PDA

View Full Version : Minnesota's Encouraging New Trafficking Law



IMPress Polly
10-07-2012, 08:08 AM
This story is just a tad dated at this point, but I wanted to voice my opinion on it.

Earlier this year on the other Political Forum I mentioned considering Sweden's prostitution law a good model. I mentioned that, inspired by its results, there was talk of enacting similar laws in a number of different countries, including this one. Well some other countries have, in fact, enacted similar laws now and the U.S. state of Minnesota appears to be starting down that road as well.

Sweden's (quite popular) prostitution law considers prostitution a form of sexual oppression similar to rape and accordingly focuses on attacking the demand side of the chain, jailing buyers rather than their victims. The approach has gotten results. Today only about half as many Swedish men buy prostitutes' services as compared with a decade ago and the advertising of sexual services is not visible on the country's streets. Minnesota's new sex trafficking law takes a major step in that direction. Although the law is specifically aimed at addressing sex slavery, and in particular child sex slavery, one will notice that the new law exempts the victims from prosecution while substantially increasing punishments for buyers. Previously buyers were charged with mere misdemeanors and fined if they were even prosecuted at all. Under the new they, buyers of trafficked women will be charged with felony offenses and jailed. This report discusses the first arrest under the new law. (http://www.myfoxtwincities.com/story/18852347/john-charged-with-sex-trafficking) The new law may be limited to the issue of sex trafficking and enslavement, but it marks a definite shift of focus similar to that of Sweden. I think this shift of focus toward buyers probably will continue and ultimately be applied to prostitution generally, and that it may well prompt other states to follow suit in the process, taking cues from this positive example. It's a good thing! We need to stop stigmatizing and punishing the victims and start stigmatizing and punishing their exploiters!

Peter1469
10-07-2012, 09:32 AM
I think these sorts of laws are needed in the case of sex slavery, which believe it or not is popular even in America. But sex slavery is different from prostitution and they should not be lumped together. Perhaps legalizing prostitution and regulating it would help keep the difference straight.

Akula
10-07-2012, 10:16 AM
Is the premise that;

A prostitute offers a service for a fee and when that service is accepted and the fee paid she is now transformed into a "victim"?

Peter1469
10-07-2012, 10:19 AM
Is the premise that;

A prostitute offers a service for a fee and when that service is accepted and the fee paid she is now transformed into a "victim"?

Many prostitutes are unwilling participants.

Akula
10-07-2012, 10:27 AM
Many prostitutes are unwilling participants.

Then they aren't "prostitutes".

IMPress Polly
10-07-2012, 10:37 AM
As someone who (for reasons that will not be stated) is intimately familiar with the subject of prostitution, I can assure you that legalization of the industry as a whole would NOT have a positive impact.

Now make no mistake: sex workers, including in the field of prostitution, DEFINITELY should NOT be criminalized or treated as something other than a victim! There is a long and horrible tradition in this country, as in so many others, of viewing "loose women" as the truly guilty parties, the real offense being the breaking up of marriages and whatnot rather than the victimization of the women in question. It is precisely for THOSE reasons -- the stigmatizing of the victims -- that laws criminalizing them remain on the books in almost every part of this country. So let me be perfectly clear in stating my complete opposition to criminalizing the women involved in the prostitution business. I know for a fact that awful alternatives like jail don't help liberate the victims. They certainly don't encourage exploited women to report being raped, for example.

Looking at the question of prostitution more broadly though, studies of those countries that have legalized the industry itself have continually shown that general legalization only expands the industry, including its illegal, slavery-based components. It doesn't help. It just makes the problem worse. Usually much worse, in fact. So I don't support a general legalization of the business. I think pimping should continue to be treated as a criminal offense, and I think that we should treat the buying of sex in the same manner: as a serious, criminal offense. The only way to minimize the human damage that the industry inflicts is to minimize its reach and that can only be done by stigmatizing the offending parties. I have cited Sweden's model as exemplary. It is successful and popular in Sweden.

Now if you think there's something liberating about being a sex worker in this field...well that's just not the case. And frankly, I don't think that even the people who make THAT argument really believe it themselves. It's obvious that the business is exploitative and I don't mean in rare, exceptional cases, but as the overall rule. The girls and women who wind up in prostitution are mostly socially dead people with no self-esteem who were abused in their childhood and took that as a sign of their worth. Or they were kidnapped or tricked into it. There's nothing liberating about it. Having sex with a prostitute by way of purchasing their services in my view is essentially a form of rape because there is no authentic consent involved. There is a power relationship there wherein the worker cannot say no without economic consequence. That they might have signed a contract to that effect is about as convincing an argument in defense of the business in my mind as is the fact that a contract may have been signed providing "consent" for a worker to work in what turns out to be a sweatshop is in favor of sweatshops. It's not a valid line of argument. The buyers of the these women are men who think themselves entitled to a sex partner and often characterize the business as society's last bastion of anti-feminism. Think about that.

Akula
10-07-2012, 10:39 AM
As someone who (for reasons that will not be stated) is intimately familiar with the subject of prostitution, I can assure you that legalization of the industry as a whole would NOT have a positive impact.

Now make no mistake: sex workers, including in the field of prostitution, DEFINITELY should NOT be criminalized or treated as something other than a victim! There is a long and horrible tradition in this country, as in so many others, of viewing "loose women" as the truly guilty parties, the real offense being the breaking up of marriages and whatnot rather than the victimization of the women in question. It is precisely for THOSE reasons -- the stigmatizing of the victims -- that laws criminalizing them remain on the books in almost every part of this country. So let me be perfectly clear in stating my complete opposition to criminalizing the women involved in the prostitution business. I know for a fact that awful alternatives like that don't help liberate the victims.

Looking at the question of prostitution more broadly though, studies of those countries that have legalized the industry itself have continually shown that general legalization only expands the industry, including its illegal, slavery-based components. It doesn't help. It just makes the problem worse. Usually much worse, in fact. So I don't support a general legalization of the business. I think pimping should continue to be treated as a criminal offense, and I think that we should treat the buying of sex in the same manner: as a serious, criminal offense. The only way to minimize the human damage that the industry inflicts is to minimize its reach and that can only be done by stigmatizing the offending parties. I have cited Sweden's model as exemplary. It is successful and popular in Sweden.

Now if you think there's something liberating about being a sex worker in this field...well that's just not the case. And frankly, I don't think that even the people who make THAT argument really believe it themselves. It's obvious that the business is exploitative and I don't mean in rare, exceptional cases, but as the overall rule. The girls and women who wind up in prostitution are mostly socially dead people who were abused in their childhood and took that as a sign of their worth. Or they were kidnapped or tricked into it. There's nothing liberating about it. Having sex with a prostitute by way of purchasing their services in my view is essentially a form of rape because there is no authentic consent involved. There is a power relationship there wherein the worker cannot say no without economic consequence. That they might have signed a contract to that effect is about as convincing an argument in defense of the business as the signing of a contract to work in what turns out to be a sweatshop is in favor of sweatshops. It's not a valid line of argument. The buyers of the these women are men who think themselves entitled to a sex partner and often characterize the business as society's last bastion of anti-feminism. Think about that.

So if a woman freely offers a sexual act or service or whatever for a fee and another person accepts the offer, engages in the act and pays for it...the prostitute is now a "victim"?

IMPress Polly
10-07-2012, 10:51 AM
Yes because there is virtually no such thing as "freely offering" such services. Even those who wind up in the business on a formally voluntary basis rarely want to be there. People wind up there overwhelmingly as either a result of social programming or force. There are few exceptions and our laws should not be made for exceptional cases, but to address what is the rule. "Voluntary" prostitutes in the main simply feel like they don't have better life options. They need to be given better life options and counseling as to their self-worth!

Peter1469
10-07-2012, 10:53 AM
I certainly agree that prostitutes should not be targeted for criminal prosecution. But I see charging John's with felonies is a bit over the top. Unless, we are talking about child prostitutes or sex slaves. I also understand that the current system of prostitution in the US does prey on girls and women who were abused and have little self-worth. That is because prostitution is illegal.

Here is an article that compares the Dutch and Swedish models for prostitution: http://www.policyinnovations.org/ideas/commentary/data/000107 It agrees with your position. But it does point out that much of the problem isn't prostitution per se, but sex slavery.

Here is a debate on the topic in The Economist: http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/182

Akula
10-07-2012, 11:08 AM
Yes because there is virtually no such thing as "freely offering" such services. Even those who wind up in the business on a formally voluntary basis rarely want to be there. People wind up there overwhelmingly as either a result of social programming or force. There are few exceptions and our laws should not be made for exceptional cases, but to address what is the rule. "Voluntary" prostitutes in the main simply feel like they don't have better life options. They need to be given better life options and counseling as to their self-worth!

