Kamala the hypocrite

[bilby]

The term 'hooker' has nothing to do with addiction. It almost certainly derives from the area known as Corlears Hook on Manhattan's lower east side, which was notorious for streetwalkers in the early 19th century.

It's popularly believed that the term originated with General Joseph Hooker, who was reputed to have provided brothels for his troops; However the earliest use of the term pre-dates General Hooker's military service.

The term hooker came into wide use during and after the American Civil War when the term Hooker's girls was used to describe the prostitutes that followed General Hooker's men on their journey.

I find it astonishing that you can assert that so confidently, in response to a post in which I explicitly told you exactly why it cannot be the case.

Perhaps the people using the term in the 1820s were psychic? Or maybe General Hooker was a precocious child and established his first brothels at the age of six?

Reality exists. Opinions are subordinate to it - even if they make for an entertaining and memorable fable.

The word 'hooker' to mean 'prostitute' was widely used well before the civil war; Your claim is simply wrong.

Reality isn't subject to opinion; Not even to popular opinion.

But your apparent belief that it is, goes a long way to explaining why you are so confidently and persistently wrong about so much else. It must be nice to live in a world where everything is certain, and you never need to modify your opinions due to new information.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Umm ... because legalized prostitution brings with it an increase in illegal sex trafficking?

You've posted the links to those studies yourself and I've specifically referenced that point in pretty much every one of my posts.

Thank you.

This is the major objection that I have to legalized prostitution. It seems to increase (or at best, not significantly decrease) human sex trafficking.

Did you read the rest of Tom's posts?

It also exposes and unobscures sex trafficking, making it easier to stop.

And if, as you said is possible (at best as you put it), it doesn't increase but also doesn't significantly decrease human sex trafficking, why would that mean its a bad idea? Isn't the freedom itself of some value?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Backpage was a dangerous situation for a lot of the prostitutes, particularly the underage persons who were sold there and all those who were trafficked through Backpage.

Please tell me why you are not so concerned about all of those who were unwillingly sold and who were underage when they were sold as you are about those who are now 'forced' to go into the streets---as though it isn't easy enough to sell sex via the internet anyway, without Backpage.

I am concerned about victims of sex trafficking. I believe backpage and tools like it could be and were used by police to crack down on it. I also believe harm done by shutting backpage down was greater than harm done by allowing it to exist.

To reverse your question onto yourself... "Please explain to me why you are not so concerned about sex workers being murdered on the streets." Note: I don't actually think you don't care about such victims. I'm just mirroring for you.

And again, read Bedford or listen to actual sex workers about what they lost when backpage was shut down. You keep waving your hand dismissing their rather grim reality. "Why so disrespectful to women"?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The term 'hooker' has nothing to do with addiction. It almost certainly derives from the area known as Corlears Hook on Manhattan's lower east side, which was notorious for streetwalkers in the early 19th century.

It's popularly believed that the term originated with General Joseph Hooker, who was reputed to have provided brothels for his troops; However the earliest use of the term pre-dates General Hooker's military service.

The term hooker came into wide use during and after the American Civil War when the term Hooker's girls was used to describe the prostitutes that followed General Hooker's men on their journey.

I find it astonishing that you can assert that so confidently, in response to a post in which I explicitly told you exactly why it cannot be the case.

Perhaps the people using the term in the 1820s were psychic? Or maybe General Hooker was a precocious child and established his first brothels at the age of six?

Reality exists. Opinions are subordinate to it - even if they make for an entertaining and memorable fable.

The word 'hooker' to mean 'prostitute' was widely used well before the civil war; Your claim is simply wrong.

Reality isn't subject to opinion; Not even to popular opinion.

But your apparent belief that it is, goes a long way to explaining why you are so confidently and persistently wrong about so much else. It must be nice to live in a world where everything is certain, and you never need to modify your opinions due to new information.

