Prostitution as taxation... a benevolent male offers to "Pay With Our Sins"

Oops, this should have gone in "body and soul".

Could a mod move it, please? Thanks.

Italian Prime Minister Berlusconi in trouble about a 10 000$ gift to a Naples 18-yr old... lover? Child of a lover? After his attempt to press buxom young women into service at the upcoming European elections, the press is abuzz.

WHO doctor in deeper trouble [4] in the Phillipines after being arrested while having sex with a 12-yr old boy. Will "Doctor Daddy" be protected by the WHO? Quite likely, alas. Would the world split open if the sexual privileges of Western countries' humanitarian and military personnel were really challenged?

Just how far will some men go to spread their disproportionate income in new, imaginative ways...?

that is a very good letter by Norma Ramos.

I'm not sure that the analogy holds since no one is being "bought" or "sold". "Rented" maybe but that's true of every job. People sell their services (in this case having sex).

Very interesting Martin, thanks for posting.  Ms Ramos makes excellent points; however, I still feel that legalization of prostitution is a worthwhile pursuit.  With gender inequality being a sad fact of life (and one that will unfortunately continue, despite our best efforts) we still have to consider the safety of the thousands of women and girls who are currently pressed into service at the behest of pimps, with no regulation whatsoever regarding their working conditions.  Governments should be addressing this issue as a matter of public health.  Continuing to regard prostitution strictly as a crime drives it deeper underground and seriously compromises the lives of the women and girls involved.       

Thanks martin, am thinking

I think the dogma is that rubbing someone's back and making them feel good is a respectable job. Rubbing someone's genitals and making them feel good is slavery and a human rights abuse. Something like that.

None of which is to say I support the trade in unwilling sex workers, pimps living off the avails of prostitution, or child prostitutes. But like yourself, I find the line to be somewhat arbitrarily drawn when talking about adults.

it's really something that the women involved should have more say about.

More and more of them are... and they dispute such facile justifications of male sexual privilege as the ones offered above.

Another interesting read: an Op-Ed published today in Pretoria, where legalization is being touted by the pimps lobby as the way to greet World Cup fans in 2010. The author examines how Germany's similar experiment in 2002 - in preparation of the 2006 World Cup - has defaulted on its promises, and their legislation is now up for review:

Wednesday, 27 May, 2009
Pretoria News (South Africa)

The question of legalising prostitution in South Africa for the World Cup is becoming increasingly pertinent in view of compelling evidence.

On July 7, 2000, Germany was announced as the host nation for the 2006 world cup finals. In 2002, prostitution was legalised in preparation for the tournament. This pattern is currently being repeated in South Africa.

The "Report of the Act Regulating the Legal Situation of Prostitutes (Prostitution Act)" published by the German Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth states that: "In 2006, the issues of trafficking in human beings and forced prostitution drew great media attention in the context of the Fifa Football World Cup. At home and abroad, not least on account of the distorted reporting on the matter, supporters of a general ban on prostitution criticised both Germany's attitude to prostitution and the Prostitution Act.

"For example, the Prostitution Act was accused of not having improved the prostitutes' social and legal position, and of promoting prostitution and favouring brothel operators and pimps. In addition, the Prostitution Act, as it was claimed, made it more difficult to combat trafficking in human beings and forced prostitution."

These discussions - along with its obligation to report to the German Bundestag - encouraged the German federal government to revisit the goals of the Prostitution Act. The goals were:

l For prostitution to no longer be considered immoral;

l To ensure that prostitutes could take legal action to enforce their pay;

l To facilitate access to social insurance;

l To remove the breeding ground for prostitution-related crime;

l To make it easier for prostitutes to leave prostitution; and

l To improve working conditions (which pose as few health risks as possible).

The "Report on the Prostitution Act" summarised the federal government's conclusions as follows: "The federal government believes that the Prostitution Act has only to a limited degree achieved the goals intended by the legislator.

l Although it has been possible to create the legal framework to enable contracts of employment to be concluded that are subject to social insurance, few have as yet made use of this option. The Prostitution Act has thus, up to now, also not been able to make actual, measurable improvements to prostitutes' social protection.

l As regards improving prostitutes' work conditions, hardly any measurable, positive impact has been observed. At most there are tentative signs that point in this direction. It is especially in this area that no short-term improvements that could benefit the prostitutes are to be expected.

The Prostitution Act has not recognisably improved the prostitutes' means for leaving prostitution.

l There are as yet no viable indications that the Prostitution Act has reduced crime. The Prostitution Act has as yet contributed very little in terms of improving transparency in the world of prostitution.

On the other hand, the fears that were partly linked to the Prostitution Act have not proved true, in particular in the area of fighting crime. The Prostitution Act has not made it more difficult to prosecute trafficking in human beings, forced prostitution and other prostitution-related violence."