I disagree with the premise. You're inventing fantasy scenarios with imaginary people doing invented things as an excuse for bigger government and more "laws".... and then adding in a dose of marxist doubletalk
People wind up there overwhelmingly as either a result of social programming or force..
marxism needs a "victim" and an evil "exploiter" in order to remain "relevant"...so they always invent them.


Let's try this..if a man is a ..I dunno...a ditch digger, say...and he is paid a fee to dig a ditch..but he doesn't really WANT to be a ditch digger.He'd rather be ...say a brain surgeon.... but he never went to school...so when he finishes digging the ditch and gets paid, he is now a "victim"?
complete and utter marxist nonsense.

People usually (eventually) realize as they grow up, that more and bigger government isn't the answer to anything..except it does give unionized jobs to loyal government lackeys as payback for their support. Now the taxpayers have more government "officials" to pay for their "work"...as well as their healthcare and retirement..etc...

GrassrootsConservative
10-07-2012, 11:09 AM
I think prostitution is something that should be decriminalized. Sex is healthy, orgasms on a regular basis reduces stress, studies have shown this. If it's a child or whatever, that's different. But a man paying a woman for sex shouldn't be a crime, not in free, capitalist America. Regulate it, find a method that works. Tax it if you have to, but it shouldn't be a crime.

Peter1469
10-07-2012, 11:12 AM
How much of this debate is based on America's Puritanical fear of sex and sexuality?

GrassrootsConservative
10-07-2012, 11:13 AM
How much of this debate is based on America's Puritanical fear of sex and sexuality?

I doubt Impress is Puritanical, however I am sure her fears come from some religious person pushing them on her.

Akula
10-07-2012, 11:15 AM
I certainly agree that prostitutes should not be targeted for criminal prosecution. But I see charging John's with felonies is a bit over the top. Unless, we are talking about child prostitutes or sex slaves. I also understand that the current system of prostitution in the US does prey on girls and women who were abused and have little self-worth.
Every single prostitute in america was abused and have low self esteem? Oh my..the poor dears...Whatever shall we do?..
We should hire hundreds of "experts" to do a "study" and allocate millions for that..Then when they return with "evidence" acknowledging that prostitutes are "unhappy" we should pass a law in congress for perpetual funding of a government "program" to elevate girls with low self esteem..and we'll hire thousands of "counselors" and build and open hundreds of "centers" so we can address this horrible problem...

LMAO..There's a reason it's called "the oldest profession"...it will NEVER go away...NEVER..


That is because prostitution is illegal.
Not in nevada.

GrassrootsConservative
10-07-2012, 11:22 AM
Every single prostitute in america was abused and have low self esteem? Oh my..the poor dears...Whatever shall we do?..
We should hire hundreds of "experts" to do a "study" and allocate millions for that..Then when they return with "evidence" acknowledging that prostitutes are "unhappy" we should pass a law in congress for perpetual funding of a government "program" to elevate girls with low self esteem..and we'll hire thousands of "counselors" and build and open hundreds of "centers" so we can address this horrible problem...

LMAO..There's a reason it's called "the oldest profession"...it will NEVER go away...NEVER.


Prostitution Centers? I like where this is going...
;)

Peter1469
10-07-2012, 11:23 AM
I doubt Impress is Puritanical, however I am sure her fears come from some religious person pushing them on her.

I was speaking in general.

IMPress Polly
10-07-2012, 11:33 AM
Akula wrote:
Let's try this..if a man is a ..I dunno...a ditch digger, say...and he is paid a fee to dig a ditch..but he doesn't really WANT to be a ditch digger.He'd rather be ...say a brain surgeon.... but he never went to school...so when he finishes digging the ditch and gets paid, he is now a "victim"?

You make it out to be like some forms of work are just well-deserved punishments that people earn. So if one finds themself in a particularly exploitative line of work, that's just because they deserve to suffer. They did something wrong somewhere or failed to earn more respect. That's just not a mentality I relate to or understand.

I don't think anyone is requesting an automatic job as a brain surgeon here. But it couldn't hurt for people to have educational opportunities that would afford quality career options. Let me float an idea your way in that connection: In this country, we make people pay to go to college, and it costs a whole lot of money. In Sweden, college education is free. And in some places in this world, the local government PAYS YOU to go to college. Let me suggest that the latter policy would be particularly helpful. Students wouldn't have to work exploitative entry-level jobs like this on the side while racking up progressively more debt. They could focus in on their studies and probably perform better as a result, increasing their odds of graduating and thus also of qualifying educationally for a quality career.


I disagree with the premise. You're inventing fantasy scenarios with imaginary people doing invented things as an excuse for bigger government and more "laws".... and then adding in a dose of marxist doubletalk

Oh I can personally guarantee you that I've made nothing up and that the "scenarios" I've discussed are very real.


LMAO..There's a reason it's called "the oldest profession"...it will NEVER go away...NEVER..

There's nothing funny here whatsoever.

That prostitution will not likely vanish from the face of the Earth isn't something I dispute. However, I do dispute the case for legitimizing and normalizing the business itself, turning it into a MAINSTREAM thing.


GrassrootsConservative wrote:
I doubt Impress is Puritanical, however I am sure her fears come from some religious person pushing them on her.

You're correct to say that I'm not what they call "innocent" by a long shot. Neither am I religious though. People shouldn't try to stigmatize opponents of exploitation as anti-sex or superstitious.


I think prostitution is something that should be decriminalized. Sex is healthy, orgasms on a regular basis reduces stress, studies have shown this. If it's a child or whatever, that's different. But a man paying a woman for sex shouldn't be a crime, not in free, capitalist America. Regulate it, find a method that works. Tax it if you have to, but it shouldn't be a crime.

Sex is healthy, but always having to wall off your emotions in the fashion required to turn yourself into a commodity is not. It's psychologically damaging! That's been proven. There IS NO method of regulation that works when it comes to this business. There's nothing good about the business. It should be combated, not legitimized.

Akula
10-07-2012, 12:14 PM
You make it out to be like some forms of work are just well-deserved punishments that people earn.
No. People do what people do. Always have and always will. There are always going to be a percentage of people who will fail in life. No amount of "law" or "government intervention" will fix them.


So if one finds themself in a particularly exploitative line of work, that's just because they deserve to suffer. They did something wrong somewhere or failed to earn more respect.
If you don't like your job, go get another. No one is preventing anyone from doing anything in this country. EVERYONE has opportunities. Can they take advantage of them?..Look..the hyena has every opportunity to take the fresh killed gazelle from the lion..They can try any time they like..No one is preventing them...but...do they have the ABILITY to do it?..THAT'S the key. Sometimes they do...sometimes they don't..

It's not up to the government to make things "fair"..Fair is where you take the kids to ride the roller coaster. Life isn't fair.



That's just not a mentality I relate to or understand.

Yes. I think you're very young, have little life experience to refer to and idealistic. Nothing wrong with those things..they go away naturally.


I don't think anyone is requesting an automatic job as a brain surgeon here. But it couldn't hurt for people to have educational opportunities that would afford quality career options.
No one is preventing anyone from doing anything. Ample opportunity exists.Many people have come from poverty to extreme wealth in this country....if a person doesn't take advantage of the existing opportunities, too bad.



Let me float an idea your way in that connection: In this country, we make people pay to go to college, and it costs a whole lot of money.
That's how supply/demand works..You offer a service and people purchase it. The better things cost more than mediocre things.



In Sweden, college education is free. And in some places in this world, the local government PAYS YOU to go to college. Let me suggest that the latter policy would be particularly helpful.

Have you noticed sweden is remarkably different and smaller than the u.s.?

The borough of Manhattan has more people than the ENTIRE population of sweden.

There are only 1.3 million foreign born residents in sweden and illegal immigration isn't much of a problem..1.3 million...LMAO. Dallas is bigger than that...I could go on but my point is you're so starry eyed and idealistic..and young...that you still don't understand how reality and human beings work...
regardless what may work in sweden is impossible here.

This country is bankrupt as it is, due to spending money we don't have. It's not gonna happen. The country will collapse before anything like that ever occurs..


Students wouldn't have to work exploitative entry-level jobs like this on the side while racking up progressively more debt. They could focus in on their studies and probably perform better as a result, increasing their odds of graduating and thus also of qualifying educationally for a quality career.

Yes, of course..what a wonderful world it would be.....and everyone gets free lollipops, balloons and unicorn rides...

