3 ms·

>Nope. These particular laws are tailored to suppress coerced prostitution, which is rather the norm than the exception when prostitution is legal. You'd reall

by esyir 5y ago

>Nope. These particular laws are tailored to suppress coerced prostitution, which is rather the norm than the exception when prostitution is legal. You'd really have to give good data to support this claim. Specifically, you'll have to prove that the majority of prostitution under a legal system is coerced. And I'm adding an addendum here, a level of control equal to or lower than the standard job doesn't count. I.e. I'm not coerced in which I have to work to feed myself. That goes against what people generally define as coercion here.

bayesian_horse 5y ago
You are underestimating how painful and denigrating sex work is for women, especially in the lower price segments, even without abuse, which is widespread. To believe this is a voluntary choice of work, you need to assume these women have no other options. Which is ridiculous, as both Sweden and Germany have a social welfare system that values dignity. No, you don't have to hurt yourself just to get fed. If a john visits a prostitute, and there is a chance that prostitute has been forced, at what level of chance does he become a rapist and at what level should he not be criminally liable? 90%? 50%? 1%? Point is: Neither the john nor the police can meaningfully tell the difference, and even a significant amount of forced sex labor is worse than prohibiting all prostitution.
- esyir 5y ago
  All I'm asking you is to back up your claim that a majority of sex work in these regions is coercive.that's a huge claim to make that strongly undermines the typical counterargument that legalisation enables their protection. It is also a claim that needs to be supported.
  - bayesian_horse 5y ago
    No, it does not need to be a majority of sex work that is coercive to decide that prostitution should be outlawed. What number of exploited sex slaves in your country do you tolerate? Again, the difference is almost impossible to tell, which makes prosecution and hard numbers so difficult. Legalisation just means that forced prostitution can hide in plain sight. A lower ratio would just mean better chances of hiding. I doubt that anyone could amass the evidence that you would demand, because for some reason you want to believe that there is virtually no forced prostitution where there is legal prostitution. Here in Germany, social workers and charities who work in this areas, even police and prosecutors, know that this is anything but true. It is hard to actually prove trafficking beyond a reasonable doubt. But when you regularly see young Romani prostitutes from eastern Europe, addicted to drugs, having been obviously physically and mentally abused, lacking teeth, etc and still saying they are doing this out of there own free will despite not living better than if they were living on social security. Especially if their pimp is standing behind them. Well. It doesn't add up, does it?

by esyir 5y ago

bayesian_horse 5y ago

You are underestimating how painful and denigrating sex work is for women, especially in the lower price segments, even without abuse, which is widespread. To believe this is a voluntary choice of work, you need to assume these women have no other options. Which is ridiculous, as both Sweden and Germany have a social welfare system that values dignity. No, you don't have to hurt yourself just to get fed. If a john visits a prostitute, and there is a chance that prostitute has been forced, at what level of chance does he become a rapist and at what level should he not be criminally liable? 90%? 50%? 1%? Point is: Neither the john nor the police can meaningfully tell the difference, and even a significant amount of forced sex labor is worse than prohibiting all prostitution.

esyir 5y ago
All I'm asking you is to back up your claim that a majority of sex work in these regions is coercive.that's a huge claim to make that strongly undermines the typical counterargument that legalisation enables their protection. It is also a claim that needs to be supported.
- bayesian_horse 5y ago
  No, it does not need to be a majority of sex work that is coercive to decide that prostitution should be outlawed. What number of exploited sex slaves in your country do you tolerate? Again, the difference is almost impossible to tell, which makes prosecution and hard numbers so difficult. Legalisation just means that forced prostitution can hide in plain sight. A lower ratio would just mean better chances of hiding. I doubt that anyone could amass the evidence that you would demand, because for some reason you want to believe that there is virtually no forced prostitution where there is legal prostitution. Here in Germany, social workers and charities who work in this areas, even police and prosecutors, know that this is anything but true. It is hard to actually prove trafficking beyond a reasonable doubt. But when you regularly see young Romani prostitutes from eastern Europe, addicted to drugs, having been obviously physically and mentally abused, lacking teeth, etc and still saying they are doing this out of there own free will despite not living better than if they were living on social security. Especially if their pimp is standing behind them. Well. It doesn't add up, does it?