Legalized Prostituition

Blue - please provide a link to your source as requested on a few occasions already.

Statically over 90% of women working as prositutes were abused.

98% of statistics on the internet are made up on the spot.

WRONG. it's 96.5%, LF.

Yes, it seems to me that most people who get up in arms about legalizing prostitution ARE trying to legislate morality, and they commonly make up myths to support their claims (ie. 90% of sex workers were abused as children). I doubt many prohibitionists would even consider asking a sex worker what it is they want. Crucify me if you must, but believe it or not I am a card-carrying feminist with a summa cum laude master's degree in sociology and we talked about this type of stuff a lot. (We actually don't carry cards, but you get my point.) To be fair, however, feminists are torn on this subject - many, like me, are anti-prohibition; others, not so much.

Tangent/Rant:

I personally don't eat shrimp, I find it disgusting that people would eat underwater bugs, but I'm not trying to make it illegal nor do I judge those that those to partake.

Don't be afraid to judge these people and say what you really feel, LF. Shrimp eaters are disgusting and 92% of them have brain damage (due to the tainted shrimp they have been eating). If you are with me, I am willing to put some serious time and effort into trying to develop a critical mass to stop these atrocities. I am so disgusted that people would put these disgusting things inside their mouths and it makes me sick that it is legal.

Have you ever made a choice, knowing it was wrong, but felt you had "no choice"? ie. the lesser of two evils. Until you're faced with this situation, examining values is all simply theoretical discussion. Knowingly forcing someone else into this position is just wrong, imo.

I prefer to use logic and rationality over “feelings” so even if I “felt” I had no choice, I would logically know I did, and act from that basis.

Sorry, I have little sympathy for those who willingly give up their power to others; I’ve made very hard choices often in the face “feeling” I had no other choice. It is very difficult to force someone into any position, there is almost always some level of agreement involved when the situation is analyzed.

I personally don't eat shrimp, I find it disgusting that people would eat underwater bugs, but I'm not trying to make it illegal nor do I judge those that those to partake.

Don't be afraid to judge these people and say what you really feel, LF. Shrimp eaters are disgusting and 92% of them have brain damage (due to the tainted shrimp they have been eating). If you are with me, I am willing to put some serious time and effort into trying to develop a critical mass to stop these atrocities. I am so disgusted that people would put these disgusting things inside their mouths and it makes me sick that it is legal.

Our first move should be to victimize the helpless shrimps &/or break down the species to such a level that any one of them could be considered endangered or at risk of endangerment; then we lobby (probably with the backing of Monsanto & other mega-agro-corporations) against all water bound foods due to the high level of cross-contamination (real or not, it doesn't matter at this point, we are on a roll!) and finally finish it off with some pro-shrimp entertainment, pitch a few movies to Disney or maybe a TV show... Really seal the deal with culturally imbedded sympathy for the underwater critters backed by media induced indoctrination.

we'll need to work on some slogans of course & perhaps a jingle or two....

I'll get my people to contact your people & we can move forward with this endeavor.

Before you run off on a campaign to ban shrimp please consider the tax implications, after all that is what prompted this topic to begin with. And I might do a shrimp now and again, but I certainly don't inhale. 😎

PS> If you're really into shrimp I heard a certain DPNR hook up can get you tons of the stuff.

Our first move should be to victimize the helpless shrimps &/or break down the species to such a level that any one of them could be considered endangered or at risk of endangerment; then we lobby (probably with the backing of Monsanto & other mega-agro-corporations) against all water bound foods due to the high level of cross-contamination (real or not, it doesn't matter at this point, we are on a roll!) ....

"Shrimp are a shy and retiring lot, living in shadows and dark crevices to hide from predators (and nurse their psychic scars?)."
This is a good article in Salon "Shrimp on Prozac are killing themselves" from which we can cherry pick for sure!

