The inner world of a prostitute

[DrZoidberg]

I really hate it when discussions like this one start to become attacks on each other. Can't people disagree in a more respectful way? it doesn't appear to be that way too much lately. The reason I support legalization, is primarily because it's what the women/men engaged in this line of work want. And from everything I've read over the years, it does seem much safer when it's legal. I can't think of any reason why keeping it illegal benefits anyone!

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/the-majority-of-sex-workers-enjoy-their-job-why-should-we-find-that-surprising-10083175.html

Selling sex is not inherently harmful or dangerous. It is clear from the 50 to 60 incidents reported to NUM every month that offenders target sex workers because they believe that they won’t be reported to the police, and they will get away with it. Tragically, this belief is based in reality: only 26 per cent of the 1350 sex workers who have reported serious crimes to NUM were willing to report to the police.

This study has demonstrated that sex workers are a diverse group, most of whom have chosen their work as a preference to the other options available to them. It also delivers a strong message that any policy which seeks to deny their agency is not founded in evidence.

On International Sex Workers’ Rights Day we must remind ourselves that sex workers are one of the most stigmatised groups in our society and are often deliberately denied a voice by policy makers who claim to be advocating for them. Only through decriminalisation will sex workers be less stigmatised and feel comfortable in reporting crimes to the police and advocating their rights as workers.

That is just one small study, but it exemplified my point. The US has the exact same problem when it comes to sex workers not reporting assaults out of fear of being targeted by the police. Sheesh. When you legalize sex work you make it safer for the providers. Those engaged in the work are less stigmatized and they don't have to be fearful of reporting sexual assault to the police because they are engaged in a legitimate line of work. I honestly don't understand the objection to legalization.

One last plea for consideration of legalization or at lease decriminalization. First, I will admit that Amnesty International is one of my favorite human rights organization. Although I can't afford to contribute much, I am a member. I was very pleased when the organization began supporting decriminalization of sex work.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/25/magazine/why-amnesty-international-is-calling-for-decriminalizing-sex-work.html


And, one more piece from the NYTimes goes into length giving the reasons why it's best to decriminalize or legalize sex work.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/08/magazine/should-prostitution-be-a-crime.html?action=click&module=RelatedCoverage&pgtype=Article®ion=Footer

Have fun debating. I've said enough.

Even Amnesty International has gotten behind it. That's big. Amnesty always play it safe as hell. When they get behind stuff it means that it's well supported.

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2015/08/sex-workers-rights-are-human-rights/

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

So, my anecdotes don't count, only yours do?

I'm just giving a snap shop of an episode in my life. This is a thread about me sharing what happened to me. You're somehow arguing against it. I don't care about your anecdotes. They have no bearing on mine.

Ironic.

And I think you are a terrible person. A moralistic dick who is trying to find reasons to look down on prostitutes.

You could not be more wrong. Try re-reading what I posted without the defensiveness (and the additional post above regarding the ancillary problems of legalization, such as increased trafficking to fill demand) and understand, once again, that I have nothing against your anecdotes or prostitutes.

There are deeper issues involved that your anecdotes do not address, yet you keep trying to apply personal experiences to the much bigger problems others are raising itt as if your experiences are in any way definitive, exhaustive or generalizable. You did it again in this post.

They are simply not applicable. Even if you knew every single prostitute that had ever lived, your personal opinion on their mental states or motivations or really anything at all about them would only be your personal opinion, not anything objectively quantifiable. Which in turn necessarily means we'd need to know your qualifications for making any such opinions; how many years of med school did you attend and where; how long did you spend with each individual; what questions did you ask them to discover their motivations; were they lying to you; were they lying to themselves; were you able to corroborate their stories with childhood friends or family members; etc, etc., etc.

Again, this should be painfully obvious.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Which is where I'm coming from. Again: this is honestly not what I was expecting to read when I first started investigating the effects of legalization on prostitutes.

Agreed. I've always been all for it, until this thread got me digging deeper.

Of particular note is that legalized prostitution promotes an uptick in human trafficking/forced prostitution.

And the observation regarding the fact that money--i.e., being paid--is itself an inherently coercive act and that it's a safe bet none of the prostitutes would be doing the same thing to any of their clients if it were not the fact that they were being paid. Which tends to blow the whole "they love having sex" rationalization out of the water. I'm sure they do, but that's not the question.

