Let them, at least, limit their private contracts to other adults. What scares me is that children are also part of the sex trade.

How much af the atrocious libertine lie that "consenting" "adult" conduct harms no one comes from their own abandonment to shameful vice?

We have a case pending here where some "businessman," a self-proclaimed "good guy," contracted with an "escort service" for the ministrations of a 17-year-old girl whom he is alleged to have dispatched in his living room by means of a cocaine overdose.

The tale goes from one sordidness to another, as he then freely contracted with other consenting adults to dispose of the the child's body by dumping it is the woods.

We know his defense, having heard it from his lawyer on the news: no crimes here, all consensual between us adults.

It's the ILLEGALITY of it that makes it possible for low-lifes to hold women as sex-slaves.

Where the sex trade is legal, this kind of thing rarely happens.

As for women who have been sexually abused as children choosing to become prostitutes, the only solution for that is to stop child abuse.
Simply telling people that they cannot be prostitutes won't prevent these traumatized children from making poor life-choices.

Meanwhile, Peter, you also argue against implementing any "middle-class, mostly male libertarian" alternatives to "indulging in vice on the backs of the poor and desperate".

The underlying concept of your position, both in the linked thread and in others, seems to be that it's possible to stop men from seeking sex from anyone but a lawful spouse, (a female, of course, can't have gay marriages), and that it's also possible to stop women from offering sex in return for a financial consideration.

You've spoken elsewhere about your wonderment at the reflexive optimism of some people, but if the above paragraph falls near your actual thinking, then THAT is the most optimistic and ahistorical thing that I've ever heard of.

Aside from Communism and Dennis Kucinich's run for the White House, of course.

Michael, how about giving us a few examples of places where the sex trade is legal and "this kind of thing rarely happens". Thinking of those proud and independent career-oriented working girls of Thailand? The young entrepreneurs of Tijuana? How about the nice, safe, drug and crime-free red light district in Amsterdam? I keep hearing that shibboleth and am anxious to learn.

Your argument that we cannot hope to eradicate prostitution, and therefore should just let it all happen is about as persuasive as the argument that government shouldn't ban or restrict smoking in public because there will always be smokers. Vice does respond to legal control, however imperfectly. Your error is to assume demand and supply are constant and that the level of indulgence is independent of access and legitimacy. It simply ain't so and as we see from the article, there are real victims in growing numbers. I'm happy to admit there is only so far we can go before other values become paramount but it boggles my mind to see you pretend there is some male fantasy world where commercial sex is non-exploitative and the women are happy career girls exercizing free choice.

BTW, remember last week's dicsussion on legalizing group sex? Remember Jeff's confident assertions that few would partake owing to "women's natural conservatism and that public shame would keep it all under control and far from the madding crowd? Guess again.

Earlier I wrote: "Where the sex trade is legal, this kind of thing rarely happens."

I was wrong.

A man who admits he is wrong is a noble rarity these days, so I must applaud Michael not only for doing so, but even providing a link showing the contrary.

Peter:

OK, you have sold me. What now?

Is the objection here primarily prostitution, or subjugation?

Remember Jeff's confident assertions that few would partake

If it was common, it wouldn't be news.

Ptah:

I second that loudly.

Jeff:

Start by getting angry and don't deconstruct yourself into equivocating impotence. I don't care what it is, there are no "rights" here to defend or freedoms worth preserving.

Of course it is and should be illegal for these unfortunate women to be forced to work in these horrible places. The question is whether the current prostitution and immigration laws make things better or worse, or make no difference at all. One thing is for sure: it is never a good thing to have a market controlled by gangsters.

Peter:

Your citing of the swingers story is a good example of presenting man bites dog as if it were dog bites man.

Start by getting angry and don't deconstruct yourself into equivocating impotence. I don't care what it is, there are no "rights" here to defend or freedoms worth preserving.

I'd prefer to start, as Brit suggests, by figuring out what is actually going on.

I suggest there is a right worth preserving: self-determination.

The question is what conditions lead to that right being unavailable to these women.

Peter:

It occurred to me this morning that conditions such as these, verging on slavery, are not unique to Europe.

Or to prostitution.

NB: slave factories exist in the US. People from both Mexico and China are smuggled into the US under the guise of finding work here, only to discover the smugglers imprison them in apartment buildings converted into piece work factories.

So, perhaps, this story is more about how illegal immigrants can be easily victimized because their status puts them between the devil and the deep blue sea.

And not so very much about prostitution.

Jeff:

Self-determination? Of course, how could I have missed that? OK, let's do nothing until we have referred the whole matter to a UN sub-committee charged with looking into the relationahip between the sex trade and self-determination. After all, they are experts on that. Musn't rush anything here.

And not so much about prostitution.

I wish I had a buck for everytime I've heard some modern, enlightened type opine that the evils and exploitation that attend prostitution aren't really about prostitution.

Thank you both.

How do you propose to stop women from offering sex for money or other financial considerations ?

Legal prostitutes, (at least in the Netherlands and Nevada), use protection, get regularly tested for STDs, make good money, and pay taxes.

There are many reasons why a women or girl would want to become a prostitute, when it's voluntary, and all of them have to do with culture and the overall society, not with "the freedom of men to be self-indulgent".

It's very spot-on for you to equate prostitution with banning or restricting smoking in public.

Making prostitution legal, but only in brothels, and with other requirements, is the same as banning the public indulgence of other behaviors that we find to be anti-social.

However, making prostitution illegal under ANY circumstances has worked out EXACTLY as well as did the American Prohibition, the War on Drugs, and as well as any complete ban on smoking would, which is to say, not at all.

Your argument that we cannot hope to eradicate prostitution [...] is about as persuasive as the argument that [...] there will always be smokers.

I'm willing to make tobacco sales illegal, but I'm well aware that it will create a gangster-controlled black market.
In fact, there already are tobacco black markets in America, and smuggling and counterfeiting of cigarettes and tax stamps, mostly due to taxation differentials.

However, let us not forget that, even though legal, use of tobacco IS NOT SAFE, whereas if prostitution were legal, there ARE safe ways to partake - and, as mentioned above, legal doxies are pretty good about safe sex.

[I]t boggles my mind to see you pretend there is some male fantasy world where commercial sex is non-exploitative and the women are happy career girls exercizing free choice.

Legal prostitutes, like strippers, have chosen to do what they do.
While only a minority would do such if they were independently wealthy, the same can be said about just about any job in America. People don't have complete freedom of choice, only the freedom to choose among a limited set of options, which vary among individuals. For some women, prostitution IS their perceived best option, and many of them are right to believe so.

As for "non-exploitative", how many career fields do you believe are such ?

Professional athletes, for example, are often exploited, as are professional soldiers, and most professional actors and musicians.
Anyone doing what they wouldn't normally do, if money were no object, can be said to be "exploited", as is anyone who is paid substantially less then the value of their production, particularly if there are substantial barriers to them switching careers or employers.

On the other hand, there are plenty of illegal streetwalkers who could hold menial "straight" jobs instead, but who CHOOSE to stay where they're at.

We might point to a variety of factors which influence their decisions - upbringing, educational attainment, socialization, lack of feminine opportunity in some cultures and societies, emotional and/or mental problems, addiction - but those factors are not unique to prostitutes.

Since there have ALWAYS been prostitutes, in every Western, Middle Eastern, and Asian culture and society that I'm aware of, since at least the dawn of urbanization, I'm quite serious in asking this question:

How are you going to stop women from offering play for pay ?

And, how do you propose to stop men from taking them up on that offer ?

Since we cannot stop either from occurring, the best that we can do is to make it as SAFE as possible, for all participants, which will also benefit society, in both fiscal and public-order terms.

Peter:

You failed to address my point. The article talked about the sex slave trade. That makes it about two things, sex and slavery.

The slavery end of it is independent from sex, as the existence of the piece-work slave trade in the US demonstrates.

If you care about ending the slavery part of the story, it is important to know what is going on, and why.