AND, we are in the $ now: We. Have. Hategroups!!!
[img= ]

I doubt many prohibitionists would even consider asking a sex worker what it is they want. Crucify me if you must, but believe it or not I am a card-carrying feminist with a summa cum laude master's degree in sociology and we talked about this type of stuff a lot.

That was a great read, I think anyone who is reads this thread and views sexworkers as poor helpless individuals that don't want to do it should read that, it reflects the reality that I guessed at existing.

I've known quite a few strippers in my life & while some definitely do fit the stereo type, not all do; most are just nice girls that are smart enough to take advantage of (what I consider to be) dumb men with too much money. They provide a desired entertainment & make out like bandits and I applaud them for it, if someone would pay for my hairy ass to swing around a pole I'd be all over it; unfortunately those jobs are dictated to a class of men that few men exist in (what man shaves his entire body?) but that's another topic all together.

Blue - please provide a link to your source as requested on a few occasions already.

Statically over 90% of women working as prostitutes were abused (as children).

Since you claim to have a masters degree Iguana. Here's the quantifiable scholarly research:
Silbert & Pines, 1982; NCJ 081083
Farley, 1990
Farley & Barkins, 1998
Kennedy, 2007; NCJ 221573

Y'all can post links sponsored by escort services and swingers clubs all day long. But, when you look at real facts (real research preformed at real intistuions by real scientist) prostitution preys upon disenfranchised women.

I think the USVI can find a better way to generate revenue. Allowing the government to pull $$ from the vaginas of our mother's wives, sisters and daughters undermine the foundation of our community. How 'bout trying to attract legitimate business that will grow the economy and provide real career type jobs.

Here's the quantifiable scholarly research:
1. Silbert & Pines, 1982; NCJ 081083
2. Farley, 1990
3. Farley & Barkins, 1998
4. Kennedy, 2007; NCJ 221573

Y'all can post links sponsored by escort services and swingers clubs all day long. But, when you look at real facts (real research preformed at real intistuions by real scientist) prostitution preys upon disenfranchised women. .

Googling the above-referenced "scholarly research" provides no results other than (1) a brief reference in a website devoted to rape; and (4) an article on pimps and their routes. (2) and (3) show nothing as you've listed them although comedian Chris Farley and actress Ellen Barkin were at the top of the related subjects.

Maybe y'all could post some actual links to verify your allegations.

By the way, where IS the spellcheck located on this forum? I thought Ronnie said a while back that it's on here and works ...

Tart, maybe Iguana and her master's degree can give you crash course on research methods.
Hint: NCJ aren't found using google. No $$ for SEO.
Dr. Farley's CV: http://disability-abuse.com/txt/OnlineFacultyCVs/FarleyCV.txt

Thanks for the heads up on the UVI classes. I believe they also have classes in English grammar. If it's too much trouble to provide the scholarly links, no worries. I'm not sure why you linked Farley's CV as I don't see any point in verifying his credentials but maybe someone else who better understands research methods will find it of interest.

Where - specifically - did you get the 90% abused statistic? Simple question. Please provide a link to the actual text, or do you have all these NCJRS journals laying around your home?

Or, don't bother. "Scientific research" on such subjects is rarely scientific. Prohibitionists often cite figures about how awful life is for prostitutes. They are victims of drugs abuse and sexual abuse, and they hate what prostitution has done to their lives. But the basis for such figures is often sketchy. The sample population may include only particularly vulnerable and self-selected groups such as female streetwalkers who have actively reached out for help – and not, for instance, those who haven’t, or brothel employees, escorts, men, or transsexuals. And the data may or may not have been gathered and analyzed in a scientifically sound way." Staerk, 2013

It is interesting to me that you focus on how the govt would be pulling $ "from the vaginas of our mother's wives..." ignoring the penii of our father's husbands. Men can be sex workers too.

