HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Prostitute patrons can't ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 02:35 PM

Prostitute patrons can't hide their faces anymore

Source: Associated Press

Prostitute patrons can't hide their faces anymore
LARRY NEUMEISTER, Associated Press | Saturday, October 13, 2012 | Updated: Saturday, October 13, 2012 10:33am

Gone are the days of the nameless, faceless "john." Men who buy sex are now likely to end up with their faces splashed across the Internet or the morning newspaper.

A Maine tourist town shaken up by authorities' promises to reveal the identities of dozens of clients of a fitness instructor accused of prostitution is just the latest place to enlist public shaming as a preventive measure.

Fresno, Calif., sponsors a website called "Operation Reveal" that features mug shots of suspected johns, while Oklahoma City has the vigilante-style "JohnTV." In Arlington, Texas, a highway billboard declares "This could be you" under the picture of four suspects.

In Maine, the small-town scandal has literally put Kennebunk on the map — it's now part of a database tracking more than 870 municipalities that have launched initiatives targeting men who hire prostitutes.


Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/article/Prostitute-patrons-can-t-hide-their-faces-anymore-3945447.php

142 replies, 23244 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 142 replies Author Time Post
Reply Prostitute patrons can't hide their faces anymore (Original post)
Judi Lynn Oct 2012 OP
ellenfl Oct 2012 #1
cstanleytech Oct 2012 #21
ellenfl Oct 2012 #38
Indi Guy Oct 2012 #2
chelsea0011 Oct 2012 #8
progree Oct 2012 #17
JackRiddler Oct 2012 #46
chelsea0011 Oct 2012 #47
JackRiddler Oct 2012 #50
chelsea0011 Oct 2012 #48
progree Oct 2012 #49
chelsea0011 Oct 2012 #51
progree Oct 2012 #53
cali Oct 2012 #126
progree Oct 2012 #133
WinkyDink Oct 2012 #62
calimary Oct 2012 #85
progree Oct 2012 #93
bvar22 Oct 2012 #3
RandySF Oct 2012 #4
regnaD kciN Oct 2012 #36
Warren Stupidity Oct 2012 #5
defacto7 Oct 2012 #16
Stuckinthebush Oct 2012 #54
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #33
Warren Stupidity Oct 2012 #70
redqueen Oct 2012 #72
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #75
Warren Stupidity Oct 2012 #83
redqueen Oct 2012 #87
2ndAmForComputers Oct 2012 #95
progree Oct 2012 #98
Warren Stupidity Oct 2012 #123
progree Oct 2012 #125
oberliner Oct 2012 #128
progree Oct 2012 #129
oberliner Oct 2012 #130
progree Oct 2012 #131
oberliner Oct 2012 #132
progree Oct 2012 #134
oberliner Oct 2012 #135
progree Oct 2012 #136
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #138
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #137
redqueen Oct 2012 #139
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #140
TrogL Oct 2012 #6
99th_Monkey Oct 2012 #13
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #34
truthisfreedom Oct 2012 #7
mindwalker_i Oct 2012 #9
PavePusher Oct 2012 #10
Skittles Oct 2012 #11
progree Oct 2012 #12
marions ghost Oct 2012 #29
progree Oct 2012 #45
marions ghost Oct 2012 #69
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #30
L0oniX Oct 2012 #14
factsarenotfair Oct 2012 #15
LadyHawkAZ Oct 2012 #18
TorchTheWitch Oct 2012 #88
factsarenotfair Oct 2012 #111
LadyHawkAZ Oct 2012 #19
mzmolly Oct 2012 #25
Eleanors38 Oct 2012 #31
regnaD kciN Oct 2012 #39
bucolic_frolic Oct 2012 #20
Rosa Luxemburg Oct 2012 #22
jpak Oct 2012 #44
shcrane71 Oct 2012 #23
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #35
regnaD kciN Oct 2012 #40
shcrane71 Oct 2012 #43
Scout Oct 2012 #57
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #65
Scout Oct 2012 #67
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #68
Scout Oct 2012 #92
progree Oct 2012 #94
Scout Oct 2012 #101
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #103
Scout Oct 2012 #113
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #114
Scout Oct 2012 #117
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #118
stevenleser Oct 2012 #121
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #122
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #102
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #64
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #63
geek tragedy Oct 2012 #97
progree Oct 2012 #100
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #104
LadyHawkAZ Oct 2012 #41
caseymoz Oct 2012 #56
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #71
caseymoz Oct 2012 #77
redqueen Oct 2012 #76
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #78
redqueen Oct 2012 #79
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #82
caseymoz Oct 2012 #99
bitchkitty Oct 2012 #141
Blue Gardener Oct 2012 #24
ButterflyBlood Oct 2012 #84
stevenleser Oct 2012 #119
formercia Oct 2012 #26
Maine-ah Oct 2012 #27
RandySF Oct 2012 #37
Maine-ah Oct 2012 #42
tabasco Oct 2012 #28
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #32
left on green only Oct 2012 #55
countryken Oct 2012 #66
left on green only Oct 2012 #91
RC Oct 2012 #52
Blue_Tires Oct 2012 #127
caseymoz Oct 2012 #58
arely staircase Oct 2012 #59
raccoon Oct 2012 #60
harun Oct 2012 #124
WinkyDink Oct 2012 #61
redqueen Oct 2012 #73
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #74
snooper2 Oct 2012 #105
redqueen Oct 2012 #106
snooper2 Oct 2012 #107
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #109
WestCoastLib Oct 2012 #108
redqueen Oct 2012 #110
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #112
ButterflyBlood Oct 2012 #80
truthisfreedom Oct 2012 #81
Judi Lynn Oct 2012 #86
Turbineguy Oct 2012 #89
Judi Lynn Oct 2012 #90
Nye Bevan Oct 2012 #96
stevenleser Oct 2012 #120
TheKentuckian Oct 2012 #115
4th law of robotics Oct 2012 #116
workinclasszero Oct 2012 #142

Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 02:51 PM

1. west palm beach used to conduct public 'john' roundups. don't know why they stopped.

probably caught too many palm beachers . . . maybe even limbaugh or the koch brothers.

ellen fl

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ellenfl (Reply #1)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 05:09 PM

21. Doesnt Mark Foley live in the area? Maybe they are afraid they might end up having to arrest him?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cstanleytech (Reply #21)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 07:03 PM

38. i'm pretty sure that mark foley does not frequent wpb prostitutes. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:00 PM

2. Your tax dollars hard at work...

Why go after the real criminals when you can roundup these poor schleps, keep the jails full, and collect needed revenue from fines.

...Sure easier than keeping our streets safe from scary guys with guns & stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Indi Guy (Reply #2)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:26 PM

8. Maybe so, but I so tired of the only people who ever are charged and

do jail time and/or pay penalties are the small business owners while all the clients all get off without any penalties.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chelsea0011 (Reply #8)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 04:31 PM

17. I don't think that's been true (Johns facing lesser consequence) anywhere in th U.S. for a long time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chelsea0011 (Reply #8)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 09:29 PM

46. Hm, is there a false premise in your statement?

You should be tired of criminalization, period. This is a social evil that needs to be controlled socially, not pushed out into the street with all the hazards that entails for the real victims - the prostitutes. You should be tired of the prostitutes being punished, not that the johns are not also punished.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #46)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 10:11 PM

47. I should be and I am, but that law doesn't exist in most places, so

what we have is only one party being criminalized and the other being ignored.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chelsea0011 (Reply #47)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 10:57 PM

50. Actually, campaigns against the clientele have often been waged.

I remember in the 1980s in New York when the mayor, Ed Koch, instituted "The John Hour," a full hour of radio in which the names of clients were read (stirring content, no?) and if memory serves, the mayor himself sometimes did the reading. Icky.

EDIT: SORRY!

According to Wikipedia, my memory does not serve! Here's the real story of "The John Hour."

The John Hour refers to the public naming of "johns" (male customers of female prostitutes).