....immature, unrealistic, unworkable, idealistic marxist nonsense.
You get out of school and you fetch coffee for the boss..."..but I have an MBA you tell him"..."Oh..you do?.an MBA?....Good...bring me a doughnut, too, kid"
Sorry, child..but that's how the world works.

IMPress Polly
10-07-2012, 12:22 PM
Akula wrote:
Yes. I think you're very young, have little life experience to refer to and idealistic. Nothing wrong with those things..they go away naturally.


I'm 28 and have years of personal experience with the subject at hand, probably unlike yourself.

And I'm getting tired of being demeaned for my age. Age is not an argument people.


....immature, unrealistic, unworkable, idealistic marxist nonsense.

Like I said, the policy I mentioned is in practical application right now in some places, so obviously it CAN be done.

Akula
10-07-2012, 12:34 PM
I'm 28 and have years of personal experience with the subject at hand, probably unlike yourself.
I wouldn't be a bit surprised.


And I'm getting tired of being demeaned for my age. Age is not an argument people
Lack of real life experience is. With age comes experience.




Like I said, the policy I mentioned is in practical application right now in some places, so obviously it CAN be done.
I didn't deny that it CAN be done...
but for the reasons I gave, it can not and will not ever happen in this country...comparing sweden and america and implying they are interchangeable is...naive...

KC
10-07-2012, 12:42 PM
Does anyone know about the relative effects of Japanese prostitution legality? it's pretty common over there and not much of a stigma either.

GrassrootsConservative
10-07-2012, 12:52 PM
Does anyone know about the relative effects of Japanese prostitution legality? it's pretty common over there and not much of a stigma either.

I love the idea of prostitution becoming decriminalized, but really, we don't want to turn into Japan. Japan has vending machines where you can purchase little girls' soiled panties, really, they're disgusting.

KC
10-07-2012, 12:59 PM
I love the idea of prostitution becoming decriminalized, but really, we don't want to turn into Japan. Japan has vending machines where you can purchase little girls' soiled panties, really, they're disgusting.

People do it here too. America has got weird shit but Japan is just more open about some of it.

And you can also buy frozen panties to cool you down in the summer and live crab in vending machines.

GrassrootsConservative
10-07-2012, 01:02 PM
People do it here too. America has got weird shit but Japan is just more open about some of it.

And you can also buy frozen panties to cool you down in the summer and live crab in vending machines.

That's terrible. Who would buy frozen panties with crabs in them?

KC
10-07-2012, 01:09 PM
Lol I didn't even think of that!

IMPress Polly
10-07-2012, 01:29 PM
Japanese prostitution law is bizarre. It's all legal, except vaginal intercourse.

And yes, Japan is what I would describe as pretty much a nation of perverts when it comes to their male population. All you have to do is look at their pornography. It's virtually all cartoon rape fantasy. No, Japan is not a good example to emulate when it comes to sexual matters.

This, in my mind, isn't a matter of whether sexual openness is a good thing. It's a matter of what form sexual openness should take. It's obvious that sexual openness can have positive social consequences. Consider sex education for example. I know a lot of conservatives are against it, but it has a very real positive impact. It prevents unwanted pregnancies and literally saves lives. But that kind of positive openness about sex is very different from exploitation and the legitimizing thereof. We're adults here. We can have a mature discussion of these things without recoursing to childish allegations of 'pro-sex vs. anti-sex' and 'you're just against fun' and so forth.

Peter1469
10-07-2012, 01:47 PM
I don't know much about Japanese culture, regarding sex or otherwise. And I am not familiar with their porn. But to go back to the topic, I think that the articles presented and arguments have demonstrated that the problem isn't prostitution per se, it is the exploitation of the women by criminal organizations that cause the problems. Legalization doesn't solve that, but it is a start. You can have a legal framework where regulated businesses are tightly controlled to ensure they are safe, not associated with criminal elements, and fair to customers while heavily prosecuting illegal operations and their customers.

Akula
10-07-2012, 01:49 PM
Japanese prostitution law is bizarre. It's all legal, except vaginal intercourse.
Link?
Proof?


And yes, Japan is what I would describe as pretty much a nation of perverts when it comes to their male population.
How many japanese men do you know? Ever been to japan?


All you have to do is look at their pornography. It's virtually all cartoon rape fantasy. No, Japan is not a good example to emulate when it comes to sexual matters.
Really?..fascinating...

Iceland, finland and norway have more per capita rapes than japan...

So do denmark, russia, oman (!), morocco(!), bahrain(!), kenya and canada....44 nations have higer per capita rape numbers than japan.

This, in my mind, isn't a matter of whether sexual openness is a good thing. It's a matter of what form sexual openness should take. It's obvious that sexual openness can have positive social consequences. Consider sex education for example. I know a lot of conservatives are against it, but it has a very real positive impact. It literally saves lives and prevents unwanted pregnancies. But that kind of positive openness about sex is very different from exploitation and the legitimizing thereof. We're adults here. We can have a mature discussion of these things without recoursing to childish allegations of 'pro-sex vs. anti-sex' and 'you're just against fun' and so forth.

That pretty much sums it up..It's all in your mind.The facts don't support your claims.

KC
10-07-2012, 01:58 PM
This thread is really just an exercise in comparative politics. Comparative politics are pretty useless if we don't know much about the countries we are looking at

100 Countries and Their Prostitution Laws (http://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000772#japan)

Akula, Polly's claims are consistent with the information provided here. What I'd really like to know is whether Japan's policies in respect to prostitution have made prostitution legal while undermining illegal sex slavery.

Here's what I found, that points to the contrary (http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/japan)

So Japan isn't a very good example for our comparative study.

Akula
10-07-2012, 02:12 PM
This thread is really just an exercise in comparative politics. Comparative politics are pretty useless if we don't know much about the countries we are looking at

100 Countries and Their Prostitution Laws (http://prostitution.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000772#japan)



Akula, Polly's claims are consistent with the information prevented here. What I'd really like to know is whether Japan's policies in respect to prostitution have made prostitution legal while undermining illegal sex slavery.

Here's what I found, that points to the contrary (http://www.humantrafficking.org/countries/japan)

So Japan isn't a very good example for our comparative study.

Ok..I don't know about all that.I don't even know what "comparative politics" is.Sounds like more marxist evasive doubletalk...I know the facts I presented re; japan aren't in line with her claims...
You guys discuss "comparative politics" and "positive social consequences" and "legal frameworks" and "positive openness" and "relative impacts" and "shift in focus" and "minimizing human damage" and "bastions of anti feminism" and "social programming" and "low self esteem"...
I'll step away and let you theoreticians solve the problem of the "oldest profession" by demonstrating your outrage(!) at how the real world works...

Carry on.

Larry Dickman
10-07-2012, 02:14 PM
Nothing is gained by legalizing whoring, nothing. This is one of those things where I have a problem with Libertarian arguments. As a society we decide what actions are permissible or not permissible and sometimes those choices would appear anti-liberty, but so be it. Why for instance, is cannibalism illegal? Case in point, a man in Germany was arrested a few years back for having killed, cooked and eaten another man. Sounds horrible, yes of course. But the "victim" of this "crime" was a willing participant who went so far as to advertise for a partner to help him indulge in his ultimate fantasy of being eaten by a fellow human being. I suppose Libertarians will argue there was no crime committed.

I agree with a lot of things said in this discussion from a lot of the participants, but I would say without question that anyone who sells their most intimate self is not a healthy person. It doesn't matter the why's. Much of the reason someone would allow themselves to be debased and treated like meat stems from earlier in life, but society is also more permissive than it once was and people using excuses like "I had to pay for school" are merely using justification for something unjustifiable.

garyo
10-07-2012, 02:22 PM
Selling sex is a personal choice, albeit regulated to adults. If someone wants to turn "tricks" or make porno's that should be their decision as long as there is no coercion or exploitation. I personally think sex crimes would go up if there were no avenues for the people who are involved in the buying and selling of sex, from what I ascertain these are people on the fringe of society. I also think pot should be legalized.

Peter1469
10-07-2012, 02:23 PM
Nothing is gained by legalizing whoring, nothing. This is one of those things where I have a problem with Libertarian arguments. As a society we decide what actions are permissible or not permissible and sometimes those choices would appear anti-liberty, but so be it. Why for instance, is cannibalism illegal? Case in point, a man in Germany was arrested a few years back for having killed, cooked and eaten another man. Sounds horrible, yes of course. But the "victim" of this "crime" was a willing participant who went so far as to advertise for a partner to help him indulge in his ultimate fantasy of being eaten by a fellow human being. I suppose Libertarians will argue there was no crime committed.

