Shouldn't a Woman's Right to Choose apply to prostitution?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

One wonders who is advocating for rights here and what are their motives.

Are people more interested in the rights of other people or more interested in somehow finding a way to have sex and having some people who won't say no easily available?

I guess we need to find a way to bring you into the discussion.

Assuming prostitution is legal, how does that relate to seizing the means of production?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Well, you'd probably get a discount if you just wanted a hand job.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You tell me.

If a woman's right to choose includes prostitution, does it also include being able to turn away customers based on their race?

Not if it's legalized. If she's running a legal business, she's subject to the rules and regulations of all other businesses.

Which means that the job requirement "you must have sex with your clients" would rule out quid pro quo sexual harassment.

Well, if that's to be interpreted as "you must have sex with all your clients or else you're fired, and I decide who's a client", that doesn't rule out quid pro quo sexual harassment; that is quid pro quo sexual harassment. The job requirement "you must type and take dictation and bring coffee and have sex with the boss's wife while he watches or else you're fired" is a perfectly possible job requirement too, and that doesn't make it rule out quid pro quo sexual harassment. Some job requirements are intrinsically harassing.

The entire sentence was:

Which means that the job requirement "you must have sex with your clients" would rule out quid pro quo sexual harassment. You would only be able to apply that standard in situations where a legal prostitute was being pressured to have sex with someone who WAS NOT a paying client under threat of losing her job.

These are not separate things. "You must strip naked in front of our customers" is a job requirement of being a stripper. But strippers being forced to strip for people who are not paying customers does, in fact, count as sexual harassment. Forcing strippers to give private shows they are not being paid to give is as well. You can fire a stripper for refusing to strip for a paying customer, IF it's understood that she is refusing to do something she previously agreed to do in her contract.

But if I found myself in the regulator-of-legal-prostitution job, I'd have no trouble applying the quid pro quo sexual harassment standard to situations where a legal prostitute was being pressured to have sex, even with someone who was a paying client.

You would, actually, because there's already quite a bit of precedent covering this in the porn industry and other forms of adult entertainment. There's enough case law from legal prostitution in Nevada that sexual harassment is fairly closely associated with client-worker relations, the responsibilities of the client, the responsibilities of the employee, and the responsibilities of the employer/facilitator. Among other things, a facilitator cannot deliberately expose his workers to physical abuse, nor can he require them to place themselves in situations where a risk of bodily harm is likely (e.g. having sex with a guy who admits to being HIV positive or states his intention to strangle one of the girls during sex). This is different from sexual harassment, which SPECIFICALLY refers to unwanted sexual advances unrelated to the job requirements or not consented to in any prior contractual agreement or job description. The law also makes it clear that there is (and pretty much by definition, MUST BE) a difference between a paying customer and anyone else that woman might have sex with, voluntarily or otherwise. While a facilitator can definitely fire a girl for refusing to have sex with paying clients, he is ALSO liable if he allows the client to force himself on her even after she refuses; raping a prostitute is still rape whether you paid her first or not.

If he didn't force her and merely stiffed her afterwards

Probably a good idea in theory; but in practice insisting on written contracts would probably wipe out most of the market since there's a stigma to visiting prostitutes, and most johns aren't going to want there to be that kind of proof that they did it floating around.

Removing the illegality of it would take care of a lot of that. Confidentiality is already a given for dating websites and porn subscriptions.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You tell me.

If a woman's right to choose includes prostitution, does it also include being able to turn away customers based on their race?

Not if it's legalized. If she's running a legal business, she's subject to the rules and regulations of all other businesses.

Which means that the job requirement "you must have sex with your clients" would rule out quid pro quo sexual harassment.

Well, if that's to be interpreted as "you must have sex with all your clients or else you're fired, and I decide who's a client", that doesn't rule out quid pro quo sexual harassment; that is quid pro quo sexual harassment. The job requirement "you must type and take dictation and bring coffee and have sex with the boss's wife while he watches or else you're fired" is a perfectly possible job requirement too, and that doesn't make it rule out quid pro quo sexual harassment. Some job requirements are intrinsically harassing.

The entire sentence was:

Which means that the job requirement "you must have sex with your clients" would rule out quid pro quo sexual harassment. You would only be able to apply that standard in situations where a legal prostitute was being pressured to have sex with someone who WAS NOT a paying client under threat of losing her job.