And the fact that the harms to the sex workers (physical as well as mental) do not necessarily decrease with legalization.

It's just the same shitty conditions--more or less--only with the State as the pimp and the sex worker taking all the risks, with little to no focus on the "Johns." Iow, the men--basically (the "clients')--are the only protected element in all of this. Yes, the sex workers won't be thrown in jail or harassed by police anymore, but other than that, it's still the same mentality of you're a commodity, service the men, do what you're told and shut up about it.

It's got better lipstick and a nice new dress, but it's still a pig.

ETA: Here's something I just found from my alma mater: Decriminalizing Prostitution Won’t Solve Social, Ethical Problems.

The research discussed is here: Should US Physicians Support the Decriminalization of Commercial Sex?

In a nut:

[T]hough there is no perfect policy solution to the various ethical problems associated with commercial sex that can arise under either criminalized or decriminalized conditions, the Nordic model offers several potential advantages. This model criminalizes the buying of sex and third-party brokering of sex (i.e., pimping) but exempts sex sellers (i.e., prostitutes, sex workers) from criminal penalties. However, ongoing support for this type of policy should be contingent upon positive results over time.

And here's a piece I just found from the Global Network of Sex Work Projects: Challenging the Introduction of the Nordic Model that seems to be giving the sex worker's view.

Snippet:

This Smart Guide builds on NSWP’s existing toolkit on the ‘Swedish’ model4. NSWP members were consulted on their experiences with the Nordic Model via an e-consultation process, and excerpts from their submissions feature heavily in this guide. The first section looks at the harms caused to sex workers in countries where the Nordic Model has been introduced and summarises the arguments against introducing this approach. The second section draws on the in-depth interviews conducted with NSWP member organisations about their experiences challenging the Nordic Model, and includes case studies of organising for sex workers’ rights and challenging the dangerous rhetoric and impacts of the Nordic Model. This guide is intended as a tool to strengthen and support NSWP members and sex workers’ rights advocates’ ability to actively challenge proposals to introduce the Nordic approach in their countries.
...
A new norm, the victim narrative, has resulted in severe negative consequences for sex workers. While many of the harms sex workers face under the Nordic Model could be seen as unintended, they are also the predictable outcome of any policy developed and implemented without meaningful consultation with sex workers. Under the Nordic Model, the message that sex work is violence against women and incompatible with equality, means that sex workers’ experiences of harm are weaponised against them and used as further evidence of positive outcomes of a model that is harming them.

Interesting. They (like Zoidberg) are asserting moralistic motivations (at least behind the "Nordic Model") and that it is driven out of an unspoken desire to end all sex work:

Globally, trafficking policies have been heavily influenced by the increasingly xenophobic and racist border control agendas of countries in the Global North, as well as the U.S. formulated Trafficking in Persons (TIP) reports. This environment has allowed the Nordic Model to gain traction as a solution to trafficking. In reality, the Nordic Model serves as an ineffective tool requiring substantial ongoing financial resources that enables increased racial profiling and deportation of migrant sex workers. The Nordic Model claims to protect migrant sex workers by granting police increased powers to raid their workplaces under the guise of targeting human traffickers, third parties and clients. In reality, when migrant sex workers’ workplaces are raided they are targeted for police abuse, arrest, detention and deportation; another logical intended consequence showcasing a lack of consultation with the affected population.

Migrant sex workers in Sweden report that police do not just arrest their clients, they also inform hotels and landlords of their activities, resulting in sex workers being thrown out without refunds. Additionally, any contact with the police often results in deportation for ‘not earning a living in an honest way’ in accordance with the Alien Act, even though selling sex itself is not illegal. These consequences effectively criminalise the selling of sex for migrant workers under the Nordic Model.
...
As many sex worker activists have noted, the conflation of migrant sex workers as trafficking victims under too-broad trafficking legislation has resulted in unreliable and misleading data in many countries.13 Comparisons of numbers of assumed victims of trafficking have long been challenged as problematic due to the differences in definitions and methods used in research.14

It seems the main issue on all sides is what counts for "coercive" and how do we possibly measure whether or not a sex worker is truly consenting?

