Prostitution Laws, let your voice be heard

[rubecube]

Because none of those things happen in relationships.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

I think enjoying sex doesn't involve only the mechanics of touching certain places... I think that the partner makes a huge difference in whether the person enjoys it or not. I really think that a person that just enjoys sex(regardless of the partner, or how its done) is a misconception brought to us from the porn industry. I am sure such people exist, just not very many. Also, if you consider the amount of partners per day, the fact that a lot of them will be selfish, and/or tell the prostitute to do things outside of his/her comfort zone you will see that very little joy will be involved. This is the part that I think might be traumatic in a young person's life.

That's great, and I'm glad you feel that way...almost all of the people I know would disagree with you. It's all in the people you know. How do you know that a lot will be selfish? Will tell (and actually get...) a prostitute to do things outside of her comfort zone (hahaha...). Seems to me that a lot of your misconceptions are brought about via the porn industry...

[KelVarnsen]

Just wondering, how many people here "paid for it"?

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

That's great, and I'm glad you feel that way...almost all of the people I know would disagree with you. It's all in the people you know. How do you know that a lot will be selfish? Will tell (and actually get...) a prostitute to do things outside of her comfort zone (hahaha...). Seems to me that a lot of your misconceptions are brought about via the porn industry...

My misconceptios are from knowing a girl that used to do it for a living, but you know best. I always appreciate the extra bit of sarcasm. It is one of the riskiest professions for a reason, and it is not because of how pleasant it is.

Some statistics in case you're curious:

Spoiler!

To believe prostitution has no victims, one must ignore these statistics published in Farley's Fact Sheet:

• 78 percent of 55 women who sought help from the Council for Prostitution Alternatives in 1991 reported being raped an average of 16 times a year by pimps, and were raped 33 times a year by johns.
• 62 percent reported having been raped in prostitution.
• 73 percent reported having experienced physical assault in prostitution.
• 72 percent were currently or formerly homeless.
• 92 percent stated that they wanted to escape prostitution immediately.
• 83 percent of prostitutes are victims of assault with a weapon.
• 75 percent of women in escort prostitution had attempted suicide.
• 67 percent meet diagnostic criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

As I said I am a bit on the fence regarding making it legal(which should make it safer). I do know that its not a job a person does because of a good life. As a result, I hope that making it legal will not cause an increase in the amount of people that choose to become prostitutes. In the end though, I recognize that each adult person can make their own choices, this is what freedom is all about.

[SebC]

Rape and assault are already illegal. Instead of calling those women victims of prostitution, let's call them victims of rape and assault, and work to decrease those correlations.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Stuff

We all know people in the business...due to my current profession, I likely know more.

However, I look at those stats that you posted, and I think "If prostitution were legal, every single one of those would likely be gone or in the single digits of their percentiles".

Legalize it, regulate it, and protect the men and women who want to do it. If it were legal, it would give those who practice it a recourse to turn to if something happened while they were on the job, instead of the current method of dealing with it. They are doing something illegal...so they don't report what happened to them while they were doing it because they will likely be charged as well. The pimps would be gone, and the johns would straighten up since they would know they can no longer get away with committing a crime like that because the prostitution, freed of the worry of prosecuted herself, would report.

People do things like rape and assault when/if they think they can get away with it. If they know that they are far less likely to, because prostitutes can report without fear of prosecution themselves...we'd see almost all of those issues go away. (How many rapes and assaults do you see against the ladies of the Mustang Ranch, for instance...?)

[gvitaly]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

We all know people in the business...due to my current profession, I likely know more.

I am happy for you that you know more people in the business, however it doesn't make my concern invalid. You claimed I perhaps have a misconception regarding prostitution from porn. I was showing you where my 'misconception' is coming from.

However, I look at those stats that you posted, and I think "If prostitution were legal, every single one of those would likely be gone or in the single digits of their percentiles".

