- MaleBox
- 08-30-2015, 04:55 PM
Has anyone else seen the recent NY Times editorials following Amnesty Int'l recommending sex work globally be decriminalized to help stop abuse, human trafficking, and to give greater rights and safety to sex workers. It talked about how well this has worked in New Zealand since 2002. It seemed to me it would give greater protection to everyone but especially to providers who want to be in the biz. But I am wondering what y'all think?
- agentx
- 08-30-2015, 06:49 PM
Yes, saw that article in the Saturday NYT op/ed page.
The thing that bothered me the most, though, was that the article was very much against legalization of sex work. The author compared prostitution (whether legal or not) to 'international human trafficking' which is a false argument.
I also saw that the author is the director of an organization that wants to ban sex work altogether. Good luck with that...
Link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/op...-be-legal.html
The thing that bothered me the most, though, was that the article was very much against legalization of sex work. The author compared prostitution (whether legal or not) to 'international human trafficking' which is a false argument.
I also saw that the author is the director of an organization that wants to ban sex work altogether. Good luck with that...
Link to the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/op...-be-legal.html
- irishlad
- 08-31-2015, 06:23 AM
I noticed in another recent NYT article responding to Amnesty that the forces of propriety for all as they see it are now using one of their favorite dirty tricks and "evolving" the definition of Human Trafficking. For a long time they've disingenuously tried to blur the distinction between prostitution and trafficking. Nothing new there.
They now use the term Human Trafficking to refer to any situation where someone other than the provider has any kind of employment or contractor relationship with anyone else (or even hire someone to help them). So if the provider voluntarily enters the employ of an agency and is advertised for, transported to a client or anything like that, suddenly that is "human trafficking".
This is of course manipulative bullshit. Prostitution is sex for money. Trafficking is controlling people using coercion and making them work involuntarily for your gain. To be trafficking it needs to include threats of violence, kidnapping, control of someone's ability to survive or even manipulation of a legal system to gain advantage (take them to a foreign country where they don't speak the language and deny them a passport). By the emerging definition, we're all victims of human trafficking every time we get a damn job.
I understand that pragmatically speaking it can be hard for law enforcement to tell the difference, hence in practice laws that legalize prostitution but not "pimping" in it's various forms are probably not a bad idea...but this is about making it sound like prostitution=trafficking and you cannot have one without the other and that's not true.
As for this article...a 15 year old is NEVER going to be legal. In the states she isn't even old enough to work at Walmart. "Legal draws illegal" sounds like a BS argument to me. Black markets emerge when there is limited supply in the regular markets. This would cause the opposite.
They now use the term Human Trafficking to refer to any situation where someone other than the provider has any kind of employment or contractor relationship with anyone else (or even hire someone to help them). So if the provider voluntarily enters the employ of an agency and is advertised for, transported to a client or anything like that, suddenly that is "human trafficking".
This is of course manipulative bullshit. Prostitution is sex for money. Trafficking is controlling people using coercion and making them work involuntarily for your gain. To be trafficking it needs to include threats of violence, kidnapping, control of someone's ability to survive or even manipulation of a legal system to gain advantage (take them to a foreign country where they don't speak the language and deny them a passport). By the emerging definition, we're all victims of human trafficking every time we get a damn job.
I understand that pragmatically speaking it can be hard for law enforcement to tell the difference, hence in practice laws that legalize prostitution but not "pimping" in it's various forms are probably not a bad idea...but this is about making it sound like prostitution=trafficking and you cannot have one without the other and that's not true.
As for this article...a 15 year old is NEVER going to be legal. In the states she isn't even old enough to work at Walmart. "Legal draws illegal" sounds like a BS argument to me. Black markets emerge when there is limited supply in the regular markets. This would cause the opposite.
- michaelbolton
- 08-31-2015, 07:59 AM
the article is very much against the push to decriminalize. and does acknowledge the sharp distinction between trafficking and escorts we're familiar with.
I don't disagree; it makes far too much sense that if you legalize it, there will be more of it...she gives examples...such as the disasters in Amsterdam and Germany.
Her alternative approach, that you lift all penalties for providers, but keep it illegal for johns and pimps, seems ass backward...to think that you're going to substantially eliminate men's desire for sex by changing nothing but the penalties for providers is absurd...the demand is hardwired...almost seems self serving for the author who is a former prostitute.
But if you eliminate the supply...well then you have something...that's always been the view...and it's the right one...it's only that they suck at initiating and executing policies that get the bad guys...so govt and policymakers try to be creative (just legalize it) instead of admitting they're fuck ups. marijuana is very similar. demand is insatiable, they suck at cutting off supply, say hey let's legalize it...brilliant!...look at Colorado...Denver crime, homelessness and drug violations are all up! So if you can't beat em, join em, and tax the hell out of it so govt can get a cut!
I don't disagree; it makes far too much sense that if you legalize it, there will be more of it...she gives examples...such as the disasters in Amsterdam and Germany.
Her alternative approach, that you lift all penalties for providers, but keep it illegal for johns and pimps, seems ass backward...to think that you're going to substantially eliminate men's desire for sex by changing nothing but the penalties for providers is absurd...the demand is hardwired...almost seems self serving for the author who is a former prostitute.
But if you eliminate the supply...well then you have something...that's always been the view...and it's the right one...it's only that they suck at initiating and executing policies that get the bad guys...so govt and policymakers try to be creative (just legalize it) instead of admitting they're fuck ups. marijuana is very similar. demand is insatiable, they suck at cutting off supply, say hey let's legalize it...brilliant!...look at Colorado...Denver crime, homelessness and drug violations are all up! So if you can't beat em, join em, and tax the hell out of it so govt can get a cut!