filed under Activism | Civil Liberties | Criminal Justice
Following Up on the Prostitution Debate
8:52PM ON
05/01/2009
BY
Dave Segal
Unscientific, clearly, but the Projo poll shows 60-40 opposition to criminalizing prostitution.
This article makes the obvious point that prostitutes fear the police, whether or not they are victims of trafficking, and so that harsh penalties may make it harder to crack down on trafficking.
The conflation of trafficking with prostitution has been really destructive, and just plain nonsensical: There are already way too many people in prison — why in the hell would we put victimized women there too?





May 2nd, 2009 at 12:43AM
mickey Says:
jesus christ just make prositution ACTUALLY legal as opposed to just a “loop hole” and fucking REGULATE IT!!!! that’ll solve the trafficking problem AND help the job market.
Reply
May 3rd, 2009 at 9:51AM
mangeek Says:
It’s a ‘loophole’ the same way the estate tax is the ‘death tax’ and equal rights for homosexuals are ’special rights for gays’. The people against the current law have taken ownership of the discourse so that it’s politically incorrect to defend the position of leaving it alone.
As-is, it’s a well-written law that preserves the most freedom and almost completely eliminates hookers on the streets. Why we -deregulated- massage parlors two years ago and let the shadow of trafficking enter the picture is beyond me.
Reply
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:38PM
joe bernstein Says:
Amsterdam has always had legal “window”prostitution.Streetwalking is not legal.The “window” prostitutes are leaglly employed and get social security,health benefits,etc.
Until about 7 or 8 years ago,brothels were illegal in Amsterdam,although they operated openly.
They became centers for sexual slavery involving mainly East Europeans who were illegal aliens in the Netherlands.they were trafficked by Georgians,Russians,Moroccans,and criminals from the former Yugoslavia.
Amsterdam then legalized brothels,instituted inspections,drove out the illegal aliens and turned the brothels into legitimate businesses.
Which was the better situation?
Although I am ordinarily called a conservative,I do not think what goes on between consenting adults is the government’s business.
Streetwalking should be illegal because it fosters crimes against the women and their clients,depending on the situation.
Absent coercion,abuse,and/or the employment of underage people,I don’t see the need to fill up the ACI with women who make a free choice.
And let’s be honest here-will gay prostitution get a pass if this bill passes?
It may,in the misguided desire of so many in government to be politically correct.
If I were to think the government should be involved in morality policing,it would be in relation to stopping abortion as a convenience,but I’m sure no one here would agree with me.
Reply
May 3rd, 2009 at 7:50PM
joe bernstein Says:
One more thing-when I worked at Lincoln Park some years ago,numerous massage parlor employees and strippers were regular customers.The massage parlor ladies in particular had literally THOUSANDS of dollars to gamble with.I think many women in those occcupations may well do it because they are enslaved-to gambling.People kept in sexual bondage would be hard pressed to have that kind of money to play with.
I think a lot of the strippers also had drug problems.
Reply
May 13th, 2009 at 5:21PM
Sad day for civil liberties « happy endings? You Can’t Clap with One Hand Says:
[...] to write to everyone in the Senate and ask them to vote against the bill. When you look at the reaction of the local residents on the radio and on the projo blog, most don’t want it to pass. We will see what [...]
June 25th, 2009 at 1:28PM
URI Women’s Studies Professor Horrified By Tattooed Women | Providence Daily Dose Says:
[...] senate’s going to be voting tonight on an anti-prostitution bill. I don’t need to repeat all the reasons why the bill is a terrible, terrible idea, but I thought I would mention an [...]
September 25th, 2009 at 10:14PM
Marc Says:
It was up to about 65/35 against criminalization when Projo took it down.
Reply