Continuation Prostitution part 2

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Critically important point: my fellow GenXers invented "friends with benefits" when Millennials were busy in kindergarten and GenZs weren't even a twinkle in their daddy's eye yet. See the work of renowned social philosopher Morrisett, A.circa 1995

Hear, hear!

Hell, I'm only married because my friend with benefits and I ended up... um... becoming more than friends.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Until TM's response, I actually thought you were trying to start **** with this post. I totally missed the references.

I got the reference Doesn't negate the truth of the statement though. We Gen-Xers pretty much kicked off FwB.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

I think that's too ambiguous a phrasing.

I would say sex is not a positive right, but it is a negative right. Nobody should ever be compelled to engage in sex (no positive right to sex, you can't get it from someone else just because you want it), but mentally capable adults who want to have sex with each other should not be prohibited from doing so (a negative right). I think that part is a basic human right. And in those terms, I think you might even agree.

Prohibitions on prostitution do not prohibit sex. They prohibit an economic transaction associated with sex.

Your phrasing is more accurate, certainly.

I lament that such detail is so often required, when the entirety of that concept ought to be understood by anyone engaging in good faith.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

If partners are not willing, that makes it rape.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

If you think that unwilling consent is not rape, I have to question what your view of consent actually is.

If someone only "consents" to have sex because failure to do so means they die or suffer, do you actually consider that to be legitimate consent?

This is just a goalpost move.

Need I remind you that your objection is not just to the idea that people should not be forced into having sex sex by physical force or financial desperation, but you object to ANYONE EVER SELLING SEX, even if it is 100% voluntary, even with 100% consent, and even when both the sex-worker and the client are financially very well off.

The difference between your position and mine boils down to this..

- I support allowing people to make their OWN DECISIONS about what they consider moral.

- You, on the other hand, want to use the force of law to IMPOSE YOUR moral views on what others do. In that regard, you are just like all the far right wingers who want to ban abortion, ban books about the US history of slavery, ban gay marriage and outright end all LGBTQ people's right to exist . You may not personally support those three things, but you are philosophically no different from those who do.

[Thermal]

I wonder what a streetwalker would say if you asked them why they are doing their work? Because they can't get boned enough and they feel that they are providing a public service?

Sorry, peed myself a little there.

[Emily's Cat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Need I remind you that your objection is not just to the idea that people should not be forced into having sex sex by physical force or financial desperation, but you object to ANYONE EVER SELLING SEX, even if it is 100% voluntary, even with 100% consent, and even when both the sex-worker and the client are financially very well off.

The difference between your position and mine boils down to this..

- I support allowing people to make their OWN DECISIONS about what they consider moral.

- You, on the other hand, want to use the force of law to IMPOSE YOUR moral views on what others do. In that regard, you are just like all the far right wingers who want to ban abortion, ban books about the US history of slavery, ban gay marriage and outright end all LGBTQ people's right to exist . You may not personally support those three things, but you are philosophically no different from those who do.

Your ESP is severely broken, you should stop trying to use it. What you think I hold as a view is contradicted by what I've actually said.

Why don't you try reading my posts instead of just imagineering what you think you would like to argue against?

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

He isn't advocating that.

Yes, he is

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

That isn't what's been argued.

Yes it is.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

You're missing the point entirety. Probably because you keep sticking your virtual fingers in your ears and digitally hollering "la la la I can't hear you"

It is you who is missing the point

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Key element added

A person who is voluntarily and consenting to engage prostitution, is doing to... erm... voluntarily.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

This is not the end of the story.

It is for me.

I have always, and only been talking about legalized prostitution where those taking part are doing so voluntarily and with mutual consent.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Let me be clear:

NOBODY HAS A RIGHT TO COERCE OTHERS INTO HAVING SEX WITH THEM WHEN THOSE OTHERS WOULD BE COMPLETELY UNWILLING TO DO SO WHEN GIVE TRULY FREE CHOICE IN THE MATTER.

Correct, and I agree 100% with that view.