In October 1979, New York City mayor Ed Koch instructed WNYC, the city's public radio station, to read the names of convicted "johns". Koch intended to use this public shaming, swiftly dubbed "The John Hour", as a tool to reduce prostitution.

An uproar ensued. On October 26, the New York Times editorialized: "This week's premiere of Mayor Koch's 'John Hour,' which broadcast the names of nine convicted customers of prostitutes, was a shabby show, in no way redeemed by its brevity. It took only about a minute for city-employed announcers to read the names over city-owned radio and television stations. But it was a mighty misuse of government power."

After one broadcast, "The John Hour" was discontinued.

In March 2008, New York governor Eliot Spitzer was exposed as a customer of a high-priced prostitution ring. In the wake of this scandal, Koch advocated reinstating "The John Hour".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JackRiddler (Reply #46)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 10:12 PM

48. Well, when that world exists I will agree with you. But all we

have now is one party being criminalized and that hardly seems fair since both are breaking the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chelsea0011 (Reply #48)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 10:16 PM

49. B.S. Name one example in the U.S. where johns are not punished or get a lighter sentence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #49)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 11:09 PM

51. Everywhere? Name one prostitution ring that punished the johns

after it was busted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chelsea0011 (Reply #51)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 11:15 PM

53. Minnesota for one - the Johns always get punished.

Maybe 30 years ago or even 20 years ago, johns got off lightly. But that's not true anymore. I've read articles on this. You haven't, you are just pulling stuff out of wherever. Convince us, show us some evidence - an article or something that supports your point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #53)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 12:07 PM

126. how about you providing some evidence for YOUR claim that johns

are prosecuted as widely as prostitutes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cali (Reply #126)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 12:22 AM

133. Ok, here goes. The Minnesota statutes for one.

126. how about you providing some evidence for YOUR claim that johns are prosecuted as widely as prostitutes?

Well, let's start with some Minnesota statutes -- it’s a misdemeanor, for example, whether one is the patron or the prostitute (first time, not involving a minor, not involving sex trafficing, not in a public place or school zone or park zone, yada):

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.321
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.324
http://www.minneapolismn.gov/police/prostitution/index.htm (discusses the Minnesota statutes)

There is no differentiation at all in any of the statutes between the one who accepts or gives the money.

You can also Google things like:
minnesota prostitution stings
minnesota criminal defense solicitation

I also read the local newspaper, I've lived here for 30 years. I've also heard stories from patrons who got caught.

In Minneapolis, for one, they also take your car if it was used to pick up a prostitute.

There are also the public posting of johns' photos, at least in Minneapolis and St. Paul:

http://www.minneapolismn.gov/www/groups/public/@mpd/documents/webcontent/convert_242674.pdf

http://mn-stpaul.civicplus.com/index.aspx?NID=2351

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to chelsea0011 (Reply #51)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 08:22 AM

62. The daily papers have police-blotter blurbs with "John" arrests all the time. One can't be charged

just by being a name in a book.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #49)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 03:30 PM

85. david vitter, R-LA.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to calimary (Reply #85)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:24 AM

93. He wasn't prosecuted because of the statute of limitations. Also, its not illegal to be on the phone

records of an escort service - some men pay for cuddling, conversation, someone to accompany them to an event, etc.

###################################################
Vitter unlikely to face criminal charges, Times Picayune,
http://blog.nola.com/updates/2007/07/vitter_unlikely_to_face_crimin.html

The statute of limitations for bringing solicitation of prostitution charges, a misdemeanor in both Louisiana and Washington D.C. suggest that the opportunity to bring charges has passed. In Louisiana, solicitation charges must be brought within two years of the alleged act, while in Washington, the limit is three years.

Phone records made available by Jeanne Palfrey, 51, the so-called D.C. madam, show five conversations between Vitter and her escort service, Pamela Martin Associates, between 1999 and Feb. 27, 2001.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:01 PM

3. Hey!!! No Fair!!!

I just went into the Barely Legal Asian XXX Massage Parlor
for a massage!!!
My shoulders were all tense and everything!



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:08 PM

4. This is what I call "make work".

Fresno PD apparently can't cope with the meth trade so they'll go after someone whose only offense is to pay for sex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Reply #4)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 07:00 PM

36. I also call it "just before the election"...

DAs and sherrifs in electable positions love doing this to show they're "tough on crime" (in a way sure to make the local news) just before standing for re-election. That goes double if, instead, it's a DA running for state AG or Congress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:18 PM

5. Legalize adult sex work nt.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #5)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 04:31 PM

16. Yep. Legalize and regulate

Last edited Sun Oct 14, 2012, 03:49 AM - Edit history (1)

so it's kept safe and pimp free. If safe quality sex were available, there would definitely be less acts of violence. We know this is a fact in Europe: Lower teen pregnancy rates, less STDs, even the onset of sexual activity among adolescents is a higher average age. The US has the highest sexual violence, highest teen pregnancy rates and the highest STD rates among 1st world countries. And the highest rates of these in America are in the RED states and bible belt. Is there a logical connection??? You bet.

Testosterone is normal. Sex is normal. It's our national perception of it that is not normal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to defacto7 (Reply #16)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 12:22 AM

54. Amen

This obsession with the criminalization of sex is twisted. Regulation and legalization is the way to go.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #5)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 06:26 PM

33. I think this is one of the rare instances where we are in agreement.

 

Assuming it's entirely consensual and involves only adults I see no reason why the law should be involved.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #33)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 11:41 AM

70. I'm for reasonably regulated freedom in general.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #5)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 12:04 PM

72. It doesn't work. Progressives are moving toward the Nordic model of dealing with this issue. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #72)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 12:23 PM

75. The nordic model is hypocritical

 

It's illegal to buy, legal to sell. How does that make sense?

It's also based on the assumption that only men are capable of making such decisions (hence why they are held accountable) whereas women are incapable (so they can't be held liable for their actions).

Either it should be illegal on both sides of the transaction or neither (preferably neither).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #72)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 02:33 PM

83. The Nordic model doesn't work.


Lauded as a less punitive and more gender-sensitive legal strategy to reduce and ultimately
eliminate sex work, the ‘”Swedish approach” criminalises the client and not the worker.
Based on the premise that women in sex work need protection, it regards the sex worker
as the “victim” and the client as the “exploiter”. Since its enactment in 1999, the law has not improved—indeed, it has worsened—the lives of sex workers.163 The law’s record so far164:


Underground trade, more violence

Street-based sex work is halved in Sweden, according to the police, but the sex trade remains at pre-law levels. It has simply moved further underground,165 to hotels and restaurants, as well as the Internet—and to Denmark. The Swedish State Criminal Department warns that the sex trade may now be more violent. Especially worrying is the trade in foreign women, who often fall entirely under the control of pimps.166

Few prosecutions and convictions

Sweden’s Alliance of Counties says that resources for social work are scarce, as the money has been siphoned to policing. In spite of over 2,000 arrests, only 59 clients have been reported suspected of buying occasional sex. Only two have been convicted, after pleading guilty. No one has been jailed, and only low fines have been imposed, as per the
law. Evidence to prove a crime is nearly unattainable. Workers do not consider themselves to be victims and are almost always unwilling to testify against their clients.167

Criticism and organising

The law has given impetus to the formation of a sex workers’ rights organisation in Sweden, which has argued strenuously against the law.168 Some Swedish authorities are demanding an evaluation of how the new legislation is affecting the underground prostitution trade.


http://www.hivlawcommission.org/resources/report/FinalReport-Risks,Rights&Health-EN.pdf

If this is such a great idea, why is it so unpopular with Swedish sex workers, the people supposedly being protected by this law?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #83)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 06:24 PM

87. The sex workers who are complaining are the privileged few.

The ones who are happy selling sex, and want to continue doing so.

The majority of prostitutes are not happy doing it, and want to get out of it.

