, is that a good reason to ban agriculture?

What kind of choices do you have if you can barely read, have no high school diploma, have no family who can help you, no place to live, etc.?

You have all the same choices that other people who can barely read, have no high school diploma, have no family who can help them, and have no place to live, etc, except that you are privileged in also having this sex work thing as a viable option, if you do, which others do not.

Some, indeed many, take this option. Least path of resistance? Maybe. But its still the choice made, and driving it underground makes it more dangerous. Making it illegal doesn't magically mean nobody is going to do it, and those who do it when you've driven it underground are being put at risk for bodily harm and possibly death. You keep avoiding that point which I and others here have made repeatedly.

 

[Toni]

Let's step away from sex work and make it farm labor: picking strawberries, for instance. If you began when you were 15, you missed a lot of school, a lot of opportunities at education and job training for other, safer, more lucrative and long lasting work. If you continue in that line of work when you are 18, 19, 20, is it really a choice?

Yes, it is. Especially if it paid better than other jobs you may consider, which picking strawberries doesn't. And because we have slave labour (and we do) in agriculture, is that a good reason to ban agriculture?

What kind of choices do you have if you can barely read, have no high school diploma, have no family who can help you, no place to live, etc.?

You have all the same choices that other people who can barely read, have no high school diploma, have no family who can help them, and have no place to live, etc, except that you are privileged in also having this sex work thing as a viable option, if you do, which others do not.

Some, indeed many, take this option. Least path of resistance? Maybe. But its still the choice made, and driving it underground makes it more dangerous. Making it illegal doesn't magically mean nobody is going to do it, and those who do it when you've driven it underground are being put at risk for bodily harm and possibly death. You keep avoiding that point which I and others here have made repeatedly.

You are missing the point: no one should be placed in a position of having to earn a living at 15 (or younger) or not having access to food and shelter, good health care, education and/or job training. Being forced into such a situation while still a minor limits ones' choices for the rest of their lives.

I've never avoided your so called 'point' that 'driving prostitution underground' puts one at risk for bodily harm and death. I've addressed it repeatedly. You just don't like my response. Significant prostitution happens 'underground' no matter how legal it is. For example, there is no reason in Nevada for illegal prostitution to exist--yet it thrives, despite it being 'legal and well regulated' in some counties. As it thrives in other countries where it is fully legalized. Because there is a market for the too young/vulnerable/unwilling and there's a market for sex without condoms.

How about changing that market? How about eliminating that market?

Even if we had the political and moral will to eliminate that portion of prostitution which is illegal, we still have a legal sex industry which is full of inherent dangers which include exposure to STDs/STIs, violence, exploitation, etc. Those are not eliminated nor are they significantly mitigated by legalization. In my line of work, I am exposed to multitude of dangerous and infectious substances but I don't have or need a panic button because someone might decide to beat me or choke me or rape me. It's not considered a normal part of my work environment. And my employer pays for any medical treatment I might require if I am exposed to something that might cause illness or injury, as well as workman's comp. Those 'luxurious' brothels in Nevada don't provide that nor do any that I am aware of.

The fact that you see prostitutes as 'privileged' speaks volumes about you, and not about the realities of sex work.