Continuation Prostitution part 2

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Honestly, who cares about birth rates falling.

Lots of people, and with good reason.

Quote:

Isn't it a good thing if birth rates fall?

Not when they fall well below replacement. That's going to cause massive social upheaval. There are a LOT of bad consequences that will flow from population implosions, including possible wars. The Russia/Ukraine conflict may be just the first of them.

Quote:

I find the "birth rates are falling" argument to be weird almost every time I run across it. There's probably some good reason for the argument, it just isn't something I've been able to ferret out.

I should think it's pretty obvious. A society with a declining population is literally a dying society. I don't want my society to die off. I think that would be a bad thing. Perhaps you feel differently, but even if you do, it would be odd to not even recognize why others might think it is bad.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I've heard this argument put forth before, but I'm unconvinced that somehow slut shaming is truly the domain solely of females.

Solely? No, not solely. But as a group, they have more incentive for it than males.

Quote:

And if we're being totally honest, females don't control access to sex. If we did... I guarantee there'd be no rape and no sexual assaults because we wouldn't allow it to happen at all.

You are taking the exception as if it was the rule. It's not, not in developed western societies. The rule is that women control access to sex, not men. And that's how it should be, is it not? Rape is the exception to the rule, not the rule. And it is universally outlawed in developed western countries.

Quote:

Throughout a very significant portion of our history

I'm not talking about all of our history, or every place on earth. I'm explicitly talking about today, in developed western societies.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

I don't see any reason to believe that is the root of the stigma against legal sex workers like strippers or porn actors.

I doubt it is.

Nudity is almost always viewed as a sexual overture. There are some exceptions, like nude beaches, but that's uncommon. And even for nude beaches, they only work by maintaining very strict rules against any sort of sexual behavior at all. They take very intentional steps to divorce nudity in their specific context from its connotations with sex.

There are all kinds of possible arguments for the stigma against sexually charged public nudity, and the engagement in public sexual spectacles. Many of them are likely related to our species having a pretty long history of male domination over females. But I doubt that's the entire story, and personally I don't find that to be a particularly compelling argument.

I suspect some of it is a fairly ingrained response to deformity and disfiguring illnesses. We've gotten better as a society at not shying away from those with physical disabilities that result in disfiguration, but it's still an instinctive response. We continue to have a fairly innate response to things like Hansen's disease, cold sores, suppurating ulcers, etc. Even when we consciously know that they're not some manifestation of evil, and we know they're treatable and not immediately dangerous... we still shy away from them. Evolutionarily, those are things that we're supposed to stay away from, it's danger. There are several sexually transmitted illnesses that fall into the same category, where there are visible indicators of illness - herpes, syphilis, gonorrhea, etc. And even though stripping or only fans isn't a vector for those illnesses, there's still likely to be a subconscious association of "risky" sexual behaviors with those conditions. And even though we might consciously recognize that stripping and only fans isn't inherently "risky" in that fashion, that's an extremely modern notion. We've got thousands of years, maybe tens of thousands, where demonstrative public nudity and sexuality is associated with the transmission of illness.

The fact that it has historically been females that are placed into positions where prostitution (which up until extremely recently would be almost completely synonymous with demonstrative public nudity and sexualized public behavior) is where you end up with the stigma being almost entirely sex-based. I would bet that if males had a long history of stripping for female pleasure, and engaging in public sexual behavior for the titillation of females, we'd see the same stigma associated with them.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Oh yeah, of course! That makes it special.

So, having a ****, a parachute opening, winning a race, praying and hearing god, and throwing up, are all special too. They have completely different neurotransmitter signals to sex, so they must be at least as special.

Or is there a special type and configuration of neurotransmitters that are more special than the others?

This really seems like willful obtuseness here.

There's a huge portion of our evolution that is driven by, and directly influenced by, sexual reproduction. It's absolutely fundamental to our continuation as a species. The drive to have sex is one of the most powerful instincts we have, second only to those necessary for immediate survival.

The strength of that impulse varies from person to person, of course. But as a species, the drive to reproduce is absolutely massive.

And if you give it some thought, you would recognize that the drive to reproduce is not actually the same as the desire to have children. It's actually the impulse to engage in sexual activity, because sex is the method by which our species continues. And due to the lopsided cost of reproduction, the drive to engage in sexual activity is stronger in males than it is in females.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Indeed.

An outed sex worker may not have told their family what they do for a living. A male prostitute might not have come out as gay to his family. And here's an edge case - what if an outed sex-worker was a member of a Muslim family? She could end up being murdered for it.

