Page 14 of 14 FirstFirst ... 4121314
Results 131 to 137 of 137

Thread: The inner world of a prostitute

  1. Top | #131
    Contributor DrZoidberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Copenhagen
    Posts
    7,686
    Archived
    5,746
    Total Posts
    13,432
    Rep Power
    50
    ...
    Last edited by Tom Sawyer; 05-16-2019 at 09:28 PM. Reason: Discussing moderation.

  2. Top | #132
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,444
    Rep Power
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    I and many proponents of legalization of prostitution do have victims of sex slavery in mind, as well as willing sex workers being in mind.
    That's not what I said. I said there are two different discussions going on, but I'm tired of this childish bullshit, so fine, let's dig through the horseshit and see what substance can be found...

    The only argument against us relies on loose definitions of "sex trafficking" that does not equal sex slavery.
    You've stuffed that strawman repeatedly. The accusation seems to be that any time anyone says "sex trafficking" that because they are not specifying willful vs coerced, it just automatically defaults to willful and thus "moralists" are trying to pull a fast one through equivocation.

    I have never once made such a false equivocation, nor did any of the studies I posted previously. In fact, the one I quoted at length goes into significant detail regarding precisely that issue (emphasis mine):

    Human trafficking is a clandestine, criminal activity, with those being trafficked and involved in such activities being part of ‘hidden populations’
    ...
    Among the currently available sources, the aforementioned Report on Trafficking in Persons: Global Patterns (UNODC, 2006) has also collected and presented data on incidences of human trafficking at the country level; therefore the utilization of this report best serves the purpose of our study. The UNODC Report provides cross-country information on the reported incidence of human trafficking in 161 countries, measuring trafficking flows on a six-point scale. To the best of our knowledge, this report is the only source with comparable data across countries and covering most countries in the world, which also differentiates between the intensity levels of human trafficking inflows. Our empirical analysis is based on the UNODC data given that we want to test the impact of prostitution laws on the degree of human trafficking.
    Here is the UNODOC report's definition of human trafficking:

    Trafficking in Persons: The recruitment, transportation, transfer, harbouring or receipt of persons, by means of the threat or use of force or other forms of coercion, of abduction, of fraud, of deception, of the abuse of power or of a position of vulnerability or of the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person having control over another person, for the purpose of exploitation. Exploitation includes, at a minimum, the exploitation of the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labour or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, servitude or the removal of organs.
    As you can clearly see, there is nothing in that definition that can be misinterpreted to include "willful participation." Crystal clear?

    Here is the study again for you to ignore again Does legalized prostitution increase human trafficking? To reiterate, this study has clearly noted that their empirical evidence comes primarily from the UN study, which in turn clearly noted what they mean by "trafficking."

    With that in mind, here is yet another interesting point noted by the study that you will likewise ignore (emphasis mine):

    What will be the effect of legalizing prostitution on the demand, supply, and thus equilibrium quantity of prostitution? Starting with the demand effect, some clients will be deterred from consuming commercial sex services if prostitution is illegal and they expect that there is a reasonable probability of being prosecuted, as this raises the costs of engaging in such activities. Legalizing prostitution will therefore almost invariably increase demand for prostitution.8

    Concerning supply, legalizing prostitution will induce some potential sex workers (or their pimps) to enter the market, namely those who were deterred from offering such services by the threat of prosecution and for whom the pay premium that arose from the illegality of prostitution represented insufficient compensation – i.e., the risk of prosecution creates costs that are not easily expressed in monetary terms and can therefore not be compensated for with a higher wage. One might conjecture that supply could also decrease given that the state will want to raise taxes from legalized prostitution, whereas illegal prostitution, by definition, does not entail payment of taxes. However, this is not the case. Those unwilling or unable to operate legally (including meeting the legal obligation to pay taxes), can continue to operate illegally. Before, their business was illegal because prostitution was illegal; now their business is illegal due to their tax evasion in the shadow economy. Supply could only decrease under the assumption that the state prosecutes tax evasion more vigorously than it prosecuted illegal prostitution before, which, we believe, will not be the case.9 As is the case with demand, supply will therefore increase as well. With demand and supply both increasing, the equilibrium quantity of prostitution will be higher in the legalized regime compared to the situation where prostitution is illegal.