These are not separate things. "You must strip naked in front of our customers" is a job requirement of being a stripper. But strippers being forced to strip for people who are not paying customers does, in fact, count as sexual harassment. Forcing strippers to give private shows they are not being paid to give is as well. You can fire a stripper for refusing to strip for a paying customer, IF it's understood that she is refusing to do something she previously agreed to do in her contract.

But if I found myself in the regulator-of-legal-prostitution job, I'd have no trouble applying the quid pro quo sexual harassment standard to situations where a legal prostitute was being pressured to have sex, even with someone who was a paying client.

You would, actually, because there's already quite a bit of precedent covering this in the porn industry and other forms of adult entertainment. There's enough case law from legal prostitution in Nevada that sexual harassment is fairly closely associated with client-worker relations, the responsibilities of the client, the responsibilities of the employee, and the responsibilities of the employer/facilitator. Among other things, a facilitator cannot deliberately expose his workers to physical abuse, nor can he require them to place themselves in situations where a risk of bodily harm is likely (e.g. having sex with a guy who admits to being HIV positive or states his intention to strangle one of the girls during sex). This is different from sexual harassment, which SPECIFICALLY refers to unwanted sexual advances unrelated to the job requirements or not consented to in any prior contractual agreement or job description. The law also makes it clear that there is (and pretty much by definition, MUST BE) a difference between a paying customer and anyone else that woman might have sex with, voluntarily or otherwise. While a facilitator can definitely fire a girl for refusing to have sex with paying clients, he is ALSO liable if he allows the client to force himself on her even after she refuses; raping a prostitute is still rape whether you paid her first or not.

If he didn't force her and merely stiffed her afterwards

Probably a good idea in theory; but in practice insisting on written contracts would probably wipe out most of the market since there's a stigma to visiting prostitutes, and most johns aren't going to want there to be that kind of proof that they did it floating around.

Removing the illegality of it would take care of a lot of that. Confidentiality is already a given for dating websites and porn subscriptions.

Even if prostitution is legal I don't see how a court could make it compulsory for a prostitute to have sex with a client because her boss told her. This is because predominantly under the law no woman can be forced to have sex against her will for any reason. This is established in case law and I assume in the USA in legislation. I don't think the fact that is her job would make a difference. She is entitled to refuse to serve customers.

I couldn't see a court changing the law to benefit the pimp or the boss.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You tell me.

If a woman's right to choose includes prostitution, does it also include being able to turn away customers based on their race?

Not if it's legalized. If she's running a legal business, she's subject to the rules and regulations of all other businesses.

Which means that the job requirement "you must have sex with your clients" would rule out quid pro quo sexual harassment.

Well, if that's to be interpreted as "you must have sex with all your clients or else you're fired, and I decide who's a client", that doesn't rule out quid pro quo sexual harassment; that is quid pro quo sexual harassment. The job requirement "you must type and take dictation and bring coffee and have sex with the boss's wife while he watches or else you're fired" is a perfectly possible job requirement too, and that doesn't make it rule out quid pro quo sexual harassment. Some job requirements are intrinsically harassing.

The entire sentence was:

Which means that the job requirement "you must have sex with your clients" would rule out quid pro quo sexual harassment. You would only be able to apply that standard in situations where a legal prostitute was being pressured to have sex with someone who WAS NOT a paying client under threat of losing her job.

These are not separate things. "You must strip naked in front of our customers" is a job requirement of being a stripper. But strippers being forced to strip for people who are not paying customers does, in fact, count as sexual harassment. Forcing strippers to give private shows they are not being paid to give is as well. You can fire a stripper for refusing to strip for a paying customer, IF it's understood that she is refusing to do something she previously agreed to do in her contract.

But if I found myself in the regulator-of-legal-prostitution job, I'd have no trouble applying the quid pro quo sexual harassment standard to situations where a legal prostitute was being pressured to have sex, even with someone who was a paying client.

