Make it legal and we can regulate it! There will be no more abuses!

[Vuk]

No, actually it just makes it worse than ever. (http://business.time.com/2013/06/18/germany-has-become-the-cut-rate-prostitution-capital-of-the-world/?iid=obnetwork)
Thanks for leading the way once again Germany. One more example of why the US should not be following Europe's depraved example. The arguments always sound convincing, but experience reality is often far different.
Making drugs or prostitution legal will just add to the problem, not solve it.

[Papewaio]

If you took out the prostitution this article would merely be a school textbook example of the demand-supply curve and how competition increases options for consumers whilst driving down prices.

Yay, capitalism.

[Fisherking]

Prostitution was legal for most of the nations history. When you outlaw something the price always goes up.

Now that it is legal much of the thrill will go away. If someone can’t earn enough to support themselves than maybe they will seek other employment.

I don’t understand the problem.

[Lemur]

Related: The Economics of Slut-Shaming (http://theumlaut.com/2013/07/02/the-economics-of-slut-shaming/)

Sex is a female resource. While both genders certainly enjoy and depend on the act, natural constraints on female sexuality create scarcity—and value. The high costs of female fertility—in terms of time, mental and physical health, and opportunities forgone—impel women to act as suppliers in the sexual market. Male sexuality, on the other hand, is ubiquitous and cheap. What’s more, men tend to place a higher value on sexual gratification than do women. Men, therefore, comprise the demand for sex.

To consume their desired quantity of sex, men must offer women something of equal subjective value in return. The aggregate supply of willing women and aggregate demand for a roll in the hay in a given market will converge to an equilibrium “price” for sexual access. The price need not be literal, as is the case with prostitution. [...]

As such, there is a strong incentive for women to restrict competition, price-cutting, and client-stealing in the sexual mating market.

Slut-shaming, prohibitions against paid sex work, censorship of pornographic images, and gender segregation are all tools that restrict supply in the sexual market. Anxieties and incentives cause women facing sexual competition to psychologically exhibit similar, although uncoordinated, cartelistic behaviors. Thrill-seekers and erotic entrepreneurs that buck the sexual syndicate find themselves at the mercy of moral indignation and exclusion. A review of the literature on sexual suppression suggests that the evidence is more consistent with the female cartel theory than the patriarchy theory: Periods of sexual restraint coincide with sellers’ markets. Although men historically enforced sexual norms, female self-interest shapes them.

[Vuk]

Related: The Economics of Slut-Shaming (http://theumlaut.com/2013/07/02/the-economics-of-slut-shaming/)

From the prim Puritan vengeance wracked upon the steadfast Hester Prynne to the targeted sexual critique of Ke$ha’s (self-described) “positive, fun” music, libidinous ladies can never seem to get much of a break. Men can receive hoots and high fives for the same behaviors that slap women with the dreaded stain of harlotry. Slut-shaming, or the social repression and maligning of sexual promiscuity, is usually rife with apparent gender-based double standards. Even those who disapprove of promiscuity in general tend to judge female offenders more harshly than their Casanova counterparts. What gives, fellow WEIRDos?

At first glance, it appears obvious that sexual repression is merely another hammer in the patriarchy’s toolkit of female oppression. Looking through history, we see example after example of male-dominated institutions enforcing asymmetric standards of sexual conduct. Even when those standards also repress male sexuality, as in ancient prohibitions against Onanism and homosexuality, the fury reserved for public roastings of sexual sinners has been particularly thorough in rebuking the “bad girls.” It is easy to see how enforcing the sexual repression of a social group would, indeed, be an effective way to disenfranchise that population.

Upon deeper scrutiny, the patriarchy theory of slut-shaming reveals interesting tensions. While sexually successful men have undoubtedly enjoyed the social benefits and paternal certainty wrought by their relative sexual freedom, tempering female sexuality would be, at best, a Pyrrhic victory for the patriarchy. Restricting the supply of “sluts,” after all, significantly limits the potential for misogynistic indulgence in female sexual objectification.

We would expect a patriarchy to weigh the trade-offs of maintaining power by repressing female sexuality against the option to easily satisfy a considerable carnal appetite. Given the high value ostensibly placed on both, any patriarchy’s optimal allocation of sexual repression and sexual objectification would not likely be as one-sided as observed in history and today. A society ruled entirely by misogynists would probably not discourage, or might even actively encourage, female promiscuity.

To untangle the sources of slut-shaming, we should think economically. Proposed by psychologists Roy Baumeister and Kathleen Vohs and built upon Gary Becker’s economics of human behavior, the framework of sexual economics attempts to shed light on gender relations and outcomes by analyzing dating, mating, and procreating through the lens of market activity. The economic way of thinking prompts us to consider the preferences, endowments, and trade-offs that shape our decisions in the face of our unlimited wants and limited means. Decisions about sex—in all of its pleasure, danger, and emotion—are no less subject to these constraints. Although rarely framed as such, in many ways, the euvoluntary exchange of semen and security for womb space and childcare constitutes one of humanity’s earliest, and perhaps most essential, economic spheres.