I agree with a lot of things said in this discussion from a lot of the participants, but I would say without question that anyone who sells their most intimate self is not a healthy person. It doesn't matter the why's. Much of the reason someone would allow themselves to be debased and treated like meat stems from earlier in life, but society is also more permissive than it once was and people using excuses like "I had to pay for school" are merely using justification for something unjustifiable.


but I would say without question that anyone who sells their most intimate self is not a healthy person.

Does that include people who won't have sex until after a dinner at a 5 star restaurant?

We tend to pay for sex all the time.....

KC
10-07-2012, 02:27 PM
Nothing is gained by legalizing whoring, nothing. This is one of those things where I have a problem with Libertarian arguments. As a society we decide what actions are permissible or not permissible and sometimes those choices would appear anti-liberty, but so be it. Why for instance, is cannibalism illegal? Case in point, a man in Germany was arrested a few years back for having killed, cooked and eaten another man. Sounds horrible, yes of course. But the "victim" of this "crime" was a willing participant who went so far as to advertise for a partner to help him indulge in his ultimate fantasy of being eaten by a fellow human being. I suppose Libertarians will argue there was no crime committed.

I agree with a lot of things said in this discussion from a lot of the participants, but I would say without question that anyone who sells their most intimate self is not a healthy person. It doesn't matter the why's. Much of the reason someone would allow themselves to be debased and treated like meat stems from earlier in life, but society is also more permissive than it once was and people using excuses like "I had to pay for school" are merely using justification for something unjustifiable.

So Larry, is your basis for the prohibition of prositution the mere fact that someone who does it is "not a healthy person"? I want to be clear because if we engage in that sort of reasoning then we have made the argument that government should play a very large role in regulating people's lives. Surely there are many, many unhealthy behaviors we allow, so if this is your line of reasoning, why should the government regulate/prohibit this one but not those other ones?

Larry Dickman
10-07-2012, 02:40 PM
So Larry, is your basis for the prohibition of prositution the mere fact that someone who does it is "not a healthy person"? I want to be clear because if we engage in that sort of reasoning then we have made the argument that government should play a very large role in regulating people's lives. Surely there are many, many unhealthy behaviors we allow, so if this is your line of reasoning, why should the government regulate/prohibit this one but not those other ones?


No, my basis is it's a behavior that debases society as a whole.

Tell me why that German fellow should not have been allowed to eat his pal. Or are you fine with that? Love to see where that discussion goes.

Larry Dickman
10-07-2012, 02:42 PM
Does that include people who won't have sex until after a dinner at a 5 star restaurant?

We tend to pay for sex all the time.....

If a woman won't choke your chicken without a baked brie appetizer first, she's a jerk.

Know how I pay for sex? By being kind to my wife and treating her like a lady.

KC
10-07-2012, 02:44 PM
No, my basis is it's a behavior that debases society as a whole.

Tell me why that German fellow should not have been allowed to eat his pal. Or are you fine with that? Love to see where that discussion goes.

The social contract is violated whenever some one takes away another person's life, liberty or property. That man committed a crime because he deprived someone of his natural rights, regardless of consent.

Peter1469
10-07-2012, 02:48 PM
If a woman won't choke your chicken without a baked brie appetizer first, she's a jerk.

Know how I pay for sex? By being kind to my wife and treating her like a lady.

It is all currency :wink:

Larry Dickman
10-07-2012, 02:49 PM
The social contract is violated whenever some one takes away another person's life, liberty or property. That man committed a crime because he deprived someone of his natural rights, regardless of consent.


You cannot "deprive" someone of something they freely give. YOU deprive the man who wants to be eaten by not allowing him to offer his body to another. That is anti-Liberty. No crime was committed in the Libertarian philosophy.

KC
10-07-2012, 02:51 PM
No, my basis is it's a behavior that debases society as a whole.


Ok. I happen to think that the fact that water is sold in bottles as a consumer product debases society as a whole. Does that mean I am justified in calling for its prohibition, or should I let my peers waste their money on bottled water when there is a drinking fountain down the hall?

Larry Dickman
10-07-2012, 02:53 PM
Ok. I happen to think that the fact that water is sold in bottles as a consumer product debases society as a whole. Does that mean I am justified in calling for its prohibition, or should I let my peers waste their money on bottled water when there is a drinking fountain down the hall?


You'll have to work pretty hard to make your case because your argument is not self-evident.

KC
10-07-2012, 02:56 PM
You cannot "deprive" someone of something they freely give. YOU deprive the man who wants to be eaten by not allowing him to offer his body to another. That is anti-Liberty. No crime was committed in the Libertarian philosophy.

That man's free choice would violate his own natural rights. Since life and liberty are both natural rights, it is better to choose life when we are concerned about others well being. A person who wants to give up his life in such a way has made an irrational judgement, so we should not allow him to do that.

By contrast a prostitute who would like to sell his or her body is not offering up any of his natural rights. The prostitute exercises ownership of his or her life and property and freely sells services based on that ownership. It's really not all that different from selling your labor. You own your body and your life and you sell the products of those assets to your employer. The difference is in many cases most employers aren't asking for your sexual labor.

Larry Dickman
10-07-2012, 03:00 PM
That man's free choice would violate his own natural rights. Since life and liberty are both natural rights, it is better to choose life when we are concerned about others well being. A person who wants to give up his life in such a way has made an irrational judgement, so we should not allow him to do that.

Who are you to claim the man's judgement is irrational? Are you God? Is it a "rational judgment" to sell you body for sex, but not dinner? Is it rational to base-jump, or extreme ski? Is it rational to eat until you are obese? Is it rational to be married to multiple people? Is it rational to drive in Detroit alone at 2AM as a white guy?

KC
10-07-2012, 03:06 PM
Who are you to claim the man's judgement is irrational? Are you God? Is it a "rational judgment" to sell you body for sex, but not dinner? Is it rational to base-jump, or extreme ski? Is it rational to eat until you are obese? Is it rational to be married to multiple people? Is it rational to drive in Detroit alone at 2AM as a white guy?

If someone would like to sacrifice life for the sake of liberty, that person has contradicted their rights by saying they want to surrender one for another one. Contradiction is irrational. So, the person has made an irrational decision.

Furthermore, if you are going to surrender your life, you surrender the rest of your natural rights also, since without life you can have no rights. Therefore someone who willingly surrenders there life loses also their liberty either way, so we will not grant the person the liberty to surrender their life. That way the person can hold on to their natural rights.

Larry Dickman
10-07-2012, 03:10 PM
If someone would like to sacrifice life for the sake of liberty, that person has contradicted their rights by saying they want to surrender one for another one. Contradiction is irrational. So, the person has made an irrational decision.

Soldiers throughout history have sacrificed their lives for liberty.

The only contradiction is in your argument. You want a whore to be free to blow any old John for cash, but you refuse the man with a cannibal death wish to be granted his inalienable right to pursue happiness. You can claim all day long that his decision is wrong, but it's HIS life, not yours.

KC
10-07-2012, 03:14 PM
Soldiers throughout history have sacrificed their lives for liberty.

The only contradiction is in your argument. You want a whore to be free to blow any old John for cash, but you refuse the man with a cannibal death wish to be granted his inalienable right to pursue happiness. You can claim all day long that his decision is wrong, but it's HIS life, not yours.

But the cannibal's victim sacrifices his liberty whether he surrenders his life or he is prohibited from doing so. Either way he has no liberty. It is best to prohibit the man from sacrificing his life so he can hold on to his natural rights.

Larry Dickman
10-07-2012, 03:20 PM
But the cannibal's victim sacrifices his liberty whether he surrenders his life or he is prohibited from doing so. Either way he has no liberty. It is best to prohibit the man from sacrificing his life so he can hold on to his natural rights.

Like everyone, you have drawn a line in the sand. As a society we drawn the line tighter to morality than you wish to, but have no doubt there is a line to be drawn on all instances of human behavior. You can argue that the man who wants to be eaten is deranged, and on that I agree. But you cannot without depriving the man of his own free will, prohibit him from ending his own life in whatever way he sees fit, so long as he harms no one else. Clearly he had a willing ally, so determining whether or not a "crime" occurred is strictlty a judgement call. Just as legalizing prostitution is a judgement call. Both cannibalism and prostitution are willful acts of free people.

KC
10-07-2012, 03:26 PM
Like everyone, you have drawn a line in the sand. As a society we drawn the line tighter to morality than you wish to, but have no doubt there is a line to be drawn on all instances of human behavior. You can argue that the man who wants to be eaten is deranged, and on that I agree. But you cannot without depriving the man of his own free will, prohibit him from ending his own life in whatever way he sees fit, so long as he harms no one else. Clearly he had a willing ally, so determining whether or not a "crime" occurred is strictlty a judgement call. Just as legalizing prostitution is a judgement call. Both cannibalism and prostitution are willful acts of free people.