Furthermore a lot of the activism against it is assisted by those profiting the most from the sex trade. As in, not the people most in need of protection and assistance. There is a lot of money at stake, and just as in any extremely lucrative industry, there is a lot invested in making sure the money keeps flowing. France is now adopting this model. Other progressive countries are working on doing the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #87)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:41 AM

95. Warren backed up his opinion with a source. You didn't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #87)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:06 AM

98. Citations please. And is it progressive to treat a woman as a child who can't make her own choices?

The majority of prostitutes are not happy doing it, and want to get out of it.

Citation? I'm sure most would like to be making near as much money not selling themselves, but can't make ends meet working at Wal-Mart. The majority of johns aren't happy paying for sex either.

France is now adopting this model {Nordic Model where a female sex worker is oh-poor-honey'd to death as a poor blameless victim, while some pathetic ugly guy with no social skills is treated as if he is Darth Vader}. Other progressive countries are working on doing the same.

How is it progressive to treat a woman who decides to make several times more money having sex than greeting customers at Wal-Mart as some kind of "victim"? It seems a big step on the way to the infantilization of women.

And I'm wondering why is it legal for say gay guys to cruise the parks or Internet for sex (as long as no money is exchanged), but its a crime against humanity if one compensates the other? Or straight people doing the bar scene? Or a woman in a regular dating situation deciding to have sex on say date 2 or date 3 (or date 1) in hopes of getting another date? Is she a victim? What about the guy in a regular dating situation whose real generous with the entertainment and meals and flowers and all that? (i.e. paying for sex -- what do you think would be his chances if he insisted on dating dutch? Hmm?) What about Ann Romney? It seems we have a bit of a prostitute - john society, so what's wrong with being honest and open about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #98)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 10:36 AM

123. And it is perfectly legal for the rich to "keep" mistresses.

And buy "trophy wives".

But for the less well to do to merely rent their dates is a crime against humanity. Go figure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #123)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 07:33 AM

125. Yup. I know I could never afford Ann Romney n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #125)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 02:11 PM

128. She is not a trophy wife

They have been married for over 40 years and met when they were both teenagers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #128)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 03:18 PM

129. I didn't say she was a trophy wife. Just never earned a dime in her life.

Some would call it domestic prostitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #129)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 03:58 PM

130. Domestic prostitution?

Jeez - that seems like a pretty nasty and uncalled for slur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #130)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 11:34 PM

131. "Pretty nasty and uncalled for slur" How so?

Domestic prostitution? Jeez - that seems like a pretty nasty and uncalled for slur.

How so? Maybe it’s the single mom who can't make ends meet or provide for her children working at Wal-mart who is being victimized by "pretty nasty and uncalled for slurs" if she decides to engage in sex for compensation.

Mitt probably thinks of Ann as a domestic prostitute considering his attitude to stay-at-home moms, and an expensive one at that with the dancing horses and so on.

Ann Romney, working woman? by Katha Pollitt, The Nation 5/7/12:

When performed by married women in their own homes, domestic labor is work -- difficult, sacred, noble work. When performed for pay, however, this supremely important, difficult job becomes low-wage labor that almost anyone can do -- teenagers, elderly women, even despised illegal immigrants. And now here is the real magic: when performed by low-income single mothers in their own homes, those same exact tasks -- changing diapers, going to the playground and the store, making dinner, washing the dishes, giving a bath -- are not only not work; they are idleness itself.

Just ask Mitt Romney, "85 percent of the people on a form of welfare assistance in my state had no work requirement. I wanted to increase the work requirement. I said, for instance, that even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work. And people said, ‘Well that’s heartless,’ and I said ‘No, no, I’m willing to spend more giving daycare to allow those parents to go back to work. It’ll cost the state more providing that daycare, but I want the individuals to have the dignity of work.’

In 1994 he said, "we will do everything in our power to make sure that people who are on welfare have an opportunity and an obligation to go to work, not after 2 years but from day one if we could".

We talk about employment or staying home as a matter of choice, which obscures what it takes to make that choice -- a mate with money.

Read more at: http://www.thenation.com/article/167456/ann-romney-working-woman

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #131)

Fri Oct 19, 2012, 11:55 PM

132. Seemed to be an insult to stay-at-home parents

If there is a situation where one spouse makes enough money to support a family, I don't see that it is a bad thing for the other spouse to devote themselves to taking care of the children and the home if they so choose.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #132)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 12:27 AM

134. Why do you limit it to a spouse? I don't see it as a problem even if she's not married.

Are you condemning the single mom who decides to supplement her Wal-mart income? What about if she moves in with a boyfriend rent free? What if she makes a deal with the guy living next door? What if she isn't a parent - why are you making a distinction there?

I don't see anything wrong with domestic prostitution either.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #134)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 06:11 AM

135. Not limiting it - just talking about this particular scenario

Just responding to your apparent criticism of the circumstances around a married couple having one parent stay home. I just wouldn't call that domestic prostitution, which does carry a negative connotation.

Anyway, I'll leave it there. Plenty to criticize the Romneys about other than this.

All the best!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to oberliner (Reply #135)

Sat Oct 20, 2012, 10:09 PM

136. "I just wouldn't call that domestic prostitution, which does carry a negative connotation." In your

mind.

I think that giving sex in exchange for money or material goods is prostitution regardless of the length of the gig or whether it is an exclusive gig or not.

Demonizing the single mom -- who hasn't yet met Mr. Right -- and who provides for her family by having sex for compensation seems wrong too.

Or demonizing her if she moves in with a boyfriend rent free seems wrong too.

Or demonizing her if she makes a deal with the guy living next door seems wrong too.

Or demonizing her if she sleeps with the guy who wined and dined her all night, while rejecting the guy who insisted on a dutch treat -- seems wrong too.

I don't demonize any of these situations. As I said in #98, it seems we have a bit of a prostitute - john society, so what's wrong with being honest and open about it? Rather than glorifying some forms of sex-for-material-goods over others?

your apparent criticism of the circumstances around a married couple having one parent stay home.

On the parent thing -- realize their youngest child is 31 -- she hasn't been burdened with parental duties for more than a decade.

All the best!

Likewise! Take care. Be good to yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #98)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 12:40 AM

138. You will not get those citations

 

just FYI.

I've asked this individual to cite her claims and she never does. Just like how most prostitutes are 12-14. She says it then it becomes true. Or at least that's how it appears she thinks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #87)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 12:39 AM

137. "The majority of prostitutes are not happy doing it, and want to get out of it."

 

Thank goodness they have you to provide their opinion for them.

Otherwise people might be tempted to actually find out what these women thought. But since you're their spokesperson we don't have to.


Furthermore a lot of the activism against it is assisted by those profiting the most from the sex trade. As in, not the people most in need of protection and assistance. There is a lot of money at stake, and just as in any extremely lucrative industry, there is a lot invested in making sure the money keeps flowing. France is now adopting this model. Other progressive countries are working on doing the same.


There's a lot of money in chewing gum. That doesn't make the industry insidious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #137)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 12:44 AM

139. ...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #139)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 09:22 AM

140. . . . .

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:21 PM

6. Suspected of?

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TrogL (Reply #6)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:58 PM

13. That's what jumped out at me .. "suspected Johns"?? Please.

If they've been actually found guilty that's one thing,
but ruining someone's family and career because someone
"suspects" them of being a John.

Not ok.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TrogL (Reply #6)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 06:27 PM

34. Sadly for some crimes the accusation is sufficient

 

typically sex crimes fall under this category.

A suspected child molester is never fully cleared. Perhaps in the eyes of the law, but not the general public.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:26 PM

7. Job killers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to truthisfreedom (Reply #7)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:31 PM

9. DUzy!

Unfortunately I'm sure they'll blow you off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:31 PM

10. "Sex and free enterprise... which one are you opposed to?" n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:39 PM

11. this is such bullshit

prostitution is disgusting and degrading but at least it's an honest transaction - I'd rather see the pictures of the banker and Wall Street bastards who ripped off America and crashed the economy more than the pictures of these johns

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 03:52 PM

12. Is it better just to conventionally date (and mislead/lie) in order to get sex?

I am surprised at how prostitution -- an honest transaction -- is a crime against humanity, whereas it is perfectly OK and pretty much expected for a man to conventionally date (and get sex) while pretending to be a long-term relationship / marriage possibility when he pretty much knows he isn't (at least with that particular woman).