 

[DrZoidberg]

And I think you are a terrible person. A moralistic dick who is trying to find reasons to look down on prostitutes.

You could not be more wrong. Try re-reading what I posted without the defensiveness (and the additional post above regarding the ancillary problems of legalization, such as increased trafficking to fill demand) and understand, once again, that I have nothing against your anecdotes or prostitutes.

The fact that you think you are a good person makes your evil only worse. There's few things more dangerous than evil people convinced they're good. The road to hell IS paved with good intentions. It's people like you that prostitutes hates the most. For good reason. It's deserved. The dumb, deaf and blind knights of "goodness" continually bring them the most grief and problems in their lives. That's why they like working in Holland, Denmark and Germany. These countries have the most liberal rules and these kinds of people (people like you) are controlled and kept at bay, and away from the prostitutes, unable to cause them harm. In these countries they have workers rights, have access to social support on their terms, and so on.

Calling you out on your bullshit, isn't being defensive. You are talking shit, and I'm slapping it down.

edit:

This might interest you

http://redtrasex.org/Sex-Work-and-Human-Rights

or this. This is the Sex workers unions web page and their resource site, full of information and studies provided by the sex workers themselves. Perhaps you might be interested in hearing what they have to say? Yes? No? Are you about to come up with a bullshit excuse to not listen to what they're saying they need? Do you think they need your paternal and condescending "love" and "compassion"?

http://www.rosealliance.se/en/resources/

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Calm the fuck down and actually read my posts.

 

[Toni]

And I think you are a terrible person. A moralistic dick who is trying to find reasons to look down on prostitutes.

You could not be more wrong. Try re-reading what I posted without the defensiveness (and the additional post above regarding the ancillary problems of legalization, such as increased trafficking to fill demand) and understand, once again, that I have nothing against your anecdotes or prostitutes.

The fact that you think you are a good person makes your evil only worse. There's few things more dangerous than an evil people convinced they're good. The road to hell IS paved with good intentions. It's people like you that prostitutes hates the most. For good reason. It's deserved. The dumb, deaf and blind knights of "goodness" continually bring them the most grief and problems in their lives. That's why they like working in Holland, Denmark and Germany. These countries have the most liberal rules and these kinds of people (people like you) are controlled and kept at bay, and away from the prostitutes, unable to cause them harm. In these countries they have workers rights, have access to social support on their terms, and so on.

Calling you out on your bullshit, isn't being defensive. You are talking shit, and I'm slapping it down.

I think that Koy makes some good points.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

This is a particularly disturbing case study published by the AMA that goes to the heart of the problem with consent/trafficking: Human Trafficking, Mental Illness, and Addiction: Avoiding Diagnostic Overshadowing.

Snippet:

Abstract

This article reviews an emergency department-based clinical vignette of a trafficked patient with co-occurring pregnancy-related, mental health, and substance use disorder issues. The authors, including a survivor of human trafficking, draw on their backgrounds in addiction care, human trafficking, emergency medicine, and psychiatry to review the literature on relevant general health and mental health consequences of trafficking and propose an approach to the clinical complexities this case presents. In their discussion, the authors explicate the deleterious role of implicit bias and diagnostic overshadowing in trafficked patients with co-occurring addiction and mental illness. Finally, the authors propose a trauma-informed, multidisciplinary response to potentially trafficked patients.

Case

Dr. Shah, an emergency department (ED) resident in New York City, entered the room of a young pregnant patient who was bleeding and visibly frightened. The patient, who only spoke Spanish, was accompanied by her brother, who translated. He explained that the patient suffered from schizophrenia and had been refusing her medications for the last couple of weeks. He added that she’d had a few episodes of aggressive behavior, directed at others and herself. While the patient’s brother was talking, Dr. Shah noticed a few bruises and puncture marks with associated ecchymosis (subcutaneous bleeding similar to a bruise) on the patient’s arm. The brother saw that Dr. Shah had noticed these marks and explained that the patient sells herself for drugs.