But in the case of the cannibal's victim, he loses his liberty either way. If he is allowed to sacrifice his life, he also sacrifices his liberty and property. If he is prohibited from sacrificing his life, he has only lost some of his liberty.

The prostitute only loses his or her liberty when he or she is prohibited from selling his or her own body. The willing prostitute does not sacrifice his or her life, liberty or property by offering sexual services.

In this way the two are not analogous.

Larry Dickman
10-07-2012, 03:35 PM
But in the case of the cannibal's victim, he loses his liberty either way. If he is allowed to sacrifice his life, he also sacrifices his liberty and property. If he is prohibited from sacrificing his life, he has only lost some of his liberty.

The prostitute only loses his or her liberty when he or she is prohibited from selling his or her own body. The willing prostitute does not sacrifice his or her life, liberty or property by offering sexual services.

In this way the two are not analogous.


Sorry, your argument is invalid. You drew a line in the sand based on your own prejudices and judgments. You have no more right tell a man he may not kill himself than you have the right to tell a man he may not eat himself into obesity, jump off a cliff with a parachute strapped to his back, or engage in risky sex.

This is the big problem with so-called Libertarians- you always draw the line somewhere but claim the other guy's line is anti-Liberty. Be intellectually honest and stop dancing on pin heads.

Akula
10-07-2012, 03:37 PM
The willing prostitute does not sacrifice his or her life, liberty or property by offering sexual services.


Didn't you, just a few pages back, agree with pollywhatever that the willing prostitute is STILL a "victim"?

If, as you just said, she doesn't sacrifice life, liberty or property she's a "victim" of what, precisely?

KC
10-07-2012, 03:43 PM
Sorry, your argument is invalid. You drew a line in the sand based on your own prejudices and judgments. You have no more right tell a man he may not kill himself than you have the right to tell a man he may not eat himself into obesity, jump off a cliff with a parachute strapped to his back, or engage in risky sex.

This is the big problem with so-called Libertarians- you always draw the line somewhere but claim the other guy's line is anti-Liberty. Be intellectually honest and stop dancing on pin heads.

Show how my argument is invalid. It is true that the two instances are not analogous. The person who sacrifices life sacrifices liberty as well. Taking liberty from someone who would sacrifice all of their rights is better than taking life away from anyone.

Peter1469
10-07-2012, 03:45 PM
Sorry, your argument is invalid. You drew a line in the sand based on your own prejudices and judgments. You have no more right tell a man he may not kill himself than you have the right to tell a man he may not eat himself into obesity, jump off a cliff with a parachute strapped to his back, or engage in risky sex.

This is the big problem with so-called Libertarians- you always draw the line somewhere but claim the other guy's line is anti-Liberty. Be intellectually honest and stop dancing on pin heads.

The line appears to be drawn at death. When considering applying the jack-boot of the State as the solution, that seems to be a reasonable place to draw it.

KC
10-07-2012, 03:46 PM
Didn't you, just a few pages back, agree with pollywhatever that the willing prostitute is STILL a "victim"?

If, as you just said, she doesn't sacrifice life, liberty or property she's a "victim" of what, precisely?

No. Polly's claims about Japanese prostitution law are consistent with the information in the article I provided, but I never agreed that willing prostitutes are victims.

GrassrootsConservative
10-07-2012, 03:55 PM
Nothing is gained by legalizing whoring, nothing. This is one of those things where I have a problem with Libertarian arguments. As a society we decide what actions are permissible or not permissible and sometimes those choices would appear anti-liberty, but so be it. Why for instance, is cannibalism illegal? Case in point, a man in Germany was arrested a few years back for having killed, cooked and eaten another man. Sounds horrible, yes of course. But the "victim" of this "crime" was a willing participant who went so far as to advertise for a partner to help him indulge in his ultimate fantasy of being eaten by a fellow human being.

:biglaugh: What's wrong with this? It's his CHOICE.

Akula
10-07-2012, 04:01 PM
No. Polly's claims about Japanese prostitution law are consistent with the information in the article I provided, but I never agreed that willing prostitutes are victims.

Ok. My error. Sorry.

Larry Dickman
10-07-2012, 04:22 PM
:biglaugh: What's wrong with this? It's his CHOICE.

Interesting isn't it, how an argument standing on alleged solid ground starts to shake and tremble when viewed through the prism of choice.

Larry Dickman
10-07-2012, 04:24 PM
The line appears to be drawn at death. When considering applying the jack-boot of the State as the solution, that seems to be a reasonable place to draw it.

But as far as someone with a cannibal death fetish, that's a personal choice, not the state death penalty. So where might your opinion of the German case reside?

Larry Dickman
10-07-2012, 04:27 PM
Show how my argument is invalid. It is true that the two instances are not analogous. The person who sacrifices life sacrifices liberty as well. Taking liberty from someone who would sacrifice all of their rights is better than taking life away from anyone.

There can be no greater Liberty than having the right to choose when and where your life ends. Again, one cannot TAKE that which is freely GIVEN. You ACCEPT a gift, you don't TAKE it.

The fact is, if there were absolute Libertarian Liberty, there is no rational argument for not allowing one to take their own life in whatever method they enjoy.

GrassrootsConservative
10-07-2012, 04:31 PM
There can be no greater Liberty than having the right to choose when and where your life ends. Again, one cannot TAKE that which is freely GIVEN. You ACCEPT a gift, you don't TAKE it.

The fact is, if there were absolute Libertarian Liberty, there is no rational argument for not allowing one to take their own life in whatever method they enjoy.

The other fact of the matter is that the law isn't going to stop anyone from killing themselves. There is no prison after you die.

Larry Dickman
10-07-2012, 04:32 PM
The other fact of the matter is that the law isn't going to stop anyone from killing themselves. There is no prison after you die.

No, but you will be arrested and put in a nut hatch if you try and fail. And, that German guy who was dinner didn't get arrested, but the guy he asked to kill and eat him did.

GrassrootsConservative
10-07-2012, 04:39 PM
No, but you will be arrested and put in a nut hatch if you try and fail. And, that German guy who was dinner didn't get arrested, but the guy he asked to kill and eat him did.

Oh, well that's messed up. He shouldn't get arrested for that. You said there was an advertisement, did the man get paid?

Larry Dickman
10-07-2012, 04:40 PM
Oh, well that's messed up. He shouldn't get arrested for that. You said there was an advertisement, did the man get paid?

I think payment was rendered via biceps and man-butt. Eat up!

Peter1469
10-07-2012, 04:43 PM
There can be no greater Liberty than having the right to choose when and where your life ends. Again, one cannot TAKE that which is freely GIVEN. You ACCEPT a gift, you don't TAKE it.

The fact is, if there were absolute Libertarian Liberty, there is no rational argument for not allowing one to take their own life in whatever method they enjoy.

I see it both ways.

First, you are wrong. If life is an unalienable right, then neither government nor people can waive it and if it takes a man made law to help protect it, so be it.

And now the other way: who cares? So one nut wants to be eaten by another nut. We have bigger problems to deal with. You don't based laws for entire populations off the outliers in chance and probability.

Larry Dickman
10-07-2012, 04:47 PM
I see it both ways.

First, you are wrong. If life is an unalienable right, then neither government nor people can waive it and if it takes a man made law to help protect it, so be it.

And now the other way: who cares? So one nut wants to be eaten by another nut. We have bigger problems to deal with. You don't based laws for entire populations off the outliers in chance and probability.


Sorry Peter. You fail. Go back and revisit your courses on Liberty.

Every man is a individual, an island in and of himself. His inalienable rights exist by nature, but it is his choice to map his own path to thrive or self-destruct.

You are right we do not base laws on any one man's choices, and therein lies the rub. We draw lines in the sand. We make decisions as a society as to how much Liberty we allow each and every person, whether they choose to whore themselves or kill themselves, it's all part of the same picture.

GrassrootsConservative
10-07-2012, 04:51 PM
I see it both ways.

First, you are wrong. If life is an unalienable right, then neither government nor people can waive it and if it takes a man made law to help protect it, so be it.

And now the other way: who cares? So one nut wants to be eaten by another nut. We have bigger problems to deal with. You don't based laws for entire populations off the outliers in chance and probability.

Agreed 100%

Peter1469
10-07-2012, 05:21 PM
Sorry Peter. You fail. Go back and revisit your courses on Liberty.

