History Channel Show on Sex in the Civil War

[Solaris]

Did anyone else watch this? I found it fascinating... and aside from learning where the word "Hooker" came from, the most interesting part to me was what happened in Nashville:

After the Union won Nashville, they set up an HQ there. IIRC over a hundred thousand soldiers were camped there (I *think* that's the right number)... and the whorehouse district began booming. With it the rates of VD soared, until FORTY PERCENT of the soldiers encamped there were sick with VD---the diseases were taking a greater toll on the troops than their battles with the Confederate Army.

One general tried shipping the women by train to St. Louis---the city sent them back. Another comandeered a brand new steamboat, and tried to send them off that way... again, St. Louis wouldn't let them leave the women there; neither would Cincinatti, so in the end, the women were brought back to Nashville.

The generals threw up their hands, and turned the problem over to the chief camp doctor. His solution? He LEGALIZED prostitution, and made it mandatory for the women to obtain a license every three weeks ($5 fee). Aside from the fee, to get the license the woman had to be examined for health by one of the doctors... and those who were found infected were placed and cared for in a women's hospital they set up next to the one for the men sick with VD.

The result? The women were happier, having their health looked after, the license fees paid for the program---and the VD rate dropped from 40% down to 4%. I imagine the men were happier too, knowing that their risk of disease (and death thereby, and/or the painful, primitive treatments) had gone way down.

It never ceases to amaze me that our society is so puritannical in our laws that we refuse to grant the same kind of situation, and health protection, to prostitutes today (male or female). I wish to hell we did.

[Hybrid2]

Yeah.I dont understand why it's not like that.

Plus the diseases it redusse the risk of slavery to.
And get money to the gouvernement.

[Michael P]

The term "hooker" comes from a Union Army officer who regularly contracted assignations for his men, as I recall.

[Grazzt]

The term "hooker" comes from a Union Army officer who regularly contracted assignations for his men, as I recall.

I'm pretty sure that's an urban myth. I remember reading somewhere that it actually references an area of New York, Corlear’s Hook.

[cactusmaac]

It's legal in the Netherlands, Germany and Nevada. The Netherlands has seen a big rise in the trafficking of sex slaves from Eastern Europe and child prostitution has increased quite a lot in Nevada. Cologne has a pretty comprehensive scheme for managing sex worker safety but less than ten percent of the prostitute population makes use of it.

Beyond that it's not an occupation that should be given any sort of social approval.

"Yet the evidence is overwhelming that, in the United States, prostitution is only very rarely just another career choice. Studies suggest that up to two-thirds of prostitutes have been sexually abused as girls, a majority have drug dependencies or mental illnesses, one-third have been threatened with death by pimps, and almost half have attempted suicide.

Melissa Farley, a psychologist who has written extensively about the subject, says that girls typically become prostitutes at age 13 or 14. She conducted a study finding that 89 percent of prostitutes urgently wanted to escape the work, and that two-thirds have post-traumatic stress disorder — not a problem for even the most frustrated burger-flipper.

The mortality data for prostitutes is staggering. The American Journal of Epidemiology published a meticulous study finding that the “workplace homicide rate for prostitutes” is 51 times that of the next most dangerous occupation for women, working in a liquor store. The average age of death of the prostitutes in the study was 34.

“Women engaged in prostitution face the most dangerous occupational environment in the United States,” The Journal concluded."

And another article from the Guardian on the pitfalls of legalisation.

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2260967,00.html


'It's abuse and a life of hell'


As a world expert on prostitution, Roger Matthews has met women in the trade who have been stabbed, raped and beaten. He tells Julie Bindel why they must be given help to leave the sex industry for good

[Solaris]

Nope, guys: it was a General Hooker, who was in charge of the troops stationed in DC. IIRC, he made the whorehouses consolidate into one area (plus he was very lenient with the men for passes to go to such)---and the term became something like "Hooker's Ladies," which got shortened to "Hookers."

