Urban vs Suburban - 2 styles enter, one style leaves!

[RyLucky]

Originally Posted by Ramsayfarian

Personally, I'd rather pay for sex emotionally.

10/10.

[lineman]

Prostitution isn't illegal in Canada.


Living off the avails of prostitution, public communication for the purpose of prostitution, and brothels are. These were the laws found unconstitutional last December.

[Policy Wonk]

I know a former cop turned academic who worked the beat in a suburb of Los Angeles for years and in that time she claims to have encountered precious few "empowered libertarian sex workers" but a whole lot of runaways, junkies/tweakers/drunks, illegal immigrants and stupid girls from the midwest who just didn't make it in Hollywood.

She also said many of the women she busted were so disgusting that she didn't really want them in the police car and couldn't comprehend how men could even "rise of the occasion" or actually stick it in the orifice in question without getting sick.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I know a former cop turned academic who worked the beat in a suburb of Los Angeles for years and in that time she claims to have encountered precious few "empowered libertarian sex workers" but a whole lot of runaways, junkies/tweakers/drunks, illegal immigrants and stupid girls from the midwest who just didn't make it in Hollywood.

She also said many of the women she busted were so disgusting that she didn't really want them in the police car and couldn't comprehend how men could even "rise of the occasion" or actually stick it in the orifice in question without getting sick.

Certainly not all prostitution markets are created equal. The area around Richards in Vancouver was known as decided more high end, and as such the women were much more in control, empowered, and at the end of the day well paid. These women certainly had options for other sources of income and choose to do what they do.

Certainly not all prostitution markets are like that, especially when you get to cities with rampant drug problems and entire sub-economies built on black market seedy underworlds like LA.

Again, does the fact that prostitution is illegal help or hurt the cause for those exploited women?

[lineman]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Again, does the fact that prostitution is illegal help or hurt the cause for those exploited women?

Again. It isn't illegal.

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by geotag277

Again, does the fact that prostitution is illegal help or hurt the cause for those exploited women?

Is the victim of any crime usually made whole by the law?, The men who do the exploiting should be named, shamed and ostracized.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by lineman

Again. It isn't illegal.

We were specifically talking about LA, where it specifically is illegal.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Is the victim of any crime usually made whole by the law?, The men who do the exploiting should be named, shamed and ostracized.

You seem to be starting from the assumption again that all prostitutes are victims and all customers are by default exploitative.

Prostitution is the oldest profession in the world. Keeping it illegal in the name of human rights is I believe misguided.

It doesn't do anyone any good by sweeping it under the rug, pretending it doesn't exist, and having the entire operation exist in a nebulous black market that isn't regulated, has no transparency or accountability, and fosters the kind of exploitative environment that your police friend in LA witnessed first hand.

[Policy Wonk]

I'm saying men who patronize prostitutes are of mortally flawed character and should be known to the community.

I am sure somewhere there is the archetypical woman who of clear mind will answer yes to the "would you have sex for $___" But I will take the statement of a cop turned academic that she is the outlier.

But that doesn't reflect very well on the man making the offer does it?

I am a card carrying provincial and federal Liberal and atheist. I couldn't tell you what the bible says about most subjects in any detail. But I do know taking advantage of a likely disadvantaged woman for sex is wrong and I would think much less of anyone I knew did such things.

[lineman]

Originally Posted by geotag277

We were specifically talking about LA, where it specifically is illegal.

My bad. I thought this was the Calgary local, Calgary issues section. Carry on.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

I'm saying men who patronize prostitutes are of mortally flawed character and should be known to the community.

I am sure somewhere there is the archetypical woman who of clear mind will answer yes to the "would you have sex for $___" But I will take the statement of a cop turned academic that she is the outlier.

But that doesn't reflect very well on the man making the offer does it?

I am a card carrying provincial and federal Liberal and atheist. I couldn't tell you what the bible says about most subjects in any detail. But I do know taking advantage of a likely disadvantaged woman for sex is wrong and I would think much less of anyone I knew did such things.

I understand I'm not going to convince you otherwise but really it is quite arbitrary to draw the line at sex as being exploitative. Any time you pay money for any type of service where that person is only working because they need a pay check, that person is being exploited economically to provide you with a service that you want. Remember that next time you tip a waitress, get a massage, order fast food at a drive through, or get your car washed.

