Busting Sex Workers' Clients Increases Demand

boing
81

OK. By your logic I’ll stop objecting to you calling me a neo colonialist christian, and you’ll stop objecting to sex workers as being called victims, slaves, or being objectified in whatever objectionable way. Are we good then? I won’t complain if you don’t.

Right, because there are no organizations that appreciate it’s a complex problem. And certainly not you, as you’ve done you best to push back against the suggestion that this complex issue actually involves forced labour or underage labour.

I’m not sure what your random links are supposed to show. That child sex isn’t a problem in Cambodia? That it’s not a problem anyone who isn’t a child sex worker can care about?

82

that you are totally prejudiced and neocolonialist wank that supports violence against sex workers because you ignore the real issues facing sex workers by insisting that issues only you want to focus on are the real issues most sex workers should face and should be addressing to you so that you can feel better. The links will actually show what sex workers are facing and the issues.

Your logical fallacy is strawman just because sex work orgs isn’t all about your anti trafficking crusade, and instead have obligation to the actual sex workers that are being abused by anti trafficking orgs and practices doesn’t mean sex workers aren’t caring about themselves. Including under age sex workers.

Your kind of CARING is exactly what sends under aged workers to jail and more abusive situation as they are neglected in assumption that sex work/sex industry is the main horrible problem that they are experiencing. Often times, it is more complex then that but of course - actual concerns of actual people doesn’t really seem to interest you as much as the sensationalist simplistic stories about poor brown kids being pimped out and how YOU are the person to raise the issue as a white saviour

no one is denying anything. You are denying all the other issues that are more relevant to current sex workers all over the world by insisting that this is the only issue we should discuss - much like people who insist in discussing pedophilia when talking about pornography. It’s disturbing and stigmatizing to ONLY talk about worst/negative aspects of already stigmatized and marginalized industry all the time. as you do. Your prejudice does not make reality of people. Sex workers can and does speak for themselves. If you refuse to listen, most likely it’s because you are privileged neo colonialist invested in your own version of the story - if not just to be right about your prejudices , but to enforce the idea that you are the person to raise the issue and be the white saviour rather than actually listening to the very people that we are talking about .

83

It’s not a strawman, because I’ve never used it to show that there aren’t other issues regarding sex workers. I’ve never said “sex workers aren’t caring about themselves”; it’s your strawman that I have.

Those who are underaged and forced into the sex trade are actual people, too. As are those who are happily and voluntarily working in the sex trade. Now, a reasonable examination of the current situation—i.e., under the current regime of laws, raids, and enforcement—would be to measure the negative and positive impact of how things are done now. If sex workers as a whole are harmed less than the victims benefit, then even the current system is efficient. This shouldn’t be controversial, and even Empower seems to recognize the value of such an approach:

We have now reached a point in history where there are more women in the Thai sex industry who are being abused by anti-trafficking practices than there are women being exploited by traffickers.

Of course, this suggests that the balance was recently in the other direction, and that robust enforcement activities could do more good than harm. With better-tailored enforcement activities, anti-trafficking practices would abuse fewer women (but I wouldn’t pretend to advocate for better enforcement activities lest I be considered a white saviour).

An even better approach (though virtually impossible to administer) would be to measure outcomes from birth or the age of 10 under different enforcement regimes, to determine if they have an effect on entry into the industry or overall, long-term well-being. The social efficiency of prostitution doesn’t begin and end with the well being of a group of long-term sex industry workers.

That’s even assuming that we are wiling to concede that prostitution should be legal or decriminalized, which many people are not willing to concede.

Have I insisted that? No. I have only insisted that the issue is real. You are the one who, in my view, has been insisting we not discuss this issue because it marginalizes and stigmatizes sex workers.