But when a person leaves an adequately paid job for a better job, and that job is to go into business for themselves as a prostitute, then

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.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

I am not arguing that females (or males) shouldn't be allowed to prostitutes themselves. In fact, I've explicitly said that prostitution shouldn't be a criminal act.

That is two things we agree on then

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

What I have said, and which you keep pretending not to hear, is that nobody should have the right to purchase sex.

Oh I hear it alright, I just completely disagree. This is the failed Nordic Model, which is simply criminalization of prostitution by stealth.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

It should never be legal for the following scenario to play out:

John: Hi, I want to have sex with you. Do you want to have sex with me?
Jane: No.
John: But I really, really want to have sex with someone, I really want to get my rocks off. Please have sex with me!
Jane: No.
John: But I need it, I really need some sex. I want you to want to have sex with me - don't you want to have sex with me?
Jane: No.
John: I notice that you're struggling to get by, that you're close to being evicted and don't have a lot of food.
Jane: So?
John: I'll pay you $50 to **** me, then you can afford some food.
Jane: Fine.
That's not enthusiastic consent. That's not consent to a sexual interaction at all. That's entirely apposite to the notion of consent.

On the other hand...
Betty: Man, I really love getting laid, I mean I just can't get enough dick in me.
Bob: Oh? How picky are you, because I'd really like to stick my dick in you.
Betty: Meh, I'm not super picky, but momma needs some new Chus. Tell you what - you give me $500, and we can have a great time.
Bob: I'm in, let me hit the ATM.

That's an entirely different situation. And I don't particularly have an objection to it. I'd be fine with it... But ONLY if the first scenario didn't come wrapped up with it. ONLY if Betty represents at least 90% of the situations, and Jane is virtually nonexistent.

And this is that case here.

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.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

And the sad fact is that despite your happy hooker snake oil, the majority of the prostitutes people in NZ are asian and maori females, who are near destitute, engaging in this "trade" for survival.

This is simply not true. They are a minority.
‎
‎

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

Your ESP is severely broken, you should stop trying to use it. What you think I hold as a view is contradicted by what I've actually said.

Why don't you try reading my posts instead of just imagineering what you think you would like to argue against?

You just argued that you want the purchaser of sex to be criminalized, so it is not my "imagineering" at all... IT IS WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SAID!!!

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Thermal

The information about NZ streetwalkers I am citing is from Wikipedia,articles featuring NZ streetwalkers, and other NZ correspondents right here in this thread. The only claim that they "don't exist" anymore is from you, claiming to not see them. Consider which of us is relying on less evidence.

I will note that Wikipedia is often coerced by those with an agenda and isn't a reliable source.

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.

Nicely put.

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.

No, that's the Conservative view. Normal people see it as bodily autonomy.

Originally Posted by Emily's Cat

You've got to be kidding me. This is absolute incel logic, where males believe that their desire to have sex should compel someone else to fulfill their desires.

I hope you're smart enough to realise how you have just hoisted yourself on your own petard.

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

Quote:

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.

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!

Quote:

I'm more thinking of physically disabled people - of both genders - who can't find a willing partner.

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.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

A prostitute is someone who is paid for sex. If they are not being paid, they are not even a prostitute. Q.E.D.

Which proves that it's not about the bodily autonomy, but the economic transaction. You can do whatever you want with your body, you just can't get paid for it. That's a restriction on economic activity, not bodily autonomy.

Q.E.D. indeed.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Which proves that it's not about the bodily autonomy, but the economic transaction. You can do whatever you want with your body, you just can't get paid for it. That's a restriction on economic activity, not bodily autonomy.

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.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

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.

Indeed it is, and to emphasis your original point...

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/lifes...ity-at-43.html



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.[/quote]

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

Indeed it is, and to emphasis your original point...

https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/lifes...ity-at-43.html

Brilliant!

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Brilliant!

The thing is, pretty much everyone here supports this kind. For all the accusations of "moralizing", no one here is saying "OMG sex is only acceptable in the missionary position within a state of holy matrimony". We are all down with the "higher end" work.