She did say "came into wide use"... which allows for it to pre-exist. Perhaps the term existed but got more popular for the reason she stated? Words can have multiple meanings. I wasn't asserting this above, but I'll bet there are many who are ignorant of the earlier meaning and original of the term but who say "Hooker" instead of "Prostitute" or "whore" or "sex worker" today because they think about them "hooking you in" (so it does have something to do with addiction).

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Umm ... because legalized prostitution brings with it an increase in illegal sex trafficking?

You've posted the links to those studies yourself and I've specifically referenced that point in pretty much every one of my posts.

Thank you.

This is the major objection that I have to legalized prostitution. It seems to increase (or at best, not significantly decrease) human sex trafficking.

Did you read the rest of Tom's posts?

It also exposes and unobscures sex trafficking, making it easier to stop.

And if, as you said is possible (at best as you put it), it doesn't increase but also doesn't significantly decrease human sex trafficking, why would that mean its a bad idea? Isn't the freedom itself of some value?

This. The increase in sex trafficking resulting from it (assuming this is the case, which does seem likely) is a solvable problem. If one has the police devote resources to it, they can find the trafficked and underaged victims as easily as the johns can. It is a side effect of legalization and if you legalize without then accepting this and dealing with it, then you’re left with a serious problem that you’re not dealing with. If you do deal with it, however, then the negative side effect is dealt with.

It’s like how underaged drinking increased after prohibition was repealed. That fact wasn’t a reason to bring back prohibition. It just meant that you needed to devote resources to try and lessen underaged drinking because there’s more of that in places where alcohol is legal for adults.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Apparently enough that it was willing to be shut down rather than simply not help pimps advertise underage girls.

I always wonder if the men who are so certain that prostitution and particularly underage prostitution is so harmless really feel that way when they are confronted with the fact that boys--underage boys--are also prostituted. Or about the circumstances that put underage boys in this situation.

I think that mostly it's just easier to keep your head in the sand and think about all the pretty girls you can buy.

Because few politicians would vote against something so obviously good as a counterproductive attempt to stamp out underage prostitution. That would be handing their opponents too much come next election.

To be very honest, Loren, I am struggling with a massive stomach bug right now and may not be thinking straight but I really don't understand your response. Can you please explain?

I'm saying a vote against something like FOSTA is setting you up for attacks from the right in the next election. It's the same sort of thing that got us the abomination of the Patriot Act despite it being a long-standing law enforcement wish list with almost nothing to do with terrorism.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For my part, I've stated repeatedly that for a long time, I truly believed that legalized prostitution was a better way to handle the sex industry. But the more I read, the less convinced I have become. In countries where prostitution has been legalized, there still exists a thriving sex trade involving the unwilling and underaged. In fact, that aspect of the business model grows when prostitution is legalized. THAT is what has changed my mind.

Where's the evidence it grows? Note that the number of "trafficked" women include plenty who are doing it voluntarily.

 

[laughing dog]

I find it astonishing that you can assert that so confidently, in response to a post in which I explicitly told you exactly why it cannot be the case.

I find this pretty ironic. There is no way in the world anyone can confidently claim what the origin of term "hooker" is. Making the claim that it "cannot be the case" requires clairvoyance.

Tracing back the origin of a term frequently requires assessing likelihoods which means certainty in those cases is not possible.

This link (https://www.etymonline.com/word/hooker) indicates that the term hooker as prostitute can be traced to 1845s North Carolina.

None of that contradicts Toni's claim that the term hooker as prostitute came into wide use. That is not the same as claiming it was introduced. Nor is there any necessary contradiction about when it came into "wide use" because "wide use" can be interpreted on a geographic basis or frequency basis. Nothing you have presented indicates that the term was frequently used. Perhaps it was. Do you have any evidence about that? If not, please recall that reality is not subject to opinion.

