I am not interested in women just because they’re women. I am interested, however, in seeing that they are no longer classed with children and minors. – Crystal Eastman
Even when one already knows something, it’s good to get validation from others. And when one is beset by enemies on all sides, particularly ruthless enemies who are willing not only to lie but to distort or completely fabricate bogus “research” to support their lies, every extra bit of academic research which soundly supports one’s position is another arrow in one’s quiver. But given the current anti-prostitution political climate it takes guts and an unwavering respect for the truth to dare to publish an academic paper which refutes the government’s position, so I was very pleased when Dave Krueger sent me this link to the University of Arkansas Newswire last Tuesday (as it turns out Brandy Devereaux had already posted about it two days earlier, but I was busy when I got the notice and forgot to check it later when I had time). In any case, an economist at the University of Arkansas has shown on paper what we’ve been saying for decades: most women who enter prostitution choose the work for the same reasons people choose any other job.
…A new study by an economics researcher at the University of Arkansas analyzes the U.S. prostitution market and provides policy recommendations to increase safety for women and communities…Contrary to assumptions that women enter the prostitution market only because they are desperate – that they need money to pay bills or buy drugs – the study indicates that many women, especially educated, affluent women, are making a rational decision to enter certain segments of the prostitution market…“Our model demonstrated that the prostitution market may be pulling educated women – these so-called ‘high-opportunity-cost’ women – out of the conventional labor market and the marriage market, in many cases,” said Jennifer Hafer
, a doctoral student in the Graduate School of Business at the University of Arkansas. “The findings suggest that these women are not forced into the prostitution market but rather choose to enter it for many of the same reasons that people enter the conventional job market – money, stability, autonomy and even job satisfaction”…Hafer…examined high- and low-quality markets within the various types of legal and illegal prostitution, which includes high-end escorts, call girls, brothel prostitutes, streetwalkers and women who advertise prostitution on the Internet. The model allowed her to examine the type of market a woman would enter and how variables such as morals, effort, health risks, stigma, earnings and the probability of getting caught in an illegal activity influence a woman’s decision.
…opportunity cost refers to what is lost by choosing one out of two or more alternatives. It refers to the benefits one could have received by taking an alternative action. For this study, factors that influenced opportunity cost for a woman were education, training, access to both physical and social resources, access to the marriage market and family background variables such as type of household, the neighborhood one grew up in and education level of parents. So, women with high-opportunity cost had greater access to or benefited from these variables. The model revealed that high-opportunity-cost women – affluent and educated women with strong family backgrounds and access to resources – may be choosing to enter the high-quality illegal prostitution market, via a high-end escort service or through the Internet. These women would not enter the legal prostitution market, according to the model. Women with low-opportunity costs – that is, women with less education and economic opportunities – choose to enter the low-quality legal market – the brothels in the Nevada counties…Considering the finding that low-opportunity-cost women chose the legal market, Hafer pondered reasons for the existence of the illegal market for these women. There are significant entry barriers to legal brothel prostitution, such as licensing, which might include background and health checks, house rules that the women must follow, such as prohibition of drugs, and, perhaps most significantly, the fact that brothels are located only in Nevada, many miles away from a woman’s support network…Based purely on the outcomes of the model, brothel prostitution should be legalized and regulated in expanded locations. Her policy attention to escort and Internet prostitution focused on regulation, such as licensing, health testing and possibly taxation, as a means to ensure safety and security for both the prostitute and the consumer. For the escort and Internet markets to be regulated, they must be legalized…
The one major flaw in Hafer’s conclusions (which should be readily apparent) is that legalization would still create a black market for the exact same reasons 70% of Nevada prostitutes prefer to work illegally: namely, the onerous requirements imposed by legalization, which as Hafer demonstrates make it unappealing for women who have other choices. But this is a minor detail, especially considering that laws in this country are never based on scholarly recommendations. What’s important is that yet another source (besides the testimony of thousands of escorts) has refuted the oft-repeated prohibitionist claim that “no woman would voluntarily choose prostitution.”
In my limited time in the hobby, I have had the pleasure of meeting with about a dozen different women ranging in age from 20-44. In every case, these woman love their chosen work. They love meeting new people, they enjoy the community that develops around it on the message boards, and they love the activities themselves since they’re just as horny if not more so than the men. They’re independent and work when they want, and don’t work when they don’t want to.
Every single woman i have been with has been smart, savvy, and knows what they want out of life. They know the risks so they do everything they can to minimize them through proper screening, with safety & discretion being of the utmost importance to them. Anybody who thinks otherwise is a misinformed fool.
Real life has no place in the prohibitionist mindset, only their sense of moral outrage and the need to display & enforce their
morality upon everyone else. They could never fathom that any woman would actually enjoy doing this and spend their lives trying to save them. Ultimately, they’re the ones who become caught in uncompromising situations exposing their hypocrisy for all to see.
I think, simply put, it’s denial. They don’t want to believe therefore it doesn’t matter how many studies, how many of us wave our arms in front of them, they still look past us and to what they prefer to believe in. We know trafficking exists, we don’t deny that, yet we (those who choose) also exist. Why do they deny our existence?
I came across this blog post today: http://sextraffickingresearch.blogspot.com/2011/05/our-choice-of-words.html who states:
“What comes to mind more than likely is a woman who is willingly participating in the sex industry. As if it were a profession: a choice. Prostitute is used like the word “doctor” or “lawyer”: “shes a prostitute.” However, these words fail to depict reality correctly. What seems to be a willing participant more often is a victim of sex trafficking and exploitation- an unwilling woman who is commercially raped. The words act as a white-washer, as a means to “normalize prostitution”. ”
Oiy, so annoying. I’ve spoken with her before. She knows that there are women willing to do this, yet it appears she is still denying that fact (as does other Farleys).
Classic case of “never let the facts get in the way of a good opinion.”
We happy hookers fuck with their worldview. People don’t like that.
My research does not focus on people who are willing to sell their bodies for money. That is neither my focus nor my purpose of my studies. I accept the decision and am very aware of this. However, my blog is dedicated to researching and exploring sexual exploitation of women and children. You do not fall into this category- as it seems and you should consider yourself blessed. But it seems to me that you feel the need to defend yourself, to let yourself be heard and understood.
I would be really interested in hearing from you about your views on sexual exploitation in the US and how to discuss the issue without losing sight of people such as you that choose this lifestyle.
Thanks,
M
Hello, M! The major problem with the current “trafficking” hysteria is that, like all moral panics, it does not limit itself to truth. Though I am sure that there are others like yourself who have no problem with voluntary adult prostitution, the sad fact is that the vast majority of those who claim to be interested in fighting “trafficking” are actually just anti-prostitution crusaders looking for an excuse to circumvent civil liberties arguments by incessantly crying “it’s for the children”! Only a tiny percentage (about 3.5%) of all prostitutes are underage, and only a tiny percentage (about 1.5%) of all adult prostitutes are coerced, yet over and over the excuse legislators use for increasingly-harsh laws against prostitutes and our customers is the “fight against trafficking”, which is rather like banning automobiles because some people drive drunk.
Adult prostitutes have said over and over and over again that the best way to fight coerced prostitution is to decriminalize the act itself; if that were done adult prostitutes could report men who try to coerce them, and pimps would no longer be able to threaten women with the police. And the ridiculous idea that clients should be criminalized needs to be buried immediately; if men cannot talk to the police without fear of arrest they cannot report being offered underage girls by shady brothels or pimps.
There is at least one prominent authority in the sex trafficking field who understands all this; I suggest you read “Sex Trafficking: The Abolitionist Fallacy” by Ann Jordan.