BTW, all the whorehouses in Washington were located between the White House and the Capitol Building... and soldiers weren't the only ones frequenting them: plenty of govt. officials and congressmen, too. What's really funny is that one of them sat squarely on the lot where now the Justice Dept. building sits... LOL. (I *think* there was another one where now we have the Washington Monument.)

[singoalla]

I'd be more ecstatic about controlling prostitution through licenses and medical examinations, if I didn't know that the majority of all prostitutes did not choose their "profession", and that it supports a billion dollar industry of slavery and trafficking.

Not to mention that the majority of all prostitutes are not happy middle aged women supporting a family, but underaged children taken from their poor families who were promised their daughter would be given schooling and food and shelter, and then turned over to a lifetime of sexual slavery.

It doesn't just happen in back alleys and hidden rooms. Anyone who travels to South east asia will come face to face with child prostitution, in bars, in hotels, on the street, in the tourist markets. I will never forget the young girl I saw under the arm of a fat English tourist. I'll probably never forgive myself for not calling the police or trying to find out where he lived.

[Grazzt]

Nope, guys: it was a General Hooker, who was in charge of the troops stationed in DC. IIRC, he made the whorehouses consolidate into one area (plus he was very lenient with the men for passes to go to such)---and the term became something like "Hooker's Ladies," which got shortened to "Hookers."

I'm sorry, but a quick Internet search provides this. (http://hookandi.blogspot.com/2006/04/first-hookers-were-really-hookers.html)

[Jack Zodiac]

Not to mention that the majority of all prostitutes are not happy middle aged women supporting a family, but underaged children taken from their poor families who were promised their daughter would be given schooling and food and shelter, and then turned over to a lifetime of sexual slavery.

The majority of illegal prostitutes, maybe. Set up the dichotomy in the United States, though, in Nevada, where prostitution is legal, one hundred percent of the women are legal citizens of the United States with a clean health record, and there is not one reported incident of an STD being contracted from a bordello. Nor is there any record of violence towards the girls working there, either from pimps or johns, because there are no pimps or johns.

In a regulated environment, prostitution is safe. The problem, though, is that in order to maximize safety and profits from prostitution in the United States, not only would it have to be legalized, it'd have to be supervised from the federal or at least state level, and there's no way in hell most states, let alone the entire country, would ever go for that.

[Solaris]

I'd be more ecstatic about controlling prostitution through licenses and medical examinations, if I didn't know that the majority of all prostitutes did not choose their "profession", and that it supports a billion dollar industry of slavery and trafficking.

Not to mention that the majority of all prostitutes are not happy middle aged women supporting a family, but underaged children taken from their poor families who were promised their daughter would be given schooling and food and shelter, and then turned over to a lifetime of sexual slavery.

It doesn't just happen in back alleys and hidden rooms. Anyone who travels to South east asia will come face to face with child prostitution, in bars, in hotels, on the street, in the tourist markets. I will never forget the young girl I saw under the arm of a fat English tourist. I'll probably never forgive myself for not calling the police or trying to find out where he lived.

Prostitution varies from country to country. I was speaking of prostitutes here in the U.S.

[Solaris]

I'm sorry, but a quick Internet search provides this. (http://hookandi.blogspot.com/2006/04/first-hookers-were-really-hookers.html)

Snopes says nothing on any of this... and I would trust the History Channel more than a blog, hon. I got my story from the H.C. special.

[TCJohnson]

Actually the first use of the word in writing was in 1845. At the time, he was not yet even a colonel.

http://www.randomhouse.com/wotd/index.pperl?date=19970905

[Charles RB]

it redusse the risk of slavery to.

As cactusmaac says, sex slavery has carried on quite happily in the Netherlands despite the legalisation of prostitution there. In some cases, IIRC, sex slaves were run out of legal brothels - criminal gangs being quite capable of establishing a "legit" facade for their operations.