You would, actually, because there's already quite a bit of precedent covering this in the porn industry and other forms of adult entertainment. There's enough case law from legal prostitution in Nevada that sexual harassment is fairly closely associated with client-worker relations, the responsibilities of the client, the responsibilities of the employee, and the responsibilities of the employer/facilitator. Among other things, a facilitator cannot deliberately expose his workers to physical abuse, nor can he require them to place themselves in situations where a risk of bodily harm is likely (e.g. having sex with a guy who admits to being HIV positive or states his intention to strangle one of the girls during sex). This is different from sexual harassment, which SPECIFICALLY refers to unwanted sexual advances unrelated to the job requirements or not consented to in any prior contractual agreement or job description. The law also makes it clear that there is (and pretty much by definition, MUST BE) a difference between a paying customer and anyone else that woman might have sex with, voluntarily or otherwise. While a facilitator can definitely fire a girl for refusing to have sex with paying clients, he is ALSO liable if he allows the client to force himself on her even after she refuses; raping a prostitute is still rape whether you paid her first or not.

If he didn't force her and merely stiffed her afterwards

Probably a good idea in theory; but in practice insisting on written contracts would probably wipe out most of the market since there's a stigma to visiting prostitutes, and most johns aren't going to want there to be that kind of proof that they did it floating around.

Removing the illegality of it would take care of a lot of that. Confidentiality is already a given for dating websites and porn subscriptions.

Even if prostitution is legal I don't see how a court could make it compulsory for a prostitute to have sex with a client because her boss told her. This is because predominantly under the law no woman can be forced to have sex against her will for any reason.

The Boss would say that her accepting the job in the first place is consent to sex with paying clients and that her choosing not to participate in paid sex is a breach of contract. This is basically the same standard for porn actresses: if the girl gets pissed and decides not to continue or doesn't cooperate at all, she gets fired and they either replace her with another actress or they cancel the entire shoot and she doesn't get paid (and might be liable for production costs).

An important thing to understand is that many states are pretty hands-off about as to what circumstances you can and can't fire people and will only really step in if you are clearly firing someone as part of a discriminatory move (e.g. New manager gets promoted, immediately sends out a "white power" mass email and fires all the black employees). And that's before you get into the issue with "at-will" states, where you can fire someone for literally any reason you want.

I don't think the fact that is her job would make a difference. She is entitled to refuse to serve customers.

Yes, but she is not entitled to be PAID while refusing to serve customers, thus an employee who refuses to do his or her job for whatever reason will usually just be released from their job. Employers cannot compel their employees to do work they don't want to do, but that door swings both ways.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The Boss would say that her accepting the job in the first place is consent to sex with paying clients and that her choosing not to participate in paid sex is a breach of contract. This is basically the same standard for porn actresses: if the girl gets pissed and decides not to continue or doesn't cooperate at all, she gets fired and they either replace her with another actress or they cancel the entire shoot and she doesn't get paid (and might be liable for production costs).

That was my first thought, also. A porn actress often will not know who else will be in the scene when they agree to it. All they know is what they will be expected to do and from it's nature they might know something about their partner(s). (For example, a white woman doing an interracial movie can assume their partner will be black.)

 

[Bomb#20]

Which means that the job requirement "you must have sex with your clients" would rule out quid pro quo sexual harassment.

Well, if that's to be interpreted as "you must have sex with all your clients or else you're fired, and I decide who's a client", that doesn't rule out quid pro quo sexual harassment; that is quid pro quo sexual harassment. The job requirement "you must type and take dictation and bring coffee and have sex with the boss's wife while he watches or else you're fired" is a perfectly possible job requirement too, and that doesn't make it rule out quid pro quo sexual harassment. Some job requirements are intrinsically harassing.

The entire sentence was:

Which means that the job requirement "you must have sex with your clients" would rule out quid pro quo sexual harassment. You would only be able to apply that standard in situations where a legal prostitute was being pressured to have sex with someone who WAS NOT a paying client under threat of losing her job.

That's two entire sentences, and I quoted them both and addressed them both. Saying "You would only be able to X" doesn't stop me from being able to do more than X.

These are not separate things. "You must strip naked in front of our customers" is a job requirement of being a stripper. But strippers being forced to strip for people who are not paying customers does, in fact, count as sexual harassment. Forcing strippers to give private shows they are not being paid to give is as well. You can fire a stripper for refusing to strip for a paying customer, IF it's understood that she is refusing to do something she previously agreed to do in her contract.

No doubt; and I can equally well yank the license of the guy who fires her, IF it's a contract against public policy and therefore unenforceable.

