Continuation Prostitution part 2

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Well you certainly could have an age verification system without giving up PII publicly. The provider could be issued a card with an alternate name, and the, err client, could check like an id number on it at escort.irs.gov that it's legit

Ya I've been suggesting exactly that for dozens of pages.

ETA: I've been calling it a contractor registration, with just an ID number and photo, no name or address, that a client could verify on a smartphone, just like my NJ registration number but without the PII

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by TomB

It does nut usually refer to writers of erotic fiction, however.

I was the one who included writers of erotic fiction as sex workers, and even I think that it was a stretch.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

It's possible. Chesterton's fence.

I don't understand this answer, sorry. Can you be a bit clearer?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by theprestige

Why are you pretending it isn't?

You stigmatize things all the time, in the hope that it will discourage people from activities you disapprove of. Now you're going to come crying crocodile tears about "bUt sTiGmA Is bAd!"

Do I? Please provide an example.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Sometime yes. And I bet you believe so too.

Again, examples please.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

On the other hand, you and arthwollipot and The Atheist and a handful of others have taken the position that because legalizing the purchase of other people's bodies has been a good thing for the small handful of high-end escorts that you personally know, who made the decision to leave their already lucrative careers in their stable and established lives, it must therefore be an equally fantastic thing for the other 98% of the people who are there because they had no other reasonable options available to them. You gloss over the exploitation of the many, because a few have given you success stories.

Except that's not at all the position we have taken, and if you think it is, then you have misread us tremendously.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Don't be absurd. I'm not at all opposed to consenting people having sex. I am opposed to exploiting a person's desperation to coerce them into having sex when they would not voluntarily choose to do so if they had any other choice.

Excellent. So are we.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That's a large chunk of my objection. Survival sex shouldn't be a thing. Nobody - of either sex! - should be expected to **** people they don't actually desire to ****, just so they don't starve. And nobody, absolutely nobody, should feel entitled to exploit someone in poverty so they can get ****** by someone who would otherwise reject their advances completely.

Coercion negates agency.

Again, we agree.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Nonconsensual sex is rape.

Again, I'm wondering who you think is disagreeing with you.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

As for the illegal thing the naysayers complain about...

1. Human trafficking is virtually non-existent here, and on the odd occasion it does happen, it is caught very quickly.

2. Likewise for child prostitution. Virtually non-existent, and on the odd occasion it does happen, it too is caught very quickly.

3. The claim that the poor and the destitute in this country are routinely exploited or forced into prostitution is simply is not true. This is because we have a good welfare system - the unemployment benefit for a single person ranges from $250 to $337 per week depending on age and circumstances, and beneficiaries can earn up to $160 per week on top of that before their benefit starts to be abated. The minimum wage in NZ is $22.70 per hour so as an example, a part time job flipping burgers or waiting tables a couple of nights per week will put the beneficiary on up to $497 per week. Also, there is an Accommodation Supplement of around $200 per week (in some cases, more) to help with the rent, as well as a Winter Energy Payment of $20.46 per week from May 1 to October 1.

I would like to add the following:

The fact that this is not true in all the places is absolutely tragic. That exploitation and trafficking exist where prostitution is not legal is a terrible situation that must be addressed and tackled as soon as possible. Legalisation is one thing that can be done, but since some places have bigger social problems around poverty and marginalisation, legalisation as a lone silver bullet will not work. Larger social issues are outside the scope for this thread, though, which is about the legalisation and, if possible, destigmatisation of sex work. Australia and New Zealand have demonstrated that legalisation addresses many of the problems with sex work, particularly since the regulatory framework was created specifically in order to do that. If more places put such a framework in place, the global harms of exploitation and trafficking would be reduced.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I would like to add the following:

The fact that this is not true in all the places is absolutely tragic. That exploitation and trafficking exist where prostitution is not legal is a terrible situation that must be addressed and tackled as soon as possible. Legalisation is one thing that can be done, but since some places have bigger social problems around poverty and marginalisation, legalisation as a lone silver bullet will not work. Larger social issues are outside the scope for this thread, though, which is about the legalisation and, if possible, destigmatisation of sex work. Australia and New Zealand have demonstrated that legalisation addresses many of the problems with sex work, particularly since the regulatory framework was created specifically in order to do that. If more places put such a framework in place, the global harms of exploitation and trafficking would be reduced.