 

[laughing dog]

For my part, I've stated repeatedly that for a long time, I truly believed that legalized prostitution was a better way to handle the sex industry. But the more I read, the less convinced I have become. In countries where prostitution has been legalized, there still exists a thriving sex trade involving the unwilling and underaged. In fact, that aspect of the business model grows when prostitution is legalized. THAT is what has changed my mind.

Where's the evidence it grows? Note that the number of "trafficked" women include plenty who are doing it voluntarily.

What is the acceptable number of trafficked women?

 

[bilby]

I find it astonishing that you can assert that so confidently, in response to a post in which I explicitly told you exactly why it cannot be the case.

I find this pretty ironic. There is no way in the world anyone can confidently claim what the origin of term "hooker" is. Making the claim that it "cannot be the case" requires clairvoyance.

Tracing back the origin of a term frequently requires assessing likelihoods which means certainty in those cases is not possible.

This link (https://www.etymonline.com/word/hooker) indicates that the term hooker as prostitute can be traced to 1845s North Carolina.

None of that contradicts Toni's claim that the term hooker as prostitute came into wide use. That is not the same as claiming it was introduced. Nor is there any necessary contradiction about when it came into "wide use" because "wide use" can be interpreted on a geographic basis or frequency basis. Nothing you have presented indicates that the term was frequently used. Perhaps it was. Do you have any evidence about that? If not, please recall that reality is not subject to opinion.

Sure, effects frequently precede their causes, so clairvoyance is needed to tell which came first.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The primary benefit of legalization is to the sex workers. They are the ones who are usually arrested and prosecuted where their work is illegal.

It's more than that. Illegal acts attract illegal acts. When you legalize prostitution you make a big dent in trick-rolling, if the law is written right you get rid of the streetwalkers that make a neighborhood seem bad and such. I do agree the primary benefit is to the women, though.

I've studied this in detail and I support legalization, but it should also be regulated. It would be best if sex workers were also licensed. A short course to obtain the license would include practicing safe sex, and self defense. Imo, the age of a legal sex worker should be at least 21, since teenagers really aren't mature enough to make the decision to choose this line of work. Due to science, we now know that the human brain isn't even fully matured until around the age of 25. If the work was legal, a woman could decide if she wanted to be self employed or work for a large brothel, such as the ones in Nevada. Some of the women in this line of work want it to be regulated and licensed.

It also cuts down on STDs. Since the Nevada brothels have gone condom-required and a visual STD check first the number of patrons that have caught something appears to be zero and the number of women very low.

I'd like to see the licensing done a bit differently than most licenses, though. The license bureau would have the right name but they would provide a license with a photo but with their professional name, not their real name. It would also have a QR code on it, scan it and it brings up a page at the license bureau that shows a large photograph and whether the license is current or not.

I would also like to see a short exam by a psychologist looking for signs the woman was coerced.

I've read the blogs and discussion boards of sex workers. Most of them like their work. Some say that while they don't really enjoy their work, it sure beats working for low wages as a waitress or a cashier.

Yeah. Showing that women don't like the job doesn't show it's wrong. There are plenty of unpleasant jobs, that doesn't mean they should be banned. It doesn't take much time on her back to equal the income from a day's slinging food.

There are some feminists who disagree with me. That's fine. I can disagree with people that I like and respect, without any difficulty. But, I am not a one issue voter, and never will be. That's where I would disagree with Derec. I could be wrong, but he gives me the impression that he won't vote for anyone who doesn't want sex work to be legalized, even if he agrees with their other positions. I don't think this will ever be a federal issue in the US. It will most likely always be a state issue, and considering that Derec and I live in a state that is still very religious and backwards when it comes to things like this, it's doubtful that sex work will ever become legal in Georgia in my lifetime.

If whether something is right or wrong isn't clear I prefer it to be a state issue--let them try various approaches and see what works the best. (Note, however, that Roe vs Wade clearly settled this in the case of abortion--there were no legitimate arguments against it. The opposition is religious.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Can you please post some links that support your claims that legalization reduces assaults and murders of prostitutes?