One final thing I’d like to say: If you truly wish to hear from voluntary sex workers and to open a meaningful dialog with them, I suggest cleansing insulting language like “selling their bodies for money” out of your vocabulary. This phrase is sexist nonsense; it pretends that a woman has nothing to offer the world other than sex, so if she sells sex she is selling “herself”, as though she was nothing but sex. It’s also an insult to customers; I can assure you that a prostitute who does nothing but lie there as an inert “body” will soon have no customers. Men do not want to rent a set of holes; they want a service like any other service. Do we refer to massage as “selling hands for money” or physical labor as “selling a back for money”? Of course not. Finally, the phrase is totally irrational; when a person “sells” something its ownership changes hands. The only way to “sell one’s body for money” would be by using some sort of soul transference like in a horror movie, or perhaps a brain transplant as in science fiction. If my spirit and mind still inhabit my body after the transaction I certainly didn’t “sell” it; I merely performed a service for pay, like anyone else might do with any other service.
I’m not trying to be hard on you; I just want you to understand how patronizing and moralistic phrases like that sound to us. Another example is calling prostitution a “lifestyle”; nobody calls being an accountant or a barber or a professional athlete a “lifestyle”,and prostitution isn’t either. It’s a job, a means of securing the income one needs to live as one wishes to live. I think I can speak for the great majority of whores when I say that prostitution isn’t our lifestyle, it’s our means of funding a lifestyle. My life is what I do when I’m not at work!
Hi Maggie,
Sorry for the delay in contact, I wanted to make sure I had time to dedicate to your answer and my response. Anyways, I speak for myself, but in all the people I’ve met and worked with on combating sexual exploitation and sex trafficking, I have never met anyone whose intention was to combat prostitution as a whole; they choose to fight coerced prostitution. I am not sure where your assumption is coming from and maybe you have met anti-trafficking fighters whose real intention is to extinguish prostitution as whole. I think maybe the book you suggested may give me more insight into this but if you wouldn’t mind, I would like to understand your view.
Before I get much further, the pressing issue is that of my language usage in my last comment. Thank you for pointing those out for me and please continue to do so if I unintentionally offend you. I need to make a clear distinction in my head of those who are willingly prostituting themselves and those who are forced to do so. Because for me the term ‘selling one’s body” is applicable for prostituted women, but I see where I made the mistake of assuming it was applicable in all cases.
I would really like to see where you got those statistics (3.5% and 1.5%) from, just so I can better understand the data. I think we are seeing things from two different sides. I feel as though my research and my intentions are to stop the crime of sexual exploitation while you and the earlier commenter is seeking understanding in society’s eyes for your profession of choice. I do understand how it probably seems that people who choose prostitution as a job are overlook, and even threatened. My intent is not to look past you but to stop the injustice that is happening along the world in your profession. I have a preconceived idea of your viewpoint on sexual exploitation so I would like you to explain to me what you think about it and the (un)importance of combating it.
Also, if you could elaborate on your comment about not persecuting men. If a client is using a trafficked or exploited prostituted woman you don’t think he should be charged? Or are you saying that the generalization of the criminalization doesn’t account for men who are using prostitutes who choose to be with them.
Also, I am assuming that you would agree with my assumption that you choose to pursue prostitution, not that it was a forced profession. But if you think of the structural and societal restrictions and boundaries you live(d), do you feel like you had choice… would you choose to do something different with your life- did you ever wish for a different career but were not able to achieve it?
If any of these questions are unnecessary or you don’t feel like answering them, I understand. Just trying to understand this viewpoint. Thanks so much for your time.
A lot of them don’t admit it, and a lot of them don’t realize they’re doing it. The Christian anti-traffickers have the typical moralistic opposition, the neofeminist people were fighting prostitution long before the phrase “human trafficking” was even invented, and the bogus statistics (80% coerced, indeed) tell the rest of the tale. If you aren’t opposed to prostitution as a whole you are in the minority.
It’s never applicable; unless ownership changes hands nothing is “sold”, and a true slave doesn’t sell herself because it’s someone else who’s doing the selling. You did just use another offensive term, though; “prostituted women” is a term used by neofeminists (my term for radical anti-sex feminists) to rob us of agency and portray us all as passive victims that something is “done to” rather than adult women who make our own decisions, good or bad. It’s a highly paternalistic, judgmental term which basically says “I know what’s good for you”,and if you want to be a real ally to sex workers (voluntary or coerced) it’s a term you definitely want to avoid. “Sex workers” is about the most neutral term you can use, because it recognizes that our work is indeed work. Even enslaved agricultural workers and miners are still called “workers”; only prostitutes are denied that dignity.
The only good, solid, country-wide data on sex workers can come from countries in which prostitution is decriminalized, and of those countries only New Zealand has undertaken a country-wide study. So I used these statistics to perform an analysis on the American data in my column of January 24th, with corroborating data from a second source described on April 20th. The 1.5% pimp figure was determined from the fraction of Western prostitutes who are streetwalkers (15% and falling fast; it’s down to 2% in Queensland, Australia) multiplied by the percentage of streetwalkers who have pimps (about 50%), modified by the number who are controlled by the pimps rather than vice-versa; I discuss the figures in my column of July 27th. The figures may be too high, since a recent study by John Jay College shows that only 16% of underage streetwalkers have even met a pimp, much less worked with one.
Not in our profession,but rather to our profession. Nobody wants to ban agriculture, mining and garment manufacture despite the fact that those industries are polluted by slavery, but let there be one enslaved prostitute and suddenly it’s our fault and we need to be banned. There is no moral difference between enslaving someone to work in a field, a mine, a sweatshop, a brothel or a house, yet the rescue industry in Southeast Asia is trying desperately to push women from being free prostitutes into working in sweatshops because prostitution offends their morals while wage slavery does not.
Client criminalization schemes are counterproductive because they prevent men from reporting the offer of underage girls. Most such schemes do not differentiate between voluntary and involuntary prostitution, the “Swedish Model” so beloved of neofeminists and many trafficking fanatics specifically teaches that there is no such thing as voluntary prostitution. In the UK scheme, clients are criminalized based on police determinations of whether a woman is “trafficked” no matter what she herself says, which is rather like arresting a man for beating his wife even if she has no bruises and says he did no such thing. This is not about “saving” or “protecting” anyone; it’s just tyranny.
I have a Master’s Degree in Library Science, sugar; I could go back to work as a librarian any time I like. I chose prostitution because it was more lucrative and gave me control of my own time and work conditions, and I’m not remotely alone in that. You may be interested in my short autobiography starting last July 28th, and the studies cited in my column of April 3rd.
I think you are looking too much at yourself and the other women like you and are avoiding the center of the issue that I am tackling. You are failing to acknowledge the issue at hand, and are replacing it with concern for yourself and people like you. There are people that are sold, so “selling ones body” happens, along with pimps selling a girls or woman’s body to a man. I have been trying to understand your viewpoint but you have made no stance to acknowledge the other viewpoint.
There is a serious issue going on in our states and country and world and it seems to me all you can do it get upset at a misinterpretation of prostitutes. I get it, I get that prostitution jobs like yours exists. But I do not find it a topic to study or research since you are not suffering and you are not a victim or survivor of sexual assault or rape ( I am assuming since you are willingly in this profession).I think you are failing to realize my work is not about you, its about victims.
“to rob us of agency and portray us all as passive victims that something is “done to” rather than ADULT women who make our own decisions, good or bad” You also keep talking about women and the choice of women. I am not, my view is focused on girls to the greater extent and women to the lesser extent.