I wonder if women would rather that man be misleading / lying to her rather than getting it from prostitutes? Would you rather he be smooth-talking you or negotiating with a prostitute?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #12)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 06:07 PM

29. Just dont get married or significantly involved

solves everything.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #29)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 08:49 PM

45. Just to be clear, I'm not describing myself in #12, but rather someone who is the type likely to

purchase sex, and what some of them would do if prostitutes became unavailable or more difficult to obtain. I don't think its OK to mislead/lie to a woman about prospects for a significant long term relationship or marriage. And I don't do either of these things. But I know many many men who have no problem dating and getting a woman in bed with some crapola smooth talk even when there's a "no way" in his mind for a long-term relationship. (Actually, the smooth talk is often not necessary, I've known plenty of women that have sex in order to keep the guy coming back, hoping it will develop into a long term relationship).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #45)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 11:40 AM

69. These are two different types of sex-seeker

1. Men who go to prostitutes are usually men who don't want to bother with the time-honored courting and lying
approach. They want it fast, impersonal and on demand, which women don't usually go for (tho a few masochistic types will, until they realize what a no-win it is for them). So for that type of man, prostitution is the way to go. Whether I think prostitution is good or not doesn't even really matter--it's here to stay.

2. Men who lead women on with no long term intentions are men who like sex as a game and like to have control. They choose the right women for this, women who will put up with a lot and are not too discriminatory.
Women with low self esteem, women who are a little desperate. The vulnerable in the herd. These women tend to be overly romantic, ever hopeful, and easily flattered. A man who likes to serially do this is needing to dominate (and thus not the greatest marriage partner unless they can recognize and work it out of their system). This has been going on for centuries, nothing new. And you are assuming that women DON'T do this. It's something that women get into, more and more--often as retaliation for an experience of being treated that way. If the man & woman are using each other equally, well...can't really fault that. But it's usually the case that one is using the other temporarily.

----------
Smart people stay away from either situation and never put up with anything negative sexually out of desperation.
But live and let live. Some people have to learn the hard way.

Just my 2 cents.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #12)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 06:21 PM

30. Hmm. That brings up the (non-transactional) "OK" approaches by women:

"I've been looking for a good man for a long time;"

"At least you've got something I can work with;"

"The last five guys left me stranded;"

"I'm not looking for a hand-out;"

"We (some other) aren't seeing each other anymore;"

"I don't want a one-night stand."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 04:04 PM

14. So ...eventually most repuke congress critters will have their mugshots on Google images.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 04:08 PM

15. What I wonder about is how prostitutes file income tax returns.

Do they list prostitute or escort as their occupation? Do they just completely cheat on their taxes?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factsarenotfair (Reply #15)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 04:43 PM

18. Most working illegally just don't report

There's too much risk involved in putting that information to paper. Those who can get away with it will list "escort", but you kinda have to have a verifiable escort job to get away with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to factsarenotfair (Reply #15)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 07:57 PM

88. the same way that drug dealers do

What a ridiculous question. Anyone making money in illegal business isn't filing taxes for that income. For that matter, most people that work "under the table" in legal business aren't declaring that income either.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TorchTheWitch (Reply #88)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:57 AM

111. Then what about escort services?

Some of them are in the phone book. Do they file tax returns? Employee tax reports? Do these businesses ever get audited?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 04:45 PM

19. Ah, slut-shaming! Convicting without trial!

It's the 'Murican way!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LadyHawkAZ (Reply #19)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 05:36 PM

25. I think it's stud shaming?

One good slut shame deserves another, I say.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LadyHawkAZ (Reply #19)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 06:23 PM

31. When toilet tissue runs out, there's always the Fifth Amendment. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Eleanors38 (Reply #31)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 07:04 PM

39. "They'll take my hooker from me"...

..."when they pry her from my cold dead fingers!"



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 05:02 PM

20. Soviet Union had Show Trials

so all the real crooks knew they were safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 05:14 PM

22. Even famous politicians?

that would be interesting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #22)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 07:50 PM

44. A local TV personality - according to the local wags

and a lot of local Dads are not going to have a Happy Holiday Season.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 05:15 PM

23. Even Obama says human trafficking is a HUGE problem in the world and US.

It's good to see that the customers of human traffickers are taken to task. Who do they think they're buying? The 30-year-old adult down the street? Most of these "prostitutes" are pimped out girls under the age of consent.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shcrane71 (Reply #23)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 06:29 PM

35. Most prostitutes are child sex-slaves?

 

Yeah ok, I will take your word on that. Definitely no need for a citation.

/most Johns were actually just asking for directions. Just trust me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #35)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 07:12 PM

40. That's a pretty huge assumption...

Every few months, there's a high-profile bust of one or another local "massage parlor" in the area. Even when they publicize the arrests (which they inevitably do), I've never seen a single charge relating to underage "sex workers." In fact, the latest one I read about involved prostitutes in their late 50s and early 60s.

Still, I can see that a reasonable response would be that mentioned above. If you want to do away with underage prostitutes, human trafficking and the like, it would make sense to legalize prostitution and regulate it, making sure that such abuses don't occur.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #40)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 07:47 PM

43. I used to be on the "legalize it" bandwagon, until I spoke to people from Amsterdam.

The problem that they found with legalization is that it's created too much demand, and the demand is for younger and younger bodies to perform sex acts upon. This lead to an influx of human trafficking in the Netherlands.

The average age that a person starts selling their bodies (or their pimp sells them) for sex is 13. Anyone who thinks that the adult prostitute feels that he/she has other options and isn't reeling from numerous abuses, neglect and PTSD from a lifetime of misery is kidding himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shcrane71 (Reply #43)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:42 AM

57. uh oh, now you've done it.

the "nice guys" and the "former sex worker" that reside here at DU will be along shortly to tell you how wrong you are, and how great prostitution is, and how it is freely chosen as a highly valued career option by perfectly well adjusted adult women.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scout (Reply #57)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 10:12 AM

65. Are you saying adult women should not be entirely free to choose

 

what they wish to do with their bodies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #65)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 10:50 AM

67. nope. not what i'm saying.

nice try though

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scout (Reply #67)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 11:06 AM

68. So you are in favor of legalizing prostitution then?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #68)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 10:07 PM

92. so, you're still at it, eh? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scout (Reply #92)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:38 AM

94. Why don't you answer his question in #65? Why are you ducking it and hurling accusations?

Are you saying adult women should not be entirely free to choose what they wish to do with their bodies?


And not everyone who is for a women's right to choose whether to have sex or not are whores or johns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progree (Reply #94)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 06:59 AM

101. i DID answer his "question" ... that is NOT what i was saying.

you his protector now?

i know how he works that's all. i'm not getting goaded into a stupid argument. "hurling accusations" my, aren't we all worked up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scout (Reply #101)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 10:12 AM

103. In point of fact you did not answer my question

 

that is clear to anyone reading this exchange.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #103)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:07 PM

113. in post 65 you asked:

"Are you saying adult women should not be entirely free to choose what they wish to do with their bodies?"

and in post 67 i replied:
"nope. not what i'm saying."

which everyone reading this exchange can see did answer your question.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scout (Reply #113)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:10 PM

114. And then I asked if you favored legalizing it

 

to which you replied: well, not with an answer.

So you then are in favor of legalizing prostitution?

Because you never actually said yes to that. You answered another question but left yourself some wiggle room to deny it later ("I never said prostitution should be legal!")

Why do you consider it so difficult to simply give a yes or no answer to a simple question?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #114)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 05:48 PM

117. you ARE still at it ... as everyone can see.

you are trying to pick a fight about the status of prostitution. you are very obvious.

and you are having a little tantrum because i'm not playing your game. you asked a question, i answered it. you claimed it was a non answer and then asked a separate question ... not playing your game. i don't need "wiggle room" but you apparently need some twisting space, eh?

stomp your feet and demand answers all you like. you just prove my point, you are simply trying to start an argument ... oh, then your little buds will join in, then the alerts will start. uh huh, butter wouldn't melt in your mouth, would it?

not playing your game get over it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scout (Reply #117)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 05:52 PM

118. If you consider being asked a single yes/no question

 

to be "picking a fight" then perhaps you are in the wrong place.


and you are having a little tantrum because i'm not playing your game. you asked a question, i answered it. you claimed it was a non answer and then asked a separate question ... not playing your game. i don't need "wiggle room" but you apparently need some twisting space, eh?


A separate question. So you acknowledge the these are two different things?

stomp your feet and demand answers all you like. you just prove my point, you are simply trying to start an argument ... oh, then your little buds will join in, then the alerts will start. uh huh, butter wouldn't melt in your mouth, would it?





not playing your game get over it.


Simple questions are games to you?

You realize you could have saved yourself a lot of time and embarrassment by simply answering my question? Why do you think it is you find yourself unable to do so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #118)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 09:28 AM

121. The answer is that this person realizes their position is completely untenable and thus won't answer

Reasonableness is not the point with certain folks on this issue or drugs. They want people to stop doing the behavior and even though there is no legislative way to make that happen, and there is reams of proof of that, they insist that there is. I was like that on both issues for a long time. Eventually I realized that the only way is to make drugs and prostitution legal and aim the money you were going to spend on law enforcement on programs like addiction services for drug addicts, and education, job training, etc. for sex workers.

Like we did with alcohol prohibition, we are enabling entire industries of organized crime syndicates by keeping these vices illegal and making no progress in reducing the activity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #121)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 09:30 AM

122. Bingo!

 

That is essentially the answer I was getting, although it wasn't articulated that way.

"I want to be anti-prostitution but also anti-telling women what to do with their own bodies"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Scout (Reply #92)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 10:11 AM

102. I don't know if one followup question justifies a "still at it"

 

But yes.

You could just answer: yes adults should be free to do as they please with their bodies including prostitution, no we should place limits on what adults may do with their own bodies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shcrane71 (Reply #43)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 10:09 AM

64. You're fond of making statements

 

then doing nothing to back those statements.

You can't simply make a factual claim without any source to back it and expect people to support you without hesitation.


The problem that they found with legalization is that it's created too much demand, and the demand is for younger and younger bodies to perform sex acts upon. This lead to an influx of human trafficking in the Netherlands.


Legalization affects the supply, not the demand.

And if something is legal it can be regulated.

It's a lot easier to get pot as an underage individual in the US than beer. Why? Because drug dealers have no reason to card you. People that serve alcohol do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regnaD kciN (Reply #40)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 10:08 AM

63. I think underage sex slaves

 

are this decades version of the Satan worshiping child molesting day care workers. Or the kidnappers that only target pretty white girls.

Common knowledge says it happens all the time and we should be in a constant state of terror.

Reality however shows a different picture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #35)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:47 AM

97. Most Prostituted women begin while underage.

It's an abominable, male supremacist institution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #97)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:12 AM

100. "Most Prostituted women begin while underage." Citations? And how about ones that are not

prostituted but decide on their own that they like $150 or so for half an hour, tax free.

Warren cited his source in #56.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek tragedy (Reply #97)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 10:14 AM

104. Again: repeating a claim is not the same as supporting it with citations

 

Last edited Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:14 PM - Edit history (2)

show that most prostituted women begin at 12-14 as was claimed using evidence other than simply your own words.


Why do you feel everyone should accept your rather unlikely statement as fact in the complete absence of unbiased empirical evidence?

If I were to state that most prostitutes are happy, chose their lives freely, and all support legalization would you accept that statement without any evidence? If not why should we be expected to do so?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shcrane71 (Reply #23)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 07:20 PM

41. Good grief n/t



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shcrane71 (Reply #23)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:30 AM

56. Why can't authorities seem to find any of these numerous trafficked children?

No matter how many hundreds of millions of dollars have been poured into it?

http://goo.gl/YvMVk

Here's what that researcher, financed by a grant from the federal government has found:

• Nearly half of the kids — about 45 percent — were boys.
• Only 10 percent were involved with a "market facilitator" (e.g., a pimp).
• About 45 percent got into the "business" through friends.
• More than 90 percent were U.S.- born
• On average, they started hooking at age fifteen.
• Most serviced men — preferably white and wealthy.
• Most deals were struck on the street.
• Almost 70 percent of the kids said they'd sought assistance at a youth-service agency at least once.
• Nearly all of the youths — 95 percent — said they exchanged sex for money because it was the surest way to support themselves.


And about the actual numbers, here are some of the quotes by one of the researchers:

"I remember going to a meeting in Manhattan where they had a lot of prosecutors there whose job was to prosecute pimps," Curtis recalls. "They were sort of complaining about the fact that their offices were very well staffed but their workload was — not very daunting, let's say. They had a couple cases, and at every meeting you go to they'd pull out the cherry-picked case of this pimp they had busted, and they'd tell the same story at every meeting. They too were bothered by the fact that they couldn't find any pimps, any girls. . . .


And how much effort and money is being spent and for what?

". . . the federal government spends about $20 million a year on public awareness, victims' services and police work related to domestic human trafficking, with a considerable focus on combating the pimping of children. An additional $50 million-plus is spent annually on youth homeless shelters, and since 1996 taxpayers have contributed a total of $186 million to fund a separate program that provides street outreach to kids who may be at risk of commercial sexual exploitation.

"That's at least $80 million doled out annually for law enforcement and social services that combine to rescue approximately 200 child prostitutes every year."


And here's what another researcher found when trying to find data about trafficking:

"Despite the less-than-satisfactory secondary-source approach, Finn figured she'd have plenty of data to mine. After all, she'd seen breathless media reports of trafficking in Atlanta. "The overall market for sex with kids is booming in many parts of the U.S. In Atlanta — a thriving hotel and convention center with a sophisticated airport and ground transportation network — pimps and other lowlifes have tapped into that market bigtime," blared a 2006 New York Times story.

On the contrary, Finn found that most organizations, whether nonprofit or government run, were not systematically documenting cases of child prostitution. Apart from 31 juvenile arrests police had made over a four-year period, there were virtually no numbers for her to compile.

It was almost like nobody wants to document their existence," Finn says. "Whether it's because they don't want to label the youth, or they don't want other agencies to know they're aware of them because then the call comes — 'Well, what are you doing about it?' — I just don't know. It was very odd. The environment we were seeing in the media just looked so different from the environment we walked into.

{emphasis mind}


There are many other eye-openers in this article.

Trafficking is horrific-- when it happens. However, with the best evidence I've been able to find right now, the crime looks to be 99.9% hysteria and 0.1% real. And that's worldwide.

And I'll inform you: there aren't that many men, or adults, who are attracted to children. For most men, their sexual preferences don't bend in that direction. An adult prostitute is not a "gateway" to child molestation. And you'll find, well, no pedophiles who were drawn into it through having consensual sex with adult women, whether commercial or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #56)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 11:47 AM

71. I believe statements to that effect

 

that adult prostitutes are a gateway to child prostitutes, are a deliberate attempt to make normal sexual urges out to be pathology.
Anti-porn, anti-prostitution, and fundamentalist groups all use the same basic argument: if we allow men to do X (look at porn, engage an adult in consensual sex, have sex at all) that is a gateway to further perversion, usually child molestation and rape.

There is no evidence to back it up. It's the same logic that says if we allow homosexuals to marry we'll have to let people have sex with animals because that's totally the same thing ( obviously). Take something normal and healthy and imply that this is a gateway to something awful.