But if I found myself in the regulator-of-legal-prostitution job, I'd have no trouble applying the quid pro quo sexual harassment standard to situations where a legal prostitute was being pressured to have sex, even with someone who was a paying client.

You would, actually, because there's already quite a bit of precedent covering this in the porn industry and other forms of adult entertainment. There's enough case law from legal prostitution in Nevada that sexual harassment is fairly closely associated with client-worker relations, the responsibilities of the client, the responsibilities of the employee, and the responsibilities of the employer/facilitator.

And? Who said I was in Nevada? If Nevada's legislature or its judiciary has in fact enacted its own idiosyncratic definition of sexual harassment, that would hardly stop me from, for example, enforcing current Canadian sexual harassment criteria on hypothetical legalized Canadian pimping companies.

Of course, if Canada were to follow suit and adopt Nevada's concept of harassment, sure, that would stop me from enforcing the current rule. But that goes for any regulator of anything -- no one's life, liberty or property are safe while the legislature is in session. What would be hypothetically tying my hands would be new legislation, not some intrinsic metaphysical power of a "you must have sex with your clients" job requirement.

This is different from sexual harassment, which SPECIFICALLY refers to unwanted sexual advances unrelated to the job requirements or not consented to in any prior contractual agreement or job description.

What's your basis for that contention? I didn't see any such specific restriction in the sexual harassment criteria I posted.

The law also makes it clear that there is (and pretty much by definition, MUST BE) a difference between a paying customer and anyone else that woman might have sex with, voluntarily or otherwise.

No it doesn't. You may well be able to quote a law from some jurisdiction that makes it clear that there is a difference on this point between a paying customer and anyone else. You will certainly not be able to quote a law from any jurisdiction that makes it clear that there by definition MUST BE a difference on this point between a paying customer and anyone else. It's perfectly possible for a jurisdiction's law to make no such distinction. If those in the procurer trade find that a law makes business more difficult for them, welcome to what every other legal trade in the world has been putting up with.

If he didn't force her and merely stiffed her afterwards

How I would love to take credit for that one; alas, it was inadvertent.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

These are not separate things. "You must strip naked in front of our customers" is a job requirement of being a stripper. But strippers being forced to strip for people who are not paying customers does, in fact, count as sexual harassment. Forcing strippers to give private shows they are not being paid to give is as well. You can fire a stripper for refusing to strip for a paying customer, IF it's understood that she is refusing to do something she previously agreed to do in her contract.

No doubt; and I can equally well yank the license of the guy who fires her, IF it's a contract against public policy and therefore unenforceable.

You can't, yank his license for offering an unenforceable contract. You can yank his license for offering a contract to do something explicitly illegal, but drawing up a bad contract isn't something business owners lose their licenses over (it happens all the time, and usually the licensing board doesn't get involved in those cases except as part of a lawsuit).

But if I found myself in the regulator-of-legal-prostitution job, I'd have no trouble applying the quid pro quo sexual harassment standard to situations where a legal prostitute was being pressured to have sex, even with someone who was a paying client.

You would, actually, because there's already quite a bit of precedent covering this in the porn industry and other forms of adult entertainment. There's enough case law from legal prostitution in Nevada that sexual harassment is fairly closely associated with client-worker relations, the responsibilities of the client, the responsibilities of the employee, and the responsibilities of the employer/facilitator.

And? Who said I was in Nevada? If Nevada's legislature or its judiciary has in fact enacted its own idiosyncratic definition of sexual harassment, that would hardly stop me from, for example, enforcing current Canadian sexual harassment criteria on hypothetical legalized Canadian pimping companies.

Jurisprudence relies heavily on precedent and applicability. Canadian laws wouldn't give a shit what someone decided in the United States, but test cases IN CANADA would give you plenty of precedent. There, too, you would have to rely on precedent for other forms of sex work/performances in Canada, namely the porn industry, strippers, escort services, etc. The scope of sexual harassment laws is already constrained and defined by decisions made by judges in those cases.

The law also makes it clear that there is (and pretty much by definition, MUST BE) a difference between a paying customer and anyone else that woman might have sex with, voluntarily or otherwise.