    If the scale of prostitution becomes larger once it is rendered legal, will the incidence of human trafficking also increase? The increased equilibrium quantity of prostitution will, for a constant share of trafficked prostitutes among all prostitutes, exert an increasing scale effect on the incidence of international trafficking for prostitution purposes.10 This is the effect Jakobsson and Kotsadam (2011) take into account. It is only part of the whole story, however. The full answer to the question depends on what happens to the composition of prostitutes and whether any substitution effect away from trafficked prostitutes (towards domestic prostitutes or foreign prostitutes legally residing and working in the country) is stronger than the scale effect. Under conditions of illegality, a certain share of prostitutes will consist of trafficked individuals, given the difficulties in recruiting individuals willing to voluntarily work in such an illegal market.11 This share of trafficked prostitutes is likely to fall after legalization. Sex businesses wishing to take advantage of the legality of prostitution (instead of remaining illegal) would want to recruit more national citizens or foreigners legally residing with a work permit in the country since employing trafficked foreign prostitutes (or, for that matter, illegally residing foreign prostitutes that were not trafficked) endangers their newly achieved legal status.12

    However, the legalization of prostitution will not reduce the share of trafficked prostitutes to zero. First, there may be insufficient supply among domestic or legally residing foreign individuals, given the risky and unattractive nature of prostitution which persists even after legalization. Second, trafficked individuals are significantly more vulnerable and exposed to the demands of their pimps, which makes their continued employment attractive to some extent. For example, a greater portion of their earnings can be extracted, making their pimps’ business more lucrative than operating with legal prostitutes. Third, clients might have preferences for “exotic” sex workers from geographically remote places whose nationals are unlikely to have legal rights to reside in the country. There is consequently a substitution effect away from illegally trafficked prostitutes (as well as illegally residing non-trafficked prostitutes) to legally residing prostitutes, but just how strong this substitution effect is remains an empirical matter. In sum, the effect of legalization of prostitution on the international trafficking of human beings is theoretically indeterminate as the two effects, with unknown magnitudes, work in opposite directions. We therefore now turn to our empirical analysis [aka UNODOC] to shed light on whether, on average, the substitution effect or the scale (quantity) effect dominates.
    ...
    We have sufficient data for Germany to compare the number of trafficking victims in the pre- and post-legalization period. For Sweden and Denmark, we lack such data. We therefore compare the available data for Sweden after the prohibition of prostitution with data for Denmark, where prostitution was legalized. Sweden and Denmark have similar levels of economic and institutional development, and a similar geographic position, which, as our quantitative analysis shows, are important determinants of human trafficking.

    Sweden amended its prostitution law in 1999 by prohibiting all forms of commercial sex and punishing the purchase of sex with a fine or imprisonment for a maximum of six months. Prior to the amendment, Sweden allowed self-employed individual prostitution while prohibiting brothel operation (Di Nicola et al., 2005). The amendment was introduced after long debates over the root causes of prostitution in Swedish society, with the new law stating that prostitution by nature is always exploitative, and that the purchase of sexual services provided by women and girls amounts to discrimination against them (Ekberg, 2004). Furthermore, this new law links prostitution to human trafficking and specifically states the former as an alleged cause of the latter (Ekberg, 2004).
    ...
    Contrary to Sweden, Germany introduced a more liberal prostitution law in 2002. Today, prostitution in Germany is regulated by law and regarded as a ‘regular job’ subject to tax payment and retirement schemes (Di Nicola et al., 2005). Prior to 2002, Germany only allowed individual, self-employed prostitution without third party involvement. Having a liberal prostitution regime, Germany is known to have one of the largest prostitution markets in Europe, with about 150,000 people working as prostitutes (Global report data used in Danailova-Trainor and Belser, 2006). This means that the number of prostitutes in Germany is more than 60 times that of Sweden, while having a population (82 million inhabitants) less than 10 times larger. In terms of human trafficking victims, the ILO estimated the stock of victims in Germany in 2004 to be approximately 32,800 – about 62 times more than in Sweden (Danailova-Trainor & Belser, 2006). Again, the share of trafficked individuals among all prostitutes appears to be quite similar in both countries, corroborating the view that any compositional differences across prohibitionist and legalized prostitution regimes are likely to be small.