What some of us don't like is the whole idea of the desperate or addicted girl being told that her work is her free choice, and the man abusing her has the State seal of approval, and he's not even a criminal anymore. You've said that in New Zealand, that level of desperation isn't a thing. Well, it damn sure is over here, and we can't look at it as a noise range problem. The protection of absolutely any children/addicts/trafficked women have to be the front and center focus, far eclipsing the entrepreneurial spirit and convenience of scoring some easy tail.

I mean, I hate to be all "think of the children", but Christ man, the ability of kids to be sexually abused in a legally sanctioned system is a zero tolerance game.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Thermal

The thing is, pretty much everyone here supports this kind. For all the accusations of "moralizing", no one here is saying "OMG sex is only acceptable in the missionary position within a state of holy matrimony". We are all down with the "higher end" work.

What some of us don't like is the whole idea of the desperate or addicted girl being told that her work is her free choice, and the man abusing her has the State seal of approval, and he's not even a criminal anymore. You've said that in New Zealand, that level of desperation isn't a thing. Well, it damn sure is over here, and we can't look at it as a noise range problem. The protection of absolutely any children/addicts/trafficked women have to be the front and center focus, far eclipsing the entrepreneurial spirit and convenience of scoring some easy tail.

I mean, I hate to be all "think of the children", but Christ man, the ability of kids to be sexually abused in a legally sanctioned system is a zero tolerance game.

But who of us who advocate fully legal prostitution, of which I am one, have claimed that should be in a Dickensian/Victorian form of free market capitalism where everything goes?

Those countries where prostitution is legal do NOT condone children in sex work, have strict laws against trafficking, make it a crime to not report suspicion of coercion, have social security so starvation is not an issue (except the US of course) and I know the Netherlands at least also has social workers that reach out to addicts in the hopes of helping them.

In fact the specter you are arguing against is far more likely to occur in areas where prostitution is illegal.

Now I'm not claiming these excesses do not happen, but they are illegal.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Thermal

The thing is, pretty much everyone here supports this kind. For all the accusations of "moralizing", no one here is saying "OMG sex is only acceptable in the missionary position within a state of holy matrimony". We are all down with the "higher end" work.

What some of us don't like is the whole idea of the desperate or addicted girl being told that her work is her free choice, and the man abusing her has the State seal of approval, and he's not even a criminal anymore. You've said that in New Zealand, that level of desperation isn't a thing. Well, it damn sure is over here, and we can't look at it as a noise range problem. The protection of absolutely any children/addicts/trafficked women have to be the front and center focus, far eclipsing the
entrepreneurial spirit and convenience of scoring some easy tail.

I mean, I hate to be all "think of the children", but Christ man, the ability of kids to be sexually abused in a legally sanctioned system is a zero tolerance game.

This is such a bizarre line of reasoning. Yes of course all these terrible things, that happen right here in America btw, should remain illegal. That suddenly we'll be fine with slavery and child prostitution if it's legal at all is just wrong. Two consenting adults doing what they want? Fine by me. That other stuff, despicable and turns my stomach.

How about we fix our society where levels of desperation are lowered to where no one is turning tricks on the corner for chump change. And to add, i'd definitely not want that form legalized a anyways.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

But who of us who advocate fully legal prostitution, of which I am one, have claimed that should be in a Dickensian/Victorian form of free market capitalism where everything goes?

But it's being baked in. My suggestion, for instance, of individual registration to restrict age is getting pushback over the rights of legal prostitutes to stay in hiding. I even suggested registration without personally identifying info (publicly available) and am told that keeping your job a secret is more important than keeping children out of the game.

The problem with the advocates' position is that they are only considering the well-off women with uncoerced choice. We found out way upthread that no one is actually verifying ages, which was stunning to me. The kid being prostituted for a year had none of her documented clients charged and the brothel continued operations normally (the front man manager in charge of verifying age got a wrist slap instead of a long prison stretch). This model, to me anyway, is unacceptable.