It seems strange me how we don't bat an eye at, for example, the struggles of single mom's who work two or three jobs to make ends meet, who sacrifice their mind, body, and soul to work meagre jobs to make ends meet for their kids, but all of a sudden if an independent woman wants to willingly trade sex for a paying customer, both that customer and that women should be demonized and exposed as morally weak characters.

Not everybody views sex and sexual favours as some sacred act that should only be performed under a strict set of circumstances. Putting sex on a sacred pedestal is certainly your moral prerogative, but it seems to be crossing the line to say everyone needs to have the same view, which is essentially what happens when we say prostitution should be illegal and all perpetrators exposed and judged for the public to see.

I have no doubt that the situation in LA that your friend saw was horrible and deserves no excuses or apology, but just like we can't view desperate heroin addicts in the same light as recreational marijuana users to inform our drug policy, we also shouldn't judge the whole concept and industry of prostitution by the worst and most depraved 1% of cases.

[Policy Wonk]

Last time I checked missing food service workers weren't perceived to be a national crisis.

It isn't a question of putting sex on a pedestal, it is a question of just what it means to be a "consenting adult". It is generally accepted that a person under the influence of drugs or alcohol can't give informed consent. Why is a person under the influence of poverty or a pimp all that different? What makes the man taking advantage of that situation any better than the frat shit with a mickey finn?

It almost seems as though the line you are drawing is the white collar men can have their prostitutes and the blue collar ones can't.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

Last time I checked missing food service workers weren't perceived to be a national crisis.

It isn't a question of putting sex on a pedestal, it is a question of just what it means to be a "consenting adult". It is generally accepted that a person under the influence of drugs or alcohol can't give informed consent. Why is a person under the influence of poverty or a pimp all that different? What makes the man taking advantage of that situation any better than the frat shit with a mickey finn?

It almost seems as though the line you are drawing is the white collar men can have their prostitutes and the blue collar ones can't.

You keep conflating human trafficking with the whole of prostitution. It is the same as trying to argue eating meat is morally wrong because cannibalism exists. Yes, there are cases of people going missing due to human trafficking, and we should be preventing that from happening, whether prostitution is legal or not.

People working at fast food are also under the influence of "poverty". Any one working a job they hate is under the influence of "poverty" and doing what they can to escape it. You draw the line at sex, because you hold sex to be some sacred cow that should not be violated and should only be used in the manner you see fit - but to me if a person wants to trade sex for money, it is a valid alternative to any number of other things a person trades for money, including several hours of time, painful struggles of a grueling job, and any number of other things. Not everyone considers sex some sacred cow that is a category of service that can never be exchanged for money, and your position essentially forces everyone to think and feel the same as you.

If you think I am arguing that only white collar individuals can have prostitutes you have severely misunderstood my post and I invite you to read it again. I am not apologizing for human trafficking or exploitative pimps, those are problems that should be solved regardless. It's also important to note that prostitution is not some magic field that has a monopoly on exploitation, almost every industry has exploited workers, take a look at the TFW program abuses where people are threatened with deportation - we can always do a better job at protecting all workers, including those in the prostitution business.

[speedog]

Wow, great derail.

[jawagord]

Originally Posted by geotag277

The urban versus suburban debate is so boring, besides, urban won like 20 pages ago

You are the black knight of urbanity!

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4&feature=kp

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by geotag277

You keep conflating human trafficking with the whole of prostitution. It is the same as trying to argue eating meat is morally wrong because cannibalism exists. Yes, there are cases of people going missing due to human trafficking, and we should be preventing that from happening, whether prostitution is legal or not.

So how is a socially conscious john to tell the difference between a card carrying libertarian party member nymphomaniac "sex worker" and the victim of human trafficking or other horrible circumstance? I really don't know, the extent of my experience in this area is being accosted by a pimp on the street in Las Vegas and being followed into a hotel elevator in Ottawa by a woman who then offered various services.

And how do you prevent "disappearances" when the nature of the activity leads to secluded locations with lowlife men?

People working at fast food are also under the influence of "poverty". Any one working a job they hate is under the influence of "poverty" and doing what they can to escape it.

By the time I left my old job the only thing that got me out of bed in the morning was the knowledge that my dogs would soon be peeing in the kitchen if I didn't. But as miserable as I was at that time, I was never in any danger of violence, disease or extortion. It isn't that sex is a sacred cow, it just that murder, AIDS and extortion by criminals just aren't acceptable workplace hazards.