That's how you get otherwise sensible people to support bans on things in the absence of any evidence of harm.

Pot doesn't kill but what if it leads to bath salts?
There's nothing wrong with porn but what if it leads to rape?
Prostitution might be ok but what if it leads to child sex-trafficking?
And so on.

Asking for proof is generally sidestepped by the counter reply of "oh so you're ok with those outcomes?!?!?!"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #71)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:03 PM

77. No, there's nothing to back it up.


I believe statements to that effect that adult prostitutes are a gateway to child prostitutes, are a deliberate attempt to make normal sexual urges out to be pathology.


I actually think that fear has more to do with it than anything, however, and malice comes in after fear is established at the base. However, it's also true that some people do gain from fanning the flames of hysterias.

I think this owes to a general environment of fear, where news outlets gain ratings by hyping crime and terrorism, and residual fear from the Cold War. However, there's also another fear going on: a fear of sex. And always it comes out to the same theme: saving children. This is true of any social hysteria I've seen. Yes, a few other hysterias have happened in my lifetime.

The social dynamic seems to be that lies accumulate. People believe much of it, and either don't question the rest, or pass on the rest to other people to get them to believe. Then you get the real crazies and manipulators who come in.

I remember the Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria in the '80s and '90s. That was bad. People got convicted and imprisoned for crimes that were not even physically possible.

Pot doesn't kill but what if it leads to bath salts?
There's nothing wrong with porn but what if it leads to rape?
Prostitution might be ok but what if it leads to child sex-trafficking?
And so on.

Asking for proof is generally sidestepped by the counter reply of "oh so you're ok with those outcomes?!?!?!"


Yes, whenever an hysteria is questioned, the immediate response is paranoia: your either not moral enough, or worse, you're sympathetic to the threat. That was true whether the hysteria was against Rock n Roll music or Dungeons & Dragons. That's true in general.

"Protecting children" is usually the way the cause is framed so that any questioning of the beliefs immediately casts moral doubt on the questioner. Hence, the group dynamic is reinforced and disciplined.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #56)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 12:33 PM

76. What? They find them all the time...

Often they're prosecuted along with the john's (if they are caught, which they usually aren't). At least a few pimps are punished. Not that there's any shortage of people lining up to cash in in this 'industry'.

http://crimeblog.dallasnews.com/2012/06/fbi-rescues-79-underage-victims-of-sex-trafficking-including-six-from-the-dallas-area.html/


And as for your source:

EDITOR'S NOTE: Village Voice Media, which owns this publication, owns the classified site Backpage.com. In addition to used cars, jobs and couches, readers can also find adult ads on Backpage; for this reason, certain activists and clergy members have called attention to the site, sometimes going so far as to call for its closure.

Certainly we have a stake in this discussion. And we do not object to those who suggest an apparent conflict of interest. We sat quietly and did not respond as activists held symposiums across America—from Seattle to Miami—denouncing Backpage. Indeed, we were never asked for response.

But then we looked at the "science" behind many of these activists' claims, and the media's willingness, without question, to regurgitate a litany of incredible statistics. In the interest of a more informed discussion, we decided to write.

For background articles go to: www.villagevoice.com/sex-trafficking


And no, most men don't search for teen porn or jailbait. But check out the hits for the subreddits dedicated to that 'genre' of ... whatever.


I really can't discuss this here anymore. It's too much.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #76)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:28 PM

78. Does some = most?

 

You claimed "most prostitutes start selling sex at age 12-14"

Do you believe "most" means more than 0 or more than half as the definition actually states?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #78)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:45 PM

79. That is the AVERAGE age of entry into their being rented for rape. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #79)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:57 PM

82. Oh ok, well as long as you

 

use all caps then I certainly won't ask you to back up your claim with citations.

CAPS = TRUE!

/CITE YOUR SOURCES!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #76)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:08 AM

99. And your article supports exactly my point.

Afterthought: but an important one so I've put it first. The most common estimate of underage prostitutes in the US given by the press and by advocates is a half million. I'll tell you why absolutely absurd and implausible. That means that every adult in the US would be acquainted with someone who worked as a teen prostitute. To explain, by definition "underage prostitute" there has to be a lot of turnover in the category. In five years time you'd be talking a different half million kids. If that number of active teen prostitutes (500,000) has stayed steady for ten years, that means you have 1.5 million people, all under the age of 29, who either worked or have worked as teen prostitutes. If it has stayed steady for twenty, that means you have 2.9 million (considering higher than normal death rate). That's one in every 108 people. That's common place. The US would look worse than Vegas. A child prostitute soliciting or vise versa would be called Tuesday.

Not just that, but (estimating from this chart) that's one in every 54 people in the age group 5-29. Everybody below 29 would have either have a classmate who worked as a teen prostitute, or been one themselves.

Plus, I'll mention that the number of births in 2010 was 4 million. That means that 1 in 8 of those kids would end up in the sex industry. It can't possibly be that huge. Parents would be in total everywhere, and for good reason. That can't happen without everybody noticing.

UN recently estimated that there are 1.8 million "trafficked" children (read underage prostitutes) worldwide. That's about 1 in 39,000 people. How could the US have a half million of those? How could it be 1 in 600? We're not that different.

End of afterthought.

On the bottom of p-1 in my source, (Kristen Hinmen's Lost Boys article), it gives a mathematically valid estimate there are about 4,000 (3,946) underage prostitutes working in New York City. NYC has a population of 8.25 million. Now, given the population of NY, its cosmopolitan nature, its central role in US commerce, and its inflated cost-of-living, there are likely many more working there per 10k population than most cities. But, if you do the math, take 4,000 underage prostitutes in a population of 8.25 million and extrapolate to a population of 314 million, the number of underage prostitutes nationwide you come up with about 150,000. I would consider that a maximum number that could be working nationwide. The very highest it could be.

Now, I think NY has more per capita, but even if it's actually half that, 75,000 nationwide. If 10 percent of them have pimps, and let's say some pimps have more than one girl enslaved, that's still about 6,000-12,000. That's perfectly consistent with the arrest numbers given in your article.

(Now, 75,000 might sound like a low number, but let me tell you why it isn't: that's 225,000 people per decade, who either work as teen prostitutes, or have worked. It's higher than you think. It's something I'll write to VVM about. They might realize how high 75,000 is.)

However, let me tell you how your article really agrees with me. First, 2200 cases over 9 years comes out to 240 a year. Nationwide. In fact, look back at the Lost Boys article for this detail:

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is the only agency that keeps track of how many children the legal system rescues from pimps nationwide. The count, which began in June 2003, now exceeds 1,600 as of April of this year {2011}, according to the FBI's Innocence Lost website — an average of about 200 each year.


So, evil VVM article I cite uses the exact same source your Dallas news article cites. It seems the legal system has taken it up a notch since then, making about 600 more rescues between April 2011 and June 2012.

But add 79 more, (for the 10th year? I'll keep it in the 9th) and that comes out to about 248 per year. Nationwide. That's absolutely consistent with what was found in Atlanta: 31 underage cases in 4 years.

One thing I will admit: since 600 rescues were made in a 14 month period, it does suggest maybe law enforcement was under-performing before. Maybe.

The Dallas News link you give is almost devoid of any information. The reporter has written what the FBI has given him, apparently without any question at all. I also observe that journalists are usually diligent in saying "alleged" when there's an arrest but no conviction. That's been completely dispensed with in your source.

I follow the FBI link it gives, and it's almost, but not quite as bad. It reports that the Bureau with state and local authorities made a 72-hour sweep of truck stops, called Operation Cross Country.

From that, you can conclude this wasn't investigative operation. They simply went out and found out how many arrests they could make for soliciting (and presumably, only that, though truck stops also feature a lot of drugs) in three days. No word on how many convictions. They might all fall through. They might all be false arrests. It does say the operation recovered 79 underage prostitutes and arrested 100 pimps. And they wanted an impressive number. Than how likely are those arrests to stand up in court? (What do the mean by "recovered" underage prostitutes. Do they mean arrested them? Arrested an reunited with their families? If so, what's the count of those detained and not "recovered.")