There are many reasons why people do not want their personal, private information to be revealed. I renew my challenge to those who mock the idea of privacy being something a sex-worker needs to worry about, to post their own real name, address, telephone number and social security number right here in the forum. The fact that they have not yet done so proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that they know they are talking BS.

You know, you've gone to a really strange place with this privacy thing.

Being required to be registered as a prostitute does not equate to having to advertise one's personal phone number, address, and tax history to any passing stranger. It's absurd that this is the interpretation you've taken.

In the US, in order to practice as a lawyer, one must pass the bar and be registered to practice in a state. To practice as a doctor or a nurse or a home health care aide, one must prove sufficient knowledge, and must also be registered with the state. FFS, for me to be allowed to sign actuarial opinions, put my name to actuarial justifications and certifications, I have to be registered with the American Academy of Actuaries, and I have to annually certify my continuing education and practice area expertise!

There are TONS of jobs in the US where a person has to be licensed by the state or the nation in order to do that job - electricians, plumbers, builders, police officers, firefighters, accountants, tax advisors, the list goes on and on.

The state has the individual's personal information, in order to verify that they are who they say they are and that they have the requisite knowledge and background to perform the job. It's not publicly available to any rando off the street - ****, I'd be terrified if some of the people on this site knew my direct contact info! And I trust you yahoos more than most, if it comes right down to it. Holy cow, my employer has all of my personal contact information stored in HR... but that information is not available even to my direct manager unless I explicitly allow it to be released. This is commonplace.

And I would be extraordinarily surprised if the situation weren't substantially the same in New Zealand. I would bet cash money that there are many, many, many jobs in NZ that require the person to be officially registered in order to do the work.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Many in the south are still butt-hurt over the Civil War 158 years after it ended and they lost. America is still choc full of racists and bigots, many of whom fly Confederate flags, and who who want to ban books by black authors, and do not want the US' history of slavery, and the acts of Civil Rights heroes like Harriet Tubman, Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr to be taught in school.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

I know what happens in my own bloody country!!!

Your characterization of how the New Zealand model works is complete bull-****. You are totally ignorant of how the 2003 PRA has dramatically improved the lives of sex-workers in this country! Your last dozen or so posts in this thread just confirm for me, that like dann, and Thermal and Abooga, you have utterly no ******* idea what happens in this country.

I know what happens here because I ******* well live here and I know you are completely and utterly wrong!

Originally Posted by dann

Oh, but we do! You may not have noticed, but there's this thing called the internet nowadays! It's a big help for anybody who wants to know what actually happens down under.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Googleversity is no substitute for personal experience!

lives literally on the other side of the planet feels like they have the authority to tell us what it's like where we live.[/quote]


I find it really funny how people on the other side of the planet feel totally and completely entitled to act like authorities on the US, to the point of telling Americans what America is "really like" on a pretty regular basis.

But then those same people take deep umbrage that someone in the US might read articles about the impact of legalized sex buying in NZ, written by kiwis, giving the perspective of kiwi people who have been prostituted and feel like we're entitled to discuss what NZer have said about their own damned system.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Would that it did. Unfortunately cultural mores change at glacial slowness and it's likely to be a number of generations before the stigma associated with sex work is completely gone.

I doubt it will ever be completely gone. And I'm not convinced it would actually be an overall good thing if it did.

I'm inclined to think that it would be a bad thing, for the same reason that I think it would be a bad thing if the stigma against child labor were to finally be quashed out after decades of intentional concerted effort to make child labor seem like it's actually a great and empowering thing.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Are you suggesting that stigma is good?

Sometime yes. And I bet you believe so too.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

What on earth has happened in your past to make you hate women so much?

From where I'm viewing this, dann seems to have a whole lot more care and respect for females as a whole than many of the other posters in this thread do. At a minimum, at least dann recognizes that the overwhelming majority of females who end up being prostituted are there because they've been forced into an undesirable practice because they have no other options available to them. At least dann acknowledges that the vast majority of people who are prostituted are there out of desperation, and that this makes those who pay for the use of their bodies exploiters.

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.

The same thing could be said about illegal immigration into the US. Some few illegal immigrants come here under the radar, make it big and end up with a very lucrative income, and ultimately gain legal citizenship. Which then leads to people insisting that it's totally a fantastic and wonderful thing, and they turn a blind eye to the fact that MOST illegal immigrants are exploited. And it gives those star-struck true believers the false impression that if only we abolished borders completely, then ALL of the migrants would magically be transformed into financial successes.

