Great article. I couldn't agree more! I get so sick of all the people that claim it's abusive and forced participation or any of the other unfounded negatives thrown out there.

1) There have been extensive surveys of these workers. Is this what the women themselves say? Where are the women who - like other "highly paid blue collar workers" - attain relative financial stability? I'd love to meet the "sex worker" who owns her own home and polishes her bass boat on weekends... do they exist?

2) There are entire genres devoted to abuse of the photographed subjects and "breaking in" new innocents. Are the dismay, hurt, debasement, and ultimate numbing shown in these "products" just acting? If so - most of these girls could do quite well in the legitimate theater. What does "consent" mean considering the obvious shock/discomfort of the subjects in this genre - and the fact that this "breakdown" is most performer's initiation into the "industrry"?

3) What is the track record of the rest of the progressive program of sexual liberation - especially vis-a-vis women? Hasn't modern hookup culture led to women - and men - viewing women as objects, while tearing down the social status of committed relationships where other aspects of a woman matter and are valued?

It can be easily demonstrated that the advice to "let it all hang out" has been disastrous for women - it has led to their objectification, not their liberation.

4) What do we already know about how legalizing this "industry" pans out? The experience from Holland shows that coercion, violence, and trafficking - which Hartley strives to portray as minor, peripheral problems - are, in fact, the norm. The cozy middle-class tramp does not exist in any significant numbers.

Hartley is peddling a sad, sick myth.

"(no one has died from making porn in the thirty-seven years it's been legal)"

If one ignores John Holmes, or the other porn actors who've died of AIDS. Granted, it's not as dangerous as fighting fires.

People feel uncomfortable about women expressing their sexuality; I don't think they see male porn star as victimized, but wouldn't they be, too?

Ms. Hartley is spot on — people should be free to be in porn or become strippers, whatever they want. Funny how being in porn is problematic for so many, probably the same people who like to watch it, too.

"If one ignores John Holmes, or the other porn actors who've died of AIDS. G workerranted, it's not as dangerous as fighting fires."

My understanding was that John Holmes was an IV drug abuser. They have a very high rate of AIDS infection. Hospital workers were and are occasionally infected with AIDS and hepatitis also but no one sees that as a reason to shut down hospitals. You just take reasonable precautions which I understand the porn industry these days does.

Kat:
people should be free to be in porn or become strippers, whatever they want.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Again - all the evidence we have is that most of the people in this "industry" have "chosen" it as a last resort, or because they've been coerced into it.

Or is there some other reason so many Eastern European women wind up in London and Amsterdam working this particular job?

Just because you - and college-educated Ms. Hartley - enjoy freedom of choice, doesn't mean most of these women had the same choice.

Just because desperate housewives are dabble in pole-dancing to make their aerobics more "edgy" - that doesn't mean the women stuck in that life have chosen it.

No evidence - just repeating the liberal mantra. And then you close with that other favorite tactic of feckless, factless "progressives":

probably the same people who like to watch it, too.
- - - - - - - -
Ad-hominem.
So the (largely female) volunteers trying to stop the trafficking in women in Holland and other "progressive" places are secret pornographers?

Get a clue.

"we go back to pre-Women's Liberation days, when women couldn't get credit in their own names, obtain birth control without their husband's permission, or wear pants in the work place. Do we really want those days back?"

After seeing how much damage the No Fault Divorce and the increasing Nanny State sold to (and desired by) women voters have done in the USA, my answer is....

Yes.

Of course it's a choice. Some women have fewer choices, some have more, but we all have choices and we should be free to make them for ourselves. Montana Fishburne really, truly could've done most anything, but she chose to become a porn star. Ditto Paris Hilton (it's still porn, even in terrible green light). Most young women named Paris or Montana (trashy names imo) don't have the same great choices that these two had (porn or college or slapping your name onto pretty dresses and calling yourself a fashion designer, or just hanging out and enjoying your family's wealth, or...), they had choices like do porn or strip in a club and make a pretty good amount of money fairly quickly (and take the risk that your misguided 19-year-old self will be unable to handle that money and that psychological weirdness and end up broke again) or join the military or take out a gazillion loans to go to college or work really hard for a very long time to make the kind of money a stripper can, but be better prepared to handle the money when it does finally come along.

Also, @Ben David, stripping is not like other "highly paid blue collar work" where you'll advance through one career from 20-65; it has a short shelf life, so most strippers and porn stars are under 25 or at least under 30. That's not a demographic that's usually running out to buy a 3-bedroom ranch in the suburbs and a bass boat, no matter what line of work they're in. So, no, you won't find too many current sex workers who own their homes, but look a little and you'll find plenty of former sex workers who fit your criteria for financial stability.

Yes, some women and even children are trafficked in the sex industry. That's a tragedy and we should absolutely work to help trafficked persons and bring abusers to justice. But that doesn't make the sex industry itself wrong, any more than the existence of garment-industry sweatshops makes all clothing factories bad. No, I wouldn't choose to be a garment-factory worker or a sex worker, and I know that most women who choose those jobs have fewer choices than I do, and that some unfortunately have no choice at all...but that doesn't mean we should take the choice away from everyone.

I met a stripper in New York who put herself through college by showing her tits. She made a lot of money for not a lot of hours of work.

Amy, I know one stripper (lap dancer, depending on your jurisdiction there's a big difference) very well and a few others peripherally. They make good money but the sensible ones understand it's a wasting asset in the economic sense - you have to save up what you get from it while you can. And most of those I've met are going through college - there are some who have kept it up into their late 30s but they are a rarity. Anyway, they're selling a different thing to porn actresses or prostitutes - it's the illusion of intimacy and romance that most of the regular punters at strip clubs want, except for the young blokes and stag nights (often the same thing) and they don't tip well anyway - they're just there for free tits. The girls don't all do well unless they understand that their customers want to feel like they're picking up some pretty young thing - they want someone to act like they're interested, chat to them, and make it like a real life encounter - it's a hard skill to master. Stripping and porn are completely different things.

In general though it's true, if you're willing to hang your tits out you'll always get a job somewhere - behind a bar or whatever. There was even a hardware store here in Melbourne, Aust in the 80s that employed topless cashiers - very popular as you might imagine.

I"m not arguing we shouldn't let people over 18 do what they want-I don't think many people argue that. It should be legal. But I hold the right to look down on someone who gets his (or her) rocks off watching a drugged-up girl who was probably molested as a kid have sex with strangers for money. I have values, therefor I make judgements, as Amy likes to quote Cathy.

Since the question of whether sex workers are capable of handling money & planning for their futures has come up, this story from Calcutta seems apropos - "Sex Workers Bank Plans Expansion":

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6064186.stm

Just because desperate housewives are dabble in pole-dancing to make their aerobics more "edgy" - that doesn't mean the women stuck in that life have chosen it.

So throw those women out into the streets to starve! Let them "live" on welfare! Let them eat cake!

It's not my job, or anyone else's, to tell these women that OUR sensibilities outweigh THEIR choice of employment. You want to hire one as your maid, for as much as she makes dancing, fine, if she's agreeable. But don't just purse your lips and say "of course she shouldn't be doing that" without presenting an actual, viable alternative.

One of my neighbors down the street was a porn star (now 35 and retired). Her house is paid off and she works part time selling real estate. Seems she did just fine.

"People feel uncomfortable about women expressing their sexuality"

Let's not confuse expressing ones sexuality with porn. They are not the same thing. Porn is not about sexuality - it is a business. It is not responsible in any way to correlate discovery of ones true sexual nature or the expression of sexuality with porn. The two couldn't be more opposite.

I am a-ok with anyone who wants to choose porn as a profession as long as they don't come back suing this industry later or trying to LEGISLATE new nanny laws because of the trauma resulting from engaging in such a profession (e.g. victims of sexual abuse, incest survivors, etc). The more easily accessible and the more "promoting" and mainstreaming of this industry to our youth is done, the more probability we have that this will happen. I don't like that teenage girls (and younger) are dressing in short shorts with "juicy and porn star" on the back of their asses. Bad message all the way around, and irresponsible in my estimation.

This should not be an encouraged profession but should remain accessible to those who really want to do it - with the right amount of stigma associated to it.

I don't think it should be touted as such a cool and progressive way of expressing ones sexual freedom. It shouldn't be framed in this way. It is a business. You are paying to witness two people having sex and nothing else. It is removed of any of the ingredients necessary to search for personal enlightenment through sexuality.

The confusing of these two (sexuality and porn) is what will do the damage - not the porn itself.

Where are the women who - like other "highly paid blue collar workers" - attain relative financial stability? I'd love to meet the "sex worker" who owns her own home and polishes her bass boat on weekends... do they exist?
-Ben David

And how many professional athletes wind up bankrupt? There is a janitor sweeping floors at the company my mother drives a bus for - he used to be a starting lineman for the LA Radiers

Should we shut down professional sports?

Again - all the evidence we have is that most of the people in this "industry" have "chosen" it as a last resort, or because they've been coerced into it.
Or is there some other reason so many Eastern European women wind up in London and Amsterdam working this particular job?
-Ben David

Saying it over and over dont make it so, Ben. As to why so many of them do it? Might it be they make 5 times the money working a few hours a day and living rent free in many cases?

"As to why so many of them do it? Might it be they make 5 times the money working a few hours a day and living rent free in many cases?"

Yep. Which of course explains why those girls are told upfront they are going to be hookers under lock and key in their new country. Oh, wait, they're NOT told that! They are lied to and kept as slaves. Nor do they make much (or in many cases, any) money. The call girl who retires owning a home is the exception. Most die young by violent means.

Tales from the dark side:

http://www.rame.net/faq/deadporn/

Wow. "Is this what the women themselves say?"

Dude - that's Nina Hartley. "The woman herself". Go check Asia Carrera's blog for signs of abuse (hint: not while she was working).

Liberal mantra? Huh. You just want to tell others what to do while thumping a Bible, right?

And hey, momof4: what do you call a hooker who hasn't worked for ten or so years? Mom, Sis, or the like. Not "a call girl who owns her own home". Self-righteous much? Oh. Yes!

And I had no idea that one of my favorite storytellers, Spalding Gray, was a former porn actor. It doesn't diminsh my opinion of him, but I find it worth noting he never made any mention of this in the hundred or so interviews, shows and essays I read by him.

To be fair, since sex workers are close to a very needy segment of society - one that in the USA is vilified publicly at every opportunity by loathsome hypocrites panting for the latest news about Britney - some situations are gritty. Again, look at Grace Undressed for the story, achingly written on occasion.

You'll see what the prim and proper American Bible-thumper has wrought for himself and others: furtive glimpses, longing, the disaster of marriage of partners completely incompatible sexually. Cheating. Finger-pointing and blame games for every failure of the great institution of marriage. More cheating. Ignorance and loss. Abortion. Stigma.

And a complete disconnect between a fundamental instinct and the candor which would allow, actual, true Christian-like behavior. "Love they neighbor as thyself?" Please. Don't hate me that ferociously!

I've seen porn. Asia Carrera is right - much of the time, the female lead isn't that fine to look at. None of that has altered my fundamental view of women. For example, I can say with some vigor that an intelligent and fit woman like Amy is a prize, to be treasured, not used - and that her guy knows that in his bones.

Now, I suggest you're looking in the wrong direction if you're upset about the XXX film industry (maybe it's the money that's making you mad). You want real horror porn? Call out the trailer trash. Yes, it exists. Look at Tarika Wilson, killed by mistake by police after picking thug after thug as partner.

Oooo, there's a naked woman acting like she's having a great time with some Neanderthal guy - and she's not married to him! That's much worse than pumping out bastard children!

Rad:
Dude - that's Nina Hartley. "The woman herself".
- - - - - - - - - - - -
But she and Paris Hilton are in no way typical of the many women who are coerced into this "industry".

Trafficking is not a pesky side phenomena - it's the norm.

Stuff like this:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,705104,00.html

... no accident that all the stories in that article lead to Amsterdam, one way or another.

"Liberal mantra? Huh. You just want to tell others what to do while thumping a Bible, right?"

I said it should be legal, asshat. I still have the right to dislike it.

"And hey, momof4: what do you call a hooker who hasn't worked for ten or so years? Mom, Sis, or the like. Not "a call girl who owns her own home". Self-righteous much? Oh. Yes!"

Generally, you'd call her a corpse. The living (in any form) post-hookers are the rarity, not the norm. The women who do this work generally had no other choice. No family support, nothing. And I think people who take advantage of others for their personal sexual gratification are pathetic. Not law-breakers, but pathetic. I help several poorly educated single moms with their kids, here, so they CAN make better of themselves than a moist hole to recieve dicks. I rather think YOU'RE the self-righteous one.

My biggest complaint these days is how the anti-sex work camp has, for the purpose of public confusion, conflated legal, consensual sex work, specifically pornography, with illegal, non-consensual trafficking of women for forced labor (some of it of a sexual nature). There is no connection between the legal material we make here in California and any trafficking of women. Full stop.

Funny, she wasn't talking about "sex work" & trafficing. And that's the first thing people are jumping to.

~~~

How much porn does Ben David watch to *know* what *shock & discomfort* the girls have.

Women were Objects when they ... couldn't get credit in their own names, obtain birth control without their husband's permission, or wear pants in the work place. (All porn is bad, so no reason to read the article or anything, right)

"The idea that a woman could choose, on purpose, to perform in pornographic videos for her own reasons still goes deeply against the notion that women are somehow victims of male sexuality, that they're delicate flowers who need the protection of a good man, or the law."

Yes it goes against "outdated" nostrums that could still be nonetheless true.

Back when I was 19 and playing in amateur rock bands, I answered an ad in the LA Free Press for female musicians. The two "agents" told me I could maximize my pay by going topless, but they'd have to check me out first of course. LOL. My BF had come to the "interview" with me and put an end to that nonsense. I wanted so desperately to play, and make a living, not have to work a real job and get up in the morning I would have probably done it. I had the usual secular SoCal upbringing, from a broken home, and I don't think I was too far from the norm.

A year or so later I was playing a union gig in Las Vegas, which had had a major strike the year before to prevent the infamous Ladybirds topless band from opening at the Aladdin. Because of that strike I never had to even consider playing topless. Even at 20 I was glad it hadn't come to that. Point being, girls have heads of mush at that age and will consider damn near anything.

Megan quotes Hartley:
There is no connection between the legal material we make here in California and any trafficking of women. Full stop.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Nonsense.
The fact that she says it doesn't prove anything - and the studies we do have confirm what common sense indicates: there is overlap between the pool of women doing it for money and the pool of women doing it for money on camera. And there is overlap between the handlers and pimps and the "pipeline" supplying "actresses".

Cass quotes Hartley:
The idea that a woman could choose, on purpose, to perform in pornographic videos for her own reasons still goes deeply against the notion that women are somehow victims of male sexuality
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
1. We know that the product is all about "male sexuality"
2. We know that a significant number of the women involved are coerced by circumstance, or literally pressed into servitude.

So what exactly are "her own reasons" - except for the tiny percentage of well-educated Nina Hartleys and Paris Hiltons who fell into it, and have other options?

The vast majority of women in this industry most definitely are still "victims" of a predatory industry that caters to "male sexuality".

"I said it should be legal, asshat. I still have the right to dislike it."

Pay attention, godbot. You quoted my response to Ben David, not you.

Sex is more important than murder in the USA. Count the occasions on television.

"...or we go back to pre-Women's Liberation days, ..." False choice, but that is how many people argue.

I personally think payment for sex is all the same, whether the sex partner is assigned by a movie director or assigned by a pimp or self-assigned from the driver's seat of a car.

Of course the societal effects of each group are different.

For one thing, the porn industry is critical to California's economy at this point.

Life in the US is sort of like living in a barnyard.

You know what is funny? Every time the goverment tries to find these sex slaves they disappear like a mirage.

Glen Sacks had an article on his blog a while back about the scare of the projected increase of imported sex slaves durring the world cup.

EU spent millions found 0 sex slaves.

You want to make the argument that these girls arent planning for the future I wont stop you - most professional athletes wind up crippled and bankrupt, and I dont hear you all bitching about that.

But free choice means just that, free choice.

And in a society like amercia where you can have a restraining order given on no more than the words "I'm scared he might . ." and have the guy arrested for violating said restraining order before he's even informed of its existance. Dont tell me you acctualy think there are sex slaves being force to preform against there will on camera for mass distribution.

Because if there were, the first time anyone associated with such people were arrested for drug or DUI they would have made a deal and such circumstnces would have made the papers.

So, I challange you, show me such a news article

I dunno why anyone would ignore popular demand in talking about this. Here's what you've proven you want!

Well, whattaya know? You can find more commentary from the apparently mysteriously brainwashed/enslaved female population right HERE.

Gee, this stuff is so easy to find. Duh.

Oh, gee. I'm sorry. Ben David, et al... isn't it a bother that in order to comment about pornography, you have to hit a button that says, "submit"?

OK - so anyone who follows Rad's links will agree that he's punted, and I win the argument.

Like many extreme libertarians and "progressives" - Rad is Wrong But Amusing.

BenDavid I have yet to see you acctully win an argument as opposed to declaring victory no matter the outcome of the debate and just moving on. Ofcourse such denial of reality is an asset when it comes to your faith but it really doenst help in the real world.

You posted one, just one, news story about abused underage girls "forced" into prostituion. Ofcousre why they jst dont go back to their families is something the report failed to ask. After all they had the fortitude to talk to reporter.

And using just one example of a criminal ativity you assume that all sex work is forced, even when the women in question, in the case of western produced pornography, have free access to the press, courts(both civil and criminal), change agents and production companies at will(baring signed contracts). And in many cases these women if they have a good business aptitude usually use their earning to finance new pictures and make even more money in distribution then preforming.

Comparing abused preteens and legal adults is just stupid

Quite frankly I find it hard(no pun intended) to feel sympathy for women who work for pimps. The western world has the most female biased courts systems and public support since the begining of humanity, all they have to do is use it.

Ben David, you're simply full of it. Perhaps you should go back to the other handle you were using: BOTU.

There are huge signs everywhere that women are voluntarily performing in porn.

Admit it. It's your key to honesty.

You can't make them stop. You can't make your neighbors stop buying sexually explicit material, much less slow them down at the local nightclub. You can't, apparently, read Asia Carrera's FAQ about the industry, and you clearly have not researched the private lives of the performers.

You haven't noticed that the State of California actually issues business licenses and regulates the companies which film in that state. You haven't noticed that supply follows demand.

Way to go!

According to you, momof4 and the tabloids, Traci Lords should be dead. Whoops, no. Quite beautiful in person, by the way.

Why should I believe what someone outside the business, with no supporting evidence and with that horrendously juvenile "punted" line, has to say?

luj whines that:
You posted one, just one, news story
and Rad claims that:
There are huge signs everywhere that women are voluntarily performing
- - - - - - - - - - -
OK - so hit Google and show some evidence.

Meanwhile all you linked to are fluff stories about a "trade" show.

Why is there no constituency of former hookers when these topics are (perennially) debated in Amsterdam and other places?

Put up or shut up.

"Put up or shut up."

Hello, McFly?

Who was lamenting the employment of women in porn?

Who made the first claims, without substantiating them? Right: you.

The plain fact that California licenses businesses engaged in the enterprise should be enough for you.

But it's not, is it?

Having shown everyone but Blind Ben David the numbers and the employment realities of porn in the USA, I'm not done at all. This link is seriously NOT SAFE FOR WORK, and the legality of downloading the content varies by community, state and nation; in fact, Amy might decide to unlink this and be justified: Pirate Bay porn torrent list.

That's apparently more than a petabyte of hardcore work. The Cracked.com link I posted was entirely correct about the size of the industry.

But go ahead: count the commercial ventures, legal in their locale. Count the performers, professional and amateur, and note the surroundings.

You just can't keep this work a secret, and if the rewards fail to exceed the risks, you just can't keep people from applying for the jobs.

And meanwhile, the scene in any movie you can find is being emulated in a college dorm room a thousand times a day. Ordinary people have lots of sex. It's filming it for others that's wrong, isn't it?

Yes, prostitutes do have constituencies in the Netherlands & everywhere else where their profession is legal:

http://www.rodedraad.nl/

Germany:

http://www.madonna-ev.de/

Australia:

http://www.scarletalliance.org.au/

New Zealand:

http://www.nzpc.org.nz/

Yes, trafficking is a serious problem in Amsterdam:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_the_Netherlands

But prostitutes there have some voice, protection of the law, and access to social services. That means that criminals who prey on them can be tracked, caught and sentenced, sometimes to lengthy prison terms by European standards. Poor women in Belarus, Moldava, Romania & the other East European countries that supply so many of Amsterdam's prostitutes have little to look forward to except lives of misery & marriage to no-good drunks. The sex trade is rampant in all those countries too, under vastly worse conditions. Forcing women from Amsterdam back to the wretched pest-holes they ran away from would not be an improvement.

It's hard for me to believe that you are such a fool that you think that the sex industry & the enormous demand for it will magically go away if enough bible-thumpers condemn & criminalize it. Or that sex workers in countries where sex work is legal are not better off than those in countries where they are condemned & criminalized. Or that bashing the sex industry will make the global supply of women in wretched circumstances dry up. Or that women who ran away from starving families to work in Calcutta's red-light district are capable of thinking & planning ahead for happy, prosperous lives after sex work, but women in the US who choose to work as strippers or porn stars aren't.

Martin overreaches:
The sex trade is rampant in all those countries too, under vastly worse conditions. Forcing women from Amsterdam back to the wretched pest-holes they ran away from would not be an improvement.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Yeah, sure - these women are MUCH better off having been kidnapped, raped, severed from family, community support, and the rights of legal citizenship... how empowering!

But you know - this is a convenient little self-serving meme:

Child labor is rampant in all those countries... Forcing children back to the wretched pest-holes they ran away from would not be an improvement.

So I'll just buy the sneakers made in Chinese sweatshops.

Lovely!
...and like most progressives, Marty's a mind-reader - he just KNOWS what those neanderthal religious folks are thinking:

you think that the sex industry & the enormous demand for it will magically go away if enough bible-thumpers condemn & criminalize it.
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
1) It was certainly smaller - and less brazen - when consuming this stuff was widely condemned.
2) It was certainly harder for innocents to fall into it - and easier to prosecute traffickers - when it was criminalized.

But why let reality burst yer bubble?

Further:
Or that sex workers in countries where sex work is legal are not better off than those in countries where they are condemned & criminalized.
- - - - - - - - - -
Again - none of the "progressives" on this thread have cited evidence for this... so far you've heartlessly compared the relative misery of slavery in Amsterdam vs. streetwalking in Lithuania.

Maybe there are - or should be - other choices?

"condemning and criminalizing" reduce the scope of the misery - and eliminate the financial justification and legal cover for the trafficking.

Further:
Or that bashing the sex industry will make the global supply of women in wretched circumstances dry up.
- - - - - - - - - -
Which justifies their exploitation?
This line of, uh, thinking is repulsive - and your confidence that this represents "progress" over "bible-thumping" morality would be funny if it weren't so sad.

What a great humanist you are...

Further:
Or that women who ran away from starving families to work in Calcutta's red-light district are capable of thinking & planning ahead for happy, prosperous lives after sex work, but women in the US who choose to work as strippers or porn stars aren't.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
More talk without proof.

How many make it out of the "business"?
With what money - after the pimps have taken theirs?

May the God of the Bible spare me and my daughters from the "mercies" of such a great progressive humanist as you, Marty....

Yeah, sure - these women are MUCH better off having been kidnapped, raped, severed from family, community support, and the rights of legal citizenship... how empowering!
-Ben David

You know Ben, for a guy demanding links refuting a position you have yet to provide any proof for, I notice you just ignored all the links provided.

Where are your links?

and then there is this gem

May the God of the Bible spare me and my daughters from the "mercies" of such a great progressive humanist as you, Marty....

Were it not for progressive humanists diluting the eclesastical political powers of religious movements and nuding people away form the worst edicts of the bible and torah it would still be perfectly moral for me to kill you and keep your daughters as sex slaves or sell them to others as sex slaves.

Dozens of links disproving your assertions and you have yet to provide any proof that all sex work is the product of rape and intimidation

Billions of sneakers from Chinese sweatshops did get sold all over the world. This has had consequences. By January 2009, China had passed Germany as the world's third biggest economy, and last month it passed Japan as the second biggest. The life of the average Chinese is still a poor one by Western standards, but it's unrecognizably better than when Chairman Mao was still alive. The billion or so Asians in other countries struggling to survive on $ 2 a day or less can only dream of being so fortunate.

I did not turn a blind eye to the ugly aspects of legal sex work in Amsterdam or elsewhere. A punitive approach is just not the only or best way to make these women's lives better. By way of an alternative, I posted this link here 3 days ago:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6064186.stm

It's the story of Rekha Chatterjee, who ran away from her starving, abusive family to work in Calcutta's red-light district, pooled her earnings with some of her fellow working girls to start a tiny bank, and found amazing success:

"After the establishment of [our bank], our lives started to change for the better.Now, with the bank in operation, our lives have been transformed completely, and the girls feel much more secure...Today's girls have a choice, which we just didn't have.

We need to talk to the girls all over the state and try to convince them their future lies with us. We need to make them realize that this is their bank...We want them to secure their future by building their own houses, educating their children, and so on. We have to make them understand that this is for their welfare, and that we're always by their side."

Her testimony carries a lot of weight with me, and I endorse her mission whole-heartedly. If you want to believe she would have been better off locked up in jail or sent back to her starving, abusive family (she had no other choices), go ahead.

"May the God of the Bible spare me and my daughters from..."

Another irony meter ruined. The God™ of your most recent revision of the Bible™ has already spared you the rigors of thinking and/or performing actual research of your own. Try not to notice that this so-called omnipotent being had no problem with slavery, and so you should shut up entirely about "exploitation" of any kind.

Martin whines:
you just ignored all the links provided.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
... links to "whores-rights" sites - ALL of which were pushing for action on trafficking and violence.

Did you read what you linked to? Because the issues worrying these "workers" confirm MY posts, not yours.

So when Rad brays that:
The God™ of your most recent revision of the Bible™ has already spared you the rigors of thinking
- - - - - - - - -
Well, no - I'm the only one examining the links here, and actually thinking about what I read.

- Are the Nina Hartleys and Rekha Chatterjees typical of the situation, or exceptions that prove the rule?

- Why are "workers" in liberalized countries still worried by trafficking and violence - when we were assured by "progressives" that legalizing this stuff was going to stop that?

- Given this sorry history, how credible is the assertion that more legalization will be better for these women?

Let's see some rational thought on those points, eh? Instead of ad-hominem attacks about what a fool/rube/primitive I am?

All of the women in those prostitutes-rights organizations know from experience & common sense that sunlight is the best disinfectant. That abuses & crimes are easier to prevent in a business that operates in the full light of the law than in an illegal, underground one in which workers have no recognition or protection at all. None of them ever asserted that decriminalization was a magic wand that would make all the problems in their trade disappear. I didn't either. The bottom line for me is that women like Chatterjee are out there in the real world making these women's lives better and proving to them that they can have a good future after sex work. That carries more weight with me than your condemnation.

Interesting, Ben David. Your use of "whore-rights" seems to indicate that you in fact reserve rights for yourself, as opposed to allowing others to enjoy them.

Your continuing childishness tells me that you actually recognize that the world will not magically bend to your wishes, however ill-informed you might be - just as you have been told - and that you're merely striking out here to salvage some form of credit.

It's not working. Complain some more. Don't actually read anything linked for you. You'll hurt yourself.

Your approach is typical of Bible™ thumpers nationwide: condemn a woman, especially, for any enjoyment of sex whatsoever; condemn the trade; ignore the goings-on in your own neighborhood and insist that a magical purity will sustain "traditional" values.

Newsflash: magic isn't real, and neither are your protests.

Your use of "whore-rights"
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- is taken straight from one of Martin's pro-whore websites. An article penned by a... whore.

So you can thump THAT instead of a Bible.

And all The Goddess can muster is the equally childish:

Because your Imaginary Friend was such a nice guy, right?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
... you mean, as opposed to your average pimp?

We know the "progressive" side of the debate is in trouble when the only person not engaging in cocky-doodie level argument is the euroweenie.

But at least Martin admits that:
None of them ever asserted that decriminalization was a magic wand that would make all the problems in their trade disappear. I didn't either.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
But we have the numbers - and they indicate that decriminalization (coupled with other aspects of globalization) makes the situation worse - or simply displaces/outsources the misery.

I'm glad you're no longer calling me a fool - can you cite facts/statistics that:

- decriminalization has had ANY net positive impact?

- trafficking and abuse have been made peripheral issues, rather than standard operating procedure in the "industry"?

So far nobody on the "progressive" side has cited any data.

Yet the pro-whore websites you pointed me too were FULL of shocking data from various government agencies.

We're talking about public policy here.
Hopeful anecdotes give no indication of statistical reality - of the real impact of decriminalization.

New Zealand decriminalized prostitution in 2003 with the passage of the Prostitution Reform Act, the most liberal sex trade legislation in the Western world. The country did not descend into the depths of hell. In 2008, the Ministry of Justice prepared a report for Parliament on the operation & effects of this Act, which you can read here:

http://www.justice.govt.nz/policy-and-consultation/legislation/prostitution-law-review-committee/publications/plrc-report/report-of-the-prostitution-law-review-committee-on-the-operation-of-the-prostitution-reform-act-2003

They found that neither the total number of prostitutes, nor the number of street or under-age prostitutes went up noticeably, that health, safety, and working conditions all improved (with need for much further progress), and that sex workers were more able & likely to refuse unsafe practices/unwelcome clients and to report abuses to the police now that they knew the law was on their side & that they would not be treated as criminals. They concluded that, despite the remaining problems, the Act had been effective in achieving it's purpose, and that the vast majority of women in the New Zealand sex trade were better off than before it was passed. This success can't simply be duplicated everywhere (prostitutes in Amsterdam, for instance, are much more vulnerable to continent-wide organized crime), but it validates all of the points I've made since the start of this discussion, which you keep stubbornly & blindly denying.

By way of contrast, Ben David, let's look at the situation in your back-yard. Trafficking & coercion were illegal in New Zealand before & after the PRA. But Isreal did not get around to passing any laws against trafficking or enslavement for sexual purposes until 2000!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/754011.stm

And even then, those few ringleaders who were convicted were usually given trivial sentences, sometimes just community service!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4380067.stm

Under cover of the flood of immigrants from the former USSR that poured into Israel, thousands of women were trafficked, had their passports & IDs confiscated, and were savagely abused and forced to work in horrific conditions:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7070929.stm

Israeli authorities treated these poor souls as worse criminals than the monsters who terrorized them, offering them nothing but arrest, jailing, and deportation back to the sad shit-holes they came from. Trafficking & sex slavery are treated much more seriously nowadays (after the US threatened sanctions), but all those years of treating the victims worse than the criminals gave those criminals such a grip on the Israeli sex trade that no amount of enlightened legislation may ever be able to loosen it. If that's the sort of prostitution policy you support, you're much worse than a fool.

Because of Israel's location & circumstances, a New Zealand-style policy may not work there. But Israel's past practice was truly vile, and not a model for anyone. The central problem of a punitive prostitution policy is that if sex workers know they will be treated as criminals by the police & courts, they will not testify against the actual criminals who abuse them. Because prostitutes are the most visible & vulnerable elements of the illegal sex trade, they will inevitably be the most frequent targets of the law in a prohibitionist approach. Meanwhile, trafficking kingpins & other scumbags will carry on. Prohibition can never, will never succeed in driving the sex trade out of existence, only out of sight & into the control of the worst criminals.

... and what are the statistics in Europe?

New Zealand is unique in its small size and relative isolation - which make it difficult for traffickers to build it into a sex mecca.

What about Holland?

Surely you can cite some statistics closer to home - or maybe you're afraid to cite those statistics, since they don't fit your argument...

(Regarding Israel - which is a distracting side-show in the context of this discussion, since it was never a major hub for this activity - we fortunately did not have this problem until the situation you described. And as you admit - once the situation was understood, we took steps to change the policy.

Those changes did NOT include legalizing the activity that was driving the trafficking.)

So: what are the statistics for the European experiments in legalization/looking the other way?

Israel's prostitution policy was completely vile, inhumane & indefensible, yet here you are defending it, and spreading blatant lies all over Amy's blog besides. Israel most certainly was a major sex trafficking hub, and was so designated by the US State Department, which has prepared annual Trafficking In Persons Reports since the passage of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act in 2000. Anyone can see & download those reports here:

http://www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/index.htm

All countries are placed on a multi-tiered rating system based on the extent & seriousness of their trafficking problem, what they're doing about it, and if they attrmpt to meet at least the minimum standards established by the Act. Israel has managed to work it's way up to Tier 2. In the first report, it was at the bottom, in Tier 3, in the company of the world's worst shit-holes like Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, & Sudan. That's truly shameful. And this came from Condoleezza Rice's State Department, not some rabid anti-Zionist organization. By contrast, the Netherlands, which you persist in holding up as the ultimate bad example, has stayed in Tier 1 throughout.

It was the condemnation & threat of sanctions from the State Department, along with public exposure of the scale of the problem, not a sudden change of heart or dawn of understanding, that compelled Israel to start to change it's horrible policy of treating the victims much worse than the scum who enslaved, raped, and tortured them. A policy which you're trying to excuse & justify, while pretending to be oh so concerned about these poor women's welfare.

Because of their geography, countries like Holland & Germany with liberal prostitution policies are more vulnerable to infiltration from organized crime. But they're dealing with these problems through intelligent law enforcement, not mindless prohibition.

Germany passed the Prostitution Act in 2002. You can read the 2007 report on it here:

http://www.cahrv.uni-osnabrueck.de/reddot/BroschuereProstGenglisch.pdf

Conclusions? The hoped-for improvements in the working conditions, health & safety of prostitutes have thus far only happened on a small scale at the local level. But traffickers & abusers can & are being prosecuted & convicted, and most prostitutes, police offioers, and prosecutors want the Act to stay. The gates of hell haven't opened there either.

Thank goodness that no one anywhere is asking for your advice on prostitution policy, and that your only influence in the real world is to demonstrate your blindness to Amy & anyone reading this post.

It was the condemnation & threat of sanctions from the State Department, along with public exposure of the scale of the problem, not a sudden change of heart or dawn of understanding, that compelled Israel to start to change it's horrible policy
- - - - - - - - - - -
I think I have a better perspective than you on this, no?

This was - and probably still is - a non-issue for mainstream Israelis. For many, the situation was completely invisible - like our similar problems with drug trafficking.

It is part of a larger problem with organized crime elements among the wave of Soviet emigres, which Israel was poorly equipped to handle.

Bottom line: you still admit that legalization did not yield the results expected in most cases, and that trafficking and abuse are still persistent problems.

... and hat is legalization's effect on demand for these "services"?

There was no excuse for a policy that treated victims worse than criminals.

Bottom line: decriminalization has improved the status, health & safety of prostitutes, if often only modestly (and without causing their numbers to soar). It can never be a panacea, but the apocalyptic scenarios predicted by prohibitionists have not come to pass.

You have come right out and admitted that as long as the most horrific suffering of women forced into the hands of criminals is "completely invisible" to upstanding citizens, then it's a "non-issue". That is truly vile.

The blind righteousness of alcohol prohibitionists caused more harm than good, and was a boost, not a bane, for organized crime. The same applies to your brand of prohibitionists.

You have come right out and admitted that as long as the most horrific suffering of women forced into the hands of criminals is "completely invisible" to upstanding citizens, then it's a "non-issue". That is truly vile.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Nonsense - I was explaining why action against trafficking was not swifter, not making a value judgment on the criminal activity itself.

In an earlier post you tried to suggest that being kidnapped into sex slavery in Amsterdam was a better fate for Eastern European women than living in their own places in poverty. Now THAT is vile.

More to the point:
decriminalization has improved the status, health & safety of prostitutes, if often only modestly (and without causing their numbers to soar). It can never be a panacea, but the apocalyptic scenarios predicted by prohibitionists have not come to pass.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
1) The number of prostitutes in Holland has roughly TRIPLED since decriminalization.

2) As much as 70 percent of those prostitutes are illegal foreigners or intra-EU migrants. In the early 2000s attempts were made to curtail this trafficking - but you admit they have not yet been successful.

I don't know what "apocalyptic scenarios" were predicted - but the existence of a market where pimps can sell their "wares" openly has, not surprisingly, encouraged trafficking and increased the number of victims.

Links:
http://fleshtrade.blogspot.com/2006/01/statistics.html

http://www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/netherl.htm

I have met Europeans (and left-leaning Americans) who embrace heavy-handed, intrusive regulation of smoking, drinking, and other personal habits.

But for some reason they are not willing to regulate an "industry" that is by its very nature exploitative and demeaning.

"I think I have a better perspective than you on this, no?"

No.

Read anything by the women in the business yet?

On the contrary, regulated decriminalization is the whole idea. Other businesses are regulated. Prostitution needs to be regulated. The abuse of employees in any legal business is a punishable crime. Abused prostitutes need to be able to go to law enforcement and know that they will not be treated as criminals & that the law will be on their side. That's what proper decriminalization means, not turning a blind eye.