Since South Africa won the right to host the 2010 World Cup tournament, various officials and organisations have been lobbying for the decriminalisation of prostitution - ostensibly to secure the "human rights" of women trapped in sexual slavery.

The terrible abuse and sexual exploitation of women and children trapped in prostitution have been a blight on our nation for many years. Why the urgency now to decriminalise the sex industry - a policy the overwhelming body of international evidence shows does not help women and children in prostitution?

The answer lies in the fact that this morally reprehensible, but lucrative trade in human flesh, stands to make crime syndicates, sex traffickers and corrupt officials millions of rands and underscores the point that legalised prostitution has nothing to do with the human rights of women and children - and all to do with the money it will generate for these human parasites.

Significantly, research drawn from nations such as Australia, New Zealand, Germany and the Netherlands shows that decriminalising or legalising prostitution does not improve or ensure the human rights and dignity of women and girls trapped in prostitution.

At the most basic level, an expansion of the sex industry in its current forms will be accompanied by increased incidences of violence.

Since legalisation, violence against women in prostitution does not seem to have decreased in the Netherlands or Victoria. There are even suggestions that it has increased. (Jeffreys 1997, Daley 2001). The only people who benefited from this policy are organised crime figures, sex traffickers and pimps.

Tragically, legalised prostitution in these nations has removed barriers and thrown the door open to international sex traffickers to operate with impunity.

As a result, there has been an explosion in legal and illegal street prostitution, child prostitution, drug dealing and money laundering.

The mayor of Amsterdam, Job Cohen, has admitted that this policy has failed in the Netherlands. Organised crime dominates the sex industry.

On May 18, Adam Walters reported in The Daily Telegraph that illegal brothels were exploding across Sydney in Australia, amid accusations that all levels of government were doing little to drive them out of business.

It has been claimed "tough" new laws have failed to prevent unprotected sex, slavery and corruption. An investigation by The Daily Telegraph revealed illegal brothels and escort services outnumbered licensed establishments by four to one - and the gap is growing.

The Adult Business Association (ABA) estimates the number of illegal sex services in the metropolitan area exceeds 400. "It's out of control," association spokesman Chris Seage said.

Despite the introduction of legislation 18 months ago to ease the burden of proof for councils that want to close illegal brothels, the ABA said they continued to thrive. Alarmingly, the crisis in Australia is being repeated in other major First World countries that have legalised or decriminalised prostitution.

Bonnie Erbe, contributing editor at US News & World Report, wrote in the June 15 2006 Seattle Post-Intelligencer article headed "Cry Foul on World Cup Prostitution" that "Germany is one of several European nations where prostitution is legal. Germany came late to this game, in 2002.

"In only four years, it built up a work force of 400 000-strong for its multibillion-dollar annual prostitution business. My admiration for relaxed European attitudes towards sex comes to an excruciatingly cacophonous halt on the issue of legalised prostitution.

"Women's-rights activists believe the German government's sanctioning of sex services for world cup visitors will drive the illicit international trade in sex trafficking. This, in turn, could force thousands of unwilling women into prostitution. "Whether women enter the sex trade willingly or not, no government should sanction prostitution. By its very nature, prostitution is demeaning to women and encourages antisocial, some would say depraved, behaviour by men. ...German officials... should ban prostitution altogether. Sanctioning of sex services for World Cup visitors will drive the illicit international trade in sex trafficking."

Gunilla Ekberg, special adviser to the Swedish division for gender equality in the Ministry of Industry, Employment and Communications, wrote an article titled "The Swedish Law That Prohibits the Purchase of Sexual Services: Best Practices for Prevention of Prostitution and Trafficking in Human Beings."

Published in the October 2004 issue of Violence Against Women, it said: "In Sweden, prostitution is officially acknowledged as a form of male sexual violence against women and children.

"One of the cornerstones of Swedish policies against prostitution and trafficking in human beings is the focus on the root cause - the recognition that without men's demand for and use of women and girls for sexual exploitation, the global prostitution industry would not be able to flourish and expand.

"Prostitution is a serious problem to society at large.

"Therefore, prostituted women and children are seen as victims of male violence. Instead, they have a right to assistance to escape prostitution."

We agree and call for the criminalising of the entire sex industry with particular focus on men who solicit and buy sex, procurers, pimps and sex traffickers. This must be accompanied by government-supported exit programmes to help women and girls escape prostitution.

Errol Naidoo is from the Family Policy Institute

(relayed by the PUSH Journal - Periodic Updates in Sexual and Reproductive Health Issues Around the World http://www.pushjournal.org)

so the article is in general agreement with Norma Ramos, "Legalization leads to an
expansion of the sexploitation industry and protects no one"  and is promoted by and for the men who want to profit from it.