This is the progressive version of a conservative madness. It's the same "by the boot strings" sort of fantasy. Because some few people manage to thrive in an otherwise exploitative and oppressive environment, it must be good for everyone... and if anyone in that environment is NOT thriving, the problem must be them as individuals, not the environment.

Conservatives say "It's totally possible for a poor person to make a good income and have a happy life in the US. All it takes is some hard work and dedication. See, here are dozens of people who started out poor, and through hard work have turned themselves into successful householders!"

People with some sense and observational skills have long recognized that while hard work is a necessary component of getting ahead, it's not by itself sufficient. More needs to be there in order to overcome the environment of poverty.

Progressives say "It's totally possible for a prostitutes to make a good income and have a happy life in NZ. It's completely legal, and prostitutes are totally protected by law and it's a job just like any other job, no different at all. All it takes is a little effort and any prostitute can earn $2K per night, no special skills required!"

People with some sense and observational skills recognize that while making prostitution legal offers the benefit of the victim not being prosecuted as a criminal, it takes a whole lot more for a prostitute to be successful and have a good life than just making it legal. A whole lot more is needed to overcome the environment of poverty and desperation that drives most people to become prostituted in the first place.

And here's the reality that you guys seem to just hand wave away: If the desperation were actually cured, if people had other viable options... you would see a massive reduction in the number of people who are prostitutes. You would see the supply virtually dry up, because getting ****** for cash is not the career aspiration that most people have. Sucking dick so you can pay the bills is pretty low on the list of "what do you want to do when you grow up".

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by lionking

Exactly. The misogyny in his posts is profound.

Can you point out this misogyny to me? Because I'm not seeing it, not at all.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by dann

No, it isn't.

Nah, I actually agree with Zig. Some stigmas are good stigmas. Ferinstance, I think that stigmatizing pedophilia is a good thing for society as a whole, and I would strongly oppose any and all attempts to reduce the stigma associated with pedophilia.

Originally Posted by dann

Stigmatize the people who want women to continue to sell sex to pay the rent and the people who make a profit by making them do it.

See - you agree too Some stigmas are good stigmas.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Ok, sidebar time: most of the threads I get active on are topics I never really gave much thought to. My opinions have changed from the discussion here. That's...kind of the whole point of a discussion, isn't it?

Now, I can see a legalized model that isn't exploitative to the women by nature. Some women are making a choice, in control and eyes open, similar to actors who can play a role doing something they don't mind, and maybe get a kick out of. I'm thinking partially of the schoolteacher I read about, who worked summers at a Nevada brothel literally for the erotic thrill and empowerment she got out of it, and it got me thinking about young women I might have met when I was younger, DTF at the drop of a hat with strangers at a bar. Hell, some would bang some random guy "for the hell of it", having no interest in the dude at all. I can see them pursuing this professionally without being a victim.

The women in The Atheist's description make sense to me now in a way they didn't earlier, and I think we need to be reasonable in affording them safety and respect in their career choice. That doesn't change two aspects: 1) most guys seeking the services are still pretty sad and could use some serious fixing, and 2) the majority of young women in the profession get into it out of desperation or coercion, and horrifically underage at that. So my position on sex work across the board is the same, but with much broader exceptions, and I think that's a good thing.

I can respect this view. And yeah - If there were a way to guarantee that anyone entering into prostitution were totally doing it because they love it, I would have a different view.

But that's not what we have, it's not even what NZ has. The majority of people who are prostituted in NZ are there because of desperation, because they didn't have another option. It's great that the prostitutes aren't treated as criminals - I am supportive of that. But to me, it's NOT great that NZ has essentially made it legal to exploit people who are desperate... and to then pretend that such exploitation is a great thing. That's a big problem for me.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Ok, "vanish" was too strong a term, agreed. I was thinking along the lines of it becoming a legal activity, instead of criminal. The stigma we keep talking about is partially the moral view of the work, and partially the demonstrable criminality. If the criminality "vanished" overnight, I'd expect the stigma to soften quickly.

Eta: I'm thinking of pot being legalized in the States. Prior to state level legalization, a seller was just a drug dealer. Afterwards, he was quickly more like a businessman.

Actually, this is an interesting angle.

I agree - as soon as pot became legal, the drug dealers became store owners and everything was great for the dealers. The same holds true in NZ. As soon as prostitution became legal, the pimps became managers, and everything was great for the pimps.

