The seedy side does exist, but it is based on the desperation of the supplier not the buyer. That seedyness exists in all fields when someone gets that desperate. Sex is not unique.

The real issue people have is with men escaping. Look at the issue of publishing John's names. We don't publish the name of every petty thief. We rarely publish the name of the prostitute because that is just free advertising. We do publish the names of very violent or noteworthy criminals. In what way do John's fit that description? Who is being harmed and what is the harm that justifies this additional attention? Some claim they are harming their family. If they are single as Amy's friend was this argument falls apart. If they are married and have children publishing only compounds the harm.

Great points, Ben -- especially on the harm by publishing.

It goes all ways. I'm perfectly willing to believe that the high-end escort business is pretty civilized. However, there are also the streets in certain cities with the young, desperate girls leaning on the lamp posts. Exploited by their pimps, on the run from abusive parents, addicted to drugs - that is not civilized at all.

I agree that sex between consenting adults is none of the government's business. Paying an escort is probably more honest than hooking up at a bar. I do believe the objection to sex workers is part of our puritan history: the fear that someone, somewhere might be having a good time.

However, as a separate problem: what do you do about the exploited girls?

I've long been an advocate of legalized prostitution. Just open brothels up. Do like the ones in Nevada where the women are safe, have good medical care, disease screening and make a very nice wage. It's a win-win, in my opinion.

However, as a separate problem: what do you do about the exploited girls?

While it is a problem it is no where near the size those profiting from the prohibition would like you to believe.

First you have to find such girls. And given the choice between jail time and a diversion program that requires you to claim you were trafficked or raped (regardless of the truth of those facts) what would you choose?

That skews the stats. Claiming any pro who crosses state, or national, boarders is trafficked, even if they moved themselves skews the stats.

Claiming every "child" under 25 living within this zone
https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/styles/scale_1200w/public/wysiwyg/constitutionfreezonemap.jpg?itok=umNWZ7vX

is in danger of being trafficked skews the stats

Ben

"Publishing the name of prostitutes is free advertising"

Gross. First of all law enforcement publishes the names of sex workers arrested all the time.

We don't work under our real names because of the stigma and risk of violence/stalking/ damage to our "straight" careers, families, etc.

Publishing the names of people merely arrested for crimes should disturb everyone. That is punishment before conviction pure & simple.

Your suggestion that doing it to sex workers merely constitutes free advertising is disturbing. It reflects an underlying bias toward dehumanizing people who sell sex.

-

"However, as a separate problem: what do you do about the exploited girls?"

It is more difficult to exploit a freeman.

Do you imagine if there were legal outlets for this stuff that exploitation would be more difficult? That the relationship with pimps would change or disappear?

If you have options, you are less likely to stay in a bad situation, particularly if you have other people willing to help you out.

Keeping it all illegal keeps those girls down...
It may be designed that way, from the get-go.

For a guy in a situation where he is craving a woman, society [maybe puritanism][maybe women themselves] want to control how that is expressed, for that is how they control him.
Why would a man work so hard for other people if not for that. Why would he marry?

I think men would actually work hard, and probably marry... but it would be more of a persuading situation, rather than a demanding one...

I don't know if the scolds could deal with that. For that reason I will be curious to see if they outlaw pleasurebots before they get going...

Imagine if your options are: someone who you have arguments with, and who is withholding sex from you, or a robot with minimal movements, but that you can project your interests and fantasies on without complaint.

Only an idiot would choose abuse.

Also, if I wasn't an utter cheapskate, I might look for companionship too. It isn't JUST about beast with two backs, but also someone who you connect with for a short amount of time, who is pleasant because you are paying them to be.

I remember this from when I'se a kid:

Asking only workman's wages
I come looking for a job,
But I get no offers,
Just a come-on from the whores
On Seventh Avenue
I do declare,
There were times when I was so lonesome
I took some comfort there.

didn't really understand it, till I was older...

There is an Elton John song for every occasion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up-q544g4sE

There is an Elton John song for every occasion

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=up-q544g4sE

"We don't work under our real names because of the stigma and risk of violence/stalking/ damage to our "straight" careers, families, etc."

Like Amy's friend, but old and divorced. Stopped by fear of getting arrested and name published. Can afford professional and want professional, not a street addict. Have been a Libertarian since early 70's, but don't see prostitution being available or allowed in my lifetime. Nevada too far.

"However, as a separate problem: what do you do about the exploited girls?"

I can tell you what they did with them in south Florida in the 1980s: they let the strip clubs hire them. The tacit understanding was the the clubs would get them off the street and make sure they were safe, which they pretty much did. The clubs put them up in apartments, made sure the fridge was stocked and the bills were paid, and that there was someone living nearby who would keep an eye on them.

Dirty little secret: A lot of them wanted to prostitute. They saw it as easy money. Plus, a lot of them had issues with men and they saw it as a way to exploit men to get back at them for some real or imagined insult. Since many were underage, the clubs would, when necessary, physically restrain them from doing so. They'd put someone on watch of their door to make sure they didn't go out after their shift at the club was done. The clubs had a pretty strict look-but-don't-touch policy; they didn't have "champagne rooms" where sex could take place. The rationale behind all this was that the clubs got the young women who pulled in the most money, while the police were relieved to see them off the streets. As I said, most were underage and easily exploitable.

There is a lot of misconception about prostitution and pimps, much done by Hollywood. I recommend taking a look at Freakenomics which did an interesting look at the subject in their book.
Some can be found on line http://freakonomics.com/2009/11/18/superfreakonomics-book-club-ask-sudhir-venkatesh-about-street-prostitution/

"Of all the tricks turned by the prostitutes he tracked, roughly 3 percent were freebies given to police officers. The data don’t lie: a Chicago street prostitute is more likely to have sex with a cop than to be arrested by one."

"Gross. First of all law enforcement publishes the names of sex workers arrested all the time."
"Your suggestion that doing it to sex workers merely constitutes free advertising is disturbing. It reflects an underlying bias toward dehumanizing people who sell sex."

Abby, you are a moron.

One, I was talking about the news papers. They don't publish every hooker's name and address. Many of them do for their customers. There is only one reason for this, to punish those men.

Two, publishing it for the women would be advertising. There is nothing dehumanizing about that. If you have a business you need to advertise to attract customers. News papers are in the business of selling advertising space. Most of them see no reason to hand out that space for free. It may be greedy but it isn't dehumanizing. I recognize it may not be the advertising some would prefer to get.

Three, did I advocate publishing anyone's name? No! They should wait till a conviction and probably not even then. Non-violent sex crimes are hardly anyone else's business.

Random,

Why do you only focus on the girls? There are men in equally desperate situations doing equally degrading and soul destroying work. Most of them can't work in the sex trade because there aren't enough buyers. But if there was a market for it they would. Why not work on helping anyone?

Ben: "We rarely publish the name of the prostitute because that is just free advertising."

Bullshit.

I used to work in health services in a big jail, mostly in the booking area at night. I had the opportunity to meet and talk to more than 1,000 women arrested for prostitution. Most of them were arrested for hooking on the street. A lot of them were "massage therapists" or worked in spas. Some called themselves escorts. I don't think I met more than a couple dozen who considered themselves to be prostitutes or professional sex workers. Mostly they were just trying to get money to buy drugs (crack whores), pay bills or get through a tough time - just survive. And I don't think there was a single one who thought it would be good for her to have it "advertised" in the newspaper that she'd been arrested for prostitution - any more than it would be good for someone to have it "advertised" that they'd been arrested for drug dealing or sex trafficking. Many suffered quite a lot of anxiety over the possibility of being "advertised".

The one who was the most "professional" was a well groomed, tastefully and modestly dressed, well mannered and tactful, beautiful, sexy (not vulgar or slutty), blue-eyed, blonde 22-year-old who was in high demand at $400 per hour (this was in 1999). She was intelligent, educated (psychology), well trained (she told me she had an older mentor who'd been guiding her since she was 16) and highly skilled; she was self-employed, it was her only job and she made lots of money (In contrast to her strikingly attractive outward presentation she was also a sociopath - something I was glad to be aware of when interacting with her) She considered herself to be a "professional escort", and very emotionally objected to being labelled a prostitute, because, she told me, it upset her father whom she loved dearly. She was a frequent flyer at the jail - arrested eight times over two years, but never charged, never stayed overnight, and never paid bail. Her name was often "advertised" in the newspapers, which she really, really, really didn't like - probably because of her professional relationships with members of the political establishment and law enforcement community, which was also mentioned in the "free advertising". Her boyfriend, who was also her "agent" (pimp), also worked in law enforcement until their relationship was "advertised" in the newspaper and he was forced to resign.

Ben: "...desperate situations... degrading and soul destroying work."

Based on my limited experience - having only one point of view: healthcare provider in a big jail - I'd say that's a pretty accurate descriptor for most of the people doing it, both male and female. It makes me sad.

I am reminded of the Charlie Sheen quote, which approximately says that he doesn't pay women for sex - he pays them to leave.

Ok Ken, then why do some newspapers publish lists of johns but not lists of prostitutes? Or is my experience atypical? Are there many papers that publish lists of prostitutes but don't publish their customers? Honestly I've never seen one but it isn't like I'm actively searching for one either.

Also, there is good reason for jails to have a public record of who is in them. We don't want people vanishing. But most of us don't read the local jail records.

"Ok Ken, then why do some newspapers publish lists of johns but not lists of prostitutes? "

I think it varies from place to place. I don't recall the newspapers where I live ever publishing the names of arrested prostitutes. But I've lived some other places where they did. Or maybe they only published the names of streetwalkers, but not women arrested in houses. TV news here used to run a few "wanted" spots every day. You'd see people wanted for "failure to appear" and clearly some of them were prostitutes, but they didn't say that. (But if they were also wanted for drug charges, they'd say that.)

@"what do you do about the exploited girls?"

Apart from the "exploitedness" being exaggerated and sensationalized (stop believing everything the media says, and actually go out and talk to some of these girls), the reason why any "exploitation" is possible is precisely because their work is criminalized ... they can't turn to the legal system for protection, but instead must fear it ... that is what allows shady pimps to do things like take passports. If it was decriminalized, then for any actual 'exploitation' they could simply go file charges at a police station and the cops would do what they're actually supposed to do and that is protect victims from criminals .... now what's happening is cops victimize them because they have power over them, e.g. cops threaten arrest and in exchange for sexual favors let the girls go. Decriminalization would solve all of this.

Ben: "Ok Ken, then why do some newspapers publish lists of johns but not lists of prostitutes?"

I don't know the answer to that. I know that some news organizations publish mugshots on their websites that include women arrested for prostitution. But I haven't seen lists or press releases specifically naming prostitutes, male or female, who were busted in a sting like they do with johns.

Frequently at the jail where I worked, a couple of uniformed cops and a good looking young female cop in a whore costume would bring in a dozen or so johns in handcuffs, all linked together on a chain like a string of unhappy fish. The next day the police department that busted them would put out a press release naming all of them, what they did for a living, whether they were married, and any other information the public might find amusing.

I'm sure the reason they did that was to publicly shame them and deter other men from seeking prostitutes.

Every john I ever saw in that jail and another one that I worked in was some working class guy who'd been caught cruising for a hooker on the street. These are guys who wanted to pay $20 or $30 for a blow job or other quick encounter, and then be on their way to a bar or home. They were never the guys who pay hundreds of dollars for "massage therapists", "spa technicians" or "escorts", for hours, or an evening, or particular services or whatever.

Some of the escorts, like the one I described above, actually did have little black books with names and information about clients. That particular escort's book actually had details about clients' sexual preferences and fetishes, e.g. "likes it rough", "likes spanking naughty girl". News reports about her (she became quite notorious) described some of those details, but never named any of her clients. And police never arrested any of them, not even on one occasion when vice cops waited an hour and a half in the lobby of a hotel for her to finish with a customer who paid her $600. They followed her car for 20 miles, while the john had plenty of time to get well away, then arrested her. They brought her to jail, and six hours later she was out without bail, and well on her way. However that incident did result in her boyfriend resigning from his job with a law enforcement agency. She was arrested for prostitution, and both of them for money laundering, but the charges were soon dropped.

In this state, at that time (I don't know about now), someone who knowingly exposed another person to a deadly disease could be charged with first degree assault. A few times, men with HIV have been prosecuted and/or sent to prison for not telling their female sex partners they had it (every case I heard of involved a male perpetrator and multiple female victims) Several of the hookers I saw in the jail had HIV and a few had AIDS, knew they had it, and were still hooking. Many of them had hepatitis C. I couldn't get anyone with the authority to do something about it the least bit interested in doing anything.

I don't doubt any of the facts you write Ken. And all of it is corruption. As you say, trying to shame and punish men but only as long as they are the wrong kind of men. If they are rich and powerful then a different set of rules apply.

And a lot of that falls under discretion. It is basic human nature to act in your own self interest. So when public officials have discretion it should not be surprising they use it to better themselves and their friends. When the federal reserve talks about retaining some discretion I get chills. What they are really saying is they want to try and manipulate the economy to take money from people they don't like and give it to people they do like.