It's been presented before:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...tis-decreased-sharply/?utm_term=.8bf79b02670b

And looking this up made me stumble on what is probably the research that surprised you about trafficking:

http://prostitutionresearch.com/wp-...ostitution-Trafficking-Rel-2013WorldDevel.pdf

Oops, it looks like the usual "mistake"--I don't see that it is separating women who were forced vs those who simply moved of their own accord.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Johns seem to have zero problem locating prostitutes now. Even in my small town, I am pretty sure I can take you right to several places where one could find a hooker if one was looking for one. If I could find a prostitute, I'm damn sure every cop in town knows who is in the trade and where they are and what they are doing and with whom. And yet no one is ever busted for prostitution in my town.

If the cops know all the hookers shouldn't it be obvious the hookers also know the cops? How much success would they have with a prostitution sting?

Even here (2M+ population) the cops don't bother with stings against the outcall girls, only against the streetwalkers. The outcall agencies are well enough organized that a sting is going to be expensive and will only succeed in busting one girl.

STD testing is available now and for free for those who need it at no cost.

The issue isn't the cost. The issue is sidelining the infected girls until they're over their infections. At the high end with established clientele they'll do this, at the low end where they'll probably not see the john again they won't.

STD testing at brothels protects clients only, not the prostitutes.

Directly, no. Indirectly, yes--they know catching something will take a bite out of their income so they're much more willing to check a dick and reject a client whose dick doesn't look right.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The truth is that law enforcement pursues criminal cases that they think matter. Ask any Indigenous woman in Canada.

Something you're missing here: Law enforcement looks not only at how serious the crime is but how easy it will be to catch the perpetrator.

A streetwalker disappears in an area with a transient population (say, a truck stop). What's the chance of catching her killer? There's two basic ways they'll get caught: 1) DNA or the like at the scene (and that's assuming her body is even found), 2) A security camera caught who she went with. Note that illegal prostitution means that she's going to be avoiding the cameras. When a body is found after extended exposure there's nothing for the cops to do. The importance doesn't magically give the police more options.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Prostitutes can and do screen clients now. Unless they are controlled by pimps and brothels. Those won't disappear under legalization.

Seriously, read Bedford. Read the research on this. Backpage was a HUGE screening tool. It wasn't perfect, but it sure did help. Walking the street isn't easy and it isn't safe.

And it's not just Backpage. The same crusade has been going after all their screening tools, even things like their databases of johns to avoid.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For my part, I've stated repeatedly that for a long time, I truly believed that legalized prostitution was a better way to handle the sex industry. But the more I read, the less convinced I have become. In countries where prostitution has been legalized, there still exists a thriving sex trade involving the unwilling and underaged. In fact, that aspect of the business model grows when prostitution is legalized. THAT is what has changed my mind.

Where's the evidence it grows? Note that the number of "trafficked" women include plenty who are doing it voluntarily.

What is the acceptable number of trafficked women?

Do you even know what an honest reply is?!

I was specifically asking about an increase. The baseline number is irrelevant for this, thus the concept of an "acceptable" number makes no sense in this context.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It doesn't stop illegal sex work and it doesn't protect illegal sex workers. Or children.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=12025066

Lets look more carefully at that:

Sex workers overseas are being recruited on Asian chat sites and told New Zealand is where they can make $1000 a day.

That's the only claim of trafficking in the article--and note that it's not about getting women into the business.

 

[Toni]

The term 'hooker' has nothing to do with addiction. It almost certainly derives from the area known as Corlears Hook on Manhattan's lower east side, which was notorious for streetwalkers in the early 19th century.

It's popularly believed that the term originated with General Joseph Hooker, who was reputed to have provided brothels for his troops; However the earliest use of the term pre-dates General Hooker's military service.

