The Sex Industry and the Government

[nick1181]

Nick,

I generally support harm reduction approaches. But I've not seen anyone advocating a harm reduction approach on prostitution who tries to analyze the harm to people's existing relationships (especially married people with kids) if prostitution becomes legally available without fear of prosecution for soliciting.

That is not the business of the state in any case - people's relationships are their own business.

That said, there hasn't been a noticeable increase in divorce rates etc in places where prostitution has been legalised so it can probably be safely ignored. It's a non-issue.

It's not particularly Puritan to suggest that it might not be wise to set up society so that it is easy and legal to do something that destabilizes families, increases the prevalence of sexually transmitted diseases, and promotes violence against women.

It is particularly puritan to suggest that these ill-effects neccesarily have a direct causal relationship with prostitution.

Do you have any figures on these? Was there a sharp increase in destabalized families, stds, and violence in ANY of the countries that have legalised prostitution?

I think you'll find that it's the illegality that's causing the problem.

 

[Jessiedog]

Paying people to perform sex acts is sexual abuse.

Complete and utter bollocks!



Woof

 

[nick1181]

Yea - I thought that was bollocks as well. About as useful as the "all men are rapists" crap that staunch feminists used to come out with in the 80s.

It may make for a snappy soundbite but it's a conceptual frame that a) misrepresents reality and b) only allows "solutions" that increase the harm and danger to both prostitutes and clients alike. File next to "faith based contraception".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Nothing can be implemented "fully". A ban on speeding doesn't eliminate speeding. A ban on murder doesn't eliminate murder. But it does dissuade many people from doing these things, or doing them as much as they might do otherwise.

The idea of a ban is to curtail and eventually prevent. If you don't "police" it properly that function won't be achieved.

I'd imagine most clients of prostitutes are not entirely reckless people with nothing to lose. They have jobs, families and a reputation. A ban would discourage many of these people from using prostitutes most of the time. It would diminish the industry significantly. If that's what you're trying to achieve, that would be a success.

A key point here is the loss of reputation. Using prostitutes is broadly socially unacceptable. (By which I mean, very few people that do it would admit to it.) Contrast this, for example, with the use of drugs, particularly "soft" drugs. An arrest or conviction for possession of cannabis wouldn't hurt many people's reputation significantly, if at all. In many cases, it would enhance it. Not so prostitution. I believe the threat of exposure were it to be criminalised would be a sufficient deterrent for many.

Many local press nowadays publish information (names, pictures) about kerb-crawlers but strangely enough we don't see much (if any) diminution of the number of prostitutes and kerb-crawlers. You're relying on shame being a more active deterrent than it actually is.
What you suggest might be (and possibly is) effective against "casual" users of prostitutes, but the data on prostitute usage shows clearly (as do the Ipswich murders) that much purchase of sex is habitual rather than casual, with prostitutes having "regular" clientele to a greater degree than they have "casual" clientele.

If everyone shared your morality I'm sure your ideas would be effective. However, they don't, and no action against prostitution that I've ever read up on has done anything more than relocate the issue. It's time we stop wasting money on punitive action that doesn't work, and designed a system which treats prostitution as an unfortunately necessary social function, and mediates tthe "relationship" between client and service provider in a manner that assures the safety of both parties.

 

[zion]

Not all adult human relationships are purely a private matter.

The State bans, among other things, voluntary sexual slavery, voluntary incest and voluntary polygamy. You may feel that it shouldn't ban these things, but if so, then you're the one proposing the innovation, and therefore the one who has to make the case for change.

On the matter of whether legalized prostitution can be linked to destabilized relationships (by which I mainly mean rates of marriage and divorce), I know enough about statistics to know that a causative link for two such broadly-based social phenomena would be extremely difficult to establish. People divorcing or not marrying do not generally have to cite reasons, which means that the data to demonstrate the presence or absence of such a causative link simply do not exist. I could fairly easily present data on marriage rates, divorce rates and prostitution rates in various countries, but that would only demonstrate correlation at best, and there would be so many possible other cultural and social factors at work that even presenting correlations would be misleading. A high or low rate of divorce or marriage in a country that has legalized prostitution is not of itself evidence of causation either way. (Sorry: I'm married to a social scientist).

