This New York Times article is critical of prostitution, and of legalizing it

[BaronArtz]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/opinion/buying-sex-should-not-be-legal.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

 

I must say that this article, although very one sided, makes valid points. It certainly made me think about a few things. As some of you know, one of my escort friends - a male aged 23 - was badly abused. I am sensitive to issues dealing with abuse. We do not live in a dream world ...

[Guest]

The way to keep those who sell it safe from pimps and traffickers is to keep everything legal and above-board. If one creates a legal, safe market, one eliminates the need for traficking, pimps, and the criminal element. The reason pimps and traffickers can get away with what they do is that the prostitutes can't go to the police because what they're doing is illegal. Keeping things legal protects the seller, the buyer, and the public via public health measures. The only people hurt by legalization are the pimps and traffickers.

[BaronArtz]

The way to keep those who sell it safe from pimps and traffickers is to keep everything legal and above-board. If one creates a legal, safe market, one eliminates the need for traficking, pimps, and the criminal element. The reason pimps and traffickers can get away with what they do is that the prostitutes can't go to the police because what they're doing is illegal. Keeping things legal protects the seller, the buyer, and the public via public health measures. The only people hurt by legalization are the pimps and traffickers.

 

I wish I could agree with you, but this article seems to indicate that it is not the case in countries that have legalized prostitution, i.e. Netherlands, Germany and New Zealand where crime is up. Only the 'Nordic' model (johns get arrested, escorts can go to the cops) seems to have worked moderately.

[rogerG]

The article demonstrates what a difficult subject this is. The gay male view of gay escorting may be too singular and narrow, which means the numbers who appreciate the positive benefits of this transaction may be too small to build a law-changing consensus.

 

IMO, all is not lost. Rentboy was nothing more than a hosting reseller service, selling online space specifically to escorts. It can be replaced, and I predict it will be replaced. No matter what computer I used through the years, I always found Rentboy glitchy, so personally, I won't miss it. One can only speculate why their IT department never got the coding right.

 

Clearly, given our laws, it's a mistake to base a site like Rentboy with a host based in the U.S. Hopefully, whatever site replaces Rentboy will emerge soon, offer stiff competition, and give escorts and customers a user-interface to die for and a monthly subscription rate and TOS that doesn't scream greedy. I am an optimist.

[+ WilliamM]

I wish I could agree with you, but this article seems to indicate that it is not the case in countries that have legalized prostitution, i.e. Netherlands, Germany and New Zealand where crime is up. Only the 'Nordic' model (johns get arrested, escorts can go to the cops) seems to have worked moderately.

 

Thanks for posting the article. It is very important.

 

It was in yesterday's Times op-ed page. The same day as the Rentboy editorial, but most people read The Times on line.

[ncc1701d]

I wish I could agree with you, but this article seems to indicate that it is not the case in countries that have legalized prostitution, i.e. Netherlands, Germany and New Zealand where crime is up. Only the 'Nordic' model (johns get arrested, escorts can go to the cops) seems to have worked moderately.

 

But the problem with that method (buying illegal and selling legal) is that it reduces the number of people buying (as the article indicate), which would mean less income for the people selling, presumably the main reason behind why they are doing it in the first place. And if less income, you are now forcing them into other ways to make money and possible even less safe venues. So you still end up hurting the sellers when the intent was to protect them!!! Making both sides legal means it's up to the individuals doing the buying/selling to choose (isnt' that the premise of a free country!?!), and if things go wrong they can have the protection of the police/law. Just because this method has increased buying doesn't mean that things OVERALL aren't safer. The examples cited in the article of increased crime is highly biased and may have nothing to do with prostitution...it is association at best.

[AdamSmith]

Clearly, given our laws, it's a mistake to base a site like Rentboy with a host based in the U.S.

 

Yesterday someone mentioned something about the female-escort sites being potential next targets. Out of curiosity I looked into who owns http://www.eros.com/. There are a couple of U.S. entities, but behind them appears to be an entity with the foresight to have based itself in The Netherlands.

