Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 1  0

I got kind of caught up in the public-health aspect in it (which is sort of natural given my occupation)….but there are some other benefits.

Such a system would help spotlight the really overt and clear exploitation, as I mentioned…..but it would also help the less overt stuff, or rather if done correctly …it could help.

For one, it would gather sex workers together, and would make it hard for them to be pushed completely underground. They could talk to and support one another, maybe even unionize. Visits from social workers could be arranged.

It would also allow some more efficiency in the system, and could encourage more open discussion on the topic.

Overall I think a better way to address the type of exploitation that Harriet talks about in pornography is changes in society and social values…..but I just wanted to add that such a system of legalized prostitution could assist in that process.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Re: some the discussion about pornography, and taking a similar route with prostitution.

I think one thing that hinders the resolution of this issue is, we as a society currently don’t have much to separate the “good” (or at least “not-bad”), from the bad…in an overall way and for practical purposes. Right now we just have to sort of take it on a case by case basis, and for society at large…determining whether a given person is being exploited or empowered has no practical upshot; they’re all criminals under current law.

Legalizing and regulating it would at least give us some yardstick with which to measure, and not just a tautology of “bad-illegal” prostitution either….it could help mitigate some of the actual problems.

Johns who are looking to pick up prostitutes to murder are unlikely to head to a brothel where they are required to show ID. Johns who care somewhat about the safety, happiness, and health of the sex workers, are more likely to go to a regulated brothel with rules to promote these…..while Johns who don’t are more likely to pick up girls on the street. Conversely, girls who are being exploited by someone are less likely to end up in a system which discourages exploitation.

I don’t think we’ll ever be able to get rid of the age-old trade in sex and money…but I think for now it’s worth considering as at least one avenue of attack a strategy to mitigate some of the negative effects, and encourage healthy practices.

This won’t stop the illicit trade of course: it’s expensive to try and ensure the workers are healthy…so Johns will seek the cheaper “street walkers”. Some girls won’t be able to get into a brothel because they have an STD. Some have a taste for young children, which won’t be legalized.

That’s kind of the point though.

It isn’t so much that it will absolutely stop the bad stuff, but it will help shrink the ambiguity involved: we will have a line where we can say “anything on that side of the line needs to be intervened in for sure”. That won’t mean that anything on “this” side is all sunshine and roses…but it’s a start.

There will be problems even within the system: for example a woman may be coerced into going to work in a legal brothel by her lover, family, whoever….or any other number of things.

A lot of this of course depends on other changes happening, and just how the system is implemented. I think a system similar to how drug use is de-criminalized in some countries should be considered.

De-criminalize the “use” (in this case, I would consider the sex workers the “users”, more than the Johns)….recognize we won’t stop the “use”…but try to ensure it occurs in as healthy a manner as possible. When a someone is encountered outside the system, they should be referred either to a program to get them into a legal brothel…or out of sex work. In some cases criminal charges may have to be involved, but that should not be the standard response like it is now.

Bring the the legal hammer down on the “dealers”: the pimps and traffickers etc…or the Johns in certain cases.

It would of course bring some problems of it’s own….and completely fail to address others.
A highly imperfect solution…but I think it’s at least marginally better than what we have now.

The biggest change needed is still a social one: a mass realization of the reality and nature of the problems these people are facing, a desire to help them, improved attitudes towards sex, etc etc.

This is a system that would have to be implemented in a very thoughtful and careful manner to really work… We could end up with a token change which only justifies increased harassment of sex workers because they “have the chance to do it legally, but aren’t”….similar to the way growing marijuana was once technically legal…but only with impossible-to-obtain “tax stamps”.

The way politics are in this country, I’m not convinced it would work…..but I think it’s worth getting a dialog going. It’s at least something feasible with tangible practical benefits.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

they put up their video on youtube. i quite like it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqV_dg1PR7o

i’m sorry if this is off topic, but i just wanted to share it.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 1  0

I see a lot of antifeminist crap coming from people that I know are smart enough to know better, and who I know will spout off something deeply feminist in the next breath, provided they can say it in a way that doesn’t seem feminist. I think so much of this is due to the fact that, although most social workers are in almost completely female spaces during most of their work day, when they need to pitch something that has to change or move or shake, they’re pitching it to a male-dominated space (lawyers, judges, cops). So scrubbing their language is probably a professional survival mechanism.

Like or Dislike: 3  0

And yet, patriarchy and feminism were verboten words. When I mentioned feminism or patriarchy — not even by name but just by idea — I got crinkled up faces of distaste. I don’t know how you can come up with a solution to a problem that primarily affects an underclass without addressing what makes them an underclass, and how to destroy that particular noose.

I mean. What. The. Fuck. Is wrong with these people? How can you talk about sex abuse and trafficking, in any honest sense, without discussing feminism and patriarchy (even if those specific words aren’t used)? It’s like having a discussion about child malnutrition but making kitty-butt-mouth at anyone who brings up the subject of poverty.

The only thing I can come up with is that these are people who are coming from a deeply antifeminist, traditional worldview, where women are cherished virginal creatures who need to be protected by the unavoidable excesses of Male Sexuality, hurrrr. I’m at a loss.

I have an old friend who is very active in victims’ rights and anti-trafficking (though I’m sure said friend is not Robin); think I will buttonhole them and ask WTF.

Like or Dislike: 1  0

As for gender-neutral pronouns, singular they is at least as old as Shakespeare and comes naturally to me. “Despite almost two centuries of vigorous attempts to analyze and regulate it out of existence, singular they is alive and well.” (Ann Bodine)

Like or Dislike: 2  0