Legalize Prostitution to Fight Sex Trafficking? Sex Workers Say "Yes"
When California passed the anti-sex trafficking measure Proposition 35 in 2012, an overwhelming 81 percent of voters chose "yes on 35."
After all, who could be against a law that sought to crack down on traffickers of juvenile sex slaves?
As it turns out, some of the most outspoken opponents of the law were sex workers themselves. They balked at the provision requiring sex traffickers to register as sex offenders, fearing that the overly broad definition of trafficker could ensnare them, their customers, and their family members. The anti-pimping provisions, they argued, blurred the legal lines between coercive underage trafficking and consensual, adult prostitution.
"They're calling themselves the anti-trafficking lobby, but they're really a group of people primarily against commercial sex work," says Mariko Passion, a San Francisco-based sex worker, artist, and self-described "whore revolutionary."
Other sex workers echo Passion's anti-Prop. 35 sentiments. One Los Angeles-based prostitute, who asked to be known only as "Holly" for fear of legal reprisal, says that she freely chose her line of work following the 2008 housing crash. She had grown tired of the corporate rat race and wanted to go "off the grid." Holly, who runs her own online escort service, says the draconian provisions of Prop. 35 have made her less likely to report an assault and that she resents those who think of her as a victim in need of salvation.
"The difference between human trafficking and prostitution is coercion," says Holly. "I'm not a victim. I'm not being coerced. But the law doesn't see me that way."
What might an alternative system of legalized sex work look like? Reason TV traveled to the Moonlite Bunny Ranch, a legal brothel in rural Nevada, to try to answer that question (note: link to Bunny Ranch may not be safe for work). Proprieter Dennis Hof says that legalization is the fastest, most efficient way to battle underage sex trafficking and other ills associated with prostitution. He points to the remarkably high rate of HIV infection among prosititutes in nearby Las Vegas where, contrary to popular belief, sex work remains illegal and underground. By contrast, he says, under the state's regime of mandatory testing, there has never been a documented case of HIV among licensed workers in Nevada's brothels.
"When you legalize something, it takes all the nonsense out of the business," says Hof. "It takes the criminals out of the business. It puts money into the coffers of society, instead of taking it out to police this ill [of sex trafficking]."
Can legalized prostitution do more good than celebrity-backed anti-trafficking organizations could ever hope for? Watch the video above for the full story, and scroll down for downloadable versions.
Produced by Zach Weissmueller. Associate Producer Will Neff. Shot by Sharif Matar, Alex Manning, and Neff. Approximately 8 minutes.
Subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to receive automatic notification when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Look, lady. If the law says you're a victim, then you're a victim. You can't go around questioning the law. What are you, an anarchist? Go move to Somalia.
Where do I sign?
You know who is really against legal prostitution? Women.
If it floats, flys, or fucks; it is cheaper to rent it.
Men don't pay prostitutes for sex. They pay them to leave after the sex is done.
+ 4 brothers
+ Chef
If prostitution were generally legal, it would be unionized. Then the Whore Union would be fighting in every way possible the very existence of on-line dating sites, which threaten the very livelihood of working American women.
Look for the union label
when you are renting that piece of sweet ass.
Remember somewhere our union's banging,
our wages draining to feed the kids, and pay for grass.
We hump hard, but who's complaining?
Thanks to the I.L.H. we're paying our way!
So always look for the union label,
it says we're able to make it in the U.S.A.!
American whorin' for Americans. The Whore Union opposes illegal immigration, overseas prostitution, and the deployment of VR and robot whore facsimiles.
No, you can't pick the woman you want out of the line - they're arranged by seniority and you have to the first in line.
"Bertha retires next year. Oh, and since she has seniority, you have to pay her twice as much."
I officially hate you all for coming up with a plausible and likely scenario.
Our work here is done.
What happens when two competing whore-labor unions fight each other over territory, members, and policies? Cat fight!
Headline for the article on their first work stoppage: "Local Hookers Down Tools"
Then the Whore Union
Isn't that the Congress?