And while, I don’t agree with your choice in profession, I do not feel it is my place to deny you that right or to pass judgement on you as a whole.
What I do not understand is how you can stand your ground in your views when you hear about the hideous crimes being done to women and girls from pimping and prostitution.
And just a further small comment on the domestic violence, I have been working with survivors of domestic violence for over three years and abuse isn’t just a bruise, there are three forms of abuse: physical, emotional and financial.
No, you’ve reversed it; you’re pretending that the norm is the exception and vice versa. The United States is the only Western country which totally suppresses prostitution and pretends that sex is somehow an exception to every rule. Voluntary adult prostitution is the norm, whether you admit it or not; that is a FACT, not a “viewpoint”; reality is not subject to “viewpoints”. And your terminology is absurd; if I sell a goat to someone, would you say the goat “sold itself”? Of course not. A slave does not “sell herself”; she is sold by someone else.
How can you continue to drive a car when you hear about the hideous crimes done with cars? How can you continue to support the police when you hear about the hideous crimes committed by police? Many more people are injured in car accidents every year than are harmed by prostitution, and many, many, MANY more people are abused by cops than by “pimps” (who are so rare that most working girls have never even met one). The mistake you are making is equating prostitution with slavery; they are NOT the same any more than farming, mining, domestic service and garment industry work are slavery. It is NOT prostitution which causes harm; it is slavery, no matter how the slaves are employed.
I do believe that you’re sincerely concerned about underage girls being forced into prostitution, but until you realize how small a number of such girls there actually are, and how criminalization hurts them worse than any pimp, you will never achieve your goal. Knowledge is power, and clinging to delusions and exaggerations wastes energy and resources which could be helping the people who actually need your help.
If I may, I’d like to tell a little story to demonstrate how criminalization hurts underaged girls who are forced into prostitution. Please understand that the following tale is fiction, but it makes the point.
I am a businessman and I travel as part of my work. I am sent to New Orleans (Maggie’s old stomping grounds; never been there IRL myself) for two days. Ah, but I love that city! I’ve worked up some time off, so I arrange to stay in the Big Easy (I have no idea why they call it that) for an extra day, and I don’t need to do a blessed thing that day, work-wise.
So of course I contact an agency and hire a call girl. I tell them I want a girl who is all natural, slender, a bit short (I’m not that tall myself), and she doesn’t have to have big boobs. I don’t say anything about age, but kind of assume that the woman who shows up will be in her mid-twenties.
The girl who shows up… She ain’t in her mid-twenties. In fact, there’s no way I can make myself believe that she’s eighteen. I’m not sure she’s fourteen. I was not expecting this.
When I try to decline and pay her a cancellation fee, she gets a very scared look on her face and promises, almost frantically, to make me very, very happy. I end up paying full price, but I can’t bring myself to have sex with her. We watch some TV, and it’s very tense. When she leaves, do I call the cops to report a case of underaged prostitution and possible sex slavery?
Are you out of your fracking MIND!?! Hell no I don’t call the police and tell them that I’ve committed a crime (which I did when I tried to procure a prostitute for myself, of any age). Maybe if I can find some anonymous way to do it, or maybe I ask my lawyer what my chances of getting immunity are (I’d really like to help this poor girl).
And that is how criminalization hurts underaged, trafficked girls.
Now, if adult voluntary prostitution were legal, I could call the cops and say, “Hey, I just had Pretty Baby Escort Service send over a hooker, and there ain’t no way she was eighteen. Called herself ‘Violet,’ and I don’t think she’s there by choice. You guys need to check that place out. What? No, I didn’t do her! I was hiring a grown woman, or at least trying to, all nice and legal.”
Dear M, THANK YOU SO MUCH for pointing out the types of abuse! I was verbally and emotionally abused by 1 parent up to age 24 and the effects of this were/are devastating. I was also verbally sexually abused and that literally turned me frigid. That’s how DAMAGING words are, ESPECIALLY from parents. I blamed myself for turning frigid (which is something many abused people do because of how it slowly destroys your self-esteem). I was blown away to learn it was DONE to me instead. HOWEVER, and I imagine you know this very well: it was UP TO ME to work on FIXING IT. If a drunk driver hits me with their car, the driver is completely at fault, but what happens if I don’t go to the doctor, don’t work on my anger and upset, etc.? I then self-destruct! I don’t physically heal OR mentally heal. Yes, I AM technically a victim of the driver, but if I don’t work on healing, then I STAY A VICTIM in my mind and body. Anyway, I get so tired of “don’t let words bother you”. Really? Please tell that to the victims of abuse (like me) who have effects in their lives for years, etc. Words can devastate ESPECIALLY from a parent OR other people in our families and/or even non-family members who are in our lives to any degree. I’m very glad you know and have taken the time/effort to LEARN THIS. The truth is until people work on recovery for a while their self-esteem isn’t going to be raised and they’re going to take words too much to heart. This is 1 of the worst effects of abuse! Anyway, thank you again. I commend you for the wonderful work you do with abused people! Every person who helps in this area even a little bit is wonderful and every little bit helps! There’s not enough people helping, but I say give credit where it’s due and thank God for those who are, even a little bit.
And while, I don’t agree with your choice in profession, I do not feel it is my place to deny you that right or to pass judgement on you as a whole.-Dear M, but, I thought all people who feel this way are literally spending all the time they can literally ordering people around? Out on the streets, etc., literally screaming at prostitutes: STOP what you’re doing NOW. You’re SCUM, etc., etc. I imagine you’ve heard these things also: you’re 1 of those horrible Christians who not only is literally out in the world ordering people around, but you’re also sexually repressed and if you have sex at ALL it’s no good, you just wait to get it over with, etc. If you’re 1 of those horrible Muslims, the same applies. Actually, if you’re conservative at all in any sexual area, this applies. Also, if you’re personally against being a prostitute (I’m speaking of YOUR choice only), this means you’re LITERALLY DUMB. You’re also literally dumb if you aren’t a prostitute, but give sex away and/or want to keep it as free of cost as possible on purpose. Isn’t saying people are literally dumb for 1 choice in their lives a wonderful thing? It’s great to willfully ignore all the evidence (or not ask about it to begin with) that people who are called dumb in this area really aren’t dumb overall and could disprove that ###*** with at least a few examples from their lives. I have a strong feeling you’ve heard all the above at least a few times. God help us. Thank you for saying that the work you do isn’t literally personally directed against those who don’t agree with you on the prostitution issue. I learned this right away (unfortunately) when I started doing work for the surviving family/friends of murder victims. Just because you’re against prostitution for YOURSELF doesn’t mean you literally hate everyone who is doing it, think they’re literally dirty, won’t be friends with any of them, going to literally order them to stop, etc. I learned right off with doing the work for the survivors of murder victims (I choose to call them MVS) that some are always going to take what I do personally when my main focus is to help and is the highest priority. The value of helping those truly in need and/or in any kind of crisis (like the MVS) isn’t anything personally against 1 person or even a group of them. I could go into more detail, but have limited time, so am hoping you know what I’m getting at here. I have a feeling you will. I’m convinced there really are some people who are literally sold. I believe this based on what I’ve learned from reading, radio shows, etc. However, I’m also convinced that the #’s on this are GREATLY exaggerated by some. This exaggerating stuff is also done with MVS on a regular basis and I fight it along with other MVS. I always get a laugh out of those who say if I became an MVS, I know right off what I’d do, not do, etc. RIGHT! I’m pretty sure you’ve heard this with those who think domestic violence, etc., isn’t as serious as it really is and/or haven’t had it happen to THEM. I literally used to believe murder would never touch my family. 1 of the GOOD things that came from the murders in my family is they literally shocked me out of that horrible, arrogant mindset. Those in the world who haven’t experienced domestic violence, murder, rape, etc., have a lot to be thankful for. The truth is until certain things happen to you, you don’t have the FULL understanding of what HELL the people who go through them experience. I’m very glad you BREAK at least a few of the stereotypes about those who don’t want to be prostitutes (I break some, too).
