7 ms·

Why Everyone Should be Concerned By the Seizure of MyRedBook.com

356 points by panarky 12y ago

panarky 12y ago
This issue is more ethically ambiguous than the EFF acknowledged in their post. The EFF only links to the legal and health forums, while the FBI claims the sites "were used to facilitate prostitution" [0]: advertisements for prostitutes... menus of sexual services, hourly and nightly rates, and customer reviews of the prostitutes’ services. You can see an example of an advertisement here (NSFW): https://web.archive.org/web/20130521131010/http://forum.myredbook.com/dcforum2/DCForumID20/188351.html https://web.archive.org/web/20130521131010/http://forum.myre... I'm not arguing for or against sex work, just illustrating that this takedown is not a clear-cut case of censoring a vulnerable community's non-commercial political speech. Is the EFF saying the FBI should have targeted specific illegal posts instead of taking down legal material as well? I support the EFF in their important work, but they're more credible and effective when they tell the whole story, including the complicated part. [0] http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/operators-of-myredbook.com-website-arrested-on-prostitution-and-money-laundering-charges http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/operators-of-myredbook.com...
- tomasien 12y ago
  Thank you for posting this. EFF makes the site seem like purely a forum and it just wasn't - it doesn't change MY personal opinion of this matter (I am against the takedown STRONGLY) but it worries me when people with whom I agree seem to miss the mark on providing an accurate representation of the facts. I'm not suggesting it's intentionally misleading, but I think it doesn't get it exactly right.
  - chillingeffect 12y ago
    I wish the EFF had stated the case as an issue of state's rights. From Wikipedia: The regulation of prostitution in the United States is not among the enumerated powers of the federal government. Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is therefore exclusively the domain of the states to permit, prohibit, or otherwise regulate commercial sex, except insofar as Congress may regulate it as part of interstate commerce with laws like the Mann Act. Furthermore, that site is also legal in parts of Nevada where prostitution is legal. I don't see how the federal government has jurisdiction in this matter. The Mann act is for interstate commerce. Perhaps this applies, but I think a real lawyer could share their related experience. 10th Amendment, btw: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
    - learc83 12y ago
      >Congress may regulate it as part of interstate commerce The website is pretty clearly operating across state lines. If the website is based in California (just made that up), runs on servers in Texas, and it allows users in Michigan to solicit sex from users in Florida, it's pretty clearly engaging in interstate commerce. Even if the website limited users to just one state, the federal government could still potentially regulate it under the interstate commerce clause provided the intrastate commerce substantially affects interstate commerce. -Note: the site by itself doesn't have to have a substantial effect. It just has to be part of a potential substantial cumulative effect--that is to say, hundreds of intrastate sex advertisement websites would, together, have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, so congress would be justified in banning all sex advertising websites, even if individually they don't engage in interstate commerce. Edit: This comment assumes that the website was in fact facilitating prostitution. This may or may not be the case, I have no idea.
      - davorak 12y ago
        > The website is pretty clearly operating across state lines. If the website is based in California (just made that up), runs on servers in Texas, and it allows users in Michigan to solicit sex from users in Florida, it's pretty clearly engaging in interstate commerce. A web site has to police the addresses of user base for user to user interactions? Are their examples where ebay, amazon, or similar service has to proactively police its user or suffer criminal charges for user to user interactions?
        learc83 12y ago
        I'm not saying that at all, my comment was addressed at the parent commenter who said that the federal government couldn't regulate prostitution unless it was part of interstate commerce. Therefore, the assumption is that the website was engaged in facilitating prostitution. The website may not have been engaged in facilitating prostitution, I have no idea. There are likely plenty of arguments to be made here (the website is just a meeting place for users, it doesn't promote prostitution etc...)--that the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate a website facilitating prostitution is not one of them.
- onewaystreet 12y ago
  MyRedBook's forums were second to its classified which were used to find and rate high-end escorts. There's no question the site was used facilitate prostitution. With that said, the site had been running since 2002. Why were they busted now? Example classified: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RHLakOoFp24J:classifieds.myredbook.com/classified.php%3Fadid%3D397117+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RHLakOo... Almost all ads explicitly listed the sex acts offered. People on there weren't even being discreet about it.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > MyRedBook's forums were second to its classified which were used to find and rate high-end escorts. From glancing through the listing (on archive.org) I would suggest that "high-end" is inappropriate. It seems to include "high-end" escorts, but by no means be limited to them. Unless, not being involved in any aspect of that trade, I just have a really wrong idea of what "high-end escort" means and the term includes those offering $50 no-condom oral sex.
    - mrbusr123 12y ago
      you're out of touch with reality.
    - frozenport 12y ago
      For comparison, the high-end escort service that Eliot Spitzer was involved with cost US$31,000 per day [] []http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/emperors-club-all-about-e_n_90768.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/emperors-club-all-a...?
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
      - thret 12y ago
        Why would you pay $31k for a girl for one day? That's obscene. Reminds me of this scene from Gilmore Girls: LORELAI: Seventy-five thousand dollars. Seventy-five thousand dollars. Oh my God, that’s like 150 pairs of Jimmy Choos. RICHARD: What are Jimmy Choos? LORELAI: Shoes. RICHARD: 150 pairs, that’s it? LORELAI: Dad, they’re Jimmy Choos. RICHARD: For seventy-five thousand dollars, you should be able to buy at least three or four hundred pairs of shoes. LORELAI: Not Jimmy Choos. RICHARD: But that’s ridiculous. You are not going to spend seventy-five thousand dollars on Jimmy Choos when you could buy four hundred pairs of less prestigious but I’m sure equally stylish shoes. You will shop around first. Is that clear? LORELAI: Yes, sir.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > This issue is more ethically ambiguous than the EFF acknowledged in their post The EFF post is so distorted that I have trouble figuring out if the EFF is just intentionally twisting the facts to piggy-back on a high visibility case (which seems horrendously ill-considered, even from a strategic point) or if they are just so negligent in reviewing the facts that they've gotten used by others. There's real issues that this case could serve as a focal point for discussing -- particularly about the prohibition of prostitution and whether criminalization and the enforcement that goes along with it is a net positive or negative for society. But its clearly not anything like a bust of a noncommercial education, legal resource, and health information site that happens to cater to sex workers being shut down because the government isn't happy with the client base or subject matter.
