The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Prostitution laws: what works, what doesn't?
Thirith
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
First off, I can't remember if there's been a discussion of prostitution and the laws connected to it. I can imagine that the topic is a tricky one, and if the mods think that the thread is going in the wrong direction, please feel free to do what needs to be done. Also, if anything in my post is crassly ignorant or insensitive, I'm happy to revise the post.
Okay, on to the topic: where I live, there's currently a discussion about prostitution and whether the country should institute the same kind of laws that they have in Sweden and France, where it's legal to offer services as a sex worker, but it's illegal to buy sex from a prostitute. The argument tends to be that there is no such thing as ethically purchasing sexual services and that the sex industry is inherently exploitative. (Most likely, even the people arguing along those lines would agree that there are edge cases and special cases, such as sex surrogacy for the disabled.)
On the other side of the discussion, you've got people arguing that you're not really addressing the issue of exploitation by making prostitution illegal (at least for those paying for sex), you're only driving it underground, where it's all the more difficult to protect sex workers from exploitation and violence. The more pragmatic approach would be to accept that prostitution won't go away and to have it out in the open so it can be regulated, i.e. the Swedish system may mean well but it doesn't work well. You also find sex workers arguing this side of the debate, saying that the ones who want to make prostitution a thing of the past by cracking down on it strip sex workers of their agency by denying that prostitution can be a choice and that they approach the issue in an overly moralistic way (along the lines of "no one would want their daughter to be a sex worker, would they?").
In the whole debate, I've found very little in the way of concrete evidence whether the Swedish system works or not. It seems that the Swedish government has statistics suggesting that prostitution and exploitation have gone down a lot since the laws were enacted in 1999, but others say that the Swedish statistics were superficially done and didn't really address the extent to which prostitution has gone underground. Intellectually and ideologically, I find the pragmatic/utilitarian side of the debate more compelling, and the black-and-white moralism of those arguing for the Swedish system puts me off - but if I had compelling evidence that it helps more people or that the supposedly pragmatic approach ends up harming more people, I'd be in favour of my country implementing a system similar to the Swedish one. (I think it's very well possible that there'll be a referendum about the topic within the next five years.)
What do people here think? My own perspective on the issue is an abstract one; I've never used the services of the sex industry nor do I know anyone who has (or at least I don't know that they have), I don't know anyone who works or has ever worked in the industry. It'd be especially interesting for me to hear from people who, for whatever reason, aren't as removed from the topic as I am.
P.S.: Most of the recent articles that I've read on the matter address only the situation with respect to female prostitutes and men buying their services. There's very little said about male prostitutes, whether they provide services to men or women. I'm happy for people to address this as well, but if anything I'm even more ignorant when it comes to male prostitution and couldn't say whether issues of exploitation are as prevalent.
Okay, on to the topic: where I live, there's currently a discussion about prostitution and whether the country should institute the same kind of laws that they have in Sweden and France, where it's legal to offer services as a sex worker, but it's illegal to buy sex from a prostitute. The argument tends to be that there is no such thing as ethically purchasing sexual services and that the sex industry is inherently exploitative. (Most likely, even the people arguing along those lines would agree that there are edge cases and special cases, such as sex surrogacy for the disabled.)
On the other side of the discussion, you've got people arguing that you're not really addressing the issue of exploitation by making prostitution illegal (at least for those paying for sex), you're only driving it underground, where it's all the more difficult to protect sex workers from exploitation and violence. The more pragmatic approach would be to accept that prostitution won't go away and to have it out in the open so it can be regulated, i.e. the Swedish system may mean well but it doesn't work well. You also find sex workers arguing this side of the debate, saying that the ones who want to make prostitution a thing of the past by cracking down on it strip sex workers of their agency by denying that prostitution can be a choice and that they approach the issue in an overly moralistic way (along the lines of "no one would want their daughter to be a sex worker, would they?").