    Additionally, Di Nicola et al. (2005) provide annual estimates of trafficking victims used for sexual exploitation in Germany over the 1996-2003 period, which can shed some light on the changing number of trafficked prostitutes. The estimates show that the number of victims gradually declined between 1996/97, the first years of data collection, and 2001, when the minimum estimate was 9,870 and the maximum 19,740.37 However, this number increased upon fully
    legalizing prostitution
    in 2002, as well as in 2003, rising to 11,080-22,160 and 12,350-24,700, respectively.38 This is consistent with our result from the quantitative analysis indicating a positive correlation between the legal status of prostitution and inward trafficking.
    Again, are we clear? THIS study is not falsely equating legal recruitment with illegal trafficking, so all of your arguments in that regard are not applicable to the findings of this study.

    It is fundamentally a question of choice. Should women have control over their own bodies and be allowed to do what they want with their bodies, so long as it isn't directly hurting anybody else?
    Wrong question. And wrong focus. Of course all people should have control over their own bodies. ONCE AGAIN, we are having two different discussions.

  3. Top | #133
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    South Pole
    Posts
    7,947
    Archived
    3,444
    Total Posts
    11,391
    Rep Power
    66
    It is refreshing to see somebody actually address the "Sex Trafficking" definition problem. And I admit I didn't read what you wrote earlier in the thread because I was focused on Toni and had you on ignore due to your aggressive behaviour in other threads. But I'm reading you now, and will continue to read you so long as you are civil.

    I skimmed through the article you linked to and read what you quoted from it plus a little more. This isn't a study where they measured human trafficking according to what you quoted above. This is a comparison of data that they got from all over the place, which would have used many different definitions, and uncontrolled variables all over the place. They are comparing country to country, all of which will have measured it in different ways.

    A better indicator would be real world investigations into before and after. Such as when Rhode Island accidentally legalized prostitution and rape reports fell: https://www.zmescience.com/research/...s-rapes-54354/ Correlation doesn't prove causation of course, but that's a pretty interesting happening.

    Or when the UK did their huge investigation into sex trafficking and failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into it: https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2009/...-enquiry-fails

    Current and former ministers have claimed that thousands of women have been imported into the UK and forced to work as sex slaves, but most of these statements were either based on distortions of quoted sources or fabrications without any source at all.

    While some prosecutions have been made, the Guardian investigation suggests the number of people who have been brought into the UK and forced against their will into prostitution is much smaller than claimed; and that the problem of trafficking is one of a cluster of factors which expose sex workers to coercion and exploitation.

    Acting on the distorted information, the government has produced a bill, now moving through its final parliamentary phase, which itself has provoked an outcry from sex workers who complain that, instead of protecting them, it will expose them to extra danger.
    The study you linked to was also addressed back when it came out in Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors.../#1333bf925727

  4. Top | #134
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Atlanta, GA
    Posts
    13,664
    Archived
    15,686
    Total Posts
    29,350
    Rep Power
    75
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    No, it actually does not.
    If you view exchange of money for services rendered as "coercive" rather than voluntary, yes, it does.

    Are you 'coercing' an electrician to fix your wiring by offering money?
    Yes, that is precisely what you are doing.
    I do not think you know the meaning of the word coerce.
    Quote Originally Posted by wiktionary
    coerce (third-person singular simple present coerces, present participle coercing, simple past and past participle coerced)

    (transitive) To restrain by force, especially by law or authority; to repress; to curb.
    (transitive) To use force, threat, fraud, or intimidation in an attempt to compel one to act against his will.
    (transitive, computing) To force an attribute, normally of a data type, to take on the attribute of another data type.
    It is precisely not what one is doing when exchanging money for a service from a professional willingly offering such services.

    I am sure he or she would hardly do it for free.
    Right, so you have to coerce them into doing it for you, precisely because they would NOT do it for you for free. Do you not understand that you are actually making my point for me?
    No, I definitely am not.

    Do you seriously think that the women you pay to have sex with you would do what they do without your payment?
    She would not. But that doesn't make it coercive. It makes it a professional transaction.

    I don't mean to be cruel, but surely this is not the first time that thought has occurred to you. You are literally coercing them into fucking you. It's not something they are doing of their own free will. If they didn't need the money, they would not be fucking you.
    They are doing it of their own free will. Just like the electrician is fixing your wiring out of his own free will. Even if you are paying him. If you coerce him to fix your wiring, you could go to jail.

    Or maybe they would. I don't know them, so you should ask, but my guess is that if it weren't for their need of the money, they wouldn't be fucking you. Which means they aren't acting of their own free will, they are acting out of their need for money.
    I don't want to get into the whole philosophical debate about "free will" here, but to my best knowledge, no philosophical school views free will abrogated if an action is motivated by money.

    There is a difference between choosing to act in a particular way and having no choice but to act in a particular way.
    And both a sex worker and an electrician have a choice to act a particular way. They can quit and seek other employment for example.

  5. Top | #135
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    22,561
    Archived
    96,752
    Total Posts
    119,313
    Rep Power
    92
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Even if 99% of ALL prostitutes were operating of their own free will, there would still be concern about the 1% that aren't. We're not talking about someone working in a fucking Ikea against their will; we're talking about state-sanctioned rape, basically. Where it is currently criminalized, it's still rape, so the decriminalization aspect to the argument merely shifts who the pimps are, not whether or not the harms are being properly addressed.
    In an ideal world there would not be the 1%. In the real world we aren't going to stomp out prostitution, we should be looking for how to reduce the number of women who are not consenting.

  6. Top | #136
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,444
    Rep Power
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Jolly_Penguin View Post
    And I admit I didn't read what you wrote earlier in the thread
    How big of you.

    I skimmed through the article you linked to and read what you quoted from it plus a little more. This isn't a study where they measured human trafficking according to what you quoted above. This is a comparison of data that they got from all over the place, which would have used many different definitions, and uncontrolled variables all over the place. They are comparing country to country, all of which will have measured it in different ways.
    Sigh. Read it again:

    The UNODC Report provides cross-country information on the reported incidence of human trafficking in 161 countries, measuring trafficking flows on a six-point scale. To the best of our knowledge, this report is the only source with comparable data across countries and covering most countries in the world, which also differentiates between the intensity levels of human trafficking inflows. Our empirical analysis is based on the UNODC data given that we want to test the impact of prostitution laws on the degree of human trafficking.
    ...
    We therefore now turn to our empirical analysis to shed light on whether, on average, the substitution effect or the scale (quantity) effect dominates.
    ...
    This is consistent with our result from the quantitative analysis indicating a positive correlation between the legal status of prostitution and inward trafficking.
    They used UNODC data--which in turn used a clear definition of unwilling trafficking in its own study--to form their analysis and found it correlated with other studies as well.

    A better indicator
    Would be what you conceded:

    Correlation doesn't prove causation of course, but that's a pretty interesting happening.
    And then went on with:

    Or when the UK did their huge investigation into sex trafficking and failed to find a single person who had forced anybody into it:
    Wrong. As your own source noted (after the attention grabbing headline):

    Of the 406 real arrests...There were just five men who were convicted of importing women and forcing them to work as prostitutes. These genuinely were traffickers, but none of them was detected by Pentameter, although its investigations are still continuing.
    So, even in a flawed police report, they still found 1.2% of confirmed traffickers, but of course, those five men were traffickers, so there are also the women they trafficked to consider. Here are the names of those men from your article:

    Two of them — Zhen Xu and Fei Zhang — had been in custody since March 2007, a clear seven months before Pentameter started work in October 2007.

    The other three, Ali Arslan, Edward Facuna and Roman Pacan
    In regard to Xu and Zhang:

    The court heard that more than 20 girls had been recruited abroad in poor areas of China and Thailand and then forced to work as prostitutes when they came to this country.
    In regard to Arslan, Facuna and Pacan:

    Slovakian Edward Facuna, 54, and Czech-born Roman Pacan, 39, both from Peterborough, were jailed for 11 years each for trafficking the Slovakian teenager into the UK for sexual exploitation.

    Ali Arslan, 43, got 14 years for controlling the Hackney brothel and another in Luton where the teenager worked two years later, controlling prostitution for gain, controlling a child prostitute and trafficking the teenager within the UK for sexual exploitation.
    ...
    The judge said although the court heard of only two girls being forced to prostitute themselves, Ali Arslan's brothels employed up to 50 eastern European women and almost certainly included others made to sell their bodies.
    So, out of just five confirmed traffickers (out of 406 arrests), we have upwards of 70 women (probably more) who were likely forced into prostitution. Anyone want to extrapolate that?