Legalize it, regulate it, and protect the men and women who want to do it. If it were legal, it would give those who practice it a recourse to turn to if something happened while they were on the job, instead of the current method of dealing with it. They are doing something illegal...so they don't report what happened to them while they were doing it because they will likely be charged as well. The pimps would be gone, and the johns would straighten up since they would know they can no longer get away with committing a crime like that because the prostitution, freed of the worry of prosecuted herself, would report.

For now it is just specualtion, we really don't know how effective the regulation of prostitution will be, so far we are discussing the legalizing part. I don't think making it legal will eliminate the pimps and johns. It is simply too big of a pie in terms of money for pimps and johns to want to sare it that easily. Also, if they will be eliminated as you suggest, how will the regulation part work?

People do things like rape and assault when/if they think they can get away with it. If they know that they are far less likely to, because prostitutes can report without fear of prosecution themselves...we'd see almost all of those issues go away. (How many rapes and assaults do you see against the ladies of the Mustang Ranch, for instance...?)

People are more likely to do those things if they can get away with it. I agree, but that's not the main reason rapes occur. IMO it will not even come close to eliminating this issue. In addition, reporting rape or assult is a very difficult experience for any woman, fear of prosecution is there and many other fears too(fears that will be there no matter how legal it is).

Again I am not completely against, legalizing prostitution. I have my concerns... so if it is done it has to be done right. I just don't see how it can be done right at the moment.

Edit:
An interesting article I found regarding legal prostitution and its effects
Legalize prostitution? Are we nuts?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

I don't think making it legal will eliminate the pimps and johns.

Obviously legalization would not eliminate johns, and if we get rid of "living of the avails", there will be also be pimps. But, a john is simply a prostitute's client and a pimp is somone who employs prostitutes. Neither is inherently bad.

Oh and that article you posted was so full of "this is bad because I say it is" that it's not really something worth considering at all.

[Nage Waza]

The more you make something illegal and hard to get, the higher the price for the product (low supply results in high demand). The higher price for the product results in people willing to earn that money, no matter what. Legalization simply lowers to incentive for criminals to become involved.

If crack was legal, there would be more money to be made working McDonalds, and you don't have to own a gun.

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by gargamel

Could those stats be any less precise?



I have no idea what percentage of sex workers are working involuntarily, but it sounds like the experts don't either.



You're likely right that supply would increase to meet demand, but how much of the increase in demand is really just a redistribution that leads to a redistribution of supply? As undercoverbrother's post indicates, sex tourism is a huge factor in the increased demand in Brazil and Thailand, though it's probably not a factor in the U.S. or Canada, so I can't draw any real conclusions from that.

My suspicion, though, is that any increase in demand in jurisdictions where prostitution is legal is largely offset by a decrease in demand in surrounding jurisdictions. Would demand for prostitutes in Amsterdam decrease if the Netherlands outlawed it? Of course, but I bet the demand would increase in Brussels. Would there be any net positive from that?

yeah posted that article a bit quick

[prime333]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

I am (slightly) against making prostitution legal. I really do want this line of work to be safer for the women(and men) that work in it! I am just worried that making it legal will increase both supply and demand. As a legal job it will attract quite a new group of women into it. Women that will think it is a 'quick and easy' way to make money. At a younger age women will be more likely to enter this industry(because society now thinks its okay), and as a result ruin their entire life. Maybe I would be less worried if there would be a higher legal age associated with prostitution, 21 instead of 18 for example.

Some women will still be forced into it, even if it is legal. Now if the demand for the services goes up as a result of no repercussions to the clients, there will have to be an increase in supply. How will this supply increase is yet to be seen.

There is also the new model of making it legal to sell,but illegal to buy. I think if this happens you will see an increase in suppy because more girls will join because it's legal and safer. Problem is that there will be less clients because the cops will be chasing them for buying sex and some clients might leave the hobby. More girls + less clients = lower price for sex.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by SebC

Generally yes, although we should also question to what extent to which people have the right to harm themselves. Liberty, in a sense, is the right to harm oneself.

This is where we differ. If a person in a third world country goes to work in a sweatshop, they aren't doing it because it makes their life worse. They're doing it because they perceive it to be a net benefit for them. That's not coercion, that's a choice.