Sex is a female resource. While both genders certainly enjoy and depend on the act, natural constraints on female sexuality create scarcity—and value. The high costs of female fertility—in terms of time, mental and physical health, and opportunities forgone—impel women to act as suppliers in the sexual market. Male sexuality, on the other hand, is ubiquitous and cheap. What’s more, men tend to place a higher value on sexual gratification than do women. Men, therefore, comprise the demand for sex.

To consume their desired quantity of sex, men must offer women something of equal subjective value in return. The aggregate supply of willing women and aggregate demand for a roll in the hay in a given market will converge to an equilibrium “price” for sexual access. The price need not be literal, as is the case with prostitution. Historically, this bundle of goods offered to women included resources for child-rearing, material comfort, and protection for their families. When the supply exceeds the demand, the price drops, and women’s producer surplus declines. When men seek more sex than women are willing to supply, producer surplus increases, and women rule the roost.

Before the mass exodus of women into the public sphere, entering into lucrative sexual congress was a surefire way for shrewd suppliers to secure material well-being. Unfortunately, women’s natural endowments are as fleeting as their youthful competition is ever-regenerating. Even if a woman of yesterday managed to net a suitable husband, the spectre of wandering eyes and brazen temptresses haunted housewives. As such, there is a strong incentive for women to restrict competition, price-cutting, and client-stealing in the sexual mating market.

Slut-shaming, prohibitions against paid sex work, censorship of pornographic images, and gender segregation are all tools that restrict supply in the sexual market. Anxieties and incentives cause women facing sexual competition to psychologically exhibit similar, although uncoordinated, cartelistic behaviors. Thrill-seekers and erotic entrepreneurs that buck the sexual syndicate find themselves at the mercy of moral indignation and exclusion. A review of the literature on sexual suppression suggests that the evidence is more consistent with the female cartel theory than the patriarchy theory: Periods of sexual restraint coincide with sellers’ markets. Although men historically enforced sexual norms, female self-interest shapes them.

There is an interesting class element to consider. When the costs of entry into the public sphere were prohibitively high for women, “luxury suppliers”—with their accessories of pedigree, charm, and sophistication—stood to lose the most if the cartel crumbled. Less well-heeled women whose ambitions outsized their humble positions on the supply curve had less to lose, more to gain, and a much larger incentive to “cheat.” Prohibitions against sexual entrepreneurship at this period in time benefited rich women and hurt poor women.

Today, the sexual dynamics are decidedly different. Birth control, economic growth, and reformed social attitudes have changed the payoffs and rules of the game. Privileged women continue to make gains in education, earning, and self-sufficiency. They no longer rely on men’s largesse to live comfortably. They can afford to lower their own sexual price and indulge in Dionysian pleasures to their hearts’ (if not their peers’) content. Less fortunate women, however, lack the education, support, and opportunities that make this kind of freedom possible. They seek, but often cannot find, a dependable partner to assist in the often thankless burden of raising children. They are competing against, and losing to, sexually liberated women that are as close to “having it all” as observed yet. Sexual freedom, while just, has exhibited regressive tendencies worthy of attention.

We should expect slut-shaming and the associated unpleasantries to exist for as long as female sexuality remains valuable and heterogeneous. I doubt this will change in the near future. For now, thinking economically about sexuality can at least give us a better understanding of the sources of this shame.

I think people who are against the sex trade are against the selling and men's and women's bodies, so I fail to see the relevance.


Prostitution was legal for most of the nations history. When you outlaw something the price always goes up.

Now that it is legal much of the thrill will go away. If someone can’t earn enough to support themselves than maybe they will seek other employment.

I don’t understand the problem.

Every time throughout history that prostitution has been legal there have been far more people being abused in the industry than when it was illegal. That is the point. It is not a simple economic matter of the price of a good decreasing. It is the fact that many of these women have been manipulated and tricked into being prostitutes, they have little or no control over the destiny, and they are treated like shit.


If you took out the prostitution this article would merely be a school textbook example of the demand-supply curve and how competition increases options for consumers whilst driving down prices.

Yay, capitalism.

Yep, evil capitalism, that is what is to blame.
Damn, how can you people be so heartless? You just don't give a crap how others suffer because their suffering brings you pleasure. That is sick.

[a completely inoffensive name]

When you define: selling of sex = abuse. Of course you are going to think that opening the market up will lead to increased abuses.

I am going to be honest with you here Vuk, only God knows why I don't just play the happy Gilmore clip right now. You have your morals, and I sympathize with them at certain, very rare times. But you never actually give a rationale for your morals that would lead someone to actually think differently about the subject in question. You simply start with the moral and repeat it as often as you can.

[Papewaio]

Yep, evil capitalism, that is what is to blame.
Damn, how can you people be so heartless? You just don't give a crap how others suffer because their suffering brings you pleasure. That is sick.
Their suffering brings me no pleasure neither do their services. I don't utilize them nor do I have respect for their customers. I do respect adult choice, consent and fair trade.