    The study you linked to was also addressed back when it came out in Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors.../#1333bf925727
    Yeah, again, he makes the exact same mistake you just did:

    But how are we to work out which definition [of trafficking] they are using? It's not something that I can immediately see them explaining in the paper.
    I just explained precisely how above, but shall reiterate the point he conveniently omitted after having quoted almost exactly the same section I did (regarding Germany and Sweden and the like):

    This is consistent with our result from the quantitative analysis indicating a positive correlation between the legal status of prostitution and inward trafficking.
    Again, what they were saying was that the evidence regarding Germany and Sweden and Denmark correlated to the analysis they conducted on the data from the more comprehensive UNODOC study, which, once again, did in fact rigorously control and account for the definition of trafficking as being precisely about non-willing trafficking.

    So thank you as you just reiterated the mistakes you had made with someone at Forbes making the exact same easily rectifiable mistakes, so I got to clarify two birds with one stone.

    ETA: Just to make it crystal clear, here is what the Forbes article quoted from my study and then stated verbatim:

    Additionally, Di Nicola et al. (2005) provide annual estimates of trafficking victims
    used for sexual exploitation in Germany over the 1996-2003 period, which can shed some
    light on the changing number of trafficked prostitutes. The estimates show that the number of
    victims gradually declined between 1996/97, the first years of data collection, and 2001, when
    the minimum estimate was 9,870 and the maximum 19,740.

    However, this number increased upon fully legalizing prostitution in 2002, as well as in 2003, rising to 11,080-
    22,160 and 12,350-24,700, respectively.

    If that's the number in the sex slavery definition of trafficking then clearly we've got an enormous problem and we'd be correct in taking very severe action against those who do it. If it's the illegal immigrant definition then I, as above, would simply shrug my shoulders. But how are we to work out which definition they are using? It's not something that I can immediately see them explaining in the paper.
    Now from the study (emphasis mine):

    Additionally, Di Nicola et al. (2005) provide annual estimates of trafficking victims used for sexual exploitation in Germany over the 1996-2003 period, which can shed some light on the changing number of trafficked prostitutes. The estimates show that the number of victims gradually declined between 1996/97, the first years of data collection, and 2001, when the minimum estimate was 9,870 and the maximum 19,740.37 However, this number increased upon fully legalizing prostitution in 2002, as well as in 2003, rising to 11,080-22,160 and 12,350-24,700, respectively.38 This is consistent with our result from the quantitative analysis indicating a positive correlation between the legal status of prostitution and inward trafficking.
    The Forbes author literally quoted the exact same section I did, but then just left off the qualifying sentence at the end that ties their analysis to the UNODOC data and definition.
    Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 05-17-2019 at 07:21 PM.

  7. Top | #137
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    2,444
    Rep Power
    8
    Quote Originally Posted by Loren Pechtel View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Koyaanisqatsi View Post
    Even if 99% of ALL prostitutes were operating of their own free will, there would still be concern about the 1% that aren't. We're not talking about someone working in a fucking Ikea against their will; we're talking about state-sanctioned rape, basically. Where it is currently criminalized, it's still rape, so the decriminalization aspect to the argument merely shifts who the pimps are, not whether or not the harms are being properly addressed.
    In an ideal world there would not be the 1%. In the real world we aren't going to stomp out prostitution, we should be looking for how to reduce the number of women who are not consenting.
    Fully agree. As I've repeated now for I believe the fifth time, I absolutely think we should decriminalize the sex worker. In regard to the "John" however, I'm still on the fence. As I said before, I think we should treat it like we do a prescription drug or a medical marijuana license or the like. That way anyone who wants to go to a prostitute is cleared and tracked and if they commit any harm, the police can grab them easily.

    If we're talking about removing the harms and the stigma of sex work, then that must work both ways and no one going to a prostitute for innocent reasons should have any problems with that.

    As for, say, married men or women wanting to cheat on their spouses? I don't see a valid reason why the State should somehow appease such people by not making them likewise divulge their intentions, but if someone can make a good argument for it, by all means go ahead.

    ETA: Another advantage of the licensing or "prescription" approach (whatever you want to call it) is that it also provides a way to help mitigate against trafficked prostitution in that only legal/approved/licensed whatever brothels/prostitutes can scan the John's card or whatever it would be.

    Iow, there are incentives and methods for both Johns and sex workers to protect each other against trafficked prostitution.
    Last edited by Koyaanisqatsi; 05-17-2019 at 09:04 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •