I don't know what the best answer is about prostitution itself.  I'm very much on the fence whether or not it should be legal.

I would like to see harsher laws towards pimps and those involved in human trafficking.

If it is made illegal, I think those paying for the service should be penalized more than those providing it.

Oh, by the way, I have no firm answer of my own. I lean to decriminalization of the actual trade but, as chemgal suggests, criminalizing things like human trafficking/pimping that are harmful aspects of it. The problem is how to legalize and still ensure you can protect the prostitutes (it's not just women) adequately.

Mendalla

reduce poverty....?

That would be a good start. Indeed, most of the measures that would help reduce homelessness (reduced poverty, better social housing, improved mental health services, treating addictions rather than prosecuting addicts, etc.) would also help women in the sex trade, at least the street prostitutes.

Mendalla

Pimps and traffickers need to be targetted. I see no real value to targetting eitger prostitutes or their clients, neither of whom are really criminals.

If they are buying it from trafficked women, it is a little different from an indepedent 'call girl' who makes informed choices. I don't like any of it... Prostitution is not a career choice I believe in- but, the lesser of the evils would be the informed sex workers doing it by 'choice'- the safer, the better. There should be some deterrent for the 'buyers' of sex on the streets- to keep the nasty pimps who coerse and smuggle vulnerable women, out of business. I don't think most prostitutes 'choose' to go into it-not even the call girls- those who recently won the federal case- it's a choice for them at this point in their lives, I suppose, but I don't believe most women choose to be prostitutes. Therefore, I think the johns are perpetuating the problem- keeping those women vulnerable by keeping them on the streets, as well as supporting the pimps to continue their 'business'. The demand creates the supply, so to speak. Most people wouldn't buy stolen goods from a back alley gangster- if they did so knowingly that would be criminal- but stolen people are okay to pay, to use their bodies? No.

I lived in The Netherlands for half a year. The sex street was near my office. It was a street of cheap row houses; but many had big, shop windows. In each window was a scantily dressed prostitute.

However, I also heard that the prostitutes are still controlled by pimps, and controlled by violence. So that doesn't sound useful.

I see no point in prosecuting the hookers. That does not ever seem to be successful, anyway.

I have no doubt that pimps should be prosecuted.  I met a few when I was doing prison work. They were extremely violent and dangerous. I would also prosecute Johns.

So, on balance, I would favour the Swedish model - though I know little about its effectiveness.

I am not convinced that reducing poverty would do much. I taught girls of 12 and 13 who had already drifted into prostitution. And they weren't poor.

Kinda like this, but regulate it, tax it, and bring it out of the shadows.

I think it's insane that sex for money is somehow illegal, unless it is videotaped and sold.

So, yeah, bring it out of the shadows- make it safer because men want what they want and there will be women who provide it and shouldn't be harmed. But there'll always be a shadowy side to it- because it's gross to buy people's bodies for sex and men are ultimately the gears behind that business (reminded of my friend's former stripping job and her talking about how their boss, at a staff meeting, was discussing the pros and cons of dry humping the customers, and how much 'shaving' is required by the dancing staff)- any way you look at it- the sex business is gross. Reinforcing objectification vs. personhood. And those women will always be at greater risk for exploitation by their clientele- even if it's regulated. The work hazards are numerous. But, yes, since it's not going away, reduce the harm.

If the woman chooses her own clientele and charges them money-Putting her in control of who she has sexual relations with- it's perhaps not as bad. If she has to service every Tom, Dick and Harry who comes through the door because her boss says so- like it's a restaurant and they're not even waitstaff, they're the menu- then I have a problem with it.

We don't make things illegal because they are "gross", and we don't make them illegal on the basis that the worst examples are exploitive. You could say the same about many industries, like farm workers or domestic help.

And again, I maintain that making the production of porn legal, while making sex for money without a camera present illegal, is insane. I think the presense of a cameraman should not magically make it legal.

When I say gross in this instance I mean exploitative. Washing dishes can be gross. Heart surgery is gross. It's not exploitative. They're necessary. There are few instances I can think of where prostitution is 'necessary' and worth the risk assumed to women and society.

It's all exploitative. In a brothel, maybe the house madam or boss would be listening in, keeping an eye out, or a bouncer would be at the door making sure no one gets hurt- actually, hopefully someone would be looking out for the staff- so, that's not private.

You're right - the word is "exploitative".