More from a woman with fifteen years experience on the "whore circuit" - "Buying Women Is Not A Sport/Our women are not for sale" and B.C. women's proposal to VANOC, as a new approach to tourists. Also, this CBC [14]story that quotes an Edmonton grass-roots activist.

I love the idea that when you pay to have sex with a woman, you have "bought her".  As if paying her to do something means you own her now or something.  Very sexist!

Michelle, I think the refering to owning women has less to do with the paying for sex and more to do with the abuse, victimiation and violence that is most often prostiution and the continuation of the cycle that brought them to prostituation in the first place.  They feel owned not only by the men who perpetuate this cylce but also by the cycle itself.  It's like when an abusive man sees his partner as his property and the women feels like his property so does the prostitute feel like the property of the john and pimp.

"I love the idea that when you pay to have sex with a woman, you have "bought her".  As if paying her to do something means you own her now or something.  Very sexist!"

Yes, very sexist... but no less real for the men and the women involved. And even if it is tempting to dismiss johns as losers, it seems to me that men are the ones calling the shots - politically, judicially, economically, psychologically.

From Victor Malarek's The Johns - Sex for Sale and The Men Who Buy It: "(...) Joseph  Parker, clinical director at the Lola Greene Baldwin Foundation for Recovery in Portland, Oregon, says that most of the johns he has seen in Portland do not respect women and don't want to. They want control. "Real sexual relationships are not hard to find. There are plenty of adults... who are willing to have sex if someone treats them well and asks. But there lies the problem. Some people do not want an equal, sharing relationship. They do not want to be nice. They do not want to ask. They like the power involved in buying a human being who can be made to do almost anything.

"Some people do not want real relationships, or feel entitled to something beyond the real relationships they have," Parker continues. "They want to play superstud and sex slave... If they need to support their fantasies with pictures, videotapes, or real people to abuse, the sex trade is ready to supply them. For a price, they can be a legend in their own minds."

Catharine Mackinnon, Melissa Farley and Wendy Shalit debate prostitution on Youtube, (14 segments).

Doesn't a debate require at least two opposing viewpoints?

Is this like having John Travolta and Tom Cruise "debate" the merits of Scientology?

Click on the hyperlink, Snert... There are a number of other debaters arguing against the motion in this series: Tyler Cowen, Sidney Barrows, Lionel Tiger... In patriarchy, prostitution has many supporters.

And don't forget SATAN. 

HUH?

Satan also supports prostitution.  I'll bet Ted Bundy did, too.  And you know who else?  Hitler!  I'll bet Hitler supported prostitution!

It is true prostitution is the world's oldest profession, Throughout history, under the hardest, most severe military and religious regimes, those in power have never been able to suppress prostitution. When is the world going to wake up and consider, and I choose this label carefully, that "sex workers" are people too, with hearts and dreams and everything you in your safe surburban community desire: security, a better life, a better life for your children, a safe home, food on the table every day...? Sex workers have always provided an important role in society: imagine how rape, sexual violence, would increase without sex workers. Sex workers have rarely, if ever, been treated with the respect, that every human being deserves, by those in power. Regulate the sex industry, open brothels with strict regulations so that the workers can be protected, so that the customers can be protected, so that the workers are no longer in the streets, vulnerable as prey to pimps, police, politicians and religious fundamentalists.Teach your children that war is the most pornographic and sickest policy of your government. Teach your children that sex is one of the most natural of acts a human being can undertake. Work towards changing the mentality of society so that we all understand that sex workers are people too, and that they deserve a safe working environment just a a steel worker deserves it, just as a student deserves it, just as Dr. George R. Tiller deserved it. Change your mentality so that sex workers are considered as human beings with all the rights and justice that you want for you and your family.

I never thought I'd say this: Michelle, stop trolling.

And hi dino77. Welcome to babble. We've had the discussions before and it's an ongoing debate here. What's always missing are the voices of women and men who do sex work. I feel more and more reluctant to partake in these discussions without these voices.

And how dare you say I live in the suburbs! Well I never! Okay, once when I was a kid, but I didn't inhale.

I agree with dino77's comments completely.  martin, you may want to research Wendy Shalit (not familiar with the other names) - I believe she is against kissing before marriage, let alone anything else.

Hey, did I endorse her?... I am not too fond of Lionel Tiger either...

Why would anyone listen to someone debate prostitution, who is against kissing before marriage? So thanks for that info ghislaine!

Berlusconi is like the misogyny case study, nothing he does is surprising to me at this point.

In the 1988 movie pretty woman, julia roberts' character didn't kiss her clients. Maybe it's something like that :-)

lol @ 500 apples.