Quote:

Those countries where prostitution is legal do NOT condone children in sex work, have strict laws against trafficking, make it a crime to not report suspicion of coercion, have social security so starvation is not an issue (except the US of course) and I know the Netherlands at least also has social workers that reach out to addicts in the hopes of helping them.

I'm American. This is not a concern for us to sweep under the rug, Baba Louis.

Quote:

In fact the specter you are arguing against is far more likely to occur in areas where prostitution is illegal.

Now I'm not claiming these excesses do not happen, but they are illegal.

Fine, it happens in the illegal model, but as we see, the legal model remains very open to unecessary abuses. Like, ridiculously wide open, considering how easy it is to mitigate at least some of them.

Eta: yes, it happens where prostitution is illegal. But in that case, the John is a criminal. As we saw, the multiple Johns were not treated as criminals when they were screwing the child in the legalized model.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

This is such a bizarre line of reasoning. Yes of course all these terrible things, that happen right here in America btw, should remain illegal. That suddenly we'll be fine with slavery and child prostitution if it's legal at all is just wrong. Two consenting adults doing what they want? Fine by me. That other stuff, despicable and turns my stomach.

How about we fix our society where levels of desperation are lowered to where no one is turning tricks on the corner for chump change. And to add, i'd definitely not want that form legalized a anyways.

Then it's the cart before the horse thingy to be talking about a legalized prostitution model, innit? Again, that's my point. We have other work to do first before hooking can be a safe and legal trade. 'Taint safe as-is.

Eta: John's basically like young looking women. How would one verify her age in the States in a legalized prostitution model, do you think? Ask for her driver's license?

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

But who of us who advocate fully legal prostitution, of which I am one, have claimed that should be in a Dickensian/Victorian form of free market capitalism where everything goes?

Those countries where prostitution is legal do NOT condone children in sex work, have strict laws against trafficking, make it a crime to not report suspicion of coercion, have social security so starvation is not an issue (except the US of course) and I know the Netherlands at least also has social workers that reach out to addicts in the hopes of helping them.

In fact the specter you are arguing against is far more likely to occur in areas where prostitution is illegal.

Now I'm not claiming these excesses do not happen, but they are illegal.

perhaps in the netherlands you could say many or most or all or whatever amount of sex workers there aren't desperate people being exploited that you're comfortable with. i would not feel comfortable saying that at all in the US, we don't really treat anyone well here and nobody is going to start with them. in fact, i'd be pretty confident that parts of the country would be passing laws to ensure that they're easily exploited.

[Lukraak_Sisser]

So, because the legal model has problems, prostitution should remain illegal, even when that has the same problems, only magnified?

I really cannot follow that reasoning.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

So, because the legal model has problems, prostitution should remain illegal, even when that has the same problems, only magnified?

I really cannot follow that reasoning.

That's because no one is presenting it.

What we are toying with, for the three thousandth time, is a legalized model catered to the States. I can't even get it past verified registration without howling that anonymity is more important than keeping children out of it.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Then it's the cart before the horse thingy to be talking about a legalized prostitution model, innit? Again, that's my point. We have other work to do first before hooking can be a safe and legal trade. 'Taint safe as-is.

Eta: John's basically like young looking women. How would one verify her age in the States in a legalized prostitution model, do you think? Ask for her driver's license?

We can't have legalized prostitution because there are women who are so desperate they do it despite it being illegal?

I guess we need to make drinking illegal since kids might drink.

Your arguments make no sense.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Thermal

The thing is, pretty much everyone here supports this kind. For all the accusations of "moralizing", no one here is saying "OMG sex is only acceptable in the missionary position within a state of holy matrimony". We are all down with the "higher end" work.

Excellent!

Originally Posted by Thermal

What some of us don't like is the whole idea of the desperate or addicted girl being told that her work is her free choice, and the man abusing her has the State seal of approval, and he's not even a criminal anymore. You've said that in New Zealand, that level of desperation isn't a thing. Well, it damn sure is over here, and we can't look at it as a noise range problem. The protection of absolutely any children/addicts/trafficked women have to be the front and center focus, far eclipsing the entrepreneurial spirit and convenience of scoring some easy tail.