- throwawaykf05 12y ago
  I've said it before, but the EFF frequently twists the facts to push their agenda. Of course, it's not a popular opinion to have 'round these parts.
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    That's what they do. They are an advocacy organization. And when you say "twist" they say "place into a factual narrative." That's what attorneys do. They build narratives. In this case, they support freedom with their narratives. Apparently it's thankless work.
    - ryanpardieck 12y ago
      Being an advocacy organization does not require such gross distortion of the facts. I like the EFF, but I've stopped putting any kind of credibility into their different blog posts and articles.
      - the_ancient 12y ago
        Why do you hate freedom?
        ryanpardieck 12y ago
        It doesn't go well on spaghetti.
- rando289 12y ago
  > illegal posts It is illegal for certain people to post certain things at certain locations on the internet. Posts aren't inherently illegal and I think you are missing the nuance more than the eff is. > Is the EFF saying the FBI should have targeted specific illegal posts instead of taking down legal material as well? What kind of question is that. It's like "Are you really saying that if someone put graffiti on your house, the FBI should paint over each letter instead of simply using a bulldozer?"
- Fuxy 12y ago
  It's is a bit troubling that the EFF didn't present the entire issue however going against sex worker really? What the FBI and other 3 letter agencies don't have anything more important to do like solving murders and other cases where people actually got hurt. I personally think prostitution should be legal anyway like the late George Calin put it "Selling is legal fucking is legal so why isn't selling fucking legal?"
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    I don't get it, either. Since when is it the EFF's role to do anything but advocate for rights when they are abridged? I suspect someone feels butthurt they did not understand the entire story before they formed an opinion, and now blame the EFF for their butthurt.
  - dspillett 12y ago
    > It's is a bit troubling that the EFF didn't present the entire issue Never assume any group is not doing this. Everyone makes more effort to present the facts that support their case/cause than they do those against/neutral. The EFF are better about not denying the truths they don't like than many similarly vocal groups, but don't expect them to tell you the facts that don't support their position. > What the FBI and other 3 letter agencies don't have anything more important to do They can't chose the laws that they concentrate on, really. The "don't you have something more important to do officer" argument (as often sung by petty criminals) is bunkum. They enact the law, all of it, and the reason they are chasing the people committing lesser offences (in the offender's eyes at least) is because people are committing lesser offences. > "Selling is legal fucking is legal so why isn't selling fucking legal?" This is probably the answer to a certain extent: legalise it, regulate it to try protect both the workers and the punters, and potentially tax it to cover the cost of that regulation. Though the legalisation argument as it is usually presented is rather simplistic, and the effects it would have on major crime (for example people trafficking) seems vastly over-stated IMO.
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  I find it a broad overreach to take down entire sites based on allegations that some members may have been using it for illegal purposes.
delinka 12y ago
Were these sites only (or primarily) discussion boards? Were they also used (with or without their operators' consent) to conduct illegal sex trade? If such activities were indeed happening without a site operators knowledge or consent, did law enforcement reach out to these operators in an attempt to curtail this activity? Too little information from EFF on this. I'll agree that seizure of a discussion forum is truly a big problem. Simply seizing one because someone disagrees with the topics under discussion is a big problem. Not informing the operator of illegal activity before seizing is potentially dirty (e.g. if the operator is not participating in or encouraging the illegal activity.) Seizure of anything without due process of law is unacceptable and must be rectified. But doing something illegal (regardless of whether it should be), having been brought before a court, having failed to defend oneself or overturn the law, and having property seized ... well, that's how it should work. So how did this particular case go exactly?
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > Were these sites only (or primarily) discussion boards? No, a substantial part of the site was the ads [1], dominated (numerically) by the "escorts" section [2], in which the listings [3] appear to sometimes be fairly direct offers of sex for money [4] (note the same is also true, to some extent, of the other sections) even from just the index pages (the actual individual ads often don't appear to be archived, and I don't really feel like spending time digging through the links to examine the examples that are.) I don't think arguing that the people arguing the site didn't know or intend it was being used to facilitate prostitution is credible given the publicly-available evidence. [1] archive [NSFW] https://web.archive.org/web/20130423181042/http://classifieds.myredbook.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20130423181042/http://classified... [2] archive, San Francisco (most significant region) example [NSFW] https://web.archive.org/web/20130516182620/http://classifieds.myredbook.com/classified.php?catid=14 https://web.archive.org/web/20130516182620/http://classified... [3] archive, [NSFW] https://web.archive.org/web/20121227140137/http://classifieds.myredbook.com/classified.php?catid=14&subcatid=10&offset=30&poffset=0&sort1=&sort2= https://web.archive.org/web/20121227140137/http://classified... [4] often using code terms/acronyms, but ones which, to avoid confusing the uninitiated, the forums have a glossary (posted by "redbook", not users); archive [NSFW] https://web.archive.org/web/20130424045028/http://forum.myredbook.com/dcforum2/DCForumID15/2.html https://web.archive.org/web/20130424045028/http://forum.myre...
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
gavanwoolery 12y ago
Ironically our governing powers outlaw these services, while many of them partake in them.
- tadfisher 12y ago
  Misdirected hostility? We voted for them.
  - justinzollars 12y ago
    Let me translate that. "don't blame me i voted for kodos"
    - nomedeplume 12y ago
      Thanks.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - spacemanmatt 12y ago
    Have you met Texas? The only animal allowed to vote here is the gerrymander. I figure it's similar elsewhere.
  - gavanwoolery 12y ago
    I did not vote for them. All politicians are picked from a curated pool of people I would never vote for. They all tend to be wealthy, connected, and/or ivy-leaguers (none of these things are inherently bad, but they also don't play well towards the interest of the "common" man - small wonder that the middle class gets screwed). There are very few "commoners" in the higher ranks. Many are picked by the real ruling class, corporations. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/business/19gold.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/business/19gold.html?pagew...
myredbookuser 12y ago
I used myredbook to connect with, and buy sexual services from, several dozen of sex workers. I'm also a regular HN reader, and this is a throwaway account created just for this thread. AMA (ask me anything). It asked by an HN moderator, I can provide proof.
- woah 12y ago
  Do you feel that MyRedBook was in any way harmful to the well-being of the sex workers? If not, was it contributing to the moral decay of western civilization?
  - mrbusr123 12y ago
    no. Sex workers are losing business instead. myredbook was the place for them to advertise. they built client network mostly through redbook. If there are negative sides for workers, it'd be them being reviewed as a slacker and losing clients. i think independent workers are in worse situation to bring clients and have to be dependent on pimps
  - chris_mahan 12y ago
    Prostitution, despite being the oldest profession, seems to not have had a negative impact on the development of western civilization. Western civilization seems to be doing just fine.
  - myredbookuser 12y ago
    I think my red book safer. I personally behaved myself more because I didn't want to get robbed, or shamed in public. Regarding the decline of western civilization, people have always been horny, and some people need to pay for lovin' in order to address their horniness. I'm not convinced that paying for sex is related to moral decay. Morality itself is kind of a tricky subject.
  - arfliw 12y ago
    1. no, it helped them. 2. yes, it facilitated prostitution.
- 12y ago
mrbusr123 12y ago
there are no sex slaves, underage girls in myredbook. True, there are pimps and prostitutes from overseas, but no foul plays here.
- NoPiece 12y ago
  These underage sex slaves were pimped on myredbook: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/south-san-francisco-sex-slavery_n_2734350.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/south-san-francisco...
  - mrbusr123 12y ago
    users have always been alerted if there is any foul plays regarding how these workers are treayed and reported any foul plays(robbery, violence, theft, etc.) i havent seen any ads exploiting them at all. most of times, workers are at least 5-6 years older if not 10+ years than advertisement.
    - objclxt 12y ago
      You're dodging the question. You're equating pimping with violence, but that's not always the case. How do you know sex workers who use RedBook were not, for example, having to pay back bogus "debts" to their pimps for having to come into the country? You've already said in a previous post that some sex workers using RedBook were from overseas. I somehow doubt you were you asking them for their I-94s as proof they were in the country legally. I can fully believe there are a number of sex workers who found RedBook truly useful, and provided an extra layer of safety and security. What I can't believe is that for a line of work that is inherently illegal there were not at least some people who had abusive relationships with people coercing or even forcing them into it. You seem to be suggesting not a single woman (or man!) who used RedBook was being exploited, even a small minority. I think you're being naive.
      - mrbusr123 12y ago
        youre equating myredbook to prostitution in general. its hard question, since its the oldest profession. there will always be bad pimps, debts whatever. that is why in my opinion myredbook was so popular, because it acts as a great medigator suchas airbnb, uber etc. the culture in myredbook is to treat them well and be alerted with foul plays at all times. myredbook is innovative in that sense, because it made a lot of people's lives both clients and provider easier and safer conducting business users know whats best to protect themselves. youre naive to think if users can go for foul plays and manipulate these presumably exploited sex workers thru websites like redbook. users know there are pigs whos watching all the time ...
harrystone 12y ago
"Today we also lost extensive online forums for a community of sex workers to keep each other safe, screen clients, and blacklist predators." I'm hopelessly cynical at this point in my life, so I'm not surprised at all that our government sees that as facilitating prostitution.
chris_mahan 12y ago
It's ok. The next version of the internet won't be using DNS anyway.
JorgeJetson 12y ago
I see much of the argument here is about "facilitating prostitution," that such facilitation would trump free speech protections, both constitutionally and in other laws. But the opposite is true, as highlighted by the EFF, third parties, who are not involved in the illegal activity have a right to discuss that activity and do not take responsibility for the actions or postings of others. With respect to the Internet, there is a federal law, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which states that Web service providers cannot be "treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider".
- objclxt 12y ago
  > third parties, who are not involved in the illegal activity have a right to discuss that activity What you're missing here is that they don't have a right to make money off of it. RedBook weren't just facilitating the discussion of illegal activity, they were making money out of the advertisements on the site. They were directly involved in the illegal activity.
  - JorgeJetson 12y ago
    Actually, advertisements were free. They made money on enhanced reviews of providers and clients. In other words, one could, for a fee, dig deeper into reading comments between and about users of myredbook. The owners of myredbook were still a third party in these comments and did remove postings that could encourage child prostitution, robberies, or other serious violent crimes.
- Dylan16807 12y ago
  That might be true in theory but tell it to torrent sites, shut down without ever touching a single bit of pirated data.
jmspring 12y ago
My read is the move was more about the money laundering than either "protecting the children" or "facilitating prostitution". The site was used by many local agencies to help with busts, etc. Personally, I am against the takedown. The laws around consenting adults engaging in private transactions should be legalized. My understanding is that the site did have measures in place to help with the underage aspect, but that is from reading more balanced news accounts.
- stray8 12y ago
  The money laundering was the moving of funds to savings accounts, and other accounts in his name or business name. It's money laundering because the proceeds were allegedly derived from an illegal act. But not what people typically think of money laundering.
myredbookutoo 12y ago
Throwaway for obvious reasons. I have been using myredbook and reading HN regurarly too. I think outlawing prostitution is the stupidest thing ever. Coercion, battery, human trafficking -- these are all crimes themselves and these are what most people are concerned about. It's a waste of time and effort. Removing a site like this will achieve nothing except perhaps endanger some of the sex workers -- think about it. Clients (for there will be clients, no doubt -- does anyone think one advertisment site makes a difference?) can behave in worse ways cos the forums are gone.
- jqm 12y ago
  "Coercion, battery, human trafficking -- .....these are what most people are concerned about." Maybe this is what people __claim to be most concerned about. But I would venture to guess more often than not, the real concerns are based on moral prudery, religious dogma, and stogid ideas of what a family !must be.
  - makomk 12y ago
    Very much so. In particular, anti-trafficking groups are strongly opposed to any solution to trafficking that doesn't involve making life harder and more dangerous for sex workers and label anyone who actually listens to the workers "pimps", as though respecting those women was somehow equivalent to forcing them to have sex.
yeukhon 12y ago
> EFF has always supported freedom of association and free speech, no matter who is doing the talking. This sentence worries me the most. Anyone means, including those we believe are threat to society (mass killing killer for example). Also those who make racist remarks intentionally to embarrass others in public.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
  Free speech isn't necessarily unlimited. It is often defined to exclude hate speech, for example.
  - yeukhon 12y ago
    I am sorry, but that's not how I would interpret their statement. They make it very clear "no matter who is talking."
    - ryanklee 12y ago
      "No matter Who is talking" =/= "no matter what is said"
  - iopq 12y ago
    If you define it that way, then there is an unlimited potential to extend illegal speech to everything. Shut down the poker sites because they facilitate illegal online gambling. Shut down the bitcoin sites because they facilitate money laundering. Etc.
- quotemstr 12y ago
  The right to free speech is meaningless if it encompasses only the speech with which we already agree. Unless speech represents an imminent danger to society, restricting it is wrong and an abridgment of fundamental western values. This principle applies to hate speech, bomb-making instructions, and reviews of prostitutes. Distastefulness and moral indignation are not legitimate grounds for restricting speech.
  - 12y ago
chatmasta 12y ago
This is a move in the opposite direction of where the government should be going. Sites like Myredbook, Backpage, Rubmaps (and at one time even craigslist) are Hydratic. [1] like Hydra, when you take down one, two will appear in its place. Has the FBI not learned by now that it does not have jurisdiction over the entire internet? New sites can pop up in any non-FBI jurisdiction or on Tor, and there isn't shit the FBI can do. The FBI needs to accept that shutting down these sites is not a sustainable option. Instead, it should cultivate the sites that are in US jurisdiction, and allow them to operate, so that the FBI can use them to monitor illicit activity. Prositution is a victimless crime. Human trafficking is not. Unfortunately, without legalizing and regulating prostitution worldwide, it's impossible to disambiguate between an autonomous sex worker and a human trafficking victim. But sites like these can really help with that disambiguation. The FBI should be working toward this disambiguation. It should be filtering out the sex workers from the human trafficking victims, because the latter are the only actual victims in this business. The FBI needs to realize that sites like these are an asset to the fight against human trafficking, because they facilitate monitoring and analyzing the market. Shutting down these sites will not even make a dent in the demand for prositution. It will simply drive that demand elsewhere, to underground sites or ones outside of FBI jurisdiction. This is a loss for human trafficking victims. By pushing this business further underground, the FBI loses some monitoring and detection ability, traffickers are likely angry, and victims lose the benefit of client accountability on sites like Myredbook. This shutdown will not affect the supply of, or demand for, human trafficking victims. It will only worsen their situation and further hide it from authorities. But hey, the FBI gets some nice PR pieces about their latest big bust! Yeah! Go team! Such a formidable cyber security force! [1] I invented the word "Hydratic," but it should totally become a thing.
- deciplex 12y ago
  "The FBI" doesn't give a fresh shit about any of those things, because the FBI doesn't give a fresh shit about the lot of prostitutes nor victims of human trafficking. Someone in the FBI just made a headline that will help them get their next promotion, though. Also, I'm not sure about your new word. At first, I thought you meant the sites are hydrostatic somehow.
- 12y ago
totoroisalive 12y ago
Glad to read it was only the domain, It makes me sad the awful methods of protecting the sensitive data of these kind of sites.
- wtracy 12y ago
  The article states that servers were siezed as well.
  - taylor_fitz 12y ago
    I believe their servers were in the Cayman Islands.
sfbawhoremonger 12y ago
I'm a male engineer in my mid 20s, and I used myredbook occasionally because I have found the dating market in the Bay Area to be unfavorable. I had no trouble getting reasonable-quality ass in my previous metro area, but I can't get laid by non-obese women here in the Bay. Some of my friends and coworkers report a similar experience. Anyway, the quality of myredbook has taken a nosedive in the past year. Back when I started using it two years ago, $250 got you one hour with a decent looking broad, with multiple shots on goal. Now that same amount gets you a fat ugly chick, who shows up at your apartment high and hassles you for extra tips. Plus, I've noticed a lot more fake profiles and shady behavior, and by judging from forum reports, there has been an increase in thefts and crimes against johns.
sytelus 12y ago
I'm wondering how this same argument would pan out if this was a website for the "community" of drug dealers or child abusers to allow discussions of their "problems" and protect their anonymity.
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  Good question. Catholics, care to weigh in on sites taken down?
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  I just checked. All the major drug dealers' sites are up. You probably just meant the drugs sold by cartels. I mean, just the non-American cartels. I mean, the ones selling drugs we have made illegal here. No, not those, I mean dangerous drugs. That kill/maim users. No, I'm not talking about alcohol or tobacco or thalidomide. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. Right?
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
Igglyboo 12y ago
Does anyone find it weird that they left the google analytics scripts on the seized pages? Or is it possibly more sinister in that they're seizing the analytic data as well.
JorgeJetson 12y ago
There are many similarities between the old laws prohibiting homosexuality and laws prohibiting prostitution. both concern sexual behavior that are seen, by some, as sexual deviance. Men are more likely than women to be concerned with homosexuality. Whereas women are more likely than men to be concerned with prostitution. In both cases what drives the classification as illegality is icky-ness. A heterosexual male cannot imagine having sex with another man - it is just icky for him. Similar, a woman wanting a monogamous relationship, with romance, sees prostitution as disgusting and just plain icky. Most women cannot understand why any woman would become a prostitute. So they imagine that there must be some awful reason: human trafficking, dominance by a male (pimp), etc. For some prostitutes this is the case, but there are a vast number of women who practice prostitution and it is not. For these women selling sex is not icky - they explain it as being uplifting since it provides a high level of financial security. They actually find it difficult to understand why other women take issue with it. Their sexuality may be different. I understand that bisexual women have a more male like sex drive and I bet there are higher percentage of bisexuals in prostitution than in the general population. Also lesbians may be over represented in prostitution - the dildo just has a guy attached to it that pays the rent. So I propose here that the laws against prostitution are driven by perceived icky-ness (a form of sexual bigotry) as the laws against homosexuality.

356 points by panarky 12y ago

This issue is more ethically ambiguous than the EFF acknowledged in their post. The EFF only links to the legal and health forums, while the FBI claims the sites "were used to facilitate prostitution" [0]: advertisements for prostitutes... menus of sexual services, hourly and nightly rates, and customer reviews of the prostitutes’ services. You can see an example of an advertisement here (NSFW): https://web.archive.org/web/20130521131010/http://forum.myredbook.com/dcforum2/DCForumID20/188351.html https://web.archive.org/web/20130521131010/http://forum.myre... I'm not arguing for or against sex work, just illustrating that this takedown is not a clear-cut case of censoring a vulnerable community's non-commercial political speech. Is the EFF saying the FBI should have targeted specific illegal posts instead of taking down legal material as well? I support the EFF in their important work, but they're more credible and effective when they tell the whole story, including the complicated part. [0] http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/operators-of-myredbook.com-website-arrested-on-prostitution-and-money-laundering-charges http://www.fbi.gov/news/news_blog/operators-of-myredbook.com...

tomasien 12y ago
Thank you for posting this. EFF makes the site seem like purely a forum and it just wasn't - it doesn't change MY personal opinion of this matter (I am against the takedown STRONGLY) but it worries me when people with whom I agree seem to miss the mark on providing an accurate representation of the facts. I'm not suggesting it's intentionally misleading, but I think it doesn't get it exactly right.
- chillingeffect 12y ago
  I wish the EFF had stated the case as an issue of state's rights. From Wikipedia: The regulation of prostitution in the United States is not among the enumerated powers of the federal government. Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is therefore exclusively the domain of the states to permit, prohibit, or otherwise regulate commercial sex, except insofar as Congress may regulate it as part of interstate commerce with laws like the Mann Act. Furthermore, that site is also legal in parts of Nevada where prostitution is legal. I don't see how the federal government has jurisdiction in this matter. The Mann act is for interstate commerce. Perhaps this applies, but I think a real lawyer could share their related experience. 10th Amendment, btw: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
  - learc83 12y ago
    >Congress may regulate it as part of interstate commerce The website is pretty clearly operating across state lines. If the website is based in California (just made that up), runs on servers in Texas, and it allows users in Michigan to solicit sex from users in Florida, it's pretty clearly engaging in interstate commerce. Even if the website limited users to just one state, the federal government could still potentially regulate it under the interstate commerce clause provided the intrastate commerce substantially affects interstate commerce. -Note: the site by itself doesn't have to have a substantial effect. It just has to be part of a potential substantial cumulative effect--that is to say, hundreds of intrastate sex advertisement websites would, together, have a substantial cumulative effect on interstate commerce, so congress would be justified in banning all sex advertising websites, even if individually they don't engage in interstate commerce. Edit: This comment assumes that the website was in fact facilitating prostitution. This may or may not be the case, I have no idea.
    - davorak 12y ago
      > The website is pretty clearly operating across state lines. If the website is based in California (just made that up), runs on servers in Texas, and it allows users in Michigan to solicit sex from users in Florida, it's pretty clearly engaging in interstate commerce. A web site has to police the addresses of user base for user to user interactions? Are their examples where ebay, amazon, or similar service has to proactively police its user or suffer criminal charges for user to user interactions?
      - learc83 12y ago
        I'm not saying that at all, my comment was addressed at the parent commenter who said that the federal government couldn't regulate prostitution unless it was part of interstate commerce. Therefore, the assumption is that the website was engaged in facilitating prostitution. The website may not have been engaged in facilitating prostitution, I have no idea. There are likely plenty of arguments to be made here (the website is just a meeting place for users, it doesn't promote prostitution etc...)--that the federal government doesn't have the power to regulate a website facilitating prostitution is not one of them.
onewaystreet 12y ago
MyRedBook's forums were second to its classified which were used to find and rate high-end escorts. There's no question the site was used facilitate prostitution. With that said, the site had been running since 2002. Why were they busted now? Example classified: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RHLakOoFp24J:classifieds.myredbook.com/classified.php%3Fadid%3D397117+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RHLakOo... Almost all ads explicitly listed the sex acts offered. People on there weren't even being discreet about it.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > MyRedBook's forums were second to its classified which were used to find and rate high-end escorts. From glancing through the listing (on archive.org) I would suggest that "high-end" is inappropriate. It seems to include "high-end" escorts, but by no means be limited to them. Unless, not being involved in any aspect of that trade, I just have a really wrong idea of what "high-end escort" means and the term includes those offering $50 no-condom oral sex.
  - mrbusr123 12y ago
    you're out of touch with reality.
  - frozenport 12y ago
    For comparison, the high-end escort service that Eliot Spitzer was involved with cost US$31,000 per day [] []http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/emperors-club-all-about-e_n_90768.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/10/emperors-club-all-a...?
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - thret 12y ago
      Why would you pay $31k for a girl for one day? That's obscene. Reminds me of this scene from Gilmore Girls: LORELAI: Seventy-five thousand dollars. Seventy-five thousand dollars. Oh my God, that’s like 150 pairs of Jimmy Choos. RICHARD: What are Jimmy Choos? LORELAI: Shoes. RICHARD: 150 pairs, that’s it? LORELAI: Dad, they’re Jimmy Choos. RICHARD: For seventy-five thousand dollars, you should be able to buy at least three or four hundred pairs of shoes. LORELAI: Not Jimmy Choos. RICHARD: But that’s ridiculous. You are not going to spend seventy-five thousand dollars on Jimmy Choos when you could buy four hundred pairs of less prestigious but I’m sure equally stylish shoes. You will shop around first. Is that clear? LORELAI: Yes, sir.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 12y ago
> This issue is more ethically ambiguous than the EFF acknowledged in their post The EFF post is so distorted that I have trouble figuring out if the EFF is just intentionally twisting the facts to piggy-back on a high visibility case (which seems horrendously ill-considered, even from a strategic point) or if they are just so negligent in reviewing the facts that they've gotten used by others. There's real issues that this case could serve as a focal point for discussing -- particularly about the prohibition of prostitution and whether criminalization and the enforcement that goes along with it is a net positive or negative for society. But its clearly not anything like a bust of a noncommercial education, legal resource, and health information site that happens to cater to sex workers being shut down because the government isn't happy with the client base or subject matter.
throwawaykf05 12y ago
I've said it before, but the EFF frequently twists the facts to push their agenda. Of course, it's not a popular opinion to have 'round these parts.
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  That's what they do. They are an advocacy organization. And when you say "twist" they say "place into a factual narrative." That's what attorneys do. They build narratives. In this case, they support freedom with their narratives. Apparently it's thankless work.
  - ryanpardieck 12y ago
    Being an advocacy organization does not require such gross distortion of the facts. I like the EFF, but I've stopped putting any kind of credibility into their different blog posts and articles.
    - the_ancient 12y ago
      Why do you hate freedom?
      - ryanpardieck 12y ago
        It doesn't go well on spaghetti.
rando289 12y ago
> illegal posts It is illegal for certain people to post certain things at certain locations on the internet. Posts aren't inherently illegal and I think you are missing the nuance more than the eff is. > Is the EFF saying the FBI should have targeted specific illegal posts instead of taking down legal material as well? What kind of question is that. It's like "Are you really saying that if someone put graffiti on your house, the FBI should paint over each letter instead of simply using a bulldozer?"
Fuxy 12y ago
It's is a bit troubling that the EFF didn't present the entire issue however going against sex worker really? What the FBI and other 3 letter agencies don't have anything more important to do like solving murders and other cases where people actually got hurt. I personally think prostitution should be legal anyway like the late George Calin put it "Selling is legal fucking is legal so why isn't selling fucking legal?"
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  I don't get it, either. Since when is it the EFF's role to do anything but advocate for rights when they are abridged? I suspect someone feels butthurt they did not understand the entire story before they formed an opinion, and now blame the EFF for their butthurt.
- dspillett 12y ago
  > It's is a bit troubling that the EFF didn't present the entire issue Never assume any group is not doing this. Everyone makes more effort to present the facts that support their case/cause than they do those against/neutral. The EFF are better about not denying the truths they don't like than many similarly vocal groups, but don't expect them to tell you the facts that don't support their position. > What the FBI and other 3 letter agencies don't have anything more important to do They can't chose the laws that they concentrate on, really. The "don't you have something more important to do officer" argument (as often sung by petty criminals) is bunkum. They enact the law, all of it, and the reason they are chasing the people committing lesser offences (in the offender's eyes at least) is because people are committing lesser offences. > "Selling is legal fucking is legal so why isn't selling fucking legal?" This is probably the answer to a certain extent: legalise it, regulate it to try protect both the workers and the punters, and potentially tax it to cover the cost of that regulation. Though the legalisation argument as it is usually presented is rather simplistic, and the effects it would have on major crime (for example people trafficking) seems vastly over-stated IMO.
spacemanmatt 12y ago
I find it a broad overreach to take down entire sites based on allegations that some members may have been using it for illegal purposes.

delinka 12y ago

Were these sites only (or primarily) discussion boards? Were they also used (with or without their operators' consent) to conduct illegal sex trade? If such activities were indeed happening without a site operators knowledge or consent, did law enforcement reach out to these operators in an attempt to curtail this activity? Too little information from EFF on this. I'll agree that seizure of a discussion forum is truly a big problem. Simply seizing one because someone disagrees with the topics under discussion is a big problem. Not informing the operator of illegal activity before seizing is potentially dirty (e.g. if the operator is not participating in or encouraging the illegal activity.) Seizure of anything without due process of law is unacceptable and must be rectified. But doing something illegal (regardless of whether it should be), having been brought before a court, having failed to defend oneself or overturn the law, and having property seized ... well, that's how it should work. So how did this particular case go exactly?

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Were these sites only (or primarily) discussion boards? No, a substantial part of the site was the ads [1], dominated (numerically) by the "escorts" section [2], in which the listings [3] appear to sometimes be fairly direct offers of sex for money [4] (note the same is also true, to some extent, of the other sections) even from just the index pages (the actual individual ads often don't appear to be archived, and I don't really feel like spending time digging through the links to examine the examples that are.) I don't think arguing that the people arguing the site didn't know or intend it was being used to facilitate prostitution is credible given the publicly-available evidence. [1] archive [NSFW] https://web.archive.org/web/20130423181042/http://classifieds.myredbook.com/ https://web.archive.org/web/20130423181042/http://classified... [2] archive, San Francisco (most significant region) example [NSFW] https://web.archive.org/web/20130516182620/http://classifieds.myredbook.com/classified.php?catid=14 https://web.archive.org/web/20130516182620/http://classified... [3] archive, [NSFW] https://web.archive.org/web/20121227140137/http://classifieds.myredbook.com/classified.php?catid=14&subcatid=10&offset=30&poffset=0&sort1=&sort2= https://web.archive.org/web/20121227140137/http://classified... [4] often using code terms/acronyms, but ones which, to avoid confusing the uninitiated, the forums have a glossary (posted by "redbook", not users); archive [NSFW] https://web.archive.org/web/20130424045028/http://forum.myredbook.com/dcforum2/DCForumID15/2.html https://web.archive.org/web/20130424045028/http://forum.myre...

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

gavanwoolery 12y ago

Ironically our governing powers outlaw these services, while many of them partake in them.

tadfisher 12y ago
Misdirected hostility? We voted for them.
- justinzollars 12y ago
  Let me translate that. "don't blame me i voted for kodos"
  - nomedeplume 12y ago
    Thanks.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- spacemanmatt 12y ago
  Have you met Texas? The only animal allowed to vote here is the gerrymander. I figure it's similar elsewhere.
- gavanwoolery 12y ago
  I did not vote for them. All politicians are picked from a curated pool of people I would never vote for. They all tend to be wealthy, connected, and/or ivy-leaguers (none of these things are inherently bad, but they also don't play well towards the interest of the "common" man - small wonder that the middle class gets screwed). There are very few "commoners" in the higher ranks. Many are picked by the real ruling class, corporations. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/business/19gold.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/business/19gold.html?pagew...