No it is more like writing a book on the "return to modesty" and the good girls revolution.

Governments have been trying to make prostitution illegal for a very long time - without success.
What they have succeeded in doing is driving it underground - such that many women are murdered - such as those in Edmonton, and those by Robert Pickton. Every country that drives prostitution underground has a similar story.

The current politically correct strategy seems to be to blame only the 'johns' and not the prostitutes themselves, regardless of who does the solicitation. In theory, this should make it OK for the prostitutes to approach police, but it rarely works in practice. Since the 'johns' become so afraid of being caught, everything is done very discretely - and as a consequence, there is very rarely anyone who can protect the women, should the john become violent.

While many women are victims of exploitation, that is not always the case. Some women do not hold sex to be so sacred and make the choice to trade sex for much more money than they could otherwise obtain. Simply viewing the Craigs Lists ads should indicate that there are many women, who are young and attractive, who could easily earn a living doing something else in Canada. Yet, they choose to earn more money as a prostitute.

If Canada were to stop dictating morality, and decide to legalize and control the industry (brothels), they could:

1) Drastically reduce the spread of disease.
2) Create much safer working conditions for the prostitutes.
3) Ensure no minors engage in the activity
4) Ensure no one is forced against their will into prostitution.
5) Collect taxes which could then be used to retrain these women, and/or fight trafficking in other countries.

The difference is that as long as demand exists for these services, they will be provided through the underground economy.
If you provide the johns with a better alternative: not illegal, no risk of disease, no chance of being beaten up by a pimp etc - they will use those services - instead of taking their chances. We have already seen this happen with alcohol. Now that government controls alcohol - who goes looking for it from a bootlegger? Not too many people.

If it's so simple and one-sided why is prostitution still illegal?

Like the War on Drugs, there's a moral component.

Those who simply want to have a more sensible, less harmful policy with regard to drugs say that we should legalize it. Those who cannot stand the thought of people being allowed to smoke a joint with impunity say we must never, ever capitulate, and that drugs must be eradicated from the face of the earth.

"If it's so simple and one-sided why is prostitution still illegal?"

Well, I don't think there are many politicians who want to come out supporting legalizing prostitution and brothels.

Allowing gay marriage is pretty simple and one-sided too, and look how long it took for them to get their act together.
The fact that something is still illegal, hardly suggests there is a credible reason that it has remained illegal.

Maysie wrote: "What's always missing are the voices of women and men who do sex work. I feel more and more reluctant to partake in these discussions without these voices."

This makes sense and I have tried to bring such voices here.

But what about the people who have been prostituted but no longer are? Shouldn't they be allowed a voice and have their experience respected, especially since they can now speak freely? "Then, I would have told you it was empowering and liberating - how could I look at myself in the mirror otherwise?", writes Trisha Baptie, a former prostitute who spent 15 years in the business.  And what about the researchers who listen to the women who do not dare come forward and relay their experience and demands for social change. e.g. Melissa Farley, Kate Quinn and the COARSE project in Edmonton, or anthropologist Rose Dufour [37] in Quebec City?

There is also the question of how does one define a "sex worker", especially when the majority of women in prostitution are demonstrably coerced and say they want out. Casting this discussion in terms of labor or of an identity becomes a sham, especially since most women's experiences of prostitution are part-time and transitory.

SexWork101 defines a "sex worker" this way: "A sex worker is a person who does erotic labor in exchange for an agreed upon exchange of money, goods or services." However, the most extreme of prostitution advocates (e.g. "Les Putes" in France, or the "Stella - Une amie de Maimie" organization here in Montreal) extend that definition to pimps, brothel owners, clients and supporters. If you have ever been either of these, you qualify as a "sex worker". So much for women's voices...

This unreasonable, purposefully meaningless definition reminds me of antifeminist dinosaur Warren Farrell's attempt to redefine incest as "family sex" in front of a convention of U.S. sexologists (OFF OUR BACKS, 1984, p. 7) and his poll of "family sex participants" that proved, unsurprisingly, that 50% thought it as just great!

It is clear that prostitution will never be understood as oppression if the people that control it and profit from it can speak in the same voice as the people hurt by it, all indistinctly lumped together as "participants".

Indeed, by that standard, one could say that this conversation meets Maysie's standard, since it involves people who have "dated"/hired prostituted people.

We have to do better than such obfuscation if we want to really challenge oppression. This means acnowledging people's experienced voices - as prostituted OR prostitutors (e.g. Victor Malarek's book, The Johns [38]) - and making collective solutions to the abuse of power a collective concern, calling for everyone's voice and commitment. 

It doesn't seem as though taxing prostitution would raise a whole load of cash anyway - apparently prices are dropping due to the recession.