What I am saying is that we should not rule out on first principles analyzing whether there has been the effects that I am hypothesizing, because it is not inherently unreasonable to suggest that there are such effects. Effects that are inherently unreasonable to hypothesize are effects that run counter to people's perceptions of their own self-interest.

So, for example, it is fairly reasonable to hypothesize that, for a certain portion of the population, the easy availability of prostitution would render pursuing a non-prostitution relationship less attractive. The fact that prostitution is illegal certainly makes it more abusive than it would otherwise be, and makes the rate of STDs higher within that population than it would otherwise be; but I don't feel safe in assuming that the aggregate amount of abuse and STDs would fall if prostitution were made legal. What makes you think that it would?

 

[brasicritique]

would there be a need to legalise prositution if some drugs were decriminalised or made free by the state? The poor women that were mudered in ipswitch were on the streets to pay for their habit.

 

[untethered]

would there be a need to legalise prositution if some drugs were decriminalised or made free by the state? The poor women that were mudered in ipswitch were on the streets to pay for their habit.

I read a report today about a woman who worked as a street prostitute for a year before she got involved and subsequently addicted to drugs.

I think it's at least as likely that some prostitutes use drugs to cope with their prostitution and otherwise chaotic lives as it is that they see prostitution as the only way they can pay for their pre-existing habits.

Frankly, both are nasty and the state has no business legitimising any of it.

 

[brasicritique]

The conscience of U75 takes the head in the sand approach.

 

[Gmart]

Not all adult human relationships are purely a private matter.

I don't feel safe in assuming that the aggregate amount of abuse and STDs would fall if prostitution were made legal. What makes you think that it would?

On the first point I think it is if there is no victim.

On the second, that is like arguing that the legalisation of drugs would not improve the quality of the product!! If the trade was taken out of the Black Economy, then a system of checks for STD's could be implemented and would inevitably help.

Whatever the arguments, the primary consideration of a government as I have said before is the SAFETY of the population and it is thus obvious that the Black Economy is NOT safe for the workers. Thus the government should stop moralising and ensure this BEFORE doing anything else. It is CRIMINAL that it allows the current situation to persist!!

 

[untethered]

The conscience of U75 takes the head in the sand approach.

Hardly - I think the state should make a concerted effort to tackle these problems, rather than its current half-hearted approach both on drugs and prostitution.

 

[brasicritique]

What do you have in mind?

 

[Jonti]

... Frankly, both are nasty and the state has no business legitimising any of it.

Things are legal unless made illegal. And the state has no business making prostitution "illegal".

How does making either prostitution or drug-use illegal help to manage the difficulties that these ancient customs cause? I'd have thought it's pretty obvious that your kind of holier than thou approach just makes things more difficult all round. But perhaps you like to sinners to suffer, eh?

 

[untethered]

What do you have in mind?

I have discussed this in numerous posts on this and other threads, but the general theme is to outlaw every aspect of these activities and allow the police to make pragmatic and flexible decisions about how best to enforce those laws according to local circumstances and resources.

 

[Louloubelle]

oops

voted for legalisation

should have been decriminalisation

I belive that people should have choice but that includes not being forced into sex work by pimps, poverty or drugs

 

[brasicritique]

I belive that people should have choice but that includes not being forced into sex work by pimps, poverty or drugs

Post

 

[untethered]

How does making either prostitution or drug-use illegal help to manage the difficulties that these ancient customs cause? I'd have thought it's pretty obvious that your kind of holier than thou approach just makes things more difficult all round. But perhaps you like to sinners to suffer, eh?

It helps by diminishing them. Less people participating in drugs and prostitution means less harm caused by them. You do seem to accept that harm is caused, so if (and it is "if", yes) it can be diminished then that surely is the place to start.

But perhaps you like to sinners to suffer, eh?

It's very kind of you to assume that I have punitive intentions, but acutally I'd like people to stop prostituting themselves/buying prostitutes and to stop buying, selling and using drugs. Should they do so, not only would they not continue to suffer, but nor would anyone else on account of their activities.

 

[Jonti]

It helps by diminishing them.

Evidence, please.

Oh, and I do not care what *you* think. I care about facts.

 

[untethered]

Evidence, please.