-jcr
"He points to the remarkably high rate of HIV infection among prostitutes in nearby Las Vegas where, contrary to popular belief, sex work remains illegal and underground. By contrast, he says, there has never been a documented outbreak among Bunny Ranch workers."
That comparison is pretty bad.
The wording is pretty bad. He says no documented outbreak. That still leaves isolated cases. Ew.
Thanks. I have modified the sentence to reflect the actual strength of Hof's assertion, which is actually that there has never been a single case of HIV documented among workers in any of Nevada's brothels since regular mandatory testing began in 1985. This claim is backed up by research from sociologists at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.
Considering the regularity of the testing and the liability that a brothel owner would face if a customer were to be infected, this statistic is hardly surprising.
"sociologists at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas"
Is that a brothel?
Baby. Sweetheart. Of course you're being coerced, you just haven't got the sense to see it yet. Here, let me provide you some literature on the subject by an expert, Ms. Marcotte. She'll clarify your issues for you.
No it won't end sex trafficking, but it will cut it massively.
There of course will still be a handful who want things which are still illegal or so socially frowned upon that legal sex workers just won't go there (think underage hookers and donkey shows) and so underground traffickers will probably remain to service that need but they will be RARE and likely very close to non existent in country's like the US (much safer to travel to a place with almost no effective police presence to engage in illegal activities than to do it here in the States).
Really other than the fear that someone might be getting freaky in non biblically approved ways there is no downside to legalizing prostitution
No it won't end sex trafficking, but it will cut it massively.
There of course will still be a handful who want things which are still illegal or so socially frowned upon that legal sex workers just won't go there (think underage hookers and donkey shows) and so underground traffickers will probably remain to service that need but they will be RARE and likely very close to non existent in country's like the US (much safer to travel to a place with almost no effective police presence to engage in illegal activities than to do it here in the States).
Really other than the fear that someone might be getting freaky in non biblically approved ways there is no downside to legalizing prostitution
Well if you can't promise me perfection, why should I even consider more liberty? Good day sir.
Women are clearly too stupid and childish to determine what they'd like to do with their own bodies. I say we stick 'em all in sackcloth and let the ones who can have babies pump them out. I think there's a primer on this by Margaret Atwood.
I saw that. If it's good enough for Col. Kilgore, it's good enough for America.
Funny how feminists were in favor of this when the movement first started, and then grew increasingly more hostile to it and time went on.
"My body, my choice" only applies to one thing, apparently.
You know, there's something really odd about it being women, rather than men, who are all gung-ho to kill babies. The suggestion has been made that the patriarchy was (and is, in some places) behind the killing of baby girls in past cultures, such as ancient Greece. I wonder if that's really true?
MY BABY'S BODY MY CHOICE
To some extent, I can understand their view about illegal abortion being a way to force them into a subservient role in society. (However, they can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that their opponents consider fetuses living people.)
I definitely think that truly patriarchal societies can lead to the devaluing of females. India, China, Pakistan are all examples of this, and are going to suffer some ugly, ugly demographic problems as a result. However, their zealotry in finding modern America "patriarchal" is ludicrous.
I'm quite pro-legal-abortion, but it amazes me how many otherwise apparently reasonable women buy into the "war on women" stuff as it relates to abortion. I hear a lot of the standard line about how pro-lifers just want women to be barefoot and pregnant, but I've actually had people try to argue that the pro-life people's real goal is to disenfranchise women by making everyone who gets an abortion a felon. Because all women get abortions, or something.
I think pro-lifers are wrong for a number of reasons, but is it really that hard to fathom that some people might actually believe that an unborn fetus has the moral status of a human being?
I definitely am in the middle on this. I think there are cases where abortion should be 100 percent legal, like the life of the mother is at risk, severe fetal abnormalities, and rape. I don't think late term abortions should be a primary form of birth control. The problem is if there are legal ways to abort there really is no way to police abortions. Every girl that wants an abortion can just claim rape, or find a physician to say it is medically necessary. I don't like it, but I don't think you can effectively out law it without hurting those that need it.