No it doesn't. You may well be able to quote a law from some jurisdiction that makes it clear that there is a difference on this point between a paying customer and anyone else. You will certainly not be able to quote a law from any jurisdiction that makes it clear that there by definition MUST BE a difference on this point between a paying customer and anyone else.

That's why I said "by definition." In places where prostitution is illegal, it isn't illegal to have sex with a prostitute, it's not even illegal to have sex with a prostitute while she is "working" at the time. It is illegal to pay a prostitute for sex. Until that money has changed hands, and then with the explicit declaration of the intent to exchange money for sex, her sexual partner is NOT legally considered a client.

This also holds true for strippers and porn actresses. Even in places where pornography is technically illegal, you cannot prosecute porn actresses as prostitutes because the people who pay them are NOT the same people who have sex with them. Their male co-stars are not considered to be clients -- and thus prostitution laws are not broken -- for this very reason. It doesn't matter if the porn star got paid, the point is she didn't get paid by her sexual partner.

If he didn't force her and merely stiffed her afterwards

How I would love to take credit for that one; alas, it was inadvertent.

That is indeed what SHE hath said!

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

The Boss would say that her accepting the job in the first place is consent to sex with paying clients and that her choosing not to participate in paid sex is a breach of contract. This is basically the same standard for porn actresses: if the girl gets pissed and decides not to continue or doesn't cooperate at all, she gets fired and they either replace her with another actress or they cancel the entire shoot and she doesn't get paid (and might be liable for production costs).

And that is completely reasonable. She contracted to do something and then refused to do it. She should be liable for losses resulting from that. But she should NOT be compelled to perform the service against her will. And she should not be fined or in any other way punished for refusing to perform the service. That puts her on the level of most business contracts and is not a violation of sexual consent. I don't see the problem here.

 

[Derec]

That's why I said "by definition." In places where prostitution is illegal, it isn't illegal to have sex with a prostitute, it's not even illegal to have sex with a prostitute while she is "working" at the time. It is illegal to pay a prostitute for sex. Until that money has changed hands, and then with the explicit declaration of the intent to exchange money for sex, her sexual partner is NOT legally considered a client.

This also holds true for strippers and porn actresses. Even in places where pornography is technically illegal, you cannot prosecute porn actresses as prostitutes because the people who pay them are NOT the same people who have sex with them. Their male co-stars are not considered to be clients -- and thus prostitution laws are not broken -- for this very reason. It doesn't matter if the porn star got paid, the point is she didn't get paid by her sexual partner.

This sections shows just how stupid anti-sex work laws are. Arbitrary, capricious, ridiculous!

 

[iolo]

It seems to me that having sexual relations with the inadequate is a useful social work that deserves reward, but it should be paid by the state and the social workers carefully guarded against the pathetic hollowchestbeaters.

 

[Bomb#20]

You can fire a stripper for refusing to strip for a paying customer, IF it's understood that she is refusing to do something she previously agreed to do in her contract.

No doubt; and I can equally well yank the license of the guy who fires her, IF it's a contract against public policy and therefore unenforceable.

You can't, yank his license for offering an unenforceable contract. You can yank his license for offering a contract to do something explicitly illegal, but drawing up a bad contract isn't something business owners lose their licenses over (it happens all the time, and usually the licensing board doesn't get involved in those cases except as part of a lawsuit).

Huh? Who said anything about yanking his license for offering an unenforceable contract? I said I can yank the license of the guy who fires her. It's not offering the contract, but firing her, that he'd be losing his license for. What, you think when I revoke a restaurant's license for not letting the waiters take their statutory 15 minute breaks, and the boss shows me the waiters' signed employment contract in which they agreed to work through their breaks, that means I'm pulling his license for offering the contract? I'm pulling his license for not letting them take breaks.

Jurisprudence relies heavily on precedent and applicability. ... test cases IN CANADA would give you plenty of precedent. There, too, you would have to rely on precedent for other forms of sex work/performances in Canada, namely the porn industry, strippers, escort services, etc. The scope of sexual harassment laws is already constrained and defined by decisions made by judges in those cases.