Laura, sorry for the late response. I have been traveling in Europe and have limited internet connection. Thank you for the work that you do and also for understanding my concerns and my thoughts on this. I am sorry for your abuse and hope that with each day that you grow stronger in spite of everything.
[…] McNeill’s post today is about how one University of Arkansas economic study found that “many women, especially […]
What’s more interesting, once the prohibitionist arguments are refuted, is determining why prohibitionist arguments are made in the first place.
I’m certain it’ll be like shifting goalposts (neofeminism is famous for this).
The core is the motivation. *Why* do people argue this?
1) Morality: Imposing centralized moral judgment. Sex-positive feminists should take note of the contradiction.
2) Self-interest.
In all cases, I go with primary motivator being self-interest.
Middle-class women don’t like men having options.
Note that men being able to access porn also offends them.
Dear Gorbachev, at least a few people have certain morals and don’t force them on others. Sailor Barsoom and I are 2 examples of this type. I’ve met MANY Christians (I bring them up because there’s so much ###*** said about them in the US all the time in regards to this issue) who don’t spend all their time saying everyone should be in hell, no one else is any good, we should spend all our free time literally persecuting and/or ordering prostitutes around, etc. These people instead do what they’re told to do as believers: helping those truly in need, counseling other Christian believers, helping those who are interested in becoming Christians, etc., etc. Thanks for listening.
Live a good life (by whatever not-infringing-on-the-rights-of-others standards you may have) and those inclined to live a good life will be inspired by your example. Those who are not would not respond well to oppression anyway.
Oh, they might fake it, if you’re a really good oppressor, but they will stop living this “good life” you have imposed on them at the first opportunity.
This is my take on it, though I suspect that I fail to be inspiring more often than it would be flattering to admit.
Gorbachev is on one of the right tracks.
I read an article once about the origins of the age of consent laws. They were aimed at young women, partiuclarly prostitutes, precisely for this reason: middle aged wives didn’t want to have to compete in the sexual arena with young (early teens) prostitutes.
Prior to industrialization most husbands were essentially supervised by their wives all day long. Farmer’s worked the fields in full view of their wives; shopkeepers worked their shops, frequently attached to the house (the “home above the shop” type of place) and again, in full view of their wife. This gave the man unhappy with his wife (for whatever reason, but for this comment, think “unhappy about the lack of sex from his wife”) little opportunity to find an alternative (mistress or prostitute).
Then industrialization occurred. As men started to work in factories, frequently some distance from home, they came into contact with young women (both prostitutes and not) they found more attractive (sexually and otherwise) than their wife. This would happen on the walk to/from work, or the after work watering hole, etc. Some men left their wife and kids and ran off with such women (keep in mind this was an age when taking a 1 day train ride followed by a two hour walk away from the train station meant you could disappear from your previous life). And just as today, the problem was presented as being “epidemic”, and “something had to be done” for “the abandoned children and their mothers” and the “exploited girls” who were running away with these men.
The widespread making of prostitution illegal happened about the same time, and for a similar reason: middle aged wives didn’t want to have to compete sexually for their husbands’ attentions. At least the women of that time had the hardships of pregnancy and childbirth as meaningful concerns (death in childbirth is more prevalent for women the older they get, and it occurred at a much higher rate then than now). But with today’s modern pharmacology, pregnancy is an optional result of sex, largely in the control of the woman in question. Yet still, some of them resist the legalization of prostitution, or elimination of the age of consent laws.
Of course, these women are not the only ones to resist such changes, and I think Maggie has a good overall view on the groups who do, and their reasons (both stated and actual).
The answer to those “onerous requirements imposed by legalization” would be to remove them from other forms of commerce as well, right? After all, it would be a little disingenuous to argue that all other businesses should be under the thumb of stifling government regulation while also claiming that those rules are a problem for prostitutes. Right?
Last time I checked, nobody needed a special license or background check to be a waitress, or submit to weekly health checks to be a cook. Secretaries’ names aren’t placed on special registries for handy use in future discrimination, nor are teachers required to live on the premises, endure 24-hour shifts and work 9 days at a time without a day off. No government tells doctors whom they can support with their money or prohibits lawyers from having designated offices in which to ply their trade. And I don’t see the cops lined up to arrest people going into grocery stores. So yeah, I do feel justified in asking that whores not be forced to endure those things, either.
OK. I’m with you on those things.
But, I’m sure that prostitutes won’t balk at having to have a government issued permit to practice their trade (just as would a photographer, hairdresser, or teacher) or an business address. I’m sure they’ll be okay with declaring their income, making quarterly IRS payments (or have taxes withheld if they are employed by someone else), and itemizing their business expenses in minute detail on their tax return. And the last time I checked, waitresses weren’t a particular risk for disease, so that’s hardly a fair comparison (although the establishments where they work and the safety procedures they practice are universally subject to health inspections and regulation). And it stands to reason that those who support the FDA’s regulation of food and health industries would also understand that swapping bodily fluids (at least potentially) should likewise fall under their watchful eye of government who, as we know, is only trying to keep us safe.
You already know what I’m getting at and I think it’s one of the few areas where you and I must agree to disagree, but I find it patently hypocritical for someone to be utterly silent when it comes to all this governmental oversight of other businesses, but be adamantly opposed to it when it comes to one’s own business.
I’m not a big fan of “liberty for me, but not for thee”. If those rules are onerous for whores, then they’re onerous for everyone else as well (which is, of course, precisely my point), but it’s a rare prostitution advocate who voices any objection to those regulations for anyone besides themselves. You may differ, but to me that makes for a credibility gap and almost guarantees that the public will not take your claims to be free of regulation seriously. You can’t demand that prostitution be treated like any other profession but then exempt yourself from the burdens that every other business is saddled with.
The commercial workplace is the most heavily government regulated space in the country and you can’t get around that fact by splitting hairs about the differences between legalization and decriminalization. If you earn money, the government is going to have their fingers in your pie and to think you’re going to escape that seems unrealistic bordering on delusional.
But that’s just the point, Dave; very few prostitutes would mind the SAME treatment as everyone else, but it’s never that way. Legalization always, always involves paternalistic, onerous regulations about what prostitutes can do with their own money and bodies in a way NO other profession, not even medical doctors, are regulated. And I didn’t say health checks to be a waitress, I said to be a COOK. And if you’re going to tell me cooks aren’t at risk of spreading disease I’d like to introduce you to a woman named Mary Mallon.
You’re also ignoring the fact that no other “everyman skill” is illegal to make a living from. If some old guy makes a little extra money as a handyman, or if a single mother cleans people’s houses for a little extra, nobody would arrest them if they were caught. But let the girl next door try the same thing with whoring and suddenly she’s a “criminal”.