You also end up with a situation where every miscarriage could subject the woman to a criminal investigation, which would be a mess.
Also true. I think this falls under "I don't like it, but it is unavoidable." Like guns, people are going to do bad things, outlawing guns won't change that.
I am absolutely pro-choice. I do not believe a fetus is or should be the moral equivalent of an infant. But your own logic is flawed. If abortion really does murder an unborn baby, why would it be acceptable in the case of rape? Why would how the baby is conceived matter when deciding the morality of murdering it?
And do you really think a late term abortion is anyone's "primary form of birth control?" According to the CDC, less than 1.4% of the abortions performed in the US are late term (after the 20th week or pregnancy). There are only a handful of late term abortion providers in the whole country. Such procedures are expensive, painful, and hard to get. It is a myth (or strawman) that women are using them regularly or as a substitute for birth control.
But do you really think most of these anti-choice zealots are worried about unborn babies? No, they are interested in controlling the reproductive choices (and therefore sexual expression) of women.
If you really wanted to "save babies" by reducing the number of abortions, the most logical thing would be to increase access to contraception. But many pro-life groups are actively opposed to contraception. Operation Rescue, the American Life League, and Defenders of the Unborn (just to name a few) have held "national day[s] of protest" against birth control pills (arguing that the pill causes cancer and is bad for the environment - seriously - that is their argument!) and objected to county health departments handing out free condoms.
These groups are not what they seem. Their true goals are in fact to disempower women.
Aaaand this is why you will get ignored in this debate.
I think polls show that a higher percentage of men than women are pro-choice, but your overall comment is a good challenge to the 'matriarchy is always nice' way of thinking.
There have always been unwanted pregnancies. It used to be taken care of quietly and without much fuss by women helping other women. Abortion has only been a controversy since it was medicalized.
Do you mean going away, having the baby, and then putting it up for adoption or were women doing coat hanger abortion for longer than I know?
I'm sure there were a myriad of herbal concoctions, things like drinking too much, and probably some physically-based solutions too. When it's completely your choice and no government is butting in, you just keep it quiet. It's not like there haven't been a zillion unwanted pregnancies in human history.
There are a number of traditional ways to get rid of a pregnancy (especially early on) that have been around forever.
Yes, but those assisting women in abortions by, say, mixing these concoctions or performing these early techniques were subject to criminal penalties.
I'm not sure when the first laws criminalizing abortion were, but I'm sure that was true at some point.
I'd also think that medically supervised abortions are generally less risky than many of the traditional methods.
There are wide-range of herbs that cause abortion early in pregnancy. Parsley can if taken in sufficient concentrations. And the good old pennyroyal tea, of course. It was probably the dislocations of exogamy and urbanization of work that got this common knowledge lost, leading to more mechanical methods for later-stage abortions.
Parsley. That is a really odd factoid.
Mmm. I love the word factoid, it's delightfully self-referential.
I bet SF's garden is just wall to wall parsley.
I thought a factoid was more like trivia. Damn I feel dumb. Thanks for the link Jesse.
I think trivia is the only definition most people recognize. You'd probably confuse people by using it the way Mailer intended. It's just fun that the current definition fits the intended definition "an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact" so nicely.
I will add factoid to my pedant list. People like it when you're pedantic right?
I have it on good authority that pedantry is better than knowing where the g-spot is.
You made me spit out my coffee. Worth it though.
Nothing grows in my secret garden but the fruit of hate.
I wonder how much of it is the fact that a woman who downs a bunch of parsley has made the decision and taken action all on her own, whereas a surgical abortion or use of a prescription drug requires someone else to share the responsibility and justification.
They'd have women running about supervised, chadored and veiled if it increased their political posture by an inch. It's substanceless pressure-group politicking, no undergirding principles. They've the moral legitimacy if not the political clout of a public-sector union.
Actually, I think it's just really the outgrowth of their first principles. If you start with the view that all hetero sex is rape, why shouldn't sex with a direct economic component be slavery?
