5 ms·

In the places where prostitution is legal (Netherlands, Germany, Austria, New Zealand...) there is still a huge criminal organisation built around human traffic

by jordigh 12y ago

In the places where prostitution is legal (Netherlands, Germany, Austria, New Zealand...) there is still a huge criminal organisation built around human trafficking. Most prostitutes in such countries are poorer immigrant women from neighbouring countries in economic desperation, and very frequently acting against their will. Not every popular-but-illegal activity benefits from becoming legal. Selling alcohol is very different from selling people. Don't conflate the two activities.

jessaustin 12y ago
Selling people is very different from allowing people to sell their services. Don't conflate the two activities. Seriously, the existence of problems related to legal prostitution in any particular location doesn't necessarily indict the entire practice. Also, in close analogy with drug prohibition, the state gives criminals space to thrive whenever it limits the free movement of people.
- jordigh 12y ago
  They're not selling a service. They're selling their bodies. With a service, someone is performing something, not having something done to them. With a service, the more experienced practitioners are more valuable. With prostitution the opposite is true: the least experienced people are the most valuable, and there is no training required nor even desired. It's not a job when the most desirable "employees" are the least experienced ones.
  - grinnbearit 12y ago
    I don't think thats true, if that was the case, the price of prostitution would drop with experience/skill/quality. A quick google leads me to http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-average-prostitution-prices-worldwide http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-average-prostitution-price... From this, it looks like the price for prostitutes increases with quality.
    - jordigh 12y ago
      I see no indication that "quality" here means "expertise" or "experience".
      - oxide 12y ago
        come on, now you're just grasping at straws.
        jordigh 12y ago
        Not at all. The very article linked above says, "India -- $1,000 for virgin, $1-$4 for adult."
        anigbrowl 12y ago
        He's not, though I don't agree with him (think it's a him?). Yes, experienced prostitutes can and do charge more. but there is a parallel traffic in vulnerable prostitutes, for whom their pimps charge more because they are young or less willing/able to stand up for themselves. I'm in favor of legalization, but there is some economic research suggesting that at least in the short term, expansion of the market for prostitution (through decriminalization or legalization) results in a net increase in illegal trafficking, because market sector growth >> the substitution effect (whereby many customers prefer the legal alternative). It's not the simple 'ban it or legalize it' dichotomy that advocates on both sides suggest.
  - jessaustin 12y ago
    ...the least experienced people are the most valuable, and there is no training required nor even desired. I think you're right about a certain segment of the market. After all, we know that pedophiles exist, so some "customers" would want the "services" of a child who lies there crying, which would require no "training". I think those would be few in number when compared to a legal market for adult prostitution, although they would necessarily be a larger portion of any illicit market.
  - CWuestefeld 12y ago
    With a service, someone is performing something, not having something done to them The idea that sex is having something done to you, as opposed to something you're doing for or with someone, strikes me as a rather old-fashioned and sexist attitude. I'd like to believe that my wife and I share something better than that. Of course, there are a lot of personal values tied up in this question, so I don't think that either your opinion or mine necessarily prevails. That being the case, I think the best indicator is what each individual chooses to do of their own free will.
    - jordigh 12y ago