Or an interior designer or a florist…
I’m trying to figure out why someone who wants to practice traditional African hair dressing techniques has to learn about and demonstrate proficiency in hair styles popular with white women in the 1920’s through 1950’s…
Or why florist licensing is judge by other florists…
Or why out of state interior designers what to get licensed…
Dear Dave, you’re right in that it isn’t a fair comparison. Restaurants do have to follow some regulations (thank God!), but no one who works in them are having sex with anyone as an actual part of the job (i.e., it’s not a job requirement). When your job IS having sex with people, there IS a risk of disease and having sex with them IS the job. I wish if there were MORE examples of the horrors that NOT regulating any businesses or even certain 1’s talked about. A great example is the many evils that have come from taking away the Glass-Spiegel (not sure if I spelled that right) Act. There’s been a lot of HELL suffered by people because of this. Another example is the health insurance industry. I’ve worked in this industry and if there WEREN’T any government regulations on it MANY people on these insurances would have even WORSE care and MORE debts. Some insurance companies would have a field day ripping off their customers if there weren’t SOME government regulations on them. Are all insurance companies bad? NO! But, too many are and this is 1 reason SOME regulations are needed. Even WITH regulations, some of these insurance companies pull ###*** on patients. I’ve experienced this 1st hand.
Glass-Steagall. Just the fact that you’ve heard of it puts you lightyears ahead of most of the population, so don’t fret too hard that you got a couple of letters wrong. I know I’m impressed.
Dear emilyhemingway, thanks for your kind words. I had a BIG, long overdue political awakening right after 9/11. I’ve learned you have to be very careful who you listen to within alternative news, but I’ve stuck with alternative news pretty much since 9/11 and only watch mainstream if I need information quickly, they’re covering something I’m interested in, etc. and then it’s in small doses only. I’m with you on how many stay willfully ignorant about what’s going on. Thanks again.
I would. Photographers don’t need a license, by the way. A press pass, perhaps, but not a license.
Already have one of those, so not a problem.
No problems there.
As we’ve already addressed numerous times here, neither are prostitutes. One of the secrets of life is the sure and certain knowledge that what “everyone knows” is better proof that “everyone” is Homer Simpson, who thinks TV would never lie, rather than people are generally well-informed.
Ahahaha, good one!
I’m fairly certain you’re inferring opinions that are not there.
I know I am no more “liberty for me but not for thee” than you are. I object to government in virtually all arenas. Regulatory oversight is non-existent when needed, and used to hamper competitive elements who didn’t make large enough campaign contributions when not. The commerce clause has been distorted beyond any recall or recognition. The feral government has no business whatsoever deciding who can and cannot get married, or what “married” means. Don’t get me started on the TSA, lest we be here all day.
And as far as I know, Maggie agrees with me on the issue of government busybodies. Different focus, same ideals; she is a sex worker advocate who reads the news, I’m a hooker who blogs about politics and the economy.
I don’t speak for Maggie, so I make no guarantees that Maggie is not claiming we need to regulate the crap out of every industry but her own. I do know that I am against essentially all government oversight – particularly on the federal level – and I have seen Maggie agree with me often enough that I consider it unlikely.
“That government is best which governs least.” I think government regulation,though useful in some limited aspects when kept to an absolute minimum, in its present form does more harm than good. Things like zoning regulations and safety requirements for airlines make sense; things like telling breakfast-cereal manufacturers that they can’t use cartoon characters to advertise because Puritan busybodies think their cereals have one gram of sugar too much “for the children” are way, way, WAY beyond the pale. And requiring permits for things that can’t injure anyone (like photography) is nothing but taxation.
There is a lot of reason to think that zoning is over regulated. First off, some cities like LA and Cleveland have dozens of different zones (I think Cleveland has 35 and LA has closer to 45). This leads to very complex and very time consuming zoning application processes… something that can be reduced by the right friends.
Second, zoning make increase crime by separating business and residential. People are in business zones during the day and residential zones at night. If the zones were more mixed, there’d be people in those areas during the entire day which would mean there is less opportunity for criminals to operate unnoticed.
Third, zoning increases drunk driving. By separating residential neighborhoods from bars, people have to drive to the bar and then drive home. If residential and business districts were more mixed, people could walk to the local bar and walk home.
Anything which can be done can be overdone. If I were dictatrix I would limit zoning to a few sensible restrictions like “no chemical plants in residential areas” and the like.
It’s protectionism, too, meant to keep prices for the licensed up and, often, to keep “the lesser sort” out.
“things like telling breakfast-cereal manufacturers that they can’t use cartoon characters to advertise because Puritan busybodies think their cereals have one gram of sugar too much “for the children” are way, way, WAY beyond the pale”
Funny, here, companies cannot advertise to people under 13, and it can’t be reasonably inferred that you’re advertising to the parents of said 13 years old, either.
So no more happy meals here, since it’s marketing to children. No more McDo characters like the burger thief. Your only allowed cartoon is your logo (like Wendy’s).
No more pink kitchens and blue firetrucks on TV (go to Toys R US and you’ll see them all there).
Game consoles are generally understood as being family or teenage/adult stuff, so it’s okay, even the Wii, but it’s borderline for some stuff.
This law came into effect in the 90s, when I was already a bit old to pester my parents about all I see on TV, so I don’t know what effect its had on Quebec province.
Yes. Photographers need a license. A business license and that’s true in most cities.
Think so? I highly doubt it. I find that the biggest threat to freedom comes from one’s neighbors not giving a shit about anyone’s liberties but their own. I don’t think for a minute that prostitutes are immune to the fear mongering pressures that ultimately result in government control over almost every aspect of daily life.
Good for you, but in my experience you and I are not representative the norm by any stretch of the imagination.
Are you talking about prostitutes in general, or the ones here? The ones here seem to be rather down on government in general. This is pretty popular these days, and occurs in countries where government does a pretty good job (and thus, like good lighting in movies, you don’t notice that it’s there) but also oversteps reasonable bounds often enough that even pro-regulation folks have to admit that something ain’t right.
Sometimes, industries lobby FOR expensive regulations on themselves: it keeps the little players out. Your African hair braider seems to have run into this.
I suspect that if I were allowed to write a new set of laws on prostitution, Maggie would like my regime better than she likes what’s going on now… but she would be able to come up with her own ideas that she’d like better still. Of course, if I were allowed to write the new laws on prostitution, one of the first things I’d do is consult Maggie, so hey.
Our being down on busybody interference isn’t because it’s “popular”, and I completely disagree that it is among the general public either. If it were, we wouldn’t be in the mess we’re in. A few squeaky wheels are complaining about the bloated government, while at least 60% of the population are only too happy to see more and more and more laws regulating every possible area of human activity.
But as for your second paragraph, that’s exactly the thing; NOBODY ever consults whores before making stupid, evil, patronizing laws determining who we can associate with, what we can say or wear, how we can live when we aren’t whoring and what we can do with our income.
I wasn’t saying that YOU were hopping on a popular bandwagon. Again, this is a case being ahead of the curve.
As for whether or not it’s popular among the general public: it’s very, very popular to bitch and moan about too much government. Until, of course, these same people find out what “less government” actually means: their favorite government programs could go bye-bye. Then, well, that’s not what I meant, you know. This idea that we Americans are all rugged individualist cowboys is a very popular myth, but it is a myth. Americans who actually want what they say they want in this area are pretty bloody rare.
I said that I’d consult with you. But we both know that those who hold real (as opposed to hypothetical) power won’t. Well, at least they can’t say that your input wasn’t available.
That was done to keep blacks out of the hair dressing business.
A lot of licensing requirements were instituted in the Jim Crow era but instead of looking at whether the licensing was truly necessary, governments allowed non-whites to take the licensing test and sometimes removed the requirements that were designed to limit licensees to whites.
By lumping photographers with hairdressers and teachers, you were not inferring the need for a simple business license but rather a special designated government-bestowed certificate/permit required to practice that profession. Which photographers do not require.
Absolutely true.
I know for a fact they aren’t immune to it, because as a prostitute I get to read the girls-only private boards on the customer forums. Got into a helluvan argument in re: Obamacare with a Dallas hooker once. She still sends me nasty PMs. Good times.
Though the above two quotes contain bucketloads of simple truth to which I also subscribe, it remains that you have not shown how they apply to Maggie. Considering what she wrote in her response directly above yours, I can’t decide whether you are being contrary or merely obtuse.
So what precisely is your objection here? That Maggie uses her blog to advocate for hookers but doesn’t widen her scope to generalized government shenanigans?
But they don’t need a photographer’s license and a photographer doesn’t need a license to work for a company.
Hairdressers and teachers do. Plus florists and interior designers in some states.
Often these licensing requirements are pushed by trade organizations…
The primary purpose of government licensing is NOT public safety, in spite of what you believe. Government licensing was put in place to protect existing businesses from competition. It is still used for that purpose today. What possible purpose can a $250,000 beer and wine license, and a liqueur license that costs the same (these are the actual numbers from Florida, where I live), serve other than to keep people of modest means from opening bars that compete with the rich campaign contributor’s existing bar? The licensing board doesn’t spot check bars to make sure they’re not watering the booze, or selling counterfeit booze. They only do something if they receive a sufficient number of complaints (something the police could just as easily investigate, since both such activities are fraud).
And as for “health department checks”, well, when I was a teenager, working in the kitchen of a truck stop, I observed that we always seemed to know when a “surprise” health dept. inspection was going to happen. Do you think that the rich guy who owned the truck stop maybe got warning from people who received campaign contributions from him?
And then there’s what happened in south Miami, which became evident after hurricane Andrew. It seems that the taxpayer funded building inspectors were taking bribes from builders to pass inspections on houses that were not actually built to code. People died as a result, and none of the inspectors were prosecuted (but the builders were; yet which group’s violation of the public’s trust was more egregious? I think it’s the inspectors, since they are paid by the public with tax dollars that we, the public, cannot avoid paying).
So who would I trust to check the health of prostitutes? How about an escort service that publishes the weekly blood test results of it’s workers? From a reputable local lab? I certainly trust the IIHS’s crash test ratings more than the government’s (think that GM’s and Chrysler’s recent ratings from the government are purely objective, with politics taking no part in them?). I certainly trust UL more than I would any government agency’s ratings. A local lab that does blood work (including checking for STDs for prostitutes) badly, won’t stay in business for long. And using one such lab that was CMMI and ISO rated, and perhaps highly rated by local hospitals, would certainly go a long way towards making me confident that their test results were valid. And should prostitution ever again be legal, such a lab could provide some kind of service in which prostitutes get tested, and their customers can get access to the results. The lab could provide similar services to customers, providing prostitutes confidence about their customers lack of STDs.
And keep in mind that having an STD should not preclude someone from engaging in prostitution. If you’ve got HIV, where do you get sex? How about from a prostitute with the same strain of HIV? Or Herpes, etc.
So your demand for a government intrusion is merely a call for an unaccountable bureaucracy to interfere in a consensual relationship between two people. And for some reason, you seem to think this would work better than all the existing such instances which are widely known to be complete disasters. You’re wrong, and your faith in such government intrusions merely shows the depth of your naivete’.
MPH, I think you misunderstand Dave’s position; he’s pretty solidly libertarian so I doubt he thinks all that licensing is “good”; the way I read his post is that he’s saying it’s silly and naive for whores to imagine that we’ll get away unencumbered by the same stupid, onerous, bloodsucking fees, licenses, etc as everyone else.
I’m curious, given what you’ve said here about regulation of legalised prostitution, what your view (if any) is of the way this is handled in some parts of Australia.
In Victoria there’s a registration process and mandatory health checks, but it (anecdotally, I admit) doesn’t seem to be a significant impediment to educated “high opportunity-cost” women choosing the work.
The anti-normalisation brigade may wish to note that the legal situation hasn’t really done much to the social stigma typically attached to both the prostitute and client.
Obviously we prefer the New Zealand model, but licenses aren’t so bad if the database isn’t public, and health checks are OK with me if the girl can get a pass from her own doctor at reasonable intervals instead of once per week. We aren’t the ones spreading disease, contrary to popular myth; the STD rate among university students is 5x that among streetwalkers.
I won’t claim to be an expert on how things are done here — I don’t particularly have any skin in the game, I just don’t like to see government making conditions *worse* for anyone who isn’t doing anyone else any harm — but my understanding from talking with a few local sex workers is that the main limitations on private escorts are on advertising.
There are local planning issues with brothels, but a private operator doesn’t need a license and the registrations don’t appear to be published.
NZ tends to be more sensible about most things than anywhere else in the Anglosphere.
I agree… as far as I know, New Zealand is the only country where home distilling is legal.
In the US, home wine making and beer brewing is legal, but not distilling.
Yup, 100 gallons a year for an individual adult or 200 gallons a year for a group of adults.
I have 6 gallons of homemade syrah sitting next to me, aging. I could have tossed some Everclear into it to turn it into port or I can bake it in madeira but I can’t make brandy out of it.
I’m hoping, in July, to make mead. The local Kroger supermarket carries small jars of specialty honey: orange blossom, buckwheat, etc. I intend to make very small batches (my carboys are going to be Nestea jars), and I can use these small amounts. I may also try maple syrup. I’ve never tasted maple mead, but have heard good things about it.
Of course, I would never ever do anything even a little bit illegal (really!), but I have seen a website on how to convert a rice cooker into a still. I have baked cakes and made yogurt with it.
http://www.brewery.org/cm3/recs/10_13.html
A recipe for blueberry mead which is high on my list of recipes to try out.
I’d have to reduce that recipe like mad (buying twelve pounds of honey all at once probably puts me living under a bridge for the rest of the year), but it might be something to try after I get the basic honey/water/yeast nutrient/yeast recipe working.
I do truly enjoy blueberries.
By “it” of course I mean the rice cooker, not a still. Or a website.
It’s funny that I read that you made yogurt out of the cakes, not websites?
😛
That’s how I’d do it: health checks as part of ordinary check-ups, any licensed physician. She can choose her own doctor, including the one she has already, so long as he’s a licensed physician.
Not sure about licenses for the prostitutes themselves, but certainly not a public database. My license, if I required one, would be basically statement that she’s getting the heath checks and is of legal age (it might not be twenty-one, but it would be older than the general age of consent, and in the US would likely be eighteen).
Maggie,
Really Thanks for your stories,
Lucky the one who is in love with you.
I come from The Netherlands, and this looks like a US centric discussion, but world is larger and some extra perspective may help.
In Europe in the overall, and expecially in NL is much better.
Still ghettos are present, agencies also, illegal trafficking, and de wallen is real time connected with cameras to the police departments to name one.
At least half of the offering consists of individuals, not agencies or private houses. This grants transparency in the market, and shows that the each player in the market gives a different offering. Private huis to make an example is giving added value in terms of the environment. Call in/out agencies gives in terms of better privacy for customers.
But at least there is a better split from legal, non legal. And prostitutes in the market consider themselves Dames van Plaisir. They are superstar on the internet, have extensive personal blogs and communities, and mom buy them lingerie for the work. WOW heh ?
The market is truly segmented, and there is at least significant segment of the market that reflects these statements.