[Hybrid2]

gess it's back to plan A then.:-/

[cedardryad]

I saw this. I watch all the History of Sex shows on the History channel. Nothing like my 2 favorite things on the History channel; sex and the Civil War.

[Cam63]

I thought " hooker " originated from Australian prostitutes who'd give you a right hook to the jaw if you tried shortchanging 'em.

[CutterMike]

It's legal in the Netherlands, Germany and Nevada. The Netherlands has seen a big rise in the trafficking of sex slaves from Eastern Europe and child prostitution has increased quite a lot in Nevada. Cologne has a pretty comprehensive scheme for managing sex worker safety but less than ten percent of the prostitute population makes use of it.

Beyond that it's not an occupation that should be given any sort of social approval.

"Yet the evidence is overwhelming that, in the United States, prostitution is only very rarely just another career choice. Studies suggest that up to two-thirds of prostitutes have been sexually abused as girls, a majority have drug dependencies or mental illnesses, one-third have been threatened with death by pimps, and almost half have attempted suicide.

Melissa Farley, a psychologist who has written extensively about the subject, says that girls typically become prostitutes at age 13 or 14. She conducted a study finding that 89 percent of prostitutes urgently wanted to escape the work, and that two-thirds have post-traumatic stress disorder — not a problem for even the most frustrated burger-flipper.

The mortality data for prostitutes is staggering. The American Journal of Epidemiology published a meticulous study finding that the “workplace homicide rate for prostitutes” is 51 times that of the next most dangerous occupation for women, working in a liquor store. The average age of death of the prostitutes in the study was 34.

“Women engaged in prostitution face the most dangerous occupational environment in the United States,” The Journal concluded."

the authors' implication appears to be that it is the ACT of exchanging money for sex (the prostitution) which causes the stress, etc., and not the fact that it is illegal and unregulated, hence allowing no recourse for abuse from pimps, customers, etc. In most areas with legal brothels, AFAIK, while the prostitution is legal, pimping is still prosecutable, as are assault, rape, and so on; presumably reducing the workers' stress levels.

Note that the articles cited refer to prostitutes in the U.S., where it is illegal, rather than in the Netherlands, or specifically limiting the discussion to the legalized areas of Nevada.

And another article from the Guardian on the pitfalls of legalisation.

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/women/story/0,,2260967,00.html

Yes, but, again, while the author of te story does mention, in passing, that the legalized districts in the Netherlands are often near industrial areas (i.e., legally ghettoized), he makes no reference to the state of the mental or physical health of the workers, and only mentions in passing what "women in Nevada" have said. (How many women? What percentage of respondents? What percentage of the total population working in the brothels? We don't know.)

As cactusmaac says, sex slavery has carried on quite happily in the Netherlands despite the legalisation of prostitution there. In some cases, IIRC, sex slaves were run out of legal brothels - criminal gangs being quite capable of establishing a "legit" facade for their operations.

There is always going to be abuse in any system.

The real question, it seems to me, is:
"Assuming that prostitution IS going to take place, then given two conditions, one where all prostitution is predominantly illegal, underground and stigmatized, and one in which it is predominantly legalized, regulated, and puts the workers into the employment tracking system where the can get help if they want to find other work (i.e.: where they can admit to the intake worker at the job center, "I've been working here for three years; now I want to find a better job," rather than "Um... no... I haven't been working... No, I don't have any ... No... No... No..."); which is likely to have the LEAST abused and physically and mentally healthiest population of sex-workers? I would argue that it is the latter.

Do I believe that prostitution is GOOD? Not particularly.

Do I believe that it can be eradicated? No.

Do I believe that, if it is going to occur in any case, that it should be regulated in such a way as best benefits those working in the field? Yes, absolutely.

[JeffreyWKramer]

and child prostitution has increased quite a lot in Nevada.

You want to provide some actual citation for this? Everything I've seen suggests that child prostitution rates in Nevada are quite a bit lower than many places in the US in which prostitution is illegal.

Also, it's worth noting that in the counties in Nevada in which prostitution is actually legal, there's little or no child prostitution. You aren't going to find it on the legal ranches and such, that's for sure.

All the stuff about mortality among prostitutions - a direct function of the illegality. Q: What's the rate of murder and disease-related death among the women in the legal brothels? A: Insignificant.

The best way to clean up that problem is to legalize prostitution.

[Solaris]

Cutter and Jeffrey covered the bases on refuting Cactus's arguments, so I'll pick up with my next thought.

I have no numbers on this, but I would expect it's a rare bird indeed who *wants* to be a prostitute. Females AND males get into it for a variety of reasons.

Many started out as runaways, with no other way to stay alive.

Many of those runaways were fleeing a abuse, or sexual abuse situation.

How are we doing on combating the problems that cause these kids to run away? How are we doing on combating sexual abuse? How are we doing on providing runaways with a safe place to live, food to eat, clothes to wear, counseling for their mental and emotional state, opportunities for education and jobs?

We suck at it.

Often, if a kid runs away and gets caught by the authorities, they end up returned to the same situation they fled from in the first place. What does that tell them about the system? For the ones who weren't "discipline problems, etc.", the ones who ran from a genuine problem... shouldn't we have stopped the abuse before they felt their only alternative was to run, before they came to believe that Authority not only won't, or can't, help them, not only that Authority doesn't care, but also that Authority is actively on the side of their abuser?

Until the day that we can stop every child from being abused, some are going to run. And of those who run, many will turn to prostitution to survive. It sucks, but that's how it is.

So... instead of offering them help, protection, health care, RIGHTS, and a chance to move on from it when they can... we make them fear and avoid authority even more, arrest them when we can... and send them back to their own personal hell, if they're caught and still underaged.

It's no wonder, for these people, they believe that they are trash, that they have no rights, that there is no hope, that this is all they're good for. That's how our system treats them.

Two women get murdered. One is a soccer mom, one is a prostitute. Which murder will the police investigate avidly? Which one will they mostly write off, unless it happens to be one of a string of serial murders that's gotten news attention?

Don't both women's lives count? Don't they both have rights? Is one of them truly "expendable"?

Not every hooker got into it as an abused kid. I remember a certain therapist here discussing a client (anonymously) who, IIRC, was a mother who ended up prostituting to keep the roof over her kids' heads. She didn't want to do it, she didn't like doing it---but she did it to provide for her family, until she could get something that paid better. I don't remember the details---but I remember admiring the woman's courage and toughness, to take that on because there literally was nothing else she could do.

And, not every prostitute is a street hooker... but likely, the only dream most street hookers allow themselves is to somehow make it into the "big leagues" as an independent call-girl/escort, even though the chance of that is vanishingly small. Escorts (the full service variety) make good money, from what I understand. Yes, there's still a lot of risk in their profession... but I would think more of them stay in it for the money (just as many strippers in high-tip places do). I knew one stripper once who made over $70,000 a year---and that was over ten years ago. She was banking her money, to go back to college when she "aged out" of the profession.

The point is, currently these women (and the men who prostitute) have no real legal protection. The higher-priced ones can often set their own rules, but even they have some risk: after all, what they do is illegal, so a client who gets her into his hotel room and then wants to "play nasty" has less fear of her going to the police afterwards, because it would get her in trouble, too.

Prostitution, for whatever reason, isn't going away. It never will. And I think it's high time that we started protecting the people who end up in that job, with legal status, required licensing, required health checks, etc... and, the right to know that if someone assaults them, they can report it and have it investigated, and hopefully with an arrest and prosecution made.

As for the underage prostitutes... no legal establishment could carry them for long without getting raided and busted. Many of the "clients" who currently don't bother asking for age verification, wouldn't need to, so long as they go to a legal establishment---and few would want to risk arrest, when there's a place to get it legally.

Would the underagers still try? I'm sure some would. And if and when they're caught, I hope that authorities would place them in a care program, rather than simply shipping them back home. And maybe some of the money currently being spent on prostitution "stings" could then instead go toward better resources and programs for runaways, and for doing more to stop/prevent molestation and physical abuse.

I'd like to see runaways have the legal option to do that "legally divorcing the parents" thing, where they can opt to take on the legal responsiblity for themselves. I could see where any runaway who chose that option would automatically qualify for various programs to help them. I think that'd take out a lot of the problem of sending kids home to abusive situations... and it would let the kids know that they DO have an alternative. Let it be known in the runaway community. Let the doctors inform their prostitute clients of it, when they come in for a check up. Get the word out. Then back it up with sticking to that word: if you're underage and a runaway, and you want to take legal responsiblity for yourself, you can file for the status, and here's what it means, good and bad, etc.

Back to the main topic:

Bottom line on all this is, our system is failing EVERY prostitute right now. And so long as there are people, there's going to be prostitution. We might as well move in the right direction, to help as many of them as we can, rather than the "throw away" system we have right now... because they're people, and they have rights, too.

[cactusmaac]

You want to provide some actual citation for this?

http://www.sharedhope.org/imgs/files/FINAL_Las_Vegas_040808.pdf


All the stuff about mortality among prostitutions - a direct function of the illegality. Q: What's the rate of murder and disease-related death among the women in the legal brothels? A: Insignificant.

The best way to clean up that problem is to legalize prostitution.

That probably has more to do with them being in brothels. Potential head-cases can be screened out and security can move in at the first sign of trouble. You'd need to compare murder and disease-related mortality to illegal brothels, not street prostitution which is where the bulk of the industry operates.

[cactusmaac]

the authors' implication appears to be that it is the ACT of exchanging money for sex (the prostitution) which causes the stress, etc., and not the fact that it is illegal and unregulated, hence allowing no recourse for abuse from pimps, customers, etc. In most areas with legal brothels, AFAIK, while the prostitution is legal, pimping is still prosecutable, as are assault, rape, and so on; presumably reducing the workers' stress levels..

Where do you see the author's implication saying that? The main thing I got from there is that prostitution is a terrible, dangerous job. It mostly attracts people with extremely messed-up lives, not soccer moms saving for college. It then condemns them to a nasty, brutish life which ends early and violently.

It's facetious to say legalised brothels are perfectly safe and therefore the industry should be legalised for the good of the women. Only a fraction of prostitutes would be deemed suitable by brothel owners. The rest would take their chances on the streets.

The sale of sex should be decriminalised but those paying for it should face criminal prosecution as they do in Sweden. Outright legalisation would be seen as an endorsement of it and lead to a rise in the industry's expansion. That is bound to result in more trafficking of sex slaves from Eastern Europe and Asia and of children. Other than that, prostitutes in the business should be given as much as aid as possible to get out.

[CutterMike]

Where do you see the author's implication saying that?
(...)
(...)
"Yet the evidence is overwhelming that, in the United States, prostitution is only very rarely just another career choice. Studies suggest that up to two-thirds of prostitutes have been sexually abused as girls, a majority have drug dependencies or mental illnesses, one-third have been threatened with death by pimps, and almost half have attempted suicide.

(...)
Note that the articles cited refer to prostitutes in the U.S., where it is illegal, rather than in the Netherlands, or specifically limiting the discussion to the legalized areas of Nevada.
(...)

It appears that the bulk of the author's work is among illegal prostitutes in unregulated areas of the U.S. This is going to skew the results towards the point that the author is trying to make.

If a group is marginalized and ghettoized by society (as illegal sex-workers are), then pointing to the evil conditions under which they live -- without addressing the fact that SOCIETY has marginalized them -- is disingenuous, at best.

If the author, for example, compared the attitudes, health, etc., of a group of prostitutes randomly chosen from legal brothels AND a random group of illegals and they ALL said the same thing, THEN one might be able to say that the prostitution was the cause. Otherwise, you ned to consider whether it is the illegality and the lack of access to social support services because of that illegality that may be causing the negative effects.

As an analogy: If I were to interview a group of illegal immigrants working as gardeners and found that they were stressed, had poor health-care, were abused by their employers, etc., would I be justified in assuming that these negative conditions were the result of being gardeners, or the result of being illegal?

[CutterMike]

You want to provide some actual citation for this? Everything I've seen suggests that child prostitution rates in Nevada are quite a bit lower than many places in the US in which prostitution is illegal.

Also, it's worth noting that in the counties in Nevada in which prostitution is actually legal, there's little or no child prostitution. You aren't going to find it on the legal ranches and such, that's for sure.

http://www.sharedhope.org/imgs/files/FINAL_Las_Vegas_040808.pdf

...And the document that you cited refers to Las Vegas in Clark County, where all prostitution is illegal.

What is the extent of child prostitution in the areas where prostitution is legal?

What also is the OVERALL percentage of underage prostitutes in Nevada as opposed to the national average? Hell, what is the percentage of underage prostitutes in Las Vegas vs. the national average, if you only want to consider that area as your source?

That is to say; if the percentage of underaged prostitutes in Las Vegas is LOWER than the national average, then the assumption could be that there is less demand for prostitution services overall, the demand having been drawn off by the legal establishments outside of Clark County.

If the percentages are the same, then it implies that legalized prostitution has mede no difference to the demand. It's only if the percentages are HIGHER in Las Vegas that one could point to the presence of legalized prostitution in the neighboring areas as a possible contributory factor. And even THAT would not be conclusive, due to the unique character of Las Vegas as a "party town".

[Chiroptera]

I saw this. I watch all the History of Sex shows on the History channel. Nothing like my 2 favorite things on the History channel; sex and the Civil War.


I am very tempted to put that in my sig, Cedar.

[Solaris]

...And the document that you cited refers to Las Vegas in Clark County, where all prostitution is illegal.

What is the extent of child prostitution in the areas where prostitution is legal?

What also is the OVERALL percentage of underage prostitutes in Nevada as opposed to the national average? Hell, what is the percentage of underage prostitutes in Las Vegas vs. the national average, if you only want to consider that area as your source?

That is to say; if the percentage of underaged prostitutes in Las Vegas is LOWER than the national average, then the assumption could be that there is less demand for prostitution services overall, the demand having been drawn off by the legal establishments outside of Clark County.

If the percentages are the same, then it implies that legalized prostitution has mede no difference to the demand. It's only if the percentages are HIGHER in Las Vegas that one could point to the presence of legalized prostitution in the neighboring areas as a possible contributory factor. And even THAT would not be conclusive, due to the unique character of Las Vegas as a "party town".

I'd go one further, and say that it's irrelevant to look at Vegas without also looking at other factors:

How far away/accessible are the legal establishments, for people who are living or staying in Vegas? Do the legal places cost more than someone would pay for something comparable, but illegal, in Vegas?

People are often lazy, and (pardon the term) want the biggest bang for their buck. If it's difficult, or even inconvenient, for most of the johns to get to the legal places, and/or it costs a significant amount more, while some will still go to be "safe from the law," others will look for someone right there in Vegas.

For this kind of thing, it's far better to look at legalized, and illegal, communities in a separate fashion, rather than lumping them together. Get the rates on everything in the legal areas, and the illegal areas nearby---then, after trying to take into account any other outside influences (i.e. availability of shelters and help, the costs johns are paying, convenience, etc.), THEN get some numbers and compare the results, with a good analysis to go with it that addresses those odd or "outside" factors that may play a part in how the numbers break down.

You can't look at the numbers and stats, etc. for an illegal area, and simply project them onto an area where it's legal---that's poor analysis.

[Corrina]

I think one factor that never been tackled specifically as a solution to the problem is alternate economic opportunity.

For instance, the women who followed Hooker's army didn't have the choice of joining the army to get the same pay as the soldiers. The men had money because they had a job--the women had no access to the same job.

While I have no doubt that some women choose prostitution, what I've read tells me that the main driving force behind becoming a prostitute is that there's no alternative source of money--no economic opportunity. This might also be true of the men in a particular area but I would guess that prostitution is most inequitable in places where men do have economic opportunity but women don't. Which leaves them with few choices if they want to eat or support families.

The fact that prostitution is mainly the last choice of most women makes me leery of legalization. I see the health benefits, of course, but the selling the control over one's body in such an intimate manner pretty much squicks me out. I don't see it as completely consenting if the women basically has no other economic choices.

Would I oppose a measure to legalize it? Not sure. My New England Puritan upbringing says it's not right but my current moral state says that the best way to help women who are prostitutes is not to legalize a state that they were driven into but to find a way for our society to help those at the very end of the income ladder. I think the chances of that are pretty damn slim, quite honestly, but I suspect the odds of overall legalization of prostitution are slim, too.

Solaris is quite right about the lack of services for emotionally/physically abused kids. It's inadequate. Maybe I'd tackle the problem by letting the biggest penalty fall on those who choose to use prostitutes, rather than those who might be driven into the profession.

[CutterMike]

(...)
It's facetious to say legalised brothels are perfectly safe and therefore the industry should be legalised for the good of the women. Only a fraction of prostitutes would be deemed suitable by brothel owners. The rest would take their chances on the streets.
(...)

I don't know of ANYONE who has said that; certainly I haven't said that, although I might claim that a well-regulated brothel system would likely be the safest and healthiest form of prostitution for all parties.

I think one factor that never been tackled specifically as a solution to the problem is alternate economic opportunity.

For instance, the women who followed Hooker's army didn't have the choice of joining the army to get the same pay as the soldiers. The men had money because they had a job--the women had no access to the same job.

While I have no doubt that some women choose prostitution, what I've read tells me that the main driving force behind becoming a prostitute is that there's no alternative source of money--no economic opportunity. This might also be true of the men in a particular area but I would guess that prostitution is most inequitable in places where men do have economic opportunity but women don't. Which leaves them with few choices if they want to eat or support families.

The fact that prostitution is mainly the last choice of most women makes me leery of legalization. I see the health benefits, of course, but the selling the control over one's body in such an intimate manner pretty much squicks me out. I don't see it as completely consenting if the women basically has no other economic choices.

Would I oppose a measure to legalize it? Not sure. My New England Puritan upbringing says it's not right but my current moral state says that the best way to help women who are prostitutes is not to legalize a state that they were driven into but to find a way for our society to help those at the very end of the income ladder. I think the chances of that are pretty damn slim, quite honestly, but I suspect the odds of overall legalization of prostitution are slim, too.

Solaris is quite right about the lack of services for emotionally/physically abused kids. It's inadequate. Maybe I'd tackle the problem by letting the biggest penalty fall on those who choose to use prostitutes, rather than those who might be driven into the profession.

Corinna, I agree with you completely; in an ideal world, there should be no NEED for prostitution.

Interestingly, if the NECESSITY of going into prostitution as an economic last resort were removed, I wonder what that would do for its social acceptance? As it stands now, because it is seen as the province of "women who can't do anything else", sex-workers are seen as the lowest of the low. If the system were changed so that that was no longer the case and the socio-economic stigma was removed, the results for the mental health of both the workers and society as a whole could be quite large. (...or not -- no one knows...)

But, as I said in a previous post:

(...)
The real question, it seems to me, is:
"Assuming that prostitution IS going to take place, then given two conditions, one where all prostitution is predominantly illegal, underground and stigmatized, and one in which it is predominantly legalized, regulated, and puts the workers into the employment tracking system where the can get help if they want to find other work (i.e.: where they can admit to the intake worker at the job center, "I've been working here for three years; now I want to find a better job," rather than "Um... no... I haven't been working... No, I don't have any ... No... No... No..."); which is likely to have the LEAST abused and physically and mentally healthiest population of sex-workers? I would argue that it is the latter.

Do I believe that prostitution is GOOD? Not particularly.

Do I believe that it can be eradicated? No.

Do I believe that, if it is going to occur in any case, that it should be regulated in such a way as best benefits those working in the field? Yes, absolutely.

Flat-out prohibition has not eradicated any problem and never will. The best things to do in this case, it seems to me, would be to remove (as much as possible) any economic necessity to enter prostitution, and license and regulate any who still choose to do so.

Decriminalization of the sale of sex while criminalizing the purchase does nothing to resolve the problem of economic necessity and may, in fact, exacerbate the problem by removing the risk of arrest for being the seller -- thus potentially INcreasing the pool of sellers by including those who might have been kept away due to the risk of criminal prosecution -- while potentially DEcreasing the pool of buyers, who face added risk of arrest and prosecution. If the end result is to take away even THIS last-ditch effort to earn money without also substantially increasing other employment or education opportunities, then I would claim that as a net LOSS for those workers.

On a side note -- and please note that I consider this consideration QUITE secondary to the well-being of the workers -- taking the sex-trade out of the underground economy and bringing (the majority of) it into the light where income, Social Security, and Medicare taxes can be collected on the previously unrecorded transactions could prove a social boon, as well.

[Corrina]

Okay, not that I'm advocating we do this and I know it's not a direct analogy but...

Just because we can't prevent something harmful doesn't mean making it legal is the solution. For instance, no one's arguing murder should be made legal--and we've never been able to do away with that, in the whole history of mankind.

Now, it all depends on whether you see prostitution as something harmful in and of itself. To me, it's psychologically harmful and often physically harmful (though there are good arguments made that it being illegal is what causes the physical harm.) I'm not so sure being illegal causes all of the physical harm. I still think prostitutes would have a pretty high rate of risk---if you're someone who gets off on hitting/hurting/killing women, way easier to pay one to get her alone than try and stalk someone to get her alone.

But, really, I don't have any particular facts to back me up. Just a real deep gut feeling that its, well, wrong. To me, there's something deeply screwed up about having to exchange money for such an intimate act.

What can I say? Every now and then, the Puritan comes out, sad to say. You might be able to persuade my logical side that making it legal is fine, and I might not stand in your way.

Anyone got any stats on the physical/psychological health of legal prostitutes? Not so much in the U.S., because I think the instances are so isolated that it's not helpful. Maybe in the Netherlands?

[Charles RB]

There is always going to be abuse in any system.

This is beyond abuse. This is the system being intended to have a negative impact on sex trafficking, enforced prostitution and johns using non-legalised prostitutes, and it failing to do so.

I'm sure there have been benefits from legalising it, but the Netherlands shows it doing fuck all against sex trafficking. It'll only deal with some of the problems, if that.

[mgs]

I think cactus and Cutter have both made valid points on the occupation of protitution, but at least one thing is clear, in the Netherlands (and most asian countries), as I understand it as well, it has failed to be a reasonable job that is supposed to be overseen by the governments that allow it.

Who knows if it would work here, but it would have to be carefully regulated to make the possibility worthwhile, imo.

[JeffreyWKramer]

http://www.sharedhope.org/imgs/files/FINAL_Las_Vegas_040808.pdf


As Cutter notes, this citation is pretty irrelevant, as it doesn't say anything about the parts of Nevada with legal prostitution.

That probably has more to do with them being in brothels. Potential head-cases can be screened out and security can move in at the first sign of trouble. You'd need to compare murder and disease-related mortality to illegal brothels, not street prostitution which is where the bulk of the industry operates.

What you're essentially arguing for is that prostitution should be legal, so the prostitutes can receive some degree of protection. And, I agree with that.