Tart, maybe Iguana and her master's degree can give you crash course on research methods.
Hint: NCJ aren't found using google.
Dr. Farley's CV: http://disability-abuse.com/txt/OnlineFacultyCVs/FarleyCV.txt

edited cuz quote thingy didn't work

Where - specifically - did you get the 90% abused statistic? Simple question. Please provide a link to the actual text, or do you have all these NCJRS journals laying around your home?

Or, don't bother. "Scientific research" on such subjects is rarely scientific. Prohibitionists often cite figures about how awful life is for prostitutes. They are victims of drugs abuse and sexual abuse, and they hate what prostitution has done to their lives. But the basis for such figures is often sketchy. The sample population may include only particularly vulnerable and self-selected groups such as female streetwalkers who have actively reached out for help – and not, for instance, those who haven’t, or brothel employees, escorts, men, or transsexuals. And the data may or may not have been gathered and analyzed in a scientifically sound way." Staerk, 2013

You asked for citations, I provided them. Four studies over 25 years. Why don't you look 'em up?

Since you have a master's degree you'd know that NPOs don't pay for SEO, unlike unqualified Swedish bloggers (Bjorn Staerk) looking for advertising $$. Therefore, Google is not choice SE for scholarly research. Instead of quoting Swedish speculation why not look at the facts? Sorry if my sources are above yours and Tarts limited level of "Google" expertise and pedestrian understanding of academic publishing.

Over and done with. You quoted a statistic as fact, were asked more than once to qualify it, are obviously unable to do so and have now resorted to denigrating the educational qualifications and attainments of those who've dared to ask for simple verification. What a silly tangled web to weave.

By the by, iguana, I disagree with your 96.5%. I think you'll find that it's 97.8%, a figure which Hartwell, Bobkins and FlusterNutter all agreed upon at the 2010 CIFTAHW convention and thereafter published in the March 2011 JWP where you'll probably recall that the great Scrumbletacker added a salutary footnote (it was actually labeled by Moffett and Trumble as "salubrious" in their hilarious FMT spoof!). I can't find the specific link for anyone who might be interested but even a simple grade school level understanding of PMS should prove fruitful.

Actually Tart this was my original (hotly debated) post:

From a study conducted by UNLV (university of Nevada, Las Vegas) : "... including: drug addiction (16 percent), economic necessity (12 percent), socialization and normalization of the sex trade, coming from an abusive home, and leaving another form of prostitution. Over 96 percent of the women reported being sexually assaulted prior to entering the sex trade, over 18 percent claimed to have freely chosen the work..."

I should have added Kennedy, 2007 NCJ 221573 after the ." My bad.

Additionally, other research (cited previously: Silbert & Pines, 1982; NCJ 084083; Farely, 1990; Farley & Barkin, 1998) studying differing demographics, during differing time periods also support the claim that the overwhelming majority of working prostitutes (90%) experienced abuse as children.

I did not make up these numbers. I wish that I was wrong. I wish that you could prove that I'm an exaggerating buffoon. I wish this situation was not so sadly true. I know it's hard to believe that we, as a society, can be so cruel and dismissive of our neighbour's painful circumstances.

Hmmm...nobody mentioned the local 'prostitution demographics'...

The vast majority of prostitutes here seem to be from the Dominican Republic. There are here illegally, for the most part. Thanks to the convenience of money transfer facilities such as Western Auto and places like 'Remesas', the money they make promptly leaves the territory and is sent back to the DR to support their families. You can't tax money that you don't see. They might as well be legal, because they have very well established places of business that are raided sporadically by law enforcement. Their establishments are in full view of everybody. A casual prostitute can easily earn three thousand dollars a month. The more aggressive ones can earn ten thousand dollars a month. They had some boom times when the refinery was here. When things get a little down here they simply move to Tortola, St. Thomas, or St. Martin. Their list of clientele would provide for some interesting reading.

Makes you wonder just who is being exploited.

Such a great discussion!

Thanks Chuckie!

Fifty-seven percent reported a history of childhood sexual abuse, by an average of 3 perpetrators.
Farley and Barkan’s findings. From a giant study of 130 San Francisco prostitutes.
http://womensissues.about.com/od/rapesexualassault/a/Wuornos.htm

These studies are unfair. They profile prostitution that is illegal and is conducted underground. To be fair they should look at statistics for legal prostitution. Interview prostitutes from Nevada who are working legally or from European cities where it is legal.

It is a big leap to assume that the backgrounds of street prostitutes and those of legal prostitutes are the same.

These same studies show that 19% to 50% of ALL women were sexually abused as children. That seems high to me.

Quote:
history of childhood sexual abuse
• prostitutes: 38% -- 73%
• general pop: 19% to 50%
• male care-giver

Bagley & Young:
• compared prostitutes & general sample
• 73% vs 29%

Roto, look at the complete paper, not just the about article.

So are you implying that larger percentages of "emotionally stable" women are be drawn to find jobs as "Legal" hookers? Do you have research to back-up that claim?
I don't see how legalizing prostitution changes the demographic of the hookers (Does INS grants green cards to sex workers). The only change I can foresee (in my crystal ball) is more whore houses, more typical VI government BS (bribes and corruption), more "unstable" stateside transplants. But maybe I'm wrong.

To me the only good changes to come with legalization is the rate of STDs for prostitutes decreases. And the perceived risk for "clients" decreases as well as the guilt factor. The client can pretend what he's doing is a-ok and sanctioned by the government--just like hiring a plumber.

Why legalize and regulate at all. Why not just decriminalize prostitution and increase penalties for pandering. Let the hookers file taxes as independent contractors.

These same studies show that 19% to 50% of ALL women were sexually abused as children. That seems high to me.

Yes and no. Depends on the definition of sexual abuse. As girl you learn, growing up, that this sh!t happens alot. You learn (hopefully) how to avoid the "creep factor". Hopefully you have parents and family watching your back.

The more I think about this I wonder if prostitutes, who experienced abuse as children, just learned who to compartmentalize sex. Meaning disassociate the sexual act from their identity. Maybe they've been successfully conditioned not to care who's banging on them, so as long as they get away with fist full of dollars. Maybe that why more victims of child abuse are drawn to prostitution, they are just better at it. Maybe prostitution does give them a sort of dysfunctional independence.

Should prostitution be legal?

Proponents of legalizing prostitution believe it would reduce crime, improve public health, increase tax revenue, help people out of poverty, get prostitutes off the streets, and allow consenting adults to make their own choices. They contend that prostitution is a victimless crime, especially in the 11 Nevada counties where it remains legal.

Opponents believe that legalizing prostitution would lead to increases in sexually transmitted diseases such as AIDS, global human trafficking, and violent crime including rape and homicide. They contend that prostitution is inherently immoral, commercially exploitative, empowers the criminal underworld, and promotes the repression of women by men.
http://prostitution.procon.org

I liked this quote.

Ronald Weitzer, PhD, Professor of Sociology at George Washington University, in the July 2005 Violence Against Women article "Flawed Theory and Method in Studies of Prostitution," wrote:
"In no area of the social sciences has ideology contaminated knowledge more pervasively than in writings on the sex industry. Too often in this area, the canons of scientific inquiry are suspended and research deliberately skewed to serve a particular political agenda."

"In no area of the social sciences has ideology contaminated knowledge more pervasively than in writings on the sex industry. Too often in this area, the canons of scientific inquiry are suspended and research deliberately skewed to serve a particular political agenda."

Exactly. Thanks for taking time to research and find such good info, Roto.

Another good quote from the article.

Sue Bradford, Member of New Zealand's Parliament, in a Dec. 12, 2005 speech to Parliament, said:
"We believed, and still do, that it was completely wrong to go on living with an archaic law which criminalised generations of sex workers, mainly women, for a victimless so called crime in the name of antique moralities shared by only some of the population."
http://prostitution.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000119

Another good quote from the article.

Sue Bradford, Member of New Zealand's Parliament, in a Dec. 12, 2005 speech to Parliament, said:
"We believed, and still do, that it was completely wrong to go on living with an archaic law which criminalised generations of sex workers, mainly women, for a victimless so called crime in the name of antique moralities shared by only some of the population."
http://prostitution.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000119

I despise governments that criminalize victimless crimes; all that shows us is a control methodology that chooses force to subject a population to standards that are not held by all of its members.

Tyranny, in short.

And since the United States of America is one of the WORST countries at doing this & has BY FAR the highest incarceration rate in the world… well, “land of the free” just makes me laugh.

"Despite claims that legalization helps women in prostitution, in Amsterdam it has led to increases in organized crime and trafficking and has created an environment in which pimps operate with impunity under the title of “manager” or “facilitator.” Far from empowering or protecting the prostituted women, where prostitution is legalized, the women are forced to pay rent and fees to a pimp to protect them from being beaten up such that they “can barely make a living.” Finally after 10 years of evidence that criminal gangs are in control of the Red Light District, local government officials are trying to find new measures to shut down the window brothels and sex shops and to attract new development to the area."

Download document (6 pages)
http://prostitutionresearch.com/2012/10/23/legalized-prostitution-in-amsterdam-has-never-worked-says-a-survivor/

Good read: http://www.prostitutionresearch.com/pdfs/Myths%20&%20Facts%20Legal%20&%20Illegal%20Prostitution%203-09.pdf

Personally I cant imagine that anyone believes, truly believes, that a strangers penis literally entering woman's vagina is not a personal and intimate experience that should not involve the exchange of money and ESPECIALLY to the benefit of the government! Clearly some support and some don't, that is human nature, we will ALWAYS disagree. What I don't understand is why we're attacking each other and not completely LIVID that the ONLY reason they want to legalize this is so they can collect more taxes? It boggles my mind that we talk about taxing woman's vagina's, as if its a product, that will put in a DSL line costing.... I don't even know HOW much.... But currently have families and business struggling and closing up because of the electric costs? EVERY OUNCE of energy from the people, senators and government would be better served into making the VI more stable. Cleaning up the roads to increase tourism, supporting young mothers who can't seem to teach their kids the difference between right and wrong.

I think this whole concept should be a slap in the face (from this Chucky broad) to the people who live in the VI.

But currently have families and business struggling and closing up because of the electric costs? EVERY OUNCE of energy from the people, senators and government would be better served into making the VI more stable. Cleaning up the roads to increase tourism, supporting young mothers who can't seem to teach their kids the difference between right and wrong.

I think this whole concept should be a slap in the face (from this Chucky broad) to the people who live in the VI.

well, I agree to some extent, I think it should be a choice what you do with your body, if you want to go the strange penis route, ok, if not, fine.

The problem is this:

How 'bout trying to attract legitimate business that will grow the economy and provide real career type jobs.

Ok, what "legitimate" business exactly could these tiny islands attract? What resources do we have (none but beaches & nice weather that I can think of) What infrastructure do we have that would attract businesses (none... actually less than none since our power is so expensive and highly unreliable).

The point is, what business can we attract that is not already here (none) and with that in mind why don't we try to leverage the business opportunities that are already here?

And since our government is short MILLIONS of dollars, what can be taxed to the benefit of all (our power is government run after all & they need money for upgrades etc..)

Cannabis would be an excellent export industry, Hemp is an amazing plant that can be made into almost anything (to include plastics and bio fuels) and it's already here in the black market.

Prostitution is already here on the black market.

Gambling, well we already have a casino..

Tourism, it's weak and has a small foot hold, this could be emphasized much more (hotels are already taxed for this, so are cruise ships etc..)

Restaurants already here, but with out another industry to give money to the peoples... well....

I don't see much else here, the population does not have the right attitude for customer service in general, so we cannot open things like Call centers etc, hell we can barely run restaurants adequately.

From what I see its desperation time & turning to tax prostitution is a desperate move.