Indeed! Very well put Arth

Most of the critics here seem to come from the position that, 'because it would not work in their own country, a couple of back-woods countries at the other end of the world couldn't possibly have made it work for them, so they must be lying'
‎
‎

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Thermal

NZ is not paying attention to the trade, since it's legal. Being illegal here, we have arrest records for a start. We actually are keeping track of it to some degree that is greater than zero.

If you bothered to check the facts you'd find this is utterly untrue.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Then you oppose the minimum wage too, I presume. Because that implicates bodily autonomy just as much as prostitution does.

Unless bodily autonomy doesn't quite equate to complete economic freedom too, that you don't have the right to engage in any possible financial transaction you want to. Because that's the normal lefty position, which does self-consistently allow for outlawing prostitution and permitting abortion. You can do whatever sex acts you want with your body, but you can't do it for money, just as you can't choose to work for less than the minimum wage.

Note that I'm not arguing my position in this post. I'm pointing out that I don't think your position is quite as consistent as you think it is, or that other people's positions are as inconsistent.

Oh good grief, this is beyond pathetic.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

You can donate an organ voluntarily, but you can't sell one legally (at least in the US). I would say bodily autonomy is one principle, and it involves just one person. Economic transactions necessarily involve more than one person and therefore can have additional burden of regulation. Prostitution, of course, involves both. So I'm not seeing a conflict of principles here -- you can be for bodily autonomy and against prostitution as an economic transaction.

But of course just because one recognizes prostitution is an economic transaction and agrees that economic transactions can be regulated doesn't mean one believes this particular economic transaction should be forbidden.

Bearing that in mind, I'd say the minimum wage and bodily autonomy digressions contribute no insight to the central question of the thread which is whether prostitution should be legal or not.

USAia used to pay for blood.

Originally Posted by Thermal

And to recreationally pour gas on the fire, abortion rights are not about the woman's body, they are about killing the developing human life inside her, and where it's rights begin.

Meanwhile, back in the Real World, opposition to access to safe and legal abortion tend to be driven by patriarchal control freakery.

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

How long do you think it will be before the figment of your imagination that you're talking to starts talking back?

Sex is special enough that it should only be done when both parties ENTHUSIASTICALLY CONSENT to it.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by catsmate

Oh good grief, this is beyond pathetic.

I notice a conspicuous absence of any counter-argument.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I notice a conspicuous absence of any counter-argument.

Sometimes, a position is so pathetic, the only valid response is contempt.

The position that catsmate commented on is one of those!

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Sometimes, a position is so pathetic, the only valid response is contempt.

The position that catsmate commented on is one of those!

Keep telling yourself that. You tried to make a counter-argument, but all it really consisted of is "nuh-uh!"

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I don't understand this answer, sorry. Can you be a bit clearer?

Chesterton's fence is an analogy about how to deal with social institutions and traditions. Like a fence, they don't happen spontaneously, they were built for a purpose. If you don't understand the purpose (which includes mistakenly believing they don't even have one), then you shouldn't go knocking them down, because you don't know if you're going to be making things better or worse.

Stigmas exist for a reason. I'm not convinced we would be better off without the stigma on prostitution. We may well not be.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Stigmas exist for a reason.

If nothing else, this thread is comedy gold.

Yes, stigmas exist for a reason, especially when they concern women,

Like how the word "vagina" mustn't be said out loud.

Women having a period are unclean.

The reason being, of course, that they must not have bodily autonomy. Why did we ever give the bitches the vote?

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I notice a conspicuous absence of any counter-argument.

Your ridiculous nonsense is undeserving of a response.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

The problem with your position is that you want to make the whole thing illegal because a few people do bad things... The correct way to deal with this is to address the issue with the bad people, not restrict the rights of everyone.

Just stop. You keep telling me "what I want", and you're wrong. Stop telling me what I think.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

This is simply not true. They are a minority.‎
‎

Based on your expert knowledge of living in the country and having spoken to a few of the high-end escorts who left their lucrative jobs? Based on your lack of discussion with brothel workers, and your utter dismissal of the reports from those who have worked in brothels post legalization, and the reports from streetwalkers?

Your view on this, your assertion that survival sex is such a minority of cases that it can totally just be hand-waved away, seems to be entirely dependent on your own bias.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Check what I said very carefully - here it is again for your edification:



Did I mention males? Yet in a total lack of surprise, you assumed I meant males and have come back with an insane rant about incels.

And the proof I didn't mean just males was a following post you even quoted!



Goose cooked.

Thanks for your input - at least you've let me know not to bother even looking at your posts again. They are nothing but nonsense wrapped in your personal bias. I'm sure you have good reasons for the way you feel, but I don't give a damn.

This is such fancy footwork.

You're right, you *said* people of either sex. Which is great. It's up there with talking about how important it is to prevent sexual assault by people of either sex.

It's nice pandering words, but it also willfully glosses over the reality of the situation. Because the reality is that the overwhelming majority of purchasers of sex are male.

What you're doing is fallacious. You're "both siding" something that is so extremely one-sided that your premise is risible.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Bollocks! It does no such thing.

A prostitute is exercising their right of bodily autonomy -the right to sell their attributes in exchange for money, in exactly the same way that a sports person is paid for their skills. Whether their particular skill is prowess in bed, or prowess throwing a football, or prowess hitting a fast pitch deep over the outfield makes no difference - I do this with my body and you pay me for doing it. It is all about what the person is willing to do - the payment is only a part of it, and is secondary to the person right to do what they want to do with their own body.

To put it simply the payment does not happen UNLESS the body autonomy is exercised.

Does this mean that you wish to legalize the buying and selling of internal organs?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

THEY ARE NOT BEING COERCED INTO HAVING SEX WITH OTHERS AND ARE COMPLETELY WILLING TO DO SO BECAUSE THEY ARE EXERCISING THEIR FREE CHOICE IN THE MATTER.‎
‎

2022 Trafficking in Persons Report: New Zealand

Quote:

While experts assessed the Prostitution Reform Act, which decriminalized commercial sex for New Zealand residents, overall increased protections for those who willingly engaged in commercial sex, traffickers continue to target vulnerable populations, such as children, migrants, and adult victims of domestic and family violence for exploitation in sex trafficking. Foreign women from Asia and South America in commercial sex are at risk of sex trafficking, especially those who do not speak English and who work in private homes and informal or suburban environments, where they are more isolated from service providers. Some international students and temporary visa holders are at risk of sex and labor trafficking. Immigration brokers and unscrupulous brothel owners subject some migrants to conditions indicative of sex trafficking, including non-payment of wages, withheld passports, physical or sexual abuse, threats of deportation, monitored movements, limited access to medical care or other social services, and excessive working hours. Some migrants are required to pay fines, bonds, and recruitment and other fees to brothel operators or brokers, which make them vulnerable to debt-based coercion. Traffickers utilized Section 19 of the PRA, which prohibited non-residents from legally working in the decriminalized commercial sex industry, to use threats of deportation or other adverse action from law enforcement to deter migrants in commercial sex from reporting verbal or physical abuse, unwanted or unsafe sexual practices, or non-payment of wages. Some gang members, boyfriends, family members, or others exploit young children and teenagers in sex trafficking by facilitating, purchasing, or forcing them to engage in commercial sex acts. Some adult women, often those who face domestic or family violence, are forced by partners to engage in commercial sex acts. Some victims are coerced into commercial sex through drug dependencies or threats by family members. One service provider reported a notable proportion of its clients reported being forced into commercial sex by their partners in order for their partners to purchase or obtain drugs and other substances. However, experts suggest the prevalence of forced commercial sex among New Zealand women is significantly under-reported and under-detected.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Just stop. You keep telling me "what I want", and you're wrong. Stop telling me what I think.

I'm not telling what you think, I'm telling what you have been saying

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Based on your expert knowledge of living in the country and having spoken to a few of the high-end escorts who left their lucrative jobs ordinary women who have decided to become not particularly high priced sex-workers, of their own volition, women who personally know, and regularly interact with, just about all the other sex-workers in the town in which I live. Based on your lack of discussion with brothel workers, and your utter dismissal acceptance of the very small number of reports reports from those who have worked in brothels post legalization, and the reports from streetwalkers?

FTFY

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Your view on this, your assertion that survival sex is such a minority of cases that it can totally just be hand-waved away, seems to be entirely dependent on your own bias.

1. It is a minority class! 20 years ago it was a vast majority of cases. In fact, virtually ALL sex-workers were destitute, mostly drug addicts, under the violent thumb of their pimps, and afraid of the police. You seem to prefer we go back to that situation!

2. I have hand-waved nothing away. In fact, I have repeatedly pointed out to you that what we have is not perfect, but it is orders of magnitude better than what we had before. Others such as Lion King and arthwollipot have also pointed this out. You have simply chosen to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "La La la La - I can't hear you!!".

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Does this mean that you wish to legalize the buying and selling of internal organs?

Yup. If the owner of of a kidney wants to sell their kidney, who am I to argue with them... its their kidney.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

2022 Trafficking in Persons Report: New Zealand

Firstly, this is an American report what is happening in New Zealand. What was that you were saying earlier about bias? Whats the matter Emily, couldn't you find a New Zealand Government report to fit your narrative?

Secondly. You need to get this drilled into your skull. THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN ELEMENT OF SEX TRAFFICKING IN THIS COUNTRY. IT WAS WORSE --- A LOT WORSE PRIOR TO THE PASSING OF THE PRA 2003!!

As I said earlier, and I have said previously, and am saying now, and as I will continue to say, our system is not perfect, but it is better; much better than what we had previously.
‎
‎

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

This is such fancy footwork.

Nah, pointing out errors as glaring as yours is less than child's play.

Weak attempted weasel to get yourself out of that hole and continuing lack of substance is noted.

[lionking]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Firstly, this is an American report what is happening in New Zealand. What was that you were saying earlier about bias? Whats the matter Emily, couldn't you find a New Zealand Government report to fit your narrative?

Secondly. You need to get this drilled into your skull. THERE HAS ALWAYS BEEN AN ELEMENT OF SEX TRAFFICKING IN THIS COUNTRY. IT WAS WORSE --- A LOT WORSE PRIOR TO THE PASSING OF THE PRA 2003!!

As I said earlier, and I have said previously, and am saying now, and as I will continue to say, our system is not perfect, but it is better; much better than what we had previously.
‎
‎

The other striking thing about that report is that Australia, with virtually identical prostitution laws, is a Tier 1 country, with adequate safeguards against trafficking while NZ is Tier 2. If there is a difference between the two nations, it has nothing to do with prostitution laws.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

The problem here is that people who think the way EC does, think 'a solution is not a solution unless it is guaranteed to resolve the whole issue'. Its known by various names such as the "magic bullet" or the "miracle cure". I call it the "all-or-nothing solution". Opponents of the legalization of prostitution want a measure that will magically stop trafficking, and stop child prostitution, and stop coercion and stop exploitation of the poor. These magic measures simply do not exist in the real world, because human nature is complex. They are a fantasy. If you have ever frequented any of the gun threads here, you'll recognize the argument - it is the exact same argument that anti-gun control advocates use - railing against the idea that any improvement even 70%, to 90% is not enough -to them its 100% or nothing.

In this country, the legalization of prostitution has dramatically improved the conditions for prostitutes. Their pay and conditions have improved across the board, and they have the protection of the Police and the Law. They can get health insurance and are covered by ACC - they could get none of this previously.

As for the illegal thing the naysayers complain about...

1. Human trafficking is virtually non-existent here, and on the odd occasion it does happen, it is caught very quickly.

2. Likewise for child prostitution. Virtually non-existent, and on the odd occasion it does happen, it too is caught very quickly.

3. The claim that the poor and the destitute in this country are routinely exploited or forced into prostitution is simply is not true. This is because we have a good welfare system - the unemployment benefit for a single person ranges from $250 to $337 per week depending on age and circumstances, and beneficiaries can earn up to $160 per week on top of that before their benefit starts to be abated. The minimum wage in NZ is $22.70 per hour so as an example, a part time job flipping burgers or waiting tables a couple of nights per week will put the beneficiary on up to $497 per week. Also, there is an Accommodation Supplement of around $200 per week (in some cases, more) to help with the rent, as well as a Winter Energy Payment of $20.46 per week from May 1 to October 1.

Oh sure, the naysayers will always be able to search for and find cherry-picked edge-cases they can point to in order to indulge their whataboutism in an effort to support their claims, but the reality is that these cases are rare. If they were as common as the naysayers claim, the NZPC (New Zealand Prostitutes Collective) would be lobbying the government hard to take action. They aren't so it isn't! Its also worth noting that these edge-cases are not edge-cases anywhere else, they are common in other places in the world where prostitution is illegal.

No system is perfect, ours included or course, but what we have here in NZ is an order of magnitude better than anything else going, especially the so called "Nordic Model" which nothing more than criminalization by subterfuge - a classic example of kicking the can down the road.

https://www.antitraffickingreview.or...e/view/447/362

Some key findings from YOUR OWN COUNTRY

Quote:

Although decriminalisation has reduced the disproportionate incarceration of transgender Māori street workers, who were frequently targeted by police raids but are now more able to work indoors, the street sector still has a much higher percentage of Māori, Pacific Islander, transgender, and/or people who began sex working before turning eighteen.

...

Street workers are more likely to be working because of an inability to receive a government benefit or parental support, because they have no other income, or to support a drug or alcohol habit. The vast majority of respondents had access to a doctor and felt able to refuse clients, though street workers more often experienced theft and threats of violence; managed workers were more likely to be punished if they refused to see a client.

This is from a document that is quite clearly pro-prostitution, and takes the position that international laws that seek to protect people from being victims of sex trafficking are bad for NZ prostitutes.

So even when they're very much for legal prostitution and purchase of sex, they still admin that in 2020 - 17 years after prostitution was legalized in NZ, they still have 1) a material volume of minority and poverty-stricken street prostitutes who are minors and 2) a problem with street prostitutes engaged in survival sex and 3) brothel prostitutes being punished by the brother managers if they refuse a client.

But this, we're told by smartcooky and The Atheist, is totally not a problem, because the prostitutes in NZ are there voluntarily and there's no coercion involved at all.

This is not a case of perfect being the enemy of the good. This is a case of your country's solution providing a small benefit for some while pretending like the rest don't exist.

Oh, NZ doesn't have any problems with sex trafficking, nor with child prostitution, nor with survival sex. See, it's legal now, so even though those things still happen, we've simply declared that they're not a problem.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

I'm sorry, but your posts don't read that way to me. I'm not playing games or being all hurr durr etc

I mean there's certainly things I wouldn't want legalized. Like streetwalking, but that should be up to each locality to regulate. Also, any employment has to be "all or nothing". No you cannot legally ask your secretary for a quick handy.

Why? If you are pro-prostitution, and think it should be legal, why would you be opposed to independent streetside vendors of sex?

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

A major and easy to fix weak link was noted way upthread, that no one is verifying ages. I propose a simple solution. You retort, as others do, with "hurr durr you want it illegal".

This ******* place sometimes.

FFS, Even I thought that registration was a good idea, and would substantially reduce the exploitation of minors.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I googled underage prostitution in NZ. It's very disheartening reading that I really wish I hadn't looked into.

But, but, but you've been TOLD that's not a problem, it's been DEBUNKED! See, right here is where you were ASSURED that it's totally not a problem at all:

Originally Posted by smartcooky

2. Likewise for child prostitution. Virtually non-existent, and on the odd occasion it does happen, it too is caught very quickly.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Well you certainly could have an age verification system without giving up PII publicly. The provider could be issued a card with an alternate name, and the, err client, could check like an id number on it at escort.irs.gov that it's legit

That's pretty much EXACTLY what Thermal suggested.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I don't understand this answer, sorry. Can you be a bit clearer?

Google is your friend.

Chesterton Fence: Don’t Destroy What You Don’t Understand!

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Again, I'm wondering who you think is disagreeing with you.

That would be all of you who are insistent that because the purchase and sale of sex has been made legal, that eliminates coercion - both physical and financial - entirely. Like, say, smartcooky who insists that it totally doesn't happen and all prostitutes in NZ are there completely voluntarily, that there is no sex trafficking, and no child prostitution.

It's trivially easy to find cases in NZ where a prostituted person has been financially or physically coerced. Cases where prostitutes in brothels are treated to all of the obligations of an employee with none of the benefits, and who are denied the ability to decline a john at their discretion, who are pressured to take any customer, and whose finances are held hostage. Cases where minors have been shuffled into prostitution both on the street and in brothels out of desperation, familial abuse, and homelessness. Cases where "migrant workers" are imported for the purpose of being sold as prostitutes to johns who wish to use them.

Those of you who wave away these human abuses as being unimportant or no big deal, because it's legal - you are the ones who disagree that coercive sex is not voluntary.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

I would like to add the following:

The fact that this is not true in all the places is absolutely tragic. That exploitation and trafficking exist where prostitution is not legal is a terrible situation that must be addressed and tackled as soon as possible. Legalisation is one thing that can be done, but since some places have bigger social problems around poverty and marginalisation, legalisation as a lone silver bullet will not work. Larger social issues are outside the scope for this thread, though, which is about the legalisation and, if possible, destigmatisation of sex work. Australia and New Zealand have demonstrated that legalisation addresses many of the problems with sex work, particularly since the regulatory framework was created specifically in order to do that. If more places put such a framework in place, the global harms of exploitation and trafficking would be reduced.

The problem, to which you seem willfully blind, is that exploitation and trafficking exists where prostitution is legal as well, and continues to exist.

Legalized purchase and sale of sex is a great thing for those who are already well off and want to become a prosititute.

For those who are desperate or poor or abused or addicted, legalization doesn't address anything, it simply makes it legal for their situation to be exploited.

That's the bit that you and smartcooky and The Atheist seem to want to hand-wave away.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

The problem, to which you seem willfully blind, is that exploitation and trafficking exists where prostitution is legal as well, and continues to exist.

Nonsense. Nobody's blind to it and it has been explained to you several times that more protection for the exploited exists in a legal framework, but you completely ignore those facts because they don't suit your biases.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

For those who are desperate or poor or abused or addicted, legalization doesn't address anything, it simply makes it legal for their situation to be exploited.

That's pathetic.

What prostitution being illegal does is make criminals out of those women, while increasing their likelihood of exploitation.

Your "arguments" are actually nonsensical and if you believe them, then you haven't even begun to think it through. You want to victimise the victims, and we know that's what happens because there are prostitutes everywhere, regardless of the legality.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That would be all of you who are insistent that because the purchase and sale of sex has been made legal, that eliminates coercion - both physical and financial - entirely.

No, we're insisting that it massively reduces it, not that it eliminates it entirely. If we could eliminate it entirely, you bet we would. But we can't, so we do what we can to minimise the harm that comes from it.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

The problem, to which you seem willfully blind, is that exploitation and trafficking exists where prostitution is legal as well, and continues to exist.

At a massively reduced rate. That's a good thing! Don't you think that's a good thing?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

https://www.antitraffickingreview.or...e/view/447/362

Some key findings from YOUR OWN COUNTRY



This is from a document that is quite clearly pro-prostitution, and takes the position that international laws that seek to protect people from being victims of sex trafficking are bad for NZ prostitutes.

So even when they're very much for legal prostitution and purchase of sex, they still admin that in 2020 - 17 years after prostitution was legalized in NZ, they still have 1) a material volume of minority and poverty-stricken street prostitutes who are minors and 2) a problem with street prostitutes engaged in survival sex and 3) brothel prostitutes being punished by the brother managers if they refuse a client.

But this, we're told by smartcooky and The Atheist, is totally not a problem, because the prostitutes in NZ are there voluntarily and there's no coercion involved at all.

This is not a case of perfect being the enemy of the good. This is a case of your country's solution providing a small benefit for some while pretending like the rest don't exist.

Oh, NZ doesn't have any problems with sex trafficking, nor with child prostitution, nor with survival sex. See, it's legal now, so even though those things still happen, we've simply declared that they're not a problem.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

But, but, but you've been TOLD that's not a problem, it's been DEBUNKED! See, right here is where you were ASSURED that it's totally not a problem at all:

You know what? I'm done with your continual wilful ignorance of what you have been told over and over, so from now on, the following is how I am going to reply to you every time you post your ill-informed ********.

"As I have said previously, and as I am saying now, and as I will continue to say in the future, the system put in place by the 2003 Prostitution Reform Act is not perfect, but it is orders of magnitude better than what we had before"

I will keep telling you this until you either get this, or you put me on ignore. Either way, I no longer give a fats rat's arse what you do.