An example of why I am against prostitution

[Revoltingest]

You've answered your own point.

In the op I said 'in a perfect world...' We do not live in a perfect world.
In our world the reality is that prostitution is abusive and enslaving as evidenced by the huge amount of women trafficked annually. Estimates suggest 21 million people are enslaved annually and that 80% of these are enslaved for sexual servitude. That is about 16 million people forced into prostitution every year. Many of them children. It is appalling. I don't give a fig for niceties regarding hypothetical arrangements when the reality is rape, torture, and misery.

This is to ignore the difference between voluntary relationships (even unsavory ones)
& coerced / forced labor. It's false to make them equivalent.

 

[sandandfoam]

This is to ignore the difference between voluntary relationships (even unsavory ones)
& coerced / forced labor. It's false to make them equivalent.

Nope.
We know that the majority of people 'working' in the sex trade are being abused and exploited. We know that 'working' in this trade has devastating consequences for individuals.
Characterising people who purchase sex as anything other than criminal does a disservice for those millions living in tortured slavery.
Considering the abuse and absolute misery they leave in their wake why would anyone wish to defend 'johns'?
To heck with them - my concern is wholly for the victims of human trafficking. If the Johns weren't buying sex then slaves would not be presented to satisfy their demands.

 

[Revoltingest]

Nope.
We know that the majority of people 'working' in the sex trade are being abused and exploited. We know that 'working' in this trade has devastating consequences for individuals.
Characterising people who purchase sex as anything other than criminal does a disservice for those millions living in tortured slavery.
Considering the abuse and absolute misery they leave in their wake why would anyone wish to defend 'johns'?
To heck with them - my concern is wholly for the victims of human trafficking. If the Johns weren't buying sex then slaves would not be presented to satisfy their demands.

We'll have to agree to disagree about how the industry does & could work.

I note an underlying assumption by many that "johns", the male client, must be demonized, & that female prostitutes are innocent victims. This avoidance of gay male prostitution suggests a strong anti-male bias, & a women-are-always-victims presumption.
Sexism is alive & well even in feminism, eh?

 

[dust1n]

He didn't say anything about females or males.

 

[sandandfoam]

He didn't say anything about females or males.

Exactly.

 

[Revoltingest]

He didn't say anything about females or males.

I don't see "john" as referring to women.
I also see a subtext about women being the victims.
Despite protestations otherwise, I believe this inference to be correct.

--- Edit ---
A big issue between us is the existence of liberty in adults becoming prostitutes.
Perhaps I can illustrate my perspective by comparing prostitution of adults & children.
An adult....let's say a fully functioning woman...has the ability to look out for her own interest.
If she chooses to engage in sex with another person for pay, & both do this willingly, & the
results are as each expected, then there is no wrong.
A child does not have full mental capacity to look out for his/her own well being. This is why
it's good public policy that a child is necessarily a victim of any sexual encounter with an adult.

 

[Alceste]

I don't see the problem with being insulting or shaming towards people who hire prostitutes. They are part of an intrinsically abusive set up.
I'd go further and say that hiring of prostitutes should be illegal.
I would like to see the selling of sex decriminalized and the buying of it criminalized.

I would like to see it cured. I don't think trying to ban it is helpful, although to whatever extent a law applies, i definitely agree it should be the pimps, traffickers, and johns who profit from it, not the prostitutes. If the aim of a prostitution law is not to protect prostitutes from exploitation, psychological trauma and sexual abuse, it's a bad law.

 

[sandandfoam]

I don't see "john" as referring to women.
I also see a subtext about women being the victims.
Despite protestations otherwise, I believe this inference to be correct.

Even if the inference were correct the point stands.

We know that the majority of people 'working' in the sex trade are being abused and exploited. We know that 'working' in this trade has devastating consequences for individuals.
Characterising people who purchase sex as anything other than criminal does a disservice for those millions living in tortured slavery.
Considering the abuse and absolute misery they leave in their wake why would anyone wish to defend 'johns'?
To heck with them - my concern is wholly for the victims of human trafficking. If the Johns weren't buying sex then slaves would not be presented to satisfy their demands.

 

[sandandfoam]

I would like to see it cured. I don't think trying to ban it is helpful, although to whatever extent a law applies, i definitely agree it should be the pimps, traffickers, and johns who suffer from it, not the prostitutes. If the aim of a prostitution law is not to protect prostitutes from exploitation, psychological trauma and sexual abuse, it's a bad law.

That sounds fair to me.

 

[freethinker44]

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Revoltingest]

Sorry, couldn't resist.

You had to post it.
How could you not?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I think licensing johns is a fabulous idea.

This is one of those issues where it's so awesome while also being massively frustrating with my orientation. If I were in the conundrum where social situations repeatedly for years failed to find a hook-up, I would consider hiring a sex worker for intimacy. I even at one point in early adulthood considered hiring a sex worker to keep my orientation private while still finding a woman to be with.

I'm - again - wishing I could pick a side in the debate. Mud wrestling is so much fun (you get dirty), but I'm just sitting here on the fence figuring out my own confusing hormones, desires, and feelings of bodily autonomy.

 

[dust1n]

I don't see "john" as referring to women.
I also see a subtext about women being the victims.
Despite protestations otherwise, I believe this inference to be correct.

I'm going out on a limb here and thinking "john" was used because I can't even think of a word. I didn't see anything where he displayed some sort of "sexism" in his post, besides the baggage the term "john" has, it seemed pretty clear to me that his reference was to all purchasers and sellers of the sex trade, regardless of gender. No distinction was made, though one could always be more careful to address any particulars.

--- Edit ---
A big issue between us is the existence of liberty in adults becoming prostitutes.
Perhaps I can illustrate my perspective by comparing prostitution of adults & children.
An adult....let's say a fully functioning woman...has the ability to look out for her own interest.
If she chooses to engage in sex with another person for pay, & both do this willingly, & the
results are as each expected, then there is no wrong.
A child does not have full mental capacity to look out for his/her own well being. This is why
it's good public policy that a child is necessarily a victim of any sexual encounter with an adult.

I'm pretty sure I understand where you come from in the argument. I just don't see how an a priori argument is suppose to be all that helpful to my concerns about legalized prostitution. It's the effects of policies I continuously talk about concerning this topic, not the ideal reasoning by why policies are reached. Legalized prostitution should increase liberty, unless it doesn't.

Also, I don't know what a fully functioning woman is let alone the ability to look out for one's own interest. It's hard to build off these notions anything reasonable, seeing how they are entirely qualitative, and non-quantitative at all, which seems to be one of the criticisms I just received in response to my references.

That being said, I support decriminalization, and likely legalization, but do not support legalization of brothel, or any form of establishment or third party who profits off the sale of sex. Even then, I would need for the illegal sex trade, slavery, and trafficking to decrease significantly first before granting legality to the same parties who are already involved in the whole affair, especially since it appears legalizing prostitution correlates with an increase in sex trafficking and slavery.

I am continuously surprised to find people ranging from realistic to down-right misanthropic somehow much more confident in the nature of the sex trade to somehow alter its course simply because people are overseeing it, yet not corrupting it in any manner.

 

[freethinker44]

This is one of those issues where it's so awesome while also being massively frustrating with my orientation. If I were in the conundrum where social situations repeatedly for years failed to find a hook-up, I would consider hiring a sex worker for intimacy. I even at one point in early adulthood considered hiring a sex worker to keep my orientation private while still finding a woman to be with.

So you also feel you are entitled to rape women?



BTW, I don't actually think you feel entitled to rape women. But sometimes applying an idea is the easiest way to show the absurdity behind it.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

So you also feel you are entitled to rape women?

BTW, I don't actually think you feel entitled to rape women. But sometimes applying an idea is the easiest way to show the absurdity behind it.

No worries. I got the idea.

But thanks for following up.

I think for me, it isn't entitlement. But hoping intimacy is available.

I also think that with current paradigms expecting women to be presented as sexually available, I feel like putting my dukes up.

See? Confusion. :help:

 

[Alceste]

No worries. I got the idea.

But thanks for following up.

I think for me, it isn't entitlement. But hoping intimacy is available.

I also think that with current paradigms expecting women to be presented as sexually available, I feel like putting my dukes up.

See? Confusion. :help:

What are you referring to as "intimacy" here? I always think of intimacy as a phenomenon that necessarily requires two fully present people, neither of whom are totally faking it in order to lighten your wallet.

I feel sorry for people who think anything they are buying from a prostitute is intimate. Although you can rent "the girlfriend experience" where a woman will make you supper, flatter your ego, talk about your day and then bang you. If everyone involved accepts and understands that this is play acting and fantasy fulfillment (for the John, certainly not the prostitute) I don't see the problem, but when we start calling it "intimacy" we are in the territory of completely misunderstanding the feelings and experience of the prostitute, who just needs the money and is really just relieved she isn't getting raped, beaten or murdered during your "date".

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm going out on a limb here and thinking "john" was used because I can't even think of a word. I didn't see anything where he displayed some sort of "sexism" in his post, besides the baggage the term "john" has, it seemed pretty clear to me that his reference was to all purchasers and sellers of the sex trade, regardless of gender. No distinction was made, though one could always be more careful to address any particulars.

If that's what was meant, then great.
But nonetheless, I still see an anti-male women-as-victim theme at work in this & other threads dealing with the issue.
Note: I don't apply this with a broad brush to all feminists & anti-prostitution types.

I'm pretty sure I understand where you come from in the argument. I just don't see how an a priori argument is suppose to be all that helpful to my concerns about legalized prostitution. It's the effects of policies I continuously talk about concerning this topic, not the ideal reasoning by why policies are reached. Legalized prostitution should increase liberty, unless it doesn't.

I argue both a priori & a posteriori.
But when in doubt, I'd er on the side of liberty/legalization.

Also, I don't know what a fully functioning woman is...

Dang it, I wondered if the term might cause confusion. I'd say she's reached the age of majority, is of sound mind, & acts of her own free will, ie, isn't coerced by threat.

....let alone the ability to look out for one's own interest. It's hard to build off these notions anything reasonable, seeing how they are entirely qualitative, and non-quantitative at all, which seems to be one of the criticisms I just received in response to my references.

I don't find the evidence against legal prostitution convincing.

That being said, I support decriminalization, and likely legalization, but do not support legalization of brothel, or any form of establishment or third party who profits off the sale of sex.

That's a burdensome restriction. I think of tradesmen I know. They are good at the trade (carpentry, electrical, etc), but when they quit working for someone else & hang out their own shingle (roofer), they find that running a business is far more complex & harder than being an employee in a trade. So I see great benefit for subcontractors/employees of brothels, which handle legal, marketing, medical, vetting clients, collections, licensing, security, facilities, clerical, etc. There's nothing wrong with voluntary associations where all parties profit for mutual benefit.

Even then, I would need for the illegal sex trade, slavery, and trafficking to decrease significantly first before granting legality to the same parties who are already involved in the whole affair, especially since it appears legalizing prostitution correlates with an increase in sex trafficking and slavery.
I am continuously surprised to find people ranging from realistic to down-right misanthropic somehow much more confident in the nature of the sex trade to somehow alter its course simply because people are overseeing it, yet not corrupting it in any manner.

I am amazed at the arguments against legalization too.

 

[Simurgh]

How about “john” standing in for John Doe? Given that it is the prostitutes who are arrested for their “crime”, but their clients are not, and are usually not even named—unless they use high priced “escorts” and their credit card receipts show up, or they get named by their “facilitators” (aka pimps and madams) in exchange for some serious money provided by gossip mongers (aka most media and/or publishers), that naming convention makes sense.

I for one, being a feminist and all that, have no problem with prostitution if it is not a matter of human trafficking, child sex slavery and any other form of coercion. If making pornographic movies is not a crime, then why should sex work be?


If it is a crime to sell my body, then it ought to also be a crime for the one who buys it. After all, I cannot be a prostitute without a client who makes me one. So, let's arrest the guys/women who avail themselves of sex workers and punish both parties.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

There's male sex workers, and female "johns", too.

 

[Simurgh]

There's male sex workers, and female "johns", too.

i thought that this would be obvious since i did not deny it or imply that there weren't any. anyhow, those are the "janes". and yes, of course there are male sex workers too. all you need to do is sit in a cafe on Place Pigalle and watch them all parade around in their respective territories; you cannot miss them there. here in the states this is just more hidden.