Still, the act of sex for money is not automatically exploitative. Other things have to be present. Make it legal and regulate it, and it could be argued that the exploitative aspect of the industry could be minimized. You can't guarantee no exploitation in any industry, but you could have less exploitation if it were legal, compared to keeping it illegal.

I suppose you're right. I wish there weren't men who think of women as simply objects, commodities for sale- but there are. So, let's keep them safe.

If I had to have sex with some stranger I found unattractive in every way- repulsive- and I'm sure that happens for lots of prostitutes, there's just no chemistry or even friendly vibe whatsoever- for money, and risk losing my job if I didn't. Let's just say, there's no way in hell I'd do that. That would be traumatic (and why so many get addicted to drugs to numb out). My body is my body. And the regulation of the industry would treat it like any other job where you could get fired for insubordination. I think it was Germany, where brothels were putting up job postings in employment offices. If people didn't accept available jobs they could do, they'd be cut off welfare. I think they fixed that problem with regard to brothels- but you see the grey area it gets into.

They should definately have the right to refuse work when necessary and not lose their job- if it comes to that. Worker's comp manuals are going to get interesting.

It's not about whether someone gives them cash that I find 'gross'. It's that they're objects, commodities and nothing more. It's dehumanizing. The money doesn't differentiate it much from slavery. A guy could give his girlfriend gold jewelry that cost him a lot of money, hoping to get her into bed- kind of scummy alterior motive, but not prostitution. Hopefully, he ultimately chooses to give it to her because he likes her. She chooses to date him based some sort of mutual attraction- they both choose to be with each other or not. She isn't required to perform a service for that gift, it doesn't come with a guarantee (and if he thinks so, that should be their last date). It's about being 'owned' or at the very least 'rented' that makes it exploitative.

Hi chansen,

That seems the standard way of treating legitimate exchanges of goods and service.

Agreed.  Put it in a plastic bag on a shelf so high and it is legitimate.  Transmit it electronically over the internet and it is legitimate.  Let it stand on a corner and it isn't.  If it isn't insane it is bizarrely inconsistent.

Whether we approve of the activity or not it doesn't mean anybody should have to suffer because of it.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I agree nobody should have to suffer. I never said they should. Well, johns maybe, depending on the circumstances, should be deterred in some way- but not suffer greatly. Just pointing out that the suffering is complex, and even if it's legitimate they could still suffer- especially the sex workers. If there were a two pronged approach- legitimizing it while educating prostitutes and their clients about the dangers and the alternatives- that would be better. Slowly, take away the reason for wanting it to be available. Social attitudes about women and about how we treat sex play a big part. They've automated everyone else's jobs- so, heck, bring high tech sex dolls into brothels! I mean- if I have to go through a self check out at the grocery store because there are fewer cashiers- why not make 'johns' go through their own 'automated service'? No harm done to anyone, that way. And if they expect a woman with no thoughts or feelings or objections to service them- that's a perfect solution. Just put some tokens into the 'machine' and do their thing. They've paid their money for her service. And if anyone finds that objectionable- just think, that's how they're treating real people- so what makes an automated service, sex with a realistic robot, more objectionable or weird?

I think I just solved it.

So, here's what I would do: tax the crap out of brothels, impose fines on johns for buying sex on the street- at a higher rate than parking tickets or transit fines (it's $173 fine here for being in a transit zone without a pass) - going up with every subsequent offense. Shut down the street pimps- fine them and charge them for non-compliance. Put all the money into really, really good employment and education programs and incentives for employers to hire entry level staff at liveable wages- bring back more cashiers and bank tellers, and begin to phase out prostitutes from the legalized brothels and replace them with automated high tech sex dolls. Solved.

I'd be afraid if we normalize this, then having casual sex with people who have hundreds of sexual partners will take away the gift of sex.

It's already like that anyway for the people who buy it legal or not, and the prostitutes who have to numb themselves to sell it.

Hi Kimmio,

Nor has anybody suggested that you did.

If they are puchasing a legal product, in much the same way one might by cigarettes or alcohol why should they be made to suffer at all?

Smokers are shamed six ways from Sunday whether they buy tobacco legally or contraband.

Drinkers are ignored unless they get behind the wheel of an automotive regardless of whether they have purchased alcohol from a licensed vendor or bootleg.

If it is not illegal to sell sex why would it be illegal to buy it?

Granted there would be a difference between willing and unwilling participants but isn't that why we would be going after traffickers and pimps?  To weed out the involuntary sex-trade workers?

If anybody is suffering then the legitimacy needs to be questioned.

Well, not to be too crude the self-service option has existed as long as folk have had hands.  If it was something more than a stop gap option the oldest profession in the world would never have come into being.

I don't think the emotional distance is part of the allure.  I could be wrong about that though.  Still, if it was there is no better way to keep out of emotional entanglement than to service one's self.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Yes, but the technology's getting better and more realistic. I watched a documentary- there are trade shows for these things. Bring the prosthetics and high tech industry together, could be a lucrative industry for those interested. Yes, I think it's weird, but if it saves lives...

Yes, self service is the better option. It doesn't have to cost anything- but my guess is they'll buy it if it's more interesting and simulates human to human physical interaction. Or else, they'd buy a real human- as is happening.

Ever watched the movie Lars and the Real Girl with Ryan Gosling? Good movie, actually.

I did say that those who buy it should be deterred. So, I suppose that's suffering.

Like other I have no idea what should be done about this.

But I did want to point out that some people (not all "johns" are men) purchase sex for what you might think of as good reasons.

Not all are slimy men or married men or whatever.

I have heard of handicapped people purchasing sex, bereaved people, ill people, ......

Ii am not sure how you could control who the prostitutes are. Everyone agrees that forcing women into the trade is terrible. But how would you determine that?

In a way, I think that established brothels! with licenses! just like liquor licenses might work. The brothel would need to produce the health certificates, age of majority cards..... For all staff. Frequent inspections.

They could specialize. Gay sex, heterosexual, threesomes, .s&m .....

I would love a wonderful world where everyone has a caring loving sexual partner. Sadly that is never going to happen.

I think emotional distance is a factor in most cases- and if it's not- I think most prostitutes would prefer that it is so they don't have to deal with jealous clients or stalking.

Lastpointe- what about my example of Germany where people were cut off welfare for not accepting sex jobs? What about refusing to have sex with someone they're repulsed by, just get a really bad vibe from, and getting fired? What about the emotional trauma?

Hi Rev John,

Women, people, are not material goods like tobacco and booze, though. Tobacco and booze have no thoughts and feelings of their own. They don't care how much one consumes of them. Having sex is not shameful. Purchasing the most intimate aspect of another human being though, touching them, invading their person on that intimate level, because it's paid for- is inappropriate- sex for money is not a two way street- it's a one and a half way street, if that. It's not an equal exchange.

If we're going to get real here- about self service- well, I'll try not to be crude, but women do it too. And i think in most but not all cases there's a difference in how men and women think and what they need sexually. We watched an amusing movie called "Hysteria" with Maggie Gyllenhaal and Hugh Dancy,
based on a true story about the invention of the vibrator. It was a romantic comedy set in the late 1800's/ early 1900's England. The subject matter came as a surprise- pardon the accidental pun, lol (ok maybe that was slightly crude)- it is actually a funny movie. Doctors used to manually stimulate women to rid them of 'hysteria', in their offices- the story was about these doctors- and so someone invented a device that was more efficient for the doctors so they wouldn't get hand cramps, and because so many women were lining up for this effective treatment, they needed to see more patients, faster- lol, I'm not kidding- and eventually it evolved into a machine women could use at home- seriously!

Over the years that machine evolved. And there is a vibrator museum in San Francisco. But, women are not the biggest purchasers of prostitution, of actual sex. I think for men, in most cases, it's less about emotional interaction with her. He doesn't know the prostitute and he has no intention of being her lover- she's a masturbation tool (sorry, crude but true) and men are generally more visually dependent to be aroused. Maybe we rely on our imaginations along with physical stimulation, better, (with a bit of TLC)- and men rely on visuals and stimulation (again generalizing and it doesn't apply to all men and women but I think there's truth to it due to physiological differences- biology and chemistry and physical differences- do make a difference with regard to instinctive wants and needs). Sorry, do not mean to be crude, just realistic. And therefore, high tech sex dolls might be a good solution for those men.

Hi Kimmio,

Apart from the ability to decide about participation in the transaction what is different though?

Tobacco is a legal product.  I don't think anybody operates under the assumption that it is benign.

Alcohol is a legal product.  So long as it is consumed responsibly nobody gets hurt by it.

If a woman rents use of her body to another and that other does not abuse the privilege what is the harm done?

While I recognize that there is a moral argument in play I think that society is beginning to realize that not every woman involved in the sex trade is there involuntarily.  Without a doubt there are women who participate under duress of some kind and those women need help getting out.

The reasons why women participate may be as diverse as the reasons men participate.

Well yes and no.  Society is all over the map on whether it ought to be or ought not to be.

I don't know that this presumption holds water at this juncture.  Sex has been commodified for centuries and all attempts to put that genie back in the bottle have been as successful as any prohibition.

And if we cannot put the genie back in the bottle we can at the very least set the genie free.  For years prostitution has been legal.  Governments attempted to build legal walls around that by making it illegal to offer sex for money or offering money for sex and nobody has been allowed to sell sex for profit.  Unless of course it is by photograph or other form of media.

The laws are bizarrely inconsistent and that is why the Supreme court struck them down.

Government has to come up with consistent legislation.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Yes, it's her body to do what she wants with. When she rents it, it is his body to do what he wants with. Psychologically, there becomes an imbalance of power, a subjugation- and not one based on mutual respect and understanding, but because of finances. I cannot believe people don't understand the harm in this...Harrm that is more deeply personal and not just like any other 'service'.

Anyway, it is still ultimately her choice to make and society's duty to keep her (or him) as safe as possible. But it is a slippery slope because of what often a person has to do to be okay with themselves and selling their bodies to strangers, to make it feel less personal- A lot of them numb out the emotional pain with drugs- the emotional pain of what they're doing, and of what got them there to begin with.

The oldest profession bs doesn't really wash with me. Maybe if people, particularly men because the male libido has been the driver behind the profession for thousands of years, understood thousands of years ago it wouldn't have to be. And maybe they can learn now and we can eventually phase it out. People have managed to see the injustice in racism, in slavery, in sexual inequality, in other human rights abuses- but this deeply entrenched form of subtle but steady abuse hasn't been recognized as such yet- or there's a force at work trying to justify it instead, make it seem like not an abuse- and I blame the power of the male libido. Not the female libido- she (it's usually she) is only going through the motions to earn a living- again, often getting 'help' from drugs in order to be able to get through her 'shift'. Call that sexist but I believe it's honest seeing as that's who'd ultimately be most disappointed to see the profession go, or somehow made less objectionable for their own sakes, enabling it to continue (which is the best we can do for now, harm reduction- I think it's a compromise for now, but not a full solution).

Hi Kimmio,

Within reason of course.  When I rent a car it is not mine to do with as I please.  If I enter a demolition derby with it and ruin it I will face penalties.  And yet, if I use it within the bounds of the agreement there will be no problems between the owner of the vehicle and myself.

I think that there are imbalances of power.  I am not confident that they are all one way.  Because it is a human relationship (of a sort) it will likely be somewhat different with every partnership because each partner brings their own stuff into the mix.

I personally do not think that the sex-trade is consequence free.  Even when all parties are consenting.  The question is whether the cost is sustainable.  If, for example, I am another general labourer there is wear and tear upon my body and the harder I work the more damage I may sustain.

I have worked in agriculture and I have worked for a moving company.  There is a pace to each which is not indefinitely sustainable.  There was some emotional strain (moreso on the farm where to some degree a family's livelihood was in my immediate hands) it repaired itself after a night's sleep.

So long as it is legal yes.

And general labourers have also been known to numb physical pain with alcohol or drugs.

It really is a chicken and egg thing anyway.  Since it generally is not a credit business somebody had to be working at something else in order to pay whatever the first fee for service was set at.

Itches get scratched.  Somebody agreed upon an I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine arrangement.  If there was no exchange of goods it would be rape.

I may not scratch my itches that way.  It doesn't mean I never get itchy.

Well it is primarily males who suffer most from that itchiness yet not males alone.

I suspect that it while men would probably form the largest percentage of those disappointed by the elimination of these services it is not true that entreprenurial women have taken advantage of that itch.

I do suspect that women are more front and centre in providing these services now than they have in years past.

We can blame the male libido but we cannot pretend that women don't take advantage of it when it suits their needs.  

Grace and peace to you.

John

Before anyone jumps on me for blaming the male libido- consider that women are not big purchasers of prostitution- on the whole it is predominantly men- and single, widowed, lonely, or sexually frustrated women have found other ways to cope that didn't involve purchasing the intimate use of someone else's flesh. Hence, the vibrator museum. Just saying...get over it, guys.

Too late...you did it already. You addressed it anyway. Yes, women have taken advantage of it- what's a woman who's been treated like an object most of her life to the point that she's internalized it- and is poor and without other skills gonna do to 'get ahead' in the world, a world that tells her she's a nobody without either a guy telling her she's somebody if she meets his standards as an object, or enough money to delude her into thinking she can buy her peace of mind? That everything can be bought with money- including her.

Once again, I'm in complete agreement with lastpointe on this one. She has succintly  expressed pretty much exactly what my opinion would be.

This is not general labour! Geez!

I'm not because of the dangers of exploitation from labour standards expectations.

What other workplace could a guy get away with talking dirty and making sexual innuendos to someone, and touching her privates, without recourse- in fact, have it be a normal part of the job, a requirement?

I think sex workers, if they set up private 'clinics' would be better- with full registration, background checks, bodyguards, panic buttons that connect directly to 911, and screening of their clients and full right to refuse service to anyone at any point in the process with client assuming the loss, and regular inspections. Not a buffet style brothel that's more like a bar. Clinical, all the way. Take care of business, like a chiropractor. Deal with it, guys. That's my opinion based on people I've known who've been hurt in sex work or sex related work.

So....the way you deal with the demand for prostitutes is to set up clinics that make sex with a prostitute feel like a visit to a doctor's office? Kinky.

It's going to exist whether you want it to or not, Kimmio. Making it awkward or clinical will just keep the underground trade going.

You can still have the testing, background checks, etc. That's part of what "licencing and regulating" means. But then it's up to the brothels to advertise, promote, and run a business.

I understand you don't like it, but your examples against this are ridiculous. No, I can't go to Starbucks and feel up the barista, but I also can't get her to do my taxes. If the agreement is she gives you a coffee for your fee, that's what you expect. If the agreement is she lets you feel her up for a fee, that's what you expect.

I'm sorry, but your ideas about preventing prostitution are not workable. Blame men if you want, but you can't change anything. Clearly, it would be great if every person had a consenting sexual partner, but that utopia doesn't exist. In parts of the world where boys are valued and girls are not, there are millions of frustrated men. It's not their fault that their potential partners were drowned as infants. You're saying they have to live with their sexual frustrations, and women who would like to earn money by having sex so they can go to school, are stuck. All because you don't like it when people are exploited.

The problem is, nothing you propose is going to stop the exploitation. Making sex for hire illegal or boring will just push the demand underground again. The best way we've seen, is when it's in the open, regulated and taxed. I'll leave it to professionals to work out the specifics.

Your solutions are willfully ignorant, IMO, appealing to some kind of pop culture utopia that caters to men and convinces women it's a good idea, and you don't see the big picture of the harm these women suffer for the cause of the male libido, and no part of your solutions suggests men should learn to deal with their libido problems without using someone else to do it for a fee- you're suggesting that servicing the male libido by whatever means meet their fancy is more inportant than the deeply entrenched subjugation and suffering of womenYou don't recognize how dehumanizing it is- without that recognition from men, women will always be second class. You're more willing to turn prostitution into a theme park than invest in education for men and women that diminishes the trade and equalizes women.

a) we don't criminalize acts on this basis else we would also have to criminalize other forms of casual sex (e.g. boards like Adult Friendfinder and its ilk).

b) casual sex, with or without money involved, is going to happen regardless of what we do about prostitution.

Overall, I'm in the camp that says legalize the trade but criminalize trafficking (including pimping). As long as the women and the clients are in it voluntarily and not under coercion, then it's a service business and can be regulated as such.

For the record, I have met a couple of escorts socially (i.e.not professionally) and they are very much independent business-women who know full well what they are doing and are quite in control of that business. Why would we try to put them out of business?

Mendalla

I don't think male libido is to blame when you take it down to the basic what aroses people/what satisfies those urges.  Throw in the societal factors and it's a different issue.  At least, I don't see a huge difference between males and females in that regard.  It's hard to separate the issue from cultural influences though.

If you just look at the mechanism of orgasms, you would think that females would be the greater consumer.  Overall, it takes more effort for us to achieve it.

When it comes to legalizing it and having brothels, I prefer the idea of prostitutes renting the space.  They pay a fee for the brothel's security service and follow some basic rules mostly for safety.  The business is between the customer and the prostitute though, not the brothel.

Independent escorts and what they do with their date, managing their own affairs and calling it quits at their own will, is another matter altogether than legislating brothels that entrap the street sex workers into the trade because they're poor and that's all they know- and on top of, have to answer to bosses who tell them 'customer's always right'- give them little autonomy. And I do fear how welfare agencies might exploit the situation.