Every man is a individual, an island in and of himself. His inalienable rights exist by nature, but it is his choice to map his own path to thrive or self-destruct.

You are right we do not base laws on any one man's choices, and therein lies the rub. We draw lines in the sand. We make decisions as a society as to how much Liberty we allow each and every person, whether they choose to whore themselves or kill themselves, it's all part of the same picture.

What is it with you and women of ill repute? When you use the term whore, I suppose you equally disparage the customer (making a free market transaction, btw). Does the concept of other people having consensual sex make you feel dirty? Dirty enough to use the power of the State to stomp it out? That is a lot of power for the government to wield.

And your first point was incorrect if you are talking about the same inalienable rights that the Founders discussed.

But, again, if a person wants to walk into the crocodile pen to be eaten, who am I to get in their way.

Deadwood
10-07-2012, 05:28 PM
Is the premise that;

A prostitute offers a service for a fee and when that service is accepted and the fee paid she is now transformed into a "victim"?


With all respect, my friend, only about 10% of the sex trade is by willing participants, at least on the female side. 90% of it is either some form of slavery or the result of drug addiction, sometimes where the woman has been deliberately recruited and addicted.

As a one time "sex tourism" destination, Vancouver has been over this again and again. One of the influences is immigration, especially from Asia, where a family must pay thousands to get to Canada and go into debt, which then has to be paid off.....

Then there is the recruitment of teen aged girls from dysfunctional homes, who are recruited, given free drugs until they are addicted and then sent to massage parlors and on line sex shops.


It is an enormously complex problem.

Having said that, the Swedish law IS getting results....just as a movement here called "shame the Johns" did in the 80's. For the most part however, prostitution has been taken off the street and is internet based so the public humiliation is a non starter.

Ironically, in Canada, prostitution is neither legal nor illegal [long story] and proving "living off the avails of prostitution" is almost impossible to prove.

Larry Dickman
10-08-2012, 07:17 AM
What is it with you and women of ill repute? When you use the term whore, I suppose you equally disparage the customer (making a free market transaction, btw). Does the concept of other people having consensual sex make you feel dirty? Dirty enough to use the power of the State to stomp it out? That is a lot of power for the government to wield.

And your first point was incorrect if you are talking about the same inalienable rights that the Founders discussed.

But, again, if a person wants to walk into the crocodile pen to be eaten, who am I to get in their way.

What are you talking about? What croc pen? A bunch of nonsensical opinions from people who have difficulty with applying logical conclusions to issues of Liberty?

A whore is a whore and the term is cross gender. A man or woman who pays a whore for sex is a pig. Feel better?

Peter1469
10-08-2012, 07:47 AM
What are you talking about? What croc pen? A bunch of nonsensical opinions from people who have difficulty with applying logical conclusions to issues of Liberty?

A whore is a whore and the term is cross gender. A man or woman who pays a whore for sex is a pig. Feel better?


So where does government get into this mix? Do you advocate legislating your brand of morality?

Larry Dickman
10-08-2012, 07:57 AM
So where does government get into this mix? Do you advocate legislating your brand of morality?


The government is already in the mix. For most of my life, my "brand of morality" has been the way things are. These are issues with which we struggle as a country to determine what is or is not permissible. Personally I believe the SCOTUS erred to a point of lunacy when they determined that pornography was an issue of free speech, but the genie is already out of the bottle.

The only point I have been making is that we all draw a line in the sand somewhere. One cannot logically disallow a man form allowing another man to kill and eat him if one believes in absolute unfettered Liberty, so at some point in a debate we all say, "not going there".

Peter1469
10-08-2012, 08:23 AM
It sounds to me as if the line you draw in the sand is way to the left of the line that I would draw in the sand.

Larry Dickman
10-08-2012, 08:33 AM
It sounds to me as if the line you draw in the sand is way to the left of the line that I would draw in the sand.

To the left? I don't think so, but regardless the issue remains that the line is a constant war zone.

Peter1469
10-08-2012, 08:39 AM
To the left? I don't think so, but regardless the issue remains that the line is a constant war zone.


Yes. Anarchy is far right. Add government slowly and move left to total State control. You are further left than me.

Larry Dickman
10-08-2012, 09:57 AM
Yes. Anarchy is far right. Add government slowly and move left to total State control. You are further left than me.


Anarchy is lunacy. I believe our founders wanted us to stay closer to Anarchy than State Control, but I seriously doubt any of them would have supported legalization of prostitution, illicit drugs, or abortion.

I would also think an Anarchist would have no issue with Cannibal Fetishists.

GrassrootsConservative
10-08-2012, 10:04 AM
Anarchy is lunacy. I believe our founders wanted us to stay closer to Anarchy than State Control, but I seriously doubt any of them would have supported legalization of prostitution, illicit drugs, or abortion.

I would also think an Anarchist would have no issue with Cannibal Fetishists.

Actually there is strong evidence that our forefathers used drugs. George Washington himself was known for growing hemp.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_politicians_who_admit_to_can nabis_use

And I just learned that Sarah Palin is on that list. Pretty interesting.

It's always been a firm belief of mine that this country's founders smoked opium when they were given their dreams of freedom. Drugs aren't always bad. dude, educate yourself.

Peter1469
10-08-2012, 10:30 AM
Anarchy is lunacy. I believe our founders wanted us to stay closer to Anarchy than State Control, but I seriously doubt any of them would have supported legalization of prostitution, illicit drugs, or abortion.

I would also think an Anarchist would have no issue with Cannibal Fetishists.

I don't agree with anarchy either. Prostitution was illegal in name only at the time of the Founders. It wasn't enforced.

KC
10-08-2012, 05:18 PM
The left right argument only makes since if you as designating left as control and right as freedom. That doesn't accurately describe politics as we see them in the real world. Most people inconsistently call for control and freedom and the ones who consistently support state control or the lack thereof are a smaller part of the population. Politics are multidimensional, so saying Larry is further to the left of Peter misses the point. It might be the case that Larry is to the right of Peter on economic issues but that Peter favors less state control on social issues. That's why the political compass/spectrum (depending on which model you use) is important.

Larry is more pro state interventionist when it comes to prostitution, it seems, but that hardly makes him more left.

IMPress Polly
10-09-2012, 06:51 AM
There have been a TON of posts here since I last visited and I haven't had time to catch up yet, but this I had to respond to before I head to work:


Peter wrote:
Does that include people who won't have sex until after a dinner at a 5 star restaurant?

We tend to pay for sex all the time.....

HOLY SHIT!!!

I'm sorry, but this statement was just...unbelievable! You compare dating to prostitution. There is no comparison. You are not just *snap snap* entitled to sex because you bought dinner. When you pay for dinner, you're entitled to dinner, nothing else!

Dating, whoever pays for it (and it doesn't always have to require payment), is an opportunity to get to know the other person better to see if you are romantically compatible. That is radically different from purchasing sex.

IMPress Polly
10-09-2012, 12:40 PM
Okay, had the opportunity to finally catch up!


Larry Dickman wrote:
Nothing is gained by legalizing whoring, nothing. This is one of those things where I have a problem with Libertarian arguments. As a society we decide what actions are permissible or not permissible and sometimes those choices would appear anti-liberty, but so be it. Why for instance, is cannibalism illegal? Case in point, a man in Germany was arrested a few years back for having killed, cooked and eaten another man. Sounds horrible, yes of course. But the "victim" of this "crime" was a willing participant who went so far as to advertise for a partner to help him indulge in his ultimate fantasy of being eaten by a fellow human being. I suppose Libertarians will argue there was no crime committed.

I agree with a lot of things said in this discussion from a lot of the participants, but I would say without question that anyone who sells their most intimate self is not a healthy person. It doesn't matter the why's. Much of the reason someone would allow themselves to be debased and treated like meat stems from earlier in life, but society is also more permissive than it once was and people using excuses like "I had to pay for school" are merely using justification for something unjustifiable.

I was basically with you up until that last line. At that point you recourse to blaming the victims and lost me. For most of your argument, you suggested that the business was based on exploitation, then at the very end you blame the exploited for their plight. That makes no sense to me.


A whore is a whore and the term is cross gender. A man or woman who pays a whore for sex is a pig. Feel better?

The term is only as cross-gender as work roles themselves. You and I both know that more than 90% of prostitutes are female and that more than 90% of their customers are male. There are clear gender roles demonstrated there: women do the selling and men do the buying. Likewise, you and I both know that "whore" is intended to be a particularly demeaning term that carries more stigma than terms like "prostitute" or "sex worker".


Fearandloathing wrote:
With all respect, my friend, only about 10% of the sex trade is by willing participants, at least on the female side. 90% of it is either some form of slavery or the result of drug addiction, sometimes where the woman has been deliberately recruited and addicted.