What I think is that is a cultural issue, i.e. the law system is an abstraction of the tolerance and the built in features of the culture you leave in.
Here the people are so individualistic that if each stays in his own ghetto everything is OK. i.e. in the above example the police would be reluctant to distribute a camera video to a wife in anger, if there is no crime.
To name one Health check is a good procedure but there is little/no culture for privacy in US. Health is also a culture among prostitutes (and here is pretty strong), you would not go without protection: is insane. Average customers also would avoid to accept no protection (still culture). Health checks are not obligatory for example, but still is built into the culture.
All these is common practice, and there is even little need to prescribe health checks by law. Concern of the government is that everybody pays taxes, in that prostitution can be tracked through the tax system, with privacy in place for tax issues.
In US if the average voter is a middle class / middle west family, the situation reflects simply their needs (i.e. hookers shake the social structure of these people).
“onerous requirements imposed by legalization” are imposed due to this unreadiness of the social system, and the culture to accept prostitution and also generic “cheating” as a fact of life. Each single family ecosystem / individual is free then to choose what to do with this opportunity.
But the overall statement is “do what the heck you want behind your walls”. As far as you pay taxes, you are not involve in crime and you don’t disturb the neighbors then is OK and is your business.
Thanks for the input, D! What you say about the health issue is also true in the US; we have policed ourselves for centuries and there is a much higher rate of STDs among non-prostitutes, so the horrible way health checks are handled in Nevada are no model to follow elsewhere. Unfortunately, I’m afraid that when the US does legalize (decriminalization is unlikely due to the American desire to control EVERYTHING) it will be along the Canadian model, basically “OK,you’re free to be a whore but not to actually make money at it”.
but I find it patently hypocritical for someone to be utterly silent when it comes to all this governmental oversight of other businesses, but be adamantly opposed to it when it comes to one’s own business.
He’s absolutely got you there, Maggie.
On the other hand, the benefits from going legal would be huge.
Not at all. I’ve explained this all before. Nobody requires an old lady who sews for extra cash to get a “seamstress’ license”, nor an old man who fixes people’s doors to get a “carpenter’s license”; we only require such things for full-sized businesses. I think it should be the same for whores: Do it solo, no license; formal business, license like ANY OTHER business (no extra, special, whores-only onerous busybody bullshit). I had a business license for my escort service, you know, and it’s a stupid whore indeed who doesn’t pay taxes because the IRS will get you like Little Orphant Annie’s goblins.
I think you’re confusing what people do and what the law requires. I did commercial photography part time out of my home for seven years and I can tell you there was absolutely no question about the fact that I needed a business license. That doesn’t mean that there weren’t people out there without a license doing what I was doing. And as I said, if the seamstress or carpenter work for someone else, the business they work for are at the mercy of the government (local, state, and federal). If and when prostitution becomes legal, it will not come with an exemption from all the rules that govern other businesses.
It should be very interesting to see the debate where you sell the public on the idea that prostitution is the same as sewing and hammering nails.
As for the health issue, I think one of the most important factors that will play into whether states legalize prostitution is going to revolve around preventing STDs and I suspect they will be inclined to use Nevada as a model long before they look to the Netherlands.
I’m not confusing it at all. In legalization regimes, what happens to someone taking pictures without a license? Fines. You know what happens to whores? Arrest. That isn’t REMOTELY equal. Nobody demands you be “protected” from employees, or bans you from opening a photography studio. And if having sex is a public health risk, I demand every non-prostitute who goes to a VD clinic or turns up with HIV be charged with having sex without proper health checks.
If the Nevada model is used, 70% of American whores will continue to work illegally, just like in Nevada. That’s not my idea of a solution.
Wait a minute! If I snap a couple of photos, some of which I think are pretty cool, and then decide to sell them on e-bay or even at a local flea market – I have to have a LICENSE??
Dave is confusing business licensure with a professional licensure.
Speaking of bureaucracy and licenses…
Don’t pay. Keep the media pressure up. You have cell phone recordings. You have witnesses. Go on TV. Go on the radio. Bring a few of the residents with you.
The city doesn’t want to say, “One of our people got it wrong. We’re sorry. No fine.” But they don’t want the general public getting mad at the politicians. Those politicians don’t want this becoming an election issue. Pride is a bitter pill to swallow, but defeat is is more bitter still.
1 HUGE good that came from ending Prohibition in the US is that people weren’t getting wood alcohol anymore! Once alcohol was regulated they knew what they were getting and it was safe. This is 1 reason I preferred alcohol: I knew what I was getting and could predict the effects, etc. The last time I had marijuana something had been put in it. I’ll never forget it and since then I’ve never touched an illegal drug and never will again. I haven’t had any alcohol in nearly 12 years and won’t ever touch it again, BUT will always be thankful that Prohibition ENDED and that alcohol IS safe for those who use it.
There are psychoactive drugs that are legal by default: nobody’s gotten around to banning them yet. But these chemicals are also unregulated. If I buy 2c-e, I’m not breaking any laws, but can I be sure that I’m getting 2c-e and only 2c-e?
I found a supplier, and I’d have to try to find others who bought from the same guys and see if they’re happy. No point in that, though, until I get a milligram scale; it comes in one batch of powder, not measured into doses, and I’m not going to try to eyeball doses down to the milligram. Even with my reading glasses, I’m not that precise.
A little regulation can be a good thing. Not excessive regulations aimed at keeping little start-ups out of the business, and not regulations aimed at making whatever it is you’re doing that’s technically legal so onerous that you decide not to do it at all (one of the goals of such onerous regulations), or so onerous that you skip it and do whatever it is illegally, at which point you can be arrested after all (the other goal of onerous regulations).
Which is exactly why most Nevada whores work illegally.
Yep. And Nevada prostitution is STILL a success story compared to the rest of the country.
Dear Maggie, have you ever watched the “Cathouse” series on HBO? Sailor B and I have watched most of the episodes and many of the prostitutes on there claim they love working in the Nevada system. I’m pretty sure all the shows are now on DVD.
I don’t have HBO, but I will point out that most brothel prostitutes only know that life; they’ve never been independent escorts and so have nothing to compare it to. Plus you must consider that the production crew only got permission to film by promising to depict the subject positively, and the girls aren’t going to jeopardize their jobs by bucking that. Take a look at my column of April 3rd for differences in confidential responses regarding job satisfaction and the like from streetwalkers, brothel girls and prostitutes. And there’s one more factor; some people ENJOY being restricted and told what to do; it makes them feel safe. Just think of how many badge lickers there are in the general population.
Did anybody see the movie The Tourist? I only saw the trailer, but I remember this exchange:
Perhaps the Nevada legal brothel system, when you downgrade it from “independent though technically illegal escorting” seems rather unpleasant, but when you upgrade it from “illegal street or brothel prostitution,” it seems quite pleasant indeed.
Which is sort of what you said, but I like the exchange in the movie, so hey.
There is doubtlessly some way to make brothel prostitution better for the women who work there, some improvement on the Nevada system.
I can name several right off the bat.
1) Greatly expand the number of available permits and eliminate most of the hoop-jumping so someone other than wealthy political cronies can get them. This will create true competition and brothels with better conditions will get more and better girls.
2) Have normal-length work shifts just like any other business and eliminate the residency requirement.
3) Reduce the number of health checks and allow the girls to use their own doctors.
I don’t have a problem with any of that. In fact, it seems only reasonable.
Alcohol, despite its legalization, is actually one of the least safe drugs that is used and abused. Addict withdrawal is more likely to be fatal than withdrawal from heroin.
Marijuana, in and of itself, is IMHO (as one who works within the field of addictions and substance abuse) the safest. I say ‘in and of itself’ because by the time it hits the street its usually been cut and laced with additives. These days the most common is methamphetamine. Meth is popular because its cheap, produces its effect through the same mechanism of action (smoking it), is near impossible to detect by the buyer, and amplifies the high while also producing a physiological addiction that is not classically associated with pot; note that more recent studies have concluded that pot is physically addictive, but personally I question there validity and don’t accept their conclusions.
Marijuana has, like prostitution, nearly been decriminalized in some places, or semi-legalized. That it hasn’t is not due to any inherent evil of the drug itself (it is far safer than alcohol – at least when no additives are added, which legalization could eliminate), but owes to similar barriers that prostitution faces. The big ones being popular misconceptions and the so-called moral majority (or very vocal moral minority, which may be more accurate) who dismiss any attempts with the same kind of empty (but insidious) rhetoric that they aim at prostitution and “human trafficking.”
Alcohol is legal not because its safe, but because prohibition failed and society accepts – where it suits it – that something doesn’t have to perfectly safe to be legal.
For the record, please don’t confuse this as any kind of sanctimonious attack on alcohol, nor infer I am equating it with any kind of evil. I do neither, not personally nor professionally. And I’ll add to that, that despite some marginal risk that goes hand in hand with it, it pales compared to the harm I’ve seen from intravenous use of ‘safer’ but much more addictive substances, and the behaviors associated with them (such as needle sharing) that presents a far more prevalent danger by way of the associated easy transmission of Hepatitis C and HIV.
This is only one study, but it is one more study, and that’s got to be good.
Brothels…
I’ll e-mail my question, ’cause it might get a bit long.
This is my first post here, and I’d like to preface it by stating that I’ve found this blog to be a welcome repository of a rare breed of clear thinking and lucid, cohesive writing. I came to it, as an aside, from a link on Satoshi Kanazawa’s blog on Psychology Today, where he references (what I found to be) an interesting discussion between himself and this blog’s author (and which I won’t go into further as its been covered in here as well).
That out of the way, I believe the reason why honest, impartial, academic studies such as this one tend to be marginalized or ignored (as this one will be) is pretty simple: the vested interests that exert the most influence on how information is gathered, interpreted, and presented to the general public, have their own radically different viewpoint and agenda already, and anything not in lockstep conformity to it – as this study clearly is not – is to be either dismissed outright, or attacked and undermined so as to achieve a similar end.
To allow otherwise is to jeopardize the predominate self-interested point of view and begs questions those holding it do not want asked, nor met with honest answers.
The neo-feminist movement (a term well fitting the 3rd wave feminist movement) and its supporters do not want women to have control over their own sexuality – outside the narrow boundaries they prescribe – any more than they desire men to have the parallel freedom of access to it that must co-exist beside it. The two go hand-in-hand and both are antagonistic to their agenda.
This is why they, when it suited them, sought to demonize and criminalize prostitution while, at other times, taking the tack of portraying prostitutes as hapless, unwitting and unwilling victims who are nothing more than the prey of the evil ‘human traffickers,’ ‘pimps,’ and Johns.
As neo-feminists view both as a threat to their ideological ends, they therefore marginalize both under whichever twisted labels and storyline happens to resonate with their audience the most, and whichever at the time is best suited to those ends. That they are inherently contradictory matters not a wit. It only matters that both further their agenda, and in fact one more than the other will, logically, better resonate with a particular aspect of their audience than its counterpart. So they use them interchangeably, and without regard to their contradiction, because a message repeated enough becomes conventional wisdom, and whoever takes one storyline as truth will care little – and not even notice – that its at odds with other message (even when they are used by the same author in the same article).
I’ll leave this first post there, as its already of a length that etiquette suggests it shouldn’t exceed.
Welcome to the blog, Brad, and thanks for the compliments! I do need to correct one teensy error, though; neofeminists are degenerate second-wave feminists. Third-wave feminists tend to be sex-positive and pro-sex work, and in the column at right you’ll find a link to the Third Wave Foundations’s pro-sex work statement. Other than that, you’re bang on and I hope to see you post here often!
Thanks Maggie! That distinction you made is an important one, and I’m glad you pointed it out. My readings on feminism are at least a decade old and were a subject I studied only within a larger context where I was forced to read the material; being a young university male then, my interests were far more in the form of my feminine co-eds than the required feminist readings, which served as an occasional counterpoint or critique within some sociology and political science courses to the existing theories and paradigms that feminists criticized as male constructs which ignored, or were at odds, to their own unique point of view.
I’ve since come to my own conclusions, and ones which I found more illuminating to see mirrored so closely and particularly by one of the opposite sex! Gives cause for hope in that the divide and conquer strategy they are so hell bent on playing with both our sexes is being seen for what it is by members of both our sexes.
Thank Athena, I was done with university before they started wasting valuable class time with “feminist perspectives” on whatever. Academic Feminism is a fringe philosophy, so including its “perspective” is no more important or valid than including Marxist, Afrocentrist, or Eco-vegan-whatever perspectives except in classes specifically about those fringe perspectives or high-level courses designed to examine unorthodox views. Otherwise they’re simply a distraction.
> The neo-feminist movement (a term well fitting the 3rd wave feminist movement)
Buh, what? I think that’s 2nd wave. 3rd wave is usually sex-positive – much closer to Maggie than, say, Dworkin.
Oh geez. Somehow I missed your post saying the same thing. Sorry.
The truth hurts! The Swedes and their faithful followers will be coughing into their fist when replying to this evidence!
Sorry, I don’t have alot of time to read all of the comments just now, but would say that whatever brought me into this business, I stay in it because I like it. Self employment. Freedom. Decent income. Excitement. Travel. Radical self expression. Ego boosts. Rare is the occassion that I have met a client that I did not particularly click with, but I will take the Pepsi Challenge with any other job holder and compare my happiness, security, and level of danger at work to theirs. Typically, when I really start to talk to “civies” about it, a common response is “Wow, I am in the wrong business”
I love people, I enjoy bringing happiness into their life. What’s so bad about that?
90% of the negative aspects of my profession originate from government oppression, not mistreatment by my clients.
Another thing you can probably count on after enough states legalize prostitution is that the feds are going to want a cut of the action. If you need a federal license to sell rabbits, it’s only a matter of time before you need one to sell pussy. 🙂
Absolutely so, but that’s a separate (though equally important) issue. 🙁
The problem is that regardless of how many positive articles (and/or research) are published the majority of people have a negative attitude to prostitution. This means that those in the public eye who could take up your cause to fight injustice will be reluctant to do so because of the negative effect it might have on their career or place in society.
Presently in the UK we have a situation where many parents who face having their child permanently taken from them (sometimes immediately after birth) are banned under a super injunction from discussing the case with anyone outside the courtroom – including their doctor and Member of Parliament and will face arrest if they do so.
At the present time one MP (John Hemming) has claimed ‘parliamentary privilege’ inside the House of Commons and mentioned one parent by name but this has called down on his head the wrath of his party leader and members of the other two political parties.
The truth is that while people are prepared to break the law when it comes to revealing some peccadillo by a footballer or other celebrity (75,000 Twitterers could technically be jailed for defying a super injunction) they are not prepared to fight for the basic principle of justice that no case should be tried and a decision reached in a secret court.
A side note:
Jennifer Hafer looks like a televangelist’s daughter. Imagine that.
Well, I certainly wouldn’t kick her out of bed; she looks a lot like the girl I’ve called “Dawn” in this blog. 🙂