On the other hand, I don't think the view of potheads and stoners has shifted very much at all. There's more acceptance of casual periodic use of pot, sure. But the people who use large amounts of pot on a regular basis are still viewed negatively. And a lot of people who used to be only periodic users because it was illegal have since become very heavy users, and they've gone from being viewed as "normal people" to being "pot junkies".

Legalization has been great for those who sell pot, because they're no longer criminals. And it's been great for those who openly used pot, because they're no longer criminals. And it's been great from the perspective of those who used to use pot secretly, because now they don't risk being a criminal.

But it hasn't actually changed the view of most people toward pot itself. Most people who used to be anti-pot are still anti-pot. Most people who used to be pro-pot are still pro-pot. I know some people who used to be pro-pot, who are a lot less pro-pot than they used to be. I'm one of those, although it's way off topic to get into why. I'm still not anti-pot, and I periodically indulge myself, but I've got a lot more reservations about pot than I used to. I don't think I know anyone personally who used to be anti-pot and is now pro-pot, although I'm sure some exist somewhere.

So here's the deal: In this analogy, prostitutes are the pot. The experience of the pot hasn't really changed, not in the grand scheme. And the views of most people toward pot hasn't really changed either. But the people who sell the pot, and the people who use the pot - those people are having a fantastic time.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Kinda begging the question here, aren't you? People are more complex than their careers. It's generally seen as reductive, if not outright insulting, to make sweeping assumptions about people based on the stereotypes of a given job. I presume you would begrudge being seen as a knuckle-dragging illiterate simply because you work in the building trades. I guess some people are really personally invested in their jobs as an identity, for others it's just a way to pay their bills. Work is what you do to pay for the things you'd actually like to do in life.

It kind of depends on whether the person in that job actually wants to be there, or whether they're there out of sheer desperation and having no other options. I think it also depends on whether or not there are barriers to a person being able to exit that job.

I don't think it's reductive to recognize that people in sweat shops are being taken advantage of, and are there out of desperation and no other options.

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Depends on how you assess worth I suppose. The market seems to think sex work is pretty valuable.

You are correct. Males have always thought that having access to sex whenever they want it is valuable to them.

Yes, yes, I know. There are a very few cases where one can find a female paying for sex too. But it's extremely rare, and it remains true that the overwhelming purchasers of sex are male. That's even true when the prostituted person is male - they're almost always being bought by males.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

If you think the stigma against sex work is rooted in the idea that commodifying sex is inherently base, which seems most likely to me, then changing the legal status of sex work will not change this stigma much itself. Therefore, any legalization scheme needs to be practical about what impediment this stigma might have in attempting to drag the sex trade into the daylight and plan accordingly.

Or.. or.. and hear me out here... OR maybe we don't try to drag it into the daylight at all, because trying to legitimize something that is inherently base might not be a good idea.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I wonder if these people consider a guy making a sexual joke to another guy to be sexual harassment (a "real man" is into such things), or if the subtext is that women are too virginal to be exposed to such things?

I think you're thinking about this in the wrong direction.

I doubt this is about people making generalized jokes that involve sex as a punchline (Why was the egg so sad? Because he only gets laid once, eaten once, and the only one who will sit on his face is his mother.)

It's more likely to be "I was only joking, sheesh, can't you take a joke" types of comments and zingers about an actual person.

Although, to be fair, the first type doesn't have a place in most jobs unless you're really, really, really comfortable with your coworkers already.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Argued way upthread. That's not a valid argument. Apply it to any currently illegal behavior: "you can't hurt a rapist, because it's healthier for him to not be injured when raping". "The quality of life of a thief would be greatly improved if we legalized his way of making a living". It's not a valid argument to justify legislation by pointing out that the criminal are better off.

That's not what TG was saying. TG is approaching this with the assumption that legalizing prostitution reduces harm to the prostituted individuals, not that it reduces harm to the punter.