      Sex can certainly be done to someone, and comparing prostitution sex with marital sex is a bit disingenous. I imagine you don't pay your wife each time you two want to have sex, nor that she would have sex with you only if she had few other options left. The problem with "what each individual chooses" and prostitution is that it's extremely difficult to get an accurate reading of what people truly want. There's lots of coercion, pressure, and outright threats. I think it's fair to say that given the opportunity, most people would not choose prostitution. It's very important to have a society where no one ever feels the need to become a prostitute. The whole "consent" argument also tries to ignore the question of harm. If someone consents to be harmed, should we harm them? If a drug addict wants to keep drugging themselves, should we not do anything about it? I'm not outright saying that prostitution harms every prostituted person or not, just that this question should be considered, not elided with the "consent" argument.
      - humanarity 12y ago
        The implicit assumptions that ones' choice to have sex with strangers for money is coerced, wrong, constitutes self harm, and must be protected against are telling a story that denies the people who make that choice the very same autonomy such a statement pretends to protect against. I'd say that is incorrect and based on incomplete understanding. I'd say it's a choice, made, no matter how incomprehensible, for money. Like other choices people make, eg choosing such and such career path, or such and such relationship, sometimes there's peer pressure. And because it's connected with orchestration by criminal enterprises, tainted by that association. However, when you come down to it, people could sell themselves before criminals wanted a cut. It works to consider how you might come to make that choice, and whether your assumptions about prostitutes are filtered through the landscape of what you perceive as your own possible choices. So before I pronounce prostitutes as victims to fit a narrative of exploitation I've chosen (seductive also for it suggests my moral superiority that I would never make such a choice! :), maybe I'll remember it doesn't work to victimize the people I'm talking about by pretending they had no autonomy. Isn't that, the very same hypocrisy I'm trying to accuse others of? Using a person for a purpose? And when that person may have done the choosing, and I in my argument may be doing the using, haven't I neatly reversed the roles all by myself, and undermined the very argument I was making? Tl;Dr - when you're talking about people you want to paint as victims it works to consider them as autonomous, choice making beings, to gain more accurate insight, even tho it's seductive to pretend that somehow you've more autonomy than they. Stl;Dr - fantasising that prostitutes have no autonomy is trying to use them for an intellectual "dry sex", without paying, for the sake of argument without their consent! Definitely only for scoundrels!! :)
  - oldmanjay 12y ago
    Can one be said to sell something if one still maintains possession after the sale?
    - x3n0ph3n3 12y ago
      How about a haircut?
    - mkr-hn 12y ago
      This is the premise of software as a service.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  As I said in a reply, 'jordigh has an important, correct point about a certain segment of the market. I upvoted, and I'd appreciate if others did as well in order to ungray this:
WhitneyLand 12y ago
This is not good, but doesn't mean it's intrinsic to legalization. For example consider legalized gambling in Las Vegas. For decades it was intertwined with criminal activity and shady people. Eventually the regulation, laws, and legitimate business interests prevailed.
- yellowapple 12y ago
  And on a more relevant note, prostitution in Nevada (which, last I checked, is quite legal).
grinnbearit 12y ago
I've always been curious about this. Sure human trafficking brings poor women in against their will but what happens then? They obviously can't work in legal brothels because they wouldn't have a work permit and I'm not sure who would visit shady illegal brothels if legal brothels existed or even where they would be set up. Also, in a country with legal prostitution, aren't there regular inspections? interviews with the workers? I can understand in a poor country but how are these women being held against their will in shady establishments in a country with strong laws and an effective police force.
- jheriko 12y ago
  i believe it is legal in the UK, but lots of activities related to it (e.g. running a brothel, soliciting it in public places) are illegal. afaik (i have no real, direct, experience of this tbh, so don't quote me) there are none of these safety measures that you see in Vegas or Amsterdam etc. its basically treated as a form of self employment and is completely unregulated. you should also consider the psychologies of vulnerable and desperate young women and criminal gangs. there is a long history of techniques they will both use to avoid problems with the police and both types will see it as protecting themselves from harm...
- undersuit 12y ago
  Oh but a number of them do work legally. Their masters pay all the fees to get them into the country and then they work off the loan for the rest of their life. This method isn't just used to import women.
kleer001 12y ago
> Most prostitutes in such countries are poorer immigrant women Citation? I ask because that's not my personal experience and I haven't heard the same information from the sex workers I know.
apk17 12y ago
Yes, but how does making prostitution illegal help against trafficking? It just makes the scene go (further) underground, and the actual victims can't even go to the police now because they get arrested themselves (albeit probably just instead of being deported immediately). Also, I'd like to see a reference on the 'most' and 'frequently'.
- eru 12y ago
  In some countries in Scandinavia, buying sex is illegal, but selling is legal. That combats this exact problem somewhat.
  - runeks 12y ago
    This does not combat anything. The prostitute is trying to sell something to someone. Making it illegal for the customer to buy something from the prostitute does not solve anything. In fact, it discourages the customer from entering into the exchange. There is a reason that a person chooses to be a prostitute. You may not agree with that person's decision, but criminalizing one party of the exchange doesn't change the prostitute's available choices. In many cases, prostitution is the only way to finance drug addiction, because of drug prohibition. You can criminalize any party -- the prostituted or the customer -- and it doesn't address the root issue, it only suppresses it.
    - tertius 12y ago
      "Making it illegal for the customer to buy something from the prostitute does not solve anything. In fact, it discourages the customer from entering into the exchange." What it does is destroy the market for those exploiting prostitutes. I.e. traffickers. It changes very little for those who want to engage in sex with prostitutes.
NotableAlamode 12y ago
I don't believe that. Most prostitutes in the countries you mention render their services voluntarily. Could you please give credible references for your claim? In the context of prostitution, the term "human trafficing" itself us primarily used for shaming purpose where prostitution is no longer illegal. For this reason it should be avoided like the plague.
datashovel 12y ago
I wonder if treatment of said prostitutes is improved because of its legality, and can be managed and legislated? If I understand your comment correctly you're saying all things being equal nothing has changed (for better or for worse) except now prostitution is legal. What I would say is if this is the case at least a legal framework allows the government to mandate improved work conditions, or cut down on illegal human trafficking etc if they want to.
ptaipale 12y ago
"...there is still a huge criminal organisation built around human trafficking." I'm slightly suspicious of these claims. I've seen reports about trafficking in my country showing numbers of foreign people trafficked that are completely unrealistic. NGOs are just making up these numbers when they are pleading to well-meaning but clueless people for donations. The point here is that if someone can actually bring up evidence that there is a huge criminal organisation, then that organisation can be shut down effectively. But there is no evidence. It's a bit like so many conspiracy theories that tell about the secret conspiracy; the proof of existence of conspiracy consists of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence, because the conspiracy is so effective.

by jordigh 12y ago

jessaustin 12y ago

Selling people is very different from allowing people to sell their services. Don't conflate the two activities. Seriously, the existence of problems related to legal prostitution in any particular location doesn't necessarily indict the entire practice. Also, in close analogy with drug prohibition, the state gives criminals space to thrive whenever it limits the free movement of people.

jordigh 12y ago
They're not selling a service. They're selling their bodies. With a service, someone is performing something, not having something done to them. With a service, the more experienced practitioners are more valuable. With prostitution the opposite is true: the least experienced people are the most valuable, and there is no training required nor even desired. It's not a job when the most desirable "employees" are the least experienced ones.
- grinnbearit 12y ago
  I don't think thats true, if that was the case, the price of prostitution would drop with experience/skill/quality. A quick google leads me to http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-average-prostitution-prices-worldwide http://www.quora.com/What-are-the-average-prostitution-price... From this, it looks like the price for prostitutes increases with quality.
  - jordigh 12y ago
    I see no indication that "quality" here means "expertise" or "experience".
    - oxide 12y ago
      come on, now you're just grasping at straws.
      - jordigh 12y ago
        Not at all. The very article linked above says, "India -- $1,000 for virgin, $1-$4 for adult."
      - anigbrowl 12y ago
        He's not, though I don't agree with him (think it's a him?). Yes, experienced prostitutes can and do charge more. but there is a parallel traffic in vulnerable prostitutes, for whom their pimps charge more because they are young or less willing/able to stand up for themselves. I'm in favor of legalization, but there is some economic research suggesting that at least in the short term, expansion of the market for prostitution (through decriminalization or legalization) results in a net increase in illegal trafficking, because market sector growth >> the substitution effect (whereby many customers prefer the legal alternative). It's not the simple 'ban it or legalize it' dichotomy that advocates on both sides suggest.
- jessaustin 12y ago
  ...the least experienced people are the most valuable, and there is no training required nor even desired. I think you're right about a certain segment of the market. After all, we know that pedophiles exist, so some "customers" would want the "services" of a child who lies there crying, which would require no "training". I think those would be few in number when compared to a legal market for adult prostitution, although they would necessarily be a larger portion of any illicit market.
- CWuestefeld 12y ago
  With a service, someone is performing something, not having something done to them The idea that sex is having something done to you, as opposed to something you're doing for or with someone, strikes me as a rather old-fashioned and sexist attitude. I'd like to believe that my wife and I share something better than that. Of course, there are a lot of personal values tied up in this question, so I don't think that either your opinion or mine necessarily prevails. That being the case, I think the best indicator is what each individual chooses to do of their own free will.
  - jordigh 12y ago
    Sex can certainly be done to someone, and comparing prostitution sex with marital sex is a bit disingenous. I imagine you don't pay your wife each time you two want to have sex, nor that she would have sex with you only if she had few other options left. The problem with "what each individual chooses" and prostitution is that it's extremely difficult to get an accurate reading of what people truly want. There's lots of coercion, pressure, and outright threats. I think it's fair to say that given the opportunity, most people would not choose prostitution. It's very important to have a society where no one ever feels the need to become a prostitute. The whole "consent" argument also tries to ignore the question of harm. If someone consents to be harmed, should we harm them? If a drug addict wants to keep drugging themselves, should we not do anything about it? I'm not outright saying that prostitution harms every prostituted person or not, just that this question should be considered, not elided with the "consent" argument.
    - humanarity 12y ago
      The implicit assumptions that ones' choice to have sex with strangers for money is coerced, wrong, constitutes self harm, and must be protected against are telling a story that denies the people who make that choice the very same autonomy such a statement pretends to protect against. I'd say that is incorrect and based on incomplete understanding. I'd say it's a choice, made, no matter how incomprehensible, for money. Like other choices people make, eg choosing such and such career path, or such and such relationship, sometimes there's peer pressure. And because it's connected with orchestration by criminal enterprises, tainted by that association. However, when you come down to it, people could sell themselves before criminals wanted a cut. It works to consider how you might come to make that choice, and whether your assumptions about prostitutes are filtered through the landscape of what you perceive as your own possible choices. So before I pronounce prostitutes as victims to fit a narrative of exploitation I've chosen (seductive also for it suggests my moral superiority that I would never make such a choice! :), maybe I'll remember it doesn't work to victimize the people I'm talking about by pretending they had no autonomy. Isn't that, the very same hypocrisy I'm trying to accuse others of? Using a person for a purpose? And when that person may have done the choosing, and I in my argument may be doing the using, haven't I neatly reversed the roles all by myself, and undermined the very argument I was making? Tl;Dr - when you're talking about people you want to paint as victims it works to consider them as autonomous, choice making beings, to gain more accurate insight, even tho it's seductive to pretend that somehow you've more autonomy than they. Stl;Dr - fantasising that prostitutes have no autonomy is trying to use them for an intellectual "dry sex", without paying, for the sake of argument without their consent! Definitely only for scoundrels!! :)
- oldmanjay 12y ago
  Can one be said to sell something if one still maintains possession after the sale?
  - x3n0ph3n3 12y ago
    How about a haircut?
  - mkr-hn 12y ago
    This is the premise of software as a service.
jessaustin 12y ago
As I said in a reply, 'jordigh has an important, correct point about a certain segment of the market. I upvoted, and I'd appreciate if others did as well in order to ungray this:

WhitneyLand 12y ago

This is not good, but doesn't mean it's intrinsic to legalization. For example consider legalized gambling in Las Vegas. For decades it was intertwined with criminal activity and shady people. Eventually the regulation, laws, and legitimate business interests prevailed.