If you think I am arguing that only white collar individuals can have prostitutes you have severely misunderstood my post and I invite you to read it again.

You acknowledge the situation described in Southern California is abhorrent, yet you describe a different situation in Vancouver as "more high end" - so ultimately what is the difference other than those patronizing either group?

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

So how is a socially conscious john to tell the difference between a card carrying libertarian party member nymphomaniac "sex worker" and the victim of human trafficking or other horrible circumstance? I really don't know, the extent of my experience in this area is being accosted by a pimp on the street in Las Vegas and being followed into a hotel elevator in Ottawa by a woman who then offered various services.

How does a socially conscious member of society differentiate between a fast food worker flipping burgers who is being exploited by the TFW program versus one who is not?

How does a socially conscious member of society know that when they buy meat in a grocery store, the farm the meat came from isn't abusing animals?

It's really quite simple. The rule of law. We have laws and regulations in place to prevent abuse, and a system for transparency, auditing, and accountability to weed out instances of misdeeds. Why can't this same infrastructure be put in place to protect sex workers? If anything the lack of such an infrastructure is only hurting everyone involved, thus my claim that keeping prostitution in the shadows and pretending it doesn't exist, especially in the name of "human rights", is extremely misguided.

And how do you prevent "disappearances" when the nature of the activity leads to secluded locations with lowlife men?

If legal, we could implement the concept of "brothels", a well known, well monitored safe place with security in place to protect the workers. Brothels can involve drug testing to ensure workers aren't abusing drugs, they can run background checks to ensure no human trafficking is involved, they can be required to have support systems and education programs to ensure workers have a path to a different career. Once fully legal and regulated there are plenty of opportunities to actually make a material impact in the lives of these people.

By the time I left my old job the only thing that got me out of bed in the morning was the knowledge that my dogs would soon be peeing in the kitchen if I didn't. But as miserable as I was at that time, I was never in any danger of violence, disease or extortion. It isn't that sex is a sacred cow, it just that murder, AIDS and extortion by criminals just aren't acceptable workplace hazards.

Construction workers are also at risk of physical injury. Doctors are at risk of contracting disease. Anyone who uses public transportation or even walks down the street is the potential victim of a random assault. What helps in all these cases in rules, laws, regulations, and infrastructure to protect all involved. Maybe you take that dark alley short cut on your walk home and maybe you don't, it's your choice. You get to choose the acceptable risks that you are willing to take with whatever job you choose. Again, it comes down to having rules, regulations, and accountability in place to protect all involved.

You acknowledge the situation described in Southern California is abhorrent, yet you describe a different situation in Vancouver as "more high end" - so ultimately what is the difference other than those patronizing either group?

My only point with that sentence was those were two diametrically opposed experiences with prostitution. Your friend likely saw the worst of the worst, and I likely was exposed to the best of the best. Just because the worst of the worst conditions exist today doesn't mean we should give up on the whole enterprise because it is a hopeless fruitless endeavour. Should we shut down all attempts at world wide commercial meat processing just because there have been a few cases of farms abusing animals?

[Policy Wonk]

Originally Posted by geotag277

How does a socially conscious member of society differentiate between a fast food worker flipping burgers who is being exploited by the TFW program versus one who is not?

How does a socially conscious member of society know that when they buy meat in a grocery store, the farm the meat came from isn't abusing animals?

You can keep coming back to this false equivalency as often as you like. Prostitution isn't just another lousy McJob.

Why can't this same infrastructure be put in place to protect sex workers?

This isn't an OSHA issue. Prostitution isn't an occupation, it is the end result of societal and personal failures.

If legal, we could implement the concept of "brothels", a well known, well monitored safe place with security in place to protect the workers. Brothels can involve drug testing to ensure workers aren't abusing drugs, they can run background checks to ensure no human trafficking is involved, they can be required to have support systems and education programs to ensure workers have a path to a different career. Once fully legal and regulated there are plenty of opportunities to actually make a material impact in the lives of these people.

And for that not so insignificant number of "sex workers" who are addicted to drugs, in poor sexual health, or somehow under criminal influence are just going to stop?

You get to choose the acceptable risks that you are willing to take with whatever job you choose. Again, it comes down to having rules, regulations, and accountability in place to protect all involved.