I imagine it'd have to be tried first. I'm arguing that the aim is desirable and the means are available, not that it would necessarily be an unqualified success.

 

[Jonti]

... acutally I'd like people to stop prostituting themselves/buying prostitutes and to stop buying, selling and using drugs.

Well, bully for you. But so what?

Do you think it possible that there may be posters here who, while generally disapproving of your hideous morality, would actually agree with you on that particular point?

 

[Jonti]

I imagine it'd have to be tried first. I'm arguing that the aim is desirable and the means are available, not that it would necessarily be an unqualified success.

Ah, so you have no evidence to back up the beliefs that underpin your position?

 

[untethered]

Well, bully for you. But so what?

Do you think it possible that there may be posters here who, while generally disapproving of your hideous morality, would actually agree with you on that particular point?

Of course there are. There are also some that see them as not-necessarily-bad.

For those that see them as generally bad or always bad, the question is how best to tackle the problem. Reduce its incidence or reduce its effects?

 

[untethered]

Ah, so you have no evidence to back up the beliefs that underpin your position?

Why do you expect me to offer evidence of the efficacy of a measure that hasn't been tried yet?

 

[Jonti]

If you want to mess with other people's lives, it would be only decent to get a clue first you know.

 

[untethered]

If you want to mess with other people's lives, it would be only decent to get a clue first you know.

If by "get a clue first" you mean "be able to prove the efficacy of an untested measure" I can only assume you're a stranger to logic.

 

[Jonti]

Of course there are. There are also some that see them as not-necessarily-bad.

For those that see them as generally bad or always bad, the question is how best to tackle the problem. Reduce its incidence or reduce its effects?

So it has to one or the other?

Look, I think religion is deeply offensive and harmful. The way you argue convinces me of it. But that does not mean I want to use repressive state measures against you and your religion, not at all.

I have a conscience, you see.

 

[untethered]

So it has to one or the other?

Not necessarily, but if something is harmful it makes sense to attempt to reduce/eliminate it as well as just trying to mitigate its harmful effects.

Look, I think religion is deeply offensive and harmful. The way you argue convinces me of it. But that does not mean I want to use repressive state measures against you and your religion, not at all.

Where have I argued this from a religious perspective? Please quote it on your next post.

I'm glad you don't want to use repressive state measures against "me and my religion" because you don't know what my religion is, or indeed, if I even have one.

I have a conscience, you see.

An ability to read and understand rather than jump to conclusions would get you further in this particular context.

 

[Jonti]

You think a *lack* of understanding of your position lies behind my revulsion for the morality you have expressed? And then you insinuate I can neither read nor understand what you write. The hermetically sealed "religious" mind at its most blatant

I'm right about the religion thing aren't I? Charlotte's parents have acted very badly, largely because of their religion. It's my contention you share similar irrational views, that's all.

Will you deny it?

 

[untethered]

By claiming you are "the conscience" you are implying something about the other people here.

I seem to remember saying something about irony on another thread in respect to this. I'm sure you remember it, because it was in response to a question from you.

I'm right about the religion thing aren't I? Charlotte's parents have acted very badly, largely because of their religion. It's my contention you share similar irrational views, that's all.

Will you deny it?

Yes.

 

[Jonti]

Like I've said, you've claimed a lack of understanding of your position lies behind my revulsion for the morality you have expressed. And you've insinuated I can neither read nor understand what you write.

You may not understand this, and I will take your word for it that you do not, but that kind of thinking does exemplify the hermetically sealed "religious" mind at its most blatant.

There's a lot of it about these days!

 

[untethered]

Like I've said, you've claimed a lack of understanding of your position lies behind my revulsion for the morality you have expressed. And you've insinuated I can neither read nor understand what you write.

You said that I had argued from a religious perspective. I asked you to provide a quote from me that demonstrates that I was.

Given that you have declined to do so seems to indicate that your understanding of what I wrote was deficient.

You may not understand this, and I will take your word for it that you do not, but that kind of thinking does exemplify the hermetically sealed "religious" mind at its most blatant.

I don't think expecting people to back up factual assertions with evidence is exclusive to "religious" people. By your logic, it would be less prevalent among them.

There's a lot of it about these days!

Always has been, always will be. We'd better get used to it.