The vices – smoking, drinking, sex – are usually bulletproof during a recession, says economist Perry Sadorsky, who teaches at York University's Schulich School of Business. So if the sex trade is hurting, "we are in the most serious depression since the 1930s. This shows the magnitude of the decline. It is deep and it is problematic."

Sex workers say their incomes began plummeting last fall, with johns pleading poverty and haggling over prices, and prostitutes bidding against each other.

http://www.thestar.com/living/article/646871

"Casting this discussion in terms of labor or of an identity becomes a sham, especially since most women's experiences of prostitution are part-time and transitory."

Jeez, sorry to make the debate a "sham."

"This unreasonable, purposefully meaningless definition reminds me of antifeminist dinosaur Warren Farrell's attempt to redefine incest as "family sex" in front of a convention of U.S. sexologists..."

So Martin, how would you label a sex worker? The label "sex worker" is not, in my opinion, "obfuscation." I agree that prostitution can be a form of oppression, but not in all cases. I propose that this debate comes back into focus, and instead of just bantering opinions about, real concrete solutions as to how to manage better prostitution are proposed and discussed. How to go about eliminating human trafficking, which in S.E. Asia is a major problem for young girls being forced into the sex industry.

I honestly believe that prostitution is only one form of a human being exploiting, coercing, oppressing andother human being. Plesase don't forget the power factor. I mentioned earlier in this discussion that the mentality of people must change in order that sex workers are treated with respect and justice. But this is a much greater problem that just in the domain of prostitution. Our  leaders, elected or appointed, political, busines or religious, are far from setting a "moral" example for children. The politician decide to go to war with your tax money, the CEO runs gigantic corporation bankrupt and then your tax money bails him out with a $20 million bonus, the Bishop spends donated money on giving children treats and forcing sex on them.

Oppressiion has always existed. Oppression is the root of the problem. This mentality is what must change. The change of mentality is an enormous objective, but that is what it will take so that sex workers, sweat shop workers, immgrant workers, all kinds of exploited people, get a better deal. Those few in power, the elite of this world, have the cards stacked in their favour, and until the people in power change, progress will only be inch by inch.

So, I say to you all, start now, start in your home. The start with your neighbours, then your friends, then move on to your community, and keep pushing because the road is long.

I think non-sex workers (that is, everyone in this thread) arguing over the semantics of defining what sex work is, something we have no personal experience of, is offensive and as I said before, I will not engage.

But Keystone, this piece you wrote is highly problematic and needs to be pointed out:

Yes, the pro-john position, it's been so maligned and misrepresented. 

Yes. I would gladly offer my right hand for the good of humanity, offering it as a legal, risk free alternative, but I occassionally have need of alternatives myself.

He was an avid supporter of marriage. What I find odd about these discussions is how the temporary employment of women in the sex trade on a piece work basis is heavily emphasized as an essential discussion point about sexism and gender inequality. There is hardly any interogation of sex relations between men and women as they are institutionalized in marriage. One really has to wonder at those who on the one hand don't bat an eyelash at women being economically dependent on a permanent slave master, but only get excited when some woman (noting that it is women who are mostly prostitutes) sell their services in the open market, gain economic independence and freely dispose of their wealth as they see fit.

Of course that is a rather idealized envisioning of this process, but here at the heart of the matter is the economic inequality that creates dependence, and the legal system and its moral underpinnings are heavily tilted toward rejecting independent profiteering by women in favour subjugating them in an approved institution of semi-permanent economic dependence, where they can expect no direct financial reward at all.

Exactly cue!

Cueball, feminists have been criticizing marriage and working to reform it, make it optional, creating divorce tracks for over two centuries. So I disagree that "There is hardly any interogation of sex relations between men and women as they are institutionalized in marriage" among feminists critical of the prostitution industry and the men who use it - most of these men being married BTW; which dissolves your either-or when guys are put back in the picture.  If what you mean is that no one ought to discuss prostitution without discussing marriage in the same breath, that's just censoring us by insisting on changing the subject.

In fact, some feminists have compared the options and benefits of women in marriage and prostitution. Not all agree but many see more security for women in modern-day Western society marriage than in prostitution as men run it. In any case, the point is that no one can seriously argue that women are presently being forcibly brought to and enslaved in marriage in our society.

Also, that line of argument obscures all other alternatives to prostitution... e.g. real employment, living wage, detox facilities, job training, subsidized housing, taking away this male privilege, etc. And, in relationships, non-commercial links with men or women, celibacy, etc.

As for your contention that prostitution is "independent profiteering by women", I just don't think the facts bear you out in the majority of cases. As you write, it's an idealized view. Indeed, even the distinction between survival sex and independent prostitution is discreetly being retired, as Vancouver's Wish Drop-In Centre now speaks of 'survival sex workers', a significant retreat from the old "choice" alibi, where "sex work" was being presented as the opposite to survival sex.