\

So if the decision is sex with a sketchy man... or losing your apartment is that sort of rational risk management in play? Prostitution isn't a job, it is a last gasp survival strategy for people who have few tools or resources available to them.

My only point with that sentence was those were two diametrically opposed experiences with prostitution. Your friend likely saw the worst of the worst, and I likely was exposed to the best of the best.

I'm not going to ask you to elaborate just what it is you mean by "exposed to".

Other than presumably aesthetics and hopefully hygiene, what is fundamentally different about the transaction other than the johns who can afford to go more upmarket? How does that make for a positive life experience for the women involved on either end?

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by Policy Wonk

You can keep coming back to this false equivalency as often as you like. Prostitution isn't just another lousy McJob.

Again it's a arbitrary line. The only reason you don't care if the guy cooking you burgers in the back at Mac D's is a meth addicted exploited worker who is being threatened by his employer is because there is no sex involved. Completely arbitrary. News flash, some people would prefer to have sex all day than flipping burgers. Both choices can be painted as occupation of last resort, and both occupations have the potential for exploitation. Your sacred cow theory regarding sex begin the line we shouldn't cross is an arbitrary distinction.

This isn't an OSHA issue. Prostitution isn't an occupation, it is the end result of societal and personal failures.

Sure, it isn't an OSHA issue, let's sweep the industry under the rug and pretend it doesn't exist in the name of human rights. Your moral crusade is doing more harm than good, by not giving people who choose to enter the industry the proper protection they deserve. You are enabling pimps by sweeping the entire industry under the rug.

And for that not so insignificant number of "sex workers" who are addicted to drugs, in poor sexual health, or somehow under criminal influence are just going to stop?

And a not so insignificant number of fast food workers are addicted to drugs, in poor health, and are under criminal influence. Do you think they are just going to stop?

Again the rule of law helps everyone. What good does it do sex workers to sweep the industry under the rug?

So if the decision is sex with a sketchy man... or losing your apartment is that sort of rational risk management in play? Prostitution isn't a job, it is a last gasp survival strategy for people who have few tools or resources available to them.

The distinction with sex is completely arbitrary. The decision is flipping burgers on your feet 8 hours a day or losing your apartment. Somehow you don't bat an eye if the guy in the back is desperate and only flipping your burger because of abject poverty. Again, sex as some kind of moral sacred cow.

I'm not going to ask you to elaborate just what it is you mean by "exposed to".

Thanks for that beautiful ad hominem, which totally degrades this entire conversation. For the record I meant "exposed" in the same sense that you were "exposed", through anecdotes and circumstantial evidence. Not that it matters but I have never employed the services of a prostitute.

Other than presumably aesthetics and hopefully hygiene, what is fundamentally different about the transaction other than the johns who can afford to go more upmarket? How does that make for a positive life experience for the women involved on either end?

I am simply relaying anecdotal evidence from prostitution culture that I was exposed too, it's no different then your anecdotes that you shared. I am not making any point beyond that was my experience, which was in a totally different to yours. You are totally going off the rails with this path of logic.

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by speedog

Wow, great derail.

It's a little crazy and I apologize. I am pretty passionate about the topic of human trafficking because I think it is one of the most under funded and ignored human rights abuses in the modern era. If we actually cared enough to properly fund it I think we might be shocked about just how much reaches even our fine city of Calgary.

A big problem is these puritan ideals regarding sex and the notion that if just ignore it the problems will just go away.

There will always be prostitution in the world. We should accept that, it is the world's oldest profession and women will always be tempted to trade sex of money, it should be their choice to do so.

I understand parents don't want their daughters entering the industry, and to them it will always be viewed as completely evil. But guess what? You probably wouldn't want your daughter stripping either. The thing is, it's up to her to make the decision of whether she would rather do that, or spend time at McDonalds flipping burgers. It is very very obvious that some women would rather strip, pose for Playboy, and do any number of other sexually suggestive things instead of working other menial soul sucking jobs like fast food. That will never change. Sweeping the industry under the rug doesn't do anything to help protect anyone who chooses that path over another. In fact it makes it exponentially harder to protect these people and actually enables the type of exploitation and abuse that supposedly people want to solve.

I am sorry for the derail, but honestly people don't think about the issue in enough depth and it certainly isn't talked about and debated enough relative to the potential size of the human rights abuses which are going on related to that industry as a whole. We need to shine a very large light onto the whole thing.