can someone explain the 'harm reduction' approach to prostitution

Vesuvia: I think in some cases the figures are being conflated for people who have been traffiicked ie working in the sex industry against their will, and people who are illegal immigrants working in the sex industry but not forced to do so.

solidgoldbrass wrote - "I believe there is some doubt about the validity of the figures regarding trafficking for sex work."

I've heard a figure of 70% of prostitutes in Amsterdam are victims of trafficking. The Dutch Police calculate this figure using various factors including the fact that so many of the foreign prostitutes do not have the required identity papers.

I believe there is some doubt about the validity of the figures regarding trafficking for sex work. Certainly, trafficking is bad and should be stopped as far as possible, whether those being trafficked become sex workers or slave labour in the catering or agricultural industries.
As to the job centres/cutting off people's benefits if they do not want to take up sex work, I don't think anyone should be forced to take a job they would really hate: has anyone any case histories on (for instance) a vegan refusing to work in an abbatoir or butchers' shop? How about a recovering alcoholic not wanting a job in a pub, or someone refusing to work for a debt collection agency because they disapprove of its tactics/reputation?

I have asked prolegalizing people that question before. Generally they won't be drawn on it and tend to witter on about 'choice' and prostitution not being everybody's cup of tea but one that is a jolly money spinner for many.

In other words they take refuge in the happy hooker myth and refuse to be drawn on their hypocrisy and the links between prostitution and trafficking/exploitation. It is all just Belle de Jour and Pretty Woman.

The whole German thing is interesting. Germany is another poster child of the pro-prostitution crowd because of it's 'liberal and modern' view of sex, but by refusing to let brothels advertise 'jobs' in their equivalent of job centres and thus refusing to sanction women who won't work as prostitutes, they're declaring prostitution a job like no other.

I wonder if people who are pro-prostitution believe it would be reasonable to withdraw unemployment benefits if a woman refused a job working as a prostitute? If not, why not? After all, according to them prostitution is just another job and all prostitutes need is a bit of respect and acceptance.

It is just like gambling.

If you create areas where gambling/casinos are encouraged, what happens is you get a proliferation of gamblers and casinos. Alongside this, due to there being a proliferation of gamblers, you will also get people holding private poker evenings and other non-declared gambling activities. And you will also get people who might not have considered gambling to be an acceptable activity deciding to join in because they are being sent the message that gambling is an OK thing to do.

And of course the casino owners are delighted because they get state protection for their activities of bleeding people dry of their money.

The dynamics of prostitution are very similar. Except of course a million times worse because the product is human beings. People seem to forgot that the institution of prostitution is about money. Men pimp out women and girls because they can make a lot of money from doing so. They can make a lot of money because there is a big market for sexually abusing human females.

Legalizing the activities of these predators won't protect women - it will just make it easier for the predators to operate and make money.

Notice how much of the Donna Hughes paper I linked to is about money, markets, she even talks about prostitution in terms of a country's GDP - that is how big a business it is. What is happening in Germany is terrifying - local councils are becoming dependent on tax revenue from brothels and pimps and the pimps are putting pressure on the government to advertise prostitution 'jobs' in job centres and to withdraw a woman's unemployment benefit if she refuses the 'job'. The government has said that they will not do this but there is nothing to stop them from doing so legally.

''also dishonest because its proponents are usually very quick to point at failings of the Swedish model and conveniently overlook Nevada and the Netherlands and Germany''

Oh definitely. A couple of cities in the Netherlands have closed their tipplezones (red light districts full of prostitutes who work on the streets) because instead of regulating street prostitution, cutting down exploitation, reducing crime and providing a safer environment for prostitutes, it did exactly the opposite.

Legalised prostitution is supposed to cut down on rape but Nevada has the 4th highest rape rate in the entire US.

Basically it's because harm reductionists don't care about harm to women in prostitution. Their real aim is to make life easier for pimps and men who pay for sex.

Hiding behind the "we're doing it for the women", is a dishonest stance.

I disagree fundamentally with the article in the OP.

MightyNice - this article articulates how I feel. It is nothing to do with stigmatizing prostituted women. Quite the contrary - perhaps it could help you articulate how you see the issue.

The enormity of the sex trade throughout the world is overwhelming, but the only way to proceed is to acknowledge the violence and exploitation for what it is and create remedies accordingly. Legalization will only benefit traffickers and pimps and compromise individual women and the status of women in the long run. In the words of one survivor of prostitution: "Legalization will not end abuse; it will make abuse legal"

Where you have 'harm reduction' AKA as legalized prostitution, you have trafficking.

It is as simple as that. We see it in Amsterdam, Germany, Nevada, and the areas of Australia where prostitution is condoned. www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/turn_look.pdf

Sorry, I know I'm not really answering your question but that fact is that to support legalized prostitution is to prop up trafficking, child prostitution, gender inequality and violence against women. They are part and parcel of the same thing.

The people who exploit prostituted women, be they buyers or sellers, do not turn into nice guys overnight just because you make the institution of prostitution legal.

Have you read some of the other responses in that series e.g. this by Stella Marr?

www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/19/is-legalized-prostitution-safer/nevadas-legal-brothels-are-coercive-too

The harm reductionists or as Beachcomber rightly says, legalisers, seem more about denial than anything real.

The evidence is very much to the contrary - as is logic.

If you legalize abuse of one (privileged) group over another (non-privileged) group, you don't end up with 'harm reduction' you just end up legalizing harm.

Donna Hughes is very good on this. www.uri.edu/artsci/wms/hughes/demand_for_victims.pdf

The idea is that by legalizing prostitution and bringing in regulations you can protect women who work as prostitutes from some of the worse excesses such as trafficking and contact with organized crime. And give them greater access to legal recourse in the case of rape and assault by getting rid of a barrier to reporting (i.e. fear of being prosecuted themselves).

I don't know if this has actually worked anywhere. I'm most familiar with the situation in the US where legal prostitution in some jurisdictions is most certainly not correlated with a good life for prostitutes.

Personally I don't think the particular laws are the issue. The issue is that we see women as the sex class and care less about them than we do about men. While this is the case, whether prostitution is legal or illegal, our systems and institutions will find ways to let men off treating women like objects and ways to belittle and degrade women for being treated horribly by others.