He should have just legalized prostitution so that what he's accused of doing wouldn't be illegal.
Seriously, the only bad thing about prostitution is that its illegality contributes to the spread of disease and other crimes, such as abuse of women.
paying women for sex is abuse of women, genius. Paying anyone for sex is abusive. And don't give me the 'happy whores' lecture, because a) the vast, vast majority of sex workers really really aren't and b) Firefly ain't real.
I disagree that it's universally true. Due to the way things usually work when it's illegal, it typically supports the abuse of women, though.
Doc on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
Let me try this another way, the amount of money charged for prostitution does not directly correlate to the abusive quality of that particular group. Hell he could have been paying TO physically abuse the woman for all we know, and that kind of service tends to be more expensive and yet not uncommon.
basically
economic size of organization does not equate to whether the women involved have been or are being abused.
I suppose, but given previous high-end prostitution scandals that I've heard about (the D.C. Madam scandal from last year, for example), it seems just as, if not more likely that it's a case of a company connecting willing and attractive girls with wealthy men.
Your assertion that I was objecting to was that the greater the money involved, the greater the possibility for danger. I still don't see how this is axiomatic. The cost for violence is extremely low, and greater amounts of money involved mean at least the possibility for a far easier means to manage workers (keeping them happy with a fat paycheck) than abuse.
I see your point and it was a fault on my part. I was trying to explain that in other types of vice be it drugs, smuggling, what have you that there is greater risk to the people involved depending on the size of the organization. But maybe this isn't the case in high-class American prostitution, so pretend I didn't say anything.
Kagera on
My neck, my back, my FUPA and my crack.
0
Options
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
There's still some problems with even that as the Dutch are discovering.
See, their problem is that they did it stupidly. They just legalized it without setting up a support network that would handle the underlying issues of legal prostitution. The solitions that they're proposing (licencing, etc) are basically what I was proposing, though shutting down sex clubs and the quibble about the windows are pretty stupid: the location and presentation of the sex trade isn't the issue, it's that they haven't treated the issue in any way like other social responsability issues (drinking & driving, for example, where drinking is legal, driving is legal, but it's illegal to combine the two). Just legalizing prostitution isn't enough.
There's still some problems with even that as the Dutch are discovering.
See, their problem is that they did it stupidly. They just legalized it without setting up a support network that would handle the underlying issues of legal prostitution. The solitions that they're proposing (licencing, etc) are basically what I was proposing, though shutting down sex clubs and the quibble about the windows are pretty stupid: the location and presentation of the sex trade isn't the issue, it's that they haven't treated the issue in any way like other social responsability issues (drinking & driving, for example, where drinking is legal, driving is legal, but it's illegal to combine the two). Just legalizing prostitution isn't enough.
Yeah, you can't just wave your hands and say "Ok, this thing that used to be illegal, is now legal. Have fun." You have to rebuild the whole thing from the ground up in order to make sure that the crap that you dont want actually gets purged from the system. At least they're realizing this and are willing to make some changes, hopefully they do it properly in the end.
I more or less agree with Cat on this one, although I don't strictly speaking agree with the premise that paying someone for sex is an inherently Bad Thing regardless of circumstance. There are a number of reasons why someone may choose to sell their body on the street. Without wanting to go into too much personal detail, I know of someone who was in a happy relationship, who was doing more than well financially, but decided to get into prostitution as a sort-of "hobby". Nobody forced her, she didn't have a screwy family history, she just decided (and you'll have to excuse the pun here) to do it.
Of course this isn't strictly speaking a common thing, and the majority of women out there selling themselves each night are forced into it, be it by a person or by circumstance.
As an aside, I get the feeling that if we were all in the same room The Cat would be putting her point across using a delicate combination of a) carefully chosen words, and b) a baseball bat.
He should have just legalized prostitution so that what he's accused of doing wouldn't be illegal.
Seriously, the only bad thing about prostitution is that its illegality contributes to the spread of disease and other crimes, such as abuse of women.
paying women for sex is abuse of women, genius. Paying anyone for sex is abusive. And don't give me the 'happy whores' lecture, because a) the vast, vast majority of sex workers really really aren't and b) Firefly ain't real.
I disagree that it's universally true. Due to the way things usually work when it's illegal, it typically supports the abuse of women, though.
Yeah. Saying that prostitutes are generally subjected to abusive situations is a fair assessment. Saying that it's fundamentally impossible for a woman to charge for sex without it being abuse is so fucking daft it isn't even funny. For a certain mindset, sex can be viewed as much of a service as something like massage or manicure. The number of people for whom that holds is likely very small, but that doesn't make it non-existent.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
He should have just legalized prostitution so that what he's accused of doing wouldn't be illegal.
Seriously, the only bad thing about prostitution is that its illegality contributes to the spread of disease and other crimes, such as abuse of women.
paying women for sex is abuse of women, genius. Paying anyone for sex is abusive. And don't give me the 'happy whores' lecture, because a) the vast, vast majority of sex workers really really aren't and b) Firefly ain't real.
I disagree that it's universally true. Due to the way things usually work when it's illegal, it typically supports the abuse of women, though.
Yeah. Saying that prostitutes are generally subjected to abusive situations is a fair assessment. Saying that it's fundamentally impossible for a woman to charge for sex without it being abuse is so fucking daft it isn't even funny. For a certain mindset, sex can be viewed as much of a service as something like massage or manicure. The number of people for whom that holds is likely very small, but that doesn't make it non-existent.
I agree with Doc and ElJeffe.
edit: I mean, really, what basis do you have to claim "paying anyone for sex is abusive"? Furthermore, why do you follow that with "genius" as if it's some kind of unassailable, obvious, universal truth that people are not stupid for immediately comprehending?
There's still some problems with even that as the Dutch are discovering.
Aren't those the same problems that were had before? They're trying to fix the problems, and overall it seems like the correct approach.
One of my professors told us a story about a friend who, in her student years, had what was essentially a sugardaddy. He payed for her rent in New York, in a nice apartment, and came to visit her a few times a month, which was whenever he was in the city. He was probably married. It worked out very well for her.
So, where do we draw the line on what is "paying for sex" and what isn't?
Tarantio on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
He should have just legalized prostitution so that what he's accused of doing wouldn't be illegal.