myredbookuser 12y ago

I used myredbook to connect with, and buy sexual services from, several dozen of sex workers. I'm also a regular HN reader, and this is a throwaway account created just for this thread. AMA (ask me anything). It asked by an HN moderator, I can provide proof.

woah 12y ago
Do you feel that MyRedBook was in any way harmful to the well-being of the sex workers? If not, was it contributing to the moral decay of western civilization?
- mrbusr123 12y ago
  no. Sex workers are losing business instead. myredbook was the place for them to advertise. they built client network mostly through redbook. If there are negative sides for workers, it'd be them being reviewed as a slacker and losing clients. i think independent workers are in worse situation to bring clients and have to be dependent on pimps
- chris_mahan 12y ago
  Prostitution, despite being the oldest profession, seems to not have had a negative impact on the development of western civilization. Western civilization seems to be doing just fine.
- myredbookuser 12y ago
  I think my red book safer. I personally behaved myself more because I didn't want to get robbed, or shamed in public. Regarding the decline of western civilization, people have always been horny, and some people need to pay for lovin' in order to address their horniness. I'm not convinced that paying for sex is related to moral decay. Morality itself is kind of a tricky subject.
- arfliw 12y ago
  1. no, it helped them. 2. yes, it facilitated prostitution.
12y ago

mrbusr123 12y ago

there are no sex slaves, underage girls in myredbook. True, there are pimps and prostitutes from overseas, but no foul plays here.

NoPiece 12y ago
These underage sex slaves were pimped on myredbook: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/south-san-francisco-sex-slavery_n_2734350.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/21/south-san-francisco...
- mrbusr123 12y ago
  users have always been alerted if there is any foul plays regarding how these workers are treayed and reported any foul plays(robbery, violence, theft, etc.) i havent seen any ads exploiting them at all. most of times, workers are at least 5-6 years older if not 10+ years than advertisement.
  - objclxt 12y ago
    You're dodging the question. You're equating pimping with violence, but that's not always the case. How do you know sex workers who use RedBook were not, for example, having to pay back bogus "debts" to their pimps for having to come into the country? You've already said in a previous post that some sex workers using RedBook were from overseas. I somehow doubt you were you asking them for their I-94s as proof they were in the country legally. I can fully believe there are a number of sex workers who found RedBook truly useful, and provided an extra layer of safety and security. What I can't believe is that for a line of work that is inherently illegal there were not at least some people who had abusive relationships with people coercing or even forcing them into it. You seem to be suggesting not a single woman (or man!) who used RedBook was being exploited, even a small minority. I think you're being naive.
    - mrbusr123 12y ago
      youre equating myredbook to prostitution in general. its hard question, since its the oldest profession. there will always be bad pimps, debts whatever. that is why in my opinion myredbook was so popular, because it acts as a great medigator suchas airbnb, uber etc. the culture in myredbook is to treat them well and be alerted with foul plays at all times. myredbook is innovative in that sense, because it made a lot of people's lives both clients and provider easier and safer conducting business users know whats best to protect themselves. youre naive to think if users can go for foul plays and manipulate these presumably exploited sex workers thru websites like redbook. users know there are pigs whos watching all the time ...

harrystone 12y ago

"Today we also lost extensive online forums for a community of sex workers to keep each other safe, screen clients, and blacklist predators." I'm hopelessly cynical at this point in my life, so I'm not surprised at all that our government sees that as facilitating prostitution.

chris_mahan 12y ago

It's ok. The next version of the internet won't be using DNS anyway.

JorgeJetson 12y ago

I see much of the argument here is about "facilitating prostitution," that such facilitation would trump free speech protections, both constitutionally and in other laws. But the opposite is true, as highlighted by the EFF, third parties, who are not involved in the illegal activity have a right to discuss that activity and do not take responsibility for the actions or postings of others. With respect to the Internet, there is a federal law, section 230 of the Communications Decency Act of 1996, which states that Web service providers cannot be "treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider".

objclxt 12y ago
> third parties, who are not involved in the illegal activity have a right to discuss that activity What you're missing here is that they don't have a right to make money off of it. RedBook weren't just facilitating the discussion of illegal activity, they were making money out of the advertisements on the site. They were directly involved in the illegal activity.
- JorgeJetson 12y ago
  Actually, advertisements were free. They made money on enhanced reviews of providers and clients. In other words, one could, for a fee, dig deeper into reading comments between and about users of myredbook. The owners of myredbook were still a third party in these comments and did remove postings that could encourage child prostitution, robberies, or other serious violent crimes.
Dylan16807 12y ago
That might be true in theory but tell it to torrent sites, shut down without ever touching a single bit of pirated data.

jmspring 12y ago

My read is the move was more about the money laundering than either "protecting the children" or "facilitating prostitution". The site was used by many local agencies to help with busts, etc. Personally, I am against the takedown. The laws around consenting adults engaging in private transactions should be legalized. My understanding is that the site did have measures in place to help with the underage aspect, but that is from reading more balanced news accounts.

stray8 12y ago
The money laundering was the moving of funds to savings accounts, and other accounts in his name or business name. It's money laundering because the proceeds were allegedly derived from an illegal act. But not what people typically think of money laundering.

myredbookutoo 12y ago

Throwaway for obvious reasons. I have been using myredbook and reading HN regurarly too. I think outlawing prostitution is the stupidest thing ever. Coercion, battery, human trafficking -- these are all crimes themselves and these are what most people are concerned about. It's a waste of time and effort. Removing a site like this will achieve nothing except perhaps endanger some of the sex workers -- think about it. Clients (for there will be clients, no doubt -- does anyone think one advertisment site makes a difference?) can behave in worse ways cos the forums are gone.

jqm 12y ago
"Coercion, battery, human trafficking -- .....these are what most people are concerned about." Maybe this is what people __claim to be most concerned about. But I would venture to guess more often than not, the real concerns are based on moral prudery, religious dogma, and stogid ideas of what a family !must be.
- makomk 12y ago
  Very much so. In particular, anti-trafficking groups are strongly opposed to any solution to trafficking that doesn't involve making life harder and more dangerous for sex workers and label anyone who actually listens to the workers "pimps", as though respecting those women was somehow equivalent to forcing them to have sex.

yeukhon 12y ago

> EFF has always supported freedom of association and free speech, no matter who is doing the talking. This sentence worries me the most. Anyone means, including those we believe are threat to society (mass killing killer for example). Also those who make racist remarks intentionally to embarrass others in public.

TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago
Free speech isn't necessarily unlimited. It is often defined to exclude hate speech, for example.
- yeukhon 12y ago
  I am sorry, but that's not how I would interpret their statement. They make it very clear "no matter who is talking."
  - ryanklee 12y ago
    "No matter Who is talking" =/= "no matter what is said"
- iopq 12y ago
  If you define it that way, then there is an unlimited potential to extend illegal speech to everything. Shut down the poker sites because they facilitate illegal online gambling. Shut down the bitcoin sites because they facilitate money laundering. Etc.
quotemstr 12y ago
The right to free speech is meaningless if it encompasses only the speech with which we already agree. Unless speech represents an imminent danger to society, restricting it is wrong and an abridgment of fundamental western values. This principle applies to hate speech, bomb-making instructions, and reviews of prostitutes. Distastefulness and moral indignation are not legitimate grounds for restricting speech.
- 12y ago

chatmasta 12y ago

This is a move in the opposite direction of where the government should be going. Sites like Myredbook, Backpage, Rubmaps (and at one time even craigslist) are Hydratic. [1] like Hydra, when you take down one, two will appear in its place. Has the FBI not learned by now that it does not have jurisdiction over the entire internet? New sites can pop up in any non-FBI jurisdiction or on Tor, and there isn't shit the FBI can do. The FBI needs to accept that shutting down these sites is not a sustainable option. Instead, it should cultivate the sites that are in US jurisdiction, and allow them to operate, so that the FBI can use them to monitor illicit activity. Prositution is a victimless crime. Human trafficking is not. Unfortunately, without legalizing and regulating prostitution worldwide, it's impossible to disambiguate between an autonomous sex worker and a human trafficking victim. But sites like these can really help with that disambiguation. The FBI should be working toward this disambiguation. It should be filtering out the sex workers from the human trafficking victims, because the latter are the only actual victims in this business. The FBI needs to realize that sites like these are an asset to the fight against human trafficking, because they facilitate monitoring and analyzing the market. Shutting down these sites will not even make a dent in the demand for prositution. It will simply drive that demand elsewhere, to underground sites or ones outside of FBI jurisdiction. This is a loss for human trafficking victims. By pushing this business further underground, the FBI loses some monitoring and detection ability, traffickers are likely angry, and victims lose the benefit of client accountability on sites like Myredbook. This shutdown will not affect the supply of, or demand for, human trafficking victims. It will only worsen their situation and further hide it from authorities. But hey, the FBI gets some nice PR pieces about their latest big bust! Yeah! Go team! Such a formidable cyber security force! [1] I invented the word "Hydratic," but it should totally become a thing.

deciplex 12y ago
"The FBI" doesn't give a fresh shit about any of those things, because the FBI doesn't give a fresh shit about the lot of prostitutes nor victims of human trafficking. Someone in the FBI just made a headline that will help them get their next promotion, though. Also, I'm not sure about your new word. At first, I thought you meant the sites are hydrostatic somehow.
12y ago

totoroisalive 12y ago

Glad to read it was only the domain, It makes me sad the awful methods of protecting the sensitive data of these kind of sites.

wtracy 12y ago
The article states that servers were siezed as well.
- taylor_fitz 12y ago
  I believe their servers were in the Cayman Islands.

sfbawhoremonger 12y ago

I'm a male engineer in my mid 20s, and I used myredbook occasionally because I have found the dating market in the Bay Area to be unfavorable. I had no trouble getting reasonable-quality ass in my previous metro area, but I can't get laid by non-obese women here in the Bay. Some of my friends and coworkers report a similar experience. Anyway, the quality of myredbook has taken a nosedive in the past year. Back when I started using it two years ago, $250 got you one hour with a decent looking broad, with multiple shots on goal. Now that same amount gets you a fat ugly chick, who shows up at your apartment high and hassles you for extra tips. Plus, I've noticed a lot more fake profiles and shady behavior, and by judging from forum reports, there has been an increase in thefts and crimes against johns.

sytelus 12y ago

I'm wondering how this same argument would pan out if this was a website for the "community" of drug dealers or child abusers to allow discussions of their "problems" and protect their anonymity.

spacemanmatt 12y ago
Good question. Catholics, care to weigh in on sites taken down?
spacemanmatt 12y ago
I just checked. All the major drug dealers' sites are up. You probably just meant the drugs sold by cartels. I mean, just the non-American cartels. I mean, the ones selling drugs we have made illegal here. No, not those, I mean dangerous drugs. That kill/maim users. No, I'm not talking about alcohol or tobacco or thalidomide. YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. Right?

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

Igglyboo 12y ago

Does anyone find it weird that they left the google analytics scripts on the seized pages? Or is it possibly more sinister in that they're seizing the analytic data as well.

JorgeJetson 12y ago

There are many similarities between the old laws prohibiting homosexuality and laws prohibiting prostitution. both concern sexual behavior that are seen, by some, as sexual deviance. Men are more likely than women to be concerned with homosexuality. Whereas women are more likely than men to be concerned with prostitution. In both cases what drives the classification as illegality is icky-ness. A heterosexual male cannot imagine having sex with another man - it is just icky for him. Similar, a woman wanting a monogamous relationship, with romance, sees prostitution as disgusting and just plain icky. Most women cannot understand why any woman would become a prostitute. So they imagine that there must be some awful reason: human trafficking, dominance by a male (pimp), etc. For some prostitutes this is the case, but there are a vast number of women who practice prostitution and it is not. For these women selling sex is not icky - they explain it as being uplifting since it provides a high level of financial security. They actually find it difficult to understand why other women take issue with it. Their sexuality may be different. I understand that bisexual women have a more male like sex drive and I bet there are higher percentage of bisexuals in prostitution than in the general population. Also lesbians may be over represented in prostitution - the dildo just has a guy attached to it that pays the rent. So I propose here that the laws against prostitution are driven by perceived icky-ness (a form of sexual bigotry) as the laws against homosexuality.