84

you are saying this by pointing out one problem and saying sex workers aren’t caring about it as if that was the only issue. when the issue is more complex and I can not agree to your version of it.

wtf - just because I don’t agree with your approach of just “eliminate trafficking and under age sex work” to actually work with underage sex workers does not mean I am saying they are not actual people. I am saying it isn’t as simple as that - which you conveniently ignored and insisting that if I don’t play into the media’s sensationalist view about sex work and trafficking, I am downplaying it . I am simply listening to the sex workers and sex work organization that they represent to say that media stigmatized , stereotypes, and sensationalized these stories into simple stories in which you get to feel good because you get to understand what’s going on (you are in the KNOW about secret back door of the industry ) and support Christian orgs or Kristoff to raid brothels, put sex workers on covers of magazines without their permission with words “sex slaves” - no matter if if their situation weren’t even close to being ‘sex slaves’- rather, just a brothel raid by moral do-gooders that put them in jail and feel good about it.

Of course, none of issue you would actually like to consider as inconvenient to your argument that someone should flatly agree with you that sex work = trafficking/child sex anti trafficking org = good.

You really haven’t contributed anything to the thread except for repeating this and how people should flatly agree with your simplistic view - even to go as to say sex work orgs just aren’t caring for the real child trafficking victims. When in reality, they are saying something much more complex than this rather than feed you media lies.

yeah , you have no idea - basically with prejudiced people like yourself , any ‘enforcement’ would mean abuse as nothing is listened to as to what is needed by the sex workers .

no, I’m the one pointing to you all the links where sex workers themselves are saying what are the issues - which again, you conveniently ignore. Just probably because you don’t want to admit that you actually had no idea what you were talking about by simply talking about “underage sex work/trafficking”. which is, stigmatizing sex workers by automatically correlating sex work with such issues rather than really look at all that sex workers face, how they are saying just focusing on child sex work/trafficking is stigmatizing and ignores real issues .

But really, you don’t care. you want to just be right and argue - this isn’t even about sex workers for you. For you it’s just “I’m right - abuse exist - I care so I’m good” basically, privileged crap who wants to be right at all cost and really don’t give a damn what it does to the community or why it’s problematic. Say what you want. Your kind is still why stigma and prejudice goes around by perpetuating stereotypes that sex work=trafficking/underage sex. because that is all that you have defended so far and talked about. You re the one supporting horrible raids and jail of sex workers by insisting in your western privileged view that anti trafficking orgs are great because they are 'rescuing ’ sex workers because you simply think you are right and refuse to listen to sex work orgs.As I have said from the beginning you are the same people that would support kony 2012 and not even admit that you have just sent troops to area that Children’s Army was gone decades ago. Instead, spreading prejudice about African people that they can’t care for themselves and never asking people and orgs there, westerners decide what is needed and how it should happen and HOW IT’S TALKED ABOUT. It’s SAME THING. it’s disgusting. Sex work orgs have existed and peers are fighting now not just the decriminalization , fight for health care - they must now fight anti trafficking orgs instigated by neo colonialism as well.

1 Like
85

All this discussion and no one directly said under their own account or an alt account about their own experience either as a sex worker or a client of sex workers?

86

bvw812, while I hash this out in my own head, let me put forward the arguments I can see against an emphasis upon trafficking, etc without ignoring it.

Simply it comes down to a few assumptions:

  1. Underage prostitutes and trafficking are an unwanted, but inevitable consequence of prostitution, just as traffic deaths are inevitable, but unwanted part of allowing cars. The question is not how do we eliminate bad consequence. It is how do we minimize bad consequence without destroying the lives of those in the industry. A child dying in a car crash is accepted. We try to minimize it (seat belts, etc.), but we are rightfully unwilling to take any action that would save lives, but significantly harm the industry as a whole.
  2. Prostitution will for the foreseeable future be socially at risk. There are lots of reasons why people like me disapprove of the concept, so unlike cars, acceptance of it as a profession (along with protections) are far from guaranteed.
  3. The benefits of prostitution are confined to a relatively small part of the population. The prohibition of prostitution affects the primarily poorer, socially disadvantaged, politically less powerful customers and sellers.
  4. As such, media coverage can and does focus on children with respect to prostitution. Its viewers can safely demand better protection without endangering anything that affects them. Media that constantly showed the more severe consequences of children maimed or killed in car accidents would not prosper, because access to cars is worth the thousands of dead and injured children.
  5. As a society, we are usually more concerned about doing something more than we are concerned about the results. We view a failed attempt (or an attempt that is actually counter-productive) with far more respect than simply accepting the bad. (“At least we tried.”)
  6. The big problem is that is far more socially acceptable to try to forbid prostitution than it is to legalize it and thus implicitly accept that child prostitution will exist, even if this results in higher levels of child prostitution. Acceptance that harm will occur as a consequence of something and attempting to mitigate that harm it is far harder than simply (ineffectually) prohibiting that something in the first place. You’ll be far more admired for prohibiting prostitution and having rate x of childhood prostitution than legalizing it, attempting to mitigate the harm and having half the rate of childhood prostitution. Perceived motive matters far more than simply numbers to a mostly disinterested electorate.
  7. Now, I don’t know whether legalizing prostitution will increase or decrease the participation of trafficked workers or minors. There are a lot of factors at play in both directions. However they are not the only actors. Just as we find the thousands killed in car accidents (and for that matter, the pollution that goes with cars) easily worth the cost of having easy car access, it is highly likely that the benefits of legalization for the millions involved in the sex industry outweigh the suffering of the victims of trafficking, etc.

In total, its not hard to imagine that our emphasis on preventing trafficking and child prostitution actually causes far more global suffering than it prevents, possible only because that suffering occurs among the least powerful and media-appealing. In the eyes of those who have the resources to make changes, improving the lives of 10,000 African women isn’t going to hold a candle to saving a dozen children or 100 trafficked women.

Sure, we could take steps to mitigate harm that don’t harm the over-all trade, but the inevitable reality is that we won’t. We will take steps that feed our perception of doing something no matter the harm to the socially invisible and the morally disapproved of. If we recognize that reality, then we must recognize that our desire to help the trafficked and minors will almost inevitably come at the cost of the millions in the sex trade by choice.

And then we must choose whether to salve our our immediate conscience or make the difficult choice to better the lives of millions, even if it now makes is complicit in the harmful consequences.

Of course, all of this pretends we have far more influence than we actually do (except for those who are actually doing something directly). However, the same arguments apply, just written infinitesimally :-).

3 Likes
87

Both of those are non-issues due to

88

Again, where have I said sex workers don’t care about it? I’ve quoted Empower reports that do recognize it is an issue, and remarked that they seem to take it much more seriously than you do. What I’ve been taking issue with is your dismissal of it as unproblematic.

And just because I don’t agree with your approach of “lets pretend that underage and forced labour isn’t worth talking about” doesn’t mean I’m saying that other sex workers aren’t people. I hope you get my point now: my statement was intended to be as stupid as yours.

My simplistic view? The only position I’ve taken is that underage and forced labour exists and is a real issue.

Why are sex worker organizations calling for better enforcement, as opposed to complete abandonment of forced labour and underage policy, then?

[quote=“Nada_Cat, post:84, topic:48918”]
no, I’m the one pointing to you all the links where sex workers themselves are saying what are the issues - which again, you conveniently ignore.
[/quote]Links where they say they don’t like current enforcement mechanisms. You send broad links to general statements without actually taking the time to quote specific policy statements or data. I’ve included specific quotations from publications released by organizations you support and work with.

Hell, you can’t even support your accusations against me with quotes where I’ve said what you repeatedly claim I’ve said. Case in point:

Where, exactly, have I said that anti-trafficking organizations are great or that all their raids involve rescuing people? I mean, you accuse me of making strawman arguments, but virtually everything you’ve said about me is a strawman, as your inventing positions that I haven’t taken, and refusing to show me where I’ve supposedly said them.

I will grant you, however, that I don’t believe we should take the position of sex worker organizations as the last word on how to treat them any more than we should take wall street banking organizations, cannabis farmers, physicians associations, or any other self-interested group’s positions as the last word on how to treat them. I mean, one of the links you sent suggested that sex workers thought mandatory condoms and health inspections were a bad idea, which doesn’t strike me as a great position from a public-health perspective.

89

Well, the influx and outflux of workers into this system is always going to be important when considering your statement that it was an explicit assumption that there would be no influx or outflux into the system.

And all existing supply curves already incorporate barriers to entry, like I said. This doesn’t mean that the number of workers in those sectors remains constant. The number of lawyers today is different than 20 years ago and the number there will be in 20 years.

This is basically what I said earlier: it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. My perspective is perhaps slightly different than yours to the extent I think we should be looking at overall social utility, and not just the utility of those already in the sex trade. You may argue that focusing on social utility may mean that the current sex workers bear most of the costs while non-sex-workers reap most of the gains, and although this is true, the standard response would be that the government can reallocate those benefits through its tax and spending powers. This may be unconvincing, but it really comes down to better policy and implementation, even if the goal remains the same (which it may or may not, once the analysis is done)

I disagree. Ralph Nader’s car-safety advocacy was largely the result of his seeing a child almost get decapitated by the metal dashboard and glove compartment in a car. The sea change in car-safety regulation happened because of the danger to kids, not in spite of it. Car-manufacturer organizations were obviously not in favour of increased regulation, but social utility isn’t actually maximized by blindly accepting everything self-interested groups have to say.

That’s true, and especially true when it comes to things like foreign aid (which is really domestic aid due to domestic-spending restrictions usually tied to things sent overseas in state-sponsored humanitarian efforts), but I’m not sure how true it is when forced sex and underage sex remains a significant domestic problem, as well

That’s true, and that’s why I would personally be in favour of legalized prostitution under a relatively strictly regulated system that is open to all sex workers—perhaps even initially under a governmental monopoly until the sector becomes normalized and matures—coupled with vigorous crackdowns on all prostitution operating outside of the regulatory structure and a real increase in resources available for those that might be vulnerable to forced labour (possibly financed by the tax revenues raised by legalizing the industry).
.

Yes, but there are organizations that want to stem forced and underage sex in ways that respect voluntary sex workers as much as possible. As I said above, I happen to believe that legalization and licensing is one of the mechanisms that would help achieve this, and I’m hardly alone in thinking this way. (Apparently a lot of neo colonial christians share my views.)

90

the only dismissal is your opinion. I only listen to others experienced in the subject.

No, because the people that you are talking about doesn’t want saving. And you just don’t care what your ignorance brings to the actual people involved by the way you dismiss sex workers and favor sensationalist media instead.

And that is exactly the sad position one takes when you don’t listen to the actual people involved and only listen to sensationalist media.

Sex worker organizations can not eliminate huge mass market of neo colonialst saviour market that is anti trafficking movement funded by Christian /US money. They can only hope that they stop using them as targets for their own money making scheme. However, many orgs have issued signs that says “RIGHTS not RESCUE”
Further, there’s no way that such practices are eliminated or stopped and for harm reduction and empowerment to govern their own workplace to take place. Your attitude shows we are far from it.

This what you support when you support the anti trafficking movement that use law enforcement. Do you really THINK for a second that law enforcement involved does not equate to violence against sex workers? ??? Naive privileged people like yourself are the issues pushing to DO something about sex trafficking and calling for “better enforcement” are the ones calling all the enforcement to brothels and sending money in that direction - ending up with terrible rape and harm to sex workers. But of course, you don’t give a damn because you are so fucking concerned about “children”. it’s like talking to old Christian fundamentalist wanting to shut down the internet or limit gay and lesbian sites because it harms children. When you try to explain that while there may be children harmed - you cant just shut down sites and limit information… do they listen or think YOU are just not caring enough about children. It’s the same fucking thing.

WTF - if you aren’t gonna listen to the sex workers, just shut up. You don’t know more then them. It is NOT a banking organization - most sex worker organization is made of WORKERS . NOT managers/owner /operators for conflict of interest. If you want to listen instead to the US propaganda backed by Christian fundamentalist organization - go ahead. I have nothing more to say to a disgusting person who would toss out marginalized community due to your privileged opinions ignorant of what other communities goes through.

1 Like
91

Again, because you refuse to listen to the actual people involved and think your privileged opinion is more important, you neglect the position of sex workers which is that legalization means partial criminalization.

Legalization makes police the controlling force of sex workers - which I shouldn’t need to explain to you why this is terrible idea. Further, Because of prejudiced people like yourself, there will be MANDATORY sti testing - which leads to increase in STI transmission and goes against health organization recommendation of harm reduction via allowing free and anonymous testing. You may be required to register with the state - in which some sex workers may not have proper ID - even if they did, may not wish their info connected to their sex work for rest of their life not knowing where that info witll be used. They may only be able to work in brothels and not privately, or not street based work - which all comes to the final point that it makes a two tier system that often, the MOST MARGINALIZED of the industry further hides underground and does not receive the care nor protection that they need. If you for one second think government can make rules about sex that makes any sense - you are WRONG. The price will be paid by sex workers and indeed the ‘trafficking victim’ you so wish to focus on . From the BEGINNING I have stated that sex work orgs does include MANY that have experienced violence, labour violations, human rights violation and trafficking. Which you dismissed because you just wanted to babble with your ignorance.

You possess the worst kind of ignorance in which you assert your position onto marginalized. Not even caring AT ALL to actually ask questions to the people involved because you just assume /assert superiority over others. This is the problem to begin with in general in society. We NEED to start asking questions and we NEED to start listening and understand why/how things happen to marginalized to support them so people can help themselves to better their own situation rather than idiots- oh , sorry, well-meaning privileged white people asserting their assumptions and prejudice over others.

1 Like
92

No, you’re right it doesn’t. What it does mean is you don’t have to adjust P0 based on people outside the industry because then you’re double-upping on handling the same adjustment. You don’t adjust for the same thing twice.

I did not state there would be no influx or outflux into the system, only that the increase in the supply as it was being talked about there was about the existing sex workers within the supply curve - which already takes influx and outflux into account - increasing their hours and therefore the P0 did not need to be adjusted based on entry of new workers because the assumption was based on a) something that already takes into account entry of new workers, and b) talking about a change in their behaviour leading to an increase in supply rather than an increase of workers ie: increased productivity.

93

Actually, the more I think about it, the more incomprehensible the supply curves are.

If we interpret them as aggregated supply curves, which makes the most logical sense if we’re trying to understand how the market as a whole would work, then you are right. But as an aggregate supply curve it also makes no sense to include a P0 term at all, as this varies between individuals in the market, and the shape of the aggregate supply curve already incorporates entry into, and exit from, the system at various points (as you say). Furthermore, as an aggregate supply curve it also makes no sense for for the curve to double back on itself: even if individual workers cut back on their hours when they make a lot of money, the high wages will drive additional workers into the industry (which is why @Boundegar hasn’t seen this kind of supply curve before).

If we look at the supply curve as simply as one individual’s decision of how many hours to work—which is the only context on which a back-bending supply curve seems to make much sense—then Hill must recognize that it is possible that P2 may drop below P0 for some workers, and that these workers will then leave the sector. It’s only in this vein that including P0 makes sense, and that’s how I originally interpreted his curves (even if it makes less and less sense to me to look at the issue this way).