Let's say a woman is deperate for cash, has daddy issues, and is addicted to drugs. She decides to become a prostitute. Who's to say that if there was no demand because we're criminalizing clients, she wouldn't be a thief instead? Would her life be better? I'm not sold that taking away options from the destitute is harm reduction - though I will obviously say that legalizing prostitution is in no way an appropriate substitute for proper social services.

But to go back to your question, I don't just support legalization from a harm reduction perspective - I also support it from a personal liberty perspective. My general view is that one person's freedoms should end when they infringe on someone else's. Neither buying nor selling sex infringe on other people's rights, so they should be legal. I also believe that well-designed regulations could reduce net harm better than the current system or the "nordic model" (which is effectively what you've proposed, where everyone involved but the prostitute is a criminal).

I agree with you from a personal liberty standpoint.

The harm reduction you suppose will occur is just not born out in studies. The studies that show increased harm may not be 100 % applicable but there is nothing that I have seen that has shown harm reduction actually occurs.

If these well designed regulations could exist don't you think they would? Why haven't areas that have seen increased trafficking as a result of legalization done a better job at reducing it. What is the best way to ensure that a pimp isn't holding the prostitutes passport. The only thing that I could see working is government run brothels. As soon as the profit motive enters in finding cheap women is the fastest way to increase profits.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

I agree with you from a personal liberty standpoint.

The harm reduction you suppose will occur is just not born out in studies. The studies that show increased harm may not be 100 % applicable but there is nothing that I have seen that has shown harm reduction actually occurs.

If these well designed regulations could exist don't you think they would? Why haven't areas that have seen increased trafficking as a result of legalization done a better job at reducing it. What is the best way to ensure that a pimp isn't holding the prostitutes passport. The only thing that I could see working is government run brothels. As soon as the profit motive enters in finding cheap women is the fastest way to increase profits.

How about this?

http://sexworkresearch.wordpress.com...ting-sex-work/

"The provision of human rights to sex workers through the decriminalisation of the sex industry has led to the minimisation of harm to New Zealand sex workers."

[Swarly]

Originally Posted by gvitaly

Some statistics in case you're curious:

Spoiler!

To believe prostitution has no victims, one must ignore these statistics published in Farley's Fact Sheet:
78 percent of 55 women who sought help from the Council for Prostitution Alternatives in 1991 reported being raped an average of 16 times a year by pimps, and were raped 33 times a year by johns.
62 percent reported having been raped in prostitution.
73 percent reported having experienced physical assault in prostitution.
72 percent were currently or formerly homeless.
92 percent stated that they wanted to escape prostitution immediately.
83 percent of prostitutes are victims of assault with a weapon.
75 percent of women in escort prostitution had attempted suicide.
67 percent meet diagnostic criteria for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

As I said I am a bit on the fence regarding making it legal(which should make it safer). I do know that its not a job a person does because of a good life. As a result, I hope that making it legal will not cause an increase in the amount of people that choose to become prostitutes. In the end though, I recognize that each adult person can make their own choices, this is what freedom is all about.

those stats you are posting seem to be an extremely small sample size if I am reading that correct, 55? (in all of Canada?, US?, NA? not sure where this council operates) and taking examples from the ones who sought out help, which to me says they are the ones working from the street and the highest at risk. says nothing of the thousands (tens of thousands?) of others working at 'classier' escort style places. If it were legal I think the number of girls working the street would dwindle as customers would be able to legally get what they want without resorting to back alley deals.

no idea if we should legalize it or not but can't base a decision on stats that are clearly made up with an agenda in mind.

[WhiteTiger]

Here's an interesting article written by a Duke University student who a bunch of frat boys "outed" as a porn star. It's a slightly NSFW article, due to a massive pic that heads up the article

http://m.xojane.com/sex/duke-univers...hman-porn-star

[Ark2]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Here's an interesting article written by a Duke University student who a bunch of frat boys "outed" as a porn star. It's a slightly NSFW article, due to a massive pic that heads up the article

http://m.xojane.com/sex/duke-univers...hman-porn-star

Stopped reading when I came across this:

Patriarchy fears female sexuality.