From your fleshtrade link:

"The results of the Korpsmonitor 2003 confirm the presumption that punishable forms of exploitation happen, particularly in the non-licensed part of the business. In the supervised, licensed prostitution business hardly any abuses were encountered. Hence, it seems that the reorganization intended by legalization - in the municipalities that have settled their administrative supervision & their administrative sanctions - is taking place in the meantime."

Formal legalization in the Netherlands did not begin until the legalization of brothels on October 1, 2000. Prior to that, prostitution operated in a grey zone of official "tolerance", where the police looked away but there was no legal framework to protect prostitutes. No wonder all sorts of abuses happened. Licensing & supervision were left largely in the hands of municipalities, so they vary greatly in strictness. Decriminalization is an ongoing process, not a done deal. New legislation has been passed since 2000, and much more is planned. The goal is to set up a country-wide, all-inclusive system of licensing & registration for all sectors of prostitution. "Hardly any abuses were encountered" is exactly whar ro strive for. Abuses are still happening, but much less so in those parts of the trade under proper supervision & licensing.

It's very hard to find accurate up-to-date figures for the number of prostitutes in Holland, but I can't find any evidence that the number has exploded upwards from the 25,000 or so at the start of legalization in 2000. And no, authorities did not just make some half-hearted attempts to curtail trafficking in the early 2000s and then give up. It's all there in the TIP reports I linked to above. Enforcement & penalties have been, and are being greatly strengthened, with a higher rate of convictions & longer sentences than before. It's a serious problem, but there is progress in dealing with it.

For years there was a situation in Israel in which thousands of women suffered terribly at the hands of the worst criminals. And those women were treated much worse than the criminals, who were given only trivial sentences on the rare occasions when they were convicted. And you say this is because authorities did not understand the scope of the problem, which was invisible to most Israelis. Stop & think about that. If such a big problem could go unnoticed in a tiny space-age country like Israel, what nightmares are hiding under the cover of criminalized prostitution in the rest of the world? At least in countries with decriminalization where this business is conducted out in the open, people know the full scope of the problems they have to deal with, and prostitutes have the protection of the law.

Abolition has never succeeded. Not 10,000 years ago, not 10 years ago, not anywhere. Now that decriminalization is finally starting to bear fruit in New Zealand & elsewhere, you want every one to revert to the prohibition policy that has always failed since history began, and has always driven women into the hands of evil criminals. That's madness, no matter how much moral indignation you can muster up in support of it.

Damn typos. whar ro = what to

Rad chimes in with:
"I think I have a better perspective than you on this, no?"
No.
Read anything by the women in the business yet?
- - - - - - - - - - -
... Read the post you commented on, lummox?

"I think I have a better perspective" than Martin on the internal Israeli attitude to our recent spike in organized crime, which included trafficking in prostitutes.

Now that that's out of the way...

Martin, you write:

On the contrary, regulated decriminalization is the whole idea. Other businesses are regulated. Prostitution needs to be regulated.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Maybe sex should not be a business?

There is a reason why some actions are criminal - it is a value judgment by society.

Every body of law codifies the shared values of a society. When we say something is illegal - it is an expression of shared values.

(For example: obviously Muslim societies that condones mercy, honor, and vengeance killings put a different value on human life than Western society.)

Who says we have to accommodate this undesireable behavior? Accommodating the behavior alters our society's values - for the worse.

Who says regulation can eliminate the inherently exploitative dynamic of this activity? Again, attempting to manage this activity weakens our condemnation of it.

Let's try it this way:

"Oh, child molestation has been around forEVER, we will NEVER get rid of it - so let's just regulate it instead."

(Another obvious parallel is to Holland's experiments with legalizing drugs.)

The argument you are making can be made for any activity that is illegal - yet persistent. That is most of them!

But that's not how laws work. Your "prohibitionist fallacy" is a straw man.

Criminalization, marginalization, and social condemnation work to minimize the extent of intractable problem behaviors - and draw clear lines about society's values.

We start with widely held notions that:

- mature, healthy human sexual expression should accompany/express emotional intimacy - which in turn implies equality between the partners, and usually commitment.

- sex should not be a matter of commerce because of its intimate dimension.

Neither of these widely held values are particularly "fundamentalist" or "extreme". They are certainly not Puritanical.

And they are not invalidated simply because humans - being human - don't always live up to them.

But casting prostitution as a "business" undercuts these important values.

You brag that:
Abuses are still happening, but much less so in those parts of the trade under proper supervision & licensing.
- - - - - - - - -
But legitimizing the behavior is itself problematic at the level of communal values.

And practically it has expanded the scope of the industry - most of which is still beyond the reach of regulators.

I do not think that the inherently exploitative nature of this activity will ever be tamed by regulation - and the legitimacy and visibility of this activity has already weakened widely held notions about healthy sexual expression.

I wasn't bragging, just stating a fact. A system of legal, regulated prostitution where prostitutes are rarely abused (and their abusers have to face the law for doing so) is infinitely better than criminalized, underground prostitution in which prostitutes are almost always savagely abused (and their abusers know they can get away with it). No one is going to persuade me otherwise.

Legalizing something does not mean demand for it will keep rising inexorably. Look at tobacco. Just 20 % of Americans smoke these days. A majority did not that long ago. Social disapproval of smoking has played a part in this. But how well have criminalization, marginalization, and social condemnation been working to minimize the extent of the illegal drug trade in Mexico lately?

The points you've raised here represent idealism - in a perfect world, prostitution wouldn't exist. That's not the world we live in. Evidence shows that regulated decriminalization efforts in at least some countries are starting to bear fruit and improve the safety & working conditions of prostitutes. That's why I support them.

Hey, look - the professing Christian calls people names!

I didn't ask if you cited something - I asked if you read it.

Apparently, you cannot recognize that legally-employed women work in the sex industry, get paid for it and are well-treated.

Even though Martin has eaten your lunch several times now.

That would be a professing Orthodox Jew name-calling (I think).

You bring up Holland and legalised drugs?

Ben David, were it not for drug users thousands of years ago you religion wouldnt even exist.

Im not sure whats cute about moral suasion. Do you deny that it is a part of Fed policy?