Sure; and when there are conflicting precedents and neither precedent fits exactly, somebody will have to decide which precedent, as it were, takes precedence. There are most likely precedents in Canada to the effect that the government can forbid a strip club from insisting a woman give a happy ending to client X, but can't forbid a strip club from insisting a woman strip for client X. When the question arises as to whether a brothel can insist a woman give a happy ending to client X, neither precedent fits exactly. A bureaucrat will just have to decide whether the change from a strip club to a brothel is more significant than the change from stripping to giving a happy ending. Governments draw lines all the time. There's a line to be drawn between what's an employee's right and what's a place of public accommodation; there's no law of nature that stops a government from drawing that line between taking off one's clothes and putting out.

The law also makes it clear that there is (and pretty much by definition, MUST BE) a difference between a paying customer and anyone else that woman might have sex with, voluntarily or otherwise.

No it doesn't. You may well be able to quote a law from some jurisdiction that makes it clear that there is a difference on this point between a paying customer and anyone else. You will certainly not be able to quote a law from any jurisdiction that makes it clear that there by definition MUST BE a difference on this point between a paying customer and anyone else.

That's why I said "by definition." In places where prostitution is illegal, it isn't illegal to have sex with a prostitute, it's not even illegal to have sex with a prostitute while she is "working" at the time. It is illegal to pay a prostitute for sex. Until that money has changed hands, and then with the explicit declaration of the intent to exchange money for sex, her sexual partner is NOT legally considered a client.

So what? The issue isn't whether the law can tell a client from a non-client; the issue is what use the law makes of that information. There's no reason the law MUST treat sex with clients and sex with non-clients differently with respect to whether an employee is being sexually harassed. Sexual harassment law says what it says; as far as I can see, it currently doesn't treat them differently. So if prostitution is legalized but no changes are made to current sexual harassment law, then insisting an employee have unwanted sex with a client will be sexual harassment. Of course the legislature can change the definition of sexual harassment at the same time it legalizes prostitution if it chooses; but there's no basis for saying it MUST do so, or for saying regulatory agencies or the judiciary MUST rule as if the legislature had done so.

This also holds true for strippers and porn actresses. Even in places where pornography is technically illegal, you cannot prosecute porn actresses as prostitutes because the people who pay them are NOT the same people who have sex with them. Their male co-stars are not considered to be clients -- and thus prostitution laws are not broken -- for this very reason. It doesn't matter if the porn star got paid, the point is she didn't get paid by her sexual partner.

Where the heck are you getting that legal opinion? You think if you hire a prostitute to make a man of your hypothetical virgin little brother, the fact that it's him and not you she's screwing will protect you, or her, from arrest? That's not how it works. It's true that in California we can't prosecute porn actresses as prostitutes even though they're being paid to have sex, but that's just a quirk of California law -- a quirk that accounts for California's dominance in the porn industry. It doesn't generalize to all other states where prostitution is illegal.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

You can fire a stripper for refusing to strip for a paying customer, IF it's understood that she is refusing to do something she previously agreed to do in her contract.

No doubt; and I can equally well yank the license of the guy who fires her, IF it's a contract against public policy and therefore unenforceable.

You can't, yank his license for offering an unenforceable contract. You can yank his license for offering a contract to do something explicitly illegal, but drawing up a bad contract isn't something business owners lose their licenses over (it happens all the time, and usually the licensing board doesn't get involved in those cases except as part of a lawsuit).

Huh? Who said anything about yanking his license for offering an unenforceable contract? I said I can yank the license of the guy who fires her. It's not offering the contract, but firing her, that he'd be losing his license for. What, you think when I revoke a restaurant's license for not letting the waiters take their statutory 15 minute breaks, and the boss shows me the waiters' signed employment contract in which they agreed to work through their breaks, that means I'm pulling his license for offering the contract? I'm pulling his license for not letting them take breaks.

I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time doing that too. Especially in an at-will state where an owner can fire an employee for basically any damn reason he likes. My wife was once fired from a sales assistant job for taking maternity leave without her boss' permission, even after her doctor wrote him a detailed letter specifically explaining why she needed to leave work for a high-risk pregnancy. Nothing you can do about it because Illinois. At-will states are stupid like that.

Sure; and when there are conflicting precedents and neither precedent fits exactly, somebody will have to decide which precedent, as it were, takes precedence.

And that someone is usually a JUDGE, and the judge will not get to decide on that precedent until and unless someone files a lawsuit.

Which is why I don't think you would be able to yank someone's license over that sort of thing. It might come about as the result of a lawsuit (which would be interesting to see) but probably not from a bureaucratic review of licensing rules.