[Daradon]

Well the new laws come down today. The government line is that 'selling will still be legal (personally, not exploitative obviously) but purchasing will not.'

Not a horrible idea, I'm all for the personal liberty aspect and I still think legalization is the way to go overall, but I do admit that legalization has it's own share of problems too and I am very concerned about trafficking and exploitative uses of women, which is far more prevalent that many know, even in legal jurisdictions. So I'd be fine with losing personal liberty (for the women and the men) if there was a good fix to the larger problem.

Don't think that's going to happen here though. With the way McKay answered a lot of the questions, it looks like it'll make prostitution a lot more dangerous in Canada. NO advertising, including online, which is going to make it hard for women to screen their clients etc. It also opens up a lot of grey area for prostitutes to be charged even though the official line the government is saying is that they want to go after johns, pimps, and others who exploit and traffic.

Seems like a HUGE step backwards and very concerning to women in a human rights perspective. Don't like it at all.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Well the new laws come down today. The government line is that 'selling will still be legal (personally, not exploitative obviously) but purchasing will not.'

Not a horrible idea, I'm all for the personal liberty aspect and I still think legalization is the way to go overall, but I do admit that legalization has it's own share of problems too and I am very concerned about trafficking and exploitative uses of women, which is far more prevalent that many know, even in legal jurisdictions. So I'd be fine with losing personal liberty (for the women and the men) if there was a good fix to the larger problem.

Don't think that's going to happen here though. With the way McKay answered a lot of the questions, it looks like it'll make prostitution a lot more dangerous in Canada. NO advertising, including online, which is going to make it hard for women to screen their clients etc. It also opens up a lot of grey area for prostitutes to be charged even though the official line the government is saying is that they want to go after johns, pimps, and others who exploit and traffic.

Seems like a HUGE step backwards and very concerning to women in a human rights perspective. Don't like it at all.

So they're doing nothing? Because that's how the law works right now, and unless I'm mistaken the supreme court ruling was specifically against the legal to sell-illegal to buy aspect

[Flash Walken]

The federal government has tabled proposed prostitution legislation it says would target johns and the pimps who sell and profit from prostitution, rather than the prostitutes themselves.

"The bill recognizes that the vast majority of those who sell sexual services do not do so by choice. We view the vast majority of those involved in selling sexual services as victims," MacKay said.

However, the bill – dubbed the protection of communities and exploited persons act – would put a heavy emphasis on fines for those who purchase sexual services in public places.

While MacKay said the aim of the bill is not to target prostitutes, he said they could face prosecution if found to be selling their services in public spaces where children may be present.

"They would face fines in most instances," MacKay said.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pros...664683?cmp=rss

OTTAWA — The Harper government reacted defiantly Tuesday to a B.C. study which said its plan to bring in a law targeting buyers of sexual services rather than prostitutes will just end up victimizing sex workers in contravention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The study, sponsored partly by the University of B.C., said the plan is "rhetorically powerful" and "politically appealing" but downright dangerous to the health and safety of prostitutes.

But the government countered with research of its own — a recent online survey which found support for its pending legislation to go after the buyers rather than sellers.

"Our Government has been clear that we will bring forward legislation to address the significant harms that flow from prostitution to communities and vulnerable people," said Paloma Aguilar, spokeswoman for Justice Minister Peter MacKay.

"Our comprehensive response will be reflective of the extensive consultation our Government has held on this subject, which included over 31,000 responses to an online consultation and an in-person stakeholder roundtable hosted by Minister MacKay."

The B.C. research involves interviews with 31 street prostitutes conducted last year after the Vancouver Police Department formally launched a policy to target so-called "johns," or sex buyers, while trying to protect sex workers.

That policy is similar to one that had been initiated in Sweden years ago and is now being copied in other European jurisdictions.