[Newly]

Give me a break. The reason everyone is so anxious to see this legalized is because otherwise their access to young men will be limited. There are exceptions to everything but for the most part prostitutes are in a bad bargaining position and if the income inequality in the US keeps getting worse one wouldn't expect this to change. The experience in countries that have legalized prostitution such as Germany hasn't been pretty - unless you consider a bunch of tourists flooding your country to have sex with prostitutes to be a plus. One thing legalization will do, however, is lower prices big time. Legalization should increase the supply while demand probably won't go up so watch those prices fall. If I were an escort I don't think I would want legalization....look at what happened to the price of booze after prohibition.

[Rudynate]

No matter what computer I used through the years, I always found Rentboy glitchy, so personally, I won't miss it. One can only speculate why their IT department never got the coding right.

 

.

 

It was a mystery why the just didn't seem to be able to get it right. Upgrade after upgrade - it never got better, just different.

[+ stevenkesslar]

I must say that this article, although very one sided, makes valid points. It certainly made me think about a few things. As some of you know, one of my escort friends - a male aged 23 - was badly abused. I am sensitive to issues dealing with abuse. We do not live in a dream world ...

 

I think that we all better get as clear as we can about how we feel about this. This is the shoe that's been waiting to drop for a few decades, with Rentboy at least. If this kind of harassment is allowed to stand, there will be more to come, is my guess. So we better get clear and we better be prepared to push back, if we don't like it.

 

There is one thing that is almost certain about this woman's story: decriminalizing prostitution would not have done anything to change the horror story she encountered. Her main point is that while decriminalization of prostitution may benefit what she calls a "privileged minority" of "white, middle-class Western" women (and men) - (I guess she thinks all escorts are white, too! ) - it does not help the most vulnerable and marginalized, including children, like she was when she was "bought and sold," starting at the age of 15. I completely agree with her, as far as her story goes. No one would argue that 15 year olds should be coerced into selling their bodies for sex. The people who do this to 15 year old boys and girls should be put behind bars for a long time.

 

Her story is horrific, but it actually undercuts her main point, I think. When everything horrible she describes happened to her, prostitution was illegal. And yet it still happened. Why is that? Because this is the oldest profession in the book, and it it is going to happen anyway. That's not really something that is open for discussion, if we are going to be realistic. What is open for discussion is HOW it happens. Prostitution is basically illegal in the US right now. Yet the Dept. of Justice estimates over 17,500 people are trafficked into America for sex every year, and the State Dept. estimated in 2000 that over 200,000 American youth, many runaways, are at risk of sexual trafficking. The author herself notes that "human trafficking is the second largest enterprise of organized crime in the world." Again, that undercuts her own argument, because that is happening in a world where prostitution is mostly illegal, already. Whether you use her painful personal example or the global generalization she makes, it leads you to the same place: simply making prostitution criminal does not stop criminals from doing it. We of all people should know that, since we are all, according to DHS, conspirators in a so-called "global criminal enterprise."

 

Shutting down Rentboy.com, which is about consensual relationships among adult gay men, will do nothing to stop that. Nothing. Really, how could it? And if you believe the coalition of medical, LGBT, and human rights groups that is emerging to support decriminalization, forcing prostitutes to work in the darkest alleyways will simply encourage all of the worst abuses. This issue is full of ambiguity. But one thing I personally feel very clear about is that what DHS is doing is an attack, and NOT a solution. It is going to make America less safe, and less healthy. Prostitution will continue, just in unsafer and unhealthier ways.

 

Depending on what you read, in countries (like Germany) where prostitution was decriminalized, crime may be up, or down, and trafficking may be up, or down. I am very data-driven. Here is one comparison I would make, on a different issue. In Australia, after a 1996 gun massacre that left 35 people dead, the government instituted strict gun control measures. One study found that in the decade that followed, firearm homicide rates went down 59 percent, and firearm suicide rates went down 65 percent, without a parallel increase in non-firearm homicides or suicides. You can debate any statistic, and the article I just pulled those numbers from does. But there is so much compelling global evidence that gun control works, if it is enforced, that you really have to rationalize a lot of clear findings away if you are against gun control. I don't think there is any really clear or compelling evidence that, in the real world, in countries that have actually done it, decriminalizing prostitution has CLEARLY helped or hurt when it comes to things like sex trafficking and human slavery. There are a whole bunch of statistics and claims, but even those suggest that if decriminalization makes a difference, it is only at the margin. That is exactly why Amnesty International had a long debate about the issue before voting for decriminalization. There is nothing simple about it.

 

The author does not really present any statistics that suggest that decriminalization made anything worse. In New Zealand, she says "young women in brothels have told me that men now demand more than ever." Okay. Lots of people have told me lots of things, too. She is analytical about what happened in Germany: "In Germany, where prostitution was legalized in 2002, the industry has exploded. It is estimated that one million men pay to use 450,000 girls and women every day. Sex tourists are pouring in, supporting “mega-brothels” up to 12 stories high." Could someone explain to me how that makes a good argument AGAINST decriminalization? Because it sounds to me like it has expanded the free market for consensual adult sex. More men can enjoy having it, and more women can enjoy getting paid for it. Without having bullshit labels like "global criminal enterprise" thrown at them by government nannies like DHS. People posting on this site should LOVE the idea of having legal places like this to go to. You've just been talking in other posts about how great it would be if you could go to a local hustler bar and hire a hot guy, in person. I'm assuming, of course, you'd rather not be arrested and be labelled a "criminal" for doing so. Right?

 

Part of the HOW that would relate to decriminalized 12 story brothels or hustler bars are questions like this: 1) Should there be mandatory HIV checks? 2) Should there be mandatory ID checks to make sure the rentboy is an adult? The list could go on, but it is irrelevant. Because the one thing DHS just guaranteed is that in the United States, if you actually fill in fields on an Internet web site that relate to anything that can be perceived as "sexual," even if it's whether you are a "twink" that looks under age, or whether you "shave," you may be labelled as part of a "global criminal enterprise" and you will be subject to arrest. Thank you, DHS. We are all really getting somewhere, aren't we?

 

I'm assuming decriminalization will happen like it did in Nevada - in local jurisdictions, or like it is happening with marijuana - in states. Speaking for myself, that would be a good thing. It is a complicated issue. Usually when you make it moral and black and white, LGBT people end up on the wrong side of the equation, as perverts or criminals. I'd rather have a system where we decriminalize consensual sex between adults, and focus law enforcement resources on busting down on crimes with real victims, and provide resources to those victims, like the woman who wrote this op-ed piece. THAT might have actually helped her a lot. Her own article provides yet another example of how decriminalization can do this. As she writes: "In countries that have decriminalized the sex trade, legal has attracted illegal. With popular support, the authorities in Amsterdam have closed down much of the city’s famous red light district — because it had become a magnet for criminal activity." I read that this way: Once you filter her understandably angry opinion against male pimps out, it sounds like in Amsterdam prostitution is legal, cops focus on real crime rather than turning prostitutes into felons, and the public supports it. Hurrah!

 

The more I read, the more I realize the Rentboy bust was the perfect thing for the post 9/11 security apparatus. The more you look into how well they do their job, the more incompetent they look. They can't keep federal employees in federal buildings safe from cybercrime (says the GAO, about the DHS). They can't keep airport travelers safe from people carrying guns and weapons (says DHS, about the TSA). Does anyone really believe that agencies that work this poorly would be able to really help the woman who suffered through hell and wrote this op-ed piece? I'm a liberal who likes the government to help people, and I don't think DHS would have a clue. If they are cops, it's like Keystone Kops. They think in simple terms, they do stupid things, and they label us as the bad guys and perverts, because - egads! - we like gay sex.

 

If this is the best argument that opponents of decriminalization have, it's helping to convince me that decriminalization maybe should be a priority for the LGBT community - precisely because if it is done well, it COULD help people like the woman who suffered through hell and wrote this op-ed piece.

[+ stevenkesslar]

Give me a break. The reason everyone is so anxious to see this legalized is because otherwise their access to young men will be limited. There are exceptions to everything but for the most part prostitutes are in a bad bargaining position and if the income inequality in the US keeps getting worse one wouldn't expect this to change. The experience in countries that have legalized prostitution such as Germany hasn't been pretty - unless you consider a bunch of tourists flooding your country to have sex with prostitutes to be a plus. One thing legalization will do, however, is lower prices big time. Legalization should increase the supply while demand probably won't go up so watch those prices fall. If I were an escort I don't think I would want legalization....look at what happened to the price of booze after prohibition.

 

Um, sorry, I know I'm being long-winded. You're making a bunch of good points, but let me challenge one part of what you say. I agree with you that supply would go up. THAT alone is a very good reason to be against decriminalized prostitution, if you think it is morally wrong. But why do you think demand would not go up as well? You just said that it did in Germany, as did the author of the op-ed piece. That may be because it is not legal in the countries next door, or maybe lots of Europeans like that hot white Aryan look. Whatever the reason, you and her both seem to agree that demand went up. And you are exactly right. In a world where income inequality is growing, and some people with college degrees can apparently only get minimum wage jobs at McDonalds, should we assume it would bad for them to choose to go to work at a legal brothel or hustler bar? I've met several PhD's who earned their degrees through hustling. What's wrong with being both smart and sexy? Really?

 

I ran out of space above, but here's the other claim the author makes that I think undercuts her own argument more than anything else: "In the United States, prostitution is thought to be worth at least $14 billion a year. Most of that money doesn’t go to girls like my teenage self." To me, that really does say it all. Prostitution is illegal, and yet maybe tens of thousands of girls and boys in the US are being forced to sell their bodies for sex, and they are being screwed, financially and in every way. And anybody who says that decriminalizing prostitution will magically end that is kidding themselves. As you say, give me a break. But keeping prostitution illegal doesn't stop it either, does it?

 

The other question the $14 billion estimate raises is this: what would that number be in a decriminalized US? Assuming it would be higher, would that be a bad thing? And would it be a bad thing if prices dropped ten percent, and male escorts who charge $250 for an hour of their time charged only $200 for doing something legal and safe? I just have a hard time following the logic of how any of that is bad. And I can tell you from 15 years of experience what is actually incredibly good. I have no pimp. I do this because I choose. I earn my money (for my TIME, not for SEX - since we all know DHS is spying) and I keep it. And if something made me feel unsafe, or if somebody wanted me to do something I didn't want to do, I could tell them to go fuck themselves. Now, being a nice guy, I didn't actually say it that way. But I could have.

 

I'm assuming that if the author were 19, and had actually chosen to be a female escort, she would have wanted to keep her money, too. $14 billion is a lot of money. So let's not mix apples and oranges. Or dogs and human beings. Oh, by the way, LGBT people should be very good at that. Because for decades we were told that if you are going to let two men or two women marry each other, why not let a man marry a dog? So our bullshit detectors ought to be on high alert, and we ought to know the difference between a 21 year college "boy" who is earning his PhD by hustling, and a 17 year old real "boy" who has been sexually abused, is a runaway, and is the victim of sex trafficking.

 

Honestly, what I really don't understand yet is why child sex trafficking has NOT clearly gone down more in countries that decriminalized prostitution. To me, if you can choose between legally hiring the 19 year old in a hustler bar or "picking up" the 17 year old on the street outside and being subject to arrest, that's kind of a no brainer. Despite the fact that I have apparently worked at the center of a "global criminal enterprise" for 15 years now, I just have a hard time actually thinking like a criminal. But my best guess is that sex, and crime, will always be with us, and that is why cops will always be with us, too. All I can tell you is how I feel. I would rather live in a society where you could walk in a hustler bar and hire a 19 year old without fear of it being a crime, assuming it's consensual, but if you walk outside and "pick up" the 17 year old, you get busted, even if it's consensual. How you actually help that 17 year old, who may be homeless or a drug addict, is a pretty complicated thing, I think. I honestly don't have a clue, other than the statistics tell us there are lots of them. But I'd rather have society's resources focused on them, and at least be trying to help. And if part of the money for that comes from the taxes paid in a decriminalized industry worth $14 billion or $20 billion or whatever .... believe me, I'll pay my fair share. I'm also 1000 % sure I'd rather pay it to the IRS than have the DHS bust me and seize it, for sure.

[+ FreshFluff]

Legalization should increase the supply while demand probably won't go up so watch those prices fall.

 

Are you so sure about that? There must be men--especially married ones-- who browse Rentboy or the Erotic Review but either fear the consequences if caught or just don't like the idea of breaking the law. Same goes for anything else that's illegal.

[+ stevenkesslar]

Again, I know I am being long-winded. But if this thread is about whether decriminalization is actually good, and why, you guys ought to read and think long and hard about this part of the author's op-ed piece:

In New Zealand, where prostitution was decriminalized in 2003, young women in brothels have told me that men now demand more than ever for less than ever. And because the trade is socially sanctioned, there is no incentive for the government to provide exit strategies for those who want to get out of it. These women are trapped.

 

There is an alternative: an approach, which originated in Sweden, that has now been adopted by other countries such as Norway, Iceland and Canada and is sometimes called the “Nordic model.”

 

The concept is simple: Make selling sex legal but buying it illegal — so that women can get help without being arrested, harassed or worse, and the criminal law is used to deter the buyers, because they fuel the market. There are numerous techniques, including hotel sting operations, placing fake ads to inhibit johns, and mailing court summonses to home addresses, where accused men’s spouses can see them.

 

Since Sweden passed its law, the number of men who say they have bought sex has plummeted. (At 7.5 percent, it’s roughly half the rate reported by American men.) In contrast, after neighboring Denmark decriminalized prostitution outright, the trade increased by 40 percent within a seven-year period.

 

Contrary to stereotype, the average john is not a loner or a loser. In America, a significant proportion of buyers who purchase sex frequently have an annual income above $120,000 and are married. Most have college degrees, and many have children. Why not let fines from these privileged men pay for young women’s counseling, education and housing? It is they who have credit cards and choices, not the prostituted women and girls.

As the OP already stated, that all sounds kind of "one-sided" to me. It actually is a decriminalization model - it's just one that makes it legal to sell sex, but not buy it. I suppose that might work for some escorts. Hell, you could even work with the cops to set johns up. I lure 'em in, you bust 'em, we both get our cut, and they go to jail and divorce court. How sweet!

 

If your goal is to discourage gay men from having consensual paid sex, as the author's data suggests, the Nordic model would be a way to do it. The US would be like Sweden, where there is less sex, not Denmark, where there is more. And if you believe that women who choose to sell sex are "trapped," and have no real choice when hired by men "who demand more than ever," then the Nordic model sounds great. The only way I can imagine something like that happening here would have to involve a weird political coalition between the Moral Majority and the Crazy Left. You'd have to have one group whose agenda is just discouraging sex, period, and another group who really buy into the idea that all prostitutes are "victims" who are "trapped." And therefore it's totally cool that the typical client on this site ends up busted and fined. And part of the fine from you "privileged" guys goes to pay for my college education, or my rent. Sweet! Or my therapist. Or maybe my new BMW, if I'm a smart little gold digger.

 

http://ohn1.slausworks.netdna-cdn.com/newohnblog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/gold-digger-magnet.jpg

 

After all - it's YOU privileged johns that have "credit cards and choices", not us poor whore girls. Oops! Sorry. I forgot about all those poor whore girls who advertised with Rentboy.com, and are now wondering whether DHS will come busting down their door.