Dr. Shah began to suspect that the patient’s brother might not be trustworthy, so she requested a certified clinical interpreter. Through the interpreter, the patient conveyed that she was miscarrying and asserted that she does not have schizophrenia, although she admitted feeling depressed sometimes. The patient’s tone became increasingly desperate and she explained, through the interpreter, that the man claiming to be her brother was holding her captive. She stated she was brought to the US as his fiancée, and, upon arrival, he confiscated her passport, forced her to have sex with him, and introduced her to drugs.

At this point, the man explained that his sister had long had delusions of persecution. He also disclosed that she had required temporary restraints the day before after threatening family members while she was high. He suggested that perhaps this episode had fueled the current delusion.

Dr. Shah had recently read about a case in which a 14-year-old girl had been to the emergency department for treatment and had told the staff she was being sex trafficked. The man accompanying the girl had also claimed she had schizophrenia. The clinicians believed the man and discharged the girl to his care; he was later found to be trafficking girls into commercial sex. The girl was not rescued until police found her bound in a closet during a drug raid weeks later.

Dr. Shah wondered what to do.

Commentary

The clinical scenario described above might seem far-fetched or extreme. However, Dr. Shah’s dilemma mirrors many human trafficking clinical encounters in which patients present with medical, mental health, and substance use disorder needs. The health needs of this patient might very well suggest that she is being trafficked and should not be dismissed merely because the “brother” has identified the patient as having a mental illness or substance use disorder. This paper will discuss the implications of the patient’s presenting symptoms, the role of implicit bias and diagnostic overshadowing in trafficked patients with co-occurring addiction and mental illness, and the importance of providing trauma-informed care to patients who could be trafficking victims.

This goes directly to what I was talking about in regard to Zoidberg's anecdotes. How do we--the State, who is now effectively the pimp in a legalization scenario--ensure that any particular prostitute is like the ones Zoidberg hangs with, and/or are suffering from some form of coercion and how is that measured?

This is a question with or without the State taking over and could be applied to any industry, but then that's the point. We do have various screens (both physical and psychological) for various other commercial enterprises. Companies routinely give drug tests and have ethics clauses in their employment contracts and some have "background checks" and even straight up psychological evaluations before employment and periodically throughout as a condition of continued employment.

So, is that the solution? Case workers checking in and asking specially designed "are you under duress" questions? Weekly psych evaluations to see if they're still consenting this week? And what would that yield, other than the inherently problematic baggage of self-diagnosis and unjustifiable defensive flare-ups like Zoid is currently working through?

Or do we just not give a shit and collectively compartmentalize, like we do with booze and guns? Caveat Emptor (only in this case, it's Sex Worker Beware).

ETA: And just to be clear to all involved, as I see it there are no actual sides here; there is a room with 100 people in it and a whole bunch of Venn diagrams. Or, rather, one big one. And in one circle, there's a percentage of the room who are firmly, 100% I'm doing this totally without coercion and of my own free will and I've never done drugs or been abused and this has all been verified, I'm friends with Zoidberg and then there other percentages in that room that are in a whole host of different circles, with a whole host of different problems that aren't so simple or straightforward.

Just like life in general and for all time. So while 70 of the 100 may be over in Zoid's yurt, what about the 30 that aren't? Or ten? Or 5?

The question isn't necessarily about the 70, so bringing them up is a part of it, of course, but it's not the whole of it.

How do we--as their new pimps--sort any of this? Do we sort any of this? What are the methods? Do they work? It's a dynamic, not a static, so is this just like any other potentially dangerous job? OSHA? Hard hats? On-call PTSD therapist?

Again, all considerations whether or not we legalize, but will legalization help to address them or make them exponentially worse?

It's endlessly ironic that the sex worker "side" has said for decades that their profession has been hypocritically shamed and shunted for centuries and pushed into the shadows and now when we want to push it into the light and seriously examine it, we're being shamed and shunted by its proponent, at least, for wanting to take a serious look.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Calm the fuck down and actually read my posts.

What makes you think that I didn't?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

I get the argument but I don't buy it. Legalizing prostitution will not change hearts and minds of the criminal justice system or the general public which seems to have a difficult time reporting, arresting, trying or convicting rapists.