It relies on a common distortion of the meanings of consent and coercion, BP. It's the economics of prostitution they object to far more than the sex. All "work" is coerced because of the social praxis of late-stage capitalism blah blah, therefore no one freely chooses to perform sex work as long as anyone has to work for a living.
People who spend more time writing garbage like that than they do fucking are what's wrong with the world.
Your body, my choice.
From what I understand feminists are fairly split on this issue.
I hate white slavery moral panics
Well, sure you do. I bet you've got 5 girls you waylaid in your opium den right now.
They're free to leave the moment they wake up.
That's why the US imports exotic sex trafficking victims.
Sex? Traffic? Is that, like, when you walk into traffic, get hit by a bus, and get pregnant?
Traffic's slow, weather's temperate, you're crawling along the highway with Santana playing on your tinny factory speakers, you've neither of you anywhere to be nor any particular hurry in getting there... I mean, who's going to turn down a handy?
I was stuck in dead stop traffic on the 60 East about 11 years ago. There was a big accident in front of me, and traffic wasn't going anywhere for at least 45 mins. So, I turned off the engine in my car, and watched the Filipino teenagers parked next to me fuck. The best part, I still made the concert I was going to on time.
I always liked Sunny Lane. She's as cute as a button, and apparently pretty smart too.
She's got some mad skills.
Never really knew of her before, but I concur, that is some major cuteness.
[googles Sunny Lane]
She is gorgeous, yes she is. And quite the performer.
I didn't read the linked article but anti-prostitution activists rarely bring up male prostitution, which is more common than people realize, claiming that the dynamics are different.
It's consensual sex, period.
That homo thing really messes with peoples' thinking....
Don't ruin a good thing for us!
Er, them. Don't ruin it for them.
This sums it up in a nutshell. The anti-trafficking movement is simply the anti-prostitution movement dressed up in more socially acceptable clothes. Anyone who is really concerned about actual forced human trafficking should be distancing themselves from the anti-prostitution movement because many people (with more to come) see right through the ruse. The claims made by prohibitions are as just as ludicrous as those made by anti-vaccine and anti-GMO crusaders.
Nice work, if you can get it.
This law was so poorly written that taking your kid's car keys away for getting a D or skipping practice makes you a human trafficker.
And as far as I knew, false imprisonment and kidnapping are already crimes, as is rape. So why does "sex trafficking" need to have its own law?
Won't somebody think of the childish legislators with nothing to legislate?!
It makes them feel all tingly up their legs.
I don't like it, but I don't think you can effectively out law it without hurting those that need it.
See for example painkillers.
I think thats a great idea. Might as well lower the age of consent at the same time.
http://www.Anon-Global.tk
Dennis Hof's statement about high STI rates in Nevada non-brothel prostitutes is...hmmm, what's the phrase? Ah, I have it: "Full of shit." The high STI rates in Las Vegas are among amateurs, not professionals, who have much lower STI rates than the general population everywhere in the developed world. This is one of Hof's favorite claims to discredit decriminalization in favor of the oppressive Nevada model, which empowers and enriches people like Hof by putting sex workers at their mercy and still leaves a huge illegal (and thus unprotected) sector. I wrote about the advantages of decriminalization over heavily-regulated legalization in December's issue of Cato Unbound.
Interesting essays. Thanks. I confess to having my eyes roll back in my head a little over the debate between you and Weitzer over legalization vs. decriminalization, but that's most likely because I just cleared 4" of global warming from my driveway and I'm tired.
Ron Weitzer and I are on the same side; we just disagree a little over how to get there.
The phrase "remarkably high rate of HIV infection among prosititutes [sic] in nearby Las Vegas" is not supported at the site linked to at lasvegas-stdtesting.com. This site discusses the occurrence of STDs at large, but makes no mention of sex workers at all.
It is not at all clear that professional sex workers have a higher occurrence of STDs than the general populace, no matter the level of regulation.
my neighbor's aunt makes 68 dollars/hour on the laptop. She has been out of a job for nine months but last month her pay check was 15377 dollars just working on the laptop for a few hours. read the full info here
++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.tec30.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++