Seriously, the only bad thing about prostitution is that its illegality contributes to the spread of disease and other crimes, such as abuse of women.
paying women for sex is abuse of women, genius. Paying anyone for sex is abusive. And don't give me the 'happy whores' lecture, because a) the vast, vast majority of sex workers really really aren't and b) Firefly ain't real.
I disagree that it's universally true. Due to the way things usually work when it's illegal, it typically supports the abuse of women, though.
Yeah. Saying that prostitutes are generally subjected to abusive situations is a fair assessment. Saying that it's fundamentally impossible for a woman to charge for sex without it being abuse is so fucking daft it isn't even funny. For a certain mindset, sex can be viewed as much of a service as something like massage or manicure. The number of people for whom that holds is likely very small, but that doesn't make it non-existent.
I agree with Doc and ElJeffe.
edit: I mean, really, what basis do you have to claim "paying anyone for sex is abusive"? Furthermore, why do you follow that with "genius" as if it's some kind of unassailable, obvious, universal truth that people are not stupid for immediately comprehending?
In my opinion the universal truth isn't that paying for sex is abusive but that in a repressive and wholly unequal society (for instance a patriarchal one) prostitution will almost always be based in the context of degradation and/or be abusive.
This does not just apply to female prostitutes in a patriarchal society but those males that do not fill the requirements of membership (gay/transgender/what have you).
He should have just legalized prostitution so that what he's accused of doing wouldn't be illegal.
Seriously, the only bad thing about prostitution is that its illegality contributes to the spread of disease and other crimes, such as abuse of women.
paying women for sex is abuse of women, genius. Paying anyone for sex is abusive. And don't give me the 'happy whores' lecture, because a) the vast, vast majority of sex workers really really aren't and b) Firefly ain't real.
I disagree that it's universally true. Due to the way things usually work when it's illegal, it typically supports the abuse of women, though.
Yeah. Saying that prostitutes are generally subjected to abusive situations is a fair assessment. Saying that it's fundamentally impossible for a woman to charge for sex without it being abuse is so fucking daft it isn't even funny. For a certain mindset, sex can be viewed as much of a service as something like massage or manicure. The number of people for whom that holds is likely very small, but that doesn't make it non-existent.
I agree with Doc and ElJeffe.
edit: I mean, really, what basis do you have to claim "paying anyone for sex is abusive"? Furthermore, why do you follow that with "genius" as if it's some kind of unassailable, obvious, universal truth that people are not stupid for immediately comprehending?
In my opinion the universal truth isn't that paying for sex is abusive but that in a repressive and wholly unequal society (for instance a patriarchal one) prostitution will almost always be based in the context of degradation and/or be abusive.
This does not just apply to female prostitutes in a patriarchal society but those males that do not fill the requirements of membership (gay/transgender/what have you).
I think "universal truth" means "true regardless of context." What you are suggesting is a context in which it is true that paying women for sex is abusive. I would not necessarily deny or disagree with your assessment of prostitution in that context. The Cat, however, seems to think that it is abusive in any context and is abusive no matter what sexes or sexual orientations are involved. I disagree and thus I disagree that any such thing is axiomatic. I think it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that such a thing is obvious.
Drez on
Switch: SW-7690-2320-9238Steam/PSN/Xbox: Drezdar
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
He should have just legalized prostitution so that what he's accused of doing wouldn't be illegal.
Seriously, the only bad thing about prostitution is that its illegality contributes to the spread of disease and other crimes, such as abuse of women.
paying women for sex is abuse of women, genius. Paying anyone for sex is abusive. And don't give me the 'happy whores' lecture, because a) the vast, vast majority of sex workers really really aren't and b) Firefly ain't real.
I disagree that it's universally true. Due to the way things usually work when it's illegal, it typically supports the abuse of women, though.
Yeah. Saying that prostitutes are generally subjected to abusive situations is a fair assessment. Saying that it's fundamentally impossible for a woman to charge for sex without it being abuse is so fucking daft it isn't even funny. For a certain mindset, sex can be viewed as much of a service as something like massage or manicure. The number of people for whom that holds is likely very small, but that doesn't make it non-existent.
I agree with Doc and ElJeffe.
edit: I mean, really, what basis do you have to claim "paying anyone for sex is abusive"? Furthermore, why do you follow that with "genius" as if it's some kind of unassailable, obvious, universal truth that people are not stupid for immediately comprehending?
In my opinion the universal truth isn't that paying for sex is abusive but that in a repressive and wholly unequal society (for instance a patriarchal one) prostitution will almost always be based in the context of degradation and/or be abusive.
This does not just apply to female prostitutes in a patriarchal society but those males that do not fill the requirements of membership (gay/transgender/what have you).
I think "universal truth" means "true regardless of context." What you are suggesting is a context in which it is true that paying women for sex is abusive. I would not necessarily deny or disagree with your assessment of prostitution in that context. The Cat, however, seems to think that it is abusive in any context and is abusive no matter what sexes or sexual orientations are involved. I disagree and thus I disagree that any such thing is axiomatic. I think it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that such a thing is obvious.
Well the universal part comes in at the point you realize every human society is going to be unequal and the vast majority of human societies in history have been patriarchal so that barring radical global change the sex trade will be founded on and supported by abuse and/or oppression.
But if the use of universal is your point of contention I have no problem retracting that.
But then I can also see where The Cat is coming from being a part of the second-class citizenship that is being female probably doesn't make one inclined to be accepting of the 'happy hooker' scenario which gets WAY too much attention for the rarity that it is over the other 99% of unhappy hookers.
I can agree that "paying for sex is abusive" in the sense that the practice in any society seems always to have been attached to abuse or worse. That no society can have prostitution and not have abuse of those workers on some scale, and that in most cases it's a horrifyingly large scale.
I find it tougher to agree that every instance of a person paying money to a another person for a sexual favor is abusive.
There's still some problems with even that as the Dutch are discovering.
Aren't those the same problems that were had before? They're trying to fix the problems, and overall it seems like the correct approach.
One of my professors told us a story about a friend who, in her student years, had what was essentially a sugardaddy. He payed for her rent in New York, in a nice apartment, and came to visit her a few times a month, which was whenever he was in the city. He was probably married. It worked out very well for her.
So, where do we draw the line on what is "paying for sex" and what isn't?