And of course; this would push us back to discussing women's alleged choice instead of men's very real options.

There's a bunch of different levels of prostitution and prostitutes and always has been. Some are just desperate for money to survive or to fuel an addiction, others use it as a career opportunity in itself (as the lady in the above article states, it still pays more than McDonald's) and yet others use it to get money for education and/or the connections they'll need for a more socially-acceptable career. One of the most remembered historical example of this is Nell Gwyn, who starts off selling oranges (and herself) in a theatre and ends up, via her association with the King of England both a wealthy woman in her own right and mother of a Duke. Obviously that degree of social climbing was and is unusual, but the principle isn't. Some haven't chosen, but some have and we really shouldn't treat those as the same thing.

Obviously that degree of social climbing was and is unusual, but the principle isn't...

Principles do have a tendency to make up for reality, don't they?

How does that work? A one-knight stand gets you a duke? Is that what they call "duking it" to someone?

Security just being a nice euphemism for payola, if the "free" thing doesn't work out. Your point, more or less seals the case against marriage.

Listen, I have no problem with a feminist analysis of the sex trade, and how it is practiced, which properly locates it in status of women's inequality, In fact, we could make this analysis in almost any line of work, activity or institution in this society, It is all part of the same process. What worries me is that this analysis seems to get used to give cover to a particular moral view of the world that really has no interest in resolving these inequities at there root, but is really forwarding a completely opposite agenda.

Truly. I don't see what all the fuss is about prostitution. It is yet another form or opressession and exploitation, one I might add, that does not just operate against women as a gender, but also women of a specific class: Working class women. Prostitution, is not something taken up middle class or upper class women, except in extreme cases. They are more likely to be involved in more tender, elaborate and institutionalized forms of economic dependence.

Yet it is women who are more likely to suffer also from class opression, whose ways and means of asserting economic independence is stygmatized and criminalized. For some reason we don''t see a lot of discussion about this aspect of the issue, or hardly ever.

Forwarding prostitution as a key point of discussion in order to reveal the extent of women's economic dependency and opression might seem like a convenient way to propagate a more general understanding of how gender opressionn works, but sometimes this message seems to get swamped in a lot of Christian morality, something that I do not really feel forwards the cause of women's rights.

Security just being a nice euphemism for payola, if the "free" thing doesn't work out. Your point, more or less seals the case against marriage.

Casually smearing? Not at all. Just pointing out that your chief ally in this cause is probably the Catholic Church, and the hard right evenagelical Baptists. The fact that they can stick some feminist theory into their talking points, seems only to aid them. Its also a good way of keeping away those who might defend prostitutes from the kind of marginalization and stygmatization that opens them up for plenty of other kinds of abuse and exploitation,

You seem perfectly happy to site the failure of liberalization to resolve the central issues in support of your cause, while seemingly forgetting that the primary issue is economic dependence, not the law according to your own analysis. I don't understand your focus. You seem to forget that even when the case is that "liberalization" has failed to provide the results you desire, the same can be said for "abolition", since abolition of one kind of another has been the standard for some time now, in various countries. If the real issue is economic dependence, then in reality, the solution lies not in "morality laws", one way or the other, but resolving issues of economic inequality.

I assume you are not saying that even in a society where women were not economically marginalized, some would still do tricks, and thus a moral code of prohibition needs to be enforced regardless? By your own logic, resolving those inequities should simply make the problem disappear. Your focus on overarching legislation targetting tircks, merely throws desperate women out of the frying pan and into the fire.

Martin: "Where have abolitionist laws acted to lift women out of the cycle of marginalization and economic dependence"? 

your chief ally in this cause is probably the Catholic Church, and the hard right evenagelical Baptists

What now, a guilt by association strawman? It's surprisingly how your sloppy thinking can get when it isn't your ass that is on the line... If you want to stoop to that level, look at your own "chief ally" in the prostitution lobby...

When i see "feminist talking points" in the Catholic Church canon, you'll be the first to know. But I think there are too many Church fathers compromised with prostituted women and youths for them to take any hard line in the matter. And their "talking points" don't include women's rights to resist patriarchy, I assure you!

If the real issue is economic dependence, then in reality, the solution lies not in "morality laws", one way or the other, but resolving issues of economic inequality.

I didn't think there were still allegedly leftist men rebutting women's experience, accusations and demands by pronouncements of "the real issue" being something else, the economy they claim as overarching paradigm. The current abolitionist movement has identified prostitution as systemic violence against women, and demanded reforms that provide substantive alternatives to the spaces where it locks women, a situation that is not limited to economic dependency and where they recognize that johns' money doesn't solve it, au contraire.

You are asserting that anything that doesn't solve women's economic dependency immediately is invalid. Would you apply the same diktat to laws against date rape or spousal assault? Would you also call them "morality laws"? Give us a break - this isn't the Seventies where hard-line Marxists attempted to reduce everything back to the almighty buck and the juggernaut of history.

It seems a tired trick to accuse a project of not achieving immediately something different than what it is trying for, i.e. a multi-prong effort to validate women's experiences and get pimps, johns, dealers and their support network to back off sex exploitation. The project doe sinclude winding down not only economic but all dependencies, with substantive collective support instead of diminishing crumbs from johns. The latter have had impunity for too long from those very same ineffective morality-based laws, when what is needed is acknowledgment of oppression and action to end it, in part by ending the dearth of resources and recourses that keeps women there. This is what the Swedish legislation has been doing for ten years now, and more and more countries are following suit, despite libertarian whines.

Deal with it.

That a lot of words for not answering the question: Where have abolitionist laws acted to lift women out of the cycle of marginalization and economic dependence? 

Or was this statement by you, just window dressing:

And what does "celibacy" have to do with anything?

Maybe you didn't read it to the end, where I mentioned Sweden: "...acknowledgment of oppression and action to end it, in part by ending the dearth of resources and recourses that keeps women there. This is what the Swedish legislation has been doing for ten years now, and more and more countries are following suit, despite libertarian whines."

As for celibacy (and lesbianism), I alluded to them to dismiss the "either-or" you seem to be stuck in regarding prostitution and marriage.

And again, the main motivator for participation in the sex trade is not "liberal" legal standards, but economic need. According to you now women participate in the sex trade by choice. I could dispute that as an absolute truth, but that would merely be to confuse the issue, because by and large economic motivators are the primary factor. I don't think morality laws have anything to do with it. You assert that the evidence is that liberalization has not shown positive results in the last 10 years or so, this may be the case, but given that the primary motivator is money, then it is ridiculous to assert that liberalization without economic equalization is going to resolve the key problem, just as it is ridiculous to assert that abolition without economic equalization will do the same.

Economic equalization is the essential element in the formula, not the structure of laws. To me the whole 'prostitution' trope is just a convenient way to jump on the moralist band wagon and score some cheap points, when the issues are entirely other. Saying so, is not dismissing testimonies of women victimized in the sex trade, it is highlighting the essential consistent factor that makes women exploitable in this fashion: lack of money.

The assertion that "...acknowledgment of oppression and action to end it, in part by ending the dearth of resources and recourses that keeps women there," is actually a frank admission that liberalization has for the most part gone on without the necessary economic stabalization program that is essential to resolving the issue. Such liberalization is doomed to fail without it, just as abolition is doomed to fail for the same reason.

It would be simple enough to stop bitching about lax prostitution laws that only compounds the stygmatizing women in the sex trade by asserting it is immoral, and by embarassing them by putting them through legal processes where they either lie to protect their income, or are forced to play the victim clown for the agressive prosecutions of crusading crown laywers. There is no problem with discomfitting male privilege, of  course, but it could as easily be done simply by removing the economic privilege itself, without the need for any morality laws that impugn those who practice the trade, either morally, or by undermining the immediate economic prospects of women who practice the sex trade today.

According to you now women participate in the sex trade by choice...

No. There is sometimes an element of choice despite coercive economic circumstances. But your kind of either-or rigmarole is the nonsense you get by sticking to a partial, exclusive view of prostitution that limits itself to the prostituted's options, not on those of the pimps and johns who do have real choice and exert economic coercion, a behaviour that can be sanctioned even if absolute economic gender equality has yet to be fully established.

But I am tired of this non-exchange, that reminds me of bosses who oppose social justice (not "morality") policies with workers' alleged Right to accept exploitive conditions. I am out of here: you will be more comfortable having this conversation with yourself... and maybe a dictionary.

You have still to confront the fact that the so called "liberalization" of the law has never gone on with a complimentary economic program designed to equalize gender relations, something which you assert is an essential element of your "abolition" program. Your evidence amounts to a hill of beans, as does the tax program proposed in the OP. The issue is not morality laws, but the economic system at its root. Why you think that such progressive reform, must take place the context of yet more legislation and more enforcement is beyond me.

Just curious. You are the one who brought in liberalization, which you now adorn with hate quotes and fault me (of all people) for it not having been linked with an abolishing of economic inequality between men and women.

If you do mean the neo-liberal program that would end all sanctions against prostitution agents (the real ones: johns, pimps, procurers, brothel owners, traffickers and their support network in politics), I don't call that liberalization by any standard, and I perfectly understand why this lobby and its shills will not only do nothing against gender inequality but protect it forcefully as ther meal ticket. So, your point is less clear than your politics in protecting the status quo.

Trafficking in people as slaves is already illegal. So is blackmail, and coercion, and so on and so forth.

So, Cueball and Martin: I just want to tell you that your discussion is going nowhere and is never-ending.

Time for me to opt-out of this "debate."

By the way, are you getting married soon? Or are you already there?

Well, what did you want from me anyway? Some kind of amazed expression at my sudden discovery that prostitutes were people, too?

Georgia Straight.com Commentary from formerly prostituted Trisha Baptie asking the root question people dance around of:

Trisha Baptie: Why prostitution, the world's oldest oppression, must be stamped out
By Trisha Baptie

The conversation that pits current prostitute against former prostitute, indoor versus outdoor, and drug-addicted versus Gucci-addicted has gone on for too long. I have fallen into all those categories. With female "choice" being the only side discussed, let's subvert that conversation and ask the root question: As a society do we think men should be able to pay to sexually access women's bodies?
(...)

Johns on the spot a cursory G&M review of Victor Malarek's book. Actually the reviewer accepts too rapidly that this is the first book about johns. A number of them have been published, but remained buried by the culture or only available in Swedish or French.

If we are to ask the question whether or not men should be able to pay for the use of women's bodies I think we must also ask the question whether we wish to have a society that tells women what they can do with their bodies.  Do women have the right to sell their bodies?

I too am uncomfortable discussing something I know little about from personal experience but as I reflected on that I realized that I do have some, on two occasions pimps have offered me the opportunity. LOL

The first time I was only sixteen and living on my own in a big city, I was lost, I was involved with others who did drugs, hard drugs and was offered heroin, I took it.  I took it three times, it was a "gift" from a slick Vancouver city dude.  The fourth time he offered it I said no thank you, I had realized that as lost as I was, I was still not so lost that I would live my life numb.  He was angry.

The second time a friend and I were visiting an old friend in the big city of L.A. and she was living a very lavish lifestyle with champagne and furs and a Cadillac and a boyfriiend who looked at my friend and I and said, "you ladies would do very well down here".  LOL  She told us a friend of hers that lived down the hall had been found in a trunk in Mexico.  Later that night we met up with a friend of hers, this friend was a predator, she was gorgeous, half dressed and said she never paid for anything, the gas station attendent nearly fell in the car.  My friend kept saying, cool it, these are my nice friends from Canada. 

I think economics has everything to do with this issue.  I was never so desperate or so greedy that prostitution appealed as an option for me but I can appreciate that that is not so for others.  I would like to see women free to make the choices that they will without prosecution or judgement as to those choices.

I agree.

The answer to her question is I would like a society in which it was inconceiveable to objectify someone, period, as in purchasing them for sex, as in treating them like shit, as in murdering for profit.

Much easier to reduce the economic bias in society which leads women to take risks, and put themselve in vulnerable positions.

I agree.

Well, I think we need to start asking whether employers and companies have a right to pay men and women for the use of their bodies  as tools in the work place, in order to make profits! ;)

I wonder just how far liberals will allow patriarchy to push the envelope.

women , like men, or trans people have the right to be sex workers as long as they are not being forced to do what they do in any shape or form,  thats' my beleif.

Anyone who feels like their only option for survival or otherwise is to do sex work should be assisted by the public or the government to escape this line of work.

How do you justify keeping pimps and johns out of this picture? Do you see them as "resources", the only issue being whether the prostituted are entitled to access them?

Try to think outside the box: Why can't women who need money receive it without having to give head? Would that be 'unreasonable'? 

I dont think it would be reasonable for me receive money for doing no thing unless i am unable to work or unable to find work. It's very important to make sure women are not abused by pimps and johns; at the same time, there are some guys who really need to pay to have sex and if that is the only intention, which is to have sex, I don't see a problem if the two parties consent to it, and I do not agree with men or women who call sex workers whores. Although i do not really think this line of work is healthy or desirable for any woman, i dont feel i have the right to support a law that ban this type of behaviour nor do i feel like the state has the right to prevent men from being able to attain sexual services through the exchange of money.

I doubt you would support limiting legitimate demand to guys who are somehow unable to "attain sexual services" without paying. They are and by far the minority of johns. Buying women is about privilege, not last resort.

Canada must do more to curb human trafficking: report

And some of the "freedom fighters" and "irregular forces" western governments have worked with based in places like Bosnia and Albania have been some of the most notorious traffickers of human slaves and illicit drugs, weapons etc

I suggest "The Natashas"by Victor Malarek if you want  a glimpse into how corrupt our "fighting for freedom" is.