My best advice is to fix the system, because the American one is flawed.

Start off with that gun business and let me know how you get on.

The thing you seem to be avoiding is that the problems you mention are exacerbated by prostitution being illegal. They're not being solved now, and if women are going to feel forced into prostitution, it's far better they do under a legal system where they have remedies.

Originally Posted by Thermal

I mean, I hate to be all "think of the children", but Christ man, the ability of kids to be sexually abused in a legally sanctioned system is a zero tolerance game.

Obviously, but again, there's less chance of kids being abused for profit in a system where other prostitutes have a vested interest in cops busting those people.

It's like the Titanic - save as many people as you can, don't give up because you can't save them all.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

We can't have legalized prostitution because there are women who are so desperate they do it despite it being illegal?

I guess we need to make drinking illegal since kids might drink.

Your arguments make no sense.

OK, you guys have to be doing this on purpose now. There's really no room left for honest misunderstanding.

I've been arguing for 50 goddamned pages for a legalized model adapted for the States and you're still hitting me with "hurr durr, you're against legalization"?

[Lukraak_Sisser]

Originally Posted by Thermal

That's because no one is presenting it.

What we are toying with, for the three thousandth time, is a legalized model catered to the States. I can't even get it past verified registration without howling that anonymity is more important than keeping children out of it.

First of all, this thread is in social issues, not US politics and many posters are talking about a broader view than just the US.
It's sad that the richest country in the world considers a just wage and social security / healthcare a vile act that should not happen, but that is irrelevant to the rest of the world.

But even in just that case making the profession legal would still be more beneficial than not. Registration is a sham solution, it's too easy to falsify, Being able to go to the police and ask for their assistance without being arrested when you suspect a prostitute you visited is underage or forced is an improvement right there. I'm not saying all those that encounter those situations would, but in an illegal system none of them would.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Thermal

OK, you guys have to be doing this on purpose now. There's really no room.lefy for honest misunderstanding.

I've been arguing for 50 goddamned pages for a legalized model adapted for the States and you're still hitting me with "hurr durr, you're against legalization"?

Your last post very much read: we cannot do it because America has social issues, and why won't anyone think of the children!

That's about the fifth time I've seen you make the claim that you are for legalization while post after post you argue against it.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Excellent!

My best advice is to fix the system, because the American one is flawed.

Start off with that gun business and let me know how you get on.

Now you're just screwing with me. Dafuq we supposed to shoot each other with, water pistols?

Quote:

The thing you seem to be avoiding is that the problems you mention are exacerbated by prostitution being illegal. They're not being solved now, and if women are going to feel forced into prostitution, it's far better they do under a legal system where they have remedies.



Obviously, but again, there's less chance of kids being abused for profit in a system where other prostitutes have a vested interest in cops busting those people.

It's like the Titanic - save as many people as you can, don't give up because you can't save them all.

Yeah, I get that. 100% never really happens. But a simple step like contractor registration, like we do in Jersey for virtually any contractor in any line of work, puts a serious hurt on underage getting in. Coupled with raising the penalty for buying off an unlicensed worker to felony rape-ish, we have a model that could fly without a major societal overhaul.

Not that we couldn't use one, but baby steps mate. We're still killing the UPS guys delivering our sex toys over here.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

This is such a bizarre line of reasoning. Yes of course all these terrible things, that happen right here in America btw, should remain illegal. That suddenly we'll be fine with slavery and child prostitution if it's legal at all is just wrong. Two consenting adults doing what they want? Fine by me. That other stuff, despicable and turns my stomach.

How about we fix our society where levels of desperation are lowered to where no one is turning tricks on the corner for chump change. And to add, i'd definitely not want that form legalized a anyways.

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

But who of us who advocate fully legal prostitution, of which I am one, have claimed that should be in a Dickensian/Victorian form of free market capitalism where everything goes?