The Canadian government has indicated it is about to bring in legislation following Sweden's lead, in light of the Supreme Court of Canada's landmark decision last December striking down Canada's anti-prostitution laws.

Canada's highest court found that those laws, which left prostitution itself legal but criminalized most activities surrounding the trade, endangered the health and safety of sex workers in contravention of their Charter rights, and gave the government a year to come up with a Charter-compliant alternative.

"While rhetorically powerful and politically appealing, there is a fundamental conceptual inconsistency in policies that criminalize clients and purport to prioritize the safety of sex workers," the study concluded.

The report said the Vancouver research backs studies in Sweden indicating that the targeting of sex buyers doesn't make prostitutes any safer, since their livelihoods depend on making sure their clients don't get busted.

"Sex workers continued to mistrust police, had to rush screening clients, and were displaced to outlying areas with increased risks of violence, including being forced to engage in unprotected sex," the report said.

The peer-reviewed study was published Tuesday in the British Medical Journal Open, was sponsored by the University of B.C.'s department of medicine, the B.C. Centre for Excellence in HIV/AIDS, the Pivot Legal Society, and the Vancouver organization Sex Workers United Against Violence.

The department of justice's online survey in February received 31,172 responses. Of the respondents 56 per cent said the buying of sexual services should be criminalized, compared to 44 per cent who said it shouldn't. However, just 34 per cent said the sale of sexual services should result in criminal charges, compared to 66 per cent who said it shouldn't.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Ott...365/story.html

The flurry of attention and the rush to establish a nation-wide agreement is heavily motivated by one looming deadline: the expiration of Canada's current sex work laws. When the Supreme Court struck down the laws as unconstitutional, they ruled that the laws will remain in place for one more year in order to give the government time to develop and bring forward new legislation.

The government could, in theory, allow the current laws expire, in which case sex work could be treated like all other types of work. Alternatively, they can introduce new legislation. Justice Minister Peter MacKay has already stated that the government will introduce new legislation, and that it will do so "well before" the December deadline. The government is keen on instituting the Nordic model of dealing with sex work -- in which the purchase of sex would be criminalized -- but it is not yet known what specific laws they plan to introduce.

According to the Department of Justice website, an in-person consultation with "a number of stakeholder representatives" was held on March 3 "to seek their views and input" on the future of sex work legislation in Canada. There is no mention of who these individuals or groups were. What is apparent is that the perspectives of several major stakeholders were completely overlooked.
Maggie's, WISH and PEERS are three of the largest sex worker support organizations in Canada, and none of them have been contacted by the government for their input. The people who staff these organizations have many years of experience providing support to those who work in the sex trade, and no doubt have a great deal of insight to offer on the problems that exist in the industry.

Kate Gibson, the Executive Director of WISH, reports that "No one from the government has contacted WISH to receive feedback directly from sex workers. One might hope that this would happen given that they are the ones who are the authorities in their lives and who are the most qualified to respond."

Madame Sage, a representative from Maggie's in Toronto, shared a similar revelation, lamenting that "As far as I know the government has not attempted to consult with any sex workers or sex worker organizations regarding the laws." The government hasn't reached out to PEERS in Victoria either. It is unclear who they are consulting with, and why they are not reaching out to people who have some of the most relevant experience of anyone in the country.

University of Victoria sociologist Rachel Phillips explains that when New Zealand was developing its sex work laws, "the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective was instrumental to shaping the legislation." While not all of their requests were included in the policies that were created, Dr. Phillips notes that "at least they were part of the conversation."

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/view...clude-workers-

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

So they're doing nothing? Because that's how the law works right now, and unless I'm mistaken the supreme court ruling was specifically against the legal to sell-illegal to buy aspect

It was never illegal to buy, just that with other laws, there was a ton of grey area to charge both parties depending on how it all went down.

The supreme court ruling was specifically against how it made protecting oneself in that job harder than other. Since it was considered a job with the same rights as others, not having that right was unconstitutional.

So yeah, I guess your right. It's kinda like nothing on the challenge, although it does introduce new laws on the purchasing side.