In the whole debate, I've found very little in the way of concrete evidence whether the Swedish system works or not. It seems that the Swedish government has statistics suggesting that prostitution and exploitation have gone down a lot since the laws were enacted in 1999, but others say that the Swedish statistics were superficially done and didn't really address the extent to which prostitution has gone underground. Intellectually and ideologically, I find the pragmatic/utilitarian side of the debate more compelling, and the black-and-white moralism of those arguing for the Swedish system puts me off - but if I had compelling evidence that it helps more people or that the supposedly pragmatic approach ends up harming more people, I'd be in favour of my country implementing a system similar to the Swedish one. (I think it's very well possible that there'll be a referendum about the topic within the next five years.)
What do people here think? My own perspective on the issue is an abstract one; I've never used the services of the sex industry nor do I know anyone who has (or at least I don't know that they have), I don't know anyone who works or has ever worked in the industry. It'd be especially interesting for me to hear from people who, for whatever reason, aren't as removed from the topic as I am.
P.S.: Most of the recent articles that I've read on the matter address only the situation with respect to female prostitutes and men buying their services. There's very little said about male prostitutes, whether they provide services to men or women. I'm happy for people to address this as well, but if anything I'm even more ignorant when it comes to male prostitution and couldn't say whether issues of exploitation are as prevalent.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
Thirith on
0
Posts
* Legalize
* Regulate
* Provide an out
* Penalize discrimination
Also, registering for access to a brothel would allow brothels to help weed out potentially violent johns but also ones that may have diseases (VD, AIDS, herpes etc.)
Discerning between willing prostitutes vs victims of exploitation is a lot trickier than it seems at first glance, and nobody has gotten it quite right.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
To be frank, this sounds good to laypeople but what it too often turns into is regulatory capture for brothel owners. Sex-work-inclusive advocacy organizations like SWOP and COYOTE usually argue that regulations are fine as long as they allow individual sex workers to work from home without having to affiliate with a brothel.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
dont forget decriminalize.
Decriminalization just means you use laws as a weapon when you choose to. Better to make it legal than legal-if-we-feel-like-it.
Oh, I totally agree. On net, I'd prefer something like the Swedish system over what the US currently does.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Unionization would probably help there.
One issue is that it's illegal to profit from other people's prostitution (the so-called "pimp paragraph" ("hallikparagrafen") of the prostitution law). No pimps is good, but this also means that it's illegal to rent out an apartment to a prostitute if she conducts her business there. It also means that brothels are illegal. And you can't rent out hotel rooms by the hour.
The pimp paragraph is still driving prostitutes "underground", even though their business is legal on their end. And there are still pimps, but I'm not sure about their number and power over prostitutes now compared to before the law.
I mean, how far does that law go? Is it illegal for a prostitute to buy groceries with the money she earns? Sounds like paying her rent is a grey area.
It's just so typical for laws around sex work to be poorly thought out blunt instruments with massive collateral damage designed purely to appease squeamish puritans.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
The people I know who have done sex work (mostly dipping into the shallow end of that pool camgirls/boys and people who sell pics/vids, one person who does have extensive experience in escorting) tend to value it for its flexibility time wise, the fact it can be slotted around other employment with minimal disruption and in certain cases the fact it can be one of the last ways on earth to earn a decent income that doesn't involve going into one of a handful of highly skilled fields.
It's like any field of employment, ymmv. It'd does arguably have potential to go more seriously wrong than most jobs though, violence against sex workers is absolutely still thing. Most of us in our day to day jobs are not at serious risk of rape or assault.
The argument was that sex work is inherently exploitative and should not exist (thus illegal to buy). But the women are victims and thus shouldn't be punished (thus legal to sell). Furthermore, it's immoral to make money on exploiting other people (thus illegal to be a pimp etc.)
The laws appears to have been genuinely made with good intentions (even if, as many of you do, you can argue with the goal or the method).
You can't profit directly from prostitute's line of work. But you can do business with them as long as it's not related to their work. So you can sell them groceries to eat and rent them an apartment to live in, but not if said apartment is her primary place of business.
It's usually quite clear, but the grey areas are problematic. Especially as to where, exactly, she's supposed to conduct her (on her end) legal business. Apartment owners and hotel owners have been arrested when they either knew or should have known what was going on.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
I think that is an accurate read of the situation in Norway when the law passed.
Edit: In case anyone here is willing to answer the question: are any of the people who have already posted replies women? As I've mentioned above, my own take on the issue is largely an abstract one, and as a heterosexual white male I am aware that my opinion is also partly rooted in me not being likely to be at the receiving end of sexual exploitation. Most of the people I've heard that are in favour of the Swedish system are women - though so are many of the ones that argue against the Swedish system and in favour of legalisation/regulation.
"Nothing is gonna save us forever but a lot of things can save us today." - Night in the Woods
The prime reason should always be to protect sex workers - from violence, exploitation, disease, and trafficking - and to ensure they can leave the job with as much freedom as anyone else.
I'm not opposed to elimination of the work being step 2, but I don't think these goals are compatible in practice.
Just like the drug trade has shown us, it's very easy to go after users and dealers on the street, much harder to go after the supply side, and nigh impossible to touch the international cartels that create the real problems, but we can whittle their influence by promoting a legitimate domestic market, allowing disptues in that market to use the courts for redress, and allowing regulatory bodies to set ground rules.
I think the right call is saying that you have to operate out of a licensed establishment, and that the workers in that establishment must be the owners. They may hire business managers, but the only legal owners are those women (and men) currently involved in sex work. I think this would do the most to avoid sex trafficking, because anyone you force to work in the brothel, becomes the owner of the brothel, gets to vote for who is business manager and a cut of the overall take and so on.
Beyond that, clearly all the std testing and healthcare rules as described earlier should apply.
Actually, you're describing legalization, which is routinely wielded as a weapon against sex workers.
Instead of sex workers having to service anyone who walks through the door without having a say, make clients apply, get tested, and then let the workers select their own clients.
Give the power to prostitutes, and it becomes increasingly difficult to argue it is exploitative.
The argument that legalization puts overly burdensome regulations on sex workers by default sounds no different from arguments against regulation in all other industries.
No. Decriminalization is a trap. It means you can build up a huge record and become reliant on something then have it yanked out from under you on a whim.
It pretty much doesn't work. The market is the same sizes as before the ban, but now cops are focused on catching buyers instead of pimps. They are easier to catch, the fines are huge(20 000 nok or 2500$) and it looks better on their statistics.
Meanwhile pimps can hide behind the scenes and since the prostitutes are getting less protection from the cops, they are more exposed to their depredations. They often need a pimp's help just to find a place they can work and be "safe".
The sex-sale ban is one of those things that sounds good(lets punish buyers not sellers), but in practice is shit. Sadly, its not going to be repealed for the same reason.
“Let’s make massages legal but punish people who go buy massages”
Sounds really dumb, doesn’t it
Exactly how would it be yanked out from under you? Decriminalization means making it so sex work is no longer a crime - and as such "building up a huge record" would not be an issue. Advocates tend to separate decriminalization from legalization because the latter includes regulations that can be (and are) abused to place sex workers in a "second class" situation.
I have always wondered about this issue in terms of economic forces. At the end of the day, I think there is very likely more demand for sex-on-demand then there are people willing to sell sex to those people at whatever ratio is feasible. And given other issues of pay and such at work, you have an industry that will always be involved in human trafficking.
It's just criminalization with a more public friendly face.
I think it matters less whether an interlocutor is a woman, than it matters if they're a sex worker. There are plenty of women who are anti-sex-worker.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Huge arguments in feminist circles about this issue, yeah.
Not if you don't want messages to be legal, no.
People who won’t engage in good faith won’t be convinced, it’s true.