Six Years Of Decriminalized "Indoor" Prostitution
That's what went on in Rhode Island, through a loophole in the law. And what happened during that time? The incidence of forcible rape and gonorrhea steeply declined, writes Adrianna McIntyre on Vox:
"Indoor" prostitution refers to sex work that takes place through massage parlors, escort agencies, and most of the online market, compared to outdoor street-based prostitution.The authors found evidence that, after decriminaliztion, the size of the indoor sex market increased -- as expected -- and prices commensurately fell.
More surprising was the finding that forcible rape offenses fell by 31 percent in Rhode Island from 2004 to 2009, as decriminalized indoor sex work scaled up in the state. This translates to 824 fewer reported rapes. The majority of the reduction in rapes came from Providence, where the state's sex work is concentrated.
No other crimes -- robbery, murder, assault, burglary, or motor vehicle theft -- experienced a sharp decline after 2003 like rape did. This suggests that the decline was not associated with an increase in policing, because had that been the case, we would expect rates to fall for other types of criminal activity.
Using CDC data, the authors were able to determine that cases of female gonorrhea fell by 39 percent over the same time period. The sexually transmitted disease disproportionately affects prostitutes -- 23% of women who engage in sex work report ever contracting gonorrhea, compared to 5% of the general female population.
The reduction in gonorrhea among men was less significant, which may be due in part to the science of STDs -- a woman who has sex with an infected man faces a 60 to 80 percent risk of contracting gonorrhea while the female-to-male transmission rate is only about 20 percent.
The authors aren't sure why this happened. They offer some hypotheses. For example:
Decriminalizing indoor prostitution could improve the bargaining position of female sex workers relative to clients, leading to lower rates of victimization. Research from the late 1990s found that indoor sex workers are victimized considerably less than outdoor street walkers. The legal quirk in Rhode Island only applied to indoor sex work, which could have resulted in some prostitutes abandoning outdoor business for its decriminalized -- and safer -- counterpart.
What I am sure of is that your body belongs to you, and the government has no business prosecuting consenting adults who choose to exchange money for services, unless they are putting a hit out on someone or otherwise hurting a non-consenting person.
Can we open a house next to your own?
I had a neighbor who brought those people around for a while. It was not cute, even in the freewheeling libertarian sense. It was pathetic, and it was dangerous.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at July 18, 2014 10:43 PM
There are often prohibitions on businesses located in houses that bring in traffic to a residential area.
Why was it "dangerous"?
Amy Alkon at July 19, 2014 5:34 AM
And isn't your real problem with the fact that prostitution is illegal and thus utterly unregulated?
Amy Alkon at July 19, 2014 5:35 AM
Been around neighbors that were almost 24/7 "party" places and it is not fun.
Unlike "swingers" the people were not concerned about kids in the street, people walking their dogs, not dumping their beer cans, etc. in the street, and so on.
Loud talking/radios at all hours of the night was the least of it and male agressiveness was mostly the worst. You could live with it but ...
I don't give a flying f#$% what people do as long as it is respectful of people and the area. None of these have anything to do w/the law.
Bob in Texas at July 19, 2014 7:22 AM
A form of prostitution called marriage has been legal for centuries.
Its just another form of established businesses trying to make competitors illegal
lujlp at July 19, 2014 7:50 AM
Can't let a woman think she owns her own life. She might decide to get an education or something "dysgenic".
http://alphagameplan.blogspot.com/2014/07/female-education-is-dysgenic.html
(I am pretty sure Alpha Game is not a parody site)
parabarbarian at July 19, 2014 10:48 AM
In countries where it has been decriminalized, problems like having a brothel in the middle of a residential area, or street-prostitution-related problems, were actually reduced, because it becomes easier to establish them in more suitable locations (and to regulate the problem cases, because you know where it's happening). Decriminalization has seen positive results in all countries where it's been done.
Lobster at July 19, 2014 10:53 AM
> Can't let a woman think she owns her own life
Indeed, the key problem with criminalization of sex work is that you're engaging in violence against an adult for making mutually consensual decisions with another adult, for a victimless "crime". Arresting a woman at gunpoint and throwing her in jail for a victimless crime is just barbarism.
Lobster at July 19, 2014 10:57 AM
> barbarism
IIRC Crid (? I might be wrong - might have been someone else) disagrees with the use of this term. However, - it is correct to call a spade a spade, and it is also correct to call barbarism, barbarism.
Lobster at July 19, 2014 10:59 AM
Just to point out that the frequency of particular crimes in a municipality of modest dimensions can bounce around quite a bit and it is sometimes a challenge to disentangle causes. The median of rape rates recorded in Providence each year over the period running from 2000 through 2012 is 49.4 per 100,000. The rate in 2012 was 47.2 per 100,000. A trough after 2005 was followed by an increase in recent years. Note also that the median index crime rate for Providence for the period running from 2000 through 2003 was 635 per 100,000 while that from 2004 through 2012 was 450 per 100,000. The corresponding figures for rape were 62.4 per 100,000 (2000-03) and 36.0 per 100,000 (2004-12). Your registered decline in rape (42%) occurred in the context of a 30% decline of crime in general. Lots of other things going on. DNA testing does provide a special deterrent to crimes where leaving biological material behind is standard.
Art Deco at July 19, 2014 11:37 AM
> Why was it "dangerous"?
Because it attends (and constrains) women in cultures of exploitation and submission. It is, quite literally, fucking primitive.
> And isn't your real problem with the fact
> that prostitution is illegal and thus
> utterly unregulated?
No, Amy, that's not my 'real problem.' Those who remember the summer between sixth grade and seventh should consider themselves excused from the chore of identifying the 'real problem' of others.
My problem with it is that it's goddamn despicable. It's an "issue" by which those who select beliefs & postures to flatter themselves as daring and novel will squander vast fortunes of credibility in short sentences; and for which the impoverished will expose the enduring crux of the penury.
> She might decide to get an education
> or something
The last thing we need to worry about with whores is that they'll sneak off and do some academic booklarnin'.
> Indeed, the key problem with criminalization
Christ you are a pompous little ninny.
> prostitution called marriage has
> been legal for
If you had married friends, they've presumably told you to go fuck yourself; so it's circuitously certain that you do not.
Very good! Hands down. Now...O.K., show of hands!
Anyone? In the back, anybody? Is (knock, knock) this thing on?
Well then!
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at July 19, 2014 11:48 AM
Cranston, Pawtucket, and Woonsocket saw large declines in rape vis a vis other crimes (approx 40%). Warwick and East Providence saw no decline at all.
Art Deco at July 19, 2014 11:55 AM
Let's put yo' Moma to work first, Arty. On the neighborhood's behalf…
Or perhaps we already have.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at July 19, 2014 12:09 PM
Let's put yo' Moma to work first, Arty.
Why?
Art Deco at July 19, 2014 1:07 PM
Because I thought you were making excuses.
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at July 19, 2014 1:20 PM
It's just jaw-droppingly weird that Amy thinks what really needs to happen in today's rockin' American economic scene —even in this most savage of contexts— is more "regulation."
We're supposed to want to "regulate" prostitutes, because regulation makes things more better.
Also, the "barbarism" will be withdrawn on Lobster's block starting tonight, Saturday night, at 7:00pm EST.
Seventy minutes away, boys! Hi thee to the ATM for a stack of crisp twenties, then line up in Lobster's driveway. Lobster will happily pat you on the back and point you to the next-door-neighbor's house, and that's where the fun really begins!
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at July 19, 2014 2:49 PM
IJS, if you're a screamer, it's OK with Lobster... Do what you need to do, OK? Because "barbarism" should not be a problem.
> I don't give a flying f#$% what people do
> as long as it is respectful of people and
> the area. None of these have anything to
> do w/the law.
Right, but have you noticed that the neighborhoods with prostitution are never, ever, even by the slightest happenstance, the ones with quaint little boutiques and antique shops and ice cream parlors?
I always liked this from Cosh, reflecting on the words of another etiquette columnist:
Crid [CridComment at Gmail] at July 19, 2014 2:59 PM
As I recall crid, you were quite vocal of he fact that you've never bothered to read any studies, or any thing written by hookers themselves before you formed your opinion.
So I got to ask, other than your dislike of the idea in particular, and more than likely sex an women in general, what is your opinion based on?
lujlp at July 19, 2014 4:50 PM
I have been reminded by this topic to recommend the blog "Grace Undressed". Google please.
Radwaste at July 20, 2014 4:35 PM
Is commerce really the worst reason people decide to have sex?
(And vis a vis regulation: Outlawing something is the ultimate regulation, is it not? Legalizing and regulating would be a lesser form of regulation, and thus a liberalization (in the classical sense of the word)).
Farmer Joe at July 20, 2014 8:14 PM
Leave a comment