Prostitution Argument (continued from “Iceland to ban porn on the web because of children”)

[Brickjectivity]

LOL! One step away from taxing all forms of sex. Picture this: "Sorry dear, I ran out of coupons!" :flirt:

Taxing sexual thoughts would provide a lot of revenue..

 

[Zoe Doidge]

SO, I go back once again, that my study provided local American prostitutes interviewed, 81% felt the couldn't leave the legal occupation. I can go back once again and get the statistics firm interviews with European prostitutes if need be.

But that’s not exactly true is it? They could leave the legal occupation and go join up with the illegal one. Presumably they don’t do that because they see the legal occupation as better.

And my question remains the same... as of now, where legal or illegal, the majority of prostitutes feel that can not leave the profession, the supposedly freedom we are referring to, so, how is this a very blurry line between labor and sex slavery?

Ok, I’ve stared at that question for about 5 minutes now and I can’t interpret it.

I see, then so you way it is a matter of ideal as opposed to examination of the consequences upon society. The last thing we need is more politicians with that approach.

Exactly. The law should define what is acceptable and what is not, or more simply, what is a crime and what is not. It’s the place of law enforcement to tackle crime in society, not politicians.

I don't think underage girls generally come up to pimps and brothels with the simple aspirations of being a sex slave. Who would even fall for that? What a useless test. Even then, I think government regulation might need to be a tad more in detail than mystery shoppers.

Of course, a government would be looking at this kind of thing in much more detail than we can here. What it comes down to though is regulation and vigilance.

And where is this money going to come from? Obviously there isn't enough money in finding sex slavery and human trafficking now? If we are going to be on the ball with it, how it is it going to be funded? Where will the increase in law enforcement come? Especially considering the rates are more so on the rise than anything.

It would come from the government, or to be more precise, it would come from tax money. It’s only really a question of how far up the list of priorities you want to put it.

Not even close to comparable rates as alcohol.

It’s the same concept though. How much does an activity have to be related to the increase of an illegal one to justify banning it? As far as I’m concerned when you’re talking about arresting people for doing something morally acceptable you’ve gone much too far.

Even then, a restriction on that is restriction on how one lives their life, not a restriction on how one operates a business. The government should primarily be in the business of regulating financial endeavors and helping and addressing social issues, not dictating what individuals do in their own will.

Well if you’re restricting how one operates a business you are dictating what individuals can do. Not just those who would run such a business but those who purchase stuff from it too.

So they differ from a pimp how? "A pimp is a male agent for prostitutes who collects part of their earnings. This act is called procuring or Pandering. The pimp may receive this money in return for advertising services, physical protection, or for providing, and possibly monopolizing, a location where he or she (i.e. the prostitute) may engage clients. A woman who runs a brothel is known as a madam rather than a pimp." Pimp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The brothel itself (or the brothel’s management at least) is essentially working as pimp/madam yes. The difference is they’re working in a regulated environment.

Is it obvious? Is a government owns a business, it can now take on public debt. Taxes can only be derived from profitable businesses. You can't lose money collecting taxes. You can if you are operating a business. There has never been one, so I can't really judge it without some kind of info.

If one were to perform so poorly as to not turn any profit then you probably don’t have any demand in that area, so that area doesn’t have a problem anyway.

Yes, we sometimes do this. Any other lame rhetorical devices? Oh wait, I got one!

Giving up liberty in exchange for security? Isn't that what the overwhelming majority of prostitutes have to do because of the innate dangers of the profession?

To some degree or other yeah, that’s what we all do really. We give up part of our day, doing something we probably wouldn’t bother with if we weren’t being paid for it in exchange for the security of a wage. But that in itself is an individual choice; we’re talking about laws that would apply to everyone.

 

[crossfire]

But that’s not exactly true is it? They could leave the legal occupation and go join up with the illegal one. Presumably they don’t do that because they see the legal occupation as better.

The study he cited said that they felt they couldn't leave the prostitution profession (legal or illegal.) Here's the study again:

cited by Dust1n:
Indeed. That's why I keep citing that certain studies have showed up the %89 of prostitutes interviewed found themselves wanting to leave prostitution but finding it impossible to do.

http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/...9Countries.pdf

No victims here, the majority of women who are beaten and raped in the profession.​

And my question remains the same... as of now, where legal or illegal, the majority of prostitutes feel that can not leave the profession, the supposedly freedom we are referring to, so, how is this a very blurry line between labor and sex slavery?

Ok, I’ve stared at that question for about 5 minutes now and I can’t interpret it.

The study says up to 89% of prostitutes found it impossible to leave prostitution. They feel trapped in the profession. He's asking where the freedom is in that. If you are trapped in the profession, and can't leave, how different is that from being a sex slave?

Of course, a government would be looking at this kind of thing in much more detail than we can here. What it comes down to though is regulation and vigilance.

Or bribery....industry buys politicians all the time. It's just "part of doing business," so to speak.

 

[Father Heathen]

I am searching for terminology.... Its not a personal service job like cutting hair, first because love is part of the exchange. Love is a legally recognized item which in case law has been sited as useable for payment. "For love of his wife...gives such & such" is an acceptable legal phrase wherein the goods given are considered paid and cannot be demanded back, yet 'Wiving' isn't a job. In a personal service job or any other job no love has to be exchanged, but in a sex worker's service it does and it is usually one directional. Also sex work is not harmless, because it is medical in character and carries medical risks. The differences are: 1. Love 2. medical

Surely you're just being coy and can actually differentiate between the emotion of love and sexual gratification.

 

[dust1n]

But for other services which don't require a license, would you say that the right to sell any service is a privilege which exists at the pleasure of government?
I find this a rather chilling idea, since gov could exercise the power to prohibit someone from working. The USSR used to do this as a form of persecution.

Definitely not. There is nothing that guarantees the right for some to provide any or every service. Not so much prohibits people from working as it does prohibits certain occupations or practices.

 

[dust1n]

Donations. Sex trafficking has evolved to work with governments that outlaw or tax sex work. If you fund the government by taxing sex workers, then you will provide cover for sex traffic. Change it up by getting sex workers to seek protection from the government. That will make traffickers stand out, so you won't have to spend a lot more money to find them.

Donations? We are relying on donations to stop sex trafficking?

This, again, sounds find and dandy, but there isn't a government in the world who is being very effective at fighting sex trafficking, even with various forms of legalized prostitution. (non-brothel, non-street, etc.)

 

[crossfire]

But for other services which don't require a license, would you say that the right to sell any service is a privilege which exists at the pleasure of government?
I find this a rather chilling idea, since gov could exercise the power to prohibit someone from working. The USSR used to do this as a form of persecution.

Can you think of a paid service that might involve bodily fluids that doesn't require a license?

 

[Brickjectivity]

Surely you're just being coy and can actually differentiate between the emotion of love and sexual gratification.

I'm just trying to work with the legal terms that might help. 'Love' in contract law sometimes refers to neither sexual gratification nor emotional love but rather to an assumed larger something. Writing a law, one could say that a sex worker gives love in exchange for pay rather than assuming it is 'Sex' for pay in order to suggest it is beyond valuation. I think it could help differentiate sex work from jobs inside of our legal framework. If you change the way the laws work its always smart to base everything upon precedent. That way everything is defined already.

 

[4consideration]

Brickjectivity, since you referred to your explanation in your reply to me, I am responding to the part of it and in the order in which you wrote it (for ease,) even though I realize that you were responding to someone else in that reply.

I am searching for terminology.... Its not a personal service job like cutting hair, first because love is part of the exchange. Love is a legally recognized item which in case law has been sited as useable for payment. "For love of his wife...gives such & such" is an acceptable legal phrase wherein the goods given are considered paid and cannot be demanded back, yet 'Wiving' isn't a job. In a personal service job or any other job no love has to be exchanged, but in a sex worker's service it does and it is usually one directional. Also sex work is not harmless, because it is medical in character and carries medical risks. The differences are: 1. Love 2. medical

Love in not necessarily part of the exchange in prostitution.

I believe that you are confusing a legal recognition of love as motivator for the one sided exchange of goods with a requirement or recognition that love must be present within a particular activity.

In the example you provide (I'm not really sure of the source you are using, so I am only replying to it as you have presented it) the expression "For love of his wife...gives such & such" appears to speak to the motivation behind the giving, and that what is given then carries the legal label of a "gift," rather than being defined as consideration given in a contract (or payment for particular services rendered.) A gift, which is freely given and requires no payment, becomes the legal property of the recipient. There is no legal basis for demanding a gift back as though it remains owned by the giver, because the gift was not given with any contingency of receiving specific goods or services. A "gift" that does not require any form of payment (given based upon love) becomes the legal property of the recipient.

Sex does not always include love. Rape involves sex, but it is not love. Love may be a part of sex, but you can have sex without love.

There are plenty of jobs that include medical risks. A person who performs piercing or tatoo work comes to mind. Those are jobs that carry medical risks. Construction workers face medical risks on a daily basis. The work is not medical, but the risk is.

Good question, and above I explain that I think the main two reasons are that love is exchanged and that it is a medical procedure with medical risks. Jobs don't require both exchange of love and medical risks. Even teaching doesn't require 'Love' in the legal sense of the word.

As I indicated above, sex does not require love -- nor does it qualify as a medical procedure. As far as I am aware, something that is actually legally considered a medical procedure requires a licensed medical professional. Those activities that you or I may see as similar to medical procedures -- like piercings -- may require some licensing, but not medical licensing.

I think that a prostitute should be licensed. If other professions require it, why give a special exemption here? There are some real risks to themselves and others present. Prostitutes should also be taxed. It seems strange to me that anyone would favor everyone else being taxed, but that prostitutes should not. How would you justify that? (We could argue about the eithics of taxing people for their work, but that is a different subject.)

Ethically I think you have the correct terminology, but in the slightly different world of law it should be an untaxable and non-employment related activity called a right -- to uphold the ethics you've stated. There are fundamental human rights and then there are rights that are recognized in law.

The philosophy behind the law is what I am discussing here. All laws have some philosophical base upon which they rest, or upon which they are considered justified. And, if one is favoring laws based upon how one feels about the subject, then those feelings are the philosophical justification that person is using.

I disagree that prostitutes should be given special tax-exempt status under the law. I think it should be treated that same as any other business, and allowing for certain requirements relative to the safety of the service they are offering.

 

[dust1n]

But that’s not exactly true is it? They could leave the legal occupation and go join up with the illegal one. Presumably they don’t do that because they see the legal occupation as better.

According to the study, "%81 of the women interviewed in the Nevada brothels urgently want to escape prostitution." Sorry, it doesn't specify if it's legal or illegal. Just that prostitutes want to leave prostitution. Rates for this are higher anywhere else in the world.

Ok, I’ve stared at that question for about 5 minutes now and I can’t interpret it.

Let me clarify. If the overwhelming majority of prostitutes feel they cannot leave the profession and the majority of prostitutes start off in prostitution as a minor, than how does prostitution not border people working against their will, aka slavery?

Exactly. The law should define what is acceptable and what is not, or more simply, what is a crime and what is not. It’s the place of law enforcement to tackle crime in society, not politicians.

Wrong. We have a whole section of the government who's purpose is to enforce laws. It's called The Executive Branch. I don't know how UK works in this regard.

Of course, a government would be looking at this kind of thing in much more detail than we can here. What it comes down to though is regulation and vigilance.

So, I would assume that the governments around the world have looked at this kind of thing, seeing how they have legalized prostitution already. Every attempt to do this has failed, but the only thing you can say about it is that it wasn't on their top priorities, or they didn't try to enforce their own laws.

It would come from the government, or to be more precise, it would come from tax money. It’s only really a question of how far up the list of priorities you want to put it.

So government run brothels will be funded by tax payer money in the event that they are not profitable, and even if they are profitable, additional costs such an increased law enforcement, new department for licensing and regulation, etc., will just have to be absorbed by the tax-payers. Why should it ever be up to taxpayers to fund a completely non-essential service, such a prostitution?

It’s the same concept though. How much does an activity have to be related to the increase of an illegal one to justify banning it? As far as I’m concerned when you’re talking about arresting people for doing something morally acceptable you’ve gone much too far.

It depends on the nature of the crimes. Generally, alcohol doesn't bind one indefinitely to a form of de facto slavery in which one can't leave their only means of income.

Well if you’re restricting how one operates a business you are dictating what individuals can do. Not just those who would run such a business but those who purchase stuff from it too.

Yup. That's what business regulations do. But there is a clear distinction between regulating business matters and regulating personal freedom.

The brothel itself (or the brothel’s management at least) is essentially working as pimp/madam yes. The difference is they’re working in a regulated environment.

So when you said this, "We obviously agree that pimping...[is] bad, so [it is] quite rightly outlawed," the bad pimping is just because it's not in a regulated environment?

If one were to perform so poorly as to not turn any profit then you probably don’t have any demand in that area, so that area doesn’t have a problem anyway.

A place can still fail for other reasons than demand, such as overhead being more than what is brought in, or liability resulting from some misaction on the brothel's part.

To some degree or other yeah, that’s what we all do really. We give up part of our day, doing something we probably wouldn’t bother with if we weren’t being paid for it in exchange for the security of a wage. But that in itself is an individual choice; we’re talking about laws that would apply to everyone.

Yes, laws that apply to everyone. We have those, ones that limit personal responsibility for some resemblance of justice, or to prevent conflicting freedoms. For example, the freedom to purchase a prostitute overlaps the freedom of women to have access to reasonable means of survival, and to escape the field once they have been brought into it.

 

[Me Myself]

Have we talked about the 15. Years studymon Nevada yer or are we just using the very sensationalist and much shorter one?

 

[dust1n]

Have we talked about the 15. Years studymon Nevada yer or are we just using the very sensationalist and much shorter one?

84%. You mean.. 21 out of 25 girl's in one brothel?

"The one person who told us about personal experience with violence said that she felt parties go bad less than 5% of the time, although this did not necessarily always result in violence. Within the brothels, 21 of 25 prostitute respondents to a survey agreed with the phrase “my job is safe.” None of the owners or managers told us about any incidents involving violence carried out against the women in the brothels."

http://esplerp.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/Violence-and-Legalized-Brothel-Prostitution-in-Nevada.pdf


That's 15 years of study for ya.

What sensationalist and shorter one are you referring to?

As for the 15 years of study, the only claim in the article was that %84 of women feel safe in Nevada's legal brothels. Of course, the only study I kind find by the lady who wrote it where this question is any mentioned in the studies is the one I brought up pages ago that claims 21 out of 25 prostitutes (%84) from brothels where they said they felt safe.

Of course, it's generally a bad idea to use 'studies' that you haven't read as some sort of definite proof for your argument.

All my looking up of the research of Deborah, indicates that here "15 years of study" are no way conclusive, admits problems to the regulation of brothels, and only one has that one question directed as survey for prostitutes.

No wonder in her opinion piece for NYT websites she said "%84 of the prostitutes we interviewed said they felt safe in the legal brothels" instead of "21 out of 25 prostitutes in Nevada's brothels interviewed said they felt safe in the legal brothels."

 

[dust1n]

I'm just going to go ahead and say it. My opinion on prostitution is not a derivative of any ideal in which I feel something should or shouldn't be the case. My opinion on prostitution is formed from prudently reviewing every available study I can get my hands on, and the large effects of changing public policy. If you think prostitution should be legal just because you believe personal freedom should be allotted in as many reasonable circumstances as possible, this debate isn't going to provide much for you, because the entirety of my argument and the basis for my opinion rests of the true effects of legalized prostitution has, not what it should be regardless what might happen as a result.

 

[Revoltingest]

From what I'm gathering from the information presented here is that the demand for sex for money far exceeds the willing suppliers of sex for money. One way to cut down on the demand is by making it illegal. (This speaks volumes about human nature to me.)

Or we could increase the supply by decriminalizing it, making it safer, & supporting these efforts with the new tax revenue.
I'd rather er on the side of liberty than fill up the prisons with more faux criminals. Certainly, to imprison someone is a
horrible violent act itself. It seems so wrong to have a public policy which says...." I want to make some people who seek money
or pleasure, but hurt no one, have their lives ruined & suffer greatly at enormous taxpayer expense."

 

[Zoe Doidge]

According to the study, "%81 of the women interviewed in the Nevada brothels urgently want to escape prostitution." Sorry, it doesn't specify if it's legal or illegal. Just that prostitutes want to leave prostitution. Rates for this are higher anywhere else in the world.

Well that’s kind of useless then. It would be better to know how many want to leave illegal prostitution as compared to legal prostitution; I should think it’s obvious that few people want to be in illegal prostitution.

Let me clarify. If the overwhelming majority of prostitutes feel they cannot leave the profession and the majority of prostitutes start off in prostitution as a minor, than how does prostitution not border people working against their will, aka slavery?

You’d need to know why they feel they can’t leave the profession. If it’s simply a matter of thinking they don’t have any other skills (or being unable/unwilling to learn), then boo-hoo sucks to be them. Lots of people work in dead end jobs, they still choose to be there rather than be on jobseekers (or whatever the US equivalent is).

If the problem is more like their pimp will kill them if they try to leave, they’re obviously in illegal prostitution or possibly a legal one that’s not being monitored properly. Either way it’s down to law enforcement to tackle that.

Wrong. We have a whole section of the government who's purpose is to enforce laws. It's called The Executive Branch. I don't know how UK works in this regard.

Of course it all comes back to the government eventually, since the police and courts etc are run by them.

So, I would assume that the governments around the world have looked at this kind of thing, seeing how they have legalized prostitution already. Every attempt to do this has failed, but the only thing you can say about it is that it wasn't on their top priorities, or they didn't try to enforce their own laws.

I don’t know how they’ve implemented it, but I think it’s been successful. Not in the way that you’d like I.E. reducing other crimes, but then that’s not my reason for implementing it.

So government run brothels will be funded by tax payer money in the event that they are not profitable, and even if they are profitable, additional costs such an increased law enforcement, new department for licensing and regulation, etc., will just have to be absorbed by the tax-payers. Why should it ever be up to taxpayers to fund a completely non-essential service, such a prostitution?

If they’re not profitable it won’t be a long term problem because they’ll just be shut down. As long as overall it makes a profit, or at least breaks even, then its paying for itself.

It depends on the nature of the crimes. Generally, alcohol doesn't bind one indefinitely to a form of de facto slavery in which one can't leave their only means of income.

No, it just causes serious injury or death. Not as a high percentage, but certainly as a high volume.

Yup. That's what business regulations do. But there is a clear distinction between regulating business matters and regulating personal freedom.

Yes, if it’s just regulation of a business. Not if you’re banning it outright.

So when you said this, "We obviously agree that pimping...[is] bad, so [it is] quite rightly outlawed," the bad pimping is just because it's not in a regulated environment?

I was referring to the common perception of pimp rather than the dictionary definition, I don’t see the term ‘pimp’ itself as being positive or negative. It’s when they involve force, drugs etc that it becomes a bad thing.

A place can still fail for other reasons than demand, such as overhead being more than what is brought in, or liability resulting from some misaction on the brothel's part.

I think there’s probably enough examples of legal brothels in the world to have a decent idea of what overheads are likely to be well in advance of actually setting one up. As for liability, again I’m not sure what the equivalent is elsewhere but in the UK you’d generally have taken out Public/Employers Liability Insurance to cover that.

Yes, laws that apply to everyone. We have those, ones that limit personal responsibility for some resemblance of justice, or to prevent conflicting freedoms. For example, the freedom to purchase a prostitute overlaps the freedom of women to have access to reasonable means of survival, and to escape the field once they have been brought into it.

They can escape the field simply by quitting. The state doesn’t provide a great deal to unemployed people but it’s enough to live on (again, don’t know what the US is like in this regard).

I'm just going to go ahead and say it. My opinion on prostitution is not a derivative of any ideal in which I feel something should or shouldn't be the case. My opinion on prostitution is formed from prudently reviewing every available study I can get my hands on, and the large effects of changing public policy. If you think prostitution should be legal just because you believe personal freedom should be allotted in as many reasonable circumstances as possible, this debate isn't going to provide much for you, because the entirety of my argument and the basis for my opinion rests of the true effects of legalized prostitution has, not what it should be regardless what might happen as a result.

This is obviously the core of our problem; the rest of these issues don’t really make any odds unless we can find some common ground on this.

 

[dust1n]

Well that’s kind of useless then. It would be better to know how many want to leave illegal prostitution as compared to legal prostitution; I should think it’s obvious that few people want to be in illegal prostitution.


You’d need to know why they feel they can’t leave the profession. If it’s simply a matter of thinking they don’t have any other skills (or being unable/unwilling to learn), then boo-hoo sucks to be them. Lots of people work in dead end jobs, they still choose to be there rather than be on jobseekers (or whatever the US equivalent is).

I don't really have anything to say to that. IF you feel that a prostitute who wants to leave the field but can't for economically reasons is just 'boo-hoo sucks to be them,' than there isn't really much to discuss. It's apparent to me that this would be considered sexual exploitation.

If the problem is more like their pimp will kill them if they try to leave, they’re obviously in illegal prostitution or possibly a legal one that’s not being monitored properly. Either way it’s down to law enforcement to tackle that.

Of course it all comes back to the government eventually, since the police and courts etc are run by them.

There is incredible amount of difficulty in regulating any form of prostitution and none of them have lowered crime as they were purported to be able to do.

I don’t know how they’ve implemented it, but I think it’s been successful.

So in what ways were the successful. Why are so many countries considering on doing the legalization (Nevada, Germany, Canada).

Not in the way that you’d like I.E. reducing other crimes, but then that’s not my reason for implementing it.

So what does success mean and where is the evidence that this success has been achieved?

If they’re not profitable it won’t be a long term problem because they’ll just be shut down. As long as overall it makes a profit, or at least breaks even, then its paying for itself.

That's still money lost on the taxpayers part, all to provide non-essential items. And of course, there are still the hidden costs that aren't even factored in. For example, one of the sheriffs in a Nevada county stated it was costing his country more just to enforce all the crime that comes with prostitution than it was bringing back, which means the brothel was being subsidized by taxpayers.

No, it just causes serious injury or death. Not as a high percentage, but certainly as a high volume.

It does cause injury and death often, but, like you said, not at the rates at which prostitution does, nor does it result in trafficking of humans, sex slavery, rape (well, at anywhere near the same rates). Lots of things about alcohol are illegal, for example, operating machinery, self-production of liquor, etc., and they are explicitly for the purpose of trying to lower the injuries and deaths associated with drinking.

Yes, if it’s just regulation of a business. Not if you’re banning it outright.

Many businesses are banned outright. It's illegal to sell meat products made out of lungs. You can't sell certain things in Iran. Dog and cat fur products. Unpasteurized milk. Exotic animals. Cloves. Weapons-grade explosives.

I was referring to the common perception of pimp rather than the dictionary definition, I don’t see the term ‘pimp’ itself as being positive or negative. It’s when they involve force, drugs etc that it becomes a bad thing.

Thanks for the clarification.

I think there’s probably enough examples of legal brothels in the world to have a decent idea of what overheads are likely to be well in advance of actually setting one up. As for liability, again I’m not sure what the equivalent is elsewhere but in the UK you’d generally have taken out Public/Employers Liability Insurance to cover that.

Insurances only cover to a certain point. Plenty of businesses crash immediately after extinguishing liability insurance and still have to pay out of pocket. I provided two sources which state in two counties in Nevada that the private brothels end up costing the state more money than it did bring it. That was like 8 responses ago.

They can escape the field simply by quitting. The state doesn’t provide a great deal to unemployed people but it’s enough to live on (again, don’t know what the US is like in this regard).

Simply quitting may result in kids not getting food indefinitely, homelessness, inability to get a job due to experience or education.. etc. It's simply a myth that people can simply quit their jobs. There are real human considerations at play which can't not be discounted if one is trying to get a picture of the situation.

This is obviously the core of our problem; the rest of these issues don’t really make any odds unless we can find some common ground on this.

As I said, I don't believe in ideals that humans should aim for regardless of the consequences, so I doubt we are going to find common ground on this.

 

[Brickjectivity]

This, again, sounds find and dandy, but there isn't a government in the world who is being very effective at fighting sex trafficking, even with various forms of legalized prostitution. (non-brothel, non-street, etc.)

I agree that governments have in general not stopped trafficking completely, and some are in cahoots. I think that permanently defining a new 'Right' would be too risky, since it hasn't been done. Making it tax free could all go wrong, but we need to stop doing the same things while expecting a different result. It is time to look for a way to nip this in the bud. Interpol hasn't been enough. Illegalization alone has not been enough. Legalization hasn't been enough. Trafficking can be stopped. Its not unstoppable.

 

[dust1n]

I agree that governments have in general not stopped trafficking completely, and some are in cahoots. I think that permanently defining a new 'Right' would be too risky, since it hasn't been done. Making it tax free could all go wrong, but we need to stop doing the same things while expecting a different result. It is time to look for a way to nip this in the bud. Interpol hasn't been enough. Illegalization alone has not been enough. Legalization hasn't been enough. Trafficking can be stopped. Its not unstoppable.

I completely agree. Decriminalization of solicitation and a stronger pursuit of johns, establishments, distributors, associated gangs, increased penalities, and mainly, social programs to help people escape a life of prostitution seems to be a good way to go.

 

[Revoltingest]

Does any opponent of legal prostitution believe that male prostitutes are at risk to the extent women are?
If not, would you support legalizing a male prostitute only sex trade?

 

[dust1n]

Does any opponent of legal prostitution believe that male prostitutes are at risk to the extent women are?

For all intensive purposes, yes.