 

Speaking for myself, all of this is why I don't like the Nordic model, period. I am a capitalist, in a capitalist country. I believe in a free market, and I believe that consumers should have choices. And the less we regulate either supply or demand, the better. Granted, there will always be a "global criminal enterprise" that breaks the laws and abuses consumers horribly and gets away with it. We all know that. There is a word for those people. They are called FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS. We also all know there are scapegoats who will be blamed for society's problems, because they are easier targets that incompetent government agencies can at least try to figure out how to go after. They are called RENTBOYS, and they advertise at places like Rentboy.com, which has the revenue of a small McDonalds franchise, and which just paid a hefty $1.4 million (thanks for the correction, Daddy) fine and is being placed on the pyre as today's sacrificial lamb.

 

Given what we know about how the government is currently handling a McDonalds franchise-size operation - seizing their $1.4 million as their own - do we really want to put the government in charge of how to regulate and fine a $14 billion (or more) decriminalized prostitution industry, based on the Nordic model?

 

I would think you guys might want to think very long and hard about that one!!!!!

[TruthBTold]

Steven, very well put. People should go watch the movie "Victim" to see how the law community can keep the true victims from getting access to justice. One thing that seemed not to have been mentioned is that the government (if it does things right) can gain revenue from regulating and monitoring such activities, e.g. alcohol, while offering safe environments to rent boys/girls. I think those things passed marijuana legislation in states and will eventually allow it on the federal level.

[+ SundayZip]

This opinion piece is exclusively about women in prostitution and I have absolutely no experience or insights into that world. Maybe the author has some valid points but I won't even attempt to argue for or against them. I don't know. But I do have enough experience with men who are sex workers to know that the author's generalization that all sex workers are exploited by pimps and clients is narrow, unenlightened bull shit. At least in the world that I know.

 

The author's objections are really about exploitation, not so much about sex work, per se. So make it legal and regulated and allow sex workers to unionize and have a part in governing their own industry. That seems like a more sure way to address the exploitation part of it rather than keep it all underground and unregulated.

[Lookin]

The author's objections are really about exploitation, not so much about sex work, per se. So make it legal and regulated and allow sex workers to unionize and have a part in governing their own industry. That seems like a more sure way to address the exploitation part of it rather than keep it all underground and unregulated.

 

True enough. And addiction, exploitation, homelessness, income inequality, poverty, and the high cost of education are problems that need solutions for the society-at-large. Tagging them onto the small subset of folks who engage in sex work is, in my opinion, a poor way to solve them.

 

Personally, I don't see a role for government in human sexuality. They're destined to be ineffective and it takes our national resources away from helping to solve real problems that we all face.

 

http://www.soulcysters.net/images/smilies/soapbox.gif

[Guest]

The article referenced by the original poster was written by Rachel Moran, the founder of Space International, which advocates the abolition of the sex trade, and the author of the memoir “Paid For: My Journey Through Prostitution.” It is hardly a scientific treatise, but rather an opinion piece by someone with a firm and vested opinion in the matter. This article does bring up one valid point which is backed up by actual scientific studies: at least when it comes to women, places which have legalized prostitution do indeed have higher reported human trafficking rates. What is not mentioned is that other scientific studies have shown lower rates of STD's and rape in areas where prostitution has been legalized. That being said, trafficking and pimping still is and should continue to be illegal and prosecuted as such. The so-called Swedish model in which it's not illegal to sell, but it is illegal to buy seems pretty outrageous in my view. Either a transaction is legal or it is not. Protecting the seller but not the buyer not only defies logic and any sense of fairness, but would hopefully not stand legal muster in the U.S.. What does seem reasonable and fair would be to prosecute the traffickers but not those being exploited, a proposal suggested in this article:

http://lsr.nellco.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1303&context=nyu_lewp

[uwsman2]

Be sure to note that the Times editorial is the official opinion of the newspaper. The article posted on this thread is an op-ed, not the official opinion of the NY Times. The Times' policy is to publish contrasting points of view on the op-ed page. The newspaper is not endorsing what is said in the op-ed articles.