So what? The issue isn't whether the law can tell a client from a non-client; the issue is what use the law makes of that information. There's no reason the law MUST treat sex with clients and sex with non-clients differently with respect to whether an employee is being sexually harassed.

I fail to see why "must" is even an issue here. It simply DOES, because that's how the law works with regard to sex workers in places where sex work is legal.

Where the heck are you getting that legal opinion? You think if you hire a prostitute to make a man of your hypothetical virgin little brother, the fact that it's him and not you she's screwing will protect you, or her, from arrest? That's not how it works.

It kind of IS. If my little brother didn't know she was a prostitute, he can't be prosecuted for hiring one or soliciting sex. For that matter, it would be VERY hard for a prosecutor to actually prove that the law was broken, since he -- not having direct evidence of what I hired the woman to do -- cannot actually establish as a matter of fact that I paid her to have sex with him. She would literally have to testify to that under oath and incriminate herself deliberately for him to even have a case.

Of course, if you can reliably convince people to self-incriminate, you can prove just about ANYTHING in court.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I suppose that is where the Nordic system comes in. New in Canada is that John's are illegal but hookers are not.... So she could testifying without incriminating herself... Of course that would hurt business so why would she...

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I suppose that is where the Nordic system comes in. New in Canada is that John's are illegal but hookers are not.... So she could testifying without incriminating herself... Of course that would hurt business so why would she...

It's not about the act of prostitution, but about related things. If what she was doing is illegal she's not likely to get much help from the system if a john robs her or the like. It takes a pretty serious charge before the cops will do anything.

 

[Bomb#20]

Huh? Who said anything about yanking his license for offering an unenforceable contract? I said I can yank the license of the guy who fires her. It's not offering the contract, but firing her, that he'd be losing his license for. What, you think when I revoke a restaurant's license for not letting the waiters take their statutory 15 minute breaks, and the boss shows me the waiters' signed employment contract in which they agreed to work through their breaks, that means I'm pulling his license for offering the contract? I'm pulling his license for not letting them take breaks.

I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time doing that too. Especially in an at-will state where an owner can fire an employee for basically any damn reason he likes. My wife was once fired from a sales assistant job for taking maternity leave without her boss' permission, even after her doctor wrote him a detailed letter specifically explaining why she needed to leave work for a high-risk pregnancy. Nothing you can do about it because Illinois. At-will states are stupid like that.

Well, there is that. But as this is a theoretical discussion, we might as well theorize that it's happening in a jurisdiction with teeth.

Sure; and when there are conflicting precedents and neither precedent fits exactly, somebody will have to decide which precedent, as it were, takes precedence.

And that someone is usually a JUDGE, and the judge will not get to decide on that precedent until and unless someone files a lawsuit.

Which is why I don't think you would be able to yank someone's license over that sort of thing. It might come about as the result of a lawsuit (which would be interesting to see) but probably not from a bureaucratic review of licensing rules.

It could start with a complaint from a wrongfully terminated employee; the license gets pulled after a cursory investigation; the lawsuit is filed by the boss to get his license back; then a judge decides.

So what? The issue isn't whether the law can tell a client from a non-client; the issue is what use the law makes of that information. There's no reason the law MUST treat sex with clients and sex with non-clients differently with respect to whether an employee is being sexually harassed.

I fail to see why "must" is even an issue here. It simply DOES, because that's how the law works with regard to sex workers in places where sex work is legal.

You wrote "The law also makes it clear that there is (and pretty much by definition, MUST BE) a difference between a paying customer and anyone else that woman might have sex with, voluntarily or otherwise.". That's why "must" became an issue. If you're abandoning the "MUST" part of your claim, cool -- but that means what some jurisdiction legalizing prostitution in the future will do about this conflict won't automatically be to copy what some other jurisdiction that has already legalized prostitution "simply DOES".

Where the heck are you getting that legal opinion? You think if you hire a prostitute to make a man of your hypothetical virgin little brother, the fact that it's him and not you she's screwing will protect you, or her, from arrest? That's not how it works.

It kind of IS. If my little brother didn't know she was a prostitute, he can't be prosecuted for hiring one or soliciting sex.

So? Your little brother isn't one of the people I listed as still being subject to arrest.

For that matter, it would be VERY hard for a prosecutor to actually prove that the law was broken, since he -- not having direct evidence of what I hired the woman to do -- cannot actually establish as a matter of fact that I paid her to have sex with him. She would literally have to testify to that under oath and incriminate herself deliberately for him to even have a case.

Hey, maybe it's all caught on surveillance tape, and the prosecution is only intended to motivate the john or prostitute to agree to testify against the real target of the surveillance. Be that as it may, the "hard to prove" point is a problem for prostitution prosecutions in general; it's orthogonal to the "the people who pay them are NOT the same people who have sex with them" issue you brought up. There's a reason prostitutes and johns alike are rarely convicted unless the other party was a role-playing cop. But if a cop is pretending to be a streetwalker and a guy drives up and offers to pay her to go make a man of his little brother, she still gets to arrest the older brother for solicitation.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I'm pretty sure you'd have a hard time doing that too. Especially in an at-will state where an owner can fire an employee for basically any damn reason he likes. My wife was once fired from a sales assistant job for taking maternity leave without her boss' permission, even after her doctor wrote him a detailed letter specifically explaining why she needed to leave work for a high-risk pregnancy. Nothing you can do about it because Illinois. At-will states are stupid like that.

Well, there is that. But as this is a theoretical discussion, we might as well theorize that it's happening in a jurisdiction with teeth.

Fair enough...

Sure; and when there are conflicting precedents and neither precedent fits exactly, somebody will have to decide which precedent, as it were, takes precedence.

And that someone is usually a JUDGE, and the judge will not get to decide on that precedent until and unless someone files a lawsuit.

Which is why I don't think you would be able to yank someone's license over that sort of thing. It might come about as the result of a lawsuit (which would be interesting to see) but probably not from a bureaucratic review of licensing rules.

It could start with a complaint from a wrongfully terminated employee; the license gets pulled after a cursory investigation; the lawsuit is filed by the boss to get his license back; then a judge decides.

Would they actually pull the license after a cursory investigation? I'm still reasonably sure the employee would have to sue the boss for wrongful termination and then win that judgement. As far as I know, you can't determine "wrongful termination" without a judge, and only the judge can order the revocation of a license.

But I might just be thinking of American law. If that's how it works in Canada... well, shit, hooray for Canada!

You wrote "The law also makes it clear that there is (and pretty much by definition, MUST BE) a difference between a paying customer and anyone else that woman might have sex with, voluntarily or otherwise.". That's why "must" became an issue.

Yes, because of the definition of "client." If there isn't a difference between a "client" and any other sexual partner, the definition is meaningless. That's why i alluded to porn actresses: the law does not treat her co-stars as "clients" because they do not fit the definition.

To be absolutely clear: It isn't illegal to have sex with a prostitute, just to hire one. Hiring one makes you a "client." Sleeping with one, not necessarily. If that distinction didn't exist, then SEX ITSELF would be illegal and prostitution laws would be unenforceable to begin with.

Which is why I'm saying "Must" as an imperative isn't an issue here. It's just a matter of definitions. The law cannot criminalize sex, but it CAN criminalize being (or attempting to be) a client of a particular type of sex worker.

There's a reason prostitutes and johns alike are rarely convicted unless the other party was a role-playing cop. But if a cop is pretending to be a streetwalker and a guy drives up and offers to pay her to go make a man of his little brother, she still gets to arrest the older brother for solicitation.

Which, again, comes to that distinction between a "client" and a sexual partner. It's not illegal to offer sex to strange women, but it IS illegal to offer money to strange women in exchange for sex. Solicitation of prostitutes makes you a would-be client and therefore a criminal in places where solicitation is illegal.

If, on the other hand, you walk up to that under-cover cop and tell her "I will give you two hundred dollars to come home with me and sing me a song. If I really like the way you sing, I will probably fall in love with you, and if I fall in love with you, I will want to have sex with you. Would you like to sing my a song?" the cop now has to get him to actually connect the money to the sex in a way that is provable in a court of law. Hardly impossible, but the point is he has to get the guy to actually put himself in the position of being the client of a sex worker and NOT, as it were, the client of a very slutty karaoke host.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

There was a group or women in Toronto 20 years ago who sold apples for $100. It was odd and confusing until it was discovered that they had sex with whoever bought an apple.