So? No really, even if what you claim in the quote above is true, so what? I believe the onus should be on you to justify restricting the sex worker's freedom and your branding her and her clients criminals. So what if legalizing it doesn't do something positive? It does, but so what if it didn't? Isn't the freedom itself of value? Why shouldn't the woman have the right to choose for herself?

And in regard to increased "trafficking", you need to better define what you mean by "trafficking" that you object to so much that you think it justifies taking away the freedom mentioned above. If trafficking simply means people moving of their own free will to work in the sex trade, is that objectionable? Or are you only objecting to sex slavery? If the latter, then are you certain the studies you point to are measuring just sex slavery as "trafficking"?

I don’t see it as freedom.

Sex slavery isn't freedom. Criminalizing prostitution generally isn't freedom. Her having the choice of to do sex work or not is freedom. Who exactly do you think you are to paternally declare what she may and may not do with her own body? To cut off a potential stream of income? That's not feminism. That's patriarchy.

And to Koy's point, yea, they wouldn't be doing this if they were not paid to. So what? Most jobs wouldn't be done if the worker wasn't paid. If you would do yours anyway then you are incredibly lucky to have a wonderful job.

And again , define "trafficking" before waving these studies around. They may not actually say what you think they do. Do you object to people moving to another place of their own free will to make money offering a service there? This has consistently been ignored each time it was raised in previous discussions on this topic.

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is a particularly disturbing case study published by the AMA that goes to the heart of the problem with consent/trafficking: Human Trafficking, Mental Illness, and Addiction: Avoiding Diagnostic Overshadowing.

Snippet:

Abstract

This article reviews an emergency department-based clinical vignette of a trafficked patient with co-occurring pregnancy-related, mental health, and substance use disorder issues. The authors, including a survivor of human trafficking, draw on their backgrounds in addiction care, human trafficking, emergency medicine, and psychiatry to review the literature on relevant general health and mental health consequences of trafficking and propose an approach to the clinical complexities this case presents. In their discussion, the authors explicate the deleterious role of implicit bias and diagnostic overshadowing in trafficked patients with co-occurring addiction and mental illness. Finally, the authors propose a trauma-informed, multidisciplinary response to potentially trafficked patients.

Case

Dr. Shah, an emergency department (ED) resident in New York City, entered the room of a young pregnant patient who was bleeding and visibly frightened. The patient, who only spoke Spanish, was accompanied by her brother, who translated. He explained that the patient suffered from schizophrenia and had been refusing her medications for the last couple of weeks. He added that she’d had a few episodes of aggressive behavior, directed at others and herself. While the patient’s brother was talking, Dr. Shah noticed a few bruises and puncture marks with associated ecchymosis (subcutaneous bleeding similar to a bruise) on the patient’s arm. The brother saw that Dr. Shah had noticed these marks and explained that the patient sells herself for drugs.

Dr. Shah began to suspect that the patient’s brother might not be trustworthy, so she requested a certified clinical interpreter. Through the interpreter, the patient conveyed that she was miscarrying and asserted that she does not have schizophrenia, although she admitted feeling depressed sometimes. The patient’s tone became increasingly desperate and she explained, through the interpreter, that the man claiming to be her brother was holding her captive. She stated she was brought to the US as his fiancée, and, upon arrival, he confiscated her passport, forced her to have sex with him, and introduced her to drugs.

At this point, the man explained that his sister had long had delusions of persecution. He also disclosed that she had required temporary restraints the day before after threatening family members while she was high. He suggested that perhaps this episode had fueled the current delusion.

Dr. Shah had recently read about a case in which a 14-year-old girl had been to the emergency department for treatment and had told the staff she was being sex trafficked. The man accompanying the girl had also claimed she had schizophrenia. The clinicians believed the man and discharged the girl to his care; he was later found to be trafficking girls into commercial sex. The girl was not rescued until police found her bound in a closet during a drug raid weeks later.

Dr. Shah wondered what to do.

Commentary

The clinical scenario described above might seem far-fetched or extreme. However, Dr. Shah’s dilemma mirrors many human trafficking clinical encounters in which patients present with medical, mental health, and substance use disorder needs. The health needs of this patient might very well suggest that she is being trafficked and should not be dismissed merely because the “brother” has identified the patient as having a mental illness or substance use disorder. This paper will discuss the implications of the patient’s presenting symptoms, the role of implicit bias and diagnostic overshadowing in trafficked patients with co-occurring addiction and mental illness, and the importance of providing trauma-informed care to patients who could be trafficking victims.