For some reason I end up having less of a problem with the notion of sex as a transparent transaction than with the extremely popular marriage-as-legalized-prostitution arrangements I see around me. I'm not sure why that is exactly though.
The problem so far is that some people are using ''happy hooker ie. woman who makes good money and is happy with her current job'' and ''destitute drug-addict single mom who is frequently stabbed by her pimp in the ghetto'' interchangeably
But then I can also see where The Cat is coming from being a part of the second-class citizenship that is being female probably doesn't make one inclined to be accepting of the 'happy hooker' scenario which gets WAY too much attention for the rarity that it is over the other 99% of unhappy hookers.
I think the disconnect between my stance and The Cat's is that, while I'm trying to think of ways for the hookers to become happy (whether it's by fixing the conditions that make them unhappy, or by getting them out of a job that they're not happy with... happy ex-hookers), she seems to just want to punish men for valuing sex more than money. But we haven't heard enough from her for me to be sure of that.
Dracomicron on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited March 2008
Speaking of which I'm going to stop acting like I know where she's coming from and putting words in her mouth, that's kind of rude.
But this begs the question, what if a hooker is unhappy at her job but not abused? More like she's comparable to people who have shitty bosses or work customer service.
Speaking of which I'm going to stop acting like I know where she's coming from and putting words in her mouth, that's kind of rude.
But this begs the question, what if a hooker is unhappy at her job but not abused? More like she's comparable to people who have shitty bosses or work customer service.
There are specific orginizations that will 're-train' women of the street for free. I'm guessing they're only around the big cities though.
People sell their own dignity and morals all the time, especially in corporate life. I know I do. The question is how much you (for want of a better term) fetishize your sexuality as a somehow sacred commodity of your being, as opposed to all the other valuable traits that you dispense with every day for money so you can live.
There was a British show starring Billie Piper called "Secret Diary of a Call Girl" that was apparently based on a real high-end prostitute's memiors where she explored the ups and downs of sex work. I don't take popular entertainment as solid fact, but if there's any truth to it, then that was a happy hooker who made a very comfortable living doing something she loved.
Dracomicron on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
People sell their own dignity and morals all the time, especially in corporate life. I know I do. The question is how much you (for want of a better term) fetishize your sexuality as a somehow sacred commodity of your being, as opposed to all the other valuable traits that you dispense with every day for money so you can live.
There was a British show starring Billie Piper called "Secret Diary of a Call Girl" that was apparently based on a real high-end prostitute's memiors where she explored the ups and downs of sex work. I don't take popular entertainment as solid fact, but if there's any truth to it, then that was a happy hooker who made a very comfortable living doing something she loved.
People sell their own dignity and morals all the time, especially in corporate life. I know I do. The question is how much you (for want of a better term) fetishize your sexuality as a somehow sacred commodity of your being, as opposed to all the other valuable traits that you dispense with every day for money so you can live.
There was a British show starring Billie Piper called "Secret Diary of a Call Girl" that was apparently based on a real high-end prostitute's memiors where she explored the ups and downs of sex work. I don't take popular entertainment as solid fact, but if there's any truth to it, then that was a happy hooker who made a very comfortable living doing something she loved.
The show is coming on Showtime soon; I saw ads for it recently. I've seen the 8 episode series, I really liked her in Dr. Who, and she's wonderful in this, too.
The significant amount of skin displayed has nothing to do with it, I swear.
I live in New York and am on top of the world. Been here since 2004 and I love this city, I love my life here. But, my path has not been easy. When I was 17, I left home. It was my decision and I've never looked back. Left my hometown. Left a broken family. Left abuse. Left an older brother who had already split. Left and learned what it was like to have everything, and lose it, again and again. Learned what it was like to wake up one day and have the people you care about most gone. I have been alone. I have abused drugs. I have been broke and homeless. But, I survived, on my own. I am here, in NY because of my music... Don't let anyone hold you back or tell you that you can't...because you can.
I have to wonder if she had been still pursuing her musical dream, or if "the life" had consumed her. Even in legal sex professions like stripping, normal goals like school often get pushed to the side because of the money and constant party.
I think that the Times were assholes to release her name.
On Dan Abrams right now they have a Bunny Ranch prostitute on, she seems smiley and enthusiastic to talk about her life. Brooke Taylor, says she's college educated and has never been abused.
Male prostitutes don't have to contend with this to nearly the same degree because men do not have to deal with the same stigmas against sex with multiple partners and sex without emotional attachment.
Perhaps I should have just asked Feral.
Yes, because I don't believe that the law should discriminate on gender. It's similar to, for example, laws against sexual harassment or laws against firing somebody for having a baby. These situations disproportionately affect women, but not entirely, and confining the law to one gender or the other would probably do more harm than letting the law be gender-neutral.
In the current state of affairs, however, it strikes me as far more effective to make it punishable to buy sex than sell it. The demand drives the industry. Johns should be punished far more severely than prostitutes, in much the same way that a store cops a fine for selling age-restricted items but the purchaser gets into equal or more trouble.
That's what they do in Sweden. It's illegal to hire or employ prostitutes, it's illegal to collect money from prostitutes, but it's not illegal to be a prostitute.
The National Board of Healthcare in Sweden published a report in which they say that this law lead to more problems (more std's, less safe work environments, more abuse) and affected the already socially marginalised prostitutes negatively. The State Criminal Department has said this law lead to more violent sex trade.
Yeah, I was afraid of that.
Honestly, I think that focusing too much on the legality of prostitution is a bit of a red herring. The problems with prostitution - the drug abuse, the exploitation, the abuse, the mental illness - are not going to be solved just by legalizing prostitution or licensing it.
There needs to be a cultural change. Men need to stop abusing women, firstly, but I recognize how self-evident that statement is and how paradoxically hard it seems to be to turn into a reality. So, barring that, people need to stop stigmatizing prostitutes - especially people in law enforcement, social work, and medicine. What good would legalization be if a prostitute who was being abused or raped tried to go to the police or a hospital and got the "who cares, she's just a whore" treatment?
Now, is it conceivable that the stigmatization is in part caused by its legal illegitimacy? Is it possible that legalization would remove some of the social stigma? Maybe. I doubt it. The experiences of Sweden and the Netherlands are telling.
Cultural change is tough. It's slow, there are few objective markers of progress. Legal change, despite all its challenges, is much more expedient, so it's really appealing to imagine that life would be so much better if we could just get Congress to pass one simple goddamn bill legalizing licensed brothels. That's much less daunting than the prospect that prostitution might not be a generally safe, healthy option for generations to come.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
People sell their own dignity and morals all the time, especially in corporate life. I know I do. The question is how much you (for want of a better term) fetishize your sexuality as a somehow sacred commodity of your being, as opposed to all the other valuable traits that you dispense with every day for money so you can live.
Yes, exactly.
What is the difference between a sex worker offering her body for a price, and an athlete who offers his physical skills for a price? At the bottom, there is zero difference.
Draco underlined the reason behind this whole anti-prostitution mindset perfectly: people think of sexuality as a somehow sacred part of their being, and are bothered when other people theirs. Bohooo, sexually conservative people.
Furthermore, I disagree that prostitution is an inherently abusive thing. The lifestyle may be open to abusive treatments, but that doesn't mean the problem lies with prostitution in and of itself. On the contrary, it is an argument that can be used to legalize and regulate sexual work.
Honestly, I think that focusing too much on the legality of prostitution is a bit of a red herring. The problems with prostitution - the drug abuse, the exploitation, the abuse, the mental illness - are not going to be solved just by legalizing prostitution or licensing it.
The music culture and the Hollywood culture have the same drug abuse, exploitation, and mental illness problems. Does this mean we need to ban them too?
I'm sorry if this is somewhat of a strawman (I don't think it is), but I am having trouble distinguishing between something we see as unacceptable (i.e. prostitution) and something that is a part of our everyday lives and we take for granted (music, movies). In the context you provided, that is.
ege, I've addressed your concerns pretty thoroughly both in the post you quoted and earlier in the thread. But let's ride your train of thought for a while and see where it leads us.
What is the difference between a sex worker offering her body for a price, and an athlete who offers his physical skills for a price? At the bottom, there is zero difference.
Would you be comfortable if your girlfriend ran a marathon?
Would you be comfortable if your girlfriend had a gangbang?
And if not your girlfriend, how about your daughter? Your mother? Your grandmother? Would you watch? Would you cheer? Would you encourage her to go farther, faster? Would you pledge a donation - give her money based on how far she's willing to go?
Are you comfortable with the idea of a high school gym teacher playing baseball with your teenage daughter?
Are you comfortable with the idea of a high school gym teacher fucking your teenage daughter?
Would you drive her there? Sign a permission slip that said it was okay? Buy her a special outfit to wear so she doesn't get her nice clothes dirty?
If athletics and sex are perfectly analogous, then you should be able to tell me that you'd be okay with all of these things.
ege, I'm pretty much as sex positive as they come. But this "sex is just another human activity" angle I've been seeing lately is bullshit. Nobody believes that. You may think you do. You may want to. You may want to live in a world where that's the dominant paradigm. God knows I'd love to be able to say to my cute coworker, "Hey, wanna fuck?" as casually as I might say, "Do you like tennis?" So yeah, I get the appeal. But you know as well as I do that sex is different. It's special. Most people find it both a little bit special-scary and a little bit special-miraculous. But I don't think anybody considers it not-special - anybody who's not totally asexual, that is.
Furthermore, I disagree that prostitution is an inherently abusive thing. The lifestyle may be open to abusive treatments, but that doesn't mean the problem lies with prostitution in and of itself. On the contrary, it is an argument that can be used to legalize and regulate sexual work.
Would you extend that logic to, say, sex between adults and children?
Much of the thinking would be analogous. There is a long human history of sexual contact involving children; Greek and Roman pederasty, ritualistic fellatio in Africa, South Pacific cultures where children are encouraged to engage in sex play with one another. The definitions of adolescent and sexual maturity are largely cultural in nature and have shifted significantly throughout history. It could be argued that in a cultural vacuum, pederasty and pedophilia are not inherently abusive.
Would you then argue that pederasty should be legalized, as well? If the concern is that it be licensed and regulated, much like you say prostitution should be, would you be okay with child prostitutes?
The problem is that we do not live in a cultural vacuum. I do not necessarily believe that prostitution is "inherently" abusive or exploitative. I do believe that in our current cultural context, it is typically abusive and/or exploitative.
The music culture and the Hollywood culture have the same drug abuse, exploitation, and mental illness problems. Does this mean we need to ban them too?
Name three actors or musicians who have died of drug overdoses or suicide. If it takes you more than 10 seconds to think of three, assume that just about anybody you grab out of the checkout aisle at the grocery store could name three in 10 seconds flat.
Now name three prostitutes who have died of drug overdoses or suicide.
If that isn't evidence that culturally we value the lives of singers and actors more than we value the lives of prostitutes, then I don't know what is. And therein lies the problem - until our culture changes that we value the lives of prostitutes as much as we value the lives of any other human being, prostitution is going to attract people who are willing for whatever reason - addiction, mental illness, desperation - to be treated as subhuman.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Feral, I don't think your comparisons to be all that helpful. Appealing to people's fear and gut reactions about sexuality, which have been enforced by modern culture, doesn't really help us get beyond said fear and gut reactions.
If you're just pointing out how difficult it is to view the subject rationally, I'll concede the point.
Pointing out that we have higher name recognition of actors or musicians than prostitutes is pretty misleading; how about asking us how many pediatrists or janitors have died from drug overdose or suicide, hmm? We don't know about prostitutes because they usually don't advertise themselves on a national scale. Stars do.
(that said, I can think of a couple of porn stars that died of OD or suicide, I wonder if they count, being paid for sex and all...)
When a football player gets signed into the NFL, they get measured in every possible way: how high can they jump, how tall, how fat, how strong are they. They get drafted and have no choice as to where they want to work. They can be traded like a commodity, put under contract for a year without their will, and face serious injury risks that could lead to death. Does anyone complain about that being essentially signing a contract to be a slave for 4 years and $40 million? No, because they enter all of that willingly.
If prostitution is legalized, we remove the possibility of somebody being forced into the profession because it can actually be policed. Do I care if they feel bad about their job later? No. Plenty of people hate their job because it's immoral, but do it anyway because the pay is nice and/or they've been pressured into doing it by society. What is this Feral says about "protecting" these women? What kind of medieval mindset makes you feel as if it is the government's responsibility to protect our fair damsels from ever having to do something immoral for a quick buck?
They fucked somebody for money. That's it. No one gets hurt in the process. Let them get paid for it. Porn stars do the exact same thing, but on camera. It may be harmful to the view of sex you may have, as some kind of mystical act with rose petals strewn across a meadow, but who cares? It's a free country, let people fuck how they want to.
FirstComradeStalin on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
edited March 2008
But legalizing doesn't change the basic fact that an overwhelming number of people who do get into prostitution do so not because they like it but because of prior mental or physical trauma on the micro AND macro level. You'd still have the inequality and sexual dysfunction that's rampant in our patriarchal society that creates 99% of our prostitutes, strippers, and porn stars. So there's still ABUSE. And every person, man or woman, deserves protection from that.
And no that's not really similar to having to work a shitty job because as it stands now getting into the sex industry for the majority of women means having been abused or traumatized beforehand as a prerequisite.
Feral, I don't think your comparisons to be all that helpful.
Then do you also recognize that the comparison to athletics is also unhelpful?
Your comparison is unhelpful because it's not athletics that anyone's talking about, we're talking about the ability to sell yourself for cash, be it for sex or sports or investment banking. These are decisions that we make as adults. You know what? If ege's grandmother/girlfriend/cousin twice removed likes gangbangs, that's fine with me. I don't think the gym teacher should be fucking the teenage girl, but that's because she's underage and shouldn't be allowed to make those kind of decisions for herself. Maybe when she's 20 she comes back and fucks him, whatever. Now, ege may get grossed out or pissed off about it, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. See, just because something is weird to think about or casts a bad light on someone doesn't mean it should be illegal.
And Kagera, most child actors suffer similar fates as prostitutes. They get forced into the job, have traumatic experiences that can and do amount to abuse from their parents (hearing the things that Michael Jackson went through as a child is quite shocking), and come out worse for it. All I'm saying is that a government shouldn't take the position that just because someone is doing something for the wrong reasons they shouldn't be allowed to do it, because it's such a subjective thing.
prostitution is going to attract people who are willing for whatever reason - addiction, mental illness, desperation - to be treated as subhuman.
I'm really just tossing this out here, but ... no? And I'm half asleep, so structure? Kind of out the window.
This line of reasoning brings to mind something someone on here said once, about two girls who would make out - "interestingly, they weren't lesbian; they just really liked money".
One of the issues here is that you seem to be operating under the idea that it's a switch - either they're 'happy hookers', or they're mentally ill.
What is the difference between a sex worker offering her body for a price, and an athlete who offers his physical skills for a price? At the bottom, there is zero difference.
we're talking about the ability to sell yourself for cash, be it for sex or sports or investment banking. These are decisions that we make as adults. You know what? If ege's grandmother/girlfriend/cousin twice removed likes gangbangs, that's fine with me. I don't think the gym teacher should be fucking the teenage girl, but that's because she's underage and shouldn't be allowed to make those kind of decisions for herself.
Why not? There isn't anything inherently abusive about a 40-year-old fucking a 15-year-old. Not in a cultural vacuum, anyway.
Why that decision and not others? A 15-year-old girl can try out for softball. What about the intersection of sex and age is worthy of legal interference but not the intersection of sex and money?
The reason pederasty is illegal is because we recognize that in our culture the chances of a minor-adult sexual relationship being healthy are incredibly low and the chances of it being exploitative or abusive are incredibly high. That is the point I'm getting at.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
prostitution is going to attract people who are willing for whatever reason - addiction, mental illness, desperation - to be treated as subhuman.
I'm really just tossing this out here, but ... no? And I'm half asleep, so structure? Kind of out the window.
This line of reasoning brings to mind something someone on here said once, about two girls who would make out - "interestingly, they weren't lesbian; they just really liked money".
One of the issues here is that you seem to be operating under the idea that it's a switch - either they're 'happy hookers', or they're mentally ill.
What happened to the gradient?
I'm not eliminating the existence of a gradient. I just don't think that the existence of a spectrum affects my overall point.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
When a football player gets signed into the NFL, they get measured in every possible way: how high can they jump, how tall, how fat, how strong are they. They get drafted and have no choice as to where they want to work. They can be traded like a commodity, put under contract for a year without their will, and face serious injury risks that could lead to death. Does anyone complain about that being essentially signing a contract to be a slave for 4 years and $40 million? No, because they enter all of that willingly.
If prostitution is legalized, we remove the possibility of somebody being forced into the profession because it can actually be policed. Do I care if they feel bad about their job later? No. Plenty of people hate their job because it's immoral, but do it anyway because the pay is nice and/or they've been pressured into doing it by society. What is this Feral says about "protecting" these women? What kind of medieval mindset makes you feel as if it is the government's responsibility to protect our fair damsels from ever having to do something immoral for a quick buck?
They fucked somebody for money. That's it. No one gets hurt in the process. Let them get paid for it. Porn stars do the exact same thing, but on camera. It may be harmful to the view of sex you may have, as some kind of mystical act with rose petals strewn across a meadow, but who cares? It's a free country, let people fuck how they want to.
This falls apart on the small scale, though. I mean, why should factory workers get to complain about unsafe conditions? They got payed to be there, who cares if they're not allowed to take breaks for food?
It will require a good deal more thought, and legislation, that simply making prostitution legal. There have been plenty of employers in history, in completely legal fields, that treated their employees like absolute shit.
So, while legalizing prostitution may be a positive overall step, you can't just legalize it and stop worrying about the welfare of those involved, especially in this specific case, which is clearly a great deal more health sensitive than most professions. And yes, the social stigma involved will assuredly cause a lot of issues as well, which lawmakers would be wise not to ignore.
Tarantio on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
And Kagera, most child actors suffer similar fates as prostitutes. They get forced into the job, have traumatic experiences that can and do amount to abuse from their parents (hearing the things that Michael Jackson went through as a child is quite shocking), and come out worse for it. All I'm saying is that a government shouldn't take the position that just because someone is doing something for the wrong reasons they shouldn't be allowed to do it, because it's such a subjective thing.
It's not really about not allowing them to make a living it's about correcting as much of the issues that get the majority into this dilemma in the first place.
Basically our society and by association our government is the cause of these people's suffering and therefore their enablers into a world of misery and self-destruction.
we're talking about the ability to sell yourself for cash, be it for sex or sports or investment banking. These are decisions that we make as adults. You know what? If ege's grandmother/girlfriend/cousin twice removed likes gangbangs, that's fine with me. I don't think the gym teacher should be fucking the teenage girl, but that's because she's underage and shouldn't be allowed to make those kind of decisions for herself.
Why not? There isn't anything inherently abusive about a 40-year-old fucking a 15-year-old. Not in a cultural vacuum, anyway.
Why that decision and not others? A 15-year-old girl can try out for softball. What about the intersection of sex and age is worthy of legal interference but not the intersection of sex and money?
The reason pederasty is illegal is because we recognize that in our culture the chances of a minor-adult sexual relationship being healthy are incredibly low and the chances of it being exploitative or abusive are incredibly high. That is the point I'm getting at.
But the only reason that how abusive it potentially can become is even an issue is because these are young kids we're talking about, not adults. A relationship between an 60-year-old man and a 25-year-old mail-order-bride has similar potential to become abusive, but we shut our mouths about it because the woman is old enough to make her own decisions about her welfare.
That's what it comes down to. Decisions. People should be able to decide about their own fate as long as they're in the proper mental state to do so.
And Kagera, most child actors suffer similar fates as prostitutes. They get forced into the job, have traumatic experiences that can and do amount to abuse from their parents (hearing the things that Michael Jackson went through as a child is quite shocking), and come out worse for it. All I'm saying is that a government shouldn't take the position that just because someone is doing something for the wrong reasons they shouldn't be allowed to do it, because it's such a subjective thing.
It's not really about not allowing them to make a living it's about correcting as much of the issues that get the majority into this dilemma in the first place.
Basically our society and by association our government is the cause of these people's suffering and therefore their enablers into a world of misery and self-destruction.
Wow, no aggrandizing there.
How does keeping prostitution illegal correct the issues that bring people into it in the first place? If you want to actually help these people you should have better education for parents, teachers and community members should be more vigilant for possible mental and physical child abuse, children should be taught about the dangers of sexual predators from within and outside the family, etc.
Wagging your finger at them ten years later isn't going to solve a damn thing.
FirstComradeStalin on
0
Options
KageraImitating the worst people. Since 2004Registered Userregular
And Kagera, most child actors suffer similar fates as prostitutes. They get forced into the job, have traumatic experiences that can and do amount to abuse from their parents (hearing the things that Michael Jackson went through as a child is quite shocking), and come out worse for it. All I'm saying is that a government shouldn't take the position that just because someone is doing something for the wrong reasons they shouldn't be allowed to do it, because it's such a subjective thing.
It's not really about not allowing them to make a living it's about correcting as much of the issues that get the majority into this dilemma in the first place.
Basically our society and by association our government is the cause of these people's suffering and therefore their enablers into a world of misery and self-destruction.
Wow, no aggrandizing there.
How does keeping prostitution illegal correct the issues that bring people into it in the first place? If you want to actually help these people you should have better education for parents, teachers and community members should be more vigilant for possible mental and physical child abuse, children should be taught about the dangers of sexual predators from within and outside the family, etc.
Wagging your finger at them ten years later isn't going to solve a damn thing.
Like I said for me it's not about keeping it illegal it's about creating the social change and infrastructure to at least curb the rampant tide of abused women in the nation.
Posts
I disagree that it's universally true. Due to the way things usually work when it's illegal, it typically supports the abuse of women, though.
I see your point and it was a fault on my part. I was trying to explain that in other types of vice be it drugs, smuggling, what have you that there is greater risk to the people involved depending on the size of the organization. But maybe this isn't the case in high-class American prostitution, so pretend I didn't say anything.
There's still some problems with even that as the Dutch are discovering.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
See, their problem is that they did it stupidly. They just legalized it without setting up a support network that would handle the underlying issues of legal prostitution. The solitions that they're proposing (licencing, etc) are basically what I was proposing, though shutting down sex clubs and the quibble about the windows are pretty stupid: the location and presentation of the sex trade isn't the issue, it's that they haven't treated the issue in any way like other social responsability issues (drinking & driving, for example, where drinking is legal, driving is legal, but it's illegal to combine the two). Just legalizing prostitution isn't enough.
Yeah, you can't just wave your hands and say "Ok, this thing that used to be illegal, is now legal. Have fun." You have to rebuild the whole thing from the ground up in order to make sure that the crap that you dont want actually gets purged from the system. At least they're realizing this and are willing to make some changes, hopefully they do it properly in the end.
Of course this isn't strictly speaking a common thing, and the majority of women out there selling themselves each night are forced into it, be it by a person or by circumstance.
As an aside, I get the feeling that if we were all in the same room The Cat would be putting her point across using a delicate combination of a) carefully chosen words, and b) a baseball bat.
Yeah. Saying that prostitutes are generally subjected to abusive situations is a fair assessment. Saying that it's fundamentally impossible for a woman to charge for sex without it being abuse is so fucking daft it isn't even funny. For a certain mindset, sex can be viewed as much of a service as something like massage or manicure. The number of people for whom that holds is likely very small, but that doesn't make it non-existent.
I agree with Doc and ElJeffe.
edit: I mean, really, what basis do you have to claim "paying anyone for sex is abusive"? Furthermore, why do you follow that with "genius" as if it's some kind of unassailable, obvious, universal truth that people are not stupid for immediately comprehending?
Aren't those the same problems that were had before? They're trying to fix the problems, and overall it seems like the correct approach.
One of my professors told us a story about a friend who, in her student years, had what was essentially a sugardaddy. He payed for her rent in New York, in a nice apartment, and came to visit her a few times a month, which was whenever he was in the city. He was probably married. It worked out very well for her.
So, where do we draw the line on what is "paying for sex" and what isn't?
In my opinion the universal truth isn't that paying for sex is abusive but that in a repressive and wholly unequal society (for instance a patriarchal one) prostitution will almost always be based in the context of degradation and/or be abusive.
This does not just apply to female prostitutes in a patriarchal society but those males that do not fill the requirements of membership (gay/transgender/what have you).
I think "universal truth" means "true regardless of context." What you are suggesting is a context in which it is true that paying women for sex is abusive. I would not necessarily deny or disagree with your assessment of prostitution in that context. The Cat, however, seems to think that it is abusive in any context and is abusive no matter what sexes or sexual orientations are involved. I disagree and thus I disagree that any such thing is axiomatic. I think it is absolutely ludicrous to suggest that such a thing is obvious.
Well the universal part comes in at the point you realize every human society is going to be unequal and the vast majority of human societies in history have been patriarchal so that barring radical global change the sex trade will be founded on and supported by abuse and/or oppression.
But if the use of universal is your point of contention I have no problem retracting that.
But then I can also see where The Cat is coming from being a part of the second-class citizenship that is being female probably doesn't make one inclined to be accepting of the 'happy hooker' scenario which gets WAY too much attention for the rarity that it is over the other 99% of unhappy hookers.
I find it tougher to agree that every instance of a person paying money to a another person for a sexual favor is abusive.
For some reason I end up having less of a problem with the notion of sex as a transparent transaction than with the extremely popular marriage-as-legalized-prostitution arrangements I see around me. I'm not sure why that is exactly though.
I think the disconnect between my stance and The Cat's is that, while I'm trying to think of ways for the hookers to become happy (whether it's by fixing the conditions that make them unhappy, or by getting them out of a job that they're not happy with... happy ex-hookers), she seems to just want to punish men for valuing sex more than money. But we haven't heard enough from her for me to be sure of that.
But this begs the question, what if a hooker is unhappy at her job but not abused? More like she's comparable to people who have shitty bosses or work customer service.
There are specific orginizations that will 're-train' women of the street for free. I'm guessing they're only around the big cities though.
There was a British show starring Billie Piper called "Secret Diary of a Call Girl" that was apparently based on a real high-end prostitute's memiors where she explored the ups and downs of sex work. I don't take popular entertainment as solid fact, but if there's any truth to it, then that was a happy hooker who made a very comfortable living doing something she loved.
On a total sidenote: LOVE Billie Piper.
Come on.
The show is coming on Showtime soon; I saw ads for it recently. I've seen the 8 episode series, I really liked her in Dr. Who, and she's wonderful in this, too.
I think that the Times were assholes to release her name.
On Dan Abrams right now they have a Bunny Ranch prostitute on, she seems smiley and enthusiastic to talk about her life. Brooke Taylor, says she's college educated and has never been abused.
Yes, because I don't believe that the law should discriminate on gender. It's similar to, for example, laws against sexual harassment or laws against firing somebody for having a baby. These situations disproportionately affect women, but not entirely, and confining the law to one gender or the other would probably do more harm than letting the law be gender-neutral.
Yeah, I was afraid of that.
Honestly, I think that focusing too much on the legality of prostitution is a bit of a red herring. The problems with prostitution - the drug abuse, the exploitation, the abuse, the mental illness - are not going to be solved just by legalizing prostitution or licensing it.
There needs to be a cultural change. Men need to stop abusing women, firstly, but I recognize how self-evident that statement is and how paradoxically hard it seems to be to turn into a reality. So, barring that, people need to stop stigmatizing prostitutes - especially people in law enforcement, social work, and medicine. What good would legalization be if a prostitute who was being abused or raped tried to go to the police or a hospital and got the "who cares, she's just a whore" treatment?
Now, is it conceivable that the stigmatization is in part caused by its legal illegitimacy? Is it possible that legalization would remove some of the social stigma? Maybe. I doubt it. The experiences of Sweden and the Netherlands are telling.
Cultural change is tough. It's slow, there are few objective markers of progress. Legal change, despite all its challenges, is much more expedient, so it's really appealing to imagine that life would be so much better if we could just get Congress to pass one simple goddamn bill legalizing licensed brothels. That's much less daunting than the prospect that prostitution might not be a generally safe, healthy option for generations to come.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Yes, exactly.
What is the difference between a sex worker offering her body for a price, and an athlete who offers his physical skills for a price? At the bottom, there is zero difference.
Draco underlined the reason behind this whole anti-prostitution mindset perfectly: people think of sexuality as a somehow sacred part of their being, and are bothered when other people theirs. Bohooo, sexually conservative people.
Furthermore, I disagree that prostitution is an inherently abusive thing. The lifestyle may be open to abusive treatments, but that doesn't mean the problem lies with prostitution in and of itself. On the contrary, it is an argument that can be used to legalize and regulate sexual work.
The music culture and the Hollywood culture have the same drug abuse, exploitation, and mental illness problems. Does this mean we need to ban them too?
I'm sorry if this is somewhat of a strawman (I don't think it is), but I am having trouble distinguishing between something we see as unacceptable (i.e. prostitution) and something that is a part of our everyday lives and we take for granted (music, movies). In the context you provided, that is.
Would you be comfortable if your girlfriend ran a marathon?
Would you be comfortable if your girlfriend had a gangbang?
And if not your girlfriend, how about your daughter? Your mother? Your grandmother? Would you watch? Would you cheer? Would you encourage her to go farther, faster? Would you pledge a donation - give her money based on how far she's willing to go?
Are you comfortable with the idea of a high school gym teacher playing baseball with your teenage daughter?
Are you comfortable with the idea of a high school gym teacher fucking your teenage daughter?
Would you drive her there? Sign a permission slip that said it was okay? Buy her a special outfit to wear so she doesn't get her nice clothes dirty?
If athletics and sex are perfectly analogous, then you should be able to tell me that you'd be okay with all of these things.
ege, I'm pretty much as sex positive as they come. But this "sex is just another human activity" angle I've been seeing lately is bullshit. Nobody believes that. You may think you do. You may want to. You may want to live in a world where that's the dominant paradigm. God knows I'd love to be able to say to my cute coworker, "Hey, wanna fuck?" as casually as I might say, "Do you like tennis?" So yeah, I get the appeal. But you know as well as I do that sex is different. It's special. Most people find it both a little bit special-scary and a little bit special-miraculous. But I don't think anybody considers it not-special - anybody who's not totally asexual, that is.
Would you extend that logic to, say, sex between adults and children?
Much of the thinking would be analogous. There is a long human history of sexual contact involving children; Greek and Roman pederasty, ritualistic fellatio in Africa, South Pacific cultures where children are encouraged to engage in sex play with one another. The definitions of adolescent and sexual maturity are largely cultural in nature and have shifted significantly throughout history. It could be argued that in a cultural vacuum, pederasty and pedophilia are not inherently abusive.
Would you then argue that pederasty should be legalized, as well? If the concern is that it be licensed and regulated, much like you say prostitution should be, would you be okay with child prostitutes?
The problem is that we do not live in a cultural vacuum. I do not necessarily believe that prostitution is "inherently" abusive or exploitative. I do believe that in our current cultural context, it is typically abusive and/or exploitative.
Name three actors or musicians who have died of drug overdoses or suicide. If it takes you more than 10 seconds to think of three, assume that just about anybody you grab out of the checkout aisle at the grocery store could name three in 10 seconds flat.
Now name three prostitutes who have died of drug overdoses or suicide.
If that isn't evidence that culturally we value the lives of singers and actors more than we value the lives of prostitutes, then I don't know what is. And therein lies the problem - until our culture changes that we value the lives of prostitutes as much as we value the lives of any other human being, prostitution is going to attract people who are willing for whatever reason - addiction, mental illness, desperation - to be treated as subhuman.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If you're just pointing out how difficult it is to view the subject rationally, I'll concede the point.
Pointing out that we have higher name recognition of actors or musicians than prostitutes is pretty misleading; how about asking us how many pediatrists or janitors have died from drug overdose or suicide, hmm? We don't know about prostitutes because they usually don't advertise themselves on a national scale. Stars do.
(that said, I can think of a couple of porn stars that died of OD or suicide, I wonder if they count, being paid for sex and all...)
If prostitution is legalized, we remove the possibility of somebody being forced into the profession because it can actually be policed. Do I care if they feel bad about their job later? No. Plenty of people hate their job because it's immoral, but do it anyway because the pay is nice and/or they've been pressured into doing it by society. What is this Feral says about "protecting" these women? What kind of medieval mindset makes you feel as if it is the government's responsibility to protect our fair damsels from ever having to do something immoral for a quick buck?
They fucked somebody for money. That's it. No one gets hurt in the process. Let them get paid for it. Porn stars do the exact same thing, but on camera. It may be harmful to the view of sex you may have, as some kind of mystical act with rose petals strewn across a meadow, but who cares? It's a free country, let people fuck how they want to.
And no that's not really similar to having to work a shitty job because as it stands now getting into the sex industry for the majority of women means having been abused or traumatized beforehand as a prerequisite.
Then do you also recognize that the comparison to athletics is also unhelpful?
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Your comparison is unhelpful because it's not athletics that anyone's talking about, we're talking about the ability to sell yourself for cash, be it for sex or sports or investment banking. These are decisions that we make as adults. You know what? If ege's grandmother/girlfriend/cousin twice removed likes gangbangs, that's fine with me. I don't think the gym teacher should be fucking the teenage girl, but that's because she's underage and shouldn't be allowed to make those kind of decisions for herself. Maybe when she's 20 she comes back and fucks him, whatever. Now, ege may get grossed out or pissed off about it, but that doesn't mean it should be illegal. See, just because something is weird to think about or casts a bad light on someone doesn't mean it should be illegal.
And Kagera, most child actors suffer similar fates as prostitutes. They get forced into the job, have traumatic experiences that can and do amount to abuse from their parents (hearing the things that Michael Jackson went through as a child is quite shocking), and come out worse for it. All I'm saying is that a government shouldn't take the position that just because someone is doing something for the wrong reasons they shouldn't be allowed to do it, because it's such a subjective thing.
I'm really just tossing this out here, but ... no? And I'm half asleep, so structure? Kind of out the window.
This line of reasoning brings to mind something someone on here said once, about two girls who would make out - "interestingly, they weren't lesbian; they just really liked money".
One of the issues here is that you seem to be operating under the idea that it's a switch - either they're 'happy hookers', or they're mentally ill.
What happened to the gradient?
...
Why not? There isn't anything inherently abusive about a 40-year-old fucking a 15-year-old. Not in a cultural vacuum, anyway.
Why that decision and not others? A 15-year-old girl can try out for softball. What about the intersection of sex and age is worthy of legal interference but not the intersection of sex and money?
The reason pederasty is illegal is because we recognize that in our culture the chances of a minor-adult sexual relationship being healthy are incredibly low and the chances of it being exploitative or abusive are incredibly high. That is the point I'm getting at.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I'm not eliminating the existence of a gradient. I just don't think that the existence of a spectrum affects my overall point.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
This falls apart on the small scale, though. I mean, why should factory workers get to complain about unsafe conditions? They got payed to be there, who cares if they're not allowed to take breaks for food?
It will require a good deal more thought, and legislation, that simply making prostitution legal. There have been plenty of employers in history, in completely legal fields, that treated their employees like absolute shit.
So, while legalizing prostitution may be a positive overall step, you can't just legalize it and stop worrying about the welfare of those involved, especially in this specific case, which is clearly a great deal more health sensitive than most professions. And yes, the social stigma involved will assuredly cause a lot of issues as well, which lawmakers would be wise not to ignore.
It's not really about not allowing them to make a living it's about correcting as much of the issues that get the majority into this dilemma in the first place.
Basically our society and by association our government is the cause of these people's suffering and therefore their enablers into a world of misery and self-destruction.
Wow, no aggrandizing there.
But the only reason that how abusive it potentially can become is even an issue is because these are young kids we're talking about, not adults. A relationship between an 60-year-old man and a 25-year-old mail-order-bride has similar potential to become abusive, but we shut our mouths about it because the woman is old enough to make her own decisions about her welfare.
That's what it comes down to. Decisions. People should be able to decide about their own fate as long as they're in the proper mental state to do so.
How does keeping prostitution illegal correct the issues that bring people into it in the first place? If you want to actually help these people you should have better education for parents, teachers and community members should be more vigilant for possible mental and physical child abuse, children should be taught about the dangers of sexual predators from within and outside the family, etc.
Wagging your finger at them ten years later isn't going to solve a damn thing.
Like I said for me it's not about keeping it illegal it's about creating the social change and infrastructure to at least curb the rampant tide of abused women in the nation.