The term hooker came into wide use during and after the American Civil War when the term Hooker's girls was used to describe the prostitutes that followed General Hooker's men on their journey.

I find it astonishing that you can assert that so confidently, in response to a post in which I explicitly told you exactly why it cannot be the case.

Perhaps the people using the term in the 1820s were psychic? Or maybe General Hooker was a precocious child and established his first brothels at the age of six?

Reality exists. Opinions are subordinate to it - even if they make for an entertaining and memorable fable.

The word 'hooker' to mean 'prostitute' was widely used well before the civil war; Your claim is simply wrong.

Reality isn't subject to opinion; Not even to popular opinion.

But your apparent belief that it is, goes a long way to explaining why you are so confidently and persistently wrong about so much else. It must be nice to live in a world where everything is certain, and you never need to modify your opinions due to new information.

I keep forgetting. Bilby is ALWAYS right about American history. Even when he doesn't read that I said that term came into WIDE USE after Hooker. Not that it originated with Hooker. And of course, the internet made certain that everybody in 19th century America was very au currant with all of the latest slang. Or maybe it was radio. I don't remember....

 

[Toni]

The truth is that law enforcement pursues criminal cases that they think matter. Ask any Indigenous woman in Canada.

Something you're missing here: Law enforcement looks not only at how serious the crime is but how easy it will be to catch the perpetrator.

A streetwalker disappears in an area with a transient population (say, a truck stop). What's the chance of catching her killer? There's two basic ways they'll get caught: 1) DNA or the like at the scene (and that's assuming her body is even found), 2) A security camera caught who she went with. Note that illegal prostitution means that she's going to be avoiding the cameras. When a body is found after extended exposure there's nothing for the cops to do. The importance doesn't magically give the police more options.

Yes, but a child goes missing from the care of a millionaire and suddenly it's a nation wide search.


As far as illegal prostitutes avoiding cameras--please.

As far as police being able to 'do nothing after extended exposure:' Sorry. I know quite a bit about the science of identifying remains years and decades after the death. Nothing is what is often done. Nothing is not at all related to what can be done. One simply must care.

I don't know if hookers being murdered at truck stops is part of your personal fantasy life but it's not really the biggest worry for prostitutes.

 

[Toni]

If the cops know all the hookers shouldn't it be obvious the hookers also know the cops? How much success would they have with a prostitution sting?

There are successful stings periodically. And why would they need a 'sting?' It would be easy to catch prostitutes and their customers if there was a desire to do that.

Even here (2M+ population) the cops don't bother with stings against the outcall girls, only against the streetwalkers. The outcall agencies are well enough organized that a sting is going to be expensive and will only succeed in busting one girl.

Sure. So tell me again how terrible it is that Backpage got shut down for publishing ads for underage hookers? What changed, exactly? All of a sudden, men can't get underage girls? We know that's not the case. All of a sudden, outcall prostitutes can't service clients? Nope. Also not true. Streetwalkers are still streetwalkers.

The only thing that happened is that finally someone said out loud that you cannot make a profit from advertising underage prostitutes and call yourself a legitimate business.

The issue isn't the cost. The issue is sidelining the infected girls until they're over their infections. At the high end with established clientele they'll do this, at the low end where they'll probably not see the john again they won't.

Yeah, so tell me again how testing protects prostitutes? Because it doesn't. Also there are more than one STI that is incurable. And some that are much harder to cure than they used to be.

STD testing at brothels protects clients only, not the prostitutes.

Directly, no. Indirectly, yes--they know catching something will take a bite out of their income so they're much more willing to check a dick and reject a client whose dick doesn't look right.

Oh, ffs, Loren. Do you really believe that you can tell if someone has HIV by looking at their dick? Or syphilis? Or gonorrhea? Or chlamydia? Are you really unaware that many STIs are asymptomatic in their early, most contagious stages? Especially in men? Did you get all of your vast knowledge about STIs from some 1950's military educational film?