Those countries where prostitution is legal do NOT condone children in sex work, have strict laws against trafficking, make it a crime to not report suspicion of coercion, have social security so starvation is not an issue (except the US of course) and I know the Netherlands at least also has social workers that reach out to addicts in the hopes of helping them.

In fact the specter you are arguing against is far more likely to occur in areas where prostitution is illegal.

Now I'm not claiming these excesses do not happen, but they are illegal.

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.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by lobosrul5

Your last post very much read: we cannot do it because America has social issues, and why won't anyone think of the children!

That's about the fifth time I've seen you make the claim that you are for legalization while post after post you argue against it.

No, I've said we can't do some models, or that a particular point being made doesn't work IMO. I'm convinced there's a way. But never have i said we shouldn't have legalization. I argue about what kind would work.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Thermal

No, I've said we can't do some models, or that a particular point being made doesn't work IMO. I'm convinced there's a way. But never have i said we shouldn't have legalization. I argue about what kind would work.

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.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

First of all, this thread is in social issues, not US politics and many posters are talking about a broader view than just the US.

Of course. We are talking about a lot of different angles, none of which have to do with US politics so I don't know what that is all about.

Quote:

It's sad that the richest country in the world considers a just wage and social security / healthcare a vile act that should not happen, but that is irrelevant to the rest of the world.

But even in just that case making the profession legal would still be more beneficial than not. Registration is a sham solution, it's too easy to falsify, Being able to go to the police and ask for their assistance without being arrested when you suspect a prostitute you visited is underage or forced is an improvement right there. I'm not saying all those that encounter those situations would, but in an illegal system none of them would.

Yet again, most of us are not arguing to make the profession illegal. I really can't think of another 50 pages of posts to make that any clearer.

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.

[Thermal]

@smartcooky: edit appreciated.

[smartcooky]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Of course. We are talking about a lot of different angles, none of which have to do with US politics so I don't know what that is all about.

Yet again, most of us are not arguing to make the profession illegal. I really can't think of another 50 pages of posts to make that any clearer.

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.

We have something called a driver's license that will do this.

If he/she does not drive, we also have something called a "Kiwi Access Card" (used to be called an "18+ card").

https://kiwiaccess.co.nz/

This is an official, government sanctioned age confirmation ID that anyone over the age of 18 can apply for. As a form of ID it is as valid as any other such as a passport, or a driver's license. Banks, businesses, government departments and all public services must accept the Kiwi Access card as valid ID.

Just like Pubs and bars and clubs, brothels verify the age of anyone they employ. They do so, because in all four cases, the consequences for not doing so are harsh. Huge fines (we are talking $10,000+) the revocation of their operators license, and in some cases, imprisonment for repeat offenses.


NOTE: The Police can, and do send people under 18 into pubs and bars to buy drinks to try to catch the bar staff serving alcohol to under aged people (the drinking age in NZ is 18). They do the same with sending them into shops to buy tobacco and cigarettes. An LEO friend tells me they also do this with the local brothel.

NOTE 2: To clarify, yes we do have entrapment laws, but they are not as strict here as in the US. For example,

a. If the Police send a 17 year old "tester" into a pub, and the barkeep does not ask for ID, and serves them, that would not be entrapment, but

b. If the tester persists in trying to convince the barman to serve them after he has asked for ID, and he does serve them, this would be considered entrapment.

[dirtywick]

Originally Posted by Lukraak_Sisser

So, because the legal model has problems, prostitution should remain illegal, even when that has the same problems, only magnified?

I really cannot follow that reasoning.

what i'm saying is i don't think a legal model in the US would even remotely resemble a working one elsewhere.

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

We have something called a driver's license that will do this.

If he/she does not drive, we also have something called a "Kiwi Access Card" (used to be called an "18+ card").

https://kiwiaccess.co.nz/

This is an official, government sanctioned age confirmation ID that anyone over the age of 18 can apply for. As a form of ID it is as valid as any other such as a passport, or a driver's license. Banks, businesses, government departments and all public services must accept the Kiwi Access card as valid ID.

Just like Pubs and bars and clubs, brothels verify the age of anyone they employ. They do so, because in all four cases, the consequences for not doing so are harsh. Huge fines (we are talking $10,000+) the revocation of their operators license, and in some cases, imprisonment for repeat offenses.


NOTE: The Police can, and do send people under 18 into pubs and bars to buy drinks to try to catch the bar staff serving alcohol to under aged people (the drinking age in NZ is 18). They do the same with sending them into shops to buy tobacco and cigarettes. An LEO friend tells me they also do this with the local brothel.

NOTE 2: To clarify, yes we do have entrapment laws, but they are not as strict here as in the US. For example,

a. If the Police send a 17 year old "tester" into a pub, and the barkeep does not ask for ID, and serves them, that would not be entrapment, but

b. If the tester persists in trying to convince the barman to serve them after he has asked for ID, and he does serve them, this would be considered entrapment.

Neither would be entrapment in the USA.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by dirtywick

what i'm saying is i don't think a legal model in the US would even remotely resemble a working one elsewhere.

Why ever not?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Of course. We are talking about a lot of different angles, none of which have to do with US politics so I don't know what that is all about.



Yet again, most of us are not arguing to make the profession illegal. I really can't think of another 50 pages of posts to make that any clearer.

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.

Registration of trades folk is for the benefit of the consumer. Tom did mention in someways it could help prostitutes but it is fundamentally protection for the consumer.

I think any kind of legalisation should start with the aim to improve the safety for prostitutes rather than consumers.

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by Darat

Registration of trades folk is for the benefit of the consumer. Tom did mention in someways it could help prostitutes but it is fundamentally protection for the consumer.

I think any kind of legalisation should start with the aim to improve the safety for prostitutes rather than consumers.

Por que no los dos?

ETA: actually, por que no los quatros? Start with all four in mind (legit workers and clients, potential abusers and easily abused), and cater potential solutions around all four?

[Thermal]

Originally Posted by smartcooky

We have something called a driver's license that will do this.

If he/she does not drive, we also have something called a "Kiwi Access Card" (used to be called an "18+ card").

https://kiwiaccess.co.nz/

This is an official, government sanctioned age confirmation ID that anyone over the age of 18 can apply for. As a form of ID it is as valid as any other such as a passport, or a driver's license. Banks, businesses, government departments and all public services must accept the Kiwi Access card as valid ID.

Just like Pubs and bars and clubs, brothels verify the age of anyone they employ. They do so, because in all four cases, the consequences for not doing so are harsh. Huge fines (we are talking $10,000+) the revocation of their operators license, and in some cases, imprisonment for repeat offenses.


NOTE: The Police can, and do send people under 18 into pubs and bars to buy drinks to try to catch the bar staff serving alcohol to under aged people (the drinking age in NZ is 18). They do the same with sending them into shops to buy tobacco and cigarettes. An LEO friend tells me they also do this with the local brothel.

NOTE 2: To clarify, yes we do have entrapment laws, but they are not as strict here as in the US. For example,

a. If the Police send a 17 year old "tester" into a pub, and the barkeep does not ask for ID, and serves them, that would not be entrapment, but

b. If the tester persists in trying to convince the barman to serve them after he has asked for ID, and he does serve them, this would be considered entrapment.

Driver's license etc is fine for brothel work. {ETA: although we saw up thread that it was easily bypassed under your current model and penalties were trivial}. What about the streetwalker or SOOB worker? Ask for their driver's license too? Weren't you arguing pretty adamantly that personally identifying information needs to be kept hush-hush?

ETA: and before anyone else says it, no, this is not an argument against legalization. It's an observation that the system could be improved.

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

[lobosrul5]

Originally Posted by Thermal

Driver's license etc is fine for brothel work. {ETA: although we saw up thread that it was easily bypassed under your current model and penalties were trivial}. What about the streetwalker or SOOB worker? Ask for their driver's license too? Weren't you arguing pretty adamantly that personally identifying information needs to be kept hush-hush?

ETA: and before anyone else says it, no, this is not an argument against legalization. It's an observation that the system could be improved.

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

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