yellowapple 12y ago
And on a more relevant note, prostitution in Nevada (which, last I checked, is quite legal).

grinnbearit 12y ago

I've always been curious about this. Sure human trafficking brings poor women in against their will but what happens then? They obviously can't work in legal brothels because they wouldn't have a work permit and I'm not sure who would visit shady illegal brothels if legal brothels existed or even where they would be set up. Also, in a country with legal prostitution, aren't there regular inspections? interviews with the workers? I can understand in a poor country but how are these women being held against their will in shady establishments in a country with strong laws and an effective police force.

jheriko 12y ago
i believe it is legal in the UK, but lots of activities related to it (e.g. running a brothel, soliciting it in public places) are illegal. afaik (i have no real, direct, experience of this tbh, so don't quote me) there are none of these safety measures that you see in Vegas or Amsterdam etc. its basically treated as a form of self employment and is completely unregulated. you should also consider the psychologies of vulnerable and desperate young women and criminal gangs. there is a long history of techniques they will both use to avoid problems with the police and both types will see it as protecting themselves from harm...
undersuit 12y ago
Oh but a number of them do work legally. Their masters pay all the fees to get them into the country and then they work off the loan for the rest of their life. This method isn't just used to import women.

kleer001 12y ago

> Most prostitutes in such countries are poorer immigrant women Citation? I ask because that's not my personal experience and I haven't heard the same information from the sex workers I know.

apk17 12y ago

Yes, but how does making prostitution illegal help against trafficking? It just makes the scene go (further) underground, and the actual victims can't even go to the police now because they get arrested themselves (albeit probably just instead of being deported immediately). Also, I'd like to see a reference on the 'most' and 'frequently'.

eru 12y ago
In some countries in Scandinavia, buying sex is illegal, but selling is legal. That combats this exact problem somewhat.
- runeks 12y ago
  This does not combat anything. The prostitute is trying to sell something to someone. Making it illegal for the customer to buy something from the prostitute does not solve anything. In fact, it discourages the customer from entering into the exchange. There is a reason that a person chooses to be a prostitute. You may not agree with that person's decision, but criminalizing one party of the exchange doesn't change the prostitute's available choices. In many cases, prostitution is the only way to finance drug addiction, because of drug prohibition. You can criminalize any party -- the prostituted or the customer -- and it doesn't address the root issue, it only suppresses it.
  - tertius 12y ago
    "Making it illegal for the customer to buy something from the prostitute does not solve anything. In fact, it discourages the customer from entering into the exchange." What it does is destroy the market for those exploiting prostitutes. I.e. traffickers. It changes very little for those who want to engage in sex with prostitutes.

NotableAlamode 12y ago

I don't believe that. Most prostitutes in the countries you mention render their services voluntarily. Could you please give credible references for your claim? In the context of prostitution, the term "human trafficing" itself us primarily used for shaming purpose where prostitution is no longer illegal. For this reason it should be avoided like the plague.

datashovel 12y ago

I wonder if treatment of said prostitutes is improved because of its legality, and can be managed and legislated? If I understand your comment correctly you're saying all things being equal nothing has changed (for better or for worse) except now prostitution is legal. What I would say is if this is the case at least a legal framework allows the government to mandate improved work conditions, or cut down on illegal human trafficking etc if they want to.

ptaipale 12y ago

"...there is still a huge criminal organisation built around human trafficking." I'm slightly suspicious of these claims. I've seen reports about trafficking in my country showing numbers of foreign people trafficked that are completely unrealistic. NGOs are just making up these numbers when they are pleading to well-meaning but clueless people for donations. The point here is that if someone can actually bring up evidence that there is a huge criminal organisation, then that organisation can be shut down effectively. But there is no evidence. It's a bit like so many conspiracy theories that tell about the secret conspiracy; the proof of existence of conspiracy consists of the fact that there is absolutely no evidence, because the conspiracy is so effective.