As a one time "sex tourism" destination, Vancouver has been over this again and again. One of the influences is immigration, especially from Asia, where a family must pay thousands to get to Canada and go into debt, which then has to be paid off.....

Then there is the recruitment of teen aged girls from dysfunctional homes, who are recruited, given free drugs until they are addicted and then sent to massage parlors and on line sex shops.

It is an enormously complex problem.

Having said that, the Swedish law IS getting results....just as a movement here called "shame the Johns" did in the 80's. For the most part however, prostitution has been taken off the street and is internet based so the public humiliation is a non starter.

Ironically, in Canada, prostitution is neither legal nor illegal [long story] and proving "living off the avails of prostitution" is almost impossible to prove.

This is another case of me being with someone with the exception of a single standout line. I'm not sure what you mean by the bolded line. Could you explain what you mean by Internet prostitution? Are we talking about actual intercourse that people access via resources like Back Page or are you talking about sites like Live Jasmine where women are paid to perform partnerless sexual acts for others over a web cam?


kathaariancode wrote:
That man's free choice would violate his own natural rights. Since life and liberty are both natural rights, it is better to choose life when we are concerned about others well being. A person who wants to give up his life in such a way has made an irrational judgement, so we should not allow him to do that.

By contrast a prostitute who would like to sell his or her body is not offering up any of his natural rights. The prostitute exercises ownership of his or her life and property and freely sells services based on that ownership. It's really not all that different from selling your labor. You own your body and your life and you sell the products of those assets to your employer. The difference is in many cases most employers aren't asking for your sexual labor.

In my view, one should not have to sell their labor at all. Everyone should be able to own their labor at all times. For this reason, I believe that workplaces should broadly be owned and preferably managed by their workers collectively. But that is another subject. Prostitution goes deeper than that. You are not just selling your labor, but your body. That is more personal than selling an ordinary product or service. Sex is an emotionally-charged thing. It isn't natural or healthy to have to wall off your emotions to the extent required to sell your body as a mere commodity. It's psychologically very damaging. I think the cat is out of the bag on my background at this point, so I'll just be frank: I say that because I know from experience. That was the most basic and intrinsic issue to the experience, but it was really only the beginning of the problems that I faced, which also included things like commonplace beatings, rape, threats, pregnancy, diseases, etc., to say nothing of never receiving most of the money I worked for. If all that sounds cool to you, there is something very wrong with your way of thinking.


But in the case of the cannibal's victim, he loses his liberty either way. If he is allowed to sacrifice his life, he also sacrifices his liberty and property. If he is prohibited from sacrificing his life, he has only lost some of his liberty.

The prostitute only loses his or her liberty when he or she is prohibited from selling his or her own body. The willing prostitute does not sacrifice his or her life, liberty or property by offering sexual services.

In this way the two are not analogous.

Really?

On life: Do you know what the average life expectancy of a prostitute is?

On liberty: ...You're selling your body for money that you'll probably never receive!!

On property: See above.

Just because a certain oppression may occur spontaneously rather than being state-imposed does not make it less real or less oppressive. Just because you may have at one time volunteered for the work doesn't mean you fully knew what you were getting into or that exploitation of socially dead people in a vulnerable position should be permitted. I eventually learned that I had other options. Many women in that business never do (and in fact they may not have better options) and they die early deaths.


No. Polly's claims about Japanese prostitution law are consistent with the information in the article I provided, but I never agreed that willing prostitutes are victims.

Well you should. In my experience, as well as the experience of just about everyone else I knew who did that sort of work, there was nothing liberating about it. Purchasing a prostitute's services can be justly considered de facto rape in my opinion because one party lacks an authentic choice save for that of losing their income and everything that goes along with that. And perhaps being beaten or killed as punishment.

KC
10-09-2012, 01:17 PM
I think prostitutes would suffer far fewer of the horrible abuses you mentioned if it was legal and prostitutes were offered the protection they deserve. Brothels should be complete with private security officers. The underlying logic is that if prostitution must exist (I have seen no evidence of its eradication anywhere) then we should do whatever it takes to makes sure that the natural rights of the prostitute are being protected. Not to mention in a competitive marketplace employers must compete for their employees, so prostitutes would only work for the brothels that offer them appropriate protection. The problem with illegal prostitution is that it is not subject to the same market forces as other businesses and prostitutes are often trampled.

We don't need to mandate protections as much as hold brothel owners accountable for and abuses that take place in their businesses. This way employers will have a clear incentive to protect rather than neglect the prostitutes.

I would agree that prostitution is a bad career choice but I don't think we can ever stop it. The men who hold high places have a clear incentive to keep prostitution alive and at the same time want to condemn prostitutes, as though they were morally clean. Even Marx scoffed at this hypocrisy of the bourgeois.

IMPress Polly
10-09-2012, 01:41 PM
KC:

I've heard that argument from countless people (well...mostly guys). The common thread between them is that those who make such arguments overwhelmingly have no experience in the business unless perhaps they were customers. Almost all ex-prostitutes believe that the buying of sex should be illegal and more sternly punished, myself included.

There is abundant evidence that legalizing the business as a whole has no such positive consequences as the ones you suggest. In reality, it simply expands the reach of the industry. The illegal, slave-based variation gets expanded too. We've seen that in Germany, in Spain, in Vancouver when they briefly legalized the business when they held the Olympics, and so on. Every time the buying of sex gets legalized, trafficking and every oppression that goes along with the work intrinsically increases. There is nothing good about that approach. It only benefits customers. And that is what proponents of legalization are thinking as: customers, not as prospective workers who might find themselves enduring all this.

Abstract rationales mean nothing. The hard evidence suggests that generalized legalization doesn't work in terms of benefiting prostitutes. All it really does is increase the social pressure on women to enter that field of work.

(As for your reference to Marx, you've obviously taken things out of context. Both Marx and Engels, as proponents of communism, were naturally opposed to prostitution being legal. Communism and commerce are opposites and they opposed prostitution on the grounds that it composes a form of commerce and a particularly harmful one.)

KC
10-09-2012, 01:44 PM
KC:

I've heard that argument from countless people (well...mostly guys). The common thread between them is that those who make such arguments overwhelmingly have no experience in the business unless perhaps they were customers. Almost all ex-prostitutes believe that the buying of sex should be illegal and more sternly punished, myself included.

There is abundant evidence that legalizing the business as a whole has no such positive consequences as the ones you suggest. In reality, it simply expands the reach of the industry. The illegal, slave-based variation gets expanded too. We've seen that in Germany, in Spain, in Vancouver when they briefly legalized the business when they held the Olympics, and so on. Every time the buying of sex gets legalized, trafficking and every oppression that goes along with the work intrinsically increases. There is nothing good about that approach. It only benefits customers. And that is what proponents of legalization are thinking as: customers, not as prospective workers who might find themselves enduring all this.

Abstract rationales mean nothing. The hard evidence suggests that generalized legalization doesn't work in terms of benefiting prostitutes.

Fron what I have heard prostitution in Reno, Nevada is much much safer for the prostitute than in Chicago, Illinois.

KC
10-09-2012, 01:51 PM
Who knows though. Maybe targeting consumers will work in Minnessota, and if it does I congratulate them, and if it works out better for protecting the natural rights of sex workers than legalization, I hope other local and state governments follow suit.

Kizzume
10-09-2012, 02:09 PM
There are a lot of jobs that are degrading. I think people should have the right to sell their bodies.

Cigar
10-09-2012, 02:14 PM
Is the premise that;

A prostitute offers a service for a fee and when that service is accepted and the fee paid she is now transformed into a "victim"?



Maybe with you it's called Robbery ... :)

Peter1469
10-09-2012, 05:14 PM
There have been a TON of posts here since I last visited and I haven't had time to catch up yet, but this I had to respond to before I head to work:



HOLY SHIT!!!

I'm sorry, but this statement was just...unbelievable! You compare dating to prostitution. There is no comparison. You are not just *snap snap* entitled to sex because you bought dinner. When you pay for dinner, you're entitled to dinner, nothing else!

Dating, whoever pays for it (and it doesn't always have to require payment), is an opportunity to get to know the other person better to see if you are romantically compatible. That is radically different from purchasing sex.

I didn't mean to offend you Polly. While I maintain that many women use sex to get material benefit, I concede that it is not the same thing as prostitution.

Captain Obvious
10-09-2012, 07:52 PM
There are a lot of jobs that are degrading. I think people should have the right to sell their bodies.

If a consenting adult is willing to pay another consenting adult money for sex, then that should be their business and nobody elses.

Except maybe the IRS on the taxable income thingy.

IMPress Polly
10-11-2012, 03:14 PM
Kizzume wrote:
There are a lot of jobs that are degrading. I think people should have the right to sell their bodies.

See right there is a great example of how we think differently. I think people, women included, have a right to own their bodies and that that right is sacred. People, women included, should be treated as human beings (because they are!), not like commercial products that one uses, abuses, and then discards.


Peter wrote:
I didn't mean to offend you Polly. While I maintain that many women use sex to get material benefit, I concede that it is not the same thing as prostitution.

Confusion largely clarified...I think.

Anyhow, to your broader point then, I presume that you might be alluding to, for instance, the stereotypical secretary who screws her way into promotions? That sort of thing? Well if so, yes that happens. The next question is why. While everyone has their individual reasons, the grand picture is that it's the fruit of patriarchy. There's still very really a glass ceiling there that few women can bust through any other way. You can call that cheating, but then one must remember who, within the framework of the glass ceiling arrangement, was the original cheater. Cheating is a contagious disease. Women often do what they have to to try and level the playing field.

Peter1469
10-11-2012, 03:24 PM
See right there is a great example of how we think differently. I think people, women included, have a right to own their bodies and that that right is sacred. People, women included, should be treated as human beings (because they are!), not like commercial products that one uses, abuses, and then discards.

If women actually owned their bodies then the government couldn't step in and tell them that they cannot legally trade sex for money.

IMPress Polly
10-11-2012, 03:31 PM
That's deliberately misconstruing the position I have been articulating since the OP.

(Btw, sorry, I edited my earlier post with a reply to yours while you were typing that most recent post evidently.)

Peter1469
10-11-2012, 03:35 PM
That's deliberately misconstruing the position I have been articulating since the OP.

(Btw, sorry, I edited my earlier post with a reply to yours while you were typing that most recent post evidently.)

The fruit of patriarchy? Didn't the pagan religions which have equal male and female God figures have many religious services that were based upon sexual union between men and women?

patrickt
10-11-2012, 03:36 PM
At present, in many jurisdictions, it is illegal to buy sex and it is illegal to sell sex. Am I correct that what is being proposed is to keep buying sex illegal but to legalize the selling of sex?

Peter1469
10-11-2012, 03:40 PM
At present, in many jurisdictions, it is illegal to buy sex and it is illegal to sell sex. Am I correct that what is being proposed is to keep buying sex illegal but to legalize the selling of sex?

I think that is Polly's position-- don't punish the girls who are largely being exploited and not working in a free market condition (free market is my words, not her's). In the context of sex slavery (in which I would include any prostitute who was not working freely and / or not being paid what they earn, i.e. being exploited) I agree with Polly. Those girls should not be pushed through the criminal justice system.

Mister D
10-11-2012, 03:46 PM
The fruit of patriarchy? Didn't the pagan religions which have equal male and female God figures have many religious services that were based upon sexual union between men and women?

Yes. Temples often had ritual prostitutes. In fact, such Canaanite practices are referred to explicitly and/or alluded to in the bible.

Peter1469
10-11-2012, 03:47 PM
Yes. Temples often had ritual prostitutes. In fact, such Canaanite practices are referred to explicitly and/or alluded to in the bible.

A ploy to increase temple attendance?

Mister D
10-11-2012, 03:50 PM
A ploy to increase temple attendance?

:grin:

Fertility rites, I suppose. The Mesopotamian god Dumuzi comes to mind. I think the high priest had intercourse with a temple prostitute during the annual Spring festival or something like that.

patrickt
10-11-2012, 03:54 PM
I was trying to think of other transactions. Consider selling illegal firearms. How would it work if selling them were legal but buying them weren't? Or drugs. Selling would be legal but buying wouldn't. Or stolen property? Selling would be legal but buying wouldn't be. It doesn't seem to make sense.

I am, of course, opposed to anyone being forced into sexual transactions by another person. Most I have known have been forced by their life circumstances and not someone else. A young woman who has not finished high school and is an addict with little or no family support has precious few options in the world. I have also met very young male prostitutes who were in the same boat. Runaways, possibly addicts, and one of the few options available was soliciting men.

IMPress Polly
10-11-2012, 04:08 PM
Peter wrote:
The fruit of patriarchy? Didn't the pagan religions which have equal male and female God figures have many religious services that were based upon sexual union between men and women?

I'm not seeing the connection, though admittedly I know woefully little about ancient pagan rituals. I was speaking about contemporary phenomena.


patrickt wrote:
At present, in many jurisdictions, it is illegal to buy sex and it is illegal to sell sex. Am I correct that what is being proposed is to keep buying sex illegal but to legalize the selling of sex?

Yes, for the essential reasons that Peter pointed out. This is the Swedish approach. It focuses on the demand side of the equation, seeing that as being at the real root of the exploitation that is occurring.

patrickt
10-11-2012, 04:42 PM
But, who is exploiting whom? I realize the politically correct position is that certain people are always victims and certain people are always exploiters but if a man buys a blowjob for $25 but a crack addict, who is exploiting whom?

Peter1469
10-11-2012, 06:28 PM
But, who is exploiting whom? I realize the politically correct position is that certain people are always victims and certain people are always exploiters but if a man buys a blowjob for $25 but a crack addict, who is exploiting whom?

Too often than not, the crack addict is a crack addict because her pimp encouraged the addiction. And then he beats her if she doesn't bring in enough business. In this case, she doesn't deserve to be processed through the criminal justice system, but rather helped out of her predicament.

Peter1469
10-11-2012, 06:31 PM
I'm not seeing the connection, though admittedly I know woefully little about ancient pagan rituals. I was speaking about contemporary phenomena.



Yes, for the essential reasons that Peter pointed out. This is the Swedish approach. It focuses on the demand side of the equation, seeing that as being at the real root of the exploitation that is occurring.

The pagan religions deified male and female. And what we would call prostitution was normal. But not considered negative- at least not those forced into it through slavery. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_prostitution

patrickt
10-11-2012, 07:29 PM
Too often than not, the crack addict is a crack addict because her pimp encouraged the addiction. And then he beats her if she doesn't bring in enough business. In this case, she doesn't deserve to be processed through the criminal justice system, but rather helped out of her predicament.

I understand more often than not. That's more than half. Too often than not isn't clear. Most prostitutes I've dealt with we turning tricks before they ever had a pimp our were turned out by the latest boyfriend. Drugs were a part of their life before they dropped out of school and before they started turning tricks.

I think pimping should be a felony. Selling and buying should be misdemeanors or petty offenses. Crimes against prostitutes should be investigated and prosecuted as any other crime. This is getting close to thieves are thieves because they're poor.

Peter1469
10-11-2012, 07:46 PM
I understand more often than not. That's more than half. Too often than not isn't clear. Most prostitutes I've dealt with we turning tricks before they ever had a pimp our were turned out by the latest boyfriend. Drugs were a part of their life before they dropped out of school and before they started turning tricks.

I think pimping should be a felony. Selling and buying should be misdemeanors or petty offenses. Crimes against prostitutes should be investigated and prosecuted as any other crime. This is getting close to thieves are thieves because they're poor.

Do you think that legalizing prosecution can clean the industry up- assuming that the government keeps crime out of it rather than turning the other cheek?

IMPress Polly
10-12-2012, 06:52 AM
patrickt wrote:
But, who is exploiting whom? I realize the politically correct position is that certain people are always victims and certain people are always exploiters but if a man buys a blowjob for $25 but a crack addict, who is exploiting whom?

I find that the term "politically correct" usually means factually correct.

Anyhow, people who wind up in prostitution usually were either tricked into it or come from a certain range of backgrounds that push them in such a direction. At least half of all prostitutes are victims of incest. I was too. That's just something that really helps shape your sense of self-worth.

Mister D
10-12-2012, 07:49 AM
I find that the term "politically correct" usually means factually correct.

Anyhow, people who wind up in prostitution usually were either tricked into it or come from a certain range of backgrounds that push them in such a direction. At least half of all prostitutes are victims of incest. I was too. That's just something that really helps shape your sense of self-worth.

Really? I find it to be just the opposite. It's usually an official lie that we are told we must acknowledge at least publicly.

IMPress Polly
10-12-2012, 01:41 PM
I find that the people who throw the term around a lot are those who engage in a lot of discrimination and are just generally characterized by a lot of prejudice.

Mister D
10-12-2012, 02:15 PM
I find that the people who throw the term around a lot are those who engage in a lot of discrimination and are just generally characterized by a lot of prejudice.

How could you possibly know such a thing?