To resolve a problem you need to understand the problem. Unfettered capitalism without safeguards such as OH&S, minimum wage, working conditions etc means situations like this will occur be it prostitution or factory floor workers.

So I see a need in this area to allow minimum standards. UWU: Union Workers Union might be a puntastic step forward too.

As for treating this as an economic issue that is not to be unexpected at all. Prostitution is referred to as the "world's oldest profession" for good reasons.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Um, I don't think anybody has really adressed Vuk's point in the OP, which he backed up with facts and an explanation for them. Instead everybody just seems to be indulging in the usual circle-jerking by posting trite and barely relevant snapbacks, protesting the facts by offering nothing but speculation, or quoting unsubstantiated counter-theories that don't actually address the hard facts that the OP included. I know it is a Vuk thread but c'mon guys...

While you might not share his moral objections to prostution, that doesn't change the fact that if legalisation was implemented with the aim of curbing the trade and improving its workers conditions, then it has by those standards evidently failed in Germany's case.

[PanzerJaeger]

Why is this of concern to anyone other than the prostitutes in question? The beauty of allowing people the lawful ability to make their own decisions is that greater society effectively abdicates itself from any social responsibility for those decisions. Fighting criminal prostitution is a social burden everyone must bear, legalized prostitution is a bed of the purveyor's own making - no pun intended.

[Kadagar_AV]

Every time throughout history that prostitution has been legal there have been far more people being abused in the industry than when it was illegal. That is the point. It is not a simple economic matter of the price of a good decreasing. It is the fact that many of these women have been manipulated and tricked into being prostitutes, they have little or no control over the destiny, and they are treated like shit.


Can you please share your resources? I would like to see this "every time throughout history".

I see prostitution for women as I see boxing for men.

I don't agree with the way they make money, and I admit that there are clearly strong cases to make it illegal... But with that said - YOLO :yes:

[Strike For The South]

It’s been estimated that more than 1 million men pay for sex in Germany every day.



bullshit

[Papewaio]

If you include marriage as a lend lease arrangement the figure might be accurate...

[Fisherking]

I knew there were problems with the article posted by Vuk. There was open legal prostitution when I was there in the 1970s.

This is a comment from the link provided and carries a few more links with it.




MatthiasLehmann
12 days ago
The claim of Brad Tuttle that “Prostitution became legal in Germany in 2002” is wrong. Prostitution is legal in Germany since 1927 (!) and sex workers have to pay taxes since 1964.
The new prostitution law of 2002 changed some aspects pertaining to the legal relationship between sex workers and clients and some criminal law provisions. It recognized the contract between sex workers and clients as legal and introduced the rights of sex workers to sue clients unwilling to pay for sexual services already provided. In addition, sex workers received the right to health insurance and social security. The law also forbids the right of direction () by the employer in cases where a sex worker is employed at a brothel, for instance. In this way, a sex worker would always be able to determine to which sexual practices she or he would agree or not. What is misleadingly called the ”legalization“ of prostitution is actually the recognition of sex work as labor.
The “recent reports”, Tuttle mentions, which “paint legalized prostitution in Germany largely as a failure” were deeply flawed and heavily biased, just as this article shows that Brad Tuttle didn’t do his homework.
Sonja Dolinsek and myself did, however, as did attorney Thomas Stadler. You can read our critique of the SPIEGEL report in English at ‘Feminist Ire’ and in German on ‘Menschenhandel Heute’. A critique of the documentary ‘Sex Made in Germany’ you can read in German on ‘Kauf Mich’.
Does legal prostitution really increase human trafficking in# Germany?
http://feministire.wordpress.com/2013/06/06/does-legal-prostitution-really-increase-human-trafficking-in-germany/

“Bordell Deutschland” – Journalismus auf Lücke (SPIEGEL 22/2013)
http://menschenhandelheute.net/2013/05/28/bordell-deutschland-journalismus-auf-lucke/
Zwischen Bild und Emma: der ARD nordet sich ein
http://www.kaufmich.com/blog/zwischen-bild-zeitung-und-emma-der-ard-nordet-sich-ein/#more-1177

Read more: http://business.time.com/2013/06/18/germany-has-become-the-cut-rate-prostitution-capital-of-the-world/#ixzz2YX95KNXj

There have been several documentaries on the subject on TV here. From what I have seen there the government goes to lengths to insure that there is no forced prostitution.
It is my understanding that many of the girls come from former east block countries. They may be more likely to be manipulated because they do not wish to return but that is speculation on my part. Those from EU countries surely could not be, as they can pick up and go where ever they like any where in the EU.

I don‘t have any knowledge other than what I have seen on TV. From that I would not recommend flying over to check it out. Most of it was pretty disgusting from an aesthetic viewpoint. Maybe someone with first hand knowledge could pipe up.

Prostitution is legal in most of Western Europe, not just Germany

I don‘t know if employees receive hourly wags or on per service or if it varies. I also don‘t know if the article was targeting freelancers or those who are working at an establishment, but I would guess they were freelance.

Map:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prostitution_laws_of_the_world.PNG

[HoreTore]

I don't like legal prositituion, but systems which punish the prostitute are infinitely worse. Slap the punishment on the john alone, while giving relevant help to the prostitute.

Or better yet, replace the laws against buying sex by expanding the rape law by defining buying sex from forced prostitutes as rape.

[Vuk]

I knew there were problems with the article posted by Vuk. There was open legal prostitution when I was there in the 1970s.

This is a comment from the link provided and carries a few more links with it.




There have been several documentaries on the subject on TV here. From what I have seen there the government goes to lengths to insure that there is no forced prostitution.
It is my understanding that many of the girls come from former east block countries. They may be more likely to be manipulated because they do not wish to return but that is speculation on my part. Those from EU countries surely could not be, as they can pick up and go where ever they like any where in the EU.

I don‘t have any knowledge other than what I have seen on TV. From that I would not recommend flying over to check it out. Most of it was pretty disgusting from an aesthetic viewpoint. Maybe someone with first hand knowledge could pipe up.

Prostitution is legal in most of Western Europe, not just Germany

I don‘t know if employees receive hourly wags or on per service or if it varies. I also don‘t know if the article was targeting freelancers or those who are working at an establishment, but I would guess they were freelance.

Map:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Prostitution_laws_of_the_world.PNG

It really is irrelevant. Their situation today is still an example of legalizing prostitution failing to prevent people from the abuses inherent in the profession.

[Vuk]

I don't like legal prositituion, but systems which punish the prostitute are infinitely worse. Slap the punishment on the john alone, while giving relevant help to the prostitute.

Or better yet, replace the laws against buying sex by expanding the rape law by defining buying sex from forced prostitutes as rape.

Would you punish the man who buys crack and not the crack dealer? Would you punish the man who bought the stolen artwork and not the fence? What sense does it make to make a commodity illegal (In this case make it illegal for people to commodify their bodies) and then punish the buyer and not the seller.

[Tellos Athenaios]

I don't like legal prositituion, but systems which punish the prostitute are infinitely worse. Slap the punishment on the john alone, while giving relevant help to the prostitute.

Aka the Swedish model, which works the same way prohibition does. Official figures will go down, but the black market still thrives.



Or better yet, replace the laws against buying sex by expanding the rape law by defining buying sex from forced prostitutes as rape.

Or better yet, figure out a way to deal with real human trafficking (as opposed to the handwavy guesswork that most law enforcement type agencies put out in the absence of actual, solid data on the issue -- then the NGOs take the law enforcement figures and pretend that it is real data). While we're at it, figure out an immigration policy that works.

I am not saying any of that is realistically attainable in any sort of near future; but hey, a man can dream. Seriously, though there are a few roadblocks:

Genuine human trafficking is something in which the victims nearly always play a crucial part, usually as the buyer of the trafficking service. For example, there is quite a lot of human trafficking of North Koreans going on but nobody in their right mind thinks the North Koreans involved did not enter into the contracts willingly. This does not make it all A-OK, but it highlights the fact that victims won't be forthcoming to help you thwart their ticket to a better life.
Genuine human trafficking needs more than proper law enforcement on the "receiving" side. For the same reason that to stop illegal immigration you need to do more than erect border controls. If you want to stop it, you need to fix the problems at the source so people don't feel the urge to leave in the first place.
Genuine human trafficking is railroaded in the War on Stuff every time. War on Illegal Immigrants. War on Sex. War on Whatever.


As to prostitution: criminalising buyers is specifically the one thing you should not do. What you should do is appeal to their better nature, and support sex workers to establish things like unions, STI testing centra, awareness of legal options, etc. The buyers are the only people who can enforce safe, clean and humane working conditions for sex-workers by voting with their money, and by reporting shops that don't abide by the rules. They outnumber the police. They don't need a warrant or reasonable suspicions. Whatever you might think of it; they want a service, and there are plenty of women willing to provide it (ask Britain: tuition fees has led to somewhat of an oversupply in the sex industry) in a controlled environment.

[Fisherking]

It really is irrelevant. Their situation today is still an example of legalizing prostitution failing to prevent people from the abuses inherent in the profession.

Obviously, you did NOT read any of the links provided.

The article you posted comes off pretty much as just yellow journalism. It is a misrepresentation of the facts.

It is illegal for non EU residents to work in the sex trade. It is illegal for those under 18 to work in the sex trade. Those employing them are charged. The workers from third party countries are deported back to where they came from, unlike Italy who grants them permanent resident status for coming forth with a complaint of misstreatment. They are allowed to stay until they testify. So more could be done.

The trouble is, you would outlaw it because abuse might take place and to protect people from themselves.

Some people may choose it because it is not demanding labor, at least for a time. If they have full right and protections under the law I don’t see why it should be outlawed. Free and independent adults should be able to choose a legal occupation, no matter how distasteful we our selves may find it.

I don’t find the sex trade alluring or desirable, I wouldn’t work in an abortion clinic or as a medical examiner or a mortician either but I don’t see society ending those occupations just because I don’t care for them.

[HoreTore]

Would you punish the man who buys crack and not the crack dealer? Would you punish the man who bought the stolen artwork and not the fence? What sense does it make to make a commodity illegal (In this case make it illegal for people to commodify their bodies) and then punish the buyer and not the seller.

Would you punish the man who beats his wife, but not the wife? Yes.

The sex isn't the dangerous part, the part we want to criminalize is the exploitation of the prostitute. For the rest of you; yes, I am aware of the existence of the "happy hooker". The rights of those to do what they want pales in comparison to the rights of the others not to be exploited in my mind. Just like hemp traders got screwed back when cannabis was outlawed.

As for Tellos, I don't see how buying forced prostitutes is substantially any different from "ordinary" rape, and as such it should be treated the same in the eyes of the law. Beating a woman until she succumbs to have sex with you is no different from having a pimp beat her into having sex with you.

[Tellos Athenaios]

As for Tellos, I don't see how buying forced prostitutes is substantially any different from "ordinary" rape, and as such it should be treated the same in the eyes of the law. Beating a woman until she succumbs to have sex with you is no different from having a pimp beat her into having sex with you.

The difference is whether or not you know. That matters because if the law and law enforcement do not discriminate the assumption will be "forced by default", which means "criminals by default", which means sex trade is "illegal by default" which will drive it underground and we know that does not actually solve anything. Swedish model all over again. Let's be quite clear on the matter: outlawing buying sex or outlawing selling sex are basically one and the same side of that coin. The other side is legalisation. Pick the least worst option.

I don't say legalisation and normalisation of sex trade as another paid-for-service is the be all and end all, rainbows and unicorns and everything. But unless you really advocate outlawing sex trade (buying or selling) it seems the only framework in which you actually can honestly attempt to solve the issues of abuse, health & safety working conditions and human trafficking in the sex trade. At least you can attempt to set up the rules and incentives of the game so that both prostitutes and punters are recruited into helping you tackle it.

[HoreTore]

The difference is whether or not you know.

A person in 2013 who doesn't know prostitutes may be forced to sell sex is too dumb to breathe.

Lock 'em up.

[Tellos Athenaios]

A person in 2013 who doesn't know prostitutes may be forced to sell sex is too dumb to breathe.

Lock 'em up.

A person in 2013 who doesn't know the prostitutes may not be... has a lot to learn.

So just to get this straight: you advocate outlawing sex trade.

[HoreTore]

A person in 2013 who doesn't know the prostitutes may not be... has a lot to learn.

So just to get this straight: you advocate outlawing sex trade.

Yup, by slapping the johns. Either through fines, as we currently do here, or by using the rape law when the prostitute is forced. Shower the prostitutes with hand-outs; if it's one thing we do well here in Norway, it's throwing vast amounts of oil-money at things. We already do that, mind, and it was ramped up when the new law was introduced. Still, we still have more money and the prostitutes still have holes in their pockets. We could do more.

As for those prostitutes who are not forced, they are of course hurt by a fine imposed on every john(but won't be negatively affected at all by enforcing the rape law). I don't see that as problematic at all. Their right to sell their body is outweighed by the rights of others not to be abused.

[Ironside]

The difference is whether or not you know. That matters because if the law and law enforcement do not discriminate the assumption will be "forced by default", which means "criminals by default", which means sex trade is "illegal by default" which will drive it underground and we know that does not actually solve anything. Swedish model all over again. Let's be quite clear on the matter: outlawing buying sex or outlawing selling sex are basically one and the same side of that coin. The other side is legalisation. Pick the least worst option.


Just to be clear, making it illegal to buy sex was to make it easier to stop the already existing human trafficking (the fate of the girl that the movie Lilja 4ever is based on happened before the law was enforced), so the dirty underground did already exist. So it's more regulation than legalisation you're talking about.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Just to be clear, making it illegal to buy sex was to make it easier to stop the already existing human trafficking (the fate of the girl that the movie Lilja 4ever is based on happened before the law was enforced), so the dirty underground did already exist. So it's more regulation than legalisation you're talking about.

Oh yes, legalisation is not the end-game. However you can't have regulation without legalisation. So IMO the implied equivalence is fair, in as much that nobody in the right minds is advocating that the markets will automatically sort everything out if only you legalise it.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Yup, by slapping the johns. Either through fines, as we currently do here, or by using the rape law when the prostitute is forced. Shower the prostitutes with hand-outs; if it's one thing we do well here in Norway, it's throwing vast amounts of oil-money at things. We already do that, mind, and it was ramped up when the new law was introduced. Still, we still have more money and the prostitutes still have holes in their pockets. We could do more.

As for those prostitutes who are not forced, they are of course hurt by a fine imposed on every john(but won't be negatively affected at all by enforcing the rape law). I don't see that as problematic at all. Their right to sell their body is outweighed by the rights of others not to be abused.

Fair enough.

However the follow up question is: what if you're not Norway and don't have lots of oil money to buy yourself out of everything?

[HoreTore]

Fair enough.

However the follow up question is: what if you're not Norway and don't have lots of oil money to buy yourself out of everything?

I'll answer that by rephrasing Tony Benn:

If we can find money to pay for sex, we can find money to help the prostitutes.

[Husar]

Would you punish the man who buys crack and not the crack dealer? Would you punish the man who bought the stolen artwork and not the fence? What sense does it make to make a commodity illegal (In this case make it illegal for people to commodify their bodies) and then punish the buyer and not the seller.

Oh for a moment there I thought when you talked about the "abuses inherent in the profession" that you were sorry for women being forced into prostitution but apparently you're only sorry they're not getting jailed for being forced into it?

Btw, forced prostitution wasn't legalized and regulated.

[HoreTore]

Btw, forced prostitution wasn't legalized and regulated.

Yeah, I'm sure all the legal hookers in Germany are dying to have sex with men as old as their father who treats them like crap.

It's every little girls fantasy.

EDIT: Also, I was in Berlin in April, and talked to a guy who got a slight nod and a note with directions to a brothel from the bartender. At the time I thought it came of as more than a bit shady, and not quite legal. Is this a case of different state laws or regulations? Berlin being both the capital and formerly commies, I can certainly see how they could have a slightly different set of laws regulating public order....

[Kadagar_AV]

Yeah, I'm sure all the legal hookers in Germany are dying to have sex with men as old as their father who treats them like crap.

It's every little girls fantasy.

Actually, a scary amount of girls go for older guys. And since WHEN did women stop going for guys who treat them like crap?

[HoreTore]

Actually, a scary amount of girls go for older guys. And since WHEN did women stop going for guys who treat them like crap?

They stopped back when that outlook on women went out of fashion.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What would you compare it to is the problem. Because the only really good comparison is the US, and because its illegal here, you don't have very good stats on prostitutes or what happens to them. A German prostitute has way more legal recourse than an American one, because the American one is considered a criminal. Do you get it? Or do you think I'm being trite?

I don't think you personally are being trite. Anyway, the most relevant comparison is the one between the current situation with prosititution in Germany, and the one prior to legalization (or at least, the openness that resulted from the changes in 2003). The figures indicate a massive increase in the trade, that the workers appear to be still largely trafficked, and that the increased competition is forcing them to work more due to lower rates.

If we were going to compare it to America, I don't have much info for that, but I think the comment of one American in Vuk's article says a lot:

"There’s a risk of being arrested in the U.S., but not here,’ he said. ‘And it’s cheaper. Germany is like Aldi for prostitutes."

[Rhyfelwyr]

That's just reversing the logic though. What's more important? Punishing johns, or helping prostitutes that would rather not be prostitutes? If its the former, America's system is for you. If its the latter, anything but.

Well nobody in Germany is being punished by the law, and that seems to have had an overwhelmingly negative effect on attempts to curb the industry.

This really is a whole other matter, but personally I think johns and willing prostitutes should be targeted.

[The Lurker Below]

"There’s a risk of being arrested in the U.S., but not here,’ he said. ‘And it’s cheaper. Germany is like Aldi for prostitutes."

No thanks! Canned goods and other such packaged non-perishables are fine Aldi products, but no way I'd walk away with fresh fruits or meats from an Aldi store. /cancels Germany visit

[Husar]

Yeah, I'm sure all the legal hookers in Germany are dying to have sex with men as old as their father who treats them like crap.

It's every little girls fantasy.

Yes, it's not like there isn't a social safety net if they do not want to do it. If they're being forced then it's not legal and if they don't report being forced to do it, how does turning them into criminals help that?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Related: The Economics of Slut-Shaming (http://theumlaut.com/2013/07/02/the-economics-of-slut-shaming/)

Sex is a female resource. While both genders certainly enjoy and depend on the act, natural constraints on female sexuality create scarcity—and value. The high costs of female fertility—in terms of time, mental and physical health, and opportunities forgone—impel women to act as suppliers in the sexual market. Male sexuality, on the other hand, is ubiquitous and cheap. What’s more, men tend to place a higher value on sexual gratification than do women. Men, therefore, comprise the demand for sex.

To consume their desired quantity of sex, men must offer women something of equal subjective value in return. The aggregate supply of willing women and aggregate demand for a roll in the hay in a given market will converge to an equilibrium “price” for sexual access. The price need not be literal, as is the case with prostitution. [...]

As such, there is a strong incentive for women to restrict competition, price-cutting, and client-stealing in the sexual mating market.

Slut-shaming, prohibitions against paid sex work, censorship of pornographic images, and gender segregation are all tools that restrict supply in the sexual market. Anxieties and incentives cause women facing sexual competition to psychologically exhibit similar, although uncoordinated, cartelistic behaviors. Thrill-seekers and erotic entrepreneurs that buck the sexual syndicate find themselves at the mercy of moral indignation and exclusion. A review of the literature on sexual suppression suggests that the evidence is more consistent with the female cartel theory than the patriarchy theory: Periods of sexual restraint coincide with sellers’ markets. Although men historically enforced sexual norms, female self-interest shapes them.

How is this news?

Seriously - Feminism - get a grip.

[HoreTore]

Yes, it's not like there isn't a social safety net if they do not want to do it. If they're being forced then it's not legal and if they don't report being forced to do it, how does turning them into criminals help that?

The social security net surely takes away a lot of the problem(hence why most prostitutes are non-western), but even that won't pay for a drug addiction(the leading recruiter). All the foreign prostitutes, fresh from the balts/balkans/whatever won't have any of that, and has the delightful choice of selling their bodies or watch their kid go hungry. Sure, that's not being forced at all.

Anyway, I of course don't advocate any negative measures aimed at the prostitutes themselves, only the buyers(who I believe to be worthless and can piss off and pay tax instead), and my preferred solution to the nastiest part of the sex industry won't affect the ones you're talking about at all(introducing the rape law).

[Papewaio]

Yes, it's not like there isn't a social safety net if they do not want to do it. If they're being forced then it's not legal and if they don't report being forced to do it, how does turning them into criminals help that?

Well if it is being taxed already they should get representation. So a license system including OH&S for the sex workers. Business license and regular health inspectors.

A well regulated sex trade being necessary for the security of the people. :smoking:

[Husar]

The social security net surely takes away a lot of the problem(hence why most prostitutes are non-western), but even that won't pay for a drug addiction(the leading recruiter). All the foreign prostitutes, fresh from the balts/balkans/whatever won't have any of that, and has the delightful choice of selling their bodies or watch their kid go hungry. Sure, that's not being forced at all.

First of all, the eastern euros trust shady people in the pursuit of money and riches, their countries need to educate their girls better and improve their conditions to stop this human trafficking. Our country is trying but it's usually hard if the victims are too scared to talk.
As for drug addictions, that is a choice and not something you're born with AFAIK.
I'm absolutely for helping people who made the wrong choices but if they don't seek help and prefer to engage in shady, unpleasant or criminal acts, how is that everyone else's fault? Unless you mean we should legalize all drugs but then Vuk will post an article about how the lower drug prices really ruined the lives of poor drug dealers in Germany and how hunting them with guns all over south america is a far more humane idea.


Anyway, I of course don't advocate any negative measures aimed at the prostitutes themselves, only the buyers(who I believe to be worthless and can piss off and pay tax instead), and my preferred solution to the nastiest part of the sex industry won't affect the ones you're talking about at all(introducing the rape law).

Maybe the answer you are looking for is that I wasn't replying to you with my first reply. I never said what you propose is bad or makes no sense and I never said our system is perfect. I was arguing Vuk's point that apparently the US system where all of it is criminalized is somehow better.

[Vuk]

Oh gosh...I actually agree with HoreTore on something. Damn, I am gonna have to reevaluate my opinions. :P

[HopAlongBunny]

Overworked, underpaid and subject to abuse by employers...welcome to the legitimate work force.

[HoreTore]

Overworked, underpaid and subject to abuse by employers...welcome to the legitimate work force.

I feel overpaid, have a lovely boss( who is the sole reason I chose to work there) and I'm on holiday until august 9., having started it june 20th.

Welcome to the world of teaching, don't blame me for choosing the wrong career ~;)

[Lemur]

Relevant history: The legalization and regulation of prostitution during the Civil War in Nashville. (http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/history/2013/07/the-curious-case-of-nashvilles-frail-sisterhood/)

Resigning himself to the fact that prostitutes would ply their trade and soldiers would engage them, he reasoned that the women might as well sell sex safely, and so out of sheer desperation, Spalding and the Union Army created in Nashville’s the country’s first system of legalized prostitution.

Spalding’s proposal was simple: Each prostitute would register herself, obtaining for $5 a license entitling her to work as she pleased. A doctor approved by the Army would be charged with examining prostitutes each week, a service for which each woman would pay a 50 cent fee. Women found to have venereal diseases would be sent to a hospital established (in the home of the former Catholic bishop) for the treatment of such ailments, paid for in part by the weekly fees. Engaging in prostitution without a license, or failing to appear for scheduled examinations, would result in arrest and a jail term of 30 days.

https://i.imgur.com/Eg0jzel.jpg

The prospect of participating in the sex trade without fear of arrest or prosecution was instantly attractive to most of Nashville’s prostitutes, and by early 1864 some 352 women were on record as being licensed, and another hundred had been successfully treated for syphilis and other conditions hazardous to their industry. In the summer of 1864, one doctor at the hospital remarked on a “marked improvement” in the licensed prostitutes’ physical and mental health, noting that at the beginning of the initiative the women had been characterized by use of crude language and little care for personal hygiene, but were soon virtual models of “cleanliness and propriety.”

[Ronin]

The social security net surely takes away a lot of the problem(hence why most prostitutes are non-western), but even that won't pay for a drug addiction(the leading recruiter). All the foreign prostitutes, fresh from the balts/balkans/whatever won't have any of that, and has the delightful choice of selling their bodies or watch their kid go hungry. Sure, that's not being forced at all.

by that logic every person that lives paycheck to paycheck is being forced to take the job they have also.
for example I would not wish to be a sanitation worker, should I campaign to have that job outlawed?




Anyway, I of course don't advocate any negative measures aimed at the prostitutes themselves, only the buyers(who I believe to be worthless and can piss off and pay tax instead), and my preferred solution to the nastiest part of the sex industry won't affect the ones you're talking about at all(introducing the rape law).

there is no logical rationale to make illegal or impose sanctions in participants in a monetary transaction, but at the same time admit that the very same transaction goes on every day for "free" or for non monetary values and that is ok.
in other words, if it's legal to give it away for free, it's legal to sell it.

[HoreTore]

Your logic is flawed.

1. Are you suggesting prostitution is a job like any other? You're honestly saying that you would have no more problem selling your bum for an hour compared to working at a shop...?

2. It's legal to give up babies for adoption. Are you of the opinion that it's perfectly fine to sell human babies?

And honestly, since when did prostitution and normal sex become one and the same? There's a world of difference, unless you consider women to be no more than holes for you to put your willy in.

[Ronin]

Your logic is flawed.

1. Are you suggesting prostitution is a job like any other? You're honestly saying that you would have no more problem selling your bum for an hour compared to working at a shop...?

Where did I say that?
I would have more problems selling my ass than working in a store.
the same way I would have more problems working cleaning a sewer than writing software code in an office like I do.
there are obviously jobs that are way less desirable than others....but we don´t go around outlawing them.



2. It's legal to give up babies for adoption. Are you of the opinion that it's perfectly fine to sell human babies?

If I was attempting to be ironic my first answer would be that it seems to me that if you are really rich it is legal to buy babies....see the list of really high end US celebrities that have gone on "adoption sprees" in third world countries.
but I won´t go that far.... I will correct my previous statement saying it is perfectly valid when applied to goods and services (including sexual services) I don´t consider that people themselves fall into either category.




And honestly, since when did prostitution and normal sex become one and the same? There's a world of difference, unless you consider women to be no more than holes for you to put your willy in.

Sex is Sex.....sex with someone you are in a real relationship with is Sex + Something else.

And no, I do not consider women just holes, but the truth is that the biological and social conditioning of our species have put women in the role of, in lack of a better words, holding access to a "commodity" that the majority of the male part of our species will have to pay to access in one way or another (at least on first contact, and before the issue of more complex feelings and relationships comes into play)
This is not a negative comment towards women, it's just an observation of the simple result of the uneven levels of supply and demand of sexual contact you find between both sexes, the sex that produces 1 or 2 sexual cells a month will not act the same way as the sex that produces millions and millions and feels a certain "pressure" let's say to spread them around, the side with the lowest level of supply will find that increases it's value and will act accordingly.

When it comes to just regular sex, I find no moral or logical difference between prostitution or let's say going to a pick-up bar and paying for drinks, or the numbers and numbers of men that pick up all the checks on dates at a beginning of a relationship, giving gifts, etc, etc.
I´m not saying all these men are making a conscious and cynical decision of "buying" access to sex, (although some are as you are well aware, we both will know some cases) what I´m saying is that just because society tends to view these transactions as normal or "transparent" doesn´t mean they are not being conducted, every day.

now, all this might be politically incorrect, but that doesn´t mean it's false.

[Major Robert Dump]

Comparing current trends with that went on when it was illegal decades ago completely ignores the gap in record keeping and data collection. On a similar note, I am amazed at how many educated people repeat the "study" from the early 90s that says most porn actresses were abused as children and are current drug addicts, which is patently untrue today.

It also ignores the influence that US Military presence had at the time, which, like it or not, has had a huge impact on turning certain parts of Europe and SE Asia into unmitigated shitholes. The military is a lot less like that than it was in the past

I love all the romanticized views of sex on this board. If the US lowered the age of consent to 15 your sons and daughters would start selling their butts for new Iphones. Face it.

There are so may facets, sides, contributions and factors that go into people prostituting themselves that making it look like a simple black and white issue between perverts and young women does a disservice to the people who really are victims. A girl selling herself in a bar can make 10x what a freaking nurse does in the Philippines. I have offered to sponsor 4 different girls if they would quit the bar, and they all said no unless I paid them as much as they made in the bar. Which reminds me, I have some thread updates to do.