Constantly bringing up trafficking in prostitution discussions is like bringing up paedophilia every time gay rights is discussed. It's not relevant. It's disingenuous. I'm not going to engage.

I understand why it's brought up. It's because we can all agree that trafficking is wrong. Since those against prostitution have no valid arguments against it, they try to equivocate with trafficking as much as possible. And win on guilt by association. Can we all agree on that it's not the willing prostitutes themselves who are kidnapping and forcing others into prostitution? If yes, then we can stop discussing it in this thread.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Constantly bringing up trafficking in prostitution discussions is like bringing up paedophilia every time gay rights is discussed. It's not relevant. It's disingenuous. I'm not going to engage.

I understand why it's brought up. It's because we can all agree that trafficking is wrong. Since those against prostitution have no valid arguments against it, they try to equivocate with trafficking as much as possible.

Plus in most statistical analyses (as opposed to single cases, for which you can find anything you want pro or con) they use very loose definitions of "trafficking".

But your point is a good one. We don't shut down other industries because there are some wrongdoers that get involved. The garment industry uses sweatshops frequently in various countries. Your electronics and other goods from across the sea are often made in similar conditions. But we don't see stings shutting down electronics stores or clothing stores. Agriculture is another industry so tainted.

A woman who decides to make some easy money on her back, as opposed to working 40 hours at a minimum wage job, should not be branded a criminal just because somebody else who she never met is forced into sex slavery she has no connection whatsoever to.

 

[TSwizzle]

A woman who decides to make some easy money on her back, as opposed to working 40 hours at a minimum wage job, should not be branded a criminal just because somebody else who she never met is forced into sex slavery she has no connection whatsoever to.

Easy for you to say from the luxury of not being in that position.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

A woman who decides to make some easy money on her back, as opposed to working 40 hours at a minimum wage job, should not be branded a criminal just because somebody else who she never met is forced into sex slavery she has no connection whatsoever to.

Easy for you to say from the luxury of not being in that position.

Easy for them to say. You should listen. To the actual sex workers. They prefer the quick money to working a harrowing 40 hours for little pay. Charging to their rescue as a white knight is actually one of the things most of them will tell you annoys them. The paternalism is endless. And as predicted, you missed the point of that post.

[YouTube]https://youtu.be/9zDqmedFE_Q[/YouTube]

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Calm the fuck down and actually read my posts.

What makes you think that I didn't?

Almost everything you've posted since.

 

[TSwizzle]

A woman who decides to make some easy money on her back, as opposed to working 40 hours at a minimum wage job, should not be branded a criminal just because somebody else who she never met is forced into sex slavery she has no connection whatsoever to.

Easy for you to say from the luxury of not being in that position.

Easy for them to say. You should listen. To the actual sex workers. They prefer the quick money to working a harrowing 40 hours for little pay. Charging to their rescue as a white knight is actually one of the things most of them will tell you annoys them. The paternalism is endless. And as predicted, you missed the point of that post.

You choose to focus on the minority of happy sex slaves workers and ignore the abject misery of the vulnerable and exploited majority of women that operate in the domain of "sex worker". Yeah, some women are ok with earning a living doing it, but there are an awful lot who are not happy with it because they have been forced into it through circumstances or abusive people so don't point to the few and say every woman should happy with that or that somehow they are missing a fantastic opportunity to make a good and "easy" living.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You choose to focus on the minority of happy sex slaves workers

So? What I wrote was that a woman who decides (willingly) to make some easy money on her back shouldn't be branded a criminal for doing so. And she shouldn't be.

and ignore the abject misery of the vulnerable and exploited majority of women that operate in the domain of "sex worker". Yeah, some women are ok with earning a living doing it, but there are an awful lot who are not happy with it because they have been forced into it through circumstances or abusive people

And making sex work in general illegal doesn't help those women very much either. How about we stop calling them criminals too, and instead focus on broadening the social safety net with things like universal basic income, universal single payer health care, and drug addiction help?

so don't point to the few and say every woman should happy with that or that somehow they are missing a fantastic opportunity to make a good and "easy" living.

Good thing I didn't write that eh?

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

But your point is a good one. We don't shut down other industries because there are some wrongdoers that get involved.

Sure we do. We do it all the time in fact. Just look at the marijuana industry. Or any so-called "illicit" drug. Bought any thalidomide or lead paint or lawn darts lately? How's your asbestos insulation?

The garment industry uses sweatshops frequently in various countries.

Because we forbade companies from using child labor and paying their workers nothing and having no insurance and working people 15 and 16 hours a day, seven days a week, etc., etc., etc.

Your electronics and other goods from across the sea are often made in similar conditions.

That's not helping your case.

But we don't see stings shutting down electronics stores or clothing stores.

Yes, we most certainly do. At least in America. Just google "martha stewart" or "nike" or "ivanka trump" or any number of other companies that have tried to dump toxic wastes and mistreat workers and skate on health and safety inspections and regulations and on and on and on.

Agriculture is another industry so tainted.

Evidently the Union of Concerned Scientists agrees:

Today, the majority of American farmland is dominated by industrial agriculture—the system of chemically intensive food production developed in the decades after World War II, featuring enormous single-crop farms and animal production facilities.

Back then, industrial agriculture was hailed as a technological triumph that would enable a skyrocketing world population to feed itself. Today, a growing chorus of agricultural experts—including farmers as well as scientists and policymakers—sees industrial agriculture as a dead end, a mistaken application to living systems of approaches better suited for making jet fighters and refrigerators.

The impacts of industrial agriculture on the environment, public health, and rural communities make it an unsustainable way to grow our food over the long term. And better, science-based methods are available.

See what they did there?

A woman who decides to make some easy money on her back, as opposed to working 40 hours at a minimum wage job, should not be branded a criminal

Agreed.

just because somebody else who she never met is forced into sex slavery she has no connection whatsoever to.

To make that sequitur, you need to remove the "just because" part. Again, we routinely choose the protection of the minority over the desires of the majority.

That 70 people in a room don't get to eat peanuts because there are 30 other people in that room who would die as a result takes precedence.

Not sure if you were around (or on what board) when they banned cigarettes in NY, but I was livid (and a smoker). There was no way you could justify taking something away from me; it was my body to harm as I pleased; etc., etc., etc.

And I still believe that. But now that I don't smoke and because I'm human, I look back on that idiot younger self with puffed wheezing chest dogmatically demanding justice for being so wronged and I just want to smack his smug little arrogant face. Zoid, join in! It will do you good.

When you're dealing with an organizing principle such as "society" or "civilization" the answer can't always be "do whatever the fuck you want to do." That's merely the antithesis of an organizing principle and some buy into that, but that's just intellectual cowardice (or, worse, delusions of grandeur).

We collectively make this shit up and we collectively can work shit out. Most of our shit, in fact, is worked out, it's just the execution that often trips everything up.

But then there is also shit that can't be worked out and/or ignored because it's too non-binary. This is a non-binary, which typically (ironically) makes it binary; i.e, we either say fuck it to a non-binary problem, let it ride or we impose social power to shut it down preemptively. They are equally problematic.

So, being in either camp should not be driving the debate.

 

[TSwizzle]

And making sex work in general illegal doesn't help those women very much either. How about we stop calling them criminals too

Good thing I didn't write that eh ?

Jog on.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yes, we most certainly do. At least in America. Just google "martha stewart" or "nike" or "ivanka trump" or any number of other companies that have tried to dump toxic wastes and mistreat workers and skate on health and safety inspections and regulations and on and on and on.

These are crackdowns on abusive activity within the industries, not renderings of the whole industries illegal. If shoes are made in a sweatshop, that sweatshop gets shut down (hopefully). It doesn't mean another unconnected factory making shoes should be branded as criminal.

And making all sex work illegal doesn't rescue sex slaves in the way that not having peanuts in a room saves those allergic to peanuts from their allergic reaction. Flawed analogy.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Calm the fuck down and actually read my posts.

What makes you think that I didn't?

Almost everything you've posted since.

I see through your thinly veiled attempts at trying to come across as a good person. But you're not. That's the problem here.