That said, I don't really agree. I agree with the general philosophical concept that an action that reduces harm is better than one that continues to cause harm. I disagree that legalizing the purchase of sex results in a material reduction of the harm experienced by the prostitute. I acknowledge that it's a fantastic thing for the very, very few people who absolutely love sex and are willing to walk away from already good-paying jobs in their already stable lives. But I also recognize that those people represent a small minority of the people involved, and that the vast majority of people who are prostituted - even in NZ - are there out of desperation and continue to experience a significant level of physical and mental harm as a result of being prostituted.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

I don't understand what you're saying here. Illegal drinkers dying of methanol poisoning during Prohibition was bad, despite them being criminals. It's good that ending prohibition of alcohol lead to less risk for drinkers, even if you think drinking is inherently destructive. Needle exchanges that reduce the spread of communicable diseases among illegal drug users is a good policy, even though these people are criminals. Regulation of the narcotics supply such that drug users knew the the contents and dose of their drugs would probably prevent a huge number of overdoses, which seems good despite these people being law breakers. This isn't an a pro-heroin position, merely harm reduction.

What's the trade off though? I don't think it's always a net benefit.

Keeping illegal drinkers of dying from methanol poisoning is a reduction of harm from methanol poisoning. But the trade off is an increased number of people dying of sclerosis of the liver and alcoholism over a longer period of time. I'm not actually sure there is a reduction in net harm - there's just a shifting of harm from one source to another. And this is only thinking about it from the perspective of the harm done to the drinker; it ignores the harm incurred by those around the alcoholic.

Needle exchanges reduce disease among drug users, sure. But it doesn't reduce the other harms that occur as a result of drug use. It doesn't reduce the associated crimes like larceny, theft, etc. that occur alongside drug dependency. And it doesn't reduce the death due to drug use, it just stretches it out over a longer time period. Again, this only looks at harm from the perspective of the drug user, it doesn't consider the harm done to those around them. It doesn't consider the harm done to the community as a whole. And I think there are a lot of residents in cities with such harm reduction policies that think there's a whole lot of harm being done to people who aren't addicts as a result.

There's always a trade off. To have actual harm reduction, it needs to reduce net harm.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TurkeysGhost

Men hold famously insane complicated views when it comes to women's sexuality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madonn...3whore_complex

Truth.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

No. There is coercion where prostitution is a criminal offense. That coercion eventually all but evaporates when prostitution is made legal and there is no longer a possibility for criminal gangs to make huge amounts of money from the trade.

Do you think that gangs are the only form of coercion experienced by people who are prostituted? You can't possibly be that naive.

Seriously, did you even read the article that dann has posted repeatedly? Or any of the ones that I posted? Not a single one of those is about gang activity... and yet coercion remains.

Originally Posted by smartcooky

No. You are wrong! The over-arching act of misogyny here is denying women their human rights - denying them the choice to make their own decisions about what they are allowed do with her own body. It is manifested by men like you who want to hold women to arbitrary standards that YOU have set for them.

I disagree. The misogyny is in selling the propaganda that it's "empowerment" for females to objectify themselves for male titillation and sexual enjoyment. The misogyny is in preaching that it's good for females to be exploited, for their bodies to be used and discarded.

"Hey ladies, here's this thing that males have been forcing you to do for thousands of years, a means by which you've been abused and exploited and harmed for eons. But now, we've made it legal, and it turns out it's actually good for you to do the exact same thing we've been doing to you when it wasn't legal. See, we made it legal, so now it's a good and empowering thing, and in order for you to demonstrate that you're an empowered female, you should absolutely take up prostitution and stripping and porn so that we males can continue to enjoy you as a commodified object without having to risk any harm to males"

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by TomB

It should be pointed out that in both rape and theft involve a party that is involuntarily involved in the transaction. That's a significant difference, unless you take the stance that sexual services cannot truly be voluntarily sold.

I take the stance that illegal immigrants cannot truly be voluntary employees of a sweat shop for pennies on the dollar and limited freedoms.

I pretty much take the stance that exploitation is exploitation, even when you've decided that it's legal to exploit people.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by theprestige

A lot of people want sex. Some people are willing to pay for it. Some people are willing to sell it. A LOT of people think that buying and selling sex is okay, to some degree, at least in principle. And the demand is high enough that a lot of buyers and sellers are going to carry on buying and selling, whether it's against the law or not.

So why keep it against the law? Why give the buyers and sellers in our society grief about it? Why NOT legalize it to lessen the negative effects on the perpetrators? Isn't that the most rational response?

A lot of people want cheap luxury handbags. Some people are willing to pay for them. Some people are willing to sell them. A LOT of people think that buying and selling cheap luxury handbags is okay, to some degree, at least in principle. And the demand is high enough that a lot of buyers and sellers are going to carry on buying and selling, whether the sweat shops that produce them are against the law or not.