However, there's a fishy thing about those numbers: on a 72 hour sweep without any deep investigative work, how did they find 1.2 pimps per prostitute? Did 21 of the prostitutes have partnership pimps? Were the pimps soliciting agents more than the prostitutes? It would almost indicate that they arrested pimps without finding the enslaved prostitutes, which would seem to be something that would undercut the cases later.

Or, maybe some prostitutes were adults and weren't reported here at all because of that, but if so, how many of the pimps total were actually arrested for having adult prostitutes employed? Which raises the question, how many of those 73 under-age prostitutes actually had pimps?

Have any of these been verified in court? Are all of these arrests really for prostitution? Or were the kids there for drugs? Both websites are very scant of any detail here. Given some of the shenanigans in the drug war, I'm very distrustful that these arrests are all on the up-and-up.

Another suspicious thing, the linked FBI site gives the number of convictions for pimps at 1,019. Except this isn't the number of pimps. This is "pimps, madams, and their associates. I presume pimps and madams are the same thing practiced by different genders. But the "and their associates," part invalidates the entire stat for judging the number of pimps. Including them in here looks like a sneaky way of inflating the number arrested seemingly for pimping.

It's this kind of sloppy reporting that makes the whole thing difficult to judge.

Yes, I know about Village Voice Media. However, do you dispute any of propositions presented in the article? The researchers methods, or reputation, or any of the data? It would be one thing if VVM couldn't back it up, or self-financed some study and did it here, or did some other monkey business, but the main study, the Curtis-Dank study is reportedly federally funded.

On the face of it, the article is sound journalism (unlike something by Fox News.) Unless VVM is bare-face lying about what these researchers have found, your ad hominem attack doesn't invalidate the article. If VVM is simply falsifying sources, or these researchers are disreputable, or whatever, it's up to their opponents to vet this article, its facts or sources.

Does it occur to you that maybe the Village Voice behaves the way it does because their inquiry has found exactly the facts given in this article? If I were in their position and truly believe the information they've given in the Lost Boys article, and people were attacking me, I would dig my heels in, too.

Really, if you want them act differently, you should find out what's wrong with the research they've given, rather than launching another ad hominem attack at them.

For myself. I want to be right more than I want to keep the belief I have now. Talk me out of my position. Other people have in the past.

And I want to protect children, too. I just want to make sure that they're real children. It's an important point because measures taken to defend against fictitious crime do have real world consequences. Erring on the side of extreme caution is not good in this case. Some people are still serving sentences for the Satanic Ritual Abuse hysteria in the 80s and early 90s, for crimes that weren't even physically possible. Meanwhile, it didn't protect or punish crimes against one child.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to shcrane71 (Reply #23)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 10:16 AM

141. Stop watching Lifetime TV. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 05:22 PM

24. Local law enforcement conducts stings in my town

And I have no problem with it. They know human trafficking is going on, and they want it out of our town. Do you really think these "Johns" check for ID to see if the prostitute is over 18? The last sting they conducted caught a woman pimping out her little sister.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Blue Gardener (Reply #24)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 03:10 PM

84. The women in the case in Kennebunk is 29

Criminalization actually helps shield people who are pimping out underage girls and commit abuse. In Canada prostitution per se is not illegal, though things like public solicitation, brothel keeping and pimping are. In one incident the Toronto PD got a tip from a client of an escort service that he suspected they were employing underage girls, and the service was busted. If the whistleblower also faced the risk of prosecution, he might not have given the tip. Also the Toronto PD runs a hotline for sex workers to report abusive clients. Women are willing to call it because they know they won't be charged or identified and branded if they do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ButterflyBlood (Reply #84)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 08:17 PM

119. I think that is really the key and why like with Drug legalization, I have done a 180. Legalize both

Take the organized crime element out of both drugs and prostitution and then address addiction, underage workers, trafficking, etc. It will be much easier to do so.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 05:40 PM

26. I know where that place is.

About a Mile from my Mother's place and at the intersection of Route 1 and route 35 that goes to Kennebunkport and the Bush Compound.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 05:41 PM

27. Police to hold off on release of ‘johns’ charged in Zumba prostitution case

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/10/12/news/midcoast/police-to-hold-off-on-release-of-johns-charged-in-zumba-prostitution-case/

KENNEBUNK, Maine — The Kennebunk Police Department will not release the names of people charged with being clients of an alleged Kennebunk prostitution operation until the state high court decides on an appeal.

Lt. Anthony Bean Burpee said no names were being released Friday, as originally planned, because of the pending appeal.

Attorney Stephen Schwartz of Portland, who represents two of the alleged johns in the case, unsuccessfully sought Thursday evening to get a preliminary injunction in Biddeford District Court to prevent the release of the names of people issued summons. Judge Andre Janelle denied the request Thursday evening.

Judge Janelle also denied on Friday a request by Schwartz for an injunction until the Maine Supreme Judicial Court makes a ruling.

*************************

One of the men involved, Mark Strong, I actually know. He's a bit of a douche nozzle. He owns an insurance company, is a photographer, and a private investigator.

http://bangordailynews.com/2012/10/03/news/portland/kennebunk-zumba-instructor-indicted-on-prostitution-charges/

Strong was also indicted Wednesday, on 59 misdemeanor counts, all involving prostitution, including violation of privacy, promoting prostitution, conspiracy to promote prostitution and conspiracy to commit violation of privacy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Maine-ah (Reply #27)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 07:02 PM

37. What happened? The Bush men are in town?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RandySF (Reply #37)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 07:27 PM

42. lol....if Bushies use prostitutes,

I doubt they'd be using this group...

as for what actually happened - I'm not sure

What I know from news, is that Mark gave her money, used his status to access the DMV to somehow get clients (not sure if it was his insurance company or PI status) - had taken pics of Ms. Wright. The police have the video chats between Mark and Ms. Wright and records and videos of Ms. Wright and her "clients" - Apparently she keeps very good records on her Johns. It's quite possible the videos would be used for blackmail as it seems that some of the Johns are rather well known - we'll wait and see I guess.

I don't know much more than what the news is reporting - the only thing is that I just happen to know the guy involved and he's a bit of a local known jerk.


meh - I hope some of that makes a little sense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 05:45 PM

28. I feel so much safer

now that somebody won't get sex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 06:24 PM

32. Well I feel safer

 

the thought that adults may be having sex in private after coming to a mutually beneficial arrangement that in no way involves me infuriates me!

I can't sleep at night with the thought that people may be trading money for services at an agreed upon price.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4th law of robotics (Reply #32)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 12:55 AM

55. Not to worry!........

......I just walked my mouse over to the Redbook-Fresno site and all of my "friends" are still there. Yeseree...all 500 of them, and even a few new ones, too. And ya know the most amazing part? There isn't one of them that doesn't in some way, remind me of Mary Magdalene, as taught to me in my school by the Good Sister WrainBash.

Viz:



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to left on green only (Reply #55)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 10:23 AM

66. Cry Cry Cry

Dar Williams and Lucy Kaplansky and Richard Shindell are fantastic, whether solo or with Cry Cry Cry! Thanks for including this track.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to countryken (Reply #66)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 08:47 PM

91. There seems to be a culture of phenomenal singers and song writers.....

who reside on the East coast and never venture beyond that local with their music. Living out here on the West coast makes it very hard for me to expose myself to their art. Some of them travel the country performing their music in the true fashion of the Renaissance Troubadours, and those are the ones with whom I am familiar. Other than that, I am only able to discover what is happening on the East coast by chance. That is the way I first learned about Dar Williams, Lucy Kaplansky and Richard Shindell (although I was previously familiar with Dar Williams through her work in films).