But no matter how we interpret his supply curves, I think the fundamental problem is that I agree that you don’t adjust for the same thing twice—which Is why the creation of S2 doesn’t make much sense. You don’t create a new supply curve (either in aggregate or at the worker level) just because demand has dropped. Without that new supply curve, however, supply does not increase (unless P1 was already on the point in the supply curve where it was bending back on itself). I mean, under S1 workers would work fewer total hours at a lower price if demand dropped. Demand drops. All of a sudden, we decide to throw out S1 and invent S2, because we now want to say they would actually work more hours if there was less demand, which is to say that S1 was actually wrong to say they would work fewer hours at that wage. So we’ve adjusted for decreasing demand twice: once within S1, and the second time by creating a totally new supply curve because we didn’t like the answers the original curve generated.

94

Legalization does not make police the controlling force of sex workers any more than legalization of the banking industry makes the police the controlling force of banks and bankers or the legalization of porn has made the police the controlling force in the porn industry.

I’m not sure that any health organizations have said that mandatory health testing would be a bad idea from a public health perspective, especially in an environment of strict licensing. It may not be particularly great for all of those already in the sex trade, but public health is concerned with more than just sex workers.

Lots of people in lots of regulated industries are required to register with the state. Not all of them can, and that also shuts them out of the market. I can’t legally work in Thailand in my profession. But because I’m a sex worker, they should turn a blind eye to my lack of documentation? This isn’t a terribly compelling argument in itself, especially since registration may not require legal status (akin to the idea of allowing undocumented immigrants in the US to obtain driver’s licenses).

It’s starting to sound like you’re making arguments based on marginalization, as opposed to sex work. I don’t know if you believe that some people actually enter the sex trade because of their marginalized status in society (I suspect you would deny it, since such a recognition would seem to be demeaning to sex workers), but taking care of people who are marginalized (primarily by ignorant white christian kony-2012 racists such as myself, I imagine, though this would seem to imply they’re not actually marginalized in places like Uganda or wherever) and vulnerable is different than regulating an industry with significant public-health risks.

There are anti-prostitution organizations that also include members from all of these. Would you be convinced of anything I said if I gave you random links to statements supported by former sex workers?

Guess what: society owes no obligation to the sex trade to create regulations and systems that purely benefit sex workers without placing any burdens on them. Society doesn’t have that responsibility to any sector. I’m sure workers in all sorts of industries have ideas on how their life could be made easier and government intervention less burdensome.

This doesn’t mean that the current enforcement mechanisms are great, and that all governments are doing a good job. But it does mean that sex workers don’t—and shouldn’t—get the last word on how their industry should be regulated.

95

that is because you are ignorant and prejudiced and never cared to actually really listen and ask questions.
http://www.who.int/hiv/events/2012/world_aids_day/hiv_testing_counselling/en/
http://www.ashm.org.au/HIVLegal/Default.asp?publicationID=2&SectionID=337

sex workers are marginalized. Mostly by people like yourself. Marginalization does not mean sex workers are helpless victims needing rescue by people like yourselves . Like with any groups who are marginalized , sex workers are seeking empowerment and to be listened to which is slowly happening in public health sector but obviously not public .

There are no anti-prostitution abolitionist lobby that are all peer sex workers/ex sex workers and executive made of peers. It is largely religious fundamentalist or radical feminist (sex work and trans exclusionary ) organizations used by politicians.

That’s fine. Then I guess you really don’t care about public health, people getting killed or trafficked if you don’t care about sex workers, please - just shut up. Sex workers are member of the public too and human - deserves the same human right that everyone has. If anyone should be kicked around - it’s people like yourselves who just don’t give a damn about others. Just this week -
http://titsandsass.com/the-week-in-links-january-2nd/

WOW - how your opinion changed all the sudden from

proven already my point about your serious lack of understanding of marginalized groups and your assumptions.

WOW - grade A asshole who really don’t get it and just don’t care.

1 Like
96

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.