So why keep sweat shops against the law? Why give the buyers and sellers in our society grief about it? Why NOT legalize sweat ships to lessen the negative effects on the perpetrators? Isn't that the most rational response?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

A lot of people want cheap luxury handbags. Some people are willing to pay for them. Some people are willing to sell them. A LOT of people think that buying and selling cheap luxury handbags is okay, to some degree, at least in principle. And the demand is high enough that a lot of buyers and sellers are going to carry on buying and selling, whether the sweat shops that produce them are against the law or not.

So why keep sweat shops against the law? Why give the buyers and sellers in our society grief about it? Why NOT legalize sweat ships to lessen the negative effects on the perpetrators? Isn't that the most rational response?

Appeals to analogy don't work on me. Try again.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

The drive to have sex is one of the most powerful instincts we have, second only to those necessary for immediate survival.

Ah, this smells like actual progress.

I'm surprised you're so against it.

Is having sex a basic human right?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Ah, this smells like actual progress.

I'm surprised you're so against it.

Is having sex a basic human right?

With a willing partner,I guess you could say it's a right. Sort of.

Some of us feel ambivalent at how willing a paid partner really is. Some likely say "I'll let him do whatever, if he's got the cash" but for others it's "I have little choice but to let him do whatever because I badly need the cash". That second one is basically rape.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

You know, you've gone to a really strange place with this privacy thing.

Being required to be registered as a prostitute does not equate to having to advertise one's personal phone number, address, and tax history to any passing stranger.

That information ends up on a government database. As anyone who lives in this country knows there have been numerous privacy breaches of government databases - a massive one recently!

https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/05/10/p...est-data-hack/
1,037,000 New Zealand driver licence numbers exposed
34,000 passport details.
90,000 had their personal banking numbers + income and expense information used to assess loan applications exposed.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300...than-100-times

Massive government database had rules breached more than 100 times. The number of breaches appears to be accelerating: there were 24 between 2015 and 2018, Between 2018 and November 2022, there were a further 79 breaches.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

It's absurd that this is the interpretation you've taken.

In the US, in order to practice as a lawyer, one must pass the bar and be registered to practice in a state. To practice as a doctor or a nurse or a home health care aide, one must prove sufficient knowledge, and must also be registered with the state. FFS, for me to be allowed to sign actuarial opinions, put my name to actuarial justifications and certifications, I have to be registered with the American Academy of Actuaries, and I have to annually certify my continuing education and practice area expertise!

There are TONS of jobs in the US where a person has to be licensed by the state or the nation in order to do that job - electricians, plumbers, builders, police officers, firefighters, accountants, tax advisors, the list goes on and on.

The state has the individual's personal information, in order to verify that they are who they say they are and that they have the requisite knowledge and background to perform the job. It's not publicly available to any rando off the street - ****, I'd be terrified if some of the people on this site knew my direct contact info! And I trust you yahoos more than most, if it comes right down to it. Holy cow, my employer has all of my personal contact information stored in HR... but that information is not available even to my direct manager unless I explicitly allow it to be released. This is commonplace.

And I would be extraordinarily surprised if the situation weren't substantially the same in New Zealand. I would bet cash money that there are many, many, many jobs in NZ that require the person to be officially registered in order to do the work.

All very interesting, but utterly irrelevant to what I am talking about here.

If there is a data breach, and your details become public, no-one is going to out you to your family or anyone else as an "electrician, plumber, builder, police officer, firefighter, accountant or tax advisor!!

Here's an idea for you. Since you think there are no worries with private information being shared willy-nilly with the public, maybe you'd be be happy to have the names, home addresses, workplaces and telephone numbers of battered women, or women being housed at a women's refuge, or those being treated at a rape crisis centre, on a government database?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

That information ends up on a government database. As anyone who lives in this country knows there have been numerous privacy breaches of government databases - a massive one recently!

https://www.1news.co.nz/2023/05/10/p...est-data-hack/
1,037,000 New Zealand driver licence numbers exposed
34,000 passport details.
90,000 had their personal banking numbers + income and expense information used to assess loan applications exposed.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300...than-100-times

Massive government database had rules breached more than 100 times. The number of breaches appears to be accelerating: there were 24 between 2015 and 2018, Between 2018 and November 2022, there were a further 79 breaches.

All very interesting, but utterly irrelevant to what I am talking about here.

If there is a data breach, and your details become public, no-one is going to out you to your family or anyone else as an "electrician, plumber, builder, police officer, firefighter, accountant or tax advisor!!

Here's an idea for you. Since you think there are no worries with private information being shared willy-nilly with the public, maybe you'd be be happy to have the names, home addresses, workplaces and telephone numbers of battered women, or women being housed at a women's refuge, or those being treated at a rape crisis centre, on a government database?

I think there's a world of difference between meeting someone and asking "so, what do you do for a living?" and asking them "so, ever been violently raped?" or "so, what's your social security number?"

[lionking]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That's not what TG was saying. TG is approaching this with the assumption that legalizing prostitution reduces harm to the prostituted individuals, not that it reduces harm to the punter.

That said, I don't really agree. I agree with the general philosophical concept that an action that reduces harm is better than one that continues to cause harm. I disagree that legalizing the purchase of sex results in a material reduction of the harm experienced by the prostitute. I acknowledge that it's a fantastic thing for the very, very few people who absolutely love sex and are willing to walk away from already good-paying jobs in their already stable lives. But I also recognize that those people represent a small minority of the people involved, and that the vast majority of people who are prostituted - even in NZ - are there out of desperation and continue to experience a significant level of physical and mental harm as a result of being prostituted.

I’d like some evidence for that in a country where prostitution is legalised. In Australia legislation in this area comes with regulation. There are a small number of illegal brothels, but they are sought out and closed. The idea of an underaged person working in a legal brothel is unthinkable in this age.

Another advantage of working in a legal brothels is that unions are around to protect prostitutes. There is also the Scarlet Alliance. You can see from their latest newsletter that they are supporting Asian sex workers on visas, a group that is certainly more vulnerable than citizen sex workers.

https://scarletalliance.org.au/

Are things perfect here? Absolutely not. Are things better than the corruption supporting the illegal sex industry? Absolutely.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Thermal

I think there's a world of difference between meeting someone and asking "so, what do you do for a living?" and asking them "so, ever been violently raped?" or "so, what's your social security number?"

Non-sequitur.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Thermal

With a willing partner,I guess you could say it's a right. Sort of.

Some of us feel ambivalent at how willing a paid partner really is. Some likely say "I'll let him do whatever, if he's got the cash" but for others it's "I have little choice but to let him do whatever because I badly need the cash". That second one is basically rape.

The thing is, when prostitution is legalized it is a hell of a lot easier to combat the second one then when it is illegal.

I've seen none of the people arguing for legalization here claiming that option two is good, but imo those arguing against legalization seem to claim that it is (virtually) impossible for anyone, especially women, to chose option one.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Thermal

With a willing partner,I guess you could say it's a right. Sort of.

Some of us feel ambivalent at how willing a paid partner really is. Some likely say "I'll let him do whatever, if he's got the cash" but for others it's "I have little choice but to let him do whatever because I badly need the cash". That second one is basically rape.

You forgot to mention the third option, which is how prostitution works in this country..

"We'll negotiate for exactly what we are doing to do, and if I don't like what I'm hearing, I'll say no (and he can go find someone else)

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

The thing is, when prostitution is legalized it is a hell of a lot easier to combat the second one then when it is illegal.

I've seen none of the people arguing for legalization here claiming that option two is good, but imo those arguing against legalization seem to claim that it is (virtually) impossible for anyone, especially women, to chose option one.

.. further, those who argue against legalization also appear to demand women not even be allowed the right to choose option one.

I'm sorry if this going to offend, but I'll say it anyway - those who would want to take away the right for a woman to choose are misogynists... by definition.
There is a substantial intersection between the set of those who are anti-abortion legality and the set who are anti-prostitution legality. Those who hold views that support one set while opposing the other are suffering from a sort of cognitive dissonance with respect to a woman's right to choose their own destiny.

[dann]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

The thing is, when prostitution is legalized it is a hell of a lot easier to combat the second one then when it is illegal.

It's easier to combat it by legalizing it? That is the weirdest argument I've seen so far!
Tell us more about how legalizing it makes it easier to combat it. What do you plan to do after legalization?
So far, I haven't seen any of the legalization fans expressing any wish to combat it. Why would they?

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

I've seen none of the people arguing for legalization here claiming that option two is good, but imo those arguing against legalization seem to claim that it is (virtually) impossible for anyone, especially women, to chose option one.

[dann]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

The drive to have sex is one of the most powerful instincts we have, second only to those necessary for immediate survival.

Ah, this smells like actual progress.

I'm surprised you're so against it.

Is having sex a basic human right?

I think it's against the members agreement to write what this smells like!
Emily's Cat is obviously for 'it', i.e. sex. And all The Atheist can come up with is to pretend that prostitution is only about having sex.

But no, having sex is not a basic human right even though having sex with somebody who finds you despicable but nevertheless has to have sex with it for the money appears to have become a right in New Zealand once a john has paid for it:

Quote:

One such worker, Ciara​, recalled a situation where the operator’s coercive behaviour played out in front of potential clients.
“She has made a booking for you, which you may or may not want, and then it’s very difficult to get out of. Because she’s like, ‘He’s paid. He’s already waiting for you,’” she said.
“And she will be right there in front of the customer saying all this, so it starts you off on the wrong foot … . She’s like, ‘What? Why have you got a problem seeing this client?’”
Another sex worker, Joan​, described being booked by a client who looked like “he wanted to punch me in the face.”
However, when she wanted to decline the booking, she was told, “But he's paid, babe.”
Coercion, exploitation: The problems of running brothels as businesses (Stuff.co.nz, Sep 11, 2022)

Does it sound as if Clara and Joan have much of a "drive to have sex" with those johns?! It's obvious that they don't, but having paid, the johns now have the right to have sex with women who don't want to have sex with them.
What a tremendous victory for human rights!

[Darat]

Originally Posted by dann

I think it's against the members agreement to write what this smells like!

Emily's Cat is obviously for 'it', i.e. sex. And all The Atheist can come up with is to pretend that prostitution is only about having sex.



But no, having sex is not a basic human right even though having sex with somebody who finds you despicable but nevertheless has to have sex with it for the money appears to have become a right in New Zealand once a john has paid for it:







Does it sound as if Clara and Joan have much of a "drive to have sex" with those johns?! It's obvious that they don't, but having paid, the johns now have the right to have sex with women who don't want to have sex with them.

What a tremendous victory for human rights!

Again you are posting an article that supports the idea that decriminalisation of prostitution reduces exploitation and increases safety for prostitutes.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by dann

It's easier to combat it by legalizing it? That is the weirdest argument I've seen so far!
Tell us more about how legalizing it makes it easier to combat it. What do you plan to do after legalization?
So far, I haven't seen any of the legalization fans expressing any wish to combat it. Why would they?

You are confused because you are handicapped by your barely rudimentary understanding of the foibles and inconsistencies of the English language.

"The thing is, when prostitution is legalized it is a hell of a lot easier to combat the second one than when it is illegal"

The first "it" does not refer to prostitution, it is being used used in the normal subject or object position when a more specific subject or object is given later in the sentence, in this case "the second one".

Lukraak Sisser's sentence could be rephrased as...

"The thing is, when prostitution is legalized, combating the second one is easier than when prostitution is illegal"

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Thermal

With a willing partner,I guess you could say it's a right. Sort of.

So, if someone is unable to find a partner - as many disabled or disfigured people are - they can just miss out on this wonderful, special part of human existence.

No worries.

[The Atheist]

Colour me extremely amused that this subject has gone to a second thread.

I would have expected half a dozen posts, not the religious-zealot-level opposition being posted.

The really hilarious part is that prostitution isn't going to go away, and being illegal makes every facet of it less safe for the workers who choose to become prostitutes.

But those opponents really care about chicks, amirite?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Colour me extremely amused that this subject has gone to a second thread.

I would have expected half a dozen posts, not the religious-zealot-level opposition being posted.

The really hilarious part is that prostitution isn't going to go away, and being illegal makes every facet of it less safe for the workers who choose to become prostitutes.

But those opponents really care about chicks, amirite?

Indeed! Evidence for prostitution as an occupation dates back to at least 2400 BCE in Mesopotamia. That was almost 4,500 years ago. If it was going to go away, it would surely have done so by now!!

[catsmate]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I doubt it is.

Nudity is almost always viewed as a sexual overture.

That is your cultural imprinting. Elsewhere there are different mores.

[TurkeysGhost]

Originally Posted by Thermal

With a willing partner,I guess you could say it's a right. Sort of.

Some of us feel ambivalent at how willing a paid partner really is. Some likely say "I'll let him do whatever, if he's got the cash" but for others it's "I have little choice but to let him do whatever because I badly need the cash". That second one is basically rape.

I agree a desperately poor sex worker is being exploited more so than a better paid one that has much more discretion in their work, but that's generally true for anyone accepting work conditions they don't really like because the alternative is being homeless or starving.

We can talk about how precarity of the working class is the engine that drives capitalism all day long, but if you're saying this is something that uniquely applies to sex work you've totally lost me.