Sounds like you may into this music as well. If you know of any other East Coast talent with whom I may not be familiar, please PM me with their info.

My apologies to the thread for making this off topic post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sat Oct 13, 2012, 11:14 PM

52. Let's hear George's take on this.

 

”I do not understand why prostitution is illegal. Why should prostitution be illegal? Selling is legal; fucking is legal. Why isn’t selling fucking legal? Why should it be illegal to sell something that’s perfectly legal to give away? I can’t follow the logic on that at all.”

George Carlin

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #52)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 01:48 PM

127. I mostly agree, but the picture becomes muddled

once you bring coercion, abuse and indentured servitude into the mix...

I used to read a couple of anonymous blogs of former sex workers, and it isn't always a rosy picture...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:54 AM

58. They dust this old ploy out about every 4-5 years.


I won't confirm that some authorities seem to do it during election season, but it's about the right period of time.

You're going to have prostitution as long as human beings have a sex drive and have anything to trade.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 02:49 AM

59. why should i care about who consenting adults have sex with?

eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #59)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 08:09 AM

60. +1000. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to arely staircase (Reply #59)

Tue Oct 16, 2012, 01:46 PM

124. Word. It's not like this isn't going on in every other city on Earth. Most of which it is

legal and regulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 08:21 AM

61. The larger scandal is that its neighbor, K-port, harbors the Bush Compound.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 12:10 PM

73. Most prostitutes start selling sex at age 12-14.

This story seems to involve the other type of prostitute: the privileged, non coerced kind.

The vast majority of prostitutes are not like her. This issue is not new, and the results are in. Where it is legal and regulated, things get worse. For the legal kind (the minority of prostitutes) and the majority as well.

This is a human rights issue. The left needs to move forward and abandon the more libertarian style ideas about it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #73)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 12:16 PM

74. You all seem to have the same "facts"

 

but never any citations.

Claim: Most prostitutes are child sex slaves.
Citation: I just said it didn't I?

Claim: legalizing prostitution makes the conditions worse.
Citation: see above.

Why do you suppose it will be easier to regulate an illegal activity?

Consider, who is more likely to ID you and make sure you are of age: your drug dealer or your liquor store cashier?

When was the last time some tainted booze got lose and killed a bunch of people?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #73)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 10:19 AM

105. So you are saying most women start their lives as prostitutes when they are in middle school?

Are you just talking about the U.S. or are you talking Shanghai as well?

I'm pretty sure the stats are really different for different parts of the World.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #105)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 10:53 AM

106. No, that is in the United States.

The information is widely available.

This is an issue that affects millions of girls' lives, and yet so few bother to read about it.

And this is why I can't discuss this issue here anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #106)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:01 AM

107. I actually tried doing some google searches before I posted

And was having a hard time on stats on this...

I found articles saying, "girls and boys start as young as #", but that's not a real stat....


Can you post a link to the numbers and percentages and studies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #106)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:12 AM

109. Could you present this "widely available" information?

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #73)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:01 AM

108. Most criminals start breaking the law early in life.

I have no idea if that is true or not, or if that is a "stat" that is talking about the US, or the world. But even if true, that's not an overly surprising thing. However, it misses the point. Most drug addicts starting using, or at least experimenting with drugs at about that early teen age too. Most career criminals starting getting in trouble before they became adults.

The fact that prostitution is illegal here:

1. Makes it more likely that people will get involved at a young age and
2: Makes it an activity that many of these other kids in the groups above (runaways, drug addicts, etc) find themselves turning to to survive.

In some ways you are never really going be able to address #2. Kids in those situations are going to find ways to compensate their drug dealers with the only assets they have.

But pimps prey on young, impressionable kids to turn them out to the business in the first place. And while you aren't going to end illegal prostitution, you will impact the business significantly if there are safer, legal outlets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WestCoastLib (Reply #108)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 11:15 AM

110. Where it is legal, things get worse.

There is a reason the most progressive countries are moving to the Nordic model.

This is a human rights issue.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to redqueen (Reply #110)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:17 PM

112. You made two more statements here

 

that were presented as fact but carry no citations.

Provide evidence for these claims:

1) the average prostitute starts at 12-14
2) where prostitution is legal "things get worse" (also provide the definition you're using for worse; more abuse, more underage prostitutes, more disease, what?)
3) most progressive countries are moving to the nordic model (also don't define progressive as "moving towards the nordic model on prostitution", use a commonly accepted definition).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:46 PM

80. If this dance instructor had just slept around for fun there'd be no crime or scandal

So she accepted money for it. What's the big deal and what's the difference? It's completely OK for two random people to just hook up in a bar have a one nigh stand and never see each other again but not if one offers money for it? One very stupidly written law. Go after human traffickers and streetwalkers who become a nuisance to the neighborhood sure, but otherwise let consenting adults do what they want.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 01:50 PM

81. As an empiricist, I say this:

Check what's happened where prostitution is legal. Do real studies and find out what psychological issues are present and what has happened to the communities in general. Then make a decision about whether to legalize prostitution based on the findings.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 05:24 PM

86. Shaming of prostitutes' clients applied widely in US

Shaming of prostitutes' clients applied widely in US

Communities in US increasingly use a deterrent anti-trafficking activists say works but which lawyers say ignores presumption of innocence

Monday, 15 October, 2012, 12:00am
Associated Press in New York

Gone are the days of the nameless, faceless "john". Men who buy sex are now likely to end up with their faces splashed across the internet or the morning newspaper.

A tourist town in the US state of Maine shaken up by authorities' promises to reveal the identities of dozens of clients of a fitness instructor accused of prostitution is just the latest place to enlist public shaming as a preventive measure.

Fresno, California, sponsors a website called "Operation Reveal" that features mug shots of suspected johns, while Oklahoma City has the vigilante-style "JohnTV". In Arlington, Texas, a highway billboard declares "This could be you" under the picture of four suspects.

In Maine, the small-town scandal has literally put Kennebunk on the map - it's now part of a database tracking more than 870 municipalities that have launched initiatives targeting men who hire prostitutes.

More:
http://www.scmp.com/news/world/article/1060990/shaming-prostitutes-clients-applied-widely-us












Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 08:13 PM

89. It's a good answer to

voter suppression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Turbineguy (Reply #89)

Sun Oct 14, 2012, 08:43 PM

90. It would be perfect, combined with prison, and an enormous fine.

With voter suppression, the entire country is victimized.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 12:42 AM

96. Legalize, regulate, make health checks mandatory.

Banning prostitution makes the same amount of sense as prohibition. It will happen anyway, so legalize it and make it as safe as possible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #96)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 08:19 PM

120. Yep, same with drugs. Which, as I said above is 180 degrees different from where I was with both

10 years ago.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:42 PM

115. I don't get how the whole thing doesn't collapse in most minds at the word "accused"

Our entire sense of justice has eroded to near nonexistence.

Most of us believe in guilty until proven innocent now?

Never mind the thousands of years of history of utterly failed and generally counter productive vice laws.

Bad enough that public money is squandered in pursuit of this stupidity, unacceptable that such pursuit is often abused to curtail or evade our civil liberties and increases the power and scope of the security state, but then to jump the shark and land in a place that flips the entire premise of our system on its head is beyond despicable.

If you want the law as a means of dictating personal morality, go be a TeaPubliKlan, after no taxes and no regulation of corporate entities that is their focus.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TheKentuckian (Reply #115)

Mon Oct 15, 2012, 01:46 PM

116. For some crimes the accusation is enough

 

And accused drug dealer deserves his day in court.

As does a murderer, burglar, or counterfeiter.

And accused sex-criminal ought to be strung up. Why waste time on a trial? He's clearly guilty else why would he be accused?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Judi Lynn (Original post)

Mon Oct 22, 2012, 11:46 AM

142. Terribly upsetting news for all family values, teabagger Rethuglicans

"Prostitute patrons can't hide their faces anymore"

You can run but you can't hide teabaggers! LOL

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread